format: text

text:
# N–Level System Interacting with Single Radiation Mode and Multi Cat States of Schrödinger in the Strong Coupling Regime

## 1 Introduction

Coherent states or generalized coherent states play an important role in quantum physics, in particular, quantum optics, see  and . They also play an important one in mathematical physics. See the textbook . For example, they are very useful in performing stationary phase approximations to path integral, , , .

Coherent operators which produce coherent states are very useful because they are unitary and easy to handle. The basic reason is probably that they are subject to the elementary Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) formula. Many basic properties of them are well–known, see  or .

Generalized coherent operators which produce generalized coherent states are also useful. But they are not so easy to handle in spite of having the disentangling one corresponding to the elementary BCH formula. In  and  the author determined all matrix elements of generalized coherent operators based on Lie algebras su(1,1) and su(2). They are interesting by themselves, but moreover have a very interesting application.

In  Frasca dealt with a model that describes a 2–level atom interacting with a single radiation mode (see  for a general review) in the strong coupling regime (not weak coupling one !) and showed that Rabi frequencies are obtained by matrix elements of coherent operator under the rotating–wave approximation. His aim was to explain the recent experimental finding on Josephson junctions .

This is an interesting result and moreover his method can be widely generalized. See also ,  for another examples dealt with in the strong coupling regime.

His model has been generalized by Fujii  by making use of some operators based on Lie algebras su(1,1) and su(2), and a mathematical structure of Rabi floppings of these extended models in the strong coupling regime has been studied.

These models are based on 2–level atom interacting with a ”single” radiation mode $`\mathrm{}`$ 2–level system in the following. By the way, we are interested in n–level atom interacting with a ”single” radiation mode $`\mathrm{}`$ n–level system $`\mathrm{}`$ which has been inspired by Quantum Computation, , , , , , . That is, we would like to extend the results in 2–level system to ones in n–level system. This extension is not so easy.

In this paper we construct (propose) models that describe a n–level atom interacting with a ”single” radiation mode. To solve these models we introduce multi cat states of Schrödinger (in our terminology) and show that (generalized) Rabi frequencies are also given by matrix elements of generalized coherent operators under the rotating–wave approximation.

We believe that the results will give a new aspect to Quantum Optics or Mathematical Physics.

Lastly we discuss an application to Quantum Computation on the space of qudits and discuss a possibility of application to Holonomic Quantum Computation, , , , , , but our discussion is not complete. See also Discussion in  concerning this possibility.

## 2 Coherent and Generalized Coherent Operators

### 2.1 Coherent Operator

Let $`a(a^{})`$ be the annihilation (creation) operator of the harmonic oscillator. If we set $`Na^{}a`$ (: number operator), then

$$[N,a^{}]=a^{},[N,a]=a,[a^{},a]=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(1)
Let $``$ be a Fock space generated by $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$, and $`\{|n|n𝐍\{0\}\}`$ be its basis. The actions of $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ on $``$ are given by

$$a|n=\sqrt{n}|n1,a^{}|n=\sqrt{n+1}|n+1,N|n=n|n$$
(2)
where $`|0`$ is a normalized vacuum ($`a|0=0\mathrm{and}0|0=1`$). From (2) state $`|n`$ for $`n1`$ are given by

$$|n=\frac{(a^{})^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|0.$$
(3)
These states satisfy the orthogonality and completeness conditions

$$m|n=\delta _{mn},\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|nn|=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(4)
Definition We call a state

$$|z=\text{e}^{za^{}\overline{z}a}|0U(z)|0\text{for}z𝐂$$
(5)
the coherent state.

### 2.2 Generalized Coherent Operator Based on $`su(1,1)`$

Let us state generalized coherent operators and states based on $`su(1,1)`$.

We consider a spin $`K(>0)`$ representation of $`su(1,1)sl(2,𝐂)`$ and set its generators $`\{K_+,K_{},K_3\}((K_+)^{}=K_{})`$,

$$[K_3,K_+]=K_+,[K_3,K_{}]=K_{},[K_+,K_{}]=2K_3.$$
(6)
We note that this (unitary) representation is necessarily infinite dimensional. The Fock space on which $`\{K_+,K_{},K_3\}`$ act is $`_K\{|K,n|n𝐍\{0\}\}`$ and whose actions are

$`K_+|K,n`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(n+1)(2K+n)}|K,n+1,K_{}|K,n=\sqrt{n(2K+n1)}|K,n1,`$
$`K_3|K,n`$ $`=`$ $`(K+n)|K,n,`$ (7)
where $`|K,0`$ is a normalized vacuum ($`K_{}|K,0=0`$ and $`K,0|K,0=1`$). We have written $`|K,0`$ instead of $`|0`$ to emphasize the spin $`K`$ representation, see . From (2.2), states $`|K,n`$ are given by

$$|K,n=\frac{(K_+)^n}{\sqrt{n!(2K)_n}}|K,0,$$
(8)
where $`(a)_n`$ is the Pochammer’s notation $`(a)_na(a+1)\mathrm{}(a+n1).`$ These states satisfy the orthogonality and completeness conditions

$$K,m|K,n=\delta _{mn},\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|K,nK,n|=\mathrm{𝟏}_K.$$
(9)
Now let us consider a generalized version of coherent states :

Definition We call a state

$$|z=V(z)|K,0\text{e}^{zK_+\overline{z}K_{}}|K,0\text{for}z𝐂.$$
(10)
the generalized coherent state (or the coherent state of Perelomov’s type based on $`su(1,1)`$ in our terminology).

Here let us construct an example of this representation. First we set

$$K_+\frac{1}{2}\left(a^{}\right)^2,K_{}\frac{1}{2}a^2,K_3\frac{1}{2}\left(a^{}a+\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(11)
then it is easy to check that these satisfy the commutation relations (6). That is, the set $`\{K_+,K_{},K_3\}`$ gives a unitary representation of $`su(1,1)`$ with spin $`K=1/4\text{and}3/4`$, . Now we call an operator

$$S(z)=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\{z(a^{})^2\overline{z}a^2\}}\text{for}z𝐂$$
(12)
the squeezed operator, see  or .

### 2.3 Generalized Coherent Operator Based on $`su(2)`$

Let us state generalized coherent operators and states based on $`su(2)`$.

We consider a spin $`J(>0)`$ representation of $`su(2)sl(2,𝐂)`$ and set its generators $`\{J_+,J_{},J_3\}((J_+)^{}=J_{})`$,

$$[J_3,J_+]=J_+,[J_3,J_{}]=J_{},[J_+,J_{}]=2J_3.$$
(13)
We note that this (unitary) representation is necessarily finite dimensional. The Fock space on which $`\{J_+,J_{},J_3\}`$ act is $`_J\{|J,n|0n2J\}`$ and whose actions are

$`J_+|J,n`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(n+1)(2Jn)}|J,n+1,J_{}|J,n=\sqrt{n(2Jn+1)}|J,n1,`$
$`J_3|J,n`$ $`=`$ $`(J+n)|J,n,`$ (14)
where $`|J,0`$ is a normalized vacuum ($`J_{}|J,0=0`$ and $`J,0|J,0=1`$). We have written $`|J,0`$ instead of $`|0`$ to emphasize the spin $`J`$ representation, see . From (2.3), states $`|J,n`$ are given by

$$|J,n=\frac{(J_+)^n}{\sqrt{n!{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}}}|J,0.$$
(15)
These states satisfy the orthogonality and completeness conditions

$$J,m|J,n=\delta _{mn},\underset{n=0}{\overset{2J}{}}|J,nJ,n|=\mathrm{𝟏}_J.$$
(16)
Now let us consider a generalized version of coherent states :

Definition We call a state

$$|z=W(z)|J,0\text{e}^{zJ_+\overline{z}J_{}}|J,0\text{for}z𝐂.$$
(17)
the generalized coherent state (or the coherent state of Perelomov’s type based on $`su(2)`$ in our terminology).

### 2.4 Schwinger’s Boson Method

Here let us construct the spin $`K`$ and $`J`$ representations by making use of Schwinger’s boson method.

Next we consider the system of two-harmonic oscillators. If we set

$$a_1=a1,a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=a^{}1;a_2=1a,a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=1a^{},$$
(18)
then it is easy to see

$$[a_i,a_j]=[a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{},a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}]=0,[a_i,a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}]=\delta _{ij},i,j=1,2.$$
(19)
We also denote by $`N_i=a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_i`$ number operators.

Now we can construct representation of Lie algebras $`su(2)`$ and $`su(1,1)`$ making use of Schwinger’s boson method, see , . Namely if we set

$`su(2)`$ $`:`$ $`J_+=a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_2,J_{}=a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_1,J_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_1a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_2\right),`$ (20)
$`su(1,1)`$ $`:`$ $`K_+=a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{},K_{}=a_2a_1,K_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_1+a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_2+1\right),`$ (21)
then these satisfy the commutation relations (6) and (13) respectively.

## 3 Matrix Elements of Coherent and Generalized Coherent Operators $`\mathrm{}`$

### 3.1 Matrix Elements of Coherent Operator

We list matrix elements of coherent operators $`U(z)`$.

The Matrix Elements The matrix elements of $`U(z)`$ are :

$`(\text{i})nmn|U(z)|m=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{m!}}}(\overline{z})^{mn}L_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{(mn)}(|z|^2),`$ (22)
$`(\text{ii})nmn|U(z)|m=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}|z|^2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{n!}}}z^{nm}L_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(nm)}(|z|^2),`$ (23)
where $`L_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}`$ is the associated Laguerre’s polynomial defined by

$$L_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}(x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+\alpha }{kj}\right)\frac{x^j}{j!}.$$
(24)
In particular $`L_kL_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}`$ is the usual Laguerre’s polynomial and these are related to diagonal elements of $`U(z)`$.

### 3.2 Matrix Elements of Coherent Operator Based on $`su(1,1)`$

We list matrix elements of $`V(z)`$ coherent operators based on $`su(1,1)`$. In this case it is always $`2K>1`$ ($`2K=1`$ under some regularization).

The Matrix Elements The matrix elements of $`V(z)`$ are :

$`(\text{i})nm`$ $`K,n|V(z)|K,m=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!m!}{(2K)_n(2K)_m}}}(\overline{\kappa })^{mn}(1+|\kappa |^2)^{K\frac{n+m}{2}}\times `$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^{nj}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K+m+nj)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K)(mj)!(nj)!j!}}(1+|\kappa |^2)^j(|\kappa |^2)^{nj},`$
$`(\text{ii})nm`$ $`K,n|V(z)|K,m=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!m!}{(2K)_n(2K)_m}}}\kappa ^{nm}(1+|\kappa |^2)^{K\frac{n+m}{2}}\times `$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^{mj}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K+m+nj)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K)(mj)!(nj)!j!}}(1+|\kappa |^2)^j(|\kappa |^2)^{mj},`$
where

$$\kappa \frac{\text{sinh}(|z|)}{|z|}z=\text{cosh}(|z|)\zeta .$$
(27)
The author doesn’t know whether or not the right hand sides of (25) and (26) could be written by making use of some special functions such as generalized Laguerre’s functions in (24). Therefore we set temporarily

$$F_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(nm)}(x:2K)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}(1)^{mj}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K+m+nj)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2K)(mj)!(nj)!j!}(1+x)^jx^{mj}$$
(28)
and $`F_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}(x;2K)=F_m(x;2K)`$.

