text:
# QUANTUM MEASUREMENT PROBLEM AND SYSTEMS SELFDESCRIPTION IN OPERATORS ALGEBRAS FORMALISM

## 1 Introduction

Despite that Quantum Mechanics (QM) is universally acknowledged physical theory there are still several problems concerned with its interpretation. Of them the state collapse or objectification problem is the most widely and long discussed ( for the review see ). In our previous paper  we studied the quantum information transfer in the measurement process and resulting from it the information restrictions. Basing on it we propose the phenomenological formalism in which the collapse observation can coexist with Schrodinger measurement dynamics. In this paper we reconsider the proposed theory in Algebraic QM framework and demonstrate that it can be derived from C\* algebras formalism without any phenomenological assumptions used in our first paper.

In our approach the information system (Observer) $`O`$ in the measurement process regarded as the quantum object which interactions can’t be neglected. Really, any measurement quantum or classical is the information acquisition on the studied system S parameters by the information system $`O`$ via their direct or indirect interaction. In classical case this interaction can be neglected in the calculations, but in QM it can be quite important for obtained measurement outcome . In our approach Observer is an information gaining and utilizing system (IGUS) of arbitrary structure  which can be both a human brain or some automatic device processing the information. But in all cases it’s the system with some internal degrees of freedom (DF) some of which actively interact during the information acquisition. The computer information processing or the perception by human brain supposedly corresponds to the physical objects evolution which on microscopic level obeys to QM laws. Example of it are the electron pulses excited in the computer circuits during the information bits memorization. Such correspondence for the mental processes isn’t proved, but there are now the strong experimental evidences that QM can successfully describe a complex systems including biological ones . Consequently we concede in our paper that QM description is applicable both for a microscopic and macroscopic objects including observer $`O`$ (he, Bob) . In the simplest case we suppose that $`O`$ state described by Dirac state vector $`|O`$ ( or density matrix $`\rho `$ in other cases) relative to another observer $`O^{}`$ (she; Alice) .

Such approach corresponds with the general trends of quantum information theory but our novel point is that $`O`$ should describe consistently its own quantum state. Observer selfdescription in the measurement process (selfmeasurement) can be regarded in the context of the general mathematical problem of selfreference . From its study it was argued that $`O`$ selfdescription is always incomplete; this results often interpreted as the analog of Godel Theorem for Information theory . In this framework Breuer demonstrated that $`O`$ selfmeasurement effects for classical and quantum measurements can be described via the restricted MS states . We’ll argue here that in quantum case MS restricted states in the measurement can be derived from the generalization of standard QM called algebraic QM which use Jordan or $`C^{}`$\- algebras formalism .

Here it’s necessary to make some comments on our model premises and review some terminology. Our formalism applies both the quantum states in the individual events \- i.e. individual states and the states for quantum ensembles called statistical states. Their formal definitions are given in  and some of this states features described below. Note only that for the pure case the individual and statistical states coincide, yet for the mixture they can differ. We must stress that throughout our paper the observer consciousness never referred directly and none of their special physical properties beyond standard QM assumed. Rather in our model observer $`O`$ can be regarded as active reference frame (RF) which interacts with studied object S changing $`O`$ internal state and via it storing the information about S. Thus S state description ’from the point of view’ of the particular $`O`$ referred by the terms ’S state in $`O`$ RF’ or simply ’S state for $`O`$’. The terms ’perceptions’, ’impressions’ used by us to characterize observer subjective description of experimental results and defined below in strictly physical terms . In our theory the different impressions associated with the different internal (restricted) $`O`$ physical states which description is operationally unambiguous.

## 2 Selfmeasurement and Quantum States Restrictions

We start from reminding the main features of our selfmeasurement theory. The microscopic model of the measuring system (MS) studied here includes the measured state (particle) S and observer $`O`$ which processes and stores the information. $`O`$ interaction with environment E - decoherence accounted at the next stage of the model. To illustrate our model let’s consider the measurement of the observable $`\widehat{Q}`$ of S binary state performed by $`O`$:

$$\psi _s=a_1|s_1+a_2|s_2$$

where $`|s_{1,2}`$ are $`Q`$ eigenstates with eigenvalues $`q_{1,2}`$. In our model $`O`$ has one effective DF and its Hilbert space $`_𝒪`$ contains at least three orthogonal states $`|O_i`$ which are the eigenstates of $`Q_O`$ ’internal pointer’ observable with eigenvalues $`q_i^O`$. Initial $`O`$ state is $`|O_0`$ and MS initial state is :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^{in}=\left(a_1|s_1+a_2|s_2\right)|O_o$$
(1)
Let’s assume that S-$`O`$ measuring interaction starts at $`t_0`$ and finished effectively at some finite $`t_1`$. MS evolution described by Schrodinger equation (SE) with the suitable S$`O`$ interaction Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_I`$ which results in the final state of MS system :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}=a_1|s_1|O_1+a_2|s_2|O_2$$
(2)
to which corresponds the density matrix $`\rho _{MS}`$; their set denoted $`L_q`$. $`|O_{1,2}`$ are $`O`$ final states induced by the measurement of eigenstates $`|s_{1,2}`$. All this states including $`|O_i`$ belongs to MS Hilbert space $`_{}^{}{}_{MS}{}^{}`$ defined in some external $`O^{}`$ RF. The set (algebra) of all S, $`O`$ observables denoted $`M_S,M_O`$ correspondingly, the set of other (collective) MS observables which isn’t belong to $`M_O,M_S`$ denoted $`M_{MS}`$. In practice IGUS $`O`$ have many internal DFs, but their account doesn’t change principally the results obtained below. We omit detector D in MS chain assuming that S directly interacts with $`O`$ because the only D effect is the amplification of S signal to make it conceivable for O.

QM predicts that at time $`t>t_1`$ for external $`O^{}`$ MS is in the pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ of (2) which is the superposition of two states for different measurement outcomes. MS state in $`O`$ RF $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^O`$ obtained from $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ by the unitary transformation $`U^{}`$ and if to consider only MS internal state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^O=\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$. Yet we know that experimentally macroscopic $`O`$ observes some random $`Q_O`$ value $`q_{1,2}^O`$ from which he concludes that S final state is $`|s_1`$ or $`|s_2`$, i.e. S state collapses. In standard QM with Reduction Postulate S final state described by the statistical ensemble of individual final states for $`O`$ described by the density matrix of mixed state $`\rho _m^s`$:

$$\rho _m^s=\underset{i}{}\left|a_i\right|^2|s_is_i|$$
(3)
In our model we can phenomenologically ascribe to MS the corresponding mixed state :

$$\rho _m=\underset{i}{}\left|a_i\right|^2|s_is_i||O_iO_i|$$
(4)
which principally differs from $`\rho _{MS}`$. From $`O`$ ’point of view’ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^O`$ describes the superposition of two contradictory impressions : $`Q=q_1`$ and $`Q=q_2`$ percepted simultaneously which as Wigner claimed is nonsense . If observer regarded as the quantum object then this contradiction constitutes famous Wigner ’Friend Paradox’ for $`O,O^{}`$ . It’s quite difficult to doubt both in correctness of $`O^{}`$ description of MS evolution by Schrodinger dynamics and in the state collapse experimental observations. We attempt to reconcile this two alternative pictures in the united formalism which incorporate both quantum system descriptions ’from outside’ by $`O^{}`$ and ’from inside’ by $`O`$ \- i.e. selfdescription.

In general any classical or quantum measurement of the arbitrary studied system $`S^{}`$ is the mapping of $`S^{}`$ states set $`N_s`$ on observer states set $`N_O`$. If an observer $`O`$ actively interacts with $`S^{}`$ so that $`O`$ state change can’t be neglected then formally $`O`$ can be regarded as the part of the large studied system $`S_T^{}=S+O`$ with the states set $`N_T`$. In this approach $`N_O`$ is $`N_T`$ subset and $`O`$ state is $`S_T^{}`$ state projection on $`N_O`$ called an restricted state $`R_O`$. From $`N_T`$ mapping properties the principal restrictions for MS states discrimination by $`O`$ were formulated in Breuer theorem  . Namely, if for two arbitrary $`S_T^{}`$ states $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S,\mathrm{\Phi }_S^{}`$ their restricted states $`R_O,R_O^{}`$ coincide, then for $`O`$ this $`S_T^{}`$ states are indistinguishable. The origin of this effect in classical case is easy to understand qualitatively : $`O`$ has less number of DFs then $`S_T^{}`$ and so can’t describe completely $`S_T^{}`$ state . QM introduces additional features connected with observables noncommutativity and nonlocality which should be also accounted.

For our MS system it’s natural to assume that $`R_O`$ state depends only of $`O`$ observables $`M_O`$ and doesn’t depend of other MS observables. Breuer results doesn’t permit to derive the restricted states for arbitrary quantum system unambiguously and this was our motivation for application of Algebraic QM for this problem. Breuer proposed to chose as the phenonmenological ansatz the partial trace which for MS state (2) is equal to :

$$R_O=Tr_s\rho _{MS}=\left|a_i\right|^2|O_iO_i|$$
(5)
$`R_O`$ is in fact $`\rho _{MS}`$ projection into $`_𝒪`$ defined in $`O^{}`$ RF and all $`R_O`$ belong to $`\rho _O`$ set $`L_O`$.

Note that for MS mixed state $`\rho _m`$ of (4) the corresponding restricted statistical state is the same $`R_O^m=R_O`$. This equality doesn’t mean automatically the collapse of MS pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ because as Breuer argues the collapse presence must be verified for the individual events . For this purpose it’s important to define the individual mixed state ; as ws noticed for pure MS state it simply coincides with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$. For the incoming S mixture (4) of $`|S_{1,2}`$ states MS individual state objectively exists in each event $`n`$, but differs from event to event and presented as :

$$\rho ^m\left(n\right)=|O_lO_l||s_ls_l|$$

for random $`l\left(n\right)`$ with probabilistic distribution $`P_l=\left|a_l\right|^2`$ . This individual state can be initially unknown for $`O`$, but exists objectively. $`\rho ^m\left(n\right)`$ differs from statistical state (2) and its restricted state is $`R_O^m\left(n\right)=|O_lO_l|`$ also differs from $`R_O`$ of (5). Due to it the main condition of Breuer Theorem violated and consequently $`O`$ can differentiate pure/mixed states ’from inside’ in the individual events. Thus the proposed ansatz doesn’t results in the collapse appearance in standard QM . Note hence that the formal states difference in QM by itself doesn’t mean automatically that $`O`$ percepts them as different ones. It should be at least one observable $`A_OM_O`$ for which $`\overline{A}_O`$ expectation values are different which isn’t true for Breuer ansatz.

It’s important to note that even in this ansatz MS state for $`O`$ i.e. ’from inside’ is different from MS state for $`O^{}`$ ’from outside’ i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$. Because of this incompleteness $`O`$ can’t see the difference between the physically different pure states with different $`D_{ij}=a_i^{}a_j+a_ia_j^{}`$. This situation can be called the partial state collapse. This states difference reveals MS interference term (IT) observable :

$$B=|O_1O_2||s_1s_2|+j.c.$$
(6)
In standard QM being measured by $`O^{}`$ it gives $`\overline{B}=0`$ for the mixed MS state (4) but $`\overline{B}0`$ for the pure MS states (2). Note that $`B`$ value principally can’t be measured by $`O`$ directly, because $`O`$ performs $`Q_O`$ measurement and $`[Q_O,B]0`$. We define here also $`O`$ IT observable:

$$B_O=|O_1O_2|+|O_2O_1|$$

which will be used below.

Note that formally MS individual state for $`O`$ can be written in doublet form $`\mathrm{\Phi }^B\left(n\right)=|\varphi _D,\varphi _I`$, where $`\varphi _D=\rho _{MS}`$ dynamical state component, and $`\varphi _I`$ is $`O`$ information about MS state acquired in event $`n`$. $`\varphi _I`$ is equal to $`R_O`$ for pure state and $`\varphi _I=R_O^m\left(n\right)`$ for S mixture correspondingly. Of course in this ansatz for pure state $`\varphi _I`$ is just $`\varphi _D`$ projection, but in other selfdescription schemes they can be more independent and such states doublet structure becomes principally important.

