1 Introduction
The spinless elliptic Calogero-Moser model [5] (of type)
is an example of -body integrable system of classical finite-dimensional mechanics.
Dynamics of particles is defined by the equations
of motion
|
|
|
(1.1) |
where , , are canonically conjugated -valued momenta and positions of
particles,
is a coupling constant, is the Weierstrass elliptic -function and is a free -valued normalization constant.
It was shown by I. Krichever that equations (1.1) are represented in the Lax form
|
|
|
(1.2) |
where
is the spectral parameter.
From (1.2) it follows that , are generating functions of integrals of motion.
Existence of the classical -matrix structure guarantees the involution property , .
In this way the classical Liouville integrability of the model was established.
The Calogero-Moser model (1.1) has the spin generalization [7, 4]. In the classical mechanics
this means existence of the โspinโ component of the phase space, which is a factor space
, where is a coadjoint orbit (of Lie group) and is the Cartan subgroup in . Dynamical variables are elements of a matrix . The model is described on the unreduced phase space, that is when
the spin component of the phase space is . This space is equipped with the linear Poisson-Lie structure
, for , and the Casimir functions
are fixed.
The equations of motion are as follows:
|
|
|
(1.3) |
and
|
|
|
(1.4) |
At the same time the Lax equation on the unreduced phase space
has a certain nontrivial right hand side [4]:
|
|
|
(1.5) |
The unwanted term vanishes on the reduced phase space. For this purpose
one should perform the Poisson reduction
. It includes (the first class) constraints
,
|
|
|
(1.6) |
together with some (gauge) fixation of the coadjoint action of on .
The reduction changes the Poisson brackets and equations of motion. However it is usually not performed explicitly
since there is no any preferred way to fix the action of . Notice also that
the dimension of an orbit depends on the level of fixation of .
For example, in the minimal orbit case , that is and
the reduction kills all spin degrees of freedom reproducing the spinless model (1.1).
In the field case we deal with the field variables. The latter means that the momenta and coordinates of particles
turn into the set of fields and , where is a coordinate on a real line or a circle. For definiteness we assume all the field variables be periodic functions on a circle . The canonical Poisson structure takes the form
, , .
The field analogue of the Calogero-Moser model was introduced in [9] and [10] for case and then was extended to case in [1]. Equations of motion are given by the following set of partial differential equations for , , :
|
|
|
(1.7) |
|
|
|
(1.8) |
where the short notation for partial derivatives is used: ; , e.t.c., and is the Weierstrass -function.
The parameter stands behind , and its power measures the number of -derivatives.
The limit corresponds to the limit to finite-dimensional mechanics, when all the fields
become independent of . In this limit
equations (1.7)-(1.8) become the ordinary differential equations (1.1) with the
normalization constant .
In the field case the Lax equation (1.2) is replaced with the Zakharov-Shabat zero curvature equation [13, 6]:
|
|
|
(1.9) |
The infinite-dimensional analogue of the Liouville integrability is as follows. The integrals of motion
come from the generating function , where
is the monodromy matrix. The involution property follows
from existence of the classical -matrix structure of Maillet type. For the spinless 1+1 Calogero-Moser model
(1.7)-(1.8) the existence of such -matrix structure was recently proved in [14].
The purpose of the paper is to describe the field analogue of the spin Calogero-Moser model
(1.3)-(1.4). In fact, a part of this problem was already solved. The Lax matrix (the -matrix)
for the field analogue of the spin Calogero-Moser model was derived in [10] using
the group-theoretical approach to Hitchin systems on the affine Higgs bundles.
It was also shown that the
constraints (1.5) underlying additional reduction are extended as
with
|
|
|
(1.10) |
where are diagonal elements of the spin field matrix .
These spin variables has the Poisson brackets
on the unreduced phase space โ a coadjoint orbit of the loop group
of -maps
. This allows to describe the classical -matrix
structure with unwanted term on the unreduced phase space [14].
In this paper the equations of motion are deduced. For
this purpose we suggest an ansatz for -matrix satisfying the Zakharov-Shabat equation
with (unwanted term) non-trivial right hand side:
|
|
|
(1.11) |
Similarly to the finite-dimensional case (1.5) the unwanted term vanishes on-shell the constraints , thus providing integrable model on the reduced phase space.
Our construction of - pair works in the special case, when the matrix of spin field variables
satisfies the property
|
|
|
(1.12) |
with some constant , that is eigenvalues of are equal to either or .
The equations are as follows:
|
|
|
(1.13) |
and
|
|
|
(1.14) |
for and , where the function is given in (3.8) and
|
|
|
(1.15) |
|
|
|
(1.16) |
|
|
|
(1.17) |
Two requirements are fulfilled for the obtained equations of motion. On the one hand
equations generalize the finite-dimensional case, that is
(1.3)-(1.4) follow in the limit.
On the other hand the spinless model (1.7)-(1.8)
is reproduced in the special case .
Let us also mention that the field Calogero-Moser model is related to a certain class of Landau-Lifshitz models
through IRF-Vertex relations [2], where the condition plays the same important role [3]. The spinless field Calogero-Moser model can be also extended to the field analogue of the
Ruijsenaars-Schneider model described in terms of semi-discrete Zakharov-Shabat equation [12].
The paper is organized as follows. In the next Section we recall the description of the
classical finite-dimensional spin Calogero-Moser model and reduction to the spinless case.
In Section 3 we briefly review the - pair of the spinless field Calogero-Moser model from [1].
In Section 4 we consider a natural ansatz for -matrix and derive the corresponding equations.
