text:
# Observable Algebra

## I Introduction

Real physical phenomena always expose themselves experimentally as a set of measured numbers. In a general way one can say that the measurement process (even simple counting) consists of matching the physical phenomenon to be measured with some familiar set of objects, or the number words. The theory of representations of algebras serves as a tool that gives the possibility of interpreting abstract mathematical quantities from the point of view of the observable reality. The geometry of space-time, being the main characteristic of the reality, can be described also in the language of algebras and symmetries.

Usually in physics the geometry is thought to be objective without any connection to the way it is observed. One assumes the existence of some massive objects, with respect to which physical events can be numerated. It is known that physical limits on masses of reference systems cause large uncertainties in the measurement even of a large distances . In general geometry cannot be introduced independently. Results of any observation depend not only upon the phenomena we study but also on the way we make the observation and on the algebra one uses for a coordinatization. The properties of space-time (such as dimension, distance, etc.) do not exist separately, but are just reflections of universal symmetries of the algebra using in the measurement process.

Let us start from the assumption that physical quantities must correspond to the elements of some algebra, so they can be summed and multiplied. Since all observable quantities we extract from single measurements are real, it is possible to restrict ourselves to the field of real numbers. To have a transition from a manifold consisting the results of measurements to geometry (by multiplication of elements corresponding to the direct and reverse signals), one must be able to introduce a distance between two objects. Introduction of a distance always means some comparison of two objects using one of them as an etalon. Thus we need an algebra with a unit element.

In the algebraic language, these requirements mean that to describe the geometry of the real world we need a normed composition algebra with the unit element over the real numbers. Besides of the usual algebra of real numbers there are, according to the Hurwitz theorem, three extraordinary and unique algebras that satisfy the required conditions. These are the algebras of complex numbers, quaternions and octonions .

Essential for all these algebras is the existence of the real unit element $`e_0`$ and a different number of adjoined hyper-complex units $`e_n`$. For the case of complex numbers $`n=1`$, for quaternions $`n=3`$ and for octonions $`n=7`$. The square of the unit element $`e_0`$ is always positive and the squares of the hyper-complex units $`e_n`$ can be positive or negative

$$e_n^2=\pm e_0.$$
(1)
In applications of division algebras mainly the negative sign in (1) is used. In this case norm of the algebra is positively defined.

We note that in real world any comparison of two objects can be done only by the exchange of some signals between them. One-way signals can correspond to any kind of number. The important requirement is to have a real norm. We assume that the norm, the result of one measurement, is actually the multiplication of direct and backward signals. So the new physical requirement on the algebra we would like to apply is that it must contain special class of elements corresponding to the unit signals (which can be used for measurements of distances). For this purpose we want to choose the positive sign in (1), or

$$e_n^2=e_0.$$
(2)
This leads to so-called split algebras with the equal number of terms with the positive and negative signs in the definition of their norms. Adjoining to a real unit element (which could be connected with time), any invertible hyper-complex units with negative norms could be understood as an appearance of dynamics. The critical elements of split-algebras, so-called zero divisors, corresponding to zero norms can be used as the unit signals to measure distances between physical objects, wile ordinary physical objects are assumed to be described by regular elements (with division properties) of the algebra.

We believe that the dimension of the proper algebra and the properties of its basis elements also can be extracted from physical considerations.

It is known that observed physical quantities are divided into three main classes, scalars, vectors, and spinors. We need to have a unique way to describe these objects in an appropriate algebra.

Scalar quantities have magnitude only, and do not involve directions. The complete specification of a scalar quantity requires a unit of the same kind and a number counting how many times the unit is contained in the quantity. Scalar quantities are manipulated by applying the rules of ordinary algebra or real numbers.

A vast range of physical phenomena finds its most natural description as vector quantities, being a way to describe the size and orientation of something. A vector quantity requires for its specification a real number, which gives the magnitude to the quantity in terms of the unit (as for scalars) and an assignment of direction. By revising the process of addition of physical vectors it was found that using unit orthogonal basis vectors $`e_n`$ any vector could be decomposed into components

$$𝐚=a_ne_n.$$
(3)
The ordinary idea of a product in scalar algebra cannot apply to vectors because of their directional properties. Since vectors have their origin in physical problems, the definition of the products of vectors historically was obtained from the way in which such products occur in physical applications. Two types of multiplication of vectors were introduced - the scalar product

$$(\mathrm{𝐚𝐛})=ab\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(4)
and the vector product

$$[\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}]=𝐧ab\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(5)
where $`𝐧`$ is a unit vector perpendicular to the plane of $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$.

Formulae (3) - (5) result in the following properties of unit basis vectors

$`(e_ne_m)=0,e_ne_m=e_me_n,`$ (6)
$`(e_ne_n)=e_n^2=1,[e_ne_m]=\epsilon _{nmk}e_k,`$ (7)
where $`\epsilon _{nmk}`$ is fully anti-symmetric tensor. Or vice versa, we can say that from the postulated algebra (6) for basis elements one recovers the observed multiplication laws (4) and (5) of physical vectors.

Because of the ambiguity in choosing of direction of basis vectors, one must introduce conjugate elements $`e_n^{}`$, which differ from $`e_n`$ by the sign

$$e_n^{}=e_n,$$
(8)
what physically can be understood as a reflection.

The algebra of the vector basis elements (6) and (8) is exactly the same as we have for basis units of split algebras (with the positive sign (2)), which we had chosen from some general requirements. Since only vector products of different basis vectors and also scalar product of a basis vector with itself are non-zero, we do not need to write different kind of brackets to express their multiplications.

It is known that the notions of vector products and composition algebras in fact are equivalent . However, pure quaternions (with the negative sign in (1)) can not produce the usual 3-dimensional vectors, since with the respect of reflections quaternions basis units behave like a pseudo-vectors . Generalization of the standard vector products is only possible in seven dimensions and is generated by octonions . We shall show below that exactly three orthogonal vector-like objects are elements of the split-octonion algebra.

Restrictions on the appropriate algebra can be imposed also from the properties of spinors, another important class of observed physical quantities. Spinors as vectors can be characterized by some magnitude and direction, but they changes sign after a $`2\pi `$ rotation in 3-space. Using a multi-dimensional picture, when we transform ordinary space coordinates, spinors rotate also in some extra space. It is well known that there exists an equivalence of vectors and spinors in eight dimensions , which renders the 8-dimensional theory (connected with octonions) a very special case. In eight dimensions a vector and a left and right spinor all have an equal number of components (namely, eight) and their invariant forms all look the same. One may consider the vector’s rotation as the primary rotation that induces the transformations of two kinds of spinors, or equivalently starts from the spinor rotation, which induces a corresponding rotation of the vector and the second kind of spinor. This property is referred in the literature as ”principle of triality”. The physical result of this principle can be the observed fact that interaction in particle physics exhibit by the vertex containing a left spinor, a right spinor and a vector .

To summarize our general considerations, we conclude that the proper algebra needed to describe the real world must be the 8-dimensional algebra of split-octonions over the real numbers. Geometry can be constructed by the exchanging of octonionic signals.

The assumption that our Universe is built from pairs of octonions is now an important idea of string theory also (for example, see some recent publications ). String theory (where octonions are used only for extra dimensions), however, in difference with our approach is an attempt to marry classical considerations about 4-dimensional space-time to the small-scale uncertainties inherent in quantum theory.

In the next section the properties of zero divisors, which appear in split-algebras, are considered. The following three sections are devoted to geometrical applications of hyper-numbers, split-quaternions and split-octonions, respectively. Since physical applications of split-algebras over the real numbers are purely studied main considerations of all sections are original.

## II Zero Divisors

The division and split algebras have some differences following from the fact that in split-algebras special objects, called zero divisors, can be constructed . We assume that these objects (we shall call them critical elements of the algebra) could be serve as the unit signals characterizing physical events. Sommerfeld specially notes physical importance of zero divisors of split algebras in his book .

The first types of zero divisors we want to study are projection operators with the property

$$D^2=D,$$
(9)
for any non-zero $`D`$. In division algebras only projection operator is the identity $`1=e_o`$.

The most general form of projection operator in split-algebra is

$$D=\frac{1}{2}+a_ne_n,$$
(10)
with $`a_na_n=1/4`$. In (10) index $`n`$ runs over the number of the orthogonal hyper-complex basis elements $`e_n`$.

In general, a zero divisor is called primitive if it cannot be expressed as the sum of two other commuting zero divisors. For simplicity below we shall use only primitive projection operators.

Commuting primitive projection operators can be constructed by decomposition of the identity element

$$1=D_n^++D_n^{}.$$
(11)
with the particular choice

$$D_n^+=\frac{1}{2}(1+e_n),D_n^{}=\frac{1}{2}(1e_n).$$
(12)
The elements $`D_n^+`$ and $`D_n^{}`$ commute, since

$$D_n^+D_n^{}=D_n^{}D_n^+=0.$$
(13)
Another type of zero divisors in split-algebras are Grassmann numbers defined as the set of anti-commuting numbers $`G_1,G_2,\mathrm{},G_n`$ with the properties

$$G_n^2=0,G_nG_m=0.$$
(14)
Since the square of hyper-complex basis units of a split-algebra is $`+1`$ or $`1`$, Grassmann numbers can be constructed by coupling of two basis elements (except of unity) with the opposite choice of the sign in (1). For example, primitive Grassmann numbers are the sums of any two basis elements $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$

$$G^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(e_1\pm e_2)$$
(15)
with the properties

$$e_1^2=1,e_2^2=1,e_1^{}=e_1,e_2^{}=e_2.$$
(16)
A Grassmann number does not contain the unit element $`1`$ as the one of its terms (the structure with the unit element forms projection operator) and can be represented as

$$G=e_1D,$$
(17)
where $`D`$ is a projection operator and $`e_1`$ is a vector-like basis element of the algebra with positive square $`e_1^2=1`$.

For the completeness we note that the Grassmann numbers $`G^\pm `$ and projection operators $`D^\pm `$ obey the following algebra:

$`D^\pm D^{}=0,D^\pm D^\pm =D^\pm ,`$ (18)
$`G^\pm G^\pm =0,G^\pm G^{}=D^{},`$ (19)
$`D^\pm G^\pm =0,D^\pm G^{}=G^{},`$ (20)
$`G^\pm D^{}=0,G^\pm D^\pm =G^\pm .`$ (21)
From this relations we see that, separately, the quantities $`G^+`$ and $`G^{}`$ are Grassmann numbers, but they do not commute with each other (in contrast with the projection operators $`D^+`$ and $`D^{}`$) and thus do not obey the full Grassmann algebra (14). Instead the quantities $`G^+`$ and $`G^{}`$ are the elements of so-called algebra of Fermi operators with the anti-commutator

$$G^+G^{}+G^{}G^+=1.$$
(22)
The algebra of Fermi operators is some syntheses of the Grassmann and Clifford algebras.

