text:
# On the Short Distance Part of the QCD Anomaly Contribution to the 𝒃→𝒔𝜼' Amplitude

## 1 Introduction

Recent measurements  of two-body charmless hadronic $`B`$ meson decays confirm the so-called $`B\eta ^{}K`$ puzzle. According to the PDG average  of CLEO, BaBar and Belle measurements, the $`BK\eta ^{}`$ decay rate turned out to be unexpectedly large when compared to the rate obtained within the standard effective Hamiltonian approach using quark operators multiplied by Wilson coefficients . Namely, the enhancement of

$`Br(B^+K^+\eta ^{})`$ $`=(7.5\pm 0.7)10^5,`$
$`Br(B^0K^0\eta ^{})`$ $`=(5.8\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{+1.4}{1.3})10^5,`$ (1)
when compared to the QCD-penguin dominated $`BK\pi `$ rates

$`B(B^+K^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=(1.73\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{+0.27}{0.24})10^5,`$
$`B(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=(1.74\pm 0.15)10^5.`$ (2)
calls for an additional contribution to the $`K\eta ^{}`$ channel, either by performing a more complete treatment within the standard model (SM) or by invoking new physics beyond the standard model (BSM). Since the properties of the $`\eta ^{}`$-particle are related to the QCD axial anomaly, it has been quite generally expected that the enhancement in (1) is related to this anomaly.

Among various mechanisms considered to explain the $`BK\eta ^{}`$ amplitude within the SM, the $`bs\eta ^{}`$ transition plays a distinguished role. There was an invitation in  to consider it as a promising short-distance (SD) mechanism. It pertains to the recently studied singlet penguin mechanism , involving two gluons fusing into $`\eta ^{}`$.

In the present paper we focus on the SD contribution to $`bs\eta ^{}`$ incorporating the electroweak $`bsg^{}g^{}`$ transition followed by the off-shell gluon fusion $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$, where $`g^{}`$ denotes a virtual gluon, and $`\eta ^{}\eta _0`$ corresponds to the flavour singlet state. For low-energy gluons the $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ vertex should be dominated by the QCD triangle anomaly analogously to the $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ amplitude. However, for (at least) one highly virtual gluon of momentum $`q`$, the $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ vertex is expected to be suppressed like $`1/q^2`$ similarly to the effective $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^0`$ vertex . This remnant of the anomaly for hard off-shell gluons we will call the “anomaly tail” contribution. There has been a renewed interest in such contributions in view of the hadronic contributions to $`(g2)`$ that they induce .

A more complete discussion on the various mechanisms presented in the literature for $`B\eta ^{}K`$ , including various versions of form factors for $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$  will be relegated to a forthcoming paper. In these proposals, as a rule, the gluon virtuality employed in the $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ transition form factor lies below $`m_b^2`$. In contrast, we consider highly virtual gluons, above the $`m_b`$ scale, corresponding to the mentioned anomaly tail contribution.

After presenting in Sect. 2 the electroweak $`bsg^{}g^{}`$ vertex, in Sect. 3 we demonstrate how the virtual gluons are glued to the “anomaly tail” part of the $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ vertex mentioned above. The resulting contribution is dubbed the “short distance anomaly” (SDA) in what follows. In the concluding section we discuss the meaning of our results and the relation of our contributions to those existing in the literature.

## 2 The Flavour Changing $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝒈^{\mathbf{}}𝒈^{\mathbf{}}`$ Transition

The flavour changing transitions into two virtual gluons were considered by two of the authors in the context of the double-penguin contributions to the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$  and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing . They have been subsequently studied by Simma and Wyler  in the case of rare $`B`$-decays. Let us now reconsider these transitions by taking the symmetric gluon momenta, so that we will be able to present the analytical expressions suitable for evaluation of hard-gluon loop integrals. The resulting $`bsg^{}g^{}`$ amplitude reads

$$M_{\mu \nu }^{aa^{}}\left(bsg^{}(p)g^{}(p)\right)=\mathrm{i}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{s}t^a^{}t^a\underset{i=u,c,t}{}\lambda _iH_{\mu \nu }^ib+\text{(crossed)},$$
(3)
where $`t^a`$ denote colour matrices, and $`\lambda _i`$ are the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) factors. $`H_{\mu \nu }^i`$ subsums the contribution from the box on Fig. 1(a), the contribution from the triangle on Fig. 1(b), and the contribution from the off-diagonal $`bs`$ self-energy.

The $`bsg^{}(p)`$ loop in Fig. 1(b) is proportional to the gluonic monopole, $`\left(p^2\gamma ^\mu p\gamma p^\mu \right)L`$. This $`p^2`$ dependence is canceled by the $`1/p^2`$ dependence of the $`s`$-quark propagator in this reducible diagram. After combining the triangle and the self-energy contribution, the UV divergences mutually cancel, and only the monopole, triangle part contributes significantly.

By anticipating the antisymmetric structure of the $`\eta ^{}g^{}g^{}`$ vertex into which the virtual gluons on Fig. 1 proceed, we select the relevant antisymmetric contribution:

$$H_i^{\mu \nu }=(\mathrm{i}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }p_\sigma \gamma _\rho L)A_i+\text{(}\mu \text{-}\nu \text{ symmetric part)},$$
(4)
where we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_i& =\frac{8M_W^2}{m_i^2M_W^2}\left(1+\frac{m_i^2}{2M_W^2}\right)_0^1dxx(1x)\mathrm{ln}\frac{D}{C}\hfill \\ & +\frac{2M_W^2}{m_i^2M_W^2}(1\frac{m_i^2}{2M_W^2})_0^1\mathrm{d}x(1x)\{(3x1)𝕐_1\hfill \\ & +[x^2(1x)p^2+(x+1)m_i^2]𝕐_2\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
The abbreviations are

$`𝕐_1`$ $`=1{\displaystyle \frac{D}{DC}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{C}},𝕐_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{DC}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C}},`$
$`D`$ $`=xm_i^2+(1x)M_W^2x(1x)p^2,C=m_i^2x(1x)p^2.`$
This amplitude agrees with that of  in the region of their mutual validity. Let us stress that $`A_i`$ has the asymptotic behaviour $`1/p^2`$ for high gluon momenta ($`p^2\mathrm{}`$), which is essential in order to obtain an overall finite gluon loop contribution to $`bs\eta ^{}`$ on Fig. 2. Another interesting limit is the leading logarithmic approximation

$$\left(\underset{i=u,c,t}{}\lambda _iA_i\right)_{\mathrm{L}.\mathrm{Log}}=\frac{4}{3}\lambda _c\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_W^2}{p^2}\right),$$
(6)
where we have neglected the $`u`$-quark contribution which is CKM suppressed. It should be noted that this leading contribution comes from the triangle graph in Fig. 1(b), corresponding to the first term in (5). The box graph has no leading logarithm and is numerically small. This clearly differs from the dominance of the box part displayed on Fig. 1 of , and an explanation on the relevance of the $`bsg^{}g^{}`$ amplitude (3) is in order.

There were suggestions in the literature (e. g. ) that because of large cancellations observed by , the contribution of the $`bsg^{}g^{}`$ mode followed by a $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ transition would be extremely small. It should be strongly emphasized that this statement, valid for soft gluons, is wrong for hard virtual gluons, as explicated in the expressions above. Therefore, in the next section we take under scrutiny the amplitude stemming from the antisymmetric part of the electroweak amplitude on Fig. 1.

## 3 Short Distance Anomaly Contribution

In this section, we will consider the anomaly tail part of the effective $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ vertex to be connected to the $`bsg^{}g^{}`$ amplitude from the preceding section. By restricting to the hard gluons, having a virtuality above the $`m_b`$ scale, we aim at singling out the short distance amplitude for the $`bs\eta ^{}`$ transition. This amplitude is of the same order in $`\alpha _s`$ as recently studied amplitudes with (colour) singlet penguin topology .

We need an expression for the gluonic triangle contribution for $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ on Fig. 3. Using the kinematical choice $`q_1=K/2+p`$, $`q_2=K/2p`$ for the two gluon momenta in this figure, we get a general expression for the $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ vertex

$$N_{\mu \nu }^{aa^{}}\left(g^{}(q_1)g^{}(q_2)\eta ^{}(K)\right)=\mathrm{i}\delta ^{aa^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\alpha K^\beta G(p^2).$$
(7)
In our case, $`G(p^2)`$ will turn out to be a remnant of the gluonic anomaly. A priori, the quantity $`G`$ depends also on the momentum $`K`$, but for our purposes we only need to keep $`K`$ to first order there, which means that $`G`$ is taken as independent of the $`\eta ^{}`$ momentum.

Our effective vertices (3) and (7) allow us a perturbative evaluation of the amplitude displayed on Fig. 2:

$$A_{\text{SDA}}(bs\eta ^{})=\frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}M_{\mu \nu }^{aa^{}}\left(bsg^{}g^{}\right)\frac{\mathrm{i}g^{\mu \alpha }}{p^2}N_{\alpha \beta }^{aa^{}}\left(g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}\right)\frac{\mathrm{i}g^{\nu \beta }}{p^2}.$$
(8)
Having in mind that both vertices $`M`$ and $`N`$ imply hard gluons in the loop, we arrive at the short distance representation of the singlet penguin diagram discussed in . After substitution of (3) and (7), our result for the short distance di-gluon mechanism reads

$$A_{\text{SDA}}(bs\eta ^{})=2i\frac{G_\text{F}}{\sqrt{2}}(\overline{s}K\gamma Lb)\underset{i=u,c,t}{}\lambda _i\frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{\alpha _\text{s}}{\pi }A_i(p^2)G(p^2).$$
(9)
Since $`A_i(p^2)`$ and $`G(p^2)`$ are already one-loop quantities, $`A_{\text{SDA}}(bs\eta ^{})`$ is a 3-loop amplitude.

Let us stress that eqs. (8) and (9) apply quite generally for all $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ form factors $`G(p^2)`$. In this paper we will use these formulae for the SDA contribution only.

The evaluation of the $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ transition amplitude for off-shell gluons is theoretically analogous to the evaluation of the “off-shell anomaly” for the flavour triplet axial current related to $`\pi ^0\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$. A naive treatment of this photonic case leads to problems with unitarity for the $`e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}\pi ^0\gamma `$ amplitude presented by Jacob and Wu , and a number of papers  has been devoted to its cure.

