text:
# Infrared Line Emission in the Interacting Region of Arp 244 (the Antennae): Colliding Molecular Cloud Complexes ?

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The Antennae (NGC 4038/4039, Arp 244, VV245) are a nearby ($``$22 Mpc) infrared-luminous pair of interacting galaxies. Using N-body numerical simulations Toomre & Toomre (1972) succeeded in generating the long tidal tails seen in optical/H I images of the galaxies (van der Hulst, 1979). The strongest emission in both the radio continuum (Hummel & van der Hulst, 1986) and the CO(1-0) line observed by Sanders & Mirabel (1985); Stanford et al. (1990); Aalto et al. (1995) and by S. W. Lee, K. Y. Lo, R. A Gruendel, and Y. Gao (2001, in preparation, hereafter L01) occurs in the interaction (overlap) region to the west and between the two nuclei, especially in its southern dense clouds. The Hubble Space Telescope H$`\alpha `$ image of the Antennae reveals thousands of giant H II regions in the interaction region. X-ray observations (Fabbiano & Trinchieri, 1983) show harder and softer components corresponding to SNRs/X-ray binaries and thermal emission from gas possibly heated by the interaction, respectively. These observations all point to there being copious numbers of active star formation sites in the interacting region.

Mid-infrared ($`1217\mathrm{\mu m}`$) observations (Mirabel et al., 1998) of the Antennae by the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) confirm that the starburst is taking place largely in portions of the interaction region which are highly optically obscured. The ratio of \[Ne III\] and \[Ne II\] mid-infrared lines indicates that stars as massive as 60 M are present there (Vigroux et al., 1996; Mirabel et al., 1998). The peak of \[C II\] 158 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ fine-structure line also lies in the interaction region, but overall the ratio of \[C II\] to CO is a factor of 2.6 lower than usual starburst galaxies, suggesting that global star formation is not taking place in the Antennae (Nikola et al., 1998).

Using the BIMA Array with a 7.8$`\mathrm{}`$ $`\times `$ 6.6$`\mathrm{}`$ beam L01 have found that there are two kinematically distinct molecular cloud complexes separated by $``$100 km s-1 in the southern part of the overlap region (see Fig. 1), corresponding roughly to super giant molecular complexes 4 and 5 found by Wilson et al. (2000). It seems likely that each of these is associated with one of the interacting galaxies. Because their relative positions along the line of sight are unknown, it is unclear if the complexes are approaching or moving away from each other. If the redshifted cloud complex is in front, it may collide with blueshifted cloud and subsequently a starburst, perhaps greater than that currently being observed, may occur. If the blueshifted clouds are in front, then the complexes are moving away from each other and the bulk of their interaction, if any, already has taken place in this region.

Comparison of velocity profiles of properly chosen emission lines, well separated in wavelength but from similarly excited species, could clarify the situation, as velocity components associated with the two complexes should undergo different amounts of extinction. UV and optical lines associated with star formation in these clouds are expected to be essentially totally obscured by dust. With this in mind we have observed the hydrogen infrared recombination lines Pa$`\beta `$ (5-3, 1.282 $`\mu `$m), Br$`\gamma `$ (7-4, 2.166 $`\mu `$m), and Br$`\alpha `$ (5-4, 4.052 $`\mu `$m) from part of the overlap region.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION

The observations were made during UT 2000 28 February–1 March at the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) on Mauna Kea, using the facility cooled grating spectrometer CGS4 (Mountain et al., 1990) equipped with a 256$`\times `$256 InSb array. All three nights were clear with stable, but not exceptional seeing. We selected the 31 l/mm echelle, 300 mm focal length camera optics, and 2-pixel wide (0.8$`\mathrm{}`$) slit, which give CGS4 a velocity range of $``$2,000 km s-1 at any wavelength in the 1–5 $`\mu `$m region at a resolution of $``$16 km s-1 (two pixels). The $``$80$`\mathrm{}`$ long slit was oriented north-south for all observations. Sky measurements were obtained with the telescope nodded 600$`\mathrm{}`$ to the west.

On the first night, we centered the slit on the southern CO peak at J2000 RA = 12:01:55.0, Dec = -18:53:01.5, detecting weak line emission at Pa$`\beta `$ and Br$`\gamma `$, but no emission at Br$`\alpha `$. On the following two nights we positioned the slit 3$`\mathrm{}`$ west of the CO peak, which corresponds to the location of strongest mid-infrared emission as measured by ISO. There we detected all three recombination lines at four spatially distinct locations along the slit (see Fig. 1), which we call Apertures I-IV (in the order of north to south). Details of the locations are provided in Table 1.

The data were wavelength-calibrated to an accuracy of 5 km s-1 using spectra of arc lamps and night sky emission lines and flux-calibrated using the A5V star HR 4405 (V=4.10), assumed to have the visible–infrared colors given in Tokunaga (1999) for such stars. From the point-spread functions along the slit we estimate that at the wavelength of each recombination line 0.60 $`\pm `$ 0.05 of the stellar flux entered the slit on each night. Spectra were summed over $``$10 adjacent rows at each of the four spatially distinct line-emitting regions. Data from the final two nights were combined to yield the spectra shown in Fig. 2. The figure also includes CO spectra obtained by L01 at those locations. The basic results are summarized in Table 2.

## 3 RESULTS

### 3.1 Spatial and Velocity Distributions

Figure 2 shows broad recombination line emission, covering 100–200 km s-1, at each of the four locations along the slit. A faint continuum is detected in some spectra. Ap I and Ap II are located near local maxima of CO emission in the northern part of the interacting region, where Wilson et al. (2000) and L01 have found largely redshifted CO emission. Ap III and Ap IV fall into the southern part of the interacting region where both groups found overlapping red and blue components separated by $``$100 km s-1.

In the two northern apertures the velocities and profiles of the infrared lines generally match those of the CO emission. At Ap I both the atomic and molecular line profiles show peaks near VLSR = 1600 km s-1, close to the velocities of the nuclei (the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database gives radial velocities near 1640 km s-1 for both NGC 4038 and NGC 4039), and a blue asymmetry in the wings, and at Ap II both show a more symmetric line profile peaked near the same velocity. In the south, however, there are distinct differences between the millimeter and infrared velocity profiles. Most of the infrared line emission at Ap III occurs near VLSR = 1400 km s-1, $``$100 km s-1 to the blue of the velocity of CO peak emission and in fact further blueshifted than almost all of the CO. No infrared line emission is present near 1600 km s-1, the peak of the CO redshifted component. At Ap IV the velocities of peak emission are $``$1500 km s-1 for both the infrared and millimeter lines, but little or no redshifted emission, which is seen in CO near VLSR = 1600 km s-1, is detected in any of the infrared lines.

At none of the locations are there more than marginally significant differences between the profiles of the three infrared lines. However, the signal-to-noise ratios are not high, especially for Br$`\alpha `$, so modest differences in profiles cannot be ruled out. In contrast, the differences between the CO and hydrogen profiles are large, especially at the southern positions.

### 3.2 Extinction

The CO measurements of L01 and the infrared line measurements reported here each provide a means for estimating extinction. Using the mean CO to H2 conversion factor determined for our Galaxy (e.g., Rand, Lord, & Higdon 1999; Bryant & Scoville 1999),

$`\text{X}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{N(H}\text{2}\text{)}}{\text{I}_{\text{CO}}}}=2.5\times 10^{20}\text{H}\text{2}\text{cm}\text{-2}\text{(K km s}\text{-1}\text{)}\text{-1}`$
$`=6.2\times 10^{11}\text{H}\text{2}\text{cm}\text{-2}\text{(Jy km s}\text{-1}\text{)}\text{-1},`$
and the gas to dust ratio of Bohlin, Savage, & Drake (1978),

N(H2) $`=`$ $`0.94\times 10^{21}\text{A}\text{V}\text{cm}\text{-2}\text{ mag},`$
we determine that the visual extinctions through the molecular gas at Ap I and Ap II are 18 mag and 15 mag, respectively. Those at Ap III and Ap IV are much larger, AV $``$ 45 mag and AV $``$ 46 mag, respectively. All of these estimates incorporate both interferometric and single dish observations. It is known that in some starburst galaxies the conversion factor is up to three times smaller than in our Galaxy (Smith et al., 1991; Downes & Solomon, 1998), and therefore it is possible that the extinctions are proportionately less in the Antennae overlap region.

To derive the extinctions to the infrared line-emitting regions, we assumed typical H II region conditions (T$`{}_{e}{}^{}=10^4`$ K, n$`{}_{e}{}^{}=10^4`$ cm-3), for which the intrinsic ratios are 0.162, 0.0275, and 0.0777 for Pa$`\beta `$/H$`\beta `$, Br$`\gamma `$/H$`\beta `$, and Br$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ respectively (Hummer & Storey, 1987). We employed the formula obtained by Rieke & Lebofsky (1985) for 0.9–3.4 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$, along with an interpolation of their $`L`$ and $`M`$ band extinctions, obtaining factors of 0.270 at Pa$`\beta `$, 0.115 at Br$`\gamma `$, and 0.042 at Br$`\alpha `$ relative to visual extinction. We used the total integrated line fluxes as described in Table 2; the overall general agreement of the three infrared line profiles at each aperture suggests that at each location the detected lines are attenuated by the same clouds.

The results are tabulated in Table 3. Significantly different values are obtained for different pairs of lines at two of the four locations. At all four locations the smallest value corresponds to the shortest wavelength pair (Pa$`\beta `$/Br$`\gamma `$) and the largest value corresponds to the longest wavelength pair (Br$`\gamma `$/Br$`\alpha `$). This indicates that, rather than a single source of line emission and an obscuring screen, there are distributions of line emission and attenuating clouds along the lines of sight at each location (Puxley, 1991).

## 4 LOCATIONS OF THE CLOUDS

The extinctions derived from the hydrogen recombination lines (Table 3) are low compared to those derived from the CO measurements (Table 1). This is the case even if the extinctions through the molecular clouds are a factor of three less (as discussed in section 3.2) except for the largest value derived for Ap I. The results indicate that most of the the observed recombination line flux in each of the four apertures is emitted near the front surface of the associated cloud complex and, moreover, for Ap III and Ap IV that complex must be the only one that is absorbing and hence the one that is closer to us. Although the velocities and profiles of the infrared lines at Ap III and Ap IV do not closely match those of either molecular cloud, it is much more likely that these blueshifted lines are associated with the blueshifted molecular cloud than the redshifted one. Thus we conclude that blueshifted molecular cloud is in the foreground.

