text:
# Deep VLT spectroscopy of the 𝑧=2.49 Radio Galaxy MRC 2104–242Based on observations at the ESO VLT Antu telescope

## 1 Introduction

High redshift (i.e. $`z1`$) radio galaxies (HzRGs) are believed to be the progenitors of massive elliptical galaxies (e.g. Best et al. 1998). Therefore, these galaxies are an important tool for studying the epoch of galaxy formation in the early universe. HzRGs are often surrounded by giant halos of ionized gas, which radiate luminous emission lines in the UV/optical part of the spectrum. The continuum and the line emission, which can be spatially extended by as much as 100 kpc, are often elongated along the direction of the radio axis (Chambers et al. 1987; for a review see McCarthy 1993).

One of the most important questions in studying HzRGs concerns the ionization of the halo. There is striking evidence that the mechanism for ionization is either photo-ionization by the active nucleus Villar-Martín et al. (1997) or shock ionization by jets interacting with the gaseous medium Best et al. (2000). Another important question involves the origin of the emission line gas. If its origin is external to the radio galaxy, it can be gas associated with galaxy merging Heckman et al. (1986) or the result of a massive cooling flow from the intracluster medium Crawford & Fabian (1996). Alternatively, the gas could have been driven out by a starburst-wind or by shocks associated with the radio source. Studying the properties of the gas in detail may help to make a distinction between these scenarios.

In this letter we present spectroscopic observations of the extended emission line halo around MRC 2104–242. This radio source is identified with a galaxy at $`z=2.49`$ and is one of the brightest known HzRGs in Ly$`\alpha `$ McCarthy et al. (1990). Narrowband Ly$`\alpha `$ images show a total extent of $`>`$ 12″ (i.e. 136 kpc111We adopt H$`{}_{0}{}^{}=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, q$`{}_{0}{}^{}=0.1`$. At $`z=2.49`$ this implies a linear size scale of 11.3 kpc arcsec-1.) distributed in two distinct regions separated by $``$6″. Spectroscopy shows that both regions have large FWHM ($``$$`10001500`$ km s-1), large rest-frame equivalent widths (330 and 560 Å) and a velocity difference of $``$500 km s-1 McCarthy et al. (1996); Koekemoer et al. (1996); Villar-Martín et al. 1999a . The two regions also emit other lines and faint continuum. HST imaging (WFPC2 and NICMOS) has shown that the host galaxy is very clumpy, suggestive of a merging system (see Pentericci et al. 1999 for an optical-radio overlay). One of the bright components hosted by the northern region is prominent in near-infrared emission and therefore it is assumed to be the center of the galaxy hosting the radio source. This nucleus and the other components in this region are not resolved in our spectra, so we will refer to the whole as the northern region. The southern region is associated with a narrow filamentary component of $``$2″ oriented in the direction of the radio axis.

The outline of this letter is as follows. In §2, we describe our VLT observations and we present the basic results in §3. In §4, we show evidence for a metallicity gradient between the two regions and in §5 we will discuss how this relates to the origin of the halo.

Throughout this letter we shall abbreviate the emission lines as follows: $`\mathrm{V}`$ for $`\mathrm{V}`$ $`\lambda `$ 1240, $`\mathrm{IV}`$ for $`\mathrm{IV}`$ $`\lambda \lambda `$ 1549, He $`\mathrm{II}`$ for He $`\mathrm{II}`$ $`\lambda `$ 1640, Si $`\mathrm{IV}`$ for Si $`\mathrm{IV}`$ $`\lambda \lambda `$ 1400 and $`\mathrm{III}]`$ for $`\mathrm{III}]`$ $`\lambda `$ 1665.

## 2 VLT observations

The observations were carried out in service mode on UT 1999 September 2$``$5 with FORS1 on the 8.2m VLT Antu telescope (ESO-Chile). We used grism 600B with a 1″ wide slit. A 2$`\times `$2 readout binning was used in order to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). The resultant spectral resolution was $``$6 Å (FWHM). The slit was positioned along the brightest components and the filamentary structure at a position angle of 2 North through East. The exposure time was 3$`\times `$3600s. The seeing during the observations was $``$1″ and conditions were photometric. Data reduction followed the standard procedures using the NOAO IRAF long-slit package. We bias-subtracted the individual frames and divided them by a normalized dome flat-field frame. Cosmic rays were removed from the background subtracted images. We subtracted sky lines and shifted the images into registration using stars on the CCD. For wavelength calibration we used comparison spectra of a He and a HgCd lamp. For flux calibration we observed the spectrophotometric standard star LTT7987. The resulting photometric scale is believed to be accurate at a level of $``$15 %. We corrected the spectra for atmospheric extinction and applied a galactic extinction correction of E(B$``$V)$`=`$0.057 determined from the dust maps of Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis schl98 (1998).

The extraction apertures centered on the two regions were resp. 4″ and 3″, chosen to include most of the emission while keeping high S/N for the weaker lines. We measured wavelengths, fluxes, FWHM and equivalent widths (EW) by fitting Gaussian profiles to the lines Röttgering et al. (1997). The measured FWHM was deconvolved for the instrumental profile assuming Gaussian distributions.

## 3 Results

The main observational results can be summarized as follows:
1. Figs. 1 and 2 show the spectra of the northern and southern regions. Both regions show Ly$`\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{IV}`$ and He $`\mathrm{II}`$ and weak Si $`\mathrm{IV}`$, $`\mathrm{III}]`$. $`\mathrm{V}`$ is detected in the northern region, but it is absent in the southern. The emission line properties are listed in Table 1. For the undetected $`\mathrm{V}`$ in the southern region we have calculated an upper limit assuming a Gaussian line shape with a peak 3 times the rms of the continuum at the expected wavelength and a width comparable to that of $`\mathrm{V}`$ in the northern region.
2. Fig. 3 shows the two-dimensional emission line structure of Ly$`\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{IV}`$ and He $`\mathrm{II}`$. The peak of the $`\mathrm{IV}`$ emission in the northern region is redshifted with respect to that of Ly$`\alpha `$ by $``$100 km s-1, while that of He $`\mathrm{II}`$ is blueshifted by $``$150 km s-1. In the southern region, Ly$`\alpha `$ shows two separate peaks shifted blueward from the northern region by $``$1000 and $``$500 km s-1. This two-peak distribution is also seen in $`\mathrm{IV}`$ and He $`\mathrm{II}`$, albeit at low S/N. The fact that it is observed in He $`\mathrm{II}`$ could indicate kinematical substructure in the halo and that the dip in the Ly$`\alpha `$ profile is not due to H I absorption.
3. The northern region shows similar FWHM ($``$700 km s-1) for Ly$`\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{IV}`$ and He $`\mathrm{II}`$. In the southern, Ly$`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{IV}`$ have high FWHM ($`>`$1000 km s-1), while that of He $`\mathrm{II}`$ is a factor 1.5 lower.
4. Within the errors, the emission line ratios of the two regions are the same, only those involving $`\mathrm{V}`$ are discrepant. The $`\mathrm{V}`$/$`\mathrm{IV}`$ and $`\mathrm{V}`$/He $`\mathrm{II}`$ line ratios are at least 4 and 3 times higher in the northern region compared to the southern.

## 4 Difference in $`\mathrm{V}`$ emission from the two regions: evidence for a metallicity gradient?

We have detected $`\mathrm{V}`$ in the northern region, which is seldom present at a significant level in HzRGs Röttgering et al. (1997); De Breuck et al. (2000). In the southern region we detected no $`\mathrm{V}`$, while the other line-ratios are similar in both regions. Vernet et al. (1999) found that HzRGs follow a sequence in $`\mathrm{V}`$/$`\mathrm{IV}`$ vs. $`\mathrm{V}`$/He $`\mathrm{II}`$, parallel to the relation defined by the broad line regions (BLR) of quasars found by Hamann & Ferland (1993). These authors showed that this sequence can be explained by a variation of the metallicity of the BLR, caused by a rapidly evolving starburst in the massive galactic core. Villar-Martín et al. (1999) showed that both shock ionization and photo-ionization could not explain either the $`\mathrm{V}`$ correlation, or the strong $`\mathrm{V}`$ emission in some HzRGs (e.g. van Ojik et al. 1994). They found that a model of photo-ionization and variation of metallicity best explained both properties. Therefore, we conclude that the difference in $`\mathrm{V}`$ emission can be explained only by a metallicity gradient within the halo. Using the metallicity sequence with quadratic nitrogen enhancement (N $``$ Z2) from Vernet et al. ver00 (2000) we find a metallicity of Z $``$ 1.5 Z for the northern region and an upper limit of Z $``$ 0.4 Z for the southern (Fig. 4).

## 5 Discussion

The supersolar metallicity of the gas associated with the central part of the galaxy implies that 2104–242 has experienced a period of intense star formation. Assuming that the difference in $`\mathrm{V}`$ emission found within the halo is due to a metallicity gradient, it is likely that the emitting

gas near the center and the gas further out are in different stages of evolution.

The infall of gas by massive cooling flows is believed to be an important process in galaxy formation (Crawford & Fabian 1996). In this scenario, gas cools from a primordial halo surrounding the radio source and provides the material from which the galaxy is made. This could also be the case for 2104–242. Fardal et al. (2000) recently examined cooling radiation from forming galaxies, focusing on Ly$`\alpha `$ line luminosities of high redshift systems. They find that a significant amount of the extended Ly$`\alpha `$ emission can arise from cooling radiation.

However, because the two regions of 2104–242 both show emission lines from other elements than H and He, at least some of the gas must already have been processed in stars in the past. The HST images revealed that this galaxy actually consists of a number of larger and smaller components Pentericci et al. (1999), which supports the general idea that galaxies are formed by a process of hierarchical buildup Kauffmann (1995). We have also found evidence for kinematical substructure within the halo. Therefore, the emission line halo may be the result of gas associated with such intensive galaxy merging.

Alternatively, the gas in the halo may be the result of other mechanisms. It may have been driven out by strong jet-cloud interactions. Line widths as large as 1500 km s-1 are common in HzRGs, which indicate extreme, non-gravitational motions. The alignment effect also suggests that jet-cloud interactions occur and for some sources there is evidence of shock ionization (Best et al. 2000). However, large radio sources like 2104–242 are less likely to be ’shock-dominated’, because the shockfronts have passed well beyond the emission line halo.

