format: text

text:
# Constructing exotic D-branes with infinite matrices in type IIA string theory

## I Setting up the action and building ordinary branes

The Yang-Mills action for a finite collection of D0-branes is444There are two standard actions for a membrane in string theory. The Born-Infeld action (a Yang-Mills action with corrections in $`\alpha ^2F`$) is known to describe D-branes by analysis of the S-matrix for strings scattering from a brane. Polchinski  The Nambu-Goto action, on the other hand, is the “obvious” action for a geometric membrane, and looks (for a 2-brane) like a gauge theory of world-volume Poisson brackets and for a higher brane like a gauge theory of higher-order bracket-like objects. The former is appropriate to D-branes (which we consider here) and the latter to membranes.
Both of these are gauge theories (with gauge group elements taking values in $`C()M_N`$ and the Poisson algebra $`P()`$ respectively, for $`N`$ branes and world-volume $``$) and thus have matrix approximations which correspond to approximating the gauge algebra with some finite-dimensional algebra. For the Born-Infeld case, we can approximate $`C()C(\mathrm{\Sigma })M_N`$ (factoring out the time component of $``$) by $`C()M_kM_N`$; this is the approximation of the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by a fuzzy space, and generalizes the usual fuzzy sphere construction. For the Nambu-Goto action, the algebra being approximated is the Poisson algebra; (e.g. the Heisenberg algebra $`[x,p]=1`$ when the membrane is a flat plane) this leads to the usual matrix membrane MatrMem  and matrix 4-brane Matr4  constructions.
The relationship between the two matrix constructions is the relationship between the Born-Infeld and Nambu-Goto actions for a brane, which is not well understood. In the remainder of this work we will consider only D-branes and thus the Born-Infeld action; the infinite matrices we consider are a generalization of the fuzzy (sphere, torus, etc.) construction.

$$S=\mu _0𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{4}F^2+fermions+RRfields,$$
(1)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=[X_\mu ,X_\nu ]`$ is the field strength and $`\mu _0=(2\pi /g)(2\pi l_s)^1`$. Certain aspects of its generalization to infinite $`N`$ are obvious; the fields now take values in an algebra $`𝒜`$ more general than $`M_N`$, and the trace becomes a trace on the algebra. What happens to $`X`$ is a bit more subtle. $`X`$ is not an ordinary ($`𝒜`$-valued) field, but rather a derivation on $`𝒜`$. (i.e., a map $`𝒜𝒜`$ that satisfies the product rule) When we say that $`X`$ is some matrix $`\widehat{X}`$, we really mean that as a derivation, $`X(f)=[\widehat{X},f]`$; this satisfies the product rule thanks to the Jacobi identity. One obvious way to see that $`X`$ is a derivation rather than a field is that in the $`p`$-brane action, the components of $`X`$ parallel to the brane become ordinary covariant derivatives.

It is worth recalling a few of the properties of derivations on algebras. (This is summarized from Palmer , a good general textbook on the subject) The set $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$ of all derivations on $`𝒜`$ forms a Lie algebra, since the commutator of two derivations is also a derivation. A theorem states that every continuous automorphism of $`𝒜`$ can be written in the form $`ae^{i\theta }a`$, where $`\theta `$ is a real parameter and $``$ is some derivation; thus this Lie algebra is the algebra of infinitesimal automorphisms of $`𝒜`$. (The proof is very similar to the derivation of angular momentum from rotational symmetry in quantum mechanics) For example, when $`𝒜=C(^n)`$, the ordinary partial derivatives form a basis for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$, and the automorphisms are general coordinate transformations. When $`𝒜=C(^n)M_k`$, (so the elements of the algebra are matrix-valued functions) a basis for the derivations is $`_i\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`[a,]`$, where $`a`$ is any matrix-valued function; the automorphisms generated by this new generator are $`U(k)`$ gauge transformations. (Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$ is truly the symmetry algebra of the system)

Note that, since $`X\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$, it transforms under this symmetry algebra by commutation. (i.e., the ordinary action of a Lie algebra) Thus $`X`$ is manifestly a gauge-covariant quantity, as is $`F=[X,X]`$. In terms of this quantity, the action (1) is also valid at infinite $`N`$. Alternatively, one may absorb the integral (and thus the time coordinate) into an additional $`C()`$ factor in $`𝒜`$; then using the fact that the trace on $`C()`$ is $`(2\pi l_s)^1𝑑t`$, (the coefficient being for later convenience and dimensional consistency) we may write the action at infinite $`N`$ in the simpler form

$$S=\frac{\pi }{2g}\mathrm{Tr}_𝒜F^2.$$
(2)
When $`𝒜=C()M_N`$, the possible derivations are $`_t`$ and $`[a,]`$. We set $`X_0=_t+A_0`$ and $`X_i=X_i+A_i`$; we can always choose our basis so that none of the $`X_i`$ contain $`_t`$. This action then immediately reduces to the ordinary finite-$`N`$ action. When $`𝒜=C(^{p+1})M_N`$, $`p+1`$ of the $`X`$’s can be partial derivatives, and the trace is $`(2\pi l_s)^{p1}d^{p+1}\xi \mathrm{Tr}_N`$, so the action (2) becomes

$$S_{C(^{p+1})M_N}=\frac{2\pi }{g(2\pi l_s)^{p+1}}d^{p+1}\xi \mathrm{Tr}_N\frac{1}{4}F^2,$$
(3)
the standard action for a stack of Dp-branes. Similarly, when $`𝒜=C()𝒜_\theta `$, the action looks structurally like the D2-brane action, but the multiplication rule for functions is now the Moyal star product; the resulting action is that of a 2-brane in a constant background B-field.555That is, the action of a single (commutative) D2-brane in a background B-field is equivalent under a gauge transformation of the 2-form to the action of the given noncommutative brane without a background field. SeiWitt  Note that these are all the same action, with different choices for $`𝒜`$.

Three related points have been subtly glossed over here. First, how do we determine which derivatives are available? Second, how is it that $`A`$ is ordinarily thought of as an $`𝒜`$-valued field, one which cannot take the value (e.g.) $`_t`$, rather than a derivation, while $`X`$ is a generic derivation? Third, the trace is normally defined in terms of ordinary elements of $`𝒜`$, but equation (2) includes a trace of a derivation. In the simple cases considered above, there seemed to be a natural interpretation, but how should this be generalized?

Note that, for any algebra $`𝒜`$ and any $`a𝒜`$, $`[a,]`$ is a derivation. The set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I(𝒜)`$ of all such derivations is called the set of inner derivations, and it is a Lie subalgebra of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$. The first Hochschild cohomology class $`H^1(𝒜)`$ is defined to be the coset $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)/\mathrm{\Delta }_I(𝒜)`$, forming a group under addition; it is a known topological invariant of algebras. Cohomology  For $`𝒜=C(^n)`$, all inner derivations are clearly zero, so $`H^1`$ is generated by the ordinary partial derivatives. For $`𝒜=M_N`$, one can show that $`H^1`$ is zero, so all derivations are inner. Unfortunately, $`H^1`$ is in general very difficult to calculate; the known results are that

1. When $``$ is a manifold, $`H^1(C())`$ is generated by the ordinary derivatives on $``$, and its dimension is equal to the dimension of $``$.
2. $`H^1(𝒜_\theta )`$ is two-dimensional, generated by the ordinary partial derivatives with respect to $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. Takai
3. When $`𝒜`$ is a von Neumann algebra (a class of algebras that includes $`M_N`$, $`𝕂`$ and $`𝔹`$666$`𝕂`$ is the algebra of compact operators, the set of infinite matrices whose eigenvalues, listed in descending order, go to zero; it is the algebra of infinite matrices that appears e.g. in the matrix membrane construction. HoppeS ; Harvey ; Zunger  $`𝔹`$ is the algebra of countably infinite matrices with bounded eigenvalues.) $`H^1(𝒜)`$ is trivial.
4. Higher Hochschild cohomology classes (see the references for details) obey the Künneth formula

$$H^n(𝒜)=\underset{p+q=n}{}H^p(𝒜)H^q(),$$
(4)
and $`H^0(𝒜)`$ is trivial for every $`𝒜`$; thus

$$H^1(𝒜)=H^1(𝒜)H^1().$$
(5)
5. Hochschild cohomology is continuous over inductive limits, i.e. $`H^n(\underset{}{lim}𝒜_i)=\underset{}{lim}H^n(𝒜_i)`$. This follows from theorem 21.3.1 of Blackadar . In particular, $`H^1(𝒜)=0`$ whenever $`𝒜`$ is an AF-algebra. (An AF-algebra is a C\*-algebra that is the limit of a sequence of finite-dimensional algebras)

$`H^1`$ is a vector space over $`𝒜^{}`$, the set of elements of $`𝒜`$ which commute with all of $`𝒜`$.

