text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

In this paper we examine one particular aspect of high temperature phase of gauge theories. Specifically, many gauge theories at zero temperature have instantons. The behavior of the instanton ensemble is crucial for understanding of many dynamical properties of these theories.

In QCD with massless fermions there are indications that the instanton “liquid” is responsible for the chiral symmetry breaking . A successful phenomenology of chiral symmetry breaking has indeed been developed based on this idea. Another example of a gauge theory that supports instantons is the 2+1 dimensional Georgi-Glashow (GG) model. In this theory (as well as in 2+1 D compact electrodynamics) the instanton-monopole gas has been shown analytically to be responsible for confinement a long time ago .

When heated above a certain critical temperature these gauge theories undergo a phase transition. In QCD the chiral symmetry is restored, while in the GG model the deconfining transition occurs. The status of the instantons in the hot phase is less certain. One thing is clear - they become less important at high temperature. The temperature acts as an infrared cutoff on the instanton size in QCD, suppressing the instantons of the size greater than the inverse electric Debye screening mass . There is also another, perhaps more significant effect. In the GG model it has been shown analytically  that the instantons at high temperatures are bound into “molecules”. The same is believed to be true in QCD 444It has been even suggested that the binding of the instantons drives the chirally restoring phase transition . This last point has not been definitively proven however. Indeed, this is known not to be the case in the GG model , and a physically different mechanism for the chiral transition was suggested in . Our interest here however is not in the phase transition itself, but rather in the properties of the hot phase. In this respect both approaches of  and  agree that the instantons are bound in “molecules”..

This “disappearance” of instantons at high temperature has been discussed in the literature. Naively one may expect that once the instantons are bound in pairs, their effect in the infrared is negligible. If this is the case, the anomaly of the axial $`U_A(1)`$ symmetry of QCD disappears, and the chiral symmetry of QCD in the hot phase is enhanced to $`SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)\times U_A(1)`$. One dynamical effect of such symmetry enhancement would be the degeneracy of the correlation lengths in the scalar ($`\delta `$ and $`\sigma `$) and the pseudo-scalar ($`\pi `$ and $`\eta `$) channels. In fact various references to the restoration of the axial $`U_A(1)`$ symmetry can be found in the literature .

Of course this argumentation is too naive, and is recognized as such by many authors in . The statement about the anomaly of $`U_A(1)`$ in QCD, $`_\mu J_A^\mu =\frac{N_f}{16\pi ^2}\stackrel{~}{F}F`$, is an operatorial one. As an operatorial statement it remains true at nonzero temperature. Thus the effects of the anomalous breaking are bound to be seen at some level even at high temperature. Indeed the lattice data does show that the scalar and pseudo-scalar correlation lengths are not degenerate. Some analytic discussion of the consequences of the anomaly at high temperature has been given in . In particular it has been shown that in the two flavor case the instantons contribute directly to the correlators of the fermionic bilinears, and thus very likely lead to splitting between the scalars and the pseudo-scalars. For $`N_f>2`$ no such direct contributions exist. Thus the term “$`U_A(1)`$ restoration” is not to be taken literally. Still since no analytic calculation of the instanton effects at high temperature are available, one may have lingering doubts about their importance. It would thus be useful to have an explicit analytic calculation of some quantities which are most sensitive to the anomaly, and thus exhibit it in a clear way at high temperature.

In QCD this is a difficult task due to the large number of degrees of freedom associated with an instanton (color orientations). However in the Georgi-Glashow model situation is much simpler, since the instantons are not degenerate. The theory is weakly interacting at high temperature, and thus under analytic control. Moreover, in many respects the Georgi-Glashow model is very similar to QCD, especially as far as the role of instantons is concerned. The purpose of this paper is therefore to present explicit calculations of the instanton effects at high temperature in the Georgi-Glashow model and the close analogy between these results and our expectations in QCD.

The general pattern of symmetries in the theories we have in mind is the following. On the classical level the action is invariant under a global symmetry group $`G`$. Quantum effects break this symmetry anomalously down to its subgroup $`H`$. At zero temperature $`H`$ is spontaneously broken. At high temperature $`H`$ is restored, but $`G`$ is still broken by the anomaly. Thus a correlator $`O`$, which is invariant under $`H`$, but not invariant under $`G`$, is allowed to be non-vanishing in the anomalous theory, but has to vanish if the anomaly of $`G`$ were to disappear. This particular set of correlators is therefore likely to be very sensitive directly to the instanton effect. We will consider examples of such operators in the following.

There are many parallels between QCD with massless fermions and the 2+1 GG model. In particular the confining physics of the latter is in many respects similar to the chiral physics of QCD. These parallels been discussed in detail in . The basic correspondences are the following.

$``$ Classical axial $`SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)\times U_A(1)`$ symmetry of QCD $``$ Classical magnetic $`U_M(1)`$ symmetry of the GG model .

$``$ Axial anomaly due to instantons in QCD$``$ Magnetic anomaly due to monopoles in the GG model.

$``$ Non-anomalous $`SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)`$ subgroup of $`SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)\times U_A(1)`$ in QCD $``$ Non-anomalous $`Z_2`$ subgroup of $`U_M(1)`$ in the GG model.

$``$ Spontaneous breaking of $`SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)`$ by the chiral condensate $`<\overline{\psi }\psi >`$ in QCD$``$ Spontaneous breaking of $`Z_2`$ by the vortex condensate $`<V>`$ in the GG model.

Keeping this analogy in mind, we proceed to analyze in the next section the monopole-instanton effects in the 2+1D GG model at high temperature. Since the theory is weakly interacting, the calculations here are under complete analytic control. In section 3 we calculate explicitly multi-instanton contributions to relevant correlation functions. Our results illustrate very clearly the effects that we also expect to take place in QCD. We conclude in section 4 with discussing further the analogy with QCD.

## 2 The instantons and their interactions in the Georgi-Glashow model at high temperature.

### 2.1 The model.

Consider the $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory with a scalar field in the adjoint representation in 2+1 dimensions.

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\text{tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)}+{\displaystyle d^3x\left[\frac{1}{2}(D_\mu h^a)^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}(h^ah^av^2)^2\right]}`$ (1)
In the weakly coupled regime $`vg^2`$, perturbatively the gauge group is broken to $`U(1)`$ by the large expectation value of the Higgs field. The photon associated with the unbroken subgroup is massless whereas the Higgs and the other two gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$ are heavy with the masses

$$M_H^2=2\lambda v^2,M_W^2=g^2v^2.$$
(2)
Thus perturbatively the theory behaves very much like electrodynamics with spin one charged matter.

This theory has a global symmetry - the magnetic symmetry . Classically the following gauge invariant current is conserved

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^\mu =\stackrel{~}{F}_a^\mu n^a\frac{1}{g}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }ϵ^{abc}n_a(𝒟_\nu n)^b(𝒟_\lambda n)^c$$
(3)
with $`n^a`$ a unit vector in the color space in the direction of the Higgs field, $`n^a=h^a/|h|`$. This defines a conserved charge through $`\mathrm{\Phi }=d^2xB`$. This continuous symmetry is spontaneously broken in the vacuum, and the massless photon is the Goldstone boson which reflects this breaking in the spectrum.

However as is well known the classical action eq.(1) supports instanton-monopole solutions with finite Euclidean action

$`h^a(\stackrel{}{x})=\widehat{x}^ah(r)`$ (4)
$`A_\mu ^a(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left[ϵ_{a\mu \nu }\widehat{x}^\nu (1\varphi _1)+\delta ^{a\mu }\varphi _2+(rA\varphi _2)\widehat{x}^a\widehat{x}_\mu \right]`$ (5)
where $`\widehat{x}^a=x^a/r`$. In the presence of such a monopole the magnetic current is not conserved, but rather has a non-vanishing divergence proportional to the monopole density.

$`_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{g}}\rho `$ (6)
The $`U_M(1)`$ magnetic symmetry is thus anomalous in the quantum theory. As discussed in detail in  only the discrete $`Z_2`$ subgroup is unaffected by anomaly and thus remains a symmetry in the full quantum theory.

The local order parameter that transforms as an eigen-operator under the $`Z_2`$ magnetic symmetry is the magnetic vortex operator $`V`$:

$`VV`$ (7)
The operator $`V`$ has been constructed explicitly in

$`V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}{\displaystyle d^2y\left[ϵ_{ij}\frac{(xy)_j}{(xy)^2}n^a(y)E_i^a(y)+\mathrm{\Theta }(xy)J_0(y)\right]}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{g}}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑y^iϵ_{ij}n^aE_j^a(y)`$
One can think of it as a singular $`SU(2)`$ gauge transformation with the field dependent gauge function

$$\lambda ^a(y)=\frac{1}{g}\mathrm{\Theta }(xy)n^a(\stackrel{}{y})$$
(9)
The dynamical effects of the anomaly are twofold. First, the photon becomes a pseudo-Goldstone boson and acquires a finite albeit small mass $`m_{ph}^2\mathrm{exp}\{4\pi M_W/g^2\}`$ (in the BPS limit) . Another effect is confinement of $`W^\pm `$ bosons with the string tension $`\sigma g^2m_{ph}`$.

When heated the model undergoes a phase transition to deconfined phase at $`T_c=\frac{g^2}{4\pi }`$ . At this transition the non-anomalous magnetic $`Z_2`$ symmetry is restored.

### 2.2 The effective action and the instanton interactions.

We are interested primarily in the high temperature phase, $`T>T_c`$. At these temperatures the dimensional reduction applies and the effective Lagrangian was derived in  in terms of the abelian Polyakov line $`P`$.

$`S={\displaystyle d^2x\left\{\frac{2T}{g^2}(_iP)(_iP^{})\frac{T}{2g^2}M_D^2(P^2+P^2)+\frac{a^2}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\zeta a^2\right)(ϵ_{ij}_iP_jP^{})^2\right\}}`$ (10)
Here the Polyakov line $`P`$ is a pure phase $`P=\mathrm{exp}\{i\frac{g}{T}A_0\}`$, and $`A_0`$ is the component of the vector potential parallel to the direction of the Higgs field $`n`$555Note that the transition temperature is much less than the Higgs expectation value $`T_c<<v^2`$. Thus the direction of the Higgs field is well defined also above the transition temperature. Of course at high enough temperature $`T=O(v^2)`$ the Higgs field will also fluctuate strongly and the nonabelian part of the gauge group will also become important. At these temperatures the theory becomes essentially nonabelian with all the ensuing complications. To keep our calculation under analytic control we restrict ourselves to temperatures $`T_c<T<v^2`$..

The action eq.(10) deserves some explanation. Firstly, as any dimensionally reduced Lagrangian it is valid at distance scales greater than the inverse temperature. The parameter $`a`$ appearing in it is the ultraviolet cutoff, and is of this order $`a=2\pi /T`$. The second term expanded to order $`A_0^2`$ gives the electric Debye screening mass to $`A_0`$. The mass squared is proportional to the fugacity of the charged particles, which in this model are the $`W^\pm `$ bosons $`M_D^2\mathrm{exp}\{M_W/T\}`$. The exact proportionality coefficient is straightforwardly calculable at one loop, but is inessential for our purposes. The last term is induced by the monopole-instantons. As discussed in  the monopoles in this effective action appear as vortices of the Polyakov line $`P`$ with unit winding. Indeed the last term in eq.(10) is of the type of Skyrme term and vanishes on any smooth configuration of $`A_0`$. Its only contribution comes from points at which the winding of $`P`$ is concentrated. It therefore just counts the number of vortices and anti-vortices of $`P`$, that is of monopoles and anti-monopoles. On a configuration with one monopole the contribution of this term to the partition function is equal to $`\zeta `$. Thus $`\zeta `$ is the fugacity of the monopole (or anti-monopole), $`\zeta \mathrm{exp}\{4\pi M_w/g^2\}`$ 666The proportionality constant is slightly different than at zero temperature reflecting the fact that the field modes with momenta $`p>T`$ have been integrated out to arrive at the effective action eq.(10).. An important point is that this dimensionally reduced action has not been derived in the derivative expansion, but rather in the expansion in powers of the exponentially small parameters $`M_Da`$ and $`\zeta `$ . It is thus valid for all distance scales above the UV cutoff $`a`$.