A second approach makes use of the lack of redshifted line emission in the region where the clouds overlap, although redshifted emission is present in the northern region where the blueshifted cloud is absent. The non-detection at Ap III implies either that no redshifted recombination line emission occurs there or that high extinction makes the infrared lines unobservable. For the latter case, if we assume the same ratios of infrared line emission to CO line emission in Ap III as in Ap I or Ap II we obtain rough lower limits for AV to the redshifted cloud. These may be compared to the values of AV obtained from the CO line strength (Table 1) to infer the geometry. We obtain lower limits to AV at redshifted velocities of $``$8, $``$20, and $``$27 mag for Pa$`\beta `$, Br$`\gamma `$, and Br$`\alpha `$, respectively. The most restrictive of these, the Br$`\gamma `$ and Br$`\alpha `$ limits, rule out extinction by the redshifted cloud alone, even if that emission originates entirely behind it. We conclude that both clouds would be required to produce the extinction and, therefore, at Ap III we again infer that the blueshifted cloud complex is in front of the redshifted complex. The above argument could be incorrect if the recombination line emission from the red-component in Ap III is intrinsically weak. At Ap IV it is more difficult than at Ap III to clearly separate the two cloud complexes based on the CO velocity profile, so this test is more problematic than for Ap III, although it tends to suggest the same conclusion.

The significant blueshift of the infrared lines at Ap III relative to the blueshifted molecular component is apparent even at the highest resolution ($``$2$`\mathrm{}`$) CO measurements of L01. This nearly complete lack of overlap in velocities is somewhat surprising. We propose two possible explanations. 1. The ionized gas lies close to the front surface of the blueshifted molecular cloud complex and is largely accelerated outward and toward the observer. 2. The stars with which the ionized gas is associated have a different velocity distribution than the molecular cloud.

Several possibilities exist to test the correctness of our conclusions about the relative positions of the molecular cloud complexes along the line of sight. Measurements of the CO lines at higher angular resolution would better match the spatial resolution of the infrared measurements. Alternatively, spectral mapping of the infrared lines would allow a better comparison with the present CO observations. Searches for redshifted radio recombination line emission could determine if any ionized gas, undetected at infrared wavelengths, is associated with the redshifted molecular gas.

## 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

We have obtained velocity-resolved spectra of three infrared hydrogen recombination lines, covering a wide range of wavelengths, in the interaction region of the Antennae galaxies, where millimeter CO observations have revealed two distinct clouds of gas with widely different radial velocities. Using an empirical extinction formula, standard recombination line ratios, and the standard gas-to-dust conversion factor, we infer that the two molecular clouds currently are moving away from each other. This is contrary to the conventional expectation of cloud collisions leading to starburst activities (e.g. Wilson et al. (2000)).

The age of the starburst in the interacting region has been estimated to be 3–4 Myrs (Hummel & van der Hulst, 1986; Neff & Ulvestad, 2000). If this starburst were due to cloud collisions, then at present the clouds can only be separated (along the line of sight) by 100 km s-1 times a few Myrs, or $``$300 pc. The cloud complexes are about one kpc in extent in the plane of the sky. If they are roughly spherical they would still be physically overlapped in the radial direction. Yet we observe two well-defined components moving apart at 100 km s-1. How this physical arrangement of the molecular clouds might have occurred is not clear. There is no easy way to determine the radial separation, if any, of the two molecular cloud complexes, although in principle, one could model the interaction of the gas in Arp 244 in sufficient detail to see if this physical situation is plausible. The morphology of the molecular cloud complexes (Fig. 1) does not suggest physical proximity.

If the starbursts currently observed are not due to direct cloud collisions, the physical mechanisms initiating them require further investigation. Current observational evidence of molecular gas in starburst regions points to two characteristic parameters: high column density (Downes & Solomon, 1998; Bryant & Scoville, 1999) and high density (Solomon, Downes, & Radford, 1992; Downes & Solomon, 1998). If high column density and high density (both of which are naturally expected in the process of gravitational collapse) are causal factors for starbursts, then the issue reduces to identifying the mechanisms during galaxy interaction that lead to the concentration of a large amount of molecular gas in regions such as the interacting region in Arp 244.

We thank the staff of UKIRT for technical support. UKIRT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the U.K. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. This work is supported by the National Science Council and the Academia Sinica in Taipei. We thank the staff of ASIAA for helpful discussions and suggestions. This work also constitutes part of the Master’s degree thesis of M. C. Liang at the National Tsing Hua University.


format: text

text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

Multidimensional gravitational models (see, e.g., \[1–5\] and references therein) are rather popular at present. There exist two main approaches within the multidimensional paradigm: (i) extra dimensions are considered as real space-time dimensions; (ii) extra dimensions are considered as some imaginary (e.g. mirror, or virtual) reality, as a mathematical tool for generating the 4-metric and extra (dilatonic) scalar fields. In the second approach the 4-dimensional metric is a “real physical object” that should be extracted in some way from the multidimensional one.

In both cases we deal with exact solutions to multidimensional field equations with 4-dimensional sections which may describe some astrophysical objects (e.g. the Sun, neutron stars, etc.) and the motion of test bodies (e.g. Mercury). The 4-metric is usually considered to be a small “deformation” of the original Schwarzschild one and is governed by some parameters related to the post-Newtonian (PN) ones (for definition see Sec. 2). Applying the classical tests of general relativity: gravitational redshift, light deflection, perihelion advance and time delay, (see ) along with the geodetic precession test, we can find the restrictions on the PN parameters.

In  the PN parameters and classical tests were considered (in the framework of the approach (ii)) for a metric generalizing the Schwarzschild solution to the case of several Ricci-flat internal spaces. Later on, Kramer’s more special 5-dimensional solution (also known as the Gross-Perry-Sorkin-Davidson-Owen one) was considered in \[9–11\] for the approach (i) and the classical tests (e.g. perihelion advance and geodetic precession) were generalized to situations in which the components of momentum and spin along the extra coordinate do not vanish.

In this paper we deal with 4-dimensional sections of mutidimensional spherically symmetric and black hole solutions with generalized $`p`$-branes charged by fields of forms. In Sec. 2 black hole $`p`$-brane solutions for general intersection rules are considered and the PN parameters are calculated. In Sec. 3 more general spherically symmetric solutions are considered, but for more special “block-orthogonal” intersection rules, and explicit relations for PN parameters are obtained. In both sections the bounds on the solution gravitation parameter following ¿from observational restrictions in the Solar system are considered.

## 2. Black hole p-brane solutions

### 2.1. Solutions

We consider a model governed by the action

$`S={\displaystyle }d^Dx\sqrt{|g|}\{R[g]h_{\alpha \beta }g^{MN}_M\phi ^\alpha _N\phi ^\beta `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a\mathrm{\Delta }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _a}{n_a!}}\mathrm{exp}[2\lambda _a(\phi )](F^a)^2\}`$ (2.1)
where $`g=g_{MN}(x)dx^Mdx^N`$ is a D-dimensional metric, $`\phi =(\phi ^\alpha )^l`$ is a vector of scalar (dilatonic) fields, $`(h_{\alpha \beta })`$ is constant symmetric non-degenerate $`l\times l`$ matrix $`(l)`$, $`\theta _a=\pm 1`$, $`F^a=dA^a=\frac{1}{n_a!}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_{n_a}}^adz^{M_1}\mathrm{}dz^{M_{n_a}}`$ is an $`n_a`$-form ($`n_a1`$), $`\lambda _a`$ is a 1-form on $`^l`$: $`\lambda _a(\phi )=\lambda _{\alpha a}\phi ^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},l`$; we denote $`|g|=|det(g_{MN})|`$ and $`(F^a)_g^2=F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_{n_a}}^aF_{N_1\mathrm{}N_{n_a}}^ag^{M_1N_1}\mathrm{}g^{M_{n_a}N_{n_a}}`$, $`a\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is some finite set.

Let us consider a family of black-hole solutions to the field equations corresponding to the action (2.1.). These solutions are defined on the manifold

$`M=(R_0,+\mathrm{})\times (M_1=S^{d_1})\times (M_2=)\times \mathrm{}\times M_n,`$
and have the following form:

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2h_sd(I_s)/(D2)}\right)\{F^1dRdR`$ (2.3)
$`+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d_1}^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2h_s}\right)Fdtdt`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2h_s\delta _{iI_s}}\right)g^i\},`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{\phi ^\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{h_s\chi _s\lambda _{a_s}^\alpha },`$ (2.4)
$`F^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\delta _{a_s}^a^s,`$ (2.5)
where

$`^s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_s}{R^{d_1}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{s^{}S}{}}H_s^{}^{A_{ss^{}}}\right)dR\tau (I_s),sS_e,`$ (2.6)
$`^s`$ $`=`$ $`Q_s\tau (\overline{I}_s),sS_m.`$ (2.7)
Here $`Q_s0`$ ($`sS`$) are charges, $`R_0>0`$, $`R_0^{\overline{d}}=2\mu >0`$, $`\overline{d}=d_11`$, $`F=12\mu /R^{\overline{d}}`$.

In (2.3), $`g^i=g_{m_in_i}^i(y^i)`$ is a Ricci-flat metric on $`M_i`$, $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$, and

$$\delta _{iI}=\underset{jI}{}\delta _{ij}$$
(2.8)
is the indicator of $`i`$ belonging to $`I`$: $`\delta _{iI}=1`$ for $`iI`$ and $`\delta _{iI}=0`$ otherwise. We note that here all $`p`$-branes do not “live” in $`M_1`$.

The $`p`$-brane set $`S`$ is by definition

$$S=S_eS_m,S_v=_{a\mathrm{\Delta }}\{a\}\times \{v\}\times \mathrm{\Omega }_{a,v},$$
(2.9)
$`v=e,m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,e},\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,m}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ is the set of all non-empty subsets of $`\{2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Thus, any $`sS`$ has the form $`s=(a_s,v_s,I_s)`$, where $`a_s\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`v_s=e,m`$ and $`I_s\mathrm{\Omega }_{a_s,v_s}`$. The sets $`S_e`$ and $`S_m`$ define electric and magnetic $`p`$-branes, respectively. In (2.4) $`\chi _s=+1,1`$ for $`sS_e,S_m`$ respectively.

All the manifolds $`M_i`$, $`i>1`$ are assumed to be oriented and connected and the volume $`d_i`$-forms

$$\tau _i\sqrt{|g^i(y_i)|}dy_i^1\mathrm{}dy_i^{d_i},$$
(2.10)
are well defined for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Here $`d_i=dimM_i`$, $`M_1=S^{d_1}`$, $`d_1>1`$; $`D=1+_{i=1}^nd_i`$, and for any $`I=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`i_1<\mathrm{}<i_k`$, we denote

$`\tau (I)\tau _{i_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{i_k},d(I){\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}d_i.`$ (2.11)
In (2.7) $`\overline{I}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}I`$.

