text:
# Superpositions of SU(3) coherent states via a nonlinear evolution

## I Introduction

The superposition principle in quantum physics implies that superpositions of probability amplitudes for classical–like states are possible, yet superpositions of quasi-classical quantum field states are not generally observed in practice. Such superposition states are especially interesting as they dramatically illustrate the quantum superposition principle by creating coherent superpositions of distinct states, with these distinct states behaving as classical physical states. Extensive theoretical and experimental studies have been directed towards understanding and obtaining superpositions of distinct quasi-classical states, often referred to as Schrödinger cat statesYur86a ; Buz95 . In general the interest has been in generating superpositions of Heisenberg–Weyl coherent states via a nonlinear Hamiltonian evolution Yur86a ; Mil86 , where the Heisenberg–Weyl coherent states are the displaced harmonic–oscillator vacuum state.

Heisenberg–Weyl coherent states are relevant for studying the quantum–classical transition for the harmonic oscillator with one degree of freedom. The generalization to harmonic oscillators with two or more degrees of freedom leads to superpositions of product coherent states, or entangled coherent states, with a wealth of phenomena to be studied for such systemsSan92 . However, another generalization of superpositions of coherent states is possible by employing the generalized coherent states for general group actionsPer86 . Examples include superpositions of SU(2) coherent statesSan89  and superpositions of SU(1,1) coherent statesGer87 , as well as superpositions of multiparticle SU(2) and SU(1,1) coherent statesWan00 . Whereas the Heisenberg–Weyl group is the symmetry group for harmonic oscillators, SU(2) is the symmetry group for spin precession, for two–channel interferometry and for the dynamics of ideal two–level atomsPer86 ; Rad71 ; Are72 ; Yur86b , and SU(1,1) is the symmetry group for the production of squeezed light and quantum interferometry with parametric up– and down–conversionGer87 ; Yur86b . The generalized coherent states for such systems represent the quasi-classical states. For example the SU(2) coherent states are also known as atomic coherent states and are analogous to classical electric dipolesAre72 . Superpositions of these generalized coherent states in quantum systems are therefore of interest in studying counter-intuitive manifestations of the superposition principle.

The studies of superpositions of Heisenberg–Weyl, SU(2) and SU(1,1) coherent states are simplified by the fact that these are one–parameter groups, and the corresponding coset space is thus a locally two–dimensional manifold. For the Heisenberg–Weyl group, the manifold is the plane, for SU(2) the Poincaré sphere and for SU(1,1) the Lobachevsky plane. Here we generalize the studies of superpositions of coherent states to a two–parameter Lie group, namely SU(3). The manifold for phase space dynamics is the four–dimensional space isomorphic to the coset space SU(3)/U(2). Working in a manifold which is greater than two dimensions presents problems in terms of visualizing the dynamics, which we resolve by projecting the dynamics to subdomains of spherical manifolds.

In order to generate superpositions of SU(3) coherent states, we consider the three–dimensional nonlinear oscillator. Such a model can be realized by employing the three–boson realization of the SU(3) generators and constructing the dynamics optically through employing passive optical devices and Kerr–type nonlinearities. Another physical system involves three interacting, independent Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs) Nem00a . In order to bring out the essential properties of superpositions of SU(3) coherent states, we treat the dynamics as a closed system.

Superpositions of SU(3) coherent states may be interesting from the perspective of weak force detection and accurate measurements. For example, weak force detection for two coupled, separated BECs employs a superposition of two extremal SU(2) coherent statesCor99 . Superpositions of two extremal SU(2) coherent states are valuable for related applications, such as precision measurement in particle interferometryBol96 . Symmetries of SU(3) coherent states may also prove to be valuable in the context of weak force detection for three coupled BECs or for three–channel particle interferometry, as examples.

We show that an initial SU(3) coherent state in the nonlinear oscillator evolves to a superposition of SU(3) coherent states. An analytical solution is provided which shows explicitly that a superposition of sixteen SU(3) coherent states occurs. The analytical solutions for the SU(3) case are more complex and interesting than those for SU(2), and we elaborate on the superposition of two SU(2) coherent states as a special case. Graphical solutions are employed by using the $`Q`$–symbol (sometimes referred to as the $`Q`$–function) for the state and projecting to spherical subdomains. The graphical method provides an intuitive picture of the dynamics.

## II Three–dimensional nonlinear oscillator

The Hamiltonian for the three-dimensional nonlinear oscillator includes three pairs of annihilation and creation operators, designated by $`\widehat{c}_1,\widehat{c}_1^{},\widehat{c}_2,\widehat{c}_2^{},\widehat{c}_3,\widehat{c}_3^{}`$, with each pair $`\{c_i,c_i^{}\}`$ corresponding to one degree of freedom, or “mode”. The usual boson commutation relation $`[\widehat{c}_k,\widehat{c}_j^{}]=\delta _{kj}`$ applies. We also define number operators as $`\widehat{n}_k=c_k^{}c_k`$, and a total number operator $`\widehat{N}=_{k=1}^3\widehat{n}_k`$. We consider an isolated system; hence, total energy and total particle number are conserved. In particular we are interested in the simplest system with energy and number conservation which will allow an SU(3) coherent state to evolve into a superposition of SU(3) coherent states. Such a Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=\omega \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{n}_k+\chi _1(t)\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{n}_k^{}(\widehat{n}_k1)+\chi _2(t)\underset{\stackrel{j,k=1}{jk}}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{n}_k\widehat{n}_j+\underset{\stackrel{j,k=1}{jk}}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}(t)c_j^{}c_k,$$
(1)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{kj}^{}(t)`$. In this model, the coupling constant $`\chi _1`$ corresponds to the strength of the self-modulation term, and $`\chi _2`$ is the strength of the cross–modulation term. The time–dependent quantities $`\chi _i`$ are assumed to be controllable as well as the time–dependent coupling strengths $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}`$ that are responsible for linear coupling between modes. For the case that each mode corresponds to bosons in a particular spatial region, the terms $`\chi _i`$ quantify the nonlinear interactions, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}`$ quantify the strength of (linear) quantum tunneling of bosons between modes. For $`\chi _i=0`$, with $`i=1,2`$, the Hamiltonian (1) is a linear combination of su(3) generators, and thus the evolution is linear.