The pertinent triangle amplitude was calculated first by Rosenberg  and reconsidered by Adler , who observed difficulties with divergences when inserting the triangle loop into the next loop. On the other hand, for off-shell photons, it was shown by  that the perturbative mass-independent part in the triangle diagram is canceled by the pion pole anomalous contribution. This observation was essential to resolve the Jacob-Wu paradox . In our gluonic case it means that, although the quantity $`G`$ in (7) obtained in a perturbative calculation of the quark-triangle loop is a priori proportional to

$$\underset{j=u,d,s}{}_0^1dx_0^{1x}dy\left\{1+\frac{m_j^2}{Q_j}\right\},$$
(10)
the unity term gets canceled . In (10) we introduced

$$Q_j=y(1y)q_1^2+x(1x)q_2^2+2xyq_1q_2m_j^2$$
(11)
representing the denominator emerging from the triangle-loop integral.

For the $`g^{}g^{}\eta ^{}`$ transition the flavours $`j=u,d,s`$ contribute (eventually only the $`s`$-quark contribution turns out to be important), and we obtain

$$G=\frac{1}{f_\eta ^{}}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\underset{j=u,d,s}{}F_j(p,K),$$
(12)
where $`f_\eta ^{}f_\pi 92`$ MeV and

$$F_j(p,K)=_0^1dx_0^{1x}dy\frac{m_j^2}{Q_j}=\left(\frac{m_j^2}{p^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p^2}{m_j^2}\right).$$
(13)
This represents the short distance amplitude for hard gluon virtualities far above the $`\eta ^{}`$-mass. This effective vertex enters into the final gluonic loop on Fig. 2 for loop momenta $`p^2K^2=m_\eta ^{}^2`$. In the evaluation of the loop integral producing the short distance 3-loop contribution for the $`bs\eta ^{}`$ amplitude, the overall renormalization scale $`\mu `$ will be of the order $`m_b`$. Taking into account that $`\mu `$ acts as the effective IR cut-off in our loop integral, we find that the expression (13) is slightly modified ($`Q_jQ_j+\mu ^2`$ in (13) above). In the leading logarithmic approximation we obtain for the $`s`$-quark term

$$F_s=\left(\frac{m_s^2}{p^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}\right),$$
(14)
while the $`u`$\- and $`d`$-quark contributions are completely negligible due to their small masses. On account of the CKM unitarity, the loop integral parts in (9)

$$I_i=\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{\pi }A_i(p^2)G(p^2),$$
(15)
form the relevant GIM combination displayed on Fig. 4. This plot exhibits a reasonably mild dependence on the infra-red cut-off ($`\mu `$) in the gluon loop, justifying a sensible short-distance amplitude. Note that the UV convergence of the loop integral is guaranteed by the high energy behaviour of (5) and (14). Since the used form-factor (14) corresponds to the anomaly tail term, the net contribution can be termed the “short distance anomaly”, as suggested in the Introduction. Also, Fig. 4 shows the dominance of the triangle with respect to the electroweak box contribution.

In the leading logarithmic approximation, we obtain from eqs. (6), (14) and (15)

$$\left(\underset{i}{}\lambda _iI_i\right)_{\mathrm{L}.\mathrm{Log}}=\frac{\text{i}}{16\pi ^2}\frac{1}{f_\eta ^{}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^2\frac{4}{3}\lambda _cm_s^2\frac{1}{6}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_W^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right\}^3,$$
(16)
which may be compared with the result from the (octet) penguin operator to lowest order in the leading logarithmic approximation

$$M_{\text{Peng}}=\lambda _c\frac{G_\text{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha _\text{s}}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}(\frac{M_W^2}{\mu ^2})\right)(\overline{s}t^a\gamma ^\mu Lb)(\overline{q}t^a\gamma _\mu q).$$
(17)
## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

In the present letter we attempt to clarify a possible role of the $`bs\eta ^{}`$ transition in explaining the $`B\eta ^{}K`$ amplitude, and in particular the role of the QCD anomaly in obtaining the $`bs\eta ^{}`$ amplitude. The result above shows that we are able to successfully distinguish the short distance $`bs\eta ^{}`$ amplitude (SDA) related to the QCD axial anomaly. Thereby, the involved form of the flavour-changing vertex for hard gluons is in clear contrast to the result obtained by  for soft gluons, where the box (Fig. 1(a)) instead of the triangle (Fig. 1(b)) dominates. This enhancement of the electroweak vertex for the hard off-shell gluons is compensated by a suppression in the two gluon fusion to $`\eta ^{}`$ vertex. The net $`bs\eta ^{}`$ amplitude coming from this anomaly tail turns out to be dominated by the strange quark contribution. In the present approach it corresponds to the quark triangle contribution to the $`\eta ^{}g^{}g^{}`$ coupling for the highly off-shell gluons. We note that the SDA result vanishes in the chiral limit $`m_s0`$.

Thus, demonstrating that we have obtained a contribution which is different from those already existing in the literature, we can attempt to compare it to some related amplitudes. A simple comparison of our singlet amplitude (9) at the leading logarithm level (16) to the ordinary penguin in (17):

$$A_{\mathrm{Peng}}f_\pi G_F\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_W^2}{\mu ^2}\right)$$
(18)
gives the ratio

$$\frac{A_{\text{SDA}}}{A_{\text{Peng}}}\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{3/2}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\left(\frac{m_s}{4\pi f_\eta ^{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_W^2}{\mu ^2}\right)^2,$$
(19)
where we didn’t explicate some additional factors in $`A_{\mathrm{SDA}}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{Peng}}`$ which cancel in the ratio. This ratio is at the level of a few percent, but depends strongly on what one takes for the involved parameters. How this estimate will be modified within a more proper treatment of renormalization group equations is also an issue to be further investigated. We have done a simple estimate which shows that short distance QCD corrections do not change this result substantially.

To conclude, the above demonstrates that purely short-distance anomalous (SDA) aspects of the $`bs\eta ^{}`$ vertex are marginal in explaining the $`B\eta ^{}K`$ puzzle. There was a similar fate for the electroweak $`s\overline{d}\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ contribution to the short-distance $`K\mu \overline{\mu }`$ amplitude . There is an additional experience in the analogous off-shell photon case , where the corresponding QED quark triangle overshoots the measured value of the related form factor.

In our case, the smallness of the anomaly contribution to the $`bs\eta ^{}`$ can be ascribed to the depletion of the QCD off-shell triangle vertex. Accordingly, the expectation of , as we understand it, turns out not to be fullfiled, and we seem to be in compliance with the conclusions by  that the singlet penguins do not do the job and that a combination of several effects within the Standard model would be necessary. In addition, our observation of the absence of the suppression in the electroweak vertex, when we departure from truly soft gluons, opens a window for some other contributions which resemble the QCD anomaly. For example, ref.  advocated that the $`B\eta ^{}K`$ puzzle could be explained by the additional complicated non-perturbative quark-gluon interactions related to the anomaly. However, at present these interactions are merely parametrized by a phenomenological coupling. Such an extra piece to the usual effective Hamiltonian, appearing due to non-perturbative aspects of the QCD anomaly, has to be justified yet. We intend to come back to a more complete treatment of the $`B\eta ^{}K`$ amplitude in a forthcoming paper.

Two of us (K.K. and I.P.) gratefully acknowledge the support of the Norwegian Research Council and the hospitality of the Department of Physics in Oslo.


format: text

text:
# Local quantum criticality in confined fermions on optical lattices

## Abstract

Using quantum Monte Carlo simulations, we show that the one-dimensional fermionic Hubbard model in a harmonic potential displays quantum critical behavior at the boundaries of a Mott-insulating region. A local compressibility defined to characterize the Mott-insulating phase has a non-trivial critical exponent. Both the local compressibility and the variance of the local density show universality with respect to the confining potential. We determine a generic phase diagram, that allows the prediction of the phases to be observed in experiments with ultracold fermionic atoms trapped on optical lattices.

The Mott metal-insulator transition (MMIT), a paradigm of strong correlations, was recently realized in ultracold atoms confined on an optical lattice greiner02 . Due to the fact that the atoms interact only via a contact potential, this system constitutes the most direct experimental realization of the Hubbard model which is the prototype generally used to study the MMIT. Whereas optical lattices contain bosonic atoms, recent progress in cooling techniques allow fermionic systems to go well below the degeneracy temperature hadzibabic02 ; roati02 , such that even superfluidity appears within reach ohara02 . It is therefore, to be expected that soon a fermionic MMIT will be realized on an optical lattice, offering the possibility to confront in a controlled way our knowledge of the MMIT in solid-state systems, without extrinsic effects always present there. This possibility is especially important since the MMIT is not only a long standing problem in condensed matter physics, but has also received renewed attention in recent years due to its different manifestations in a number of transition metal oxides, the most prominent being high temperature superconductors imada98 .

Motivated by the possibility of such crossfertilization, we performed QMC simulations for the ground-state of a one-dimensional Hubbard model with a harmonic potential, as in experiments with ultracold atoms, confining spin 1/2 fermions. The one-dimensional case was chosen since in one dimension, the quantum critical properties for the unconfined system are well characterized by the Bethe Ansatz solution where, in particular, the global compressibility $`\kappa n/\mu `$ diverges as $`\delta ^1`$, where $`\delta =1n`$, and $`n`$ is the expectation value of the density usuki89 . However, as shown theoretically jaksch98  and numerically batrouni02 , in the presence of a confining potential the Mott-insulating phase is restricted to a domain that coexists with a compressible phase. This is in contrast to the global character typical of solid state systems. We show in this Letter, that a properly defined local compressibility displays critical behavior on approaching the edges of the Mott-insulating phase, revealing a new critical exponent. Furthermore, it is shown that both the variance of the local density, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i<n_i^2><n_i>^2`$, and the local compressibility as functions of the local density $`n_i`$, are independent of the confining potential for $`n_i1`$. The exponents are also universal with respect to the strength of the interaction.

