text:
# Semi-fermionic approach for quantum spin systems

## Introduction

It is known that spin operators satisfy neither Fermi nor Bose commutation relations. For example, the Pauli matrices for $`S=1/2`$ operator commute on different sites and anticommute on the same site. The commutation relations for spins are determined by $`SU(2)`$ algebra, leading to the absence of a Wick theorem for the generators. To avoid this difficulty and construct a diagrammatic technique and path integral representation for spin systems various approaches have been used. The first class of approaches is based on representation of spins as bilinear combination of Fermi or Bose operators -, whereas the representations belonging to the second class deal with more complex objects like, e.g. the Hubbard  and supersymmetric  operators, the nonlinear sigma model  etc. However, in all cases the fundamental problem which is at the heart of the difficulty is the local constraint problem. To illustrate it, let’s consider e.g., first class of representations. Introducing the auxiliary Fermi or Bose fields makes the dimensionality of the Hilbert space, where these operators act, greater than the dimensionality of the Hilbert space for the spin operators. As a result, the spurious unphysical states should be excluded from the consideration which leads in turn to some restrictions (constraints) on bilinear combinations of Fermi/Bose operators, resulting in substantial complication of corresponding rules of the diagrammatic technique. The representations from the second class suffer from the same kind of problem, transformed either into a high nonlinearity of resulting model (non-linear sigma model) or hierarchical structure of perturbation series in the absence of Wick theorem (Hubbard operators). The exclusion of double occupied and empty states for a $`S=1/2`$ impurity interacting with conduction electron bath (single impurity Kondo model), is controlled by fictitious chemical potential (Lagrange multiplier) of Abrikosov pseudofermions . At the end of calculations this “chemical potential” $`\lambda `$ should be put $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ to “freeze out” all unphysical states. In other words, there exists an additional $`U(1)`$ gauge field which freezes the charge fluctuations associated with this representation. The method works for dilute systems where all the spins can be considered independently. Unfortunately, attempts to generalize this technique to the lattice of spins results in the replacement of the local constraint (the number of particles on each site is fixed) by the so-called global constraint where the number of particles is fixed only on an average for the whole crystal. There is no reason to believe that such an approximation is a good starting point for the description of the strongly correlated systems. Another possibility to treat the local constraint rigorously is based on Majorana fermion representation. In this case fermions are “real” and corresponding gauge symmetry is $`Z_2`$. The difficulty with this representation is mostly related to the physical regularization of the fluctuations associated with the discrete symmetry group.

An alternative approach for spin Hamiltonians, free from local constraint problem, has been proposed in the pioneering paper of Popov and Fedotov . Based on the exact fermionic representation for $`S=1/2`$ and $`S=1`$ operators, where the constraint is controlled by purely imaginary Lagrange multipliers, these authors demonstrated the power and simplification of the corresponding Matsubara diagram technique. The semi-fermionic representation (we discuss the meaning of this definition in the course of our paper) used by Popov and Fedotov is neither fermionic, nor bosonic, but reflects the fundamental Pauli nature of spins. The goal of this paper is to give a brief introduction to a semi-fermionic (SF) approach. A reader can find many useful technical details, discussion of mathematical aspects of semi-fermionic representation and its application to various problems in the original papers -. However, we reproduce the key steps of important derivations contained in , in order to make the reader’s job easier.

The manuscript is organized as follows: in Section I, the general concept of semi-fermions is introduced. We begin with the construction of the SF formalism for the fully antisymmetric representation of $`SU(N)`$ group and the fully symmetric SF representation of $`SU(2)`$ group using the imaginary-time (Matsubara) representation. We show a “bridge” between different representations using the simplest example of $`S=1`$ in $`SU(2)`$ and discuss the SF approach for $`SO(4)`$ group. Finally, we show how to work with semi-fermions in real-time formalism and construct the Schwinger-Keldysh technique for SF. In this section, we will mostly follow original papers by the author , . The reader acquainted with semi-fermionic technique can easily skip this section. In Section II, we illustrate the applications of SF formalism for various problems of condensed matter physics, such as ferromagnetic (FM), antiferromagnetic (AFM) and resonance valence bond (RVB) instabilities in the Heisenberg model, competition between local and non-local correlations in Kondo lattices in the vicinity of magnetic and spin glass critical points and the Kondo effect in quantum dots. In the Epilogue, we discuss some open questions and perspectives.

## I Semi-fermionic representation

To begin with, we briefly reproduce the arguments contained in the original paper of Popov and Fedotov. Let’s assume first $`S=1/2`$. We denote as $`H_\sigma `$ the Hamiltonian of spin system. The standard Pauli matrices can be represented as bilinear combination of Fermi operators as follows:

$$\sigma _j^za_j^{}a_jb_j^{}b_j,\sigma _j^+2a_j^{}b_j,\sigma _j^{}2b_j^{}a_j.$$
(1)
on each site $`i`$ of the lattice. The partition function of the spin problem $`Z_\sigma `$ is given by

$$Z_\sigma =Tr\mathrm{exp}(\beta \widehat{H}_\sigma )=i^NTr\mathrm{exp}(\beta (\widehat{H}_F+i\pi \widehat{N}_F/(2\beta ))$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{H}_F`$ is the operator obtained from $`\widehat{H}_\sigma `$ by the replacement (1) and

$$\widehat{N}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(a_j^{}a_j+b_j^{}b_j)$$
(3)
($`N`$ is the number of sites in the system and $`\beta =1/T`$ is inverse temperature). To prove equation (2) we note that the trace over the nonphysical states of the $`i`$-th site vanishes

$$Tr_{unphys}\mathrm{exp}(\beta (\widehat{H}_F+i\pi \widehat{N}_F/(2\beta ))=(i)^0+(i)^2=0$$
(4)
Thus, the identity (2) holds. The constraint of fixed number of fermions $`\widehat{N}_j=1`$, is achieved by means of the purely imaginary Lagrange multipliers $`\mu =i\pi /(2\beta )`$ playing the role of imaginary chemical potentials of fermions. As a result, the Green’s function

$$G=(i\omega _Fϵ)^1$$
(5)
is expressed in terms of Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _F=2\pi T(n+1/4)`$ corresponding neither Fermi nor Bose statistics.

For $`S=1`$ we adopt the representation of $`\widehat{H}_\sigma `$ in terms of the 3-component Fermi field:

$$\sigma _j^za_j^{}ab_j^{}b,\sigma _j^+\sqrt{2}(a_j^{}c_j+c_j^{}b_j),\sigma _j^{}\sqrt{2}(c_j^{}a_j+b_j^{}c_j).$$
(6)
The partition function $`Z_\sigma `$ is given by

$$Z_\sigma =Tr(\beta \widehat{H}_\sigma )=\left(\frac{i}{\sqrt{3}}\right)^NTr\mathrm{exp}(\beta (\widehat{H}_F+i\pi \widehat{N}_F/(3\beta )).$$
(7)
It is easy to note that the states with occupation numbers 0 and 3 cancel each other, whereas states with occupation 1 and 2 are equivalent due to the particle-hole symmetry and thus can be taken into account on an equal footing by proper normalization of the partition function. As a result, the Green’s function in the imaginary time representation is expressed in terms of $`\omega _F=2\pi T(n+1/3)`$ frequencies.

In this section, we show how semi-fermionic (Popov-Fedotov) representation can be derived using the mapping of partition function of the spin problem onto the corresponding partition function of the fermionic problem. The cases of arbitrary N (even) for SU(N) groups and arbitrary S for SU(2) group are discussed.

### A SU(N) group

We begin with the derivation of SF representation for SU(N) group. The SU($`N`$) algebra is determined by the generators obeying the following commutation relations:

$$[\widehat{S}_{\alpha ,i}^\beta \widehat{S}_{\sigma j}^\rho ]=\delta _{ij}(\delta _\alpha ^\rho \widehat{S}_{\sigma i}^\beta \delta _\sigma ^\beta \widehat{S}_{\alpha i}^\rho ),$$
(8)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{},N`$. We adopt the definition of the Cartan algebra  of the SU($`N`$) group $`\{H_\alpha \}=S_\alpha ^\alpha `$ similar to the one used in , noting that the diagonal generators $`S_\alpha ^\alpha `$ are not traceless. To ensure a vanishing trace, the diagonal generators should only appear in combinations

$$\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}s_\alpha S_\alpha ^\alpha \text{with}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}s_\alpha =0,$$
(9)
which effectively reduce the number of independent diagonal generators to $`N1`$ and the total number of SU($`N`$) generators to $`N^21`$.

In this paper we discuss the representations of SU(N) group determined by rectangular Young Tableau (YT) (see  and  for details) and mostly concentrate on two important cases of the fully asymmetric (one column) YT and the fully symmetric (one row) YT.

The generator $`\widehat{S}_\beta ^\alpha `$ may be written as biquadratic form in terms of the Fermi-operators

$$\widehat{S}_\beta ^\alpha =\underset{\gamma }{}a_{\alpha \gamma }^{}a^{\beta \gamma }$$
(10)
where the ”color” index $`\gamma =1,\mathrm{},n_c`$ and the $`n_c(n_c+1)/2`$ constraints

$$\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{\alpha \gamma _1}^{}a^{\alpha \gamma _2}=\delta _{\gamma _1}^{\gamma _2}m$$
(11)
restrict the Hilbert space to the states with $`mn_c`$ particles and ensure the characteristic symmetry in the color index $`a`$. Here $`m`$ corresponds to the number of rows in rectangular Young Tableau whereas $`n_c`$ stands for the number of columns. The antisymmetric behavior with respect to $`\alpha `$ is a direct consequence of the fermionic representation.

Let us consider the partition function for the Hamiltonian, expressed in terms of SU($`N`$) generators

$$Z_S=Tr\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_S)=Tr^{}\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_F)$$
(12)
where $`Tr^{}`$ denotes the trace taken with constraints (11). As it is shown in , the partition function of $`SU(N)`$ model is related to partition function of corresponding fermion model through the following equation:

$$Z_S=\underset{j}{}d\mu (j)P(\mu (j))Tr\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (H_F\mu (j)n_F)\right)=\underset{j}{}d\mu (j)P(\mu (j))Z_F(\mu (j))$$
(13)
here $`P(\mu _j)`$ is a distribution function of imaginary Lagrange multipliers. We calculate $`P(\mu _j)`$ explicitely using constraints (11).

We use the path integral representation of the partition function

$$Z_S/Z_S^0=\underset{j}{}d\mu (j)P(\mu (j))\mathrm{exp}(𝒜)/\underset{j}{}d\mu (j)P(\mu (j))\mathrm{exp}(𝒜_0)$$
(14)
where the actions $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜_0`$ are determined by

$$𝒜=𝒜_0_0^\beta 𝑑\tau H_F(\tau ),𝒜_0=\underset{j}{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau \overline{a}_k(j,\tau )(_\tau +\mu (j))a_k(j,\tau )$$
(15)
and the fermionic representation of SU($`N`$) generators (10) is applied.