The selfmeasurement theory permits to discuss the relation between IGUS evolution and its subjective information (impression) which supposedly corresponds to $`O`$ internal state. Concerning the relations between the observer state evolution and his information perception we introduce the following assumptions: for any Q eigenstate $`|s_i`$ after S measurement finished at $`t>t_1`$ and $`O`$ ’internal pointer’state is $`|O_i`$ observer $`O`$ have the definite impression corresponding to $`q_i^O`$ eigenvalue of $`Q_O`$ that the measurement event occurred and the input S state is $`|s_i`$. This calibration condition for $`O`$ internal state is quite nontrivial and important because it settles hypothetically the correspondence between MS quantum dynamics model and human perception. It also related to ’Preferred basis’ problem discussed below . Note that Breuer restricted state $`R_O`$ corresponds to such condition. Futhermore if S state is the superposition $`\psi _s`$ it supposed that its measurement by $`O`$ also results in appearance for each individual event $`n`$ of some definite and unambiguous $`O`$ impression denoted as $`q^{sup}\left(n\right)`$. This assumption doesn’t mean that this impression for $`O`$ can corresponds only to one of mentioned $`q_i^O`$ eigenvalues but that it devoids of any ambiguities which $`O`$ quantum state can have. In our framework the simplest $`O`$ toy-model of the information memorization is a hydrogen-like atom for which $`O_0`$ is its ground state and $`O_i`$ are the metastable levels excited by $`s_i`$, resulting so into the final S - $`O`$ entangled state.

To explain our alternative selfmeasurement theory consider it first for the considered MS system with the initial state (1). In its formalism alike in the regarded example MS state presented in doublet form $`\mathrm{\Phi }=|\varphi _D,\varphi _I`$ for dynamical and $`O`$ information components. The first component of our dual state $`\varphi _D`$ is equal to QM density matrix $`\varphi _D=\rho `$ and obeys always to Schrodinger-Liouville equation (SLE) for arbitrary Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_c`$ :

$$\dot{\varphi }_D=[\varphi _D,\widehat{H}_c]$$
(7)
which for pure states is equivalent to Schrodinger equation (SE). Thus for our MS system $`\varphi _D=\rho _{MS}`$; for the information component $`\varphi _I`$ it supposed that after S state $`\psi _s`$ measurement in the individual event $`n`$ the final state $`\varphi _I\left(n\right)=V^O`$. Here $`V^O=|O_jO_j|`$ is the stochastic state with $`j\left(n\right)`$ having the probabilistic distribution $`P_j=\left|a_j\right|^2`$. Thus such doublet individual state $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(n\right)`$ changes from event to event and $`O`$ subjective information $`\varphi _I`$ is relatively independent of $`\rho _{MS}`$ and correlated with it only statistically. Clearly for such restricted states ansatz $`O`$ can’t differ the pure and mixed states with the same $`\left|a_i\right|^2`$. Thus Breuer theorem conditions fulfilled and we’ll call this effect the weak (subjective) collapse. $`\varphi _I=V_i^O`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ branch $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i=|O_i|S_i`$ which describes MS quantum state in $`O`$ RF i.e. the subjective state. An initial state $`\varphi _D=\rho \left(t_0\right)`$ defined also by standard QM rules. Before measurement starts $`O`$ state vector is $`|O_0`$ (no information on S) and the doublet state is $`\mathrm{\Phi }=|\rho \left(t_0\right),V_0^O`$ where $`V_0^O=|O_0O_0|`$ is the initial $`O`$ information.

The complete states set in $`O`$ RF for this individual states is $`N_T=L_qL_V`$ i.e the product of dynamical and information components subsets. If we restrict our consideration only on the pure states as done below then $`N_T`$ is equivalent to $`L_V`$ and the state vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be used as the dynamical component $`\varphi _D`$ which evolution obeys to SE. It assume the modification of QM states set, which normally is Hilbert space $``$. Remind that $``$ is in fact an empirical set choice advocated by fitting QM data. Its modifications were published already of which most famous is Namiki-Pascazio many Hilbert spaces formalism . Analogous the superselection formalism is well studied in nonperturbative Field theory (QFT) with infinite DF number  and were applied for quantum measurement problem .

Of course in this approach the quantum states for external $`O^{}`$ (and other observers) also has the same doublet form $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. $`O^{}`$ doesn’t interact with MS and due to it MS final state for her is $`\varphi _D^{}=\rho _{MS}`$ of (2) and $`\varphi _I^{}=|O_0^{}O_0^{}|`$. Her information is the same before and after S measurement by $`O`$, because $`O^{}`$ doesn’t get any new information during it. In this approach $`O^{}`$ knows that after S measurement $`O`$ acquired some definite information $`q_i^O`$ but can’t know without additional measurements what this information is. Naturally in this formalism $`O^{}`$ has her own subjective information space $`L_V^{}`$ and in her RF the events states manifold is $`N_T^{}=^{}L_V^{}`$ for pure states and the same is true for any number of observers. In general if in the Universe altogether N observers exists then the complete states manifold described in $`O`$ RF is $`L_T=L_VL_V^{}\mathrm{}L_V^N`$ of which only first two subsets elements are observed by $`O`$ directly. From the described features it’s clear that subspace $`L_V`$ is principally unobservable for $`O^{}`$ (and vice versa for $`L_V^{},O`$), because in this formalism only the measurement of $`\varphi _D`$ component described by eq. (7) permitted for $`O^{}`$. Clearly in this ansatz $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ are unitarily nonequivalent - i.e. no unitary transformation $`U`$ can transform them into each other . Note that Selfrefence problem resolved in this case by use of the natural but unproved assumption that all observers are similar in relation to their information acquisition properties.

For the comparison in standard QM framework S interaction with detector D induces the abrupt and irreversible S state $`\psi _s`$ change to random S state $`\psi _j`$ \- i.e Reduction occurs and in accordance with it D pointer acquires definite position $`D_j`$. This process is claimed to be objective, i.e. independent of any observer. Such S,D interaction can’t be described by SLE and needs to introduce alternative dynamics , which violates the quantum states evolution linearity and reversibility. Yet it seems practically impossible to incorporate in QM this two contradictive dynamics consistently. In distinction in our dual formalism the dynamical component $`\varphi _D`$ of MS doublet state evolves linearly and reversibly in accordance with (7). This is the objective evolution in a sense that it described equivalently relative to any observer. Only subjective component $`\varphi _I`$ which describes $`O`$ subjective information about $`S`$ changes stochastically after S measurement - i.e S,O interaction.

From the doublet individual state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ one can derive the doublet statistical state for the quantum ensembles description, because all the necessary probabilities contained in $`\varphi _D`$. Due to its importance it’s reasonable to define it separately :

$$|\mathrm{\Theta }=|\eta _D,\eta _I=|\rho ,R_V$$

where $`R_V=\left|a_i\left(t\right)\right|^2|O_iO_i|`$ is the probabilistic mixture of $`V_i^O`$ states. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ set is $`N_\mathrm{\Theta }=L_qL_R`$, where $`L_R`$ set of diagonal density matrixes with $`Tr\eta _I=1`$ but as noticed above $`N_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is equivalent to $`L_q`$. $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$ evolution for arbitrary Hamiltonian is most simply expressed by the system of equations for its components :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _D}{t}}=[\eta _D,\widehat{H}_c]`$
$`P_j\left(t\right)=tr\left(\widehat{P}_j^O\eta _D\right)`$ (8)
$`\eta _I={\displaystyle P_l|O_lO_l|}`$
If $`S`$ don’t interact with $`O`$ (no measurement) then $`\eta _I`$ is time invariant and MS obeys to the standard QM evolution for the dynamical component $`\eta _D=\rho `$ \- statistical state. Thus our doublet states are important only for measurement-like processes with direct system $`S_AO`$ interactions, but in such case it’s the analog of regarded MS system. Note that in this theory only $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ gives complete MS state description in the individual event, from which its future state can be predicted.

The time of $`V_0^OV_j^O`$ transition for $`O`$ is between $`t_0`$ and $`t_1`$ and can’t be defined in this formalism with the larger accuracy, but it doesn’t very important at this stage. The most plausible assumption compatible with standard QM is that $`O`$ perception time $`t_p`$ in MS measurement has the distribution :

$$P_p\left(t\right)=c_p\frac{P_i\left(t\right)}{t};i0$$

where $`c_p`$ is normalization constant. Note that this result is compatible with standard QM.

The preferred basis (PB) problem importance is acknowledged in quantum measurement theory . In its essence, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ decomposition on $`O`$,S states in general isn’t unique and so any theory must explain why namely $`|O_i`$ states appears in final mixture $`\rho ^m`$. In our theory PB acquires the additional aspects being related to $`O`$ information recognition. As indicated above we choose as the calibration condition that $`|O_i`$ state percepted by $`O`$ as $`q_i^O`$ value corresponding to $`q_i`$ value of S parameter $`Q`$. But it’s not clear why such states set responds to it and not some other $`|O_j^C`$ \- eigenstates of some $`Q_O^C`$, belonging to another orthogonal basis. For example, it can be $`|O_\pm =\frac{|O_1\pm |O_2}{\sqrt{2}}`$ for the binary subspace $`_O`$. Yet the situation changes principally, if to account decoherence - i.e. $`O`$ interaction with environment E . In the simple decoherence model E considered here consists of $`N`$ two-level systems (atoms) independently interacting with $`O`$ with $`H_{OE}`$ Hamiltonian, which for arbitrary E states $`|E^0`$ at large $`t`$ gives: $`|O_i^E|E^0|O_i^E|E_i^0`$ , where $`|O_i^E`$ belongs to an arbitrary orthogonal basis $`O^E`$ of $`O`$ states. $`|E_i^0`$ are E states which aren’t necessarily orthogonal; S,$`O`$,E joint Hilbert space denoted $`_{MS+E}`$. Tuning specially the measurement Hamiltonian $`H_I`$ one can make two basises equal: $`|O_i^E=|O_i`$ and only this case will be regarded here. If in S measurement at $`t<t_1`$ $`O`$E interaction can be neglected then under simple assumptions it results in the final MS-E state :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS+E}=a_i|s_i|O_i|E_i^0$$
(9)
It was proved that such triple decomposition is unique, even if $`|E_i^O`$ aren’t orthogonal . Thus PB problem formally resolved if the decoherence accounted and this is essential also for our model. It isn’t necessary in our case to use $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, E can be also a finite, closed system.

In addition the decoherence results in the important consequences for the definition of the mentioned information basis. Really the memorized states $`|O_i^C`$ excited by $`S_i`$ signals must be stable or at least long-living. But as follows from eq. (9) any state $`|O_j^C`$ different from one of $`|O_i`$ in the short time would split into $`|O_i`$ combinations - entangled $`O`$,E states superposition. But our calibration condition demands that at least $`Q_O`$ eigenstates will be conserved copiously and not transferred to any combinations. Thus in this model $`O`$-E decoherence interaction selects the basis of long-living $`O`$ eigenstates which supposedly describes $`O`$ events perception and memorization, i.e. $`\varphi _I`$. It means that if our S signal is $`Q`$ eigenstate inducing $`Q_O`$ eigenstate $`|O_i`$ then it’s memorized by $`O`$ for long time. As the result the only $`O`$ observable which can be memorized by $`O`$ is $`Q_O`$ ; for any other $`O`$ observable $`Q_O^{}`$ and any $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}`$ one obtains that in MS,E final state $`\overline{Q}_O^{}=0`$.