This answers the first question, of how the set of allowable derivations was determined. The answer to the second question is that the fluctuation $`A`$ of $`X`$ is an “ordinary field in $`𝒜`$,” i.e. an inner derivation in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I(𝒜)`$. The physical intuition of this is that $`A`$ should correspond to a bounded fluctuation, which a partial derivative such as $``$ is not. (Its eigenvalues spread over all of $``$) Another way to show this is that $`A`$ is an inner derivation for the same reason that on commutative space it is a function: if one begins from the definition of a bundle in terms of transition functions, the connection is the Poincaré dual of the derivative of the log of the transition function, and therefore an ordinary 1-form. (With function-valued coefficients) This argument continues unchanged in the noncommutative case. Aschieri  The third question can now be answered by saying that the trace acting on an inner derivation is the ordinary algebraic trace, and acting on an outer derivation

$$\mathrm{Tr}=0.$$
(6)
This is simply the fundamental theorem of calculus, generalized to noncommutative space.

Note that adding a B-field (even a nonconstant one) to an ordinary brane will not create all of these states, since a B-field can deform the algebra by changing $`[x_i,x_j]`$ but it leaves $`[_i,_j]=0`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$ is a Lie algebra, in general partial derivatives on these noncommutative spaces do not commute!

## II Brane stability and some extraordinary branes

We now wish to determine the criteria for a configuration specified by some $`𝒜`$ and $`X`$ to be stable. We cannot, in general, rely on supersymmetry alone since an arbitrary brane configuration preserves no supercharges. Even in the commutative case, the BPS condition alone is not sufficient to describe stability, as the stability constraints often involve nontrivial anomaly cancellations. These are summarized in the commutative case by K-theory, which is known to reproduce the correct phases in the M-theory partition function DMW  and to summarize all BPS and anomaly conditions. MMS  We would like to generalize these considerations to noncommutative branes.

In our case there are two stability issues to consider: quantum-mechanical decay to closed string states and semi-classical collapse similar to that of the unsupported fuzzy sphere. The first of these two concerns whether or not the brane can decay to closed string states by nucleating brane-antibrane pairs. (Since there are only branes in this theory, this is the only type of quantum process which can occur) In order to do this, we need to consider stacks of noncommutative branes and antibranes.

The most convenient language for this is the language of modules.777A module over an algebra is like a vector space, but with $`𝒜`$-valued rather than real-valued coefficients. Modules over $`𝒜`$ are the noncommutative version of bundles over a space, in the following way. On a commutative space $``$, to every bundle $`E`$ there corresponds the $`C()`$-module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ of its sections. The Serre-Swan theorem Serre-Swan  states that this is actually a duality between the set of all bundles on $``$ and the set of all finitely generated, projective modules over $`C()`$.888A finitely generated projective module is a module $`E`$ for which there is a second module $`F`$ such that $`EF`$ is the trivial module $`C()^n`$, for some finite $`n`$. This “cancellation condition” for the modules is the module analogue of Swan’s Theorem, which states that for every vector bundle $`E`$ there is a bundle $`F`$ such that their direct sum $`EF`$ is a trivial bundle. For noncommutative spaces, we simply define a “bundle” to be such a module over $`𝒜`$. Now on a commutative space, there is an obvious relationship (again, a pairing) between a covariant derivative $`X`$ and its associated bundle; this relationship extends to the noncommutative case Aschieri , so we can associate to the covariant derivative $`X`$ an $`𝒜`$-module which (by abuse of notation) we also call $`X`$. Physically, this corresponds to the boundary state description of a brane; the elements of $`𝒜`$ are composed of position and momentum operators, and are thus open string operators, and the module $`X`$ is a collection of kets on which they act, i.e. boundary states. The module notation is simply the boundary state description in the noncommutative case.

The reason we want to use this formalism is that it makes it easy to consider systems of multiple branes. Consider two noncommutative branes corresponding to modules $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Then placing both branes together corresponds to the module $`XY`$, with the operators acting on them being $`2\times 2`$ matrices in $`𝒜`$. (These correspond to $`XX`$ and $`YY`$ strings on the diagonal, and $`XY`$ strings on the off-diagonal) Similarly a stack of $`N`$ branes would be described by a direct sum of modules, acted upon by $`M_N(𝒜)`$. These clearly form an additive semigroup under $``$.

Now imagine that we take a brane $`X`$ and an antibrane $`Y`$. Again the module is $`XY`$, acted upon by a $`2\times 2`$ matrix of elements of $`𝒜`$, but now the off-diagonal elements correspond to $`D\overline{D}`$ strings and thus have the opposite GSO projection. WittenK  In operator language, this corresponds to a graded algebra where the diagonal elements of $`M_2(𝒜)`$ have positive sign and the off-diagonal elements have negative sign; the total GSO projection is the product of the ordinary GSO projection and this sign factor. For notational clarity, we write $`X`$ as $`(X,0)`$ and $`Y`$ as $`(0,Y)`$, emphasizing that there are modules and “antimodules;” their sum is the graded module $`(X,Y)`$.

We can now describe the quantum stability condition. We want to allow the brane (initially described by some $`(X,Y)`$) to undergo nucleation of an arbitrary brane-antibrane pair, described by $`(Z,Z)`$ for some $`Z`$. Thus the brane is defined only up to the equivalence relation

$$(X,Y)(XZ,YZ).$$
(7)
Using the fact that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are finitely generated projective modules, we know that there is some $`Z`$ for which $`YZ=0`$; thus without loss of generality, we can continue to denote our brane by $`X`$ alone. The set of graded modules under addition, modulo this equivalence relation, is precisely the definition of the group $`K_0(𝒜)`$, the noncommutative generalization of K-theory;999This is actually the definition of $`K_{00}(𝒜)`$, a precursor of K-theory which agrees with $`K_0`$ when the noncommutative space is “compact,” i.e. when $`𝒜`$ is unital. (The distinction is similar to the requirement of compact support in the commutative case) When $`𝒜`$ does not contain the identity, the transition from covariant derivatives to modules does not work properly. Instead one can define modules on the unitization $`𝒜^+=𝒜\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of $`𝒜`$, and then mod out the group of graded modules both by the equivalence relation (7) and by the condition that $`X`$ be trivial on the extra $``$ factor. (In the commutative case, adding the extra $`C(pt.)`$ factor is like adjoining a point at infinity, and the extra condition is that the bundles be trivial at that point) The group defined by this pair of equivalence relations is $`K_0(𝒜)`$. modulo brane nucleation, $`X`$ is defined only as an element of this group.101010A technical aside about the K-theory argument and why I (tentatively) believe it: Arguments for the quantum stability of branes based on brane-antibrane nucleation are the standard way of arriving at K-theoretic charges, since they are both physically intuitive and quickly lead to the correct result. (The physical correctness of K-theory as the conserved charge, at least in the commutative case, is strongly indicated by the nontrivial matching of phases in the IIA partition function obtained using K-theory to those obtained from M-theory. DMW ) However, one should take these arguments with a grain of salt. First, they are only strictly valid at weak coupling, since at strong coupling the perturbation expansion implicit in talking about intermediate virtual states is not guaranteed to exist. Second, in the commutative case the brane-antibrane argument does not make clear the origin of certain anomaly cancellation conditions which it implies; in technical language, one can describe commutative K-theory as a series of refinements of the ordinary cohomological charges by means of the Atiyah-Hirzebruch Spectral Sequence. (AHSS) The brane-antibrane anihilation condition, strictly interpreted, only explains the first term in this sequence; higher terms must be thought of in terms of anomaly influxes to various instanton configurations. (The careful commutative argument based on the AHSS was given in MMS ) Nonetheless, these brane anihilation arguments repeatably seem to give the “right answer,” namely K-theory, in the commutative case, naturally including all higher terms in the AHSS, and (based on the non-perturbative test of DMW ) correctly even in strong coupling.
I am therefore continuing to use this argument in the noncommutative case. We are implicitly assuming weak coupling here, but one may expect it to continue into the strong-coupling limit as it does in the commutative case, for similar reasons. The second argument is harder to analyze in this case since there is no good noncommutative analogue of the AHSS approximation to K-theory, but we should note that in the case of vanishing torsion (which is implicit in our assumption of no background fields) the terms beyond the first in the commutative AHSS are automatically zero. In the presence of torsion, moreover, the algorithm for going from a covariant derivative to a module will be torsion-dependent, so one could reasonably expect the correct torsion dependence to arise in such a manner. This belief is further reinforced by the result from category theory that K-theory is essentially the only possible topological invariant of an algebra which satisfies reasonable covariance properties. Cuntz

