\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
The Skyrme model~\cite{skyrme} (SM),  a non-linear field theory for an
$SU(2)$-valued field, is meant to be a low energy effective theory,
describing some interesting aspects of strong interaction physics. In this
model, pions play the role of primary fields (excitations around the
trivial vacuum), whereas nucleons and nuclei are, on the other hand,
represented by topological solitons, collective
excitations which are part of the nonperturbative spectrum of the theory.

The application of the SM to nuclear and hadronic physics has
been quite successful at a qualitative level~\cite{AdNaWi}-\cite{man1}, but
it encounters some problems once a more detailed, quantitative agreement, is
required. The main obstacle for this is the absence of (almost) BPS
solutions in the original SM, as well as in its standard generalizations.
Indeed, although there exists a BPS bound already in the original model, as
proposed by Skyrme, nontrivial soliton solutions cannot saturate this
bound. As a consequence, higher solitons, meant to describe larger nuclei,
are strongly bound, in striking contrast to the weak binding energies of
physical nuclei.

Some alternatives approaches to improve this situation have been recently
advanced. Basically they imply the extension of the symmetries of the Skyrme type theory to conformal transformations \cite{Sut1} or to volume preserving diffeomorphisms \cite{BPS-Sk}. It it the aim of this paper to further
elaborate on one of them, namely, the proposal of~\cite{BPS-Sk}.

The SM may be generalized in a rather straightforward way, by
simply adding some judiciously chosen extra terms to its defining
Lagrangian~\cite{jackson}-\cite{ding}.  Indeed, the addition of extra terms
becomes a quite natural step when one recalls the fact that the SM is an
effective theory, supplemented with the condiment of some simplicity and symmetry
constraints.
In fact, assuming, as one usually does, that we want to maintain the
field content of the original model,  as well as its Poincar\'e invariance and
the standard Hamiltonian interpretation (Lagrangian quadratic in time
derivatives), the number of possible terms is in fact quite restricted.
One may then just have: a potential term (no derivatives), a standard kinetic term (the nonlinear
sigma model term) quadratic in first derivatives, the `Skyrme term'
originally introduced by Skyrme (quartic in derivatives) and,
finally, a term which is the square of the baryon number current
(topological current), which is sextic in derivatives.

As it has been demonstrated in~\cite{BPS-Sk}, there is a submodel, termed
`BPS Skyrme model' (BPSSM), defined by a Lagrangian consisting of
just the potential and sextic terms, which satisfies some quite interesting
properties. Indeed, it possesses a BPS bound, and infinitely many BPS
solutions saturating this bound.  Besides, it has been also shown
in~\cite{BPS-Sk} that the static energy functional of the model is invariant under
an infinite number of symmetry transformations, a fact that is obviously
related to the properties enunciated in the previous sentence.

Among the symmetry transformations, an interesting type are the volume
preserving diffeomorphisms (VPDs), since they  are precisely the symmetries
of an incompressible fluid, a fact pointing to a possible relation to the
liquid drop model for nuclei. The BPSSM, therefore, has several appealing
features from the point of view of the description of nuclei (see, for
example, \cite{BPS-Sk}, \cite{BoMa}). The model is, in fact, constructed assuming that the coherent (topological) excitations play an especially important role in strong interaction physics. This assumption is directly related to the suppression of the usual kinetic term in the Lagrangian and, as a consequence, one might expect that the BPSSM will not lead to reliable results in the weak field regime. To overcome these shortcomings, it may be necessary to augment the lagrangian by further structures for a more consistent description
of nuclear or hadron physics. There are, for instance, initial data for
which the BPSSM does not have a well-defined Cauchy problem; thus, a
standard kinetic term must either be added explicitly or induced by quantum
corrections, to remedy this situation.

We think that the BPSSM provides an approximation which may be quite
reliable for the study of static properties and for the dynamics in a
region of relatively high density (i.e., with a not too small baryon charge
density) like, e.g., in a soliton background.  On the other hand, it will
generally not be reliable in near-vacuum regions, and moreover cannot be
applied at all to consider perturbative phenomena corresponding to quantum
fluctuations of the pion field around the vacuum, since the
dominant term would then be non-quadratic.

Because of the above, it would be important to relate the properties of
solutions of the BPSSM to the corresponding solutions of more general
Skyrme-type models.  A stumbling block which immediately pops up when
attempting this task is the different sizes of the respective
spaces of solutions, which are in turn due to the different symmetry groups
of the models. The solutions of the BPSSM may have almost any symmetry, due
to the huge symmetry group
of the field equations. In particular, there are spherically symmetric
solutions (i.e., with spherically symmetric energy densities) for all the
possible values of the baryon charge, $Q_B$.
This is not the case, on the other hand, for the original SM and its non
BPS generalizations. Typically, the $Q_B =1$ skyrmion is spherically
symmetric, the $Q_B=2$ skyrmion has cylindrical symmetry, while higher-charge
skyrmions have, at most, a set of discrete symmetries. Indeed, their energy
densities are invariant under some discrete subgroup of the rotation group
SO(3) (see, for example, \cite{BaSu1}-\cite{man-sut-book}).
A skyrmion of the BPSSM with the same set of discrete symmetries would,
therefore, be a good starting point for the inclusion of physical effects induced by adding
other extra terms to the Lagrangian.  Because of this, it would be
important to find a method for the systematic construction of solutions of the BPS
Skyrme model with some prescribed symmetries.

It is the purpose of the present notes to investigate the space of BPS
solutions further, making explicit use of its symmetries as a tool to
generate new solutions. To that end, we shall take the spherically
symmetric ones as a starting point for the construction.  Finally, we shall
show that all local solutions may, in fact, be
constructed in this way.

This article is organized as follows: In section~\ref{sec:themodel}, we
define the model, and introduce our notation and conventions. Then we
construct the classical Hamiltonian in section~\ref{sec:hamilton}. The BPS
bound is considered in~\ref{sec:bps}.  In~\ref{sec:symmetries} we explore
the issue of symmetries, within both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian
contexts. In~\ref{sec:solutions} we derive and discuss the main properties
of the BPS solutions of the model. We also construct several explicit
classes of solutions with some prescribed symmetries, including the important case of discrete symmetries.
In~\ref{sec:conclusions} we summarize our results and conclusions.

