text:
# Carbon Monoxide Depletion in Orion B Molecular Cloud Cores

## 1 Introduction

There is considerable evidence that protostellar collapse occurs from an interstellar envelope (scale $``$104AU) onto, most likely, a circumstellar disc (scale $``$100 AU) . For a long time the collapse is likely to be isothermal and at a low temperature (about 10 K). This temperature is lower than the freeze-out temperatures of common interstellar molecules (CO 15–17 K, NH3 50–60 K, H2O 90 K; see Nakagawa 1980), and, as collapse proceeds, the freeze-out timescale becomes shorter than the collapse timescale. The expectation is for a long isothermal phase at $``$10 K when the molecules freeze-out onto grains followed by re-heating when they come off again. These processes have been modelled by, inter alia, Nejad, Williams & Charnley (1990), Rawlings et al. (1992), Bergin & Langer (1997) and Charnley (1997).

There is observational evidence for depletion in cores (by about an order of magnitude) in molecules such as CO and CS (e.g. Bergin et al. 2001; Tafalla et al. 2002). Most of these results have come from observations of nearby molecular cloud cores in which low-mass stars are forming in small groups (e.g. Jorgensen, Schöier & van Dishoeck 2002). In the more distant Orion region where our targets lie, NGC2024 (in L1630) contains several compact cores which show evidence for depletion of CO and other molecules (Mauersberger et al. 1992).

The interpretation as depletion has been criticised, however, by Chandler and Carlstrom (1996), who have provided evidence that some of the molecular gas is hot. Their criticisms include: (a) the dust opacity law in the cores will be non-standard, (b) dust emission may become optically thick at the short submm wavelengths – giving an ‘artificially low’ flux which is interpreted as a low temperature in an ‘optically thin’ interpretation, and (c) the cores may contain unresolved components which are highly optically thick in molecular lines - but thin in submillimetre dust emission. Thus the true molecular abundance may be much higher. Mangum et al. (1999) also provide evidence that the gas in the cores of NGC2024 is hot ($`>`$40 K) which would accommodate a normal abundance for CO.

One problem with NGC2024, however, is that it is near strong external heat sources and HII emission and it is not clear that the line emission from the molecular gas arises from within the cores from which the dust emission emanates.

In this paper we report new observations of carbon monoxide isotopomers C18O, C17O and 13C18O from selected positions near and around cold cores in the same molecular cloud, L1630. These positions have been chosen with reference to previously published maps of HCO+, C18O and dust continuum emission from the condensations LBS23 (also known as HH24–26), LBS17, and LBS18 (e.g. Gibb et al. 1995; Gibb & Little 1998, 2000; Phillips, Gibb & Little 2001. These references will be quoted as GLHL, GL98, GL00, and PGL respectively). GL98 and GL00 deduced that there was depletion in several cores. The aim of this work is to confirm its significance and to evaluate its extent. We seek to determine optical depths from the CO isotopomers and use the previously published dust emission data together with a range of possible emission laws to examine the relative abundance.

In Sections 2 and 3 we justify our need to observe isotopomers as rare as 13C18O. In Section 4 we describe the observations, which we analyse in Section 5 to deduce the depletion in and around the cores. The chemical significance of the results is outlined in Section 6.

## 2 Proving depletion?

Maps of two of the largest cores in the Orion B molecular cloud, LBS17 and LBS23, made in high excitation HCO+ and C18O (J=2$``$1) lines , show striking differences between the structures traced by the two molecules. Particularly apparent is the enhanced brightness of $`J`$=3$``$2 HCO+ relative to $`J`$=2$``$1 C18O in the protostellar core LBS17-H (Fig. 2 of GL00), and of $`J`$=4$``$3 HCO+ to $`J`$=2$``$1 C18O in HH25MMS (Fig. 1 of GL98). Figs. 1, 2 and 3 show the relation between the C18O and dust emission. C18O emission is surprisingly weak in some of the clumps which stand out prominently in the other species. An interpretation assuming a simple source structure, optically thin C18O, and the dust emissivity law proposed by Hildebrand (1983), implies widespread reductions of the C18O abundance in these clumps by factors of 13 to 57 compared to what we take to be its canonical value of 2$`\times `$10-7 (GL98 and Frerking, Langer & Wilson 1982). Most of the clumps appear to be bound objects of several solar masses (for LBS23 at least).

GL98 consider other ideas to explain the apparent reduction in abundance for the clumps in LBS23. Abnormal dust properties do not appear to be required because dust-emission-derived masses for the clumps are in good agreement with their virial masses.

Another possibility is the absorption of C18O emission from intervening low excitation temperature gas. If this were the case then the effect would be seen as strong self-absorption in the optically thicker CO lines. However, there is no evidence for such self-absorption in the CO spectra (GH93). Since the observed antenna temperatures measure the excitation temperature where the optical depth becomes equal to unity, a comparison of the CO and C18O antenna temperatures would then suggest that the cloud cores are externally heated (see e.g. GL98).

If the C18O emission arises in optically thick, unresolved sub-clumps the need for depletion might be avoided as all the C18O might not be detected. Accordingly we have made careful observations of weak isotopomers, including C18O, C17O and 13C18O, to seek to eliminate a sub-clump model. To illustrate how this can be achieved we consider a simple two-component model in the next section.

## 3 Optically thick clumping model

In Section 5 of GL98 the authors describe a two-component model (‘envelope’ and ‘sub-clump’) where the envelope (component 1) is optically thin (depth $`\tau _1`$, linewidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_1`$) in the less abundant CO isotopomers, such as C18O, and the sub-clump material (component 2) is optically thick (depth $`\tau _2`$, linewidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_2`$) in these same lines. Extending their analysis it is also possible to define an *apparent* depletion factor which describes how the presence of the optically thick clump mimics depletion within the beam in the simplistic interpretation as a single component. The CO abundance for such a source would be proportional to $`(T_{\mathrm{A1}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }v_1`$ \+ $`T_{\mathrm{A2}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }v_2\tau _2)`$. However, in the standard optically thin analysis, not knowing $`\tau _2`$, we would assume the CO abundance is proportional to $`(T_{\mathrm{A1}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }v_1`$ \+ $`T_{\mathrm{A2}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }v_2)`$. We will thus deduce CO abundances that are too low by a ratio

$$A=\frac{T_{\mathrm{A1}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }v_1+T_{\mathrm{A2}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }v_2}{T_{\mathrm{A1}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }v_1+T_{\mathrm{A2}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }v_2\tau _2}=\frac{R_{12}+1}{R_{12}+\tau _2}$$
(1)
where $`R_{12}`$ is defined in GL98 as the ratio of the integrated intensities of components 1 and 2. The optical depth of the sub-clump component $`\tau _2`$ in the denominator causes $`A`$ to be less than unity, and demonstrates how an optically thick sub-clump can mimic depletion. If we assume that the abundance is in fact normal then we can use our model along with estimates of $`R_{12}`$ and $`A`$ to deduce information concerning the nature of the sub-clumps.

For example, the clump HH25MMS (GLHL, GL98 and PGL) stands out very prominently in dust continuum and 4$``$3 HCO+ emission but it is barely detectable as an independent source on the north-south ridge of 2$``$1 C18O emission. The integrated intensity on the ridge is typically 2.5 K km s-1 while HH25MMS adds about 0.8 K km s-1 to it. Thus $`R_{12}=2.5/0.8=3.1`$. Also the apparent depletion factor, $`A`$, is about 1/30 (according to GL98). Hence, from equation 1, $`\tau _2`$ = 120.

GL98 showed that the beam filling factor of the sub-clumps was given by

$$f_c=\frac{\tau _1\mathrm{\Delta }v_1}{R_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }v_2+\tau _1\mathrm{\Delta }v_1}$$
(2)
The 4$``$3 HCO+ emission is closely correlated with the continuum dust emission, rather than the C18O, but has a linewidth similar to the C18O so $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_1=\mathrm{\Delta }v_2`$. Also for HH25MMS $`\tau _1`$ 0.2 so that the sub-clump filling factor is $`f_\mathrm{c}`$ = 0.06. These would be sub-clumps with a very high C18O optical depth and a very small beam filling factor in the 22 arcsec JCMT beam.

We shall assume that the JCMT beam, of radius *R*, contains *n* identical sub-clumps of radius *r*. Then $`f_\mathrm{c}=n(r/R)^2`$. We know $`n1`$ since HH25MMS is resolved. It follows that $`r2.4`$ arcsec or 1000 AU at the distance of L1630 (400 pc). Since the apparent depletion is high, most of the mass within the beam at HH25MMS is in the sub-clumps. GLHL quote a mass of 8 M in the core of HH25MMS. The sub-clump mass is then $`(8/n)`$ M and its density is greater than 2.5$`\times `$108 cm-3. The density of the envelope material is much lower. Its mass is 1/30th that of the clumps, and taking the mass to be within a beamwidth gives a density 5$`\times `$104 cm-3. In summary, if we seek to retain normal abundances by assuming sub-clumping it would appear that the sub-clumps must have radii less than 1000 AU and densities greater than 2.5$`\times `$108 cm-3.

As described by GL98, the most obvious problem with the ‘sub-clump’ interpretation seems to lie in the fact that the HCO+ intensity follows the submillimetre dust continuum emission well (rather than the envelope observable in C18O) yet its brightness temperature is so high that it must have a beam filling factor near unity, which is much greater than that deduced for the sub-clumps from C18O. Nonetheless it is important to test the structure within the clumps either via interferometric observations or beam-matched observations of weaker CO isotopomers.

We may predict C17O line intensities, assuming $`\tau _2`$=120. The component 1 intensity should decrease by a factor of 5.4 compared to C18O, since it is optically thin, but that from component 2 will be unaltered as its optical depth will still be extremely high (=120/5.4). Referring to Table LABEL:clumps, the intensity will be

$$T_\mathrm{A}^{}=T_{\mathrm{A1}}^{}+T_{\mathrm{A2}}^{}=0.34\mathrm{K}+0.2\mathrm{K}=0.54\mathrm{K}$$
(3)
so the ratio of the C18O to C17O intensities will be 2.6. This might easily be misinterpreted as indicating that the C18O was just slightly optically thick. Observations of even rarer isotopomers – so that the optically thin ‘envelope’ contribution becomes negligible while the optically thick core component still remains – are required. Table LABEL:clumps gives predicted line intensities for the ‘depletion’ and ‘sub-clump’ models. It can be seen that observations of 13C18O are clearly capable of distinguishing between them.

## 4 Observations

### 4.1 CO observations

Observations of the J=2$``$1 transitions of C18O, C17O and 13C18O were carried out over the period of 1998 February 16–28 at the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope, using the common user SIS receiver A2 (Davies et al. 1992) and the digital autocorrelation spectrometer DAS. The original mixer in A2 had been replaced by one from NRAO. The C17O observations were made assuming a rest frequency of 224.714 GHz, the C18O observations at 219.560 GHz and the 13C18O observations 209.419 GHz. Key positions were selected from our previous maps of the cores, and, in addition, a new map of C18O in LBS18 was made. The positions chosen are listed in Table LABEL:pos. The positions of cores were observed, as well as a selection of references off core where there was sign of continuum emission.

The pointing and antenna temperature were measured with reference to the nearby source OMC1. The pointing was consistent typically to within about 3 arcsec. On 16th and 17th February the apparent antenna temperatures of lines from the frequently observed calibrating source OMC1 varied with time when observing the C18O and 13C18O lines. The intensity of the C18O line varied systematically with time between 0.51 and 0.80 of that of the Observatory reference spectrum for OMC1 C18O, $`T_\mathrm{A}^{}`$ = 7.5 K. The C18O intensities we quote have been systematically corrected for this variation, which brought three of the observations into agreement with similar ones described by GL98.

There was no appropriate Observatory reference for that part of the passband containing 13C18O or C17O. Although 13C18O was not clearly discernible for OMC1 on 16th February the intensities of several bright lines in the passband containing it varied systematically with time between 0.42 and 0.64 of their value on 18th and 19th February. It has been assumed that the values for 18th and 19th February are correct, and our 13C18O intensities scaled on this assumption. The C17O line observed in OMC1 showed no significant variation between 17th, 18th and 20th February, yielding $`T_\mathrm{A}^{}`$ = 1.9$`\pm `$0.1 K. This value has been assumed correct, and no scaling applied to our observed C17O intensities.

An observation of CO in OMC1 on 17th February yielded a line of brightness 0.9 of the observatory reference value. The reason for the time variation of C18O and 13C18O line intensities on 16th and 17th February has not been established. Based on the authors’ experience, possibilities might include incorrect adjustment of one of the telescope mirrors, problems in SIS receiver calibration (see, e.g. Davies et al. 1992) or uncertainty in receiver sideband calibration, though the latter might not be expected to vary with time. The receiver was tuned for double sideband performance and it is expected that the sideband ratio should be no worse than 1.2. Changing the LO frequency to observe the same C18O line in both sidebands on the 17th, when the observed strength was low (though not a measurement of the sideband ratio) produced very similar line intensities, tending to suggest that the sideband ratio was not responsible.

Fig. 4 shows the new map of the LBS18 region along with the 850 $`\mu `$m map from PGL, and Figs. 5 to 8 show the new spectra obtained for HH24MMS, HH25MMS, LBS17H and LBS18S.

### 4.2 Continuum observations

The continuum observations used in this paper were made using the submillimetre bolometer array receiver SCUBA and are described in PGL. For the purposes of this paper we have smoothed their 850$`\mu `$m maps to the same resolution as that of our CO data, i.e. 22 arcsec.

## 5 Results And Analysis

Table LABEL:intens contains the data taken from the new observations. The antenna temperatures, $`T_\mathrm{A}^{}`$, derived from the CO observations for all three species at each of the positions are shown. The observations were made with a channel spacing and noise bandwidth of 0.45 kms-1. Four channels were averaged to give the temperatures quoted in Table LABEL:intens. (Note that the spectra are show in the original spectral resolution of 0.45 km s-1.) The integrated intensity $`I_{\mathrm{int}}`$(K km s-1), which is derived from the antenna temperature ($`I_{\mathrm{int}}`$=$`T_\mathrm{A}^{}𝑑v`$, integrated over $`\pm `$1.79 kms-1), for each species is also shown.

The Astronomical Image Processing Software (aips) package was used to analyse the continuum data. The 850 $`\mu `$m and 450 $`\mu `$m continuum emission maps were convolved to an effective resolution of 22 arcsec. The fluxes $`F`$ (Jy) for each position listed in Table LABEL:pos were then taken from the convolved maps and are listed in Table LABEL:intens. The uncertainty in these values is 0.02–0.03 Jy.

### 5.1 Temperatures and masses

From the fluxes at 850 $`\mu `$m and 450 $`\mu `$m we seek to derive the temperatures and masses. The results depend on the opacity law, which is uncertain. Rather than seeking to justify a law we chose to investigate the effect of varying it by comparing the different results obtained assuming two typical but reasonably extreme examples: the laws proposed by Hildebrand (1983) ($`\beta `$=2) and by Testi & Sargent (1998) ($`\beta `$=1.1). These predict very similar opacities at 850 $`\mu `$m, but different temperatures from 850/450 flux ratios. We accordingly derive temperatures from both these laws, and compare them with already published temperatures from grey body spectral fits and ammonia inversion line observations to deduce plausible temperature limits. These are then used with the 850 $`\mu `$m opacities to deduce masses.

If the absorption coefficient $`\kappa (\nu )`$ is written in terms of the dust and molecular hydrogen density as

$$\kappa (\nu )=\kappa _\mathrm{d}\rho _\mathrm{d}=\kappa _{\mathrm{H}_2}n_{\mathrm{H}_2}$$
(4)
the total number of hydrogen molecules $`N(H_2)`$ implied by observation of a flux $`F_\nu `$, from dust assumed to be optically thin, is

$$N(\mathrm{H}_2)=\frac{D^2c^2(\mathrm{exp}(\frac{h\nu }{kT})1)}{2h\nu ^3\kappa _{\mathrm{H}_2}}F_\nu $$
(5)
where $`D`$ is the distance from Earth.

The temperature of the gas can be derived by forming the ratio of the submillimetre continuum fluxes at the two wavelengths and comparing it with that predicted for different temperatures using equation 5. Flux-ratio maps were produced by using the comb task in aips to divide the 850 $`\mu `$m (15 arcsec resolution) maps by the 450 $`\mu `$m (15 arcsec resolution) maps. The ratio, $`r`$(850/450), was measured at each point from these maps and used to find the temperature. The flux-ratio map of LBS18, which has been smoothed to a resolution of 22 arcsec, has been plotted over the 850 $`\mu `$m (22 arcsec) continuum map in Fig. 9, where it can be seen that the contours representing the higher values of $`r`$(850/450) are coincident with the dust peaks. This may be due to (a) a lower temperature, (b) a flatter emissivity law, or (c) the 450 $`\mu `$m emission being optically thick.

The resulting value of $`T_\mathrm{d}`$ for each position can be found in Table LABEL:temps for both values of $`\beta `$. As expected, the temperatures are higher for the lower value of $`\beta `$. The errors are derived using the calibration uncertainties and random noise errors quoted in PGL.

Assuming the dust is optically thin can produce misleadingly low temperatures and high derived masses if the dust is in fact optically thick at 450 $`\mu `$m. However PGL used a radiative transfer program to model the cores that was not limited by this assumption, but derived very similar temperatures to those found here. In reality the results we find represent an average over the beam. It is also quite likely that there are temperature gradients within the beam, either decreasing towards the centre of the core (e.g., an externally heated protostellar cloud) or increasing (e.g., an interstellar cloud heated by a central young star). If there are, then the derived beam–averaged temperature will be weighted towards the hotter dust which radiates more strongly. This means that the derived dust masses will be too low (colder dust being underweighted). CO column densities are less sensitive to temperature, so the overall effect is to derive CO abundances which are higher than the true ones – i.e. to make the depletion appear less marked than it really is.

Further information is available which can be used to constrain the temperatures. Grey body fits to the spectra of dust continuum emission give $`T_\mathrm{d}`$=17–35 K for HH25MMS (Gibb and Davis, 1998), $`T_\mathrm{d}`$=20$`\pm `$5 K for HH24MMS (Ward-Thompson et al., 1995) and $`T_\mathrm{d}<`$20 K for LBS17H (GL00). It is also of interest to compare the derived temperatures with those obtained from NH3 inversion lines. Harju et al. (1993) used NH3(1,1) and (2,2) observations of 40 arcsec resolution to derive the kinetic temperature of 43 star forming cores, 16 of which are associated with the Orion L1630 and L1641 clouds. They mapped LBS23, finding temperatures of about 15K at the positions of HH24MMS and HH25MMS. These results and those from the grey body fits are included in Table LABEL:temps. In general the kinetic temperature shows little variation over their maps. Their results show that the average kinetic temperature is $``$15.7 K for the Orion cores. Only two of their cores showed temperatures greater than 20 K. Matthews and Little (1983) also mapped LBS23 with 130 arcsec resolution; at HH25 they found a temperature of 14 K which is similar to that of Harju et al. As the cloud is extended and their beam contained a substantial region surrounding the core it is likely that a temperature of 14 K is representative of the envelope surrounding the core.

On the basis of Table LABEL:temps and the general considerations above we regard conservative limits for the dust temperatures to be 20$`\pm `$5 K for HH24MMS and HH25MMS and 15$`\pm `$5 K for LBS17H and LBS18S, while for the off–core envelope positions we take $`T`$=15$`\pm `$5 K. We then use these temperatures and the 850 $`\mu `$m fluxes together with the 850 $`\mu `$m opacity of Testi and Sargent to deduce gas masses via equation 5. These are used in Section 5.3 to derive relative CO abundances.

### 5.2 Carbon monoxide optical depths

We can see immediately that the observed isotope line ratios listed in Table LABEL:clumps for HH25MMS are in much better agreement with the predictions of the depletion model than with those for optically thick sub-clumps. It should be noted that although optically thick undepleted sub-clumps are unlikely to explain the apparent depletion the existence of depleted clumps is not ruled out.

Table LABEL:tau shows the line temperatures and their ratios ($`X`$(18/17), denoting the ratio of $`T_{\mathrm{A}_{18}}^{}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{A}_{17}}^{}`$, the line temperatures of C18O and C17O respectively). The mean value of $`X`$(18/17) in the cores is 4.28; towards the other positions 6.1. The latter value is in good agreement with the solar expectation of 5.4, suggesting that these positions are optically thin, and that the \[C17O\]/\[C18O\] ratio is normal. The former suggests that C18O may be slightly optically thick in the cores, but certainly not sufficiently to discredit a former conclusion that CO is depleted in several of the cores of LBS23 (GL98). The \[C17O\]/\[13C18O\] ratios are consistent with the solar value.

The above constitutes good evidence that C17O and 13C18O are optically thin.

The optical depths of the three species in the individual positions have been calculated. Firstly, the optical depth of C17O can be calculated using equation 6, where $`T_{\mathrm{A}_{17}}^{}`$ is the line temperature of C17O and $`T_{\mathrm{A}_{18}}^{}`$ is that of C18O and $`\tau _{17}`$ and $`\tau _{18}`$ are the optical depths of C17O and C18O respectively.

$$\frac{T_{\mathrm{A}_{18}}^{}}{T_{\mathrm{A}_{17}}^{}}=\frac{1e^{\tau _{18}}}{1e^{\tau _{17}}}=\frac{1e^{5.4\tau _{17}}}{1e^{\tau _{17}}}$$
(6)
By assuming that solar values hold, $`\tau _{18}`$ = 5.4$`\tau _{17}`$, equation 6 was solved to obtain a value for $`\tau _{17}`$ at each position. The values of $`\tau _{17}`$ are displayed in Table LABEL:tau with the errors calculated for each value. Multiplying $`\tau _{17}`$ by 5.4 gives $`\tau _{18}`$ at each position. One can also calculate $`\tau _{13,18}`$, the optical depth of 13C18O by dividing $`\tau _{17}`$ by 16.6. It can be seen from these results that all three species of CO are optically thin in the regions where the abundances have been calculated and can therefore be used effectively in the calculations. The negative optical depth values in Table LABEL:tau are likely to be due to noise errors, rather than weak maser emission.

### 5.3 Relative abundance of CO

For an optically thin transition the total number of molecules within a beam $`\theta `$ (FWHM arcsec) from a source at D (kpc) is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}N(\mathrm{MOL})=2.5\times 10^8\left(\frac{D}{0.4}\right)^2\left(\frac{\theta }{22}\right)^2\frac{(2J+1)}{J^2F_J(1R)}\left(\frac{0.1}{\mu }\right)^2\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left(\frac{55.5}{B}\right)T_R^{}𝑑v\end{array}$$
(7)
where $`B`$ is the rotational constant (GHz), $`\mu `$ the dipole moment (debyes), $`J`$ the upper level of the transition, $`F_\mathrm{J}`$ is the fractional population of level $`J`$, $`T_\mathrm{R}^{}𝑑v`$ is the integrated line intensity (K km s-1), and $`R`$ is given by

$$R=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2hBJ}{kT})1}{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2hBJ}{kT_\mathrm{B}})1}$$
(8)
where $`T_\mathrm{B}`$ is the cosmic microwave background temperature (2.7 K).

The relative abundance of the CO isotopomer can be estimated by computing $`N(MOL)`$ from equation LABEL:NMOL and dividing by $`N(\mathrm{H}_2)`$ from equation 5. (To calculate the relative abundance, the integrated intensities in Table LABEL:intens were divided by $`\eta _\mathrm{B}(=0.8)`$ to correct for beam efficiency.)

The C18O abundance, $`\chi _{\mathrm{C}^{18}\mathrm{O}}`$, was calculated in the same way as for C17O and 13C18O but the answers obtained for HH24MMS, HH25MMS, LBS17H, LBS18S, and LBS17F, were multiplied by (5.4/$`X`$), where $`X`$=$`X`$(18/17) (see Table LABEL:tau), to allow for the finite optical depth of C18O. The resulting relative abundances of C17O, C18O and 13C18O at each position can be found in Table LABEL:abund.

## 6 Discussion

### 6.1 Morphology

It appears, from comparing SCUBA and line results, that the cores tend to be found on the edges or ends of filaments. There are two kinds of core structure: ones where the HCO+ and dust are coincident but C18O is very faint or absent (LBS17H, HH24MMS), others where HCO+, C18O and dust peak successively towards the cloud edge (LBS18S and the Launhardt et al. (1996) core in LBS17 (see GL00)). The problem is to distinguish the effects of chemistry and excitation.

### 6.2 Depletion

The canonical values for the abundance of C18O, C17O and 13C18O may be taken to be $`2\times 10^7`$, $`4.7\times 10^8`$ and, assuming simple proportion, $`2.7\times 10^9`$ respectively, from Frerking et al. (1982). Dividing these values by the corresponding abundances in each position, one can estimate the depletion factor, $`d`$, for each isotopomer. Table LABEL:depl displays these depletion factors and one can see that in all cases the CO is depleted significantly.

Relative to the canonical values, the isotopic species appear to be depleted by factors of about 10 on the cores, and approximately half that in the envelopes. The values are typically less than those quoted by GL98, the differences being due to the assumption of slightly higher temperatures, careful matching of effective beam sizes and correction for the optical depths of C18O.

A natural explanation for the depletion observed in these cores is the condensation of CO molecules on dust grains since the density ($``$106 cm-3: GLHL, GL98) is high enough to reduce the freeze-out timescale to less than the dynamical timescale. In addition, grain growth by coagulation is expected in such regions which gives rise to increased dust emissivity (Ossenkopf 1993). The consequence of these two processes is that dense collapsing cores become very well defined in submillimetre continuum emission while simultaneously becoming very poorly defined in C18O emission, such as we observe here.

A number of studies of other star-forming regions have also arrived at the conclusion that the CO abundance is lower than the canonical value. Studies by Kramer et al. (1999), Willacy, Langer & Velusamy (1998) and Caselli et al. (1999) have found that the C18O abundance is reduced typically by factors ranging from a few to an order of magnitude towards the lines of sight with highest H2 column density. The study of Kramer et al. (1999) shows that the highest reduction in the C18O abundance occurs in the coldest regions. In all cases, these authors also conclude that freeze out of CO onto cold dust grains is responsible for the observed levels of depletion.

Although this investigation has shown that CO appears to be depleted in the cores, one cannot be sure that the factors are correct, as we are calculating the abundance using averages along the line of sight. If, for example, the cores are much colder than the envelopes, there will be a higher depletion factor in the cores and a lower one in the envelopes. This is one area which needs to be studied further in order to find a way of deriving the emission produced at the core positions rather than averaged along the line of sight. One must also keep in mind that the canonical values of the abundance have been calculated using line of sight observations which may contain dust and gas that is a lot less dense than that found in protostellar cores so comparing the core abundances with these values may not give a true depletion factor.

### 6.3 Implications for chemical models

Rawlings et al. (1992) show that as a protostar collapses it is plausible that the chemistry occurring while molecules deplete out onto dust grains leads to an increasing HCO+/CO ratio (by up to 50), although their absolute abundances finally fall. A requirement for this to happen is a high initial H2O abundance such as might result from initial conditions following a shock through already processed material, but not from initial conditions which are of simple atomic form.

Observations of water have been made towards the regions encompassing HH24MMS and HH25MMS with ISO, but these only trace a hot dense component in shocked gas (Benedettini et al. 2000). Perhaps more reliable but still less than ideal are the observations of NGC2024 with the Submillimeter-Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS) by Snell et al. (2000). Snell et al. estimate that the abundance of water (strictly only the ortho species) to be $`6\times 10^{10}`$, considerably lower than expected but in agreement with the notion of ongoing and widespread depletion by freeze out onto dust grains.

Other models have been developed which have different assumptions. Bergin & Langer (1997) followed chemistry during the collapse using a gas-grain chemical code, including desorption and depletion, but starting from an initial pristine state with elements only. The increase in HCO+/CO suggested by observations was not produced by the model. Neither was it produced by the different type of model of Charnley (1997).

Bergin et al. (2000) have proposed an alternative method of reducing the CO abundance, prompted by results from SWAS. In their model CO abundance can drop (even in warm clouds, say, 30 K) as a result of destruction by He+ with the oxygen atoms freezing out and becoming locked in water ice. Unfortunately their discussion excludes HCO+, and it should also be noted that the CO destruction occurs on extremely long timescales (greater than a million years), much longer than the collapse timescales for these cloud cores.

The model of Rawlings et al. (1992) predicts an abundance for HCO+ in good agreement with a value we have derived for HH25MMS ($`5\times 10^{10}`$, GLHL). In addition, the modelling of Caselli et al. (2002) shows that the HCO+ abundance may be used to estimate the maximum degree of depletion. Their Model 3 (shown in their Fig. 8) also predicts a value for the HCO+ abundance close to our LVG estimate for HH25MMS. At this value (which is also at a radius close to the beam radius for our JCMT observations) the depletion factor is $``$20, in good agreement with the levels of CO depletion we derived above.

However,it should also be noted that from our LVG modelling (GLHL) we find that the HCO+ is optically thick, and thus any decrease in the HCO+ abundance in the centre of these cores (at radii less than $``$3000–4000 AU) is masked. Observations and modelling of rarer species will help to answer this question. We are currently analysing observations of HCO+ and DCO+ isotopomers on the cores to study this phenomenon more carefully.

Since star-formation has already taken place in L1630 (e.g. Lada et al. 1991) the initial conditions for the chemistry will not be pristine. This supports our consideration of the model of Rawlings et al. (1992), which starts from ‘evolved’ conditions (including a high abundance of water). Only this model predicts an actual increase of HCO+ while CO is declining. It thus provides a natural explanation for the brightness of high excitation HCO+ emission relative to CO emission on cores. It thus appears that the role of the initial conditions is very important in determining the later behaviour of the chemistry.

## 7 Conclusions

We have used new observations of C17O, C18O and 13C18O along with existing 450 $`\mu `$m and 850 $`\mu `$m continuum observations to study four regions in the Orion B molecular cloud. This has allowed the determination of optical depths for the isotopic species and the elimination of a model by which the cores contain many optically thick sub-clumps to explain the low isotopic CO emission.

If the dust emissivity falls within what are presently considered to be reasonable limits, CO is depleted in both the cores and the surrounding regions, but by a higher factor in the cores. Relative to the canonical abundances of Frerking et al. (1982), the CO appears to be depleted by about a factor of 10 at the core positions and a factor of 5 in the envelopes. Although the dust observations do not allow the temperatures to be constrained for $`\beta `$=1.1, we believe it unlikely, from the NH3 observations of Harju et al. (1993) and Matthews and Little (1983), that temperatures will be greater than 15–20 K. It seems unlikely that the temperatures exceed the dust derived values in the sources.

The low abundance of CO and the brightness of HCO+ emission in the cores tends to support the model of Rawlings et al. (1992) which suggests that the amount of HCO+ in the core increases as that of CO decreases. The HCO+ abundance and observed levels of CO depletion are also in good agreement with a recent model of molecular ion chemistry in collapsing cores by Caselli et al. (2002).

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the JCMT staff for their efforts in obtaining the observational data. The JCMT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and the National Research Council of Canada. We would also like to thank the referee for all the useful comments and suggestions. D Savva would like to thank PPARC for the award of a studentship.


format: text

text:
# Superradiation from Crystals of High-Spin Molecular Nanomagnets

## I Introduction

Comparatively recently discovered l ; fstz ; ppbsc ; hbtcb  molecular nanomagnets of high-spin molecules are prospective from the point of view of practical application of the superradiation (SR) phenomena in electron spin resonance (ESR) frequency region. These are crystals of organic molecules which consist of about $`10`$ atoms of transitional metals. They are bounded in the molecule with indirect exchange interaction, as a result, each molecule possesses spin $`S10`$.

One of the manifestations of SR phenomena is the radiation intensity approximately proportional to the number of radiators squaredd . The properties of such coherent effects in optics have been extensively studied. Similar effects exist in the radiofrequency region (SR in spin systems was observed in several experiments, see Refs. bbm, ; kpsy, ), but although these and optical phenomena are similar in some aspects, the physics governing SR in spin systems is very different. It is natural and rather helpful to use magnetic resonance methods to describe SR in such systemsbh1 ; bh2 .

Let us return to high-spin molecular nanomagnets. The molecules interact mostly through dipole forces. In macroscopic terms, the motion of the magnetic moment of a crystal composed of such molecules leads to the radiation of electromagnetic waves, whose feedback influence creates radiation friction force (Lorents force). At low temperature, when the time of transverse relaxation $`T_2`$ (most usually due to spin-spin interactions) is large, relaxation by means of radiation friction can serve as the main cause of SR. Pure electromagnetic radiation mechanism (with $`T_2^1=0`$) was proposed recentlycg  (see also discussion in Ref. ylp, ). Both of the relaxation mechanisms mentioned above are taken into account in the approach we elaborate in this work for molecular nanomagnets. Electromagnetic radiation is described in terms of the retarded potential expansion; for the transverse relaxation a regular magnetic resonance description is used. Recently we applied similar description for nuclear and electron SR in solidsdkh .

First, give some qualitative estimations. The characteristic relaxation time due to radiation from a spin system in constant external magnetic field $`𝐇_0`$ is $`T_R\frac{c^3}{\gamma \omega _0^3M}`$, where $`M`$ is a magnetic moment of the sample, $`\omega _0=\gamma H_0`$, $`\gamma `$ is gyromagnetic ratio. This time is obtained by the expansion of the radiation field in powers of $`1/c`$ (see, for instance, Ref. sk, ). The time $`T_2`$ due to dipole-dipole interactions can be estimated (for simplicity assume paramagnetic with regular structure) via the second moment of resonance line, $`M_2`$. This time is about $`1/\sqrt{M_2}`$, where $`M_2\gamma ^2n^2\mu ^2\left(1L^2\left(\frac{\mu H_0}{T}\right)\frac{2T}{\mu H_0}L\left(\frac{\mu H_0}{T}\right)\right)`$ for large spin (see Ref. dkh, , where this formula was discussed). Here $`n`$ is concentration of spins (number of spins over number of lattice nodes in crystal), $`\mu `$ is the magnetic moment of spin, $`T`$ is the temperature, $`L(x)`$ is the Langevin function. If $`T0`$, then $`T_2\frac{H_0}{\gamma nT}`$. We discuss the situation when radiation friction is the main relaxation mechanism, thus $`T_RT_2`$. Relaxation must be slow in comparison with spins rotation about the field $`𝐇_0`$, $`\omega _0\frac{1}{T_R}`$. Also, the sample size should be smaller than the radiating wavelength, $`\frac{\omega _0V^{1/3}}{c}1`$ ($`V`$ is the volume of the sample), then the phase of emitted photons is the same throughout the sample and the process of radiation becomes coherent. In typical EPR experiments, $`\omega _010^{12}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`T0.1\mathrm{K}`$, and for linear size of a sample about $`0.01\mathrm{cm}`$ all these conditions may be satisfied. The temperature can be higher for bigger $`\omega _0`$ and smaller sample size. Thus, the need for SR situation when radiation damping prevails over transverse relaxation is quite realistic for ESR.

Considering the high-spin molecule as a single paramagnetic particle, a crystal sample is a super-paramagnet with strong magnetic anisotropyppbsc ; nscg ; gcs . For example, the molecules $`[\mathrm{Mn}_{12}\mathrm{O}_{12}(\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{COO})_{16}(\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O})_4]2\mathrm{C}\mathrm{H}_3\mathrm{COOH}4\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$ have spin $`S=10`$ and strong single-site anisotropy barrier about $`70\mathrm{K}`$. This temperature corresponds to magnetic energy of such a spin in a field of about $`10^5\mathrm{G}`$ (in this field $`\omega _010^{12}\mathrm{s}^1`$) that leads to a shift of the resonant frequency due to $`M_z`$ variations.

## II Equation of motion

Equation of motion of the magnetic moment $`𝐌`$ of the sample of spherical shape can be written as follows:

$$\dot{𝐌}=\gamma 𝐌\times (𝐇_0+\beta \frac{M_z}{V}\widehat{z}\frac{1}{2c^2V^{1/3}}\lambda _{ij}\ddot{M}_j+\frac{2}{3c^3}\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{𝐌})+𝐑$$
(1)
where $`𝐇_0`$ is constant magnetic field, directed along the anisotropy axis $`Oz`$, $`\widehat{z}`$ is the unit vector along this axis, $`\beta `$ is the anisotropy coefficient, $`\lambda _{ij}`$ is the tensor (which in general is determined by the shape of the sample), $`𝐑`$ is the term describing the transverse Bloch relaxation. The second term in the brackets is the anisotropy field (like in Landau — Lifshits equationll8 ), third and fourth terms appear as expansion of the retarded potential by powers of $`\omega _0V^{1/3}/c`$. The third term gives a small shift of the resonance frequency, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0\omega _0`$. It does not lead to any noticeable physical effect and can be neglected. The fourth term describes the electromagnetic friction.

Consider the case when the field $`𝐇_0`$ and the anisotropy field are large compared to all other fields in the crystal. Thus, the rotation of $`𝐌`$ around the effective field $`𝐇_0+\beta \frac{M_z}{V}\widehat{z}`$ is the fastest motion and all other effects are comparatively slow. Then, the zero-th order approximation is

$$\dot{𝐌}=\gamma 𝐌\times \left(𝐇_0+\beta \frac{M_z}{V}\widehat{z}\right).$$
(2)
Using (2) repeatedly, one can obtain

$`\ddot{𝐌}=\gamma ^2\left(\left(𝐇_0+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{M_z}{V}}\widehat{z}\right)\left(𝐌\left(𝐇_0+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{M_z}{V}}\widehat{z}\right)\right)𝐌\left(𝐇_0+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{M_z}{V}}\widehat{z}\right)^2\right),`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{𝐌}=\gamma ^3(𝐇_0+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{M_z}{V}}\widehat{z})^2𝐌\times (𝐇_0+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{M_z}{V}}\widehat{z}).`$
Substitute these expressions in (1) and then average equation (1) over the fast frequency $`H_0+\beta M_z/V`$. Finally we obtain:

$`\rho ^2+n_z^2=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K\xi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+Kn_z)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+Kn_z(0))^2}}\right],`$ (4)
$`\dot{n}_z=\xi (1n_z^2)(1+Kn_z)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K}}\left[1+Kn_z{\displaystyle \frac{(1+Kn_z)^3}{(1+Kn_z(0))^2}}\right].`$ (5)
Here $`n_{x,y,z}=M_{x,y,z}/M(0)`$ are normalized components of the magnetic moment, $`\rho ^2=n_x^2+n_y^2,`$ $`K=\frac{\beta M(0)}{VH_0}`$ is the dimensionless coefficient of anisotropy, $`\xi =T_2/T_R`$ is the ratio of the characteristic time of transverse relaxation and the characteristic time of longitudinal relaxation due to radiation friction, $`T_R=\frac{3c^3}{2\gamma \omega _0^3M(0)}`$, $`n_z(0)=\mathrm{cos}\theta (0)`$ where $`\theta (0)`$ is the angle of the initial deviation of $`𝐌`$ from the $`Oz`$ axis. Note, that we measure the dimensionless ”time” in the units of $`T_2`$. We neglect spin-lattice interaction here.

The intensity of dipole radiationll2  is $`I=\frac{2}{3c^3}\ddot{𝐌}^2`$. The biggest contribution in $`\ddot{𝐌}`$ is due to rotation about $`𝐇_0`$, i.e. due to $`\ddot{M}_x`$ and $`\ddot{M}_y`$. Using formulae (3) for these quantities, we obtain

$$I=\frac{2M^2(0)}{3c^3}\omega _0^4(1+Kn_z)^4\rho ^2.$$
(6)
It is seen that $`I`$ is proportional to the second power of the number of molecules, $`N`$, in the sample which is $`N`$ times the incoherent radiation. This is the manifestation of Dicke’s superradiance for molecular nanomagnets. Using the same parameters as in the Introduction, one can see that $`I`$ can be as large as $`10^9\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$ for the concentration of molecules in crystal $`n410^{20}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. It is rather big quantity, although this radiation splashes only during about $`10^9\mathrm{s}`$ (because the amount of energy released during a flip of the magnetic moment in the field $`𝐇_0`$ is about 1 erg). It is questionable whether such a short signal can be detected, however, the flip of a total magnetic moment makes a direct experimental observation of the phenomena possible.

## III Regimes of motion

Let us consider first the SR when transverse relaxation can be completely neglected compared to radiation relaxation, i.e. when $`\xi \mathrm{}`$. This situation can be realized at low temperatures. Fig.1 shows how the final (in the equilibrium state) $`z`$-component of polarization, $`n_z(t\mathrm{})`$, depends on the coefficient of anisotropy, $`K`$. The evolution of $`n_z(t)`$ and $`I(t)/I(0)`$ for big but finite $`\xi `$ (the value $`\xi =100`$ was chosen) and several values of parameter $`K`$ is shown in Fig.2. We want to attract attention to the case when the value of $`K`$ is slightly less than $`1`$, in this situation the magnetization switches its direction rapidly from the unequilibrium state causing a very sharp and high SR pulse. This can be obtained directly from equation (5) that gives the evolution of the $`z`$-component of the total magnetization. Introduce the quantity $`ϵ(t)=\mathrm{cos}(\pi /2\theta (t))`$ where $`\theta (t)`$ is the angle between vector $`𝐧`$ and the $`z`$ axis. If initially vector $`𝐧`$ had only a small deviation from positive or negative directions of the $`Oz`$ axis, then $`ϵ(0)ϵ_01`$. Substituting $`n_z(t)=\pm 1ϵ(t)`$ into (5), for $`K=1`$ and $`\xi 1`$, we obtain

$`ϵ(t)={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_0}{(16ϵ_0^3\xi t)^{1/3}}}`$
when $`𝐧`$ was directed (approximately) against $`𝐇_0`$, and

$`ϵ(t)=ϵ_0e^{16\xi t}`$
if $`𝐧`$ was directed (approximately) along $`𝐇_0`$. Thus, in unequilibrium case, the magnetic moment begins to deviate very slowly from the negative direction of the $`Oz`$ axis and then, at some moment, makes a very quick flip producing a short powerful splash of SR. Note, that the final value of $`|n_z|`$ is smaller than $`|n_z(t=0)|`$ due to transverse relaxation.

The value of $`K`$ depends on the external field and, therefore, can be tuned. The peak of SR exists in the region $`0K1`$ (anisotropy of the type ”easy axis”) and in the region $`K<0`$ (”easy plane”). For the values of $`K1`$, the initial $`z`$-component of polarization generally is not big, that makes the SR effect weaker. If $`K>1`$, no SR pulse appears.

When a relative contribution of the transverse relaxation increases, the SR effect becomes smaller. Fig.3 is the 3-D plot of the final polarization $`n_z(t\mathrm{})`$ as function of $`K`$ and $`\xi `$ (for the initial polarization $`n_z(t=0)=0.9`$). Values of $`n_z(t\mathrm{})`$ close to $`1`$ mean that $`𝐌`$ did not flip; values close to $`1`$ indicate that $`𝐌`$ had changed its initial direction to the opposite. It is seen that strong transverse relaxation (small values of $`\xi `$) destroys the SR completely.

## IV Conclusion

The usual way to obtain a SR pulse from spin system is to place a sample in a tuned resonant coil. A feedback from the coil creates a coherent relaxation from the initially unequilibrium state. However, for crystals of high-spin molecules a strong magnetic anisotropy makes this mechanism not effective because of the significant variations in the resonant frequencyylp .

In this paper we give a rigorous (phenomenologically based) description for SR phenomena in crystals of high-spin molecules. The main mechanism for the SR is an interaction of spin magnetic moments with the cooperative radiated electromagnetic field acting on an entire sample. Contrary to this, the transverse relaxation changes phases of spins rotation chaotically. As a result, the radiation field can switch the direction of $`𝐌`$ and produce the SR pulse, while the usual relaxation just dissipates the total magnetization.

The equations of motion predict a very strong SR pulse for the value of anisotropy parameter $`K=\frac{\beta M(0)}{VH_0}`$ close (but smaller) to $`1`$. Such a scenario is presented in Fig.2 for $`K=0.9`$. The delay time is long enough to make the experimental observation of SR possible.


text:
# The Bethe ansatz as a matrix product ansatz

## Abstract

The Bethe ansatz in its several formulations is the common tool for the exact solution of one dimensional quantum Hamiltonians. This ansatz asserts that the several eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonians are given in terms of a sum of permutations of plane waves. We present results that induce us to expect that, alternatively, the eigenfunctions of all the exact integrable quantum chains can also be expressed by a matrix product ansatz. In this ansatz the several components of the eigenfunctions are obtained through the algebraic properties of properly defined matrices. This ansatz allows an unified formulation of several exact integrable Hamiltonians. We show how to formulate this ansatz for a huge family of quantum chains like the anisotropic Heisenberg model, Fateev-Zamolodchikov model, Izergin-Korepin model, Sutherland model, $`tJ`$ model, Hubbard model, etc.

Since the pioneering work of Bethe in 1931 the Bethe ansatz and its generalizations proved to be a quite efficient tool in the description of the eigenvectors of a huge variety of one-dimensional quantum chains and two dimensional transfer matrices (see e. g. - for reviews). On the other hand in the last two decades - it has been shown that some special quantum chains, although not integrable through the Bethe ansatz have the components of its ground-state wavefunctions given in terms of a product of matrices. In this matrix product ansatz (MPA), apart from a normalization constant, these components are fixed by the algebraic properties of the matrices defining the MPA. In another context a MPA has also been applied quite successfully to the evaluation of the stationary distribution of probabilities of some stochastic models in one dimension . The time fluctuations of these stochastic models are described by the ground state wavefunction of a related spin Hamiltonian. The simplest example is the one-dimensional asymmetric exclusion process  whose related spin Hamiltonian is the anisotropic Heisenberg chain, or XXZ chain, with appropriate boundary fields . The stationary properties of the model are given in terms of the algebraic relations of the matrices appearing on the MPA. This ansatz was used in a variety of problems including interface growth , boundary induced phase transitions , -, the dynamics of shocks  or traffic flow .

An important development of the MPA that appeared in the context of stochastic models is the dynamical matrix product ansatz (DMPA) . This ansatz  allows, whenever it is valid, the calculation of the probability densities, of the stochastic system, at arbitrary times. In the related spin Hamiltonian this DMPA asserts that not only the ground-state wave function, as in the standard MPA, but an arbitrary wavefunction have components expressed in terms of a matrix product ansatz whose matrices, in distinction of the standard MPA, are now time dependent. This DMPA was shown originally , to be valid for the problem of asymmetric diffusion of particles on the lattice. More recently  it was also shown that this DMPA can also be formulated in the context of stochastic models with two species of hard-core particles. The condition of validity of the DMPA reproduces the subspace of parameters where the model is known to be exactly integrable. This fact induce us to conjecture that all the Hamiltonians, related or not to stochastic models, that are solvable through the Bethe ansatz may also be solvable by an appropriate MPA. This would mean that the components of the eigenfunctions of the exact integrable models, that according to the Bethe ansatz, are normally given by a combination of plane waves, can also be obtained from the algebraic properties of the matrices defining the MPA.

In this Letter we are going to show how the eigenspectra of the exact integrable quantum chains, with global conservation laws, can be obtained by an appropriate matrix-product ansatz. In this way we were able to obtain the integrability of several well known exact integrable models. Among the models with one global conservation law we have the XXZ chain , the spin-$`S`$ Fateev-Zamolodchikov model , the Izergin-Korepin model , the solvable spin-1 model of Ref. , etc, and among the models with two global conservations we have the supersymmetric $`tJ`$ model , the spin-1 Sutherland and Perk-Schultz models , the Hubbard model , as well the two-parameter integrable model presented in . Moreover the matrix-product ansatz we propose enable us to show, with little effort, how to extend the above mentioned models, by including arbitrary range of hard-core interactions, without losing their exact integrability.

For brevity and in order to illustrate the proposed MPA we are going to present here two examples. The solution of the XXZ chain with arbitrary hard-core interactions among the up spins, as an example of a model with one global conservation law, and the solution of the Hubbard model as an example of a model with two global conservations laws.

The Hamiltonian of the XXZ chain with a hard-core exclusion of $`S`$ sites ($`S=1,2,\mathrm{}`$) is the anisotropic Heisenberg chain (anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) where any two up spins are not allowed to occupy lattice sites at distances smaller than $`S`$. This Hamiltonian in a $`L`$-sites periodic chain is given by

$$H_S=𝒫_S\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}(\sigma _i^x\sigma _{i+1}^x+\sigma _i^y\sigma _{i+1}^y+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i^z\sigma _{i+1}^z)𝒫_𝒮,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma ^x,\sigma ^y,\sigma ^z`$ are spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Pauli matrices and $`𝒫_S`$ is a projector that projects out the configurations where any two up spins are at distances smaller than $`S`$. The case $`S=1`$ corresponds to the standard exactly solvable XXZ chain . The conserved charge associated to the global conservation law of (1) is the $`z`$\- component of the total magnetization, or equivalently the number of up spins (particles). The translation invariance of the lattice also ensures that the momentum is also a good quantum number.

The ansatz we propose states that any of the wavefunctions $`|\psi _{n,P}>`$ in the sector with $`n`$ spins up ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$) and momentum $`P=\frac{2\pi l}{L}`$ ($`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{},L1`$) is given by a matrix product ansatz, i. e., their amplitudes are given by the trace of the matrix product:

$`|\psi _{n,P}>={\displaystyle \underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n}{\overset{}{}}}\text{Tr}(E^{x_11}AE^{x_2x_11}A\mathrm{}`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{}E^{x_nx_{n1}1}AE^{Lx_n}\mathrm{\Omega }_P)|x_1,\mathrm{},x_n>,`$
where $`|x_1,\mathrm{},x_n>`$ denotes the configurations with up spins at ($`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$) and the symbol ($``$) in the sum means the restriction to the configurations where $`|x_{i+1}x_i|S`$. The algebraic properties of the matrices $`A`$, $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$ will be fixed by the eigenvalue equation

$$H_S|\psi _{n,P}>=\epsilon _n|\psi _{n,P}>.$$
(4)
The algebraic relations of the matrices $`A`$ and $`E`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$ will fix the momentum of the eigenfunction. The fact that $`|\psi _{n,P}>`$ has a momentum $`P`$ imply that the ratio of the amplitudes corresponding to configurations $`|x_1,\mathrm{},x_n>`$ and ($`|x_1+1,\mathrm{},x_n+1>`$ is $`e^{iP}`$ and consequently from (3) we have the following relations

$$A\mathrm{\Omega }_P=e^{iP}\mathrm{\Omega }_PA,E\mathrm{\Omega }_P=e^{iP}\mathrm{\Omega }_PA.$$
(5)
The eigenvalue equation (4) when applied to the components of $`|\psi _{n,P}>`$ where all the up spins are at distances larger than $`S`$ give us the constraint

$`\epsilon _n\text{T}r(\mathrm{}E^{x_ix_{i1}1}AE^{x_{i+1}x_i1}A\mathrm{}AE^{Lx_n}\mathrm{\Omega }_P)`$ (6)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[\text{Tr}(\mathrm{}E^{x_ix_{i1}2}AE^{x_{i+1}x_i}A\mathrm{}AE^{Lx_n}\mathrm{\Omega }_P)`$ (7)
$`+\text{Tr}(\mathrm{}E^{x_1x_{i1}}AE^{x_{i+1}x_i2}A\mathrm{}AE^{Lx_n}\mathrm{\Omega }_P)].`$ (8)
A convenient solution of this last equation is obtained by identifying the matrices $`A`$ as composed by $`n`$ spectral-parameter dependent matrices

$$A=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}A_{k_j}E^{2S},$$
(9)
where the matrices $`A_{k_j}`$ obey the commutation relations

$$EA_{k_j}=e^{ik_j}A_{k_j}E,A_{k_j}\mathrm{\Omega }_P=e^{iP(S1)}\mathrm{\Omega }_PA_{k_j},$$
(10)
and $`k_j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$) are in general complex numbers unknown a priori . The energy and momentum are given respectively by

$$\epsilon _n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(e^{ik_j}+e^{ik_j}),P=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_j.$$
(11)
The eigenvalue equation when applied to the other components of $`|\psi _{n,P}>`$ will give the commutation relations of the matrices $`\{A_{k_j}\}`$ among themselves. In fact this algebra is obtained from the components where any pair of up spins are located at the closest positions (”matching conditions”) $`x_j`$ and $`x_{j+1}=x_j+S`$, namely

$`A_{k_j}A_{k_l}=S(k_j,k_l)A_{k_j}A_{k_l}(ij),A_{k_j}^2=0,`$ (12)
$`S(k_j,k_l)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{i(k_j+k_l)}+12\mathrm{\Delta }e^{ik_j}}{e^{i(k_j+k_l)}+12\mathrm{\Delta }e^{ik_l}}},i,j=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ (13)
No new algebraic relations appear for the matrices $`A_{k_j}`$ and the associativity of the algebra (10) and (12) follows from property $`S(k_i,k_j)S(k_j,k_i)=1`$. The cyclic property of the trace in (3), together with the algebraic relations (12) give us, for each $`k_j`$ (j =1,…,n), the conditions

$`\text{Tr}(A_{k_1}\mathrm{}A_{k_n}E^{Ln(S1)}\mathrm{\Omega }_P)=e^{ik_j(LnS+n)}e^{iP(S1)}`$ (14)
$`\times ({\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}S(k_j,k_l))\text{Tr}(A_{k_1}\mathrm{}A_{k_n}E^{Ln(S1)}\mathrm{\Omega }_P),`$ (15)
that fix the up to now free complex spectral parameters $`\{k_j\}`$

$$e^{ik_jL}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}S(k_j,k_l)e^{i(k_jk_l)(S1)},(j=1,\mathrm{},n).$$
(16)
The wavefunctions, obtained by using (3) (11) and (12) can be written as a combination of plane waves (”wave numbers” $`\{k_j\}`$), and apart from a normalization constant coincides with those obtained by the standard Bethe ansatz  for $`S=1`$ or arbitrary values of $`S`$ .

As a second example we consider the standard Hubbard model whose Hamiltonian in a periodic lattice with $`L`$ sites is given by

$$H_h=t\underset{j,\sigma }{}(c_{j,\sigma }^+c_{j+1,\sigma }+c_{j+1,\sigma }^+c_{j,\sigma })+u\underset{j}{}\eta _{j,}\eta _{j,+},$$
(17)
where $`c_{j,\sigma }^+`$ are creation operators of electrons of spin $`\sigma =\pm `$ at site $`j`$, and $`\eta _{j,\sigma }=_{ja}c_{j,\sigma }^+c_{j,\sigma }`$ are the number operators of electrons of spin $`\sigma `$ at the site $`j`$. In this case we have two global conservation laws $`n_\pm `$, corresponding to the number of electrons with spin $`\sigma =\pm `$, and the toal number of electrons is $`n=n_++n_{}`$. In order to form our MPA we associate, as before, the matrix $`E`$ to the empty sites, the matrices $`X^+`$, $`X^{}`$ to the single occupied sites with electrons with spin up and down, respectively, and the matrix $`X^0X^+E^1X^{}`$ to the sites with double occupancy. Our MPA asserts that the components of the eigenfunction $`|\psi _{n,P}>`$ of energy $`ϵ_n`$ and momentum $`P=2\pi l/L`$ ($`l=0,1,\mathrm{},L1`$) corresponding to the configuration $`|x_1,Q_1;\mathrm{},x_n,Q_n>`$ where the non-empty sites ($`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$) have occupation ($`Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_n`$) ($`Q_i=+,,0`$) will be given by the trace

$$\text{Tr}(E^{x_11}X^{Q_1}E^{x_2x_11}X^{Q_2}\mathrm{}X^{Q_n}E^{Lx_n}\mathrm{\Omega }_P).$$
(18)
The momentum of the state $`P`$, as in (5), is fixed by imposing the commutation relations $`X^Q\mathrm{\Omega }_P=e^{iP}\mathrm{\Omega }_PX^Q`$, ($`Q=+,,0`$) and $`E\mathrm{\Omega }_P=e^{iP}\mathrm{\Omega }_PE`$. The eigenvalue equation $`H_h|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,P}>=\epsilon _n|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,P}>`$ will provide the algebraic relations of the matrices $`E`$ and $`X^Q`$.

The components of the wavefunction corresponding to the configurations where all the particles are at distances $`|x_{i+1}x_i|>1`$ will give a generalization of (3) whose solution is obtained by introducing the convenient $`n`$ spectral-parameter dependent matrices

$$X^Q=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}EX_{k_j}^Q,(Q=+,),$$
(19)
whose commutation relations with the matrices $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$ are

$$EX_{k_j}^Q=e^{ik_j}X_{k_j}^QE,X_{k_j}^Q\mathrm{\Omega }_P=\mathrm{\Omega }_PX_{k_j}^Q.$$
(20)
The energy and momentum in terms of these unknown complex spectral parameters are given, as in (11), by

$$\epsilon _n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(e^{ik_j}+e^{ik_j}),P=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_j.$$
(21)
The components where the particles occupy the closest positions and those where we have double occupancy, give us, by using (20) and (21) the algebraic relations

$`X_{k_l}^QX_{k_j}^Q=S_{QQ}^{QQ}(k_l,k_j)X_{k_j}^QX_{k_l}^Q,(X_{k_j}^Q)^2=0,`$ (22)
$`X_{k_l}^QX_{k_j}^Q^{}=S_{QQ^{}}^{QQ^{}}(k_l,k_j)X_{k_j}^Q^{}X_{k_l}^Q+S_{Q^{}Q}^{QQ^{}}(k_l,k_j)X_{k_j}^QX_{k_l}^Q^{}`$ (23)
$`S_{QQ}^{QQ}=1,S_{Q^{}Q}^{QQ^{}}(k_l,k_j)=ue^{i(k_l+k_j)}/\alpha ,`$ (24)
$`S_{QQ^{}}^{Q^{}Q}(k_l,k_j)=t(e^{ik_l}e^{ik_j})(1+e^{i(k_l+k_j)})/\alpha ,`$ (25)
$`\alpha =ue^{i(k_l+k_j)}+t(1+e^{i(k_l+k_j)})(e^{ik_l}e^{ik_j}),`$ (26)
where $`Q^{}=Q`$ and $`Q=\pm `$. The relations (20) and (22) define completely the algebra whose structural constants are the well know $`S`$-matrix of the Hubbard model . Since the several components of the wavefunction should be uniquely related the above algebra should be associative. This associativity imply that the above $`S`$-matrix should satisfy the Yang-Baxter relations , which is indeed the case . The components of the wavefunction corresponding to the configurations where we have three or four particles in next-neigboring sites would give in principle new relations involving three or four operators $`X_{k_j}^Q`$. These new relations are however consequences of the above relations (20) and (22). The cyclic property of the trace in (18) and the algebraic relations (20) and (22) will imply

$`\text{Tr}(X_{k_1}^{Q_1}\mathrm{}X_{k_{j1}}^{Q_{j1}}X_{k_j}^{Q_j}\mathrm{}X_{k_n}^{Q_n}E^L\mathrm{\Omega }_P)=(1)^ne^{ik_jL}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{Q_1^{},\mathrm{},Q_n^{}}{}}𝒯(\{Q\},\{Q^{}\})\text{Tr}(X_{k_1}^{Q_1^{}}\mathrm{}X_{k_n}^{Q_n^{}}E^L\mathrm{\Omega }_P).`$ (28)
where

$$𝒯(\{Q\},\{Q^{}\})=\underset{Q\mathrm{"}_1,\mathrm{},Q\mathrm{"}_n}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}S_{Q_i^{},Q\mathrm{"}_i}^{Q_i,Q\mathrm{"}_{i+1}}$$
(29)
is the transfer matrix of a non-homogeneous six-vertex model defined on a cylinder of perimeter $`n`$ and with Boltzman weights given by the $`S`$-matrices defined in (22). The eigenvalues of this auxiliary problem $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(k_i;k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)`$ can be obtained in a standard way by the coordinate-Bethe ansatz  or by the quantum inverse scattering method . Using these eigenvalues in the relation (27) the spectral parameters $`\{k_j\}`$ will be fixed by the solutions of the system of equations

$$e^{ik_jL}=(1)^n\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(k_j;k_1,\mathrm{},k_n),(j=1,\mathrm{},n).$$
(30)
These last equations coincide with the Bethe-Ansatz equations derived through the standard coordinate Bethe ansatz .

Generalizations of our MPA is quite simple to implement . For example the solution of the excluded volume Hubbard model where electrons with spin up (down) exclude other electrons at $`S_+`$ ($`S_{}`$) sites on its right, but allows double occupancy at any site, is just obtained by changing in (19) $`X^Q=_jE^{S_Q+1}X_{k_j}^Q`$ ($`Q=\pm `$).

We have also shown  that the above MPA also works for the other known exact integrable models with two conserved global quantities ($`U(1)U(1)`$), like the Essler-Korepin-Schoutens model  or the generalized two-parameter integrable model introduced in . In those last cases the same MPA presented above for the Hubbard model apply except that now the matrices $`X^0`$ associated to the sites with double occupancy are given in terms of new operators $`X^0=Y^+E^1Y^{}`$, and we were able to rederive all the results obtained for those models through the standard Bethe ansatz. Hamiltonians with two global conservations that do not allow double occupancy like the stochastic Hamiltonian associated to the asymmetric diffusion with two kinds of particles , or the supersymmetric $`tJ`$ quantum chain  or the $`SU(3)`$ Sutherland and Perk-Schultz models , are obtained through the MPA (18), without the matrices $`X^0`$.

Models of spin one with a single global conservation law (conservation of the $`z`$-magnetization) like the Fateev-Zamolodchikov model , the Izergin-Korepin model , or the solvable spin-1 Hamiltonian introduced in , have their solutions given by a MPA similar as in (3), where now we associate the matrices $`E`$, $`A`$ and $`BE^1B`$ to the sites occupied by particles with spin $`S^z=1`$, 0 or +1, respectively.

We have also obtained an appropriate extension of the presented MPA to non periodic, but exact integrable boundaries as, for example, the XXZ chain with surface fields.

It is interesting to notice that in the cases of exact integrable Hamiltonians associated to stochastic models, as in , since we can write all eigenfunctions in a MPA, our results imply that we can equivalently write at any time the probability distribution of the model in terms of a time-dependent MPA, as happens in the DMPA .

In conclusion, we have shown that the eigenfunctions of a huge variety of exact integrable quantum chains can be expressed on an unified way in terms of a matrix product ansatz, whose matrices satisfy an associative algebra. The associativity of the algebra that warranties the exact integrability of the model is a consequence of the Yang-Baxter relations.

This work has been partially supported by FAPESP, CNPq and CAPES (Brazilian agencies).


text:
# NONLINEAR DIRAC EQUATIONS and NONLINEAR GAUGE TRANSFORMATIONS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

There is some recent interest in fundamental nonlinear quantum mechanical evolution equations. Different proposals for (non relativistic) nonlinear Schrödinger equations (NLSE) are known: Some of them are physically plausible modifications of the linear equation (LSE) ; others are based on some first principles (non relativistic quantum mechanics) . It is known  (see  for a short review) that nonlinear evolutions are not consistent with the usual (linear) quantum mechanical framework. For an interpretation and application of NLSE a corresponding extension of this framework is needed . If this extension allows to show in approximation, e.g., with a nonlinear evolution equation, that a nonlinearity yields measurable effects, one can decide whether a deviation from the linear prediction can be viewed as an information on a nonlinear extension of quantum mechanics .
The recent results refer to non relativistic Schrödinger equations. A generalisation to relativistic Dirac equations is possible. One can use the method  of nonlinear transformations in the state space; they are assumed to be consistent with first principles: Locality and separability condition, Poincaré invariance and a notion for an equivalent description of quantum systems. We present such a generalisation with a step-by-step construction (see a detailed review ). A family of nonlinear Dirac equations (NLDE) is obtained which is ’near’ or ’similar’ equivalent to those families which are equivalent to linear ones.
We explain our construction in section 2. Families of nonlinear transformations are constructed in section 3 with the resulting NLDE and their extensions. Section 4 contains concluding remarks.

## 2 A METHOD TO CONSTRUCT NONLINEAR DIRAC EQUATIONS (NLDE)

Consider the function space $`𝒢_4=C^1(^4,)`$ on Minkowski space-time, i.e. complex (column) vector valued functions $`\psi `$ with components $`\psi _j=\psi _j(x_0,\mathrm{},x_3),j=0,1,2,3;`$ define $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\gamma _0`$. The Hilbert space of a 1-particle Dirac system is denoted as $`_D^1`$; use $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_4=𝒢_4_D^1`$ for an interpretation of the later results. The evolution is given through a family $`_0`$ of linear Dirac operators and equations (parameter $`m0`$)

$$𝔻_D=(\gamma _\mu p^\mu m),𝔻_D\psi =0\text{ with }p^\mu =i\frac{}{x^\mu }\text{ on }\stackrel{~}{G}_4.$$
(1)
Consider a group $`𝔑`$ of invertible (in general nonlinear) transformations $`N`$ acting on $`𝒢_4`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_4`$

$$N:\psi N\psi .$$

The $`N`$ may depend on $`\psi `$ (and $`\overline{\psi }`$), derivatives of $`\psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }`$ and explicitly on $`_\mu `$ and $`x_\mu `$. If $`\psi `$ is a solution of $`𝔻_D\psi =0`$ then $`\psi ^{}=N^1\psi `$ is a solution of

$$𝔻_D^N\psi ^{}=0\text{ with }𝔻_D^N=𝔻_DN.$$

$`𝔻_D^N`$ is a (linearisable) nonlinear Dirac operator.

Our construction of a physical acceptable nonlinear Dirac operator starts with the group $`𝔑`$. As mentioned (section 1) we select subgroups of $`𝔑`$ which are consistent with plausible additional requirements (’first principles’) in step 1 - 4. In step 5 we extend the obtained families of NLDE to families not equivalent to $`_0`$.

* STEP 1 (Locality):
* The Dirac operator $`𝔻_S`$ is a first order PDO. We want the same for $`𝔻_S^N`$. This implies a locality condition: $`N`$ does not depend on derivatives of $`\psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }`$ and not explicitly on $`_\mu `$. For later invariance properties (step 4) it is reasonable to assume that also an explicit dependence of $`x_\mu `$ (and functions of $`x_\mu `$) will not appear. Hence one has

$$N\psi =N(\psi )\psi =(N_0(\psi )\psi _0,\mathrm{},N_3(\psi )\psi _3)^{}.$$
(2)
It is convenient to use also $`N\psi N[\psi ]N(\psi )\psi `$. The set of transformations (2) is a group $`𝔑^l𝔑`$; the $`N(\psi )`$ act on $`𝒢_4`$ as matrix valued multiplication operators.
* STEP 2 (Separability)
* Quantum theory describes not only 1-particle systems but necessarily also systems build from $`n`$ particles. The corresponding $`n`$-particle Hilbert space is - following first principles - a product space of 1-particle spaces; it is spanned through the linear completition of a set of product wave functions

$$𝒫^{(n)}=\{\psi ^1\mathrm{}\psi ^n|\psi ^i_D^1,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}.$$

To extend linear operators $`𝔸𝔸^{(1)}`$ on $`_D^1`$ to (linear) operators $`𝔸^{(n)}`$ on $`_D^n`$ one defines first an action on $`𝒫^{(n)}`$,

$$𝔸^{(n)}(\psi ^1\mathrm{}\psi ^n)=𝔸\psi ^1\mathrm{}𝔸\psi ^n.$$

This definition extends uniquely by linear completion from $`𝒫^{(n)}`$ to $`_D^n`$ (or a dense set in $`_D^n`$). For the nonlinear operators - like those considered here - this construction for $`n`$-particle operators from 1-particle ones is not possible. To have a property of $`N^{(n)}`$ which is at least partly consistent with the linear theory we assume that $`N`$ acting on $`_D^1`$ extend to the set $`𝒫^{(n)}`$ as

$$N^{(n)}(\psi ^1\mathrm{}\psi ^n)=N\psi ^1\mathrm{}N\psi ^n,$$
(3)
which is a (weak) separation property for $`N`$. The set of $`N`$ with (3) forms a subgroup $`𝔑^s`$ of $`𝔑`$. Note that one needs additional information (see e.g. ) to extend $`N^{(n)}`$ from $`𝒫^{(n)}`$ to $`_D^n`$. This above construction yields evolution equations for 1-particle systems only.
* STEP 3 (Poincaré Invariance)
* The Dirac Operator $`𝔻_D`$ in $`_D^1`$ behaves under the inhomogeneous Lorentz group with a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ representation $`U`$ in $`_D^1`$. This invariance is a principal property of the Dirac system. However, for the transformed operator $`𝔻_D^N`$ this property may be lost. Therefore one has to guarantee it through an assumption on $`N`$. For this we use the following information: The generators of $`U`$ are

$$_\mu =p_\mu ;J_{\mu \nu }=x_\mu p_\nu x_\nu p_\mu +\frac{i}{2}(\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu ).$$

$`N`$ is a function of $`\psi `$ (step 1). This leads easily to a condition

$$N(U\psi )=UN(\psi )\text{ with }U=\mathrm{exp}\underset{\mu ,\nu =0,\mu \nu }{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu ,$$
(4)
which implies Poincaré invariance of $`𝔻_D^N`$. The set of local tranformations in$`𝔑^l`$ with condition (4) form a group $`𝔑^{l,P}`$.
* STEP 4 (Equivalence)
* In non relativistic quantum mechanics (e.g., in $`_x^3`$) one can argue that the positional density $`\rho (x,t)`$ for all $`x`$ and $`t`$ is a fundamental observable of a system in the sense that all observables can be calculated from the information encoded in $`\rho (x,t)`$. This density is connected to (pure) states $`\phi `$ through $`\phi ^{}\phi `$. and was called utility function in  . For transformations $`N`$ with an invariant utility function

$$N[\phi ]^{}N[\phi ]=\phi ^{}\phi ,$$
(5)
the positional densities (5) for $`\phi `$ and for $`N^1\phi `$ are equal. This implies a notion of equivalence. (5) is an equivalence condition. Wave functions $`\psi `$ which evolve with a Schrödinger operator

$$𝔻_S=i_tH$$

($`H`$ a Hamiltonian) and a transformed wave function $`N^1\phi `$ with Schrödinger operator (which may be nonlinear) $`𝔻_SN`$ describe the same physics; they are equivalent. Linear $`N[\phi ]`$, i.e. $`N[\phi ]=\mathrm{exp}ia(\stackrel{}{x},t)\phi `$ are usual gauge transformations. It is reasonable to denote general $`N`$ in the following as nonlinear gauge transformations .
In the relativistic Dirac case a corresponding argument is used. Here the utility function with a physically reasonable density $`\rho `$ is

$$F_\rho =\psi ^{}\psi .$$
(6)
with $`\psi ^{}=(\psi _0^{},\mathrm{},\psi _3^{})`$. Dirac systems related through $`N`$ are equivalent if $`N`$ leaves $`F_\rho `$ invariant, i.e.

$$N[\psi ]^{}N[\psi ]=\psi ^{}\psi .$$
(7)
Transformations $`N𝔑^l`$ with (7) form a group $`𝔑^{l,e}`$.
* STEP 5 (Extension)
* The intersection

$$𝔑^{l,s}𝔑^{l,P}𝔑^{l,e}=𝔑^2$$
(8)
yields a family $`_1`$ of NLDE which is - because of the invariance of the utility function - equivalent to the linear family $`_0`$. With steps 1.-4. one obtains interesting nonlinear reformulations of the linear Dirac equation. However, we are looking for ’new’ systems which are ’near’ to ’physically equivalent’ ones, i.e. in systems which are local, separable and Poincaré invariant but not equivalent. The following construction leads to such systems through a simple ’extension’ of $`_1`$: It turns out that $`𝔑^2`$ is characterised by a real number and through complex functions which are related among themselves but otherwise arbitrary. The evolution equations depend on the relation between these functions. Hence one can ’extend’ the family $`𝔑^2`$ if one breaks this relation, i.e. if one chooses the functions and the number independently. Such a family describes ’new’ systems. We remark already here that a general framework to treat spin $`1/2`$ particles with nonlinear evolutions is not (yet) known and a NLDE is not immediately applicable.

## 3 RESULTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION

We explain details of the above step-by-step method and present some obtained NLDE families.

### 3.1 LOCALITY AND SEPARABILITY

In step 1 we motivated the subgroup $`𝔑^l`$ of nonlinear transformations which are functions of $`\psi `$ and which act as $`4\times 4`$ matrices on $`𝒢_4`$.

To fulfil the separation property (3) in step 2 it is sufficient to discuss the two particle case n=2,

$$N^{(2)}(\psi ^1\psi ^2)=N\psi ^1N\psi ^2,\psi ^i_D^1,i=1,2,$$
(9)
i.e. we demand the existence of an $`n`$ component function $`N^{(2)}`$ on such that for $`N`$ and for any two $`\psi ^1`$ and $`\psi ^2`$ relation (9) holds. For $`n>2`$ we get corresponding results. To calculate the resulting form of $`N`$ use the (non unique) polar decomposition of the components $`\psi _i^k=R_i^k\mathrm{exp}iS_i^k,k=1,2,i=0,\mathrm{},3`$, express the components of $`N(\psi ^k)\psi ^k`$ in terms of $`R^k,S^k`$ with $`R^k=\{R_1^k,\mathrm{},R_n^k\}`$, $`S^k=\{S_1^k,\mathrm{},S_n^k\}`$ and write

$$N(\psi ^k)\psi ^k=F(R^k,S^k),k=1,2.$$

To ensure (9) we have to prove the existence of functions $`G_{ij}`$ such that

$$F_i(R^1,S^1)F_j(R^2,S^2)=G_{ij}(,𝒮),$$
(10)
where $`R^1,S^1,R^2,S^2`$ have $`4`$ components, $`,𝒮`$ have the components $`R_i^1R_j^2`$ and $`S_i^1+S_j^2`$ and $`i,j=0,\mathrm{},3`$. The $`G_{ij}`$ are invariant under the following one-parameter groups with real parameters $`\tau ,`$ $`\theta `$

$`1.`$ The group of scale transformations on $``$
$`R^1^{}=R^1\mathrm{exp}(\tau ),R^2^{}=R^2\mathrm{exp}(\tau ),`$
$`2.`$ The group of translations on $`𝒮`$
$`S^1^{}=S^1+\theta ,S^2^{}=S^2\theta `$
which are generated by Lie vector fields

$$D=\underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}\left(R_j^1\frac{}{R_j^1}R_j^2\frac{}{R_j^2}\right),\text{and}P=\underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\frac{}{S_j^1}\frac{}{S_j^2}\right).$$

Take the functional equation (9) and apply $`D`$ and $`P`$; the right hand side vanishes and yields the following system of differential-functional equations:

$$(DF_i)F_j+(DF_j)F_i=0,(PF_i)F_j+(PF_j)F_i=0,$$

$`i,j=0,\mathrm{},3`$. Dividing these equations by (non-zero) functions $`F_iF_j`$ we represent them as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}R_k^1{\displaystyle \frac{F_i}{R_k^1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_j}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}R_k^2{\displaystyle \frac{F_j}{R_k^2}},`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_i}{S_k^1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_j}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_j}{S_k^2}}`$ (12)
for $`i,j=0,\mathrm{},3`$. Both sides of the above equations depend on different variables, hence there exist complex parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}R_k{\displaystyle \frac{F_i}{R_k}}=aF_i,`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_i}{S_k}}=bF_i`$ (14)
holds for any $`i=0,\mathrm{},3`$.

For $`n>1`$ the general solution of (13) can be written in the form

$$F_i=(R_i)^aH_i(\frac{R_1}{R_0},\mathrm{},\frac{R_3}{R_0},S_0,\mathrm{},S_3),i=0,\mathrm{},3.$$

with arbitrary smooth complex-valued functions $`H_i`$; instead of $`\frac{R_j}{R_0},j=1,2,3,`$ one can also use $`\frac{R_j}{R_k},jk,k\text{ fixed,}k,j=0,\mathrm{},3`$. With (13)

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{H_i}{S_k}=b,i=0,\mathrm{},3$$

holds. Integrating the equations we arrive at the final form111Instead of $`R_k/R_3,k=0,\mathrm{},2`$ one can use also $`R_k/R_l,l\text{ fixed},k=0,\mathrm{},3,kl`$, e.g., $`l=0`$. for $`F_i`$

$$F_i=(R_i)^a\mathrm{exp}(bS_i)G_i(\frac{R_1}{R_0},\mathrm{},\frac{R_3}{R_0},S_1S_0,\mathrm{},S_3S_0).$$
(15)
Here $`G_i`$ are arbitrary smooth functions of the indicated variables and $`i=0,\mathrm{},3`$. We suppose that the functions $`H_i`$ are well-defined under $`R_30`$. This form of $`N`$ is necessary for the separation condition of $`N^{(n)}`$ on $`𝒫^{(n)}`$ for any $`n2`$. It is also sufficient. For a straightforward proof use the identities for $`n=2`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{R_i^1}{R_n^1}}={\displaystyle \frac{R_i^1R_j^2}{R_n^1R_j^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{R_i^2}{R_n^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{R_i^2R_j^1}{R_n^2R_j^1}},`$
$`S_i^1S_n^1=(S_i^1+S_j^2)(S_n^1+S_j^2),`$
$`S_i^2S_n^2=(S_i^2+S_j^1)(S_n^2+S_j^1),`$
Analogous identities are used for $`n>2`$. We summarize the result:
The general form of a transformation $`N`$:

$$N:𝒢_4𝒢_4$$

which satisfies locality and separation conditions is given through

$`N_{j[a,b,G]}(\psi )=(R_j)^{a1}\mathrm{exp}((bi)S_j)`$ (16)
$`\times G_j({\displaystyle \frac{R_1}{R_0}},\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{R_3}{R_0}},S_1S_0,\mathrm{},S_3S_0),`$
$`N`$ is labelled by two arbitrary complex parameter $`a,b`$ and $`4`$ functions $`(G_0,\mathrm{},G_3)G`$. The $`G_j`$ can be written also in terms of $`\psi ,\overline{\psi }`$

$$G_j=G_j(\frac{\psi _1}{\psi _0},\mathrm{},\frac{\psi _3}{\psi _0},\frac{\overline{\psi }_1}{\overline{\psi }_0},\mathrm{},\frac{\overline{\psi }_3}{\overline{\psi }_0})$$
(17)
We expect that the transformations (16) form a group. Arrange the labelling complex parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ in matrix form

$$K=K(a,b)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a},& \widehat{a}\\ \stackrel{~}{b},& \widehat{b}\end{array}\right),a=\stackrel{~}{a}+i\widehat{a},b=\stackrel{~}{b}+i\widehat{b}$$
(18)
and compute the product

$$N_{[K_1,G_1]}N_{[K_2,G_2]}=N_{[K_3,G_3]},$$

or, more detailed,

$$N_{[K_2,G_2]}(N_{[K_1,G_1]}(\psi )\psi )N_{[K_1,G_1]}(\psi )\psi =N_{[K_3,G_3]}(\psi )\psi .$$
(19)
The result for $`K_3`$ is the matrix product

$$K_3=K_2K_1.$$

For the components of $`G_3`$ we find

$$G_{3j}=|G_{1j}|^{a_2}\mathrm{exp}(b_2argG_{1j})G_{2j}(u_1,\mathrm{},u_3,v_1,\mathrm{},v_3)$$
(20)
the variables of $`G_{1j}`$ were given in (16); the $`u_l`$, $`v_l`$ in $`G_{2j}`$ are ($`l=1,2,3`$)

$$u_l=\left(\frac{R_l}{R^0}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{a}_1}\mathrm{exp}\stackrel{~}{b}_1(S_lS_0)|G_{1l}||G_{10}|^1,$$

$$v_l=\widehat{a}_1\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R_l}{R^0}\right)+\widehat{b}_1(S_lS_0)+\mathrm{arg}(G_{1l}G_{10})$$

Hence the transformations (16) build a local (infinite parameter) group $`𝔑^{l,s}`$ for $`|K|0`$ and for appropriate $`G`$. The element $`N_{[\mathrm{𝟏},1]}`$ is the identity; $`N_{[K,G]}`$ is locally invertible in a neighbourhood of the identity; the associativity is respected.

### 3.2 POINCARÉ INVARIANCE

We gave in (4) a condition for $`N𝔑^l`$ which yields a Poincaré invariant nonlinear Dirac operator. A straightforward evaluation of (4) (see , Theorem 1.2.1; ), yields the most general form for $`N[\psi ]`$,

$$N(\psi )\psi =(f_1(\overline{\psi }\psi ,\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi )+f_2(\overline{\psi }\psi ,\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi )\gamma _5)\psi .$$
(21)
$`f_1`$, $`f_2`$ are independent complex functions depending on the invariant quantities $`\overline{\psi }\psi X,\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi Y`$ ($`X`$ depends on $`R_k^2`$, $`Y`$ on $`R_iR_k`$ and $`S_iS_k`$.). The result reflects that $`N`$ transforms under the Poincaré group like the corresponding scalar and pseudoscalar invariants. The invariant transformations $`N𝔑^l`$ form a group $`𝔑^{l,P}`$.

We are interested now in local, separable and Poincaré invariant $`N`$, i.e., in

$$𝔑^{l,s,P}=𝔑^{l,s}𝔑^{l,P}.$$

The intersection is given ( see (16) and (21)) through

$$N_{j[a,b,G]}(\psi )\psi _j=R_j^{a1}\mathrm{exp}(bi)S_jG_j(.,.)\psi _j=f_1(X,Y)\psi _j+f_2(X,Y)(\gamma _5\psi )_j$$
(22)
e.g. for $`j=0`$ as

$$R_0^a\mathrm{exp}(bi)S_0G_0(.,.)=f_1(X,Y)R_0+f_2(X,Y)R_2\mathrm{exp}i(S_2S_0).$$
(23)
This relates $`G_j(.,.)`$ and $`f_1,f_2`$, which depend on $`R_i,S_i`$. Similarly as in section 3.1 we use groups of translations in $`𝒮`$ and of scale transformation on $``$,

$$S_jS_j+\theta ,R_j\lambda R_j.$$

The variables in $`G_j(.,.)`$ are invariant under both groups; the variables in $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$, i.e. $`X`$ and $`Y`$, are translation invariant and behave under scale transformation as $`X\lambda ^2X,Y\lambda ^2Y`$. The translations imply for $`j=0`$ (and any $`j`$) in (23)

$$b=i,\text{ i.e., }\stackrel{~}{b}=0,\widehat{b}=1.$$
(24)
For scale transformations we use in $`f_1,f_2`$ instead of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ the variables $`X`$ and $`Z=\frac{X}{Y}`$ ($`XY0`$) and get

$$R_0^aG_0(.,.)=\lambda ^{a+1}F(\lambda ^2X,\mathrm{}),F(\lambda ^2X,\mathrm{})=f_1(\lambda ^2X,Z)R_0+f_2(\lambda ^2X,Z)R_2\mathrm{exp}i(S_2S_0).$$

Differentiate this in respect to $`\lambda `$ and obtain a differential equation; its solution specify for $`\lambda =1`$ the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ dependence of $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$;

$$f_i(X,Y)=g(X)h_i(Z),g(X)=(\overline{\psi }\psi )^{\frac{a1}{2}},h_i(Z)\text{ arbitrary },i=1,2.$$
(25)
or with $`X=\overline{\psi }\psi =R_0^2+R_1^2R_2^2R_3^2`$

$$g(X)=(R_0^2+R_1^2R_2^2R_3^2)^{\frac{a1}{2}}.$$
(26)
For the relation between $`G_j(\mathrm{})`$ and $`h_1,h_2`$ we get

$$G_j(\mathrm{})=\left(\frac{R_0^2+R_1^2R_2^2R_3^2}{R_j^2}\right)^{\frac{a1}{2}}(h_1(Z)ih_2(Z)\frac{R_{J(j)}}{R_j}\mathrm{exp}i(S_{J(j)}S_j))$$
(27)
($`J`$ maps $`02`$, $`13`$, $`20`$, $`31`$.) $`Z`$ depends on $`R_j,S_j`$ as $`R_jR_k,S_jS_k`$.

Nonlinear transformations (22) with (25) leads to NLDE which are local, separable and Poincaré invariant. They build a group $`𝔑^1𝔑^{l,s,P}`$; their elements are labelled through $`a,h_1(Z),h_2(Z)`$ and act on $`𝒢_4`$ as

$$N_{[a,h_1,h_2]}(\psi )(\overline{\psi }\psi )^{\frac{a1}{2}}(h_1(Z)+h_2(Z)\gamma _5).$$
(28)
### 3.3 INVARIANCE OF THE UTILITY FUNCTION

The utility function $`F_\rho `$ was defined in (6) - step 4 - and those $`N`$ with invariant $`F_\rho `$ define equivalent systems. This equivalence condition is an additional restriction to the different subgroups of $`𝔑`$. We discuss first the case $`𝔑^{l,s}`$ and specialise the result to $`𝔑^1=𝔑^{l,s,P}`$.
CASE $`𝔑^{l,s}`$:
Insert $`N_{j[a,b,G]}(\psi )\psi `$ from ( 16 ) in the equivalence condition (7)

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}R_k^{2\stackrel{~}{a}}\mathrm{exp}\stackrel{~}{b}S_k|G_k|^2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}R_k^2$$
(29)
As in the last section use translations in $`𝒮`$ and scale transformations in $``$. Because (29) is invariant under both types one gets

$$\mathrm{exp}2\stackrel{~}{b}\theta \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}R_k^{2\stackrel{~}{a}}\mathrm{exp}(2\stackrel{~}{b}S_k)|G_k|^2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}R_k^2$$
(30)
$$\lambda ^{2\stackrel{~}{a}2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}R_k^{2\stackrel{~}{a}}\mathrm{exp}(2\stackrel{~}{b}S_k)|G_k|^2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}R_k^2.$$

From this we have immediately

$$\stackrel{~}{a}=1,\stackrel{~}{b}=0;\widehat{a}\text{ and }\widehat{b}\text{ arbitrary},$$

and the $`G_k`$ are restricted to those $`G_k^{}`$ which fulfil

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}R_k^2(|G_k^{}|^21)=0$$
(31)
i.e. the $`G_k^{}`$ with $`k=0,1,2,3`$ are not independent.

Hence, a transformation $`N`$ which satisfies locality, separation and equivalence conditions is given through

$$N_{j[K^{},G^{}]}\psi _j=R_j^{1+i\widehat{a}}\mathrm{exp}i\widehat{b}S_jG_j^{}(\frac{R_1}{R_0},\mathrm{},\frac{R_3}{R_0},S_1S_0,\mathrm{},S_3S_0)$$

with

$$K^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1,& \widehat{a}\\ 0,& \widehat{b}\end{array}\right),\widehat{a},\widehat{b}\text{arbitrary,}\widehat{b}0,\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}R_k^2(|G_k^{}|^21)=0.$$
(32)
The restriction in (32) from $`K`$ to $`K^{}`$ and from $`G_k`$ to $`G_k^{}`$ is enforced through the equivalence condition.

The transformations $`N_{[k^{},G^{}]}`$ form the group $`𝔑^{l,s,e}`$. For $`N_{[k_3^{},G_3^{}]}=N_{[k_1^{},G_1^{}]}N_{[k_2^{},G_2^{}]}`$ we find for $`K_3^{}`$

$$K_3^{}=K_2^{}K_1^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1,& \widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2\widehat{b}_1\\ 0,& \widehat{b}_1\widehat{b}_2\end{array}\right)$$
(33)
and for the $`G_{3j}^{}`$, $`j=0,1,2,3`$ the following condition (from (20), (26), (27):

$$|G_{3j}^{}|^2=|G_{1j}^{}|^2|G_{2j}^{}|^2,\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}R_k^2(|G_{1k}^{}|^2|G_{2k}^{}|^21)=0$$
(34)
with $`G_j^{}`$ and its variables from (16), (20). An explicit form of $`G_{3,j}`$ is given in the next example.

Case $`𝔑^1=𝔑^{l,s,P}`$:
Local, separable and Poincaré invariant $`N_{[a,h_1,h_2]}`$ in (28) are special cases of $`N_{[a,b,G]}`$ in (16). Therefore the equivalence condition (7) leads to (29) and we have together with the invariance condition (24)

$$a=1+i\widehat{a},(b=0).$$
(35)
If we insert $`G_j^{}(.,.)`$ from (27) in (29) we have with (33)

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}R_k^2(|h_1(Z)ih_2(Z)\frac{R_{J(k)}}{R_k}\mathrm{exp}i(S_{J(k)}S_k)|^21)=0.$$

This is a condition for $`h_i(Z)`$, $`i=1,2`$, which are functions of $`Z=\frac{X}{Y}`$ and implies

$$|h_1(Z)|^2+|h_2(Z)|^2=1.$$

Hence we have

$$h_1(Z)=\mathrm{exp}i\varphi (Z)\mathrm{cos}\rho (Z),h_2(Z)=\mathrm{exp}i\varphi (Z)\mathrm{sin}\rho (Z),$$
(36)
with two real functions $`\varphi (Z),\rho (Z)`$ which label $`N_{[a\varphi ,\rho ]}`$ together with a real number $`\widehat{a}`$; they act on $`𝒢_4`$ as

$`N_{[\widehat{a},\varphi ,\rho ]}(\psi )\psi `$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\psi }\psi )^{i\frac{\widehat{a}}{2}}\mathrm{exp}i(\mathrm{cos}\rho (Z)+i\mathrm{sin}\rho (Z)\gamma _5)\psi `$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(\overline{\psi }\psi )+i\varphi (Z)+\rho (Z)\gamma _5)\psi .`$
Again, the $`N_{[\widehat{a},\varphi ,\rho ]}`$ form a group $`𝔑^2=𝔑^{l,s,P,e}`$. The group relation is

$$N_{[\widehat{a}_1,\varphi _1,\rho _1]}N_{[\widehat{a}_2,\varphi _2,\rho _2]}=N_{[\widehat{a}_3,\varphi _3,\rho _3]}$$

with

$$\widehat{a}_3=\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2,\rho _3(z)=\rho _1(z)+\rho _2(\stackrel{~}{z}),\stackrel{~}{z}(z)=\frac{z\mathrm{cos}2\rho _1(z)\mathrm{sin}2\rho _1(z)}{\mathrm{cos}2\rho _1(z)+z\mathrm{sin}2\rho _1(z)},$$

$$\varphi _3(z)=\frac{\widehat{a}_2}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{cos}2\rho _1(z)\frac{1}{z}\mathrm{sin}2\rho _1(z)\right)+\varphi _1(z)+\varphi _2(\stackrel{~}{z}).$$

$`|G_{j,3}|^2`$ is in this example independent of $`j`$ and $`|G_{j,3}|^2=1`$ holds; condition (31) is fulfilled.

### 3.4 THE RESULTING NLDE AND THEIR EXTENSIONS

Part of our construction is that invertible $`N`$ imply for $`N^1\psi `$ a nonlinear Dirac operator and equation

$$(\gamma _\mu p^\mu m)N(\psi )\psi =(\gamma _\mu p^\mu +H(\psi ))\psi =0$$
(38)
with $`H(\psi )`$ as nonlinear term depending on $`m`$ and the labels of $`N`$. We calculate the NLDE for $`N𝔑^1,𝔑^2`$.
In case of $`N𝔑^1`$ we find for $`H_1`$ ($`\frac{dh_i(Z)}{dZ}=h_i^{}(Z),i=1,2`$) from (28)

$`H_1(X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma _\mu p^\mu X){\displaystyle \frac{a1}{2X}}`$ (39)
$`+(\gamma _\mu p^\mu Z){\displaystyle \frac{h_1(Z)h_1^{}(Z)+h_2(Z)h_2^{}(Z)+\left(h_1(Z)h_2^{}(Z)h_1^{}(Z)h_2(Z)\right)\gamma _5}{h_1(Z)^2+h_2(Z)^2}}`$
$`+m{\displaystyle \frac{h_1(Z)^2h_2(Z)^2+2h_1(Z)h_2(Z)\gamma _5}{h_1(Z)^2+h_2(Z)^2}}.`$
This is a family $`_1`$ of Poincaré invariant NLDE which respect the separability condition.
For the interesting subfamily $`_2_1`$ which describes in addition physically equivalent systems we find with $`h_i(X)`$ in (36) and with (35)

$`H_2(X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma _\mu p^\mu X)i{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}}{2X}}`$ (40)
$`+(\gamma _\mu p^\mu Z)(i\varphi ^{}(Z)+\rho ^{}(Z)\gamma _5))m\mathrm{exp}2\rho (Z)\gamma _5.`$
$`_2`$ is invariant under $`𝔑^2`$, i.e. if one calculates $`𝔻_D^{N_1}N_2`$, $`N_{1,2}𝔑^2`$ one gets a nonlinear term of the form (40).
The structure in (39), (40) stems from the general form of local, Poincaré invariant $`N`$ in (21). The operator $`\gamma _\mu p^\mu `$ acts on the invariants $`X`$, $`Z`$ and the coefficient functions have a scalar and pseudoscalar part. Solutions $`\psi ^{}`$ for $`_1`$ are available from solutions $`\psi `$ of $`𝔻_S\psi =0`$ through $`\psi ^{}=N^1\psi `$, $`N𝔑^1`$ or $`𝔑^2`$. By construction, the family $`_2`$ describes equivalent systems .
To get ‘new’ systems we use the method explained in Section 2, step 5. We generalize $`H_2(X,Y)`$ with real functions $`g(X)`$, $`k(Z)`$, $`l(Z)`$, $`n(Z)`$ to

$`H_{2,ex}(X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma _\mu p^\mu X)ig(X)`$ (41)
$`+(\gamma _\mu p^\mu Z)(ik(Z)+l(Z)\gamma _5))m\mathrm{exp}2n(Z)\gamma _5.`$
The resulting ‘extended’ family $`_2^{ex}`$ is local and Poincaré invariant; furthermore it is not equivalent to $`_0`$ but it has a ‘similar’ structure. $`_2`$ is a subfamily of $`_2^{ex}`$ with

$$k(Z)=\varphi ^{}(Z),l(Z)=\rho ^{}(Z),n(Z)=2\rho (Z).$$
(42)
To obtain solutions of (41) the above mentioned technique could be useful. Because $`_2`$ is constructed from $`𝔑^2`$, i.e. from a family of nonlinear gauge functions (cf. Section 2, step 5), $`_2^{ex}`$ is denoted as gauge extension of $`_0`$.

## 4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

We derived from physically reasonable ‘principles’ a family $`_2^{ex}`$ of NLDE for one-particle systems which is a ‘mild’ (gauge) extension of the family $`_2`$ which describes the linear Dirac family $`_0`$ through a nonlinear Dirac operator. With ‘mild’ we understand that the deviation of $`_2^{ex}`$ from $`_2`$ or the effect of a nonlinearity $`H_{2,ex}`$ compared to $`H_2`$ is ‘very small’; this assumes that we work in a region in which very small nonlinear corrections behave well and that some information is known on a solution variety of $`_2^{ex}`$.
Concerning the physical relevance of a family of NLDE we mention the following arguments:

* Because of the successes of the (linear) formulation and interpretation of quantum theory and the fact that a linear framework does not allow nonlinear evolution of one particle systems like $`_2^{ex}`$ one has to develop a new framework together with an interpretation if one wants to incorporate such evolutions. Furthermore one has to show that nonlinearities yields experimental effects which are measurable through precision experiments. We have no corresponding results for a nonlinear Dirac theory (and a connected quantum field theory). However we showed, using parts of the linear framework and interpretations - denoted as ‘first principles’ - that one can construct physically equivalent NLDE which yield after gauge-extensions a family of physically motivated one particle NLDE.

For the generalisation $`_2^{ex}`$ to $`n`$-particle systems one has to extend the evolution operator, which is defined only on product states, to a dense set in $`_D^2`$ (operator-extension). In the nonrelativistic case such a method is known .
* A reasonable attempt to develop a framework for a nonlinear quantum theory should start with the dynamic of the system, i.e. with a physical justification of a nonlinearity, e.g. from ‘first principles’ or from geometrical properties , , , . Such a framework depends on the structure of the nonlinearity. Therefore some information on a method to derive a NLDE with a special class of nonlinear terms like $`H_2`$ could be useful.
* We mentioned in section 1 some recent interest in nonrelativistic nonlinear quantum mechanical evolutions equations, e.g. nonlinear one-particle Schrödinger equation (NLSE). It would be interesting to see whether NLSE appear as nonrelativistic limits from a NLDE, as it is the case for linear Schrödinger and Dirac equations. One can realise the nonrelativistic case with the program from section 1; take a Hilbert space of scalar functions, the (nonrelativistic) utility function (5) and use the central extension of the inhomogeneous Galilei group (with time translations) instead of the Poincaré group as space-time invariance. The result is known (see , section 4); the nonlinear terms depend on second order terms $`_k^2\phi ,_k\phi _l\phi ,k,l=1,2,3`$ because the Schrödinger equation is of second order. The usual procedure to derive a nonrelativistic limit of the Dirac equation leads to the Pauli equation (or the Schrödinger equation for vanishing electromagnetic potentials). If one tries an analogous procedure for the NLDE family $`_2^{ex}`$, second order terms in $`\psi ,\overline{\psi }`$ are absent. Hence for a NLDE with a nonrelativistic limit given through a NLSE of the type given in  \-  one should use a nonlinear transformation $`N`$ which depends also on derivatives of $`\psi `$. Such transformations were discussed in the nonrelativistic case in .

Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to Dr. Olena Roman for a compilation of some results in a first version of this paper and to Prof. A.G. Nikitin, Dr. Rainer Matthes and Alois Kopp for discussions and help.