format: text

text:
# Dynamics of a period-three pattern loaded Bose-Einstein condensate in an optical lattice

## I Introduction

An optical lattice is a periodic potential formed by the ac-starkshift at the intersection region of two far detuned laser fields. A Bose-Einstein condensate loaded into such an optical lattice is a useful system for studying and controlling the dynamics of ultra-cold atoms. In this system experimental studies in the meanfield regime have provided elegant demonstrations of band structure Anderson and Kasevich (1998); Greiner et al. (2001); Denschlag et al. (2002) and quantum chaos Hensinger et al. (2001), and have considered the effects of nonlinearity on the condensate dynamics Morsch et al. (2001); Burger et al. (2001); Morsch et al. (2002). By suitably loading a condensate into deep optical lattices, number squeezing Orzel et al. (2001) and the Mott-Insulator transition Greiner et al. (2002) have been observed.

In this paper, we investigate a Bose-Einstein condensate loaded into every third site of an optical lattice, motivated by the recent experimental realization of this system by the NIST group Peil et al. . In that experiment a combination of two independently controlled lattices was used to prepare the condensate into every third site of a single lattice. Briefly the procedure consists of loading a condensate into the ground band of lattice with periodicity $`3a`$, so that the condensate is well localized in the potential minima of this lattice. A second lattice of periodicity $`a`$ which is parallel to the first lattice, is then ramped up so that the superimposed light potentials form a *super-lattice* of period $`3a`$. For the ideal case both lattice potentials are in-phase, and the addition of the second lattice will not shift the locations of the potential minima from those of the first lattice alone and the condensate will remain localized at these positions. Finally, by removing the first period-$`3a`$ lattice on a time scale long compared to band excitations, but short compared to the characteristic time of transport within the lattice, the condensate will be left in every third site of the period-$`a`$ lattice.

A condensate loaded in this way is not an eigenstate of the final period-$`a`$ lattice, and the condensate will continue to evolve in the final system. Outside the strongly correlated regime (where the depletion becomes large Rey and *et al.* (2002)) the Gross-Pitaevskii equation is expected to give a good description of the condensate dynamics, and has been applied to the lattice system Choi and Niu (1999); Bronski et al. (2001). In our system we assume the lattice is sufficiently deep that a tight binding description is applicable, and the Gross-Pitaevskii equation can be reduced to a discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation involving only an onsite nonlinear interaction and nearest neighbor tunneling. For the periodic initial condition of equal wavefunction amplitude every third site and zero at all others, symmetry arguments can be used to reduce the wavefunction evolution to a two mode problem (analogous to a double well system with an energy offset) for which an analytic solution of the dynamics can be given. We show that for large ratios of the interatomic interaction strength to tunneling energy the condensate evolves with self-maintained population imbalance, whereby the condensate population tends to remain localized in the initially occupied lattice sites. A similar phenomenon has been studied in double wells systems Raghavan et al. (1999a); Marino et al. (1999); Raghavan et al. (1999b); Smerzi and Raghavan (2000); Giovanazzi et al. (2000). We show that the momentum distribution of an interacting condensate changes in time in a manner which can be related to the spatial tunneling of condensate, and would be a suitable experimental observable.

Under the influence of an external force a Bloch state will accelerate until it reaches the zone edge where it will Bragg scatter to the opposite side of the Brillouin zone. This periodic motion, known as Bloch oscillations, has been observed in systems of cold atoms Dahan et al. (1996) and Bose-Einstein condensates in optical lattices Morsch et al. (2001); Denschlag et al. (2002). To illustrate how a linear potential affects the motion of a pattern loaded condensate we find analytic solutions for the noninteracting case with periodic initial condition and show how the dynamics for this system can be interpreted in terms of the interference of three Bloch states of the lowest band Bloch oscillating in unison. We present numerical results for more general (non-periodic) initial conditions and consider characteristic properties of the momentum distribution.

In Section II we start by reviewing the basic formalism of a Bose-Einstein condensate in an optical lattice in the tight binding approximation. In Section III we study the dynamics for the case when only the optical potential is present. We discuss a periodic model and compare its predictions with numerical simulations for more general initial conditions. In section IV we consider the dynamics of a Bose-Einstein condensate in the lattice with the presence of constant external force.

## II Tight binding description of a BEC in an optical lattice

The dynamics of a condensate in the lattice can be modelled by the 1D Gross-Pitaevskii equation

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^2}}+V_0\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\lambda }}x\right)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (1)
$`+V_{\mathrm{Ext}}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }+N{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_1}{M}}\left|\mathrm{\Phi }\right|^2\mathrm{\Phi },`$
where $`V_{\mathrm{Ext}}(x)`$ is the external potential, $`V_0`$ is the depth of the optical potential which is determined by the intensity of the laser beams, $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of the lasers, $`a_1`$ is the 1D renormalized scattering length with dimension of an inverse length (which we obtain by requiring that the value of the chemical potential for the 3D system matches the 1D chemical potential Chiofalo and Tosi (2000), $`M`$ is the atomic mass and $`N`$ the total number of atoms.

In the tight-binding approximation, valid if the height of the lattice is higher than the chemical potential at each well, the 1D condensate order parameter can be expanded in a Wannier basis keeping only the lowest band Ziman (1964):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)=\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_n(t)\varphi _n(x),$$
(2)
where $`\varphi _n(x)=\varphi (xna)`$ is the condensate Wannier function centered on the nth lattice site, with $`𝑑x\varphi _n(x)\varphi _{n+1}^{}(x)`$ $`=0`$ and $`𝑑x|\varphi _n(x)|^2=1`$, $`a=\lambda /2`$ is the lattice constant, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(t)`$ is the nth amplitude. Replacing this ansatz in Eq. 1, the Gross-Pitaevskii equation reduces to the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation and the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ satisfy:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_n}{t}=J(\mathrm{\Psi }_{n1}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1})+(ϵ_n+NU|\mathrm{\Psi }_n|^2)\mathrm{\Psi }_n,$$
(3)
where $`U=(4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_1/M)𝑑x|\varphi _n|^4`$ is the strength of the on-site repulsion of two atoms occupying the lattice site $`n`$, $`ϵ_n=V_{\mathrm{Ext}}(x)|\varphi _n|^2𝑑x`$ describes the energy offset of each lattice site $`n`$, and $`J=\varphi _{n+1}^{}[(\mathrm{}^2/2M)(^2/x^2)+V_0\mathrm{sin}^2(2\pi x/\lambda )]\varphi _n𝑑x`$ is the hopping matrix element between adjacent sites. As shown in Ref. Trombettoni and Smerzi (2001a, b) , Eq. (3) can be seen as an equation of motion $`i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_n/t=H/\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}`$, derived from a Hamiltonian function $`H`$ given by

$$H=\underset{n}{}J\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_n\right)+ϵ_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_n|^2+\frac{NU}{2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_n|^4,$$
(4)
with $`i\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ treated as canonically conjugate variables. Both the Hamiltonian $`H`$ and the norm $`_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_n|^2=1`$ are conserved quantities.

The major interest of this paper is in the tunneling properties of the condensate in the lattice, and in the noninteracting case the time scale for tunneling is determined by the hopping matrix element $`J`$. For this reason it is convenient to define a new scale of time $`\tau =Jt/\mathrm{}`$, and energies $`E_n=ϵ_n/J`$ and coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=NU/J`$. In terms of these new variables the tight binding evolution equation (3) takes the form

$$i\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_n}{\tau }=(\mathrm{\Psi }_{n1}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1})+(E_n+\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi }_n|^2)\mathrm{\Psi }_n,$$
(5)
## III Case of no external potential

### III.1 The case of periodic initial conditions: reduction to a two mode system

The stationary states and other aspects of the dynamics of Eq. (5) have been discussed by others previously Trombettoni and Smerzi (2001b, a); Wu et al. (2002). We are motivated by recent experiments to treat the case of the particular nonstationary state described in the introduction, in which a condensate is initially loaded into every third site of an optical lattice. We treat first a model case in which no external potential is present, ($`E_n=0`$), and in which the initial occupancies of each third site are the same, and in which the condensate initially has a uniform phase. At $`\tau =0`$, the amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\tau )`$ are given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\rho },`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n+1}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n+2}(0)=0,`$ (7)
where $`N\rho `$ is the initial number of atoms per occupied site. This initial condition is homogeneous in the sense that each occupied site has the same amplitude and phase along the length of the lattice. For an infinite lattice, or one with periodic boundary conditions, the amplitudes for all initially occupied sites ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n}`$) evolve identically in time, and the amplitudes for the initially unoccupied sites satisfy $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n+1}(\tau )=\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n+2}(\tau )`$ for all $`\tau `$ and all $`n`$. This allows us to reduce the full set of equations (5) to a set of two coupled equations

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_0,`$ (8)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_1}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\mathrm{\Psi }_0)+\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_1,`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n}\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n+1}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n+2}\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ for all $`n`$. The normalization condition is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2+2|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2=\rho .$$
(10)
The Hamiltonian function, $`H`$, of this system is (from Eq. 4)

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{\rho }}(2(\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{})2|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^4`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^4)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho }{2}}.`$
By writing $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$=$`\psi _0\sqrt{\rho }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$=$`\psi _1\sqrt{\rho /2}`$, we can transform Eqs. (8)-(9) to the form

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _0\\ \psi _1\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma |\psi _0|^2& \sqrt{2}\\ \sqrt{2}& \gamma \frac{|\psi _1|^2}{\sqrt{2}}1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _0\\ \psi _1\end{array}\right),`$ (18)
where $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho `$ is the ratio of on-site repulsion to tunneling energies, and the normalization condition (10) is now $`|\psi _0|^2+|\psi _1|^2=1`$. The factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ difference in the definition of $`\psi _0`$ and $`\psi _1`$ arises because $`\psi _1`$ represents the amplitude of the two initially unoccupied sites. With this factor incorporated, the matrix appearing in Eq. (18) is explicitly Hermitian. We note this equation of motion is identical to that for a condensate in a double well trap in the two mode approximation Milburn et al. (1997); Smerzi et al. (1997).

We note in passing that a similar reduction, to a system of $`[m/2]+1`$ equations, exists for lattice systems that are loaded such that only every $`m`$-th site is initially occupied.

