text:
# 2.1 Conventions

## Step 1: Set the Dirac equation $`\overline{)}𝔻_{𝔼^n}\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝔼^n}=0`$ in a euclidean space $`𝔼^n`$ and embed the $`k`$-smooth Spin submanifold $`S`$ into $`𝔼^n`$ $`(0<k<n)`$

Here we will give our notations in order to express the Dirac equation $`\overline{)}𝔻_{𝔼^n}\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝔼^n}=0`$.

###### \fp3.1 Clifford module etc.

It is obvious that the following Proposition holds.

###### 3.2 Proposition

For a point $`p𝔼^n`$ and a doublet $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{dx\}},\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}})`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)^{})\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$, the followings holds:

Using the conventions (2-11), the following proposition is easily obtained.

###### 3.3 Proposition

For a point $`p`$ in $`𝔼^n`$, $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{[a]}:=\mathrm{\Xi }_{ϵ^{[a]}}\}_{a=1,\mathrm{},2^{[n/2]}}`$ satisfy the Dirac equation,

$$\overline{)}𝔻_{x,\{dx\}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝔼^n}(x)=0,$$

and are bases of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,_{𝔼^n})`$-vector space. It means that they are also the bases of the fiber $`\mathrm{Cliff}_p(T^{}𝔼^n)`$ of $`\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)`$ at $`p`$.

Further noting (2-17), we have the following important proposition.

###### \fp3.4 Proposition

There exist $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{(i)}`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{dx\}}^{(i)}:=\phi _{pt}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{(i)})`$ satisfying

$$\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{dx\}}^{(i)}\gamma _{\{dx\}}(dx^j)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{(i)}dx^k=dx^i.$$

We note that since $`𝒲_p:=\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)^{})\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ has a point-wise-pairing $``$ as mentioned in Proposition 3.2 (2), for a point $`p𝔼^n`$, $`_p:=(𝒲_p,,\phi _{pt})`$ becomes the preHilbert space and due to Proposition 3.2 (1), $`𝒲_p`$ gives stalk $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{SO}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$.

## Step 2: By setting the canonical parameterization in the tubular neighborhood $`T_S`$ of $`S`$, let the Dirac operator, the Clifford module and so on be expressed by the parameterization

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(T_S,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ denote a set of sections of the Clifford module $`\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)`$ whose support is in $`T_S`$. We go on to express its stalk at $`pT_S`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}`$ denote a germ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ for a point $`pT_S`$. Recalling (3-3), $`dx^i=E_\mu ^idu^\mu `$ and decomposing $`E_\mu ^i=G_\mu ^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^i`$ as $`dx^i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^id\xi ^\mu `$, we can find $`\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{SPIN}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ satisfying the following relations, called gauge transformation,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}(u)=\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}(x),\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{d\xi \}}(u)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{dx\}}(x)\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega },$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\gamma _{\{dx\}}(dx^i)\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }=& \gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^id\xi ^\mu )\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^iG_\mu ^\rho G_\nu ^\mu \gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(d\xi ^\nu )\hfill \\ \hfill =& E_\mu ^i\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(du^\mu ).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`36`$
As $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{d\xi \}}\phi _{pt}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}})`$, $`\phi _{pt}`$ does not depend upon the orthonormal frame. In terms of these expressions, we have an assertion of Proposition of 3.2,

$$\delta _{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{dx\}}(x)\gamma _{\{dx\}}(dx^i)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}(x)dx^j=g_{T_S,\mu \nu }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{d\xi \}}(u)\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(du^\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}(u)du^\nu ,$$

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{dx\}}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}(x)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{d\xi \}}(u)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}(u).$$
$`37`$
Further the representation of the Dirac operator $`\overline{)}𝔻_{x,\{dx\}}`$ is transformed to $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}`$ by means of the gauge transformation,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}& =\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{)}𝔻_{x,\{dx\}}\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }=\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(du^\mu )\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \\ & =\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(du^\mu )(_\mu +_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`38`$
Then we have the following lemma:

###### 3.5 Lemma

We can regard $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}`$ as a representation of a map $`\overline{)}𝔻_{T_S}`$,

$$\overline{)}𝔻_{T_S}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)),$$

for a point $`p`$ in $`T_S`$

Noting Lemma 3.5 and the fact that zero-section is in $`\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)`$, it is not difficult to prove that the solution space of $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,_{𝔼^n}^{2^{[n/2]}})`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$. Since $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}`$ is a $`2^{[n/2]}\times 2^{[n/2]}`$-matrix type first order differential operator of rank $`2^{[n/2]}`$, the solution space gives a $`2^{[n/2]}`$-dimensional orthonormal frame in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,_{𝔼^n})`$-vector space. In fact, due to Proposition 3.2, we can find one as $`\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{[a]}`$ by the gauge transformation.

Noting the Propositions 3.2-3.5 and (3-6)-(3-8), we have a key proposition:

###### \fp3.6 Proposition

###### Demonstration Proof

The proof of this proposition is done by the gauge transformation except well-definedness of (3-11). We should check the dependence of the orthonormal frame $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}`$. Let us take another one $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}`$. By letting $`\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ defined as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{[a]}=\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}=\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}`$. When one rewrites (3-11) in terms of the frame $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}`$, there appears $`\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(du^\mu )\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. However as both are solutions of the Dirac equation (3-9), the gauge transformation for $`\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ must leave the Dirac operator invariant. Hence the $`_\mu `$ component gives that $`\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(du^\mu )\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ $`=\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(du^\mu )`$. (3-11) does not depend on the choice of the orthonormal frame. ∎

Here in order to investigate the domain of the new Dirac operator, we wish to apply the facts in Lemma 2.9 to the fiber bundles. Let $`\mathrm{CLIFF}_{}^{}{}_{S}{}^{}(T^{}S)`$ (or $`\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}S)`$) be restricted its base space to the submanifold $`S`$ by $`\mathrm{CLIFF}_{}^{}{}_{𝔼^n}{}^{}(T^{}𝔼^n)|_S`$ (or $`\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)|_S`$) as a vector bundle over $`S`$. As the fiber of $`\mathrm{SPIN}_p(T^{}S)`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{SPIN}_p(T^{}𝔼^n)`$, we also express $`\mathrm{SPIN}_S(T^{}𝔼^n):=\mathrm{SPIN}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)|_S`$. Here the reader should note the difference between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$; the former is $`\{\psi (s)\}`$ and the later is $`\{\psi (u)\}`$.

###### \fp3.7 Definition

## Step 3: In order to construct a self-adjointization of the normal differential operator, let us define a pairing in $`T_S`$

As $`q`$ is a natural coordinate of $`T_S`$ and we are now considering the affine geometry in category of differential geometry, let us introduce the Haar measure with respect to the local affine transformation along the normal direction $`\{q\}`$, which is an invariant measure for the rotation and translations of $`q`$, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{e}^{b^{\dot{\alpha }}_{q^{\dot{\alpha }}}}g_S^{1/2}d^ksd^{nk}q=g_S^{1/2}d^ksd^{nk}q.$$

Here $`g_S^{1/2}`$ is not a mistype of $`g_{T_S}^{1/2}`$. We call this measure normal affine invariance measure. Further we prepare a generic normal differential operator $`_{}:=b^{\dot{\alpha }}_{q^{\dot{\alpha }}}`$ for generic real constant number $`b^{\dot{\alpha }}`$’s. As mentioned in Introduction, we apply the scheme in the submanifold quantum mechanics to this operator.

###### 3.8 Definition

For a point $`pS`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1,\{d\xi \}},\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,\{d\xi \}})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(\pi _{T_S}^1(p),\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)^{})`$ $`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(\pi _{T_S}^1(p),\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$, we introduce L2-type pairing $`<|>`$ in $`T_S`$ as a fiber integral,

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,\{dx\}}|\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,\{d\xi \}}>=_{\pi _{T_S}^1(p)}g_{T_S}^{1/2}d^{nk}q\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1,\{d\xi \}}(u)\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,\{d\xi \}}(u)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,_S),$$

and a transformation $`\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}`$ so that its measure is the normal affine invariance measure,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill <\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,\{d\xi \}}|\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,\{d\xi \}}>=& (\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,\{d\xi \}}|\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,\{dx\}})\hfill \\ \hfill =& _{\pi _{T_S}^1(p)}g_S^{1/2}d^{nk}q\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{1,\{dx\}}(u)\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}(u)\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,\{dx\}}(u)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,_S),\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{1,\{d\xi \}}:=\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1,\{d\xi \}})\rho _{S_q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1,\{d\xi \}},\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,\{d\xi \}}:=\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,\{d\xi \}})\rho _{S_q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,\{d\xi \}},$$

$$\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}:=\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}(\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}})\rho _{S_q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}\rho _{S_q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}.$$
$`312`$
Further let $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{pt}`$ denote $`\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}\phi _{pt}\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}^1`$.

We should note that $`\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}`$ can be defined for more general differential operators but for simplicity, we only define it for the Dirac operator. Further as the metric $`𝔤_{T_S}`$ is not singular, $`\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}`$ gives diffemorphism. The following Lemma is naturally obtained.

###### 3.9 Lemma

For points $`pS_q`$ and $`p^{}S`$, the triplets

$$_p^{}:=(\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)^{})\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)),,\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{pt}),$$

and

$$^{}:=(\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(\pi _{T_S}^1p^{},\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)^{})\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(\pi _{T_S}^1p^{},\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)),(|),\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{pt}),$$

become preHilbert spaces. In $`^{}`$, The operator $`_{}`$ is anti-hermite, i.e., $`_{}^{}=_{}`$ for each $`b_{\dot{\alpha }}`$.

## Step 4: Decompose $`\overline{)}𝔻_{T_S}`$ to normal part and tangential part

Noting the orthonormal frame $`d\xi `$ in $`T_S`$ consisting of $`(d\zeta ^1,\mathrm{},d\zeta ^k,dq^{k+1},\mathrm{},dq^n)`$, let us decompose $`\overline{)}𝔻_{T_S}`$ to

$$\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}=\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}^{}+\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}^{},$$
$`313`$
where $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}^{}:=\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(dq^{\dot{\alpha }})_{q^{\dot{\alpha }}}.`$ Then the following lemma is not difficult to proved.

###### 3.10 Lemma

For a point $`pT_S`$, let us define a projection $`\pi `$,

$$\pi :\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}((\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(p,\mathrm{Cliff}(T^{}T_S)^{})\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(p,\mathrm{Cliff}(T^{}T_S))))(\mathrm{Ker}_p(Ad(_{}))\times \mathrm{Ker}_p(_{})),$$

where $`\mathrm{Ker}_p(P)`$ denotes the set of germs of the kernel of $`P`$ at the point $`p`$ and $`Ad(P)`$ denotes the right-adjoint of $`P`$. Here we note that $`\mathrm{Ker}_p(_{})(`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(p,\mathrm{Cliff}(T^{}T_S))`$ is given as the intersection of $`\mathrm{Ker}_p(_{\dot{\alpha }})`$ for every $`\dot{\alpha }=k+1,\mathrm{},n`$.

Then noting (2-6) and the fact that $`\rho _{S_q}=1`$ at $`S`$, it is obvious that the following relations hold.

###### 3.11 Lemma

## Step 5: Define submanifold Dirac operator $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}`$ at $`S𝔼^n`$ by restricting its domain $`\mathrm{Ker}_S(_{})`$

Let us define $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}`$ by restricting the its domain as $`_{pS}\mathrm{Ker}_p(_{})`$, i.e.,

$$\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}:=\overline{)}𝔻_{T_S}|_{_{pS}\mathrm{Ker}_p(_{})},$$
$`314`$
with a local expression $`\overline{)}D_{s,\{d\xi \}}:=\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}|_{q=0,_q=0}`$ $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}^{}|_{q=0}`$ whose explicit form is given by the following proposition.

