text:
# Phys.Lett. B527 (2002) 215-225 (hep-th/0102127) Core structure and exactly solvable models in dilaton gravity coupled to Maxwell and antisymmetric tensor fields

## I Introduction

We start with the following action

$$S=d^Dx\sqrt{g}\left[R\frac{\beta }{2}(\varphi )^2+\mathrm{\Xi }F^2+\mathrm{\Psi }F_{(p)}^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }\right],$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar, $`p=D2`$, $`F`$ and $`F_{(p)}`$ are two- and $`p`$-forms respectively, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are functions of dilaton $`\varphi `$ , and $`\beta `$ is some unspecified constant (not necessary positive). The models of such a kind appear in modern cosmological and low-energy string and supergravity theories. We will be interested in static solutions of this system hence further we will work with the metric ansatz

$$ds^2=e^{U(r)}dt^2+e^{U(r)}dr^2+e^{A(r)}ds_{(p,k)}^2,$$
(2)
where $`ds_{(p,k)}^2`$ is a $`p`$-dimensional maximally symmetrical space with $`k`$ being $`1`$, $`0`$, $`+1`$ depending on geometry ($`^p`$, $`^p`$, $`𝒮^p`$) - we are going to handle them simultaneously and uniformly. The Maxwell and $`p`$-form fields are assumed being in the form

$$F=Q\frac{e^{pA/2}}{\mathrm{\Xi }}dtdr,F_{(p)M\mathrm{}N}=Pe^{pA/2}\epsilon _{M\mathrm{}N}$$
(3)
in an orthonormal frame, where $`Q`$ and $`P`$ are electric and magnetic charges. Then the field equations become

$`A^{\prime \prime }+A^{}(U^{}+pA^{}/2){\displaystyle \frac{2}{p}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}e^{pAU}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p}}\mathrm{\Lambda }e^U`$ (4)
$`2k(p1)e^{AU}=0,`$ (5)
$`\beta \varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\beta \varphi ^{}(U^{}+pA^{}/2)+\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{,\varphi }e^{pAU}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,\varphi }e^U=0,`$ (6)
$`A^{\prime \prime }+A^2/2+\beta \varphi ^2/p=0,`$ (7)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}_r`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}2Q^2\mathrm{\Xi }^1+p!P^2\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

The paper is arranged as follows. In next section we prove the full separability of static EMATD theory and reveal its core structure. The latter is formulated in terms of the classes of integrability (more correctly, solvability). Sec. III deals with a particular example of the so-called linear class. We rule out the relevant models and their solutions’ families, and study the physical relevance of latter. Sec. IV is devoted to how the discovered core structure of EMATD gravity might help theorists in the situation when neither couplings nor potential are known precisely. Conclusions are made in Sec. V.

## II Separability and core structure of EMATD gravity

Now we will rule out the full separability of the static dyonic EMATD theory (the case without antisymmetric tensor has been considered in ref. ). Due to that separability, we will be equipped with the straightforward procedure of generating of the numerous classes of integrability that are dyonic besides $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is non-zero in general case.

Applying the approach of ref.  one can obtain the following system (which is similar to that from the EMD case)

$`2k(p1)+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{\stackrel{~}{A}}}{p}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+e^{p\stackrel{~}{A}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}\right)+e^{\stackrel{~}{U}+2Y}`$ (8)
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{p\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{U}_{,\varphi }}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}})=0,`$ (9)
$`2k(p1)+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{\stackrel{~}{A}}}{p}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2\beta }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,\varphi }\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }\right)+e^{\stackrel{~}{U}+2Y}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }}}\right)_{,\varphi }`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{(p1)\stackrel{~}{A}}}{p}}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2\beta }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{,\varphi }\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }\right)=0,`$ (11)
$`\varphi ^{}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{e^{Y\stackrel{~}{A}/2}}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }}}=0,Y(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }}}+Y_0,`$ (12)
where $`U(r)\stackrel{~}{U}(\varphi (r))`$ and $`A(r)\stackrel{~}{A}(\varphi (r))`$, the subscript “$`,\varphi `$” stands for the derivative with respect to dilaton. This system is equivalent to the initial one but has much more capabilities. First of all, it is explicitly separable: $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is algebraically given by Eq. (11) so one can easily exclude it from Eq. (9) to receive the so-called class equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{,\varphi }}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{p\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}}\right)H+k(p1)`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\stackrel{~}{A}}}{p}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+e^{p\stackrel{~}{A}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}\right)=0,`$ (14)
where $`H\frac{1}{p(1/\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi })_{,\varphi }}\left[kp(p1)+e^{\stackrel{~}{A}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{p}{2\beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,\varphi }\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }\right)+e^{(p1)\stackrel{~}{A}}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}+\frac{p}{2\beta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{,\varphi }\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }\right)\right],`$ and thus to come to the system of autonomous equations yielding $`A`$, $`\varphi `$, $`U`$ consecutively. Eq. (14) is a non-linear third-order ODE with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\varphi )`$ so the direct task (finding of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ at given $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) is still hard to solve without supplementary symmetries or assumptions. However, using this equation one may study the inverse problem, i.e., the obtaining of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ triplets corresponding to a concrete fixed $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$. Thus, with every $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ it is associated the appropriate class of integrability determined by the equation above. It will help that the equation is a linear (at most) second-order ODE with respect to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, besides, having only one equation it is much easier to study the integrability classes numerically, e.g., to clarify whether they always have stable solutions, see ref.  and references on appropriate methods therein.

Moreover, there is an exceptional class in this construction. If $`\stackrel{~}{A}\varphi `$ then $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ immediately disappears in Eq. (11), so the latter becomes a linear first-order ODE with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. The linear class is of interest both by itself and in connection with supergravity models, so below we will study it in more details. Then, as an example, we will pick some concrete EMATD model to obtain its general-in-class solutions.

## III An example: linear class

Let us impose

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=\frac{4d_1}{p}\varphi \mathrm{ln}d_2,$$
(15)
with $`d_i`$ being arbitrary constants. Then Eq. (12) yields

$`\varphi =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{4pd_1}{8d_1^2+p\beta }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\sqrt{d_2}(8d_1^2+p\beta )(rr_0)}{16d_1^2}\right],\hfill & d_1^2+\frac{p\beta }{8}0\text{,}\hfill \\ i\sqrt{\frac{d_2p}{2\beta }}(rr_0),\hfill & d_1=\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{\frac{p\beta }{2}}\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
and Eq. (11) becomes the equation of integrability class

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{4d_1}{p}\varphi }}{d_2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{2d_1}{\beta }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,\varphi }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{4(1p)d_1}{p}\varphi }}{d_2^{1p}}}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2d_1}{\beta }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{,\varphi }\right)`$ (17)
$`+kp(p1)=0,`$ (18)
whereas $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ can be easily found from Eq. (9) which is the linear first-order ODE with respect to $`e^{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$. It should be noted that the extended Lambda-Maxwell duality (discussed in ref.  at $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$) appears to be broken at $`D4`$; it is curious that electric-magnetic duality is also broken if $`D4`$, therefore, $`D=4`$ turns out to be a magic number again. Now it is time to take some concrete narrow physical system and obtain its solutions within the frameworks of the linear class.

String-inspired model: solutions

We choose the physically important model which was first integrated (at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) by Gibbons and Maeda :

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=e^{\frac{4g_2}{p}\varphi },\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{2}{p!}e^{\frac{4g_p}{p}\varphi },\beta =8/p,$$
(19)
where $`g`$’s are coupling constants. When $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ vanishes then $`g_2=1`$ corresponds to field theory limit of superstring model, $`g_2=\sqrt{1+p/n}`$ corresponds to the toroidal $`T^n`$ reduction of ($`D+n`$)-spacetime to $`D`$-spacetime, $`g_2=0`$ is a usual Einstein-Maxwell system); $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is precisely unknown in string theory . The models of such a type have been intensively studied in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$  but the progress in the models which contain both an antisymmetric tensor and a massive dilaton is still rather slow  despite their obvious importance. With the settings (19) Eq. (16) becomes

$`\varphi =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{pd_1}{2(d_1^2+1)}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\sqrt{d_2}(d_1^2+1)(rr_0)}{2d_1^2}\right],\hfill & d_1^2+10\text{,}\hfill \\ i\frac{\sqrt{d_2}}{4}p(rr_0),\hfill & d_1=i\text{ .}\hfill \end{array}`$ (20)
For further it is convenient to define the three polynomials:

$`\pi _1=d_1^21,\pi _2=pd_1^2g_2d_11,\pi _3=pd_1^2+g_pd_11.`$The integration of the class equation above reveals the following cases (note that additionally each case may contain the multiple subcases determined by the combinations of parameters apart from $`\pi _i=0`$ ones at which an initial $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$, but not $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, becomes singular):

(i) $`\pi _10`$, $`\pi _20`$, $`\pi _30`$.
Integrating Eq. (18) with (19) we see that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must be

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=a_0e^{\frac{4}{pd_1}\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{kd_2}{\pi _1}}p(p1)e^{\frac{4d_1}{p}\varphi }2d_2^pe^{4d_1\varphi }`$ (21)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\pi _2}}(1+g_2d_1)e^{\frac{4g_2}{p}\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{\pi _3}}(1g_pd_1)e^{\frac{4g_p}{p}\varphi }\right],`$ (22)
where $`a_0`$ is integration constant, corresponding $`A,\varphi `$ are given by Eqs. (15), (20), and $`U`$ is given by Eq. (9) provided (15) and (19):

$`e^{\stackrel{~}{U}}=ce^{2\frac{1(p1)d_1^2}{pd_1}\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{4k(p1)d_1^4e^{\frac{4\varphi }{pd_1}}}{\pi _1(pd_1^2\pi _1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4a_0d_1^2e^{\frac{4d_1}{p}\varphi }}{d_2p(pd_1^2+\pi _1)}}`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8Q^2d_1^4d_2^{p1}e^{\frac{4(\pi _2d_1^2)}{pd_1}\varphi }}{\pi _2(\pi _2d_1(d_1+g_2))}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8P^2d_1^4d_2^{p1}e^{\frac{4(\pi _3d_1^2)}{pd_1}\varphi }}{\pi _3(\pi _3d_1(d_1g_p))}},`$ (24)
where $`c`$ is another integration constant related to mass. As was alerted above, this case contains subcases $`pd_1^2\pm \pi _1=0`$, $`\pi _2d_1(d_1+g_2)=0`$, $`\pi _3d_1(d_1g_p)=0`$ making the last equation, but not Eq. (22), singular. For the sake of brevity, we do not present them here.

(ii) $`\pi _1=0`$, $`\pi _20`$, $`\pi _30`$.
We choose the positive root $`d_1=1`$ then in the same way as above one can show that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must be

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left[a_04kd_2(p1)\varphi \right]e^{\frac{4}{p}\varphi }2d_2^pe^{4\varphi }`$ (25)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2(1+g_2)e^{\frac{4g_2}{p}\varphi }}{p1g_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{P^2(1g_p)e^{\frac{4g_p}{p}\varphi }}{p1+g_p}}\right],`$ (26)
corresponding $`A,\varphi `$ are given by Eqs. (15), (20) with $`d_1`$ being as above, whereas $`U`$ turns out to be

$`e^{\stackrel{~}{U}}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{4}{p}\varphi }}{(p/2)^2}}\left[ce^{2\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{d_2}}+k(p^2+p2)4k(p1)\varphi \right]`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8Q^2d_2^{p1}e^{\frac{4(p2g_2)}{p}\varphi }}{(p22g_2)(p1g_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8P^2d_2^{p1}e^{\frac{4(p2+g_p)}{p}\varphi }}{(p2+2g_p)(p1+g_p)}}.`$ (28)
(iii) $`\pi _10`$, $`\pi _2=0`$, $`\pi _30`$.
To avoid root branches we will work in terms of $`d_1`$ assuming that it is related to $`g_2`$ via the relation $`g_2=pd_11/d_1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(a_0+8Q^2d_1d_2^p\varphi \right)e^{\frac{4}{pd_1}\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{kd_2p}{\pi _1}}(p1)e^{\frac{4d_1}{p}\varphi }`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2P^2d_2^p}{\pi _3}}(1g_pd_1)e^{\frac{4(pd_1+g_p)}{p}\varphi },`$ (30)
corresponding $`A,\varphi `$ are given by Eqs. (15), (20) with $`d_1`$ being as above, whereas $`U`$ turns out to be

$`e^{\stackrel{~}{U}}=ce^{2\frac{1(p1)d_1^2}{pd_1}\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{4kd_1^4(p1)e^{\frac{4\varphi }{pd_1}}}{\pi _1(pd_1^2\pi _1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8Q^2d_1^2d_2^{p1}}{pd_1^2+\pi _1}}`$ (31)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{4d_1}{p}\varphi }}{p}}\left[4d_1\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{2Q^2d_2^p}}{\displaystyle \frac{3pd_1^2+\pi _1}{pd_1^2+\pi _1}}\right]`$ (32)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8P^2d_1^4d_2^{p1}e^{4\frac{\pi _3d_1^2}{pd_1}\varphi }}{\pi _3(\pi _3d_1(d_1g_p))}}.`$ (33)
(iv) $`\pi _10`$, $`\pi _20`$, $`\pi _3=0`$.
This case is identical to the previous one if one replaces everywhere $`g_2`$ with $`g_p`$ and interchanges $`Q`$ and $`P`$.