Decoherence influence should be accounted in any $`O`$ selfdescription formalism. In Breuer ansatz $`O`$ interaction with E states accounted analogously to S states, so that $`R_O=Tr_{S,E}\rho `$ derived taking trace both on $`S`$ and $`E`$ states. For our dual formalism an analogous approach permits to derive $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$, thus defines $`\varphi _I`$ distribution. In the individual events $`\varphi _I`$ correspons to $`|O_i|S_i|E_i^O`$ branch. In other aspects decoherence doesn’t change our selfmeasurement model.

## 3  System Selfdescription in Algebraic QM

Now we regard the quantum system selfmeasurement in Algebraic QM framework and derive MS restricted states $`C^{}`$ algebras formalism . We’ll show that algebraic QM applied to the systems selfdescription in fact corresponds to our phenomenological results. Algebraic QM includes the unitary nonequivalent representations of commutation relations which describes successfully phase transitions and other nonpreturbative effects which standard QM fails to incorporate. Consequently we have the serious premises to regard Algebraic QM as the consistent generalization of standard QM. As noticed above the nonperturbative QFT formalism was applied also to the study of measurement problem . Application of Operators Algebras to quantum measurements studied also in  but without the selfdescription consideration.

Remind that in standard QM the primordial structure is the states set \- Hilbert space $``$ on which an observables - Hermitiam operators defined. In distinction in Algebraic QM formalism as the fundamental structure is the observables algebra $`𝒰`$ which can be Jordan or Segal algebra with formal extension to $`C^{}`$-algebra . Consequently the system $`S_f`$ states set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ properties defined by $`𝒰`$ and under some assumptions $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the vector space dual to $`𝒰`$ defined by the famous GNS construction. The obtained algebraic states $`\phi \mathrm{\Omega }`$ are equivalent to the normalized positive linear functionals on $`𝒰`$. Formally in the situations described by standard QM they corresponds to QM density matrixes $`\rho `$. The pure quantum states $`\phi `$ in this formalism are an extremal $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ points.

In many realistic situations for given measurement set-up not all the system $`S_f`$ observables are available for experimentalist, but only some restricted subset to which corresponds $`𝒰`$ subalgebra $`𝒰_{}`$. It was shown that for some $`𝒰_{}`$ the corresponding states set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ can be constructed which states $`\phi _R`$ differs from $`\phi `$ . For this case Segal theorem demonstrates that if all $`A_R𝒰_{}`$ commute and unit operator $`I𝒰_{}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ is set of classical states $`\phi _R`$ with no superpositions between them . In Algebraic QM notations $`A_R`$ expectation values defined as

$$\overline{A}_R=\phi ;A_R=\phi _R;A_R$$

coincide for $`\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ states. $`A_R`$ measurement corresponds to the simultaneous measurement of all $`A_R`$ projectors $`P_i^A`$ which expectation values $`\overline{P}_i^A`$ reproduces the probabilistic $`A_R`$ distribution.

For our MS,E system $`𝒰`$ Segal algebra for observables sets $`M_S,M_O,M_{MS},M_E,\mathrm{}`$ can be defined and $`\phi `$ states set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ’spanned’ on them naturally is equivalent to $`_{GS}`$. In this case $`O`$ complete observables set is $`M_O`$ but as was demonstrated above for the regarded MS,E measurement dynamics $`O`$ can measure (percept) only the sinlge observable $`Q_O`$ which illustrated by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS+E}`$ of (9). So in this case $`𝒰_{}`$ subalgebra consists of $`Q_O`$ and $`I`$ which obviously is available for $`O`$. Then from Segal theorem MS restricted states $`\phi _R`$ should be the discrete classical states. If the incoming S state $`\psi _s`$ is S eigenstate $`|S_i`$ then from our calibration condition such MS restricted states can be associated with our $`O`$ states $`\phi _i^O|O_iO_i|`$ to which corresponds $`\varphi _I=V_i^O`$ of our dual formalism. Thus in any such individual S measurement event the final MS restricted state from $`O`$ ’point of view’ describes definite discrete $`O_i`$ value so that $`\overline{Q}_O=q_i^O`$. But if the incoming $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^{in}`$ described by (1) with several $`a_j0`$ i.e. is $`Q`$ eigenstates superposition one obtains :

$$\overline{Q}=\overline{Q}_O=\phi _R;Q_O=\phi ;Q_O=\left|a_i\right|^2q_i^O$$

and no $`\phi _i^O`$ state corresponds to such $`\overline{Q}_O`$. To interpret this result note first that for the incoming S mixture of $`|s_i`$ eigenstates (2) the final statistical MS state described for $`O`$ as the mixture $`\rho _O^m=\left|a_i\right|^2\phi _i^O`$ with the same expectation value $`\overline{Q}_O`$. $`q_i^O`$ probabilistic distribution naturally described by $`P_i=\left|a_i\right|^2`$. As was shown above the difference between the pure and mixed MS states reflected by $`B`$ IT expectation values. Thus $`O`$ observation of S pure/mixed states difference means that $`O`$ acquires some information on MS $`B`$ expectation value. But $`B𝒰_{}`$ and isn’t correlated with $`Q_O`$ via some interaction alike $`Q`$ of S; so this assumption for $`\phi _R`$ states results in contradiction. Summing all the given arguments we conclude that for the pure incoming S state $`\psi _s`$ $`O`$ observes stochastic $`q_i^O`$ distribution with probabilities $`\left|a_i\right|^2`$ described by statistical mixture $`\phi _R=\left|a_i\right|^2\phi _i^O`$ and thus can’t be discriminated from incoming S mixture with the same $`P_i`$. It corresponds to the natural generalization of Algebraic QM premises settling that not only statistical but individual restricted states defined solely by $`𝒰_R`$. Alike in the previous calculations we assume that the individual S mixed states described by one of pure states $`|S_i`$ which after S measurement induces the corresponding restricted state $`\phi _i^O`$. Our doublet state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ components $`\varphi _D,\varphi _I`$ corresponds to $`\phi `$ and $`\phi _i^O`$ in the individual event.

In fact Algebraic QM supports the simple and consistent selfmeasurement picture : any $`O`$ can observe only the object parameters for which it posses the suitable ’internal’ instrument. For example $`O`$ can’t observe $`|O_i`$ superpositions because $`O`$ detecting structure doesn’t permit IT observable $`B_O`$ to be measured simultaneously with $`Q_O`$. Such considerations were already regarded above in the phenomenolgical picture of our dual formalism but in Algebraic QM they acquire additional support. Restricted subalgebras $`𝒰_{}`$ were applied already for the information restrictions stipulated by the practical impossibility of the large systems complete description . We apllied them for a restrictions induced not by a studied system, but by IGUS $`O`$ quantum structure, yet we don’t see any contradictions in such generalization. Note that in Algebraic QM an appearence of stochastic final states related to the phenomena of spontaneous symmetry breaking. By the analogy the effect of measurement results randomization can be called Information symmetry breaking. Its origin connected with the fact that the final physical states $`\phi _i^O`$ doesn’t posses the symmetry of the incoming measured state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MS}^{in}`$ and the final $`q_i^O`$ values are undecidable according to Svozil approach . We don’t discuss here Algebraic QM foundations consistency and in particular the feasilbility of the algebraic states which deserve the separate consideration .

We perform algebraic calculations for our very simple IGUS $`O`$ model, which probably is more primitive then any realistic IGUS structure. But in Algebraic QM the only important condition for the classicality appearence is $`𝒰_{}`$ observables commutativity and it’s reasonable to expect it to be feasible also for complex IGUS structures. Clearly this subalgebras properties can’t depend directly on the surrounding E properties and its particular state. Thus we can suppose that obtained results can be true not only for closed but also for the open systems.

## 4 Discussion

Our studies demonstrates that the account of the information system quantum properties permit to explain the state collapse as the consequence of the principal system selfdescription incompleteness. It was studied with the simple IGUS $`O`$ model in which $`O`$ states decoherence selects the preferred ’perception’ basis. Breuer selmeasurement study shows that by itself the inclusion of observer as the quantum object into the measurement scheme doesn’t result in the collapse appearance . Our theory indicates that to describe the collapse it it’s necessary also to modify the quantum states set. In this approach different observers becomes nonequivalent in a sense that the physical reality description becomes principally different for each of them . This nonequivalence reflected by the presence of subjective component $`\varphi _I`$ available directly only for particular $`O`$ and for him the subjective state collapse can be obtained. This theory permit to conserves Schrodinger evolution for arbitrary quantum system. Eventually the consistent selfmeaurement formalism constructed alternative to Breuer formalism.

It was shown here that Algebraic QM formalism presents the additional arguments in favour of our selfmeasurement theory. It permits to calculate the restricted $`O`$ states $`\phi _R`$ from the given $`O`$ physical structure and corresponding $`O`$ observables algebra. Obtained $`O`$ states corresponds to our phenomenological doublet states $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and are unitarily nonequivalent for different observers. Algebraic QM formalism \- Jordan , Segal and $`C^{}`$-algebras of operators is acknowledged generalization of standard QM. In this paper it was applied for the simplest measurement model but if this formalism universality will be proved it will mean that the proposed selfmeasurement theory follows from the established Quantum Physics realm without any additional assumptions .

From this considerations the natural question arise : does the observation of random outcomes $`\varphi _I=V_j^O`$ means that before the measurement starts S state can be characterized by some objective ’hidden parameter’ $`j_S`$ ? Our theory is principally different from Hidden Parameters theories where this stochastic parameters influence the quantum state dynamics and so differs from standard QM. Due to it in our theory $`\varphi _I`$ internal parameter $`j`$ can be ’generated’ during S-$`O`$ interaction and don’t exists objectively before it starts. This is analog of spontaneous symmetry breaking effect derived in Algebraic QM. Yet our dual theory demonstrates that the probabilistic realization is generic and unavoidable for QM and without it QM supposedly can’t acquire any operational meaning. Wave-particle dualism was always regarded as characteristic QM feature, but in our theory it has straightforward correspondence in dual seldmeasurement formalism.

The ideas close to our dual theory were discussed in QM modal interpretation, but they have there quite unclear philosophical motivations . Now this is the whole class of different theories, of which the most close to us is Witnessing interpretation by Kochen . His theory phenomenologically supposed that for apparatus $`A`$ measured value $`S`$ in pure state always has random definite value $`S_j`$, yet no physical arguments for it and no mathematical formalism differ from standard QM were proposed.

In general all our experimental conclusions are based on human subjective perception. Regarded computer-brain perception analogy in fact means that the human signal perception also defined by $`\overline{Q}_O`$ values. Despite that this analogy looks quite reasonable we can’t give any proof of it. We present here very simple measurement theory and we don’t regard it as the final solution of measurement problem. Yet from its results we believe that it’s impossible to solve it without account of $`O`$ interaction with the measured system at quantum level . We must stress that our theory doesn’t need any addressing to human observer consciousness. Rather in this model $`O`$ is active RF which internal state excited by the interaction with the studied object. This approach to the measurement problem has much in common with Quantum reference frames theory introduced by Aharonov .

Historically the possible influence of observer on measurement process was discussed first by London and Bauer . They supposed that Observer Consiousness (OC) due to ’introspection action’ violates in fact Schrodinger equation for MS and results in state reduction. This idea was seriously criticized by Wigner . In distinction in our dual theory OC perception doesn’t violate MS Schrodinger evolution from $`O^{}`$ point of view. But measurement subjective perception in it also performed by OC and its results partly independent of dynamics due to its dependence on the stochastic component $`\varphi _I`$. This effect deserves further discussion, but we believe that such probabilistic behavior is general IGUS property not related to OC only.


format: text

text:
# Remarks on the classical capacity of quantum channel Work partially supported by INTAS grant 00-738.

## Abstract

A direct proof of the relation between the one-shot classical capacity and the minimal output entropy for covariant quantum channels is suggested. The structure of covariant channels is described in some detail. A simple proof of a general inequality for entanglement-assisted classical capacity is given.

1. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a quantum channel in a Hilbert space $``$ of finite dimensionality $`d`$, $`\overline{C}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ – its one-shot classical capacity defined as

$$\overline{C}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{\pi _j,S_j}{\mathrm{max}}\left[H(\underset{j}{}\pi _j\mathrm{\Phi }(S_j))\underset{j}{}\pi _jH(\mathrm{\Phi }(S_j))\right],$$
(1)
where $`\left\{\pi _j\right\}`$ is a probability distribution, $`S_j`$ are states in $``$, $`H()`$ is the quantum entropy. The relation

$$\overline{C}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{log}d\underset{S}{\mathrm{min}}H(\mathrm{\Phi }(S)),$$
(2)
known to hold for bistochastic ($`\mathrm{\Phi }[I]=I`$) qubit ($`d=2`$) channels  , , was recently extended to a class of bistochastic channels with $`d>2`$ . We wish to remark that there is a simple direct proof of (2) for substantially broader class of channels.

Let $`G`$ be a compact group (in case $`G`$ is finite, it is equipped with the discrete topology) and $`gV_g;gG,`$ be a continuous (projective) unitary representation of $`G`$ in $``$. The channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is called covariant with respect to the representation if

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[V_gSV_g^{}]=V_g\mathrm{\Phi }[S]V_g^{}$$
(3)
for all $`gG`$ and all $`S`$.

Let the channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be covariant with respect to an irreducible representation, then the channel is bistochastic and (2) holds.

Since the inequality $``$ is obvious, it is sufficient to show

$$\overline{C}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{log}d\underset{S}{\mathrm{min}}H(\mathrm{\Phi }(S)).$$
(4)
Since the channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is covariant, then $`V_g\mathrm{\Phi }[I]V_g^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }[I]`$ for all $`g`$. Irreducibility implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }[I]`$ is proportional to $`I`$, hence is equal to $`I`$ by normalization. Now assume first that the group is finite. From the orthogonality relation for irreducible representations, we have (see, e. g. Sec. IV.2 of )

$$|G|^1\underset{gG}{}V_gSV_g^{}=d^1I.$$

Take the state $`S_0`$ minimizing the entropy in (4). Then taking in (1) states $`S_g=V_gS_0V_g^{};gG,`$ with equal probabilities $`\pi _g=|G|^1`$ gives the value in the right hand side of (4). If the group is continuous then similar argument applies, but the optimizing distribution will be continuous, namely, the uniform distribution on $`G`$. One can use then a finite approximation and continuity properties to prove (4). $`\mathrm{}`$

For example, (2) holds for the channel

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[S]=\frac{1}{d1}\left[IS^T\right],$$
(5)
which was used to disprove the multiplicativity conjecture , since it is covariant with respect to the action of the orthogonal group in $``$. The conlusion remains valid for channels satisfying yet broader covariance condition

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[V_g^{(1)}SV_g^{(1)}]=V_g^{(2)}\mathrm{\Phi }[S]V_g^{(2)},$$
(6)
where $`V_g^{(1)},V_g^{(2)}`$ are both irreducible representations.

The structure of covariant (conditionally) completely positive maps was extensively studied in the context of covariant dynamical semigroups, see e. g.  , . In particular, for arbitrary covariant channel there is the Lindblad representation $`\mathrm{\Phi }[S]=_kL_kSL_k^{},`$ where $`L_k`$ are the components of a tensor operator for the group $`G`$, i. e. satisfy the equations

$$V_gL_jV_g^{}=\underset{k}{}d_{jk}(g)L_k,$$

where $`g\left[d_{jk}(g)\right]`$ is a unitary matrix representation of $`G.`$ Tensor operators have been studied in detail, see e. g. .

A complete description can be given for the Weyl-covariant channels , the discrete version of which happens to be the class considered in a less explicit form in . Let $`H`$ be finite Abelian group, its dual $`\widehat{H}H,`$ and let $`\alpha U_\alpha ,\alpha H;\beta V_\beta ,\beta \widehat{H}`$, be a couple of unitary representations in a Hilbert space $``$, satisfying the Weyl canonical commutation relations

$$V_\beta U_\alpha =\mathrm{exp}i\beta ,\alpha U_\alpha V_\beta ,$$

where $`\beta ,\alpha `$ is the duality form. Defining $`W_z=U_\alpha V_\beta `$ for $`z=(\alpha ,\beta ),`$ we have a projective unitary representation $`zW_z`$ of the additive group $`G=H\widehat{H}`$, namely

$$W_zW_z^{}=\mathrm{exp}i\beta ,\alpha ^{}W_{z+z^{}}.$$

It follows

$$W_z^{}W_z^{}W_z=\mathrm{exp}i\left(\beta ^{},\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\right)W_z^{}.$$
(7)
Taking $`H`$ as a direct sum of cyclic subgroups $`𝐙_{d_1},\mathrm{},𝐙_{d_s}`$, an (irreducible) Weyl representation of the group $`G=H\widehat{H}`$ is obtained by taking tensor product of the (irreducible) representations of the subgroups $`𝐙_{d_j}𝐙_{d_j}.`$ An irreducible representation of $`𝐙_d𝐙_d`$ has the dimensionality $`d`$ and is obtained from the “generalized Pauli operators” $`U_\alpha ,V_\beta `$ which are discrete version of the Weyl operators in Schrödinger representation.

A channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is Weyl-covariant,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[W_z^{}SW_z]=W_z^{}\mathrm{\Phi }[S]W_z,zG,$$
(8)
with respect to an irreducible representation $`zW_z`$ if and only if

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[W_z]=\varphi (z)W_z,$$
(9)
where $`\varphi (z)`$ is a positive definite function on $`G`$.

From (8), $`\mathrm{\Phi }[W_z^{}]`$ satisfies the same relation (7) as $`W_z^{}`$, hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }[W_z^{}]W_z^{}^{}`$ commutes with $`W_z,zG.`$ Since the representation $`zW_z`$ is irreducible,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[W_z]=\varphi (z)W_z,$$

where $`\varphi (z)`$ is a complex function. From complete positivity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ it follows that $`\varphi (z)`$ is positive definite. Indeed for any finite collections $`\{z_j\}G,\{c_j\}\text{C}`$

$$\underset{j,k}{}\overline{c}_jc_k\varphi (z_jz_k)=\underset{j,k}{}\overline{c}_jc_k(W_{z_j}\psi |\mathrm{\Phi }[W_{z_j}W_{z_k}{}_{}{}^{}]W_{z_k}\psi )0,$$

where $`\psi `$ is arbitrary unit vector.

Conversely, let the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }[W_z]`$ be defined by (9). There exists a random variable $`\zeta `$ in $`\widehat{G}=\widehat{H}H`$, having the characteristic function

$$\varphi (z)=\underset{(x,y)\widehat{G}}{}\mathrm{exp}i(x,\alpha +\beta ,y)p_{x,y},$$
(10)
where $`\left\{p_{x,y}\right\}`$ is the distribution of $`\zeta `$. Then for all operators $`X`$in $``$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[X]=\underset{x,y=1}{\overset{d}{}}p_{x,y}W_{(y,x)}{}_{}{}^{}XW_{(y,x)}=𝖤W_{J\zeta }{}_{}{}^{}XW_{J\zeta },$$
(11)
where $`J(x,y)=(y,x),`$ since for $`X=W_z`$ this follows from (7), ( 10), and then can be extended by irreducibility. One easily sees that the right hand side defines Weyl-covariant channel. $`\mathrm{}`$

The relation (11) suggests a dilation of the channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to the unitary stochastic evolution $`SW_{J\zeta }{}_{}{}^{}SW_{J\zeta }`$. Such channels that are mixtures of unitary evolutions were characterized in  as channels for which restoring of quantum information is possible via measurement on environment. It was also observed in  that while every such channel is bistochastic, the converse is not true, namely, (5) is not a mixture of unitary evolutions for $`d>2`$.

2. In  we stated the inequality

$$C_{ea}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\mathrm{log}d+\overline{C}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Phi })$$

for the entanglement-assisted classical capacity (see ,  )

$$C_{ea}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=\underset{S}{\mathrm{max}}\left[H(S)+H(\mathrm{\Phi }[S])H(S,\mathrm{\Phi })\right].$$
(12)
A proof given in  follows from the inequality for the entropy exchange $`H(S,\mathrm{\Phi }):`$ if $`S=_jp_jS_j,`$ where $`\left\{p_j\right\}`$ is a probability distribution and $`S_j`$  are pure states, then

$$H(S,\mathrm{\Phi })\underset{j}{}p_jH(\mathrm{\Phi }[S_j]),$$
(13)
by noticing that one can always take $`S`$ of this form in (12). Here we give shorter proof of (13).

From the definition, $`H(S,\mathrm{\Phi })=H(S_E^{})=H(\mathrm{\Phi }_E[S]),`$ where $`S_E^{}`$ is the final state of the environment, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_E`$ is the channel from the system $`Q`$ to the environment $`E.`$ By concavity of quantum entropy, $`H(\mathrm{\Phi }_E[S])_jp_jH(\mathrm{\Phi }_E[S_j]).`$ But $`H(\mathrm{\Phi }_E[S_j])=H(\mathrm{\Phi }[S_j])`$ since the final state of the system $`QE`$ starting in the pure state $`S_j`$ is again pure. $`\mathrm{}`$


text:
# Fermi 1D quantum gas: Luttinger liquid approach and spin-charge separation

## I Introduction

The recent experimental possibilities to trap ultra-cold quantum gases in quasi-1D magnetic and optical wave-guide aroused a renewed interest in quantum liquids with reduced dimensionality and their peculiar properties. In this context, most of the recent theoretical and experimental work has focused on quasi-1D Bose gases and Bose-Einstein condensates . In particular, the equilibrium properties have been already discussed in several papers (see Ref. and references therein), the phase fluctuations of the classical field (order parameter) describing a quasi-1D condensate have been predicted in Ref., and experimental evidence was reported in Ref.. In Ref. the collective excitations for 1D Bose gases have been calculated for different configurations, ranging from the 1D mean-field to the Tonks regime.

At the same time also the possibility to include an optical lattice has become available, opening new perspectives in the study of coherence phenomena . For instance Bloch oscillation have been seen in Ref.. In Ref., it is claimed that a direct measurement of the critical Josephson current has been obtained, and very recently the intriguing quantum phase transition between superfluid and Mott-insulator, predicted some years ago in Ref., was observed for a Bose gas loaded in a 3D optical lattice in Ref.. Also the dynamics of a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate in the presence of 2D and 1D optical lattice has been calculated in Ref..

On the other hand remarkable progress in trapping and cooling Fermi gases, has been made to reach the degenerate regime . On the theoretical side different aspects of (harmonically) trapped Fermi gases have been explored, often in analogy with what has been done for Bose gases . Experimentally, measurements of the collective modes of degenerate Fermi gases have been reported (see Ref. and reference therein).

Fermi cold-gases, besides having an interest per se, can represent a useful tool to implement solid state systems and to test fundamental theories, often grown and developed in a different area. Trapped gases are cleaner and more flexible systems than the solid state counterpart, where the experimentally most relevant 1D systems are semiconductor quantum wires and nanotubes. In addition, it is also possible to use magnetic fields to largely modify the scattering properties of atoms in atomic clouds.