It is easy to see from the effective action eq.(10) that the monopoles are bound by a (screened) linear potential. Consider a configuration with unit winding of the field $`P`$. Due to the potential term $`P^2`$ the minimal action configuration can not be a rotationally symmetric hedgehog. Such a configuration would “cost” action proportional to the volume, since the field $`P`$ would be away from its vacuum value everywhere in space. The best one can do is to have a quasi one dimensional strip in which the winding is concentrated, while everywhere else in space $`P`$ would be equal to $`1`$ (or $`1`$). This configuration is schematically depicted on Fig. 1.

The width of the “dual confining string” must be clearly of order of $`M_D^1`$, while the action per unit length $`s\frac{T}{g^2}M_D`$. Thus the action of a single monopole diverges linearly with the size of the system. Obviously the monopole-anti-monopole pair separated by a distance $`L`$ have the action $`Ls`$. When the distance is large enough, another pair can be popped from the thermal ensemble and screen the linear potential. The critical distance at which this happens is clearly determined by777In this equation we neglected the effects of the finite temperature “renormalization” of the monopole fugacity $`\zeta `$.

$`L_cs=2\mathrm{log}\zeta ={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi M_W}{g^2}}`$ (11)
or

$`L_c{\displaystyle \frac{M_W}{T}}M_D^1`$ (12)
Thus as long as the temperature is much lower than $`M_W`$, the length of the “dual string” is much greater than its thickness. The “potential” between the monopoles is therefore linear, but screened at large distances, much in the same way as the confining potential in gauge theories with heavy fundamental charges888Of course we should always keep in mind that while talking about instanton “potential” we really mean “action” and not energy. Thus physically “confinement” of instantons is very different that confinement of charged particles..

Now it is interesting to consider the correlation functions of the vortex operators. There is a direct analogy between these correlation functions and the correlators of the fermionic bilinears in QCD. In particular if the magnetic $`U_M(1)`$ were restored at high temperature, this would imply a simple relation between correlation lengths in different channels, directly analogous to the would be degeneracy between the $`\eta `$ and the pions in QCD. Recall that the vortex operator in the GG model is a pseudo-scalar, so that the parity transformation acts on it as

$`VV^{}`$ (13)
The parity even and odd eigenstates are therefore

$`V^+={\displaystyle \frac{V+V^{}}{2}},V^{}=i{\displaystyle \frac{VV^{}}{2}}`$ (14)
If the magnetic $`U_M(1)`$ is restored, the correlators $`<VV>`$ and $`<V^{}V^{}>`$ both vanish, and thus the following relation should hold

$`<V^+(x)V^+(y)>=<V^{}(x)V^{}(y)>`$ (15)
The correlation lengths in the parity even and the parity odd channels should be the same. This is the direct analog of the would be equality of the correlation lengths in the $`\eta =\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi `$ and the $`\sigma =\overline{\psi }\psi `$ channels in QCD. We will see in the following that this equality in fact does not hold due to the instanton effects.

## 3 Instanton effects at high temperature.

### 3.1 $`U_M(1)`$ invariant correlators of $`V`$.

Let us remind the reader how calculation of the correlators of $`V`$ proceeds in the framework of the effective action eq.(10). For pure gauge theories this has been discussed in detail in . In the present, essentially Abelian case the procedure is very similar. The vortex operator $`V(x)`$ in eq.(8) induces a singular abelian gauge transformation which forces the vector potential $`A_0`$ to jump by $`\pi `$ across the curve $`C`$ in the definition eq.(8). Thus the Polyakov line $`P`$ is forced to change sign across $`C`$. Formally, the insertion of the operator $`V(x)`$ into the Euclidean finite temperature path integral leads to the shift

$`_iA_0_iA_0a_i`$ (16)
in the derivative terms in eq.(10). Here $`a_i`$ is a “vector potential” of a point-like vortex of vorticity $`1/2`$ at the point $`x`$

$`a_i(y)=\pi n_j^C(y)\delta (yC)`$ (17)
where $`n^C(y)`$ is a unit vector normal to the curve $`C`$ at the point $`y`$. The result does not depend on the curve $`C`$, but only on its end point $`x`$, since the shape of the curve may be changed into $`C^{}`$ by transforming $`PP`$ in the area enclosed by $`CC^{}`$.

The calculation of the correlation function $`V(x)V^{}(y)`$ leads to the path integral with the vortex at $`x`$ and the anti-vortex at $`y`$. At high enough temperature due to the factor $`T/g^2`$ in the action this path integral can be calculated in the steepest descent approximation. The integral then is dominated by the solution of the classical equations of motion subject to the condition that $`P`$ has to change sign across the curve $`C`$ that connects the points $`x`$ and $`y`$, see Fig.2.

The shape of this solution is easy to understand . In the hot phase the configurations $`P=1`$ and $`P=1`$ are degenerate. There are therefore classical solutions which have the form of domain walls, that interpolate between these two configurations, the so called $`Z_2`$ domain walls . Since our effective action is a simple sine-Gordon theory, the solution for such a domain wall is known explicitly999The Skyrme term in eq.(10) does not play any role in this discussion, since the solution in question is smooth and this term vanishes for smooth functions $`A_0`$.

$`A_0={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi T}{g}}\text{arctan}e^{M_D(xx_0)}`$ (18)
The action of this solution per unit length is

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{8T}{g^2}}M_D`$ (19)
In the calculation of $`V(x)V^{}(y)`$ the discontinuity in the boundary conditions forces $`P`$ to jump from the vicinity of one “vacuum” to the vicinity of the other across $`C`$. But since $`P`$ has to go to the same value in all directions at infinity, it has to return to the original vacuum. The solution thus is a domain wall of Fig.2. Using the result eq.(19) we find that for large separations101010Again the Skyrme term does not contribute, since the contribution of the cut $`C`$ is subtracted explicitly by the shift eq.(16).

$`<V(x)V^{}(y)>\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\}`$ (20)
Actually one can do a little better and determine the prefactor quite easily. The prefactor originates from the action associated with the endpoints $`x`$ and $`y`$ at which the wall terminates. Close to the endpoints (at distance smaller than $`M_D^1`$) the mass term is irrelevant and the configuration of $`A_0`$ must be that of a rotationally symmetric vortex (anti-vortex) of vorticity $`\pi `$

$`A_0(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\theta (z)}{2}}`$ (21)
with $`\theta `$ a planar angle relative to the location of the vortex. Such a vortex carries the Coulomb “self energy”

$`\delta S={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2g^2}}\pi {\displaystyle _a^{M_D^1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{r}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi T}{2g^2}}\mathrm{ln}(aM_D)`$ (22)
Adding the contribution of both end points we find111111In principle we should also subtract $`2M_D^1`$ from the length of the string for consistency. This correction is however sub-leading, since it brings in a factor $`\mathrm{exp}\{2\stackrel{~}{\sigma }M_D^1\}`$ which is of order 1 in the interesting temperature range.

$`<V(x)V^{}(y)>=(aM_D)^{\frac{\pi T}{g^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\}`$ (23)
Note that this calculation was performed entirely in the zero instanton sector. There is of course an instanton-anti-instanton contribution. We will discuss it at the end of this section.

### 3.2 Instanton sensitive correlators.

Let us now consider the calculation of $`<V^2(0)>`$, which is the simplest operator not invariant under the magnetic $`U_M(1)`$, but still invariant under the non-anomalous $`Z_2`$. Neglecting the instanton contributions, we should find that the VEV of this operator vanishes. Indeed the path integral for $`<V^2(0)>`$ has the boundary condition imposing vorticity $`2\pi `$ of $`P`$ at the point $`x=0`$. In the zero instanton sector the action with such boundary condition diverges. The reason is precisely the same as the one for linear potential between the instantons. The external vortex associated with $`V^2(0)`$ will pick up a “dual confining string”, which carries finite action per unit length. This configuration has action proportional to the linear size of the system and thus the VEV of $`V^2`$ vanishes exponentially in the thermodynamic limit. The leading non-vanishing contribution to $`<V^2(0)>`$ comes from the sector with one anti-instanton . Clearly if there is an anti-instanton in the vicinity of the point $`x=0`$, the dual string that originates at $`x=0`$ will terminate on it and thus the result will be finite. To calculate the expectation value we note that it is dominated by the anti-instanton sitting relatively close to the point $`x=0`$, since otherwise the action of the configuration is very large. On the other hand if the coordinate of the anti-instanton $`x_a`$ is smaller than $`M_D^1`$, the action of the classical solution is just the action of a dipole with the vector potential

$`a_0(x)=\theta (x)\theta (xx_a)`$ (24)
The expectation value is therefore given by the integral over the quasi zero mode $`x_a`$

$`<V^2>`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta {\displaystyle _{a<|x_a|<M_D^1}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x_a}{\pi a^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{S(a_0)\}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`\zeta a^2{\displaystyle }d(l^2)\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi T}{g^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{a^2}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4\pi Tg^2}}[1(M_Da)^{2\frac{4\pi Tg^2}{g^2}}]`$
Let us now consider the correlation function $`<V(x)V(y)>`$. As far as the magnetic quantum numbers are concerned, this correlator is the same as the composite operator $`V^2`$, but it is more interesting since it must also exhibit some physical correlation length. The calculation of this quantity is not much different. In the zero instanton sector it vanishes for the same reason as $`V^2`$. It carries a net “vorticity” and this vorticity has to be screened by an anti-instanton in order to give a finite result. In principle the anti-instanton can be located at an arbitrary point in space. The field configuration corresponding to two external vortices associated with insertions of $`V`$ and the anti-instanton is schematically depicted on Fig.3.

Clearly the contribution of anti-instantons sitting at a significant distance from the straight line connecting $`x`$ and $`y`$ is exponentially suppressed, since the “dual confining string” in this configuration is longer. Thus the leading contribution is given by the anti-instantons sitting within the transverse distance $`M_D^1`$ of the straight line. The correlation function thus is

$`<V(x)V(y)>=\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{d^2z}{\pi a^2}\mathrm{exp}\{S(x,y,z)\}}=\zeta {\displaystyle _x^y}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_1}{\pi M_Da^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{S(x,y,z_1)\}`$ (26)
where we have taken $`x=(x_1,0)`$ and $`y=(y_1,0)`$. Here $`z`$ is the position of the anti-instanton. As long as $`|xy|>>M_D^1`$, the main contribution comes from the anti-instantons far from the endpoints $`x`$ and $`y`$. For these configurations the integral over $`z_1`$ just gives $`|xy|`$, and the action is the sum of the action of the string $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|xy|`$ plus the self energies of the anti-instanton and the vortices at the endpoints $`x`$ and $`y`$. Those are calculated as in eqs.(22,23). So that finally we get

$`<V(x)V(y)>=\zeta (aM_D)^{\frac{3\pi T}{g^2}1}{\displaystyle \frac{|xy|}{a}}\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\}`$ (27)
Interestingly enough the correlation length that appears in this correlation function is the same as the one appearing in the correlator of vortex and anti-vortex $`V(x)V^{}(y)`$.

