text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most surprising discoveries in string theory during the past decade is the existence of a new class of superconformal quantum theories in six space-time dimensions, that do not contain dynamical gravity. These so called $`(2,0)`$ theories (the name refers to the supersymmetry algebra under which they are invariant ) made their first appearance in the study of type IIB string theory compactified on a four-dimensional hyper-Kähler manifold . If we approach a point in the moduli space of the hyper-Kähler manifold where it develops an isolated singularity, and simultaneously take the string coupling constant to zero, a six-dimensional theory at the locus of the singularity decouples from the ten-dimensional bulk theory. The possible singularities of a hyper-Kähler manifold obey an $`ADE`$-classification, i.e. there are two infinite series $`A_r`$, $`r=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`D_r`$, $`r=3,4,\mathrm{}`$, and three ‘exceptional’ cases $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$. Each type of singularity gives rise to a different version of $`(2,0)`$ theory, but these theories have no other discrete or continuous parameters. However, the approach to the singular point in the moduli space of the hyper-Kähler manifold and the possibility to turn on holonomies of the two-form gauge potential of type IIB string theory can be described by $`5r`$ real moduli, where $`r`$ is the rank of the singularity.

For the $`A`$-series of $`(2,0)`$ theory, there is an alternative description, in which the $`A_r`$ theory is regarded as the world-volume theory on $`r+1`$ parallel $`M5`$-branes in $`M`$-theory . The $`5r`$ moduli are then given by the relative transverse positions of the $`M5`$-branes in the eleven-dimensional bulk space. Similarly, one may describe the $`D`$-series of $`(2,0)`$ theory by including also a parallel orientifold plane in the configuration. However, the $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$ versions of $`(2,0)`$ theory have no known realization within $`M`$-theory.

An intrinsically six-dimensional definition of the $`(2,0)`$ theories, which does not rely on their embedding into a ten- or eleven-dimensional theory, is still lacking, though. In this paper, we will suggest a program to study the $`(2,0)`$ theories from a purely six-dimensional perspective, with the hope that this work will eventually lead to such a definition. Our approach is based on an analogy between the $`(2,0)`$ theories and non-abelian maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in five space-time dimensions. In the next section, we will give a rather non-technical discussion of the degrees of freedom of the $`(2,0)`$ theories and their relationship to those of Yang-Mills theory. In section three, we will then outline a perturbative scheme to study the quantum dynamics of these degrees of freedom. We intend to systematically explore this in forthcoming publications. As a first step, we will in the present paper describe a purely classical computation of certain scattering amplitudes. We will be working in a rather simplified toy model, which is closely related to the $`A_1`$ version of $`(2,0)`$ theory, but we think that our analysis still captures many aspects of the complete theory correctly.

A different approach to $`(2,0)`$ theory is described in .

## 2 The degrees of freedom of $`(2,0)`$ theory

The $`M`$-theory realization of the $`A`$-series of $`(2,0)`$ theory provides a convenient starting point for analyzing the degrees of freedom of the theory. Starting with a single $`M5`$-brane, its fluctuations may be described by a free massless $`(2,0)`$ tensor multiplet on the brane world-volume. Such a multiplet comprises a real two-form gauge field with self-dual three-form field strength. We will refer to such a field as a ‘chiral’ two-form gauge field. It is a singlet under the $`SO(5)Sp(4)`$ $`R`$-symmetry group which is part of $`(2,0)`$ supersymmetry. There are also five real scalar fields in the vector representation of $`SO(5)`$, and four chiral spinor fields in the vector representation of $`Sp(4)`$, that obey a symplectic Majorana condition. Upon quantization, these fields give rise to massless particles, that may be described by their transformation properties under the $`SO(4)`$ little group that leaves the light-like six-momentum invariant. In this way, the two-form gauge field provides three states in the rank two anti-symmetric self-dual tensor representation of $`SO(4)`$, and the scalar fields provide five $`SO(4)`$ invariant states. In total there are thus eight bosonic states. Similarly, the spinor fields provide eight fermionic states, that transform as two $`SO(4)`$ spinors. With $`r+1`$ parallel $`M5`$-branes, as is relevant for the $`A_r`$ version of $`(2,0)`$ theory, we have one such tensor multiplet for each $`M5`$-brane, but one linear combination (namely the sum) decouples from the remaining theory and will henceforth not be considered. (This is analogous to the fact that the world-volume field theory of $`r+1`$ parallel $`D3`$-branes in type IIB string theory is a four-dimensional $`N=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(r+1)`$ rather than $`U(r+1)`$ .)

Additional degrees of freedom come from open $`M2`$-branes that stretch from one of the $`r+1`$ $`M5`$-branes to another. From the six-dimensional world-volume perspective, these are perceived as strings, with a tension given by the tension of the $`M2`$-brane times the transverse distance between the two $`M5`$-branes in question. At the origin of the moduli space, the $`M5`$-branes are coincident and the strings are thus tensionless. Interchanging the roles of the two $`M5`$-branes amounts to changing the orientation of the string. The string is self-dual in the sense that it has equal electric and magnetic charges with respect to the chiral two-form gauge fields that are part of the tensor multiplets on the two $`M5`$-branes. (These charges obey Dirac quantization, and thus cannot be taken to be small.) In the presence of such a string, the $`(2,0)`$ supersymmetry algebra develops a ‘central’ charge, which is a vector under the $`SO(5,1)`$ Lorentz group and also a vector under the $`SO(5)`$ $`R`$-symmetry group . The representation theory of the $`(2,0)`$ supersymmetry algebra with such a central charge reveals that the string transforms non-trivially both under rotations in the space transverse to the string and under the subgroup of the $`SO(5)`$ $`R`$-symmetry group that is unbroken by the modulus corresponding to the distance between the $`M5`$-branes. A minimal ‘BPS-saturated’ representation corresponds to a multiplet of straight strings , while non BPS-saturated representations describe waves propagating along the strings. These degrees of freedom can be realized by complementing the scalar fields on the string world-sheet, which represent the transverse space-time coordinates of the string, with a set of fermionic fields.

We now turn to the realization of $`(2,0)`$ theory within type IIB string theory compactified on a hyper-Kähler manifold that develops an $`ADE`$-singularity. Zero-modes of the massless type IIB fields will then give rise to $`r`$ tensor multiplets, where $`r`$ is the rank of the singularity. Furthermore, $`D3`$-branes that wrap around homologically non-trivial two-spheres of the hyper-Kähler manifold will be perceived as strings in six dimensions. There is in fact such a two-sphere for each positive root of the corresponding $`ADE`$-type Lie algebra (i.e. $`su(r+1)`$ for $`A_r`$, $`so(2r)`$ for $`D_r`$, and the $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$ Lie algebras.) The tension of such a string is given by the tension of the $`D3`$-brane times the area of the two-sphere. The latter is given by the values of the moduli, and vanishes at the origin of the moduli space, where the strings thus become tensionless. In summary, we have been led to the following picture of the degrees of freedom of $`(2,0)`$ theory: With each Cartan generator of the corresponding $`ADE`$-type Lie algebra is associated a tensor multiplet of particles. With each positive root generator of the Lie algebra is associated a multiplet of straight strings. Finally, there are excitations that describe propagating waves along these strings.

In six dimensions, the degrees of freedom associated with the Cartan generators and the root generators of the $`ADE`$-type Lie algebra are rather different, and no Lie group symmetry is apparent in the theory. However, if we compactify the theory on a circle, the tensor multiplets associated with the Cartan generators give rise to massless vector multiplets of maximally extended supersymmetry in five dimensions. On the other hand, the string multiplets associated with the root generators give rise to massive vector multiplets, if the strings are straight and wound around the circle. The mass of these multiplets is given by the tension of the string times the radius of the circle. Strings that are not wound around the circle appear as magnetically charged strings in five dimensions. We thus recover the degrees of freedom of maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, with an $`ADE`$-type gauge group spontaneously broken down to the maximal torus group by the vacuum expectation values of the moduli fields. As we approach the origin of the moduli space, the massive vector multiplets are un-Higgsed and also become massless vector multiplets. The non-abelian gauge-symmetry of the theory then becomes apparent. In six dimensions, this transition possibly corresponds to a theory of tensionless strongly interacting self-dual strings, but we do not yet have a clear picture of what this would mean. In particular, gauge invariance plays a crucial role for the consistency of the five-dimensional Yang-Mills theory, and should derive from some more general principle in six dimensions, but exactly how this comes about is still rather unclear. In this way, we may regard the compactified $`(2,0)`$ theory as the ultraviolet completion needed to make five-dimensional maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory into a consistent theory.

## 3 Investigating the quantum dynamics

Their high degree of uniqueness is of course an attractive feature of the $`(2,0)`$ theories, but at the same time makes their study more difficult. In particular, one might think that the absence of a small parameter would make a perturbative analysis impossible, and force us to define and solve the dynamics of the theory exactly. Fortunately, this is not the case, as we will now explain: The approach that we would like to advocate is to consider the theory at a point away from the origin of the moduli space, so that the strings associated with the root generators of the Lie algebra are tensile. (In any case, our understanding of the degrees of freedom at the origin of the moduli space is still too limited to allow us to work there.) Once the vacuum expectation values of the moduli are fixed, a state in the theory can be characterized by giving the number of infinitely extended approximately straight strings, together with their spatial directions and momenta. In addition, the vibrational state of the string, which describes waves propagating along the string, should be specified. Finally, the state may contain a number of tensor multiplet particle quanta of various types.

The energy of such a state is of course in general infinite, because of the mass of the infinitely extended strings. However, since only energy differences between different states affect the dynamics of the theory, a more relevant statement is that the energy difference between two states containing different numbers of strings is infinite. This means that the Hilbert space of the theory decomposes into separate superselection sectors, characterized by the number of strings and their spatial directions. (This conclusion would of course not hold if the theory is compactified on a circle, so that straight strings have finite energy. Indeed, while charge is conserved in Yang-Mills theory, particle number is not.) In each superselection sector there is a ground state, containing only straight strings with certain spatial directions and momenta. Above this ground state, there are excited states that also contain quanta of propagating waves along the strings and tensor multiplet particles. The energies of these excitations only depend on the corresponding wavelengths and not on the string tension. Furthermore, in the limit where the string tension becomes large compared to the energies of these excitations, the excitations decouple from each other. We are then left with a theory of free tensor multiplets and free waves propagating on the strings, i.e. an infinite set of free harmonic oscillators. The latter theory is of course exactly solvable, and can serve as a starting point for a perturbative analysis. The parameter of such a perturbation expansion is given by the square of the energy of a process (e.g. the energy of incoming tensor multiplet quanta), divided by the string tension.

So far, we have only discussed open infinitely extended strings. One might also worry about the possible influence of closed strings. However, on dimensional grounds, we would expect the quantization of such strings to yield states with an energy of the order of the square root of the string tension, so they can be safely neglected in the limit that the tension goes to infinity. (If there are any massless states in the spectrum of closed strings, other than the tensor multiplets that we have been discussing, we expect them to decouple from the rest of the theory.)

