format: text

text:
# PUZZLES IN HYPERON, CHARM AND BEAUTY PHYSICS

## 1 PREAMBLE - CHALLENGING THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

### 1.1 The war for quarks

In the introduction to this session we were reminded of the war to convince the Physics Community that quarks are real.

We won that war.

### 1.2 The battle for science and education

My next war is to convince the University Community and University Departments of Education that Physics is real and not socially constructed. High school teachers should know and respect science, not only politically correct education ideology. It is not an easy battle. I participated in one round at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies here at UBC in May.

More about this war and similar approaches to understanding the structure of matter and understanding how to teach children can be found in my millennium essay ”The Structure of Matter - like science, teaching should be the result of independent ideas converging”.

### 1.3 Following up experiments that challenge conventional wisdom

Just as we learned new things by following up the experimental evidence for quarks even though there was no theory, we can do the same today with new experimental puzzles. Look for new experiments that can bring new light and insight.

For example, the recent CP asymmetry in $`B\mathrm{\Phi }K_S`$ decay, considered a hint of non-standard CP violation, suggests a search for a direct CP-violation in the charged B decays, $`B^\pm \mathrm{\Phi }K^\pm `$, $`B^\pm \mathrm{\Phi }K^{}`$, where $`K^{}`$ denotes any $`K^{}`$ resonance, and $`B^\pm \mathrm{\Phi }K_S\pi ^\pm `$. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }K_S\pi ^\pm `$ analysis can use transversity to distinguish between different new physics models predicting different behaviors for a charge asymmetry as a function of the transversity and of the mass of the $`K\pi `$ system. A new-physics CP-violating contribution to $`B^\pm \mathrm{\Phi }K^\pm `$ and $`B\mathrm{\Phi }K^{}`$ could arise from the $`bs`$ transition induced by gluino exchange applied to the radiative decay $`BX_s\gamma `$, with the photon materialized into a $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

## 2 PUZZLES IN HYPERON PHYSICS

### 2.1 Good and bad SU(3) baryons

So far no model for the flavor structure of the proton is simultaneously consistent with three established experimental results:

1. $`SU(3)`$ Cabibbo theory good for weak semileptonic baryon decays
2. $`SU(3)`$ badly broken by the suppression of the strange component in the sea of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs in the nucleon by a factor of two.
3. The observed violation of the Gottfried sum rule requires a positively charged sea ($`u\overline{d}`$). $`SU(3)`$ then requires a sea with net strangeness $`(u\overline{s}`$).

Explaining the observed violation of the Gottfried sum rule while keeping the good results of the Cabibbo theory requires unobserved net strangeness in the nucleon sea. Two possible directions for avoiding this conflict are:

1. Quantitative analysis of how much violation of Cabibbo theory is allowed by the real hyperon decay data with real errors.
2. Small component of “valence like” strange quarks with large values of $`x`$ in the proton; This can be checked by better measurements of the $`x`$-dependence of the strangeness in the proton.

### 2.2 Is the strange quark a heavy quark?

Most nontrivial strange hadron states mix SU(3) and satisfy (scb) heavy quark symmetry with no flavor mixing; e.g. $`\varphi ,\psi ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. The strange axial meson mixing is still open. HQET couples the light quark spin to the orbital $`L=1`$ to get two doublets with j=1/2 and j=3/2. SU(3) has triplet and singlet.spin states in the octets with the $`a_1`$ and $`b_1`$. Which is it?

### 2.3 The spin structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

In the constituent quark model the strange quark carries the entire spin of the baryon. But in the picture where strange quarks carry some of the spin of the proton, the nonstrange quarks carry some of the spin of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Possible experimental tests of this description were discussed.

## 3 A VECTOR DOMINANCE MODEL

### 3.1 Vector dominance universality

The large branching ratios observed for the appearance of the $`a_1(1260)^\pm `$ in all quasi-two-body decays $`Da_1(1260)^\pm X`$ and $`Ba_1(1260)^\pm X`$ are comparable to those observed for $`\pi ^\pm X`$ and $`\rho ^\pm X`$ and contrast sharply with the much smaller branching ratios observed to $`a_2X`$, $`b_1X`$, and $`a_1^oX`$.

All 24 $`B`$ decays of the form $`B\overline{D}W^+\overline{D}M^+`$, where $`M`$ can denote $`a_1,\rho ,\pi ,\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}},D_s,D_s^{}`$, are dominant with branching ratios above $`0.3\%`$. Other $`B`$-decay modes have upper limits in the $`10^4`$ ball park, including the absence with significant upper limits of neutral decays $`B^o\overline{D}^oM^o`$ which are coupled by strong final state interactions to $`B^oD^{}M^+`$.

These experimental systematics suggested a “vector-dominance” model where the initial hadron state $`i`$ decays to a final state $`f`$ by emitting a $`W^\pm `$ which then hadronizes into an $`a_1^+`$, $`\rho ^+`$ or $`\pi ^+`$, along with a universality relation,

$$R[ifa]\frac{BR[ifa_1(1260)^+]}{BR[if\rho ^+]}\left|\frac{W^+a_1^+}{W^+\rho ^+}\right|^2$$
(1)
$$R[if\pi ]\frac{BR[if\pi ^+]}{BR[if\rho ^+]}\left|\frac{W^+\pi ^+}{W^+\rho ^+}\right|^2$$
(2)
These have been shown to hold experimentally for all states $`i`$ and $`f`$ with corrections for phase space. The $`a_1`$ data have large errors. But the experimental ratios $`R[ifa]`$ are all consistent with 0.7, and more than order of magnitude higher than other upper limits. That such widely different decays should agree so well is impressive and suggests further investigation. e.g. reducing the experimental errors and looking for more decay modes like $`D_s^+\varphi a_1`$, $`D^+K^0a_1`$ and $`D^0K^{}a_1`$.

### 3.2 Vector-Dominance Decays of the $`B_c`$

The $`B_c`$ meson is identified against a large combinatorial background by decay modes including a $`J/\psi `$. Vector dominance decay modes including the $`J/\psi `$ are expected to have relatively large branching ratios. These include: $`J/\psi \rho ^+`$, $`J/\psi a_1^+`$, $`J/\psi \pi ^+`$, $`J/\psi D_s^{}`$, $`J/\psi D_{s1A}`$, and $`J/\psi D_s`$. The corresponding modes with a $`\psi ^{}`$ instead of a $`J/\psi `$ are expected to have comparable branching ratios.

## 4 PUZZLES IN CHARM DECAYS

### 4.1 Singly-Suppressed Charm Decays

Two Cabibbo suppressed $`D^+`$ decay modes have anomalously high branching ratios which are not simply explained by any model.

$$BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]=3.2\pm 1.5\%$$
(3)
$$BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=2.6\pm 1.1\%$$
(4)
These show no Cabibbo suppression in comparison with corresponding Cabibbo allowed decays whose dominant tree diagrams differ only in the weak vertices $`cW^++s\rho ^++s`$ and $`cW^++sK^{}(892)^++s`$ from corresponding allowed decay diagrams and have the same hadronization of the strange quark $`s`$ and spectator $`\overline{d}`$.

$$BR[D^+\rho ^+\overline{K}^o]=6.6\pm 2.5\%$$
(5)
$$BR[D^+\rho ^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=2.1\pm 1.3\%$$
(6)
No simple diagram can contribute to the anomalously enhanced decays without also enhancing one of the following others which show the expected Cabibbo suppression

$$BR[D^+K^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=0.42\pm 0.05\%$$
(7)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^+K^{}]=0.35\pm 0.08\%$$
(8)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^{}K^+]=0.18\pm 0.01\%$$
(9)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^o\overline{K}^o]<0.08\%$$
(10)
$$BR[D^o\overline{K}^{}(892)^oK^o]<0.16\%$$
(11)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^o\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=0.14\pm 0.05\%$$
(12)
A new physics explanation may be needed if the anomalously large branching ratios are confirmed with smaller errors. Present data show

$`BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]+`$
$`+BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]=5.8\pm 1.9\%`$ (13)
This is still large even at two standard deviations.

### 4.2 SU(3) Relations between Cabibbo-Favored and Doubly-Cabibbo Suppressed $`D`$ decays

.

The SU(3) transformation $`ds`$ relates Cabibbo-favored $``$ doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed charm decays.

$`ds;K^+\pi ^+;K^{}\pi ^{};`$
$`D^+D_s;D^oD^o;K^+\pi ^{}K^{}\pi ^+`$ (14)
If strong interaction final state interactions conserve SU(3) the only SU(3) breaking occurs in the CKM matrix elements.

#### 4.2.1 Relations between $`D^o`$ branching ratios

Two simple easily tested.SU(3) symmetry relations involving no phases and only branching ratios of decay modes all expected to be comparable to the observed DCSD $`D^oK^+\pi ^{}`$ are

$`tan^4\theta _c={\displaystyle \frac{BR(D^oK^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D^oK^{}\pi ^+)}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{BR[D^oK^{}(892)^+\rho ^{}]}{BR[D^oK^{}(892)^{}\rho ^+]}}`$ (15)
A similar relation

$$tan^4\theta _c=\frac{BR[D^oK^+a_1(1260)^{}]}{BR[D^oK^{}a_1(1260)^+]}$$
(16)
may have a different type of SU(3) breaking. A weak vector dominance form factor can enhance

$$D^o(c\overline{u})(s\overline{u}K^{})_S(u\overline{d}a_1^+)_WK^{}a_1^+$$
(17)
where the subscripts S and W denote strong and weak form factors. The largest SU(3) breaking may well arise here from the difference between a weak pointlike $`a_1`$ form factor and the strong hadronic $`a_1`$ form factor which is the overlap between a nodeless s-wave meson and a p-wave meson with a node. This suppression of the $`a_1`$ hadronic form factor should suppress

$$D^o(c\overline{u})(d\overline{u}a_1^{})_S(u\overline{s}K^+)_Wa_1^{}K^+$$
(18)
In this case the SU(3) relation between the ratios of two Cabibbo-favored decays to two Cabibbo-suppressed decays involving the $`\pi `$ and $`a_1`$ can be expected to be strongly broken and replaced by the inequality

$`{\displaystyle \frac{BR[D^oK^{}a_1^+]}{BR(D^oK^{}\pi ^+)}}={\displaystyle \frac{7.3\pm 1.1\%}{3.83\pm 0.09\%}}`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{BR[D^oK^+a_1^{}]}{BR(D^oK^+\pi ^{})}}={\displaystyle \frac{BR[D^oK^+a_1^{}]}{1.48\pm 0.21\times 10^4}}`$
Two aspects of this relation suggest interesting implications of any symmetry breaking:

(1) Experimental tests of the magnitude of SU(3) breaking will be relevant in the interpretation of information about the CKM matrix and the unitarity triangle obtained from standard model analyses of weak decays which assume SU(3) symmetry.

(2) In the standard model the Cabibbo-favored and doubly-suppressed charm decays are proportional to the same combinations of CKM matrix elements and no direct CP violation can be observed. Thus any evidence for new physics that can introduce a CP-violating phase between these to amplitudes deserves serious consideration.

#### 4.2.2 SU(3) relations between $`D^+`$ and $`D_s`$ decays

Both of the following ratios of branching ratios

$$\frac{BR(D_sK^+K^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D_sK^+K^{}\pi ^+)}O(tan^4\theta _c)$$
(20)
$$\frac{BR(D^+K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)}O(tan^4\theta _c)$$
(21)
are ratios of a doubly Cabibbo forbidden decay to an allowed decay and should be of order $`tan^4\theta _c`$. The SU(3) transformation $`ds`$ takes the two ratios (20) and (21) into the reciprocals of one another. SU(3) requires the product of these two ratios to be EXACTLY $`\mathrm{tan}^8\theta _c`$.

$`tan^8\theta _c=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{BR(D_sK^+K^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D_sK^+K^{}\pi ^+)}}{\displaystyle \frac{BR(D^+K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)}}`$ (22)
Most obvious SU(3)-symmetry-breaking factors cancel out in this product; e.g. phase space. Present data show

$$\frac{BR(D^+K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+)}{BR(D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)}0.65\%3\times tan^4\theta _c$$
(23)
Then SU(3) predicts

$$\frac{BR(D_sK^+K^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D_sK^+K^{}\pi ^+)}\frac{tan^4\theta _c}{3}0.07\%.$$
(24)
If this SU(3) prediction is confirmed experimentally some new dynamical explanation will be needed for the order of magnitude difference between effects of the final-state interactions in $`D^+`$ and $`D_s`$ decays.

If the final state interactions behave similarly in $`D_s`$ and $`D^+`$ decays, the large violation of SU(3) will need some explanation.

New physics enhancing the doubly suppressed decays might produce a CP violation observable as a charge asymmetry in the products of above the two ratios; i.e between the values for $`D^+`$ and $`D_s`$ decays and for $`D^{}`$ and $`\overline{D}_s`$ decays.