Thus as expected, both the VEV of $`V^2`$ and the correlator $`V(x)V(y)`$ are sensitive to the instantons. Both these quantities are indeed directly proportional to the fugacity of the instanton $`\zeta `$. Even though in the $`U_M(1)`$ invariant sector the instantons appear only in bound pairs, in the calculation of the $`U_M(1)`$ non-invariant correlation functions they do appear separately. Such a single instanton (anti-instanton) binds to the external insertion that carries the explicit $`U_M(1)`$ charge and screens this charge. This leads to non-vanishing correlation functions in the channels whose quantum numbers match those of an integer number of instantons (anti-instantons).

### 3.3 Multi-instanton contributions.

As mentioned earlier, there are also multi-instanton contributions to the vortex correlation functions. Those become important when the separation $`|xy|`$ is large enough. The reason is that although each extra instanton-anti-instanton pair is suppressed by $`\zeta ^2`$, at large $`|xy|`$ the “entropy” is large enough and thus these contributions are not negligible.

Consider first the correlator $`V(x)V^{}(y)`$. In order that the multi-instanton contribution not be suppressed exponentially, all instantons must be located on the straight line connecting the points $`x`$ and $`y`$. Moreover, the instantons and anti-instantons must alternate, since otherwise some sections of the dual confining string connect regions of vorticity 3, and thus has much higher dual string tension. Other than these constraints, the coordinates of instantons and anti-instantons are arbitrary and have to be integrated over. The contribution of $`n`$ instantons and $`n`$ anti-instantons is therefore given by

$`<V(x)V^{}(y)>_n`$ $`=`$ $`(aM_D)^{\frac{\pi nT}{g^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\}`$
$`\times `$ $`\zeta ^{2n}(aM_D)^{\frac{4\pi nT}{g^2}}\pi M_Da_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{2n}{\displaystyle _x^y}𝑑y_n{\displaystyle _x^{y_n}}𝑑x_n{\displaystyle _x^{x_n}}𝑑y_{n1}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _x^{y_1}}𝑑x_1`$
Here $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ are longitudinal coordinates of instantons and anti-instantons correspondingly 121212Note that the usual symmetry factor $`\frac{1}{n!}\frac{1}{n!}`$ does not appear in this expression due to ordering of the coordinates of the instantons and anti-instantons.. Performing the integration and summing over $`n`$ we find

$`<V(x)V^{}(y)>=(aM_D)^{\frac{\pi T}{g^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\}\mathrm{cosh}\{\zeta (aM_D)^{\frac{2\pi T}{g^2}1}{\displaystyle \frac{|xy|}{\pi a}}\}`$ (29)
The multi-instantons have therefore a very nontrivial effect on the vortex correlator. They “split” the correlation length in two, generating two distinct correlation lengths

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\pm =\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\pm \zeta (aM_D)^{\frac{2\pi T}{g^2}1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi a}}`$ (30)
The calculation of the multi-instanton contributions to $`V(x)V(y)`$ is very similar, and gives

$`<V(x)V(y)>=(aM_D)^{\frac{\pi T}{g^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\}\mathrm{sinh}\{\zeta (aM_D)^{\frac{2\pi nT}{g^2}1}{\displaystyle \frac{|xy|}{\pi a}}\}`$ (31)
Again we see that the same set of correlation lengths appears in the two correlation functions.

Eqs.(29,31) are very simple from the point of view of the parity eigenstates $`V^+`$ and $`V^{}`$ eq.(14). They can be rewritten as

$`<V^+(x)V^+(y)>`$ $`=`$ $`(aM_D)^{\frac{\pi T}{g^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{}\}`$
$`<V^{}(x)V^{}(y)>`$ $`=`$ $`(aM_D)^{\frac{\pi T}{g^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_+\}`$ (32)
Thus we see explicitly that the correlation lengths in the scalar and pseudo-scalar channels are not equal due to the instanton effects. This difference decreases with temperature, but in the temperature range under consideration ($`TM_W`$) always remains finite. Recalling that $`M_D^2\mathrm{exp}\{M_W/T\}`$ and $`\zeta \mathrm{exp}\{4\pi M_W/g^2\}`$ we find that the ratio of the difference of the inverse correlation lengths to their sum varies between

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{}}{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_++\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{}}}=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi M_W}{g^2}}\},TT_c={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4\pi }}`$ (33)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{}}{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_++\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{}}}=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{5\pi M_W}{g^2}}\},TM_W`$ (34)
Finally it is worth mentioning that the quantities that get the direct instantons contributions naturally are proportional to the instanton fugacity, but their smallness is not uniform. For example as already mentioned, the correlation lengths in the vortex-vortex channel is the same as in the vortex-anti-vortex channel. Moreover comparing the vortex - vortex correlator eq.(31) with the vortex-anti-vortex correlator eq.(29) we see that although the former is smaller at short distances , at distances of order $`\pi a\zeta ^1(aM_D)^{1\frac{2\pi T}{g^2}}`$ the two are numerically practically equal.

### 3.4 $`N>2`$.

Let us briefly comment on the situation in the GG type models for $`N>2`$. The quantitative discussion of the phase transition will be given elsewhere . Here we want to discuss only the main qualitative features. The basic degree of freedom is still a vortex operator $`V(x)`$, and the effective theory at high temperature is similar to eq.(10) with the main difference that the potential term is $`P^N+P^N`$, and thus is $`Z_N`$ invariant131313The actual situation generically is more complicated than that. In particular there are $`N1`$ distinct vortex operators. Also there are $`N1`$ distinct Abelian Polyakov lines, corresponding to the $`N1`$ Cartan algebra generators, and all of those should appear in the effective action. However one can always choose the parameters of the model to be such that one of these operators is much lighter than the others. The rest of the Polyakov lines then can be integrated out and the effective action depends only on one $`P`$. For simplicity we consider only this situation in the present article, although the main conclusions are the same also in the generic case.. The instanton again is just a vortex of $`P`$ with unit vorticity.

First consider the calculation of $`<VV^{}>`$. Just like for $`N=2`$, the contribution in zero instanton sector is given by the $`Z_N`$ domain wall

$`<V(x)V^{}(y)>\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\}`$ (35)
The instanton-anti-instanton contribution now is however different. The point is that the instanton (anti-instanton), having winding number one, is the source (sink) of $`N`$ $`Z_N`$ domain walls. Thus the system of the vortex $`V(x)`$ plus an anti-instanton at some point $`x_1`$ together are the sink of $`N1`$ domain walls. The string tension of this bunch is roughly $`(N1)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$. Thus in order for the instanton-anti-instanton contribution not to be suppressed by the exponential factor, the anti-instanton must sit within a distance $`[(N2)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }]^1`$ of the instanton, see Fig. 4.

Again summing over the number of the AI pairs, we find that the contribution exponentiates

$`<V(x)V^{}(y)>=(aM_D)^{\frac{4\pi T}{g^2N^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\}\mathrm{exp}\{\zeta ^2(aM_D)^{\frac{2\pi T}{g^2}1}{\displaystyle \frac{|xy|}{\pi a^2(N2)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}}\}`$ (36)
So the result is quite distinct from the $`N=2`$ case. Only one correlation length is present, although there is indeed a direct contribution of instantons into this length of order $`O(\zeta ^2)`$.

The behavior of the correlator $`<V(x)V(y)>`$ is also very different. Since this correlation function is not symmetric under the magnetic $`Z_N`$ symmetry, which is unbroken in the high temperature phase, it strictly vanishes. Instead, the instantons contribute to the correlation functions with the quantum numbers of $`V^N`$. In particular consider $`<V(x)V^{N1}(y)>`$. The leading contribution to this correlation function comes from the configuration with an anti-instanton within the distance $`[(N2)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }]^1`$ of the point $`y`$ and an arbitrary number of the AI pairs.

$`<V(x)V^{N1}(y)>=\zeta (aM_D)^{\frac{(4+N^2)\pi T}{N^2g^2}1}\mathrm{exp}\{|xy|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\}\mathrm{exp}\{\zeta ^2(aM_D)^{\frac{2\pi T}{g^2}1}{\displaystyle \frac{|xy|}{\pi a^2(N2)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}}\}`$ (37)
In this calculation we only kept the leading contribution to the correlation function, which in the absence of instantons decays with the correlation length $`l^1=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$. There is of course another contribution. The configurations where the instantons and anti-instantons are allowed to separate will lead to the component with the correlation length $`l^1=(N1)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$. This is precisely the correlation length that in the absence of instantons dominates the correlator $`<V^{N1}(x)V^{(N1)}(y)>`$. The instantons clearly lead to the mixing of the operators $`V`$ and $`V^{(N1)}`$ in full analogy with the case $`N=2`$. This mixing is accompanied with the instanton induced increase in the longest correlation length

$`[\stackrel{~}{\sigma }]^1[\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(aM_D)^{\frac{2\pi T}{g^2}1}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{\pi a^2(N2)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}}]^1`$ (38)
Thus for $`N>2`$ the instantons do not remove the degeneracy between $`V+V^{}`$ and $`VV^{}`$,but they do significantly affect other correlation functions consistently with the magnetic $`Z_N`$ symmetry.

We conclude that even though at high temperature the instantons are bound in pairs, they are still relevant in the infrared. The anomaly does not disappear. Its manifestation is non-vanishing of non-singlet correlators as well as the difference of the correlation lengths in the scalar and pseudo-scalar channels for $`N=2`$ and the operator mixing consistent with the unbroken magnetic $`Z_N`$ for $`N>2`$.

## 4 Discussion

The calculation presented in this paper illustrates two simple points. First, which correlation functions vanish and which don’t is determined entirely by the non-anomalous symmetries. Second, the instanton contributions are important at high temperature even though the instantons in the partition function are bound in pairs. Both these features we expect of course to hold also in QCD.

In particular let us consider the fermionic bilinear correlation functions. The fermionic bilinears that transform as irreducible representations of the non-anomalous $`SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)`$ are

$`O^{ij}(x)=\overline{\psi }_L^i(x)\psi _R^j(x),O^{ij}(x)=\overline{\psi }_R^i(x)\psi _L^j(x)`$ (39)
whereas the parity eigen-operators are

$`O_\pm =O\pm O^{}`$ (40)
Now consider the correlation functions $`O_+(x)O_+(y)`$ and $`O_{}(x)O_{}(y)`$. If the correlators $`T=<O(x)O(y)>`$ and $`<T^{}=O^{}(x)O^{}(y)>`$ both vanish, then the correlation functions of the parity even and the parity odd operators are equal. Whether this is true or not depends on the number of flavors. For $`N>2`$ the vanishing of these correlation functions is assured by the $`SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)`$ symmetry, since $`T`$ is the product of two fundamental representations (separately for the right and left symmetries) and therefore does not contain a singlet. For $`N_f=2`$ on the other hand the product of two fundamentals does contain a singlet. Thus there is no symmetry obstruction for $`T`$ to be nonzero141414In this discussion we did not mention at all the anomalous $`U_A(1)`$. Of course, if we assume that it is restored, the parity odd and even channels must be degenerate, since they transform into each other under the axial $`U(1)`$..

