format: text

text:
# Fock spaces corresponding to positive definite linear transformations

## Introduction

The classical Segal-Bargmann transform is an integral transform which defines a unitary isomorphism of $`L^2(^n)`$ onto the Hilbert space $`𝐅(^n)`$ of entire functions on $`^n`$ which are square integrable with respect to the Gaussian measure $`\mu =\pi ^ne^{|z|^2}dxdy`$, where $`dxdy`$ stands for the Lebesgue measure on $`^{2n}^n`$, see . There have been several generalizations of this transform, based on the heat equation or the representation theory of Lie groups . In particular, it was shown in  that the Segal-Bargmann transform is a special case of the restriction principle, i.e., construction of unitary isomorphisms based on the polarization of a restriction map. This principle was first introduced in , see also , where several examples were explained from that point of view. In short the restriction principle can be explained in the following way. Let $`M_{}`$ be a complex manifold and let $`MM_{}`$ be a totally real submanifold. Let $`𝐅=𝐅(M_{})`$ be a Hilbert space of holomorphic functions on $`M_{}`$ such that the evaluation maps $`𝐅FF(z)`$ are continuous for all $`zM_{}`$, i.e., $`𝐅`$ is a reproducing Hilbert space. There exists a function $`K:M_{}\times M_{}`$ holomorphic in the first variable, anti-holomorphic in the second variable, and such that the following hold:

1. $`K(z,w)=\overline{K(w,z)}`$ for all $`z,wM_{}`$;
2. If $`K_w(z):=K(z,w)`$ then $`K_w𝐅`$ and

$$F(w)=(F,K_w),F𝐅,zM_{}.$$

The function $`K`$ is the reproducing kernel for the Hilbert space. Let $`D:M^{}`$ be measurable. Then the restriction map $`RF:=DF|_M`$ is injective. Assume that there is a measure $`\mu `$ on $`M`$ such that $`RFL^2(M,\mu )`$ for all $`F`$ in a dense subset of $`𝔽`$. Provided $`R`$ is closeable, polarizing $`R^{}`$ we can write

$$R^{}=U|R^{}|$$

where $`U:L^2(M,\mu )𝐅`$ is a unitary isomorphism. Using that $`𝐅`$ is a reproducing Hilbert space we get that

$$Uf(z)=(Uf,K_z)=(f,U^{}K_z)=_Mf(m)(U^{}K_z)(m)𝑑\mu (m).$$

Thus $`Uf`$ is always an integral operator. We notice also that the formula for $`U`$ shows that the important object in this analysis is the reproducing kernel $`K(z,w)`$. The reproducing kernel for the classical Fock space is given by $`K(z,w)=e^{z\overline{w}}`$. By taking $`D(x):=(2\pi )^{n/4}e^{|x|^2}`$, which is closely related to the heat kernel, we arrive at the classical Segal–Bargmann transform

$$Ug(x)=(2/\pi )^{n/4}e^{(x,x)/2}g(y)e^{(xy,xy)}𝑑y.$$

The same principle can be used to construct the Hall–transform for compact Lie groups, . In , Driver and Hall, motivated by application to quantum Yang-Mills theory, introduced a Fock space and Segal–Bargmann transform depending on two parameters $`r,s>0`$, giving different weights to the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, where $`z=x+iy^n`$ (this was also studied in ). Thus $`𝐅`$ is now the space of holomorphic functions $`F(z)`$ on $`^n`$ which are square-integrable with respect to the Gaussian measure $`dM_{r,s}(z)=\frac{1}{(\pi r)^{n/2}(\pi s)^{n/2}}e^{\frac{x^2}{r}\frac{y^2}{s}}`$. In  the reproducing kernel and the Segal–Bargmann transform for this space is worked out. This construction has a natural generalization by viewing $`r^1`$ and $`s^1`$ as the diagonal elements in a positive definite matrix $`A=d(r^1I_n,s^1I_n)`$. The measure is then simply

(0.1)
$$dM_{r,s}(z)=\frac{\sqrt{det(A)}}{\pi ^n}e^{(Az,z)}dxdy$$

and this has meaning for any positive definite matrix $`A`$.

In this paper we show that (0.1) gives rise to a Fock space $`𝐅_A`$ for arbitrary positive matrices $`A`$. We find an expression for the reproducing kernel $`K_A(z,w)`$. We use the restriction principle to construct a natural generalization of the Segal-Bargmann transform for this space, with a certain natural restriction on $`A`$. We study this also in the Gaussian setting, and indicate a generalization to infinite dimensions.

## 1. The Fock space and the restriction principle

In this section we recall some standard facts about the classical Fock space of holomorphic function on $`^n`$. We refer to  for details and further information. Let $`\mu `$ be the measure $`d\mu =\pi ^ne^{z^2}dxdy`$ and let $`𝐅`$ be the classical Fock-space of holomorphic functions $`F:^n`$ such that

$$F^2:=\left|F(z)\right|^2𝑑\mu (z)<\mathrm{}.$$

(Note that the term “Fock space” is also used for the completed symmetric tensor algebra over a Hilbert space, but that is not our usage here.) The space $`𝐅`$ is a reproducing Hilbert space with inner product

$$(F,G)=F(z)\overline{G(z)}𝑑\mu $$

and reproducing kernel $`K(z,w)=e^{z,w}`$, where $`z,w=z\overline{w}=z_1\overline{w}_1+\mathrm{}z_n\overline{w}_n`$. Thus

$$F(w)=F(z)\overline{K(z,w)}𝑑\mu =(F,K_w)$$

where $`K_w(z)=K(z,w)`$. The function $`K(z,w)`$ is holomorphic in the first variable, anti-holomorphic in the second variable, and $`K(z,w)=\overline{K(w,z)}`$. Notice that $`K(z,z)=(K_z,K_z)`$. Hence $`K_z=e^{|z|^2/2}`$. Finally the linear space of finite linear combinations $`c_jK_{z_j}`$, $`z_j^n`$, $`c_j`$, is dense in $`𝐅`$. An orthonormal system in $`𝐅`$ is given by the monomials $`e_\alpha (z)=z_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}z_n^{\alpha _n}/\sqrt{\alpha _1!\mathrm{}\alpha _n!}`$, $`\alpha _o^n`$.

View $`^n^n`$ as a totally real submanifold of $`^n`$. We will now recall the construction of the classical Segal-Bargmann transform using the restriction principle, see . For constructing a restriction map as explained in the introduction we need to choose the function $`D(x)`$. One motivation for the choice of $`D`$ is the heat kernel, but another one, more closely related to representation theory, is that the restriction map should commute with the action of $`^n`$ on the Fock space and $`L^2(^n)`$. Indeed, take

$$T(x)F(z)=m(x,z)F(zx)$$

for $`F`$ in $`𝐅`$ where $`m(x,z)`$ has properties sufficient to make $`xT(x)`$ a unitary representation of $`^n`$ on $`𝐅`$. Namely, $`m`$ is a multiplier, i.e., $`m(x,z)m(y,zx)=m(x+y,z)`$; $`zm(x,z)`$ is holomorphic in $`z`$ for each $`x`$; and $`|m(x,z)|=\left(\frac{d\mu (zx)}{d\mu (z)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=e^{(\text{Re}zxx^2/2)}`$. Note $`m(x,z):=e^{zxx^2/2}`$ has these properties. Set $`D(x)=(2\pi )^{n/4}m(0,x)=(2\pi )^{n/4}e^{x^2/2}`$ and define $`R:𝐅C^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ by

$$RF(x):=D(x)F(x)=(2\pi )^{n/4}e^{x^2/2}F(x).$$

Then

$`RT(y)F(x)`$ $`=(2\pi )^{n/4}e^{x^2/2}T(y)F(x)`$
$`=(2\pi )^{n/4}e^{x^2/2}e^{xyy^2/2}F(xy)`$
$`=(2\pi )^{n/4}e^{xy^2/2}F(xy)`$
$`=RF(xy).`$
As $`^n`$ is a totally real submanifold of $`^n`$, it follows that $`R`$ is injective. Furthermore the holomorphic polynomials $`p(z)=a_\alpha z^\alpha `$ are dense in $`𝐅`$ and obviously $`RpL^2(^n)`$. Hence all the Hermite functions $`h_\alpha (x)=\left(1\right)^{\left|\alpha \right|}\left(D^\alpha e^{x^2}\right)e^{x^2/2}`$ are in the image of $`R`$; so $`\mathrm{Im}(R)`$ is dense in $`𝐋^2(^n)`$ and $`R`$ is a densely defined operator from $`𝐅`$ into $`L^2(^n)`$. It follows easily from the fact that the maps $`FF(z)`$ are continuous, that $`R`$ is a closed operator. Hence $`R`$ has an adjoint $`R^{}:L^2(^n)𝐅`$. For $`z,w^n`$, let $`(z,w)=z_jw_j`$. Then:

$`R^{}g(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(R^{}g,K_z)`$
$`=`$ $`(g,RK_z)`$
$`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{n/4}{\displaystyle g(y)e^{y^2/2}e^{zy}𝑑y}`$
$`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{n/4}e^{(z,z)/2}{\displaystyle g(y)e^{(zy,zy)/2}𝑑y}`$
$`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{n/4}e^{(z,z)/2}gp(z)`$
where $`p(z)=(2\pi )^{n/2}e^{(z,z)/2}`$ is holomorphic. Hence

(1.1)
$$RR^{}g(x)=gp(x).$$

As $`pL^1(^n)`$, it follows that $`RR^{}p_1`$; so $`RR^{}`$ is continuous.

$$(R^{}g,R^{}g)=(RR^{}g,g)RR^{}g_2.$$

Thus

###### Lemma 1.1.

The maps $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ are continuous.

Let $`p_t(x)=(2\pi t)^{n/2}e^{(x,x)/2t}`$ be the heat kernel on $`^n`$. Then $`\left(p_t\right)_{t>0}`$ is a convolution semigroup and $`p=p_1`$. Hence $`\sqrt{RR^{}}=p_{1/2}`$ or

$$RUg(x)=\left|R^{}\right|g(x)=p_{1/2}g(x)=\pi ^{n/2}g(y)e^{(xy,xy)}𝑑y.$$

It follows that

$$Ug(x)=(2/\pi )^{n/4}e^{(x,x)/2}g(y)e^{(xy,xy)}𝑑y$$

for $`x^n`$. But the function on the right hand side is holomorphic in $`x`$. Analytic continuation gives the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.2.

The map $`U:L^2(^n)𝐅`$ given by

$$Ug(z)=(2/\pi )^{n/4}g(y)\mathrm{exp}((y,y)+2(z,y)(z,z)/2)𝑑y$$

is a unitary isomorphism. $`U`$ is called the Segal–Bargmann transform.

## 2. Twisted Fock spaces

Let $`V^n`$ be a finite dimensional complex vector space of complex dimension $`n`$ and let $`,`$ be a complex inner product. As before we will sometimes write $`z,w=zw`$. We will also consider $`V`$ as a real vector space with real inner product defined by $`(z,w)=\text{Re}z,w`$. Notice that $`(z,z)=z,z`$ for all $`z^n`$. Let $`J`$ be the real linear transformation of $`V`$ given by $`Jz=iz`$. Note that $`J^{}=J=J^1`$ and thus $`J`$ is a skew symmetric real linear transformation. Fix a real linear transformation $`A`$. Then $`A=H+K`$ where

$$H:=\frac{A+J^1AJ}{2}\text{and}K:=\frac{AJ^1AJ}{2}.$$

Note that $`HJ=\frac{1}{2}(AJJ^1A)=\frac{1}{2}J(J^1AJ+A)=JH`$ and $`KJ=\frac{1}{2}(AJ+J^1A)=\frac{1}{2}J(J^1AJA)=JK`$. Furthermore $`H`$ is complex linear and $`K`$ is conjugate linear. We assume that $`A`$ is symmetric and positive definite.