An obvious caveat is the almost trivial SU(3) breaking arising from resonances in the final states. But sufficient data and Dalitz plots should enable including these effects. In any case the SU(3) relation and its possible violations raise interesting questions which deserve further theoretical and experimental investigation. Any really large SU(3)-breaking final state interactions that we don’t understand must cast serious doubts on many SU(3) predictions.

#### 4.2.3 A problem with strong phases

.

The $`ds`$ interchange SU(3) transformation also predicts $`D^oK^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`D^oK^{}\pi ^+`$ have the same strong phases. This has been shown to be in disagreement with experiment showing SU(3) violation.

But the $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ final states are charge conjugates of one another and strong interactions conserve charge conjugation. SU(3) can be broken in strong interactions without breaking charge conjugation only in the quark - hadron form factors arising in hadronization transitions like

$`D^o(c\overline{u})`$ $`(s\overline{u}K^{})_S(u\overline{d}a_1^+)_W`$ (25)
$`K^{}a_1^+K^{}\pi ^+`$
$`D^o(c\overline{u})`$ $`(d\overline{u}a_1^{})_S(u\overline{s}K^+)_W`$ (26)
$`a_1^{}K^+\pi ^{}K^+`$
with the SU(3) breaking given by the inequality (19).

The $`a_1`$ and $`\pi `$ wave functions are very different and not related by SU(3). The $`K^{}a_1^\pm K^{}\pi ^\pm `$ transition can proceed via $`\rho `$ exchange

## 5 Puzzles and Challenges in B Decays

Weak Decays need hadron models and QCD to interpret decays, but have too many diagrams and too many free parameters. Use of flavor topology can simplify analyses on one hand and challenge QCD to explain them if they work.

### 5.1 OZI in Heavy Flavor Decays

Two flavor topology predictions which challenge conventional wisdom;

$$BR(B^\pm K^\pm \omega )=BR(B^\pm K^\pm \rho ^o)$$
(27)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B^\pm K^\pm \varphi )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B^\pm K^o\rho ^\pm )$$
(28)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ denotes the predicted partial width when phase space differences are neglected.The first (27) assumes only the exclusion of “hairpin diagrams” and holds even in presence of strong final state rescattering via all other quark-gluon diagrams. The second (28) also assumes SU(3) flavor symmetry between strange and nonstrange pair production

### 5.2 Anomalously high $`\eta ^{}`$ in many final states

The large experimental branching ratio $`BR(B^+K^+\eta ^{})=6.5\pm 1.7\times 10^5`$ as compared with $`BR(B^+K^+\eta )<1.4\times 10^5`$ and $`BR(B^+K^o\pi ^+)=2.3\pm 1.1\times 10^5`$ still has no completely satisfactory explanation and has aroused considerable controversy Also the large inclusive $`B^+K^+\eta ^{}X`$ branching ratio is equally puzzling.

A parity selection rule can separate the two types of models proposed to explain this high $`\eta ^{}`$ appearance and the high $`\eta ^{}/\eta `$ ratio.

1. The OZI-forbidden hairpin diagram predicts a universal $`parity`$-independent enhancement for all final states arising from the flavor singlet component of the $`\eta ^{}`$ .

2. Parity-dependent interference between diagrams producing the $`\eta ^{}`$ via its strange and nonstrange components predicts a large $`\eta ^{}`$/$`\eta `$ ratio for even parity final states like $`K\eta `$ and $`K\eta ^{}`$ the reverse for odd parity states like $`K^{}`$(892) $`\eta `$ and $`K^{}`$ $`\eta ^{}`$. So far this selection rule agrees with experiment.


text:
# Telegraph Noise and Fractional Statistics in the Quantum Hall Effect

## Abstract

We study theoretically nonequilibrium noise in the fractional quantum Hall regime for an Aharonov Bohm ring which has a third contact in the middle of the ring. We show that as a consequence of their fractional statistics the tunneling of a Laughlin quasiparticle between the inner and outer edge of the ring changes the effective Aharonov Bohm flux experienced by quasiparticles going around the ring, leading to a change in the conductance across the ring. A small current in the middle contact therefore gives rise to fluctuations in the current flowing across the ring which resemble random telegraph noise. We analyze this noise using the chiral Luttinger liquid model. At low frequencies the telegraph noise varies inversely with the quasiparticle tunneling current, and can be much larger than the shot noise. We propose that combining the Aharonov Bohm effect with a noise measurement provides a direct method for observing fractional statistics.

The fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) offers a unique laboratory for the experimental study of charge fractionalization. At filling $`\nu =1/m`$ the FQHE state supports quasiparticles with charge $`e/m`$laughlin . Shortly after Laughlin’s pioneering explanation of the FQHE, Halperinhalperin  pointed out that in addition to having fractional charge, Laughlin quasiparticles (LQP’s) obey fractional statistics. As elaborated further by Arovas, Schrieffer and Wilczekarovas , when two LQPs are adiabatically interchanged in the plane, the many particle wavefunction picks up a quantum mechanical phase $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m=\pi /m`$. Equivalently, when one LQP is transported around another a statistical phase $`2\mathrm{\Theta }_m`$ is acquired. LQPs are thus neither bosons nor fermions, but rather more general particles, dubbed anyons by Wilczekwilczek .

Shot noise experiments using a quantum point contact (QPC) setup suggested earlierkfnoise  allowed de-Piccioto et al.depiccioto  and Saminadayar et al.saminadayar  to perform a direct measurement of the fractional charge of the LQP. To date there has been no similarly direct observation of the fractional statistics of the LQP. Such an observation requires a quantum interference measurement to extract the statistical phase. Proposed experiments have focused on the equilibrium Aharonov Bohm (AB) effectkivelson ; jain ; chamon1 . More recently, Safi et al.safi  have suggested a three terminal Hanbury-Brown Twiss type noise experiment. In this letter we propose a method for directly probing the statistical phase by combining the AB effect with a noise measurement. For our geometry fractional statistics leads to a qualitatively new kind of noise, which resembles random telegraph noise.

This work was inspired by a recent experiment in which Ji et al.ji  constructed an electronic Mach-Zehnder interferometer by fabricating a ring shaped quantum Hall sample with QPCs along with a lead inside the ring. We propose a variant on their geometry shown in Fig. 1. QPCs 1 and 2 allow LQPs on the outer edge to circle the ring, leading to an AB effect in the current flowing between leads 1 and 2. QPC3 allows LQPs to tunnel between the inner and outer edges of the ring. Lead 3 is on the inner edge. In Fig. 1 we have extended lead 3 under a “bridge”. This is useful for modeling the lead as a pair of edges which extend to infinity. We emphasize, however, that this arrangement is topologically equivalent to having the contact physically inside the ring.

The consequences of fractional charge and statistics for equilibrium AB measurements without the middle lead are well known kivelson ; jain ; chamon1 ; simmons ; lee ; goldman . A naive argument says that the fractional charge $`e^{}=e/m`$ of the LQP should lead to AB oscillations with period $`h/e^{}>h/e`$. This violates gauge invariance though, since a single flux quantum in the ring can be eliminated with a gauge transformation. The resolution of this apparent paradox is that when the flux through the ring is decreased by $`h/e`$ the ring is in an excited state with a quasihole of charge $`e^{}`$ on the inner edge. In equilibrium, a LQP from outside of the ring will eventually fill the hole. Due to its fractional statistics, the added LQP gives an extra phase $`2\mathrm{\Theta }_m`$ to a LQP circling the ring which exactly cancels the AB phase, restoring the $`h/e`$ periodicity. Thus, the absence of multiple AB periods, coupled with the fractional charge of the LQPs constitutes a confirmation of the fractional statistics. But since that absence is guaranteed by gauge invariance, this would hardly make for a satisfying “observation”. Chamon et al.chamon1  have argued $`h/e^{}`$ oscillations signifying fractional charge and statistics would be present if the charge on the inner edge could be appropriately adjusted with an electrostatic gate.

Gefen and Thoulessgefenthouless  have argued that for a ring with a lead in the middle an AB period $`h/e^{}`$ could in principle be observed provided the experiment was done on a sufficiently fast time scale. This is a consequence of the nontrivial topology of the structure, which has a non contractable loop enclosing a contact. This leads to an $`m`$-fold degeneracy in the FQHE ground statethouless  that is intimately related to fractional statisticswenniu . Tunneling between the degenerate states occurs when LQPs tunnel through the FQHE fluid between the inner and outer edges of the ring. $`h/e^{}`$ AB oscillations can occur on a time scale faster than the inverse tunneling rate.

Tunneling of LPQ’s across QPC3 will lead to temporal fluctuations in the AB current passing between leads 1 and 2. This can be seen most transparently by the following topological argument, illustrated in Fig. 1a. Because of their fractional statistics, every LQP is endowed with a “statistical flux tube” seen by other quasiparticlesarovas . This represents the statistical phase $`2\mathrm{\Theta }_m`$ acquired when LQPs circle each other as an effective AB phase, and is drawn as a vertical line passing through the LPQ in lead 2 in Fig. 1a. When that LPQ propagates along the top edge to QPC3 and tunnels to the inner edge of the ring the effective flux experienced by LPQs circling the outside of the ring changes by $`h/e`$. When the LPQ passes under the “bridge” the statistical flux cannot pass through the FQHE state above unless another LPQ tunnels back to the outer edge. The flux gets “hung up” in the ring and persists even after the LPQ has disappeared into lead 3. With each passing LPQ the effective AB phase acquired by a LQP encircling the perimeter changes by $`2\mathrm{\Theta }_m`$, causing the AB current flowing between leads 1 and 2 to switch. This leads to a pattern of fluctuations in the current $`I_2`$ shown in Fig. 1b. $`I_2`$ switches cyclically between $`m`$ values, which are characteristics of the $`m`$ degenerate ground states. These fluctuations resemble random “$`m`$-state” telegraph noise.

Telegraph noise is a direct consequence of a fractional statistical phase. For sufficiently weak tunneling it could in principle be observed in real time. However, we now show that it also has a distinct signature in the more experimentally accessible low frequency noise. We begin with a simple statistical argument for the noise, which will be justified below with a detailed calculation based on the chiral Luttinger liquid (CLL) model. Suppose that over a time interval $`T_0`$ there are $`N`$ tunneling events at random times $`t_k`$. Tunneling events in the forward and backward directions, denoted by $`s_k=\pm 1`$, occur with probability $`p^\pm `$. If the voltage difference between the opposite edges at QPC3 is $`V_3`$caveat  and the temperature is $`T`$, then detailed balance dictates that $`p^+=p^{}\mathrm{exp}(e^{}V_3/T)`$. The average tunneling current is then $`I_3=(e^{}N/T_0)\mathrm{tanh}e^{}V_3/2T`$. Here and in the following we set $`\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$.

We assume that the current measured in lead 2 switches when the LQPs tunnel, and has the simple form

$$I_2(t)=\overline{I}+\mathrm{\Delta }I\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi _0+2\mathrm{\Theta }_m\underset{k}{}s_k\theta (tt_k)\right).$$
(1)
Here $`\varphi _0`$ is an unspecified phase, and $`\theta `$ is a step function. Clearly the average value of the current will simply be $`I_2=\overline{I}`$. To compute the noise we consider the correlation function, $`S(t)=I_2(t_0)I_2(t_0+t)\overline{I}^2`$. Averaging over the $`N`$ times $`t_k`$ and signs $`s_k`$, this may be written as

$$S(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I^2}{2}\mathrm{Re}\left[_0^{T_0}\frac{dt_k}{T_0}\underset{s_k=\pm }{}p^{s_k}z_m^{s_k(\theta (t_0t_k)\theta (t_0+tt_k))}\right]^N,$$
(2)
where $`z_m=\mathrm{exp}2i\mathrm{\Theta }_m=\mathrm{exp}2\pi i/m`$ and $`m1`$. In the limit $`N,T_0\mathrm{}`$ with $`I_3`$ fixed this becomes

$$S(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I^2}{2}\mathrm{Re}\left[e^{\frac{I_3|t|}{e^{}}\left(\mathrm{coth}\frac{e^{}V_3}{2T}(1\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Theta }_m)i\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Theta }_m\right)}\right].$$
(3)
For low frequency the noise will befactorof2

$$S(\omega 0)=\frac{e^{}\mathrm{\Delta }I^2}{2I_3}\frac{\mathrm{coth}(e^{}V_3/2T)}{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_m/\mathrm{sinh}^2(e^{}V_3/2T)}.$$
(4)
For $`e^{}V_3T`$, all tunneling events will be in the forward direction, and (4) reduces to $`S=e^{}\mathrm{\Delta }I^2/(2I_3)`$. For $`V_3=0`$ there will be switching due to thermal fluctuations in QPC3, and $`S=e_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }I^2/(4G_3T\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_m)`$, where $`G_3=I_3/V_3`$ is the conductance of QPC3. The frequency dependence of the telegraph noise can easily be determined from (3). For frequency $`\omega <\omega _c=(I_3/e^{})\mathrm{coth}(e^{}V_3/2T)`$ it will be frequency independent and given by (4). For $`\omega >\omega _c`$, $`S(\omega )=\mathrm{\Delta }I^2/(2\omega ^2)`$.

In addition to this telegraph noise, there will also be shot noise in the current $`I_2(t)`$. The tunneling of LQPs through QPC3 will generate noise of order $`e^{}I_3`$, while backscattering at QPC1 and QPC2 will generate noise of order $`e\overline{I}`$. Unlike shot noise, however, the telegraph noise varies inversely with the tunneling current $`I_3`$. Thus when $`I_3\overline{I},\mathrm{\Delta }I`$, telegraph noise will be the dominant contribution to the low frequency noise.

Eq. 4, which we established using a heuristic argument, is our central result. We now derive (4) within a CLL modelwen . In addition to providing a concrete theoretical foundation for our assertions, this model calculation gives predictions for the voltage ($`V`$) and temperature ($`T`$) dependence of $`\overline{I}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ and $`I_3`$. The CLL model is a low energy theory, valid in the limit that there is a single edge mode. While real edges may not be in this single channel limit, we suspect that (4) may be of more general validity, since it reflects the topological properties of the bulk LPQ. The detailed $`V`$ and $`T`$ dependence however will be sensitive to the single channel assumption.

We focus on the limit in which the LQP backscattering at QPC3 is weak. This is essential for observing telegraph noise, since we require those tunneling events to be uncorrellated. We also consider the LQP backscattering at QPC1 and QPC2 to be weak. While this limit is not necessary for experiment, it allows us to perform a perturbative analysis of the backscattering at QPC1 and QPC2. We compute the currents $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ and the corresponding noise as functions of voltages $`V_1`$ and $`V_3`$, with $`V_2=0`$. $`I_2`$ will be $`(e^2/mh)V_1`$ with a small correction due to LPQ backscattering at QPC1 and QPC2. The two backscattering processes will interfere. Without LQP tunneling at QPC3 this leads to AB oscillations with period $`h/e^{}`$ in the reflected current. We will show that LPQ tunneling at QPC3 eliminates the equilibrium AB oscillations and leads to the telegraph noise in Eq. 4.

In the CLL modelwen , the low energy edge excitations of the structure in Fig. 1 are described by the Hamiltonian $`=_1^0+_2^0+_3^0+U_1+U_2+U_3`$. $`_i^0`$ describes the edge incident from lead $`i`$,

$$_i^0=\frac{mv_F}{4\pi }𝑑x_i\left[_x\varphi (x_i)\right]^2.$$
(5)
$`v_F`$ is the edge state velocity, and the coordinates $`x_i`$ are defined so that at QPC1 $`x_i=0`$, at QPC2 $`x_i=L`$ and at QPC3 $`x_i=X`$. The fields $`\varphi _i(x_i)`$ satisfy $`[\varphi _i(x_i),\varphi _j(x_j^{})]=i(\pi /m)\nu _i\delta _{ij}\mathrm{sign}(x_ix_j^{})`$, where $`\nu _1=\nu _2=\nu _3=1`$ specifies the propagation direction.

Tunneling of LQPs at QPC$`\alpha `$ is described by

$$U_\alpha =v_\alpha O_\alpha ^+e^{ie^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_\alpha t}+v_\alpha ^{}O_\alpha ^{}e^{ie^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_\alpha t},$$
(6)
where $`v_\alpha `$ are the complex LQP backscattering matrix elements at QPC$`\alpha `$. The relative phase of $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ will depend on the magnetic flux in the ring, advancing by $`2\pi /3`$ with every added flux quantum. The exponential factors reflect the voltage difference between the edge states incident on the junction, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_1=\stackrel{~}{V}_2=V_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_3=V_3`$. The LQP backscattering operator for QPC1 is

$$O_1^\pm =\frac{\kappa _1^\pm }{(2\pi \eta )^{1/m}}e^{\pm i(\varphi _1(0)\varphi _2(0))},$$
(7)
with similar expressions for $`O_2^\pm `$ and $`O_3^\pm `$. $`\eta `$ is an ultraviolet cutoff, and $`\kappa _\alpha ^\pm `$ are Klein factors, which are necessary to ensure the correct commutation relations between the operators $`O_\alpha ^\pm `$guyon . $`\kappa _\alpha ^\pm `$ will play a crucial role in what follows. Their properties may be deduced from the following physical argument. When a LQP backscatters at QPC1, a vortex moves the small distance across the contact. While this will affect the overall phase of the wave function at another part of the sample, it can have no immediate effect on the phase difference across another point contact. Different tunneling operators must therefore commute with one another. Using the commutation relations obeyed by $`\varphi _i(x_i)`$ it is then straightforward to establish that the Klein factors must satisfy $`\kappa _\alpha ^r\kappa _\beta ^s=\kappa _\beta ^s\kappa _\alpha ^re^{irs\xi _{\alpha \beta }\pi /m}`$ with $`r,s=\pm `$. Here $`\xi _{\alpha \beta }=\xi _{\beta \alpha }`$ with $`\xi _{12}=0`$ and $`\xi _{13}=\xi _{23}=1`$.

We begin by evaluating the average current $`I_2=G_0V_1I^b`$. Here $`G_0=e^2/mh`$ and $`I^b`$ is the current backscattered by QPC1 and QPC2, which may be written as

$$I_b=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}T_C\left[\widehat{I}_\alpha (t_0)e^{i_C𝑑\tau _{\beta =1}^3U_\beta (\tau )}\right]_0.$$
(8)
$`\mathrm{}_0`$ denotes a thermal expectation value for $`v_\alpha =0`$. $`\widehat{I}_\alpha (t)=ie^{}(v_\alpha O_\alpha ^+e^{ie^{}\stackrel{~}{V}t}c.c)`$ are current operators. $`C`$ is the Keldysh contour, which runs from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and back. $`T_C`$ specifies time ordering on the Keldysh contour.

Consider first the case $`v_3=0`$chamon1 . Expanding (8) to second order in $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ and evaluating the time integrals gives $`I_2=\overline{I}+\mathrm{\Delta }I\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0`$, where

$$\overline{I}=G_0V_1e^{}(|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2)T^{2/m1}F_1(e^{}V_1/2\pi T),$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }I=2e^{}|v_1||v_2|T^{2/m1}F_2(e^{}V_1/2\pi T,2\pi TL/v_F),$$
(10)
and $`\varphi _0`$ is the phase of $`v_1^{}v_2`$. The first term describes backscattering from a single QPC, with $`F_1(\stackrel{~}{v})=|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/m+i\stackrel{~}{v})|^2\mathrm{sinh}\pi \stackrel{~}{v}/(\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(2/m))`$. The second term describes the interference between the two QPCs with

$$F_2(\stackrel{~}{v},\stackrel{~}{L})=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/mi\stackrel{~}{v})(e^{2\pi \stackrel{~}{v}}1)}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(1/m)(2\mathrm{sinh}\stackrel{~}{L})^{1/m}}Q_{1/m1}^{i\stackrel{~}{v}}(\mathrm{coth}\stackrel{~}{L}).$$
(11)
Here $`Q_q^p(x)`$ is the associated Legendre function of the second kind. $`F_2`$ describes how the interference $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ is suppressed when $`V`$ or $`T`$ is larger than $`v_F/L`$. For fixed $`Tv_F/L`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ shows oscillations as a function of $`V`$ with a period $`2\pi v_F/e^{}L`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ depends on magnetic field, and predicts AB oscillations with period $`h/e^{}`$. To remedy that error we must include $`v_3`$. Though $`v_3`$ is small, it will be necessary to expand (8) to all orders in $`v_3`$.

The perturbative expansion of (8) in powers of $`v_3`$ is similar to the partition function for a collection of charged “particles”, which correspond to tunneling events at different timeschamon . Forward and backward tunneling events have opposite charge. At finite temperature, positive and negative charges will be confined in pairs, separated by a time of order $`1/T`$. Physically, these pairs correspond to real tunneling events when they occur on opposite Keldysh paths and virtual tunneling events when they are on the same path. When $`v_3T^{1/m1}1`$, those pairs will be dilute and never overlap. In that limit it is straightforward to expand $`I_b`$ to all orders in $`v_3`$.

The $`v_3^{2N}`$ term in the expansion involves a set of $`N`$ pairs of charges. The positive (negative) charges are at $`t_k^\pm =t_k\pm \delta t_k/2`$, for $`k=1\mathrm{}N`$. There are two opposite charges coming from $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ at $`t_0^\pm =t_0\pm \delta t_0/2`$. To keep track of the forward and backward paths in this expansion, we introduce an index $`\sigma _k^\pm =\pm 1`$ such that $`\tau _k^\pm (t_k^\pm ;\sigma _k^\pm )`$kfnoise2 . The 2Nth term in the expansion will involve an expectation value of the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=T_C[O_\alpha ^+(\tau _0^+)O_\beta ^{}(\tau _0^{})\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}O_3^+(\tau _k^+)O_3^{}(\tau _k^{})].$$
(12)
This can be evaluated as the product of two terms. The first comes from the expectation value of the Bose fields $`\varphi _i`$. When the pairs are well separated, so that $`T|t_kt_l|1`$ we find that this can be written as a product over all pairs, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1=G_{\alpha \beta }^{\sigma _0^+\sigma _0^{}}(\delta t_0)_{k=1}^NG_{33}^{\sigma _k^+\sigma _k^{}}(\delta t_k)`$, where the $`G`$’s are correlation functions within a single pair. The second term comes from the time ordered product of the Klein factors, and is given by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2=_{k=1}^Nz_m^{\theta (t_0t_k)\zeta _{\alpha \beta }(\sigma _k^+\sigma _k^{})/2}`$, where $`\zeta _{\alpha \beta }=(\xi _{\alpha 3}\xi _{\beta 3})/2`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ factorizes into a product over $`k`$ of $`N`$ identical terms, the expansion in powers of $`v_3`$ can be resummed. Suppose we turn on $`v_3`$ at time $`t=0`$. We then find $`I_b=_{\alpha \beta }I_{\alpha \beta }`$ with

$$I_{\alpha \beta }=I_{\alpha \beta }^0e^{\frac{I_3t_0}{e^{}}\left(\mathrm{coth}\frac{e^{}V_3}{2T}(1\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi \zeta _{\alpha \beta }}{m})+i\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi \zeta _{\alpha \beta }}{m}\right)}.$$
(13)
$`I_{\alpha \beta }^0`$ is the $`v_\alpha v_\beta ^{}`$ term in the expansion of (8) for $`v_3=0`$, and $`I_3=e^{}v_3^2T^{2/m1}F_1(e^{}V_3/2\pi T)`$. This shows that the interference terms average away after a time $`\mathrm{tanh}(e^{}V_3/2T)/I_3`$ due to LQP tunneling, leaving only the diagonal terms, $`I_2=\overline{I}`$.

The noise in lead 2 is calculated by computing $`S(t)=\{I_2(t_0+t),I_2(t_0)\}/2\overline{I}^2`$. There will be several contributions. At order $`v_{1,2}^2`$ there will be the “single barrier” shot noisekfnoise  produced by QPCs 1 and 2 given by $`e^{}I_b`$ for $`e^{}V_3T`$. Shot noise produced by QPC3 will also be present at order $`v_1^2v_3^2`$. The telegraph noise comes in at order $`v_1^2v_2^2`$. The $`v_3`$ expansion is similar to that above, and leads precisely to (4), which is of order $`v_1^2v_2^2/v_3^2`$.

Optimal experimental conditions for observing telegraph noise include, (1) $`I_3G_0V_3`$, so that LQPs are dilute. (2) $`I_3\mathrm{\Delta }I`$, so that telegraph noise dominates shot noise. It is desirable to set QPC1 and QPC2 so that they backscatter moderately to maximize the interference signal. It is also necessary that (3) $`V_1,Tv_F/L`$, or else the interference will be washed out. Finally, the frequency of the measured noise should be low enough so that (4) $`\omega (I_3/e^{})\mathrm{coth}e^{}V_3/2T`$.

We now comment briefly on the generalization of the above results to hierarchical states. For $`\nu =1/m`$ the quasiparticle charge, statistics and Hall conductivity all have the same numerical value, and can be argued to reflect the same quantity. By contrast, for hierarchical states these quantities differ. For example $`\nu =2/7`$ has quasiparticles with charge $`e/7`$ and statistics $`\mathrm{\Theta }=3\pi /7`$. Both the heuristic arguments and the CLL theory can be generalized to account for hierarchical states, and Eq. (4) is recovered with the appropriate statistics angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

It is a pleasure to thank Moty Heiblum for helpful discussions.


text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0210030

Noncommutativity in a Time-Dependent Background

Louise Dolan1 dolan@physics.unc.edu

Department of Physics

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255

Chiara R. Nappi2 cnappi@princeton.edu

Department of Physics, Jadwin Hall

Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-0708

We compute a time-dependent noncommutativity parameter in a model with a time-dependent background, a space-time metric of the plane wave type supported by a Neveu-Schwarz two-form potential. This model is an open string version of the WZW model based on a non-semi-simple group previously studied by Nappi and Witten. The background we study is not conformally invariant. We consider a light-cone action for the sigma-model, compute the worldsheet propagator, and use it to exemplify a derivation of a time-dependent noncommutativity parameter.

1. Introduction

Noncommutativity in string theory is a very interesting topic, as it may have important implications for the structure of spacetime. Noncommutativity has emerged in the context of open strings, starting from the treatment of open string field theory in \[1\]. More recently, it has reappeared in the context of Matrix theory compactified on a torus \[2,,3\], and in the low energy description of strings in an electromagnetic background \[4,,5\].

It is interesting to find other models in which noncommutativity emerges. In most of the examples currently known, the noncommutativity parameter is constant. An obvious task is to look for time-dependent noncommutativity parameters, especially given the recent interest in strings on time-dependent backgrounds \[6--19\].

In this paper we study an open string model, whose target space has a plane wave metric supported by a time-dependent Neveu-Schwarz two-form potential. This background was studied by Nappi and Witten \[20\] for closed strings. Here we are looking at an open string version, and by computing the worldsheet propagator we can derive a time-dependent noncommutativity parameter. It is important that the background is of the Neveu-Schwarz type: plane waves with Ramond fields remain commutative as the Ramond background amounts to the addition of a mass term to the action in light-cone gauge. In our case, for large values of the time parameter, our model reduces to a neutral string in a constant background $`B`$ field \[4,,21\], hence it is a good candidate for space-time noncommutativity.

In sect.2, we consider a light-cone action of the model. The mode expansion of a closed string version of this model has been explicitly exhibited in \[22,,23\]. We compute the open mode expansion as a power series in a suitable parameter $`\mu `$. This expansion is adequate to show noncommutativity. In sect.3 the worldsheet propagator is derived on the disk. In sect.4 we evaluate the propagator on the boundaries and compute a time-dependent noncommutativity parameter. The techniques used in this calculation are similar to those of \[21\] which analyzes strings in a $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ background.

2. A Time-Dependent Background

The Polyakov action coupling a string to a general metric and background Neveu-Schwarz field is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma [\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }G_{MN}_\alpha X^M_\beta X^M+B_{MN}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^M_\beta X^N]& \end{array}$$

where we choose the string worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with Lorentz signature, and have rescaled the scalar worldsheet fields by $`(2\sqrt{\pi \alpha ^{}})^1`$ so that the $`X^M`$ are dimensionless. We consider the time-dependent background provided by the Nappi Witten WZW model based on a non-semi-simple group, and adopt the same notation as in\[20\], with $`X^M=(a_1,a_2,u,v)`$, and $`u`$ being identified with the time in the target space.

$$G_{MN}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \frac{a_2}{2}& 0\\ 0& 1& \frac{a_1}{2}& 0\\ \frac{a_2}{2}& \frac{a_1}{2}& b& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),B_{MN}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& u& 0& 0\\ u& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

The Lorentz signature target space metric $`G_{MN}`$ can be recognized as a plane wave metric \[20\]. The time-dependence is the $`u`$-dependence of $`B_{12}`$. Nappi and Witten checked that this model is exactly conformally invariant (i.e. to all orders in $`\alpha ^{}`$) by showing the one-loop $`\beta `$ function equations for the closed string backgrounds were satisfied, and then proving there were no higher order graphs.

In this paper, since we are interested in noncommutativity, we consider open string boundary conditions. Our case is not conformally invariant, and the background (2.1) satisfies the the Born-Infeld field equations**We thank A. Hashimoto and K. Thomas \[24\] for pointing out an error in Eq.(2.3) in a previous version of this paper. A conformally invariant version of (2.1) is studied in \[25\], but its noncommutativity parameter although non-constant, is not time-dependent. only for $`Nu`$

$$(D_MF_{NL})(1F^2)^{1LM}=0$$

where $`(1F^2)^{1LM}=(1+F)^{1LP}G_{PN}(1F)^{1NM}`$ and $`(1F)_{MN}G_{MN}2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{MN}.`$ In our case $`F_{MN}=B_{MN}`$. For (2.1) the nonvanishing components of the Ricci tensor and affine connections are $`R_{uu}=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{uj}^i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_j^i`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ui}^v=\frac{a^i}{4}.`$ It follows that $`(D_MF_{NL})(1F^2)^{1LM}=ϵ_{ij}(1F^2)^{1ju}=0,`$ for $`Nu`$. But

$$(D_MF_{uL})(1F^2)^{1LM}=\frac{u}{1+u^2}.$$

As in \[20\], the sigma model action is (2.1) :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S& =_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma [\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }(_\alpha a^i_\beta a^i+2_\alpha u_\beta v+b_\alpha u_\beta u+ϵ_{ij}_\alpha u_\beta a^ia^j)+ϵ^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{ij}u_\alpha a^i_\beta a^j].\hfill \end{array}$$

Although this action has a cubic interaction, if one treats it as a closed string theory, it is possible to find an exact mode expansion in the light-cone gauge \[22,,23\]. However, in considering it as an open string theory, one has different boundary conditions which make the solution more complicated. Consequently, we will solve the theory only via a power series expansion. For simplicity, we work to lowest order in $`\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is a dimensionless constant, as this is sufficient to see noncommutativity. It is quite possible that another version of this model, differing from (2.1) via boundary terms, would lead to an exact mode expansion.

Although our background is not conformally invariant, we will consider a light-cone version of the sigma model in order to study open string propagators in a B-field with linear time dependence. We let

$$u=\mu \tau ,$$

and write

$$S_{lc}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma [\eta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha a^i_\beta a^i2\mu _\tau vb\mu ^2\mu ϵ_{ij}_\tau a^ia^j+2ϵ_{ij}\mu \tau _\tau a^i_\sigma a^j].$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the string worldsheet with Minkowski metric $`\eta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ with non-vanishing components $`\eta ^{\tau \tau }=1,\eta ^{\sigma \sigma }=1`$. We will use $`ϵ^{\tau \sigma }=1`$, and for the open string $`\mathrm{}\tau \mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\sigma \pi `$.

With the fields $`a^i`$ written in terms of $`Xa^1+ia^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}a^1ia^2`$, (2.1) becomes

$$S_{lc}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma [\eta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X_\beta \stackrel{~}{X}2\mu _\tau vb\mu ^2\frac{i}{2}\mu (_\tau X\stackrel{~}{X}_\tau \stackrel{~}{X}X)+iϵ^{\alpha \beta }\mu \tau _\alpha X_\beta \stackrel{~}{X}].$$

The equations of motion and boundary conditions for the transverse fields are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }Xi\mu (_\sigma X_\tau X)& =0,\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\stackrel{~}{X}+i\mu (_\sigma \stackrel{~}{X}_\tau \stackrel{~}{X})=0,\hfill \\ \hfill [_\sigma X+i\mu \tau _\tau X]|_{\sigma =0,\pi }& =0,[_\sigma \stackrel{~}{X}i\mu \tau _\tau \stackrel{~}{X}]|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_\tau ^2+_\sigma ^2=4z\overline{z}_z_{\overline{z}}.`$

For large $`\tau `$ (so that $`\tau `$ can be considered constant), notice the similarity of the boundary condition in (2.1) with the boundary condition for an open string in a background $`B`$ field. Since in the latter case the noncommutativity parameter is proportional to the background, this suggests we should expect here a noncommutativity parameter which depends on time.

The solution of (2.1) is given by the normal mode expansion for the transverse coordinates $`X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, to first order in $`\mu `$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X(\sigma ,\tau )& =x_0+a_0[\tau +\mu (i\tau \sigma +\frac{i}{2}\tau ^2)]\hfill \\ & +\underset{n0}{}a_ne^{in\tau }[\frac{i}{n}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma +\mu ((\frac{1}{2n^2}i\frac{\tau }{n})\mathrm{sin}n\sigma +(\frac{i}{2n^2}+\frac{(\sigma \tau )}{2n})\mathrm{cos}n\sigma )]+O(\mu ^2)\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{X}(\sigma ,\tau )& =\stackrel{~}{x}_0+\stackrel{~}{a}_0[\tau \mu (i\tau \sigma +\frac{i}{2}\tau ^2)]\hfill \\ & +\underset{n0}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_ne^{in\tau }[\frac{i}{n}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma \mu ((\frac{1}{2n^2}i\frac{\tau }{n})\mathrm{sin}n\sigma +(\frac{i}{2n^2}+\frac{(\sigma \tau )}{2n})\mathrm{cos}n\sigma )]+O(\mu ^2)\hfill \end{array}$$

We have derived (2.1) as follows. In (2.1) substitute $`X(\sigma ,\tau )=e^{i\frac{\mu }{2}(\tau +\sigma )}\varphi (\sigma ,\tau )`$, and find

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\varphi =0,\hfill \\ & [(_\sigma +i\mu \tau _\tau )\varphi +i\frac{\mu }{2}(1+i\mu \tau )\varphi ]|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

One such solution is $`\varphi (\sigma ,\tau )=x_0e^{i\frac{\mu }{2}(\tau +\sigma )}`$, corresponding to the constant mode $`X(\sigma ,\tau )=x_0`$. A general solution to the wave equation $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\varphi =0`$ is

$$\varphi (\sigma ,\tau )=f(\tau +\sigma )+g(\tau \sigma ).$$

So the constant solution above corresponds to $`\varphi (\sigma ,\tau )=f(\tau +\sigma )=x_0e^{i\frac{\mu }{2}(\tau +\sigma )}`$, and $`g(\tau \sigma )=0`$. To generate the solutions which provide the coefficients of $`a_0`$ and $`a_n`$ in the normal mode expansion of $`X(\sigma ,\tau )`$, we will try to find solutions $`\varphi (\sigma ,\tau )=f(\tau +\sigma )+g(\tau \sigma )`$ satisfying the boundary conditions (2.1) via the power series expansions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f(\tau +\sigma )& =\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_p(\tau +\sigma )^p\hfill \\ \hfill g(\tau \sigma )& =\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D_p(\tau \sigma )^p\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_n(\tau +\sigma )& =e^{in(\tau +\sigma )}\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_p(n)(\tau +\sigma )^p\hfill \\ \hfill g_n(\tau \sigma )& =e^{in(\tau \sigma )}\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D_p(n)(\tau \sigma )^p\hfill \end{array}$$

respectively. A solution of (2.1) , in the form of (2.1) is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mu \varphi (\sigma ,\tau )& =\mu \tau +\mu ^2[i\frac{3}{2}\tau \sigma ]+\mu ^3[\frac{1}{2}\tau ^2\sigma +\frac{1}{6}\sigma ^3\frac{9}{8}\tau \sigma ^2\frac{3}{8}\tau ^3\frac{\pi }{4}(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2)]\hfill \\ & +i\mu ^4[\frac{1}{6}\tau ^4+\frac{21}{16}\tau ^3\sigma \tau ^2\sigma ^2+\frac{21}{16}\tau \sigma ^3\frac{1}{6}\sigma ^4+\pi (\frac{3}{8}\tau ^3+\frac{5}{8}\tau ^2\sigma \frac{9}{8}\tau \sigma ^2+\frac{5}{24}\sigma ^3)\hfill \\ & +\frac{\pi ^2}{24}(\tau ^2+\sigma ^2)]+O(\mu ^5).\hfill \end{array}$$

where the functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mu f(\tau )& =\frac{\mu }{2}\tau i\frac{3}{8}\mu ^2\tau ^2\mu ^3\frac{\pi }{8}\tau ^2\frac{5}{48}\mu ^3\tau ^3+i\frac{31}{3128}\mu ^4\tau ^4+i\mu ^4(\frac{\pi }{12}\tau ^3+\frac{\pi ^2}{48}\tau ^2)+O(\mu ^5)\hfill \\ \hfill \mu g(\tau )& =\frac{\mu }{2}\tau +i\frac{3}{8}\mu ^2\tau ^2\mu ^3\frac{\pi }{8}\tau ^2\frac{13}{48}\mu ^3\tau ^3i\frac{95}{3128}\mu ^4\tau ^4+i\mu ^4(\frac{7\pi }{24}\tau ^3+\frac{\pi ^2}{48}\tau ^2)+O(\mu ^5).\hfill \end{array}$$

These expressions are derived iteratively, by considering the solution of (2.1) to some order $`\mu ^p`$, and then integrating the boundary condition to find the solution to order $`\mu ^{p+1}`$. Since finding a general form inarbitrary $`p`$, and summing these series to a closed form is difficult, we work to first order in $`\mu `$. Note that although $`\tau ,\sigma `$ could be rescaled to essentially eliminate $`\mu `$, we keep it here to track the order in the power series solution of (2.1) . The series in (2.1) are reminiscent of hypergeometric functions. To derive the coefficient of $`a_n`$, we use the ansatz (2.1) to find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi _n(\sigma ,\tau )& =ie^{in\tau }[\mathrm{cos}n\sigma +\mu ((\tau +\frac{i}{2n})\mathrm{sin}n\sigma +(i\sigma +\frac{1}{2n})\mathrm{cos}n\sigma )+O(\mu ^2)]\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\varphi _n(\sigma ,\tau )=f_n(\tau +\sigma )+g_n(\tau \sigma )`$ with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_n(\tau )& =ie^{in\tau }[\frac{1}{2}+\mu (\frac{i}{2}\tau )+O(\mu ^2)]\hfill \\ \hfill g_n(\tau )& =ie^{in\tau }[\frac{1}{2}+\mu (\frac{i}{2}\tau +\frac{1}{2n})+O(\mu ^2)].\hfill \end{array}$$

We then construct the normal mode expansion that satisfies (2.1) from

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X(\sigma ,\tau )& =x_0+e^{i\frac{\mu }{2}(\tau +\sigma )}a_0\varphi (\sigma ,\tau )+e^{i\frac{\mu }{2}(\tau +\sigma )}\underset{n0}{}a_n\varphi _n(\sigma ,\tau ).\hfill \end{array}$$

From (2.1) and (2.1) , we see that $`X(\sigma ,\tau )`$ is given by an expansion where the coefficients of $`a_0`$, $`a_n`$ are themselves a double power series in $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$. Although our open string model satisfies an equation of motion that can be simply related to the one-dimensional wave equation (2.1) , the particular boundary condition that is required substantially complicates the form of the solution. (2.1) is reproduced by expanding (2.1) to first order in $`\mu `$, using (2.1) and (2.1) . Let $`\mu \mu `$ to find $`\stackrel{~}{X}(\sigma ,\tau )`$.

To quantize the theory in standard form, we reinsert the scale $`2\sqrt{\pi \alpha ^{}}`$ so that $`X,\stackrel{~}{X}`$ become fields with length dimension, and find the canonical momenta:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(\sigma ,\tau )& =\frac{\delta S}{\delta _\tau X}=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}(_\tau \stackrel{~}{X}+i\frac{\mu }{2}\stackrel{~}{X}i\mu \tau _\sigma \stackrel{~}{X})\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{P}(\sigma ,\tau )& =\frac{\delta S}{\delta _\tau \stackrel{~}{X}}=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}(_\tau Xi\frac{\mu }{2}X+i\mu \tau _\sigma X).\hfill \end{array}$$

To first order in $`\mu `$, we can invert the normal mode expansions in (2.1) as:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (1+\frac{\mu }{2n})a_n& =\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma \mathrm{cos}n\sigma [in[X(\sigma ,0)+X(\sigma ,0)]+[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi \alpha ^{}[\stackrel{~}{P}(\sigma ,0)+\stackrel{~}{P}(\sigma ,0)]]]\hfill \\ \hfill (1\frac{\mu }{2n})\stackrel{~}{a}_n& =\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma \mathrm{cos}n\sigma [in[\stackrel{~}{X}(\sigma ,0)+\stackrel{~}{X}(\sigma ,0)]+[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi \alpha ^{}[P(\sigma ,0)+P(\sigma ,0)]]]\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`n0`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x_0& =\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma [X(\sigma ,0)+X(\sigma ,0)];\stackrel{~}{x}_0=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma [\stackrel{~}{X}(\sigma ,0)+\stackrel{~}{X}(\sigma ,0)]\hfill \\ \hfill \sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}a_0i\frac{\mu }{2}x_0& =2\alpha ^{}_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma [\stackrel{~}{P}(\sigma ,0)+\stackrel{~}{P}(\sigma ,0)];\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\stackrel{~}{a}_0+i\frac{\mu }{2}\stackrel{~}{x}_0=2\alpha ^{}_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma [P(\sigma ,0)+P(\sigma ,0)].\hfill \end{array}$$

The commutation relations which follow from canonical quantization $`[X(\sigma ,\tau ),P(\sigma ^{},\tau )]=i\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),[\stackrel{~}{X}(\sigma ,\tau ),\stackrel{~}{P}(\sigma ^{},\tau )]=i\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [a_m,\stackrel{~}{a}_n]& =2(m\mu )\delta _{m,n};[a_m,a_n]=[\stackrel{~}{a}_m,\stackrel{~}{a}_n]=0;\hfill \\ \hfill [x_0,\stackrel{~}{x}_0]& =0;[a_n,x_0]=[a_n,\stackrel{~}{x}_0]=[\stackrel{~}{a}_n,x_0]=[\stackrel{~}{a}_n,\stackrel{~}{x}_0]=0\mathrm{for}n0;\hfill \\ \hfill [x_0,\stackrel{~}{a}_0]& =i2\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}=[\stackrel{~}{x}_0,a_0];[x_0,a_0]=[\stackrel{~}{x}_0,\stackrel{~}{a}_0]=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

3. The Propagator on the Disk

Having found a mode expansion, we compute the propagator, along the lines of \[21\]. In $`z,\overline{z}`$ coordinates (where $`z`$ is in the upper half plane, since $`0\sigma \pi `$), the equation of motion and boundary conditions for the propagator are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 4z\overline{z}_z_{\overline{z}}X2\mu \overline{z}_{\overline{z}}X=0,4z\overline{z}_z_{\overline{z}}\stackrel{~}{X}+2\mu \overline{z}_{\overline{z}}\stackrel{~}{X}=0\hfill \\ & (_z_{\overline{z}})X+\frac{\mu }{2}\mathrm{ln}z\overline{z}(_z+_{\overline{z}})X|_{z=\overline{z}}=0,(_z_{\overline{z}})\stackrel{~}{X}\frac{\mu }{2}\mathrm{ln}z\overline{z}(_z+_{\overline{z}})\stackrel{~}{X}|_{z=\overline{z}}=0\hfill \\ & 4_z_{\overline{z}}<X(z,\overline{z})\stackrel{~}{X}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>2\mu z^1_{\overline{z}}<X(z,\overline{z})\stackrel{~}{X}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>=2\pi \alpha ^{}\delta ^2(z\zeta )\hfill \\ & [(_z_{\overline{z}})<X(z,\overline{z})\stackrel{~}{X}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>+\frac{\mu }{2}\mathrm{ln}z\overline{z}(_z+_{\overline{z}})<X(z,\overline{z})\stackrel{~}{X}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>]|_{z=\overline{z}}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

We will compute the propagator on the disk, and will use $`z=e^{i(\tau +\sigma )}`$, $`\overline{z}=e^{i(\tau \sigma )}`$, $`\zeta =e^{i(\tau ^{}+\sigma ^{})}`$ and $`\overline{\zeta }=e^{i(\tau ^{}\sigma ^{})}`$. In the above boundary conditions, the notation $`|_{z=\overline{z}}`$ denotes $`z=|z|,\overline{z}=|z|`$ at the $`\sigma =0`$ endpoint and $`z=|z|e^{i\pi },\overline{z}=|z|e^{i\pi }`$ at $`\sigma =\pi `$. Assuming the commutation relations in (2.1) , then for $`|z|>|\zeta |`$, the propagator to order $`\mu `$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill <X(z,\overline{z})\stackrel{~}{X}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>& =\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}[a_0,\stackrel{~}{x}_0](\tau +\mu (i\tau \sigma +\frac{i}{2}\tau ^2))\hfill \\ & +2\alpha ^{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[a_n,\stackrel{~}{a}_m]e^{in\tau }e^{im\tau ^{})}[\frac{1}{nm}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma \mathrm{cos}m\sigma ^{}\hfill \\ & +i\frac{\mu }{m}\mathrm{cos}m\sigma ^{}((\frac{1}{2n^2}\frac{i\tau }{n})\mathrm{sin}n\sigma +(\frac{i}{2n^2}+\frac{(\sigma \tau )}{2n})\mathrm{cos}n\sigma )\hfill \\ & i\frac{\mu }{n}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma ((\frac{1}{2m^2}\frac{i\tau ^{}}{m})\mathrm{sin}m\sigma ^{}+(\frac{i}{2m^2}+\frac{(\sigma ^{}\tau ^{})}{2m})\mathrm{cos}m\sigma ^{})]\hfill \\ & +\mu (c_1\tau +c_0)\hfill \\ & =i4\alpha ^{}(\tau +\mu (i\tau \sigma +\frac{i}{2}\tau ^2))\hfill \\ & +4\alpha ^{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{in(\tau \tau ^{})}[\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma \mathrm{cos}n\sigma ^{}\hfill \\ & +i\mu \mathrm{cos}n\sigma ^{}((\frac{1}{2n^2}+\frac{i\tau }{n})\mathrm{sin}n\sigma (\frac{i}{2n^2}+\frac{(\sigma \tau )}{2n})\mathrm{cos}n\sigma )\hfill \\ & i\mu \mathrm{cos}n\sigma ((\frac{1}{2n^2}\frac{i\tau ^{}}{n})\mathrm{sin}n\sigma ^{}+(\frac{i}{2n^2}\frac{(\sigma ^{}\tau ^{})}{2n})\mathrm{cos}n\sigma ^{})\hfill \\ & \frac{\mu }{n^2}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma \mathrm{cos}n\sigma ^{}]\hfill \\ & +\mu (c_1\tau +c_0).\hfill \end{array}$$

We are free to add the function $`\mu (c_1\tau +c_0)`$ to the expression since it does not affect the equation of motion or the boundary condition for the propagator to first order in $`\mu `$. For $`|z|>|\zeta |`$, the expression for $`<\stackrel{~}{X}(z,\overline{z})X(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>`$ is given by letting $`\mu \mu `$ in the above propagator. In the $`\mu 0`$ limit, these propagators reduce to the open bosonic string propagator $`lim_{\mu 0}<X(z,\overline{z})\stackrel{~}{X}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>=2\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{ln}|z\zeta |+\mathrm{ln}|z\overline{\zeta }|)`$.

4. Time-Dependent Noncommutativity

To evaluate the noncommutativity parameter as defined from time ordering \[26,,4\], we consider the propagator on the worldsheet boundary at $`\sigma =0`$, then $`z=|z|=e^{i\tau }𝒯`$, and $`\zeta =e^{i(\tau ^{}+\sigma ^{})}=|\zeta |=e^{i\tau ^{}}=𝒯^{}`$, so $`𝒯,𝒯^{}>0`$. We will also consider the propagator at $`\sigma =\pi `$, then $`z=|z|e^{i\pi }=𝒯`$ and $`\zeta =|\zeta |e^{i\pi }=𝒯^{}`$ so here $`𝒯,𝒯^{}<0`$. Note that $`𝒯`$ is different from the worldsheet time $`\tau `$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill <X(z,\overline{z})\stackrel{~}{X}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>|_{\sigma =0}& =i4\alpha ^{}(\tau +\mu \frac{i}{2}\tau ^2)+\mu (c_1\tau +c_0)\hfill \\ & 4\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}(1e^{i(\tau \tau ^{})})2\alpha ^{}\mu i(\tau \tau ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1e^{i(\tau \tau ^{})})\hfill \\ & =4\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}(𝒯𝒯^{})\hfill \\ & +\mu (2\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}^2𝒯2\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{𝒯}{𝒯^{}})\mathrm{ln}(1\frac{𝒯^{}}{𝒯})+(c_1i\mathrm{ln}𝒯+c_0))\hfill \\ \hfill <\stackrel{~}{X}(z,\overline{z})X(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>|_{\sigma =0}& =i4\alpha ^{}(\tau \mu \frac{i}{2}\tau ^2)\mu (c_1\tau +c_0)\hfill \\ & 4\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}(1e^{i(\tau \tau ^{})})+2\alpha ^{}\mu i(\tau \tau ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1e^{i(\tau \tau ^{})})\hfill \end{array}$$

Then at $`\sigma =0`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [X(𝒯),\stackrel{~}{X}(𝒯)]& =T(X(𝒯)\stackrel{~}{X}(𝒯^{})X(𝒯)\stackrel{~}{X}(𝒯^+))\hfill \\ & \underset{ϵ0}{lim}(<X(𝒯)\stackrel{~}{X}(𝒯ϵ)><\stackrel{~}{X}(𝒯+ϵ)X(𝒯)>),(\mathrm{for}ϵ>0)\hfill \\ & =\mu (4i\alpha ^{})(\pi \mathrm{ln}𝒯i\mathrm{ln}^2𝒯)\hfill \\ & =\mu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\alpha ^{}(\pi \tau +\tau ^2)\mathrm{\Theta },\hfill \end{array}$$

where we chose $`c_1=2\pi \alpha ^{}`$, $`c_0=0`$, and use $`lim_{ϵ0}(\mathrm{ln}(1+ϵ)\mathrm{ln}ϵ)=0`$. The noncommutativity parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is time-dependent.

At $`\sigma =\pi `$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill <X(z,\overline{z})\stackrel{~}{X}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>|_{\sigma =\pi }& =i4\alpha ^{}(\tau +\mu (i\tau \pi +\frac{i}{2}\tau ^2))+\mu (c_1\tau +c_0)\hfill \\ & 4\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}(1e^{i(\tau ^{}\tau )})\hfill \\ & 2\alpha ^{}\mu i(\tau \tau ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1e^{i(\tau \tau ^{})})\hfill \\ \hfill <\stackrel{~}{X}(z,\overline{z})X(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })>|_{\sigma =\pi }& =i4\alpha ^{}(\tau \mu (i\tau \pi +\frac{i}{2}\tau ^2))+\mu (c_1\tau +c_0)\hfill \\ & 4\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}(1e^{i(\tau ^{}\tau )})\hfill \\ & +2\alpha ^{}\mu i(\tau \tau ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1e^{i(\tau \tau ^{})})\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [X(𝒯),\stackrel{~}{X}(𝒯)]& =T(X(𝒯)\stackrel{~}{X}(𝒯^{})X(𝒯)\stackrel{~}{X}(𝒯^+))\hfill \\ & \underset{ϵ0}{lim}(<X(𝒯)\stackrel{~}{X}(𝒯+ϵ)><\stackrel{~}{X}(𝒯ϵ)X(𝒯)>),(\mathrm{for}ϵ>0)\hfill \\ & =(i4\alpha ^{})\mu [\pi \mathrm{ln}𝒯i\mathrm{ln}^2𝒯]\hfill \\ & =\mu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}\alpha ^{}(\pi \tau +\tau ^2)\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus for small $`\mu `$, we have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Theta }& =\mu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}\alpha ^{}(\pi \tau +\tau ^2)\mathrm{at}\sigma =0,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Theta }& =\mu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}\alpha ^{}(\pi \tau +\tau ^2)\mathrm{at}\sigma =\pi .\hfill \end{array}$$

For small $`\tau `$, the theta parameter at the $`\sigma =0`$ end of the string is minus that at the $`\sigma =\pi `$ end. This is the case for the neutral string in a constant background $`B`$ field as well. In fact, although we have worked only to lowest order in $`\mu `$, we can see directly from the equations of motion and boundary conditions (in $`z`$, $`\overline{z}`$) variables in (3.1) , that in the limit of large $`z`$, i.e. large $`i\tau `$, a limit for which $`z^10`$, that the system reduces to the neutral string with the identification $`\mu \tau =B`$, a constant. (In the large $`\tau `$ limit, we note that $`\mathrm{ln}|z|`$ is approximately constant, in the sense that it is changing slowly, i.e. its derivative $`|z|^1`$ is small. Therefore, for large $`\tau `$ the noncommutativity parameter becomes constant, and our model is similar to the neutral string.) For large $`\tau `$, using the neutral string expressions, we find the noncommutativity parameter be time-dependent:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Theta }& =4\alpha ^{}\pi B=4\alpha ^{}\mu \pi \tau \mathrm{at}\sigma =0,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Theta }& =4\alpha ^{}\pi B=4\alpha ^{}\mu \pi \tau \mathrm{at}\sigma =\pi .\hfill \end{array}$$

We have shown that our model exhibits noncommutativity for both small and large $`\tau `$. The expectation is that the model will remain noncommutative with a time-dependent noncommutativity parameter for all times.

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank Edward Witten for discussions. LD is grateful to Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study for their hospitality during the summer 2002, and to the Aspen Center for Physics. She was supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy, Grant No. DE-FG 05-85ER40219/Task A. CRN is supported in part by NSF grant PHY-0140311. \[Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.\]

References

relax E. Witten, “Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B268 (1986) 253. relax A. Connes, M.R. Douglas, and A. Schwarz, “Noncommutative Geometry and Matrix Theory: Compactification on Tori,” JHEP 9802 (1998) 003, hep-th/9711162. relax M. Douglas and N. Nekrasov, “Noncommutative Field Theory”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 (2001) 977, hep-th/0106048. relax N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry”, JHEP 9909 (1999) 032, hep-th/9908142. relax A. Abouelsaood, C. Callan, C. Nappi, and S. Yost, “Open Strings in Background Gauge Fields” Nuclear Physics B280 (1987) 599. relax G. Horowitz and A. Stief, “Strings in Strong Gravitational Fields”, Physical Review D42 (1990) 1950. relax A. Sen, “Time Evolution in Open String Theory”, hep-th/0207105. relax S. Hemming, E. Keski-Vakkuri, P. Kraus, “Strings in the Extended BTZ Space-Time”, hep-th/0208003. relax L. Cornalba and M. Costa, “A New Cosmological Scenario in String Theory”, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 066001, hep-th/0203031. relax J. Figueroa-O’Farrill and Joan Simon, “Generalised Supersymmetric Fluxbranes”, JHEP 0112 (2001) 011, hep-th/0110170. relax A. Hashimoto, S. Sethi, “Holography and String Dynamics in Time Dependent Backgrounds”, hep-th/0208126. relax M. Alishahiha and S. Parvizi, “Branes in Time-Dependent Backgrounds and AdS/CFT Correspondence”, hep-th/0208187. relax H. Liu, G. Moore, and N. Seiberg, “Strings in Time Dependent Orbifolds”, hep-th/0204168, hep-th/0206182. relax G. Horowitz and J. Polchinksi, “Instability of Space-Like and Null Orbifold Singularities”, hep-th/0206228. relax E. Gimon, L. Pando Zayas and J. Sonnenschein, “Penrose Limits and RG Flows”, hep-th/0206033. relax H. Lewis and W. Riesenfeld, “An Exact Quantum Theory of the Time-Dependent Harmonic Oscillator and of a Charged Particle in a Time-Dependent Electromagnetic Field”, Jour. Math. Phys. 10 (1969) 1458. relax D. Khandekar and S. Lawande, “Exact Propagator for a Time-Dependent Harmonic Oscillator with and without a Singular Perturbation”, Jour. Math. Phys. 16 (1975) 384. relax C. Duval, Z. Horvath, and P. Horvathy, “Vanishing of the Conformal Anomaly for Strings in a Gravitational Wave”, Phys. Lett. B313 (1993) 10. relax C. Duval, Z. Horvath, and P. Horvathy, “Strings in Plane-fronted Gravitational Waves”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A8 (1993) 39. relax C. Nappi and E. Witten, “A WZW Model Based on a Non-semi-simple Group”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 3751; hep-th/9310112. relax L. Dolan and C. Nappi, “A Scaling Limit With Many Noncommutativity Parameters, Phys. Lett. B504 (2001) 329; hep-th/0009225. relax P. Forgacs, P. Horvathy, Z. Horvath, and L. Palla, “The Nappi-Witten string in the light-cone gauge”, hep-th/9503222. relax J.G. Russo and A.A. Tseytlin, “Constant Magnetic Field in Closed String Theory: An Exactly Solvable Model”, Nucl. Phys. B448 (1995) 293, hep-th/9411099. relax A. Hashimoto and K. Thomas, “Dualities, Twists, and Gauge Theories with Non-Constant Non-Commutativity”, hep-th/0410123. relax S. Stanciu and A. Tseytlin, “D-branes in Curved Spacetime: Nappi-Witten Background,” JHEP 9806, 010 (1998) hep-th/9805006. relax V. Schomerus, “D-Branes and Deformation Quantization,” JHEP 9906 (1999) 030; hep-th/9903205.


text:
# On Vector Goldstone Boson

## Abstract

The possibility that higher dimensional field theories are broken spontaneously, through the usual Nambu-Goldstone mechanism, to 4-dimension is explored. As a consequence, vector Goldstone bosons can arise in this breaking of Lorentzian symmetry from higher dimension to 4-dimension. This can provide a simple mechanism for reduction to 4-dimension in theories with extra dimensions.

In the 4-dimensional field theory, the spontaneous symmetry breaking is usually generated by the vacuum expectation values (VEV) of elementary scalar fields or fermion bilinears in the scalar combination so that the Lorentz invariance is preserved. Then the fields, which are partners of these fields under the broken symmetry generators will give rise to massless Goldstone bosons . In the case of internal symmetries, the Goldstone bosons are either scalars or pseduscalars while in the case of supersymmetries, the Goldstone bosons are fermions, the Goldstinos, which are supersymmetric partners of the auxiliary scalar fields, $`F`$term or $`D`$term, which develop VEV. But there are no vector Goldstone bosons in these cases because they are not partners of scalar fields under the internal symmetry operations or space-time symmetries in 4-dimensions. However, in the theories with extra dimensions, the vector fields of four dimension can be partners of scalar fields, under the Lorentz transformation in higher dimensional theory. This gives rise to the possibility of vector Goldstone bosons if we break the Lorentz symmetry of higher dimensional theory spontaneously to that of 4-dimension. This can also provide a simple mechanism for the reduction of higher dimensional theory to the physical 4-dimensional theory. In this paper we will explore this possibility and study the properties of these vector Goldstone bosons.

Consider a simple case of 5-dimensional field theory where a vector field, denoted by $`\varphi _A,`$ will have 5-components, $`A=0,1,`$ … $`4.`$ The first 4 components, $`\varphi _0,\mathrm{},\varphi _3`$ transform as a vector under 4-dimensional Lorentz transformations while the last component, $`\varphi _4`$ is a scalar. Suppose that in analogy with the 4-dimensional theory the self interaction of $`\varphi _A`$ is of the form,

$$V\left(\varphi _A\right)=\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\left(\varphi _A\varphi ^A\right)+\frac{\lambda }{4}\left(\varphi _A\varphi ^A\right)^2$$
(1)
where $`\mu ^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ are some parameters. The minimal of this potential is determined by the conditions,

$$\frac{V}{\varphi _A}=\left[\mu ^2+\lambda \left(\varphi _B\varphi ^B\right)\right]\varphi _A=0,A=0,1,\mathrm{}4$$
(2)
Thus if any one component of $`\varphi _A`$ is non-zero we will have,

$$\left[\mu ^2+\lambda \left(\varphi _B\varphi ^B\right)\right]=0$$
(3)
For the case, $`\mu ^2>0,`$ $`\varphi ^2\varphi _B\varphi ^B`$ is space-like and we can choose,

$$\varphi _4=v\sqrt{\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda }}\text{and }\varphi _\mu =0,\text{ }\mu =0,\mathrm{}3$$
(4)
This breaks the Lorentz symmetry of 5-dimensional theory, $`SO(4,1)`$ to that of 4-dimensional theory, $`SO(3,1).`$ To find the Goldstone bosons in this case, we write

$$\varphi _A^{}=v_A+\varphi _A,\text{where }v_A=\delta _{A4}v.$$
(5)
The quadratic terms in the potential is of the form,

$$V_2=\lambda \left(v\varphi ^{}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2\left[\lambda \left(vv\right)+\mu ^2\right]=\lambda |v|^2\varphi _4^2$$
(6)
Hence, $`\varphi _\mu ^{},`$ $`\mu =0,\mathrm{}3`$ are massless Goldstone bosons and in this case they transform as vector meson under the 4-dimensional Lorentz transformations. In other words, these are the vector Goldstone bosons. It is easy to see that for the case $`\mu ^2<0,`$ $`\varphi ^2`$ is time-like and the symmetry breaking is from $`SO(4,1)`$ down to $`SO\left(4\right).`$ This is not physically interesting, because the resulting theory will not have Lorentz symmetry in 4-dimension.

To study the broken symmetry generators, we write down the commutation relations between the Lorentz generators $`W^{AB}`$ and the vector fields $`\varphi _C`$,

$$[W_{AB},\varphi _C]=ig_{AC}\varphi _Big_{BC}\varphi _A,A,B,C=0,1,\mathrm{}4$$
(7)
where $`g_{AB}=(1,1,1,1,1)`$ is the metric for the 5-dimensional space. In particular, we have

$$[W_{\mu 4},\varphi _\nu ]=ig_{\mu \nu }\varphi _4,\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3$$
(8)
Then from the usual Goldstone theorem , $`\varphi _\mu ,`$ $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$ are massless and $`W_{\mu 4},\mu =0,1,2,3`$ are the broken generators. It is not hard to see that these vector Goldstone bosons $`\varphi _\mu `$ coupled to the densities of the Lorentz generators, $`M_{\alpha \mu 4}.`$ This is analogous to the case of spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry where Goldstone pions , $`\pi ^\alpha `$ ,couple to the axial vector currents $`A_\mu ^\alpha ,`$ which are the densities of the broken generators.

If the vector Goldstone boson can couple to the fermion, the interaction will be of the form

$$L_{V\psi }=f\stackrel{\_}{\psi }\gamma _A\psi \varphi ^A$$
(9)
where the 5-dimensional gamma matrices are of the form

$$\gamma ^A=(\gamma ^0,\gamma ^1,\gamma ^2,\gamma ^3,i\gamma ^5)$$
(10)
Then the spontaneous symmetry breaking, in Eq(4), will contribute to the fermion masses. Note that the $`\gamma _5`$ factor in the fermion bilinear can be removed by a chiral rotation on the fermion field. On interesting feature here is that the Goldstone mode will have coupling to some combination of vector and axial vector currents. Physical consequences of this type of coupling might be of interest phenomenologically. Similarly, a coupling of $`\varphi _A`$ to a scalar field of the form,

$$L_{V\varphi 1}=f^{}\varphi _A\varphi ^A\varphi \varphi $$

can give contribution to scalar mass and coupling of the Goldstone boson of the form,

$$\varphi _\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \varphi .$$

Another possible type of coupling is the derivative coupling,

$$L_{V\varphi 2}=g\varphi \varphi _A^A\varphi $$

which can give a coupling of the form,

$$\varphi \varphi _\mu ^\mu \varphi .$$

in 4-dimension.

The generalization to six or higher dimensional theory is straightforward. But the structure of the symmetry breaking will be more complicate. For example, to reduce 6-dimensional Lorentzian symmetry, $`SO(5,1)`$ to $`SO(3,1)`$ of the 4-dimensional Lorentz symmetry, we can use two 6-dimensional vector fields in analogy with the breaking of the internal symmetries. It is also possible to break the higher dimensional Lorentz symmetry by using higher rank tensor fields. It is conceivable that higher dimensional Lorentzian symmetry can be broken down to $`SO(3,1)\times G`$ where $`G`$ is some compact internal symmetry group.

We can also explore the cases where these vector fields in higher dimension also carry some internal quantum numbers. Again consider the simple case of 5-dimensional theory. Let $`\varphi _i^A,i=1,2,\mathrm{}n`$ be a set of vector fields which transform as fundamental representation under the internal symmetry group $`SO\left(n\right).`$The effective potential is then of the form

$$V=\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\left(\varphi _i^A\varphi _{Ai}\right)+\frac{\lambda _1}{4}\left(\varphi _i^A\varphi _{Ai}\right)^2+\frac{\lambda _2}{4}\left(\varphi _i^A\varphi _{Aj}\right)\left(\varphi _i^B\varphi _{Bj}\right)$$
(11)
which has the symmetry, $`SO(4,1)\times SO\left(n\right).`$ Using the results from the breaking of the internal symmetry, we can deduce that for the case $`\lambda _2<0`$ the symmetry breaking has the pattern,

$$SO(4,1)\times SO\left(n\right)SO(3,1)\times SO\left(n1\right)$$

Presumably, there will be 1 vector Goldstone boson for the broken generators, $`W_{\mu 4},`$ and $`n1`$ scalar Goldstone bosons for the broken internal symmetry generators. Thus in this simple case there is no connection between Lorentzian and internal symmetries. It is conceivable that in more complicate cases there might be some coupling between internal and Lorentzian symmetry. Recall that in the usual spontaneous symmetry breaking of the chiral $`SU\left(3\right)_L\times SU\left(3\right)_R`$ symmetry in the low energy hadronic interaction down to $`SU\left(3\right)_V,`$ the broken generators are the axial charges which is the linear combination of left and right generators. If we replace replace one of the the internal symmetry by Lorentzian symmetry, it is possible that some combination of Lorentz symmetry and internal symmetry generators are broken. In this case, the vector Goldstone bosons can carry the internal symmetry quantum numbers.

So far we have used elementary fields to breaking the symmetry spontaneously. It is clear that similar breaking can be generated by the composite fields. For example, in 5-dimension condensation of the fermion bilinears of the form,

$$\stackrel{\_}{\psi }\gamma _A\psi =v\delta _{A4}$$
(12)
can also breaking the Lorentzian symmetry and gives vector Goldstone boson.

This work is supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy (Grant No. DE-FG 02-91 ER 40682).


text:
# Closest Star Seen Orbiting the Supermassive Black Hole at the Centre of the Milky Wayaafootnote abased on observations at the Very Large Telescope (VLT) of the European Observatory in Chile

## Closest Star Seen Orbiting the Supermassive Black Hole at the Centre of the Milky Wayaaabased on observations at the Very Large Telescope (VLT) of the European Observatory in Chile

R. Sch del, T. Ott, R. Genzel, R. Hofmann, M. Lehnert
Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbachstr., 85748 Garching, Germany
also Dept. Dept.of Physics, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720, USA
A. Eckart, N. Mouawad
I. Physikalisches Institut, Universität zu Köln, Zülpicher Straße 77, 50937 Köln, Germany
T. Alexander
The Weizmann Institute of Science, Faculty of Physics, PO Box 26, Rehovot 76100, Israel
M.J. Reid
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics MS42, 60 Garden St, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
R. Lenzen, M. Hartung
Max-Planck-Institut f r Astronomie, K nigstuhl 17, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany
F. Lacombe, D. Rouan, E. Gendron
Observatoire de Paris - Section de Meudon, 5, Place Jules Janssen, 92195 Meudon Cédex, France
G. Rousset
Office National d’Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales, BP 72, 92322 Chatillon cedex, France
A.-M. Lagrange
Laboratoire d’Astrophysique, Observatoire de Grenoble, BP 53, F-38041 Grenoble Cédex 9, France
W. Brandner, N. Ageorges, C. Lidman, A.F.M. Moorwood, J. Spyromilio, N. Hubin
European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.2, D-85748 Garching, Germany
K.M. Menten
Max-Planck-Institut f r Radioastronomie, Auf dem H gel 69, D-53121 Bonn, Germany

Measurements of stellar velocities1-6 and variable X-ray emission7 near the centre of the Milky Way have provided the strongest evidence so far that the dark mass concentrations seen in many galactic nuclei 8 are likely supermassive black holes, but have not yet excluded several alternative configurations. Here we report ten years of high resolution astrometric imaging that allow us to trace two thirds of the orbit of the star currently closest to the compact radio source and massive black hole candidate SgrA\*. In particular, we have observed both peri- and apocentre passages. Our observations show that the star is on a bound, highly elliptical Keplerian orbit around SgrA\*, with an orbital period of 15.2 years and a peri-centre distance of only 17 light hours. The orbital elements require an enclosed point mass of $`3.7\pm 1.5\times 10^6`$ solar masses. The data exclude with high confidence that the central dark mass consists of a cluster of astrophysical objects or massive, degenerate fermions, and strongly constrain the central density structure.

For the past ten years we have been carrying out high resolution near-IR imaging and spectroscopy of the central few light years of our Milky Way for a detailed study of the stellar dynamics in the vicinity of the compact radio source SgrA\*1-2,4,6, the most likely counterpart of the putative black hole9,10. From a statistical analysis of the stellar proper motions (velocities on the plane of the sky derived from multi-epoch imaging data) and line of sight velocities (Doppler motions derived from spectral lines) we deduced the presence of a mass of $``$2.6 to 3.3 million solar masses (M) concentrated within 10 light days of SgrA\*1,2,4. To further improve the sensitivity (by $``$20) and the angular resolution/astrometric precision of our study (by $``$3), we have begun this year to use the new CONICA/NAOS adaptive optics assisted imager/spectrometer on the 8m UT4 (Yepun) of the ESO VLT11-13. Figure 1 shows a diffraction limited (60milli-arcsec (mas) FWHM) Ks-band (2.1 $`\mu m`$) image of the central 40” of the Milky Way taken with CONICA/NAOS in May 2002. A key factor in constraining the mass distribution is the alignment of the infrared images, where the stars are observed, with the astrometrically accurate radio images, where SgrA\* is observed. For this purpose we aligned our CONICA/NAOS images with the astrometric grid using 7 SiO maser sources in the field of view (circles in Fig.1) whose positions are known through measurements with the VLA and the VLBA to accuracies of a few milli arcseconds (Reid M.J. et al., 2002, in preparation). Having thus derived astrometric infrared positions for 2002, we were then able to compute exact stellar positions relative to SgrA\* (in right ascension and declination) for all epochs (including data taken with the SHARP camera at the ESO NTT) between 1992 and 2002. The resulting position of the radio source SgrA\* on the infrared image has a 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainty of $`\pm `$ 10mas, or about a factor 3 better than previously14. The new position of SgrA\* is $``$50 mas E of the position given in reference 14. In spring 2002 the orbiting star S2 had approached SgrA\* to within 10-20mas, thus giving the unique opportunity of determining the mass a factor 10-20 times closer in than in previous work.

The first measurements of orbital accelerations for S2 and S1, the two stars closest to SgrA\*, were consistent with orbits bound to a $``$3 million solar mass central object, but still allowed a wide range of possible orbital parameters5,6. Specifically, possible orbital periods for S2 ranged from 15 to 500 years5. With our new data, we are now able to determine a unique orbit for S2 from astrometric proper motions and provide strong constraints on the mass distribution on distances below one light day. Figure 2 shows the measured 1992-2002 positions of S2 relative to SgrA\*. In spring 2002 we happened to catch the peri-centre passage of the star, at which point the measured velocity exceeded 5000 km/s, about 8 times greater than 6 years ago1,2 when S2 was at apo-centre. The S2 data points trace two thirds of a closed orbit and are robustly fit by a bound Keplerian orbit around a central point mass located at the position of SgrA\*. The parameters of the best fitting orbit, along with their fit and astrometric errors are given in Table 1. They were derived using the publicly available Binary Star Combined Solution Package15. For the nominal SgrA\* position, the uncertainties of the fit parameters are generally $`10\%`$. The additional uncertainty introduced by the astrometric errors is of similar size. The semi-major axis (a=5.5 light days) and orbital period (15.2 yrs) imply a mass of 3.7($`\pm `$1.5)$`\times `$106 M within the peri-centre radius of 124 AU, or 17 light hours. The peri-centre passage of S2 in April/May 2002 thus probes the mass concentration at $``$2100 times the Schwarzschild radius of a 3 million solar mass black hole. The peri-centre distance radius of S2 is 70 times greater than the distance from the black hole where the star would be disrupted by tidal forces (about 16 light minutes for a $``$15M, 7R star like S22). Since tidal energy deposition falls faster than the sixth power of the ratio of tidal radius to orbital radius, tidal effects near the perinigricon of S2 are expected to be negligible, consistent with its lack of infrared variability.

The remarkable consequence of the orbital technique is that the mass can be determined from a single stellar orbit, in comparison to the statistical techniques that use several tens to hundreds of stellar velocities at 10 to 300 light days from SgrA\* (Fig.3). In addition, the orbital technique requires fewer assumptions than the other estimates (e.g. equilibrium and isotropy of orbits), and thus is less vulnerable to systematic effects.

The Galactic centre mass distribution resulting from all available data is well fit by the combination of a $`2.6\pm 0.2\times 10^6`$M point mass (the supermassive black hole), plus the visible stellar cluster of core radius 0.34 pc, an outer power-law density distribution with exponent $`\alpha `$=1.8 and central density $`3.9\times 10^6`$Mpc-3 (Figure 3). If the central point mass is replaced by a Plummer mass distribution, which is the most compact one expected realistically (with a power-law index of $`\alpha =`$5), in order to mimic the flatness of the observed mass distribution over 3 order of magnitude in radius4), its central density would have to exceed 1017Mpc-3, more than 4 orders of magnitude greater than previous estimates4,5,6. Such a Plummer distribution would be appropriate if the dark mass consisted of a dark cluster of low mass stars, neutron stars, or stellar black holes. The maximum lifetime of such a cluster mass against collapse (to a black hole) or evaporation would be less than a few 105 years16, clearly a highly implausible configuration. Further, theoretical simluations of very dense, core collapsed clusters predict much shallower, near isothermal density distributions ($`\alpha 2`$, see discussion in reference 2). We conclude that such a dark cluster model can now be safely rejected. Our new data also robustly exclude one of two remaining, ’dark particle matter’ models as alternatives to a supermassive black hole, namely a ball of heavy (10-17 keV/c2) fermions (sterile neutrinos, gravitinos or axinos) held up by degeneracy pressure17,18 , which in principle could account for the entire range of dark mass concentrations in galactic nuclei with a single physical model. Because of the finite size ($``$0.9′′ diameter) of a non-relativistic, $`3\times 10^6`$M ball of $``$16 keV fermions, the maximum (escape) velocity is about 1700 km/s and the shortest possible orbital period for S2 in such a fermion ball model would be about 37 years18, clearly inconsistent with the orbit of S2. The enclosed mass at perinigricon would require a neutrino mass of $`>`$50 keV, a value which can safely be excluded for neutrino ball models trying to explain the entire range of observed masses in galactic nuclei17,18. The only dark particle matter explanation that cannot be ruled out by the present data is a ball of bosons, as such a configuration would have a radius only several times greater than the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole16,19 However, it would be very hard to understand how the bosons first manage to reach such a high concentration, and then avoid forming a black hole by baryonic accretion16,19.The data on the Galactic centre thus show that the central mass distribution is remarkably well described by the potential of a point mass over 3 orders in magnitude in spatial scale, from 0.8 light days to 2 light years. The contribution of the extended stellar cluster around SgrA\* to the total mass cannot be more than a few hundred solar masses within the peri-centre distance of the orbit of S2.

In this letter we have presented the first step in a new phase of near-infrared observations of the immediate surroundings of the central dark mass in the centre of the Milky Way. The observation of orbits of stars surrounding the central dark object offers a clean new way of constraining its mass distribution and testing the supermassive black hole model with the simple assumption of Keplerian orbits. Within the next years we hope to observe the accelerations and orbits of several faint stars near SgrA\* that have become observable with the increased resolution and sensibility of the CONICA/NAOS camera/AO system at the VLT. Even more detailed observations of the SgrA\* environment will become possible with infrared interferometry at the Large Binocular Telescope, the ESO VLTI and the Keck interferometer, which will provide a few to 10 mas (a few light hours) resolution and offer exciting prospects for the exploration of relativistic motions at 10-100 Schwarzschild radii from the central black hole20.

Acknowledgments We thank the teams who developed and constructed the near-infrared camera CONICA and the adaptive optics system NAOS. We are grateful to all the instrument scientists and ESO staff involved in the commissioning of CONICA/NAOS for generous observations of the Galactic Center. We thank C. H. Townes and J. Kormendy for valuable comments. We thank D. Gudehus for his friendly assistance with the Binary-Star Combined Solution Program.

Figure 1: Ks-band image of the centre of the Milky Way.
Left: Diffraction limited (60 mas FWHM) Ks-band (2.1$`\mu `$m) image of the central $`40^{\prime \prime }`$ of the Milky Way, obtained with the CONICA/NAOS adaptive optics imager on UT4 (Yepun) of the VLT on May 3rd, 2002. North is up and East to the left, scales are for an assumed distance of 8 kpc (26,000 light years)4,21. The unique infrared wavefront sensor was used to close the loop of the adaptive optics system on the bright supergiant IRS 7, $``$6′′ north of SgrA\*. The Strehl ratio is $`>`$40%. The radio positions of 7 SiO maser stars (open circles) were used to align the infrared image with the radio astrometry frame (Reid et al. 2002, in prep.). The SiO masers originate in the central $`1`$ mas of the circumstellar envelopes of infrared bright, red giants/supergiants. The radio-to-infrared registration is accurate to $`\pm 10`$ mas (including the effect of variation of the point spread function across the field), a factor 3 improvement over reference 14. There we could only use two SiO sources, giving the centre position, rotation angle and a single pixel scale for the infrared images. Our new analysis allows solving, in addition, for second order imaging terms (small for CONICA/NAOS, but significant for the earlier SHARP/NTT data). Right: The central $`2^{\prime \prime }`$ region (rectangle in left inset) around the compact radio source SgrA\* (cross). This image is a sum of images taken in May 2002 and has been deconvolved with a linear Wiener filter method to remove the seeing halos. The ring structures around the brighter stars are artefacts of the linear deconvolution algorithm that arise because information on the point spread function in Fourier space is not known up to infinite frequencies. Several of the stars near SgrA\* are marked, including the presently closest star (S2).

Figure 2: Orbit of S2 around SgrA\*.
Orbit of S2, relative to the position of SgrA\* (large cross and circle, denoting the $`\pm 10`$ mas uncertainties of the infrared-radio astrometry). The filled small circles (with 1$`\sigma `$ errors) between 1992 and 2001, and at 2002.50, denote the results of our speckle imaging with the SHARP camera on the ESO NTT4,6. The five open rectangles are the CONICA/NAOS data points on 2002.25, 2002.33, 2002.40, 2002.58 and 2002.66. The projection of the best fitting Kepler orbit is shown as a thick continuous curve, with main parameters listed adjacent to the orbit (see also Table 1). For determination of the orbital elements (Table 1) we used the publicly available Binary Star Combined Solution Package15, which computes best fit orbits from position-time series (including their errors). Uncertainties in the derived parameters are determined from a covariance matrix analysis. The additional uncertainty introduced by the astrometric errors is of similar size and was estimated by letting the position of SgrA\* vary randomly within its 1$`\sigma `$ astrometric uncertainty limits and examining the change in the resulting orbital parameters. Since we do not know the line-of-sight velocity of the star, the sign of the inclination given in Table 1 is undetermined. The angle of the line of nodes (36 deg) is counted E of N, with N up and E to the left. The angle from node to peri-centre is counted from the node in the NE quadrant in the direction of the motion of S2.

Figure 3: Mass distribution in the Galactic Centre.
Mass distribution in the Galactic centre (for an 8 kpc distance21). The filled circle denotes the mass derived from the orbit of S2. The error bar combines the orbital fit and astrometry errors (Table 1). Filled triangles denote Leonard-Merritt projected mass estimators from a new NTT proper motion data set by Ott et al. (2002, in preparation), separating late and early type stars, and correcting for the volume bias in those mass estimators by scaling with correction factors (0.88-0.95) determined from Monte Carlo modeling of theoretical clusters4. An open rectangle denotes the Bahcall-Tremaine mass estimate obtained from Keck proper motions3. Light filled rectangles are mass estimates from a parameterized Jeans-equation model from reference 4, including anisotropy and differentiating between late and early type stars. Open circles are mass estimates from a parameterized Jeans-equation model of the radial velocities of late type stars, assuming isotropy4. Open rectangles denote mass estimates from a non-parametric, maximum likelihood model, assuming isotropy and combining late and early type stars22. The different statistical estimates (in part using the same or similar data) agree within their uncertainties but the variations show the sensitivity to the input assumptions. In contrast, the new orbital technique for S2 is much simpler and less affected by the assumptions. The continuous curve is the overall best fit model to all data. It is a sum of a $`2.6(\pm 0.2)\times 10^6`$ M point mass, plus a stellar cluster of central density $`3.9\times 10^6`$ M/pc3, core radius 0.34 pc and power-law index $`\alpha =1.8`$ . The long dash-short dash curve shows the same stellar cluster separately, but for an infinitely small core (i.e. a ’cusp’). The thick dashed curve is the sum of the visible cluster, plus a Plummer model of a hypothetical concentrated ($`\alpha =5)`$, very compact (R$`{}_{o}{}^{}=`$0.00019 pc) dark cluster of central density $`1\times 10^{17}`$Mpc-3.


text:
# Spontaneous spin current near the interface between ferromagnets and unconventional superconductors

## Abstract

Proximity effects between ferromagnets (F) and superconductors (S) with broken time-reversal symmetry ($`T`$) are studied theoretically. For the S side we consider a chiral $`(p_x\pm ip_y)`$-wave, and a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave superconductor, the latter of which can form $`T`$-breaking surface state, i.e., $`(d_{x^2y^2}\pm is)`$-state. The Bogoliubov de Gennes equation which describes the spatial variations of the superconducting order parameter and the magnetization is derived and solved numerically. It is found that a spontaneous spin current flows along the interface between the $`(p_x\pm ip_y)`$-wave superconductor and the ferromagnet. On the contrary, in the case of a  interface of the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave SC, the surface state has a $`(d\pm p_x\pm p_y)`$-wave (or $`(d_{x^2y^2}\pm is)`$-wave) symmetry, and thus no (only charge) spontaneous current arises.

, ,

thanks:  E-mail: kuboki@phys.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp

Recently proximity effects between superconductors (S) and ferromagnets (F) attract much attention, especially when S side is an unconventional superconductor. In this paper we examine these effects theoretically.

We consider two-dimensional S/F bilayer models at zero temperature. The Hamiltonian for each layer is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_\mathrm{L}& =t_\mathrm{L}\underset{<i,j>\sigma }{}(c_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{j,\sigma }+h.c.)+U_\mathrm{L}\underset{i}{}n_in_i\hfill \\ \hfill & V_\mathrm{L}\underset{<i,j>}{}\left[n_in_j+n_jn_i\right],(\mathrm{L}=\mathrm{S},\mathrm{F})\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`i,j`$ and $`\sigma `$ denote the nearest-neighbor pairs on a square lattice and the spin index, respectively. Parameters $`t_\mathrm{L}`$, $`U_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{L}`$ are the transfer integral, the on-site repulsive and the nearest-neighbor attractive interactions, respectively, for the $`\mathrm{L}(=\mathrm{S},\mathrm{F})`$ side. The transmission of electrons at the interface is described by the following tunneling Hamiltonian: $`H_\mathrm{T}=t_\mathrm{T}_{<l,m>\sigma }(c_{l,\sigma }^{}c_{m,\sigma }+h.c.),`$ where $`l`$ ($`m`$) denotes the surface sites of S (F) layer. Then the total Hamiltonian of the system is $`H=H_\mathrm{S}+H_\mathrm{F}+H_\mathrm{T}\mu _{i\sigma }c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$ with $`\mu `$ being the chemical potential. The interaction terms are decoupled within the Hartree-Fock approximation: $`Un_in_iUn_in_i+Un_in_iUn_in_i,Vn_in_jV\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}c_j^{}c_i^{}+V\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}c_ic_jV|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}|^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}c_ic_j`$. The magnetization $`m_i=n_in_i/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ are the order parameters (OP’s) to be determined self-consistently. The direction perpendicular (parallel) to the interface is denoted as $`x`$ ($`y`$), and we assume that the system is uniform along the $`y`$-direction. Along the $`y`$-direction we carry out the Fourier transformation, and the Bogoliubov de Gennes (BdG) equation which describes the $`x`$-dependences of OP’s is derived and solved numerically. The system size we treat is $`N_x=N_y=120`$, and we take $`t_\mathrm{S}=t_\mathrm{F}=1`$ as the unit of energy. The parameters $`U_\mathrm{L}`$, $`V_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`\mu `$ are chosen such that the superconducting (SC) and the ferromagnetic order occurs in each layer.  Depending on the electron density, $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave, extended $`s`$-wave and chiral $`(p_x+ip_y)`$-wave superconducting (SC) states are stabilized.

Here we consider $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave and $`(p_x+ip_y)`$-wave SC states for the S layer. It is known that near the  surface of the former the system may break time-reversal symmetry ($`T`$) by introducing second component of SCOP $`(is)`$ and that a spontaneous (charge) current flows along the surface.  The chiral SC states also break $`T`$ and the spontaneous current can flow along the edge of the system. When S and F layers are connected, the magnetization (spin-triplet SCOP) may be induced in the former (latter) due to the proximity effect. Then it may be possible to have a spontaneous spin current (defined as $`J_{\mathrm{spin}}(x)J_y(x)J_y(x)`$) along the interface of a $`T`$-breaking S layer and a F layer, because of the imbalance of the electron densities of spin-up and spin-down electrons.

First we investigate the case of a bilayer composed of a chiral $`(p_x\pm ip_y)`$-wave superconductor and a ferromagnet. In Fig.1 we show the spatial variations of OP’s for the case of  interface. (We have also studied the case of  surface, and the results were qualitatively the same.) It is seen that $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$-wave components (denoted as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{px}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{py}`$, respectively) are suppressed near the interface, while $`d`$-wave ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$) and $`s`$-wave ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$) components are induced. The magnetization penetrates into the S layer and it coexists with SCOP’s. We can see that a spontaneous spin current actually flows (Fig.2).

Next we consider the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave SC state. We consider the  interface, since a $`T`$-breaking surface state associated with a spontaneous current can be formed in this case, but not in the case for a  surface. The results are qualitatively different depending on the value of $`t_\mathrm{T}`$. When $`t_\mathrm{T}`$ is comparable to $`t_\mathrm{S}`$ ($`=t_\mathrm{F}=1`$) , the magnetization penetrates into the S layer and then the $`p`$-wave components are induced. However, the complex component ($`is`$) is not induced in contrast to the case of a  surface exposed to the vacuum. The resulting state has a $`(d_{x^2y^2}\pm p_x\pm p_y)`$-symmetry, and no spontaneous current arises. When the value of $`t_\mathrm{T}`$ is reduced the magnetization does not penetrate into the S layer (and thus $`p`$-wave OP’s are absent), and the state has a $`(d_{x^2y^2}\pm is`$)-symmetry. In this case a spontaneous charge current flows along the interface, but not the spin current because the electron densities of spin-up and spin-down electrons are the same. The transition between the above two states seems to be of first order, and we did not find states with spontaneous spin currents.

In summary we have studied the states near the interface between unconventional superconductors and ferromagnets. Spontaneous spin currents are found in the case of chiral $`(p_x\pm ip_y)`$-wave superconductors. For $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave superconductors the resulting states have either $`(d_{x^2y^2}\pm is)`$\- or $`(d_{x^2y^2}\pm p_x\pm p_y)`$ -symmetry, so that only charge (no) current appears in the former (latter).

The authors thank M. Sigrist, H. Shiba and H. Fukuyama for useful discussions.