\section{The model}\label{sec:themodel}
The Lagrangian density ${\mathcal L}$, which has an $SU(2)$ valued
field $U$ as dynamical variable, may be written as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defl06}
	{\mathcal L} \,=\, {\mathcal L}_{06}\,=\,-\lambda^2 \pi^2 \, B_\mu
	B^\mu - \mu^2 {\mathcal V}(U,U^{\dagger}) \;,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a positive constant, $B^\mu$ denotes the topological
current:
\begin{equation}
B^\mu \,=\, \frac{1}{24 \pi^2} \;\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} {\rm
tr}\big(L_\nu L_\rho L_\sigma) \;,\;\;\;
L_\mu \equiv U^\dagger \partial_\mu U \;,
\end{equation}
and ${\mathcal V}$ is a potential density. The current $B^\mu$ is
`topologically conserved', namely, it can be shown to be conserved,
regardless of the equations of motion.
The resulting conserved charge, $Q_B$, is therefore given by:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:defQ}
	Q_B &=& \int d^3x \, B_0 \;=\;\frac{1}{24 \pi^2}  \int d^3x \,
	\epsilon^{ijk} {\rm tr}\big(L_i L_j L_k) \nonumber\\
	 &=& \frac{1}{24 \pi^2} \, \int d^3x \,
	\epsilon^{ijk} \, {\rm tr}\big(
	U^\dagger \partial_i U
	U^\dagger \partial_j U
	U^\dagger \partial_k U \big) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
the degree of the map ${\mathbb R}^3 \to S^3$, an integer which is
invariant under arbitrary globally well-defined coordinate transformations, as well as under
global isospin rotations of $U$.  It is, in fact, invariant under the much bigger group of target space transformations leaving invariant a certain target space volume form, see below.

To proceed to the classical equations of motion, it is convenient to
introduce a specific parametrization for the three degrees of freedom of
$U$.

Following~\cite{BPS-Sk} , we use a real scalar field $\xi$ plus a
3-component unit vector $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$, so that:
\begin{equation}
U(x) \,=\, e^{i \xi(x) \mathbf{\hat{n}}(x) \cdot \mathbf{\tau}} \;,
\end{equation}
where ${\mathbf \tau}$ are the three Pauli matrices. The real scalar $\xi$
runs from $0$ to $\pi$, while the two independent parameters defining
$\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ may be taken as the two components of a complex variable
$u$, by means of a stereographic projection:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stereodef}
	\mathbf{\hat{n}}=\frac{1}{1+|u|^2} \left( u+\bar{u}, -i ( u-\bar{u}),
|u|^2-1 \right) \;.
\end{equation}
In this way, one obtains for the Lagrangian density an expression in terms
of $\xi$, $u$ and $\bar u$:
\begin{equation}
	{\mathcal L}\,=\, \frac{  \lambda^2 \sin^4 \xi}{(1+|u|^2)^4} \;\left(  \epsilon^{\mu
\nu \rho \sigma} \xi_{\nu} u_{\rho} \bar{u}_{\sigma} \right)^2
-\mu^2 {\mathcal V}(\xi)
\end{equation}
where the lower indices in those variables denote partial derivatives with
respect to the spatial coordinates, and we have assumed that the potential
may only depend on $U$ through \mbox{$\mbox{tr}\,U$}.

With the notation ${\mathcal V}_\xi \equiv \partial_\xi {\mathcal V}$, the
Euler--Lagrange equations read:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:eleq}
\frac{\lambda^2 \sin^2 \xi}{(1+|u|^2)^4} \partial_{\mu} ( \sin^2 \xi \;
H^{\mu}) + \mu^2 {\mathcal V}_{\xi}=0 \nonumber\\
\partial_{\mu} \left( \frac{K^{\mu}}{(1+|u|^2)^2} \right)=0 \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
$$ H_{\mu} = \frac{\partial (  \epsilon^{\alpha \nu \rho \sigma} \xi_{\nu}
u_{\rho} \bar{u}_{\sigma})^2}{ \partial \xi^{\mu}}, \;\;\; K_{\mu} =
\frac{\partial (  \epsilon^{\alpha \nu \rho \sigma} \xi_{\nu} u_{\rho}
\bar{u}_{\sigma})^2}{\partial \bar{u}^{\mu}}.$$
These objects satisfy, by construction, the relations
\begin{equation}
H_{\mu} u^{\mu}=H_{\mu} \bar{u}^{\mu}=0, \; K_{\mu}\xi^{\mu}=K_{\mu}
u^{\mu}=0,
\;\; H_{\mu} \xi^{\mu}=K_{\mu} \bar{u}^{\mu} = 2 (  \epsilon^{\alpha \nu \rho
\sigma} \xi_{\nu} u_{\rho} \bar{u}_{\sigma})^2 \;,
\end{equation}
which are often useful.
\section{Hamiltonian and static energy}\label{sec:hamilton}
In order to construct the Hamiltonian, we first introduce a more compact
notation, in terms of three real fields $\xi^{(a)}$, with $a=1,2,3$, such that
$u = \xi^{(1)} + i \xi^{(2)}$ and $\xi^{(3)} \equiv \xi$.

Then ${\mathcal L}$ may be written as follows ($\xi_0^{(a)} \equiv \partial_0 \xi^{(a)}$):
\begin{equation}
	{\mathcal L} \,=\,\frac{1}{2} \xi_0^{(a)} G_{(ab)} \xi_0^{(b)}
	-\frac{ 4 \lambda^2 \sin^4 \xi^{(3)}
	\big(\epsilon^{ijk} \xi^{(1)}_i \xi^{(2)}_j
	\xi^{(3)}_k\big)^2  }{\big[1+(\xi^{(1)})^2
	+ (\xi^{(2)})^2 \big]^4} -\mu^2 {\mathcal V}(\xi) \;.
\end{equation}
where the kinetic term is determined by a metric $G_{(ab)}$, given by:
\begin{equation}
	G_{(ab)}\,=\, \frac{ 2 \lambda^2 \sin^4 (\xi^{(3)})}{[ 1 +
	(\xi^{(1)})^2 + (\xi^{(2)})^2]^4} \,
	{\mathcal Q}_i^{(a)} {\mathcal Q}_i^{(b)}
\end{equation}
where:
\begin{equation}
	{\mathcal Q}_i^{(a)} \,=\, \epsilon_{ijk} \, \epsilon^{a b c}
	\xi_j^{(b)} \xi_k^{(c)} \;.
\end{equation}
In order to see whether the system defined by ${\mathcal L}$ is regular or
not, we note that ${\mathbb Q} \equiv [{\mathcal Q}_i^{(a)}]$ the $3 \times
3$ matrix defined by the nine elements ${\mathcal Q}_i^{(a)}$ ($i=1,2,3$;
$a=1,2,3$) is proportional to the cofactor matrix of the matrix ${\mathbb
X}\equiv [\xi_i^{(a)}]$:
\begin{equation}
	{\mathbb Q} \,=\, 2 \; {\rm cof}(\mathbb X) \;.
\end{equation}
Thus, we see that the metric $[G_{(ab)}]$ (hence, the Lagrangian system) is regular
if and only if $\det[\xi_i^{(a)}] \neq 0$. In other words, the regularity
of the system is equivalent to the non vanishing of the Jacobian determinant:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defj}
	{\mathcal J} \,\equiv\, \det[{\mathbb X}]
	\,=\, \det \big[\frac{\partial\xi^{(a)}}{\partial x_i}\big] \neq 0\;,
\end{equation}
for the mapping between the sphere (i.e., one-point compactified $\mathbb{R}^3$) in coordinate space and the one in
$SU(2)$.