Dynamically the contributions to $`T`$ come from the instanton sector. For $`N_f=2`$ the number of fermionic operators in $`T`$ is just right to saturate the fermionic zero modes of an instanton. Recall that the fermionic zero modes at high temperature away from the core of the instanton exponentially decrease as $`\mathrm{exp}\{\pi T|x|\}`$ . This is the same exponential decay as of the lowest fermionic Matsubara mode. Thus we expect the situation to be very similar to the $`N=2`$ Georgi-Glashow model. The perturbative behavior of the correlator $`O(x)O^{}(y)`$ is

$`<O(x)O^{}(y)>\mathrm{exp}\{2\pi T|xy|\}`$ (41)
The instanton-anti-instanton contributions have the same exponential behavior, and extra powers of $`|xy|`$ due to the arbitrariness of the instanton’s (anti-instanton’s) position. It is very likely that the sum over the number of instantons exponentiates as in eq. (29) and results in the splitting of the basic correlation length into two $`2\pi T\pm x\zeta `$. These two distinct correlation length then appear separately in the parity even and parity odd channels.

For $`N_f>2`$ the number of fermions in $`T`$ does not match the number of the fermionic zero modes in the instantons, and thus the only way instantons can contribute is through AI pairs. They will however give direct contributions to the correlators of the type $`T_N=<O(x)O_{2N2}(y)>`$ where $`O_{2N2}`$ is the operator containing $`2N2`$ fermions, such that the quantum numbers of $`T_N`$ are the same as of ’t Hooft’s determinant. This is essentially the argumentation of . Again this is mimicked perfectly by our discussion of the $`N>2`$ GG model.

Although analytic multi-instanton calculations in QCD are difficult, the toy GG model gives us a very clear picture of what the expected result is. Hopefully this knowledge may give us a hint of how to separate the most important contributions so that an analytic calculation may become possible after all.

Acknowledgments

A.K. is supported by PPARC. The research of I.K. and B. T. are supported by PPARC Grant PPA/G/O/1998/00567.


format: text

text:
# Free Fisher Information for Non-Tracial States

## 1. Introduction.

Free entropy and free Fisher information were introduced by Voiculescu , ,  in the context of his free probability theory  as analogs of the corresponding classical quantities. These quantities are usually considered in the framework of tracial non-commutative probability spaces; not surprisingly, the most striking applications of free entropy theory were to tracial von Neumann algebras (see e.g. , , ). Recently, however, it turned out that some type III factors associated with free probability theory  have certain properties in common with their type II1 cousins . This gives rise to a speculation that there is room for free entropy to exist outside of the context of tracial non-commutative probability spaces.

The goal of this paper is to initiate the development of free Fisher information, based on Voiculescu’s microstates-free approach , in the non-tracial framework. The key idea is that all of the ingredients going into the definition of free Fisher information in this case must behave covariantly with respect to the modular group  of the non-tracial state. The principal example of a family of variables for which free Fisher information is non-trivial, and which belong to an algebra not having any traces, are semicircular generators of free Araki-Woods factors, taken with free quasi-free states .

We describe another route towards free Fisher information, which is based on first converting the non-tracial von Neumann algebra into a larger algebra, the core (having an infinite trace), and then considering free Fisher information relative to a certain completely positive map (in the spirit of ). We should point out that it is this approach that is most likely to connect with the microstates free entropy (as suggested by ; see also ), since it is at present unclear what a microstates approach to free entropy in the non-tracial framework should be.

We finish the paper with a look at free Fisher information on von Neumann algebras that have traces. Our first result is that once the algebra has a trace, the free Fisher information is automatically infinite when computed with respect to a non-tracial state. It is likely that on any von Neumann algebra, free Fisher information can be finite for only very special states (however, we do not have any results in this direction in the non-tracial category). Another result of the present paper is a statement guaranteeing factoriality of a tracial von Neumann algebra, once we know that it has an infinite generating family whose free Fisher information is bounded in a certain way.

###### Acknowledgement.

This work was supported by an NSF postdoctoral fellowship. The author is grateful to MSRI and the organizers of the operator algebras program for their hospitality.

## 2. Free Fisher Information for Arbitrary KMS States.

### 2.1. Free Brownian motion in the presence of a modular group.

Let $`M`$ be a von Neumann algebra, $`\varphi :M`$ be a normal faithful state on $`M`$. Denote by $`\sigma _t^\varphi `$ the modular group of $`\varphi `$. Denote by $`L^2(M^{\mathrm{sa}},\varphi )L^2(M,\varphi )`$ the closure of the real subspace of self-adjoint elements $`M^{\mathrm{sa}}M`$.

Let $`X=X^{}M`$ and let $`BM`$ be a subalgebra. Assume that $`\sigma _t^\varphi (B)B`$ for all $`t`$.

Consider the von Neumann algebra $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }(L^2(M^{\mathrm{sa}},\varphi )L^2(M,\varphi ))`$, taken with the free quasi-free state $`\varphi _{}`$. Consider the element $`Y=s(X)`$ (see  for definitions and notation). Then $`\varphi _{}(Y\sigma _t^\varphi _{}(Y))=\varphi (X\sigma _t^\varphi (X))`$, for all $`t`$.

Consider the algebra $`𝒩=(M,\varphi )(,\varphi _{})`$, and denote by $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ the free product state on $`𝒩`$. Note that $`\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}=\sigma _t^\varphi \sigma _t^\varphi _{}`$. The elements $`X_ϵ=X+\sqrt{ϵ}Y`$, $`ϵ0`$ form a natural free Brownian motion, which behaves nicely under the action of the modular group. In particular, note that for all $`ϵ0`$ and $`t`$,

$$\widehat{\varphi }(X_ϵ\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}(X_ϵ))=\varphi (X\sigma _t^\varphi (X))(1+ϵ).$$

Furthermore, for each $`ϵ>0`$, the distribution of $`X_ϵ`$ is that of a free Brownian motion at time $`ϵ`$, starting at $`X`$; this is because $`Y`$ is a semicircular variable, free from $`X`$.

### 2.2. Conjugate variables.

Let $`B[X]`$ denote that algebra generated by $`B`$ and all translates $`\sigma _t^\varphi (X)`$, $`t`$. Assume that $`\{\sigma _t^\varphi (X)\}`$ are algebraically free over $`B`$, i.e., satisfy no algebraic relations modulo $`B`$. Denote by $`_X:B[X]𝒩`$ the derivation given by:

1. $`_X(\sigma _t^\varphi (X))=\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}(Y)`$
2. $`_X(b)=0`$, $`bB`$.

Notice that the range of $`_X`$ actually lies in the subspace $`B[X]YB[X]𝒩`$. Note also that since $`_X(\sigma _t^\varphi (X))`$ is self-adjoint, we have that for $`PB[X]`$, $`_X(P^{})=_X(P)^{}`$, i.e., $`_X`$ is a $``$-derivation. Observe finally that $`_X`$ is covariant with respect to the modular groups $`\sigma _t^\varphi `$ and $`\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}`$:

$$_X(\sigma _t^\varphi (P))=\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}(_X(P)),PB[X].$$

Define the conjugate variable $`J_\varphi (X:B)L^2(B[X],\varphi )`$ to be such a vector $`\xi `$ that

(2.1)
$$\xi ,P_{L^2(B[X],\varphi )}=Y,_X(P)_{L^2(𝒩,\widehat{\varphi })},PB[X],$$

if a vector $`\xi `$ satisfying such properties exists. Formally, this means that $`\xi =_X^{}(Y)`$, where $`_X:L^2(B[X],\varphi )L^2(𝒩,\widehat{\varphi })`$ is viewed as a densely defined operator.

It is clear, because of the density of $`B[X]`$ in $`L^2(B[X],\varphi )`$, that $`\xi `$ is unique, if it exists.

It is convenient to talk about $`J_\varphi (X:B)`$ even in the case that $`\{\sigma _t(X)\}_t`$ are not algebraically free over $`B`$ (such is the case, for example, when $`\varphi `$ is a trace, and hence $`\sigma _t^\varphi (X)=X`$ for all $`t`$). In this case, one can view $`_X`$ as a multi-valued map, the set of values given by the results of application of the definition of $`_X`$ in all possible ways; the definition of $`J_\varphi `$ is then that (2.1) is valid for all values of $`_X`$.

Note that $`J_\varphi (X:B)`$ depends on more than just the joint distribution of $`X`$ and $`B`$ with respect to the state $`\varphi `$; it depends on the joint distribution of the family $`B\{\sigma _t^\varphi (X):t)`$.

We continue to denote by $`\sigma _t^\varphi `$ the extension of $`\sigma _t^\varphi `$ to the Hilbert space $`L^2(M,\varphi )`$ (this is precisely the one-parameter group of unitaries $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi ^{it}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi `$ is the modular operator). In particular, if $`\varphi `$ is a trace, then the definition of $`J_\varphi `$ is (up to a multiple) precisely that of the conjugate variable of Voiculescu .

###### Lemma 2.1.

Assume that $`\xi =J_\varphi (X:B)`$ exists. Then $`\xi L^2(M^{\mathrm{sa}},\varphi )`$, and $`\sigma _t^\varphi (J_\varphi (X:B))=J_\varphi (\sigma _t(X):B)`$.

###### Proof.

We note that, because $`_X`$ is a $``$-derivation,

$$P^{},\xi =\overline{Y,_X(P^{})}=_X(P),Y=\overline{\xi ,P}.$$

From this it follows that $`\xi `$ is in the domain of the $`S`$ operator of Tomita theory, and moreover that $`S\xi =\xi `$. Hence $`\xi L^2(M^{\mathrm{sa}})`$.

One also has

$`\sigma _t^\varphi (\xi ),P`$ $`=`$ $`Y,_X(P)`$
$`=`$ $`\sigma _t^\varphi (Y),_{\sigma _t^\varphi (X)}(P),`$
since the joint distributions of $`B[X]`$ and $`\{\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}(Y)\}_t`$ is the same as $`B[X]`$ and $`\{\sigma _{s+t}^{\widehat{\varphi }}(Y)\}_t`$, for any $`s`$. It follows that $`\sigma _t^\varphi (J_\varphi (X:B))=J_\varphi (\sigma _t^\varphi (X):B)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`P,QB[X]`$, and assume that $`\xi =J_\varphi (X)`$ exists and is in $`M`$. Then

$$\varphi (P\xi Q)=\widehat{\varphi }(PY_X(Q))+\widehat{\varphi }(_X(P)YQ).$$

###### Proof.

Recall that $`\varphi `$ (and $`\widehat{\varphi }`$) satisfy the KMS condition: for all $`a,bM`$ (or $`𝒩`$), there exists a (unique) function $`f(z)`$, analytic on the strip $`\{z:0<\mathrm{}z<1\}`$, and so that (writing $`\sigma _t`$ for either $`\sigma _t^\varphi `$ or $`\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}`$ )

$`\varphi (a\sigma _t(b))`$ $`=`$ $`f(t),`$
$`\varphi (\sigma _t(b)a)`$ $`=`$ $`f(t+i),t.`$
Fix $`P,QB[X]`$ and let $`f`$ be as above, so that

$`\varphi (\sigma _t^\varphi (P)\xi Q)`$ $`=`$ $`f(t+i),`$
$`\varphi (\xi Q\sigma _t^\varphi (P))`$ $`=`$ $`f(t).`$
Then

$`f(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ,Q\sigma _t^\varphi (P)`$
$`=`$ $`Y,_X(Q\sigma _t^\varphi (P))`$
$`=`$ $`Y,_X(Q)\sigma _t^\varphi (P)+Y,Q\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}(_X(P)),`$
where in the last step we used the fact that $`_X`$ intertwines $`\sigma _t^\varphi `$ and $`\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}`$. Using the KMS-condition for $`\widehat{\varphi }`$, we then get

$`f(t+i)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\varphi }(\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}(P)Y_X(Q))+\widehat{\varphi }(\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}(_X(P))YQ)`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{\varphi }(\sigma _t^\varphi (P)Y_X(Q))+\widehat{\varphi }(_X(\sigma _t^\varphi (P))YQ).`$
Since $`f(t+i)=\varphi (\sigma _t^\varphi (P)\xi Q),`$ we get, setting $`t=0`$, that

$$\varphi (P\xi Q)=\widehat{\varphi }(PY_X(Q))+\widehat{\varphi }(_X(P)YQ),$$

as claimed. ∎

### 2.3. Conjugate variables as free Brownian gradients.

As pointed out above, $`X+\sqrt{\epsilon }Y`$ is a natural free Brownian motion, which is covariant with respect to the appropriate modular groups. The following proposition shows that $`J_\varphi (X:B)`$ plays the role of the free Brownian gradient of $`X`$.