### III.2 Solution of the equations of motion

It is convenient to write the lattice site amplitudes appearing in Eqs. (8) and (9) as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$=$`fe^{i\theta _0}\sqrt{\rho }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$= $`ge^{i\theta _1}\sqrt{\rho }`$, where $`f,g`$, and $`\theta `$ are real. By introducing the phase difference $`\varphi =\theta _0\theta _1`$, Eqs. (8), (9) and (III.1) can be recast as

$`\stackrel{.}{f}`$ $`=`$ $`2g\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{.}{g}`$ $`=`$ $`f\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`4fg\mathrm{cos}\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\left(f^4+2g^4\right)2g^2,`$ (21)
The analytic solutions of Eqs. (19)-(21), found using a procedure similar to that presented by Raghavan *et al.* Raghavan et al. (1999a), can be expressed in terms of Weierstrassian elliptic functions $`\mathrm{}(\tau ;g_2,g_3)`$ Abramowitz and Stegun (1964). The analytic solutions are

$`f(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{24}{12\mathrm{}(\tau ;g_2,g_3)+(9+2\gamma +\gamma ^2)}},}`$ (22)
$`g(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1f(t)^2}{2}},}`$ (23)
where the parameters g2 and g3 are given by

$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(8114\gamma ^2+4\gamma ^3+\gamma ^4\right)/12,`$ (24)
$`g_3`$ $`=`$ $`\left(729+243\gamma ^246\gamma ^315\gamma ^4+\gamma ^6\right)/216.`$ (25)
The solutions $`f(\tau )`$ and $`g(\tau )`$ are oscillatory functions whose amplitudes and common period, $`T(\gamma )`$, are determined by the parameter $`\gamma `$ (see Figs. 1 and 2). It is useful to qualitatively divide this behavior into two regimes, separated by $`\gamma =2`$. Analysis of Eqs. (19) - (21) shows that $`f(\tau _0)=g(\tau _0)`$ for some value of $`\tau _0`$ when $`\gamma 2`$, and for $`\gamma >2`$, $`f(\tau )>g(\tau )`$ for all $`\tau `$.

#### III.2.1 The tunneling dominated regime

For $`\gamma 2`$, we find that the oscillation period is essentially constant (see Fig. 1).

In this case the role of interactions is relatively small, and the behavior can be approximately understood by taking $`\gamma =0`$, in which case the matrix of Eq. (18) is constant in time. The equations of motion in this case are equivalent to those of a two-state Rabi problem Cohen-Tannoudji et al. (1977), where the two levels are coupled by a Rabi frequency of strength $`\sqrt{2}`$, which is detuned from resonance by $`1`$. This system will undergo Rabi oscillations whereby atoms periodically tunnel from the initially occupied site into the two neighboring sites. Because the coupling is detuned from resonance the transfer of populations between wells is incomplete, with $`|\psi _1|^2`$ attaining a maximum value of $`8/9`$. The Rabi model predicts that the cycling frequency between the levels is equal to the difference between the eigenvalues of the matrix of matrix of Eq. (18), which gives the period of oscillation as $`T_{\mathrm{Rabi}}=2\pi /3`$ in units of $`\mathrm{}/J`$ (see Fig. 1).

#### III.2.2 Interaction dominated regime

The effect of interactions on the mean-field dynamics is to cause the energies of the initially occupied sites to shift relative to those of the unoccupied sites. As $`\gamma `$ increases and this energy shift increases relative to the strength of coupling between sites, the tunneling between sites occurs at a higher frequency, but with reduced amplitude. The population of the initially occupied sites becomes self trapped by the purely repulsive pair interaction, which in the context of a double well system has been called “macroscopic quantum self trapping” Smerzi et al. (1997). This is demonstrated quantitatively in Fig. 2 where we plot the minimum value of $`f^2`$ occurring during the oscillation as a function of $`\gamma `$. In contrast to the tunneling dominated regime, where tunneling periodically populates all sites equally, the condensate tends to be localized on the initially occupied sites in the interaction-dominated regime.

### III.3 Momentum space dynamics

Typically the spacing between individual wells in an optical lattice is too small to resolve the localized density distributions of atoms in neighboring sites using standard imaging techniques.

The momentum distribution is a more convenient observable which approximately corresponds to the expanded spatial distribution of the released condensate. Here we calculate the momentum dynamics of the condensate loaded into every third site of an optical lattice, and show how this relates to evolution of the spatial amplitudes given in Eqs. (22) and (23).

In the tight binding approximation the condensate order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\tau )`$ is expressed as a sum over the lattice sites (2). Because of the periodicity of the system, the momentum space wavefunction, which we denote as $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k,\tau )`$, is expressible as the Fourier series

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k,\tau )=\underset{m}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_m(\tau )e^{ikam}\chi (k),$$
(26)
where

$$\chi (k)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{ikx}\varphi _0(x)𝑑x.$$
(27)
To compute the momentum distribution, we invoke the identity $`_{n=0}^{N_\mathrm{s}1}e^{ikna}=N_\mathrm{s}\delta _{k,2\pi m/a}`$, where $`N_\mathrm{s}`$ is the number of lattice sites, and $`m`$ an integer. Since there are only two independent amplitudes in the set $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_m\}`$, we find that

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3/\rho }c_m(\tau )\chi _m\delta _{k,qm/3},`$
$`\chi _m`$ $`=`$ $`\chi (qm/3),`$ (28)
$`c_m(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\rho }}}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_0+\mathrm{\Psi }_1e^{iqm/3}+\mathrm{\Psi }_2e^{i2qm/3}\right),`$
where $`q`$ is the reciprocal lattice vector $`q=2\pi /a`$. The momentum distribution of the system has very sharp peaks of relative amplitude $`|c_m|^2`$ at momentum $`k=qm/3`$, arising from the $`3`$-lattice site spatial periodicity of the condensate wavefunction. In addition, $`\chi _m`$ describes a slowly varying envelope determined by the localization of the Wannier states at each lattice site.

Using the analytic solutions for $`f`$ and $`g`$, and Eq. (21), we obtain only two independent Fourier amplitudes

$`|c_{3n}(\tau )|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}}(3f^2+1)(f^21)\right),`$ (29)
$`|c_{3n+1}(\tau )|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{8}}(3f^2+1)(f^21)\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`|c_{3n+2}(\tau )|^2`$ (31)
In the reduced zone scheme, where we only consider momenta in the range $`k[q/2,q/2]`$, the momentum wavefunction then consists of three peaks corresponding to Bloch states of quasimomenta $`0,\pm q/3`$. The identical behavior of $`|c_{3n+1}|^2`$ and $`|c_{3n+2}|^2`$ means that the $`\pm q/3`$ peaks always have the same intensity. If interactions between the atoms are ignored (i.e. $`\gamma =0`$), the momentum components are constant in time (see Eqs. (29) and (30)), even though tunneling occurs between the lattice sites. However, when interactions are considered, the momentum intensities explicitly depend on the occupations of each site and will vary in time when tunneling occurs. The magnitude of the time variation of the $`|c_n|^2`$ is proportional to $`\gamma `$, but will reduce for sufficiently large values of $`\gamma `$, where the self-trapping effect causes the tunneling between lattice sites to stop (i.e. $`f^21`$ at all times). In Fig. 3 we show the maximum contrast between the intensity of the Fourier peaks, defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}(|c_1|^2|c_0|^2)_{\mathrm{max}}`$, where the value is maximized by evaluating the $`|c_n|^2`$ at the time when $`f`$ takes its minimum value (we note that $`f(\tau )`$ is given by Eq. (22)). We note that the maximum contrast occurs for $`\gamma 3.9`$; in this case, the zero quasi-momentum component $`c_0(\tau )`$ vanishes once during each period of oscillation $`T(\gamma )`$. For values of $`\gamma `$ greater than $`3.9`$ the contrast between the intensities starts to decrease due to the reduction in tunneling caused by the nonlinearity- induced self-trapping.

### III.4 Application to an inhomogeneous condensate

Here we wish to consider the dynamics for an inhomogeneous condensate, applicable to a condensate initially prepared in a harmonic trap. For the pattern loaded condensate, we use inhomogeneous to refer to the overall spatial envelope of the period three initial condition. The previous homogeneous theory we have presented is expected to accurately describe inhomogeneous cases when the initial pattern of population in every third site extends over many lattice sites i.e. $`N_\mathrm{s}1`$ so that mean-field energy associated with each triplet of sites $`U(n)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}_{i=1}^3|\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n+i}|^4`$ varies slowly across the system. Taking as a particular example we choose a gaussian envelope to the periodic arrangement of atoms into every third site, so that the initial state is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n+1}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n+2}(0)=0,`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi N_\mathrm{s}^2}}\right]^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}((9n/N_\mathrm{s})^2).`$ (33)
For the simulations shown here, the parameters used were $`N=10^5`$, $`N_\mathrm{s}=76`$, $`U=2.11\times 10^5E_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`J=0.075E_\mathrm{R}`$, where $`E_\mathrm{R}=h^2/8Ma^2`$ is the lattice recoil energy; these correspond to a condensate of $`10^5`$ atoms of 87Rb produced in a magnetic trap with axial and radial frequencies of $`9`$ and $`12`$ Hz respectively, and loaded into a lattice of counter-propagating light $`785`$nm of depth $`4.5E_\mathrm{R}`$, with $`E_\mathrm{R}=2.2`$kHz. These parameters are typical of the experimental regime, but also lie in a range in which the homogeneous model is expected to give a fair description. The total number of occupied wells and the strength of the on site interatomic interaction were calculated by preserving the value of chemical potential of the system upon reduction to one spatial dimension and by assuming that each of the localized orbitals in the tight binding description are Gaussian. The hopping rate $`J`$ was estimated by using Mathieu functions. In Fig. 4 we show the evolution of the population of the central wells (normalized to one) compared with the homogeneous model with $`\gamma `$ taken to be the local mean-field energy $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\left(9/N_\mathrm{s}\right)`$.

Figure 4, shows the results of numerical integration of the equations of motion and the approximate analytical solution given by the quasi-homogeneous model described above. We see that the numerical and analytical results agree well at short times, but differ more as time progresses due to the different mean-field seen by different wells.

To understand the disagreement as time evolves, we show in Fig. 5 the numerical Fourier spectrum for the inhomogeneous case evaluated at several different times. The variation of the intensities of the peaks, which, as shown below, is related to the spatial tunneling between lattice sites in the presence of the mean field, can be seen in the plot. Initially all occupied sites are in phase and the three distinctive momentum peaks have a narrow width determined by the intrinsic momentum uncertainty of the condensate envelope.That is the reason why the homogeneous model fits very well. However, as time progresses the meanfield variation across the lattice causes the tunneling rates to vary with position and leads to the momentum peaks broadening. The homogeneous description then, starts not to be very accurate.