The parameters $`h_s`$ appearing in the solution satisfy the relations

$$h_s=K_s^1,K_s=B_{ss},$$
(2.12)
where

$`B_{ss^{}}d(I_sI_s^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)d(I_s^{})}{2D}}+\chi _s\chi _s^{}\lambda _{\alpha a_s}\lambda _{\beta a_s^{}}h^{\alpha \beta },`$
$`s,s^{}S`$, with $`(h^{\alpha \beta })=(h_{\alpha \beta })^1`$. Here we assume that

$$(𝐢)B_{ss}0,$$
(2.14)
for all $`sS`$, and

$$(\mathrm{𝐢𝐢})\mathrm{det}(B_{ss^{}})0,$$
(2.15)
i.e., the matrix $`(B_{ss^{}})`$ is non-degenerate. Let

$$(A_{ss^{}})=\left(2B_{ss^{}}/B_{s^{}s^{}}\right).$$
(2.16)
Here some ordering in $`S`$ is assumed.

The functions $`H_s=H_s(z)>0`$, $`z=2\mu /R^{\overline{d}}(0,1)`$ obey the equations

$$\frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{(1z)}{H_s}\frac{d}{dz}H_s\right)=B_s\underset{s^{}S}{}H_s^{}^{A_{ss^{}}},$$
(2.17)
equipped with the boundary conditions

$`H_s(10)=H_{s0}(0,+\mathrm{}),`$ (2.18)
$`H_s(+0)=1,`$ (2.19)
$`B_s=K_s\epsilon _sQ_s^2/(2\mu )^2,`$ (2.20)
$`sS`$. Here

$$\epsilon _s=(\epsilon [g])^{(1\chi _s)/2}\epsilon (I_s)\theta _{a_s},$$
(2.21)
$`sS`$, $`\epsilon [g]signdet(g_{MN})`$. More explicitly, (2.21) reads: $`\epsilon _s=\epsilon (I_s)\theta _{a_s}`$ for $`v_s=e`$ and $`\epsilon _s=\epsilon [g]\epsilon (I_s)\theta _{a_s}`$, for $`v_s=m`$.

Eqs. (2.17) are equivalent to special Toda-type equations. The first boundary condition (2.18) guarantees the existence of a horizon at $`R^{\overline{d}}=2\mu `$ for the metric (2.3). The second condition (2.19) ensures the asymptotic (at $`R+\mathrm{}`$) flatness of the $`(2+d_1)`$-section of the metric.

Due to (2.6) and (2.7), the $`p`$-brane worldsheet dimension $`d(I_s)`$ is defined by

$$d(I_s)=n_{a_s}1,d(I_s)=Dn_{a_s}1,$$
(2.22)
for $`sS_e,S_m`$ respectively. For a $`p`$-brane: $`p=p_s=d(I_s)1`$.

The solutions are valid if the following restrictions on the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,v}`$ are imposed. (These restrictions guarantees the block-diagonal structure of the stress-energy tensor, as for the metric, and the existence of a $`\sigma `$-model representation ). We denote $`w_1\{i|i\{1,\mathrm{},n\},d_i=1\}`$, and $`n_1=|w_1|`$ (i.e. $`n_1`$ is the number of 1-dimensional spaces among $`M_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$).

Restriction . Let 1a) $`n_11`$ or 1b) $`n_12`$ and for any $`a\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`v\{e,m\}`$, $`i,jw_1`$, $`i<j`$, there are no $`I,J\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,v}`$ such that $`iI`$, $`jJ`$ and $`I\{i\}=J\{j\}`$.

This restriction is satisfied in the non-composite case: $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,v}|=1`$, (i.e. when there is only one $`p`$-brane for each value of the colour index $`a`$, $`a\mathrm{\Delta }`$); The restriction forbids certain intersections of two $`p`$-branes with the same colour index for $`n_12`$.

The Hawking “temperature” corresponding to the solution is found to be

$$T_H=\frac{\overline{d}}{4\pi (2\mu )^{1/\overline{d}}}\underset{sS}{}H_{s0}^{h_s},$$
(2.23)
where $`H_{s0}`$ are defined in (2.18)

“Block-orthogonal” black holes . Let

$$S=S_1\mathrm{}S_k,$$
(2.24)
$`S_i\mathrm{}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, and

$$(\mathrm{𝐢𝐢𝐢})(U^s,U^s^{})=0$$
(2.25)
for all $`sS_i`$, $`s^{}S_j`$, $`ij`$; $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},k`$. In  “block-orthogonal” solutions were obtained:

$$H_s(z)=(1+\overline{P}_sz)^{b_0^s},$$
(2.26)
$`sS`$, where

$$b_0^s=2\underset{s^{}S}{}A^{ss^{}},$$
(2.27)
($`(A^{ss^{}})=(A_{ss^{}})^1`$) and $`\overline{P}_s=\overline{P}_s^{}`$, $`s,s^{}S_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$.

Let $`(A_{ss^{}})`$ be a Cartan matrix for a finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. In this case all powers in (2.26) are positive integers :

$$b_0^s=n_s,$$
(2.28)
and hence all functions $`H_s`$ are polynomials, $`sS`$.

Conjecture. Let $`(A_{ss^{}})`$ be a Cartan matrix for a semisimple finite-dimensional Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. Then the solutions of Eqs. (2.17)–(2.19) are polynomials

$$H_s(z)=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_s}{}}P_s^{(k)}z^k,$$
(2.29)
where $`P_s^{(k)}`$ are constants, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n_s`$, $`P_s^{(n_s)}0`$, $`sS`$ .

In  this Conjecture was verified for simple Lie algebras $`A_m=sl(m+1,)`$, $`m1`$. In extremal case ($`\mu =+0`$) an a analogue of this conjecture was suggested previously in .

### 2.2. Post-Newtonian approximation

Let $`d_1=2`$. Here we consider the 4-dimensional section of the metric (2.3), namely,

$`g^{(4)}=U\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{dRdR}{12\mu /R}}+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2U_1(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{R}})dtdt\right\}`$
in the range $`R>2\mu `$, where

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2d(I_s)h_s/(D2)},`$ (2.31)
$`U_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2h_s}.`$ (2.32)
Let us imagine that some real astrophysical objects (e.g. stars) may be described (or approximated) by the 4-dimensional physical metric (2.2.), i.e. they are traces of extended multidimensional objects (charged $`p`$-brane black holes).

In the post-Newtonian approximation we restrict ourselves to the first two powers of $`1/R`$, i. e.

$$H_s=1+\frac{P_s}{R}+\frac{P_s^{(2)}}{R^2}+o(\frac{1}{R^3}),$$
(2.33)
for $`R+\mathrm{}`$, $`sS`$.

Introducing a new radial variable $`\rho `$ by the relation

$$R=\rho \left(1+\frac{\mu }{2\rho }\right)^2,$$
(2.34)
($`\rho >\mu /2`$), we may rewrite the metric (2.2.) in a 3-dimensional conformally flat form and calculate the post-Newtonian parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ (Eddington parameters) using the following standard relations:

$`g_{00}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`(12V+2\beta V^2)+O(V^3),`$ (2.35)
$`g_{ij}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}(1+2\gamma V)+O(V^2),`$ (2.36)
$`i,j=1,2,3`$, where $`V=GM/\rho `$ is Newton’s potential, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant and $`M`$ is the gravitational mass. From (2.35)-(2.36) we deduce the formulae

$$GM=\mu +\underset{sS}{}h_sP_s\left(1\frac{d(I_s)}{D2}\right)$$
(2.37)
and

$`\beta 1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(GM)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}h_s(P_s^2+2\mu P_s`$ (2.38)
$`2P_s^{(2)})(1{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)}{D2}}),`$
$`\gamma 1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{GM}}{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}h_sP_s\left(12{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)}{D2}}\right).`$ (2.39)
For special “block-orthogonal” solutions this relation coincides with that of . For a more general spherically symmetric case it was obtained in  (see next section).

The parameter $`\beta `$ is determined by the squared charges $`Q_s^2`$ of the $`p`$-branes (or, more correctly, by the charge densities) and the signature parameters $`\epsilon _s`$.

Now, we will show that in the general case, as in , the following theorem is valid:

Theorem. The parameter $`\beta `$ does not depend on the dimensions of $`p`$-brane intersections.

Proof. ¿From (2.17) we get in the zero order of a $`z`$-decomposition:

$`P_s^2+2\mu P_s2P_s^{(2)}=K_s\epsilon _sQ_s^2,`$ (2.40)
$`sS`$. Hence,

$`\beta 1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(GM)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}(\epsilon _s)Q_s^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)}{D2}}\right).`$ (2.41)
Thus $`\beta `$ depends on $`Q_s/GM`$, i.e., on the ratios of the charges and the mass. It does not depend on the intersections. The theorem is proved.

The parameter $`\beta `$ is obtained without knowledge of the general solution for $`H_s`$ and does not depend on the quasi-Cartan matrix and hence on $`p`$-brane intersections. The parameter $`\gamma `$ depends on the ratios $`P_s/GM`$, where $`P_s`$ are functions of $`GM`$, $`Q_s`$ and also $`A=(A_{ss^{}})`$. Thus it depends on the intersections. The calculation of $`\gamma `$ needs an exact solution for the radial functions $`H_s`$.

For the most physically interesting $`p`$-brane solutions, $`\epsilon _s=1`$ and $`d(I_s)<D2`$ for all $`sS`$, whichimplies

$$\beta >1.$$
(2.42)
Using the relations (2.39) and (2.41), we can obtain bounds on $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ which may be compared with the experimental data.

Observational restrictions. The observations in the Solar system give tight constraints on the Eddington parameters :

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`1.000\pm 0.002`$ (2.43)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`0.9998\pm 0.0006.`$ (2.44)
The first restriction is a result of the Viking time-delay experiment . The second one follows from (2.43) and the analysis of the lunar laser ranging data. In this case a high precision test based on the calculation of the combination $`(4\beta \gamma 3)`$, appearing in the Nordtvedt effect , is used .

For small enough $`p_s=P_s/GM`$ and $`P_s^{(2)}P_s^2`$ we get $`GM\mu `$ and hence

$`\beta 1`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}h_sp_s\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)}{D2}}\right),`$ (2.45)
$`\gamma 1`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}h_sp_s\left(12{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)}{D2}}\right),`$ (2.46)
i.e., $`\beta 1`$ and $`\gamma 1`$ are of the same order. Thus, for small enough $`p_s`$, it is possible to fit the Solar-system restrictions (2.43) and (2.44).

## 3. Spherically symmetric solutions in the block-orthogonal case

### 3.1. Solutions

Here we consider the spherically symmetric solutions in the block-orthogonal case (2.24)–(2.25).