In view of the above considerations, it is natural to start exploring $`(2,0)`$ theory with a small number of infinitely extended strings. Qualitatively new features then arise as this number is increased. With no strings involved, we have the quantum theory of free tensor multiplets, which is by now well understood. With a single string, one could investigate the scattering of tensor multiplet quanta against it. With two strings, the interaction of the strings with each other can be studied. By analogy with Yang-Mills theory, which in addition to the trilinear couplings contains also quadrilinear couplings, one would expect that in addition to interactions mediated by the exchange of tensor multiplet quanta, there should also be direct string-string interactions. (On the other hand, we do not expect any new couplings to appear as the number of strings is increased further.) An additional subtlety is related to the electric and magnetic charges of the strings. They imply that the quantum wave function obeys Dirac quantization, i.e. it is a section of a line bundle rather than a function over the configuration space of the strings.

In a longer perspective, one would of course wish for a ‘second quantized’ formalism, capable of describing an arbitrary number of strings. Presumably, this is best formulated in an expansion around the origin of the moduli space, where the strings are tensionless. As remarked above, such a formulation becomes necessary in order to describe compactifications of $`(2,0)`$ theory, in which straight strings can have a finite mass and sectors with different number of strings mix with eachother. As in many other examples in string and $`M`$-theory, the dynamics of $`(2,0)`$ theory is thus considerably richer in a compactified space-time.

## 4 The classical limit

In our future work, we intend to systematically explore the quantum dynamics of $`(2,0)`$ theory as outlined above, i.e. to begin with we will concentrate on the subsector of the theory that describes a single string interacting with the quanta of a tensor multiplet. As discussed in the previous section, this subsector should by itself constitute a consistent theory. With only a single string involved, we could without loss of generality restrict ourselves to the $`A_1`$ version of $`(2,0)`$ theory, which only has a single type of string and a single type of tensor multiplet. (This theory reduces to $`SU(2)`$ super Yang-Mills theory upon compactification.) We should then analyse the quantum dynamics of this system perturbatively in a small parameter given by the square of the energy of a process (e.g. the energy of incoming tensor multiplet quanta) divided by the string tension. The first calculation to be performed is then to compute the amplitude for scattering of tensor multiplet quanta off the string to lowest order in the inverse string tension. However, before embarking on this program of studying the quantum theory, we think that it is worthwhile to ask if there are any questions that can be answered by a purely classical computation. Because Dirac quantization effects cannot be properly taken into account, we would be limited to the one string subsector, and we would of course only trust the results to lowest order in the energy square divided by the string tension.

A more serious objection to a classical computation is that we will not be able to work in the complete $`(2,0)`$ theory. The reason is that the fermionic degrees of freedom of the tensor multiplet and on the string world-sheet cannot be correctly represented in a classical theory. We will therefore be restricted to a bosonic version of the $`A_1`$ theory, which only contains a chiral two-form gauge field and five scalar fields in the six-dimensional space-time, and the string embedding coordinates on the world-sheet of the string. We do not think that such a system could define a consistent quantum theory. (Indeed, if such a theory existed, it would presumably give rise to a hitherto unknown conformally invariant purely bosonic theory upon compactification on a small two-torus.) Nevertheless, it is a subtle and interesting classical mechanical system, which we think deserves to be studied in its own right. The study of electrically and/or magnetically charged objects of various dimensions interacting with classical fields in a higher-dimensional space-time has a rather long history, and many general results have appeared in the literature. But, at least to our knowledge, the specific and rather unique model that we are proposing has not been studied in detail. It also contains many of the key ingredients of $`(2,0)`$ theory, such as chiral two-form gauge fields and self-dual strings, so we expect that our results should be of some relevance for $`(2,0)`$ theory. In a certain sense, the calculations of the present paper are analogous to the classical Thomson formula for the low-energy scattering of light by an electrically charged spinnless point particle. This is generalized by the Klein-Nishina formula, which is valid at arbitrary energy and for a spinning particle. Summing over spin polarization and going to the low-energy limit, the Klein-Nishina formula reproduces the Thomson formula. Still, the Thomson and Klein-Nishina calculations are rather different, and it is instructive to see how they yield the same result in this limit. So, although we intend to describe a quantum computation in the $`(2,0)`$ theory in a forthcoming publication, we think that the present classical computation is a logical first step in exploring the dynamics of strings and particles in six dimensions.

### 4.1 The model

Our fields are thus locally a chiral two-form $`B`$ and five scalar fields $`\varphi ^A`$, $`A=1,\mathrm{},5`$ in a $`(5+1)`$-dimensional Minkowski space-time with signature $`(+++++)`$. The values of the scalar fields at spatial infinity $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^A`$ constitute the moduli of the model. We may define these fields so that $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2=\mathrm{}=\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^5=0`$. In fact, the fields $`\varphi ^2,\mathrm{},\varphi ^5`$ then decouple completely from the rest of the theory, and henceforth we will only consider a single scalar field $`\varphi =\varphi ^1`$. The string is described by its two-dimensional world-sheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which we parametrize with some coordinates $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$. Its embedding into space-time is given by a set of functions $`X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$, $`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},5`$.

We wish to describe the dynamics of these degrees of freedom in a Lagrangian formalism. As is well known, this poses a problem for the chiral two-form $`B`$, which does not admit such a formulation . We therefore relax the condition that the three-form field strength $`H`$ of $`B`$ be self-dual. However, our model will have the property that the ‘anti-chiral’ part of $`B`$, i.e. the part with an anti self-dual field strength, is a ‘spectator field’ that decouples completely from the other degrees of freedom. We then define the action of the model as

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi }HH\frac{1}{8\pi }d\varphi d\varphi _\mathrm{\Sigma }B+_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi \mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(1)
The first term is the generalized Maxwell action for the two-form gauge-field $`B`$, while the second is the kinetic term of the scalar field $`\varphi `$. The third term incorporates the electric coupling between the string and the gauge field, and the fourth term is the Nambu-Goto term for the string. Here, $`\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the volume form on the world-sheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ induced by its embedding into six-dimensional Minkowski space, i.e.

$$\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d\tau d\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{det}g_{\alpha \beta }}=d\tau d\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{det}(_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X_\mu )},$$
(2)
where $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the induced metric on the world-sheet. The indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ take the values $`0`$ and $`1`$, corresponding to $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$, respectively. The string tension is thus formally given by the negative of the value of the scalar field $`\varphi `$ at the locus of the string world-sheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

In addition to its electric coupling, the self-dual string should also have a magnetic coupling, which we put in ‘by hand’  by defining the field strength $`H`$ as

$$H=dB+H_\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(3)
Here, $`H_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a three-form that only depends on the embedding coordinates $`X^\mu `$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and obeys the ‘Bianchi identity’

$$dH_\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\pi \delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(4)
The four-form $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the ‘Poincaré dual’ of the world-sheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, in the sense that

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }s\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }s$$
(5)
for an arbitrary two-form $`s`$ over Minkowski space. (Like in many other formulas in this paper, we do not here notationally distinguish a form over Minkowski space from its pullback to the world-sheet by the embedding functions $`X^\mu `$.)

There are in fact no parameters that can be continuously adjusted in this action. The numerical constant preceding the first term of the action is fixed by requiring that the anti self-dual part of $`H`$ decouples, while the constant in front of the second term is determined by requiring that the net force between two infinitely long and parallel straight strings vanishes, as we will see in the end of this section. The constant multiplying the electric coupling term is fixed by demanding invariance under ‘large’ gauge transformations of the two-form gauge-field $`B`$, whereas a constant multiplying the Nambu-Goto term can be absorbed in a redefinition of the scalar field $`\varphi `$.

In the remainder of this section, we first derive the equations of motion for the string and the fields. We then construct a configuration describing a static, infinitely long, straight string. Finally, we check that two parallel such strings do not exert any forces on eachother.

### 4.2 Equations of motion

The equations of motion are obtained by requiring the action (1) to be stationary under variations of the generalized coordinates, i.e. the gauge field $`B`$, the scalar field $`\varphi `$, and the coordinates $`X^\mu `$ that describe the embedding of the string world-sheet in Minkowski space. Because of the invariance of the action under reparametrizations of the world-sheet, we may impose two independent conditions on the $`X^\mu `$, though. A convenient choice for our purposes is to parametrize the world-sheet by $`\tau =X^0=x^0`$ and $`\sigma =X^5=x^5`$. The remaining $`X^i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, then describe the fluctuations around a static configuration containing an infinitely long, straight string in the $`x^5`$-direction. This parametrization may obviously break down for large fluctuations, where the $`X^i`$ are no longer necessarily single-valued functions of $`x^0`$ and $`x^5`$.

We now start by varying the action with respect to $`B`$, and obtain the equations of motion

$$d^{}H=2\pi \delta _\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(6)
which is consistent with the Bianchi identity (4) and the self-duality condition

$$H=H,$$
(7)
as was required. This fixes the numerical coefficient of the first term in Eq. (1).

Next, we vary the action with respect to $`\varphi `$, and obtain the equation of motion

$$d^{}d\varphi =4\pi (\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{\mathrm{Vol}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }),$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{Vol}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is some two-form over Minkowski space whose pull-back to the world-sheet equals $`\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Finally, it remains to vary the action with respect to the string coordinates $`X^\mu `$. This is a lot more involved than the previous calculations, therefore we will be more explicit here. The reader may wish to skip this rather technical derivation and jump directly to Eq. (27).

To determine the variation of the first term in Eq. (1), we first note that only $`H_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and not $`B`$, depends on $`X`$. From the Bianchi identity (4) follows that the variation of $`H_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is of the form

$$\delta H_\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\pi \omega +d\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is some two-form, and the three-form $`\omega `$ is related to the variation of the Poincaré dual $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as

$$d\omega =\delta \delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(10)
Thus, we get that

$$\delta (\frac{1}{4\pi }HH)=\frac{1}{2\pi }H\delta H_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\omega H+_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(11)
where we also used the equations of motion (6) for $`H`$. To proceed we must determine the three-form $`\omega `$ and the two-form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The covariant expression for $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }=𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \delta ^{(6)}(xX(\tau ,\sigma ))\dot{X}_\mu \stackrel{´}{X}_\nu (dx^\mu dx^\nu ),$$
(12)
which is easily verified by insertion in Eq. (5). Here a dot denotes a derivative with respect to $`\tau `$ while a prime denotes a $`\sigma `$-derivative. From the variation of this quantity and Eq. (10), we see that we can take

$$\omega =𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \delta ^{(6)}(xX(\tau ,\sigma ))\delta X_\mu \dot{X}_\nu \stackrel{´}{X}_\rho (dx^\mu dx^\nu dx^\rho ),$$
(13)
where we have used the contraction identities for Levi-Civita symbols.