(v) $`\pi _1=0`$, $`\pi _2=0`$, $`\pi _30`$.
Therefore, we have the following two sets $`\{g_2,d_1\}=\pm \{p1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$. We choose the plus branch then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left[a_0+4d_2(2Q^2d_2^{p1}k(p1))\varphi \right]e^{\frac{4}{p}\varphi }`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2P^2d_2^p(1g_p)}{p1+g_p}}e^{\frac{4(p+g_p)}{p}\varphi },`$ (35)
corresponding $`A,\varphi `$ are given by Eqs. (15), (20) with $`d_1`$ being as above, whereas $`U`$ turns out to be

$`e^{\stackrel{~}{U}}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{4}{p}\varphi }}{p^2}}[ce^{2\varphi }+4({\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{d_2}}+k(p^2+p2){\displaystyle \frac{6Q^2}{d_2^{1p}}})`$ (36)
$`+16\varphi ({\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2}{d_2^{1p}}}k(p1))]+{\displaystyle \frac{8P^2d_2^{p1}e^{4\frac{2pg_p}{p}\varphi }}{(p1+g_p)(p2+2g_p)}}.`$ (37)
(vi) $`\pi _1=0`$, $`\pi _20`$, $`\pi _3=0`$.
Similarly, we have the following two sets $`\{g_p,d_1\}=\pm \{1p,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$. One can use the expressions from the previous case but has to replace in them $`g_p`$ with $`g_2`$ and interchange $`Q`$ and $`P`$.

(vii) $`\pi _10`$, $`\pi _2=0`$, $`\pi _3=0`$.
It contains the condition $`g_2+g_p=0`$, so we can exclude $`g_p`$. Besides, to avoid root branches we will work again in terms of $`d_1`$ assuming that it is related to $`g_2`$ via the relation $`g_2=pd_11/d_1`$. We have

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left[a_0+8d_1d_2^p(Q^2+P^2)\varphi \right]e^{\frac{4\varphi }{pd_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{kd_2p(p1)}{\pi _1e^{\frac{4d_1}{p}\varphi }}},`$ (38)
corresponding $`A,\varphi `$ are given by Eqs. (15), (20) with $`d_1`$ being as above, whereas for $`U`$ one can formally use Eq. (33) without the last term ($`P^2`$) and with $`Q^2`$ being replaced with $`Q^2+P^2`$.

(viii) $`\pi _1=0`$, $`\pi _2=0`$, $`\pi _3=0`$.
Therefore, $`g_2+g_p=0`$ and we have the following two sets $`\{g_2,g_p,d_1\}=\pm \{p1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}p,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$. We choose the plus branch then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left[a_0+4d_2\left(2d_2^{p1}(Q^2+P^2)k(p1)\right)\varphi \right]e^{\frac{4}{p}\varphi },`$ (39)
corresponding $`A,\varphi `$ are given by Eqs. (15), (20) with $`d_1`$ being as above, whereas for $`U`$ one can formally use the corresponding expression from (v) but without the last term ($`P^2`$) and with $`Q^2`$ being replaced with $`Q^2+P^2`$.

Thus, we have enumerated the basic solutions, which correspond to the model (19) within frameworks of the linear class. Of course, we have mentioned just a few examples.

String-inspired model: discussion of solutions

Analyzing the solutions above, one can see that the set (i) is the largest set of solutions due to the parameter $`d_1`$ being non-fixed there. In this section we will study the solutions (i) in details. In view of future considerations, let us first redefine the constants

$$c=8\mu d_2^{\frac{p_1+d_1^2}{2}},a_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0d_2^{d_1^2},$$
(40)
where $`p_1p1`$. The next step is to switch coordinates to the infinite-observer frame of reference

$$e^{A(r)}=\left[\frac{1+d_1^2}{2d_1^2d_2^{\frac{1}{2}d_1^2}}r\right]^{\frac{2d_1^2}{1+d_1^2}}r^2,2d_2^{\frac{1}{2}d_1^2}tt,$$
(41)
then in new coordinates we obtain

$`ds^2=dt^2[{\displaystyle \frac{kp_1d_1^4r^{2d_1^2}}{\pi _1(p_1d_1^2+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{r^{p_1d_1^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0d_1^2r^2}{p((p+1)d_1^21)}}`$ (42)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2d_1^4d_2^{g_2d_1^1}Q^2r^{2(1\pi _2d_1^2)}}{\pi _2(p_1d_1^22g_2d_11)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2d_1^4d_2^{g_pd_1^1}P^2r^{2(1\pi _3d_1^2)}}{\pi _3(p_1d_1^2+2g_pd_11)}}]`$ (43)
$`+dr^2[{\displaystyle \frac{kp_1d_1^4}{\pi _1(p_1d_1^2+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{r^{p_1+d_1^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0d_1^2r^{2\pi _1d_1^2}}{p((p+1)d_1^21)}}`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2d_1^4d_2^{g_2d_1^1}Q^2r^{2(g_2d_1^1p_1)}}{\pi _2(p_1d_1^22g_2d_11)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2d_1^4d_2^{g_pd_1^1}P^2r^{2(p_1+g_pd_1^1)}}{\pi _3(p_1d_1^2+2g_pd_11)}}]`$ (45)
$`+r^2ds_{(p,k)}^2,e^\varphi =\left(\sqrt{d_2}r\right)^{\frac{p}{2}d_1^1},`$ (46)
$`F={\displaystyle \frac{d_2^{g_2d_1^1}Q}{r^{p2g_2d_1^1d_1^2}}}drdt,F_{(p)M\mathrm{}N}={\displaystyle \frac{P}{r^p}}\epsilon _{M\mathrm{}N}.`$ (47)
The remainder of this section will be devoted to the studies of this solution at non-fixed large values of $`|d_1|`$. Assuming $`|d_1|\text{max}\{1,|g_2|,|g_p|\}`$, we obtain that up to the order $`O[1/d_1^2]`$ (here and below it is supposed to be the default precision of calculations) the metric above takes the habitual form

$`ds^2=e^{U(r)}dt^2+e^{U(r)}dr^2+r^2ds_{(p,k)}^2,`$with

$$e^{U(r)}=k\frac{2\mu }{r^{p_1}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0r^2}{p(p+1)}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{ln}(r^{p_1}/\eta )}{r^{2p_1}},$$
(48)
where we have defined the following constants

$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{pp_1}}\left(Z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3p1}{pp_1d_1}}W\right),\mathrm{\Theta }={\displaystyle \frac{4W}{pp_1^2d_1}},`$ (49)
$`\eta =d_2^{\frac{p_1}{2}},W=g_2Q^2g_pP^2,Z^2=Q^2+P^2,`$ (50)
and it is implied that $`p>1`$ (lower-dimensional cases will be separately considered after). Also, the $`O[d_1^2]`$-asymptotical form of the dilaton potential (22) is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\frac{2d_2^pW}{pd_1}e^{4d_1\varphi }.$$
(51)
The first, second and third terms in the metric above is the D-dimensional Schwarzschild-deSitter. The term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is nothing but the D-dimensional Reissner-Nordström with the only difference that the effective dyonic charge is the standard one plus a small correction of order $`d_1^1`$. The last term, proportional $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, is definitely something new, and below we will study its influence in details.

From now we will work with the spherical case $`k=1`$, besides we will neglect the cosmological constant for simplicity. Then the information about the global structure of the metric can be read off from the intersection of two curves described by the following algebraic equation

$$x^22\mu x+\mathrm{\Delta }(x\delta _+)(x\delta _{})=\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{ln}(x/\eta ),$$
(52)
where $`x=r^{p_1}`$ and $`\delta _\pm =\mu (1\pm \sqrt{1\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu ^2})`$. It is useful to keep in mind that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is small ($`d_1^1`$) that simplifies subject matter. This smallness in fact means that for the whole region except perhaps $`x0`$ and $`x+\mathrm{}`$ the value of the logarithm in the equation above should be assumed small in comparison with the parameters $`\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\eta `$.

Case $`\mu ^2>\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ (that may happen not only when $`d_1=\mathrm{}`$ but also when $`g_2Q^2=g_pP^2`$) this case corresponds to the D-dimensional Reissner-Nordström black hole. Otherwise we have to solve the transcendental equation (52) with real $`\delta `$’s. Fortunately, it can be done analytically with the use of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$’s smallness. Solving it, we obtain that we still have two horizons but their radii acquire a correction:

$$r_{H^\pm }=\left[\delta _\pm +\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{ln}(\delta _\pm /\eta )}{2(\delta _\pm \mu )}\right]^{\frac{1}{p_1}},$$
(53)
and the corresponding Hawking temperatures are calculated to be

$`T_{H^\pm }={\displaystyle \frac{p_1\delta ^{\frac{p}{p_1}}}{2\pi }}[\delta _\pm \mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2\delta _\pm }}`$ (54)
$`\times (1+{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta _\pm p\mu )\mathrm{ln}(\delta _\pm /\eta )}{p_1(\delta _\pm \mu )}})],`$ (55)
an absolute value is implied.

Case $`\mu ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Without the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-perturbation this case corresponds to the D-dimensional extremal Reissner-Nordström black hole. It turns out that the series expansion used in the previous case fails (diverges) so we have to invent another one. The non-perturbed horizon appears at $`x=\mu `$. We are interested in small deviations from the non-perturbed case so it is natural to expand Eq.(52) with respect to $`x`$ up to the third order near this point. We obtain that Eq.(52) becomes the quadratic equation,

$`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2\mu ^2}}\right)x^22\mu \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{\mu ^2}}\right)x+\mu ^2=\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right],`$from which one concludes that extremality is broken and the extreme horizon is shifted and split into two ones, with the radii

$$r_{H^\pm }=\left[\mu +\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2\mu }\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\eta )}\right]^{\frac{1}{p_1}}.$$
(56)
Here, the term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ shifts the horizon outward or inward (depending on the sign of $`W/d_1`$) whereas the term proportional to $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ describes the split. It is curious that in the particular case $`\eta =\mu `$ the extremality is again restored up to $`O[d_1^2]`$. The corresponding Hawking temperatures are

$$T_{H^\pm }=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\eta )}}{2\pi \mu ^{\frac{p+p_1}{p_1}}}\left[p_1\mu \pm p\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\eta )}\right],$$
(57)
and they do vanish not only when $`d_1=\mathrm{}`$ but also at $`\eta =\mu `$.