Also, the gas could have been expelled by a superwind following an enormous starburst. We have shown evidence for intense star formation in 2104–242. Binette et al. (2000) showed that radio galaxy 0943–242 is surrounded by a vestige gas shell of very low metallicity. They conclude that this gas has been expelled from the parent galaxy during the initial starburst at the onset of its formation.

We conclude that the emission line ratios are well explained by a combination of photo-ionization and a metallicity gradient. This is consistent with scenarios in which the halo is formed by gas falling onto the radio galaxy located at the center of a forming cluster or by gas associated with intense galaxy merging.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge productive discussions with Wil van Breugel and Laura Pentericci.


format: text

text:
# Integrable model for interacting electrons in metallic grains

## Abstract

We find an integrable generalization of the BCS model with non-uniform Coulomb and pairing interaction. The Hamiltonian is integrable by construction since it is a functional of commuting operators; these operators, which therefore are constants of motion of the model, contain the anisotropic Gaudin Hamiltonians. The exact solution is obtained diagonalizing them by means of Bethe Ansatz. Uniform pairing and Coulomb interaction are obtained as the “isotropic limit” of the Gaudin Hamiltonians. We discuss possible applications of this model to a single grain and to a system of few interacting grains.

PACS N. 74.20.Fk, 02.30.Ik

Introduction and summary of the results. Progress in nanotechnology has opened up theoretical investigations on the behavior of disordered interacting systems of small size . Recently, the $`I`$$`V`$ characteristic measurements of Ralph, Black and Tinkham on small $`Al`$ dots stimulated the theoretical debate on how to characterize the physical properties of small metallic grains, such as superconductivity and ferromagnetism . Due to the chaoticity of the single particle wave functions , the Hamiltonian of these systems reads

$`H_{grain}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\epsilon _in_{i\sigma }g{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}c_i^{}c_i^{}c_jc_j+U\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{j\sigma }\right)^2`$ (1)
$``$ $`J\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}c_{j\sigma }^{}\stackrel{}{S}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{j\sigma ^{}}\right)^2+𝒪(\delta E^2/E_T).`$ (2)
(Here and in the following, sums over spins $`\sigma ,\sigma ^{}`$ are implied). The quantum numbers $`i`$, $`\sigma `$ label a shell of doubly degenerate single particle energy levels with energy $`ϵ_i`$ and annihilation operator $`c_{i\sigma }`$; $`n_{i\sigma }:=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$; $`S^a`$, $`a=x,y,z`$, are $`2\times 2`$ spin matrices; $`\delta E`$ is the average level spacing, and $`E_T`$ the Thouless energy. The universal part of the Hamiltonian (2) (namely the first four terms) describes the pairing attraction, the electrostatic interaction and the ferromagnetic instability, respectively.
The superconducting fluctuations  can be taken into account by employing the BCS model  (namely taking the first two terms in Eq. (2)). Richardson and Sherman (RS)  constructed the exact solution of the BCS model by a procedure close in spirit to the coordinate Bethe Ansatz (BA). The knowledge of the exact eigenstates and eigenvalues of the BCS model has been crucial to establish physically relevant observables . The integrability of the model has been proved  to be deeply related to the integrability of the isotropic Gaudin magnet : the BCS model can be expressed as a certain combination (see Eq. (18) below) of its integrals of motion, which contain Gaudin Hamiltonians. Relations with conformal field theory and disordered vertex models were investigated in Refs. .
Many properties of metallic grains in a normal state (negligible superconducting fluctuations) can be described by the orthodox model  (i.e. taking the first and the third term of the Hamiltonian (2)). This arises by assuming uniform Coulomb interaction.
Magnetic phenomena like the mesoscopic Stoner instability  can be studied by means of the exchange contribution to the Hamiltonian (the fourth term in Eq. (2)).
The terms proportional to $`\delta E^2/E_T`$ correspond to non uniform Coulomb interaction. Although they lose importance with the increasing conductance of the system, these corrections gain physical relevance due to the typically low relaxation rate of the excitations in a small dot. In fact the corrections to the orthodox model induce “fluctuations” which can explain how non-equilibrium excitations decay in the dot . This results in the formation of clusters of resonance peaks in the tunneling spectroscopy experiments .

In this paper we present an integrable generalization of the BCS Hamiltonian with non-uniform pairing coupling $`g_{ij}`$ and solve it exactly. Besides the non-uniform pairing, the Hamiltonian contains a non-uniform Coulomb interaction $`U_{ij}`$; $`g_{ij}`$ and $`U_{ij}`$ are fixed according to Eqs. (8). We shall see that the inclusion of certain $`𝒪(\delta E^2/E_T)`$ terms leads to our integrable model. The integrable Hamiltonian we solve is

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\epsilon _in_{i\sigma }{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}g_{ij}c_i^{}c_i^{}c_jc_j`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}U_{ij}n_{i\sigma }n_{j\sigma ^{}}J\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}c_{j\sigma }^{}\stackrel{}{S}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{j\sigma ^{}}\right)^2,`$ (4)
where the couplings are

$`\{\begin{array}{c}g_{ij}=qK\left(\epsilon _i\epsilon _j\right)/\mathrm{sinh}q(u_iu_j),\hfill \\ \\ 4U_{ij}=A+qK(\epsilon _i\epsilon _j)\mathrm{coth}q(u_iu_j),\hfill \end{array}ij`$ (8)
$`\begin{array}{c}g_{jj}=\beta _j,4U_{jj}=A+\beta _j,\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
where $`2\beta _j=qK_{ij}(\epsilon _i\epsilon _j)\mathrm{coth}q(u_iu_j)+C`$. For generic choices of $`\beta _j`$, the single particle energies $`\epsilon _j`$ must be shifted by $`2\beta _j+4_{ij}U_{i,j}`$ in order to have integrability. The parameters $`A`$, $`K`$, and $`C`$ are arbitrary real constants, while $`q`$ can be real or imaginary. The BCS Hamiltonian, including a tunable capacitive coupling can be obtained from (4) in the isotropic limit $`q0`$. Non-uniform coupling constants are obtained for generic $`q`$, and $`u_j`$ being monotonic functions of $`\epsilon _j`$. For real $`q`$, the arising $`g_{ij}`$ can be made nearly uniform for levels within an energy cutoff $`E_D`$, and exponentially suppressed otherwise; correspondingly, $`U_{ij}`$ can be made nearly uniform (as specified in Eqs.(33) below).
The proof of the integrability of the Hamiltonian (4) proceeds along the two following steps. i) First we note the factorization  of the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (4): $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{\Psi }_N|\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ with eigenvalue $`E=E_N+E_M`$; where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ is the eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $`H_N`$ projected on the subspace with $`N`$ time-reversed pairs; $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ is the Fock state projected on the blocked $`M`$ singly occupied levels. The solution of the corresponding Hamiltonian $`H_M`$ is easily obtained  as: $`H_M|\mathrm{\Phi }_M=[_i\epsilon _i+_{ij}U_{ij}JS(S+1)]|\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$. ii) Then Hamiltonian (4) is integrable if and only if $`H_N`$ is integrable. The Hamiltonian $`H_N`$ is obtained by inverting the procedure presented in Ref. : First, we modify the constants of motion (of the BCS model) to commuting operators containing the anisotropic Gaudin models (the isotropic ones being considered in ); then we define the Hamiltonian in terms of these operators ($`H_N`$ is therefore integrable by construction). We discuss some choices of $`\{u_j\}`$, $`K`$, and $`A`$ leading to physically relevant Hamiltonians. The exact solution of $`H_N`$ is found by diagonalizing the integrals of motion through BA . The exact eigenfunctions and eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$, $`E_N`$ are

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{qc_j^{}c_j^{}}{\mathrm{sinh}q(\omega _\alpha u_j)}}|0`$ (11)
$`E_N`$ $`=`$ $`qK{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}}\epsilon _j\mathrm{coth}q(\omega _\alpha u_j)+AN^2;`$ (12)
$`|0`$ is the electronic vacuum state and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the number of levels. The quantities $`\omega _\alpha `$ fulfill the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{K}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}}q\mathrm{coth}q(\omega _\alpha u_l)`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\beta =1}{\beta \alpha }}{\overset{N}{}}}q\mathrm{coth}q(\omega _\alpha \omega _\beta )=0,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N`$ (14)
Our results can be applied to describe a system of $`𝒩`$ grains, since their Hamiltonian can be written (after a suitable relabeling of the levels) in the form (4). For distinct grains $`g_{jk}`$ describe Cooper pair tunneling, and $`U_{jk}`$ the inter-grain Coulomb interaction. We require $`g_{ij}`$ to decay both with inter-grain distance and level separation. This can be fulfilled with $`u_j`$ fixed by Eqs.(37), (38).

The present paper is laid out as follows. First we discuss the integrability of the model $`H_N`$; then its exact solution is presented. This will complete the study of the integrability of the Hamiltonian (4). Finally, we will explain how our model can be applied to describe single as well many interacting grains.