The Hamiltonian studied is as follows:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i+1\sigma }+h.c.)+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_in_i`$ (1)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}\right)^\alpha V_\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}\right)^\alpha n_{i\sigma },`$
where $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ and $`c_{i\sigma }`$ are creation and annihilation operators, respectively, for a fermion on site $`i`$ with spin $`\sigma =,`$. The local density per spin is $`n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$. The contact interaction is repulsive ($`U>0`$) and the last term models the potential of the magneto-optic trap. The QMC simulations were performed using a projector algorithm sugiyama86 ; sorella89 ; loh92 ; imada93 , which applies $`\mathrm{exp}(\theta H)`$ to a trial wavefunction (in our case the solution for $`U=0`$). A projector parameter $`\theta 20/t`$ suffices to reach well converged values of the observables discussed here. A time slice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =0.05/t`$ was used in general.

Figure 1 shows density profiles along a harmonic trap ($`\alpha =2`$) for different fillings such that the system goes from an entirely metallic phase to a phase with insulating regions due to full occupancy of the sites, coexisting with metallic regions. At this point, such an identification is only based on the occupation number, using our knowledge from unconfined periodic systems. Although it is natural to identify the regions with $`n=1`$ as insulating phases, the global compressibility used in unconfined systems is not a useful order parameter to characterize the phases due to the coexistence of local compressible regions with incompressible ones. A first quantity that can be used instead is the variance of the site density $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, since on entering the Mott-insulating region a suppression of double occupancy should occur, leading to a decrease of the variance.

Figure 2 (a) shows three characteristic density profiles. In all of them, $`U/t=6`$ but depending on the filling ($`N_f`$) and strength of the potential $`V_2`$, we obtain (i) an approximately parabolic density profile, indicating that the whole system is in a metallic phase. (ii) Increasing the number of particles, a Mott-plateau develops in the center of the system, and finally, (iii) with still a higher filling, a new metallic phase develops in the center of the plateau. The potential $`V_2`$ was varied in order to obtain well developed phases. The corresponding profiles for the variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are shown in Fig.2(b). In general, a suppression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is present in the regions where the density profile shows a plateau. However, although in the region with $`n_i=1`$ the variance is lower than in the regions surrounding it, it does not vanish. Therefore, while the decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a signature for the Mott-insulating phase, still a clearer distinction is needed. For this purpose we introduce a local compressibility defined as follows:

$$\kappa _i^l=\underset{jl(U)}{}\chi _{i,i+j},$$
(2)
where $`\chi _{i,j}`$ is the density-density correlation function. We take the length scale $`l(U)b\xi (U)`$, where $`\xi (U)`$ is the correlation length given by $`\chi _{i,j}`$ in the unconfined system at half filling for the given value of $`U`$. The value of $`b`$ is such that $`\kappa ^l`$ becomes insensitive to the value chosen. In general we have $`b510`$, with $`\xi (U)a`$ ($`a`$ is the lattice constant) for the values of $`U`$ used here. The local compressibility thus gives the response to a constant shift of the potential over a finite range but over distances larger than $`\xi (U)`$ in the periodic, unconfined system. If a region is in a Mott-insulating phase, and hence incompressible, no density response over distances larger than $`\xi `$ is expected, leading to $`\kappa _i^l=0`$. Figure 2(c) shows the profile along the trap of $`\kappa _i^l`$, where the compressibility becomes zero in the outlying regions, where no particles are present and also where a Mott plateau is present. Therefore, the local compressibility defined here serves as a genuine local order parameter to describe the insulating regions that coexist, in general, with a surrounding metallic zone or even with metallic intrusions, beyond the intuitive pictures on the basis of the density profiles.

Now that phases can be characterized quantitatively, we concentrate on the regions where the system goes from one phase to another. Criticality can arise, despite the microscopic spatial size, due to the extension in imaginary time that reaches a thermodynamic limit at $`T=0`$, very much like the case of the single impurity Kondo problem yuval70 , where long-range interactions in imaginary time appear for the local degree of freedom as a result of the interaction with the rest of the system. Recent experiments leading to a MMIT greiner02  consider a system with linear dimension $`65a`$, i.e. still in this microscopic range. An intriguing future question, for both theory and experiment, will be the role of spatial dimension in the critical behavior of systems in the thermodynamic limit.

Figure 3 shows the local compressibility vs. $`\delta `$ for $`\delta 0`$ in a double logarithmic plot. A power law $`\kappa ^l\delta ^\varpi `$ is obtained, with $`\varpi <1`$, such that a divergence results in its derivative with respect to $`n`$, showing that critical fluctuations are present in this region.

Since the QMC simulation is affected by systematic errors due to discretization in imaginary time, it is important to consider the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$ in determining the critical exponent. The inset in Fig. 3 shows such an extrapolation leading to $`\varpi 0.680.78`$. At this point we should remark that the presence of the harmonic potential allows the determination of the density dependence of various quantities with unprecedented detail on feasible system sizes as opposed to unconfined periodic systems, where systems with $`10^310^4`$ sites would be necessary to allow for similar variations in density. In addition to the power law behavior, Fig. 3 shows that for $`\delta 0`$, the local compressibility of systems with a harmonic potential but different strengths of the interaction or even with a quartic confining potential, collapse on the same curve. Hence, universal behavior as expected for critical phenomena is observed also in this case. This fact is particularly important with regard to experiments, since it implies that the observation of criticality should be possible for realistic confining potentials, and not only restricted to perfect harmonic ones, as usually used in theoretical calculations. However, Fig. 3 shows also that the unconfined case departs from all the others. Up to the largest systems we simulated (400 sites), we observe an increasing slope rather than the power law of the confined systems.

Having shown that the local compressibility displays universality on approaching a Mott-insulating region, we consider the variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as a function of the density $`n`$ for various values of $`U`$ and different confining potentials. Figure 4 shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vs. $`n`$ for a variety of systems, where not only the number of particles and the size of the system are changed, but also different forms of the confining potential were used. Here we considered a harmonic potential, a quartic one, and a superposition of a harmonic, a cubic and a quartic one, such that even reflection symmetry across the center of the system is broken. It appears at first glance that the data can only be distinguished by the strength of the interaction $`U`$, showing that the variance is rather insensitive to the form of the potential. The different insets, however, show that a close examination leads to the conclusion that only near $`n=1`$ and only in the situations where at $`n=1`$ a Mott-insulator exists, universality sets in.

The inset for $`n`$ around 0.6 and $`U=8t`$, shows that the unconfined system has different variance from the others albeit very close on a raw scale. This difference is well beyond the error bars. Also the inset around $`n=1`$ and for $`U=4t`$, shows that systems that do not form a Mott insulating phase in spite of reaching a density $`n=1`$, have a different variance from those having a Mott-insulator. The features above show that even a very local quantity like the variance cannot be accurately described using a local density approximation (Thomas-Fermi) butts97 , and can lead to even qualitatively wrong results, as for $`U=4t`$ and $`n=1`$, where such an approximation would predict a Mott-insulator instead of a metal as in our simulations. Only the case where all systems have a Mott-insulating phase at $`n=1`$ ($`U=8t`$), shows universal behavior independent of the potential, a universality that encompasses also the unconfined systems. For the unconfined system, the behavior of the variance can be examined with Bethe-Ansatz lieb68  in the limit $`\delta 0`$. In this limit and to leading order in $`\delta `$, the ground state energy is given by schadschneider91  $`E_0(\delta )/NE_0(\delta =0)/N\delta `$, such that the double occupancy, which can be obtained as the derivative of the ground-state energy with respect to $`U`$, will also converge as $`\delta `$ towards its value at half-filling. Such behavior is also obtained in our case as shown by the inset at $`n=1`$ ($`U=8t`$) in Fig. 4. Detailed data for the variance close to $`n=1`$ will be presented elsewhere.

Finally we consider the phase diagram of the system. As shown in Fig. 2, unlike the exponents, phase boundaries seem to be rather sensitive to the choice of potential, number of particles and strength of the interaction. As in the unconfined case, we would expect to be able to relate systems with different number of particles and/or sizes by their density. Given the harmonic potential, a characteristic length (in units of the lattice constant) is given by $`N\left(4V_2/t\right)^{1/2}`$, such that a characteristic density can be defined. Figure 5 shows that the characteristic density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\rho \sqrt{4V_2/t}`$ ($`\rho =N_f/N`$) is a meaningful quantity to characterize the phase diagram.

There, the phase diagrams for two systems with different sizes ($`N=100`$ and $`N=150`$) and different strength of the harmonic potential ($`V_2=15t`$ and $`V_2=11.25t`$ respectively) are depicted showing that such a scaling allows to compare systems with different sizes, different number of particles, and different strength of the potential. This makes it possible to relate the results of numerical simulations to much larger experimental systems. The different phases obtained are: A pure metal without insulating regions (A), a Mott-insulator at the center of the trap (B), a metallic intrusion at the center of a Mott-insulator (C), a “band insulator” (i.e. with $`n=2`$) at the center of the trap surrounded by a metal (D), and finally a “band insulator” surrounded by a metal, surrounded by a Mott-insulator with the outermost region being again a metal (E). Two features are remarkable here. The first one is that on varying the filling of the trap, a reentrant behavior is observed for the phase A. The density profile shows a shoulder as can be seen in Fig. 1 before reaching the plateau with $`n=2`$ but, as shown by the inset of Fig. 4 for $`U=4`$ around $`n=1`$, it is possible to go through a region with $`n=1`$ without reaching the value of the variance that corresponds to a Mott-insulator. The second intriguing feature is that the boundary between the regions A and B remains at the same value of the characteristic density for all values of $`U`$ that could be simulated.

In summary, on the basis of QMC simulations of the Hubbard model with a harmonic potential, we found a number of new and unexpected features for the MMIT. (i) A local compressibility $`\kappa ^l`$ that appropriately characterizes Mott-insulating regions, shows critical behavior on entering those regions. Due to the microscopic nature of the phases, spatial correlations appear not to contribute to the critical behavior discussed here. This is a new form of MMIT, not observed so far in simple periodic systems, that might be realized in fermionic gases trapped on optical lattices. Therefore, our observation adds a new aspect to this long-standing problem in condensed matter physics. We expect that a similar local critical behavior will arise in higher dimensions as long as the spatial extent of the Mott domain remains finite. (ii) Universal behavior is found for $`\kappa ^l`$ for $`n1`$, independent of the confining potential and/or strength of the interaction, excluding, however, the unconfined case. Also universal behavior is found for the variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ when $`n1`$. In this case, this behavior is shared by the unconfined model. (iii) Finally, a proper scaling form for a characteristic density is introduced that leads to a generic phase diagram, with interesting features, as described in the paragraph above.

