text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The aim of physical theories is the simplest possible description of Nature within the uncertainties afforded by experiments. The symmetry aspects of this description are usually codified in an underlying Lie algebra, around which the theory is built. The structure constants of the algebra parameterize the theory and are, in principle, measurable quantities — they often emerge as the fundamental constants of the theory. Given that our knowledge of these parameters can only be approximate, physical theories that do not change qualitatively under small perturbations of their parameters have more chances of wide applicability. This observation may not be worthy of an axiom status but it does provide a sensible criterion about which regions of parameter space might be most promising for theory hunting.

Lie algebras come in two varieties: stable111the term rigid is often used by mathematicians as a synonym. and unstable. The former are isomorphic to all Lie algebras in their vicinity (in a sense to be made precise later on) while the latter are infinitesimally close to qualitatively different (i.e. non-isomorphic) algebras. To specify the content of a physical theory relying on an unstable Lie algebra, an infinitely fine tuning of the values of its parameters is necessary. It makes therefore sense, when confronted with such a theory, to look for generalizations that are immune to perturbations, i.e., are endowed with a definite structure despite the fuzziness in their parameters. This point of view has an already long history, and not only in physics. It permeates the work of Thom  on morphogenetic mechanisms in the seventies, which in turn draws on Smale’s  strong advocation, as early as in the sixties, of a similar principle in the study of non-linear dynamics. In physics, it has been pointed out by several authors  that the kinematics of special relativity can be obtained as a stabilization of the Galilean algebra, an example that we also present in the sequel, as well as that the quantization of classical mechanics can be described as the transition from an (infinite dimensional) unstable Lie algebra of functions on phase space to a stable one. In either case, the mathematical process involved has been formalized in the theory of deformations of Lie algebras, developed in the sixties by Gersternhaber , Nijenhuis and Richardson  and others.

On a different front, alluded to by the second half of the title, recent years have witnessed an explosion of interest in extended objects, collectively referred to as branes, for which a variety of action functionals has by now been proposed and studied. The matching of the number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom in these actions is guaranteed by the so-called $`\kappa `$-symmetry, which in turn necessitates the introduction of a WZ term. Already in the case of the superstring action of Green and Schwarz, a problem arises by the fact that the WZ term is not manifestly supersymmetric, but rather, transforms by a total derivative under general translations in superspace. Siegel  showed that by augmenting superspace by a new fermionic variable, one could write a truly invariant WZ term for the action, consisting of the pull-back on the worldvolume of an invariant 2-form defined on the extended superspace. At the algebra level this amounts to a central extension by a fermionic generator which transforms as a spinor under the Lorentz group. It was thus shown that, once extended objects are considered, further extensions of standard superspace might provide a natural background for the description of their dynamics. Following Siegel’s work, Bergshoeff and Sezgin  proposed extended supersymmetry algebras that lend themselves to the description of $`p`$-branes. The zoo of extended objects (and of corresponding algebras) has been enriched since then with the appearance of $`D`$-branes  (and, later, $`L`$-branes ), the actions of which differ qualitatively from the standard brane action in that they involve fields defined directly on the worldvolume.

The plethora of extended objects mentioned above, combined with the disparity in the characteristics of their actions, motivated the systematic study of superalgebra extensions undertaken in . It was shown there how genuinely invariant actions can be found on suitably extended superspaces, recovering the results of . Even more tantalizingly, the Born-Infeld worldvolume fields were shown to come from pull-backs from these extended superspaces. Our aim here is to show how these results reinforce the particular point of view advocated above and to argue that they should be added to the list of developments illuminated by stability considerations. Sec. 2 starts with a cursory look at the formal deformation theory of Lie algebras, including the example of the Galilean algebra. Then branes enter, in Sec. 3, and some of the problems arising in the standard superspace formulation are pointed out. Sec. 4 shows how to extend superspace so that the resulting algebra of the generators of supertranslations is stabilized. Sec. 5 looks at the applications to standard $`p`$-branes and $`D`$-branes mentioned above. We contemplate on future possible directions, adhering to the stability theme, in the epilogue.

## 2 Deformations

Given an $`n`$-dimensional real222Lie algebra will always mean real Lie algebra in what follows. Lie algebra $`𝒢`$, with generators $`T_A`$, $`A=1,\mathrm{},n`$. $`𝒢`$ is specified completely by its (real) structure constants $`f_{AB}^{}{}_{}{}^{C}`$. The latter are subject to two conditions: antisymmetry in the lower two indices and the Jacobi identity

$`f_{AB}^{}{}_{}{}^{C}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{BA}^{}{}_{}{}^{C},`$
$`f_{AR}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}f_{BC}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}+f_{BR}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}f_{CA}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}+f_{CR}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}f_{AB}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (1)
Relaxing for the moment the latter, one is left with $`N(n)=n^2(n1)/2`$ arbitrary constants. Consider now the space $`^N`$, with each of the $`f`$’s ranging along an axis. For each value of $`(A,B,C,S)`$, (2) describes a quadratic hypersurface in this space. The intersection of these hypersurfaces is the space $`_n`$ of all possible $`n`$-dimensional Lie algebras — we sketch it as a surface in Fig. 1.

Referring to this figure, consider the point $`P`$ on $`_n`$ — it corresponds to the Lie algebra $`𝒢_P`$, whose structure constants are given by the coordinates of $`P`$. Under a linear redefinition of the generators via a $`GL(n)`$ matrix $`M`$,

$$T_A^{}=M_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}T_B,$$
(2)
the structure constants transform as

$$f_{AB}^{}{}_{}{}^{C}=M_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}(M^1)_{U}^{}{}_{}{}^{C}f_{RS}^{}{}_{}{}^{U},$$
(3)
and $`P`$ moves to $`P_M`$. Clearly, no new physics is to be expected from such a redefinition, $`𝒢_P`$ and $`𝒢_{P_M}`$ being isomorphic. What we are really interested in then, from a physical point of view, is not $`_n`$ itself, but, rather, the equivalence classes into which $`_n`$ splits under the above action of $`GL(n)`$, each class being the $`GL(n)`$ orbit $`𝒪(P)`$ of any point $`P`$ in the class. The crucial observation to be made here is that there exist two types of points on $`_n`$: those that are completely surrounded by equivalent points and those whose neighborhoods include non-equivalent points, sketched as $`P`$ and $`Q`$ respectively in Fig. 1. Any infinitesimal perturbation of the structure constants of $`𝒢_P`$ will necessarily lead to an isomorphic Lie algebra while there exist infinitesimal perturbations of $`𝒢_Q`$ that lead outside of $`𝒪(Q)`$ and, hence, to non-isomorphic algebras.