We note that momentum space signature for spatially tunneling in the interacting system is still present in the inhomogeneous case. This is shown in Fig. 6, where we plot the evolution of the quantities $`|c_{3n}(\tau )|^2`$, $`|c_{3n+1}(\tau )|^2`$, $`|c_{3n+2}(\tau )|^2`$ (calculated from the numerical simulation by partitioning the numerical Fourier spectrum in three equal non overlapping sections, each centered around the respective peak and adding the square of the norm of the Fourier components within each section) vs. the ones calculated with the homogeneous model, but using an averaged value $`\gamma _{\mathrm{ave}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_n|^4`$ instead of $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho `$. It can be observed that the predictions of the simple model are in very good agreement with the numerical results when the three peaks of the spectrum are well defined. For longer times, the width of the Fourier peaks increases, until a point when they split. At this point the quantities $`|c_{3n}(\tau )|^2`$, $`|c_{3n+1}(\tau )|^2`$, $`|c_{3n+2}(\tau )|^2`$ are not meaningful anymore. Because the parameters used for the numerical calculations were chosen to be experimentally achievable, and as shown in the plots the model predictions are fair at least for one period of oscillation, we conclude that Fourier distribution can be used as a signature of the mean-field quantum tunneling inhibition.

## IV Dynamics with a constant external force

### IV.1 Homogeneous three state model

In this section we consider the dynamics of a periodically loaded condensate in the presence of a linear external potential, corresponding to a uniform force parallel to the lattice. In what follows we assume that the force is sufficiently weak that band excitations due to Landau-Zener tunneling is negligible, so that a tight binding picture of the lowest band is sufficient to describe the dynamics. In this case the evolution equation differs from what we considered in the previous section by the term $`E_n`$ in Eq. (5) taking the form $`E_n=n\xi `$, where $`\xi `$ is the potential difference between lattice sites (in units of the hopping matrix element $`J`$). Taking the initial conditions (6)-(7), and transforming the Wannier amplitudes as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{3n+j}(\tau )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+j}(\tau )e^{i3n\xi \tau }`$ $`(j=0,1,2)`$, we obtain the evolution equations

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n}}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n1}e^{i3\xi \tau }+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+1})`$ (34)
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n}|^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n},`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+1}}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+2}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n})+\xi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+1}`$ (35)
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+1}|^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+1},`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+2}}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+1}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+3}e^{i3\xi \tau })+2\xi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+1}`$ (36)
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+1}|^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+1},`$
Assuming periodic boundary conditions, the periodicity of the initial conditions and equations of evolution allow considerable simplification from the full set of $`3T`$ coupled equations. In particular these assumptions mean that every third Wannier amplitude evolves identically (i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n+3}`$) and so the evolution of the system can hence be reduced to the three independent equations

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2e^{i3\xi \tau }+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1)+\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0,`$ (37)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0)+\xi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1|^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1,`$ (38)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2}{\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0e^{i3\xi \tau })+2\xi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2`$ (39)
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2|^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2,`$
where the new amplitudes map onto the original set according to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n}\}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+1}\}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{3n+2}\}`$, and obey the normalization condition

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{2}{}}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j|^2=\frac{1}{T}.$$
(40)
The equations of motion (37)-(39) are more difficult to treat analytically than the case considered in the last section due to the presence of a linear potential. In this paper we derive an analytic solution for a noninteracting condensate (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0), which provides valuable insight into the complicated tunneling dynamics the system exhibits in the absence of nonlinearity, yet should furnish a good description for dilute condensates satisfying $`\gamma 1`$. For the nonlinear regime we present numerical results to illustrate typical behavior.

### IV.2 Analytic solution for linear dynamics

Defining the vector $`𝐱(t)=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0(\tau ),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(\tau ),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(\tau ))`$, and using the transformation $`𝐲(\tau )=P(\tau )𝐱(\tau )`$, where $`P(\tau )`$ is the unitary matrix

$$P(\tau )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ e^{i\xi \tau }& e^{i(\xi \tau \frac{2\pi }{3})}& e^{i(\xi \tau +\frac{2\pi }{3})}\\ e^{i2\xi \tau }& e^{i(2\xi \tau +\frac{2\pi }{3})}& e^{i(2\xi \tau \frac{2\pi }{3})}\end{array}\right),$$
(41)
the linear version of Eqs. (37)-(39) can be decoupled, directly yielding the solutions

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{in\xi \tau }}{3\sqrt{T}}}(e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\tau )}+e^{i\left(\frac{2n\pi }{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\tau )\right)}`$ (42)
$`+e^{i\left(\frac{2n\pi }{3}+\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\tau )\right)}),`$
where we have defined the phase terms

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\xi }}\left[\mathrm{sin}(\xi \tau {\displaystyle \frac{2n\pi }{3}})+\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{2n\pi }{3}})\right]`$ (43)
for $`n=0,1,2`$.

These solutions for the spatial amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(\tau )`$ can be most easily understood by considering a Bloch state decomposition of the condensate wavefunction. The nature of our system allows us to construct an analytic form for the initial wavefunction. Because the system has a three lattice site period and is assumed to be in the lowest band, the wavefunction can be0 expressed as a superposition of three Bloch waves (of the lowest band) which are symmetrically spaced in quasimomentum. Assuming the condensate initially has a total crystal momentum of zero, at this time the wavefunction must be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,0)=\alpha _0\phi _0(x)+\alpha _+\phi _{q/3}(x)+\alpha _{}\phi _{q/3}(x)$$
(44)
where $`\phi _k(x)`$ is a Bloch state with quasimomentum $`k`$, and the $`\alpha `$ are complex constants determined by the lattice depth, with $`|\alpha _+|=|\alpha _{}|`$.

The action of an external force on a Bloch state causes it to linearly change its quasimomentum in time according to

$$k(\tau )=\frac{\xi }{a}\tau +k(0).$$
(45)
The periodicity of the Bloch dispersion relation in $`k`$, and hence of the group velocity of the Bloch wave, gives rise to the well-known phenomenon of Bloch oscillations Ashcroft and Mermin (1976). For the case we are considering here, the system consists of three Bloch states whose quasimomenta will translate in unison under the action of the external force. During this evolution each state accumulates phase at a rate determined by the instantaneous Bloch energy, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\tau )=_0^\tau E(k_n(s))𝑑s,$$
(46)
where $`k_n(\tau )=\xi \tau /a+k_n(0)`$ is the quasimomentum of Bloch state $`n`$ at time $`t`$. In the tight binding approximation the dispersion relation for the Bloch states has the analytic form

$$E(k)=2\mathrm{cos}(ka),$$
(47)
for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\tau )`$ can be evaluated,and yields the results given in Eqs. (43)). The wavefunction evolution in the Bloch basis is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _0\phi _{\frac{\xi }{a}t}(x)e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\tau )}+\alpha _+\phi _{\frac{\xi }{a}t+\frac{q}{3}}(x)e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\tau )}`$ (48)
$`+\alpha _{}\phi _{\frac{\xi }{a}t\frac{q}{3}}(x)e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\tau )}.`$
From this solution we can obtain solutions for the evolution of the spatial amplitudes Eqs. (43). To do this we expand the Bloch states in terms of Wannier functions according to $`\phi _{nk}(x)=_ne^{ikna}\varphi _n(x)`$ and make use of Eq. (2). Note: we take all $`\alpha =\frac{\rho }{3}`$ as determined by the initial conditions, Eqs.(6) and (7).

#### IV.2.1 Bloch Oscillations

The evolution of the spatial amplitudes, and in particular the population in each well is then determined by the interference of the Bloch phases $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$. These functions are all periodic in time with period $`\tau _B=2\pi /\xi `$ (in units of $`\tau =tJ/\mathrm{})`$. This is the normal Bloch oscillation period, and gives the time scale over which the quasimomenta of the Bloch states develop by exactly a lattice vector.

#### IV.2.2 Small $`\xi `$ solution - Non classical transport

To understand the dynamics, we first start by considering the case when $`\xi `$ is small. For this case, the population in the wells is given by

$`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0(\tau )|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3N_\mathrm{s}}}\left(5+4\mathrm{cos}(3\tau )+\xi ^2h(\tau )\right)`$ (49)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(\tau )|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3N_\mathrm{s}}}\left((2+3\xi )[1\mathrm{cos}(3\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{2}}h(\tau )]\right)`$ (50)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(\tau )|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3N_\mathrm{s}}}\left((23\xi )[1\mathrm{cos}(3\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{2}}h(\tau )]\right)`$ (51)
where

$$h(\tau )=\frac{\tau ^3}{2}\left(6\tau +3\tau \mathrm{cos}(3\tau )4\mathrm{sin}(3\tau )\right).$$
(52)
The above solution shows that when the force is applied, the degeneracy in the population of the wells represented by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2`$ is lifted. For $`\xi >0`$, atoms in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0`$ start to tunnel to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1`$ more rapidly than to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2`$. This should be compared with the results in the absence of the force, where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2`$ behave identically. Thus, in this weak limit, the effect of a linear potential to enhance the tunneling from the initial populated $`3n`$ wells to their $`3n+1`$ neighbors ones, making the system closer to resonance, in the sense of Eq. (18), where the resonance condition results in the initially populated wells becoming empty at some later time. It is interesting to note that the system exhibits ”nonclassical” dynamics whereby the atoms start to tunnel in the direction opposite the direction of the force (this statement applies even when the external field is not weak).

#### IV.2.3 Resonances

In Fig. 7 we show the temporal evolution of the spatial amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i`$ for a range of values of $`\xi `$. For certain choices of $`\xi `$ the initially occupied $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0`$ amplitude periodically disappears - we refer to these as resonances. By requiring $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0=0`$ in Eq. (42) we obtain the following conditions on the phases for these resonances

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}+2\pi n\right)`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}+2\pi m\right)`$ (54)
where $`n`$ and $`m`$ are integers and the same sign choice on the right hand side must be made for both equations. When these conditions are satisfied the population is not shared between the adjacent sites, but preferentially tunnels to one of the neighbors. In particular the $`+`$sign choice in Eqs. (53) and (54), gives the phase condition for complete tunneling into $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1`$. Similarly the $``$sign case gives the condition for complete tunneling into $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2`$. Solving for the values of $`\xi `$ for which Eqs. (53) and (54) hold, gives the spectrum

$$\xi _{nm}^{\mathrm{res}}=\pm \frac{6\sqrt{3}}{\pi }\frac{(1+3n)}{(1+3n)^2+3(n+2m+1)^2}.$$
(55)
which is shown in Fig. 8. For large $`|n|`$ or $`|m|`$ the resonant values of $`\xi `$ are close together, and become spaced further apart as the magnitude of $`n`$ decreases.