We wish to thank HLR-Stuttgart (Project DynMet) for allocation of computer time. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the LFSP Nanomaterialien, a PROCOPE grant (France-Germany), NSF-CNRS-12929, NFS-DMR-9985978, NSF-DMR-0312261, and NFS-INT-0124863. We are indebted to M. Arikawa, F. Göhmann, and A. Schadschneider for instructive discussions on Bethe-Ansatz, and to M. Feldbacher, B. O. Cult and F.F. Assaad for interesting discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In , hereafter referred to as I., a new approach was developed for constructing quantum theories that might, in particular, be used in potential approaches to quantum gravity that involve non-manifold models for space and/or spacetime. This could include things like ‘quantum topology’, ‘quantum manifolds’, ‘quantum causal sets’ etc.

The starting point is the observation that, in each such example, the entities of interest are the objects of a category whose arrows are structure-preserving maps. This suggested tackling the more general problem of finding a quantum theory of a system whose configuration space (or history-theory analogue) is the set of objects $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$ of an arbitrary small category $`𝒬`$. A general solution to this problem of ‘quantising on a category’ was presented in I., and in the present paper we show how this theory works in practice for categories of sets.

First, a summary of the results obtained in I. The methods used were motivated by considering, as an analogy, a system whose configuration spaces is a homogeneous space $`QG/H`$, where $`G`$ and $`H`$ are Lie groups. In particular, the analogue of the group $`G`$ is chosen to be the set $`\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$ of ‘arrow fields’ on $`𝒬`$, where an arrow field is defined to be a map $`X:\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)\mathrm{Hom}(𝒬)`$ (the arrows of $`𝒬`$) such that, for each $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, the domain of $`X(A)`$ is $`A`$; thus $`X(A):AB`$ for some $`B\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$. A simple, and useful, example of an arrow field is when all but one of the arrows $`X(A)`$, $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, is the identity $`\mathrm{id}_A:AA`$. Specifically, for each arrow $`f`$, an arrow field $`X_f`$ can be defined by

$$X_f(A):=\{\begin{array}{cc}f\hfill & \text{ if }\mathrm{Dom}f=A\text{;}\hfill \\ \mathrm{id}_A\hfill & \text{ otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.1)
for all $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$.

A crucial property of arrow fields is that they form a monoid222A monoid is a semigroup with a unit element. In the present case, the unit element is the arrow field $`\iota `$ defined by $`\iota (A):=\mathrm{id}_A`$ for all $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$.. Specifically: if $`X_1,X_2\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$, we construct an arrow field $`X_2\&X_1`$ by defining the arrow $`(X_2\&X_1)(A)`$, $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, to be the composition of the arrow $`X_1(A)`$ with the arrow obtained by evaluating $`X_2`$ on the range of $`X_1(A)`$:

$$(X_2\&X_1)(A):=X_2(\mathrm{Ran}X_1(A))X_1(A).$$
(1.2)
Put more simply, if $`X_1(A):AB`$, then $`(X_2\&X_1)(A):=X_2(B)X_1(A)`$.

An action of the monoid $`\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$ on $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$ can be defined by $`\mathrm{}_X(A):=\mathrm{Ran}X(A)`$, so that if $`X(A):AB`$ then $`\mathrm{}_X(A)=B`$. This action was used in I. to construct an operator (anti-) representation of $`\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$ on complex-valued functions on $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$ by defining, for all $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$,

$$(\widehat{a}(X)\psi )(A):=\psi (\mathrm{}_XA).$$
(1.3)
These operators satisfy

$$\widehat{a}(X_2)\widehat{a}(X_1)=\widehat{a}(X_1\&X_2)$$
(1.4)
for all arrow fields $`X_1`$,$`X_2`$. If Eq. (1.3) is applied to the special arrow fields $`X_f`$ in Eq. (1.1) then, defining $`\widehat{a}(f):=\widehat{a}(X_f)`$, we get

$$(\widehat{a}(f)\psi )(A)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi (\mathrm{Ran}f)\hfill & \text{ if }\mathrm{Dom}f=A\text{;}\hfill \\ \psi (A)\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.5)
The inner product on the quantum state functions is

$$\varphi |\psi :=_{\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)}𝑑\mu (A)\varphi ^{}(A)\psi (A)$$
(1.6)
for some measure $`\mu `$ on $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$. If $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$ is finite, or countably infinite, a natural choice for the inner product is

$$\varphi |\psi :=\underset{A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)}{}\varphi (A)^{}\psi (A).$$
(1.7)
The ‘configuration’ space variables are members of the space $`F(\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬),\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$ of all real-valued functions on $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, and unitary operators $`\widehat{V}(\beta )`$, $`\beta F(\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬),\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$, are defined by

$$(\widehat{V}(\beta )\psi )(A):=e^{i\beta (A)}\psi (A)$$
(1.8)
for all $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$.

The operators $`\widehat{a}(X)`$, $`X\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$, and $`\widehat{V}(\beta )`$, $`\beta F(\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬),\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$, satisfy the relations

$`\widehat{a}(X_2)\widehat{a}(X_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}(X_1\&X_2)`$ (1.9)
$`\widehat{V}(\beta _1)\widehat{V}(\beta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{V}(\beta _1+\beta _2)`$ (1.10)
$`\widehat{a}(X)\widehat{V}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{V}(\beta \mathrm{}_X)\widehat{a}(X)`$ (1.11)
and, as such, constitute a representation of the ‘category quantisation monoid’, which is defined to be the semi-direct product $`\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)\times _{\mathrm{}}F(\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬),\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$. In general, the possible quantisations of the system are deemed to be given by the irreducible, faithful representations of this monoid.

The representation in Eq. (1.3) and Eq. (1.8) is inadequate because it fails to separate arrows333Two arrows $`f,g`$ with the same domain and range are said to beseparated in the quantum theory if $`\widehat{a}(X_f)\widehat{a}(X_g)`$. with the same domain and range. This can be rectified by introducing a suitable bundle of Hilbert spaces, $`A𝒦[A]`$, with linear ‘multipliers’ $`m(X,A):𝒦[\mathrm{}_XA]𝒦[A]`$. The arrow-field operators $`\widehat{a}(X)`$, $`X\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$, are now defined as

$$(\widehat{a}(X)\psi )(A):=m(X,A)\psi (\mathrm{}_XA)$$
(1.12)
and satisfy Eq. (1.9) provided the multipliers are subject to the conditions

$$m(Y\&X,A)=m(X,A)m(Y,\mathrm{}_XA)$$
(1.13)
for all $`X,Y\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$ and $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$. Note that if the arrow fields $`X,Y`$ are such that, for some $`A`$, $`X(A):AA`$ and $`Y(A):AA`$, then Eq. (1.13) gives

$$m(Y\&X,A)=m(X,A)m(Y,A)$$
(1.14)
which corresponds to an anti-representation of the monoid $`\mathrm{Hom}(A,A)`$ on the Hilbert space $`𝒦[A]`$.

As explained in I., a natural way of generating structures of this type is to start with a presheaf of Hilbert spaces over $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, so that any arrow $`f:AB`$ is ‘covered’ by a linear map $`\kappa (f):𝒦[B]𝒦[A]`$, and then to define a multiplier by $`m(X,A):=\kappa (X(A))`$ for all $`X\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$, $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$. The quantum states are defined to be cross-sections of the Hilbert bundle, with the inner product

$$\varphi |\psi :=_{\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)}𝑑\mu (A)\varphi (A),\psi (A)_{𝒦[A]}$$
(1.15)
where $`,_{𝒦[A]}`$ denotes the inner product in the Hilbert space $`𝒦[A]`$, and $`\mu `$ is a measure on $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$. The operators $`\widehat{V}(\beta )`$ are defined as in Eq. (1.8).

The aim of the present paper is to give some examples of this scheme to illustrate the basic ideas. We start in Section 2 with the simple case when $`𝒬`$ is a partially-ordered set whose objects are points with no internal structure, and multipliers are not needed. The heart of the paper is Section 3 which contains a discussion of the quantisation on a category of sets. Section 3.1 focusses on a category of finite sets, and we show how to construct explicit multiplier representations that separate the arrows in the category. In Section 3.2 we discuss briefly how these methods can be extended to non-finite sets with the aid of categories of measure spaces. Then, after a few cautionary remarks about adapting the scheme to categories of causal sets, we give a complete quantisation in Section 3.4 of a very simple category with just two causal sets. In Section 4 we show how certain special operations on causal sets—for example, taking the linear sum of two of them—can be incorporated naturally into the scheme, as can the lattice operations on a lattice. Finally, in Section 5 we return to a poset category to show how standard quantum field theory is another special example of the scheme.

## 2 Some Simple Examples

### 2.1 The Simplest Example

The simplest example is when $`𝒬`$ is a monoid $`M`$ considered as a category. There is just one object $`\mathrm{\#}`$, and the arrows are in one-to-one correspondence with the elements of $`M`$, with arrow composition being monoid multiplication. An arrow field is simply an arrow; i.e., an element of $`M`$. A quantum theory on this category can be found by associating with $`\mathrm{\#}`$ the Hilbert space $`𝒦`$ of any faithful, irreducible representation $`m\widehat{R}(m)`$ of $`M`$. The state vectors are functions from $`\mathrm{\#}`$ to $`𝒦`$, and are hence just elements of $`𝒦`$. If $`m`$ is an arrow-field/arrow/monoid element, then $`\widehat{a}(m):=\widehat{R}(m)`$. The faithfulness of the representation guarantees that it separates the arrows, i.e., the elements of $`M`$.

### 2.2 A Poset Category

A monoid considered as a category has only one object, but many arrows. At the other extreme is a partially ordered set (poset) $`P`$ considered as a category. The objects are the elements of $`P`$, and there is an arrow $`o_{p,q}:pq`$ if, and only if, $`pq`$. Thus there is at most one arrow between each pair of objects—in particular, $`\mathrm{Hom}(p,p)=\{\mathrm{id}_p\}`$ for all $`pP`$—but many objects.