Given a Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ with the Lie product of $`T_A`$, $`T_B𝒢`$ supplied by the commutator $`[T_A,T_B]_0`$. A one-parameter deformation of $`𝒢`$ is given by the deformed commutator

$$[T_A,T_B]_t=[T_A,T_B]_0+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi _m^{(2)}(T_A,T_B)t^m,$$
(4)
where $`t`$ is a formal parameter and the $`\psi _m^{(2)}`$ are $`𝒢`$-valued, bilinear antisymmetric maps

$$\psi _m^{(2)}:𝒢\times 𝒢𝒢,\psi _m^{(2)}(T_A,T_B)=\psi _m^{(2)}(T_B,T_A).$$
(5)
Such maps are called 2-cochains — in a similar fashion one defines $`p`$-cochains $`\psi ^{(p)}`$ which accept $`p`$ arguments. The coboundary operator $`s`$ maps $`p`$-cochains to $`p+1`$-cochains according to

$`s\psi ^{(p)}(T_{A_1},\mathrm{},T_{A_{p+1}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p+1}{}}}(1)^{p+1}[T_{A_r},\psi ^{(p)}(T_{A_1},\mathrm{},\widehat{T}_{A_r},\mathrm{},T_{A_{p+1}})]`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r<s}{}}(1)^{r+s}\psi ^{(p)}([T_{A_r},T_{A_s}],T_{A_1},\mathrm{},\widehat{T}_{A_r},\mathrm{},\widehat{T}_{A_s},\mathrm{},T_{A_{p+1}}).`$
We will have more to say about $`s`$ later on. For the moment, we just state that $`s^2=0`$. Then, mimicking a familiar procedure in differential geometry, one defines $`p`$-cocycles as $`p`$-cochains annihilated by $`s`$ (spanning $`Z^p`$), $`p`$-coboundaries (or, trivial $`p`$-cocycles) as the image, under $`s`$, of $`(p1)`$-cochains (spanning $`B^p`$) and the $`p`$-th cohomology group of $`𝒢`$ as $`Z^p/B^pH^p`$. The relevance of all this technology to Lie algebra deformations can be seen by differentiating, w.r.t. $`t`$, the Jacobi identity that $`[,]_t`$ must satisfy and then setting $`t=0`$. One finds that $`\psi _1^{(2)}`$ in (4) has to be a 2-cocycle. Moreover, if $`\psi _1^{(2)}`$ is a coboundary, the deformation that it generates is trivial, in the sense that the resulting deformed Lie algebra is isomorphic to the original one. Referring to Fig. 1, we see that 2-cocycles span the tangent space to $`_n`$ at, e.g., $`Q`$, with 2-coboundaries pointing towards the $`GL(n)`$ orbit of $`Q`$ and non-trivial 2-cocycles outside of it. A sufficient condition then for the stability of $`𝒢`$ is the vanishing of its second cohomology group $`H^2(𝒢)`$. It is worth pointing out that the above is not a necessary condition. Although a non-trivial 2-cocycle may exist, obstructions originating in $`H^3(𝒢)`$ can render it non-integrable in which case the corresponding finite non-trivial deformation does not exist (see, e.g.).

It is obvious from the definition given above, that a $`p`$-cochain can always be realized as a $`𝒢`$-valued left invariant (LI) $`p`$-form on the group manifold $`G`$ corresponding to $`𝒢`$, with the generators $`T_A`$ now extended to LI vector fields. Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Pi }^A`$ the LI 1-forms on $`G`$, we write $`\psi ^{(p)}`$ as

$$\psi ^{(p)}T_B\psi ^B=\frac{1}{p!}\psi _{A_1\mathrm{}A_p}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}T_B\mathrm{\Pi }^{A_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{A_p}.$$
(7)
Then the action of $`s`$ given in (6) coincides with that of a covariant exterior derivative $``$,

$$(T_A\psi ^A)=T_A(d\psi ^A+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{A}{}_{B}{}^{}\psi ^B),$$
(8)
with the connection 1-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{A}{}_{B}{}^{}=f_{RB}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}\mathrm{\Pi }^R,(\text{i.e.}\text{,}_{T_A}T_B=[T_A,T_B]).$$
(9)
The nilpotency of $`s`$ follows now from the vanishing of the curvature 2-form $`\mathrm{\Theta }=d\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, due to the Jacobi identity, while 2-cocycles are covariantly constant $`𝒢`$-valued LI 2-forms. Notice that the requirement that $`s\psi ^{(2)}=0`$, with $`\psi ^{(2)}`$ as in (7), reduces to

$$f_{AR}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}\psi _{BC}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}+f_{BR}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}\psi _{CA}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}+f_{CR}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}\psi _{AB}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}+\psi _{AR}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}f_{BC}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}+\psi _{BR}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}f_{CA}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}+\psi _{CR}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}f_{AB}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}=0,$$
(10)
which is, as expected, the linearized form of the Jacobi identity.

Imagine one is given all (non-zero) commutators that define a Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ and is asked to strategically add to their r.h.s. (multiples of) a new, central generator $`Z`$, without violating the Jacobi identity. Assuming that this is at all possible, the resulting Lie algebra is called a central extension of $`𝒢`$. It is easily seen that central extensions can be considered as a particular class of deformations — one simply pretends that $`Z`$ was present all the time as a $`U(1)`$ factor, and got involved in the algebra, remaining central, as a result of the deformation. The general results above simplify considerably in this case. The maps $`\psi _m^{(2)}`$ in (4) are valued now in the center of $`𝒢`$ and, as a result, the first sum on the r.h.s. of (6) vanishes. What is left reduces, in our geometrical realization of $`s`$, to the exterior derivative $`d`$. 2-cocycles become, in this case, closed LI 2-forms, 2-coboundaries are exact LI 2-forms with LI potential while non-trivial 2-cocycles are closed LI 2-forms that do not have LI potential 1-form. The latter are known as non-trivial Chevalley-Eilenberg (CE) 2-cocycles, with obvious generalization to $`p`$-cocycles. Notice that a non-trivial CE cocycle may admit a potential, although not a LI one.

We wrap up our brief tour of things deformed with a couple of remarks. First, the discussion of stability above implies that the dimensions of $`_n`$ and $`𝒪(P)`$ must be equal in order for $`𝒢_P`$ to be stable (see Fig. 1) — this would seem to single out a couple of special values of $`n`$ for which stability is at all possible. However, in physical applications, one generally has to take into account additional restrictions on the structure constants (e.g., Lorentz covariance) which make the balancing of dimensions more complicated and give rise to several possible values of $`n`$. Furthermore, apart from the mandatory physical restrictions, one may elect to consider only certain types of deformations, leading to a corresponding (weaker) notion of partial stability333we thank Gary Gibbons for discussions on this point.. Second, we have dealt above, for the sake of simplicity, with ordinary Lie algebras — analogous results hold for Lie superalgebras , which are the ones we deal with in later sections.