The Hamiltonian (1) corresponds to two potential physical realizations, the first being a nonlinear optical four–wave mixing medium, that is a medium with a $`\chi ^{(3)}`$ nonlinearity. In four–wave mixing, the three boson operators $`c_k`$ correspond to single–mode fields interacting in the medium, and the coefficients $`\chi _i`$, $`i\{1,2\}`$ are obtained by judiciously constructing the $`\chi ^{(3)}`$ tensor coefficients.

A second realization arises in the context of interacting BECs with a small number of particlesNem00a ; Ger97 , which is of interest for some condensates Sac98 . The three boson operators correspond to localized BEC modes with some overlap between the modes (in contrast to the case considered in Ref. Nem00a , which assumes a negligible overlap). The localized modes are centered around the three minima of a three-dimensional trapping potential for the BEC. The nonlinear interactions arise due to atomic collisions and conserve boson number. The coefficients for the nonlinear interactions are $`\chi _1`$, for self interactions, and $`\chi _2`$, for intermodal collisions. These parameters depend on the $`s`$–wave scattering length for the condensate and its density as well as the degree of overlap between modes for $`\chi _2`$. These coefficients of nonlinear dynamical terms are time–dependent: the scattering length can be varied by applying an external magnetic field to exploit a Feshbach resonance in the collisions between the atomsCor00 .

The time–varying linear quantum tunneling terms for the BEC, with coefficients $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}`$, may be varied by modifying the optical potential barrier between minima of the trapping potential. The terms are left on for a short time to produce the desired SU(3) coherent state and then shut off. Of course they are not completely eliminated as some overlap is needed for the cross–mode collisions (with coefficient $`\chi _2`$) to take place. It is important that the collision terms be strong enough to be nonnegligible even when linear quantum tunneling may be ignored. Tuning the scattering length is advantageous to ensure that the intermodal collision term is sufficiently strong. Although $`\chi _2`$ might be weak, our subsequent analysis is valid for any choice of $`\chi _2`$.

A typical initial condition could be $`N`$ bosons in one region or mode. Allowing the system to evolve under the Hamiltonian (1) with $`\chi _i=0`$, causes the system to evolve linearly, via coherent quantum tunneling, to a Perelomov SU(3) coherent statePer86 . As a special case, relevant to weak force detectionCor99  and particle interferometryBol96 , extremal coherent states are states which are mapped to zero under a ladder operator. For example, the SU(2) coherent state $`|jj`$ is annihilated by the specified raising operator $`J_+`$, and the state $`|jj`$ is annihilated by the specified lowering operator $`J_{}`$. These two states are extremal, and a superposition of these two extremal states would be $`(|jj+|jj)/\sqrt{2}`$. Extremal SU(3) coherent states are states which can be annihilated by the su(3) ladder operators.

From conservation of the total number $`N`$ of bosons, the Hamiltonian may be rewritten in terms of the SU(3) generators and the total number $`N`$ is the irreducible representation (irrep) parameter. The eight generators of SU(3) may be defined as the two Cartan operators

$`X_1`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_1^{}\widehat{c}_1\widehat{c}_2^{}\widehat{c}_2,`$ (2)
$`X_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\widehat{c}_1^{}\widehat{c}_1+\widehat{c}_2^{}\widehat{c}_22\widehat{c}_3^{}\widehat{c}_3^{})`$ (3)
and the six generators

$`Y_k`$ $`=`$ $`i(\widehat{c}_k^{}\widehat{c}_j\widehat{c}_j^{}\widehat{c}_k)`$ (4)
$`Z_k`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_k^{}\widehat{c}_j+\widehat{c}_j^{}\widehat{c}_k,`$ (5)
where $`k=1,2,3`$ and $`j=kmod3+1`$. The raising operators and lowering operators are defined as

$`J_+^k`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_k^{}\widehat{c}_j,(k<j),`$ (6)
$`J_{}^k`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_k^{}\widehat{c}_j,(k>j),`$ (7)
or, alternatively, for $`k<j`$

$`J_+^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Z_kiY_k)`$ (8)
$`J_{}^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Z_k+iY_k),`$ (9)
in terms of SU(3) generators.

The term involving the irrep parameter $`N`$ can be removed by moving to a rotating picture. Furthermore, by assuming that the initial SU(3) coherent state has been generated from the evolution (1), with large linear quantum tunneling and negligible contributions from nonlinear evolution, the optical potential barrier between trapping potential minima is increased to reduce the linear tunneling. At the same time, the nonlinear coefficients must be reasonably large compared to the coefficient for linear tunneling, perhaps by employing an external magnetic field to exploit a Feshbach resonance, as discussed above. For large nonlinearities and small linear quantum tunneling terms, the Hamiltonian (1) can be approximated by

$$H=\frac{\chi }{2}(X_1^2+3X_2^2),$$
(10)
with $`\chi =\chi _1\chi _2`$. The Hamiltonian is a sum of quadratic forms of Cartan operators which commute, and this property will be useful in later calculations.