The solutions for the metric and scalar fields may be written as follows:

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\overline{H}_s^{2\eta _sd(I_s)\nu _s^2/(D2)}\right)\{F^{b^11}dRdR`$ (3.1)
$`+R^2F^{b^1}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d_1}^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\overline{H}_s^{2\eta _s\nu _s^2}\right)F^{b^1}dtdt`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\overline{H}_s^{2\eta _s\nu _s^2\delta _{iI_s}}\right)F^{b^i}g^i\},`$
$`\phi ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\eta _s\nu _s^2\chi _s\lambda _{a_s}^\alpha \mathrm{ln}\overline{H}_s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b^\alpha \mathrm{ln}F,`$ (3.2)
where $`F=12\mu /R^{\overline{d}}`$,

$`\overline{H}_s`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_sF^{(1b_s)/2},`$ (3.3)
$`\widehat{H}_s`$ $`=`$ $`1+\widehat{P}_s{\displaystyle \frac{(1F^{b_s})}{2\mu b_s}},`$ (3.4)
$`sS`$. Here

$$\underset{s^{}S}{}(U^s,U^s^{})\eta _s^{}\nu _s^{}^2=1$$
(3.5)
for all $`sS`$. The parameters $`b_s`$ and $`\widehat{P}_s`$ coincide within the blocks:

$$b_s=b_s^{},\widehat{P}_s=\widehat{P}_s^{},$$
(3.6)
$`s,s^{}S_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. The parameters $`b_s,b^i,b^\alpha `$ obey the relations

$`U^1(b)`$ $`=`$ $`b^1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_jb^j=1,`$ (3.7)
$`U^s(b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{iI_s}{}}d_ib^i\chi _s\lambda _{a_s\alpha }b^\alpha =1,`$ (3.8)
$`sS`$, and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\eta _s\nu _s^2(b_s^21)+h_{\alpha \beta }b^\alpha b^\beta +{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}}d_i(b^i)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_11}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}}d_ib^i\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{d_1}{d_11}}.`$ (3.9)
The fields of forms in (2.5) are given by the relations

$`^s`$ $`=`$ $`d\mathrm{\Phi }^s\tau (I_s),`$ (3.10)
$`^s`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[2\lambda _{a_s}(\phi )]\left(d\mathrm{\Phi }^s\tau (I_s)\right),`$ (3.11)
where $`=[g]`$ is the Hodge operator and

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^s`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _s/H_s^{},`$ (3.12)
$`H_s^{^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1P_s^{^{}}\widehat{H}_s^1{\displaystyle \frac{(1F^{b_s})}{2\mu b_s}}\right]^1,`$ (3.13)
$`sS`$. Here

$$(P_s^{^{}})^2=\epsilon _s\eta _s\widehat{P}_s(\widehat{P}_s+2b_s\mu ),$$
(3.14)
$`sS`$.

### 3.2. Post-Newtonian parameters

Let $`d_1=2`$. Consider the 4-dimensional section of the metric (3.1)

$`g^{(4)}=U\left\{F^{b^11}dRdR+F^{b^1}R^2d\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2^2U_2F^{b^2}dtdt\right\}`$
where $`F=12\mu /R`$ and

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\overline{H}_s^{2\eta _sd(I_s)\nu _s^2/(D2)},`$ (3.16)
$`U_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\overline{H}_s^{2\eta _s\nu _s^2},`$ (3.17)
$`R>2\mu `$.

Introducing the radial variable $`\rho `$ by the relation (2.34), we rewrite the metric (3.2.) in a 3-dimensional conformally-flat form:

$`g^{(4)}=U\{U_2F^{b^2}dtdt`$
$`+F^{b^1}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2\rho }})^4\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j\},`$ (3.18)
$`F=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2\rho }}\right)^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2\rho }}\right)^2,`$ (3.19)
where $`\rho ^2=|x|^2=\delta _{ij}x^ix^j`$ ($`i,j=1,2,3`$).

From (3.2.)–(3.19) and (2.35)–(2.36) we get for the gravitational mass:

$`GM=\mu b^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\eta _s\nu _s^2[\widehat{P}_s+(b_s1)\mu ]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)}{D2}}\right)`$ (3.20)
and, for $`GM0`$,

$`\beta 1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(GM)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\eta _s\nu _s^2\widehat{P}_s(\widehat{P}_s+2b_s\mu )\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)}{D2}}\right),`$
(3.21)
$`\gamma 1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{GM}}[\mu (b^1+b^21)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\eta _s\nu _s^2[\widehat{P}_s+(b_s1)\mu ](12{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)}{D2}})].`$ (3.22)
As follows from (3.14), (3.2.) and the inequalities $`d(I_s)<D2`$ (for all $`sS`$),

$`\beta >1\mathrm{if}\mathrm{all}\epsilon _s=1,`$ (3.23)
$`\beta <1\mathrm{if}\mathrm{all}\epsilon _s=+1.`$ (3.24)
There exists a large variety of configurations with $`\beta =1`$ when the relation $`\epsilon _s=\mathrm{const}`$ is broken.

There also exist non-trivial $`p`$-brane configurations with $`\gamma =1`$.

Proposition. Let the set of $`p`$-branes consist of several pairs of electric and magnetic branes. Let any such pair $`(s,\overline{s}S)`$ correspond to the same colour index, i.e. $`a_s=a_{\overline{s}}`$, and $`\widehat{P}_s=\widehat{P}_{\overline{s}}`$, $`b_s=b_{\overline{s}}`$, $`\eta _s\nu _s^2=\eta _{\overline{s}}\nu _{\overline{s}}^2`$. Then for $`b^1+b^2=1`$ we get

$$\gamma =1.$$
(3.25)
The Proposition can be readily proved using the relation $`d(I_s)+d(I_{\overline{s}})=D2`$, following from (2.22).

For small enough $`\widehat{p}_s=\widehat{P}_s/GM`$, $`b_s1`$, $`b^21`$, $`b^i`$ ($`i>2`$) of the same order we get $`GM\mu `$ and hence

$`\beta 1{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\eta _s\nu _s^2\widehat{p}_s\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)}{D2}}\right)`$ (3.26)
$`\gamma 1b^1b^2+1`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\eta _s\nu _s^2[\widehat{p}_s+(b_s1)]\left(12{\displaystyle \frac{d(I_s)}{D2}}\right),`$ (3.27)
i.e., $`\beta 1`$ and $`\gamma 1`$ are of the same order. Thus for small enough $`\widehat{p}_s`$, $`b_s1`$, $`b^21`$, $`b^i`$ ($`i>2`$) it is possible to fit the Solar-system restrictions (2.43) and (2.44).

There also exists another opportunity to satisfy these restrictions.

One-brane case. Consider the special case of a single $`p`$-brane. In this case we have

$$\eta _s\nu _s^2=d(I_s)\left(1\frac{d(I_s)}{D2}\right)+\lambda ^2.$$
(3.28)
The relations (3.2.), (3.2.) and (3.28) imply that for large enough values of the dilatonic coupling constant squared $`\lambda ^2`$ and $`b^1+b^2=1`$ it is possible to “fine-tune” the parameters $`(\beta ,\gamma )`$ near the point (1, 1) even if the parameters $`\widehat{P}_s`$ are large.

## 4. Conclusions

We have considered a family of black-hole solutions from  with intersecting $`p`$-branes with next to arbitrary intersection rules. The metric of the solutions contains $`n1`$ Ricci-flat “internal” space metrics. The solutions are defined up to a set of functions $`H_s`$ obeying a set of equations with certain boundary conditions. In  a conjecture on the polynomial structure of $`H_s`$ for intersections related to semisimple Lie algebras was suggested and proved for the $`A_m`$ series. Here we have presented the post-Newtonian parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ corresponding to the 4-dimensional section of the metric. The parameter $`\beta `$ is written in terms of ratios of the physical parameters: the charges $`Q_s`$ and the mass $`M`$. Thus $`\beta `$ does not depend on $`p`$-brane intersections. Unlike that, the parameter $`\gamma `$ is intersection-dependent, and its calculation requires an exact solution for the radial functions $`H_s`$. We have considered the post-Newtonian parameters for spherically symmetric solutions in the block-orthogonal case and singled out the “corridors” for the $`b`$-parameters which follow ¿from the Solar-system observational restrictions.

### Acknowledgement

This work was supported in part by the Russian Ministry of Science and Technology, Russian Basic Research Foundation (Grant No. 98-02-16414), Project SEE and CONACYT, Mexico.


text:
# DISCRETIZATION AND MOYAL BRACKETS

## 1. INTRODUCTION

We are pursuing further some of the directions spelled out in  relating Moyal-Weyl-Wigner theory, Hirota formulas, integrable systems, and discretization, with additional connections involving quantum groups (cf. ). In this note we indicate an apparently new q-Moyal type bracket formula arising in this context. In particular we follow here frameworks from  for deformation quantization and integrable systems and refer to  and references cited there for q-analysis and quantum groups. One objective will be to examine various formulas arising in the deformation of integrable systems and see if there are quantum group versions. Further we are looking for q-analysis versions of deformation quantization formulas in order to compare q-calculus and quantum group theory with deformation quantization. Thus for background one recalls for wave functions $`\psi `$ there are Wigner functions (WF) given via

(1.1)
$$f(x,p)=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑y\psi ^{}\left(x\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}y\right)exp(iyp)\psi \left(x+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}y\right)$$

Then defining $`fg`$ via

(1.2)
$$fg=fexp[\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}(\stackrel{}{}_x\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_x]g;$$

$$f(x,p)g(x,p)=f(x+\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\stackrel{}{}_p,p\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\stackrel{}{}_x)g(x,p)$$

time dependence of WF’s is given by ($`H`$ Hamiltonian)

(1.3)
$$_tf(x,p,t)=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}(Hf(x,p,t)f(x,p,t)H)=\{H,f\}_M$$

where $`\{f,g\}_M`$ Moyal bracket. As $`\mathrm{}0`$ this reduces to $`_tf\{H,f\}=0`$ (standard Poisson bracket). One can generalize and write out (1.2) in various ways. For example replacing $`i\mathrm{}/2`$ by $`\kappa `$ one obtains as in

(1.4)
$$fg=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\kappa ^s}{s!}\underset{j=0}{\overset{s}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{j}\right)(_x^j_p^{sj}f)(_x^{sj}_p^jg)$$

leading to ($`\{f,g\}_\kappa =(fggf)/2\kappa `$)

(1.5)
$$\{f,g\}_\kappa =\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\kappa ^{2s}}{(2s+1)!}\underset{j=0}{\overset{2s+1}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2s+1}{j}\right)(_x^j_p^{2s+1j}f)(_x^{2s+1j}_p^jg)$$

(cf. also ) which will also be utilized in the form

(1.6)
$$fg=fe^{\kappa (\stackrel{}{}_x\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_x)}g=e^{[\kappa (_{x_1}_{p_2}_{x_2}_{p_1})]}f(x_1,p_1)g(x_2,p_2)|_{(x,p)}=$$

$$=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^r\kappa ^{r+s}}{r!s!}\frac{^{r+s}f}{x^rp^s}\frac{^{r+s}g}{p^rx^s}=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\kappa ^n(1)^{ns}}{s!(ns)!}\left(_x^{ns}_p^sf\right)\left(_x^s_p^{ns}g\right)=$$

$$=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\kappa ^n}{n!}\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^r\left(_x^r_p^{nr}f\right)\left(_x^{nr}_p^rg\right)$$

