text:
# Untitled Document

THE MAXIMAL INVARIANCE GROUP OF NEWTON’S

EQUATIONS FOR A FREE POINT PARTICLE

O. Jahn and V. V. Sreedhar

School of Theoretical Physics

Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

10, Burlington Road

Dublin 4, Ireland

Abstract

The maximal invariance group of Newton’s equations for a free nonrelativistic point particle is shown to be larger than the Galilei group. It is a semi-direct product of the static (nine-parameter) Galilei group and an $`SL(2,R)`$ group containing time-translations, dilations and a one-parameter group of time-dependent scalings called expansions. This group was first discovered by Niederer in the context of the free Schrödinger equation. We also provide a road map from the free nonrelativistic point particle to the equations of fluid mechanics to which the symmetry carries over. The hitherto unnoticed $`SL(2,R)`$ part of the symmetry group for fluid mechanics gives a theoretical explanation for an observed similarity between numerical simulations of supernova explosions and numerical simulations of experiments involving laser-induced implosions in inertial confinement plasmas. We also give examples of interacting many body systems of point particles which have this symmetry group.

$`^{\mathrm{}}`$Dedicated to the memory of Prof. L. O’Raifeartaigh DIAS-STP-01-02

Almost all introductory books on the special theory of relativity mention, at least in passing, that Newton’s equations of motion for a classical free nonrelativistic point particle are invariant under Galilei transformations. Probably not many eyebrows would be raised if we jumped from this fact to the conclusion that the Galilei transformations are the most general coordinate changes under which Newton’s equations retain their form. It would therefore come as a considerable surprise to learn that there are other transformations which do the same. A simple example of such transformations may be given by noting that a freely moving point particle, with initial position $`𝐱_0`$ and velocity $`𝐯_0`$, traverses a straight line $`𝐱(t)=𝐱_0+𝐯_0t`$. This equation may be rewritten as $`𝐱/t=𝐯_0+𝐱_0/t`$. In this representation $`t`$ is replaced by $`1/t`$, lengths are scaled by a factor proportional to time, and the initial position and velocity are interchanged; but the important point is that the trajectory remains a straight line. Hence, the new variables $`𝐱/t,1/t`$ satisfy the same equations as the old ones $`𝐱,t`$ . Therefore the following question naturally arises: What is the maximal invariance group of Newton’s equations of motion for a classical free nonrelativistic point particle? The answer to this question reveals that the maximal invariance group is a twelve-parameter group consisting of the usual ten-parameter Galilei group, the one-parameter group of dilations, and a one-parameter group of time-dependent scalings called expansions which are nonrelativistic analogues of special conformal transformations. The existence of these transformations is not merely of academic interest. As explained in , such transformations provide a theoretical explanation for the plausibility of simulating astrophysical systems like supernova explosions by performing laser-induced plasma implosions.

In order to find the maximal invariance group of an equation, one has to find the set of all spacetime transformations which leave it form-invariant up to a factor . This condition is equivalent to the requirement that the Action be invariant. The Action $`S`$ for a free point particle of mass $`m`$, in $`d`$ space dimensions, at position $`x_i(t)`$ is given by

$$S=\frac{m}{2}𝑑t\left(\frac{dx_i}{dt}\right)^2$$
$`(1)`$
where $`i=1\mathrm{}d`$ and the sum over the index $`i`$ has been suppressed. Let us now consider a transformation to new coordinates $`\xi ,\tau `$

$$\xi _i=f_i(x,t),\tau =h(x,t)$$
$`(2)`$
We wish to find the most general functions $`f_i,h`$ which leave the Action (1) form-invariant:

$$𝑑t\left(\frac{dx_i}{dt}\right)^2=𝑑\tau \left(\frac{d\xi _i}{d\tau }\right)^2$$
$`(3)`$
This is achieved by requiring

$$\frac{\left(\frac{f_i}{x_j}\frac{dx_j}{dt}+\frac{f_i}{t}\right)^2}{\left(\frac{h}{x_k}\frac{dx_k}{dt}+\frac{h}{t}\right)}=\left(\frac{dx_i}{dt}\right)^2+\frac{d}{dt}F(x,t)$$
$`(4)`$
for arbitrary functions $`x_i(t)`$ where $`F(x,t)`$ is an arbitrary boundary term and

$$\frac{d}{dt}F(x,t)=\left(\frac{F}{x_i}\frac{dx_i}{dt}+\frac{F}{t}\right)$$
$`(5)`$
Comparing powers of $`dx_i/dt`$ on both sides of (4), we get

$$\frac{h}{x_i}=0\tau =h(t)$$
$`(6)`$
$$\left(\frac{f_i}{\delta x_j}\right)\left(\frac{f_i}{\delta x_k}\right)=\frac{h}{t}\delta _{jk}$$
$`(7)`$
$$2\frac{f_i}{x_j}\frac{f_i}{t}=\frac{F}{x_j}\frac{h}{t}$$
$`(8)`$
$$\left(\frac{f_i}{t}\right)^2=\frac{F}{t}\frac{h}{t}$$
$`(9)`$
From (6) and (7) it follows that

$$T_{ljk}+T_{lkj}=0\text{where}T_{ljk}=\frac{^2f_i}{x_lx_j}\frac{f_i}{x_k}$$
$`(10)`$
Subtracting $`T_{kjl}+T_{klj}`$ from the first equation in (10) and using the symmetry of $`T_{ljk}`$ under a permutation of the first two indices, it may be shown that $`T_{ljk}`$ is a totally symmetric tensor. Therefore $`T_{ijk}=0`$, which implies that $`f_i`$ is linear in $`x`$,

$$f_i(x,t)=l(t)R_{ij}(t)x_j+m_i(t)$$
$`(11)`$
It follows from (7) that $`R`$ can be chosen to be orthogonal, $`R^T(t)R(t)=1`$. Further, differentiating (8) with respect to $`x_k`$ and using the explicit expression for $`f`$ from (11) we get

$$(l\dot{l})\delta _{kj}+l^2(R^T\dot{R})_{kj}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{F}{x_kx_j}\dot{h}$$
$`(12)`$
where the dot refers to a derivative with respect to $`t`$. Since the right hand side and the first term on the left hand side are symmetric in $`k`$ and $`j`$, whereas the second term on the left hand side is antisymmetric, by virtue of being in the Lie algebra of the rotation group; we have $`\dot{R}=0`$ and thus, $`R`$ is a constant (rigid) rotation matrix. It then follows from (7) that

$$\dot{h}=l^2$$
$`(13)`$
Eliminating $`F`$ from (8) and (9) we get

$$\frac{^2f_i}{t^2}\frac{h}{t}=\frac{f_i}{t}\frac{^2h}{t^2}$$
$`(14)`$
Substituting (11) into this equation and comparing powers of $`x`$ we find

$$l\ddot{l}=2(\dot{l})^2$$
$`(15)`$
$$l\ddot{m}_i=2(\dot{m}_i\dot{l})$$
$`(16)`$
Using (13), equation (15) can be rewritten in terms of $`h(t)`$ and takes the form

$$\frac{\stackrel{\text{}}{}}{\dot{h}}\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{\ddot{h}}{\dot{h}}\right)^2=0$$
$`(17)`$
The left hand side of the above equation is called the Schwarzian derivative of $`h`$ and a standard result of complex analysis – although only the real part is relevant here – is that the solution of the above differential equation is

$$h(t)=\frac{\alpha t+\beta }{\gamma t+\delta }\text{where}\alpha \delta \beta \gamma =1$$
$`(18)`$
where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$ are real. These transformations go by various names: fractional linear, projective, and global conformal. They form the group $`SL(2,R)`$. Substituting the above result in (13), and solving (16) for $`m_i(t)`$ we get

$$l(t)=\frac{1}{\gamma t+\delta },m_i(t)=\frac{b_i}{\gamma t+\delta }+d_i$$
$`(19)`$
where $`b_i`$ and $`d_i`$ are integration constants. From (11) and (18) we then have, for the most general transformations that leave Newton’s equations invariant,

$$\xi _i=\frac{R_{ij}x_j+a_i+v_it}{\gamma t+\delta },\tau =\frac{\alpha t+\beta }{\gamma t+\delta }\text{where}\alpha \delta \beta \gamma =1,R^TR=1$$
$`(20)`$
where $`a_i`$ and $`v_i`$ are constants expressible in terms of $`b_i`$ and $`d_i`$. It is useful to consider the following two special cases:

I. $`\beta =\gamma =0,\alpha =\delta =1`$: Connected, Static Galilei Group $`G`$: In this case, we have

$$g:\tau =t,\xi =R𝐱+𝐚+𝐯t$$
$`(21)`$
These equations describe connected, static Galilei transformations which exclude parity and time-reversal. It is clear from (21) that this is a nine-parameter group. II. $`𝐚=𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎},R=1:SL(2,R)`$ Transformations: In this case, we have

$$\sigma :\tau =\frac{\alpha t+\beta }{\gamma t+\delta },\xi =\frac{𝐱}{\gamma t+\delta };\alpha \delta \beta \gamma =1$$
$`(22)`$
These are the $`SL(2,R)`$ generalisations of the inversion transformations presented in  and include time translations ($`\gamma =0,\alpha =\delta =1`$), dilations ($`\beta =\gamma =0`$) and a one-parameter group of time-dependent scalings called expansions ($`\alpha =\delta =1,\beta =0`$). Since the parameters are constrained by the condition $`\alpha \delta \beta \gamma =1`$, $`SL(2,R)`$ is a three-parameter group.

