format: text

text:
# Spin Precession and Oscillations in Mesoscopic Systems

## I Introduction

The recent progress in controlling and manipulating spins in semiconductors has attracted considerable interest in the prospect of developing electronics based on spin degrees of freedomDatta ; Awschalom . Numerous recent magneto-transport experiments expose “spin coherence” in the sense of long-lived oscillatory phenomena associated with spin precessionKikkawa0 ; Kikkawa1 . Some such oscillations, however, are expected to persist even in the classical limit as a consequence only of (approximate) spin-rotational invariance. The aim of this paper is to compare and contrast spin transport in simple models of classical and truly single-electron phase coherent conductors. We also give a set of general hydrodynamic transport equations that apply in the classical regime – and can be applied for quantitative modeling of a variety of experimental geometries.

Theoretically, although the electron spin is a quantum object at heart, its quantum nature has been largely ignored in studies of semiconductor spin transport. Most approaches are based on a semi-classical Boltzmann formalism, in which quantum mechanical effects appear only in the calculation of scattering rates and Fermi occupation factorsValet ; Johnson1 . The resulting semi-classical transport equations were successfully applied in analyzing spin injection into semiconductors and in studying spin-polarized transport in inhomogeneous doped semiconductors Johnson ; Jedema . This approach essentially ignores all quantum interference effects, and is expected to hold when the inelastic mean free path is sufficiently short – i.e. for not too low temperature and for large samples. However, experiments on mesoscopic conductors allow a detailed exploration of phase coherent phenomena, as has been amply demonstrated for charge transport.DattaBook

To search for single-electron spin coherence, it is crucial to have some idea of its distinguishing features.ImryBook  The search is complicated by the existence of essentially classical spin oscillations. In particular, in any system which, in absence of applied fields, can be approximated as spin-rotationally invariant, a continuity equation (modified by a precessional “mode-coupling” term) exists:

$$_tS_\mu +_\nu I_{\mu \nu }=g\mu _Bϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }S_\nu B_\lambda $$
(1)
where $`S_\mu `$ is the spin density, $`I_{\mu \nu }`$ is the spin current tensor (current of the $`\mu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ component of spin running along the $`\nu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ direction). Here $`g`$ and $`\mu _B`$ are the gyromagnetic factor and Bohr magneton. In a single-channel conductor, this becomes

$$_t\stackrel{}{S}+_x\stackrel{}{I}=g\mu _B(\stackrel{}{S}\times \stackrel{}{B}),$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{I}`$ are the spin and spin-density current. These two equations are operator identities, and hence trivially hold for the expectation values of the spin current and density, since they are linear. No assumption whatsoever is made regarding single-electron phase coherence, and indeed these would hold even in a non-degenerate electron gas at high temperature with large amounts of inelastic scattering, provided SU(2) spin-rotation symmetry is only weakly broken. Clearly then, spin precession – and associated magnetotransport oscillations – may occur even in strongly incoherent (indeed classical) media.

To elucidate the aspects of magnetotransport oscillations which do rely on single electron coherence, we consider a simple situation in which the classical and quantum limits can be compared and contrasted. We focus on a double barrier structure consisting of two tunneling barriers separated by a region where a magnetic field is applied perpendicularly to the system (See Fig.1). Incidentally, such Zeeman fields tailored on a mesoscopic scale have been ingeniously achieved by making use of the Overhauser effect through which optically polarized spin nuclei induce a Zeeman magnetic field on the conduction electrons through the contact interaction. In this way magnetic fields of the order of 1 Tesla extending over a range of microns have been obtained Kikkawa2 . We describe (by definition) the coherent quantum limit of this system using the Landauer-Büttiker formalism for electron wave scattering using the S-matrices for the two barriers. The classical limit is more delicate to define. Indeed, varying degrees of decoherence can occur via different physical mechanisms, by which individual electrons interchange energy between each other or with other degrees of freedom (e.g. phonons). The exchange of energy leads to dephasing – via $`d\varphi /dt=E/\mathrm{}`$ – as well as energy equilibration. To maximize the contrast with the coherent case, we consider the most extreme classical limit, suggested by BüttikerButtiker1986 ; Knittle , in which local electronic reservoirs are attached to the wire (see Fig. 2). These local equilibrium regions can be considered either as fictitious or real voltage probes. The randomization of the phase occurs by removing electrons from the phase coherent channels and reinjecting them without any phase relationships. Because in this approach electrons are actually interchanged between the reservoirs and the wire, not only is the single electron phase randomized but also energy and particle number are locally equilibrated. Hence, this picture can be viewed as a discrete limit of a hydrodynamic approach: while in hydrodynamics there is continuous local equilibrium at each point, in this model local equilibrium is realized only at the two points of the voltage probes.

¿From our calculations we find there are qualitative differences between incoherent and coherent propagation. We demonstrate that for phase coherent electrons, spin (charge) current can be generated from charge (spin) chemical potential, a situation which has no classical analog. These results can be understood in terms of quantum interference between multiple partial waves. Constructive interference between multiple reflections is determined by the added phase due to the applied magnetic field. We find that this can be put to use to create a spin valve where small changes in magnetic field lead to large changes in conductance. In the classical regime, the phase loss induced by the extra contacts obliterate the quantum interference but nevertheless spin precession arises. However, it is nature is different and is to be interpreted as arising from resonances instead of quantum interferences.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II. we give a description of spin transport in the Buttiker-Landauer model and derive the magnetoconductance of a 1-d wire for coherent electron propagation. In Sec. III. we consider incoherent electron propagation and determine the spin hydrodynamic equations in the ballistic regime . The results of the two approaches are elaborated and discussed in Sec. IV. Finally, in Sec. V. we present possible experimental implementations and a summary.

## II Model: Scattering Approach

We adopt a scattering approach to treat coherent electron propagation through a double barrier, focusing for simplicity on the ballistic regime in which the elastic mean free path $`l_e`$ is much larger than the channel length $`L_c`$. The corresponding formalism is based on the scattering matrix (S-matrix), which connects incoming $`\widehat{a}`$ and outgoing $`\widehat{b}`$ electron annihilation operators in the (L) left and (R) right leads, such that

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{b}_L\\ \widehat{b}_R\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_{LL}& S_{LR}\\ S_{RL}& S_{RR}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_L\\ \widehat{a}_R\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
Here, we consider only two allowed propagation channels (one for each spin), so that each $`S_{ij}`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ spin matrix. The corresponding creation operators $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{b}^{}`$ are similarly connected by the hermitian conjugated S-matrix.

In the Landauer-Büttiker approach, the incident flow of electrons into the wire is determined by the electron distribution in the reservoirs. We consider paramagnetic contacts spin polarized along a given direction $`\widehat{n}`$ such that each spin band is characterized by its own Fermi-Dirac distribution Tang . In the proper spin basis, the occupation numbers in the contacts are given by

$$a_{mi\alpha }^{}a_{nj\beta }^{}=\delta _{mn}\delta _{ij}\delta _{\alpha \beta }f_\alpha (ϵ_{mi\alpha }),$$
(4)
where the Fermi distribution $`f_\alpha `$ is

$$f_\alpha (ϵ)=\frac{1}{e^{(ϵ\mu _\alpha )/k_BT}+1}.$$
(5)
Here $`a_{mi\beta }^{}`$ and $`a_{mi\beta }^{}`$ are respectively creation and annihilation electron operators in the contact $`i=L/R`$, with spin $`\alpha =/`$ and quantum number $`m`$ representing other degrees of freedom besides the spin. The energy $`ϵ`$ is the single particle excitation energy. This double Fermi distribution function is realized provided that the interactions in the contacts preserve spin, but randomize the quantum number $`m`$ (e.g. the kinetic momentum). Thus the double Fermi distribution function describes two distinct (spin up and down) populations of electrons whose numbers are separately conserved but which may exchange energy and hence share the same temperature. We define a spin chemical potential $`\stackrel{}{\mu }`$ to be $`\left(\mu ^{}\mu ^{}\right)\widehat{n}`$ where $`\widehat{n}`$ is the direction of the spin polarization, and the charge chemical potential as $`\mu =(\mu ^{}+\mu ^{})/2`$.

The spin chemical potential determines the occupations (partially traced density matrix)

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}a_{mi\alpha }^{}a_{mi\beta }^{}=\delta _{\alpha \delta }N/2+N(0)\left(\mu _i^0\delta _{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{\mu }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\beta \alpha }\right),`$ (6)
where $`\mu ^0=\mu ϵ_F`$ is the charge chemical potential deviation due to electrostatic potentials, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma ^x,\sigma ^y,\sigma ^z)`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`N`$, $`N(0)`$ are the number of particles and the density of states per spin at the Fermi energy respectively. Note that the spin polarization is related to the spin chemical potential via $`\stackrel{}{S}=N(0)\stackrel{}{\mu }/2`$. We emphasize that this is a different situation than the case of ferromagnetic contacts, in which the majority and minority carriers share the same chemical: the spin chemical potenital vanishes and the spin polarization is due to a non-zero internal exchange field. Experimentally, a non-vanishing spin chemical potential can be realized in electron-doped III-V semiconductors by optical methods which highly polarize the doped conduction band Malajovich . In the absence of magnetic impurities and spin orbit interaction, the spin polarization is a conserved quantity and a double Fermi distribution is achieved. Hence, this distribution can be realized for times larger than the inelastic scattering time, to allow for thermalization of each spin specie, but smaller than the spin-flip scattering time in order to preserve the spin polarization.

According to Landauer, the charge $`I^0`$ and spin $`\stackrel{}{I}`$ currents in the lead $`i`$ can be written as

$`I_i^0`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}v_{mi}\left(a_{mi\alpha }^{}a_{mi\alpha }b_{mi\alpha }^{}b_{mi\alpha }\right)/L,`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{}{I}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}v_{mi}\left(a_{mi\alpha }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\alpha \beta }a_{mi\beta }b_{mi\alpha }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\alpha \beta }b_{mi\beta }\right)/L,`$ (8)
where $`v_{mi}`$ is the velocity of the level $`m`$ in the lead $`i`$ along the $`x`$-direction and $`L`$ is the lenght of the wire. Note from hereon we will make use of the fundamental units where $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`e=1`$. We use the convention that the incoming currents are positive. For small chemical potential (relative to the Fermi energy), we can consider the scattering matrix to be energy-independent. In the zero-temperature limit, we arrive to the current equations

$`I_i^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left\{2\mu _i^0{\displaystyle \underset{j=R,L}{}}\left(\mu _j^0Tr[S_{ji}^{}S_{ij}]+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\mu }_j}{2}}Tr[\stackrel{}{\sigma }S_{ji}^{}S_{ij}]\right)\right\},`$
$`\stackrel{}{I}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\left\{\stackrel{}{\mu }_i{\displaystyle \underset{j=R,L}{}}\left(\mu _j^0Tr[S_{ji}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }S_{ij}]+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _j^\nu }{2}}Tr[\sigma ^\nu S_{ji}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }S_{ij}]\right)\right\}.`$ (9)
We note that the spin (charge) chemical potential can also generate charge (spin) current. Also one can readily check that these equations are gauge invariant, i.e. a uniform shift of the charge chemical potentials does not generate any currents. We also emphasize that due to the mode coupling term in Eq. 1, the spin current need not be the same in both leads. This is contrast to the charge current where charge conservation implies that $`I_L^0=I_R^0`$.