###### Lemma 2.1.

The complex linear transformation $`H`$ is self adjoint, positive with respect to the inner product $`,`$, and invertible.

###### Proof.

Since $`A`$ is positive and invertible as a real linear transformation, we have $`(Az,z)>0`$ for all $`z0`$. But $`J`$ is real linear and skew symmetric. Hence $`(JAJ^1z,z)>0`$ for all $`z0`$. In particular $`H=\frac{1}{2}(A+JAJ^1)`$ is complex linear, symmetric with respect to the real inner product $`(,)`$, and positive. We know $`(Hv,w)=(v,Hw)`$. Thus $`\text{Re}Hv,w=\text{Re}v,Hw`$. From this we obtain

$$\text{Re}Hiv,w=\text{Re}iv,Hw.$$

This implies $`\text{Im}Hv,w=\text{Im}v,Hw`$. Putting these together gives $`Hv,w=v,Hw`$. Hence $`H`$ is complex self adjoint and $`Hz,z>0`$ for $`z0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`wV`$. Then $`Aw,w=(Aw,w)+i\mathrm{Im}Kw,w`$ and $`(Aw,w)=(Hw,w)+(Kw,w)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`wV`$. Then

$`Aw,w`$ $`=Hw,w+Kw,w`$
$`=(Hw,w)+(Kw,w)+i\text{Im}Kw,w`$
$`=(Aw,w)+i\text{Im}Kw,w.`$
This implies the first statement. Taking the real part in the second line gives the second claim, which also follows directly from bilinearity of $`(,)`$. ∎

Denote by $`det_V`$ the determinant of a $``$-linear map on $`^n^{2n}`$. Let $`d\mu _A(z)=\pi ^n\sqrt{det_VA}e^{(Az,z)}dxdy`$ and let $`𝐅_A`$ be the space of holomorphic functions $`F:^n`$ such that

$$F_A^2:=|F(z)|^2𝑑\mu _A<\mathrm{}.$$

Our normalization of $`d\mu `$ is chosen so that $`1_A=1`$. Just as in the classical case one can show that $`𝐅_A`$ is a reproducing Hilbert space, but this will also follow from the following Lemma. We notice that all the holomorphic polynomials $`p(z)`$ are in $`𝐅`$. To simplify the notation, we let $`T_1=H^{1/2}`$. Then $`T_1`$ is symmetric, positive definite and complex linear. Let $`c_A=\sqrt{det_V(A^{1/2}T_1)}=\left(det_V(A)/det_V(H)\right)^{1/4}`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`F:V`$ be holomorphic. Then $`F𝐅_A`$ if and only if $`FT_1𝐅`$ and the map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:𝐅𝐅_A`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(F)(w):=c_A\mathrm{exp}\left(\overline{KT_1w,T_1w}/2\right)F(T_1w)$$

is a unitary isomorphism. In particular

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}F(w)=\mathrm{\Psi }^1F(w)=c_A^1\mathrm{exp}\left(\overline{Kw,w}/2\right)F(\sqrt{H}w).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`F:V`$. Then $`F`$ is holomorphic if and only if $`FT_1`$ is holomorphic as $`T_1`$ is complex linear and invertible. Moreover, we also have:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }F^2`$ $`=\pi ^n{\displaystyle |\mathrm{\Psi }F(w)|^2e^{w,w}𝑑w}`$
$`=\pi ^n\sqrt{det{}_{V}{}^{}A}{\displaystyle |F(w)|^2e^{(Kw,w)}e^{\sqrt{H}w,\sqrt{H}w}𝑑w}`$
$`=\pi ^n\sqrt{det{}_{V}{}^{}A}{\displaystyle |F(w)|^2e^{(Kw,w)}e^{Hw,w}𝑑w}`$
$`=\pi ^n\sqrt{det{}_{V}{}^{}A}{\displaystyle |F(w)|^2e^{((H+K)w,w)}𝑑w}`$
$`=\pi ^n\sqrt{det{}_{V}{}^{}A}{\displaystyle |F(w)|^2e^{(Aw,w)}𝑑w}`$
$`=F_A^2`$
and thus, by polarization, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is unitary. ∎

###### Theorem 2.4.

The space $`𝐅_A`$ is a reproducing Hilbert space with reproducing kernel

$$K_A(z,w)=c_A^2e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{Kz,z}}e^{Hz,w}e^{\frac{1}{2}Kw,w}.$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 2.3 we get

$`c_A\mathrm{exp}(\overline{KT_1w,T_1w}/2)F(T_1w)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(F)(w)`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Psi }(F),K_w)_{𝐅_A}`$
$`=`$ $`(F,\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(K_w))_𝐅.`$
Hence

$$K_A(z,w)=c_A^1\mathrm{exp}(\overline{Kw,w}/2)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(K_{\sqrt{H}w})=c_A^2e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{Kz,z}}e^{Hz,w}e^{\frac{1}{2}Kw,w}.$$

## 3. The Restriction Map

We assume as before that $`A>0`$. We notice that Lemma 2.3 gives a unitary isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}U:L^2(^n)𝐅_A`$, where $`U`$ is the classical Segal-Bargmann transform. But this is not the natural transform that we are looking for. As $`H`$ is positive definite there is an orthonormal basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ of $`V`$ and positive numbers $`\lambda _j>0`$ such that $`He_j=\lambda _je_j`$. Let $`V_{}:=e_k`$. Set $`\sigma (a_ie_i)=\overline{a}_ie_i`$. Then $`\sigma `$ is a conjugation with $`V_{}=\{z:\sigma z=z\}`$. We say that a vector is real if it belongs to $`V_{}`$. As $`He_j=\lambda _je_j`$ with $`\lambda _j`$ it follows that $`HV_{}V_{}`$. We denote by $`det`$ the determinant of a $``$-linear map of $`V_{}`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

$`Kz,w=Kw,z`$.

###### Proof.

Note that $`\sigma K`$ is complex linear. Since $`J^{}=J`$, $`K=\frac{1}{2}(AJAJ^1)`$ is real symmetric. Thus $`(Kw,z)=(w,Kz)=(Kz,w)`$. Also note $`(iKz,w)=(JKz,w)=(KJz,w)=(Jz,Kw)=(iz,Kw)`$. Hence $`\text{Re}iKz,w=\text{Re}iz,Kw`$. So $`\text{Im}Kz,w=\text{Im}z,Kw`$. This gives $`\text{Im}Kw,z=\text{Im}Kz,w`$. Hence $`Kz,w=Kw,z`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.2.

$`(\sigma K)^{}=K\sigma `$.

###### Proof.

We have $`\sigma z,\sigma w=w,z`$. Hence
$`\sigma Kz,w=\sigma w,\sigma ^2Kz=\sigma w,Kz=z,K\sigma w.`$

###### Corollary 3.3.

If $`x,yV_𝐑`$, then $`Hx,y`$ is real and $`Ax,y=Ay,x`$.

###### Proof.

Clearly $`,`$ is real on $`V_{}\times V_{}`$. Since $`HV_{}V_{}`$, we see $`Hx,y`$ is real. Next, $`Ax,y=Hx,y+Kx,y`$. The term $`Hx,y`$ equals $`Hy,x`$ because $`Hx,y`$ is real and $`H`$ is self-adjoint. On the other hand, $`Kx,y=Ky,x`$ by Lemma 3.1. So $`Ax,y=Ay,x`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.4.

Define $`m:V_{}\times V`$ by $`m(x,z)=e^{Hz,x}e^{K\overline{z},x}e^{Ax,x/2}`$. Then $`m`$ is a multiplier. Moreover, if $`T_xF(z):=m(x,z)F(zx)`$, then $`xT_x`$ is a representation of the abelian group $`V_{}`$ on $`𝐅_A`$. It is unitary if $`KV_{}V_{}`$.

###### Proof.

We first show $`m`$ is a multiplier:

$`m(x,`$ $`z)m(y,zx)=e^{Hz,x}e^{K\overline{z},x}e^{Ax,x/2}e^{H(zx),y}e^{K(\overline{z}x),y}e^{Ay,y/2}`$
$`=e^{Hz,x+y}e^{K\overline{z},x+y}e^{Hx,y}e^{Kx,y}e^{Ax,x/2}e^{Ay,y/2}`$
$`=e^{Hz,x+y}e^{K\overline{z},x+y}e^{Ax,y/2Ax,x/2Ay,y/2}`$
$`=e^{Hz,x+y}e^{K\overline{z},x+y}e^{A(x+y),x+y/2}`$
$`=m(x+y,z).`$
Since $`m`$ is a multiplier, we have $`T_xT_y=T_{x+y}`$. For each $`T_x`$ to be unitary, we need $`|m(x,z)|=e^{(Az,x)(Ax,x)/2}`$. But

$$|m(x,z)|=e^{(Hz,x)}e^{(K\overline{z},x)}e^{(Ax,x)/2}=e^{(Az,x)(Ax,x)/2}e^{(K\overline{z}Kz,x)}.$$

Thus $`T_x`$ is unitary for all $`x`$ if and only if the real part of every vector $`K\overline{z}Kz`$ is 0. Since $`\overline{z}z`$ runs over $`iV_{}`$ as $`z`$ runs over $`V`$, $`T_x`$ is unitary for all $`x`$ if and only if $`K(iV_{})iV_{}`$, which is equivalent to $`K(V_{})V_{}`$.

Notice that $`det_VH=\left(detH\right)^2`$. To simplify some calculations later on we define $`c:=(2\pi )^{n/4}\left(\frac{det_VA}{detH}\right)^{1/4}`$. We remark for further reference:

###### Lemma 3.5.

$`c_A^2c^2=\frac{\sqrt{detH}}{(2\pi )^{n/2}}`$ and $`c^1\frac{\sqrt{det(H)}}{\pi ^{n/2}}=\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)^{n/4}\frac{\left(detH\right)^{3/4}}{\left(det_VA\right)^{1/4}}`$.

Let $`D(x)=cm(x,0)=ce^{Ax,x/2}`$ and define $`R:𝐅_AC^{\mathrm{}}(V_{})`$ by $`RF(x):=D(x)F(x)`$. Extending the bilinear form $`xAx,x`$ to a complex bilinear form $`z,z_A`$ on $`V`$ shows that $`D`$ has a holomorphic extension to $`V`$.

###### Lemma 3.6.

The restriction map $`R`$ intertwines the action of $`V_{}`$ on $`𝐅_A`$ and the left regular action $`L`$ on functions on $`V_{}`$.