To understand the structure of the group, we study the relationship between the $`SL(2,R)`$ group and the connected static Galilei group $`G`$. Let us first consider a conjugation of a $`gG`$ by a $`\sigma SL(2,R)`$. By making three successive transformations of $`x`$ and $`t`$ we find that

$$\sigma ^1(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )g(R,𝐚,𝐯)\sigma (\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )=g(R,𝐚_\sigma ,𝐯_\sigma )$$
$`(23)`$
where

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐯_\sigma \\ 𝐚_\sigma \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \gamma \\ \beta & \delta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐯\\ 𝐚\end{array}\right)$$
$`(24)`$
which shows that $`G`$ is an invariant subgroup. This result can be used to determine the product of two general elements $`\sigma g`$ and $`\sigma ^{}g^{}`$ of the full group,

$$\sigma g\sigma ^{}g^{}=\sigma \sigma ^{}\stackrel{~}{g}g^{},\text{where}\stackrel{~}{g}=\sigma ^1g\sigma ^{}G$$
$`(25)`$
This shows that the full group is not a direct, but only a semi-direct product

$$𝒢=SL(2,R)G$$
$`(26)`$
As is apparent from (25), the two factors in the semi-direct product are on a different footing: while $`G`$ is an invariant subgroup, $`SL(2,R)`$ is not. Furthermore, recall that $`G`$ itself takes the form

$$G=R(TB)$$
$`(27)`$
where $`R`$ is the rotation group and $`T`$ and $`B`$ are translation and boost groups with parameters $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐯`$ respectively. Since $`SL(2,R)`$ commutes with $`R`$, $`𝒢`$ can be expressed as a single semi-direct product

$$𝒢=\left(SL(2,R)R\right)(TB)$$
$`(28)`$
Further it may be noted that the inversion $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ considered in  is the special element of $`SL(2,R)`$ for which $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )=(0,1,1,0)`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=P`$ where $`P`$ is the parity transformation. This observation can be used to give a novel interpretation to a Galilei transformation. To see this we consider the coset elements $`g_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(R,𝐚,𝐯)\mathrm{\Sigma }g(R,𝐚,𝐯)`$, where $`gG`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(R^{},𝐚^{},𝐯^{})g_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(R,𝐚,𝐯)& =g_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{P}(R^{}R,R^{}𝐚𝐯^{},R^{}𝐯+𝐚^{})\hfill \\ \hfill g_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2(R,𝐚,𝐯)& =g_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{P}(R^2,R𝐚𝐯,R𝐯+𝐚)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(29)`$
where we have used the obvious notation $`g_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{P}(R,𝐚,𝐯)=Pg(R,𝐚,𝐯)`$. Since every pair of vectors can be expressed as $`R𝐚𝐯`$ and $`R𝐯+𝐚`$ for suitable a and v, this shows that every parity reflected static Galilei transformation is the square of a coset transformation $`g_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Therefore every connected static Galilei transformation is the fourth power of a coset transformation.

As is well-known, according to Noether’s theorem, there exists a conserved quantity corresponding to every continuous symmetry. The conserved quantities for the usual Galilean transformations are standard and will not be repeated here. The conserved quantities for the $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry can be derived as follows: The invariance of the Action implies

$$\delta L(x,\dot{x},t)=\frac{d}{dt}$$
$`(30)`$
For time-independent Lagrangians $`L(x_i,\dot{x}_i)`$, we have

$$\delta L=\frac{L}{x_i}\delta x_i+\frac{L}{\dot{x}_i}\delta \dot{x}_i=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{L}{\dot{x}_i}\delta x_i\right)$$
$`(31)`$
where the Euler-Lagrange equations have been used in the second equality. Combining the two expressions for $`\delta L`$, we get a conservation law

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{L}{\dot{x}_i}\delta x_i\right)=0$$
$`(32)`$
The $`SL(2,R)`$ transformations are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t& \tau =\frac{\alpha t+\beta }{\gamma t+\delta }\hfill \\ \hfill x(t)& \xi (\tau )=\frac{x(t)}{\gamma t+\delta }=(\alpha \gamma \tau )x\left(\frac{\delta \tau \beta }{\gamma \tau +\alpha }\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(33)`$
For infinitesimal transformations, $`\alpha =1+\epsilon `$ and $`\delta =1\epsilon `$ (to ensure $`\alpha \delta \beta \gamma =1`$) with infinitesimal $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\epsilon `$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta t& =\beta +2\epsilon t\gamma t^2\hfill \\ \hfill \delta x(t)& =(\epsilon \gamma t)x(t)(\beta +2\epsilon t\gamma t^2)\dot{x}(t)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(34)`$
The change of $`L=(m/2)\dot{x}^2`$ is given by

$$\delta L=m\dot{x}\delta \dot{x}=m\dot{x}\left(\gamma x(\epsilon \gamma t)\dot{x}(\beta +2\epsilon t\gamma t^2)\ddot{x}\right)$$
$`(35)`$
It is easily seen to be the total time derivative of

$$=(\beta +2\epsilon t\gamma t^2)\frac{m\dot{x}^2}{2}\gamma \frac{mx^2}{2}$$
$`(36)`$
Therefore, we obtain the conserved quantity

$$X=m\dot{x}\delta x=(\beta +2\epsilon t\gamma t^2)\frac{m\dot{x}^2}{2}+(\epsilon \gamma t)mx\dot{x}+\gamma \frac{mx^2}{2}$$
$`(37)`$
Extracting the coefficients of $`\beta ,\epsilon `$ and $`\gamma `$ we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X& =\beta H+\epsilon D+\gamma A\hfill \\ \hfill H& =\frac{p^2}{2m}\hfill \\ \hfill D& =p\left(x\frac{tp}{m}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill A& =\frac{(tpmx)^2}{2m}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(38)`$
where $`p=m\dot{x}`$ and $`H,D,A`$ are the conserved quantities related to time translations, dilatations, and expansions respectively. The following interesting observation about the conserved quantities can now be made: The Noether’s theorem can also be used to show that the conserved quantities corresponding to the usual translation and boost symmetries are $`p_i=m\dot{x}_i`$ and $`K_i=tp_imx_i`$ respectively; hence it follows that $`A=K^2/2m`$ is related to $`K`$ in the same way as the Hamiltonian is related to the momenta. Mathematically, $`H`$, $`A`$ and $`D=pK/m`$ form the adjoint representation of the $`SL(2,R)`$, while $`p`$ and $`K`$ transform as a doublet, and rotations are invariant. This concludes the discussion of the symmetries of the classical non-relativistic point particle.

We shall now consider the quantum mechanical generalisation of the above results. For this it is convenient to think of the wavefunction of the particle as a non-relativistic field. For the usual ten-parameter Galilei group $`G`$, it is well-known that, in the field theoretic realisation, there is a one-parameter mass group $`M`$ that commutes with $`G`$. This is called the central extension and has the effect of modifying the Lie algebra of $`G`$ in a non-trivial manner, while at the same time preserving the Jacobi identity. It turns out that a similar feature holds for the twelve-parameter group $`𝒢`$.

In the field representation the conserved quantities of $`𝒢`$ are

$$𝐏=i,𝐉=i𝐱\times 𝐊=itm𝐱$$
$`(39a)`$
$$D=i(2t\frac{}{t}+𝐱+\frac{3}{2}),A=i(t^2\frac{}{t}\frac{m}{2}𝐱^2+t𝐱+\frac{3}{2}t),H=i\frac{}{t}$$
$`(39b)`$
where the factors of $`3/2`$ appear because we have Weyl ordered products of position and momentum in the quantum theory and set $`\mathrm{}=1`$. $`𝐏,𝐉,𝐊`$ generate translations, rotations and boosts respectively, which constitute the connected static Galilei group (21). $`H`$, $`D`$, and $`A`$ produce time translations, dilations, and expansions which together constitute the $`SL(2,R)`$ group. The central extension of the standard Lie algebra of the former

$$[J_i,J_k]=iϵ_{ikl}J_l,[J_i,P_k]=iϵ_{ikl}P_l,[P_i,P_k]=0$$

$$[K_i,K_k]=0,[J_i,K_k]=iϵ_{ikr}K_r,[K_i,P_k]=(im\delta _{ik})$$

$$[P_i,H]=0[K_i,H]=iP_i,[J_i,H]=0$$

is augmented by the additional relations involving the $`SL(2,R)`$ generators

$$[D,J_i]=0,[D,K_i]=iK_i,[D,P_i]=iP_i$$

$$[A,J_i]=0,[A,K_i]=0,[A,P_i]=iK_i$$

$$[D,H]=2iH,[A,H]=iD,[D,A]=2iA$$

to give the Lie algebra of the full group $`𝒢`$. The bracketed term in the $`[K_i,P_j]`$ commutator is the non-trivial modification that the central extension brings about in the Lie algebra with $`m`$ – to be physically identified with the mass of the particle – standing for the value that the generator of $`M`$ takes in the given representation.

Since the existence of the central extension implies that

$$[K_i,P_j]=(im\delta _{ij})$$
$`(40)`$
the groups of translations $`T(𝐚)=e^{i𝐚𝐏}`$ and boosts $`B(𝐯)=e^{i𝐯𝐊}`$ no longer form a direct product, but a Heisenberg-Weyl group defined by the relation

$$T(𝐚)B(𝐯)=B(𝐯)T(𝐚)e^{im𝐚𝐯}$$
$`(41)`$
The action (24) of $`SL(2,R)`$ on $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐯`$ induces the transformations

$$\sigma ^1\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐊\\ 𝐏\end{array}\right)\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐊\\ 𝐏\end{array}\right)$$
$`(42)`$
of the generators $`𝐊`$ and $`𝐏`$. The commutator (40) does not change under these transformations because of the condition $`\alpha \delta \beta \gamma =1`$. Thus the central extension is compatible with $`SL(2,R)`$ and the full invariance group of the quantised system is the central extension of $`𝒢`$.