### 3.3 Matrix Elements of Coherent Operator Based on $`su(2)`$

We list matrix elements of $`W(z)`$ coherent operators based on $`su(2)`$. In this case it is always $`2J𝐍`$.

Matrix Elements The matrix elements of $`W(z)`$ are :

$`(\text{i})nm`$ $`J,n|W(z)|J,m=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!m!}{{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{m}^{}}}}(\overline{\kappa })^{mn}(1|\kappa |^2)^{J\frac{n+m}{2}}\times `$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{nj}{\displaystyle \frac{(2J)!}{(2Jmn+j)!(mj)!(nj)!j!}}(1|\kappa |^2)^j(|\kappa |^2)^{nj},`$
$`(\text{ii})nm`$ $`J,n|W(z)|J,m=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!m!}{{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{n}^{}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{m}^{}}}}\kappa ^{nm}(1|\kappa |^2)^{J\frac{n+m}{2}}\times `$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{mj}{\displaystyle \frac{(2J)!}{(2Jmn+j)!(mj)!(nj)!j!}}(1|\kappa |^2)^j(|\kappa |^2)^{mj},`$
where

$$\kappa \frac{\text{sin}(|z|)}{|z|}z=\text{cos}(|z|)\eta .$$
(31)
Here $`_{}`$ means a summation over $`j`$ satisfying $`2Jmn+j0`$.

The author doesn’t know whether or not the right hand sides of (29) and (30) could be written by making use of some special functions. We set temporarily

$$F_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(nm)}(x:2J)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{mj}\frac{(2J)!}{(2Jmn+j)!(mj)!(nj)!j!}(1x)^jx^{mj}$$
(32)
and $`F_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}(x;2J)=F_m(x;2J)`$.

## 4 N–Level System in the Strong Coupling Region

Let us make a short review of  which is a generalization of .

In  Frasca dealt with a model that describes a 2–level atom interacting with a single radiation mode and developed some method to calculate Rabi frequencies in the strong coupling regime. We have generalized the model and method, and showed in  that Rabi frequencies in our extended model were given by matrix elements of generalized coherent operators () under the rotating–wave approximation.

Let $`\{\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3\}`$ be Pauli matrices and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_2`$ a unit matrix :

$$\sigma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\mathrm{𝟏}_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(33)
We note here that

$$\sigma _1=W\sigma _3W^1$$
(34)
where $`W`$ is given by

$$W=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)=W^1$$
(35)
and is known as the Walsh–Hadamard matrix.

The Hamiltonians adopted in  are

$`\text{(N)}H_N`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \mathrm{𝟏}_2a^{}a+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}+g\sigma _1(a^{}+a),`$
$`\text{(K)}H_K`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \mathrm{𝟏}_2K_3+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}_K+g\sigma _1(K_++K_{}),`$ (36)
$`\text{(J)}H_J`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \mathrm{𝟏}_2J_3+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}_J+g\sigma _1(J_++J_{}),`$
where $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the radiation mode, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the separation between the two levels of the atom, $`g`$ the coupling between the radiation field and the atom.

To deal with these three cases at the same time we set

$$\{L_+,L_{},L_3\}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{(N)}\{a^{},a,N\}\hfill & \\ \text{(K)}\{K_+,K_{},K_3\}\hfill & \\ \text{(J)}\{J_+,J_{},J_3\}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(37)
and

$$H=H_0+V=\omega \mathrm{𝟏}_2L_3+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}_L+g\sigma _1(L_++L_{})$$
(38)
where we have written $`H`$ instead of $`H_L`$ for simplicity.

(4) is based on an atom with 2–level. However an atom has in reality many (energy) levels, so it is natural to consider an atom with n–level. First of all let us make some mathematical preliminaries, see for example ; Appendix.

Let $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\}`$ be matrices in $`M(n,𝐂)`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& & & & & & 1\\ 1& 0& & & & & \\ & 1& 0& & & & \\ & & 1& & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & 1& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& & & & & & \\ & \sigma & & & & & \\ & & \sigma ^2& & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \sigma ^{n1}\end{array}\right)$$
(39)
where $`\sigma `$ is a primitive element satisfying $`\sigma ^n=1`$ ( $`\sigma =\text{e}^{\frac{2\pi \sqrt{1}}{n}}`$). We note that $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\}`$ is a generalization of Pauli matrices $`\{\sigma _1,\sigma _3\}`$, but they are not hermitian. If we define a Vandermonde matrix $`W`$ based on $`\sigma `$ as

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& 1& 1& & & & 1\\ 1& \sigma ^{n1}& \sigma ^{2(n1)}& & & & \sigma ^{(n1)^2}\\ 1& \sigma ^{n2}& \sigma ^{2(n2)}& & & & \sigma ^{(n1)(n2)}\\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ 1& \sigma ^2& \sigma ^4& & & & \sigma ^{2(n1)}\\ 1& \sigma & \sigma ^2& & & & \sigma ^{n1}\end{array}\right),`$ (47)
$`W^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& 1& 1& & & & 1\\ 1& \sigma & \sigma ^2& & & & \sigma ^{n1}\\ 1& \sigma ^2& \sigma ^4& & & & \sigma ^{2(n1)}\\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ 1& \sigma ^{n2}& \sigma ^{2(n2)}& & & & \sigma ^{(n1)(n2)}\\ 1& \sigma ^{n1}& \sigma ^{2(n1)}& & & & \sigma ^{(n1)^2}\end{array}\right),`$ (55)
then it is not difficult to see

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=W\mathrm{\Sigma }_3W^{}=W\mathrm{\Sigma }_3W^1.$$
(56)
For example, for $`n=3`$

$`W\mathrm{\Sigma }_3W^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& \sigma ^2& \sigma \\ 1& \sigma & \sigma ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& & \\ & \sigma & \\ & & \sigma ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& \sigma & \sigma ^2\\ 1& \sigma ^2& \sigma \end{array}\right)`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \sigma & \sigma ^2\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& \sigma ^2& \sigma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& \sigma & \sigma ^2\\ 1& \sigma ^2& \sigma \end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 3\\ 3& 0& 0\\ 0& 3& 0\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,`$ (76)
where we have used that $`\sigma ^3=1,\overline{\sigma }=\sigma ^2\text{and}1+\sigma +\sigma ^2=0`$.

That is, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ can be diagonalized by making use of $`W`$.

A comment is in order. Since $`W`$ corresponds to the Walsh–Hadamard matrix (35), so it may be possible to call $`W`$ the generalized Walsh–Hadamard matrix.

From this we know all eigenvalues and eigenstates of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ to become

Eigenvalues $`=`$ $`\{1,\sigma ,\mathrm{},\sigma ^j,\mathrm{},\sigma ^{n1}\}`$ (77)
Eigenstates $`=`$ $`\{|1,|\sigma ,\mathrm{},|\sigma ^j,\mathrm{},|\sigma ^{n1}\}`$ (78)
where @

$$|\sigma ^j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \sigma ^{(n1)j}\\ \sigma ^{(n2)j}\\ \\ \\ \sigma ^{2j}\\ \sigma ^j\end{array}\right)\text{for}0jn1.$$

Therefore $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ can be written as (a spectral decomposition)

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\sigma ^j|\sigma ^j\sigma ^j|\text{and}\mathrm{𝟏}_n=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}|\sigma ^j\sigma ^j|.$$
(79)
The usual model is based on an atom with 2–level and we want to consider the case of an atom with n–level. Therefore it is very natural for us to generalize the model by making use of $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\}`$ in place of $`\{\sigma _1,\sigma _3\}`$, but then we meet some trouble. One reason is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ are not hermitian. The Hamiltonians must be hermitian in general.

After some trial and error we reach the following :

$$H=H_0+V=\omega \mathrm{𝟏}_nL_3+\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{𝟏}_L+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{𝟏}_L+g(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1L_++\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}L_{})$$
(80)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a complex constant (we cannot prevent a complex constant). We believe that our extension is very natural except this point.

We cannot solve these simple models completely (maybe non–integrable), but we have found these models have a rich structure.

For these models we usually have two perturbation approaches :

Weak Coupling Regime ($`0<g|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$)

$$H_0=\omega \mathrm{𝟏}_nL_3+\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{𝟏}_L+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{𝟏}_L,V=g(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1L_++\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}L_{}).$$
(81)
Strong Coupling Regime ($`0<|\mathrm{\Delta }|g`$)

$$H_0=\omega \mathrm{𝟏}_nL_3+g(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1L_++\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}L_{}),V=\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{𝟏}_L+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{𝟏}_L.$$
(82)
In this paper we are not interested in the weak coupling regime, so in the following we focus our attention on the strong coupling regime. We would like to generalize the result in .

Then we have from (79) and (82)

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}|\sigma ^j\sigma ^j|\{\omega L_3+g(\sigma ^jL_++\overline{\sigma }^jL_{})\}`$ (83)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}|\sigma ^j\sigma ^j|\left\{\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_jL_+\overline{z}_jL_{})}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }L_3\right)\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_jL_+\overline{z}_jL_{})}\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(|\sigma ^j\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_jL_+\overline{z}_jL_{})}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }L_3\right)\left(\sigma ^j|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_jL_+\overline{z}_jL_{})}\right)`$
where we have used the following

Key Formulas

$`(N)\omega a^{}a+g(\sigma ^ja^{}+\overline{\sigma }^ja)=\mathrm{\Omega }\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_ja^{}\overline{z}_ja)}\left(N{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\omega ^2}}\right)\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_ja^{}\overline{z}_ja)}`$ (84)
$`\text{where}\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega ,z_j=(2g/\omega )\sigma ^j,`$
$`(K)\omega K_3+g(\sigma ^jK_++\overline{\sigma }^jK_{})=\mathrm{\Omega }\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_jK_+\overline{z}_jK_{})}K_3\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_jK_+\overline{z}_jK_{})}`$ (86)
$`\text{where}\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \sqrt{1(2g/\omega )^2},z_j=\text{tanh}^1(2g/\omega )\sigma ^j,`$
$`(J)\omega J_3+g(\sigma ^jJ_++\overline{\sigma }^jJ_{})=\mathrm{\Omega }\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_jJ_+\overline{z}_jJ_{})}J_3\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_jJ_+\overline{z}_jJ_{})}`$
$`\text{where}\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \sqrt{1+(2g/\omega )^2},z_j=\text{tan}^1(2g/\omega )\sigma ^j.`$
These formulas are a slight generalization of corresponding ones in . We leave the proof to the readers.