As an example of a stabilizing deformation, consider the (homogeneous) Galilean algebra

$$[J_i,J_j]=ϵ_{ijk}J_k,[J_i,K_j]=ϵ_{ijk}K_k,[K_i,K_j]=0.$$
(11)
Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Pi }^i`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{i}}`$ the LI 1-forms corresponding to $`J_i`$, $`K_i`$ respectively, one easily shows that

$$\psi _1^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}J_1\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{3}}+\frac{1}{2}J_2\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{3}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{1}}+\frac{1}{2}J_3\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{1}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{2}}$$
(12)
is a non-trivial 2-cocycle (notice that the $`𝒢`$-part of $`\psi _1^{(2)}`$ above does not commute with $`𝒢`$ and, hence, the full expression (8) has to be used, with $`d\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{1}}=\mathrm{\Pi }^2\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{3}}+\mathrm{\Pi }^3\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{2}}`$ etc..). The resulting deformation is

$$[J_i,J_j]=ϵ_{ijk}J_k,[J_i,K_j]=ϵ_{ijk}K_k,[K_i,K_j]=\frac{1}{c^2}ϵ_{ijk}J_k,$$
(13)
where the scale of $`\psi _1^{(2)}`$, undetermined by the cocycle condition, is fixed by the experiment. This is the Lorentz algebra and, being semisimple, is stable, according to Whitehead’s second lemma .

A second, substantially more involved, example is furnished by the passage from classical to quantum mechanics. The complexity in this case arises from the fact that the setting amenable to stability analysis is that of the infinite-dimensional Lie algebra of functions $`f(q,p)`$ on phase space, with the Lie product given by the Poisson bracket — for details, see , while an alternative, finite-dimensional treatment is given in .

## 3 Quasi-invariant Actions

We lay coordinates $`\xi ^i,i=0,\mathrm{},p`$ on the $`(p+1)`$-dimensional worldvolume $`W`$ of a $`p`$-brane and embed it in $`D`$-dimensional Minkowski spacetime $`M`$, with coordinates $`x^\mu ,\mu =0,\mathrm{},D1`$. The embedding, which we will generically denote by $`\varphi `$, is effected by functions $`x^\mu (\xi )`$. The action is taken to be the hypervolume swept out by the brane, with metric induced by the Minkowskian $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$

$$S_p=_Wd^{p+1}\xi \sqrt{detm_{ij}},m_{ij}=\frac{x^\mu }{\xi ^i}\frac{x^\nu }{\xi ^j}\eta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(14)
$`M`$ is a group manifold, with the group operation being ordinary translations, $`x_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\mu }=x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+x^\mu `$, the generators $`X_\mu `$ of which obviously commute. These leave invariant the above action — in fact, they even leave invariant the Lagrangian density, i.e., the action is invariant even when surface terms cannot be ignored.

We now wish to consider the motion of our brane in superspace $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The latter is just like $`M`$, but with additional fermionic coordinates $`\theta ^\alpha `$, the embedding $`\varphi `$ now given by functions $`\theta ^\alpha (\xi )`$, $`x^\mu (\xi )`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is also a (super444we use the prefix super only minimally.)group, the group operation being supertranslations

$$\theta ^{\prime \prime \alpha }=\theta ^\alpha +\theta ^\alpha ,x^{\prime \prime \mu }=x^\mu +x^\mu +\frac{1}{2}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\theta ^\alpha \theta ^\beta .$$
(15)
$`C`$ here is the charge conjugation matrix, $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu C^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T`$. The corresponding generators $`D_\alpha `$, $`X_\mu `$ satisfy

$$\{D_\alpha ,D_\beta \}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha \beta }X_\mu ,$$
(16)
all other commutators being zero. At this point we can establish a connection with the material of the previous section: (16) is clearly a central extension of the commutative fermionic algebra $`\{D_\alpha ,D_\beta \}=0`$, by $`X_\mu `$. Notice how this observation points to the fermionic sector of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as the fundamental one, $`M`$ entering only as a stabilizer. Rewriting (16) in the dual form

$$d\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha =0,d\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =\frac{1}{2}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta ,$$
(17)
we identify $`(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta `$ as the non-trivial CE 2-cocycle responsible for the extension. $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ here are the LI 1-forms on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha =d\theta ^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =dx^\mu +\frac{1}{2}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\theta ^\alpha d\theta ^\beta .$$
(18)
Notice that left invariance simply means invariance under (left) supertranslations. For this reason, the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$’s are the natural building blocks for a supertranslation invariant action, which takes now the form

$$S_p=_Wd^{p+1}\xi \sqrt{detm_{ij}},m_{ij}=\mathrm{\Pi }_i^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_j^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(19)
where $`\varphi ^{}(\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu )\mathrm{\Pi }_i^\mu d\xi ^i`$ is the pull-back of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ on $`W`$. We are not yet finished though. As mentioned already in Sec. 1, $`\kappa `$-symmetry forces the addition of a Wess-Zumino term $`S_{WZ}`$ to the above action, given by the pull-back on $`W`$ of a $`(p+1)`$-form $`b`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$,

$$S=S_p+S_{WZ},S_{WZ}=_W\varphi ^{}(b).$$
(20)
The properties required of $`b`$ are best expressed in terms of $`h=db`$: $`h`$ must be a closed LI and Lorentz invariant $`(p+2)`$-form with length dimension $`p+1`$. The latter is computed by assigning length dimension 1 to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha `$. One finds

$$h=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p})_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu _p}\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta ,$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$ is the antisymmetrized product (with unit weight) of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _p}`$.

The natural question that arises is whether $`h`$ comes from a LI potential $`b`$, so that the invariance of the total action $`S`$ is maintained. The answer is a categorical no , which promotes $`h`$ to a non-trivial CE $`(p+2)`$-cocycle. $`h`$ does come from a $`(p+1)`$-form $`b`$, but the latter transforms by a total derivative under supertranslations, making $`S`$ only quasi-invariant. Siegel has showed that by enlarging superspace by a new fermionic variable, a genuinely invariant action can be found in the $`p=1`$ case (superstring) . At the algebra level, this is just a central extension of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The extended algebra does not admit any further extension by generators with a single Lorentz index, vectorial or spinorial, and it is only this type of generators that are relevant in the description of the superstring. We conclude that Siegel’s extension of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a stabilizing deformation, as long as one only admits generators with a single Lorentz index (this is an example of the partial stability mentioned in Sec. 1). In the case of $`p`$-branes then, it is only natural to ask the question: what is the stable form of the supersymmetry algebra (16) (or (17)), when only additional generators with $`p`$ Lorentz indices are allowed?