Case $`\mu ^2<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ then the solution describes the naked Reissner-Nordström singularity. There is a strong hope that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-perturbation “dresses” the singularity, i.e., creates a horizon around it. To prove it, one has to show the conditions at which the parabola and logarithmic curve have the intersection point(s) even if the former does not cross an $`x`$-axis. The intuitive solution for this is to require the minimum point of the parabola to be as closely as possible to the $`x`$-axis, hence, to the logarithmic curve, because the latter is small. The distance from the minimum point of the parabola to the $`x`$-axis equals to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu ^2`$, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ must be equal to $`\mu ^2`$ plus a small positive correction, say

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mu ^2+|\text{const}d_1^1|.$$
(58)
Again, we expand Eq. (52) near the minimum point of parabola and obtain the quadratic equation

$`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2\mu ^2}}\right)x^22\mu \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{\mu ^2}}\right)x+\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right].`$If it has complex roots then the singularity is naked otherwise it is hidden under at least one horizon. One can check that this equation in general case does not have real roots but if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Theta }\mu ^2\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\eta )}{\mathrm{\Theta }4\mu ^2}}=\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\eta ),`$i.e., of the form (58), provided $`d_1^1W\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\eta )`$ is non-positive, then the imaginary part vanishes, so one does have the purely real double root. It means that we have found an example when a singularity is dressed by the single horizon. Its radius is

$$r_{H^\pm }=\left[\mu +\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2\mu }\right]^{\frac{1}{p_1}},$$
(59)
but with the Hawking temperature,

$$T_H=\frac{p_1\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\eta )}{4\pi \mu ^{\frac{p+p_1}{p_1}}},$$
(60)
being of order $`O[d_1^1]`$, rather than $`O[d_1^{1/2}]`$ as in previous case.

As a final part of this section, we have to study the low-dimensional case. Indeed, the majority of Eqs. (48)-(60) are not applicable when $`D=3`$ or $`2`$, i.e., when the number of spatial dimensions is, respectively, two and one. The two-dimensional case is of no interest here because all the solutions were derived assuming $`p0`$ for obvious reasons. In the 3D case when $`|d_1|`$ is large, instead of Eq. (48) we obtain

$$e^{U(r)}=\zeta 2Z^2\mathrm{ln}(r\sqrt{d_2})+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0r^2}{2},$$
(61)
where $`Z^2`$ is as above and it is denoted

$`\zeta ={\displaystyle \frac{g_p^2Q^2+g_2^2P^2}{2g_2^2g_p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d_1(g_pQ^2g_2P^2)}{g_2g_p}}Z^22\mu ,`$$`d_2`$ is assumed positive for definiteness. The scalar, Maxwell and $`p`$-form fields (47) do not undergo principal changes in the sense that they are not singular when $`p1`$. However, it is worth to note that $`p`$-form becomes the plain vertex-type vector field with the only non-zero component $`F_{(1)}=f(r)d\phi `$ where $`\phi `$ is an angular coordinate. It cannot be represented as an external derivative of some potential, therefore, it is not possible to derive it from the 3D variational principle - in the action (1) it may appear only as a non-dynamical source term

$$\mathrm{\Psi }F_{(1)\alpha }F_{(1)}^\alpha =\mathrm{\Psi }f(r)^2=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\varphi ),$$
(62)
because dilaton is an invertible function of $`r`$. Nevertheless, one can consider the 1-form contribution formally, so below we will not impose $`P0`$.

The solution is essentially cosmological - the metric (61) tends to de Sitter one (provided $`\zeta `$ is positive), and has the only singularity at $`r=0`$ provided $`Z0`$. Its global structure is, however, non-trivial and crucially depends on values of the parameters. Simple analysis shows that: (a) when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is negative, we have a single horizon regardless of what other parameters are; (b) when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is positive, we have the naked singularity, one extreme horizon, two horizons, depending on whether the value

$`\zeta +Z^2Z^2\mathrm{ln}(2d_2Z^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$is positive, zero or negative, respectively; (c) when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ vanishes, we have single horizon with

$$r_H=\sqrt{d_2e^{\zeta /Z^2}},$$
(63)
but the solution is not asymptotically flat (despite the curvature invariants do vanish asymptotically) so this is still cosmological, rather than black hole, horizon.

To summarize this section: we have demonstrated that the two-parametric family of exact solutions (i) at large values of one of the parameters describes the solution which is the D-dimensional Reissner-Nordström-deSitter solution but with “renormalized” dyonic charge plus a perturbative non-constant (logarithmic) correction (48). It is also shown that this correction despite its smallness has significant influence on the global structure of the non-perturbed solution - it may shift and split horizons, break down extremality, and dress the naked singularity.

## IV Integrability classes and dilaton potential problem

In the previous section we studied some particular class as the fruitful example of the proposed approach’s power. Other integrability classes (not talking about models) are so diverse and numerous that in principle never can be covered all. Other $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that may appear from a concrete problem can be paired up within our class in a similar manner. Despite this pairing is an artificial procedure the generated exact solutions are better than numerical studies from scratch, besides ones can verify or falsify qualitative approaches and results. Be that as it may, the good news is that now one has a powerful tool to study numerous models in a straightforward and uniform way, even having no background in the theory of differential equations.

Now, it is a good time to coin the advantages that come after the proven separability of static EMATD theory. This section will be devoted to the generic physical significance of the integrability classes given by relations between $`A`$ and dilaton alike (14). Here we are going to justify the point that the integrability classes of such a kind is not only a mathematical object but also can play key role in some fundamental aspects of field theory and theoretical cosmology.

For instance, the integrability classes may help with the problem of unknown dilaton potential $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (but, of course, by themselves they cannot provide a complete answer). When supersymmetry is unbroken then the dilaton is in the same supermultiplet as the graviton and hence cannot acquire a mass. However, in low-energy region the supersymmetry is broken so the assumption $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ is inconsistent with observations . Nowadays it is the strong problem that the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on scalar field is precisely known neither from string theory nor from cosmology-related experiments. The one of the ideas of getting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$ comes from supersymmetry and supergravity - despite the theories with the dilaton potential of general type are non-supersymmetric as a rule, some non-trivial potentials can be justified by supergravity models. The flaw, however, is that supergravity cannot predict dilaton potential uniquely - it has been already proposed an enormous amount of them .

The integrability classes, which are incidentally based on dependence $`A(\varphi )`$, bring the view on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-problem from the viewpoint different from the above-mentioned ones. First, one should make the important observation that the dependence $`A(\varphi )`$ is more universal than, e.g., $`U(\varphi )`$ or $`A(U)`$. Indeed, if the metric is in the gauge (2) then $`A\mathrm{ln}\text{det}g`$ is related to the radius of (compact) factor space and thus determines the geometrical scale of extra $`p`$ dimensions. On the other hand, the dilaton field was introduced historically to consider the gravitational constant as a variable, and it describes thus the rigidity of spacetime. Therefore, $`A(\varphi )`$ symbolizes the dependence

$$A(\varphi )\text{graviton-scale}(\text{dilaton-scale}),$$
(64)
or, the “size(rigidity)” one. In view of this, the existence proof of above-mentioned integrability classes claims that with each such a dependence it is associated a unique $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ triplet. Let us for clarity disregard the $`p`$-form, as in ref. . Then, if one knows both the dependence $`A(\varphi )`$ and the explicit form of the dilaton-Maxwell coupling $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is uniquely determined by the class equation. Occasionally, in our case $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is known from (perturbative) string theory so the problem now is what is the explicit relation of $`A`$ to dilaton.

So far, we do not have any clear idea on the latter. But we sure that the above-studied linear class (and, therefore, models therein) is at least a first-order approximation if one expands the yet unknown for sure True Function $`A(\varphi )`$ in Taylor series with respect to dilaton. It should be also noted that the linear class is distinct from others not only because it is given by a first- rather than second-order ODE with respect to $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ but also because it possesses a certain discrete symmetry that alike the electric-magnetic duality in pure EMD is broken at $`D4`$ and thus it forces $`D=4`$ to be a magic number again, see the paragraph after Eq. (18) and ref. .

## V Conclusion

We have deduced the full separability of the static D-dimensional massive dilaton gravity coupled to Maxwell and antisymmetric tensor fields for arbitrary dilaton potential and dilaton-Maxwell and dilaton-tensor coupling. This fact allowed us to achieve the two following aims.

First, in Sec. II the core structure of the theory has been revealed. It turned out that it is the universal relation between characteristic scales of gravity and scalar field that lies in the very heart of EMATD gravity and, probably, of any other Einstein gravity that contains scalar field. In Sec. IV we have demonstrated how the knowledge of this structure can help us with the situation when neither coupling nor potential are known precisely. Then the core structure of EMATD gravity suggests the self-consistency requirement: with each above-mentioned relation it is associated a unique dilaton coupling-coupling-potential “triplet”. Therefore, if one knows couplings then one can determine potentials and vice versa.

Second, separability has also led us to the practical concept of integrability classes that appeared to be powerful tool for getting of exactly solvable EMATD models and their solutions. As an example, we have studied the new class of solutions in Sec. III. It has been observed that in 4D this class obeys a certain duality between dilaton potential and dilaton-Maxwell coupling. There we have studied the physical properties of the two-parametric family of dyonic solutions for the case of the exponential Gibbons-Maeda couplings related to higher-dimensional gravities including superstrings. It turned out that these solutions at some conditions resemble the D-dimensional dyonic Reissner-Nordström-deSitter solutions but with “renormalized” dyonic charge plus a small logarithmic correction. The latter has the significant influence on the global structure of the non-perturbed solution - it may shift and split horizons, break down extremality, and dress the naked singularity.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Edward Teo (DAMTP, Univ. of Cambridge and Natl. Univ. of Singapore) and Cristian Stelea (Univ. “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iasi, Romania and Nat’l. Univ. of Singapore) for suggesting the theme and helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Morphology and Galactic Distribution of PNs: a New Scenario

## 0.1 Introduction

The connection between PN morphologies and their distribution with respect to the midplane of the Galaxy has been studied, with notorious advances, during the last three decades. The search for systematic segregations among PNs of different shapes started with the analysis by Greig (1972). He had two main morphological classes, binebulous (50%) and circular (50%), and found that the binebulous class had a higher strength in the forbidden lines \[O III\], \[O II\] and \[N II\]. He also found a hint of a correlation between this class and smaller distances to the galactic plane on average. Later, using the abundance of chemical elements, Peimbert (P), Torres-Peimbert (T-P) and collaborators (PT-P71, T-PP77, P78, T-PP79, PT-P83, T-PP83; see T-PP97 for a review) made a PN classification with four classes, from Type I to Type IV, with decreasing abundances of Helium and heavy elements. They found that most Type I PNs have bipolar shape, and this lead to the conclusion that there might be population differences between bipolar and circular PNs in our Galaxy. In the abstract of their seminal paper, Calvet and Peimbert (1983) wrote: “It is suggested that the bipolar nature of PN of Type I can be explained in terms of their relatively massive progenitors ($`M2.4`$ M ), that had to lose an appreciable fraction of their mass and angular momentum during their planetary nebula stage. In a first mass-loss stage at low velocity it is produced a disk and in a second mass-loss stage at higher velocity the matter is limited by the disk, giving rise to the bipolar structure”.

Later, several authors made improvements in our knowledge of this issue. Zukerman & Aller (1986) and Zukerman & Gatley (1988) classified 108 PNs in bipolar, round, disk-like, and annular. They found an anti-correlation between metallicity and Galactic latitude, as well as a segregation of morphological types according with Galactic latitude, in agreement with previous studies.

Balick (1987) made a major contribution to the morphological classification (50 PNs), and named the classes as round, elliptical and butterfly. At the same time, Chu et al.(1987) (126 PNs) published a catalog of PNs with more than one shell (50 % of the sample), and named this new class as multiple-shell PNs.

During the last decade, two important surveys were carried out on both hemispheres. For the southern hemisphere, The ESO Survey, the study was published in a series of papers by Schwarz, Corradi & Melnick (1992), Stanghellini, Corradi & Schwarz (1993) (250 PNs), Corradi & Schwarz (1995), and Corradi (2000) (400 PNs). For the northern hemisphere, The IAC Survey, the study was published by Manchado et al.(1996) (243 PNs) and Manchado et al.(2000) (255 PNs). The first detailed study of the differences between ellipticals and bipolars was done by Corradi & Schwarz (1995) with the ESO Survey (see also Corradi 2000). They found that the bipolar class has a smaller scale height, 130 pc, than the one for ellipticals, 320 pc. Also, bipolars have the hottest central stars among PNe, and display smaller deviations from pure circular Galactic rotation than other morphological types. In addition, bipolars also display the largest physical dimensions and have expansion velocities of up to an order of magnitude above the typical values for PNe. These properties, together with the chemical abundance results by Calvet & Peimbert (1983), indicate that bipolar PNe are produced by more massive progenitors than the remaining morphological classes.

The distributions inferred by these surveys represent the main motivation for the present paper, which discusses these results in the light of the new MHD models.