###### \fp3.12 Proposition

For abbreviation of $`\tau _{S,𝔼^n}(\gamma _{S,d\zeta }(ds^\alpha ))`$ by its image $`\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(ds^\alpha )`$, the explicit form of $`\overline{)}D_{s,\{d\xi \}}`$ is given as

$$\overline{)}D_{s,\{d\xi \}}=\tau _{S,𝔼^n}(\overline{)}𝔻_{S,s,\{d\zeta \}})+\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(dq^{\dot{\alpha }})\mathrm{tr}_{k\times k}(\gamma _{\dot{\alpha }\beta }^\alpha ),$$
$`315`$
where $`\overline{)}𝔻_{S,s,\{d\zeta \}}`$ is a proper (or intrinsic) Dirac operator of $`S`$,

$$\overline{)}𝔻_{S,s,\{d\zeta \}}=\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(ds^\alpha )(_{s^\alpha }+_{s^\alpha }\mathrm{\Omega }|_{q=0}),$$
$`316`$
by fixing the coordinate $`s`$ and the orthonormal frame $`\{d\zeta \}`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

\[BJ,  Mat1-10,  MT\] From (2-6), $`\rho _{S_q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}_{k\times k}(\gamma _{\dot{\alpha }\beta }^\alpha )q^{\dot{\alpha }}+𝒪(q^{\dot{\alpha }}q^{\dot{\beta }})`$. Hence,

$$\rho _{S_q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}_{\dot{\alpha }}\rho _{S_q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}=_{\dot{\alpha }}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}_{k\times k}(\gamma _{\dot{\alpha }\beta }^\alpha )+𝒪(q^{\dot{\alpha }}),$$

$$\rho _{S_q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}_\alpha \rho _{S_q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}=_\alpha +𝒪(q^{\dot{\alpha }}).$$

The second term in (3-15) is obtained. As $`\tau _{S,𝔼^n}`$ induces the group inclusion $`\iota _{S,𝔼^n}`$, we proved them. ∎

Following proposition is important but is not difficult to be proved.

###### 3.13 Proposition

For a point $`S`$, the stalks of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ are bijective.

As we are dealing with a germ at a point $`p`$ in $`S`$ hereafter, let us neglect the difference between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vc}(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$.

Let $`p`$ denote a point in $`S`$. We are considering the kernel of $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}^{}`$ at $`p`$ as a domain of the Dirac operator $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}`$. For given $`\psi _0(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n))`$, we assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ satisfies $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ with a boundary condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }(s,0)=\psi _0(s)`$ at $`S`$. The existence of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is obvious because we can find its solution as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u)=\psi _0(s)`$ due to $`_{q^{\dot{\alpha }}}\psi _00`$. Therefore we regard that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ is a subset of $`\mathrm{Ker}_p(_{})`$. Further we can evaluate $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u)\mathrm{Ker}_p(_{})`$ around a point $`p`$ in $`S`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(u)=\psi _0(s)+\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}(s)q^{\dot{\alpha }}+\psi _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}(s)q^{\dot{\alpha }}q^{\dot{\beta }}+\mathrm{},\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}(s)0$$
$`317`$
where $`\psi _0(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n))`$, $`\psi _{\dot{\beta }}(s),\psi _{\dot{\gamma }\dot{\delta }}(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,_{𝔼^n}^{2^{[n/2]}})`$ and so on. Accordingly we can identify $`\mathrm{Ker}_p(_{})|_{q=0}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ for a point $`pS`$.

Thus noting the fact that $`\overline{)}D_{s,\{d\xi \}}`$ is expressed by coordinate-free expressions and does not include $`_{q^{\dot{\alpha }}}`$, Definition 3.7, Lemma 2.9, 3.11 and Proposition 3.12 we have the following proposition:

###### 3.14 Proposition

The Dirac operator $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}`$ is an endomorphism in germs of Clifford module $`\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n)`$ at a point $`p`$ in $`S`$,

$$\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}:\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n))\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n)),$$
$`318`$
whose representation element is given by $`\overline{)}D_{s,\{d\xi \}}`$.

## Step 6: Consider solution of the submanifold Dirac equation $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}\psi =0`$ of $`S𝔼^n`$

Let us consider the solution of $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}\psi =0`$ at a point $`pS`$. For non-vanishing $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(p,_{𝔼^n}^{2^{[n/2]}}))`$ such that

$$\overline{)}D_{s,\{d\xi \}}\psi (s)=0,$$
$`319`$
$`\psi (s)`$ can be regarded as an element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n))`$. By solving a boundary problem for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u)\mathrm{\Gamma }(S,_{𝔼^n}^{2^{[n/2]}})`$,

$$\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(u)=0,$$
$`320`$
with boundary condition

$$\mathrm{\Phi }|_S=\psi ,\text{ at }S,$$
$`321`$
we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u)`$ satisfying $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}\mathrm{\Phi }(u)=0`$ and $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}^1(\mathrm{\Phi }(u))=0`$ at $`pS`$.

Noting that $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}|_{q0}=\overline{)}D_{s,\{d\xi \}}+\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}^{}`$, and $`\overline{)}D_{s,\{d\xi \}}`$ does not include the parameter $`q`$, we can apply the separation of variables to this system. Thus it is expected that there exists an orthonormal frame $`(\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}^1\mathrm{\Phi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]})_{a=1,\mathrm{},2^{[n/2]}}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ such that each $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{Ker}_p(_{})`$ and satisfies the Dirac equation (3-20); each $`(\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}^1\mathrm{\Phi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]})`$ is a solution of the Dirac equation (3-9). Noting Lemma 3.11 (1), we regard $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}|_{q=0})_{a=1,\mathrm{},2^{[n/2]}}`$ as the orthonormal frame of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ and solutions of the submanifold Dirac equation (3-19).

Inversely, as the Dirac operator $`\overline{)}D_{s,\{d\xi \}}`$ is also a $`2^{[n/2]}\times 2^{[n/2]}`$-matrix type first order differential operator, let us assume that we find an orthonormal frame of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(𝔼^n))`$ belonging to the solution space of the submanifold Dirac equation (3-19). Let it be denoted by $`\psi _{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}`$ ($`a=1,\mathrm{},2^{[n/2]}`$), i.e., $`\phi _{pt}(\psi _{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]})\psi _{\{d\xi \}}^{[b]}=\delta _{a,b}`$. For each $`\psi _{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}(s)`$, we find an element $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}(u)`$ in the solution space of $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}(\mathrm{\Psi }(u))=0`$ or $`\overline{)}𝔻_{u,\{d\xi \}}\mathrm{\Psi }(u)=0`$ with the boundary condition $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}(u)|_{q=0}=\psi _{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}(s)`$ at $`p`$.

Then due to Proposition 3.6 (2), we have an element of $`\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{SPIN}_{𝔼^n}(𝔼^n))`$ such that,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{[a]}=\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]},(a=1,\mathrm{},2^{[n/2]}).$$

Using the element, we define $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{(i)}:=\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{(i)}`$, $`(i=1,\mathrm{},n)`$. Then Proposition 3.6 (3) gives the relation,

$$g_{T_S,\mu \nu }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{d\xi \}}^{(i)}\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(du^\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{(i)}du^\nu =dx^i,(i=1,\mathrm{},n).$$
$`322`$
Therefore by defining $`\psi _{\{d\xi \}}^{(i)}(s):=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{(i)}(u)|_{q=0}`$ and extracting the $`ds^\alpha `$ component, we have

$$g_{S,\alpha \beta }\overline{\psi }_{\{d\xi \}}^{(i)}\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(ds^\alpha )\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}\psi _{\{d\xi \}}^{(i)}=\frac{x^i}{s^\alpha },(i=1,\mathrm{},n,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},k).$$
$`323`$
This is a representation of the tangential space of $`S`$ or the generalized Weierstrass relation. Here we note that $`\psi _{\{d\xi \}}^{(i)}`$ is also a solution of the submanifold Dirac equation (3-19).

As mentioned above, our theory is locally constructed and obtained objects do not depend on the local parameterization. Accordingly we can easily extended it to that for a general smooth spin $`k`$-submanifold in immersed $`𝔼^n`$. In other words, we regard the assumptions in 2.2 as those for a local chart of the submanifold $`S`$. Since $`𝔼^n`$ is a spin manifold, we can define $`\mathrm{Cliff}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)`$, $`\mathrm{SPIN}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n)`$ and their global sections. By restricting it on $`S`$, we have $`\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n)`$ and $`\mathrm{SPIN}_S(T^{}𝔼^n)`$ structure over $`S`$. On the hand, $`S`$ has its own $`\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}S)`$ and $`\mathrm{SPIN}_S(T^{}S)`$ structure. Due to Proposition 3.12, $`S`$ has the submanifold Dirac operator $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}`$ with the local representation.

###### \fp3.15 Theorem

A smooth spin $`k`$-submanifold $`S`$ immersed in $`𝔼^n`$ has a Clifford module $`\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n)`$ by locally constructing in terms of the solution space of the submanifold Dirac equation $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}\psi =0`$ at each chart and then the solutions give data of tangential vector in $`T𝔼^n`$ at each point as follows:

Let $`pS`$ be expressed by an affine coordinate $`(x^i)`$. In a set $`\{\psi \}`$ of non-vanishing germs of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,_S^{2^{[n/2]}})`$ satisfying $`\overline{)}D_{s,\{d\xi \}}\psi =0`$, there exists an orthonormal frame $`\{\psi _{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}\}_{a=1,\mathrm{},2^{[n/2]}}`$ $`(\{\psi \})`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n)`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,_{𝔼^n})`$-vector space. For these bases, there exists a germ $`\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Spin}_{𝔼^n}(T^{}𝔼^n))`$ such that they are transformed to $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{[a]}|_S\}_{a=1,\mathrm{},2^{[n/2]}}`$ by $`\psi _{\{d\xi \}}^{[a]}=\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{[a]}|_S`$, $`(a=1,\mathrm{},2^{[n/2]})`$. We define $`\psi ^{(i)}:=\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{dx\}}^{(i)}|_S`$ and $`\overline{\psi }^{(i)}:=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{dx\}}^{(i)}\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }|_S`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},n)`$. Then the following relation holds:

$$g_{S,\alpha ,\beta }\overline{\psi }^{(i)}[\tau _{S,𝔼^n}(\gamma _{S,\{d\xi \}}(ds^\beta ))]\psi ^{(i)}=_{s^\alpha }x^i,(i=1,\mathrm{},n,s=1,\mathrm{},k).$$
$`324`$
This is the generalized Weierstrass relation for a spin submanifold immersed in $`𝔼^n`$. Since the equation is given by the local argument, the proof of the theorem does not require a global argument at all.

We note that even though we fix the coordinate system, for a point $`p`$ in $`S`$,$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^i}{s^\alpha }}\right)_{\alpha =1,\mathrm{},k,i=1,\mathrm{},n}`$ gives a data of embedding $`T_p^{}S^k`$ in $`T_p^{}𝔼^n^n`$ up to action of $`\mathrm{GL}(^k)`$ and $`\mathrm{GL}(^{nk})`$. In other words, the submanifold Dirac operator $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}`$ exhibits data of Grassmannian bundle over $`S`$.

As we have assumed the canonical parameterization on $`T_S`$ in the definition of the submanifold Dirac operator, it should be extended to one without the assumption. Then we can argue the global behavior of the submanifold Dirac operator $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}`$ and its zero modes over $`S`$. It is expected that the zero modes bring us a global data of the orthonormal frame of $`\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n)`$, e.g., topological defect and so on. Of course, for the low codimension cases, we can find the global form of $`\overline{)}D_{S𝔼^n}`$ easily and then we can also argue it. Inversely, if a $`k`$-spin manifold $`M`$ and a differential operator over $`M`$ satisfy appropriate conditions, we also obtain the data of immersion of $`M`$ in $`𝔼^n`$ following the philosophy of the Weierstrass relation.

