format: text

text:
# Electron-correlation effects in appearance-potential spectra of Ni

## I Introduction

Due to the Coulomb interaction, an electron approaching a metal surface can excite a core electron into a state of the unoccupied bands. Above a threshold energy both, the excited core electron and the de-excited primary electron are scattered into valence states just above the Fermi energy. The appearance-potential spectroscopy (APS) PH74 ; WE76 ; DR83 ; PER92  monitors the intensity of this radiationless transition as a function of the energy of the primary electrons by detecting the emitted X-rays or Auger electrons of the subsequent core-hole decay. Since core-hole formation is involved, the method is element specific and local. Its comparatively simple experimental setup and its surface sensitivity qualifies APS as a useful technique for surface analysis. For a ferromagnetic material, the spin dependence of the AP signal obtained by using a polarized electron beam reflects the surface magnetization as has been demonstrated for the transition metals Fe and Ni. Kir84 ; EVDN93 ; DVDD95 ; RKRD00 ; KRRD00  In a sense APS can be considered to be complementary to Auger-electron spectroscopy (AES). Ram91  While the Auger line shape resulting from core-valence-valence (CVV) transitions yields information on the occupied part of the valence band, APS is sensitive to the unoccupied electronic structure. Contrary to $`𝐤`$ resolved (inverse) photoemission, the AP transition is more or less localized in real space. This suggests to employ APS as a quantitative probe for the unoccupied part of the (spin-dependent) local valence density of states (DOS).

In most cases the interpretation of appearance-potential spectra is still based on a simple independent-electron model suggested by Lander in 1953: Lan53  Hereafter, the line shape is given by the self-convolution of the unoccupied part of the DOS. The desired information can then be obtained by de-convolution techniques. DF79 ; SSRC84  Within the context of AES, however, it soon became clear that the self-convolution model seems to be oversimplified. Powell Pow73  discovered an “anomalous” shape of the CVV Auger line of Ag which has been attributed to electron-correlation effects. Correlations may be significant also for APS because of the direct interaction of the two additional valence electrons in the final state. This is demonstrated by the Cini-Sawatzky theory: Cin77 ; Saw77  Within the framework of the single-band Hubbard model, the two-particle (APS/AES) excitation spectrum is dominated by a pronounced satellite feature which is split off the band-like part by a characteristic energy of the order of the on-site Coulomb interaction $`U`$. For more realistic (multi-band) Hubbard models the direct correlations give rise to very complex satellite structures. KD89 ; NGE92 ; PBNB93 ; PBB94 ; PBBN95

A second shortcoming of the Lander model consists in the fact that transition-matrix elements are not taken into account. Modern theories for APS (AES) based on density-functional theory and the local-density approximation (LDA) have overcome this deficiency. HWMR88 ; EP97  Although the direct correlations are still neglected in these approaches, it seems that the AP spectra of Fe and Ni, for example, are well understood EP97 ; RPP97  – serious indications for correlation effects have not been observed. This is surprising since it is well known that the Auger line shape of Ni cannot be explained within an effective independent-electron model. TDDS81  It is dominated by a strong spectral-weight transfer due to an on-site interaction of the order of $`U23`$ eV to be compared with the effective $`d`$-band width $`\mathrm{\Delta }3`$ eV. Ram91 ; BFHLS83

Clearly, the question what really determines the appearance-potential line shape of transition metals, can only be answered a posteriori – namely by comparison with a theory that realistically includes electron-correlation as well as matrix-element effects, orbital degeneracy and $`sp`$-$`d`$ hybridization from the very beginning. The analysis of the AP line shape of Ni, as a prototypical ferromagnetic $`3d`$ metal, is the purpose of the present paper. In the experiment spin-resolved spectra from excitation of the $`2p_{3/2}`$ ($`L_{\mathrm{III}}`$) core level are recorded for different temperatures ranging from $`T=100`$ K up to and slightly above the Ni Curie point $`T_\mathrm{C}=624`$ K. LB19a  The theoretical interpretation of the line shape is essentially based on a multi-band Hubbard-type model with general on-site Coulomb interaction and a realistic parameterization of the (LDA) one-particle electronic structure as an input for a subsequent many-body calculation. Standard diagrammatic techniques are used to account for correlations. The transition-matrix elements are calculated within the usual intra-atomic approximation. The novel feature of the approach is that it allows to study separately the DOS effect (bare self-convolution), the temperature-dependent effect of the (direct and remaining indirect) correlations as well as the effect of the transition-matrix elements.

## II Experiment

Experiments are performed for a Ni(110) single-crystal surface with in-plane magnetization. Don89 ; EVDN93  The spin-polarized electron beam used for excitation is emitted from a GaAs photocathode irradiated by circularly polarized light. The longitudinal spin polarization of the emitted photoelectrons is changed into transversal by $`90^{}`$ electrostatic deflection. To correct for the incomplete polarization of the electrons ($`P30\%`$), all data have been rescaled to a $`100\%`$ hypothetical beam polarization and alignment between the electron-polarization and the sample-magnetization vector. In the present setup the core-hole decay is detected via soft-X-ray emission (SXAPS). The detector arrangement consists of a multichannel plate with filters and a CsI layer acting as photon-to-electron converter. The APS signal is measured as a function of the primary energy of the electrons. Modulation of the sample potential together with lock-in technique is employed to separate the signal from the otherwise overwhelming background. For the potential modulation a peak-to-peak voltage of $`2V`$ has been chosen. This value ensures high APS signals for the $`2p_{3/2}`$ core level without modulation-induced broadening effects. Further details of the experimental setup and the sample preparation have been described elsewhere. EVDN93

Fig. 1 shows the differential AP intensity as a function of the energy of primary electrons with polarization parallel (minority, $``$) or antiparallel (majority, $``$) to the target magnetization. The displayed energy range covers the emission from the $`L_{\mathrm{III}}`$ transition. The $`L_{\mathrm{II}}`$ emission would be visible at higher energies shifted by the $`2p`$ spin-orbit splitting of about 17.2 eV.

For $`T/T_\mathrm{C}=0.16`$ the system is close to ferromagnetic saturation. The appearance-potential spectrum shows a strongly asymmetric intensity ratio as well as a spin splitting of the main peak at $`E=852.3`$ eV (dotted line). Since Ni is a strong ferromagnet, there are only few unoccupied $`d`$ states available in the majority spin channel, and thus $`I_{}<I_{}`$ holds for the (non-differential) intensities. This is the dominant spin effect. The intensity asymmetry in the main peak gradually diminishes with increasing temperature and vanishes at $`T_\mathrm{C}`$. Note that only the position of the majority peak shifts with $`T`$ while the minority peak position remains unchanged.

The main peak is related to the high density of states at the Fermi energy and is mainly due to $`d`$-$`d`$ character of the two final-state electrons. Additional small $`s`$-$`d`$ contributions are present in the secondary peak at $`E859`$ eV as has been concluded from the analysis of the transition-matrix elements. EVDN93 ; EP97  This structure has been identified as originating from a DOS discontinuity deriving from the $`L_7`$ critical point in the Brillouin zone. EVDN93  No temperature dependence and spin asymmetry is detectable here.

## III Theory

The theoretical approach is based on the usual two-step description assuming the lifetime of the core hole to be sufficiently long. PH74 ; Cin79  The AP line shape is then unaffected by the cross section for the core-hole decay step but solely determined by the excitation step. According to Fermi’s golden rule, the intensity can be written as:

$`I_{\sigma _c\sigma _i}(𝐤_{},E)`$ $``$ $`\text{Im}{\displaystyle \underset{L_1L_2L_1^{}L_2^{}}{}}M_{L_1L_2}^{\sigma _c\sigma _i}(𝐤_{},E)\times `$ (1)
$`c_{iL_1\sigma _c}c_{iL_2\sigma _i};c_{iL_2^{}\sigma _i}^{}c_{iL_1^{}\sigma _c}^{}_E(M_{L_1^{}L_2^{}}^{\sigma _c\sigma _i}(𝐤_{},E))^{}.`$
For an incoming electron with spin $`\sigma _i=,`$, one has to consider the “singlet” transition, i. e. excitation of a core electron with spin $`\sigma _c=\sigma _i`$, as well as the “triplet” transition with $`\sigma _c=\sigma _i`$. Since the spin state of the final core hole is not detected, the intensities have to be summed incoherently:

$$I_{\sigma _i}(𝐤_{},E)I_{\sigma _c\sigma _i}(𝐤_{},E)+I_{\sigma _c\sigma _i}(𝐤_{},E).$$
(2)
Above the Curie temperature $`I_{\sigma _i}=I_{\sigma _i}`$.

The “raw spectrum” resulting from an intra-atomic transition at the lattice site $`i`$ is given by the imaginary part of the retarded two-particle (Zubarev Zub60 ) Green function in Eq. (1). It describes the correlated propagation of the two additional final-state electrons at energy $`E`$:

$`c_{iL_1\sigma _c}c_{iL_2\sigma _i};c_{iL_2^{}\sigma _i}^{}c_{iL_1^{}\sigma _c}^{}_E=`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{iEt}[c_{iL_1\sigma _c}(t)c_{iL_2\sigma _i}(t);c_{iL_2^{}\sigma _i}^{}(0)c_{iL_1^{}\sigma _c}^{}(0)]_{}.`$
Here $`\mathrm{}`$ is the thermodynamical average, $`[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]_{}`$ the commutator, and $`𝒪(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt)𝒪\mathrm{exp}(iHt)`$ is the Heisenberg time dependence of an operator $`𝒪`$. The Green function is expressed in terms of annihilators (creators) $`c_{iL\sigma }^{()}`$ which refer to a tight-binding one-particle basis. Due to translational symmetry of the fcc lattice the $`i`$ dependence is only formal. $`L=\{l,m\}`$ characterizes the angular momentum of the localized $`3d`$, $`4s`$, and $`4p`$ basis functions. In total there are $`2\times 9`$ orbitals $`|iL\sigma =c_{iL\sigma }^{}|\text{vac.}`$ per site.