Indeed it was in the quantum theory that the group $`𝒢`$ was first discovered by Niederer who showed that it is the maximal kinematical invariance group of the free particle Schrödinger equation . Since the invariance under the Galilei group is well-known, it suffices to verify that the Schrödinger equation

$$i\frac{\psi }{t}+\frac{1}{2m}\frac{^2\psi }{x_i^2}=0$$
$`(43)`$
remains form-invariant under $`SL(2,R)`$. It is easily checked that this is accomplished by the following transformation of the wavefunction that is generated by $`A,H,\text{and}D`$ of the $`SL(2,R)`$ group.

$$\psi (𝐱,t)(\gamma \tau \alpha )^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{i\frac{F}{2}}\psi (\xi ,\tau )$$
$`(44)`$
where $`F`$ is determined through (8) and (9).

As promised, we now sketch a road map to an astrophysical application of the results of this paper. As is explained in detail in , recent experimental programmes try to simulate astrophysical systems like supernova explosions in the laboratory by creating implosions in inertial confinement plasmas. This research is inspired by a remarkable similarity which was observed in the results of numerical models of 1987A supernova observations and results of numerical simulations of experiments involving plasma implosions. Referring the reader to  for further details of this research programme, we note that this is a puzzling observation because the former system involves very large length and time scales whereas the latter involves very small scales. A theoretical explanation of this intriguing similarity was given in  and can be traced to the symmetry properties of the fluid dynamic equations  that describe both stellar structure and the plasma state. As conjectured in , this symmetry has its origin in the symmetries of the free point particle. In particular the symmetry responsible for mapping supernova explosions to plasma implosions is the fluid mechanical analogue of the expansion transformations discussed in this paper. To make this connection more precise, we note that the analysis of the single free point particle can be carried over to the non-interacting many particle case in a straightforward manner. Indeed, using the expression for the Hamiltonian of an ensemble of free point particles labelled by $`I`$, and the expression for the momenta $`𝐩_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I}`$,

$$H=\underset{I}{}\frac{𝐩_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I}^2}{2m}\text{and}𝐩_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I}=m\dot{𝐱}_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I}$$
$`(45)`$
it is easy to see that the corresponding Liouville equation stating the invariance of the density of particles $`\rho `$ along the flow

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=\frac{\rho }{t}+\{\rho ,H\}=0$$
$`(46)`$
also has a maximal invariance group given by (26). As is well-known, the Liouville equation can be converted into the Boltzmann equation by expressing all the momenta in terms of the velocities. Therefore, the symmetry group carries over to the collisionless Boltzmann equation. Further, in the continuum limit, one can use the standard procedure of deriving the various fluid dynamic equations as moments of the Boltzmann equation. The simplest example is the set of Euler equations

$$D\rho =\rho 𝐮$$
$`(47a)`$
$$\rho D𝐮=p$$
$`(47b)`$
$$Dϵ=(ϵ+p)𝐮$$
$`(47c)`$
where $`\rho `$, u, $`p`$ and $`ϵ`$ stand for the density, the velocity vector field, the pressure, and the energy density of the fluid respectively. The convective derivative $`D`$ in the above equations is defined by $`D=\frac{}{t}+𝐮`$. The above differential equations of fluid flow are usually augmented by an algebraic condition called the polytropic equation of state which relates the pressure to the energy density thus:

$$p=(\gamma _o1)ϵ$$
$`(47d)`$
where $`\gamma _o`$ is a constant called the polytropic exponent. For the ensemble of free non-relativistic point particles being considered here, $`\gamma _0`$ takes the value 5/3. The maximal symmetry group $`𝒢`$ therefore extends to the fluid dynamic equations which explains the observed similarity between supernova explosions and plasma implosions.

Although we have considered free particles so far, it is interesting to note that the symmetry group discussed in this paper extends to an interesting class of interacting many-body problems namely, those for which the potential is an inverse square of the coordinate differences. In one dimension these include the so-called Calogero-Moser models  with Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(\underset{I=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I}^2+g^2\underset{IJ}{}\frac{1}{(x_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I}x_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{J})^2}\right)$$
$`(48)`$
These models are integrable and admit exclusion statistics – an exciting area of current research . In two dimensions it may be shown that models with Hamiltonians of the form

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(\underset{I=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(𝐩_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I}e𝐀(𝐱_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I})\right)^2\right),\text{where}A_k(𝐱_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I})\underset{JI}{}\frac{ϵ_{kl}(𝐱_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I}𝐱_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{J})_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{l}}{x_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{I}x_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{J}^2}$$
$`(49)`$
which describe a gas of anyons – particles having arbitrary spin and statistics – have potentials which admit the symmetry group $`𝒢`$. As is well-known, anyons are of interest because they appear as excitations in fractional quantum Hall systems .

To conclude, we have investigated the maximal kinematical invariance group of a free nonrelativistic point particle and have found that it is bigger than the Galilei group. It is a semi-direct product of the form $`SL(2,R)G`$ where $`G`$ is the static Galilei group. As shown in this paper, this group is in fact the maximal invariance group of a host of interesting systems in which the physics content is captured by the quintessential free nonrelativistic point particle. However there exists a class of interacting many particle systems – of which the well-known Calogero-Moser models and the anyon model are of particular interest – for which this is also true.

References

1. L. O’C Drury and J. T. Mendonça, “Explosion implosion duality and the laboratory simulation of astrophysical systems,” Physics of Plasmas, 7 No.12 (2000) 5148-5142.

2. Supernova Hydrodynamics Up Close: Science and Technology Review, Jan’/Feb’ 2000; http://www.llnl.gov/str; I. Hachisu et al., “Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities and mixing in the helium star models for Type Ib/Ic supernovae,” Astrophysical Journal 368 (1991) L27–30; H. Sakagami and K. Nishihara, “Rayleigh-Taylor instability on the pusher-fuel contact surface of stagnating targets,” Physics of Fluids B 2 (1990) 2715–2730.

3. P. J. Olver, Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations; Springer-Verlag (1986).

4. U. Niederer, “The maximal kinematical invariance group of the free Schrödinger equation,” Helvetica Physica Acta, 45 (1972) 802–810.

5. L. O’Raifeartaigh and V. V. Sreedhar, “The maximal kinematical invariance group of fluid dynamics and explosion-implosion duality,” hep-th/0007199.

6. M. Hassaine and P. A. Horvathy, “Field-dependent symmetries of a non-relativistic fluid model,” math-ph/9904022, “Symmetries of fluid dynamics with polytropic exponent,” Phys. Lett. A279 (2001) 215-222; S. Deser, R. Jackiw and A. P. Polychronakos, “Clebsch (string) parameterization of 3-vectors and their actions,” physics/0006056; R. Jackiw, V. P. Nair and So-Young Pi, “Chern-Simons reduction and non-Abelian fluid mechanics,” Physical Review D 62 (2000) 085018, hep-th/0004084; R. Jackiw, “A particle field theorist’s lectures on supersymmetric, non-Abelian fluid mechanics and D-branes,” physics/0010042.

7. K. Huang, Statistical Mechanics; John Wiley and Sons (1967).

8. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, Pergamon Press (1959).

9. F. Calogero, “Exactly solvable one-dimensional many body problems,” Lett. Nuov. Cim. 13 (1975) 411; J. Moser, “Three integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with isospectral deformations,” Adv. Math. 16 (1975) 197–220.

10. A. Polychronakos, “Generalized statistics in one dimension,” hep-th/9902157; Lectures at the Les Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics, Session 69: Topological Aspects of Low-dimensional Systems.

11. F. Wilczek, Fractional Statistics and Anyon Superconductivity; World Scientific (1990).


format: text

text:
# Devil’s Staircase in Magnetoresistance of a Periodic Array of Scatterers

\[

## Abstract

The nonlinear response to an external electric field is studied for classical non-interacting charged particles under the influence of a uniform magnetic field, a periodic potential, and an effective friction force. We find numerical and analytical evidence that the ratio of transversal to longitudinal resistance forms a Devil’s staircase. The staircase is attributed to the dynamical phenomenon of mode-locking.

\]

The electron transport in two-dimensional periodic arrays of scatterers has been actively studied for the last decade. One of the most interesting feature is the plateau-like behaviour in Hall resistance as well as peaks in magnetoresistance at low magnetic fields below the quantum Hall regime. The peak structure in magnetoresistance has been attributed to the electron cyclotron orbits which enclose an integer number of scatterers . The cyclotron motion is important when the electron mean free path $`l`$ ($`l`$ is measured in the absence of periodic scatterers) is greater than the period $`a`$ of the regular scatterers.

In this Letter, we present a theory for electron transport in the deeply diffusive regime $`la`$ where cyclotron motion is not relevant. We predict a new and interesting effect where the structure in the magnetoresistance is associated with fractional numbers. We will show that the relative ratio between the transversal and longitudinal magnetoresistance forms a Devil’s staircase. These fractal staircases originate from a dynamical phenomenon known as mode-locking which appears naturally in the context of circle maps . Our prediction is based on the finding that the dynamics in a two-dimensional periodic array of scatterers with intrinsic momentum relaxation effectively reduces to a circle map.