## III Coherent states

### III.1 SU(2) coherent states

In order to introduce the SU(3) coherent states, it is useful to review the SU(2) coherent states and to use this knowledge to generalize to SU(3) coherent states. SU(2) coherent states and their methods were first developed as atomic coherent states Rad71 ; Are72  to treat atomic systems. On the other hand, coherent states for Lie groups were defined by PerelomovPer86  as an orbit generated by group action on a reference state, which is usually the highest– (or lowest–) weight state. For compact groups, the simplest nontrivial case is SU(2), which can be parametrized by three real parameters $`\{\theta ,\phi _1,\phi _2\}`$. The lowest–order faithful representation of an arbitrary $`g`$ SU(2) is as a $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$`g(\phi _1,\theta ,\phi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\phi _1}\mathrm{cos}\theta & e^{i\phi _2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ e^{i\phi _2}\mathrm{sin}\theta & e^{i\phi _1}\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right).`$ (13)
As SU(2) $``$ SU(3), the three generators of SU(2) can be obtained from (2), (3), (4) and (5). For example, the subgroup SU(2)12 is generated by $`\{X_1,Y_1,Z_1\}`$. The Casimir invariant is $`J^2=X_1^2+Y_1^2+Z_1^2`$ with eigenvalue $`j(j+1)`$. The $`2\times 2`$ representation corresponds to $`j=1/2`$. The weight basis corresponds to $`|jm`$ with $`J_z|jm=m|jm`$. The highest–weight state is $`|jj`$ for which $`J_+|jj=0`$.

The SU(2) coherent state, for fixed $`j`$, is given by

$$|\theta ,\phi =\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\theta }{2}\left(J_+^1e^{i\phi }J_{}^1e^{i\phi }\right)\right]|jj.$$
(14)
The coherent state can be represented geometrically on the Poincaré sphere, which is isomorphic to the coset space SU(2)/U(1).

### III.2 SU(3) coherent states

The SU(3) coherent states may be formulated as a generalization of the SU(2) coherent statesGnu98 ; Nem00b , and are obtained by the action of SU(3) on the highest–weight state. In order to obtain the SU(3) coherent states, it is convenient to employ the decomposition of SU(3) in Ref. Row99 , whereby the SU(3) operator is decomposed into a combination of SU(2) operators. The decomposition allows us to parameterize an arbitrary element $`g`$ in the $`3\times 3`$ matrix representation as

$$g=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& & \\ 0& & V\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\phi }\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & e^{i\phi }\mathrm{cos}\theta & 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& & \\ 0& & W\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
where $`V(\phi _1,\xi ,\phi _2)`$ and $`W(\phi _3,\zeta ,\phi _4)`$ are $`2\times 2`$ matrices representing elements of SU(2)23. The middle matrix on the right–hand side of Eq. (15) is an element of SU(2)12.

The SU(3) generators of Eqs. (2,3) and (4,5) are presented as a three–boson realization. It is convenient to employ the basis states, which are eigenstates of the SU(3) Casimir operators and of the two elements of the Cartan subalgebra (2,3). The basis state can be labeled by the three numbers $`n_1`$, $`n_2`$ and $`n_3`$, which satisfy

$$\widehat{n}_k|n_1,n_2,n_3=n_k|n_1,n_2,n_3,\text{for }k\{1,2,3\}.$$
(16)
As any action of the raising operators on the state $`|N,0,0`$ annihilates it, the state $`|N,0,0`$ is a highest–weight state. Coherent states are obtained by SU(3) action on this highest–weight state.

Taking the highest–weight state $`|N,0,0`$ as the reference state, the action of Eq. (15) on the highest–weight state gives an explicit form of coherent states. The factorization (15) ensures that the matrix on the furthest right leaves the highest–weight state invariant, and only the two other matrices are important in determining the coherent state. The highest–weight state is thus invariant under SU(2)23; hence the coherent states are parametrized on the coset space SU(3)/SU(2). In fact the SU(3) coherent states can be parametrized on the coset space SU(3)/U(2) by eliminating an arbitrary phase, but the following calculations are easier if we retain the phase. In calculations of the $`Q`$–symbol for the state, this phase is not important.

The coherent states can be generated as

$$|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2=g(\phi _1,\xi ,\phi _2,\phi ,\theta ,\phi _3,\zeta ,\phi _4)|N,0,0,$$
(17)
which can be expressed as

$`|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2={\displaystyle \underset{j_1=0}{\overset{N}{}}}`$ $`e^{i\phi (Nj_1)}\mathrm{sin}^{j_1}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}^{(Nj_1)}(\theta )\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ j_1\end{array}\right)^{1/2}`$ (23)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j_2=0}{\overset{j_1}{}}}e^{ij_2\phi _2}e^{i\phi _1(j_1j_2)}\mathrm{sin}^{j_2}(\xi )\mathrm{cos}^{(j_1j_2)}(\xi )\left(\begin{array}{c}j_1\\ j_2\end{array}\right)^{1/2}|Nj_1,j_1j_2,j_2.`$
This parameterization of the SU(3) coherent state includes an arbitrary phase.

## IV Quantum dynamics of the system

### IV.1 Analytical solutions

Let the initial state $`|\psi (0)`$ be an arbitrary SU(3) coherent state. The state $`|\psi (t)`$ for arbitrary time $`t`$ may thus be given as

$`|\psi (t)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j_1=0}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\phi (Nj_1)}\mathrm{sin}^{j_1}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}^{(Nj_1)}(\theta )\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ j_1\end{array}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{j_2=0}{\overset{j_1}{}}}e^{ij_2\phi _2}e^{i\phi _1(j_1j_2)}\mathrm{sin}^{j_2}(\xi )\mathrm{cos}^{(j_1j_2)}(\xi )\left(\begin{array}{c}j_1\\ j_2\end{array}\right)^{1/2}`$ (28)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[2i\chi t\left(N^2/3+j_1^2+j_2^2j_1(N+j_2)\right)\right]|Nj_1,j_1j_2,j_2,`$ (29)
under the Hamiltonian evolution (10). The time–dependent element of Eq. (28) exhibits the periodic evolution of the state and suggests that the state evolves into superposition states periodically, by analogy with the SU(2) coherent state superposition caseSan89 , but with additional complexity due to the greater number of parameters and the higher dimension of the group manifold.

