text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction and summary

Cubic open string field theory  has turned out to be a powerful tool in studying various conjectures  about tachyon condensation on bosonic D-branes . One aspect of the tachyon conjectures that remains to be confirmed is the expected absence of physical open string excitations around the tachyon vacuum. In a previous paper we proposed that a simple class of cubic actions represent string field theory built upon the tachyon vacuum . As opposed to the conventional cubic SFT where the kinetic operator is the BRST operator $`Q_B`$, here the kinetic operator $`𝒬`$ is non-dynamical and is built solely out of worldsheet ghost fields.222A subset of this class of actions was discussed previously in ref.. In this class of actions the absence of physical open string states around the vacuum is manifest. Gauge invariance holds in this class of actions, and therefore basic consistency requirements are expected to be satisfied.

One major confirmation of the physical correctness of the proposed actions would be the construction of classical solutions which describe the known D-brane configurations. An indirect argument for the existence of these solutions was given in  where it was also shown that under certain assumptions the proposed action reproduces in a rather nontrivial fashion the correct ratios of tensions of D-branes of different dimensions.

In this paper we give a direct construction of the classical solutions representing various D-branes and verify that the ratios of their tensions agree with the known answer. We use an ansatz where the solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ representing a D-brane has a factorized form $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$, with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ being string fields built solely out of matter and ghost operators respectively.333We wish to thank W. Taylor for emphasizing this factorization property to us. Such factorized form is clearly compatible with the structure of the relevant string field equation since the kinetic operator $`𝒬`$ does not mix matter and ghost sectors,444This is not true, of course, for the standard BRST operator. and moreover, as is familiar, the star product also factors into the matter and ghost sectors. More explicitly, given string fields $`A=A_mA_g`$ and $`B=B_mB_g`$, we have $`AB=(A_m^mB_m)(A_g^gB_g)`$, where $`^m`$ and $`^g`$ denote multiplication rules in the matter and ghost sectors respectively. While the matter factor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ is clearly different for the various D-branes, we assume that the ghost factor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ is common to all the D-branes.

With this ansatz, and the specific form of the action proposed in , the string field theory equations of motion $`𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ factorizes into a matter part and a ghost part, with the matter part yielding the equation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m^m\mathrm{\Psi }_m=\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$. We now ask how we can find solutions of this equation. In fact, any solution of $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ where the ghost number zero field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ factors as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ provides a solution of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m^m\mathrm{\Psi }_m=\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$. There are at least two known translationally invariant solutions of $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$. One solution is provided by the identity string field $``$, and the second is provided by the “sliver”, the zero angle wedge state $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ constructed in . This state was constructed in background independent language; it only requires the total Virasoro operators of the full matter and ghost CFT. For reasons which will become clear later, we identify the matter part $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ of the sliver, with suitable normalization, as the matter part of the solution describing the D25-brane. More recently, Kostelecky and Potting  investigated solutions of the equation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m^m\mathrm{\Psi }_m=\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ by using an explicit representation of the $``$-product in terms of Neumann coefficients for free (matter) scalars. In addition to the matter part of the identity $``$, they found one nontrivial solution $`𝒯_m`$. Thus it is natural to ask: what is the relationship between the matter component $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ of the sliver and the state $`𝒯_m`$ found in ref.? We study this question using the level truncation scheme, and find very good evidence that the two states are really the same. Thus we can use either description for representing the D-25-brane. Our understanding of the sliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ shows that the solution describing the D25-brane belongs to the universal subspace of the state space , the space generated by the action of matter Virasoro generators and ghost oscillators on the SL(2,R) invariant vacuum. Furthermore, the sliver string field $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ provides a “simple closed-form” solution for the matter factor representing the D25-brane in the SFT of . By “closed form” we mean that the operational definition of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ is explicit. Even more, its geometrical meaning is clear. By “simple” we mean that the exact calculation of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ to any given level requires only a finite number of operations.555In this vein one would say that the description of this state as $`𝒯_m`$  is of closed form, as it is given by an explicit formula in terms of an exactly calculable infinite dimensional matrix. The formula is not simple in that it involves inverses and square roots of this infinite matrix, so even the finite level truncation of $`𝒯_m`$ can only be constructed approximately with finite number of operations.

We then use the observations of  to construct the string field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ describing a lower dimensional D-brane starting from the expression for the matter string field representing the space filling D25 brane. The key point noted there is that the properties satisfied by the matter Neumann coefficients $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ ($`m,n1`$) that guarantee the existence of the translational invariant solution are also satisfied by the extended Neumann coefficients $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ ($`m,n0`$) defined by Gross and Jevicki  by adding a new pair of oscillators to represent the center of mass position and momentum operators. Thus the same method used for generating translational invariant solution can be used to generate lump solutions. In implementing this procedure one requires the background dependent description $`𝒯_m`$ of the D25 string field as a function of matter Neumann coefficients. We carry out the construction thus obtaining “closed-form” expressions for the matter string fields representing lower dimensional branes. The ratio of tensions of these D-branes has an analytic expression in terms of the Neumann coefficients, but explicit computation of this ratio involves evaluating determinants of infinite dimensional matrices. We calculate this ratio in the level truncation using the known expression for the Neumann coefficients. While the convergence to the answer is relatively slow as a function of the level $`L`$, the relative simplicity of our expressions allows numerical computations up to levels of the order of several thousands! A fit of the data obtained at various levels suggests that corrections vanish as inverse powers of $`\mathrm{ln}(L)`$. The numerical results at large values of $`L`$ as well as an extrapolation of these results to $`L=\mathrm{}`$ via a fit using a cubic polynomial in $`1/\mathrm{ln}(L)`$ gives results very close to the expected answer. We consider these results to be strong evidence for the correctness of the SFT we proposed in .

Our concrete implementation of the procedure suggested in  actually finds families of solutions corresponding to lower dimensional branes. The solutions have gaussian profiles in the directions transverse to the brane. We find that for a D-$`(25k)`$ brane there is a $`k`$-parameter family of solutions, with the parameters controlling the width of the lumps in different transverse directions. We believe that all these solutions are gauge equivalent. This is necessary for the identification with D-branes, since a physical D-brane has no moduli other than its position in the transverse space. One indirect piece of evidence to this effect is that the ratios of tensions converge to the correct values for any solution in the family. Some more direct but still incomplete arguments are given in appendix C. In this context it will be interesting to explore if the width of the lump in conventional string field theory, studied in ref., changes when we use a gauge different from Siegel gauge.

Since besides the sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$, the identity state $`_m`$ also squares to itself under the $`^m`$ product, it is natural to ask why we identify the sliver and not the identity as the solution representing the D25-brane. While we do not have a concrete proof that $`_m`$ cannot be the matter part of the D25-brane solution, we offer the following observations. First of all, as we have discussed, starting from the sliver state we can construct lump solutions of arbitrary co-dimension with correct ratios of tensions as expected of D-branes. If we apply the same procedure to $`_m`$, we get back $`_m`$ and not a lower dimensional brane. Thus, for example, there is no obvious candidate for a 24-brane solution with tension $`2\pi `$ times the tension associated with the state $`_m`$, as would be expected of a D24-brane solution if $`_m`$ represented the D25-brane. This clearly makes $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ a much stronger candidate than $`_m`$ for the D25-brane solution. $`_m`$ suffers from the further complication that its normalization properties are much worse than those of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$. Whereas the normalization of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ involves an infinite dimensional determinant which is finite at least up to any given level (although it could vanish as the level goes to infinity), the normalization of $`_m`$ involves a determinant which vanishes at any finite level.

In the proposal of  the explicit form of the kinetic operator $`𝒬`$ was not fixed. In fact, we discussed two classes of such operators. In the first class, exemplified by $`𝒬=c_0`$, the operator does not annihilate the identity string field $``$. In the second class, exemplified by $`𝒬=c_0+\frac{1}{2}(c_2+c_2)`$, the operator does annihilate the identity string field $``$. Both yield gauge invariant actions without physical open strings around the tachyon vacuum. A proper understanding of the ghost factor representing the D25 brane (and in fact all other D-branes, since we assume that this factor is universal) would be expected to yield some information on $`𝒬`$, since the ghost equation is of the form $`𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g=\mathrm{\Psi }_g^g\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$. Given that the matter part of the string field for the D25-brane is the sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$, we expect $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ to be closely related to the ghost part $`\mathrm{\Xi }_g`$ of the state. Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }_g`$ is of ghost number zero and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ must be of ghost number one we conjecture that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g=𝒞\mathrm{\Xi }_g`$ where $`𝒞`$ is a ghost number one operator built solely out of ghosts. It may turn out that both $`𝒬`$ and $`𝒞`$ are determined by demanding the existence of a non-trivial solution to the field equation. Knowledge of $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒬`$ would amount to a complete specification of the SFT action, and a complete knowledge of the string fields representing D-branes.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we discuss the factorization properties of the field equations, and give the construction of the matter part of the D25-brane solution in the oscillator representation. We also produce numerical evidence that this solution is identical to the matter part of the sliver state constructed in ref.. In section 3 we construct the lump solutions, compute the ratio of tensions of lump solutions of different dimensions numerically and show that the result is in very good agreement with the known results. We conclude in section 4 by listing some of the open questions. Appendix A contains a list of Neumann coefficients needed for our analysis. Appendix B discusses the transformation of the 3-string vertex when we go from the momentum basis to the oscillator basis. It also contains the precise relationship between our variables and those used in ref., and some properties of the Neumann coefficients which are important for our analysis. Appendix C explores the possibility that a parameter appearing in the construction of the lump solution is a gauge artifact. In appendix D we derive some properties of the sliver state.

## 2 Construction of the D25-brane solution

We begin with the string field theory action:

$$\mathrm{SS}(\mathrm{\Psi })\frac{1}{g_0^2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi },𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\right],$$
(2.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the string field represented by a state of ghost number one in the combined matter-ghost state space, $`g_0`$ is the open string coupling constant, $`𝒬`$ is an operator made purely of ghost fields and satisfying various requirements discussed in ref., $`,`$ denotes the BPZ inner product, and $``$ denotes the usual $``$-product of the string fields. This action is supposed to describe the string field theory action around the tachyon vacuum. Although the action is formally background independent, for practical computation (e.g. choosing a basis in the state space for expanding $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$) we need to use a conformal field theory (CFT), and we take this to be the CFT describing the D25-brane in flat space-time.

### 2.1 Factorization property of the field equations

If (2.1) really describes the string field theory around the tachyon vacuum, then the equations of motion of this field theory:

$$𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(2.2)
must have a space-time independent solution describing the D25-brane, and also lump solutions of all codimensions describing lower dimensional D-branes. We shall look for solutions of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_g,$$
(2.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ denotes a state obtained by acting with the ghost oscillators on the SL(2,R) invariant vacuum of the ghost CFT, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ is a state obtained by acting with matter oscillators on the SL(2,R) invariant vacuum of the matter CFT. Let us denote by $`^g`$ and $`^m`$ the star product in the ghost and matter sector respectively. Eq.(2.2) then factorizes as

$$𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g=\mathrm{\Psi }_g^g\mathrm{\Psi }_g,$$
(2.4)
and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_m=\mathrm{\Psi }_m^m\mathrm{\Psi }_m.$$
(2.5)
Such a factorization is possible since $`𝒬`$ is made purely of ghost operators. Note that we have used the freedom of rescaling $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ with $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^1`$ to put eqs.(2.4), (2.5) in a convenient form.