Integrability. The BCS Hamiltonian can be written in terms of the spin-$`1/2`$ realization of $`su(2)`$:
$`H_{BCS}={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}2\epsilon _jS_j^zg{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}S_j^+S_k^{},`$ where

$`S_j^{}`$ $`:=`$ $`c_jc_j,S_j^+:=(S_j^{})^{}=c_j^{}c_j^{},`$ (15)
$`S_j^z`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(c_j^{}c_j+c_j^{}c_j1),`$ (16)
obeying $`[S_j^z,S_k^\pm ]=\pm \delta _{jk}S_k^\pm `$, $`[S_j^+,S_k^{}]=2\delta _{jk}S_k^z`$. Its constants of motion are written in terms of isotropic Gaudin Hamiltonians $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}_j`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j=S_j^zg\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}_j;\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}_j=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k=1}{kj}}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}\frac{𝐒_j𝐒_k}{\epsilon _j\epsilon _k}.$$
(17)
The $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j`$ mutually commute and we have $`[\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j,\stackrel{~}{\tau }_k]=[H,\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j]=0`$ for all $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$, because the BCS Hamiltonian can be written in terms of the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j`$ only:

$$H_{BCS}=\underset{j}{}2\epsilon _j\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j+g\underset{j,k}{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j\stackrel{~}{\tau }_k.$$
(18)
Our approach is now to modify the integrals of motion (17) and then to construct an integrable BCS-like model (which turns out to be characterized by a non-uniform pairing) following formula (18):

$$H_N:=\underset{j}{}2\epsilon _j\tau _j+A\underset{j,k}{}\tau _j\tau _k+const.$$
(19)
The ansatz for the modified integrals $`\tau _j`$ is

$$\tau _j=S_j^z+\mathrm{\Xi }_j;\mathrm{\Xi }_j=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k=1}{kj}}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}w_{jk}^\alpha S_j^\alpha S_k^\alpha .$$
(20)
where the operators $`\mathrm{\Xi }_j`$ are anisotropic Gaudin Hamiltonians (the isotropic case corresponding to $`w_{ij}^x=w_{ij}^y=w_{ij}^z`$). These operators mutually commute if

$`w_{ij}^\alpha w_{jk}^\gamma +w_{ji}^\beta w_{ik}^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`w_{ik}^\alpha w_{jk}^\beta ,`$ (21)
$`w_{ij}^x`$ $`=`$ $`w_{ji}^y,`$ (22)
where (21) emerges from imposing $`[\mathrm{\Xi }_i,\mathrm{\Xi }_j]=0`$. The other condition arises from $`[S_i^z,\mathrm{\Xi }_j]+[\mathrm{\Xi }_i,S_j^z]=0`$. We furthermore postulate particle number conservation, which in the spin picture means $`[\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}S_i^z,\mathrm{\Xi }_j]=0`$ for all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$, leading to another condition

$$w_{ij}^x=w_{ij}^y\stackrel{\mathrm{Eq}.(\text{22})}{=}w_{ji}^x=:w_{ij}=w_{ji}.$$
(23)
The last equation reduces the anisotropy to the XXZ-type and Eqs.(21) finally become

$$w_{ij}v_{jk}+w_{ji}v_{ik}=w_{ik}w_{jk},v_{ij}:=w_{ij}^z.$$
(24)
The solution of Eqs. (24) (see Ref.) is

$`v_{jk}=qK\text{coth}q(u_ju_k),`$ (25)
$`w_{jk}={\displaystyle \frac{qK}{\mathrm{sinh}q(u_ju_k)}},`$ (26)
where $`u_j`$ are arbitrary complex parameters such that $`v_{jk},w_{jk}`$ are real. The transition from hyperbolic to trigonometric functions in the solution (26), is gained through the choice $`q=i`$, with real $`K`$, $`u_j`$. The cubic and quartic terms in $`S_j^\alpha `$ (obtained from formula (19)) vanish for the antisymmetry of $`v_{jk}`$. We finally obtain:

$$H_N=\underset{j}{}2\epsilon _jS_j^z\underset{j,k}{}g_{jk}S_j^+S_k^{}+4\underset{j,k}{}U_{jk}S_j^zS_k^z,$$
(27)
where the couplings are given in Eqs. (8). Up to a constant, the Hamiltonian (4) (projected on doubly occupied states) is recovered writing back the spin operators in terms of creation and annihilation operators.

Exact solution. The exact solution of the anisotropic Gaudin model for $`w_{ij}`$ and $`v_{ij}`$ fixed by Eqs. (26) was obtained in Ref. . The same procedure can be applied to diagonalize $`\tau _j`$. The eigenfunctions of $`\tau _j`$ defined in Eq.(20) are written in the form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{}_{j_1\mathrm{}j_M}}c(j_1,\mathrm{},j_M)S_{j_1}^+\mathrm{}S_{j_M}^+|0`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{}_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{M1}}}e(j_1,\mathrm{},j_{M1})S_{j_1}^+\mathrm{}S_{j_{M1}}^+S_j^+|0.`$ (29)
The vacuum $`|0`$ corresponds to $`|,\mathrm{},`$ ; the prime on the sums means the indices run in the range $`\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }\}/\{j\}`$. Imposing that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ is an eigenstate of $`\tau _j`$ we find a set of equations which $`c(\{j_i\})`$ and $`e(\{j_i\})`$ must fulfill. For a suitable change of variables we find that these conditions are transformed in Eqs.(14). The quantities $`\tau _j`$ have the following eigenvalues:

$`\tau _j|\mathrm{\Psi }_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(h_j1\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K}}h_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}^{}}q\mathrm{coth}q(u_ju_l){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}}q\mathrm{coth}q(u_j\omega _\alpha ).`$ (31)
The parameters $`\omega _\alpha `$ are determined by Eq.(14). The eigenvalues of $`H_N`$ immediately follow from formula (19). Together with the eigenfunctions they are given in Eqs.(11),(12).

Single grain. We discuss how our results can be applied to describe the physics of a single grain.
The isotropic limit $`q0`$ of Eqs.(8) gives the BCS Hamiltonian plus a tunable capacitive coupling $`A+g`$, with $`K=g/E_D`$, $`\beta _i=g`$, $`u_j=\epsilon _j/(E_D\mathrm{\Theta }(|\epsilon _jE_F|E_D))`$, where $`E_F`$ is the Fermi level, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside function ($`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=1`$ if $`x<0`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=0`$ if $`x>0`$), setting sharp cutoffs at the Debye energy; the diagonal elements $`U_{jj}`$ and $`g_{jj}`$ can be independently set to arbitrary values (since they would renormalize $`\epsilon _j`$). Choosing $`A=g`$ gives the “pure” BCS model. In this limit, the eigenstates and eigenvalues Eqs.(12),(11) coincide with those of the BCS model and Eqs. (14) reduces to the RS equations .

We now discuss the case corresponding to $`q=1`$:

$`K=g/E_D,\beta _i`$ $`=`$ $`g,A(g/E_D)\underset{j,k}{\mathrm{max}}\{\epsilon _j\epsilon _k\}`$ (32)
$`u_j`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _j/E_D.`$ (33)
We can identify three regimes depending on the value of $`E_D`$: i) $`E_D<\delta E`$, $`g_{ij}`$ is nearly zero, while $`U_{ij}Ag`$; ii) $`E_D\delta E`$, the pairing interaction decays on the scale $`E_D\delta E`$, while $`U_{ij}`$ is slowly modulated by the energy separation; iii) $`E_D>\mathrm{max}_{i,j}(\epsilon _i\epsilon _j)`$ both $`g_{ij}`$ and $`U_{ij}`$ are nearly uniform.

Application to many interacting grains. We now discuss applications of the model (4) to interacting dots.
The Hamiltonian (4) can be reinterpreted as follows: the set $`I=\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$ can be split into the (disjoint) sets $`I_a`$, $`a=1\mathrm{}𝒩`$ containing the levels of the $`a`$-th grain: $`I=_aI_a`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{a=1}^𝒩\mathrm{\Omega }_a`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a=|I_a|`$. Thus the Hamiltonian $`H_N`$ is equivalent to the following one:

$`H_𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_a}{}}\epsilon _{i_a}^{(a)}c_{a,i_a\sigma }^{}c_{a,i_a\sigma }`$ (34)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_a,j_b}{}}g_{i_aj_b}^{(a,b)}c_{a,i_a}^{}c_{a,i_a}^{}c_{b,j_b}c_{b,j_b}`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_a,j_b}{}}U_{i_aj_b}^{(a,b)}n_{a,i_a\sigma }n_{b,j_b\sigma ^{}},`$ (36)
where $`i_a=1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_a`$ label the elements of $`I_a`$ and $`c_{a,i_a\sigma }`$ annihilates an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ in the $`i_a`$-th level of $`a`$-th grain. For $`ab`$, $`g^{(a,b)}`$ describe tunneling of Cooper pairs; in terms of (4), $`g_{i_aj_b}^{(a,b)}=g_{ij}`$, where $`i`$ is the $`i_a`$-th element of $`I_a`$, and $`j`$ the $`j_b`$-th element of $`I_b`$; $`U^{(a,b)}`$ describe a Coulomb-like coupling between grains $`a`$ and $`b`$, and is written in terms of $`U_{ij}`$ analogously to $`g^{(a,b)}`$. Couplings $`g^{(a,a)}`$ and $`U^{(a,a)}`$ describe pairing and Coulomb intra-grain interactions respectively. We fix the couplings as in (33) with the exception that

$`u_j=\mathrm{\Phi }_a\epsilon _j/E_D,\text{when}jI_a.`$ (37)
Now we impose

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{a+1}\mathrm{\Phi }_a\underset{j,kI_a}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\left(\epsilon _j\epsilon _k\right)/E_D\right\}$$
(38)
to make the tunneling amplitude exponentially suppressed with the *spatial* distance between the grains. The pairing interaction is nearly uniform for levels within $`E_D`$ in the same grain. The intra-grain Coulomb interaction is also nearly uniform $`U_{jk}A`$, while the inter-grain Coulomb interaction is modulated by the corresponding energy separation.

Conclusions. We found a class of integrable Hamiltonians, which are a generalization of the BCS Hamiltonian characterized by non-uniform coupling constants. To our knowledge this is the first exact solution for non-uniform pairing interaction. The strategy we have adopted consists in generalizing the procedure of Ref. , namely constructing the Hamiltonian of the system in terms of anisotropic Gaudin Hamiltonians. By means of the integrability and the exact solvability of the latter we obtain the integrability and the exact solution of the model Eq. (4), (8). In this sense, our procedure is close in spirit to the quantum inverse scattering method .
The isotropic limit $`q0`$ of the Gaudin Hamiltonians corresponds to uniform couplings. For arbitrary $`A`$, the Hamiltonian is the sum of the BCS and the orthodox model. For $`A=g`$ the BCS Hamiltonian is obtained; the same isotropic limit of the exact solution Eqs. (11)- (14) coincides with the RS solution.

This class of models might be useful for applications to the physics of metallic grains. The non-uniformity  of the coupling constants (8) corresponds to include certain $`𝒪(\delta E^2/E_T)`$ terms  in the Hamiltonian (2). In fact, we recover the “fluctuations” of the Coulomb interaction of the Ref. identifying $`\delta U_HU_{ij}U_{ij^{}}`$. The integrable model presented here might be applied as a starting point for suitable perturbation schemes leading to the explanation of the tunneling phenomena.