(note there are typos on p. 169 in ) and e.g. one has

(1.7)
$$gf=g(x+\kappa _p,p\kappa _x)f=f(x\kappa _p,p+\delta _x)g$$

The Moyal bracket can then be defined via

(1.8)
$$\{f,g\}_M=\frac{1}{\kappa }\{fSin[\kappa (\stackrel{}{}_x\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_p\stackrel{}{}_x)]g\}=\frac{1}{2\kappa }(fggf)=$$

$$=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^s\kappa ^{2s}}{(2s+1)!}\underset{0}{\overset{2s+1}{}}(1)^j\left(\begin{array}{c}2s+1\\ j\end{array}\right)[_x^j_p^{2s+1j}f][_x^{2s+1j}_p^jg]$$

corresponding to $`\kappa i\kappa `$ in (1.5).
We emphasize also that many formulas in classical integrable systems already have a quantum mechanical (QM) flavor. for example in  one shows how there is a Moyal deformation $`(KP)_M`$ of dKP which for a particular value of $`\kappa `$ ($`\kappa =1/2`$ in ) creates an equivalence $`(KP)_M(KP)_{Sato}`$. Actually QM features in integrable sysems seem inevitable because of Lax operator formulations and the combinatorics inherent in Hirota equations and tau functions; also early work by the Kyoto school provided many connections between KP and quantum field theory (QFT) (cf. ). Such connections have since proliferated in topological field theory (TFT), Seiberg-Witten (SW) theory, etc. where e.g. effective actions can correspond to tau functions of integrable sysems and, somewhat paradoxically, effective slow dynamics or Whitham dynamics (obtained by averaging out fast fluctuations of angle variables) seems to correspond to a quantization (cf. , Chapter 5 or  for discussion). On the other hand the so called quantum inverse scattering method involving spin chains etc. for quantum integrable systems (cf. ), has a definite quantum group nature where the R-matrix provides quasitriangularity. The connection between R and r matrices leads one back to classical dynamics but the theories for two types of integrable systems (classical and quantum) have developed along different paths. It seems that various discretizations involving classical integrable systems (surveyed in ) should have a q-analysis foundation and thus there may be other forms of connecting glue between classical and quantum integrable systems via discretization. Indeed one almost seems to expect a discrete formulation to automatically have quantum features.

## 2. DISCRETIZATION AND MOYAL

In  we expounded as some length on a series of papers by Kemmoku, S. Saito, and collaborators (cf.  for references) and we now want to organize some of this in a better manner and develop matters somewhat further. Thus we sketch first some fundamental ideas. One defines

(2.1)
$$=\frac{e^\lambda e^\lambda }{2\lambda }=\frac{1}{\lambda }sinh(\lambda );_𝐚=\frac{1}{\lambda }sinh\left(\lambda a_i_i\right)$$

where $`a_i/_i`$ and $`_x`$. Evidently $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏})f(x)=(1/2\lambda )[f(x+\lambda )f(x\lambda )]`$ and $`_𝐚f(𝐱)=(1/2\lambda )[f(𝐱+𝐚)f(𝐱𝐚)]`$ (note that $`_𝐚`$ is not a vector). Set then (the $`a_i`$ correspond to unspecified local coordinates $`x_i`$ generating a lattice with vectors $`𝐚`$ in say $`𝐑^N`$ where $`N\mathrm{}`$ would require some convergence stipulations)

(2.2)
$$X^D=𝑑𝐚v_\lambda (𝐱,𝐚)_𝐚;𝑑𝐚da_i$$

Next a difference one form is defined via $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐})\mathrm{\Omega }_D=𝑑𝐚w_\lambda (𝐱,𝐚)\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚`$ where $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐛,_𝐚>=\delta (𝐛𝐚)`$ and ($`\stackrel{}{a}𝐚`$)

(2.3)
$$<\mathrm{\Omega }^D,X^D>=𝑑\stackrel{}{a}𝑑\stackrel{}{b}<w_\lambda (\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{b})\mathrm{\Delta }^\stackrel{}{b},v_\lambda (\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{a})_\stackrel{}{a}>=𝑑\stackrel{}{a}w_\lambda (\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{a})v_\lambda (\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{a})$$

Note also $`\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚`$ can be realized via ($`<\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚,_𝐛>=\delta (𝐚𝐛)`$)

(2.4)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚=\lambda csch[\lambda (\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{})]=\frac{2\lambda }{e^{\lambda \stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{}}e^{\lambda \stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{}}}=2\lambda \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\lambda (2n+1)\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{}}$$

In this connection we recall the $`q^2`$ difference operator $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑})_{q^2}f(x)=[f(q^2x)f(x)]/[(q^21)x]`$ with “dual” a Jackson integral $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟒})_0^yd_{q^2}xf(x)=y(1q^2)_0^{\mathrm{}}f(yq^{2n})q^{2n}`$. According to  there should be an unspecified q-analysis version of (2.4) related to pseudodifferential operators. We can develop an interesting q-analysis counterpart to (2.4) as follows. Note first that for $`y=x+\lambda `$ one can write $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟓})(1/2\lambda )[f(x+\lambda )f(x\lambda )]=[f(y+2\lambda )f(y)]/2\lambda `$ and for $`q^2y=y+2\lambda `$ one has $`2\lambda =(q^21)y`$. Then consider $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟔})\stackrel{~}{}=[exp(2\lambda )1]/2\lambda `$ with

(2.5)
$$\stackrel{~}{}f(y)=\frac{f(y+2\lambda )f(y)}{2\lambda }=\frac{f(q^2y)f(y)}{(q^21)y}=\stackrel{~}{}_{q^2}f(y)$$

$$\stackrel{~}{}_qf(z)=\frac{f(qz)f(q^1z)}{9qq^1z}(qy=z)$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{}_{q^2}`$ involves now a variable $`q=q(y)`$ if $`\lambda `$ is to be regarded as constant (alternatively one could regard $`\lambda `$ as variable in $`y`$ and $`q`$ as constant or dispense with $`\lambda `$ altogether). For $`\lambda `$ constant (2.4) would become formally a $`y`$ dependent inverse (note $`(q^21)ny=2n\lambda `$)

(2.6)
$$\stackrel{~}{}^1=2\lambda (1e^{2\lambda })^1=2\lambda \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2n\lambda }=(1q^2)y\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{(q^21)ny}$$

leading to

(2.7)
$$2\lambda (1e^{2\lambda })^1g(y)=G(y)=2\lambda \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g(y+2n\lambda )=$$

$$=(1q^2)y\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g(y+(q^21)ny)$$

Evidently $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟕})\stackrel{~}{}G(y)=g(y)`$ so we can state (note a constant of integration in (2.7) would vanish for $`_0^ygG(y)`$)

###### PROPOSITION 2.1.

If we regard $`q`$ as $`y`$ dependent via $`2\lambda =(q^21)y`$ with $`\lambda `$ constant then the inversion (2.7) has a modified Jackson type integral form

(2.8)
$$G(y)=_0^yg(x)d_{q^2}x2\lambda (1e^{2\lambda })^1g(y)=(1q^2)y\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g(y+(q^21)ny)$$

REMARK 2.1. Note $`y`$ is fixed throughout so the calculations make sense and this reveals also a property of Jackson integrals (A4), namely they do not seem to use the integration variable $`x`$ at all (although change of variable techniques should work). We emphasize that care is needed in using (2.5) in the form $`\stackrel{~}{}_{q^2}`$ when computing $`\stackrel{~}{}_{q^2}G(y)=g(y)`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{}_{q^2}`$ defined via $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in (2.5) is not the same as $`_{q^2}`$ unless provision is made for $`\lambda =c`$. If we try to compute $`_{q^2}G(y)`$ without keeping $`\lambda `$ constant there arises an awkward term $`(1q^2)q^2y_0^{\mathrm{}}g(q^2y+(q^21)nq^2y)`$ and $`_{q^2}G(y)g(y)`$. The point is that $`2\lambda `$ is constant and $`(1q^2)y=2\lambda \to ̸(1q^2)q^2y`$. Nor does $`y+2n\lambda =y+(1q^2)ny`$ go to $`y+(1q^2)nq^2y=y+2n\lambda q^2`$ (rather e.g. $`y+2n\lambda q^2y+2n\lambda =y+2(n+1)\lambda =y+(1q^2)(n+1)y`$). Thus for $`\stackrel{~}{}_{q^2}G(y)`$ one must write $`(1/2\lambda )[G(y+2\lambda )G(y)]=[(1q^2)y]^1[G(q^2y)G(y)=_{q^2}G(y)`$ as desired. If we regard this as a generally viable procedure of transferring “standard” differencing techniques in $`\lambda `$ to q-analysis then constant $`\lambda `$ steps for any y correspond to constant steps $`(1q^2)y`$ which means for large $`y,q1,`$ so if $`G^{}`$ is continuous for example then

(2.9)
$$\stackrel{~}{}_{q^2}G(y)=\frac{G(q^2y)G(y)}{(q^21)y}\frac{g(y+2\lambda )G(y)}{2\lambda }=G^{}(\xi )$$

for $`y\xi y+2\lambda =q^2y`$ and for t large $`y+2\lambda y`$ corresponds to $`q^21`$. There seems to be no reason not to use the $`q,\lambda `$ correspondence in general as long as computational consistency is maintained.
REMARK 2.2. We will eventually dispense with $`\lambda `$ altogether in rephrasing matters entirely in $`q`$ so that $`\stackrel{~}{}_{q^2}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{}_q`$ will not arise.
Continuing now from  one can define difference 2-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^D`$, an exterior difference operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and a Lie difference operator via (standard $``$ product)

(2.10)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^D=𝑑𝐚𝑑𝐛w_\lambda (𝐱,𝐚,𝐛)\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐛;$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_2^D=𝑑𝐚𝑑𝐛𝑑𝐜_𝐚w_\lambda (𝐱,𝐚,𝐛)\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐜\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐛$$

Since $`[_𝐚,_𝐛]=0`$ one has $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and finally for $`X^D`$ as in (2.2)

(2.11)
$$i__𝐜(\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐛)=\delta (𝐜𝐚)\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐛\delta (𝐜𝐛)\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚;𝔏_{X^D}=\mathrm{\Delta }i_{X^D}+i_{X^D}\mathrm{\Delta }$$

Now consider a phase space $`\stackrel{}{x}𝐱=(x,p)`$ and in place of $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟖})X_fg=(f_p_xf_x_p)g`$ one writes $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟗})X_f^D=𝑑a_1𝑑a_2v_\lambda [f](x,p,a_1,a_2)_𝐚`$ where (cf. (2.2))