## 0.2 Bipolars: Rotation and Angular Momentum

If bipolarity truly comes from the stellar rotation and the loss of angular momentum in massive PN progenitors, one can learn from the case of the most massive stars and their associated nebulae. In the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, LBV stars like $`\eta `$ Car lie close to the upper limit in temperature and luminosity beyond which no normal stars are observed (the Humphreys-Davidson Limit), near the location of the Eddington limit.

A massive star expanding at a constant luminosity $`L`$ would —in the non-rotating case — reach the Eddington limit due to an opacity increase in the surface layers. The Eddington limit is reached when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=1`$, where the Eddington luminosity is $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=4\pi cGM/\kappa `$, with $`c`$ the speed of light, $`M`$ and $`L`$ the mass and luminosity of the star, and $`\kappa `$ the opacity at the stellar surface. Note that when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$, the escape velocity $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}=[(1\mathrm{\Gamma })2GM/R]^{1/2}0`$. This implies a very slow wind velocity ($`0`$) at the Eddington limit. Thus, when a star passes through a close approach to the Eddington limit, its stellar wind will follow a fast—slow—fast sequence. If we now include rotation, the critical rotational velocity also follows the same behavior. The combination of radiation pressure and centrifugal force exceeds surface gravity at the equator when $`v_{\mathrm{crit}}=[(1\mathrm{\Gamma })GM/R]^{1/2}`$, and $`v_{\mathrm{crit}}0`$ when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$. However, given that the rotational velocity $`v_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ can be small but is always different from zero, critical rotation occurs before the Eddington limit is reached. This is the so called $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ limit (Langer 1997). Winds with mass loss rates large enough to halt and reverse the stellar expansion are thought to occur when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=v_{\mathrm{rot}}/v_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ approaches unity (Friend & Abbott 1986). Thus, rotationally driven outflows will always occur before the star reaches its Eddington limit.

Using this idea, Langer et al. (1999a) simulated the LBV outburst phenomenon by allowing the star to pass through three successive stages — pre-outburst, outburst and post-outburst — with correspondingly different stellar winds. To include the effects of stellar rotation on the winds, they used the analytic model of Bjorkman & Cassinelli (1993), with stellar parameters appropriate to $`\eta `$ Car. The models were not intended to exactly fit all properties of the Homunculus nebula. It is however striking how well these models, without much fine tuning, not only reproduce the large-scale, bipolar morphology, but also the small scale turbulent structure seen in high-resolution observations of the Homunculus. This empirical result, together with the observational facts that all LBV nebulae are bipolar (Nota & Clampin 1997), strongly indicates a link between rotation and bipolarity.

What about Bipolar PNs? In order to evaluate whether or not AGB rotation rates can produce situations similar to the one discussed above, one needs to derive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the rate of critical rotation. Direct determinations of rotation rates for AGB stars are rare and mostly provide upper limits, of the order of a few  km s-1 (except for V Hydrae with $`v\mathrm{sin}i13\text{ km s}\text{-1}`$). Using the available information for main sequence stars in the initial mass range associated with PN progenitors (from $`0.8M_{}`$ to about $`5M_{}`$) these can be divided into two groups. Stars with masses below $`1.3M_{}`$, with subphotospheric convective zones, spin down during their main sequence evolution due to flares and magnetized winds. When they reach the AGB phase, their resulting rotation velocities are below $`0.01\text{ km s}\text{-1}`$. Thus, the expected rotation speeds of PN progenitors with masses below $`1.3M_{}`$) should be very small.

Stars above $`1.3M_{}`$ do not have convective envelopes during core hydrogen burning, and they appear to remain as rapid rotators throughout their main sequence evolution. When they develop surface convection on their way to the red giant branch, they create a hydrogen burning shell which separates the helium core from the envelope. The helium core evolves decoupled from the envelope and retains its angular momentum, i.e. the entropy barrier of a nuclear burning shell prevents that angular momentum can leak out of the core. Also in this case, however, the angular momentum of the hydrogen envelope will be lost, either due to magnetic braking or to mass loss and reexpansion of the convective envelope on the AGB (cf. Langer et al.1999b). As these stars move to the thermally pulsing AGB phase, the H and He burning shells periodically switch on and off. Thus, the presumable barriers vanish periodically and core-envelope angular momentum exchange can occur during this stage. Such an exchange is very likely, since mixing of matter through the core boundary is known to occur in this phase, which is necessary to activate the 13C$`(\alpha ,n)`$ reaction, which is the neutron source to operate the s-process. To estimate the resulting rotational velocity of the envelope (of about $`0.1M_{}`$) at the end of the AGB phase, we may approximate the specific angular momentum of the core by its main sequence value, which is transferred to the envelope. For a core of $`0.5M_{}`$ and a main sequence radius of about $`0.1\text{R}\text{}`$ we get $`j10^{17}\mathrm{}10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. Adopting an average radius of the AGB envelope of $`100\text{R}\text{}`$, we obtain a rotation velocity of $`v_{rot}10^{17.5}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\times 0.5M_{}/100\text{R}\text{}/0.1M_{}2\text{ km s}\text{-1}`$. Regardless of how crude this estimate may be, the net result is that stars at the tip of the RGB or AGB phases may be subject to a significant spin-up of their surface layers (Heger & Langer 1998). Therefore, we propose here that values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }=v_{rot}/v_{crit}`$ close to 1 may be appropriate for AGB single stars above $`1.3M_{}`$ during the phase of PN ejection. We parametrize the “superwind” in the same way as the giant LBV outbursts (Eddington parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=L/L_{\mathrm{edd}}`$ close to 1; see García-Segura et al. 1999 for further details).

There are variations of this scenario and the possibility exists that stars which are not able to reach the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ limit on their own might be able to do so in the presence of a companion. For example, main sequence wide binary systems, which become close binaries (either detached or attached) at the AGB phase, can be subject to a very effective spin-up by their companion. Depending on the binary separation and masses, the spin-up can be produced by tidal forces (slow process) or by spiral-in (relatively fast process). In either cases, the orbital angular momentum is transfered to the star.

Soker (1995) has studied the tidal spin-up applied to the formation of elliptical, but the theory can be also applied to the formation of bipolars (Soker & Rappaport 2000). Extreme cases of the same scenario is the common envelope evolution scenario (see for example Livio & Pringle 1996 and references there in, also Reyes-Ruiz & López 1998).

Thus, a binary system of such a class can form a bipolar nebula, however, the nebula will show point-symmetric features, as we will discuss later on sections 4 and 5. Also, these nebulae do not have to show an enrichment by heavy elements, and so, they do not necessary fit into the Type I Peimbert category. Finally, since their primary stars may be below $`1.3M_{}`$ , their scale height over the plane can be much larger than the one for classical Type I Peimbert nebulae (see section 5).

## 0.3 Ellipticals: A MHD Phenomenon

Axisymmetric flows can be produced by a magnetized wind with or without the existence of equatorial density enhancements (EDE) (see Różyczka & Franco 1996, García-Segura 1997, García-Segura et al. 1999 and García-Segura & López 2000). An EDE can be formed with a small amount of rotation at the AGB phase for example (Ignace et al.1998) or by a dipolar magnetic field (Matt et al.2000). The magnetic field at the surface of a post-AGB star can be transported out by its wind, similar but not equal to the solar case. Because of stellar rotation, the magnetic field in the wind is dominated by a toroidal component. The resulting toroidal field has a magnetic tension associated with it. Thus, the general effect of the magnetic tension is the elongation of the nebula in the polar direction. The mechanism responsible for the elongation is described by Różyczka & Franco (1996) and Franco et al. (2001, this conference) in detail, and successful examples of the formation of jets and ansae (FLIERS) can be seen in all above articles at the beginning of this section.

Unfortunately, there is no information about stellar magnetic fields at the surfaces of post-AGB stars, which is in one of the most interesting regions of the HR diagram, between the AGB phase and the white dwarf phase. Reid et al.(1979) found strong circular polarization in the OH masers from U Ori and IRC +10420. The OH masers indicate fields of about 10 milligauss emanating from regions of about $`10^{15}`$ cm from the star. They suggest that the field strengths at the stellar surfaces are on the order of 10 and 100 Gauss, respectively. White dwarfs are known to have fields of up to $`10^710^8`$ Gauss (Schmidt 1989). So, stellar field intensities between the wide range defined by the solar value ($`B_\mathrm{s}=2`$ Gauss, in average) and $`10^8`$ Gauss are acceptable for modeling. Note that observations for the detection of magnetic fields in the swept-up shells of PNe (eg Terzian 1989) have been tried, but however, they give us very little information about the field intensity of the nucleus, since that diluted field (if detected) will correspond to the already expanded and compressed AGB gas.

## 0.4 The Point-Symmetric Sub-Class: Signatures of Binaries

A particularly intriguing case in PNs morphologies are those that display point-symmetric structures. At first view, the point-symmetric morphological class does not look very important. But, a careful inspection to the statistically, complete sample of the IAC morphological catalog (Manchado et al.1996) reveals 40 objects with some degree of point-symmetric features, which represent 19% of the total list (215) with a well defined morphology. Note that many of these nebulae are not classified as point-symmetric. In fact, they have been well classified inside the categories of bipolars and ellipticals, such as the case of the Dumbel nebula. This fact points in the direction that point-symmetry is a common feature related to any morphological class, instead of a separate group (Manchado et al.2000; see also Guerrero, Vázquez & López 1998). Such a large fraction of the sample (19%) suggest that the reason which produces point-symmetry should be very common indeed.

The most convincing solutions up to now, for the formation of point-symmetric nebulae require the existence of a binary system, and a magneto-hydrodynamical collimation of the wind, either for accretion disk winds (Livio & Pringle 1996; see also Mastrodemos & Morris 1998, Reyes-Ruiz & López 1998 and Blackman et al. 2001) or for stellar winds (García-Segura 1997, García-Segura & López 2000).

Since the toroidal magnetic field carried out by the wind, either stellar or coming from a disk (for the last one see Contopoulos 1995), is always perpendicular to the rotation axis of the central star/disk (see Figure 3 in García-Segura et al.2000), any kind of misalignment from the axis (wobbling instability, precession, steady tilt respect to the equatorial density enhancement) will produce “naturally” a point-symmetric nebula. In either case, it is easy to imagine the topology of the magnetic field lines in such scenarios, i.e., multiple rings centered and aligned along the “time-dependent” spin axis of the star/disk.

Close binaries are a necessary condition in Livio & Pringle (1996) , while wide binaries are a sufficient one in García-Segura (1997) and García-Segura & López (2000). As described in section 2, close binaries, either attached or detached, will be in favor of forming bipolars with point-symmetric features, while wide binaries will be in favor of ellipticals with point-symmetric features.

## 0.5 Discussion

The average scale height over the plane, $`<z>`$, for different PN morphological classes can be compared with those of different stellar masses and populations. For instance, we know that massive stars are located much closer to the galactic plane than the population of stars with lower initial mass. The outcome from the ESO and IAC surveys is certainly coincident: the bipolar (B) class has $`<z>`$ = 130 pc (ESO) and $`<z>`$ = 179 pc (IAC), for ellipticals (E) $`<z>`$ = 320 pc (ESO) and $`<z>`$ = 308 pc (IAC), and for rounds (R) $`<z>`$ = 753 pc (IAC).

In the recent analysis of the IAC Survey by Manchado et al. (2000), the bipolar (BPS) and elliptical (EPS) objects with point-symmetric features were separated from those which do not present such a kind of symmetries, i.e., from the B and E classes respectively. The new results from the IAC Survey are given in the Table 1.

Comparing the results of the IAC Survey with those described by Miller & Scalo (1979) for the average scale heigth of stars with different masses, an average value equal or smaller than 110 pc corresponds to stars with initial masses above 1.9 M . Lower mass stars have average scale heiths well above this value. These results are in line with the pioneering suggestion of Calvet & Peimbert (1983) and the more recent discussion made by García-Segura et al.(1999).

