text:
# Finitary Spacetime Sheaves

## 1 Introduction cum Physical Motivation

The present paper associates with a finitary substitute $`F_n`$ of a bounded region $`X`$ of a continuous spacetime manifold $`M`$ (Sorkin, 1991), a collection $`S_n`$ of appropriately defined continuous functions on $`X`$, which, as a space on its own, is seen to be (locally) homeomorphic to $`F_n`$, thus technically speaking, a sheaf over $`F_n`$ (Bredon, 1967). This finitary spacetime sheaf is denoted by $`S_n(F_n)`$.

Then, we consider an inverse system $`𝒦=<F_n(𝒰_n)>`$ of finitary spacetime substitutes, derived from a net $`=<𝒰_n>`$ of locally finite open covers of $`X`$ as in (Sorkin, 1991), and the corresponding inverse system $`𝒩=<S_n(F_n)>`$ of finitary spacetime sheaves associated with each element of $`𝒦`$. We show that as the elements $`F_n`$ of $`𝒦`$ get more refined (in a sense to be defined), their corresponding sheaves $`S_n`$ in $`𝒩`$ ‘converge’ to $`S(X)`$-the sheaf of (germs of) continuous functions on $`X`$.

The central physical idea we wish to model by the finitary spacetime sheaves $`S_n`$ is ‘locally finite approximations of the continuous spacetime observables on $`X`$’. In more detail, we intuit that as the continuous topology of $`X`$ can be finitely (or coarsely) approximated by the finitary topologies $`F_n`$, so can the continuous maps on it, that constitute the sheaf $`S(X)`$, be effectively approximated by the finitary sheaves $`S_n`$. Since only the continuous (ie, $`C^0`$) topological structure of $`X`$ concerns us here, that is to say, we consider the continuous topology of spacetime to be its sole physically significant property, the physical spacetime observables that are of relevance are precisely the continuous functions on it. Then, the maps in each finitary sheaf $`S_n`$ over the locally finite substitute $`F_n`$ of $`X`$ represent sound coarse approximations of the continuous observables in $`S(X)`$ in the sense that, ‘in the limit of infinite resolution’ of the $`F_n`$s into $`X`$, they effectively reproduce them. The latter may be formally written as $`lim_n\mathrm{}S_n(F_n)S_{\mathrm{}}(F_{\mathrm{}})S(X)`$222$``$’ denoting ‘homeomorphic to’. ($`S_n(F_n)𝒩`$), with an explanation of this limiting procedure pending.

The present paper is organized as follows: in section 2, a brief reminder of finitary substitutes of a bounded region $`X`$ of a continuous spacetime manifold $`M`$ is given. We also allude, without proof, to the ‘inverse limit’ topological space $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ to which an appropriately defined ‘inverse system’ $`𝒦`$ of such substitutes derived from a net $`=<𝒰_n>`$ of locally finite open covers of $`X`$, converges ‘at maximum resolution of $`X`$ by $`𝒰_{\mathrm{}}`$’. This topological space is essentially homeomorphic to $`X`$. For detailed proofs the reader is referred to (Sorkin, 1991).

In section 3, a space $`S`$ that is locally homeomorphic to $`X`$ is defined. This is the sheaf $`S(X)`$ of continuous functions on $`X`$.

In section 4, finitary spacetime sheaves $`S_n`$ of continuous functions on $`X`$ associated with the finitary substitutes $`F_n`$ of section 2, are defined constructively.

Like their finitary ‘domains’ $`F_n`$, the finitary spacetime sheaves $`S_n`$ also form an inverse system $`𝒩`$ having an inverse limit topological space $`S_{\mathrm{}}(F_{\mathrm{}})`$ that is essentially homeomorphic to the sheaf $`S(X)`$ of section 3. This limiting procedure is briefly presented in section 5 by simulating in $`𝒩`$ Sorkin’s proof that the inverse system $`𝒦`$ ‘converges’ to $`X`$. This is evidence of the soundness of the finitary sheaves as models of locally finite approximations of the continuous functions on $`X`$-the observables of the continuous spacetime topology of $`X`$.

In the concluding section 6 we discuss the physical significance of the elements of finitary spacetime sheaves as the locally finite approximations of the continuous observables on the region $`X`$ of the spacetime manifold $`M`$. In view of a recent definition of quantum causal sets (Raptis, 2000), partially motivated by the poset finitary substitutes of continuous spacetime topologies in (Sorkin, 1991), their quantum algebraic analogues in (Raptis and Zapatrin, 2000) and their causal relatives in (Bombelli et al., 1987), we entertain the idea of a finitary spacetime sheaf of quantum causal sets, as well as the possibility that this structure be curved, thus serve as a sound model of some sort of ‘finitary quantum gravity’. However, the analytic development of this possible application of finitary spacetime sheaves will have to be postponed for another paper (Mallios and Raptis, 2000).

## 2 Finitary Spacetime Substitutes Revisited

In (Sorkin, 1991), with finite open covers $`𝒰_n`$ of a bounded region $`X`$ of a continuous spacetime manifold $`M`$333A subset of a topological space is said to be bounded if its closure is compact. Our $`X`$ in $`M`$ is bounded in this sense., finite topological spaces $`F_n`$ were associated by the following ‘equivalence algorithm’: two points $`x`$ and $`y`$ in $`X`$ are said to be equivalent with respect to the open cover $`𝒰_n`$ (write $`x\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}y`$), when $`U𝒰_n:xUyU`$.

Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(X)`$ the smallest open neighborhood in the subtopology $`𝒯_n`$ of $`X`$ generated by the open sets $`U`$ in $`𝒰_n`$444That is to say, $`𝒯_n`$ consists of arbitrary unions of finite intersections of the open sets $`U`$ in $`𝒰_n`$.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x):=\{U𝒰_n|xU\},$$

one may alternatively define $`x\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}y`$ as

$$(xy)(yx),$$

where $`xy`$ stands for $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)`$.

The quotient space $`X/\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}=:F(𝒰_n)F_n=\{[x]\}`$ consisting of equivalence classes $`[x]`$ of points $`x`$ in $`X`$ relative to its finite open covering $`𝒰_n`$, is seen to be a $`T_0`$ topological space having the structure of a poset (Sorkin, 1991). With this $`T_0`$-quotienting of $`X`$ by the equivalence relation $`\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$ to $`F_n`$, that is to say, the substitution of $`X`$ by its finitary approximation $`F_n`$ relative to $`𝒰_n`$, a continuous function $`f_n`$ from the subtopology $`𝒯_n`$ of $`X`$ to $`F_n`$, may be associated (Sorkin, 1991). $`f_n`$ is continuous in the usual sense that open sets in $`F_n`$555Defined with respect to the partial order relation $``$ in $`F_n`$ as the sets that can be obtained as unions of the following basic open sets: $`xF_n:\mathrm{\Lambda }(x):=\{yF_n|yx\}`$; where we have used the points $`x`$ instead of the equivalence classes $`[x]`$ where they belong for simplicity of notation. are mapped by $`f_n^1`$ to open subsets of $`X`$ in $`𝒯_n`$.

In (Sorkin, 1991), a net $``$ of open covers $`\{𝒰_n\}`$ is also considered. For every pair $`𝒰_i`$ and $`𝒰_j`$ of locally finite open covers of $`X`$ in $``$, there is a ‘finer’ open cover $`𝒰_k`$ such that $`𝒰_i,𝒰_j𝒯_k`$. With the net $``$ and the $`f_n`$s corresponding its elements to the $`F_n`$s, the inverse system $`𝒦=<F_n>`$ of finitary substitutes of $`X`$ may be derived. Here too, $`F_iF_k`$ may be taken to stand for $`F_i𝒯_k`$, and means that the open sets in the poset $`F_i`$ are contained in the finitary poset topology $`𝒯_k`$ generated by the open sets in the poset $`F_k`$.

For the pair $`i`$ and $`k`$ of indices above, the ‘finer’ relation may be denoted as $`ik`$ and it is seen to be a partial order between the locally finite open covers of $`X`$ in $``$, or their associated finitary substitutes in $`𝒦`$. Intuitively, the procedure of ‘refinining’ an open cover $`𝒰_i`$ to a finer $`𝒰_j`$ ($`ij`$), corresponds to adding more and finer or ‘smaller’ open subsets of $`X`$ to the open cover $`𝒰_i`$ to obtain $`𝒰_j`$, thus, in a way, it represents the employment of higher power of resolution in operations of determination of the topological structure of $`X`$666We will return to this issue at the end of section 5 and in section 6..

The net $``$ of finite open covers of $`X`$ provides the basis for the definition of $`𝒦`$ as an inverse-system (Sorkin, 1991). For every pair $`𝒰_i`$ and $`𝒰_j`$ in $``$ (or the corresponding pair of posets in $`𝒦`$), with $`𝒰_i𝒰_j`$ (or $`F_iF_j`$), one defines a map $`f_{ij}:F_jF_i`$, which is seen to be a unique continuous surjection.

The central result from (Sorkin, 1991) is that the inverse system $`𝒦`$ ‘converges’ to $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ at the (inverse) limit of maximum resolution (ie, formally, as $`n\mathrm{}`$) of the finite open covers of $`X`$ in $``$. In particular, $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ is essentially $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$-homeomorphic to $`X`$, so that, effectively, the maximally refined finitary substitute of $`X`$ is topologically indistinguishable from (or equivalent to) it. This description of $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ as being ‘essentially a homeomorphism’ between $`X`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$, pertains to the fact, shown in (Sorkin, 1991), that $`X`$ is $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$-embedded in $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ as a dense subset. Then, Sorkin shows how to ‘discard’ from $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ the collection of its ‘extra-points’ $`y`$ that are ‘infinitely close’ to those of $`f_{\mathrm{}}(X)`$, thus establish $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ as a homeomorphism between $`\widehat{F}_{\mathrm{}}=F_{\mathrm{}}/\{y\}`$ and $`X`$777For the purposes of the present paper, we need not explain Sorkin’s proof of the inverse limit in more detail. A brief outline of the basic steps of the proof is given in section 5 where we argue that $`S_n(F_n)`$ in $`𝒩`$ converge to $`S(X)`$..

The last result from (Sorkin, 1991) of interest to us here is that the tiling of $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ by the open sets in a particular covering $`𝒰_i`$ of $`X`$, symbolized as $`f_i\mathrm{}^1(x)`$ ($`xF_i`$)888Where $`f_i\mathrm{}:F_{\mathrm{}}F_i`$ can be thought of as the continuous finite approximation of $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ by $`F_i`$., becomes arbitrarily fine as $`i\mathrm{}`$. In other words, the open sets get ‘smaller’ and ‘smaller’ as the ‘experimenter’ employs higher power to resolve $`X`$ into its points (ie, ideally, to determine or localize individual spacetime events in $`X`$).