Under the assumption that (\ref{eq:defj}) holds true, the inverse of
${\mathbb G}= [G_{(ab)}]$ may be found by elementary algebra. Indeed,
\begin{equation}
	[{\mathbb G}^{-1}]^{(ab)} \,=\,
	\frac{[1 +(\xi^{(1)})^2 + (\xi^{(2)})^2]^4}{8 \lambda^2 \,
		{\mathcal J}^2 \, \sin^4(\xi^{(3)})} \xi_i^{(a)} \xi_i^{(b)} \;.
\end{equation}

Thus, the Hamiltonian density in terms of the variables $\xi^{(a)}$, its
spatial derivatives, and their canonical momenta $\Pi^{(a)}$, becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}
	{\mathcal H} &=&
	\frac{[1 +(\xi^{(1)})^2 + (\xi^{(2)})^2]^4}{16 \lambda^2 \,
		{\mathcal J}^2 \, \sin^4(\xi^{(3)})}  \Pi^{(a)}\xi_i^{(a)}
		\, \xi_i^{(b)}\Pi^{(b)} \nonumber\\
		&+&\frac{ 4 \lambda^2 \sin^4 \xi^{(3)}
	\big(\epsilon^{ijk} \xi^{(1)}_i \xi^{(2)}_j
	\xi^{(3)}_k\big)^2  }{\big[1+(\xi^{(1)})^2
	+ (\xi^{(2)})^2 \big]^4} +\mu^2 {\mathcal V}(\xi) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
which, for a Lagrangian like the one we are considering, coincides with the
energy density of the system. In particular, for the static configuration
case to be considered in the forthcoming sections, the total energy
$E$ is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:statice}
	E \,=\,	\int d^3 x \Big\{ 4 \lambda^2 \frac{\sin^4 \xi^{(3)}
	\big(\epsilon^{ijk} \xi^{(1)}_i \xi^{(2)}_j
	\xi^{(3)}_k\big)^2  }{\big[1+(\xi^{(1)})^2
+ (\xi^{(2)})^2 \big]^4} +\mu^2 {\mathcal V}(\xi) \Big\} \;.
\end{equation}

We have shown that the regularity of the system depends on the field
configurations considered. Specifically, the system is singular in
regions where the fields take their vacuum values ($\xi^{(a)} =$ const.
such that ${\mathcal V}(\xi^{(3)})=0$). This already demonstrates that,
while the system may provide a good approximation to the description of
static properties of nucleons and nuclei via solitons (Skyrmions) and for
the dynamics in regions with nonzero baryon charge density (where it is
regular by construction), its fully consistent application to dynamical
nuclear physics requires additional structures like, e.g., quantum
corrections, or the inclusion of further terms in the Lagrangian.

\section{BPS bound}\label{sec:bps}
The static energy functional in (\ref{eq:statice}), or, in terms of the variables $\xi$ and $u$ introduced previously,
\begin{equation}
E=\int d^3 x \left[  \frac{\lambda^2 \sin^4 \xi}{(1+|u|^2)^4}
(\epsilon^{mnl} i \xi_m u_n\bar{u}_l)^2 +\mu^2 {\mathcal V}(\xi) \right]
\end{equation}
obeys a Bogomolny bound. Indeed,
$$
E= \int d^3 x \left( \frac{\lambda \sin^2 \xi}{(1+|u|^2)^2}
\epsilon^{mnl} i \xi_mu_n\bar{u}_l \pm \mu \sqrt{\mathcal V} \right)^2 \mp \int d^3 x
\frac{2\mu \lambda \sin^2 \xi \sqrt{{\mathcal V}}}{(1+|u|^2)^2} \epsilon^{mnl} i \xi_m
u_n \bar{u}_l
$$
$$
\geq  \mp \int d^3 x \frac{2\mu \lambda \sin^2 \xi \sqrt{\mathcal V}}{(1+|u|^2)^2}
\epsilon^{mnl} i \xi_m u_n \bar{u}_l =
$$
\begin{equation} \label{bobo}
\pm (2\lambda \mu \pi^2 )\left[ \frac{-i}{\pi^2}
\int d^3 x \frac{ \sin^2 \xi \sqrt{\mathcal V}}{(1+|u|^2)^2}
\epsilon^{mnl}  \xi_m u_n \bar{u}_l \right]
\equiv 2\lambda \mu \pi^2 \langle \sqrt{\mathcal V} \rangle |B|
\end{equation}
where $\langle \sqrt{\mathcal V}\rangle$ is the average value of $\sqrt{\mathcal V}$ on the target space S$^3$.
The corresponding Bogomolny (first order) equation is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\lambda \sin^2 \xi}{(1+|u|^2)^2} \epsilon^{mnl} i \xi_mu_n\bar{u}_l
= \mp \mu \sqrt{\mathcal V} .
\end{equation}
The static second order field equations may be derived from the squared
Bogomolny equation by applying a gradient $\partial_k$ and by projecting
onto $\epsilon_{ijk}\partial_j \xi^{(a)}$ where $\xi^{(a)} \equiv (\xi
,u,\bar u)$. We remark that a completely analogous BPS bound can be found for the BPS baby Skyrme model in one lower dimension \cite{izq}-\cite{Speight1}.

Another interesting observation is that the BPS equation can be formulated in the language of a non-linear generalization of the static (vacuum) Nambu-Poisson equation.  Indeed the left hand side can be recast into the Nambu-Poisson three-bracket \cite{nambu}
\begin{equation}
\left\{ X^A, X^B, X^C \right\} = \epsilon^{mnl} \frac{\partial X^A}{\partial x^m}\frac{\partial X^B}{\partial x^n}\frac{\partial X^C}{\partial x^l}
\end{equation}
where the target space embedding coordinates $X^A, A=1,2,3,4$ form a three-sphere $S^3$ (i.e., $(X^A)^2=1$) and are related to the previous coordinates like $X^a = n^a \sin \xi $, $a=1,2,3$, and $X^4 = \cos \xi$. Then, the generalized Nambu-Poisson dynamics is given by
\begin{equation} \label{gen-NPeq}
\frac{d X^A}{d t} =\epsilon^{ABCD} \left\{ X^B, X^C, X^D \right\}  + X^A \sqrt{\mathcal{V}(X^4)} ,
\end{equation}
which differs from the standard case by the additional factor $\sqrt{\mathcal{V}}$ in the last term \cite{nambu}. Obviously, although the dynamics of the BPS Skyrme model is profoundly different, the BPS equation provides static solutions to this generalized Nambu-Poisson equation. Such solutions may be interpreted as vacuum configurations of the underlying hyper-membrane Lagrangian \cite{fairlie}. We remark that if one assumes from the outset that the target space variables $X^A$ span a three-sphere, as we do in this paper, then there is no dynamics in Eq. (\ref{gen-NPeq}), i.e., $\frac{ dX^A}{dt}=0$, as follows from the fact that the r.h.s. of (\ref{gen-NPeq}) is proportional to $X^A$ in this case. This just corresponds to the well-known result that the static vacuum equations for the hyper-membrane imply that the brane embedding coordinates $X^A$ span a three-sphere \cite{fairlie}. So, our model generalizes the static hyper-membrane action,
with a correspondence between the BPS solitons and
the vacuum membrane configurations, but with completely different dynamics.