To summarize, from the new MHD studies (sections 2, 3 and 4) we can conclude that:

Bipolarity $``$ Omega Limit $``$ Angular Momentum (either orbital or stellar)

Ellipticity $``$ MHD effects $``$ Symmetric Microstructures (FLIERS, jets,…etc)

Point-Symmetry $``$ Binaries $``$ Precession, Wobbling, …

Finally, the relation between morphology and galactic distribution could be explained as (see Figure 1):

$``$ Bipolars Type I Peimbert = (B):

Small $`<z>`$ (110 pc) $``$ Massive Progenitor $``$ Stellar Rotation $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Limit $``$ Classical Bipolarity

$``$ Tidal Bipolars = (BPS):

Moderate $`<z>`$ (248 pc) $``$ Non-Massive Progenitor in Close Binary System $``$ Tidal Spin-Up $``$ Shaping by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Limit + MHD Effects + Precession/Wobbling $``$ Bipolarity with Point-Symmetry (Lobes, FLIERS, Jets)

$``$ Ellipticals = (E):

Medium $`<z>`$ (308 pc) $``$ Non-Massive Progenitor $``$ Shaping by MHD Effects $``$ FLIERS & Jets with Axisymmetry

$``$ Ellipticals with Point-Symmetry = (EPS):

Medium $`<z>`$ (310 pc) $``$ Non-Massive Progenitor in Wide Binary System $``$ Shaping by MHD Effects + Precession $``$ FLIERS & Jets with Point-Symmetry

$``$ Round = (R):

Large $`<z>`$ (753 pc) $``$ Low-mass Progenitor $``$ Neither Rotation nor MHD effects

###### Acknowledgements.

G.G.-S. is very grateful to M. Peimbert, S. Torres-Peimbert, A. Manchado, M.-M. Mac Low, Y. Terzian, N. Soker, M. Reyes-Ruiz and L. Stanghellini for very fruitful discussions and comments. We specially thank Michael L. Norman and the Laboratory for Computational Astrophysics for the permission to use ZEUS-3D. The computations were performed at the Instituto de Astronomía-UNAM. This work has been supported by grants from DGAPA-UNAM (IN 114199) and CONACyT (32214-E).

Balick, B. 1987, AJ, 94, 671

Bjorkman, J. E., & Cassinelli, J. P. 1993, ApJ, 409, 429

Blackman, E. G., Frank, A., & Welch, C. 2001, ApJ, 546, 288

Calvet, N. & Peimbert, M. 1983, RMxAA, 5, 319

Contopoulos, J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 616

Corradi, R. L. M. 2000, Asymmetrical Planetary Nebulae II: From Origins to Microstructures, eds. Joel H. Kastner, Noam Soker, Saul A. Rappaport, A.S.P. Conference Series, 199, 25

Corradi, R. L. M., & Schwarz, H. E. 1995, A&A, 293, 871

Chevalier, R. A., & Luo, D. 1994, ApJ, 421, 225

Chu, Y.-H., Jacoby, G. H. & Arendt, R. 1987, ApJS, 64, 529

Franco, J. et al. 2001 , RMxAASC , in press

Friend, D. B., & Abbott, D. C., 1986, ApJ 311, 701

García-Segura, G. 1997, ApJL, 489, L189

García-Segura, G., Franco, J., López, J. A., Langer, N., & Różyczka, M. 2000, Asymmetrical Planetary Nebulae II: From Origins to Microstructures, eds. Joel H. Kastner, Noam Soker, Saul A. Rappaport, A.S.P. Conference Series, 199, 235

García-Segura, G., Langer, N., Różyczka, M., & Franco, J. 1999, ApJ, 517, 767

García-Segura, G., & López, J. A. 2000, ApJ, 544, 336

Greig, W. E. 1972, A&A, 18, 70

Guerrero, M.A., Vázquez, R., & López, J.A. 1998, ApJ, 117, 967

Heger, A.,& Langer, N. 1998, A&A, 334, 210

Ignace, R., Cassinelli, C. P., & Bjorkman, J. E. 1998, ApJ, 505, 910

Langer, N. 1997, in: Luminous Blue Variables: Massive Stars in Transition, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 120, San Fransisco, eds. A. Nota & H.J.G.L.M. Lamers, p. 83

Langer, N., García-Segura, G. & Mac Low, M.-M. 1999a, ApJL, 520, L49

Langer, N., Heger A., Wellstein S., Herwig F. 1999b, A& A, 346, L37

Livio, M., & Pringle, J. E. 1996, ApJL, 465, 55

López, J.A., Meaburn, J. & Palmer, J. 1993, ApJ, 415, L135

Manchado, A., Guerrero, M., Stanghellini, L., & Serra-Ricart, M. 1996, “The IAC Morphological Catalog of Northern Galactic Planetary Nebulae”, ed. Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias

Manchado, A., Villaver, E., Stanghellini, L., & Guerrero, M. A. 2000, Asymmetrical Planetary Nebulae II: From Origins to Microstructures, eds. Joel H. Kastner, Noam Soker, Saul A. Rappaport, A.S.P. Conference Series, 199, 17

Mastrodemos, N., & Morris, M. 1998, ApJ, 497, 303

Matt, S., Balick, B., Winglee, R., & Goodson, A. 2000, ApJ, 545, 965M

Miller, G. E., & Scalo, J. M. 1979, ApJS, 41, 513

Nota, A., & Clampin, M. 1997, in: Luminous Blue Variables: Massive Stars in Transition, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 120, San Fransisco, eds. A. Nota & H.J.G.L.M. Lamers, p. 303

Peimbert, M., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1971, ApJ, 168, 413

Peimbert, M. 1978, in IAU Symp. No 76, 215

Peimbert, M., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1983, in IAU Symp. No 103, 233

Reid, M. J., Moran, J. M., Leach, R. W., Ball, J. A., Johnston, K. J., Spencer, J. H., & Swenson, G. W. 1979, ApJL, 227, L89

Reyes-Ruiz, M., & López, J. A. 1998, ApJ, 524, 952

Różyczka, M. & Franco, J. 1996, ApJL, 469, L127

Schmidt, G. 1989, in IAU Coll. 114, “White Dwarfs”, ed. G. Wegner (Dordrecht, Kluwer), 305

Schwarz, H. E., Corradi, R. L. M. & Melnick, J. 1992, A&A Suppl., 96, 23

Soker, N. 1995, M.N.R.A.S., 274, 147

Soker, N.,& Rappaport, S. 2000, ApJ, 538, 241S

Stanghellini, L., Corradi, R. L. M. & Schwarz, H. E. 1993, A&A, 276, 463

Terzian, Y. 1989, in IAU Symp No 131, Planetary Nebulae, 17

Torres-Peimbert, S., & Peimbert, M. 1977, RMxAA, 2, 181

Torres-Peimbert, S., & Peimbert, M. 1979, RMxAA, 4, 341

Torres-Peimbert, S., & Peimbert, M. 1983, PASP, 95, 601

Torres-Peimbert, S., & Peimbert, M. 1997, in IAU Symp. No 180, 175

Zukerman, B., & Aller, L. H. 1986, ApJ, 301, 772

Zukerman, B., & Gatley, I. 1988, ApJ, 324, 501


text:
# Operator Ordering in Quantum Radiative Processes

## I Introduction

In radiative processes, the ordering problem of atomic and field operators in the interaction Hamiltonian of bound state QED has been raised since the works by Senitzki, Ackerhalt et al and others. Behind this discussion is the physical interpretation of atomic radiative effects such as the radiative line shifts in spontaneous emission. Alternative approaches were proposed in order to elucidate important issues concerning such problem. Among them are those based on the complementarity between radiation reaction and vacuum fluctuation effects, which provide a conceptual basis for the physical interpretation of different radiative processes.

In the Dalibard, Dupont-Roc and Cohen-Tannoudji (DDC) formulation, the ordering between the operators of the electromagnetic field, considered as a reservoir ($``$), and a microscopic atomic system ($`𝒮`$) play a fundamental role in the identification of the respective contributions due to the reservoir fluctuation (fr) and the self-reaction (sr)  \- . They showed that the symmetric ordering gives a true physical meaning to the (fr) and (sr) rates.

In this article we study, in the context of the DDC construct, a more general operator ordering and its physical significance to a given observable variation rate, more specifically, an atomic energy shift.

We use this analysis to establish a formal connection between DDC approach and a closely related treatment, proposed by , which is based on the master equation formulation, where the physical motivation relies on the classical theory of damping harmonic oscillator . Finaly, we discuss the irrelevance of the ordering to an especific interaction Hamiltonian.

## II The Effective Hamiltonian Formulation

In the DDC construct the global Hamiltonian for a coupled system $`𝒮+`$ is, in the dipole approximation, given by

$$H=H_S+H_R+V,$$
(1)
where $`H_S`$ is the Hamiltonian of the microscopic system $`𝒮`$, $`H_R`$ the Hamiltonian of the reservoir $``$ and $`V`$ the interaction between $`𝒮`$ and $``$, which we assume to be of the form $`V=gRS`$ ($`g`$ is the coupling constant and $`R`$ and $`S`$ are, respectively, Hermitian observable of $``$ and $`𝒮`$) \- .

Following  we set that the rate of variation for an arbitrary Hermitian observable $`G`$ of $`𝒮`$ is given by the Heisenberg equation of motion, and the contribution of the coupling $`V`$ to this rate can be written as

$$\left(\frac{dG}{dt}\right)_{coupling}=\frac{ig}{\mathrm{}}[R(t)S(t),G(t)]=g\lambda N(t)R(t)+g(1\lambda )R(t)N(t),$$
(2)
where $`N(t)=(i/\mathrm{})[S(t),G(t)]`$ is an Hermitian observable of the microscopic system and $`\lambda `$ an arbitrary real number. In the above equation we have used the freedom in the ordering of $`R(t)`$ and $`N(t)`$, since they commute.

In order to obtain the contributions of reservoir fluctuation (rf) and self-reaction (sr) we perform the following replacement

$$X(t)=X^\mathrm{f}(t)+X^\mathrm{s}(t),$$
(3)
($`X=R,S,G`$) where $`R^f`$ (resp. $`S^f`$ and $`G^f`$) is the solution, to order 0 in $`g`$, of the Heisenberg equation of motion for $`R`$ (resp. $`S`$ and $`G`$), corresponding to a free evolution between $`t_0`$ and $`t`$, and $`R^\mathrm{s}(t)`$ (resp. $`S^s`$ and $`G^s`$) the solution to first order and higher in $`g`$. Then, substituting (3) in (2) and retaining terms up to second order in $`g`$, we obtain

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dG}{dt}}\right)^{\mathrm{rf}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{\mathrm{}}}\{(1\lambda )R^\mathrm{f}(t)[S^\mathrm{f}(t),G^\mathrm{f}(t)]+\lambda [S^\mathrm{f}(t),G^\mathrm{f}(t)]R^\mathrm{f}(t)\}`$ (4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}dt^{}[S^\mathrm{f}(t^{}),[S^\mathrm{f}(t),G^\mathrm{f}(t)]]\times `$ (6)
$`\times ((1\lambda )R^\mathrm{f}(t^{})R^\mathrm{f}(t))+\lambda R^\mathrm{f}(t)R^\mathrm{f}(t^{})),`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dG}{dt}}\right)^{\mathrm{sr}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}dt^{}[R^\mathrm{f}(t^{}),R^\mathrm{f}(t)]\times `$ (8)
$`\times ((1\lambda )S^\mathrm{f}(t^{})[S^\mathrm{f}(t),G^\mathrm{f}(t)]+\lambda [S^\mathrm{f}(t),G^\mathrm{f}(t)]S^\mathrm{f}(t^{})).`$
Since the rates (4) and (5) contain only free operators, their average value in the reservoir state $`\sigma _R`$ givesNote that the term in the first line of (4) do not contribute to the respective rate since it is linear in the absorption and emission operators of the field.

