format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is a remarkable result of experimental chemistry, recognized by Pasteur and others, that there can exist enantiomorphic pairs of states of chemical systems that cannot be smoothly mapped into one another, starting from the identity. From a geometrical perspective, right handed quartz and left handed quartz are systems with apparent equivalent energies, yet with decidedly different behavior when interacting with electromagnetic fields. If fact, the rotation of the plane of optical polarization is often used as a tool to distinguish the enantiomorphic isotopes. However, the issue is deeper than that of geometry. There exist topologically equivalent isotopes that cannot be smoothly mapped into one another starting from the identity. Geometrical properties are those subsets of topological properties that depend upon size and shape. However, herein, the category of interest is that subset of topological properties which do not depend upon the geometrical issues of size and shape, and yet are to be associated with enantiomorphic pairs. These distinct topological isotopes (enantiomers) are of different size and shape and are connected by homeomorphisms, but they are not smoothly connected to one another by a map about the identity. The properties and existence of such topological enantiomers is the theme of this article. For example, a right handed Moebius band is topologically equivalent to a left handed Moebius band, but possibly of different size and distorted shape. The homeomorphism between the two topological isotopes consists of more than one step: the right handed Moebius band can be transformed into a left handed Moebius band by first cutting the band, applying a 360 degree twist, and then reconnecting the cut ends such that points that were initially near to one another remain near to one another. Such a combination of processes is not C2 smooth but can be continuous in the topological sense.

The objective of this article is to examine those special features of electromagnetic systems that can exhibit topological enantiomers, and to determine how such enantiomers can be created. As all chemical systems are special examples of electromagnetic interactions, the methods to be developed are useful to the understanding of the more constrained (geometrical) features of chemical enantiomorphism. A remarkable, but little appreciated, fact is that the electromagnetic field itself has certain properties that exhibit the topological enantiomorphism mentioned above. Hence a study of these electromagnetic properties (defined below as topological torsion and topological spin) delivers a necessary foundation for the existence, control and modification of the geometric properties of enantiomorphism displayed in modern chemistry.

In modern steriochemistry, Optical Activity and Faraday Rotation have a dominant experimental role. Optical Activity and Faraday Rotation have many similarities, yet they are distinct, different, electromagnetic phenomena. A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for Optical Activity in crystalline structures is the lack of a center of symmetry. This lack of a center of symmetry is often used as the basis for defining ”chirality”, and, conversely, chirality is often associated with Optical Activity. However, according to Post , there exist 3 crystal classes without a center of symmetry (crystal classes 26,27,29) that do not support Optical Activity, hence a lack of a center of symmetry is not sufficient condition for Optical Activity. Note that Optically Active media have the capability of ”rotating” the plane of polarization, as linearly polarized light passes through the media, a practical effect used by the wine grower to estimate the sugar content in his grapes.

Similar rotation of the plane of polarization occurs when linearly polarized light passes through Faraday media. However, Faraday effects can exist both in crystalline structures that have a center of symmetry and in crystalline structures that do not have a center of symmetry. Post reports that there are 9 crystalline structures that support both optical Activity and Faraday rotation. What are the intrinsic differences between Optical Activity and Faraday Rotation? In his book ”Formal Structure of Electromagnetics”, E. J. Post  clearly delineates the differences between Optical Activity and Faraday rotation, and demonstrates solutions to Maxwell’s equations for both effects. The crucial result is that Optical Activity is reciprocal and Faraday Rotation is not.

In short, the lack of a center of symmetry, the rotation of the plane of polarization, and the existence of enantiomorphic pairs, are necessary but not sufficient properties to define the concept of chirality. There exist two species of phenomena that exhibit the three properties stated above, one species is ”reciprocal” and defines Chirality, and the other species is ”non-reciprocal” and defines Helicity. These differences between Chirality and Helicity deserve attention, clarification, and exploitation. Such is the purpose of this article.

### 1.1  Transverse Inbound and Outbound Waves

First consider a complex four vector potential solution to the vector wave equation which propagates as a transverse wave in the $`\pm z`$ direction with a phase $`\theta =\pm kz\omega t.`$ There are 4 possibilities: The $`𝐄`$ field rotates about the $`z`$ axis in a Right Handed manner as viewed by an observer looking towards the positive $`z`$ direction, or it rotates in a Left Handed manner. Outbound $`\theta =kz\omega t`$ and Inbound $`\theta =kz\omega t`$ waves are to be distinguished as ORH, OLH, IRH, and ILH..

$`ORH`$ $`=`$ $`|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}e^{i(kz\omega t)}IRH=|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}e^{i(kz\omega t)}`$ (5)
$`OLH`$ $`=`$ $`|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}e^{i(kz\omega t)}ILH=|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}e^{i(kz\omega t)}`$ (10)
For media with the symmetries of the Lorentz vacuum, the phase velocities $`v=\omega /k`$ are the same for all four modes. Addition or subtraction of ORH and OLH produces a Linearly polarized state outbound. Addition or subtraction of IRH and ILH produces a Linearly polarized state inbound.

Next, recall the experimental differences between Optical Activity and Faraday Rotation:

#### 1.1.1  Optical Activity

Consider an optically active fluid (sugar in water) in a cylindrical tube of length L. For Optical Activity, there are also two distinct phase velocities, $`\omega /k_1`$ and $`\omega /k_2.`$ Outbound Right Handed (ORH) circularly polarized light propagates with a phase speed equal to the phase speed of Inbound Left Handed (ILH) circularly polarized light. Outbound Left Handed (OLH) polarized light propagates with a phase velocity different from the phase velocity of Outbound Right Handed polarized light (ORH), but with the same speed as that of Inbound Right Handed (IRH) polarized light. In summary,

$$\text{Optical Activity Phase Velocity, }V_{ORH}=V_{ILH}V_{OLH}=V_{IRH}$$
(11)
The wave solutions for optical activity are of the format:

$`ORH`$ $`=`$ $`|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}expi(k_1z\omega t)IRH=|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}expi(k_2z\omega t)`$ (16)
$`OLH`$ $`=`$ $`|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}expi(k_2z\omega t)ILH=|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}expi(k_1z\omega t)`$ (21)
The addition of $`|ORH+|OLH`$ produces a Linearly Polarized state propagating outbound, whose plane of polarization rotates. When the two inbound states are added, $`|IRH+|ILH,`$ a linearly polarized state is achieved, and its plane of polarization also rotates but in the opposite direction as the outbound rotation. In other words, the round trip (outbound+reflection+inbound) motion causes the plane of polarization to return to its initial value. This result defines what is meant by a reciprocal effect. If the plane of polarization of the original linearly polarized light beam suffers a rotation in the amount of $`\theta `$ degrees as it traverses the Optically Active media, when reflected in a mirror, the plane of polarization suffers an negative rotation of $`\theta `$ degrees, as the light beam traverses the media in the reverse direction. The plane of polarization returns to its original state after the round trip. (The sense of Right Handed and Left Handed polarization is determined by an observer looking away from himself.)

### 1.2  Faraday Rotation

Consider a gas of He-Ne in a cylindrical tube of length L. Surround the tube with a coil of wire that will produce a coaxial magnetic field that partially aligns the spins of the gas atoms. For such Faraday media, there are two distinct phase velocities, $`\omega /k_1`$ and $`\omega /k_2`$. Outbound Right Handed (ORH) circularly polarized light propagates with a phase speed equal to the phase speed of Inbound Right Handed (IRH) circularly polarized light. Outbound Left Handed (OLH) polarized light propagates with a phase velocity different from the phase velocity of Outbound Right Handed polarized light (ORH), but with the same speed as that of Inbound Left Handed (ILH) polarized light. In summary,

$$\text{Faraday Effect Phase Velocity, }V_{ORH}=V_{IRH}V_{OLH}=V_{ILH}$$
(22)
The wave solutions for the Faraday effect are of the format:

$`|ORH`$ $`=`$ $`|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}expi(k_1z\omega t)|IRH=|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}expi(k_1z\omega t)`$ (27)
$`|OLH`$ $`=`$ $`|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}expi(k_2z\omega t)|ILH=|\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ i\hfill \end{array}expi(k_2z\omega t)`$ (32)
The formulas represent circularly polarized waves. The addition of $`|RHO+|LHO`$ produces a Linearly Polarized state propagating outbound, whose plane of polarization rotates. When the two inbound states are added, $`|RHI+|LHI,`$ a linearly polarized state is achieved, and its plane of polarization also rotates in the same direction as the outbound rotation. In other words, the round trip (outbound+reflection+inbound) motion does not cause the plane of polarization to return to its initial value. This result defines what is meant by a non-reciprocal effect. If the plane of polarization of the original linearly polarized light beam suffers a rotation in the amount of $`\theta `$ degrees as it traverses the Faraday media, when reflected in a mirror, the plane of polarization suffers an additional rotation of $`\theta `$ degrees, as the light beam traverses the media in the reverse direction. The plane of polarization does not return to its original state, but instead ratchets by $`2\theta `$ degrees upon completing the round trip. (The sense of Right Handed and Left Handed polarization is determined by an observer looking away from himself.)

### 1.3 Polar and Axial vectors

Following Schouten , Post points out that Faraday Rotation is ”generated” by a ”W vector”, while Optical Activity is generated by a ”vector”. Under certain constraints, the W vector plays the role of an ”Axial” vector, while the ”vector” becomes a ”polar” vector. Upon reflection, a polar vector changes its sense (determined by the arrow head). Point your finger into a mirror. The image points back at you. The sense of the image is opposite to the sense of the object. For polar vectors with a line of action parallel to the mirror surface, the opposite result is obtained. The sense of the image is the same as the sense of the object. Note the differences of orthogonal and parallel reflections.

A reflected axial vector does not change its sense if the line of action is orthogonal to the mirror. Curl you fingers and align your thumb in a direction orthogonal to the mirror. It does not matter whether the thumb points into or away from the mirror. The sense of the ”axial vector” is determined by the curl of the fingers. The sense of the reflected image is the same as the sense of the object. The opposite effect occurs when the line of action of the axial vector is parallel to the reflection surface. The sense, as determined by the curl of the fingers, is opposite to that of the reflected image.

The magnetic field $`𝐁`$ and the angular velocity $`𝛀`$are examples of spatial ”W vectors”. On the other hand, the $`𝐃`$ field is a spatial ”polar vector” in the sense used by Post. The anti-symmetric spatial components of the covariant field intensity tensor 2-form, $`F=dA,`$ are formed by the spatial ”W vector” field $`𝐁.`$ The anti-symmetric spatial components of the tensor density, N-2 form, $`G,`$ where $`J=dG,`$ are formed by the spatial ”polar vector” field $`𝐃.`$ These facts yield a clue for distinguishing Faraday Rotation and Optical Activity on topological grounds. As will be shown below, Faraday Rotation is to be associated with the concept of Topological Torsion, and Optical Activity is to be associated with the concept of Topological Spin.