To find $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we need some knowledge of the particular solution $`H_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to Eq. (4). This, however, is not possible to obtain in a simple covariant form. With our choice of parametrization of the world-sheet, as described in the beginning of this subsection, we can write $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as

$`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{ijkl}}{4!}}\delta ^{(4)}(xX)(dx^idx^jdx^kdx^l4\dot{X}^idx^0dx^jdx^kdx^l`$ (14)
$`4\stackrel{´}{X}^idx^5dx^jdx^kdx^l+12\dot{X}^i\stackrel{´}{X}^jdx^0dx^5dx^kdx^l).`$
Here the dot and the prime denote $`x^0`$ and $`x^5`$ derivatives respectively, and the four-index Levi-Civita symbol is defined by $`ϵ^{i_1i_2i_3i_4}ϵ^{0i_1i_2i_3i_45}`$. The first term describes a static, straight string while the following terms allow for changes in time and for bending of the string. A solution to the Bianchi identity (4) is then

$`H_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}H_{ijk}^\mathrm{\Sigma }(dx^idx^jdx^k3\dot{X}^idx^0dx^jdx^k`$ (15)
$`3\stackrel{´}{X}^idx^5dx^jdx^k+6\dot{X}^i\stackrel{´}{X}^jdx^0dx^5dx^k),`$
where $`H_{ijk}^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ fulfills

$$_{[l}H_{ijk]}^\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{\pi }{2}ϵ_{lijk}\delta ^{(4)}(xX(\tau ,\sigma )).$$
(16)
This solution is of course unique only modulo the addition of a closed three-form. Performing a variation of this $`H_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we find that we can take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}H_{ijk}^\mathrm{\Sigma }\delta X^i\left(dx^jdx^k2\dot{X}^jdx^0dx^k2\stackrel{´}{X}^jdx^5dx^k+2\dot{X}^j\stackrel{´}{X}^kdx^0dx^5\right).$$
(17)
This calculation also yields the expression

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}ϵ_{ijkl}\delta ^{(4)}(xX)\delta X^l(dx^idx^jdx^k3\dot{X}^idx^0dx^jdx^k`$ (18)
$`3\stackrel{´}{X}^idx^5dx^jdx^k+6\dot{X}^i\stackrel{´}{X}^jdx^0dx^5dx^k),`$
in agreement with Eq. (13). We can then write the two terms on the right hand side of Eq. (11) in covariant form as

$`{\displaystyle }\omega H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^6x\delta ^{(4)}(xX)(H)_{\mu \nu \rho }\delta X^\mu \dot{X}^\nu \stackrel{´}{X}^\rho `$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d\tau d\sigma (H)_{\mu \nu \rho }\delta X^\mu \dot{X}^\nu \stackrel{´}{X}^\rho `$
and

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma H_{\mu \nu \rho }^\mathrm{\Sigma }\delta X^\mu \dot{X}^\nu \stackrel{´}{X}^\rho .$$
(20)
The variation of the electric coupling term is

$$\delta \left(_\mathrm{\Sigma }B\right)=\delta \left(_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma B_{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\mu \stackrel{´}{X}^\nu \right),$$
(21)
which after a partial integration becomes

$$\delta \left(_\mathrm{\Sigma }B\right)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma (dB)_{\mu \nu \rho }\delta X^\mu \dot{X}^\nu \stackrel{´}{X}^\rho .$$
(22)
We see that this term combines with the one obtained in Eq. (20) into a single term involving $`H=H_\mathrm{\Sigma }+dB`$. Thus, we have

$$\delta (\frac{1}{4\pi }HH_\mathrm{\Sigma }B)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d\tau d\sigma (H+H)_{\mu \nu \rho }\delta X^\mu \dot{X}^\nu \stackrel{´}{X}^\rho ,$$
(23)
which shows the symmetry between the electric and magnetic couplings explicitly. We see that an anti self-dual part of the field strength $`H`$ would cancel from the variation.

Finally, the variation of the Nambu-Goto term is given by

$$\delta 𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \varphi \sqrt{detg_{\alpha \beta }}=𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \sqrt{detg_{\alpha \beta }}(\delta X^\mu _\mu \varphi +\varphi \frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }\delta g_{\alpha \beta }).$$
(24)
Here, $`g^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the inverse of the induced world-sheet metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$. Inserting that

$$\delta g_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha \delta X^\mu _\beta X_\mu +_\alpha X^\mu _\beta \delta X_\mu $$
(25)
and performing a partial integration of the second term in Eq. (24), we find that this equals

$$𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \sqrt{detg_{\alpha \beta }}\delta X^\mu \left(_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi ^\alpha X_\mu _\alpha X^\nu \varphi D^\alpha D_\alpha X_\mu \right),$$
(26)
where $`D^\alpha `$ is the covariant world-sheet derivative. One should note that the $`X^\mu `$, while being a Minkowski space vector, are world-sheet scalars.

Altogether, we find that the equations of motion that follow from varying $`X^\mu `$ can be written as

$$\varphi D^\alpha D_\alpha X_\mu =_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi ^\alpha X_\mu _\alpha X^\nu (H+H)_{\mu \nu \rho }\dot{X}^\nu \stackrel{´}{X}^\rho ,$$
(27)
evaluated at the locus of the string, i.e. at $`x^\mu =X^\mu `$.

### 4.3 Static solutions

We will now construct a configuration corresponding to an infinitely extended static straight string along the $`x^5`$-direction located at $`x^i=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, i.e. with $`X^i=0`$. For such a string, we have

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{ϵ_{ijkl}}{4!}\delta ^{(4)}(x)dx^idx^jdx^kdx^l.$$
(28)
The $`H`$ and $`\varphi `$ fields are given by

$$H=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{x_l}{|x|^4}\left(\frac{1}{3!}ϵ_{ijk}^ldx^idx^jdx^k+dx^0dx^ldx^5\right)$$
(29)
and

$$\varphi =\varphi _{\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{1}{|x|^2}.$$
(30)
Here $`|x|=\sqrt{x^ix_i}`$, and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is an arbitrary constant, that gives the value of $`\varphi `$ at spatial infinity. It is straight-forward to verify that this configuration satisfies the self-duality condition (7) and the equations of motion (6), (8), and (27). (By rotational invariance in the transverse space, the right-hand side of the latter equation must vanish at $`x^i=0`$.)

Since the string is infinitely long, we expect that the energy of this configuration diverges. It is however interesting to consider the energy per unit length along the $`x^5`$-direction. To this end, we start by determining the energy-momentum tensor for the fields $`\varphi `$ and $`H`$. It is most conveniently defined by coupling the theory to some arbitrary six-dimensional metric $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ and computing the variation of the action as this metric is varied. With

$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle d^6x\sqrt{detG}G^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi }`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}{\displaystyle d^6x\sqrt{detG}G^{\mu \mu ^{}}G^{\nu \nu ^{}}G^{\rho \rho ^{}}H_{\mu \nu \rho }H_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}\rho ^{}}}`$
we get that

$$\delta S_0=\frac{1}{2}d^6x\sqrt{detG}T^{\mu \nu }\delta G_{\mu \nu },$$
(32)
where the coefficient $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is defined as the energy-momentum tensor of the system. Computing $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ in this way for our model, and then imposing the self-duality condition on $`H`$, we arrive at

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(^\mu \varphi ^\nu \varphi \frac{1}{2}G^{\mu \nu }^\rho \varphi _\rho \varphi \right)+\frac{1}{4\pi }H^{\mu \rho \sigma }H_{\rho \sigma }^\nu .$$
(33)
The energy per unit length of our configuration is now given by the integral of the $`T^{00}`$ component over the transverse space parametrized by the $`x^i`$ plus the tension of string, i.e. the negative of the value of $`\varphi `$ at the locus of the string. Both of these contributions diverge, though. We can regularize them by replacing the infinitesimally thin string at $`x^i=0`$ with a hollow cylinder of radius $`ϵ>0`$. This amounts to integrating $`T^{00}`$ over the domain $`|x|>ϵ`$ and evaluating $`\varphi `$ at $`|x|=ϵ`$. One then finds that the divergences as $`ϵ0`$ cancel, and we are left with an effective string tension $`T`$, i.e. energy per unit length, that equals $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$.

Finally, we point out that we may construct a static solution describing parallel strings by a superposition of translations of the solution we have just described. The equilibrium of such a configuration follows from the fact that the right-hand side of Eq. (27), i.e. the force exerted by the fields on a test string, vanishes identically everywhere for the single string solution we have described. Similar results are obtained in .

## 5 Scattering from an infinitely long string

The analysis that we will perform is largely analogous to the classical Thomson scattering, in which electromagnetic radiation is scattered against a spinnless massive particle. (See e.g. chapter 14 of .) This calculation is usually regarded to be valid to lowest order in the electric charge of the particle, but to be exact as a function of the mass of the particle. We will instead be considering the scattering of a chiral two-form gauge field and scalar field radiation against a self-dual string. Because of the self-duality, the electric and magnetic charges of the string cannot be taken to be small, so our calculation has to be exact in them. Instead, we will take the square of the frequency of the radiation to be small compared to the tension of the string, and work to leading order in this ratio.

In this section, we will first describe the different kinds of plane waves of radiation. We will then determine the response of a string to such an incoming wave. The next step is to compute the reradiation generated by the string motion. Finally, we analyze this outgoing radiation far away from the string, where it appears as another plane wave.

### 5.1 Plane waves in six dimensions

A plane wave is typically written as $`\mathrm{Re}(Ae^{ik_\mu x^\mu })`$ and is specified by its (possibly complex) amplitude $`A`$ and its wave vector $`k_\mu `$. The modulus of the zeroth component of the wave vector is the energy $`E`$ of the wave. Our fields are massless and therefore $`k_\mu `$ is a light-like vector, thus $`k_\mu k^\mu =0`$.

The $`\varphi `$-field in our setup is a scalar field and therefore easily described as (we omit the $`\mathrm{Re}`$-operators and keep in mind that we should always take the real part of the final answer)

$$\varphi =\varphi _0e^{ik_\mu x^\mu }.$$
(34)
The $`B`$-field, however, is more complicated. Generally, it can be written as

$$B_{\mu \nu }=b_{\mu \nu }e^{ik_\rho x^\rho },$$
(35)
but there are certain conditions on the fifteen components of $`b_{\mu \nu }`$. First, we choose a Lorentz-type gauge fixing condition

$$^\mu B_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(36)
which reduces to

$$k^\mu b_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(37)
for a plane wave. However, this condition does not fix the gauge entirely, since we may perform a transformation

$$b_{\mu \nu }b_{\mu \nu }+k_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu k_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu $$
(38)
without altering $`k^\mu b_{\mu \nu }`$, if $`k^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu =0`$. We also see that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu =k_\mu `$ is a trivial transformation that does not alter $`b_{\mu \nu }`$. These observations reduce the number of independent components in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$ from six to four, which means that we need four additional conditions to fix the gauge entirely. We may take these to be

$$b_{0a}=0,$$
(39)
where $`a`$ ranges over the spatial indices, i.e. from 1 to 5. (This yields four independent conditions since $`k^ab_{a0}=0`$ from Eq. (37).)

This gauge fixing leaves us with six independent components in $`b_{\mu \nu }`$. We must also impose a self-duality condition which reduces this number to three, which are interpreted as the polarizations of the gauge field. The self-duality condition reads

$$H_{\mu \nu \rho }=\frac{1}{3!}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }^{\sigma \kappa \lambda }H_{\sigma \kappa \lambda }$$
(40)
in terms of the field strength $`H`$. For a plane wave $`B`$, such that $`H=dB`$, this becomes

$$k_\mu B_{\nu \rho }+k_\nu B_{\rho \mu }+k_\rho B_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }^{\sigma \kappa \lambda }k_\sigma B_{\kappa \lambda },$$
(41)
which immediately gives that

$$B_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ab}^{cde}B_{cd}\widehat{k}_e,$$
(42)
where the hat on $`k_e`$ indicates that it is normalized to have unit modulus. This may be interpreted by saying that $`B`$ is self-dual in the four-dimensional space orthogonal to $`k^a`$.