Let us consider first a particle of mass $`m`$, charge $`q`$ in crossed electric ($`𝑬=E\widehat{𝒙}`$) and magnetic fields ($`𝑩=B\widehat{𝒛}`$) with intrinsic momentum relaxation. The resulting drift motion $`𝒙(t)=(x(t),y(t))`$ can be described by adding a frictional force, proportional to the drift velocity $`𝒗`$, to the equations of motion yielding

$`\dot{x}=v_x`$ , $`m\dot{v}_x=qBv_y+qEmv_x/\tau `$ (1)
$`\dot{y}=v_y`$ , $`m\dot{v}_y=qBv_xmv_y/\tau `$ (2)
with $`\tau `$ being the momentum relaxation time. Cyclotron motion only exists for a transient time; each trajectory finally converges to a straight line $`𝒙(t\mathrm{})=𝒙(0)+𝒗t`$, with the time-averaged velocity $`𝒗=(m/\tau ,qB)qE/(q^2B^2+m^2/\tau ^2)`$. With the charge density $`n`$ and the current density $`𝑱=qn𝒗`$, it is easy to calculate the resistivities defined by $`𝑬=\widehat{\rho }𝑱`$ and Onsager’s relations $`\rho _{xx}=\rho _{yy}`$ and $`\rho _{yx}=\rho _{xy}`$: the diagonal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}=m/q^2n\tau `$ is constant, whereas the off-diagonal resistivity $`\rho _{xy}=B/qn`$ depends linearly on the magnetic field – no plateaus are present.

We now add a periodic potential $`V=V_0F(𝒙)`$ with $`|F|`$ of order one to the equations of motion (1), assuming that the periodicity of the potential, $`a`$, is much larger than the length scale related to the intrinsic momentum relaxation. When we scale the coordinates $`𝒙`$ with $`a`$ and the time $`t`$ with $`\tau `$, we get the same equations of motion for a given set of three dimensionless parameters: $`\stackrel{~}{B}=q\tau B/m`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}=q\tau ^2E/(ma)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0=V_0/(qEa)`$. We use the rescaled magnetic field $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ as a variable parameter and fix the rescaled electric field and potential strength to $`\stackrel{~}{E}=15.3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0=0.12`$ if not otherwise stated. Though we could choose various sets of parameters ($`\tau ,a,E`$, etc.) for the chosen values of $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$, for definiteness we will take $`\tau =7.610^{14}s`$, $`E=2.310^4V/cm`$, and $`a=0.5\mu m`$, and fix these for the rest of the paper. The particle is an electron in GaAs sample with $`q=e`$ and $`m=0.067m_e`$. By taking a typical value of Fermi velocity $`v_f3\times 10^7cm/s`$, the mean free path of our system is $`l=v_f\tau 0.02\mu ma`$.

First, we show how the particle’s motion is related to a one-dimensional circle map through analytical considerations for sufficiently small potential strength. Note that our numerics do not rely on this requirement. Due to the periodicity of the potential it is sufficient to consider the unit cell of the potential with periodic boundary conditions, i.e. we can compactify the $`(x,y)`$-plane to a two-dimensional torus. A typical asymptotic solution for zero potential strength as discussed above appears here as a quasiperiodic trajectory filling densely a two-dimensional invariant torus $`𝒗=\text{constant}`$ in four-dimensional phase space. Trajectories starting away from the torus are attracted towards it and asymptotically converge onto it. For finite potential strength the torus is smoothly deformed or collapsed into lower-dimensional objects or broadened to a higher-dimensional object (loosely speaking, a torus with finite but very small thickness). The latter possibility can be ignored to a very good approximation as we will see later. A point on the torus (and on the lower-dimensional objects) is uniquely labelled by unit-cell coordinates $`(x_1\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},x_2\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ defined by $`𝒙=x_1𝒂_1+x_2𝒂_2`$, with $`𝒂_1=(a_{11},a_{12})`$, $`𝒂_2=(a_{21},a_{22})`$ being the lattice vectors of the unit cell. The long-time behavior is therefore completely described by two-dimensional dynamics $`[x_1(t),x_2(t)]`$. As usual, such dynamics can be conveniently investigated by introducing Poincaré surfaces of section defined by $`x_1(t_n)\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}=0`$, where $`n`$ is an integer and modulo 1 restricts the variable to the interval $`[0,1)`$.

The discrete evolution of $`x_{2,n}x_2(t_n)`$ is then governed by a one-dimensional map $`x_{2,n+1}=f(x_{2,n})`$ where $`f`$ is a smooth and monotonic function. Due to the periodicity of the potential the condition $`f(x_2)\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}=f(x_2\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ holds. Such a map is called an invertible circle map. Its rotation number,

$$\rho \underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{x_{2,n}x_{2,0}}{n},$$
(3)
is well-defined and independent of the initial condition $`x_{2,0}`$ . A rational value of $`\rho =p/q`$ ($`p`$ and $`q`$ are integers without common divisor) indicates periodic motion, whereas an irrational value indicates quasiperiodic motion; chaotic motion is not possible.

We now derive a simplified circle map valid in the limit $`\stackrel{~}{V}_01`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0=0`$ then the asymptotic dynamics obeys $`\dot{v}_x=\dot{v}_y=0`$, leading to $`f(x_2)=x_2+\rho _0`$ with the constant $`\rho _0(\stackrel{~}{B})`$; here we have simply $`\rho =\rho _0`$, so $`\rho _0`$ can be regarded as the unperturbed rotation number. The asymptotic dynamics for nonzero but sufficiently small $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$ is overdamped, i.e. $`|\dot{v}_x||v_x|/\tau `$ and $`|\dot{v}_y||v_y|/\tau `$. As in the potential-free case the number of differential equations reduces to two, enabling us to determine $`f`$ up to first order in $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$

$$f(x_{2,n};\rho _0,\stackrel{~}{E},\stackrel{~}{V}_0)x_{2,n}+\rho _0+\stackrel{~}{V}_0g(x_{2,n};\rho _0)$$
(4)
with

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0^2(a_{22}^2+a_{21}^2)+2\rho _0(a_{11}a_{21}+a_{12}a_{22})+a_{12}^2+a_{11}^2}{(a_{11}a_{22}a_{21}a_{12})^2}}\times `$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}\left(a_{21}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{x_1}}a_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{x_2}}\right)|_{x_2=\rho _0x_1+x_{2,n}}dx_1.`$
$`g`$ is a nontrivial periodic function of $`x_{2,n}`$. Note that $`f`$ is independent of the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ in the present approximation. Using Stoke’s theorem it can be shown that $`_0^1g𝑑x_2=0`$. For circle maps of the form given in Eq. (4) with the above-mentioned properties of $`g`$ it is proven that for each $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$ there exists a Devil’s staircase, a monotonically increasing function $`\rho =\rho (\rho _0)`$ with plateaus around each rational value of $`\rho _0`$. The width of the plateaus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _0`$, is proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$ . Similarly, the widths of the plateaus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{B}`$, of the function $`\rho =\rho (\stackrel{~}{B})`$, are proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$ since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{B}(d\stackrel{~}{B}/d\rho _0)\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _0`$.

The rotation number $`\rho `$ is directly related to the continuous-time dynamics. This can be seen by rewriting Eq. (3) with $`𝒗=v_1𝒂_1+v_2𝒂_2`$ as

$$\rho =\frac{v_2}{v_1}=\frac{a_{12}+a_{11}v_y/v_x}{a_{22}a_{21}v_y/v_x}=\frac{a_{12}+a_{11}\sigma _{xy}/\sigma _{xx}}{a_{22}a_{21}\sigma _{xy}/\sigma _{xx}}.$$
(7)
Hence, $`\rho `$ is given by the ratio of the conductivities. In the case that the periodic potential is invariant under $`\pi /m`$-rotations, $`m=2,3,\mathrm{}`$, Onsager’s relations show that $`\rho `$ can also be expressed by the ratio $`\rho _{xy}/\rho _{xx}`$.

We now present numerical evidence showing that for finite $`\stackrel{~}{V}_00.4`$ the continuous-time dynamics is indeed given by a one-dimensional circle map and that the magnetoresistance shows a fractal structure. As an example of the periodic scatterers, we take a potential with hexagonal symmetry shown in Fig. 1a,

$`V(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`V_0\{\left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}(\sqrt{3}xy)\right)\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}y\right)\right]^\beta `$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}(\sqrt{3}x+y)\right)\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}(\sqrt{3}xy)\right)\right]^\beta `$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}y\right)\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}(\sqrt{3}x+y)\right)\right]^\beta \},`$ (10)
with $`\beta =8`$. The lattice vectors are $`𝒂_1=(\sqrt{3},0)`$ and $`𝒂_2=(\sqrt{3}/2,3/2)`$. We have used the Runge-Kutta method  with $`10^6`$ time steps of variable size to integrate the equations of motion. We found that all initial conditions, for fixed parameters, lead to the same mean velocity $`𝒗`$. So only one single orbit is needed to calculate the current density and the resistivities without employing the Kubo formula . This already indicates the collapse to an invertible circle map. To show the reduction to the map explicitly, we calculate a sequence of points $`(x_{2,n}\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},x_{2,n+1}\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ by solving the complete set of differential equations for different initial velocities from one Poincaré section to the next. Figures 2a and b show that these points indeed lie very close to a line, so $`x_{2,n+1}`$ is to excellent approximation a function of $`x_{2,n}`$ independent of the initial velocity. We have computed $`(x_{2,n+1}x_{2,n}\rho _0)/\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$ for different parameters $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$. It can be seen from Fig. 2c that this quantity is roughly independent of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$, even though small deviations indicate weak nonlinear behavior in $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$. Figure 2d shows that $`(x_{2,n+1}x_{2,n}\rho _0)/\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$ does not change when $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is varied over two orders of magnitude. Figures 2a-d therefore confirm the reduction to the circle map and its parameter dependence as predicted in Eq. (4).

