format: text

text:
# Elliptic 𝑈(2) quantum group and elliptic hypergeometric series

## 1. Introduction

Elliptic functions appear in various solvable models in statistical mechanics and other areas of physics. A famous example is Baxter’s $`8`$-vertex model , whose $`R`$-matrix, containing the Boltzmann weights, is an elliptic solution of the Yang–Baxter equation. A related face model was introduced by Andrews, Baxter and Forrester . In this case the $`R`$-matrix satisfies a modified, “dynamical”, version of the Yang–Baxter equation, generalizing Wigner’s hexagon identity for the classical $`6j`$-symbols of quantum mechanics.

In the early 1980’s, the algebraic study of the Yang–Baxter equation lead to the introduction of quantum groups. The most well understood quantum groups are those constructed from the simplest, constant, solutions. Quantum groups connected to more complicated solutions, and in particular to elliptic solutions, have been more difficult to construct and study. One reason for this is that elliptic quantum groups are not Hopf algebras. Various approaches have been tried for finding a substitute; cf. . In the dynamical case, a decisive step was taken by Felder and Varchenko , who introduced the algebra that we will study here. This example motivated Etingof and Varchenko  to introduce $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroids, a generalization of Hopf algebras adapted to studying dynamical $`R`$-matrices; cf.  for further additions to this framework.

An important mathematical application of quantum groups is their relation to basic hypergeometric series (or $`q`$-series), a class of special functions going back to work of Cauchy and Heine in the 1840’s. The input from quantum group theory has been important for the rapid development of this field during the last 20 years. To our knowledge, nobody has so far associated special functions to elliptic quantum groups in an analogous way. There is, however, a natural candidate for the special functions that should appear, namely, the elliptic or modular hypergeometric series of Frenkel and Turaev . This type of sums may be used to express the elliptic $`6j`$-symbols of Date et al. , which are solutions to the Yang–Baxter equation that greatly generalize the Andrews–Baxter–Forrester solution. For more information on elliptic hypergeometric series we refer to .

Our main aim is to give an explicit link from elliptic quantum groups to elliptic hypergeometric series. Namely, we show that $`{}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}`$ sums, or elliptic $`6j`$-symbols, appear as matrix elements for an elliptic quantum group which we denote by $`_R(U(2))`$, which is the algebra of Felder and Varchenko with some extra structure. To achieve this, we first construct finite-dimensional corepresentations of $`_R(U(2))`$, analogous to the standard representations of $`SU(2)`$ on spaces of homogeneous polynomials in two variables. A main result, Theorem 3.4, is an explicit expression for the matrix elements of these corepresentations. We can then calculate the action of the matrix elements in representations found by Felder and Varchenko, and show that it is given in terms of elliptic hypergeometric series.

The matrix elements satisfy orthogonality relations in the non-commutative algebra $`_R(U(2))`$. Evaluating these in a representation leads to bi-orthogonality relations for $`{}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}`$ series. These relations were found already by Frenkel and Turaev ; cf. also .

Our new derivation of the bi-orthogonality relations shows that they can be viewed as analogues of the orthogonality relations for Krawtchouk polynomials, see  for the Lie group $`SU(2)`$. For the quantum $`SU(2)`$ group the same approach leads to quantum $`q`$-Krawtchouk polynomials, see . For the dynamical quantum $`SU(2)`$ group, i.e. corresponding to a trigonometric dynamical $`R`$-matrix, we get the orthogonality relations for $`q`$-Racah polynomials, see \[15, §4\]. So the above cases can be considered as limiting cases of the bi-orthogonality relations for elliptic $`6j`$-symbols.

The paper is organized as follows. In section $`2`$ we recall the definition of an $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroid and the generalized FRST-construction from . Then we describe the elliptic quantum group $`_R(U(2))`$, which is obtained from the $`R`$-matrix of the Andrews–Baxter–Forrester model. In section $`3`$ we define finite-dimensional corepresentations of $`_R(U(2))`$ and compute their matrix elements explicitly. In section $`4`$ we consider representations of $`_R(U(2))`$ , from which we obtain commutative versions of the orthogonality relations for matrix elements of the corepresentations. It turns out that these are in fact bi-orthogonality relations for terminating very-well-poised balanced elliptic hypergeometric $`{}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}`$-series (or elliptic $`6j`$-symbols).

Notation: We denote by $`\theta (z)`$ the normalized Jacobi theta function

$$\theta (z)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1zp^j\right)\left(1p^{j+1}/z\right),|p|<1,$$

where $`p`$ is a fixed parameter that is suppressed from the notation. It satisfies

$$\theta (pz)=\theta (z^1)=z^1\theta (z),$$

and the addition formula

$$\theta (xy,x/y,zw,z/w)=\theta (xw,x/w,zy,z/y)+(z/y)\theta (xz,x/z,yw,y/w),$$
(1.1)
where we use the notation

$$\theta (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)=\theta (a_1)\mathrm{}\theta (a_n).$$

We define elliptic Pochhammer symbols by

$$(a)_n=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\theta (aq^{2i}),$$

with $`q`$ another fixed parameter. We will frequently write

$$(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k)_n=(a_1)_n\mathrm{}(a_k)_n.$$

Elliptic binomial coefficients are defined by

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}k\\ l\end{array}\right]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{\theta (q^{2(kl+i)})}{\theta (q^{2i})}.$$

Finally, the balanced very-well-poised elliptic hypergeometric series is defined by

$${}_{r+1}{}^{}\omega _{r}^{}(a_1;a_4,a_5,\mathrm{},a_{r+1})=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\theta (a_1q^{4k})}{\theta (a_1)}\frac{(a_1,a_4,\mathrm{},a_{r+1})_kq^{2k}}{(q^2,a_1q^2/a_4,\mathrm{},a_1q^2/a_{r+1})_k},$$

where $`(a_4\mathrm{}a_{r+1})^2=a_1^{r3}q^{2(r5)}`$. In this paper all series terminate, i.e. one of the $`a_i`$ is of the form $`q^{2n}`$ with $`n`$ a nonnegative integer, so there are no convergence problems. Let us emphasize that in this paper all elliptic factorials and elliptic hypergeometric series are in base $`q^2,p`$.

## 2. Elliptic $`U(2)`$ quantum group

In this section we recall the definition of $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroids (also known as dynamical quantum groups) and the FRST-construction. We start with the definition of the quantum dynamical Yang-Baxter equation with spectral parameter and give in (2.2) the $`R`$-matrix to which we apply the FRST-construction. The generators and relations for the resulting $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroid have been studied by Felder and Varchenko . The paper  contains hardly any proofs, so we provide a proof of one of their results in Lemma 2.6.

Let $`𝔥`$ be a finite dimensional complex vector space, viewed as a commutative Lie algebra and $`V=_{\alpha 𝔥^{}}V_\alpha `$ a diagonalizable $`𝔥`$-module. The quantum dynamical Yang-Baxter equation with spectral parameter (QDYBE) is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill R^{12}(\lambda h^{(3)},z_{12})R^{13}(\lambda ,z_{13})R^{23}(\lambda h^{(1)},z_{23})=R^{23}(\lambda ,z_{23})R^{13}(\lambda h^{(2)},z_{13})R^{12}(\lambda ,z_{12}).\end{array}$$
(2.1)
Here $`R:𝔥^{}\times \mathrm{End}(VV)`$ is a meromorphic function, $`h`$ indicates the action of $`𝔥`$, the upper indices are leg-numbering notation for the tensor product and $`z_{ij}=z_i/z_j`$. For instance, $`R^{12}(\lambda h^{(3)},z)`$ denotes the operator $`R^{12}(\lambda h^{(3)},z)(uvw)=R(\lambda \mu ,z)(uv)w`$ for $`wV_\mu `$. An $`R`$-matrix is by definition a solution of the QDYBE (2.1) which is $`𝔥`$-invariant.

In the example we study, $`𝔥`$ is one-dimensional. We identify $`𝔥=𝔥^{}=`$ and take $`V`$ to be the two-dimensional $`𝔥`$-module $`V=e_1e_1`$. In the basis $`e_1e_1`$, $`e_1e_1`$, $`e_1e_1`$, $`e_1e_1`$ the $`R`$-matrix is given by

$$R(\lambda ,z)=R(\lambda ,z,p,q)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& a(\lambda ,z)& b(\lambda ,z)& 0\\ 0& c(\lambda ,z)& d(\lambda ,z)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(2.2)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a(\lambda ,z)=\frac{\theta (z)\theta (q^{2(\lambda +2)})}{\theta (q^2z)\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)})},& b(\lambda ,z)=\frac{\theta (q^2)\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)}z)}{\theta (q^2z)\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)})},\hfill \\ \hfill c(\lambda ,z)=\frac{\theta (q^2)\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)}z)}{\theta (q^2z)\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)})},& d(\lambda ,z)=\frac{\theta (z)\theta (q^{2\lambda })}{\theta (q^2z)\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)})}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.3)
The $`R`$-matrix defined by (2.2) satisfies the QDYBE (2.1), see .

### 2.1. $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroids

In this subsection we recall the notion of $`𝔥`$-bialgebroids and $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroids (or dynamical quantum groups) originally introduced by Etingof and Varchenko , see also . For the definition of the antipode in an $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroid we follow . We discuss the FRST-construction that associates an $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid to an $`𝔥`$-invariant matrix, see , .

Let $`𝔥`$ be a finite dimensional complex vector space. Denote the field of meromorphic functions on the dual of $`𝔥`$ by $`M_𝔥^{}`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

An $`𝔥`$-algebra is a complex associative algebra $`A`$ with $`1`$, which is bigraded over $`𝔥^{}`$, $`A=_{\alpha ,\beta 𝔥^{}}A_{\alpha \beta }`$, and equipped with two algebra embeddings $`\mu _l`$, $`\mu _r:M_𝔥^{}A_{00}`$ (the left and right moment map) such that

$$\mu _l(f)a=a\mu _l(T_\alpha f),\mu _r(f)a=a\mu _r(T_\beta f),\text{for all }aA_{\alpha \beta },fM_𝔥^{},$$

where $`T_\alpha `$ denotes the automorphism $`(T_\alpha f)(\lambda )=f(\lambda +\alpha )`$.

A morphism of $`𝔥`$-algebras is an algebra homomorphism preserving the moment maps.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be two $`𝔥`$-algebras. The matrix tensor product $`A\stackrel{~}{}B`$ is the $`𝔥^{}`$-bigraded vector space with $`(A\stackrel{~}{}B)_{\alpha \beta }=_{\gamma 𝔥^{}}(A_{\alpha \gamma }_{M_𝔥^{}}B_{\gamma \beta })`$, where $`_{M_𝔥^{}}`$denotes the usual tensor product modulo the relations

$$\mu _r^A(f)ab=a\mu _l^B(f)b,\text{for all }aA,bB,fM_𝔥^{}.$$
(2.4)
The multiplication $`(ab)(cd)=acbd`$ for $`a`$, $`cA`$ and $`b`$, $`dB`$ and the moment maps $`\mu _l(f)=\mu _l^A(f)1`$ and $`\mu _r(f)=1\mu _r^B(f)`$ make $`A\stackrel{~}{}B`$ into an $`𝔥`$-algebra.

###### Example.

Let $`D_𝔥`$ be the algebra of difference operators in $`M_𝔥^{}`$, consisting of the operators $`_if_iT_{\beta _i}`$, with $`f_iM_𝔥^{}`$ and $`\beta _i𝔥^{}`$. This is an $`𝔥`$-algebra with the bigrading defined by $`fT_\beta (D_𝔥)_{\beta \beta }`$ and both moment maps equal to the natural embedding.

For any $`𝔥`$-algebra $`A`$, there are canonical isomorphisms $`AA\stackrel{~}{}D_𝔥D_𝔥\stackrel{~}{}A`$, defined by

$$xxT_\beta T_\alpha x,\text{for all }xA_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(2.5)
The algebra $`D_𝔥`$ plays the role of the unit object in the category of $`𝔥`$-algebras.

###### Definition 2.2.

An $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid is an $`𝔥`$-algebra $`A`$ equipped with two $`𝔥`$-algebra homomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Delta }:AA\stackrel{~}{}A`$ (the comultiplication) and $`\epsilon :AD_𝔥`$ (the counit) such that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }id)\mathrm{\Delta }=(id\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`(\epsilon id)\mathrm{\Delta }=id=(id\epsilon )\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (under the identifications (2.5)).

###### Definition 2.3.

An $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroid is an $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid $`A`$ equipped with a $``$-linear map $`S:AA`$, the antipode, such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}& S(\mu _r(f)a)=S(a)\mu _l(f),S(a\mu _l(f))=\mu _r(f)S(a),\text{for all }aA,fM_𝔥^{},\hfill \\ & m(idS)\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=\mu _l(\epsilon (a)1),\text{for all }aA,\hfill \\ & m(Sid)\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=\mu _r(T_\alpha (\epsilon (a)1)),\text{for all }aA_{\alpha \beta },\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`m:A\stackrel{~}{}AA`$ denotes the multiplication and $`\epsilon (a)1`$ is the result of applying the difference operator $`\epsilon (a)`$ to the constant function $`1M_𝔥^{}`$.

If there exists an antipode on an $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid, it is unique. Furthermore, the antipode is anti-multiplicative, anti-comultiplicative, unital, counital and interchanges the moment maps $`\mu _l`$ and $`\mu _r`$, see \[15, Prop. 2.2\].

The FRST-construction provides many examples of $`𝔥`$-bialgebroids, see , , , . We recall the construction.

