text:
# A classical field method for time dependent Bose condensed gases

## Abstract

We propose a method to study the time evolution of Bose condensed gases perturbed from an initial thermal equilibrium, based on the Wigner representation of the $`N`$-body density operator. We show how to generate a collection of random classical fields sampling the initial Wigner distribution in the number conserving Bogoliubov approximation. The fields are then evolved with the time dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equation. We illustrate the method with the damping of a collective excitation of a one-dimensional Bose gas.

PACS: 03.75.Fi, 05.10.Gg, 42.50.-p

Since the first experimental demonstrations of Bose-Einstein condensation in atomic gases , the role played by finite temperature effects in the physics of Bose condensed alkali gases has drawn increasing attention. For example, in thermal equilibrium, both the spatial density of the condensate atoms  and the distribution of number of particles in the condensate are modified due to the presence of the thermal atoms . Similarly, we must take into account the noncondensed atoms in order to explain time-dependent phenomena like the damping and frequency shifts of collective modes , or the evolution of the recently created vortices , where the dissipation of the condensate motion is provided by the noncondensed atoms .

The widely used Gross-Pitaevskii equation, the nonlinear Schrödinger equation for the condensate wave function, is not able to describe these effects since it neglects the interaction between the condensate and the noncondensed atoms . One possibility to go beyond the Gross-Pitaevskii equation is to use Bogoliubov theory, which is a perturbative method valid for a small noncondensed fraction. The Bogoliubov method can be applied to thermal equilibrium but also to time-dependent situations: in a $`U(1)`$ symmetry breaking point of view, to zeroth order one solves the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the condensate field $`\psi _0(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, to first order one linearizes the quantum field equations around the classical field $`\psi _0(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ to get the dynamics of noncondensed particles, to second order one includes the back-action of noncondensed particles on the condensate. However, in this way one can predict only small corrections to the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. Additionally, if the number of noncondensed particles increases during the evolution of the system, the Bogoliubov approach is valid only for short times . Another existing approach is the mean field Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov approximation. This approach is known however to present consistency problems and is still the object of research .

In this paper we propose an alternative method to study the time evolution of Bose condensed gases perturbed from an initial thermal equilibrium, based on the classical field approximation in the Wigner representation, the so-called truncated Wigner approximation. The classical field approximation amounts to evolving a set of initially randomly distributed atomic fields with the usual Gross-Pitaevskii equation, with the crucial point that the field is now the whole matter field, not simply the condensate field. This approximation has been used already in the Glauber-P representation to study the formation of the condensate and it is expected to be correct for modes having a large occupation number . For such modes this approximation is known however to be most accurate in the Wigner representation as quantum noise is mimicked by classical noise in the initial state . In addition in such representation, the approximation is valid also for modes with a small occupation number as long as their evolution is well described by a quadratic approximation to the Hamiltonian, like in the Bogoliubov approach. The classical field approximation is indeed exact in the Wigner representation for a quadratic Hamiltonian! The truncated Wigner approximation is however expected to fail in describing the relaxation of the gas to the correct thermal equilibrium, and one has to supplement the Gross-Pitaevskii equation by kinetic equations for the high energy modes .

The main result of this paper is the construction of an algorithm to approximately sample the Wigner distribution at thermal equilibrium, using the number conserving Bogoliubov theory . This was the missing block for the implementation of the truncated Wigner approach to study the dynamics of low temperature Bose condensed gases. We apply our method to the damping of the breathing mode of a 1D condensate in a harmonic trap, which exemplifies the superiority of the truncated Wigner over the time-dependent Bogoliubov approach.

We recall briefly the number conserving Bogoliubov approach that we use to describe the initial thermal equilibrium state of the gas. The total number of particles of the gas is supposed to be fixed and equal to $`N`$. The existence of the macroscopically populated mode $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{r})`$ motivates the splitting of the atomic field operator:

$$\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{r})=\varphi (\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{a}_\varphi +\widehat{\psi }_{}(\stackrel{}{r})$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is the condensate wavefunction, $`\widehat{a}_\varphi `$ annihilates a particle in the mode $`\varphi `$. The general idea is to eliminate the annihilation operator for the condensate. Unlike the usual approach, which replaces $`\widehat{a}_\varphi `$ by a fixed complex number, we keep the operator nature of $`\widehat{a}_\varphi `$ and write it in terms of the condensate phase operator $`\widehat{A}_\varphi `$ and the number of condensate particles operator $`\widehat{N}_0`$ as:

$$\widehat{a}_\varphi =\widehat{A}_\varphi \widehat{N}_0^{1/2}.$$
(2)
The modulus of $`\widehat{a}_\varphi `$ can be re-expressed as a function of the number of noncondensed particles:

$$\widehat{N}_0=\widehat{N}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_{}(\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(3)
Since $`\widehat{A}_\varphi `$ and $`\widehat{A}_\varphi ^{}`$ are commuting unitary operators

$$\widehat{A}_\varphi \widehat{A}_\varphi ^{}=\widehat{A}_\varphi ^{}\widehat{A}_\varphi =\text{Id}$$
(4)
commuting also with $`\widehat{\psi }_{},\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}`$, we realize that the Hamiltonian can be expressed as a function of the fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\stackrel{}{r})=\widehat{A}_\varphi ^{}\widehat{\psi }_{}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})`$. In the Bogoliubov approximation we can then quadratize the Hamiltonian in terms of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$: the terms linear in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ vanish when $`\varphi `$ solves the time independent Gross-Pitaevskii equation:

$$H_{\text{gp}}\varphi \left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Delta }+U(\stackrel{}{r})+Ng|\varphi |^2\mu \right]\varphi =0$$
(5)
where $`m`$ is the atomic mass, $`U(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the trapping potential, $`g`$ is the atomic coupling constant, and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. The resulting quadratic form is the Bogoliubov Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{quad}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }})=d^3\stackrel{}{r}\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{},\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
where the differential operator $``$ is given by:

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_{\text{gp}}+QNg|\varphi |^2Q& QNg\varphi ^2Q^{}\\ Q^{}Ng(\varphi ^{})^2Q& H_{gp}^{}Q^{}Ng|\varphi |^2Q^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
Here $`Q\mathrm{Id}|\varphi \varphi |`$ projects orthogonally to $`\varphi `$.

The initial $`N`$-body density operator of the gas at temperature $`T`$ is then approximated by

$$\widehat{\sigma }(t=0)\frac{1}{Z}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{k_BT}\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{quad}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\right].$$
(8)
The Wigner distribution associated to the $`N`$-body density operator $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ is a functional of a complex classical field $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r})`$. It is defined as the Fourier transform of a characteristic function $`\chi `$:

$`W(\psi )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟^2\gamma \chi (\gamma )e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \gamma ^{}\psi }\gamma \psi ^{}}}`$ (9)
$`\chi (\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{\sigma }e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \gamma \widehat{\psi }^{}}\gamma ^{}\widehat{\psi }}\right]`$ (10)
where $`𝒟^2\gamma `$ stands for the functional integral over the real and the imaginary part of the complex classical field $`\gamma (\stackrel{}{r})`$ and the integrals in the exponent are over space.

We now proceed with the analytical calculation of the Wigner distribution of the density operator (8). As we did with the atomic field operator, we split all the classical fields into components parallel and orthogonal to the condensate mode $`\varphi `$, e.g. $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=\psi _{}\varphi (\stackrel{}{r})+\psi _{}(\stackrel{}{r})`$.

It will prove convenient to use the commutation of $`\widehat{a}_\varphi `$ with $`\widehat{\psi }_{}`$ to rewrite the characteristic function as

$$\chi (\gamma )=\frac{1}{2}\{e^{\gamma _{}\widehat{N}_0^{1/2}\widehat{A}_\varphi ^{}\text{h.c.}},e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \gamma _{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}\widehat{A}_\varphi ^{}}\text{h.c.}}\}$$
(11)
where $`\{,\}`$ stands for the anticommutator and the brackets denote the expectation value in the density operator $`\widehat{\sigma }`$. We then introduce an approximation for $`\widehat{N}_0`$ in (11) replacing the operator $`\widehat{N}`$ in Eq.(3) by its actual value $`N`$ in the gas:

$$\widehat{N}_0N\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(12)
As a consequence the phase operators $`\widehat{A}_\varphi ,\widehat{A}_\varphi ^{}`$ commute with all the operators appearing in $`\chi `$. We now calculate the trace in (11) using a simultaneous eigenbasis of the phase operator $`\widehat{A}_\varphi `$, with eigenvalue $`e^{i\theta }`$, and of the Bogoliubov Hamiltonian whose eigenvalues depend on the occupation numbers of elementary excitations but not on the phase $`\theta `$. The form obtained for $`W`$ clearly preserves the $`U(1)`$ symmetry:

$$W(\psi )_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }W_0(\psi e^{i\theta }).$$
(13)
$`W_0`$ is the $`\theta =0`$ component of the Wigner distribution. By integrating over the real and the imaginary parts of $`\gamma _{}`$ and by using the cyclic properties of the trace we get

$$W_0(\psi )=\delta (\psi _{}^I)\text{Wig}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left[\frac{1}{2}\{\delta (\psi _{}^R\widehat{N}_0^{1/2}),\widehat{\sigma }\}\right](\psi _{})$$
(14)
where $`\psi _{}^{R,I}`$ are the real and imaginary parts of $`\psi _{}`$. The expression $`\text{Wig}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left[f(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\right]`$ denotes the Wigner transform with respect to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of any function $`f`$ of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. It is obtained from (9) and (10) by the substitutions:

$$\widehat{\sigma }f(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\widehat{\psi }\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\psi \psi _{}\gamma \gamma _{}.$$
(15)
It is convenient to rewrite $`W_0(\psi )`$ as a quasiprobability distribution for $`N_0\psi _{}^{}\psi _{}`$ and $`\psi _{}`$:

$$P(N_0,\psi _{})=\text{Wig}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left[\frac{1}{2}\{\delta (N_0\widehat{N}_0),\widehat{\sigma }\}\right](\psi _{}).$$
(16)
A first insight into (16) can be obtained by looking at its marginals. By integrating over $`N_0`$:

$$P(\psi _{})𝑑N_0P(N_0,\psi _{})=\text{Wig}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\widehat{\sigma })(\psi _{})$$
(17)
we obtain the Wigner distribution for noncondensed modes, which is a Gaussian :

$$P(\psi _{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{d^3\stackrel{}{r}(\psi _{}^{},\psi _{})M\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{}\\ \psi _{}^{}\end{array}\right)\right\}$$
(18)
$$M\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{1}& \hfill \text{0}\\ \hfill \text{0}& \hfill \text{1}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{tanh}\frac{}{2k_BT}$$
(19)
where $``$ is the Bogoliubov operator (7). The other marginal is obtained by integrating (16) over $`\psi _{}`$:

$$P(N_0)𝒟^2\psi _{}P(N_0,\psi _{})=\text{Tr}[\delta (N_0\widehat{N}_0)\widehat{\sigma }].$$
(20)
$`P(N_0)`$ is then simply the probability distribution of the number of particles in the condensate .

Let us now discuss the limits of validity of (16). The spectrum of $`\widehat{N}_0`$ contains integer numbers only so that $`\delta (N_0\widehat{N}_0)`$ in Eq.(16) vanishes when $`N_0`$ is not integer. As a function of $`N_0`$, $`P(N_0,\psi _{})`$ is therefore a “comb” of delta functions centered on integer values. The exact Wigner distribution should be instead a smooth function of its variables. The comb-artifact comes from the approximation (12) that we have made on the condensate mode. Our description is sensible if there are many peaks within the width of the distribution of $`N_0`$ for a given $`\psi _{}`$. The variance of $`N_0`$ for a given $`\psi _{}`$, that is the conditional variance of $`N_0`$, should then satisfy:

$$\text{Var}(N_0|\psi _{})1.$$
(21)
We estimate this variance for a “typical” $`\psi _{}`$ by taking the mean of $`\text{Var}(N_0|\psi _{})`$ over the probability distribution of $`\psi _{}`$ given in (18):

$$\text{Var}(N_0|\psi _{})_\psi _{}=\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{Tr}_{}\left[\text{Id}M^2\right]$$
(22)
where the trace is over the Bogoliubov modes. For the modes with energy much larger than $`k_BT`$ one has $`M^2\text{Id}`$, while for the modes with energy lower or equal to $`k_BT`$ one has $`M^2\text{Id}`$, so that:

$$\text{Var}(N_0|\psi _{})_\psi _{}\frac{1}{4}𝒩_{\text{th}}$$
(23)
where $`𝒩_{\text{th}}`$ is the number of thermally populated modes which we require to be large. In practice $`k_BT`$ should be high enough: for a condensate in an isotropic harmonic trap of frequency $`\omega `$, we should have $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega `$.

The next point is to sample the Wigner function (16). We proceed in two steps: (i) First we sample $`\psi _{}`$ irrespectively to the value $`N_0`$ according to the Gaussian distribution (18) with a stochastic field method . (ii) We have to sample the conditional distribution of $`N_0`$ for a fixed $`\psi _{}`$:

$$P(N_0|\psi _{})=P(N_0,\psi _{})/P(\psi _{}).$$
(24)
It turns out that the width in $`N_0`$ of the distribution $`P(N_0|\psi _{})`$ is much narrower than the width of $`P(N_0)`$ when the condition (21) is satisfied. In fact as soon as a sufficient number of modes is populated, the following inequality holds involving the number of modes $`𝒩_{\text{th}}`$ with energy lower or equal to $`k_BT`$, the average of the number of particles out of the condensate $`N\widehat{N}_0`$, and its variance $`\text{Var}(N\widehat{N}_0)`$:

$$𝒩_{\text{th}}N\widehat{N}_0\text{Var}(N\widehat{N}_0)=\text{Var}(N_0).$$
(25)
We then replace (24) with a delta distribution centered on the mean value of $`N_0`$ for a fixed $`\psi _{}`$:

$`\text{Mean}(N_0|\psi _{})=C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle (\psi _{}^{},\psi _{})\left[\text{Id}M^2\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{}\\ \psi _{}^{}\end{array}\right)}`$

where $`C`$ is a constant .

Finally, for each randomly generated $`\psi _{}`$ and $`N_0`$ we are now able to form the total field $`\psi `$ as:

$$\psi =N_0^{1/2}\left(\varphi +\frac{\varphi ^{(2)}}{N}\right)+\psi _{}.$$
(26)
In (26) the function $`\varphi ^{(2)}/N`$ is a correction to the condensate wavefunction induced by the back-action of noncondensed particles onto the condensate. This correction has to be included since it gives a contribution to observables on the same order as $`\psi _{}`$ . We calculate $`\varphi ^{(2)}/N`$ using the procedure of .

In the classical field approximation each field $`\psi `$ evolves according to the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equation :

$$i\mathrm{}_t\psi =\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Delta }+U(\stackrel{}{r},t)+g|\psi |^2\right]\psi .$$
(27)
The average of an observable at time $`t`$ will be obtained by averaging over many stochastic classical fields $`\psi (t)`$.

We now give an illustration of our method. In Figure 1 we show density oscillations in the center of a 1D Bose condensed gas induced by an abrupt change of the harmonic trap frequency $`\omega 0.8\omega `$. While the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the condensate field predicts undamped oscillations, we get damping at finite temperature when we average over stochastic realizations in the Wigner method . The time-dependent Bogoliubov theory in  correctly predicts the damping at short times but gives unphysically large oscillations at longer times. We understand this failure as due to the growth in time of the number of noncondensed particles and of the condensate wavefunction correction $`\varphi ^{(2)}`$. This growth invalidates the linearized treatment at the basis of the time-dependent Bogoliubov approach , at a relatively short time here because of the small number of particles. On the contrary, in the truncated Wigner approach, no linearized treatment is performed and the whole field $`\psi `$ is evolved according to the fully non-linear equation (27).

In Figure 1 a spatial grid of 64 point has been used for discretization in the numerical implementation of our algorithm. We have tested that the results are unchanged by doubling the number of points in the grid .

In conclusion we have developed an efficient algorithm for approximate stochastic sampling of the Wigner representation of the $`N`$-body density matrix of a Bose condensed gas in thermal equilibrium. The initial distribution of atomic fields $`\psi `$ given by this sampling can then be evolved in the classical field (truncated Wigner) approximation to study the response of the gas to an excitation. As far as time-independent situations are concerned, our approach is equivalent to the number conserving Bogoliubov approach. In the time dependent case however unlike the Bogoliubov approach, the classical field evolution is fully nonlinear both for the condensate and the noncondensed particles, which extends the applicability of the method to longer evolution times.

We acknowledge useful discussions with Anthony Leggett, Yuri Kagan, Gora Shlyapnikov and Crispin Gardiner. LKB is a unité de recherche de l’ENS et de l’Université Paris 6, associée au CNRS. This work was partially supported by National Computational Science Alliance under DMR 99 00 16 N. C.L. acknowledges support from a PRAXIS XXI fellowship.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

String theory appeared extremely useful in study of the properties of non-commutative field theories. Moreover, considering strings and membranes in constant B-field background not only helps to investigate properties of the low-energy field theories  but also gives new insight on the string and M-theory itself by producing new models and connecting old ones for example into the framework of OM-theory ,,,. From this point of view it is interesting to ask if there is correspondence between non-commutative and ordinary Yang-Mills appearing as decopling limit of the string theory in the large B-field, how the correspondence between both non-commutative and ordinary cases will be looking like from the point of you of strings and membranes.
In this note we study first the decoupling limits of both theories and investigate the possible ways of disappearing non-commutativity. First we start from example of decoupling limit of bosonic string. Here we work in the Hamiltonian formalism which is equivalent to world-sheet treatment and then discuss the procedure from both points of view. Correspondence between non-commutative and ordinary Yang-Mills comes from considering instantons in both theories . But how can we see that from point of view of the string theory. From the world-sheet consideration non-commutativity appears from interpreting time ordering as operator ordering in two-point functions as well as in product of vertex operators . In the Hamiltonian treatment non-commutativity arises from modification of the usual constraints describing open string theory by additional constraint coming from modified boundary conditions due to presence of the constant B-field , ,  ,  and . This new constraints, coming from boundary, is of the second class and for a first sight spoils commutational relations between the target space coordinate and momenta on the world-volume of D-brane. Apparently, one of the ways to struggle with the second class constraints is to introduce the Dirac brackets , ,  and . On these Dirac brackets inconsistency between commutators of coordinates and momenta disappear, instead, target space coordinates of the string on the surface of D-brane do not commute anymore.
There is another way of working with the second class constraints - to use the conversion procedure , , . Usually, conversion means extending the phase space of variables by introducing new degrees of freedom as well as modification of the second class constraints in such a way that they become of the first class, i.e. either commute or give another constraints. This new first class constraints correspond, as usually, to the gauge symmetries of the theory, i.e. by introducing new variables we acquire new gauge symmetries of the generalized action. This framework could be understood from BRST-quantization point of view. In this case one can treat additional variables as ghosts and new modified action in additional to previous symmetries possess new gauge invariance. It is similar to having new local fermionic symmetry in ordinary BRST approach. But in the case of the conversion new symmetry could be bosonic. There were interesting connections of BRST conversion procedure with Fedosov quantization .
We apply conversion to the system with second class constraints and instead of going to Dirac brackets we end up with the model with all or crucial part of constraints of the first class. In this case we don’t have Dirac brackets and all target space coordinates commute between each other. In some sense one is able to substitute model with non-commutative coordinates by the ordinary ones on the level of BRST quantization. It is not necessary to BRST quantize the theory, it is possible to use ordinary Dirac quantization of systems with first class constraints only, but we need the former one to get rid of ambiguity of appearance of the new variables and to interpret these extra coordinates of the extended phase space as a “ghosts”. Here we mostly consider bosonic part of the theories. It could be extended to the supersymmetric case by following , ,  and references therein. Description of connection of noncommutative Yang-Mills with ordinary one was also considered in .