The present model can be applied to systems of few interacting dots, since our capacitive-like inter-grain interaction does not decay with spatial distance.

In a recent paper Ref.  a non-uniform coupling for bosonic systems was studied. The Hamiltonian was constructed from the bosonic analog of formulas (19), (20), where the $`S^a`$ are generators of $`su(1,1)`$ (instead of $`su(2)`$). This algebraic difference does not affect the equations which $`w_{ij}`$, $`v_{ij}`$ have to fulfill to ensure the commutativity of the (bosonic) $`\tau _j`$. The coupling constants of this bosonic model can be obtained in the isotropic limit of our Eqs. (8) with $`u_j\epsilon _j^d`$ and $`A=0`$. This shows that the bosonic Hamiltonian in Ref.  can be obtained by the limit $`q0`$ of anisotropic $`su(1,1)`$ Gaudin models. Work is in progress along this direction.

This line of research was suggested by G. Falci whose invaluable help is a pleasure to acknowledge. We thank R. Fazio for constant support, fruitful discussions and critical reading of the manuscript. We acknowledge R. W. Richardson for critical discussions on our work. We also thank A. Mastellone for useful discussions.


text:
# A Note on Superdistributions and Wavefront Set

## 1. Introduction

In this work, we extend the definition of the objects most widely used in physics: distributions. The distribution theory is a generalization of the classical analysis, which makes it possible to deal in a systematic way difficulties as the unpleasant fact that not every function is differentiable. As a matter of fact, the space of distributions is essentially the smallest extension of the space of continuous functions where differentiation is always well defined. The theory was intensively developed by many mathematicians and theoretical physicists, mainly in connection with the needs of theoretical and mathematical physics. It one relies fundamentally on the notion of topological vector spaces. The Quantum Field Theory (QFT) perhaps is the example more important where technical results from distribution theory are required. In particular, Schwartz’s theory of tempered distributions became fundamental to the Gårding-Wigthman axiomatization of relativistic QFT . In the same way the Fourier analysis of distributions plays an important role in the QFT, mainly in the spectral analysis of singularities. With this paper, we intend to define superdistributions and Fourier transformations in the supersymmetric field theory in the spirit of Schwartz’s distributions and in the spirit of Hörmander’s spectral analysis of singularities of distributions.

Over the last decades, supersymmetric quantum theories have been studied intensively with the belief that such theories may play a part in a unified theory of fundamental forces, and many issues are understood much better now. These theories are usually characterized by their invariance properties with respect to transformations that involve anticommuting parameters. The latter play an essential role in the formulation of supersymmetric theories and their use sometimes facilities calculations, for instance in perturbation theory. As it occurs with the ordinary quantum field theories, supersymmetric field theories are also deeply connected to the presence of ultraviolet divergences, in a naive approach. However, physicists have soon learned how to make sense out of them in a mathematically proper way through the procedure now known as renormalization (a comprehensive account of the quantum theory through the algebraic renormalization approach can be found in the textbook by Piguet and Sibold ). As first indicated by Wess and Zumino, supersymmetry is preserved by renormalization and further leads to a less divergent than conventional field theoretic model.

It is already well-known that the singularity structure of Feynman (or more precisely Wightman) superfunctions is completely associated with the “bosonic” sector of the superspace – the body of superspace. This result can be mainly justified by the heuristic form of defining superspace and superfields. It is, therefore, a natural question to ask how a mathematically rigorous definition of the structure of these singularities can be given. Although claims exist that such a result is completely obvious, we do not think that a clear proof is available in the published literature, to the best of our knowledge. However, to our great surprise, such a proof does exist and is extremely simple. The key ingredients in our analysis are the notion of the wavefront set  of a superdistribution and the appropriate construction of Rogers of a superspace and superfields . The notion of wavefront set was introduced by the mathematicians Hörmander and Duistermaat  in the seventies and it is growing of importance, with a range of applications going beyond the original problems of linear partial equations. It has received, in the last years, a lot of attention from community of theoretical physicists in order to solve some important problems, such as the characterization of the spectral condition for a QFT on a general manifold .

This note is organized as follow: in Sec. 2, for the convenience of readers, we shall briefly review some few basic properties of superspaces based on the Rogers’ work . In Sec. 3, a new formulation of superdistributions on superspace is presented.111An alternative formulation of superdistributions is given in the Ref. . Such a formulation close to the de Rham’s “currents” defined as dual objects to differential forms . In Sec. 4, we extend the notion of the wavefront set of a superdistribution. The well-known result that the singularities of a superdistribution may be expressed in a very simple way through the ordinary distribution is proved by functional analytical methods. Sec. 5 contains our conclusions. Finally, for sake of completeness, in the Appendix A we recall some properties of the microlocal analysis.

## 2. Notions of Superspace

This section introduces some few basic fundamentals on the theory of superspace. We follow here the work of Rogers . Rogers’ theory has an advantage, a superspace is an ordinary Banach manifold endowed with a Grassmann algebra structure, so that the topological constructions have their standard meanings.

We start by introducing first some definitions and concepts of a Grassmann-Banach algebra, i.e., a Grassmann algebra endowed with a Banach algebra structure. Let $`L`$ be a finite positive integer. Denote by $`𝒢`$ a Grassmann algebra, such that $`𝒢`$ can naturally be decomposed as the direct sum $`𝒢=𝒢_0𝒢_1`$, where $`𝒢_0`$ consists of the even (commuting) elements and $`𝒢_1`$ consists of the odd (anti-commuting) elements in $`𝒢`$, respectively. Let $`M_L`$ denote the set of sequences $`\{(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k)1kL;\mu _i;1\mu _1<\mathrm{}<\mu _kL\}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ represent the empty sequence in $`M_L`$, and $`(j)`$ denote the sequence with just one element $`j`$. A basis of $`𝒢`$ is given by monomials of the form $`\{\xi _\mathrm{\Omega },\xi ^{\mu _1}\xi ^{\mu _2},\mathrm{},\xi ^{\mu _1}\xi ^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\mu _k}\}`$ for all $`\mu M_L`$, such that $`\xi _\mathrm{\Omega }=1\mathrm{I}`$ and $`\xi ^{(i)}\xi ^{(j)}+\xi ^{(j)}\xi ^{(i)}=0`$ for $`1i,jL`$. Futhermore, there is no other independent relations among the generators. By $`𝒢_L`$ we denote the Grassmann algebra with $`L`$ generators, where the even and the odd elements, respectively, take their values. $`L`$ being assumed a finite integer (the number of generators $`L`$ could be possibly infinite), it means that the sequence terminates at $`\xi ^1\mathrm{}\xi ^L`$ and there are only $`2^L`$ distinct basis elements. An arbitrary element $`q𝒢_L`$ has the form

(2.1)
$$q=q_𝐛+\underset{(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k)M_L}{}q_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k}\xi ^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\mu _k},$$

where $`q_𝐛,q_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$ are real numbers. An even or odd element is specified by $`2^{L1}`$ real parameters. The number $`q_𝐛`$ is called the body of $`q`$, while the remainder $`qq_𝐛`$ is the soul of $`q`$, denoted $`s(q)`$. The element $`q`$ is invertible if, and only if, its body is non-zero.

With reference to supersymmetric field theories, the commuting variable $`x`$ has the form

(2.2)
$$x=x_𝐛+x_{ij}\xi ^i\xi ^j+x_{ijkl}\xi ^i\xi ^j\xi ^k\xi ^l+\mathrm{},$$

where $`x_𝐛,x_{ij},x_{ijkl},\mathrm{}`$ are real variables. Similarly, the anticommuting variables (in the Weyl representation) $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }=(\theta )^{}`$ have the form

(2.3)
$$\theta =\theta _i\xi ^i+\theta _{ijk}\xi ^i\xi ^j\xi ^k+\mathrm{},\overline{\theta }=\overline{\theta }_i\xi ^i+\overline{\theta }_{ijk}\xi ^i\xi ^j\xi ^k+\mathrm{},$$

where $`\theta _i,\theta _{ijk},\mathrm{}`$ are complex variables. The summation over repeated indices is to be understood unless otherwise stated. As pointed out by Vladimirov-Volovich , from the physical point of view, superfields are not functions of $`\theta _i,\theta _{ijk},\mathrm{}`$ and $`x_𝐛,x_{ij},x_{ijkl},\mathrm{}`$, but only depend on these variables through $`\theta `$ and $`x`$, as it occurs with ordinary complex analysis where analytic functions of the complex variables $`z=x+iy`$ are not arbitrary functions of the variables $`x`$ and $`y`$, but functions that depend on $`x`$ and $`y`$ through $`z`$.

The Grassmann algebra may be topologized. Consider the complete norm on $`𝒢_L`$ defined by :

(2.4)
$$q_p=\left(|q_𝐛|^p+\underset{(\mu )=1}{\overset{L}{}}|q_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}|^p\right)^{1/p}.$$

A useful topology on $`𝒢`$ is the topology induced by this norm. The norm $`_1`$ is called the Rogers norm and $`𝒢_L(1)`$ the Rogers algebra . The Grassmann algebra $`𝒢`$ equipped with the norm (2.4) becomes a Banach space. In fact $`𝒢`$ becomes a Banach algebra, i.e., $`1\mathrm{I}=1`$ and $`qq^{}qq^{}`$ for all $`q,q^{}𝒢`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

A Grassmann-Banach algebra is a Grassmann algebra endowed with a Banach algebra structure.

A superspace must be constructed using as a building block a Grassmann-Banach algebra $`𝒢_L`$ and not only a Grassmann algebra.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`𝒢_L=𝒢_{L,0}𝒢_{L,1}`$ be a Grassmann-Banach algebra. Then the $`(m,n)`$-dimensional superspace is the topological space $`𝒢_L^{m,n}=𝒢_{L,0}^m\times 𝒢_{L,1}^n`$, which generalizes the space $`^m`$, consisting of the Cartesian product of $`m`$ copies of the even part of $`𝒢_L`$ and $`n`$ copies of the odd part.