Let $`𝔥`$ and $`M_𝔥^{}`$ be as before, $`V=_{\alpha 𝔥^{}}V_\alpha `$ be a finite-dimensional diagonalizable $`𝔥`$-module and $`R:𝔥^{}\times \mathrm{End}_𝔥(VV)`$ a meromorphic function that commutes with the $`𝔥`$-action on $`VV`$. Let $`\{e_x\}_{xX}`$ be a homogeneous basis of $`V`$, where $`X`$ is an index set. Write $`R_{xy}^{ab}(\lambda ,z)`$ for the matrix elements of $`R`$,

$`R(\lambda ,z)(e_ae_b)={\displaystyle \underset{x,yX}{}}R_{xy}^{ab}(\lambda ,z)e_xe_y,`$
and define $`\omega :X𝔥^{}`$ by $`e_xV_{\omega (x)}`$. Let $`A_R`$ be the unital complex associative algebra generated by the elements $`\{L_{xy}(z)\}_{x,yX}`$, with $`z`$, together with two copies of $`M_𝔥^{}`$, embedded as subalgebras. The elements of these two copies will be denoted by $`f(\lambda )`$ and $`f(\mu )`$, respectively. The defining relations of $`A_R`$ are $`f(\lambda )g(\mu )=g(\mu )f(\lambda )`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill f(\lambda )L_{xy}(z)=L_{xy}(z)f(\lambda +\omega (x)),f(\mu )L_{xy}(z)=L_{xy}(z)f(\mu +\omega (y)),\end{array}$$
(2.6)
for all $`f`$, $`gM_𝔥^{}`$, together with the $`RLL`$-relations

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x,yX}{}}R_{ac}^{xy}(\lambda ,z_1/z_2)L_{xb}(z_1)L_{yd}(z_2)={\displaystyle \underset{x,yX}{}}R_{xy}^{bd}(\mu ,z_1/z_2)L_{cy}(z_2)L_{ax}(z_1),`$ (2.7)
for all $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$ and $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`dX`$.

The bigrading on $`A_R`$ is defined by $`L_{xy}(z)A_{\omega (x),\omega (y)}`$ and $`f(\lambda )`$, $`f(\mu )A_{0,0}`$. The moment maps defined by

$`\mu _l(f)=f(\lambda ),\mu _r(f)=f(\mu ),`$ (2.8)
make $`A_R`$ into a $`𝔥`$-algebra. The $`𝔥`$-invariance of $`R`$ ensures that the bigrading is compatible with the $`RLL`$-relations (2.7).

Finally the co-unit and co-multiplication defined by

$$\epsilon (L_{ab}(z))=\delta _{ab}T_{\omega (a)},\epsilon (f(\lambda ))=\epsilon (f(\mu ))=f,$$
(2.9)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(L_{ab}(z))=\underset{xX}{}L_{ax}(z)L_{xb}(z),\mathrm{\Delta }(f(\lambda ))=f(\lambda )1,\mathrm{\Delta }(f(\mu ))=1f(\mu ),$$
(2.10)
equip $`A_R`$ with the structure of an $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid, see .

### 2.2. Elliptic $`U(2)`$ quantum group

We now give the results of the generalized FRST-construction when applied to the $`R`$-matrix (2.2), see . Let $`0<q<1`$, $`0<p<1`$. We assume that $`p`$, $`q`$ are generic, it suffices to take $`p`$ and $`q`$ algebraically independent over $``$. We denote the corresponding $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid by $`_R(M(2))`$, it is an elliptic analogue of the algebra of polynomials on the space of complex $`2\times 2`$-matrices. The four $`L`$-generators will be denoted by $`\alpha (z)=L_{1,1}(z)`$, $`\beta (z)=L_{1,1}(z)`$, $`\gamma (z)=L_{1,1}(z)`$ and $`\delta (z)=L_{1,1}(z)`$.

###### Definition 2.4.

The $`𝔥`$-algebroid $`_R(M(2))`$ is generated by $`\alpha (z)`$, $`\beta (z)`$, $`\gamma (z)`$, $`\delta (z)`$, $`z`$, together with two copies of $`M_𝔥^{}`$ denoted by $`f(\lambda )`$, $`f(\mu )`$. The defining relations are

$`\begin{array}{cc}& \alpha (z_1)\alpha (z_2)=\alpha (z_2)\alpha (z_1),\beta (z_1)\beta (z_2)=\beta (z_2)\beta (z_1),\hfill \\ & \gamma (z_1)\gamma (z_2)=\gamma (z_2)\gamma (z_1),\delta (z_1)\delta (z_2)=\delta (z_2)\delta (z_1),\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.11a)
$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill \alpha (z_1)\beta (z_2)=a(\mu ,z_{12})\beta (z_2)\alpha (z_1)+c(\mu ,z_{12})\alpha (z_2)\beta (z_1),\\ \hfill \beta (z_1)\alpha (z_2)=b(\mu ,z_{12})\beta (z_2)\alpha (z_1)+d(\mu ,z_{12})\alpha (z_2)\beta (z_1),\end{array}`$ (2.11b)
$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill a(\lambda ,z_{12})\alpha (z_1)\gamma (z_2)+b(\lambda ,z_{12})\gamma (z_1)\alpha (z_2)=\gamma (z_2)\alpha (z_1),\\ \hfill c(\lambda ,z_{12})\alpha (z_1)\gamma (z_2)+d(\lambda ,z_{12})\gamma (z_1)\alpha (z_2)=\alpha (z_2)\gamma (z_1),\end{array}`$ (2.11c)
$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill \gamma (z_1)\delta (z_2)=a(\mu ,z_{12})\delta (z_2)\gamma (z_1)+c(\mu ,z_{12})\gamma (z_2)\delta (z_1),\\ \hfill \delta (z_1)\gamma (z_2)=b(\mu ,z_{12})\delta (z_2)\gamma (z_1)+d(\mu ,z_{12})\gamma (z_2)\delta (z_1),\end{array}`$ (2.11d)
$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill a(\lambda ,z_{12})\beta (z_1)\delta (z_2)+b(\lambda ,z_{12})\delta (z_1)\beta (z_2)=\delta (z_2)\beta (z_1),\\ \hfill c(\lambda ,z_{12})\beta (z_1)\delta (z_2)+d(\lambda ,z_{12})\delta (z_1)\beta (z_2)=\beta (z_2)\delta (z_1),\end{array}`$ (2.11e)
$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill a(\lambda ,z_{12})\alpha (z_1)\delta (z_2)+b(\lambda ,z_{12})\gamma (z_1)\beta (z_2)=a(\mu ,z_{12})\delta (z_2)\alpha (z_1)+c(\mu ,z_{12})\gamma (z_2)\beta (z_1),\\ \hfill c(\lambda ,z_{12})\alpha (z_1)\delta (z_2)+d(\lambda ,z_{12})\gamma (z_1)\beta (z_2)=a(\mu ,z_{12})\beta (z_2)\gamma (z_1)+c(\mu ,z_{12})\alpha (z_2)\delta (z_1),\\ \hfill a(\lambda ,z_{12})\beta (z_1)\gamma (z_2)+b(\lambda ,z_{12})\delta (z_1)\alpha (z_2)=b(\mu ,z_{12})\delta (z_2)\alpha (z_1)+d(\mu ,z_{12})\gamma (z_2)\beta (z_1),\\ \hfill c(\lambda ,z_{12})\beta (z_1)\gamma (z_2)+d(\lambda ,z_{12})\delta (z_1)\alpha (z_2)=b(\mu ,z_{12})\beta (z_2)\gamma (z_1)+d(\mu ,z_{12})\alpha (z_2)\delta (z_1),\end{array}`$ (2.11f)
with $`z_{12}=z_1/z_2`$, together with $`f(\lambda )g(\mu )=g(\mu )f(\lambda )`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f(\lambda )\alpha (z)=\alpha (z)f(\lambda +1),& f(\mu )\alpha (z)=\alpha (z)f(\mu +1),\hfill \\ \hfill f(\lambda )\beta (z)=\beta (z)f(\lambda +1),& f(\mu )\beta (z)=\beta (z)f(\mu 1),\hfill \\ \hfill f(\lambda )\gamma (z)=\gamma (z)f(\lambda 1),& f(\mu )\gamma (z)=\gamma (z)f(\mu +1),\hfill \\ \hfill f(\lambda )\delta (z)=\delta (z)f(\lambda 1),& f(\mu )\delta (z)=\delta (z)f(\mu 1).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.12)
The bigrading $`_R(M(2))=_{m,n,m+n2}_{mn}`$ is defined on the generators by

$$\alpha (z)_{1,1},\beta (z)_{1,1},\gamma (z)_{1,1},\delta (z)_{1,1},f(\lambda ),f(\mu )_{0,0}.$$

The comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }:_R(M(2))_R(M(2))\stackrel{~}{}_R(M(2))`$ and counit $`\epsilon :_R(M(2))D_𝔥`$ are algebra homomorphisms defined on the generators by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (z)=\alpha (z)\alpha (z)+\beta (z)\gamma (z),& \mathrm{\Delta }\beta (z)=\alpha (z)\beta (z)+\beta (z)\delta (z),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\gamma (z)=\gamma (z)\alpha (z)+\delta (z)\gamma (z),& \mathrm{\Delta }\delta (z)=\gamma (z)\beta (z)+\delta (z)\delta (z),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }f(\lambda )=f(\lambda )1,& \mathrm{\Delta }f(\mu )=1f(\mu ),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.13)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \epsilon (\alpha (z))=T_1,\epsilon (\beta (z))=\epsilon (\gamma (z))=0,\epsilon (\delta (z))=T_1,\epsilon (f(\lambda ))=\epsilon (f(\mu ))=f.\end{array}$$

###### Remark 2.5.

Since $`a(\lambda ,q^2)=c(\lambda ,q^2)`$ and $`b(\lambda ,q^2)=d(\lambda ,q^2)`$ we see that the $`R`$-matrix (2.2) is singular for $`z=q^2`$. Using (1.1) we compute

$$\mathrm{det}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a(\lambda ,z)& b(\lambda ,z)\\ c(\lambda ,z)& d(\lambda ,z)\end{array}\right)=q^2\frac{\theta (zq^2)}{\theta (zq^2)}.$$

We find that $`z=q^2`$, up to powers of $`p`$, is the only zero of the determinant of $`R`$. In the case $`z_{12}=q^2`$ the right hand side of the relations in (2.11b) are multiples of each other, so this also holds for the left hand sides giving $`b(\mu ,q^2)\alpha (q^2z)\beta (z)=a(\mu ,q^2)\beta (q^2z)\alpha (z)`$. Simplifying this identity and doing the same for (2.11c)-(2.11e) we find

$`\theta (q^{2\mu })\alpha (q^2z)\beta (z)`$ $`=q^2\theta (q^{2(\mu +2)})\beta (q^2z)\alpha (z),`$ (2.14a)
$`\gamma (z)\alpha (q^2z)`$ $`=\alpha (z)\gamma (q^2z),`$ (2.14b)
$`\theta (q^{2\mu })\gamma (q^2z)\delta (z)`$ $`=q^2\theta (q^{2(\mu +2)})\delta (q^2z)\gamma (z),`$ (2.14c)
$`\delta (z)\beta (q^2z)`$ $`=\beta (z)\delta (q^2z).`$ (2.14d)
From the relations (2.11f) we obtain three independent relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a(\lambda ,q^2)\alpha (q^2z)\delta (z)+b(\lambda ,q^2)\gamma (q^2z)\beta (z)& =a(\mu ,q^2)[\gamma (z)\beta (q^2z)+\delta (z)\alpha (q^2z)],\hfill \\ \hfill a(\lambda ,q^2)\beta (q^2z)\gamma (z)+b(\lambda ,q^2)\delta (q^2z)\alpha (z)& =b(\mu ,q^2)[\gamma (z)\beta (q^2z)+\delta (z)\alpha (q^2z)],\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha (z)\delta (q^2z)+\beta (z)\gamma (q^2z)& =\gamma (z)\beta (q^2z)+\delta (z)\alpha (q^2z).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.15)
From (2.3) we see that $`a(\lambda ,z)`$, $`b(\lambda ,z)`$, $`c(\lambda ,z)`$ and $`d(\lambda ,z)`$ have a simple pole for $`z=q^2`$. The residual relations of (2.7) are the relations obtained by multiplying by $`z_{12}q^2`$ and taking the limit $`z_{12}q^2`$, see . By convention, we interpret (2.7) so that these are also suppose to hold. The residual relations of (2.11b), respectively (2.11c), (2.11d), (2.11e) are linearly dependent and simplify to (2.14). The residual relations of (2.11f) reduce to three independent relations of which two can be derived from (2.15). The independent relation can be written as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b(\mu ,q^2)\gamma (q^2z)\beta (z)a(\mu ,q^2)\delta (q^2z)\alpha (z)& =a(\lambda ,q^2)[\gamma (z)\beta (q^2z)\alpha (z)\delta (q^2z)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.16)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\epsilon `$ preserve the commutation relations (2.14)-(2.16).

The following lemma is \[9, Theorem $`13`$\]; where it is stated without proof.

###### Lemma 2.6.

The element

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{det}(z)& =\frac{F(\mu )}{F(\lambda )}\left[\alpha (z)\delta (q^2z)\gamma (z)\beta (q^2z)\right]\hfill \\ & =\frac{F(\mu )}{F(\lambda )}\left[\delta (z)\alpha (q^2z)\beta (z)\gamma (q^2z)\right]\hfill \\ & =\frac{q^\mu }{q^\lambda }\left[\frac{\theta (q^{2(\mu +2)})}{\theta (q^{2(\lambda +2)})}\delta (q^2z)\alpha (z)\frac{\theta (q^{2\mu })}{q^2\theta (q^{2(\lambda +2)})}\gamma (q^2z)\beta (z)\right]\hfill \\ & =\frac{q^\mu }{q^\lambda }\left[\frac{\theta (q^{2\mu })}{\theta (q^{2\lambda })}\alpha (q^2z)\delta (z)\frac{q^2\theta (q^{2(\mu +2)})}{\theta (q^{2\lambda })}\beta (q^2z)\gamma (z)\right],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`F(\mu )=q^\mu \theta (q^{2(\mu +1)})`$, is a central element of $`_R(M(2))`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{det}(z))=\mathrm{det}(z)\mathrm{det}(z)`$ and $`\epsilon (\mathrm{det}(z))=1`$.