In the absence of an applied force (i.e. $`\xi =0`$) the phase terms are time-independent with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=1`$ so that the resonance conditions can never be achieved. When the external force is applied the phases oscillate at a rate that increases with $`\xi `$ and an amplitude that decreases with $`\xi `$. The largest value of $`\xi `$ for which a resonance can be found is $`\xi _{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{res}}6\sqrt{3}/2\pi `$, since for values of $`\xi `$ greater than this the amplitudes of the phase oscillations $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ are so small that they cannot satisfy the condition for population resonance. In the regime $`\xi >\xi _{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{res}}`$, $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|`$ exhibits only one (nonzero) minima per Bloch period and the dynamics of the system is dominated by the Bloch oscillations.

#### IV.2.4 Large Force Limit

For $`\xi >\xi _{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{res}}`$ the system exhibits a population imbalance as the Bloch oscillation suppresses the ability of the system to tunnel between sites. In the limit $`\xi \xi _{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{res}}`$ the population in the wells is described by rapid, small amplitude oscillations around its initial value,

$`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0(\tau )|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{N_\mathrm{s}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\xi ^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi \tau }{2}}\right)\right)`$ (56)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(\tau )|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{N_\mathrm{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi ^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi \tau }{2}}\right)`$ (57)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(\tau )|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{N_\mathrm{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi ^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi \tau }{2}}\right)`$ (58)
The case of $`\xi =3\xi _{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{res}}`$ depicted in Fig. 8 shows an approach to this behavior.

### IV.3 Numerical results for the non-linear case

Because of the difficulty of solving analytically the equations of motion the nonlinear equations were solved numerically. Although the dynamics in this situation is considerably more complicated than in the linear case, the resonance picture still gives us useful guidance concerning the expected behavior. In general, there exist critical values of $`\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ above which no resonances occur. Furthermore, nonlinearity tends to destroy the periodicity of the Bloch oscillations that is present in the noninteracting case. For example, in Fig. 9, we see that for $`\xi =2\xi _{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{res}}`$, the introduction of interactions brings the system into resonance, but that for large interaction strength, nonresonant behavior is restored. For $`\xi =2\xi _{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{res}}/7`$, on the other hand, the introduction of interactions eventually draws the system out of resonance.

Concerning the momentum distribution, similarly to the untilted case, interatomic interactions induce time variation of the momentum intensities. The contrast between momentum components vanishes at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. As $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases, the contrast increases to a maximum value, then eventually decreases towards zero when macroscopic imbalance is achieved, analogous to what is seen in Fig. 3 for the untilted case. Because the external field together with the nonlinearity breaks down the periodicity of time evolution, the dynamics of the momentum distribution is quite complex.

To compare the predictions of the homogeneous model in the presence of a linear external potential to a more realistic case, we again solved numerically the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation for a condensate loaded every three lattice sites but, instead of being homogeneous, initially with a Gaussian profile. Very good agreement between the model and the numerical results was found for short times and modest mean-field energies, if, as in the untilted case, we use an effective mean field energy. In Figs. 10 and 11 we present a comparison between the evolution of the normalized population at the central wells found numerically and the prediction of the model for the parameters: $`NU=4.8E_\mathrm{R}`$, $`N_\mathrm{s}=290`$, $`J=0.075E_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`\xi =2`$ with computational time of $`50`$ is about $`3.5`$ ms. For longer times, the model predictions start to disagree with numerical simulation due to the spread of the three Fourier peaks. We observe that the dynamics are much more sensitive to inhomogeneous effects in the presence of an external force, and for the more inhomogeneous initial state used in Figs. 4-6 (which extends over $`N_\mathrm{s}=76`$ sites), the inhomogeneous result much more rapidly departs from the homogeneous prediction than the example presented here.

## V Conclusion

We have studied the dynamics of a condensate loaded in an optical lattice in such a way that initially only every third well in the lattice was occupied. We considered two cases, one with only the optical potential, and one with a superimposed constant external field. It was found that in both cases interatomic interactions can cause macroscopic quantum self trapping, which is a self maintained population imbalance across the wells. The analysis was based on a tight binding model that assumes that at $`\tau =0`$ all the $`3n`$ wells were identically populated. Using this model, we studied the different regimes where the self trapping phenomenon occurs and estimated the critical parameters for each case. We have developed an analytic solution for the dynamics of a periodic initial condition in the absence of an external potential. For this case the symmetry of the system reduces the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation to a two-mode problem with an elliptic function solution. We have verified the usefulness of the analytic solution by comparing it to numerical solutions of the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation for more general initial conditions.

We have demonstrated that meanfield effects cause the momentum distribution to vary with time, and have shown how this variation relates to the spatial tunneling in the system. This result suggests that the temporal variation in the time-of-flight density distribution (which approximately corresponds to the *in-situ* momentum distribution) would be a useful experimental signature of the spatial tunneling.

In the presence of an external potential and neglecting interactions, it was found that the spatial population amplitudes evolve periodically in time, with the oscillation period determined by the force parameter $`\xi `$. We have shown that these dynamics can be understood as the interference of three quasimomentum states Bloch oscillating in unison. When interactions are taken into account, the periodicity of the system is destroyed and the atoms exhibit more complicated dynamics.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Advanced Research and Development Activity and by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0100767.


text:
# Comments on the global constraints in light-cone string and membrane theories

## 1 Introduction

Light-cone gauge formalism is useful in string/M-theory.333In this paper, we use a convention of the light-cone coordinates as $`x^\mu =(x^+,x^{},x^i)`$ where $`x^\pm =(x^0\pm x^{D1})/\sqrt{2}`$ and the transverse coordinates are $`x^i`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{},(D2))`$.  In M-theory, we know the light-cone gauge formalism , while the covariant formalism is not yet known. In the light-cone gauge, string/M-theory is formulated with only the transverse degrees of freedom, however, all of them are not independent but are subject to the constraints. For example, there exists the level-matching condition in the closed string theory. Such constraints originate from the residual symmetries in the light-cone gauge: The residual symmetries are the length-preserving and the area-preserving diffeomorphisms in the closed string and membrane theory, respectively.

On the membrane with the non-trivial space-sheet topology, we can decompose the generators into the co-exact and harmonic parts, which correspond to the local and global constraints for the transverse degrees of freedom, respectively .444In the length-preserving diffeomorphisms of the closed string, there is no local constraint, though the global constraint exists. The co-exact part generates an invariant subgroup of the group of the area-preserving diffeomorphisms . The subgroup can be viewed as the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of $`U(N)`$ and hence it can be regularized by a finite dimensional group $`U(N)`$ .

It is well known that the supermembrane in eleven dimensions is related to type-IIA superstring in ten dimensions through the double-dimensional reduction. It was shown classically , however, it is not obvious whether it holds also in quantum theory . Recently, several authors  analyzed the double-dimensional reduction quantum mechanically with the light-cone wrapped supermembrane action. In the analyses, however, the global constraints were not taken into account, though the space-sheet topology of the wrapped supermembrane is a torus.

The purpose of this paper is to formulate the light-cone toroidal membrane theory as a gauge theory of the area-preserving diffeomorphisms incorporating the global constraints. And based on the result, we reconsider the problem of the quantum mechanical double-dimensional reduction with the light-cone wrapped supermembrane action. The plan of this paper is as follows. In section 2, as a warm-up, we formulate light-cone closed string theory as a gauge theory of the length-preserving diffeomorphisms. We fix the gauge and calculate the BRS charge to determine the physical states. In section 3, we formulate light-cone toroidal membrane theory as a gauge theory of (the total group of) the area-preserving diffeomorphisms. In this case also, we fix the gauge and calculate the BRS charge. By using the gauge fixed action, we discuss the quantum double-dimensional reduction of the wrapped supermembrane with the global constraints.

## 2 Gauging the light-cone closed string

Our starting point is the following Polyakov action of a (bosonic) closed string,

$$S_0^{st}=\frac{T_{st}}{2}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \sqrt{g}g^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(2.1)
where the indices $`\mu ,\nu `$ run through 0,1,$`\mathrm{}`$,25 and $`a,b`$ take $`\tau ,\sigma `$. Adopting the conformal gauge of the world-sheet metric, we obtain the following action and constrains,

$`S_{cg}^{st}={\displaystyle \frac{T_{st}}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \left[(_\tau X^\mu )^2(_\sigma X^\mu )^2\right]},`$ (2.2)
$`(_\tau X^\mu )^2+(_\sigma X^\mu )^2=0,`$ (2.3)
$`_\tau X_\mu _\sigma X^\mu =0,`$ (2.4)
and the canonical momentum is given by $`P^\mu =T_{st}_\tau X^\mu `$. As is well known, there is a residual gauge symmetry in the action (2.2). To fix the residual gauge symmetry, we adopt the light-cone gauge,

$$X^+=x^++\frac{p^+}{2\pi T_{st}}\tau ,$$
(2.5)
where $`p^+`$ is the total light-cone momentum defined by $`p^+=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma P^+`$. In the light-cone gauge, the action (2.2) and the constraints (2.3) and (2.4) are rewritten by

$`S_{lc}^{st}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{st}}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[(_\tau X^i)^2(_\sigma X^i)^2\right]},`$ (2.6)
$`_\tau X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi T_{st}}{p^+}}\left[(_\tau X^i)^2+(_\sigma X^i)^2\right],`$ (2.7)
$`_\sigma X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi T_{st}}{p^+}}_\tau X^i_\sigma X^i.`$ (2.8)
Eq.(2.7) stands for the Hamiltonian $`P^{}=T_{st}_\tau X^{}`$ which is derived from the action (2.6). Eq.(2.8) can be solved for $`X^{}`$ in terms of the transverse coordinates $`X^i`$ (with an undetermined integration constant). In the light-cone gauge, we can describe the system only by the transverse coordinates $`X^i`$, however, all the transverse degrees of freedom are not always independent. Actually, by integrating over $`\sigma `$ on both sides of eq.(2.8), we obtain the following global constraint,

$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma (_\tau X^i_\sigma X^i)=0.`$ (2.9)
Hence the light-cone closed string theory is described by the action (2.6) with the global constraint (2.9).