###### Proposition 2.3.

Assume that $`\xi =J_\varphi (X:B)`$ exists and belongs to $`ML^2(M,\varphi )`$. Let $`P(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n)`$, be any non-commutative polynomial in $`n`$ variables $`Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n`$, with coefficients from $`B`$. Write $`X_t=\sigma _t^\varphi (X)`$, $`Y_t=\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}(Y)`$, $`\xi _t=\sigma _t^\varphi (\xi )`$, $`t`$.

Then for all $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n`$, we have

$`\widehat{\varphi }(P(X_{t_1}+\sqrt{\epsilon }Y_{t_1},\mathrm{},X_{t_n}+\sqrt{\epsilon }Y_{t_n}))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi (P(X_{t_1}+\epsilon \xi _{t_1},\mathrm{},X_{t_n}+\epsilon \xi _{t_n})`$
$`+O(\epsilon ^2).`$
###### Proof.

We may assume, by linearity, that $`P`$ is a monomial, i.e., $`P(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n)=b_0Z_1b_1\mathrm{}b_{n1}Z_nb_n`$, for $`b_jB`$. In this case, we have

$`\widehat{\varphi }(b_0(X_{t_1}+\sqrt{\epsilon }Y_{t_1})b_1\mathrm{}b_n)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (P(X_{t_1},\mathrm{},X_{t_n}))+O(\epsilon ^2)`$
$`+\epsilon {\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\widehat{\varphi }(b_0X_{t_1}\mathrm{}b_lY_{t_{l+1}}b_{l+1}X_{t_{l+2}}\mathrm{}b_kY_{t_{k+1}}`$
$`b_{k+1}X_{t_{k+2}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n}b_n)`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi (P(X_{t_1},\mathrm{},X_{t_n}))+O(\epsilon ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon {\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\widehat{\varphi }(b_0X_{t_1}\mathrm{}X_{t_l}b_lY_{t_{l+1}}_{X_{t_{l+1}}}(b_{l+1}X_{t_{l+2}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n}b_n))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon {\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\widehat{\varphi }(_{X_{t_{k+1}}}(b_0X_{t_1}\mathrm{}X_{t_k}b_k)Y_{t_k}b_{k+1}X_{t_{k+2}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n}b_n)`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi (P(X_{t_1},\mathrm{},X_{t_n}))+O(\epsilon ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\varphi (b_0X_{t_1}\mathrm{}X_{t_k}b_k\epsilon \xi _{t_k}b_{k+1}X_{t_{k+2}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n}b_n),`$
the last equality by Lemma 2.2. This implies the statement of the Lemma. ∎

### 2.4. Examples of conjugate variables.

#### 2.4.1. Tracial case.

We have seen before that if $`\varphi `$ is a trace, then the definition of $`J_\varphi (X:B)`$ coincides with the definition of conjugate variables given by Voiculescu, up to a constant (which has to do with the fact that we choose $`Y`$ so that $`Y_{L^2(\widehat{\varphi })}=X_{L^2(\varphi )}`$, and not $`1`$). In particular,

$$J_\varphi (X:B)=J(X:B)\frac{1}{X_{L^2(\varphi )}^2},\text{if }\varphi \text{is a trace}.$$

#### 2.4.2. Free quasi-free states.

Let $`\mu `$ be a positive finite Borel measure on $``$, and let $`_{}`$ be the real Hilbert space $`L^2(,,\mu )`$ of $`\mu `$ -square-integrable real-valued functions. Denote by $`U_t`$ the representation of $``$ on $`_{}`$, given by

$$(U_tf)(x)=e^{2\pi itx}f(x),x,t.$$

Let $`h`$ denote the vector $`1_{}`$, and consider

$$M=\mathrm{\Gamma }(_{},U_t)^{\prime \prime },\varphi =\varphi _U,X=s(h)M$$

(see  for definitions and notation).

Then $`X=J_\varphi (X:)`$. Indeed, set $`X_t=\sigma _t^\varphi (X)=s(U_th)`$; then we have

$`\varphi (XX_{t_1}\mathrm{}X_{t_n})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\varphi (XX_{t_k})\varphi (X_{t_1}\mathrm{}X_{t_{k1}})\varphi (X_{t_{k+1}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\widehat{\varphi }(Y\sigma _{t_k}^{\widehat{\varphi }}(Y))\varphi (X_{t_1}\mathrm{}X_{t_{k1}})\varphi (X_{t_{k+1}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\widehat{\varphi }(YX_{t_1}\mathrm{}X_{t_{k1}}YX_{t_{k+1}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n})`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{\varphi }(Y_X(X_{t_1}\mathrm{}X_{t_n})),`$
so that $`X`$ satisfies the defining property of $`J_\varphi (X:)`$, and hence $`J_\varphi (X:)`$ exists and equals $`X`$.

### 2.5. Free Fisher information.

Following , we define the free Fisher information $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X:B)`$ to be

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X:B)=J_\varphi (X:B)_2^2X_2^2$$

(the extra factor $`X_2^2`$ comes from the fact that $`_X(X)`$ does not have unit norm in our definition). For several variables, we set

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_i:W^{}(\sigma _{t_1}^\varphi (X_1),\mathrm{},\widehat{X}_i,\mathrm{},\sigma _{t_n}^\varphi (X_n):t_1,\mathrm{},t_n))$$

(here $`\widehat{X}_i`$ means that $`X_i`$ is omitted).

## 3. Free Fisher Information Relative to the Core.

Recall  that if $`(M,\varphi )`$ is as above, its core is defined to be the von Neumann algebra crossed product $`P=M_{\sigma ^\varphi }`$. There is a canonical inclusion $`MP`$, and $`P`$ is densely spanned by elements of the form

$$mU_t,t,$$

where $`mM`$, and $`U_t`$ satisfy $`U_tmU_t^{}=\sigma _t^\varphi (m)`$. The elements $`U_t:t`$ generate a copy of the group von Neumann algebra $`L()P`$; the map

$$E^\varphi :mU_t\varphi (m)U_t,mM,t$$

extends to a normal conditional expectation from $`P`$ onto $`L()`$.

For $`XM`$ self-adjoint, define the completely positive map $`\eta _X:L()L()`$ by

$$\eta _X(g)=E^\varphi (XgX),gL().$$

Identify $`L()`$ with $`L^{\mathrm{}}()`$ via Fourier transform. For each $`t`$, set

$$\eta (t)=X,\sigma _t^\varphi (X)=E^\varphi (XU_tX).$$

Then $`\eta _X(f)=\widehat{\eta }f`$, if $`fL^{\mathrm{}}()L()`$; here $`\widehat{\eta }`$ denotes Fourier transform.

Define on $`P`$ an $`L()`$-valued inner product

$$a,b_{L()}=E^\varphi (a^{}b),a,bP.$$

Denote by $`L^2(P,E^\varphi )`$ the $`L()`$-Hilbert bimodule arising from the completion of $`P`$ with respect to the norm induced by this inner product. Note that the restriction of $`,_{L()}`$ to $`MP`$ is valued in the complex field, and coincides with the inner product $`a,b=\varphi (a^{}b)`$ on $`L^2(M)`$.

Denote by $`,_\eta `$ the $`L()`$-valued inner product on $`PP`$ (algebraic tensor product) given by

$$ab,a^{}b^{}_\eta =E^\varphi (b^{}\eta (E^\varphi (a^{}a^{})b^{})),a,a^{},b,b^{}P.$$

Denote by $`1_\eta 1`$ the vector $`11PP`$.

Let $`\delta _X:B[X]L()PP`$ be given by

$$\delta _X(X)=1_\eta 1,\delta _X(BL())=0$$

and the fact that $`\delta _X`$ is a derivation.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`(M,\varphi )`$ be as above, and let $`P`$ be its core. Let $`i:L^2(M,\varphi )L^2(P,E^\varphi )`$ be the extension of the inclusion of $`MP`$. Then $`\zeta =i(J_\varphi (X:B))`$ satisfies

(3.1)
$$\zeta ,Q_{L()}=1_\eta 1,\delta _X(Q)_{\eta _X}$$

for all $`QB[X]L()`$. Conversely, if there exists a vector $`\zeta L^2(P,E^\varphi )`$, so that (3.1) is satisfied, then $`J_\varphi (X:B)`$ exists and $`\zeta =i(J_\varphi (X:B))`$.

###### Proof.

Assume first that $`J_\varphi (X:B)`$ exists. Set $`\zeta =i(J_\varphi (X:B))`$. We must verify that (3.1) holds. By linearity, and the fact that $`L()BL()BL()`$, it is sufficient to consider the case when $`Q=b_0U^{s_1}X_{t_1}b_1U^{s_2}\mathrm{}X_{t_n}b_nU^{s_n}`$, with $`b_jB`$ and $`X_t=\sigma _t^\varphi (X)`$. Then $`Q=PU^r`$, where $`r=s_j`$ , and $`P=b_0X_{t_1^{}}b_1^{}\mathrm{}b_n^{}`$, with $`b_j^{}=\sigma _{s_{j1}}^\varphi \mathrm{}\sigma _{s_1}^\varphi (b_j)`$, $`t_j^{}=s_{j1}+\mathrm{}+s_1+t_j`$. Note that for $`x,y,x^{},y^{}P`$, $`xy,x^{}Uy^{}_\eta =xy,x^{}Uy_\eta `$, and $`xy,U^r(x^{}y^{})U^s=U^rxyU^s`$. Using this , we get