###### Proof.

To see that the four expressions are equal we note that the first equality is just the third equation of (2.15), the last equality follows from the equality obtained by eliminating the right hand side in the first two equations of (2.15). The equality of the first and the third expression is (2.16).

To prove that the element $`\mathrm{det}(z)`$ is central we have to show that it commutes with every generator of the algebra, i.e. $`\mathrm{det}(z)`$ commutes with $`\alpha (w)`$, $`\beta (w)`$, $`\gamma (w)`$, $`\delta (w)`$, $`f(\mu )`$ and $`f(\lambda )`$ for all $`z`$, $`w`$. We write down the proof of $`\beta (w)\mathrm{det}(z)=\mathrm{det}(z)\beta (w)`$ in detail, the other relations can be proved analogously. Using (LABEL:eqn:RLLabcd), (2.11e) and (2.11b) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta (w)& \mathrm{det}(z)=F(\mu +1)/F(\lambda 1)\left[\beta (w)\delta (z)\alpha (q^2z)\beta (z)\beta (w)\gamma (q^2z)\right]\hfill \\ \hfill =& F(\mu +1)/F(\lambda 1)\left[c(\lambda ,z/w)\beta (z)\delta (w)\alpha (q^2z)+d(\lambda ,z/w)\delta (z)\beta (w)\alpha (q^2z)\beta (z)\beta (w)\gamma (q^2z)\right]\hfill \\ \hfill =& F(\mu +1)/F(\lambda 1)[c(\lambda ,z/w)\beta (z)\delta (w)\alpha (q^2z)\beta (z)\beta (w)\gamma (q^2z)\hfill \\ & +d(\lambda ,z/w)\{b(\mu +1,w/(q^2z))\delta (z)\beta (q^2z)\alpha (w)+d(\mu +1,w/(q^2z))\delta (z)\alpha (q^2z)\beta (w)\}]\hfill \\ \hfill =& F(\mu +1)/F(\lambda 1)[c(\lambda ,z/w)\beta (z)\delta (w)\alpha (q^2z)\beta (z)\beta (w)\gamma (q^2z)\hfill \\ & +d(\lambda ,z/w)\{b(\mu +1,w/(q^2z))\beta (z)\delta (q^2z)\alpha (w)+d(\mu +1,w/(q^2z))\delta (z)\alpha (q^2z)\beta (w))\}],\hfill \end{array}$$

where we used (2.14d) in the last step. Since

$$c(\lambda +1,z/w)=\frac{b(\lambda ,w/(q^2z))}{a(\lambda ,w/(q^2z))},d(\lambda +1,z/w)=\frac{1}{a(\lambda ,w/(q^2z))},$$
(2.17)
we can simplify the last expression using the third relation of (2.11f),

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta (w)\mathrm{det}(z)=& F(\mu +1)/F(\lambda 1)[\frac{d(\mu +1,w/(q^2z))}{a(\lambda ,w/(q^2z))}\beta (z)\gamma (q^2z)\beta (w)\hfill \\ & +d(\mu +1,w/(q^2z))d(\lambda ,z/w)\delta (z)\alpha (q^2z)\beta (w)]\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{det}(z)\beta (w),\hfill \end{array}$$

where we use again the second relation of (2.17) and

$$F(\mu +1)F(\lambda )d(\mu +1,w/(q^2z))d(\lambda ,z/w)=F(\mu )F(\lambda 1),$$

in the last step. From the definition of $`\epsilon `$ it follows that $`\epsilon (\mathrm{det}(z))=1`$. Furthermore,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{det}(z))=& (\frac{1}{F(\lambda )}F(\mu ))([\alpha (z)\delta (q^2z)\gamma (z)\beta (q^2z)]\alpha (z)\delta (q^2z)\hfill \\ & +[\beta (z)\gamma (q^2z)\delta (z)\alpha (q^2z)]\gamma (z)\beta (q^2z))\hfill \\ \hfill =& \left(\frac{1}{F(\lambda )}F(\mu )\right)\left(F(\lambda )/F(\mu )\mathrm{det}(z)[\alpha (z)\delta (q^2z)\gamma (z)\beta (q^2z)]\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{det}(z)\mathrm{det}(z),\hfill \end{array}$$

where we use (2.14b) and (2.14d) in the first equality. ∎

To $`_R(M(2))`$ we adjoin the central element $`\mathrm{det}^1(z)`$ subject to the relation $`\mathrm{det}(z)\mathrm{det}^1(z)=1`$. The comultiplication and counit extend by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{det}^1(z))=\mathrm{det}^1(z)\mathrm{det}^1(z),\epsilon (\mathrm{det}^1(z))=1.$$

It is easily checked that the resulting algebra, denoted by $`_R(GL(2,))`$, is an $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid. Note that $`\mathrm{det}(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{det}^1(z)`$ have $`(0,0)`$-bigrading. In the dynamical representations of Proposition 4.2 we consider later, $`\mathrm{det}(z)`$ does not act as $`id`$, see Remark 4.3. Therefore we do not put $`\mathrm{det}(z)=1`$.

###### Lemma 2.7.

The $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid $`_R(GL(2,))`$ is an $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroid with the antipode $`S`$ defined by $`S(\mathrm{det}^1(z))=\mathrm{det}(z)`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S(\alpha (z))=\frac{F(\mu )}{F(\lambda )}\mathrm{det}^1(q^2z)\delta (q^2z),& S(\beta (z))=\frac{F(\mu )}{F(\lambda )}\mathrm{det}^1(q^2z)\beta (q^2z),\hfill \\ \hfill S(\gamma (z))=\frac{F(\mu )}{F(\lambda )}\mathrm{det}^1(q^2z)\gamma (q^2z),& S(\delta (z))=\frac{F(\mu )}{F(\lambda )}\mathrm{det}^1(q^2z)\alpha (q^2z),\hfill \\ \hfill S(f(\lambda ))=f(\mu ),& S(f(\mu ))=f(\lambda ),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.18)
on the generators and extended as an algebra antihomomorphism.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 2.2 of  we only have to check that on the generators we have

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}S(\alpha (z))& S(\beta (z))\\ S(\gamma (z))& S(\delta (z))\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha (z)& \beta (z)\\ \gamma (z)& \delta (z)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha (z)& \beta (z)\\ \gamma (z)& \delta (z)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}S(\alpha (z))& S(\beta (z))\\ S(\gamma (z))& S(\delta (z))\end{array}\right),$$
(2.19)
and that the antipode preserves the defining relations of the algebra. The proof is straightforward, using the $`RLL`$-relations and Lemma 2.6. Note that we need the residual relation (2.16) for the second equality in (2.19). ∎

Next we give a $``$-structure to the obtained $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroid. Therefore we recall the definition of a $``$-structure on $`𝔥`$-bialgebroids, see . Assuming $`\overline{}:𝔥𝔥`$ is a conjugation, we put $`\overline{f}(\lambda )=\overline{f(\overline{\lambda })}`$, $`fM_𝔥^{}`$. A $``$-operator on an $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid $`A`$ is a $``$-antilinear, antimultiplicative involution on $`A`$ satisfying $`\mu _l(\overline{f})=\mu _l(f)^{}`$, $`\mu _r(\overline{f})=\mu _r(f)^{}`$ and $`()\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\epsilon =^{D_𝔥}\epsilon `$ where $`^{D_𝔥}`$ is defined by $`(fT_\alpha )^{}=T_{\overline{\alpha }}\overline{f}`$. We use complex conjugation on $`𝔥`$.

###### Lemma 2.8.

The $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroid $`_R(GL(2,))`$ has a $``$-structure defined on the generators by $`\mathrm{det}^1(z)^{}=\mathrm{det}^1(q^2/\overline{z})`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha (z)^{}=\delta (1/\overline{z}),\beta (z)^{}=\gamma (1/\overline{z}),& \gamma (z)^{}=\beta (1/\overline{z}),\delta (z)^{}=\alpha (1/\overline{z}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.20)
We call this $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroid the elliptic $`U(2)`$ quantum group and denote it by $`_R(U(2))`$.

###### Proof.

We can easily check that this definition preserves the defining relations of the algebra, that it is an involution and that we have $`()\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\epsilon =^{D_𝔥}\epsilon `$. ∎

###### Remark 2.9.

Note that $`S(\mathrm{det}(z))=\mathrm{det}^1(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{det}(z)^{}=\mathrm{det}(q^2/\overline{z})`$.

## 3. Corepresentations of the elliptic $`U(2)`$ quantum group

Before discussing a special corepresentation of the elliptic $`U(2)`$ quantum group, we recall the general definition of a corepresentation of an $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid on an $`𝔥`$-space, see .

###### Definition 3.1.

An $`𝔥`$-space is a vector space over $`M_𝔥^{}`$ which is also a diagonalizable $`𝔥`$-module, $`V=_{\alpha 𝔥^{}}V_\alpha `$, with $`M_𝔥^{}V_\alpha V_\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha 𝔥^{}`$. A morphism of $`𝔥`$-spaces is an $`𝔥`$-invariant (i.e. grade preserving) $`M_𝔥^{}`$-linear map.

We next define the tensor product of an $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid $`A`$ and an $`𝔥`$-space $`V`$. Put $`A\stackrel{~}{}V=`$ $`_{\alpha ,\beta 𝔥^{}}(A_{\alpha \beta }_{M_𝔥^{}}V_\beta )`$ where $`_{M_𝔥^{}}`$ denotes the usual tensor product modulo the relations $`\mu _r^A(f)av=afv`$. The grading $`A_{\alpha \beta }_{M_𝔥^{}}V_\beta (A\stackrel{~}{}V)_\alpha `$ and the extension of scalars $`f(av)=\mu _l^A(f)av`$, $`aA`$, $`vV`$, $`fM_𝔥^{}`$, make $`A\stackrel{~}{}V`$ into an $`𝔥`$-space.

###### Definition 3.2.

A (left) corepresentation of an $`𝔥`$-bialgebroid $`A`$ on an $`𝔥`$-space $`V`$ is an $`𝔥`$-space morphism $`\rho :VA\stackrel{~}{}V`$ such that

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }id)\rho =(id\rho )\rho ,(\epsilon id)\rho =id.$$
(3.1)
The first equality is in the sense of the natural isomorphism $`(A\stackrel{~}{}A)\stackrel{~}{}VA\stackrel{~}{}(A\stackrel{~}{}V)`$ and in the second identity we use the identification $`VD_𝔥\stackrel{~}{}V`$ defined by $`fT_\alpha vfv`$, $`fM_𝔥^{}`$, for all $`vV_\alpha `$.

Choose a homogeneous basis $`\{v_k\}_k`$ of $`V`$ over $`M_𝔥^{}`$, $`v_kV_{\omega (k)}`$, and introduce the corresponding matrix elements of a corepresentation $`\rho `$ by $`\rho (v_k)=_jt_{kj}v_j`$. For these matrix elements we have from (3.1)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_{ij})=\underset{k}{}t_{ik}t_{kj},\epsilon (t_{ij})=\delta _{ij}T_{\omega (i)},$$

and Definition 2.3 implies

$$\delta _{kl}=\underset{j}{}S(t_{kj})t_{jl}=\underset{j}{}t_{kj}S(t_{jl}).$$
(3.2)
Our next objective is to construct explicit corepresentations of $`_R(U(2))`$. Define, with the convention that the empty product is $`1`$,

$$v_k=v_k(z)=\gamma (z)\gamma (q^2z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(Nk1)})\alpha (q^{2(Nk)})\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(N1)}z),k\{0,1,\mathrm{},N\},$$
(3.3)
and put $`V_{2kN}=\mu _l(M_𝔥^{})v_k`$, $`V=V^N=_{k=0}^NV_{2kN}`$. Then $`V`$ is an $`𝔥`$-space with the multiplication by $`fM_𝔥^{}`$ given by the left moment map $`\mu _l`$. Note that the grading on $`V`$ is compatible with Definition 2.4. We show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }:V^N_R(U(2))\stackrel{~}{}V^N`$ making $`V^N`$ a corepresentation of $`_R(U(2))`$, see Theorem 3.4.

We start with the following preparatory lemma.

###### Lemma 3.3.

In the $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroid $`_R(U(2))`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha (q^{2k}z)\beta (q^{2(l1)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)=& \frac{\theta (q^{2(kl+1)},q^{2(\mu +l+1)})}{\theta (q^{2(k+1)},q^{2(\mu +1)})}\beta (z)\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(l1)}z)\alpha (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & +\frac{\theta (q^2,q^{2(\mu +k+1)})}{\theta (q^{2(k+1)},q^{2(\mu +1)})}\underset{i=0}{\overset{l1}{}}\beta (z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2i}z)\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(l1)}z)\beta (q^{2k}z),\hfill \end{array}$$

for all $`kl1`$.

###### Proof.

For $`l=1`$ this is (2.11b). In order to provide for the induction step we interchange the order of the $`\beta `$’s by (LABEL:eqn:RLLabcd), use the case $`l=1`$ and then the induction hypothesis with $`zq^2z`$, $`kk1`$ finishes the proof using (2.12) and (2.3). ∎

###### Theorem 3.4.

In the $`𝔥`$-Hopf algebroid $`_R(U(2))`$, with $`v_k(z)`$ defined by (3.3), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(v_k(z))=\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z)v_j(z),\end{array}$$
(3.4)
where the matrix-elements $`t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z)`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z)=& \underset{l=\mathrm{max}(0,k+jN)}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(k,j)}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}k\\ l\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}Nk\\ jl\end{array}\right]\frac{(q^{2(\mu +Nk2j+l+2)})_l}{(q^{2(\mu +N2j+2)})_l}\frac{(q^{2(\mu +lj+2)})_{jl}}{(q^{2(\mu +N2jk+2l+2)})_{jl}}\hfill \\ & \times \gamma (q^{2(Nk1)}z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(Njk+l)}z)\delta (q^{2(Njk+l1)}z)\mathrm{}\delta (z)\hfill \\ & \times \alpha (q^{2(N1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(Nl)}z)\beta (q^{2(Nl1)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(Nk)}z).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

We first deal with the cases $`k=N`$ and $`k=0`$, and get the general result from the homomorphism property of the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Claim.