From Eq. (28), we observe that the recurrence time, for which the state evolves cyclically back into the original state, is given by $`\tau \pi /\chi `$ for all values of the irrep parameter $`N`$. At half the recurrence time, $`\tau /2=\pi /2\chi `$, the state evolves into the superposition

$$|\psi (\tau /2)=\frac{1}{2}e^{i\pi N^2/3}\left[|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+\pi \right],$$
(30)
for even $`N`$, or

$$|\psi (\tau /2)=\frac{1}{2}e^{i\pi N^2/3}\left[|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi +\pi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+\pi \right],$$
(31)
for odd $`N`$. At one–quarter of the recurrence time $`\tau /4`$, the state evolves into a superposition state with the exact form depending on the total number $`N`$. There are four types of superposition states at $`\tau /4`$, classified by the quantity $`Nmod4`$. The four types are given as the following,

1. If $`N=4n`$, for $`n`$ an integer,

$`|`$ $`\psi `$ $`(\tau /4)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{i\pi N^2/6}`$ (32)
$`\times `$ $`[|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+\pi +|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+\pi `$
$`+`$ $`i(|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,,\phi _1,\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+\pi |\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}`$
$``$ $`|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+\pi )].`$
2. If $`N=4n+1`$,

$`|`$ $`\psi `$ $`(\pi /4\chi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{i\pi N^2/6}`$ (33)
$`\times `$ $`[|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`i(|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+\pi +|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+\pi `$
$`+`$ $`|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+\pi `$
$``$ $`|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1\phi _2+\pi |\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})].`$
3. If $`N=4n+2`$,

$`|`$ $`\psi `$ $`(\tau /4)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{i\pi N^2/6}`$ (34)
$`\times `$ $`[|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+\pi +|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+\pi `$
$`+`$ $`i(|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+\pi +|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}`$
$``$ $`|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+\pi +|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2)].`$
4. If $`N=4n+3`$,

$`|`$ $`\psi `$ $`(\tau /4)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{i\pi N^2/6}`$ (35)
$`\times `$ $`[|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`i(|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+\pi |\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+\pi |\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2`$
$`+`$ $`|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2+\pi +|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\phi _2`$
$``$ $`|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+\pi +|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1+\pi ,\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})].`$

### IV.2 The $`Q`$–symbol

In the previous section we have obtained analytical expressions of $`|\psi (t)`$ for two particular time values, $`\tau /2`$ and $`\tau /4`$. More generally however we can obtain the state analytically for all values of $`t`$. The density matrix $`\rho (t)`$ for the system may be written in terms of the pure state $`|\psi (t)`$ as

$$\rho (t)=|\psi (t)\psi (t)|.$$
(36)
The $`Q`$–symbol for this state is given byPer86

$$Q(t)=\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2|\rho (t)|\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2.$$
(37)
The arbitrary phase disappears in the calculation of $`Q(t)`$. It is thus convenient to employ the two relative phases $`\varphi _1=\phi _1\phi `$ and $`\varphi _2=\phi _2\phi _1`$. The $`Q`$–symbol for the state may thus be expressed as

$$Q(\xi ,\theta ,\varphi _1,\varphi _2:\xi (0),\theta (0),\varphi _1(0),\varphi _2(0);t)=|\underset{j_1=0}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j_2=0}{\overset{j_1}{}}S_{j_1,j_2}^N(\xi ,\theta ,\varphi _1,\varphi _2;t)|^2,$$
(38)
where

$`S_{j_1,j_2}^N`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ij_1(\varphi _1\varphi _1(0))}(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta (0))^{j_1}(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta (0))^{Nj_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ j_1\end{array}\right)`$ (41)
$`\times e^{ij_1(\varphi _2\varphi _2(0))}(\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{sin}\xi (0))^{j_1}(\mathrm{cos}\xi \mathrm{cos}\xi (0))^{Nj_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}j_1\\ j_2\end{array}\right)e^{2i\chi t(j_1^2+j_2^2j(N+j_2))}.`$ (44)
The $`Q`$–symbol depends on four periodic parameters, and therefore a plot of the $`Q`$–symbol would need to be embedded in five–dimensional space to be viewed. However, in order to view the plot we need to reduce the number of dimensions required for plotting the function. A simple way to plot the $`Q`$–symbol is to fix one parameter, for example by setting $`\theta =\pi /2`$. This corresponds to a slice of the $`Q`$–symbol, and the choice of where to slice depends on the features to be emphasized in the plot. A slice is a standard means for representing multi–dimensional figures; animation can be used, for example, to present the figure by ‘traveling’ through a sequence of slices. We will present an example in the following subsection.

### IV.3 An Example

The nonlinear SU(2) oscillator generates superposition states from an initial SU(2) coherent state and can generate a superposition of two distinct SU(2) coherent states at a half of its recurrence time San89 . This superposition of two distinct SU(2) coherent states results in two major peaks arising in the plot of the $`Q`$–symbol for the superposition state. Interference fringes midway between the two peaks arise due to the coherence properties of the superposition. These interference fringes can be clearly seen as dimples in a plot of the logarithm of the $`Q`$-symbolGag95 .