It may be instructive to compare the BPS bound arising above with a $1+1$
dimensional analogue: the search for (non-trivial) static minimum energy configurations
for the Sine-Gordon model.  Here, a real scalar field $\varphi$ is in the
presence  of a potential density ${\mathcal U}(\varphi)$ which allows for
non-trivial topology. The Lagrangian density is:
\begin{equation}
	{\mathcal L} \,=\,
	\frac{1}{2} (\partial_\mu \varphi)^2 - {\mathcal U}(\varphi)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal U}(\varphi)\,=\,\frac{m^4}{\lambda} \big[ 1 -
\cos(\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{m}\varphi)\big] \;.
\end{equation}
The static energy is then:
\begin{equation}
	E_\varphi \,=\,\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx_1 \big[\frac{1}{2}
	(\partial_1\varphi)^2  + {\mathcal U}(\varphi)\big] \;.
\end{equation}
The non-negative potential  has non-trivial minima for
\begin{equation}
	\varphi = \varphi_N = \frac{2 \pi m}{\sqrt{\lambda}} N \;,\;\; N
	\in {\mathbb Z} \;,
\end{equation}
all of them having zero energy. Finite energy vacuum configurations must
tend to one of the minima when $x_1 \to \pm \infty$.

The topologically conserved current is
$j^\mu = \frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2\pi m}\epsilon^{\mu\nu} \partial_\nu \varphi$
($\mu, \nu = 1, 2$), which obviously satisfies $\partial \cdot j =0$.
Its associated topological charge is quantized:
\begin{equation}
	Q_\varphi \,=\,  \frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2\pi m}\,
	\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx_1 \partial_1 \varphi(x) \;=\; N \;,
\end{equation}
it is a constant of motion, and it is akin to a winding number, if one
interprets $\varphi$ as an angular variable.

Note the striking similarity with the BPS Skyrme model, when one writes the
energy as follows:
\begin{equation}
	E_\varphi \,=\,\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx_1 \big[\frac{1}{2}
	( \frac{2 \pi m}{\lambda})^2  (j_0)^2  + {\mathcal U}(\varphi)\big] \;.
\end{equation}

The static energy then also verifies a Bogomolny-like bound, since:
\begin{equation}
	E_\varphi \,=\,\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx_1
	\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{d\varphi(x_1)}{dx_1}  \pm
	\sqrt{{\mathcal U}(\varphi)}\big]^2
	\mp \sqrt{2} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx_1 \frac{d\varphi(x_1)}{dx_1}
	\sqrt{{\mathcal U}(\varphi)}  \;.
\end{equation}
Thus:
\begin{eqnarray}
	E_\varphi & \geq & \pm \,\sqrt{2}\,\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx_1 \frac{d\varphi(x_1)}{dx_1}
	\sqrt{{\mathcal U}(\varphi)} \nonumber\\
	&=& \pm \sqrt{2}
	\,
	\frac{2\pi m}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \;
	|\langle {\mathcal U} \rangle |
	\,
	|Q_\varphi| \nonumber\\
	&=&  2 \, \sqrt{2} \, \pi \,\frac{m^3}{\lambda} \, |Q_\varphi| \;.
\end{eqnarray}
where:
\begin{equation}
	|\langle {\mathcal U} \rangle |	 \,=\, \frac{1}{\varphi_1 -
	\varphi_0} \,
	\int_{\varphi_0}^{\varphi_1} d\varphi
	\sqrt{{\mathcal U}(\varphi)} \;,
\end{equation}
the average of $\sqrt{{\mathcal U}(\varphi)}$ over the fundamental region.

Of course, the first order equations that result from saturating the bound
may be found by other methods; they lead to the well-known static solutions
by a single quadrature. What we learn from the comparison with this model
is that the particular form of the Lagrangian of the BPS Skyrme model
involving the square of the topological current, is what makes it produce
quite powerful constraints on the solution. It is interesting to note that the kinetic term in this 1+1 dimensional example allows for two different interpretations, either as a standard kinetic term or as the topological current squared, which is no longer true in higher dimensions. In other words, the simple Sine-Gordon type soliton model in 1+1 dimensions allows for two different generalizations to higher dimensions, generalizing either the standard kinetic term or the topological current, and the model studied in the present paper just corresponds to the second case.

\section{Symmetries}\label{sec:symmetries}
The Lagrangian certainly has the standard Poincar\'e symmetries. Besides, the
sextic term is the square of the pull back of the target space volume form
on S$^3$,
\begin{equation}
dV= -i\frac{\sin^2 \xi}{(1+|u|^2)^2}d\xi du d\bar u
\end{equation}
so this sextic term is invariant under target space diffeos which do not
change this form (the volume preserving diffeos (VPDs) on S$^3$). The
potential only depends on $\xi$, so it is still invariant under those
diffeomorphisms which do not change $\xi$, i.e., under the diffeos which obey
\begin{equation}
\xi \to \xi \, , \quad u\to \tilde u(u,\bar u, \xi) \, ,\quad
(1+|\tilde u|^2)^{-2} d\xi d\tilde u d\bar{\tilde u} =
(1+| u|^2)^{-2} d\xi  u d\bar{ u} .
\nonumber
\end{equation}
The symmetries mentioned so far are symmetries of the action, i.e. Noether symmetries.