(2.12)
$$v_\lambda [f](x,p,a_1,a_2)=\left(\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }\right)^2𝑑b_1𝑑b_2exp[i\lambda (a_1b_2a_2b_1)]f(x+\lambda b_1,p+\lambda b_2)$$

which should correspond to $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚,X_f^D>`$ (cf. Section 3). Note $`a_1b_2a_2b_1`$ can be written as $`\stackrel{}{a}\times \stackrel{}{b}`$ and $`(1/\lambda )(\stackrel{}{a}\times \stackrel{}{b})`$ is the area in $`\lambda `$ units of the parallelogram formed by $`\stackrel{}{a}\times \stackrel{}{b}`$ ($`\lambda `$ is essentially a scaling factor here and not a Fourier variable). The symplectic structure of (A8) is retained via an interchange of $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$. We note that (A9) can be written in the form (the details are in )

(2.13)
$$X_f^D=\frac{i\lambda }{(2\pi )^2}𝑑a_1𝑑a_2𝑑b_1𝑑b_2Sin[\lambda (a_1b_2a_2b_1)]f(x+\lambda b_1,p+\lambda b_2)e^{\lambda (a_1_x+a_2_p)}$$

leading to

(2.14)
$$X_f^Dg=\frac{i\lambda }{(2\pi )^2}da_1da_2db_1db_2\times $$

$$\times Sin[\lambda (a_1b_2a_2b_1)]f(x+\lambda b_1,p+\lambda b_2)exp[\lambda (a_1_x+a_2_p)]g(x,p)=$$

$$=\frac{i\lambda }{(2\pi )^2}𝑑a𝑑bSin[\lambda (a_1b_2a_2b_1)]f(x+\lambda b_1,p+\lambda b_2)g(x+\lambda a_1,p+\lambda a_2)$$

Subsequent calculation gives, using $`x+\lambda a_1=\alpha _1`$ and $`p+\lambda a_2=\alpha _2`$ (cf. )

(2.15)
$$𝑑a𝑑be^{i\lambda (a_1b_2a_2b_1)}f(x+\lambda b_1,p+\lambda b_2)g(x+\lambda a_1,p+\lambda a_2)=$$

$$=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\left(f(x+i\lambda _{\alpha _2},pi\lambda _{\alpha _1})e^{i[b_2(\alpha _1x)b_1(\alpha _2p)]}𝑑b\right)g(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)d\alpha =$$

$$=\left(\frac{2\pi }{\lambda }\right)^2f(xi\lambda _p,p+i\lambda _x)g(x,p)\left(\frac{2\pi }{\lambda }\right)^2gf$$

leading finally to

(2.16)
$$X_f^Dg=\frac{i}{\lambda }Sin[\lambda (_{x_1}_{p_2}_{p_1}_{x_2})]f(p_1,x_1)g(p_2,x_2)|_{(p,x)}=\{f,g\}_M$$

In addition, from the Jacobi identity for the Moyal bracket one has

$$[X_f^D,X_g^D]h=X_f^D\{g,h\}X_g^D\{f,h\}=\{f,\{g,h\}\}\{g,\{f,h\}\}\}=$$

(2.17)
$$=\{\{f,g\},h\}=X_{\{f,g\}}^Dh$$

A symplectic form can also be given via

(2.18)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2\lambda }𝑑a_1𝑑a_2𝑑b_1𝑑b_2e^{i\lambda (a_1b_2a_2b_1)}\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐛$$

and this satisfies $`i_{X_f^D}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ (analogous to $`i_{X_f}\omega =d\omega `$ for a symplectic form $`\omega `$). Our formulas differ at times by $`\pm i`$ from  but everything seems consistent and correct here; the philosophy of running $`a_i`$ over $`𝐑(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ is crucial in the calculations (alternatively $``$ could represent a sum over a discrete symmetric set, e.g. $`[N,N]`$ with N infinite or not). We note also a somewhat quasi Fourier theoretic version of the formulas (A9), (2.12), (2.13), etc. developed in . Thus consider

(2.19)
$$v_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)=\left(\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }\right)^2𝑑𝐛e^{i\lambda (𝐚\times 𝐛)}e^{\lambda \stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{}}f$$

Hence (using $`𝐛𝐛`$)

(2.20)
$$v_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)=\left(\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }\right)^2𝑑𝐛e^{i\lambda (𝐚\times 𝐛)}e^{\lambda \stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{}}f=\left(\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }\right)^2𝑑𝐛e^{i\lambda (𝐚\times 𝐛)}e^{\lambda \stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{}}f$$

and since $`_𝐚=_𝐚`$ one gets

(2.21)
$$X_f^D=𝑑𝐚v_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)_𝐚=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑𝐚v_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)_𝐚=𝑑𝐚v_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)_𝐚$$

Consequently

(2.22)
$$X_f^D=\frac{1}{2}𝑑𝐚\left[v_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)v_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)\right]_𝐚=$$

$$=\frac{\lambda ^3}{4\pi ^2}𝑑𝐚𝑑𝐛e^{i\lambda (𝐚\times 𝐛)}\left\{\frac{e^{\lambda \stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{}}e^{\lambda \stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{}}}{2\lambda }\right\}f_𝐚=\frac{\lambda ^3}{4\pi ^2}𝑑𝐚𝑑𝐛e^{i\lambda (𝐚\times 𝐛)}_𝐛f_𝐚$$

This formula provides another representation for $`X_f^D`$ via

(2.23)
$$X_f^D=𝑑𝐚\stackrel{~}{v}_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)_𝐚;\stackrel{~}{v}_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)=\frac{\lambda ^3}{4\pi ^2}𝑑𝐛e^{i\lambda (𝐚\times 𝐛)}_𝐛f$$

The above gives a direct discretization of phase space and the natural difference analogue of Lie bracket leads to the Moyal bracket. Thus one takes $`\lambda \mathrm{}/2`$ and defines $`X_A^Q=\mathrm{}X_A^D`$ for functions $`A(x,p)`$ and there is a Heisenberg equation ($`H`$ Hamiltonian) $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟎})i\mathrm{}_tX_A^Q=[X_A^Q,X_H^Q]`$ (where both $`A`$ and $`H`$ may contain $`\mathrm{}`$). This is compatible with $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟏})_tA=\{A,H\}_M`$ (cf. (2.16), (2.17)). To see how this works we recall the standard quantum mechanical (QM) idea of Wigner distribution function $`F_w`$ with $`F_w𝑑x=1`$ and $`<\widehat{A}>=F_wA𝑑x`$ for he expectation value of an operator $`\widehat{A}`$ associated to the observable function A (Weyl ordering is to be invoked when ordering is needed and details are in ). The corresponding discrete version is given via a difference 1-form

(2.24)
$$P_{F_w}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4}𝑑a_1𝑑a_2𝑑b_1𝑑b_2e^{i\mathrm{}(a_1b_2a_2b_1)/2}F_w(x+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}b_1,p+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}b_2)\mathrm{\Delta }^a$$

so $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟐})<P_{F_w},X_A^Q>=𝑑x𝑑pF_w(x,p)A(x,p)=<\widehat{A}>`$. In the Heisenberg picture the time dependence is $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟑})_t<P_{F_w},X_A^Q>=<P_{F_w},X_A^Q(t)>`$ which in the Schrödinger picture becomes $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟒})_t<P_{F_w},X_A^Q>=<P_{F_w}(t),X_A^Q>`$. Here the solution of (A10) necessarily is

(2.25)
$$X_A^Q(t)=exp\left(\frac{it}{\mathrm{}}X_H^Q\right)X_A^Qexp\left(\frac{it}{\mathrm{}}X_H^Q\right)$$

(simply differentiate $`X_A^Q=exp[(it/\mathrm{})X_H^Q]X_A^Q(t)exp[(it/\mathrm{})X_H^Q]`$ and note that in (A10) $`X_A^QX_A^Q(t)`$). This corresponds to a solution of (A11) of the form $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟓})A(t)=[exp(it/\mathrm{})X_H^Q]A`$ and in the Heisenberg picture

(2.26)
$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dt}<P_{F_w},X_A^Q(t)>=<P_{F_w},[X_A^Q(t),X_H^Q]>=<P_{F_w},X_{\{A(t),H\}_M}^Q>$$

where the right side is $`<P_{\{H,F_w(t)\}_M},X_A^Q>`$ upon defining $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟔})F_w(t)=exp[(it/\mathrm{})X_H^Q]F_w`$ so that $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟕})_tP_{F_w(t)}=P_{\{H,F_w(t)\}_M}_tF_w(t)=\{H,F_w(t)\}_M`$.

## 3. Q-DISCRETIZATION

Let us consider now a variation on Section 2 based on a q-lattice. This will constitute a different approach from those in Remark 2.1 and Proposition 2.1 in that we keep q fixed. Indeed q can play the role of $`\lambda `$ and we write

(3.1)
$$\widehat{}_{mn}f(x,p)=\frac{f(xq^{2m},pq^{2n})f(x,p)}{(q^{2m}1)x(q^{2n}1)p}$$

(3.2)
$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}g(x,p)=\frac{g(xq^m,pq^n)g(xq^m,pq^n)}{(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)xp}=$$

$$\frac{e^{\lambda (m,n)(\widehat{}_1,\widehat{}_2)}e^{\lambda (m,n)(\widehat{}_1,\widehat{}_2)}}{(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)xp}\widehat{g}(log(x),log(p))=q^{m+n}e^{\lambda (m,n)(\widehat{}_1,\widehat{}_2)}\widehat{}_{mn}g=G$$

so $`(m,n)`$ plays the role of Fourier variables$`(a_1,a_2)𝐚`$. We recall from  the device $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟖})\lambda =log(q),exp(\lambda )=q,f(x)=\widehat{f}(log(x)),q^{2mx_x}f(x)=exp[2m\lambda _{log(x)}]\widehat{f}(log(x))=\widehat{f}(log(x)+2mlog(q))=\widehat{f}(log(q^{2m}x))=f(xq^{2m})`$. This suggests an inversion for $`\widehat{}_{mn}`$ written via

(3.3)
$$\widehat{}_{mn}f(x,p)=\frac{(e^{2\lambda (m,n)(\widehat{}_1,\widehat{}_2)}1)}{(q^{2m}1)x(q^{2n}1)p}\widehat{f}(log(x),log(p))$$

($`\widehat{}_1=/log(x),\widehat{}_2=/log(p)`$) in a form similar to a Jackson integral. Thus first we can derive a Jackson integral as follows. Write

(3.4)
$$f(x)=_{q^2}f(x)=\frac{f(q^2x))f(x)}{(q^21)x}=\frac{(e^{2\lambda x_x}1)}{(q^21)x}f(x)=g(x)$$

with formally

(3.5)
$$f(x)=(1q^2)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2k\lambda x_x}(xg(x))=(1q^2)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2k}xg(q^{2k}x)$$

which is the Jackson integral $`_0^xd_{q^2}yg(y)`$. Similarly we can write now formally