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dG}{dt}}\right)^{\mathrm{rf}}(t)^{(R)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑t^{}C^{(R)}(t,t^{},\lambda )[S^\mathrm{f}(t^{}),[S^\mathrm{f}(t),G^\mathrm{f}(t)]],`$ (9)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dG}{dt}}\right)^{\mathrm{sr}}(t)^{(R)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}dt^{}\chi ^{(R)}(t,t^{})\times `$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`\{(1\lambda )S^\mathrm{f}(t^{})[S^\mathrm{f}(t),G^\mathrm{f}(t)]+\lambda [S^\mathrm{f}(t),G^\mathrm{f}(t)]S^\mathrm{f}(t^{})\},`$ (11)
where we have define $`g^{}=\sqrt{2}g`$ and

$`C^{(R)}(t,t^{},\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{R}[\sigma _R\{\lambda R^\mathrm{f}(t)R^\mathrm{f}(t^{})+(1\lambda )R^\mathrm{f}(t^{})R^\mathrm{f}(t)\}],`$ (12)
$`\chi ^{(R)}(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{R}\{\sigma _R[R^\mathrm{f}(t^{}),R^\mathrm{f}(t)]\}\theta (tt^{}).`$ (13)
The functions $`C^{(R)}`$ and $`\chi ^{(R)}`$ are statistical functions of the reservoir \- . $`C^{(R)}`$ is a kind of correlation function, describing the “dynamics of fluctuations” of $`R`$ in the stationary state $`\sigma _R(t_0)`$; $`\chi ^{(R)}`$ is the linear susceptibility of the reservoir, determining the linear response of the averaged observable $`R(t)`$ when the reservoir is acted upon by a perturbationIn (9) $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside function, $`\theta (x)=1`$ if $`x>0`$, $`\theta (x)=0`$ if $`x<0`$..

The above calculation has shown that the freedom in ordering (2) just reflects in the correlation functions given by (8). This result will be explored in section III, where we make a connection with the master equation. In order to get a better understanding of the aforementioned arbitrariness, we will consider the case of an atomic energy shift.

In order to find the energy shifts corresponding to the (rf) and (sr) rates we rewrite (6) and (7) in a convenient form, namely

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dG}{dt}}\right)^{\mathrm{rf}}(t)^{(R)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[(H_{eff}(t))^{\mathrm{rf}},G(t)]_R+`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}}\right)[Y(t,\lambda ),[S(t),G(t)]]+[S(t),[Y(t,\lambda ),G(t)]]_R,`$ (15)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dG}{dt}}\right)^{\mathrm{sr}}(t)^{(R)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[(H_{eff}(t))^{\mathrm{sr}},G(t)]_\mathrm{R}+`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig^2}{4\mathrm{}^2}}\right)[Z^{}(t,\lambda )[S(t),G(t)]+[S(t),G(t)]Z^{\prime \prime }(t,\lambda )`$ (17)
$``$ $`S(t)[Z^{\prime \prime }(t,\lambda ),G(t)][Z^{}(t,\lambda ),G(t)]S(t)_R`$ (18)
where

$`(H_{eff}(t))^{\mathrm{rf}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^{}}{2\mathrm{}}}[Y(t,\lambda ),S(t)],`$ (19)
$`(H_{eff}(t))^{\mathrm{sr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{4}}[Z^{}(t,\lambda )S(t)+S(t)Z^{\prime \prime }(t,\lambda )]`$ (20)
are second order corrections to the Hamiltonian part of $`𝒮`$ caused by its interaction with the reservoir and

$`Y(t,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}q_{ab}(t)a|S|b{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau C^{(R)}(\tau ,\lambda )e^{i\omega _{ab}\tau },`$ (21)
$`Z^{}(t,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`(1\lambda ){\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}q_{ab}(t)a|S|b{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \chi ^{(R)}(\tau )e^{i\omega _{ab}\tau },`$ (22)
$`Z^{\prime \prime }(t,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}q_{ab}(t)a|S|b{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \chi ^{(R)}(\tau )e^{i\omega _{ab}\tau }`$ (23)
with $`q_{ab}|ab|`$, $`\omega _{ab}=(E_aE_b)/\mathrm{}`$ and $`\tau =tt^{}`$. Following the same point of view of , expression (12) (resp. (13)) describes the part of the evolution due to reservoir fluctuations (resp. due to self-reaction) and which can be described by an effective Hamiltonian. The second line of expression (10) (resp. (11)) describes the non-Hamiltonian part of the evolution of $`G`$ caused by the reservoir fluctuation (resp. self-reaction).

### A The Energy Shifts: Hamiltonian Part

Corrections (12) and (13) to the Hamiltonian $`H_S`$ affect $`𝒮`$ through a shifting in its energy eigenstates. Hence, considering a state $`|a`$ (which is an eigenstate of $`H_S`$) we have the following energy shifts

$`(\delta E_a)^{\mathrm{rf}}`$ $`=`$ $`a|(H_{eff}(t_0))^{\mathrm{rf}}|a,`$ (24)
$`(\delta E_a)^{\mathrm{sr}}`$ $`=`$ $`a|(H_{eff}(t_0))^{\mathrm{sr}}|a.`$ (25)
Using expression (12), and noting that

$$Y(t_0)=_0^{\mathrm{}}C^{(R)}(\tau ,\lambda )S^f(t_0\tau )𝑑\tau ,$$
(26)
expression (17) for $`(\delta E_a)^{\mathrm{rf}}`$ becomes

$$(\delta E_a)^{\mathrm{rf}}=\frac{g^2}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}C^{(R)}(\tau ,\lambda )\chi ^{(S,a)}(\tau )𝑑\tau ,$$
(27)
where we have introduced a new statistical function, the susceptibility of the system observables

$$\chi ^{(S,a)}(\tau )=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}a|[S^f(t_0),S^f(t_0\tau )]|a\theta (\tau ).$$
(28)
From expression (13) for $`(H_{eff})^{\mathrm{sr}}`$, we can follow the same steps as those from (17) to (20). As a result we obtain

$$(\delta E_a)^{\mathrm{sr}}=\frac{g^2}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\chi ^{(R)}(\tau )C^{(S,a)}(\tau ,\lambda )𝑑\tau ,$$
(29)
where, again, we have introduced a new statistical function, the “correlation” for the system observable

$$C^{(S,a)}(\tau ,\lambda )=\frac{1}{2}a|\lambda S^f(t_0)S^f(t_0\tau )+(1\lambda )S^f(t_0\tau )S^f(t_0)|a.$$
(30)
For future convenience we write (20) and (22) in the frequency space. Using the Parseval’s theorem we have

$$(\delta E_a)^{\mathrm{rf}}=\frac{g^2}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega C^{(R)}(\omega ,\lambda )\chi ^{(S,a)}(\omega ),$$
(31)
$$(\delta E_a)^{\mathrm{sr}}=\frac{g^2}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega \chi ^{(R)}(\omega )C^{(S,a)}(\omega ,\lambda ),$$
(32)
where we have used the parity properties of $`C`$ and $`\chi `$ .

Formulas (24) and (25) give us the energy shifts which, a priori, depends on $`\lambda `$ through the “correlation functions”, expressions (8) and (23). DDC argued that a true physical meaning is obtained by choosing $`\lambda =1/2`$ since then both variation rates, expressions (6) and (7), become hermitian quantities. As a consequence the energy shifts (24) and (25) will correspond to the (rf) and (sr) effects. It will be shown in section IV that the above assertion becomes meaningless in the case where the interaction Hamiltonian is of the form $`V𝐩𝐀`$.

## III The Master Equation Approach

In this section, we use the previous results to establish a formal connection with the approach employed in , where the physical interpretation of the energy shifts in term (rf) and (sr) are obtained without any reference to operator ordering. In fact, the same energy shifts given by (24) and (25) can also be obtained using a matrix approach based on the evolution equation for the density operator of the global system $`𝒮+`$ in the interaction picture with respect to $`H_S+H_R`$. Hence, following , the energy shift for a state $`|a`$ of $`𝒮`$ caused by its interaction with $``$ through $`V`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_a=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}𝒫\underset{\mu ,\nu }{}p_\mu \underset{b}{}\frac{|\nu ,b|V|\mu ,a|^2}{E_\mu +E_aE_\nu E_b}$$
(33)
where $`p_\mu `$ is a distribution of probability corresponding to the reservoir average in the stationary state $`\sigma _R`$ and $`|\mu `$, $`|\nu `$ are eigenstates of $`H_R`$ with eigenvalue $`E_\mu `$, $`E_\nu `$. In (26) $`𝒫`$ denotes the principal value.

It is directely to see that the matrix element $`\mu ,a|V|\nu ,b`$ in (26) can be factorized in two parts, one relative to $`𝒮`$ and another relative to $``$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_a=\frac{g^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\underset{\mu ,\nu }{}p_\mu |\mu |R|\nu |^2\left[\underset{b}{}|a|S|b|^2𝒫\frac{1}{\omega _{\mu \nu }+\omega _{ab}}\right].$$
(34)
In this way, since we know the functional structure of $`C(\omega )`$ and $`\chi (\omega )`$ , namely

$$C^{(R)}(\omega )=\underset{\mu ,\nu }{}p_\mu \pi |\mu |R|\nu |^2[\delta (\omega +\omega _{\mu \nu })+\delta (\omega \omega _{\mu \nu })],$$
(35)
$$\chi ^{(R)}(\omega )=\chi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(R)}(\omega )+i\chi _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(R)}(\omega ),$$
(36)
$`\chi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(R)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}p_\mu |\mu |R|\nu |^2\left[𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{\mu \nu }+\omega }}+𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{\mu \nu }\omega }}\right],`$ (37)
$`\chi _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(R)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}p_\mu |\mu |R|\nu |^2\left[\delta (\omega _{\mu \nu }+\omega )\delta (\omega _{\mu \nu }\omega )\right],`$ (38)
and analogous expressions for $`𝒮`$ (where only $`p_a=1`$ is nonzero), we can make a mathematical trick and rewrite the fraction $`1/(\omega _{\mu \nu }+\omega _{ab})`$ as

$`𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{\mu \nu }+\omega _{ab}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d\omega \times `$ (39)
$`\times `$ $`\{(𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{\mu \nu }+\omega }}+𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{\mu \nu }\omega }})[\lambda \delta (\omega +\omega _{ab})+(1\lambda )\delta (\omega \omega _{ab})]+`$ (40)
$`+`$ $`(𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ab}+\omega }}+𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ab}\omega }})[\lambda \delta (\omega +\omega _{\mu \nu })+(1\lambda )\delta (\omega \omega _{\mu \nu })]\}.`$ (41)
The presence of the $`\lambda `$ parameter in the correlation functions of equations (24) and (25) suggests the above construction. This point is crucial because it clarifies the motivation behind the use of (32) in the present context.

Now, substituting (32) into (27) we obtain: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a=\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{\mathrm{rf}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{\mathrm{sr}}`$, where

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{\mathrm{rf}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{(2\pi )}}C^{(R)}(\omega ,\lambda )\chi ^{(S,a)}(\omega ),`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{\mathrm{sr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{(2\pi )}}\chi ^{(R)}(\omega )C^{(S,a)}(\omega ,\lambda ).`$ (43)
Chosing $`\lambda =1/2`$ in the above expression the original formulation given in  is recovered and the physical meaning of (27) becomes simple and clear in terms of (rf) and (sr) effects. This are in complete agreement with the results obtained in the last section, expressions (24) and (25). However, in this approach  the physical interpretation are borrowed from the classical theory of damping harmonic oscillator, without any reference to the operator ordering in the correlation functions. In fact, for a class of interaction Hamiltonian of the form $`V𝐩𝐀`$ the choice of $`\lambda `$ in (33) and (34) (or equivalently (24) and (25)) becomes irrelevant as will be shown in the next section.

## IV The Dipole Interaction

In order to show the independence of (33) (or (34)) with respect to $`\lambda `$ we consider here the same case treated in  where the interaction Hamiltonian reduces to the expression

$$V=\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{e}{m}p_i\right)A_i(𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}),$$
(44)
where $`i=x,y,z`$. Comparing the above expression with the definition of $`V`$ ($`V=g_iR_iS_i`$) we see that $`g=1`$, $`R_i=A_i(𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎})`$ (where $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ reflects the long wavelenght approximation we are assuming) and $`S_i=(ep_i/m)`$.

