format: text

text:
# An Integrable Version of Burgers Equation in “Magnetohydrodynamics”

## Abstract

It is pointed out that for the case of (compressible) magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) with the fields $`v_y(y,t)`$ and $`B_x(y,t)`$ one can have equations of the Burgers type which are integrable. We discuss the solutions. It turns out that the propagation of the non-linear effects is governed by the initial velocity (as in Burgers case) as well as by the initial Alfvén velocity. Many results previously obtained for the Burgers equation can be transferred to the MHD case. We also discuss equipartition $`v_y=\pm B_x`$. It is shown that an initial localized small scale magnetic field will end up in fields moving to the left and the right, thus transporting energy from smaller to larger distances.

The Burgers equation  has been much studied. It can be applied to a variety of phenomena, see e.g. ,, . Although this equation satisfies a number of properties which are similar to hydrodynamics, it is known to be integrable. Hence the Burgers equation does not have the properties characterizing chaotic dynamical systems. However, to some extent such properties may be simulated by random boundary conditions ,. Also, the long time behavior of decaying solutions of the Burgers equation with an initial velocity which is homogeneous and Gaussian has been studied and many interesting properties of the spectrum have been found . Also, a general statistical theory of the Stochastic Burgers equation in the inviscid limit has been developed . For a recent review of “Burgulence” we refer to the paper by Frisch and Bec . These results make it clear that a number of properties of the Burgers equation are highly non-trivial. With this in mind we present an integrable generalization of Burgers equation. The new equations are related to magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) in a way which is analogous to the relation between the Burgers equation and the Navier-Stokes equations. Essentially all properties found for the Burgers equation can be applied to the new equations, but they also contain some new features.

MHD in 1+1 dimension has been considered by Thomas  long time ago. The fields are the velocity $`v_x(x,t)`$ and the magnetic field $`B_x(x,t)`$, which satisfy

$`_tv_x+v_x_xv_x=B_x_xB_x+\nu _x^2v_x,`$ (1)
$`_tB_x+v_x_xB_x=B_x_xv_x+(1/\sigma )_x^2B_x.`$ (2)
The first of these equations is similar to the Burgers equation. Both equations are modeled from the incompressible MHD equations. However, since incompressibility leads to triviality in 1+1 dimensions, the equation div $`𝐯=0`$ is not enforced, and the total (including the magnetic) pressure is taken to vanish. Also, in these equations it is implicit that variation of the density is disregarded. Similarly, the equation div $`𝐁=0`$ is not satisfied. It has been shown by Passot  that the above equations are not integrable. For a review of some of the consequences of these equations, we refer to ref. .

In the following we consider a different form of 1+1 dimensional MHD, where there is really two dimensions, $`x`$ and $`y`$, but where the fields are restricted to depend only on $`y`$. We restrict ourselves to the fields $`B_x(y,t)`$ and $`v_y(y,t)`$. The equation of motionIn eqs. (4) and (6) the density $`\rho `$ and the vacuum permeability $`\mu _0`$ should occur. Thus, $`(\times 𝐁)\times 𝐁`$ on the right hand side should be multiplied by $`1/\mu _0\rho `$. We assume a constant $`\rho `$. Then the following rescalings “remove” $`\rho `$ and $`\mu _0`$: $`\sigma \mu _0\sigma `$ and $`𝐁𝐁/\sqrt{\mu _0\rho }`$.

$$_t𝐯+(𝐯)𝐯=(\times 𝐁)\times 𝐁+\nu ^2𝐯$$
(3)
then becomes

$$_tv_y+v_y_yv_y=B_x_yB_x+\nu _y^2v_y.$$
(4)
Similarly, the equation

$$_t𝐁=\times (𝐯\times 𝐁)+(1/\sigma )^2𝐁,$$
(5)
where $`\sigma `$ is the conductivity of the fluid, becomes

$$_tB_x=_y(v_yB_x)+(1/\sigma )_y^2B_x.$$
(6)
The coupled set of equations (4) and (6) can be interpreted by saying that (4) is a Burgers equation with a magnetically generated pressure, governed by (6). Like in the case of Thomas’s 1+1 dimensional equations, div $`𝐯=0`$ is not satisfied, and we have also disregarded a possible variation of the density. Notice however that div$`𝐁=0`$ is satisfied in our approach and that the magnetic pressure $`B_x^2/2`$ is kept.

The main difference between our equations and those discussed by Thomas is that his equation (2) includes a term $`B_x_xv_x`$ which stretches the magnetic field lines, and which competes with the term $`v_x_xB_x`$ which (in higher dimensions) breaks or twists the field lines. On the other hand, in our case the magnetic field is divergence free, and we included the magnetic pressure.

The reduced model (2) introduced by Thomas is in correspondence to special subclasses of of solutions to the full MHD equations. In our case the equations (4) and (6) are of course derived from the real MHD equations, but they do not directly correspond to known subclasses of solutions of the MHD equations. However, the reduced model proposed in this paper may have some physical interest, which we shall discuss at the end of this paper after having given the analytic solution of eqs. (4) and (6). It turns out that the model predicts that magnetic energy which is initially localized at small scales, is moved to large distances by the non-linear dynamics.

Conservation of energy can easily be checked from eqs. (4) and (6). With

$$E_{\mathrm{tot}}(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\left(v_y^2+B_x^2\right),$$
(7)
one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_{\mathrm{tot}}(t)}{dt}}=2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y`$ (8)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}_yv_y^3_y(v_yB_x^2)+\nu v_y_y^2v_y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}B_x_y^2B_x\right).`$ (9)
Assuming no “diffusion at infinity”, i.e. assuming that $`v_y`$ and $`B_x`$ vanish for $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$, then

$$\frac{dE_{\mathrm{tot}}(t)}{dt}=2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\left(\nu (_yv_y)^2+\frac{1}{\sigma }(_yB_x)^2\right).$$
(10)
Thus energy is conserved in the limit $`\nu ,1/\sigma 0`$.

The idea is now to compare the equations (4) and (6) to the well known solution of Burgers equation found by Hopf  and Cole , where the diffusive terms in these equations are included. We can show that if

$$\nu =1/\sigma ,$$
(11)
then the equations are integrable. We do not know if the equations are still integrable if $`\nu 1/\sigma `$, and/or if variations of the density $`\rho `$ are included according to the conservation equation

$$_t\rho +_y(\rho v_y)=0.$$
(12)
Of course, the full set of equations can be studied numerically.

In the following we shall consider the case where (11) is satisfied. It should be emphasized that this assumption is not supposed to represent a realistic estimate of the magnetic Prandtl number $`P_m=\sigma \nu `$, which e.g. for liquid metals is of the orderIt can be mentioned that in numerical simulations of the Earth’s dynamo with Prandtl number $`10^6`$ one actually uses a value of $`P_m0.1`$ (not so far from one!), since this is what is numerically tractable. See e.g. . $`10^5`$. Our excuse for having a Prandtl number equal to one is primarily that this allows a non-trivial solution of eqs. (4) and (6). Furthermore, one space dimension is anyhow not realistic.

Adding and subtracting eqs. (4) and (6) we obtain in the special case (11)

$$_t(v_y+B_x)+\frac{1}{2}_y(v_y+B_x)^2=\nu _y^2(v_y+B_x),$$
(13)
and

$$_t(v_yB_x)+\frac{1}{2}_y(v_yB_x)^2=\nu _y^2(v_yB_x).$$
(14)
These two equations are of the Burgers type.

We remind the reader that the solution of Burgers equation

$$_tu+u_yu=\nu _y^2u$$
(15)
is

$$u(y,t)=\frac{1}{t}(y\overline{a}(y,t)),$$
(16)
where

$`\overline{a}(y,t)=`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}ae^{\frac{(ya)^2}{4\nu t}+\frac{1}{2\nu }\psi (a)}𝑑a/{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\frac{(ya)^2}{4\nu t}+\frac{1}{2\nu }\psi (a)}𝑑a.`$ (18)
Here $`u(y,t=0)=_y\psi (y)`$. For the case where $`\nu =0`$ we have

$$u(y,t)=u(b(y,t),t=0),$$
(19)
where $`b(y,t)`$ solves the implicit equation

$$b(y,t)=ytu(b(y,t),0).$$
(20)
Here $`b(y,t)`$ can be interpreted as a Lagrangian coordinate, with $`b(y,0)=y`$ for $`t=0`$. This solution can be obtained by the methods of characteristics or from the saddle point in eq. (18) for $`\nu 0`$. In this case $`b(y,t)\overline{a}(y,t)`$. In the case where there are more than one solution of eq. (20) for $`b(y,t)`$ one should take the solution which maximizes the expression

$$\frac{(yb)^2}{2t}+\psi (b)$$
(21)
with respect to $`b`$, as is obvious from the saddle point expansion of (18).

For the MHD case the solution can be found in terms of the initial values

$`v_y(y,t=0)_y\psi _{v0}(y),`$ (22)
$`B_x(y,t=0)_y\psi _{B0}(y).`$ (23)
The Hopf-Cole solution of Burgers’ equation then gives

$`v_y(y,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\left[y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\overline{a}_{v+B}(y,t)+\overline{a}_{vB}(y,t)\right)\right]`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\psi ^{}}_{v0+B0}(y,t)+\overline{\psi ^{}}_{v0B0}(y,t)),`$ (25)
and

$`B_x(y,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}\left(\overline{a}_{v+B}(y,t)\overline{a}_{vB}(y,t)\right)`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\psi ^{}}_{v0+B0}(y,t)\overline{\psi ^{}}_{v0B0}(y,t)).`$ (27)
Here

$`\overline{a}_{v\pm B}(y,t)=`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}ae^{\frac{(ya)^2}{4\nu t}+\frac{1}{2\nu }(\psi _{v0}(a)\pm \psi _{B0}(a))}𝑑a`$ (29)
$`\left[{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\frac{(ya)^2}{4\nu t}+\frac{1}{2\nu }(\psi _{v0}(a)\pm \psi _{B0}(a))}𝑑a\right]^1,`$ (30)
and similarly

$`\overline{\psi ^{}}_{v0\pm B0}(y,t)=`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}(\psi _{v0}^{}(a)\pm \psi _{B0}^{}(a))e^{\frac{(ya)^2}{4\nu t}+\frac{1}{2\nu }(\psi _{v0}(a)\pm \psi _{B0}(a))}𝑑a`$ (32)
$`\left[{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\frac{(ya)^2}{4\nu t}+\frac{1}{2\nu }(\psi _{v0}(a)\pm \psi _{B0}(a))}𝑑a\right]^1.`$ (33)
The last forms of eqs. (25) and (27) follow from

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{}{a}e^{\frac{(ya)^2}{4\nu t}+\frac{1}{2\nu }(\psi _{v0}(a)\pm \psi _{B0}(a))}𝑑a=0.$$
(34)
In case where $`\nu `$ is taken to nearly vanish, the resulting saddle point simplifies the solutions (25) and (27), and the $`\overline{a}`$’s are replaced by solutions of the equations

$$\overline{a}_{v\pm B}=y+t\left(\psi _{v0}^{}(\overline{a}_{v\pm B})\pm \psi _{B0}^{}(\overline{a}_{v\pm B})\right).$$
(35)
These solutions can also be obtained by solving the original equations without diffusion ($`\nu =1/\sigma =0`$) by the methods of characteristics. These solutions can be written in a form analogous to eq. (19),

$`B_x(y,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(B_x(b_+(y,t),0)+B_x(b_{}(y,t),0)`$ (36)
$`+v_y(b_+(y,t),0)v_y(b_{}(y,t),0)),`$ (37)
and

$`v_y(y,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(v_y(b_+(y,t),0)+v_y(b_{}(y,t),0)`$ (38)
$`+B_x(b_+(y,t),0)B_x(b_{}(y,t),0)),`$ (39)
where $`b_\pm (y,t)`$ solve the equations

$$b_\pm (y,t)=ytv_y(b_\pm (y,t),0)tB_x(b_\pm (y,t),0).$$
(40)
Like in Burgers case $`b_\pm (y,0)=y`$. Also, there is a simple Lagrangian interpretation of eq. (40), since the right hand side involves the initial velocity subtracted or added to the usual Alfvén velocity $`B_x(b_\pm ,0)`$, where it should be remembered that the constant $`1/\sqrt{\mu _0\rho }`$ was absorbed in $`B_x`$. In the saddle point of eq. (30) for $`\nu 0`$ we again have $`\overline{a}_{v\pm B}(y,t)b_\pm (y,t)`$, with $`b_\pm `$ given by the dominant saddle point, as discussed below eq. (20). It is of course easy to show directly that eqs. (37) and (39) satisfy the original equations (4) and (6) with $`\nu =1/\sigma =0`$.

From the solutions (37) and (39) one can read off a few simple properties. If the initial magnetic field $`B_x(y,t=0)`$ vanishes no magnetic field is generated at other times. This is already quite obvious from the original equations (4) and (6). To see this result from the solution by characteristics we notice that if $`B_x`$ vanishes at $`t=0`$ it follows from (40) that $`b_+=b_{}`$, and eq. (37) then gives $`B_x(y,t)=0`$. The velocity field will then behave as a solution of the “pure” Burgers equation for $`v_y`$.

A less trivial case is when the initial velocity field vanishes,

$$v_y(y,t=0)=0.$$
(41)
Then we obtain both a magnetic and a velocity field as a consequence of the dynamics, namely

$`B_x(y,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(B_x(b_+(y,t),0)+B_x(b_{}(y,t),0)\right),`$ (42)
$`v_y(y,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(B_x(b_+(y,t),0)B_x(b_{}(y,t),0)\right).`$ (43)
with

$$b_\pm (y,t)=ytB_x(b_\pm (y,t),0).$$
(44)
We see that if the initial magnetic field is constant, no velocity field is generated. However, in general a varying initial magnetic field is able to generate a velocity field.

In MHD it has often been discussed whether there is equipartition, $`v_y=\pm B_x`$, after a long time. In realistic MHD simulations one does not in all cases find equipartition. A recent study  finds that in nonhelical hydromagnetic turbulence in the inertial range the magnetic energy exceeds the kinetic energy by a factor of 2 to 3. The helical case has recently been discussed in reference . In our case it follows rather trivially that if the initial fields satisfy equipartition, then this will be true for all times. In general, we see from eqs. (37) and (39) that equipartition in the exact sense requires

$`B_x(b_{}(y,t),0)=v_y(b_{}(y,t),0)\mathrm{and}`$ (45)
$`B_x(b_+(y,t),0),v_y(b_+(y,t),0)\mathrm{arbitrary},`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{or}`$ (47)
$`B_x(b_+(y,t),0)=v_y(b_+(y,t),0)\mathrm{and}`$ (48)
$`B_x(b_{}(y,t),0),v_y(b_{}(y,t),0)\mathrm{arbitrary},`$ (49)
for $`v_y=B_x`$ and $`v_y=B_x`$, respectively. In the first case it follows from eq. (40) that $`b_{}=y`$. Hence from the first line in (49) it follows that $`B_x(y,0)=v_y(y,0)`$, so the initial fields are equal. Thus, equipartition requires very special initial fields and is not possible for general initial conditions.

The considerations above do not, however, answer the question concerning equipartition after some time has passed. This requires the study of (44) for $`b_\pm `$ after the passage of a sufficient time. Let us consider the case $`v_y(y,0)=0`$ and let us take the initial field $`B_x(y,0)`$ to be localized in in a domain $`D`$ in $`y`$. Then eq.(44) shows that $`b_\pm `$ receive non-trivial contributions from $`b_\pm D`$, and these contributions have different signs, i.e. the non-trivial part of $`y`$space move to the right and to the left, so the original domain $`D`$ splits up into right and left moving domains $`yD_R`$ and $`yD_L`$. After some time has passed these domains have no overlap. Using the result (43) we then see that $`B_x(y,t)`$ also moves to the left (right) with value $`B_x(b_{},0)/2`$ ($`B_x(b_{},0)/2`$). Thus the value of the magnetic field has decreased by a factor of 2. At the same time it follows from (43) that the velocity has increased from zero to $`\pm B_x(b_\pm )/2`$. Therefore one has equipartition.

If the initial velocity is non-vanishing it is more difficult to estimate the result from eqs. (43) and (44). We shall therefore ask what is the tendency after a short time. We start by considering initial fields which are proportional,

$$B_x(y,0)=\lambda v_y(y,0),$$
(50)
where $`\lambda `$ is some parameter. We now want to solve eqs. (37), (39), and (40) perturbatively for small $`t`$. Assuming that $`y`$ is not too close to zero, eq. (40) can be solved approximately,

$$b_\pm (y,t)y(1\pm \lambda )tv_y(y,0),$$
(51)
where the assumption that $`y`$ does not vanish is needed in order that the second term on the right-hand side is small relative to $`y`$. The fields in (37) and (39) can then be expanded, using

$$v_y(b_\pm ,0)v_y(y,0)\left(1t(1\pm \lambda )_yv_y(y,0)\right),$$
(52)
to obtain the results

$`B_x(y,t)\lambda v_y(y,0)(12t_yv_y(y,0)),`$ (53)
$`v_y(y,t)v_y(y,0)(1t(1+\lambda ^2)_yv_y(y,0)).`$ (54)
We see that the first order changes in the fields do not preserve the initial proportionality. If we start with a magnetic field which is much smaller than the velocity, $`\lambda 1`$, then the relative change is larger in $`B_x`$ than in $`v_y`$. If, on the other hand $`\lambda 1`$, i.e. the initial fields are comparable, then the corrections found in (54) are of the same order. If $`\lambda `$ is large, i.e. the initial magnetic field is much larger than the initial velocity, then the correction to the velocity is larger than the correction to the magnetic field. Thus it seems that the non-linearity in the basic equations tend to increase the smallest initial field, for small times.

We mention that the contributions to the energy from the $`O(t)`$ corrections in (54) is proportional to

$$t_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dyv_y(y,0)^2_yv_y(y,0)=\frac{t}{3}v_y(y,0)^3|{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{\mathrm{}},$$
(55)
which vanishes since $`v_y(y,0)`$ must approach zero at infinity in order that the energy is finite. Thus the corrections in (54) give no contribution to the total energy. In this argument we have disregarded that the perturbation may not be valid very close to $`y=0`$.

We have also investigated the situation numerically, taking the initial fields $`v_y(y,0)=\mathrm{sin}y`$ and $`B_x(y,0)=\lambda v_y(y,0)`$, with $`\pi /2<y<\pi /2`$. We find that after a long time the fields fluctuate considerably. In general, there is no equipartition, except for $`\lambda =1`$. The (fluctuating) ratio

$$R=\frac{B_x^2}{v_y^2+B_x^2}$$
(56)
is maximally of order 0.006 for $`\lambda =0.2`$ after a long time ($`t=14`$). For $`\lambda =0.9`$ one gets a maximum $`R`$ value around 0.37. Finally, for $`\lambda =1.1`$ one gets a maximal $`R`$ around 0.5. Of course, if $`\lambda =1`$ the numerical calculations give equipartition with $`R=0.5`$ for all $`y`$.

It is clear that the usual Burgers shock waves are present in our case too. From eq. (40) one has that the derivatives of $`b_\pm (y,t)`$ become infinite for

$$t=t(b_\pm )=\frac{1}{v_y^{}(b_\pm ,0)\pm B_x^{}(b_\pm ,0)}.$$
(57)
In general there will actually be more shocks than in the “pure” Burgers case, since derivatives of the solutions (39) and (37) contain $`_yb_+`$ as well as $`_yb_{}`$ which are infinite at $`t(b_+)`$ as well as $`t(b_{})`$.

In our case the usual conservation form of Burgers equation are generalized to

$$_tv_y=_y\left(\frac{1}{2}v_y^2\frac{1}{2}B_x^2+\nu _yv_y\right).$$
(58)
Moreover, we also have

$$_tB_x=_y\left(v_yB_x+\frac{1}{\sigma }_yB_x\right).$$
(59)
In the last equation one needs of course to replace $`1/\sigma `$ by $`\nu `$ in order to apply the solutions found in this note.

As already mentioned, the many highly non-trivial properties of the Burgers equation are shared by the solutions for $`v_y`$ and $`B_x`$. This follows simply from the fact that eqs. (13) and (14) are of the Burgers type, so any property previously derived can be applied to the fields $`v_y+B_x`$ and $`v_yB_x`$. Thus, except for accidental cancelations these properties also hold for the fields $`v_y`$ and $`B_x`$. To give an example, consider the correlation function

$$C(y,t)=<v_y(y,t)v_y(0,t)+B_x(y,t)B_x(0,t)>,$$
(60)
where we take homogeneous random fields $`v_y(y,t)`$ and $`B_x(y,t)`$ with ensemble averages. $`C(y,t)`$ can be obtained from the sum of the correlation functions

$$<(v_y(y,t)+B_y(y,t))(v_y(0,t)+B_y(0,t))>$$
(61)
and

$$<(v_y(y,t)B_y(y,t))(v_y(0,t)B_y(0,t))>.$$
(62)
Each of these two correlation functions contain fields that are solutions of the Burgers equations (13) and (14). Hence we can use known results from Burgulence, for example from references  and , to obtain information on $`C(y,t)`$. The total energy spectrum is then given by

$$E_{\mathrm{tot}}(k,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}C(y,t)e^{iky}𝑑y.$$
(63)
The total kinetic and magnetic energy is then given by

$$E_{\mathrm{tot}}(t)<v_y(y,t)^2+B_x(y,t)^2>=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}E_{\mathrm{tot}}(k,t)𝑑k.$$
(64)
By subtracting eqs. (61) and (62) we can also obtain the correlator

$`D(y,t)=<B_x(y,t)v_y(0,t)+B_x(0,t)v_y(y,t)>`$ (65)
$`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}F(k,t)e^{iky}𝑑k.`$ (66)
The function $`F`$ is related to the Lorentz force

$$F(t)2<v_y(y,t)B_x(y,t)>=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}F(k,t)𝑑k.$$
(67)
It is now possible to repeat for example the arguments in  to obtain information on $`C(y,t)`$ and $`F(y,t)`$ if we assume initial fields which are homogeneous and Gaussian with initial spectra of the form

$$E_{\mathrm{tot}}(k,t)=\alpha ^2|k|^ne_0(k),\mathrm{and}F(k,t)=\beta ^2|k|^nf_0(k).$$
(68)
Here $`n`$ is the spectral index and $`e_0(k)`$ is an even and non-negative function with $`e_0(0)=1`$ assumed to be even and decreasing faster than any power of $`k`$ at infinity. The function $`f_0(k)`$ has similar properties. The energy spectrum at times different from zero can now be analyzed completely as in . For example, for $`1<n<2`$ the spectrum $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}(k,t)`$ has three scaling regions. The first is for very small $`k`$’s, where the large eddies are conserved and the behavior agrees with the original $`|k|^n`$ with a time-independent constant. The second region is a $`k^2`$ region, and the third region is characterized by a behavior $`k^2`$, associated with the shocks. The switching from the first to the second region occurs for a $`k`$ value around $`t^{1/(2(2n))}`$, whereas the shift to the last region occurs around $`1/\sqrt{t}`$, except for logarithmic corrections. For $`1<n<1`$ there is no inner region and the spectrum develops in a self-similar fashion. For a much more complete description, we refer to the original paper . It would be of interest to see if somewhat similar results are valid in higher dimensional MHD. It should also be emphasized that eqs. (13) and (14) are the independent equations, and hence one has the possibilty to study more general situations than those discussed in the previous literature. For example, the fields $`v_y+B_x`$ and $`v_yB_x`$ may be started out with different random initial fields and their spectra will then develop in different ways. We have already seen an example of this phenomenon in the perturbative calculation.

Concerning the use of results obtained from the study of the Burgers equation we mention that in eq. (4) one can add a forcing term $`f`$ on the right hand side. The very interesting study of the forced Burgers equation in ref.  can then be used in eqs. (13) and (14), which would have $`f`$ on the right hand side. The master equation for the probability density functions of $`v_y+B_x`$ and $`v_yB_x`$, their differences and gradients, can then be derived as in . Again we refer to the literature  for more information.

We now return to the question as to whether our proposed equations have some physical relevance, disregarding the obvious restrictions due to the low dimensional structure. Our approach has the property that although the fields depend only on one dimension $`y`$, the magnetic field $`B_x(y)`$ points in a different direction. Thus we can construct an initial state where the magnetic field in the $`x`$direction is localized in $`y`$ and ask how this field propagate from the equations of motion. We take the initial field to be

$`B_x(y,0)=B_0=\mathrm{const}.\mathrm{for}L<y<L,`$ (69)
$`B_x(y,0)=0\mathrm{otherwise},`$ (70)
$`v_y(y,0)=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}y,`$ (71)
which is a small scale localized field if $`L`$ is not too large. This field is a rudimentary version of a flux tube, which realistically would be a magnetic field locally pointing e.g. in the $`x`$direction with a cross section in the $`y,z`$plane. In our case this cross section degenerates to a line segment $`L<y<L`$. Ignoring diffusion, the time dependent solution can be obtained from eqs. (43) and (44),

$`B_x(y,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_0,v_y(y,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_0`$ (72)
$`\mathrm{for}L+tB_0<y<L+tB_0,`$ (73)
$`B_x(y,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_0,v_y(y,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_0`$ (74)
$`\mathrm{for}LtB_0<y<LtB_0,`$ (75)
$`B_x(y,t)=v_y(y,t)=0\mathrm{outside}\mathrm{these}\mathrm{intervals}.`$ (76)
Thus, the initial flux “tube” decays into two new tubes, which move towards the left and the right. Also, half of the initial magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, and equipartition is actually obtained. We see that the original localized configuration turns into a less localized configuration. This example can be generalized to more complicated initial localized fields where $`B_x`$ has different values in different nearby $`y`$intervals. In such cases again the $`B_x`$fields in each interval start to split and move out to larger distances to the left and the right. In this way a fairly localized initial magnetic field will end up as a rather delocalized state, moving energy from small to large distances. This is similar to the phenomenon of an inverse cascade in higher dimensions. This effect has been observed in two and three dimensions in realistic simulations of MHD. Since this phenomenon occurs in our reduced model one can say that our model given by (4) and (6) has some physical relevance. However, in three (but not two) dimensions the inverse cascade is usually linked to helicity, which does not exist in our case for obvious reasons.

There are of course very important differences between MHD in one and in higher dimensions. For example in the latter case (differential) rotation is possible and one can have the dynamo effect. Further, important topological changes of flux tubes are possible. Also, the higher dimensional MHD equations exhibit genuine chaotic behavior , which can only be simulated to some extent in 1+1 dimension by having random initial fields.

I thank Axel Brandenburg for telling me about the work in reference . I also thank the referee for some interesting comments.


text:
# Generalized Coherent State Derivation of TDDFT Equations for Superconductors

## I Introduction

The BCS ansatz for the ground state wavefunction of superconductors predicts a gap in the spectrum Schrieffer  originating from the pairing of two electrons with opposite momenta and spin projections. This pairing is induced by the effective attraction induced by electron-phonon interaction. The standard BCS description of superconductivity, as well as Eliashberg’s extension to incorporate Coulomb repulsion between electronsEliashberg ; mahan  do not apply for strongly-correlated electrons such as in high-temperature superconductors ($`YBCO`$)Carlson . In two-dimensional ($`2D`$) superconductors (e.g., in cuprates)Carlson ; Varlamov , the phase transition to the superfluid state takes place at temperatures below the mean-field phase transition temperature for the appearance of the gapKosterlitz ; Nelson , similar to the Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition. The important role played by electron-electron correlations in the local order parameter above the phase transition temperature, while the system is still in the normal phase, was discussedVarlamov .

Superconductivity in strongly correlated electron systems is often described using effective Hubbard HamiltoniansCarlson . Taking electron-electron exchange and correlations into account, the ground state energies and the collective excitation spectrum of superconductors have been calculated by Density Functional Theory (DFT) or its Time-Dependent extension (TDDFT)Oliveira ; Kohn ; Grossbook ; Gross . In the Oliveira-Gross-Kohn (OGK) DFT equationsOliveira ; Kohn ; Grossbook ; Gross  the normal $`\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ and the anomalous $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ density matrices satisfy the generalized Bogoliubov-de Gennes equationsGrossbook ; deGennes  which include one external field $`v_s(𝐫)`$ coupled to the normal charge density $`n(𝐫)=\rho (𝐫,𝐫)`$ and a second field $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ coupled to $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$. These fields contain exchange-correlation potentials $`v_{xc}(𝐫)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{xc}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$, respectively, obtained by requiring the charge density $`\rho (𝐫)`$ and the anomalous density matrix $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ of the interacting and noninteracting systems to be identical. TDDFT requires the same conditions to be satisfied for an externally driven system at all timesGross . The zero-order approximation in the standard DFT obtained by neglecting the exchange-correlation fields results in the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations Grossbook ; deGennes  which take into account the BCS pairing and classical Coulomb correlations at the Hartree level.

The DFT equations for superconductors are usually formulated for the Kohn-Sham orbitals in Hilbert space, and constitute a system of four self-consistent equations for Bogoliubov transformation coefficients $`u(𝐫)`$ and $`v(𝐫)`$, the normal density $`n(𝐫)`$, and the anomalous density matrix $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$Grossbook . An extension of these equations to include a magnetic field was proposed as wellKohn .

In this article, we present an alternative derivation of the OGK equations for a Fermi liquid with spontaneously broken symmetry (FLSBS) based on a generalized coherent state (GCS) ansatz for the many electron density matrix. Coherent states were first used to describe anharmonic dynamical systems such as many body interacting fermions/bosonsreview  while preserving some of the useful properties of the original Glauber’s coherent states for the harmonic oscillatorglauber1 ; glauber2 . They encompass the Glauber coherent states as well as the squeezed statesglauber1 ; glauber2 . The time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (TDHFB) equations were derived for Boson systems using the GCS ansatz Chernyak ; ChernyakChoi . GCS are particularly suitable for variational dynamics by virtue the underlying Lie group algebrareview ; perelomov . Using this ansatz, we derive equations of motion for expectation values of the normal and anomalous density matrices. We use the time-dependent variational principle which allows the description of the many-body system in terms of a small number of parameters and is formally closely related to classical Poisson bracket mechanics, i.e. to the variational equations of motion derived from the minimum action principle. A GCS representation for the BCS wave function has been used to analyze the coexistence of superconductivity and ferroelectricityBirman ; Birman2 . We obtain self-consistent equations of motion for the normal and anomalous density matricesAbrikosov  and derive the spectrum of collective excitations, the density of the superfluid component at finite temperatures, and the temperature of the transition to the superfluid state for homogeneous and inhomogeneous superconductors.

Reduced descriptions of many-body systems are naturally recast using density matricesMukamel ; Coleman , and we found it useful to adopt the Liouville space density matrix representation Mukamel ; Berman\_PRA  of TDDFTGrossbook ; Gross ; Chernyak\_TDDFT  for the normal and anomalous density matrices. This requires solving only two equations of motion for the normal and anomalous density matrices $`\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ and $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ coupled to two artificial external fields. These fields contain an exchange-correlation contribution and guarantee the charge density and the anomalous density matrix to be exact at all timesGrossbook ; Gross . The ground state is the stationary solution of these equations of motion. This is in contrast to the four self-consistent equations for Bogoliubov coefficients $`u(𝐫)`$ and $`v(𝐫)`$ and the charge density $`n(𝐫)=\rho (𝐫,𝐫)`$ and anomalous density matrix $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$Grossbook2 ; deGennes . The density matrix is a two-point function compare to two one-point functions $`u`$ and $`v`$Grossbook ; Gross , nevertheless, the computational cost can be reduced. The reason is that the density matrices have non-vanishing elements only when $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$ is less than a coherence size, which is typically very short. This allows to neglect many density matrix elements, making its size scaling linear rather then quadratic. The Liouville space representation provides a clear picture of the underlying coherence, since it is not possible to include the coherence size explicitly in the traditional Hilbert space computations.

Using our GCS ansatz we further define expressions for first-order adiabatic (time-independent) exchange-correlation contribution to the order parameter, which include electron exchange in the spectrum. This provides corrections to the charge density and the anomalous density matrix of Ref.Grossbook2  at each order in the perturbative series for the exchange correlation potential. The present approach is applicable for superconductors in general, but it is particularly relevant to strongly-correlated high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, where the BCS and Eliashberg theories do not apply.

## II The coherent state free-energy

We start with the many-electron Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ where the electron-electron interaction consists of both Coulomb repulsion $`V(𝐫𝐫^{})=e^2/|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$, and pairing attraction $`W(𝐫𝐫^{})`$ between two electrons with opposite spinsGrossbook

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫)\left(\frac{1}{2m}_𝐫^2\mu \right)\widehat{\psi }_\nu (𝐫)}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})V(𝐫𝐫^{})\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫^{})\widehat{\psi }_\nu (𝐫)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}\nu }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})W(𝐫𝐫^{})\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫^{})\widehat{\psi }_\nu (𝐫)}.`$
Here $`\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫)`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)`$ are the Fermi creation and annihilation field operators with the anti-commutation relations $`[\widehat{\psi }(𝐫),\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫^{})]_+=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$ and $`[\widehat{\psi }(𝐫),\widehat{\psi }(𝐫^{})]_+=[\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫),\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫^{})]_+=0`$, the indices $`\nu `$ and $`\nu ^{}`$ denote the spin projections; $`m`$ is the effective band mass of electron, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential (Fermi energy), and $`e`$ is the electron charge.

We further expand the field operators in a single electron basis set $`\varphi _{i\nu }(𝐫)`$

$`\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫,t)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varphi _{i\nu }^{}(𝐫)\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}(t);`$
$`\widehat{\psi }_\nu (𝐫,t)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varphi _{i\nu }(𝐫)\widehat{a}_{i\nu }(t),`$ (2)
where $`\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{i\nu }`$ are the corresponding Fermi operators with the anti-commutation relations $`[\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j]_+=\delta _{ij}`$ and $`[\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j]_+=[\widehat{a}_i^{},\widehat{a}_j^{}]_+=0`$; $`\varphi _{i\nu }(𝐫)`$ are orthonormal atomic basis functions; and $`i`$ runs over all basis electronic orbitals.

Substituting Eq. (2) in Eq. (1) gives

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{i,j,\nu }{}t_{ij}\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu }+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j,k,l}{\nu ,\nu ^{}}}{}V_{ijkl}\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu ^{}}^{}\widehat{a}_{k\nu ^{}}\widehat{a}_{l\nu }\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j,k,l}{\nu ,\nu ^{}\nu }}{}W_{ijkl}\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu ^{}}^{}\widehat{a}_{k\nu ^{}}\widehat{a}_{l\nu }.$$
(3)
Here $`t_{ij}`$ is the single-electron matrix element

$$t_{ij}=𝑑𝐫\varphi _i^{}(𝐫)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2_𝐫^2}{2m_b}\mu \right)\varphi _j(𝐫).$$
(4)
$`V_{ijkl}`$ is the Coulomb electron-electron repulsion

$$V_{ijkl}=𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2\varphi _i^{}(𝐫_1)\varphi _j^{}(𝐫_2)\frac{e^2}{|𝐫_1𝐫_2|}\varphi _k(𝐫_1)\varphi _l(𝐫_2),$$
(5)
$`W_{ijkl}`$ is an attraction responsible for the creation of electron Cooper pair.

Eq. (3) describes the interacting many-fermion system with Coulomb repulsion, and attraction between two electrons with opposite projections of spin. In ordinary ($`BCS`$) superconductors this attraction originates from electron-phonon interactionSchrieffer ; in $`YBCO`$ superconductors the short-range attraction results from the thermodynamically equilibrated phase ordering producing charge stripe orderCarlson , and it assumes in the following form

$$W_{ijkl}=A𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2\varphi _i^{}(𝐫_1)\varphi _j^{}(𝐫_2)\left(\frac{|𝐫_1𝐫_2|}{r_0}\right)^n\varphi _k(𝐫_1)\varphi _l(𝐫_2),$$
(6)
where $`n>1`$ is a positive rational number; $`A`$ and $`r_0`$ are constants, determined by system geometry.

Our derivation is based on the following ansatz for the time-dependent many-electron density matrix. At zero temperature the system is in a pure state, and the density matrix is given by $`K(t)|\psi (t)\psi (t)|`$, where the (unnormalized) many-electron wavefunction is assumed to be of the form

$`|\psi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}h(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\widehat{\psi }_\nu (𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})}+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}\nu }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})\right]|\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}}h_{ij}(t)\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu ^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}\nu }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}(t)\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu ^{}}^{})\right]|\mathrm{\Omega }_0,`$
with $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ being an arbitrary single Slater determinantThouless . Eq. (7) is a generalization of the RPA and BCS wavefunctions: setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=0`$ it reduces to the Thouless representation of the single Slater determinantThouless , for $`h_{ij}=0`$ it reduces to the BCS ansatz for the superconductorSchrieffer .

At finite temperature $`T`$ our ansatz reads

$`K={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{H}_0/(k_BT))}{Tr\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{H}_0/(k_BT))}}`$ (8)
where $`k_B`$ is a Boltzmann constant, and

$`\widehat{H}_0={\displaystyle }dt{\displaystyle }d𝐫{\displaystyle }d𝐫^{}[{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}}h(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\widehat{\psi }_\nu (𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})+h^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫^{})`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}\nu }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}\nu }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\widehat{\psi }_\nu (𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫^{})]`$
or using our basis set

$`\widehat{H}_0={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}[{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}}h_{ij}(t)\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu ^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}}h_{ij}^{}(t)\widehat{a}_{i\nu }\widehat{a}_{j\nu ^{}}^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}\nu }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}(t)\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu ^{}}^{}`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}\nu }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}(t)\widehat{a}_{i\nu }\widehat{a}_{j\nu ^{}}]`$
Here $`Tr`$ denotes the trace in the many electron Fock space. A similar ansatz was recently used for Bose condensationChernyakChoi . Eq. (8) constitutes a generalized coherent state (GCS)Blaizot\_Ripka ; Bender  (see Eq. (46)). Eq. (7) is a limiting case of Eq. (8) obtained by a specific choice of parametersChernyakChoi ; Eq. (8) thus holds at finite temperatures as well as at $`T=0`$.

The parameters $`h_{ij}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ will be determined variationally by minimizing the grand canonical free energy

$`F(\mu ,T)Tr(\widehat{H}K)k_BTTr(K\mathrm{log}(K))T𝒮,`$ (11)
Here $``$ is the enthalpy, $`𝒮`$ is the entropy, and the chemical potential $`\mu `$ controls the average number of electrons $`N`$ through the following constraintChernyakChoi ; Mermin

$`Tr\left(K{\displaystyle \underset{i\nu }{}}\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{i\nu }\right)=N.`$ (12)
Instead of using $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as the variational parameters, we shall switch to the following variables: the normal density matrix

$`\rho _{i\nu j\nu }Tr(K\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu }),`$ (13)
and the anomalous density matrices

$`\sigma _{i\nu j\nu }Tr(K\widehat{a}_{i\nu }\widehat{a}_{j\nu }),`$ (14)
$`\sigma _{i\nu j\nu }^{}Tr(K\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu }^{}).,`$ (15)
The next step will be to express the free energy in terms of $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$. We start with the enthalpy. Since $`K`$ is the exponent of a quadratic operator, we can use Wick’s theoremAbrikosov  and express all averages of products of creation and annihilation operators with respect to $`K`$ (denoted with a subscript $`0`$) as averages of pairs of operators, which are generators of the closed algebra. In particular we have:

$`\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_j^{}\widehat{a}_k\widehat{a}_m_0`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_k_0\widehat{a}_j^{}\widehat{a}_m_0+\widehat{a}_j^{}\widehat{a}_k_0\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_m_0+\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_j^{}_0\widehat{a}_k\widehat{a}_m_0.`$ (16)
Using this factorization we obtain for the enthalpy (see Appendix A), where for brevity we omit spin indices $`\nu `$:

$`Tr(\widehat{H}K)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\left[\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}(\rho _{ij}\rho _{ji}^{})+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}\sigma _{ij}^{}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^{}\sigma _{ji}\right].`$ (17)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ is a matrix with elements

$`\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}=t_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2U}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k,l}{\nu ,\nu ^{}}}{}}(V_{iklj}\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}V_{ilkj})\rho _{k\nu l\nu }.`$ (18)
$`U`$ is the volume and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is the order parameter matrix with elements

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{mn}{}}W_{ijmn}\sigma _{mn}.`$ (19)
We next require the expectation of the effective Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$ (Eq. (10)) to be the same as the expectation of $`\widehat{H}`$ (Eq. (3)).

$`Tr(K\widehat{H})=Tr(K\widehat{H}_0).`$ (20)
It can be easily verified that the condition Eq. (20) is met provided we set in Eq. (10) $`h_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}`$ (Eq. (18)) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}`$ (Eq. (19))Blaizot\_Ripka . We next turn to computing the enthalpy. The effective quadratic Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$ given by Eq. (10) can be alternatively recast in the form

$`\widehat{H}=tr(\widehat{Q}\widehat{R}),`$ (21)
where the matrix $`\widehat{Q}`$ is defined as

$`\widehat{Q}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{h}& \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}& \widehat{h}^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (24)
$`\widehat{R}`$ is the generalized single-particle density matrix

$$\widehat{R}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\rho }& \widehat{\sigma }\\ \widehat{\sigma }^{}& \widehat{\rho }^{}+𝟙\end{array}\right),$$
(25)
and the symbol $`tr`$ in Eq. (21) stands for the trace in the single electron space.

Using the ansatz Eq. (8), the many-electron system described by the Hamiltonian Eq. (3) can be mapped onto the ideal system of non-interacting fermions with the quadratic Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$, determined by the matrix $`\widehat{Q}`$Blaizot\_Ripka  with the parameters defined by Eqs. (18) and (19). The entropy $`𝒮`$ of the system of fermions described by the quadratic Hamiltonian Eq. (21) is given byBlaizot\_Ripka

$`𝒮(\widehat{\rho },\widehat{\sigma },\mu ,T)=k_Btr[\widehat{f}\mathrm{log}\widehat{f}+(𝟙\widehat{𝕗})\mathrm{log}(𝟙\widehat{𝕗})],`$ (26)
where the matrix $`\widehat{f}`$ is

$$\widehat{f}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{Q}/(k_BT))+𝟙}.$$
(27)
We are looking for the normal and anomalous density matrices $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ that minimize the free energy (Eq. (11)) together with Eqs. (17) and (26) assuming the GCS ansatz for the many-electron density matrix Eq. (8). This minimization yields the following equationBlaizot\_Ripka

$$\widehat{R}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{Q}/(k_BT))+𝟙},$$
(28)
which gives

$`\widehat{\rho }=1\widehat{\epsilon }[\widehat{E}]^1\mathrm{tanh}\left(\widehat{E}/(2k_BT)\right),`$ (29)
$`\widehat{\sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}[\widehat{E}]^1\mathrm{tanh}\left(\widehat{E}/(2k_BT)\right),`$ (30)
where the the order parameter matrix $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is defined by its matrix elements $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ (Eq. (19)).

Eqs. (29), (30) and (19) constitute self-consistent equations for the equilibrium $`\widehat{\rho }`$ , $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. The $`\widehat{E}`$ matrix is defined as

$`\widehat{E}=\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2+\widehat{\epsilon }^2},`$ (31)
where matrix elements of $`\widehat{\epsilon }`$ in the single electron basis set are

$`\epsilon _{ij}t_{ij}+{\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}\left[\stackrel{~}{V}_{iljk}(1/2)\stackrel{~}{V}_{ilkj}\right]\rho _{kl},`$ (32)
and

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{iklm}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[V_{iklm}+V_{kiml}].`$ (33)
Substituting Eqs. (29), (30) and (19) into Eq. (17) gives

$`(\widehat{\rho },\widehat{\sigma },\mu ,T)=tr[2\widehat{E}\widehat{n}+\widehat{\epsilon }\widehat{E}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\widehat{\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{M}\widehat{\rho }],`$ (34)
where the matrix elements of $`\widehat{M}`$

$`M_{ij}={\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}\left[\stackrel{~}{V}_{iklj}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{ikjl}\right]\rho _{kl};`$ (35)
and the $`\widehat{n}`$ matrix is

$`\widehat{n}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\widehat{E}/2k_BT\right)+𝟙\right]^1.`$ (36)
At zero temperature Eq. (34) gives the ground state energy.

## III Equations of Motion for Generalized Coherent States

We are interested in the dynamics of the system coupled to two external fields: $`v_s(𝐫)`$, which is coupled to the normal density $`\rho (𝐫)=\rho (𝐫,𝐫)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ext}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$, which is coupled to the anomalous density matrix $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$Oliveira ; Gross . These fields account for exchange-correlation and provide a starting point for the TDDFT frameworkGross . The total Hamiltonian then becomes $`\widehat{H}_T=\widehat{H}+\widehat{H}_{ext}`$, where $`\widehat{H}`$ is given by Eq. (3), and $`\widehat{H}_{ext}`$ represents the interaction with the fieldsOliveira ; Gross

$`\widehat{H}_{ext}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫v_{ext}(𝐫,t)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu (𝐫)}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{},\nu \nu ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ext}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})}`$ (37)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{},\nu \nu ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ext}^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\widehat{\psi }_\nu (𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\nu ^{}(𝐫^{})}.`$
Our goal is to compute the dynamics of the system given by the total Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_T`$ with the time-dependent external fields using the GCS ansatz for the many-electron density matrix Eq. (8). This can be accomplished by applying the closed equations of motion for the averages of GCS generators (see Eq. (54) in Appendix A). These equations were obtained from the finite temperature time-dependent variational principleMermin ; perelomov ; ChernyakChoi . Since $`\rho _{i\nu j\nu }`$, $`\sigma _{i\nu j\nu }^{}`$ and $`\sigma _{i\nu j\nu }^{}`$ are averages of GCS generators, we can immediately derive closed variational equations of motion for these quantities in real spaceperelomov ; ChernyakChoi . Substituting the parameters of the energy $``$ (Eq. (17)) and $`\widehat{H}_{ext}`$ (Eq. (37)) in the closed equations of motion for the averages of GCS generators Eq. (54), we get ($`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{},t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_b}}(_𝐫^2_𝐫^{}^2)\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{},t)`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_2[V(𝐫𝐫_2)V(𝐫^{}𝐫_2)]}`$
$`[\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\rho (𝐫_2,𝐫_2,t)\rho (𝐫,𝐫_2,t)\rho (𝐫_2,𝐫^{},t)]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_2[W(𝐫𝐫_2)W(𝐫^{}𝐫_2)]}`$
$`[\sigma ^{}(𝐫,𝐫_2,t)\sigma (𝐫_2,𝐫^{},t)\sigma (𝐫,𝐫_2,t)\sigma ^{}(𝐫_2,𝐫^{},t)]`$
$`+`$ $`[v_{ext}(𝐫,t)v_{ext}(𝐫^{},t)]\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{},t);`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_b}}(_𝐫^2_𝐫^{}^2)\sigma ^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_2[V(𝐫𝐫_2)V(𝐫^{}𝐫_2)]}`$
$`[\sigma ^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\rho (𝐫_2,𝐫_2,t)\sigma ^{}(𝐫,𝐫_2,t)\rho (𝐫_2,𝐫^{},t)]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_2[W(𝐫𝐫_2)W(𝐫^{}𝐫_2)]}`$
$`[\sigma ^{}(𝐫,𝐫_2,t)\rho (𝐫_2,𝐫^{},t)\rho (𝐫,𝐫_2,t)\sigma ^{}(𝐫_2,𝐫^{},t)]`$
$`+`$ $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_{ext}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)\mathrm{\Delta }_{ext}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)]\sigma ^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t).`$
The order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)`$, which characterizes the excitation gap in the spectrum (Eq. (31)), is defined as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,𝐫^{},t){\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_2W(𝐫𝐫_2)\sigma (𝐫_2,𝐫^{},t)}.`$ (40)
It is interesting to note that the stationary solution of Eqs. (38) and (39) gives the normal $`\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ and the anomalous density matrix $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$, which minimize the equilibrium free energy Eq. (11) in the ground state (Eqs. (29) and (30))ChernyakChoi . The calculation of the free energy in Sec. II is thus not necessary for the present derivation. The formalism of Appendix A) allows us to proceed directly from the ansatz Eq. (8) to Eqs. (38) and (39). The calculations of Sec. II provide a consistency check and connect our results with the more conventional derivations.

DFT is usually formulated in Hilbert space and involves the solution of four self-consistent equations for the Bogoliubov transformation coefficients $`u(𝐫)`$ and $`v(𝐫)`$, and the charge density $`n(𝐫)=\rho (𝐫,𝐫)`$, and the anomalous density matrix $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ (Eqs. (4.121), (4.129) and (4.130) in Grossbook ). In the presence of the external time-dependent field, the ordinary TDDFT framework involves also the solution of a system of four self-consistent equations for Bogoliubov transformation coefficients $`u(𝐫,t)`$ and $`v(𝐫,t)`$, the local anomalous density $`\sigma (𝐫,t)`$ and the current density $`𝐣(𝐫,t)`$ (Eqs. (20), (21) and (22) in Gross ). Here, in contrast, we obtain the ground state free energy and density matrices $`\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{},t)`$ and $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{},t)`$ by the stationary solution of two equations Eqs. (38) and (39). The solution of these equations gives the charge density $`n(𝐫,t)\rho (𝐫,𝐫,t)`$ and the anomalous density matrix $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{},t)`$.

Eqs. (38) and (39) unify several widely used equations: if we neglect the pairing attraction $`W=0`$ and set $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{},t)=\sigma ^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)=\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)=0`$ the last integral in r.h.s. of Eq. (38) vanishes, and Eq. (38) reduces to the standard RPA equation Thouless . By neglecting the Coulomb repulsion $`V=0`$, we obtain the BCS equations Schrieffer  (where in the r.h.s. of Eqs. (38) and (39) the first integrals vanish). Neglecting the second term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (39) gives Eliashberg’s equations Eliashberg , which incorporate into account Coulomb repulsion between electrons at the mean field level.

Since our ansatzs for the many-electron density matrix Eq. (8) and wavefunction Eq. (7) have the same number of variational parameters $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, they yield the same equations of motion for the averages of the GCS generators (i.e. normal and anomalous single-electron density matrices). The only dependence on temperature and chemical potential is through the initial conditions (Eqs. (29) and (30)). Eqs. (38) and (39) conserve the temperature and chemical potential at all times.

In analogy with the RPA analysisThouless , we can look for a solution for the density matrices in the form of the following equations for matrices

$`\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \widehat{X}\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\omega }t)+\alpha ^{}\widehat{Y}^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\omega }^{}t);`$
$`\widehat{\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \widehat{\stackrel{~}{X}}\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\omega }t)+\alpha ^{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Y}}^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\omega }^{}t).`$ (41)
Substituting Eq. (III) into Eqs. (38) and (39), we obtain the spectrum of the collective excitations

$`\widehat{\omega }=\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2+\widehat{\epsilon }^2},`$ (42)
where $`\epsilon _{kj}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}`$ are given by Eqs. (32) and (30), respectively.

## IV Application to The Kosterlitz-Thouless Phase Transition

Recent studies of high temperature superconductorsDagotto ; Ford ; Carlson  show a competition between two types of interaction between electrons: a pairing attraction, which makes the spectrum satisfy the Landau criterium of superfluidity by creating a gap in the excitation spectrumSchrieffer , and Coulomb repulsion which tends to eliminate the gap thereby destroying the superconductivity. This competition leads to “stripe” high temperature superconductivity (HTS) in cuprates (e.g., $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{7\delta }`$ ($`YBCO`$)) above the low oxygen concentration threshold ($`\delta 0.20`$).

When $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,𝐫^{},t)0`$ the excitation spectrum satisfies the Landau criterium of superfluidity, and a three-dimensional ($`3D`$) system becomes superconducting. However, cuprates ($`YBCO`$) are two-dimensional ($`2D`$) structuresCarlson ; Varlamov . The Kosterlitz-Thouless transition temperatureKosterlitz ; Nelson  to the superfluid state in a two-dimensional superconductive system is given by $`T_c=(\pi \mathrm{}^2n_s(T_c))/(4k_Bm_b)`$,Kosterlitz ; Nelson  where $`n_s(T_c)`$ is the temperature dependent superfluid density of the superconductive system, and $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann constant. For temperatures close to the phase transition in the mean field approximation ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{00}(T_c^0)=0`$), which satisfy $`TT_c^0T_c^0`$, the superfluid density is $`n_s(T)=(2(T_c^0T)n_{2D})/(T_c^0)`$,Abrikosov1  where $`n_{2D}=p_F^2/(2\pi \mathrm{}^2)`$ is the total two-dimensional ($`2D`$) density of electrons ($`p_F`$ is a Fermi radius). To find $`T_c^0`$ from the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{00}(T_c^0)=0`$ one needs to solve the self-consistent equations Eqs. (31)- (30) to obtain the temperature dependence of the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$. The temperature of the phase transition can be estimated in the mean field approximationAbrikosov1 . For the gap spectrum of collective excitations Eq. (42) the mean field transition temperature $`T_c^0`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{00}=1.76k_BT_c^0`$,Abrikosov1  where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{00}`$ is the order parameter at zero temperature. Combining these expressions, we obtain for the temperature of the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition, below which the superconductivity exists,

$`T_c=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2k_Bm_b}{\pi \mathrm{}^2n_{2D}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1.76k_B}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{00}}}\right)^1.`$ (43)
$`T_c`$ can be calculated using the order parameter obtained by solving Eq. (30).

Since both $`T_c`$ (Eq. (43)) and the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (Eq. (30)) decrease with the Coulomb electron-electron repulsion $`V`$ (Eq. (5)) and increase with the electron-electron attraction $`W`$, Eq. (6), Eqs. (43) and (30) allow to study the interplay of Coulomb repulsion and pairing attraction between electrons in FLSBSCarlson . Cuprates have two-dimensional ($`2D`$) structureCarlson ; Varlamov , where the electron-electron Coulomb correlations may not be neglectedBermanLozovik ; BermanLozovik1 . The screened $`2D`$ long-range Coulomb potential Ando  in the momentum space is $`V_{2D}(p)=(2\pi e^2)/(p+\kappa _{2D})`$, where $`2D`$ Thomas-Fermi screening radius is density-independent $`\kappa _{2D}=\mathrm{}^2/(2m_be^2)`$. While the $`3D`$ short-range Coulomb potential in the momentum space $`V_{3D}(p)=(4\pi e^2)/(p^2+\kappa _{3D}^2)`$, where $`3D`$ Thomas-Fermi screening radius Kittel  increases with density $`\kappa _{3D}n_{3D}^{1/3}`$ and almost eliminates the Coulomb potential at large distances ($`r>\kappa _{3D}^1`$). Therefore, the Coulomb electron-electron correlations in Eq. (30) are much more important in the $`2D`$ order parameter compared to $`3D`$. The present theory thus describes the contribution of these correlations to the spectrum of collective excitations, the order parameter, superfluid density, the temperature of the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition and the DFT exchange-correlation potential.

## V Discussion

Using the GCS ansatz (Eq. (8)) for the many-electron density matrix we have calculated the ground state free energy, the equations of motion for the normal and anomalous density matrices and the quasiparticle spectrum of superconductors. This results in a quadratic expression for the energy Eq. (34) in the operators $`\widehat{a}_i`$ and $`\widehat{a}_i^{}`$, without using the Bogoliubov algebra of $`uv`$ transformationsSchrieffer .

The advantage of the Liouville space representation of TDDFT for the normal and anomalous density matrices is that it only requires to solve two equations of motions for the normal and anomalous density matrices Eqs. (38)- (39) coupled to two artificial external fields $`v_{ext}(𝐫)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ext}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$, which contain exchange-correlationGrossbook , instead of the four self-consistent equations for Bogoliubov coefficients $`u`$ and $`v`$ and density matrices $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$. The normal $`\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ and the anomalous $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ density matrices, which minimize the equilibrium free energy Eq. (11)ChernyakChoi  in the ground state are simply given by the stationary solution of the Eqs.(38)- (39). And in order to get this ground state we actually don’t need to derive the parameters of the effective quadratic Hamiltonian Eq. (9) for the many-electron density matrix, as we did in Sec.II.

Our equations for the total energy, the spectrum of collective excitations and the gap are written in a general basis set and therefore apply to both homogeneous and non-homogeneous systems. In a homogeneous system we can use the plain waves basis, i.e. for the two-dimensional system the eigenfunctions of a momentum $`𝐩`$ $`\varphi _𝐩(𝐫)=U^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐩𝐫})`$; where $`U`$ is the volume. Since we used a general basis set (not necessarily plane waves) our results, which contain non uniform normal $`\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ and anomalous $`\sigma (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ density matrices, should be able to describe the short-coherence-length superconductors. For example, in $`YBCO`$, where the $`1nm`$ coherence length is comparable to the lattice constantCarlson .

Finally, we comment on the connection of our results to the ground state energies and the collective spectrum of excitations in superconductors calculated using Density Functional Theory (DFT) and Time-Dependent Density Functional Theory (TDDFT)Oliveira ; Kohn ; Grossbook ; Gross . Let us consider the following exchange-correlation potentials that depend on the density matrix (rather than merely on the charge density):

$`v_{xc}[\rho ](𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta n(𝐫)}}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\frac{\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{})\rho (𝐫^{},𝐫)}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}}\right]|_{n(𝐫^{})=\overline{\rho }(𝐫^{},𝐫^{})}.`$ (44)
Substitution Eq. (44) in the DFT equations for the charge density and the anomalous density matrix Oliveira ; Grossbook  gives equations Eqs. (29) and (30) for the normal and anomalous density matrices. The GCS ansatz (Eq. (7)) is thus equivalent to TDDFT provided we use the approximate exchange-correlation potential, Eq. (44). To improve this functional, the adiabatic (time-independent) exchange-correlation potentials can be obtained using the functional derivativesGrossbook

$`v_{xc}([\rho ,\sigma ];𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta F_{xc}[\rho ,\sigma ]}{\delta \rho (𝐫)}};\mathrm{\Delta }_{xc}([\rho ,\sigma ];𝐫,𝐫^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\delta F_{xc}[\rho ,\sigma ]}{\delta \sigma ^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{})}},`$ (45)
where the exchange-correlation free energy $`F_{xc}`$ can be obtained using Feynmann diagrammatic perturbation theory for the self-energy of the Green functionAbrikosov ; Grossbook2 . The zero-order normal and anomalous density matrices derived using the present ansatz (Eq. (7)) are given by Eqs. (38) and (39), respectively. The spectrum of the corresponding Green function is $`E_{ij}`$ given by Eq. (31) together with Eq. (32).

The first-order exchange-correlation contribution to the order parameter is identical to that of Ref.Grossbook2  for homogeneous superconductors provided we set $`\epsilon _{ij}=t_{ij}`$. The second term appearing in our expression for the energy $`\epsilon _{ij}`$ Eq. (32)

$$\underset{kl}{}\left[\stackrel{~}{V}_{iljk}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{V}_{ilkj}\right]\rho _{kl}$$

comes from the first term $`\alpha _{ij}(t)\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu ^{}}`$ in the exponential in our ansatz Eq. (7), which represents electron-electron exchange. It corrects each order in the perturbative series of Ref.Grossbook2  for the exchange correlation potential. This term is absent in the OKG equations which use as a reference the Bogoliubov-deGennes approximation, which takes into account the BCS pairing and Coulomb correlations at the Hartree leveldeGennes  and neglects exchange-correlation potentialsOliveira ; Gross .

## Acknowledgements

The support of The National Science Foundation grant No. CHE-0132571 is gratefully acknowledged. We wish to thank Dr. Vladimir Chernyak for most useful discussions.

## Appendix A Generalized Coherent State Representation of a Hamiltonian with Electron-Electron Pairing

Mathematically, a set of GCS is determined by a Lie group $`G`$, its irreducible unitary vector representation $`T`$ with the space $`V`$ and a reference state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }V`$. The GCS are then states that have a form $`T(g)|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`gG`$, where $`g`$ is a set of parametersChernyak ; perelomov ; ChernyakChoi .

Our ansatz for the many-electron density matrix (Eq. (8)) can be expressed as

$`K(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i\widehat{T}_i\right),`$ (46)
where the set of numbers $`\lambda _i`$ parameterizes the density matrix. The operator set $`\{\widehat{T}_i\}=\{\widehat{a}_{i\pm \nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\pm \nu },\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu }^{},\widehat{a}_{i\nu }\widehat{a}_{j\nu },\widehat{I}\}`$ ($`\widehat{I}`$ is the identity operator) which forms the Lie group $`G`$ is characterized by the commutation relations among the complete set of operators $`\widehat{T}_i`$ necessary for describing the quantum dynamics of the system:

$`[\widehat{T}_i,\widehat{T}_j]={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}C_{ij}^k\widehat{T}_k,`$ (47)
where $`C_{ij}^k`$ are known as the structure constants of the set $`\{\widehat{T}_i\}`$. Writing $`\widehat{T}_{ij}^{()}\widehat{a}_{i\nu }\widehat{a}_{j\nu }`$, $`\widehat{T}_{ij}^{(+)}\widehat{a}_{i\nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\nu }^{}`$, $`\widehat{T}_{ij}^{(z)}\widehat{a}_{i\pm \nu }^{}\widehat{a}_{j\pm \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ij}\widehat{I}`$, and, since $`\widehat{a}_i`$ satisfy Fermi anticommutation rules, we have the closed algebra of generators $`\{\widehat{T}_i\}`$ with respect to the following commutation rules

$`\text{[}\widehat{T}_{ij}^{()},\widehat{T}_{i^{}j^{}}^{()}]=\text{[}\widehat{T}_{ij}^{(+)},\widehat{T}_{i^{}j^{}}^{(+)}]=\text{[}\widehat{T}_{ij}^{(z)},\widehat{T}_{i^{}j^{}}^{(z)}]=0;`$
$`\text{[}\widehat{T}_{ij}^{()},\widehat{T}_{i^{}j^{}}^{(+)}]=\delta _{iji^{}j^{}}(1(\widehat{T}_{ii}^{(z)}+\widehat{T}_{ii}^{(z)}));`$
$`\text{[}\widehat{T}_{ij}^{(z)},\widehat{T}_{i^{}j^{}}^{()}]=\delta _{ii^{}}\delta _{jj^{}}\widehat{T}^{()}_{jj^{}}\delta _{ij^{}}\delta _{ji^{}}\widehat{T}^{()}_{ji^{}};`$
$`\text{[}\widehat{T}_{ij}^{(z)},\widehat{T}_{i^{}j^{}}^{(+)}]=\delta _{ji^{}}\delta _{ij^{}}\widehat{T}^{(+)}_{ij^{}}+\delta _{jj^{}}\delta _{ii^{}}\widehat{T}^{(+)}_{ii^{}},`$ (48)
Eqs. (8), (46), (47) and (A) show that our ansatz for many-electron density matrix is generated by the operator set $`\{\widehat{T}_i\}`$, which forms the closed algebra of generators with respect to their binary commutation. The states described by our ansatz Eqs. (8) thus constitute generalized coherent states (GCS).

The set of generators $`\{\widehat{T}_i\}`$ corresponds to the Hamiltonian Eq. (1). The variational equations at zero temperature are derived as follows: given a Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$, and time-dependent wave functions $`|\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )`$, we minimize the action:

$$S[\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )]=𝑑\tau \left[i\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )|d\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )/d\tau \mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )|\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )\right].$$
(49)
By choosing $`|\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )`$ to be a GCS, the resulting variational equations can be written in the Hamiltonian form for any set of coordinates $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ which parameterize $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_j}{d\tau }=\{,\mathrm{\Omega }_j\}$$
(50)
where $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ denote Poisson brackets and $``$ is the classical Hamiltonian defined by:

$$(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(51)
The Poisson brackets clearly establishes the link between the variational equations and the classical dynamics.

When the classical Hamiltonian is given by

$$=\underset{n=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}{}h_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n)}\widehat{T}_{i_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{T}_{i_n},$$
(52)
the Poisson bracket assumes a very simple form provided the wave functions $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are parameterized by the expectation values $`\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{T}_j|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the operators $`\widehat{T}_j`$ rather than by the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$. These expectation values then constitute a full set of parameters that uniquely specify the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In particular, if $`\widehat{T}_j`$ form a closed algebra Eq. (47), the Poisson brackets for $`\widehat{T}_j`$ is given by:

$$\{\widehat{T}_m,\widehat{T}_n\}=i\underset{k}{}C_{m,n}^k\widehat{T}_k,$$
(53)
and the variational equations of motion for $`\widehat{T}_m`$ take the closed form

$$i\frac{d\widehat{T}_m}{d\tau }=\underset{n=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{i_0\mathrm{}i_n}{}C_{mi_0,\mathrm{},i_j}^kh_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n)}\widehat{T}_{i_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{T}_{i_n},$$
(54)
Using Eq. (7), it therefore suffices to derive the equations of motion for the expectation values $`\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_j`$ and $`\widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_j`$ to uniquely specify the dynamics of electrons. This may be done using the differential property of the Poisson brackets:

$$\{f,gh\}=\{gh,f\}=\{f,g\}h+g\{f,h\}.$$
(55)
When the expectation values are for generators of the set of GCS of some Lie group $`G`$, their Poisson brackets are given by the commutators of the underlying generators of the group. This direct correspondence between ordinary quantum mechanical commutators and the Poisson brackets greatly simplifies the calculation, since the variational procedure is then equivalent to the Heisenberg equations of motion. Eqs. (38) and (39) were obtained using Eq. (54).


text:
# Dirac Spinors and Representations of GL(4) Group in GR

## 1 Introduction

Let as consider the Dirac equation  ($`x_0=ct`$, $`\mathrm{}=1`$, $`c=1`$)

$$𝒟\psi =m\psi ,𝒟\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _\mu \frac{}{x_\mu },$$
(1)
where $`\psi ^4`$ and $`\gamma _\mu Mat(4,)`$, $`\mu =0,\mathrm{},3`$ are four Dirac matrices with usual property

$$\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu =2g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(2)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is Minkowski metric.

More generally, Eq. (2) corresponds to definition of Clifford algebra $`𝔩(g)`$ for arbitrary quadratic form $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and dimension. Dirac matrices are four generators for (complexified) representation of $`𝔩(3,1)`$ in space of $`4\times 4`$ matrices. For general universal Clifford algebra with $`n`$ generators $`dim𝔩(n)=2^n`$.

It is possible to write Dirac equation for arbitrary metric, but covariant transformation between two solutions $`\psi `$ exists only for isometries of coordinates $`A`$: $`g(Ax,Ay)=g(x,y)`$ for given fixed metric $`g`$. Such isometries produce some subgroup of GL(4,$``$), isomorphic to Lorentz group (for diagonal form, i.e. Minkowski metric, it is usual Lorentz group). It is briefly recollected in Sec. 2. A matrix extension of Dirac equation is considered in Sec. 3. It is analyzed using Clifford (Sec. 4) and Grassmann representation (Sec. 5) of such equation. Main proposition about representation of GL(4,$``$) is formulated at end of Sec. 5 and discussed with more details in Sec. 6.

## 2 Spinor Representation of Lorentz Group

Any transformation $`v^{}=Av`$ of coordinate system corresponds to new set of gamma matrices:

$$\gamma _\mu ^{}=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{3}{}}A_\mu ^\nu \gamma _\nu ,$$
(3)
but only for isometries $`A`$ Eq. (3) may be rewritten as internal isomorphism of algebra:

$$\gamma _\mu ^{}=\Sigma _{(A,g)}\gamma _\mu \Sigma _{(A,g)}^1,\text{(there is no sum on }\mu \text{)}$$
(4)
where matrix $`\Sigma _{(A,g)}`$ is same for any $`\gamma _\mu `$ and depends only on transformation $`A`$ and metric $`g`$. For Minkowski metric $`g`$, it is usual form of spinor $`21`$ representation of Lorentz group.

Similar with general case, spin group is implemented here as subset of Clifford algebra. More precisely, it is subset of $`𝔩_e`$, i.e. even subalgebra of Clifford algebra generated by all possible products with even number of generators . In particular case of Lorentz group SO(3,1), it is Spin(3,1) group and isomorphic with SL(2,$``$), group of $`2\times 2`$ complex matrices with determinant unit.

To demonstrate transformation properties of spinor $`\psi `$, it is enough to rewrite Eq. (1) as

$$(\Sigma 𝒟\Sigma ^1)\Sigma \psi =m\Sigma \psi .$$
(5)
The Eq. (5) also shows, why Eq. (3) with general $`A\mathrm{GL}(4,)`$ may not correspond to such kind of covariant transformation $`\psi (x)\Sigma _A\psi (Ax)`$.

## 3 An Extension of Spinor Space

One way to overcome problem with representation of general coordinate transformation of GL(4,$``$) group may be extension of linear space $`^4`$ of Dirac spinors.111Say, two-component spinors may not represent $`P`$-inversion, but extension from $`^2`$ to $`^4`$, from Pauli to Dirac spinors resolves this problem .

There is also more technical way to explain idea of extension. It is not possible to bulid some specific symmetry between two solutions of Dirac equation with different metric, but may be it is possible to construct a new one using a few solutions?

Let us consider instead of $`\psi ^4`$ some $`4\times 4`$ complex matrix $`\mathsf{\Psi }`$ and write equation

$$𝒟\mathsf{\Psi }=m\mathsf{\Psi },𝒟\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _\mu \frac{}{x_\mu },\mathsf{\Psi }Mat(4,).$$
(6)
Formally it may be considered as set of four usual Dirac equations for each row of matrix $`\mathsf{\Psi }`$.

Maybe such extension from 4D to 16D space is not minimal, but it is appropriate for purpose of present paper, i.e. for representation of transformation properties of such equation with respect to GL(4,$``$) group of coordinate transformations. For 16D space all possible linear transformations may be represented by 256D space, but application of algebraic language may simplify consideration. The construction uses both Clifford and Grassmann algebras of 4D space and described below.

## 4 Clifford Algebra

Complexified Clifford algebra of Minkowski quadratic form is isomorphic with space of $`4\times 4`$ complex matrices. So it is reasonable to try consider Eq. (6) as equation on Clifford algebra $`\gamma _\mu ,\mathsf{\Psi }𝔩(3,1)`$. Really, as it will be shown below, complete and rigour solution of discussed problem with GL(4,$``$) representation may not be based only on Dirac equation on Clifford algebra, but this construction discussed here, because provides an essential step.

If to consider Eq. (6) as equation on Clifford algebra, then initial Dirac equation may be compared first with restriction of such equation on left ideal of Clifford algebra.

Left ideal of algebra $`𝒜`$ by definition  is linear subspace $`𝒜`$ with property $`𝒜`$, i.e. any element of algebra after multiplication on element of an ideal produces again element of the ideal. Simplest example of left ideal in matrix algebra is set of matrices $`𝖬_\psi `$ with only one nonzero column $`\psi `$ and it provides reason for consideration of Dirac equation on such ideal as an analogue of usual case Eq. (1).

It was already discussed above, that spin group may be naturally implemented as subspace of Clifford algebra, e.g. transformations of $`\mathsf{\Psi }`$ are also elements of Clifford algebra, $`\Sigma 𝔩(3,1)`$. On the other hand, construction with ideals of Clifford algebra have some problems with interpretations of symmetries of Dirac equation, necessary for purposes of given paper. Even for Lorentz transformation, simply represented as isomorphisms of Clifford algebra Eq. (4), instead of Eq. (5) we must have the same transformation law for all elements of algebra

$$(\Sigma 𝒟\Sigma ^1)\Sigma \mathsf{\Psi }\Sigma ^1=m\Sigma \mathsf{\Psi }\Sigma ^1.$$
(7)
Really it makes consideration a bit more difficult, but does not change it much. Resolution of the problem, is additional symmetry of Eq. (6): if some $`\mathsf{\Psi }`$ is solution of Eq. (6), then $`\mathsf{\Psi }R`$ is also solution, for arbitrary element $`R`$ of Clifford algebra.

In such a case right multiplication on $`\Sigma ^1`$ does not changes anything and may be ignored. The same property of equation requires consideration not only element $`𝖬_\psi `$ of some left ideal, but also all $`𝖬_\psi R`$, i.e. matrices with columns proportional to same vector.

If $`\psi ^4`$ is initial vector (spinor, solution of Dirac equation), and $`\alpha ^4`$ is arbitrary vector of coefficients, then any matrices with proportional columns may be expressed as $`M_{ij}=\psi _i\alpha _j`$.

So instead of left ideals discussed above it is necessary to consider matrices

$$M_{ij}=\psi _i\alpha _j,M=\psi \alpha ^T\psi \alpha .$$
(8)
For arbitrary matrices $`L,R`$

$$LMR=L(\psi \alpha )R=(L\psi )(R^T\alpha ),$$
(9)
so multiplication saves “the product structure,” but it is not an ideal, because space of such matrixes is not linear subspace, e.g. sum of elements does not necessary may be presented as tensor product of two vectors like Eq. (8). Really linear span of the “singular” space coincides with whole algebra.

On the other hand, fixed $`\psi `$ corresponds to a linear subspace, right ideal $`_\psi `$ of the algebra. It is similar with interpretation of physical solution of usual Dirac equation Eq. (1) as a ray in Hilbert space.

But such construction still not produce covariant transformation of Dirac equation in matrix form Eq. (6) with respect to general element of GL(4,$``$). It is necessary to use slighly different construction with Grassmann algebra described in next section.

## 5 Grassmann Algebra

Formally Grassmann (or exterior) algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ is defined by $`n`$ generators $`d_i`$, associative operation denoted as $``$ and property

$$d_\mu d_\nu +d_\nu d_\mu =0.$$
(10)
So $`dim\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=2^n`$, similarly with Clifford algebra. Linear subspace of Grassmann algebra generated by $``$-product of $`k`$ different elements $`d_i`$ are usually denoted as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^k`$ (“$`k`$-forms”). For convenience here is used complex Grassmann algebra.

On the other hand, Clifford algebra, Dirac operator and spin group also may be expressed using Grassmann algebra . Let us consider Grassmann algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ of $`n`$-dimensional vector space $`V`$ and metric $`g`$ on $`V`$. Algebra of linear transformations of Grassmann algebra is denoted here as $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$ and for any vector $`vV`$, it is possible to construct linear transformations  $`\delta _v,\delta _v^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$:

$$\delta _v:v_1\mathrm{}v_kvv_1\mathrm{}v_k,$$
(11)
$$\delta _v^{}:v_1\mathrm{}v_k\underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^lg(v,v_l)v_1\mathrm{}\overline{)}v_l\mathrm{}v_k,$$
(12)
where $`\overline{)}v_l`$ means, that term $`v_l`$ must be omitted. Let $`v_i`$ is basis of $`V`$, then operators

$$\widehat{\gamma }_i=\delta _i+\delta _i^{}(\delta _i\delta _{v_i},\delta _i^{}\delta _{v_i}^{})$$
(13)
satisfy usual relations with anticommutators Eq. (2) for $`n`$ generators of Clifford algebra with quadratic form $`g`$, and so $`𝔩(g)`$ may be represented as subspace of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$. Let us denote this representation

$$_{}:𝔩(n)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n).$$
(14)
Let us consider also canonical isomorphism of Grassmann and Clifford algebras $`\mathtt{\Lambda }_{}:\mathrm{\Lambda }_n𝔩(n)`$ as linear spaces defined on basis as

$$\mathtt{\Lambda }_{}:d_{i_1}\mathrm{}d_{i_k}\gamma _{i_1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_k},i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k,$$
(15)
together with inverse one $`\mathtt{\Lambda }_{}^1`$.

It is possible to express basic property of formal constructions above as

$$\mathtt{\Lambda }_{}^1(\mathrm{𝖫𝖬})=_{}(𝖫)\left(\mathtt{\Lambda }_{}^1(𝖬)\right),𝖫,𝖬𝔩.$$
(16)
It should be mentioned, that using Hodge operator $`:\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^k\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{nk}`$ it is possible to write $`\delta _v^{}=\delta _v`$. By using dual Grassmann operation $`=`$, it is possible to simplify Eq. (11), Eq. (12)

$$\delta _v(\omega )=v\omega ,\delta _v^{}(\omega )=v\omega ,\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_n.$$
(17)
Similarly, it is possible to introduce right actions

$$\stackrel{}{\delta }_v(\omega )=\omega v,\stackrel{}{\delta }_v^{}(\omega )=\omega v,\stackrel{}{\widehat{\gamma }}_i=\stackrel{}{\delta }_i+\stackrel{}{\delta }_i^{},$$
(18)
and right representation $`_{}`$ of Clifford algebra in $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$ with property

$$\mathtt{\Lambda }_{}^1(\mathrm{𝖫𝖬𝖱})=\left(_{}(𝖫)_{}(𝖱)\right)\left(\mathtt{\Lambda }_{}^1(𝖬)\right),𝖫,𝖬,𝖱𝔩.$$
(19)
The Dirac equation also has natural representation here . It is possible to express Dirac operator using exterior differential for forms $`d`$ and its Hodge dual $`d^{}`$

$$d=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta _i\frac{}{x_i},d^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta _i^{}\frac{}{x_i},𝒟=d+d^{}.$$
(20)
It is also possible to use standard representation of spin group via left representation $`_{}`$ of Clifford algebra Eq. (14). Usually it is restricted on spaces of odd and even forms .

On the other hand, unlike of Clifford space, Grassmann space also accept external GL(4,$``$) isomorphism induced by extension of transformation

$$d_\mu ^{}=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{3}{}}A_\mu ^\nu d_\nu .$$
(21)
to general form $`d_{i_1}\mathrm{}d_{i_k}`$. Existence of such kind of isomorphism is common property of antisymmetric forms, and Grassmann algebra may be represented as exterior algebra of the forms.

Representation of Dirac operator in form Eq. (20) ensures proper transformation property. It is clear for exterior differential $`d`$, and for $`d^{}`$ it is also so, because terms with $`g(v,v_l)`$ in Eq. (12) are transformed to $`g(Av,Av_l)`$, i.e. in agreement with change of metric $`g^{}=A^TgA`$ and also demonstrate desired property of $`𝒟=d+d^{}`$ with respect to map $`_{}`$ and Eq. (3).

So result of present paper may be formulated as:

Proposition: Transformation properties of solution of Dirac equation in matrix form Eq. (6) with respect to group GL(4,$``$) due to isomorphism

$$\mathtt{\Lambda }_{}:\mathrm{\Lambda }_4𝔩(3,1)Mat(4)$$

corresponds to standard transformation properties of exterior algebra of antisymmetric forms on tangent space with respect to general linear coordinate transformations from GL(4,$``$).

## 6 Further Discussion

The main proposition needs for some explanation. Transformation of space of differential forms induced by general linear coordinate transformation is really valid representation of GL(4,$``$), but that is relation with usual spinor representation in case of restriction to SO(3,1) $``$ GL(4,$``$)? For example, exterior space in respect to GL(4,$``$) have five irreducible subspaces corresponding to spaces $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4^k`$, $`k=0,\mathrm{},4`$.

On the other hand, from a naíve point of view Dirac spinors in such classification should correspond to some (fictitious) index like $`k=1/2`$, because exterior form with index $`k=1`$ corresponds to (co)vector, i.e. “spin one.”

To justify the proposition, let us show first, that for Minkowski metric and Lorentz group SO(3,1) $``$ GL(4,$``$) suggested transformation corresponds to

$$\mathsf{\Psi }\Sigma \mathsf{\Psi }\Sigma ^1$$
(22)
used for description of transformation property Eq. (7) of Dirac equation in matrix representation Eq. (6).

Let us consider subspaces $`𝔩_k(n)𝔩(n)`$, $`k=0,\mathrm{},n`$ produced by products of $`k`$ matrices $`\gamma _\mu `$. Only for element $`\Sigma `$ from spin group internal isomorphism Eq. (22) of Clifford algebra maps subspaces $`𝔩_k(n)`$ to itself. On the other hand, such isomorphism may be expressed using substitution of generators like Eq. (3) with isometry $`A`$, i.e. Lorentz group for particular case under consideration.

For Lorentz group transformation law for $`𝔩_k(3,1)`$ due to Eq. (3) is the same as for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4^k`$ and Eq. (21) respectively. More formally, in such a case it is possible to express transformation suggested in proposition as

$$\left(_{}(\Sigma _A)_{}(\Sigma _A^1)\right)(M),M\mathrm{\Lambda }_4,\Sigma _A\mathrm{Spin}(3,1),A\mathrm{SO}(3,1).$$
(23)
Where is also other way to represent constructions suggested above. Let we have Dirac algebra of $`4\times 4`$ complex matrices and some fixed basis of Dirac matrices $`\gamma _\mu `$. Let us now together with usual matrix multiplication introduce other associative and distributive operation “$``$” induced by structure of Grassmann algebra due to linear map $`\mathtt{\Lambda }_{}`$ Eq. (15). Formally, it would be necessary to write $`16^2=256`$ products for elements of basis, but really the operation “$``$” is unique defined by expression with two matrices

$$\gamma _\mu \gamma _\mu 0,\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu \gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu (\mu <\nu ),$$
(24)
associativity and property $`\gamma _{i_1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_k}\gamma _{i_1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_k}`$ for $`i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k`$.

Now linear map Eq. (3) with arbitrary $`A\mathrm{GL}(4,)`$ may be extended to representation of GL(4,$``$) on full 16D space using “$``$” products of generators. It is also valid for $`A\mathrm{SO}(3,1)`$, but in such a case difference between “$``$” and usual matrix (Clifford) products does not matter, because due to property of spin group usual product does not produce “junk” terms with $`g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (unit of algebra multiplied on some coefficient of metric). The other property of $`A\mathrm{SO}(3,1)`$ is possibility to express considered representation as internal isomorphism with respect to usual product, $`\mathsf{\Psi }\Sigma _A\mathsf{\Psi }\Sigma _A^1`$, Eq. (22).

It was already discussed earlier, how Eq. (22) corresponds to usual spinor representation. Because of Eq. (8) matrix function $`\mathsf{\Psi }`$ may be associated with tensor product of usual spinor $`\psi `$ on some “auxiliary spinor $`\alpha `$” and then due to Eq. (9), it is possible for Lorentz group to rewrite Eq. (22) as

$$\psi \alpha (\Sigma \psi )(\Sigma _{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{T}\alpha ),$$
(25)
but state of auxiliary system for such a product does not matter due to possibility to apply arbitrary transformation $`R:\alpha R^T\alpha `$ (see Sec. 4). So it is possible to take into account only transformation of first term $`\psi \Sigma \psi `$ in tensor product, i.e. spinor representation of Lorentz group.

On the other hand, general GL(4,$``$) transformation does not correspond to map between “product states” like $`\psi \alpha `$. Using some quantum mechanical jargon it could be possible to say, that general GL(4,$``$) transformation “entangles” state $`\psi `$ and auxiliary state $`\alpha `$, and transformation $`R`$ on second state used above may not improve situation (“disentangle” states), because it is “local”. With same analogy, relation between $`\mathsf{\Psi }`$ and usual Dirac spinor $`\psi `$ may be compared with conception of subsystem in quantum mechanics. But really such jargon should be considered only as some hint, because more detailed consideration may use also real representation of Clifford algebra and constructions used above may correspond to real or even quaternionic matrices and tensor products and, after all, transformations used here correspond to some finite-dimensional unitary representations only for SO(3) subgroup of GL(4,$``$).