Commuting zero divisors correspond to simultaneously measurable signals and can serve as the geometrical basis for the physical events. Ordinary physical events are describing by the regular elements of the algebra.

## III Hyper-Numbers

There are certain important types of physical phenomenon that are intrinsically 2-dimensional in nature. Many physical functions occur naturally in pairs and are expressed by 2-dimensional real numbers that satisfies a different type of algebra . The most common 2-dimensional algebra is the algebra of complex numbers, however, there is no special reason to prefer one algebra to the other .

Historically, the motivation to introduce complex numbers was mathematical rather than physical. This numbers made sense of the solution of algebraic equations, of the convergence of series, of formulae for trigonometric functions, differential equations, and many other things. This was quite unlike the initial motivation for using real numbers, which came about as an idealization of the kind of quantity that directly arose from physical measurements.

Essential for the complex numbers

$$z=x+iy,$$
(23)
where $`x`$ and $`y`$ are some real numbers, is existence of the unit element and one imaginary element $`i`$, with the property $`i^2=1`$. Later it was found that if we introduce the conjugation of complex numbers

$$z^{}=xiy,$$
(24)
there algebra is division. A regular complex number can be represented geometrically by the amplitude and polar angle

$$\rho ^2=zz^{}=x^2+y^2,\theta =\mathrm{arctan}\frac{y}{x}.$$
(25)
The amplitude $`\rho `$ is multiplicative and the polar angle $`\theta `$ is additive upon the multiplication of complex numbers.

Complex number have found many uses in physics, but these were considered as a ”mathematical tricks”, like the employment of complex numbers in 2-dimensional hydrodynamics, electrical circuit theory, or the theory of vibrations.

In quantum mechanics, complex numbers enter at the foundation of the theory from probability amplitudes and the superposition principle. To pass from a quantum information link, which does not respect the rules of ordinary classical causality (as in the case of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen phenomenon) to a classical information link (which necessarily propagates causally into the future) and to obtain real number corresponding to the probability, one must multiply the complex amplitude by its complex conjugate. In fact, the complex conjugated amplitude may be thought of as applying to the quantum-information link in the reverse direction in time .

Up to now it is admitted without justification that two-valuedness of physical quantities naturally appearing in quantum mechanics is to be described in terms of complex numbers. Complex numbers achieve a particular representation of quantum mechanics in term of which the fundamental equations take their simplest form. Other choices for the representation of the two-valuedness also possible, but would give to the Schrodinger equation a more complicated form (involving additional terms), although its physical meaning would be unchanged .

The main reason why complex numbers are popular is Euler’s formula. As it was mentioned by Feynman , ”the most remarkable formula in mathematics is:

$$e^{i\theta }=\mathrm{cos}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(26)
This is our jewel. We may relate the geometry to the algebra by representing complex numbers in a plane

$$x+iy=\rho e^{i\theta }.$$
(27)
This is the unification of algebra and geometry.”

Using (27) the rule for complex multiplication looks almost obvious as a consequence of the behavior of rotations in plane. We know that a rotation of $`\alpha `$-angle around the $`z`$-axis, can be represented by

$$e^{i\alpha }(x+iy)=\rho e^{i(\theta +\alpha )}.$$
(28)
Another possible 2-dimensional normed algebra is the algebra of hyper-numbers

$$z=T+hx.$$
(29)
This has also a long history but is rarely used in physics . In (29) the quantities $`T,x`$ are the real numbers and hyper-unit $`h`$ has the properties similar to ordinary unit vector

$$h^2=1.$$
(30)
Conjugation of $`h`$ can be understand as reflection when $`h`$ changes its direction on the opposite $`h^{}=h`$. So, in contrast with ordinary complex numbers, the norm of a hyper-number is invariant under of rotation with reflection.

Hyper-numbers constitute a commutative ring, but not a field, since norm of a nonzero hyper-number

$$N=zz^{}=T^2x^2,$$
(31)
can be zero.

A hyper-number does not have an inverse when its norm is zero, i. e., when $`x=\pm T`$, or, alternatively, when $`z=T(1\pm h)`$. These two lines whose elements have no inverses, play the same role as the point $`z=0`$ does for the complexes, and provide the essential property of the light cone, which makes the hyper-numbers relevant for the representation of relativistic coordinate transformations. Lorentz boosts can be succinctly expressed as

$$(T+hx)=(T^{}+hx^{})e^{h\theta },$$
(32)
where $`\mathrm{tanh}\theta =v`$.

Any hyper-number (29) can be expressed in terms of light cone coordinates

$$z=T+hx=(T+x)D^++(Tx)D^{},$$
(33)
where we introduced projection operators

$$D^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm h)$$
(34)
corresponding to the critical signals.

The unit of the algebra of hyper-numbers is connected with the critical signals and is universal for all physical quantities (which are described by the ordinary elements of the algebra). Thus it is just the hyper-unit is responsible for the signature of the space-time metric and the velocity of light $`c`$ is related with it. Thus the norm (31) can be understand as the distance and the constant $`c`$ explicitly extracted from the unit element of the algebra

$$N=c^2t^2x^2,$$
(35)
where quantity $`t`$ now has the dimension of time. So we can say that hyper-numbers are useful to describe dynamics in (1+1)-space.

## IV Quaternions

William Hamilton’s discovery of quaternions in 1843 was the first time in history when the concept of 2-dimensional numbers was successfully generalized. Many authors have proposed applications of quaternions in physics .

General element of the quaternion algebra can be written by using only the two basis elements $`i`$ and $`j`$ in the form

$$q=a+bi+(c+di)j,$$
(36)
where $`a,b,c`$ and $`d`$ are some real numbers. The third basis element of the quaternion $`(ij)`$ is possible to obtained by composition of the first two.

The quaternion reverse to (36), the conjugated quaternion $`q^{}`$, can be constructed using the properties of the basis units under the conjugation (reflection)

$$i^{}=i,j^{}=j,(ij)^{}=(ij).$$
(37)
A physically observable quantity is the norm of a quaternion $`N=qq^{}`$ corresponding to the multiplication of the direct and reverse signals.

When the basis elements $`i`$ and $`j`$ are imaginary $`i^2=j^2=1`$ (similar to ordinary complex unit) we have Hamilton’s quaternion with the positively defined norm

$$N=qq^{}=q^{}q=a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2.$$
(38)
In this case the third orthogonal basis unit $`(ij)`$ has properties analogous to $`i`$ and $`j`$ (they all are similar to pseudo-vectors ). Because of this fact it is impossible to identify pure quaternion with a vector .

For the positive squares $`i^2=j^2=1`$ we have the algebra of split-quaternions. The unit elements $`i,j`$ have the properties of real unit vectors. The norm of a split-quaternion

$$N=qq^{}=q^{}q=a^2b^2c^2+d^2,$$
(39)
has (2+2)-signature and in general is not positively defined.

We see that the third unit element $`(ij)`$ of split-quaternions is the vector product of the unit vectors $`i`$ and $`j`$ and thus is a pseudo-vector. It is important to realize that a pseudo-vector is not a geometrical object in the usual sense. In particular, it should not be considered as a real physical arrow in space.

The pseudo-vector $`(ij)`$ differs from the other two hyper-complex units of split-quaternions $`i`$ and $`j`$ and behaves like a pure imaginary object

$$(ij)^{}=(ij),(ij)(ij)=i^2j^2=1.$$
(40)
In this fashion one can justify the origins of complex numbers

$$z=x+(ij)y,$$
(41)
without introducing them ad-hoc. In this sense we can say that split-quaternions are more rich in structure compared to Hamilton’s quaternions, since they contain complex and hyper-complex numbers as particular cases.

In the algebra of split quaternions two classes (totally four) projection operators

$$D_i^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm i),D_j^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm j),$$
(42)
can be introduced. The two classes does not commute with each other. The commuting projection operators with the properties

$$[D^+D^{}]=0,D^+D^+=D^+,D^{}D^{}=D^{},$$
(43)
are only the pairs $`D_i^\pm `$, or $`D_j^\pm `$. The operators $`D^+`$ and $`D^{}`$ differ from each other by reflection of the one basis element and thus correspond to the direct and reverse critical signals along one of the two real directions.

In the algebra we have also two classes of Grassmann numbers

$$G_i^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm i)j,G_j^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm j)i.$$
(44)
From the properties of zero divisors

$`D_i^\pm G_i^\pm =G_i^\pm ,D_j^\pm G_j^\pm =G_j^\pm ,`$ (45)
$`D_i^\pm G_i^{}=0,D_j^\pm G_j^{}=0,`$ (46)
we see that the Grassmann numbers (44) have pairwise commuting relations with the projection operators (42)

$$[D_i^\pm G_i^{}]=0,[D_j^\pm G_j^{}]=0.$$
(47)
Using commuting zero divisors any quaternion can be written in the form

$`q=a+ib+(c+id)j=`$ (48)
$`=D^+[a+b+(c+d)G^+]+`$ (49)
$`+D^{}[ab+(cd)G^{}],`$ (50)
where $`D^\pm `$ and $`G^\pm `$ are the projection operators and Grassmann elements belonged to the one of the classes from (42) and (44) labelled by $`i`$, or by $`j`$.

The quaternion algebra is associative and therefore can be represented by matrices. We get the simplest non-trivial representation of the split-quaternion basis units if we choose the real Pauli matrices accompanied by the unit matrix. Note that for a real matrix representation of Hamilton’s quaternions one needs 4-dimensional matrices.

The independent unit basis elements of split quaternions $`i`$ and $`j`$ have the following matrix representation

$$i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(51)
The third unit basis element $`(ij)`$ is formed by multiplication of $`i`$ and $`j`$ and has the representation

$$(ij)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(52)
It is easy to noticed that, in contrast with the complex case, the three real Pauli matrices have different properties, since their squares give the unit matrix

$$(1)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(53)
with different signs

$$i^2=j^2=(1),(ij)^2=(1).$$
(54)
Conjugation of the unit elements $`i`$ and $`j`$ means changing of signs of matrices $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`(ij)`$, thus

$$ii^{}=jj^{}=(1),(ij)(ij)^{}=(1).$$
(55)
Matrix representation of the independent projection operators and Grassmann elements from (42) and (44) labelled by $`i`$ are

$`D_i^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+i)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (56)
$`D_i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1i)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (57)
$`G_i^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(j+ij)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (58)
$`G_i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(jij)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (59)
It is easy to find also matrix representation of similar zero divisors labelled by the second index $`j`$.