In this context, the final expression for the $`x`$-componet of the statistical functions are

$`\widehat{C}_R^{xx}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi \epsilon _0c^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _M}}𝑑\omega ^{}\mathrm{}\omega ^{}(n(\omega ^{})+1/2)[\lambda \delta (\omega ^{}+\omega )+(1\lambda )\delta (\omega ^{}\omega )],`$ (45)
$`\widehat{\chi }_R^{{}_{}{}^{}xx}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi ^2\epsilon _0c^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _M}}𝑑\omega ^{}\omega ^{}\left[𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^{}+\omega }}+𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^{}\omega }}\right],`$ (46)
$`\widehat{\chi }_R^{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }xx}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi \epsilon _0c^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _M}}𝑑\omega ^{}\omega ^{}[\delta (\omega ^{}+\omega )\delta (\omega ^{}\omega )],`$ (47)
and

$`\widehat{C}_{Aa}^{xx}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m^2}}|a|p_x|b|^2\pi [\lambda \delta (\omega _{ab}+\omega )+(1\lambda )\delta (\omega _{ab}\omega )],`$ (48)
$`\widehat{\chi }_{Aa}^{xx}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}m^2}}|a|p_x|b|^2\left[𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ab}+\omega }}+𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ab}\omega }}\right],`$ (49)
$`\widehat{\chi }_{Aa}^{\prime \prime xx}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}m^2}}|a|p_x|b|^2\pi [\delta (\omega _{ab}+\omega )\delta (\omega _{ab}\omega )],`$ (50)
where $`|a`$ denotes a given eigenstate of $`H_S`$. The above expression are obtained following reference  and tanking into account identity (32).

In order to obtain the energy shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{\mathrm{rf}}`$ we substitute (36) and (40) in (33). Remembering that $`g^{}=\sqrt{2}g=\sqrt{2}`$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{\mathrm{rf}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m^2}}|a|p_x|b|^2[𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ab}+\omega }}+𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ab}\omega }}]\}\times `$ (51)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi \epsilon _0c^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _M}}𝑑\omega ^{}\mathrm{}\omega ^{}(n(\omega ^{})+1/2)[\lambda \delta (\omega ^{}+\omega )+(1\lambda )\delta (\omega ^{}\omega )]\right\}.`$ (52)
Performing the integral over $`\omega `$, it is straightforward to see that the contribuction from $`\lambda `$ and that from $`\lambda `$ will cancel each other remaning just the contribution from the independent term, namely,

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{\mathrm{rf}}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{6\pi \epsilon _0m^2c^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}|a|𝐩|b|^2{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _M}}𝑑\omega ^{}\omega ^{}(n(\omega ^{})+1/2)\left[𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ab}+\omega ^{}}}+𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ab}\omega ^{}}}\right].`$ (53)
where the analogous contribution coming from the $`y`$ and $`z`$ components have already been added. As we have seen, the above construct clearly shows the independence of (33) with respect to $`\lambda `$. In the original formulation given in  the above expression may indeed be divided in two parts: one proportional to the factor $`1/2`$ and associated to the Lamb-Retherford energy shift and another proportional to photon nunber and associated to the AC Stark effect.

It must be also noted that the choice $`\lambda =1/2`$ made in the operatorial approach may be seen as a fixing parameter which ultimately gives an hermitian character to the contributions (6) and (7) allowing a fictious physical meaninging for (24) and (25) in terms of (rf) and (sr) effects. However, as remarked by Milonni , a true physical meaning is completely arbitrary since the observable variation rates are, in fact, unaccessible for the experiment.

## V Concluding Remarks

In this work we have applied to the original formulation of DDC construct a more general ordering between the atomic and electromagnetic field (reservoir) operators and calculated the energy shift due to the effective Hamiltonian part. The result showed that the freedom in ordering expression (2) reflects in the energy shifts (24) and (25) through the $`\lambda `$’s appearance in the correlation functions.

We have also established a formal connection between the Effective Hamiltonian approach and that based on the master equation theory. This connection was guided by the results concerning the general ordering (2) and consequently made explicit the same kind of arbitrariness in the physical interpretation of the related variation rates (i.e., the energy shifts (33) and (34)) of section III. In the sequence, it was also discussed that, for an interaction Hamiltonian of the form

$$V=\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{e}{m}p_i\right)A_i(𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}),$$
(54)
the ordering (2) (or (4) and (5)) becomes meaningless and its role on the final result (expression (43)) turn out to be irrelevant. As a consequence the Lamb-Retherford shift and the AC Stark effect may be obtained without any particular ordering .

Another interesting result relies on the fact that our procedure still permit us to fix a posteriori a suitable ordering which keeps its (rf) and (sr) interpretation, as can be seen by looking directly to expressions (33) and (34). However, since the Hermicity of (33) and (34) holds only for $`\lambda =1/2`$, such interpretation becomes artificial.

Once we get a better understanding on the arbitrariness in the operator ordering in DDC construct, we expect to find a direct connection with the works by Senitzki, Ackerhalt and others. The main idea is to construct a similar structure in Fock space and analyze its connection with all possible physical interpretations.

Another interesting application of the present formalism is a possible generalization of the operator ordering in the spirit of q-deformed operator algebras , subject of a forthcoming work.

## VI Acknowledgements

JLT thanks CNPq for partial financial support and the IFT/UNESP for the hospitality. LCC is grateful to FAPESP for the financial support.


text:
# An Ergodic Theorem for Quantum Counting Processes

## I Introduction

Modern research on quantum-mechanical counting processes, be it numerical simulations  or experimental investigations , usually starts from the tacit assumption that for the study of statistical properties of the counting records it does not make a difference whether a large number of experiments is performed or a single very long one. This assumption amounts to ergodicity of these records. In several recent discussions, e.g. , investigators have addressed the question of its validity. A partial result was obtained by Cresser , who proved ergodicity in the $`L^2`$-sense and to first order in the detection current. In this paper we establish ergodicity in the full sense (Theorem 3), in particular to all orders in the detection current and with probability 1 (Theorem 4). Theorem 5 formulates ergodicity in terms of multi-time coincidences.

For the description of detection records we employ the rigorous formulation of Davies and Srinivas , which has set the tone for later investigations .

## II Counting processes according to Davies and Srinivas

We consider an open quantum system under continuous observation by use of a finite number $`k`$ of detectors. The state of the system is described by a density matrix $`\rho `$ on a Hilbert space, obeying a Master equation $`\dot{\rho }=L\rho `$, where $`L`$ is a generator of Lindblad form . Normalisation is expressed by the relation

$$\mathrm{tr}L(\rho )=0\text{for all }\rho .$$
(1)
A counting process connected to this quantum evolution is based on an unraveling of the generator

$$L=L_0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}J_i,$$
(2)
which is interpreted as follows. The reaction of the detectors to the system consists of clicks at random times. The evolution $`\rho e^{tL_0}(\rho )`$ denotes the change of the state of the system under the condition that during a time interval of length $`t`$ no clicks are recorded. The operator $`\rho J_i(\rho )`$ on the state space describes the change of state conditioned on the occurrence of a click of detector $`i`$. For computational convenience we assume these operators to be bounded. So, if $`\rho `$ describes the state of the system at time 0, and if, during the time interval $`[0,t]`$, clicks are recorded at times $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_n`$ of detectors $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n`$ respectively, and none more, then, up to normalisation, the state at time $`t`$ is given by

$$e^{(tt_n)L_0}J_{i_n}e^{(t_nt_{n1})L_0}\mathrm{}e^{(t_2t_1)L_0}J_{i_1}e^{t_1L_0}(\rho ).$$
(3)
The probability density $`f^t((t_1,i_1),\mathrm{},(t_n,i_n))`$ for these clicks to occur is equal to the trace of (3).

We imagine the experiment to continue indefinitely. The observation process will then produce an infinite detection record $`((t_1,i_1),(t_2,i_2),(t_3,i_3),\mathrm{})`$ , where we assume that $`0t_1t_2t_3\mathrm{}`$ , and $`lim_n\mathrm{}t_n=\mathrm{}`$ (i.e., the clicks do not accumulate).

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denote the space of all such detection records. By an event we mean some property of the record, which we identify with the set $`E\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of all records with this property. The events decidable at or before time $`t0`$ form a $`\sigma `$-algebra $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ . Together these $`\sigma `$-algebras generate the full $`\sigma `$-algebra $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Following Davies and Srinivas we may now formulate the effect of observation on the quantum system as follows: If $`t`$ is a positive time, $`E`$ an event in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, and $`\rho `$ denotes a state, then we define

$`M_t(E)(\rho ):=`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_1=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{i_n=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle _0^{t_n}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{t_2}}1_E((t_1,i_1),\mathrm{},(t_n,i_n))`$ (5)
$`e^{(tt_n)L_0}J_{i_n}e^{(t_nt_{n1})L_0}\mathrm{}e^{(t_2t_1)L_0}J_{i_1}e^{t_1L_0}(\rho )`$ (6)
$`\times dt_1dt_2\mathrm{}dt_n.`$ (7)
Here $`1_E`$ denotes the indicator function of the event $`E`$ and $`M_t(E)`$ is the effect on the quantum system of the occurrence of $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. Then

$$_\rho ^t(E):=\mathrm{tr}M_t(E)(\rho )$$
(8)
is the probability of the occurrence of $`E`$ given that the system starts in $`\rho `$. We extend the notation (8) also to density matrices $`\rho `$ which are not normalised. The counting process as a whole is described by the family $`(M_t)_{t0}`$. The effect of the counting on the quantum system, when the outcome is ignored, is the time evolution

$$T_t(\rho ):=M_t(\mathrm{\Omega })(\rho ).$$

It follows from the Dyson series (7) with $`E=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that $`T_t`$ is indeed the original time evolution $`e^{tL}`$, in particular, by (1), $`T_t`$ preserves the trace.

## III Ergodic theory

The time shift by $`t`$ seconds is described by the map $`\sigma _t`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which is given on a particular record $`\omega =((t_1,i_1),(t_2,i_2),(t_3,i_3),\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`t_kt<t_{k+1}`$ by $`\sigma _t(\omega ):=((t_{k+1}t,i_{k+1}),(t_{k+2}t,i_{k+2}),\mathrm{})`$. The time shift of an event $`E`$ towards the future is given by $`\sigma _t^1(E)`$.

The crucial property of the counting process $`(M_t)_{t0}`$ is the following. For all $`s,t0`$ and all events $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$, $`F\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ we have

$$M_{s+t}(F\sigma _t^1(E))=M_s(E)M_t(F).$$
(9)
This Markov property was proved in . Putting $`E=F=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we recover the semigroup property $`T_{s+t}=T_sT_t`$ of the time evolution.

When $`F\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ and $`s0`$ then $`_\rho ^{t+s}(F)`$ does not depend on $`s`$. Indeed, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\sigma _t^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`T_s`$ preserves the trace,

$`_\rho ^{t+s}(F)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left(M_{t+s}(F)(\rho )\right)=\mathrm{tr}\left(M_{t+s}(F\sigma _t^1(\mathrm{\Omega }))(\rho )\right)`$ (10)
$`\stackrel{(\text{9})}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left(M_s(\mathrm{\Omega })M_t(F)(\rho )\right)=\mathrm{tr}\left(T_sM_t(F)(\rho )\right)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left(M_t(F)(\rho )\right)=_\rho ^t(F).`$ (12)
Therefore, by Kolmogorov’s extension theorem, the family $`(_\rho ^t)_{t0}`$ of probability measures on the $`\sigma `$-algebras $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t)_{t0}`$ with densities $`(f^t)_{t0}`$ extends to a single probability measure $`_\rho `$ on the full $`\sigma `$-algebra $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Lemma 1

For all $`t0`$, all $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`F\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, and all states $`\rho `$:

$$_\rho (F\sigma _t^1(E))=_{M_t(F)(\rho )}(E).$$
(13)
In particular,

$$_\rho (\sigma _t^1(E))=_{T_t\rho }(E).$$
(14)
Therefore, if $`\rho `$ is invariant under $`T_t`$, then $`_\rho `$ is a stationary probability measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Proof. First suppose that $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$. Equality (13) is obtained from the Markov property (9) by acting on $`\rho `$ and taking the trace on both sides. (14) follows by putting $`F=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The statements extend to all $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by Kolmogorov’s extension theorem since $`s`$ was arbitrary.

Definition.

* The evolution $`(T_t)_{t0}`$ of a quantum system is said to converge in the mean to an equilibrium state $`\rho `$ if for all normalised density matrices $`\vartheta `$ and all observables $`x`$:

$$\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\tau }_0^\tau \mathrm{tr}\left((T_t\vartheta )x\right)𝑑t=\mathrm{tr}(\rho x).$$
* The counting process $`(M_t)_{t0}`$ will be called ergodic if the following holds. Given any time-invariant event $`E`$, i.e. $`\sigma _t^1(E)=E`$ for all $`t0`$, then either $`_\vartheta (E)=0`$ for all density matrices $`\vartheta `$ or $`_\vartheta (E)=1`$ for all $`\vartheta `$.