To derive an explicit expression for the entire scattering matrix $`S`$ of the system, we first describe the effect of the potential barriers $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ sketched in Fig. 1 by using the most general spin-independent scattering matrices for a two-channel system,

$$S_j=e^{i\eta _j}\left[ie^{i\xi _j\tau _z}\mathrm{sin}(\gamma _j)+\tau ^x\mathrm{cos}(\gamma _j)\right]\sigma ^0,$$
(10)
where $`\tau ^0,\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ are the $`2\times 2`$ identity and Pauli matrices respectively acting in the basis of incoming and outgoing electrons. Each barrier transmits and reflects electrons with probability $`T_j=\mathrm{cos}^2(\gamma _j)`$ and $`R_j=\mathrm{sin}^2(\gamma _j)`$, respectively. The overall phase $`\eta _j`$ is merely a propagating phase for all processes and without loss of generality will be set to zero from now on. The phase $`\xi _j`$ introduces an asymmetric phase shift between the backscattering of electrons coming from the left and the right.

We also ascribe a scattering matrix to the spin precession generated by the magnetic field in the double barrier region. For a Zeeman field pointing along the $`z`$-direction, the spin-dependent phase winding yields

$$S_B=\tau ^x\mathrm{exp}(i\delta \sigma ^0i\theta \sigma ^z/2),$$
(11)
where $`\delta =k_FL^{}`$ and $`\theta /2=gu_BB^zL_B/2v_F`$ are respectively the quantum mechanical phase acquired by free electrons propagating over an interbarrier distance $`L^{}`$, and the spin-dependent phase due to the winding in the magnetic field over a length $`L_B`$. Here $`g,u_B,B^z,v_F,k_F`$ are respectively the gyromagnetic ratio, the Bohr magneton, the magnetic field, the Fermi velocity and the Fermi wavevector. Physically, the electron spins undergo a rotation by an angle $`\theta `$ in the $`xy`$ plane upon crossing the magnetic field region. The S-matrix of the entire system is obtained by considering the combined effects of the potential barriers $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ and the phase winding $`S_B`$ and summing over all possible electron paths. Although we have determined the full scattering matrix, for ease of presentation we will set $`\xi _1=\xi _2=0`$ and $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=\gamma `$ to obtain the total S-matrix

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma ^0+\mathrm{sin}^2(\gamma )e^{i(2\delta \sigma ^0\theta \sigma ^z)}}}\left\{i\tau ^0\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )[\sigma ^0+e^{i(2\delta \sigma ^0\theta \sigma ^z)}]+\tau ^x\mathrm{cos}^2(\gamma )e^{i(\delta \sigma ^01/2\theta \sigma ^z)}\right\}.`$ (12)
The denominator is a result of multiple reflections between the two barriers. Notice that $`S`$ is periodic with respect to $`\theta `$ with a period of $`4\pi `$ which corresponds to two complete spin rotations. Substituting the scattering matrix into Eq. (9), we obtain the charge and spin currents in the two leads:

$`I_L^0={\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|^2}}\right)(\mu _L^0\mu _R^0)+{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|^2}}\right)(\mu _L^z\mu _R^z),`$
$`I_L^x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\left[\mu _L^x4(1T)\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\delta )\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}+\delta )Re\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _L^x+i\mu _L^y}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2}}\right)T^2Re\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _R^x+i\mu _R^y}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2}}\right)\right],`$
$`I_L^y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\left[\mu _L^y4(1T)\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\delta )\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}+\delta )Im\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _L^x+i\mu _L^y}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2}}\right)T^2Im\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _R^x+i\mu _R^y}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2}}\right)\right],`$
$`I_L^z={\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{8\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|^2}}\right)(\mu _L^z\mu _R^z)+{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|^2}}\right)(\mu _L^0\mu _R^0),`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}=\mathrm{exp}(i\delta \pm i\theta /2)+(1T)\mathrm{exp}(i\delta i\theta /2)`$. The currents in the right lead can be simply obtained by performing the transformation $`RL`$. ¿From the current formula, we can read off that the spin currents in the $`xy`$ plane ($`I^x,I^y`$) depend only on the in-plane spin chemical potentials $`\mu ^x,\mu ^y`$, whereas the charge current and the spin current $`I^0`$ and $`I^z`$ depend on $`\mu ^0,\mu ^z`$. This result can be traced back to the fact that the scattering matrix does not have off diagonal elements in the spin basis, so that the spin up and down currents in the $`z`$-basis are separately preserved. Since the currents $`I^0`$ and $`I^z`$ are respectively a sum and a difference of these currents, this explains why $`I^0`$ and $`I^z`$ are proportional to the difference of chemical potentials in each lead. It is interesting to notice that it is possible to drive a spin(charge) current by an electrostatic(spin) chemical potential. This situation has no classical analog, as we will see below.

## III Classical Propagation

In general, we expect differences from the above results, derived assuming coherent electron propagation, when a single electron’s phase is significantly scrambled in the time required to propagate between the two barriers. As discussed in the introduction, in this section we consider an extreme classical limit, in which not only is this single electron phase coherence completely lost, but also the electrons are allowed to locally equilibrate inside the structure, at the locations of the voltage probes A and B (with chemical potentials $`\mu _A,\mu _B`$) in Fig. . Such local equilibrium is in general required to achieve fully classical behavior, e.g. Ohm’s law for charge conduction.

Assuming the effect of scattering by the barriers can be modeled classically (on distances longer than the length of the barriers but smaller than the inter-barrier distance), we may determine the spin current using the continuity equation,Eq. (2), and the classical hydrodynamic equation,

$`_t\stackrel{}{I}+v_F^2_x\stackrel{}{S}`$ $`=g\mu _B(\stackrel{}{I}\times \stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{I}/\tau _{\mathrm{el}}^s`$ (14)
where $`\tau _{\mathrm{el}}^s`$ is the relaxation time for spin currents, which we assume to be governed by the elastic collision time. We assume $`\tau _{\mathrm{el}}^s0`$ only within the regions of the barriers. Then in the steady state, Eq. (2) implies $`\stackrel{}{I}`$ is constant through each barrier, and integrating Eq. (14) through the barrier regions gives

$`\stackrel{}{I}_L={\displaystyle \frac{v_F\tau _{\mathrm{el}}^s}{2\pi L_{\mathrm{bar}}}}(\stackrel{}{\mu }_L\stackrel{}{\mu }_A),`$
$`\stackrel{}{I}_R={\displaystyle \frac{v_F\tau _{\mathrm{el}}^s}{2\pi L_{\mathrm{bar}}}}(\stackrel{}{\mu }_R\stackrel{}{\mu }_B),`$ (15)
where $`L_{\mathrm{bar}}`$ is the length of the contact. Comparing with the Landauer-Büttiker result for the spin conductance of a single barrier, we will take $`\frac{v_F\tau _{\mathrm{el}}^s}{2\pi L_{\mathrm{bar}}}=T/4\pi `$ in the following. Similarly solving Eqs. (2,14) in the region between A and B gives

$`\stackrel{}{I}_L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(\stackrel{}{\mu }_A\widehat{R}_\theta \stackrel{}{\mu }_B),`$
$`\stackrel{}{I}_R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(\stackrel{}{\mu }_B\widehat{R}_\theta \stackrel{}{\mu }_A),`$ (16)
where, in the $`(x,y,z)`$ basis, $`\widehat{R}_\theta `$ reads

$$\widehat{R}_\theta =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta )& \mathrm{sin}(\theta )& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta )& \mathrm{cos}(\theta )& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
The similar but more trivial classical result for the charge currents is

$`I_L^0={\displaystyle \frac{T}{\pi }}(\mu _L^0\mu _A^0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}(\mu _A^0\mu _B^0),`$
$`I_R^0={\displaystyle \frac{T}{\pi }}(\mu _R^0\mu _B^0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}(\mu _B^0\mu _A^0).`$ (18)
Solving these Kirchoff’s-like equations for the spin chemical potentials $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_A`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_B`$ of the reservoirs $`A`$ and $`B`$, we find

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\mu }_A\\ \stackrel{}{\mu }_B\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{K}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+T& \widehat{R}_\theta \\ \widehat{R}_\theta & 1+T\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\mu }_L\\ \stackrel{}{\mu }_R\end{array}\right)`$ (19)
as well as the currents:

$`I_L^0`$ $`=`$ $`I_R^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2+T}}(\mu _L^0\mu _R^0)`$ (20)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{I}_L\\ \stackrel{}{I}_R\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\left[T\widehat{K}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+T& \widehat{R}_\theta \\ \widehat{R}_\theta & 1+T\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\mu _L}\\ \stackrel{}{\mu }_R\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}T& 0\\ 0& T\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\mu _L}\\ \stackrel{}{\mu }_R\end{array}\right)\right].`$ (21)
Here we defined

$`\widehat{K}`$ $`=T[\widehat{R}_\theta ^2\widehat{I}(1+T)^2]^1`$ (22)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{T}{1+(1+T)^42(1+T)^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )(1+T)^2& \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& \mathrm{cos}(2\theta )(1+T)^2& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1+(1+T)^42(1+T)^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )}{T(2+T)}\end{array}\right)`$
and $`\widehat{I}`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ identity matrix. For weak tunneling ($`T1)`$, the matrix $`\widehat{K}`$ is responsible for the resonances in the current function. Note that in addition to dephasing, each reservoir randomized the electronic momentum and generated an additional resistance. This extra resistance can be read off from the charge current where the total transmission trough the system is given by the fraction $`\frac{T}{2+T}<1`$, to be compared to the result for coherent electrons $`\frac{T}{2T}`$. The former can be written as $`(\frac{2R}{T}+1)^1`$ whereas the latter is $`(\frac{2R}{T}+1+2)^1`$. For coherent propagation the resistance is the sum of $`\frac{2R}{T}`$ corresponding to the intrinsic resistance of the potential barriers and $`1`$, the quantum resistance associated to the left and right contacts. In the case of incoherent propagation, there is an additional factor of $`2`$ due to the quantum resistances of the two voltage probes.