The superposition states we have seen in Eqs. (32-35) arise from the nonlinearity of the SU(3) system. In this subsection, we wish to observe a manifestation of such a superposition by plotting the $`Q`$–symbol for the state. As discussed in the previous subsection, we can reduce the dimension of the parameter space to two by obtaining a slice of the $`Q`$–symbol for the state. We consider an SU(3) coherent state which is also an SU(2)23 coherent state. This restriction to SU(2)23 coherent states ensures that only a subset of the $`Q`$–symbol is explored, with this subset being a slice which can be plotted on the Poincaré sphere corresponding to the SU(2)23/U(1) coset space. An initial SU(2)23 coherent state can be written as

$`|\psi (0)`$ $`=`$ $`|\xi (0),\pi /2,\varphi _1(0),\varphi _2(0)`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi _1(0)N}{\displaystyle \underset{j_2=0}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\varphi _2(0)j_2}\mathrm{sin}^{j_2}(\xi (0))\mathrm{cos}^{(Nj_2)}(\xi (0))\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ j_2\end{array}\right)^{1/2}|0,Nj_2,j_2`$
A state in the SU(2)23 subsystem stays in this subsystem under time evolution, so the factor of $`\varphi _1`$ becomes an arbitrary phase and disappears in the calculation of the $`Q`$–symbol. We now employ the notation $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ to refer to a slice of the $`Q`$–symbol. In this notation, the reduced $`Q`$–symbol, with the initial condition (47), is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}(\theta ,\xi ,\varphi _2;t)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ,\theta ,\varphi _1,\varphi _2|\rho (t)|\xi ,\theta ,\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^{2N}(\theta ){\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i(pq)(\varphi _2\varphi _2(0))}\left(\mathrm{sin}(\xi )\mathrm{sin}(\xi (0))\right)^{p+q}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\xi )\mathrm{cos}(\xi (0))\right)^{(2N(p+q))}`$
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ p\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ q\end{array}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[2i\chi t(pq)(pqN)\right].`$
The $`\theta `$–component of the $`Q`$–symbol is time–independent with a fixed weighting of $`\mathrm{sin}^{2N}(\theta )`$. The optimal slice for observing the $`Q`$–symbol in the reduced $`\xi `$$`\varphi _2`$ space is thus obtained by setting $`\theta =\pi /2`$.

With the initial condition $`\xi (0)=\pi /4`$, $`\varphi _2(0)=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is simplified to

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}(\xi ,\varphi _2:t)=2^N{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{N}{}}}`$ $`e^{i(pq)\varphi _2}\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ p\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ q\end{array}\right)\mathrm{sin}^{p+q}(\xi )\mathrm{cos}^{(2N(p+q))}(\xi )`$ (58)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[2i\chi t(pq)(p+qN)\right],`$
and is numerically represented in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The time–dependent term in Eq. (58) implies that the time–evolution of the state is distinguishable in terms of the total number $`N`$. The product $`(pq)(p+qN)`$ is even for any $`p`$ and $`q`$ if $`N`$ is odd, whereas it is not true for any even total number $`N`$. The recurrence time of the time evolution with an odd total number $`N`$ is a half of the recurrence time with an even total number. We solve this evolution numerically and plot $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ as it evolves for two values of the total number, $`N=9,10`$. Fig. 1 shows the time–evolution of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ for the state for even number $`N=10`$; in contrast, Fig. 2 depicts the time–evolution of the $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ for the state for odd number $`N=9`$.

## V Conclusions

We have investigated the formation of superpositions of SU(3) coherent states via a nonlinear Hamiltonian evolution. This evolution could be realized in terms of four–wave mixing in nonlinear optics or in terms of a nonlinear interaction between three independent modes of a Bose–Einstein condensate with nonnegligible nonlinear interactions between the separate, but overlapping, modes. The linear quantum tunneling term is allowed to vary independently of the nonlinear (collision) terms, and linear quantum tunneling is used to prepare the SU(3) coherent state for $`N`$ bosons in the three modes. Then this SU(3) coherent state undergoes a nonlinear evolution into a superposition of SU(3) coherent states.

We have obtained explicit expressions for the superposition of coherent states at one–half and one–quarter the recurrence time for this periodic evolution. Whereas superpositions of pairs of coherent states are obtained for half the recurrence time for Heisenberg–Weyl, SU(2) and SU(1,1) systems, the higher dimension of SU(3) dynamics leads to much more complex and interesting superpositions even at half the recurrence time. The nature of the superposition depends on the quantity $`Nmod4`$, with $`N`$ being the total quantum number. The state at some time $`t`$ can be represented by the use of a $`Q`$–symbol representation. However, the multidimensional domain of the $`Q`$–symbol makes the visualization of this function challenging. We have suggested that the method of plotting slices of the $`Q`$–symbol is desirable in this respect. An example was provided where the dynamics could be restricted to SU(2)23, which makes the plots quite clear and readily interpreted: a superposition of two SU(2) coherent states is evident in these plots.

This approach may be extended to SU(n) coherent states by generalizing the Hamiltonian (1) to $`n`$ interacting modes. However, the SU(3) dynamics is the most relevant case to current physical realizations. Although nonlinear optics and Bose–Einstein condensation have been specifically mentioned, any three–boson system with the given nonlinear evolution (1) could yield superpositions of SU(3) coherent states, provided that the initial state is itself an SU(3) coherent state.

###### Acknowledgements.

KN would like to thank G. J. Milburn for useful discussions. KN acknowledges the financial support of the Australian International Education Foundation (AIEF). This work has been supported by an Australian Research Council Large Grant and by a Macquarie University Research Grant.


format: text

text:
# Analytic Electroweak Dyon

## Abstract

We present analytic monopole and dyon solutions whose energy is fixed by the electroweak scale. Our result shows that genuine electroweak monopole and dyon could exist whose mass scale is much smaller than the grand unification scale.

analytic electroweak monopole, finite energy electroweak dyon

Ever since Dirac Dirac  has introduced the concept of the magnetic monopole, the monopoles have remained a fascinating subject in theoretical physics. The Abelian monopole has been generalized to the point-like non-Abelian monopole by Wu and Yang Wu ; cho80 , and to the finite energy soliton by ’t Hooft and Polyakov Hooft ; Julia .