## 4 Extensions

Our starting point is the supersymmetry algebra in its Maurer-Cartan (MC) form, Eq. (17), with $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ rescaled so as to keep the discussion as general as possible

$$d\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha =0,d\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =a_s(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta .$$
(22)
We look for central extensions involving generators with $`p`$ Lorentz indices, i.e., for non-trivial CE 2-cocycles. We find that

$$\rho _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p})_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta $$
(23)
is the only such cocycle available. We introduce accordingly a new LI 1-form $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$ and set its differential equal to the cocycle,

$$d\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}=a_0(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p})_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta .$$
(24)
On the group manifold, this amounts to the introduction of a new coordinate555what we mean is of course a new type of coordinate — there are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{D}{p}\right)`$ of them. $`\varphi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$, so that the set $`\{\theta ^\alpha ,x^\mu ,\varphi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}\}`$ parameterizes now the extended superspace $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0`$. The relation of $`\varphi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$ as well as its group law are uniquely determined by the non-LI potential for $`\rho _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$, see  for details. The only non-zero commutator of the resulting Lie algebra is

$$\{D_\alpha ,D_\beta \}=a_s(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha \beta }X_\mu +a_0(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p})_{\alpha \beta }Z^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p},$$
(25)
where $`Z^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$ denotes the generator of translations along $`\varphi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$. We now repeat the above procedure with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0`$ replacing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We find that the introduction of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$, which repaired the instability of the original algebra, has as a side effect the appearance of a new non-trivial CE 2-cocycle on the extended superspace $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0`$. Indeed, inspection of the available Lorentz tensors shows that the only two candidates for a cocycle are666we use the index notation $`\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{pk}\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k`$.

$$\rho _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _1}^{(1)}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p1}})_{\beta \alpha _1}\mathrm{\Pi }^\nu \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta ,\rho _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _1}^{(2)}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\beta \alpha _1}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p1}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta .$$
(26)
For $`p=1`$, both of these forms are closed. For $`p2`$, $`\lambda _2=\frac{a_s}{a_0}`$ implies $`d(\rho ^{(1)}+\lambda _2\rho ^{(2)})=0`$ provided777primed indices are understood to be symmetrized with unit weight.

$$(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p1}})_{\gamma ^{}\delta ^{}}=0,$$
(27)
a relation which is true only for certain values of $`(D,p)`$ . We introduce then a LI 1-form $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _1}`$ and the corresponding coordinate $`\varphi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _1}`$, obtaining the new extended superspace $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1`$888notice that the subscript of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ counts the number of fermionic indices of the last coordinate introduced.. The MC equations are augmented by

$$d\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _1}=a_1((C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p1}})_{\beta \alpha _1}\mathrm{\Pi }^\nu \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta +\frac{a_s}{a_0}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\beta \alpha _1}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p1}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta )).$$
(28)
Notice that this new extension involves the replacement of a vectorial index by a spinorial one. Also, the appearance of $`\rho _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _1}^{(2)}`$ in $`d\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _1}`$, implies that $`Z^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$ is no longer central. Analogous remarks hold for all subsequent extensions. Every new generator introduced has one more spinorial index than the previous one, while, after each extension, the only central generator is the one introduced last, all others having acquired non-zero commutators as a result of the extensions made after the one that introduced them. The iterative procedure stops with the introduction of $`Z_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}`$, since there are no non-trivial 2-cocycles on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_p`$. The first five extensions are, from an algebraic point of view, exceptional, while for the ones that follow a pattern emerges that leads to a recursion relation. The resulting MC equations are (apart from (22), (24), (28))

$`d\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _2}`$ $`=`$ $`a_2\{(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p2}})_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\mathrm{\Pi }^\nu \mathrm{\Pi }^\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{a_s}{a_0}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \rho \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\rho `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_s}{a_1}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p2}\beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta 8{\displaystyle \frac{a_s}{a_1}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1^{}\beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p2}\alpha _2^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta \},`$
$`d\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _3}`$ $`=`$ $`a_3\{(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \rho \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p3}\alpha _3^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{5a_1}{4a_2}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1^{}\beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p3}\alpha _2^{}\alpha _3^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta `$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{4a_2}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p3}\beta \alpha _3^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta \text{}\},`$
$`d\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _4}`$ $`=`$ $`a_4\{(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \rho \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p4}\alpha _3^{}\alpha _4^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\rho {\displaystyle \frac{48a_sa_2}{5a_1a_3}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1^{}\beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p4}\alpha _2^{}\alpha _3^{}\alpha _4^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{12a_sa_2}{5a_1a_3}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p4}\beta \alpha _3^{}\alpha _4^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta \text{}\},`$
$`d\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{k+2}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{k+2}\{(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \rho \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p(k+2)}\alpha _3^{}\mathrm{}\alpha _{k+2}^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\rho +\lambda _2^{(k+2)}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1^{}\beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p(k+2)}\alpha _2^{}\mathrm{}\alpha _{k+2}^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta `$
$`+\lambda _3^{(k+2)}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )_{\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p(k+2)}\beta \alpha _3^{}\mathrm{}\alpha _{k+2}^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta \},k=3,4,\mathrm{},`$
where

$$\lambda _2^{(k+2)}=\frac{a_s}{a_{k+1}}\left(\frac{2}{\lambda _2^{(k+1)}}+\frac{k}{\lambda _3^{(k+1)}}\right),\lambda _3^{(k+2)}=\frac{a_s}{a_{k+1}}\frac{k+1}{\lambda _2^{(k+1)}}.$$
(30)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_p`$ has a fibre bundle structure, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the base and the new coordinates $`\{\varphi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p},\mathrm{},\varphi _{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}\}`$ along the fiber. Denoting symbolically by $`D`$, $`Y`$ the corresponding (classes of) generators, the Lie algebra dual to the above MC equations takes the form

$$[D,D]D+Y,[D,Y]Y,[Y,Y]=0.$$
(31)
Although our way of constructing the above algebra guarantees its stability against central extensions by generators with $`p`$ Lorentz indices, it is not a priori clear that it is stable under general deformations involving the above generators. In other words, although we know that there are no non-trivial CE 2-cocycles on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_p`$, we have not explicitly shown that there are no non-trivial 2-cocycles for the full coboundary operator $`s`$, Eq. (6). That this is indeed the case can actually be inferred from the results of . We conclude that the Lie superalgebra given by (22), (24), (28), (4), (30) is stable under deformations involving generators with $`p`$ Lorentz indices.

## 5 Applications

### 5.1 Invariant actions

We may now return to the question of finding a LI potential $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ for the $`h`$ in Eq. (21). In $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_p`$ this is indeed possible — it takes the general form

$$\stackrel{~}{b}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}b_k\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha _k},$$
(32)
where the $`b_k`$ are numerical constants, determined by $`h=d\stackrel{~}{b}`$. For example, for $`D=10`$, $`p=1`$ we find Siegel’s result999notice that we never use the metric to raise or lower indices, so that the position of the Lorentz indices can serve to identify the generators, forms etc... For example, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ in (33) is the LI 1-form corresponding to the new coordinate $`\varphi _\mu `$ and has no relation to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ (similarly for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha `$).

$$\stackrel{~}{b}=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha ,$$
(33)
while, for $`D=11`$, $`p=2`$, we get

$$\stackrel{~}{b}=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^\nu \frac{3}{5}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \alpha }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \frac{2}{15}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta ,$$
(34)
in accordance with . Explicit expressions for the above two cases, including the extended Lie algebras, MC equations, group law, LI vector fields and Noether currents, can be found in .