Two things can help clarify this: comparing it to the analogous commutative calculation and examining known cases. In the commutative case, one begins with a stack of space-filling 9-branes described by a bundle $`E`$. (This bundle is a collection of ten covariant derivatives, analogous to our $`X`$. 9-branes are used because this causes all components of $`X`$ to “turn on,” i.e. acquire a partial derivative term, so that the bundle is over all of spacetime; in our formalism, we used zero-branes but their infinite number allows all components to be turned on as well.) Stacks of branes and antibranes can be described by pairs of bundles $`(E,F)`$, again with opposite GSO projections for brane-antibrane strings. By creating a brane-antibrane pair, we transform this to $`(EH,FH)`$, and so we say that the brane state is only defined modulo transformations of this sort. The set of bundles on the spacetime $``$ modulo this relationship defines the commutative K-theory class $`K^0()K_0(C())`$. Then using the Sen construction Sen  to build lower branes out of higher branes by repeated anihilation, this result can be extended to $`p<9`$, giving the same result where now $``$ is the manifold wrapped by the brane. WittenK

Several things should be noted about this. First, the commutative argument has a remarkably similar structure to our argument above, in that it involves pairs of branes and antibranes forming a group under addition modulo anihilation. They differ in that the noncommutative construction begins from 0-branes and “builds upwards” to form higher branes by noncommutative methods, while the commutative argument begins from 9-branes and “builds downwards” via the Sen conjecture to form lower branes. Also, the commutative argument began from stable 9-branes, and is therefore appropriate to type IIB; there is an analogous argument for type IIA string theory HoravaK  which gives the result that $`XK^1()`$, where $``$ is the spatial part of the manifold wrapped by the brane, and $`K^1`$ is a certain higher K-class. (Its details are discussed in the references; we do not need them here.)

We can (and should) compare our results to these in the cases where they both coincide, namely $`𝒜=C(^{p+1})M_N`$. In order to do this, we must first be a bit more careful about what we mean by $`C()`$. Normally this is used to denote $`C_0()`$, the set of complex-valued functions of $``$ vanishing at infinity. (This is the algebra dual to $``$ by the standard pairing of algebras and spaces) This is clearly correct for the spacelike components of $`𝒜`$, since we want to consider gauge fluctuations which become trivial at spacelike infinity. However, it is not correct for the time component; there is no boundary condition that forces $`X`$ to go to zero at timelike infinity! Instead, the time component ought to be $`C(_{\mathrm{}})`$, the set of continuous functions on $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$. (So that a nontrivial boundary condition may be set at $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$) This interval is homeomorphic to the closed unit interval $`[0,1]`$, which is homeomorphic to a point, so $`C(_{\mathrm{}})C_0(^p)C(pt.)C_0(^p)C_0(^p)`$. Since $`K_0`$ is invariant under homeomorphisms of algebras, we can perform this substitution inside $`K_0`$. Also, by the stability theorem for K-theory $`K_0(𝒜M_N)=K_0(𝒜)`$ for any $`𝒜`$. Thus $`K_0(C(_{\mathrm{}})C_0(^p)M_N)=K_0(C_0(^p))`$, which (by a standard result) is $``$ when $`p`$ is even and the trivial group when $`p`$ is odd.AnyK

Physically, this means that for $`p`$ even, the set of modules $`X`$ up to brane nucleation is isomorphic to the integers, and so there is an integer-valued charge associated with $`X`$ which is not changed by nucleation. If one examines the calculation of $`K_0(C_0(^p))`$ in detail, (see references) one finds that this charge is simply the number of branes. When $`p`$ is odd, however, every $`X`$ is equivalent (under brane nucleation) to the trivial module, so this $`𝒜`$ leads to unstable branes for all $`X`$. This is clearly the right answer for type IIA string theory.

This concludes the discussion of quantum stability and K-theory. The second stability issue occurs once we have ‘fixed’ this, i.e. once $`𝒜`$ is given and $`X`$ is a module (i.e. a covariant derivative) which represents a nonzero class in $`K_0(𝒜)`$. We are now left with possible classical fluctuations of $`X`$, i.e. continuous variations of $`A`$. The potential stability issue is one that was alluded to before, namely the possibility of gravitational collapse down to a point – a situation which, while it does include an infinite number of 0-branes, is certainly not particularly interesting. At a simple level, this happens because (if we fix timelike gauge $`A_0=0`$) the potential is

$$V=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒜\frac{1}{4}[X_i,X_j]^2$$
(8)
where the indices go over space coordinates $`1\mathrm{}9`$. The minimum of this clearly happens when the $`X`$’s commute, but in general even partial derivatives on noncommutative spaces don’t commute ($`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$ is, after all, a Lie algebra) and so the minimum ends up at $`X=0`$ rather than $`A=0`$. (This is exactly what happens for the fuzzy sphere, where the $`X`$ are a set of matrices describing a sphere at finite $`N`$ FuzzySphere1 ; FuzzySphere2 )

The obstruction to such a collapse in a trivial background is the fact (mentioned above) that $`X`$ is a general derivation in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$ but $`A`$ is restricted to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I(𝒜)`$. Thus classical fluctuations can only move $`X`$ within a fixed element of $`H^1(𝒜)`$; if a given component of $`X`$ has an outer VEV, then no classical fluctuation can ever cancel it, and so $`X=0`$ is topologically excluded from the space of possible solutions. Clearly the number of linearly independent components of $`X`$ which can be stabilized in this manner is no greater than the dimension of $`H^1(𝒜)`$, so we can refer to this latter number as the effective dimension of the brane.

This statement is true only in the case of a trivial background. Supersymmetry adds extra terms to the potential which stabilize the system when $`X`$ wraps supersymmetric cycles. In a flat background, the only such cycles are infinite flat hyperplanes, and this issue does not apply; however, even a finite-$`N`$ fuzzy torus can wrap a $`T^2`$ of the background space and be stable. FuzzyTorusS  Similarly nontrivial Ramond-Ramond backgrounds can stabilize configurations, as a background $`C_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(3)}`$ does a fuzzy sphere. Both of these can cause additional states (beyond those given here) to have nontrivial spatial extent; the considerations discussed here are those which determine whether a brane can be stable even in the absence of such additional forces.