In the next section we present a space $`S`$ that, similarly to $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$, is (locally) homeomorphic to $`X`$.

## 3 $`𝐒(𝐗)`$-The Sheaf of Continuous Functions over $`𝐗`$

We want to organize the observables on the bounded spacetime region $`X`$ of the continuous manifold $`M`$ into a space $`S`$ that, for all practical purposes, is topologically indistinguishable from (ie, homeomorphic to) $`X`$. If we succeed in this, then the information about the topology of spacetime encoded in the points of $`X`$, which serve as the ‘carriers of its topology’999See section 6 for the discussion of this physical role of the points of $`X`$. (Sorkin, 1991), will be the same as that of our observations of them, at least locally101010That is to say, ‘about every point-event $`x`$ in $`X`$’., and our description of the topological relations between spacetime events will be the same as that of the topological relations between our observations of them. Thus, the problem of localization of spacetime events will be effectively translated to the more operationally sound problem of localization of our observations of them111111Again, see the concluding section 6 for more discussion on this..

Now, there is such an organization of the continuous functions on $`X`$ called a sheaf. Below, we first introduce the notion of a presheaf $`P(X)`$ of functions defined on the open sets of $`X`$, then we endow this presheaf with a topology that is locally equivalent (ie, homeomorphic) to that of $`X`$. This process converts the presheaf $`P(X)`$ into the sheaf $`S(X)`$ of (germs of) continuous functions on $`X`$ and is called ‘sheafification’. Only the basic definitions from sheaf theory, that will help us define finitary spacetime sheaves in the next section, are given below. For a more detailed treatment of sheaves, the reader is referred to (Bredon, 1967).

A presheaf $`P`$ on our region $`X`$ of the continuous spacetime manifold $`M`$ is an assignment to each open subset $`U`$ of $`X`$ of a set $`P(U)`$ and to each pair $`U`$, $`V`$ of open subsets of $`X`$ of a ‘restriction map’ $`\rho _{U,V}:P(V)P(U)`$, so that: $`\rho _{U,U}=id`$, and $`\rho _{U,V}\rho _{V,W}=\rho _{U,W}`$, with $`id`$ the identity map and $`UVWX`$. One may think of the presheaf $`P(X)`$ as collections of functions defined on open subsets of $`X`$ which $`\rho `$-reduce to one another when their respective domains of definition are nested by inclusion121212This nesting by inclusion of the open subsets of $`X`$ is a partial order on the collection of all open subsets of $`X`$..

To sheafify or ‘topologize’ the presheaf $`P(X)`$ to the sheaf $`S(X)`$, we embed each $`P(U)`$ in the presheaf to the collection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,S)`$ of sections of continuous functions on $`UX`$ by the map $`\sigma _U:P(U)\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,S)`$, that is to say, in some sense we select from $`P(U)`$ the continuous maps on $`U`$. $`\sigma _U`$ commutes with the $`\rho `$-restrictions of open sets. Then, for every $`x`$ in $`X`$ we define the equivalence relation $`\stackrel{x}{}`$ between the elements of the sets $`P(U)`$ and $`P(V)`$ ($`UV\mathrm{}`$) as follows

$$f\stackrel{x}{}g,(fP(U),gP(V))\rho _{W,UV}(f)=\rho _{W,UV}(g),(xWUV).$$

With the definition of $`\stackrel{x}{}`$, one may define the stalk of the sheaf $`S`$ over $`x`$ as the following equivalence class of continuous functions at $`x`$

$$S_x:=\{P(U)|xU\}/\stackrel{x}{}\stackrel{}{lim}\{P(U)|xU\},$$

with $`\stackrel{}{lim}`$ denoting ‘direct limit’131313This limit effectively yields the ‘smallest’ class of functions in the presheaf $`P`$ over the ‘finest’ neighborhood of $`xX`$ (that is also included in both $`U`$ and $`V`$). This direct limit effectively corresponds to maximum localization/resolution of $`S(X)`$ into its stalks $`S_x`$ over the points $`x`$ of $`X`$, and it is dual to the inverse limit procedure employed to resolve $`X`$ into its points $`x`$ in (Sorkin, 1991)-read the physical significance of finitary spacetime sheaves in section 6.. As a non-topologized set, the sheaf $`S(X)`$ may be expressed as a disjoint union (or direct sum) of its stalks $`S(X)=_{xX}S_X`$141414Thus, in some sense, the stalks $`S_x`$ of $`S(X)`$ are its ‘points’, like the $`x`$ in $`X`$-see last footnote and read the physical significance of finitary spacetime sheaves in section 6..

We may now endow $`S`$ with the following topology $`𝒯`$: let $`f`$ be a member of the presheaf $`P(U)`$ and $`x`$ a point in $`U`$, then the germ of $`f`$ at $`x`$, $`[f]_x`$, is the $`\stackrel{x}{}`$-equivalence class of $`f`$. A basis for the topology of $`S`$ consists of open sets of the following sort: $`(x,[f]_x)`$ ($`xU`$).

Now, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,S)`$ above is the set of continuous sections of the sheaf $`S(X)`$ over its open subset $`U`$, that is to say, the set of continuous maps $`s:US`$ such that, locally (ie, point-wise in $`X`$), they map each point $`x`$ in $`X`$ to (an element $`[f]_x`$ of) the stalk $`S_x`$ over it. Also, the selection $`\sigma _U`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,S)`$ of the map $`f`$ in $`P(U)`$ above reduces locally to the germ of $`f`$ at $`x`$, that is: $`\sigma _U(f)(x)=[f]_xS_x`$ $`(xU)`$. It follows that, as a topological space $`𝒯(S)`$, the sheaf $`S(X)`$ is generated by the (germs of) sections of the continuous maps on $`X`$, so that one can easily show that the ‘projection map’ $`\pi :S(X)X`$, given locally by $`\pi (x,[f]_x)=x`$, is a local homeomorphism; hence, the slogan that ‘a sheaf is a local homeomorphism’. Equivalently, one can verify that every (germ of a) section of a continuous map in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,S)`$ is also such a local homeomorphism of $`X`$ to $`S(X)`$151515Hence the equivalent slogan that ‘a sheaf is its sections’., so that for such a section $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,S)`$, the composition of $`s`$ with $`\pi `$ corresponds to the identity map $`id:S(X)|_US(X)|_U`$ (ie, $`s\pi id_{S(X)|_U}s\pi ^1`$), where $`S(X)|_U`$ is the restriction of the sheaf $`S(X)`$ to the open subset $`U`$ of $`X`$161616We may add here that usually the stalks $`S_xS(X)`$ are assumed to have some kind of algebraic structure, so that the algebraic operations that define it respect the ‘horizontal continuity’ of the base space $`X`$ (ie, they satisfy ‘compatibility conditions’ with the topology of the underlying space $`X`$). It must be noted that the continuous functions on $`X`$ form indeed an algebra, the prototype being $`C^0(X,\text{ }\text{ }\text{C})`$-the algebra of complex valued continuous functions on $`X`$. It is tacitly assumed that the operations in $`C^0(X,\text{ }\text{ }\text{C})`$ respect the base topology in a sheaf of such algebras over $`X`$. In the present paper we are not interested in the algebraic structure of the stalks of the (finitary) sheaves. In section 6 however, we mention finitary spacetime sheaves whose stalks have some specific algebraic structure of special importance to the physical situation that they are employed to model..

In the next section we define finitary spacetime sheaves $`S_n(F_n)`$ as the finitary substitutes of the continuous sheaf $`S(X)`$ in a way analogous to how the $`F_n`$s were seen to be the locally finite poset substitutes of the continuous topological space $`X`$ in (Sorkin, 1991) and section 2.

## 4 Constructive Definition of $`𝐒_𝐧(𝐅_𝐧)`$

A point in $`X`$ (ie, a spacetime event) corresponds to an ideal determination of location in spacetime-an ideal measurement of the locus of an event. A more pragmatic and operationally sound model of spacetime measurements, one taking into account their actual ‘roughness’ or ‘approximate character’, or even the ‘fuzziness’ due to the uncontrollable perturbations that such realistic acts of measurement inflict on spacetime, is that they, at least, determine open sets in $`X`$ (Sorkin, 1995, Raptis and Zapatrin, 2000). Since points in $`X`$ serve as the ‘carriers of the spacetime topology’ (Sorkin, 1991)171717See section 6., the aforementioned pragmatic determinations of events by open sets of $`X`$ effectively correspond to ‘approximations of its continuous topology’. Thus, the latter may be thought of as the ideal limit-topology an experimenter determines at his (also ideal !) maximum power of resolution of spacetime into its finest/‘smallest’ open sets containing its points. This was essentially the moral of section 2.

Now our main physical motivation for defining finitary spacetime sheaves $`S_n`$ for every finitary approximation $`F_n`$ of the continuous topology of $`X`$, is to similarly approximate the sheaf $`S`$ of continuous functions on $`X`$, and effectively recover it at the limit of maximum resolution into its ‘ultra-local elements’ that in the previous section were seen to be its stalks $`S_x`$ over the points $`x`$ in its base space $`X`$. As we saw in the last section, the stalks of $`S`$ over the points of $`X`$ consist of the germs of continuous functions on $`X`$. Thus, the main idea is to define our finitary sheaves $`S_n(F_n)`$ in such a way that their stalks consist of ‘gross observables’ that are continuous over the ‘rough’ open subsets of a finite cover $`𝒰_n`$ of $`X`$ and that, in the limit of maximum resolution of the $`𝒰_n`$s to $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ as in section 2, they reduce to the $`S_x`$ of $`S(X)`$. This (inverse) limit will be the subject of the next section.