## 2 Topological Formulation of Maxwell’s Equations.

### 2.1  Exterior Differential Systems

It is known that Maxwell’s system of PDE’s (without constitutive constraints) can be expressed as an exterior differential system  on a variety of independent variables. Exterior differential systems impose topological constraints on a differential variety. For the Maxwell electromagnetic system on a domain {x,y,z,t} the two topological constraints have been called the Postulate of Potentials, and the Postulate of Conserved Currents. . These two topological constraints lead to the system of Partial Differential Equations, known as Maxwell’s equations, for any coordinate system so constrained. No metric, no connection, nor other restraints of a geometrical nature are required on the 4 dimensional differential variety of independent variables, typically written as $`\{x,y,z,t\}.`$

$$\text{ Postulate of Potentials (an exact 2-form) }FdA=0$$
(33)
$$\text{ Postulate of Conserved Currents (an exact 3-form) }JdG=0$$
(34)
The method of exterior differential systems insures that the description is not only diffeomorphically invariant in form (natural covariance of form with respect to all invertible smooth coordinate transformations), but also the description is functionally well defined with respect to maps which are C2 continuous, but not necessarily invertible. This statement implies that those exterior differential forms which are defined on a final state variety can be ”pulled back” in a functionally well defined manner to an initial state variety, even though the map from initial to final state of coordinate variables is NOT a diffeomorphic coordinate transformation. The inverse mapping need not exist. This result is truly a remarkable property of Maxwell electrodynamics, for it permits the analysis of certain irreversible electrodynamic processes without the use of statistics. The ”push forward” process is not functionally well defined when the inverse map does not exist, a fact that demonstrates that topological evolution induces an ”arrow of time” .

### 2.2  Constitutive Constraints

In practical applications, it is possible to impose constraints on the Maxwell system in the form of constitutive relations between the thermodynamically conjugate variables of field intensity $`(𝐄,𝐁)`$ and field excitations $`(𝐃,𝐇)`$. Post has demonstrated that the constitutive tensor (density) has many of the properties of the Riemann tensor . These constraints are NOT necessarily equivalent to the Riemann tensor generated by a Riemannian metric imposed upon the variety $`\{x,y,z,t\}.`$ In many circumstances the equivalence classes of such constitutive constraints can be put into correspondence with the geometrical symmetries of the 32 crystal classes that are used to discriminate between the many different observed physical structures. As mentioned above, a complex 6x6 constitutive constraint has been used by Post to delineate between Optical Activity, Faraday Phenomena, Birefringence and Fresnel-Fizeau motion induced effects in electromagnetic signal propagation. The complex constitutive tensor cannot be deduced from a real metric tensor. However it would appear that the constitutive tensor has a constructive definition in terms of a non-symmetric connection.

Indeed, the work of Post, who subsumed a complex constitutive tensor, has been extended  to demonstrate the existence of irreducible ”quaternion” solutions to the Maxwell system. Quaternion waves cannot be represented by complex functions, which are the usual choice for describing electromagnetic signals. Complex wave solutions generate a 4th order characteristic polynomial for the phase speed which is doubly degenerate. The wave speeds have only two distinct magnitudes depending upon direction and polarization. For cases where a center of symmetry is not available, and yet the medium supports both Optical Activity and Faraday rotation, the wave solutions can NOT be expressed as complex functions, but can be written as quaternions. The resulting 4th order characteristic polynomial for the wave speeds is not degenerate and has four distinct root magnitudes. The results indicate that the phase propagation speed of light is different for each direction of propagation and for each mode of polarization. The theory has been used to explain the experimental results measured in dual polarized ring laser apparatus.

In contrast, in a medium with the Lorentz symmetries, the characteristic polynomial is 4-fold degenerate; e.g., all polarizations and all directions have the same propagation speed. The result leads to the ubiquitous statement that the speed of light is the same for all observers, which is incorrect for media that do not have the Lorentz symmetries. For Birefringent, or Optically Active, or Faraday media, the characteristic polynomial for phase velocity is doubly degenerate, implying a relationship exists between for the 4 modes of propagation. There exist only two distinct phase velocity magnitudes. The correlation speeds for direction and polarization pairs have been presented above. Faraday rotation and Optical Activity have different propagation direction-polarization handedness correlations. The Faraday rotation is not reciprocal; the rotation induced by Optical Activity is reciprocal.

### 2.3 Topological Three Forms

The classic formalism of electromagnetism is a consequence of a system of two fundamental topological constraints as defined above on a domain of four independent variables. The theory requires the existence of two fundamental exterior differential forms, $`\{A,G\},`$ where the postulates permit the construction of the differential ideal $`\{A,F=dA,G,J=dG\}.`$ This system of differential forms may be prolonged (by construction all possible exterior products) to yield the Pfaff sequence of forms: $`\{A,F,G,J,A\mathrm{^}G,A\mathrm{^}F,A\mathrm{^}G,F\mathrm{^}F,F\mathrm{^}G,A\mathrm{^}J,G\mathrm{^}G\}`$. On a domain of four independent variables, the complete Pfaff sequence contains three 3-forms: the classic 3-form of charge current density, $`J,`$ and the (apparently novel to many researchers) 3-forms of Spin Current density, $`A\mathrm{^}G,`$ and Topological Torsion-Helicity, $`A\mathrm{^}F`$ .

$$\text{The 3-form of Charge Current density }J=dG$$
(35)
$$\text{The 3-form of Topological Spin density }S=A\mathrm{^}G$$
(36)
$$\text{The 3-form of Topological Torsion }T=A\mathrm{^}F$$
(37)
In most elementary descriptions of electromagnetic theory, the 3-forms of Spin and Torsion are ignored. By direct evaluation of the exterior product, and on a domain of 4 independent variables, each 3-form will have 4 components that can be symbolized (in engineering format) by the 4-vector arrays

$$SpinCurrent:𝐒_4=[𝐀\times 𝐇+𝐃\varphi ,𝐀𝐃][𝐒,\sigma ],$$
(38)
and

$$Torsionvector:𝐓_4=[𝐄\times 𝐀+𝐁\varphi ,𝐀𝐁][𝐓,h],$$
(39)
which are to be compared with the four construction components of the charge current 4-vector density:

$$Ch\mathrm{arg}eCurrent:𝐉_4=[𝐉,\rho ].$$
(40)
### 2.4  Topological Invariants

The closed integral of each of the three 3-forms is a deformation invariant (hence a topological property) if the selected 3-form is closed in an exterior derivative sense ($`dJ=0,dS=0,dT=0`$respectively). For example, for any 3-form, $`J,`$ such that $`dJ=0,`$ the Lie derivative of the closed integral relative to an arbitrary process path denoted by $`\beta V`$ is given by the expression,

$$L_{\beta 𝐕}_{closed}(J)=_{closed}\{i(\beta V)d(J)+d(i(\beta V)(J)\}=_{closed}\{0+d(i(\beta V)(A\mathrm{^}G)\}=0.$$
(41)
The zero result is interpreted by the statement ”the closed integral is a deformation invariant” for the process can be deformed by any non-zero function $`\beta (x,y,z,t),`$ and the integral is unchanged.

As the charge current 3-form, $`J,`$ is closed by construction, $`(dJ=ddG=0)`$ it follows that its closed integral is always a deformation invariant. The result leads to another ubiquitous statement known in electromagnetic theory as the ”Conservation of electric charge”. It is not equivalent to the quantization of charge. The additional topological constraints of closure imply that the exterior derivative of each of the three forms is empty (zero). By direct computation, such a constraint of differential closure leads to the Poincare invariants for the electromagnetic system.

$`Poincare\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ $`=`$ $`d(A\mathrm{^}G)=F\mathrm{^}GA\mathrm{^}J`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`\{div_3(𝐀\times 𝐇+𝐃\varphi )+(𝐀𝐃)/t\}dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt`$
$`=`$ $`\{(𝐁𝐇𝐃𝐄)(𝐀𝐉\rho \varphi )\}dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt`$
$`Poincare\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ $`=`$ $`d(A\mathrm{^}F)=F\mathrm{^}F`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`\{div_3(𝐄\times 𝐀+𝐁\varphi )+(𝐀𝐁)/t\}dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt`$
$`=`$ $`\{2𝐄𝐁\}dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt`$
For a (vacuum) state, with $`J=0,`$ zero values of the Poincare invariants require that the magnetic energy density is equal to the electric energy density $`(1/2𝐁𝐇=1/2𝐃𝐄)`$, and, respectively, that the electric field is orthogonal to the magnetic field $`(𝐄𝐁=0).`$ Note that these constraints often are used as elementary textbook definitions of what is meant by electromagnetic waves. The possible values of the topological quantities, as deRham period integrals , form rational ratios and topological quantum numbers. These quantum numbers should NOT be considered as topological ”charge”. Electromagnetic (topological) charge is related to the two dimensional closed integrals of $`G,`$not the three dimensional closed integrals described above.

### 2.5  Field Momentum, Propagation direction, and the 4-Vector Potential

The 4 vector potential $`A_4=[𝐀,\varphi ]`$ is different from the 4 dimensional propagation vector $`k_4=[𝐤,\omega ];`$ in many cases the two vectors are not even proportional (although they can be). In the language of differential forms, it must be recognized that there is a difference between the 1-form, $`A=A_xdx+A_ydy+A_zdz\varphi dt,`$ and the 1-form, $`k=k_xdx+k_ydy+k_zdz\omega dt.`$ The integral of $`k`$ defines the phase $`\theta =k.`$ The propagation 1-form $`k`$ is defined from the equations that generate the singular solutions  to Maxwell’s equations:

$$k\mathrm{^}F=0,\text{ and }k\mathrm{^}G=0.$$
(44)
Note that these equations for singular solutions are derived from the 3-forms $`k\mathrm{^}F`$ and $`k\mathrm{^}G`$ constrained to be zero. The 3-form $`k\mathrm{^}F`$ is not necessarily the same as the 3-form, $`A\mathrm{^}F.`$ Similarly, the 3-form $`k\mathrm{^}G`$ is not necessarily the same as the 3-form, $`A\mathrm{^}G.`$ These singular solutions are always transverse in a geometrical sense that the wave 3 vector $`𝐤`$ is in the direction of the field momentum, $`𝐃\times 𝐁.`$ Both the $`𝐃`$ vector and the $`𝐁`$ vector are orthogonal to the wave vector, $`𝐤`$, that generates singular solutions.

The 1-forms, $`k`$, that satisfy the equations

$$\text{Associated 1-forms k }\{k\mathrm{^}F=0,k\mathrm{^}G=0\}$$
(45)
are defined as the ”associated” 1-forms relative to$`F`$ and $`G`$. The 1-forms, $`k`$, that satisfy the equations

$$\text{ Extremal 1-forms k }\{k\mathrm{^}dF=0,k\mathrm{^}dG=0\}$$
(46)
are defined as ”extremal” 1-forms relative to $`F`$ and $`G`$. 1-forms such that

$$\text{characteristic 1-forms k }\{k\mathrm{^}F=0,k\mathrm{^}G=0,k\mathrm{^}dF=0,k\mathrm{^}dG=0\},$$
(47)
are defined as the ”characteristic” 1-forms, $`k.`$ These 1-forms $`k`$ are dual to the associated, extremal, and characteristic vector fields, $`V`$, which satisfy the equations

$$\text{ Associated vector fields V }\{i(V)A=0,i(V)G=0\}$$
(48)
or

$$\text{Extremal vector fields V }\{i(V)dA=0,i(V)dG=0\},$$
(49)
or

$`\text{Characteristic vector fields V for A }\{i(V)A`$ $`=`$ $`0,i(V)dA=0,`$ (50)
$`\text{Characteristic vector fields V for G }i(V)G`$ $`=`$ $`0,i(V)dG=0\},`$ (51)
respectively.