Now we incorporate the global constraint (2.9) as a gauge symmetry. First, note that the action (2.6) is invariant under a constant shift of $`\sigma `$ coordinate,

$$\delta X^i=ϵ_0_\sigma X^i,$$
(2.10)
where the parameter $`ϵ_0`$ is independent of both $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ coordinates, and hence this is a global transformation. Next, we extend the global invariance of the action (2.6) into a local one with respect to $`\tau `$ coordinate by introducing a gauge degree of freedom. We have the following gauge theory,

$`S_g^{st}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{st}}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[(D_\tau X^i)^2(_\sigma X^i)^2\right]},`$
$`D_\tau X^i=_\tau X^i+u_\sigma X^i,`$
where the gauge degree of freedom $`u=u(\tau )`$ depends only on $`\tau `$ coordinate and is independent of $`\sigma `$ coordinate. The gauge theory (2) is invariant under the gauge transformations,

$`\delta X^i`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\sigma X^i,`$ (2.12)
$`\delta u`$ $`=`$ $`_\tau ϵ.`$ (2.13)
Note that the parameter $`ϵ=ϵ(\tau )`$ also depends only on $`\tau `$ coordinate and is independent of $`\sigma `$ coordinate. The transformations generate (time-dependent) length-preserving diffeomorphisms. It is easy to show the equivalence between the gauge theory (2) and the mechanical system of the action (2.6) with the global constraint (2.9): In fact, the Euler-Lagrange equations for $`X^i`$ and $`u`$ derived from $`S_g^{st}`$ (2) are given by

$`D_\tau ^2X^i_\sigma ^2X^i`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.14)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma (D_\tau X^i_\sigma X^i)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.15)
If we choose $`u=0`$ as a gauge fixing condition, eqs.(2.14) and (2.15) agree with the Euler-Lagrange equation for $`X^i`$ derived from the action (2.6) and the global constraint (2.9), respectively. Thus we have shown the equivalence between the gauge theory (2) and the mechanical system of the action (2.6) with the global constraint (2.9), i.e., the light-cone closed string theory.

We should notice that the above equivalence is classical. Our next task is to discuss the quantum-mechanical equivalence. We adopt $`u+\xi B/2(\xi :`$ gauge parameter) as a gauge fixing function. Then, according to a standard procedure of gauge fixing , the gauge fixed action of the gauge theory (2) is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_g^{st}=𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[\frac{1}{2}(D_\tau X^i)^2\frac{1}{2}(_\sigma X^i)^2+i\overline{c}_\tau c+Bu+\frac{\xi }{2}B^2\right],$$
(2.16)
where the Faddeev-Popov (FP) ghost $`c=c(\tau )`$, anti-ghost $`\overline{c}=\overline{c}(\tau )`$ and Nakanishi-Lautrap (NL) B-field555Precisely speaking, it should be refereed to as NL B-degree of freedom since it is not a field. $`B=B(\tau )`$ depend only on $`\tau `$ coordinate and they are independent of $`\sigma `$ coordinate. In the above gauge fixed action, we have set $`T_{st}=1`$ for brevity. The action $`(\text{2.16})`$ is invariant under the BRS transformations,

$`\delta _BX^i`$ $`=`$ $`c_\sigma X^i,`$ (2.17)
$`\delta _Bu`$ $`=`$ $`_\tau c,`$ (2.18)
$`\delta _Bc`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.19)
$`\delta _B\overline{c}`$ $`=`$ $`iB,`$ (2.20)
$`\delta _BB`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.21)
and the BRS charge is given by

$$Q_B=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma (D_\tau X^i_\sigma X^i)c.$$
(2.22)
By using Dirac’s method for constraint systems, it is straightforward to quantize the action $`(\text{2.16})`$ in the operator formalism. Actually, we obtain the following canonical (anti-) commutation relations,

$`[X^i(\tau ,\sigma ),P^j(\tau ,\sigma ^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta ^{ij}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$ (2.23)
$`[u(\tau ),X^i(\tau ,\sigma )]`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2\pi }}_\sigma X^i(\tau ,\sigma ),`$ (2.24)
$`[u(\tau ),P^i(\tau ,\sigma )]`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2\pi }}_\sigma P^i(\tau ,\sigma ),`$ (2.25)
$`[B(\tau ),X^i(\tau ,\sigma )]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}_\sigma X^i(\tau ,\sigma ),`$ (2.26)
$`[B(\tau ),P^i(\tau ,\sigma )]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}_\sigma P^i(\tau ,\sigma ),`$ (2.27)
$`\{c(\tau ),\overline{c}(\tau )\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }},`$ (2.28)
where $`P^i=D_\tau X^i`$ is the canonical momentum of $`X^i`$. Furthermore, we give the Euler-Lagrange equations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_g^{st}}{\delta X^i}}=0`$ $``$ $`D_\tau ^2X^i_\sigma ^2X^i=0,`$ (2.29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_g^{st}}{\delta u}}=0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma (D_\tau X^i_\sigma X^i)+B=0,`$ (2.30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_g^{st}}{\delta B}}=0`$ $``$ $`u+\xi B=0,`$ (2.31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_g^{st}}{\delta c}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_g^{st}}{\delta \overline{c}}}=0`$ $``$ $`_\tau \overline{c}=_\tau c=0.`$ (2.32)
The above Euler-Lagrange equations are, of course, consistent with the Heisenberg equations for the action (2.16) obtained by using the canonical commutation relations (2.23)-(2.28) and the Hamiltonian.

Next, we solve the Euler-Lagrange equations (2.29)-(2.32). Henceforth, we choose the Landau gauge ($`\xi =0`$) only for simplicity. In the Landau gauge, we have $`u=0`$ from eq.(2.31), and hence $`D_\tau =_\tau `$. Then we can solve eq.(2.29) in terms of the oscillation modes,

$$X^i(\tau ,\sigma )=x^i+\frac{p^i}{2\pi }\tau +\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{n0}{}\left(\frac{1}{n}\alpha _n^ie^{in(\tau \sigma )}+\frac{1}{n}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^ie^{in(\tau +\sigma )}\right),$$
(2.33)
where use has been made of the boundary condition of the closed string, $`X^i(\tau ,\sigma )=X^i(\tau ,\sigma +2\pi )`$. The canonical momentum $`P^i`$ is given by

$$P^i(\tau ,\sigma )=_\tau X^i(\tau ,\sigma )=\frac{p^i}{2\pi }+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{n0}{}\left(\alpha _n^ie^{in(\tau \sigma )}+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^ie^{in(\tau +\sigma )}\right).$$
(2.34)
Eq.(2.23) and the above solutions lead to the commutation relations for the oscillation modes,

$$[x^i,p^j]=i\delta ^{ij},[\alpha _n^i,\alpha _m^j]=[\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^i,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^j]=n\delta _{n+m,0}\delta ^{ij}.$$
(2.35)
Then we can construct the Fock space for the $`X^i`$ sector. Furthermore, from eqs.(2.30) and (2.33), we can solve for $`B`$ in terms of the oscillation modes,

$$B(\tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma _\tau X^i_\sigma X^i=\frac{1}{2\pi }(N\stackrel{~}{N}),$$

where $`N=_{n>0}\alpha _n^i\alpha _n^i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}=_{n>0}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^i`$. As for the FP ghost sector, from eqs.(2.32) we can solve for $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$,

$$c(\tau )=c_0,\overline{c}(\tau )=\overline{c}_0.$$
(2.36)
Since the canonical anti-commutation relation is given by

$$\{c_0,\overline{c}_0\}=\frac{1}{2\pi },$$
(2.37)
the Fock space for the FP ghost sector is spanned by two states, $`|`$ and $`|`$, which satisfy

$`c_0|=|,\overline{c}_0|=|.`$ (2.38)
Finally, we define the physical states according to the standard procedure . Substituting eqs.(2.33) and (2.36) into the BRS charge (2.22), we obtain

$$Q_B=(N\stackrel{~}{N})c_0.$$
(2.39)
We adopt the state $`|`$ as a physical state of the FP ghost sector.666A similar degeneracy of the two zero-mode states in the FP ghost sector appears in the covariant quantization of a bosonic string based on the BRS invariance . Then the physical state condition,

$$Q_B|phys|=(N\stackrel{~}{N})|phys|=0,$$
(2.40)
leads to the condition that the physical states of the $`X^i`$ sector ($`|phys`$) satisfy the level-matching condition ($`N\stackrel{~}{N}=0`$). Thus, we have shown that the physical states in the gauge theory (2) agree with the states in the light-cone closed string theory of the action (2.6) with the global constraint (2.9), i.e., both theories are equivalent quantum mechanically.

## 3 Gauging the light-cone toroidal membrane

In this section we start off with the following Polyakov-type action of a (bosonic) membrane,

$$S_0=\frac{T}{2}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho \sqrt{g}(g^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }1),$$
(3.1)
where the indices $`\mu ,\nu `$ run through $`0,1,\mathrm{},D1`$ and $`a,b`$ take $`\tau ,\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$. We adopt the following gauge for the world-volume metric,

$`g_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}L^2h& \mathrm{𝟎}& & \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& h_{\alpha \beta }& & \end{array}\right),`$ (3.4)
where $`h_{\alpha \beta }(\alpha ,\beta =\sigma ,\rho )`$ is a metric on the space-sheet of the membrane, $`h=deth_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`L`$ is an arbitrary length parameter.777Note that the mass dimensions of the parameters, $`\tau ,\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$, are $`0`$ and that of the world-volume metric $`g_{ab}`$ is $`2`$. In this gauge the action and the constraints are given by

$`S_{cg}={\displaystyle \frac{LT}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho \left[(_\tau X^\mu )^2\frac{1}{2L^2}\{X^\mu ,X^\nu \}^2\right]},`$ (3.5)
$`(_\tau X^\mu )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L^2}}\{X^\mu ,X^\nu \}^2=0,`$ (3.6)
$`_\tau X_\mu _\alpha X^\mu =0,`$ (3.7)
where the Poisson bracket is defined by

$$\{X^\mu ,X^\nu \}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X^\nu =_\sigma X^\mu _\rho X^\nu _\rho X^\mu _\sigma X^\nu .$$
(3.8)
The canonical momentum is given by $`P^\mu =LT_\tau X^\mu `$. In this case also, there is a residual symmetry in $`S_{cg}`$ (3.5) and in order to fix it we adopt the light-cone gauge,

$$X^+=x^++\frac{p^+}{(2\pi )^2LT}\tau ,$$
(3.9)
where $`p^+`$ is the total light-cone momentum defined by $`p^+=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho P^+`$. In the light-cone gauge, the action (3.5) and the constraints (3.6) and (3.7), respectively, are rewritten by