The decomposition (48) of a quaternion now can be written in the form

$$q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(a+b)& (c+d)\\ (cd)& (ab)\end{array}\right)$$
(60)
and the norm (39) is the determinant of this matrix

$$\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑡}q=(a^2b^2)(c^2d^2).$$
(61)
If we treat the unit element of the algebra as the time, then split-quaternions could be used for describing of dynamics in 2-dimensional space, just as hyper-numbers are used to study dynamics in 1-space. Here we have two independent rotations in the $`(ti)`$ and $`(tj)`$ planes described by $`D^\pm `$, which similar to hyper-numbers case (35) introduces fundamental constant $`c`$.

But what is the geometrical meaning of the Grassmann numbers and the fourth orthogonal element in the split-quaternion algebra? There was no similar element in the algebra of hyper-numbers.

It can be shown, that pseudo-vector $`(ij)`$ is connected with the rotation in the $`(ij)`$ plane. Indeed, the operators

$$R^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[1\pm (ij)],$$
(62)
(which are ordinary complex numbers with the property $`R^+R^{}=1`$) represent the rotation by $`\pi /2`$ in $`(ij)`$ plane. Thus they can be used to transform $`i`$ into $`j`$

$$R^+iR^{}=j,R^+jR^{}=i.$$
(63)
Thus the extra pseudo-direction $`(ij)`$ is similar to the angular momentum and it is natural to assume that it can be connected with the property of the matter such as spin.

In the algebra there is a symmetry in choice of the independent projection operators $`D_i^\pm `$ or $`D_j^\pm `$ for the quaternion decomposition (48). This means that we have two independent space directions $`i`$ and $`j`$, where in principle signals could be exchanged. However, we can simultaneously measure signals only from the one direction (since the operators $`D_i^\pm `$ and $`D_j^\pm `$ do not commute). This property is equivalent to the non-commutativity of coordinates .

The constant $`c`$, as for hyper-numbers (35), can be extracted explicitly from the unit element of any quaternion

$$q=ct+xi+yj+\lambda (ij),$$
(64)
where $`\lambda `$ is some quantity with the dimension of length.

Projection operators correspond to critical rotations for the $`(1i)`$ and $`(1j)`$ planes and introduce maximal velocity, following from the requirement to have the positive norm for the quaternion (64)

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{c\mathrm{\Delta }t}<1,\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{c\mathrm{\Delta }t}<1.$$
(65)
Analogously Grassmann numbers correspond to critical rotations in the $`(iij)`$ and $`(jij)`$ planes. When conditions (65) are satisfied for the positive definiteness of the norm, now we must write also the extra relations

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }>1,\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }>1.$$
(66)
This means that there must exist the second fundamental constant (which can be extracted from $`\lambda `$) characterizing this critical property of the algebra. Since the pseudo-direction $`(ij)`$ is similar to angular momentum it is natural to identify new constant with Plank’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$ and write $`\lambda `$ in the form

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{}}{P},$$
(67)
where quantity $`P`$ has the dimension of the momentum. Inserting (67) into (66) we can conclude that uncertainty principle

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }P>\mathrm{},$$
(68)
probably has same geometrical meaning as the existence of the maximal velocity.

To summarize, split quaternions with the norm

$$N=c^2t^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{P^2}x^2y^2,$$
(69)
could be used to describe dynamics of a particle with spin in a 2-dimensional space. The two fundamental constants $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ needed for this case have the geometrical origin and correspond to two kinds of critical signals in (2+2)-space. The Lorentz factor

$$\gamma =\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{c^2}\frac{F^2}{P^2}},$$
(70)
corresponding to a general boost in the space (69) contains an extra positive term, where $`F`$ is some kind of force. Thus, the dispersion relation in the (2+2)-space (69) has a form similar to that of double-special relativity models .

## V Octonions

Despite the fascination of octonions for over a century since their discovery in 1844-1845 by Graves and Cayley, it is fair to say that they still await universal acceptance. The octonions have remained in the shadow for a long time. This is not to say that there have not been various attempts to find appropriate uses for them in physics (see, for example ). Recently we can say that the octonions have revealed themselves as the most important number system of all, since they are crucial to string theory .

As we have seen in previous sections, hyper-numbers are useful to describe dynamics in 1-dimensional space, and split-quaternions, in 2-dimensional space. According to the Hurwitz theorem there is only one further composite division algebra, the octonion algebra . We want to show that split-octonions can describe dynamics in the usual 3-dimensional space.

For the construction of the octonion algebra with the general element

$$O=a_0e_0+a_ne_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{},7$$
(71)
where $`e_0`$ is the unit element and $`a_0,a_n`$ are real numbers, the multiplication law of its eight basis units $`e_0,e_n`$ usually is given. For the case of ordinary octonions

$$e_0^2=e_0,e_n^2=e_0,e_0^{}=e_0,e_n^{}=e_n,$$
(72)
and norms are positively defined

$`N=OO^{}=O^{}O=`$ (73)
$`=a_0^2+a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2+a_4^2+a_5^2+a_6^2+a_7^2.`$ (74)
The multiplication table for the basis elements (72) can be written in the form

$$(e_ne_m)=\delta _{nm}e_0+ϵ_{nmk}ϵ_k,$$
(75)
where $`\delta _{nm}`$ is the Kronecker symbol and $`ϵ_{nmk}`$ is the fully anti-symmetric tensor with the postulated value $`ϵ_{nmk}=+1`$ for the following values of indices

$$nmk=123,145,176,246,257,347,365.$$

This definition of structure constants used by Cayley in his original paper but is not unique. There are $`16`$ different possibilities of definition of $`ϵ_{nmk}`$ leading to equivalent algebras. Sometimes for visualization of the multiplication law of the octonion basis units the geometrical picture of the Fano plane (a little gadget with 7 points and 7 lines) also used . Unfortunately both of these methods are almost unenlightening. We want to consider a more obvious picture using properties of usual vectors products.

For the case of quaternions we had shown that not all basis elements of the algebra are independent. One easily recover the full algebra from two fundamental basis elements without consideration of multiplication tables or graphics. The same can be done with the octonions. Now beside of unit element $`1`$ we have the three fundamental basis elements $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`l`$ of split-octonions with the properties of ordinary unit vectors

$$i^2=j^2=l^2=1.$$
(76)
Other four basis elements $`(ij)`$, $`(il)`$, $`(jl)`$ and $`((ij)l)`$ can be constructed by vector multiplications of $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`l`$. All brackets denote vector product and they show only the order of multiplication. Here we have some ambiguity of the placing of brackets for the eights element $`((ij)l)`$. However, we can choose any convenient form, all the other possibilities are defined by the ordinary laws of triple vector multiplication. As it was mentioned in the introduction to denote scalar and vector multiplications of basis units we does not need to use different kind of brackets, since the product of the different basis vectors is always the vector product, and the product of two same basis vectors is always the scalar product.

Using properties of standard scalar and vector products of $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`l`$ we can write the properties of other four, not fundamental, basis elements of the octonion algebra

$`(i(jl))=((ij)l)=((li)j),`$ (77)
$`(ij)=(ji),(il)=(li),(jl)=(lj),`$ (78)
$`(ij)^2=(il)^2=(jl)^2=1,`$ (79)
$`(ij)(ij)^{}=(il)(il)^{}=(jl)(jl)^{}=1,`$ (80)
$`((ij)l)^2=1,((ij)l)((ij)l)^{}=1.`$ (81)
Conjugation as for the quaternion case means reflection of the basis units, or changing of there signs (except of unit element). These obvious properties of the scalar and vector products of basis elements are hidden if we write the abstract octonion algebra (75).

In the algebra of split-octonions it is possible to introduce four classes (totally eight) of projection operators

$`D_i^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm i),D_j^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm j),`$ (82)
$`D_l^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm l),D_{(ij)l}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm (ij)l),`$ (83)
corresponding to the critical unit signal along $`i,j,l`$ and $`((ij)l)`$ directions. These four classes do not commute with each other. Only one class, i.e. any pair $`D^\pm `$ with the same label from $`i,j,l`$ and $`((ij)l)`$, is independent.

In the algebra we have also the four classes (totally twenty four) of Grassmann numbers labelled by $`i,j,l`$ and $`((ij)l)`$

$`G_{i1}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm i)j,G_{i2}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm i)l,`$ (84)
$`G_{i3}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm i)(jl),`$ (85)
$`G_{j1}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm j)i,G_{j2}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm j)l,`$ (86)
$`G_{j3}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm j)(il),`$ (87)
$`G_{l1}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm l)i,G_{l2}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm l)j,`$ (88)
$`G_{l3}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm l)(ij),`$ (89)
$`G_{(ij)l1}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm (ij)l)i,G_{(ij)l2}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm (ij)l)j,`$ (90)
$`G_{(ij)l3}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm (ij)l)l.`$ (91)
Only the numbers $`G_1,G_2`$ and $`G_3`$ from each class with the same sign mutually commute. So we have eight independent real Grassmann algebras with the elements $`G_{n1}^\pm ,G_{n2}^\pm `$ and $`G_{n3}^\pm `$, where $`n`$ runs over $`i,j,l`$ and $`((ij)l)`$.

In contrast with quaternions, octonions cannot be represented by matrices with the usual multiplication lows . The reason is the non-associativity, leading to the different rules for the left and right multiplications.

Using commuting projection operators and Grassmann numbers any split octonion

$`O=A+Bi+Cj+D(ij)+`$ (92)
$`+El+F(il)+G(jl)+H(i(jl)),`$ (93)
where $`A,B,C,D,E,F,G`$ and $`H`$ are some real numbers, can be written in the form

$`O=D^+[(A+B)+(C+D)G_1^++`$ (94)
$`+(E+F)G_2^++(G+H)G_3^+]+`$ (95)
$`+D^{}[(AB)+(CD)G_1^{}+`$ (96)
$`+(EF)G_2^{}+(GH)G_3^{}].`$ (97)
Because of the symmetry between $`i,j`$ and $`l`$ using (82) and (84) we can find three different representation of (94).