Let us first consider the case $`n_c=1`$. We denote the corresponding distribution by $`P_{N,m}(\mu (j))`$, where $`m`$ is the number of particles in the SU($`N`$) orbital, or in other words, $`1m<N`$ labels the different fundamental representations of SU($`N`$).

$$n_j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{a}_k(j)a_k(j)=m$$
(16)
To satisfy this requirement, the minimal set of chemical potentials and the corresponding form of $`P_{N,m}(\mu (j))`$ are to be derived.

To derive the distribution function, we use the following identity for the constraint (16) expressed in terms of Grassmann variables

$$\delta _{n_j,m}=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi (n_jm)\right)/\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi (n_jm)}{N}\right)$$
(17)
Substituting this identity into (12) and comparing with (14) one gets

$$P_{N,m}(\mu (j))=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi m}{N}(2k1)\right)\delta (\mu (j)\mu _k),$$
(18)
where

$$\mu _k=\frac{i\pi T}{N}(2k1).$$
(19)
Since the Hamiltonian is symmetric under the exchange of particles and holes when the sign of the Lagrange multiplier is also changed simultaneously, we can simplify (18) to

$$P_{N,m}(\mu (j))=\frac{2i}{N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N/2}{}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi m\frac{2k1}{N}\right)\delta (\mu (j)\mu _k)$$
(20)
where $`N/2`$ denotes the integer part of $`N/2`$. As shown below, this is the minimal representation of the distribution function corresponding to the minimal set of the discrete imaginary Lagrange multipliers. Another distributions function different from (20) can be constructed when the sum is taken from $`k=N/2+1`$ to $`N`$. Nevertheless, this DF is different from (20) only by the sign of imaginary Lagrange multipliers $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_k=\mu _k^{}=\mu _k`$ and thus is supplementary to (20).

Particularly interesting for even $`N`$ is the case when the SU($`N`$) orbital is half–filled, $`m=N/2`$. Then all Lagrange multipliers carry equal weight

$$P_{N,N/2}(\mu (j))=\frac{2i}{N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N/2}{}}(1)^{k+1}\delta \left(\mu (j)\mu _k\right).$$
(21)
Taking the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ one may replace the summation in expression (21) in a suitable way by integration. Note, that while taking $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`m\mathrm{}`$ limits, we nevertheless keep the ratio $`m/N=1/2`$ fixed. Then, the following limiting distribution function can be obtained:

$$P_{N,N/2}(\mu (j))\stackrel{N\mathrm{}}{}\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \mu (j)\frac{N}{2}\right)$$
(22)
resulting in the usual continuous representation of the local constraint for the simplest case $`n_c=1`$

$$Z_S=Tr(\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta H_F\right)\delta (n_j\frac{N}{2}))$$
(23)
We note the obvious similarity of the limiting DF (22) with the Gibbs canonical distribution provided that the Wick rotation from the imaginary axis of the Lagrange multipliers $`\mu `$ to the real axis of energies $`E`$ is performed and thus $`\mu (j)N/2`$ has a meaning of energy.

Up to now, the representation we discussed was purely fermionic and expressed in terms of usual Grassmann variables when the path integral formalism is applied. The only difference from slave fermionic approach is that imaginary Lagrange multipliers are introduced to fulfill the constraint. Nevertheless, by making the replacement

$$a_k(j,\tau ))a_k(j,\tau )\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i\pi \tau }{\beta }\frac{2k1}{N}),\overline{a}_k(j,\tau )\overline{a}_k(j,\tau )\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i\pi \tau }{\beta }\frac{2k1}{N})$$
(24)
we arrive at the generalized Grassmann (semi-fermionic) boundary conditions

$$a_k(j,\beta )=a_k(j,0)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi \frac{2k1}{N}\right),\overline{a}_k(j,\beta )=\overline{a}_k(j,0)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi \frac{2k1}{N}\right)$$
(25)
This leads to a temperature diagram technique for the Green’s functions

$$𝒢^{\alpha \beta }(j,\tau )=T_\tau a_\alpha (j,\tau )\overline{a}_\beta (j,0)$$
(26)
of semi-fermions with Matsubara frequencies different from both Fermi and Bose representations (see Fig.2).

The exclusion principle for this case is illustrated on Fig.1, where the $`S=1/2`$ representation for the first two groups SU(2) and SU(4) are shown. The first point to observe is that the spin Hamiltonian does not distinguish the $`n`$ particle and the $`n`$ hole (or $`Nn`$ particle) subspace. Eq. (19) shows that the two phase factors $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu n)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu (Nn))`$ accompanying these subspaces in Eq. (20) add up to a purely imaginary value within the same Lagrange multiplier, and the empty and the fully occupied states are always canceled. In the case of $`N4`$, where we have multiple Lagrange multipliers, the distribution function $`P(\mu )`$ linearly combines these imaginary prefactors to select out the desired physical subspace with particle number $`n=m`$.

In Fig.1, we note that on each picture, the empty and fully occupied states are canceled in their own unit circle. For SU(2) there is a unique chemical potential $`\mu =\pm i\pi T/2`$ which results in the survival of single occupied states. For SU(4) there are two chemical potentials (see also Fig.2). The cancellation of single and triple occupied states is achieved with the help of proper weights for these states in the distribution function whereas the states with the occupation number 2 are doubled according to the expression (21). In general, for SU($`N`$) group with $`n_c=1`$ there exists $`N/2`$ circles providing the realization of the exclusion principle.

### B SU(2) group

We consider now the generalization of the SU(2) algebra for the case of spin $`S`$. Here, the most convenient fermionic representation is constructed with the help of a $`2S+1`$ component Fermi field $`a_k(j)`$ provided that the generators of SU(2) satisfy the following equations:

$$S^+=\underset{k=S}{\overset{S1}{}}\sqrt{S(S+1)k(k+1)}a_{k+1}^{}(j)a_k(j),S^{}=\underset{k=S+1}{\overset{S}{}}\sqrt{S(S+1)k(k1)}a_{k1}^{}(j)a_k(j),$$

$$S^z=\underset{k=S}{\overset{S}{}}ka_k^{}(j)a_k(j)$$
(27)
such that $`dimH_F=2^{2S+1}`$ whereas the constraint reads as follows

$$n_j=\underset{k=S}{\overset{k=S}{}}a_k^{}(j)a_k(j)=l=1$$
(28)
Following the same routine as for SU($`N`$) generators and using the occupancy condition to have $`l=1`$ (or $`2S`$) states of the $`(2S+1)`$ states filled, one gets the following distribution function, after using the particle–hole symmetry of the Hamiltonian $`H_S`$:

$$P_{2S+1,1}(\mu (j))=\frac{2i}{2S+1}\underset{k=1}{\overset{S+1/2}{}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \frac{2k1}{2S+1}\right)\delta (\mu (j)\mu _k)$$
(29)
where the Lagrange multipliers are $`\mu _k=i\pi T(2k1)/(2S+1)`$ and $`k=1,\mathrm{},S+1/2`$, similarly to Eq.(19).

In the particular case of the SU(2) model for some chosen values of spin $`S`$ the distribution functions are given by the following expressions

$$P_{2,1}(\mu (j))=i\delta \left(\mu (j)+\frac{i\pi T}{2}\right)$$
(30)
for $`S=1/2`$

$$P_{3,1}(\mu (j))=P_{3,2}(\mu (j))=\frac{i}{\sqrt{3}}\delta \left(\mu (j)+\frac{i\pi T}{3}\right)$$
(31)
for $`S=1`$.

This result corresponds to the original Popov-Fedotov description restricted to the $`S=1/2`$ and $`S=1`$ cases.

A limiting distribution function corresponding to Eq. (22) for the constraint condition with arbitrary $`l`$ is found to be

$$P_{\mathrm{},l}(\mu (j))\stackrel{S\mathrm{}}{}\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}\mathrm{exp}(\beta l\mu (j)).$$
(32)
For the case $`l=m=N/2\mathrm{}`$ and $`S=(N1)/2\mathrm{}`$ the expression for the limiting DF $`P_{\mathrm{},l}(\mu (j))`$ coincides with (23). We note that in $`S\mathrm{}`$ (or $`N\mathrm{}`$) limit, the continuum “chemical potentials” play the role of additional U(1) fluctuating field whereas for finite $`S`$ and $`N`$ they are characterized by fixed and discrete values.

When $`S`$ assumes integer values, the minimal fundamental set of Matsubara frequencies is given by the table in Fig.2.

The exclusion principle for SU(2) in the large spin limit can be also understood with the help of Fig.1 and Fig.3. One can see that the empty and the fully occupied states are canceled in each given circle similarly to even-$`N`$ SU($`N`$) algebra. The particle-hole (PH) symmetry of the representation results in an equivalence of single occupied and $`2S`$ occupied states whereas all the other states are canceled due to proper weights in the distribution function (29). In accordance with PH symmetry being preserved for each value of the chemical potential all circle diagrams (see Fig.3, Fig.5) are invariant with respect to simultaneous change $`\mu \mu `$ and $`n_{particle}n_{holes}`$.

### C From SU(2) to SO(4)

We have shown that the general rectangular Young Tableau of size $`n_cm`$ is represented by $`Nn_c`$ component fermionic field with $`n_c`$ diagonal constraints and $`n_c(n_c1)/2`$ off-diagonal constraints. However, the fully symmetric representation (one row) requires only $`n_c+1=2S+1`$ component field. The general scheme of projected representation for SU(N) group is given in . We illustrate this idea on a simple example of $`S=1`$.

We start with $`2n_c=4`$ \- field representation

$$(a_{11},a_{12},a_{21},a_{22})$$
(33)
There are two diagonal and two off-diagonal constraints which read as follows:

$$a_{11}^{}a_{11}+a_{21}^{}a_{21}=1,a_{12}^{}a_{12}+a_{22}^{}a_{22}=1.$$
(34)
$$a_{11}^{}a_{12}+a_{21}^{}a_{22}=0,a_{12}^{}a_{11}+a_{22}^{}a_{21}=0$$
(35)
and generators of $`SU(2)`$ group are given by

$$S^{}=S_2^1=a_{11}^{}a_{21}+a_{12}^{}a_{22},S^+=S_1^2=a_{21}^{}a_{11}+a_{22}^{}a_{12}$$

$$2S^z=S_2^2S_1^1=a_{21}^{}a_{21}+a_{22}^{}a_{22}a_{11}^{}a_{11}a_{12}^{}a_{12}$$
(36)
Combining definition (36) with constraint (35) we reach the following equations:

$$S^{}=a_{11}^{}(a_{21}+a_{12})+(a_{12}^{}+a_{21}^{})a_{22},S^+=(a_{21}^{}+a_{12}^{})a_{11}+a_{22}^{}(a_{12}+a_{21}),S^z=a_{22}^{}a_{22}a_{11}^{}a_{11}$$
(37)
Therefore, we conclude that the antisymmetric (singlet) combination $`a_{12}a_{21}`$ does not enter the expression for spin $`S=1`$ operators. Thus, three (out of four) component Fermi-field is sufficient for the description of $`S=1`$ $`SU(2)`$ representation. Defining new fields as follows

$$a_{11}=f_1,a_{22}=f_1,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_{12}+a_{21})=f_0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_{12}a_{21})=s.$$
(38)
where fermions $`f_1,f_0,f_1`$ stand for $`S^z=1,01`$ projections of the triplet state and fermion $`s`$ determines the singlet state, we come to standard $`S=1`$ $`SU(2)`$ representation (c.f 6)

$$S^+=\sqrt{2}(f_0^{}f_1+f_1^{}f_0),S^{}=\sqrt{2}(f_1^{}f_0+f_0^{}f_1),S_z=f_1^{}f_1f_1^{}f_1,$$
(39)
with the constraint

$$n_1+n_0+n_1+n_s=2$$
(40)
where $`n_\alpha =f_\alpha ^{}f_\alpha `$.