The condition on $`(T_t)_{t0}`$ is satisfied in many cases of practical importance.

###### Theorem 2

If the evolution $`T_t=e^{tL}`$, $`t0`$, converges in the mean, then the counting process $`(M_t)_{t0}`$ is ergodic for any unraveling (2).

Proof. Let $`E`$ be a time-invariant event and $`\vartheta `$ any state. Then by (14), $`_\vartheta (E)=_\vartheta (\sigma _t^1(E))=_{T_t\vartheta }(E)`$. Since $`_\vartheta `$ is linear and continuous in $`\vartheta `$, we may average both sides over the interval $`[0,\tau ]`$ and take the limit $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ to obtain $`_\vartheta (E)=_\rho (E)`$. For an unnormalised density matrix $`\chi `$ we find instead that

$$_\chi (E)=_\rho (E)\mathrm{tr}(\chi ).$$
(15)
If $`F`$ is any event in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ then

$`_\vartheta (FE)`$ $`=`$ $`_\vartheta (F\sigma _t^1(E))\stackrel{(\text{13})}{=}_{M_t(F)(\vartheta )}(E)`$ (16)
$`\stackrel{(\text{15})}{=}`$ $`_\rho (E)\mathrm{tr}(M_t(F)(\vartheta ))=_\rho (E)_\vartheta (F)`$ (17)
$`\stackrel{(\text{15})}{=}`$ $`_\vartheta (E)_\vartheta (F).`$ (18)
The resulting equation extends to all $`F\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, in particular it holds for $`F=E`$:

$$_\vartheta (E)=_\vartheta (E)^2.$$

It follows that $`_\vartheta (E)`$ is equal to 0 or 1.

Let us denote the expectation $`_\mathrm{\Omega }f(\omega )𝑑_\rho (\omega )`$ of an integrable function $`f`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`𝔼_\rho (f)`$.

###### Theorem 3

If the evolution $`(T_t)_{t0}`$ converges in the mean to $`\rho `$, then for all integrable functions $`h`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and all initial states $`\vartheta `$ we have, almost surely with respect to $`_\vartheta `$,

$$\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\tau }_0^\tau h(\sigma _t(\omega ))𝑑t=𝔼_\rho (h).$$
(19)
Proof. By Lemma 1 and Theorem 2, $`_\rho `$ is stationary and ergodic. Hence, by Birkhoff’s individual ergodic theorem, the limit on the left exists almost surely with respect to $`_\rho `$, and is equal to the constant $`𝔼_\rho (h)`$. Since the set $`F`$ of points $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ for which (19) holds, is time-invariant, we have $`_\vartheta (F)=_\rho (F)=1`$ for all states $`\vartheta `$ by (15).

## IV Applications

The main result of the present ergodic theory for quantum counting processes, Theorem 3, can be made considerably more concrete by applying it to detection currents and multi-time coincidences, showing bunching or anti-bunching.

For simplicity we consider only one detector, which responds to a point event at time $`s`$ by producing a current $`\gamma (ts)`$ at time $`t`$. (This will be zero for $`t<s`$.) The total detection current is given by

$$I_t(\omega ):=\underset{s\omega }{}\gamma (ts).$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{}_\rho `$ be the unique stationary extension of $`_\rho `$ to negative times on the configuration space $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ of the full real line. We shall denote expectation with respect to this measure by $`\stackrel{~}{𝔼}_\rho `$.

###### Theorem 4

Let the quantum evolution $`(T_t)_{t0}`$ converge in the mean to a state $`\rho `$ and let the detector response function $`\gamma :[0,\mathrm{})`$ be bounded and integrable. Then for all $`0t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_n`$ and all initial states $`\vartheta `$ we have, almost surely with respect to $`_\vartheta `$,

$$\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\tau }_0^\tau I_{t_1+t}(\omega )\mathrm{}I_{t_n+t}(\omega )𝑑t=\stackrel{~}{𝔼}_\rho \left(I_{t_1}\mathrm{}I_{t_n}\right).$$

For $`n=2`$ this theorem implies a quantum-mechanical version of the Wiener-Khinchin theorem. In the proof we shall make use of the non-exclusive probability density of the stationary process ,

$$g_n(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_n):=\mathrm{tr}\left(JT_{t_nt_{n1}}J\mathrm{}JT_{t_2t_1}J(\rho )\right).$$

The functions $`g_n`$ are related to the probability density $`f^t`$ from (3) of the counting process (where $`tt_n`$), by

$`g_n(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_n)=f_n^t(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_n)`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle _0^{s_m}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{s_2}}f_{m+n}^t\left(\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_m\}\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n\}\right)`$ (22)
$`\times ds_1\mathrm{}ds_m={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_t}}f^t(\{t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_n\}\omega )d\omega ;`$
here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$ is the set of finite subsets of $`[0,t]`$, which can be identified with the time-ordered points in $`\{\mathrm{}\}_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}[0,t]^m`$. By $`d\omega `$ we mean $`ds_1ds_2\mathrm{}ds_m`$ if $`\omega =\{s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_m\}`$ with $`s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_m`$.

Proof of Theorem 4. First we note that Theorem 3 also holds if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`_\rho `$ and $`𝔼_\rho `$ are replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}_\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔼}_\rho `$ respectively, as introduced above, and $`\sigma _t`$ by the left shift of $`\omega `$. Then we have $`I_{s+t}(\omega )=I_s(\sigma _t(\omega ))`$. Now fix $`n`$ and $`0t_1\mathrm{}t_n`$. Let $`h:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ be given by

$$h(\omega ):=I_{t_1}(\omega )I_{t_2}(\omega )\mathrm{}I_{t_n}(\omega ).$$

It follows that $`h\sigma _t=I_{t_1+t}I_{t_2+t}\mathrm{}I_{t_n+t}`$, and the statement to be proved follows from Theorem 3, provided that $`h`$ is integrable. In the Appendix we shall show that this is indeed the case.

As our second application we shall show that the non-exclusive probability densities $`g_n`$ have a straightforward pathwise interpretation: they are equal to the frequency of multi-time coincidences on almost every detection record. For this, let $`N_{[a,b]}(\omega ):=\mathrm{\#}(\omega [a,b])`$ denote the number of clicks detected during the time interval $`[a,b]`$.

###### Theorem 5

Let $`(T_t)_{t0}`$ converge in the mean to the equilibrium state $`\rho `$. Then for all $`n`$, all $`0t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_n`$, all $`\epsilon `$ between $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{min}_{1j<n}(t_{j+1}t_j)`$, and all initial states $`\vartheta `$ we have, almost surely with respect to $`_\vartheta `$,

$`\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}N_{[t_j+t,t_j+t+\epsilon ]}(\omega )\right)𝑑t`$ (23)
$`={\displaystyle _{t_n}^{t_n+\epsilon }}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_1+\epsilon }}g(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)𝑑s_1\mathrm{}𝑑s_n.`$ (24)
Proof. Fix $`n`$ and a sequence $`0t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_n`$ of times. Let $`K:\mathrm{\Omega }\{0,1\}`$ be the function that maps $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ to 1 if $`\omega `$ contains exactly $`n`$ points, one in each of the intervals $`[t_1,t_1+\epsilon ],\mathrm{},[t_n,t_n+\epsilon ]`$, and to $`0`$ otherwise. Then we obtain for $`tt_n+\epsilon `$, using set notation and the integral-sum lemma from ,

$`{\displaystyle _{t_n}^{t_n+\epsilon }}`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_1+\epsilon }}g(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)𝑑s_1\mathrm{}𝑑s_n`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_t}}K(\alpha )g(\alpha )𝑑\alpha \stackrel{(\text{22})}{=}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_t}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_t}}K(\alpha )f^t(\alpha \beta )𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta `$ (26)
$`\stackrel{\text{[14]}}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_t}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \omega }{}}K(\alpha )\right)f^t(\omega )𝑑\omega .`$ (27)
A short calculation shows that

$$\underset{\alpha \omega }{}K(\alpha )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}N_{[t_j,t_j+\epsilon ]}(\omega ).$$
(28)
Since $`0g_n(s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_n)J^n`$, the integral (27) is convergent, hence the product on the r.h.s. of (28) is integrable as a function of $`\omega `$. Application of Theorem 3 to this product now yields the statement.

## V Discrete time

There is an obvious analogue of our main result (Theorem 3) in discrete time . A Kraus measurement  is given by a decomposition of a completely positive operator $`T`$ on state space as

$$T\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_i\rho a_i^{},$$

where $`\rho a_i\rho a_i^{}`$ describes the state change of the density matrix $`\rho `$ when the measurement gives the outcome $`i`$. Thus for initial state $`\vartheta `$ the probability of finding the sequence of outcomes $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_m`$ by repeated Kraus measurement is given by

$$\mathrm{tr}\left(a_{i_m}\mathrm{}a_{i_1}\vartheta a_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i_m}^{}\right).$$

As in continuous time, this yields a probability measure $`_\vartheta `$ on the space of detection records $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\{1,2,\mathrm{},k\}^{}`$. Again, if $`(T^n)_n`$ converges in the mean to some state $`\rho `$, then the only time invariant events in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ have measure 0 or 1 for all $`_\vartheta `$. In particular, $`_\rho `$ is ergodic.

##

We shall show that, in the situation of Theorem 4, $`h:=I_{t_1}\mathrm{}I_{t_n}`$ is an integrable function on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ provided that the jump operator $`J`$ is bounded and the detector response function $`\gamma :[0,\mathrm{})`$ is bounded and integrable.

Let $`M:=\mathrm{max}(1,\gamma _{\mathrm{}})`$. Fix $`n`$ and a sequence $`0t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_n`$ of times. Let

$$\phi (t):=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\gamma (t_jt).$$

Then $`\phi `$ is also integrable, with $`\phi _1=n\gamma _1`$. For $`k`$, let $`𝒥_{n,k}`$ denote the set of all surjections $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$. Then we may write for any $`\omega \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$,

$`I_{t_1}(\omega )`$ $`I_{t_2}(\omega )\mathrm{}I_{t_n}(\omega )`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s_1\omega }{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{s_n\omega }{}}\gamma (t_1s_1)\mathrm{}\gamma (t_ns_n)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j𝒥_{n,k}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_k\}\omega }{a_1<\mathrm{}<a_k}}{}}\gamma (t_1a_{j(1)})\mathrm{}\gamma (t_na_{j(n)})`$ (31)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{\#}\left(𝒥_{n,k}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha \omega }{\mathrm{\#}\alpha =k}}{}}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{nk}\left({\displaystyle \underset{s\alpha }{}}\phi (s)\right)`$ (32)
$``$ $`nn^nM^n{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \omega }{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{s\alpha }{}}\phi (s)\right).`$ (33)
Using set notation and the integral-sum lemma  again we conclude that, for all $`t0`$ and $`ut_n+t`$,

$`𝔼_\rho `$ $`\left((I_{t_1}I_{t_2}\mathrm{}I_{t_n})\sigma _t\right)/M^nn^{n+1}`$ (39)
$`\stackrel{(\text{33})}{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_u}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \omega }{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{s\alpha }{}}\phi (st)\right)f^u(\omega )d\omega `$
$`\stackrel{\text{[14]}}{=}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_u}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_u}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{s\alpha }{}}\phi (st)\right)f^u(\alpha \beta )𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta `$
$`\stackrel{(\text{22})}{=}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_u}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{s\alpha }{}}\phi (st)\right)g(\alpha )𝑑\alpha `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{J^m}{m!}}{\displaystyle _{[0,u]^m}}\phi (s_1t)\mathrm{}\phi (s_mt)𝑑s_1\mathrm{}𝑑s_m`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left(J{\displaystyle _0^u}\phi (st)𝑑s\right)e^{nJ\gamma _1}.`$
Therefore, since the r.h.s. does not depend on $`t`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔼}_\rho (I_{t_1}\mathrm{}I_{t_n})=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}𝔼_\rho \left((I_{t_1}\mathrm{}I_{t_n})\sigma _t\right)<\mathrm{}.$$

###### Acknowledgements.

Support from the ‘Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft’ (DFG) and ‘Stichting Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie’ (FOM) is gratefully acknowledged.