Now, consider the energy-momentum tensor for these plane waves. By applying Eq. (33) we get that

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[\mathrm{Re}\left(\varphi _0ik^\mu e^{ik_\lambda x^\lambda }\right)\mathrm{Re}\left(\varphi _0ik^\nu e^{ik_\tau x^\tau }\right)+\mathrm{Re}\left(ik^\mu b_{\rho \sigma }e^{ik_\lambda x^\lambda }\right)\mathrm{Re}\left(ik^\nu b^{\rho \sigma }e^{ik_\tau x^\tau }\right)\right]$$
(43)
where we have used that $`k^\mu k_\mu =0`$. Note the correspondence between $`b_{\rho \sigma }b^{\rho \sigma }`$ and $`\varphi _0^2`$ in this expression, meaning that we have the same normalization with respect to energy for the two types of waves.

### 5.2 String vibrations

Now that we have explored the area of plane waves, we turn to the actual scattering situation. The philosophy goes as follows: We start from the static case considered previously but add an incident plane wave. This wave will cause the string to vibrate, but the deviations from the static case will be small if the string tension $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is large. The string vibrations will in turn cause emission of new waves, which however will be much smaller in amplitude than the incident plane wave. This means that we may neglect back reaction, i.e. the action of the outgoing waves on the string.

The general equations of motion for the fields $`H(x)`$ and $`\varphi (x)`$ and for $`X(x^0,x^5)`$ are given by Eqs. (6), (8) and (27). They are

$`dH`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (44)
$`d^{}d\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (45)
$`\varphi (\ddot{X}_i\stackrel{˝}{X}_i)`$ $`=`$ $`_i\varphi +2(H_{i05}+H_{ij5}\dot{X}^j+H_{i0j}\stackrel{´}{X}^j)+𝒪(X^2)`$ (46)
where we have used that $`H=H`$ and introduced $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{\mathrm{Vol}}_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Anticipating that the string fluctuations $`X^i`$ will be small, we have only expanded the last equation to second order in these.

Since the outgoing waves are suppressed by a factor $`\frac{1}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}`$, which is small when the string tension approaches infinity, we may expand these equations in powers of $`\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}`$, where $`\epsilon `$ is some energy scale introduced to get a dimensionless expansion parameter. This gives

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_{\mathrm{st}}+H_{\mathrm{in}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}H_{\mathrm{out}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^4}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2}}\right)`$ (47)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}+\varphi _{\mathrm{st}}+\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^4}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2}}\right)`$ (48)
$`X^i`$ $`=`$ $`0+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}X_{\mathrm{Th}}^i+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^4}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2}}\right)`$ (49)
$`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mathrm{st}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\delta _{\mathrm{Th}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^4}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2}}\right)`$ (50)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{st}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Th}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^4}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2}}\right).`$ (51)
Here “st” refers to the static configuration described in subsection 4.3. ($`\varphi _{\mathrm{st}}`$ stands for the static $`\varphi `$-field minus the constant $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$.) $`H_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}`$ denote the incoming plane waves. Quantities denoted “Th” (for Thomson) describe the response of the string, whereas reradiation is described by $`H_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}`$. Note that we have explicitly extracted the appropriate powers of $`\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}`$.

This allows us to rewrite the equations of motion order by order in $`\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}`$. Observing that the static fields must obey the equations of motion for a static, straight string, namely

$`dH_{\mathrm{st}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta _{\mathrm{st}}`$ (52)
$`d^{}d\varphi _{\mathrm{st}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{st}}`$ (53)
$`^i\varphi _{\mathrm{st}}+2H_{\mathrm{st}}^{i05}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (54)
and that $`H_{\mathrm{st}}^{ij5}=H_{\mathrm{st}}^{i0j}=0`$, we get the following equations:

$`dH_{\mathrm{in}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (55)
$`d^{}d\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (56)
$`dH_{\mathrm{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta _{\mathrm{Th}}`$ (57)
$`d^{}d\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Th}}`$ (58)
$`\epsilon ^2(\ddot{X}_{\mathrm{Th}}^i\stackrel{˝}{X}_{\mathrm{Th}}^i)`$ $`=`$ $`^i\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}2H_{\mathrm{in}}^{i05}.`$ (59)
We see that the outgoing waves do not appear in the equation for $`X_{\mathrm{Th}}^i`$, which allows us to solve for the string vibrations directly, as was anticipated. To solve Eq. (55), we introduce a gauge field $`B_{\mathrm{in}}`$ such that $`H_{\mathrm{in}}=dB_{\mathrm{in}}`$. We take this to be a plane wave, satisfying the gauge fixing conditions (36) and (39).

The next step is to solve Eq. (59) for $`X_{\mathrm{Th}}^i`$. We start with the simplest case where $`H_{\mathrm{in}}=0`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}=\varphi _0e^{ik_\mu x^\mu }`$ with the wave vector $`k_\mu =E(1,0,0,0,\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. The situation is depicted in Fig. 1.

For this incident plane wave, we get that

$$^i\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}=iE\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta _4^i\varphi _0e^{iE(x^0+x^4\mathrm{sin}\theta +x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )},$$
(60)
which when inserted in Eq. (59) yields

$$\epsilon ^2(\ddot{X}_{\mathrm{Th}}^i\stackrel{˝}{X}_{\mathrm{Th}}^i)=iE\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta _4^i\varphi _0e^{iE(x^0+x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )},$$
(61)
since we may, to first order, let $`X_i=0`$ in the exponent. Remember that Eq. (59) should be evaluated on the world-sheet, which in our parametrization is equivalent to letting $`x^i=X^i`$.

This equation is solved by making the ansatz

$$X_{\mathrm{Th}}^i=\xi ^ie^{iE(x^0+x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )},$$
(62)
which immediately gives that

$`X_{\mathrm{Th}}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\varphi _0}{\epsilon ^2E\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\delta _4^ie^{iE(x^0+x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )}.`$ (63)
Thus, an incident $`\varphi `$-field in the $`x^4x^5`$ plane causes string vibrations only in the $`x^4`$-direction (to first order).

Let us next consider the case when $`\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}=0`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{in}}=b_{\mu \nu }e^{ik_\rho x^\rho }`$ with the same $`k_\mu `$ as in the previous case. This means that the field strength $`H_{\mathrm{in}}`$ becomes:

$$H_{\mu \nu \rho }^{\mathrm{in}}=i(k_\mu b_{\nu \rho }+k_\nu b_{\rho \mu }+k_\rho b_{\mu \nu })e^{ik_\sigma x^\sigma },$$
(64)
which when inserted into Eq. (59) yields

$$\epsilon ^2(\ddot{X}_i^{\mathrm{Th}}\stackrel{˝}{X}_i^{\mathrm{Th}})=2i(k_ib_{05}+k_0b_{5i}+k_5b_{i0})e^{iE(x^0+x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )}.$$
(65)
Using the ansatz (62) and the condition (39) we get

$$X_i^{\mathrm{Th}}=\frac{2i}{\epsilon ^2E\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }b_{i5}e^{iE(x^0+x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )}.$$
(66)
Since we are treating the model in a linearized approximation, it is of course possible to consider a general superposition of several kinds of incoming plane waves.

### 5.3 Outgoing radiation

The next step in our solution of the scattering problem is to solve Eqs. (57) and (58). To do this, we need to find expressions for $`\delta _{\mathrm{Th}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Th}}`$. These are found by expanding Eq. (14) in orders of $`\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}`$ by replacing $`X`$ with $`\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}X_{\mathrm{Th}}`$. Doing this, we see that

$`\delta _{\mathrm{Th}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}ϵ_{ijkl}[X_{\mathrm{Th}}^{i_1}_{i_1}\delta ^{(4)}(x)dx^idx^jdx^kdx^l+`$ (67)
$`+\delta ^{(4)}(x)(4\dot{X}_{\mathrm{Th}}^idx^0dx^jdx^kdx^l+4\stackrel{´}{X}_{\mathrm{Th}}^idx^5dx^jdx^kdx^l)]`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Th}}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{\mathrm{Th}}^i_i\delta ^{(4)}(x).`$ (68)
Eq. (57) is hard to solve as it stands without breaking the self-duality condition, but we may decompose the self-dual $`H_{\mathrm{out}}`$ as

$$H_{\mathrm{out}}=H_{\mathrm{el}}+H_{\mathrm{el}}$$
(69)
where $`H_{\mathrm{el}}`$ satisfies

$`dH_{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (70)
$`d^{}H_{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta _{\mathrm{Th}}.`$ (71)
This means that we can find a $`B_{\mathrm{el}}`$ such that $`H_{\mathrm{el}}=dB_{\mathrm{el}}`$. $`B_{\mathrm{el}}`$ should satisfy the same gauge fixing condition (36) as $`B_{\mathrm{out}}`$. In this gauge, the equations of motion for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{el}}`$ are

$`_\mu ^\mu \varphi _{\mathrm{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi X_{\mathrm{Th}}^i_i\delta ^{(4)}(x)`$ (72)
$`_\mu ^\mu B_{ij}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (73)
$`_\mu ^\mu B_{i5}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \dot{X}_i^{\mathrm{Th}}\delta ^{(4)}(x)`$ (74)
$`_\mu ^\mu B_{0i}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \stackrel{´}{X}_i^{\mathrm{Th}}\delta ^{(4)}(x)`$ (75)
$`_\mu ^\mu B_{05}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi X_{\mathrm{Th}}^i_i\delta ^{(4)}(x)`$ (76)
To solve these, we need to find the Green function satisfying

$$_\mu ^\mu D(t,𝐱;t^{},𝐱^{})=\delta (tt^{})\delta ^{(4)}(xx^{})\delta (x^5x^5),$$
(77)
where obviously $`tx^0`$ and $`𝐱=(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4,x^5)`$. The retarded solution to this equation is (cf. , Ch. 12)

$`D_{\mathrm{ret}}(t,𝐱;t^{},𝐱^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\theta (tt^{})[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|^3}}\delta (tt^{}|𝐱𝐱^{}|)+`$ (78)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|^2}}\delta ^{}(tt^{}|𝐱𝐱^{}|)],`$
where $`\theta `$ is the ordinary Heaviside step function.

We need to calculate the convolutions of this Green function with both $`\delta ^{(4)}(x)`$ and $`_i\delta ^{(4)}(x)`$ multiplied by the exponential factor in the expression for $`X_{\mathrm{Th}}`$ (it is the only part of $`X_{\mathrm{Th}}`$ with dependence on $`x`$). The integrals thus obtained are not analytically solvable, but we may solve them in the case when $`r\sqrt{x^ix_i}`$ is very large compared to the wavelength. This is equivalent to saying that $`rE1`$, i.e. we look in the far-field region.

We have that

$`f(t,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t^{}d^5x^{}D_{\mathrm{ret}}(t,𝐱;t^{},𝐱^{})\delta ^{(4)}(x^{})e^{iE(x^0+x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )}}`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }dx^5[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(r^2+(x^5x^5)^2)^{3/2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{iE}{r^2+(x^5x^5)^2}}]e^{iE(t(r^2+(x^5x^5)^2)^{1/2}+x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )},`$
which is as far as we get without doing approximations. The geometry of the present situation is shown in Fig. 2.