In supersymmetric quantum field theory, superfields are functions in superspace usually given by their (terminating) standard expansions in powers of the odd coordinates

(2.5)
$$F(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=\underset{(\gamma )=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}f_{(\gamma )}(x)(\theta )^{(\gamma )},$$

where $`(\theta )^{(\gamma )}`$ comprises all monomials in the anticommuting variables $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ (belonging to odd part of a Grassmann-Banach algebra) of degree $`|\gamma |`$; $`f_{(\gamma )}(x)`$ is called a component field, whose Lorentz properties are determined by those of $`F(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ and by the power $`(\gamma )`$ of $`(\theta )`$. The following notation, extended to more than one $`\theta `$ variable, is used (2.5): $`(\theta )=(\theta _1,\overline{\theta }_1,\mathrm{},\theta _n,\overline{\theta }_n)`$, and $`(\gamma )`$ is a multi-index $`(\gamma _1,\overline{\gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n,\overline{\gamma }_n)`$ with $`|\gamma |=_{r=1}^n(\gamma _r+\overline{\gamma }_r)`$ and $`(\theta )^{(\gamma )}=_{r=1}^m\theta _r^{\gamma _r}\overline{\theta }_r^{\overline{\gamma }_r}`$. In Eq.(2.5), for a (4,4)-dimensional superspace, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(2,2)`$.

Rogers  considered superfields in $`𝒢_L^{m,n}`$ as $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ superfunctions, i.e., functions whose coefficients $`f_{(\gamma )}(x)`$ of their expansions are smooth functions of $`^m`$ into $`𝒢_L`$, extended from $`^m`$ to all of $`𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ by $`z`$-continuation. Throughout the remainder of this paper the prefix “super” is used for entities involving odd Grassmann variables.

###### Definition 2.3.

Let $`U`$ be an open set in $`𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ and $`ϵ:𝒢_L^{m,0}^m`$ be the body projection which associates to each $`m`$-tuple $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)`$ in $`𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ the $`m`$-tuple $`(ϵ(x_1),\mathrm{},ϵ(x_m))`$ in $`^m`$. Let $`V`$ be an open set in $`^m`$ with $`V=ϵ(U)`$. We get through $`z`$-continuation – or “Grassmann analytic continuation” – of a function $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(V,𝒢_L)`$ a function $`z(f)G^{\mathrm{}}(U,𝒢_L)`$, which admits an expansion in powers of the soul of $`x`$

$`z(f)(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)={\displaystyle \underset{i_1=\mathrm{}=i_m=0}{\overset{L}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i_1!\mathrm{}i_m!}}\left[_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}_m^{i_m}\right]f(ϵ(x))s(x_1)^{i_1}\mathrm{}s(x_m)^{i_m},`$
where $`s(x_i)=(x_iϵ(x_i))`$ and $`ϵ(x_i)=(x_i)_b`$.

One should keep always in mind that the continuation involves only the even variables $`z:C^{\mathrm{}}(ϵ(U))G^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$, and that $`z(f)(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)`$ is a supersmooth function if their components are smooth for soulless values of $`x`$. This justifies the formal manipulations in the physics literature, where superfields are manipulated as if their even arguments were ordinary numbers : a supersmooth function is completely determined when its components are known on the body of superspace.

According to Definition 2.3, the superfield $`F(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })G^{\mathrm{}}(U,𝒢_L)`$ admits an expansion

$$F(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=\underset{(\gamma )=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}z(f_{(\gamma )})(x)(\theta )^{(\gamma )},$$

but here with suitable $`f_{(\gamma )}C^{\mathrm{}}(ϵ(U),𝒢_L)`$.

## 3. Distributions on the Superspace

We begin by introducing the concept of superdistributions as the dual space of supersmooth functions in $`𝒢_L^{m,0}`$, with compact support, equipped with an appropriate topology, called test superfunctions. This can be done relatively straightforward in analogy to the notion of distributions as the dual space to the space $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$ of functions on an open set $`U^m`$ which have compact support, since the spaces $`𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ and $`𝒢_L^{m,n}`$ are regarded as ordinary vector spaces of $`2^{L1}(m)`$ and $`2^{L1}(m+n)`$ dimensions, respectively, over the real numbers.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^m`$ be an open set. $`\mathrm{\Omega }=ϵ(U)`$ regarded as a subset of $`𝒢_L^{m,0}`$, it is identified with the body of some domain in superspace. Let $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒢_L)`$ be the space of $`𝒢_L`$-valued smooth functions with compact support in $`𝒢_L`$. Every function $`fC_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒢_L)`$ can be expanded in terms of the basis elements of $`𝒢_L`$ as:

(3.1) $`f(x)={\displaystyle \underset{(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k)M_L^0}{}}f_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k}(x)\xi ^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\mu _k},`$
where $`M_L^0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k)0kL;\mu _i;1\mu _1<\mathrm{}<\mu _kL\}`$ and $`f_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k}(x)`$ is in the space $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of real-valued smooth functions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with compact support. Thus, it follows that the space $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒢_L)`$ is isomorphic to the space $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })𝒢_L`$ . In accordance with the Definition 2.3, the smooth functions of $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒢_L)`$ can be extended from $`\mathrm{\Omega }^m`$ to $`U𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ by Taylor expansion.

In order to define superdistributions, we need to give a suitable topological structure to the space $`G_0^{\mathrm{}}(U,𝒢_L)`$ of $`𝒢_L`$-valued superfunctions on an open set $`U𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ which have compact support. According to a proposition by Rogers, every $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ superfunction on a compact set $`U𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ can be considered as a real-valued $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function on $`U^N`$, where $`N=2^{L1}(m)`$, regarding $`𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ and $`𝒢_L`$ as Banach spaces. In fact, the identification of $`𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ with $`^{2^{L1}(m)}`$ is possible . We have here an example of functoriality. Indeed, let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ denote a $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ supermanifold and a Banach manifold $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively. Then with each supermanifold $`X`$ we associate a Banach manifold $`Y`$, via a covariant functorial relation $`\lambda :XY`$, and with each $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ map $`\varphi `$ defined on $`X`$, a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ map $`\lambda (\varphi )`$ defined on $`Y`$ .

Following, we shall first consider only the subset $`C_K^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(U^N)`$ which consists of functions with support in a fixed compact set $`K`$. Since by construction $`C_K^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a Banach space, the functions $`C_K^{\mathrm{}}`$ have a natural topology given by the finite family of norms

(3.2) $`\varphi _{K,m}=\underset{\stackrel{|p|m}{xK}}{sup}|D^p\varphi (x)|,D^p={\displaystyle \frac{^{|p|}}{x_1^{p_1}\mathrm{}x_m^{p_m}}},`$
where $`p=(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_m)`$ is a $`m`$-tuple of non-negative integers, and $`|p|=p_1+p_2+\mathrm{}+p_m`$ defines the order of the derivative. Next, let $`U`$ be considered as a union of compact sets $`K_i`$ which form an increasing family $`\{K_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, such that $`K_i`$ is contained in the interior of $`K_{i+1}`$. That such family exist follows from the Lemma 10.1 of . Therefore, we think of $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(U^N)`$ as $`_iC_{K_i}^{\mathrm{}}(U^N)`$. We take the topology of $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(U^N)`$ to be given by the strict inductive limit topology of the sequence $`\{C_{K_i}^{\mathrm{}}(U^N)\}`$. Of another way, we may define convergence in $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(U^N)`$ of a sequence of functions $`\{\varphi _k\}`$ to mean that for each $`k`$, one has $`\mathrm{supp}\varphi _kKU^N`$ such that for a function $`\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(U^N)`$ we have $`\varphi \varphi _k_{K,m}0`$ as $`k\mathrm{}`$. This notion of convergence generates a topology which makes $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(U^N)`$, certainly, a topological vector space.

Now, let $`𝖥`$ and $`𝖤`$ be spaces of smooth functions with compact support defined on $`U𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ and $`U^N`$, respectively. If $`\lambda :𝖤𝖥`$ is a contravariant functor which associates with each smooth function of compact support in $`𝖤`$, a smooth function of compact support in $`𝖥`$, then we have a map

(3.3) $`\varphi _{K,m}\lambda (\varphi )_{K,m},`$
providing $`G_0^{\mathrm{}}(U,𝒢_L)`$ with a limit topology induced by a finite family of norms.

We now take a result by Jadczyk-Pilch , later refined by Hoyos et al , which establishes as a natural domain of definition for supersmooth functions a set of the form $`ϵ^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is open in $`^m`$. Let $`ϵ^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be the domain of definition for a superfunction $`fG_0^{\mathrm{}}(ϵ^1(\mathrm{\Omega }),𝒢_L)`$, where $`ϵ^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is an open subset in $`𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an open subset in $`^m`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒢_L)`$ denotes the restriction of $`\varphi `$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^m𝒢_L^{m,0}`$. Then, it follows that $`(_1^{p_1}\mathrm{}_m^{p_m}\varphi )^\stackrel{~}{}=_1^{p_1}\mathrm{}_m^{p_m}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, where the derivatives on the right-hand side are with respect to $`m`$ real variables. Now, suppose $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_i\stackrel{~}{K}_i`$ where each $`\stackrel{~}{K}_i`$ is open and has compact closure in $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{i+1}`$. It follows that $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒢_L)=_iC_{\stackrel{~}{K}_i}^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒢_L)`$. Then, one can give $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒢_L)`$ a limit topology induced by finite family of norms

(3.4) $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\stackrel{~}{K},m}=\underset{\stackrel{|p|m}{x\stackrel{~}{K}}}{sup}|D^p\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x)|=\underset{\stackrel{|p|m}{x\stackrel{~}{K}}}{sup}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k)M_L^0}{}}|D^p\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k}(x)|\right\}.`$
Finally, a suitable topological structure to the space $`G_0^{\mathrm{}}(U,𝒢_L)`$ of $`𝒢_L`$-valued superfunctions on an open set $`U𝒢_L^{m,n}`$ which have compact support, it is obtained immediately by the natural identification of $`𝒢_L^{m,n}`$ with $`^{2^{L1}(m+n)}`$ and by the obvious extension of the construction above, which allows us define a limit topology induced to the space $`G_0^{\mathrm{}}(U,𝒢_L)`$ by finite family of norms,

(3.5) $`\lambda (\varphi )_{K,m+n}=\underset{\stackrel{|p|m+n}{zK}}{sup}|D^p(\lambda (\varphi ))(z)|,D^p={\displaystyle \frac{^{|q|+|r|}}{x_1^{q_1}\mathrm{}x_m^{q_m}\theta _1^{r_1}\mathrm{}\theta _n^{r_n}}}`$
where the derivatives $`^{|q|}/x_1^{q_1}\mathrm{}x_m^{q_m}`$ commute while the derivatives $`^{|r|}/\theta _1^{r_1}\mathrm{}\theta _n^{r_n}`$ anticommute, and $`|p|=|q|+|r|=_{i=1}^mq_i+_{j=1}^nr_j`$ defines the total order of the derivative, with $`r_j=0,1`$.