### 5.2  $`𝑫`$-branes

We sketch the relevance of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_p`$ in the description of $`Dp`$-branes, using as example the $`D=10`$, $`p=2`$ IIA case. The qualitative novelty here, compared to standard $`p`$-branes, is the appearance of the Born - Infeld field $`A_i(\xi )`$, defined directly on the worldvolume. Our starting point will be the abstract free differential algebra (FDA)101010The term refers to an algebra generated by differential forms which is closed under the action of $`d`$, in such a way as to have $`d^2=0`$.

$`d\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta ,`$
$`d\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu (C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta ,`$ (35)
where $`dAB`$ is invariant and

$$dB=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta .$$
(36)
For the above FDA $`d^2=0`$ since, in $`D=10`$ we have $`(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})_{\alpha {}_{}{}^{}\beta ^{}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )_{\delta {}_{}{}^{}ϵ^{}}=0`$. One looks for non-trivial $`(p+2)`$-cocycles $`h`$, constructed from the above forms, with length dimension $`p+1`$, so as to match that of the kinetic Lagrangian. Such cocycles exist only for $`p8`$ and even, i.e., precisely for those values for which $`Dp`$-branes of type IIA are known to exist. For $`p=2`$, $`h`$ takes the form

$$h=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu })_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^\nu \mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta (C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta ,$$
(37)
while its LI potential follows (apart from the $``$ term) from an appropriate dimensional reduction of (34),

$$\stackrel{~}{b}=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^\nu +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }\frac{2}{15}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta \frac{3}{5}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \alpha }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \frac{3}{5}\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha 2\mathrm{\Pi }.$$
(38)
Moreover,

$$d\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_\mu \right)=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\beta ,$$
(39)
which shows that one may set, on the extended superspace,

$$=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_\mu .$$
(40)
Finally, the worldvolume field $`A`$ may be identified with the pull-back, on $`W`$, of the following 1-form

$$A=\phi _\mu dx^\mu +\frac{1}{2}\phi _\alpha d\theta ^\alpha ,$$
(41)
defined also on the extended superspace. Similar results hold for the $`D=11`$ $`M5`$-brane — the details may be found in .

## 6 Epilogue

Our aim has been to argue that Lie (super)algebra stability is a sensible criterion for the soundness of a physical theory. To the standard list of examples, we may now add the results of , where the natural emergence of extended superspaces in the description of extended objects leads to the resolution of a number of problems arising in the conventional formulation. Assuming a (even partially) convinced reader, we take a further step in this direction proposing that the recent proliferation of non-commutative spaces, as the arenas for physical phenomena, should be examined in the light of stability considerations. In particular, the form of the spacetime coordinate commutation relations could be inferred, or at least narrowed down, by demanding the stability, under suitable restrictions, of the resulting Lie algebra, much in the spirit of the Poincaré algebra analysis in . The novelty that arises, in view of our results, is the possibility to include the additional coordinates of the extended spaces encountered. We plan on pursuing this theme in a forthcoming publication .

## Acknowledgements

Warm thanks are due to the organizers of the Torino Conference “Brane New World and Non-commutative Geometry” for all their efforts, also for financial support. It was a memorable week, full of non-commutative excitement, high above a beautiful city. I thank in particular Leonardo Castellani for his interest and efficient help. Partial support is also acknowledged from DGAPA-UNAM project IN119799 and CONACYT project 32307-E.


format: text

text:
# Interference of resonances and the double-pole of a 𝑆-matrix in a double well system

## Abstract

We discuss the interaction between two resonant states in a quantum double-well structure. The behaviour of the resonant states depends on the coupling between the wells, i.e. the height and width of the barrier that separates them. We distinguish a region with resonant tunneling and a region where the two resonances repel each other. The transition between the two regions is marked by a double pole of the $`S`$-matrix.

Introduction — Lately the interference effects of resonances and in particular the occurrence of a double pole of the $`S`$-matrix has been examined frequently . Several, widely different systems where double poles can occur have been identified, such as: atomic states in intense laser fields, general two channel systems, and other systems. Recently Hernandez et al have investigated a model with two spherical cavities bounded by $`\delta `$-function barriers and shown that a double pole of the $`S`$-matrix can be induced by tuning the parameters of the model. In this letter, we study the interference effects between two resonances in a one-dimensional quantum system with a double square well. In our opinion it is, besides being more general than a model with singular potentials, more suitable for a physical discussion about the genesis of the double pole and its relation to the internal structure of the system, as it can be related to concepts like coupling and tunneling. Such a double well structure is similar to the structure of two vertically coupled quantum dots or an “artificial molecule” . To our knowledge (and surprise), these aspects of the double well system have not been described in the literature.

As model problem we take the motion of a particle in a one-dimensional potential $`V(x)`$ governed by the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\psi (x)+V(x)\psi (x)=E\psi ,$$
(1)
in units where $`m=1`$ and $`\mathrm{}=1`$. The potential $`V(x)`$ has the form of a double well as shown in figure 1. Between the infinitely repulsive wall at $`x=0`$ and the free space at $`x>x_4`$ where $`V=0,`$ there are two square wells separated by two square barriers.

The aim of our calculation is the study of resonances of this system by inspection of the poles of the $`S`$-matrix and to show how a double pole is formed and to discuss how it marks the transition between two different scattering regimes.

The model contains eight parameters, i.e. the positions $`x_i(i=1,2,3,4)`$ and heights $`V_i(i=1,2,3,4)`$ of the four discontinuities of the potential. We have chosen here to fix six of the parameters ($`V_1,`$ $`V_2,`$ $`V_4,`$ $`x_1,`$ $`x_3x_2,`$ $`x_4x_3`$) and to vary the depth of the outer well $`V_3=V`$ and the thickness of the inner barrier $`x_2x_1=D`$ .

We start by looking at the interaction between a resonant state that resides in the first well and a resonant state that resides in the second well. We are especially interested in how this interaction depends on the parameter $`D`$, the distance between the wells (quantum dots), which measures the coupling strength between the two wells. Therefore, we study how the lifetime and position of the resonant states evolves when $`D`$ changes.