Nevertheless, the constraint (40) transforms to a standard SU(2) $`S=1`$ constraint in both cases $`n_s=0`$ and $`n_s=1`$ since there is no singlet/triplet mixing allowed by SU(2) algebra.

To demonstrate the transformation of the local constraint let’s first consider the case $`n_s=0`$. The constraint reads as follows

$$n_1+n_0+n_1=2S𝐒^2=S(S+1).$$
(41)
On the other hand, the the states with $`2S`$ occupation are equivalent to the states with single occupation due to particle-hole symmetry. Thus, the constraint (40) might be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{n}_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_0+\stackrel{~}{n}_1=1$$
(42)
where $`\stackrel{~}{n}_\alpha =1n_\alpha `$. The latter case corresponds to $`n_s=1`$.

We start now with definition of $`SO(4)`$ group obeying the following commutation relations

$$[S_j,S_k]=ie_{jkl}S_l,[P_j,P_k]=ie_{jkl}S_l,[P_j,S_k]=ie_{jkl}P_l$$
(43)
where 6 generators of SO(4) group, namely vectors $`𝐒`$ and $`𝐏`$ are represented by the matrices

$`S^+=\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),S^{}=\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),S^z=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (56)
$`P^+=\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),P^{}=\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),P^z=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (69)
With the Casimir operator

$$𝐒𝐏=0,𝐒^2+𝐏^2=3.$$

Unlike SU(2) group, the singlet/triplet transitions are allowed in SO(4) group and determined by $`𝐏`$ operators. Using the definition of singlet/triplet fermions one comes to following representation

$$S^+=\sqrt{2}(f_0^{}f_1+f_1^{}f_0),S^{}=\sqrt{2}(f_1^{}f_0+f_0^{}f_1),S_z=f_1^{}f_1f_1^{}f_1,$$
(70)
$$P^+=\sqrt{2}(f_1^{}ss^{}f_1),P^{}=\sqrt{2}(s^{}f_1f_1^{}s),P_z=(f_0^{}s+s^{}f_0).$$
(71)
with the only constraint

$$n_1+n_0+n_1+n_s=1$$

whereas the orthogonality condition is fulfilled automatically.

### D Real-time formalism

We discuss finally the real-time formalism based on the semi-fermionic representation of SU($`N`$) generators. This approach is necessary for treating the systems out of equilibrium, especially for many component systems describing Fermi (Bose) quasiparticles interacting with spins. The real time formalism ,  provides an alternative approach for the analytical continuation method for equilibrium problems allowing direct calculations of correlators whose analytical properties as function of many complex arguments can be quite cumbersome.

To derive the real-time formalism for SU($`N`$) generators we use the path integral representation along the closed time Keldysh contour (see Fig.4).

Following the standard route , we can express the partition function of the problem containing SU($`N`$) generators as a path integral over Grassmann variables $`\psi _l=(a_{l,1}(j),\mathrm{},a_{l,N}(j))^T`$ where $`l=1,2`$ stands for upper and lower parts of the Keldysh contour, respectively,

$$𝒵/𝒵_0=D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}(i𝒜)/D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}(i𝒜_0)$$
(72)
where the actions $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜_0`$ are taken as an integral along the closed-time contour $`C_t+C_\tau `$ which is shown in Fig.4. The contour is closed at $`t=\mathrm{}+i\tau `$ since $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_0)=T_\tau \mathrm{exp}\left(_0^\beta H_0𝑑\tau \right).`$ We denote the $`\psi `$ fields on upper and lower sides of the contour $`C_t`$ as $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ respectively. The fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ stand for the contour $`C_\tau `$. These fields provide the matching conditions for $`\psi _{1,2}`$ and are excluded from the final expressions. Taking into account the semi-fermionic boundary conditions for generalized Grassmann fields (25) one gets the matching conditions for $`\psi _{1,2}`$ at $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$,

$$\psi _{1,\alpha }^\mu |_k(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi \frac{2k1}{N}\right)\psi _{2,\alpha }^\mu |_k(\mathrm{}),$$

$$\psi _{1,\alpha }^\mu |_k(+\mathrm{})=\psi _{2,\alpha }^\mu |_k(+\mathrm{})$$
(73)
for $`k=1,\mathrm{},N/2`$ and $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N`$. The correlation functions can be represented as functional derivatives of the generating functional

$$Z[\eta ]=𝒵_0^1D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(i𝒜+i_C𝑑t(\overline{\eta }\sigma ^z\psi +\overline{\psi }\sigma ^z\eta )\right)$$
(74)
where $`\eta `$ represents sources and the $`\sigma ^z`$ matrix stands for ”causal” and ”anti-causal” orderings along the contour.

The on-site Green’s functions (GF) which are matrices of size $`2N\times 2N`$ with respect to both Keldysh (lower) and spin-color (upper) indices are given by

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }(t,t^{})=i\frac{\delta }{i\delta \overline{\eta }_\mu ^\alpha (t)}\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta _\nu ^\beta (t^{})}Z[\eta ]|_{\overline{\eta },\eta 0}.$$
(75)
To distinguish between imaginary-time (26) and real-time (75) GF’s, we use different notations for Green’s functions in these representations.

After a standard shift-transformation  of the fields $`\psi `$ the Keldysh GF of free semi-fermions assumes the form

$`G_0^\alpha (ϵ)=G_0^{R,\alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}1f_ϵ& f_ϵ\\ 1f_ϵ& f_ϵ\end{array}\right)G_0^{A,\alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_ϵ& f_ϵ\\ 1f_ϵ& 1f_ϵ\end{array}\right),`$ (80)
where the retarded and advanced GF’s are

$$G_0^{(R,A)\alpha }(ϵ)=(ϵ\pm i\delta )^1,f_ϵ=f^{(N,k)}(ϵ),$$
(81)
with equilibrium distribution functions

$$f^{(N,k)}(ϵ)=T\underset{n}{}\frac{e^{i\omega _{n_k}\tau |_{+0}}}{i\omega _{n_k}ϵ}=\frac{1}{e^{i\pi (2k1)/N}\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ)+1}.$$
(82)
A straightforward calculation of $`f^{(N,k)}`$ for the case of even $`N`$ leads to the following expression

$$f^{(N,k)}(ϵ)=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^{l1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta ϵ(Nl)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi l(2k1)}{N}}\right)}{\mathrm{exp}(N\beta ϵ)+1},$$
(83)
where $`k=1,\mathrm{},N/2.`$ The equilibrium distribution functions (EDF) $`f^{(2S+1,k)}`$ for the auxiliary Fermi-fields representing arbitrary $`S`$ for $`SU(2)`$ algebra are given by

$$f^{(2S+1,k)}(ϵ)=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{2S+1}{}}}(1)^{l1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta ϵ(2S+1l)\right)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi (2k1)}{2S+1}}))}{\mathrm{exp}((2S+1)\beta ϵ)+(1)^{2S+1}}$$
(84)
for $`k=1,\mathrm{},S+1/2`$. Particularly simple are the cases of $`S=1/2`$ and $`S=1`$,

$$f^{(2,1)}(ϵ)=n_F(2ϵ)i\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta ϵ)}$$

$$f^{(3,1)}(ϵ)=\frac{1}{2}n_B(ϵ)\frac{3}{2}n_B(3ϵ)i\sqrt{3}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta ϵ/2)}{\mathrm{sinh}(3\beta ϵ/2)}$$
(85)
Here, the standard notations for Fermi/Bose distribution functions $`n_{F/B}(ϵ)=[\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ)\pm 1]^1`$ are used. For $`S=1/2`$ the semi-fermionic EDF satisfies the obvious identity $`|f^{(2,1)}(ϵ)|^2=n_F(2ϵ)`$.

In general the EDF for half-integer and integer spins can be expressed in terms of Fermi and Bose EDF respectively. We note that since auxiliary Fermi fields introduced for the representation of SU($`N`$) generators do not represent the true quasiparticles of the problem, helping only to treat properly the constraint condition, the distribution functions for these objects in general do not have to be real functions. Nevertheless, one can prove that the imaginary part of the EDF does not affect the physical correlators and can be eliminated by introducing an infinitesimally small real part for the chemical potential. In spin problems, a uniform/staggered magnetic field usually plays the role of such real chemical potential for semi-fermions.

## II Application of semi-fermionic representation

In this section we illustrate some of the applications of SF representation for various problems of strongly correlated physics.

### A Heisenberg model: FM, AFM and RVB

The effective nonpolynomial action for Heisenberg model with ferromagnetic (FM) coupling has been investigated in . The model with antiferromagnetic (AFM) interaction has been considered by means of semi-fermionic representation in  and  (magnon spectra) and in  for resonance valence bond (RVB) excitations. The Hamiltonian considered is given as

$$H_{int}=\underset{<ij>}{}J_{ij}\left(\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j\frac{1}{4}\right)$$
(86)
* Ferromagnetic coupling $`J=I_{FM}>0`$

The exchange $`\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j`$ is represented as four-semi-fermion interaction. Applying the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation by the local vector field $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i(\tau )`$ the effective nonpolynomial action is obtained in terms of vector c-field. The FM phase transition corresponds to the appearance at $`TT_c`$ of the nonzero average $`\mathrm{\Phi }^z(q=0,0)`$ which stands for the nonzero magnetization, or in other words, corresponds to the Bose condensation of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^z`$.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^z(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )=(\beta N)^{1/2}\delta _{\stackrel{}{k},0}\delta _{\omega ,0}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^z(\stackrel{}{k},\omega ).$$
(87)
In one loop approximation the standard molecular field equation can be reproduced

$$=I_{FM}(0)\mathrm{tanh}(\beta /2).$$
(88)
The saddle point (mean-field) effective action is given by well-known expression

$$𝒜_0[]=N\left[\frac{\beta ^2}{4I_M(0)}\mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right)\right)\right],$$
(89)
and the free energy per spin $`f_0`$ is determined by the standard equation:

$$\beta f_0=\mathrm{ln}Z_S=\frac{\beta ^2}{4I_M(0)}\mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right)\right)$$
(90)
Calculation of the second variation of $`𝒜_{eff}`$ gives rise to the following expression

$$\delta 𝒜_{eff}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\mathrm{\Phi }^z(\stackrel{}{k},0)\left[I_M^1(\stackrel{}{k})\frac{\beta }{2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\beta \mathrm{\Omega })}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }^z(\stackrel{}{k},0)\frac{1}{4}\underset{\stackrel{}{k},\omega 0}{}I_M^1(\stackrel{}{k})\mathrm{\Phi }^z(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )\mathrm{\Phi }^z(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )$$

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{k},\omega }{}\mathrm{\Phi }^+(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )\left[I_M^1(\stackrel{}{k})\frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\beta \mathrm{\Omega })}{2\mathrm{\Omega }i\omega }\right]\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )$$
(91)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(g\mu _BH+)/2`$. The magnon spectrum ($`TT_c`$) is determined by the poles of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ correlator, $`\omega =\lambda 𝐤^2`$.