We are now ready to define a superdistribution in an open subset $`U`$ of $`𝒢_L^{m,n}`$. The set of all superdistributions in $`U`$ will be denoted by $`𝔇^{}(U)`$. A superdistribution is a continuous linear functional $`u:G_0^{\mathrm{}}(U)𝒢_L`$, where $`G_0^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$ denotes the test superfunction space of $`G^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$ superfunctions with compact support in $`KU`$. The continuity of $`u`$ on $`G_0^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$ is equivalent to its boundedness on a neighbourhood of zero, i.e., the set of numbers $`u(\varphi )`$ is bounded for all $`\varphi G_0^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$. The last statement translates directly into:

###### Proposition 3.1.

A superdistribution $`u`$ in $`U𝒢_L^{m,n}`$ is a continuous linear functional on $`G_0^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$ if and only if to every compact set $`KU`$, there exists a constant $`C`$ and $`(m+n)`$ such that

$$\left|u(\varphi )\right|C\underset{\stackrel{|p|m+n}{zK}}{sup}\left|D^p(\varphi )(z)\right|,\varphi G_0^{\mathrm{}}(K).$$

###### Proof.

See

## 4. Wavefront Set of a Superdistribution

A great deal of progress has been made in recent years in characterizing the “ultraviolet divergences” of quantum fields in curved spacetime and developing renormalization theory for interacting quantum fields by the use of the methods of “microlocal analysis.” This leads to the definition of the wavefront set, denoted ($`WF`$), of a distribution, a refined description of the singularity spectrum. Similar notion was developed in other versions by Sato , Iagolnitzer  and Sjöstrand . The definition as known nowadays is due to Hörmander. He used this terminology due to an existing analogy between his studies on the “propagation” of singularities and the classical construction of propagating waves by Huyghens. For a distribution $`u`$ we introduce its wavefront set $`WF(u)`$ as a subset in phase space $`^n\times ^n`$.222The functorially correct definition of phase space is $`^n\times (^n)^{}`$. We shall here ignore any attempt to distinguish between $`^n`$ and $`(^n)^{}`$. We shall be thinking of points $`(x,k)`$ in phase space as specifying those singular directions $`k`$ of a “bad” behaviour of the Fourier transform $`\widehat{u}`$ at infinity that are responsible for the non-smoothness of $`u`$ at the point $`x`$ in position space. So we shall usually want $`k0`$. A relevant point is that $`WF(u)`$ is independent of the coordinate system chosen, and it can be described locally.

It is well-known that the regularity properties of a distribution are in correspondence with the decay properties of its Fourier transform (see Appendix A for details). The results which now follow prove that the decay properties of a superdistribution at infinity and the smoothness properties of its Fourier transform are analogous to the case of ordinary distributions, i.e., no new singularity appear by taking into account the structure of the superspace.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`X𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ be an open set, and $`u`$ be a superdistribution on $`X`$ taking values in $`𝒢_L`$, i.e., a linear functional $`u:G_0^{\mathrm{}}(X)𝒢_L`$. Let $`\varphi `$ be a supersmooth function with compact support $`KX`$. Then $`\varphi u`$ is also supersmooth on $`K`$, if its components $`(\varphi u)(ϵ(x))`$ are smooth on a compact set $`K^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the body of superspace. Therefore, the following estimate holds:

$$\left|\widehat{\varphi u}(k)\right|(1+|k_𝐛|)^NC(N,\varphi ).$$

###### Proof.

See

###### Lemma 4.2.

By replacing $`𝒢_L^{m,0}`$ by $`𝒢_L^{m,n}`$ in the Lemma 4.1, then the following estimate holds:

$`\left|\widehat{\varphi u}(k,\theta ,\overline{\theta })\right|(1+|k_𝐛|)^NC(N,\varphi _{(\gamma )})\theta _1\overline{\theta }_1\mathrm{}\theta _n\overline{\theta }_n.`$
###### Proof.

See

Combining the results above, we have proved:

###### Theorem 4.3.

The singularities of a superdistribution $`u`$ are located at specific values of the body of $`x`$, the coordinates of the physical spacetime, independently of the odd coordinates.

We sum up the preceding discussion as follows:

###### Definition 4.4 (Wavefront Set of a Superdistribution).

The wavefront set $`WF(u)`$ of a superdistribution $`u`$ in a superspace $``$ is the complement of the set of all regular directed points in the cotangent bundle $`T^{}_0`$, where $`_0=ϵ()`$ is the body of superspace, excluding the trivial point $`k_𝐛=0`$.

###### Remark 1.

A direction $`k_𝐛`$ for which the Fourier transform of a superdistribution $`u`$ shows to be of fast decrease is called to be a regular direction of $`\widehat{u}`$. Therefore, in order to determine whether $`(x_𝐛,k_𝐛)`$ belongs to the wavefront set of $`u`$ one must first to localize $`u`$ around $`x_𝐛`$, next to obtain Fourier transform $`\widehat{u}`$ and finally to look at the decay in the direction $`k_𝐛`$. Hence, the wavefront set not only describes the set of points where a superdistribution is singular, but it also localizes the frequencies that constitute these singularities.

There is a more precise version of Definition 4.4. As we have seen in Section 3 all of the foregoing definitions and statements about supermanifolds may be converted into corresponding definitions and statements about ordinary manifolds, since associated with a supermanifold $``$ of dimension $`(m,n)`$ is a family of ordinary manifolds, of dimensions $`N=2^{L1}(m+n)`$, $`(L=1,2,\mathrm{})`$. The resulting manifold is called the $`L`$th skeleton of $``$ and denoted by $`𝒮_L()`$ . With the aid of the family of skeletons we can define the pushforward (or direct image) of a superdistribution. Let $`X𝒮_L()`$ and $`Y_0`$ be open sets and let $`ϵ`$ be the natural projection from $`𝒮_L()`$ (or $``$) to $`_0`$, the body map. If we introduce local coordinates $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ in $`X`$, then $`Y`$ is defined by $`x_𝐛=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)`$. There is a local relationship between the body and the skeletons given by

$$𝒮_L(X)\stackrel{\text{diff.}}{=}Y\times ^{2^{L1}(m+n)m}.$$

Now, let $`u`$ be a superdistribution on $`X`$, then the pushforward $`ϵ_{}u`$ defined by $`ϵ_{}u(\phi )=u(ϵ^{}\phi )`$, $`\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(Y)`$, it is a superdistribution on $`Y`$. Using these concepts, we can establish the following

###### Corollary 4.5.

Let $`ϵ:X𝒮_L()Y_0`$ be the body projection, and let $`u𝔇^{}(X)`$. Then

$`WF(ϵ_{}u)\{(x_𝐛,k_𝐛)T^{}_0\backslash 0x^{}=(x_{m+1},\mathrm{},x_N^{}),(x_𝐛,x^{},k_𝐛,0)WF(u)\},`$
where $`N^{}=2^{L1}(m+n)m`$.

###### Proof.

See

## 5. Conclusions

We have introduced a notion of superdistribution in superspace which seems to have some advantages: by exploring the functorial relations between a $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$-superspace and a family of Banach manifolds $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ we define the space of superdistributions as the dual of the test function space of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-functions with compact support endowed with a suitable topology on Banach spaces. In particular, Wightman superfunctions and superpropagators, which appear in the supersymmetric quantum field theory, can be treated as our superdistributions. We have also obtained useful results on the singularity structure of such objects, here analysed in the context of the development of the potent mathematical tool of microlocal analysis and characterized in terms of the its wavefront set. Our analysis represents only the first step towards a more interesting physically situation: the perturbative treatment of interacting quantum superfield models, in particular the formulation of renormalization theory on curved supermanifolds.

## Acknowledgments.

We thank C.M.M. Polito for his collaboration in the later stages of this work, when ours results were extended for a general supermanifold.

## Appendix A Microlocal Analysis: Review of Some Basic Ideas

In this appendix we briefly recall some standard facts on microlocal analysis. The key point of the microlocal analysis is the transference of the study of singularities of distributions from the configuration space only to the rather phase space, by exploring in frequency space the decay properties of a distribution at infinity and the smoothness properties of its Fourier transform. As it is well-known , a distribution of compact support, $`u^{}(^n)`$, is a smooth function if, and only if, its Fourier transform, $`\widehat{u}`$, rapidly decreases at infinity (i.e., as long as supp$`u`$ does not touch the singularity points). By a fast decay at infinity, one must understanding that for all positive integer $`N`$ exists a constant $`C_N`$, which depends on $`N`$, such that

(A.1)
$$|\widehat{u}(k)|(1+|k|)^NC_N,N;k^n.$$

If, however, $`u^{}(^n)`$ is not smooth, then the directions along which $`\widehat{u}`$ does not fall off sufficiently fast may be adopted to characterize the singularities of $`u`$.

For a distribution does not necessarily of compact support, still we can verify if its Fourier transform rapidly decreases in a given region $`V`$ through the technique of localization. More precisely, if $`VX^n`$ and $`u𝒟^{}(X)`$, we can restrict $`u`$ to a distribution $`u|_V`$ in $`V`$ by setting $`u|_V(\varphi )=u(\varphi )`$, where $`\varphi `$ is a smooth function with support contained in a region $`V`$. The distribution $`\varphi u`$ can then be seen as a distribution of compact support on $`^n`$. Its Fourier transform will be defined as a distribution on $`^n`$, and must satisfy, in absence of singularities in $`V^n`$, the property (A.1). From this point of view, all development is local in the sense that only the behaviour of the distribution on the arbitrarily small neighbourhood of the singular point, in the configuration space, is relevant.