$`S_{lc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{LT}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho \left[(_\tau X^i)^2\frac{1}{2L^2}\{X^i,X^j\}^2\right]},`$ (3.10)
$`_\tau X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2LT}{2p^+}}\left[(_\tau X^i)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L^2}}\{X^i,X^j\}^2\right],`$ (3.11)
$`_\alpha X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2LT}{p^+}}_\tau X^i_\alpha X^i.`$ (3.12)
In this gauge eq.(3.11) stands for the Hamiltonian, $`P^{}=LT_\tau X^{}`$, for the action (3.10). Eq.(3.12) can be solved for $`X^{}`$ in terms of the transverse coordinates $`X^i`$ (with an undetermined integration constant). Thus, in the light-cone gauge, the system is described only with the transverse coordinates $`X^i`$. However, all the transverse degrees of freedom are not always independent. The integrability condition for eq.(3.12), $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta X^{}=0`$, leads to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\sigma ,\rho )\{_\tau X^i,X^i\}=0.$$
(3.13)
This is locally equivalent to eq.(3.12) and we call it the local constraint.888As for the closed string in the previous section, there is no counterpart of the local constraint. As for the membrane with the non-trivial space-sheet topology, we must further impose the global constraints. Henceforth we consider the toroidal membrane for definiteness. Then, $`X^{}`$ is a periodic function with respect to both $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ coordinates. Integrating both sides of eq.(3.12) over either $`\sigma `$ or $`\rho `$ for $`\alpha =\sigma `$ or $`\alpha =\rho `$, respectively, we obtain the following global constraints,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\rho )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma (_\tau X^i_\sigma X^i)=0,`$ (3.14)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\sigma )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\rho (_\tau X^i_\rho X^i)=0.`$ (3.15)
Such global constraints (3.14) and (3.15), however, are not completely independent of the local constraint (3.13). In fact, by integrating (3.13) over $`\sigma `$, we get

$`0={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_0(\sigma ,\rho )=_\rho {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma (_\tau X^i_\sigma X^i)=_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_1(\rho ).`$ (3.16)
This means that the constraint (3.14) is already included in the local constraint (3.13) except for the $`\rho `$-independent mode of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\rho )`$. Thus, in addition to the local constraint (3.13) we may impose the following global constraint instead of eq.(3.14),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho (_\tau X^i_\sigma X^i)=0.$$
(3.17)
Similarly, instead of eq.(3.15), we may impose the following global constraint,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho (_\tau X^i_\rho X^i)=0.$$
(3.18)
Thus, the light-cone toroidal membrane theory is described by the action (3.10) with the local constraint (3.13) and the global constraints (3.17) and (3.18).

Now we incorporate the local constraint (3.13) and the global constraints (3.17) and (3.18) as a gauge theory. Actually, the following gauge theory is equivalent to the system described by the action (3.10) with the constraints (3.13), (3.17) and (3.18),

$`S_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{LT}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho \left[(D_\tau X^i)^2\frac{1}{2L^2}\{X^i,X^j\}^2\right]},`$
$`D_\tau X^i=_\tau X^i+u^\alpha _\alpha X^i,`$
where $`u^\alpha `$ is a gauge field satisfying the condition, $`_\alpha u^\alpha =0`$. The action (3) is invariant under the gauge transformations,

$`\delta X^i`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^\alpha _\alpha X^i,`$ (3.20)
$`\delta u^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`_\tau ϵ^\alpha +_\beta ϵ^\alpha u^\beta _\beta u^\alpha ϵ^\beta ,`$ (3.21)
where the parameter $`ϵ^\alpha `$ also satisfies the condition, $`_\alpha ϵ^\alpha =0`$. The transformations generate (time-dependent) area-preserving diffeomorphisms. It is not difficult to see the equivalence between the gauge theory (3) and the mechanical system of the action (3.10) with the constraints, (3.13), (3.17) and (3.18). First, due to $`_\alpha u^\alpha =0`$, we can decompose the gauge field $`u^\alpha `$ into the following co-exact and harmonic parts ,

$$u^\alpha =\frac{1}{L}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\beta A+\frac{1}{L}a^\alpha ,$$
(3.22)
where the co-exact part $`A=A(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )`$ is an arbitrary periodic function with respect to $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ coordinates and the harmonic part $`a^\alpha =a^\alpha (\tau )`$ is independent of both $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ coordinates. Similarly, due to $`_\alpha ϵ^\alpha =0`$, we can decompose the parameter $`ϵ^\alpha `$ into the following co-exact and harmonic parts,

$$ϵ^\alpha =\frac{1}{L}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{L}\lambda ^\alpha ,$$
(3.23)
where the co-exact part $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )`$ is an arbitrary periodic function with respect to $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ coordinates and the harmonic part $`\lambda ^\alpha =\lambda ^\alpha (\tau )`$ depends only on $`\tau `$. The co-exact part $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ generates an invariant subgroup of the total group of the area-preserving diffeomorphisms . Using the expressions (3.22) and (3.23), we can decompose the gauge transformations (3.20) and (3.21) as

$`\delta X^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{\mathrm{\Lambda },X^i\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\lambda ^\alpha _\alpha X^i,`$ (3.24)
$`\delta A`$ $`=`$ $`_\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{\mathrm{\Lambda },A\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }a^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\lambda ^\alpha _\alpha A,`$ (3.25)
$`\delta a^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`_\tau \lambda ^\alpha .`$ (3.26)
Furthermore, by using the expression (3.22), the covariant derivative in eq.(3) becomes

$$D_\tau X^i=_\tau X^i\frac{1}{L}\{A,X^i\}+\frac{1}{L}a^\alpha _\alpha X^i.$$
(3.27)
The Euler-Lagrange equations for $`X^i,A`$ and $`a^\alpha `$ derived from the action (3), respectively, are given by

$`D_\tau ^2X^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}\{\{X^i,X^j\},X^j\}=0,`$ (3.28)
$`\{D_\tau X^i,X^i\}=0,`$ (3.29)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho (D_\tau X^i_\sigma X^i)={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho (D_\tau X^i_\rho X^i)=0.`$ (3.30)
If we choose $`A=a^\alpha =0`$ as gauge fixing conditions for the gauge transformations (3.24)-(3.26), eqs.(3.28), (3.29) and (3.30) agree with the Euler-Lagrange equation for $`X^i`$ derived from the action (3.10), the local constraint (3.13) and the global constraints (3.17) and (3.18), respectively. Thus it has been shown that the gauge theory (3) is equivalent to the mechanical system described by the action (3.10) with the constraints (3.13), (3.17) and (3.18), i.e., the light-cone toroidal membrane theory.

A definitive difference between the closed string theory in the previous section and the toroidal membrane theory in this section is that it is easy to quantize the action (2.6) or (2) of the closed string, while it is not for the action (3.10) or (3) of the toroidal membrane due to non-linearity and non-renormalizability. As for the gauge theory, however, which is obtained by restricting the group of the area-preserving diffeomorphisms on the invariant subgroup generated by the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we can adopt the matrix regularization, so that we can quantize the gauge theory perturbatively. The action of such a gauge theory is as follows,999The action corresponds to that of a spherical membrane, which has no harmonic part from the outset.

$$S_g^{}=\frac{LT}{2}𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho \left[\left(_\tau X^i\frac{1}{L}\{A,X^i\}\right)^2\frac{1}{2L^2}\{X^i,X^j\}^2\right],$$
(3.31)
and the gauge transformations are given by

$`\delta X^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{\mathrm{\Lambda },X^i\},`$ (3.32)
$`\delta A`$ $`=`$ $`_\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{\mathrm{\Lambda },A\}.`$ (3.33)
The matrix regularization is to regularize the infinite dimensional subgroup of the total group of the area-preserving diffeomorphisms by a finite dimensional group $`U(N)`$ . In the matrix regularization, the infinite degrees of freedom due to the dependence of $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ coordinates are mapped to $`N\times N`$ finite ones of hermitian matrices and the double integrals over $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ and the Poisson bracket are mapped as follows,

$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho `$ $``$ $`\text{Tr},`$ (3.34)
$`\{,\}`$ $``$ $`i[,].`$ (3.35)
We consider the matrix regularization of the gauge theory (3), which is invariant under the gauge transformation including the parameter $`\lambda ^\alpha `$. The simple maps, (3.34) and (3.35), however, cannot be applied straightforwardly because the covariant derivative (3.27) includes naked derivatives of $`_\sigma `$ and $`_\rho `$ which are not described by the Poisson brackets.

Let us fix the gauge of the action $`S_g`$ in eq.(3). Henceforth we set $`LT=1`$ for brevity. Following the standard procedure  we get the gauge fixed action,

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_g`$ $`=`$ $`S_g+{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho \delta _B(i\overline{c}^\alpha a^\alpha i\overline{C}(_\tau A+\frac{\xi }{2}B))}`$ (3.36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\tau {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\sigma d\rho [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\tau X^i)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4L^2}}\{X^i,X^j\}^2+i\overline{c}^\alpha _\tau c^\alpha +b^\alpha a^\alpha `$
$`i_\tau \overline{C}(_\tau C+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{C,A\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}_\alpha Ca^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}c^\alpha _\alpha A)+B_\tau A+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}B^2],`$
where $`\xi `$ is a gauge parameter, $`C(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )`$, $`\overline{C}(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )`$ and $`B(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )`$ are the FP ghost, anti-ghost and NL B-field associated with the co-exact part of the gauge transformation, while the FP ghost $`c^\alpha (\tau )`$, anti-ghost $`\overline{c}^\alpha (\tau )`$ and NL B-field $`b^\alpha (\tau )`$ are associated with the harmonic part $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and they depend only on $`\tau `$ coordinate. $`\stackrel{~}{S}_g`$ is invariant under the BRS transformations,

$`\delta _BX^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{C,X^i\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}c^\alpha _\alpha X^i,`$ (3.37)
$`\delta _BA`$ $`=`$ $`_\tau C+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{C,A\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}_\alpha Ca^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}c^\alpha _\alpha A,`$ (3.38)
$`\delta _Ba^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`_\tau c^\alpha ,`$ (3.39)
$`\delta _BC`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}\{C,C\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}c^\alpha _\alpha C,`$ (3.40)
$`\delta _Bc^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.41)
$`\delta _B\overline{C}`$ $`=`$ $`iB,`$ (3.42)
$`\delta _B\overline{c}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`ib^\alpha ,`$ (3.43)
$`\delta _BB`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _Bb^\alpha =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.`$ (3.44)
The BRS charge is given by

$`Q_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\sigma d\rho [\{D_\tau X^i,X^i\}C+D_\tau X^i_\alpha X^ic^\alpha `$ (3.45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\{_\tau \overline{C},C\}Ci_\tau \overline{C}_\alpha Cc^\alpha ].`$
We concentrate on the contribution of the BRS quartet $`\{a^\alpha ,b^\alpha ,c^\alpha ,\overline{c}^\alpha \}`$ associated with the global constraints, which we call GC-quartet. We extract the terms which include the member(s) of the GC-quartet from $`\stackrel{~}{S}_g`$ (3.36),