Because of the definite $`L`$ character of the basis orbitals, the orbitals on different sites are mutually non-orthogonal: $`iL\sigma |i^{}L^{}\sigma ^{}=S_{ii^{}}^{LL^{}}\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$. There are different advantages to develop the many-body formalism for a non-trivial overlap matrix $`𝐒\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (see Refs. DDVP93, ; WPN00, ): A unique decomposition of the spectrum into $`s`$, $`p`$, and $`d`$ parts is possible, the basis orbitals are more localized, DDVP93  and in the interaction part of the Hamiltonian the on-site Coulomb interaction among the $`3d`$ electrons can be dealt with separately. Furthermore, the same basis states enter the definition of the transition-matrix elements, and their definite angular-momentum character implies helpful selection rules.

The transition-matrix elements in Eq. (1),

$`M_{L_1L_2}^{\sigma _c\sigma _i}(𝐤_{},E)=`$
$`{}_{}{}^{(1)}\text{2p},\sigma _c|{}_{}{}^{(2)}𝐤_{}E\sigma _i|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐫_1𝐫_2|}}|iL_1\sigma _c_{}^{(1)}|iL_2\sigma _i_{}^{(2)},`$
(4)
are calculated by assuming the transition to be intra-atomic as usual. Ram91 ; HWMR88 ; EP97  The different wave functions as well as the Coulomb operator $`1/|𝐫_1𝐫_2|`$ are expanded into spherical harmonics, the angular integrations are performed analytically, and the numerical radial integrations are cut at the Wigner-Seitz radius (see Ref. Sch00,  for details).

Surface effects enter the theory via the high-energy scattering state $`|𝐤_{}E\sigma _i`$. It is calculated as a conventional LEED state Pen74  with $`𝐤_{}=0`$ to describe the normally incident electron beam in the experimental setup. At kinetic energies of the order of keV, however, the $`𝐤_{}`$ dependence turns out to be weak. Furthermore, at high kinetic energies, multiple-scattering effects are small and may be neglected for convenience.

The (paramagnetic) LDA potential for Ni is determined by a self-consistent tight-binding linear muffin-tin orbitals (LMTO) calculation. AJ84  The $`3d`$, $`4s`$, and $`4p`$ valence orbitals $`|iL\sigma `$ are taken to be the muffin-tin orbitals (MTO’s). The four-fold degenerate $`2p_{3/2}`$ core state is obtained from the LDA core potential by solving the radial Dirac equation numerically. Its (relativistically) large component is decomposed into a (coherent) sum of Pauli spinors $`|\text{2p},\sigma _c`$ with $`\sigma _c=,`$.

Note that the Green function in Eq. (1) generally depends on four quantum numbers $`L_1`$$`L_4`$. In fact, for the present case each term in the sum gives a significant contribution to $`I_{\sigma _c\sigma _i}`$. The usual characterization of the final state with two quantum numbers ($`d`$-$`d`$, $`s`$-$`d`$, etc.) is no longer valid if correlations are included. The orbital character may change by electron scattering.

Neglecting electron correlations altogether and assuming the matrix elements to be constant, Eq. (1) reduces to the Lander model: In this case the intensity $`I_{\sigma _i}`$ is given by the following sum of (singlet and triplet) self-convolutions:

$`I_{\sigma _i}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L_1L_2}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E^{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{L_1\sigma _i}(E^{})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{L_2\sigma _i}(EE^{})}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L_1L_2}{}^{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E^{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{L_1\sigma _i}(E^{})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{L_2\sigma _i}(EE^{})}.`$
Here $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{L\sigma }(E)=(1f(E))\rho _{L\sigma }(E)`$ is the unoccupied part of the $`L`$-resolved and spin-dependent density of states (DOS) $`\rho _{L\sigma }(E)`$ where $`f(E)`$ is the Fermi function. The prime in the second sum in Eq. (5) excludes the term $`L_1=L_2`$, $`\sigma _c=\sigma _i`$, which is forbidden by the Pauli principle. Note that lattice symmetries require the on-site ($`i=i^{}`$) but off-diagonal ($`LL^{}`$) DOS $`\rho _{LL^{}\sigma }(E)=(1/\pi )\text{Im}c_{iL\sigma };c_{iL^{}\sigma }^{}_E`$ to vanish identically. This is a consequence of the choice of the (non-orthogonal) basis set $`|iL\sigma `$.

To estimate the significance of correlation effects, the two-particle Green function in Eq. (1) is calculated for a nine-band Hubbard-type model $`H=H_{\mathrm{LDA}}+H_{\mathrm{int}}\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ including $`4s`$,$`4p`$ orbitals and correlated $`3d`$ orbitals:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ii^{}LL^{}\sigma }{}}T_{ii^{}}^{LL^{}}c_{iL\sigma }^{}c_{i^{}L^{}\sigma }`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1\mathrm{}m_4}{}}U_{m_1m_2m_4m_3}c_{im_1\sigma }^{}c_{im_2\sigma ^{}}^{}c_{im_3\sigma ^{}}c_{im_4\sigma }`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }H.`$
The hopping parameters $`T_{ii^{}}^{LL^{}}`$ of the one-particle term $`H_{\mathrm{LDA}}`$ (and also the overlap $`S_{ii^{}}^{LL^{}}`$ parameters) are obtained from a Slater-Koster fit to the paramagnetic LDA band structure for Ni. WPN00  Opposed to photoemission spectroscopy, this comparatively simple tight-binding parameterization appears to be sufficient in the case of APS since the two-particle spectrum does not crucially depend on the details of the one-particle DOS.

The on-site interaction among the $`3d`$ electrons is described by the second term $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$. The Coulomb matrix depends on four orbital indices, $`U_{m_1m_2m_3m_4}`$, referring to the MTO’s for $`l=2`$. Using atomic symmetries the interaction parameters can essentially be expressed in terms of two parameters $`U`$ and $`J`$. WPN00  Interactions involving delocalized $`s`$ and $`p`$ states are assumed to be sufficiently accounted for within the LDA. For the $`d`$ states, however, there is the well-known double-counting problem: The interactions are counted twice, once in $`H_{\mathrm{LDA}}`$ (i. e. on a mean-field level) and once more in $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$. To avoid this double counting, a third term $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ has been introduced by which the Hartree-Fock part of $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is subtracted. WPN00 ; SAS92

The Hamiltonian $`H`$ constitutes an involved many-body problem. Due to the low density of $`3d`$ holes in the case of Ni, however, it appears to be reasonable to employ the so-called ladder approximation Cin79  which extrapolates from the exact (Cini-Sawatzky) solution for the limit of the completely filled band. Cin77 ; Saw77  For finite hole densities the ladder approximation gives the two-particle Green function $`cc;c^{}c^{}`$ as a functional of the one-particle Green function (“direct correlations”). The one-particle Green function of the type $`c;c^{}`$ corresponds to the (inverse) photoemission spectrum which itself is renormalized by $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ (“indirect correlations”). It is calculated self-consistently within second-order perturbation theory (SOPT) around the Hartree-Fock solution. WPN00  For a moderate $`U\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a low hole density, a perturbational approach can be justified. SAS92  A resummation of higher-order diagrams is important to describe bound states (“Ni 6 eV satellite”) Lie81  which, however, are relevant for AES only. The numerical values for the direct and exchange interaction, $`U=2.47`$ eV and $`J=0.5`$ eV, are taken from Ref. WPN00,  where they have been fitted to the ground-state magnetic properties of Ni. Since spin-wave excitations are neglected in the approach, the calculated Curie temperature $`T_\mathrm{C}=1655`$ K is about a factor 2.6 too high compared with the experiment. Using reduced temperatures $`T/T_\mathrm{C}`$, however, the temperature trend of the magnetization is well reproduced. WPN00

## IV Results and discussion

The solid lines in Fig. 1 (left) show the spectra as calculated from Eq. (1) using the ladder approximation. To account for apparatus broadening, the results have been convoluted with a Gaussian of width $`\sigma =0.6`$ eV (see Ref. EP97, ). The calculated data are shifted by 852.3 eV such that onset of the unbroadened spectrum for $`T/T_\mathrm{C}=0.16`$ coincides with the maximum of $`L_{\mathrm{III}}`$ emission in the experiment (dotted line).

What are the signatures of electron correlations? To estimate first the effect of the direct interaction between the two additional final-state electrons, Fig. 1 (right) also displays the results of the self-convolution model for comparison (still including matrix elements as well as the fully interacting one-particle DOS). Fig. 1 and also a more detailed inspection show that the secondary peak at $`E859`$ eV is not affected by correlations at all. This is consistent with observed temperature independence of the peak and with the fact that the DOS has mainly $`s`$-$`p`$ character at the discontinuity deriving from the $`L_7`$ critical point. The maximum of the secondary peak is therefore used as a reference to normalize the measured spectra for each $`T`$. Looking at the results of the ladder approximation, the overall agreement with the measurements is rather satisfying. Except for the lowest temperature the intensity, the spin splitting and the spin asymmetry of the main peak are well reproduced and, consistent with the experiment, a negligibly small intensity asymmetry and spin splitting is predicted for the secondary peak. Switching off the direct correlations (Fig. 1, right) results in a strong overestimation of the main peak structure. Within the Cini-Sawatzky theory this has a plausible qualitative explanation: For low hole density the main effect of the direct correlations is known to transfer spectral weight to lower energies inaccessible to APS. This weight shows up again in the Auger spectrum. Recall that in fact a considerable weight transfer is seen in AES Ram91 ; BFHLS83  and that hypothetically for $`U\mathrm{}`$ all weight would be taken by a satellite split off at the lower boundary of the Auger spectrum. Cin77 ; Saw77

The indirect correlations manifest themselves as a renormalization of the one-particle DOS. Thus, in first place they are responsible for the correct temperature dependence of the intensity asymmetry of the main peak in the AP spectrum. In particular, the indirect correlations result in a narrowing of the DOS, which near the Fermi energy $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ is given by the (almost spin independent) quasi-particle weight $`z0.88<1`$, and in an intrinsic lifetime broadening $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(EE_\mathrm{F})^2,T^2`$. For $`T=0`$ the latter turns out to be smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0.01`$ eV for $`EE_\mathrm{F}<1`$ eV. WPN00  The discrepancy between experiment and theory for $`T/T_\mathrm{C}=0.16`$ is possibly due to an underestimation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ within the SOPT: With decreasing $`T`$ the increase of the exchange splitting leads to the appearance of a strong peak just above $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ in the minority DOS. A larger lifetime broadening of this peak would imply a less pronounced feature in the differential AP spectrum – mainly in the minority channel.