In looking for the solutions describing D-branes of various dimensions we shall assume that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ remains the same for all solutions, whereas $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ is different for different D-branes. Given two static solutions of this kind, described by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}`$, the ratio of the energy associated with these two solutions is obtained by taking the ratio of the actions associated with the two solutions. For a string field configuration satisfying the equation of motion (2.2), the action (2.1) is given by

$$\mathrm{SS}|_\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{6g_0^2}\mathrm{\Psi },𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(2.6)
Thus with the ansatz (2.3) the action takes the form:

$$\mathrm{SS}|_\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{6g_0^2}\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g_g\mathrm{\Psi }_m|\mathrm{\Psi }_m_mK\mathrm{\Psi }_m|\mathrm{\Psi }_m_m,$$
(2.7)
where $`|_g`$ and $`|_m`$ denote BPZ inner products in ghost and matter sectors respectively. $`K=(6g_0^2)^1\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g_g`$ is a constant factor calculated from the ghost sector which remains the same for different solutions. Thus we see that the ratio of the action associated with the two solutions is

$$\frac{\mathrm{SS}|_\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}{\mathrm{SS}|_\mathrm{\Psi }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}_m}{\mathrm{\Psi }_m|\mathrm{\Psi }_m_m}.$$
(2.8)
The ghost part drops out of this calculation.

The analysis in the rest of this section will focus on the construction of a space-time independent solution to eq.(2.5) representing a D25-brane. As pointed out in the introduction, there are two ways of doing this. One method  gives a description of this state in terms of matter Virasoro generators and the other method  describes this state in terms of the oscillators of the matter fields. Since the second method can be generalized to describe lump solutions, we first describe this method in detail, and then compare this with the first description.

### 2.2 A solution for the D25 brane

Following ref. we represent the star product of two states $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ in the matter CFT as666Whenever we use explicit operator representations of the string product string fields will be denoted as kets or bras as appropriate.

$$|A^mB_3=_1A|{}_{2}{}^{}B|V_3,$$
(2.9)
where the three string vertex $`|V_3`$ is given by

$$|V_3=d^{26}p_{(1)}d^{26}p_{(2)}d^{26}p_{(3)}\delta ^{(26)}(p_{(1)}+p_{(2)}+p_{(3)})\mathrm{exp}(E)|0,p_{123},$$
(2.10)
and

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r,s}{m,n1}}{}\eta _{\mu \nu }a_m^{(r)\mu }V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\nu }+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r,s}{n1}}{}\eta _{\mu \nu }p_{(r)}^\mu V_{0n}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\nu }+\frac{1}{2}\underset{r}{}\eta _{\mu \nu }p_{(r)}^\mu V_{00}^{rr}p_{(r)}^\nu .$$
(2.11)
Here $`a_m^{(r)\mu }`$, $`a_m^{(r)\mu }`$ are non-zero mode matter oscillators acting on the $`r`$-th string state normalized so that

$$[a_m^{(r)\mu },a_n^{(s)\nu }]=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\delta _{mn}\delta ^{rs},m,n1.$$
(2.12)
$`p_{(r)}`$ is the 26-component momentum of the $`r`$-th string, and $`|0,p_{123}|p_{(1)}|p_{(2)}|p_{(3)}`$ is the tensor product of Fock vacuum of the three strings, annihilated by the non-zero mode annihilation operators $`a_m^{(r)\mu }`$, and eigenstate of the momentum operator of the $`r`$th string with eigenvalue $`p_{(r)}^\mu `$. $`|p`$ is normalized as

$$p|p^{}=\delta ^{26}(p+p^{}).$$
(2.13)
The coefficients $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ for $`0m,n<\mathrm{}`$ can be calculated by standard methods  and have been given in appendix A.777In our conventions we take $`\alpha ^{}=1`$. Some properties of $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ have been discussed in appendix B. Since we are interested in this section in space-time translational invariant solutions, we can ignore the momentum dependent factors in the vertex. and the relevant form of $`E`$ is:

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\underset{r,s}{}\eta _{\mu \nu }a^{(r)\mu }V^{rs}a^{(s)\nu },$$
(2.14)
where the dots represent sums over mode numbers, and $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ for $`m,n1`$ is written as the $`V^{rs}`$ matrix. For the analysis of lumps, however, we will need the full vertex.

Some appreciation of the properties reviewed in Appendix B is necessary for structural reasons. Equation (B.15), in particular, gives

$$V^{rs}=\frac{1}{3}(C+\omega ^{sr}U+\omega ^{rs}\overline{U}),$$
(2.15)
where $`\omega =e^{2\pi i/3}`$, $`U`$ and $`C`$ are regarded as matrices with indices running over $`m,n1`$,

$$C_{mn}=(1)^m\delta _{mn},m,n1,$$
(2.16)
and $`U`$ satisfies ((B.17))

$$\overline{U}U^{}=CUC,U^2=\overline{U}^2=1,U^{}=U,\overline{U}^{}=\overline{U}.$$
(2.17)
The superscripts $`r,s`$ are defined mod(3), and (2.15) manifestly implements the cyclicity property $`V^{rs}=V^{(r+1)(s+1)}`$. Also note the transposition property $`(V^{rs})^T=V^{sr}`$. Finally, eqs.(2.15), (2.17) allow one to show that

$$[CV^{rs},CV^{r^{}s^{}}]=0r,s,r^{},s^{},$$
(2.18)
and

$`(CV^{12})(CV^{21})=(CV^{21})(CV^{12})=(CV^{11})^2CV^{11},`$
$`(CV^{12})^3+(CV^{21})^3=2(CV^{11})^33(CV^{11})^2+1.`$ (2.19)
Equations (2.15) up to (LABEL:e21aa2) are all that we shall need to know about the matter part of the relevant star product (as given in eqs. (2.9), (2.10) and (2.14)) to construct the translationally invariant solution. In fact, since (2.18), (LABEL:e21aa2) follow from (2.15) and (2.17), these two equations are really all that is strictly needed. Such structure will reappear in the next section with matrices that also include $`m=0`$ and $`n=0`$ entries, and thus will guarantee the existence of a solution constructed in the same fashion as the solution to be obtained below.

We are looking for a space-time independent solution of eq.(2.5). The strategy of ref. is to take a trial solution of the form:888We caution the reader that although in this section and in section 3 we shall follow the general strategy described in , our explicit formulæ differ from theirs in several instances.

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_m=𝒩^{26}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{m,n1}{}S_{mn}a_m^\mu a_n^\nu \right)|0,$$
(2.20)
where $`|0`$ is the SL(2,R) invariant vacuum of the matter CFT, $`𝒩`$ is a normalization factor, and $`S_{mn}`$ is an infinite dimensional matrix with indices $`m,n`$ running from 1 to $`\mathrm{}`$. We shall take $`S`$ to be twist invariant:999Due to this property the BPZ conjugate of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ is the same as its hermitian conjugate. Otherwise we need to keep track of extra $``$ signs coming from the fact that the BPZ conjugate of $`a_m^{}`$ is $`(1)^{m+1}a_m`$.

$$CSC=S.$$
(2.21)
We shall check in the end that the solution constructed below is indeed twist invariant.

If we define

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S& 0\\ 0& S\end{array}\right),𝒱=\left(\begin{array}{cc}V^{11}& V^{12}\\ V^{21}& V^{22}\end{array}\right),$$
(2.22)
and

$$\chi ^{\mu T}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^{(3)\mu }V^{31},& a^{(3)\mu }V^{32}\end{array}\right),\chi ^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{c}V^{13}a^{(3)\mu }\\ V^{23}a^{(3)\mu }\end{array}\right),$$
(2.23)
then using eqs. (2.9), (2.10), (2.14) we get

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m_3`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩^{52}\mathrm{det}\{(1\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒱)^{1/2}\}^{26}`$ (2.24)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\{\chi ^{\mu T}[(1\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒱)^1\mathrm{\Sigma }]\chi ^\nu +a^{(3)\mu }V^{33}a^{(3)\nu }\}\right]|0_3.`$
In deriving eq.(2.24) we have used the general formula

$`0|\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda _ia_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{ij}a_ia_j\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu _ia_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_{ij}a_i^{}a_j^{}\right)|0`$
$`=`$ $`det(K)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu ^TK^1\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^TQK^1\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^TK^1P\mu \right),K1PQ.`$ (2.25)
In using this formula we took the $`a_i`$ to be the list of oscillators $`(a_m^{(1)},a_m^{(2)})`$ with $`m1`$. (2.24) then follows from (LABEL:egen) by identifying $`P`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`Q`$ with $`𝒱`$, $`\mu `$ with $`\chi `$ and setting $`\lambda `$ to 0.

Demanding that the exponents in the expressions for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$, given in eqs.(2.20) and (2.24) respectively, match, we get

$$S=V^{11}+(V^{12},V^{21})(1\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒱)^1\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\begin{array}{c}V^{21}\\ V^{12}\end{array}\right),$$
(2.26)
where we have used the cyclicity property of the $`V`$ matrices and the mod 3 periodicity of the indices $`r`$ and $`s`$ to write the equation in a convenient form. To proceed, we assume that

$$[CS,CV^{rs}]=0r,s.$$
(2.27)
We shall check later that the solution obeys these conditions. We can now write eq.(2.26) in terms of

$$TCS=SC,M^{rs}CV^{rs},$$
(2.28)
and because of (2.18), (2.27) we can manipulate the equation as if $`T`$ and $`M^{rs}`$ are numbers rather than infinite dimensional matrices. We first multiply (2.26) by $`C`$ and write it as:

$$T=X+(M^{12},M^{21})(1\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒱)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}TM^{21}\\ TM^{12}\end{array}\right),$$
(2.29)
where

$$X=M^{11}=CV^{11}.$$
(2.30)
We then note that since the submatrices commute:

$`(1\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒱)^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1TX& TM^{12}\\ TM^{21}& 1TX\end{array}\right)^1`$ (2.31)
$`=`$ $`((1TX)^2T^2M^{12}M^{21})^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}1TX& TM^{12}\\ TM^{21}& 1TX\end{array}\right).`$
Finally, we record that

$$\text{det}(1\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒱)=\text{det}(12TX+T^2X),$$
(2.32)
where use was made the first equation in (LABEL:e21aa2) reading $`M^{12}M^{21}=X^2X`$.

It is now a simple matter to substitute (2.31) into (2.29) and expand out eliminating all reference of $`M^{12}`$ and $`M^{21}`$ in favor of $`X`$ by use of eqs.(LABEL:e21aa2). The result is the condition:

$$(T1)(XT^2(1+X)T+X)=0.$$
(2.33)
This gives the solution for $`S`$:101010Of the two other solutions, $`T=1`$ gives the identity state $`|_m`$, whereas the third solution has diverging eigenvalues and hence is badly behaved.

$$S=CT,T=\frac{1}{2X}(1+X\sqrt{(1+3X)(1X)}).$$
(2.34)
We can now verify that $`S`$ obtained this way satisfies equations (2.21) and (2.27). Indeed, since $`CS`$ is a function of $`X`$, and since $`X(CV^{11})`$ commutes with $`CV^{rs}`$, $`CS`$ also commutes with $`CV^{rs}`$. Furthermore, since $`V^{11}`$ is twist invariant, so is $`X`$. It then follows that the inverse of $`X`$ and any polynomial in $`X`$ are twist invariant. Therefore $`T`$ is twist invariant, and, as desired, $`S`$ is twist invariant.