Two terms in formula (94) with the opposite signs in the labels of zero divisors correspond to the direct and backward signals for the one of three real directions $`i,j`$, or $`l`$. However, as for quaternions, the different classes of projection operators $`D_i,D_j`$ and $`D_l`$ do not commute. This is the analog of non-commutativity of coordinates .

As in the case with quaternions, here we also have the two fundamental constants $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ corresponding to the two types of critical signals $`D^\pm `$ and $`G^\pm `$. Thus any octonion can be written in the form

$`O=ct+xi+yj+zl+`$ (98)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{P_z}}(ij)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{P_y}}(il)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{P_x}}(jl)+\omega (i(jl)),`$ (99)
where $`\omega `$ is some quantity with the dimension of length. We had used expressions similar to (35) and (69) to extract $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ from the components of (92) and to introduce the quantities $`P_x,P_y`$ and $`P_z`$ with the dimensions of momentum.

If we extract the two fundamental constants $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ from $`\omega `$, we find a quantity with the dimensions of energy

$$E=\frac{c\mathrm{}}{\omega }.$$
(100)
So the norm of the octonion

$`N=OO^{}=c^2t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{P_x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{P_y^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{P_z^2}}`$ (101)
$`x^2y^2z^2{\displaystyle \frac{c^2\mathrm{}^2}{E^2}},`$ (102)
becomes similar to a interval in some kind of phase space.

The appearance of Planck’s constant in definitions of the intervals (101) means that the difference of the proposed model from the standard approach mainly will take place for large energies and nonlinear fields. For example, the non-associativity can be connected with Green’s functions of strongly non-linear Quantum Field Theory considered in .

Specific to the representation (94) is the existence of three zero divisors forming full Grassmann algebras with three elements for any direction. So for octonions we have four type of commuting critical signals. One corresponds to the rotations in $`(tx)`$ plane giving the constant $`c`$, two correspond to the different rotations in $`(xP)`$ planes, which give uncertainty relations similar to (66) containing $`\mathrm{}`$, and the last one corresponds to the rotations in $`(PE)`$ plane.

Note that in spite of the fact that in the split-octonion algebra there are four real basis vectors $`i,j,l`$ and $`((ij)l)`$ we can consider it to present only three ordinary space dimensions, since there could be constructed only the three independent rotation operators with the property $`R^+R^{}=1`$,

$`R_{ij}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[1\pm (ij)],`$ (103)
$`R_{il}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[1\pm (il)],`$ (104)
$`R_{jl}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[1\pm (jl)],`$ (105)
corresponding to rotations in the $`(ij)`$, $`(il)`$ and $`(jl)`$ planes respectively. Another fact is that in the formulae (82) and (84) there is no symmetry between the zero divisors along $`i,j`$, or $`l`$ and along $`((ij)l)`$. The reason is non-associativity of octonions resulting in non-unique answers for the products of $`D_{(ij)l}^\pm `$ and $`G_{(ij)l}^\pm `$. This means that the commutating relations of these operators depends on the order of multiplication of the basis elements and we could not write a unique decomposition (94) of octonion using $`D_{(ij)l}^\pm `$ and $`G_{(ij)l}^\pm `$.

The basis element $`((ij)l)`$ always appears for the rotations around $`i,j`$ and $`l`$. For example, the rotation by $`\pi /2`$ around $`i`$ (i.e. in the $`(jl)`$ plane) by the operators (103) gives $`((jl)i)`$. After a rotation on $`\pi `$ we receive $`i`$ and only after the full rotation bt $`2\pi `$ do we come back to $`i`$, indeed

$$R_{jl}^+iR_{jl}^{}=i(jl)=(ij)l,R_{jl}^+((ij)l)R_{jl}^{}=i.$$
(106)
A similar situation occurs for the rotations around $`j`$ and $`l`$.

So non-associativity, which results in non-visibility of the fourth real direction, introduces fundamental uncertainty in 3-space. Again because of non-associativity the extra relations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }E>\mathrm{},\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\mathrm{\Delta }P}>c\mathrm{},$$
(107)
in addition to (65) and (66), following from the positive definiteness of the norm (101) do not have the same meaning of the uncertainty relation as in (68). However, (107) leads to generalizations of standard uncertainty relation similar as considered in various approaches .

Non-associativity of octonions follows from the property of triple vector products and appears in multiplications of three different basis elements of octonion necessarily including as the one of the terms the eighth basis element $`((ij)l)`$. For example, we have

$`j\left(l((ij)l)\right)=j\left((ij)\right)=i,`$ (108)
$`(jl)((ij)l)=(jl)((jl)i)=i.`$ (109)
Non-associativity of octonions is difficult to understand if we only study the properties of basis elements. For example, if one introduce so-called open multiplication laws for the basis elements  (i.e. does not place the brackets) and formally use only the anti-commutation properties , he find

$$ijl=lij.$$
(110)
But anti-commuting comes from the properties of vector products and it is impossible to use it separately. If we put the brackets back then, from the properties of vector products, we discover the another result

$$((ij)l)=(l(ij)).$$
(111)
This relation is obvious because expresses the vector product of two vectors $`l`$ and $`(ij)`$.

Non-associativity of octonions is the result of the pseudo-vector character of the basis elements $`(ij),(il)`$ and $`(jl)`$, which have the properties of an imaginary unit, i.e. there square (scalar product) is negative. Even in three dimensions the ordinary vector multiplication is non-associative

$$[[\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}]𝐜][𝐚[\mathrm{𝐛𝐜}]].$$
(112)
For example, if $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$ are two unit orthogonal 3-vectors we have

$$[[\mathrm{𝐚𝐚}]𝐛]=0,[𝐚[\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}]]=𝐛.$$
(113)
In 3-space the triple vector product

$$[𝐚[\mathrm{𝐛𝐜}]]=(\mathrm{𝐚𝐜})𝐛(\mathrm{𝐚𝐛})𝐜$$
(114)
of three orthogonal vectors (describing by the determinant of three-on-three matrix) is zero. Considering vector products of orthogonal vectors in more than three dimensions, it is possible to construct extra vectors, normal to all three (using matrix with the more than three columns and rows). Then the triple vector product of three orthogonal vectors will be not zero and we shall automatically discover their non-associative properties. In particular, when we have a product of three different basis elements of octonion, and when one of them is the eighth basis unit $`((ij)l)`$, for some order of multiplication there necessarily arises the scalar product (square) of two pseudo-vectors from $`(ij),(il)`$ and $`(jl)`$, which give the opposite sign in the result.

In general, the familiar 3-dimensional identity for triple vector product (114) does not follows from the experimentally established properties of vectors (6). Also, it is not valid in seven dimensions, the only dimension other than three where the vector product can be written in principle .

Octonions have a weak form of associativity called alternativity. In the language of basis elements this means that in the expressions with only two fundamental basis elements the placing of brackets is arbitrary. For example,

$$((ii)l)=(i(il)),((li)i)=(l(ii)).$$
(115)
This property, following from the ordinary properties of vector products allows us to simplify expressions containing more than three octonionic unit elements. The rule is: fundamental basis units of the same type, which after commuting appears to be neighbors, can be taken out of the brackets to identify there squares with the unit of the algebra.

At the end we want to note, that in general the relations (65), (66) and (107) are not need to be satisfied separately. Positive definiteness of the norm (101) gives only one relation containing all components of the octonion. The Lorentz factor corresponding to a general boost in (4+4)-space has the form

$$\gamma =\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}\mathrm{}^2\left(\frac{A^2}{E^2}\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{F^2}{P^2}\right)},$$
(116)
where the quantities $`A`$ and $`F`$ have the dimensions of work and force respectively. The formula (116) contains extra terms, which change 4-dimensional standard dispersion relation in the similar way to that of the double-special relativity theory .

## VI Conclusion

Using the assumptions that the observed space-time geometry must follow from the properties of the algebra that we use in physical measurements and that the result of any measurement is given by the norm of split-octonionic signals, in this paper it was found that:

a). In the theory we must have one time (the unit element of octonion) and three real space directions (corresponding to the vector-like basis elements $`i`$,$`j`$ and $`l`$).

b). There are two fundamental constants $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ connected with the projection operators and Grassmann numbers respectively (critical elements of the algebra).

c). From the positive definiteness of the norms there arise uncertainty relations and fundamental uncertainty in measuring of coordinates (because of existence of a fourth space-like direction with non-associative properties).

We do not yet introduce any physical fields or equations. We have only shown that the proper algebra of split-octonions could in principle describe the observed geometry and have introduced many necessary characteristics of the future particle physics model.

## Acknowledgements

Author would like to acknowledge the hospitality extended during his visits at Theoretical Divisions of CERN and SLAC where this work was done.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Chaos via the Quantum Action

## 1. Introduction

The phenomenon of chaos is quite well understood in classical physics. Its origin in terms of nonlinear dynamics has been investigated thoroughly in theoretical physics and mathematics. If one considers nature at the level of atoms, where the laws of quantum mechanics (Q.M.) hold, chaotic phenomena are by far less well understood than in classical (macroscopic) physics . Many questions are unresolved yet. For example one can ask the following questions: What is characteristic for quantum chaos? Which are its essential features? What is the analogue of classical Lyapunov exponents in Q.M.? What is the analogue of classical Poincaré sections and of classical KAM surfaces in Q.M.?

Here we take the point of view that the quantum action  is the ideal tool to address those questions. In the following we discuss the concept of the quantum action. In Sect.2 we discuss its physical meaning, the question of existence in the mathematical sense, its symmetry properties and methods of its analytical and numerical computation. In Sect.4 we present analytical results for the quantum action in the limit when temperature goes to zero. In Sect.6 we discuss quantum chaos at hand of the 2-D anharmonic oscillator. Finally, we give an outlook on further use of the quantum action, e.g. in cosmology, in the inflationary scenario, in condensed matter, and in particular in supraconductivity, and in quantum chaos with time-dependent Hamiltonians.

## 2. Quantum action

We start out by asking: What is problem of chaos physics when making the transition from classical to quantum mechanics? Let us recall classical mechanics: Equations of motions are given by specifying the dynamics (usually in terms of a differential equation) and by specifying initial conditions. Usually one specifies position and velocity at some initial time. A consequence of this type of boundary conditions is that certain trajectories are forbidden. For example those where the energy is too small to overcome a potential barrier. This type of boundary conditions has more severe consequences when going over to quantum physics: No Q.M. transition is compatible with such initial conditiuon because Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation prohibits to specify both, position and momentum with zero error. This is the cause why Lyapunov exponents can not be carried over from classical physics to quantum physics. This is a severe problem for quantum chaos. However, there is a simple way out: Reconsider classical mechanics with 2-point boundary conditions. I.e., one specifies positions at some initial and final time. Now the consequence is: Classically, there are no forbidden trajectories. (Sometimes even infinitely many trajectories are possible!) In quantum physics, there is a well defined transition amplitude.