Setting $`M_{L_1L_2}^{\sigma _c\sigma _i}(𝐤_{},E)=\pm 1=\text{const}`$ for $`L_1L_2`$ or $`L_1<L_2`$, respectively, (see below) and comparing with the results of the full theory, demonstrates the importance of the transition-matrix elements. Their energy dependence (via $`|𝐤_{}E\sigma _i`$) is weak over a few eV at energies of the order of keV and cannot explain the difference between (a) and (b) in Fig. 2. The main difference is rather a consequence of the fact that the radial $`2p`$ core wave function has a stronger overlap with the (more localized) $`3d`$ as compared to the (more delocalized) $`4s/4p`$ radial wave functions. This implies a suppression of the $`s`$-$`p`$ contributions to the orbital sum in Eq. (1) as already found by Ebert and Popescu. EP97  The features above $`E=860`$ eV originate from additional discontinuities of the $`s`$-$`p`$-like DOS (as for the peak at $`E859`$ eV).

For $`T<T_\mathrm{C}`$ the spin asymmetry of the spectrum is mainly due to the spin dependence of the Green function in Eq. (1). If the calculation of the matrix elements (4) starts from the spin-polarized L(S)DA potential, an additional spin asymmetry is observed resulting from the spin dependence of the states in Eq. (4). This, however, is small and has practically no influence on the results. On the other hand, Fig. 2 shows a strong suppression of the intensity asymmetry at high energies when taking matrix elements into account. This effect is controlled by the symmetry of the matrix $`M_{L_1L_2}M_{L_1L_2}^{\sigma _c\sigma _i}(𝐤_{},E)`$. In the antisymmetric case, $`M_{L_1L_2}=M_{L_2L_1}`$ ($`L_1L_2`$), there is a maximum spin asymmetry (Fig. 2) while, even for a ferromagnet, there is no spin asymmetry at all for the symmetric case. The results of the full calculation along Eq. (4) are neither fully symmetric nor antisymmetric with respect to $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$.

## V Summary

In conclusion, the AP line shape of a typical ferromagnetic $`3d`$ transition metal results from a rather complex interplay of different factors. The present study has shown that a quantitative theoretical analysis of the temperature- and spin-dependent spectrum must be based on three ingredients at least:

(i) “indirect” correlations: A realistic Hubbard-type model including $`s`$-$`p`$ like states is a proper starting point to describe the magnetism and the temperature-dependent renormalization of the one-particle DOS.

(ii) “direct” correlations: While $`s`$-$`p`$ derived features at higher energies appear to be sensitive to the geometrical structure only, the main peak is strongly affected by the direct interaction between the two additional final-state electrons. Consistent with the Cini-Sawatzky model, the dominant effect is a considerable spectral-weight transfer to energies below the threshold.

(iii) matrix elements: Spin-resolved APS cannot be described theoretically without calculating orbital-dependent matrix elements. The spin asymmetry is mainly determined by their transformation behavior under exchange of the orbital quantum numbers $`L_1L_2`$.

An open question concerns the importance of core-hole effects in APS. Future work shall be concerned with the scattering at the core-hole potential in the final state and shall include the edge effects ND69  known from the studies of simple metals. A generalized ladder approximation including the valence-core interaction has been proposed in Ref. PBB94, . Previous work PBNB93 ; PBB94 ; PBBN95  has shown that one should not expect the effects due the scattering at the core-hole potential to be strong for the case of Ni. However, core-hole effects will become more important for systems with a smaller $`3d`$ occupancy. For Co and Fe one also expects stronger effects of $`d`$-$`d`$ correlations. This work has shown that these $`d`$-$`d`$ correlations cannot be neglected even for a system with low $`d`$-hole density such as Ni and that de-convolution techniques to extract the unoccupied local DOS have to be questioned seriously.

## Acknowlegdements

Support of this work by the DFG (NO 158/5) and by the BMBF (no. 05605MPA0) is greatfully acknowledged.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In (Gurzadyan & Mazure, 1998) we have studied the substructure of several Abell clusters from the ESO Key Program ENACS database (Mazure et al 1996). The analysis was carried on using the S-tree method (Gurzadyan et al 1994). It was shown that the studied clusters contain 2-3 subgroups, denoted, due to their remarkable dynamical properties, as galaxy associations. Those dynamical properties include the truncated 1D velocity distribution and relatively stable velocity dispersion. It was argued that the motion within the main cluster can be the natural mechanism explaining such a truncation. Because of the essential role that galaxy associations can have for the understanding of the evolution of galaxy clusters, their further study seems of particular importance. This concerns especially observational studies, since the galaxies of the associations have to exhibit anomaly strong star formation activity, anomalies of a disk and bulge for spirals, possible tidal tails, etc, with more probability that ordinary galaxies of the cluster.

Here we analyze the core substructure of the Coma cluster using the S-tree method. The Coma cluster is one of the most studied clusters with remarkable substructure (e.g. Rood & Sastry, 1971; Valtonen & Byrd, 1979; Baier 1984; Mellier et al 1988; Dressler & Shechtman 1988; Escalera et al 1992; Fabian et al 1994; Gambera et al 1997; Kashikawa et al 1998); for more references see (Mazure, et al 1998). The internal dynamics and the substructure of Coma have been extensively analyzed by Biviano et al (1996); Colless & Dunn, (1996). Though the main conclusions of both studies are in agreement, there are some differences concerning the structure of the central region of the cluster. In general, the main tools in such investigations, on one hand, involve various statistical methods, the wavelets being among the efficient ones, and creation of various models based on certain assumptions on the cluster’s symmetry, equilibrium, dark matter distribution, etc. (e.g. Merrit 1987), on the other hand.

The X-ray observations of the Coma cluster, especially by ROSAT (White et al 1993; Vikhlinin et al 1997), add crucial information on the substructures, as well as on the processes governing the mechanisms of X-ray emission. Both the galactic data and the X-ray images of Coma support the existence of substructures in the cluster, and the problem comes to the clear identification of the basic dynamical mechanisms responsible for the evolution of the cluster. Clearly, the further combination of data on the galaxies and X-ray data will enable much deeper insight onto the structure of the cluster, though one has to better understand the dynamics within the cluster, in order to proceed from realistic assumptions on the equilibrium conditions on the X-ray emitting gas.

Our study of the Coma core reveals the existence of 3 subgroups, which appear to be galaxy associations. Two of the latter are associated with the brightest cD galaxies NGC 4874 and NGC 4889, respectively. Their dynamical parameters are established, which enables us to conclude that they are moving within the cluster, so that one is a young merger, while the subgroup of NGC 4889 has been already largely dissolved. The segregation of galaxies within the subgroup we incline to explain not by core-halo evolution, but via dynamical friction during the motion. The obtained results indicate this essentially non-stationary character of structure of Coma cluster, and do not support the view that the latter can be a result of merging of two clusters of equal size.

## 2 Data

In the analysis below we have used the data compiled by Biviano et al (1996); their dataset of galaxy redshifts is based on their own observations with CFHT, on the data by Colless and Dunn (1996) and those available in the literature. The authors provide also the completeness data with respect to the limiting magnitude. From this dataset we have extracted a sample of 188 galaxies in a $`3000^{\prime \prime }\times 3000^{\prime \prime }`$ field centered on $`\alpha =12^h57^m.3`$, $`\delta =28^{}14^{}.4`$ and brighter than $`18^m.0`$ (Mazure and Gurzadyan 1998). This choice was determined by data completeness with respect to magnitude.

## 3 Method

The S-tree technique developed for the study of the hierarchical substructure of galaxy clusters is described in detail in (Gurzadyan et al 1994; Gurzadyan & Kocharyan 1994). It is based on the methods of theory of dynamical systems and has already been used for the study of substructure of the various clusters of galaxies, including the Local Group, Virgo (Petrosian et al 1998) and the sample of above mentioned ENACS Abell clusters.

This method is using the information on the 2D coordinates, redshifts and magnitudes of galaxies in a self-consistent way, namely, revealing the correlation which should exist between the particles’ parameters (coordinates and velocities) of a gravitationally interacting N-body system. It is reached using a well know method in classical mechanics reduced to the study of the properties of the flow of geodesics in phase space of the system (Arnold, 1989). Namely the so-called two-dimensional curvature

$$K_{\mu \nu }=Riem_{\rho \delta \mu \nu }u^\rho u^\delta $$

($`Riem`$ is the Riemannian tensor, $`u`$ is the velocity of geodesics) is used for the evaluation of the ’degree of boundness’; for details see (Gurzadyan & Kocharyan 1994) and the Appendix in (Gurzadyan & Mazure, 1998). This procedure enables to reveal the structure of the system including the existence of subgroups and representation of the result via tree-diagrams (S-tree). In the above quoted papers the role of the magnitude completeness, M/L ratio of galaxies and other effects are discussed as well. Special algorithms are used also for the analysis of the outcome information (Bekarian & Melkonian 1997).