The concepts of Spin Current and the Torsion vector have been utilized hardly at all in applications of classical electromagnetic theory. Just as the vanishing of the 3-form of charge current, $`J=0,`$ defines the topological domain called the vacuum, the vanishing of the two other 3-forms will refine the fundamental topology of the Maxwell system. Such constraints permit a definition of transversality to be made on topological (rather than geometrical) grounds. If both $`A\mathrm{^}G`$ and $`A\mathrm{^}F`$ vanish, the vacuum state supports topologically transverse modes only (TTEM). Examples lead to the conjecture that TTEM modes do not transmit power, a conjecture that has been verified when the concept of geometric transversality (TEM) and topological transversality (TTEM) coincide. A topologically transverse magnetic (TTM) mode corresponds to the topological constraint that $`A\mathrm{^}F=0.`$ A topologically transverse electric mode (TTE) corresponds to the topological constraint that $`A\mathrm{^}G=0.`$ Examples, both novel and well-known, of vacuum solutions to the electromagnetic system which satisfy (and which do not satisfy) these topological constraints are given . The ideas should be of interest to those working in the field of Fiber Optics. Recall that classic waveguide solutions which are geometrically and topologically transverse (TEM$``$TTEM) do not transmit power . However, in  an example vacuum wave solution is given which is geometrically transverse (the fields are orthogonal to the field momentum and the wave vector), and yet the geometrically transverse wave transmits power at a constant rate: the example wave is not topologically transverse as $`A\mathrm{^}F0.`$

### 2.6 Connections for Right handed vs Left handed evolution

In spaces (such as Finsler spaces) which may or may not be Riemannian, the topological concept of differential neighborhoods that are linearly connected implies the existence, over the domain, of a matrix of functions $`\left[F_a^k(q^b)\right]`$ that will linearly map 1-forms (linear combinations of differentials $`|\omega ^a(q,dq)`$) into 1-forms (linear combinations of differentials $`|\sigma ^k(q,dq)`$).

$$\left[F_a^k(q^b)\right]|\omega ^a(q,dq)|\sigma ^k(q,dq).$$
(52)
The map between differentials is linear, but the matrix elements are not domain constants (non-linearity is built in). The columns of the matrix of functions forms a matrix of basis vectors over the domain which may be used to express any tensorial properties. The matrix of basis vectors defines what Cartan called the Repere Mobile, or the moving frame, for its values change as a point p moves along some curve in the domain. If the mapping of 1-forms is integrable,

$$integrablebasis:\left[F_a^k(q^b)\right]|dq^a|dx^k,impliesx^k=f^k(q^b)$$
(53)
then there exist functions whose differentials are exact, and the mapping is said to be holonomic. Often it is presumed that the functional mapping exists (and as such is called a coordinate transformation under certain additional constraints) and the Frame matrix is deduced by the differential operations to produce the Jacobian matrix of the transformation. However, there are other ways to impose or deduce a Frame matrix on a domain.

The fundamental question of a connection is related to the differential neighborhood properties of the Frame matrix. As the Frame matrix, by definition of its domain, has a non-zero determinant, then it admits an inverse matrix, and by differential and algebraic processes the (right Cartan) connection matrix $`\left[C_R\right]`$ (or the left Cartan matrix $`\left[C_L\right])`$ can be constructed:

$`d\left[F\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[F\right]\left[dG\right]\left[F\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left[C_L\right]\left[F\right]`$
$`=`$ $`+\left[F\right]\left[C_R\right].`$
The matrix elements of $`\left[C_R\right]`$ and $`\left[C_L\right]`$ are differential 1-forms. These matrix elements do not necessarily vanish nor are they necessarily equal. It is to be noted that the left and the right Cartan matrices are (anti-) similarity transforms of one another.

The reason that there are two distinct methods for constructing the linear mapping is based upon the fact that a matrix, whose determinant is non - zero, always has two representations, a left handed and a right handed representation. The two representations always consist of either a (right handed) product of a unitary matrix times a Hermitean matrix, or the (left handed) product of a Hermitean matrix times a unitary matrix. Only if the original matrix is ”normal” ( such that the product of itself times its Hermitian conjugate is equal to the product of its Hermitian conjugate times itself) will the right and left handed product representations be degenerately the same . It is this handedness property of topological neighborhoods that captures the features of electromagnetic charge distributions of molecules and crystals that exhibit enantiomorphic states.

In the electromagnetic situation, the constitutive map is often considered to be (within a factor) a linear mapping between two six dimensional vector spaces. As such the constitutive map can have both a right or a left handed representation, implying that there are two topologically equivalent states that are not smoothly equivalent about the identity.

In the geometric situation, the matrix elements of frame matrix, $`\left[F_a^k(q^b)\right],`$ are not constants. The two mechanisms (right and left handed) for neighborhood expressions imply that the connection is not generated from a symmetric metric. Such connections are said to admit torsion. In short, the concept of an affine connection is more general than the Hermitian (symmetric) connection offered by the Christoffel symbols ( which are generated from a metric). Any domain which is parallelizable will support a linear connection of differentials.

## 3 Acknowledgments

This work was presented at the International Symposium on Chirality, ISCD 12 — Chirality 2000, Chamonix, France

## 4 References

 Post, E. J., (1997), ”Formal Structure of Electromagnetics”, Dover p 166.

 Schouten, J. A., (1954), ”Tensor Analysis for Physicists”, Dover p.32

 Bryant, R.L.,Chern, S.S., Gardner, R.B.,Goldschmidt, H.L., and Griffiths, P. A., (1991), ”Exterior Differential Systems”, Springer Verlag.

 Kiehn, R. M., (1998), http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/classice.pdf

 Kiehn, R. M., (1976), ”Retrodictive Determinism”, Int. J. of Eng. Sci. 14, p. 749

 Ibid, Post, p. 188

 Kiehn, R. M., Kiehn, G. P., and Roberds, R. B. (1991) ”Parity and Time-reversal Symmetry Breaking, Singular Solutions”, Phys Rev A, 43, p. 5665

 Turnbull, H. W. and Aitken, A. C., (1961) ”An Introduction to the Theory of Canonical Matrices”, Dover, p194.

 Kiehn, R. M. (1977) ”Periods on manfolds, quantization and gauge”, J. of Math Phys 18, no. 4, p. 614

 Kiehn, R. M., (1990) ”Topological Torsion, Pfaff Dimension and Coherent Structures”, in: H. K. Moffatt and T. S. Tsinober eds, Topological Fluid Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 449-458 .

 deRham,G. (1960) ”Varietes Differentiables”, Hermann, Paris

 Kiehn, R. M., ”Torsion and Spin as topological coherent structures in a plasma” (1998), http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/plasma.pdf

….(1999) ” Topological evolution of classical electromagnetic fields and the photon” in ”The Photon and Poincare Group”,Valeri V. Dvoeglazov (Ed.). Nova Science Publishers, NY ,ISBN 1-56072-718-7.

 See http://www.elec.qmw.ac.uk/staffinfo/mark/mot


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the classical field theory it is possible a situation when the different theories possess the same dynamics. This fact means that one can express the fields of one theory in terms of the fields of another theory by the help of motion equations or without this help. In the first case one deals with the on–shell equivalent theories, whereas in the second case this equivalence has the more general off–shell type.

The string theories  provide many examples of the field theories with equivalent dynamics. In the framework of (super)string theory the dynamical equivalence is considered as some type of symmetry, or duality, which acts between the different special string theories as between the different special limits of the single general string theory . However, from the classical point of view, the presence of such a duality means the possibility to obtain new constructive information about one theory from the known information about its dual theory. For example, one can rewrite the exact solution of one theory in the form of exact solution of its dual “partner” using the corresponding algebraical and differential relations which express this duality. The differential relations become necessary in the case of the on–shell equivalence, whereas for the off–shell equivalent theories one needs only in the algebraical calculations.

In this work we present the explicit formulae which establish the off–shell equivalence between the full Kaluza–Klein theory  coupled to dilaton and some special subset of the bosonic string theory toroidally compactified to $`3`$ dimensions. The special subset of the bosonic string thery is defined with the zero value of extra Kalb–Ramond and mixed metric field components; the number of the compactified dimensions is left arbitrary. In the special case of the $`6D`$ theories we show that the pure Kaluza–Klein theory and the corresponding special subset of the bosonic string theory are on–shell equivalent, or dual, to the full $`5D`$ bosonic string theory and give the explicit formulae which express this duality (see also  and references therein). We show that these three theories are equivalent on–shell to the chiral theory with the coset $`SL(4,R)/SO(4)`$ chiral matrix minimally coupled to the $`3D`$ General Relativity. We construct a new class of the extremal solutions of this effective $`3D`$ theory and, using the dual relations, calculate the corresponding solutions of the $`6D`$ and $`5D`$ theories under consideration. The constructed solutions have the Majumdar–Papapetrou type  and provide a good illustration of the established dualities because they possess the nontrivial values of all the essential duality related field components.

## 2 $`\sigma `$–model for bosonic string theory

At low energies the bosonic string theory can be described by the field theory of its massless modes. These modes live in $`D`$–dimensional space–time and include the dilaton field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the Kalb–Ramond field $`B_{MN}=B_{NM}`$ and the metric field $`G_{MN}=G_{NM}`$. The corresponding action reads :

$`S_D={\displaystyle d^DX\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}G_{MN}|}e^\mathrm{\Phi }\left(R_D+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,M}\mathrm{\Phi }^{,M}\frac{1}{12}H_{MNK}H^{MNK}\right)},`$ (1)
where $`H_{MNK}=_MB_{NK}+_NB_{KM}+_KB_{MN}`$.