The angle $`\theta `$ in this figure must be the same as the one in Fig. 1 since both $`k_5`$ and $`k_\mu k^\mu `$ are unaffected by the scattering. Note though that the plane in Fig. 2 does not have to be $`x^4x^5`$, the vector $`r`$ may in fact point in any direction perpendicular to the string. This means that the different possible outgoing wave vectors span a three-sphere. The dominating contribution to the field at a point $`x^\mu `$ is from the part of the string inside the dashed circle. This means that if we write

$$x^5=x^5+\frac{r}{\mathrm{tan}\theta }+s\sqrt{\frac{r}{E}},$$
(81)
then only small $`s`$-values should contribute significantly. Performing this substitution, we may expand the exponential and the denominators in the integral (80). The result of this substitution and the subsequent Taylor expansions is

$$f(t,𝐱)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}e^{iE(x^0r\mathrm{sin}\theta +x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )}𝑑s\sqrt{\frac{r}{E}}\frac{iE}{r^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{sin}^3\theta s^2}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{rE}}\right)\right]$$
(82)
which becomes, after performing the Gaussian integral,

$$f(t,𝐱)=\sqrt{\frac{E\mathrm{sin}\theta }{32\pi ^3r^3}}ie^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}e^{iE(x^0r\mathrm{sin}\theta +x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{rE}}\right)\right].$$
(83)
In the same way, we may calculate

$$g_i(t,𝐱)=𝑑t^{}d^5x^{}D_{\mathrm{ret}}(t,𝐱;t^{},𝐱^{})_i^{}\delta ^{(4)}(x^{})e^{iE(x^0+x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )},$$
(84)
which yields

$$g_i(t,𝐱)=\frac{x_i}{r}\sqrt{\frac{E^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }{32\pi ^3r^3}}e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}e^{iE(x^0r\mathrm{sin}\theta +x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{rE}}\right)\right].$$
(85)
If we use the results just obtained together with the equations of motion for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{el}}`$ we get, to lowest order, the outgoing waves (we are only interested in the particular solutions, not the homogeneous)

$`\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \xi ^ig_i`$ (86)
$`B_{ij}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (87)
$`B_{i5}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi iE\xi _if`$ (88)
$`B_{0i}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi iE\mathrm{cos}\theta \xi _if`$ (89)
$`B_{05}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \xi ^ig_i,`$ (90)
where $`\xi ^i`$ is defined in Eq. (62). Having found $`B_{\mathrm{el}}`$ we can easily find $`H_{\mathrm{out}}=dB_{\mathrm{el}}+dB_{\mathrm{el}}`$. Defining the amplitude $`h_{\mu \nu \rho }^{}`$ by

$$\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}H_{\mu \nu \rho }^{\mathrm{out}}h_{\mu \nu \rho }^{}e^{iE(x^0r\mathrm{sin}\theta +x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )},$$
(91)
we get, after a small calculation, that

$`h_{ijk}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^5\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }{8\pi r^3}}}ie^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\mathrm{sin}\theta ϵ_{ijki_1}\left(\xi ^{i_1}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{i_1}x^{i_2}\xi _{i_2}}{r^2}}\right)`$ (92)
$`h_{0ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^5\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }{8\pi r^3}}}ie^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{x_i\xi _jx_j\xi _i}{r}}ϵ_{ij}^{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{x_k\xi _l}{r}}\right)`$ (93)
$`h_{5ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^5\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }{8\pi r^3}}}ie^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_i\xi _jx_j\xi _i}{r}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ϵ_{ij}^{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{x_k\xi _l}{r}}\right)`$ (94)
$`h_{05i}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^5\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }{8\pi r^3}}}ie^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(\xi _i{\displaystyle \frac{x_ix_{i_1}\xi ^{i_1}}{r^2}}\right).`$ (95)
Analogously, we define the amplitude $`\varphi _0^{}`$ by

$$\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}=\varphi _0^{}e^{iE(x^0r\mathrm{sin}\theta +x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )}.$$
(96)
Eq. (86) then yields that

$$\varphi _0^{}=\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{\frac{E^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }{2\pi r^3}}\frac{x_i\xi ^i}{r}e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}.$$
(97)
We see that the fields decrease as $`r^{3/2}`$ (at least, depending on direction). This makes sense, since it means that the energy decreases as $`r^3`$, which is consistent with the fact that the possible outgoing wave vectors span a three-sphere. The wave vector $`k_\mu ^{}`$ of the outgoing wave is

$`k_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`E`$ (98)
$`k_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`E\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{r}}`$ (99)
$`k_5^{}`$ $`=`$ $`E\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (100)
meaning that the wave vector indeed points as in Fig. 2.

Far away from the string, $`H_{\mathrm{out}}`$ can be viewed as a plane wave, the only important $`x`$-dependence is then in the exponent. The amplitude factor may be taken to be constant. This means that $`dH_{\mathrm{out}}=0`$; thus we can find a $`B_{\mathrm{out}}`$ such that $`H_{\mathrm{out}}=dB_{\mathrm{out}}`$. If we write

$$\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}B_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{out}}=b_{\mu \nu }^{}e^{iE(x^0r\mathrm{sin}\theta +x^5\mathrm{cos}\theta )},$$
(101)
the apparent $`b_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ that yields the correct $`H_{\mathrm{out}}`$ is then given by

$`b_{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }{8\pi r^3}}}e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\left(ϵ_{ijkl}{\displaystyle \frac{x^k\xi ^l}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i\xi _jx_j\xi _i}{r}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)`$ (102)
$`b_{0i}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (103)
$`b_{i5}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }{8\pi r^3}}}e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(\xi _i{\displaystyle \frac{x_ix_j\xi ^j}{r^2}}\right)`$ (104)
$`b_{05}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (105)
It is also clear that this $`B_{\mathrm{out}}`$ satisfies the gauge fixing conditions (37) and (39) *if* considered as a plane wave.

### 5.4 Presenting the results

The results of the scattering problem may be presented in a more transparent way by exploiting the symmetry of the problem. When choosing the plane spanned by the incident wave vector and the string, the original $`SO(5)`$ symmetry is broken down to $`SO(3)`$. It is therefore convenient to introduce a three-dimensional vector space spanned by

$$b_a\frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }b_{ab}n^b,$$
(106)
where $`n`$ is a unit vector pointing in the string direction and the prefactor is determined by requiring that

$$b^ab_a=b^{ab}b_{ab}.$$
(107)
The angle $`\theta `$ is still taken to be the angle between the incident wave and the string, which in terms of $`n`$ and $`k`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =n^a\widehat{k}_a,$$
(108)
where the hat denotes a unit vector. Analogously, we define the angle $`\phi `$ as

$$\mathrm{cos}\phi =\widehat{k}^a\widehat{k}_a^{}.$$
(109)
Obviously, the vector $`b`$ is orthogonal to $`n`$ and $`k`$, hence it has only three independent components (polarizations).

The inverse to Eq. (106) is given by

$$b_{ab}=b_{[a}n_{b]}+\mathrm{cos}\theta b_{[a}\widehat{k}_{b]}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ab}^{cde}b_cn_d\widehat{k}_e.$$
(110)
In our choice of coordinates $`n^a=(0,0,0,0,1)`$, meaning that $`b_5=0`$. Thus we may omit this component and work only with

$$b_i=\frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }b_{i5}.$$
(111)
After these preliminaries, we may now express the scattered fields in terms of the incident in the following way:

$`b_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{ij}b^j+C_i\varphi _0`$ (112)
$`\varphi _0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`E_jb^j+F\varphi _0,`$ (113)
where $`b_i^{}`$ is defined from $`b_{ab}^{}`$ in the same way as $`b_i`$ is defined from $`b_{ab}`$. The plus-sign in these relations should be interpreted with caution. The contributions from $`B`$ and $`\varphi `$ can be added like this *only* if they have the same wave vector $`k`$ (and therefore the same energy). If this is not the case, they can still be added (since the problem is linear) but one must take into account that $`\varphi `$ and $`B`$ have different wave vectors.

We will now determine the coefficients $`A`$, $`C`$, $`E`$ and $`F`$ in these relations, which is done by using Eqs. (63), (66), (97) and (104). Note that we may always add any multiple of $`\widehat{k}_j`$ to $`A_{ij}`$ and $`E_j`$ without altering Eqs. (112) and (113). In order to get unambiguous expressions, we require that $`A_{ij}\widehat{k}^j=E_j\widehat{k}^j=0`$. This yields that

$`A_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2\pi r^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }}}ie^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \delta _{ij}+\widehat{k}_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}\widehat{k}_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}+\widehat{k}_i\widehat{k}_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\widehat{k}_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}\widehat{k}_j\right)`$ (114)
$`C_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2\pi r^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }}}ie^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(\widehat{k}_i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\widehat{k}_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}\right)`$ (115)
$`E_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2\pi r^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }}}ie^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(\widehat{k}_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\widehat{k}_i\right)`$ (116)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2\pi r^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }}}ie^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi \right).`$ (117)
We see that the coefficients $`C_i`$ and $`E_i`$ are closely related, and that the matrix $`A_{ij}`$ has a certain symmetry property. This means that the roles of incoming and outgoing waves may be interchanged, just as one would expect.

Acknowledgments: M.H. is a Research Fellow at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. We would like to thank Martin Cederwall for discussions.


format: text

text:
# Lévy Flights in External Force Fields: From Models to Equations

## 1 Introduction

Random walk processes leading to anomalous diffusion are adequate for describing various physical situations. The continuous time random walk (CTRW) model of Scher and Montroll  for instance, leading to strongly sub-diffusive behavior, was a milestone in understanding photoconductivity in strongly disordered and glassy semiconductors. Due to its simplicity, this model was recently employed to investigate aging phenomena typical for glasses and related complex systems . On the other hand, Lévy-flight models , leading to superdiffusion, are adequate for the description of phenomena ranging from transport in heterogeneous catalysis , self-diffusion in micelle systems , reactions and transport in polymer systems under conformational motion , transport processes in heterogeneous rocks  and the behavior of dynamical systems  to flight paths of albatrosses  and even human eye-movements . Closely related models appear in the description of economic time series . Lévy-related statistics were observed in hydrodynamic transport , and in the motion of gold nanoclusters on graphite . In addition, mixed models were proposed in which slow temporal evolution (described by Scher-Montroll CTRW) is combined with the possibility of Lévy-jumps, so that in general both sub- or superdiffusive behavior can arise . Similarily, processes often referred to as Lévy-walks are based on long-tailed jumps in combinations with a time cost to perform them, see for example . Lévy-walks were introduced in  to explain accelerated diffusion in Josephson junctions and related chaotic systems .

Typically, the corresponding processes are described on a stochastic level, such that the incorporation of boundary conditions, time- or position-dependent forces leads to considerable mathematical difficulties.