Demanding that the normalization factors in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ match gives

$$𝒩=\text{det}(1\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒱)^{1/2}=(det(1X)det(1+T))^{1/2},$$
(2.35)
where we have used eqn.(2.32) and simplified it further using (2.33). Thus the solution is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_m=\{det(1X)^{1/2}det(1+T)^{1/2}\}^{26}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{m,n1}{}S_{mn}a_m^\mu a_n^\nu )|0.$$
(2.36)
This is the matter part of the state found in ref. (referred to as $`|𝒯_m`$ in the introduction) after suitable correction to the normalization factor. From eq.(2.7) we see that the value of the action associated with this solution has the form:

$$\mathrm{SS}|_\mathrm{\Psi }=K𝒩^{52}0|\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}\underset{m^{},n^{}1}{}S_{m^{}n^{}}a_m^{}^\mu ^{}a_n^{}^\nu ^{})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{m,n1}{}S_{mn}a_m^\mu a_n^\nu )|0.$$
(2.37)
By evaluating the matrix element using eq.(LABEL:egen), and using the normalization:

$$0|0=\delta ^{(26)}(0)=\frac{V^{(26)}}{(2\pi )^{26}},$$
(2.38)
where $`V^{(26)}`$ is the volume of the 26-dimensional space-time, we get the value of the action to be

$$\mathrm{SS}|_\mathrm{\Psi }=K\frac{V^{(26)}}{(2\pi )^{26}}𝒩^{52}\{det(1S^2)^{1/2}\}^{26}=K\frac{V^{(26)}}{(2\pi )^{26}}\{det(1X)^{3/4}det(1+3X)^{1/4}\}^{26}.$$
(2.39)
In arriving at the right hand side of eq.(2.39) we have made use of eqs.(2.34) and (2.35). Thus the tension of the D25-brane is given by

$$𝒯_{25}=K\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{26}}\{det(1X)^{3/4}det(1+3X)^{1/4}\}^{26}.$$
(2.40)
### 2.3 Identification with the sliver state

In  a family of surface states was constructed corresponding to once punctured disks with a special kind of local coordinates. They were called wedge states because the half-disk representing the local coordinates could be viewed as a wedge of the full unit disk. The puncture was on the boundary and the wedge has an angle $`360^{}/n`$ at the origin, where $`n`$ is an integer. A complete description of the state $`|n`$ is provided by the fact that for any state $`|\varphi `$,111111For brevity, we have modified the notation of . The states $`|\frac{360^{}}{n}`$ are now simply called $`|n`$. Also we have included an extra scaling by $`n/2`$ in the definition (2.42) of the conformal map $`f_n`$ compared to ref.. This does not affect the definition of $`|n`$ due to SL(2,R) invariance of the correlation functions.

$$n|\varphi =f_n\varphi (0),$$
(2.41)
where $`f_n\varphi (z)`$ denotes the conformal transform of $`\varphi (z)`$ by the map

$$f_n(z)=\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{2}{n}\mathrm{tan}^1(z)\right).$$
(2.42)
In the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limit this reduces to

$$f(z)f_{\mathrm{}}(z)=\mathrm{tan}^1(z).$$
(2.43)
It was found in  that the states $`|n`$ can be written in terms of the full Virasoro operators as:

$$|n=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{n^24}{3n^2}L_2+\frac{n^416}{30n^4}L_4\frac{(n^24)(176+128n^2+11n^4)}{1890n^6}L_6+\mathrm{})|0.$$
(2.44)
For $`n=1`$ the state reduces to the identity string field: $`|n=1=|`$. For $`n=2`$ we get the vacuum: $`|n=2=|0`$. For $`n\mathrm{}`$, which corresponds to a vanishingly thin wedge state, and will be called the sliver state $`|\mathrm{\Xi }`$, we find a smooth limit

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }|\mathrm{}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{3}L_2+\frac{1}{30}L_4\frac{11}{1890}L_6+\frac{34}{467775}L_8+\mathrm{}\right)|0.$$
(2.45)
It was also shown in  that

$$|n|m=|n+m1.$$
(2.46)
Thus the state $`|\mathrm{\Xi }`$ has the property that $`|n|\mathrm{\Xi }=|\mathrm{\Xi }`$ for any $`n1`$. In particular, $`|\mathrm{\Xi }`$ squares to itself. Some properties of this state have been discussed in appendix D.

Given the split $`L=L^m+L^g`$ of the Virasoro operators into commuting Virasoro subalgebras, the state $`|\mathrm{\Xi }`$ can be written in factorized form: an exponential of matter Virasoros, and an identical exponential of ghost Virasoros:

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }=|\mathrm{\Xi }_m|\mathrm{\Xi }_g.$$
(2.47)
In particular, it follows from (2.45) that

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }_m=\widehat{𝒩}^{26}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{3}L_2^m+\frac{1}{30}L_4^m\frac{11}{1890}L_6^m+\mathrm{}\right)|0,$$
(2.48)
where $`\widehat{𝒩}`$ is a normalization factor to be fixed shortly. The property $`|\mathrm{\Xi }|\mathrm{\Xi }=|\mathrm{\Xi }`$ implies that

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }_m^m|\mathrm{\Xi }_m=\lambda \widehat{𝒩}^{52}|\mathrm{\Xi }_m$$
(2.49)
where the constant $`\lambda `$ could possibly be vanishingly small or infinite. We shall choose $`\widehat{𝒩}`$ such that $`\lambda \widehat{𝒩}^{52}=1`$, so that $`|\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ squares to itself.

In order to show that this sliver state is the matter state identified in the previous subsection for the D25-brane, we must compare (2.48) with

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_m=𝒩^{26}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }a^\mu Sa^\nu \right)|0,$$
(2.50)
where $`S`$ is the matrix calculated in the previous subsection. Since the Virasoro operators contain both positively and negatively moded oscillators a comparison requires expansion. While we have done this as a check, the techniques of ref. enable one to use the local coordinate (2.43) to give a direct oscillator construction of the sliver state

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }_m=\widehat{𝒩}^{26}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }a^\mu \widehat{S}a^\nu ),$$
(2.51)
where,

$$\widehat{S}_{mn}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{mn}}\frac{dw}{2\pi i}\frac{dz}{2\pi i}\frac{1}{z^nw^m(1+z^2)(1+w^2)(\mathrm{tan}^1(z)\mathrm{tan}^1(w))^2}.$$
(2.52)
$``$ denotes a contour integration around the origin. As required by twist invariance, $`\widehat{S}_{mn}`$ vanishes when $`m+n`$ is odd. Explicit computations give:

$`\widehat{S}_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}.3333,\widehat{S}_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}.0667,\widehat{S}_{13}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{15\sqrt{3}}}.1540,`$
$`\widehat{S}_{33}={\displaystyle \frac{83}{945}}.0878,\widehat{S}_{24}={\displaystyle \frac{32\sqrt{2}}{945}}.0479,\widehat{S}_{44}={\displaystyle \frac{109}{2835}}.0384.`$ (2.53)
On the other hand a level expansion computation for $`S_{mn}`$, together with a fit, has been shown in table 1. The data shows rather remarkable agreement between $`S_{mn}`$ and $`\widehat{S}_{mn}`$. The errors are of the order of 3%. Once $`S_{mn}`$ and $`\widehat{S}_{mn}`$ agree, the normalization factors must agree as well, since both states square to themselves under $`^m`$-product. This is convincing evidence that the matter part of the state representing the D25-brane solution is identical to the matter part $`|\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ of the sliver state up to an overall normalization.

## 3 Construction of the lump solutions

In this section we shall discuss the construction of lump solutions of eq.(2.5) representing lower dimensional D-branes. We are able to give these solutions in closed form and to express the ratio of tensions of branes of different dimensions in terms of determinants of infinite dimensional matrices. Numerical calculation of these ratios in the level expansion gives remarkable agreement with the expected values.

### 3.1 Lump solutions and their tensions

We begin by noting that the solution (2.36) representing the D25 brane has the form of a product over 26 factors, each involving the oscillators associated with a given direction. This suggests that in order to construct a solution of codimension $`k`$ representing a D-$`(25k)`$-brane, we need to replace $`k`$ of the factors associated with directions transverse to the D-brane by a different set of solutions, but the factors associated with directions tangential to the D-brane remains the same. (This is precisely what happens in the case of $`p`$-adic string theory , background independent open string field theory , as well as non-commutative solitons .) A procedure for constructing such space(-time) dependent solutions was given in ref.. Suppose we are interested in a D-$`(25k)`$ brane solution. Let us denote by $`x^{\overline{\mu }}`$ ($`0\overline{\mu }(25k)`$) the directions tangential to the brane and by $`x^\alpha `$ ($`(26k)\alpha 25`$) the directions transverse to the brane. We now use the representation of the vertex in the zero mode oscillator basis for the directions $`x^\alpha `$, as given in appendix B. For this we define, for each string,

$$a_0^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b}\widehat{p}^\alpha \frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}i\widehat{x}^\alpha ,a_0^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b}\widehat{p}^\alpha +\frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}i\widehat{x}^\alpha ,$$
(3.1)
where $`b`$ is an arbitrary constant, and $`\widehat{x}^\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{p}^\alpha `$ are the zero mode coordinate and momentum operators associated with the direction $`x^\alpha `$. We also denote by $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ the normalized state which is annihilated by all the annihilation operators $`a_0^\alpha `$, and by $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_b_{123}`$ the direct product of the vacuum $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ for each of the three strings. As shown in appendix B (eq.(B.6)), the vertex $`|V_3`$ defined in eq.(2.10) can be rewritten in this new basis as:

$`|V_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{26k}p_{(1)}d^{26k}p_{(2)}d^{26k}p_{(3)}\delta ^{(26k)}(p_{(1)}+p_{(2)}+p_{(3)})}`$ (3.2)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r,s}{m,n1}}{}}\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}a_m^{(r)\overline{\mu }}V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\overline{\nu }}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r,s}{n1}}{}}\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}p_{(r)}^{\overline{\mu }}V_{0n}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\overline{\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}p_{(r)}^{\overline{\mu }}V_{00}^{rr}p_{(r)}^{\overline{\nu }}\right)|0,p_{123}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{(2\pi b^3)^{1/4}}}(V_{00}^{rr}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}})\right)^k\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r,s}{m,n0}}{}}a_m^{(r)\alpha }V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\alpha }\right)|\mathrm{\Omega }_b_{123}.`$
In this expression the sums over $`\overline{\mu },\overline{\nu }`$ run from 0 to $`(25k)`$, and sum over $`\alpha `$ runs from $`(26k)`$ to 25. Note that in the last line the sums over $`m`$, $`n`$ run over 0, 1, 2 $`\mathrm{}`$. The coefficients $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ have been given in terms of $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ in eq.(B).