Below we consider the toroidal compactification of the first $`d`$ space–time dimensions to the $`3`$–dimensional space, i.e., we put $`D=d+3`$ and consider the fields independent on the coordinate $`X^M`$ with $`M=m=1,\mathrm{},d`$ (below we denote $`y^mX^m`$) and possessing the functional dependence on the coordinates $`x^\mu X^{d+\mu }`$ with $`\mu =1,2,3`$. In this case the field components can be separated in respect to the transformations of the three–dimensional coordinates $`x^\mu `$ in the following way ():

$`1)`$ two scalar matrices $`G`$ and $`B`$ of the dimensions $`d\times d`$, with the components $`G_{mk}`$ and $`B_{mk}`$ correspondingly, and the scalar function

$`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}G|};`$ (2)
$`2)`$ two vector columns $`\stackrel{}{A}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{A}_2`$ of the dimension $`d\times 1`$; their components read:

$`(\stackrel{}{A}_1)_{m\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(G^1)_{mk}G_{k,d+\mu },`$
$`(\stackrel{}{A}_2)_{m\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`B_{m,d+\mu }B_{mn}(\stackrel{}{A}_1)_{n\mu };`$ (3)
and

$`3)`$ two tensor fields

$`h_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\varphi }\left[G_{d+\mu ,d+\nu }G_{mk}(\stackrel{}{A}_1)_{m\mu }(\stackrel{}{A}_1)_{k\nu }\right],`$
$`b_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`B_{d+\mu ,d+\nu }B_{mk}(\stackrel{}{A}_1)_{m\mu }(\stackrel{}{A}_1)_{k\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\stackrel{}{A}_1)_{m\mu }(\stackrel{}{A}_2)_{m\nu }(\stackrel{}{A}_1)_{m\nu }(\stackrel{}{A}_2)_{m\mu }\right].`$ (4)
In three dimensions the field $`b_{\mu \nu }`$ is nondynamical; following  one can put $`b_{\mu \nu }=0`$ without any contradiction with the motion equations. Moreover, in three dimensions it is possible to introduce pseudoscalar fields $`u`$ and $`v`$ accordingly the relations ()

$`\times \stackrel{}{A}_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\varphi }G^1\left(u+Bv\right),`$
$`\times \stackrel{}{A}_2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\varphi }GvB\times \stackrel{}{A}_1.`$ (5)
Finally, the bosonic string theory toroidally compactified to three dimensions is equivalent on shell to the effective three–dimensional theory which describes the interacting scalar fields $`G`$, $`B`$ and $`\varphi `$ and the pseudoscalar ones $`u`$ and $`v`$ coupled to the metric $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. The corresponding action reads:

$`S_3={\displaystyle d^3x\sqrt{h}\left\{R_3+L_3\right\}},`$ (6)
where

$`L_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(J_G^2J_B^2\right)+(\varphi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }\left[(u+Bv)^TG^1(u+Bv)+v^TGv\right],`$ (7)
$`J_G=GG^1,J_B=BG^1,`$ (8)
$`h=\mathrm{det}h_{\mu \nu }`$ and the scalar curvature $`R_3`$ is constructed using the metric $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. This action describes the nonlinear $`\sigma `$–model coupled to the three–dimensional gravity. Below we use this $`\sigma `$–model to describe three different special theories.

## 3 Duality in arbitrary dimension

Working with the field theory which contains several algebraically independent fields, one can study its special cases when some part of these fields is taken in the form of given functions. For example, one can try to put some fields of the theory equal to their trivial values (zero, for example) and to study the dynamics of the remaining fields. This approach leads to two possible essentially different situations: the resulting dynamics can be free or restricted by the set of additional relations. These relations can arise as the on–shell consequence of our fixation of the fields subset; in the special situation the corresponding restrictions satisfied identically on shell of the remaining field equations. In this “successful” situation we call the set of the remaining fields as the “subsystem” of the original theory.

The effective $`3`$–dimensional theory (6)–(8) possesses the following two subsystems:

I) the subsystem with the trivial (zero) values of the fields $`B`$ and $`v`$; its Lagrangian reads:

$`L_I=(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}J_G^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }u^TG^1u.`$ (9)
For this subsystem $`\stackrel{}{A}_2=0`$, whereas

$`\times \stackrel{}{A}_1=e^{2\varphi }G^1u;`$ (10)
and

II) the subsystem with the trivial (zero) values of the fields $`B`$ and $`u`$ with the Lagrangian

$`L_{II}=(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}J_G^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }v^TGv.`$ (11)
Here $`\stackrel{}{A}_1=0`$ and

$`\times \stackrel{}{A}_2=e^{2\varphi }Gv.`$ (12)
It is easy to see that the map

$`\varphi \varphi ,GG^1,uv`$ (13)
transforms the subsystem “I” into the subsystem “II”. For the vector variables this map gives

$`\stackrel{}{A}_1\stackrel{}{A}_2.`$ (14)
To obtain the physical interpretation of these subsystems one must use the definitions (2)–(2) of the $`\sigma `$–model (7) variables. As the result one concludes that the subsystem “I” corresponds to the full Kaluza–Klein theory coupled to the dilaton field, whereas the subsystem “II” describes the bosonic string theory without extra components of the Kalb–Ramond field and without the mixed (“rotational”) components of the metric. The map (13) provides the equivalence of the subsystems “I” and “II”; this equivalence has the off–shell nature. Actually, it is obviously for the effective $`3`$–dimensional theories described by Eqs. (9) and (11); however in fact we consider the physical theories in $`d+3`$ dimensions. One must come back to the multidimensional fields to see what kind of equivalence really takes place in this case. The map (13)–(14) means the possibility to express the $`(d+3)`$–dimensional fields for the both subsystems in terms of the same symbols. Let us take the subsytem “I” as the “starting” one; let us denote the matrix $`G`$, the rotational vector $`\stackrel{}{A}_1`$ and the multidimensional dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for this subsytem as $`F`$, $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ correspondingly. Then for the subsystem “I” one has:

$`ds_I^2`$ $`=`$ $`(dy+\stackrel{}{\omega }d\stackrel{}{x})^TF(dy+\stackrel{}{\omega }d\stackrel{}{x})+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}{f}}h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_I`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (15)
where

$`f=|\mathrm{det}F|.`$ (16)
Below we will need in the column $`u`$ for the subsystem “I”; let us also put

$`u_I=H.`$ (17)
Then, using the map (13)–(14) and Eqs. (2)–(2), for the subsystem “II” one immediately obtains the following expressions for the nonzero field components:

$`ds_{II}^2`$ $`=`$ $`dy^TF^1dy+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}{f}}h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{II}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{ln}f,B_{IIm,d+\mu }=(\stackrel{}{\omega })_{m\mu }.`$ (18)
Thus, one can see that our subsystems are off–shell equivalent because Eqs. (3) and (3) are expressed in terms of the same variables using only the algebraical (not differential) operations. In the following section we will see that this fact is not trivial; in this section the subsytem “III”, related to the subsystems “I” and “II” via the differential as well as the algebraical relations, will be introduced.

## 4 Duality between 6D and 5D theories

Let us truncate the subsystems “I” and “II” by putting $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ in Eqs. (3) and (3). In this case the subsystem “I” describes the pure Kaluza–Klein theory, whereas the subsystem “II” possesses the multidimensional dilaton field uniquely related to the extra metric components. Now we would like to develop some useful matrix formalisms for these simplified subsystems. Namely, for the Kaluza–Klein theory the effective $`3`$–dimensional Lagrangian can be represented in the following (chiral) form :

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{}{J}_M^2,`$ (19)
where $`\stackrel{}{J}_M=MM^1`$. Here the matrices $`M`$ and $`M^1`$ are constructed from the $`\sigma `$–model fields $`F`$ and $`H`$ as

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}F^1& F^1H\\ H^TF^1& f+H^TF^1H\end{array}\right),M^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}F+f^1HH^T& f^1H\\ f^1H^T& f^1\end{array}\right).`$ (24)
It is easy to see that the matrix $`M`$ satisfies the $`SL(d+1,R)/SO(d+1)`$ coset relations

$`\mathrm{det}M=1,M^T=M.`$ (25)
From the duality (13) it follows that Eq. (19) also gives the effective action for the simplified subsystem “II”; in this case $`Hv_{II}`$.

Then, the effective $`3`$–dimensional Lagrangian (7) of the bosonic string theory also can be represented in the chiral form :

$`L_{BS}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{}{J}_{_{BS}}^2,`$ (26)
where $`\stackrel{}{J}_{_{BS}}=_{BS}_{BS}^1`$. Here the chiral matrix $`_{BS}`$ reads:

$`_{BS}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒢^1& 𝒢^1\\ ^T𝒢^1& 𝒢^T𝒢^1\end{array}\right),`$ (29)
and the block components $`𝒢`$, $`𝒢^1`$ and B are defined as

$`𝒢=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\varphi }+v^TGv& v^TG\\ Gv& G\end{array}\right),𝒢^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\varphi }& e^{2\varphi }v^T\\ e^{2\varphi }v& G^1e^{2\varphi }vv^T\end{array}\right),`$ (34)
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& (u+Bv)^T\\ u+Bv& B\end{array}\right).`$ (37)
It is easy to prove that $`_{BS}`$ yields the following coset relations:

$`_{BS}^T_{BS}=,_{BS}^T=M_{BS},`$ (38)
where

$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (41)
so $`_{BS}O(d+1,d+1)/O(d+1)\times O(d+1)`$.

Now let us consider the special case of $`d=2`$, i.e., the (complete) $`5`$–dimensional bosonic string theory. In  it was shown that this theory can be represented by the following chiral matrix of the Kaluza–Klein theory type:

$`M_{BS}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{det}𝒢)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒢& 𝒢h\\ h^T𝒢& \mathrm{det}𝒢+h^T𝒢h\end{array}\right),`$ (44)
where

$`h_m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{mnk}_{nk}.`$ (45)
In terms of this matrix the Lagrangian (7) obtains the form (19) of the Kaluza–Klein theory living in $`6`$ dimensions ($`M_{BS}`$ is the $`4\times 4`$ matrix):

$`L_{BS}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{}{J}_{M_{BS}}^2.`$ (46)
Using this fact it is possible to identify the $`5D`$ bosonic string theory with the $`6D`$ Kaluza–Klein theory, i.e., with the simplified subsystem “I” (and “II”) in the case of $`d=3`$. The identification relations follow from the comparison of Eqs. (24) and (44):

$`𝒢=fF^1,h=H.`$ (47)
In the remaining part of this paper we call the (complete) $`5D`$ bosonic string theory as the “subsytem III”. Thus, the subsystem “III” is dual to the $`6`$–dimensional ones “I” and “II”. Let us note that the signature $`++++`$ of the $`5D`$ space–time of the subsystem “III” corresponds to the one $`++++`$ of the $`6D`$ signature for the subsystems “I” and “II” as it follows from Eqs. (34) and (47).

Now our goal is to establish the type of the equivalence (47) and to express the $`5D`$ field components of the subsystem “III” in terms of the “physical” off–shell fields $`F`$, $`f`$, $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ and the on–shell defined ones which include $`H`$. At the first time let us calculate the scalar field components $`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_{III}}`$, $`e^{2\varphi _{III}}`$, $`G_{III}`$ and $`B_{III}`$. Using Eqs. (2), (34) and (47), one obtains that

$`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_{III}}=fe^{2\varphi _{III}}=F_{11},G_{III}=f(F^1)_{22},`$ (48)
where the matrices $`F`$ and $`F^1`$ are considered as the block parametrised ones with the components “11”, “12”, “21” and “22” of the dimensions $`1\times 1`$, $`1\times 2`$, $`2\times 1`$ and $`2\times 2`$ correspondingly. Then, from Eqs. (37) and (45) it follows that

$`B_{III}=\sigma _2H_1,`$ (49)
where $`\sigma _2`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ antisymmetric matrix with $`(\sigma _2)_{12}=1`$.