* Antiferromagnetic coupling $`J=I_{AFM}<0`$. Néel solution

The AFM transition corresponds to formation of the staggered condensate

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^z(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )=𝒩(\beta N)^{1/2}\delta _{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{Q}}\delta _{\omega ,0}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^z(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )$$
(92)
The one-loop approximation leads to standard mean-field equations for the staggered magnetization

$$𝒩=I_{AFM}(Q)\mathrm{tanh}(\beta 𝒩/2),𝒜_0[𝒩]=N\left[\frac{\beta 𝒩^2}{4I_{AFM}(Q)}+\mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\beta 𝒩}{2}\right)\right)\right].$$
(93)
After taking into account the second variation of $`𝒜_{eff}`$, the following expression for the effective action is obtained \[(see e.g. ,):

$$\delta 𝒜_{eff}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\mathrm{\Phi }^z(\stackrel{}{k},0)\left[I_{AFM}^1(\stackrel{}{k})+\frac{\beta }{2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\beta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }^z(\stackrel{}{k},0)+\frac{1}{4}\underset{\stackrel{}{k},\omega 0}{}I_{AFM}^1(\stackrel{}{k})\mathrm{\Phi }^z(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )\mathrm{\Phi }^z(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )+$$

$$+\underset{\stackrel{}{k},\omega }{}\mathrm{\Phi }^+(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )\left[I_{AFM}^1(\stackrel{}{k})+\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{tanh}(\beta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}{4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2+\omega ^2}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )\underset{\stackrel{}{k},\omega }{}\mathrm{\Phi }^+(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q},\omega )\frac{i\omega }{4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2+\omega ^2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k},\omega ).$$
(94)
The AFM magnon spectrum $`\omega =c|𝐤|`$.

* Antiferromagnetic coupling. Resonance Valence Bond solution

The four-semi-fermion term in (86) is decoupled by bilocal scalar field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$. The RVB spin liquid (SL) instability in 2D Heisenberg model corresponds to Bose-condensation of exciton-like  pairs of semi-fermions:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\underset{𝐪}{}\frac{I_𝐪}{I_0}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{I_𝐪\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{T}\right),𝒜_0=\frac{\beta |I|\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}{2}\underset{𝐪}{}\mathrm{ln}\left[2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta I_𝐪\mathrm{\Delta }_0)\right]$$
(95)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐪=0)`$ is determined by the modulus of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$ field

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{<ij>}(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{R})\right)$$
(96)
whereas the second variation of $`\delta 𝒜_{eff}`$ describes the fluctuations of phase $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$

$$𝒜_{eff}=\underset{𝐤,\omega }{}A_\alpha (𝐤,\omega )\pi _{𝐤,\omega }^{\alpha \beta }A_\beta (𝐤,\omega ),\pi _{𝐤,\omega }^{\alpha \beta }=Tr(p^\alpha p^\beta (G_{p+k}G_p+G_{p+k}G_p)+\delta _{\alpha \beta }f(I_𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }_0))$$
(97)
The spectrum of excitation in uniform SL is determined by zeros of $`\pi ^R`$ and is purely diffusive -.

### B Kondo lattices: competition between magnetic and Kondo correlations

The problem of competition between Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) magnetic exchange and Kondo correlations is one of the most interesting problem of the heavy fermion physics. The recent experiments unambiguously show, that such a competition is responsible for many unusual properties of the integer valent heavy fermion compounds e.g. quantum critical behavior, unusual antiferromagnetism and superconductivity (see references in ). We address the reader to the review  for details of complex physics of Kondo effect in heavy fermion compounds. In this section we discuss the influence of Kondo effect on the competition between local (magnetic, spin glass) and non-local (RVB) correlations. The Ginzburg-Landau theory for nearly antiferromagnetic Kondo lattices has been constructed in  using the semi-fermion approach. We discuss the key results of this theory.

The Hamiltonian of the Kondo lattice (KL) model is given by

$$H=\underset{k\sigma }{}\epsilon _kc_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma }+J\underset{j}{}\left(𝐒_j𝐬_j+\frac{1}{4}N_jn_j\right)$$
(98)
Here the local electron and spin density operators for conduction electrons at site $`j`$ are defined as

$$n_j=\underset{j\sigma }{}c_{j\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma },𝐬_j=\underset{\sigma }{}\frac{1}{2}c_{j\sigma }^{}\widehat{\tau }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{j\sigma ^{}},$$
(99)
where $`\widehat{\tau }`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`c_{j\sigma }=_kc_{k\sigma }\mathrm{exp}(ikj)`$. The spin glass (SG) freezing is possible if an additional quenched randomness of the inter-site exchange $`I_{jl}`$ between the localized spins arises. This disorder is described by

$$H^{}=\underset{jl}{}I_{jl}(𝐒_j𝐒_l).$$
(100)
We start with a perfect Kondo lattice. The spin correlations in KL are characterized by two energy scales, i.e., $`IJ^2/\epsilon _F,`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K\epsilon _F\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon _F/J)`$ (the inter-site indirect exchange of the RKKY type and the Kondo binding energy, respectively). At high enough temperature, the localized spins are weakly coupled with the electron Fermi sea having the Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F`$, so that the magnetic response of a rare-earth sublattice of KL is of paramagnetic Curie-Weiss type. With decreasing temperature either a crossover to a strong-coupling Kondo singlet regime occurs at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ or the phase transition to an AFM state occurs at $`T=T_NzI`$ where $`z`$ is a coordination number in KL. If $`T_N\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ the interference between two trends results in the decrease of both characteristic temperatures or in suppressing one of them. The mechanism of suppression is based on the screening effect due to Kondo interaction. As we will show, the Kondo correlations screen the local order parameter, but leave nonlocal correlations intact. The mechanism of Kondo screening for single-impurity Kondo problem is illustrated on Fig.5

As a result, the magnetization of local impurity in the presence of Kondo effect is determined in terms of GF’s of semi-fermions $`𝒢(\omega )`$ by the following expression :

$$(H)=S(g\mu _B)T\underset{\omega }{}\left(𝒢_{}(\omega )𝒢_{}(\omega )\right)=S(g\mu _B)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{H\beta }{2}\right)\left[1\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(T/T_K)}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}(T/T_K))}{2\mathrm{ln}^2(T/T_K)}+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(101)
To take into account the screening effect in the lattice model we apply the semi-fermionic representation of spin operators. In accordance with the general path-integral approach to KL’s, we first integrate over fast (electron) degrees of freedom. The Kondo exchange interaction is decoupled by auxiliary field $`\varphi `$  with statistics complementary to that of semi-fermions which prevents this field from Bose condensation except at $`T=0`$. As a result, we are left with an effective bosonic action describing low-energy properties of KL model at high $`T>T_K`$ temperatures.

* Kondo screening of the Néel order

To analyze the influence of Kondo screening on formation of AFM order, we adopt the decoupling scheme for the Heisenberg model discussed in Section II.A. Taking into account the classic part of Néel field, we calculate the Kondo-contribution to the effective action which depends on magnetic order parameter $`𝒩`$:

$$𝒜_\varphi =2\underset{𝐪,n}{}\left[\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{J}}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝒩)\right]|\varphi _n(𝐪)|^2.$$
(102)
where a polarization operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝒩)`$ casts the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝒩)=\rho (0)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{ϵ_F}{T}\right)+\left[\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta 𝒩)}1\right)+O\left(\frac{𝒩^2}{Tϵ_F}\right)\right],$$
(103)
where $`\rho (0)`$ is the density of states of conduction electrons at the Fermi level and the Kondo temperature $`T_K=ϵ_F\mathrm{exp}\left(1/(\rho (0)J)\right)`$. Minimizing the effective action $`𝒜(\varphi ,𝒩)`$ with respect to classic field $`𝒩`$, the mean field equation for Néel transition is obtained (c.f. with (88))

$$𝒩=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{I_𝐐𝒩}{2T}\right)\left[1\frac{a_N}{\mathrm{ln}\left(T/T_K\right)}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}^2(\beta I_𝐐𝒩/2)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(\beta I_𝐐𝒩)}\right].$$
(104)
As a result, Kondo corrections to the molecular field equation reduce the Néel temperature

* Kondo enhancement of RVB correlations

Applying the similar procedure to nonlocal RVB correlations, we take into account the influence of Kondo effect on RVB correlations

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(I_𝐪\mathrm{\Delta })=\rho (0)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{ϵ_F}{T}\right)+\underset{𝐤}{}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\beta (I_𝐤\mathrm{\Delta })}1+I_𝐤\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{tanh}(\beta I_𝐤\mathrm{\Delta })\right]\frac{1}{\xi _{𝐤+𝐪}^2+(\pi /2\beta )^2}.$$
(105)
Here $`\xi _k=ϵ(𝐤)ϵ_F`$. Minimizing the effective action with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we obtain new self-consistent equation to determine the non-local semi-fermion correlator.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{𝐪}{}\frac{I_𝐪}{I_0}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{I_𝐪\mathrm{\Delta }}{T}\right)+a_{sl}\frac{I_𝐪\mathrm{\Delta }}{T\mathrm{ln}(T/T_K)}\right].$$
(106)
It is seen that unlike the case of local magnetic order, the Kondo scattering favors transition into the spin-liquid state, because the scattering means the involvement of the itinerant electron degrees of freedom into the spinon dynamics.