The two topological conserved charges $`H^1`$ and $`K_0`$ are compatible in the sense that fluctuations of $`A`$ within $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I(𝒜)`$ lead to continuous deformations of $`X`$, which leave $`K_0`$ invariant. Thus classical fluctuations never change the quantum charge.

If we examine this charge for ordinary branes, we see a very unsurprising result. For any manifold $``$ wrapped by a brane, $`H^1(C())`$ is generated by the ordinary derivatives on $``$ (covariant derivatives in the GR sense) and the number of stabilized dimensions is exactly the ordinary dimension of $``$. (Note that this happens even if the brane is initially curved non-supersymmetrically, so that there is a nonzero potential; the dimension of the brane nonetheless remains fixed) Similarly for the Moyal plane, only two components can be stabilized. For a finite number of D0-branes, however, $`H^1`$ is generated by $`_t`$ alone and there is no stabilization; all finite-$`N`$ systems collapse.

Thus we find that in order for a noncommutative brane $`(𝒜,X)`$ to be stable, $`X`$ must represent a nonzero class in $`K_0(𝒜)`$ and have more than one component with a nonzero projection onto $`H^1(𝒜)`$. This, of course, requires that both $`K_0(𝒜)`$ and $`H^1(𝒜)`$ be nontrivial. $`K_0(𝒜)`$ then forms the “group of conserved charges,” in the sense that when multiple branes are adjoined to one another, the charges add using the addition rule of $`K_0`$.

This leads to some interesting conjectures about the types of branes which may be built by this method. In order to build a brane other than a commutative brane or a brane in a background $`B`$-field, one must find an algebra $`𝒜`$ such that $`K_0(𝒜)`$ is nontrivial, $`H^1(𝒜)`$ is at least two-dimensional, and at least two derivations in $`H^1(𝒜)`$ do not commute. (cf. the note at end of section 1)

The main obstacle to explicitly constructing such an algebra is that it is hard to calculate $`H^1`$, and the list of algebras known to have $`H^10`$ is unfortunately short.111111The earlier list of results represents the present state of the art. I attempted to extend this somewhat by computing $`H^1`$ for algebras freely generated on $`N`$ operators with a generic normal-ordering prescription. The results (after much computation) were that for two generators, the only algebras with nonzero $`H^1`$ are $`C(^2)`$, $`C(T^2)`$ and $`𝒜_\theta `$, either with or without a unit adjoined. (These correspond geometrically to the noncommutative torus and plane, respectively) For all other algebras — which includes the Heisenberg algebra $`[x,p]=1`$, as well as various algebras with rules like $`uv=\alpha v^pu^q+\gamma `$$`H^1`$ is zero. For three generators, the problem rapidly became intractable even with the aid of a computer; it is an interesting open problem. Getting a nontrivial $`H^1`$ by means of direct products alone, i.e. by taking an algebra $`𝒜=C(^{p+1})𝒜_0`$ where $`H^1(𝒜_0)=0`$, doesn’t stabilize the brane in an interesting manner; it simply builds the unstable algebra $`𝒜_0`$ out of $`p`$-branes rather than 0-branes. However, all three of the properties specified above are believed to be generic properties of C\*-algebras; therefore we can strongly conjecture that such states exist and should be easily accessible given better means of computing $`H^1`$.

An interesting feature of these exotic branes is that not all of them have integer-valued conserved charges. A classical theorem AnyGp  states that every Abelian group is $`K_0`$ of some algebra; this therefore raises the possibilities of $`_N`$ and $``$. The former possibility is not surprising, being a generalization of the type I D-instanton which has a $`_2`$ charge, also for K-theoretic reasons. WittenK  Real-valued charges, on the other hand, are excluded by Dirac quantization. The brane has a monopole coupling to the $`C^{(p+1)}`$ Ramond-Ramond field, where $`p+1`$ is the effective (Hochschild) dimension; this is simply the continuum limit of the Myers dielectric coupling. (See appendix) Similarly it couples magnetically to a $`(dp3)`$–form potential, so the dual monopole (if such exists; we conjecture that this is the case but the argument may be subtle) is a $`(dp3)`$–dimensional noncommutative object. If both objects share a time direction but are otherwise transverse to one another, there remain three spatial dimensions transverse to both branes. The coupling terms are therefore $`C_{0\mathrm{}p}^{(p+1)}`$ for the electric brane and $`C_{0,p+1,\mathrm{},d3}^{(dp3)}`$, with the electric charge valued in the Abelian group $`K_0(𝒜)`$ and the magnetic charge in its dual group. If we reduce to the transverse dimensions and time, these become point particles coupled electrically and magnetically to a 1-form gauge field in 3+1 dimensions. We may therefore apply the ordinary Dirac quantization argument in this case, showing that the product of the two charges must be $`2\pi `$ times an integer. This can only happen if both the electric and magnetic charges are integral, and thus if $`K_0`$ is either $`_N`$ or $``$.

We therefore conclude that a continuous charge is inconsistent with Dirac quantization for noncommutative branes in the same way as it is for commutative ones, since the branes carry a monopole coupling to the Ramond-Ramond fields. This leads to a conjecture (no more since the proof above is not rigorous) that so long as $`H^1(𝒜)`$ is nonzero, $`K_0(𝒜)`$ must be $``$ or $`_N`$, or phrased another way whenever $`𝒜`$ is a simple C\*-algebra and $`K_0(𝒜)`$ is continuous, then $`H^1(𝒜)=0`$.121212Simplicity is required to avoid the trivial solution $`𝒜=𝒜_0𝒜_1`$, where the nonzero $`H^1`$ comes from $`𝒜_0`$ and the large $`K_0`$ from $`𝒜_1`$ with $`H^1(𝒜_1)=0`$, as when an unstable noncommutative brane $`𝒜_1`$ is built out of $`p`$-branes rather than 0-branes. In this case, we may simply factor out $`𝒜_0`$ by considering only dimensions transverse to it, and repeat the previous argument for $`𝒜_1`$. This argument may also fail if $`H^1(𝒜)`$ is large enough that there are fewer than three transverse dimensions; in these cases, however, back-reaction can no longer be ignored and so the construction of branes becomes subtle for other reasons. As a mathematical statement about algebras (rather than a physical one about branes), this relationship between invariants should continue to hold because this argument could be done in any sufficiently high dimension. This result is consistent with known results about C\*-algebras.

The author would like to thank Allan Adams, Simeon Hellerman and Leonard Susskind for valuable conversations and suggestions. This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number PHY-9870015.

## III Appendix: Technical details at the DBI level

In order to make these arguments rigorous at the DBI level, we must give a detailed prescription for the action with infinite matrices, and demonstrate that the identification of a stack of $`p`$-branes with the algebra $`C(^{p+1})M_N`$ continues to hold. At the Yang-Mills level, this happened because the action depended only on the full field strength $`F`$ and not independently on the components parallel and transverse to the brane. This meant that whether a given component of $`X_\mu `$ was a brane direction or not could be determined simply by whether or not its VEV contained a partial derivative term.

For the Neveu-Schwarz term in the Born-Infeld action, a similar argument holds, since the action may be written (following equation (26) of Myers ) as

$$S=\mu _0𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}e^\varphi \sqrt{P[G+B]+F},$$
(9)
where $`G=\eta `$ is the (flat) background metric, $`B`$ is the background tensor field (zero in our case) and $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton. Pullbacks are defined as in the finite-matrix case.