The finitary spacetime sheaf $`S_n`$, associated with the locally finite open cover $`𝒰_n`$ of $`X`$, is defined as follows: take a finitary open cover $`𝒰_n`$ of $`X`$. Recall from section 2 that $`\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$ denotes the following equivalence relation between points $`x`$ and $`y`$ of $`X`$

$$x\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}y(x\mathrm{\Lambda }(y))(y\mathrm{\Lambda }(x));\mathrm{\Lambda }(X):=\{U𝒰_n|xU\},$$

according to which, the poset finitary substitute $`F_n`$ of $`X`$ with respect to its locally finite open cover $`𝒰_n`$, is defined by the quotient $`F_n:=X/\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$ and consists of equivalence classes $`[x]`$ of points $`xX`$. Then, force the following ‘collapse’ equivalence relation between the stalks $`S_x=\{[f]_x\}`$ of $`S(X)`$ over the $`x`$ in $`X`$, induced by the $`\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$ equivalence relation between them, as

$$x\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}y[f]_x\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}[f]_y,$$

where we have effectively identified the germs of continuous functions in the stalks $`S_x`$ and $`S_y`$ of $`S(X)`$ over the $`\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$-equivalent points $`x`$ and $`y`$ in $`X`$181818Note that all our definitions are implemented ‘point-wise in $`X`$’. As noted earlier, we hold to the primitive intuition that the points of $`X`$ are ‘the carriers of its topology’-the basic tenet of point set topology (read the physical motivation in section 6 for a ‘physical justification’ of this primitive intuition).. This $`\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$-identification (equivalence relation) of the stalks of $`S(X)`$ has the following physical interpretation: for point-events in $`X`$ that are $`\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$-indistinguishable at the power of resolution employed to analyze it by $`𝒰_n`$, one may use any of the germs of the continuous observables from $`S(X)`$, residing in the stalks over them, in order to describe their ‘local topological relations’191919Again, read section 6 for more on this..

Then, like the $`F_n`$s, we define the corresponding finitary sheaf $`S_n(F_n)`$, as the following equivalence class of stalks in $`S(X)`$

$$S_n(F_n):=S(X)/\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}=\underset{[x]F_n}{}S_{[x]}.$$

It is plain to see that the finitary sheaves $`S_n(F_n)`$ inherit the poset $`T_0`$-topology of their corresponding finitary substitutes $`F_n`$ as follows

$$[x][y]F_n[f]_{[x]}[f]_{[y]}S_n(F_n),$$

with the partial order in $`S_n(F_n)`$ pending a bit of further explanation. This explanation can be drawn straightforwardly by considering the following ‘commutative diagram’

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& X\stackrel{f_n}{}F_n& \\ & \pi ^1ss_n\pi _n^1.& \\ & S\stackrel{\widehat{f}_n}{}S_n& \end{array}$$

where $`s_n\pi _n^1`$ is the ‘local homeomorphism’ from $`F_n`$ to $`S_n`$ that we are searching for. The diagram shows that, as a map: $`s_n=\widehat{f}_n\pi ^1f_n^1`$, where $`f_n^1`$ is the inverse of the bijective correspondence between the smallest open subsets $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\}`$ containing the points of $`X`$ with respect to its locally finite open covering $`𝒰_n`$ and the $`\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$-equivalence classes of points of $`X`$ in $`F_n`$202020Defined in section 2 as the map $`f_n:𝒯_nF_n`$. $`f_n`$ as a map from $`X`$ to $`F_n`$ is a continuous surjection, but as a map from $`𝒯_n`$ to $`F_n`$ it is a homeomorphism (ie, a bijective continuous map whose inverse is also continuous)., $`\pi ^1s`$ is the local homeomorphism from $`X`$ to $`S`$ as defined in the previous section which, in terms of the corresponding smallest open neighborhoods $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ of points $`x`$ in $`X`$ with respect to $`𝒰_n`$, reads: $`s:\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }(x),S)`$, and $`\widehat{f}_n`$ is the one-to-one map defined by the equivalence relation $`\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$ between the stalks of $`S`$ with respect to $`𝒰_n`$. Thus, as the partial order $`xy`$ (or $`[x][y]`$) in $`F_n`$ stands (by definition) for $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)`$212121And it literally stands for the convergence of the constant sequence $`x`$ to $`y`$ (Sorkin, 1991)., $`[f]_{[x]}[f]_{[y]}`$ in $`S_n`$ is simply interpreted as the following set-theoretic inclusion in $`S`$: $`[f]_{[x]}\{[f]_{\mathrm{\Lambda }([y])}\}=\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Lambda }(y))=S_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)}=_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)}S_x`$-the restriction of $`S(X)`$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)X`$. All in all, $`s_n:F_nS_n`$ is a local homeomorphism, because, by construction, it is one-to-one and (locally) preserves the $`T_0`$ order-topology of both $`F_n`$ and $`S_n`$.

This completes the definition of the finitary sheaf $`S_n`$ over the locally finite poset substitute $`F_n`$ of $`X`$. In the next section we argue that, as the inverse system $`𝒦=<F_n>`$ converges to $`X`$, so its derivative $`𝒩=<S_n(F_n)>`$ converges to $`S(X)`$.

## 5 The Inverse Limit $`𝐒(𝐗)`$ of $`<𝐒_𝐧(𝐅_𝐧)>`$

In this section we present briefly the basic definitions and follow in little detail the main steps in Sorkin’s proof of the ‘convergence’ of the inverse system $`𝒦`$ of finitary substitutes $`F_n`$ and the maps $`f_{ij}`$ between them to a space $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ that is essentially homeomorphic to $`X`$, and apply it for the proof of a similar ‘convergence’ of the inverse system $`𝒩`$ of the finitary sheaves of the previous section and certain continuous surjections $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}`$ between them, to a limit space $`S_{\mathrm{}}(F_{\mathrm{}})`$ that is effectively homeomorphic to $`S(X)`$. The essential point to mention is that, since our constructive definition of the finitary sheaves $`S_n`$ in the previous section followed precisely, point-wise in $`X`$, the steps of the constructive definition of their respective domains $`F_n`$ in section 2, so that both $`F_n`$ and $`S_n`$ have the same poset-topology, one expects the proof of the convergence of $`𝒩`$ to $`S(X)`$ to be effectively the same as that of $`𝒦`$ to $`X`$ given in (Sorkin, 1991). Thus, our proof of the latter convergence only highlights the important definitions and proof-steps given by Sorkin (1991), referring the reader to it for more details.

The first thing from (Sorkin, 1991) that we mention is that ‘convergence’ of $`𝒦`$ does not pertain to the usual notion of a ‘limit’ for its terms, because for that, a topology on the set of all topologies on $`X`$ would have to exist, which is not the case. Rather, $`𝒦`$ is defined as an inverse system possessing an inverse limit.

The terms in $`𝒦`$ are the finitary substitutes of $`X`$ corresponding to the net $``$ of locally finite open covers of $`X`$, together with unique continuous surjections $`f_{ij}:F_jF_i,(ij)`$222222The uniqueness of the continuous $`f_{ij}`$s follows from the universal mapping theorem for $`T_0`$ topological spaces and the assumption that $`ij`$ (Sorkin, 1991). between them. Thus, the inverse system $`𝒩`$ is defined in the same way as $`𝒦`$, though the continuous surjections between the finitary sheaves in it are now denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}`$ ($`ij`$)232323The ‘finer’ relation $`S_iS_j`$ means in this case that the poset topology $`𝒯(S_i)`$ is a subtopology of $`𝒯(S_j)`$, like for their corresponding finitary substitutes..

As the inverse system $`𝒦=<F_j,f_{ij}>`$ is seen to possess an inverse limit $`(F_{\mathrm{}},f_i\mathrm{})`$ as $`j\mathrm{}`$, with $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ a $`T_0`$ topological space like all the finite terms in $`𝒦`$242424Again, the proof is again via the universal mapping property of the $`f_{ij}`$s. (Sorkin, 1991), so does the inverse system $`𝒩=<S_j(F_j),\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}>`$. The limit sheaf space $`S_{\mathrm{}}(F_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a $`T_0`$ topological space, since all the finite terms $`S_n(F_n)`$ in $`𝒩`$ are $`T_0`$ posets.

The reader is referred to a series of lemmas in (Sorkin, 1991) that establish that the inverse limit space $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the inverse system $`𝒦`$ is a non-Hausdorff space252525A topological space $`X`$ is said to be Hausdorff, or satisfying the $`T_2`$ axiom of separation of point-set topology, if for every pair of distinct points $`x`$ and $`y`$ in it, there exist open neighborhoods $`N(x)`$ and $`N(y)`$ about them, such that $`N(x)N(y)=\mathrm{}`$. that contains $`X`$ as a dense subset. Since, as we noted earlier, the definitions and constructions for the terms in the inverse system $`𝒩`$ are identical, being implemented point-wise in $`X`$, with those in $`𝒦`$ of (Sorkin, 1991), we directly infer that the lemmas mentioned above also hold in our scheme, so that we may quote directly their result: the inverse limit $`S_{\mathrm{}}(F_{\mathrm{}})`$ of $`𝒩`$ is a non-Hausdorff space that contains $`S(X)`$ as a dense subset. The latter means essentially that for every stalk $`S_y`$ over $`yF_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the limit sheaf $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ over $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$, there is a stalk $`S_x`$ in $`f_{\mathrm{}}(S(X))`$ ‘infinitely close’ to it262626One should read the lemmas in (Sorkin, 1991) that establish this ‘infinite closeness’ relation between points in $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{}}(X)`$, and convince oneself that they also hold, point-wise, in our sheaf-theoretic scheme as well..

Next, we mention a further lemma in (Sorkin, 1991) that establishes that if $`X`$ is $`T_1`$ and the previous lemmas for the denseness of $`X`$ in $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ also hold, then $`f_{\mathrm{}}(X)`$ constitute the points of $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ that are closed in its topology. We apply it to our situation and state that the image set $`f_{\mathrm{}}(S(X))`$ in $`S_{\mathrm{}}(F_{\mathrm{}})`$ consists of the closed stalks in the latter’s topology. We refer again the reader to (Sorkin, 1991) to verify that $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$, and in extenso our $`S_{\mathrm{}}(F_{\mathrm{}})`$, is non-Hausdorff; moreover, one can ‘delete’ its extra-points, thus render $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ a homeomorphism between $`S(X)`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{}}(F_{\mathrm{}})`$.

Finally, we mention the usefulness for the physical interpretation of the finitary spacetime sheaves $`S_n(F_n)`$ as finite approximations of $`S(X)`$ in the next section, (the sheaf-theoretic analogue of Sorkin’s proof) that the open subsets $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i\mathrm{}^1(S_{[x]})`$ ($`S_{[x]}S_i(F_i)`$) tiling $`S_{\mathrm{}}(F_{\mathrm{}})`$ become arbitrarily fine, or ‘small’ as $`j\mathrm{}`$ (Sorkin, 1991)272727See end of section 2.. Thus, refining the finitary sheaves in $`𝒩`$ effectively amounts to better localizations or approximations of the observables residing in $`S_xS(X)`$282828Read next section..