## IV Discussion

### IV.1 Low transmission limit

Phase coherence is known to affect transport properties in the charge channel. However, much less is known in the spin sector. One may expect that these differences, if present, to be enhanced in the low transmission limit where multiple reflections in the intrabarrier region occurs. In this problem, we first point out that in the case of incoherent propagation spin and charge are completely decoupled, i.e., classically the spin chemical potential cannot give rise to charge current and vice versa. The charge conductance and spin conductance along the z-axis are given by $`G_c=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{T}{2+T}`$ and $`G_s^z=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{T}{2+T}`$ respectively. In the geometry investigated, the Zeeman magnetic field does not exert any force on the $`z`$ component of the spin or on the electric charge, therefore the spin and charge are separate conserved quantities and each has an associated conductance that is independent of the applied magnetic field. However, for coherent electron propagation, spin and charge mix as shown in Eq. (13). This effect is due to the filtering action of the magnetic field. In the low transmission limit the tunneling transmission is strongly enhanced for specific values of the applied magnetic field (see Fig.4). This can be explained on the basis of constructive interference between multiple electron wave reflections at the scattering barriers. Analyzing Eq. (12), this condition translates for an electron with spin $`/=+/`$ as $`(2\delta \pm \theta +\pi =2\pi n)`$. Hence, the spin current is periodic with respect to $`\theta `$ with a period of $`2\pi `$, and the different peaks corresponds to constructive interference for spin up and down electrons. In the limit $`T0`$, the charge and spin currents at the resonant values are

$`I_L^0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(\mu _L^0\mu _R^0)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(\mu _L^z\mu _R^z),`$
$`I_L^z`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}(\mu _L^z\mu _R^z)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(\mu _L^0\mu _R^0),`$ (23)
while the currents in the right lead are obtained by interchanging $`L`$ and $`R`$.

For simplicity in Fig.4 we depict only the currents in the left lead $`I_L^0,I_L^z`$ in the case of the only non-zero applied chemical potential $`\mu _L^z\mu _R^z=1`$. In this geometry, a double barrier system can be seen as a spin valve where a small deviation in the magnetic field from the constructive interference conditon lead to a large change in conductance. Also we notice that, since the charge and the spin are carried by the same particle, a positive (negative) charge current is also generated when a spin up (down) is transmitted. Hence, this phenomenon is essentially linked to the particle/wave duality of the electron.

To further illustrate and contrast the results of Eqs. (II) and (20-21), we present results for the spin current in the presence of spin chemical potentials along the $`x`$ or $`y`$ axis. Classically, the spin would merely precess in the $`xy`$ plane due to the magnetic field. A strong transmission occurs when spins perform a complete revolution upon a closed trajectory between the barriers, i.e. the acquired phase $`2\theta =2n\pi `$, and the partial spin reflections are added in phase giving rise to a spin resonance. If the spins precess by $`\theta =2k\pi `$ respectively $`(2k+1)\pi `$ while traveling from one potential barrier to the other the transmitted spin current in the right lead points along the positive, respectively negative $`x`$ direction as depicted in Fig. 5. The value of the currents at such resonances are

$`I_L^x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2+T}}(\mu _L^x\pm \mu _R^x)`$ (24)
$`I_L^y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2+T}}(\mu _L^y\pm \mu _R^y)`$ (25)
where the $`\pm `$ signs correspond to resonances at $`\theta =2k\pi ,(2k+1)\pi `$ respectively and the currents in the right lead are determined as usual by interchanging the $`L`$ and $`R`$ symbols. Far off resonance, the spins are added out of phase and a small current of order $`T^2`$ is generated. On the other hand, for fully coherent electrons, the current peaks do not occur upon full spin revolutions in the barrier but, as mentioned earlier, are determined by the constructive interference between multiple partial waves. Interestingly, as shown in Fig. 3, we point out that the spin current in the left lead points along the $`y`$ axis for broad ranges of the applied magnetic field. It is also straightforward to show that in this case (i.e. $`\mu _L^x0`$), at the points of constructive interference, the ratio of spin currents in the right lead is

$$\frac{I_R^x}{I_R^y}=\frac{1R}{1+R}\mathrm{cot}(\theta ).$$
(26)
Hence in the low transmission limit, the spin currents emerge with a spin direction mostly along the $`y`$ axis. It is worth emphasizing that even if one considers all phase factors in the potential barriers (Eq. (10)) the result remains unchanged and is consequently a robust prediction.

### IV.2 High transmission limit

Most of our discussion is focused on the limit of low transmission of the barriers when the most important effects are due to resonant tunneling through the two barriers. Hence, in the high transmission limit, electrons impinging on the potential barriers are most likely to be transmitted, therefore one expects the interference effect resulting from the multiple reflections to be reduced. Restricting our attention to perfectly transmitting barriers ($`T=1`$), we find the currents in the phase-coherent regime to be given by

$`\stackrel{}{I}_L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(\stackrel{}{\mu }_L\widehat{R}_\theta \stackrel{}{\mu }_R).`$
Hence the currents are precessing in the magnetic field following Eqs. (14) as one might have expected. However, this is to be contrasted with the behavior in the phase incoherent regime,

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}I_L^x\\ I_L^y\\ I_L^z\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )17}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}9+6\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )& 2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& 0\\ 2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& 9+6\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )& 0\\ 0& 0& \left(8\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )17\right)/3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu _L^x\\ \mu _L^y\\ \mu _L^z\end{array}\right)`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )17}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3\mathrm{cos}(\theta )& 5\mathrm{sin}(\theta )& 0\\ 5\mathrm{sin}(\theta )& 3\mathrm{cos}(\theta )& 0\\ 0& 0& \left(8\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )17\right)/3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu _R^x\\ \mu _R^y\\ \mu _R^z\end{array}\right).`$ (28)
The unexpected difference between the two previous results is linked to the extra resistance introduce by the voltage probes $`A`$ and $`B`$, as discussed in section II. The voltage probes achieve phase randomization by bringing in local equilibrium at the point of contact. Although inelastic scattering is needed to implement decoherence, the Büttiker dephasing model enforces the more stringent condition of local equilibrium. The momentum randomization affect both the transmitted and reflected current which show extra oscillations with the magnetic field due to the backscattering of the electrons.

## V Hydrodynamics, Experimental Implementation and Conclusions

¿From the above discussion, it is apparent that there are numerous features distinguishing the classical precessional limit from truly single electron phase coherent propagation. Hence in analyzing experiments, it is important to distinguish the various time scales being measured, e.g. the phase coherence time $`\tau _\varphi `$ beyond which classical behavior obtains from $`\tau _s`$, beyond which magnetization relaxes and all signs of precession are lost (precession can also be destroyed experimentally by other means, e.g. inhomogeneous magnetic fields characterized by $`T_2`$ times). The identifying of the various scattering times – other than $`\tau _\varphi `$ which is determined by the loss of true interference phenomena – should be made by their definitions through hydrodynamic equations. Such equations generalize Eqs. (2,14), whose utility is emphasized by the simplicity of the classical calculations in Sec. III. In hopes that such careful determinations of various time scales may be made, we give the hydrodynamics appropriate for electrons in III-V semiconductors, including the possibly important effects of Rashba interactions due to electron confinement. For a one-dimensional wire, the equations yield

$`_t\stackrel{}{S}+_x\stackrel{}{I}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{S}}{\tau _s}}+g\mu _B\stackrel{}{S}\times \stackrel{}{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _Rm^{}}{\mathrm{}^2}}(\stackrel{}{I}\times \widehat{Q}),`$
$`_t\stackrel{}{I}+v_F^2_x\stackrel{}{S}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{I}}{\tau _{el}^s}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m^{}}}E_x\stackrel{}{S}g\mu _B\stackrel{}{I}\times \stackrel{}{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_F^2\alpha _Rm^{}}{\mathrm{}^2}}(\stackrel{}{S}\times \widehat{Q}){\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _B\mathrm{}n}{4m^{}}}_x\stackrel{}{B}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{}{S}\times \stackrel{}{I}`$ (29)
where $`\alpha _R`$ is the Rashba coefficient, $`\widehat{Q}`$ is the direction of the Rashba spin-splitting, $`E_x`$ is the bias electric field, $`n`$ is the electron number density and $`\tau _s`$ is the spin relaxation time. The last term with coefficient $`ue^2k_F`$ derived from the electron-electron interaction yield non-linear equations which severely complicate the solutionBena . However, we emphasize that on general ground, any spin dependent interaction, such as the Rashba interaction, can lead to spin oscillations. In the single electron phase coherent propagation, the spin transport is determined by the quantum interference between partial waves, the magnetoconductance due to a Rashba interaction is also expected to differ from the classical regime although the details need to be worked out.

Now, we return to the simple situation discussed in this paper and address the question of experimental feasibility. To realize coherent ballistic precession, the length of the device must be long enough to allow for a full spin revolution in the double-barrier region but short enough for electrons to propagate coherently and ballistically. Magnetic fields of 1 Tesla set the former limit to lengths larger than $`1\mu m`$. On the other hand, mean free paths in excess of $`10\mu m`$ have been achieved in clean semiconductor heterojunctions. Non-zero temperature will lead to decoherence due to phonons interaction. Moreover, because the interference phenomena depend crucially on the phase accumulated between the two barriers, the phase accumulated by the two longitudinal modes in the absence of a magnetic field should be much smaller than $`2\pi `$. This also sets a limit for the temperature operation range and spin chemical potential to be less than $`\mathrm{}L/v_F10K`$. Above this energy scale, thermal broadening and energy dependent tunneling elements would obliterate the quantum interference. Another experimental challenge is the measurement of the spin currents. Here we suggest that spin currents be obtained through measuring the spin polarization of the contacts. Indeed, in the absence of magnetic forces, the spin being conserved, the flow of spin into the contacts can be related to the time-dependent spin polarization of the contact ($`I^\nu =_tS^\nu `$). In conclusion, we have analyzed spin transport in double barrier system in the phase coherent and incoherent regimes. We showed that for coherent propagation, the standard Bolztmann equations for spin transport do not capture the rich behavior which can however be understood in terms of quantum interference between multiple wave reflections. While completing this paper, we became aware of the work of Mireles et al. Mireles  on spin injection in the quantum coherent regime where similar conclusion were reached.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the NSF through grant DMR-9985255, and the Sloan and Packard foundations.


text:
# Casimir energy in finite expanding universes: a prelude

## I Introduction

In the description of the universe based on General Relativity, the idea of curved manifolds is essential. Einstein’s equations are mathematical relations between the curvature of spacetime and the matter and energy, which act as a source of the curvature and can be seen as a first step in the study of the structure of the physically possible models of the universe. Given the curvature of a spacetime, it is important to characterize its global properties, such as its topology. Since General Relativity provides no clues about these properties, it is valid to include in the list of possible models of the universe, those in which the space does not have the simplest topology.