(3.6)
$$\widehat{}_{mn}^1g(x,p)=(q^{2m}1)(q^{2n}1)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2\lambda k(m,n)(\widehat{}_1,\widehat{}_2)}(xpg(x,p))=$$

$$=(q^{2m}1)(q^{2n}1)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2mk}xq^{2nk}pg(q^{2mk}x,q^{2nk}p)=G(x,p)$$

This can be checked via

(3.7)
$$\frac{G(q^{2m}x,q^{2n}p)G(x,p)}{(q^{2m}1)x(q^{2n}1)p}=g(x,p)=$$

$$=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2m(k+1)}q^{2n(k+1)}g(q^{2m(k+1)}x,q^{2n(k+1)}p)+\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2mk}q^{2nk}g(q^{2mk}x,q^{2nk}p)$$

Hence we have proved

###### PROPOSITION 3.1.

The difference operator $`\widehat{}_{mn}`$ of (3.1) can be inverted via (3.6) s a kind of extended Jackson integral. Similarly one has

(3.8)
$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}^1g(x,p)=q^{mn}\widehat{}_{mn}^1g(xq^m,pq^n)=$$

$$=q^{mn}(q^{2m}1)(q^{2n}1)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2mkm}xq^{2nkn}pg(q^{2mkm}x,q^{2nkn}p)=$$

$$=(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)xp\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{(2k1)(m+n)}g(q^{(2k1)m}x,q^{(2k1)n}p)$$

It should be possible now to duplicate most of the machinery in Section 2 with q discretization as above. We note that this procedure and the resulting formulas appear to be different from any of the phase space discretizations in . We will consider an analogue of $`X_f^D`$ in (A9) or (2.23) via

(3.9)
$$\widehat{X}_f^D=\underset{m,n}{}v_q[f](x,p,m,n)\widehat{}_{mn}\mathrm{𝐨𝐫}\stackrel{ˇ}{X}_f^D=v_q[f](x,p,m,n)\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}$$

where we need then a formula for $`v_q[f]`$ which can perhaps be modeled on (2.23) in a quasi Fourier spirit. Note that the stipulation $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚,_𝐛>=\delta (𝐚𝐛)`$, or $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{mn}=\widehat{}_{mn}^1`$ as in (3.6)-(3.7) simply provides a tautology $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟗})v_q[f](x,p,m,n)=<\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{mn},\widehat{X}_f^D>`$ or as in (2.12) the equation $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟎})<\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚,X_f^D>=<\mathrm{\Delta }^𝐚,d𝐛v_\lambda [f](x,p,𝐛)_𝐛>=v_𝐚[f](x,p,𝐚)`$. Thus one should realize that $`v_\lambda [f]`$ is simply selected in an ad hoc manner so that $`X_f^Dg=\{f,g\}_M`$. It turns out that the use of $`\widehat{}_{mn}`$ and $`\widehat{X}_f^D`$ would not reproduce a suitable $`\pm `$ symmetry for a quasi Fourier approach so we will concentrate on $`\stackrel{ˇ}{X}_f^D`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}`$.
In  a quantum q-Moyal bracket $`(\mathrm{}0`$) is suggested in the form

(3.10)
$$\{p^mx^n,p^kx^{\mathrm{}}\}_{qM}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}(q^{nk}p^mx^np^kx^{\mathrm{}}q^m\mathrm{}p^kx^{\mathrm{}}p^mx^n)$$

where $``$ can refer to standard or antistandard orderings via ($`\nu =log(q)`$ and $`D_z_q`$)

(3.11)
$$_S\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(i\mathrm{})^r}{[r]!}\stackrel{}{D}_p^rexp(\nu \stackrel{}{}_ppx\stackrel{}{}_x)\stackrel{}{D}_x^r;$$

$$_A\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\nu \stackrel{}{}_xx)^s\underset{r=0}{\overset{s}{}}\frac{(i\mathrm{})^rq^{r(r1)/2}}{[r]!}\stackrel{}{D}_x^r\stackrel{}{D}_p^r(p\stackrel{}{}_p)^s$$

Here standard ordering involves XP products and antistandard has PX products (see Section 5). The symbol map is $`S_S(X^mP^n)=S_A(P^mX^n)=p^mx^n`$; Weyl ordering is also considered but there are some complications. We note also for $`\mathrm{}=0`$ one has classical star products based on ($`\nu =log(q)`$ \- cf. )

(3.12)
$$_S^qexp(\nu \stackrel{}{}_ppx\stackrel{}{}_x);_A^qexp(\nu \stackrel{}{}_xxp\stackrel{}{}_p);$$

$$_W^qexp(\frac{\nu }{2}(\stackrel{}{}_xxp\stackrel{}{}_p)\stackrel{}{}_ppx\stackrel{}{}_x))$$

(here $`_W^q`$ refers to Weyl ordering); these star products all satisfy

(3.13)
$$q^{nk}p^mx^n^qp^kx^{\mathrm{}}q^m\mathrm{}p^kx^{\mathrm{}}^qp^mx^n=0$$

## 4. CALCULATIONS

For completeness we will give a number of calculations to show how our results are parallel to Section 2 and can be reached through some quasi Fourier type procedures. First we recall some useful formulas (cf. ), namely

(4.1)
$$\delta (zw)=z^1\underset{n𝐙}{}\left(\frac{z}{w}\right)^n=z^1\widehat{\delta }(q/w)$$

There are many nice calculations available using (4.1); we mention e.g. ($`Res_za_nz^n=a_1`$ and $`D_z=z(d/dz)`$)

(4.2)
$$\delta (wz)=w^1\underset{𝐙}{}\left(\frac{w}{z}\right)=w^1\underset{𝐙}{}\left(\frac{z}{w}\right)^n=z^1\left(\frac{z}{w}\right)^n=\delta (zw);$$

$$Res_zf(z)\delta (zw)=f(w);f(z)\widehat{\delta }(az)=f(a^1)\widehat{\delta }(az);Res_za(z)b(z)=Res_za(z)b(z)$$

This will provide a delta function corresponding to $`exp[ib_2(\alpha _1x)ib_1(\alpha _2p)]𝑑𝐛`$. Now, leaving aside possible multiplicative factors (cf. Remark 4.1), consider (2.12) in the form

(4.3)
$$v_q[f](x,p,𝐚)=c(q)\underset{r,s}{}q^{msnr}f(q^rx,q^sp)$$

leading to (cf. (2.13) - (2.14))

(4.4)
$$X_f^D=\widehat{c}(q)\underset{m,n,r,s}{}(q^{msnr}q^{ms+nr})f(q^rx,q^sp)q^{(m,n)(\widehat{}_1,\widehat{}_2)};$$

$$X_f^Dg=\widehat{c}(q)\underset{m,n,r,s}{}(q^{msnr}q^{ms+nr})f(q^rx,q^sp,)g(q^mx,q^np)$$

while (2.15) can be written as ($`x+\lambda a_1=\alpha _1`$ and $`p+\lambda a_2=\alpha _2`$)

(4.5)
$$𝑑a𝑑be^{i\lambda (a_1b_2a_2b_1)}f(x+\lambda b_1,p+\lambda b_2)g(x+\lambda a_1,p+\lambda a_2)$$

$$\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}𝑑\alpha 𝑑be^{i[b_2(\alpha _1x)b_1(\alpha _2p)]}f(x+\lambda b_1,p+\lambda b_2)g(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)=$$

$$=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\left(f(x+i\lambda _{\alpha _2},pi\lambda _{\alpha _1})e^{i[b_2(\alpha _1x)b_1(\alpha _2p)]}𝑑b\right)g(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)d\alpha =$$

$$=\left(\frac{2\pi }{\lambda }\right)^2\left[f(x+i\lambda _{\alpha _2},pi\lambda _{\alpha _1})\delta (\alpha _1x,\alpha _2p)\right]g(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)𝑑\alpha =$$

$$=\left(\frac{2\pi }{\lambda }\right)^2f(xi\lambda _p,p+i\lambda _x)g(x,p)\left(\frac{2\pi }{\lambda }\right)^2gf$$

Intuitively one thinks of $`\lambda log(q)`$, $`𝐚(m,n)`$, and $`𝐛(r,s)`$ so the substitution $`x+\lambda a_1=\alpha _1`$ corresponds to $`\alpha _1/x=q^m`$; similarly $`\alpha _2/p=q^n`$ and the second and third lines in (4.5) correspond to

(4.6)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=c(q,p,x)\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{r,s}{}\left(\frac{\alpha _1}{x}\right)^s\left(\frac{\alpha _2}{p}\right)^rf(xq^r,pq^s)g(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)$$

where $`_\alpha Res_\alpha (1/\alpha _1\alpha _2)`$. The first question is to ask if we can write something like

(4.7)
$$\underset{r,s}{}f(xq^r,pq^s)\left(\frac{\alpha _1}{x}\right)^s\left(\frac{\alpha _2}{p}\right)^rf(xq^{\widehat{}_1},pq^{\widehat{}_2})\widehat{\delta }\left(\frac{\alpha _1}{x}\right)\widehat{\delta }\left(\frac{p}{\alpha _2}\right)$$

in analogy to lines 3 and 4 of (4.5). We could imagine e.g. $`f(x,p)=a_k\mathrm{}x^kp^{\mathrm{}}`$ and look at

$$\underset{r,s}{}x^kp^{\mathrm{}}q^{kr}q^\mathrm{}s\left(\frac{\alpha _1}{x}\right)^s\left(\frac{\alpha _2}{p}\right)^r=\underset{r,s}{}x^kp^{\mathrm{}}q^{k\widehat{}_2}q^{\mathrm{}\widehat{}_1}\left(\frac{\alpha _1}{x}\right)^s\left(\frac{\alpha _2}{p}\right)^r=$$

(4.8)
$$=x^kp^{\mathrm{}}q^{k\widehat{}_2}q^{\mathrm{}\widehat{}_1}\widehat{\delta }\left(\frac{\alpha _1}{x}\right)\widehat{\delta }\left(\frac{p}{\alpha _2}\right)$$

since $`q^{k\widehat{}_2}(\alpha _2/p)^r=(q^k\alpha _2/p)^r=q^{kr}(\alpha _2/p)^r`$. Consequently for $`f=a_k\mathrm{}x^kp^{\mathrm{}}`$ in (4.6) we have

(4.9)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=c(q,p,x)\underset{k,\mathrm{}}{}a_k\mathrm{}x^kp^{\mathrm{}}q^{kp_p}q^{\mathrm{}x_x}g(x,p)$$

since $`Res_\alpha (1/\alpha _1\alpha _2)\widehat{\delta }(\alpha _1/x)\widehat{\delta }(p/\alpha _2)g(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)=g(x,p)`$ and e.g. $`\widehat{}_1`$ in $`\alpha _1`$ becomes $`\widehat{}_1=x_x`$. This leads to