The static energy functional has some further symmetries. Indeed, it is
invariant under volume preserving diffeos on the base space $\mathbb{R}^3$,
as can be seen easily. The Bogomolny equation has even more symmetries as
we want to demonstrate now. For this purpose we introduce the new target
space coordinates
$$
u=ge^{i\Phi}=\tan (\chi/2) e^{i\Phi}, \quad H(g)=\frac{1}{1+g^2},
$$
(for later convenience we also introduced $\chi$, which together with $\xi$ and $\Phi$ provides the standard hyperspherical coordinates on the target S$^3$), and
\begin{equation} \label{F-eq}
 F(\xi)= \frac{\lambda}{\mu}\int d\xi \frac{\sin^2 \xi}{\sqrt{{\mathcal V}(\xi)}}
\end{equation}
and rewrite the Bogomolny equation as
\begin{equation}
\nabla F(\xi) \cdot \nabla H(g) \times \nabla \Phi =\pm 1
\end{equation}
or, in terms of differential forms
\begin{equation} \label{mod-Bog-2}
dFdHd\phi = \pm dx^1dx^2dx^3
\end{equation}
from which it is obvious that the Bogomolny equation has as its symmetries
all the VPDs both in base space and in a modified target space defined by
the volume form $dFdHd\Phi$. The above equation implies, in fact, that all
local VPDs on base space produce local solutions of the BPS equation. The
problem is that, in general, a local solution cannot be extended to a
global one, because of the different geometry and topology of the base
space and the modified target space. The modified target space is defined
by the volume form
\begin{equation}
dFdHd\Phi = -\frac{\lambda}{\mu} \frac{\sin^2 \xi}{\sqrt{{\mathcal V}(\xi)}}\sin \chi d\xi d\chi d\Phi
\end{equation}
and differs from the volume form on S$^3$ by the additional factor
$1/\sqrt{\mathcal V}$. There does not exist a unique riemannian metric
giving rise to this volume form, but a natural choice which assumes that
the S$^2$ spanned by $u$ (i.e., $\chi$ and $\Phi$) remains intact is
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = d\xi^2 + \frac{\sin^2 \xi }{\sqrt{{\mathcal V}(\xi)}}(d\chi^2 + \sin^2 \chi d\Phi^2 ).
\end{equation}
For ${\mathcal V}=1$ this is just the round metric on S$^3$ in
hyperspherical coordinates, but for nontrivial potentials the resulting
target space manifold is different. Indeed, potentials which may support
finite energy skyrmion solutions must have vacua $\xi = \xi_0$ where
${\mathcal V}(\xi_0 )=0$, and
the above metric is singular at the vacuum values $\xi_0$. These
singularities may either be integrable (i.e., the function $F$ defined in
(\ref{F-eq}) is well-defined and finite even at vacuum values $\xi
=\xi_0$), in which case the total volume of the modified target space is
still finite. In the opposite case, the total volume is infinite. One
further conclusion may be drawn immediately by integrating Eq.
(\ref{mod-Bog-2}). If the total volume of the modified target space is
finite, then any skyrmion solution of the BPS equation must have compact support (i.e., be a "compacton").
Further, its volume must be equal to $|B|$ times the total volume of the
modified target space, where $B$ is the winding number. For equivalent
results for the case of the BPS baby Skyrme model in one lower dimension,
we refer to \cite{Speight1}.
\\
We remark that for $\mathcal{V} = \sin^4 \xi$ the metric on the target space describes in fact a 3 dimensional cylinder with a very simple skyrmion solution (see below).
\section{Solutions}\label{sec:solutions}
As already said, locally, any VPD on base space will provide a solution of
the BPS equation, but this solution will, in general, not be extendible to a
global, genuine one (i.e., a skyrmion), because of the nontrivial topology
one should have on the modified target space.
A more promising strategy is the following: start from a simple known
solution which may follow from a simple ansatz. Then one may generate new
solutions by composing the given solution with a VPD on base space $\mathbb{R}^3$.
If the VPD is well-defined on the whole of $\mathbb{R}^3$, then it will map
genuine skyrmions into genuine skyrmions. In the case of compactons, we may
even relax this condition, since it is then sufficient for the VPD on base
space to be well-defined in the region of the compacton.

To proceed, let us first find some simple solutions with the help of an
ansatz in spherical polar coordinates
\begin{equation}
\xi = \xi (r), \quad \chi = \chi (\theta) , \quad \Phi = n\varphi
\end{equation}
which inserted into the BPS equation yields:
\begin{equation}
-\frac{\lambda}{\mu} \frac{\sin^2 \xi}{\sqrt{{\mathcal V}(\xi)}}\sin \chi
d\xi d\chi d\Phi = \mp r^2 \sin \theta drd\theta d\varphi \;,
\end{equation}
leading to $\chi =\theta$ and
$$
-\frac{n\lambda}{\mu} \frac{\sin^2 \xi}{\sqrt{\mathcal V}} d\xi = \mp r^2 dr
$$
or, after the coordinate transformation:
\begin{equation}
y= \frac{\mu}{3\sqrt{2}\lambda n}r^3
\end{equation}
to the autonomous ODE:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\sin^2\xi}{\sqrt{2{\mathcal V}(\xi)}} \xi_y = - 1 \;.
\end{equation}
We have chosen the sign which leads to a negative $\xi_y$, which is
compatible with the boundary conditions $\xi (r=0)=\pi$, $\xi (r=\infty)=0$
for a potential which takes its vacuum at $\xi_0 =0$.

Let us consider now the symmetries of these solutions. This issue depends
on the criterion used to characterize that symmetry. Note that a given solution
will not be invariant under any rotation, because it depends on the two angular
coordinates $\theta$ and $\varphi$. The energy density, on the other hand,
depends only on the radial coordinate $r$ and is, therefore, spherically symmetric.
 Note, however, that there exists another symmetry criterion, often used
for solitons, whereby there is spherical symmetry when the effect of a base
space rotation on a solution can be undone by a corresponding target space rotation.
Under this criterion, only the solution with topological charge $n=1$ is spherically
symmetric (i.e., all rotations can be undone). Solutions with higher winding number $n$
only have cylindrical symmetry, i.e., only a rotation about the $z$ axis
$\varphi \to \varphi + \alpha$ can be undone by a target space rotation (a
phase transformation $u \to e^{-in\alpha} u$).

In any case, we shall call all solutions of the spherically symmetric
ansatz "spherically symmetric solutions" in what follows.  We shall first review some general properties of these spherically symmetric solutions and, in a next step, construct solutions with lesser symmetries.
\subsection{Solutions with spherical symmetry}
Many qualitative aspects of solutions maybe easily derived from the particular form of the potential, which should be contrasted with the typical situation in general Skyrme models, where similar results usually require a full three-dimensional numerical simulation.
\\
First of all, depending on the form of the potential in the vicinity of the vacuum, one can distinguish three types of solitonic configurations: compactons (where the solution approaches its vacuum value at a strictly finite distance) and exponentially as well as power-like localized solutions. Using the BPS equation and expanding the potential at a vacuum (e.g., at $\xi=0$),  $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{V}_0\xi^\alpha+...$, one  easily finds that for $\alpha <6$ one gets compactons. There is also one exponentially localized solution for $\alpha=6$, while for $\alpha >6$ we find power-like localized solitons.
\\
Another important feature of solutions reflects the number of vacua of the potential. It is easy to prove  that for one-vacuum potentials the BPS solutions are of the nucleus type (no empty regions in the interior), while two-vacuum potentials lead to shell-like configurations.
\\
Let us present some particular examples. For the most elaborated family of one vacuum potentials, the so-called old potentials
\begin{equation}
 \mathcal{V}_{old}=\left(\mbox{Tr} \left(\frac{1-U}{2} \right) \right)^a \;\; \rightarrow
\;\; \mathcal{V}(\xi)=(1- \cos \xi)^a
\end{equation}
(where $a$ is a real positive parameter), we find (besides the previously known compacton) a solution with exponential tail ($a=3$) in implicit form
$$ \cos \frac{\xi}{2}+\ln \tan \frac{\xi}{4} = - \frac{y}{2}$$,
and power-like localized solutions.  E.g., for $a=6$ we get
$$ \xi =2\; \mbox{arc cot} \sqrt[3]{3\sqrt{2}y}. $$
A family of two-vacuum potentials is given by
\begin{equation}
 \mathcal{V}_{shell\; I}=\left(\mbox{Tr} \left(\frac{1-U}{2} \right) \mbox{Tr} \left(
\frac{1+U}{2} \right) \right)^a\;\; \rightarrow \;\; V(\xi)=(1-
\cos^2 \xi)^a,
\end{equation}
which is the chiral counterpart of the so-called new baby potential.  The vacua exactly coincide with the boundary values for the scalar field i.e., $\xi=0, \pi$. From the BPS property of the solution one can immediately see that the energy density should have a shell structure with two zeros: one at the center of the soliton, while the second (outer zero) can be located at a finite distance (compact shells) or approached asymptotically at infinity. Without losing generality (the potential is symmetric under the change of the vacua) we assume that $\xi=0$ is the outer vacuum. Of course, the inner vacuum can only be reached at a finite point as $y \geq 0$. This implies that only compact solitonic shells are acceptable. Specific examples of exact solutions are, for $a=1$
$$
\xi = \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
 \arccos (\sqrt{2} y -1) & y \in \left[0,\sqrt{2} \right] \\
0 & y \geq \sqrt{2},
\end{array} \right.
$$
and for $a=2$
$$
\xi = \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\pi -\sqrt{2}y & y \in \left[0,\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2}} \right] \\
0 & y \geq \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2}}.
\end{array} \right.
$$
The latter solution is, in fact, a solution for the case when the target space is a three-dimensional cylinder, as $\sin^2 \xi / \sqrt{\mathcal{V}} =const.$
\\
In order to deal with non-compact shell skyrmions, we need to modify our potential in such a way that one vacuum (say, the inner vacuum at $\xi=\pi$) is always approached in a compacton manner . A simple choice is
\begin{equation}
 \mathcal{V}_{shell\;  II}=\mbox{Tr} \left(\frac{1+U}{2} \right) \left( \mbox{Tr} \left(
\frac{1-U}{2} \right) \right)^a\;\; \rightarrow \;\; V(\xi)=(1+ \cos \xi ) (1-
\cos \xi)^a
\end{equation}
Again, we find compact shell skyrmions $a<3$
 $$
 \xi = \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\arccos \left[  1 - \left( 2^{\frac{3-a}{2}}-\frac{3-a}{\sqrt{2}} y \right)^{\frac{2}{3-a}} \right] & y \leq \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3-a}  \\
0 & z \geq \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3-a}
\end{array} \right.
$$
an exponentially localized skyrmion for $a=3$
$$\xi =
\xi = \arccos \left[ 1-2e^{-\sqrt{2}y}\right] ,$$
and shell skyrmions which extend to infinity but are localized in a power-like manner ($a>3$)
$$\xi =
\arccos \left[  1 - \left( 2^{\frac{3-a}{2}}+\frac{a-3}{\sqrt{2}} y \right)^{\frac{2}{3-a}} \right] .$$