A space with non-trivial topology may be compact (i.e., finite), regardless of its curvature. This means that the universe may present certain peculiarities due to its finite size, such as periodic spatial patterns. The observation of any of these peculiarities may indicate the global topology of the universe, so that it is very important to know what kind of mark a determined topology may imprint on the visible universe. Cosmic topology, which deals with this issue, has been the subject of a growing interest, reflected in the publication of recent reviews Lachieze ; Levin  and introductory texts Lachieze2 ; Levin2 ; Weeks .

An interesting physical effect due to the finiteness of the space is the appearance of a Casimir energy. The simplest case where this energy, measurable experimentally, appears is between two parallel reflecting planes in the Minkowski vacuum. However, this case can be generalized. The Casimir energy can be seen to be created by the imposition of periodic boundary conditions on a generic field propagating in the vacuum and can be studied theoretically with a scalar field, by means of Green’s functions $`G(x,x^{})`$ for the Klein-Gordon equation BD . The procedure begins with the classical energy-momentum tensor associated with the field, obtained from the Green’s function through a second order differential operator $`D_{\mu \nu }^{x,x^{}}`$,

$$T_{\mu \nu }(x,x^{})=D_{\mu \nu }^{x,x^{}}G(x,x^{}).$$
(1)
From this, we obtain the mean value of the field in the vacuum, such that

$$0\left|T_{\mu \nu }\right|0=\underset{xx^{}}{lim}T_{\mu \nu }(x,x^{}).$$
(2)
In general, when speaking of the Casimir energy, it is to the finite part of the $`00`$ component of this mean value that one refers (see, e.g., Daniel ; Daniel2 ).

As seen in some recent works Daniel ; Daniel2 , the same kind of study can be done in models of the universe with non-trivial topology. However, these studies have been limited, until now, to static models of the universe. Nevertheless, there is not, a priori, any reason not to include models with expansion. What is important to notice is that a fundamental step in this process is to write, for each kind of expansion of the universe, the specific Green’s functions for the Klein-Gordon equation.

The purpose of this work is to present the Green’s functions found as solutions of the generalized Klein-Gordon equation for a scalar field of mass $`m`$ with non-minimal coupling $`\xi `$ to the gravitational field for static and expanding cosmological models. In the expanding cases, the functions presented are valid for a group of cosmological models, parametrized by the curvature scalar $`k`$ and by an index $`n`$. Such a group of models includes, for example, the de Sitter solution.

The Green’s functions for universes with non-trivial topology are obtained from the general solutions by noting that the Green’s function for a generic finite space, $`=\stackrel{~}{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is

$$G_{}(x,x^{})=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}G_\stackrel{~}{}[x,\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(x^{}\right)],$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the elements of the group which defines $``$, each one represented as an operator that identifies a point $`P`$ on the finite space $``$ and its image $`P^{}`$ onto the infinite covering space $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, i.e., $`P^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(P\right)P`$, with $`P^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`P`$ $`.`$ For 3-dimensional spaces of constant curvature the covering space $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ can be Lachieze

* the spherical space $`𝕊^3`$, of positive curvature;
* the flat space $`𝔼^3`$, of null curvature;
* or the hyperbolical space $`^3`$, of negative curvature.

The paper is organized as follows. The Klein-Gordon equation for a scalar field is first written in a generalized form valid for the curved spacetimes described in the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker line element of standard cosmology. Some general Green’s functions are then obtained for specific cases of static and expanding spacetimes. Finally, some comments on the results obtained are given. General solutions of the generalized Klein-Gordon equation are presented in the appendix. Throughout this work, natural units are used ($`c=G=\mathrm{}=1`$).

## II Initial considerations

For a classical scalar field with a Lagrangian density

$$=\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi \left(\frac{1}{2}\xi R\phi ^2+\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2\right)\right],$$
(4)
one obtains the field equation

$$\mathrm{}\phi +\left(\xi R+m^2\right)\phi =0,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{}\left[g\right]^{1/2}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \right)`$ is the d’Alembertian operator, $`m^2`$ and $`\xi `$ are constants, and $`R=g_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Ricci scalar derived from the spacetime metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, with $`g=det\left[g_{\mu \nu }\right]`$,

In this work the interest is focused on metrics representing cosmological solutions, in particular, those with a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) line element,

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2\left(t\right)\left[\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right],$$
(6)
which can be written as

$$ds^2=a^2\left(\eta \right)\left[d\eta ^2d\chi ^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\sqrt{k}\chi }{k}\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right],$$
(7)
where $`k=0,\pm 1`$, with $`t`$ the cosmological time, $`\eta `$ the conformal time, and $`dt=ad\eta `$. Assuming Einstein’s equations with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and matter a perfect fluid, this line element gives the Friedmann equation

$$\frac{D^2}{a^2}\frac{1}{a^2}\left(\frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{d\eta }\right)^2=\frac{8\pi }{3}\rho +\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\frac{k}{a^2}$$
(8)
for the evolution of the scale factor $`a`$, with $`\rho `$ the energy density of the matter, and

$$2\frac{1}{a^3}\frac{d^2a}{d\eta ^2}+\frac{k}{a^2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }8\pi p,$$
(9)
where $`p`$ is the pressure of the matter. For the FLRW metric, the Ricci scalar is

$$R=\frac{6}{a^2}\left[\frac{1}{a}\frac{d^2a}{d\eta ^2}+k\right]$$
(10)
and

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{a^2}\left[\frac{^2}{\eta ^2}+2D\frac{}{\eta }^2\right].$$
(11)
Therefore, the field equation becomes

$$\frac{1}{a^2}\left[\frac{^2\phi }{\eta ^2}+2D\frac{\phi }{\eta }^2\phi +\left(\xi R+m^2\right)a^2\phi \right]=0.$$
(12)
## III Green’s functions

A Green’s function can always be constructed, using the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the general solution of the homogeneous equation. However, this is not always an easy task, especially in non-flat spacetimes, where, for example, plane waves are replaced by generalized solutions to Helmholtz equation KT  (see appendix). Therefore, since the Green functions studied here must satisfy the more general equation,

$$\frac{1}{a^2}\left[\frac{^2G}{\eta ^2}+2D\frac{G}{\eta }^2G\right]+\left(\xi R+m^2\right)G=\frac{\delta \left(xx^{}\right)}{\sqrt{g}},$$
(13)
we search for solutions to Eq. (13) in its homogeneous form, keeping in mind that such solutions must be symmetric in $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$. In the appendix, some general solutions of the homogeneous field Eq. (12) are presented.

Assuming isotropy of the universe, the use of the coordinates $`(\chi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$ allows for a choice of orientation where the two points $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ are radially aligned, i.e., $`\theta =\theta ^{}`$, $`\varphi =\varphi ^{}`$, and $`\chi ^{}=0`$, so that for the FLRW line element,

$$^2=\frac{^2}{\chi ^2}+2\sqrt{k}\mathrm{cot}\sqrt{k}\chi \frac{}{\chi },$$
(14)
where $`\chi `$ is the spatial distance between the points $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$. Thus, the homogeneous equation to be solved is

$$\frac{^2G}{\eta ^2}+2D\frac{G}{\eta }\frac{^2G}{\chi ^2}\frac{2\sqrt{k}}{\mathrm{tan}\sqrt{k}\chi }\frac{G}{\chi }+\left(\xi R+m^2\right)a^2G=0.$$
(15)
Several different Green’s functions obey this equation since there are several boundary conditions that can be defined. For example, according to different boundary conditions, we have the causal Green function (or Feynman propagator) $`G_F(x,x^{})`$, the Wightman’s functions $`G^+(x,x^{})`$ and $`G^{}(x,x^{})`$ for positive and negative frequency, respectively, or the elementary Hadamard function $`G^{\left(1\right)}(x,x^{})`$. In quantum field theory, these different functions are associated with mean values of some field functions BD .

### III.1 Static universes

For flat spaces, the trivial solution of Friedmann’s equation is Minkowski space, which is a vacuum static solution for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.`$ In this simple case, $`a=1`$, $`R=0`$, and

$$\frac{^2G}{\eta ^2}\frac{^2G}{\chi ^2}\frac{2}{\chi }\frac{G}{\chi }+m^2G=0.$$
(16)
Using the invariant

$$s=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^2\chi ^2},$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \eta \eta ^{}`$, Eq. (16) becomes

$$\frac{d^2G}{ds^2}+\frac{3}{s}\frac{dG}{ds}+m^2G=0,$$
(18)
with the general solution

$$G(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{s}\left[c_1H_1^{\left(1\right)}\left(ms\right)+c_2H_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(ms\right)\right],$$
(19)
where $`H_\nu ^{\left(1\right)}`$ and $`H_\nu ^{\left(2\right)}`$ are Hankel’s functions of order $`\nu `$ of the first and second kinds, respectively GR . Another invariant, the world function $`\sigma `$ Synge ; Buchdahl ; Roberts , which in the Minkowski space is given as $`\sigma =s^2/2`$, could have been used to give a similar general solution. Values for the coeficients $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are set in accordance with the particular boundary conditions used in different Green’s functions. For example, in the case where $`k=m=0`$, Eq. (13) is a wave equation with the massless positive frequency Wightman function,

$$D^+(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2s^2}.$$
(20)
Another type of Green’s function, the massless Hadamard elementary function,

$$D^{\left(1\right)}(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2s^2},$$
(21)
is also a solution to Eq. (13) for this case. Since near the origin GR ,

$$H_1^{\left(1\right)}\left(x\right)\frac{2i}{\pi x},H_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(x\right)\frac{2i}{\pi x},$$
(22)
we have

$$G^+(x,x^{})=\frac{im}{8\pi s}H_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(ms\right).$$
(23)
This solution can be used as a limit that any other positive frequency solution for curved spaces must reach.

For non-flat spaces ($`k=\pm 1`$), Friedmann’s equation with a non-zero cosmological constant has the vacuum ($`\rho =0`$) static solution,

$$a=\left(3k\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2},$$
(24)
with $`k\mathrm{\Lambda }^1>0`$. In this case, we have, from Eqs. (10) and (12),

$$\frac{^2G}{\eta ^2}\frac{^2G}{\chi ^2}2\sqrt{k}\mathrm{cot}\sqrt{k}\chi \frac{G}{\chi }+\left(6\xi +\frac{3m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)kG=0,$$
(25)
where $`k=\pm 1`$. If

$$G(x,x^{})=\frac{\sqrt{k}\chi }{\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{k}\chi }A(x,x^{}),$$
(26)
Eq. (25) becomes similar to (18), and thus

$$G(x,x^{})=\frac{\sqrt{k}\chi }{\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{k}\chi }\frac{1}{s}\left[c_1H_1^{\left(1\right)}\left(\mu s\right)+c_2H_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(\mu s\right)\right],$$
(27)
and

$$G^+(x,x^{})=\frac{i\mu }{8\pi }\frac{\sqrt{k}\chi }{\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{k}\chi }\frac{1}{s}H_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(\mu s\right),$$
(28)
where $`s`$ is given by Eq. (17), and $`\mu ^23m^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^1+\left(6\xi 1\right)k`$. Therefore, when $`6\xi =1`$, $`m=0`$, and $`\chi 0`$, we again obtain Eq. (23), as expected.