###### Proof.

We have

$`R(T_yF)(x)`$ $`=`$ $`cm(x,0)T_yF(x)`$
$`=`$ $`cm(x,0)m(y,x)F(xy)`$
$`=`$ $`cm(x,0)m(y,x)F(xy)`$
$`=`$ $`cm(xy,0)F(xy)`$
$`=`$ $`L_yRF(x).`$
## 4. The Generalized Segal–Bargmann Transform

As for the classical space, $`R`$ is a densely defined, closed operator. It also has dense image in $`L^2(V_{})`$. To see this, let $`\left\{h_\alpha \right\}_\alpha `$ be the orthonormal basis of $`L^2(V_{})`$ given by the Hermite functions. Then $`\left\{det(A)^{\frac{1}{4}}h_\alpha (\sqrt{A}x)\right\}_\alpha `$ is an orthonormal basis of $`L^2(V_{})`$ which is contained in the image of $`R`$. It follows again that $`R`$ has an adjoint and

$$R^{}h(z)=(R^{}h,K_{A,z})=(h,RK_{A,z})$$

where $`K_{A,z}(w)=K_A(w,z)=c_A^2e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{Kw,w}}e^{Hw,z}e^{\frac{1}{2}Kz,z}`$. Thus

$`R^{}h(z)`$ $`=c{\displaystyle h(x)e^{Ax,x/2}\overline{K_A(x,z)}𝑑x}`$
$`=c_A^2c{\displaystyle h(x)e^{Ax,x/2}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{Kz,z}}e^{z,Hx}e^{\frac{1}{2}Kx,x}𝑑x}`$
$`=c_A^2ce^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{Kz,z}}{\displaystyle h(x)e^{Hx,x/2}e^{Kx,x/2}e^{z,Hx}e^{\frac{1}{2}Kx,x}𝑑x}`$
$`=c_A^1ce^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{Kz,z}}{\displaystyle h(x)e^{x,Hx/2}e^{z,Hx}𝑑x}`$
$`=c_A^2ce^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{Kz,z}}e^{\frac{1}{2}z,H\overline{z}}{\displaystyle h(x)e^{(z,H\overline{z}z,Hxx,H\overline{z}+x,Hx)/2}𝑑x}`$
$`=c_A^2ce^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{Kz,z}}e^{\frac{1}{2}z,H\overline{z}}{\displaystyle h(x)e^{zx,H(\overline{z}\overline{x})/2}𝑑x}`$
for $`z,Hx=\overline{Hx},\overline{z}=Hx,\overline{z}=x,H\overline{z}`$ and $`z,Hx=z,H\overline{x}`$. Thus we finally arrive at

(4.1)
$$R^{}h(z)=c_A^2ce^{\frac{1}{2}z,H\overline{z}+Kz}e^{\frac{1}{2}x,H\overline{x}}h(z).$$

Let $`P:V_{}V_{}`$ be positive. Define $`\varphi _P(x)=\sqrt{det(P)}(2\pi )^{n/2}e^{\sqrt{P}x^2/2}`$. For $`t>0`$, let $`P(t)=P/t`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let the notation be as above. Then $`0<t\varphi _{P(t)}`$ is a convolution semigroup, i.e., $`\varphi _{P(t+s)}=\varphi _{P(t)}\varphi _{P(s)}`$.

###### Proof.

This follows by change of parameters $`y=\sqrt{P}x`$ from the fact that $`\varphi _{Id(t)}(x)=(2\pi t)^{n/2}e^{x^2/2t}`$ is a convolution semigroup. ∎

We define a unitary operator $`W`$ on $`L^2(V_{})`$ by

$$Wf(x)=e^{i\mathrm{Im}x,Kx}f(x)=e^{i\mathrm{Im}x,Ax}f(x).$$

We know $`W=I`$ if $`KV_{}V_{}`$ and this occurs if $`A`$ leaves $`V_{}`$ invariant.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`h`$ be in the domain of definition of $`R^{}`$. Then $`RR^{}h=W(\varphi _Hh)`$.

###### Proof.

We notice first that $`c_A^2c^2=(2\pi )^{n/2}\sqrt{detH}`$ by Lemma 3.5. From (4.1) we then get

$`RR^{}h(x)`$ $`=ce^{\frac{1}{2}Ax,x}R^{}h(x)`$
$`=c_A^2c^2e^{\frac{1}{2}Ax,x}e^{\frac{1}{2}x,H\overline{x}+Kx}e^{\frac{1}{2}y,H\overline{y}}h(x)`$
$`=(2\pi )^{n/2}\sqrt{det(H)}e^{\frac{1}{2}Ax,x}e^{\frac{1}{2}x,Ax}e^{\frac{1}{2}y,H\overline{y}}h(x)`$
$`=(2\pi )^{n/2}\sqrt{det(H)}e^{i\text{Im}x,Ax}{\displaystyle e^{\frac{1}{2}(y,Hy)}h(xy)𝑑y}.`$
$`=(2\pi )^{n/2}\sqrt{det(H)}e^{i\text{Im}x,Ax}{\displaystyle e^{\frac{\sqrt{H}y^2}{2}}h(xy)𝑑y}`$
$`=W(\varphi _Hh)(x)`$
Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.2 leads to the following corollary:

###### Corollary 4.3.

Suppose $`AV_{}V_{}`$. Then

$$|R^{}|h(x)=\varphi _{H(1/2)}h(x)=\frac{\sqrt{det(H)}}{\pi ^{n/2}}_V_{}e^{\sqrt{H}y^2}h(xy)𝑑y.$$

###### Theorem 4.4 (The Segal–Bargmann Transform).

Suppose $`A`$ leaves $`V_{}`$ invariant. Then the operator $`U_A:L^2(V_{})𝔽_A`$ defined by

$$U_Af(z)=\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)^{n/4}\frac{\left(detH\right)^{3/4}}{\left(det_VA\right)^{1/4}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(Hz,\overline{z}+z,Kz\right)}e^{H(zy),\overline{z}y}f(y)𝑑y.$$

is a unitary isomorphism. The map $`U_A`$ is called the generalized Segal–Bargmann transform.

###### Proof.

By polarization we can write $`R^{}=U|R^{}|`$ where $`U:L^2(V_{})𝐅_A`$ is a unitary isomorphism. Taking adjoints gives $`|R^{}|U^{}=R`$. Hence $`RU=|R^{}|`$. Hence

$`cm(x)Uh(x)`$ $`=RUh(x)`$
$`=(|R^{}|h)(x)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{det(H)}}{\pi ^{n/2}}}{\displaystyle _{V_𝐑}}e^{\sqrt{H}y^2}h(xy)𝑑y.`$
Since $`m(x)=e^{\frac{1}{2}(x,Hx+x,Kx)}`$, we have using Lemma 3.5:

$$Uf(x)=\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)^{n/4}\frac{\left(detH\right)^{3/4}}{(det_VA)^{1/4}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(x,Hx+x,Kx\right)}e^{(xy,H(xy))}f(y)𝑑y.$$

By holomorphicity, this implies

$$Uf(z)=\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)^{n/4}\frac{\left(detH\right)^{3/4}}{(det_VA)^{1/4}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(Hz,\overline{z}+z,Kz\right)}e^{H(zy),\overline{z}y}f(y)𝑑y$$

is the Bargmann–Segal transform. ∎

## 5. The Gaussian Formulation

In infinite dimensions, there is no useful notion of Lebesgue measure but Gaussian measure does make sense. So, with a view to extension to infinite dimensions, we will recast our generalized Segal-Bargmann transform using Gaussian measure instead of Lebesgue measure as the background measure on $`V_𝐑`$. Of course, we have already defined the Fock space $`𝐅_A`$ using Gaussian measure.

As before, $`V`$ is a finite-dimensional complex vector space with Hermitian inner-product $`,`$, and $`A:VV`$ is a real–linear map which is symmetric, positive-definite with respect to the real inner-product $`(,)=\text{Re},`$, i.e. $`(Az,z)>0`$ for all $`zV`$ except $`z=0`$. We assume, furthermore, that there is a real subspace $`V_{}`$ for which $`V=V_{}+iV_{}`$, the inner-product $`,`$ is real-valued on $`V_{}`$ and $`A(V_{})V_{}`$. As usual, $`A`$ is the sum

$$A=H+K$$

where $`H=(AiAi)/2`$ is complex-linear on $`V`$ and $`K=(A+iAi)/2`$ is complex-conjugate-linear. The real subspaces $`V_{}`$ and $`iV_{}`$ are $`(,)`$-orthogonal because for any $`x,yV_{}`$ we have $`(x,iy)=\text{Re}x,iy=\text{Re}(ix,y)`$, since $`x,y`$ is real, by hypothesis. Since $`A`$ preserves $`V_{}`$ and is symmetric, it also preserves the orthogonal complement $`iV_{}`$. Thus $`A`$ has the block diagonal form

(5.1)
$$A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}R& 0\\ 0& T\end{array}\right]=d(X,Y)$$

Here, and henceforth, we use the notation $`d(X,Y)`$ to mean the real-linear map $`VV`$ given by $`aXa`$ and $`iaiYa`$ for all $`aV_{}`$, where $`X,Y`$ are real-linear operators on $`V_{}`$. Note that $`d(X,Y)`$ is complex-linear if and only if $`X=Y`$ and is complex-conjugate-linear if and only if $`Y=X`$. The operator $`d(X,X)`$ is the unique complex-linear map $`VV`$ which restricts to $`X`$ on $`V_{}`$, and we will denote it by $`X_V`$:

(5.2)
$$X_V=\left[\begin{array}{cc}X& 0\\ 0& X\end{array}\right]$$

The hypothesis that $`A`$ is symmetric and positive-definite (by which we mean $`A>0`$, not just $`A0`$) means that $`R`$ and $`T`$ are symmetric, positive definite on $`V_{}`$. Consequently, the real-linear operator $`S`$ on $`V_{}`$ given by

(5.3)
$$S=2(R^1+T^1)^1$$

is also symmetric, positive-definite.

The operators $`H`$ and $`K`$ on $`V`$ are given by

(5.4)
$$H=\frac{1}{2}(R_V+T_V),K=d(\frac{1}{2}(RT),\frac{1}{2}(TR))$$

Using the conjugation map

$$\sigma :VV:a+ibaib\text{for }a,bV_{}\text{ }$$

we can also write $`K`$ as

(5.5)
$$K=\frac{1}{2}(R_VT_V)\sigma $$

Now consider the holomorphic functions $`\rho _T`$ and $`\rho _S`$ on $`V`$ given by

(5.6) $`\rho _T(z)={\displaystyle \frac{(detT)^{1/2}}{(2\pi )^{n/2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}T_Vz,\overline{z}}`$
(5.7) $`\rho _S(z)={\displaystyle \frac{(detS)^{1/2}}{(2\pi )^{n/2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}S_Vz,\overline{z}}`$
where $`n=dimV_{}`$. Restricted to $`V_{}`$, these are density functions for Gaussian probability measures.