Concerning ordinary diffusion and transport in a stochastic system, the Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) is an adequate instrument for solving boundary value or time-dependent problems . The FPE is an equation for the probability density function (pdf) $`p(x,t)`$ of the particle’s position at time $`t`$and reads

$$\frac{p(x,t)}{t}=_{FP}p=\left(\mu f(x,t)p(x,t)\right)+\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }p(x,t).$$
(1)
Here $`_{FP}`$ denotes the Fokker-Planck operator, $`\mu `$ and $`\kappa `$ are the mobility and the diffusion coefficient (assumed to be constant) and $`f(x,t)`$ is the external force acting on the particle. Note that since the mobility and the diffusion coefficient are connected via the Einstein relation, $`\kappa =kT\mu \mu /\beta `$, the equation effectively contains only one free parameter. Alternatively, eq. (1) may be recast into a different form in the case of a potential force $`f(x,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)`$:

$$\frac{p(x,t)}{t}=\kappa \left[e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}\left(\frac{}{x}\right)^2e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}ppe^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}\left(\frac{}{x}\right)^2e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}\right],$$
(2)
the equivalence of which to eq. (1) is easily checked by expanding the differentiations. Obviously, the stationary solution of the FPE (if it exists) is the Boltzmann distribution, $`p(x)\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{\Phi })`$. Inserting this form into eq. (2) one readily infers that the two terms entering with opposite signs are equal and cancel.

In order to investigate analogous systems incorporating anomalous diffusion, various generalizations of the FPE were proposed. Concerning subdiffusion the appropriate generalizations can be obtained from CTRW models, for a general survey see , as well as from an approach based on fractional master equations . Concerning superdiffusion (Lévy-flights), such generalizations typically involve changing from a gradient and Laplacian to the corresponding fractional derivative. For example, a pure Lévy-flight can be described by means of the fractional diffusion equation

$$\frac{p(x,t)}{t}=\kappa _\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^{\alpha /2}p(x,t),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\alpha /2}`$ is a fractional Laplacian, a linear operator, whose action on a function $`f(x)`$ in Fourier space is described by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\alpha /2}f(x)=\left(k^2\right)^{\alpha /2}f(k)=\left|k\right|^\alpha f(k)`$. The coordinate representation of this operator is discussed in Appendix 1. The solution of eq. (3) in Fourier space reads:

$$G(k,t)=\mathrm{exp}(\kappa \left|k\right|^\alpha t)$$
(4)
which in coordinate space corresponds to a symmetric Lévy stable distribution

$$G(x,t)=\frac{1}{(\kappa t)^{1/\alpha }}L(\frac{x}{(\kappa t)^{1/\alpha }};\alpha ,0)$$
(5)
(we use here the canonical notation, see ref. ). On the other hand, there is no generic way to generalize the Fokker-Planck operator containing an external force term: For example, the drift term may stay unchanged, may correspond to a symmetric or asymmetric fractional derivative, or the whole Fokker-Planck-operator may be raised to the power of $`\alpha /2`$. All corresponding equations have their physical meaning and applications. The properties of their solutions differ considerably. Moreover, as we proceed to show, other generalizations are also possible. The situation here is to some extent similar to one in fractal geometry: What is the generalization of the Euclidean dimension to the fractal case? Depending on the system and on the property of interest it could be the fractal dimension, the spectral dimension, or even a spectrum of different dimensions. In what follows we discuss the properties of some generalization of the FPE to the superdiffusive case leading to Lévy-flights in the force-free limit. We will focus on two complementary situations, namely one in which superdiffusion stems from fractal temporal properties of the underlying microscopic dynamics and another in which the spatial structure is responsible for enhanced diffusion. We mostly concentrate on the generalizations of the forms, eq. (1) and eq. (2) which lead to a Boltzmann distribution in equilibrium. We discuss the physical implications of the corresponding equations and some properties of their solutions. As a physically most interesting application, a fractional generalization of a Kramers problem in a double-well potential is considered. Let us first turn to the situations which can be considered as stemming from the fractal temporal behavior.

## 2 Lévy processes as stemming from subordination

An important property of symmetric Lévy processes is the fact that they are subordinated to ordinary Brownian motion: the corresponding pdf can be represented in the form:

$$p(x,t)=\frac{1}{t^{1/\alpha }}L(\frac{x}{t^{1/\alpha }};\alpha ,0)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \tau }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x^2}{2\tau }\right)\frac{1}{t^{2/\alpha }}L(\frac{\tau }{t^{2/\alpha }};\frac{\alpha }{2},1)𝑑\tau $$
(6)
where $`L(x;\alpha /2,1)`$ is an extreme (one-sided) Lévy distribution of index $`\alpha /2`$ .

The variable $`\tau `$ is called the operational time of the process. The interpretation of eq. (6) is that Levy-flights can be considered as stemming from a highly irregular sampling trajectories generated by simple diffusion (random walk). This type of temporal behavior plays a very important role in many situations encountered in physics, such as anequilibrium phase transitions . For a review see  and references therein.

Here, the trajectory of diffusion (a random walk in a discrete case or a Wiener path in a continuous situation) is parameterized by the operational time $`\tau `$ (say, the number of steps of the random walk), which itself is a random function of the (physical) time. The random process $`\tau (t)`$ is a process with positive increments, and the distribution of $`\tau (t)`$ is given by a one-sided Lévy law. Thus, the increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ of the operational time per physical time unit is given by a one-sided Lévy-distribution, $`p(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )=L(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ;\alpha /2,1)`$ having a power-law tail, $`p(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )\tau ^{1\alpha /2}`$.

The corresponding situation is depicted in fig. 1. Here a Lévy-flight of $`N=100`$ steps is generated as follows. One generates a sequence $`\left\{n_i\right\}`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$ of the numbers of steps between the observation instants and plots a realization of a simple random walk of $`M=_{i=1}^Nn_i`$ steps. The turning points of a Lévy-flight are then the positions of a random walker after $`m_k`$ steps, $`m_k=_{i=1}^kn_i`$. Fig. 1 corresponds to a process subordinated to a random walk under the operational time given by

$$p(n_i)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }n_i^{3/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2n_i}\right).$$
(7)
The overall pdf of the process $`p(x,t)`$ is then given approximately by a Cauchy distribution,

$`p(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2n}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{\sqrt{\pi }n^{3/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2n}}\right)`$ (8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2n}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{\sqrt{\pi }n^{3/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2n}}\right)𝑑n={\displaystyle \frac{t}{\pi (t^2+x^2)}}.`$
Although this continuous approximation is valid here, some care must be taken in the general case when sums over steps in random walks are replaced by integral, see for example . Applying the subordination procedure to the general, biased diffusive process, one is lead to the generalization of the FPE, in which the entire Fokker-Planck-operator is raised to the power $`\alpha /2`$:

$$\frac{p}{t}=\left(_{FP}\right)^{\alpha /2}p$$
(9)
as shown in . The generalized Fokker-Planck operator $`_\alpha =\left(_{FP}\right)^{\alpha /2}`$ commutes with $`_{FP}`$ and shares with it the same set of the eigenfunctions $`\varphi _i`$. The corresponding eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$of the operator $`_\alpha `$ are connected with those of $`_{FP}`$ via $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=(\lambda _i)^{\alpha /2}`$. Since the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ of $`_{FP}`$ are real and nonpositive, this is true for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ as well. Eq. (9) follows from the subordination procedure just in the same way as a Cauchy distribution followed from a Gaussian distribution in the example given above. Let us consider a spectral representation of the solution of the FPE,

$$g(x,\tau )=\underset{i}{}\varphi _i(x)e^{\left|\lambda _i\right|\tau }.$$
(10)
The subordination procedure applied to this solution leads to

$`p(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle g(x,\tau )\frac{1}{t^{2/\alpha }}L(\frac{\tau }{t^{2/\alpha }};\frac{\alpha }{2},1)𝑑\tau }=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varphi _i(x){\displaystyle e^{\left|\lambda _i\right|\tau }L(\frac{\tau }{t^{2/\alpha }};\frac{\alpha }{2},1)𝑑\tau }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varphi _i(x)e^{\left|\lambda _i\right|^\alpha t},`$
due to a well-known property of the Laplace-transforms of one-sided Lévy distributions . Note that the eigenfunction $`\varphi _0`$ corresponding to a zero eigenvalue (if any) is a stationary distribution, which is the same (i.e. a Boltzmann distribution) for the normal and for the generalized process. The spectral decomposition of solutions of eq. (9) given by eq. (2) is incorporated in our numerical procedure for the solution of superdiffusive FPE in a potential field considered in section 4.

Eq. (9) can also be interpreted within the Langevin scheme, which clarifies the circumstances under which Boltzmann statistics may or may not appear when superdiffusive generalizations of the FPEs are introduced. Let us first consider a purely diffusive situation without external force. In the continuous limit (corresponding to averaging over the time periods which are short enough to consider all parameters constant but during which many steps of a random walk are performed), the system’s development in its operational time is given by a Langevin equation

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }x(\tau )=\sqrt{2\kappa }\xi (\tau )$$
(12)
where $`\xi (\tau )`$ is a $`\delta `$-correlated Gaussian noise with zero mean and with unit dispersion. Subordination requires that

$$\frac{d\tau }{dt}=\lambda (t),$$
(13)
where $`\lambda (t)`$ is a one-sided Lévy process of index $`\alpha /2`$. The resulting process is thus described by a Langevin equation

$$\frac{dx}{dt}=\frac{d\tau }{dt}\frac{d}{d\tau }x(\tau )=\sqrt{2\kappa }\lambda (t)\xi (\tau (t)),$$
(14)
where $`\tau (t)`$ is a monotonously increasing random function which is changing slowly on the scale on which $`\xi (\tau )`$is correlated. This suggests that the random process $`\xi (\tau (t))`$ is a Gaussian one, has zero mean and dispersion $`\xi (\tau (t))\xi (\tau (t^{}))=\delta \left(\tau (t)\tau (t^{})\right)=(d\tau /dt)^1\delta (tt^{})=\lambda (t)^1\delta (tt^{})`$, indicating that the process $`x(t)`$can be formally represented by a Langevin equation

$$\dot{x}(t)=\sqrt{2\kappa \lambda (t)}\eta (t)$$
(15)
where $`\eta (t)`$ is a $`\delta `$-correlated Gaussian noise with zero mean and unit dispersion. From this equation, a FPE of the type of eq. (3) follows along the usual lines.

Physically, such strongly inhomogeneous behavior can be attributed to random fluctuations of the mobility or of the temperature or of the both: $`\kappa (t)=\kappa \lambda (t)=k\mu (t)T(t)`$. Let us return to the full process described by a Langevin equation

$$\dot{x}(t)=\mu f+\sqrt{2\mu kT}\xi (t)$$
(16)
with a potential force $`f(x,t)=U(x,t)`$. Here the situations corresponding to the fluctuations in temperature and to ones in mobility differ vastly. Keeping the temperature constant and letting $`\mu `$ fluctuate leads to a process subordinated to a biased random walk, which is described by a Langevin equation

$$\dot{x}(t)=\mu (t)f+\sqrt{2\mu (t)kT}\xi (t)$$
(17)
where $`\mu (t)`$ is now a strongly fluctuating random function, whose distribution is given by a one-sided Lévy law. The corresponding pdf is governed exactly by a fractional Fokker-Planck equation, eq. (9) derived above. This equation shows a relaxation to a normal Boltzmann distribution, which is not surprising since the corresponding scheme describes a system showing detailed balance at given, fixed temperature $`T`$. Note that although the equilibrium properties of the system are usual, its relaxation properties are not, see ref.  for a detailed discussion. Thus, it does not exhibit linear response to a constant external field, and, moreover, since the corresponding pdf neither possesses the second moment nor scales, no reasonable generalization of the Einstein’s relation exists. The same is valid for the model of topological superdiffusion discussed below. On the other hand, as we proceed to show, the behavior of both models in confining potentials such as a harmonic or a double-well one, is not as exotic (vide infra).