To calculate the vector field components let us consider the motion equation corresponding to Eq. (19):

$`\stackrel{}{J}=0.`$ (50)
From this it follows that it is possible to introduce on–shell the vector matrix $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ accordingly

$`\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\stackrel{}{J}.`$ (51)
Let us parametrise the matrix $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ in the same manner as $`M`$; then from Eq. (51) one obtains that $`\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{21}=f^1F^1H`$, so

$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{21}=\stackrel{}{\omega }.`$ (52)
Using the orthogonal coset representation (26)–(29) one can also introduce on–shell the vector matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{BS}`$ as

$`\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{BS}=𝒢^1𝒢^1.`$ (53)
Then, using Eqs. (45) and (47) after some algebra one concludes that

$`\stackrel{}{\omega }_m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{mnk}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{BS})_{nk}.`$ (54)
Finally, using Eqs. (34), (37), (53) and (54) for the vector field $`\stackrel{}{A}_{1BS}`$ one obtains the following result:

$`\stackrel{}{A}_{1BS}=\sigma _2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{}{\omega }_2& \\ \stackrel{}{\omega }_3& \end{array}\right).`$ (57)
Now let us denote

$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{11}\stackrel{}{\omega }^{};`$ (58)
then the matrix $`\stackrel{}{\omega }^{}`$ satisfies the differential equation

$`\times \stackrel{}{\omega }^{}=F^1(F+f^1HH^T).`$ (59)
From this equation and Eq. (2) it follows that

$`\stackrel{}{A}_{2BS}=\stackrel{}{\omega }_{21}^{},`$ (60)
where the matrix $`\stackrel{}{\omega }^{}`$ is parametrised in the same manner as $`F`$. Using Eqs. (2)–(2), (57) and (60) one immediately obtains the algebraical relations for the mixed and the pure $`3`$–dimensional components of the metric and Kalb–Ramond fields; we will not write down them here.

It is easy to see that Eqs. (48), (49), (57), (58)–(60) completely define the duality between the subsystems “I” (or “II”) and “III”. This duality has the on–shell nature because the fields $`B_{III}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{A}_{2BS}`$ are defined in terms of the “Kaluza–Klein” ones using the differential relations. Below we explore the established formulae to construct the duality related solutions for the subsystems “I”–“III”.

## 5 Special solution and its interpretations

Let us consider the matrix $`M`$ of the following special form:

$`M=M_0+\lambda CC^T,`$ (61)
where

$`M_0=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1),`$ (62)
$`\lambda =\lambda (x^\mu )`$ is the coordinate function and $`C`$ is the constant column. Then, the “matter” part (50) of the motion equations as well as their Einstein part

$`R_{3mn}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(\stackrel{}{J}\right)_\mu \left(\stackrel{}{J}\right)_\nu \right].`$ (63)
become satisfied if one supposes that

$`^2\lambda =0,`$ (64)
$`C^TM_0C=0,`$ (65)
and $`h_{mn}`$ corresponds to the flat $`3`$–space. Also from Eq. (65) it follows that $`M=M_0e^{\lambda M_0CC^T}`$, so $`\mathrm{det}M=1`$. Let us note, that the matrix $`M_0`$ describes the trivial field configuration for the $`5D`$ bosonic string theory which represents the empty Minkowskian $`5D`$ space–time with the single time–like coordinate. Thus, one obtains the correct matrix $`M`$ signature at least in some vicinity of the spatial infinity for any asymptotically trivial solution $`\lambda `$ of the Laplace equation (64).

Let us now introduce the functional vector $`\stackrel{}{\nu }`$ on–shell of the solutions of Eq. (64) as

$`\times \stackrel{}{\nu }=\lambda ;`$ (66)
and the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{diag}(1\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1})`$. Let us also parametrise the column $`C`$ as

$`C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_1& \\ c_2& \end{array}\right),`$ (69)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are the $`3\times 1`$ and $`1\times 1`$ block components correspondingly. Then for the matrices $`M`$, $`M^1=M_0\lambda M_0CC^TM_0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\stackrel{}{\nu }CC^TM_0`$ one obtains:

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }+\lambda c_1c_1^T& \lambda c_2c_1\\ \lambda c_2c_1^T& 1+\lambda c_2^2\end{array}\right)M^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }c_1c_1^T\mathrm{\Sigma }& \lambda c_2\mathrm{\Sigma }c_1\\ \lambda c_2c_1^T\mathrm{\Sigma }& 1\lambda c_2^2\end{array}\right),`$ (74)
$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\stackrel{}{\nu }\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_1c_1^T\mathrm{\Sigma }& c_2c_1\\ c_2c_1^T\mathrm{\Sigma }& c_2^2\end{array}\right).`$ (77)
Then, using Eqs. (24) and (74) one calculates the fields

$`f^1`$ $`=`$ $`1\lambda c_2^2,H={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda c_2\mathrm{\Sigma }c_1}{1\lambda c_2^2}},`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }c_1c_1^T\mathrm{\Sigma }}{1\lambda c_2^2}},F^1=\mathrm{\Sigma }+\lambda c_1c_1^T,`$ (78)
and also $`\stackrel{}{\omega }=c_2c_1\stackrel{}{\nu }`$.

Now we are ready to write down the corresponding solutions for the subsystems “I”–“III”. Actually, from Eqs. (3)–(16) it immediately follows that the pure Kaluza–Klein solution “I” reads:

$`ds_I^2=(dy+c_2c_1\stackrel{}{\nu }d\stackrel{}{x})^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }c_1c_1^T\mathrm{\Sigma }}{1\lambda c_2^2}}\right)(dy+c_2c_1\stackrel{}{\nu }d\stackrel{}{x})+(1\lambda c_2^2)h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu .`$ (79)
Then, the solution for the subsystem “II” has the form

$`ds_{II}^2`$ $`=`$ $`dy^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\lambda c_1c_1^T\right)dy+(1\lambda c_2^2)h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$
$`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_{II}}`$ $`=`$ $`1\lambda c_2^2,B_{IIm,d+\mu }=c_2(c_1)_m\nu _\mu .`$ (80)
Finally, for the subsystem “III” the developed “technology” (see Eqs. (48), (49), (57), (58)–(60) gives the following result:

$`ds_{III}^2=(dyc_2\sigma _2c_1^{^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{}{\nu }d\stackrel{}{x})^T\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _3\lambda c_1^{\prime \prime }c_1^{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }^T}}{1\lambda c_2^2}}\right)(dyc_2\sigma _2c_1^{^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{}{\nu }d\stackrel{}{x})+(1\lambda c_1^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$
$`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_{III}}={\displaystyle \frac{1\lambda c_1^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1\lambda c_2^2}},B={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda c_2c_1^{^{}}}{1\lambda c_2^2}}\sigma _2,B_{m,d+\mu }={\displaystyle \frac{c_1^{^{}}(c_1^{^{\prime \prime }})_m\nu _\mu }{1\lambda c_2^2}}.`$ (81)
Here $`\sigma _3=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$, whereas $`c_1^{^{}}`$ and $`c_1^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ are the $`1\times 1`$ and $`2\times 1`$ block components of the $`3\times 1`$ column $`c_1`$:

$`c_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_1^{^{}}& \\ c_1^{^{\prime \prime }}& \end{array}\right).`$ (84)
It is easy to check that $`B_{d+\mu ,d+\nu }=0`$ for the both subsystems “II” and “III” because in these cases the matrix vector functions $`\stackrel{}{A}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{A}_2`$ are the products of the corresponding constant matrices and the single functional vector field $`\stackrel{}{\nu }`$. The solutions (79)–(5) describe the extremal field configurations related to the single real harmonic function. In the Einstein–Maxwell theory solutions of this type form the Majumdar–Papapetrou solution class ; in the superstring theory they contains the BPS–saturated solutions , , . Taking the function $`\lambda `$ as the sum of the Coulumb–like terms, one obtains for all these theories as well as for our subsystems “I”–“III” the field configurations which describe a set of the arbitrary located point–like interacting sources.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by RFBR grant $`\mathrm{N}^0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}00\hspace{0.17em}02\hspace{0.17em}17135}`$. O.V.K. thanks Instituto de Fisica y Matematica for facilities and hospitality during his stay at Morelia, Mexico when this work was partially completed.

## 6 Conclusion

From the formal point of view, the dual theories are equivalent and any result obtained for the one theory can be immediately rewritten as the result for the another theory which belongs to the same “dual multiplet”. In the study of the dual theories it is useful to find the most convenient representation and to use it for the problem solution; the last step is related to the translation of the obtained results into the language of the original physical variables.

In this paper we have studied the “dual triplet” which consists of the $`6`$–dimensional complete Kaluza–Klein theory, $`6`$–dimensional truncated bosonic string theory and $`5`$–dimensional complete bosonic string theory compactified to three dimensions on a torus. In this case the most convenient representation is given by the $`6D`$ Kaluza–Klein theory chiral formalism. We have established the correspondence formulae (the duality) and have constructed the class of the extremal solutions which are related to the single real harmonic function. In fact it is possible to generalize this class to the case of two real harmonic functions; the corresponding solutions will have the Israel–Wilson–Perjes type . Using the presented general formulae one can map the wide classes of known solutions of the $`6`$–dimensional Kaluza–Klein theory into the $`5`$– and $`6`$–dimensional solutions of the bosonic string theory. However, as it follows from our consideration, one must start from the $`6`$–dimensional Kaluza–Klein theory with two time–like coordinates to obtain the correct signature in $`5`$ dimensions. Here we will not discuss this formally evident but physically surprising fact.

Our dual theories (the subsytems “I”–“III”) form the special cases of the low–energy bosonic string theory. This means that the bosonic string theory (in $`7`$ dimensions at least in view of two necessary time–like dimensions for the $`6D`$ subsystems) can be considered as some known “generating” theory for our “dual multiplet”. The similar situation takes place in the superstring theory where it is known the set of five consistent concrete theories  which are related by the web of string dualities. In this case the “generating” theory is named as “M–theory”; now this theory is under construction .


text:
# 1 Solid with a single-file pore in contact with a liquid phase.

Propagation Dynamics of a Particle Phase in a Single-File Pore.

A.M.Lacasta1, J.M.Sancho2, F.Sagues3 and G.Oshanin4
1 Departament de Fisica Aplicada, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain
2 Departament d’Estructura i Constituents de la Matèria, Universitat de Barcelona, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain
3 Departament de Quimica Fisica, Universitat de Barcelona, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain
4 Laboratoire de Physique Théorique des Liquides, Université Paris 6, 75252 Paris, France

Abstract

We study propagation dynamics of a particle phase in a single-file pore connected to a reservoir of particles (bulk liquid phase). We show that the total mass $`M(t)`$ of particles entering the pore up to time $`t`$ grows as $`M(t)=2m(J,\rho _F)\sqrt{D_0t}`$, where $`D_0`$ is the ”bare” diffusion coefficient and the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ is a non-trivial function of the reservoir density $`\rho _F`$ and the amplitude $`J`$ of attractive particle-particle interactions. Behavior of the dynamic density profiles is also discussed.