The organization of paper is the following:
In section 2 we start from decoupling limit of the string in constant B-field and then see origin of non-commutativity from Hamiltonian analysis of the constraints using Dirac brackets. Then we apply conversion to the system, finding equivalent one with commutative coordinates.
In section 3 we discuss general framework of the bosonic string in the B-field, consider origin of non-commutativity and discuss possible ways of its removal.
In section 4 we investigate decoupling limit of the membrane ending on M-5-brane in large C-field. We discuss analysis of constraints and ways of obtaining equivalent theory without non-commutativity.
Discussions and conclusion could be found in section 5.

## 2 String in constant B-field, decoupling limit and constraints.

The bosonic part of the world-sheet action of the string ending on D-brane in ten dimensional Minkowski space in constant B-field background is given by

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_{M^2}^{ab}X^\mu X_\mu \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_{M^2}B_{ab}X^a_tX^b,$$
(2.1)
where $`B_{ab}`$ is nonzero only along Dp-brane and in general case includes B-field together with two-form field strength on the D-brane. The boundary conditions along D-brane are

$$g_{ab}_nX^b+2\pi \alpha ^{}B_{ab}_tX^b=0,$$
(2.2)
where $`_n`$ is derivative normal to the boundary of the world-sheet.

Here the effective metric seen by the open string is

$$G^{ab}=\left(\frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B}g\frac{1}{g2\pi \alpha ^{}B}\right)^{ab},$$
(2.3)
$$G_{ab}=g_{ab}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(Bg^1B)_{ab}.$$
(2.4)
And noncommutativity parameter

$$\theta ^{ab}=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\left(\frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}}B\frac{1}{g2\pi \alpha ^{}B}\right)^{ab}.$$
(2.5)
In the decoupling, zero slope, limit  one can take $`\alpha ^{}0`$ keeping fixed open string parameters, i.e. on the world volume of D-brane

$$G^{ab}=\frac{1}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}\left(\frac{1}{B}g\frac{1}{B}\right)^{ab},$$

$$G_{ab}=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(Bg^1B)_{ab},$$
(2.6)
$$\theta ^{ab}=\left(\frac{1}{B}\right)^{ab}.$$

In this limit the kinetic term in (2.1) vanishes. The remaining part, which governs the dynamics is the second term in the (2.1) which in this case describes the evolution of the boundary on the string, i.e. particle living on the world-volume of D-brane. This part of the action is given by

$$S=\frac{1}{2}_{M^2}𝑑tB_{ab}X^a_tX^b.$$
(2.7)
For simplicity and without loss of generality one can take $`B_{ab}`$ nonzero only in two space directions on the D-brane, i.e. $`B_{ab}=2bϵ_{ab}`$ where $`a,b=1,2`$ and the rest of string coordinates do not give any contribution to (2.7).

Now let us see how noncommutativity appears on the level of Hamiltonian formalism. The string action in decoupling limit is

$$S=b𝑑tϵ_{ab}X^a\dot{X}^b.$$
(2.8)
Canonical momentum is given by

$$P_a=bϵ_{ab}X^b.$$
(2.9)
So, the constraints that fully describe this model are

$$\varphi _a=P_a+bϵ_{ab}X^b.$$
(2.10)
All these constraints are of the second class, i.e. they don’t commute with each other:

$$[\varphi _a,\varphi _b]=2bϵ_{ab}.$$
(2.11)
Going to Dirac brackets gives

$$[X^a,X^b]_D=[X^a,X^b][X^a,\varphi ^c]\frac{ϵ^{cd}}{2b}[\varphi ^d,X^b],$$
(2.12)
and

$$[X^a,X^b]_D=\frac{1}{2b}ϵ^{ab}.$$
(2.13)
We see that coordinates of the string on the D-brane do not commute and in the decoupling limit one has noncommutative Yang-Mills on the world-volume of D-branes. It is possible to calculate a two-point function of the fields propagating on the boundary of the string world-sheet. And it is given by

$$<X^a(t),X^b(0)>=\frac{1}{2b}ϵ^{ab},$$
(2.14)
which leads to noncommutative coordinates on the D-brane.

Another way to treat constraints (2.10) is to extend the phase space of the variables and in the framework of BRST quantization to introduce additional pair of canonically conjugated variables $`\xi `$ and $`P_\xi `$ with commutator $`[\xi ,P_\xi ]=1`$. In this case it is possible to convert the second class constraints (2.10) into the first one.

$$\widehat{\varphi }_1=P_1+b(X^2\sqrt{2}\xi ),\widehat{\varphi }_2=(P_2+\sqrt{2}P_\xi )bX^1,$$
(2.15)
where new constraints are of the first class and they commute. Let us count number of degrees of freedom to be sure that we did not loose any information. Each of the second class constraints eliminate one degree of freedom, but each of the first class one kills two, so instead of two second class constraints we have two first one now, therefore we need to add two independent degrees of freedom (i.e. $`\xi `$ and $`P_\xi `$ ).

Now we can identify new variables, they are: $`P_1,X_1`$ which are unchanged and

$$P^+=P_2\sqrt{2}P_\xi ,X^{}=X^2\sqrt{2}\xi ,$$
(2.16)
and

$$P^{}=P_2+\sqrt{2}P_\xi ,X^+=X^2+\sqrt{2}\xi ,$$
(2.17)
where they are consequently canonically conjugate. The variables $`P^{},X^+`$ are not dynamical ones because they don’t participate in the constraints. (2.15) now is taking the form:

$$\widehat{\varphi }_1=P_1+bX^{},\widehat{\varphi }_2=P^++bX^1.$$
(2.18)
Those two constraint not only of the first class but also assume that propagator (2.14) is not antisymmetric anymore, but rather symmetric in interchange of $`a`$ and $`b`$ and leads to commutative coordinates not only on the level of Poisson brackets but on the level of two-point function on the boundary of the string worldsheet, that could be seen using correspondence between operator and time ordering . So, new two-point functions are

$$<X^1(t),X^{}(0)>=<X^{}(t),X^1(0)>,$$
(2.19)
and could be calculated using path-integral BRST approach. Therefore, we removed the noncommutativity of the string end-point coordinates by introducing new variables, and applying the conversion of the constraints. By this way we ended up with only first class constraints where we don’t have to use Dirac brackets and all coordinates commute on the level of the Poisson brackets. Also, after field redefinition the new coordinates of the string boundary are described now by $`X^1,X^{}`$, that commute, because propagator is symmetric. So using time ordering product gives commutativity on the boundary of string world-sheet. It could be more appropriate showed by using BRST quantization of the theory described by the constraints (2.18).

The Hamiltonian of the system which is equivalent one given by (2.1) is

$$H=\lambda \widehat{\varphi }_1+\lambda _1\widehat{\varphi }_2,$$
(2.20)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _1`$ are Lagrange multipliers.

The BRST charge is given by

$$Q=c(P_1+bX^{})+c_1(P^++bX^1)$$
(2.21)
where $`c`$ and $`c_1`$ are ghosts corresponding to each first class constraint. It is also possible to include information that boundary action comes from string as was done in , but the main result that conversion together with change of variables and fields redefinition gives ordinary, commutative behavior for the string boundary. In some sense the conversion procedure is equivalent to restoring gauge symmetry of theory where it was broken. For example if one starts from Maxwell theory with fixed gauge and then introduce new variables, that were fixed, i.e. nondynamical before, then use conversion, one get Abelian gauge symmetry on the level of effective action. And two models, with fixed gauge and with gauge invariance, are equivalent to each other not only on classical but also on quantum level. In our case of interest the situation is almost the same except that we start from theory without apparent gauge fix, but this theory could be interpreted as one with fixed gauge and the main task of conversion is just to find equivalent extended and therefore more general theory described by the system of first class constraints only. This procedure helps us to argue that noncommutativity appearing in initial theory is not a fundamental property of the theory but just a some particular choice of gauge fixing of equivalent model.
It is possible to conduct conversion for string in decoupling limit in more covariant way. To do so let us start from system of constraints (2.10) and then introduce new variables $`\xi ^a`$ and $`P_a^\xi `$, $`[\xi ^a,P_b^\xi ]=\delta _b^a`$ where $`a=1,2`$. Then generalizing (2.16) define

$$P_a^+=P_a+P_a^\xi ,X^{+a}=X^a+\xi ^a,$$
(2.22)
$$P_a^{}=P_aP_a^\xi ,X^a=X^a\xi ^a,$$
(2.23)
Then (2.10) could be modified into

$$\widehat{\varphi }_a=P_a^{}+bϵ_{ab}X^{+b}.$$
(2.24)
Now all the constraints $`\widehat{\varphi }_a`$ are of the first class, i.e. commute. But, in difference from previous example of conversion, degrees of freedom counting tells us that we need to add one more first class constraint, otherwise modified system is not going to be equivalent to initial one. This constraint could be chosen in the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=P^+X^+P^{}X^{}.$$
(2.25)
This choice in some sense reminds constraint that could be obtained from (2.10) by projecting by $`X^a`$. If one puts all new variables equal to zero the constraints (2.24) transform to (2.10), and (2.25) is becoming equal to zero, i.e. does not dependent on $`\varphi _a`$ and doesn’t carry any new information.