### 2.1. Motivation of quantum action

The physical idea of the quantum action has a threefold motivation. First, it can be viewed as a result of renormalisation . Renormalisation is well known from solid state physics. When a charged particle propagates in a solid it interacts with atoms. As a result, the properties of the propagating charged particle can be described by an effective mass and charge different from that of free propagation, i.e. mass and charge are renormalized. Similar mechanism are well known to occur in quantum field theory (QED, QCD). Here we suggest that the difference in propagation between Q.M. and classical physics (Q.M. fluctuations, zig-zag paths with Hausdorff dimension $`d_H=2`$) can be viewed as a renormalisation of the classical action to become the so-called quantum action. Q.M. fluctuations are manifest in mass and potential parameters different from the classical ones.

Second, as a guide to construct such renormalized action one can use Feynman’s path integral. In special cases Feynman’s path integral becomes very simple, namely it becomes a sum over classical pathes only

$$G(x_f,t_f;x_i,t_i)=\underset{\{x_{cl}\}}{}Z\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S[x_{cl}]|_{x_i,t_i}^{x_f,t_f}\right].$$
(1)
The most well known example is the harmonic oscillator given by the potential $`V(x)=\frac{m}{2}\omega ^2x^2`$,

$`S[x_{cl}]|_{x_i,t_i}^{x_f,t_f}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{sin}(\omega T)}}\left[(x_f^2+x_i^2)\mathrm{cos}(\omega T)2x_ix_f\right],`$
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega }{2\pi i\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}(\omega T)}}},T=t_ft_i.`$ (2)
However, such simple relation is not true in general! One expects the quantum action to be different from the classical action, in general.

Third, we shall ask: What is the mathematical form of the quantum action? Some hint comes from symmetry. For a given positive number $`\alpha `$ consider the following scale transformation involving the mass $`m`$, the potential $`V(x)`$ and the transition time (time elapsed during evolution of the system) $`T`$,

$`m`$ $``$ $`m/\alpha `$
$`V(x)`$ $``$ $`\alpha V(x)`$
$`T`$ $``$ $`T/\alpha .`$ (3)
This transforms the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian and quantum mechanical transition amplitude as follows:

$`H`$ $``$ $`\alpha H`$
$`<b|e^{i\widehat{H}T/\mathrm{}}|a>`$ $``$ $`\text{invariant}.`$
On the other hand, this symmetry transformation has the following implications in classical physics: It transforms the classical trajectory (solution of Euler-Lagrange equation of motion), the Lagrangian and the action evaluated along the classical trajectory in the following way:

$`x_{cl}(t)`$ $``$ $`x_{cl}(\alpha t)`$
$`L(x_{cl}(t),\dot{x}_{cl}(t))`$ $``$ $`\alpha L(x_{cl}(\alpha t),\dot{x}_{cl}(\alpha t))`$
$`S[x_{cl}]`$ $``$ $`\text{invariant}.`$
As a result we find that the Q.M. transition amplitude and any local classical action evaluated at its classical trajectory are all invariants. Note that the Lagrangian underlying the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian of the classical system need not be the same. I.e. this symmetry quite genral (but requires a local potential). We interpret this observation as a hint that the quantum transition amplitude may have something to do with some action evaluated along its classical trajectory. As consequence we formulate the following postulate of the quantum action.

### 2.2. Postulate of quantum action

The quantum action  is defined by the following requirements. For a given classical action

$$S[x]=𝑑t\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}^2V(x),$$
(4)
there is a quantum action

$$\stackrel{~}{S}[x]=𝑑t\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{2}\dot{x}^2\stackrel{~}{V}(x),$$
(5)
which parametrizes the Q.M. transition amplitude

$`G(x_f,t_f;x_i,t_i)=\stackrel{~}{Z}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}|_{x_i,t_i}^{x_f,t_f}\right],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}|_{x_i,t_i}^{x_f,t_f}=\stackrel{~}{S}[\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}]|_{x_i,t_i}^{x_f,t_f}={\displaystyle _{t_i}^{t_f}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{2}}\dot{\stackrel{~}{x}}_{cl}^2\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl})|_{x_i}^{x_f}.`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}`$ denotes the classical path corresponding to the action $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. We require 2-point boundary conditions,

$`\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}(t=t_i)=x_i`$
$`\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}(t=t_f)=x_f.`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ stands for a dimensionful normalisation factor. Note: The parameters of the quantum action (mass, potential) are independent of the boundary points $`x_f`$, $`x_i`$, but depend on the transition time $`T=t_ft_i`$. The same q-action parametrizes all transition amplitudes for a given transition time.

The postulate leads to the question: Does such quantum action exist? So far we have no general proof. However, the answer is affirmative in the following cases:
(a) Example: Harmonic oscillator. In this case the classical action satisfies the definition of the quantum action , hence both coincide.
(b) Arbitrary local potential, limit when transition time $`T0`$: Then again the quantum action exists (coincides with classical action).
(c) Arbitrary potential, imaginary time, limit when transition time $`T\mathrm{}`$ (equivalent to temperature going to zero): Then the quantum actions exists, being different from the classical action, in general .

## 3. How to compute the quantum action

So far we have explored two methods to determine the quantum action: (A) Global optimisation of parameters of quantum action to fit quantum mechanical transition amplitudes . According to the definition of the quantum action (sect.2.2), a quantum action with one set o parameters should well represent Q.M. transition amplitudes for all combinations of initial and final boundary points. Thus we compute a large but finite set of transition amplitudes (via solution of the Schrödinger equation, eigen function expansion methods, or solution of the path integral via Monte Carlo) and adjust the unkonwn parameters of the quantum action (mass, coefficients of the potential) until a globally satisfactory fit is achieved .

An alternative method (B), a renormalisation group flow equation has been proposed in Ref.. There is some analogy with quantum field theory (QFT). In QFT action parameters depend on scale parameters (cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, lattice spacing $`a_s`$ and $`a_t`$). The dependence of the action on the the scale parameters is ruled by renormalisation group equations (e.g. Callan-Symanzik). In our case we consider quantum mechanics. Usually it is not difficult to enter the regime close to the continuum limit (when $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ become small). The flow equation aims to describe the flow of the parameters of the quantum action under variation of the parameter transition time $`T`$ (or inverse temperature $`\beta `$). This equation is obtained by considering the Schrödinger equation for the Q.M. transition amplitude and inserting the ansatz of the quantum action. The resulting flow equation is given in Ref.. The flow equation method has the advantage that it does not require to compute explicitely the Q.M. transition amplitudes, which is computationally costly.

## 4. Analytical properties of the quantum action

For physical and mathematical reasons, it is interesting to go from real time over to imaganiary time. A mathematical reason is that the path integral for the Q.M. transition amplitude then becomes well defined (Wiener integral). A physical reason is that the description of finite temperature physics requires the use of imaginary time. Thus we make the following transition

$$tit.$$

Then the action becomes the Euclidean action

$$S_E=_0^T𝑑t\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}^2+V(x),$$
(6)
the transition amplitude becomes the Euclidean transition amplitude

$`G_E(x_f,T;x_i,0)`$ $`=`$ $`x_f|\mathrm{exp}[HT/\mathrm{}]|x_i`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [dx]\mathrm{exp}\left[S_E[x]/\mathrm{}\right]}|_{x_i,0}^{x_f,T},`$
and the quantum action becomes the Euclidean quantum action

$$G_E(x_f,T;x_i,0)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_E\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_E|_{x_i,0}^{x_f,T}\right].$$
(7)
Before we present some analytic results, let us recall the Feynman-Kac limit: The time evolution of a quantum system in imaginary time is determined by the behavior of $`\mathrm{exp}[HT/\mathrm{}]`$ when $`T`$ goes to $`\mathrm{}`$. In the Feynman-Kac limit one has

$$e^{HT/\mathrm{}}_T\mathrm{}|\psi _{gr}e^{E_{gr}T/\mathrm{}}\psi _{gr}|,$$

where $`E_{gr}`$ and $`\psi _{gr}`$ are the ground state energy and wave function, respectively.

Now we consider the Euclidean action in the limit of large time. The trajectory minimizes the action. Because the kinitic term and the potential term (by assumption) are positive, this means that the trajectory minimizes fluctuations and stays as close as possible to the bottom of the potential valley. This implies for $`T\mathrm{}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{V}_{min},\stackrel{~}{T}_{kin}0,ϵ=\stackrel{~}{T}_{kin}+\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{V}_{min},$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{~}{S}[\stackrel{~}{x}_{cl}]|_{x_i,0}^{x_f,T}=_0^T𝑑t\stackrel{~}{T}_{kin}+\stackrel{~}{V}=\stackrel{~}{v}_0T+\left(_{x_i}^0+_0^{x_f}𝑑x{}_{\pm }{}^{}\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{V}_{min})}\right),$$

where the sign depends on initial and final data. The transition amplitude then becomes

$`G(x_f,T;x_i,0)=\stackrel{~}{Z}\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}/\mathrm{}]|_{x_i,0}^{x_f,T}\stackrel{T\mathrm{}}{}\stackrel{~}{Z}_0\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{~}{v}_0T/\mathrm{}]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle _0^{x_{fi}}}𝑑x\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{V}_{min})}/\mathrm{}]\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle _{x_{in}}^0}𝑑x\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{V}_{min})}/\mathrm{}].`$
By comparison with the Feynman-Kac formula one obtains the following analytic expressions for the ground state energy and wave function, expressed in terms of the quantum action,

$$E_{gr}=\stackrel{~}{V}_{min},\psi _{gr}(x)=\frac{1}{N}e^{_0^{|x|}𝑑x^{}\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x^{})\stackrel{~}{V}_{min})}/\mathrm{}}.$$
(8)
Combining this with the Schrödinger equation leads to the following transformation law

$$2m(V(x)E_{gr})=2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{V}_{min})\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{\frac{d}{dx}2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{V}_{min})}{\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\stackrel{~}{V}_{min})}}\text{sgn}(x).$$
(9)
Note: Although those results have been obtained in imaginary time, they hold also in real time (ground state energy $`E_{gr}`$ and wave function $`\psi _{gr}(x)`$ are the same as in real time). Remarkable properties are the following: Eq.(8) shows that the minimum of the quantum potential coincides with the ground state energy. Second, the position of the minimum of the quantum potential coincides with the position of the maximum of the ground state wave function. This shows that the quantum potential gives a much better picture of the behavior of the quantum system than the classical potential, which does not all share those properties.