Introduction

Particles transport across microscopic pores is an important step in a vast variety of biological, chemical engineering and industrial processes, including drug release, catalyst preparation and operation, separation technologies, especially biological and biochemical, tertiary oil recovery, drying and chromatography .

Man-made or naturally occuring porous materials contain a wide range of pore sizes, from meso- to micro- or even nanoscales, in which case the pore diameter is comparable to the molecular size. Such molecular sized channels, of order of a few Angstroms only, appear, for instance, in biological membranes, and are specific to water and ion transport which participate in hydrostatic or osmotic pressure controlled cellular volume regulation . Carbon nanotubes or zeolites, such as, Mordenite, L, AIPO4-5, ZSM-12, may also contain many channels of nearly molecular diameter and can selectively absorb fluids serving as remarkable molecular sieves . For example, AIPO4-5 is composed of nonintersecting and approximately cylindrical pores of nominal diameter $`7.3`$ Angstroms.

A salient feature of transport in molecularly sized pores is that there is a dramatic difference between the diffusion of adsorbates whose size is much smaller than the pore diameter, and those whose size is comparable to it. If the diameter of the diffusing guest molecules exceeds the pore radii, but is still less than its diameter, the particles are able to enter the pore but not able to bypass each other such that initial given order is striktly maintained (see Fig.1). Here, diffusion obeys the so-called ”single-file” behavior; the mean-square displacements of tracer molecules do follow $`\overline{X^2(t)}=2Ft^{1/2}`$ , where $`F`$ is referred to as the ”single-file” mobility; evidently, such a behavior is remarkably different from the conventional diffusive law $`\overline{X^2(t)}=2Dt`$, observed in situations when the guest molecules are able to bypass each other. Single-file diffusion was evidenced by pulsed field gradient NMR measurements with a variety of zeolites and guest species ; in particular, the law $`\overline{X^2(t)}=2Ft^{1/2}`$ has been identified experimentally for C2H6  and CF4  in AIPO4-5.

Diffusion of absorbed particles in single-file pores has also been the issue of a considerable theoretical interest recently. Several approaches have been proposed, based mostly on the lattice-gas-type models, and such properties as concentration profiles or steady-state particle currents have been evaluated . As well, a great deal of Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics simulations has been devoted to the problem , providing a deeper understanding of the transport mechanisms in single-file pores. On the other hand, still little is known about non-stationary behavior in single-file systems; in particular, how fast do the particle phase propagates within the single-file pores or how does the total mass (or number) of particles entering the pore up to time $`t`$ grows with time?

In the present paper we focus on the challenging question of the particle phase propagation dynamics in the single-file pores. We report here some preliminary results; a detailed account will be published elsewhere . More specifically, we consider a single-file pore in contact with a reservoir of particles (bulk liquid phase), which maintains a fixed particle density at the entrance to the pore. The pore is modelled, in a usual fashion, as a one-dimensional regular lattice whose sites support, at most, a single occupancy; the particles interaction potential consists of an abrupt, hard-core repulsive part, which insures single-occupancy, and is attractive, with an amplitude $`J0`$, for the nearest-neighboring particles only. Introducing then a standard, interacting lattice-gas dynamic rules (see e.g. ), we derive evolution equation for the local variables describing mean occupation (density) of the lattice sites, which is analysed both analytically and numerically. Within our appoach, we define the evolution of the total number $`M(t)`$ of particles entering the single-file pore up to time $`t`$ and also discuss the dynamics of the density distribution function within the pore. We show that the growth of $`M(t)`$ is described by $`M(t)=2m(J,\rho _F)\sqrt{D_0t}`$, which can be thought of as the microscopic analog of the Washburn equation, where $`D_0`$ denotes the ”bare” diffusion coefficient, while the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ is a non-trivial function of the attractive interactions amplitude $`J`$ and the density $`\rho _F`$ at the entrance to the pore.

The model

Following earlier works , as well as a conceptually close analysis of an upward creep dynamics of ultrathin liquid films in the capillary rise geometries , which appears to be well-adapted to the single-file dynamics, we model the single-file system under study (Fig.1) as a semi-infinite linear chain of equidistantly placed sites $`X`$ (with spacing $`\sigma `$), attached to a reservoir of particles maintained at a constant chemical potential $`\mu `$ (see Fig.2). Each pair of sites is separated by a potential barrier of height $`E_B`$, which sets the typical time scale $`\tau _B`$. Note that the spacing $`\sigma `$ can be defined, in case of hard solids, as the interwell distance of a periodic potential describing the interactions of the particles with the solid atoms and $`\tau _B`$ is related to $`E_B`$ and the reciprocal temperature $`\beta =1/T`$ through the Arrhenius formula. For soft solids, in which case the dominant dissipation channel is due to mutual particle-particle interactions, $`\sigma `$ can be thought of as the typical distance travelled by particles before successive collisions; here, $`\tau _B`$ is just the ballistic travel time.

Further on, we define the particles interaction potential $`U(X)`$ as:

$$U(X)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,X>\sigma \text{,}\hfill & \\ J,X=\sigma \text{,}\hfill & \\ +\mathrm{},X<\sigma \text{,}\hfill & \end{array}$$

i.e. we suppose that the interaction potential between particle is a hard-core exclusion, which prevents multiple occupancy of any site, and attraction with an amplitude $`J`$, ($`J0`$), between the nearest-neighboring particles only. Occupation of the site $`X`$ at time moment $`t`$ for a given realization of the process will be described then by the Boolean variable $`\eta _t(X)`$, such that

$$\eta _t(X)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\text{the site }X\text{ is occupied, }\hfill & \\ 0,\text{otherwise.}\hfill & \end{array}$$

Consequently, the interaction energy $`U_t(X)`$ of the particle occupying at time $`t`$ the site $`X`$ for a given realization of the dynamical process is

$$U_t(X)=J\left(\eta _t(X+\sigma )+\eta _t(X\sigma )\right).$$
(1)
Lastly, we define the particle dynamics (see  for more details). We suppose that at time moment $`t`$ any particle occupying site $`X`$ waits an exponential time with mean $`\tau _B`$ and then selects a jump direction with the probabilty

$$p(X|X^{})=Z^1\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\beta }{2}\left(U_t(X)U_t(X^{})\right)\right],\underset{X^{}}{}p(X|X^{})=1,$$
(2)
where $`Z`$ is the normalization, $`X^{}(=X\pm \sigma )`$ denotes here the target neighboring site and the sum over $`X^{}`$ means the sum over all nearest neighbors of the site $`X`$. As soon as the target site is chosen, the particle attempts to hop onto it; the hop is instantaneously fulfilled if the target site is empty; otherwise, the particle remains at its position. Physically, it means that repulsive interactions are very short-ranged - much shorter than the lattice spacing, and particles ”learn” about them only when they attempt to land onto some already occupied site. In turn, attractive interactions are felt within the distance equal to the lattice spacing and hence, influence the choice of the jump direction in order to minimize the total energy of the system.

Evolution equations

Now, let $`\rho _t(X)=\overline{\eta _t(X)}`$, where the overbar denotes averaging with respect to different realizations of the process. Assuming local equilibrium, we find then that the time evolution of $`\rho _t(X)`$ is governed by the following balance equation :

$`\tau _B\dot{\rho _t}(X)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\rho _t(X)\right)\left[\rho _t(X\sigma )\overline{p(X\sigma |\sigma )}+\rho _t(X+\sigma )\overline{p(X+\sigma |X)}\right]`$ (3)
$``$ $`\rho _t(X)\left[(1\rho _t(X+\sigma ))\overline{p(X|X+\sigma )}+(1\rho _t(X\sigma ))\overline{p(X|X\sigma )}\right],`$
where the average transition rate $`\overline{p(X|X^{})}`$ obeys Eq.(2) with $`\eta _t(X)`$ replaced by $`\rho _t(X)`$. Equation (3) accounts for the fact that a particle may appear at time moment $`t`$ on an $`empty`$ site $`X`$ by hopping from the $`occupied`$ sites $`X\pm \sigma `$ with corresponding transition probabilities dependent on the interaction energy of the system; and may leave the $`occupied`$ site $`X`$ for $`unoccupied`$ sites $`X\pm \sigma `$.

Next, we turn to the so-called diffusion limit, assuming that $`\tau _B`$ scales as $`\sigma ^2`$; we thus suppose that $`\sigma 0`$, $`\tau _B0`$, but the ratio $`\sigma ^2/\tau _B=const=2D_0`$, where $`D_0`$ is the diffusion coefficient describing motion of an individual, isolated particle. Expanding $`\rho _t(X\pm \sigma )`$ and $`\overline{p(X|X\pm \sigma )}`$ in the Taylor series up to the second order in powers of the lattice spacing $`\sigma `$, we arrive at the desired dynamical equation of the form

$$\dot{\rho }_t(X)=D_0\frac{}{X}\left[\frac{}{X}+\beta \rho _t(X)(1\rho _t(X))\frac{U_t(X)}{X}\right],$$
(4)
where $`U_t(X)`$ is the interaction energy at point $`X`$ defined by Eq.(1).

Now, a few comments on Eq.(4) are in order. Note first that Eq.(4) is a Burgers-type equation with an environment dependent force,

$$\frac{U_t(X)}{X}2J\frac{\rho _t(X)}{X}\sigma ^2J\frac{^2U_t(X)}{X^2}.$$
(5)
When only the first term on the rhs of Eq.(5) is taken into acount, we get from Eq.(4) a one-dimensional diffusion equation

$$\dot{\rho }_t(X)=\frac{}{X}D(\rho _t(X))\frac{}{X}\rho _t(X),$$
(6)
with a field-dependent diffusion coefficient

$$D(\rho _t(X))=D_0\left(12\beta J\rho _t(X)(1\rho _t(X))\right),$$
(7)
which is precisely the equation derived earlier by Lebowitz et al  and describing hydrodynamic limit dynamics of a system of mutual interacting particles undergoing ballistic motion. On the other hand, if we keep the second term on the rhs of Eq.(5), (which is appropriate if we consider some steady-state solutions ), we will obtain the customary equation of the form

$$\dot{\rho }_t(X)=\frac{}{X}M(\rho _t(X))\frac{}{X}\frac{\delta (\rho _t(X))}{\delta \rho _t(X)},$$
(8)
where the mobility $`M(\rho _t(X))`$ is given by

$$M(\rho _t(X))=\rho _t(X)(1\rho _t(X)),$$
(9)
while local free energy $`(\rho )`$ obeys

$$(\rho )=𝑑X\left(f(\rho )+\frac{\sigma ^2\beta J}{2}\left(\frac{\rho }{X}\right)^2\right),$$
(10)
with

$$f(\rho )=\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho +(1\rho )\mathrm{ln}(1\rho )+\beta J\rho (1\rho ).$$
(11)
Curiously enough, $`f(\rho )`$, which has been derived in our work starting from a microscopic dynamical model obeying the detailed balance condition, has exactly the same form as the phenomenological Flory-Huggins-de Gennes local free energy density . Note also that for $`\beta J2`$, the local free energy $`f(\rho )`$ in Eq.(11) has a double-well structure whose minima approach $`0`$ and $`1`$ as $`\beta J`$ increases. This implies that the Onsager mobility in Eq.(9) never reaches negative values, contrary to the behavior predicted by Eq.(6) for which one has $`D(\rho )<0`$ when $`\rho _{c,}<\rho <\rho _{c,+}`$, with

$$\rho _{c,\pm }=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \sqrt{12/\beta J}).$$
(12)
Finally, we define the appropriate boundary conditions. As a matter of fact, any particle, in order to enter to the nanopore from the liquid phase, has to surmount an additional barrier $`E_M`$ related to the enthalpic energy difference between the particle within the pore and in the bulk liquid phase . Supposing that the reservoir (bulk liquid phase) is in equilibrium with the particle phase within the single-file pore, we thus stipulate, following a similar analysis in , that the reservoir maintains a constant density $`\rho _F`$ (see  for relation between $`\rho _F`$ and energetic parameters) at the entrance of the pore (site $`X=0`$ in Fig.2). Second boundary condition is rather evident, we just suppose that $`\rho _t(X)`$ vanishes as $`X\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`t`$. Consequently, Eq.(4) (or Eq.(8)) is to be solved subject to the conditions

$$\rho _t(X=0)=\rho _F,\rho _t(X\mathrm{})=0.$$
(13)
Below we discuss solutions of Eqs.(4) and (8) obeying these two boundary conditions.