\subsection{Solutions with cylindrical symmetry}
Now we assume that a spherically symmetric solution has been found, and we
want to use symmetry transformations to map them to new solutions. In a
first step we construct solutions with cylindrical symmetry, using the
ansatz (in cylindrical coordinates)
\begin{equation}
\xi = \xi (\rho ,z) ,\quad g = g(\rho ,z) , \quad \Phi =n \varphi
\end{equation}
where $\rho^2 = (x^1)^2 + (x^2)^2 $, $z=x^3$.  The Bogomolny equation for this ansatz may be written like
\begin{equation}
dF^{(n)}dH = \pm dqdp
\end{equation}
where $F^{(n)} =nF$ and
$$
q=\frac{\rho^2}{2} ,\quad p=z
$$
or like the Poisson bracket
\begin{equation}
\{F^{(n)},H\} \equiv \frac{\partial F^{(n)}}{\partial q} \frac{\partial H}{\partial q} - \frac{\partial F^{(n)}}{\partial p} \frac{\partial H}{\partial q} =\pm 1.
\end{equation}
Further, we know that it has the spherically symmetric solution
\begin{equation}
g=g_s = \tan (\theta/2) = \frac{\rho}{\sqrt{\rho^2 + z^2} +z} = \frac{\sqrt{2q}}{\sqrt{2q + p^2} +p} \equiv g_s(q,p)
\end{equation}
and (depending on the potential)
\begin{equation}
\xi = \xi_s (r) = \xi_s (\sqrt{2q + p^2}) \equiv \xi_s(q,p).
\end{equation}
As a consequence, a general solution with spherical symmetry may be written like
\begin{equation}
\xi (q, p) = \xi_s (Q(q,p),P(q,p)) , \quad g(q,p)= g_s (Q(q,p),P(q,p))
\end{equation}
where $(Q,P)$ are related to $(q,p)$ via a canonical transformation, i.e., $\{Q,P\} =1$.

A first class of examples is given by $$Q=U(q) ,\quad P=\frac{p}{U'(q)} $$
where $U'(q)\neq 0 \; \forall \; q$ must hold. Further, it should hold that $\lim_{q\to 0} U(q)/q = const.$ to have a well-behaved function near $\rho =0$. Among these examples the scale transformation $Q=a^2 q, P= a^{-2}p$ can be found, which corresponds to the scale transformation $x^1 \to ax^1$, $x^2 \to ax^2$ and $x^3 \to a^{-2} x^3$.
Another class of examples is
$$Q=\frac{q}{U'(p)} ,\quad P=U(p). $$
\subsection{Solutions with discrete symmetries}
Here, we want to construct a class of base space VPDs which transform
solutions with spherical or cylindrical symmetry into solutions which only
preserve symmetries w.r.t. to some discrete rotations about the $z$ axis.
Concretely, we want to consider solutions which may be written like
\begin{equation}
\xi = \xi (\rho ,z) = \xi_s (\tilde \rho ,z) ,\quad g = g(\rho ,z) =g_s (\tilde \rho ,z) , \quad \Phi =n \tilde\varphi
\end{equation}
where $\xi_s$, $g_s$, $\Phi =n\varphi$ constitute a known solution with
either spherical or cylindrical symmetry. That is to say, we consider base
space VPDs which act nontrivially only on $\rho$ and $\varphi$, where for
simplicity we restrict ourselves to the following transformations,
\begin{equation}
\tilde \rho =\tilde \rho (\rho ,\varphi ), \quad \tilde \varphi = \tilde \varphi (\varphi) .
\end{equation}
Using $q=\rho^2 /2$ as before, and $\tilde q = \tilde q (q,\varphi)$, the condition for the transformation to be a VPD simplifies to
\begin{equation}
d\tilde q d\tilde \varphi = dqd\varphi .
\end{equation}
A class of formal solutions is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde q &=& (f')^{-1} q \nonumber \\
\tilde \varphi &=& f(\varphi )
\end{eqnarray}
in close analogy to the results of the last section. In order to define
genuine diffeomorphisms, however, the transformations have to obey some
further conditions.
In particular, for the new coordinates $\tilde q$ and $\tilde \varphi$ to
define polar coordinates on $\mathbb{R}^2$ they must satisfy the boundary
conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde q (q=0,\varphi )=0, &&\tilde q(q=\infty, \varphi )=\infty , \nonumber \\
 \tilde \varphi (\varphi =0)=0, &&
\tilde \varphi (\varphi =2\pi) =2\pi .
\end{eqnarray}
In addition, the vector field generating the flow induced by the coordinate
transformation must be well-defined (nonzero and nonsingular) on the whole
of $\mathbb{R}^2$. A class of examples fulfilling all the required conditions
is given by $f=\varphi + (c/m)\sin m\varphi $, i.e., by the class of
transformations
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde q &=& \left( 1+c \cos m \varphi \right)^{-1} q \qquad \qquad m \in \mathbb{N} \nonumber \\
\tilde \varphi &=& \varphi + \frac{c}{m} \sin m \varphi \qquad \qquad c \in \mathbb{R}, \quad |c|<1.
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, if a solution $\xi^{(a)}_s (\rho ,z,\varphi )$ is invariant under
rotations about the $z$ axis (in the sense that its energy density
is invariant under these rotations), then the new solution $\xi^{(a)}_s
(\tilde \rho ,z,\tilde \varphi )$ is invariant only under the discrete set
of rotations $\varphi \to \varphi + (2\pi /m)$.
\section{Summary}\label{sec:conclusions}
We explored in detail the symmetries of the static energy functional of the
BPSSM, and of its related BPS equation. Then we applied these symmetries
to the systematic construction of new solutions, starting from known ones.
This is in the spirit of the dressing methods of classical
integrability \cite{dress}, which is an open problem for  higher
dimensional generalizations \cite{nos}, an initial motiviation of
this work.
Specifically, this allowed us to construct solutions with some prescribed
symmetries, what is quite relevant to the physical problem one wants to
consider.
We gave concrete examples of solutions with cylindrical symmetry and with
symmetries w.r.t. some discrete subgroup of the group $SO(2)$ of rotations
about the $z$ axis. In this context, it would be interesting to construct
solutions with the symmetries of platonic bodies or other discrete
subgroups of the full rotation group $SO(3)$ (crystallographic groups),
because solitons with these symmetries frequently show up as true
minimizers of the energy in the original Skyrme model or some of its
generalizations \cite{BaSu1}-\cite{man-sut-book}. The corresponding
volume-preserving diffeomorphisms producing solutions with these symmetries
will be more complicated than the ones constructed in the present paper,
and it almost certainly  will be more difficult to find them.
\\
This issue is under current investigation.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
C.A., J.M.Q., J.S.-G. and A.W. acknowledge financial support from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, Spain (grant FPA2008-01177), the Xunta de Galicia (grant INCITE09.296.035PR and Conselleria de Educacion), the Spanish Consolider-Ingenio 2010 Programme CPAN (CSD2007-00042), and FEDER.
C.D.F has been supported by CONICET, CNEA, and UNCuyo. Further, AW was supported by polish NCN grant 2011/01/B/ST2/00464.
J.S.-G. thanks V.A. Rubakov for interesting suggestions.