Returning to 1D systems, what is interesting is that due to the reduced dimensionality the interaction, although small, strongly modifies the properties of the system. Low dimensions amplify the role of quantum fluctuations and enhance correlations. Both the ground state and the excitations exhibit strong correlation effects and posses a number of exotic properties, e.g., fractional statistics (see Ref.  and references therein). Another fundamental interest in 1D systems originates from the fact that there is a fair number of exactly solvable models, allowing the research of non-perturbative effects . In particular Fermi-Landau theory which describes 3D interacting fermions is not longer applicable (e.g., see ). Instead, in a quite wide range of parameters, 1D quantum liquids can be described using the Tomonaga-Luttinger model , and in this case they are named Luttinger liquids, in contrast to (normal) Fermi liquids. The term Luttinger liquid was coined by Haldane  to describe the universal low-energy properties of gapless 1D quantum systems. The Luttinger liquid language has been already applied to study the properties of (quasi)-1D Bose gases . The goal of this paper is to study trapped ultra-cold Fermi gases in quasi-1D geometry using Luttinger theory and to propose an experimental way to see a typical Luttinger liquid behaviour, the so-called spin-charge separation. Indeed one of the hallmarks of a spin-$`1/2`$ Luttinger liquid involves the complete separation in the dynamics of spin and charge degrees of freedom. Both branches, which exhaust (in a infinite system) the spectrum, are sound-like with different propagation velocities. This phenomena has never seen in a clear way in actual condensed matter systems (see e.g. ).

The paper, which can be considered a self-consistent, extended version of Ref. , is structured as follows. In SEC. II we introduce the models. Using standard argument, we write down a bosonized Hamiltonian to describe the low-energy excitations of the systems (SEC. III). We used the available exact solutions to relate the so-called Luttinger parameters to the microscopic parameters of the system for small and large interaction (SEC. III). In SEC. IV we shall propose different experimental ways to see clearly spin-charge separation in our systems, and in SEC. V we study the life time of the excitations. In SEC. VI we propose an implemetation of spinless Luttinger liquid using strongly interacting bosons in an optical lattice.

## II Physical Model

We consider a dilute gas of fermionic atoms of mass $`m`$ with two ground states, $`|\sigma =,`$, representing a spin-$`1/2`$, e.g. the states $`|F=1/2,M_F=\pm 1/2`$ of 6Li . In the following we assume the number of atom in each level is the same: $`N_\sigma =N/2`$. The atoms are confined in a very elongated trap along the $`x`$-direction and cooled below the Fermi temperature $`T_F`$. The transverse confinement is considered to be harmonic with frequency $`\omega _{}`$, strong enough so that the transverse degrees of freedom frozen. In order to have a (quasi) 1D system the tight transverse trapping must exceed the characteristic energy scale of the longitudinal motion. Due to the quantum degeneracy the longitudinal motion has all the energy levels up to the Fermi-energy $`ϵ_Fk_BT_F`$ occupied, thus the requirement is $`ϵ_F\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$.

At low temperature, due to the Pauli exclusion principle, only inter-species s-wave collisions are allowed. All the relevant interactions are thus characterized by a single parameter, the inter-component scattering length $`a`$. Introducing the harmonic oscillator transverse length $`l_{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _{}}`$, the effective 1D interaction can be represented as a zero-range potential with strength $`g=2\pi \mathrm{}^2a/ml_{}^2`$, when $`al_{}`$. Thus the system can be described by the following 1D Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi _\sigma ^{}(x)\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_x^2+V_{\mathrm{ext},\sigma }(x)\right]\psi _\sigma (x)}`$ (2)
$`+g{\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi _{}^{}(x)\psi _{}^{}(x)\psi _{}(x)\psi _{}(x)},`$
where $`\psi _\sigma `$ is the 1D field operator for atoms in the state $`\sigma `$. The external potential $`V_{\mathrm{ext},\sigma }`$, includes both the longitudinal confinement $`V_{L,\sigma }`$ and a possible superimposed optical lattice $`V_{\mathrm{opt},\sigma }`$. The longitudinal confinement is either a box of length $`L`$ (we will also refer to this as the homogeneous case), or an harmonic potential (inhomogeneous gas) with frequency $`\omega _x`$, i.e. $`V_{L,\sigma }=1/2m\omega _x^2x^2`$. The confinement potential can act differently on the two species, and this feature can be used in an experiment, as we will show below, to test the “spin-charge separation”. The simplest way to create a 1D periodic potential for neutral atoms is by superimposing two linearly polarized counter-propagating laser beams. The created conservative potential is $`V_{\mathrm{opt},\sigma }=V_0\mathrm{sin}^2(kx)`$, FIG. (1), where the lattice period $`d=\pi /k=\lambda /2`$ is fixed by the wavelength, $`\lambda `$, of the laser light (see, e.g., ). We can expand the field operators in the first band Wannier basis

$$\psi _\sigma (x)=\underset{i}{}w(xx_i)c_{i,\sigma },$$
(3)
where $`w(xx_i)`$ is the Wannier function centered at the $`i`$-th site and $`c_{i,\sigma }`$ the annihilation operators for a fermions in the $`i`$-th site with spin $`\sigma `$. Plugging the previous expression into Eq. (2) and retaining at most nearest neighboor terms for the kinetic energy part we reduce the starting Hamiltonian to the Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian

$`H_{FH}`$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(c_{i+1,\sigma }^{}c_{i,\sigma }+h.c.)+{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}ϵ_{i,\sigma }n_{i,\sigma }`$ (5)
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_{i,}n_{i,},`$
where operator $`n_{i,\sigma }=c_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{i,\sigma }`$ counts the number of $`\sigma `$-atoms in the site $`i`$. The parameter $`U`$ correspond to the strength of the on site inter-species interaction depending on $`g`$, $`J`$ is the hopping term between adjacent sites and $`ϵ_{i,\sigma }V_{L,\sigma }(x_i)`$ describes an energy offset of each lattice site. Note that for $`d0`$ one recovers a continuum model.

## III Luttinger liquid approach

In what follows we will often use the words charge and spin though in our system we do not have, strictly speaking, charge nor spin. We used them to maintain the jargon of the Luttinger physics. We identify the charge with the mass and the spin with the two atomic internal levels. Thus when we talk about charge density fluctuations we mean density fluctuations, when we talk about spin density fluctuations we mean relative density fluctuations, the so called composite excitations.

### A Homogeneous case

In this subsection we will review briefly what it means to describe the low energy properties of the system using the so-called Tomonaga-Luttinger model.

We consider the homogeneous case, i.e., $`V_{L,\sigma }=0`$, and we will study later the inhomogeneous case. The standard way to represent the Eq. (2) for a gas in a box of length $`L`$ with periodic boundary condition, without the underlying optical lattice, in the momentum representation is

$$H=\underset{k,\sigma }{}\epsilon _kc_{k,\sigma }^{}c_{k,\sigma }+\frac{g}{L}\underset{k_1,k_2,q}{}c_{k_1,}^{}c_{k_1q,}c_{k_2,}^{}c_{k_2+q,},$$
(6)
where $`\epsilon _k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m\mu `$.

By means of renormalization group (RG), it is possible to show that the low-energy properties of the system can be described using an exact solvable model, the Tomonaga-Luttinger model . First of all in a 1D system the Fermi “surface” is composed by just two points, $`\pm k_F`$. In the non-interacting case one has $`\pm k_F=\pm \pi \mathrm{}n/2`$, where $`n=(N_{}+N_{})/L`$ is the total density of the gas. Let us, then, introduce the the left- (around $`k_F`$) and right- (around $`+k_F`$) moving fermion annihilation (creation) operators $`c_{r,\sigma }^{()}(k)`$, where $`r=R,L`$, and the respective densities $`\rho _{r,s}(q)=_kc_{r,\sigma }^{}(k+q)c_{r,\sigma }(k)`$. In the model the four particle species $`(R,R,L,L)`$ have unbounded free dispersion relation $`ϵ_{r,q}=a_r\mathrm{}v_Fq`$, where $`v_F=\mathrm{}\pi n/2m`$ is the Fermi velocity and $`a_{R(L)}=+()`$; all the states up to the Fermi energy, in the same spirit of the Dirac sea, are occupied. Thus one has two branches of particles with boundless energy and momentum and the densities obey Bose type commutation relation . The model Hamiltonian written in the notation of the so-called “$`g`$-ology” (see for instance ), in real space representation, takes the form

$`H_{LM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\pi \mathrm{}v_F(\rho _{R,\sigma }(x)^2+\rho _{L,\sigma }(x)^2)}`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`g_2{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\rho _{R,\sigma }(x)\rho _{L,\sigma }(x)}`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`g_4{\displaystyle \underset{r,\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\rho _{r,\sigma }(x)\rho _{r,\sigma }(x)}`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`g_1{\displaystyle \underset{r,\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi _{L,\sigma }^{}\psi _{R,\sigma }\psi _{R,\sigma }^{}\psi _{L,\sigma }}.`$ (10)
Specific names are given to the parameters which identify the strength of a particular scattering process. For instance $`g_2`$ is the strength of the forward scattering between particles belonging to different branches and with different spin state, $`(R\sigma ,L\sigma )(R\sigma ,L\sigma )`$, while $`g_1`$ is the strength of the backward scattering $`(R\sigma ,L\sigma )(L\sigma ,R\sigma )`$. In a complete model also “longitudinal” scattering $`(r\sigma ,r^{}\sigma )(r\sigma ,r^{}\sigma )`$ could be present. In our case, where only inter-species collisions are allowed, we have $`g_2=g_4=0`$.

In the sense of RG in the long-wavelength limit, it is often the case that $`g_1`$ is renormalized to zero . This is true in our case. The final step to solve the problem is to introduce four new boson fields $`\varphi _\nu ,\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu `$, with $`\nu =c,s`$, such that

$$\rho _{r,\sigma }(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi }}[_x\varphi _ca_r\mathrm{\Pi }_c+\sigma (_x\varphi _sa_r\mathrm{\Pi }_s)].$$
(11)
The bosonic fields are related to the fluctuations of the total density $`\rho _c=_x\varphi _c/\sqrt{\pi }`$, of the spin-density $`\rho _s=_x\varphi _s/\sqrt{\pi }`$, of the current density $`j_c=\mathrm{\Pi }_c/\sqrt{\pi }`$ and of the spin current density $`j_s=\mathrm{\Pi }_s/\sqrt{\pi }`$. The fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are conjugated and they satisfies the bosonic commutation relation $`[\varphi _\nu (x),\varphi _\nu ^{}(x^{})]=[\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu (x),\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu ^{}(x^{})]=0`$ and $`[\varphi _\nu (x),\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu ^{}(x^{})]=i\delta _{\nu ,\nu ^{}}\delta (xx^{})`$. Substituting Eq. (11) in Eq. (10) one obtains the bosonized Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{\nu =c,s}{}\frac{u_\nu }{2}𝑑x\left[K_\nu \mathrm{\Pi }_\nu ^2+\frac{1}{K_\nu }(_x\varphi _\nu )^2\right].$$
(12)
We are left with the Hamiltonian of two independent elastic strings with the eigenmodes corresponding to the collective density and spin-density fluctuation of the fermion liquid. The parameters $`u_\nu `$’s are the “sound” velocities, while the $`K_\nu `$’s are related to the low energy behaviour of the correlation functions. In the following we will call them the Luttinger parameters. They completely characterize the low energy physics.

For excitations which do not change neither the number of particles and the currents, the bosonic fields can be written in terms of boson creation and annihilation operators, $`b_{\nu ,k}^{}`$ and $`b_{\nu ,k}`$, $`\nu =c,s`$

$`\varphi _\nu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{K_\nu }{2L}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|k|}}}\left(b_{\nu ,k}e^{ikx}+b_{\nu ,k}^{}e^{ikx}\right),`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2LK_\nu }}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{|k|}\left(b_{\nu ,k}e^{ikx}b_{\nu ,k}^{}e^{ikx}\right).`$ (14)
It is moreover possible to express the original fermionic fields in terms of the new boson fields by the so-called bosonization identity (see for instance )

$$\psi _{r,\sigma }=\underset{\alpha 0}{lim}\frac{F_{r,\sigma }}{(2\pi \alpha )^{1/2}}e^{a_ri2\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _{R(L),\sigma }}.$$
(15)
The fields $`\varphi _{r,\sigma }`$ are recovered from Eq. (11). The (hermitian) operators $`F_{r,\sigma }`$ are called Klein factors and obey the Clifford algebra $`\{F_{r,\sigma },F_{r^{},\sigma ^{}}\}=2\delta _{r,r^{}}\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$.