* Kondo effect and quenched disorder

Let’s assume that the RKKY interactions are random (e.g. due to the presence of non-magnetic impurities resulting in appearance of random phase in the RKKY indirect exchange). In this case the spin glass phase should be considered. As it has been shown in  and , the influence of static disorder on Kondo effect in models with Ising exchange on fully connected lattices (Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model) can be taken into account by the mapping KL model with quenched disorder onto the single impurity Kondo model in random (depending on replicas) magnetic field. It allows for the self-consistent determination of the Edwards-Anderson $`q_{EA}`$order parameter given by the following set of self-consistent equations

$$\stackrel{~}{q}=1\frac{2c}{\mathrm{ln}(T/T_K)}O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}^2(T/T_K)}\right),q=_x^G\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(\frac{\beta Ix\sqrt{q}}{1+2c(\beta I)^2(\stackrel{~}{q}q)/\mathrm{ln}(T/T_K)}\right)+O\left(\frac{q}{\mathrm{ln}^2(T/T_K)}\right).$$
(107)
Here $`q=q_{EA}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ are nondiagonal and diagonal elements of Parisi matrix respectively. Therefore, the Kondo-scattering results in the depression of the freezing temperature due to the screening effects in the same way as the magnetic moments and the one-site susceptibility are screened in the single-impurity Kondo problem (c.f. Fig.5) when Ising and Kondo interactions are of the same order of magnitude.

Let’s now briefly discuss the fluctuation effects in Kondo lattices. The natural way to construct the fluctuation theory is to consider the non-local dynamical Kondo correlations described by the field $`\varphi (𝐪,\omega )`$ (see Fig.6). In fact, the non-locality of the “semi-Bosonic” field is associated with an overlap of Kondo clouds  and responsible for a crossover from the localized magnetism to the itinerant-like fluctuational spin-liquid magnetism. The temperature dependence of static magnetic susceptibility becomes nonuniversal in spite of the fact that we are in a region of critical AFM fluctuations which is consistent with recent experimental observations.

### C Kondo effect in quantum dots

The single electron tunneling through the quantum dot  has been studied in great details during the recent decade. Among many interesting phenomena behind the unusual transport properties of mesoscopic systems, the Kondo effect in quantum dots, recently observed experimentally, continues to attract an attention both of experimental and theoretical communities. The modern nanoscience technologies allow one to produce the highly controllable systems based on quantum dot devices and possessing many of properties of strongly correlated electron systems. The quantum dot in a semiconductor planar heterostructure is a confined few-electron system (see Fig.7) contacted by sheets of two-dimensional gas (leads). Junctions between dot and leeds produce the exchange interaction between the spins of the dot and spins of itinerant 2D electron gas. Measuring the dc $`IV`$ characteristics, one can investigate the Kondo effect in quantum dots under various conditions.

Various realizations of Kondo effect in quantum dots were proposed both theoretically and experimentally in recent publications (see e.g.  for review). In order to illustrate the application of semi-fermionic approach we discuss briefly electric field induced Kondo tunneling in double quantum dot (DQD). As was noticed in , quantum dots with even $`𝒩`$ possess the dynamical symmetry $`SO(4)`$ of spin rotator in the Kondo tunneling regime, provided the low-energy part of its spectrum is formed by a singlet-triplet (ST) pair, and all other excitations are separated from the ST manifold by a gap noticeably exceeding the tunneling rate $`\gamma `$. A DQD with even $`𝒩`$ in a side-bound configuration where two wells are coupled by the tunneling $`v`$ and only one of them (say, $`l`$) is coupled to metallic leads $`(L,R)`$ is a simplest system satisfying this condition . Such system was realized experimentally in Ref..

As it was shown in  the Shrieffer-Wolff (SW) transformation, when applied to a spin rotator results in the following effective spin Hamiltonian

$$H_{int}=\underset{kk^{},\alpha \alpha ^{}=L,R}{}J_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^Sf_s^{}f_sc_{k\alpha \sigma }^{}c_{k^{}\alpha ^{}\sigma }+\underset{kk^{},\alpha \alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{}\left(J_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^T\widehat{S}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}^d+J_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{ST}\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}^d\right)\tau _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^dc_{k\alpha \sigma }^{}c_{k^{}\alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}f_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}f_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}$$
(108)
where the $`c`$-operators describe the electrons in the leads and $`f`$-operators stand for the electrons in the dot. The matrices $`\widehat{S}^d`$ and $`\widehat{P}^d`$ ($`d`$$`=`$$`x`$,$`y`$,$`z`$) are $`4\times 4`$ matrices defined by relations (43) (see Section I.C) and $`J^S=J^{SS}`$, $`J^T=J^{TT}`$ and $`J^{ST}`$ are singlet, triplet and singlet-triplet coupling SW constants, respectively.

Applying the semi-fermionic representation of SO(4) group introduced in Section I.C we started with perturbation theory results analyzing the most divergent Feynman diagrams for spin-rotator model . Following the “poor man’s scaling” approach we derive the system of coupled renormalization group equations for effective couplings responsible for the transport through DQD. As a result, the differential conductance $`G(eV,T)/G_0|J_{LR}^{ST}|^2`$ is shown to be the universal function of two parameters $`T/T_K`$ and $`V/T_K`$, $`G_0=e^2/\pi \mathrm{}`$:

$$G/G_0\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\mathrm{max}[(eV\delta ),T]/T_K\right)$$
(109)
Thus, the tunneling through singlet DQDs with $`\delta =E_TE_ST_K`$ exhibits a peak in differential conductance at $`eV\delta `$ instead of the usual zero bias Kondo anomaly which arises in the opposite limit, $`\delta <T_K`$. Therefore, in this case the Kondo effect in DQD is induced by a strong external bias. The scaling equations can also be derived in Schwinger-Keldysh formalism (see  and also ) by applying the “poor man’s scaling” approach directly to the dot conductance. The detailed analysis of the model (108) in a real-time formalism is a subject for a separate publication.

## III Epilogue and perspectives

In this paper, we demonstrated several examples of the applications of semi-fermionic representation to various problems of condensed matter physics. The list of these applications is not exhaustive. We did not discuss, e.g., the interesting development of SF approach for the Hubbard model with repulsive  and attractive  interaction, Dicke model, 2D Ising model in transverse magnetic field, application of SF formalism to mesoscopic physics  etc. Nevertheless, we would like to point out some problems of strongly correlated physics where the application of SF representation might be a promising alternative to existing field-theoretical methods.
Heavy Fermions

* Crossover from localized to itinerant magnetism in Kondo lattices
* Quantum critical phenomena associated with competition between local and nonlocal correlations
* Nonequilibrium spin liquids
* Effects of spin impurities and defects in spin liquids
* Crystalline Electric Field excitations in spin liquids
* Dynamic theory of screening effects in Kondo spin glasses.

Mesoscopic systems

* Nonequilibrium Kondo effect in Quantum Dots
* Two-channel Kondo in complex multiple dots
* Spin chains, rings and ladders
* Nonequilibrium spin transport in wires

Summarizing, we constructed a general concept of semi-fermionic representation for SU(N) groups. The main advantage of this representation in application to the strongly correlated systems in comparison with another methods is that the local constraint is taken into account exactly and the usual Feynman diagrammatic codex is applicable. The method proposed allows us to treat spins on the same footing as Fermi and Bose systems. The semi-fermionic approach can be helpful for the description of the quantum systems in the vicinity of a quantum phase transition point and for the nonequilibrium spin systems.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to my colleagues F.Bouis, H.Feldmann, K.Kikoin and R.Oppermann for fruitful collaboration on different stages of SF project. I am thankful to Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for financial support. The support of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB-410 project) is gratefully acknowledged. My special thank to participants of Strongly Correlated Workshops in Trieste and especially to A.Protogenov for many inspiring discussions. My particular thank to A.Dutta for careful reading of this manuscript and useful suggestions.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

ON A POSSIBLE PHYSICAL METATHEORY OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

Miroljub Dugić1,4, Milan M. Ćirković2and Dejan Raković3,4

1Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, P.O.Box 60, Kragujevac, Yugoslavia

E-mail: Dugic@knez.uis.kg.ac.yu

2Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7, 11160 Belgrade, Yugoslavia

E-mail: arioch@eunet.yu

3Faculty of Electrical Engineering, P.O.Box 35-54, 11000 Belgrade, Yugoslavia

E-mail: Rakovic@net.yu

4International Anti-Stress Center, Smiljanićeva 11/III/7, 11000 Belgrade, Yugoslavia

E-mail: info@iasc-bg.org.yu; WWW address: www.iasc-bg.org.yu

ON A POSSIBLE PHYSICAL METATHEORY OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

Abstract: We show that the modern quantum mechanics, and particularly the theory of decoherence, allows formulating a sort of a physical metatheory of consciousness. Particularly, the analysis of the necessary conditions for the occurrence of decoherence, along with the hypothesis that consciousness bears (more-or-less) well definable physical origin, leads to a wider physical picture naturally involving consciousness. This can be considered as a sort of a psycho-physical parallelism, but on very wide scales bearing some cosmological relevance.

1. INTRODUCTION

In this study we would like to point out that modern quantum mechanics allows formulating a physical metatheory (metaphysical theory) of consciousness. This observation comes from some recent progress in the foundations of the so-called decoherence theory (Zurek 1991; Dugić 1996, 1997a,b, 1998), as well as some cosmological discourses (Barrow and Tipler 1986). In addition, the same program is important in view of the contemporary heated debate of reductionism versus holism in the philosophy of science (e.g. Edmonds 1999).

We employ practically universally accepted hypothesis in physical considerations devoted to the issue of consciousness: there is a physical background (and/or physical basis) of consciousness that, as a physical system, can be described and treated by the methods of the physical sciences. This partially trivial assertion will later on prove useful for our considerations, finally leading to a wider physical picture naturally involving consciousness, and eventually pointing out something new as regards the connection between physics and (the physics of) consciousness. As will become clear below, this reductionist attitude is justified exactly because quantum mechanics (which we use as a physical basis for discussion) is generally perceived as introducing a substantial holistic element of modern physics. Therefore, by pointing out elements necessary for building a metatheory of consciousness, we may bridge the gap between these two positions, as well as explore the limits of the theory making process (Landauer 1967).

There is of course no big practical use of the metatheories, generally speaking. But the observations this way provided usually enrich and/or widen our point(s) of view. In our opinion, probably the main point of the present paper is that such a theory—metaphysical theory of consciousness—naturally follows from the foundations of quantum mechanics.

2. A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE THEORY OF DECOHERENCE

Decoherence is a real physical process partly investigated in the physical laboratories (Devoret et al. 1985a,b; Brune et al. 1996, Amman et al. 1998). It’s history is long and rich of the different, both conceptual and methodological background. However, only recently the subject of decoherence met significant progress and has attracted significant attention of both theoreticians and experimental physicists.

Decoherence can be qualitatively defined as follows: it represents a realistic physical process whose effect consists in establishing the (approximate) classical realism for the open physical systems. Let us briefly discuss this definition. Quantum mechanics introduces the concept of quantum indeterminism (quantum uncertainty), which consists in lack of the classical realism for some physical quantities of the quantum systems. E.g., the following statement does not have sense: ‘electron in the hydrogen atom has a definite (relative) position’; rather, the electron’s position is subjected to the famous uncertainty relations of Heisenberg. As opposite to this, the classical reality for a particle’s position requires a definite value of the position in each instant in time generally - being the particle an isolated system, or in interaction with the surrounding physical systems. Therefore, existence of definite value of the electron’s position requires, in quantum mechanics, an act of measurement of the position.