In this Section we gave two examples of conversion that produced equivalent systems with commuting variables (i.e. commuting string end-points). Those examples could be of the strong suggestion that noncommutativity could be removed not only on the level of constraints/Dirac brackets, but also on the level of two-point functions.

## 3  String in constant B-field, general case.

Here we step aside from decoupling limit of string which was described in previous section and analyze complete set of constraints coming from the action (2.1). It is more convenient to start not from Lagrangian (2.1) but rather from one without B-dependent term  and impose boundary condition (2.2) as additional boundary constraint. The starting action is

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}d^2\sigma X^\mu X_\mu ,$$
(3.1)
and boundary constraint

$$X^a+\dot{X}^bB_b{}_{}{}^{a}=0,X^m=0,$$
(3.2)
where $`X^\mu `$ is full set of target-space coordinates for string, $`X^a`$ are coordinates of string endpoints on the D-brane and $`X^m`$ is the rest of coordinates.

As usually, we have first class constraints which follows from (3.1)

$$H=2\pi \alpha ^{}P^2\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}X^2,H_1=P_\mu X^\mu .$$
(3.3)
The Hamiltonian is given by

$$H_t=𝑑\sigma \left(NH+N_1H_1\right).$$
(3.4)
The momentum in this case is

$$\dot{X}^a=2\pi \alpha ^{}P^a.$$
(3.5)
Then the boundary condition (3.2) could be rewritten as constraint

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^a=X^a+2\pi \alpha ^{}P^cB_c{}_{}{}^{a}.$$
(3.6)
If B-field is absent, the boundary condition $`X^{}=0`$ leads to infinite number of constraints in the form

$$N^{(2k+1)}=0,N_1^{(2k)}=0,X^{(2k+1)}=P^{(2k+1)}=0,$$
(3.7)
where $`(k)`$ denotes k’s derivative in respect to $`\sigma `$. All these constraints are equivalent to extending $`\sigma `$ to $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$ and taking the orbifold projection ,

$$X(\sigma )=X(\sigma ),P(\sigma )=P(\sigma ),N(\sigma )=N(\sigma ),N_1(\sigma )=N_1(\sigma ).$$
(3.8)
In the presence of constant B-field the secondary constraints appear, as usually, from the fact that commutator of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ with Hamiltonian gives either constraint or condition for Lagrange multipliers. First of all, in constant B-field, conditions for the Lagrange multipliers are the same as in (3.7) and using the linear combinations of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s leads to the same boundary conditions for $`X^a`$ and $`P_a`$ as in (3.7) except that for $`X^a`$ if $`k=0`$ we have constraint (3.6).

Because we start from (3.1) but not (2.1) in difference from , ,  and  we don’t have modification of the higher derivative constraints but rather after going to Dirac brackets contribution to the noncommutativity is given only due to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ i.e.

$$[X^a(\sigma ),X^b(\sigma ^{})]_D=[X^a,X^b]𝑑\sigma ^{\prime \prime }[X^a,\mathrm{\Phi }^c(\sigma ^{\prime \prime })]C_{cd}^1[P^d(\sigma ^{\prime \prime }),X^b],$$
(3.9)
where $`C_{cd}^1`$ is inverse matrix of commutator coefficients between $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`P^{}`$, and also we have to use regularization for the endpoints (see , ) , i.e. for $`\sigma ,\sigma ^{}=0`$ or $`\pi `$. The same contribution is given by considering higher odd derivatives of $`P_a`$. We see that coordinates of endpoints do not commute but momenta do.
Let us investigate the nature of this noncommutativity. Here we will not use conversion of the system of second class constraints into the first ones. It is more transparent to modify the system by the way that second class constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi },X^{(2k+3)}`$ and $`P^{(2k+1)}`$ reminded ones for the case of zero B-field. The noncommutativity on the level of Dirac brackets appears because of the nonzero commutator of $`X^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^b`$. If B-field is zero we see that they commute and Dirac brackets are the same as Poisson ones. Let us modify the system of constraints to obtain one that is equivalent to initial system. For a moment we will forget about higher derivative constraints, but it is straightforward to incorporate them into the whole picture. We will start from

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^a=X^a+2\pi \alpha ^{}P_cB^{ca},P^a=0,$$
(3.10)
where a runs from 1 to r. We have 2r second class constraints here. To modify them introduce 2r new canonical variables $`c^a`$ and $`P_a^{(c)}`$, $`[c^a,P_b^{(c)}]=\delta ^a_b`$ and 2r additional second class constraints. With modified initial ones we have

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^a=X^a+c^a,\varphi _1^a=c^a2\pi \alpha ^{}P_cB^{ca},$$

$$P_a^{}=0,P_a^{(c)}=0.$$
(3.11)
Now, instead of 2r constraints we have 4r ones but we added 2r new variables, so number of degrees of freedom remains the same. The Dirac brackets (3.9) are identically equal to zero because $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ commute with $`X^a`$ as in the case of string without B-field and the rest of constraints (3), (3.11) also don’t give any contribution to Dirac brackets. Procedure, which we used here, is different from conversion. First of all because conversion assumes that one can obtain initial constraints after fixing some particular values of additional variables. For example in Section 2 we showed that after putting all new variables equal to zero one has initial constraint system. Here it is not the case. We can’t fix c, otherwise it gives $`P=0`$. One can ask why new model is equivalent to old one. It could be argued that what we did is just redefining the variables. And we don’t have to fix any particular value of $`c^a`$ or $`P_a^{(c)}`$ because additional constraints are not of the first class, but rather second one and that’s why they can be solved algebraically to produce initial system.
Here we considered simplified system comparing to one of . The main difference in sets of constraints is that in the later case there were taken even higher derivatives of $`\varphi ^a`$ rather then $`X^a`$. And application of the same technique is straightforward.
Now we see that introducing new variables even without changing the nature of constraints (from second to the first class) produces the Dirac brackets for string endpoints which are equal to zero. Therefore we were able to show that endpoints of the string expressed in new variables commute between each other. Analysis of two-point functions is not so straightforward as for the case of the decoupling limit but after change of variables and field redefinition $`<\widehat{X}^a,\widehat{X}^b>`$, where $`\widehat{X}`$ are new variables playing role of effective string coordinates on the boundary, two-point functions become symmetric and interpreting time ordering as operator ordering gives commutativity.
Here we argue that noncommutativity of string endpoints is not fundamental but rather removable and depends on the change of basis. It also possible as in the Section 2 to consider modified BRST charge and perform analysis of mode decomposition and to show that by the same way it is possible to introduce new algebraic variables which produce commutativity of the string endpoints on the level of Dirac brackets. It is becoming straightforward if one starts from constraints for the string modes given in  and modify them by introducing c and $`P^{(c)}`$ by the same way as in (3).

## 4  Membrane in constant C-field, decoupling limit.

In this section we discuss how to remove noncommutativity for the decoupling limit of membrane ending on the M-5 branes. First of all, there are some crucial differences between taking decoupling limit of the string and membrane , . The only constant in eleven dimensions is the Plank constant. Also we can’t take flat background metric generated by the five-branes as was was explained in . Moreover we have to consider stock of five branes and probe membrane ending on one of the five-branes. Then the decoupling limit could be found from the following :
1.Bulk modes of the membrane must decouple and disappear.
2.String, that lives on the boundary, i.e. on the surface of the five-brane is fully described by only Wess-Zumino membrane term.
3.Then, after decoupling, all dynamics of the world-volume theory of five-brane is governed by $`(2,0)`$ six-dimensional tensor multiplet.
As was shown in  and  by rewriting membrane kinetic term in terms of Lorenz harmonics it is possible to produce decoupling explicitly in the limit when $`l_p0`$ but open membrane metric is fixed. Following  one can find convenient form of Wess-Zumino membrane term in the case of constant C-field. The Wess-Zumino term for membrane has two contributions - from pullback of eleven-dimensional three form $`A^{(3)}`$ to membrane surface and from pullback of five-brane two-form $`B^{(2)}`$ to membrane boundary, i.e.

$$S_{WZ}=_{M^3}A^{(3)}+_{M^3}B^{(2)}.$$
(4.1)
The constant C-field on the five-brane is given by $`C^{(3)}=dB^{(2)}+A^{(3)}`$, where here $`A^{(3)}`$ is pullback to five-brane world-volume. The notion of nonlinear self-duality for C-field on the five-brane is extremely important here . At least locally we can write $`A^{(3)}=da^{(2)}`$. Excluding part of $`A^{(3)}`$ which gives zero pullback to the five-brane world-volume and using the fact that C is constant one has

$$C_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(3)}X^\lambda =3(B_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}+a_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}).$$
(4.2)
The components of constant C-field could be chosen in the form

$$C_{012}^{(3)}=\frac{h}{\sqrt{1+l_p^6h^2}},C_{456}^{(3)}=h.$$
(4.3)
The action of the membrane ending on M-5-brane in decoupling limit is given by two terms

$$S=d^2\sigma \frac{h}{3\sqrt{1+l_p^6h^2}}ϵ_{ijk}X^i\dot{X}^jX^k+d^2\sigma \frac{h}{3}ϵ_{abc}X^a\dot{X}^bX^c,$$
(4.4)
where 5-brane world-volume was decomposed into the two three-dimensional pieces, where $`X^i`$ lies on the membrane and $`X^a`$ are five-brane coordinates normal to the membrane and prime denotes differentiation in respect to $`\sigma `$ and dot - in respect to time.