###### \fp3.16 Remark

The generalized Weierstrass relation for a conformal surface in $`𝔼^3`$ was discovered by Kenmotsu \[Ke\] as a generalization of the Weierstrass relation for a minimal surface in $`𝔼^3`$. The Dirac type relation was found by Konopelchenko in 1995 \[Ko1\] and I showed that the submanifold Dirac equation is identified with the relation \[Mat8\]. I also computed the submanifold Dirac operators for the generalized Weierstrass relation for a conformal surface in $`𝔼^4`$, which was also discovered by Konopelchenko \[KL, Ko1-2\] and Pinkall and Pedit \[PP\]. Recently there are so many studies on the relations between submanifolds and Clifford bundles \[Bo, Ko1-2, KL, KT, Fr, Tai1-2, Tr\]. However no article mentioned the transformation $`\eta _{\mathrm{sa}}`$ as long as I know. For this decade, I have applied the transformation to the relation between the Dirac operators and submanifolds, especially curves immersed in $`𝔼^n`$. For the curve case, the submanifold Dirac equation is identified with Frenet-Serret relation \[Mat1-7\]. However I could not reach the direct connection between a more general submanifold and zero modes of the Dirac operator because the net meaning of the transformation remained as a question in my mind. After the conference, I noticed the essentials of the submanifold quantum mechanics as mentioned in the Introduction, which naturally leads me to the further generalized Weierstrass relation or Theorem 3.15.

Though we did not mention in this article, it is known, from the physical point of view, that the obtained Dirac operator has the following properties;

As we showed in this article, we modeled the theory of Thom class \[BT,  BGV\] on construction of this theory of the submanifold Dirac operator. Both stand upon vary similar geometrical situation. As the Dirac operators are generally related to some characteristic class of fiber bundle, it is expected that the submanifold Dirac operator might be related to the Thom class and/or generalization of Riemann-Roch \[PP\].

Further our scheme does not need global properties and thus might be extended to a subgroup manifold immersed in more general group manifold with a Casimir operator and a Haar measure as a continuous group version of induced representation for finite group.

§4. Dirac Operator on a conformal surface in $`𝔼^4`$

As an example, we will consider the case of a conformal surface immersed in $`𝔼^4`$. In \[Mat10\], we gave an explicit local form (4-1) of the submanifold Dirac operator in this case and a conjecture that the submanifold Dirac operator represents the surface. As the conjecture was actually proved by Konopelchenko \[KL, Ko2\] and Pedit and Pinkall \[PP\], we will give another proof of the conjecture by means of the submanifold Dirac system method. This means that my conjecture in \[Mat10\] was based upon physical assurance.

First we will give the properties of the Dirac operators in a conformal surface \[P\]. For the case of a conformal surface $`S`$ in $`𝔼^n`$, we can set the metric given by

$$g_{S\alpha \beta }=\rho \delta _{\alpha \beta },$$

and the orthonormal frame $`\{d\zeta \}`$ given by $`d\zeta ^\alpha :=\rho ^{1/2}ds^\alpha `$. Let complex parameterization of $`S`$, $`dz:=ds^1\pm \sqrt{1}ds^2`$. We introduce another transformation $`\eta _{\mathrm{conf}}`$ as follows. For a point $`pS`$ and $`\psi _{\{d\xi \}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,\mathrm{Cliff}_S(T^{}𝔼^n))`$, let $`\phi _{\{d\xi \}}:=\eta _{\mathrm{conf}}(\psi _{\{d\xi \}})\rho ^{1/2}\psi _{\{d\xi \}}`$ and $`\overline{\phi }_{\{d\xi \}}:=\eta _{\mathrm{conf}}(\overline{\psi }_{\{d\xi \}})\phi _{pt}(\psi _{\{d\xi \}})`$. Then we have the following properties.

###### \fp4.1 Lemma

###### Demonstration Proof

(1) is obvious \[P, Mat8-9\]. By setting $`\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(ds^\alpha )=\rho ^{1/2}\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(d\xi ^\alpha )`$, the relation in Proposition 3.2 (1) becomes

$$g_{S\alpha \beta }\overline{\psi }_{\{d\xi \}}\tau _{S,𝔼^n}[\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(ds^\alpha )]\psi _{\{d\xi \}}ds^\alpha =\overline{\phi }_{\{d\xi \}}\tau _{S,𝔼^n}[\gamma _{\{d\xi \}}(d\xi ^\alpha )]\phi _{\{d\xi \}}ds^\alpha ,$$

and thus (2) is proved∎

###### \fp4.2 Proposition

Direct computation leads the next lemma.

###### \fp4.3 Lemma

For the four dimensional euclidean space $`𝔼^4`$, we can fix the representation of the gamma matrices of $`\{dx^i\}`$ system as $`\gamma _{\{dx\}}(dx^i)=\sigma ^1\sigma ^i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`\gamma _{\{dx\}}(dx^4)=\sigma ^21`$. By letting

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1:=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_2:=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_3:=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_4:=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right),$$

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1=(0,1,0,1)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2=(1,0,1,0)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3=(0,1,1,0)`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_4=(1,0,0,1)`$, we have the following relations:

$$\underset{i}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\gamma _{\{dx\}}(dx^i)\mathrm{\Psi }_1dx^i=2dZ_1,\underset{i}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2\gamma _{\{dx\}}(dx^i)\mathrm{\Psi }_2dx^i=2d\overline{Z}_1,$$

$$\underset{i}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3\gamma _{\{dx\}}(dx^i)\mathrm{\Psi }_3dx^i=2dZ_2,\underset{i}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_4\gamma _{\{dx\}}(dx^i)\mathrm{\Psi }_4dx^i=2d\overline{Z}_2.$$

###### Demonstration Proof of Proposition 4.2

(1) is proved by Theorem 3.15. We consider (2). For $`\phi _a`$’s, their independent partner solutions are given by $`\phi _3:=\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{g}\\ \overline{f}\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ $`\phi _4:=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ \overline{n}\\ \overline{m}\end{array}\right)`$. Since we have fixed $`\gamma _{S,\{d\xi \}}(d\zeta ^\beta )=\sigma ^\beta `$, the convention in 2.8 gives

$$\tau _{S,𝔼^2}(\gamma _{S,\{d\xi \}}(d\zeta ^\beta ))=\sigma ^1\sigma ^\beta .$$

We define $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1:=\phi _1+\phi _2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_2:=\phi _3+\phi _4`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_3:=\phi _1+\phi _4`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_4:=\phi _3+\phi _2`$. Let us assume that $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_a=\rho ^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }_a|_{q=0}`$ $`(a=1,2,3,4)`$ of Lemma 4.3. Then we find the spin matrix as

$$\rho ^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}f& \overline{g}& 0& 0\\ g& \overline{f}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& m& \overline{n}\\ 0& 0& n& \overline{m}\end{array}\right).$$

We have these dual bases, $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_a=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_a\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Omega }|_{q^{\dot{\beta }}=0},`$ and obtain the relation,

$$2dZ_1=\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_1\sigma _1\sigma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\phi }_1ds^\alpha ,2d\overline{Z}_1=\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_2\sigma _1\sigma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\phi }_2ds^\alpha ,$$

$$2dZ_2=\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_3\sigma _1\sigma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\phi }_3ds^\alpha ,2d\overline{Z}_2=\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_4\sigma _1\sigma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\phi }_4ds^\alpha .$$

Explicit representation of them proves (2).∎


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Liouville field theory (LFT) is widely considered as an appropriate field theoretic background for a certain universality class of two-dimensional quantum gravity. It has been demonstrated in numerous examples that in 2D the scaling limit of the so-called “dynamical triangulations”  (which are in fact a discrete model of a two-dimensional surface with fluctuating geometry) in many cases can be described by appropriately applied LFT

Local dynamics of LFT is determined by the action density

$$(z)=\frac{1}{4\pi }(_a\varphi (z))^2+\mu e^{2b\varphi (z)}$$
(1.1)
where $`\varphi `$ is the Liouville field and $`b`$ is a dimensionless parameter which, roughly speaking, determines the “rigidity” of a 2D surface to quantum fluctuations of the metric. Ordinarily $`\mathrm{exp}(2b\varphi (z))d^2z`$ is interpreted as the quantum volume element of the fluctuating surface, parameter $`\mu `$ being the cosmological coupling constant. LFT is a conformal field theory with central charge

$$c_L=1+6Q^2$$
(1.2)
where $`Q`$ is yet another convenient parameter called the “background charge”

$$Q=b^1+b$$
(1.3)
More details about the space of states in LFT, the set of local primary fields and local operator algebra can be found e.g. in .

Local equation of motion for (1.1)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =4\pi \mu be^{2b\varphi }$$
(1.4)
is the quantum version of the classic Liouville equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =2R^2e^\phi $$
(1.5)
It describes locally a metric

$$ds^2=e^{\phi (z)}\left|dz\right|^2$$
(1.6)
of constant negative curvature $`2R^2`$ in the isothermal (or conformal) coordinates. Classical situation arises in LFT if $`b0`$. In this limit we identify the classical field $`\phi =2b\varphi `$ while $`R^2=4\pi \mu b^2`$.

Discrete models of quantum gravity, such as the random triangulations or matrix models, typically deal with compact fluctuating surfaces of different topologies either with or without boundaries. This type of problems is most relevant in the string theory. In this context the main problem is somewhat different from that considered usually in field theory. Namely, observables of primary interest are the “integrated” correlation functions, which bear no coordinate dependence and can be rather called the “correlation numbers”. They are used to describe certain “deformations” or “flows” caused by relevant perturbations (see e.g. the reviews  and  for more details). In many problems of this kind the discrete approaches presently appear more efficient then the field theoretic description based on LFT. In the discrete schemes the correlation functions naturally arise in the “integrated” form while the field theoretic approach implies a gauge fixing and gives the correlation functions as the functions of certain moduli (invariants of the complex structure in the case of LFT). These functions, although being themselves of considerable interest, should be yet integrated over the moduli space to produce the correlation numbers. Therefore in such problems of quantum gravity LFT still lags behind matrix models or other discrete approaches. Up to now only general scaling exponents and a limited set of correlation functions in simplest compact topologies can be predicted in LFT (see e.g.  and references therein).

It is well known that the Liouville equation (1.5) admits “basic” solution, which describes the geometry of infinite constant negative curvature surface, the so-called Lobachevskiy plane, or pseudosphere. This surface can be realized as the disk $`\left|z\right|<1`$ with metric (1.6) where

$$e^{\phi (z)}=\frac{4R^2}{(1z\overline{z})^2}$$
(1.7)
Here $`R`$ is interpreted as the radius of the pseudosphere. The points at the circle $`\left|z\right|=1`$ are infinitely far away from any internal point and form a one-dimensional infinity called the absolute. Geometry of the pseudosphere is described in detail in standard textbooks and here we will not go into further details like $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry, geodesics etc. Let us mention only the so-called Poincaré model, where the same geometry is represented in the upper half plane of complex $`\xi `$ with the metric

$$e^{\phi (\xi )}=\frac{R^2}{(Im\xi )^2}$$
(1.8)
It seems natural to expect that LFT, at least in the semi-classical regime $`c_L>25`$, also allows a solution corresponding to a quantization of this geometry. In this paper we present what we believe might be the solution to this problem. Surprisingly, we find an infinite set of different consistent solutions parameterized by a couple of positive integers $`(m,n)`$ (which can be put in natural correspondence with the degenerate representations of the Virasoro algebra). Only the set $`(1,n)`$ has a smooth behavior as $`b0`$ and therefore can be literally called the “quantization” of (1.7). Remarkably, all the solutions of this $`(1,n)`$ series are indistinguishable in the classical limit (and even at the one-loop level), dependence on $`n`$ appearing only in two-loop corrections. However, actual higher loop calculations show that only the solution $`(m,n)=(1,1)`$ is consistent with the standard loop perturbation theory. Therefore we are inclined to interpret this last solution as the “basic” one, corresponding to a “natural” quantization of the Lobachevskiy plane. Although the nature of other solutions is still beyond our understanding (even of the “perturbative” series $`(1,n)`$, $`n>1`$) they probably can be speculated as describing different phases of quantum gravity.