The same effective Hamiltonian, Eq. (12), can be obtained starting from the Hubbard Hamiltonian Eq. (5). In the optical lattice case, besides the back-scattering term, also an umklapp contribution could in principle be present, but it does not contribute away from half-filling.

#### 1 Luttinger parameters

For exactly solvable models like the 1D lattice model, the Luttinger parameters can be directly expressed in terms of the microscopic parameters of the theory . In a spin rotationally invariant Fermi-gas the quantity $`K_s=1`$, so that the only independent parameters are $`K_\rho `$, and $`v_{s,\rho }`$.

One of the more peculiar consequences of the Hamiltonian Eq. (12) is a complete separation of the dynamics of the spin and charge degrees of freedom. In general one has $`u_cu_s`$ and thus the density (or charge) and spin oscillations propagate with different velocities. Only for a non-interacting gas, or for some accident, the two velocities are the same and equal to the Fermi velocity, $`u_\nu =v_F`$. This phenomenon is known as spin-charge separation. Our aim is eventually to propose a way to see in a clear way such effect.
We should mention that if $`g_1`$ renormalizes to a finite value (in particular in a spin rotationally invariant system with bare $`g_1<0`$, the parameter gets relevant by means of RG), one can have a gap in the spin sector, the charge excitations remaining massless .

In what follows we shall give some analytical results for the Luttinger parameters of systems described by the Hamiltonian Eq. (2) for a box and a harmonically trapping potential, with and without the underlying optical lattice.

For weak interaction, we define the small parameter $`\xi =g/\pi \mathrm{}v_F`$. We get, up to the first order in $`\xi `$, $`u_c=v_F(1+\xi /2)`$, $`u_s=v_F(1\xi /2)`$, $`K_c=1\xi /2`$. The same results are valid in the presence of optical lattice, the only difference being in the definition of $`\xi =Ud/\pi \mathrm{}v_F`$, with Fermi velocity $`v_F=2Jd\mathrm{sin}(\pi nd/2)/\mathrm{}`$ .

When $`V_{L,\sigma }=0`$, i.e. in the homogeneous case, the models described by the Eq. (2) and Eq. (5), are exactly solvable . The solutions confirm that the low energy spectrum is Luttinger-like and so, at least in principle, it is possible to extract the Luttinger parameters for any interaction strength. The exact solution  is suitable to study the strong interacting limit, i.e., $`\xi 1`$. The parameters can be found using perturbation theory around $`\xi \mathrm{}`$. Without the lattice one has: $`u_s=2\mathrm{}\pi n/3m\xi `$, $`K_c=1/2(1+8\mathrm{ln}(2)/\pi ^2\xi )`$ and $`u_c=\pi \mathrm{}n/m(18\mathrm{ln}(2)/\pi ^2\xi )`$, where $`n=N/L`$ is the density of the gas. When the lattice is present one obtains

$`u_s={\displaystyle \frac{Jd}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}(\pi nd/2)\xi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\pi nd)}{2\pi nd}}\right),`$ (16)
$`K_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{ln}(2)}{\pi ^2\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi nd)}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi nd/2)}}\right),`$ (17)
$`u_c={\displaystyle \frac{2Jd\mathrm{sin}(\pi nd)}{\mathrm{}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{ln}(2)nd\mathrm{cos}(\pi nd)}{\pi \mathrm{sin}(\pi nd/2)\xi }}\right).`$ (18)
Some remarks can be made. First of all we should mention that the results without the lattice can be recovered from the previous expression expanding in the first (non-zero) order in low density $`n`$ and substituting $`J\mathrm{}^2/2md^2`$, the new density being $`n=N/N_wdN/L`$, with $`N_w`$ the number of sites. Indeed from the exact solution one gets that, in the limit of low density, the lattice case resembles the continuous case with a renormalized mass $`m^{}=(2Jd^2/\mathrm{}^2)^1`$. Secondly, note that the results (put $`\xi \mathrm{}`$) confirm the intuition that when the repulsion between the atoms of the two different species is very strong some properties of the gas are similar to those of an ideal single component gas of indistinguishable particles. In particular the Fermi velocity is $`v_F=\pi \mathrm{}n/m`$ and the spin velocity goes to zero. Intuitively one can say that, somehow, the infinite (hard-core or on-site) repulsion plays the role of an effective Pauli principle for atoms in different internal state (i.e., different spin). The same is true for instance for strongly interacting bosons in 1D, where there exist an exact mapping between hard core bosons and free fermions . Note, however, that in our case the asymptotic value $`K_c=1/2`$, while is $`K_c=1`$ for a non-interacting gas. It is well known that at zero temperature the Green’s function of a Luttinger liquids present a peculiar power-law decay with non-universal, $`K`$-dependent exponents. At finite temperature the behaviour is still $`K`$-dependent . This means that physical properties like compressibility, density of states, momentum distribution clearly reveal the interacting nature of the gas.

#### 2 Inhomogeneous case: Local Density Approximation

The inhomogeneous case will be studied using a local density approximation (LDA). In order to apply LDA to our trapped gas we should assume that the size $`R`$ of the gas sample is much larger than the interparticle separation, i.e. $`Rk_F^1`$. Such condition is consistent with having a large number of particle, $`N1`$. The ground state of the system can be characterized using the Thomas-Fermi equilibrium condition:

$$\frac{dE_0(n)}{dn}=\mu V_{L,\sigma }(x).$$
(19)
Where $`E_0(n)`$ is the ground state internal energy of the gas per unit length, $`n`$ the total density and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. The longitudinal potential in this case is $`V_{L,\sigma }(x)=1/2m\omega _x^2x^2`$. The previous equation is just the expression of the fact that the energy cost of adding a particle to the system equals the chemical potential corrected by the local value of the external potential. In the Luttinger picture we assume that the spatial variation of $`K_\nu `$ and $`u_\nu `$ originate only from the spatial dependence of the gas density, i.e., $`K_\nu [n]K_\nu [n(x)]`$ and $`u_\nu [n]u_\nu [n(x)]`$.

The equation of motion for the fields conjugate fields representing the low energy excitations of the inhomogeneous gas are obviously given by $`i\dot{\varphi }_\nu =[H,\varphi _\nu ]`$ and $`i\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\nu =[H,\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu ]`$, where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian Eq. (12) with spatial dependent Luttinger paramters. Using the canonical commutation relation one can easily find:

$$\dot{\varphi }_\nu =K_\nu (x)u_\nu (x)\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu ,\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\nu =\frac{}{x}\frac{u_\nu (x)}{K_\nu (x)}\frac{}{x}\varphi _\nu .$$
(20)
Let us first of all consider a non-interacting fermion gas, i.e. $`g=0`$, without the optical lattice. This case is rather well-known (see for instance , where different approaches were used). The density of the gas in the LDA in terms of the local value of Fermi momentum is $`n(x)=2k_F(x)/\pi \mathrm{}`$. The internal energy of the gas is just the density of the kinetic energy (a.k.a. quantum pressure) $`E_0(n)=\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2n^3(x)/24m`$. Substituting into Eq.(19) we find the ground stete Thomas-Fermi density profile

$$n_{TF}(x)=n_0\sqrt{1\frac{x^2}{R_{TF}^2}},$$
(21)
for $`|x|<R_{TF}`$, and $`0`$ otherwise. We have indicated with $`n_0=(8\mu m/\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2)^{1/2}`$ the central density of the trap and with $`R_{TF}=(2\mu /m\omega _x^2)^{1/2}`$ the Thomas-Fermi size of the cloud. The chemical potential $`\mu =\mathrm{}\omega _xN/2`$ is fixed by the normalization requirement.

For an ideal gas the equations of motion Eq. (20) can be solved. Indeed in this case the Luttinger parameters have the values $`u_\nu =v_F`$, $`K_c=1`$, where the Fermi velocity $`v_F`$ can be written in terms of the total density: $`v_F=\mathrm{}\pi n/2m`$. Substituting in the equation of motion Eq. (20) and using the density profile Eq. (21), we can write down the equations for the density and spin-density fluctuations ($`_x\varphi _\nu `$):

$$\omega _\nu ^2\rho _\nu =\omega _x^2\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}(1\stackrel{~}{x}^2)^{1/2}\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}(1\stackrel{~}{x}^2)^{1/2}\rho _\nu ,$$
(22)
where we defined the adimensional coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{x}=x/R_{TF}`$. The same equation has been derived in  using the mean field equations of Kolomeisky et al.. The solution is given by

$`\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{x}^2}\rho _{\nu n}`$ $`=`$ $`A_\nu \mathrm{sin}(\omega _{\nu n}/\omega _x\mathrm{arccos}\stackrel{~}{x})`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`B_\nu \mathrm{cos}(\omega _{\nu n}/\omega _x\mathrm{arccos}\stackrel{~}{x}).`$ (24)
By analyzing the boundary conditions one can find the discrete spectrum of eigenfrequencies. The result: $`\omega _{\nu n}=\omega _xn`$  is the same both for the spin and the density modes. The first modes ($`n=1`$) has eigenfunction $`\rho _\nu x/\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{x}^2}`$ and it corresponds to harmonic oscillations of the total density and the total spin (dipole and spin-dipole mode).

For weak interaction the correction to the ground state energy can be obtained by averaging the interparticle interaction over the free ground state:

$$E_0=\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2n^3/24m+gn^2/4.$$
(25)
Then, in the spirit of LDA using the Eq. (19), one finds that the density, up to the first order in $`\xi =g/\pi \mathrm{}v_F(0)`$, uniformly decreases by $`\delta n(x)=2gm/\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2`$. As expected the (repulsive) interaction reduces the density. This simple conclusion breaks down close to the edges of the cloud $`x=\pm R_{TF}`$ , where the density goes to zero. Indeed we should require that $`g\mathrm{}^2n(x)/m`$, i.e.,

$$(R_{TF}x)/R_{TF}(gm/\mathrm{}^2n_0)^2O(\xi ^2).$$
(26)
The Luttinger parameters can be calculated substituting the local Fermi velocity $`v_F(x)=\pi \mathrm{}(n_{TF}(x)+\delta n(x))/2m`$ in the expressions obtained before for the homogeneous case with small interaction. In this way one finds

$$u_{c,s}(x)=\frac{\pi \mathrm{}n_{TF}(x)}{2m}\left(1\frac{A_{c,s}gm}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2n_{TF}(x)}\right),$$
(27)
where $`A_s=3`$ and $`A_c=1`$ and to the same order $`K_c=1gm/\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2n_{TF}(x)`$.

In the strong interacting limit from the exact solution one has

$$E_0=\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2n^3/6m(14\mathrm{}^2n\mathrm{ln}(2)/mg).$$
(28)
The density profile for $`g\mathrm{}`$ is still given by Eq. (21), but with $`n_0n_{\mathrm{}}=(2m\mu /\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2)^{1/2}`$, $`\mu =N\mathrm{}\omega _x`$ and $`R_{TF}=R_{\mathrm{}}=(2\mu /m\omega _x^2)^{1/2}`$. The first order correction to the density is $`\delta n(x)=8\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{ln}(2)n_{TF}(x)^2/3mg`$. The spin velocity goes to zero as the interaction goes to infinity, the first order correction is simply

$$u_s(x)=\pi ^3\mathrm{}^3n_{TF}(x)/3m^2g.$$
(29)
The density wave velocity and $`K_c`$ have a non-zero value for infinite interaction and up to the first order correction one has $`K_c=1/2(1+4\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{ln}(2)n_{TF}(x)/gm)`$ and

$`u_c(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}n_{TF}(x)}{m}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{ln}(2)n_{TF}(x)}{mg}}\right).`$

On the same lines we can obtain the results in presence of the optical lattice. For the non-interacting case ($`g=0U=0`$) the ground state energy of the gas is $`E_0=2Jn4J\mathrm{sin}(\pi nd/2)/\pi d`$. From Eq. (19) one has that the density of the cloud is

$$n_{TF}=\frac{2}{\pi d}\mathrm{arccos}\left[1\frac{\mu }{2J}\left(1\stackrel{~}{x}^2\right)\right]$$
(30)
for $`\stackrel{~}{x}=x/R_{TF}1`$ and 0 elsewhere. From the previous expression we find the equations of motion for density and spin-density fluctuations in the ideal case

$$\omega _\nu ^2\rho _\nu =\frac{m}{m^{}}\omega _x^2\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}(1\stackrel{~}{x}^2)^{1/2}f_l(\stackrel{~}{x})\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}(1\stackrel{~}{x}^2)^{1/2}f_l(\stackrel{~}{x})\rho _\nu ,$$
(31)
where we defined $`f_l(\stackrel{~}{x})=\sqrt{1\mu /4J(1\stackrel{~}{x}^2)}`$. For low density (i.e. $`f_l1`$) we have that the spectrum has the same structure as for the continuos case, but with a renormalized trapping frequency $`\omega _{\nu ,n}=n\omega _x\sqrt{m/m^{}}`$. This result is quite general and for instance the same correction was found in  for a Bose-Einstein condensate in 1D optical lattice.