(4.10)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=c(q,p,x)a_k\mathrm{}x^kp^{\mathrm{}}g(xq^{\mathrm{}},pq^k)$$

as a putative $`gf`$ (cf. (4.5)). For $`g=b_{\gamma \beta }x^\gamma p^\beta `$ this corresponds to

(4.11)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(f,g)=c\underset{k,\mathrm{},\gamma \beta }{}a_k\mathrm{}b_{\gamma \beta }x^{k+\gamma }p^{\mathrm{}+\beta }q^{\mathrm{}\gamma k\beta }gf$$

The terms of the form (2.15) corresponding to $`exp[i\lambda (a_1b_2a_2b_1)]`$ in (2.14) involve now in place of (4.7) a term

(4.12)
$$\underset{r,s}{}f(xq^r,pq^s)\left(\frac{\alpha _1}{x}\right)^s\left(\frac{\alpha _2}{p}\right)^r=f(xq^{\widehat{}_1},pq^{\widehat{}_2})\widehat{\delta }\left(\frac{x}{\alpha _1}\right)\widehat{\delta }\left(\frac{\alpha _2}{p}\right)$$

Hence we get for $`f`$ and $`g`$ as before

(4.13)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2fg=c(q,p,x)a_k\mathrm{}x^kp^{\mathrm{}}b_{\gamma \beta }(xq^{\mathrm{}})^\gamma (pq^k)^\beta =ca_{kl}b_{\gamma \beta }x^{k+\alpha }p^{\mathrm{}+\beta }q^{k\beta \mathrm{}\gamma }$$

leading to

###### PROPOSITION 4.1.

For $`f(x,p)=a_k\mathrm{}x^kp^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`g(x,p)=b_{\gamma ,\beta }x^\gamma p^\beta `$ one obtains in an heuristic manner

(4.14)
$$\{f,g\}_Mf(xq^{p_p},pq^{x_x})g(x,p)g(xq^{p_p},pq^{x_x})f(x,p)$$

$$c(q,p,x)\underset{k,\mathrm{},\gamma ,\beta }{}a_k\mathrm{}b_{\gamma \beta }x^{k+\gamma }p^{\mathrm{}+\beta }\left(q^{k\beta \mathrm{}\gamma }q^{\mathrm{}\gamma k\beta }\right)$$

where $`c(q,p,x)`$ is to be stipulated (cf. Corollary 4.1 for an essentially equivalent formula). Note by inspection or construction $`\{f,g\}_M=\{g,f\}_M`$.

If we use the formulation of (2.19) - (2.23) a slightly different formula emerges involving a multiplicative factor which is missed by the analogy constructions above. Thus we check the passage (2.19) to (2.23). (2.19) is the same as (2.12) corresponding to (4.3) and (2.20) corresponds to

(4.15)
$$v_q[f](x,p,𝐚)c\underset{r,s}{}q^{msnr}f(q^rx,q^sp)$$

which would follow from (4.3) by sending $`(m,n)(m,n)`$ and $`(r,s)(r,s)`$. This makes sense if the sums are $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ and there seems to be no objection to that. Then one would have (taking now $`_𝐚\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}`$ as in (3.2))

(4.16)
$$X_f^D=𝑑𝐚v_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)_𝐚c\underset{m,n}{}v_q[f](x,p,m,n)\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}=$$

$$=c\underset{m,n}{}\underset{r,s}{}q^{msnr}f(q^rx,q^sp)\frac{q^{mx_x}q^{np_p}q^{mx_x}q^{np_p}}{(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)xp}$$

(4.17)
$$X_f^D=𝑑𝐚v_\lambda [f](𝐱,𝐚)_𝐚X_f^D=c\underset{m,n}{}v_q[f](x,p,m,n)\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{m,n}=$$

$$=c\underset{m,n,r,s}{}q^{msnr}f(q^rx,q^sp)\frac{q^{mx_x}q^{np_p}q^{mx_x}q^{np_p}}{(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)xp}=$$

$$=c\underset{m,n,r,s}{}q^{msnr}f(q^rx,q^sp)\frac{q^{mx_x}q^{np_p}q^{mx_x}q^{np_p}}{(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)xp}$$

exactly as in (2.21) (note the minus sign appears in the last equation instead of at the beginning). Hence

$$X_f^D=\frac{1}{2}((\text{4.16})+(\text{4.17}))=c\underset{m,n,r,s}{}q^{msnr}[f(q^rx,q^sp)f(q^rx,q^sp)]\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}=$$

(4.18)
$$=c\underset{m,n,r,s}{}q^{msnr}(q^rq^r)(q^sq^s)xp\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{rs}f\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}$$

which is a difference version of (2.22). One sees that factors of $`(q^rq^r),(q^sq^s),(q^mq^m)`$, and $`(q^nq^n)`$ have become involved in place of powers of $`\lambda `$ and this must be clarified; otherwise the patterns go over.
To clarify we compare (4.4) and (4.18) and write (4.18) in the form

(4.19)
$${}_{1}{}^{}X_{f}^{D}g=$$

$$=\frac{c}{xp}q^{msnr}[f(q^rx,q^sp)f(q^rx,q^sp)]G(q,m,n)[g(xq^m,pq^n)g(xq^m,pq^n)]$$

where $`G^1(q,m,n)=(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)=G(q,m,n)`$. Set $`f_\pm f(q^{\pm m}x,q^{\pm n}p)`$ so in an obvious notation

(4.20)
$${}_{1}{}^{}X_{f}^{D}g=\frac{c}{xp}q^{msnr}G(q,m,n)[f_+g_++f_{}g_{}f_+g_{}f_{}g_+]$$

Now evidently, changing $`m,nm,n`$, one obtains a formula $`q^{msnr}G(q,m,n)f_+g_{}e^{ms+nr}G(q,m,n)f_{}g_+`$, etc. so

(4.21)
$${}_{1}{}^{}X_{f}^{D}g=\frac{c}{xp}q^{ms+nr}(f_+g_{}+f_{}g_+f_+g_+f_{}g_{}$$

leading to

(4.22)
$${}_{1}{}^{}X_{f}^{D}g=cxpG(q,m,n)\times $$

$$\times \left(q^{msnr}q^{ms+nr}\right)[f(q^rx,q^sp)f(q^rx,q^sp)][g(xq^m,pq^n)g(xq^m,pq^n)]$$

This is similar to (4.4) which has the form

(4.23)
$${}_{2}{}^{}X_{f}^{E}g=\widehat{c}\left(q^{msnr}q^{ms+nr}\right)f_+g_+$$

$$=\widehat{c}()f_{}g_{}=\widehat{c}()f_+g_{}=\widehat{c}()f_{}g_+$$

which implies

(4.24)
$${}_{2}{}^{}X_{f}^{D}g=$$

$$=\widehat{c}\left(q^{msnr}q^{ms+nr}\right)[f(q^rx,q^sp)f(q^rx,q^sp)][g(xq^m,pq^n)g(xq^m,pq^n)]$$

This is essentially the same as $`{}_{1}{}^{}X_{f}^{D}`$ except for the $`G(q,m,n)`$ factor. For esthetic reasons one prefers the form $`{}_{1}{}^{}X_{f}^{D}g`$ since it has the more visibly meaningful form (4.16) and $`\lambda `$ plays a consistent role (cf. Remark 4.1 below). Thus in summary

###### PROPOSITION 4.2.

The difference version of Section 2 can be expressed via

(4.25)
$$X_f^D=\underset{m,n}{}v_q[f](x,p,m,n)\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn};v_q[f]=\underset{r,s}{}q^{msnr}f(q^rs,q^sp);$$

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}g=\frac{g(xq^m,pq^n)g(xq^m,pq^n)}{(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)xp};$$

$$X_f^Dg=\frac{1}{2xp}\underset{m,n,r,s}{}q^{msnr}\frac{[f(q^rx,q^sp)f(q^rx,q^sp)][g(q^mx,q^np)g(q^mx,q^np)]}{(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)}$$

The latter expression is our putative Moyal bracket and one has

###### COROLLARY 4.1.

Writing out $`X_d^Dg`$ for monomials $`f=x^ap^b`$ and $`g=x^cp^d`$ yields

(4.26)
$$X_f^Dg=\{f,g\}_M=\frac{1}{2xp}q^{msnr}\frac{x^{a+c}p^{b+d}[(q^{ra+bs}q^{rabs})(q^{mc+nd}q^{mcnd})]}{(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)}$$

Further since, as in (4.20) - (4.22), one has $`_{m,n}q^{msnr}Gg_{}=_{m,n}q^{ms+nr}Gg_+`$ and $`_{r,s}q^{msnr}f_{}=q^{ms+nr}f_+`$ there results

(4.27)
$$X_f^Dg=\frac{1}{2xp}\frac{q^{msnr}q^{ms+nr}}{(q^mq^m)(q^nq^n)}f(q^rx,q^sp)g(q^mx,q^np)$$

This is reminiscent of (4.4) but with a $`G(q,m,n)`$ factor so the calculation (4.14) applies with $`G(q,m,n)`$ inserted and consequently $`\{f,g\}_M=\{g,f\}_M`$ as before, although this is not immediately visible from (4.27). We note also from (4.25) or (4.27) that it does no harm to use alternatively a form based on (2.23) in the form (cf. (4.18))

(4.28)
$$X_f^Dg=c\underset{m,n,r,s}{}q^{msnr}\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{rs}f\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}g$$

which inserts an additional factor $`G(q,r,s)`$ into (4.25).

REMARK 4.1. The multiplicative factors involve terms $`(q^mq^m),(q^nq^n),(q^rq^r),`$ or $`(q^sq^s)`$, all of which correspond to a $`\lambda `$ arising from $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{mn}`$ or $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{rs}`$; instead of coming out of the integral signs as $`\lambda `$ in the continuous versions of Section 2 they have to be summed. Note the correspondence $`x+\lambda a_1=\alpha _1`$ corresponding to $`\alpha _1/x=q^m`$ uses $`\lambda `$ in a different manner so it is at first glance surprising that $`{}_{2}{}^{}X_{f}^{D}`$ even comes close to $`{}_{1}{}^{}X_{f}^{D}`$. The relations of our formulas to the star products and Moyal brackets of (3.10) - (3.13) will be examined later as well as the expansion of material in  related to work of Curtright, Fairlie, Zachos, and the Saito school (cf.  for references). We note also that for a complex phase space $`\{z,\zeta \}`$ (not clarified) an interesting variation on the q-Moyal bracket of (4.14) or (4.25) is given in  for a KP situation (cf. also  where this is expanded). This is applied to a KP hierarchy context using complex variable methods and, although powers of q are inserted in various places, it is not developed systematically in a q-analysis manner and no recourse to q-derivatives is indicated. We will expand further the treatment of  for this situation in a subsequent paper.