In principle all local properties of a field theory are encoded in its operator product expansions. The latter are basically known in LFT (see ). To have a complete description we also need certain information of what is happening “faraway” from the observer, i.e, about the boundary conditions at infinity. This information is encoded in the wave function of the state which “comes from infinity”, the so-called out-vacuum. In order, the out-vacuum wave function can be described as the set of vacuum expectation values (VEV’s) of all local fields in the theory. In conformal field theory, like LFT, it suffices to determine the VEV’s (or one-point functions) of all primary operators. The basic Liouville primaries are the exponential fields

$$V_\alpha =\mathrm{exp}(2\alpha \varphi )$$
(1.9)
of dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha =\alpha (Q\alpha )`$. Thus the set of VEV’s $`V_\alpha `$ is just the complementary information we need to describe LFT in the pseudosphere geometry. In this paper we mainly concentrate on this characteristic.

The paper is arranged as follows. In sect.2 the bootstrap technique is applied to derive the one-point functions $`V_\alpha `$. We observe that all the out-vacuums $`(m,n)`$, if considered as conformal boundary conditions at absolute, allow only finite set of boundary operators. In particular, the basic out-vacuum $`(1,1)`$ does not contain any boundary fields except the identity operator and its conformal descendents. Few simplest bulk-boundary structure constants are also derived in this section. Certain properties of the solutions are discussed in section 3. This includes perturbative expansions of the one-point functions and some evidence about the content of the boundary operators in the state $`(m,n)`$. In sect.4 one- and two-loop contributions to the one-point functions are evaluated in the framework of standard Feynmann diagram technique. At two loops these calculations agree with the expansion of the “basic” vacuum state $`(1,1)`$.

In sect.5 the powerful modular bootstrap technique is applied to verify the consistency of the proposed operator content at the out-vacuum states $`(m,n)`$. Partition function of an annulus with “boundaries” corresponding to different out-vacua $`(m,n)`$ is considered. It turns out that the modular invariance of this partition function perfectly agrees with the suggested operator content and can be further implemented for “finite” boundary conditions discussed in ref..

With a finite set of boundary operators any two-point function in the bulk is constructed as a finite sum of four-point conformal blocks. In sect.6 we develop this construction explicitly for two simplest vacua $`(1,1)`$ and $`(1,2)`$ and verify numerically that it satisfies the bulk-boundary bootstrap. Some outlook and discussion is presented in sect.7.

## 2 One-point bootstrap

The basic assumption of the further development is that the out-vacuum state generated by the absolute of the pseudosphere is conformally invariant, i.e., consists of a superposition of the Ishibashi states . The one-point functions of primary fields are nothing but the amplitudes of different Ishibashi primaries in the out-vacuum wave function.

In this section we will use the Poincaré model of the Lobachevskiy plane with complex coordinate $`\xi `$ in the upper half plane. Due to the conformal invariance the coordinate dependence of any one-point function is prescribed by the dimension of the operator

$$V_\alpha (\xi )=\frac{U(\alpha )}{\left|\xi \overline{\xi }\right|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha }}$$
(2.1)
Thus we will call coordinate independent function $`U(\alpha )`$ the one-point function and normalize it in the usual in field theory way $`U(0)=1`$.

Of course, local properties of LFT do not depend on the boundary conditions. In particular the set of (bulk) degenerate fields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{m,n}=\mathrm{exp}\left(((1m)b^1+(1n)b)\varphi \right)$$
(2.2)
still exists for any pair of positive $`m`$ and $`n`$. Therefore one can make use of the trick applied by J.Teschner in the study of the operator algebra  (see also  for very similar discussions). Consider the following auxiliary two-point correlation function with the insertion of an operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}=V_{b/2}`$

$$G_{b/2,\alpha }(\xi ,\xi ^{})=V_{b/2}(\xi )V_\alpha (\xi ^{})$$
(2.3)
Degenerate fields have very special structure of the operator product expansions. In particular, the product $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}V_\alpha `$ contains in the right hand side only two primary fields $`V_{\alpha b/2}`$ and $`V_{\alpha +b/2}`$. Function (2.3) is therefore combined of two degenerate conformal blocks

$$G_{b/2,\alpha }=\frac{\left|\xi ^{}\overline{\xi }^{}\right|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha 2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}}{\left|\xi \overline{\xi }^{}\right|^{4\mathrm{\Delta }_a}}\left[C_+(\alpha )U(\alpha b/2)_+(\eta )+C_{}(\alpha )U(\alpha +b/2)_{}(\eta )\right]$$
(2.4)
In our normalization the special structure constants $`C_\pm (\alpha )`$ read explicitly

$`C_+(\alpha )`$ $`=1`$ (2.5)
$`C_{}(\alpha )`$ $`=\pi \mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha bb^21)\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\alpha b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+b^2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+b^22\alpha b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b^2)}}`$
Degenerate conformal blocks $`_\pm (\eta )`$ are functions of the projective invariant

$$\eta =\frac{(\xi \xi ^{})(\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }^{})}{(\xi \overline{\xi }^{})(\overline{\xi }\xi ^{})}$$
(2.6)
They are known explicitly and can be expressed in terms of hypergeometric functions

$`_+(\eta )`$ $`=\eta ^{\alpha b}(1\eta )^{b^2/2}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(2\alpha b2b^21,b^2,2\alpha bb^2,\eta )`$ (2.7)
$`_{}(\eta )`$ $`=\eta ^{1+b^2\alpha b}(1\eta )^{b^2/2}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(b^2,12\alpha b,2+b^22\alpha b,\eta )`$
The same expression (2.4) can be rewritten also in terms of the cross-channel degenerate blocks $`𝒢_\pm (\eta )`$

$$G_{b/2,\alpha }=\frac{\left|\xi ^{}\overline{\xi }^{}\right|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha 2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}}{\left|\xi \overline{\xi }^{}\right|^{4\mathrm{\Delta }_a}}\left[B^{(+)}(\alpha )𝒢_+(\eta )+B^{()}(\alpha )𝒢_{}(\eta )\right]$$
(2.8)
where

$`𝒢_+(\eta )`$ $`=\eta ^{\alpha b}(1\eta )^{b^2/2}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(b^2,2\alpha b2b^21,2b^2,1\eta )`$ (2.9)
$`𝒢_{}(\eta )`$ $`=\eta ^{\alpha b}(1\eta )^{1+3b^2/2}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(1+b^2,2\alpha b,2+2b^2,1\eta )`$
The boundary structure constants $`B^{(\pm )}(\alpha )`$ can be determined from the relations

$`_+(\eta )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha bb^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2b^2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+b^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha b)}}𝒢_+(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha bb^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(12b^2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha b2b^21)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b^2)}}𝒢_{}(\eta )`$ (2.10)
$`_{}(\eta )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+b^22\alpha b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2b^2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+b^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+2b^22\alpha b)}}𝒢_+(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+b^22\alpha b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(12b^2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\alpha b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b^2)}}𝒢_{}(\eta )`$
The block $`𝒢_{}(\eta )`$ is recognized as corresponding to the identity boundary operator of dimension $`0`$ while the boundary dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}=12b^2`$ corresponding to the block $`𝒢_+(\eta )`$ suggests to identify it as the contribution of the degenerate boundary operator $`\psi _{1,3}`$.

Projective invariant (2.6) can be interpreted in terms of the geodesic distance $`s(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ on the pseudosphere. In the classical metric (1.8)

$$\eta =\mathrm{tanh}^2\frac{s}{2R}$$
(2.11)
It is important that on the pseudosphere as $`\eta 1`$ the geodesic distance becomes infinite. In a unitary field theory a two-point correlation function is expected to decay in a product of the one-point ones as the distance goes to infinity. The corresponding contribution is provided by the identity operator. Therefore in a unitary theory with the usual large-distance decay of correlations one would expect for $`B^{()}(\alpha )`$

$$B^{()}(\alpha )=U(\alpha )U(b/2)$$
(2.12)
Together with (2.10) this gives the following non-linear functional equation for $`U(\alpha )`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b^2)U(\alpha )U(b/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12b^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha bb^2)}=\frac{U(\alpha b/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha b2b^21)}\frac{\pi \mu \mathrm{\Gamma }(1+b^2)U(\alpha +b/2)}{(2\alpha bb^21)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha b)}$$
(2.13)
Of course this equation admits many solutions. The set of the solutions can be restricted largely by adding a similar “dual” functional equation where $`\alpha `$ is shifted in $`b^1/2`$ instead of $`b/2`$ in (2.13). Dual equation arises from the same calculation as (2.13) but with the degenerate field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{21}`$ taken instead of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}`$ in the auxiliary two-point function (2.3). Due to the duality of LFT (see e.g., ) this amounts the substitution $`bb^1`$, $`\mu \stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ in (2.13). Here

$$\pi \stackrel{~}{\mu }\gamma (b^2)=\left(\pi \mu \gamma (b^2)\right)^{1/b^2}$$
(2.14)
and as usual $`\gamma (x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)`$.

It seems that (at least for real incommensurable values of $`b`$ and $`1/b`$) all possible solutions fall into an infinite family parameterized by two positive integers $`(m,n)`$

$$U_{m,n}(\alpha )=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi b^1Q)\mathrm{sin}(\pi mb^1(2\alpha Q))}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi mb^1Q)\mathrm{sin}(\pi b^1(2\alpha Q))}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi bQ)\mathrm{sin}(\pi nb(2\alpha Q))}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi nbQ)\mathrm{sin}(\pi b(2\alpha Q))}U_{1,1}(\alpha )$$
(2.15)
where the “basic” $`(1,1)`$ one-point function reads

$$U(\alpha )=U_{1,1}(\alpha )=\frac{\left[\pi \mu \gamma (b^2)\right]^{\alpha /b}\mathrm{\Gamma }(bQ)\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q/b)Q}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b(Q2\alpha ))\mathrm{\Gamma }(b^1(Q2\alpha ))(Q2\alpha )}$$
(2.16)
In the next section we will discuss some properties of these solutions. Now let’s take a look at the contribution of the block $`𝒢_{}(\eta )`$ to (2.3). This term is interpreted as the contribution of the boundary operator $`\psi _{1,3}`$. Combining (2.10) and (2.15) one finds

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_{m,n}^{(+)}(\alpha )}{U_{m,n}(\alpha )}}`$ $`=()^{m1}\left[\pi \mu \gamma (b^2)\right]^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2b^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(12b\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha b2b^21)}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(b^2)}}`$ (2.17)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\pi nb(\alpha b))\mathrm{sin}(2\pi b\alpha )\mathrm{sin}(2\pi nb\alpha )\mathrm{sin}(2\pi b(\alpha b))}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi nb(2\alpha b))}}`$
In the standard CFT picture $`B_{m,n}^{(+)}(\alpha )`$ is composed from the bulk-boundary structure constants $`R_{m,n}^{(1,3)}(\alpha )`$ for the operators $`V_\alpha `$ and $`V_{b/2}`$ merging to the boundary operator $`\psi _{13}`$ near the $`(m,n)`$ boundary

$$B_{m,n}^{(+)}(\alpha )=R_{m,n}^{(1,3)}(\alpha )R_{m,n}^{(1,3)}(b/2)D_{m,n}^{(1,3)}$$
(2.18)
Here $`D_{m,n}^{(1,3)}`$ stands for the boundary two-point function of two operators $`\psi _{1,3}`$.

In principle the bootstrap technique allows to continue this process and calculate all bulk-boundary structure constants $`R_{m,n}^{(p,q)}(\alpha )`$ corresponding to any degenerate boundary operator with odd $`p`$ and $`q`$. Here we will not proceed systematically along this line. What can be already seen from eq.(2.17) is that $`R_{m,n}^{(1,3)}(\alpha )`$ vanishes for the basic out-vacuum state $`(m,n)=(1,1)`$. The following guess (which will be further supported in the subsequent sections) seems rather natural. *The basic vacuum* $`(1,1)`$ *contains no primary boundary operators except the identity*. In this sense the basic vacuum is similar to the basic conformal boundary condition discovered by J.Cardy  in the context of rational conformal field theories.