The spherical case, $`k=1`$, deserves special consideration since the universe represented is finite spatially, so that there are several equivalent spatial paths between the points $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$, all of which must be represented by the Green’s function. Therefore, using the internal symmetry of the space $`𝕊^3`$ in Eq. (28), we have

$$G^+(x,x^{})=\frac{i\mu }{8\pi }\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\chi _n}{\mathrm{sin}\chi }\frac{H_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(\mu \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^2\chi _n^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^2\chi _n^2}},$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{sin}\chi _n\mathrm{sin}\left(\chi +2\pi n\right)=\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ was used. For any other spatially finite universe one uses an equivalent procedure Daniel ; Daniel2 .

### III.2 Expanding universes

When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, a group of solutions of the Friedmann equation (8) can be found by means of the ansatz

$$\rho =Ca^n,$$
(30)
where $`C`$ and $`n`$ are constants. This general group of solutions is then

$$a\left(\eta \right)=\alpha ^{\frac{2}{2n}}k^{\frac{1}{2n}}\mathrm{csc}^{\frac{2}{2n}}\left[\sqrt{k}\left(\frac{n}{2}1\right)\eta \right],$$
(31)
where $`\alpha ^28\pi C/3`$ and $`n2`$. Thus we can write

$$D=\sqrt{k}\mathrm{cot}\left[\sqrt{k}\left(\frac{n}{2}1\right)\eta \right],$$
(32)
and

$$Ra^2=\left(4n\right)3k\mathrm{csc}^2\left[\sqrt{k}\left(\frac{n}{2}1\right)\eta \right].$$
(33)
Using the ansatz given by Eq. (30) we can solve Friedmann’s equation for $`a`$ and then substitute the expression found into Eq. (9), to obtain the linear equation of state $`3p=\left(n3\right)\rho `$.

For the case where $`n=2`$, the solution is

$$a\left(\eta \right)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\alpha ^2k\right)^{1/2}\eta \right],$$
(34)
with

$$D=\left(\alpha ^2k\right)^{1/2};Ra^2=6\alpha ^2.$$
(35)
Table 1 shows, for various integral values of the index $`n`$, the expression for the scale factor $`a`$ as a function of the cosmological time $`t`$.

Although Eqs. (31) and (34) give a group of solutions which are valid for any value of the parameter $`n`$, not all values of $`n`$ give easily solvable field equations. Here we consider only the cases where $`n=0,2`$ and $`4`$. For $`n=2`$ and $`n=4`$, only the massless ($`m=0`$) equations are considered.

#### III.2.1 Solution with $`n=0`$

Since in this case $`\rho `$ is a constant, one has then a situation completely equivalent to the case of a vacuum with the presence of a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\alpha ^2`$. Therefore, the solution with $`n=0`$ is equivalent to the de Sitter solution, the curved spacetime most studied by quantum field theorists BD , and which is to cosmology what a hydrogen atom is to atomic physics Gonzalez-Diaz  .

The de Sitter solution is, in fact, a group of solutions, each one with a different $`k`$, but all related to portions of the 4-dimensional surface $`\eta _{\mu \nu }x^\mu x^\nu =\alpha ^2`$, which is an hyperboloid embedded in a 5-dimensional Minkowski space of metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}[1,1,1,1,1]`$. Different sections of this surface represent the various de Sitter spacetimes, each one with a distinct curvature. There also exists a static representation of de Sitter spacetime, which will not be treated here BD ; Lord ; Eriksen-Gron ; Schrodinger ; Hawking . It is, however, worthwhile to note that despite much investigation of the de Sitter spacetime, it is rare to find descriptions of the hyperbolic de Sitter solution, which is not even cited in some standard texts BD ; Hawking ), perhaps due to an ‘aesthetic’ prejudice: “the open model has the unnatractive feature that in horospherical coordinates it leads to an uneasy distinction of the third spatial component” Grensing .

For the flat case, we have

$$ds^2=\alpha ^2\eta ^2\left[d\eta ^2d\chi ^2\chi ^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right],$$
(36)
with the corresponding parametrization

$$\{\begin{array}{c}x^0=2^1\eta \left(\alpha ^2+\chi ^2\right)\left(2\eta \right)^1\hfill \\ x^1=2^1\eta \left(\alpha ^2\chi ^2\right)\left(2\eta \right)^1\hfill \\ x^2=\left(\alpha \eta \right)^1\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \hfill \\ x^3=\left(\alpha \eta \right)^1\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \hfill \\ x^4=\left(\alpha \eta \right)^1\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \end{array},$$
(37)
where $`0\varphi 2\pi `$, $`0\theta \pi `$, $`0r<\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}<\eta <0`$. In this case, it is easy to see that the parametrization of the hyperboloid is incomplete since $`x^0+x^10`$.

In the spherical case, the line element is

$$ds^2=\alpha ^2\mathrm{csc}^2\eta \left[d\eta ^2d\chi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\chi \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right],$$
(38)
with the relations

$$\{\begin{array}{c}x^0=\alpha ^1\mathrm{cot}\eta \hfill \\ x^1=\alpha ^1\mathrm{csc}\eta \mathrm{cos}\chi \hfill \\ x^2=\alpha ^1\mathrm{csc}\eta \mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \hfill \\ x^3=\alpha ^1\mathrm{csc}\eta \mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \hfill \\ x^4=\alpha ^1\mathrm{csc}\eta \mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \end{array},$$
(39)
where $`0\varphi 2\pi `$, $`0\theta \pi `$, $`0\chi \pi `$, $`0\eta <\pi `$.

Finally, for $`k=1`$, we have

$$ds^2=\frac{\mathrm{csch}^2\eta }{\alpha ^2}\left[d\eta ^2d\chi ^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right],$$
(40)
with

$$\{\begin{array}{c}x^0=\alpha ^1\mathrm{csch}\eta \mathrm{cosh}\chi \hfill \\ x^1=\alpha ^1\mathrm{coth}\eta \hfill \\ x^2=\alpha ^1\mathrm{csch}\eta \mathrm{sinh}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \hfill \\ x^3=\alpha ^1\mathrm{csch}\eta \mathrm{sinh}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \hfill \\ x^4=\alpha ^1\mathrm{csch}\eta \mathrm{sinh}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \end{array},$$
(41)
where $`0\varphi 2\pi `$, $`0\theta \pi `$, $`0\chi <\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}<\eta <\mathrm{}`$.

The invariant quantity to be considered in this case is not simply the interval $`s`$, as defined in Eq. (17), but rather the geodesic interval $`\sigma (x,x^{})`$ in the hyperboloid Thurston ; Coxeter , a geometric quantity which is another example of a world function Synge ; Buchdahl ; Roberts , given in this case as Tagirov2 ; Tagirov ; Allen-Jacobson ; Schomblond-Spindel

$$\sigma (x,x^{})\alpha ^1\mathrm{arccosh}\left|p(x,x^{})\right|,$$
(42)
where $`p(x,x^{})\alpha ^2\eta _{\mu \nu }x^\mu \left(x^{}\right)^\nu `$ is an auxiliary quantity. Using Eqs. (37), (39), and (41) and the radial alignment between the points $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$, we can write

$$p(x,x^{})=\{\begin{array}{c}1+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^2\chi ^2\right)\left(2\eta \eta ^{}\right)^1\hfill \\ 1\mathrm{csc}\eta \mathrm{csc}\eta ^{}\left(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \mathrm{cos}\chi \right)\hfill \\ 1+\mathrm{csch}\eta \mathrm{csch}\eta ^{}\left(\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \mathrm{cosh}\chi \right)\hfill \end{array},$$
(43)
for $`k=0`$, $`1`$, and $`1`$, respectively, so that, for any value of $`k`$, we obtain

$$\left(p^21\right)\frac{d^2G}{dp^2}+4p\frac{dG}{dp}+\left(12\xi +m^2\alpha ^2\right)G=0,$$
(44)
with the solution

$`G(x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`c_1F({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\nu ,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\nu ;2;{\displaystyle \frac{1p}{2}})`$
$`+`$ $`c_2F({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\nu ,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\nu ;2;{\displaystyle \frac{1+p}{2}}),`$
where $`\nu ^22^23^2\left(12\xi +m^2\alpha ^2\right)`$. An analysis of the conditions that must be imposed on this solution to obtain the values of $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ can be found in the literature Schomblond-Spindel  and will not be reproduced here.

We note that Eq. (44) has also solutions in terms of the associated Legendre functions Tagirov2 ; Tagirov ,

$$G(x,x^{})=\left(p^21\right)^{1/2}\left[c_1P_{\frac{1}{2}+\nu }^1\left(p\right)+c_2Q_{\frac{1}{2}+\nu }^1\left(p\right)\right],$$
(46)
or

$$G(x,x^{})=\frac{d}{dp}\left[c_1^{}P_{\frac{1}{2}+\nu }\left(p\right)+c_2^{}Q_{\frac{1}{2}+\nu }\left(p\right)\right],$$
(47)
valid since $`p`$ assumes only real values.

In the specific case of a massless field ($`m=0`$) with conformal coupling ($`\xi =1/6`$), we get

$$D_{\xi =\frac{1}{6}}(x,x^{})=\frac{c_1p+c_2}{p^21},$$
(48)
which gives

$$D_{\xi =\frac{1}{6}}^+(x,x^{})=\frac{\alpha ^2}{8\pi ^2\left(p1\right)}=\left[\frac{16\pi ^2}{\alpha ^2}\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{\alpha \sigma }{2}\right]^1,$$
(49)
a result formally similar to the one obtained for an uniformly accelerated observer in Minkowski space (see also Eq. (20)) BD .

#### III.2.2 Solution with $`n=2`$

For $`n=2`$ we have the line element

$$ds^2=e^{2\eta \sqrt{\alpha ^2k}}\left[d\eta ^2\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right],$$
(50)
which, for $`k=1`$ and $`\alpha =0`$, can be transformed in Minkowski space by the change of coordinates

$$\overline{r}=e^\eta r,t=e^\eta \sqrt{1+r^2}.$$
(51)
This peculiar parametrization of the flat Minkowski space is known as the Milne universe Narlikar ; Rindler .