Let $`u𝒟^{}(^n)`$ be a distribution and $`\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(V)`$ a smooth function with support $`V^n`$. Then, $`\varphi u`$ has compact support. The Fourier transform of $`\varphi u`$ produces a smooth function in frequency space.

###### Lemma A.1.

Consider $`u𝒟^{}(^n)`$ and $`\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(V)`$. Then $`\widehat{\varphi u}(k)=u(\varphi e^{ikx})`$. Moreover, the restriction of $`u`$ to $`V^n`$ is smooth on $`V`$ if, and only if, for every $`\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(V)`$ and each positive integer $`N`$ there exist a constant $`C(\varphi ,N)`$, which depends on $`N`$ and $`\varphi `$, such that $`|\widehat{\varphi u}(k)|(1+|k|)^NC(\varphi ,N)`$, for all $`N`$ and $`k^n`$.

If $`u𝒟^{}(^n)`$ is singular in $`x`$, and $`\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(V)`$ is $`\varphi (x)0`$; then $`\varphi u`$ is also singular in $`x`$ and has compact support. However, in some directions in $`k`$-space $`\widehat{\varphi u}`$ until will be asymptotically limited. This is called the set of regular directions of $`u`$.

###### Definition A.2.

Let $`u(x)`$ be an arbitrary distribution, not necessarily of compact support, on an open set $`X^n`$. Then, the set of pairs composed by singular points $`x`$ in configuration space and by its associated nonzero singular directions $`k`$ in Fourier space

(A.2) $`WF(u)=\{(x,k)X\times (^n\backslash 0)|k\mathrm{\Sigma }_x(u)\},`$
is called wavefront set of $`u`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x(u)`$ is defined to be the complement in $`^n\backslash 0`$ of the set of all $`k^n\backslash 0`$ for which there is an open conic neighbourhood $`M`$ of $`k`$ such that $`\widehat{\varphi u}`$ rapidly decreases in $`M`$, for $`|k|\mathrm{}`$.

###### Remarks.

We will now collect some basic properties of the wavefront set:

1. The $`WF(u)`$ is conic in the sense that it remains invariant under the action of dilatations, i.e., when we multiply the second variable by a positive scalar. This means that if $`(x,k)WF(u)`$ then $`(x,\lambda k)WF(u)`$ for all $`\lambda >0`$.
2. From the definition of $`WF(u)`$, it follows that $`\pi _1(WF(u))x`$ is the projection onto the first variable, by consisting of those points that have no neighbourhood wherein $`u`$ is a smooth function. The projection onto the second variable, $`\pi _2(WF(u))\mathrm{\Sigma }_x(u)`$, is the cone around $`k`$ attached to a such point denoting the set of high-frequency directions responsible for the appearance of a singularity at this point.
3. The wavefront set of a smooth function is the empty set.
4. For all smooth function $`\varphi `$ with compact suport $`WF(\varphi u)WF(u)`$.
5. For any partial linear differential operator $`P`$, with $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients, we have

$$WF(Pu)WF(u).$$
6. If $`u`$ and $`v`$ are two distributions belonging to $`𝒟^{}(^n)`$, with wavefront sets $`WF(u)`$ and $`WF(v)`$, respectively; then the wavefront set of $`(u+v)𝒟^{}(^n)`$ is contained in $`WF(u)WF(v)`$.
7. If $`U,V`$ are open set of $`^n`$, $`u𝒟^{}(V)`$, and $`\chi :UV`$ a diffeomorphism such that $`\chi ^{}u𝒟^{}(U)`$ is the distribution pulled back by $`\chi `$, then $`WF(\chi ^{}u)=\chi ^{}WF(u)`$.

We emphasize that a number of operations, not possible in general, become feasible for distributions under special assumptions on their wavefront set, such as taking products. As a result of this, the wavefront set applies to theories which are formulated in terms of pointlike fields. In the naive perturbative scheme of quantum field theories, one encounters formal products of fields which are a priori ill-defined. This difficulty lies at the heart of renormalization theory. The latter starts from the observation that products of fields (operator-valued distributions) are well-defined on a subset which does not contain the diagonal (all coinciding points, or the zero section). Renormalization consists then in the continuation of products of distributions to the whole space.

In order to give precise statements to the product of these fields, we appeal to the criterion below:

###### Theorem A.3 (Hörmander’s Criterion).

Let $`u`$ and $`v`$ be distributions; if the wavefront set of $`u`$ and $`v`$ are such that

$$(x,0)WF(u)WF(v)=\{(x,k_1+k_2)|(x,k_1)WF(u),(x,k_2)WF(v)\},$$

then the product $`uv`$ exists and $`WF(uv)WF(u)WF(v)(WF(u)WF(v))`$.

Hence, the product of the distributions $`u`$ and $`v`$ is well-defined in $`x`$, if $`u`$, or $`v`$, or both distributions are regular in $`x`$. Otherwise, if $`u`$ and $`v`$ are singular in $`x`$, the product can still exist if, the sum of the second components of $`WF(u)`$ and $`WF(v)`$ related to $`x`$ can be linearly combined to give zero only by a trivial solution.

###### Example.

The distributions $`u,v𝒟^{}()`$, $`u(x)=\frac{1}{x+iϵ}`$ and $`v(x)=\frac{1}{xiϵ}`$, with the Heavyside distributions $`\widehat{u}(k)=2\pi i\theta (k)`$ and $`\widehat{v}(k)=2\pi i\theta (k)`$ as their Fourier transforms, have the following wavefront sets:

$`WF(u)=\{(0,k)k^{}\backslash 0\},WF(v)=\{(0,k)k^+\backslash 0\}.`$
Thus, from the Hörmander’s Criterion one finds that there exist the powers of $`u^n`$ and $`v^n`$. On the other hand, the product between $`u`$ and $`v`$ do not match the above criterion and do not exist, indeed. The example clearly indicates that one can multiply distributions even if they have overlapping singularities, provided their wavefront sets are in favorable positions. Such an observation is significant because it makes clear that the problem is not only where the support is, but in which directions the Fourier transform is not rapidly decreasing!

Another result, which we merely state, is needed to complete this briefing on microlocal analysis.

###### Theorem A.4 (Wavefront set of pushforwards of a distribution).

Let $`f:XY`$ be a submersion, and let $`u^{}(X)`$. Then

$$WF(f_{}u)\{(f(x),\eta )xX,(x,^tf_x^{}\eta )WF(u)\text{or}^tf_x^{}\eta =0\},$$

where $`{}_{}{}^{t}f_{x}^{}`$ denotes the transpose matrix of the Jacobian matrix $`f_x^{}`$ of $`f`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The question whether quantum mechanics can be derived from a deterministic theory has been raised for a long time , and answered in the affirmative by Bohm . In Bohmian mechanics , each particle follows a trajectory that obeys equations of motion much like those of classical mechanics. To the total force acting on a particle, however, there is a contribution coming from a “quantum potential,” which is related to the amplitude of the Schrödinger wave function. Although a particle has, at any time $`t`$, a well-defined position and momentum, these cannot be known exactly. One can only know the probability that, at time $`t`$, the particle is in a given region of space, or has a momentum in a given range. The position probability is obtained from the absolute square of the wave function and, in this way, Bohmian mechanics reproduces exactly the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics.

Recent papers  have argued that although statistical predictions of Bohmian and quantum mechanics may coincide, the two will disagree as far as certain individual events are concerned. This, it is claimed, will occur in two-particle interference experiments, where Bohmian mechanics would predict correlations in individual events that contradict quantum mechanics. The purpose of this note is firstly to give a general argument that this cannot be the case, and then to show how the specific experiments proposed fail to establish the intended conclusion.

## 2 Two-particle interference

The general situation can be developed in terms of a two-slit interferometer, as shown in Fig. 1. Two identical bosons are prepared in a state such that, at time $`t=0`$, one is near the upper and the other one near the lower slit. The system is assumed to be symmetric with respect to the $`yz`$ plane.

The wave function can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=\psi _A(𝐫_1)\psi _B(𝐫_2)+\psi _A(𝐫_2)\psi _B(𝐫_1).$$
(1)
As it should with bosons, it is symmetric with respect to the interchange of both particles. An alternative choice for the wave function is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=[\stackrel{~}{\psi }_A(𝐫_1)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_B(𝐫_1)][\stackrel{~}{\psi }_A(𝐫_2)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_B(𝐫_2)].$$
(2)
This allows both particles to go through the same slit. Note that (2) is a special case of (1) if we set $`\psi _B=\psi _A`$ and no longer require $`\psi _A`$ to be centered about a specific slit.

In quantum mechanics, the probability that one particle is detected in region $`R_1`$ and the other particle in region $`R_2`$ on the screen at time $`t`$ is given by

$$P(R_1,R_2;t)=_{R_1}𝑑𝐫_1_{R_2}𝑑𝐫_2|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2;t)|^2.$$
(3)
This, in general, will display interference patterns.

In Bohmian mechanics, each particle of a given pair has a well-defined trajectory associated with the following velocities:

$`𝐯_1={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}\text{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}_1\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\mathbf{}_1S,`$ (4)
$`𝐯_2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}\text{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}_2\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\mathbf{}_2S.`$ (5)
Here $`S(𝐫_1,𝐫_2;t)`$ is the phase of the total wave function, in units of $`\mathrm{}`$.

The initial wave functions of the two bosons are assumed to transform into each other under reflection. That is

$$\psi _A(𝐫)=\psi _B(𝐫^{}),$$
(6)
where $`𝐫^{}`$ is obtained from $`𝐫`$ by reflection in the plane of symmetry, specifically $`x^{}=x`$, $`y^{}=y`$, $`z^{}=z`$. Since the experimental arrangement shares that symmetry, the wave functions will satisfy (6) at any time $`t`$. The Bohmian trajectories of a pair of bosons, however, will not in general transform into each other under reflection. This comes from the fact that the initial values of the position of each boson are unknowable in principle, and are each statistically distributed according to the absolute square of the wave function.