Results

We focus here on the time-evolution of the total mass of particles $`M(t)`$, having entered the single-file pore up to time $`t`$, i.e.,

$$M(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑X\rho _t(X)$$
(14)
To define the time-dependence of $`M(t)`$, it is expedient to turn to the scaled variable $`\omega =X/2\sqrt{D_0t}`$. In terms of this variable Eq.(8) attains the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\rho (\omega )}{d\omega ^2}}`$ $`+`$ $`2\omega {\displaystyle \frac{d\rho (\omega )}{d\omega }}2\beta J{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\omega }}\left[\rho (\omega )\left(1\rho (\omega )\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\rho (\omega )}{d\omega }}\right]`$ (15)
$``$ $`\beta J\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{4D_0t}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\omega }}\left[\rho (\omega )\left(1\rho (\omega )\right){\displaystyle \frac{d^3\rho (\omega )}{d\omega ^3}}\right]=0,`$
while the boundary conditions in Eq.(13) become $`\rho (\omega =0)=\rho _F`$ and $`\rho (\omega \mathrm{})=0`$.

Note now that the term in the second line on the rhs of Eq.(15), associated with the second term in the expansion of the interaction energy in the Taylor series, Eq.(5), is irrelevant to the dynamics as $`t\mathrm{}`$, since it is multiplied by a vanishing function of time. Hence, the propagation dynamics can be adequately described by Eq.(6), which is not sufficient, however, for description of the steady-state characteristics, such as, e.g. steady-state particle current through a finite pore .

Now, in terms of the scaled variable $`\omega `$, the total mass of particles $`M(t)`$ reads

$$M(t)=2m(J,\rho _F)\sqrt{D_0t},$$
(16)
where the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ is determined by

$$m(J,\rho _F)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \rho (\omega )$$
(17)
Consequently, Eq.(16), which can be thought of as the microscopic analog of the Washburn equation, signifies that the mass of particles grows in proportion to the square-root of time. Note that similar result has been obtained in  for $`J0`$, in which case $`m(J,\rho _F)=\rho _F/\sqrt{\pi }`$.

Before we discuss behavior of the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)`$, it might be instructive to understand what are the physical processes underlying the $`M(t)\sqrt{t}`$ behavior (see also  for more detailed discussion). To do this, let us first recollect that the boundary condition $`\rho _t(X=0)=\rho _F=const`$ is tantamount to the assumption that the reservoir is in equilibrium with the particle phase in the pore. Turning next to the model depicted in Fig.2, we notice that a jump of the rightmost particle of the particle phase away of the reservoir, leads to creation of a ”vacancy”. When this vacancy manages to reach diffusively, due to redistribution of particles, the entrance of the pore, it perturbs the equilibrium and gets filled by a particle from the reservoir. Hence, the mass of particles within the pore $`M(t)`$ is proportional to the current $`𝒥`$ of vacancies from the front of the propagating phase111Note, however, that there are some subtleties concerning propagation of the rightmost particle of the phase growing in the single-file pore. As a matter of fact, it has been shown in  that in a similar model without attractive interactions (i.e. $`J=0`$) the mean displacement of the rightmost particle follows $`\overline{X}(t)\sqrt{t\mathrm{ln}(t)}`$, i.e. grows at a faster rate than the mass $`M(t)`$. Similar behavior is observed for the front of the pahse, propagating in the single-file pore, also in the interacting case, i.e. for arbitrary $`J`$ ., $`M(t)𝒥`$, where the current $`𝒥1/L`$, $`L`$ being the distance travelled by the rightmost particle away from the entrance of the pore. Consequently, $`M(t)L1/L`$, which yields eventually the $`M(t)\sqrt{t}`$ law. Note also that, from the viewpoint of the underlying physics, the dynamical process under study is intrinsically related to such phenomena as directional solidification, freezing, limited by diffusive motion of the latent heat, or Stefan problem.

To define the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ we have solved Eq.(15) (with the last term set equal to zero) numerically, for various values of the system’s parameters $`\rho _F`$ and $`J`$. These results are summarized in Fig.3 where we depict $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ as a function of $`\rho _F`$ for several different values of $`\beta J`$.

Now, one notices that for any values of $`\rho _F`$ and $`\beta J`$ the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)>0`$, which implies that, as one can expect on intuitive grounds, there is no transition in the one-dimensional system under study and the particle phase propagates into the pore as soon as $`\rho _F>0`$. On the other hand, the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ depends on the system’s parameters in a quite non-trivial fashion. While for relatively small $`\beta J`$ the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ varies with $`\rho _F`$ almost linearly, for large $`\beta J`$ some saturation effect occurs, followed by, for larger $`\beta J`$, a non-monotoneous $`\rho _F`$-dependence, and eventually, after a cusp-like variation, with a rapid growth.

We begin with a small $`\beta J`$ limit, in which case some perturbative analytical calculations are possible. To do this, let us represent $`\rho (\omega )`$ in the form of the series

$$\rho (\omega )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\beta J)^n\rho _n(\omega ),$$
(18)
(which is related to expansion in powers of the reservoir density $`\rho _F<1`$, as we will see in what follows) and try to calculate explicitly several first terms in such an expansion, constraining ourselves to the quadratic in $`\beta J`$ approximation. After some rather cumbersome but straightforward calculations, we find eventually, that in the quadratic with respect to the parameter $`2\beta J`$ approximation, the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ obeys:

$`m(J,\rho _F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _F}{\sqrt{\pi }}}(2\beta J)\left[0.18\rho _F^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.134}\rho _F^3\right]`$ (19)
$``$ $`(2\beta J)^2\left[0.025\rho _F^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.047}\rho _F^4+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.018}\rho _F^5\right]`$
This dependence, as one notices, agrees quite well with the numerical solution for relatively low values of $`\beta J`$ over the entire domain of variation of $`\rho _F`$, or, for larger $`\beta J`$, for progressively smaller values of $`\rho _F`$.

To get some understanding of the intricate, non-trivial behavior of $`m(J,\rho _F)`$, observed for larger values of $`\beta J`$, we analyse dynamical density profiles defined by Eq.(6) versus $`X`$ and $`X/M(t)`$ for $`\beta J=3`$ and different reservoir densities $`\rho _F`$, (see Fig.4). Note now that the form of the density profiles is rather complex and depends largely on whether $`\rho _F`$ is less than or exceeds $`\rho _{c,\pm }`$. When $`\rho _F\rho _{c,}`$, the form of the density profile is well described by $`\rho _t(X)=\rho _F\mathrm{erfc}(\mathrm{X}/\mathrm{M}(\mathrm{t}))`$, where $`\mathrm{erfc}(\mathrm{X}/\mathrm{M}(\mathrm{t}))`$ is the error function. This behavior is essentially the same as the one predicted for non-interacting lattice gas in . On the other hand, when $`\rho _F`$ exceeds $`\rho _{c,}`$, but is less than $`\rho _{c,+}`$ (for $`\beta J=3`$, $`\rho _{c,\pm }`$ are equal to $`0.79`$ and $`0.21`$, respectively) we have two different regimes: the density rapidly, within the small constant distance $`l(\rho _F)`$, drops to the value $`\rho _{c,}`$ and then evolves as $`\rho _t(X)=\rho _{c,}\mathrm{erfc}(\mathrm{X}/\mathrm{M}(\mathrm{t}))`$, where $`\rho _{c,}`$ is independent of $`\rho _F`$. Since, the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ is just an integral of $`\rho _t(X)`$, we have, hence, two contributions: the first is the integral over the interval $`[0,l(\rho _F)]`$, which is weakly dependent on $`\rho _F`$ and the second one - the integral over $`[l(\rho _F),\mathrm{}[`$, which is independent of $`\rho _F`$ and gives the bulk contribution to $`m(J,\rho _F)`$. These two contributions define the plateau-like part in the dependence of $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ on $`\rho _F`$. On the other hand, when $`\rho _F`$ exceeds $`\rho _{c,+}`$ and hence $`D(\rho )`$ is positive definite, a dense droplet-like structure emerges near the entrance of the pore, which grows in size in proportion to $`\sqrt{t}`$ and contains most of the particles. This phenomenon explains apparently the growth of $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ with $`\rho _F`$ observed for $`\rho _F\rho _{c,+}`$.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we have studied propagation dynamics of a particle phase emerging in a single-file pore connected to a reservoir of particles (bulk liquid phase). Modelling the pore as a semi-infinite one-dimensional regular lattice, whose sites support, at most, a single occupancy, and supposing that the particles interaction potential consists of an abrupt, hard-core repulsive part, and is attractive, with an amplitude $`J0`$, for the nearest-neighboring particles, we derived the dynamical equation describing the time-evolution for the local particle density. This equation has been analysed both analytically and numerically. Within our appoach, we defined the evolution of the total number $`M(t)`$ of particles entering the single-file pore up to time $`t`$ and also discussed the dynamics of the density distribution function within the pore. We have shown that the growth of $`M(t)`$ is described by $`M(t)=2m(J,\rho _F)\sqrt{D_0t}`$, which can be thought of as the microscopic analog of the Washburn equation, where $`D_0`$ denotes the ”bare” diffusion coefficient, while the prefactor $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ is a non-trivial function of the attractive interactions amplitude $`J`$ and the density $`\rho _F`$ at the entrance to the pore. We have discussed a peculiar behavior of $`m(J,\rho _F)`$ and explained it through the analysis of the dynamical density distribution within the pore.


text:
# The Hamilton-Jacobi treatment for an abelian Chern-Simons system11footnote 1e-mail: 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑖₋𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑖ℎ@hotmail.com

## 1 Introduction

Dirac method treatment  for the abelian Chern-Simons field interacting a scalar field in $`2+1`$ dimensions has been widely discussed by many authors \[3-10\] in connection with particles obeying fractional statistics or ”anyons”.