In the general case where $`n=2`$, the homogeneous Eq. (15) becomes simpler in the flat massless case, i.e., with $`k=m=0`$, and we have

$$\frac{^2G}{\eta ^2}+2\alpha \frac{G}{\eta }\frac{^2G}{\chi ^2}\frac{2}{\chi }\frac{G}{\chi }+6\xi \alpha ^2G=0.$$
(52)
This damped wave equation Stakgold , has the solution

$$G(x,x^{})=e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\eta }G_0(x,x^{}),$$
(53)
where $`G_0(x,x^{})`$ obeys the equation

$$\frac{^2G_0}{\eta ^2}\frac{^2G_0}{\chi ^2}\frac{2}{\chi }\frac{G_0}{\chi }+\left(6\xi 2\right)\alpha ^2G_0=0,$$
(54)
which is Eq. (16), for Minkowski space. Therefore,

$$G(x,x^{})=e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\frac{1}{s}\left[c_1H_1^{\left(1\right)}\left(\beta s\right)+c_2H_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(\beta s\right)\right],$$
(55)
where $`\beta ^2\left(6\xi 2\right)\alpha ^2`$ and $`s`$ is given by Eq. (17). The non-flat massless cases can be obtained from this solution in a similar way to that used for static non-flat cases.

#### III.2.3 Solution with $`n=4`$

Although for $`n=4`$, we have $`Ra^2=0`$ from Eq. (33), it is not easy to find a Green’s function in this case. However, it is interesting to see that in the homogeneous massless ($`m=0`$) equation there exists a symmetry between the coordinates $`\eta `$ and $`\chi `$, i.e.,

$$\frac{^2G}{\eta ^2}+2\sqrt{k}\mathrm{cot}\sqrt{k}\eta \frac{G}{\eta }=\frac{^2G}{\chi ^2}+2\sqrt{k}\mathrm{cot}\sqrt{k}\chi \frac{G}{\chi }.$$
(56)
## IV Final remarks

We presented the Green’s functions for a number of interesting cosmological solutions. Not all plausible possibilities for scalar fields have been covered and there remains a number of physically possible cosmological solutions, for example, the expanding solutions with $`n=2`$ or $`n=4`$, for which there is not yet a complete, easy available, analytical treatment. Even where many studies have been made, there are lapses, such as the almost complete absence of references to the hyperbolic de Sitter solution. It is the intention of this article to stimulate more work in this field.

In the context of cosmic topology, the task of writing Green’s functions is a preparatory step, and can be done analytically. The bulk of the work, the use of these functions in cosmic topology, is mainly numerical and, for this reason, is not presented here.

The importance of studies linked to the field of cosmic topology must not be underestimated. Despite some recent claims about the beginning of a new era of ‘precision cosmology’, we are still unable to determine whether the universe is finite or not. Moreover, with the observations being made currently, we cannot tell for sure whether the universe has a really null curvature or just a very small one, which would be a remnant from a pre-inflation era. In this context, finding topological properties of the universe is very important. In the theoretical search for these properties, the study of a scalar cosmological Casimir effect in finite spaces, while not providing the final answer about the shape of the universe, would certainly supply important information.

## Acknowledgements

S.S. e Costa thanks the Brazilian agency FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) for financial support (grant 00/13762-6). Both S.S. e Costa and R. Opher thank FAPESP (grant 00/06770-2) and the Brazilian project PRONEX/FINEP (41.96.0908.00) for partial support. R. Opher also thanks CNPq for partial support.

*

## Appendix A Solutions for the field equation

A Green’s function can always be written using the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the homogeneous equation it obeys Stakgold ; Arfken . However, to obtain Green‘s functions by this process for the finite spaces of non-trivial topology is not an easy task, since the eigenvalues in general are not easy to find. Therefore, it is more convenient to write a Green‘s function for infinite space and force it to satisfy the symmetries of the finite space numerically. Nevertheless, even the functions for the infinite space are not easy to obtain in this fashion because the eigenfunctions are, in general, very complicated. In this appendix, eigenfunctions for some specific cosmological solutions are presented.

The field equation (12) has general solutions of the kind

$$\phi (\eta ,x)=u\left(\eta \right)v\left(x\right),$$
(57)
where $`u`$ and $`v`$ are functions satisfying the equations

$$\frac{d^2u}{d\eta ^2}+2D\frac{du}{d\eta }+\left[\mathrm{}^2+\left(\xi R+m^2\right)a^2\right]u=0,$$
(58)
and

$$^2v=\mathrm{}^2v,$$
(59)
the Helmholtz equation.

### A.1 Spatial modes

To obtain information about the size and shape of the universe, we must study the spatial modes of the general solutions of the field equation. A general form for the solutions of the Helmholtz equation, without taking into account the finiteness of the universe, is BD

$$v\left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{exp}\eta _{ij}\mathrm{}^ix^j,\hfill & \mathrm{}^2=\eta _{ij}\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}^j\hfill & \left(k=0\right)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{}J^{(\pm )}\left(\chi \right)Y_J^M(\theta ,\varphi ),\hfill & \mathrm{}=(\mathrm{},J,M)\hfill & \left(k=\pm 1\right)\hfill \end{array},$$
(60)
where $`Y_J^M`$ are the usual spherical harmonics (with limitations on the possible values of $`\mathrm{},J,M`$), and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{}J^{()}\left(\chi \right)=c_\mathrm{}J\mathrm{sinh}^J\chi \left(\frac{d}{d\mathrm{cosh}\chi }\right)^{1+J}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\chi ,$$
(61)
with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{}J^{(+)}\left(\chi \right)`$ obtained by replacing $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`i\mathrm{}`$ and $`\chi `$ with $`i\chi `$ BD .

We note that the solutions given above are not the only possible options: for 3-D flat spaces, there are 11 coordinate systems in which the Helmholtz equation is separable Eisenhart ; Arfken , while for hyperbolic spaces, there are at least 12 such systems Costa1 . Such diversity is particularly important in universes with compact spatial sections. In these universes the coordinate system ($`\chi ,\theta ,\varphi `$) is not always a good choice since the characteristic symmetries of the spatial sections of such universes generally do not fit in these coordinates, especially in the hyperbolic case. An example where this occurs is in the calculation of the volumes and other related functions of the polyhedra that serve as the fundamental cells of compact hyperbolic spaces and the use of the coordinate set ($`\chi ,\theta ,\varphi `$) makes the problem almost intractable eCosta2 .

### A.2 Non-spatial modes

Trying a solution of the kind

$$u\left(\eta \right)=a^pU\left(\eta \right),$$
(62)
where $`p`$ is a constant, in Eq. (58), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2U}{d\eta ^2}}+2\left(p+1\right)D{\displaystyle \frac{dU}{d\eta }}+\left[\mathrm{}^2+\left(\xi R+m^2\right)a^2\right]U`$
$`+p\left[\left(p+1\right)D^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2a}{d\eta ^2}}\right]U=0.`$ (63)
In the case where $`p=1`$, we obtain , using Eq. (10),

$$\frac{d^2U}{d\eta ^2}+\left\{\mathrm{}^2+k+\left[\left(\xi \frac{1}{6}\right)R+m^2\right]a^2\right\}U=0.$$
(64)
This equation, which clearly becomes simpler for the case of a conformal coupling, $`\xi =1/6`$, can be solved analytically for several cases of cosmological interest.

#### A.2.1 Static universes

For Minkowski space, $`a=1`$, $`k=R=0`$ and

$$U=c_1\mathrm{sin}\left[\left(\mathrm{}^2+m^2\right)^{1/2}\eta \right]+c_2\mathrm{cos}\left[\left(\mathrm{}^2+m^2\right)^{1/2}\eta \right].$$
(65)
For $`k0`$, we have from Eqs. (10) and (64),

$$\frac{d^2U}{d\eta ^2}=\left(\mathrm{}^2+6\xi +m^2\frac{3k}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)U\lambda ^2U,$$
(66)
with

$$U=c_1\mathrm{sin}\lambda \eta +c_2\mathrm{cos}\lambda \eta .$$
(67)
#### A.2.2 Expanding universes

When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and the scale factor $`a`$ is given by Eq. (31), the function $`u`$ satisfies the equation

$$\frac{d^2u}{d\eta ^2}+2D\frac{du}{d\eta }+\frac{3k\xi \left(4n\right)u}{\mathrm{sin}^2\left[\sqrt{k}\left(\frac{n}{2}1\right)\eta \right]}+\left(\mathrm{}^2+m^2a^2\right)u=0.$$
(68)
Then,

$$\frac{d^2U_{k,n}}{d\eta ^2}+\left\{k+\mathrm{}^2+\frac{k\left(4n\right)\left(6\xi 1\right)}{2\mathrm{sin}^2\left[\sqrt{k}\left(\frac{n}{2}1\right)\eta \right]}+\frac{m^2\alpha ^{\frac{4}{2n}}k^{\frac{2}{2n}}}{\mathrm{sin}^{\frac{4}{2n}}\left[\sqrt{k}\left(\frac{n}{2}1\right)\eta \right]}\right\}U_{k,n}=0,$$
(69)
where the expression for $`a`$ given in Eq. (31) was used.

#### Solutions for $`n=0`$

When $`n=0`$, Eq. (69) becomes

$$\frac{d^2U_{k,0}}{d\eta ^2}+\left[k+\mathrm{}^2+\frac{\left(\frac{1}{4}\nu ^2\right)k}{\mathrm{sin}^2\sqrt{k}\eta }\right]U_{k,0}=0,$$
(70)
where $`\nu ^22^23^2\left(12\xi +m^2\alpha ^2\right)`$. The solutions to this equation are

$$U_{0,0}=\sqrt{\eta }\left[c_1J_\nu \left(\mathrm{}\eta \right)+c_2N_\nu \left(\mathrm{}\eta \right)\right],$$
(71)
for $`k=0`$ and

$`U_{1,0}=\mathrm{sin}^{\frac{1}{2}}\eta [c_1P_{\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+1}}^\nu (\mathrm{cos}\eta )`$
$`+c_2Q_{\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+1}}^\nu (\mathrm{cos}\eta )]`$ (72)
and

$`U_{1,0}=\mathrm{sinh}^{\frac{1}{2}}\eta [c_1P_{\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\mathrm{}^21}}^\nu \left(\mathrm{cosh}\eta \right)`$
$`+c_2Q_{\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\mathrm{}^21}}^\nu \left(\mathrm{cosh}\eta \right)]`$ (73)
for $`k=1`$ and $`k=1`$, respectively.