The Segal-Bargmann transform in this setting is given by the map

(5.8)
$$S_A:L^2(V_{},\rho _S(x)dx)𝐅_A:fS_Af$$

where

(5.9)
$$S_Af(z)=_V_{}f(x)\rho _T(zx)𝑑x=_V_{}f(x)c(x,z)\rho _S(x)𝑑x$$

where the generalized “coherent state” function $`c`$ is specified, for $`xV_{}`$ and $`zV`$, by

(5.10)
$$c(x,z)=\frac{\rho _T(xz)}{\rho _S(x)}$$

It is possible to take (5.9) as the starting point, with $`fL^2(V_{},\rho _S(x)dx)`$ and prove that: (i)$`S_Af(z)`$ is well-defined, (ii) $`S_Af`$ is in $`𝐅_A`$, (iii)$`S_A`$ is a unitary isomorphism onto $`𝐅_A`$. However, we shall not work out everything in this approach since we have essentially proven all this in the preceding sections. Full details of a direct approach would be obtained by generalizing the procedure used in . In the present discussion we shall work out only some of the properties of $`S_A`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

: Let $`w,zV`$. Then:

* The function $`xc(x,z)`$ belongs to $`L^2(V_{},\rho _S(x)dx)`$, thereby ensuring that the integral (5.9) defining $`S_Af(z)`$ is well-defined;
* The $`S_A`$–transform of $`c(,w)`$ is $`K_A(,\overline{w})`$:

(5.11)
$$[S_Ac(,w)](z)=K_A(z,\overline{w})$$

and so, in particular,

(5.12)
$$K_A(z,w)=_V_{}\frac{\rho _T(xz)\rho _T(x\overline{w})}{\rho _S(x)}𝑑x$$
* The transform $`S_A`$ preserves inner–products on the linear span of the functions $`c(,w)`$:

$$c(,w),c(,z)_{L^2(V_{},\rho _S(x)dx)}=K_A(w,z)=K_A(,\overline{w}),K_A(,\overline{z})_{𝐅_A}$$

###### Proof.

(i) is equivalent to finiteness of $`_V_{}\frac{|\rho _T(xz)|^2}{\rho _S(x)}𝑑x`$, which is equivalent to positivity of the operator $`2TS`$. To see that $`2TS`$ is positive observe that

(5.13) $`2TS`$ $`=`$ $`2T[(R^1+T^1)T^1](R^1+T^1)^1`$
$`=`$ $`2TR^1(R^1+T^1)^1=TR^1S`$
$`=`$ $`2(T^1+T^1RT^1)^1`$
and in this last line $`T^1>0`$ (being the inverse of $`T>0`$) and $`(T^1RT^1x,x)=(RT^1x,T^1x)0`$ by positivity of $`R`$. Thus $`2TS`$ is positive, being twice the inverse of the positive operator $`T^1+T^1RT^1`$.

(ii) is the result of a lengthy calculation which, despite an unpromising start, leads from complicated expressions to simple ones. To avoid writing a lot of complex conjugates we shall use the symmetric complex bilinear pairing $`vw=vw=v,\overline{w}`$ for $`v,wV`$, writing $`v^2`$ for $`vv`$. More seriously, we shall denote the complex-linear operator $`T_V`$ which restricts to $`T`$ on $`V_{}`$ simply by $`T`$. It is readily checked that $`T`$ continues to be symmetric in the sense that $`Tvw=vTw`$ for all $`v,wV`$. We start with

$`a`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`[S_Ac(,w)](z)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V_{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _T(xw)}{\rho _S(x)}}\rho _T(zx)𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{n/2}{\displaystyle \frac{detT}{(detS)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle _V_{}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\left[T(xw)(xw)+T(xz)(xz)Sxx\right]}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{n/2}{\displaystyle \frac{detT}{(detS)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle _V_{}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\left[(2TS)xx2Tx(w+z)+Tww+Tzz\right]}𝑑x`$
Recall from the proof of (i) that $`2TS>0`$. For notational simplicity let $`L=(2TS)^{1/2}`$ and $`M=L^1T`$. Then

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{n/2}{\displaystyle \frac{detT}{(detS)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle _V_{}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(LxM(w+z)\right)^2}𝑑xe^{\frac{1}{2}\left[Tww+TzzM(w+z)M(w+z)\right]}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{detT}{(detS)^{1/2}(detL)}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\left[Tww+TzzM(w+z)M(w+z)\right]}`$
To simplify the last exponent observe that

$`TwwMwMw`$ $`=`$ $`TwwTwL^2Tw`$
$`=`$ $`TwwTw(2TS)^1Tw`$
$`=`$ $`Tww{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tw(T^1+T^1RT^1)Tw\text{using (}\text{5.13}\text{)}`$
$`=`$ $`Tww{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tw(w+T^1Rw)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(TwwRww)`$
$`=`$ $`K\overline{w},\overline{w}\text{by (}\text{5.5}\text{)}`$
The same holds with $`z`$ in place of $`w`$. For the “cross term” we have

$`MwMz`$ $`=`$ $`TwL^2Tz`$
$`=`$ $`Tw(2TS)^1Tz`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tw(T^1+T^1RT^1)Tz`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Twz+wRz)`$
$`=`$ $`2wHz`$
Putting everything together we have

$$[S_Ac(,w)](z)=\frac{detT}{(detS)^{1/2}(detL)}e^{\frac{1}{2}K\overline{w},\overline{w}}e^{Hw,\overline{z}}e^{\frac{1}{2}K\overline{z},\overline{z}}$$

In Lemma 6.2 below we prove that

$$\frac{detT}{(detS)^{1/2}(detL)}=\left(\frac{det_V(A)}{det_V(H)}\right)^{1/2}=c_A^2$$

So

$$[S_Ac(,w)](z)=K_A(w,\overline{z})$$

For (iii), we have first:

$$c(,w),c(,z)_{L^2(\rho _S(x)dx)}=[S_Ac(,w)](\overline{z})=K_A(\overline{z},\overline{w})=K_A(w,z)$$

The second equality in (iii) follows from the fact that $`K_A`$ is a reproducing kernel. ∎

## 6. The evaluation map and determinant relations

Recall the reproducing kernel

$$K_A(z,w)=c_A^2e^{\frac{1}{2}z,Kz+\frac{1}{2}Kw,w+Hz,w}$$

where

$$c_A^2=\left(\frac{det_VH}{det_VA}\right)^2$$

Being a reproducing kernel for $`𝔽_A`$ means

(6.1)
$$f(w)=(f,K_A(,w))=\pi ^n(detA)^{1/2}_Vf(z)K_A(w,z)|dz|$$

where $`|dz|=dxdy`$ signifies integration with respect to Lebesgue measure on the real inner-product space $`V`$. Thus we have

###### Proposition 6.1.

For any $`zV`$, evaluation map

$$\delta _z:𝔽_A:ff(z)$$

is bounded linear functional with norm

(6.2)
$$\delta _z=K_A(z,z)^{1/2}=c_A^1e^{(Az,z)}$$

###### Proof.

We have

(6.3)
$$|\delta _zf|=|f(z)|=|(f,K_A(,z))|f_{𝔽_A}K_A(z,z)^{1/2}$$

because, again by the reproducing kernel property we have

$$K_A(,z)_{𝔽_A}^2=(K_A(,z),K_A(,z))_{𝔽_A}=K_A(z,z)$$

This last calculation also shows that the inequality in (6.3) is an equality of $`f=K_A(,z)`$ and thereby shows that $`\delta _z`$ is actually equal to $`K_A(z,z)^{1/2}`$. The latter is readily checked to be equal to $`c_A^1e^{(Az,z)}`$. ∎

Next we make two observations about the constant $`c_A`$, the first of which has already been used.

###### Lemma 6.2.

For the constant $`c_A`$ we have

$$c_A^2=\left(\frac{det_VH}{det_VA}\right)^2=\frac{detT}{(detS)^{1/2}detL}$$

where, as before, $`L=(2TS)^{1/2}`$ and $`S=2(R^1+T^1)^1`$.

###### Proof.

Recall from (5.13) that $`2TS=TR^1S`$. Note also that

$$S^1=\frac{1}{2}(R^1+T^1)=R^1\frac{R+T}{2}T1=R^1(H|V_{})T^1$$

So

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{det_VA}{det_VH}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{detT}{(detS)^{1/2}detL}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(detR)^{1/2}(detT)^{1/2}}{detS^1detRdetT}}{\displaystyle \frac{detT}{(detS)^{1/2}detT^{1/2}detR^{1/2}detS^{1/2}}}`$
$`=`$ $`1`$
which implies the dersired result. ∎

Next we prove a determinant relation which implies $`c_A1`$:

###### Lemma 6.3.

If $`R`$ and $`T`$ are positive definite $`n\times n`$ matrices (symmetric if real) then

(6.4)
$$\sqrt{detRdetT}det\left(\frac{R+T}{2}\right)$$

with equality if and only if $`R=T`$.

###### Proof.

Note first that the matrix

(6.5)
$$D\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}R^{1/2}TR^{1/2}$$

is positive definite because $`(R^{1/2}TR^{1/2}x,x)=(TR^{1/2}x,R^{1/2}x)0`$ since $`T>0`$, with equality if and only if $`R^{{}_{1}{}^{}/2}x=0`$ if and only if $`x=0`$. So $`D=(R^{1/2}TR^{1/2})^{1/4}`$ makes sense and is also positive definite (and is symmetric if we are working with reals). We have then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{detRdetT}{\left(det\frac{R+T}{2}\right)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{detRdet(R^{1/2}D^4R^{1/2})}{\left[detR^{1/2}\left(\frac{1+D^4}{2}\right)R^{1/2}\right]^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[det\left({\displaystyle \frac{D^2+D^2}{2}}\right)\right]^2`$
$`=`$ $`\left[det\left\{I+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}D{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}D^1\right)^2\right\}\right]^2`$
To summarize:

(6.6)
$$\frac{detRdetT}{\left(det\frac{R+T}{2}\right)^2}=\left[det\left\{I+\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}D\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}D^1\right)^2\right\}\right]^2$$

where $`D=(R^{1/2}TR^{1/2})^{1/4}`$. Diagonalizing $`D`$ makes it apparent that this last term is $`1`$ with equality if and only if $`D=D^1`$, which is equivalent to $`D^4=I`$ which holds if and only if $`R=T`$. ∎

As consequence we have for $`c_A`$:

$$c_A=\left(\frac{det_VA}{det_VH}\right)^{1/4}=\left(\frac{detRdetT}{\left(det\frac{R+T}{2}\right)^2}\right)^{1/4}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{detRdetT}}{det\frac{R+T}{2}}\right)^{1/2}$$

and so

(6.7)
$$c_A^2=\frac{det\frac{R+T}{2}}{\sqrt{detRdetT}}1$$

with equality if and only if $`R=T`$.

When extending this theory to infinite-dimensions we have to note that in order to retain a meaningful notion of evaluation $`\delta _z:ff(z)`$, the constant $`c_A^1`$ which appears in the norm $`\delta _z`$ given in (6.2) must be finite. The expression for $`c_A^2`$ obtained from (6.6) gives a more explicit condition on $`R`$ and $`T`$ for this finiteness to hold.

If $`R`$ and $`T`$ are both scalar operators, say $`R=rI`$ and $`T=tT`$, then (6.7) shows that $`c_A^1`$ equals $`[(r+t)/(2\sqrt{rt})]^{n/2}`$ which is bounded as $`n\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`r=t`$. This observation was made in .

## 7. Remarks on extension to infinite dimensions

The Gaussian formulation permits extension to the infinite-dimensional situation, at least with some conditions placed on $`A`$ so as to make such an extension reasonable. Suppose then that $`V`$ is an infinite-dimensional separable complex Hilbert space, $`V_{}`$ a real subspace on which the inner-product is real-valued, and $`A:VV`$ a bounded symmetric, positive-definite real-linear operator carrying $`V_{}`$ into itself. The operators $`R`$, $`T`$, $`S`$, $`H`$ and $`K`$ are defined as before. Assume that $`R`$ and $`T`$ commute and that there is an orthonormal basis $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{}`$ of $`V_{}`$ consisting of simultaneous eigenvectors of $`R`$ and $`T`$ (greater generality may be possible but we discuss only this case) . Let $`V_n`$ be the complex linear span of $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$, and $`V_{n,}`$ the real linear span of $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$. Then $`A`$ restricts to an operator $`A_n`$ on $`V_n`$, and we have similarly restrictions $`H_n,K_n`$ on $`V_n`$ and $`R_n,T_n,S_n`$ on $`V_{n,}`$. The unitary transform $`S_A`$ may be obtained as a limit of the finite-dimensional transforms $`S_{A_n}`$.