Consider the second part of the (4.4)

$$S=d^2\sigma \frac{h}{3}ϵ_{abc}X^a\dot{X}^bX^c,$$
(4.5)
The momentum is given by

$$P_a=\frac{h}{3}ϵ_{abc}X^bX^c.$$
(4.6)
With constraints

$$\varphi _a=P_a+\frac{h}{3}ϵ_{abc}X^bX^c,$$
(4.7)
and Poisson brackets

$$[\varphi _a(\sigma ),\varphi _b(\sigma ^{})]=\frac{2}{3}hϵ_{abc}X^c\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}).$$
(4.8)
Among three constraints two are of the second class and one is the first class. To see that project $`\varphi _a`$ by $`X,X^{},P`$. Then first class constraint is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=X^aP_a,$$
(4.9)
and the second ones

$$X^aP_a=0,P^2+\frac{h}{3}ϵ_{abc}P^aX^bX^c=0.$$
(4.10)
The equations of motion are

$$ϵ_{abc}\dot{X}^bX^c=0.$$
(4.11)
Here, because we have a mixture of first and second class constraints it is more convenient to convert them directly in the mixture, i.e. we need to find additional variables which give us all constraints of the first class. The discussions on conversion in mixture of first and second class constraints and references therein could be found in . To do it covariantly in three dimensions orthogonal to membrane world-volume let us introduce new variables $`\xi ^a`$ and $`P_b^{(\xi )}`$ with $`[\xi ^a(\sigma ),P_b^{(\xi )}(\sigma ^{})]=\delta _b^a\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$. But if we want to convert two second class constraints into the first one counting of degrees of freedom tells us that we need only two extra variables and we added six. The resolution of this problem is that not all of the above new variables are independent and that’s why we need to impose two extra first class constraints that kills four degrees of freedom leaving as with only two extra independent variables that we needed. It is convenient to proceed as follows. Let us define

$$X^{a+}=X^a+\xi ^a,P^{a+}=P^a+P^{(\xi )a},$$
(4.12)
$$X^a=X^a\xi ^a,P^a=P^aP^{(\xi )a}.$$
(4.13)
Then the modified constraints (4.7) could be rewritten as the following first class constraints

$$\widehat{\varphi }_a=P_a^{}+\frac{h}{3}ϵ_{abc}X^{b+}X^{c+},$$
(4.14)
and they identically commute. Now we need two additional commuting with everything constraints. It is possible to choose them in the form

$$P^+X^+P^{}X^{}=0,P^+X^++P^{}X^{}=0.$$
(4.15)
It is not unique but convenient choice. Now all the constraints (4.14) and (4.15) are of the first class. The BRST charge is now given by sum of the first class constraints multiplied by corresponding ghosts plus contribution from commutators.

This BRST charge describes theory equivalent to initial one not only on the classical but also on the quantum level. Fixing gauge $`\xi =0`$ and $`P_\xi =0`$ gives initial theory. In some sense one can think that model before conversion was one with fixed gauge symmetries , which could be restored on the level of BRST invariant action. By the same way one can proceed for the first term in (4.4).

In this example we see that even for the nonlinear case of membrane boundary it is possible to change variables to end up with commutative coordinates. This procedure is close to one in the end of second Section except that for the case of membrane one of the constraints was of the first class and we were forced to have conversion directly in the mixture of two types of constraints.

## 5 Discussions and Conclusion.

In this note we showed that by appropriate change of variables and extension of the phase space of the models of noncommutative string and membrane they appear to be equivalent to ordinary ones. It is possible to argue that noncommutativity of string/membrane endpoints, appearing fundamental, is rather removable and depends on field content and change of variables. Not only conversion is doing it’s job, as for the case of string/membrane in decoupling limit, but also equivalence of two phase spaces without changing type of constraints is giving the same result. It is important to investigate the correspondence between noncommutative string and ordinary one from worldsheet point of view. It is not quite clear yet how this equivalence works for the product of vertex operators, which apriori obey noncommutative algebra.

Here we presented only analysis of bosonic part of theories. It is interesting to consider whole supersymmetric case extending approach of , , . For supersymmetric case it is also important to understand situation on the level of supersymmetric solutions and Dp-Dq brane systems ,.

Hamiltonian systems with boundaries were also extensively studied in  from the similar point of view as well as in ,  where instead of interpreting boundary conditions as constraints the Poisson brackets were modified to include boundary contribution. It is interesting to compare results coming from two approaches.

It could be noted that membrane boundary string in decoupling limit and critical C-field should be not only tensionless but also doesn’t have gravity in it’s spectrum, that reminds a Little String Theory concept, see  and references therein. Usual world-sheet formulation of tensionless string  has kinetic term quadratic in fields together with null vectors and world-sheet of such a string is a null surface. Sometimes in literature it is called null-string. Unfortunately this theory is anomalous and complete spectrum is not known yet. It could be interesting to assume that tensionless string could be described by equations of motion (4.7) and by Lagrangian (4.5). But because (4.5) describes membrane boundary in decoupling limit the mentioned above tensionless string doesn’t contain graviton in it’s spectrum and it’s low energy limit is described by $`(2,0)`$ six-dimensional theory. Therefore there is a connection to Little String Theory. Modified system of the first class constraints (4.14) and (4.15) could be quantized in the BRST framework. At least it is straightforward to conduct operator BRST quantization. It is interesting to find a spectrum of this model as well as build vertex operators and study this model from world-sheet point of view.

It is interesting to ask what are the other nonlinear models which posses the same equations of motion as (4.11) and carry some resemblance with the membrane in the decoupling limit.

First of all, because action (4.5) is pure Wess-Zumino term of the membrane it is useful to start from known nonlinear Wess-Zumino models in two dimensions. Let us consider Wess-Zumino term of $`SU(2)`$ WZNW model. It is given by the action:

$$S_{WZWZNW}=\frac{k}{96\pi }𝑑rd^2\xi g^1\dot{g}g^1ϵ^{\mu \nu }_\mu gg^1_\nu g.$$
(5.1)
Using parametrization of $`SU(2)`$ in terms of Euler‘s angles $`\varphi ,\theta ,\psi `$ it is possible to rewrite (5.1) as

$$S_{WZWZNW}=\frac{k}{4\pi }d^2\xi \varphi ϵ^{\mu \nu }sin\theta _\mu \theta _\nu \psi .$$
(5.2)
At least for compact $`X^a`$ it is possible to identify $`(\varphi ,cos\theta ,\psi )`$ with $`(X^3,X^4,X^5)`$ consequently. In this case WZ part of WZNW $`SU(2)`$ model could be rewritten as

$$S_{WZWZNW}=\frac{k}{4\pi }d^2\xi X^3(\dot{X}^4X^5\dot{X}^5X^4),$$
(5.3)
and it is always possible to go to free-field realization of (5.3). This action gives the same equations of motion as (4.11). So, two models, string describing membrane endpoints on five-brane and Wess-Zumino part of $`SU(2)`$ WZNW model, are equivalent on the level of equations of motion, but not the action because the symmetries of Lagrangians are different. Therefore, it could be useful to find a connection if any between description of evolution of the boundary string on the surface of five-brane and topological part of $`SU(2)`$ WZNW model at least for compact coordinates of membrane end-points.

Acknowledgments.

I would like to thank A.Sadrzadeh, T.A.Tran for discussions and especially thank E.Sezgin for fruitful discussions and for constant encouragement.


text:
# Gravitating global defects: the gravitational field and compactification

## I Introduction

Global defects arise in theories in which a global symmetry is broken and the vacuum manifold is nontrivial . An example where this kind of topological defect can arise is given by a theory with $`n`$ scalar fields and a potential which has a vacuum manifold with the topology of a $`(n1)`$sphere. This is the case we will consider here.

Global defects were first considered in four spacetime dimensions, but more recently they have also been studied in the context of the brane-world scenario. In four spacetime dimensions, when $`n=2`$, the defects are global strings  and when $`n=3`$, global monopoles . In the brane-world scenarios one models our ’visible’ universe as a $`3`$-brane living in a higher-dimensional spacetime with $`n`$ extra dimensions. In this setup one can imagine the $`3`$brane being the core of a global defect. Such a possibility has been investigated in a number of papers. The domain wall case, a single extra dimension, was studied long ago in Ref.. Explicit geometries in higher dimensions are more recent. The case with $`n=2`$, two extra dimensions, has been considered in  and . In  solutions to Einstein’s field equations (EFE’s) with $`n>2`$, three and higher extra dimensions were given, in  the localization of the graviton in some of those solutions was discussed, while in Ref. Oda addressed the issue of localization of various fields.

In the present paper we want to study further the gravitational effects of global defects for $`n3`$. We will show how to construct new solutions to Einstein’s equations from known ones. We will see that the net effect of the addition of a global charge, away from the core, is to introduce a deficit solid angle, just as it was shown for the global monopole, $`n=3`$, in four dimensions by Barriola and Vilenkin .