Therefore, the process of quantum measurement establishes (D’Espagnat 1971) the classical reality for the measured physical quantity (quantum-mechanically: observable), and at heart of the quantum measurement process proves to be (Zurek 1982, Giulini et al. 1996) the process of decoherence. Needless to say, the transition from quantum uncertainty to classical reality in the course of the quantum measurement assumes external intervention on the measured object (i.e., of the measurement instrument (apparatus) on the object of measurement), which justifies referring to the measured object as to an “open” quantum system. In general, by an “open” physical system one assumes a system whose behavior and dynamics (evolution in time) are substantially determined by its interaction with its environment.

Therefore, one may say that the effect of decoherence establishes at least approximate classical realism for some of the open system’s observables, and is usually considered (Zurek 1991, Giulini et al. 1996) as the main candidate for resolving the long standing problem of the “transition from quantum to classical” (Zurek 1991, Omnes 1994).

In the “macroscopic context”, i.e. as regards the macroscopic physical systems, the effect of decoherence is expected to meet the following criteria/requirements: (a) providing a definite border line between the open quantum system and its environment, (b) establishing at least approximate classical reality for some observables of the open system as a whole, and (c) to represent a comparatively quick physical process. Keeping in mind that the classic-physics world is at the “macroscopic context”, it is usually, albeit only plausibly assumed that the process of decoherence should bear ubiquity and universality in the context of the “transition from quantum to classical”.

However, recently (Dugić 1996, 1997a,b), existence of the necessary conditions for the occurrence of decoherence has been proved. In particular, it means that the interaction between an open system (S) and its environment (E) should be of certain kind as to provide the occurrence of decoherence. As regards the “microscopic” physical systems (elementary particles, atoms, molecules), this result does not mean much; e.g., the interactions that are not of the kind required are widely used in quantum mechanics. However, in the “macroscopic context”, this result opens some questions.

In the “macroscopic context”, the occurrence of decoherence is sometimes (Zurek 1993) plausibly considered as a necessary condition for fulfilling the above criterion (a), and consequently the other criteria (b) and (c). Particularly, it can be plausibly stated (Zurek 1993) that the decoherence provides us with the definite border-line between the two systems, S and E. Keeping this in mind, one directly concludes that in the “macroscopic context” nonoccurrence of decoherence (as pointed out in Zurek 1993) contradicts our macroscopic experience and intuition. Therefore one may state the question of physical relevance, meaning and importance of the necessary conditions for the occurrence of decoherence in the “macroscopic context”.

3. THE ROOTS OF THE PHYSICAL METATHEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Prima facie, the nonoccurrence of decoherence is not physically relevant and can be interpreted as a pathology of the theory itself111 More precisely: one can expect that quantum mechanical formalism, as usually, gives us more than we can expect and/or interpret in terms of the classical physics, and particularly in terms of the classical reality. To this end, one may expect that only those physical models referring to the occurrence of decoherence could be considered physically relevant or realistic, putting aside the non-realistic and irrelevant models for which decoherence does not take place.. However, this is not really the case. A deeper physical/interpretational analysis offers an interesting interpretation naturally involving consciousness.

As it was distinguished in Dugić (1996) and further elaborated in Dugić, Raković and Ćirković (2000), the decoherence theory allows the following analysis: Let us suppose that the two systems, an open system S and its environment E are in mutual interaction not leading to decoherence. Then, according to the plausible assumption (Zurek 1993) distinguished above, one cannot determine the border-line between S and E. But suppose that there exist such coordinate transformations as to allow redefining the interaction and leading to the definitions of the new physical systems—the new open system S’ and its environment E’. Now, relative to the coordinates of the new systems, S’ and E’, one may say that there occurs the decoherence effect leading to unambiguous definitions of both systems, S’ and E’, and simultaneously defining the desired border-line between the two systems. This transformation is substantial (cf. Appendix I for some mathematical details, and for a strict treatment see Dugić et al 2000), in the sense that the “old” systems, S and E, cannot be even in principle defined or observed.222 As regards the whole system (S+E = S’+E’), the canonical transformations distinguished in Appendix I represent just the change of representation. However, as to the “subsystems”, this change is substantial: it transforms the interaction hamiltonian from a nonseparable form (for which decoherence does not occur), to a separable form (for which decoherence can occur). Having in mind the Zurek’s phrase “no systems-no problem”, we emphasize that the canonical transformations allow defining a system for which decoherence may occur—the system S’ and its environment E’—while leaving the “border line” between S and E indefinable. That is, one deals with the same composite system, S+E (identical with S’+E’), but the two definitions of the subsystems (the “old” one, S and E, and the “new” one, S’ and E’) are mutually exclusive! The process of decoherence, which establishes the classical reality only for the “new” subsystems, S’ and E’, clearly states: the open system S’ bears classical reality, and can be defined only simultaneously with its environment, E’. The composite system cannot be considered decomposable into the “old” “system” S and its “environment” E: they simply do not bear classical reality, which is generally expected in the “macroscopic” world.

When extended to complex systems consisting of a set of mutually interacting (open) macroscopic systems plus their environments, this notion obtains unexpected element. Actually, in a set of such systems, the local interaction on one place determines interaction (and therefore definition of the systems) at spatially distant place(s), thus making the macroscopic piece of the Universe (MPU) as an interconnected physical system, in which definition of each of its part (element) depends on the definition of a local system and its environment; and this can be rigorously proved (Dugić 1997b; Dugić et al 2000). It cannot be overemphasized: even for the complex systems, the different definitions of the MPU are mutually exclusive, in so far as only one of them bears classical reality.

However, one may ask if the composite system as a whole, can—in the course of its time evolution—survive transition of the classical reality from one to another definition333 Using the above definitions: the “new” system S’ and E’ looses classical reality, while the “old” systems, now, bear classical reality. of the MPU. But this is nonphysical transition, for it cannot be observed. Actually, the conscious observer could never be aware of this transition, for the simple reason: according to the assumption (cf. Introduction) that consciousness bears a macroscopic (Raković and Dugić 2000; Dugić and Raković 2000) physical system as its origin, the transformation from one definition of MPU as a realistic system to another definition of the MPU bearing classical reality equally refers to the physical system which is the physical basis of consciousness. In other words, the different Universes define the different, mutually exclusive definitions of the systems, which the consciousness originates from.

This gives us a clue for the physical metatheory of consciousness: The different definitions of the MPU, bearing classical reality or not, in principle, define the different consciousness. The physical bases of consciousness in the different Universes (MPUs) are mutually exclusive, bearing the following substantial characteristics for each Universe: (i) consciousness (through its macroscopic-physics origin) can be defined only simultaneously with defining the rest of the MPU, and (ii) the different Universes define the different, mutually exclusive consciousness.

Therefore, consciousness, treated as a physical system, in the context of universally valid quantum mechanics is only a relative concept, its physical characteristics being determined by even remote pieces of the actual Universe. In practice, it means that observations in a given Universe can be performed only by the conscious beings physically (in the sense of our considerations) belonging to that Universe. This, the relative-metatheory of consciousness is a sort of psycho-physical parallelism bearing the holistic nature of the physical Universe, which naturally incorporates consciousness as its part (Wilber 1980; Hoyle 1982; Barrow and Tipler 1986).

In their lucid and instructive analysis of the collapse problem in quantum mechanics, Barrow and Tipler (1986, pp. 464-471) offer five basic avenues for solution. Apart from unattractive solipsism and Everett’s “no-collapse” theory (which does offer a host of interesting physical and philosophical issues, but is uninteresting from our present point of view), these authors suggest that either any being with consciousness can collapse the wave function by observations, or a “community” of such beings can collectively collapse it, or there is some sort of “ultimate Observer” who is responsible for the collapse. From the point of view exposed above, it is clear that the nature of MPU and its link with consciousness implies that we may reject the first option also. Moreover, it could be argued that our proposal accommodates both the second and the third options.444 Interestingly enough, these are the two options which—Barrow and Tipler lament—“have not been explored to any extent” (Barrow and Tipler 1986, p. 469).

In a sense, our suggestion is antithetical to the famous proposal of Eugene P. Wigner (i.e. Wigner 1967) that the linearity of the Schrödinger’s equation fails for conscious entities, and that there is some inherently non-linear procedure taking place inside those entities. As pointed out by Penrose (1979, p. 295), this reductionist picture leads to a rather disturbing view of the reality and actuality of the universe, since according to this view, by far the largest part of the universe will exist only as a network of linear superpositions. Our picture, on the contrary, automatically implies complete realism, even when applied to those parts of the universe not observed by us, but only implied in the definition of MPU.555 This applies to those parts of the universe unobservable by us in principle. For instance, if our universe possesses a particular kind of horizon, often called event (or de Sitter) horizon, galaxies, stars and possible intelligent beings beyond this horizon will be unobservable by us at all times, both at present and in arbitrarily distant future. However, our cosmological theories do suggest that such unobservable galaxies (and an infinite number of them!) are real.  This is certainly a strong merit in the holistic approach to both quantum mechanics and cosmology.

4. SOME COSMOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The view that macroscopic parts of our universe play a central role in physical understanding of consciousness may not be so surprising ultimo facie, especially if one takes seriously numerous anthropic “coincidences” playing a role in both classical and quantum cosmology (Carter 1974; Barrow and Tipler 1986). It is a well-known property of the universe that many of the model parameters in an envisaged complete physical description must be fine-tuned in order for life and sentience to be possible; among those are the total cosmological mass density $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, magnitude of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and strengths of various couplings (including the celebrated example of the fine-structure constant $`\alpha )`$. For instance, it is well-known that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (prima facie a random variable) has to be in a rather small interval between 0.1 and 10 for life (and, contingently, intelligence and self-awareness) as we know it to be possible.666 The total cosmological density O is a dimensionless quantity defined as the ratio of actual density of matter (including radiation and any yet-unknown matter particles and fields) to the critical density necessary for universe to recollapse under its own gravitational pull. Therefore, the universe will expand forever if O $``$ 1, and recollapse for O $`>`$ 1 (which should be taken with the grain of salt, since the matter fields with “exotic” properties may make the actual situation more complicated). That O is surprisingly close to unity (within one order of magnitude uncertainty) was first noted by Dicke in early 1960-ies (famous “Dicke coincidences” from cosmological textbooks). This is the source of ambiguity which dominated XX century cosmology concerning future of the universe: will it expand forever, or recollapse to future singularity of “Big Crunch”. The best contemporary evidence strongly suggests the former alternative, although this can not yet be firmly established.  Other parameters are even more tightly constrained: it has been argued that a change in magnitude of nuclear interaction coupling of only about 10% would make nucleosynthesis of elements necessary for life utterly impossible.