The whole variety of vacua $`(m,n)`$ in this picture is naturally associated with the boundary conditions corresponding to the degenerate fields (2.2) themselves. Then, the content of boundary operators acting on the vacuum $`(m,n)`$ (or, more generally, of the juxtaposition operators between different vacua $`(m,n)`$ and $`(m^{},n^{})`$) is determined by the fusion algebra, exactly as in the rational case. For instance, the vacuum $`(1,2)`$ contains only identity boundary operator ($`\psi _{1,1}=I`$) and the degenerate field $`\psi _{1,3}`$.

In principle, all these suggestions can be verified by systematic calculations of the higher structure constants. We choose to postpone this difficult problem for future studies. Instead in sect.5 we will see that the above pattern is perfectly consistent with the modular bootstrap of the annulus partition function.

## 3 The one-point function

The solution (2.15) for the one-point function bears some remarkable properties.

1. One-point Liouville equation. For all $`(m,n)`$

$$U_{m,n}(b)=\frac{Q}{\pi \mu b}$$
(3.1)
(of course the dual relation $`U_{m,n}(1/b)=bQ/(\pi \stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ from (2.14) is also valid). In particular, this means that the quantum Liouville equation in the form (1.4) holds on the one-point level. Indeed, if the quantum Liouville field $`\varphi `$ is defined as

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\frac{V_\alpha }{\alpha }|_{\alpha =0}$$
(3.2)
it follows from (2.1) that (we take the Poincaré model (1.8) for the moment)

$$\varphi (\xi )_{m,n}=Q\mathrm{log}\left|\xi \overline{\xi }\right|^2+U_{m,n}(\alpha )/\alpha |_{\alpha =0}$$
(3.3)
and therefore

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\xi )_{m,n}=\frac{4Q}{\left|\xi \overline{\xi }\right|^2}=4\pi \mu bV_b(\xi )_{m,n}$$
(3.4)
2. Normalization. All the one-point functions $`U_{m,n}(\alpha )`$ are normalized by $`U_{m,n}(0)=1`$ so that the expectation value of the identity operator is $`1`$. It will prove convenient to introduce the function

$$W(\lambda )=\frac{2\pi \lambda \left(\pi \mu \gamma (b^2)\right)^{\lambda /b}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\lambda /b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(12b\lambda )}$$
(3.5)
It satisfies the following functional relations

$`W(\lambda )W(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{sin}(2\pi b\lambda )\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \lambda /b)`$ (3.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{W(iP)}{W(iP)}}`$ $`=S_L(P)`$
$`S_L(P)`$ being the standard Liouville reflection amplitude

$$S_L(P)=\left(\pi \mu \gamma (b^2)\right)^{2iP/b}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2iP/b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2ibP)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12iP/b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(12ibP)}$$
(3.7)
Notice, that $`U(Q/2+\lambda )`$ differs from $`W(\lambda )`$ only in overall normalization

$$U(\alpha )=\frac{W(\alpha Q/2)}{W(Q/2)}$$
(3.8)
3. Reflection relation. Apparently, all the solutions $`U_{m,n}(\alpha )`$ satisfy the so-called reflection relations (see e.g. ref.  for details)

$$U_{m,n}(\alpha )=S_L\left(\frac{2\alpha Q}{2i}\right)U_{m,n}(Q\alpha )$$
(3.9)
with the Liouville reflection amplitude (3.7). This is consistent with the local properties of the LFT primary fields suggested in ref..

4. In the “basic” vacuum $`(𝐦,𝐧)=(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ the one-point function $`U_{1,1}(\alpha )`$ reads

$$U_{1,1}(\alpha )=U(\alpha )=\frac{\left[\pi \mu \gamma (b^2)\right]^{\alpha /b}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+b^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+1/b^2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+b^22b\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+b^22\alpha /b)}$$
(3.10)
while from eq.(2.17) we have

$$B_{1,1}^{(+)}(\alpha )=0$$
(3.11)
i.e., as it has been mentioned in the previous section, boundary field $`\psi _{1,3}`$ does not contribute to (2.3) in the basic vacuum. As it has been suggested above, this is a particular instance of a more general phenomenon: In the basic vacuum the only primary boundary operator is the identity one. This feature makes the basic state rather distinguished among the whole set (2.15). We are inclined to identify it as the generic out-vacuum state of LFT on the Lobachevskiy plane. In the next section this statement is checked against the ordinary (loop) perturbation theory up to two-loop order.

5. Perturbative expansions. If $`m>1`$ the one-point function $`U_{m,n}(\alpha )`$ is essentially singular at $`b0`$ and therefore admits no usual classical limit. Singular behavior in the classical limit makes it rather difficult to interpret these states as a “quantization” of any classical metric. For the moment let us restrict attention to the case $`m=1`$ where $`U_{1,n}(\alpha )`$ is smooth in the classical limit and can be expanded in an (asymptotic) series in $`b`$.

Take the disk model (1.7) of the pseudosphere, where the one-point function reads

$$V_\alpha (z)=\frac{U(\alpha )}{(1z\overline{z})^{2\alpha (Q\alpha )}}$$
(3.12)
First, it is convenient to take the logarithm of this function and expand it in powers of $`\alpha `$

$$\mathrm{log}V_\alpha (z)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\alpha )^k}{k!}G_k(b^2)$$
(3.13)
The coefficients are readily interpreted as the VEV’s of “connected powers” of the Liouville field $`\varphi `$, e.g.

$`G_1(b)`$ $`=\varphi `$
$`G_2(b)`$ $`=\varphi ^2\varphi ^2`$ (3.14)
$`G_3(b)`$ $`=\varphi ^33\varphi \varphi ^2+2\varphi ^3`$
etc.
In order, each $`G_k(b^2)`$ allows an asymptotic expansion in powers of $`b`$

$$G_k(b^2)\underset{l=k1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}G_k^{(l)}b^{2lk}$$
(3.15)
For the first few coefficients we find (for the general “perturbative” solution $`U_{1,n}(\alpha )`$)

$`G_1(b)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2b}}\mathrm{log}\left(\pi \mu b^2(1z\overline{z})^2\right)+b\left(\mathrm{log}(1z\overline{z})+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)`$
$`+b^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2(n^21)}{3}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (3.16)
$`G_2(b)`$ $`\mathrm{log}(1z\overline{z})1+b^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2(n^21)}{3}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$
$`G_3(b)`$ $`b+\mathrm{}`$
Notice that the classical limit $`G_1^{(0)}`$ and one-loop terms $`G_1^{(1)}`$ and $`G_2^{(1)}`$ are completely unsensitive to the sort of the out-vacuum $`(1,n)`$, the dependence on the vacuum appearing only in the terms corresponding to two and higher loops ($`l2`$).

## 4 Loop perturbation theory

Expansions (3.16) can be compared against the standard loop perturbation theory around the classical solution (1.7). In this section we will use the most “naive” perturbation theory which treats the LFT action

$$A_L=\left[\frac{1}{4\pi }(_a\varphi )^2+\mu e^{2b\varphi }\right]d^2x$$
(4.1)
straightforwardly and leads to a diagram technique with different tadpole diagrams. In this technique the standard Liouville scaling exponents do not appear exactly from the very beginning but are the result of complete summation (however rather simple) of the tadpoles. Of course, more sophisticated diagram techniques can be developed for the Liouville field theory, which automatically take advantage of the Weil and conformal invariance of the theory to reduce the set of tadpole diagrams and start with the exact exponents . These versions of LFT perturbation theory (which are of course equivalent to the “naive” one) have essential advantages at higher loop calculations where tadpole diagrams are rather numerous and their counting becomes a certain combinatorial problem.

The Weil invariance of LFT means that the theory with the action (4.1) is equivalent to LFT in any background metric $`g_{ab}(x)`$. In general the LFT action reads

$$A_L[g]=\left[\frac{1}{4\pi }g^{ab}_a\varphi _b\varphi +\frac{Q}{4\pi }R\varphi +\mu e^{2b\varphi }\right]\sqrt{g}d^2x$$
(4.2)
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature of the background metric, the theory being essentially independent on $`g`$. “Naive” form (4.1) of the Liouville action implies the “trivial” background metric $`g_{ab}=\delta _{ab}`$ in the parametric space, e.g. inside the unit disk (1.7). This means that all ultraviolet divergencies are regularized with respect to this trivial metric.

Of course the classical solution $`\varphi _{\text{cl}}`$

$$e^{2b\varphi _{\text{cl}}}=\frac{1}{\pi \mu b^2(1z\overline{z})^2}$$
(4.3)
does not depend on any background metric. Substituting

$$\varphi =\varphi _{\text{cl}}+\chi $$
(4.4)
into (4.1) we have

$$A_L=A_L^{(\text{cl})}+\left[\frac{1}{4\pi }(_a\chi )^2+\frac{e^{2b\chi }2b\chi 1}{\pi b^2(1z\overline{z})^2}\right]d^2x$$
(4.5)
At the classical (zero-loop) level only $`G_1`$ is non-zero

$$G_1=\frac{1}{2b}\mathrm{log}\left(\pi \mu b^2(1z\overline{z})^2\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(4.6)
and consistent with $`G_1^{(0)}`$ in expansion (3.16). The one-loop (Gaussian) part of the action (4.5) has the form

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[\frac{1}{2}(_a\chi )^2+\frac{4\chi ^2}{(1z\overline{z})^2}\right]d^2x$$
(4.7)
It leads to the following “bare” propagator of the field $`\chi `$

$$g(z,z^{})=\chi (z,\overline{z})\chi (z^{},\overline{z}^{})=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1+\eta }{1\eta }\mathrm{log}\eta +2\right)$$
(4.8)
The propagator depends only on the invariant

$$\eta =\frac{(zz^{})(\overline{z}\overline{z}^{})}{(1z\overline{z}^{})(1\overline{z}z^{})}$$
(4.9)
which is related to the “geodesic distance” $`s`$ between the points $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$ as in eq.(2.11)

The simplest one-loop diagram of fig.1a contributes to $`\chi ^2(z,\overline{z})`$

$$\text{Fig.}\text{1}\text{a}=\underset{z^{}z}{lim}\left(g(z,z^{})+\mathrm{log}\left|zz^{}\right|\right)=\mathrm{log}(1z\overline{z})1$$
(4.10)
With this result it is easy to evaluate the one-loop correction to $`\chi (z,\overline{z})`$ as given by the diagram Fig.1b

Fig.1b $`=4b{\displaystyle g(z,z^{})\frac{\chi ^2(z^{})}{(1z^{}\overline{z}^{})^2}d^2z^{}}`$ (4.11)
$`=b(\mathrm{log}(1z\overline{z})+3/2))`$
Both (4.10) and (4.11) agree with the one-loop terms in (3.16).

In general there is no need to calculate separately the contribution to $`G_1`$ at any loop order once the corresponding contributions to higher $`G`$’s are known. This is due to the following Ward identity

$$\chi =\frac{2}{\pi b}g(z,z^{})\frac{e^{2b\chi (z^{})}2b\chi (z^{})1}{(1z^{}\overline{z}^{})^2}d^2z^{}$$
(4.12)
which apparently holds order by order in the loop perturbation theory. Notice that this identity can be considered as a perturbative equivalent of the exact relation (3.1).