Figure 3 is our main result. It shows the Devil’s staircase $`\rho `$ vs. $`\rho _0`$. Both quantities are computed from the resistivities via the relations $`\rho =2/(1+\sqrt{3}\rho _{xx}/\rho _{xy})`$ and $`\rho _0=2/(1\sqrt{3}/\stackrel{~}{B})`$ from Eq. (7) with the lattice vectors of the rotational symmetric potential (8). Note the exactness of the plateaus. Let us discuss some features of the Devil’s staircase in relation to the continuous and discrete-time dynamics. Figures 1b and c show two orbits moving in slightly different magnetic fields. Both have synchronized velocities $`v_1=v_2`$, i.e. $`\rho =1`$. Each orbit with $`\rho =1`$ is a stable fixed point $`x_2^{}=f(x_2^{})`$ in the corresponding map (red circles in Figs. 2a and b; blue circles mark unstable fixed points). This synchronization phenomenon, usually called mode-locking in nonlinear dynamics, is therefore due to the robustness of fixed points under variation of a parameter, here $`\rho _0(B)`$. Orbits with $`\rho 1`$ are in a different mode; in particular, orbits with irrational rotation number are not periodic. In Fig. 1d we see an orbit with irrational $`\rho `$ close to one. It stays for a long time near a periodic orbit with $`\rho =1`$ but from time to time it escapes, thereby filling the entire unit cell densely. This phenomenon is called intermittency . In terms of the circle map, the transition from $`\rho =1`$ to irrational $`\rho `$ is a saddlenode bifurcation: as $`B`$ is varied, stable and unstable fixed points come closer and closer as illustrated in Figs. 2a and b, and finally destroy each other, yielding quasiperiodic motion. Varying $`B`$ further can lead again to periodic motion. Figures 1e and f give two examples with $`\rho =1/2`$ and $`\rho =2/3`$. The corresponding map has a stable fixed point of higher period, e.g. for $`\rho =1/2`$ the fixed point condition is $`x_2^{}=f[f(x_2^{})]`$.

We also observe a Devil’s staircase-like function $`\rho _{xy}(B)`$ in Fig. 4, which reminds one of the quantum Hall effects , but here the ‘plateaus’ are not perfectly flat. One may note also that the way $`\rho _{xx}`$ varies for a number of $`\rho _{xy}`$-‘plateaus’ has similarities to the quantum Hall effects: going from the centre of a $`\rho _{xy}`$-‘plateau’ towards its border, $`\rho _{xx}`$ increases and reaches its maximum exactly when the ‘plateau’ ends. This can be explained qualitatively. First, note that an orbit from the centre of the $`\rho =1`$-plateau (Fig. 1b) avoids the potential’s steep maxima at the corners of the unit cell. Hence, the diagonal resistivity roughly equals the potential-free value $`\rho _{xx}=m/q^2n\tau 3.12k\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We infer from Figs. 1b and c that the closer $`B`$ is to the border of the plateau the closer is the orbit to the potential’s maxima. This effectively slows down the orbit, which explains the increase of $`\rho _{xx}`$ (and $`\rho _{xy}`$). Leaving the plateau finally reduces the resistivities because the intermittency effect becomes less pronounced with increasing $`|\rho 1|`$; see Fig. 1d.

The example in Fig. 5 confirms that the widths of the plateaus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$, is roughly proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$ as predicted from the analysis of the simplified circle map in Eq. (4). By noting that $`\stackrel{~}{V_0}`$ denotes the dimensionless potential strength we see an interesting analogy with the quantum Hall effect where the size of plateaus is sensitive to the disorder strength of the systems . Here we have the advantage of the use of the simplified circle map to analyse the plateau size, although the overall structure of the hierarchy of the plateaus is also too complicated to be dealt with in an analytic fashion.

Since the particle can be trapped in the very flat local minima of the potential (8), a finite dc electric field is necessary to overcome the potential trap as in the experiment in Ref.. The threshold value $`E_T`$ of the electric field for the finite electrical current might be crudely estimated by $`E_TV_0/(qa)`$, which is in agreement with our calculations (not shown). However, in reality the threshold electric field will be much smaller in the presence of the degenerate electron gas because the weak local trap potential will be screened. While we have chosen in our numerical calculation a large electric field ($`2.310^4`$V/cm) and a low mobility of the sample ($`\mu =e\tau /m20000cm^2/Vs`$), the Devil’s staircase may be observed in a broad range of parameters. We also note that the specific form of the potential (8) is not relevant. However, the steepness of the potential influences the shape of the plateaus. Large steepness (large $`\beta `$) results in wide and curved plateaus. It should be mentioned also that the Devil’s staircase will not be seen in the conventional Hall bar where the electrical current is fixed along the bar and the induced Hall voltage is measured. To measure the electrical current in two-dimensional samples for fixed applied voltages, one needs to use metallic leads which span the entire length of two opposite edges of the sample .

In summary, we have calculated the magnetoresistance of a lateral surface superlattice with strong momentum relaxation where the cyclotron motion is not involved. Our calculations show a fractal plateau structure in the magnetoresistance which stems from purely classical nonlinear dynamics. We have explained our calculational results in terms of the theory of circle maps where the Devil’s staircase is already well understood.

We acknowledge helpful discussions with P. Fulde, K. v. Klitzing, R. Gerhardts, K. Richter and R. Klages.


text:
# References

BRX-TH 487

Gauge Invariances and Phases of Massive Higher Spins in (A)dS

S. Deser and A. Waldron

Physics Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454, USA
deser,wally@brandeis.edu

Abstract

> The $`(m^2,\Lambda )`$ plane of spin $`s>1`$ massive fields in (A)dS backgrounds is shown to consist of separate phases, divided by lines of novel “partially massless” gauge theories that successively remove helicities, starting from the lowest, 0 or $`\pm 1/2`$. The norms of the excluded states flip as the gauge lines are crossed and only the region containing the massive Minkowski theory is unitary. The partially massless gauge theories are unitary or not, depending on the ordering of the gauge lines. This “level splitting” of massless Minkowski gauge theories is specific to non-zero $`\Lambda `$.

Gauge invariance, masslessness, null propagation and helicity $`\pm s`$ excitations are all synonymous in flat space, a degeneracy that is lifted in (A)dS. We show that, for massive spin $`s>1`$ theories, new gauge invariances allow “partially massless” propagation. Specifically, there are intermediate theories with $`2,4,\mathrm{},2s,2s+1`$ propagating degrees of freedom (PDoF) for bosons or $`2,4,\mathrm{},2s`$ PDoF for fermions111The term helicity is used in a correspondence sense with Minkowski space. Also, a new feature for $`s5/2`$ is that auxiliary fields are necessary: in the massless limit they propagate but decouple. In passing, we note that null propagation is generically also lost in (A)dS .

The physics of massive higher spin fields in (A)dS is best displayed in the $`(m^2,\Lambda )`$-plane where, phases describing $`2s+1`$ massive PDoF are separated by lines where gauge invariances remove subsets of lowest helicity modes. Further, the norms of the excised helicities flip sign as these gauge lines are crossed. As a consequence: (i) Only the phase occupied by the flat massive theory is unitary, since the set of excitations flipping sign is distinct on each line. (ii) Unitarity of the partially massless theories requires that their gauge invariances remove any negative norm states. This occurs only when, starting from the unitary Minkowski region, the line removing the lowest helicity state(s) can be traversed first. Subsequent lines must also be be traversed in order, ending on the strictly massless helicity $`\pm s`$ line.

To see how massive constraints are transmuted to Bianchi identities along lines in the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane, consider first the $`s=1`$ (A)dS Proca equation $`𝒢_\mu (D^2m^2\Lambda )\varphi _\mu D_\mu D.\varphi =0`$ whose divergence $`D.𝒢=m^2D.\varphi `$ implies $`3=2s+1`$ PDoF. Along the line $`m^2=0`$, the constraint becomes a Bianchi identity reflecting the gauge invariance $`\delta \varphi _\mu =D_\mu \xi `$ and the system describes helicities $`\pm 1`$ only. For $`s>1`$, however, two new things happen: (i) The field equations have $`[s]`$ open indices, so each of $`[s]`$ successive divergences yield constraints implying $`2s+1`$ PDoF. (ii) The monomial $`m^2`$ in the Proca constraint is generalized to non-trivial functions of $`(m,\Lambda )`$ whose vanishing yields new Bianchi identities, an effect that clearly degenerates at $`\Lambda =0`$.

Each Bianchi identity implies gauge invariances which remove corresponding lower helicities from the spectrum. In addition, the coefficients of the divergence constraints flip sign across the gauge boundaries and appear as denominators in canonical (anti)commutators. Hence, whenever gauge invariance removes a particular helicity, its norm has opposite signs in the adjacent massive phases and the $`(m^2,\Lambda )`$-plane is partitioned into unitarily allowed and forbidden regions222 The constant curvature background does not suffer the usual gravitational coupling problems in the unitarily allowed regions, although the old causality difficulties of $`s=3/2`$ in E/M backgrounds  resurface for the forbidden regions..

In this Letter, we explicitly treat spins $`s=3/2`$, $`2`$, $`5/2`$ and $`3`$. It is known that, beyond its vector gauge invariance at $`m^2=0`$, spin 2 is partially massless along the line $`m^2=2\Lambda /3`$ thanks to a Weyl-like scalar gauge invariance and accompanying double divergence Bianchi identity . The dS region $`m^2<2\Lambda /3`$ is unitarily forbidden . We extend this result to spin 3/2 and then show that spins 5/2 and 3 possess new partially massless gauge lines. Finally we present a PDoF counting argument indicating that partial masslessness is enjoyed by all spins $`s>3/2`$ in (A)dS.