We will also show that higher-dimensional solutions with geometry $``$$`{}_{}{}^{q}\times S^{n1}`$ can be constructed, where $``$q is a solution to $`q`$-dimensional Einstein gravity.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In the next section we introduce the class of global defect that we are going to study. In section III we show how to add the gravitational field of the global defect to a known solution of Einstein’s equations. In section IV we use the global defect for compactification on a $`(n1)`$-sphere. Conclusions are summarized in section V.

## II global defects and the $`\sigma `$-model approximation

In this section we present the class of models that we have in mind.

To keep the discussion as general as possible, in this section we consider spacetime to be $`d`$-dimensional with a metric of the form

$$ds^2=g_{AB}dx^Adx^B=g_{ij}(x^i)dx^idx^j+B^2(x^i)d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2$$
(1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$ is the metric on a $`(n1)`$-sphere of unit radius which is parametrized by the $`n1`$ angular coordinates $`y^\alpha `$.

The models that we are interested in include a multiplet of $`n`$ scalar fields $`\varphi ^a`$, $`a=1\mathrm{}n`$ with a potential $`V(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)`$ that has a minimum on the $`(n1)`$-sphere $`\varphi ^a\varphi ^a=\eta ^2`$. We further assume that $`V(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a=\eta ^2)=0`$, since a nonzero value can be absorbed into the cosmological constant term in Einstein’s equations.

It is well known that if the mapping of a $`(n1)`$-sphere in configuration space in the vacuum manifold is non-trivial, continuity requires the fields to take values outside the vacuum manifold in some region surrounding the origin. This region is called the core of the defect. At a distance from the core, where the fields are in the vacuum manifold, the lagrangian is that for $`n`$ scalar fields subject to the constraint $`\varphi ^a\varphi ^a=\eta ^2`$. Outside the core the system is thus well approximated by a nonlinear $`\sigma `$model, and the equations for the fields can be written as

$$^2\varphi ^a+\eta ^2(_A\varphi ^b^A\varphi ^b)\varphi ^a=0$$
(2)
We shall consider the simplest non-trivial ansatz, the familiar hedgehog configuration, in which the fields depend only on the angular variables $`y^\alpha `$ through the relation $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{r})=\eta \widehat{r}`$, where $`\widehat{r}`$ is the unit vector on the $`(n1)`$-sphere. It is not hard to check that this configuration does indeed satisfy the field equations.

To solve Einstein’s equations we need the expression for the energy momentum tensor. For the hedgehog configuration it is

$$T_j^i=\frac{1}{2}(n1)\frac{\eta ^2}{B^2(x^i)}\delta _j^i,T_\beta ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}(n3)\frac{\eta ^2}{B^2(x^i)}\delta _\beta ^\alpha .$$
(3)
It is apparent from this expressions that if $`B^2(x^i)`$ goes to zero at some point, the energy-momentum tensor is singular. This signals the presence of the defect core where continuity requires that fields go to zero, which in turn removes the singularity of the energy-momentum tensor. We see how the pressence of the defect is related to the fact that the metric function $`B^2(x^i)`$ vanishes at some point. Accordingly, if $`B^2(x^i)`$ does not vanish at any point, the fields can stay in the vacuum manifold over the whole space. If this is the case, no defect is present and the $`\sigma `$-model is exactly applicable over the entire space. An example is any geometry of the form $``$$`{}_{}{}^{(dn+1)}\times S^{n1}`$ in which $`n1`$ dimensions are compactified on a sphere. We shall consider both cases in the following sections.

## III Adding a global defect

In this section we are going to show that just as the effect of local strings is to introduce a deficit angle in the plane transverse to the string, the effect of a global defect in the hedgehog configuration is to introduce a deficit solid angle. We will also give a prescription to construct solutions to Einstein’s equations with global topological charges in the $`\sigma `$-model approximation described above.

We start by considering a solution to Einstein’s equations in $`d=q+n1`$ dimensions in the following form:

$`ds_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ij}(x^i)dx^idx^j+A^2(x^i)d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$ (4)
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }(y^\beta )dy^\alpha dy^\beta `$ (5)
with $`i,j=1..q`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta =1\mathrm{}n1`$. The $`\{y^\alpha \}`$ are the angular coordinates in $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$. This is a general example of a warped geometry with warp factor $`A^2(x^i)`$. For such geometries the Ricci tensor splits as

$`R_{ij}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}(n1){\displaystyle \frac{A;_{ij}}{A}}`$ (6)
$`R_{\alpha \beta }^0`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{R}_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }\left[A\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}A+(n2)\stackrel{~}{}A\stackrel{~}{}A\right]`$ (7)
The $`0`$ superscripts refer to quantities for the metric (4). Tildes stand for quantities calculated with the $`q`$dimensional metric $`g_{ij}(x^i)dx^idx^j`$ and the hats refer to quantities for $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$.

We assume that the above is a solution to EFE’s with a stress-energy tensor $`T_{AB}^0`$,

$$R_{AB}^0\frac{1}{2}g_{AB}^0R^0=\kappa ^2T_{AB}^0$$
(8)
We will now modify the original metric by multiplying the warp factor by a constant factor $`(1\mathrm{\Delta })`$. The line element thus obtained is

$$ds^2=g_{ij}(x^i)dx^idx^j+(1\mathrm{\Delta })A^2(x^i)d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2$$
(9)
This will be a solution to EFE’s for a different energy-momentum tensor $`T_{AB}=\kappa ^2G_{AB}`$ which we want to relate to $`T_{AB}^0`$.

We can use equations (6) and (7) to write the Ricci tensor of the new metric $`R_{AB}`$ in terms of $`R_{AB}^0`$

$`R_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{ij}^0`$ (10)
$`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{R}_{\alpha \beta }+(1\mathrm{\Delta })R_{\alpha \beta }^0`$ (11)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`R^0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{1\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{R}}{A^2}}`$ (12)
With these relations we construct the Einstein tensor from which we can directly read off $`T_{AB}`$. We find that

$`T_j^i`$ $`=`$ $`(T^0){}_{j}{}^{i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _j^i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\kappa ^2(1\mathrm{\Delta })}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{R}}{A^2}},`$ (13)
$`T_\beta ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(T^0){}_{\beta }{}^{\alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\kappa ^2(1\mathrm{\Delta })}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{G}_\beta ^\alpha }{A^2}}.`$ (14)
Since the hats refer to $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$, we have $`\widehat{R}=(n1)(n2)`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }=(n3)(n2)\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }/2`$. Putting these expressions into the equations above, we see that the effect of introducing the $`(1\mathrm{\Delta })`$ factor in the metric (4) corresponds to the addition of matter with energy-momentum tensor given by

$`T_j^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _j^i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(n2)}{\kappa ^2(1\mathrm{\Delta })}}{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{A^2}}`$ (15)
$`T_\beta ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _\beta ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(n2)}{\kappa ^2(1\mathrm{\Delta })}}{\displaystyle \frac{n3}{A^2}}`$ (16)
It is clear that this is equivalent to (3) with $`B^2(x^i)=(1\mathrm{\Delta })A^2(x^i)`$ when we choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to have the value:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\kappa ^2\eta ^2}{n2}$$
(17)
We thus have a prescription to add the gravitational field of a topological global charge to a known solution with $`O(n)`$ invariance: we just have to multiply the $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$ piece of the line element by the factor $`1(\kappa ^2\eta ^2/(n2))`$, which we can interpret as a deficit solid angle.

We now apply the prescription described above to some examples.

For the usual four-dimensional spacetime the result presented above is applicable to every isotropic solution to Einstein’s equations. Straightforward examples are the FRW cosmological models and the Scharwzchild and Reissner-Nordstrom black hole solutions.

The metric for the global monopole in a general FRW spacetime will look like

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)\left\{\frac{dr^2}{1+kr^2}+(1\kappa ^2\eta ^2)r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right\}$$
(18)
For the Schwarschild and Reissner-Nordstrom solutions the metric, after the inclusion of the global charge, has the form

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+(1\kappa ^2\eta ^2)r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2$$
(19)
The first thing we must note is that, due to the deficit solid angle, the metric is no longer asymptotically flat and so the no-hair theorem for black holes does not apply in this case. The metric for the Schwarzschild solution with a global topological charge was first derived by Barriola and Vilenkin in . As they point out, such a topologically charged black hole could arise after the collision of a global monopole and a black hole. An analysis along the lines of , where the solution describing a black hole with a local cosmic string passing through it was given, shows that the area law for the black hole entropy still holds.

A global charge can also be added to black $`p`$branes

$$ds^2=e^{2A}(e^{2f}dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2)+e^{2B}\left[e^{2f}dr^2+r^2\left(1\frac{\kappa ^2\eta ^2}{n2}\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2\right].$$
(20)
See Ref.  for details about the metric functions $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`f`$ as well as the bulk gauge and scalar fields also present. Likewise we can add the far field of a global defect in any brane in the same way, as long as the metric induced on the brane has the required $`O(n)`$ symmetry.

## IV compactification

In this section we show that it is possible to construct new compactified solutions from lower dimensional ones by adding appropriate scalar fields. In this case we start with a general $`q`$dimensional metric $`ds_0^2`$ and consider the higher dimensional metric

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`ds_0^2+C^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2,`$ (21)
$`ds_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ij}(x^i)dx^idx^j,`$ (22)
$`C^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$ $``$ $`C^2\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }dy^\alpha dy^\beta g_{\alpha \beta }dy^\alpha dy^\beta ,`$ (23)
$`i,j`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{}q,\alpha ,\beta =1\mathrm{}n1,`$ (24)
where $`C^2`$ is a constant and $`\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$ the metric components on the unit $`(n1)`$-sphere.