That is, we could diagonalize the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$. This is $`n`$–fold degenerate and its eigenvalues and eigenvectors are given respectively

$$(\text{Eigenvalues},\text{Eigenvectors})=\{\begin{array}{cc}(N)\mathrm{\Omega }(\frac{g^2}{\omega ^2}+m),|\sigma ^j\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_ja^{}\overline{z}_ja)}|m\hfill & \\ (K)\mathrm{\Omega }(K+m),|\sigma ^j\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_jK_+\overline{z}_jK_{})}|K,m\hfill & \\ (J)\mathrm{\Omega }(J+m),|\sigma ^j\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(z_jJ_+\overline{z}_jJ_{})}|J,m\hfill & \end{array}$$
(87)
for $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$ and $`m𝐍\{0\}`$. For the latter convenience we set

$$\text{Eigenvalues}=\{E_m\},\text{Eigenvectors}=\{|\{\sigma ^j,m\}\}.$$
(88)
Then (83) can be written as

$$H_0=\underset{j}{}\underset{m}{}E_m|\{\sigma ^j,m\}\{\sigma ^j,m\}|.$$
(89)
Next we would like to solve the following Schrödinger equation :

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Psi }=H\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(H_0+\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{𝟏}_L+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{𝟏}_L\right)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(90)
where we have set $`\mathrm{}=1`$ for simplicity. To solve this equation we appeal to the method of constant variation. First let us solve

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Psi }=H_0\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(91)
which general solution is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=U_0(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\text{e}^{itH_0}\mathrm{\Psi }_0$$
(92)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is a constant state. It is easy to see from (89)

$$U_0(t)=\text{e}^{itH_0}=\underset{j}{}\underset{m}{}\text{e}^{itE_m}|\{\sigma ^j,m\}\{\sigma ^j,m\}|.$$
(93)
The method of constant variation goes as follows. Changing like $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0(t),`$ we insert (92) into (90). After some algebra we obtain

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}U_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{𝟏}_L\right)U_0+\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}U_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{𝟏}_L\right)U_0\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }_0(H_F+H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_0.$$
(94)
Now let us calculate $`H_F`$. From (93) and (87)

$`H_F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,r}{}}\text{e}^{it(E_mE_r)}\{\sigma ^j,m\}|(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{𝟏}_L)|\{\sigma ^k,r\}|\{\sigma ^j,m\}\{\sigma ^k,r\}|`$ (95)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,r}{}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Omega }(mr)}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_jz_{j1})L_+(\overline{z}_j\overline{z}_{j1})L_{}\right\}}|r|\{\sigma ^j,m\}\{\sigma ^{j1},r\}|`$
where we have used the relation $`\sigma ^j|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\sigma ^{j1}|`$. Remind that $`|m`$ is respectively

$$|m=\{\begin{array}{cc}(N)|m\hfill & \\ (K)|K,m\hfill & \\ (J)|J,m\hfill & \end{array}$$
(96)
In this stage we meet matrix elements of the coherent and generalized coherent operators $`\text{e}^{zL_+\overline{z}L_{}}`$ in section 3. Here we divide $`H_F`$ into two parts

$$H_F=H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}+H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}$$

where

$`H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_jz_{j1})L_+(\overline{z}_j\overline{z}_{j1})L_{}\right\}}|m|\{\sigma ^j,m\}\{\sigma ^{j1},m\}|,`$ (97)
$`H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{m,r}{mr}}{}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Omega }(mr)}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_jz_{j1})L_+(\overline{z}_j\overline{z}_{j1})L_{}\right\}}|r|\{\sigma ^j,m\}\{\sigma ^{j1},r\}|.`$ (98)
Here let us deal with $`H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$. By the formulas in section 3 it is easy to see

$`m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_0z_1)L_+(\overline{z}_0\overline{z}_1)L_{}\right\}}|m=m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_1z_0)L_+(\overline{z}_1\overline{z}_0)L_{}\right\}}|m=\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_{n1}z_{n2})L_+(\overline{z}_{n1}\overline{z}_{n2})L_{}\right\}}|m`$ (99)
because by Key Formulas ((84), (86), (86))

$`z_jz_{j1}=C\sigma ^{j1}(\sigma 1)=C\sigma ^{j1}\sigma ^{1/2}(\sigma ^{1/2}\sigma ^{1/2})=2C\text{sin}(\pi /n)i\sigma ^{j1/2},`$ (100)
$`|z_jz_{j1}|=2C\text{sin}(\pi /n)\text{for}j=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$
where $`C`$ is a constant defined by

$$C=\{\begin{array}{cc}(N)2g/\omega \hfill & \\ (K)\text{tanh}^1(2g/\omega )\hfill & \\ (J)\text{tan}^1(2g/\omega )\hfill & \end{array}$$
(101)
Therefore $`H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ can be written as

$$H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\underset{m}{}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_0z_1)L_+(\overline{z}_0\overline{z}_1)L_{}\right\}}|m\left\{\underset{j}{}|\{\sigma ^j,m\}\{\sigma ^{j1},m\}|\right\}.$$

Let us diagonalize the last term. For that we set for simplicity

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_m=(|\{1,m\},|\{\sigma ^1,m\},\mathrm{},|\{\sigma ^{n1},m\}).$$

Then it is easy to see from (56)

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}|\{\sigma ^j,m\}\{\sigma ^{j1},m\}|=\mathrm{\Lambda }_m\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_mW\mathrm{\Sigma }_3W^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_m\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_m^{}.$$

Here if we introduce a new basis

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_mW=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_m=(|\{1,\psi _m\},|\{\sigma ,\psi _m\},\mathrm{},|\{\sigma ^{n1},\psi _m\}),$$

where

$`|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_m)_j={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_m)_kW_{kj}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}\left(|\{1,m\}+\sigma ^{j(n1)}|\{\sigma ^1,m\}+\sigma ^{j(n2)}|\{\sigma ^2,m\}+\mathrm{}+\sigma ^j|\{\sigma ^{n1},m\}\right)`$ (102)
then we obtain

$$H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\underset{m}{}\underset{j}{}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_0z_1)L_+(\overline{z}_0\overline{z}_1)L_{}\right\}}|m\sigma ^j|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}|.$$
(103)
This is just diagonal !

A comment is in order. We would like to call the states (4) multi cat states of Schrödinger following from  (because we are dealing with multi level systems).

Next let us deal with $`H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}`$. By $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_mW^{}`$ and (47), (55) we have

$`|\{\sigma ^j,m\}\{\sigma ^{j1},r\}|=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_m)_j(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{j1}=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_mW^{})_j(W\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{j1}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_m)_k(W^{})_{kj}W_{j1,l}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{})_l={\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}(W^{})_{kj}W_{j1,l}|\{\sigma ^k,\psi _m\}\{\sigma ^l,\psi _r\}|`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\sigma ^{jk+(nj+1)l}|\{\sigma ^k,\psi _m\}\{\sigma ^l,\psi _r\}|\text{or}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\sigma ^{jk(j1)l}|\{\sigma ^k,\psi _m\}\{\sigma ^l,\psi _r\}|,`$
so that we obtain

$`H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{m,r}{mr}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Omega }(mr)}\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_jz_{j1})L_+(\overline{z}_j\overline{z}_{j1})L_{}\right\}}|r\times `$ (104)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{jk(j1)l}}{n}}|\{\sigma ^k,\psi _m\}\{\sigma ^l,\psi _r\}|\}.`$
Let us sum up the above result :

$$H_F=H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}+H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }},H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}=(\text{103})\text{and}H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}=(\text{104}).$$

Next we take the dagger of $`H_F`$ which is now an easy task.

$$H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{H}_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}+\stackrel{~}{H}_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}=\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}\underset{m}{}\underset{j}{}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_0z_1)L_+(\overline{z}_0\overline{z}_1)L_{}\right\}}|m\sigma ^j|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}|,$$
(105)
and

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{m,r}{mr}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Omega }(mr)}\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_jz_{j1})L_+(\overline{z}_j\overline{z}_{j1})L_{}\right\}}|m\times `$ (106)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }^{jk(j1)l}}{n}}|\{\sigma ^l,\psi _r\}\{\sigma ^k,\psi _m\}|\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{m,r}{mr}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Omega }(rm)}\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_jz_{j1})L_+(\overline{z}_j\overline{z}_{j1})L_{}\right\}}|m\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{(j1)ljk}}{n}}|\{\sigma ^l,\psi _r\}\{\sigma ^k,\psi _m\}|\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{m,r}{mr}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Omega }(mr)}\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_jz_{j1})L_+(\overline{z}_j\overline{z}_{j1})L_{}\right\}}|r\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{(j1)kjl}}{n}}|\{\sigma ^k,\psi _m\}\{\sigma ^l,\psi _r\}|\}.`$
Therefore

$$H_F+H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\left(H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}+\stackrel{~}{H}_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\right)+\left(H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}+\stackrel{~}{H}_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}\right),$$

where

$`H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}+\stackrel{~}{H}_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}|,`$ (107)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\sigma ^jm|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_0z_1)L_+(\overline{z}_0\overline{z}_1)L_{}\right\}}|m+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}}\sigma ^jm|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_0z_1)L_+(\overline{z}_0\overline{z}_1)L_{}\right\}}|m.`$
Now for the latter use let us determine $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}`$ :

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(N)\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^j+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma ^j\right)\text{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}|\kappa |^2\right)L_m\left(|\kappa |^2\right)\hfill & \\ \text{where}\kappa =C\text{sin}(\pi /n)i,\hfill & \\ (K)\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^j+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma ^j)\frac{m!}{(2K)_m}(1+|\kappa |^2)^{Km}F_m(|\kappa |^2:2K)\hfill & \\ \text{where}\kappa =\text{sinh}\left(C\text{sin}(\pi /n)\right)i,\hfill & \\ (J)\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^j+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma ^j)\frac{m!}{{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{m}^{}}(1|\kappa |^2)^{Jm}F_m(|\kappa |^2:2J)\hfill & \\ \text{where}\kappa =\text{sin}\left(C\text{sin}(\pi /n)\right)i,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(109)
where $`C`$ is a constant defined in (101).

Therefore let us solve (94)

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\left(H_F+H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\left\{\left(H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}+\stackrel{~}{H}_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\right)+\left(H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}+\stackrel{~}{H}_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}\right)\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }_0$$
(110)
with $`H_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}+\stackrel{~}{H}_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}=_m_j\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}|`$. By making use of the method of constant variation again we can set $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(t)`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0(t)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}}a_{m,j}(t)|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\},$$
(111)
then we have a set of extremely complicated equations with respect to $`\{a_{m,j}\}`$. It is almost impossible to solve them. Therefore we consider a simple case : for $`m<r`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0(t)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}}a_{m,j}(t)|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}+\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Theta }_{r,j}}a_{r,j}(t)|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _r\}.$$
(112)
That is, we adopt only two terms with respect to $`\{m|m0\}`$. Some careful algebras lead us to ($`0jn1`$)

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}a_{m,j}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j^{^{}}=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Omega }(mr)}\text{e}^{it(\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}\mathrm{\Theta }_{r,j^{^{}}})}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|r{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{kj(k1)j^{^{}}}}{n}}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|r{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{(k1)jkj^{^{}}}}{n}}\right\}]a_{r,j^{^{}}},`$
(113)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}a_{r,j}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j^{^{}}=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Omega }(rm)}\text{e}^{it(\mathrm{\Theta }_{r,j}\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j^{^{}}})}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|m{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{kj(k1)j^{^{}}}}{n}}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|m{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{(k1)jkj^{^{}}}}{n}}\right\}]a_{m,j^{^{}}}.`$
However we cannot still solve the above equations exactly, so let us make the rotating–wave approximation from this stage. This means that the resonance condition is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(mr)+(\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}\mathrm{\Theta }_{r,j^{^{}}})=0$$
(114)
for some $`j`$ and $`j^{^{}}`$, and we reject the remaining terms in (4).