However, a relation to the spinless model cannot be established at this stage. This problem is solved
in Section 5, and the final answer for -matrix and equations of motion are obtained. Finally, it is shown in
Section 6 how the obtained - pair is reduced to the one for the spinless field Calogero-Moser model.
Definitions and properties of elliptic functions are given in the Appendix.
4 1+1 field spin Calogero-Moser model: ansatz for - pair
The -matrix for the 1+1 field spin Calogero-Moser model was derived in [10] by
extending the corresponding moment map equation (defining relation for the Lax matrix)
to the case of loop group. The result is
|
|
|
(4.1) |
and it has exactly the same form as in the finite dimensional case (2.1) but the additional
constraint is different. It is now
|
|
|
(4.2) |
where is (1.10) and is some constant. Equivalently,
|
|
|
(4.3) |
However, the group-theoretical approach of [10] does not provide any constructive approach for
explicit calculation of -matrix. Here we use an ansatz, which is similar to the one
for Landau-Lifshitz equation [15, 3].
Consider the following -matrix:
|
|
|
(4.4) |
where the function is given by (A.13) and is some matrix
to be defined.
Theorem 1
The - pair (4.1) and (4.4) satisfies the Zakharov-Shabat equation with the unwanted term
|
|
|
(4.5) |
and provides the following set of equations:
|
|
|
(4.6) |
|
|
|
(4.7) |
|
|
|
(4.8) |
|
|
|
(4.9) |
and
|
|
|
(4.10) |
In (4.7) the function from (3.8) is used.
Proof.
The proof is by straightforward calculation using identities from the Appendix.
The diagonal part of (4.5) provides (4.8) as coefficient
behind , the diagonal part of (4.10) as coefficient
behind and the equation (4.6) as a constant (in ) term. Expressions
in the off-diagonal part of (4.5) are expanded in linear combination of
the following (linearly independent) functions: , ,
, and .
The coefficients behind and are identities
due to definition of , the coefficient behind provides the off-diagonal part of
(4.10), the coefficient behind provides (4.7) and
the coefficient behind provides (4.9).
In what follows we fix in (4.9). Notice also that (4.8) with
is in agreement with the constraint since (4.8) is rewritten as .
The equations of motion (4.6), (4.7), (4.9) are written in terms of unknown matrix ,
which should be defined from (4.10). Consider satisfying
|
|
|
(4.11) |
Then . Equation (4.11) appears also in the studies of higher rank Landau-Lifshitz and 1+1 Gaudin type models (see e.g. [3, 15]). A possible way to solve it is to impose condition
|
|
|
(4.12) |
where is some constant. Relation (4.12) means that the eigenvalues of matrix are equal
to either or . From (4.12) it follows that (where ). Then it is easy to verify that (4.11) has solution
|
|
|
(4.13) |
that is
|
|
|
(4.14) |
Its diagonal part provides via (4.9) (with )
|
|
|
(4.15) |
and the off-diagonal part of enters equations (4.6)-(4.7).
The diagonal elements remain undefined. At the same time we of course need to
reproduce the finite-dimensional equations (1.3)-(1.4) when all the fields are independent
of (equivalently, when ). When we have , and
. If then
with .
Obviously, redefinition does not effect the Lax equation (1.5).
In this way we come to (1.3)-(1.4).
6 Reduction to the spinless field Calogero-Moser model
Here we show that the obtained equations of motion for the spin field Calogero-Moser model
are in agreement with the equations for the spinless model (1.7)-(1.8) from [1].
For this purpose we perform a reduction to the spinless model.
Since the Hamiltonian is unknown in the field case, our strategy is to use equations of motion
similarly to the calculation (2.12)-(2.16).
Suppose
|
|
|
(6.1) |
The reduction includes the constraints (4.3) together with some
gauge fixation, which we choose to be , that is
|
|
|
(6.2) |
Then we perform the gauge transformation
|
|
|
(6.3) |
|
|
|
(6.4) |
with . As a result of this gauge transformation, the matrix
depends on (which is a function of due to (5.21)-(5.22))
and . Therefore, the spin variables are gauged away similarly to the finite-dimensional case,
and the values of depend on the gauge fixation.
The - pair for the spinless model appear as
|
|
|
(6.5) |
and
|
|
|
(6.6) |
Since
|
|
|
(6.7) |
it is easy to see that the expression in the r.h.s. of (6.6) coincides with (3.4)
up to , which comes from the freedom in definition of , (, ). But this input can be gauged away and we put .
Due to (6.1) the matrix on shell the constraints (6.2) has the form
|
|
|
(6.8) |
Below we assume to be on shell constrains. From (5.22) we conclude that
|
|
|
(6.9) |
and, therefore,
|
|
|
(6.10) |
that is
|
|
|
(6.11) |
Therefore, the function turns into
|
|
|
(6.12) |
as in (3.2). Also, it follows from (6.9) that
|
|
|
(6.13) |
Then , and for
the matrix (5.24) using also (6.11) we obtain
|
|
|
(6.14) |
To finish the derivation of - pair for the spinless model we need to show that the r.h.s. of
(6.6) indeed coincides with (3.5)-(3.7).
Most of terms are easily obtained by substitution of (6.8)-(6.14) into (5.27)
except the diagonal -independent part, which is transformed under the gauge transformation
as
|
|
|
(6.15) |
Let us compute . Due to (2.12)
we need to compute the r.h.s. of on shell the constraints. Using equations of motion
(5.26) it is straightforwardly verified that
|
|
|
(6.16) |
In this way the -matrix (3.5) is reproduced.