The first order correction, calculated averaging the interactionhœ\[Cœn term in Eq. (5) over the ground state is $`\delta n=Un_{TF}/2\pi J\mathrm{sin}(\pi n_{TF}d/2)`$. The density and spin-density wave velocities up to the first order are given by

$$u_{c(s)}=v_F(x)\left[1\frac{Ud}{2\mathrm{}v_F}\left(\frac{n_{TF}d\mathrm{cos}(\pi n_{TF}d/2)}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi n_{TF}d/2)}\pm \frac{1}{\pi }\right)\right]$$
(32)
and to the same order the remaining parameter $`K_c`$ has the same expression than in the homogeneous case but with a space dependent density given by the Eq. (30). In the strong interacting limit the energy density of the ground state can be written as

$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`2J\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi nd)}{\pi d}}\right)`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2J^2\mathrm{ln}(2)}{Ud}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{nd}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}(2\pi nd)(nd)^2\right].`$ (34)
The density profile for $`U\mathrm{}`$ is given by the Eq.(30), divided by 2. The rest of the calculation proceeds on the same line as above. We will use these results later to discuss spin-charge separation.

We have shown how it is possible, under certain condition, to study as a Luttinger liquid an inhomogeneous 1D Fermi ultra-cold gas. We gave some analytical results in the two limiting case of weak and strong interaction. This will be used in the next section to study a possible way to see the equivalent of spin-charge separation in such system.

## IV Spin-charge separation in trapped cold-gases

### A Spectroscopy

The separation of the spin and the charge modes in the spectrum suggests experimental ways to observe the spin charge separation in harmonically trapped atoms . We will propose two related experiments to observe the separation of the spin and the charge degrees of freedom. One relies on the possibility to excite easily some normal modes of the trapped gas and to measure their frequency. The other one consist in really testing the dynamics of total density and relative density wave packets. Before discussing the experiments it should be noticed that the application of the Hamiltonian Eq. (12) to finite systems deserves special attention. As shown in  the boundaries of a LL affect the physics of the lowest energy excitation $`ϵ`$ with $`ϵL/v_F1`$. Setting $`LR_{TF}`$ we find that the excitations with $`\omega _{\nu n}\omega _x`$ can have finite size corrections, which are not described by Hamiltonian Eq. (12) with the LDA values of the Luttinger parameters. Below we will consider $`\omega _{\nu n}\omega _x`$ (WKB approximation, see below) or small interactions. Hence we can neglect the finite size effect. Other finite size effect related to the TF approximation will appear (logarithmic correction), but they are not related to Luttinger physics.

Assume we have the two different components of an interacting Fermi-system confined in external potentials, which act independently on each component. Then by modulating the two potentials simultaneously one induces oscillations of the total density. In turn, by slightly changing the confining potentials for the two components out of phase, only spin waves are excited. By observing the character and measuring the frequencies of the modes one can prove that the spin and the density modes are in fact the independent modes in the system and test the validity of the Luttinger description for such system. In FIG. 2 we show the numerical results of the level spacing for the spin and the charge modes for harmonically trapped atoms in the presence of optical lattice. Numerical results are based on the exact solution  together with the LDA.

For small interaction we can give an analytical expression to the energy correction of the lowest modes for a trapped gas using the balance equation Eq. (19). The frequency of the (density) dipole mode is unchanged as it has to be, while the correction to the spin dipole mode diverge logarithmically. The logarithmically divergent behaviour is due to the localization of the excitations of a free gas close to the border (see before and ). To handle the divergence we use as cut-off the condition Eq. (26) and we find

$`\delta \omega _s=\omega _x{\displaystyle \frac{3gm}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2n_{TF}(0)}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}^2n_{TF}(0)}{2gm}}.`$

The energy shift is negative and can be measured by comparing the density and the spin oscillation of the atomic cloud. The logarithm in the previous expression tells us that in harmonic traps the requirement to apply the perturbation theory in $`\xi `$ is stronger than in the homogeneous case, namely it should be $`\xi \mathrm{log}(1/\xi )1`$. We can say that the LDA is valid with logarithmic accuracy.

The same behaviour for the first order correction to the spin-dipole frequency can be obtained in this regime also using sum rules. This was done for a 3D system in . Generally speaking, it is possible to show, that an upper bound to the energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _F`$ of the lowest state excited by an operator $`F`$ is given by the ratio $`\mathrm{}^2\omega _F^2=m_3/m_1`$, where $`m_k`$ is the $`k`$th moment of the dynamic structure factor. One can write the two moments as

$`m_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}0|[F^{},[H,F]]|0,`$ (35)
$`m_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}0|[[F^{},H],[H,[H,F]]]|0,`$ (36)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian and $`|0`$ the ground state of the system. We are interested in the excitations due to the spin dipole operator $`S=_ix_i_ix_i`$ and the Hamiltonian being Eq. (2). In the limit of small interaction one has

$$\omega _s=\omega _x\frac{g}{mN\omega _x}𝑑x|_xn(x)|^2.$$
(37)
Substituting for the ground state density $`n`$, the density profile Eq. (21) and using the cut-off Eq. (26), one finds, to logarithmic precision

$$\delta \omega _s=\omega _x\frac{16}{\pi }\frac{gm}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2n_{TF}(0)}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2n_{TF}(0)}{gm}\right).$$
(38)
The Eq. (37) has nothing to do with Luttinger model and, hence, provides an alternatives derivation for the spin excitation frequency. The fact that the results agree with each other confirms both the applicability of the Luttinger model and the LDA.

We will introduce now a WKB calculation of the energy excitation, which we will allow us to calculate the energy shift of the spin excitations in the strong interacting regime. Suppose that the energy levels of a quantum system are charcterized by a certain quantum number $`n`$. For sufficently high quantum number the eigenfrequencies can be obtained from the WKB (Bohr-Sommerfeld) quantization condition,

$$_{x_0}^{x_0}p(x)𝑑x=\mathrm{}\pi (n+\alpha ),$$
(39)
where $`p(x)`$ is the WKB momentum corresponding to a given energy, $`x_0`$ is the classical turning point and the constant $`\alpha `$ is the so called Maslov index. The accuracy of the WKB spectrum estimation is $`1/(\pi n)^2`$. In our case we can fix $`\alpha `$ by comparing the WKB results and the exact solutions of Eqs. (20) for a weakly interacting gas. The spectrum of the excitations we are considering is linear, $`ϵ=u_{\rho ,s}(x)p(x)`$, with the velocities given by the Eq. (27). Using the Eq. (39) we obtain the same sort of logarithmically diverging integrals as those we obtained in the perturbative calculation above. Once again to regularize such diverging behavior we use the condition (26) and we find

$$ϵ_{\rho ,s}=\mathrm{}\omega (n+1)\left(1\frac{2gmA_{\rho ,s}}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2n_{TF}(0)}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2n_{TF}(0)\pi }{mg}\right)\right).$$
(40)
We find once more that the interaction dependent splitting of the eigenenergies is different for charge and spin.

In the strong interaction limit, after integrating Eq. (39), we find that once again the density dipole mode is unchanged. The leading term of the energy of the spin dipole mode, which is zero in the limit $`\xi \mathrm{}`$, is given by

$`ϵ_s(p)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^4\pi ^3n^2(x)p(x)}{3m^2g}}.`$

Substituting $`p(x)`$ in the integral equality (39) and dealing with the logarithmic divergence as usual, we find, that

$$ϵ_{ns}=\mathrm{}\omega (n+\alpha )\frac{\mathrm{}^5\pi ^3n_{\mathrm{}}}{3gm\mathrm{log}(gm/\mathrm{}^2n_{\mathrm{}})},$$
(41)
where $`\alpha 1`$. In the limit of the strong interaction the spin level spacing decreases a lot and is much smaller than that between the density waves ($`\omega _x`$), as is clearly shown in FIG.2.

### B Wavepacket dynamics

The difference between the spin and the charge velocities allows to have spin and charge wave packets moving at different velocities. This can be seen in a sufficiently long trap. Localized wave packets of the spin and density excitations can be generated by sufficiently localized optical potentials of dimension $`\mathrm{}`$ such that $`R\mathrm{}k_F^1`$, where $`R`$ is the size of the atom cloud and the Fermi momentum $`k_F`$ is essentially the interparticle distance FIG. 3.

The procedure we have in mind is analogous to the MIT setup originally used to study propagation of sound waves in elongated condensates . The motion of these wave packets is readily detected by internal state dependent laser probes. In FIG. 4 we show a simulate wave packets motion for the states $`|F=1/2,M_F=\pm 1/2`$ of 6Li with interaction parameter $`\xi =1`$. This figure was obtained solving numerically Eq. (20). The scattering length of these two states is magnetically tunable and recently the tunability has been experimentally explored up to high magnetic field (see  references therein). The scattering length is positive for applied magnetic field $`B550G`$ and presents a Feshbach resonance around $`800G`$. We can, for instance, consider small scattering length of the order of $`a=20\AA `$. In order to have $`\xi 1`$, one can use $`N=500`$ particles at trap frequencies $`\omega _x=1`$Hz and $`\omega _{}=250`$kHz. On the other hand near the Feshbach resonance the scattering length can be larger by orders magnitude, with respect to the previous value. For $`a`$ just ten times bigger than the previous one it is possible to have $`N=1000`$ atoms at a trap frequency $`\omega _{}=100`$kHz, leaving unchanged $`\omega _x`$.

An optical potential created by a far detuned laser light and acting in the same way on both the components amounts to an external potential $`_x\varphi _c`$ and hence acts only on the density waves. An optical potential generated by a laser tuned, e.g., between fine structure levels of excited Alkali states acts on the ground state spin in a way equivalent to an external magnetic field interacting with the spin density $`_x\varphi _s`$ and thus act solely on the spin waves. One can also act at the same time coherently on both the charge and the spin waves. We analyze in some detail this case (the same can be done for the previous cases). The idea is sketched in FIG. (5). We need to couple only one out of the two (“long-living”) hyperfine levels identified by $`|\sigma =|,|`$, with another (in principle “short-living”) state of the atom, $`|e`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the Rabi frequency which couples for instance $`|`$ and $`|e`$, $`\delta `$ be the detuning, i.e. $`\delta =\omega _L\omega _e`$, where $`\omega _L`$ is the laser frequency and $`\mathrm{}\omega _e`$ is the energy separation between $`|`$ and $`|e`$, and $`\gamma `$ be the spontaneous emission rate of the state $`|e`$. In the regime of large detuning, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega },\gamma `$ the effect of the coupling is to introduce an energy shift $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=|\mathrm{\Omega }|^2/\delta `$ and a decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=|\mathrm{\Omega }/\delta |^2\gamma `$. Thus, for not too long times ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }t1`$), we have the Hamiltonian density $`_{\mathrm{ext}}(x)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(x)\psi _{}^{}(x)\psi _{}(x)`$ acting on the gas. Eventually, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(x)`$ (i.e. the laser profile) is slowly varying in space, to avoid scattering processes, $`q2k_F`$, in terms of charge and spin fields one can write

$$H_{\mathrm{ext}}=\frac{dx}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(x)(_x\varphi _c(x)+_x\varphi _s(x)).$$
(42)
Clearly the previous Hamiltonian acts as localized (with the above remark) independent perturbations on both charge and spin densities.