## 4 Substructure of the Coma Core

This is not the first cluster studied via the S-tree method, therefore we will not repeat the description of the technical steps of the analysis. Thus, our analysis revealed the substructure of the core of Coma cluster, namely, the complex structural and dynamical conditions in the core of Coma cluster. First, the code has enabled to extract the galaxies with correlated parameters, thus defining the main physical system (MS) of galaxies: it contains 174 galaxies, centered at $`\alpha =12^h57^m32^s.3`$, $`\delta =28^{}19^{}31^\mathrm{"}`$. The knowledge of the membership of galaxies is readily defining the redshift of the Coma cluster and velocity dispersion: $`cz=6953`$ km s-1 and $`\sigma =949`$ km s-1, respectively.

Then, at higher level of correlation, i.e degree of the mutual boundness, the existence of 3 subgroups of MS has been revealed. The subgroups contain 34 galaxies (1s), 14 galaxies (2s) and 17 galaxies (3s), as exhibited in Tables 1-3.

The 1st subgroup includes the 2nd brightest galaxy of the Coma core - NGC 4874. The center of this subgroup lies at $`\alpha =12^h57^m34^s.31`$, $`\delta =28^{}15^{}35^\mathrm{"}.45`$, i.e. does not coincide with NGC 4874.

The obtained parameters of galaxies of the MS and the subgroups are presented in Table 4, which includes the number of galaxies (N), the median velocity (m, in km s$`{}_{}{}^{1})`$), standard deviation of the redshift distribution ($`\sigma `$, in km s-1), 3rd and 4th moment of the redshift distribution, (s) and (c), respectively. We do not include any estimation of the error box for the standard deviation, since its precise value is not only of minor importance for our main aim of the subgrouping, but also due to the inhomogeneity of the input data, any weighting, strictly speaking, will add a bias in such estimation.

Figure 1 shows the histograms of the redshift distributions of the initial sample, the MS, and of the three subgroups.

## 5 Discussion

The results obtained above enable us to draw the following picture on the substructure and the dynamical processes evolving in the Coma core.

We have identified the galaxies forming the main body of the Coma cluster and have obtained its redshift and the velocity dispersion: $`cz=6953`$ km s-1 and $`\sigma =949`$ km s-1, respectively. These parameters do not differ much from those obtained before (Biviano et al, 1996, Colless & Dunn 1996), except the center of the cluster does not coincide exactly with the dominant galaxy NGC 4874, though lies in its vicinity.

Then, we have revealed 3 subgroups of galaxies within the main system and have determined the charactersitics of each of them, given in Table 4. Careful look of those parameters enables to understand certain dynamical processes going on within the cluster. Namely, the clear separation of the subgroups in the redshift space indicates their essential mutual bulk motion (Gurzadyan & Mazure 1998), i.e. when the bulk velocity is exceeding the velocity dispersion of each subgroup. This can mean ongoing merging of the subgroups, as confirmed below by additional arguments. The 3rd and 4th momentum show the absence of asymmetry on one hand, and stronger truncation of subgroups’ (as compared with the main system) redshift distribution, on the other hand. Truncation of the subgroups, i.e. the cutoff of the the velocity dispersion of galaxies in the subgroups must occur at the motion of the subgroups within the main system (Gurzadyan and Mazure 1998).

Further evidences support this conclusion. NGC 4874 ($`\alpha =12^h57^m27^s.38`$, $`\delta =28^{}13^{}43^\mathrm{"}`$, $`cz=7176`$ km s-1) is not situated at the mass center of subgroup 1 and its redshift does not coincide with the median redshift of the subgroup containing the several bright galaxies of the Coma cluster, i.e. 5 galaxies brighter 15m (see Table 2). Such a redistribution of galaxies is inevitable due to dynamical friction, if the group of galaxies is moving through a galaxy field.

Biviano et al (1996) proposed to explain the overdensity of bright galaxies in the vicinity of NGC 4874 by the core-halo segregation mechanism during the own evolution of the subgroup. However, this mechanism is efficient in isolated stellar systems with large number of stars, while at least the required virialization is never reachable for a small-number galaxy group moving within a giant host system. The dynamical friction, on the other hand, does not depend on the smallness of the number of galaxies since acts on each galaxy individually, depending on the mass and the velocity of the moving object, and hence can be responsible for the observed segregation; for the observed galaxy/subgroup parameters the efficiency of dynamical friction requires time scales $`10^810^{10}`$ yrs, i.e. cosmologically quite reasonable scale. This is again supporting the significance of the regular motion of the subgroup within the host cluster. Subgroup 1 shows better separation by ’degree of boundness’ from the galaxies of the main cluster in redshift space, while the galaxies of subgroup 3 are more overlapped with redshifts of main cluster, i.e. there are galaxies not belonging to subgroup 3, but having redshifts lying within the redshift interval of that subgroup. Since one can hardly accept the possibility of the formation of the dynamical subgroups during the evolution of the main cluster and hence doubt in their primary origin and in their further dissolution within the cluster, the above fact can indicate only the more stronger dissolution of subgroup 3, as compared with the subgroup 2. In other words the former has to be an elder merger; this conclusion is supported also with the essential shift of the velocity of NGC 4889 ($`\alpha =12^h56^m55^s`$, $`\delta =28^{}14^{}46^\mathrm{"}`$, $`cz=6497`$ km s-1) from the median velocity of subgroup 3, a result of an action of dynamical friction. Similar conclusion has been drawn by Colless and Dunn (1996) from other considerations.

Thus, the present study indicates the existence of subgroups - galaxy associations - in Coma cluster which are undergoing the merging process, since essential bulk velocities and dissolution must mean only merging and not any time-reversed processed. It is remarkable that the subgroups are in various phases of merging. Indeed, the truncation of redshift distribution for the elder merger (subgroup 3) is more evident than for subgroup 1, so that only a core of galaxies had survived in the subgroup 3. Essential bulk velocity has been revealed also for the subgroups of the Local group (Gurzadyan & Rauzy, 1997; Rauzy & Gurzadyan, 1998).

The existence of merging subgroups with mutual bulk motion within the host cluster does not support the idea that the Coma cluster is a result of merging of two equal sized clusters (e.g. Tribble 1993) but is in agreement with one of the alternatives mentioned already by Fitchett and Webster (1987).

The fact that essentially non-stationary dynamical processes are ongoing in the core of Coma cluster affects the interpretation of the X-ray data as a way to reveal the structure of the cluster; see (Mazure et al 1998; Kikuchi et al 2000) for references. Particularly, the isothermal assumption on the X-ray gas state leads to an overestimation of the mass of the system within the given radius. A multi-temperature gas will mean that the X-ray flux peaks will depend on the wavelength, and therefore the correlation of the X-ray peaks with galaxy distributions may be not straightforward (cf. Biviano et al 1996) .

The available data on the galaxies of the subgroups given in the Tables 1-3 show some peculiarities. For example, the subgroup 3 is almost totally composed of S0 galaxies. Seems remarkable also the non-random orientation of the galaxies in subgroup 1 (Fig. 2).

Another observational aspect concerns the individual properties of the galaxies of the subgroups. It is now becoming clear that even minor external perturbations can be the reason of various galactic anomalies, such as the starburst activity (Bekki 1999), disk thickening of spirals (e.g. Reshetnikov and Combes 1997), bar formation and misalignment (Curir and Mazzei 1999, Chitre et al 1999), low metalicity globular cluster formation (Tanighuci et al 1999, Smith 1999), tidal tails and bridges (Conselice and Galagher 1998), counter rotating disks, etc. The galaxies of subgroups with essential bulk velocity have to undergo more perturbations and hence to reveal more of those properties than the galaxies of the field. Hence the observational study of the galaxies listed in Table 1-3 can be of particular interest, since the above mentioned tidally triggered phenomena link the dynamically detected galaxies with their individual properties.

We are thankful to F.Combes and G.Comte for valuable discussions. V.G. was supported by French-Armenian Jumelage.

Figure captions.

Figure 1. The redshift histogram of the main system (MS) of the core of Coma cluster. The revealed three galaxy subgroups are indicated (dashed lines), with the parameters given in Table 1.

Figure 2. The histogram of orientations of the galaxies in subgroup 1.


text:
# 1 Energy shift for the Morse potential, Δ𝐸/𝑓², vs. 𝐴 and 𝐵, for 𝛼=1.

hep-th/0102014

February 2001

Perturbative Aspects of $`q`$-Deformed Dynamics

Jian-zu Zhanga,b,c,§ and P. Oslandb,∗

a Department of Physics, University of Kaiserslautern, PO Box 3049, D-67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany

b Department of Physics, University of Bergen, N-5007 Bergen, Norway

c Institute for Theoretical Physics, Box 316, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, P. R. China

## Abstract

Within the framework of the $`q`$-deformed Heisenberg algebra a dynamical equation of $`q`$-deformed quantum mechanics is discussed. The perturbative aspects of the $`q`$-deformed Schrödinger equation are analyzed. General representations of the additional momentum-dependent interaction originating from the $`q`$-deformed effects are presented in two approaches. As examples, such additional interactions related to the harmonic-oscillator potential and the Morse potential are demonstrated.

§ E-mail address: jzzhangw@online.sh.cn

E-mail address: Per.Osland@fi.uib.no

Recently $`q`$-deformed quantum mechanics has attracted much attention as a possible modification of the ordinary quantum mechanics at short distances. According to present tests of quantum electrodynamics, quantum theories based on Heisenberg’s commutation relation are correct at least down to $`10^{18}`$ cm. The question arises whether there is a possible generalization of Heisenberg’s commutation relation at shorter distances. In searching for such a possibility considerations of the space structure are a useful guide. If the space structure at such short distances exhibits a non-commutative property, and thus is governed by a quantum group symmetry, it has been shown that $`q`$-deformed quantum mechanics is a possible pre-quantum theory at short distances. In the literature different frameworks of $`q`$-deformed quantum mechanics were established \[??\].