For all $`k_0`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha (z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z))=& \underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}C_{kl}(\mu )\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\beta (q^{2(kl1)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)\hfill \\ & \gamma (z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(kl1)}z)\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
where the coefficients $`C_{kl}(\mu )M_𝔥^{}`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill C_{kl}(\mu )=\left[\begin{array}{c}k\\ l\end{array}\right]\frac{(q^{2(\mu l+2)})_l}{(q^{2(\mu +k2l+2)})_l}.\end{array}$$

Note that $`C_{k,0}=C_{k,k}=1`$. We prove the claim by induction on $`k`$. For $`k=1`$ this is just Definition 2.4 of the comultiplication on $`\alpha (z)`$. Assume that the claim is true for $`k`$. Then we obtain from (2.13) and repeated application of (2.14b) that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha (z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2k}z))=& \mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha (z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z))\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha (q^{2k})z)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}C_{kl}(\mu )\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\beta (q^{2(kl1)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)\beta (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & \gamma (z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(kl1)}z)\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z)\gamma (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & +\underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}C_{kl}(\mu )\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\beta (q^{2(kl1)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)\alpha (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & \gamma (z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(kl1)}z)\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z)\alpha (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}C_{k,l}(\mu )\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\beta (q^{2(kl1)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)\beta (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & \gamma (z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(kl)}z)\alpha (q^{2(kl+1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & +\underset{l=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}C_{k,l1}(\mu )\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(kl+1)}z)\beta (q^{2(kl)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)\alpha (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & \gamma (z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(kl)}z)\alpha (q^{2(kl+1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2k}z).\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`l=0`$ and $`l=k+1`$, we have $`C_{k+1,0}(\mu )=C_{k,0}(\mu )=1`$ and $`C_{k+1,k+1}(\mu )=C_{k,k}(\mu )=1`$ respectively. So it remains to prove that for $`1lk`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C_{k+1,l}(\mu )\alpha (q^{2k}z)& \mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(kl+1)}z)\beta (q^{2(kl)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)\hfill \\ \hfill =& C_{k,l}(\mu )\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\beta (q^{2(kl1)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)\beta (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & +C_{k,l1}(\mu )\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(kl+1)}z)\beta (q^{2(kl)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)\alpha (q^{2k}z).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.6)
Using

$$C_{k,l1}(\mu )=C_{k,l}(\mu )\frac{\theta (q^{2l},q^{2(\mu +k2l+3)},q^{2(\mu +k2l+2)})}{\theta (q^{2(kl+1)},q^{2(\mu +kl+2)},q^{2(\mu l+2)})},$$

and (2.12) we obtain that the right hand side of (3.6) equals

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C_{kl}(\mu )& \alpha (q^{2(k1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(kl+1)}z)\hfill \\ & \times [\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\beta (q^{2(kl1)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)\beta (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & +\frac{\theta (q^{2l},q^{2(\mu +kl+2)},q^{2(\mu +kl+1)})}{\theta (q^{2(kl+1)},q^{2(\mu +k+1)},q^{2(\mu +1)})}\beta (q^{2(kl)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z)\alpha (q^{2k}z)].\hfill \end{array}$$

By Lemma 3.3, with $`(k,l)`$ replaced by $`(kl,kl)`$ the term in square brackets equals

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\theta (q^2,q^{2(\mu +kl+1)})}{\theta (q^{2(kl+1)},q^{2(\mu +1)})}& \underset{n=0}{\overset{kl1}{}}\beta (z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2n}z)\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(kl)}z)\beta (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & +\frac{\theta (q^2,q^{2(\mu +kl+1)})}{\theta (q^{2(kl+1)},q^{2(\mu +1)})}\beta (z)\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(kl1)}z)\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\beta (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & +\frac{\theta (q^{2l},q^{2(\mu +kl+2)},q^{2(\mu +kl+1)})}{\theta (q^{2(kl+1)},q^{2(\mu +k+1)},q^{2(\mu +1)})}\beta (z)\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(kl)}z)\alpha (q^{2k}z),\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\theta (q^{2(k+1)},q^{2(\mu +kl+1)})}{\theta (q^{2(kl+1)},q^{2(\mu +k+1)})}& [\frac{\theta (q^{2l},q^{2(\mu +kl+2)})}{\theta (q^{2(k+1)},q^{2(\mu +1)})}\beta (z)\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(kl)z})\alpha (q^{2k}z)\hfill \\ & +\frac{\theta (q^2,q^{2(\mu +k+1)})}{\theta (q^{2(k+1)},q^{2(\mu +1)})}\underset{n=0}{\overset{kl}{}}\beta (z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2n}z)\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(kl)}z)\beta (q^{2k}z)]\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\theta (q^{2(k+1)},q^{2(\mu +kl+1)})}{\theta (q^{2(kl+1)},q^{2(\mu +k+1)})}& \alpha (q^{2k}z)\beta (q^{2(kl)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (z),\hfill \end{array}$$

where we use Lemma 3.3 with $`(k,l)`$ replaced by $`(k,kl+1)`$ in the last step. Using (LABEL:eqn:RLLabcd) and (2.12) we see that the right hand side of (3.6) equals the left hand side using

$$C_{k+1,l}(\mu )=C_{k,l}(\mu )\frac{\theta (q^{2(k+1)},q^{2(\mu +k2l+2)})}{\theta (q^{2(kl+1)},q^{2(\mu +kl+2)})}.$$

This proves the claim.

Since the ($`\alpha `$,$`\beta `$)- and the ($`\gamma `$,$`\delta `$)-commutation relations are similar by (2.11b), (2.11d), (2.14a), (2.14c), we analogously have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma (z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(k1)}z))=& \underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}C_{kl}(\mu )\gamma (q^{2(k1)}z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(kl)}z)\delta (q^{2(kl1)}z)\mathrm{}\delta (z)\hfill \\ & \gamma (z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(kl1)}z)\alpha (q^{2(kl)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(k1)}z).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.7)
Using (3.5), (3.7) and that the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a morphism we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma (z)& \mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(Nk1)}z)\alpha (q^{2(Nk)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(N1)}z))\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma (z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(Nk1)}z))\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha (q^{2(Nk)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(N1)}z))\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{Nk}{}}C_{Nk,m}(\mu )C_{k,l}(\mu 2m+Nk)\gamma (q^{2(Nk1)}z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(Nkm)}z)\hfill \\ & \times \delta (q^{2(Nkm1)}z)\mathrm{}\delta (z)\alpha (q^{2(N1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(Nl)}z)\beta (q^{2(Nl1)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(Nk)}z)\hfill \\ & \gamma (z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(Nml1)}z)\alpha (q^{2(Nml)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(N1)}z),\hfill \end{array}$$

where we use (2.12), (2.14b). Substituting $`m=jl`$ gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z)=& \underset{l=\mathrm{max}(0,j+kN)}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(k,j)}{}}C_{Nk,jl}(\mu )C_{k,l}(\mu +N2j+2lk)\hfill \\ & \times \gamma (q^{2(Nk1)}z)\mathrm{}\gamma (q^{2(Nkj+l)}z)\delta (q^{2(Nkj+l1)}z)\mathrm{}\delta (z)\hfill \\ & \times \alpha (q^{2(N1)}z)\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(Nl)}z)\beta (q^{2(Nl1)}z)\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(Nk)}z),\hfill \end{array}$$

which proves the theorem. ∎

In the next proposition we prove that this corepresentation is unitary in a certain sense. Note that this property is an extension of unitarizability of a corepresentation introduced in .

###### Proposition 3.5.

The matrix elements $`t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z)`$ of the corepresentation in Theorem 3.4 satisfy

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(\mu )S(t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z))^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(\lambda )t_{jk}^N(\mu ,q^{2(N2)}/\overline{z})\underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{det}^1(q^{2i}/\overline{z}),$$

with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(\mu )=\left[\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right]\frac{(q^{2(\mu k+2)})_k}{(q^{2(\mu +N2k+2)})_k}\underset{i=0}{\overset{Nk1}{}}\frac{q^{(\mu +N2ki)}}{\theta (q^{2(\mu +N2ki+1)})}\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\frac{q^{(\mu k+i)}}{\theta (q^{2(\mu k+i+1)})}.$$

###### Proof.

To simplify the formulas in the proof we denote $`D=_{i=0}^{N1}\mathrm{det}^1(q^{2i}/\overline{z})`$, $`G_{Nk}(\mu )=\left[\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right]\frac{(q^{2(\mu k+2)})_k}{(q^{2(\mu N2k+2)})_k}`$ and $`F_k(\mu )=_{i=0}^{k1}F(\mu +i)`$ where $`F`$ is defined in Lemma 2.6.

From Theorem 3.4 we see that the matrix elements $`t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z)`$ for $`k`$ or $`j`$ equal to $`0`$ or $`N`$ consist of a single term. Using Lemmas 2.7, 2.8 and the relations in Definition 2.4 proves the proposition in case $`j=N`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [S(t_{kN}^N(\mu ,z))]^{}=& D\frac{F_{Nk}(\mu k+1)}{F_{Nk}(\lambda N)}\frac{F_k(\lambda k)}{F_k(\mu k)}\hfill \\ & \times \alpha (q^2/\overline{z})\mathrm{}\alpha (q^{2(k2)}/\overline{z})\beta (q^{2(k1)}/\overline{z})\mathrm{}\beta (q^{2(N2)}/\overline{z})\hfill \\ \hfill =& D\frac{F_{Nk}(\mu k+1)}{F_{Nk}(\lambda N)}\frac{F_k(\lambda k)}{F_k(\mu k)}G_{Nk}(\mu )^1t_{Nk}^N(\mu ,q^{2(N2)}/\overline{z}).\hfill \end{array}$$

From $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_{kN}^N(\mu ,z))=_{j=0}^Nt_{kj}^N(\mu ,z)t_{jN}^N(\mu ,z)`$ and $`\sigma ((S)(S))\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(S)`$ we obtain

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}S(t_{jN}^N(\mu ,z))^{}S(t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z))^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }(S(t_{kN}^N(\mu ,z))^{}).$$

This relation gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}& F_{Nj}(\mu j+1)F_j(\mu j)G_{Nj}(\mu )^1t_{Nj}^N(\mu ,q^{2(N2)}/\overline{z})S(t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z))^{}\hfill \\ & =[1DF_{Nk}(\mu k+1)F_k(\mu k)G_{Nk}(\mu )^1]\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}t_{Nj}^N(\mu ,q^{2(N2)}/\overline{z})t_{jk}^N(\mu ,q^{2(N2)}/\overline{z}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\{t_{Nj}^N(\mu ,z)\}_{j=0}^N`$ are linearly independent (this follows easily from Proposition 4.2 and Lemma 4.4), the identity holds termwise. So (2.4) proves the proposition. ∎

## 4. Discrete bi-orthogonality for elliptic hypergeometric series

Using Proposition 3.5 we can reformulate the orthogonality relations (3.2) for the matrix elements as

$`\delta _{kl}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(t_{jl}^N(\mu ,z))^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(\mu )}}t_{jk}(\mu ,q^{2(N2)}/\overline{z}){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{det}^1(q^{2i}/\overline{z})`$ (4.1a)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_l(\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(\mu )}}t_{lj}^N(\mu ,q^{2(N2)}/\overline{z})(t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z))^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{det}^1(q^{2i}/\overline{z}).`$ (4.1b)
To obtain commutative versions of (4.1), we need to represent the algebra $`_R(U(2))`$ explicitly. For this we need the notion of a dynamical representation of an $`𝔥`$-algebra, see , , , .

Let $`V=_{\alpha 𝔥^{}}V_\alpha `$ be an $`𝔥`$-space and let $`(D_{𝔥,V})_{\alpha \beta }`$ be the space of $``$-linear operators $`U`$ on $`V`$ such that $`U(gv)=T_\beta (g)U(v)`$ and $`U(V_\gamma )V_{\gamma +\beta \alpha }`$ for all $`gM_𝔥^{}`$, $`vV_\beta `$, $`\gamma 𝔥^{}`$. Then the space $`D_{𝔥,V}=_{\alpha ,\beta 𝔥^{}}(D_{𝔥,V})_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is an $`𝔥`$-algebra with the moment maps $`\mu _l`$, $`\mu _r:M_𝔥^{}(D_{𝔥,V})_{00}`$ given by $`\mu _l(f)(v)=T_\alpha (f)(v)`$ and $`\mu _r(f)(v)=fv`$ for all $`vV_\alpha `$.

###### Definition 4.1.

A dynamical representation of an $`𝔥`$-algebra $`A`$ on an $`𝔥`$-space $`V`$ is an $`𝔥`$-algebra homomorphism $`AD_{𝔥,V}`$.