### 4.1. Quantum action and WKB formula

The celebrated semi-classical WKB formula \[Wentzel, Kramers and Brillouin (1926)\] gives approximate solutions to wave function and tunneling amplitude. As an example let us consider in 1-D a system with parity symmetric ”confinement” potential (potential goes to $`+\mathrm{}`$ when $`|x|\mathrm{}`$). Assume that the system is in the ground state. The WKB formula gives an approximate expression for wave function at energy $`E=E_{gr}`$

$$\psi _{WKB}(x)=\frac{A}{(2m[V(x)E_{gr}])^{1/4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{x_0}^x𝑑x^{}\sqrt{2m[V(x^{})E_{gr}]}\right].$$

Comparing with the results from sect.4, we see that the WKB formula becomes exact, when replacing parameters of classical action by those of the quantum action

$$m\stackrel{~}{m},V(x)\stackrel{~}{V}(x),$$

and replacing the rational term in front by a constant (wave function normalisation).

## 5. Excited states of hydrogen atom

Can the quantum action also give analytical results for excited states? The answer is yes, if we consider excited states being lowest energy states of a conserved quantum number. As an example let us consider the radial motion of the hydrogen atom in a sector of fixed angular momentum $`l>0`$. The potential has a centrifugal plus a Coulomb term. Let us consider angular motion to be quantized. We keep the angular momentum quantum number $`l`$ fixed. In the Feynman-Kac limit the transition amplitude is projected onto the state of lowest energy compatible with quantum number $`l`$. The states of the hydrogen atom are characterized by the quantum numbers $`n`$ (principal quantum number) $`l`$ (angular momentum) where $`n=l+1`$. There is also the magnetic quantum number $`m`$. The radial potential is given by

$$V_l(r)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2l(l+1)}{2mr^2}\frac{e^2}{r}.$$

The exact energy of the excited states is given by

$$E_l=\frac{E_I}{n^2}=\frac{E_I}{(l+1)^2},E_I=\frac{me^4}{2\mathrm{}^2}13.6eV\text{(ionisation energy)}.$$

The corresponding wave function is given by

$$\varphi _l(r)=\frac{1}{N_l}\left(\frac{r}{a_0}\right)^l\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{r}{(l+1)a_0}\right],a_0=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{me^2}\text{(Bohr radius)}.$$

For the quantum action we make an ansatz

$$\stackrel{~}{m}=m,\stackrel{~}{V}_l(r)=\mu /r^2\nu /r.$$

A transformation law \[similar to Eq.(9)\] determines the parameters of the q-action,

$$\mu =\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}l^2,\nu =e^2\frac{l}{l+1},$$

and the minimum of the quantum potential gives exactly the excitation energies

$$E_l=\stackrel{~}{V}_l^{min}=\frac{me^4}{2\mathrm{}^2}\frac{1}{(l+1)^2}=\frac{E_I}{(l+1)^2}.$$

Again the wave function can be expressed in terms of the quantum action in a way similar to Eq.(8), and reproduces the exact wave function $`\varphi _l`$. Moreover, we observe that the excited state wave function $`\varphi _l(r)`$ has its maximum where the quantum potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}_l`$ has its minimum. The quantum action has the same structure as the classical action. Both, the centrifugal and the Coulomb term get tuned.

## 6. Quantum chaos

The hydrogen atom in the presence of strong magnetic fields has been explored experimentally and theoretically . It displays quantum chaos via disorder in the spectrum. In the regime of high lying excited states, where the system becomes semi-classical, Gutzwiller’s trace formula has been applied successfully by Wintgen  to extract periodic orbit information. Here we suggest to define and explore quantum chaos via the phase space generated by the quantum action. As a prototype system, we consider a 2-dim non-integrable Hamiltonian, with a classically chaotic counter part. We employ the following definition of chaos in a quantum system:

Definition of quantum chaos:
Consider a classical system with action $`S`$. The corresponding quantum system displays quantum chaos, if the corresponding quantum action $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ in the asymptotic regime $`T\mathrm{}`$ generates a chaotic phase space.

Some comments are in order. First, our definition of quantum chaos is based on the concept of ’some’ phase space related to quantum mechanics. The novel idea is to introduce this phase space via the quantum action. Second, the quantum action depends on the transition time $`T`$, however, for large $`T`$ it converges asymptotically. Moreover, in this regime the existence of the quantum action has been established rigorously. The regime of large $`T`$ makes physical sense, because the proper definition of Lyapunov exponents, one of the characteristics of chaotic dynamics, involves the large time limit.

As an example, let us consider the following Hamiltonian

$`S={\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2)+V(x,y)`$
$`V(x,y)=v_2(x^2+y^2)+v_{22}x^2y^2`$
$`m=1,v_2=0.5,v_{22}=0.05.`$
The parameter $`v_{22}`$ controls the deviation from integrability ($`v_{22}=0`$). Because in the case $`v_{22}=0`$ the system corresponds to two uncoupled oscillators, the corresponding quantum action then coincides with the classical action.

For the quantum action, we have made the following ansatz: It reflects the time-reversal symmetry, parity conservation and symmetry under exchange $`xy`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{m}(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2)+\stackrel{~}{V}(x,y),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{v}_0+\stackrel{~}{v}_2(x^2+y^2)+\stackrel{~}{v}_{22}x^2y^2+\stackrel{~}{v}_4(x^4+y^4).`$
We also have included in the quantum action terms like $`\dot{x}\dot{y}`$, $`xy`$, $`xy^3+x^3y`$, $`x^2y^4+x^4y^2`$, $`x^4y^4`$. Numerically, those coefficients were found to be small (compared to machine precision or zero within error bars).

Numerical studies  have shown the following behavior: For small $`v_{22}`$, Poincaré sections of classical and quantum physics are quite similar. With increase of energy, both display mixed dynamics and become more chaotic. Also, with increase of energy differences between classical and quantum phasse space become more pronounced. Islands of regular behavior differ in shape and position. Quantitatively, one observes that the value of $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{22}`$ (quantum action) is smaller than the corresponding value $`v_{22}`$ of the classsical action. Because this parametyers measures the deviation from integrability, this hints to the possibility that the quantum system is ”less” chaotic than the classical system. A more detailed analysis is called for.

## 7. Outlook: Further use of quantum action.

In cosmology, in particular in the inflationary scenario, it is important for the evolution of the universe (galaxy formation etc.) to search for new minima of the quantum potential and corresponding quantum instantons. The quantum action is suitable to describe quantum instantons .

In elementary particle physics, instantons play a role in gauge field theories. They are believed to play a role in the mecanism of quark confinement, for the description of baryonic matter at high temperature and density and in the phase transition to quark-gluon plasma (early universe, neutron stars). New phases (superconducting?) have been predicted (Princeton group) where instanton effects are important. The quantum action may help to find quantum instantons.

In condensed matter physics and supraconductivity, for the study of quantum chaos in Josephson junctions Gutzwiller’s trace formula has been applied. The quantum action may be useful to treat quantum chaos in periodic potentials.

Finally, in the context of quantum chaos in atomic physics, chaos assisted tunnelling between islands of stability has been recently discussed as a hot topic. Phase space has been treated classically in such studies. The quantum action may be useful to draw a better portrait of quantum phase space.

Acknowledgements
H.K. is grateful for support by NSERC Canada.


text:
# Ultrasonic Attenuation in Clean d-Wave Superconductors

## Abstract

We calculate the low temperature longitudinal ultrasonic attenuation rate $`\alpha _S`$ in clean d-wave superconductors. We consider the contribution of previously ignored processes involving the excitation of a pair of quasi-holes or quasi-particles. These processes, which are forbidden by energy conservation in conventional s-wave superconductors, have a finite phase space in d-wave superconductors due to the presence of nodes in the gap which give rise to soft low-energy electronic excitations. We find the contribution to $`\alpha _S`$ from these processes to be proportional to $`T`$ in the regime $`k_BTQv_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$,(ultra-low temperature regime) and to be proportional to $`1/T`$ in the region $`Qv_Fk_BT\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, (low temperature regime) where $`𝐐`$ is the ultrasound wave-vector and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the maximum gap amplitude. We explicitly evaluate these terms, for parameters appropriate to the cuprates, for $`𝐐`$ along the nodal and the antinodal directions and compare it with the contribution from processes considered earlier(I.Vekhter et al Phys. Rev.B59, 7123(1999)). In the ultra-low temperature regime, the processes considered by us make a contribution which is smaller by about a factor of 10 for $`𝐐`$ along the nodal direction, while along the antinodal direction it is larger by a factor of 100 or so. In the low temperature regime on the other hand the contribution made by these terms is small. However taken together with the original terms we describe a possible way to evaluate the parameter $`v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

preprint: MRI-P-011004

Ultrasonic attenuation has been an important probe in the understanding of BCS superconductors. One of the earliest verifications of the temperature dependence of the gap Morse , predicted by BCS theory, was made by measuring the ultrasonic attenuation co-efficient (UAC). Thus, it is expected to shed light on the nature of the superconducting state in the cuprates as well. The calculation of the low temperature attenuation rate in d-wave superconductors has been considered earlier, both within the clean limit Vekh ; Carb ; MPLB  and in the opposite hydrodynamic limit Coleman ; new . Even earlier ultrasonic attenuation in anisotropic superconductors has received attention both in the clean Coppersmith  and in the dirty hf1 ; hf2 ; hf3 ; hf4  limits. On the experimental front, there exists just the one experiment Shobo  but the results of our work, which have been obtained in the limit $`Ql1`$, that is the clean limit (where $`Q`$ is the ultrasound wave-vector and $`l`$ is the electronic mean free path) are inapplicable there. Assuming the ultrasound frequency to be 150 MHz, which lies in the range in which typical ultrasound experiments Bishop ; Batlogg  are done, and the sound velocity Shobo  to be $`4\times 10^5m/s`$, the clean limit Vekh  corresponds to the condition $`l4\mu m`$. Thus our calculations are applicable only to the cleanest samplesHosseini . High purity YBCO crystals have been fabricated in $`BaZrO_3`$ crucibles erb having $`l4\mu m`$, giving rise to hope that the clean limit may be experimentally realizable.