$`S_{GCq}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\tau {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\sigma d\rho [(_\tau X^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{A,X^i\}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}a^\alpha _\alpha X^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L^2}}\left(a^\alpha _\alpha X^i\right)^2`$ (3.46)
$`+i\overline{c}^\alpha _\tau c^\alpha +b^\alpha a^\alpha i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}_\tau \overline{C}(_\alpha Ca^\alpha c^\alpha _\alpha A)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\rho \left[\stackrel{~}{b}^\alpha a^\alpha +i\overline{c}^\alpha _\tau c^\alpha +i\frac{1}{L}_\tau \overline{C}\left(c^\alpha _\alpha A\right)\right]},`$
where

$$\stackrel{~}{b}^\alpha =b^\alpha +_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\sigma d\rho }{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{L}\left[\left(_\tau X^i\frac{1}{L}\{A,X^i\}\right)_\alpha X^i+\frac{1}{2L}_\alpha X^ia^\beta _\beta X^ii_\tau \overline{C}_\alpha C\right].$$
(3.47)
The action $`S_{GCq}`$ (3.46) consists of free part (the first two terms) and the interaction part (the last term). However, we should notice that the interaction term never contributes to any correlation functions of $`X^i,A,C,\overline{C}`$ and $`B`$ since there is no interaction term which includes both $`\overline{c}^\alpha `$ and $`C`$ in the total action $`\stackrel{~}{S}_g`$.101010In the path-integral language, this is due to the fact that the FP determinant of the triangular matrix is equal to that of the diagonal matrix. This means that $`S_{GCq}`$ is essentially free and hence it contributes an overall trivial factor to the correlation functions of $`X^i,A,C,\overline{C}`$ and $`B`$ in the path-integral formalism. Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_g`$ (3.36) is equivalent to the gauge fixed action for the gauge theory $`S_g^{}`$ (3.31) up to the essentially free action for the GC-quartet. Note that after (path-)integrating out the GC-quartet we can matrix-regularize the action, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{S}_gS_{GCq}`$, by the simple maps (3.34) and (3.35). We should also notice that the above mentioned facts always hold if we adopt $`\delta _B(i\overline{c}^\alpha a^\alpha )`$ to fix the $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ gauge transformation and do not use the GC-quartet in the gauge fixing function $`F_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ gauge transformation, i.e., we adopt $`\delta _B(i\overline{c}^\alpha a^\alpha i\overline{C}F_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ where $`F_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an arbitrary function which does not depend on any of $`\{a^\alpha ,b^\alpha ,c^\alpha ,\overline{c}^\alpha \}`$.111111 We can adopt such a weaker condition for $`F_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as $`F_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\overline{c}^\alpha =0`$. Hence, as to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ gauge transformation, we can adopt not only $`F_\mathrm{\Lambda }=_\tau A+\xi B/2`$ but also such a gauge as was used in the wrapped supermembrane theory .

Finally we comment on the quantum mechanical study of the double-dimensional reduction of the eleven dimensional supermembrane . In Ref., the problem was first analyzed in the world-volume field theory of the wrapped supermembrane in the path-integral formalism. Then in Ref., the similar analysis was performed in the world-volume field theory in the matrix-regularized form of the wrapped supermembrane, i.e., matrix string theory . In those analyses, however, the global constraints, which should be the extended version of (3.17) and (3.18) to the wrapped supermembrane theory, were not taken into account. As for Ref. in particular, it is because the matrix-regularized forms of the global constraints were not obvious. Actually, in the standard derivation  of matrix string theory based on Seiberg and Sen’s arguments  and the compactification prescription by Taylor , such matrix-regularized global constraints do not appear naturally. The difference between $`\stackrel{~}{S}_g`$ (3.36) and the gauge fixed version of $`S_g^{}`$ (3.31) is only the essentially free action for the GC-quartet, {$`a^\alpha ,b^\alpha ,c^\alpha ,\overline{c}^\alpha `$}, which do not affect the quantum mechanical study of the double-dimensional reduction in the path-integral formalism. This reminds us of QED in the path-integral formalism, where the FP ghosts can be free and contribute only to the vacuum energy. In fact, the determinant of the FP ghosts cancel out the contribution from the longitudinal and scalar modes of the gauge field. However such a determinant of the FP ghosts is not important to physical amplitudes. Thus, our results of this paper justify the analyses of Refs. and , where the global constraints were not taken into account.
Acknowledgments: The work of SU is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.13135212.


text:
# The largest small Polytopes

## 1 Introduction

We know that among the geometric objects in Euclidean $`n`$-space with given diameter the sphere has maximal volume. A natural question arises if we consider polytopes instead, and in fact this problem has been considered several times. In this paper we deal with the following question: Given natural numbers $`k`$ and $`n`$, which polytope with $`k`$ vertices of unit diameter in Euclidean $`n`$-space has the largest volume? To this end we define the following volume function:

###### Definition 1.1

Let $`n2`$ and $`kn+1`$ be positive integers. Then we define $`V(n,k)`$ to be the maximum volume of a polytope with $`k`$ vertices of unit diameter in Euclidean $`n`$-space.

Let us briefly recall the following well-known results. For $`k`$ odd, Reinhardt showed  that $`V(2,k)`$ is achieved by the plain regular $`k`$-gon. In this case we have

$$V(2,k)=\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{k}\right)\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\pi }{2k}\right).$$

It is also known that $`V(2,4)`$ is achieved by the square (though not in a unique way, see ).

However, for even $`k>4`$, it is definitely not the plain regular $`k`$-gon which has maximal area. In fact, Graham showed  that for $`k=6`$ the largest area is not obtained by the regular hexagon. The latter one is approximately equal to 0.6495, whereas $`V(2,6)=0.6749\mathrm{}`$.

Considering an $`n`$-simplex, we observe:

###### Remark 1.2

For every $`n2`$, $`V(n,n+1)`$ is achieved by the regular $`n`$-simplex, and we have

$$V(n,n+1)=\frac{1}{n!}\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{2^n}}.$$

We proceed as follows. For $`k=n+2`$ the optimal configuration is obtained in a similar way, as we shall see in the next section. In order to determine $`V(n,n+3)`$ we first consider the special case $`V(3,6)`$ which in fact gives rise to a more general procedure leading to the main result of this paper, Theorem 4.1. We end with an outlook over open problems and some concluding remarks.

## 2 The calculation of $`V(n,n+2)`$

Each configuration of $`n+2`$ points in $`n`$-dimensional space is topologically equivalent to a double pyramid, which we obtain in the following way. Let us choose $`n`$ points in a hyperplane $`H`$ forming an $`(n1)`$-simplex $`S`$ and two points $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ lying on opposite sides of $`S`$. Then we have

$$V(\text{double pyramid})=\frac{1}{n}\text{height}\text{base},$$

where the height is, of course, bounded by $`d(P_1,P_2)`$, hence by 1, and the base is bounded by $`V(n1,n)`$. On the other hand, this maximum is really achieved (though not in unique way). Thus we obtain the following

###### Theorem 2.1

For $`n2`$ we have

$$V(n,n+2)=\frac{1}{n}V(n1,n)$$

(where $`V(1,2)=1`$). Hence, by 1.2,

$$V(n,n+2)=\frac{1}{n!}\sqrt{\frac{n}{2^{n1}}}.$$

## 3 The calculation of $`V(3,6)`$

The construction of the maximal $`n`$-dimensional polytopes with $`n+3`$ vertices is best understood if we look at the special case $`n=3`$ first.

Without loss of generality, we may restrict our investigation to polyhedra with triangular faces. By Euler’s polyhedra formula we obtain that each polyhedron with $`6`$ vertices must have $`8`$ faces and $`12`$ edges. There are two topologically distinct cases:

1. No vertex has a valence greater than $`4`$. In this case the polyhedron is topologically equivalent to the regular octahedron. (We shall call this the octahedral case.)
2. At least one vertex has valence $`5`$. In this case the polyhedron is topologically equivalent to a pyramid over a pentagon which is partitioned into three triangles. In particular, there are two vertices with valence $`5`$. (We shall call this the pyramidal case.)

The next step is to determine the maximal volume in each of these cases. It will turn out that the volume achieved in the octahedral case is much smaller than the volume achieved in the pyramidal case.

### 3.1 The octahedral case

We fix two opposite vertices $`P`$ and $`Q`$. Since each vertex has valence $`4`$, we know that for all the other vertices $`P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4`$ the line segments $`P_iP`$ and $`P_iQ`$ are edges of the polyhedron.

Let $`P_1^{},P_2^{},P_3^{},P_4^{}`$ be the projections of $`P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4`$ to the plane $`p`$ that is perpendicular to $`PQ`$ and that intersects $`PQ`$ in its center. It is obvious that $`d(P_i^{},P_j^{})d(P_i,P_j)`$ and $`\mathrm{max}(d(P_i^{},P),d(P_i^{},Q))\mathrm{max}(d(P_i,P),d(P_i,Q))`$. Thus the polyhedron with vertices $`Q`$, $`P`$, $`P_1^{}`$, $`P_2^{}`$, $`P_3^{}`$ and $`P_4^{}`$ has diameter less than $`1`$.

Since the volume of $`PQP_i^{}P_k^{}`$ equals the volume of $`PQP_iP_k`$ (the height and the area of the base is the same in both pyramids), the volume of $`QPP_1^{}P_2^{}P_3^{}P_4^{}`$ equals the volume of $`QPP_1P_2P_3P_4`$. Thus we can restrict ourselves to the case that the vertices $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$, $`P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ lie in the plane $`p`$.

But in this case we know that the volume of the polytope is bounded by $`\frac{1}{3}V(2,4)=\frac{1}{6}`$. (In case of the regular octahedron we can achieve equality.)

### 3.2 The pyramidal case

Now we investigate the pyramidal case. Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be the vertices with valence $`5`$ and $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$, $`P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ the other vertices of the polyhedron. Let $`p`$ be the plane perpendicular to $`PQ`$ intersecting $`PQ`$ in its center. As in the octahedral case we conclude that the volume of the polyhedron does not change if we project the points $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$, $`P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ into the plane $`p`$. Thus we may again assume that the vertices $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$, $`P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ lie in $`p`$.

Let $`P_5=PQp`$ and $`h=d(P,Q)`$. Since $`d(P,P_i)1`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{}4)`$ we obtain $`d(P_5,P_i)^2+\frac{h^2}{4}1`$, i.e. $`d(P_5,P_i)r=\sqrt{1\frac{h^2}{4}}`$. Since $`h[0,1]`$, we obtain $`r[\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},1]`$.