The massive spin 3/2 field equation is333All our field equations are derived from hermitean actions.

$$_\mu \gamma _{\mu \nu \rho }𝒟^\nu \psi ^\rho =0,$$
(1)
$$𝒟_\mu D_\mu +\frac{1}{2}m\gamma _\mu ,[D_\mu ,D_\nu ]\psi _\rho =\frac{2\Lambda }{3}g_{\rho [\mu }\psi _{\nu ]}+\frac{\Lambda }{6}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\psi _\rho .$$
(2)
To test for Bianchi identities, compute the “curly” divergence of (2)

$$𝒟.=\frac{3}{2}(m^2+\Lambda /3)\gamma .\psi ;$$
(3)
this is obviously a constraint whose coefficient vanishes along the gauge boundary $`m^2=\Lambda /3`$ familiar from cosmological SUGRA . Along this line the theory is gauge invariant under variations $`\delta \psi _\mu =𝒟_\mu \epsilon `$ and describes only helicities $`\pm 3/2`$ in AdS ($`\Lambda <0`$).

The appearance of a ghost across this line can be detected by examining the 0-components of the equal time anticommutator444This method was originally used to exhibit the inconsistency of spin 3/2 E/M couplings .

$`\{\psi _0(t,\stackrel{}{x}),\psi _0^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x}^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}^2(Mt)(^{(3)}D^2\Lambda /4)}{3(m^2+\Lambda /3)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}),`$
in the synchronous metric $`ds^2=dt^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2(Mt)(dr^2`$ $`+\mathrm{sin}^2(Mr)(d\theta ^2`$ $`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2))`$, $`M^2\Lambda /3`$, that describes dS, and also AdS when continued to imaginary $`M`$. Unitarity requires positivity of the operator on the r.h.s. of (LABEL:ac). For AdS (ignoring spatial boundary terms) the intrinsic 3-Laplacian $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}D_{}^{2}`$ and $`\Lambda /4`$ are separately positive. In dS, the lowest eigenvalue of $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}D_{}^{2}`$ acting on spinors is $`\Lambda /4`$ (the spatial slices are an $`S^3`$ there) so $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}D_{}^{2}\Lambda /40`$. Therefore, the coefficient $`m^2+\Lambda /3`$ in the would-be Bianchi identity (3) controls the sign of the anticommutator (LABEL:ac) and only the region $`m^2\Lambda /3`$ is unitary555As a consequence the $`m0`$ limit can be taken only in dS, contrary to . As discussed in , the true massless limit is the AdS one, $`m\sqrt{\Lambda /3}`$. This tuning of $`(m,\Lambda )`$ also implies that unitary SUSY representations exist only in AdS . Unitary non-supersymmetric models in dS are, of course, not ruled out.; the phase diagram is

(5)
We emphasize that poles in canonical (anti)commutators at gauge values of $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are a general feature of massive higher spins.

Spin 2 has two gauge lines, with phase diagram

(6)
Linearized cosmological Einstein gravity remains at $`m^2=0`$, so the $`(m^2,\Lambda )`$ half-plane is divided into two distinct regions, just as for spin 3/2. The new partially massless gauge line at $`m^2=2\Lambda /3`$ is the Weyl-like theory of . A detailed canonical analysis proves that it describes 4 unitary PDoF  corresponding to the upper helicities $`(\pm 2,\pm 1)`$, whose propagation is null . The dS region $`m^2<2\Lambda /3`$ is unitarily forbidden  by an analysis completely equivalent to that of spin 3/2 above.

The spin 5/2 field equations are 666See  for Minkowski higher spin massive field equations. They can also be derived by Kaluza–Klein reduction  from their simpler $`d=5`$ massless antecedents  and the constraints then follow from the $`d=5`$ Bianchi identities .

$`_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathit{}\psi _{\mu \nu }+g_{\mu \nu }(\gamma .D.\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathit{}\psi _\rho {}_{}{}^{\rho })`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\gamma _{(\mu }(D_{\nu )}\psi _\rho {}_{}{}^{\rho }+2\mathit{}\gamma .\psi _{\nu )}2D.\psi _{\nu )})2D_{(\mu }\gamma .\psi _{\nu )}`$
$`+`$ $`m(\psi _{\mu \nu }2\gamma _{(\mu }\gamma .\psi _{\nu )}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\psi _\rho {}_{}{}^{\rho }){\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\mu g_{\mu \nu }\chi ,`$
$`_5`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (\mathit{}3m)\chi {\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\mu \psi _\rho {}_{}{}^{\rho }.`$ (8)
where the spinor $`\chi `$ (with its equation of motion $`_5`$) exemplifies the auxiliary fields needed for $`s5/2`$ to impose $`2s+1`$ massive PDoF. Its coupling $`\mu `$ is uniquely fixed, $`\mu ^2=\frac{12\alpha }{5}(m^2+4\Lambda /3)`$, and it decouples on the strictly massless line $`m^2=4\Lambda /3`$. The parameter $`\alpha `$ is free, modulo requiring reality of $`\mu `$ (and of the action). It can be set to $`1`$ when $`m^2>4\Lambda /3`$ and $`1`$ for $`m^2<4\Lambda /3`$. This discontinuity is a precursor of the non-unitary behavior we find for the massive and partially massless theories in the latter region.

Remarkably, the field equations enjoy two distinct gauge invariances777A tilded index denotes its gamma-traceless part, $`X_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}X_\mu (1/4)\gamma _\mu \gamma .X`$. We denote the symmetric-traceless part of a pair indices by $`X_{\{\mu \nu \}}X_{(\mu \nu )}(1/4)g_{\mu \nu }X_\rho ^\rho `$; we symmetrize with unit weight.,

$`\delta \psi _{\mu \nu }=D_{(\mu }D_{\stackrel{~}{\nu })}\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{5\Lambda }{16}}g_{\mu \nu }\epsilon ,`$ $`\delta \chi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\alpha }}\sqrt{15\alpha \Lambda }(\mathit{}+\sqrt{3\Lambda })\epsilon `$ (9)
$`\delta \psi _{\mu \nu }=D_{(\mu }\epsilon _{\stackrel{~}{\nu })}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\Lambda }{3}}}\gamma _{(\mu }\epsilon _{\stackrel{~}{\nu })},`$ $`\delta \chi =0,`$ (10)
along the respective AdS gauge lines

$$m^2+\Lambda /3=0,m^2+4\Lambda /3=0.$$
(11)
The vector-spinor invariance yields the strictly massless theory, with helicities $`\pm 5/2`$, whereas the novel spinor invariance (9) removes helicities $`\pm 1/2`$ leaving $`(\pm 5/2,\pm 3/2)`$. Each invariance is accompanied by a Bianchi identity, which turns into a constraint ensuring $`6=2s+1`$ massive PDoF when $`(m^2,\Lambda )`$ are detuned from their gauge values (11).

The coefficients $`(m^2+4\Lambda /3)`$ and $`(m^2+\Lambda /3)`$ control the positivity of equal time anticommutators. Therefore, since the gauge lines all lie in AdS, the $`(m^2,\Lambda )`$-plane is divided into 3 regions, only the one including Minkowski space $`m^2>4\Lambda /3`$ being unitary:

(12)
Although the strictly massless AdS $`m^2=4\Lambda /3`$ theory is unitary, the partially massless one is not, as it fails the line ordering requirement: Starting from the unitary Minkowski region where all norms are positive, one would like first to traverse the line $`m^2=\Lambda /3`$, but that is only possible in dS with negative $`m^2`$ (imaginary values of $`m`$ violate hermiticity of the action and unitary evolution). Crossing the AdS strictly massless line $`m^2=4\Lambda /3`$ first flips the norm of helicities $`(\pm 3/2,\pm 1/2)`$ so the partially massless AdS theory cannot be unitary.

Spin 3 enjoys new unitary partially massless gauge lines:

(13)
The field equations are

$`𝒢_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`(D^2m^2+\Lambda /3)\varphi _{\mu \nu \rho }3D_{(\mu }D.\varphi _{\nu \rho )}+3D_{(\mu }D_\nu \varphi _{\rho )\sigma }^\sigma `$ (14)
$``$ $`3g_{(\mu \nu }((D^2m^2+2\Lambda )\varphi _{\rho )\sigma }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }D.D.\varphi _{\rho )\sigma }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_{\rho )}D.\varphi _\sigma {}_{}{}^{\sigma })`$
$`+`$ $`mg_{(\mu \nu }D_{\rho )}\chi =0,`$
$`𝒢_5`$ $`=`$ $`2(D^24m^2+8\Lambda )\chi mD.\varphi _\sigma {}_{}{}^{\sigma }=0.`$ (15)
and the auxiliary $`\chi `$ decouples in the strictly massless limit $`m=0`$.

Here we find three new gauge invariances

$`\delta \varphi _{\mu \nu \rho }=D_{(\mu }D_{\{\nu }D_{\rho \})}\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{\Lambda }{2}}g_{(\mu \nu }D_{\rho )}\xi ,`$ $`\delta \chi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\Lambda }{2}}}(D^2+{\displaystyle \frac{10\Lambda }{3}})\xi `$ (16)
$`\delta \varphi _{\mu \nu \rho }=D_{(\mu }D_{\{\nu }\xi _{\rho \})}+{\displaystyle \frac{\Lambda }{3}}g_{(\mu \nu }\xi _{\rho )},`$ $`\delta \chi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\Lambda }{3}}}D.\xi `$ (17)
$`\delta \varphi _{\mu \nu \rho }=D_{(\mu }\xi _{\{\nu \rho \})},`$ $`\delta \chi =0`$ (18)
along lines

$$m^22\Lambda =0,m^24\Lambda /3=0,m^2=0,$$
(19)
respectively. Again the accompanying Bianchi identities become the massive constraints ensuring $`7=2s+1`$ PDoF for detuned $`(m^2,\Lambda )`$.