The framework of the $`q`$-deformed Heisenberg algebra developed in Refs.  shows clear physical content: its relation to the corresponding $`q`$-deformed boson commutation relations and the limiting process of the $`q`$-deformed harmonic oscillator to the undeformed one are clear. In this framework the $`q`$-deformed uncertainty relation shows an essential deviation from that of Heisenberg : the ordinary minimal uncertainty relation is undercut. A non-perturbative feature of the $`q`$-deformed Schrödinger equation is that the energy spectrum exhibits an exponential structure . The pattern of quark and lepton masses is qualitatively explained by such a $`q`$-deformed exponential spectrum .

In this paper we discuss perturbative aspects of the $`q`$-deformed Schrödinger equation in the above framework. The perturbative expansion of the $`q`$-deformed Hamiltonian possesses a complex structure, which amounts to some additional momentum-dependent interaction \[??\], . There are two approaches to showing such $`q`$-deformed effects: One includes it in the kinetic energy term, the other includes it in the potential. General results are presented, and as examples, the harmonic-oscillator system and the Morse potential are discussed in some detail.

In the following, we first review the necessary background of $`q`$-deformed quantum mechanics. In terms of $`q`$-deformed phase space variables — the position operator $`X`$ and the momentum operator $`P`$, the following $`q`$-deformed Heisenberg algebra has been developed :

$$q^{1/2}XPq^{1/2}PX=iU,UX=q^1XU,UP=qPU,$$
(1)
where $`X`$ and $`P`$ are hermitian and $`U`$ is unitary: $`X^{}=X`$, $`P^{}=P`$, $`U^{}=U^1`$. Compared to the Heisenberg algebra the operator $`U`$ is a new member, called the scaling operator. The necessity of introducing the operator $`U`$ is as follows.

The algebra (1) is based on the definition of the hermitian momentum operator $`P`$. However, if $`X`$ is assumed to be a hermitian operator in a Hilbert space the $`q`$-deformed derivative

$$_XX=1+qX_X,$$
(2)
which codes the non-commutativity of space, shows that the usual quantization rule $`Pi_X`$ does not yield a hermitian momentum operator. Ref.  showed that a hermitian momentum operator $`P`$ is related to $`_X`$ and $`X`$ in a nonlinear way by introducing a scaling operator $`U`$

$$U^1q^{1/2}[1+(q1)X_X],\overline{}_Xq^{1/2}U_X,P\frac{i}{2}(_X\overline{}_X),$$
(3)
where $`\overline{}_X`$ is the conjugate of $`_X`$. The operator $`U`$ is introduced in the definition of the hermitian momentum, thus it closely relates to properties of the dynamics and plays an essential role in $`q`$-deformed quantum mechanics. The nontrivial properties of $`U`$ imply that the algebra (1) has a richer structure than the Heisenberg commutation relation. In (1) the parameter $`q`$ is a fixed real number. It is important to make distinctions for different realizations of the $`q`$-algebra by different ranges of $`q`$ values \[??\]. Following Refs.  we only consider the case $`q>1`$ in this paper. In the limit $`q1^+`$ the scaling operator $`U`$ reduces to the unit operator, thus the algebra (1) reduces to the Heisenberg commutation relation.

Such defined hermitian momentum $`P`$ leads to $`q`$-deformation effects, which are exhibited by the dynamical equation. Eq. (3) shows that the momentum $`P`$ depends non-linearly on $`X`$ and $`_X`$. Thus the $`q`$-deformed Schrödinger equation is difficult to treat. In this paper we demonstrate its perturbative aspects.

The $`q`$-deformed phase space variables $`X`$, $`P`$ and the scaling operator $`U`$ can be realized in terms of undeformed variables $`\widehat{x}`$, $`\widehat{p}`$ of the ordinary quantum mechanics, where $`\widehat{x}`$, $`\widehat{p}`$ satisfy: $`[\widehat{x},\widehat{p}]=i`$, $`\widehat{x}=\widehat{x}^{}`$, $`\widehat{p}=\widehat{p}^{}`$. The variables $`X`$, $`P`$ and the scaling operator $`U`$ are related to $`\widehat{x}`$, $`\widehat{p}`$ by :

$$X=\frac{[\widehat{z}+\frac{1}{2}]}{\widehat{z}+\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{x},P=\widehat{p},U=q^{\widehat{z}},$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{z}=\frac{i}{2}(\widehat{x}\widehat{p}+\widehat{p}\widehat{x})`$ and $`[A]`$ is the $`q`$-deformation of $`A`$, defined by $`[A]=(q^Aq^A)/(qq^1)`$. Using (4) it is easy to check that $`X`$, $`P`$ and $`U`$ satisfy (1).

From (4) it follows that $`X`$ is represented as a function of $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ (note that $`\widehat{z}+\frac{1}{2}=i\widehat{x}\widehat{p}`$):

$$X=i(qq^1)^1\left(q^{(\widehat{z}+1/2)}q^{(\widehat{z}+1/2)}\right)\widehat{p}^1.$$
(5)
Using (5) it is convenient to discuss the perturbative expansion of $`X`$. Let $`q=e^f=1+f`$, with $`0<f1`$. To the order $`f^2`$, $`X`$ reduces to

$$X=\widehat{x}+f^2g(\widehat{x},\widehat{p}),g(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})=\frac{1}{6}(1+\widehat{x}\widehat{p}\widehat{x}\widehat{p})\widehat{x}.$$
(6)
The $`q`$-deformed phase space ($`X`$, $`P`$) governed by the $`q`$-algebra (1) is a $`q`$-deformation of the ordinary quantum mechanics phase space ($`\widehat{x}`$, $`\widehat{p}`$), thus all machinery of the ordinary quantum mechanics can be applied to the $`q`$-deformed quantum mechanics. By analogy, dynamical equations of the quantum system are the same for the undeformed phase space variables $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ and for the $`q`$-deformed phase space variables $`X`$ and $`P`$. Thus the starting point for establishing perturbative calculations of the $`q`$-deformed Schrödinger equation is as follows: first one uses $`q`$-deformed phase space variables $`X`$ and $`P`$ to write down the Hamiltonian of the system, then one uses (4) to express $`X`$ and $`P`$ by the undeformed phase space variables $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$.

The $`q`$-deformed Hamiltonian with potential $`V(X)`$ is

$$H(X,P)=\frac{1}{2\mu }P^2+V(X).$$
(7)
For regular potentials $`V(X)`$, which are singularity free, to the order $`f^2`$ of the perturbative expansion, such potentials can be expressed by the undeformed variables $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ as

$$V(X)=V(\widehat{x})+\widehat{H}_I^{(q)}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p}),$$
(8)
with the perturbation

$$\widehat{H}_I^{(q)}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})=f^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{V^{(k)}(0)}{k!}\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\widehat{x}^{(k1)i}g(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})\widehat{x}^i\right),$$
(9)
where $`V^{(k)}(0)`$ is the $`k`$-th derivative of $`V(x)`$ at $`x=0`$ ($`x`$ is the spectrum of $`\widehat{x}`$). In (9) the ordering between the non-commutative quantities $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`g(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})`$ is carefully considered. Substituting for $`g(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})`$ and summing over $`i`$, the above result can be expressed as

$$\widehat{H}_I^{(q)}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})=\frac{f^2}{6}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{V^{(k)}(0)}{k!}\widehat{x}^k\left(k\widehat{x}^2_{\widehat{x}}^2+k(k+2)\widehat{x}_{\widehat{x}}+\frac{1}{6}k(k1)(2k+5)\right).$$
(10)
The remaining sum over $`k`$ can be performed in terms of derivatives of the potential:

$$\widehat{H}_I^{(q)}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})=\frac{f^2\widehat{x}^2}{6}\left\{\widehat{x}V^{}(\widehat{x})_{\widehat{x}}^2+\left[\widehat{x}V^{^{\prime \prime }}(\widehat{x})+3V^{^{}}(\widehat{x})\right]_{\widehat{x}}+\frac{1}{3}\widehat{x}V^{^{\prime \prime \prime }}(\widehat{x})+\frac{3}{2}V^{^{\prime \prime }}(\widehat{x})\right\}.$$
(11)
For potentials with singular term $`X^k`$, $`(k=1,2,3,\mathrm{})`$, we use the following operator equation to treat the perturbation expansion:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A+B}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}+\mathrm{},`$ (12)
where the norms of the operators $`A`$ and $`B`$ satisfy $`B<A`$. Thus to the order $`f^2`$ the perturbative expansion of $`1/X`$ reads:

$$\frac{1}{X}=\frac{1}{\widehat{x}}f^2\frac{1}{\widehat{x}}g(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})\frac{1}{\widehat{x}}.$$
(13)
For the energy shift, in the state $`|n`$, corresponding to Eq. (11), we may integrate by parts, and obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{E}_n^{(q)}=\frac{f^2}{36}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\left\{\psi _n^{(0)}(x)V(x)[2x^3_x^3+9x^2_x^23]\psi _n^{(0)}(x)+\text{h.c.}\right\},$$
(14)
where $`\psi _n^{(0)}`$ is the unperturbed wave function. One can use the Schrödinger equation and rewrite this as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{E}_n^{(q)}=\frac{f^2}{6}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\psi _n^{(0)}(x)\left(V(x)\{14\mu x^2[V(x)E]\}\frac{2}{3}\mu Ex^3V^{}(x)\right)\psi _n^{(0)}(x),$$
(15)
where $`E`$ is the unperturbed energy.