## V Relaxation phenomena

As stated before, the Hamiltonian Eq. (12) describes properly the fluctuations of a 1D system only in the long wave $`q/k_F1`$, low energy regime. Higher order terms originating from, for example, the non-linearity of the fermionic spectrum appear which can mix the excitations. The first corrections are third power in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu `$ and $`\varphi _\nu `$, which lead to scattering of the excitations. This is precisely the case in the simple model described by Eq. (6). Introducing once again the operators $`c_{r,k,\sigma }`$, $`r=R,L`$ and $`\sigma =,`$ for the left- and right-movers in the momentum space, but this time keeping the terms up to the second order in $`kk_F`$, one has for the kinetic part

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r,k,\sigma }{}}(_kϵ)_{k_F}(a_rkk_F)c_{r,k,\sigma }^{}c_{r,k,\sigma }`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(_k^2ϵ)_{k_F}}{2}}(a_rkk_F)^2c_{r,k,\sigma }^{}c_{a,k,\sigma },`$ (44)
where $`a_{R(L)}=+()`$. The quadratic term in real space reads $`(_k^2ϵ)_{k_F}_{r,\sigma }𝑑x:_x\psi _{r,\sigma }^{}(x)_x\psi _{r,\sigma }(x)`$ and using the bosonization identity (see Appendix Eq. (A1)) one obtains $`4\sqrt{\pi }(_k^2ϵ)_{k_F}_{r,\sigma }𝑑x(_x\varphi _{a,\sigma })^3`$. Introducing the charge and spin boson fields Eq. (11), we find that we have to add the following third order term to the Luttinger model density Hamiltonian

$`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(_k^2ϵ)_{k_F}}{\sqrt{2}\pi }}\{(_x\varphi _c)^3+3\mathrm{\Pi }_c(_x\varphi _s\mathrm{\Pi }_s+\mathrm{\Pi }_s_x\varphi _s)`$ (45)
$`+`$ $`_x\varphi _c\mathrm{\Pi }_c^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_c_x\varphi _c\mathrm{\Pi }_c+\mathrm{\Pi }_c^2_x\varphi _c`$ (46)
$`+`$ $`3_x\varphi _c[(_x\varphi _s)^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_s^2]\}.`$ (47)
To study the relaxation phenomena we will consider, for simplicity, a single component gas (polarized system). In the previous Hamiltonian we are left only with the term $`_{\mathrm{int}}=\mathrm{}^2(_x\varphi )^3/\sqrt{2}\pi m`$.

According to Haldane , the generic term due to the non-linearity of the spectrum is given by $`V_{\mathrm{int}}=\gamma \mathrm{}^2/m(_x\varphi )^3`$, where $`\gamma 1`$.

We calculated the damping of the oscillations by the Fermi’s Golden rule and the second quantized representation for the phonon fields Eqs. (A3) and (A5). We considered the decay rate of an excitation with momentum $`q`$ and energy $`\omega _q`$. In the limiting case $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega _q`$, a straightforward calculation gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{T=0}\mathrm{}^2q^4L/m^2u.$$
(48)
This is the decay rate in a process where a particle with the energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _q`$ decays into a pair of particles with $`\omega _1,\omega _2<\omega _q`$. Note that $`\omega _q\omega _x`$, otherwise there are no final states for such decay instability (i.e. the lowest excitations are very stable at very low temperatures). In the case of $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega _q`$ (but still $`TT_F`$) we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_Tq^2Lk_B^2T^2/m^2u^3$$
(49)
which corresponds to Landau damping, i.e., the contribution of a process in which the damping occurs by scattering a high-frequency excitation with $`\mathrm{}\omega _q^{}k_BT`$. Note that both results contain the size of the sample $`L`$. For sufficiently small temperatures (or high number of particles) the excitations are only weakly damped. Indeed, for the lowest excitations $`Lmu/\mathrm{}N`$, $`\omega _q\omega ϵ_F/\mathrm{}N`$, thus substituting the previous expression for the decay rate we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }/\omega _q(k_BT/ϵ_F)^21.$$
(50)
In conclusion for sufficiently low tempertaure or large enough number of particles the excitations are only weakly damped by the third order correction to the otherwise quadratic Luttinger Hamiltonian. This means that in a degenerate quasi-1D Fermi gas the excitations can be observed for several trap periods.

## VI Spinless LL with bosons

In this section we will show how to realize a spinless LL Hamiltonian using “hard core” bosons in an optical lattice. The on site interaction of the bosons can be written as $`U(n_i1)n_i`$. Hence, in the limit of $`g\mathrm{}`$ $`(U\mathrm{})`$ only the states $`n_i=0,1`$ are allowed. We parameterize them as $`\alpha =\pm `$ states of a particle with the spin $`1/2`$. In terms of spin operators (Pauli matrices) the lattice (Hubbard) Hamiltonian can be put in the form

$$H=J\underset{i}{}(\sigma _i^+\sigma _{i+1}^{}+h.c.)+V(\sigma _i^z+1)(\sigma _{i+1}^z+1).$$
(51)
Where $`V`$ is due to the off-site interaction, which is present in the starting bosonic Hamiltonian. Usually one has $`VU`$. In the easiest case, if $`d`$ is the lattice period and $`w(x)`$ the Wannier function, one has

$$U=g𝑑x|w(x)|^4$$
(52)
$$V=g𝑑x|w(x)w(x+d)|^2.$$
(53)
The Hamiltonian Eq. (51) can be brought to a fermionic form with the help of Jordan-Wigner transformation:

$`\sigma _i^+`$ $`=`$ $`a_i^{}{\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}\sigma _i^z,`$ (54)
$`\sigma _i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}\sigma _i^z\right)a_i,`$ (55)
$`\sigma _i^z`$ $`=`$ $`2a_i^{}a_i1,`$ (56)
where the $`a_i`$’s are fermionic operator. Substituting these expressions into the spin-chain Hamiltonian we get:

$$H=J\underset{i}{}(a_i^{}a_{i+1}+h.c.)+4V\underset{i}{}a_i^{}a_ia_{i+1}^{}a_{i+1}.$$
(57)
Thus we have obtained a 1D system of interacting spin polarized fermions starting with a system of bosons. Bosonizing the JW fermions we arrive at a LL Hamiltonian similar to Eq. (12).

We should also mention that, recently, was shown that it is possible to study typical fermionic correlation phenomena using 2-level bosonic atoms trapped in optical lattices .

## VII Conclusion

In conclusion, we have described 1D (Fermi) gases under different trapping configurations as Luttinger liquids by using the availble exact solutions. We have shown how it is possible to gain some physical insights with this approach also in the non-interactig case (strictly speaking we cannot talk in this case of Luttinger liquids). In addition, we have proposed some experiments to test the validity of this approach and to see in a clear way the so-called “spin-charge separation”.

We emphasize that a series of approximations has been made. We considered our system as an infinite one, or better finite with periodic boundary conditions, to extract the Luttinger parameters. We commented on that for what concern an actual experiment. The finite-size correction can be, in any case with some effort, taken into account. The analysis of the inhomogeneous case was carried out within a local density approximation. For what we gave the range of validity.

In summary, cold quantum degenerate Fermi gases are a promising avenue to observe Luttinger physics in a novel system in the laboratory.

###### Acknowledgements.

Discussions with J.I. Cirac, J. von Delft, D. Jaksch and U. Schollwöck are gratefully acknowledged. Work at Innsbruck supported in part by the A.S.F., EU Networks, and the Institute for Quantum Information. W.Z. and P.Z. thank ITP, UCSB, for hospitality. P.Z. thanks also the MPQ, Garching, for hospitality and the Alexander von Humboldt Award for support. A.R. has been supported supported by the European Commission Project Cold Quantum Gases RTN Network Contract No. HPRN-CT-2000-00125.

## A Bosonization identities

It is possible to represent the single fermion field operators $`\psi _{r,\sigma }`$ ($`r=R,L`$ and $`\sigma =,`$) in terms of the boson field $`\varphi _\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu `$ ($`\nu =c,s`$) (see for instance ) by the bosonization identity

$$\psi _{r,\sigma }=\underset{\alpha 0}{lim}\frac{F_{r,\sigma }}{(2\pi \alpha )^{1/2}}e^{a_ri2\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _{R(L),\sigma }},$$
(A1)
where $`a_{R(L)}=+()`$. The fields $`\varphi _{r,\sigma }`$ are recovered from Eq. (11). The (hermitian) operators $`F_{r,\sigma }`$ are called Klein factors and obey the Clifford algebra $`\{F_{r,\sigma },F_{r^{},\sigma ^{}}\}=2\delta _{r,r^{}}\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$. We remind that the Luttinger model is based on an infinite filled Dirac sea. The last correspondence must be handled with utmost care when a product of two (or more) fermion operators with the same argument are considered. In such cases one must implement the normal ordering prescription, i.e., $`:A:=AA_{\mathrm{vac}}`$. For instance the right way to compute the densities is by using the limit prescription: $`\rho (x)=lim_{\epsilon 0}:\psi ^{}(x)\psi (x+\epsilon ):`$ .
It is useful to write the boson fields in terms of boson creation and annihilation operators, $`b_{\nu ,k}^{}`$ and $`b_{\nu ,k}`$, $`\nu =c,s`$

$`\varphi _\nu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{K_\nu }{2L}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|k|}}}\left(b_{\nu ,k}e^{ikx}+b_{\nu ,k}^{}e^{ikx}\right)`$ (A2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }x}{L}}\widehat{N}_\nu `$ (A3)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2LK_\nu }}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{|k|}\left(b_{\nu ,k}e^{ikx}b_{\nu ,k}^{}e^{ikx}\right)`$ (A4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{L}}\widehat{J}_\nu .`$ (A5)
The eigenvalues of the operators $`\widehat{N}_\nu `$’s are the number of particles added to the ground state ($`\nu =c`$) and the “magnetization” ($`N_{}N_{}`$) of the system with respect to the ground state ($`\nu =s`$). The operators $`\widehat{J}_\nu `$ represent the respective currents. In the thermodynamic limit ($`L\mathrm{}`$) or for excitations which do not change neither the number of particles and the currents these operators can be neglected. Note that such “topological” excitations can be recognized also in the exact solutions of the models we discussed in this paper.

### 1 Backward and umklapp scatterng

Using the previous identities it is possible to express also the backward scattering in terms of the bosonic fields $`\varphi _\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu `$. In terms of fermionic operators the backward scattering is

$$H_b=g_1\underset{k_1,k_2,\sigma }{}c_{R,\sigma }^{}(k_1)c_{L,\sigma }(k_1q)c_{L,\sigma }^{}(k_2)c_{R,\sigma }(k_2+q)].$$
(A6)
Expressing the previous term in the real space and substituting the fermionic fields with the Eq. (A1) one gets

$$_b(x)=4g_1F_RF_RF_LF_L\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8}\varphi _s).$$
(A7)
The product of Klein factors can in this case substitute (with a kind of gauge choice) with $`+1`$ (see  for a comprehensive discussion). From the obtained expression is quite clear that, when $`g_1`$ renormalizes to strong coupling, one has a gap for the spin excitations . This is the case, e.g., for $`g_1<0`$ and $`K_s=1`$. When the lattice is present also an umklapp term can be present. The “bosonized” form of such term is essentially like Eq. (A7), which $`\varphi _c`$, instead of $`\varphi _s`$ in the argument of the cosine function. But in this case a gap can be opened only at half filling .