The Gaussian kernels $`\rho _S`$ and $`\rho _T`$ do not make sense anymore, and nor does the coherent state $`c`$, but the Gaussian measures $`d\gamma _S(x)=\rho _S(x)dx`$ and $`\mu _A`$ do have meaningful analogs. There is a probability space $`V_{}^{}`$, with a $`\sigma `$–algebra $``$ on which there is a measure $`\gamma _S`$, and there is a linear map $`V_{}L^2(V_{}^{},\gamma _A):xG(x)=(x,)`$, such that the $`\sigma `$–algebra $``$ is generated by the random variables $`G(x)`$, and each $`G(x)`$ is (real) Gaussian with mean $`0`$ and variance $`(S^1x,x)`$. Similarly, there is probability space $`V^{}`$, with a $`\sigma `$–algebra $`_1`$ on which there is a measure $`\mu _A`$, and there is a real-linear map $`VL^2(V^{},\mu _A):zG_1(z)=(z,)`$, such that the $`\sigma `$–algebra $`_1`$ is generated by the random variables $`G_1(z)`$, and each $`G_1(z)`$ is (real) Gaussian with mean $`0`$ and variance $`\frac{1}{2}(A^1z,z)`$. Then for each $`zV`$, written as $`z=a+ib`$ with $`a,bV_{}`$, we have the complex-valued random variable on $`V^{}`$ given by

$$\stackrel{~}{z}=G_1(a)+iG_1(b)$$

Suppose $`g`$ is a holomorphic function of $`n`$ complex variables such that

$$_V|g(\stackrel{~}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{e}_n)|^2𝑑\mu _A<\mathrm{}.$$

Define $`𝔽_A`$ to be the closed linear span of all functions of the type $`g(\stackrel{~}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{e}_n)`$ in $`L^2(\mu _A)`$ for all $`n1`$. We may then define $`S_A`$ of a function $`f(G(e_1),\mathrm{},G(e_n))`$ to be $`(S_{A_n}f)(\stackrel{~}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{e}_n)`$, and then extend $`S_A`$ be continuity to all of $`L^2(\gamma _S)`$. In writing $`(S_{A_n}f)`$ we have identified $`V_n`$ with $`^n`$ and $`V_{n,}`$ with $`^n`$ using the basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$.

A potentially significant application of the infinite-dimensional case would be to situations where $`V_{}`$ is a path space and $`A`$ is arises from a suitable differential operator. For the “classical case” where $`R=T=tI`$ for some $`t>0`$, this leads to the Hall transform  for Lie groups as well as the path-space version on Lie groups considered in .


text:
# Regularity and Chaos in low–lying 2+ States of Even–Even Nuclei

## 1 Introduction

The interplay between regular and chaotic motion in nuclei has been a long–standing problem in Nuclear Physics. There is, on the one hand, overwhelming evidence in favour of simple dynamical models especially in the ground–state domain. The evidence derives from the agreement between calculated and measured spectral properties. There is, on the other hand, equally strong evidence for the validity of a random–matrix description, especially from the spectral statistics of slow neutron resonances . This success of random–matrix theory negates a dynamical description in terms of simple and (nearly) integrable models and has raised the question: Where in the spectrum of a nucleus with mass number $`A`$ does the chaotic region start? The statistical analysis of spectra needed to answer this question requires complete (few or no missing levels) and pure (few or no unknown spin–parities) level schemes. Some 15 years ago, complete and pure level schemes were available for only a limited number of nuclei (see, e.g., Refs. ). The work of Ref.  then suggested that the nearest–neighbour spacing (NNS) distribution of low–lying nuclear levels lies between the Wigner and the Poisson distributions which are characteristic, respectively, of fully regular and fully chaotic motion. Through the work of Refs. , the evidence presented in Ref.  has since become an established fact.

The wealth of spectroscopic data now available in the Nuclear Data tables  has motivated us to investigate once again the nuclear ground–state domain. We are able to make more definitive and precise statements about regularity versus chaos in this domain than has been possible so far. As in Ref. , we focus attention on 2+ states of select even–even nuclei. These nuclei are grouped into classes. The classes are defined in terms of the ratio $`R_{4/2}`$, i.e., the ratio of the excitation energies of the first 4+ and the first 2+ level in each nucleus. We argue below that the classes define a grouping of nuclei that have common collective behaviour. The sequences of 2+ states are unfolded and analysed with the help of Bayesian inference. The chaoticity parameter $`f`$ defined below is determined for each class. The present paper summarizes two research papers  where further details may be found.

## 2 Data Set and Classification of Nuclei

The data on low–lying 2+ levels of even–even nuclei are taken from the compilation by Tilley et al.  for mass numbers $`16`$ $`A20`$, from that of Endt  for $`20A44`$, and from the Nuclear Data Sheets  for heavier nuclei. We considered nuclei for which the spin–parity $`J^\pi `$ assignments of at least five consecutive 2+-levels are unambiguous. In cases where the spin-parity assignments were uncertain and where the most probable value appeared in brackets, we accepted this value. We terminated the sequence when we arrived at a level with unassigned $`J^\pi `$, or when an ambiguous assignment involved a 2+ spin–parity among several possibilities, as e.g. $`J^\pi =(2^+`$, $`4^+`$). We made an exception when only one such level occurred and was followed by several unambiguously assigned levels containing at least two 2+ levels, provided that the ambiguous 2+ level is found in a similar position in the spectrum of a neighboring nucleus. However, this situation occurred for less than 5% of the levels considered. In this way, we obtained 1306 levels of spin–parity 2+ belonging to 169 nuclei. The composition of this ensemble is as follows: 5 levels from each of 47 nuclei, 6 levels from each of 32 nuclei, 7 levels from each of 22 nuclei, 8 levels from each of 22 nuclei, 9 levels from each of 16 nuclei, 10 levels from each of 14 nuclei, 11 levels from each of 5 nuclei, 12 levels from each of 2 nuclei, and sequences of 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 30, and 32 levels, each belonging to a single nucleus.

A class of nuclei is defined by choosing an interval within which the ratio

$$R_{4/2}=E(4_1^+)/E(2_1^+)$$
(1)
of excitation energies of the first 4+ and the first 2+ excited states, must lie. The width of the intervals was taken to be 0.1 when the total number of spacings falling into the corresponding class was about 100 or more. Otherwise, the width of the interval was increased. The use of the parameter (1) as an indicator of collective dynamics is justified both empirically and by theoretical arguments. We recall the reasons in turn.

(i) Casten et al.  plotted $`E(4_1^+)`$ versus $`E(2_1^+)`$ for all nuclei with $`38Z82`$ and with $`2.05R_{4/2}3.15`$. The authors found that the data fall on a straight line. This suggests that nuclei in this wide range of $`Z`$–values behave like anharmonic vibrators with nearly constant anharmonicity. As the ratio $`R_{4/2}`$ approaches the rotor limit $`R_{4/2}=3.33`$, the slope of the curve showing $`E(4_1^+)`$ versus $`E(2_1^+)`$ decreases within a narrow range of $`E(2_1^+)`$–values, asymptotically merging the rotor line of slope 3.33. In a subsequent paper  it was found that a linear relation between $`E(4_1^+)`$ and $`E(2_1^+)`$ holds for pre–collective nuclei with $`R_{4/2}<2`$. Thus, from an empirical perspective, the dynamical structure of medium–weight and heavy nuclei can be quantified in terms of $`R_{4/2}`$.

(ii) Theoretical calculations based on the Interacting Boson Model (the IBM–1 model ) support the conclusion that $`R_{4/2}`$ is an appropriate measure for collectivity in nuclei. The model has three dynamical symmetries, obtained by constructing the chains of subgroups of the $`U(6)`$ group that end with the angular momentum group $`SO(3)`$. The symmetries are labeled by the first subgroup appearing in the chain which are $`U(5)`$, $`SU(3)`$, and $`O(6)`$ corresponding, respectively, to vibrational, rotational and $`\gamma `$-unstable nuclei. Extensive numerical calculations for the classical as well as the quantum-mechanical IBM Hamiltonian by Alhassid et al.  indeed showed a considerable reduction of the standard measures of chaoticity when the parameters of the IBM model approach one of the three cases just mentioned. The IBM calculation of energy levels yields values of $`R_{4/2}=2.00`$, $`3.33`$, and $`2.50`$ for the dynamical symmetries $`U(5)`$, $`SU(3)`$, and $`O(6)`$, respectively. Thus, we may expect increased regularity of nuclei having one of these values of $`R_{4/2}`$.

One might expect that the chaoticity parameter $`f`$ defined in Eq. (3) below also assumes small values for nuclei near magic numbers. For mass numbers in this domain, our data set is unfortunately too small to allow us to draw definitive conclusions.

## 3 Statistical Analysis

### 3.1 Chaoticity Parameter $`f`$

To analyze the data, we need a guess for the form of the NNS distribution $`p(s,f)`$. Here, $`s`$ is the spacing of neighboring levels in units of the mean level spacing. The distribution $`p(s,f)`$ depends on one or more parameters $`f`$ which describe the transition from Poissonian to Wigner–Dyson form. Several proposals have been advocated for $`p(s,f)`$. Here we are guided by the following considerations.

We consider a spectrum $`S`$ containing levels which have the same spin and parity but may differ in other conserved quantum numbers which are either unknown or ignored. The $`K`$–quantum number serves as an example. The spectrum $`S`$ can then be broken down into $`m`$ subspectra $`S_j`$ of independent sequences of levels. Let $`f_j,j=1\mathrm{}m`$ with $`0<f_j1`$ and $`_{j=1}^mf_j=1`$ denote the fractional level number, let $`p_j(s),j=1\mathrm{}m`$ denote the NNS distribution for the subspectrum $`S_j`$ and $`p(s)`$ the NNS distribution of $`S`$. Both $`p(s)`$ and $`p_j(s_j)`$ are defined for spectra with unit mean spacing. We assume that each of the distributions $`p_j(s)`$ is determined by the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE). To an excellent approximation, the $`p_j`$’s are then given by Wigner’s surmise

$$p_\mathrm{W}(s)=\frac{\pi }{2}s\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi }{4}s^2\right).$$
(2)
The construction of $`p(s,f)`$ for the superposition is due to Rosenzweig and Porter . It depends on the $`(m1)`$ unknown parameters $`f_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},(m1)`$. This fact poses a difficulty because in practice, we do not know the composition of the spectrum. We are not even sure of how many quantum numbers other than spin and parity are conserved. To overcome the difficulty, we use an approximate scheme first proposed in Ref. . Effectively, we replace the $`(m1)`$ parameters $`f_j`$ by a single one, the mean fractional level number $`f=_jf_j^2`$. This leads to an approximate NNS distribution for $`S`$,

$`p(s,f)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1f+f\left(0.7+0.3f\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi s}{2}}\right]`$ (3)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{\left(1f\right)sf\left(0.7+0.3f\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi s^2}{4}}\right\}.`$
We use $`f`$ as a fit parameter.