In the interesting case of electroweak theory of Weinberg and Salam, however, it has generally been believed that there exists no topological monopole of physical interest. The basis for this “non-existence theorem” is, of course, that with the spontaneous symmetry breaking the quotient space $`SU(2)\times U(1)/U(1)_{\mathrm{em}}`$ allows no non-trivial second homotopy. This belief, however, is unfounded. Indeed, recently Cho and Maison Cho0 ; cho97  have established that Weinberg-Salam model has exactly the same topological structure as Georgi-Glashow model, and demonstrated the existence of a new type of monopole and dyon solutions in the standard electroweak theory. This was based on the observation that Weinberg-Salam model, with the hypercharge $`U(1)`$, could be viewed as a gauged $`CP^1`$ model in which the (normalized) Higgs doublet plays the role of the $`CP^1`$ field. So Weinberg-Salam model and Georgi-Glashow model have exactly the same nontrivial second homotopy $`\pi _2(S^2)`$ which allows topological monopoles. Originally the solutions of Cho and Maison were obtained by a numerical integration. But a mathematically rigorous existence proof has since been established which endorses the numerical results, and the solutions are now referred to as the Cho-Maison monopole and dyon Yang1 ; Yang2 .

The Cho-Maison monopole may be viewed as a hybrid between the Abelian point monopole and the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole, because it has a $`U(1)`$ point singularity at the center even though the $`SU(2)`$ part is completely regular. Consequently it carries an infinite energy at the classical level, so that physically the mass of the monopole remains arbitrary. A priori there is nothing wrong with this, but nevertheless one may wonder whether one can have an analytic electroweak monopole which has a finite energy. The purpose of this Letter is to show that this is indeed possible, and to present finite energy electroweak monopole and dyon solutions which are analytic everywhere, including the origin.

Let us start with the Lagrangian of the standard Weinberg-Salam model,

$``$ $`=`$ $`|𝒟_\mu \varphi |^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(\varphi ^{}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda }})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }^2,`$
$`𝒟_\mu \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\left(_\mu i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{A}_\mu i{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2}}B_\mu \right)\varphi ,`$ (1)
where $`\varphi `$ is the Higgs doublet, $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ are the gauge field strengths of $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ with the potentials $`\stackrel{}{A}_\mu `$ and $`B_\mu `$. Now we choose the following static spherically symmetric ansatz

$`\mathit{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\rho (r)\xi (\theta ,\phi ),`$
$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\phi }& \\ \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)& \end{array}\right),\widehat{n}=\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{\tau }\xi =\widehat{r},`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{}{A}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}A(r)_\mu t\widehat{n}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}(f(r)1)\widehat{n}\times _\mu \widehat{n},,`$ (5)
$`B_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^{}}}B(r)_\mu t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^{}}}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )_\mu \phi ,`$
where $`(t,r,\theta ,\phi )`$ are the spherical coordinates. Notice that the apparent string singularity along the negative z-axis in $`\xi `$ and $`B_\mu `$ is a pure gauge artifact which can easily be removed with a hypercharge $`U(1)`$ gauge transformation. So the above ansatz describes a most general spherically symmetric ansatz of a $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ dyon. Here we emphasize the importance of the non-trivial $`U(1)`$ degrees to make the ansatz spherically symmetric Cho0 ; cho97 .

To understand the physical content of the ansatz we now perform the following gauge transformation on (5)

$`\xi i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)& \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\phi }\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\phi }& \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right)\xi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ 1& \end{array}\right),`$ (10)
and let $`\stackrel{}{A}_\mu =(A_\mu ^1,A_\mu ^2,A_\mu ^3)`$ in this unitary gauge. Now, introducing the electromagnetic potential $`A_\mu ^{(\mathrm{em})}`$ and the neutral $`Z`$-boson $`Z_\mu `$ with the Weinberg angle $`\theta _\mathrm{w}`$

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_\mu ^{(\mathrm{em})}& \\ Z_\mu & \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{w}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{w}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{w}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{w}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_\mu & \\ A_\mu ^3& \end{array}\right)`$ (17)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g^2+g^2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}g& g^{}\\ g^{}& g\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_\mu & \\ A_\mu ^3& \end{array}\right),`$ (22)
we can express the ansatz (5) by

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\rho (r)`$
$`W_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(A_\mu ^1+iA_\mu ^2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{\sqrt{2}}}e^{i\phi }(_\mu \theta +i\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mu \phi ),`$
$`A_\mu ^{(\mathrm{em})}`$ $`=`$ $`e\left({\displaystyle \frac{A(r)}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B(r)}{g^2}}\right)_\mu t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )_\mu \phi ,`$
$`Z_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{gg^{}}}(B(r)A(r))_\mu t,`$ (23)
where $`\rho `$ and $`W_\mu `$ are Higgs boson and $`W`$-boson, and $`e`$ is the electric charge

$`e={\displaystyle \frac{gg^{}}{\sqrt{g^2+g^2}}}=g\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{w}.`$ (24)
This clearly shows that the ansatz is for the electromagnetic monopole and dyon.

With the spherically symmetric ansatz and with a proper boundary condition one can obtain the Cho-Maison dyon solution shown in Fig.1, which has the magnetic charge $`4\pi /e`$ Cho0 . The regular part of the solution looks very much like the Julia-Zee dyon, except that it has a non-trivial $`Z`$-boson dressing. Of course the magnetic singularity at the origin makes the energy of the Cho-Maison solutions infinite. A simple way to make the energy finite is to introduce the gravitational interaction Bais . But the gravitational interaction is not likely remove the singularity at the origin.

To construct the analytic monopole and dyon solutions, notice that non-Abelian gauge theory in general is nothing but a special type of an Abelian gauge theory which has a well-defined set of charged vector fields as its source. This tells that the finite energy non-Abelian monopoles are really nothing but the Abelian monopoles whose singularity is regularized by the charged vector fields cho97 ; klee . From this perspective one can try to make the energy of the above solutions finite by introducing additional interactions and/or charged vector fields.