We can now compute the Einstein tensor for the extended solution. Let’s take $`G_{ij}^0=\kappa ^2T_{ij}^0`$. Then we find that

$`G_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{ij}^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{R}}{C^2}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`\kappa ^2T_{ij}^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{C^2}}`$ (26)
$`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{q2}}g_{\alpha \beta }T^0`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{q2}}g_{\alpha \beta }T^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(n3)}{C^2}}g_{\alpha \beta }`$ (28)
where $`T^0g^{ij}T_{ij}^0`$.

As we did in the previous section, we will show that the extra contribution can be obtained from a multiplet of $`n`$ scalar fields in the hedgehog configuration.

Let’s consider first the case in which the lower-dimensional metric is a solution to EFE’s with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$: $`T_{ij}^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }^0g_{ij}`$. We assume that in the higher-dimensional case the energy-momentum tensor has contributions from a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, not necessarily the same as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$, and the scalar fields. The contribution from the scalar fields is given by expression (3) with $`B^2(x^i)=C^2`$ so that

$`T_{ij}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n1){\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{C^2}}g_{ij},`$ (29)
$`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n3){\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{C^2}}g_{\alpha \beta }.`$ (30)
From equations (26), (28), (29) and (30), we see that the higher-dimensional EFE’s reduce to

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{C^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\eta ^2}{C^2}}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}{q2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(n3)}{C^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{(n3)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\eta ^2}{C^2}}`$ (32)
These can be solved for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`C^2`$. We must consider separately the cases $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^00`$. In the latter case

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{q+n3}{q2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^0,C^2=\frac{[(n2)\kappa ^2\eta ^2](q+n3)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(33)
We see that for $`q>2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has the same sign as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$. On the other hand, since $`C^2>0`$ it is clear that a solution with a positive (negative) cosmological constant is consistent only with a subcritical (supercritical) symmetry-breaking scale. The critical value is $`\eta _c^2(n2)\kappa ^2`$. $`n=2`$ is an exception to this, since in this case the solution exists only for a negative cosmological constant.

When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0=0`$, the solution only exists when $`\eta =\eta _c`$. In this case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and the value of $`C^2`$ is arbitrary.

We can summarize the above by saying that if we want to compactify $`n1`$ extra dimensions on an $`(n1)`$-sphere with a global defect, then we need $`\eta >\eta _c`$ if the background cosmological constant is negative, $`\eta =\eta _c`$, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`\eta <\eta _c`$ when the cosmological constant is positive.

The corresponding maximally symmetric geometries would be $`dS_q\times S^{n1}`$ when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, $`M_q\times S^{n1}`$ when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`AdS_q\times S^{n1}`$ when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ ($`dS`$ stands for deSitter, $`M`$ for Minkowski and $`AdS`$ for anti-de Sitter). This compactification scheme is in a way similar to that by Candelas and Weinberg . They consider gravity and a set of massless scalar fields. The compactification arises from the quantum fluctuations of the fields while here it arises from the monopole-like configurations of classical fields, just like in  or  where gauge monopoles were considered.

It may seem surprising that we can have static solutions even in the case of vanishing cosmological constant. Since the curvature of the sphere acts as a cosmological constant in the transverse dimensions, one would not expect a static solution. However, we can see from the relations that this is possible when we introduce the hedgehog configuration for the scalar fields. In the transverse dimensions this also has the same effect as a cosmological constant and for the critical value of the symmetry-breaking scale its value cancels exactly the contribution from the $`(n1)`$-sphere curvature.

Although the above has been derived for a cosmological constant, the result is more general. Consider now that $`G_{ij}^0=\kappa ^2T_{ij}^0`$ with $`T_{ij}^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }^0g_{ij}+S_{ij}^0`$ so that in the lower-dimensional energy-momentum tensor we have contributions from a cosmological constant and some other form of energy which contributes through $`S_{ij}^0`$. In higher dimensions we add the corresponding term to the energy-momentum tensor

$`T_{ij}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ij}+S_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n1){\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{C^2}}g_{ij},`$ (34)
$`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\alpha \beta }+S_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n3){\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{C^2}}g_{\alpha \beta }`$ (35)
This time we can find a solution to EFE’s if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`C^2`$ solve equations (31) and (32) as before, and if $`S_{ij}=S_{ij}^0`$ and the angular components, $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$, satisfy the relation

$$S_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }\overline{S}/(q2)\text{with}\overline{S}g^{ij}S_{ij}^0.$$
(36)
Let’s see that this is satisfied by massless scalar fields, which we represent collectively as $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Our starting point is a configuration that solves Einstein’s equations in $`q`$ dimensions, so the fields are only functions of the coordinates $`\{x^i\}`$. In the higher-dimensional solution with the global charge we maintain the same ansatz and thus

$`S_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ij}_k\mathrm{\Psi }^k\mathrm{\Psi }+_i\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (37)
$`\overline{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q2}{2}}_k\mathrm{\Psi }^k\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (38)
$`S_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ij}_k\mathrm{\Psi }^k\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (39)
From equations (38) and (39) we can indeed see that the relation $`S_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }\overline{S}/(q2)`$ is satisfied.

One could also consider other sources, but then, this compactification scheme would only work if supplemented by the condition (36), which seems rather arbitrary. If we allow such arbitrariness, we could consider the compactification of a FRW-type solution. To construct the solution in $`q+(n1)`$ dimensions with $`n1>2`$ compactified extra dimensions, we start with a cosmological FRW solution with cosmological constant in $`q`$ dimensions. We can embed this solution into $`n1`$ extra dimensions if we consider an inhomogeneous fluid with

$$S_0^0=\rho (t),S_J^I=\delta _J^Ip(t),S_\beta ^\alpha =\delta _\beta ^\alpha \overline{p}(t),\text{with}\overline{p}(t)\frac{(q1)p(t)\rho (t)}{q2},$$
(40)
where $`\overline{p}`$ is defined in such a way as to satisfy condition (36). Here we have split the $`\{x^i\}`$ coordinates as $`\{x^0,x^I\}`$, the $`0`$ index referring to the time coordinate and capital latin letters $`I`$ and $`J`$ to the spatial coordinates.

The metric would be

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)\left\{\frac{dr^2}{1+kr^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right\}+C^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2$$
(41)
with $`C^2`$ given by (33).

By the same token, one can also consider the braneworld solutions in codimension one. In this models our universe is pictured as a domain wall and, in a bulk based approach, solutions can be obtained by considering a fixed background spacetime and studying the moving wall trajectories . With the procedure described previously we can get solutions in which this domain wall has $`n1>2`$ compactified extra dimensions. This gives explicit examples of solutions in which although we have a number of extra dimensions greater that one, only one can be considered large.

Considering for simplicity the $`Z_2`$ symmetric walls as an example, we can write the metric for the background spacetime

$$ds^2=h(r)dt^2+h^1(r)dr^2+r^2\left[\frac{d\chi ^2}{1k\chi ^2}+\chi ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right]+C^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2.$$
(42)
See  for details on the form of $`h(r)`$.

The position of the wall can be parameterized by $`\tau `$, the proper time of an observer comoving with the wall $`r=R(\tau ),t=T(\tau )`$, where the trajectory is ultimately determined by the matter on the wall. For a given trajectory in the lower dimensional solution there will be a corresponding higher-dimensional one. In the original solution there is a cosmological constant in the bulk and a localized perfect fluid on the wall. In the higher-dimensional generalization the bulk has an additional contribution from the scalar fields and localized on the brane, which now has $`n1`$ compactified extra dimensions, we have an inhomogeneous perfect fluid as that of equation (40) in order to satisfy the condition given by (36).

## V Conclusions

In this paper we have investigated the gravitational effect of $`n`$ scalar fields with the simplest nontrivial topological configuration, a radial configuration such that $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=\eta \widehat{r}`$, where $`\widehat{r}`$ is the unit vector on the $`(n1)`$-sphere and $`\eta `$ the symmetry-breaking scale.

As it is well known, such configurations can give rise to global defects. Here we have given the general form of the gravitational field, far from the core, of a global defect in the hedgehog configuration in a $`O(n)`$ invariant solution. We have found that it amounts to the introduction of a deficit solid angle. Thus we can easily add the gravitational field of such a defect to any solution to Einstein’s equations with $`O(n)`$ invariance by adding the corresponding solid angle deficit which appears through an extra $`1(\kappa ^2\eta ^2/(n2))`$ factor in the $`O(n)`$ invariant part of the metric.

We have also considered the case where there is no defect because the nontrivial vacuum configuration can be maintained everywhere, as for textures. We have seen that when $`n`$ scalar fields are in the hedgehog configuration this can lead to compactification of $`n1`$ spatial dimensions. In particular, we have seen how the presence of the $`n`$ scalar fields can be used to add $`n1`$ compact spatial dimensions to any solution of Einstein’s equations with a cosmological constant and massless scalar fields.

In the first case we have written down new solutions describing a global monopole in an expanding universe as well as black holes and black $`p`$-branes with a global charge. In the second case we have given explicit solutions where we add $`n1`$ compact dimensions to known braneworld solutions in wich our world is seen as a moving domain wall in a static bulk.