The Schrödinger equation (1) is solved exactly. The solution in each segment $`]x_i,x_{i+1}]`$ is

$$\psi (x)=A_i\mathrm{sin}(K_ix+\delta _i(E))\text{when}x_i<xx_{i+1},$$
(2)
where the momentum $`K_i`$ is related to the potential $`V_i`$ in that particular segment of space

$$K_i=\sqrt{2(EV_i)}$$
(3)
The phase shifts $`\delta _i(E)`$ and $`\delta _{i+1}(E)`$ in two successive segments are related by the logarithmic derivative at the edge $`x_{i+1}`$ that separates the two segments.

$$\frac{\mathrm{tan}(K_ix_{i+1}+\delta _i(E))}{K_i}=\frac{\mathrm{tan}(K_{i+1}x_{i+1}+\delta _{i+1}(E))}{K_{i+1}},$$
(4)
which results in the relation

$`\delta _{i+1}(E)=K_{i+1}x_{i+1}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`\text{atan}({\displaystyle \frac{K_{i+1}}{K_i}}\mathrm{tan}(K_ix_{i+1}+\delta _i(E)))`$ (6)
Since the solution fits the zero boundary condition at the hard wall in $`x=0`$, we know that the phase $`\delta _0`$ of the solution in the first well is zero. By successive application of the matching condition (6), we find an exact expression for the phase shift $`\delta (E)`$. The $`S`$-matrix is

$$S(E)=\frac{1+i\mathrm{tan}\delta (E)}{1i\mathrm{tan}\delta (E)}.$$
(7)
With this exact expression of the $`S`$-matrix we can locate the position of its complex poles

$$E=E_ri\mathrm{\Gamma }/2.$$
(8)
These poles are found by an algebraic computer package that searches for the zero minima of $`\text{abs}(1i\mathrm{tan}\delta (E))`$ in the complex energy plane.

Results — The model parameters are now chosen in such a way that, for weak coupling between the wells, there is only one resonant state in each well and these states have nearly equal energy $`E_1E_2`$ and vastly different width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. This can be done by choosing a large value of $`D`$, for which the wells are weakly coupled, and to adjust $`V`$ so that the system has one doublet of resonant states. So for $`V_1=0,`$ $`V_2=4,`$ $`V_4=4,`$ $`x_1=1,`$ $`x_3x_2=1,`$ $`x_4x_3=0.3`$, $`D=2`$ and $`V=1.04`$ we find two resonant states with complex energies $`E_1=2.49i0.00394`$ and $`E_2=2.43i0.309`$, i.e. the two resonances have nearly equal energy but totally different width. Resonance state $`(E_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)`$ resides in the inner well and is narrow since it has to tunnel through two barriers to escape, whereas resonance state $`(E_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ resides in the outer well and is broad since it is confined by only a thin barrier. We then decrease the thickness $`D`$ of the barrier and study the behaviour of the two resonances. This is done by following the $`S`$-matrix poles in the complex energy plane. The results are shown in figures 2 and figure 3. The figure 2 show the trajectories the $`S`$-matrix poles follow in the complex plane. Figure 3 shows the individual dependence of $`E_r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`D`$. We also consider the occupation probability of the two wells

$`P_1(E)={\displaystyle _0^{x_1}}\psi (E,x)^2𝑑x`$

and

$`P_2(E)={\displaystyle _{x_2}^{x_3}}\psi (E,x)^2𝑑x`$

They are shown in figure 4 for $`D=0.5`$ and $`D=1.5`$.

Discussion — We distinguish two regions. For $`D>1.1`$, both complex poles attract each other, the resonance energies remaining almost equal. The narrow resonance broadens while the broad resonance gets narrower. This situation corresponds to resonant tunneling: the coupling of the two wells increases the tunneling probability out of the inner well. Meanwhile, it hinders the outward tunneling from the outer well, as the particle can now tunnel more easily into the inner well and make a detour before it goes to the continuum. From fig.5, we see that the occupation probabilities of the two wells are in anti-phase: the states are localized in the wells and at resonance either one of the wells is occupied.

For $`D<1.1`$, the coupling has become strong enough so that the two resonances are delocalized and belong to the double-well system as a whole. A thinner barrier will increase the coupling and force the two states to repel. One resonant state goes up in energy, the other down. The width of one increases because it has more energy to tunnel through the barriers; the width of the other gets smaller because it has less energy to break trough the barriers. Now the plot (fig.6) of the occupation probabilities shows a positive correlation: at resonance, both wells are occupied.

Finally, we arrive at a situation where $`D=0`$ and the barrier has vanished. We have now one broad well with two resonant states with totally different energies.

The trajectories change dramatically, when we slightly alter the bottom of the outer well to $`V=1.03`$. The trajectories of this system are displayed in fig.2b. Compared to fig.2a they interchange their identity beyond the transition point when $`D>1.1`$. From this we conclude that, at a critical value of the second parameter $`V`$, the trajectories at the transition point around $`D=1.1`$ will degenerate into a double pole.

The features of the mechanism of interfering resonant states in a double well system can also be seen if other parameters of the model are taken as variables, e.g. the height of the dividing barrier rather than its thickness and the depth of the inner well rather than of the outer well. If we should start with two resonant states that differ seriously in energy, the transition from ”resonant tunneling” to ”level repulsion” would not be so pronounced, i.e. the starting point of level repulsion would not be so clear. However, a transition will certainly take place. We speak of a transition region, where the coupling is intermediate.

Conclusions — We have investigated the interference of resonances and the degeneracy into a double pole of the $`S`$-matrix in the case of a double square well system. Because the exact analytical solution of the Schrödinger equation is available, the scattering wave functions and the trajectories of $`S`$-matrix poles can be easily analyzed in detail.

We have shown that this simple, yet physically meaningful, model contains all the relevant aspects of the interference mechanism.

We have demonstrated that the double pole marks the transition between two different scattering regimes: the resonant tunneling regime for weak coupling and the level repulsion regime for the strong coupling situation.

We suggest that this analysis is generic and can also be useful to classify scattering regimes in other systems with double poles. An example is a multi-channel system, where we identify a weak coupling regime where resonant states are described by a one-level approximation  and a strong-coupling regime where different resonant states interfere and a multi-level formula is necessary

Acknowledgements — The author is indebted to Prof. P. Van Leuven for many interesting discussions and acknowledges support from the “Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek — Vlaanderen”


text:
# Inequivalence of ensembles in a system with long range interactions

\[

## Abstract

We study the global phase diagram of the infinite range Blume-Emery-Griffiths model both in the canonical and in the microcanonical ensembles. The canonical phase diagram is known to exhibit first order and continuous transition lines separated by a tricritical point. We find that below the tricritical point, when the canonical transition is first order, the phase diagrams of the two ensembles disagree. In this region the microcanonical ensemble exhibits energy ranges with negative specific heat and temperature jumps at transition energies. These results can be extended to weakly decaying nonintegrable interactions.

PACS numbers: 05.20.Gg, 05.50.+q, 05.70.Fh, 64.60.-i

\]

Systems in $`d`$ dimensions with a pairwise interaction potential which decays at large distances as $`V(r)1/r^{d+\sigma }`$ with $`d\sigma 0`$, are referred to as nonintegrable, or systems with long range interactions. Such systems have an ill defined thermodynamic limit . This may be correctly restored by applying the Kac prescription , within which the potential is rescaled by an appropriate, volume dependent, factor which vanishes in the thermodynamic limit. However, even within this scheme, the energy remains non additive, i.e. the system cannot be divided into independent macroscopic parts, as is usually the case for short range interactions. This fact has no dramatic consequences if one is restricted to the canonical ensemble, but it produces striking phenomena in the microcanonical ensemble. For example it may result in a negative specific heat, as was first clearly discussed by Lynden-Bell  and Thirring . Indeed, it has been originally observed by Antonov  that classical gravitational systems ($`\sigma =2`$, $`d=3`$) show features of such kind. However, here the physical situation is made more complex by the presence of a singularity of the interaction potential at short distances. For a careful discussion of the statistical mechanics of these systems see Ref. .