For the Ramond-Ramond term, however, there are subtleties due to the Myers effect. The action for a set of D0-branes is

$$S=\mu _0P[e^{\iota _X\iota _X}Ce^B],$$
(10)
where $`C`$ is the formal sum of background Ramond-Ramond fields, $`B`$ is the Neveu-Schwarz tensor field, (here zero) and $`\iota _X`$ is the inner product of forms with derivatives. For finite matrices, this satisfies $`\iota _X(C_\mu dx^\mu )=X^\mu C_\mu `$, and the commutator terms coming from multiple insertions of $`X`$ leads to the well-known Myers coupling of the brane to higher Ramond-Ramond charges. (Since each insertion of an $`X`$ lowers the degree of the form by one)

To define $`\iota _X(C)`$ for an algebra with outer $`X`$, consider the case for an ordinary manifold $`𝒜=C()`$, where $`X`$ is a covariant derivative. Let $`d\xi ^a`$ be a basis for world-volume forms and $`dx^\mu `$ be a basis for spacetime forms. By linearity of the inner product of vector fields and forms, $`\iota _X(C)=d\xi ^aX_a,C_\mu dx^\mu =d\xi ^aX_a,dx^\mu C_\mu `$, so we only need the latter product. This is defined since 1-forms are defined to be dual objects to vectors, i.e. maps $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)𝒜`$. For the exterior derivative of a function $`f`$ in $`𝒜`$, we can use the definition

$$df:df()=(f)$$
(11)
for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$. Thus

$$X_a,dx^\mu =dx^\mu (X_a)=X_a(x^\mu ),$$
(12)
where the latter is the action of $`X_a`$ as a derivative on the embedding function $`x^\mu `$. Since $`X_a=D_a`$ is a covariant derivative, we can put this together to give

$$\iota _X(C)=d\xi ^aD_a(x^\mu )C_\mu $$
(13)
which gives the inner product when $`X_a`$ is outer. When some $`X`$’s are outer and some are inner, these combine to give

$$\iota _X(C)=d\xi ^aD_a(x^\mu )C_\mu +X^iC_i$$
(14)
where $`a`$ indexes the outer $`X`$’s and $`i`$ the inner.

For $`𝒜=C(^{p+1})M_N`$, with $`X_a=_a`$ for $`a=0\mathrm{}p`$, then, the Myers coupling becomes

$`\mu _0{\displaystyle _{}}\mathrm{Tr}_{C\left(^p\right)M_N}P[\iota _X^2C^{(3)}+\mathrm{}]`$ (15)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{(2\pi l_s)^p}}{\displaystyle _{^{p+1}}}\mathrm{Tr}_NP[d\xi ^aD_aX^\mu d\xi ^bD_bX^\nu C_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(3)}dx^\lambda +\mathrm{}]`$
$`=\mu _p{\displaystyle _{^{p+1}}}\mathrm{Tr}_N𝑑\xi ^a𝑑\xi ^b𝑑\xi ^cD_aX^\mu D_bX^\nu D_cX^\nu C_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(3)}+\mathrm{}`$
$`=\mu _p{\displaystyle _{^{p+1}}}\mathrm{Tr}_NP_{p+1}\left[C_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(3)}dx^\mu dx^\nu dx^\lambda \right]+\mathrm{}`$
where $`P_{p+1}`$ is the pullback onto a $`(p+1)`$-dimensional worldvolume and $`P`$ is the pullback onto the original D0-brane worldline, and the ordinary formula for this was used in the second step. The ellipses represent similar terms for each higher $`C^{(k)}`$. The final integral keeps only terms with $`p+1`$ $`d\xi `$’s, so the term involving $`C^{(p+1)}`$ contracted entirely with outer indices gives the ordinary monopole Ramond-Ramond coupling of a $`p`$-brane. For higher forms, $`p`$ indices may be contracted with outer components of $`X`$, and the remaining components must be contracted with inner components, which gives the usual Myers dielectric coupling of a brane to higher-rank fields.

This construction continues to hold for algebras other than $`C(^{p+1})M_N`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝒜)`$ be the dual space of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$; to every outer derivation $`_a`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$ there exists a dual basis 1-form $`d\xi ^a`$ satisfying

$$d\xi ^a(_b)=\eta ^a_b$$
(16)
for some metric function $`\eta ^a_b`$. The metric cannot be set equal to one unless $`𝒜`$ is unital, but the $`d\xi `$’s are nonetheless paired 1-1 with the partials since $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝒜)\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$ whenever $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒜)`$ is reflexive as a Banach space. (This is true whenever $`𝒜`$ is a C\*-algebra)

Finally, the fermion terms of the action are straightforward. The basis forms $`d\xi ^a`$ form an $`𝒜`$-module which is a natural $`O(n)`$-structure on $`𝒜`$, where $`n=dimH^1(𝒜)`$. The condition for this to lift to a spin structure can be derived by exactly the same computation as for a manifold, with ordinary cohomology now replaced by Hochschild cohomology. (i.e., the integral cohomology classes $`H^{(1,2)}(𝒜,_2)`$ must both vanish to guarantee orientability and spin, respectively) This allows the definition of spin bundles, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices and a Dirac operator may be constructed out of the metric in the usual manner. The fermions themselves are $`𝒜`$-valued fields (not derivations) and so their action may be written down in the same manner as for non-Abelian fermions on a commutative space. Supersymmetry is manifestly maintained by checking it in terms of components. (Of course, any particular configuration $`X_\mu `$ will usually violate supersymmetry)

Corrections to the Born-Infeld action due to nontrivial commutators have been computed up to order $`\alpha ^4F^8`$. KoerberSevrin  These actions affect only the Neveu-Schwarz term and are purely in terms of the full $`F`$, so the previous argument continues through without change. Thus the Born-Infeld action continues to be defined for the case of infinite matrices, and for the particular case $`𝒜=C(^{p+1})M_N`$ the action reproduces that of a stack of $`N`$ $`p`$-branes.


text:
# Quantum phase transition in one-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensates with attractive interactions

## I Introduction

Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) in low dimensions ldbec , and matter-wave bright solitons in quasi-one-dimensional systems bsoliton1 ; bsoliton2  have been realized experimentally. In homogeneous infinite one-dimensional (1D) systems BEC does not occur since long-wavelength fluctuations of the phase destroy the off-diagonal long-range order Hoh . In the presence of spatial confinement, however, BECs are possible in 1D, since the confinement introduces a cut-off for the long-wavelength fluctuations and hence helps maintain the long-range correlation of the phase.

The 1D systems of bosons with contact interactions have been solved exactly for several cases. For example, in the case of infinite systems, exact solutions are known for both repulsive LL  and attractive interactions MG . For periodic finite systems, the exact solution is obtained for the Tonks gas of impenetrable bosons G , which corresponds to the low-density and strong repulsive-interaction limit. Attractive bosons confined in a finite system with periodic boundary conditions, however, have been studied within the mean-field theory (MFT) Carr , or based on exact solutions for a system of a few bosons LL ; ext . The MFT is valid when $`n\xi 1`$, where $`n`$ is the particle density and $`\xi `$ is the healing length. When the strength of attractive interactions is increased, the ground state undergoes a transition from a uniform solution to a bright-soliton solution at a critical point. The purpose of this paper is to point out that even when the condition $`n\xi 1`$ holds, the results of the MFT should qualitatively be modified near the critical point due to quantum fluctuations. We study the critical behavior of the system based on an exact diagonalization method. Such a transition around the critical point can be studied experimentally using the Feshbach resonance, which can control the strength and the sign of interactions fbMIT ; fbJILA .

The system considered in the present paper consists of $`N`$-bosons confined in a toroidal container of radius $`R`$ and cross section $`S=\pi r^2`$, where the condition $`rR`$ is assumed. Interactions between particles at sufficiently low temperatures are well described by the contact potential and this potential is free from divergence in 1D unlike in higher dimensions. Low-energy scattering is characterized by the $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a`$ and the Hamiltonian for the system is given by

$`\widehat{}={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta \left[\widehat{\psi }^{}(\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta ^2}}\widehat{\psi }(\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}\widehat{\psi }^{}(\theta )\widehat{\psi }^{}(\theta )\widehat{\psi }(\theta )\widehat{\psi }(\theta )\right],`$ (1)
where $`U=\frac{8\pi aR}{S}`$, $`\theta `$ denotes the azimuthal angle, the length and the energy are measured in units of $`R`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2mR^2}`$, respectively. The properties of the system described by the Hamiltonian (1) are characterized by a single, dimensionless parameter

$`\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{UN}{2\pi }},`$ (2)
which is the ratio of the mean-field interaction energy per particle to the kinetic energy. Experimentally, a quasi-1D toroidal geometry may be realized using an optical trap with Laguerre-Gaussian beams toroidal . By tightening the confinement in the radial direction so that energy-level spacings in that direction exceed the interaction energy, we can restrict the atomic motion virtually to one dimension as described by the Hamiltonian (1).