It is important to be clear about the physical situations that could be represented by such a model. For example, consider a causal set theory of the type discussed recently by Dowker444Fay Dowker, private communication. in which, in the language of the present paper, the objects of the category $`𝒬`$ are subsets of a single, ‘master’ causal set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Superficially, this category might look like a poset, with the ordering being subset inclusion. However, this is misleading since each object $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has an internal structure, as reflected in the monoid $`\mathrm{Hom}(A,A)`$ of order-preserving maps from $`A`$ to itself, and one would want to represent this in the quantum theory. More generally, if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are any non-trivial causal subsets of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`AB`$, then $`\mathrm{Hom}(A,B)`$ typically contains more than just the subset inclusion map $`i_{A,B}:AB`$. For example, if $`\alpha \mathrm{Hom}(A,A)`$ and $`\beta \mathrm{Hom}(B,B)`$, then

$$\beta i_{A,B}\alpha :AB$$
(2.16)
belongs to $`\mathrm{Hom}(A,B)`$. Thus $`𝒬`$ is not just a poset category.

When we do have a genuine poset category $`P`$, there is at most one arrow between any pair of objects, which means that to separate arrows in the quantum theory it suffices to let the state space be just complex-valued functions on $`P`$. Then, if $`pq`$, the operator $`\widehat{a}(p,q):=\widehat{a}(X_{o_{p,q}})`$ associated with the arrow $`o_{p,q}:pq`$ is (see Eq. (1.5))

$$(\widehat{a}(p,q)\psi )(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi (q)\hfill & \text{ if }p=r\text{;}\hfill \\ \psi (r)\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.17)
As in Eq. (1.8), functions $`\beta :P\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$ are represented by

$$(\widehat{V}(\beta )\psi )(r):=e^{i\beta (r)}\psi (r)$$
(2.18)
for all $`rP`$. The natural inner product is the one in Eq. (1.7) provided $`P`$ has at most a countable number of elements. For a system whose configuration space (or history-theory analogue) is a poset with a finite number, $`n`$, of elements, the quantum state space is just $`|\mathrm{C}^n`$.

### 2.3 Quantum Theory on $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$

A simple example of a poset is a finite chain with the Hasse diagram

$$012\mathrm{}n1$$
(2.19)
in which the only arrows between objects/points are those shown in Eq. (2.19), plus combinations of them, plus the identity arrow at each object. The quantisation goes ahead as above, and the Hilbert state space is $`|\mathrm{C}^n`$.

More interesting is the generalisation with a countably infinite number of objects

$$012\mathrm{}n1\mathrm{}$$
(2.20)
so that $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$ is the natural numbers $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$. In this case, there is a special family of arrow fields $`X^m`$, $`m\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$, defined on all $`n\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$ by

$$X^m(n):=n(n+m)$$
(2.21)
where the right hand side denotes the combination of $`m`$ successive arrows in the Hasse diagram of Eq. (2.20). Clearly

$$X^{m_1}\&X^{m_2}=X^{m_1+m_2},$$
(2.22)
and hence the set of all arrow fields of this type is a submonoid of $`\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$. It is isomorphic to the additive monoid $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$.

This submonoid acts on state functions as

$$(\widehat{a}(X^m)\psi )(n)=\psi (n+m),$$
(2.23)
for all $`n\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$. Together with the representation Eq. (1.8) of the space of functions $`F(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N},\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$, this gives an irreducible representation of the semi-direct product monoid $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}\times _{\mathrm{}}F(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N},\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$. This is a submonoid of the full category quantisation monoid $`\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)\times _{\mathrm{}}F(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N},\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$. This is an example of the general fact that for an arbitrary small category $`𝒬`$ there may well be submonoids of $`\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)\times _{\mathrm{}}F(\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬),\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$ for which an irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)\times _{\mathrm{}}F(\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬),\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$ remains irreducible. This is analogous to what happens when $`QG/H`$, where an irreducible representation of the semi-direct product $`\mathrm{Diff}(Q)\times _dC^{\mathrm{}}(Q,\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$ remains irreducible when restricted to the subgroup $`G\times _\tau W`$, where $`W`$ is a special finite-dimensional subspace of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(Q,\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})`$ (for more details see I).

Note that the example in Eq. (2.23) illustrates something that is missing for a general small category: namely, the existence of arrow fields that give the ‘same’ arrow at each object.

We could write down what is superficially the same category as in Eq. (2.20) but with the object $`n`$ now being identified with the set $`\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$. Thus the Hasse diagram of Eq. (2.20) is replaced with

$$\{0\}\{0,1\}\{0,1,2\}\mathrm{}$$
(2.24)
where the arrow between each pair of objects is now interpreted as a subset embedding. This gives rise to a quantum theory of finite sets in which the number of elements in a set can change.

However, the situation here is essentially the same as that mentioned in Section 2.2 in the context of Fay Dowker’s model. Specifically, if each object $`A`$ is viewed as an explicit set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{},n1\}`$, then it now has an internal structure, as reflected in the non-triviality of $`\mathrm{Hom}(A,A)`$. Thus the category is different from the starting example in Eq. (2.20), and the quantisation should reflect this. In particular, the monoids $`\mathrm{Hom}(A,A)`$ should be represented faithfully, and hence separate arrows of the type $`\beta i_{A,B}\alpha :AB`$, where $`\beta :BB`$, $`\alpha :AA`$, and $`i_{A,B}:AB`$ is the concatenation of the appropriate number of embeddings in Eq. (2.24). This requires the introduction of non-trivial Hilbert spaces $`𝒦[A]`$ and associated multipliers.

## 3 Quantising on a Category of Sets

### 3.1 The Example Of Finite Sets

#### 3.1.1 Constructing the Multipliers

The physical examples in which we are most interested arise when $`𝒬`$ is a small category of causal sets (i.e., posets), or topological spaces, or differentiable manifolds, or any other such mathematical entities that are potential models for space-time, or space. The objects in these categories are sets with structure, and the arrows are structure-preserving maps. Here we shall discuss in detail the most basic situation of this type, which is when $`𝒬`$ is a small category of sets, and the arrows are any maps between a pair of sets. The resulting theory can then be used as a stepping stone for handling categories whose objects have a more specific structure, and whose morphisms are therefore more restricted.

The operators $`\widehat{a}(X)`$ that represent arrow fields are defined in Eq. (1.12), and—as in I.—we shall assume that the multiplier $`m(X,A):𝒦[\mathrm{}_XA]𝒦[A]`$ is obtained from a family of linear maps $`\kappa (f):𝒦[\mathrm{Ran}f]𝒦[\mathrm{Dom}f]`$, $`f\mathrm{Hom}(𝒬)`$, such that $`m(X,A)=\kappa (X(A))`$ for all $`X\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$ and $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$. In order to ensure the multiplier conditions Eq. (1.14), these maps must satisfy the coherence conditions

$$\kappa (gf)=\kappa (f)\kappa (g):𝒦[C]𝒦[A]$$
(3.25)
for any $`f:AB`$ and $`g:BC`$. As discussed in I., the conditions Eq. (3.25) are equivalent to the existence of a presheaf of Hilbert spaces on $`𝒬`$, where a function $`f:AB`$ is ‘covered’ by the linear map $`\kappa (f):𝒦[B]𝒦[A]`$.

A necessary condition for the quantum theory to separate arrows is that each Hilbert space $`𝒦[A]`$, $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, must carry a faithful representation of the monoid $`\mathrm{Map}(A,A)`$ ($`=\mathrm{Hom}(A,A)`$) of all maps from the set $`A`$ to itself. It would be very desirable if we could find a suitable presheaf that is generic in the sense that it can be defined for any small category of sets without invoking the specific details of the category.

One vector space that is naturally associated with any set $`A`$, is the space $`F(A,|\mathrm{C})`$ of complex-valued functions on $`A`$. Then, to each arrow/function $`f:AB`$, there corresponds an obvious linear map $`\kappa (f):F(B,|\mathrm{C})F(A,|\mathrm{C})`$ defined on $`vF(B,|\mathrm{C})`$ by

$$(\kappa (f)v)(a):=v(f(a))$$
(3.26)
for all $`aA`$.

To check the coherence conditions Eq. (3.25), suppose $`f:AB`$ and $`g:BC`$, and let $`vF(C,|\mathrm{C})`$. Then

$$(\kappa (f)\kappa (g)v)[a]=(\kappa (g)v)[f(a)]=v[g(f(a)]$$
(3.27)
However, $`g(f(a))=gf(a)`$, and so Eq. (3.27) gives

$$(\kappa (f)\kappa (g)v)[a]=v[gf(a)]=(\kappa (gf)v)[a]$$
(3.28)
and hence $`\kappa (f)\kappa (g)=\kappa (gf)`$, as required.

As it stands, $`F(A,|\mathrm{C})`$ is merely a complex vector space. However, if $`A`$ is a finite set, there is a vector space isomorphism $`F(A,|\mathrm{C})|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$, where $`|A|`$ denotes the number of elements in $`A`$. The standard inner product on $`|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$ can then be used to equip $`F(A,|\mathrm{C})`$ with an inner product. In , this way of quantising on a category of finite sets is rederived using a different technique based on taking state vectors as complex-valued functions on the set of arrows $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝒬)`$.

If $`A`$ is a countable set, a natural choice for $`𝒦[A]`$ is the space $`\mathrm{}^2(A)`$ of square-summable sequences of complex numbers indexed by the elements of $`A`$. However, care is now needed since the map in Eq. (3.26) may not take a square-summable sequence into one that is also square summable; for example, this happens if $`f:AB`$ is a constant function. In this Section, we shall restrict our attention to categories of finite sets, so everything is well defined.

#### 3.1.2 The Detailed Calculations

If $`A`$ is a finite set, then any $`\stackrel{}{v}|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$, can be expressed as a sum

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\underset{aA}{}v_a\stackrel{}{a}$$
(3.29)
where $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ denotes the element $`aA`$ thought of as a basis vector for $`|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$. The expansion coefficients $`v_a|\mathrm{C}`$, $`aA`$, are given in terms of the inner product $`,_{|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}}`$ as

$$v_a=\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{v}_{|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}}.$$
(3.30)
In this notation, the linear transformation $`\kappa (f):|\mathrm{C}^{|B|}|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$ in Eq. (3.26), associated with $`f:AB`$, is

$$\kappa (f):\underset{bB}{}v_b\stackrel{}{b}\underset{aA}{}v_{f(a)}\stackrel{}{a}.$$
(3.31)
For each $`b\mathrm{Ran}fB`$, and for all $`af^1\{b\}`$, the value of $`v_{f(a)}`$ on the right hand side of Eq. (3.31) is constant, and equal to $`v_b`$. Thus, as $`a`$ ranges of $`f^1\{b\}`$ we get a linear sum of the corresponding basis vectors $`\stackrel{}{a}`$. This can be turned into a sum over $`bB`$ by noting that only those $`b`$ arise that are in the image of $`f`$. Thus the map in Eq. (3.31) can be rewritten as

$$\kappa (f):\underset{bB}{}v_b\stackrel{}{b}\underset{bB}{}v_b\overline{f^1\{b\}}$$
(3.32)
where

$$\overline{f^1\{b\}}:=\underset{af^1\{b\}}{}\stackrel{}{a}$$
(3.33)
denotes the sum in $`|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$ of the basis vectors associated with those elements in $`A`$ that are mapped by $`f`$ to $`bB`$. From this perspective, the fundamental coherence condition Eq. (3.25) follows from the basic property of inverse set maps:

$$f^1(g^1\{c\})=(gf)^1\{c\}$$
(3.34)
for all $`f:AB`$ and $`g:BC`$.