In Appendix B it is shown that $`V^{rs}`$, regarded as matrices with indices running from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$, satisfy (see (B.19) and (B.21))

$$V^{rs}=\frac{1}{3}(C^{}+\omega ^{sr}U^{}+\omega ^{rs}\overline{U}^{}),$$
(3.3)
where we have dropped the explicit $`b`$ dependence from the notation, $`C_{mn}^{}=(1)^m\delta _{mn}`$ with indices $`m,n`$ now running from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`U^{}`$, $`\overline{U}^{}U^{}`$ viewed as matrices with $`m,n0`$ satisfy the relations:

$$\overline{U}^{}=C^{}U^{}C^{},U^2=\overline{U}^2=1,U^{}=U^{}.$$
(3.4)
We note now the complete analogy with equations (2.15) and (2.17) . It follows also that the $`V^{}`$ matrices, together with $`C^{}`$ will satisfy equations exactly analogous to (2.18), (LABEL:e21aa2). Thus we can construct a solution of the equations of motion (2.5) in an identical manner with the unprimed quantities replaced by the primed quantities. Taking into account the extra normalization factor appearing in the last line of eq.(3.2), we get the following form of the solution of eq.(2.5):

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\{det(1X)^{1/2}det(1+T)^{1/2}\}^{26k}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n1}{}}S_{mn}a_m^{\overline{\mu }}a_n^{\overline{\nu }})|0`$ (3.5)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{(2\pi b^3)^{1/4}}}(V_{00}^{rr}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}})\right)^k\{det(1X^{})^{1/2}det(1+T^{})^{1/2}\}^k`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n0}{}}S_{mn}^{}a_m^\alpha a_n^\alpha \right)|\mathrm{\Omega }_b,`$
where

$$S^{}=C^{}T^{},T^{}=\frac{1}{2X^{}}(1+X^{}\sqrt{(1+3X^{})(1X^{})}),$$
(3.6)
$$X^{}=C^{}V^{11}.$$
(3.7)
Using eq.(2.7) we can calculate the value of the action associated with this solution. It is given by an equation analogous to (2.39):

$`\mathrm{SS}_\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \frac{V^{(26k)}}{(2\pi )^{26k}}}\{det(1X)^{3/4}det(1+3X)^{1/4}\}^{26k}`$ (3.8)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{(2\pi b^3)^{1/2}}}(V_{00}^{rr}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}})^2\right)^k\{det(1X^{})^{3/4}det(1+3X^{})^{1/4}\}^k,`$
where $`V^{(26k)}`$ is the D-$`(25k)`$-brane world-volume. This gives the tension of the D-$`(25k)`$-brane to be

$`𝒯_{25k}`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{26k}}}\{det(1X)^{3/4}det(1+3X)^{1/4}\}^{26k}`$ (3.9)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{(2\pi b^3)^{1/2}}}(V_{00}^{rr}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}})^2\right)^k\{det(1X^{})^{3/4}det(1+3X^{})^{1/4}\}^k.`$
Clearly for $`k=0`$ this agrees with (2.40). From eq.(3.9) we get

$$\frac{𝒯_{24k}}{2\pi 𝒯_{25k}}=\frac{3}{\sqrt{2\pi b^3}}\left(V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2}\right)^2\frac{\{det(1X^{})^{3/4}det(1+3X^{})^{1/4}\}}{\{det(1X)^{3/4}det(1+3X)^{1/4}\}}.$$
(3.10)
This ratio can be calculated if we restrict $`m,n`$ to be below a given level $`L`$, so that $`X=CV^{11}`$ is an $`L\times L`$ matrix and $`X^{}=C^{}V^{11}`$ is an $`(L+1)\times (L+1)`$ matrix. The values of $`V^{11}`$ and $`V^{11}`$ can be found from eqs.(A) and (B). In particular for $`L=0`$ only the matrix $`X^{}`$ contributes. From eq.(3.7), (B) and (A) we get

$$V_{00}^{11}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{27}{16},X_{00}^{}=V_{00}^{11}=1\frac{2}{3}\frac{b}{\mathrm{ln}(27/16)+\frac{b}{2}}.$$
(3.11)
Thus in the $`L=0`$ approximation, the ratio (3.10) is given by

$$\frac{3}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{3/4}(4\mathrm{ln}(27/16))^{1/4}\left(\mathrm{ln}(27/16)+\frac{b}{2}\right)b^{3/4}.$$
(3.12)
For larger values of $`L`$ the ratio is calculated numerically. The results of the numerical analysis are given in table 2. As seen from this table, the ratio $`𝒯_k/(2\pi 𝒯_{k1})`$ approaches 1 as $`L\mathrm{}`$ for all $`b`$. This is exactly what is expected if the lump solutions discussed here describe lower dimensional D-branes. It is also seen from the table that $`𝒯_{25}/K`$ extrapolated to $`L=\mathrm{}`$ gives a negative number. We take this as an evidence that it approaches 0 as $`L\mathrm{}`$. This indicates that the matter component $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ of the string field has zero norm. We expect that this will be compensated by the ghost sector contribution $`K`$, so that the contribution to the action from the full string field approaches a finite limit as we take the level of approximation $`L`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$.

As in the previous section (footnote 10), one can construct two other solutions to eq.(2.5). For one of them $`T^{}`$ is the inverse of the solution for $`T^{}`$ given in eq.(3.6). For this solution the eigenvalues of $`T^{}`$ diverge and so the state is not well behaved. The other solution corresponds to $`T_{mn}^{}=\delta _{mn}`$, i.e. $`S_{mn}^{}=C_{mn}^{}`$. Using eq.(B.5) for $`p^\alpha =0`$ to go from oscillator basis to the momentum basis, one can easily verify that this again is the identity string state $`|_m`$. Thus we do not get a new solution.

### 3.2 $`b`$-dependence of the solution

The analysis of the last section generates a one-parameter family of lump solutions characterized by the parameter $`b`$.121212Actually for a codimension $`k`$ lump we have a $`k`$ parameter family of solutions since we can choose different parameters $`b`$ corresponding to different directions. Thus we are now faced with an embarrassment of riches, $``$ for these solutions to have the interpretation as D-branes there should be a unique solution (up the possibility of translating the solution in the transverse direction) and not a family of solutions. There are two possibilities that come to mind.

1. Although in the oscillator basis the solution seems to depend on $`b`$, the relationship between the oscillator and the momentum basis is $`b`$-dependent, and when we rewrite the solution in the momentum basis it is actually $`b`$-independent.
2. Even after rewriting the solution in the momentum basis it is $`b`$-dependent, but the solutions for different values of $`b`$ are related to each other by gauge transformation.

We shall begin by exploring the first possibility. In order to get basis independent information about the lump solution, we can calculate its inner product with states in the momentum basis. Let us, for example, consider the inner product $`\{p^\alpha \}|\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}`$. Using eqs.(B.5), (3.5) and (LABEL:egen) we get

$$\{p^\alpha \}|\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p^2}{2}(\frac{b}{2}+b\frac{S_{00}^{}}{1S_{00}^{}})\right),p^2=p^\alpha p^\alpha .$$
(3.13)
The numerical results for the values of $`S_{00}^{}`$ for different values of $`b`$ are shown in table 3, and the values of $`b/2+bS_{00}^{}/(1S_{00}^{})`$ have been shown in table 4. From this we see clearly that $`\{p^\alpha \}|\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}`$ is not independent of $`b`$.

This brings us to the second possibility: could the different solutions be related by gauge transformation? Since the different solutions have the same ghost component, such a gauge transformation must be of a special kind that changes the matter part but not the ghost part. So the question is: are such gauge transformations possible? If we choose the gauge transformation parameter $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be of the form $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g|\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$, then, under a gauge transformation

$$\delta (|\mathrm{\Psi }_g|\mathrm{\Psi }_m)=𝒬|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g|\mathrm{\Lambda }_m+|\mathrm{\Psi }_g^g\mathrm{\Lambda }_g|\mathrm{\Psi }_m^m\mathrm{\Lambda }_m|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g^g\mathrm{\Psi }_g|\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^m\mathrm{\Psi }_m.$$
(3.14)
Now suppose $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g`$ is such that

$$𝒬|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g=0,|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g^g\mathrm{\Psi }_g=|\mathrm{\Psi }_g^g\mathrm{\Lambda }_g=|\mathrm{\Psi }_g.$$
(3.15)
In that case (3.14) can be written as

$$\delta (|\mathrm{\Psi }_g|\mathrm{\Psi }_m)=|\mathrm{\Psi }_g(|\mathrm{\Psi }_m^m\mathrm{\Lambda }_m|\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^m\mathrm{\Psi }_m).$$
(3.16)
Thus effectively the gauge transformation induces a transformation on the matter part of the solution without any transformation on the ghost sector. It is our guess that solutions with different values of $`b`$ are related by gauge transformations of this kind. Although we do not have a complete proof of this, a partial analysis of this problem has been carried out in appendix C. If this is indeed true, then this will imply that the width of the solution in the position space, given by $`\sqrt{b/2+bS_{00}^{}/(1S_{00}^{})}`$, is a gauge dependent quantity.

Without having detailed knowledge of the operator $`𝒬`$ we cannot know whether there is some ghost number zero state $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g`$ in the ghost sector satisfying eq.(3.15). Note however that if $`𝒬`$ annihilates the identity $`|`$ of the $``$ product then taking $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g=|_g`$, where $`|_g`$ denotes the component of $`|`$ in the ghost sector, automatically satisfies eq.(3.15). On the other hand since eq.(3.15) needs to be satisfied only for a special $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ which represents D-brane solutions, there may be other $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g`$ satisfying these equation.

Note that even if we did not discover the existence of multiple solutions labeled by different values of $`b`$, we would still have an embarrassment of riches if there were no $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g`$ satisfying eq.(3.15). This is due to the fact that given any solution of eq.(2.5), we can generate other solutions by deforming $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ as follows:

$$\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }_m=|\mathrm{\Psi }_m^m\mathrm{\Lambda }_m|\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^m\mathrm{\Psi }_m.$$
(3.17)
In order to make sense of these solutions, we must show that when we combine them with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ to construct solutions of the full string field theory equations of motion, they are related by gauge transformations. The postulate of existence of a $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_g`$ satisfying eq.(3.15) makes this possible.

## 4 Open questions

Clearly many questions remain unanswered. In this concluding section we shall try to make a list of questions which we hope will be answered in the near future.

1. The most pressing question at this time seems to be understanding the ghost sector of the solution. We expect that a proper analysis of the ghost sector will not only lead to the solution, but will also fix uniquely (up to the field redefinition ambiguity) the form of the kinetic operator $`𝒬`$. Since the matter part of the D25-brane solution is given by the matter part $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ of the sliver state, our guess is that the full solution is given by a ghost number one operator built purely out of ghosts acting on the full sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$.
2. For the D-branes of dimension $`<25`$, we have found families of candidate solutions labeled by the parameter $`b`$. Since a physical D-brane does not admit continuous deformations other than the translational motion transverse to the brane, we need to show that these additional deformations are gauge artifacts. We have given some arguments to this effect in appendix C, but a complete proof is lacking.
3. Although we have shown that the ratios of tensions of our solutions agree very well with the expected answer, in order to establish conclusively that these solutions describe D-branes, we need to analyze the fluctuations of the string field around these solutions and show that the spectrum and interaction of these fluctuations agree with those of conventional open strings living on the D-brane. Clearly, the knowledge of $`𝒬`$ is crucial for this study.
4. Although the matter parts of our solutions are given in analytic form, calculation of the ratios of tensions of these solutions, involving computation of determinants of infinite dimensional matrices, was done numerically. It will be nice to have an analytic expression for this ratio.
5. If our solution really describes D-branes, then we expect that there should be static multiple lump solutions representing multiple D-branes. One should be able to construct such solutions in our string field theory. It is natural to assume that these multi-lump solutions will also have factorized form, with the ghost part being described by the same universal state as the single lump solutions. Thus this analysis can be carried out without a detailed knowledge of $`𝒬`$.
6. The procedure that we have followed to construct lower dimensional branes from the D25 brane solution bears a suggestive formal similarity with the solution generating techniques which have appeared recently in studies of non-commutative solitons and have been conjectured to be relevant to string field theory . In that context, new space-time dependent solutions are obtained by acting on a translational invariant solution with “non-unitary isometries”, like the “shift operator” in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. The construction of the matrix $`T^{}`$ from $`T`$ is quite reminiscent of some sort of shift operation. It would be interesting to investigate this connection precisely.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank D. Gaiotto, J. Minahan, N. Moeller, M. Schnabl, W. Taylor and E. Witten for useful discussions. The work of L.R. was supported in part by Princeton University “Dicke Fellowship” and by NSF grant 9802484. The work of B.Z. was supported in part by DOE contract #DE-FC02-94ER40818.