There exists evidence Randeria  that although the normal state in the cuprates remains a puzzle in the absence of well-defined quasi particles, the superconducting state is well-described by BCS-like quasi particles suitably adapted to the symmetry of the order parameter in the system. Further, experimental evidence largely points towards a d-wave order parameter Leggett  in the high $`T_c`$ materials. The layered nature of the cuprate superconductors together with strong electronic correlation leads to a highly anisotropic electronic transport in the normal state, even though the superconducting state has three-dimensional phase coherence due to inter planar Josephson coupling. However most superconducting properties can be described by assuming 2-d BCS quasi-particles that have an energy gap with a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry. For the purposes of this paper we assume that the d-wave superconducting quasi-particle energy dispersion to be phenomenological.

The quasi particles have a gap function that has nodes on the Fermi surface at the points $`k_x=\pm k_y`$. At low energies, the relevant low energy electronic excitations, are the Dirac quasiparicles near these nodes. These nodal quasi-particles have energies that are well described by $`E_𝐤^0=\sqrt{v_F^2k_1^2+v_\mathrm{\Delta }^2k_2^2}`$. This Dirac spectrum is easily obtained Lee  by a linear expansion of the band energy and gap about the nodes of the single particle excitation spectrum. Here $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are the momentum components normal and tangential to the Fermi surface at the nodal points. While it is possible to obtain such a quasiparticle spectrum from a suitably chosen microscopic Hamiltonian Arun ; MPLB  in this work we treat $`v_F`$ and $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as phenomenological parameters whose values should be read from experiments. Because of the dominance of the band energy scale $`W>\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ , where W is the band width and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the maximum amplitude of the superconducting gap, $`\frac{v_F}{v_\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is large and is approximately 10 for parameters relevant to the cuprates.

The UAC is the inverse of the length obtained by a product of the sound velocity and the phonon life-time and sets the scale over which an ultrasonic wave decays while propagating in the solid. The temperature dependent variation of the sound velocity is very weak in the temperature range of interest to us. We therefore calculate only the dependence of the phonon life-time on temperature. In general the damping of sound waves in the lattice can arise due to various excitations in the system. Here we focus exclusively on the damping of phonons due to their interaction with electrons. We ignore the contribution of anharmonic terms in the phonon Hamiltonian, as these are unaffected by the onset of superconductivity. Thus, assuming the usual electron-phonon coupling, the UAC is proportional to the imaginary part of the electronic density-density correlation function.

A calculation of the low temperature UAC in d-wave superconductors was first performed by Vekhter et. al. Vekh  and generalized to the orthorhombic situation by Wu and Carbotte Carb . They obtained an attenuation rate which is proportional to the temperature at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. To obtain a result that is independent of the poorly known electron-phonon coupling constant, they normalise their result by dividing the low temperature attenuation rate ($`\alpha _S(T)`$) by the attenuation rate at $`T_c`$. In order to obtain a result analytically for $`\alpha _S(T_c)`$, it is necessary to assume a parabolic band dispersion. It is by now well-established Norman  that the Fermi surface in the cuprates deviates strongly from circular symmetry. Thus there is an unknown , Fermi surface sensitive wave vector dependence in $`\alpha _S(T_c)`$, which has been missed. A fundamental drawback of their calculation is that the use of a quasiparticle description at $`T_c`$ is itself questionable given the anomalous nature of the normal state in the cuprates.

Apart from these questions, all previous studies of the UAC in references Refs.(2,3,4,7) ignore the contribution of processes corresponding to the creation of a pair of quasi particles or a pair of quasi holes. In conventional s-wave superconductors, where the condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is satisfied, energy conservation forbids these processes. However, in d-wave superconductors the nodes in the energy gap imply that there is a finite phase space for these processes. In Ref.(3) it is claimed that phase space restrictions make the contributions accruing to the UAC from here negligibly small. In this paper we explicitly evaluate the contributions of these processes in the low temperature regime. At ultra low temperatures ($`k_BTQv_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) where $`Q`$ is the ultrasound wave-vector, $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity at the nodes and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the maximum amplitude of the superconducting gap, we find that there is a term in $`\alpha _S`$ linear in $`T`$ from these processes in addition to a similar contribution evaluated earlier by Vekhter et. al. However, the co-efficient of the linear in $`T`$ term, in this case is found to be, for parameters appropriate to the cuprates, larger by a factor of 100 for sound wave along the antinodal direction. In the nodal direction these new terms provide corrections that are smaller by a factor of 10.

The other regime we consider is $`Qv_Fk_BT\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and here we find the contribution to the UAC from these previously neglected processes is proportional to $`1/T`$. Using the ratios of the co-efficients of the $`1/T`$ contribution calculated by us and the linear in $`T`$ contribution evaluated in Ref.(2) for two different ultrasound wave-vectors $`𝐐_1`$ and $`𝐐_2`$ it is possible to determine the ratio $`v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is a basic parameter in the description of the superconducting state in the cuprates.

The imaginary part of the density-density response function is given by $`\chi ^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })=\chi _a^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi _b^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Here $`\chi _a^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })=X1X2`$ and $`\chi _b^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })=X3X4`$, where

$$X1=\frac{2\pi }{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤[n(E_𝐤)n(E_{𝐤+𝐐})](u_{𝐤+𝐐}^2u_𝐤^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤+𝐐}}{4E_𝐤E_{𝐤+𝐐}})\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }+E_𝐤E_{𝐤+𝐐}),$$
(1)
$$X2=\frac{2\pi }{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤[n(E_𝐤)n(E_{𝐤+𝐐})](v_{𝐤+𝐐}^2v_𝐤^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤+𝐐}}{4E_𝐤E_{𝐤+𝐐}})\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }E_𝐤+E_{𝐤+𝐐})$$
(2)
$$X3=\frac{2\pi }{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤[1n(E_𝐤)n(E_{𝐤+𝐐})](u_{𝐤+𝐐}^2v_𝐤^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤+𝐐}}{4E_𝐤E_{𝐤+𝐐}})\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }E_𝐤E_{𝐤+𝐐}),$$
(3)
and

$$X4=\frac{2\pi }{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤[1n(E_𝐤)n(E_{𝐤+𝐐})](v_{𝐤+𝐐}^2u_𝐤^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤+𝐐}}{4E_𝐤E_{𝐤+𝐐}})\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }+E_𝐤+E_{𝐤+𝐐}).$$
(4)
To proceed further, we retain terms only to the leading order in $`𝐐`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. To this order $`\chi _a^\mathrm{"}`$ reduces to

$$\chi _a^\mathrm{"}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤n^{}(E_𝐤)\delta (\stackrel{}{Q}.\stackrel{}{v_g})\frac{\xi _𝐤^2}{E_𝐤^2}$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{v_g}=_𝐤E_𝐤`$.

This term has been calculated earlier by the authors of Ref.(2). For $`k_BT\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ , it yields

$$\chi _a^\mathrm{"}=\frac{4ln2\mathrm{\Omega }a^2}{2\pi }\frac{k_BT}{v_Fv_\mathrm{\Delta }}[\frac{\beta ^2}{(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)^{3/2}}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{(\lambda ^2+\eta ^2)^{3/2}}]$$
(6)
Here $`\alpha =v_FQ\mathrm{cos}(\pi /4\theta )`$, $`\beta =v_\mathrm{\Delta }Q\mathrm{sin}(\pi /4\theta )`$, $`\eta =v_FQ\mathrm{sin}(\pi /4\theta )`$ and $`\lambda =v_\mathrm{\Delta }Q\mathrm{cos}(\pi /4\theta )`$. We now turn our attention to the remaining contribution to $`\chi \mathrm{"}`$ which comes from the terms in Eqs. (3) and (4). In conventional s-wave superconductors we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and so the energy conserving delta function in Eqs. (3) and (4) can never be satisfied. Thus $`\chi _b^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })=0`$ in that case. However, as mentioned earlier, the presence of nodes in the gap function leads to a finite contribution from $`\chi _b^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in d-wave superconductors. It has always been assumed in previous work Coppersmith ; JKB ; Swihart ; Vekh ; Carb ; MPLB  that the phase space available for the processes described by this term (creation or annihiliation of a pair of quasi particles) would be small and so its contribution has been ignored. In this paper we explicitly evaluate this term. We find that its contribution is large and cannot be ignored at ultra low($`T1mK`$) temperatures. In the low temperature regime ($`1mKT\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_B`$) although the relative size of the terms evaluated by us is small its different ($`1/T`$) temperature dependence enables the determination of the parameter $`v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by measuring the attenuation rate at 2 different angles. These are the principal results of this paper.

We now present our calculation of $`\chi _b^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })`$. We work in units of lattice constant $`a=1`$. To linear order in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we find

$$\chi _b^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤n^{}(E_𝐤)(u_{𝐤+𝐐}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}v_{𝐤}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+v_{𝐤+𝐐}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}u_{𝐤}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤+𝐐}}{2E_𝐤E_{𝐤+𝐐}})\delta (E_𝐤+E_{𝐤+𝐐})$$
(7)
To leading order in Q, $`\chi _b\mathrm{"}`$ further reduces to

$$\chi _b^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{2\pi }{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤\mathrm{\Omega }n^{}(E_𝐤)\delta (2E_𝐤+\stackrel{}{Q}.\stackrel{}{v_g})(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_k}{E_k})^2$$
(8)
Linearizing the band energies and the gap function at the nodes Lee  which lie at the intersection of the lines $`k_x`$ = $`\pm k_y`$ with the Fermi surface, we find that $`\xi _𝐤v_Fk_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ = $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }k_2`$ and $`E_𝐤`$ = $`\sqrt{v_F^2k_1^2+v_\mathrm{\Delta }^2k_2^2}`$ where $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are the components of the momenta normal and tangential to the Fermi surface at the nodes. We take $`𝐐`$ = $`Qcos\theta \widehat{x}+Qsin\theta \widehat{y}`$. Going over to polar coordinates ($`v_Fk_1`$ = $`\rho cos\varphi `$ and $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }k_2`$ = $`\rho sin\varphi `$) we find that for the node near ($`\pi /2,\pi /2`$), $`𝐯_𝐠.𝐐`$ = $`\alpha cos\varphi +\beta sin\varphi `$.