Since $`\kappa (f):|\mathrm{C}^{|B|}|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$ is linear, it can be written as

$$\kappa (f):\underset{bB}{}v_b\stackrel{}{b}\underset{bB}{}v_b\kappa (f)\stackrel{}{b},$$
(3.35)
and so another way of specifying $`\kappa (f)`$ in Eq. (3.32) is in terms of its action on the basis vectors $`\{\stackrel{}{b}bB\}`$ of $`|\mathrm{C}^{|B|}`$:

$$\kappa (f)\stackrel{}{b}:=\overline{f^1\{b\}}=\underset{af^1\{b\}}{}\stackrel{}{a}.$$
(3.36)
In particular, the matrix elements of $`\kappa (f):|\mathrm{C}^{|B|}|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$ are

$$\stackrel{}{a},\kappa (f)\stackrel{}{b}_{|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{ if }af^1\{b\}\text{}\text{i.e.}\text{, if }b=f(a)\text{;}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.37)
This shows that, as desired, the multiplier $`\kappa `$ separates arrows that have the same domain and range.

#### 3.1.3 The Adjoint of $`k`$

The linear map $`\kappa (f):𝒦[\mathrm{Ran}f]𝒦[\mathrm{Dom}f]`$ is used in the definition Eq. (1.12) of the arrow field operator $`\widehat{a}(X)`$, with $`m(X,A):=\kappa (X(A))`$. On the other hand, as shown in I., the corresponding expression (for finite sets) for the adjoint $`\widehat{a}(X)^{}`$ is

$$(\widehat{a}(X)^{}\psi )(B)=\underset{A\mathrm{}_X^1\{B\}}{}\kappa (X(A))^{}\psi (A)$$
(3.38)
where $`\kappa (X(A))^{}:𝒦[A]𝒦[\mathrm{}_XA]`$ is the adjoint of the linear map $`\kappa (X(A)):𝒦[\mathrm{}_XA]𝒦[A]`$.

To compute $`\kappa (X(A))^{}`$ explicitly, note that if $`f:AB`$, then $`\kappa (f)^{}:|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}|\mathrm{C}^{|B|}`$ is defined by

$$\kappa (f)^{}\stackrel{}{w},\stackrel{}{v}_{|\mathrm{C}^{|B|}}:=\stackrel{}{w},\kappa (f)\stackrel{}{v}_{|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}}$$
(3.39)
for all $`\stackrel{}{v}|\mathrm{C}^{|B|}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{w}|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$. With respect to the basis $`\{\stackrel{}{b}bB\}`$ of $`|\mathrm{C}^{|B|}`$, we have

$`(\kappa (f)^{}\stackrel{}{w})_b`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (f)^{}\stackrel{}{w},\stackrel{}{b}_{|\mathrm{C}^{|B|}}=\stackrel{}{w},\kappa (f)\stackrel{}{b}_{|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}}=\stackrel{}{w},{\displaystyle \underset{af^1\{b\}}{}}\stackrel{}{a}_{|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}}`$ (3.40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{af^1\{b\}}{}}w_a`$
which gives the expression for $`\kappa (f)^{}:|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}|\mathrm{C}^{|B|}`$:

$`\kappa (f)^{}\stackrel{}{w}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{bB}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{af^1\{b\}}{}}w_a\stackrel{}{b}={\displaystyle \underset{bB}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{aA}{}}w_a\delta _{b,f(a)}\stackrel{}{b}`$ (3.41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{aA}{}}w_a\overline{f(a)}.`$
for all $`\stackrel{}{w}|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$.

### 3.2 Quantum Measure Theory

#### 3.2.1 The General Idea

A more general way of associating Hilbert spaces $`𝒦[A]`$ with the sets $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$ is if $`𝒬`$ is a category of measure spaces in which each set $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$ is equipped with a measure $`\mu _A`$ on a $`\sigma `$-field of subsets of $`A`$.555Note that a scheme of this type allows for the possibility that the objects in the category may include more than one copy of the same set equipped with different measures (and associated fields of measurable sets) on that set. The arrows in this category are functions $`f:AB`$ that are measurable with respect to the measure structures on $`A`$ and $`B`$.666It may be appropriate to identify functions $`f_1,f_2:AB`$ that are equal up to a set of $`\mu _A`$-measure zero. We can then form the bundle of Hilbert spaces $`AL^2(A,d\mu _A)`$ and try using this as the quantum bundle $`A𝒦[A]`$. For example, if $`A`$ is a finite set, a natural choice for $`\mu _A`$ is $`\mu _A(M)=|M|`$, for any subset $`M`$ of $`A`$. The Hilbert space $`L^2(A,d\mu _A)`$ is then isomorphic to $`|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$, and we recover the situation discussed in Section 3.1.

We now proceed as in Section 3.1.1 and use Eq. (3.26) to define the linear map $`\kappa (f):L^2(B,d\mu _B)L^2(A,d\mu _A)`$ for each arrow (measurable map) $`f:AB`$. However, care is needed if some of the Hilbert spaces $`L^2(A,d\mu _A)`$, $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, are infinite dimensional since the map $`\kappa (f)`$ could then be unbounded. This is similar to the problem mentioned earlier in the context of using Eq. (3.26) when some of the sets $`A`$ are countably infinite.

This situation can be tackled in various ways. One is to allow the maps $`\kappa (f)`$ to be unbounded, with domains that are dense subsets of the appropriate Hilbert spaces. A more attractive scheme is to restrict the arrows in the category to be measurable maps for which these problems do not arise. Of course, if such a quantum scheme is to be applied to a concrete physical problem, there need to be good physical reasons for making restrictions of this type.

#### 3.2.2 The Special Case of a Category of Groups

One situation where measures arise naturally is if $`𝒬`$ is a small category of locally compact topological groups, with the arrows being continuous group homomorphisms. Each such group $`G`$ has a unique Haar measure $`\mu _G`$, and this gives a preferred choice for the Hilbert spaces $`𝒦[G]`$: namely, $`L^2(G,d\mu _G)`$.

Then, if $`\varphi :GH`$ is a continuous homomorphism, we follow the example of Eq. (3.26) and define a linear map $`\kappa (\varphi ):L^2(H,d\mu _H)L^2(G,d\mu _G)`$ by

$$(\kappa (\varphi )v)(g):=v(\varphi (g))$$
(3.42)
for all $`gG`$ and $`vL^2(H,d\mu _H)`$ (once again, care is needed if any of the Hilbert spaces have infinite dimension).

An important property of the Hilbert space $`L^2(G,d\mu _G)`$ is that it carries the regular representation of $`G`$ defined by

$$(l_gv)(g_0):=v(g_0g).$$
(3.43)
Although it is not strictly relevant to our needs, we note that the maps $`\kappa (\varphi ):L^2(H,d\mu _H)L^2(G,d\mu _G)`$ are actually intertwining operators for the regular representations on the two groups. Thus, if $`\psi L^2(H,d\mu _H)`$ and $`\varphi :GH`$ is any continuous group homomorphism, we have

$`(l_g\kappa (\varphi )\psi )(g_0)`$ $`=`$ $`(\kappa (\varphi )\psi )(g_0g)=\psi [\varphi (g_0g)]`$ (3.44)
$`=`$ $`\psi [\varphi (g_0)\varphi (g)]=(l_{\varphi (g)}\psi )[\varphi (g_0)]`$
$`=`$ $`(\kappa (\varphi )\mathrm{}_{\varphi (g)}\psi )(g_0)`$
for all $`g_0,gG`$. This gives the intertwining relations

$$l_g\kappa (\varphi )=\kappa (\varphi )l_{\varphi (g)}$$
(3.45)
corresponding to the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{c}L^2(G)\\ l_g\\ L^2(G)\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{\kappa (\varphi )}{}\\ \\ \stackrel{\kappa (\varphi )}{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}L^2(H)\\ l_{\varphi \left(g\right)}\\ L^2(H)\end{array}$$
(3.46)
### 3.3 Categories of Causal Sets or Topological Spaces

#### 3.3.1 Cautionary Remarks

Let us turn now to the problem of quantising on a category $`𝒬`$ of causal sets, or topological spaces, or manifolds, etc., in which the arrows $`f:AB`$ are structure-preserving functions. As a first try we could forget about this extra structure and use the category $`𝒬_S`$ whose objects are defined to be the same as those of $`𝒬`$ but whose arrows $`f:AB`$ are now all functions from $`A`$ to $`B`$, not just those that are structure preserving.

Suppose that we succeed in constructing a proper quantisation on $`𝒬_S`$ by finding a representation of the category quantisation monoid that is both irreducible and faithful. Then since each arrow in $`𝒬`$ is also a function between sets, and hence an arrow in $`𝒬_S`$, it follows that each arrow field in $`\mathrm{AF}(𝒬)`$ will also belong to $`\mathrm{AF}(𝒬_S)`$, and will hence be represented in the quantum theory on $`𝒬_S`$. Furthermore, since the quantum theory on $`𝒬_S`$ separates arrows, a fortiori the same will be true for the subset of arrows that belong to $`𝒬`$. Therefore, the representation of the category quantisation monoid of $`𝒬`$ obtained in this way will certainly be faithful.