###### Proposition 4.2.

(see ) Let $`\omega `$ be arbitrary and $`^\omega `$ be the $`𝔥`$-space with basis $`\{e_k\}_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and weight decomposition $`^\omega =_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{\omega 2k}^\omega `$, $`_{\omega 2k}^\omega =M_𝔥^{}e_k`$. Then there exists a dynamical representation $`\pi ^\omega :_R(M(2))D_{𝔥,^\omega }`$, defined on the generators by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \pi ^\omega (\alpha (z))(ge_k)=A_k(\lambda ,z)T_1ge_k,\pi ^\omega (\beta (z))(ge_k)=B_k(\lambda ,z)T_1ge_{k+1}\hfill \\ & \pi ^\omega (\gamma (z))(ge_k)=C_k(\lambda ,z)T_1ge_{k1},\pi ^\omega (\delta (z))(ge_k)=D_k(\lambda ,z)T_1ge_k\hfill \\ & \pi ^\omega (\mu _r(f))(ge_k)=f(\lambda )ge_k,\pi ^\omega (\mu _l(f))(ge_k)=f(\lambda \omega +2k)ge_k,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.2)
where $`gM_𝔥^{}`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_k(\lambda ,z)& =q^{2k}\frac{\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)2k})\theta (zq^{\omega 2k+1})}{\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)})\theta (zq^{\omega +1})},\hfill \\ \hfill B_k(\lambda ,z)& =q^k\frac{\theta (q^2)\theta (zq^{2(\lambda +1)+\omega 2k1})}{\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)})\theta (zq^{\omega +1})},\hfill \\ \hfill C_k(\lambda ,z)& =q^{(k1)}\frac{\theta (q^{2k})\theta (q^{2(\omega k+1)})\theta (zq^{2(\lambda +1)\omega +2k1})}{\theta (q^2)\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)})\theta (zq^{\omega +1})},C_0(\lambda ,z)=0,\hfill \\ \hfill D_k(\lambda ,z)& =\frac{\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1\omega +k)})\theta (zq^{\omega +2k+1})}{\theta (q^{2(\lambda +1)})\theta (zq^{\omega +1})}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The dynamical representation preserves the defining relations (2.11), (2.12) of the algebra as can be checked by use of (1.1). ∎

###### Remark 4.3.

Using the addition formula (1.1) we obtain

$$\pi ^\omega (\mathrm{det}(z))=q^\omega \frac{\theta (zq^{1\omega })}{\theta (zq^{1+\omega })}id,$$

so $`\mathrm{det}(z)`$ acts as a scalar. Note that this scalar is $`1`$ if $`\omega =0`$.

The action of a matrix element in the dynamical representation can be calculated in terms of elliptic hypergeometric series.

###### Lemma 4.4.

For the dynamical representation of Proposition 4.2 we have

$$\pi ^\omega (t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z))(ge_m)=\tau _{kjm}^{N\omega }(\lambda ,z)(T_{N2j}g)e_{m+kj},$$

where $`\tau _{kjm}^{N\omega }(\lambda ,z)`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau _{kjm}^{N\omega }(\lambda ,z)=& (1)^{Nk}\theta (q^2)^{kj}q^{\frac{3}{2}k(k1)+N(N+1)+\frac{5}{2}j(j+1)+2N(\lambda k2j)+m(kj)+3jk2k\lambda }\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(q^{2(\lambda +1)},q^{2(m+kj+1)},q^{2(Nkj+1)},q^{2(\omega mk+1)},zq^{2(\lambda +N2j+m+2)\omega 1})_j}{(q^2,q^{2(\lambda +Nk2j+2)},q^{2(\lambda j+2)})_j}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(zq^{2(\lambda 2j+m+k)+\omega 1})_k}{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j)})_k}\frac{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j\omega +m)},zq^{2(m+k)\omega +1})_{Nkj}}{(q^{2(\lambda j+1)})_{Nkj}}\frac{1}{(zq^{\omega +1})_N}\hfill \\ & \times {}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}[q^{2(\lambda +N2jk+1)};q^{2k},q^{2j},q^{2(\lambda j+1)},q^{2(\lambda +N2j\omega +m+1)},\hfill \\ & q^{2(\lambda +N+2+m2j)},zq^{2(Nmk)+\omega +1},z^1q^{2(m+k1)+\omega 1}].\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

From Proposition 4.2 and Theorem 3.4 it follows

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \pi ^\omega (t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z))(ge_m)=& \underset{l=\mathrm{max}(0,k+jN)}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(k,j)}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}k\\ l\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}Nk\\ jl\end{array}\right]\frac{(q^{2(\lambda +Nk2j+l+2)})_l}{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j+2)})_l}\frac{(q^{2(\lambda +lj+2)})_{jl}}{(q^{2(\lambda +N2jk+2l+2)})_{jl}}\hfill \\ & \times \underset{n=0}{\overset{jl1}{}}C_{m+kln}(\lambda j+l+1+n,q^{2(n+Nkj+l)}z)\hfill \\ & \times \underset{n=0}{\overset{Nkj+l1}{}}D_{m+kl}(\lambda +Nk2j+2l1n,q^{2n}z)\hfill \\ & \times \underset{n=0}{\overset{jl1}{}}A_{m+kl}(\lambda +n+Nk2j+l+1,q^{2(Nl+n)}z)\hfill \\ & \times \underset{n=0}{\overset{kl1}{}}B_{m+n}(\lambda +N2j1n,q^{2(n+Nk)}z)(T_{N2j}g)e_{m+kj}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.3)
This gives the required form of the lemma, and it remains to show that we can identify $`\tau _{kjm}^{N\omega }(\lambda ,z)`$ with an elliptic hypergeometric series. From the explicit expressions of Proposition 4.2 we see that we can rewrite the four products in terms of elliptic factorials

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{n=0}{\overset{jl1}{}}A_{m+kl}(\lambda +n+Nk2j+l+1,q^{2(Nl+n)}z)=(1)^lz^lq^{2l(lN)l(\omega +l)}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j+m+2)},zq^{2(Nmk)+\omega +1},q^{2(\lambda +N2jk+2)})_l}{(q^{2(N1)\omega 1}/z)_l(q^{2(\lambda +N2jk+2)})_{2l}},\hfill \\ & \underset{n=0}{\overset{kl1}{}}B_{m+n}(\lambda +N2j1n,q^{2(n+Nk)}z)=(1)^lq^{2l(m+kl)+l(l+1)+\frac{1}{2}(kl)(2m+kl1)}\hfill \\ & \times \theta (q^2)^k\frac{(q^{2(\lambda +N2jk+1)},q^{2(N1)\omega 1}/z)_l(zq^{2(\lambda +k+m2j)+\omega 1})_k}{(q^{2(\lambda +m2j+1)\omega +1})_l(q^{2(\lambda +N2j)},zq^{2(Nk)+\omega +1})_k},\hfill \\ & \underset{n=0}{\overset{jl1}{}}C_{m+kln}(\lambda j+l+1+n,q^{2(n+Nkj+l)}z)=(1)^l\theta (q^2)^j\hfill \\ & \times q^{j(l+1mk)l(m+k+2)+\frac{1}{2}(jl)(jl1)}\frac{(q^{2(\lambda j+2)},zq^{2(Nkj)+\omega +1})_l}{(q^{2(m+k)},q^{2(\omega mk+1)},zq^{2(\lambda +N2j+m+2)\omega 1})_l}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(q^{2(\omega mk+1)},zq^{2(\lambda +N2j+M+2)\omega 1},q^{2(m+kj+1)})_j}{(q^{2(\lambda j+2)},zq^{2(Nkj)+\omega +1})_j},\hfill \\ & \underset{n=0}{\overset{Nkj+l1}{}}D_{m+kl}(\lambda +Nk2j+2l1n,q^{2n}z)=(1)^{Njk+l}z^l\hfill \\ & \times q^{(Njk)(2\lambda +N3jk+2l+2)+l(\omega +l)}\frac{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j\omega +m)},zq^{2(m+k)\omega +1})_{Nkj}}{(q^{2(\lambda j+1)},zq^{\omega +1})_{Nkj}}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j\omega +m+1)},q^{2(\lambda j+1)},q^{2(m+k1)+\omega 1}/z)_l}{(q^{2(\lambda +N2jk+1)})_{2l}(zq^{2(Nkj)+\omega +1})_l},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.4)
where we use elementary transformation formulas for the elliptic factorials including

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill (aq^{4l})_l=(1)^l(aq^{4l})^lq^{l(l1)}\frac{(q^2/a)_{2l}}{(q^2/a)_l}.\end{array}$$

Furthermore for the elliptic binomials and the other factor in (4.3) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left[\begin{array}{c}k\\ l\end{array}\right]=(1)^lq^{2l(kl+1)+l(l1)}\frac{(q^{2k})_l}{(q^2)_l},\hfill \\ & \left[\begin{array}{c}Nk\\ jl\end{array}\right]=(1)^lq^{2l(jl+1)+l(l1)}\frac{(q^{2j})_l(q^{2(Nkj+1)})_j}{(q^{2(Nkj+1)})_l(q^2)_j},\hfill \\ & \frac{(q^{2(\lambda +Nk2j+l+2)})_l}{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j+2)})_l}\frac{(q^{2(\lambda +lj+2)})_{jl}}{(q^{2(\lambda +N2jk+2l+2)})_{jl}}=(1)^jq^{2j(\lambda j+2)+j(j1)}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{[(q^{2(\lambda +Nk2j+2)})_{2l}]^2(q^{2(\lambda +1)})_j}{(q^{2(\lambda +Nk2j+2)},q^{2(\lambda +N2j+2)},q^{2(\lambda j+2)},q^{2(\lambda +Nkj+2)})_l(q^{2(\lambda +N2jk+2)})_j}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.5)
Then, substituting (4.4) and (4.5) into (4.3) gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau _{kjm}^{N\omega }(\lambda ,z)=& (1)^{Nk}\theta (q^2)^{kj}q^{\frac{3}{2}k(k1)+N(N+1)+\frac{5}{2}j(j+1)+2N(\lambda k2j)+m(kj)+3jk2k\lambda }\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(q^{2(\lambda +1)},q^{2(m+kj+1)},q^{2(Nkj+1)},q^{2(\omega mk+1)},zq^{2(\lambda +N2j+m+2)\omega 1})_j}{(q^2,q^{2(\lambda +Nk2j+2)},q^{2(\lambda j+2)},zq^{2(Nkj)+\omega +1})_j}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(zq^{2(\lambda 2j+m+k)+\omega 1})_k}{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j)},zq^{2(Nk)+\omega +1})_k}\frac{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j\omega +m)},zq^{2(m+k)\omega +1})_{Nkj}}{(q^{2(\lambda j+1)},zq^{\omega +1})_{Nkj}}\hfill \\ & \times \underset{l=\mathrm{max}(0,k+jN)}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(k,j)}{}}q^{2l}\frac{\theta (q^{2(\lambda +Nk2j+1+2l)})}{\theta (q^{2(\lambda +Nk2j+1)})}\frac{(q^{2(\lambda +N2jk+1)})_l}{(q^2)_l}\frac{(q^{2k})_l}{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j+2)})_l}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(q^{2j})_l}{(q^{2(\lambda +Nkj+2)})_l}\frac{(q^{2(\lambda j+1)})_l}{(q^{2(Nkj+1)})_l}\frac{(q^{2(\lambda +N2j\omega +m+1)})_l}{(q^{2(\omega k+m+1)})_l}\frac{(q^{2(\lambda +N+2+m2j)})_l}{(q^{2(m+k)})_l}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(zq^{2(Nkm)+\omega +1})_l}{(z^1q^{2(\lambda 2j+m+1)\omega +1})_l}\frac{(q^{2(m+k1)+\omega 1}/z)_l}{(zq^{2(\lambda +N2j+m+2)\omega 1})_l}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that if $`k+jN`$ one of the factors in the denominator of the sum, $`(q^{2(Nkj+1)})_l`$, equals zero. However this pole is cancelled by $`(q^{2(Nkj+1)})_j`$.

Analogously we can compute

###### Lemma 4.5.

For the dynamical representations of Proposition 4.2 we have

$$\pi ^\omega ((t_{kj}^N(\mu ,z))^{})(ge_m)=\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{kjm}^{N\omega }(\lambda ,z)(T_{N+2j}g)e_{m+jk},$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{kjm}^{N\omega }(\lambda ,z)`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\tau }_{kjm}^{N\omega }(\lambda ,z)=& q^{2j^2+\frac{1}{2}k(k1)\frac{1}{2}j(j1)+k(1mj)+2m(Njk)+mj+2(Nk)(\lambda k+1)(Nkj)(Nkj1)}\hfill \\ & \times (1)^{Nj}\theta (q^2)^{jk}\frac{(q^{2(Nkj+1)},q^{2(\lambda N+2j+1)},q^{2(\lambda +2jk+m)+\omega +1}/\overline{z})_j}{(q^2)_j(q^{2(\lambda k+2)},q^{2(\lambda +2jN)},q^{2(Nk1)+\omega +1}/\overline{z})_j}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(q^{2(m+jk+1)},q^{2(\omega mj+1)},q^{2(N3\lambda +kmj)\omega 1}/\overline{z})_k}{(q^{2(\lambda k+2)},q^{2(N1)+\omega +1}/\overline{z})_k}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(q^{2(\lambda +j+m+1k)},q^{2(Nk+m1)+\omega +1}/\overline{z})_{Njk}}{(q^{2(\lambda +2N+j)},q^{2(Njk)+\omega +1}/\overline{z})_{Njk}}\hfill \\ & \times {}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}[q^{2(\lambda k+1)};q^{2k},q^{2j},q^{2(\lambda +jN+1)},q^{2(\lambda k\omega +m+j+1)},\hfill \\ & q^{2(\lambda +j+mk+2)},\overline{z}q^{2(Nmj)+\omega 1},q^{2(m+j1)+\omega +1}/\overline{z}].\hfill \end{array}$$

Lemmas 4.4 and 4.5 can be used to convert the relations (4.1) to bi-orthogonality relations for elliptic hypergeometric series. The resulting bi-orthogonality relations of Theorem 4.6 and 4.8 have been obtained previously by Frenkel and Turaev  and Spiridonov and Zhedanov  (see also Remark 4.9).