It is rather straightfoward to obtain a finite energy dyon solution by introducing additional hypercharged vector fields. This can be done by enlarging the hypercharge $`U(1)`$ to another $`SU(2)`$ and extending the gauge group to $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ cho97 . But a more economic way to obtain a finite energy electroweak dyon is utilizing the already existing $`W`$-boson. In this case we could try to regularize the magnetic singularity of the Cho-Maison solutions with a judicious choice of an extra electromagnetic interaction of $`W`$-boson with the monopole.

To show that this is indeed possible notice that in the unitary gauge (10) where $`\widehat{n}`$ assumes the trivial configuration $`(0,0,1)`$, the Lagrangian (1) can be written as

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \rho )^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}\left(\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^2}{\lambda }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}\rho ^2W_\mu ^{}W_\mu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|(D_\mu ^{(\mathrm{em})}W_\nu D_\nu ^{(\mathrm{em})}W_\mu )+ie{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g^{}}}(Z_\mu W_\nu Z_\nu W_\mu )|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{em})}{}_{}{}^{2}+ieF_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{em})}W_\mu ^{}W_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}(W_\mu ^{}W_\nu W_\nu ^{}W_\mu )^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Z_{\mu \nu }^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^2+g^2}{8}}\rho ^2Z_\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2}{\sqrt{g^2+g^2}}}Z_{\mu \nu }W_\mu ^{}W_\nu ,`$ (25)
where $`Z_{\mu \nu }=_\mu Z_\nu _\nu Z_\mu `$ and $`D_\mu ^{(\mathrm{em})}=_\mu +igA_\mu ^{(\mathrm{em})}`$. We now introduce an extra interaction $`^{}`$,

$`^{}=i\alpha gF_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{em})}W_\mu ^{}W_\nu +\beta {\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}(W_\mu ^{}W_\nu W_\nu ^{}W_\mu )^2.`$ (26)
With this additional interaction the energy of the dyon is given by $`E=E_0+E_1`$, where

$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{r^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{g^2}}+12(1+\alpha )f^2+(1+\beta )f^4\right\},`$
$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{g^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dr\{(\dot{f})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}(r\dot{\rho })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(r\dot{A})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2g^2}}(r\dot{B})^2`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}f^2\rho ^2+f^2A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2r^2}{8}}(BA)^2\rho ^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda g^2r^2}{8}}(\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^2}{\lambda }})^2\}.`$
Clearly $`E_1`$ could be made finite with a proper boundary condition, but notice that when $`\alpha =\beta =0`$, $`E_0`$ becomes infinite. This is the reason why the Cho-Maison dyon has infinite energy. To make $`E_0`$ finite we need to remove both $`1/r^2`$ and $`1/r`$ singularities in $`E_0`$. This requires

$`1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{g^2}}2(1+\alpha )f^2(0)+(1+\beta )f^4(0)=0,`$
$`(1+\alpha )f(0)(1+\beta )f^3(0)=0.`$ (28)
Thus we must have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\alpha )^2}{1+\beta }}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{g^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}}},`$ (29)
$`f(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+\alpha )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}}}}.`$
With this we have the following equations of motion

$`\ddot{f}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\alpha )}{r^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{f^2(0)}}1\right)f=\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}\rho ^2A^2\right)f,`$
$`\ddot{\rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\dot{\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{2r^2}}\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(BA)^2\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left(\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^2}{\lambda }}\right)\rho ,`$
$`\ddot{A}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\dot{A}{\displaystyle \frac{2f^2}{r^2}}A={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}(AB)\rho ^2,`$ (30)
$`\ddot{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\dot{B}={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}(BA)\rho ^2,`$
which can be integrated with the boundary condition

$`f(0)=1/\sqrt{(1+\alpha )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}},\rho (0)=0,`$
$`A(0)=0,B(0)=b_0,`$
$`f(\mathrm{})=0,\rho (\mathrm{})=\rho _0=\sqrt{2\mu ^2/\lambda },`$
$`A(\mathrm{})=B(\mathrm{})=A_0.`$ (31)
But notice that, although obviously sufficient for a finite energy solution, the condition (31) in general does not guarantee the analyticity of the gauge potential at the origin. This must be clear from the fact that the condition (31) does not remove the singularity in $`B_\mu `$ cho97 .

The condition for an analytic solution is given by

$`\alpha =0,f(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{w}}}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{e}}.`$ (32)
To understand this we need to review the analytic Julia-Zee dyon in Georgi-Glashow model

$`_{GG}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\mu \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\left(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^2,`$ (33)
where $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is the Higgs triplet. With $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\rho \widehat{n}`$ one can easily show that the Georgi-Glashow model acquires the following Abelian form in the unitary gauge

$`_{GG}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \rho )^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\left(\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda }}\right)^2g^2\rho ^2W_\mu ^{}W_\mu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+igF_{\mu \nu }W_\mu ^{}W_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}(W_\mu ^{}W_\nu W_\nu ^{}W_\mu )^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|D_\mu W_\nu D_\nu W_\mu |^2.`$ (34)
Now, with the spherically symmetric ansatz

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (r)\widehat{n},`$
$`\stackrel{}{A}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}A(r)_\mu t\widehat{n}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}(f(r)1)\widehat{n}\times _\mu \widehat{n},`$ (35)
one has the following equation

$`\ddot{f}{\displaystyle \frac{f^21}{r^2}}f=\left(g^2\rho ^2A^2\right)f,`$
$`\ddot{\rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\dot{\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{2f^2}{r^2}}\rho =\lambda \left(\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda }}\right)\rho ,`$ (36)
$`\ddot{A}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\dot{A}{\displaystyle \frac{2f^2}{r^2}}A=0.`$
With the boundary condition

$`f(0)=1,\rho (0)=0,A(0)=0,`$
$`f(\mathrm{})=0,\rho (\mathrm{})=\rho _0,A(\mathrm{})=A_0,`$ (37)
one can integrate (Analytic Electroweak Dyon) and obtain the Julia-Zee dyon. Notice that the boundary condition, in particular $`f(0)=1`$, is crucial to make the ansatz (17) analytic at the origin.