This paper is organized as follows. Section II studies stationary solutions and elementary excitations of the system within the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) MFT. A quantum phase transition between uniform and bright-soliton states is found. The lowest excitation spectrum and the number of virtually excited particles due to interactions are derived analytically within the Bogoliubov approximation. The results indicate that the Bogoliubov theory breaks down near the critical point because the number of excitations diverges there. Section III employs the exact diagonalization of the many-body Hamiltonian in a low-energy regime to examine quantum effects on the ground-state properties, low-lying spectra, and the position of the critical point. The MFT does not give any information about the two-body correlation and condensate fraction. In contrast, the exact diagonalization reveals that these properties deviate from those of the MFT, particularly in the soliton regime. In particular, near the critical point, the number of condensate bosons and the number of excitations undergo large quantum fluctuations, removing the singularity at the critical point and creating an energy gap.

## II mean-field description of the quantum phase transition between uniform and soliton solutions

### II.1 Stationary solutions of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation

A weakly interacting Bose system is well described by the Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field theory. In a D-dimensional system with particle density $`n=N/L^D`$, “weakly interacting” means that the healing length is much longer than the mean interparticle distance $`n^{1/D}`$. In 1D, this condition amounts to high density and small $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a`$. When these conditions are met, a condensate “wave function” $`\psi _0`$ obeys the one-dimensional GP equation

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _0}{t}}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta ^2}}+UN|\psi _0|^2\right]\psi _0,`$ (3)
where $`\psi _0`$ is normalized as $`_0^{2\pi }|\psi _0|^2𝑑\theta =1`$. A stationary solution of Eq. (3) under the periodic boundary condition $`\psi _0(0)=\psi _0(2\pi )`$ is given by Carr

$`\psi _0(\theta )=`$
$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}}\hfill & |\hfill & \gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|,\hfill \\ \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{K(m)}{2\pi E(m)}}}\mathrm{dn}\left({\displaystyle \frac{K(m)}{\pi }}(\theta \theta _0)|m\right)\hfill & |\hfill & \gamma |>|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|,\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
where $`K(m)`$ and $`E(m)`$ are the complete elliptic integrals of the first and the second kinds, respectively, and dn$`(u|m)`$ is a Jacobian elliptic function math . A constant phase $`\theta _0`$ in Eq. (6) indicates that the soliton solution describes a broken symmetry state, where all states are degenerate with respect to $`\theta _0`$. The parameter $`m`$ is determined from

$`K(m)E(m)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\gamma }{2}}(0m1).`$ (7)
It can be shown that Eq. (7) has a solution only for $`|\gamma |\frac{1}{2}`$, where the $`|\gamma |`$-dependences of $`m`$, $`K`$, and $`E`$ are shown in Figs. 1(a) and (b). It is clear from Fig. 1(a) that the mean-field critical point is given by $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}=\frac{1}{2}`$, at which the ground state changes from the uniform condensate to the bright soliton. Figure 2 illustrates the wave functions for several interaction strength. We see that when $`|\gamma |`$ exceeds $`\frac{1}{2}`$, BEC begins to localize and develops into a soliton.

The ground-state energy per particle $`\epsilon =\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}+\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}`$, which is the sum of the kinetic energy $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}`$ and the interaction energy $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}`$, is given for $`|\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ by

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}},\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}=0,`$ (8)
and for $`|\gamma |>|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ by

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^2(m)}{3\pi ^2E(m)}}\left[(2m)E(m)+(1m)K(m)\right],`$ (9)
$`\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^2(m)}{3\pi ^2E(m)}}\left[(2m)E(m)2(1m)K(m)\right],`$ (10)
$`\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K(m)\gamma }{6E^2(m)}}\left[2(2m)E(m)(1m)K(m)\right].`$ (11)
The chemical potential $`\mu =\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}+2\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}`$ is therefore given by

$`\mu =\{\begin{array}{ccc}\gamma \hfill & |\hfill & \gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|,\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{K^2(m)(2m)}{\pi ^2}}\hfill & |\hfill & \gamma |>|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|.\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
Figure 3(a) shows the ground-state energy $`\epsilon `$, the kinetic energy $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}`$, the interaction energy $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}`$ per particle, and the chemical potential $`\mu `$ as functions of $`|\gamma |`$. While both $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}`$ have a cusp at $`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$, their sum $`\epsilon `$ is everywhere smooth. However, the first derivative of $`\epsilon `$ with respect to $`|\gamma |`$ has a cusp and hence its second derivative is discontinuous at $`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ as shown in Fig. 3(b). We now study these behaviors analytically.

### II.2 Properties of the system near the critical point and in the large-$`|\gamma |`$ limit

Let $`\delta `$ be a positive small deviation of $`\gamma `$ from the critical point and define $`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_\pm |\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|\pm \delta `$. From Eq. (7), we obtain $`m=8\delta ^{1/2}32\delta +89\delta ^{3/2}200\delta ^2+𝒪(\delta ^{5/2})`$. It follows then that the complete elliptic integrals can be expressed in terms of $`\delta `$ as

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left(1+2\delta ^{\frac{1}{2}}+\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta ^{\frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta ^2\right)+𝒪(\delta ^{\frac{5}{2}}),`$ (15)
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left(12\delta ^{\frac{1}{2}}+5\delta {\displaystyle \frac{33}{4}}\delta ^{\frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{23}{2}}\delta ^2\right)+𝒪(\delta ^{\frac{5}{2}}).`$ (16)
In the limit of $`|\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_+`$, the soliton solution approaches the uniform one, since $`\mathrm{dn}(u|m)1`$ as $`m0`$. In the same limit the ground-state energy per particle and the chemical potential behave as

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}2\delta ^2+𝒪(\delta ^3),`$ (17)
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}3\delta {\displaystyle \frac{3\delta ^2}{2}}+𝒪(\delta ^3),`$ (18)
and their derivatives with respect to $`|\gamma |`$ are therefore given by

$`\epsilon ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}4\delta +𝒪(\delta ^2),\mu ^{}=33\delta +𝒪(\delta ^2),`$
$`\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}^{}=25\delta +𝒪(\delta ^2),\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}+\delta +𝒪(\delta ^2).`$ (19)
In the limit of $`|\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_{}`$, however, we obtain

$`\epsilon ^{}=\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}^{}=0,\mu ^{}=1.`$ (20)
Equations (19) and (20) confirm that both $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}^{}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}^{}`$ are discontinuous at $`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ as $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}^{}(|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_+)\epsilon _{\mathrm{int}}^{}(|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_{})=2`$, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}^{}(|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_+)\epsilon _{\mathrm{kin}}^{}(|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_{})=2`$, $`\epsilon ^{}`$ is continuous everywhere. However, the second derivative of the ground-state energy jumps at the critical point by an amount

$`\epsilon ^{\prime \prime }(|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_+)\epsilon ^{\prime \prime }(|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_{})=4.`$ (21)
The first derivative of the chemical potential $`\mu ^{}`$ is also discontinuous at $`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ by an amount

$`\mu ^{}(|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_+)\mu ^{}(|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_{})=2.`$ (22)
The derivatives of the ground-state energy and the chemical potential are shown in Fig. 3(b).