###### Theorem 4.6.

A bi-orthogonality relation for the elliptic hypergeometric series is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta _{kl}h_k=& \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}w_j{}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}[q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }2lj+1)};q^{2j},q^{2l},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }lN+1)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }l\omega +M+1)},\hfill \\ & q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }l+M+2)},zq^{2(NMjl)+\omega 1},q^{2(M+j+l2)+\omega 1}/z]\hfill \\ & \times {}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}[q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }2kj+1)};q^{2j},q^{2k},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }kN+1)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }l\omega +M+1)},\hfill \\ & q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }k+M+2)},zq^{2(NMjk)+\omega 3},q^{2(M+j+k2)+\omega +1}/z],\hfill \end{array}$$

where the quadratic norm $`h_k`$ and the weight function $`w_j`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h_k=& \frac{(q^2,q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }+M+1)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega +M)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }N)})_k}{(q^{2(M+1)},q^{2N},q^{2(\omega M)},q^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }})_k}\frac{(q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }+1)})_{2k}}{(q^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{2k}}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(zq^{2M\omega 1},q^{2(MN)\omega +5}/z)_k}{(q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }+M)+\omega +1}/z,zq^{2(N\mathrm{\Lambda }M)+\omega 5})_k}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega +2M+1)},q^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }})_N}{(q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }+M+1)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega +M)})_N}\frac{(zq^{\omega 1},zq^{\omega 3})_N}{(zq^{2M\omega 1},zq^{2M)+\omega 3})_N},\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`w_j=:w_1(j,k)w_2(j,l)`$ with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill w_1(j,k)=& q^{2j2k}\frac{\theta (q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega +2MN+1+2j)})}{\theta (q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega +2MN+1)})}\frac{(q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega +2MN+1)})_j}{(q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega +2M+2)})_j}\frac{(zq^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }k+M)\omega 1})_j}{(q^{2(N2Mk)\omega +1}/z)_j}\hfill \\ & \times \frac{(q^{2(M+k+1)},q^{2(Nk)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }k+1)},q^{2(\omega Mk)})_j}{(q^2,q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }N+M+2)},q^{2(M+1)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }2k+1)},q^{2N},q^{2(\omega M)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }N\omega +M+1)})_j},\hfill \\ \hfill w_2(j,l)=& \frac{(q^{2(M+l+1)},q^{2(Nl)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }l+1)},q^{2(\omega Ml)})_j}{(q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }2l+1)})_j}\frac{(q^{2(N3\mathrm{\Lambda }+lM)\omega 1}/z)_j}{(zq^{2(M+l)\omega 1})_j}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Remark 4.7.

These relations are bi-orthogonality relations since there is a shift in the spectral parameter $`z`$. Omitting all other parameters the bi-orthogonality relations are in fact relations of the form

$$\delta _{kl}h_k=\underset{j}{}w_jP_l(j,q^2z)P_k(j,z).$$

###### Proof.

Applying the dynamical representation $`\pi ^\omega `$ of Proposition 4.2 to (4.1a) gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta _{kl}e_m=& \underset{j=\mathrm{max}(0,km)}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{j,l,m+jk}^{N\omega }(\lambda ,z)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(\lambda \omega N+2m+2j2k+2l)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(\lambda N+2l)}\hfill \\ & \times \left[\underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}q^\omega \frac{\theta _p(q^{2i+1+\omega }/\overline{z})}{\theta _p(q^{2i+1\omega }/\overline{z})}\right]\tau _{jkm}^{N\omega }(\lambda N+2l,q^{2(N2)}/\overline{z})e_{mk+l}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Replacing $`\lambda +2l`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`mk`$ by $`M`$ and $`z`$ by $`\overline{z}`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta _{kl}=& \underset{j=\mathrm{max}(0,M)}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega +2M+2jN)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(\mathrm{\Lambda }N)}\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}q^\omega \frac{\theta _p(q^{2i+1+\omega }/z)}{\theta _p(q^{2i+1\omega }/z)}\hfill \\ & \times \stackrel{~}{\tau }_{j,l,M+j}^{N\omega }(\mathrm{\Lambda }2l,\overline{z})\tau _{j,k,M+k}^{N\omega }(\mathrm{\Lambda }N,q^{2(N2)}/z).\hfill \end{array}$$

Using Lemmas 4.4 and 4.5 and elementary relations for the elliptic factorials proves the theorem. ∎

###### Theorem 4.8.

The dual bi-orthogonality relation for the elliptic hypergeometric series is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta _{kl}=& \underset{j}{}\frac{w_1(l,j)w_2(k,j)}{(h_j)}{}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}[q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }2jl+1)};q^{2l},q^{2j},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }Nj+1)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }j\omega +M+1)},\hfill \\ & q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }+Mj+2)},q^{2(M+j+l2)+\omega +1}/z,zq^{2(M+jN+l+1)+\omega 1}]\hfill \\ & \times {}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}[q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }2jk+1)};q^{2k},q^{2j},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }Nj+1)},q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }j\omega +M+1)},\hfill \\ & q^{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }+Mj+2)},q^{2(M+j+k1)+\omega +1}/z,zq^{2(M+jN+k)+\omega 1}],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`w_1`$, $`w_2`$ and $`h_j`$ are as in Theorem 4.6.

###### Proof.

These dual bi-orthogonality relations can be computed from (4.1b) by applying the dynamical representation. Since the biorthogonal system in Theorem 4.6 is known to be self-dual , we can also obtain the dual relations from Theorem 4.6. ∎

###### Remark 4.9.

In  an elliptic analogue of Bailey’s transformation formula is proved. Let $`bcdefg=a^3q^{2(n+2)}`$ and $`\lambda =a^2q^2/bcd`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}& [a;b,c,d,e,f,g,q^{2n}]=\frac{(aq^2,aq^2/ef,\lambda q^2/e,\lambda q^2/f)_n}{(aq^2/e,aq^2/f,\lambda q^2/ef,\lambda q^2)_n}{}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}[\lambda ;\lambda b/a,\lambda c/a,\lambda d/a,e,f,g,q^{2n}]\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.6)
We can relate the bi-orthogonality relations of Theorem 4.6 and 4.8 to the ones given in . To obtain this relation explicitly we have to apply the elliptic analogue of Bailey’s transformation formula (4.6) twice to both $`{}_{10}{}^{}\omega _{9}^{}`$-functions in our bi-orthogonality relations in different ways. Finally, let us emphasize that we do not need Bailey’s transformation formula to obtain the bi-orthogonality relations of Theorem 4.6 and 4.8 in the symmetric form given.

###### Remark 4.10.

Using the dynamical representation of Proposition 4.2 we can obtain transformation formula (4.6) from the unitarity property of the corepresentations stated in Proposition 3.5.


text:
# BOSE-EINSTEIN AND OTHER CORRELATIONS IN HADRONIC Z DECAY

## 1 3-particle BEC

Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) among $`n`$ identical particles are usually studied in terms of

$$R_n(Q_n)=\frac{\rho _n(Q_n)}{\rho _{n0}(Q_n)}$$
(1)
where $`\rho _n(Q_n)`$ is the $`n`$-particle number density as a function of $`Q_n`$ and $`\rho _{n0}`$ is the density that would occur in the absence of BEC. Here, $`Q_2^2=M_{12}^24m_\pi ^2`$ is the four-momentum difference of a pair of particles, and $`Q_3^2=M_{123}^29m_\pi ^2=Q_{12}^2+Q_{23}^2+Q_{13}^2`$ with $`Q_{ij}`$ the four-momentum difference between the two pions $`i`$ and $`j`$ of the triplet. In the simplest case of a Gaussian-shaped source of radius $`R`$, $`R_2`$ can be parametrized as

$$R_2(Q)=𝒩(1+\alpha Q)(1+\lambda e^{Q^2R^2})$$
(2)
where $`𝒩(1+\alpha Q)`$ serves as normalization, taking into account some long-range correlation in $`Q`$. The density, $`\rho _{n0}`$, of the so-called reference sample is usually taken from unlike-sign pairs, mixed events, or Monte Carlo. The use of unlike-sign pairs is problematic because of the presence of many resonances. The studies reported here do not use unlike-sign pairs as reference sample.

The parameter, $`\lambda `$, is equal to unity if pion production is incoherent and all pions come from the hypothesized source. The latter is certainly not the case because of long-lived resonances, and usually $`\lambda `$ is found to be less than unity. Whether production is indeed incoherent can be investigated by comparing 2- and 3-particle BEC. This was done by l3, and agreement with the hypothesis of complete incoherence was observed.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ This is rather surprizing within a string picture of hadronization, since particles produced close to each other along the string should be rather coherent. The question is whether resonances would be sufficient to destroy this coherence.

## 2 2-particle BEC: $`𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }`$

Measurement of BEC between neutral pions is quite rare, for obvious experimental reasons. In $`\mathrm{e}^+`$$`\mathrm{e}^{}`$ interactions this has only been done by l3$`^\mathrm{?}`$ and, more recently, by opal.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ Experimental exigencies result in quite different analyses. For example, opal requires 2-jet events (thrust, $`T>0.9`$) and $`p_{\pi ^0}>1\mathrm{GeV}`$, whereas l3 uses all topologies and requires $`E_{\pi ^0}<6\mathrm{GeV}`$. The results of both experiments are shown in Fig. 1 and, together with those for charged pions from previous experiments, in Table 1.

The l3 values of both $`\lambda `$ and $`R`$ are about 1.5 standard deviations lower for neutral than for charged pions. Such a result would seem expected in fragmentation models with local charge compensation, such as a string, since two $`\pi ^0`$’s could be produced next to each other while two $`\pi ^+`$’s could not. However, resonances would dilute this effect. And opal does not confirm it,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ preferring to compare their $`\pi ^0`$ result to the lep average rather than to their own previous charged-$`\pi `$ result.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

In fact, at first glance, the $`\pi ^0`$ results of l3 and opal disagree, both for $`\lambda `$ and $`R`$, by about 2 standard deviations. However, we note that the l3 values for charged pions are lower when cuts are imposed analogous to those for the neutral pion analysis. The question is then whether the apparent l3-opal disagreement is not due to the different cuts applied in the analyses. One hopes that opal will do a charged-pion analysis using the same cuts as in their neutral-pion analysis.

## 3 BEC and intermittency

Factorial cumulants have been used by opal to investigate correlations among charged particles $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and among like-sign charged particles.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ The factorial cumulant, $`K_q`$, of order $`q`$ measures the genuine correlations among $`q`$ particles.

The opal results are shown in Fig. 2 for binning in rapidity, $`y`$, and azimuthal angle, $`\varphi `$, with respect to the sphericity axis. The data are compared to various Bose-Einstein models $`^\mathrm{?}`$ available in pythia.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

There is good agreement between the data and the $`\mathrm{BE}_{32}`$ model, while pythia without BE agrees less well. Quite remarkably, this is true not only for $`K_2`$ but also for $`K_3`$ and $`K_4`$ even though $`\mathrm{BE}_{32}`$ contains no explicit 3- or 4-particle correlations. Other BE models agree less well.

However, a recent preliminary l3 analysis with respect to the thrust axis, shown in Fig. 3, presents a less optimistic picture. While $`\mathrm{BE}_{32}`$ agrees better, overall, with the data, While overall agreement with the data is best for $`\mathrm{BE}_{32}`$, the agreement for $`K_2(y)`$ cannot be deemed good, and none of the models gives good agreement in $`\varphi `$.

It must be pointed out that these comparisons may be quite sensitive not only to the details and the values of parameters of the Bose-Einstein model, but also to the fragmentation parameters of pythia. The comparisons suggest, however, that it might be useful to include these cumulants in the tuning of fragmentation and BE-model parameters.

## Acknowledgments

I have benefited from discussions of the opal results with Dr. Edward Sarkisyan. I would also like to thank Ms. Qin Wang, who performed the preliminary l3 factorial cumulant analysis.

## References


text:
# Fluctuations of Quantum Radiation Pressure in Dissipative Fluid

## Abstract

Using the generalized Langevin equations involving the stress tensor approach, we study the dynamics of a perfectly reflecting mirror which is exposed to the electromagnetic radiation pressure by a laser beam in a fluid at finite temperature. Based on the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, the minimum uncertainty of the mirror’s position measurement from both quantum and thermal noises effects including the photon counting error in the laser interferometer is obtained in the small time limit as compared with the ”standard quantum limit”. The result of the large time behavior of fluctuations of the mirror’s velocity in a dissipative environment can be applied to the laser interferometer of the ground-based gravitational wave detector.

It is known that quantum fluctuations of radiation pressure play an essential role in limiting the sensitivity of very precise quantum optical measurements in a laser interferometer which measures small changes in the position of the end mirror for detecting gravitational waves Caves1 ; Caves2 . When a mirror is exposed to a laser beam, its position is coupled to the laser intensity via quantum radiation pressure. The exerted force due to radiation pressure on the mirror can be expressed as the integral of the expectation values of the Maxwell stress tensor operators with respect to some physically realizable quantum states. While the quantum states are not the eigenstates of the stress tensor operators, the radiation force exhibits fluctuations. In WF , Wu and Ford have studied the effects of quantum fluctuations of radiation pressure on a mirror. They obtained the fluctuations in velocity and position of the mirror in terms of the mean squared fluctuations of the stress tensor of quantum electromagnetic fields that are known to suffer from a state-dependent divergence in the coincidence limit WF99 . However, the integrals of these stress tensor correlation functions over space and time that can be directly linked to the mirror’s velocity fluctuations are shown to be finite using the method of integration by parts by assuming a switch-on-switch-off procedure in the laser beam. In this Letter, we would like to generalize this approach by investigating the motion of a mirror driven by a fluctuating electromagnetic radiation force in a dissipative fluid at finite temperature. By calculating the velocity fluctuations of the mirror in this system, we can study how the dynamics of quantum fluctuations of radiation pressure is affected by the dissipative effects.

In classical statistical mechanics, the non-equilibrium dynamics of the Brownian motion in a stationary fluid can be described by a phenomenological but very successful approach, namely the Langevin equations. Incessant collisions of the molecules of the fluid with the Brownian body produce both resistance to the motion of the body as well as fluctuations in its trajectory. The Langevin equations phenomenologically account for these effects by introducing a term proportional to the velocity of the body that incorporates friction and dissipation as well as a stochastic force term that reflects the random kicks of the molecules in the fluid on the body that are thus related by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem . In most of applications, the stochastic noise is assumed to be completely uncorrelated and the coefficient of the friction term determines the relaxation time of the body. Notice that these Langevin equations can be straightforwardly generalized by involving the stress tensor approach to take account of the effects of the fluctuating quantum force due to radiation pressure. In this work, we will adopt this generalized Langevin equations to tackle the issue under consideration.