To derive the analyticity condition (32) notice that, with (32), what the extra interaction (26) does is to modify the coupling strength of the $`W`$-boson quartic self-interaction from $`g^2/4`$ to $`e^2/4`$. So, in the absence of the $`Z`$-boson we have

$`+^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \rho )^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}\left(\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^2}{\lambda }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}\rho ^2W_\mu ^{}W_\mu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{em})}{}_{}{}^{2}+ieF_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{em})}W_\mu ^{}W_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4}}(W_\mu ^{}W_\nu W_\nu ^{}W_\mu )^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|D_\mu ^{(\mathrm{em})}W_\nu D_\nu ^{(\mathrm{em})}W_\mu |^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \rho )^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}\left(\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^2}{\lambda }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}\rho ^2W_\mu ^{}W_\mu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝑭_{\mu \nu }^2,`$ (38)
where now $`𝑭_{\mu \nu }`$ is the “electromagnetic” $`SU(2)`$ gauge field made of $`W_\mu ^1`$$`W_\mu ^2`$, and $`A_\mu ^{(\mathrm{em})}`$, with the gauge coupling constant $`e`$. Furthermore, with $`Z_\mu =0`$, the ansatz (5) is written as

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\rho (r),`$
$`𝑨_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{g^2+g^2}}A(r)_\mu t\widehat{n}`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}({\displaystyle \frac{e}{g}}f(r)1)\widehat{n}\times _\mu \widehat{n}.`$
Evidently (Analytic Electroweak Dyon) and (Analytic Electroweak Dyon) are almost identical to (Analytic Electroweak Dyon) and (Analytic Electroweak Dyon) of Georgi-Glashow model. In particular, the Yang-Mills part is completely identical, except that here the coupling constant is $`e`$, not $`g`$. This means that $`𝑨_\mu `$ becomes smooth at the origin when $`A(0)=0`$ and $`f(0)=g/e`$. Furthermore, since $`Z_\mu `$ has no monopole singularity, the ansatz (5) becomes smooth everywhere when in this case. This provides the analyticity condition (32).

With (31) and (32) we can integrate (30). The results of the numerical integration for the dyon solution are shown in Fig.1. Here we have chosen $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}`$ to be the experimental value $`0.2325`$. It is really remarkable that the finite energy solutions look almost identical to the Cho-Maison solutions, even though they no longer have the singularity at the origin and analytic everywhere. The reason for this must be clear. All that we need to make the Cho-Maison solutions analytic is a simple modification of the coupling strength of $`W`$-boson quartic self-interaction from $`g^2/4`$ to $`e^2/4`$.

Clearly the energy of the above solutions must be of the order of the electroweak scale $`M_W=g\rho _0/2`$. Indeed for the monopole the energy with $`\lambda /g^2=1/2`$ is given by

$`E=1.407\times {\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{e^2}}M_W.`$ (40)
This demonstrates that the finite energy solutions are really nothing but the regularized Cho-Maison solutions which have a mass of the electroweak scale.

Notice that we can even find an analytic monopole solution explicitly, if we add an extra term $`\delta `$ to $`+^{}`$,

$`\delta =\left(e^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}\right)\rho ^2W_\mu ^{}W_\mu .`$ (41)
This amounts to changing the mass of $`W`$-boson from $`g\rho _0/2`$ to $`e\rho _0`$. With this change the electroweak Lagrangian, in the absence of the $`Z`$-boson, becomes identical to (Analytic Electroweak Dyon) in the limit $`\lambda =0`$. In this case we have the Bogomol’nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield equation for the monopole (with $`Z_\mu =0`$),

$`\dot{f}+e\rho f=0,`$
$`\dot{\rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{er^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{f(0)^2}}1\right)=0.`$ (42)
This has the well-known analytic solution Julia

$`f=f(0){\displaystyle \frac{e\rho _0r}{\mathrm{sinh}(e\rho _0r)}}={\displaystyle \frac{g\rho _0r}{\mathrm{sinh}(e\rho _0r)}},`$
$`\rho =\rho _0\mathrm{coth}(e\rho _0r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{er}},`$ (43)
which has the energy $`(4\pi /e^2)M_W^{},(M_W^{}=e\rho _0)`$. But notice that, even in this case, the electroweak dyon becomes different from Prasad-Sommerfield dyon, because of the non-trivial $`Z`$-boson dressing.

Strictly speaking the finite energy solutions are not the solutions of Weinberg-Salam model, because their existence requires a modification of the electroweak interaction. But from the physical point of view there is no doubt that they should be interpreted as the electroweak monopole and dyon, because they are really nothing but the regularized Cho-Maison solutions. More significantly, this regularization is made possible with only a minor change of the coupling strength of $`W`$-boson quartic self-interaction. From this point of view one could say that, in retrospect, the existence of the finite energy electroweak dyon explains why the singular Cho-Maison dyon in Weinberg-Salam model could exist in the first place.

It has generally been assumed that the finite energy monopoles could exist only at the grand unification scale Dokos . But our result suggests the existence of a totally new type of electroweak monopole and dyon whose mass is much smaller than the monopoles of the grand unification. Certainly the existence of the finite energy electroweak monopole and dyon could have important physical implications. If existed, they could be the only finite energy topological objects that one could ever hope to produce with the (future) accelerators. A more detailed discussion of our work will be published in a separate paper cho02 .

Acknowledgments

The work is supported in part by Korea Research Foundation (Grant KRF-2001 -015-BP0085) and by the BK21 project of Ministry of Education.