A comment is in order. This resonance condition makes some constraint on the parameters $`\{\omega ,g,\mathrm{\Delta },\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}`$ contained in the Hamiltonians (80), so $`\omega `$, $`g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ are already not free parameters.

As for a deep meaning of this approximation see , .

Then we obtain relatively simple equations :

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}a_{m,j}=[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|r{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{kj(k1)j^{^{}}}}{n}}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|r{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{(k1)jkj^{^{}}}}{n}}\right\}]a_{r,j^{^{}}},`$
(115)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}a_{r,j^{^{}}}=[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|m{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{kj^{^{}}(k1)j}}{n}}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|m{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{(k1)j^{^{}}kj}}{n}}\right\}]a_{m,j}.`$
Summing up the contents, we have

General Case ($`j=j^{^{}}`$ and $`jj^{^{}}`$) $`\mathrm{\Omega }(mr)+(\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}\mathrm{\Theta }_{r,j^{^{}}})=0`$

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}a_{m,j}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j^{^{}}}{n}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|r\sigma ^{k(jj^{^{}})}\right\}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j}{n}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|r\sigma ^{k(jj^{^{}})}\right\}]a_{r,j^{^{}}},`$
(116)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}a_{r,j^{^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j}{n}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|m\sigma ^{k(j^{^{}}j)}\right\}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j^{^{}}}{n}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|m\sigma ^{k(j^{^{}}j)}\right\}]a_{m,j}.`$
Here if we define the coefficient in the equations above as

$`_{j^{^{}},j}=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j}{n}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|m\sigma ^{k(j^{^{}}j)}\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j^{^{}}}{n}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|m\sigma ^{k(j^{^{}}j)}\right\},`$ (117)
then

$`\overline{}_{j^{^{}},j}=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j}{n}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|r\sigma ^{k(jj^{^{}})}\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j^{^{}}}{n}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}m|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|r\sigma ^{k(jj^{^{}})}\right\}.`$ (118)
To determine $`_{j^{^{}},j}`$ let us calculate a term $`r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|m`$ :

$`r|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\left\{(z_kz_{k1})L_+(\overline{z}_k\overline{z}_{k1})L_{}\right\}}|m`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}(N)\sqrt{\frac{m!}{r!}}\text{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}|\kappa |^2\right)L_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(rm)}\left(|\kappa |^2\right)\kappa ^{rm}\sigma ^{(1/2)(rm)}\sigma ^{k(rm)}\hfill & \\ \text{where}\kappa =C\text{sin}(\pi /n)i,\hfill & \\ (K)\sqrt{\frac{r!m!}{(2K)_r(2K)_m}}(1+|\kappa |^2)^{K(r+m)/2}F_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(rm)}(|\kappa |^2:2K)\kappa ^{rm}\sigma ^{(1/2)(rm)}\sigma ^{k(rm)}\hfill & \\ \text{where}\kappa =\text{sinh}\left(C\text{sin}(\pi /n)\right)i,\hfill & \\ (J)\sqrt{\frac{r!m!}{{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{r}^{}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{m}^{}}}(1|\kappa |^2)^{J(r+m)/2}F_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(rm)}(|\kappa |^2:2J)\kappa ^{rm}\sigma ^{(1/2)(rm)}\sigma ^{k(rm)}\hfill & \\ \text{where}\kappa =\text{sin}\left(C\text{sin}(\pi /n)\right)i,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (125)
where $`C`$ is a constant defined in (101). 8

From this we obtain respectively

$`_{j^{^{}},j}=`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j}{n}}+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j^{^{}}}{n}}(1)^{rm}\}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{r!}}}\text{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\kappa |^2)L_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(rm)}(|\kappa |^2)\times `$ (126)
$`\kappa ^{rm}\sigma ^{(1/2)(rm)}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\sigma ^{k(rm+j^{^{}}j)},`$
$`_{j^{^{}},j}=`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j}{n}}+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j^{^{}}}{n}}(1)^{rm}\}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r!m!}{(2K)_r(2K)_m}}}(1+|\kappa |^2)^{K(r+m)/2}F_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(rm)}(|\kappa |^2:2K)\times `$ (127)
$`\kappa ^{rm}\sigma ^{(1/2)(rm)}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\sigma ^{k(rm+j^{^{}}j)},`$
$`_{j^{^{}},j}=`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j}{n}}+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^j^{^{}}}{n}}(1)^{rm}\}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r!m!}{{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{r}^{}{}_{2J}{}^{}P_{m}^{}}}}(1|\kappa |^2)^{J(r+m)/2}F_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(rm)}(|\kappa |^2:2J)\times `$ (128)
$`\kappa ^{rm}\sigma ^{(1/2)(rm)}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\sigma ^{k(rm+j^{^{}}j)}.`$
Here it is easy to see

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\sigma ^{k(rm+j^{^{}}j)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0rm+j^{^{}}j0(\text{mod}n),\hfill & \\ nrm+j^{^{}}j=0(\text{mod}n),\hfill & \end{array}$$

so we have only to consider the case $`rm+j^{^{}}j=0(\text{mod}n)`$ in the following.

Now we are in a position to solve (4). For simplicity we set $`=_{j^{^{}},j}`$, then

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{m,j}\\ a_{r,j^{^{}}}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{2}\overline{}\\ \frac{1}{2}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{m,j}\\ a_{r,j^{^{}}}\end{array}\right),$$
(129)
so their solutions are given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{m,j}(t)\\ a_{r,j^{^{}}}(t)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{cos}(\frac{||}{2}t)& i\frac{\overline{}}{||}\text{sin}(\frac{||}{2}t)\\ i\frac{}{||}\text{sin}(\frac{||}{2}t)& \text{cos}(\frac{||}{2}t)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{m,j}(0)\\ a_{n,j^{^{}}}(0)\end{array}\right).$$
(130)
That is, $``$’s are just the (complex) Rabi frequencies. As shown in (126), (127), (128) they are very complicated.

A comment is in order. If we write $`=z=\text{e}^{i\theta }r`$, then the above matrix becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{cos}(\frac{r}{2}t)& i\text{e}^{i\theta }\text{sin}(\frac{r}{2}t)\\ i\text{e}^{i\theta }\text{sin}(\frac{r}{2}t)& \text{cos}(\frac{r}{2}t)\end{array}\right).$$
(131)
This is a form required in Quantum Computation. However in the 2–level case $``$ is real, so the matrix becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{cos}(\frac{r}{2}t)& i\text{sin}(\frac{r}{2}t)\\ i\text{sin}(\frac{r}{2}t)& \text{cos}(\frac{r}{2}t)\end{array}\right),$$

see . This is too special to perform Quantum Computation. Our result is a bonus due to the generalization from 2–level system to multi level one.

We have verified the Rabi oscillations in our extended models under the rotating–wave approximation, so there are many things to be performed from Quantum Optics or Mathematical Physics. In the forthcoming papers we will report them.

Here let us present an (good ?) exercise to the readers :

Exercise For $`m<r<s`$ we set

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,j}}a_{m,j}(t)|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _m\}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Theta }_{r,j}}a_{r,j}(t)|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _r\}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Theta }_{s,j}}a_{s,j}(t)|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _s\}.`$
Solve the equation (110) under this ansatz. Then you must pay attention to the consistency of some resonance conditions like (114).

## 5 Unitary Operations in Quantum Computation

In this section we make a brief comment on application of the results in the preceding section to quantum computation based on qudits space. Remind once more that the following arguments are based on the rotating wave approximation.

First we must solve the equation which $`j`$ and $`j^{^{}}`$ satisfy

$$j^{^{}}j+rm=0(\text{mod}n)\text{for}m<r.$$
(132)
The solutions are easily given as follows.

$`(j^{^{}},j)`$ $`=`$ $`(nr+m,0),(nr+m+1,1),\mathrm{},(n1,rm1),`$ (133)
$`(nr+m1,n1),(nr+m2,n2),\mathrm{},(0,rm).`$
Here let us rewrite the equation (129) in a full form

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{m,0}\\ \\ a_{m,j}\\ \\ a_{m,n1}\\ a_{r,0}\\ \\ a_{r,j^{^{}}}\\ \\ a_{r,n1}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccc}0& & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & 0& & & & & \frac{1}{2}\overline{}& & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & \frac{1}{2}& & & & & 0& & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{m,0}\\ \\ a_{m,j}\\ \\ a_{m,n1}\\ a_{r,0}\\ \\ a_{r,j^{^{}}}\\ \\ a_{r,n1}\end{array}\right)$$
(134)
where $`=_{j^{^{}},j}`$. Then the solution (corresponding to (130)) is explicitly

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{m,0}(t)\\ \\ a_{m,j}(t)\\ \\ a_{m,n1}(t)\\ a_{r,0}(t)\\ \\ a_{r,j^{^{}}}(t)\\ \\ a_{r,n1}(t)\end{array}\right)`$ (145)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccc}1& & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & \text{cos}(\frac{||}{2}t)& & & & & i\frac{\overline{}}{||}\text{sin}(\frac{||}{2}t)& & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & i\frac{}{||}\text{sin}(\frac{||}{2}t)& & & & & \text{cos}(\frac{||}{2}t)& & \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{m,0}(0)\\ \\ a_{m,j}(0)\\ \\ a_{m,n1}(0)\\ a_{r,0}(0)\\ \\ a_{r,j^{^{}}}(0)\\ \\ a_{r,n1}(0)\end{array}\right).`$ (166)
That is, we have a unitary operation which will be written as $`U(j,j^{^{}};t)`$. This operation is crucial in Quantum Computation.

As a result we obtained $`n`$ elementary unitary operations

$`U(0,nr+m;t),U(1,nr+m+1;t),\mathrm{},U(rm1,n1;t),`$
$`U(rm,0;t),U(rm+1,1;t),\mathrm{},U(n1,nr+m1;t).`$ (167)
One can combine these operations suitably to obtain the (complex) operation required in Quantum Computation.