$`\zeta ,Q_{L()}`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta ,P_{L()}g`$
$`=`$ $`\zeta ,P_{L^2(M,\varphi )}U^r`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{\varphi }(Y_X(P))U^r`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\varphi (b_0^{}X_{t_1^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_j^{}}b_j^{})\varphi (b_{j+1}^{}X_{t_{j+2}^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n^{}}b_n^{})\widehat{\varphi }(YY_{t_j})U^r`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\varphi (b_0^{}X_{t_1^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_j^{}}b_j^{})\varphi (b_{j+1}^{}X_{t_{j+2}^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n^{}}b_n^{})\varphi (XU^{t_j^{}}XU^{t_j^{}})U^r`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\varphi (b_0^{}X_{t_1^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_j^{}}b_j^{})\varphi (b_{j+1}^{}X_{t_{j+2}^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n^{}}b_n^{})E^\varphi (XU^{t_j^{}}XU^{t_j^{}}U^r)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\varphi (b_0^{}X_{t_1^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_j^{}}b_j^{})\varphi (b_{j+1}^{}X_{t_{j+2}^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n^{}}b_n^{})\eta _X(U^{t_j^{}})U^{rt_j^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\eta _XE^\varphi (b_0^{}X_{t_1^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_j^{}}b_j^{}U^{t_j^{}})E^\varphi (U^{rt_j^{}}b_{j+1}^{}X_{t_{j+2}^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n^{}}b_n^{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}1_\eta 1,b_0^{}X_{t_1^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_j^{}}b_j^{}U^{t_j^{}}U^{rt_j}b_{j+1}^{}X_{t_{j+2}^{}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n^{}}b_n^{}_\eta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}1_\eta 1,b_0U^{s_1}X_{t_1}\mathrm{}X_{t_j}b_jU^{s_j}U^{t_j^{}}U^{rt_j}U^{s_{j+1}}b_{j+1}X_{t_{j+2}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n}b_nU^{s_n}U^r_\eta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}1_\eta 1,b_0U^{s_1}X_{t_1}\mathrm{}X_{t_j}b_jU^{s_j}U^{s_{j+1}}b_{j+1}X_{t_{j+2}}\mathrm{}X_{t_n}b_nU^{s_n}_\eta `$
$`=`$ $`1_\eta 1,\delta _X(Q)_\eta .`$
Conversely, assume that $`\zeta `$ satisfying (3.1) exists. Since the argument above is reversible, it is sufficient to prove that $`\zeta `$ is in the image of $`i:L^2(M)L^2(P,E^\varphi )`$. Let $`\theta _t`$ be the dual action of $``$ on $`P`$, given by $`\theta _t(U_s)=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ist)`$, $`\theta _t(m)=m`$, $`mM`$. It is sufficient to prove that $`\theta _t(\zeta )=\zeta `$, since $`i(L^2(M))`$ consists precisely of those vectors, which are left fixed by $`\theta `$. It is sufficient to prove that $`\theta _s(E^\varphi (\zeta mU_t))=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ist)`$ if $`mM`$. Since $`\zeta `$ is assumed to be in the closure of $`B[X]L()`$, it is sufficient to check this for $`mB[X]`$. But then by (3.1),

$`E^\varphi (\zeta mU_t)`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta ,mU_t_{L()}`$
$`=`$ $`1_\eta 1,\delta _X(mU)_\eta `$
$`=`$ $`1_\eta 1,\delta _X(m)_\eta U`$
$``$ $`MU_t,`$
which gives the desired result, since $`\theta _s`$ acts trivially on $`M`$. ∎

Note that (3.1) means that $`\zeta `$ is equal to $`J(X:B,\eta )`$ in the notation of . (This is strictly speaking incorrect, since the setting of  presumes the existence of a finite trace on $`B[X]L()`$; however, it is not hard to check that the arguments in  go through also in the case of a semifinite trace, which exists in our case).

This fact has many consequences for the conjugate variables $`J_\varphi (X:B)`$, coming from the properties of $`J(X:BL(),\eta )`$. Note in particular that if $`X`$ is free from $`B`$ with amalgamation over $`DB`$ with respect to some conditional expectation $`E:BD`$, and $`E`$ is $`\varphi `$-preserving, then $`X`$ is free from $`BL()`$ with amalgamation over $`DL()`$ (see , ). We record this as

###### Theorem 3.2.

Assume that $`E:BD`$ is a $`\varphi `$-preserving conditional expectation. If $`X`$ is free from $`B`$ over $`D`$, then

$$J_\varphi (X:B)=J_\varphi (X:D).$$

In a similar way, one can generalize to $`J_\varphi (X:B)`$ all the properties of the conjugate variable $`J(X:B,\eta )`$ proved in .

Reformulating gives the following properties of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi `$, which we list for reader’s convenience, since they are needed in the rest of the paper:

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`\varphi `$ be a normal faithful state on $`M`$, $`BM`$ be globally fixed by the modular group (i.e., $`\sigma _t^\varphi (B)=B`$ for all $`t`$), and $`X_iM`$. Then:
(a) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(\lambda X_1,\mathrm{},\lambda X_n:B)=\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n:B)`$ for all $`\lambda \{0\}`$
(b) If $`BAM`$ and $`A`$ is globally fixed by $`\sigma ^\varphi `$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n:A)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n:B)`$.
(c) If $`CM`$ is globally fixed by $`\sigma ^\varphi `$, and $`W^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ and $`B`$ are free with amalgamation over $`C`$ (with respect to the unique $`\varphi `$-preserving conditional expectation from $`M`$ onto $`C`$), then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n:BC)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n:B)`$.
(d) If $`Y_iM`$ are self-adjoint, $`DB`$, $`DC`$ subalgebras of $`M`$, which are globally fixed by $`\sigma ^\varphi `$, and $`B[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ is free from $`C[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ over $`D`$ (with respect to the unique $`\varphi `$-preserving conditional expectation from $`M`$ onto $`D`$), then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n,Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_m:BC)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n:B)+\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n:C)`$.
(e) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n,Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n:B)\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n:B)+\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_m:B)`$.
(f) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n:B)\varphi (X_i^{}X_i)^2n^2`$. Equality holds iff $`\{\sigma _{t_1}^\varphi (X_1),\mathrm{},\sigma _{t_n}^\varphi (X_n):t_1,\mathrm{},t_n\}`$ have the same distribution as the semicircular family $`\{\kappa s(\sigma _{t_1}^\varphi (X_1)),\mathrm{},\kappa s(\sigma _{t_n}^\varphi (X_n)):t_1,\mathrm{},t_n\}`$ with respect to the free quasi-free state, $`\kappa >0`$.

We mention that all of the statements in sections 3 and 4 of  remain valid for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}`$; we leave details to the reader.

One can also define and study free entropy $`\chi _\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ by setting $`X_i^ϵ=X_i+Y_i`$ to be the free Brownian motion described in the beginning of the paper, and letting

$$\chi _\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{n}{1+t}\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1^ϵ,\mathrm{},X_n^ϵ)\right)𝑑t.$$

The properties of $`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{},\eta )`$ once again generalize to $`\chi _\varphi ^{}`$ (compare section 8 of ).

## 4. States on a II1 factor.

### 4.1. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^{}`$.

The following theorem is somewhat surprising, since it shows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}`$ is identically infinite for most states $`\varphi `$ on a II1 factor (the analogy with classical Fisher information would instead suggest that $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}`$ would have some nice convexity properties). This, on the other hand, goes well with the “degenerate convexity” property of the microstates free entropy $`\chi `$  (which is reflected in that it is identically $`\mathrm{}`$ on generators of any von Neumann algebra which more than one unital trace).

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`M`$ be a tracial von Neumann algebra, $`\varphi `$ a faithful normal state on $`M`$, $`BM`$ a subalgebra so that $`\sigma _t^\varphi (B)=B`$ for all $`t`$, and $`X=X^{}M`$. Then if $`J_\varphi (X:B)`$ exists, the modular group of $`\varphi `$ must fix $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`dM`$ be a positive element, so that $`\varphi (x)=\tau (dx)`$, where $`\tau `$ is a normal faithful trace on $`M`$, and $`d`$ is an unbounded operator on $`L^2(M,\tau )`$, affiliated to $`M`$. The modular group of $`\varphi `$ is then given by $`\sigma _t^\varphi (x)=d^{it}xd^{it}`$, $`xM`$. Denoting by $`X_t`$ the element $`\sigma _t^\varphi (X)`$, we then get

$$X=X_0=d^{it}X_td^{it},t.$$

Consider

$$\varphi (X_0^2)=\varphi (J_\varphi (X:B)X_0)=\varphi (J_\varphi (X:B)d^{it}X_td^{it}).$$

Let $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ be two elements in the domain of $`_X`$, so that $`b_1=b_2^{}`$. Then we get, writing $`Y_t=\sigma _t^{\widehat{\varphi }}(Y)`$:

$`\varphi (J_\varphi (X:B)b_1X_tb_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0b_1Y_tb_2)`$
$`+\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0_X(b_1)X_tb_2)+\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0b_1X_t_X(b_2))`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi (b_1)\varphi (b_2)\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0Y_t)`$
$`+\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0_X(b_1)X_tb_2)+\widehat{\varphi }([_X(b_2^{})X_tb_1^{}Y_0]^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi (b_1)\varphi (b_1^{})\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0Y_t)`$
$`+\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0_X(b_1)X_tb_1^{})+\widehat{\varphi }([_X(b_1)X_tb_1^{}Y_0]^{}).`$
Now, for all $`m,nM`$, we have

$$\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0mY_0n)=\varphi (m)\varphi (n)=\widehat{\varphi }(mY_0nY_0),$$

so that

$`\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0_X(b_1)X_tb_1^{})+\widehat{\varphi }([_X(b_1)X_tb_1^{}Y_0]^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0_X(b_1)X_tb_1^{})+\widehat{\varphi }([Y_0_X(b_1)X_tb_1^{}]^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0_X(b_1)X_tb_1^{})+\overline{\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0[_X(b_1)X_tb_1^{}])}`$
$``$ $`.`$
It follows that

$$\mathrm{}\varphi (J_\varphi (X:B)b_1X_tb_1^{})=\mathrm{}\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0b_1Y_tb_1^{}).$$

Now fix $`t`$ and choose $`a_n`$ in the domain of $`_X`$, $`a_n1`$, so that

$$a_nd^{it},a_n^{}d^{it}\text{strongly}.$$

One can choose $`a_n`$, for example, to be elements of the algebra $`B[X]`$. Then

$`0=\mathrm{}\varphi (X_0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\varphi (J_\varphi (X:B)X_0)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\varphi (J_\varphi (X:B)d^{it}X_td^{it})`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{}\varphi (J_\varphi (X:B)a_nX_ta_n^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{}\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0a_nY_ta_n^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{}(\varphi (a_n)\varphi (a_n^{})\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0Y_t)`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi (a_n)\varphi (a_n^{})\mathrm{}\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0Y_t)`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi (d^{it})\varphi (d^{it})\mathrm{}\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0Y_t).`$
Since $`\widehat{\varphi }(Y_0Y_t)=\varphi (X_0X_t)`$, for $`t`$ sufficiently close to zero (so that $`\varphi (d^{it})0`$), we get that

$$\varphi (XX_t).$$

Thus

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\tau (dXX_t)\tau (d(XX_t)^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\tau (dXd^{it}Xd^{it}d^{it}Xd^{it}Xd)`$
$`=`$ $`\tau ((dXXd)d^{it}Xd^{it})`$
$`=`$ $`\tau ([d,X]d^{it}Xd^{it}).`$
Differentiating this in $`t`$, and noting that $`(d/dt)_{t=0}(d^{it}Xd^{it})=i[d,X]`$ gives

$$i\tau ([d,X]^2)=0.$$

Since $`[d,X]`$ is anti-self-adjoint, this implies that $`\tau (|[d,X]|^2)=0`$, so that $`[d,X]=0`$, because $`\tau `$ is faithful. This means that $`\sigma _t^\varphi (X)=X`$ for all $`t`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.2.