The volume of the polytope is $`\frac{1}{3}hS`$ where $`S`$ is the area of the pentagon $`P_1P_2P_3P_4P_5`$. Thus we must solve the planar problem to maximize the area of $`P_1P_2P_3P_4P_5`$ depending on $`r`$.

The pentagon $`P_1P_2P_3P_4P_5`$ satisfies $`d(P_5,P_i)r`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ and $`d(P_i,P_j)1`$ for $`1i<j4`$. We define the *diameter graph* $`D`$ of the pentagon by:

* The vertices of $`D`$ are the points $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_5`$.
* $`\{P_i,P_5\}`$ ($`1i4`$) is an edge of $`D`$ if and only if $`d(P_i,P_5)=r`$.
* $`\{P_i,P_j\}`$ ($`1i<j4`$) is an edge of $`D`$ if and only if $`d(P_i,P_j)=1`$.

In the following we identify an edge $`\{P_i,P_j\}`$ of $`D`$ with the line segment $`P_iP_j`$.

As in  (Fact 2) we conclude that the diameter graph of the pentagon with maximal area is connected.

Suppose $`P_iP_j`$ and $`P_kP_l`$ have no point in common, then the triangle inequation yields $`d(P_i,P_j)+d(P_k,P_l)<d(P_i,P_k)+d(P_l,P_j)`$ (see Figure 2). Thus $`\{P_i,P_j\}`$ or $`\{P_k,P_l\}`$ is not an edge of $`D`$.

Graphs with this property are said (by Conway) to have a linear trackleation. By a result of Woodall  the graph $`D`$ must be one of the following:

The problem of determining the area of the pentagon is now reduced to an examination of each of the six cases.

An easy calculation reveals that in the cases (a)-(d) the pentagon has an area less then $`0.567`$ for each possible value of $`r`$ in $`[\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},1]`$. (For example, in case (b) the pentagon lies in a sixth part of a circle with radius $`1`$ and therefore the polygon has an area less than $`0.53`$.) As we shall see later, the maximal area in case (f) is always larger than $`0.58`$.

Thus the only remaining cases are (e) and (f). We shall prove that in case (e) there is no *local* maximum and therefore the maximal area of the pentagon is obtained in case (f).

In case (e) we have the situation shown in Figure 4.

We must maximize the area of pentagon $`P_1P_2P_3P_4P_5`$ depending on $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ and $`\beta `$. By elementary geometry it follows immediately that a local maximum can only be achieved for $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=\frac{\pi }{2}`$. But then it is clear that the maximal area is achieved for the case $`\beta =0`$. This means that there is no local maximum in case (e).

Thus we are left with the last case (f). This is shown in Figure 5.a.

A simple but tedious calculation shows that in order to maximize the area of the pentagon, it is necessary that $`\mathrm{}P_4P_2P_3=\mathrm{}P_2P_3P_1`$. Thus we are left with the symmetric case shown in Figure 5.b. We obtain $`y=\sqrt{1(\frac{1}{2}+x)^2}`$ and $`z=\sqrt{r^2x^2}`$. The area of the pentagon is

$$A(r,x)=\frac{1}{2}x\sqrt{34x4x^2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{r^2x^2}.$$

This expression has a unique local maximum for $`x[0,\frac{1}{2}]`$ which can be found by setting the first derivative equal to zero. The resulting optimal value $`x_0(r)`$ is a solution of a sixth order algebraic equation. Since $`r\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}`$ we obtain that $`A(r,x_0(r))>A(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},x_0\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\right))=0.5862\mathrm{}`$. This proves that the maximal area of the pentagon is obtained in case (f) and not in any of the cases (a)-(e).

Finally, the maximal volume of the polyhedron can be found by maximizing the expression $`\frac{1}{3}hA(\sqrt{1\frac{h^2}{4}},x_0\left(\sqrt{1\frac{h^2}{4}}\right))`$ for $`h[0,1]`$. Some more calculations reveal that the maximum is obtained for $`h=1`$. In this case the volume is

$$V(3,6)=0.1954\mathrm{}$$

and there exists a unique polyhedron that archive this maximum.

## 4 The calculation of $`V(n,n+3)`$

Now we are ready to generalize the arguments of the previous section to higher dimensions.

As in the $`3`$-dimensional case we have two topologically distinct possibilities:

In the octahedral case we have $`6`$ vertices with valence $`n+1`$ and $`n3`$ vertices of valence $`n+2`$. Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be two vertices of valence $`n+1`$ and $`R_1,\mathrm{},R_{n3}`$ the vertices with valence $`n+2`$. Let $`p`$ be the plane orthogonal to $`PQR_1\mathrm{}R_{n3}`$ intersecting the $`(n2)`$-simplex $`PQR_1\mathrm{}R_{n3}`$ in the center of its surrounding sphere. We can generalize the projection argument of section 3.1 to see that in this case the volume of the polytope is less than $`\frac{1}{n}V(2,4)V(n2,n1)`$.

In the pyramidal case we find $`n1`$ vertices $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_{n1}`$ with valence $`n2`$. Let $`p`$ be the plane orthogonal to $`P_1\mathrm{}P_{n1}`$ intersecting the $`(n2)`$-simplex $`P_1\mathrm{}P_{n1}`$ in the center of the surrounding sphere. If we project the remaining four points to $`p`$ we obtain the planar optimization problem of section 3.2. In the $`n`$-dimensional case, $`r[\sqrt{1\frac{(n2)}{2(n1)}},1]`$. (The distance of the center of $`P_1\mathrm{}P_{n1}`$ to the vertices is at most $`\frac{n2}{n1}\sqrt{\frac{n1}{2(n2)}}`$.) Since now $`r`$ can be smaller than in section 3.2, we must improve the bounds in the cases (a)-(d), but nevertheless, we find that the area of the pentagon is still maximal in case (f). Thus we can proceed in the same way as in the $`3`$-dimensional case and conclude that the maximal volume is achieved if the $`(n2)`$-simplex $`P_1\mathrm{}P_{n1}`$ has maximal volume.

###### Theorem 4.1

For $`n3`$ let $`r=\sqrt{1\frac{(n2)}{2(n1)}}`$. Then we have

$$V(n,n+3)=\frac{A(r,x_0(r))}{n}V(n2,n1),$$

where $`A`$ is the function defined in section 3.2 with local maximum at $`x_0(r)`$.

In particular, for $`n\mathrm{}`$ we have $`r\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ and $`A(r,x_0(r))0.5002\mathrm{}`$, hence

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n\frac{V(n,n+3)}{V(n2,n1)}=0.5002\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
We remark that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n\frac{V(n,n+2)}{V(n1,n)}=1$$
(2)
(see Theorem 2.1).

## 5 Concluding Remarks

In principle, the preceding techniques (consideration of the topologically distinct cases, projection, linear trackleation) may be applied to the determination of $`V(n,n+k)`$ for $`k>3`$. However, Bender and Wormald  showed that

$$\frac{1}{972(k1)(2k5)(3k6)}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4k10}{k+2}\right)$$

is a good approximation for the number of topologically distinct cases in three dimensions. The number of possible linear trackleations of the $`(2n)`$-gon is

$$\frac{1}{8m}\underset{\stackrel{d|m}{d\text{ odd}}}{}\varphi (d)4^{m/d}+4^{m2}+2^{m1}1.$$

Thus the number of topologically distinct cases and the number of possible linear trackleations in each case, grows exponentially.

However, one could ask if, corresponding to the limit formulae (1) and (2), we can determine

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n\frac{V(n,n+k)}{V(nk+1,nk+2)}$$

for $`k>3`$.

We remark that the maximal polytopes with $`n+1`$, $`n+2`$ or $`n+3`$ vertices have an axis of symmetry. The problem whether each maximal polytope has at least one axis of symmetry (see ) is still open.

The calculations in section 3.2 suggest the following generalized problem. Given a symmetric $`(k\times k)`$-matrix $`D`$, determine the largest $`k`$-gon $`P_1\mathrm{}P_k`$ with $`d(P_i,P_j)D_{i,j}`$.

Andreas Klein
Universität Kassel
Fachbereich 17 (Mathematik und Informatik)
D-34109 Kassel
klein@mathematik.uni-kassel.de

Markus Wessler
Universität Kassel
Fachbereich 17 (Mathematik und Informatik)
D-34109 Kassel
wessler@mathematik.uni-kassel.de


text:
# The Analysis of the Rotating Disk of some Southern Galactic B[e] Stars

## 1. Introduction

From a sample of stars with the B\[e\] phenomenon (Lamers et al. 1998) observed by us with the FEROS and B&C spectrograph at 1.52 telescope in ESO (La Silla, Chile - agreement ESO/ON), we have analyzed the circumstellar medium around \] lines and H$`\alpha `$ with those predicted by a model that will be described below.

## 2. Double Peaks

The existence of a rotating disk at Hen 2-90 is confirmed by the presence of many forbidden and permitted lines with double peaks (see figure 1). From the separation between two peaks we have found a $`v`$ $`sin`$ $`i`$ $``$ 20 km s-1.

Figure 1 -\[O iii\] and \[Ar iii\] double peaked profiles present in the high resolution spectra (FEROS) of Hen 2-90.

## 3. Wind plus a disk: Our model

* 2 spherical envelopes, considering one representing the polar wind and the other representing the disk. The ionization is calculated with a photoionization model for H, He and S. One envelope has a higher density than the other and we only use the equatorial sector with a width of 15 degrees. The other has a lower density and we are considering the luminosity that comes from the remaining region, outside the disk.
* $`\dot{M}`$ is an input parameter
* The \[S ii\] lines come only from the disk and H$`\alpha `$ has two components that are coming from both regions.

## 4. Results and Conclusions

We have found a $`\dot{M}`$ $``$ 10-9 M year-1 for the disk region, if all S is S ii. This value is low compared with other compact planetary nebula. If the S ii fraction (S ii/S) is only 10-3, then the $`\dot{M}`$ is $``$ 10-7 M year-1, because we have found that $`\dot{M}`$ is proportional to (S ii/S)-0.67 (Borges Fernandes et al. 2003).

We will apply this model for other stars in our sample. For this, we will improve the model including other elements like O and N.

## References

Borges Fernandes, M., Lamers, H.J.G.L.M., Kraus, M. & de Araújo, F.X. 2003, in preparation

Lamers, H.J.G.L.M., Zickgraf, F.-J., de Winter, D., Houziaux, L. & Zorec, J. 1998, A&A 340, 117

Sahai, R., & Nyman, L.-A. 2000, ApJ 537, L145