## VI Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Jose Juan Blanco-Pillado, Gia Dvali and Alexander Vilenkin for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Basque Government under fellowship number BFI.99.89.


text:
# Untitled Document

GEOMETRICAL INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM FORMALISM

O. A. OLKHOV

N. Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kosygin Street 4, Moscow, 117977 Russia
E-mail: olkhov@center.chph.ras.ru

Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Particles, Strings and Cosmology (PASCOS 99), Lake Tahoe, California, 10-16 Desember 1999; Singapure-New Jersey-Hong Kong.: World Scientific, 2000, P.160

We show that the Dirac equation can be rewritten as a relation describing the fundamental symmetry group of special topological manifold corresponding to the Dirac wave field. It leads to unification of the time-space and internal symmetries wihin one symmetry group. We suppose that nonelectromagnetic interactions appear within such approach as the deviations of the metrics from the euclidean form. The expression for the long-range part of ”effective” nucleon-nucleon potential is derived using this assumption.

In this papaer we attempt to introduce the topological and group-theoretical approaches at the very beginning of quantum formalism. Let us show, at first, that the equation for the free Dirac field can be considered as a relation describing symmetry proprieties of the nonorientable local Euclidean Riemann time-space representing this Dirac wave field.

For free field the Dirac equation can be written as :

$$\left(i\frac{}{x_0}\gamma _0i\frac{}{x_1}\gamma _1i\frac{}{x_2}\gamma _2i\frac{}{x_3}\gamma _3\right)\psi =K_M\psi ,$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
where $`x_0=ct,x_1=x,x_2=y,x_3=z`$ and $`K_M=mc/\mathrm{}.`$ In (1) $`\psi `$ is the four-component spinor and $`\gamma _l`$ are the known four-dimensional matrices satisfying the following relationships:

$$\gamma _l\gamma _n+\gamma _n\gamma _l=0,ln;\gamma _0^2=1,\gamma _1^2=\gamma _2^2=\gamma _3^2=1.$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
We write the energy conservation low $`E^2p^2c^2=m^2c^4`$ in the form

$$K_0^2K_1^2K_2^2K_3^2=K_M^2,$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
where $`K_0=E/\mathrm{}c`$ and $`K_{1,2,3}=p_{1,2,3}/\mathrm{}`$.

We shall show now that operators $`K_n^1i/x_n`$ and matrices $`\gamma _n`$ in (1) can be considered as the representations of two time-space symmetry transformations: translations and reflections.

Let us show that $`\widehat{T}=K_n^1i/x_n`$ is the operator of translation at distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }X_n=2\pi /K_n`$. The $`x_n`$-dependence of function $`\psi `$ in (1) has the form $`\psi exp(iK_nx_n)`$ . Hence,

$$i/x_n\psi =K_nexp\left(iK_nx_n\right)=K_nexp\left[iK_n\left(x_n+2\pi /K_n\right)\right]=K_n\psi \left(x_n+\mathrm{\Delta }X_n\right).$$

This can be rewritten as

$$\widehat{T}\psi \left(x_n\right)=\psi \left(x_n+\mathrm{\Delta }X_n\right),$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
which signifies that $`\widehat{T}(\mathrm{\Delta }X_n)`$ is, in fact, the operator of translation at distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }X_n`$ .

Let now show that $`\gamma _n`$ are the reflection operators $`\widehat{R}_n`$: $`R_1\psi (x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=\psi ^{}(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ etc. As to the matrix $`\gamma _0`$, it is known to be the reflection matrix $`\widehat{R}_0`$ (the so called ”space reflection” ). Let us consider, for example, the product $`\gamma _2\gamma _3`$. This product formally represents the spatial rotation about the $`x_1`$-axis by the angle $`\pi `$ . At the same time, the same rotation can be accomplished by the two successive reflections: ($`x_2^{}=x_2,x_{0,1,3}^{}=x_{0,1,3}`$) and ($`x_3^{}=x_3,x_{0,1,2}^{}=x_{0,1,2}`$). Hence, $`\gamma _2`$ and $`\gamma _3`$ are, in fact, the $`\widehat{R}_2`$ and $`\widehat{R}_3`$ reflections.

Finally we can rewrite Eq.(1) in the following form:

$$\left(K_0\widehat{T}_0\widehat{R}_0K_1\widehat{T}_1\widehat{R}_1K_2\widehat{T}_2\widehat{R}_2K_3\widehat{T}_3\widehat{R}_3\right)\psi =K_M\psi .$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
What does it mean? We suggest a new interpretation for this equation. Let us consider this equation as a group-theoretical relation describing the geometrical proprieties of a certain distorted Minkovski space, a manifold that represents Dirac free wave field. Within such an approach, the pseudoeuclidean Minkovski space plays the role of a universal covering surface for the manifold, while the $`\psi `$-function becomes the basis vector of a representation of the corresponding fundamental group.

Spinor representation in Eq.(5) implies that this equation discribes symmetry properties of a certain kind of spinor geometric object. Such an object has rather specific proprieties typical of a nonorientable local Euclidean Riemann space. For example, it reverts to the initial position not after rotation by angle $`2\pi `$ but after rotation by angle $`4\pi `$ (as the Möbius strip) . We see that the spinor geometrical object in Eq.(5) behaves in the same way after certain reflections ($`\gamma _{1,2,3}^2=1`$, but $`\gamma _{1,2,3}^4=+1`$). It is also known that some nonorientable manifolds have a fundamental group generated by glide reflections (product of translation and reflection ), and we see that Eq.(5) contains operators of glide reflection.

As a result we can state that Dirac equation (1) is, in fact, the group-theoretical relation describing symmetry properties of a special quantum object, nonorientable local Euclidean Riemann space representing the free Dirac wave field. Energy, momentum, mass, spin and charge become the corresponding topological invariants and the Dirac theory appears as geometrical theory for the curved four-dimentional manifold.

The above approach can easilly be generalized to the classical Maxwell wave field and we’ll discuss this case in details into subsequent publications. (Unlike the Dirac field, this field appears as the orientable local Euclidean space). In any case, the usefullness of the new interpretation can be established after its application to the problem of interacting fields. Moving in this direction, we start with the simplest one-particle approximation when the Dirac field can be considered as classical and the external field can be considered as a given function.

Let us consider the problem of electron in a hydrodgen atom. Dirac equation (5) for this case has the form (with our notations) :

$$K_0(\widehat{T}_0\phi \left(r\right))\widehat{R}_0K_1\widehat{T}_1\widehat{R}_1K_2\widehat{T}_2\widehat{R}_2K_3\widehat{T}_3\widehat{R}_3)\psi =K_M\psi ,$$

where $`\phi (r)`$ is the Coulomb potential. We see that within the topological interpretation, ”switching on” of the external electrostatic field means the violation of translational symmetry: this violation leads to an ”inhomogeneous compression” of the initial manifold along the $`x_0`$-axis.

Assume that the nonelectromagnetic fields (nuclear ones, for example) also, within one-particle approximation, violate the initial symmetry of Riemann space generated by the free Dirac field. These violations should be different from these caused by the static electromagnetic field (violation of translational symmetry). They should be violations of the reflection symmetry, the second type of initial symmetry. Such violations can distort the initial local Eucledian metrics. In this case Eq.(5) can be written as

$$\underset{l,n=1}{\overset{4}{}}g_{ln}\left(x\right)K_l\widehat{T}_l\widehat{R}_n\psi =K_M\psi ,$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
where the undistorted metrics $`g_{ln}(x)`$ had the pseudoeucledian form: $`g_{00}=1,g_{11}=g_{22}=g_{33}=1,g_{ln}=0,ln`$.

To clarify whether the above hypothesis is realistic we used the following simplified form for $`g_{ln}(x)`$: $`g_{01}=g_{10}=g_{02}=g_{20}=g_{03}=g_{30}=0,g_{00}=1v_1(r),g_{11}=g_{22}=g_{33}=1v_2(r),g_{12}=g_{13}=g_{23}=1v_3(r)`$, where $`r^2=x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2`$. In the nonrelativistic limit of Eq.(6), we obtain (using the standard method ) Schrödinger equation for the stationary state with the ”effective” potential

$$\widehat{V}_{eff}(r,E,\widehat{P})=Ev_1\left(r\right)+\frac{1}{2m}\widehat{P}^2v_2\left(r\right)+\frac{1}{m}\left(\widehat{P}_x\widehat{P}_y+\widehat{P}_x\widehat{P}_y+\widehat{P}_Y\widehat{P}_z\right)v_3\left(r\right),$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
where $`\widehat{P}_{x,y,z}`$ are the momentum operators, $`E`$ is energy and $`v(r)`$ are unknown functions. Interestingly, thus obtained effective potential (7) is very close to the semiphenomenological so called ”Paris nucleon-nucleon potential”, which was successfully used for the interpretation of experimental data on nucleon-nucleon scattering .

References

1. Schweber S., An introduction to relativistic quantum field theory (Row,

Peterson and Co., Evanstone, Ill., Elmsford, N.Y. 1961).

2. Heine V., Group theory in quantum mechanics (Pergamon Press, London—

N.Y.—Paris, 1960).

3. Cartan M.E., Leçons sur la théorie des spineurs (Sorbonne, 1938).

4. Penrouse R., Rindler W., Spinors and space-time, V.1 (Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, 1984).

5. Coxeter H.S.M., Introduction to geometry (John Willey and Sons, Inc.,

N.Y.—London, 1961).

6. R. Vinh Mau, in Mesons in Nuclei, V.1, P. 151, ed. Mannque Rho, Denys

Wilkinson (North—Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam—N.Y.—Oxford, 1979)