Suppose that $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ are self-adjoint generators of a II1 factor $`M`$. Let $`\varphi `$ be a normal faithful state on $`M`$, and denote by $`\tau `$ the unique faithful normal trace on $`M`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)<+\mathrm{}`$ implies that:
(1) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)<\mathrm{}`$ and
(2) $`\varphi `$ is a multiple of the trace $`\tau `$ on $`M`$.

###### Proof.

Clearly, the second statement implies the first. To get the second statement, write $`\varphi ()=\tau (d)`$ and apply the theorem to conclude that $`[d,X_i]=0`$. Since $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ generate $`M`$, $`d`$ must be in the center of $`M`$, which must consist of multiples of identity, since $`M`$ is a factor. But then $`d`$ is a scalar multiple of identity, so that $`\varphi `$ and $`\tau `$ are proportional. ∎

### 4.2. Factoriality.

Voiculescu showed  that for his microstates entropy $`\chi `$ the following implication holds:

$$\chi (X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)>\mathrm{}W^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)\text{ is a factor}.$$

In fact, the conclusion is stronger: not only is the center of $`W^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ is trivial, but so is its asymptotic center. Unfortunately, we don’t know if the same implication holds for the non-microstates free entropy $`\chi ^{}`$ introduced by Voiculescu in , or even under the stronger assumption that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ is finite. We prove a weaker version of the assertion above for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^{}`$. We first need a technical lemma:

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`\varphi `$ be a normal faithful state on $`M`$. Let $`XM`$ be self-adjoint and $`BM`$ be a subalgebra, so that $`\sigma _t^\varphi (B)=B`$ for all $`t`$. Assume that $`pB`$ is a self-adjoint projection, $`\varphi (p)=\alpha `$, and so that $`\sigma _t^\varphi (p)=p`$ for all $`p`$. Assume that $`[X,p]_2<\delta `$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X:B)>4\frac{\alpha ^2(1\alpha )^2}{\delta ^2}.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`(A,\tau )`$ be a copy of $`L(𝔽_2)`$, free from $`B[X]`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X:B)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X:BA)`$, and since the centralizer of $`\{\sigma _t^\varphi (B)\}_tA`$ is a factor , we can find a projection $`qBA`$, which is fixed by the modular group, and so that $`[X,q]_2<\delta `$, and $`\tau (q)=\beta =m/n`$ is rational and close to $`\alpha `$. We may moreover find a family of matrix units $`e_{ij}BA`$, $`1i,jn`$, fixed by the modular group, and so that

$`e_{ij}^{}=e_{ji},`$ $`e_{ij}e_{kl}=\delta _{jk}e_{il}`$
$`\tau (e_{ii})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}},`$ $`q={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}e_{ii}.`$
Denote by $`C`$ the algebra generated in $`BA`$ by $`\{e_{ij}\}_{1i,jn}`$. Note that $`CM_{n\times n}`$, the algebra of $`n\times n`$ matrices. The restriction of $`\varphi \tau `$ to $`C`$ is the usual matrix trace. Then

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X:B)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\varphi \tau }^{}(X:BA)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\varphi \tau }^{}(X:C).$$

Write $`X_{ij}=e_{1i}Xe_{j1}`$. Then the inequality $`[X,q]_2<\delta `$ implies that

$`\delta `$ $`>`$ $`xqqx_2`$
$`=`$ $`qxq+(1q)xqqxqqx(1q)_2`$
$`=`$ $`(1q)xqqx(1q)_2`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}qx(1q)_2,`$
since $`(1q)xq`$ and $`qx(1q)`$ are orthogonal. Hence

$$qX(1q)_2<\delta /\sqrt{2.}$$

It follows that

$$\underset{1im,m<jn}{}\varphi (X_{ij}^{}X_{ij})+\underset{m<in,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}in}{}\varphi (X_{ij}^{}X_{ij})<\delta ^2.$$

Denote by $`\varphi ^{}`$ the state $`n(\varphi \tau )(e_{11}e_{11})`$ on $`e_{11}W^{}(X,C)e_{11}`$. Then

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}^{}(\{X_{ij}\})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}^{}(\{X_{ij}\})`$
$`>`$ $`2m(nm){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(\delta ^2/2m(nm))}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2m(nm))^2}{n\delta ^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`n^34{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2(1\beta )^2}{\delta ^2}}.`$
Arguing exactly as in \[4, Proposition 4.1\], we get that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\varphi \tau }^{}(X:C)=\frac{1}{n^3}\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}^{}(\{X_{ij}\})>4\frac{\beta ^2(1\beta )^2}{\delta ^2}.$$

Since $`\beta `$ was a rational number, arbitrarily close to $`\alpha `$, we get the desired estimate for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X:B)`$. ∎

###### Theorem 4.4.

Assume that $`M`$ is a von Neumann algebra with a faithful normal trace $`\tau `$, and $`X_i`$ are a family of self-adjoint elements in $`M`$, $`X_i=1`$. Assume that $`B_i`$ form an increasing sequence of subalgebras of $`M`$, so that $`M=\overline{B_i}^w`$. Assume further that for some normal faithful state $`\varphi `$ on $`M`$ and for each $`j`$,

$$\underset{i}{lim\; inf}\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_i:B_j)<+\mathrm{}.$$

Then $`M`$ is a factor.

###### Proof.

In view of Theorem 4.1, we may assume that $`\varphi `$ is a trace, $`\tau `$. Assume that $`M`$ is not a factor. Then there exists a central projection $`pM`$ of some trace $`\alpha =\tau (p)`$, $`\alpha (1\alpha )0`$. Moreover, $`[p,X_i]=0`$ for all $`i`$. Since $`B_i`$ increase to all of $`M`$, given $`\delta >0`$, there is a large enough $`j`$ and a projection $`qB_j`$, so that $`qp_2<\delta /2`$. Then for any $`k`$,

$`[q,X_k]_2`$ $`=`$ $`qX_kX_kq_2`$
$`=`$ $`(qp)X_kX_k(qp)+pX_kX_kp_2`$
$``$ $`(qp)X_k_2+X_k(qp)_2+0`$
$``$ $`2(qp)_2X_k`$
$`<`$ $`2(\delta /2)=\delta .`$
Now applying Lemma 4.3, we deduce that for any $`i>j`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^{}(X_i:B_j)>4\frac{\alpha ^2(1\alpha )^2}{\delta ^2}.$$

Hence $`lim\; inf_i\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^{}(X_i:B_j)>4\alpha ^2(1\alpha )^2/\delta ^2`$, which is a contradiction, since $`\delta `$ was arbitrary. ∎

The hypothesis of the theorem is satisfied for some von Neumann algebras. For example, let $`M=L(𝔽_{\mathrm{}})`$ generated by an infinite semicircular family $`X_i`$, $`i=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. Then if $`B_i=W^{}(X_j:j<i)`$, the assumptions of the theorem are satisfied. In fact if $`Y_i`$ is *any* family of elements of a tracial von Neumann algebra, so that $`Y_i=1`$, and $`X_i`$ are a free semicircular family, then letting $`Z_j(ϵ)=Y_i+ϵX_i`$, $`M_ϵ=W^{}(Z_1(ϵ),Z_2(ϵ),\mathrm{})`$ and $`B_j=W^{}(Z_1(ϵ),\mathrm{},Z_j(ϵ))`$, we see that $`M_ϵ`$ is a factor. In other words, generators of an arbitrary tracial von Neumann algebra can be perturbed (in a certain representation of this algebra) by an arbitrarily small amount $`ϵ`$ in uniform norm, to produce a II1 factor. Another way of putting it is to note that the free Brownian motion $`ϵZ_j(ϵ)`$ started at $`\{Y_1,Y_2,\mathrm{}\}`$ generates a factor at any time $`ϵ>0`$.

### 4.3. Factoriality in the non-tracial case.

In a similar way, we get the following:

###### Theorem 4.5.

Assume that $`M`$ is a von Neumann algebra with a faithful normal state $`\varphi `$, and $`X_i`$ are a family of self-adjoint elements in $`M`$, $`X_i=1`$. Assume that $`B_i`$ form an increasing sequence of subalgebras of $`M`$, $`\sigma _t^\varphi (B_i)=B_i`$ for all $`t`$ and $`i`$, and assume that $`M^\varphi =\overline{(B_iM^\varphi )}^w`$. Let $`R_i`$ be the operator of right multiplication by $`X_i`$ densely defined on $`L^2(M,\varphi )`$. Assume that $`sup_iR_i=C<+\mathrm{}`$. Assume further that for each $`j`$,

$$\underset{i}{lim\; inf}\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi ^{}(X_i:B_j)<+\mathrm{}.$$

Then $`M`$ is a factor.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`M`$ is not a factor. Then there exists a central projection $`pM`$, $`\alpha =\varphi (p)`$, $`\alpha (1\alpha )0`$. Moreover, $`[p,X_i]=0`$ for all $`i`$. Since automatically $`pM^\varphi `$ and $`B_iM^\varphi `$ increase to all of $`M^\varphi `$, given $`\delta >0`$, there is a large enough $`j`$ and a projection $`qB_jM^\varphi `$, so that $`qp_2<\delta /(1+C)`$. Then for any $`k`$,

$`[q,X_k]_2`$ $`=`$ $`qX_kX_kq_2`$
$`=`$ $`(qp)X_kX_k(qp)+pX_kX_kp_2`$
$``$ $`(qp)X_k_2+X_k(qp)_2+0`$
$``$ $`R_k(qp)_2+(qp)_2X_k`$
$`<`$ $`(1+C)(\delta /(1+C))=\delta .`$
Note that the assumption on the norms of $`R_i`$ is satisfied if each $`X_i`$ is analytic for $`\sigma _t^\varphi `$ and satisfies $`sup_k\sigma _i^\varphi (X_k)=C<+\mathrm{}`$.


text:
# Cavity-damping-induced transitions in a driven atom-cavity system

## Abstract

We investigate the fluorescence spectrum of a two-level atom in a cavity when the atom is driven by a classical field. We show that forbidden dipole transitions in the Jaynes-Cummings Ladder structure are induced in the presence of the cavity damping, which deteriorates the degree of otherwise perfect destructive interference among the transition channels. With the larger cavity decay, these transitions are more enhanced.

The radiative properties of the Jaynes-Cummings Molecule (JCM),1 a system composed of a single two-level atom coupled to a single mode of a cavity, need a particular attention. This system, regarded as one of the simplest and most fundamental forms of matter-radiation interaction,2 has been extensively studied as a building block for the quantum information processing.3 From the spectrscopic point of view, the dipole transition in the driven JCM is especially interesting because it provides a way to directly measure the eigenenergies of the coupled atom-cavity system. For a resonant atom-cavity system, the JCM has energy eigenvalues given by $`n\mathrm{}\omega _0\pm g\sqrt{n}`$ with $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`g`$ the coupling strength between the atom and the cavity. There have been efforts to experimentally observe such a spectrum of eigen-energies.2 The eigenvalue for $`n=1`$ with respect to the ground state ($`n=0`$) has been measured by the experiments on the normal mode splitting.4,5 Recently, Brune et al. have resolved the time evolution of a two-state Rydberg atom exposed to a microwave radiation in a microwave cavity.6 From the dynamics of the system, the Rabi frequency components corresponding to the eigenvalues for $`n1`$ were extracted.