## Appendix A The coefficients $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$

In this appendix we give the coefficients $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ introduced in the text. These results are taken from refs.. First we define the coefficients $`A_n`$ and $`B_n`$ for $`n0`$ through the relations:

$$\left(\frac{1+ix}{1ix}\right)^{1/3}=\underset{neven}{}A_nx^n+i\underset{nodd}{}A_nx^n,\left(\frac{1+ix}{1ix}\right)^{2/3}=\underset{neven}{}B_nx^n+i\underset{nodd}{}B_nx^n.$$
(A.1)
In terms of $`A_n`$ and $`B_n`$ we define the coefficients $`N_{mn}^{r,\pm s}`$ as follows:

$`N_{nm}^{r,\pm r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(n\pm m)}}(1)^n(A_nB_m\pm B_nA_m)\text{for}m+n\text{even},mn,`$
$`=`$ $`0\text{for}m+n\text{odd},`$
$`N_{nm}^{r,\pm (r+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6(n\pm m)}}(1)^{n+1}(A_nB_m\pm B_nA_m)\text{for}m+n\text{even},mn,`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6(n\pm m)}}\sqrt{3}(A_nB_mB_nA_m)\text{for}m+n\text{odd},`$
$`N_{nm}^{r,\pm (r1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6(nm)}}(1)^{n+1}(A_nB_mB_nA_m)\text{for}m+n\text{even},mn,`$ (A.2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6(nm)}}\sqrt{3}(A_nB_m\pm B_nA_m)\text{for}m+n\text{odd}.`$
The coefficients $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ are then given by

$`V_{nm}^{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{mn}(N_{nm}^{r,s}+N_{nm}^{r,s})\text{for}mn,m,n0,`$
$`V_{nn}^{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[2{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^{nk}A_k^2(1)^nA_n^2],\text{for}n0,`$
$`V_{nn}^{r(r+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{nn}^{r(r+2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(1)^nV_{nn}^{rr}]\text{for}n0,`$
$`V_{0n}^{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2n}(N_{0n}^{r,s}+N_{0n}^{r,s})\text{for}n0,`$
$`V_{00}^{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(27/16).`$ (A.3)
The value of $`V_{nn}^{rr}`$ quoted above corrects the result for $`N_{nn}^{rr}(V_{nn}^{rr}/n)`$ quoted in eqn.(1.18) of . In writing down the expressions for $`V_{0n}^{rs}`$ and $`V_{00}^{rr}`$ we have taken into account the fact that we are using $`\alpha ^{}=1`$ convention, as opposed to the $`\alpha ^{}=1/2`$ convention used in refs..

Finally we would like to point out that our convention for $`|A^mB`$, defined through eq.(2.9), differs from that in refs.. In particular, with the values of $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ give in eq.(A), our $`|A^mB`$ would correspond to $`|B^mA`$ in ref.. Since the string field equation of motion involves $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$, it is not affected by this difference in convention. However, if we want our convention for $`|A^mB`$ to agree with that of ref., we should replace $`V^{rs}`$ by $`V^{sr}`$ everywhere in eqs.(A).

## Appendix B Conversion from momentum to oscillator basis

We start with the three string vertex in the matter sector as given in section (2.2):

$$|V_3=d^{26}p_{(1)}d^{26}p_{(2)}d^{26}p_{(3)}\delta ^{(26)}(p_{(1)}+p_{(2)}+p_{(3)})\mathrm{exp}(E)|0,p_{123}$$
(B.1)
where

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r,s}{m,n1}}{}\eta _{\mu \nu }a_m^{(r)\mu }V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\nu }+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r,s}{n1}}{}\eta _{\mu \nu }p_{(r)}^\mu V_{0n}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\nu }+\frac{1}{2}\underset{r}{}\eta _{\mu \nu }p_{(r)}^\mu V_{00}^{rr}p_{(r)}^\nu .$$
(B.2)
Note that using the freedom of redefining $`V_{00}^{rs}`$ using momentum conservation, we have chosen $`V_{00}^{rs}`$ to be zero for $`rs`$. Due to the same reason, a redefinition $`V_{0n}^{rs}V_{0n}^{rs}+A_n^s`$ by some $`r`$ independent constant $`A_n^s`$ leaves the vertex unchanged. We shall use this freedom to choose:

$$\underset{r}{}V_{0n}^{rs}=0.$$
(B.3)
It can be easily verified that $`V_{0n}^{rs}`$ given in eq.(A) satisfy these conditions.

We now pass to the oscillator basis for a subset of the space-time coordinates $`x^\alpha `$ ($`(26k)\alpha 25`$), by relating the zero mode operators $`\widehat{x}^\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{p}^\alpha `$ to oscillators $`a_0^\alpha `$ and $`a_0^\alpha `$. For this one writes:

$$a_0^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b}\widehat{p}^\alpha \frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}i\widehat{x}^\alpha ,a_0^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b}\widehat{p}^\alpha +\frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}i\widehat{x}^\alpha ,$$
(B.4)
where $`b`$ is an arbitrary constant. Then $`a_0^\alpha `$, $`a_0^\alpha `$ satisfy the usual commutation rule $`[a_0^\alpha ,a_0^\beta ]=\delta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ (we are assuming that the directions $`x^\alpha `$ are space-like; otherwise we shall need $`\eta ^{\alpha \beta }`$), and we can define a new vacuum state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ such that $`a_0^\alpha |\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0`$. The relation between the momentum basis and the new oscillator basis is given by (for each string)

$$|\{p^\alpha \}=(2\pi /b)^{k/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{b}{4}p^\alpha p^\alpha +\sqrt{b}a_0^\alpha p^\alpha \frac{1}{2}a_0^\alpha a_0^\alpha \right]|\mathrm{\Omega }_b.$$
(B.5)
In the above equation $`\{p^\alpha \}`$ label momentum eigenvalues. Substituting eq.(B.5) into eq.(B.1), and integrating over $`p_{(i)}^\alpha `$, we can express the three string vertex as

$`|V_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{26k}p_{(1)}d^{26k}p_{(2)}d^{26k}p_{(3)}\delta ^{(26k)}(p_{(1)}+p_{(2)}+p_{(3)})}`$ (B.6)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r,s}{m,n1}}{}}\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}a_m^{(r)\overline{\mu }}V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\overline{\nu }}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r,s}{n1}}{}}\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}p_{(r)}^{\overline{\mu }}V_{0n}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\overline{\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\eta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}p_{(r)}^{\overline{\mu }}V_{00}^{rr}p_{(r)}^{\overline{\nu }}\right)|0,p_{123}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{(2\pi b^3)^{1/4}}}(V_{00}^{rr}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}})\right)^k\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r,s}{m,n0}}{}}a_m^{(r)\alpha }V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\alpha }\right)|\mathrm{\Omega }_b_{123}.`$
In this expression the sums over $`\overline{\mu },\overline{\nu }`$ run from 0 to $`(25k)`$, and the sum over $`\alpha `$ runs from $`(26k)`$ to 25. Note that in the last line the sums over $`m`$, $`n`$ run over 0, 1, 2 $`\mathrm{}`$. The new $`b`$-dependent $`V^{}`$ coefficients are given in terms of the $`V`$ coefficients by

$`V_{mn}^{rs}(b)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{mn}^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{0m}^{tr}V_{0n}^{ts},m,n1,`$
$`V_{0n}^{rs}(b)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{n0}^{sr}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2}}}\sqrt{b}V_{0n}^{rs},n1,`$
$`V_{00}^{rs}(b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2}}},rs,`$
$`V_{00}^{rr}(b)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2}}}.`$ (B.7)
In deriving the above relations we have used eq.(B.3). These relations can be readily inverted to find

$`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{mn}^{rs}(b)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1V_{00}^{rr}(b)}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{m0}^{rt}(b)V_{0n}^{ts}(b),m,n1,`$
$`V_{0n}^{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1V_{00}^{rr}(b)}}\sqrt{b}V_{0n}^{rs}(b),n1,`$
$`V_{00}^{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+3V_{00}^{rr}(b)}{1V_{00}^{rr}(b)}}.`$ (B.8)
We shall now describe how our variables $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ and $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ are related to the variables introduced in ref.. For this we begin by comparing the variables in the oscillator representation. Since ref. uses the $`\alpha ^{}=1/2`$ convention rather than the $`\alpha ^{}=1`$ convention used here, every factor of $`p`$ ($`x`$) in  should be multiplied (divided) by $`\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}`$, and then $`\alpha ^{}`$ should be set equal to one in order to compare with our equations. With this prescription eqs.(2.5b) of  giving $`a_0=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{p}i\widehat{x}`$ becomes $`a_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\widehat{p}\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\widehat{x}`$, which corresponds to our (B.4) for $`b=2`$. Thus, we can directly compare our variables with those of  for the case $`b=2`$.

Ref. introduced a matrix $`U`$ which appears, for example, in their eq.(2.47). We shall denote this matrix by $`U^{gj}`$. This matrix appears in the construction of the vertex in the oscillator basis (, eqn.(2.52) and (2.53)). This implies that the $`V^{}`$ coefficients for $`b=2`$ can be expressed in terms of $`U^{gj}`$ using their results. In particular, defining $`V^{rs}`$ to be the matrices $`V_{mn}^{rs}`$ with $`m,n`$ now running from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$, we have (see , eqn.(2.53)):131313As explained at the end of appendix A, $`U^{gj}`$ should really be identified with $`\overline{U}`$ of ref..

$$V^{rs}(2)=\frac{1}{3}(C^{}+\omega ^{sr}U^{gj}+\omega ^{rs}\overline{U}^{gj}),$$
(B.9)
where $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/3)`$, $`C_{mn}^{}=(1)^m\delta _{mn}`$ with $`m,n0`$, and the matrix $`U^{gj}`$ satisfies the relations (eq.(2.51) of ):

$$U^{gj}=U^{gj},\overline{U}^{gj}(U^{gj})^{}=C^{}U^{gj}C^{},U^{gj}U^{gj}=1.$$
(B.10)
Eq.(B.9) gives us, $`V_{00}^{rr}(2)=\frac{1}{3}(1+2U_{00}^{gj})`$. With this result, the last equation in (B) can be used with $`b=2`$ to find

$$V_{00}^{rr}=\frac{1+U_{00}^{gj}}{1U_{00}^{gj}}.$$
(B.11)
Similarly, the second equation in (B) gives:

$$V_{0n}^{rs}=\frac{1}{1U_{00}^{gj}}\sqrt{2}V_{0n}^{rs}(2),\text{for}n1.$$
(B.12)
Making use of (B.9) and $`\overline{U}_{0n}^{gj}=(U_{0n}^{gj})^{}`$ we find that we can write, for $`n1`$:

$$V_{0n}^{rs}=\frac{1}{3}(\omega ^{sr}W_n+\omega ^{rs}W_n^{}),$$
(B.13)
where

$$W_n=\frac{\sqrt{2}U_{0n}^{gj}}{1U_{00}^{gj}}.$$
(B.14)
The first equation in (B) together with (B.9) gives us

$$V^{rs}=\frac{1}{3}(C+\omega ^{sr}U+\omega ^{rs}\overline{U}),$$
(B.15)
where $`V^{rs}`$, $`U`$ and $`C`$ are regarded as matrices with indices running over $`m,n1`$, $`C_{mn}=(1)^m\delta _{mn}`$ and $`U`$ is given as

$$U_{mn}=U_{mn}^{gj}+\frac{U_{m0}^{gj}U_{0n}^{gj}}{1U_{00}^{gj}}.$$
(B.16)
By virtue of this relation, and the identities in (B.10) we have that the matrix $`U`$ satisfies

$$\overline{U}U^{}=CUC,U^2=\overline{U}^2=1,U^{}=U,\overline{U}^{}=\overline{U}.$$
(B.17)
It follows from (B.10) and (B.14) that $`W_n`$ satisfies the relations:

$$W_n^{}=(1)^nW_n,\underset{n1}{}W_nU_{np}=W_p,\underset{m1}{}W_m^{}W_m=2V_{00}^{rr}.$$
(B.18)
Finally, using (B), (B.13), (B.15), the coefficients $`V^{}(b)`$ for arbitrary $`b`$ can be made into matrices with $`m,n0`$, and, just as for the case $`b=2`$ in (B.9), can be written as

$$V^{rs}(b)=\frac{1}{3}(C^{}+\omega ^{sr}U^{}+\omega ^{rs}\overline{U}^{}),$$
(B.19)
where