## 6 Physical Significance and a Future Application of the $`𝐒_𝐧`$s

If we consider a net $`=(\{𝒰_n\},)`$ of locally finite open covers of $`X`$, with $`𝒰_i𝒰_j`$ denoting the relation ‘finer’ between its elements as defined in section 2292929Roughly, $`𝒰_j`$ has more and ‘smaller’ open subsets of $`X`$ than $`𝒰_i`$., then as shown in (Sorkin, 1991) and briefly discussed above, ‘in the limit of infinite resolution of $`X`$ into its ‘smallest’ open neighborhoods (in $`𝒰_{\mathrm{}}`$) about its points, $`X`$ is recovered up to homeomorphism’, that is to say, formally: $`F_{\mathrm{}}(𝒰_{\mathrm{}}):=lim_n\mathrm{}F_n(𝒰_n)`$ is homeomorphic to $`X`$. Thus, finitary substitutes are regarded as sound finite approximations of continuous topologies (Sorkin, 1991), whereby a ‘rough’303030The epithets ‘fuzzy’, ‘blurry’, or ‘foamy’ may be regarded as alternative synonyms to ‘rough’. determination of a point in $`X`$ is modelled after an open neighborhood about it (Sorkin, 1991, 1995).

Now, the transcription of the problem ‘$`F_n`$ as approximations of $`X`$’ to ‘$`S_n(F_n)`$ as approximations of $`S(X)`$’ that is the essence of the present paper, changes focus from ‘approximate localization/local determination (measurement) of points in $`X`$’, to ‘approximate localization/local determination (measurement) of continuous functions over $`X`$’, thus from a physical point of view, when $`X`$ is taken to be a bounded region of the spacetime manifold, from ‘localization of events’, to ‘localization of observables of events’. In this paper, as it was mentioned earlier, the continuous topology of $`X`$ is regarded as its sole physically significant property ‘carried by its points’, thus the continuous functions on it adequately qualify as ‘spacetime observables of events’. This attribute of points as ‘carrying the topology of $`X`$’ can be realized by requiring that every physical space $`X`$ is a $`T_0`$ topological space (Sorkin, 1991). The relation $`\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$ between events in $`X`$ is physically interpreted as ‘indistinguishability of events at the finite power of resolution of $`X`$ corresponding to $`𝒰_n`$’, while $`\stackrel{𝒰_n}{}`$ between the observables residing in the stalks of $`S(X)`$, as ‘indistinguishability of the observables of events at the finite power of resolution of $`S(X)`$ corresponding to $`𝒰_n`$’.

The posets corresponding to the locally finite substitutes $`F_n`$ of $`X`$ are known to have an equivalent (ie, functorial) representation as simplicial complexes obtained from the nerves of the covering $`𝒰_n`$ (Alexandrov, 1956, Raptis and Zapatrin, 2000) which, in turn, are categorically equivalent to incidence Rota algebras associated with them (Raptis and Zapatrin, 2000, Zapatrin, 2000)313131That is to say, the category of finitary posets/order morphisms, is functorial to that of simplicial complexes/simplicial mappings, which, in turn, is ‘anti-functorial’ to that of Rota algebras/Rota homomorphisms. The latter means that, since the Rota incidence algebras associated with finitary posets are objects dual to them (Raptis and Zapatrin, 2000), there is a contravariant functor between their respective categories. Thus, while finitary posets constitute the inverse system $`𝒦`$ in (Sorkin, 1991) and above, their associated incidence algebras may be organized into a ‘direct system’ having a direct limit, much like the finitary sheaves $`S_n(F_n)`$ above were seen to have a direct limit space isomorphic to the stalk $`S_x`$ of $`S(X)`$.. Observables too are in a certain sense dual to events323232Intuitively they are dual, for the pairing of an observable $`f`$ with a point-event $`x`$ produces a measurable number $`f(x)`$(ie, the value of the ‘field’ $`f`$ at the ‘test-event’ $`x`$). Thus, in some sense, $`x`$ is like a state of $`X`$, while the action of $`f`$ on it, $`f(x)`$, is some sort of measurement of the property $`f`$ of $`X`$ at $`x`$ (here, its continuous topology). Evidence for this duality is the mathematical duality of the notions of inverse and direct limit by which the local (point-like) elements of $`X`$ and $`S(X)`$ (ie, $`x`$ and $`S_x`$) were defined above, respectively. See also previous footnote.. In (Raptis and Zapatrin, 2000) it was found that the Rota incidence algebra $`R_n`$ associated with a particular finitary substitute $`F_n`$ is also a discrete differential manifold in the sense of (Dimakis and Müller-Hoissen, 1999). Thus, not only the reticular analogues of the continuous ($`C^0`$) functions on $`X`$ are encoded in a finitary sheaf $`R_n`$ of Rota algebras over the $`F_n`$, but also a discrete version of the smooth ($`C^{\mathrm{}}`$) ones333333Although, our study in the present paper concentrates solely on the continuous (ie, $`C^0`$) structure of spacetime, not its differential.. Hence, the conjecture is that at the maximum resolution $`𝒰_{\mathrm{}}`$ of a bounded region $`X`$ of a smooth spacetime manifold $`M`$, the Rota algebras $`R_n`$ associated with the locally finite posets $`F_n`$, $`R_n(F_n)`$, are expected to ‘yield’ $`(X,,\mathrm{\Omega })`$343434$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being the module of differential forms over the algebra of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth functions on $`X`$, ie, $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\mathrm{\Omega }^0(C^{\mathrm{}}(X))\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{}`$-the flat sheaf of sections of smooth differential forms over $`X`$ (ie, the smooth spacetime observables)353535In (Mallios, 1998), this structure is called the ‘smooth and flat differential triad’. The stalks of this sheaf are isomorphs of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the Kähler-Cartan differential $``$ effects (stalk-wise) vector sheaf morphisms of the following sort: $`:(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^n)(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1})`$; where $`(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^n)`$ is the vector subsheaf of $`(X,,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ having as stalks isomorphs of the vector space $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ of $`n`$-forms, which is a vector subspace of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.. Also, a quantum interpretation has been given to the Rota incidence algebras $`R_n`$ associated with the finitary substitutes $`F_n`$ of $`X`$ (Raptis and Zapatrin, 2000). Accordingly, the limit space of a system of $`R_n(F_n)`$s is $`(X,,\mathrm{\Omega })`$-the classical smooth spacetime manifold with differential forms attached, and it was interpreted there as Bohr’s correspondence limit structure of a quantal substratum of finitary incidence algebras.

In (Raptis, 2000), a causal interpretation to the quantal incidence algebras $`R_n(F_n)`$ of (Raptis and Zapatrin, 2000) was given. The resulting structures were called ‘quantum causal sets’-a quantal version of the causal sets of (Bombelli et al., 1987). It follows from the discussion above that a finitary sheaf of quantum causal sets may be studied as a quantal and locally finite substitute of the causal relations between events in a bounded region of a smooth Lorentzian spacetime manifold. As in (Dimakis and Müller-Hoissen, 1999) a Riemannian metric connection was studied on a discrete differential manifold, so we should be able to define a non-flat pseudo-Riemannian connection on the finitary sheaf of quantum causal sets by using powerful sheaf-theoretic results from (Mallios, 1998)363636These results were obtained for a paracompact and Hausdorff topological base space $`X`$ of the vector sheaves considered there. A space that is paracompact is akin to one that is finitary in our and Sorkin’s (1991) sense of the latter denomination (ie, that it admits a locally finite open cover). Our $`X`$, which is such a finitary topological space, was assumed to be bounded (ie, having compact closure), and in the usual topological parlance it is called ‘relatively compact’. $`X`$ was also seen to be $`T_1`$, but not $`T_2`$ (ie, not Hausdorff). If we relax ‘paracompactness’ to ‘relative compactness’ and $`T_2`$ to $`T_1`$ for $`X`$, the essential results of Abstract Differential Geometry via Vector Sheaves still apply to our case (Mallios, private communication).. It is expected that in the Bohr correspondence limit373737In the sense of (Raptis and Zapatrin, 2000). of an inverse system of finitary sheaves of quantum causal sets, the smooth (region of a) Lorentzian manifold, together with the smooth fields and a non-flat pseudo-Riemannian metric connection $`D`$ on it383838Interpreted as the classical gravitational potential., will emerge. Then, the underlying finitary sheaves of quantum causal sets may be regarded as sound models of a reticular and quantal version of gravity393939A ‘finitary quantum gravity’ so to speak.. This project however, is still under development (Mallios and Raptis, 2000).

We conclude this paper by discussing its ‘general physico-philosophical moral’. By considering the finitary sheaves approximating $`S(X)`$ rather than directly the finitary spaces approximating $`X`$, we regard our observations of spacetime events as being more fundamental than the events themselves. This is the main lesson for physics to learn by applying differential geometry in the inherently algebraic language of sheaf theory, namely, that the physically significant concepts are less those about the ‘geometrical’ background spacetime $`X`$ and more those about our observations of this background which are organized into sheaves (of algebras) over $`X`$ (Mallios, 1998). This general principle that underlies the Abstract Differential Geometry via Vector Sheaves theory developed in (Mallios, 1998), is well in accord with the general philosophy of quantum theory holding that inert, background, geometrical ‘state spaces’, such as spacetime, ‘dissolve away’, so that what remains and is of physical significance, the ‘physically real’ so to speak, is (the algebraic mechanism of) our own actions of observing ‘it’ (Finkelstein, 1996)404040To parallel Saunders Mac Lane’s mathematical motto ‘Every good function is a section of a sheaf’ (Mac Lane, 1986) in physics: ‘Every physically significant action is a section of the sheaf of our operations of observation of the system in focus’..

## Acknowledgments

The incessant support: spiritual, moral, technical and material, of Anastasios Mallios, is wholeheartedly acknowledged. Exchanges on finitary spacetime substitutes during a year of collaboration with Roman Zapatrin, are also greatly appreciated. Finally, this paper was written with the help of a post-doctoral research fellowship in mathematics from the University of Pretoria.

## References

Alexandrov, P. S. (1956). Combinatorial Topology, vol. 1, Greylock, Rochester, New York.

Bredon, G. E. (1967). Sheaf Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Bombelli, L., Lee, J., Meyer, D. and Sorkin, R. D. (1987). Physical Review Letters, 59, 521.

Dimakis, A. and Müller-Hoissen, F. (1999). Journal of Mathematical Physics, 40, 1518.