The simplest two-loop correction is the leading contribution to $`G_3.`$ There is only one diagram Fig.1f which is readily evaluated

$$\text{Fig.}\text{1}\text{f}=\frac{8b}{\pi }\frac{g^3(z,z^{})}{(1z^{}\overline{z}^{})^2}d^2z^{}=8b_0^1\frac{g^3(\eta )d\eta }{(1\eta )^2}=b$$
(4.13)
again in agreement with the exact value of $`G_3^{(2)}`$ in (3.16). Next, take the two-loop corrections to $`G_2`$. Let us first evaluate the tadpole contributions of Fig.1c and Fig.1d. Since

$$b\left(\text{Fig.}\text{1}\text{a}\right)+\text{Fig.}\text{1}\text{b}=b/2$$
(4.14)
we have

$`\text{Fig.}\text{1}\text{c}+\text{Fig.}\text{1}\text{d}`$ $`=4b^2{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\eta )}{(1\eta )^2}}𝑑\eta `$ (4.15)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{6\pi ^2}{9}}b^2`$
To evaluate the two-loop diagram Fig.1e we need the following two-point function

$$g_{1,2}(\eta )=\chi (z)\chi ^2(z^{})$$
(4.16)
as given by the following one-loop diagram

$`g_{1,2}(z,z^{})`$ $`=\text{}={\displaystyle \frac{g(z,z^{\prime \prime })g^2(z^{\prime \prime },z^{})}{(1z^{\prime \prime }\overline{z}^{\prime \prime })^2}d^2z^{\prime \prime }}`$ (4.17)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta \mathrm{log}^2\eta }{(1\eta )^2}}1\right)`$
For the two-loop diagram we obtain

Fig.1e $`={\displaystyle \frac{32b^2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{1,2}(z,z^{})g(z,z^{})}{(1z^{}\overline{z}^{})^2}d^2z^{}}`$ (4.18)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{15\pi ^2}{18}}b^2`$
Adding all the two-loop diagrams together results in

$$G_2^{(2)}=\text{Fig.}\text{1}\text{c}+\text{Fig.}\text{1}\text{d}+\text{Fig.}\text{1}\text{e}=\frac{9\pi ^2}{6}b^2$$
(4.19)
and agrees with the expansion (3.16) if we take $`n=1`$, i.e., for the “basic” vacuum state.

Here we will not develop further the loop perturbation theory for LFT on the Lobachevskiy plane. To go at higher loop diagrammatic calculations it is worth first to improve the technique to better handle the tadpole diagrams (which become rather numerous at higher orders) and second to take advantage of the space-time symmetries (the $`SL(2,R)`$ group) of the theory. We hope to turn at these interesting points in close future.

## 5 Modular bootstrap

General non-degenerate Virasoro character is written as

$$\chi _P(\tau )=\frac{q^{P^2}}{\eta (\tau )}$$
(5.1)
where

$$\eta \left(\tau \right)=q^{1/24}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1q^n),q=\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi \tau )$$
(5.2)
Here $`P`$ is related to the central charge and the dimension of the representation via eqs.(1.2) and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_P=Q^2/4+P^2$$
(5.3)
Degenerate representations appear at

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{m,n}=Q^2/4(m/b+nb)^2/4$$
(5.4)
where $`(m,n)`$ are positive integers. At general $`b`$ there is only one null-vector at the level $`mn`$. Hence the degenerate character reads simply as

$$\chi _{m,n}(\tau )=\frac{q^{(m/b+nb)^2/4}q^{(m/bnb)^2/4}}{\eta (\tau )}$$
(5.5)
Applying the identity

$`\chi _P(\tau ^{})`$ $`=e^{2i\pi P^2\tau ^{}}\sqrt{i\tau ^{}}\eta ^1(\tau )`$
$`=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \chi _P^{}(\tau )e^{4i\pi PP^{}}𝑑P^{}}`$ (5.6)
where

$`\tau ^{}`$ $`=1/\tau `$ (5.7)
$`q^{}`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi \tau ^{})`$
we find

$`\chi _{m,n}(\tau ^{})`$ $`=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \chi _P(\tau )\left(\mathrm{cosh}2\pi (m/b+nb)P\mathrm{cos}2\pi (m/bnb)P\right)𝑑P}`$
$`=2\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \chi _P(\tau )\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi mP/b)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi nbP)𝑑P}`$ (5.8)
In particular

$`\chi _{1,1}(q^{})`$ $`=2\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \chi _P(q)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi bP)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi P/b)𝑑P}`$ (5.9)
$`={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(P)\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(P)\chi _P(q)𝑑P}`$
where we have set

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(P)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{3/4}2i\pi P}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12ibP)\mathrm{\Gamma }(12iP/b)}}(\pi \mu \gamma (b^2))^{iP/b}`$ (5.10)
$`=2^{3/4}W(iP)`$
The function $`W(\lambda )`$ has been defined in eq.(3.5). $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(P)`$ is interpreted as the wave function of the basic out-vacuum state

$$(1,1)\text{outvac}|=\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(P)P|𝑑P$$
(5.11)
Here $`P|`$ are the Ishibashi states

$$P|=v_P|\left(1+\frac{L_1\overline{L}_1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_P}+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(5.12)
for different primary states $`v_P`$. The last are assumed to be normalized as follows

$$v_P|v_P^{}=\delta (PP^{})$$
(5.13)
Let us now take (5.8) and represent it in the form

$$\chi _{m,n}(q^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,n}(P)\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(P)\chi _P(q)𝑑P$$
(5.14)
with

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,n}(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(P)\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi mP/b)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi nbP)}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi P/b)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi bP)}$$
(5.15)
(compare this expression with eq.(2.15)). This is naturally interpreted as the wave function of a general $`(m,n)`$ out-vacuum state. It remains us to verify the operator content in the decomposition of the “partition function”

$`Z_{(m,n),(m^{},n^{})}(q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }_{m,n}(P)\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^{},n^{}}(P)\chi _P(q)𝑑P}`$ (5.16)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi mP/b)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi nbP)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi m^{}P/b)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi n^{}bP)}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi P/b)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi bP)}\chi _P(q)𝑑P}`$
Thanks to the identity

$$\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi nbP)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi n^{}bP)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(n,n^{})1}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi bP)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi b(n+n^{}2l1)P)$$
(5.17)
this results in the standard character set

$$Z_{(m,n),(m^{},n^{})}(q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(m,m^{})1}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(n,n^{})1}{}}\chi _{m+m^{}2k1,n+n^{}2l1}(q^{})$$
(5.18)
determined by the fusion algebra of the degenerate representations.

Consider also a general non-degenerate character with $`P=s/2`$ (i.e., with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=Q^2/4+s^2/4`$)

$$\chi _{s/2}(q^{})=\sqrt{2}\chi _P(q)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi sP)𝑑P$$
(5.19)
This can be interpreted as

$$\chi _{s/2}(q^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(P)\mathrm{\Psi }_s(P)\chi _P(q)𝑑P$$
(5.20)
if

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_s(P)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{1/4}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2ibP)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2iP/b)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi sP)}{2i\pi P}}(\pi \mu \gamma (b^2))^{iP/b}`$ (5.21)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{1/4}W(iP)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi sP)}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi bP)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi P/b)}}`$
This wave function has been already discussed in ref. (see also  for modular considerations) in connection with certain local conformally invariant boundary conditions in boundary LFT. Therefore it is natural to associate such boundary state with a general non-degenerate representation with $`P=s/2`$.

Next, let us decompose the following overlap integral

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,n}(P)\mathrm{\Psi }_s(P)\chi _P(q)𝑑P=\sqrt{2}\chi _P(q)\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi mP/b)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi nbP)}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi P/b)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi bP)}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi sP)𝑑P$$
(5.22)
Again, we use the identity

$$\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi nbP)}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi bP)}=\underset{l=1n,2}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi lbP)$$
(5.23)
(here $`_{l=1n,2}^{n1}`$ denotes the sum over the set $`l=\{n+1,n+3,\mathrm{},n1\}`$) to obtain

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,n}(P)\mathrm{\Psi }_s(P)\chi _P(q)𝑑P=\underset{k=1m,2}{\overset{m1}{}}\underset{l=1n,2}{\overset{n1}{}}\chi _{(s+i(k/b+lb))/2}(q^{})$$
(5.24)
i.e., the standard fusion of the degenerate representation $`(m,n)`$ and a general one with $`P=s/2`$.

It remains us to analyze the partition function with two boundary conditions characterized by different boundary parameters $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$. It is given by the overlap integral

$`Z_{s,s^{}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }_s(P)\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}(P)\chi _P(q)𝑑P}`$
$`=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }_s(P)\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}(P)e^{4i\pi PP^{}}\chi _P^{}(q^{})𝑑P𝑑P^{}}`$ (5.25)
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\rho (P^{})\chi _P^{}(q^{})𝑑P^{}`$
where, according to  the density of states $`\rho (P^{})`$ flowing along the strip reads

$`\rho (P^{})`$ $`=2\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }_s(P)\mathrm{\Psi }_s^{}(P)e^{4i\pi PP^{}}𝑑P}`$ (5.26)
$`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}(st)\mathrm{cos}(s^{}t)}{\mathrm{sinh}(bt)\mathrm{sinh}(t/b)}}e^{2iP^{}t}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{2\pi }}`$
In this integral some regularization of the singularity at $`P=0`$ is implied. Eq.(5.26) has to be compared with the logarithmic derivative

$$\rho (P)=\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{d}{dP}\mathrm{log}D_B(P|s,s^{})$$
(5.27)
of the boundary Liouville two-point function constructed in . As it has been mentioned in  the two expressions match up to an $`s`$-independent quantity. There is also some specific $`s`$-independent (but still $`P`$-dependent) part of the two-point function, and consequently of the density of states on the strip, which cannot be restored from the integral (5.26) before the regularization at $`P=0`$ is specified.

All the above calculations are quite formal. The underlying physical picture involves LFT on an annulus with a (purely imaginary) modular parameter

$$\tau =\frac{i}{\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{R_2}{R_1}$$
(5.28)
(see fig.2). An annulus with the out-vacuum states at both boundaries is interpreted as finite-temperature partition function of gravitational modes in $`AdS_2`$ geometry . Thus, the right-hand side of (5.18) exposes the state content of such theory. Note that in the case when both of the out-vacua are of $`(1,1)`$ type, the corresponding space of states contains only identity operator (i.e. the $`SL(2,R)`$ invariant state found in ) and its conformal descendents. The situation is more difficult to interpret when the out-vacuum associated with one (or both) of the boundaries is of $`(m,n)(1,1)`$ type, in which cases (5.14) and (5.18) indicate presence of nontrivial primary states with Kac dimensions (5.4). Proper interpretation of these states (and the “excited” out-vacua $`(m,n)(1,1)`$ themselves) is one of the most interesting questions remaining open. Nevertheless, one can notice that, at least on the formal level, the above modular pattern is strikingly similar to the situation in boundary rational conformal field theories, as discussed in . Much of the similarity remains there when one of the out-vacua is replaced by a local boundary condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s`$; the right-hand side of (5.24) reveals the state content of “semi-infinite” $`AdS_2`$, with one “$`AdS`$ boundaries” replaced by a local boundary condition of  at a finite distance. Again, true interpretation of these states still needs to be clarified.

## 6 Boundary bootstrap

With finite number of boundary fields any two-point function of bulk primary fields is combined of finite number of conformal blocks. In this section we use the structure constants calculated in sect.2 to construct this two-point function in some simplest cases and verify that it satisfies the boundary bootstrap relations.

We consider the general two-point function

$$G_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\xi _1,\xi _2)=V_{\alpha _1}(\xi _1)V_{\alpha _2}(\xi _2)_{m,n}$$
(6.1)
computed in some out-vacuum $`(m,n)`$. Let us study two simplest cases.