$`U_{00}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2}}},`$
$`U_{0n}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(U_{n0}^{})^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{b}}{V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2}}}W_n,n1,`$
$`U_{mn}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{mn}{\displaystyle \frac{W_m^{}W_n}{V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2}}}m,n1.`$ (B.20)
Using eqns.(B.17) and (B.18) one can show that $`U^{}`$, $`\overline{U}^{}U^{}`$ viewed as a matrix with $`m,n0`$ satisfies the relations:

$$\overline{U}^{}=C^{}U^{}C^{},U^2=\overline{U}^2=1,U^{}=U^{}.$$
(B.21)
## Appendix C On the $`b`$-dependence of the lump solution

In this appendix we shall address the question as to whether the apparent $`b`$-dependence of the lump solution given in eq.(3.5) could be a gauge artifact. In order to avoid cluttering up the formulæ we shall focus on the matter part associated with a single direction transverse to the lump:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}𝒩^{}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\underset{m,n0}{}S_{mn}^{}a_m^{}a_n^{})|\mathrm{\Omega }_b,$$
(C.1)
where

$$𝒩^{}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{(2\pi b^3)^{1/4}}(V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2})\right)\{det(1X^{})^{1/2}det(1+T^{})^{1/2}\}.$$
(C.2)
Since all states under discussion are in the matter sector associated with this single direction, we shall refrain from adding the subscript $`m`$ to various states and the $``$ operation. The $`b`$ dependence of the state given above comes from four sources:

1. $`b`$ dependence of $`𝒩^{}`$ (including implicit $`b`$ dependence of $`X^{}`$ and $`T^{}`$ through eqs.(B), (3.6), (3.7)).
2. $`b`$ dependence of $`S_{mn}^{}`$ through eqs.(B), (3.6), (3.7).
3. $`b`$ dependence of $`a_0^{}`$ through eq.(3.1). Under an infinitesimal change in $`b`$, eq.(3.1) gives

$$\delta a_0^{}=\frac{\delta b}{2b}a_0,\delta a_0=\frac{\delta b}{2b}a_0^{}.$$
(C.3)
4. $`b`$ dependence of $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ due to the change in the definitions of $`a_0`$, $`a_0^{}`$. Requiring that $`(a_0+\delta a_0)`$ annihilates $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_b+\delta |\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ gives

$$\delta |\mathrm{\Omega }_b=\frac{\delta b}{4b}(a_0^{})^2|\mathrm{\Omega }_b.$$
(C.4)

A straightforward calculation (involving expansion of the exponential to first order in $`\delta b`$ using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula) gives:

$$\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\left(\delta \mathrm{ln}𝒩^{}\frac{1}{4}\frac{\delta b}{b}S_{00}^{}\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\frac{1}{2}\left\{\delta S_{mn}^{}+\frac{\delta b}{2b}(S_{0m}^{}S_{0n}^{}+\delta _{0m}\delta _{0n})\right\}a_m^{}a_n^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}.$$
(C.5)
We would now like to ask if the expression for $`\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ given above can be represented as a gauge transformation of the kind given in eq.(3.16)

$$\delta _{gauge}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}^m\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Lambda }^m\mathrm{\Psi }^{},$$
(C.6)
for some state $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the matter sector. Eq.(C.5) suggests that we look for a $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the form:

$$|\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}a_m^{}a_n^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}.$$
(C.7)
(Note that we could have included a term in $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ proportional to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, but this does not contribute to the gauge transformation of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$.) Using eq.(2.9) and the general formula (LABEL:egen) together with the identity

$`0|\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda _ia_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{ij}a_ia_j\right)a_pa_q\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu _ia_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_{ij}a_i^{}a_j^{}\right)|0`$ (C.8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\lambda _p\lambda _q}}\left(0|\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda _ia_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{ij}a_ia_j\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu _ia_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_{ij}a_i^{}a_j^{}\right)|0\right),`$
we can show that

$`\delta _{gauge}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`Tr(𝒱^{}(1\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}𝒱^{})^1)|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ (C.9)
$`+\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}V^{31},& V^{32}\end{array}\right)(1\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}𝒱^{})^1(1𝒱^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})^1\left(\begin{array}{c}V^{13}\\ V^{23}\end{array}\right)\right\}_{mn}a_m^{}a_n^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{},`$
where

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{}& 0\\ 0& C^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S^{}& 0\\ 0& S^{}\end{array}\right),𝒱^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}V^{11}& V^{12}\\ V^{21}& V^{22}\end{array}\right).$$
(C.10)
Thus requiring that $`\delta _{gauge}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ is equal to $`\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ given in eq.(C.5) gives,

$$Tr(𝒱^{}(1\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}𝒱^{})^1)=\left(\delta \mathrm{ln}𝒩^{}\frac{1}{4}\frac{\delta b}{b}S_{00}^{}\right),$$
(C.11)
and

$`\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}V^{31},& V^{32}\end{array}\right)(1\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}𝒱^{})^1(1𝒱^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})^1\left(\begin{array}{c}V^{13}\\ V^{23}\end{array}\right)\right\}_{mn}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\delta S_{mn}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta b}{2b}}(S_{0m}^{}S_{0n}^{}+\delta _{0m}\delta _{0n})\right\}.`$
These give a set of linear equations for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}`$. In order to show that the change in $`b`$ corresponds to a gauge transformation, we need to show the existence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}`$ satisfying these equations. Although we do not have a proof of this, the fact that $`\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ given in eq.(C.5) satisfies the various consistency relations (e.g. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\delta \mathrm{\Psi }^{}+|\delta \mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=0`$, which follows from the fact that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}+\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ satisfies eq.(2.5)) gives us hope that the solutions to these equations do exist.

## Appendix D Conservation laws for the sliver

In this section we derive conservation laws obeyed by the sliver state, following the methods of . The surface state $`\mathrm{\Xi }|`$ is defined by the conformal map

$$\stackrel{~}{z}=\mathrm{tan}^1(z)\frac{d\stackrel{~}{z}}{dz}=\frac{1}{1+z^2},S(\stackrel{~}{z},z)=\frac{2}{(1+z^2)^2}.$$
(D.1)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ is the global coordinate on the once punctured upper half plane Im $`(\stackrel{~}{z})>0`$ with the punture at $`\stackrel{~}{z}=0`$, and $`z`$ is the local coordinate around the puncture. $`S(\stackrel{~}{z},z)`$ denotes the standard Schwartzian derivative.

To obtain Virasoro conservations laws, we consider a globally defined vector field $`\stackrel{~}{v}(\stackrel{~}{z})`$, holomorphic everywhere except for a possible pole at the puncture $`\stackrel{~}{z}=0`$. The standard contour deformation argument then gives

$$\mathrm{\Xi }|𝑑zv(z)\left(T(z)\frac{c}{12}S(\stackrel{~}{z},z)\right)=0,$$
(D.2)
where contour integration is around the origin, and $`v(z)=\stackrel{~}{v}(\stackrel{~}{z})\left(\frac{d\stackrel{~}{z}}{dz}\right)^1`$. Taking $`\stackrel{~}{v}(\stackrel{~}{z})=\stackrel{~}{z}^p`$ (with $`p2`$ so that there is no pole at $`\stackrel{~}{z}=\mathrm{}`$), we get

$$v(z)=[\mathrm{tan}^1(z)]^p(1+z^2).$$
(D.3)
We can write explicitly the first few conservation laws:

$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(L_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}L_3{\displaystyle \frac{7}{45}}L_5+\mathrm{}\right)=0`$ (D.4)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(L_0+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}L_2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}L_4+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{35}}L_6+\mathrm{}\right)=0`$ (D.5)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(L_1+L_1\right)=0`$ (D.6)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(L_2+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{29}{45}}L_2+{\displaystyle \frac{128}{945}}L_4{\displaystyle \frac{848}{14175}}L_6+\mathrm{}\right)=0`$ (D.7)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(L_3+{\displaystyle \frac{61}{189}}L_3{\displaystyle \frac{2176}{14175}}L_5+\mathrm{}\right)=0`$ (D.8)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(L_4{\displaystyle \frac{c}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{608}{945}}L_2{\displaystyle \frac{629}{4725}}L_4+{\displaystyle \frac{1312}{22275}}L_6+\mathrm{}\right)=0.`$ (D.9)
Here $`L_m`$ could stand for either matter or ghost Virasoro operators (or even the Virasoro operators associated with a subsector of the matter conformal field theory) and $`c`$ is the corresponding central charge. The perfect conservation of $`K_1=L_1+L_1`$ holds more generally for any “wedge state” $`n|`$, defined by the conformal map (see (2.42))

$$\stackrel{~}{z}=\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{2}{n}\mathrm{tan}^1z\right).$$
(D.10)
Indeed, with $`\stackrel{~}{v}(\stackrel{~}{z})=\stackrel{~}{z}^2+1`$ we get $`v(z)=(z^2+1)`$ and deduce that for all $`n`$,

$$n|K_1=0.$$
(D.11)
The operator $`K_1`$ is a derivation of the $``$ product, and the observation that it annihilates all wedge states fits nicely with the fact that the wedge states form a subalgebra under $``$ multiplication.

Conservation laws for the antighost $`b`$ are identical to Virasoro conservations with vanishing central charge, since $`b`$ is a true conformal primary of dimension two.

Conservations laws involving $`c_n`$’s can be derived analogously. Here we need to consider holomorphic quadratic differentials $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }(\stackrel{~}{z})`$. We can take $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }=1/\stackrel{~}{z}^p`$, with $`p4`$ for the quadratic differential to be regular at $`\stackrel{~}{z}\mathrm{}`$. Back in $`z`$ coordinates one has

$$\phi (z)=\left(\frac{d\stackrel{~}{z}}{dz}\right)^2\stackrel{~}{\phi }(\stackrel{~}{z})=\frac{1}{[\mathrm{tan}^1(z)]^p(1+z^2)^2}.$$
(D.12)
Contour deformation argument now gives

$$\mathrm{\Xi }|𝑑z\phi (z)c(z)=0.$$
(D.13)
The first few conservations read

$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(c_2{\displaystyle \frac{2c_0}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{29c_2}{45}}{\displaystyle \frac{608c_4}{945}}+\mathrm{}\right)=0`$ (D.14)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(c_3{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{61c_3}{189}}+\mathrm{}\right)=0`$ (D.15)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{2c_0}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{128c_2}{945}}+{\displaystyle \frac{629c_4}{4725}}+\mathrm{}\right)=0`$ (D.16)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(c_5+{\displaystyle \frac{7c_1}{45}}{\displaystyle \frac{7c_1}{45}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2176c_3}{14175}}+\mathrm{}\right)=0`$ (D.17)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }|\left(c_6{\displaystyle \frac{2c_0}{35}}+{\displaystyle \frac{848c_2}{14175}}{\displaystyle \frac{1312c_4}{22275}}+\mathrm{}\right)=0.`$ (D.18)


format: text

text:
# Frequent observations accelerate decay: The anti-Zeno effect

## I Introduction

According to a prevailing view, claimed to be a general feature of quantum mechanics, successive frequent measurements must slow down the decay of any unstable system . This is known as the Quantum Zeno Effect (QZE), introduced by Misra and Sudarshan , following the early work of Khalfin  and Fonda . It has been colloquially phrased as follows: “a watched arrow never flies”, or ”a watched pot never boils” . Recent estimates of the time interval between measurements required for the QZE inhibition of radiative decay have been $`\tau _\mathrm{Z}3.6\times 10^{15}`$ s . But is this view true?