\section{Introduction}

A few years after the introduction by E. Wigner\cite{Wigner} of the
Gaussian ensemble of Hermitean random matrices as a basis of a
statistical theory of spectra of complex many-body systems,
Ginibre investigated properties of  the Gaussian matrices
when the Hermitian condition is removed\cite{Ginibre}. The Hermitian
ones have found applications\cite{Mitchell}, especially since the link
with the characterization of the manifestation of chaos in quantum mechanics
has been established\cite{Boh}. More recently, the nonHermitian
class has attracted great interest\cite{Sommers}.

The interpolation between universality classes of matrices is a
standard subject of investigation in random matrix
theories\cite{Hussein}. The Wigner-Ginibre transition, which is our
present object of study, has already been matter of investigation.
It has been established that
asymptotically, its density of eigenvalues, starting from Wigner's
semi-circle law distribution
on the real axis, evolves as the transition proceeds through an
elliptic shape, ending up in an uniform circular distribution at the
Ginibre situation\cite{Gaudin}. In addition, an asymptotic weak
non-Hermiticity regime\cite{Yan1} with important applications to quantum open
systems\cite{Yan} has been found in the
intermediate regime of transition.

From the physical point of
view, this transition can be seen as the passage of a gas from a 1D
configuration to an isotropic 2D configuration. In fact, it is well
known that the positions of eigenvalues of Gaussian ensembles can be
considered as those of charges of a Coulomb gas. It also has been
recognized that the real eigenvalues of the Hermitian matrices have
properties of a 1D gas of bosons, the so-called Girardeau
gas\cite{Gira}. On the other hand, the joint distribution of the
complex eigenvalues of the complete non-Hermitian matrices, that is,
the Ginibre matrices have the same structure of the Laughlin
wave function of a 2D gas\cite{Laughlin}.

The behavior of individual eigenvalues of Hermitian random matrices
has been a matter of investigation since the pioneering works which
described the distribution of largest eigenvalues, an achievement
followed by several applications\cite{TW}. Recently, the order
statistics problem of obtaining the distribution of all eigenvalues
considered as an ordered sequence of random variables has been
addressed\cite{Pato}. Here we are interested in studying
how that ordering on the real axis reflects on the eigenvalue
trajectories in the complex plane as the  Hermitian condition is
progressively removed and also in the final eigenvalue distribution.
In other words, do the complex eigenvalues
retain a memory of their initial positions on the real axis? To do this
investigation, we resort to a system of differential equations
which describes the motion of the eigenvalues as a function of
the parameter breaking the Hermitian condition.

\section{Transition equations and results}

The Ginibre ensemble consists of complex random matrices $S$
whose joint distribution of elements is given by

\begin{equation}
P (S )=\exp\left[- \mbox{tr}(S^{\dagger} S) \right] \label{1}
\end{equation}
in which no Hermitian condition is imposed.
Specializing to the case we are interested, namely complex matrices
of size $N$, their eigenvalues, for large values of $N$, are uniformly
distributed in a disk of radius $\sqrt{N}.$ Beyond this circle, at a
radius $r$, the density decays as\cite{Mehta}

\begin{equation}
\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\exp[-u^2]}{2u}
\end{equation}
where $u=r-\sqrt{N},$ such that eigenvalues can be found up to
$\sim \sqrt{N} + 2 .$

Taking a matrix out of this ensemble, we define a new matrix, $H(t),$
by the relation

\begin{equation}
H(t) = \left(\frac{S+S^{\dagger}}{2}\right) +
t\left(\frac{S-S^{\dagger}}{2}\right) \label{2} .
\end{equation}
where the parameter $t$ varies from zero to one. It is relevant
to mention that others' parametrizations have been used to study this
transition\cite{Yan}; however, for our purpose of investigating
trajectories, the parameter $t$ defined by Eq. (\ref{2}) is more
convenient. Of course, our $t$ is related to those others parameters
by a simple transformation. With $t>0,$ Eq. (\ref{2}) together
with its adjoint, can be inverted to express $S$ in terms of $H$
and $H^{\dagger}$ as

\begin{equation}
S = \left(\frac{1+t}{2t}\right) H
-\left(\frac{1-t}{2t}\right)H^{\dagger} . \label{3}
\end{equation}
Substituting  (\ref{3}) in (\ref{1}), we obtain
the density distribution of the $t-$dependent
matrix elements of $H$