There is another set of variables $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ of an undeformed algebra, which are obtained by a canonical transformation of $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ :

$$\stackrel{~}{x}=\widehat{x}F^1(\widehat{z}),\stackrel{~}{p}=F(\widehat{z})\widehat{p},$$
(16)
where (note that $`\widehat{z}\frac{1}{2}=i\widehat{p}\widehat{x}`$)

$$F^1(\widehat{z})=\frac{[\widehat{z}\frac{1}{2}]}{\widehat{z}\frac{1}{2}},$$
(17)
Such defined variables $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ also satisfy the undeformed algebra: $`[\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p}]=i`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{x}=\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}=\stackrel{~}{p}^{}`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{p}=i_{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$. The $`q`$-deformed variables $`X`$, $`P`$ and the scaling operator $`U`$ are related to $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ as follows:

$$X=\stackrel{~}{x},P=F^1(\stackrel{~}{z})\stackrel{~}{p},U=q^{\stackrel{~}{z}},$$
(18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{z}=\frac{i}{2}(\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{p}+\stackrel{~}{p}\stackrel{~}{x})`$; and with $`F^1(\stackrel{~}{z})`$ defined by Eq. (17) for the variables ($`\stackrel{~}{x}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$). From Eqs. (16)–(18) it follows that $`X`$, $`P`$ and $`U`$ also satisfy (1), and Eq. (18) is equivalent to Eq. (4).

Using (18) to the order $`f^2`$ the perturbative expansions of $`P`$ and the kinetic energy $`P^2/(2\mu )`$ read

$$P=\stackrel{~}{p}+f^2h(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p}),h(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p})=\frac{1}{6}(1+\stackrel{~}{p}\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{p}\stackrel{~}{x})\stackrel{~}{p},$$
(19)
and

$$\frac{1}{2\mu }P^2=\frac{1}{2\mu }\stackrel{~}{p}^2+\stackrel{~}{H}_I^{(q)}(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p}),$$
(20)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_I^{(q)}(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}f^2\left[\stackrel{~}{p}h(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p})+h(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p})\stackrel{~}{p}\right]`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\mu }}f^2\left[2\stackrel{~}{x}^2_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^4+8\stackrel{~}{x}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^3+3_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^2\right]`$
Eqs. (20) and (21) show that in the ($`\stackrel{~}{x}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$) system the perturbative contribution comes from the kinetic-energy term.

Similar to Eqs. (14)–(15) (using the Schrödinger equation and integrating by parts), one can write the energy shift corresponding to Eq. (21) as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{E}_n^{(q)}=\frac{f^2}{6}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\psi _n^{(0)}(x)[V(x)E]\{14\mu x^2[V(x)E]\}\psi _n^{(0)}(x).$$
(22)
The two expressions for the energy shift, Eqs. (15) and (22) are in fact equal, since the difference is given by

$$\frac{f^2}{6}E_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\psi _n^{(0)}(x)\left\{14\mu x^2[V(x)E]\frac{2}{3}x^3\mu V^{}(x)\right\}\psi _n^{(0)}(x)=0.$$
(23)
From this last form, Eq. (22), it is easy to see that the energy shift is negative since $`n|V|n<E`$. Thus,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_n^{(q)}<0.$$
(24)
As a first application we consider the $`q`$-deformed “harmonic” system described by the Hamiltonian

$$H(X,P)=\frac{1}{2\mu }P^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu \omega ^2X^2,$$
(25)
First we calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{E}_n^{(q)}`$ in the $`(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p})`$ system. From Eq. (21) or (22) it follows that the shifts of the energy levels are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{E}_n^{(q)}=\frac{f^2\omega }{48}\left(4n^3+6n^2+20n+9\right).$$
(26)
In the $`(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})`$ system the only non-zero term in (9) is $`V^{(2)}(0)=\mu \omega ^2`$, thus (9) reduces to:

$`\widehat{H}_I^{(q)}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p}))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}f^2\mu \omega ^2\left[\widehat{x}(1+\widehat{x}\widehat{p}\widehat{x}\widehat{p})\widehat{x}+(1+\widehat{x}\widehat{p}\widehat{x}\widehat{p})\widehat{x}^2\right]`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}f^2\mu \omega ^2\left[2\widehat{x}^4_{\widehat{x}}^2+8\widehat{x}^3_{\widehat{x}}+3\widehat{x}^2\right].`$
The corresponding energy shift, which can also be obtained from Eq. (15), is easily seen to be identical to that of Eq. (26).

As noted above, the shift in Eq. (26) is negative, and it increases with $`n`$, leading eventually to a breakdown of perturbation theory for $`n(12/f^2)^{1/3}`$. The tendency exhibited by Eq. (26) agrees with the observation that for the $`q`$-deformed harmonic oscillator the spectrum has an upper bound .

In the limiting case $`q1^+`$ we have $`H(X,P)H_{\mathrm{un}}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})=\frac{1}{2\mu }\widehat{p}^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu \omega ^2\widehat{x}^2`$. Only in this sense $`H(X,P)`$ defined in Eq. (25) is called the $`q`$-deformed “harmonic” system.

As another example, we study the Morse potential  in its “supersymmetric” form , where the ground state energy vanishes. It is given by the potential

$$V(x)=A^2+B^2e^{2\alpha x}2B\left(A+\frac{\alpha }{2\sqrt{2\mu }}\right)e^{\alpha x}.$$
(28)
The corresponding energy shift can be obtained from either Eq. (15) or Eq. (22), the result is shown in Fig. 1 for $`\alpha =1`$, $`\mu =1`$, and some range of $`A`$ and $`B`$. For the harmonic oscillator, we saw that the shift increased in magnitude with the unperturbed energy. This is not the case for the Morse potential, where the shift may increase or decrease with the unperturbed energy, depending on the parameters.

It should be emphasized again that $`\stackrel{~}{H}_I^{(q)}(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p})`$ originates from the kinetic term, whereas $`\widehat{H}_I^{(q)}(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})`$ originates from the potential. At the level of operators, these two Hamiltonians are different. However, they differ only by a quantity whose expectation value vanishes.

At short distances, where $`q`$-deformation might be relevant, one also expects quantum mechanics to break down and have to be replaced by some kind of field theory. Some progress is being made in this area . In a more realistic theory along such lines, some features of $`q`$-deformed quantum mechanics may survive. It is therefore hoped that studies of $`q`$-deformed dynamics at the level of quantum mechanics will give some clue for the further development.

This work has been supported by DAAD–K.C.Wong Fellowship (Germany) and the Research Council of Norway. JZZ would like to thank Prof. H.J.W. Müller-Kirsten for helpful discussions. His work has also been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the grant number 10074014 and by the Shanghai Education Development Foundation.


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

In this paper we investigate the Darboux factorization method for $`q`$–difference version of Riccati and Schrödinger equations. It appears that this method which is by all means effective for differential Riccati and Schrödinger equation () leads to non–trival and interesting results in the $`q`$–deformed case too. Some of the new formulae have their undeformed version. They tend in the limit of $`q1`$ to the ones, which are well known in differential case.

The Darboux factorization

$$\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V(x)=\left(\frac{d}{dx}+u(x)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dx}+u(x)\right)$$
(1)
gives the well known correspondence between one-dimensional Schrödinger equation

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\psi (x)+V(x)\right)\psi (x)=0$$
(2)
and the Riccati equation

$$\frac{d}{dx}u(x)=u^2(x)+V(x),$$
(3)
where

$$u(x)=\frac{d}{dx}ln\psi (x).$$
(4)
This correspondence is a starting point for a search of the exact solutions of both equations above (see ).

We will investigate, in this paper, an analogue of the Darboux method for the pair of $`q`$-difference equation

$$_q\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (x)\\ \phi (x)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R(x)& S(x)\\ V(x)& T(x)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (x)\\ \phi (x)\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
and

$$V(x)=_qu(x)T(x)u(x)+R(x)u(qx)+S(x)u(x)u(qx).$$
(6)
whose solutions are related by

$$u(x)=\frac{\phi (x)}{\psi (x)}.$$
(7)
It is clear that (5) and (6) generalize (2) and (3) respectively. The Schrödinger and Riccati equations are obtained in the limit $`q1`$ under additional assumption that $`R(x)=0=T(x)`$.

Let us recall here, that the $`q`$-derivative and $`q`$-integral are defined by

$$_q\psi (x)=\frac{\psi (x)\psi (qx)}{(1q)x},$$
(8)
$$_0^x\psi (x)d_qt=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1q)q^nx\psi (q^nx)$$
(9)
respectively, where $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}q1`$. The standard derivative and integral are obtained for $`q=1`$. However, the reason for the investigation of the $`q`$-difference equations (5) and (6) is not only that they generalize in a natural way the Schrödinger and Riccati equations.

If one additionally assumes $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}(1q)xT(x)=0`$ in the real case and one takes $`q^n`$ instead of the real argument $`x`$, the equation (5) appear to reduce to the three terms requrence equation

$$\psi _{n+2}=\left[1(1q)q^{n+1}R(q^{n+1})\right]\psi _{n+1}+(1q)^2q^{2n+1}S(q^{n+1})V(q^n)\psi _n,$$
(10)
for the function $`\psi _n:=\psi (q^n)`$ of the natural argument $`nIN\{0\}`$. Hence, the $`q`$-difference equation (5) can be applied to those physical problems which are related to the theory of orthogonal polynomials (see ) .

The paper is organized in the following way. In Section 1 we will introduce the $`q`$-difference Darboux transform and we will integrate the equation (5) for the case of $`V(x)=0`$. The action of $`q`$–difference Darboux transform will be presented in Section 2. There we find an one–parameter auto-Bäcklund transform for the $`q`$-difference Riccati equation and we show that it generates the general solution of (6) from a special one. Section 3 is devoted to the presentation of some extendend classes of solutions of the $`q`$–difference Schrödinger and Riccati equation. All results presented in Section 1 and 2 have well known differential counterparts and this aspect is also exhibited in the paper.

## 1 The $`q`$-difference Darboux transform

In order to solve the $`q`$–difference equation (5) by the iterative method we will rewrite it in the following form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (qx)\\ \phi (qx)\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(x\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (x)\\ \phi (x)\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=1\text{I}(1q)x\left(\begin{array}{cc}R(x)& S(x)\\ V(x)& T(x)\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
Let us assume here that $`R(x)`$, $`S(x)`$, $`V(x)`$ and $`T(x)`$ are continuous functions of a real argument. Hence, the matrix sequence

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(q^{n1}x)\mathrm{}..\mathrm{\Lambda }(qx)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=:\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_n$$
(13)
is pointwise convergent

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_n_n\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}$$
(14)
to a matrix function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}`$. The inverse matrix function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ is exactly the resolvent of equation (5), i. e.