For a large number $`m`$ of subspectra, $`f`$ is of the order of $`1/m`$. In this limit, $`p(s,f)`$ approaches the Poisson distribution as it should. On the other hand, when $`f1`$ the spectrum approaches the GOE behaviour as it must. This is why we refer to $`f`$ as to the chaoticity parameter. If the spectrum $`S`$ is not pure but rather a superposition of subsequences corresponding to different values of an ignored or unknown quantum number then the mean value $`f`$ of the fractional density of the superimposed sequences is smaller than unity, and the composite sequence looks rather like a sequence of levels with mixed dynamics.

### 3.2 Unfolding

Prior to the actual statistical analysis, every sequence of levels has to be unfolded  to obtain a new sequence with unit mean level spacing. In the case of a single long spectrum, unfolding is a standard procedure. It consists in fitting a slowly varying function $`ϵ(E,\alpha )`$ to the experimental staircase function $`N(E)`$ of the integrated level density. The fit is obtained by optimizing a set of parameters $`\alpha `$. The function $`ϵ`$ depends monotonically on the energy $`E`$. Therefore, we can transform $`E`$ to $`ϵ`$. With respect to the new energy variable $`ϵ`$, the level density is uniform and equal to unity.

If the available ensemble of spacings consists of many short sequences of levels (we call this a “composite ensemble”), unfolding is not standard nor is it altogether irrelevant. To test the standard unfolding procedure, we have generated short sequences of levels from three artificial ensembles containing 50, 100, and 200 spacings. Construction of the latter involves an artificially chosen chaoticity parameter $`f_0`$ and is described in the following paragraph. These are referred to as the “initial” ensembles. Each short sequence is then artificially folded with a monotonically increasing function of energy. An unfolding procedure is subsequently applied to each sequence. The unfolding procedure does not trivially reproduce the initial ensembles and yields the ”final” ensembles. The chaoticity parameter $`f`$ is then determined for the final ensembles using a $`\chi ^2`$ fit and the Bayesian method described below.

The ensembles of spacings are constructed with the help of a random–number generator. We choose average spacing unity and $`f_0=0.6`$ for the chaoticity parameter. This value is close to what has been obtained in the previous analysis  of low–lying nuclear levels. We generate a set of spacings that obeys the probability distribution (3) with $`f=f_0`$. In this way, we generate three “initial” artificial ensembles of 50, 100, and 200 spacings. Our procedure is open to the criticism that our construction does not pay attention to the stiffness of GOE spectra. We are in the process of rectifying this shortcoming.

The test of the unfolding procedure leads to the following conclusions. (i) Using several unfolding functions leads to nearly the same values for $`f`$. This confirms the insensitivity of the final ensemble of spacings to the form of the unfolding function. (ii) The unfolding procedure introduces a bias towards the GOE, i.e. the best-fit value of $`f`$ is larger than $`f_0`$. This is borne out by both, the Bayesian inference and the $`\chi ^2`$-analysis of the spacing histograms for the final distributions. The trend increases as the lengths of the short sequences is decreased. This is simply understood: The unfolding of sequences of just two levels each would give a delta–function peaked at the value of unity (the mean level spacing) and, thus, show strong preference for the GOE. The trend becomes weaker as the sequences become longer but disappears only in the limit of very long sequences. As a consequence, the analysis of the nuclear data set will reliably yield only relative values of $`f`$.

The actual unfolding of the data was done by fitting a theoretical expression to the number $`N(E)`$ of levels below excitation energy $`E`$. The expression used here is the constant–temperature formula ,

$$N(E)=N_0+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{EE_0}{T}\right).$$
(4)
The three parameters $`N_0`$, $`E_0`$ and $`T`$ obtained for each nucleus vary considerably with mass number. Nevertheless, all three show a clear tendency to decrease with increasing mass number. For the effective temperature, for example, we find, assuming a power–law dependence, the result $`T=(15\pm 4)A^{(0.62\pm 0.05)}`$ MeV. This value is consistent with an analysis of the level density of nuclei in the same range of excitation energy carried out by von Egidy et al. . These authors find $`T=(19\pm 2)A^{(0.68\pm 0.02)}`$ MeV.

### 3.3 Bayesian Analysis

Given Eq. (3) for the proposed distribution, we apply Bayesian analysis to the data. Let $`𝐬=(s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_N)`$ denote a set of spacings $`s_j`$. We take the experimental spacings $`s_j`$ to be statistically independent. This assumption does not apply in general. Indeed, the GOE produces significant correlations between subsequent spacings. However, we recall that we are interested only in the NNS distribution. This distribution is only weakly affected by correlations. We calculate the posterior distribution for $`f`$ given the events $`𝐬`$. We first determine the conditional probability distribution $`p\left(𝐬|f\right)`$ of the set of spacings $`𝐬=(s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_N)`$ for a fixed $`f`$. We accordingly write

$$p\left(𝐬|f\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p(s_i,f),$$
(5)
with $`p(s_i,f)`$ given by Eq. (3). Bayes’ theorem then provides the posterior distribution

$$P(f|𝐬)=\frac{p(𝐬|f)\mu (f)}{M(𝐬)}$$
(6)
of the parameter $`f`$ given the events $`𝐬`$. Here, $`\mu (f)`$ is the prior distribution and

$$M(𝐬)=_0^1p\left(𝐬|f\right)\mu \left(f\right)df$$
(7)
is the normalization. We use Jeffreys’ rule

$$\mu (f)\left|p\left(𝐬|f\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}p\left(𝐬|f\right)/f\right]^2d𝐬\right|^{1/2}$$
(8)
to find the prior distribution. The latter can be interpreted as the distribution ascribed to $`f`$ in the absence of any observed $`s`$. It is approximated by

$$\mu (f)=1.97510.07f+48.96f^2135.6f^3+205.6f^4158.6f^5+48.63f^6.$$
(9)
Even for only moderately large $`N`$, it is useful to write $`p(𝐬|f)`$ in the form

$$p(𝐬|f)=e^{N\varphi (f)},$$
(10)
where

$$\varphi (f)=(1f)s+\frac{\pi }{4}f(0.7+0.3f)s^2\mathrm{ln}[1f+\frac{\pi }{2}f(0.7+0.3f)s].$$
(11)
Here the notation $`x=(1/N)_{i=1}^Nx_i`$ has been used. By calculating the mean values $`\mathrm{}`$ in Eq. (11) for various spectra, one finds that the function $`\varphi (f)`$ has a deep minimum, say at $`f=f_1`$. One can therefore represent the numerical results in analytical form by parametrizing $`\varphi `$ as

$$\varphi (f)=A+B(ff_1)^2+C(ff_1)^3.$$
(12)
We then obtain

$$P(f|𝐬)=c\mu (f)\mathrm{exp}(N[B(ff_1)^2+C(ff_1)^3]),$$
(13)
where $`c=e^{NA}/M(𝐬)`$ is a normalization constant.

The last step of the Bayesian analysis consists in determining the best–fit value of the chaoticity parameter $`f`$ and its error for each NNS distribution. When $`P\left(f|𝐬\right)`$ is not Gaussian, the best–fit value of $`f`$ cannot be taken as the most probable value. Rather we take the best–fit value to be the mean value $`\overline{f}`$ and measure the error by the standard deviation $`\sigma `$of the posterior distribution (6), i.e.

$$\overline{f}=_0^1fP\left(f|𝐬\right)df\mathrm{and}\sigma ^2=_0^1\left(f\overline{f}\right)^2P\left(f|𝐬\right)df.$$
(14)
This is not optimal but provides a useful approximation.

## 4 Results and Discussion

The results obtained for $`\overline{f}`$ and $`\sigma `$ are given in Figure 1 of Ref. . Figure 2 of that reference shows a comparison of the spacing distributions conditioned by $`\overline{f}`$ and the histograms for each class of nuclei. In view of the small number of spacings within each class, the agreement seems satisfactory.

We recall that the analysis of many short sequences of levels tends to overestimate $`\overline{f}`$. Therefore, we focus attention not on the absolute values of $`\overline{f}`$ but on the way $`\overline{f}`$ changes with $`R_{4/2}`$. The graph of $`\overline{f}`$ against $`R_{4/2}`$ in the Ref.  has deep minima at $`R_{4/2}`$ $`=2.0,2.5`$, and $`3.3`$. These values of $`R_{4/2}`$ are associated with the dynamical symmetries of the Interacting Boson Model mentioned above. Another minimum of statistical significance occurs for $`2.25R_{4/2}2.35`$. This minimum may indicate that nuclei which lie between the limiting cases of the $`U(5)`$ and $`O(6)`$ dynamical symmetries, are relatively regular. One may associate this region with the critical point of the $`U(5)`$$`O(6)`$ shape transition in nuclei. Iachello  has recently shown that this transition is approximately governed by the “critical” $`E(5)`$ dynamical symmetry. Nuclei with $`E(5)`$ dynamical symmetry have $`R_{4/2}`$ $`=2.2`$. Experimental examples of this critical symmetry have been found by Casten and Zamfir .

In summary, we have determined the chaoticity parameter $`f`$ for 2+ levels of even–even nuclei at low excitation energy with the help of a systematic analysis of the NNS distributions. While in a single nucleus the number of states with reliable spin–parity assignments is not sufficient for a meaningful statistical analysis, a combination of sequences of levels taken from similar nuclei provides a sufficiently large ensemble. As the measure of similarity we have taken the ratio $`R_{4/2}`$ of the excitation energies of the lowest 4+ and 2+ levels in each nucleus. The mean chaoticity parameter $`\overline{f}`$ is found to be indeed dependent on $`R_{4/2}`$. It has deep minima at $`R_{4/2}=2.0`$, $`2.5`$, and $`3.3`$. These minima correspond, respectively, to the $`U(5)`$, $`SO(6)`$, and $`SU(3)`$ dynamical symmetries of the IBM. A further minimum may relate to the critical $`E(5)`$ symmetry.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor J. Hüfner for useful discussions. A. Y. A.–M. and M. H. S. acknowledge the financial support granted by Internationales Büro, Forschungszentrum Jülich which permitted their stay at the Max–Planck–Institut für Kernphysik, Heidelberg.


text:
# Inflating 𝑝-branes

## 1 Introduction

Inflation is one of the key tenets of the modern standard cosmological model. It allegedly solves many of the problems of naturalness in the old hot big bang model, and perhaps it greatest allure is in ‘predicting’ a scale invariant perturbation spectrum – in ever increasing agreement with the observations of inhomogeneities in the microwave background . It is however telling that no definitive inflationary model exists, indeed, no definitive observation of even a single scalar particle has yet been made, let alone a multitude, as many inflationary models require.

Although the issue of exponential expansion in the early universe is nominally an open question, current observations do seem to indicate that the universe is once more in a stage of gentle accelerated expansion . Assuming that gravity is approximately four-dimensional and Newtonian/Einsteinian at large scales indicates that our universe has a negative equation of state at the current time . This inevitability of an accelerating universe places strong demands on any underlying theory of fundamental physics – whether it be simply the challenge to produce an appropriate equation of state , or, more subtle questions about the consistency of a de-Sitter asymptotic state for the universe .

Braneworlds  are an interesting orthogonal development in the attempt to describe our universe within the context of a fundamental higher energy theory. The braneworld scenario imagines us as being confined to a four-dimensional hyperplane in a higher dimensional spacetime. Standard Model interactions and most usual phsyics is confined to the brane universe, with only gravity (or some small number of zero-mode fields) propagating in the bulk. Such a set-up can provide an interesting alternate solution to the hierarchy problem , but it is crucial that such a framework is gravitationally and cosmologically consistent. Of course, on small scales we can allow KK graviton modes to be present, but on larger scales gravity must be Einsteinian to be consistent with observation. Of course, on the extremely large scale, it is possible that gravity is not in fact Newtonian (a possibility explored by Milgrom ), and in fact an unexpected bonus of some braneworld models is that gravity can be modified on large scales  in a generally covariant fashion.