In the present Letter we consider a simple model for which the main features of the phase diagram can be derived analytically both within the canonical and the microcanonical ensembles. We demonstrate that in the region where the phase transition in the canonical ensemble is first order, the two ensembles are not equivalent, yielding two distinct phase diagrams. The model we consider is the Blume-Emery-Griffiths (BEG) model with infinite range interactions ($`\sigma =d`$). This is the simplest model known to exhibit both continuous and first order transition lines. It is defined on a lattice (hence, divergences at short range are removed), where each lattice point $`i`$ is occupied by a spin-$`1`$ variable $`S_i=1,1,0`$. The Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_i^2\frac{J}{2N}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_i)^2$$
(1)
where $`J>0`$ is a ferromagnetic coupling constant and $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ controls the energy difference between the magnetic $`(S=\pm 1)`$ and the non-magnetic $`(S=0)`$ states. Each spin interacts with every other spin and the coupling constant $`J`$ is scaled by $`1/N`$ to ensure extensivity of the energy. This is just the Kac prescription applied to our model. However, this does not entail additivity, in the sense that for a system made of two parts, $`X`$ and $`Y`$, such that $`H_{X+Y}=H_X+H_Y+H_{XY}`$, the $`H_{XY}`$ interaction term never becomes negligible in the thermodynamic limit. This property applies to all thermodynamic potentials.

The canonical phase diagram of this model has been studied in the past . At $`T=0`$ the model exhibits a ferromagnetic phase for $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/J<1`$ and a non-magnetic phase otherwise. The $`(T,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ phase diagram displays a transition line separating the low temperature ferromagnetic phase from the high temperature paramagnetic phase (see Fig.1).

The transition is first order at high $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ values and becomes continuous at low $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The critical (second order) line is given by

$$\beta J=\frac{1}{2}e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}+1,$$
(2)
where $`\beta =1/k_BT`$. The two segments of the transition line (high and low $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) are separated by a tricritical point located at $`\mathrm{\Delta }/J=\mathrm{ln}(4)/30.4621`$, $`\beta J=3`$. The first order segment of the transition line is obtained numerically by equating the free energies of the ferromagnetic and the paramagnetic states.

We now consider the phase diagram of the BEG model (1) within the microcanonical ensemble. Let $`N_+,N_{},N_0`$ be the number of up, down and zero spin, respectively, in a given microscopic configuration. Clearly, $`N_++N_{}+N_0=N`$. The energy $`E`$ of a configuration is obviously a function only of $`N_+,N_{}`$ and $`N_0`$. It does not depend on the specific spatial distribution of the spin variables. It is given by

$$E=\mathrm{\Delta }Q\frac{J}{2N}M^2,$$
(3)
where $`Q=_{i=1}^NS_i^2=N_++N_{}`$ is the quadrupole moment and $`M=_{i=1}^NS_i=N_+N_{}`$ is the magnetization of the configuration. In order to calculate the entropy of a state with energy $`E`$ we note that the number of microscopic configurations $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ compatible with macroscopic occupation numbers $`N_+,N_{}`$ and $`N_0`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{N!}{N_+!N_{}!N_0!}.$$
(4)
Thus, in the large $`N`$ limit, the entropy $`S=k_B\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ corresponding to these occupation numbers is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`k_BN[(1q)\mathrm{ln}(1q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q+m)\mathrm{ln}(q+m)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(qm)\mathrm{ln}(qm)q\mathrm{ln}2],`$ (6)
where $`q=Q/N`$ and $`m=M/N`$ are the quadrupole moment and magnetization per site, respectively.

Let $`ϵ=E/\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ be the energy per site, normalized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Equation (3) may be written as

$$q=ϵ+Km^2,$$
(7)
where $`K=J/2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Using this relation, one expresses the entropy per site $`s=S/(k_BN)`$ as a function of $`m`$ and $`ϵ`$. Maximizing $`s(ϵ,m)`$ with respect to $`m`$ one obtains both the spontaneous magnetization $`m_s(ϵ)`$ and the entropy $`s(ϵ)`$ of the system for given energy. In order to locate the continuous transition line between the paramagnetic and the ferromagnetic phases we expand $`s(ϵ,m)`$ in powers of $`m`$. This expansion takes the form

$$s=s_0+Am^2+Bm^4+O(m^6),$$
(8)
where $`s_0s(ϵ,m=0)`$ is the entropy at zero magnetization

$$s_0=(1ϵ)\mathrm{ln}(1ϵ)ϵ\mathrm{ln}ϵ+ϵ\mathrm{ln}2,$$
(9)
and $`A`$ and $`B`$ are the expansion coefficients

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`K\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2(1ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}`$ (10)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^2}{2ϵ(1ϵ)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12ϵ^3}}.`$ (11)
In the paramagnetic phase both $`A`$ and $`B`$ are negative, and the entropy is maximized by $`m=0`$. The continuous transition to the ferromagnetic phase takes place at $`A=0`$ for $`B<0`$. In order to obtain the critical line in the $`(T,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ plane we note that the energy $`ϵ`$ is related to the temperature by the usual thermodynamic relation

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{k_BT}=\frac{s}{ϵ}.$$
(12)
Making use of the fact that the magnetization $`m`$ vanishes on the critical line one obtains

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{k_BT}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{2(1ϵ)}{ϵ}.$$
(13)
This relation, together with the equation $`A=0`$, yields the following expression for the critical line

$$2\overline{\beta }K=\frac{1}{2}e^{\overline{\beta }}+1,$$
(14)
where $`\overline{\beta }\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Equivalently, this expression may be written as $`\overline{\beta }K=1/2ϵ`$. The microcanonical critical line thus coincides with the critical line (2) obtained for the canonical ensemble. The tricritical point of the microcanonical ensemble is obtained at $`A=B=0`$. Combining these equations with (13) one finds that at the tricritical point $`\overline{\beta }`$ satisfies

$$\frac{1}{8\overline{\beta }^2}\frac{e^{\overline{\beta }}+2}{e^{\overline{\beta }}}\frac{1}{4\overline{\beta }}+\frac{1}{12}=0.$$
(15)
Equations (14 ,15) yield a tricritical point at $`K1.0813`$, $`\overline{\beta }1.3998`$. This has to be compared with the canonical tricritical point located at $`K=3/\mathrm{ln}(16)1.0820`$, $`\overline{\beta }=\mathrm{ln}(4)1.3995`$. It is evident that the two points, although very close to each other, do not coincide and the microcanonical critical line extends beyond the canonical one. In the region between the two tricritical points, the canonical ensemble yields a first order transition at a higher temperature, while in the microcanonical ensemble the transition is continuous.