#### Solutions for $`n=2`$

When $`n=2`$, Eq. (64) is

$$\frac{d^2U_{k,2}}{d\eta ^2}+\left[\mathrm{}^2+k+m^2e^{2\eta \sqrt{\alpha ^2k}}+\left(6\xi 1\right)\alpha ^2\right]U_{k,2}=0,$$
(74)
which has the solution

$$U_{k,2}=c_1J_\gamma \left[\frac{me^{\left(\alpha ^2k\right)^{1/2}\eta }}{\left(\alpha ^2k\right)^{1/2}}\right]+c_2N_\gamma \left[\frac{me^{\left(\alpha ^2k\right)^{1/2}\eta }}{\left(\alpha ^2k\right)^{1/2}}\right],$$
(75)
where

$$\gamma ^2\left(\alpha ^2k\right)^1\left[\mathrm{}^2+k+\left(6\xi 1\right)\alpha ^2\right].$$
(76)
This solution reduces to

$$U_{k,2}^{m=0}=c_1\mathrm{sin}\left(\gamma \eta \sqrt{\alpha ^2k}\right)+c_2\mathrm{cos}\left(\gamma \eta \sqrt{\alpha ^2k}\right)$$
(77)
when $`m=0`$.

#### Solutions for $`n=4`$

When $`n=4`$, Eq. (69) becomes

$$\frac{d^2U_{k,4}}{d\eta ^2}+\left[k+\mathrm{}^2+\frac{m^2\alpha ^2}{k}\mathrm{sin}^2\sqrt{k}\eta \right]U_{k,4}=0,$$
(78)
whose solution for flat space is

$`U_{0,4}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta }}}[c_1M_{\mathrm{}^2\left(4im\alpha \right)^1,4^1\sqrt{7}}\left(im\alpha \eta ^2\right)`$
$`+c_2M_{\mathrm{}^2\left(4im\alpha \right)^1,4^1\sqrt{7}}\left(im\alpha \eta ^2\right)],`$ (79)
where

$$M_{\lambda ,\mu }\left(z\right)=z^{\mu +1/2}e^{z/2}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu \lambda +\frac{1}{2},2\mu +1;z)$$
(80)
is the Whittaker $`M`$ function GR . This solution can also be written using the parabolic cylinder function $`D_p\left(z\right)`$ GR .

For $`k=1`$ and $`k=1`$, Eq. (78) yields a Mathieu equation,

$$\frac{d^2U_{1,4}}{d\eta ^2}+\left[\mathrm{}^2+1+\frac{m^2\alpha ^2}{2}\frac{m^2\alpha ^2}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\eta \right]U_{1,4}=0,$$
(81)
and a modified Mathieu equation,

$$\frac{d^2U_{1,4}}{d\eta ^2}+\left[\mathrm{}^21\frac{m^2\alpha ^2}{2}+\frac{m^2\alpha ^2}{2}\mathrm{cosh}2\eta \right]U_{1,4}=0,$$
(82)
respectively.

In the massless case, Eq. (78) has a single solution for all $`k`$’s,

$$U_{k,4}^{m=0}=c_1\mathrm{sin}\left[\left(k+\mathrm{}^2\right)^{1/2}\eta \right]+c_2\mathrm{cos}\left[\left(k+\mathrm{}^2\right)^{1/2}\eta \right].$$
(83)


text:
# NONCOMMUTATIVE FIELD THEORIES AND GRAVITY

## Abstract

We show that after the Seiberg-Witten map is performed the action for noncommutative field theories can be regarded as a coupling to a field dependent gravitational background. This gravitational background depends only on the gauge field. Charged and uncharged fields couple to different backgrounds and we find that uncharged fields couple more strongly than the charged ones. We also show that the background is that of a gravitational plane wave. A massless particle in this background has a velocity which differs from the velocity of light and we find that the deviation is larger in the uncharged case. This shows that noncommutative field theories can be seen as ordinary theories in a gravitational background produced by the gauge field with a charge dependent gravitational coupling.

Noncommutative (NC) theories have been studied in several contexts since a long time ago. More recently it was found that they arise as a limit of string theory with D-branes in a NS-NS background B field . In this limit gravity decouples but still leaves some traces in the emerging NC field theory through the Moyal product, defined as

$$A(x)B(x)=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu ^x_\nu ^y}A(x)B(y)|_{yx},$$
(1)
where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the NC parameter. As a consequence, NC theories are highly nonlocal and we would expect that they would be troublesome. However, upon quantization, the ultraviolet structure is not modified  but new infrared divergences appear and get mixed with the ultraviolet ones . This mixing of divergences can be handled at one loop level but when higher loops are taken into account the infrared divergences are non-integrable turning the theory nonrenormalizable. The only known exceptions for $`d>2`$ are supersymmetric non-gauge theories . Even so this mixing of divergences have important consequences for many aspects of NC field theories . From a classical point of view many solutions from the commutative field theory can be carried over to the NC corresponding one. Instantons, monopoles and vortex solutions were found for the NC Maxwell theory showing its resemblance with a non-Abelian theory. The main feature of these solutions is that they are non-singular and stable, properties usually not shared by their commutative counterparts .

An important property of NC theories, which distinguishes them from the conventional ones, is that translations in the NC directions are equivalent to gauge transformations . This can be seen even for the case of a scalar field***For the gauge field a translation is equivalent to a gauge transformation plus a constant shift of the potential . which has the gauge transformation $`\delta \widehat{\varphi }=i[\widehat{\varphi },\widehat{\lambda }]_{}`$, where $`[A,B]_{}=ABBA`$ is the Moyal commutator. Under a global translation the scalar field transforms as $`\delta _T\varphi =\xi ^\mu _\mu \widehat{\varphi }`$. Derivatives of the field can be rewritten using the Moyal commutator as $`_\mu \widehat{\varphi }=i\theta _{\mu \nu }^1[x^\nu ,\widehat{\varphi }]_{}`$ so that $`\delta \widehat{\varphi }=\delta _T\widehat{\varphi }`$ with gauge parameter $`\widehat{\lambda }=\theta _{\mu \nu }^1\xi ^\mu x^\nu `$. The only other field theory which has this same property is general relativity where local translations are gauge transformations associated to general coordinate transformations. This remarkable property shows that, as in general relativity, there are no local gauge invariant observables in NC theories.

An alternative approach to study NC theories makes use of commutative fields (with its usual properties) instead of the NC ones. They are related through the Seiberg-Witten (SW) map  which is presented as a series expansion in $`\theta `$. In this way a local field theory is obtained at the expense of introducing a large number of non-renormalizable interactions . Quantization is problematic due to the number of divergences that appear. It seems that at one loop level the SW map is just a field redefinition but at higher loop orders this is not true . At the classical level, on the other side, it is possible to understand very clearly the breakdown of Lorentz invariance induced by the noncommutativity. The dispersion relation for plane waves in a magnetic background gets modified so that photons do not move with the velocity of light .

We can wonder how other properties of NC field theories show up in the commutative framework. In particular, the connection between translations and gauge transformations seems to be lost. A global translation on commutative fields can not be rewritten as a gauge transformation. We will show in this paper that another aspect concerning gravity emerges when commutative fields are employed. Noncommutative field theories can be interpreted as ordinary theories immersed in a gravitational background generated by the gauge field. Firstly we notice that the commutative theory can be regarded as an ordinary theory coupled to a field dependent gravitational background. We will show that the $`\theta `$ dependent terms in the commutative action can be interpreted as a gravitational background which depends on the gauge field. We then determine the metric which couples to real and complex scalar fields. We find that the uncharged field coupling is twice that of the charged one. So we can interpret the gauge coupling in NC theory as a particular gravitational coupling which depends on the charge of the field. We then show that the background describes a gravitational plane wave. We also determine the geodesics followed by a massless particle in this background. We find that its velocity differs from the velocity of light by an amount proportional to $`\theta `$ with the deviation for the uncharged case being twice that of the charged one. For the uncharged case the deviation is the same as that found for the the gauge theory in flat space-time . As a final check we derive these same velocities in a field theoretic context.

The action for the NC Abelian gauge theory in flat space-time is

$$S_A=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu i[\widehat{A}_\mu ,\widehat{A}_\nu ]_{}`$. For a real scalar field in the adjoint representation of $`U(1)`$ the flat space-time action is

$$S_\phi =\frac{1}{2}d^4x\widehat{D}^\mu \widehat{\phi }\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\phi },$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\phi }=_\mu \widehat{\phi }i[\widehat{A}_\mu ,\widehat{\phi }]_{}`$. On the other side, for a complex scalar field in the fundamental representation of $`U(1)`$ the action is

$$S_\varphi =d^4x\widehat{D}^\mu \widehat{\varphi }(\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\varphi })^{},$$
(4)
with $`\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\varphi }=_\mu \widehat{\varphi }i\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{\varphi }`$. The gauge transformations which leave the above actions invariant are given by

$$\delta \widehat{A}_\mu =\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\lambda },\delta \widehat{\phi }=i[\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\lambda }]_{},\delta \widehat{\varphi }=i\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\varphi },\delta \widehat{\varphi }^{}=i\widehat{\varphi }^{}\widehat{\lambda }.$$
(5)
To go to the commutative framework we apply the SW map to the fields. We assume that there exists a conventional Abelian gauge field $`A_\mu `$ with the usual Abelian gauge transformation $`\delta A_\mu =_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`\widehat{A}_\mu (A)+\delta _{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\widehat{A}_\mu (A)=\widehat{A}_\mu (A+\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }A)`$. For the NC real scalar field $`\widehat{\phi }`$ we assume the existence of a conventional uncharged scalar $`\phi `$, with gauge transformation $`\delta \phi =0`$, such that $`\widehat{\phi }(\phi ,A)+\delta _{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\widehat{\phi }(\phi ,A)=\widehat{\phi }(A+\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }A,\phi +\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\phi )`$. For the NC complex scalar field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ we associate a charged scalar field $`\varphi `$ along the same lines. To first order in $`\theta `$ we find

$`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }A_\alpha (_\beta A_\mu +F_{\beta \mu }),`$ (6)
$`\widehat{\phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\phi \theta ^{\alpha \beta }A_\alpha _\beta \phi ,`$ (7)
$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }A_\alpha _\beta \varphi ,`$ (8)
We can now expand the NC actions (2),(3) and (4) using (1) and apply the map (6) to get the corresponding commutative actions.