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (x)\\ \phi (x)\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (0)\\ \phi (0)\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
The problem of solving (5) thus is equivalent to the calculation of the infinite matrix product

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}:=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(q^nx).$$
(16)
The above suggests the following transform:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)D(qx)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)D(x)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(x),$$
(17)
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (x)\\ \phi (x)\end{array}\right)D(x)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (x)\\ \phi (x)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^{^{}}(x)\\ \phi ^{^{}}(x)\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
where $`D(x)`$ is $`GL(2,IR)`$ \- valued function of the real argument. It is obvious that the transform (17-18) preserves the form of the equation (11) and the transformed resolvent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ is related to the initial one by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}^1=D(x)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}^1D(0).$$
(19)
Thus the virtue of the above transform is to find such matrix valued function $`D(x)`$ for equation (5), which reduces unknown resolvent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ to some known one $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}^1`$.

We will find later the explicit form of the resolwent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the case when $`V(x)=0`$. So, in order to integrate (5) it is enough to transform (16) to the uppertriangular matrix function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ by the use of (17-18). Any matrix can be decomposed generically into the product of the uppertriangular and lowertriangular matrices. Thus, without loss of generality we can assume that

$$D(x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ c(x)& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
After substituting (20) into (17) we find that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(x)`$ will be an uppertriangular matrix if and only if the function $`c(x)`$ satisfies the $`q`$–difference Riccati equation (6).

The $`q`$–difference Schrödinger operator factorizes into the form:

$$_q^2+V(x)=\left(_q+u(qx)\right)\left(_q+u(x)\right),$$
(21)
iff the function $`u(x)`$ satisfies the equation (6) with $`R(x)=T(x)=0`$ and $`S(x)=1`$. Hence, it is natural to call the matrix transform (17-18) the $`q`$–difference Darboux transform.

We will use the identity

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1(1q)q^nxf(q^nx)\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(1(1q)tf(t)\right)}{t}d_qt\right),$$
(22)
which is an easy consequence of the definition of $`q`$–integral.

###### Proposition 1

If $`R(x)`$, $`S(x)`$ and $`T(x)`$ are continuous functions and $`V(x)=0`$ then

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1(1q)tR(t))}{t}d_qt& B(x)\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1(1q)tT(t))}{t}d_qt\end{array}\right],$$
(23)
where

$$B(x)=[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1(1q)tT(t))}{t}d_qt\right)]\times $$

$$\times [_0^x\frac{S(t)}{1(1q)tR(t)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^t\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1(1q)sR(s)}{1(1q)sT(s)}d_qs\right)d_qt.].$$
(24)
Proof:
Since $`V(x)=0`$ we can assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the uppertriangular matrix of the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\left(1(1q)q^nxR(q^nx)\right)& B(x)\\ 0& _{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\left(1(1q)q^nxT(q^nx)\right)\end{array}\right].$$
(25)
where from the equation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(qx;q)_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x),$$
(26)
we find that the function $`B(x)`$ does satisfy

$$B(x)=\left[1(1q)xT(x)\right]B(qx)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1(1q)q^{n+1}xR(q^{n+1}x)\right)\left(1q\right)xS(x).$$
(27)
The equation ( 27 ) is solved by iterative method. One gets finally:

$$B(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1(1q)q^nxT(q^nx))\times $$

$$\times \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(1q\right)q^nxS(q^nx)}{1\left(1q\right)q^nxR(q^nx)}\underset{k=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(1(1q)q^kxR(q^kx)\right)}{\left(1(1q)q^kxT(q^kx)\right)}.$$
(28)
Substituting (28) into (25) and using identity (22) we obtain the formulae (23) and (24).

QED

## 2 The solution of $`q`$-difference Schrödinger equation and auto-Bäclund transform for $`q`$-difference Riccati equation

We have obtained in Section 1, the resolvent function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ for the case of $`V(x)=0`$, (see Proposition 1). Let us assume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(x)`$ in (17) to be uppertriangular matrix function. Applying the $`q`$–difference Darboux transform to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$, with $`D(x)`$ given by (20), we find the general solution of the $`q`$–differential equation (5).

###### Proposition 2

Let us assume that functions $`R(x)`$, $`S(x)`$, $`T(x)`$ and $`V(x)`$ from the equations (5) are continuous. Let $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\psi _0(x)& \phi _0(x)\end{array}\right)^{}`$ be a particular solution of (5) one and put

$$u_0(x)=\frac{\phi _0(x)}{\psi _0(x)}.$$
(29)
Then the potential $`V(x)`$ is given by

$$V(x)=_qu_o(x)T(x)u_0(x)+R(x)u_0(qx)+S(x)u_0(x)u_0(qx),$$
(30)
and the general solutions of (5) is given by:

$$\psi (x)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left\{1(1q)t\left[R(t)+u_0(t)S(t)\right]\right\}}{t}d_qt)\times $$

$$\times [D+F_0^x\frac{S(t)}{1\left(1q\right)t\left[R(t)+u_0(t)S(t)\right]}\times $$

$$\times \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^t\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1(1q)s\left[R(s)+u_o(s)S(s)\right]}{1(1q)s\left[T(s)u_0(qs)S(s)\right]}d_qs\right)d_qt],$$
(31)
$$\phi (x)=F\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left\{1(1q)t\left[T(t)u_0(qt)S(t)\right]\right\}}{t}d_qt\right)+$$

$$+u_0(x)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left\{1(1q)t\left[R(t)+u_0(t)S(t)\right]\right\}}{t}d_qt)\times $$

$$\times [D+F_0^x\frac{S(t)}{1\left(1q\right)t\left[R(t)+u_0(t)S(t)\right]}\times $$

$$\times \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^t\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1\left(1q\right)s\left[R(s)+u_0(s)S(s)\right]}{1\left(1q\right)s\left[T(s)u_0(qs)S(s)\right]}d_qs\right)d_qt],$$
(32)
The constants $`D`$ and $`F`$are related with the initial conditions by:

$$D=\psi (0),$$

$$F=\psi (0)\frac{\phi _0(0)}{\psi _0(0)}+\phi (0).$$
(33)
Proof:
In order to prove the formulae (31\- 32) and (33) we assume in (12) that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(x)`$ is uppertriangular and we apply the $`q`$–difference Darboux transform (17) with

$$D(x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ u_0(x)& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(34)
The formulae (30) follows now from (17) and from the property of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(x)`$ of being uppertriangular. The formulae (31) and (32) are obtained from Proposition 1 and (33).

QED

As a corollary of Proposition 2 we obtained the auto-Bäcklund transform for $`q`$–difference Riccati equation.

###### Proposition 3

Let $`u_0(x)`$ be some special solution of the equation (6). Then the general solution of (6) is given by

$$u^t(x)=\left(_t^+u_0\right)(x)=u_0(x)+$$

$$+\frac{t\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{1}{y}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1(1q)y\left[R(y)+u_0(y)S(y)\right]}{1(1q)y\left[T(y)u_0(qy)S(y)\right]}d_qy\right)}{1+t_0^x\frac{S(y)}{1(1q)y\left[R(y)+u_0(y)S(y)\right]}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^y\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1(1q)s\left[R(s)+u_0(s)S(s)\right]}{1(1q)s\left[T(s)u_0(qs)S(s)\right]}d_qs\right)d_qy},$$
(35)
where $`tIR`$.

Proof:
The formulae (35) is obtained by substituting (31) and (32) into (7) and puting $`t=\frac{F}{D}`$.

QED

The $`q`$–difference Schrödinger equation

$$\left(_q^2+V(x)\right)\psi (x)=0,$$
(36)
is a special case of (6) and is obtained by putting $`R(x)=T(x)=0`$ and $`S(x)=1`$. From the Proposition 2 we may draw:

###### Corollary 1

The solution of $`q`$–difference Schrödinger equation with the potential

$$V(x)=_qu_0(x)+u_0(x)u_0(qx),$$
(37)
is given by

$$\psi (x)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(1\left(1q\right)tu_0(t)\right)}{t}d_qt)\times $$

$$\times \left[D+F_0^x\frac{1}{1\left(1q\right)tu_0(t)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^t\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1(1q)su_0(s)}{1+(1q)su_0(qs)}d_qs\right)d_qt\right].$$
(38)
In the limit of $`q1`$ the $`q`$–difference equations (5) and (6) tend to their differential counterparts

$$\frac{d}{dx}\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (x)\\ \phi (x)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R(x)& S(x)\\ V(x)& T(x)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (x)\\ \phi (x)\end{array}\right)$$
(39)
and

$$V(x)=\frac{d}{dx}u(x)+\left(R(x)T(x)\right)u(x)+S(x)u^2(x),$$
(40)
where $`u(x)`$ is given by (7). The Propositions 2 and 3 are valid in the limit $`q1`$ too. Therefore, we can apply them to the differential case and reproduce in such a way the formulae for general solutions of (39) and (40). They are given by

$$\psi (x)=\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^x(R(t)+u_0(t)S(t))dt\right)\times $$

$$\times \left[D+F_0^xS(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^t\left[T(s)R(s)2u_0(s)S(s)\right]𝑑s\right)𝑑t\right],$$
(41)
$$\phi (x)=F\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^x\left(T(t)u_0(t)S(t)\right)𝑑t\right)+$$

$$+u_0(x)\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^x(R(t)+u_0(t)S(t))dt\right)\times $$

$$\times \left[D+F_0^xS(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^t\left[T(s)R(s)2u_0(s)S(s)\right]𝑑s\right)𝑑t\right]$$
(42)
and by

$$u^t(x)=u_0(x)+\frac{t\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^x\left[T(y)R(y)2u_0(y)S(y)\right]𝑑y\right)}{1+t_0^xS(y)\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^y\left[T(s)R(s)2u_0(s)S(s)\right]𝑑s\right)𝑑y}.$$
(43)
Here $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\psi _0(x)& \phi _0(x)\end{array}\right)^{}`$and $`u_0(x)`$ are some special solutions (39) and (40).