We would like to apply these operations to Quantum Computation on the space of 2–qudits. For that we need some modification in the preceeding section. Namely, we must consider a set of $`n`$ states : for $`m_0<m_1<\mathrm{}<m_{n1}`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0(t)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\text{e}^{it\mathrm{\Theta }_{m(k),j}}a_{m(k),j}(t)|\{\sigma ^j,\psi _{m(k)}\}$$
(168)
instead of (112). Of course for any pair $`m_k<m_l`$ we have the same result. We cannot solve the equation at a stroke, so we reduce the calculation on $`n`$–system to that of the pairs. Remind once more that in this paper we are interested in Rabi oscillations between two states. By combining these Rabi oscillations one after another we obtain unitary operations in our full system.

For (168) we have the huge (block-) equation

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐚_{𝐦(\mathrm{𝟎}),𝐣}(t)\\ 𝐚_{𝐦(\mathrm{𝟏}),𝐣}(t)\\ \\ \\ \\ 𝐚_{𝐦(𝐧\mathrm{𝟏}),𝐣}(t)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}A_{00}& A_{01}& & & & A_{0,n1}& \\ A_{10}& A_{11}& & & & A_{1,n1}& \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ A_{n1,0}& A_{n1,1}& & & & A_{n1,n1}& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐚_{𝐦(\mathrm{𝟎}),𝐣}(0)\\ 𝐚_{𝐦(\mathrm{𝟏}),𝐣}(0)\\ \\ \\ \\ 𝐚_{𝐦(𝐧\mathrm{𝟏}),𝐣}(0)\end{array}\right)$$
(169)
where each $`𝐚_{𝐦(𝐤),𝐣}`$ is a $`n`$ vector and $`A_{ij}`$ a $`n\times n`$ matrix.

For example, if we pay attention to the pair $`m_k<m_l`$ then the block (in the above huge matrix)

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_{m(k)m(k)}& A_{m(k)m(l)}\\ A_{m(l)m(k)}& A_{m(l)m(l)}\end{array}\right)$$
(170)
is just one of above unitary operations in (5) ($`m=m_k,r=m_l`$) and the remainders are $`A_{pp}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`A_{pq}=\mathrm{𝟎}(pq)`$. As a total we have the elementary unitary transformations in $`U(n^2)`$ with the following number

$$n{}_{n}{}^{}C_{2}^{}=\frac{n^2(n1)}{2}.$$

Here if we identify (168) with an element on the space of 2–qudits like

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}a_{k,j}(t)|k|j𝐂^n𝐂^n$$
(171)
where $`𝐂^n=\text{Vect}_𝐂\{|0,|1,\mathrm{},|n1\}`$, then we have plenty of unitary transformations in $`U(n^2)`$. We want to construct or perform some logic gates on the space of 2–qudits, see ,  for details.

For example, we would like to construct the (reverse) controlled–shift gate ((reverse) controlled–unitary ones more generally) by combining elementary unitary operations obtained in this paper :

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the above figure is just $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ in (39), and $`a`$ and $`b`$ run from $`0`$ to $`n1`$.

We would like to conclude this section by stating that a possible realization of our model could be found in Josephson junctions  and ion cavities , , .

## 6 Discussion

In this paper we extended the works in ,  and  based on 2–level system to n–level system and obtained the general theory of Rabi frequencies in the strong coupling regime under the rotating–wave approximation. The essence of our work is that Rabi frequencies are in this case deeply connected to the matrix elements of coherent and/or generalized coherent operators based on $`su(2)`$ and $`su(1,1)`$, , .

One of motivations of this study is to apply our results to Holonomic Quantum Computation developed by Italian group (Pachos, Rasetti and Zanardi) and the author, see , , ,  and .

Holonomic Quantum Computation is based on 2–level system at this stage, but it is very natural to extend it from 2–level system to n–level system (let us call it Generalized Holonomic Quantum Computation (GHQC)). In fact the author has attempted its extension in , but it was not complete due to some lack of new method.

As shown in this paper we have obtained some new method or technique, so we would like to challenge once more.

Acknowledgment.
The author wishes to thank Marco Frasca and Zakaria Giunashvili for their helpful comments and suggestions.


text:
# References

UB-ECM-PF-02-23

A modified Starobinsky’s model of inflation:
Anomaly-induced inflation, SUSY and graceful exit. 111Talk given at SUSY 2002: the 10th International Conference on Supersymmetry and Unification of Fundamental Interactions, DESY, Hamburg, Germany, June 17-23; also at GRG 11: International Conference on Theoretical and Experimental Problems of General Relativity and Gravitation, Tomsk, Russia, July 1-8 2002.

Ilya L. Shapiroa, Joan Solàb,c

a Departamento de Física - Instituto de Ciencias Exatas
Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, 36036-330, MG, Brazil
b Departament d’Estructura i Constituents de la Matèria, Universitat de Barcelona,
Diagonal 647, E-08028 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
c Institut de Física d’Altes Energies, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

ABSTRACT

> We present a model of inflation based on the anomaly-induced effective action of gravity in the presence of a conformally invariant Hilbert-Einstein term. Our approach is based on the conformal representation of the fields action and on the integration of the corresponding conformal anomaly. In contradistinction to the original Starobinsky’s model, inflation can be stable at the beginning and unstable at the end. The instability is caused by a slowing down of inflation due to quantum effects associated to the massive fermion fields. In supersymmetric theories this mechanism can be linked to the breaking of SUSY and suggests a natural way to achieve graceful exit from the inflationary to the FLRW phase.

Introduction

Inflation  automatically solves five of the six basic cosmological problems : 1) the monopole problem, 2) the horizon problem, 3) the flatness-curvature-entropy problem, 4) the rotation problem, and 5) the large-scale homogeneity versus small-scale inhomogeneity problem. The minimum number of e-folds of inflation required can be (roughly) estimated in many different ways. As an example, take a flat Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, then the scale factor $`a=a(t)`$ in the matter-dominated (MD) and radiation-dominated (RD) eras evolve as $`at^{2/3}`$ and $`at^{1/2}`$ respectively. Since at present $`t_010^{18}`$ sec ($`15`$ Gy) and $`a(t_0)1.5\times 10^{10}lyr10^{28}cm`$, it follows that the scale factor at the end of the RD epoch ($`t10^{12}`$ sec $`10^5`$ yr) was $`a_R=a(t_0)/z_R=10^{24}cm`$, where $`z_Ra(t_0)/a_R=\left(10^{18}/10^{12}\right)^{2/3}=10^4`$ is the redshift at that time. From this the scale factor at the Planck time ($`10^{44}`$ sec) should be $`a_P^{}=\left(10^{44}/10^{12}\right)^{1/2}a_R10^4cm`$, which is of course untenable! Therefore, to make this number to match up the correct Planck length, $`a_P10^{33}`$ cm, we need to supplement the standard FLRW evolution with an early inflation period in which the number of e-folds of inflation should be around $`\xi 65`$:

$$e^\xi =\frac{a_P^{}}{a_P}=10^{29}\xi 67.$$
(1)
At present, however, the classical cosmological problems that motivated inflation are no longer regarded as the strongest motivation for inflationary cosmology. For example, the relation “homogeneity $``$ flatness” is not true. Nowadays we have homogeneous open models of inflation. Besides providing the solution to some cosmological problems, the important thing at present is that inflationary models can be (and will be) more and more accurately tested (something that one could not suspect 10 years ago) through their specific predictions on the metric and density perturbations, which should be consistent with structure formation and the anisotropies of the CMB . These are nowadays the real facts behind $`\xi >65`$ in Eq.(1), rather than the previous and similar heuristic argumentations.

Inflation, however, does not solve the sixth cosmological problem, the cosmological constant (CC) problem . The fact that the CC has been measured non-zero and positive  poses a new challenge and may require novel approaches. One possibility is to think of the renormalization group (RG) evolution of the cosmological parameters . We will see that this same approach can be applied to the study of cosmological inflation, if we identify the RG scale with the expansion rate $`\mu =H(t)`$. This identification can be understood as follows. At low energy the dynamics of gravity is defined by Einstein’s equations

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G_N(T_{\mu \nu }+g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(2)
where $`G_N=1/M_P^2`$ is Newton’s constant. Let us use the value of the curvature scalar ($`R`$) to construct an order parameter for the gravitational energy. By dimensional analysis the RG scale $`\mu `$ for gravity is naturally associated with $`R^{1/2}`$. From Eq.(2) we see that this is equivalent to take $`\mu `$ $`\sqrt{T_\mu ^\mu /M_P^2}`$. But in the cosmological setting the basic dynamical equations refer to the scale factor $`a(t)`$ of the FLRW metric, and so we must re-express the graviton energy in terms of it. The $`00`$ component of (2) yields the well-known Friedmann-Lemaître equation

$$H^2\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi }{3M_P^2}\left(\rho +\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\frac{k}{a^2}.$$
(3)
The space curvature term can be safely set to zero ($`k=0`$). The spatial components of (2), combined with the $`00`$ component (3), yields the following dynamical equation for $`a(t)`$:

$$\ddot{a}=\frac{4\pi }{3M_P^2}\left(\rho +3p2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)a.$$
(4)
In these equations $`\rho =\rho _M+\rho _R`$ is the total energy density of matter and radiation, and $`p`$ is the pressure. In the modern Universe $`p0`$ and $`\rho \rho _M^0`$. Moreover, from the recent supernovae data , we know that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\rho _M^0`$ have the same order of magnitude as the critical density $`\rho _c^0`$. Therefore, the source term on the r.h.s. of (4) is characterized by a single dimensional parameter $`\sqrt{\rho _c^0/M_P^2}`$, which according to Eq. (3) is nothing but the experimentally measurable Hubble’s constant $`H_0`$. This is obviously consistent with the expected result $`\sqrt{T_\mu ^\mu /M_P^2}`$ in the general case because $`T_\mu ^\mu \rho _M^0\rho _c^0`$ for the present-day universe. Therefore, we conclude that the Ansatz

$$\mu R^{1/2}H(t)$$
(5)
is reasonable and we assume that this identification takes place at each stage of the cosmological evolution. With this guiding principle, a semi-classical description of gravitational phenomena of quantum matter in a curved classical background should be possible. In particular, in the early universe the value of $`H(t)`$ decides which matter particles are active degrees of freedom for the RG evolution of the parameters. Therefore, particles whose masses satisfy $`M>H(t)`$ will be decoupled from the relevant quantum effects at time $`t`$. Clearly, if one would be able to concoct a natural mechanism by which $`H(t)`$ progressively slows down after the universe has achieved a sufficient number of e-folds of inflation (namely $`\xi >65`$), then inflation should eventually stop and the FLRW regime could perhaps start. While many authors have looked for a suitable scalar field (so-called “inflaton”) capable of realizing this scenario, in the original Starobinsky’s model  inflation was attempted by looking for a self-consistent solution of Einstein’s equations when they are modified to include the vacuum quantum effects. Unfortunately, in Starobinsky’s model inflation is unstable from the very beginning (with the flat space stable), so that one has to fine-tune the initial conditions to insure $`\xi >65`$ before inflation stops . It would be much desirable to find an improved framework where the self-consistent solution appears first as a stable inflationary solution (hence independent of the initial conditions, even though space-time is unstable) and such that subsequently (after $`\xi >65`$ is fulfilled) inflation becomes unstable and the universe transits into the stable and flat FLRW space-time. Indeed, a modified Starobinsky’s model like that is possible, provided that we can arrange the condition $`H(t)0`$ and at the same time distort the stability regime thanks to a change in the number of active degrees of freedom, e.g. due to a phase transition from a supersymmetric Grand Unified Theory (GUT) into the Standard Model (SM) of the strong and electroweak interactions. Such a scenario has been first discussed in Ref.. It is based on a modification of the anomaly-induced effective action  resulting from a prior full conformization of the classical action for gravitational fields , including the Hilbert-Einstein term, and matter fields , and on the decoupling of the supersymmetric particles at low energy . Furthermore, there are strong indications that the spectrum and the amplitude of the gravitational waves in this model  are in agreement with the existing CMBR data . Recently, also the stability with respect to small perturbations of the conformal factor of the metric has been studied in the presence of a cosmological constant .