The factors $`m^22\Lambda `$, $`m^24\Lambda /3`$ and $`m^2=0`$ control positivity of lower helicity equal time commutators and therefore unitarity: Starting from the unitary Minkowski region $`m^2>2\Lambda `$ we first encounter the gauge line $`m^2=2\Lambda `$. This is a unitary partially massless dS theory of helicities $`(\pm 3,\pm 2,\pm 1)`$ since the invariance (16) excises the lowest helicity 0 state, which reemerges as a ghost in the non-unitary region $`4\Lambda /3<m^2<2\Lambda `$. At the next gauge line $`m^2=4\Lambda /3`$, the vector invariance (17) removes the dangerous helicities $`(0,\pm 1)`$ whose commutators both flip sign upon entering the final forbidden region $`m^2<4\Lambda /3`$ where helicities $`\pm 1`$ are now ghostlike. The boundary at $`m^2=0`$ is the strictly massless unitary theory where only helicities $`\pm 3`$ remain thanks to traceless-symmetric invariance (18).

Simple counting arguments imply that novel gauge invariances and partially massless theories cutting the $`(m^2,\Lambda )`$ plane into unitarily allowed and forbidden regions are generic: Define the number of components $`(s)`$ of a symmetric $`s`$-index tensor $`\varphi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _s}`$ as $`(s)(s+1)(s+2)(s+3)/3!`$ ($`(s)0`$ for $`s<0`$) as well as $`(s)^\mathrm{T}=(s)(s2)`$ ($`=(s+1)^2`$ for $`s0`$) when requiring tracelessness and $`(s)^{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{T}}=(s)(s4)`$ ($`=2(s^2+1)`$ for $`s1`$) for double-tracelessness.

First consider massless bosons. The field content is a double-traceless $`s`$ index symmetric tensor and the $`s1`$ index gauge parameter is traceless:

|  | Fields | $`\left(s\right)^{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{T}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $``$ | Gauge | $`2.\left(s1\right)^\mathrm{T}`$ |

i.e., $`2(s1)^\mathrm{T}`$ DoF can be gauged away and the PDoF are $`(s)^{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{T}}2(s1)^\mathrm{T}=2`$ ($`s1`$), helicities $`\pm s`$.

For massive theories, the massless field components are augmented, for $`s>2`$, by traceless symmetric auxiliary fields $`(\chi ,\mathrm{},\chi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{s3}})`$. Each divergence of the $`s`$-index symmetric field equations is a constraint when the remaining open indices are traceless:

|  | Fields | $`\left(s\right)^{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{T}}`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`+`$ | Auxiliaries | $`\left(0\right)^\mathrm{T}+\mathrm{}+\left(s3\right)^\mathrm{T}`$ |  |
| $``$ | Constraints | $`\left(0\right)^\mathrm{T}+\mathrm{}+\left(s3\right)^\mathrm{T}`$ | $`+\left(s2\right)^\mathrm{T}+\left(s1\right)^\mathrm{T}`$ |

and PDoF are $`(s)^{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{T}}(s2)^\mathrm{T}(s1)^\mathrm{T}=2s+1`$, the sum of all helicities.

For partially massless higher spin theories, there are as many possible gauge lines as divergences of the $`s`$-index symmetric field equations. On a line where a constraint with $`t`$ divergences becomes a Bianchi identity we have:

|  | Fields | $`\left(s\right)^{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{T}}`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`+`$ | Auxiliaries | $`\left(0\right)^\mathrm{T}+\mathrm{}+\left(st\right)^\mathrm{T}+\left(st+1\right)^\mathrm{T}+\mathrm{}+\left(s3\right)^\mathrm{T}`$ |  |
| $``$ | Constraints | $`\left(st+1\right)^\mathrm{T}+\mathrm{}+\left(s3\right)^\mathrm{T}`$ | $`+\left(s2\right)^\mathrm{T}+\left(s1\right)^\mathrm{T}`$ |
| $``$ | Gauge | $`2.\left(st\right)^\mathrm{T}`$ |  |

There are therefore $`2t+(0)^\mathrm{T}+\mathrm{}+(s2t)^\mathrm{T}`$ PDoF. When the new Bianchi identity is the scalar one with the maximal $`t=s`$ divergences, there are $`2s`$ PDoF, the helicity $`0`$ mode having been removed. For the vector Bianchi with $`t=s1`$ there are $`2s2`$ PDoF and helicities $`(0,\pm 1)`$ are excised. For even lower values of $`t`$, the sum $`(0)^\mathrm{T}+\mathrm{}+(s2t)^\mathrm{T}`$ is non-empty and corresponds to leftover auxiliary fields. The strictly massless case $`t=1`$ yields $`2`$ PDoF along with decoupled but propagating auxiliary fields $`(0)^\mathrm{T}+\mathrm{}+(s3)^\mathrm{T}`$, as exemplified by the $`s=3`$ scalar auxiliary $`\chi `$.

A similar counting applies for half integer spins: successive lower helicities are removed along gauge lines, modulo leftover auxiliaries.

Having found that all massive $`s>1/2`$ fields in (A)dS become partially massless along lines in the $`(m^2,\Lambda )`$ plane, a pressing question is their precise location for $`s>3`$: this determines the unitarity of the new partially massless gauge theories. For bosons, in contrast to the first order fermions, covariant derivatives in their field equations can be ordered so that the strictly massless line remains at $`m^2=0`$. This suggests that the unitary and non-unitary behaviors found in the partially massless $`s=3`$ and $`s=5/2`$ theories, respectively, exemplify a general distinction between $`s>3`$ bosons and fermions. A large body of research exists for massless (A)dS higher spins (see  and references therein). The study of these theories in $`d=5`$ and their Kaluza–Klein reduction to $`d=4`$ ought be relevant to the new partially massless theories described in this Letter. Whether the pattern uncovered here can be traced to a more fundamental system’s expansion remains to be seen.

We thank I. Bengtsson, A. Higuchi and R. Woodard for communications. This work was supported by NSF grant PHY99-73935.


text:
# POSITION EIGENSTATES AND THE STATISTICAL AXIOM OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

## 1 Quantum probabilities according to Deutsch

A basic argument to see why quantum-mechanical probabilities must be squares of amplitudes (statistical axiom) was given by Deutsch $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. It is independent of the many-worlds interpretation. Deutsch considers a superposition of the form

$$\sqrt{\frac{m}{m+n}}|A+\sqrt{\frac{n}{m+n}}|Bm,n\text{ integer}$$
(1)
He introduces an auxilliary degree of freedom, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m+n`$, and replaces $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ by normalized superpositions,

$$|A\sqrt{\frac{1}{m}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}|A|i|B\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}\underset{i=m+1}{\overset{m+n}{}}|B|i$$
(2)
All amplitudes in the grand superposition are equal to $`1/\sqrt{m+n}`$ and should result in equal probabilities for the detection of the states. This immediately implies the ratio $`m:n`$ for the probabilities of property $`A`$ or $`B`$.

The argument has clear advantages over previous derivations of the statistical axiom. Gleason’s theorem $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, for example, is mathematically non-trivial and not well received by many physicists, while von Neumann’s assumption $`O_1+O_2=O_1+O_2`$ about expectations of observables $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ is difficult to interpret physicswise if $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ are non-commuting $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

However, Deutsch’s argument relies in an essential way on the unitarity of the replacement, or the normalization of any physical state vector. Why should a state vector be “normalized” in the usual sense of summing the squares of amplitudes? It would seem desirable to provide justification for this beyond its being “natural” $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In fact, the reasoning would appear circular without an extra argument about unitarity or normalization. I have proposed $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to realize the “replacement” (2) physically by the time evolution of a suitable device. Then, what can be said about quantum-mechanical evolution without anticipating the unitarity?

## 2 Schrödinger’s equation for a free particle as a consequence of position eigenstates

For free particles, a well-known and elegant way to obtain the Schrödinger equation is via unitary representations of space-time symmetries. Interactions can be introduced via the principle of local gauge invariance. However, this approach to the equation anticipates unitarity.

As I pointed out recently $`^\mathrm{?}`$, the Schrödinger equation for a free scalar particle is also a consequence of the very concept of a position eigenstateaaaWhich relies on linear algebra, hence includes the concept of “superposition”. in discretized space. To an extent, this just means to regard “hopping amplitudes”, as they are familiar from solid state theory, as a priori quantum-dynamical entities. The point is to show, however, that a hopping-parameter scenario without unitarity would lead to consequences sufficiently absurd to imply that unitarity must be a property of the physical system. As will be seen below, the absurdity is that a wave-function that makes perfect sense at $`t=0`$ would cease to exist anywhere in space at an earlier or later time.

Consider a spinless particle “hopping” on a 1-dimensional chain of positions $`x=na`$ where $`n`$ is integer and $`a`$ is the lattice spacing.