For the real scalar field we find, always to first order in $`\theta `$,

$$S_\phi =\frac{1}{2}d^4x\left[^\mu \phi _\mu \phi +2\theta ^{\mu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\left(_\mu \phi _\nu \phi +\frac{1}{4}\eta _{\mu \nu }^\rho \phi _\rho \phi \right)\right].$$
(9)
It is worth to remark that the tensor inside the parenthesis is traceless. If we now consider this same field coupled to a gravitational background

$$S_{g,\phi }=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \phi _\nu \phi ,$$
(10)
and expand the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ around the flat metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$,

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }+\eta _{\mu \nu }h,$$
(11)
where $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is traceless, we get

$$S_{g,\phi }=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\left(^\mu \phi _\mu \phi h^{\mu \nu }_\mu \phi _\nu \phi +h^\rho \phi _\rho \phi \right),$$
(12)
where indices are raised and lowered with the flat metric. Since both actions, (9) and (12), have the same structure we can identify a linearized background gravitational field

$`h^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^{\mu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }+\theta ^{\nu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta },`$ (13)
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (14)
Then, the effect of noncommutativity on the commutative scalar field is similar to a field dependent gravitational field.

The same procedure can be repeated for the complex scalar field. After the SW map the action (4) reduces to

$$S_\varphi =d^4x\left[D^\mu \varphi (D_\mu \varphi )^{}\frac{1}{2}\left(\theta ^{\mu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }+\theta ^{\nu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }\right)D_\mu \varphi (D_\nu \varphi )^{}\right].$$
(15)
Note again that the tensor inside the parenthesis is traceless. Now the action for the charged scalar field in a linearized gravitational field is

$$S_{g,\varphi }=d^4x\left[D^\mu \varphi (D_\mu \varphi )^{}h^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \varphi (D_\nu \varphi )^{}+2hD^\mu \varphi (D_\mu \varphi )^{}\right],$$
(16)
which has the same structure as the action (15). Hence, the background gravitational field in this case is

$`h^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\theta ^{\mu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }+\theta ^{\nu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta },`$ (17)
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (18)
Then charged fields feel a gravitational background which is half of that felt by the uncharged ones. Therefore, the gravity coupling is now dependent on the charge of the field, being stronger for uncharged fields. Notice that the gauge field has now a dual role, it couples minimally to the charged field and also as a gravitational background.

We can now consider the gauge field. As it is well known the SW map gives rise to the following action

$$S_A=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\left[F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+2\theta ^{\mu \rho }F_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\left(F_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }F_{\sigma \nu }+\frac{1}{4}\eta _{\mu \nu }F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }\right)\right].$$
(19)
Again, the tensor inside the parenthesis is traceless. At this point we could be tempted to consider this action as some gravitational action build up from the metric (13) or (17). Since the field strength always appears multiplied by $`\theta `$ inside the metric, all invariants constructed with it will be of order $`\theta `$. Hence, they can not give rise to (19), unless they appear in combinations involving the inverse of $`\theta `$. If we insist in having an action which is polynomial in $`\theta `$ the best we can do is to regard the gauge field as having a double role again and couple it to gravitation as in the previous case. The linearized coupling of the Maxwell action is

$$S_{g,A}=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\left(F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+2h^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }F_{\rho \nu }\right).$$
(20)
Since it does not couple to the trace part of the metric $`h`$ remains arbitrary and $`h^{\mu \nu }`$ is given by (17). Since the NC gauge field resembles a non-Abelian gauge field we expect that its commutative counterpart couple to the same gravitational field as the charged one. It should also be remarked that in this case the gravitational field can not be interpreted just as a fixed background since it depends on the dynamical gauge field.

Having determined the field dependent background metric we can now study its properties. We will consider the metric which couples to the charged fields (17). To consider the metric (13) we have just to replace $`\theta `$ by $`2\theta `$. The linearized metric is then

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\left(\theta _{\mu \alpha }F_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu }{}^{}+\theta _{\nu \alpha }F_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\right)+\frac{1}{4}\eta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(21)
The geometric quantities can be evaluated without difficulty and we find

$`R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta _{\alpha [\mu }_{\nu ]}^\alpha F_{\sigma \rho }+\theta _{\rho \alpha }^\alpha _{[\mu }F_{\nu ]\sigma }+\theta _{\sigma \alpha }_\rho _{[\mu }F_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu ]}{}^{}`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }(\eta _{\sigma [\mu }_{\nu ]}_\rho F_{\alpha \beta }\eta _{\rho [\mu }_{\nu ]}_\sigma F_{\alpha \beta })],`$ (23)
$$R_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}\left(\theta _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }_\alpha ^\beta F_{\beta \nu }+\theta _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }_\alpha ^\beta F_{\beta \mu }+\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}F_{\alpha \beta }\right),$$
(24)
$$R=\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}F_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(25)
Notice that all of them, and also the Christoffel symbol, are first order in $`\theta `$. Since on-shell and in the absence of matter $`^\mu F_{\mu \nu }`$ is first order in $`\theta `$, then $`\mathrm{}F_{\mu \nu }`$ is also first orderNotice that field equations for the gauge field are derived from (19) which is defined in flat space-time. Hence in the field equations and solutions the Minkowski metric is used.. This means that the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature both vanish but not the Riemann tensor so that the metric (21) is not that of a flat space-time. Then, to order zero in $`\theta `$, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies the wave equation and is a function of $`k_\mu x^\mu `$ with $`k^2=0`$. Hence, the metric has all symmetries of a gravitational plane wave.

More rigorously, we find that the noncommutative parameter is covariantly conserved $`D_\mu \theta ^{\alpha \beta }=0`$. We then have a geometry equipped with a covariantly constant two-form. Since $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta _{\alpha \beta }=0`$ to first order then the two-form is also null. The existence of this covariantly null two-form guarantees that the metric (21) describes a pp-wave . More than that, if we consider the solution for the gauge field to first order in $`\theta `$ and in the absence of matter as $`F_{\mu \nu }=k_{[\mu }F_{\nu ]}`$, with $`k^\mu `$ a null vector and $`F_\mu `$ transversal, $`k^\mu F_\mu =0`$, then $`_\alpha R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=k_\alpha R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ and the complex Riemann tensor

$$P_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }+\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }$$
(26)
satisfies $`_\alpha P_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=k_\alpha P_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$. This shows that the pp-wave is in fact a plane wave . Then the metric (21) is that of a gravitational plane wave.

We can now turn our attention to the behavior of a massless particle in this background. Its geodesics is described by

$$ds^2=\left(1+\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }\right)dx^\mu dx_\mu +\theta _{\mu \alpha }F_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu }{}^{}dx^\mu dx^\nu =0.$$
(27)
If we consider the case where there is no noncommutativity between space and time, that is $`\theta ^{0i}=0`$, and calling $`\theta ^{ij}=ϵ^{ijk}\theta ^k`$, $`F^{i0}=E^i`$, and $`F^{ij}=ϵ^{ijk}B^k`$, we find to first order in $`\theta `$ that

$$(1\stackrel{}{v}^2)(12\stackrel{}{\theta }\stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{\theta }(\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{E})+\stackrel{}{v}^2\stackrel{}{\theta }\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{v})(\stackrel{}{\theta }\stackrel{}{v})=0,$$
(28)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the particle velocity. Then to zeroth order, the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}_0`$ satisfies $`\stackrel{}{v}_0^2=1`$ as it should. We can now decompose all vectors into their transversal and longitudinal components with respect to $`\stackrel{}{v}_0`$, $`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{E}_T+\stackrel{}{v}_0E_L`$, $`\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{B}_T+\stackrel{}{v}_0B_L`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\theta }=\stackrel{}{\theta }_T+\stackrel{}{v}_0\theta _L`$. We then find that the velocity is

$$\stackrel{}{v}^2=1+\stackrel{}{\theta }_T(\stackrel{}{B}_T\stackrel{}{v}_0\times \stackrel{}{E}_T).$$
(29)
Hence, a charged massless particle has its velocity changed with respect to the velocity of light by an amount which depends on $`\theta `$. For an uncharged massless particle

$$\stackrel{}{v}^2=1+2\stackrel{}{\theta }_T(\stackrel{}{B}_T\stackrel{}{v}_0\times \stackrel{}{E}_T),$$
(30)
and the correction due to the noncommutativity is twice that of a charged particle.

We can now check the consistency of these results by going back to the original actions (9) and (15), and computing the group velocity for planes waves. Upon quantization they give the velocity of the particle associated to the respective field. For the uncharged scalar field we get the equation of motion

$$\left(1\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right)\mathrm{}\phi 2\theta ^{\mu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }_\mu _\nu \phi =0.$$
(31)
If the field strength is constant we can find a plane wave solution with the following dispersion relation

$$\left(1\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right)k^22\theta ^{\mu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }k_\mu k_\nu =0,$$
(32)
and using the same conventions for vectors as before, it results in

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2}{\omega ^2}=12\stackrel{}{\theta }_T(\stackrel{}{B}_T\frac{\stackrel{}{k}}{\omega }\times \stackrel{}{E}_T),$$
(33)
where $`k^\mu =(\omega ,\stackrel{}{k})`$. We then find that the phase and group velocities coincide and are given by (30) as expected. For the charged scalar field we have to turn off the gauge coupling in order to get a plane wave solution. In this case the equation of motion is

$$\left(1\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right)\mathrm{}\varphi \theta ^{\mu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }_\mu _\nu \varphi =0.$$
(34)
In a constant field strength background the dispersion relation for a plane wave reads as in (32) with $`\theta `$ replaced by $`\theta /2`$. Then we must perform the same replacement in the phase and group velocities and we get (29). Therefore, in both pictures, noncommutative and gravitational, we get the same results.

For the gauge field the situation is more subtle because of its double role. There is no clear way to split the action (19). What can be done is to break up the gauge field into a background plus a plane wave as in . We then get the following dispersion relation

$$k^22\theta ^{\mu \alpha }F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }k_\mu k_\nu =0,$$
(35)
where $`F_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }`$ is now the constant background. This leads to (33), that is, the dispersion relation for the uncharged scalar field. It also reproduces the result in  when the background is purely magnetic. This shows the dual role of the gauge field, since it couples to gravitation as a charged field but its dispersion relation is that of an uncharged field.

We have seen in this paper that it is possible to regard noncommutative theories as conventional theories embedded in a gravitational background produced by the gauge field. This brings a new connection between noncommutativity and gravitation. We could imagine that this is a peculiarity of the first order term in the $`\theta `$ expansion of the SW map. If we consider the SW map for the scalar field to second order in $`\theta `$ we find that it is linear in the scalar field. A short calculation shows that the action (3) remains quadratic after the SW map and that it can be cast again in the form (10) since all terms of the form $`^2\phi ^2\phi `$ cancel. Then it seems to be possible to keep the same interpretation to all orders in $`\theta `$.

I would like to thank R. Jackiw for discussions and comments on the manuscript. This work was partially supported by CAPES and PRONEX under contract CNPq 66.2002/1998-99.