Here we consider a mirror of mass $`m`$ which is oriented perpendicularly to the $`x`$-direction and is exposed to the electromagnetic radiation pressure in a dissipative fluid of temperature $`T`$. We assume that the incident radiation by a laser beam with a circular spot of radius $`R`$ exerts a fluctuating force $`F`$ on the one side of the mirror in the $`x`$ direction within time interval $`\tau `$. Then the corresponding Langevin equations to describe the motion of the mirror which can be treated classically in such a fluctuating environment is written as PRS ; KJ

$$m\frac{dv}{dt}=\xi v+\eta (t)+F(t),$$
(1)
where $`\xi `$ is the friction coefficient and $`\eta (t)`$ is the stochastic force to account for the random kicks of the molecules of the fluid on the mirror. Its statistical properties can be summarized as follows:

$`\eta (t)`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$
$`\eta (t)\eta (t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\xi K_\mathrm{B}T\delta (tt^{}),`$ (2)
where $`K_\mathrm{B}`$ is Boltzmann’s constant and the average is taken with respect to the ensemble of thermal equilibrium fluctuations of the fluid at finite temperature. The radiation force on the mirror in the $`x`$ direction can be expressed by the area integral of the stress tensor

$$F=_AT_{xx}𝑑a,$$
(3)
where $`T_{ij}`$ is the Maxwell stress tensor. When we treat the incident radiation quantum-mechanically, the expectation value of the stress tensor operator with respect to the quantum state of radiation fields is divergent due to vacuum fluctuations. We can renormalize it by replacing the stress tensor operator $`T_{ij}`$ with a normal ordered one $`:T_{ij}:=T_{ij}T_{ij}_0`$, which means to subtract out the vacuum divergence $`T_{ij}_0`$ such that $`:T_{ij}:_0=0`$. The subtracted vacuum divergence is defined in Minkowski space-time and will not affect the dynamics of the system. Now we want to investigate the dynamics of fluctuations of quantum radiation pressure by calculating the velocity fluctuations of the mirror. From the general argument related to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, one may expect dissipation occurs with respect to the fluctuating radiation force even in vacuum FV ; Polevoi . However, it turns out that the associated dissipative force arising from the creation of quantum radiation by a moving mirror has no significant effects under normal circumstances, and thus can be ignored as compared with the dissipative force ( $`\xi `$-term in Eq.(1) ) from the thermal noise that we will discuss later. We then further assume that the quantum fluctuations of incident radiation and the thermal noise of the fluid are uncorrelated since they are from different sources. Thus, the dispersion of the velocity can be written as the sum of contributions from thermal noise and quantum radiation pressure with respect to some quantum state to be specified later respectively:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2=v^2v^2=\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_T+\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_{\mathrm{RP}},$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2(\tau )_\mathrm{T}=\frac{1}{m^2}_0^\tau _0^\tau e^{\frac{\xi }{m}(\tau t_1)}e^{\frac{\xi }{m}(\tau t_2)}\eta (t_1)\eta (t_2))dt_1dt_2$$
(5)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2(\tau )_{\mathrm{RP}}=\frac{1}{m^2}_0^\tau _0^\tau e^{\frac{\xi }{m}(\tau t_1)}e^{\frac{\xi }{m}(\tau t_2)}\left(F(t_1)F(t_2)F(t_1)F(t_2)\right)𝑑t_1𝑑t_2.$$
(6)
Using the noise correlation functions in Eq.(2), the first term can lead to the known result of the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2(\tau )_T=\frac{2K_\mathrm{B}T}{m}(1e^{\frac{2\xi \tau }{m}}).$$
(7)
Notice that the force-force correlation function in Eq.(6) above can be expressed as the area integral of the correlation function of the stress tensors which is divergent in the coincidence limit where the method of regularization has to be introduced later to remove the divergence consistently Barton . However, it is more convenient to write this correlation function in terms of the normal ordered operator $`:F:=FF_0`$ using the identity which can be justified straightforwardly:

$$F(t_1)F(t_2F(t_1F(t_2=:F(t_1)::F(t_2)::F(t_1)::F(t_2):,$$
(8)
where $`_0`$ refers to taking the expectation value with respect to the Minkowski vacuum. Here we would like to emphasize that in fact, the force-force correlation function that we try to compute here is not the fully normal-ordered one as you can see later. We now follow the approach of Ref.WF  by decomposing the force-force correlation function into the following three terms according to the Wick’s theorem:

$$:F(t_1)::F(t_2):=:F(t_1)F(t_2):+:F(t_1)::F(t_2):_{\mathrm{cross}}+:F(t_1)::F(t_2):_0.$$
(9)
The first term is the fully normal-ordered term, while the last term is the pure Minkowski vacuum term which can be ignored as long as we are only interested in the difference between a given quantum state and the vacuum state. The cross terms contain the products of the normal-ordered two point function and the vacuum two point function, and are divergent in the coincident limit. For a single mode coherent state $`|\alpha `$, the expectation value of the fully normal-ordered force-force correlation can be shown to be equal to the product of the expectation value of the forces

$$:F(t_1)F(t_2):_\alpha =:F(t_1):_\alpha :F(t_2):_\alpha .$$
(10)
Then, the velocity fluctuation is now totally due to the cross term of the stress tensor two point function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_{\mathrm{RP}}=\frac{1}{m^2}_0^\tau _0^\tau _A_Ae^{\frac{\xi }{m}(\tau t_1)}e^{\frac{\xi }{m}(\tau t_2)}:T_{xx}(t_1)::T_{xx}(t_2):_{\mathrm{cross}}da_1da_2dt_1dt_2,$$
(11)
One can show that the cross term of the stress tensor two point function depends on the $`z`$ component of $`B`$ field only

$$:T_{xx}(t_1,x_1)::T_{xx}(t_2,x_2):_{\mathrm{cross}}=:B_z(t_1,x_1)B_z(t_2,x_2):_\alpha B_z(t_1,x_1)B_z(t_2,x_2)_0,$$
(12)
for a linearly polarized plane wave normally incident to a mirror in the $`x`$ direction and with the polarization vector chosen to be in the $`y`$-direction. We then decompose the $`z`$-component of the magnetic field into the mode functions as

$$B_z(x)=\underset{\omega }{}\sqrt{\frac{2\omega }{V}}(a_\omega \mathrm{cos}(\omega x)e^{i\omega t}+a_\omega ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\omega x)e^{i\omega t}),$$
(13)
where $`a`$ and $`a^+`$ are the annihilation and creation operators of the quantum field for a box normalization in a volume $`V`$. The coherent state is an eigenstate of the annihilation operator

$$a_\omega ^{}|\alpha =\delta _{\omega ^{}\omega }\alpha |\alpha ,$$
(14)
where $`\alpha `$ is a complex number. Then, the velocity fluctuation becomes (for details, see Ref.WF )

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_{\mathrm{RP}}=\frac{16\omega |\alpha |^2}{\pi ^2m^2V}_A_AJ𝑑a_1𝑑a_2,$$
(15)
where

$$J=_0^\tau _0^\tau e^{\frac{\xi }{m}(\tau t_1)}e^{\frac{\xi }{m}(\tau t_2)}\frac{(t_1t_2)^2a}{((t_1t_2)^2b^2)^3}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t_1)\mathrm{cos}(\omega t_2)𝑑t_1𝑑t_2,$$
(16)
$$a=(z_1z_2)^2(y_1y_2)^2$$
(17)
and

$$b^2=(z_1z_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2,$$
(18)
where $`\omega `$ is the angular velocity of an incident monochromatic laser beam. It is evident that the dissipative effects can reduce the mirror’s velocity fluctuations that arise from the quantum radiation pressure with a typical relaxation time scale $`\tau m/\xi `$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_{\mathrm{RP}}`$ in Eg.(15) exhibits no explicit temperature dependence since radiation pressure driven by a laser beam on the mirror that we consider here in order to apply our study to the laser interferometer comes from the quantum mechanically coherent state. Thus, the temperature effects on the mirror’s velocity fluctuations are only implicitly though the friction coefficient $`\xi `$.

Now it is of interest to study how the effects of dissipation could possibly reduce the mirror’s position uncertainly that can be applied to the reduction of quantum noise in laser interferometer. To so do, let us consider the time $`\tau `$ where $`\tau m/\xi `$ during which the velocity fluctuations from the thermal noise have not grown to become significantly large, but the time scale $`\tau `$ being still much larger than the intrinsic scale of the quantum source of radiation pressure, i.e., $`\tau \omega 1`$. Taking the series expansion of the integral in terms of the small dimensionless parameter $`\xi \tau /m`$ leads to the following simple result, that is,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_{\mathrm{RP}}\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_{\mathrm{RP}}^0(1\frac{\xi }{m}\tau ),$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_{\mathrm{RP}}^0`$ refers to the mirror’s velocity fluctuations from the quantum radiation pressure in vacuum which has been extensively studied in WF , and is of the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_{\mathrm{RP}}^0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\frac{A\omega \rho }{m^2}\tau .$$
(20)
$`\rho `$ is the mean energy density of an incident laser beam that can be linked to the laser power $`P`$ by $`P=A\rho `$ where $`A`$ is the cross section area of the incident laser beam. Thus, the root mean squared position uncertainly of the mirror is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_{\mathrm{RP}}\frac{\sqrt{wP}}{m}\tau ^{\frac{3}{2}}(1\frac{\xi }{2m}\tau ).$$
(21)
On the other hand, there is another source of quantum noise in the laser interferometer, namely photon counting error, that result in the uncertainty of the location of the interference fringe of order Caves1 ; Caves2

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_{\mathrm{PC}}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\omega P\tau }}.$$
(22)
Now we would like to recall that in fact a key limit to the sensitivity of such position measurement comes from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The reduction of the uncertainty of the position measurement is accompanied by an increase in the uncertainty in the momentum measurement. The limit to sensitivity is referred to as the ”standard quantum limit”, that is, in a measurement of duration $`\tau `$, the minimum possible uncertainty in the determination of the position given by Caves1 ; Caves2

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_{\mathrm{SQL}}=\sqrt{\frac{\tau }{m}}.$$
(23)
This is an intrinsic quantum uncertainty where the error of any position measurement can hardly lies below this quantum limit. Various works have been devoted to the use of constructive states, or squeezed light to reduce the quantum noise and therefore increase the sensitivity of the measurement even further WGU ; WTN . Here we may expect that the dissipative effects from the viscous fluid will also reduce the quantum noise on the mirror’s position uncertainly. To know whether or not it is true, we now minimize the sum of these squared position uncertainties with respect to the power $`P`$ to find a minimum uncertainty of the mirror’s position Caves1 ; Caves2 . By doing so, the optimum laser power is found to be

$$P_{\mathrm{opt}}\frac{m}{2\omega \tau ^2}(1+\frac{\xi }{2m}\tau ),$$
(24)
with the position uncertainty

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_\mathrm{Q}\sqrt{\frac{\tau }{m}}(1\frac{\xi }{4m}\tau )<\mathrm{\Delta }x_{\mathrm{SQL}}.$$
(25)
Presumably, one may conclude that the quantum noise on the mirror’s position measurement can be reduced to even below the standard quantum limit due to the dissipative effects from the interaction with the viscous fluid. However, according to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, the associated thermal noise with respect to the dissipative force will cause further mirror’s position fluctuations by the amount which can be estimated from Eq.(7) in the short time limit $`\xi \tau /m1`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_\mathrm{T}\sqrt{\frac{K_\mathrm{B}T}{2m}}\tau \left(\frac{\xi \tau }{m}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(26)
Then, we find that the net position uncertainty, that is the root mean square of the uncertainties from both quantum and thermal noises, becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_{\mathrm{net}}\sqrt{\frac{\tau }{m}}\left[1+\left(\frac{K_\mathrm{B}T}{\mathrm{}\tau ^1}1\right)\frac{\xi }{4m}\tau \right].$$
(27)
Admittedly, the net position uncertainty is larger than the standard quantum limit for $`K_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{}\tau ^1`$ that is consistent with the short time limit as well as the typical energy scales of the thermal and quantum noises respectively. The above calculation in fact illustrates the fact that the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, that is to state that the thermal noise is accompanied with sources of dissipation PRS ; DSL , indeed plays an essential role in determining the fluctuations of the system. Thus, this result provides a simple example to illustrate the fact that any macroscopic treatments in order to systematically reduce sources of noise and achieve the maximum sensitivity of the measurement in the laser interferometer must be consistently considered by including both fluctuation and dissipation effects that are correlated following the corresponding fluctuation-dissipation theorem JL .