In order to describe the properties of the family of solutions $`u^t(x)=\left(_t^+u_0\right)(x)`$, $`tIR`$, given by (35) let us formulate:

Proposition 4

* The transforms (35) form one–parameter group

$$_{t_1}^+_{t_2}^+=_{t_1+t_2}^+,$$
(44)
which acts transitively on the space of all solutions of the $`q`$–difference Riccati equations (6).
* The solutions $`u^{t_1}(x)`$, $`u^{t_2}(x)`$, $`u^{t_3}(x)`$, $`u^{t_4}(x)`$ satisfy the unharmonical superposition principle

$$\frac{\left(u^{t_4}(x)u^{t_3}(x)\right)\left(u^{t_1}(x)u^{t_2}(x)\right)}{\left(u^{t_3}(x)u^{t_1}(x)\right)\left(u^{t_2}(x)u^{t_4}(x)\right)}=\frac{\left(t_4t_3\right)\left(t_1t_2\right)}{\left(t_3t_1\right)\left(t_2t_4\right)},$$
(45)
for $`t_1`$, $`t_2,t_3,t_4IR`$.

Proof:
$``$ According to Proposition 3 any solution of (6) is given by $`_su_0`$ for some $`sIR`$. Since $`_{t_1}\left(_tu_0\right)`$ is a solution of (6) we have

$$_{t_1}^+_{t_2}^+u_0=_s^+u_0.$$
(46)
One can find $`sIR`$ by evaluation of both sides of (46) at $`x=0`$. Thus, using (33) we obtain

$$t_1+\left(t_2+u_0(0)\right)=s+u_0(0).$$
(47)
$``$ The equality is obtained from (35) by direct calculation. QED

The right hand side of (45) is invariant with respect to the real fractional transformation

$$t_i^{^{}}=\frac{at_i+b}{ct_i+d},\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)SL(2,IR)$$
(48)
of the parameters $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$, $`t_3`$ and $`t_4`$. Hence, the left hand side of (45) is $`SL(2,IR)`$–invariant too.

## 3 Some integrable cases

In the Proposition 3 we constructed the transform which generated the general solution of the $`q`$–Riccati equation (6) from a given special one. It was done by the action of one–parameter group of transformations $`\{_t^+\}`$, $`tIR`$. The formula (35) which defines the group $`\{_t^+\}_{tIR}`$ action does depend on the potentials $`R(x)`$, $`S(x)`$ and $`T(x)`$. It does not contain the potential $`V(x)`$. This allows us to define some method of creation of new integrable systems from a system which one knows how to integrate. In order to do this let us intoduce some notation.

By $``$ we will denote the map

$$u(x):=u(x).$$
(49)
The operator which acts on the function $`u(x)`$ on the right side of $`q`$–Riccati equation (6) will be denoted by $`_+`$, i.e.

$$_+u(x):=_qu(x)T(x)u(x)+R(x)u(qx)+S(x)u(x)u(qx).$$
(50)
By $`_{}`$ we will denote the operator

$$_{}u(x):=_qu(x)+T(x)u(x)R(x)u(qx)+S(x)u(x)u(qx).$$
(51)
It is clear that

$$_+=_{}\text{and}_{}=_+.$$
(52)
Hence, if $`u(x)`$ is the solution of the equation

$$_+u(x)=V(x),$$
(53)
then $`u(x)`$ does satisfy

$$_{}u(x)=V(x)$$
(54)
and vice versa. The one–parameter groups (35) for the equations (53) and (54) will be denoted by $`\{_t^+\}_{tIR}`$ and $`\{_t^{}\}_{tIR}`$ respectively. They are related by

$$_t^{}=_t^+.$$
(55)
After aplication of the transform

$$_{t_1\mathrm{}t_n}^{}:=_{t_1}^+_{t_2}^+\mathrm{}_{t_n}^+$$
(56)
to $`u_0(x)`$ which one assumes to be the solution of (6) with the potential $`V_0(x)`$ we obtain the solution

$$u(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n,x):=_{t_1\mathrm{}t_n}^{}u_0(x)$$
(57)
of (53) with the some new potential

$$_+u(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n,x)=V(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n,x),$$
(58)
which is $`n`$–parameter deformation of the initial one. The same function satisfies also

$$_{}u(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n,x)=V(t_2,\mathrm{},t_n,x).$$
(59)
In such a way we obtain the family of $`q`$–difference Riccati equations (58) and (59) generated by $`u_0(x)`$ and by the transform (56).

It is worth to mention here the group like property of $`_{t_1\mathrm{}t_n}`$:

$`_{0\mathrm{}0}^{}=id,`$
$`\left(_{t_1\mathrm{}t_n}^{}\right)^1=_{t_n\mathrm{}t_1},`$ (60)
$`_{t_1\mathrm{}t_n}^{}_{s_1\mathrm{}s_m}^{}=_{t_1\mathrm{}t_{n1}t_n+s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_m}^{}.`$
In particular of case $`n=1`$, applying $`\{_t^{}\}_{tIR}`$ to (37) we obtain

$$_+u(t,x)=V(t,x),$$
(61)
$$_{}u(t,x)=_{}u_0(x),$$
(62)
where $`u(t,x)=_t^{}u_0(x)`$. Simple calculation gives a solution

$$u(t,x)=u_0(x)$$

$$\frac{t\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{1}{y}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+(1q)yu_0(y)}{1(1q)yu_0(qy)}d_qy\right)}{1+t_0^x\frac{1}{1+(1q)yu_0(y)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^y\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+(1q)su_0(s)}{1(1q)su_0(qs)}d_qs\right)d_qy},$$
(63)
for the potential

$$V(t,x)=V_0(x)$$

$$2_q\frac{t\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^x\frac{1}{y}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+(1q)yu_0(y)}{1(1q)yu_0(qy)}d_qy\right)}{1+t_0^x\frac{1}{1+(1q)yu_0(y)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{1q}_0^y\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+(1q)su_0(s)}{1(1q)su_0(qs)}d_qs\right)d_qy}.$$
(64)
In the limit of $`q1`$ the equations (61) and (62) correspond to the proper differential equations and (63) tends to the solution

$$u(t,x)=u_0(x)\frac{}{x}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+t_0^x\mathrm{exp}\left(2_0^yu_0(z)𝑑z\right)𝑑y\right)$$
(65)
of (3) with potential given by

$$V(t,x)=V_0(x)2\frac{^2}{x^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+t_0^x\mathrm{exp}\left(2_0^yu_0(z)𝑑z\right)𝑑y\right).$$
(66)
Combining (61) and (62) we find the formula

$$u(t,x)=\frac{1}{2}\{(1q)x\frac{1}{2}(V(t,x)_{}u_0(x))\stackrel{+}{}$$

$$\stackrel{+}{}\sqrt{\left[\left(1q\right)x\frac{1}{2}\left(V(t,x)_{}u_0(x)\right)\right]^2+2\left(V(t,x)+_{}u_0(x)\right)}\},$$
(67)
which expresses the solution $`u(t,x)`$ by the $`t`$–deformed potential $`V(t,x)`$ and by the initial solution $`u_0(x)`$.

Example
The function

$$u_0(x)=ax^\alpha ,$$
(68)
where $`\alpha >1`$, $`a,\alpha IR`$, is the solution of (37) with the potential

$$V_0(x)=a\frac{1q^\alpha }{1q}x^{\alpha 1}+a^2q^\alpha x^{2\alpha }.$$
(69)
Let

$$\mathrm{exp}_R(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{R(q)\mathrm{}R(q^n)}x^n,$$
(70)
be generalized exponential function (see ) with

$$R(x)=\frac{1x^{\alpha +1}}{\left(1q\right)x^{\alpha +1}}.$$
(71)
Using the formulae (63) and (64) we find that

$$u(t,x)=ax^\alpha \frac{t\frac{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(ax^{\alpha +1}\right)}{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^\alpha x^{\alpha +1}\right)}}{1+t_0^x\frac{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^{\alpha +1}y^{\alpha +1}\right)}{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^\alpha y^{\alpha +1}\right)}d_qy},$$
(72)
is a solution of (37) with potential $`V(t,x)`$ given by

$$V(t,x)=a\frac{1q^\alpha }{1q}x^{\alpha 1}+a^2q^\alpha x^{2\alpha }$$

$$2t\frac{\frac{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^{\alpha +1}x^{\alpha +1}\right)}{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^\alpha x^{\alpha +1}\right)}}{\left(1+t_0^x\frac{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^{\alpha +1}y^{\alpha +1}\right)}{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^\alpha y^{\alpha +1}\right)}d_qy\right)\left(1+qt_0^x\frac{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^{2(\alpha +1)}y^{\alpha +1}\right)}{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^{2\alpha +1}y^{\alpha +1}\right)}d_qy\right)}\times $$

$$\times \left\{\left(1+q^\alpha \right)aq^{\alpha +1}x^\alpha \left(1+t_0^x\frac{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^{\alpha +1}y^{\alpha +1}\right)}{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^\alpha y^{\alpha +1}\right)}d_qy\right)t\frac{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^{\alpha +1}x^{\alpha +1}\right)}{\mathrm{exp}_R\left(aq^{2\alpha +1}x^{\alpha +1}\right)}\right\}.$$
(73)
If, for example, $`\alpha =0`$, $`t=a`$ and $`q1`$ then the potential (73) reduces to Rosen–Morse potential

$$V(a,x)=a^2\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(2ax\right)6+\mathrm{exp}\left(2ax\right)}{\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(ax\right)+\mathrm{exp}\left(ax\right)\right)^2}.$$
(74)
Acknowledgements

We thank dr Z Hasiewicz for helpful comments.