All these and many other examples testify on the fine-tuning present in the cosmological initial conditions, i.e. close to the Big Bang singularity. The similar, although less obvious conclusion applies to the issue of the arrow of time. As was first discussed by Wiener (1961), the existence of the time arrow as we perceive it around us is the necessary requisite for intelligence, and therefore presumably consciousness as well (see also the discussion in Barrow and Tipler 1986). However, there emerged a sort of consensus in last several decades on the crucial role played by cosmological initial conditions in determination of the arrow of time (Penrose 1979; Price 1996). Initial low-entropy state is a necessary requisite for subsequent flow of time; however, the real issue then becomes how such low-entropy state did come into being? The Penrose’s estimate of the probability of spontaneous regularization of Big Bang in order to match the low-entropy initial conditions—evolving towards the observed state—is astonishing (see Appendix II for technical details)

$$1\mathrm{part}\mathrm{in}10^{10^{123}}(!)$$
(1)
This stupendous volume of the parameter space not leading to emergence of intelligence and consciousness cannot fail to emphasize the highly special nature of the initial cosmological conditions. This result represents a good basis for our view of the role of cosmological boundary conditions in the future physical theory of consciousness.

However, this is not the end of the story. The role of MPU in the considerations above suggests that specific cosmological boundary conditions of some sort are necessary for the continuous existence of consciousness as we know it. Our conclusion is in accordance with the Empedoclean picture of contingency between physical and biological processes in the universe (e.g. Guthrie 1969). One example of such boundary condition is the Wheeler boundary condition, requiring that intelligent life selects out a single branch of the universal wave function from “smeared out” universe existing prior to the first measurement interaction. This serves as a physical basis for Wheeler’s so-called Participatory Anthropic Principle, which states that observers are necessary to bring universe into being (cf. Barrow and Tipler 1986). However, even a much weaker assumption could serve the same purpose in our picture.

As a consequence, one could conjecture that consciousness might be the essential property of Nature at different structural levels (macroscopic and microscopic, animate and inanimate), as widely claimed in traditional esoteric knowledge (Wilber 1980)—which might be supported by analogous mathematical formalisms of the dynamics of Hopfield’s associated neural networks and Feynman’s propagator version of quantum mechanics (Peruš 1996)—implying that ”collective consciousness” of Nature itself behaves as a giant nonlocal quantum neural network with distributed ”individual consciousness” processing units. Such nonlocal pantheistic idea of consciousness is also supported by Raković’s physical model of altered and transitional states of consciousness, explained in the Appendix III. In addition, this model might provide additional route to the physical solution of the problem of the wave-packet reduction in the quantum measurement theory (Raković and Dugić 2000).

This picture also offers significant new insights in the nascent field of physical eschatology—a rather young branch of astrophysics, dealing with the future fate of astrophysical objects, as well as the universe itself. Landmark studies in physical eschatology are those of Rees (1969), Dyson (1979), Tipler (1986) and Adams and Laughlin (1997). Some relevant issues were also discussed in the monograph of Barrow and Tipler (1986), as well as several popular-level books (e.g. Davies 1994). Since the distinction between knowledge in classical cosmology and physical eschatology depends on the distinction between past and future, several issues in the physics and philosophy of time are relevant to the assessment of eschatological results and vice versa. In addition, we need to take into account the almost trivial conclusion, explicitly formulated and defended by Dyson in his classical paper (Dyson 1979):

It is impossible to calculate in detail the long-range future of the universe without including the effects of life and intelligence. It is impossible to calculate the capabilities of life and intelligence without touching, at least peripherally, philosophical questions. If we are to examine how intelligent life may be able to guide the physical development of the universe for its own purposes, we cannot altogether avoid considering what the values and purposes of intelligent life may be. But as soon as we mention the words value and purpose, we run into one of the most firmly entrenched taboos of twentieth-century science.

Future of the universe containing life and intelligence is essentially different from the past of the same universe in which there were no such forms of complex organization of matter.777 In addition, the premise that MPU generates a particular form of consciousness immediately obviates the common form of counterfactual cosmological analysis of (tacitly assumed) “lifeless” universes. In this sense our statement agrees with the abovementioned continual presence of consciousness; while counterfactuals are essential to theoretical reasoning in physical sciences, it is crucial that they are understood as such. Consciousness is admittedly the most complex such form known, and therefore the issue of the future of the universe is inseparable from our understanding of the relationship between consciousness and the (macro)physical world. In particular, the relative definition of consciousness exposed above is subject to evolution describing large-scale structure of the universe, as studied in the eschatological discourse (cf. Tipler 1986).

5. DISCUSSION AND PROSPECTS

The process of decoherence is a realistic (objective) physical process. It particularly means that no ‘observer’ is required either for its unfolding, or for the final effect as it is strongly confirmed by the existing experiments (Devoret et al. 1985a,b; Brune et al. 1996; Amman et al. 1998). Therefore, our considerations refer to the objective effect of decoherence, and the above mentioned “psycho-physical parallelism” is not the one introduced by von Neumann and Wigner which assumes substantial role of consciousness in the process of quantum measurement. Particularly, in the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation of the measurement process it is assumed that consciousness is an external agency necessary and sufficient for the occurrence of the quantum-mechanical “collapse” of the quantum state of the object of measurement. In our considerations, consciousness is (cf. Introduction) treated through its physical basis as a macroscopic, i.e. an open quantum system, thus being a part of the “macroscopic piece of the Universe”, not the “external agency” as in the von Neumann-Wigner theory (Wigner 1967). Therefore, in the context of the universally valid quantum mechanics (which is precisely the context of the decoherence theory), one may not expect such a role of consciousness as regards the “collapse”. Rather, a new fundamental physical law is expectable in this regard (Leggett 1980; Prigogine 1997).

Starting point of our considerations is the issue of (non)occurrence of decoherence (of (non)establishing the classical reality for open quantum systems). It brought the relative-theory of consciousness. But now, in turn, one may note that consciousness is able to justify classical reality of the MPU as well as of the measured quantum observables. Methodologically speaking, this “two-direction” relation between classical reality and consciousness justifies consistency of our conclusions, and represents the main characteristic of “psycho-physical parallelism” as discussed above.

Interestingly enough, similar holistic thoughts and sentiments have been expressed (and rather conventionally disregarded) by undoubtedly one of the greatest physicists of all times, Erwin Schrödinger in his 1924. paper entitled “Bohr’s New Radiation Hypothesis and the Energy Law”. His words, in the colorful language of those formative years of modern science, sound appropriate for the conclusion of the present study (Schrödinger 1924):

Thus one can also say: a definite stability of the state of the world sub specie aeternitatis can only occur through the connection of each individual system with the whole rest of the world. The separated individual system would be, from the standpoint of the unity, a chaos. It requires the connection as a permanent regulator, without which, energetically considered, it would wander about at random. Is it an idle speculation, to find in this a similarity to social, ethical and cultural phenomena?

Acknowledgement: M.M.Ć. wishes to thank Prof. Petar Grujić for his wholehearted encouragement and support, as well as to Maja Bulatović and Vesna Milošević-Zdjelar for kind help in finding several important references.

APPENDIX I

To illustrate the transformations we have in mind (the so-called canonical transformations) we will use a simplified, unrealistic example (model).

Let us suppose that the (open) system S is defined by its “coordinate” $`x_S`$, while its environment is defined by its “coordinate” $`x_E`$. The transformations we have in mind are such that define the new (open) system S’ and its environment E’ that are defined by their “coordinates”:

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi _S^{}=\xi _S^{}(x_S,x_E)\hfill \\ \xi _E^{}=\xi _E^{}(x_S,x_E)\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
which states (mathematically) analytical dependence of the “coordinates” of the “new” systems, S’ and E’, on the “coordinates” of the old systems, S and E. We further suppose existence of the inverse relations:

$$\begin{array}{c}x_S=x_S(\xi _S^{},^{}\xi _E^{})\hfill \\ x_E=x_E(\xi _S^{},\xi _E^{})\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
in full analogy with (2). Needless to say, the composite system is one and the same, i.e. one may state: S+E = S’+E’.

Let us suppose that the interaction in the composite system, when expressed in terms of “coordinates” of the “old” systems (S and E) proves not to lead to decoherence, while when expressed in terms of “coordinates” of the “new” systems (S’ and E’), this interaction leads to decoherence, thus establishing (approximate) classical reality for the open system S’ (and, simultaneously, for its environment E’). Then the transition:

$$(x_S,x_E)\stackrel{canonicaltransformations}{}(\xi _S^{},\xi _E^{})$$
(4)
is physically substantial: due to the lack of classical reality of the “old” system (and its environment), it states that the inverse transformation to (4) is physically meaningless. Furthermore, due to the fact that the “new” composite system’s observables are subject to quantum uncertainty, the “old” composite system’ observables are unobservable.

Actually, the (quantum) measurements of the “old” observables, $`x_S,x_E`$ require simultaneous measurements of the “new” observables $`\xi _S^{},\xi _E^{}`$ \- which is forbidden by the uncertainty relations of the “new” observables.

Therefore, even if one may ascribe the (approximate) classical reality to the “new” system’s observables, this is not the case with the observables of the “old” systems in so far as the interaction between S and E does not lead to decoherence.

APPENDIX II

In this Appendix we would like to show how one obtains the most profound example of fine tuning, the one dealing with the regular nature of the Big Bang singularity discussed by Penrose (1989) and quoted above in (1).

The relevant measure of gravitational entropy is given, for the case of black hole, by the famous Bekenstein-Hawking formula (Bekenstein 1973; Hawking 1975):

$$S_{BH}=\frac{kc^3}{G\mathrm{}}\frac{A}{4}$$
(5)
where A is the black hole horizon surface area, and the rest are fundamental physical constants observed in the universe: $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`c`$ – velocity of light, $`G`$ – Newtonian gravitational constant, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Planck constant devided by $`2\pi `$. We perceive that the entropy of matter enclosed within horizon (not entering at all into a physical problem of the state of such collapsed matter) is proportional to the horizon surface area. In the simplest case, the one of spherically-symmetric black hole, horizon is the sphere with area A = 4$`\pi `$R2, where the relevant radius R is the Schwarschild radius, given as

$$R=\frac{2Gm}{c^2}$$
(6)
In this formula, $`m`$ is mass of the black hole (observable, for instance, through its gravitational attraction of other objects or even deflection of light rays). Combining this result with (5), we obtain the following expression for gravitational entropy as a function of mass:

$$S_{BH}=\frac{2\pi Gk}{\mathrm{}c}m^2$$
(7)
Now we are in position to calculate the gravitational entropy of the matter within our visual horizon if we could somehow collapse it into a single gigantic black hole (since we can reasonably estimate the mass of all matter within the horizon). It will be the maximal entropy state, since, as shown by Bekenstein, the state of matter in the black hole is the most probable one, as far as gravitational interaction is concerned. Any other state (for instance the one we observe at present, where matter is clumped in galaxies, stars, planets, etc. and there is just a small number of black holes) is a priori less probable. It is worth noticing, however, that in the context of contemporary relativistic cosmological models, such situation actually occurred in the past: all matter within our visual horizon today was within the initial Big Bang singularity, which has much in common with the (local) black hole singularities.