2. Local conformal invariance and effective action

The expansion of an homogeneous, isotropic universe means a conformal transformation of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(t)a^2(\eta )g_{\mu \nu },`$ where $`a(\eta )=\mathrm{exp}\sigma (\eta )`$ and $`\eta `$ is the conformal time ($`d\eta =dt/a(\eta )`$). Suppose that one starts from the conformal invariant formulation of the Standard Model of the strong and electroweak interactions  and of gravity, and then one uses the well-known methods to derive the anomaly-induced action . It is natural to think that the latter can be applied at high energies, where the masses of the matter fields are negligible. At the classical level, the theory which results from this procedure is always equivalent to the original theory. Nevertheless, in the quantum theory the equivalence is destroyed by the anomaly, which can be calculated explicitly. In particular, the massive fields may also contribute to it. Besides the anomalous terms, there are the conformal invariant quantum corrections to the classical vacuum action. Our first purpose is to construct such a formulation of the SM in curved space-time which possesses local conformal invariance in $`d=4`$. Actually, the procedure can be applied to any gauge theory, e.g. the SM and extensions thereof, including GUT’s and supersymmetric generalizations like the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) .

The original action of the theory includes kinetic terms for spinor and gauge boson fields, as well as interaction terms, all of them already conformal invariant. As for scalars (e.g. Higgs bosons) we suppose that their kinetic terms appear in the combination $`g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \phi _\nu \phi +1/6R\phi ^2`$ providing the local conformal invariance. The non-invariant terms are the massive ones for the scalar and spinor fields, but also the Hilbert-Einstein term giving General Relativity at low energies. In all these cases the conformal non-invariance is caused by the presence of dimensional parameters $`m_H^2`$, $`m`$, $`M_P^2=1/G`$. The central idea is to replace these parameters by functions of some new auxiliary scalar field $`\chi `$. For instance, we replace

$`m_H^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_H^2}{M^2}}\chi ^2,m{\displaystyle \frac{m}{M}}\chi ,M_P^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_P^2}{M^2}}\chi ^2,`$ (6)
where $`M`$ is some dimensional parameter, e.g. related to a high scale of spontaneous breaking of dilatation symmetry . Then the scalar and fermion mass terms become quartic interactions and Yukawa couplings respectively,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\frac{m_H^2}{M^2}\phi ^2\chi ^2},{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\frac{m}{M}\overline{\psi }\psi \chi },`$ (7)
which are of course (local and global) conformal invariant. Furthermore, the Hilbert-Einstein term gets conformized too:

$`S_{EH}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi GM^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R\chi ^2+6(\chi )^2\right]}.`$ (8)
After setting $`\chi M`$ this expression becomes identical to the ordinary gravitational term, and from (7) the ordinary mass terms for scalars and fermions are recovered at the same time . This fixing can be called “conformal unitary gauge” in analogy with the unitary gauge of ordinary gauge theories, and the scale $`M`$ can be associated to the vacuum expectation value of the spontaneously broken dilatation symmetry at high energies

It is supposed that the new scalar field $`\chi `$ takes the values close to $`M`$, especially at low energies. But, there is a great difference between $`\chi `$ and $`M`$ with respect to the conformal transformation. The mass does not transform, while $`\chi `$ does. Then, the action of the new model becomes invariant under the conformal transformation

$`\chi \chi e^\sigma ,`$ (9)
which is performed together with the usual transformations for the other fields

$`g_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }e^{2\sigma },\phi \phi e^\sigma ,\psi \psi e^{3/2\sigma }.`$ (10)
Thus, in the matter sector our program of “conformization” is complete. When we quantize the theory, it is important to separate the quantum fields from the ones which represent a classical background. In order to maintain the correspondence with the usual formulation of the SM, we avoid the quantization of the field $`\chi `$ which will be considered, along with the metric, as an external classical background for the quantum matter fields. It is well known (see, e.g. ) that the renormalizability of the quantum field theory in external fields requires some extra terms in the classical action of the theory. The list of such terms includes the nonminimal term of the $`R\phi ^2`$-type in the Higgs sector, and the action of external fields with the proper dimension and symmetries. The higher derivative part of the vacuum action has the form

$`S_{vac}={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{l_1C^2+l_2E+l_3^2R\right\}},`$ (11)
where, $`l_{1,2,3}`$ are some parameters, $`C^2`$ is the square of the Weyl tensor and $`E`$ is the integrand of the Gauss-Bonnet topological invariant. Now, since there is an extra field $`\chi `$, the vacuum action should be supplemented by the $`\chi `$-dependent term. The only possible, conformal and diffeomorphism invariant, terms with dimension $`4`$ are (8) and the$`\chi ^4`$-term. The last contributes to the cosmological constant, which we suppose to cancel and do not consider here. Its effect is reported elsewhere .

The next step is to derive the conformal anomaly in the theory with two background fields $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\chi `$. The anomaly results from the renormalization of the vacuum action including the terms (8) and (11). For the sake of generality, let us suppose that there is also some background gauge field with strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$. Then the conformal anomaly has the form

$`<T_\mu ^\mu >=\left\{wC^2+bE+c^2R+dF^2+f[R\chi ^2+6(\chi )^2]\right\},`$ (12)
where $`w,b,c`$ are $`\beta `$-functions for the parameters $`l_1,l_2,l_3`$; $`f`$ is the $`\beta `$-function for the dimensionless parameter $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}/(16\pi GM^2)`$ of the action (8), and $`d`$ is the $`\beta `$-function for the gauge coupling constant. The values of $`w,b`$ and $`c`$ depend on the matter content ($`N_i`$ being the number of particles with spin $`i`$):

$$w=\frac{N_0+6N_{1/2}+12N_1}{120(4\pi )^2},b=\frac{N_0+11N_{1/2}+62N_1}{360(4\pi )^2},c=\frac{N_0+6N_{1/2}18N_1}{180(4\pi )^2}.$$
(13)
Recall that the condition for stable inflation is $`c>0`$. Then one can play with various models. For instance, from the previous equation it follows that the particle content of the SM ($`N_0=4,N_{1/2}=24,N_1=12`$) leads to $`c<0`$ (unstable inflation), which suggests that with only SM matter fields the inflation period cannot be easily sustained, and it might be insufficient . On the other hand, for the MSSM  ($`N_0=104,N_{1/2}=32,N_1=12`$) one has $`c>0`$ (stable inflation) etc. Clearly, we need physics beyond the SM in order to possibly arrange a graceful transit from a regime of stability (insuring the condition $`\xi >65`$) into another of instability that might hopefully end into the FLRW phase.

We will argue that the presence of the non-zero $`\beta `$-function $`f`$ could be the necessary quantum dynamical mechanism for the graceful exit. From direct calculation using the Schwinger-DeWitt method (see e.g. ) we get

$`f={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_i}{3(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{M^2}},`$ (14)
where $`N_i`$ are the number of Dirac spinors with masses $`m_i`$. We note that bosons do not contribute to $`f`$.

In order to obtain the anomaly-induced effective action, we put $`g_{\mu \nu }=\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }e^{2\sigma }`$ and $`\chi =\overline{\chi }e^\sigma `$, where the metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ has fixed determinant and the field $`\overline{\chi }`$ does not change under the conformal transformation. Then, the solution of the equation for the effective action $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ proceeds in the usual way . Disregarding the conformal invariant term we arrive at the following expression :

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=d^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}}\{w\overline{C}^2+b(\overline{E}\frac{2}{3}\overline{}^2\overline{R})+2b\sigma \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}+d\overline{F}^2+$$

$`+f[\overline{R}\overline{\chi }^2+6(\overline{\chi })^2]\}\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{3c+2b}{36}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}R^2.`$ (15)
3. The role of masses in slowing down inflation In order to understand the role of the particle masses in the anomaly-induced inflation, let us consider the total action with quantum corrections

$`S_t=S_{matter}+S_{EH}+S_{vac}+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}.`$ (16)
One of the approximations we made was to disregard higher loop and non-perturbative effects in the vacuum sector. Another approximation is that we take only the leading-log corrections. Usually, this is justified if the process goes at high energy scale. If the quantum theory has UV asymptotic freedom, the higher loops effects are suppressed, and our approximation is reliable. At the low-energy limit, we suppose that the massive fields decouple and their contributions are not important. Then Eq. (16) can be presented in the form

$`S_t={\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}}\{({\displaystyle \frac{M_P^2}{16\pi M^2}}+f\sigma )[\overline{R}\overline{\chi }^2+6(\overline{\chi })^2]`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}d\sigma )\overline{F}^2\}+S_{matter}+high.deriv.terms.`$ (17)
One can see that the modifications with respect to the case of free massless fields  are an additional $`f`$-term and the contribution to anomaly due to the background gauge fields. In order to restore the Hilbert-Einstein term and get the inflationary solution, we fix the conformal unitary gauge and put $`\chi =\overline{\chi }e^\sigma =M`$. Furthermore, we can choose the conformally flat metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. Then the gravitational part of the action (17) becomes

$$S_{grav}=d^4x\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}b(^2\sigma )^2(3c+2b)[(\sigma )^2+^2\sigma )]^2$$

$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}M_P^2e^{2\sigma }(\sigma )^2[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi M^2}{M_P^2}}f]({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}d\sigma )\overline{F}^2\}.`$ (18)
Computing the equation of motion of $`a=\mathrm{ln}\sigma `$ in terms of the physical time $`t`$ (where $`dt=a(\eta )d\eta `$) we find

$$a^2\stackrel{\mathrm{}.}{a}+3a\stackrel{.}{a}\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{a}(5+\frac{4b}{c})\stackrel{.}{a}^2\stackrel{..}{a}+a\stackrel{..}{a}^2\frac{M_P^2}{8\pi c}(a^2\stackrel{..}{a}+a\stackrel{.}{a}^2)+$$

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2fM^2}{c}}\mathrm{ln}a(a^2\stackrel{..}{a}+a\stackrel{.}{a}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2fM^2}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{F}^2}{6ca}}=0.`$ (19)
An exact solution of (19) does not look possible, but it can be easily analyzed within the approximation that $`f`$ is not too large. Then the new terms (collected in the second line of Eq. (19)) can be considered as perturbations. Moreover, the last two of them are irrelevant, because during inflation they decrease exponentially with respect to the other terms. Thus, in this approximation, the only one relevant change is the replacement $`M_P^2M_P^2\left[1\stackrel{~}{f}\mathrm{ln}a(t)\right]`$ where for future convenience we have introduced the dimensionless parameter

$`\stackrel{~}{f}{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi fM^2}{M_P^2}}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_i}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{M_P^2}}.`$ (20)
Notice that $`f`$ is given by Eq. (14) and so $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ does not depend on the scale $`M`$. Since $`f`$ is small, the effect of the masses may be approximated through the modification of the inflation law $`a(t)=a_0e^{H_1t}`$ according to 222We remind the reader that the coefficient $`b`$ is negative for any particle content, see (13).