Within the context of Randall-Sundrum (RS) braneworlds , a phenomenologically motivated model rather similar to heterotic M-theory compactifications , in which there is only one extra dimension, the description of our universe is particularly simple: Our universe is simply a hyperplane living in five negatively curved dimensions. Perturbative gravity is easily shown to be identical to perturbative four dimensional Einstein gravity , and in the pure RS set-up where only gravity propagates in the bulk, the full set of solutions for our cosmological braneworld are known and easily found as moving branes in a Schwarzschild anti-de Sitter (adS) bulk . In particular, the standard inflationary universe is simply a uniformly moving brane in pure adS spacetime.

In string theory however, we live in more than five dimensions, and even in the heterotic M-theory compactification , the universe is only effectively five-dimensional in a small range of high energies. The more string-motivated Arkani-Hamed et. al. compactifications  have many extra dimensions. However, many of these models do not include the gravitational effect of the energy-momentum of the brane itself. One of the reasons that the RS models are so easy to deal with is the fact that gravity in one spatial dimension is trivial (recall that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic to leading order), and this renders the problem of finding cosmological solutions straightforward. With more extra dimensions however, the effect of consistently including the stress-energy of the brane becomes nontrivial. If we have three or more extra spatial dimensions, local warping of those extra dimensions induced by the stress-energy of the braneworld creates a naked null singularity at the putative brane , which although it does not stop physics in the bulk being well-defined, does mean that any physical description of the brane is highly dependent on the way the brane is modelled . (A particularly interesting variant being the nonsingular “blown-up” $`p`$-brane .)

Given the natural interest in inflationary solutions for our universe, and the interest in finding braneworld resolutions to various cosmological problems, it is an obvious question to try to find general inflating braneworld solutions. Of course, these are well known for the RS case of codimension one. However, inflating braneworlds for higher codimension are not explicitly known. (Although a recent paper by Olasagasti and Tamvakis  looks for inflating solutions exterior to a global defect, extended to include the core by Cho and Vilenkin .) The existence of asymptotically flat solutions has been assumed in work attempting to incorporate stringy inflation via brane motion on the compactification manifold , and the existence of regular solutions assumed in work seeking a self-tuning mechanism for the small value of the cosmological constant . The fact remains however, that there are no isolated inflating braneworld-type solutions known for codimension three or higher.

To understand why this might be a nontrivial question, consider the marginal case of codimension two. In many six-dimensional braneworld models, our brane appears as a conical deficit with an induced Minkowski flat metric. This is easily modelled within field theory as a ‘cosmic string’ defect, just as the RS model is a domain wall. However, there are two sorts of field theory vortex – the local vortex, which has a conical deficit as above, or the global, which has a long-range Goldstone boson field, and is not simply an isolated conical deficit. The gravitational effect of this long-range field is to cause a self-compactification of the spacetime  in a manner similar to that of the vacuum domain wall , and the induced metric of our braneworld is in fact a de Sitter universe  again like that of the domain wall . If a Minkowski braneworld metric is desired, then it is necessary to introduce a negative cosmological constant , and one recovers a hierarchy resolving RS-style model . The interpretation of this gravitational interaction is that if one forces a braneworld to have a particular induced metric, say Minkowski, then the solution of the gravitational equations will generically be singular at a finite distance from the braneworld . However, if one tunes a bulk cosmological constant against a braneworld Hubble expansion, then there is a one parameter family $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ for which a nonsingular solution exists . This would appear to be a general result, not just confined to the global vortex in Einstein gravity, as Berglund et. al.  found a similar behaviour within low energy string gravity while looking for inflating codimension two solutions in an attempt to incorporate de Sitter space into string theory in a natural way. It is tempting to conjecture that the singularity of the self-gravitating cosmic $`p`$-brane  could also be resolved by a similar process, however, there are two key differences with the global vortex: The $`p`$-brane singularity lies at its core, rather than at finite distance, and is asymptotically flat – i.e., not compact. There is also the lack of energy-momentum in the bulk, since there is no long range Goldstone field. It is therefore not at all clear that allowing the brane to inflate will solve the problem of the singularity at the core – or that if it does, another singularity might not appear at finite distance.

Returning to the isolated codimension two inflating brane, note that this will be a solution of the Einstein equations where the metric can be chosen to take the form

$$ds^2=A^2(r)\left[dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2td\mathrm{\Omega }_{D3}^2\right]B^2(r)dr^2B^2(r)d\theta ^2$$
(1)
Fortunately, we do not need to actually write down the Einstein equations and solve them, since if we double analytically continue this metric by making $`\theta `$ a time coordinate, and $`ti\chi +\pi /2`$ a spacelike coordinate, this is readily seen to be a spherically symmetric static solution in $`D`$ dimensions, and is hence the Schwarzschild solution. Thus

$$ds^2=r^2\left[dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2td\mathrm{\Omega }_{D3}^2\right]\left(1\left(\frac{r_+}{r}\right)^{D3}\right)^1dr^2\left(1\left(\frac{r_+}{r}\right)^{D3}\right)d\theta ^2$$
(2)
Although the transverse (braneworld) dimensions are those of a lorentzian inflating universe, this is easily seen to have the $`(r,\theta )`$ geometry of the euclidean black hole ‘cigar’. As such, $`r=r_+`$ can be thought of as the location of the brane. In fact, the metric (2) with $`D=5`$ was used by Witten  to demonstrate an instability of the KK vacuum.

Conventionally, in black hole thermodynamics, the periodicity of Euclidean time (here the $`\theta `$-angle) is fixed by requiring regularity at $`r=r_+`$, however, if we are looking for a solution corresponding to a codimension two brane, we do not want regularity, rather, it is precisely the conical deficit at $`r=r_+`$ that will indicate the presence of the brane. Just as with the standard cosmic string, there should be a deficit of $`8\pi \mu `$ where $`\mu `$ is the energy per unit $`p`$-area of the brane in Planck units. Computing the metric near $`r=r_+`$ gives the relation between the periodicity of the $`\theta `$-angle, the energy of the brane, and $`r_+`$ as:

$$\delta \theta =\frac{4\pi r_+}{D3}\left(14G\mu \right)$$
(3)
As $`r\mathrm{}`$, the metric is asymptotically the KK vacuum $`𝐑_{p+2}\times S^1`$, written in Rindler coordinates ($`𝐗_{p+1}=r\mathrm{cosh}t𝐧_{p+1}`$, $`T=r\mathrm{sinh}t`$), with the internal circle having dimension $`(D3)/[2r_+(14G\mu )]`$.

Although this solution is regular, it is different in character from the inflating wall solution, which is simply a moving brane in some five-dimensional background bulk. Here, the bulk is necessarily the KK vacuum, rather than being noncompact, and a ‘bubble of nothing’ is present in the spacetime. If already the spacetime of an inflating codimension two brane is so phenomenologically different from codimension one, we cannot expect to use intuition to deduce what higher codimension inflating branes will look like. We must therefore actually search for solutions, which is what we will now do. We first derive the Einstein equations, and revisit the Poincaré invariant $`p`$-branes of reference  in the context of a dynamical system. Then we analyse the inflating brane solutions. We comment on branes with anti-de Sitter geometries before concluding.

## 2 Gravitational Equations

In general, a $`p`$-brane produced by some localized source with energy and tension of the same magnitude need not be Poincaré invariant, but can in fact have an induced metric which is constant curvature. For an inflating brane, this will be constant positive curvature. We therefore look for a solution which is a warped product of this constant curvature worldbrane metric, and dependent on some orthogonal coordinate. The metric can be written as:

$$ds^2=A^2(r)\left[dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\sqrt{\kappa }t)d\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2\right]B^2(r)dr^2C^2(r)d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2$$
(4)
where $`\kappa `$ has been added explicitly for comparison with the standard Poincaré invariant cosmic $`p`$-branes. Note this metric has brane dimension $`p+1`$ and codimension $`n+1`$.

The Einstein equations for this metric are:

$`R_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}+p{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{A^2}}+n{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}C^{}}{AC}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{p\kappa }{A^2}}`$ (5)
$`R_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p+1)}{B^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{B^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C^{\prime \prime }}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{C^{}B^{}}{CB}}\right)`$ (6)
$`R_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C^{\prime \prime }}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{C^{}B^{}}{CB}}+(p+1){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}C^{}}{AC}}+(n1){\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{C^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)}{C^2}}`$ (7)
At this point, it is immediate that there is no possibility of a ‘bubble of nothing’ type of solution to the higher codimension brane with $`Ar`$, and $`B,C`$ roughly constant, since (7) cannot satisfy the Einstein equation $`R_\theta ^\theta =0`$.

In the case of the Poincaré invariant brane, where there is no $`\kappa `$ term in (5), the Einstein equations can be directly integrated for a suitable choice of the function $`B`$, giving the cosmic $`p`$-branes

$$ds^2=\left(1(\frac{r_+}{r})^{n1}\right)^a\left[dt^2dy_p^2\right]\left(1(\frac{r_+}{r})^{n1}\right)^bdr^2r^2\left(1(\frac{r_+}{r})^{n1}\right)^cd\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2$$
(8)
where

$$a=\frac{\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt{(n+p)(p+1)}},b=\frac{[(n2)+a(p+1)]}{(n1)},c=1+b$$
(9)
For the inflating brane we have not been able to find an exact analytic solution, however, by re-expressing the Einstein equations as a two-dimensional dynamical system, it is possible to demonstrate the existence of a solution, and to derive its general form.

To do this, let $`BA`$ and define

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{C^{}}{C}}`$ (10)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C^{}}{C}}`$ (11)
in which case (5 \- 7) can be rewritten as

$`X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`X^2\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{n(n+p)}{p^2}}Y^2`$ (12)
$`Y^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p(p+1)}{n}}(X^2\kappa )pXY{\displaystyle \frac{(n+p)}{p}}Y^2`$ (13)
together with the constraint

$$𝒞(X,Y)=p(p+1)(X^2\kappa )\frac{n(n+p)}{p}Y^2=n(n1)\frac{A^2}{C^2}.$$
(14)
Note that

$$\frac{d𝒞}{dr}=2𝒞\left[X\frac{(n+p)}{p}Y\right]$$
(15)
hence $`𝒞=0`$ represents an invariant hyperboloid in the phase plane.

In addition, there are two pairs of critical points

$`P_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{\kappa }(1,0)`$ (16)
$`Q_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{\kappa }(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n+p}{p}}},\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{n+p}}})`$ (17)
for $`\kappa =1`$, which merge to a single critical point at the origin for the Poincaré brane, $`\kappa =0`$.

Although we will give a more detailed analysis of the inflating brane phase plane in the next section, the main features to note at this stage are that $`P_\pm `$ lie on the invariant hyperboloid $`𝒞=0`$, whereas the $`Q_\pm `$ have $`𝒞=np\kappa >0`$; both are therefore in the physically allowed region of the phase plane $`𝒞0`$. The $`P_\pm `$ are saddle points, but the precise nature of the $`Q_\pm `$ critical points depends on the overall dimensionality of spacetime. In general $`Q_+`$ is an attractor, and $`Q_{}`$ is a repeller, however, if $`D<10`$, these critical points are foci, hence trajectories approach or repel in a vortical fashion.