However, there is no guarantee that this representation is irreducible. For example, if $`A`$ is a finite set, the Hilbert space $`|\mathrm{C}^{|A|}`$ carries an irreducible representation of the monoid $`\mathrm{Map}(A,A)`$, but it may be reducible with respect to the submonoid of order-preserving maps, or continuous maps, etc. If this happens for at least one object $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, then the representation of the category quantisation monoid of $`𝒬`$ will no longer be irreducible777It is being assumed here that $`𝒬`$ has a finite or countable number of objects with an associated inner product Eq. (1.7). The discussion needs to be extended in an obvious way for the inner product in Eq. (1.15) with a general measure $`\mu `$ on $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$.. And even if the representation of $`\mathrm{Hom}(A,A)`$ is irreducible for all $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, the representation of the category quantisation monoid could still be reducible if there are not enough arrows between pairs of different objects.

It might be possible to say something about this issue in a general way, but probably it will need to be tackled on a case-by-case basis, with each specific category $`𝒬`$ of physical interest being examined in detail.

### 3.4 A Very Simple Example

#### 3.4.1 Quantisation with State Functions

We will now illustrate the general scheme with the aid of a very simple example of a category with just two objects: the causal sets (posets) $`A:=\{a\}`$, and $`B:=\{b,c\}`$ with $`bc`$. The arrows are order-preserving maps, and there are two such $`f_1,f_2`$ from $`A`$ to $`B`$ defined by

$`f_1(a)`$ $`:=`$ $`b`$ (3.47)
$`f_2(a)`$ $`:=`$ $`c`$ (3.48)
respectively, and one arrow $`g`$ from $`B`$ to $`A`$ defined by

$$g(b):=a,g(c):=a.$$
(3.49)
A non-trivial arrow $`r:BB`$ is

$$r(b):=b,r(c):=b$$
(3.50)
which is not invertible. The same applies to the other non-trivial arrow $`s:BB`$ defined by

$$s(b):=c,s(c):=c.$$
(3.51)
If we forget the causal/ordering structure on the set $`B`$, then an additional arrow $`p:BB`$ can be defined by

$$p(b):=c,p(c):=b$$
(3.52)
which is the non-trivial element of the permutation group $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}_2`$ of the set $`B`$. It is not, however, an arrow in the category $`𝒬`$ since it reverses the ordering of the elements $`b,cB`$.

In summary, we have the following sets of arrows:

$`\mathrm{Hom}(A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`\{f_1,f_2\}`$ (3.53)
$`\mathrm{Hom}(B,A)`$ $`=`$ $`\{g\}`$ (3.54)
$`\mathrm{Hom}(A,A)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{id}_A\}`$ (3.55)
$`\mathrm{Hom}(B,B)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{id}_B,r,s\}`$ (3.56)
to which should be added the map $`p:BB`$ in Eq. (3.52) if we forget the causal structure on $`B`$.

According to the simple quantum scheme without multipliers, the quantum Hilbert space is $`|\mathrm{C}^2`$, where $`\psi |\mathrm{C}^2`$ is represented by the pair of complex numbers $`(\psi _A,\psi _B):=(\psi (A),\psi (B))`$. Then, using the definition of $`\widehat{a}(f):=\widehat{a}(X_f)`$ in Eq. (1.5), we find

$`\widehat{a}(f_1):(\psi _A,\psi _B)`$ $``$ $`(\psi _B,\psi _B)`$ (3.57)
$`\widehat{a}(f_2):(\psi _A,\psi _B)`$ $``$ $`(\psi _B,\psi _B)`$ (3.58)
$`\widehat{a}(g):(\psi _A,\psi _B)`$ $``$ $`(\psi _A,\psi _A)`$ (3.59)
$`\widehat{a}(\mathrm{id}_A):(\psi _A,\psi _B)`$ $``$ $`(\psi _A,\psi _B).`$ (3.60)
This shows explicitly the failure to separate the arrows $`f_1:AB`$ and $`f_2:AB`$. Similarly, the arrows in $`\mathrm{Hom}(B,B)=\{\mathrm{id}_B,r,s\}`$ are all represented by the unit operator on $`|\mathrm{C}^2`$, and are hence not separated.

Thus the simple quantum scheme cannot distinguish between the given category and the one whose objects are two singleton sets $`A:=\{a\}`$ and $`B:=\{b\}`$, with just one arrow from $`A`$ to $`B`$ and one arrow from $`B`$ to $`A`$ (plus $`\mathrm{id}_A`$ and $`\mathrm{id}_B`$ as always).

#### 3.4.2 Quantisation With a Multiplier

Now consider the quantisation on the same category, but this time using a multiplier. The discussion in Section 3.1.2 of quantising on a category of finite sets, suggests that the appropriate choices for the Hilbert space fibres are $`𝒦[A]=|\mathrm{C}^1|\mathrm{C}`$, and $`𝒦[B]=|\mathrm{C}^2`$. Thus the quantum state space of the system is now $`|\mathrm{C}|\mathrm{C}^2|\mathrm{C}^3`$; a vector $`\psi `$ in this space will be denoted by $`(\psi _A;\psi _{B_1},\psi _{B_2})|\mathrm{C}^3`$.

The expression Eq. (3.32) for the multiplier, gives the following representations Eq. (1.12) of the non-trivial arrow fields $`X_f`$, $`f\mathrm{Hom}(𝒬)`$,

$`\widehat{a}(f_1):(\psi _A;\psi _{B_1},\psi _{B_2})`$ $``$ $`(\psi _{B_1};\psi _{B_1},\psi _{B_2})`$ (3.61)
$`\widehat{a}(f_2):(\psi _A;\psi _{B_1},\psi _{B_2})`$ $``$ $`(\psi _{B_2};\psi _{B_1},\psi _{B_2})`$ (3.62)
$`\widehat{a}(g):(\psi _A;\psi _{B_1},\psi _{B_2})`$ $``$ $`(\psi _A;\psi _A,\psi _A)`$ (3.63)
$`\widehat{a}(r):(\psi _A;\psi _{B_1},\psi _{B_2})`$ $``$ $`(\psi _A;\psi _{B_1},\psi _{B_1})`$ (3.64)
$`\widehat{a}(s):(\psi _A;\psi _{B_1},\psi _{B_2})`$ $``$ $`(\psi _A;\psi _{B_2},\psi _{B_2}).`$ (3.65)
Note that arrows with the same domain and range are now separated, as required.

Of course, it is easy to write these operators as $`3\times 3`$ matrices. For example,

$$\widehat{a}(f_1):\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\\ c\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}b\\ b\\ c\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\\ c\end{array}\right)$$
(3.66)
so that

$$\widehat{a}(f_1)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(3.67)
with the adjoint

$$\widehat{a}(f_1)^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(3.68)
If we forget the causal structure on the set $`B`$, then there is the additional arrow $`p:BB`$ defined in Eq. (3.52). The corresponding arrow field $`X_p`$ is represented in the quantum theory by

$$\widehat{a}(p):(\psi _A;\psi _{B_1},\psi _{B_2})(\psi _A;\psi _{B_2},\psi _{B_1})$$
(3.69)
## 4 Further Quantum Operations

### 4.1 Combining Causal Sets

There are some special operations on causal sets (posets) that one might wish to incorporate in the present scheme. For example :

1. If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are disjoint posets, the disjoint union $`AB`$ is defined on the set-theoretic disjoint union by the ordering $`xy`$ if

1. $`x,yA`$ and $`x_Ay`$; or
    2. $`x,yB`$ and $`x_By`$.
2. If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are disjoint posets, the linear sum $`AB`$ is defined on the set-theoretic disjoint union with the ordering $`xy`$ if

1. $`x,yA`$ and $`x_Ay`$; or
    2. $`x,yB`$ and $`x_By`$; or
    3. $`xA`$ and $`yB`$.
3. If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are posets, the set-theoretic Cartesian product $`A\times B`$ can be given a poset structure by defining $`(x,y)(p,q)`$ if $`x_Ap`$ and $`y_Bq`$.

Of course, these constructions are only of use if the category concerned includes them. For example, the disjoint union of two connected posets is disconnected, and therefore would not be included if $`𝒬`$ is a category of connected causal sets. On the other hand, the linear sum of connected posets is connected, and therefore could be used.

Let us start with the linear sum. In a simple quantisation scheme with complex-valued state functions on $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, it is natural to define operators $`\widehat{D}_B`$, $`B\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, by

$$(\widehat{D}_B\psi )(A):=\psi (AB)$$
(4.70)
for all $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$. These represent the $``$ operation in the sense that $`\widehat{D}_C\widehat{D}_B=\widehat{D}_{CB}`$.

Things are more complicated when multipliers are used since it is necessary to construct an appropriate linear map from $`𝒦[AB]`$ to $`𝒦[A]`$. To do this within the category quantisation scheme we need to pick some preferred arrow from $`A`$ to $`AB`$. The obvious choice is the injection $`i_{A,AB}:AAB`$, which leads to the definition

$$(\widehat{D}_B\psi )(A):=\kappa (i_{A,AB})\psi (AB).$$
(4.71)
Of course, the same thing can be done for the disjoint union: i.e., use the natural embedding of $`A`$ in $`AB`$.

For the product operation, the analogy of Eq. (4.70) is

$$(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_B\psi )(A):=\psi (A\times B).$$
(4.72)
However, the analogue of Eq. (4.71) needs more thought. This is because the natural map associated with a product $`A\times B`$ is the projection $`\pi _{A\times B,A}:A\times BA`$, $`(a,b)a`$. But the linear map $`\kappa (\pi _{A\times B,A})`$ is then from $`𝒦[A]`$ to $`𝒦[A\times B]`$, which is in the wrong direction. The obvious resolution is to use the adjoint $`\kappa (\pi _{A\times B,A})^{}`$, which maps $`𝒦[A\times B]`$ to $`𝒦[A]`$. Thus we define

$$(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_B\psi )(A):=\kappa (\pi _{A\times B,A})^{}\psi (A\times B).$$
(4.73)
By these means, the causal-set operations of direct sum, disjoint union, and product can be incorporated into the category quantisation scheme.

Clearly, in a general category of small sets $`𝒬`$, analogues of Eq. (4.71) and Eq. (4.73) can be used to represent the operations of taking, respectively, the disjoint union, and product, of two sets providing these exist as objects in $`𝒬`$.