The compressibility $`\kappa `$ is related to the first derivative of the chemical potential and the second derivative of the ground-state energy with respect to $`|\gamma |`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}=n^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu }{dn}}=n|\gamma |{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu }{d|\gamma |}}={\displaystyle \frac{|\gamma |^2}{2\pi N}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\epsilon }{d|\gamma |^2}}.`$ (23)
Since $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`\epsilon ^{\prime \prime }`$ are discontinuous at $`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$, this point may be regarded as the critical point of a quantum phase transition between the uniform and soliton states at $`T=0`$.

In the strong-interaction regime $`|\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$, Fig. 1 shows that $`m`$ is almost equal to $`1`$ and that the complete elliptic integrals are approximated as $`E1`$ and $`K\frac{\pi ^2}{2}|\gamma |`$. The soliton solution then reduces to the solution of the GP equation in infinite space ZS ,

$`\psi _0(\theta )\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi |\gamma |}{4}}}\mathrm{sech}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2|\gamma |}{8}}(\theta \theta _0)\right].`$ (24)
In this limit, the ground-state energy and chemical potential are given in terms of $`|\gamma |`$ as

$`\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12}}|\gamma |^2,\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}|\gamma |^2.`$ (25)
### II.3 Low-lying Excitations

Low-lying excitations of the condensate can be obtained by solving the Bogoliubov - de Gennes equations

$`(+2UN|\psi _0|^2)u_n+UN\psi _0^2v_n`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _nu_n,`$
$`(+2UN|\psi _0|^2)v_n+UN\psi _0^2u_n`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _nv_n,`$ (26)
where $`\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}\mu `$, and $`\psi _0`$ is the ground-state solution of the GP equation.

Associated with the $`U(1)`$ symmetry breaking in the soliton state, is a Goldstone mode that translates the soliton along the torus without changing its shape:

$`u_0(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`v_0(\theta )`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sn}`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{K(m)}{\pi }}(\theta \theta _0)|m)\mathrm{cn}({\displaystyle \frac{K(m)}{\pi }}(\theta \theta _0)|m),`$ (27)
$`\lambda _0`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (28)
Since $`u_0`$ and $`v_0`$ are proportional to $`\psi _0(\theta )/\theta `$, the excitation of this mode translates $`\psi _0(\theta )`$ to $`\psi _0(\theta +\delta \theta )`$.

Excitation energies from the uniform ground state $`\psi _0=1/\sqrt{2\pi }`$ are easily found to be

$`\lambda _l=\sqrt{l^2(l^2+2\gamma )},l=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},`$ (29)
where $`l`$’s are the angular momenta of the excitations. When $`\gamma <\frac{1}{2}`$, the first excitation energies corresponding to $`l=\pm 1`$ become pure imaginaries, and therefore the uniform state becomes dynamically unstable. This implies an appearance of a new ground states that is a bright soliton state.

Let us now consider the excitation from the soliton. The lowest (nonzero) eigenvalue $`\lambda _1`$ and the corresponding amplitudes $`u_1,v_1`$ can be obtained analytically as

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^2(m)m}{\pi ^2}},`$ (30)
$`u_1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_1\mathrm{sn}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{K(m)}{\pi }}(\theta \theta _0)|m\right),`$ (31)
$`v_1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_1\mathrm{cn}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{K(m)}{\pi }}(\theta \theta _0)|m\right),`$ (32)
where the normalization constant $`𝒩_1`$ is determined from $`_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta (|u_1(\theta )|^2|v_1(\theta )|^2)=1`$ as

$`𝒩_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{mK(m)}{2\pi \left[(2m)K(m)2E(m)\right]}}.`$ (33)
Near the critical point $`|\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_+`$ and in the strong-interaction limit $`|\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$, Eq. (30) is simplified as

$`\lambda _1\{\begin{array}{ccc}2\sqrt{\delta }\hfill & ,\hfill & |\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_+,\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2|\gamma |^2}{4}}\hfill & ,\hfill & |\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|.\hfill \end{array}`$ (36)
From Eqs. (29) and (36), we find that the Bogoliubov spectrum possesses the same critical exponent on either side of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ as

$`\lambda _1=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{2}|\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill & ,\hfill & |\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_{}\hfill \\ 2|\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill & ,\hfill & |\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_+.\hfill \end{array}`$ (39)
At the critical point, therefore, the spectrum is gapless and exhibits a cusp as shown in Fig. 4(a).

The number of virtually excited particles $`N^{}`$ is given by

$`N^{}={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}|v_n(\theta )|^2d\theta =NN_0,`$ (40)
where $`N_0`$ is the number of condensate particles. Since the quantum depletion is attributed mainly to the particles with the lowest excitation energies in the weak interaction regime, $`N^{}`$ is obtained from the hole amplitudes $`v_1`$ as

$`N^{}\{\begin{array}{ccc}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma }{\sqrt{1+2\gamma }}}1|\gamma |<|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|,\hfill & & \\ {\displaystyle \frac{(1m)(23m)K(m)+2(2m1)E(m)}{3m\left[(2m)K(m)2E(m)\right]}}\hfill & & \\ |\gamma |>|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|.\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (44)
The result for $`|\gamma |<|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ represents the number of virtually excited particles in the uniform state, which behaves as $`\delta ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ in the limit of $`|\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_{}`$, while the result for $`|\gamma |>|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ represents that in the soliton state, which behaves as $`\delta ^{3/2}`$ in the limit of $`|\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|_+`$; both of them diverge at $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}=\frac{1}{2}`$ as shown in Fig. 4(b). This result clearly shows the breakdown of the Bogoliubov approximation near the critical point. To examine the properties of the system near the critical point, we therefore need to go beyond the Bogoliubov approximation.

## III Many-body effects near the critical point

The excitation energy vanishes and the number of virtually excited particles diverges at $`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ according to the Bogoliubov theory. Quantum fluctuations are thus expected to play a crucial role in determining the properties of the system near the critical point. Expanding the field operator $`\widehat{\psi }`$ in terms of plane waves as

$`\widehat{\psi }(\theta ,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\widehat{c}_l(t)e^{il\theta },`$ (45)
where $`\widehat{c}_l`$ is the annihilation operator of a boson with angular momentum $`l`$, we rewrite the Hamiltonian (1) in the second quantized form as

$`\widehat{}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}l^2\widehat{c}_l^{}\widehat{c}_l+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{klmn}{}}\widehat{c}_k^{}\widehat{c}_l^{}\widehat{c}_m\widehat{c}_n\delta _{m+nkl}.`$ (46)
We diagonalize the Hamiltonian (46) exactly within the Hilbert subspace spanned by the bases $`|n_L,\mathrm{},n_1,n_0,n_1,\mathrm{},n_L`$ subject to conservations of the total number of particles and the total angular momentum

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=L}{\overset{L}{}}}n_l=N,{\displaystyle \underset{l=L}{\overset{L}{}}}ln_l=0,`$ (47)
where $`n_l`$ denotes the number of bosons occupying the state with angular momentum $`l`$, and $`L`$ is the cut-off of the angular momentum.

As will be confirmed below, the inclusion of terms with $`|l|2`$ states provides sufficient accuracy for our purposes, since we are interested in the properties of the system near the critical point. Although higher momentum states $`|l|3`$ become significant in the strong-interaction regime ($`|\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$), the results obtained by the truncation of the $`|l|3`$ states are quantitatively correct. We will therefore restrict ourselves to the states with $`|l|2`$ unless otherwise stated.

### III.1 Crossover between the uniform and the soliton ground states

To study the effects of quantum fluctuations on the properties of the system, we examine the normalized two-body correlation function for the ground states defined as

$`g^{(2)}(\theta ,\theta ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\psi }^{}(\theta )\widehat{\psi }^{}(\theta ^{})\widehat{\psi }(\theta ^{})\widehat{\psi }(\theta )}{\widehat{\psi }^{}(\theta )\widehat{\psi }(\theta )\widehat{\psi }^{}(\theta ^{})\widehat{\psi }(\theta ^{})}}.`$ (48)
Figure 5(a) presents $`g^{(2)}`$ obtained by the exact diagonalization method for several values of $`N`$ for $`|\gamma |=0.4`$ which is below the critical point. The many-body ground state exhibits significant two-body quantum correlations even below the critical point, sharply contrasting with the mean-field ground state in which $`g^{(2)}=\frac{N1}{N}`$ is constant for all $`|\gamma |`$. Figure 5(b) shows $`g^{(2)}`$ for several values of $`|\gamma |`$ with $`N=200`$. The two-body correlation abruptly increases above the critical point, signaling the formation of a bright soliton.