1. “Basic” vacuum $`(𝐦,𝐧)=(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$. In the basic out-vacuum $`(m,n)=(1,1)`$ there is only identity operator at the boundary. The function reads

$$G_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\xi _1,\xi _2)=\frac{\left|\xi _2\overline{\xi }_2\right|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_12\mathrm{\Delta }_2}U_{1,1}(\alpha _1)U_{1,1}(\alpha _2)}{\left|\xi _1\overline{\xi }_2\right|^{4\mathrm{\Delta }_2}}(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _1& \alpha _2\\ \alpha _1& \alpha _2\end{array},iQ/2,1\eta )$$
(6.2)
where $``$ is the standard four-point conformal block with “intermediate” dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. To get rid of excessive multipliers it is convenient to define a “normalized” two-point function as

$$g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\eta )=\frac{V_{\alpha _1}(\xi _1)V_{\alpha _2}(\xi _2)_{1,1}}{V_{\alpha _1}(\xi _1)_{1,1}V_{\alpha _2}(\xi _2)_{1,1}}$$
(6.3)
which is simply expressed in terms of this single block

$$g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\eta )=(1\eta )^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_1}(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _1& \alpha _2\\ \alpha _1& \alpha _2\end{array},iQ/2,1\eta )$$
(6.4)
and depends only on the invariant $`\eta `$.

Another representation of this function comes from the bulk operator product expansion of the fields $`V_{\alpha _1}(\xi _1)`$ and $`V_{\alpha _2}(\xi _2)`$. This gives the “normalized” two-point function (up to possible discrete terms) in the form

$$g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\eta )=(1\eta )^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_1}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dP}{4\pi }\frac{C(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,Q/2+iP)U_{1,1}(Q/2iP)}{U_{1,1}(\alpha _1)U_{1,1}(\alpha _2)}(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _1& \alpha _1\\ \alpha _2& \alpha _2\end{array},P,\eta )$$
(6.5)
As the first numerical example we take a quite arbitrary value $`b^2=0.8086\mathrm{}`$ and two “puncture” operators with $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=Q/2`$. In this case there are no discrete terms in the expression (6.5). The two-point function $`g_{Q/2,Q/2}`$ v.s. the invariant “distance” $`\eta `$ is plotted in fig.3. Solid line is for eq.(6.4) and circles are computed as the integral (6.5). Few numbers are presented in table 1. The first values $`g^{\text{(bound)}}(\eta )`$ are evaluated as the vacuum conformal block (6.4) and $`g^{\text{(bulk)}}(\eta )`$ stands for (6.5). We quote this table only to illustrate the numerical precision of our calculations. It should be noted that for $`g^{\text{(bulk)}}(\eta )`$ only the first 10 digits are correct, the errors being due to the numerical integration over $`P`$ in (6.5) and evaluation of the special functions entering the structure constants.

2. Vacuum $`(𝐦,𝐧)=(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$. In this vacuum two boundary operators contribute with dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,1}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,3}=Q^2/4(b^1+2b)^2/4`$. Taking again the “normalized” correlation function

$$g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\eta )=\frac{V_{\alpha _1}(\xi _1)V_{\alpha _2}(\xi _2)_{1,2}}{V_{\alpha _1}(\xi _1)_{1,2}V_{\alpha _2}(\xi _2)_{1,2}}$$
(6.6)
with respect to this vacuum, we have, instead of eq.(6.4)

$`g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\eta )=(1\eta )^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\times `$ (6.7)
$`\left[(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _1& \alpha _2\\ \alpha _1& \alpha _2\end{array},iQ/2,1\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{1,2}(\alpha _1)F_{1,2}(\alpha _2)}{U_{1,2}(b/2)F_{1,2}(b/2)}}(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _1& \alpha _2\\ \alpha _1& \alpha _2\end{array},i(b+b^1/2),1\eta )\right]`$ (6.12)
where

$$F_{1,2}(\alpha )=\frac{B_{1,2}^{(+)}(\alpha )}{U_{1,2}(\alpha )}$$
(6.13)
as given by expression (2.17) with $`(m,n)=(1,2).`$ The “cross channel” representation remains the same as in eq.(6.5) with the substitution $`U_{1,1}U_{1,2}`$. In fig.4 the numerical values of (6.7) and the cross-channel integral (6.5) are compared at $`b=0.7048\mathrm{}`$ and again for $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=Q/2`$. Notice that in this case the two-point function $`g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\eta )`$ is an exponentially growing function of the geodesic distance. This situation is typical for the “excited” vacua $`(m,n)(1,1)`$ and related to the negative dimensions (5.4) of the degenerate boundary fields $`\psi _{m,n}`$ (at real $`b`$).

## 7 Discussion

We have demonstrated that the pseudosphere geometry provides a new physical picture of 2D quantum gravity. It is different from the compact problems and in fact much closer to standard physics in ordinary field theory (peculiarities of a field theory at constant negative curvature are discussed in ). However, many conceptual questions related to the suggested constructions remain open. Let us mention some of them.

* Unitary and non-unitary matter fields coupled to Liouville quantum gravity in this geometry present a separate and rather interesting problem, particularly in relation to the recent studies of AdS/CFT correspondence .
* Of course the closing of the bootstrap program requires construction of all bulk-boundary and boundary structure constants for all degenerate boundary fields associated with different out-vacua $`(m,n)`$, including the juxtaposition operators. This difficult technical task remains to be done. For “ordinary” boundary conditions in boundary LFT this program has been started in  (see also ).
* The most intriguing point is the nature of the “excited” vacua. As we have already mentioned, in all such vacua correlation functions typically grow exponentially with the geodesic distances. This suggests that these states can be a kind of “boundary excitations” of the corresponding boundary conformal field theory. A meaning of these quantum excitations of the (physically infinite faraway) absolute remains to be comprehended. Let us mention also that these growing correlations at large distances are dominated by non-trivial degenerate boundary operators of negative dimensions. Therefore the physical “decay property” (with which we started our arguments in sect.2) doesn’t hold literally in these excited vacua, being a formal requirement (2.12) for the contribution of the identity operator. This means that even the logic of the whole development deserves more careful examination.

Acknowledgments.

Al.Z thanks Department of Physics and Astronomy of Rutgers University, where this study has been performed. His work was also supported by EU under the contract ERBFMRX CT 960012. The work of A.Z. is supported by DOE grant DE-FG02- 96ER10919.


text:
# EMISSIVE MECHANSIM OF RADIO FLAT SPECTRUM ON X-RAY BINARIES

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Radio emission is observed from 20% of X-ray binaries (e.g. Hiellming & Han 1995). In many cases of persistent or repetitive radio emission, there appears to be an underlying flat-spectrum component in low/Hard X-ray state (Fender 2000 and references therein). This spectral component is usually considered to originate in partially self-absorbed synchrotron emission from conical jets, of same genre as those originally considered for Active Galactic Nucleus (AGNs) (Marscher & Gear 1985; Hjellming & Johnston 1988; Falcke & Biermann 1996, 1999). These models assume the nonthermal electrons with a power-law distribution to produce a flat spectrum from the jet with a variety of geometries, magnetic fields and energetics, and produce only a flat spectrum over at most three decades in frequency. The radio spectrum observed from these black hole systems in the low/Hard state is quite different, showing a flat spectrum which probably extends to very high frequencies. For example, the flat radio spectrum may extend to mm wavelengths for Cyg X-1 (Fender et al. 2000) and even to near-infrared bands for GX 339-4 (Fender 2001) and GRS 1915+105 (Fender et al. 1997; Mirabel et al. 1998; Fender & Pooley 1998, 2000). It is therefore clear that X-ray binaries have much flatter radio-mm (-infrared) spectra than the ’flat-spectrum’ AGNs. They may be not relevant in jet kinematics and emissive mechanisms. The model of optically thin emission from a flatten electron spectrum (Wang et al. 1997) is not applied to X-ray binaries. The frequency-dependent time delays observed in GRS 1915+105 (Fender et al. 1997; Fender & Pooley 1998) argue against this model, as they imply significant optical depth. Another possible mechanisms are a optically thin free-free emission and a combination of free-free emission and synchrotron emission (Fender et al. 2000), but the detailed calculations are needed. Therefore the model suitable for X-ray binaries remains to be estimated.

The extremely strong correlation between the hard X-rays and the radio emission in many X-ray binaries (e.g. GX 339-4 \[Fender et al. 1999; Corbel et al. 2000\], GRO J1655-40 \[Harmon et al. 1995\], GRS 1915+105 \[Harmon et al. 1997; Fender et al. 1999\], Cyg X-3 \[McCollough et al. 1999\], and Cyg X-1 \[Brocksopp et al. 1999\]) has been observed. They imply that the regions responsible for emission in the two energy regimes are strongly physically coupled. It is currently believed that the hard X-ray emission is produced by hot electrons via comptonisation, it seems likely that the high-energy electrons responsible for the radio emission are simply the high-energy tail of hot electrons.

In this letter we present that the flat spectra of the low/hard state components are produced by the high-energy tail of hot electrons in continuous conical jets. The jets are considered to arise in the advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF) (Narayan & Yi 1995; Esin et al. 1998) or the advection-dominated inflow-outflow (ADIO) (Blandford & Begelman 1999). We study the jet kinetics and show that the hot electrons maintain constant temperature in the adiabatic steady expansion of the conical jet. The relativistic thermal electrons in the jet turn out to produce the flat spectrum by self-absorbed synchrotron emission.

## 2 JET KINEMATICS AND EMISSIVE MECHANISM

Assume that the jet is a one-dimensional adiabatic steady conical, which starts at the distance $`z_0`$ to the central black hole, with constant opening half-angle $`\varphi `$ and constant velocity $`u`$. The jet follows the continuity of momentum $`(p+\rho u^2)`$, the energy $`(\frac{1}{2}\rho u^3+\rho uw)`$, and the mass $`(\rho u)`$ flux densities, e.g.,

$$\rho uA(z)=const,(p+\rho u^2)A(z)=const,(\frac{1}{2}\rho u^3+\rho uw)=const,$$
(1)
where $`A(z)=\pi (tg\varphi )^2z^2`$ is the cross-section of the jet at the distance $`z`$, then the thermodynamic quantities of the jet as function of distance $`z`$ have simple form: $`\rho =\rho _0\left(z/z_0\right)^2`$, $`p=p_0(z/z_0)^2`$, and $`w=w_0(z/z_0)^2`$.

We assume that the gas in the jet from ADAF is equipartition with an isotropically tangled magnetic filed. We take $`\beta `$ to be independent of $`z`$, and let the total pressure $`p`$ as

$$p=p_g+p_m,p_g=\beta p,p_m=(1\beta )p,$$
(2)
where $`p_g`$ is the gas pressure, $`p_m`$ is the magnetic pressure. For the jet plasma from ADAF, we allow the ion temperature $`T_i`$ and the electron temperature $`T_e`$ to be different, and take the gas pressure to be given by (Narayan & Yi 1995)

$$p_g=\frac{\rho k}{m_u}\left(\frac{T_i}{\mu _i}+\frac{T_e}{\mu _e}\right)=6.72\times 10^7\rho (T_i+1.08T_e)=\beta p,$$
(3)
where the effective molecular weights of the ions and electrons are $`\mu _i=1.23`$ and $`\mu _e=1.14`$ which correspond to a hydrogen mass fraction $`0.75`$. The magnetic pressure is defined as $`p_m=\frac{B^2}{8\pi }=(1\beta )p`$. With the above relations, we find the distribution of physical quantities along the jet as follows:

$$\rho =\rho _0\left(\frac{z}{z_0}\right)^2,B=B_0\left(\frac{z}{z_0}\right)^1,T_i+1.08T_e=const.$$
(4)
It is shown that the ion and electron temperatures remain constant along the jet. The temperatures of ions and electrons in ADAF are very high. The ions are close to their viral temperature $`10^{12}K`$, while the electrons are at $`10^9K`$. Therefore the electrons in the jet are also at higher temperature $`10^9K`$. Due to the assumption an equipartition magnetic field in the jet plasma, synchrotron emission from relativistic electrons in the high energy tail of Maxwellian distribution provides likely the observed flat radio emission. We now turn to take the detailed calculation of synchrotron emission from relativistic thermal electrons. The emissive coefficient of synchrotron radiation by relativistic thermal electrons is given by (Narayan & Yi 1995; Mahadevan, Narayan, & Yi 1996; Mahadevan 1997)

$$ϵ_s=4.43\times 10^{30}\frac{4\pi n_e\nu }{K_2(1/\theta _e)}M(x_M),$$
(5)
where $`M(x_M)`$ is given by