We have recently shown  that, in fact, the opposite is mostly true for decay into open-space continua: The anti-Zeno effect (AZE), i.e. decay acceleration by frequent measurements, is far more ubiquitous than the QZE. This universal conclusion  has been described by our commentators in the words: “a watched pot boils faster, “furtive glances trigger decay” . Accordingly, our cartoonist shows that old Zeno, trying to reassure Gullielmo Tell and his boy that the arrow won’t fly, is in for a nasty surprise (Fig. 1). How can this conclusion be understood and what was missing in standard treatments that claimed the QZE universality?

## II General analysis

We have reached the conclusion stated above by general analysis of measurement-affected decay. Consider $`|e`$, the measured state in a system ruled by hamiltonian $`H=H_0+V`$, where $`V`$ causes the coupling (decay) of $`|e`$ to all other eigenstates of $`H_0`$, to which we refer as the “reservoir” (Fig. 2).

The probability amplitude $`\alpha (t)`$ to remain in $`|e`$, which has the energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _a`$ obeys the following exact integro-differential equation

$$\dot{\alpha }=_0^t𝑑t^{}e^{i\omega _a(tt^{})}\mathrm{\Phi }(tt^{})\alpha (t^{}).$$
(1)
Here $`\alpha (t)=e|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)e^{i\omega _at}`$, $`\mathrm{}\omega _a`$ is the energy of $`|e`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\mathrm{}^2e|Ve^{iH_0t/\mathrm{}}V|e=\mathrm{}^2\underset{j}{}|V_{ej}|^2e^{i\omega _jt}$$
(2)
is the reservoir correlation function, expressed by $`V_{ej}=e|V|j`$, where $`|j`$ ($`|e`$) are $`H_0`$ eigenvectors with eigenvalues $`\mathrm{}\omega _j`$.

Equation (1) is exactly soluble, but it is enough to consider its short-time behavior by setting $`\alpha (t)\alpha (0)=1`$ in the integral of (1). This yields the expression

$$\alpha (t)=1_0^t𝑑t^{}(tt^{})\mathrm{\Phi }(t^{})e^{i\omega _at^{}},$$
(3)
in which all powers of $`t`$ (phase factors!) are included and interferences between various decay channels may occur. By contrast, the standard quadratic expansion in $`t`$ for the population  $`\rho _{ee}(t)=|\alpha (t)|^21t^2/\tau _Z^2`$, in which the Zeno time $`\tau _Z=\mathrm{}/(e|H^2|ee|H|e^2)^{1/2}`$ is the inverse variance of the energy in $`|e`$, may often fail, as discussed below. This is where we essentially differ from standard treatments. How does this difference show up?

Consider instantaneous measurements – projections on $`|e`$ interrupting its decay at intervals $`\tau `$. We can use our result for $`\alpha (t)`$, Eq. (3) to express the population of $`|e`$ after $`n`$ such measurements as exponentially decaying at a rate $`R`$,

$$\rho _{ee}(t=n\tau )=|\alpha (\tau )|^{2n}\mathrm{exp}(Rt).$$
(4)
The universal form of $`R`$ is (in the frequency domain)

$$R=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega G(\omega )F(\omega ).$$
(5)
This expression is the overlap of the reservoir-coupling spectrum

$$G(\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Re}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{\Phi }(t)e^{i\omega t}=\mathrm{}^2\underset{j}{}|V_{ej}|^2\delta (\omega \omega _j)$$
(6)
and the measurement-induced broadening of the measured energy level

$$F(\omega )=\frac{\tau }{2\pi }\text{sinc}^2\left(\frac{(\omega \omega _a)\tau }{2}\right).$$
(7)
We can interpret the universal result (4) as an expression of the time-energy uncertainty relation for an unstable level with lifetime $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, relating the energy broadening (uncertainty) of $`|e`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, the interval between measurements (Fig. 3),

$$\text{Eq. (}\text{5}\text{)}\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}.$$
(8)
More generally, in Eq. (8) $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1/\nu `$, where $`\nu `$ is a characteristic rate of measurements. With this definition, Eq. (8) holds both for ideal and nonideal (realistic) measurements. Relation (8) comes about since measurements (projections) dephase level $`|e`$, analogously to phase randomization by collisions, which induce a linewidth that is equal to the collision rate $`\nu `$.

A simple graphical analysis of the universal result Eq. (5) yields the main conclusions:

a) The QZE scaling (i.e., a decrease of the decay rate $`R`$ with an increase of $`\nu `$), is generally obtained when the measurement (dephasing) rate $`\nu `$ is much larger than the reservoir spectral width (Fig. 4):

$$\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_R,|\omega _\mathrm{a}\omega _\mathrm{M}|.$$
(9)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ is the reservoir width and $`\omega _\mathrm{M}`$ is the center of gravity of $`G(\omega )`$. In the special case of a peak-shaped $`G(\omega )`$, in Eq. (9) $`\omega _\mathrm{M}`$ can be replaced by the position $`\omega _\mathrm{m}`$ of the maximum. In the limit (9), one can approximate the spectrum $`G(\omega )`$ by a $`\delta `$-function, with a constant $`C`$ being the integrated spectrum,

$$C=G(\omega )𝑑\omega =V^2.$$
(10)
This approximation becomes exact in the case of resonant Rabi oscillations ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=0`$, $`\omega _\mathrm{a}=\omega _\mathrm{M}`$), which explains why the QZE is observable in Itano’s experiment  for any $`\nu `$. More generally, this approximation holds for any $`G(\omega )`$ that falls off faster than $`1/\omega `$ on the wings. Then our universal expression yields the most general result for the QZE, namely that $`R`$ decreases with $`\nu `$:

$$R2C/\nu ,$$
(11)
where we defined generally

$$\nu =[\pi F(\omega _\mathrm{a})]^1$$
(12)
In particular, as follows from Eq. (7), $`\nu =2/\tau `$ for instantaneous projections. The flattening of the spectral peak of $`G(\omega )`$ by the broad function $`F(\omega )`$ in the convolution is seen to be the origin of the QZE. To put it simply, if the system is probed frequently enough, the QZE arises since the effective decay rate is averaged over all decay channels, many of which are weak, due to the energy uncertainty incurred by the measurements.

This result contradicts the claim of QZE universality and demonstrates the failure of the standard quadratic expansion: Eq. (8) shows that the QZE conditions can be much more stringent than the requirement to have $`t1/\nu \tau _\mathrm{Z}`$. The crucial point emphasized below is that Eq. (9) may be principally impossible to satisfy.

The above discussion presumes that the integral in (10) converges. However, when $`G(\omega )`$ falls off as $`1/|\omega \omega _\mathrm{M}|`$ or slower and hence $`C`$ is infinite, the QZE still holds under condition (9), except that $`R`$ decreases with $`\nu `$ more slowly than $`\nu ^1`$. This situation is illustrated by a peak-shaped reservoir with a slowly decreasing tail,

$$G(\omega )=A|\omega \omega _\mathrm{c}|^\beta \text{for}s(\omega \omega _\mathrm{c})\mathrm{\Gamma }_R$$
(13)
and $`G(\omega )`$ is cut off or diminishes fast for $`s(\omega \omega _\mathrm{c})<\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. Here $`\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ is the cutoff frequency, $`0<\beta <1`$, $`\theta ()`$ is the unit step function, and $`s`$ can equal 1 or $`1`$. For instance, Eq. (13) approximately holds near the waveguide cutoff ($`s=1`$, $`\beta =1/2`$) or the vibrational Debye cutoff ($`s=1`$, $`\beta =1/2`$). The QZE scaling for a reservoir response (13) is found to be

$$R=B\nu ^\beta .$$
(14)
Here $`B=[2^\beta \pi /\mathrm{cos}(\pi \beta /2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+\beta )]A`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }()`$ is the gamma-function  (in particular, $`B=(8\pi ^{1/2}/3)A`$ for $`\beta =1/2`$). Equation (14) holds for a sufficiently weak coupling ($`A\nu ^{\beta +1}`$) and under condition (9), where, in the case of (13), $`\omega _\mathrm{M}`$ is replaced by $`\omega _\mathrm{m}`$ or, equivalently, $`\omega _\mathrm{c}`$.

More generally, under condition (9), the QZE scaling of $`R`$ occurs for any $`G(\omega )`$ such that

$$G(\omega )0\text{at}\omega \mathrm{}.$$
(15)
Conditions (9) and (15) ensure the QZE scaling only for sufficiently large measurement rates and do not always imply a monotonous decrease of $`R`$ as $`\nu `$ increases (see Fig. 4). The latter behavior, which is what one usually has in mind in discussions of the QZE, is obtained only in special situations. For instance, it occurs when $`G(\omega )`$ is a peak and $`\omega _\mathrm{a}`$ is within its width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$, i.e.,

$$|\omega _\mathrm{a}\omega _\mathrm{M}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_R.$$
(16)
b) The opposite to the QZE scaling is obtained whenever $`\omega _\mathrm{a}`$ is significantly detuned from the nearest maximum of $`G(\omega )`$ at $`\omega _\mathrm{m}`$, so that $`G(\omega _\mathrm{a})G(\omega _\mathrm{m})`$. In the limit (Fig. 5 \- inset):

$$\nu |\omega _\mathrm{m}\omega _\mathrm{a}|.$$
(17)
the rate $`R`$ grows with $`\nu `$, since the dephasing function $`F(\omega )`$ is then probing more of the rising part of $`G(\omega )`$ in the convolution. This limit implies the anti-Zeno effect (AZE) of decay acceleration by frequent measurements. Physically, this means that, as the energy uncertainty increases with the measurement rate $`\nu `$, the state decays into more and more channels, whose weight $`G(\omega )`$ is progressively larger.

Remarkably, we may impose condition (10) in any reservoir that is not spectrally flat. This reveals the universality of the AZE, which we noted already for radiative decay in cavities .

As an example, consider the coupling spectrum of the form

$`G(\omega )=A\omega ^\eta ,0<\omega <\omega _\mathrm{C},`$ (18)
$`G(\omega )=0\text{otherwise},`$ (19)
so that $`\omega _\mathrm{a}\omega _\mathrm{C}`$. Using the Lorentzian $`F(\omega )`$ (33), as obtained for realistic (continuous) measurements (see Sec. III), one obtains from Eq. (5) that for $`\nu \omega _\mathrm{C}`$

$$R=\frac{2\pi A(\omega _\mathrm{a}^2+\nu ^2)^{\eta /2}\mathrm{sin}\eta \chi }{\mathrm{sin}\eta \pi }(0<\eta <1),$$
(21)
$$R=A\left[\nu \mathrm{ln}\frac{\omega _\mathrm{C}^2}{\omega _\mathrm{a}^2+\nu ^2}+\omega _\mathrm{a}\left(\pi +2\mathrm{tan}^1\frac{\omega _\mathrm{a}}{\nu }\right)\right](\eta =1)$$
(22)
$$R=2\pi A\omega _\mathrm{a}^\eta +\frac{2A}{\eta 1}\nu \omega _\mathrm{C}^{\eta 1}(\eta >1),$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\chi =\nu /\omega _\mathrm{a}`$ ($`0<\chi <\pi `$). Obviously, expressions (II) increase with $`\nu `$.