Finkelstein, D. (1996). Quantum Relativity, Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.

Mac Lane, S. (1986). Mathematics: Form and Function, Springer Verlag, New York.

Mallios, A. (1998). Geometry of Vector Sheaves, vols. 1-2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Mallios, A. and Raptis, I. (2000). Finitary Spacetime Sheaves of Quantum Causal Sets: Curving Quantum Causality, in preparation.

Raptis, I. (2000). International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 39, 1233.

Raptis, I. and Zapatrin, R. R. (2000). International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 39, 1.

Sorkin, R. D. (1991). International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 30, 923.

Sorkin, R. D. (1995). A Specimen of Theory Construction from Quantum Gravity in The Creation of Ideas in Physics, ed. Leplin, J., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Zapatrin, R. R. (2000). Incidence algebras of simplicial complexes, paper submitted to Pure Mathematics and its Applications, e-print math.CO/0001065.


format: text

text:
# References

FTUV-01-0216

IFIC/01-05

TPR-01-01

Wandzura-Wilczek approximation from generalized rotational invariance

I.V. Anikin$`^{a,b,c}`$ , O.V. Teryaev$`^{a,c}`$

a Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany

bDepartament de Fìsica Teòrica and Institut de Fìsica Corpuscular, Universitat de València-CSIC E-46100 Burjassot (València), Spain
c Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Russia

## Abstract

We present the alternative way of derivation of the Wandzura-Wilczek relations between the kinematical twist-3 and twist-2 functions, parameterizing hadronic matrix element in two-photon processes $`\gamma ^{}\pi \gamma \pi `$ and $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$. The new equations, providing the independence of the physical cross-sections on the choice of the light-cone direction, are suggested and explored. The amplitude of $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ up to genuine twist-3 accuracy is found.

Introduction. The investigation of the two-photon amplitudes of Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS) or virtual photon production of meson pairs, up to $`1/Q`$ corrections (twist-3 terms) provides one of the interesting lines of inquiry. Indeed, these corrections ensure the electromagnetic gauge invariance of the DVCS amplitude with the sizeable transverse components of the momentum transfer. This problem was discussed in the pioneering paper  and the phenomenological solution was presented in . The field-theoretical treatment was suggested in  and developed in . From the other side, the study of these corrections provides the possibility to consider the delicate effects of factorization .

It was shown ,  that, if the dynamical (genuine) high twist terms due to the physical transverse components of gluonic fields are neglected, the parameterizing functions (the skewed, or generalized, parton distribution) of kinematical twist-3 can be related to the parameterizing functions of twist-2 by means of the Wandzura-Wilczek (WW) relations. Their general structure was investigated, and it was demonstrated that within the WW approximation the skewed twist-3 distribution functions have the discontinuities at $`x=\pm \xi `$, which fortunately do not lead to the observable consequences at the level of twist-3 accuracy. However, the general relevance of these effects (and, in particular, their possible appearance in the genuine twist case, for both DVCS and meson pair production channels) is still obscure. To some extent, this may be due to the lack of the physical interpretation of the WW approximation, essentially based on the involved treatment of the light-cone operators with total derivatives in the coordinate representation.

In this note we present the alternative derivation of the WW relations for two-photon processes based on the Ellis-Furmanski-Petronzio (EFP)  factorization scheme. In the framework of EFP scheme, the separation of the kinematical and dynamical twist-3 effects is rather physical and amounts to the taking into account the terms linear in the intrinsic transverse momentum of partons in hadrons 111This method in the case of DIS was developed by one of the authors a few years ago . As a result, we present the decomposition of parameterizing functions of twist-3 to the WW-type contribution and contribution arising from the three-particle correlators. We apply this method for the amplitude $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$. As a result, it is calculated keeping both kinematical and genuine twist-3 corrections. We found the analogs of the mentioned singularities and show that the physical amplitude at twist-3 level is not affected by them.

DVCS amplitude of pions in WW approximation. As in , we adhere the EFP factorization scheme. Neglecting the dynamical twist-3 contribution, which amounts to the keeping of the operators with transverse derivatives alone (c.f. ), being just the Fourier transform of the mentioned intrinsic transverse momentum, we are able to write the DVCS amplitude for the pion target in the following form:

$`T_{\mu \nu }^{(a)}+T_{\mu \nu }^{(b)}={\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{tr}\left\{E_{\mu \nu }(xP)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)\right\}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\mathrm{tr}\left\{E_{\mu \rho \nu }(x_1P,x_2P)\omega _{\rho \rho ^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^{}(x_1,x_2)\right\}}`$ (1)
where $`\omega _{\rho \rho ^{}}=\delta _{\rho \rho ^{}}n_\rho ^{}P_\rho `$, and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda e^{i(x+\xi )\lambda }p^{}|\psi _\alpha (\lambda n)\overline{\psi }_\beta (0)|p},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\rho ^{}(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda _1𝑑\lambda _2e^{i(x_1+\xi )\lambda _1+i(x_2x_1)\lambda _2}}`$
$`p^{}|\psi _\alpha (\lambda _1n)i\stackrel{}{^\rho ^{}}(\lambda _2n)\overline{\psi }_\beta (0)|p,`$ (2)
where $`p^{}=P+\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$, $`p=P\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=qq^{}=2\xi P+\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ and $`p(p^{})`$, $`q(q^{})`$ are the initial (final) momenta of pion and photon. The $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(a)}`$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(b)}`$ denotes the contributions from the twist-2 and twist-3 amplitudes (c.f. ).

Parameterization of hadronic matrix elements. In terms of the light-cone basis, which consists of the vectors $`P`$, $`n`$ ($`P^2=n^2=0`$ and $`Pn=1`$) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$, the parametrization of the vector and axial hadronic matrix elements (other structures do not contribute for massless quarks) can be introduced, as in . Namely 222here $`\epsilon _{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }^TPn}\epsilon _{\rho \alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }^{T\alpha }P^\beta n^\gamma `$.,

$`p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _\mu \psi (\lambda n)|p={\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑xe^{i(x+\xi )\lambda }\left\{H_1(x)P_\mu +H_3(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^T\right\},`$ (6)
$`p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{i_\rho ^T}\psi (\lambda n)|p={\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑xe^{i(x+\xi )\lambda }H_1^T(x)P_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^T,`$
$`p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \psi (\lambda n)|p={\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑xe^{i(x+\xi )\lambda }iH_A(x)\epsilon _{\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^TPn},`$
$`p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{i_\rho ^T}\psi (\lambda n)|p={\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑xe^{i(x+\xi )\lambda }iH_A^T(x)P_\mu \epsilon _{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }^TPn},`$
for the quark correlators, and ,

$`p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _\mu gA_\rho ^T(\lambda _2n)\psi (\lambda _1n)|p=`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2e^{i(x_1+\xi )\lambda _1i(x_2x_1)\lambda _2}B(x_1,x_2)P_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^T,`$
$`p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu gA_\rho ^T(\lambda _2n)\psi (\lambda _1n)|p=`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2e^{i(x_1+\xi )\lambda _1i(x_2x_1)\lambda _2}iD(x_1,x_2)P_\mu \epsilon _{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }^TPn},`$
for the quark-gluon correlators. Here we see the contributions due to the quark intrinsic transverse momentum and transverse component of the gluon field, respectively. In the WW approximation one is keeping only (6, 6), neglecting (7, 8), and in this sense it is already present in . The remaining ingredient is to express these functions in terms of the leading twist one, which can be done using the specific version of the rotational invariance.

The $`n`$-independence of DVCS amplitude. Using the parameterization (6)-(6) we write the expression for (S0.Ex1) in the form

$`T_{\mu \nu }^{(a)}+T_{\mu \nu }^{(b)}={\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{tr}\left\{E_{\mu \nu }(x)\widehat{P}\right\}H_1(x,\xi )}+`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{tr}\left\{E_{\mu \nu }(x)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^T\right\}H_3(x,\xi )}+`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{tr}\left\{E_{\mu \nu }(x)\gamma ^\rho \gamma _5\right\}iH_A(x,\xi )ϵ_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }^TPn}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\mathrm{tr}\left\{E_{\mu \rho \nu }(x_1,x_2)\widehat{P}\right\}H_1^T(x_2,\xi )\delta (x_1x_2)\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^T}+`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\mathrm{tr}\left\{E_{\mu \rho \nu }(x_1,x_2)\widehat{P}\gamma _5\right\}iH_A^T(x_2,\xi )\delta (x_1x_2)ϵ_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }^TPn}}.`$ (9)
The gauge invariance requires that the physical amplitudes are independent on the gauge-fixing parameter which, in our case, is the light-cone vector $`n`$. As it is also used to define the light-cone direction, the same is required by Lorentz invariance, which should be implemented keeping the constraints ($`n^2=0,Pn=1`$). We are therefore dealing here with a particular subgroup of the Lorentz group. The relevant symmetry may be called generalized rotational invariance, to distingush with the standard rotational invariance in a particular rest frame, and to stress its specific form in the case of generalized parton distribution, to be discussed below. One should recall that the Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule, known to be intimately related to rotational invariance, follows from the WW approximation for polaritzed DIS, and may be derived from $`n`$ independence . Note that it is rather Lorentz than gauge invariance which is crucial here, as one may consider the covariant gauge, where role of $`n`$ as a gauge-fixing vector is absent 333The new terms, proportional to $`An`$ are absorbed to the standard P-exponent of the leading twist operators in this case . Formally, this invariance can be written as

$`T_{\mu \nu }[n+\delta n]=T_{\mu \nu }[n],`$ (10)
or, equivalently,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dn_\beta }}\left\{T_{\mu \nu }^{(a)}+T_{\mu \nu }^{(b)}\right\}=0,`$ (11)
Note the essential difference with the (unpolarized) DIS case , where dependence on $`n`$ was coming only through the explicit dependence of the appearing tensor structures. Here, it comes also through the $`\xi `$ dependence of the matrix elements, so that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dn_\beta }}={\displaystyle \frac{}{n_\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}.`$ (12)
The second term does not appear also in the polarized DIS case  (where the role of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is played by the polarization vector $`S`$), as the dependence of parton distributions and correlations on $`(Sn)`$, being the analog of $`\xi `$, is absent due to the general property of the linearity of density matrix. It is this extra term, specific to the case of generalized parton distributions, which is one of the reasons to use the term ’generalized’ for this particular version of rotational invariance.