The situation under fluctuating temperature is vastly different: a system with fluctuating temperature must not show Boltzmann statistics at equilibrium (if any). Let us mention that under certain circumstances the distributions given by Langevin equations with fluctuating parameters approach ones given by Tsallis statistics , i.e. ones stemming from a thermodynamic construct in which the entropy is non-extensive and thus the concept of temperature can not be introduced in a usual way.

In our case, fluctuations in temperature do not affect the first term, i.e. the deterministic motion and lead (after performing usual steps) to a fractional Fokker-Planck equation (FFPE) in the form:

$$\frac{p}{t}=\frac{}{x}\left(\mu fp\right)+\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }^{\alpha /2}p,$$
(18)
whose solutions are discussed in ref. .

## 3 Topologically induced superdiffusion

Complementary to the situation discussed in the previous section in which superdiffusion originates from fractal temporal behavior, we will discuss the fractional generalization of the FPE adequate for the description of diffusion on scale-free structures. Contrary to the situation investigated in the previous section in which superdiffusion is caused by a fractal sampling of an otherwise continuous path, we will focus on the limiting behavior of a master equation describing a Markovian jump process in which transitions are caused by thermal hopping between energetically different states on a topologically complex structure, ref. .

As a model system, we consider a heteropolymer in solution depicted in fig. 2. We focus on the dynamics of a test particle performing thermally activated motion along the linear chemical coordinate axis $`x`$ of the polymer. If the polymer is fixed at full extend, thermal activation causes the particle to hop at a rate $`1/\tau _D`$ from a given site to a neighboring site with a probability determined by the energy difference within a given mononer pair. However, a polymer in solution is subjected to thermal conformational changes occurring on a time scale $`\tau _G`$. The conformational changes allow sites which are far apart along the chemical sequence to come close in Euclidian space, as indicated in figure 2: For simplicity, a Gaussian chain (corresponding to a Rouse dynamics) can be considered, moreover, the conformational changes will be taken fast enough on the scale $`\tau _D`$. In this case the particle may jump from a given site $`x`$ to a site $`y`$ far apart with a rate proportional to the probability that the sites $`x`$ and $`y`$ have come close in the given time interval. In our case, the probability of such event is prortional to $`|xy|^{3/2}`$. As we proceed to show, the fractional generalization of the Fokker-Planck equation corresponding to the situation depicted above differs from the ones considered so far.

The system introduced above can be modeled by a Markovian jump process governed by a temporally homogeneous master equation

$$\frac{p(x,t)}{t}=𝑑y\left[w(x|y)p(y,t)w(y|x)p(x,t)\right],$$
(19)
in which the rates $`w(x|y)`$ are determined by the short time behavior of the conditional probability to make a transition $`yx`$

$$w(x|y)\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}p(x,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t|y,t).$$
(20)
Let us mention here, that in eq.(20) the rates $`w(x|y)`$ may be singular and may even defy normalizability. The Cauchy process for example is defined by $`w(x|y)=1/\pi (xy)^2`$. If, on the other hand, $`𝑑xw(x|y)=\text{const}`$, exists the constant can be factored out and absorbed by a rescaling of the time. In this case the process is a pure jump process, consecutive jumps are seperated by time periods during which the random process is constant, in contrast to the Cauchy process realizations of which are discontinuous almost everywhere.

In our example the coordinate $`x`$ represents the chemical coordinate along the polymer chain. The reasoning above suggests a rate of the form

$$w(x|y)=\frac{1}{\tau _0}e^{\beta [\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(y)]/2}f(xy).$$
(21)
The right hand side of eq. (21) consists of the thermal component $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta [\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(y)]/2)`$ accounting for the fact that transitions between energetically different states are less likely to occur if the potential difference $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$ is high. The second factor, $`f(xy)`$ represents the probability of states with chemical coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$ to be nearby in Euclidean space, i.e. this term accounts for the geometrical complexity of the system. Due to the translational invariance and symmetry of the system in Euclidean space this term is symmetric and depends on the distance $`\left|xy\right|`$ only. Obviously, a system defined by a rate (21) fulfills detailed balance, characteristic of systems in thermal equilibrium. Note also that the stationary solution of Eq. (19) with the rates given by (21) is the Boltzmann distribution

$$p_s(x)e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(x)}.$$
(22)
It is instructive to consider a fully extended polymer of total length $`L`$. In this case only nearest neighbor hopping occurs, i.e.

$$f(x)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta (x\sigma )+\delta (x+\sigma )\right).$$
(23)
In (23) $`\sigma L`$ is the spacing between adjacent monomers. Setting $`q_t(x)e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(x)/2}p(x,t)`$ and $`s(x)e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(x)/2}`$ the master equation (19) reduces to:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p(x,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\tau _0}}s(x)\left\{q_t(x+\sigma )+q_t(x\sigma )\right\}`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\tau _0}}q_t(x)\left\{s(x+\sigma )+s(x\sigma )\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{2\tau _0}}s(x)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{q_t(x+\sigma )+q_t(x\sigma )2q_t(x)}{\sigma ^2}}\right\}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{2\tau _0}}q_t(x)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{s(x+\sigma )+s(x\sigma )2s(x)}{\sigma ^2}}\right\}`$
Now letting $`\tau _0,\sigma 0`$ such that $`\sigma ^2/\tau _02D`$ we obtain ($`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$, $`pp(x,t)`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`_Gp`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\right)^2e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}ppe^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\right)^2e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2},`$ (29)
i.e. equation (2). Therfore, the dynamics of a particle on a fully extended polymer is governed by ordinary diffusion.

Let us now return to a flexible polymer performing conformational changes. In this case the geometrical factor in the rate (21), $`f(xy)`$ follows a power-law . Thence, we investigate the case of long-tailed transition rates. Let

$$f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}C_\mu |x|^{(1+\mu )}\hfill & |x|>\epsilon >0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
with $`C_\mu =\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)/\pi `$ and $`0<\mu 2`$. Here $`\epsilon `$ is the minimal jump length, which substitutes a fixed jump length $`\sigma `$ of our previous example. Note that we do not require $`f(x)`$ in (30) to be normalized to unity. Any prefactor independent of $`\epsilon `$ occurs in both terms in the master equation (19) and can be absorbed as a time constant. The particular choice of $`C_\mu `$ will become clear below. Inserting (30) into (21) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p(x,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`C_\mu \{e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(x)/2}{\displaystyle _{|xy|>\epsilon }}dy{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(y)/2}p(y,t)}{|xy|^{1+\mu }}}`$ (31)
$`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(x)/2}p(x,t){\displaystyle _{|xy|>\epsilon }}dy{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(y)/2}}{|xy|^{1+\mu }}}\}`$
In the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ (31) becomes (for notational ease we set $`s(x)e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(x)/2}`$, $`q(x,t)=p(x,t)/s(x)`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p(x,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}C_\mu \{s(x){\displaystyle _{|xy|>\epsilon }}dy{\displaystyle \frac{q(y,t)}{|xy|^{1+\mu }}}`$
$`q(x,t){\displaystyle _{|xy|>\epsilon }}dy{\displaystyle \frac{s(y)}{|xy|^{1+\mu }}}\}`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}C_\mu \{s(x){\displaystyle _{|xy|>\epsilon }}dy{\displaystyle \frac{q(y,t)q(x,t)}{|xy|^{1+\mu }}}`$
$`q(x,t){\displaystyle _{|xy|>\epsilon }}dy{\displaystyle \frac{s(y)s(x)}{|xy|^{1+\mu }}}\}`$
$`=`$ $`C_\mu \{s(x){\displaystyle }dy{\displaystyle \frac{q(y,t)q(x,t)}{|xy|^{1+\mu }}}`$
$`q(x,t){\displaystyle }dy{\displaystyle \frac{s(y)s(x)}{|xy|^{1+\mu }}}\}.`$
Note, that in the limit the resulting rates $`w(x|y)`$ are not normalizable. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, the process is not a pure jump process in this limit. Implicitely, in the limit carried out above, not only the minimal step size $`\epsilon `$ but also the typical waiting time $`\tau _w(y)=(𝑑xw(x|y))^1`$ at position $`y`$ vanishes, because of the singular nature of the rate $`w(x|y)`$ in this limit. However, the limit can be carried out since the resultant singularities cancel and eq.(3) can be interpreted consistently.

The integrals appearing in (3) are symmetric fractional generalizations of the ordinary Laplacian (see Appendix 1)

$$\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}f(x)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)}{\pi }𝑑y\frac{f(y)f(x)}{|xy|^{1+\mu }},$$
(35)
and equation (3) can be recast into a more concise form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}ppe^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}e^{\beta \mathrm{\Phi }/2}`$ (36)
$``$ $`_{G,\mu }p.`$ (37)
Again, the similarity to the underlying master-equation is obvious. Trivially, detailed balance is retained in the limit and the Boltzmann distribution is the stationary state of (36). Note that for $`\mu =2`$ we recover system (28), i.e.

$$_{G,2}=_{FP}.$$
(38)
However, in the range $`0<\mu <2`$ the operator $`_{G,\mu }`$ does *not* portray a situation equivalent to any of the equations discussed above and does not correspond to any Langevin equation of the type

$$dX=F(X)dt+dL_\mu (t)$$
(39)
in which the long-tailed influence is incorporated into the thermal fluctuations by a symmetric Lévy stable process $`L_\mu (t)`$. In  the difference between the fractional Fokker-Planck equation corresponding to Lévy-stable additive noise and the topological generalization is investigated in detail.

## 4 Comparison of systems in a double well potential

We proceed by showing that the two generalizations of the FPE leading to Boltzmann statistics in equilibrium (one based on the fractal time, another on the fractal space approach) differ strongly in their predictions concerning relaxation in the same kind of potential. For our comparison we have chosen a classical Kramers situation, i.e. diffusion in a double-well potential. As a generic double well we chose

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=x^42x^2+1$$
(40)
depicted in the upper left panel of figure 3. Initially a particle is placed at the potential minimum at $`x=1`$, $`p(x,0)=\delta (x+1)`$. The solutions $`p(x,t)`$ are depicted at three different times ($`t=0.03,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.0}`$) in figure 3 for a value $`\beta =5.0`$ and an exponent $`\mu =1`$. The fractional diffusion equations were numerically solved by first mapping them onto the corresponding hermitian Hamiltonian $``$ and subsequent spectral decomposition $`=_n\lambda _n𝒫_n`$ where the $`\lambda _n`$ and $`𝒫_n`$ are eigenvalues and projectors onto the corresponding eigenspaces. Solutions $`p(x,t)`$ were then expressed in term of these quantities.