Assume the particle is in an eigenstate $`|n,t`$ of position number $`n`$ at time $`t`$ (using the Heisenberg picture), and it has a possibility to change its position. The information given by a “position at one time” does not determine which direction the particle should go. Thus the eigenstate $`|n,t`$ necessarily is a superposition when expressed in terms of eigenstates relating to another time $`t^{}`$. Moreover, because of the same lack of information, positions to the left and right will have to occur symmetrically. If $`t^{}t`$, only nearest neighbours will be involved. Thus we expect a “hopping equation” of the form

$$|n,t=\alpha |n,t^{}+\beta |n+1,t^{}+\beta |n1,t^{}$$

This can be rewritten as a differential equation in $`t`$,

$$i\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}|n,t=V|n,t+\kappa |n+1,t+\kappa |n1,t\kappa ,V\text{ complex (so far)}$$

Parameters $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\kappa ,V`$ are in an algebraic relation $`^\mathrm{?}`$ which need not concern us here. To obtain an equation for a wave-function we consider a general state $`|\psi `$ composed of simultaneous position eigenstates,

$$|\psi =\underset{n}{}\psi (n,t)|n,t\text{(Heisenberg picture)}$$

This defines the coefficients $`\psi (n,t)`$ for all $`t`$. Now take the time derivative on both sides, identify $`\psi (n,t)`$ with a function $`\psi (x,t)`$ where $`x=na`$, and Taylor-expand the shifted values $`\psi (x\pm a,t)`$. This results in

$$i\frac{\psi }{t}=(V+2\kappa )\psi +a^2\kappa \frac{^2\psi }{x^2}+𝒪(a^3)$$

Finally, take $`a0`$ on the relevant physical scale. The spatial spreading of the wave-function is then given by the $`a^2`$ term, and the solution of the equation is

$$\psi (x,t)=e^{i(V+2\kappa )t}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{ipx}e^{ia^2\kappa p^2t}dp$$

This time evolution would be unitary if $`\kappa `$ and $`V`$ were real. Hence, consider the consequences of a non-real $`\kappa `$. The integrand would then contain an evolution factor increasing towards positive or negative times like

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm a^2\mathrm{Im}\kappa p^2t\right)$$

This would lead to physically absurd conclusions about certain “harmless” wave-functions, like the Lorentz-shape function $`\psi (x)=1/1+x^2`$:

* For $`\mathrm{Im}\kappa >0`$, “harmless” function $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)\mathrm{exp}(|p|)`$ would not exist anywhere in space after a short while.
* For $`\mathrm{Im}\kappa <0`$, the “harmless” function could not be prepared for an experiment to be carried out on it after a short while.

In a mathematical sense, of course, it still remains a postulate that the value of $`\kappa `$ be real. But physicswise, it does seem that unitarity of quantum mechanics is unavoidable once the superposition principle and the concept of position eigenstate are taken for granted.

As for parameter $`V`$, the factor $`e^{iVt}`$ would be raised to the $`n`$th power in an $`n`$-particle state, and would lead to an absurdity similar to the above with certain superpositions of $`n`$-particle states unless $`V`$ is real, too.

## 3 Driven particle: Weyl equation in general space-time

As an example of a particle interacting with external fields we may consider a massless spin 1/2 particle with inhomogeneous hopping conditions $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Here the starting point is common eigenstates of spin and position, where “position” refers to a site on a cubic spatial lattice. A particle in such a state at time $`t`$ will be in a superposition of neighbouring positions and flipped spins at a time $`t^{}t`$. In 3 dimensions, and immediately in terms of a wave-function, the corresponding differential equation is

$$i\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\psi _s(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{lattice}}{\mathrm{directions}}}{}H_{nss^{}}\psi _s^{}(\stackrel{}{x}a\widehat{n},t)$$

where $`H_{nss^{}}`$ are any complex amplitudes. On-site hopping (time-like direction) is included as $`n=0`$. To begin with, a free particle is defined by translational and rotational symmetry. In this case, the hopping amplitudes reduce to two independent parameters $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\kappa `$, both of them complex so far. By Taylor-expanding the wave-function and taking $`a0`$ we find

$$_t\psi _s(\stackrel{}{x},t)=ϵ\psi _s(\stackrel{}{x},t)a\kappa \sigma _{ss^{}}^n_n\psi _s^{}(\stackrel{}{x},t)$$

If $`\kappa `$ had an imaginary part, it would lead to physical absurdities with the time-evolution of certain “harmless” wave-functions similarly to the previous section. For real $`\kappa `$, we recover the non-interacting Weyl equation.

If we now admit for “slight” (order of $`a`$) anisotropies and inhomogeneities in the hopping amplitudes, by adding some $`a\gamma _{\mu ss^{}}(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ to the hopping constants above, we recover a general-relativistic version of the equation $`^\mathrm{?}`$ with the $`\gamma _{\mu ss^{}}(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ acting as spin connection coefficients. Unitarity in this context means that the probability current density

$$j^\mu (\stackrel{}{x},t)=\psi _s^{}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\sigma _{ss^{}}^\mu \psi _s^{}(\stackrel{}{x},t)$$

is covariantly conserved:

$$_\alpha j^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \alpha }^\alpha j^\beta =0$$

This is found to hold automatically if the vector connection coefficients are identified as usual $`^\mathrm{?}`$ through the matrix equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \alpha }^\mu \sigma ^\nu +\sigma ^\mu \gamma _\alpha +\gamma _\alpha ^{}\sigma ^\mu =0$$

Imposing no constraints on the spin connection coefficients, we are dealing with a metric-affine space-time here, which can have torsion and whose metric may be covariantly non-constant. The study of space-times of this general structure has been motivated by problems of quantum gravity $`^\mathrm{?}`$. It may be interesting to note that nothing but propagation by superposing next-neighbour states needs to be assumed here. In particular, scalar products of state vectors are not needed.

## 4 Realizing Deutsch’s “substitution” as a time evolution

Having demonstrated “automatic” unitarity on two rather general examples we can now turn with some confidence to the original issue of completing Deutsch’s derivation of the statistical axiom.

To realize the particular substitution (2) for state vector (1), let us consider a particle with internal eigenstate $`|A`$ or $`|B`$, such as the polarisations of a photon. Let this particle be placed in a system of cavitiesbbbOr Paul traps, or any other sort of potential well; these are to enable us to store away parts of the wave function so that there is no influence on them by the other parts. connected by channels (Fig. 1) which can be opened selectively for internal state $`|A`$ or $`|B`$. It will be essential in the following that all cavities are of the same shape, because this will enable us to exploit symmetries to a large extent. The location of the particle in a cavity will serve as the auxilliary degree of freedom as in (2), except that $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ before the substitution will be identified with $`|A|0`$ and $`|B|0`$ where $`|0`$ corresponds to the central cavity.

Now let only one of the channels be open at a time. We are then dealing with the wave-function dynamics of a two-cavity subsystem, while the rest of the wave-function is standing by. What law of evolution could we expect? A particle with a well-defined (observed) position $`0`$ at time $`t`$ will no longer have a well-defined position at time $`t^{}`$ if we allow it to pass through a channel, without observing it. Thus a state $`|0,t`$ defined by position $`0`$ at time $`t`$ (using the Heisenberg picture) will be a superposition when expressed in terms of position states relating to a different time $`t^{}`$. In particular, if channel $`01`$ is the open one,

$$|0,t=\alpha |0,t^{}+\beta |1,t^{}$$

Likewise, by symmetry of arrangement,

$$|1,t=\alpha |1,t^{}+\beta |0,t^{}$$

It follows that $`|0,t\pm |1,t`$ are stationary states whose dependence on time consists in prefactors

$$(\alpha \pm \beta )^k\text{after }k\text{ time steps.}$$
(3)
If the particle is initially in the rest of the cavities, whose channels are shut, we would expect this state not to change with time:

$$|\mathrm{rest},t=|\mathrm{rest},t^{}$$

Now, if (3) were not mere phase factors, we could easily construct a superposition of $`|0`$, $`|1`$, and $`|\mathrm{rest}`$ so that, relative to the disconnected cavities, the part of the state vector in the connected cavities would grow indefinitely or vanish in the long run. As there is no physical reason for such an imbalance between the connected and the disconnected cavities, we conclude that

$$\alpha +\beta =e^{i\phi }\alpha \beta =e^{i\phi ^{}}$$

Having shown evolution through one open channel to be unitary, we can identify an opening time interval $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`\tau _m`$, to realize the following step of the replacement (2):

$$\sqrt{m}|A|0+|\mathrm{rest}\stackrel{\tau _m}{}\sqrt{m1}|A|0+|A|1+|\mathrm{rest}$$

Here $`|\mathrm{rest}`$ stands for state vectors that are decoupled, such as all $`|B|i`$, and all $`|A|i`$ with $`i0,1`$. Opening other channels analogously, each one for the appropriate $`\tau _m`$ and internal state, we produce an equal-amplitude superposition

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}|A|i+\underset{i=m+1}{\overset{m+n}{}}|B|i$$

The probability of finding the particle in a particular cavity is now $`1/m+n`$ as a matter of symmetry. As the internal state is correlated with a cavity by the conduction of the process, the probabilities for $`A`$ and $`B`$ immediately follow. These must also be the probabilities for finding $`A`$ or $`B`$ in the original state, because properties $`A`$ and $`B`$ have remained unchanged during the time evolution.

## 5 Can normalization be replaced by symmetry?

An interesting side effect of the above realization of Deutsch’s argument is that state vectors need no longer be normalized at all. Permutational symmetry of a superposition suffices to show that all possible outcomes of an experiment must occur with equal frequency. Then the numerical values of the probabilities are fully determined. This feature of quantum probabilities may be relevant to problems of normalization in quantum gravity $`^\mathrm{?}`$, such as the non-locality of summing $`|\psi |^2`$ over all of space, or the non-normalizability of the solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.

## References