Note that the relation (11) is in some sense analogous to the renormalization group equation governing the dependence of hadronic matrix elements on the factorization scale. Indeed, the factorization scale $`\mu `$ is the unphysical auxiliary parameter required to write the physical amplitude in the factorized form. Analogously, $`n`$ is the auxiliary vector, required to specify the infinite-momentum frame. The dependence of the observable quantities on both these parameters, $`\mu `$ and $`n`$, must vanish.

Using the Ward identity, the computation of the derivative in (11) leads to the following equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dn_\beta }}\left\{T_{\mu \nu }^{(a)}+T_{\mu \nu }^{(b)}\right\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{tr}\left\{E_{\mu \nu }(x)\widehat{P}\right\}\frac{H_1(x,\xi )}{\xi }\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta }`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{tr}\left\{E_{\mu \nu }(x)\widehat{P}\right\}\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta H_3(x,\xi )}+{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{tr}\left\{E_{\mu \nu }(x)\gamma ^\rho \gamma _5\right\}iH_A(x,\xi )ϵ_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }^TP\beta }}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\mathrm{tr}\left\{\left(E_{\mu \nu }(x_1)E_{\mu \nu }(x_2)\right)\widehat{P}\right\}\frac{H_1^T(x_2,\xi )\delta (x_1x_2)}{x_1x_2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta }+`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\mathrm{tr}\left\{\left(E_{\mu \nu }(x_1)E_{\mu \nu }(x_2)\right)\gamma _\rho \gamma _5\right\}\frac{iH_A^T(x_2,\xi )\delta (x_1x_2)}{x_1x_2}ϵ_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }^TP\beta }}=0.`$
Note that we actually did not use the specific form of the hard scattering amplitude, so this relation should be valid for any hard process. Requiring the validity of this equation for arbitrary $`E_{\mu \nu }`$, we can easily derive the $`n`$-independence condition in the more simple form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_1^T(x,\xi )}{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1(x,\xi )}{\xi }}+H_3(x,\xi ),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_A^T(x,\xi )}{x}}=H_A(x,\xi ).`$ (14)
QCD equations of motion for matrix elements. Following , we write the QCD equations of motion

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(B^{(A)}(x,y)D^{(S)}(x,y)\delta (xy)H_A^T(y)\right)=`$
$`\xi H_3(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_1(x)xH_A(x),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(B^{(S)}(x,y)+\delta (xy)H_1^T(y)D^{(A)}(x,y)\right)=`$
$`xH_3(x)+\xi H_A(x),`$ (15)
where symmetrical and anti-symmetrical functions are defined as,

$`B^{(S,A)}(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(B(x,y)\pm B(y,x)\right).`$ (16)
Within the WW approximation they can been rewritten as

$`H_A^T(x,\xi )=\xi H_3(x,\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_1(x,\xi )+xH_A(x,\xi ),`$
$`H_1^T(x,\xi )=xH_3(x,\xi )+\xi H_A(x,\xi ).`$ (17)
Note that these equations of course contain the so-called total derivatives, crucial for the derivation of WW relations .

The WW relations for DVCS process. Calculating the derivative of (S0.Ex18) with respect to $`x`$ and using (S0.Ex14), we obtain the system of differential equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_+(x,\xi )}{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{}H_1(x,\xi )}{x+\xi }},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{}(x,\xi )}{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_+H_1(x,\xi )}{x\xi }},`$ (18)
where we introduced the notations:

$`_\pm H_1(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{H_1(x,\xi )}{\xi }}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{H_1(x,\xi )}{x}},`$
$`H_\pm (x,\xi )=H_3(x,\xi )\pm H_A(x,\xi ).`$ (19)
Taking into account the boundary conditions

$`H_\pm (1,\xi )=H_\pm (1,\xi )=0,`$ (20)
solution of the system (S0.Ex19) can be easily found:

$`H_+^{WW}(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x>\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_{}H_1(y,\xi )}{y+\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x<\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_{}H_1(y,\xi )}{y+\xi }},`$
$`H_{}^{WW}(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x>\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_+H_1(y,\xi )}{y\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x<\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_+H_1(y,\xi )}{y\xi }}.`$
The theta-functions appearance is due to the fact, that we are using the different boundary conditions below and above the singular points $`x=\pm \xi `$. Expressing the $`H_{3(A)}^{WW}`$functions by making use of (S0.Ex20), we have:

$`H_3^{WW}(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x>\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_{}H_1(y,\xi )}{y+\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x>\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_+H_1(y,\xi )}{y\xi }}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x<\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_{}H_1(y,\xi )}{y+\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x<\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_+H_1(y,\xi )}{y\xi }},`$
$`H_A^{WW}(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x>\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_{}H_1(y,\xi )}{y+\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x>\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_+H_1(y,\xi )}{y\xi }}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x<\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_{}H_1(y,\xi )}{y+\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Theta }(x<\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_+H_1(y,\xi )}{y\xi }}.`$
Note that a given solution completely coincide with the expressions presented in ref. , although our representation for $`H_A^{WW}`$ looks a bit more simple.

Using these results, we can now decompose the $`H_{3(A)}`$functions to the WW type part and genuine part arising from the three-particles correlators. Using (S0.Ex15) and (S0.Ex21), we obtain the following

$`H_3(x,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`H_3^{WW}(x,\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x\xi )}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(B(x,y,\xi )D(x,y,\xi )\right)+`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x+\xi )}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(B(x,y,\xi )D(x,y,\xi )\right)`$
and

$`H_A(x,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`H_A^{WW}(x,\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x\xi )}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(B(x,y,\xi )D(x,y,\xi )\right)+`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x+\xi )}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(B(x,y,\xi )D(x,y,\xi )\right).`$
Here we take into account the properties of $`B`$ and $`D`$ functions following from the $`T`$-invariance, i.e.

$`B(x,y,\xi )=B(y,x,\xi ),D(x,y,\xi )=D(y,x,\xi ).`$ (25)
We can see that the functions $`H_+`$ and $`H_{}`$ (both in WW approximation and beyond) possess the singularity at points $`\xi `$ and $`+\xi `$, respectively. Consequently, as it was mentioned in  and confirmed in , the functions $`H_3`$ and $`H_A`$ have finite jumps in these points. One can add here, that if the function $`H_1(\xi ,\xi )`$ is finite, this singularity is in fact logarithmical, and the mentioned jump means nothing more than the finite difference between two logarithmically growing values $`H_{3,A}(x\pm ϵ)`$.

From the other side, in the DVCS twist-3 amplitude we are dealing with the following combinations of $`H_+`$ and $`H_{}`$ , :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^T\left(3\xi P_\mu +Q_\mu \right)\left(H_3(x,\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{x}}H_A(x,\xi )\right),`$ (26)
which reduce to the $`H_+`$structure at $`x=\xi `$ and $`H_{}`$structure at $`x=\xi `$, and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^T\left(\xi P_\nu +Q_\nu \right)\left(H_3(x,\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{x}}H_A(x,\xi )\right),`$ (27)
which reduces to the $`H_{}`$structure at $`x=\xi `$ and $`H_+`$structure at $`x=\xi `$.

In (26) and (27) the indices $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ belong the virtual and real photons, respectively. Therefore the DVCS amplitude with the longitudinal polarization of virtual photon (26) is free from the divergences. At the same time, in the case of the transverse polarized virtual photon (27) the contribution from twist-3 amplitude to the observables is suppressed as $`1/Q^2`$ order after the contraction with the polarization vector .

$`\gamma \gamma ^{}\pi \pi `$ process. We are now passing to the consideration of $`\gamma (q^{})\gamma ^{}(q)\pi (p^{})\pi (p)`$ process, adopting the new notations for $`P=p+p^{}=q+q^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=p^{}p=\xi P+\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$. Acting as previously, we can derive the relation which is the result of independence on the choice of the gauge vector $`n`$. All the stages of derivation are the same up to the parameterization of the relevant matrix elements, known as Generalized Distribution Amplitudes (GDA) . We are suggesting here the natural set of twist-3 GDA consisting of the following ingredients:

$`p,p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _\mu \psi (\lambda n)|0={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑xe^{i\lambda x}\left\{\stackrel{~}{H}_1(x;\xi ,s)P_\mu +\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x;\xi ,s)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^T\right\},`$ (28)
$`p,p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \psi (\lambda n)|0={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑xe^{i\lambda x}i\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x;\xi ,s)\epsilon _{\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^TPn},`$ (29)
$`p,p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _\mu i\stackrel{}{_\rho ^T}\psi (\lambda n)|0={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑xe^{i\lambda x}\stackrel{~}{H}_1^T(x;\xi ,s)P_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^T`$ (30)
$`p,p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu i\stackrel{}{_\rho ^T}\psi (\lambda n)|0={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑xe^{i\lambda x}i\stackrel{~}{H}_A^T(x;\xi ,s)P_\mu \epsilon _{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }^TPn}`$ (31)
$`p,p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _\mu gA_\rho ^T(\lambda _2n)\psi (\lambda _1n)|0=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2e^{ix_1\lambda _1+i(x_2x_1)\lambda _2}\stackrel{~}{B}(x_1,x_2)P_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^T,`$ (32)
$`p,p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu gA_\rho ^T(\lambda _2n)\psi (\lambda _1n)|0=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2e^{ix_1\lambda _1+i(x_2x_1)\lambda _2}i\stackrel{~}{D}(x_1,x_2)P_\mu \epsilon _{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }^TPn}.`$ (33)
In terms of these parameterizations, the $`n`$-independence condition for a given case reads as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_1^T(x,\xi )}{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_1(x,\xi )}{\xi }}+\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x,\xi ),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_A^T(x,\xi )}{x}}=\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x,\xi ),`$ (34)
while the QCD equations of motion take the following form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(\stackrel{~}{D}^{(S)}(x,y)+\delta (xy)\stackrel{~}{H}_A^T(y)\stackrel{~}{B}^{(A)}(x,y)\right)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x,\xi )+\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x,\xi ),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(\stackrel{~}{B}^{(S)}(x,y)+\delta (xy)\stackrel{~}{H}_1^T(y)\stackrel{~}{D}^{(A)}(x,y)\right)=`$
$`\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x,\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x,\xi ),`$ (35)
so that within the WW approximation we have:

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_A^T(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x,\xi )+\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x,\xi ),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_1^T(x,\xi )=\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x,\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x,\xi ).`$ (36)
Differentiating (S0.Ex35) with respect to $`x`$ and taking into account (S0.Ex31), we can reduce the system of equations (S0.Ex31) and (S0.Ex35) to the following form 444 $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\pm `$ functions are defined in complete analogy with $`H_\pm `$ functions, see (S0.Ex20)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_+(x,\xi )}{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_1(x,\xi )}{\xi }},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(x,\xi )}{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_1(x,\xi )}{\xi }},`$ (37)
Note that we cannot now always implement zero boundary conditions for both functions due to the singularities in the r.h.s. The only possible zero boundary conditions are:

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_+(1,\xi )=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(0,\xi )=0.`$ (38)
It can be easily found that the solution takes the form 555here $`_\xi =/\xi `$

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_+^{WW}(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_\xi \stackrel{~}{H}_1(y,\xi )}{y}},`$ (39)
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}^{WW}(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_\xi \stackrel{~}{H}_1(y,\xi )}{y1}},`$ (40)
or, for $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{3(A)}^{WW}`$ functions:

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_3^{WW}(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_\xi \stackrel{~}{H}_1(y,\xi )}{y1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_\xi \stackrel{~}{H}_1(y,\xi )}{y}},`$ (41)
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_A^{WW}(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_\xi \stackrel{~}{H}_1(y,\xi )}{y1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{_\xi \stackrel{~}{H}_1(y,\xi )}{y}}.`$ (42)
These expressions are analogous to WW relations for the transverse polarized $`\rho `$-meson light-cone distribution derived by Ball and Braun . This is not surprising, as the momentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ just plays the role of the polarization vector $`ϵ_T`$. In particular, the structures $`H_+`$ and $`H_{}`$ correspond to the distributions with a definite (anti)quark spin projections, whose zero endpoint values result from their conformal properties.