Figure 6 shows the five largest eigenvalues of the reduced single-particle density matrix of the ground state. The occupancies of $`l=\pm 1`$ states increase rapidly above the critical point, indicating the formation of a soliton. Remarkably the onset of the increase occurs at values of $`|\gamma |`$ smaller than $`\frac{1}{2}`$. Although the condensate fraction $`\lambda _0`$ is unity in the MFT for all $`|\gamma |`$, the many-body calculations reveal that other states are also significantly populated near and beyond the critical point. The ground state for $`|\gamma |<|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ corresponds to a single BEC consisting of a macroscopic occupation of the zero-momentum state. However, when $`|\gamma |`$ exceeds $`\frac{1}{2}`$, the condensate fraction decreases rapidly and the eigenvalues of higher-momentum states grow to make up for the depletion of the condensate. The many-body ground state for $`|\gamma |>|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ is thus fragmented Noziere . This is a consequence of the exact axisymmetry of the system. In the regime $`|\gamma ||\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$, the ground state is expected to change to a non-condensed state in which there are no eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix that are of the order of $`N`$. This is consistent with the fact that BEC cannot occur in infinite homogeneous systems.

The first and the second derivatives of the ground-state energies are shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b). The second derivative of the many-body ground state has no discontinuity unlike the case of the MFT (Sec. II.2), reflecting the fact that strictly speaking no phase transition occurs in finite systems. The sharp transition that appears in the MFT is replaced by a smooth crossover between the uniform and the soliton states. The vicinity of $`\gamma =\frac{1}{2}`$ may thus be regarded as a crossover regime between a uniform BEC and a bright soliton.

### III.2 Low-lying Spectra

Figure 8(a) shows the dependence of the lowest excitation energy $`E_1E_0`$ on $`|\gamma |`$ obtained by the exact diagonalization method. The corresponding Bogoliubov first excitation spectrum, which depends on $`N`$ only through $`\gamma `$, is superimposed for comparison. Because of the conservation of angular momentum, the $`l=1`$ and $`l=1`$ quasiparticles are excited simultaneously. The Bogoliubov spectrum in Fig. 8(a) for $`|\gamma |\frac{1}{2}`$ is therefore equal to $`2\lambda _1`$, where $`\lambda _1`$ is given in Eq. (29).

In finite systems we may define the critical point $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ as the one at which the lowest excitation energy has a minimum, and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the minimum of $`E_1E_0`$. As discussed in Sec. II, the mean-field critical point is given by $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}=\frac{1}{2}`$ and the Bogoliubov excitation is gapless at that point. The many-body critical point deviates from that of the MFT, the value of $`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ being larger than $`\frac{1}{2}`$ as shown in Fig. 8. In particular, the lowest excitation has an energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at the critical point. In the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$, the spectrum gives the same critical exponent on both sides of $`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ as $`E_1E_0|\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ which recovers the result of the MFT.

Figure 8(b) shows the three lowest excitation energies for $`N=300`$. We note that $`E_nE_0`$ for $`n>1`$ deviates from $`n(E_1E_0)`$ near the critical point, which implies that the interaction between the quasiparticles is enhanced.

### III.3 Energy gap at the critical point

As we have seen in Sec. III.2, both the critical point $`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|`$ and the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that are obtained by the exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian depend on the number of particles $`N`$. The deviation of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ from $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are shown as functions of $`\mathrm{ln}N`$ in Fig. 9. The dashed line, the solid line and the circles show the results when the states with $`|l|1`$, $`|l|2`$, and $`|l|3`$ are included. Figure 9 confirms that (i) the $`|l|1`$ states give qualitatively correct results, (ii) but the inclusion of the $`|l|=2`$ states in addition to the $`|l|1`$ states improves the results quantitatively, and (iii) the $`|l|3`$ states makes few contribution to the results.

The deviation of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ from $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and the energy gap near the critical point depend on $`N`$ as

$`|\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N^{\frac{2}{3}},\mathrm{\Delta }N^{\frac{1}{3}}.`$ (49)
In the large $`N`$-limit, these values approach those of the MFT, that is, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$.

The power laws in Eq. (49) can be explained as follows. In the Bogoliubov theory, we solve Eq. (26) assuming that the condensate consists of the total number of atoms $`N`$, and then derive the number of depleted atoms $`N^{}`$ in Eq. (44). However, the number of condensed atoms used in Eq. (26) should not be $`N`$ but $`NN^{}`$. Therefore, we must solve Eqs. (26) and (44) self-consistently when $`N^{}`$ is large, i.e., near the critical point \[Fig. 4(b)\]. Replacing $`\gamma `$ in Eq. (44) with

$`\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{(NN^{})U}{2\pi }}=\gamma \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}\right),`$ (50)
we obtain $`\frac{N^{}}{N}N^{2/3}`$ at $`\gamma =\frac{1}{2}`$. From Eq. (50), $`\gamma _0`$ thus behaves as

$`\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\eta N^{\frac{2}{3}},`$ (51)
where $`\eta `$ is a constant. This result reveals that the deviation of the critical point from $`\frac{1}{2}`$ varies as $`N^{2/3}`$, in agreement with the numerical result (49). Since the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at the critical point may be regarded as the Bogoliubov excitation $`\lambda _1\sqrt{\delta }`$ as in Eq. (36), we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{N^{2/3}}N^{1/3}`$. Thus, the behaviors in Eq. (49) are attributed to depletion of the condensate due to interactions. The condition of number conservation in the exact diagonalization method, which treats $`\widehat{N_0}=\widehat{c}_0^{}\widehat{c}_0`$ as an operator, enables us to include the effects of the depletion self-consistently.

## IV Conclusions

We studied the properties of the ground state and low-lying excitation spectra of attractive 1D BECs in a toroidal trap with and beyond the Gross-Pitaevskii MFT.

In the MFT, the ground states undergo a quantum phase transition between the uniform state and the bright soliton, characterized by a jump in the compressibility. In the Bogoliubov theory, the first excitation spectrum is singular and gapless at the critical point. Above the critical point, the Goldstone mode appears due to the broken symmetry of the soliton state. The singularity of the excitation spectrum and the divergence in the number of virtually excited particles at the critical point show that the Bogoliubov theory breaks down in the vicinity of the critical point.

The exact diagonalization of the many-body Hamiltonian removes the singularity at the critical point. The prominent effects beyond the MFT are summarized as follows: 1) The critical point $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ deviates from $`1/2`$ and the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ emerges in the excitation spectrum. 2) The singularities in the quantum phase transition are smeared out by quantum fluctuations and replaced by a crossover region. 3) Atoms show two-body correlations for all strengths of interaction. 4) The condensate fraction begins to decrease from the critical point and the ground state gradually changes to a normal state in the strong interaction limit.

Far from the critical point or in the large $`N`$ limit, the MFT offers a good picture of the elementary excitation spectra. The deviations of excitation spectra from those of the MFT are prominent near the critical point due to the depletion of the condensate. The diagonalization method reveals the importance of finite-size effects and the importance of the particle-number conservations that lead to qualitative modifications of the results of the MFT near the critical point.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Grant No.11216204), by Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan and by the Toray Science Foundation. The matrices were diagonalized by the Lanczos method in the package TITPACK Ver. 2 developed by H. Nishimori. We would like to thank him for this and the useful advice on quantum phase transition.