Before turning to the inflating brane solutions, it is actually useful to first analyse the Poincaré phase plane, since in this case we actually have the metric explicitly, and can therefore directly calculate $`X`$ and $`Y`$. The phase plane is given by solving (12, 13) with $`\kappa =0`$. As already mentioned, the critical points merge into a single degenerate critical point at the origin: $`𝐏=(0,0)`$. Clearly the invariant curve $`𝒞`$ is now a pair of straight lines $`Y=\pm \gamma ^1X`$, where we have defined

$$\gamma =\frac{\sqrt{n(n+p)/(p+1)}}{p}$$
(18)
for later use. The phase plane is shown in figure 1 for the same values $`n=2`$ and $`p=3`$ for comparison with figure 2.

Notice that a typical trajectory in the right hand quadrant starts off at large $`(X,Y)`$, asymptoting $`𝒞=0`$, curves around, and approaches P tangent to the dotted line $`Y=pX/n`$ in general. Solving for the asymptotic small $`r`$ region gives

$$X=\frac{1}{pr},Y=\frac{1}{p\gamma r}$$
(19)
which in turn gives the solution

$$Ar^{\frac{1}{p}+\frac{n}{p^2\gamma }},Cr^{1/p\gamma }$$
(20)
recalling that $`B=A`$ in these coordinates, and transforming to the radial coordinate in which the $`p`$-brane metric (8) takes its canonical form ($`A^2dr_p=Adr`$) indeed shows that this is the “near-core” régime $`rr_+`$ of the $`p`$-brane (which of course is a null singularity). For $`\{X,Y\}𝐏`$ on the other hand, we have

$$A1\frac{\alpha _0}{r^{n1}},C=r(1+\frac{(p+2)\alpha _0}{(n2)r^{n1}})$$
(21)
the asymptotic far-field régime of the $`p`$-brane solution.

Specifically, the exact form of the Poincaré $`p`$-brane solution (8) gives

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2u}{3r_+}}(1u)^{\sqrt{\frac{5}{8}}1}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{5}+2\sqrt{2})}{4\sqrt{2}}}u\right]`$ (22)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{r_+}}(1u)^{\sqrt{\frac{5}{8}}1}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{5}+2\sqrt{2})}{2\sqrt{5}}}u\right]`$ (23)
We see therefore that altering the mass of the solution simply scales the plot in the phase plane. A representative trajectory with $`r_+=4/30`$ is shown in grey in figure 1. Note that for $`r_+=0`$, i.e., flat space, we have $`Y=pX/n`$ (shown as a dotted line), which is a separatrix in the Poincaré phase plane. This also shows manifestly that the solutions are asymptotically flat.

## 3 Inflating branes and their global structure

Now turn to the inflating brane phase plane. A phase plot of this system for the values $`p=3`$, $`n=2`$ is shown in figure 2. For large $`(X,Y)`$, the system asymptotes the Poincaré plane, therefore we expect the physical solutions to correspond to trajectories in the right hand exterior of the invariant hyperboloid. Indeed, comparing figure 2 to figure 1, we spot that there are a similar family of trajectories asymptoting the invariant hyperboloid for large $`XY`$ which now terminate on $`Q_+`$. However, there are now some additional interesting solutions. The splitting of $`𝐏`$ into the two pairs of critical points allows a single trajectory from $`P_+`$ to $`Q_+`$. Also of later use is the existence of the other stable manifold trajectory connecting large negative $`XY`$ to $`P_+`$.

Dealing with the typical trajectory first, we note that these are analogous to the Poincaré curves - they asymptote the near singularity régime of (8). However, unlike the Poincaré solutions, these cannot have an asymptotically flat solution. Apart from $`𝒞=0`$ itself, all of these trajectories terminate on $`Q_+`$. An analysis of $`Q_+`$ shows that the metric in this asymptotic region is

$$ds^2\frac{p}{(p+n)}\rho ^2\left[dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2td\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2\right]d\rho ^2\frac{(n1)}{(n+p)}\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2$$
(24)
as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. This latter metric, while asymptotically locally flat, is not asymptotically flat, as it has global deficit angles in the spatial $`S^n`$ part of the metric, as well as in the inflating braneworld part.

The net result is that apart from this asymptotic global deficit angle, the metric of these solutions is somewhat similar to the Poincaré $`p`$-brane, in that it has a null naked singularity as a near-field limit, which has an infinite area. This singularity integrates out to an ALF spacetime with a global deficit angle. Presumably, as with the standard $`p`$-brane , propagators are well defined on this spacetime, although we have not explored this issue.

One might therefore think that the inflating brane spacetime is similar to that of the Poincaré brane, however, there is one other possibility not present in the Poincaré phase plane, illustrated as the grey trajectory in figure 2, and that is the trajectory from $`P_+`$ to $`Q_+`$. Analysing the spacetime near $`P_\pm `$ shows that these critical points correspond to horizons; in a suitable coordinate system, the metric for the solution near $`P_+`$ is

$$ds^2\rho ^2\left(1\frac{n(n1)}{3(p+1)(p+2)C_0^2}\rho ^2\right)dx_{p+1}^2d\rho ^2C_0^2\left(1+\frac{(n1)\rho ^2}{(p+2)C_0^2}\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2$$
(25)
as $`\rho 0`$.

To see this is a simple horizon, and also to obtain the maximal analytic extension of the spacetime, return to the phase plane coordinate $`r=\mathrm{ln}\rho `$, and let

$$U=e^{tr},V=e^{tr}$$
(26)
in which the near $`P_+`$ metric (25) is

$$ds^2dUdV\frac{(UV)^2}{4}d\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2C_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2$$
(27)
as with conventional Kruskal coordinates (see figure 3)

Finally, defining

$$U=e^{\xi \tau },V=e^{\xi \tau }$$
(28)
gives

$$ds^2e^{2\tau }\left[d\tau ^2d\xi ^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\xi d\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2\right]C_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2$$
(29)
as the analytically continued metric just interior to the horizon.

This shows that the extension across the horizon is (cf. the global vortex )

$$ds^2=\overline{B}^2(\tau )d\tau ^2\overline{A}^2(\tau )dH_{p+1}^2\overline{C}^2(\tau )d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2$$
(30)
where $`dH_{p+1}^2`$ is the metric on a unit $`(p+1)`$-dimensional hyperbolic space. This is of course a time dependent metric as one would expect for an interior horizon régime.

Following through the computation of the Einstein equations and setting $`\overline{B}=\overline{A}`$, we once again obtain (12,13) as the dynamical system for the interior horizon where prime now denotes $`d/d\tau `$, and $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are defined in terms of the barred variables. The only difference is that the constraint (14) now reads

$$𝒞(X,Y)=n(n1)\frac{\overline{A}^2}{\overline{C}^2}.$$
(31)
i.e., the interior horizon régime corresponds to the connected region of the phase plane between the two branches of the invariant hyperboloid. It is not difficult to verify that the trajectory from $`P_+`$ to large negative $`X`$ and $`Y`$ in fact corresponds to an interior horizon solution terminating on a spacelike singularity.

This shows that the causal structure of the inflating $`p`$-brane is indeed given by figure 3, and the inflating brane is now a genuine black hole with an horizon. Of course, because we have only derived general properties of the solution, and particular asymptotic forms, we do not know the precise value of the mass of the black hole. Indeed, defining the mass of such an ALF spacetime is problematic .

## 4 Discussion

For completeness we would like to remark on the adS $`p`$-braneworlds. These are braneworlds in which the metric is a warped product of an anti de-Sitter braneworld with an $`n+1`$-dimensional orthogonal space, and correspond to the dynamical system (12,13) with $`\kappa =1`$. For this value of $`\kappa `$ there are no finite critical points on the phase plane, and the invariant hyperboloid $`𝒞=0`$ now changes from being ‘timelike’ to ‘spacelike’ in the $`XY`$ plane. The typical trajectory now asymptotes the invariant hyperboloid at both ends, i.e., the solution has a null singularity both at the ‘core’ of the brane, and at finite radial distance. Vacuum adS branes are therefore generally singular.

This result seems in keeping with the general pattern for the global vortex, , where one could prove that the metric was singular for Poincaré or adS branes, but that for a de Sitter geometry on the brane with a fine tuned Hubble constant related to the brane tension, there was a nonsingular solution. Here there will be a similar tuning, since (4) has explicitly set the Hubble constant $`H=1`$. We can reintroduce it at the expense of rescaling $`r`$, and hence the phase plane.

Of course, this general similarity with the global vortex then begs the question of whether we can remove the singularity of the Poincaré brane by adding a negative cosmological constant in the bulk as with the global vortex RS compactification . However, a quick look at (5) shows that this is not possible. For codimension three or higher, we expect that the null singularity of the $`p`$-brane would be smoothed into a horizon coordinate singularity, i.e., $`A\rho `$, $`B=1`$, $`CC_0`$ for $`\rho 0`$. This is clearly not compatible with (5).

We can now return to some of the potential applications of these inflating solutions and remark on whether they seem consistent with the assumptions made. First of all, if one wishes to place branes on compact manifolds, the issue of the global deficit angles must be addressed. Of course, these are uncharged branes, however, in  it was shown that the general properties of the uncharged spacetime were maintained when charge and even a dilaton with arbitrary coupling was also included. The only nonsingular spacetime in that case was the extremally charged one. Based on general expectation, and on the results of Berglund et. al. , these would be expected to actually become singular if one attempted to introduce inflation on the brane.

The other interesting application of inflating brane solutions is in a possible answer to the smallness of the cosmological constant . In these papers, the authors supposed that introducing an expansion on the brane would smooth out the null singularity. To some extent we have backed up this assumption, however, this solution is not asymptotically flat, and it is not clear how these different asymptotics would affect gravity on the brane. Another key issue is that the authors claim that the Hubble constant is inversely proportional to the mass of the brane – a claim queried by Cho and Vilenkin . Questions of how to define the mass of the brane notwithstanding, we cannot directly comment on this issue in the absence of an actual solution which would directly interpolate between the near-horizon solution (25) and the asymptotic spacetime (24). However, it is interesting to note that increasing the mass of the Poincaré solution actually shrinks the phase plane, in other words, the trajectories in figure 1 with higher mass are those closer to the origin. Similarly, introducing an explicit Hubble expansion on the brane changes the scale of figure 2 moving the critical points $`P_\pm `$ to $`(\pm H,0)`$. Therefore decreasing $`H`$ also shrinks the phase plane. Curiously therefore, this scaling does not seem to contradict the claims of Dvali et. al., however, the argument is extremely unreliable given that $`r_+`$ tracks a genuine ADM mass in the Poincaré solution, and the thorny issue of mass in the inflating brane solution needs to be resolved.

To sum up, the pure gravitating $`p`$-brane can have a nonsingular (exterior to the horizon) geometry in which the induced metric parallel to the brane is an inflating de Sitter universe. The metric is ALF, but has global deficit angles, and in the absence of a core model for the brane has a black hole horizon. The presence of the regular horizon, as well as $`g_{\theta \theta }`$ being monotonic for this solution, indicates that we can replace this horizon by a general core model in an analogous fashion to the replacement of the Reissner-Nordstrom horizon by an SU(2) monopole core .

## Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank Christos Charmousis, Gia Dvali, Roberto Emparan, and particularly Inyong Cho and Alex Vilenkin for discussing their work with me. This work was supported by the Royal Society, and I would like to acknowledge the Aspen Center for Physics where this work was started.