We can now easily obtain the decomposition the $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{3(A)}`$functions on the WW type contribution and the three-particles contribution, as it was done above for the DVCS case. We have

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_3^{WW}(x,\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1x)}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(\stackrel{~}{B}(x,y,\xi )\stackrel{~}{D}(x,y,\xi )\right)+`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(\stackrel{~}{B}(x,y,\xi )+\stackrel{~}{D}(x,y,\xi )\right)`$
and

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_A^{WW}(x,\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1x)}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(\stackrel{~}{B}(x,y,\xi )\stackrel{~}{D}(x,y,\xi )\right)+`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y\left(\stackrel{~}{B}(x,y,\xi )+\stackrel{~}{D}(x,y,\xi )\right).`$
In (43) and (44), we used the properties of $`C`$-invariance which are the following

$`\stackrel{~}{B}(x,y,\xi )=\stackrel{~}{B}(y,x,\xi ),\stackrel{~}{D}(x,y,\xi )=\stackrel{~}{D}(y,x,\xi ).`$ (45)
We here stress again that in both cases, i.e. in the genuine expressions (43), (44) and WW approximation (41), (42), the functions $`\stackrel{~}{H}_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}`$ have, generally speaking, singularities at the points $`x=0`$ and $`x=1`$, respectively. However, if one assumes zero boundary condition for function $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1`$, required by the factorization at the leading twist level. these singularities are transformed to the non-zero finite limits at these points. They are the counterparts of the $`x=\pm \xi `$ singularities in the DVCS case. Anyway, these finite values would be sufficient to spoil factorization after the contraction with the short-distance subprocess cross-section. As in the case DVCS process, this effect can not affect the amplitude contracted with the polarization vector of the real photon.

Indeed, we can derive the expression for the $`\gamma \gamma ^{}\pi \pi `$ amplitude using the developed approach . It reads

$`T_{\mu \nu }^{\gamma \gamma ^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x(1x)}}𝒯_{\mu \nu }^{\gamma \gamma ^{}},`$
where

$`𝒯_{\mu \nu }^{\gamma \gamma ^{}}=q^2g_{\mu \nu }^T\left(2x1\right)\stackrel{~}{H}_1(x,\xi )+`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^T\left(P+q^{}\right)_\mu \left((2x1)\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x,\xi )+\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x,\xi )\right)+`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^Tq_\nu ^{}\left((2x1)\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x,\xi )\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x,\xi )\right).`$
Note that, contrary to DVCS amplitude case, the contribution of $`H_1`$ is gauge invariant by itself. This is due to the fact, that parameterization of (anti)quark momenta in terms of the vector $`P`$ makes both of them collinear and independent on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$, so that one is dealing with the physical on-shell amplitude, which is gauge invariant. At the same time, only the total contributions of new quark and quark-gluon matrix elements is gauge invariant provided the equations of motion are taken into account,

The contribution for the longitudinally polarized photon arises from the term

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^T\left(P+q^{}\right)_\mu \left((2x1)\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x,\xi )+\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x,\xi )\right),`$ (47)
which is described by the $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}`$structure at $`x=0`$ and by $`\stackrel{~}{H}_+`$structure at $`x=1`$. Let us recall that at these points $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_+`$ functions are finite. The respective contribution to the amplitude reads as

$`T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)\gamma \gamma ^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x(1x)}}\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^T\left(P+q^{}\right)_\mu \left((2x1)\stackrel{~}{H}_3(x,\xi )+\stackrel{~}{H}_A(x,\xi )\right).`$ (48)
Using (41) and (42), we substitute the $`\stackrel{~}{H}_3^{WW}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_A^{WW}`$functions in Eq. (48) which thereafter can be rewritten in the form

$`T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)\gamma \gamma ^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^T\left(P+q^{}\right)_\mu }{Q^2}}_\xi {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x\left({\displaystyle \frac{J_2(x,\xi )}{1x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{J_1(x,\xi )}{x}}\right),`$ (49)
where

$`J_1(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_1(y,\xi )}{y1}},J_2(x,\xi )={\displaystyle \underset{x}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_1(y,\xi )}{y}}.`$ (50)
After simple manipulations, we derive the following expression

$`T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)\gamma \gamma ^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^T\left(P+q^{}\right)_\mu }{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑y_\xi \stackrel{~}{H}_1(y,\xi )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(1y)}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}y}{1y}}\right),`$ (51)
which coincides with the expression in . At the same time, the genuine twist-3 contribution is new.

Conclusions. In this paper we have presented the new derivation of the WW relations between the parameterizing twist-2 and kinematical twist-3 functions. This simple approach is based on the use of the equations of motion and on the requirement of independence of the amplitudes from the gauge-fixing light-cone vector.

We have found the explicit expression for the genuine twist-3 functions for DVCS and $`\gamma \gamma ^{}2\pi `$ processes. We also have computed the amplitude of $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ including complete twist-3 corrections.

The counterparts of the singularities appearing in the DVCS case are provided by the finite values of generalized distribution amplitudes in the endpoints, which are related to their conformal properties. Therefore, one may hope that appearance of the singularities, as well as their cancellation in the physical amplitudes, have some general reasons.

We have also shown that the contributions from the three-particles correlators posses the same singularities as the WW parts which also do not contribute to the physical amplitudes at the twist-3 level.

Acknowledgments. We are thankful to V. Braun, D. Ivanov, N. Kivel, B. Pire, A. Schäfer and C. Weiss for discussions. This work has been supported in part by EC-RTN Network ESOP, Contract HPRN-CT-2000-00130, by DGESIC (Spain) under contract PB97-1401-C02-01, by DFG and by RFFI Grant 00-02-16696.


text:
# Rung-Rung Current Correlations on a 2-Leg t-J Ladder

## Abstract

We report the results of numerical calculations of rung-rung current correlations on a 2-leg $`t`$-$`J`$ ladder with $`J/t=0.35`$ for dopings $`x=0.125`$ and $`x=0.19`$. We find that the amplitude of these correlations decays exponentially. We argue that this can be understood within a bosonization framework in terms of the pinned phase variables associated with a C1SO phase with $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-like power law pairing correlations.

Variational flux-phase states are known to provide interesting low energy estimates for the ground state of the 2D Heisenberg antiferromagnet. In addition, recent calculations have found signatures of a staggered-flux phase in current vorticity correlations in lightly-doped $`t`$-$`J`$ clusters. In particular, Ivanov et. al.  found evidence for a power law decay of the staggered current vorticity for a projected $`d`$-wave variational wave function on a $`10\times 10`$ lattice and Leung  has reported staggered vorticity correlations from the exact diagonalization of a 32-site $`t`$-$`J`$ cluster with two holes. Prompted by these results, we have carried out density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) calculations of the rung-rung current correlations on doped 2-leg $`t`$-$`J`$ ladders. As is known, near half-filling an isotropic $`t`$-$`J`$ ladder, with $`J/t`$ in the physical range appropriate to the cuprates, retains a spin gap and exhibits power law $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-like pair field and $`4k_F`$-CDW correlations . Thus, it is of interest to explore whether there may also be staggered current correlations on the 2-leg ladder.

Indeed, as discussed below, the DMRG calculations show that there are oscillating rung-rung current correlations. However, we find that they are incommensurate at a finite doping, relatively weak, and decay exponentially on a scale of several lattice spacings. Complementing the numerical results, we discuss a bosonization treatment of the 2-leg ladder. Here, one finds that the rung current depends exponentially on various boson phase fields. We argue that in a C1SO phase which has a spin-gapped ground state with power law $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-like pairing correlations, a phase variable appearing in the rung-current is dual to a pinned variable and that this leads to an exponential decay of the rung-rung current correlations, as seen numerically.