The presence of constraints in such theories require care when applying Dirac’s method, especially when first class constraints arise, since the first class constraints are generators of gauge transformations which lead to the gauge freedom and one should impose external gauge fixing condition for each first class constraint. Such gauge fixing is not always an easy task, for example some authors  propose to use the coloumb gauge $`(\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}=0)`$ in order to obtain the equations of motion and the correct reduced phase space Hamiltonian for Chern-Simons system. Other authors  propose a wrong gauge fixing $`(A_0=0)`$ to obtain the correct reduced phase space coordinates.

In this paper we would like to use the canonical method \[11-14\] to obtain the equations of motion and the correct reduced phase space Hamiltonian for an abelian Chern-Simons field system interacting with scalar field in $`2+1`$ dimensions. The equations of motion are obtained as total differential equations in many variables. If the system is integrable, then one can construct a valid and a canonical phase space coordinates without using any gauge fixing conditions.

## 2 The Hamilton-Jacobi method of constrained systems

In this section, we briefly review the Hamilton-Jacob method \[11-14\] for studying the constrained systems.

This formulation leads us to obtain the set of Hamilton-Jacobi partial differential equations \[HJPDE\] as follows:

$`H_\alpha ^{^{}}(t_\beta ,q_a,{\displaystyle \frac{S}{q_a}},{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t_a}})=0,`$
$`\alpha ,\beta =0,nr+1,\mathrm{},n,a=1,\mathrm{},nr,`$ (1)
where

$$H_\alpha ^{^{}}=H_\alpha (t_\beta ,q_a,p_a)+p_\alpha ,$$
(2)
and $`H_0`$ is defined as

$`H_0=p_aw_a+p_\mu \dot{q_\mu }|_{p_\nu =H_\nu }L(t,q_i,\dot{q_\nu },\dot{q_a}=w_a),`$
$`\mu ,\nu =nr+1,\mathrm{},n.`$ (3)
The equations of motion are obtained as total differential equations in many variables as follows:

$`dq_a={\displaystyle \frac{H_\alpha ^{^{}}}{p_a}}dt_\alpha ,dp_a={\displaystyle \frac{H_\alpha ^{^{}}}{q_a}}dt_\alpha ,dp_\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{H_\alpha ^{^{}}}{t_\beta }}dt_\alpha .`$ (4)
$`dz=(H_\alpha +p_a{\displaystyle \frac{H_\alpha ^{^{}}}{p_a}})dt_\alpha ;`$ (5)
$`\alpha ,\beta =0,nr+1,\mathrm{},n,a=1,\mathrm{},nr`$
where $`z=S(t_\alpha ;q_a)`$. The set of equations (4,5) is integrable  if

$`dH_0^{^{}}=0,`$ (6)
$`dH_\mu ^{^{}}=0,\mu =np+1,\mathrm{},n.`$ (7)
If condition (6,7) are not satisfied identically, one considers them as new constraints and again testes the consistency conditions. Hence, the canonical formulation leads to obtain the set of canonical phase space coordinates $`q_a`$ and $`p_a`$ as functions of $`t_\alpha `$, besides the canonical action integral is obtained in terms of the canonical coordinates.The Hamiltonians $`H_\alpha ^{^{}}`$ are considered as the infinitesimal generators of canonical transformations given by parameters $`t_\alpha `$ respectively.

## 3  An abelian Chern-Simons as a constrained system

We consider an abelian Chern-Simons system as an example of the applications of Hamilton-Jacobi procedure to treat constrained systems. The Lagrangian density for Chern-Simons field interacting a scalar field in $`2+1`$ dimensions is given by

$$=(D_\mu \varphi )^{}(D^\mu \varphi )m^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +\frac{\kappa }{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \sigma }A^\mu ^\nu A^\sigma ,$$
(8)
where

$$D_\mu =_\mu ieA_\mu .$$
(9)
The canonical momenta are defined as

$`\pi _\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{A^\mu }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa ϵ_{0\mu \rho }A^\rho ,`$ (10)
$`p_\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\varphi }}}=(D_0\varphi )^{}=\dot{\varphi ^{}}+ieA_0\varphi ^{},`$ (11)
$`p_\varphi ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\varphi ^{}}}}=(D_0\varphi )=\dot{\varphi }ieA_0\varphi .`$ (12)
The non vanishing Poisson brackets are

$`\{\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t),p_\varphi (\stackrel{}{y},t)\}=\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}),`$ (13)
$`\{\varphi ^{}(\stackrel{}{x},t),p_\varphi ^{}(\stackrel{}{y},t)\}=\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}),`$ (14)
$`\{A^\mu (\stackrel{}{x},t),\pi _\nu (\stackrel{}{y},t)\}=\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}).`$ (15)
Upon quantization, these brackets have to be converted into proper commutators.

The canonical momenta $`\pi _\mu `$ conjugated to $`A_\mu `$ lead us to the primary constraints

$`H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}=\pi _0=0,`$ (16)
$`H_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}=\pi _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa A^2=0,`$ (17)
$`H_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}=\pi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa A^1=0.`$ (18)
The canonical Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ can be written as

$`H_0=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2x[p_\varphi ^{}p_\varphi +A_0(\kappa \stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}j_0)+\stackrel{}{}\varphi ^{}\stackrel{}{}\varphi `$ (20)
$`ie\stackrel{}{A}(\varphi ^{}^{}\varphi )+e^2|\stackrel{}{A}|^2|\varphi |^2+m^2|\varphi |^2],`$
where

$$\stackrel{}{A}=(A^1,A^2),\stackrel{}{}=(_1,_2),\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}=(_1A^2_2A^1),$$
(21)
and

$$j^0=ie(p_\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}p_\varphi \varphi )=ie(\varphi ^{}D_0\varphi (D_0\varphi )^{}\varphi ).$$
(22)
Now the canonical method leads us to obtain the set of Hamilton-Jacobi partial differential equations as:

$`H_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}=\pi _4+H_0=0;\pi _4={\displaystyle \frac{S}{x_0}},`$ (23)
$`H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}=\pi _0=0,\pi _0={\displaystyle \frac{S}{A^0}},`$ (24)
$`H_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}=\pi _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa A^2=0,\pi _1={\displaystyle \frac{S}{A^1}},`$ (25)
$`H_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}=\pi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa A^1=0,\pi _2={\displaystyle \frac{S}{A^2}}.`$ (26)
The equations of motion are obtained as total differential equations in many variables as follows:

$`d\varphi `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{p_\varphi }}dx^0+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}}{p_\varphi }}dA^0+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}}{p_\varphi }}dA^1+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}}{p_\varphi }}dA^2,`$ (27)
$`=(p_\varphi ^{}+ieA_0\varphi )dx^0,`$
$`d\varphi ^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{p_\varphi ^{}}}dx^0+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}}{p_\varphi ^{}}}dA^0+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}}{p_\varphi ^{}}}dA^1+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}}{p_\varphi ^{}}}dA^2,`$ (28)
$`=(p_\varphi ieA_0\varphi ^{})dx^0,`$
$`dp_\varphi `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{\varphi }}dx^0{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}}{\varphi }}dA^0{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}}{\varphi }}dA^1{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}}{\varphi }}dA^2,`$ (29)
$`=((\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{D}\varphi )^{}m^2\varphi ^{}ieA_0p_\varphi )dx^0,`$
$`dp_\varphi ^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{\varphi ^{}}}dx^0{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}}{\varphi ^{}}}dA^0{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}}{\varphi ^{}}}dA^1{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}}{\varphi ^{}}}dA^2,`$ (30)
$`=((\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{D}\varphi )m^2\varphi +ieA_0p_\varphi ^{})dx^0,`$
$`d\pi _0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{A^0}}dx^0{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}}{A^0}}dA^0{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}}{A^0}}dA^1{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}}{A^0}}dA^2,`$ (31)
$`=(\kappa \stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}j_0)dx^0,`$
$`d\pi _1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{A^1}}dx^0{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}}{A^1}}dA^0{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}}{A^1}}dA^1{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}}{A^1}}dA^2,`$ (32)
$`=(\kappa _2A^0+j_1)dx^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa dA^2,`$
$`d\pi _2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{A^2}}dx^0{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}}{A^2}}dA^0{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}}{A^2}}dA^1{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}}{A^2}}dA^2,`$ (33)
$`=(\kappa _1A^0+j_2)dx^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa dA^1,`$
where

$$j_i=ie(\varphi ^{}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi 2e^2A^i|\varphi |^2=ie(\varphi ^{}D_i\varphi (D_i\varphi )^{}\varphi ),$$
(34)
are the space components of the current $`j_\mu =ie(\varphi ^{}D_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi `$ and we use the notation $`\varphi ^{}D_\mu =(D_\mu \varphi )^{}`$.

To check whether the set of equations (27-33) is integrable or not, we have to consider the total variations of the constraints. In fact

$`dH_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}=(\kappa _2A^0+j_1)dx^0\kappa dA^2=0,`$ (35)
$`dH_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}=(\kappa _1A^0+j_2)dx^0+\kappa dA^1=0.`$ (36)
The constraints (25,26), lead us to obtain $`dA^1`$ and $`dA^2`$ in terms of $`dt`$

$`dA^1=(_1A^0{\displaystyle \frac{j_2}{\kappa }})dx^0,`$ (37)
$`dA^2=(_2A^0+{\displaystyle \frac{j_1}{\kappa }})dx^0.`$ (38)
The vanishing of the total differential of $`H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ leads to a new constraint

$$H_{}^{}{}_{4}{}^{}=(\kappa \stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}j_0).$$
(39)
Taking the total differential of $`H_{}^{}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ leads to the conservation of current

$$_\mu j^\mu =0.$$
(40)
The set of equations (27-33) is integrable. Hence, the canonical phase space coordinates $`(\varphi ,p_\varphi )`$ and $`(\varphi ^{},p_\varphi ^{})`$ are obtained in terms of parameters $`(t,A^0)`$. Besides, the reduced phase-space Hamiltonian can be calculated as

$$H_0=d^2x[p_\varphi ^{}p_\varphi +\stackrel{}{D}\varphi ^{}\stackrel{}{D}\varphi +m^2|\varphi |^2],$$
(41)
where

$$\stackrel{}{D}=\stackrel{}{}+ie\stackrel{}{A},$$
(42)
## 4  Conclusion

The basic idea of Dirac’s method to investigate an abelian Chern-Simons system is to consider the total Hamiltonian composed by adding the constraints multiplied by Lagrange multipliers to the canonical Hamiltonian. In order to derive the equations of motion, one needs to redefine these unknown multipliers in an arbitrary way \[8-10\]. However, in the Hamilton-Jacobi method \[11-14\], there is no need to introduce Lagrange multipliers to the canonical Hamiltoian.

In this paper we have obtained the canonical phase space coordinates and the reduced canonical Hamiltonian for an abelian Chern-Simons system with out using any gauge fixing condition.