The behavior of the mirror in the late time limit, $`\xi \tau /m1`$ is also of interest to us from which one can study the dynamics of fluctuations of quantum radiation pressure beyond the relaxation time. We first carry out the spatial integral over the area of the mirror exposed by a laser beam in Eq.(15) by assuming that the incident photon flux is uniform over this area, $`A=\pi R^2`$. We also assume that $`\omega R1`$ to simplify the calculations WF . We then change the integrating variables $`u=t_1t_2`$ and $`v=t_1+t_2`$, and Eq.(15) can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_{\mathrm{RP}}=\frac{16\omega |\alpha |^2}{\pi ^2m^2V}I,$$
(28)
where

$$I=\frac{\pi ^2R^2}{8}\left(_\tau ^0𝑑u_u^{u+2\tau }𝑑v+_0^\tau 𝑑u_u^{2\tau u}𝑑v\right)\left(e^{\frac{\xi }{m}v}u^2\left(\frac{1}{(u^2R^2)^2}\frac{1}{u^4}\right)\left(\mathrm{cos}(\omega (v2\tau ))+\mathrm{cos}(\omega u)\right)\right).$$
(29)
We do $`v`$-integral and write the result in terms of the dimensionless variable $`x=\xi u/m`$ as

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2R^2}{4(\xi ^2+m^2\omega ^2)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\xi \tau }{m}}}𝑑xe^xx^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x^2(\frac{\xi R}{m})^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4}}\right)\left(f_1({\displaystyle \frac{mx}{\xi }})f_2({\displaystyle \frac{mx}{\xi }})\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`I_1+I_2,`$
where

$$f_1(\frac{mx}{\xi })=(\xi ^2+m^2\omega ^2)\mathrm{cos}(\frac{m\omega x}{\xi })+\xi ^2\mathrm{cos}(\frac{m\omega x}{\xi }2\omega \tau )m\omega \xi \mathrm{sin}(\frac{m\omega x}{\xi }2\omega \tau )$$
(31)
and

$$f_2(\frac{mx}{\xi })=e^{2(x\frac{\xi \tau }{m})}\left((2\xi ^2+m^2\omega ^2)\mathrm{cos}(\frac{m\omega x}{\xi })+m\omega \xi \mathrm{sin}(\frac{m\omega x}{\xi })\right).$$
(32)
Notice that since this integrand exhibits the singular behavior at $`x=\xi R/m`$, one can define the above integrals in terms of the principal value. In addition, these integrals suffer from the intrinsic ultraviolet divergence from small $`x`$ originally coming from the coincidence limit, and the method of integrations by parts will be implemented later to remove these divergences consistently. Now we restrict our attention to the case of the limit, $`\xi R/m1`$ which is relevant to the ground-based laser interferometer gravitational wave detector as we will study later. Then the above integrals can be further simplified by expanding the term in the integrand of $`I`$ in terms of small parameter $`\xi R/m`$ as

$$\frac{1}{(x^2(\frac{\xi R}{m})^2)^2}\frac{1}{x^4}\frac{2}{x^6}\left(\frac{\xi R}{m}\right)^2+O\left(\frac{\xi R}{m}\right)^3\mathrm{},$$
(33)
and keeping the most dominant term only. Then the singular behavior at $`x=\xi R/m`$ can be removed under this approximation. Here we choose to use the following integration by parts prescription to deal with the intrinsic ultraviolet divergence for small $`x`$ typically of form:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{g(x)}{x^4},$$
(34)
where $`g(x)`$ is a well-behaved function. The basic idea is to replace $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/x^4`$ with $`(1/12)_x^4\mathrm{ln}[x^2]`$, then do the integration by parts, and drop the divergent surface terms. It can be illustrated as follows:

$$\frac{g(x)}{x^4}𝑑x=\frac{1}{12}g(x)_x^4\mathrm{ln}[x^2]dx=\frac{1}{12}_x^4g(x)\mathrm{ln}[x^2]dx.$$
(35)
The surface terms can be removed by assuming that the laser beam is switched on and off adiabatically in time WF . This regularization method has also been employed by various authors under the name of “generalized principal value integration”Davies  or “differential regularization”FJL . In the following, we will analyze the integrals $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ in Eq.(30) separately.

As for the integral $`I_1`$, we can rewrite this integral by using $`_0^{\xi \tau /m}𝑑u=(_0^{\mathrm{}}_{\xi \tau /m}^{\mathrm{}})du`$ as well as the expansion in Eq.(33) as

$`I_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2R^2}{2(\xi ^2+m^2\omega ^2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi R}{m}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{\xi \tau }{m}}^{\mathrm{}}}\right)dx\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^x}{x^4}}f_1({\displaystyle \frac{mx}{\xi }})\right)`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`I_{11}+I_{12}.`$
We now apply the method of integration by parts to the first integral in Eq.(36) which exhibits the ultraviolet divergence for small $`x`$ and then carry out the integral straightforwardly given by

$`I_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2R^2m^3\omega ^3}{24\xi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi R}{m}}\right)^2(2\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{m\omega }{\xi }})(1{\displaystyle \frac{3\xi ^2}{m^2\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi ^2}{m^2\omega ^2}}\mathrm{cos}(2\omega \tau )+({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{m\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^3}{m^3\omega ^3}})\mathrm{sin}(2\omega \tau ))`$ (37)
$`+(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\omega ^2}{\xi ^2}}))({\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^3}{m^3\omega ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\xi }{m\omega }}({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{m\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^3}{m^3\omega ^3}})\mathrm{cos}(2\omega \tau ){\displaystyle \frac{2\xi ^2}{m^2\omega ^2}}\mathrm{sin}(2\omega \tau )))`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3R^4m\omega ^3}{24\xi }}\left(1+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{m\omega }{\xi }}{\frac{m\omega }{\xi }}}\right)\right),`$
where $`\gamma =0.5772157\mathrm{}`$ is Euler’s constant. In the last step, we have used the fact that $`m\omega \xi `$ to be consistent with two previous assumptions, namely $`\omega R1`$ and $`\xi R/m1`$ and the result of the integral can be further approximated by keeping the dominant term only in this limit . However, the second integral in Eq.(36) is expected to give the exponential decay behavior in the long time limit $`\xi \tau /m1`$ which is given by

$`I_{12}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2R^2m^3\omega ^3\xi }{2(\xi ^2+m^2\omega ^2)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi R}{m}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\xi \tau }}\right)^4e^{\frac{\xi \tau }{m}}\left(\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{m^2\omega ^2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau ){\displaystyle \frac{2\xi ^3}{m^3\omega ^3}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )\right)`$ (38)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2R^4m\omega ^3}{2\xi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^4\tau ^4}}\right)e^{\frac{\xi \tau }{m}}\left(\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3\xi ^2}{m^2\omega ^2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{m\omega }}\right)^3\right).`$
Substituting the results of Eq.(37) and Eq.(38) into Eq.(36), we obtain

$$I_1\frac{\pi ^3R^4m\omega ^3}{24\xi }\left(1+e^{\frac{\xi \tau }{m}}\frac{12\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )}{\pi \omega ^4\tau ^4}\left(1\frac{3\xi ^2}{m^2\omega ^2}\right)\right).$$
(39)
We then follow the similar approach as the calculation of the integral $`I_1`$ to compute the integral $`I_2`$ in the large time limit leading to

$`I_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2R^2m^3\omega ^3\xi }{2(\xi ^2+m^2\omega ^2)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi R}{m}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\xi \tau }}\right)^4\left(\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\xi ^2}{m^2\omega ^2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )+2{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi ^3}{m^3\omega ^3}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )e^{\frac{\xi }{m}\tau }\right)\right)`$ (40)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2R^4m\omega ^3}{2\xi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^4\tau ^4}}\right)e^{\frac{\xi \tau }{m}}\left(\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{m^2\omega ^2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{m\omega }}\right)^3\right).`$
We plug all results of $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ in Eq.(39) and Eq.(40) respectively into Eq.(28), and finally can obtain the velocity fluctuations of the mirror driven by quantum radiation pressure in the presence of a dissipative environment as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2_{\mathrm{RP}}=\frac{32C^2|\alpha |^2}{\pi ^2m^2}I=\frac{2\pi \rho \omega ^3R^4}{3m\xi }\left(1e^{\frac{\xi \tau }{m}}\left(\frac{\xi }{m\omega }\right)^2\frac{24\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )}{\pi \omega ^4\tau ^4}\right),$$
(41)
where $`\rho =\omega |\alpha |^2/V`$. This is one of the main results of this work. Note that this result bears analogy to that of the classical Brownian motion with the relaxation time scale mainly determined by the macroscopic parameters, i.e., the ratio of the mass of the mirror to the friction coefficient of the mirror in a fluid. Beyond the relaxation time scale, the velocity fluctuations start to relax to the saturated value. Not too surprisingly, this result is strikingly contrary to the case in which the mirror’s velocity fluctuations driven by quantum radiation pressure in vacuum grows linearly in time in Eq.(20).

As for an application, one can use the result of Eq.(41) to estimate the effects of dissipation on the quantum fluctuations of radiation pressure in the case of the laser interferometer, such as the LIGO interferometer. Now the role of the dissipative force is played by the mechanism of air damping due to the incessant collisions of air molecules with the mirror of a laser interferometer Caves1 ; Caves2 ; AA . The mirror in the ground-based interferometer is of mass $`m10\mathrm{Kg}`$. The laser power is about $`P60\mathrm{W}`$ with a typical angular velocity $`\omega 4\times 10^{15}\mathrm{rad}/\mathrm{s}`$ as well as the spot size $`A=\pi R^23\times 10^5\mathrm{m}^2`$. The gravitational wave detection using the laser interferometer is performed at quite low pressure, say about $`10^6\mathrm{Torr}`$ where the friction coefficient of the mirror in the air can be obtained by summing the momentum transfer between the mirror and each of the molecules of the air. In PRS , the friction coefficient for the $`1\mathrm{Hz}`$ pendulum of mass $`10\mathrm{Kg}`$ at pressure below $`10^6\mathrm{Torr}`$ can be estimated as $`\xi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^8\mathrm{N}\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{m}`$. In this case, one can estimate typical energy dissipation of a mirror per oscillation due to quantum radiation using Eq.(4.18) in Ref. which is more than twenty orders of magnitude smaller than that of thermal noise with the numerical value of the fiction coefficient $`\xi `$ above. This serves as a consistency check on the generalized Langivin equations in Eq.(1) that we start with. Then, with all numerical values of these parameters, the two main assumptions, i.e., $`\omega R1`$ and $`\xi R/m1`$ with which to obtain Eq.(41) are shown to be satisfied. The relaxation time scale for the mirror’s velocity fluctuations can be estimated from $`\tau _{\mathrm{relax}}m/\xi 10^9\mathrm{s}`$ which is much larger than the typical measuring time scale for a ground-based interferometer, $`\tau _o10^2\mathrm{s}`$. In addition, in order to understand quantitatively how the air damping effects reduce the mirror’s velocity fluctuations, one can define $`\gamma `$ as the ratio of the velocity fluctuations in the air (Eq.(41)) to that in vacuum (Eq.(20)). Using the above numerical parameters, we can estimate the time scale when the air damping effects reduce the velocity fluctuations by the amount, say $`10\%`$, i.e., $`\gamma =0.1`$, which is about $`\tau 10^9\tau _{\mathrm{relax}}10^{18}\mathrm{s}`$ twenty orders of magnitude larger than the measuring time scale $`\tau _0`$. We then conclude that the air damping effects cannot significantly reduce the mirror’s velocity fluctuations from the quantum radiation pressure within the measuring time scale in the case of the ground-based laster interferometer. On the other hand, according to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, the associated thermal noise with respect to the air damping effects will cause further fluctuations on the mirror’s velocity in Eq.(7), which have to be reduced in addition to the quantum noise from the radiation pressure in order to increase sensitivity of the measurement in the laser interferometer.

In summary, quantum fluctuations of electromagnetic radiation pressure in a dissipative environment have been studied. We consider a perfectly reflecting mirror which is exposed to the electromagnetic radiation pressure in a dissipative fluid at finite temperature. The dynamics of the mirror in a fluid of temperature $`T`$ can be phenomenologically described by the Langevin equations that involve a linear friction force term as well as an uncorrelated (white) noise that satisfy the classical limit of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Here we use the generalized Langevin equations by adding a fluctuating quantum force term into the equations to incorporate the effects of radiation pressure using the stress tensor approach. We assume that quantum noise from the fluctuations of incident radiation and thermal noise of the fluid are uncorrelated since they are from different sources. Then, we compute the velocity fluctuations of the mirror which can be expressed as the sum of contributions from thermal noise and quantum radiation pressure respectively. The velocity fluctuations from thermal noise is obtained as the result of the classical Brownian motion. However, the calculations of the velocity fluctuations from radiation pressure involve the expectation value of stress tensor two point function which contains some state-dependent divergence in the coincidence limit. The integration by parts prescription by assuming a switch-on-switch-off procedure in laser beam is implemented to remove the ultraviolet divergence consistently. For a linearly polarized quantum coherent state normally incident to a mirror, the velocity fluctuations of the mirror are obtained analytically for both small time and large time limits. In the small time limit before the dynamics of the mirror’s velocity fluctuations is dominated by thermal fluctuations, we find that although the dissipative effects from the interactions of the mirror with the molecules of the fluid can reduce quantum noise on the mirror’s position measurement below the standard quantum limit, according to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, the corresponding thermal noise with respect to the dissipative force will cause further mirror’s position fluctuations that gives rise to the net position uncertainty, that is the root mean square of the uncertainties from both quantum and thermal noises, larger than the standard quantum limit. Thus, this result provides a simple example to illustrate the fact that any macroscopic treatments in order to systematically reduce sources of noise and achieve the maximum sensitivity of the measurement in the laser interferometer must be consistently considered by including both fluctuation and dissipation effects that are correlated following the corresponding fluctuation-dissipation theorem. The result of the large time behavior of the velocity fluctuations of a mirror in a dissipative environment is applied to the laser interferometer of the ground-based gravitational wave detector. The role of the dissipative force in this case is played by the air damping due to the incessant collisions of air molecules with the mirror. Our results reveal that in fact during the measuring time scale, the air damping effects cannot significantly reduce the mirror’s velocity fluctuations from the quantum radiation pressure. This is our first attempt to tackle the issue of fluctuations of quantum radiation pressure in the presence of a dissipative environment. We note that this generalized Langevin equations using the stress tensor approach can be applied to more complicated case, for example, the dynamics of the mirror that undergoes the pendulum motion involving thermal noise of its suspension, while it is exposed by the laser beamAA . The results of this work will have direct impact on the laser interferometer gravitational wave detector, and the work is underway.

We would like to thank Daniel Boyanovsky, Hector de Vega, Larry Ford, and Bei-Lok Hu for their useful discussions. The work of C.-H. Wu and D.-S. Lee were supported in part by the National Science Council, ROC under the grants NSC91-2112-M-259-008.