The resonance fluorescence spectrum of JCM also provides information on the higher eigenvalues. Experiments to measure such spectrum in the optical region are expected in the near future as the cavity-QED techniques such as the single atom trapping in a cavity are rapidly maturing.7,8 In the ideal JCM where the cavity damping is absent, the dipole transitions only between the adjacent energy manifolds, i.e., between two energy levels with adjacent $`n`$ values, are possible when the atom is driven by a strong coherent field. In this work, however, we report that the cavity damping induces new spectral lines corresponding to the transitions that are prohibited in the ideal JCM. One can observe, for example, novel peaks at the frequency $`\omega =\omega _0\pm \sqrt{2}g^{}`$, where $`g^{}`$ is the atom-cavity coupling modified by the presence of both the driving field and the cavity damping. These new peaks correspond to the transition from manifold-2 to manifold-0. The role of the cavity damping in this case is the deterioration of the degree of otherwise perfect destructive interference in the transition channels accounting for the transition probability amplitude. Note that similar transitions can be found in the JCM where the cavity instead of the atom is driven.9 The dynamics imbedded is, however, quite different from the present one since the anomalous transitions there are allowed by the driving field without the cooperation of the cavity damping. In the present system, the anomalous transitions are more enhanced with the larger cavity damping rate for a given driving-field intensity. We will derive an effective Hamiltonian which explicitly manifests the dynamic effect of the cavity damping.

In our model a two-level atom coupled with a single-mode cavity is driven by a resonant classical field, as described by an interaction Hamiltonian

$`H_I=i\mathrm{}g(a^{}\sigma _{}a\sigma _+)+H_d`$ (1)
where

$`H_d`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma _+\sigma _{}).`$ (2)
The atom-cavity coupling strength is denoted by $`g`$ while $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Rabi frequency of the driving field, $`\sigma _\pm `$ and $`\sigma _z`$ the atomic pseudospin operators and $`a^{}(a)`$ the creation (annihilation) operator of the cavity mode. For comparison, when the cavity instead of the atom is driven, $`H_d`$ is replaced with the form

$`H_d`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}(a^{}a),`$ (3)
which will be referred later.

Let us first consider the undamped system. The eigenenergies and the eigenstates of $`H_I`$ have been obtained by Alsing et al.10 as

$`E_n^\pm =\pm \mathrm{}\sqrt{n}g,(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ (4)
and

$`|`$ $`\varphi _0=D(\alpha )|0|,`$ (5)
$`|`$ $`\varphi _n^\pm =D(\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[|n1|+\pm i|n|]`$ (6)
where $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }/g`$, and $`D(\alpha )`$ denotes the displacement operator for the cavity-field mode. The notation $`|n_c|\pm `$ represents the state in which the cavity photon number is $`n_c`$ and the atom is in its excited/ground state.

In the cavity-driving case, however, the quasi-energies depend on the driving field as10

$`E_n^\pm =\pm \mathrm{}\sqrt{n}g[1(2/g)^2]^{3/4}\pm \mathrm{}\sqrt{n}g^{},`$ (7)
where $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.`$ We have found in the previous work9 that the anomalous dipole-transition lines are found in the spectrum of the resonance fluorescence at $`\omega =\omega _0\pm \sqrt{2}g^{},\pm \sqrt{3}g^{}`$, etc. due to the dynamic effect induced by the driving field in the cavity-driving case. In that case, the positions of the transition lines in the spectrum are highly dependent on the driving field intensity since $`g^{}=g[1(2/g)^2]^{3/4}`$. In the atom-driving case, by a similar argument, one might expect similar transition lines might be induced by the strong driving field, at $`\omega =\omega _0\pm \sqrt{2}g,\pm \sqrt{3}g`$ etc.. We show below, however, that the driving-field alone cannot induce such transitions.

In the absence of atom/cavity damping, the matrix elements for the dipole transitions from the quasi-energy state $`|\varphi _n^\xi `$ to $`|\varphi _n^{}^\xi ^{}`$ are calculated as

$`\varphi _n^{}^\xi ^{}|\sigma _{}|\varphi _n^\xi =i^\xi ^{}\delta _{n^{},n1},`$ (8)
where $`\xi ,\xi ^{}=\pm 1`$ stand for the upper(+) and the lower(-) states, respectively. From the above selection rule, it is clear that only the transitions between adjacent manifolds (from $`n`$ to $`n1`$) are possible.

Now, let us turn our attention to the realistic situation where both the atomic and the cavity damping are included. The time evolution of the system is obtained by the master equation for the density operator $`\rho _I`$ as

$`\dot{\rho _I}`$ $`=`$ $`[g(a^+\sigma _{}a\sigma _+)+\mathrm{\Omega }(\sigma _+\sigma _{}),\rho _I]`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`(\gamma /2)(2\sigma _{}\rho _I\sigma _+\sigma _+\sigma _{}\rho _I\rho _I\sigma _+\sigma _{})`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\kappa (2a\rho _Ia^+a^+a\rho _I\rho _Ia^+a)`$ (11)
where $`\gamma `$ the decay rate of the atom into free-space vacuum-field modes and $`2\kappa `$ the cavity damping rate. If the atom is inside an ideal lossless cavity ($`\kappa =0`$), in the steady state the cavity field becomes a coherent state and the atom remains its ground state, i.e., $`\rho _I^{ss}=|\alpha ,\alpha ,|`$. Thus, in this case the fluorescence of the atom is suppressed regardless of the strength of $`\gamma `$.11 The cavity in real experiments, however, are always lossy, and thus the atom can be excited and the fluorescence is not suppressed.

We have numerically calculated the fluorescence spectrum using the quantum regression theorem12including the cavity damping. The results are shown in Fig. 1, where the dominant peak a is found near at $`\omega _0+g`$ (and its counterpart at $`\omega _0g`$), which corresponds to the usual vacuum Rabi-splitting. Interestingly, additional peaks b and c are found near at $`\omega _0+\sqrt{2}g`$ and $`\omega _0+2g`$, respectively. As discussed before based on Eq. (8), they are the forbidden transitions when $`\kappa =0`$. These anomalous peaks are enhanced as the driving-field intensity is increased further as in Fig. 1 (b). The peak d near at $`(\sqrt{2}1)g`$, on the other hand, is the allowed one. The novel dynamics imbedded in these anomalous transitions is induced by the presence of the cavity damping in addition to the driving field.

The master equation, Eq. (11) is not much instructive in the present form to understand the dynamics, so it is transformed using $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=D^+(\alpha )\rho _ID(\alpha )`$ into

$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}`$ $`=`$ $`[g(a^+\sigma _{}a\sigma _+),\stackrel{~}{\rho }]+\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{g}}[a^+a,\stackrel{~}{\rho }]`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`(\gamma /2)(2\sigma _{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\sigma _+\sigma _+\sigma _{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\rho }\sigma _+\sigma _{})`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`\kappa (2a\stackrel{~}{\rho }a^+a^+a\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\rho }a^+a)`$ (14)
In this ‘displaced’ frame, the effective Hamiltonian is derived from the above expression as

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}=i\mathrm{}g(a^+\sigma _{}a\sigma _+)+i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{g}}(a^+a)`$ (15)
This is the very interaction Hamiltonian describing the cavity-driving case (see Eq. (3)) with the effective driving field $`_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa /g`$. Once we make this identification, all the peculiar features in the fluorescence spectra can be explained. The eigenvalues of $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for nonzero $`\kappa `$ are given by replacing $``$ with $`_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa /g`$ in Eq. (7) as

$`E_n^\pm =\pm \mathrm{}\sqrt{n}g[1(2\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa /g^2)^2]^{3/4},(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}),`$ (16)
and the corresponding eigenstates $`|\chi _n^\pm `$ are similarly obtained. As shown in Ref. 9, the transitions between the non-adjacent manifolds are possible in the cavity-driven JCM. For example, the peak b corresponds to the transition from $`|\chi _2^+`$ to $`|\chi _0`$. To the first order in $`_{\mathrm{eff}}/g`$, $`|\chi _0`$ $`|0,(_{\mathrm{eff}}/g)|0,+`$, and $`|\chi _2^+|1,+2\sqrt{2}(_{\mathrm{eff}}/g)[|0,++\sqrt{2}|2,+]\mathrm{}`$. Thus, the transition channel from $`|0,+`$ to $`|0,`$ gives rise to the transition matrix element to the lowest order in $`2\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa /g^2`$ as

$`|\chi _0|\sigma _{}|\chi _2^+|^2=(2\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa /g^2)^2.`$ (17)
Note that in case of the lossless cavity with $`\kappa =0`$, the strength of the transition is zero. Thus, we conclude that the anomalous transitions are induced by the cavity decay in cooperation with the real driving field. In addition, from Eq. (16), it can be easily deduced that the effective atom-cavity coupling constant is not $`g`$ but $`g^{}g[1(2\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa /g^2)^2]^{3/4}`$, so the exact positions of the peaks a, b, c are predicted to be at $`g^{},\sqrt{2}g^{},2g^{}`$, respectively, which is numerically confirmed in Fig. 1.

We can gain further physical insight on the dynamic effect of the cavity damping by expanding the transition matrix elements in the increasing orders of $`\alpha `$. For instance, in the absence of the damping, the transition matrix element for the peak at $`\sqrt{2}g^{}`$ is given as

$`\varphi _0|\sigma _{}|\varphi _2^+`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}0,|\sigma _{}|0,++{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}1,|\sigma _{}|1,+\right]`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`O(\alpha ^2)+\mathrm{}=0.`$ (19)
Although the driving field induces two transition channels $`0,|\sigma _{}|0,+`$ and $`1,|\sigma _{}|1,+`$ to the first order of $`\alpha `$, the probability amplitudes associated with these channels have the same magnitude and the opposite sign, so that they are exactly cancelled. Due to this destructive interference, the transition is forbidden. Similar arguments can be made for all orders of $`\alpha `$. When the cavity damping is introduced, however, the cancellation is not exact, and thus the amplitude does not vanish. In this case, each number state $`|n`$ $`(n=1,2,\mathrm{})`$, except the vacuum state $`|0`$, appearing in the above transition matrix element, undergoes ‘broadening’, containing other number-state components, so that two channels do not cancel each other exactly. As the driving field gets stronger the higher order terms in Eq. (19) also become significant. Furthermore, as the cavity damping deteriorates the destructive interference between the channels, the larger the cavity damping rate, the stronger the deterioration. Therefore, it is now explained why the effective driving field $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, which causes the anomalous transitions, is proportional to both the driving field intensity and the cavity damping rate. Similarly, the other anomalous peaks can also be explained.

The dynamic effect of the cavity-damping can be seen more dramatically when the cavity-damping rate is increased while the driving-field Rabi frequency is fixed. As confirmed in Fig. 1 (c), the anomalous transitions are enhanced more compared with those in Fig. 1(a). Of course, there is trade-off in this way of enhancing anomalous peaks because of the usual line broadening effect of cavity damping. In addition, the cavity damping cannot be increased beyond $`\kappa =g^2/2\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Otherwise, the quasi-energy-state description is no longer valid as Eq. (16) implies.

In conclusion, we have investigated the anomalous spectral lines in the fluorescence spectrum of JCM in the atom-driving case. We have shown that the forbidden transitions with the driving field alone can be allowed by the cavity damping and that these transitions are enhanced as the damping rate is increased. This novel effect of cavity damping in the dynamics of JCM can also be observed through similar transition lines in the spectrum of the cavity transmission although only the results of atomic fluorescence are presented here.

This work is supported by Creative Research Initiatives of the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology.