text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The plane wave metric supported by a Ramond-Ramond 5-form background , provides examples of exactly solvable string models . Note that, string theory in this background tests $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence . This background by Penrose limit , also is related to the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background .

Combining membrane theory  with string theory in the pp-wave background, we can find a structure for the membrane . In fact, an enlarged framework for studying strings is the compactified membrane theory . In this paper, from the solutions of the compacted membrane, we shall obtain massive strings which propagate in the pp-wave backgrounds. Some properties of these strings such as algebra and Hamiltonian will be studied.

Similar to the membrane theory, we shall also find strings in the pp-wave backgrounds from a massless string that propagates in the spacetime with two time directions. The worldvolume of this massless string has one space and two time directions . One of these two time coordinates (both of the spacetime and of the string worldvolume) is compacted on a circle. The resulted massive strings will be studied in detail.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, relations between the massive strings with the membrane are given. In section 3, from the solution of the membrane, we shall obtain the solutions of the massive closed strings. In section 4, the same will be done for the massive open strings. In section 5, by compactifying the extra time coordinates of the spacetime and of the string worldvolume, we shall obtain another solutions for the massive closed and open strings.

## 2 Membrane in terms of massive strings

By choosing appropriate gauges , the membrane action can be written as

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{T_2}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma 𝑑\rho (\eta ^{AB}_AZ^I_BZ^I)},`$ (1)
where $`I\{1,2,\mathrm{},8\}`$. The metric of the membrane worldvolume is $`\eta _{AB}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$ and $`T_2`$ is its tension. Therefore, the equation of motion of the membrane is

$`(_\tau ^2+_\sigma ^2+_\rho ^2)Z^I(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )=0.`$ (2)
It is possible to expand $`Z^I(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )`$ as in the following

$`Z^I(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )q_n(\rho ),`$ (3)
where $`q_n(\rho )=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{in\rho }{R})`$. The ranges of $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ are $`0\sigma 2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+`$ and $`0\rho 2\pi R`$. In fact, it is assumed that one of the spacetime and one of the membrane directions are identified and wrapped on a circle with radius $`R`$. The radius of compactification is $`R=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}T_2}`$. Since the membrane coordinate $`Z^I(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )`$ is real, we should have

$`X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )=X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma ).`$ (4)
The equation of motion of a string with mass number $`n`$ is

$`(_\tau ^2+_\sigma ^2\mu _n^2)X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )=0,`$ (5)
where $`\mu _n=\frac{n}{R}`$ is the mass of the string. This equation also can be obtained from the equations (2) and (3).

The Hamiltonian of this system of strings is

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+}}𝑑\sigma \left(_\tau X_n^I_\tau X_n^I+_\sigma X_n^I_\sigma X_n^I+\mu _n^2X_n^IX_n^I\right).`$ (6)
This Hamiltonian describes infinite number of massive strings that interact with each other. Strings with symmetric mass numbers (i.e., $`n`$ and $`n`$) couple to each other. There is no coupling between strings with the same mass signs. One interpretation is that, the membrane is a distribution of infinite number of massive strings with quantized masses.

The Hamiltonian (6) can be written as $`H=_{nZ}H_n`$. The corresponding action also has the form $`S=_{nZ}S_n`$. Each action $`S_n`$ describes a massive string with the mass $`\mu _n`$. In fact, after the gauge fixing , each $`S_n`$ is related to a plane wave metric.

According to the equation (3) we have

$`X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi R}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}𝑑\rho \left(q_n(\rho )Z^I(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )\right).`$ (7)
Therefore, integration of the membrane coordinates by the weight $`q_n(\rho )`$ over the worldvolume coordinate $`\rho `$, produces massive string coordinates.

## 3 Massive closed strings

A solution of the equation of motion of the membrane, i.e., equation (2), can be written as

$`Z^I(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )=z^I(\tau ,\rho )+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{(l,k)(0,0)}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{lk}}}\mathrm{exp}[i(\mathrm{\Omega }_{lk}\tau \mu _k\rho )]\left(A_{lk}^Ie^{i\overline{l}\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{A}_{lk}^Ie^{i\overline{l}\sigma }\right)\right],`$ (8)
where the zero modes are given by the function $`z^I(\tau ,\rho )`$ as in the following

$`z^I(\tau ,\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{kZ}{}}\left[q_k(\rho )\left(x_k^I\mathrm{cos}(\mu _k\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{p_k^I}{p^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\mu _k\tau )}{\mu _k}}\right)\right].`$ (9)
Also $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lk}`$ and $`\overline{l}`$ are

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lk}=\mathrm{sgn}(l)\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{l}{\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{R}}\right)^2},\overline{l}={\displaystyle \frac{l}{\alpha ^{}p^+}}.`$ (10)
The worldvolume frequencies $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_{lk}\}`$ imply that the indices “$`l`$” and “$`k`$”, in the oscillating part of the solution (8), simultaneously can not be zero. The Fourier coefficients have been chosen so that $`Z^I`$ is real coordinate. Therefore, we should have

$`x_k^I=x_k^I,`$ (11)
$`p_k^I=p_k^I,`$
$`A_{lk}^I=A_{l,k}^I,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{lk}^I=\stackrel{~}{A}_{l,k}^I.`$
Furthermore, the algebra of the membrane modes are

$`[A_{lk}^I,A_{l^{}k^{}}^J]=[\stackrel{~}{A}_{lk}^I,\stackrel{~}{A}_{l^{}k^{}}^J]=\alpha ^{}p^+\mathrm{\Omega }_{lk}\delta ^{IJ}\delta _{l+l^{},0}\delta _{k+k^{},0}.`$ (12)
$`[x_k^I,p_k^{}^J]=i\delta ^{IJ}\delta _{k+k^{},0}.`$ (13)
Combining the solution (8) with the equation (7), we obtain the closed string coordinates with the mass number $`n`$,

$`X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )=x_n^I\mathrm{cos}(\mu _n\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{p_n^I}{p^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\mu _n\tau )}{\mu _n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{(l,n)(0,0)}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}}}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}\tau }\left(A_{ln}^Ie^{i\overline{l}\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{A}_{ln}^Ie^{i\overline{l}\sigma }\right)\right].`$ (14)
This string coordinate satisfies the condition (4). Note that $`A_{l,n}^I`$ for positive indices $`l`$ and $`n`$ is creation operator, while $`A_{ln}^I`$ is annihilation operator. Also $`A_{l,n}^I`$ with respect to the index $`l`$ is creation operator and with respect to the index $`n`$ is annihilation operator. Similar interpretation also holds for $`A_{l,n}^I`$.

The equation (6) gives the Hamiltonian of the closed strings as in the following

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}\left(p_n^Ip_n^I+m_n^2x_n^Ix_n^I\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{(l,n)(0,0)}{}}\left(A_{l,n}^IA_{ln}^I+\stackrel{~}{A}_{l,n}^I\stackrel{~}{A}_{ln}^I\right).`$ (15)
Now define the new oscillators $`a_{ln}^I`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{ln}^I`$ as

$`a_{ln}^I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}p^+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}|}}}A_{ln}^I,`$ (16)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}_{ln}^I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}p^+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}|}}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ln}^I.`$
These oscillators have the algebras

$`[a_{ln}^I,a_{l^{}n^{}}^J]=[\stackrel{~}{a}_{ln}^I,\stackrel{~}{a}_{l^{}n^{}}^J]=\mathrm{sgn}(l)\delta ^{IJ}\delta _{l+l^{},0}\delta _{n+n^{},0}.`$ (17)
Therefore, the oscillating part of the Hamiltonian (15) takes the form

$`H_{\mathrm{osc}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[|\mathrm{\Omega }_{0n}|\left(a_{0,n}^Ia_{0n}^I+\stackrel{~}{a}_{0,n}^I\stackrel{~}{a}_{0n}^I\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[|\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}|\left(a_{l,n}^Ia_{ln}^I+\stackrel{~}{a}_{l,n}^I\stackrel{~}{a}_{ln}^I\right)\right]+C+\stackrel{~}{C}.`$ (18)
The constants $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ come from the normal ordering of the Hamiltonian. After regularization, they are

$`C=\stackrel{~}{C}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)+8{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}.`$ (19)
In $`H_{\mathrm{osc}}`$, the first summation is normal ordered. Also the second summation with respect to the index $`l`$ is normal ordered.

## 4 Massive open strings

The procedure of closed string also can be applied for open string. That is, for the equation (2), we can consider the solution

$`Z^I(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )=z^I(\tau ,\rho )+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{(l,k)(0,0)}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{lk}^{}}}A_{lk}^I\mathrm{exp}[i(\mathrm{\Omega }_{lk}^{}\tau \mu _k\rho )]\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\sigma }{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)\right],`$ (20)
where $`z^I(\tau ,\rho )`$ has been given by the equation (9), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lk}^{}`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lk}^{}=\mathrm{sgn}(l)\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{l}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{R}}\right)^2}.`$ (21)
Since the coordinate $`Z^I(\tau ,\sigma ,\rho )`$ is real the Fourier modes should satisfies the conditions

$`x_k^I=x_k^I,`$ (22)
$`p_k^I=p_k^I,`$
$`A_{lk}^I=A_{l,k}^I.`$
The open string coordinates resulted from the membrane coordinates (20), satisfy the Neumann boundary condition. For satisfying the Dirichlet boundary condition, it is sufficient to drop $`z^I(\tau ,\rho )`$ and change $`\mathrm{cos}(\frac{l\sigma }{2\alpha ^{}p^+})`$ to $`i\mathrm{sin}(\frac{l\sigma }{2\alpha ^{}p^+})`$.

The equations (7) and (20) give the coordinates of the open string with the mass number $`n`$,

$`X_n^i(\tau ,\sigma )=x_n^i\mathrm{cos}(\mu _n\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{p_n^i}{p^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\mu _n\tau )}{\mu _n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{(l,n)(0,0)}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}^{}}}A_{ln}^ie^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}^{}\tau }\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\sigma }{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)\right],`$ (23)
for the Neumann directions, and

$`X_n^a(\tau ,\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{(l,n)(0,0)}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}^{}}}A_{ln}^ae^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}^{}\tau }\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\sigma }{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)\right],`$ (24)
for the Dirichlet directions. The coordinates (23) and (24) satisfy the condition (4). For the massless string i.e., $`n=0`$, these are the usual open string coordinates.

The Hamiltonian of this system of open strings is sum of the Dirichlet and Neumann Hamiltonians. Therefore, we have

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}\left(p_n^ip_n^i+m_n^2x_n^ix_n^i\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{(l,n)(0,0)}{}}(A_{l,n}^IA_{ln}^I).`$ (25)
The algebras of the open string modes are equation (13) and

$`[A_{ln}^I,A_{l^{}n^{}}^J]=2\alpha ^{}p^+\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}^{}\delta ^{IJ}\delta _{l+l^{},0}\delta _{n+n^{},0},I,J\{i,a\}.`$ (26)
Define the oscillators $`\{a_{ln}^I\}`$ as in the following

$`a_{ln}^I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}p^+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}^{}|}}}A_{ln}^I.`$ (27)
Then the algebra of these oscillators becomes

$`[a_{ln}^I,a_{l^{}n^{}}^J]=\mathrm{sgn}(l)\delta ^{IJ}\delta _{l+l^{},0}\delta _{n+n^{},0},I,J\{i,a\}.`$ (28)
In terms of these oscillators and after normal ordering, the oscillating part of the Hamiltonian (25) takes the form

$`H_{\mathrm{osc}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(|\mathrm{\Omega }_{0n}^{}|a_{0,n}^Ia_{0n}^I\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(|\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}^{}|a_{l,n}^Ia_{ln}^I\right)+C^{},`$ (29)
where the normal ordering constant $`C^{}`$ is

$`C^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)+8{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}^{}.`$ (30)
## 5 Strings in the pp-wave backgrounds from string in the spacetime with two time directions

Some efforts have been devoted to imagining a world with more than one time dimension. There are many possibilities for the numbers of space dimension, time dimension, and also for the space and time dimensions of the extended objects, that propagate in the spacetime . For example, it is possible to have a membrane that its worldvolume has two space and one time dimensions. This membrane propagates in a spacetime with ten space and one time dimensions. There is another interesting possibility, i.e., a string that its worldvolume contains one space and two times. This string lives in a spacetime with nine spaces and two times. So, both the $`(10,1;2,1)`$ and the $`(9,2;1,2)`$ cases yield $`SO(3,2)\times SO(8)`$ as the bosonic group .

In addition to $`Z^0`$, let the direction $`Z^{10}`$ also be a time coordinate of the spacetime. Therefore, the action of a massless string in this spacetime is

$`\overline{S}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma d^2\tau (\eta _{\mu \nu }\eta ^{AB}_AZ^\mu _BZ^\nu 1)},`$ (31)
where $`\mu ,\nu \{0,1,\mathrm{},10\}`$. The parameters $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ are time coordinates and $`\sigma `$ is space coordinate of the string worldvolume. The metrics of the spacetime and the worldvolume are $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,\mathrm{},1,1)`$ and $`\eta _{AB}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$. The constant $`T`$ is tension of the string in this spacetime. It is not equal to $`\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}`$ which is string tension in the usual spacetime (i.e., spacetime with one time direction). By the identification $`Z^{10}=\tau ^{}`$ and choosing the light-cone gauge, the action (31) takes the form

$`\overline{S}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\tau _0^{2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+}𝑑\sigma (\eta ^{AB}_AZ^I_BZ^I)}.`$ (32)
The equation of motion of string, extracted from this action, is

$`(_\tau ^2_\tau ^{}^2+_\sigma ^2)Z^I(\tau ,\tau ^{};\sigma )=0.`$ (33)
In addition, for the closed string there is the condition

$`Z^I(\tau ,\tau ^{};\sigma +2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+)=Z^I(\tau ,\tau ^{};\sigma ).`$ (34)
The open string also should satisfy the conditions

$`(_\sigma Z^I)_{\sigma _0}=0,`$ (35)
for the Neumann directions, and

$`(_\tau Z^I)_{\sigma _0}=0,`$ (36)
$`(_\tau ^{}Z^I)_{\sigma _0}=0,`$
for the Dirichlet directions. The constant $`\sigma _0=0,2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+`$ shows the ends of the open string.

Assume that the extra time direction $`Z^{10}`$ to be compact on a circle with the radius $`R`$. Since the functions $`\{q_n(\tau ^{})=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{in\tau ^{}}{R})\}`$ are periodic we can write

$`Z^I(\tau ,\tau ^{};\sigma )={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )q_n(\tau ^{}).`$ (37)
Again the reality of $`Z^I`$ leads to the condition (4) for the coordinate $`X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )`$. According to the equation (37) we have

$`X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi R}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}𝑑\tau ^{}\left(q_n(\tau ^{})Z^I(\tau ,\tau ^{};\sigma )\right).`$ (38)
The equation (33) gives the equation of motion of the string coordinate $`X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )`$ as

$`(_\tau ^2+_\sigma ^2+\mu _n^2)X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )=0.`$ (39)
Also the string tension $`T`$ depends on the radius of compactification, i.e.,

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}R}}.`$ (40)
According to the equation (37), the action (32) becomes

$`\overline{S}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+}𝑑\sigma \left(\eta ^{ab}_aX_n^I_bX_n^I\mu _n^2X_n^IX_n^I\right)}.`$ (41)
In fact, the equation of motion extracted from this action, is the equation (39). This action leads to the following Hamiltonian

$`\overline{H}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+}}𝑑\sigma \left(_\tau X_n^I_\tau X_n^I+_\sigma X_n^I_\sigma X_n^I\mu _n^2X_n^IX_n^I\right).`$ (42)
The action (41) and the associated Hamiltonian (42) can be written as $`\overline{S}=_{nZ}\overline{S}_n`$ and $`\overline{H}=_{nZ}\overline{H}_n`$. Each light-cone action $`\overline{S}_n`$ corresponds to the plane wave metric

$`d\overline{s}_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=2dX^+dX^{}+\mu _n^2{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{8}{}}}X_n^IX_n^I(dX^+)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{8}{}}}dX_n^IdX_n^I.`$ (43)
For achieving to this metric, the role of the coordinates $`X^0`$ and $`X^9`$ should be changed. In other words, in the usual plane wave metric, we should apply the exchanges $`X^0\pm iX^9`$ and $`X^9\pm iX^0`$. Therefore, the light-cone coordinates $`X^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(X^0\pm X^9)`$ transform as $`X^+\pm iX^+`$ and $`X^{}iX^{}`$.

Closed strings in pp-waves

For a closed string the solution of the equation of motion (33) is

$`Z^I(\tau ,\tau ^{};\sigma )=z^I(\tau ,\tau ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{kZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{|l|l_k+1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{lk}}}\mathrm{exp}[i(\omega _{lk}\tau \mu _k\tau ^{})]\left(A_{lk}^Ie^{i\overline{l}\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{A}_{lk}^Ie^{i\overline{l}\sigma }\right)\right],`$ (44)
where the zero modes are given by the function

$`z^I(\tau ,\tau ^{})={\displaystyle \underset{kZ}{}}\left[q_k(\tau ^{})\left(x_k^I\mathrm{cosh}(\mu _k\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{p_k^I}{p^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _k\tau )}{\mu _k}}\right)\right].`$ (45)
Also $`\omega _{lk}`$, $`\overline{l}`$ and $`l_k`$ are

$`\omega _{lk}=\mathrm{sgn}(l)\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{l}{\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{R}}\right)^2},\overline{l}={\displaystyle \frac{l}{\alpha ^{}p^+}},l_k=[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}p^+}{R}}|k|].`$ (46)
In fact, the number $`l_k`$ is integer part of $`\frac{\alpha ^{}p^+}{R}|k|`$. Reality of the coordinate (44) implies that the Fourier coefficients should obey the conditions (11).

The coordinate of the closed string with the mass number $`n`$, in the usual spacetime is

$`X_n^I(\tau ,\sigma )=x_n^I\mathrm{cosh}(\mu _n\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{p_n^I}{p^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _n\tau )}{\mu _n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{|l|l_n+1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ln}}}e^{i\omega _{ln}\tau }\left(A_{ln}^Ie^{i\overline{l}\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{A}_{ln}^Ie^{i\overline{l}\sigma }\right)\right].`$ (47)
This coordinate satisfies the equation of motion (39) and the condition (4). The algebra of the modes of this coordinate, has been given by the equations (12) and (13).

The equations (42) and (47) give the Hamiltonian of the closed strings as

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}\left(p_n^Ip_n^Im_n^2x_n^Ix_n^I\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{|l|l_n+1}{}}\left(A_{l,n}^IA_{ln}^I+\stackrel{~}{A}_{l,n}^I\stackrel{~}{A}_{ln}^I\right).`$ (48)
Using the definition (16), with $`\omega _{ln}`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}`$, the oscillating part of this Hamiltonian becomes

$`H_{\mathrm{osc}}={\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=l_n+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[|\omega _{ln}|\left(a_{l,n}^Ia_{ln}^I+\stackrel{~}{a}_{l,n}^I\stackrel{~}{a}_{ln}^I\right)\right]+A+\stackrel{~}{A}.`$ (49)
The normal ordering constants $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ come from the algebra (17) and they are

$`A=\stackrel{~}{A}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\alpha ^{}p^+}}+8{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=l_n+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\omega _{ln}.`$ (50)
Open strings in pp-waves

The equation of motion (33) gives the following solutions for the open strings

$`Z^i(\tau ,\tau ^{};\sigma )=z^i(\tau ,\tau ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{kZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{|l|l_k+1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{lk}^{}}}A_{lk}^i\mathrm{exp}[i(\omega _{lk}^{}\tau \mu _k\tau ^{})]\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\sigma }{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)\right],`$ (51)
for the Neumann boundary condition, where $`z^i(\tau ,\tau ^{})`$ has been given by the equation (45) and $`\omega _{lk}^{}`$ and $`l_k`$ are

$`\omega _{lk}^{}=\mathrm{sgn}(l)\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{l}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{R}}\right)^2},l_k=[{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^{}p^+}{R}}|k|].`$ (52)
For the Dirichlet boundary condition we have

$`Z^a(\tau ,\tau ^{};\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{kZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{|l|l_k+1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{lk}^{}}}A_{lk}^a\mathrm{exp}[i(\omega _{lk}^{}\tau \mu _k\tau ^{})]\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\sigma }{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)\right].`$ (53)
The reality of the coordinates $`Z^i`$ and $`Z^a`$ leads to the conditions (22) for the open string modes.

The open string coordinates in the usual spacetime are

$`X_n^i(\tau ,\sigma )=x_n^i\mathrm{cosh}(\mu _n\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{p_n^i}{p^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _n\tau )}{\mu _n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{|l|l_n+1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ln}^{}}}A_{ln}^ie^{i\omega _{ln}^{}\tau }\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\sigma }{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)\right],`$ (54)
for the Neumann directions, and

$`X_n^a(\tau ,\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{|l|l_n+1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{ln}^{}}}A_{ln}^ae^{i\omega _{ln}^{}\tau }\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\sigma }{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\right)\right],`$ (55)
for the Dirichlet directions. These solutions also satisfy the condition (4).

The Hamiltonian of this system of open strings is

$`H^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}\left(p_n^ip_n^im_n^2x_n^ix_n^i\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{|l|l_n+1}{}}(A_{l,n}^IA_{ln}^I).`$ (56)
Apply the definition (27), with $`\omega _{ln}^{}`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ln}^{}`$, we obtain the oscillating part of $`H^{}`$ as

$`H_{\mathrm{osc}}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=l_n+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(|\omega _{ln}^{}|a_{l,n}^Ia_{ln}^I\right)+A^{}.`$ (57)
The algebra (28) gives the normal ordering constant $`A^{}`$,

$`A^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\alpha ^{}p^+}}+8{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=l_n+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\omega _{ln}^{}.`$ (58)
Note that the equation (13) gives the algebra of $`x_n^I`$ and $`p_n^I`$ for both closed strings and the Neumann part of open strings.

## 6 Conclusions

In terms of the membrane solutions, we obtained the solutions of the massive closed and open strings, the algebras of the modes and the associated Hamiltonians. In fact, the algebra of the strings modes in the quantized pp-wave backgrounds is the same as the algebra of the membrane modes. The normal ordering constants of the Hamiltonians depend on both the string length $`2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+`$ and the radius of compactification of the membrane.

We also obtained strings in the quantized pp-wave backgrounds from a massless string that propagates in the spacetime with two time directions. One of these time coordinates is compacted on circle. The resulted massive strings are open or closed. The open string coordinates satisfy the Neumann or Dirichlet boundary conditions, as the usual case. Reality of the massless string coordinates projects out some of the oscillators from the solutions of the resulted massive strings and therefore, from the associated Hamiltonians.


format: text

text:
# 𝑑-density wave state in an external magnetic field

## Abstract

We present a study of the electrical and thermal conductivities of the $`d`$-density wave (DDW) state in an external magnetic field $`B`$ in the low temperature regime and in the presence of impurities. We show that in the zero temperature limit, $`T0`$, the Wiedemann-Franz (WF) law remains intact. For finite $`T`$ the WF law violation is possible and it is enhanced by the external field.

, ,

A recent experiment of Hill et al.  that measured electrical and thermal conductivities of the optimally electron doped copper-oxide superconductor Pr2-xCexCuO4 (PCCO) in its normal state found striking deviations from the Wiedemann-Franz (WF) law. The hole overdoped system Tl2Ba2CuO6+δ (Tl-2201) was also studied recently by Proust et al. . They verified that in the overdoped Tl-2201 WF law holds perfectly. The WF law is one of the basic properties of a Fermi liquid, reflecting the fact that the ability of a quasiparticle to transport heat is the same as its ability to transport charge, provided it cannot lose energy through collisions. The WF law states that the ratio of the heat conductivity $`\kappa `$ to the electrical conductivity $`\sigma `$ of a metal is a universal constant:

$$L_0\frac{\kappa }{\sigma T}=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\left(\frac{k_B}{e}\right)^2,$$
(1)
where $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann’s constant, $`e`$ is electron’s charge and $`L_0=2.45\times 10^8\text{W}\mathrm{\Omega }\text{K}^2`$ is Sommerfeld’s value for the Lorenz ratio $`L\kappa /(\sigma T)`$. To be more precise, one should also specify the temperature range where the WF law holds. Strictly speaking this law is proven only in the limit $`T0`$ and for a small concentration of impurities . One of the possible theoretical interpretations of the WF law breakdown is that the quasiparticle fractionalizes into separate spin and charge. This separation can be investigated using various models and approaches.

An examination of the WF law was done by Yang and Nayak (YN)  and also by Kim and Carbotte (KC)  within the phenomenological $`d`$-density wave (DDW) picture. The DDW scenario proposed in Ref.  is based on the assumption that the pseudogap phenomenon  in high-$`T_c`$ cuprates is the result of the development of another order parameter called DDW order that has $`d`$-wave symmetry and can be described by the mean-field Hamiltonian

$$H^{\mathrm{DDW}}=_{\mathrm{RBZ}}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\chi _s^{}(t,𝐤)\left[H_0(𝐤)\mu \right]\chi _s(t,𝐤),$$
(2)
where

$$H_0(𝐤)=\epsilon (𝐤)\sigma _3D(𝐤)\sigma _2,$$
(3)
the spinors $`\chi _s`$ and $`\chi _s^{}`$ are

$$\chi _s^{}(t,𝐤)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_s^{}(t,𝐤)c_s^{}(t,𝐤+𝐐)& \end{array}\right),$$
(4)
the single particle energy is $`\epsilon (𝐤)=2t(\mathrm{cos}k_xa+\mathrm{cos}k_ya)`$ with $`t`$ being the hopping parameter, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`D(𝐤)=\frac{D_0}{2}(\mathrm{cos}k_xa\mathrm{cos}k_ya)`$ is the $`d`$-density wave gap and $`𝐐=(\pi /a,\pi /a)`$ is the wave vector at which the density-wave ordering takes place and $`\sigma _i`$ are Pauli matrices. The integral is over the reduced Brillouin zone. The units $`\mathrm{}=k_B=c=1`$ are chosen.

One of the unusual features of the DDW state is that for a half-filled band the chemical potential of the nodal quasiparticles participating in the electrical and thermal transport can be small or even zero, i.e. $`|\mu |<k_BT`$, that violates the usual conditions of the WF law validity. Indeed, exactly in the limit $`\mu =0`$ the WF law is strongly violated in the extremely clean limit . There is no WF law violation in the $`T=0`$ limit for finite $`\mu `$ and/or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . For finite temperatures the WF violation depends on the impurity scattering : in the Born limit (for a constant impurity scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) there is no change in the WF law, but in the unitary limit for the frequency dependent scattering rate the WF law is violated, but only for $`|\mu |`$ smaller that the DDW gap. When $`\mu `$ is increased sufficiently, the Lorenz number becomes approximately equal to its conventional value and its temperature dependence is small.

While in general the validity of the DDW pseudogap scenario is still questionable, it is important to scrutinize all its theoretical consequences. One of the opportunities is to study possible WF law violations using the DDW model, so that these results can be compared with the experimental results of Refs. . The presence of the external magnetic field is an essential ingredient of the experiments , so that if the DDW state exists, it would show up in the magnetic field in the underdoped regime at low $`T`$ when the superconductivity is destroyed. In this paper we present the study  of the WF law for the DDW model including the external magnetic field for a constant impurity scattering rate paying special attention to the regime $`|\mu |k_BT`$ where the violation of the WF law is expected.

We show that the strongest violation of the WF law is possible for $`\mu =0`$ and only at finite temperatures. This is the case shown in Fig. 1.

We observe that while the results of  suggest that the WF law is violated at $`T0`$, there is no violation of the WF law in this limit in the DDW scenario of the pseudogap. Since in Fig. 3 of Ref.  the electrical conductivity is a constant, the line $`\kappa _e(T)/T`$ directly represents the normalized Lorenz number $`L(T)/L_0`$. For finite temperatures there is then some similarity between Fig. 1 (see also other figures in Ref. ) and Fig. 3 of  where as $`T`$ increases the thermal conductivity crosses from the region with $`\kappa _e/T<L_0/\rho _0`$ to the region with $`\kappa _e(T)/T>L_0/\rho _0`$ resembling the character of the WF law violation seen in the experiment. It is obvious from Fig. 1 that such a behavior of $`L(T)`$ is due to the presence of the magnetic field. This confirms our claim that to interpret theoretically the experiment  one should take into account the influence of the external field.

Our main conclusions concerning the WF law can be summarized as follows.

(1) We have shown that in the DDW state in the presence of impurities the WF law holds in $`T0`$ limit for an arbitrary field $`B`$ and chemical potential $`\mu `$. This is checked within the bubble approximation, i.e. not including the impurity vertex.

(2) For finite temperatures $`T|\mu |`$, the WF law violation is possible and in zero field the thermal conductivity dominates over the electrical conductivity, i.e. $`L(T)/L_0>1`$.

(3) For $`T|\mu |`$ in the nonzero field the WF law violation becomes even stronger than in zero field and depending on the temperature both regimes $`L(T)/L_01`$ and $`L(T)/L_0>1`$ are possible.

(4) For $`T|\mu |`$ there is no WF violation even in the presence of magnetic field.

This work was supported by the research project 20-65045.01 of the Swiss NSF. The work of V.P.G. was supported by the SCOPES-projects 7UKPJ062150.00/1 and 7 IP 062607 of the Swiss NSF and by the Grant No. PHY-0070986 of NSF (USA).


text:
# Spin-based quantum gating with semiconductor quantum dots by bichromatic radiation method

## Abstract

A potential scheme is proposed for realizing a two-qubit quantum gate in semiconductor quantum dots. Information is encoded in the spin degrees of freedom of one excess conduction electron of each quantum dot. We propose to use two lasers, radiating two neighboring QDs, and tuned to blue detuning with respect to the resonant frequencies of individual excitons. The two-qubit phase gate can be achieved by means of both Pauli-blocking effect and dipole-dipole coupling between intermediate excitonic states.

Quantum computing with semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) has drawn more and more interest over the past few years review . Besides the ease of scalability, semiconductor QD quantum computing is more appealing than other quantum computing schemes due to the existence of the industrial basis for semiconductor processing as well as the promise of being easily integrable.

In the schemes for quantum computing with semiconductor QDs proposed so far, either the excitonic or spin degrees of freedom have been identified as potential qubits. Quantum gating based on excitons, although being strongly restricted by the short decoherence time of the exciton, can be implemented ultrafastly with optical manipulations biolatti . In contrast, spin qubits, due to their relatively long decoherence time cor ; imamo , allow for longer storage of quantum information. Quantum gates can be carried out by means of Coulomb interaction biolatti ; loss ; pazy ; cal  or by coupling to a cavity mode imamo ; sherw ; feng1 . When nearest-neighbor coupling plays an important role one has to face a significant overhead for coupling two distant QDs. On the contrary if the QDs are put into a cavity, two distant QDs can interact directly through coupling to the same cavity mode. Nevertheless, the implementation time in such a model is typically quite long due to both the large detuning technique adopted for avoiding the cavity decay and the weak cavity-laser-QD coupling feng1 .

More and more experimental evidences, based on current state-of-art nanostructure and laser technology, have shown the present capacity to manipulate semiconductor QDs based qubits. The single QD cooled and prepared with one excess conduction band electron only, which is the prerequisite of spin-based QD quantum computing schemes, has already been achieved fin . Entangled excitonic states have been realized by optical method chen  and the ultrafast spin rotation by laser pulses in a magnetic field has been presentedgup . More recently, the writing and readout operations for the spin states of the single conduction band electron were performed in an n-doped InAs-GaAs QD by nonresonant circularly polarized optical pumping cor . In the same experiment, a long lifetime of the electron spin was observed. Although no experiment so far has demonstrated a quantum algorithm, the experimental progress outlined above has paved the road to a working quantum computer with semiconductor QDs.

The present work concentrates on an alternative two-qubit proposal for spin qubits of semiconductor QDs, which is inspired by pazy . The essential ingredient of our gate proposal is provided by the bichromatic radiation approach widely employed in ion trap quantum computing sm . As in pazy , quantum information in our scheme will be encoded in the spin states of the single excess conduction electron of the QD and the two-qubit quantum gate will be realized by exploiting the biexcitonic shift due to the dipole-dipole interaction between adjacent excitonic states. However, at variance from pazy , the two-qubit gate proposed here is implemented by the bichromatic radiation approach. To this aim, we have to modify the original formulation used for trapped ions; this is due to the differences between QDs and atomic ions, i.e., degeneracy of qubit states in QDs in the absence of external field, no metastable levels to use as ancillary states in QDs, no motional degrees of freedom attached to the qubit states and no exactly identical self-assembled QDs.

Consider two lasers, radiating two neighboring QDs, and tuned to blue detuning with respect to the resonant frequencies of individual excitons. If the sum of the two blue detunings equals to the biexcitonic shift, an effective coupling can be generated between $`|11_{ab}`$ and $`|XX_{ab}`$, where $`|1_k`$ and $`|X_k`$ denote a qubit state and the excitonic state of the QD $`k`$ respectively (defined later, see Fig. 1). We shall show how to realize a conditional phase gate, based on this effective coupling, by means of properly tailored ultrafast laser pulses. We shall focus on the case of two QDs. Both our method and results can be in principle extended to multi-QD systems.

Let us suppose that each QD contains only one excess conduction-band electron. We employ the spin states $`m_z=1/2`$ and -1/2 of such electron as qubit states $`|1`$ and $`|0`$ respectively. Excitonic states are introduced as ancillary ones. Besides the Coulomb repulsion, the Pauli-blocking mechanism is essential to our scheme. When we radiate a $`\sigma ^{}`$ polarized light with suitable energy on the QD, due to the Pauli exclusion principle, the exciton $`|m_J^e=\frac{1}{2},m_J^h=\frac{1}{2}`$ in the s-shell exp1  will be produced if and only if the excess electron has a spin projection 1/2. This Pauli-blocking mechanism has been used to experimentally produce entangled excitonic states in chen . We define $`|0_\nu =c_{\nu ,\frac{1}{2}}^{}|vac`$, $`|1_\nu =c_{\nu ,\frac{1}{2}}^{}|vac`$, and the excitonic states $`|X_\nu =c_{\nu ,\frac{1}{2}}^{}c_{\nu ,\frac{1}{2}}^{}d_{\nu ,\frac{1}{2}}^{}|vac`$, where $`c_{\nu ,\sigma }^{}(d_{\nu ,\sigma }^{})`$ is the creation operator for a conduction (valence) band electron (hole) in QD $`\nu `$ with spin projection $`\sigma `$, and $`|vac`$ denotes the electron-hole vacuum. The general Hamiltonian of such a system can be found in pazy . Here we only consider a special situation, i.e., two neighboring QDs with different configurations, radiated by two blue-detuned lasers simultaneously, as shown in Fig. 1. The Hamiltonian of the QD system $`H_0+H_I`$ can be written in unit of $`\mathrm{}`$ as

$$H_0=\mathrm{\Delta }|XXXX|+\omega _a|X_aX|\widehat{I}_b+\omega _b\widehat{I}_a|X_bX|$$
(1)
and

$$H_I=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Omega }_a(t)(e^{i\omega _{L1}t}+e^{i\omega _{L2}t})|1_aX|\widehat{I}_b+\mathrm{\Omega }_b(t)(e^{i\omega _{L1}t}+e^{i\omega _{L2}t})\widehat{I}_a|1_bX|+h.c.]$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k(t)`$ ($`k=a`$ and $`b`$) denotes the couplings of lasers with QDs $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively, For simplicity, we assume here that the coupling strength $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k(t)`$ is identical for each QD irradiated by different laser beams. But this assumption is not essential to the follwoing deduction. $`\widehat{I}_k`$ is the identity operator with respect to QD $`k`$, $`\omega _k`$ is the resonant energy of a single exciton produced in individual QDs, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the biexcitonic shift due to Coulomb repulsion. $`\omega _{Ln}`$ $`(n=1`$ or $`2)`$ is the laser frequency applied on QDs $`a`$ and $`b`$, and $`h.c.`$ means hermitian conjugate. The Pauli blocking is reflected by the absence of the transition from $`|0`$ to $`|X`$. In the rotating frame with respect to $`H_0`$, we have

$$H^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_a(t)}{2}\left(e^{i\omega _{L1}t}+e^{i\omega _{L2}t}\right)e^{i\omega _at}|1_aX|\left(|XX|e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }t}+|11|+|00|\right)_b$$

$$+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_b(t)}{2}\left(e^{i\omega _{L1}t}+e^{i\omega _{L2}t}\right)e^{i\omega _bt}\left(|XX|e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }t}+|11|+|00|\right)_a|1_bX|+h.c.$$
(3)
Since the two QDs are radiated by two lasers simultaneously, there should be four detunings. We define $`\delta _a=\omega _{L1}\omega _a`$, $`\delta _a^{^{}}=\omega _{L2}\omega _a`$, $`\delta _b=\omega _{L1}\omega _b`$, and $`\delta _b^{^{}}=\omega _{L2}\omega _b`$ with $`\delta _a+\delta _b^{^{}}=\delta _b+\delta _a^{^{}}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to achieve the two-photon resonance. If we adjust the two lasers to satisfy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k/2min\{\delta _a,\delta _b,\delta _a^{^{}},\delta _b^{^{}}\}`$, then there would be no actual excitation in the intermediate states $`|1X_{ab}`$ and $`|X1_{ab}`$. We thus reach an effective Hamiltonian

$$H_{eff}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(t)}{2}(|XX11|+h.c.)_{ab}$$
(4)
with

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(t)}{2}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_a(t)\mathrm{\Omega }_b(t)(1/\delta _a+1/\delta _a^{^{}}+1/\delta _b+1/\delta _b^{^{}})$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_a(t)\mathrm{\Omega }_b(t)\left[1/\delta _a+1/(\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta \delta _a)+1/(\delta _a\delta )+1/(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _a)\right]$$
(5)
where $`\delta =\omega _b\omega _a`$ is the resonance frequency difference between the two QDs. Based on Eq. (4), returning to the Schrödinger representation, we have the time evolution as follows

$$|11\mathrm{cos}[\frac{1}{2}_0^T\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(t)𝑑t]|11ie^{i(\omega _a+\omega _b+\mathrm{\Delta })t}\mathrm{sin}[\frac{1}{2}_0^T\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(t)𝑑t]|XX$$
(6)
and a similar equation for $`|XX`$.

Our conditional phase gate is based on Eq. (6), which can lead to a universal quantum computing along with single qubit operations. Since our computational subspace is spanned by $`|0_{a(b)}`$ and $`|1_{a(b)}`$, an evolution with $`_0^T\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(t)𝑑t=2\pi `$ yields $`|11_{ab}|11_{ab}`$, but no change in $`|10_{ab}`$, $`|01_{ab}`$ and $`|00_{ab}`$. This is a typical conditional phase gate. During the gating, however, the excitonic states are actually excited. As a result, our gating time must be shorter than the decoherence time of the exciton. Let us suppose that the QDs are made of III-V semiconductor materials. The biexcitonic shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between adjacent excitons, corresponding to the inter-dot distance of 10 nm in the presence of an in-plane electric field $`F=75kV/cm`$, is about $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ $`meV`$ biolatti . We assume $`\delta =1`$ meV and the laser pulses to be Gaussian where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_ke^{t^2/2\tau ^2}`$ with $`\tau `$ the pulse duration and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a\mathrm{\Omega }_b=\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. Then we have to satisfy the relation

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(0)\left[1/\delta _a+1/(5\delta _a)+1/(\delta _a1)+1/(4\delta _a)\right]_{T/2}^{T/2}e^{t^2/\tau ^2}𝑑t=\pi $$
(7)
where the implementation time of the conditional phase gate $`T`$ should be shorter than the dephasing time of the excitons, which is of the order of 1 $`ns`$ bayer . To analyze the constraints given by the short decoherence time of the excitons and the virtual excitation of the intermediate states, let us define $`R=\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2\delta _{min}`$ with $`\delta _{min}=min\{\delta _a,\delta _b,\delta _a^{^{}},\delta _b^{^{}}\}`$. The numerical results in Fig. 2 demonstrate that when $`\delta _a=2.5`$ meV, we have shortest gating times exp2 . So in what follows, for simplicity, we shall only consider this optimal case. If we consider $`R=1/2`$, which was adopted in ion  for building entangled states of trapped ions based on the proposals of sm , then $`\tau 1.0`$ $`ps`$. But this R is too big to carry out our scheme with high fidelity. To avoid the excitation in the intermediate states defined as $`\overline{n}=2R^2`$ion  though, we have to restrict $`R`$ to be smaller than 1/7, i.e., $`\overline{n}<5\%`$. Thus to realize a gating with such a high fidelity, we would have $`\tau 9.5`$ $`ps`$.

As mentioned above, our scheme is rooted in pazy . Besides using the same qubits, both the schemes perform the quantum gating by means of the biexcitonic shift and Pauli blocking. The important difference is that, instead of an adiabatic process for accumulating the conditional phase factor pazy , our conditional phase gate is based on the resonant transition between $`|11`$ and $`|XX`$. This can be achieved by one-step implementation, which much simplifies the operations in the original proposal of the bichromatic radiation feng2 . Nevertheless, due both to detunings to the individual excitation of the exciton and to the second-order process (Eq. (5)) employed in our scheme, the coupling of the lasers to the QDs cannot be large. As a result, the implementation time our gating takes is of the same order of in pazy . On the other hand, since the bichromatic radiation approach has been proven experimentally ion  in atomic physics to be an efficient and reliable way of entangling states with high fidelity, as long as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k/2\frac{1}{7}min\{\delta _a,\delta _b,\delta _a^{^{}},\delta _b^{^{}}\}`$ is satisfied, we are optimistic on the possibility to achieve a conditional phase gate with the fidelity higher than $`95\%`$.

Besides the two-qubit gate, single-qubit operation is necessary for a universal quantum computing scheme. As done in biolatti ; pazy , based on the exact knowledge of specific QDs, we assume the individually addressing of the QDs is available with laser beams by using energy selective schemes rooted in the characteristic size fluctuations of self-assembled QDs combined with near field technique. By employing resonant Raman coupling between $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ under the radiation of two lasers with different polarizations and suitable frequencies imamo ; feng1 , single-qubit rotation can be readily carried out within the order of $`ps`$. However we noticed that the light hole $`|m_J^h=1/2`$ is an excited state in III-V semiconductor materials, whose decoherence is not advantageous to our single-qubit gating. To avoid this problem, we can choose II-V semiconductor QDs, in which the light hole state is energetically favoured perez .

The readout of the final state may be performed again via Pauli-blocking schemes: only if the final state is $`|1`$, an exciton may be induced by a $`\sigma ^{}`$ polarized laser pulse of suitable frequency. Therefore, a $`\sigma ^{}`$ polarized photon will be created after the exciton decays. By detecting this photon, we shall know whether the QD spin state is in $`|1`$ or $`|0`$. Since in the readout stage the spins are in product states, we only need to consider the lifetime (i.e., $`T_1`$) of the spin state. The lifetime of $`|1`$ is of the order of $`\mu s`$. So we can repeat this laser pulse excitation for thousands of times, which is very similar to the electronical shelving amplification used in ion trap experiments ion ; nag . Although the detection efficiency in our scheme would be somewhat lower than that in a microcavity imamo ; feng1  due to the finite angle coverage of the detector, the information amplification mentioned above can guarantee our readout to be correct and effective.

However, like previous proposals biolatti ; loss ; pazy , our conditional phase gate is based on a nearest-neighbor coupling, which need significant overhead for coupling two distant qubits, and like in biolatti ; pazy , the external electric field is necessary in our scheme to enlarge the biexcitonic shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. On the contrary, in our other scheme feng1 , the qubits based on the QDs embedded in a high-Q single-mode cavity enjoy an effective coupling between two non-neighboring QDs through coupling to the same cavity mode and also no need of external field. Nevertheless, in the present scheme, the conditional two-qubit gate can be carried out more quickly than in feng1 , which is of great importance in view of decoherence. The scheme in feng1  is strongly restricted by the number of the QDs available in a cavity. It is still experimentally challenging to have few QDs in a high-Q cavity with desired couplings. On the contrary, the present scheme is more easily scalable.

The quantum gate based on our scheme can be carried out with high fidelity. The decoherence time of the spin state of the conduction band electron can be of the order of $`\mu s`$ imamo , which is much longer than the decoherence time of the exciton and thereby will not affect our gating. If we neglect in our discussion any errors due to incorrect or inappropriate operations, potential error sources for our scheme are from (1) actual excitation of the intermediate states and the spontaneous emission from excitonic states; (2) small admixture of heavy hole component to the light hole wavefunction due to the interaction between the hole bands in actual QDs lut ; (3) possible spectral diffusion due to strong built-in fields and many-body effect; (4) the Förster process quiroga  happening in the nearest-neighbor coupled QDs. As discussed above, error (1) can be highly suppressed by reasonable laser-QD coupling and implementation time. Error (2) yields slight violation of the Pauli blocking, i.e., a partial excitation of the excitonic state $`|m_J^e=1/2,m_J^h=3/2`$ produced in each radiation with the $`\sigma ^{}`$ polarization when the spin projection of the only excess conduction electron is $`\frac{1}{2}`$. But this can be avoided in our single-qubit gate by using in-plane directed laser pulses. Because of the restriction from symmetry, the induction of the heavy hole part is prohibited in the mixed wave function for any radiation along the growth direction weiner . In the implementation of our two-qubit phase gate instead, in order to avoid decoherence related to light-heavy hole mixing, it is possible to resort to adiabatic techniques pazy ; cal . Error (3) would result in random level shift and cross biexcitons. Fortunately, in the low temperature as considered in this work, it happens on the timescale of seconds robin , much longer than our gating time. So we can neglect it. Error (4) will be also greatly suppressed because of the energy spectrum natural mismatch between different QDs.

In conclusion, a bichromatic radiation scheme for implementing two-qubit phase gate with semiconductor QDs has been proposed. Our scheme can be considered as a combination of the Pauli-blocking spin-based quantum gating and the bichromatic radiation approach. In principle, both the method and the results in this work can be extended to multi-QD case. Since experimentally the mechanism of both the Pauli-blocking and the bichromatic radiation approach has been tested and simple manipulation of spin qubits in semiconductor QDs has been demonstrated, we believe our scheme to be feasible in the near future.

The authors acknowledge thankfully Ehoud Pazy for his useful comments. MF thanks Jason Twamley for the stimulating discussion about the readout problem of solid state quantum computers.


text:
# Quasilinear Wave Equations andMicrolocal Analysis

## 1 . Introduction

In this paper, our interest is to prove local solvability for quasilinear wave equations of the type

$$(E)\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _t^2u\mathrm{\Delta }ug(u)^2u& =& Q(u,u)\hfill \\ \hfill (u,_tu)_{|t=0}& =& (u_0,u_1)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`g`$ is a smooth function vanishing at $`0`$ with value in $`K`$ such that $`\mathrm{Id}+K`$ is a convex compact subset of the set of positive symmetric matrices and $`Q`$ is a quadratic form on $`^{d+1}`$. Our interest proceeds also for cubic quasilinear wave equations of the type

$$(EC)\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _t^2u\mathrm{\Delta }u\underset{1j,kd}{}g^{j,k}_j_ku& =& \underset{1j,kd}{}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{j,k}(g^{j,k},u)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }g^{j,k}& =& Q_{j,k}(u,u)\hfill \\ \hfill (u,_tu)_{|t=0}& =& (u_0,u_1)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`Q_{j,k}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{j,k}`$ are quadratic forms on $`^{d+1}`$ and where all the quadratic forms are supposed to be smooth functions of $`u`$.

The basic tool to prove local solvability for such equations is the following energy estimate, also valid for the symmetric systems

$$u(t,.)_{H^{s1}}u(0,.)_{H^{s1}}e^{C_0^Tg(\tau ,.)_L^{\mathrm{}}d\tau .}$$
(1)
So thanks to classical arguments, local solvability derives easily from the control of the quantity

$$_0^Tg(\tau ,.)_L^{\mathrm{}}d\tau .$$

In the framework of the equation $`(E)`$, the control of this key quantity requires initial data $`(u_0,u_1)`$ in $`H^s\times H^{s1}`$ for $`s>\frac{d}{2}+1`$ while in the framework of $`(EC)`$ (with small data, which makes sense in this case) it only requires initial data $`(u_0,u_1)`$ in $`H^{\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}\times H^{\frac{d}{2}\frac{1}{2}}`$.

The goal of this paper is to go below this regularity for the initial data. Let us first have a look at the scaling properties of equations $`(E)`$ and $`(EC)`$. If $`u`$ is a solution of $`(E)`$ or $`(EC)`$, then $`u_\lambda (t,x)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}u(\lambda t,\lambda x)`$ is also a solution of the same equation. The space which is invariant under this scaling for the couple $`(u_0,u_1)`$ is $`\dot{H}^{\frac{d}{2}}\times \dot{H}^{\frac{d}{2}1}`$. So the results given by the classical energy estimate appear to require more regularity than the scaling in the two cases.

In fact, the energy methods despise the particular properties of the wave equation. It is on the impulse of the pioneer work of S. Klainerman (see ) that a vast series of works have been attached to improve the span life time of regular solutions of quasilinear wave equations using the Lorentz invariance. Let us notice the results of S. Alinhac (see  and ), of L. Hörmander (see ), of F. John (see ), of F. John and S. Klainerman (see ), of S. Klainerman (see ) and of J-M.Delort ( ) concerning the Klein-Gordon equation.

In this talk, we shall limit our self to the question of minimal regularity. Concerning this subject, the only case studied is the semilinear case, which means the case of the equation $`(E)`$ with $`g0`$. As it has been shown by S. Klainerman and M.Machedon (see  and ) we can, when the quadratic form $`Q`$ verifies a structure condition known by “null condition”, nearly reach the space invariant by scaling. For any quadratic form $`Q`$, we have the following theorem, proved by G. Ponce and T. Sideris in

###### Theorem 1.1

Let us define $`\underset{¯}{s}_d`$ by

$$\underset{¯}{s}_d\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\text{if}d3\text{and}\underset{¯}{s}_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\frac{7}{4}$$

Let $`(u_0,u_1)`$ be a Cauchy data in $`H^s\times H^{s1}`$ with $`s>\underset{¯}{s}_d`$ then there exists a time $`T`$ such that there exists a unique solution $`u`$ of the equation $`(E)`$ such that

$$uL^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];H^s)Lip([0,T];H^{s1})\text{and}uL^2([0,T];L^{\mathrm{}}).$$

The proof of this result lies on specific properties of the wave equation, namely the following Strichartz estimate

$`u_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}`$ $``$ $`C(u(0,.)_{H^{s1}}+\mathrm{}u_{L_T^1(H^{s1})}),`$ (2)
$`\text{for }d3\text{ and }s>\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{2}.`$
Indeed, if we couple it with the standard energy estimate

$$u_{L_T^{\mathrm{}}(H^{s1})}C(u(0,.)_{H^{s1}}+\mathrm{}u_{L_T^1(H^{s1})})$$

we obtain, owing to the tame estimates and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality

$`u_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}+u_{L_T^{\mathrm{}}(H^{s1})}`$
$``$ $`C(u(0,.)_{H^{s1}}+T^{\frac{1}{2}}u(t,.)_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}u_{L_T^{\mathrm{}}H^{s1}}),`$
which ensures by the theory of evolution equations the local solvability for $`T\frac{C}{u(0,.)_{H^{s1}}^2}.`$

In other respects, in , H. Linblad shows that for $`d=3`$ the above result is optimum, which means that the problem $`(E)`$ with $`g0`$ is not wellposed in $`H^2`$. Let us also notice that the same kind of result is also true on the Heisenberg group (see ).

The authors (see  and ) adjust a method followed by D. Tataru (see ) based on microlocal analysis to improve the minimal regularity for the equation $`(E)`$ in the quasilinear case. Let us recall this result

###### Theorem 1.2

If $`d3`$, let $`(u_0,u_1)`$ be in $`H^s\times H^{s1}`$ for $`s>s_d`$ with $`s_d={\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$ Then, a positive time $`T`$ exists such that a unique solution $`u`$ of the equation $`(E)`$ exists such that

$$uC([0,T];H^{s1})L^2([0,T];L^{\mathrm{}}).$$

Remarks

* This theorem has been proved with $`1/4`$ instead than $`1/6`$ in  and then improved a little bit in  and proved with $`1/6`$ by D. Tataru in . Strichartz estimates for quasilinear equations are the key point of the proofs.
* Let us notice that the improvement with $`1/6`$ of D. Tataru in  is due to a different manner of counting the intervals where microlocal estimates are true.
* Recently, S. Klainerman and I. Rodnianski in  have obtained a better index in dimension 3. Their proof is based on very different methods.
* Let us notice that we have also improved the minimal regularity in dimension 2, but the gain is only of $`\frac{1}{8}`$ derivative, this is explained by the mean dispersif effect in this dimension already known for the constant case.

The analogous theorem in the case of equation $`(EC)`$ is the following

###### Theorem 1.3

If $`d4`$, let $`(u_0,u_1)`$ be in $`H^s\times H^{s1}`$ with $`s>\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{6}`$ such that $`\gamma _{\dot{H}^{\frac{d}{2}1}}`$ is small enough. Then, a positive times $`T`$ exists such that a unique solution $`u`$ of $`(EC)`$ exists such that

$$uC([0,T];H^{s1})L_T^2(\dot{B}_{4,2}^{\frac{d}{4}\frac{1}{2}}),ford5,$$

and

$$uC([0,T];H^{s1})L_T^2(\dot{B}_{6,2}^{\frac{1}{6}})\text{and}gL_T^1(L^{\mathrm{}})ford=4.$$

Remarks

* The case when $`d5`$ can be treated only with Strichartz estimates simply because if $`u`$ belongs to $`L_T^2(\dot{B}_{4,2}^{\frac{d}{4}\frac{1}{2}})`$ then $`g`$ is in $`L_T^1(L^{\mathrm{}})`$.
* The case when $`d=4`$ requires bilinear estimates. This fact appears in the statement of Theorem 1.3 through the following phenomenon: The fact that $`u`$ is in $`L_T^2(\dot{B}_{6,2}^{\frac{1}{6}})`$ does not imply that the time derivative of $`g`$ belongs to $`L_T^1(L^{\mathrm{}})`$. Of course this condition is crucial in particular to get the basic energy estimate. But we have been unable to exhibit a Banach space $``$ which contains the solution $`u`$ and such that if a function $`a`$ is in $``$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1(a^2)`$ belongs to $`L_T^1(L^{\mathrm{}})`$.
* For technical obstructions, this theorem is limited to the dimensions $`d4`$.

## 2 . Quasilinear Strichartz estimates

Following the process of G. Ponce and T. Sideris in , we reduce the proof of the theorem 1.2 to the following a priori estimate

###### Theorem 2.1

If $`d3`$, a constant C exists such that, for any regular solution u of the equation $`(E)`$, if

$$T^{\frac{1}{2}+(ss_d)}\left(\gamma _{H^{\frac{d}{2}\frac{1}{2}+(ss_d)}}+T^{\frac{1}{6}}\gamma _{H^{s1}}\right)C,withs>s_d$$

then we have

$$u_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}C\left(\gamma _{H^{s1}}+Q(u,u)_{L_T^1(H^{s1})}\right).$$

The estimate in hand must be understood as a Strichartz estimate for wave equations with variable coefficients and not very regular. The Strichartz estimates have a long history begining with Segal’s work  for the wave equation with constant coefficients. After the fundamental work of Strichartz , it was developed by diverse authors, we refer to the synthesis article of Ginibre and Velo  to which it is advisable to add the recents works of Keel-Tao  consecrated to some limited cases and of Bahouri, Gérard and Xu  for the wave equation on the Heisenberg group. For Strichartz estimates with $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients, we refer to the result of L. Kapitanski (see ). The article of H. Smith (see ) constitutes an important step in the study of Strichartz estimates for operators with coefficients not very regular since it proves Strichartz estimates with coefficients only $`C^{1,1}`$.

We shall now explain how to establish this quasilinear Strichartz estimate, showing where are the difficulties and what are the essential ideas which allow to overcome them. The method known to prove these estimates uses a representation, eventually approximate, but always explicit of the solution. In the case of the wave equation, the approximation used is the one coming from the Lax method, namely the one connected to the geometrical optics. To make such a method work in the framework of quasilinear wave equations requires a “regularization” of the coefficients also in time. This leads to the following iterative scheme introduced in . Let us define the sequence $`(u^{(n)})_n`$ by the first term $`u^{(0)}`$ satisfying

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _t^2u^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }u^{(0)}& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill (u^{(0)},_tu^{(0)})_{|t=0}& =& (S_0u_0,S_0u_1),\hfill \end{array}$$

and by the following induction

$$(E_n)\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _t^2u^{(n+1)}\mathrm{\Delta }u^{(n+1)}g_{n,T}^2u^{(n+1)}& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill (u^{(n+1)},_tu^{(n+1)})_{|t=0}& =& (S_{n+1}u_0,S_{n+1}u_1)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`g_{n,T}\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\theta (T^1)g_n`$ with $`g_n\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}g(u^n)`$ and $`\theta `$ a function of $`𝒟(]1,1[)`$ whose value is $`1`$ near $`0`$ and where $`S_n`$ is a frequencies truncated operator which only conserves the frequencies lower than $`C2^{n1}`$. Let us introduce some notations which will be used all along this section. If $`s=s_d+\alpha `$ where $`\alpha `$ is a small positive number, let us define

$$N_T^\alpha (\gamma )\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\gamma _{H^{\frac{d}{2}\frac{1}{2}+\alpha }}+T^{\frac{1}{6}}\gamma _{H^{s1}}.$$

The assertion we have to prove by induction, for $`T^{\frac{1}{2}+\alpha }N_T^\alpha (\gamma )`$ small enough, is the following: If $`d3`$,

$$(𝒫_n)\{\begin{array}{ccc}u^{(n)}_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}& & C_\alpha T^\alpha N_T^\alpha (\gamma )\hfill \\ u^{(n)}_{L_T^{\mathrm{}}(H^{s1})}& & C\gamma _{H^{s1}.}\hfill \end{array}$$

For this, we shall transform the equation $`(E_n)`$ into a paradifferential equation, more precisely an equation of the type

$$(E_q)_t^2u_q^{(n+1)}\mathrm{\Delta }u_q^{(n+1)}\left(S_qg_{n,T}\right)^2u_q^{(n+1)}=\stackrel{~}{R}_q(n)$$

where the term $`\stackrel{~}{R}_q(n)`$ is a remainder term estimated as agreed and where $`u_q`$ denotes the part of $`u`$ which is relative to the frequencies of size $`2^q`$.

This transformation of the equation, which is the classical paralinearization defined by J.-M. Bony in  is here not sufficient, since it is well known that the paradifferential operators defined in  belong to a bad class of pseudodifferential operators ( class $`S_{1,1}`$ of Hörmander), class in particular devoid of any asymptotic calculus, which forbids of course to envisage any approximate method of type “Lax method”.

The idea is as in  to truncate more in the frequencies of the metric $`g`$ and to transform the equation $`(E_q)`$ on the following equation $`(EPM_q)`$

$$(EPM_q)_t^2u_q^{(n+1)}\mathrm{\Delta }u_q^{(n+1)}\left(S_{\delta q}g_{n,T}\right)^2u_q^{(n+1)}=R_q(n);$$

where $`0<\delta <1`$ and $`S_{\delta q}`$ is a frequencies truncated operator which conserves only the frequencies smaller than $`CT^{(1\delta )}2^{\delta q1}`$. We can interpret it as a localization in the pseudodifferential calculus sense $`(1,\delta )`$ of Hörmander.

This localization allows us to construct an approximation of the solution but engenders a loss in the remainder $`R_q(n)`$. This approximation is on the form

$$e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_q(t,x,\xi )}\sigma _q(t,x,\xi )\widehat{\gamma }(\xi )𝑑\xi $$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_q`$ is a solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation and $`\sigma _q`$ is a symbol calculated by resolving a sequence of transport equations; it is about a classical method. But, on account of the the caustic phenomenon, this approximation is microlocal, which means valid only a time interval whose length depends on the size of the frequencies we work with.

Nevertheless, following the classical method, we prove microlocal Strichartz estimates

$$u_q^{(n+1)}_{L_{I_q}^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}C_\beta (2^qT)^\beta 2^{q(\frac{d1}{2})}\left(\gamma _q_{L^2}+R_q(n)_{L_{I_q}^1(L^2)}\right)$$
(3)
for any positive $`\beta `$, where $`\gamma _q\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}((u_0)_q,(u_1)_q)`$ and $`I_q`$ satisfies

$$^2G_\delta ^{(n)}_{L_{I_q}^1(L^{\mathrm{}})}ϵ$$
(4)
where $`G_\delta ^{(n)}\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}S_{\delta q}g(u^{(n)})`$ and

$$|I_q|T(2^qT)^{12\delta ϵ}.$$
(5)
The condition (4) is imposed by the Hamilton-Jacobi equation while the condition (5) is required by the asymptotic calculus to turn out the “Lax method”.

Finally to prove the complete estimate, the method we used consists in a decomposition of the interval $`[0,T]`$ on subintervals $`I_q`$ on which the above microlocalized estimates are true. The key point is a careful counting of the number of such intervals, for this we shall use here D. Tataru’s version of the method we introduced in .

The idea consists to seize at the opportunity of this decomposition to compensate the loss on the remainder. To do so, we impose on the interval $`I_q`$ the supplementary condition

$$R_q(n)_{L_{I_q}^1(L^2)}\lambda R_q(n)_{L_T^1(L^2)}$$
(6)
where the parameter $`\lambda `$ is to be determined in the interval $`[0,1]`$. This constraint joint to the conditions (4) and (5) leads by optimization to the best choice

$$\lambda =(2^qT)^{\frac{\delta }{2}},\delta =\frac{2}{3},$$

and allows to conclude that the number $`N`$ of such intervals is less than $`C(2^qT)^{\frac{1}{3}+ϵ}`$. If we denote by $`(I_{q,\mathrm{}})_{1\mathrm{}N}`$ the partition of the interval $`[0,T]`$ on such intervals, we can write thanks to (3),

$`u_q^{(n+1)}_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}^2`$ $``$ $`C_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(2^qT)^{2\beta }2^{2q(\frac{d1}{2})}\left(\gamma _q_{L^2}+R_q(n)_{L_{I_{q,\mathrm{}}}^1(L^2)}\right)^2`$
$``$ $`C_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(2^qT)^{2\beta }2^{2q(\frac{d1}{2})}\left(\gamma _q_{L^2}+(2^qT)^{\frac{1}{3}}R_q(n)_{L_T^1(L^2)}\right)^2.`$
As $`N`$ is less than $`C(2^qT)^{\frac{1}{3}+ϵ}`$, we obtain

$`u_q^{(n+1)}_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}`$ $``$ $`C_\beta (2^qT)^\beta 2^{q(\frac{d1}{2})}(2^qT)^{\frac{1}{6}+\frac{ϵ}{2}}`$ (7)
$`\left(\gamma _q_{L^2}+(2^qT)^{\frac{1}{3}}R_q(n)_{L_T^1(L^2)}\right).`$
Now as the loss in the remainder $`R_q(n)`$ is of order $`2^{q(1\delta )}`$ and more precisely, for $`N_T^\alpha (\gamma )`$ small enough, we have

$`R_q(n)_{L_T^1(L^2)}`$ $``$ $`c_qC2^{q(\frac{d1}{2})}(2^qT)^{(s\frac{d}{2}\frac{3}{2}+\delta )}T^{s\frac{d}{2}\frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{H^{s1}}`$ (8)
$`\left(1+T^{\frac{1}{2}}u^{n+1}_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}\right)`$
where $`(c_q)\mathrm{}^2`$. We deduce, owed to the choice of $`\delta `$ that

$$u_q^{(n+1)}_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}c_qC(2^qT)^{(\alpha \frac{ϵ}{2}\beta )}T^{s\frac{d}{2}\frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{H^{s1}}\left(1+T^{\frac{1}{2}}u^{n+1}_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}\right)$$

which implies the result by summation.

## 3 . Quasilinear bilinear estimates

The method used here is not without any interaction with the one used to prove the theorem 1.2. As in the case of equation $`(E)`$, the basic fact is the control of

$$_0^Tg(\tau ,)_L^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau ,$$

and the proof of the theorem 1.3 follows from the following a priori estimate

###### Theorem 3.1

If $`d4`$, a constant C exists such that, for any regular solution u of the equation $`(EC)`$, if $`\gamma _{\dot{H}^{\frac{d}{2}1}}`$ is small enough and

$$T^{\frac{1}{6}+(s\frac{d}{2}\frac{1}{6})}\gamma _{H^{s1}}C,withs>\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{6}$$

then we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1Q(u,u)_{L_T^1(L^{\mathrm{}})}C\gamma _{H^{s1}.}^2$$

This is the quasilinear version of the following bilinear estimate owed to D. Tataru and S. Klainerman (see )

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`u`$ be a solution of $`_t^2u\mathrm{\Delta }u=0`$ and $`(u)_{|t=0}=\gamma `$. Then, if $`d4`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1Q(u,u)_{L_T^1(L^{\mathrm{}})}C_{ϵ,T}\gamma _{\frac{d}{2}1+ϵ}^2.$$

Remark  We find a gain of one derivative from the regularity of the initial data compared with the product laws and a gain of half a derivative about the regularity of the initial data compared with purely Strichartz methods.

To explain the basic ideas of bilinear estimates, let us first consider the case of constant coefficients. As $`_t\mathrm{\Delta }^1\left(_ju(t,)_ku(t,)\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }^1\left(_t_ju_ku(t,)\right)+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1\left(_ju_t_ku(t,)\right)`$, we have to control expression of the type

$$_0^T\mathrm{\Delta }^1\left(_t_ju_ku(t,)\right)_L^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t.$$

For this we introduce Bony’s decomposition which consists in writing

$$ab=\underset{q}{}S_{q1}a\mathrm{\Delta }_qb+\underset{q}{}S_{q1}b\mathrm{\Delta }_qa+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1j1}{q}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_qa\mathrm{\Delta }_{qj}b.$$

When $`d4`$, we have $`^ku_q_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}C2^{q\left(\frac{d}{2}\frac{1}{2}+k1\right)}\gamma _q_{L^2}`$, then it is easy to prove that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1(\underset{q}{}S_{q1}^2uu_q)_{L_T^1(L^{\mathrm{}})}C\gamma _{\frac{d}{2}1}^2.$$

The symmetric term can be treated exactly along the same lines. The remainder term

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1(\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1j1}{q}}{}^2u_qu_{qj})$$
(9)
is much more difficult to treat in particular in dimension $`4`$. The idea introduced by D. Tataru and S. Klainerman (see ) consists to treat this term using precised Strichartz estimates and interaction lemma.

The precised Strichartz estimates are described by the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $`𝒞`$ be a ring of $`^d`$. If $`d3`$, a constant $`C`$ exists such that for any $`T`$ and any $`h1`$, if $`Supp\widehat{u}_j`$ are included in a ball of radius $`h`$ and in the ring $`𝒞`$, we have

$$u_{L_T^2(L^{\mathrm{}})}C\left(h^{d2}\mathrm{log}(e+T)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(u_0_{L^2}+u_1_{L^2}\right),$$

where $`u`$ denotes the solution of $`_t^2u\mathrm{\Delta }u=0`$ and $`_t^ju_{|t=0}=u_j`$.

As usual it is deduced with the $`TT^{}`$ argument from the following dispersive inequality.

###### Lemma 3.1

A constant $`C`$ exists such that if $`u_0`$ and $`u_1`$ are functions in $`L^1(^d)`$ such that

$$Supp(\widehat{u}_j)𝒞\text{and}\mathrm{max}\{\delta (Supp(\widehat{u}_0)),\delta (Supp(\widehat{u}_1))\}h,$$

then, for any $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ between $`0`$ and $`d1`$, we have

$$u(t,)_L^{\mathrm{}}\frac{Ch^{d\stackrel{~}{d}}}{t^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{d}}{2}}}\left(u_0_{L^1}+u_1_{L^1}\right),$$

where $`u`$ denotes the solution of $`_t^2u\mathrm{\Delta }u=0`$ and $`_t^ju_{|t=0}=u_j`$.

This inequality is proved in  in the case $`\stackrel{~}{d}=d1`$. The general case is obtained by interpolation with the classical Sobolev embedding.

Let us now show how to take account the interactions of the solutions to control the accumulation of frequencies at the origin in the study of the remainder term.

###### Lemma 3.2

“Interaction Lemma ” There exists a constant C such that if $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are two solutions of $`_t^2v_j\mathrm{\Delta }v_j=0`$ satisfying $`(v_j)_{|t=0}=\gamma _j`$ with $`Supp(\widehat{\gamma _j})𝒞`$ we have for, $`0<h<1`$

$$\chi (h^1D)(^2v_1v_2)_{L_T^1(L^{\mathrm{}})}Ch^{d2}\mathrm{log}(e+T)\gamma _1_{L^2}\gamma _2_{L^2},$$
(10)
where $`\chi `$ is a radial function in $`𝒟`$ which is equal to 1 near the origin.

Let us define $`(\varphi _\nu )_{1\nu N_h}`$ a partition of unity of the ring $`𝒞`$ such that $`Supp\varphi _\nu B(\xi _\nu ,h)`$. Then, using the fact that the support of the Fourier transform of the product of two functions is included in the sum of the support of their Fourier transform, a family of functions $`(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\nu )_{1\nu N_h}`$ exists such that $`Supp\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\nu B(\xi _\nu ,2h)`$ and

$$\chi (h^1D)(^2v_1v_2)=\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N_h}{}}\chi (h^1D)\left(^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\nu (D)v_1\varphi _\nu (D)v_2\right).$$
(11)
Applying Proposition 3.2 gives

$$\chi (h^1D)(^2v_1v_2)_{L_T^1(L^{\mathrm{}})}Ch^{d2}\mathrm{log}(e+T)\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N_h}{}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\nu (D)\gamma _1_{L^2}\varphi _\nu (D)\gamma _2_{L^2}.$$

The Cauchy Schwarz inequality implies that

$`\chi (h^1D)(^2v_1v_2)_{L_T^1(L^{\mathrm{}})}`$
$``$ $`Ch^{d2}\mathrm{log}(e+T)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N_h}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\nu (D)\gamma _1_{L^2}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N_h}{}}}\varphi _\nu (D)\gamma _2_{L^2}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
The almost orthogonality of $`(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\nu (D)\gamma _1)_{1\nu N_h}`$ and $`(\varphi _\nu (D)\gamma _2)_{1\nu N_h}`$ implies (11) and leads then to the estimate of the remainder term (10) by rescaling.

To establish the theorem 3.1, we shall follow the steps of the proof of the theorem 2.1 which consists owed to the gluing method to reduce the problem to the proof of “microlocal” bilinear estimates. The generalization of the precised Strichartz estimates to the framework of the equation $`(EC)`$ doesn’t cost more than the generalization of the Strichartz estimates to the framework of the equation $`(E)`$, the supplementary difficulty to study the equation $`(EC)`$ lies in the generalization of the interaction lemma. The preservation of the support of the Fourier transform by the flow of the wave equation is the crucial point in the proof of this lemma. The defect of this property in the case of the variable coefficients constitutes the additional major problem in the proof of the theorem 3.1.

To palliate this difficulty, we have used a finer localization in phase space. This localization is given by the concept of microlocalized function near a point $`X=(x,\xi )`$ of the cotangent space $`T^{}^d`$ (the cotangent space of $`^d`$). More precisely, if we consider the positive quadratic form g on $`T^{}^d`$ defined by

$$g(dy^2,d\eta ^2)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\frac{dy^2}{K^2}+\frac{d\eta ^2}{h^2}\text{with}\lambda \stackrel{\text{def}}{=}Kh1$$

a function $`u`$ in $`L^2(^d)`$ is said to be microlocalized in $`X_0=(x_0,\xi _0)`$ a point of $`T^{}^d`$ if

$$_{X_0,N}^{C_0,r}(u)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\underset{g(XX_0)^{\frac{1}{2}}C_0r}{sup}\lambda ^{2N}g(XX_0)^N\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\phi 𝒟\left(B_g(X,r)\right)}{\phi _{k_N,g}1}}{sup}\phi ^Du_{L^2}$$

are finite, where $`B_g(X,r)`$ denotes the g-ball of center X and radius r, the operator $`\phi ^D`$ is defined by

$$(\phi ^Du)(x)=(2\pi )^d_{T^{}^d}e^{i(xy|\xi )}\phi (y,\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi ,$$

and

$$\phi _{j,g}\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{kj}{XT^{}^d}}{sup}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(T_{\mathrm{}}\right)_{1\mathrm{}k}}{g\left(T_{\mathrm{}}\right)1}}{sup}|D^k\phi (X)(T_1,,T_k)|.$$

This notion due to J.-M.Bony () means that the function u is concentrated in space near the point $`x_0`$ and in frequency near the point $`\xi _0`$ and behaves well against the product, namely, we show that if

$$g(\stackrel{ˇ}{Y}_1Y_2)^{\frac{1}{2}}C_0r,$$

where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Y}\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}(y,\eta )`$ if $`Y=(y,\eta )`$ then for any $`N`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \chi (h^1D)(\phi _1^Du_1\phi _2^Du_2)_{L^1}\hfill \\ & & C_N\phi _1_{k_N,g}\phi _2_{k_N,g}\left(1+\lambda ^2g(\stackrel{ˇ}{Y}_1Y_2)\right)^Nu_1_{L^2}u_2_{L^2}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\phi _i𝒟(B_g(Y_i,r))`$.

This study of the interaction between two typical examples of microlocalized functions allows as in (11) to concentrate the bilinear estimate on real interaction.

Anyway, the choice of the localization metric $`g`$ is essential and it is crucial to impose that the size of the g-balls is preserved by Hamiltonian flow which leads to the only choice $`K=C|2^qI_q|h`$ thanks to the properties of the solution of the associate Hamilton Jacobi equation.

The key point in the generalization of the bilinear estimate is the proof that for solutions of a variable coefficients wave equation, microlocalization properties propagate nicely along the Hamiltonian flows related to the wave operator; this point follows from the choice of the metric used to localize in the cotangent space of $`^d`$.

Finally to end the proof of the microlocal bilinear estimate, the strategy consists to decompose the Cauchy data using unity partition whose elements are supported in g-balls and then to apply the product and the propagation theorems to concentrate on real interaction (see the proof in the constant coefficient case). Because of the fact that interaction in the product and propagation of microlocalization are badly related, we need at this step to recourse to a second microlocalization, which means that we have to decompose again the interval on which we work on sub intervals where the Hamiltonian flow is nearly constant .