### 4.2 When $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$ has the Structure of a Lattice

A mathematically similar situation to the poset operations in Section 4.1 arises in the context of an older approach to quantum topology discussed in . This involved quantising the set of topologies $`\tau (X)`$ on a fixed set $`X`$ by exploiting the fact that $`\tau (X)`$ is an algebraic lattice.888Within the context of our present discussion, this earlier scheme is deficient in the sense that multipliers were not used, and hence the internal structure of each topology $`\tau \tau (X)`$ is not represented. It would be interesting to revisit that earlier work in the light of the more sophisticated category quantisation techniques. In general, if the set of objects $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$ of a small category $`𝒬`$ is a lattice, then the ‘$``$’ and ‘$``$’ lattice operations can be incorporated into the category quantisation scheme in direct analogy with equations Eq. (4.71) and Eq. (4.73). Thus, for the $``$ operation we exploit the canonical arrow $`o_{A,AB}:AAB`$ (where $`o_{x,y}:xy`$ is the arrow associated with $`xy`$) and define

$$(\widehat{O}_B\psi )(A):=\kappa (o_{A,AB})\psi (AB),$$
(4.74)
while, for the $``$ operation, we use the arrow $`o_{AB,A}:ABA`$ and define

$$(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_B\psi )(A):=\kappa (o_{AB,A})^{}\psi (AB).$$
(4.75)
It is easy to check that, by these means, the lattice operations are represented in the quantum theory in the sense that

$$\widehat{O}_B\widehat{O}_C=\widehat{O}_{BC}$$
(4.76)
and

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_B\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_C=\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{BC}.$$
(4.77)
A special case is the lattice of subsets of some master set $`U`$. The quantisation scheme discussed in Section 3 can then be augmented with operations

$`(\widehat{O}_B\psi )(A)`$ $`:=`$ $`\kappa (o_{A,AB})\psi (AB)`$ (4.78)
$`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_B\psi )(A)`$ $`:=`$ $`\kappa (o_{AB,A})^{}\psi (AB)`$ (4.79)
for all $`A,BU`$, which are the analogues of Eq. (4.74) and Eq. (4.75) respectively. In a similar way, one can implement the operation of taking the complement of a set in which $`AUA`$.

## 5 Quantum Field Theory in this Language

Standard quantum field theory can also be discussed in the language of quantising on a category, and provides another example (albeit, somewhat contrived) of how the formalism works.

We start by considering what is superficially the same category as in Eq. (2.20), but with the object $`n`$ now being identified with the vector space $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3n}`$. This gives the chain

$$\{0\}\stackrel{i_0}{}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3\stackrel{i_1}{}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^6\mathrm{}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(n1)}\mathrm{}$$
(5.80)
where $`i_k:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(k+1)}`$ is the natural embedding of vector spaces

$`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k}`$ $`\stackrel{i_k}{}`$ $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(k+1)}`$ (5.81)
$`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{3k})`$ $``$ $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{3k},0,0,0)`$
If the corresponding quantum theory is viewed as being of a system whose configuration space can be any these vector spaces, then each $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k}`$ has the Euclidean group $`E(3k)`$ as its group of isometries. As such, it is a natural choice for the monoid of arrows from the object $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k}`$ to itself. Thus once again we have a situation in which the arrows in the original category can be extended by including appropriate transformations of the internal structures of the objects. Thus, in this example it is reasonable to define the most general arrow from $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k}`$ to $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(k+1)}`$ to be of the form $`\beta i_k\alpha `$ where $`\alpha E(3k)`$ and $`\beta E(3(k+1))`$.

The monoids (actually, groups) $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k},\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k})E(3k)`$ can represented in the quantum theory by associating to each vector space $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k}`$, $`k1`$, the Hilbert space $`L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k})`$, and associating to the null vector space $`\{0\}`$ the space $`|\mathrm{C}`$. This Hilbert bundle can be turned into a contravariant presheaf by defining the linear operators $`\kappa (i_k):L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(k+1)})L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k})`$ as

$$(\kappa (i_k)\varphi )(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k):=\varphi (x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k,0,0,0)$$
(5.82)
for all $`\varphi L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(k+1)})`$. More generally, the arrow $`\beta i_k\alpha :\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(k+1)}`$ is associated with the multiplier $`R^{3k}(\alpha )\kappa (i_k)R^{3(k+1)}(\beta ):L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(k+1)})L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k})`$ where $`R^{3(k+1)}(\beta )`$ denotes the representation of $`\beta E(3(k+1))`$ on $`L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(k+1)})`$, and $`R^{3k}(\alpha )`$ denotes the representation of $`\alpha E(3k)`$ on $`L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k})`$.

A cross-section of this Hilbert bundle corresponds to an element of bosonic Fock space, defined as $`|\mathrm{C}L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3)L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^6)\mathrm{}`$, and so we are close to recovering non-relativistic, bosonic quantum field theory. However, in this category approach there is no obvious way of deriving the usual annihilation and creation operators of quantum field theory. The problem is that this particular category does not have enough arrows between different objects.

This suggests to try again using the chain Eq. (2.20)

$$012\mathrm{}n1\mathrm{}$$

but now define the arrows from an object $`k`$ to $`l`$ ($`l>k`$) to be functions in $`L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(lk)})`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{Hom}(k,l):=L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(lk)})`$. Composition of arrows/functions is then defined as the tensor product operation. More precisely, if $`f:jk`$ and $`g:kl`$, so that $`fL^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(kj)})`$ and $`gL^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(lk)})`$, then $`gf:jl`$ is defined as $`gf:=gfL^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(lk)})L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(kj)})L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(lj)})`$. This arrow composition law is associative since $`f(gh)=(fg)h`$ for functions $`f,g,h`$. When $`k=l`$, it is consistent to identify $`L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(lk)})`$ with the vector space $`|\mathrm{C}`$; i.e., for all $`n0`$, we set $`\mathrm{Hom}(n,n):=|\mathrm{C}`$, with composition of complex numbers being defined as multiplication.

Multipliers are needed to separate the arrows between different objects, and the first step is to construct the bundle of Hilbert spaces over $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$ in which the fibre $`𝒦[n]`$ over $`n\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$ is $`L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3n})`$ for $`n>0`$, and with $`𝒦[0]|\mathrm{C}`$. Then, if $`f:kl`$, so that $`fL^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(lk)})`$, we define $`\delta (f):𝒦[k]𝒦[l]`$ by $`\delta (f)(h):=fh`$, for all $`h𝒦[k]L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k})`$. Note that $`fL^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3)`$ defines an arrow $`f:kk+1`$ for all $`k>0`$, and the associated (covariant) multiplier $`\delta (f):L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3k})L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3(k+1)})`$ is the usual Fock space creation operator $`\widehat{b}(f)^{}`$.

By these means we have constructed a covariant presheaf, rather than the contravariant one used earlier. A contravariant presheaf can be obtained by defining the multiplier $`\kappa (f):𝒦[l]𝒦[k]`$, $`f:kl`$, as the adjoint of $`\delta (f)`$. This can then be used to define the operators $`\widehat{a}(X)`$ as in Eq. (1.12).

Alternatively, the adjoint $`\widehat{a}(X)^{}`$ can be defined directly using $`\delta `$. Specifically, as shown in I., the general expression for the adjoint operator $`\widehat{a}(X)^{}`$ is

$$(\widehat{a}(X)^{}\psi )(B)=\underset{A\mathrm{}_X^1\{B\}}{}m(X,A)^{}\psi (A)$$
(5.83)
for all $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$. In the present case, this becomes

$`(\widehat{a}(X)^{}\psi )(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\mathrm{}_X^1\{n\}}{}}\delta (X(k))\psi (k)`$ (5.84)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{kn=\mathrm{}_Xk\}}{}}X(k)\psi (k)`$ (5.85)
In particular, if $`fL^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3)`$, and if we define the arrow field $`X^f(n):=f:nn+1`$ for all $`n0`$, then

$`(\widehat{a}(X^f)^{}\psi )(n)`$ $`=`$ $`f\psi (n1)`$ (5.86)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{b}(f)^{}\psi (n1)`$ (5.87)
for all $`n1`$.

Note that although the objects have no internal structure, it is still of course true that the Hilbert space $`L^2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{3n})`$ carries a representation of the Euclidean group $`E(3n`$) (and, indeed, of the canonical commutation relations) in $`3n`$ dimensions.

## 6 Conclusions

We have seen how the general theory of quantising on a category $`𝒬`$ can be applied to two different situations. The first is when the category is a poset, in which case the objects have no internal structure, and a quantisation with complex-valued state functions is sufficient.

The second, and more important, situation was one of the original motivations for studying the category quantisation scheme: namely, quantisation on a category whose objects are sets that could be potential models for space-time (or space). In particular, we have shown how to construct suitable multipliers for a category of finite sets. We have also indicated how this scheme might be extended to arbitrary sets equipped with measures.

A major task for future research is to return to the examples of sets with structure—such as posets, or topological spaces—to get a better idea of when the irreducible representations of the category quantisation monoid of the underlying category of sets remain irreducible when the arrows are restricted to be structure-preserving maps. It is not clear how much can be said about this issue in general, and how much will depend on the details of the specific category. A useful step in this direction would be to study a variety of simple models of quantum casual sets and quantum topologies.

Another important topic for the future is the addition of matter degrees of freedom to a quantum causal set theory. In doing so, it will be necessary to amalgamate the insights into the local Hilbert spaces $`𝒦[A]`$, $`A\mathrm{Ob}(𝒬)`$, obtained from the present paper and I., with the understanding of the nature of quantum history theory as given by the ‘history projection operator’ (HPO) approach to consistent history theory. In the HPO approach, to any causal set $`A`$ there would be associated a certain Hilbert space $`𝒥(A)`$ whose projection operators represent propositions about the matter variables in the background space-time $`A`$. The task is to combine these Hilbert spaces $`𝒥(A)`$ with the Hilbert spaces $`𝒦[A]`$ of the quantum causal set theory in an appropriate way. The resulting quantum history theory will then involve propositions about the matter fields and the space-times in which they propagate.

Alternatively, one could start with a canonical approach to quantising on a causal background—for example, as discussed in —and then use the techniques in the present paper to allow the background itself to be ‘quantised’.

In either case, it must be emphasised that the techniques developed in the present paper constitute only a ‘toolkit’ for constructing such theories. The hard task is to use these tools to build physically realistic models of ‘quantum space’ or ‘quantum space-time’.

## Acknowledgements

Support by the EPSRC in form of grant GR/R36572 is gratefully acknowledged.