Finally, to establish quantitatively how much less probable is the observed entropy in comparison to (7), we need the historically all-important Shannon formula, giving the relationship between entropy and information (Shannon 1948):

$$S=k\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{ln}p_i,$$
(8)
where $`p_i`$ is the probability of system considered being in state $`i`$.888 It is worth noticing that there is some ambiguity in the literature, which concept of entropy is the more “fundamental” one and therefore (8) is sometimes written without the Boltzmann constant $`k`$, and it is said that the Shannon entropy for thermodynamical systems is equal to the fine-grained entropy in units of $`k`$. We neglect this rather semantic issue in the present discussion.  Even on a qualitative level, it is clear that the presence of logarithm in (8) is the source of huge exponential terms such as the one in eq. (1). It gives us a proper lever to compare our universe with the case in which all matter within our horizon is located in black holes. It comes out that, as Penrose (1989) discusses, our universe is of so small entropy compared to the generic one, that the probability of its reaching the observed state is stupendously small, as in (1). This is, as correctly emphasized by Penrose and Price, not only a source of cosmological, but probably all other arrows of time as well, and a profound example of fine-tuning to be accounted for by unified field theories of the near future.

APPENDIX III

The goal of this Appendix is to qualitatively sketch the model of transitional states of consciousness developed by Raković (1995; Raković et al. 2000). Namely, these states might be deeply connected with the role of ”collective consciousness” (as a composite quantum state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of all ”individual consciousness” $`\varphi _k`$: $`\mathrm{\Phi }\underset{k}{}\varphi _k)`$ in the quantum theory of measurement, where ”collective consciousness” with its assembling (equivalent to convergence of Feynman’s propagator quantum mechanics to one of its propagators, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ contributes in channeling reduction of initial wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ into one of (possible) probabilistic eigenstates $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ \- which implies that ”collapse” could be related with generation of microparticles’ local wormholes in highly noninertial microparticle’s interactions in quantum measurement situations (fully equivalent to extremely strong gravitational fields according to Einstein’s Principle of equivalence, where relativistic generation of wormholes is predicted; cf. Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever 1988; Thorne 1994). In a similar vein, in the Penrose’s gravitationally induced collapse (e.g. Penrose 1994) the very mechanism for this process could be continuous opening and closing of local microparticle’s wormholes, addresses of their exits being related (probabilistically) to one of (possible) eigenstates $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ of corresponding quantum system—and everything being related to corresponding (probabilistic) assembling $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$$``$$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ of ”collective consciousness”, thus channeling the collapse $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$$``$$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$.

The question how it is possible that these highly noninertial microparticles’ processes with inevitable relativistic generation of microparticles’ wormholes and other envisaged quantum-gravitational effects were not taken into account within quantum mechanics which is yet extremely accurate theory—might be answered as it was, but within the ad hoc von Neumann’s ”projection postulate” (von Neumann 1955) to account for quantum-mechanical ”wave packet collapse” in quantum measurement situations (implying also that this ad hoc procedure is based on quantum gravitational phenomena, as suggested by Penrose, being on deeper physical level than quantum mechanical ones!). On the other hand, the nonlocality of usually conceived ”collective consciousness” provides additional evidence for the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics—otherwise demonstrated by tests of Bell’s inequalities and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect (Bell 1987; Aspect, Dalibard, and Roger 1982).

It should be also pointed out that the above ”collective consciousness”’ assembling $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(i=1,2,3\mathrm{})`$ in quantum theory of measurement should be interpreted as purely probabilistic (with relative frequency of their appearance given by quantum-mechanical probability $`\left|a_i\right|^2`$ of realization of corresponding microparticles’ eigenstates $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i}{}a_i\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i)`$, depending not on the previous history of the repeatedly prepared quantum system. However, this might not be the case for biological ”individual consciousness”’ assembling, being history-dependent deterministic one (resulting in deterministic convergence of the consciousness-related-acupuncture electromagnetic/ionic microwave ultra-low frequency-modulated oscillatory holographic Hopfield-like associative neural network to the particular attractor in the potential hypersurface (Jovanović-Ignjatić and Raković 1999; Raković et al. 2000), or equivalently to deterministic convergence of Feynman’s propagator quantum mechanics to the particular propagator corresponding to $`\varphi _k`$, fixedly determined by ”individual consciousness”), implying that strong preferences in individual futures might exist, governed by individual mental loads, as widely claimed in Eastern tradition (Wilber 1980; Vujičin 1996). The same may apply to collective futures $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, also governed by interpersonal mental loads (Raković 2000). It should be also noted that these preferences in individual and collective futures might be anticipated in transitional states of consciousness that might be the basis of intuition, precognition and deep creative insights (Jahn 1982). What is really anticipated in transitional states of consciousness of ”individual consciousness” might be the evolved state of cosmic ”collective consciousness” $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$(t) (to which our ”individual consciousness” $`\varphi _k`$ has access, being the presumed constituting part of cosmic ”collective consciousness”), which is quantum-mechanically described by deterministic unitary evolution governed by the Schrödinger equation.

A hypothesis that nonlocal individual/collective consciousness re-assembling ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$$``$$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ is possible, with direct influence on the collapse of the observed system ($`\mathrm{\Psi }`$$``$$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i)`$, might be also supported by Princeton PEAR human/machine experiments (Jahn and Dunne 1988), where (even distant) human operators, solely by volition, have been able to influence the sophisticated machines with (otherwise) strictly random outputs, in a statistically repeatable effects (of the order of a few parts in ten thousand) - but individually not reproducible at any moment, which is a standard request in contemporary scientific experiments. All this can be accounted by intentional transitional transpersonal biological (non-Schrödinger governed) quantum gravitational tunneling of the ”operator’s individual consciousness” with mental addressing on the ”machine’s content of collective consciousness”, channeling intentionally the ”operator/machine composite state of collective consciousness” ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$$``$$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$, thus automatically influencing the machine output ($`\mathrm{\Psi }`$$``$$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i)`$ in the non-Schrödinger quantum-gravitationally governed collapse-like process ($`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$$``$$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i)`$. As a consequence one could further support the conjecture that consciousness might be essential property of Nature at different structural levels, macroscopic and microscopic, animate and inanimate, being presumably related to the unified field itself (Hagelin 1987).

REFERENCES

Adams, F. C. and Laughlin, G. 1997, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 337.

Amman H. et al. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4111.

Aspect, A., Dalibard, J. and Roger, G. 1982, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804.

Barrow, J. D. and Tipler, F. J. 1986, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press, New York).

Bekenstein, J. D. 1973, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333.

Bell, J. S. 1987, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

Brune M. et al. 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4887.

Carter, B. 1974, in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, ed. by Leslie, J. (1990, Macmillan, London), 131.

Ćirković, M. M. 2001, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, submitted for publication.

Ćirković, M. M. and Bostrom, N. 2000, Astrophys. Space Sci. 274, 675.

Davies, P. C. W. 1994, The Last Three Minutes (Basic Books, New York).

D’Espagnat B. 1971, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin, Reading, MA).

Devoret M.H. et al. 1985a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1543.

Devoret M.H. et al. 1985b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1908.

Dugić, M. 1996, Physica Scripta 53, 9.

Dugić, M. 1997a, Physica Scripta 56, 560.

Dugić, M. 1997b, A Contribution to the Foundations of the Theory of Decoherence in Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Science, University of Kragujevac (in Serbian).

Dugić M. 1998, J. Res. Phys. 27, 141.

Dugić, M. and Raković, D. 2000, Eur. Phys. J. B 13, 781.

Dugić, M., Raković, D., and Ćirković, M. M. 2000, I. Kononenko, ed., Proceedings of New Science of Consciousness (Information Society, Ljubljana).

Dyson, F. 1979, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 447.

Edmonds, R. 1999, Foundations of Science 4, 57.

Giulini, D., Joos, E., Kiefer, C., Kupsch, J., Stamatescu, I.-O. and Zeh, H. D. 1996, Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory (Springer, Berlin).

Guthrie, W. K. C. 1969, A History of Greek Philosophy II (Cambridge University Press, London).

Hagelin, J. S. 1987, Modern Sci. & Vedic Sci. 1, 29.

Hawking, S. W. 1975, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199.

Hoyle, F. 1982, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 20, 1.

Jahn, R. G. 1982, Proc. IEEE 70, 136.

Jahn, J. R. and Dunne, B. J. 1988, Margins of Reality (Harcourt Brace, New York).999 In connection with this reference, see also many archival publications and technical reports by PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research); relevant pointers are on the following WWW address: www.princeton.edu/$``$rdnelson/pear.html.

Jovanović-Ignjatić, Z. and Raković, D. 1999, Acup. & Electro-Therap. Res. Int. J. 24, 105

Landauer, R. 1967, IEEE Spectrum, September, 105.

Leggett A.J. 1980, Prog. Theor Phys. Suppl. 64, 80.

Morris, M. S., Thorne, K. S. and Yurtsever, U. 1988, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1446.

Omnes, R. 1994, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton).

Penrose, R. 1979, in General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary, ed. by Hawking, S. W. and Israel, W. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 581.

Penrose, R. 1989, The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

Penrose, R. 1994, Shadows of the Mind. A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994).

Peruš, M. 1996, Informatica 20, 173.

Prigogine I. 1997, The End of Certainty (The Free Press, New York).

Price, H. 1996, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

Raković, D. 1995, in D. Raković and Dj. Koruga, eds., Consciousness: Scientific Challenge of the 21st Century (ECPD, Belgrade).

Raković, D. 2000, Int. J. Appl. Sci. & Computations 7, 174.

Raković, D. et al. 2000, Electro- and Magnetobiology 19, 195.

Raković, D. and Dugić, M. 2000, Informatica, in press.

Rees, M. J. 1969, Observatory 89, 193.

Schrödinger, E. 1924, Naturwiss. 12, 720.

Shannon, C. E. 1948, The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379.

Thorne, K. S. 1994, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy (Picador, London).

Tipler, F. J. 1986, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 25, 617.

von Neumann, J. 1955, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton).

Vujičin, P. 1995, in D. Raković and Dj. Koruga, eds., Consciousness: Scientific Challenge of 21st Century (ECPD, Belgrade).

Wigner, E. P. 1967, Symmetries and Reflections (Indiana University Press, Bloomington).

Wilber, K. 1980, The Atman Project (Quest, Wheaton, IL).

Zurek, W. H. 1982, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1862.

Zurek, W. H. 1991, Physics Today 48, 36.

Zurek, W. H. 1993, Prog. Theor. Phys. 89, 281.