In comparison to the corresponding contribution for $`\chi _a\mathrm{"}`$ an extra term $`2\rho `$ appears in the argument of the delta function in Eqs.(3) and (4). Finally we obtain for the node near $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$,

$$\chi _{b1}^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi v_Fv_\mathrm{\Delta }}_0^{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_c}𝑑\rho \rho n^{}(\rho )_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \delta (2\rho +\alpha cos\varphi +\beta sin\varphi )sin^2\varphi $$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_c`$ = $`\sqrt{\pi v_Fv_\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is a cutoff chosen to preserve the volume of the Brillouin zone. We perform the $`\varphi `$ integral first. The condition that the zeros of $`2\rho +\alpha cos\varphi +\beta sin\varphi `$ are real together with the requirement that $`cos^2\varphi _0^\pm 1`$ (where $`\varphi _0^\pm `$ are the 2 independent zeroes in the range $`0\varphi 2\pi `$) leads to the constraint $`\rho \frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}}{2}`$ = $`\rho _c`$. Assuming $`Q400cm^1`$ and $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }/v_F\frac{1}{k_F\xi }1/10`$ for the cuprates we find that $`\rho _c\stackrel{~}{\rho }_c`$. Thus the contribution to $`\chi _b\mathrm{"}`$ from this node can be written as

$$\chi _{b1}^\mathrm{"}(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi v_Fv_\mathrm{\Delta }}_0^{\rho _c}𝑑\rho \rho n^{}(\rho )\frac{\frac{8\rho ^2(\beta ^2\alpha ^2)}{(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)^2}+\frac{2\alpha ^2}{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}}{(\alpha ^2+\beta ^24\rho ^2)^{1/2}}$$
(10)
The change of the upper cutoff from $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_c`$ to $`\rho _c`$ is the phase space reduction referred to by the authors of Ref.3.

We evaluate the expression in Eq.(10) in two regimes. a)$`k_BTQv_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and b)$`Qv_Fk_BT\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. The maximum value of $`\rho _c`$ is $`\rho _c`$(max) = $`v_FQ/2`$ and minimum value of $`\rho _c`$ is $`\rho _c`$(min) = $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }Q/2`$. We have taken the temperature regimes to be either a) much less than $`\rho _c`$(min) or b) much greater than $`\rho _c`$(max).

We approximate the derivative of the Fermi distribution so as to simplify the integration and render it doable analytically. We notice that $`n^{}(\rho )1/4k_BT`$ for $`\rho /2k_BT1`$ and $`n^{}(\rho )`$ $`\frac{e^{\rho /k_BT}}{k_BT}`$ for $`\rho /2k_BT1`$. We therefore make the interpolating approximation $`n^{}(\rho )1/4k_BT`$ for $`\rho <2k_BT`$ and $`n^{}(\rho )\frac{e^{\rho /k_BT}}{k_BT}`$ for $`\rho >2k_BT`$. Our approximation is asymptotically exact and is therefore expected to provide reasonable answers in the 2 limits ($`k_BT\rho _c\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\rho _ck_BT\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) considered by us.

We first consider the ultra low temperature regime $`k_BTQv_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For typical parameters appropriate to the cuprates and assuming $`Q400cm^{}1`$ this condition implies $`k_BT1mK`$. In this case $`\chi _{b1}^{\prime \prime }`$ can be split into 2 pieces and can be written as

$$\chi _{b1}^{\prime \prime }(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })(1/4k_BT)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\pi v_Fv_\mathrm{\Delta }}[I_1+I_2]$$
(11)
where

$$I_1=_0^{2k_BT}𝑑\rho \frac{\rho }{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^24\rho ^2}}(\frac{4\rho ^2(\beta ^2\alpha ^2)}{(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)^2}+\frac{\alpha ^2}{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2})$$
(12)
and

$$I_2=4_{2k_BT}^{\rho _c}𝑑\rho \frac{\rho e^{\frac{\rho }{k_BT}}}{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^24\rho ^2}}(\frac{4\rho ^2(\beta ^2\alpha ^2)}{(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)^2}+\frac{\alpha ^2}{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2})$$
(13)
The integral in $`I_1`$ is elementary. To evaluate $`I_2`$ we further make the approximation $`_l^u𝑑xe^xf(x)e^l_l^{min(l+1,u)}𝑑xf(x)`$ (for $`u>l>0`$) and where f(x) is a slowly varying function compared to $`e^x`$. We similarly evaluate the contributions of the other three nodes as well. The final answer is a long expression and in the interest of clarity and brevity we only present the leading term in an expansion in the small parameter $`\frac{k_BT}{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}}`$. To this leading order we find

$$\chi _b^{\prime \prime }=\frac{k_BT\mathrm{\Omega }}{\pi v_Fv_\mathrm{\Delta }}(1+5e^2)[\frac{\alpha ^2}{(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)^{3/2}}+\frac{\eta ^2}{(\eta ^2+\lambda ^2)^{3/2}}]$$
(14)
It is instructive to compare this result with the processes considered earlier in Eq.(6). We find that upto factors of O(1), the result is the same with $`\alpha \beta `$ and $`\lambda \eta `$. This change comes from the different factor $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}{E_𝐤^2}sin^2\varphi `$ in Eq. (8) as compared to $`\frac{\xi _𝐤^2}{E_𝐤^2}cos^2\varphi `$ in Eq. (5). Also notice that at ultralow temperatures the dimensionless cutoff to the integral $`\rho _c/k_BT1`$ so that the phase-space reduction due to the replacement of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_c`$ by $`\rho _c`$ is ineffective as most of the contribution to the integral comes from the region where $`\rho /k_BT\rho _c/k_BT`$. To get an idea of the relative size of the contribution of the processes considered by us with respect to those considered earlier by Vekhter et. al. Vekh  we have evaluated $`\frac{\chi _b^{\prime \prime }}{\chi _a^{\prime \prime }}`$ in the ultra low temperature regime for $`𝐐`$ directed along a node and an antinode respectively. In the nodal case we have $`\theta =\pi /4`$, $`\alpha =v_FQ`$, $`\beta =\eta =0`$ and $`\lambda =v_\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$. Then from Eqs. (6) and (14) we find that

$$\frac{\chi _b^{\prime \prime }}{\chi _a^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{(1+5e^2)}{2ln2}\frac{v_\mathrm{\Delta }}{v_F}$$
(15)
Thus the contribution from these terms is smaller by a factor of $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }/v_F1/10`$. For the antinodal direction we have $`\theta =0`$, $`\alpha =\eta =v_FQ/\sqrt{2}`$, $`\beta =\lambda =v_\mathrm{\Delta }Q/\sqrt{2}`$. Putting these values in Eqs. (6) and (14) we have

$$\frac{\chi _b^{\prime \prime }}{\chi _a^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{(1+5e^2)}{2ln2}\frac{v_F^2}{v_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(16)
Thus the ratio in this case is approximately 100 and so in this case it is the processes calculated by us that make the dominant contribution.

We now proceed to the evaluation of $`\chi _b^{\prime \prime }`$ in the limit $`Qv_Fk_BT\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. In this case, we have $`n^{}(\rho )1/4k_BT`$ over the entire range of $`\rho `$ integration from 0 to $`\stackrel{~}{\rho _c}`$. Thus evaluating and summing the contribution to $`\chi _b^{\prime \prime }`$ from each of the nodes we arrive at the result

$$\chi \mathrm{"}_b=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{24\pi v_Fv_\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{k_BT}(\frac{\alpha ^2+2\beta ^2}{(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)^{1/2}}+\frac{\lambda ^2+2\eta ^2}{(\lambda ^2+\eta ^2)^{1/2}})$$
(17)
In this case the relative size of $`\chi _b^{\prime \prime }`$ with respect to $`\chi _a^{\prime \prime }`$ is very small $`O((Qv_F/k_BT)^2)`$. However we now show how our result may be used to extract the parameter $`\frac{v_F}{v_\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. The total imaginary part of the density-density correlation function can be written as

$$\chi _{total}^{\prime \prime }(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })=\chi _a^{\prime \prime }(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi _b^{\prime \prime }(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })=\gamma _1(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })T+\frac{\gamma _2(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })}{T}$$
(18)
where $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ are coefficients whose values are given in Eqs.(6) and (17). Thus the UAC is given by

$$\alpha _S(𝐐,T)=M(𝐐)[\gamma _1(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })T+\frac{\gamma _2(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })}{T}]$$
(19)
where $`M(𝐐)`$ is a factor dependent on the electron-phonon coupling constant, the sound velocity and the ultrasound wave-vector. A measurement of $`\alpha _S(𝐐,T)`$ and a comparision of the two terms contributing to it would enable an extraction of the parameter $`X(𝐐)=\frac{\gamma _2(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })}{\gamma _1(𝐐,\mathrm{\Omega })}`$. The poorly known factor $`M(𝐐)`$ exactly cancels out. On taking the ratio of $`X(𝐐)`$ evaluated at two different wave vectors we obtain an expression that depends only on the parameter $`\frac{v_F}{v_\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and the wave vectors $`𝐐_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐐_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ respectively. For the sake of illustration we have computed $`X_{node}(𝐐_\mathrm{𝟏})/X_{antinode}(𝐐_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ for $`𝐐_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ along the nodal direction and $`𝐐_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ along the antinodal direction. We find

$$X_{node}(𝐐_\mathrm{𝟏})/X_{antinode}(𝐐_\mathrm{𝟐})=\frac{2Q_1^2/Q_2^2(v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta })(1+2v_\mathrm{\Delta }/v_F)}{((v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta })^2+1)((v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta })^2+2)}$$
(20)
Thus the measurement of $`\alpha _S(𝐐,T)`$ in the regime ($`10^3Kk_BT\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) provides an useful method to extract $`v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ without use of $`\alpha _S(𝐐,T_c)`$ whose calculation necessitates assumptions about the existence of quasi-particles at $`T_c`$ with a circular Fermi surface.

Finally let us recapitulate the main points of this paper. We have calculated the UAC for a d-wave superconductor. We have included the effects of processes involving creation or annihilation of a pair of quasi-particles which are non zero because of the soft excitation spectrum of a d-wave superconductor. In the ultra-low temperature regime we find that these processes make a substantial contribution, which is linear in $`T`$, to the UAC. In the low temperature regime we find a small $`1/T`$ contribution to the UAC. We indicate how this can be used to extract the parameter $`v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. A drawback of our work is that we have carried out calculations in the clean limit which makes it inapplicable to all but the cleanest of samples. Yet another drawback is that we assume the existence of quasi-particles of spectral weight unity, thus neglecting all effects coming from the incoherent part of the spectral function seen in ARPES experiments Randeria .