It is not difficult to show that

$`v_{1x}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2;t)=v_{1x}(𝐫_1^{},𝐫_2^{};t),`$ (7)
$`v_{2x}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2;t)=v_{2x}(𝐫_1^{},𝐫_2^{};t).`$ (8)
This implies that, if both particles are simultaneously on the plane of symmetry, both velocities vanish, and neither particle should cross the plane. If that were always so, Bohmian mechanics would predict that one particle would always be detected at positive, and the other one at negative values of $`x`$. However, the overwhelming majority of pairs are not simultaneously on the plane of symmetry. (7) and (8) therefore do not prevent them from crossing the plane.

A related kind of restriction to the motion of particles can be derived by considering the phase of the total wave function. Let us write it as $`S(𝐫,𝐑;t)`$, where $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐑`$ are the relative and center-of-mass coordinates of the two particles. From (4) and (5), it is easy to see that

$$𝐯_1+𝐯_2=\frac{1}{m}\mathbf{}_1S+\frac{1}{m}\mathbf{}_2S=\frac{1}{m}\mathbf{}_𝐑S.$$
(9)
Thus, if the phase does not depend on the center-of-mass coordinate $`X`$, we have $`v_{1x}+v_{2x}=0`$, so that

$$x_1+x_2=2\overline{x},$$
(10)
where $`\overline{x}`$ is a constant. This means that the motion of the particles along the $`x`$ axis is symmetric with respect to the plane $`x=\overline{x}`$. Suppose there is a limit to the value of $`|\overline{x}|`$. Bohmian mechanics then predicts that there will be no pair of particles detected both above $`|\overline{x}|`$ or both below $`|\overline{x}|`$. This has been taken to imply a contradiction with orthodox quantum mechanics where, it is claimed, there is a nonzero probability of finding both particles in one of these regions.

That there cannot be a contradiction of this kind can be seen as follows. Suppose for instance that Bohmian mechanics implies that two particles can never be simultaneously detected above the plane $`x=\overline{x}`$. This is equivalent to the statement that the probability of both particles being above $`\overline{x}`$ vanishes. In Bohmian mechanics, that probability is given by an expression like (3), where $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ are the regions $`x_1>\overline{x}`$ and $`x_2>\overline{x}`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2;t)|^2`$ is the proportion of pairs whose true values of position at $`t`$ are $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$. Since the probability is computed in quantum mechanics with the same formula and with a $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ which, albeit differently interpreted, has the same numerical value, it must vanish under exactly the same conditions as the Bohmian probability.

We shall now examine some specific cases and see how the agreement comes about.

## 3 Specific cases

Our first example is to take $`\psi _A`$ and $`\psi _B`$ to be given by plane waves. This is the case discussed by Ghose . At time $`t=0`$, we set

$$\psi _A(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}\{i(k_xx+k_yy)\},$$
(11)
where for simplicity $`z`$ has been eliminated. From (6) we get

$$\psi _B(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}\{i(k_xx+k_yy)\}.$$
(12)
Assuming free propagation with time, we find that the total wave function (1) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2;t)`$ $`=\psi _A(𝐫_1;t)\psi _B(𝐫_2;t)+\psi _A(𝐫_2;t)\psi _B(𝐫_1;t)`$
$`=2\mathrm{cos}\{k_x(x_1x_2)\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left[k_y(y_1+y_2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}(k_x^2+k_y^2)t\right]\right\}.`$ (13)
It is easy to show that not only does (10) hold, but $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are separately constant. However, the marginal probability densities of $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are both uniformly distributed. This means that for each pair of particles, the initial (and final) values of $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are in no way constrained to lie on both sides of the plane $`x=0`$, or any given plane $`x=\text{constant}`$ for that matter. The fact that both particles can be above, or below, the plane $`x=0`$ also holds if plane waves are replaced with spherical waves . The agreement between Bohmian and quantum mechanics here comes from the fact that although for each pair there is a plane $`x=\overline{x}`$ about which both particles have symmetrical $`x`$ coordinates, the value of $`\overline{x}`$ changes from pair to pair, and is totally unknown for any given pair.

Of course, plane waves will not represent a realistic two-slit experiment, precisely because the $`x`$ coordinates have to be restricted at $`t=0`$. But the example is instructive, and shows that with no restrictions on the initial $`x`$ positions of the particles, they will end up in all regions on the screen.

We will soon analyse a situation with waves initially restricted to the width of the slits. But let us first examine a one-dimensional case of restriction, using harmonic oscillator wave functions. We write

$`\psi _A(x;t)`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}}(xa\mathrm{cos}\omega t)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\omega t+{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}}(4xa\mathrm{sin}\omega ta^2\mathrm{sin}2\omega t)]\}.`$ (14)
This represents a wave packet of width $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2m\omega }`$ whose center oscillates between $`x=a`$ and $`x=a`$. Following (6), we set $`\psi _B(x;t)=\psi _A(x;t)`$. For Bose-Einstein statistics, that is, for a total wave function given as in (1), Holland (, p. 300 ff.) shows that the phase does not depend on $`x_1+x_2`$, so that (10) holds. For each pair of oscillators, there is a plane $`x=\overline{x}`$ that separates the two oscillators, so that their trajectories do not cross.

Let us assume that $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2m\omega }a`$, that is, the width of the packet is much smaller than the amplitude of oscillation. Most values of $`|\overline{x}|`$ are then smaller than or on the order of $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2m\omega }`$. We can see how the agreement between Bohmian and quantum mechanics comes about. For $`t`$ such that $`|a\mathrm{cos}\omega t|\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2m\omega }`$, members of a given Bohmian pair of oscillators are on different sides of the plane $`x=0`$. But then the quantum wave packets are also widely separated. For $`t`$ such that $`|a\mathrm{cos}\omega t|\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2m\omega }`$, the wave packets overlap. But then two Bohmian oscillators on different sides of an $`x=\overline{x}`$ plane can be on the same side of the $`x=0`$ plane.

Let us now turn to a more realistic description of two-slit interference. A wave packet emerging from slit $`A`$ can be modelled by a Gaussian wave function of the type

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_A(𝐫)=(2\pi \sigma _0^2)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(xa)^2}{4\sigma _0^2}+i[k_x(xa)+k_yy]\right\},$$
(15)
where $`\sigma _0`$ corresponds to the half-width of the slit and $`a`$ is shown in Fig. 1. We take $`\sigma _0a`$. Assuming free propagation with time, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_A(𝐫;t)`$ $`=(2\pi \sigma _t^2)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{[xa(\mathrm{}k_x/m)t]^2}{4\sigma _0\sigma _t}}`$
$`+i\{k_x[xa(\mathrm{}k_x/2m)t]+k_yy(\mathrm{}k_y^2/2m)t\}\text{}\},`$ (16)
where

$$\sigma _t=\sigma _0\left(1+\frac{i\mathrm{}t}{2m\sigma _0^2}\right).$$
(17)
It is shown in  that, if (2) represents the total wave function and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_B(𝐫;t)`$ is given by (6), we have (in  $`x`$ and $`y`$ are interchanged and the term $`2ik_x`$ is in the end inadvertently omitted)

$`v_{1x}+v_{2x}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2(x_1+x_2)t}{1+(\mathrm{}t/2m\sigma _0^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}\text{Im}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{a+(\mathrm{}k_x/m)t}{\sigma _0\sigma _t}}+2ik_x]`$
$`[\stackrel{~}{\psi }_A(𝐫_1;t)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_A(𝐫_2;t)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_B(𝐫_1;t)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_B(𝐫_2;t)]\text{}\}.`$ (18)
To establish a contradiction between Bohmian mechanics and quantum mechanics, Golshani and Akhavan consider separately the case where both particles go through different slits and the case where they go through the same slit. With the wave function (2), that distinction has meaning only in Bohmian mechanics, since in orthodox quantum mechanics we cannot assert that a particle has gone through a slit unless it has been measured to do so.

That the two particles go through different slits, in Bohmian mechanics, means the following: At $`t=0`$,

$$a\sigma _0x_1a+\sigma _0\text{and}a\sigma _0x_2a+\sigma _0,$$
(19)
or vice versa. Contrary to the claim made in , this does not imply that $`\psi _A(𝐫_1)=\psi _B(𝐫_2)`$ or that $`\psi _A(𝐫_2)=\psi _B(𝐫_1)`$.

The case where both particles go through different slits is best discussed in terms of wave function (1), where Bohmian mechanics definitely says so and quantum mechanics predicts with certainty (neglecting exponential tails of the wave function) that a measurement made at $`t=0`$ finds both particles at different slits. There (18) holds with the last term absent. It is readily integrated as

$$x_1+x_2=2\overline{x}\sqrt{1+(\mathrm{}t/2m\sigma _0^2)^2},$$
(20)
where $`2\overline{x}=x_1(0)+x_2(0)`$. Note that $`\sigma _0\overline{x}\sigma _0`$, corresponding to the spread in values of $`x_1(0)`$ and $`x_2(0)`$. Does the constraint (20) imply observational consequences that contradict quantum mechanics?

That there are none can best be seen by examining the following limiting cases, where $`t_f`$ is the time of arrival at the screen: (i) $`\mathrm{}t_f/2m\sigma _0^21`$, and (ii) $`\mathrm{}t_f/2m\sigma _0^21`$. For simplicity, we assume that $`k_x=0`$. In (i), we have $`x_1(t_f)+x_2(t_f)2\overline{x}`$. This suggests that $`x_1(t_f)`$ and $`x_2(t_f)`$ remain widely separated. But this is also what quantum mechanics predicts, since the wave functions $`\psi _A`$ and $`\psi _B`$ do not really spread beyond $`\sigma _0`$. In (ii), on the other hand, equation (16) shows that the spread of the wave functions at $`t_f`$ is on the order of $`\mathrm{}t_f/m\sigma _0`$. There is overlap if the spread is on the order of $`a`$, and quantum mechanics no longer predicts that both particles are on different sides of the $`x=0`$ plane. But then so does Bohmian mechanics, since $`x_1(t_f)+x_2(t_f)\overline{x}\mathrm{}t_f/m\sigma _0^2a`$.

## 4 Conclusion

We have shown that there is no reason to expect discrepancies between Bohmian and quantum mechanics in the context of two-particle interference devices. Our general argument was illustrated with analysis of specific cases. Additional insight could be obtained by detailed numerical calculations of Bohmian trajectories associated with two-particle two-slit experiments.

It is a pleasure to thank Gianluca Introzzi for help in clarifying some of the issues discussed here.