$`H_1={\displaystyle \frac{M_P}{\sqrt{16\pi b}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_P}{\sqrt{16\pi b}}}\left[1\stackrel{~}{f}\mathrm{ln}a(t)\right]^{1/2}=H(t),`$ (21)
To substantiate our claim, we have solved Eq. (19) directly using the numerical methods. The plots corresponding to the numerical solution of the Eq. (19) are shown in Fig. 1. Since in the first period of inflation masses do not play much role and the stabilization of the exponential inflation proceeds very fast, the initial data (in both Eq. (21) and the plots of Fig. 1) were chosen according to the exponential inflation law. According to the numerical analysis, the total number of $`e`$-folds in the “fast phase” of inflation (until the Hubble constant becomes comparable to the transition scale $`M^{}`$ where instability develops) is about $`10^4`$ for our particular values of the parameters, and at the last stage the expansion essentially slows down.

The chosen value of the parameter (20) $`\stackrel{~}{f}=10^4`$ in the plot is, as we warned before, independent of the scale $`M`$, and it determines where the process of stable inflation finishes as well as the number of $`e`$-folds. On the other hand, if the scale $`M^{}`$ is chosen near the typical SUSY GUT value $`M_{SUSY}M_X10^{16}GeV`$ for supersymmetry breaking at high energies, some of the spinor masses $`m_i`$ will be of order $`M_{SUSY}10^{16}GeV`$. The latter assumption is indeed sound because the $`m_i`$ will include the supersymmetric fermions associated to the super-heavy gauge and Higgs bosons at the GUT scale, and so $`m_iM_XM_{SUSY}`$. From Eq. (20) it follows that the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ will be numerically smaller than the one we have assumed in Fig. 1, and consequently the amount of inflation will be larger. But the important qualitative point is that for any value of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ the approximate plateau eventually appears and signals the end of stable inflation. Also notice from Fig. 1 that the initial evolution is close to the exponential inflation, but after that the expansion slows down due to the quantum effects of massive fermions.

4. Graceful exit from anomaly-induced inflation

Recall from Eq.(5) that $`H(t)`$ sets the scale of the RG running for the gravitational part. So if we consider the SUSY breaking and the corresponding change in the number of active degrees of freedom, then the necessary and sufficient condition for the applicability of our approach is that $`H(t)`$ decreases from the initial value about 333Notice that $`|16\pi b|=𝒪(1)`$ in the MSSM, and it is much larger than $`1`$ in any typical SUSY GUT. $`M_P/\sqrt{16\pi b}10^{18}GeV`$, down to the lower scale $`H=M^{}M_{SUSY}`$. The outcome is that the evolution according to (21) lasts until reaching the scale $`M^{}`$, and after that most of the SUSY particles are decoupled, the inflationary solution becomes unstable and the FLRW phase can start. In fact, the crucial point is the existence of a nonvanishing $`f`$ as it eventually tempers stable inflation allowing favorable conditions for the universe to tilt into the FLRW phase.

To justify our claim that $`M^{}<M_{SUSY}`$, recall that for a really successful exit from the inflationary phase we need to make sure that the amplitude of the gravitational waves is consistent with the observable range of anisotropy in the CMBR. This will be the case if during the last $`65`$ $`e`$-folds of the inflation, the expansion rate $`H(t)`$ does not exceed $`10^5M_P`$. Then the fluctuations in the amplitude $`h`$ of these waves, $`\delta h/h=H/M_P`$, will preserve the measured fluctuations in the temperature of the relic radiation according to the relation $`\delta h/h=\delta T/T=𝒪(10^5)`$. At the lowest end of the inflation interval this condition corresponds, in our framework, to fix the instability value $`M_{}10^5M_P=10^{14}GeV`$. It means that, in reality, we expect that after the onset of the approximate plateau in Fig. 1 (b), where SUSY breaking occurs, the universe will take a while before entering the FLRW phase, i.e. the latter will actually initiate at some point well over the plateau where $`H=M_{}10^5M_P`$. To better assess this issue we have numerically analyzed $`H(t)`$ over the plateau, see Fig. 2. We see that $`H(t)`$ decreases very fast on it. For instance, from the comparison of Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b), we find that a $`15\%`$ increase of the time after the onset of the plateau amounts $`H(t)`$ to diminish two orders of magnitude. So in general $`H(t)`$ will decrease further below $`M_{SUSY}`$, and the difference between $`M^{}`$ and $`M_{SUSY}`$ at the moment of the transition can be significant, say one or two orders of magnitude. Hence $`M_{SUSY}`$ can be $`10^{16}GeV`$ and this does not create problems with the CMBR. Let us also notice the oscillatory behavior of $`H(t)`$ after reaching the plateau, i.e. when the system is about jumping into the FLRW phase. Interestingly enough, this behavior could perhaps be related to the reheating phenomenon, which is of course indispensable before the universe stabilizes in the FLRW regime.

Overall, we arrive at a consistent picture of the graceful exit in this inflationary scenario. No inflaton field is needed, but only the dynamical work of gravity itself, provided one starts from a renormalizable, fully conformal-invariant classical picture, together with the trace anomaly of the matter fields at the quantum level. Moreover, according to (14), the obtained picture is universal, for it does not depend on the choice of the dilatation symmetry breaking scale $`M`$. If interpreted physically, one can put constraints on $`M`$ using the macroscopic forces mediated by the field $`\sigma `$, demanding that this forces should have the sub-millimeter range, similarly as in .

Acknowledgments. The work of J.S. has been supported in part by MECYT and FEDER under project FPA2001-3598. The work of I.Sh. has been supported by the research grant from FAPEMIG and fellowship from CNPq.


text:
# Cosmological bulk viscosity, the Burnett regime, and the BGK equation

## 1 Introduction

The physics of low density systems is relevant in the description of the late universe. Since a hydrodynamical, Navier-Stokes, description of a low density fluid breaks down for small Knudsen numbers, it is desirable to go beyond this regime and analyze the fluid with the tools that statistical physics provide as the particle collision frequency decreases. One simple tool useful for this purpose is the BGK equation, which simplifies the formalism of the full Boltzmann equation and provides a good grasp about how the non-equilibrium system evolves. In particular, dissipative effects, and generalized transport coefficients are derivable from the BGK formalism. These coefficients can be incorporated to the stress-energy tensor that is, in turn, coupled to Einstein’s field equations.

The relevance of cosmological transport coefficients has already been widely recognized , nevertheless, until now, the second order Burnett equations   have never been applied to isotropic-homogeneous space-times, although the issue has been addressed in the context of special relativity  . One possible motivation for the study of the Burnett-Einstein solutions is the well-known relation between wave scattering processes, density fluctuations and dissipative effects  . Dynamic structure factors, possibly relevant for describing CMB anisotropies or distortions, can be derived form the hydrodynamical Burnett approach, as it has already been done for collisionless plasmas -. In this work we analyze the solutions to the BGK equation taking a FRW metric as power series expansions in the relaxation time $`\tau `$. To second order, the solution is used to obtain the constitutive equations for the stress tensor thus providing explicit expressions for the transport coefficients. The explicit use of these results in specific situations will be deferred for future applications. Here we will be concerned with their physical and general features. Special emphasis will be placed in the significance of a bulk viscosity in homogeneous and isotropic systems. Unfortunate use of language has given rise to an identification of a geometrical aspect of the universe with a conventional dissipative effect. This gives rise to ambiguities that must be clarified. To accomplish this task, the paper is divided as follows: section 2 reviews the BGK equation  in FRW space-times and outlines the basic strategy of its solution up to second order by means of a Chapman-Enskog type expansion (Burnett regime). Section three, is dedicated to the analysis of the first and second order distribution functions, the establishment of expressions for the transport coefficients and the construction of the Einstein’s field equation with a FRW flat metric. Final remarks about the implications of the Burnett regime in cosmology are included in section four.

## 2 BGK equation in FRW space-times

We start this section writing the standard form of the BGK equation in its relativistic version for a single component system:

$$\frac{Df}{Dt}=\frac{ff^{(0)}}{\tau }$$
(1)
where $`f=f(x^\mu ,v^\mu )`$ is the non-equilibrium distribution function, $`f^{(0)}`$ is the equilibrium function, $`\tau `$ is the collision time (mean free time) and $`\frac{D}{Dt}`$ is the absolute derivative with respect to time $`t`$. The LHS of equation (1) can be written as:

$$\frac{Df}{Dt}=\frac{f}{x^\mu }v^\mu +\frac{f}{v^\mu }v^\beta (\frac{v^\mu }{x^\beta }+v^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu )$$
(2)
Assuming a flat, homogeneous and isotropic space-time, Eq. (2) reduces to

$$\frac{Df}{Dt}=\frac{f}{x^4}v^4+\frac{f}{v^4}v^\beta v^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^4$$
(3)
Here we wish to make sure that the ensuing consequences remain clear. Eq. (3) has no explicit contributions arising from spatial gradients due to the assumption mentioned above. The second term in the R.H.S. containing the non-vanishing Christoffel symbols has an intrinsic geometrical origin so that all effects arising from it must be associated precisely to such structure. Now, denoting $`a(ct)`$ the scale factor, $`c`$ the speed of light, $`E`$ the total mechanical energy of a single particle of rest mass $`m_o`$ , $`\gamma `$ the usual relativistic factor and $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ the metric tensor, and taking into account the expressions:

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}a(ct)\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & a(ct)\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & a(ct)\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right]$$
(4)
$$x^\mu =\left[\begin{array}{c}x^1\hfill \\ x^2\hfill \\ x^3\hfill \\ ct\hfill \end{array}\right]$$
(5)
$$v^\mu =\left[\begin{array}{c}u^1\gamma \hfill \\ u^2\gamma \hfill \\ u^3\gamma \hfill \\ \frac{E}{m_oc}\hfill \end{array}\right]$$
(6)
we can get a simpler form of Eq. (3), namely,

$$\frac{Df}{Dt}=\frac{E}{m_oc^2}\frac{f}{t}+m_o\frac{f}{E}(\frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{dt})(v^1v^1+v^2v^2+v^3v^3)$$
(7)
or, since $`v_\alpha v^\alpha =c^2`$,

$$\frac{Df}{Dt}=\frac{E}{m_oc^2}\frac{f}{t}+m_o\frac{f}{E}(\frac{\theta }{3})(\frac{E^2}{m_o^2c^2}c^2)$$
(8)
The factor $`\theta =\frac{3}{a}\frac{da}{dt}`$ is precisely a consequence of the geometrical features appearing in Eq. (3), and it is usually identified with the divergence of the four-velocity. Since the spatial gradients vanish in a FRW space-time, emphasis should me made on the fact that the non-vanishing terms of this divergence come from the Christoffel symbols introduced in the covariant derivative, so that $`\theta `$ has a strictly geometrical origin. The solution of Eq (1), taking into account the expression (8) can be approximated up to second order in $`\tau `$ using the proposal:

$$f=f^{(0)}+\tau f^{(1)}+\tau ^2f^{(2)}+\mathrm{}$$
(9)
Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (8) and equating the coefficients of equal powers in constant $`\tau `$, up to second order, we get:

$$f^{(1)}=\left[\frac{E}{m_oc^2}\frac{f^{(0)}}{t}+m_o\frac{f^{(0)}}{E}(\frac{\theta }{3})(\frac{E^2}{m_o^2c^2}c^2)\right]$$
(10)
and

$$f^{(2)}=\left[\frac{E}{m_oc^2}\frac{f^{(1)}}{t}+m_o\frac{f^{(1)}}{E}(\frac{\theta }{3})(\frac{E^2}{m_o^2c^2}c^2)\right]$$
(11)
Expressions (10-11) constitute our first and second order corrections to the equilibrium distribution of the BGK equation in a flat FRW space-time. For non-relativistic particles in a FRW metric, Eqs. (10-11) reduce to:

$$f_{NR}^{(1)}=\left[\frac{f^{(0)}}{t}+m_ou^2\frac{f^{(0)}}{E}(\frac{\theta }{3})\right]$$
(12)
$$f_{NR}^{(2)}=\left[\frac{f^{(1)}}{t}+m_ou^2\frac{f^{(1)}}{E}(\frac{\theta }{3})\right]$$
(13)
The equilibrium function $`f^{(0)}`$ is, in this case, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution:

$$f^{(0)}=n(\frac{m}{2\pi kT})^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{\frac{mu^2}{2kT}}=n(\frac{m}{2\pi kT})^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{\frac{E}{kT}}$$
(14)
where $`n`$ is the particle density, $`m`$ is the mass of one particle of the simple system, $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant and $`T`$ is the temperature.

If particles are conserved, then the continuity equation holds:

$$\frac{n}{t}+n\theta =0$$
(15)
and the first term at the RHS of Eq. (12) can be written as:

$$\frac{f^{(0)}}{t}=\frac{f^{(0)}}{n}\frac{n}{t}=\theta f^{(0)}$$
(16)
In Eq. (16) $`\theta `$, usually identified with $`\text{u}`$ has, as emphasized before, a purely geometrical origin; it is, indeed the surviving term of the covariant derivative of a four velocity $`v_{;\alpha }^\alpha `$. Straightforward calculations can now be carried, so that:

$$f_{NR}^{(1)}=(1+\frac{mu^2}{3kT})\theta f^{(0)}$$
(17)
$$f_{NR}^{(2)}=\left[(1+\frac{5mu^2}{9kT}\frac{2}{27}\frac{m^2u^4}{k^2T^2})\theta ^2+\theta \frac{d\theta }{dt}\right]f^{(0)}$$
(18)
These corrections obviously vanish for homogeneous, isotropic, non-expanding space-times. The thermodynamical force inherent to the deviations from the perfect distribution is, to first order, the expansion scalar $`\theta `$. To second order (Burnett regime), the generalized thermodynamical forces are, as expected, non-linear forces appearing in the linear constitutive relations. Here, due to the assumption on space-time, they turn out to be simply $`\theta ^2`$ and $`\theta \frac{d\theta }{dt}`$. The effect of these second order expressions on the field equations will be the subject of the next section.

## 3 Stress-tensor and field equation

The Einstein field equations with vanishing cosmological constant are given by:

$$G_\nu ^\mu =\kappa T_\nu ^\mu $$
(19)
where $`G_\nu ^\mu `$ is the Einstein tensor, $`\kappa `$ is the coupling constant and $`T_\nu ^\mu `$ is the stress-energy tensor. The tensor $`T_\nu ^\mu `$ is related to the non-equilibrium distribution function, up to second order, by:

$$T_\nu ^\mu mf^{(0)}v^\mu v_\nu 𝑑V+m\tau f^{(1)}v^\mu v_\nu 𝑑V+m\tau ^2f^{(2)}v^\mu v_\nu 𝑑V$$
(20)
Eq. (20) is simply the ordinary stress-energy tensor written in terms of averages of the molecular velocities. The hydrodynamical velocity vanishes in the comoving frame. In this case, the first term of the R.H.S. of Eq. (20) may be written as:

$$\stackrel{(0)}{T_\nu ^\mu }=\frac{4\pi }{3}mh_\nu ^\mu f^{(0)}u^4du+\rho U^\mu U_\nu =\rho U^\mu U_\nu +P(\delta _\nu ^\mu +\frac{U^\mu U_\nu }{c^2})=\rho U^\mu U_\nu +Ph_\nu ^\mu $$
(21)
where $`\rho `$ is the mass-energy density, $`P=nkT`$ is the pressure, $`h_\nu ^\mu =\delta _\nu ^\mu +\frac{U^\mu U_\nu }{c^2}`$, and $`U^\mu `$ is the hydrodynamic velocity given by:

$$U^\mu =\left[\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ c\hfill \end{array}\right],U_\mu =\left[\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ c\hfill \end{array}\right]$$
(22)
The RHS of Eq. (21) corresponds to the stress tensor of a non-dissipative fluid. If we wish to include dissipation up to second order in $`\tau `$ for non-relativistic particles, we can use expressions (17-18) . Using this information, and assuming that no dissipation in the time axes occur, we can write for the first order correction of the stress energy tensor:

$$\stackrel{(1)}{T_\nu ^\mu }=\left[4\pi \tau mh_\nu ^\mu _o^{\mathrm{}}(1+\frac{1}{3}\frac{m_ou^2}{kT})f^{(0)}u^4du\right]\theta =\eta _c\theta h_\nu ^\mu $$
(23)
Following the rules of linear irreversible thermodynamics , the relationship between the induced current $`\stackrel{(1)}{T_\nu ^\mu }`$ and the force $`\theta `$ which again we emphasize arises from the inherent geometrical aspect of space-time, is $`\stackrel{(1)}{T_\nu ^\mu }=\eta _c\theta h_\nu ^\mu `$. $`\eta _c`$, the transport coefficient is usually referred to in the literature as bulk viscosity. This is misleading, since $`\theta `$ does not contain spatial gradients. For this reason, we shall refer to it as the cosmological viscosity $`\eta _c`$, here explicitly given by:

$$\eta _c=4\pi \tau m_o^{\mathrm{}}\left(1+\frac{1}{3}\frac{m_ou^2}{kT}\right)f^{(0)}u^4𝑑u$$
(24)
The second order contributions to the stress tensor can now be identified as:

$`\stackrel{(2)}{T_\nu ^\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4\pi \tau ^2mh_\nu ^\mu {\displaystyle _o^{\mathrm{}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_ou^2}{kT}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_o^2u^4}{k^2T^2}}\right)f^{(0)}u^4𝑑u\right]\theta ^2+`$
$`\left[4\pi \tau ^2mh_\nu ^\mu {\displaystyle _o^{\mathrm{}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_ou^2}{kT}}\right)f^{(0)}u^4𝑑u\right]\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{dt}}`$
Thus, two Burnett transport coefficients arise, one for each generalized thermodynamical force $`\theta ^2`$, $`\theta \frac{d\theta }{dt}`$, namely:

$$B_1=\left[4\pi \tau ^2m_o^{\mathrm{}}\left(1+\frac{5}{9}\frac{m_ou^2}{kT}+\frac{2}{27}\frac{m_o^2u^4}{k^2T^2}\right)f^{(0)}u^4𝑑u\right]$$
(26)
and

$$B_2=\left[4\pi \tau ^2m_o^{\mathrm{}}\left(1+\frac{1}{3}\frac{m_ou^2}{kT}\right)f^{(0)}u^4𝑑u\right]$$
(27)
and the field equations (19), in the Burnett regime, in flat FRW space-times, take the rather interesting form

$$\frac{2}{3}\frac{d\theta }{dt}+\frac{5}{27}\theta ^2=\kappa \left(p\eta _c\theta B_1\theta ^2+B_2\theta \frac{d\theta }{dt}\right)$$
(28)
$$\frac{1}{3}\theta ^2=\kappa \rho c^2$$
(29)
These equations, clearly dependent on the mean free time $`\tau `$, yield the dynamics of simple fluid consisting of non-relativistic particles in flat FRW metric in the Burnett regime. Future work will be dedicated to the study of their solutions.

The order of magnitude of these coefficients is readily calculated. Substituting $`f^{(0)}`$ one obtains that

$$\eta _c2nkT\tau =\frac{B_1}{\tau }$$
(30)
and

$$B_2\frac{5}{3}nkT\tau ^2$$
(31)
The cosmological viscosity $`\eta _c`$ will be relevant when $`\tau `$ is of order one. Since for the Boltzmann dilute regime $`\tau 10^5s10^8s`$, and for such values densities of the order $`10^5`$, $`10^{19}g/cm^3`$ should prevail, corresponding roughly to the threshold of the matter domination era in the universe. Under these circumstances, the Burnett corrections which contain $`\tau ^210^{16}s^2`$ would require densities of the order of magnitude of $`10^{11}g/cm^3`$, the density of matter right after nucleosynthesis, an era where radiation is still relevant . Further study of these consequences will be reported later.

## 4 Discussion of the results

In this paper we have used the BGK model to describe the non-relativistic kinetic properties of a dilute gas in a FRW metric implying an isotropic and homogeneous universe. Two important results stem out of this analysis. In the first place the concept itself of transport coefficients is clarified. There existing no spatial gradients in the velocity, there will be no shear effects in the gas. Thus, ordinary viscosities, shear and volume, are not present. However, the contributions to the four dimensional covariant derivative of the velocity arising only from the geometric structure of space-time, embedded in the Christoffel symbols are present. They give rise to fluxes $`T_\nu ^\mu `$ arising from the dynamical character of the fluid. In the case here studied, the force turns out to be the expansion scalar $`\theta `$. As we have shown elsewhere , there is a shear-like viscosity arising from geometry. Regretfully the nomenclature used in that paper is inappropriate, the coefficients then referred to are precisely $`\eta _c`$ and its ”shear-like” counterpart which should be called something else, not shear viscosity.

The second important result is that as Eq. (23)-(29) point out, there was a Burnett-like hydrodynamic regime in the evolution of the universe which reflects itself in the field equations themselves, as well as in the transport properties of matter. Nevertheless, it did so at times when matter was still coupled to radiation, so that it may me useful to add to this analysis the behavior of radiation. This subject is, at present, one of study.