Here we will consider an isotropic 2-leg $`t`$-$`J`$ ladder described by the Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i,\lambda ,\alpha }{}}(c_{i+1\lambda \alpha }^{}c_{i\lambda \alpha }+h.c.)t{\displaystyle \underset{i,\alpha }{}}(c_{i2\alpha }^{}c_{i1\alpha }+h.c.)`$ (1)
$``$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{i,\lambda }{}}\left(\stackrel{}{S}_{i\lambda }\stackrel{}{S}_{i+1\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{n_{i\lambda }n_{i+1\lambda }}{4}}\right)J{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(\stackrel{}{S}_{i1}\stackrel{}{S}_{i2}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{i1}n_{i2}}{4}}\right)`$ (2)
Here $`c_{i\lambda \alpha }`$ destroys an electron on rung $`i`$ and leg $`\lambda =1,2`$ with spin $`\alpha =,`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}_{i\lambda }=c_{i\lambda }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2c_{i\lambda }`$. The Hilbert space excludes all states with doubly-occupied sites. The rung current operator for the $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$ rung can be written as

$$J_j=it\underset{\alpha }{}\left(c_{j2\alpha }^{}c_{j1\alpha }c_{j1\alpha }^{}c_{j2\alpha }\right)=it\underset{\alpha }{}\left(\psi _{je\alpha }^{}\psi _{jo\alpha }\psi _{jo\alpha }^{}\psi _{je\alpha }\right)$$
(3)
Here the second form is expressed in terms of the even (bonding) and odd (antibonding) operators

$$\psi _{je/o\alpha }=\frac{c_{j2\alpha }\pm c_{j1\alpha }}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(4)
with $`e`$ and $`o`$ corresponding to $`+`$ and $``$ respectively. We will study the ground state rung-rung correlation function

$$c(|kj|)=J_kJ_j$$
(5)
Using DMRG techniques  we have calculated the rung-rung current correlation function, Eq. (5), for a $`2\times 32`$ ladder with $`J/t=0.35`$ at fillings $`n_i=1x`$ with $`x=0.125`$ and $`0.19`$. The DMRG results are for a ladder with open-end boundary conditions and $`c(\mathrm{})`$ is obtained by averaging-over sites separated by $`\mathrm{}=|kj|`$. The calculations were done with the finite system DMRG method, keeping a maximum of 800 states per block, on a $`32\times 2`$ open system. The discarded weight was typically about $`3\times 10^6`$ in the final sweep. The correlation measurements were checked by repeating some of the calculations keeping 1000 states; the differences were quite small and would not affect any conclusions. In order to reduce the effect of the open boundaries, results for many different points with the same separation were averaged over to obtain each data point shown. As shown in Fig. 1(a) for $`x=0.125`$, the rung-rung current correlations exhibit an incommensurate oscillation with a small amplitude and decay exponentially. Fig. 1(b) shows a semi-log plot of $`|c(\mathrm{})|`$ versus $`\mathrm{}`$ for $`J/t=0.35`$ and $`x=0.125`$ and Fig. 1(c) shows a similar plot for $`x=0.19`$. The slope of the solid line in Fig. 1(b) is $`1/2.8`$ corresponding to an exponential decay of $`c(\mathrm{})`$ with a correlation length $`\xi =2.8`$ lattice spacings. Similarly, as seen in Fig. 1(c), for $`x=0.19`$ we find an exponential decay of the rung-rung current correlations with $`\xi =4`$ lattice spacings.

Further insight into the nature of rung-rung current correlations on a 2-leg $`t`$-$`J`$ ladder is provided within a bosonization framework. Here we pass to a continuum limit along the length of the 2-leg ladder and introduce the usual left- and right-moving fields

$$\psi _{\lambda \alpha }(x)=e^{ik_{F\lambda }x}\psi _{L\lambda \alpha }(x)+e^{ik_{F\lambda }x}\psi _{R\lambda \alpha }(x)$$
(6)
with $`\lambda =e`$ and $`o`$ corresponding to the even (bonding) and odd (antibonding) bands respectively with $`k_{Fe}`$ and $`k_{Fo}`$ the fermi wave vectors for these bands.

Using this representation, the rung current operator, Eq. (3), becomes

$$J(x)=J_o(x)+(e^{i\left(k_{Fe}+k_{Fo}\right)x}J_{2k_F}(x)+h.c.)$$
(7)
with

$$J_o(x)=it\underset{\alpha }{}[e^{i\left(k_{Fe}k_{Fo}\right)x}(\psi _{Le\alpha }^{}(x)\psi _{Lo\alpha }(x)\psi _{Ro\alpha }^{}(x)\psi _{Re\alpha }(x))+h.c.]$$
(8)
and

$$J_{2k_F}=it\underset{\alpha }{}\left(\psi _{Le\alpha }^{}(x)\psi _{Ro\alpha }(x)\psi _{Lo\alpha }^{}(x)\psi _{Re\alpha }(x)\right).$$
(9)
In the usual way, we represent the left and right moving fermion fields by left and right moving boson fields:

$$\psi _{L/R\lambda \alpha }e^{i\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{L/R\lambda \alpha }}$$
(10)
Then, introducing the dual canonical Bose fields,

$$\varphi _{\lambda \alpha }=\varphi _{R\lambda \alpha }+\varphi _{L\lambda \alpha }\theta _{\lambda \alpha }=\varphi _{R\lambda \alpha }\varphi _{L\lambda \alpha }$$
(11)
we have, for example, for the first term in Eq. (9)

$$\psi _{Le\alpha }^{}(x)\psi _{Ro\alpha }(x)e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\left(\varphi _{e\alpha }+\theta _{e\alpha }+\varphi _{o\alpha }+\theta _{o\alpha }\right)}.$$
(12)
In terms of the even and odd parity charge and spin Bose fields with $`\lambda =e`$ or $`o`$

$`\varphi _{\lambda \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi _\lambda +\varphi _\lambda )/\sqrt{2}`$ (13)
$`\varphi _{\lambda \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi _\lambda \varphi _\lambda )/\sqrt{2}`$ (14)
and their dual fields, we can write the up spin part of Eq. (12) as

$$\psi _{Le}^{}(x)\psi _{Ro}(x)e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\left(\varphi _\rho \varphi _\sigma \theta _{+\rho }\theta _{+\sigma }\right)}.$$
(15)
Here,

$$\varphi _{\pm \rho }=\left(\varphi _{e\rho }\pm \varphi _{o\rho }\right)/\sqrt{2}$$
(16)
with similar relations for $`\varphi _{\pm \sigma }`$, $`\theta _{\pm \rho }`$, and $`\theta _{\pm \sigma }`$. Actually, this last transformation is not canonical when the even and odd bosons have different velocities. However, we will follow the standard practice  of assuming that this velocity difference is irrelevant. In this way, the rung current operators, Eqs. (8) and (9) become

$$J_o(x)i\underset{\delta _1,\delta _2=\pm 1}{}\delta _1e^{i\pi (k_{Fe}k_{Fo})x}e^{i\sqrt{\pi }[\varphi _\rho +\delta _2\varphi _\sigma \delta _1\theta _\rho \delta _1\delta _2\theta _\sigma ]}+h.c.$$
(17)
(where $`\delta _1`$ labels the left or right term and $`\delta _2`$ labels spin) and

$$J_{2k_F}(x)\underset{\delta _1,\delta _2=\pm 1}{}\delta _1e^{i\sqrt{\pi }[\delta _1\varphi _\rho \delta _1\delta _2\varphi _\sigma +\theta _{+\rho }+\delta _2\theta _{+\sigma }}]$$
(18)
(where now $`\delta _1`$ labels the $`eo`$ or $`oe`$ terms and $`\delta _2`$ labels spin).

Renormalization group analysis , based on the weak coupling 2-leg Hubbard model and earlier numerical results  on $`t`$-$`J`$ ladders suggest that, for a realistic parameter range away from half-filling, the $`t`$-$`J`$ model is in a “C1SO” phase in which both spin bosons are gapped and one of the charge bosons is gapped. When a boson is gapped, either $`\varphi 0`$ or $`\theta 0`$. These expectation values must be specified to completely specify the phase which the system is in. The expected phase has

$$\theta _{\pm \sigma }0,\varphi _\rho 0.$$
(19)
In this phase the uniform part of the pair correlation function has power-law decay and the $`2k_{Fe}+2k_{Fo}`$ part of the density correlation function has power law decay (but not the $`2k_{Fe}`$ or $`2k_{Fo}`$ parts), in agreement with the numerical results.

We may replace factors like $`e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _\rho }`$ by their expectation values, so that:

$$J_{2k_F}\underset{\delta _1,\delta _2=\pm }{}\delta _1e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\left[\delta _1\delta _2\varphi _\sigma +\theta _{+\rho }\right]}.$$
(20)
Correlation functions involving exponentials of $`\varphi _\sigma `$ decay exponentially since $`\varphi _\sigma `$ is conjugate to the pinned dual field $`\theta _\sigma `$. Therefore, we expect that the term in the rung current correlation function which oscillates at $`2k_F`$ will decay exponentially. Similarly, since $`J_o`$ depends exponentially on $`\varphi _\sigma `$ and $`\theta _\rho `$ and both of these are conjugate to pinned phases, these correlation function will also decay exponentially.

Based upon this bosonization analysis, we expect that the asymptotic form of the rung-rung current correlations will oscillate with an incommensurate wave vector $`(k_{Fo}+k_{Fe})=\pi (1x)`$. Thus, for $`x=0.125`$ the bosonization result gives

$$c(\mathrm{})e^{\mathrm{}/\xi }\mathrm{cos}(7\pi \mathrm{}/8+\varphi )$$
(21)
Using the DMRG results, $`\xi =2.8`$ for $`x=0.125`$, Fig. 2 shows a comparison of Eq. (21) with the DMRG data.

We note that other phases have been suggested for the 2-leg Hubbard model and extended Hubbard models  some of which could have power law decay for the $`2k_F`$ component of the rung current correlation function. However, power law decay could only occur in a phase in which none of the boson fields dual to the ones appearing in Eq. (16) are pinned. This would mean that each boson field in Eq. (16) is either itself pinned or else is gapless. A possible C1S0 phase with this property has:

$$\theta _{+\sigma }0,\varphi _\sigma 0,\varphi _\rho 0.$$
(22)
In fact, such a C1S0 phase was predicted by Fabrizio  in the Hubbard model for small $`t_{}`$ and a small range of $`U`$ near 7, based on a perturbative renormalization group analysis. Thus, it is possible that such a phase might also occur in the 2-leg $`t`$-$`J`$ model or some generalization of it, for some range of parameters. However, Eq. (22) is not a sufficient condition for power law decay. Not only must these fields have non-zero ground state expectation values, but also these values must be such that a cancellation of the power-law part of the correlation function between the various terms in Eq. (18) does not occur. By explicitly writing pairing operators in the $`\varphi /\theta `$, $`\rho /\sigma `$, $`+/`$ basis, used above, it can be checked that all pair correlations (singlet and triplet) have exponential decay in such a putative phase. We emphasize again that, based upon the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-like power law pairing correlations and density power law correlations which are observed for the $`t`$-$`J`$ ladder for physically relevant $`J/t`$ and doping regimes of interest, it would appear that the ground state of this model is characterized by pinned phases given by Eq. (19). In this ground state the current-current correlations decay exponentially.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge useful discussions with P.A. Lee and J.B. Marston regarding the occurance of orbital antiferromagnetic currents. DJS and IA acknowledge the hospitality of the ITP, University of California, Santa Barbara where this work was initiated. DJS acknowledges support from the NSF under grant No. PHY99-07949 (ITP) and grant No. DMR98-17242 (DJS), SRW acknowledges support from the NSF under grant No. DMR98-70930 and IA acknowledges support from NSERC of Canada.