To study the microcanonical phase diagram we consider the temperature-energy relation $`T(ϵ)`$. This curve has two branches: a high energy branch (13) corresponding to $`m=0`$, and a low energy branch obtained from (12) using the spontaneous magnetization $`m_s(ϵ)`$. At the intersection point of the two branches the two entropies become equal. In Fig. 2 we display the $`T(ϵ)`$ curve for increasing values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }/J=\mathrm{ln}(4)/3)`$, corresponding to the canonical tricritical point, the lower branch of the curve has a zero slope at the intersection point (Fig. 2a). Thus, the specific heat of the ordered phase diverges at this point. Increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the region between the two tricritical points a negative specific heat in the microcanonical ensemble first arises ($`T/ϵ<0`$), see Fig. 2b. At the microcanonical tricritical point $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the derivative $`T/ϵ`$ of the lower branch diverges at the transition point, yielding a vanishing specific heat (Fig. 2c). For larger values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ a jump in the temperature appears at the transition energy (Fig. 2d). The lower temperature corresponds to the $`m=0`$ solution (13) and the upper one is given by $`\mathrm{exp}(\overline{\beta })=2(1q^{})/\sqrt{(q^{})^2(m^{})^2}`$, where $`m^{},q^{}`$ are the values of the order parameters of the ferromagnetic state at the transition energy. The negative specific heat branch disappears at larger values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, leaving just a temperature jump (see Fig. 2e). In the $`\mathrm{\Delta }/J1/2`$ limit the low temperature branch, corresponding to $`q=m=1`$ in the limit, shrinks to zero and the $`m=0`$ branch (13) describes the full energy range (Fig. 2f). In the inset of Fig. 1 we report the transition temperatures in the microcanical ensemble against $`\mathrm{\Delta }/J`$ for both the $`m=0`$ (lower dot-dashed line) and the $`m0`$ solutions (upper dot-dashed line). The lines are drawn starting at the canonical tricritical point. The region between the two tricritical points is too small to be appreciated in the figure. A schematic phase diagram in the first order region is given in Fig. 3, where we ficticiously expand the region of the tricritical points. Note that the canonical first order line necessarily crosses the upper microcanonical transition line at some point.

That such unusual effects in the microcanonical ensemble are associated with a first order canonical phase transition was also suggested in Ref. . These authors discuss also short range interactions, for which such features are produced by finite size effects.

As usual for mean-field models, one can express the free energy $`f(T,m)`$ in the canonical ensemble as a function of $`T`$ and $`m`$. The spontaneous magnetization $`m_s(T)`$, the temperature-energy relation $`T(ϵ)`$ and the free energy $`f(T)`$ may be obtained by minimizing $`f(T,m)`$ with respect to $`m`$ and using well known thermodynamic relations. We now note that the negative specific heat branch of the microcanonical ensemble corresponds to a local maximum of the free energy $`f(T,m)`$ with respect to $`m`$.

This result can indeed be derived on quite a general ground. It is easy to show that an extremum of $`f(T,m)`$ corresponds to an extremum of $`s(ϵ,m)`$ with respect to $`m`$. Indeed, the free energy $`f(T,m)`$ may be obtained by minimizing $`\stackrel{~}{f}(T,ϵ,m)=\mathrm{\Delta }ϵs/\beta `$ with respect to $`ϵ`$, keeping $`T`$ and $`m`$ fixed. This minimization yields the usual temperature-entropy relation (12). Further minimizing $`\stackrel{~}{f}(T,ϵ,m)`$ with respect to $`m`$ yields the result that $`f(T,m)/m`$ and $`s(ϵ,m)/m`$ are proportional to each other and thus vanish together. It can be shown  by studying the second derivatives that when the stationary point of $`\stackrel{~}{f}(T,ϵ,m)`$ with respect to $`ϵ`$ and $`m`$ is a saddle point, the resulting entropy exhibits a negative specific heat. As a consequence, we can recover the full microcanonical solution by studying the stationary points of the function $`\stackrel{~}{f}(T,ϵ,m)`$. However, this function is not typically available for non mean-field models.

The relevant features of the BEG model with infinite range couplings persist also for nonintegrable interactions. In order to investigate this point, we introduce a generalization of the BEG model given by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_i^2\frac{J}{\stackrel{~}{N}}\underset{i>j}{}\frac{S_iS_j}{r_{ij}^\alpha },$$
(16)
where $`r_{ij}`$ is the distance on a 1D lattice between spins at sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. The interactions are non integrable for $`\alpha 1`$. The normalization $`\stackrel{~}{N}=2^\alpha (N^{1\alpha }1)/(1\alpha )`$ ensures that the energy is extensive. Models of this kind have been previously introduced by other authors, and studied within the canonical ensemble . We apply periodic boundary conditions (p.b.c.), for which the model is more easily tractable, and we then take $`r_{ij}`$ to be the smallest of the two distances compatible with p.b.c.. The interaction matrix $`(r_{ij})^\alpha /\stackrel{~}{N}`$ can be exactly diagonalized, which allows to solve model (16) in the canonical ensemble. When appropriately rescaled thermodynamic quantities are chosen, the solution is the same as for the $`\alpha =0`$ case (as it happens for the models studied in Ref. ). Moreover, using a Fourier representation of Hamiltonian (16) and considering only the long wavelength components, it is possible to obtain an approximate expression for the entropy in the microcanonical ensemble . Maximizing this expression at fixed energy, we find that the $`\alpha =0`$ microcanonical solution is also left unchanged. Since both the canonical and the microcanonical solutions are not modified, we conclude that ensemble inequivalence persists for the slowly decreasing case $`\alpha <1`$. Details of this analysis will be reported elsewhere .

In summary, we have compared the canonical with the microcanonical solutions of the infinite range Blume-Emery-Griffiths model. We find that the global phase diagrams are different in the two ensembles. Although they are found to be the same in the domain where the canonical transition is continuous, they differ from each other when the canonical transition is first order. Negative specific heat and temperature jumps at the transition energy are found in the microcanonical ensemble. These results generalize those of Ref.  in the context of a simple model, where by varying a single parameter one can observe a variety of possible features of the phase diagram. Moreover, we are able to understand the role played by the constraint of fixing the energy in the microcanonical ensemble, which produces a stabilization of canonically unstable solutions. In the phase coexistence region, the unusual microcanonical thermodynamic properties should result in some peculiar dynamical behavior, as has been observed in studies of a different mean-field model with continuous variables . Our results for the BEG model are not limited to the infinite range case, but can be extended to weakly decaying nonintegrable interactions.

We thank L. Casetti, E.G.D. Cohen, D.H.E. Gross, M.C. Firpo, O. Fliegans, F. Leyvraz, M. Pettini, E. Votyakov for stimulating discussions. A special thank goes to A. Torcini who collaborated with us in a first phase of this project. This work is supported by the INFM-PAIS project Equilibrium and nonequilibrium dynamics in condensed matter.