c) In the limit $`\nu 0`$, Eq. (5) yields the Golden Rule result (i.e., the normal decay rate in the absence of measurements)

$$R_{\mathrm{GR}}=2\pi G(\omega _\mathrm{a}).$$
(24)
More exactly,

$$RR_{\mathrm{GR}}(\nu \delta _\mathrm{a}).$$
(25)
Here $`\delta _\mathrm{a}`$ is the interval around $`\omega _\mathrm{a}`$ over which $`G(\omega )`$ changes appreciably, when $`G(\omega )`$ increases not faster than a linear function with the decrease of $`|\omega _\mathrm{m}\omega |`$, and may be much less otherwise. In particular, as follows from Eqs. (II), in the case (19) $`\delta _\mathrm{a}=\omega _\mathrm{a}`$ if $`\eta 1`$ and $`\delta _\mathrm{a}=\omega _\mathrm{a}^\eta /\omega _\mathrm{C}^{\eta 1}\omega _\mathrm{a}`$ if $`\eta >1`$.

d) More subtle behavior occurs in the domain between the QZE and AZE limits. Assume, for simplicity, that $`G(\omega )`$ is single-peaked and satisfies condition (15). When $`\nu `$ increases from the limit (17) up to the range where the right-hand-side inequality is violated, then $`\nu |\omega _\mathrm{m}\omega _\mathrm{a}|`$, which is now equivalent to condition (9), implying the Zeno scaling of Eq. (11) or (14). But even in this QZE-scaling regime, $`R`$ remains larger than the Golden Rule rate $`R_{\mathrm{GR}}`$ (24), up to much higher $`\nu `$, as expressed by the following condition for “genuine QZE”

$$R<R_{\mathrm{GR}}\text{for}\nu >\nu _{\mathrm{QZE}},$$
(26)
where

$$\nu _{\mathrm{QZE}}=2C/R_{\mathrm{GR}}=C/\pi G(\omega _\mathrm{a})$$
(28)
in the case of a finite $`C`$, and

$$\nu _{\mathrm{QZE}}=(B/R_{\mathrm{GR}})^{1/\beta }=[B/2\pi G(\omega _\mathrm{a})]^{1/\beta }$$
(29)
in the case of Eq. (13). The quantity $`\nu _{\mathrm{QZE}}`$ may turn out to be much greater than the boundary $`\nu _1`$ of the QZE-scaling regime (see below).

The value of $`\nu _{\mathrm{QZE}}`$ given by Eq. (28) was identified with the reciprocal “jump time”, i.e., the maximal time interval between measurements for which the decay rate is appreciably changed . However, the correct value of the reciprocal jump time is rather $`\delta _a`$, which may be smaller by many orders of magnitude than $`\nu _{\mathrm{QZE}}`$. In the special case of ideal instantaneous measurements and a Lorentzian or Lorentzian-like $`G(\omega )`$, the genuine-QZE condition (26) reduces to that of Ref. .

These considerations apply (with some limitations) to hydrogenic radiative decay (spontaneous emission), for which $`G(\omega )`$ can be calculated exactly :

$$G(\omega )=\frac{\alpha \omega }{[1+(\omega /\omega _\mathrm{B})^2]^4}.$$
(30)
Here $`\omega _\mathrm{B}c/a_\mathrm{B}`$, where $`c`$ is the vacuum light speed and $`a_\mathrm{B}`$ is the radius of the electron orbit. Then Eqs. (5) and (7) may yield the AZE trend

$$R\alpha \nu [\mathrm{ln}(\omega _\mathrm{B}/\nu )+C_1](\omega _\mathrm{a}\nu \omega _\mathrm{B}),$$
(31)
where $`C_1=0.354`$ and $`\nu =2/\tau `$. The AZE trend should be observable (Fig. 5) for $`\nu \omega _\mathrm{a}`$, i.e., for microwave Rydberg transitions on a ps scale (provided we can isolate one transition) and for optical transitions on the sub-fs scale. The boundary between the AZE and QZE-scaling regions is now given by $`\nu _1\omega _\mathrm{B}`$ and the genuine-QZE condition (26) by $`\nu >\nu _{\mathrm{QZE}}\omega _\mathrm{B}^2/12\pi \omega _a\nu _1`$ \[cf. Eq. (28)\], rendering $`R<R_{\mathrm{GR}}=2\pi \alpha \omega _a`$.

This analysis implies that the “genuine QZE” range $`\nu >\nu _{\mathrm{QZE}}`$ is principally unattainable, since it requires measurement rates above the relativistic cutoff $`\omega _\mathrm{R}`$, which are detrimental to the system, leading to the production of new particles. A similar principal obstacle occurs for radioactive decay. By contrast, the AZE is accessible in decay processes, such as spontaneous emission or the nuclear $`\beta `$-decay, and can essentially always be imposed.

## III Realistic measurements

Thus far we have assumed ideal instantaneous projections on $`|e`$. Does a more realistic description of measurements still support these results? The answer is positive for the two possible types of measurements of $`|e`$:

a) Impulsive measurements. Such measurements are realizable, e.g., in Cook’s scheme  implemented by Itano et al.  (Fig. 6): the decay process is repeatedly interrupted by a short pulse transferring the population of $`|e`$ to a higher auxiliary state $`|u`$, which then decays back fast enough to $`|e`$ incoherently. This case conforms to our universal result Eq. (5) to a very good approximation, with the dephasing function given by Eq. (7).

b) Continuous measurements. These measurements should not be confused with the limit of vanishing intervals between successive continuous projections discussed by Misra and Sudarshan. This limit is unphysical, corresponding to an infinite energy spread $`\mathrm{}\nu `$. In contrast, realistic continuous measurements, though monitoring the state incessantly, still require a finite time for completing an observation, i.e., they have a finite effective rate $`\nu `$.

This is seen for stationary dephasing when the $`|e|u`$ transition is driven by a near-resonant continuous-wave field, such that $`1/\mathrm{\Omega }_p1/\gamma _u`$, yielding

$$\nu =2\mathrm{\Omega }^2/\gamma _u.$$
(32)
One can show that the universal result still holds for such measurements, with $`F(\omega )`$ being a Lorentzian centered at $`\omega _\mathrm{a}`$:

$$F(\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\nu }{(\omega \omega _a)^2+\nu ^2}.$$
(33)
Thus, qualitatively, there is no essential distinction between different frequent measurements: ideal projections, impulsive measurements, and continuous measurements.

## IV QZE and AZE for Photon Polarization Dephasing

As an example, consider the decay of photon polarization into a “reservoir” created by the phase-randomizing element (polarization rotator) controlled by a noisy field (see Fig. 7) .

Let us first assume constant phase jumps $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ at the polarization rotator. Uninterrupted evolution then corresponds to Rabi oscillations of the horizontal polarization probability (for $`\theta =1`$):

$$P_h(n)=\mathrm{cos}^2(n\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ).$$
(34)
Decay via perfect (projective) measurements (for $`\theta =0`$) results in

$$P_h(n)=e^{n(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )^2}.$$
(35)
This decay is slower than Rabi oscillations, signifying the QZE. Imperfect (weak) measurements ($`0<\theta <1`$) yield for small phase jumps \[$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )^2(1\theta )^2`$\] an exponential decay

$$P_h(t=n\tau _\mathrm{r})=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )^2}{\tau _\mathrm{r}^2\nu }t\right],$$
(36)
$`\tau _\mathrm{r}`$ being the round-trip time. This decay still conforms with the QZE: the decay rate decreases with the measurement rate

$$\nu =\frac{2(1\theta )}{1+\theta }\frac{1}{\tau _\mathrm{r}}.$$
(37)
We now proceed to discuss random phase jumps $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _n`$, caused by noisy modulation. We then obtain for sufficiently small jumps

$$R=2\pi _{\pi /\tau _\mathrm{r}}^{\pi /\tau _\mathrm{r}}𝑑\omega G(\omega )F(\omega ),$$
(38)
which is an extension of Eq. (5) to such a “reservoir”. Here $`F(\omega )`$ is peaked at $`\omega =0`$ and has the characteristic width (37).

The key parameter for $`G(\omega )`$ in Eq. (38) is the correlation of consecutive phase jumps:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{n+1}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _n=\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\phi _n^2.$$
(39)
For highly correlated jumps $`(\gamma 1)`$ we find

$$G(\omega )\frac{B^2}{\pi \tau _\mathrm{r}^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}^2+\omega ^2},$$
(40)
i.e. a Lorentzian of width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}=(1\gamma )/\tau _\mathrm{r}`$. For highly anticorrelated jumps $`(\gamma 1)`$ the “reservoir” spectrum is a sum of two shifted Lorentzians,

$$G(\omega )\underset{j=\pm 1}{}\frac{B^2}{\pi \tau _\mathrm{r}^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{R}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(\pi /\tau _\mathrm{r}+j\omega )^2}$$
(41)
of width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}^{}=(1+\gamma )/\tau _\mathrm{r}`$.

If $`G(\omega )`$ is peaked at $`\omega =0`$ (the high-correlation case $`\gamma 1)`$, then perfect measurements $`(\theta =0)`$, corresponding to a flat $`F(\omega )`$, will reduce $`R`$, causing the QZE trend, as compared to weak measurements $`(\theta 1)`$, corresponding to a narrow spectral profile

$$F(\omega )\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\nu }{\nu ^2+\omega ^2},$$
(42)
with $`\nu =(1\theta )/\tau _\mathrm{r}`$ (see Fig. 8).

The opposite (AZE) trend holds if $`G(\omega )`$ is peaked at $`\omega =\pm \pi /\tau _\mathrm{r}`$ (the highly anti-correlated case, $`\gamma 1)`$ (Fig. 9). The two trends are illustrated in Fig. 10.

\[

\]

## V Atom escape (decay) by tunneling from accelerated potential

Theoretical and experimental studies by Raizen et al.  have shown that cold atoms trapped in an accelerated (“washboard”-shaped) periodic potential tunnel out (Fig. 11) non-exponentially, at times $`t\tau _0\omega _g/(k_La)`$, where $`\mathrm{}\omega _g`$ is the band gap which equals approximately half the potential well depth, $`a`$ the acceleration and $`k_L`$ the wave number of the laser creating this potential. Our prediction is that AZE should arise for measurement intervals $`\tau 1/\omega _g`$ and QZE for $`\tau 1/\omega _g`$. These trends are plotted in Fig. 12. Figure 13 shows (in the logarithmic scale) the decay law $`P_0(t)=|\alpha (t)|^2`$ for short times (the solid curve). The two curves in Fig. 13 intersect at the time $`\tau _{\mathrm{QZE}}=2/\nu _{\mathrm{QZE}}`$, so that the genuine QZE occurs for $`\tau <\tau _{\mathrm{QZE}}`$. Note that in this case $`\tau _{\mathrm{QZE}}`$ ($`10^6\tau _0`$) is much less than the boundary of the QZE-scaling region $`1/\omega _g=0.1\tau _0`$.

## VI Experimental accessibility

Table I lists a number of processes where the AZE may be observed at accessible measurement intervals $`t\tau _{\mathrm{AZE}}`$. By contrast, the QZE ($`\tau _{\mathrm{QZE}}\tau _{\mathrm{AZE}}`$) either is principally unobservable or, as a rule, is practically much less accessible than the AZE ($`\tau _{\mathrm{QZE}}\tau _{\mathrm{AZE}}`$). Notable exceptions, where the AZE and QZE are equally accessible, are the cases of a narrow (near-resonance) reservoir, such as radiative or photon-polarization decay in a cavity.

## VII Conclusions

Our simple universal formula (5) results in general criteria for the QZE:
(i) It can only occur in systems with spectral width below the resonance energy.
(ii) It is principally unattainable in open-space radiative or nuclear $`\beta `$-decay, because the required measurement rates would cause the creation of new particles.
(iii) Contrary to the widespread view, frequent measurements can be chosen to accelerate essentially any decay process. Hence, the anti-Zeno effect should be far more ubiquitous than the QZE.

A variety of systems have been shown to be promising candidates for experimental studies of the AZE, which is almost always much more accessible than the QZE.