$$M(x_M)=\frac{4.0505}{x_M^{1/6}}\left(1+\frac{0.40}{x_M^{1/4}}+\frac{0.5316}{x_M^{1/2}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(1.8899x_M^{1/3}),$$
(6)
and

$$x_M\frac{2\nu }{3\nu _b\vartheta _e^2},\nu _b\frac{eB}{2\pi m_ec},\theta _e=\frac{kT_e}{m_ec^2}$$
(7)
The synchrotron photons in the jet plasma are self-absorbed and give a blackbody spectrum, up to a critical frequency $`\nu _c`$. The frequency at which this occurs, at the distance $`z`$, is determined by

$$2\pi \frac{\nu _0^2}{c^2}kT_eA(z_0)+_{z_0}^z\epsilon _sA(z)𝑑z=2\pi \frac{\nu _c^2}{c^2}kT_eA(z),$$
(8)
where the first term in the left side of Eq(8) is the synchrotron emission getting into the jet at the distance $`z_0`$, the second term is the synchrotron emission over a volume of conical jet between $`z_0`$ and $`z`$, and the first term in the right side of Eq(8) is the synchrotron emission through the cross-section at the distance $`z`$. We assume the emissive coefficient $`ϵ_s`$ to be constant, we obtain the relation from Eq(8)

$$x_M(z)=6.15\times 10^{11}\frac{4\pi n_ez}{B}\frac{1}{\theta _e^3K_2(1/\theta _e)}M[x_M(z)].$$
(9)
From Eq(4) we find that $`4\pi n_ez/B`$ remain constant along the jet, and that $`x_M`$ is also constant in the jet. Given $`x_M`$, the cutoff frequency at the distance $`z`$ is given by

$$\nu _c=\frac{3}{2}\theta _e^2\nu _bx_M=\nu _0\left(\frac{z}{z_0}\right)^1$$
(10)
where $`\nu _0=\frac{3eB_0\theta _e^2x_M}{4\pi m_ec}`$ is the cutoff frequency at the base of the jet, and $`A(z)\nu _c^2`$. At the frequency $`\nu _c`$, the radiation becomes optically thin, and the luminosity is given by the Rayleigh-Jeans part of the blackbody spectrum ($`h\nu /kT_e1`$)

$$L_{\nu _c}=2\pi \frac{\nu _c^2}{c^2}kT_eA(z)=2\pi \frac{\nu _0^2}{c^2}kT_eA(z_0)$$
(11)
which shows that the luminosity at the frequency $`\nu _c`$ is independent of the frequency $`\nu _c`$. This produces a flat spectrum, which extends from $`\nu _0`$ down to $`\nu _{\mathrm{min}}`$, where $`\nu _{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the cutoff frequency given by setting $`z=z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ in Eq(10). Beyond this distance, the jet shrinks and causes a steeper radio spectrum, as long as the electron temperature declines (below $`T_e=10^8K`$, there is no synchrotron radiation). Eq(9) shows how the cutoff frequency varies with $`z`$. Emission observed at higher frequencies originates at smaller distance, closer to the base of the jet. The peak frequency is at the base of the jet.

We can use the self-similar solutions of ADAF disk to estimate the peak frequency $`\nu _0`$ and the total luminosity $`\nu L_\nu `$ of a flat-spectrum source. At the base of the jet, the magnetic field is given by (Narayan & Yi 1995)

$$B_0=2.22\times 10^5m^{1/2}\stackrel{1/2}{\stackrel{.}{m}}h_1\left(\frac{z_0}{10^3R_s}\right)^{5/4}G,$$
(12)
and $`h_1=(\alpha /0.3)^{1/2}[(1\beta )/0.5]^{1/2}(c_1/0.5)^{1/2}(c_3/0.3)^{1/4}`$, where we scale the mass of central object in solar unit by writing $`M=mM_{}`$ and accretion rate in Eddington unit, $`\stackrel{.}{M}=\stackrel{.}{m}\underset{Edd}{\overset{.}{M}}`$, $`R_s=2GM/c^2=2.95\times 10^5m`$ cm, $`\alpha `$ is the standard viscosity parameter (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973), and $`c_1`$, $`c_3`$ are constants as defined in Narayan & Yi (1995). With the Eq(10) and Eq(11), the peak frequency and total luminosity are given by

$$\nu _0=2.68\times 10^{13}m^{1/2}\stackrel{1/2}{\stackrel{.}{m}}h_1\left(\frac{x_M}{10^3}\right)\left(\frac{T_e}{10^9K}\right)^2\left(\frac{z_0}{10^3R_s}\right)^{5/4}Hz,$$
(13)
$$\nu L_\nu =1.61\times 10^{30}m^{1/2}\stackrel{3/2}{\stackrel{.}{m}}h_1^3\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{x_M}{10^3}\right)^3\left(\frac{T_e}{10^9K}\right)^7\left(\frac{z_0}{10^3R_s}\right)^{7/4}ergss^1$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\pi (tg\varphi )^2`$, and the parameter $`x_M`$ satisfies the Eq(9) given by

$$x_M=1.12\times 10^{10}(m)^{1/2}(\stackrel{.}{m})^{1/2}\left(\frac{z_0}{10^3R_s}\right)^{3/4}h_2\frac{1}{\theta _e^3K_2(1/\theta _e)}M(x_M),$$
(15)
and $`h_2=\{(\alpha /0.3)[(1\beta )/0.5)](c_1/0.5)(c_3/0.3)\}^{1/2}`$. Table 1 shows the values of $`\nu _0`$ and $`\nu L_\nu `$ for a set of temperatures $`T_e`$ at given $`z_0=10^3R_s`$, $`m=10`$ and $`\stackrel{.}{m}=10^2`$, in which we have used the values of $`\theta _e^3K_2(1/\theta _e)`$ given by Mahadevan (1997).

We now estimate the total internal jet power. The power is given by

$$L_{jet}=(\frac{1}{2}\rho u^3+\rho uw)A(z_0),$$
(16)
where the enthalpy $`w`$ can be writes as $`w=\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}\frac{p}{\rho }=\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}c_s^2`$, $`\gamma `$ is adiabatic index and $`c_s`$ is isothermal sound speed. We take $`\gamma =5/3`$ and obtain $`w=2.5c_s^2`$. Assume $`u<\sqrt{2w}`$, e.g.,

$$u<\sqrt{5}c_s(z_0)=2.74\times 10^2c\left(\frac{c_3}{0.3}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{z_0}{10^3R_s}\right)^{1/2},$$
(17)
where $`c`$ is the speed of light, we obtain the jet power as

$$L_{jet}\frac{5}{2}\rho uc_s^2A(z_0)=1.30\times 10^{34}m\stackrel{.}{m}h_3\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{u}{10^3c}\right)\left(\frac{z_0}{10^3R_s}\right)^{1/2}ergss^1,$$
(18)
where $`h_3=(\alpha /0.3)^1(c_1/0.5)^1(c_3/0.3)^{1/2}`$.

For a given accretion rate and matter-to-energy conversion ($`\eta _{eff}=0.1`$), standard accretion disks predict a total accretion luminosity is $`L_{disk}=\stackrel{.}{m}c^2\underset{Edd}{\overset{.}{M}}=1.25\times 10^{39}m\stackrel{.}{m}ergss^1`$. The ADAF produces a lower luminosity because most of the viscously dissipated energy is advected inward with the flow and deposited into the black hole instead of being radiated. For $`\stackrel{.}{m}>10^3\alpha ^2`$, the total luminosity of the ADAF is given by (Mahadevan 1997)

$$L_{ADAF}2.70\times 10^{38}m\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{.}{m}}h_4ergss^1,$$
(19)
where $`h_4=g(\theta _e)(\alpha /0.3)^2(c_3/0.3)(\beta /0.5)(r_{\mathrm{min}}/3)^1`$, and $`0.5<g(\theta _e)<13`$ for temperature ranges of interest (see Mahadevan 1997).

The thermal self-absorbed synchrotron radiation from the ADAF has a spectrum with 2/5 spectral index which extends from $`\nu _p`$ down to $`\nu _0`$, where $`\nu _p`$ is the cutoff frequency given by setting $`r=r_{\mathrm{min}}=3`$ in equation (13) (Mahadevan et al. 1997)

$$\nu _p=2.85\times 10^{15}m^{1/2}\stackrel{1/2}{\stackrel{.}{m}}h_1\left(\frac{x_M}{10^3}\right)\left(\frac{T_e}{10^9K}\right)^2Hz$$
(20)
Therefore the observed synchrotron emission consists of the flat spectral component from the jet and the steep spectral component from the ADAF. Since the steep spectral component extends from infrared $`\nu _0`$ to shorter wavelengths $`\nu _p`$, it will be extremely hard to detect, being more weaker than thermal emission from companion star.

## 3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We have presented that the radio emission with flat spectrum comes from the synchrotron emission of relativistic electrons in the high energy tail of hot electrons in continuous conical jets. The jet is produced by the ADAF/ADIO and maintains ion and electron temperatures constant in the case of adiabatic steady conical expansion. The flat spectrum is result of self-absorbed synchrotron emission by relativistic thermal electrons. The critical frequency at which the radiation becomes optically thin declines with the distance $`z`$. The emission observed at higher frequencies originates at smaller distance, closer to the base of the jet. The highest cut-off frequency of the flat spectrum is at the base of the jet, and is determined by the physics of ADAF and the position of the jet formation. We assert that it is a characteristic of the ADAF in black hole X-ray binaries that a continuous steady outflow is formed and causes the observed flat spectrum in the low/hard state. In the high/soft state, the hot thin accretion disk may extend much closer to the black hole, the outflow is not present. The radio emission is suppressed with respect to the low/hard state. In the transition state, the ADAF may be at the stage of growth or shrink and produce discrete ejection blobs. The ejected blob will expand rapidly and strongly interact with its surrounding to cause blast waves. The blast waves then accelerate a group of thermal electrons to be relativistic and produce optically thin radio emission.

The simultaneous radio-infrared oscillations have been observed in GRS 1915+105 (Fender et al. 1997; Fender & Pooley 1998), the infrared-radio delay, as well as delays within the radio band, occurs. If a disturbance travels along the jet and cause the changes of physical parameters, the infrared-radio oscillations will be appeared. The delay between high and low frequency emissions is the natural result of self-absorbed synchrotron emission occurred at the different region of the jet. A constant electron temperature in the jet remains within the distance $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Beyond this distance, the electron temperature declines as the jet shrinks, which produces a steeper radio spectra. It can explain the observed results of four systems, GS 2023+338, GRO J0422+32, GS 1354-64 and GRS 1915+105 (Fender 2001 and references therein).

It also is a characteristic of ADAF that the strong correlation between the presence of hard X-ray emission and radio emission observed in persistent black hole candidate X-ray binaries. Since the relativistic thermal electrons responsible for the radio emission in the jet arise in ADAF and directly indicates a population of hot electrons. The hard X-ray emission arises in inverse Comptonisation of soft photons by hot electrons in the ADAF and the jet. The ADAF will be significant enough to contribute in hard X-rays if the jet carries a small part of hot electrons in the ADAF. The hard X-ray spectrum is a power-law which extends to $`\nu =3kT_e/h=260keV(T_e/10^9K)`$. The spectral index is determined by the optical depth to electron scattering and amplification factor of photon energy in one scattering (Mahadevan 1997). In the high/soft state the ADAF is not present, the hard X-ray emission is suppressed. If the jet has larger velocity, it will be a significant power output channel for the ADAF and affect the evolution of the ADAF in the low/hard and transition state.

The observed synchrotron emission consists of the flat spectral component from the jet and the steep spectral component from the ADAF. The flat spectral component extends from infrared $`\nu _0`$ to radio wavelengths, while the steep spectral component with the 2/5 spectral slope extends from infrared $`\nu _0`$ to shorter wavelengths $`\nu _p`$, it will be dominated by the thermal emission from companion star.