Let us first note that the time-scales of the relaxation processes for the case of normal diffusion and for Lévy-processes differ vastly. The typical times of the concentration equilibration (being the inverse of the largest nonzero eigenvalue) are: $`\tau _C=20.36`$ for the diffusion process ($`2`$), $`\tau _C=4.51`$ for the subordination case ($`\mu =1`$) and $`\tau _C=3.93`$ for the case of long jumps with the same value of $`\mu =1`$. A much greater value of $`\tau _C`$ for the ordinary diffusion process is not surprising. In a short time it equilibrates within the left potential well. However, due to the continuity of its sample paths, the diffusion process accumulates probability in the right potential well only for long times. In comparison, the subordination process as well as the process governed by (37) can pass the potential maximum at $`x=0`$ even for short times, a direct consequence of the possibility of initiating a long jump from left to right. The possibility to transmit probability through the potential barrier is payed off by a slower equilibration within the left potential well in which $`p(x,t)`$ for both, subordination and topological superdiffusion stay sharply peaked around $`x=1`$. This cusp-like shape in the left potential well is reminiscent of the classical Scher-Montroll picture of CTRW. Despite their qualitative similarities in the overall shape of $`p(x,t)`$ subordination and topological superdiffusion are quite distinct on close inspection as is shown in figure 4.

In order to avoid huge difference in scales, we plot in figure 4 the reduced densities in the left and in the right potential wells, i.e. the densities which are normalized to unity on the given sub-interval and for the given time:

$`p_L(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p(x,t)}{_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑yp(y,t)}}`$ (41)
$`p_R(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p(x,t)}{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yp(y,t)}}`$ (42)
Clearly, the shapes differ strongly on both sides of the potential.

In order to reveal the differences in barrier penetration it is instructive to consider the time dependence of the total probability in the right potential well

$$Q(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xp(x,t),$$
(43)
and the rate $`r(t)`$ defined by

$$r(t)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Q(t)}{dt}.$$
(44)
Asymptotically, as $`t\mathrm{}`$ the processes investigated here evolve according to

$$p(x,t)p_s(x)\left(p_s(x)p_0(x)\right)e^{\lambda _1t}\lambda _1<0.$$
(45)
where $`p_s(x)`$ and $`p_0(x)`$ denote the stationary and initial states of the system, respectively. Therfore, $`r(t)\lambda _1`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$, the rate approaches the inverse of the relaxation time constant of the process. In other words, the function $`r(t)`$ measures how fast the probability transfer across the barrier approaches the quasi-equilibrium value. For the same parameters as in figures 3, 4 the rate $`r(t)`$ is depicted in figure 5. The ordinary diffusion rate is initially zero and increases as soon as the process equilibrates within the left potential well. It then levels off to a relatively small constant value proportional to the probability flux across the barrier. In contrast, for the superdiffusive systems the rate to transfer probability over the barrier is finite even for very small times. For the latter $`r(t)`$ increases more slowly than in ordinary diffusion. However, the asymptotic rate is higher. Note that the subordination process penetrates the barrier at relatively high but almost constant rate for the entire time, whereas for topological superdiffusion the rate is initially smaller but increases for large times beyond the subordination rate.

## 5 Conclusions

We discussed different generalizations of a Fokker-Planck equation for the case of Lévy processes in external force fields. We show that such generalization can proceed along different lines (assuming strong temperature or mobility fluctuations or allowing for long jumps), which lead to different forms of the generalized operator. We confined ourselves to situations in which the corresponding equations are thermodynamically sound and their solutions approach Boltzmann equilibrium. The different relaxation behaviors of Lévy-processes were investigated and compared for the paradigmatic case of a double-well potential and deviations from normal diffusion were clarified.

## 6 Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge useful discussions with J. Klafter and A. Chechkin and W. Noyes. The financial support of the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie is gratefully acknowledged.

## Appendix A Fractional Differentiation

The operators involved in fractional differentiation are generically non-local. Thus, depending on the particular choice of boundary values a variety of generalizations exists, all of which suit a specific need in physical applications. Depending on the specific problem at hand different representations of fractional differential operators may be chosen. Here we concentrate on a fractional generalization, $`\mathrm{}^{\mu /2}`$, $`0<\mu 2`$ of the ordinary Laplace operator $`\mathrm{}`$ generically encountered in superdiffusive systems. The reader is refered to  for additional information on fractional calculus in general.

### A.1 Definitions

Incidentally, the most natural way to introduce fractional differential operators is based on the generalization of the $`n`$-fold iterated integral of a function $`f(x)`$

$$_aI_x^nf(x)\frac{1}{(n1)!}_a^xdyf(y)(xy)^{n1}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}_a^xdyf(y)(xy)^{n1}$$
(46)
to arbitrary fractional order $`\alpha >0`$,

$`{}_{a}{}^{}I_{x}^{\alpha }f(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}}{\displaystyle _a^x}𝑑yf(y)(xy)^{\alpha 1}`$ (47)
$`{}_{x}{}^{}I_{a}^{\alpha }f(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}}{\displaystyle _x^a}𝑑yf(y)(yx)^{\alpha 1},`$ (48)
where we distinguish between the right- and left-handed fractional integrals $`{}_{a}{}^{}I_{x}^{\alpha }`$ and $`{}_{x}{}^{}I_{a}^{\alpha }`$, respectively. A fractional derivative of order $`\mu `$ which is frequently employed in physical applications is given by the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ ordinary derivative of the fractional integral of order $`0<n\mu 1`$, where $`n=[\mu ]+1`$. In other words,

$`{}_{a}{}^{}D_{x}^{\mu }f(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^n}{dx^n}}{}_{a}{}^{}I_{x}^{n\mu }`$ (49)
$`{}_{x}{}^{}D_{a}^{\mu }f(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^n}{dx^n}}{}_{x}{}^{}I_{a}^{n\mu }.`$ (50)
Note that since the distinction between left- and right-handed fractional integrations is passed on to fractional differentiation, fractional derivatives are not symmetric with respect to interchanging their subscripts. The definitions (49,50) imply that

$${}_{a}{}^{}D_{x}^{m}=\frac{d^m}{dx^m}=(1)^m{}_{x}{}^{}D_{a}^{m}m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$

That is, fractional differentiation is proportional to ordinary differentiation for integer values of the exponent. <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1To recover symmetry for integer values of the exponent $`m`$ one frequently encounters an alternative definition of the left-handed fractional derivative, namely $`{}_{x}{}^{}D_{a}^{\mu }f(x)(1)^n\frac{d^n}{dx^n}{}_{x}{}^{}I_{a}^{n\mu }`$ which includes the pre-factor $`(1)^n`$ in the definition. By sequential partial integration (49) can be recast into

$$_aD_x^\mu f(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{f^{(k)}(a)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+k\mu )}(xa)^{k\mu }+_aI_x^{n\mu }\frac{d^n}{dx^n}$$
(51)
Therfore, the operations of fractional differentiation and integration generally do not commute. However, if we let $`a\pm \mathrm{}`$ and require that $`lim_{a\pm \mathrm{}}f^{(k)}(a)<\mathrm{}`$ (49) and (50) yield

$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}D_{x}^{\mu }f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n\mu )}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^x}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(n)}(y)}{(xy)^{\mu +1n}}}`$ (52)
$`{}_{x}{}^{}D_{\mathrm{}}^{\mu }f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n\mu )}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(n)}(y)}{(yx)^{\mu +1n}}}.`$ (53)
In fractional diffusion equations the symmetric fractional generalization of the Laplace operator frequently appears. Its one dimensional variant can be defined in terms of $`{}_{a}{}^{}D_{x}^{\mu }f(x)`$ and $`{}_{x}{}^{}D_{a}^{\mu }f(x)`$ by

$$\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mu /2)}\left\{{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}D_{x}^{\mu }+_xD_{\mathrm{}}^\mu \right\}0<\mu 2.$$
(54)
The particular case of $`\mathrm{}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ requires some care. Although the definition (54) does not give a useful result for $`\mu =1`$, since both numerator and denominator vanish, the limit $`\mu 1`$ can be interpreted consistently as will become clear below. Partial integration of (52,53) and insertion into (54) yields

$$\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}f(x)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu )\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mu /2)}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{\left[f(y)f(x)\right]}{|xy|^{1+\mu }}.$$
(55)
Since $`\mathrm{lim}_{\mu 1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu )\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mu /2)=\pi /2`$ the operator $`\mathrm{}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is well defined, i.e.

$$\mathrm{}^{\frac{1}{2}}f(x)=\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{\left[f(y)f(x)\right]}{(xy)^2}.$$
(56)
Clearly, $`\mathrm{}^{\frac{1}{2}}=d/dx`$, the “square-root” of the Laplacian is symmetric, whereas the first derivative is not<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2In the literature the symbol $`^\mu `$ is frequently used instead of $`\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}`$with can lead to some confusion if $`\mu =1`$. The operators $`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}D_{x}^{\mu }`$, $`{}_{x}{}^{}D_{\mathrm{}}^{\mu }`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}`$, possess a particularly simple form when the equation involved are Fourier transformed. If we define the Fourier transform of $`f(x)`$ by

$$[f](k)\stackrel{~}{f}(k)=𝑑xe^{ikx}f(x)$$
(57)
the transformed equations (52), (53) and (55) read

$`[_{\mathrm{}}D^\mu f](k)`$ $`=`$ $`(ik)^\mu \stackrel{~}{f}(k)`$ (58)
$`[D_{\mathrm{}}^\mu f](k)`$ $`=`$ $`(ik)^\mu \stackrel{~}{f}(k)`$ (59)
$`[\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}f](k)`$ $`=`$ $`|k|^\mu \stackrel{~}{f}(k).`$ (60)
Thus, the Fourier transform of fractional differentiation is equivalent to a multiplication by $`|k|^\mu `$. Because of this, the investigation of equations containing operators such as $`\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}`$ is usually much easier when expressed in Fourier space. The simplicity of eqs. (58), (59) and (60) is often a reason to chose the latter as definitions of fractional derivatives. On the other hand, the corresponding integral representations (52), (53) and (55) offer a more direct picture of the characteristic properties of the corresponding operator. For example, the Cauchy process obeys $`_t\stackrel{~}{p}(k,t)=|k|\stackrel{~}{p}(k,t)`$ in Fourier space, a simple equation indeed. By inverse Fourier transform this gives

$`_tp(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{}^{\frac{1}{2}}p)(x,t)`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑y[w(x|y)p(y,t)w(y|x)p(x,t)]}`$ (62)
$`w(x|y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi (xy)^2}}`$ (63)
In contrast to the Fourier representation it is obvious from eqs. (62) and (63) that the fractional operator $`\mathrm{}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is non-local, involves singularities and appearing in the example given above describes a jump process, a fact not readily available in Fourier representation.

To complete the picture, let us mention that the form (60) of the fractional Laplace operator can be generalized to arbitrary dimensions $`n`$. Let $`f(𝐱)`$ be a function on $`^n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}(𝐤)`$ the corresponding Fourier transform, then $`\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}`$ defined by

$$[\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}f](𝐤)|𝐤|^\mu \stackrel{~}{f}(𝐤)$$
(64)
yields upon Fourier inversion the integral representation

$$\mathrm{}^{\frac{\mu }{2}}f(𝐱)=\frac{2^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\mu +n}{2}\right)}{\pi ^{n/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\mu }{2}\right)}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}d^ny\frac{\left[f(𝐲)f(𝐱)\right]}{|𝐱𝐲|^{\mu +n}}$$
(65)