\begin{equation}
P (H )=K_N (t) \exp\left(- \mbox{tr} \left[ \frac{1+t^2}{2t^2}
(H^{\dagger} H) - \frac{1-t^2}{4t^2}( HH
+H^{\dagger}H^{\dagger})\right]
\right) .    \label{1b}
\end{equation}
For $t=0$ the matrices $H(0)$ are  Hermitian such that, in the limit
$t\rightarrow 0,$  (\ref{1b})
becomes

\begin{equation}
P [H(0)]=\exp\left(- \mbox{tr}\left[H^{2}(0) \right] \right)  .
\end{equation}
Therefore $H(0)$ belongs to the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble whose
eigenvalues are distributed on the real axis according to the Wigner
semi-circle law\cite{Mehta}

\begin{equation}
\rho(x )= \frac{1}{\pi}\sqrt{2N-x^2} .
\end{equation}
The joint distribution of the eigenvalues apart from a constant
is given by

\begin{equation}
P (z_1,z_2,...,z_N )= \exp\left[- \sum^{N}_{k=1}
\left( x_{k}^2 + \frac{y^2}{t^2}\right) \right] \prod_{j>i}
\mid z_j -  z_i \mid ^2  =\exp\left[-W(z_1,...,z_N)\right] ,
\end{equation}
where

\begin{equation}
W(z_1,...,z_N)=  \sum^{N}_{k=1}
\left( x_{k}^2 + \frac{y^2}{t^2}\right)-2 \sum_{j>i}\log
\mid z_j -  z_i \mid   .
\end{equation}
Therefore, the eigenvalues can be considered as positions of $N$ point
charges under the action of a confining potential harmonic in the
two Cartesian axis and a repulsive 1D Coulomb force.

For intermediate values of t, that is $0< t <1,$ asymptotically,
that is when $N$ becomes large, the eigenvalues fill an
ellipse\cite{Gaudin} whose axes for our parameterization are

\begin{equation}
a=\sqrt{\frac{2N}{1+t^2}}
\end{equation}
and

\begin{equation}
b=t^2\sqrt{\frac{2N}{1+t^2}} .
\end{equation}

As $S=H(1)$
belongs to the Ginibre ensemble of non-Hermitian matrices,
$H(t)$ undergoes a transition from the Wigner to the
Ginibre ensemble with eigenvalues moving along trajectories
in the complex plane. Their motion is governed by a system of
differential equations which can be deduced in the following
way\cite{Pato1}. The matrices $H(t)$ are  diagonalized by the
similarity transformation

\begin{equation}
D=Q^{-1}HQ  ,     \label{51a}
\end{equation}
where $D$ is a diagonal matrix whose diagonal contains the complex
eigenvalues while $Q$ is a matrix of size $N$ which contains the
eigenvectors. On the hand, the adjoint of Eq. (\ref{31})

\begin{equation}
D^{\dagger}=Q^{\dagger}H^{\dagger}\left(Q^{-1}\right)^{\dagger} \label{51b}
\end{equation}
shows that the inverse of the adjoint of $Q$ diagonalizes the Hermitian of $H.$
All these matrices are functions of the parameter $t.$
Taking the derivative (denoted by a dot) with respect to $t$ of
(\ref{51a}) we obtain

\begin{equation}
\dot D =[D,U] + P, \label{31}
\end{equation}
where

\begin{equation}
P=Q^{-1}\dot H Q
\end{equation}
and

\begin{equation}
U=Q^{-1}\dot Q = - \dot Q^{-1} Q   \label{31f}
\end{equation}
while for the derivative of $P$ we have

\begin{equation}
\dot P =[P,U] + Q^{-1}\ddot H Q .     \label{31d}
\end{equation}
The diagonal part of (\ref{31}) gives

\begin{equation}
\dot D _{kk}=\dot z_{k}=P_{kk}, \label{31a}
\end{equation}
while the off-diagonal part

\begin{equation}
\dot D_{kl}=0=D_{kk}U_{kl}-U_{kl}D_{ll}+P_{kl} \label{31b}
\end{equation}
yields

\begin{equation}
U_{kl}=-\frac{P_{kl}}{z_k-z_l} .       \label{31c}
\end{equation}
Using the arbitrariness of the matrix $U$ we impose
the necessary condition that its diagonal elements vanish,
that is $U_{kk}=0.$  Finally, from (\ref{31f}) we derive
the equations

\begin{equation}
\dot Q_{ij} =\sum_{l\ne j}\frac{Q_{kl}P_{lj}}{z_l - z_l }
\end{equation}
and

\begin{equation}
 \dot Q^{-1}_{ij} =\sum_{l\ne i}\frac{P_{il} Q^{-1}_{lj}}{z_i - z_l }
\end{equation}
for the evolution of the eigenvectors.
The above equations together with the initial
conditions provided by the Hermitian matrix $H(0)$ form a complete
system of first order differential equations which numerically
can be solved to obtain eigenvalues and eigenvectors along the transition.

Insofar as the dependence of $H$ with the parameter $t$ has not been
specified, this set of differential equations is general.
Assuming this dependence to be given
by (\ref{2}), the second derivative  $\ddot{H}$
vanishes due to the linear dependence with $t$ and, explicitly,
Eq. (\ref{31d}) gives

\begin{equation}
\dot P_{kk} =\sum_{m\ne k}\frac{2P_{km}P_{mk}}{z_k - z_m }      \label{33a}
\end{equation}
for the diagonal elements and

\begin{equation}
\dot P_{kl} =\sum_{m\ne k,m\ne l}P_{km}P_{mk}\left(\frac{1}{z_k - z_m}+
\frac{1}{z_l - z_m}\right)      \label{33b}
\end{equation}
for the others elements. These two above equations together with
Eq. (\ref{31b}) form a set of $2N(N+1)$ coupled differential equations
to be integrated. Regarding the initial conditions, since $H(0)$ is
Hermitian, its eigenvalues are real and its
eigenvector matrix is unitary, that is $Q^{-1}=Q^{\dagger}.$ Taking
this into account, we find that initially the matrix $P$ is given
by

\begin{equation}
P(0)=Q^{\dagger}(0)\frac{S-S^{\dagger}}{2}  Q(0) ,
\end{equation}
such that

\begin{equation}
P(0)=-P^{\dagger}(0) ,
\end{equation}
whose diagonal part

\begin{equation}
P_{kk}(0)=-P_{kk}^{*}(0)
\end{equation}
shows that the diagonal elements of $P(0)$ are pure
imaginary. Substituting these initial `velocities' in (\ref{31a}),
we find that the eigenvalues leave the real axis  at $t=0$
perpendicularly.

We observe that integrating these equations
between the initial value $t=0$ and some final value $t=t_f$ is
equivalent to diagonalize $H(t)$ at each intermediate value of $t.$
This is illustrated in Fig. 1, in which $N=20$ eigenvalue trajectories
obtained performing the integration from $t=0$ to $t=1$ the equations
of motion are compared with the result of diagonalizing the matrices
at several intermediate values of $t.$ The agreement is
perfect showing that the above system is reliable and amenable to
numerical integration.

Fig. 1 also shows that eigenvalues may have complicated trajectories in
the complex plane. Therefore, in order to reveal structures the trajectories
may have, it is necessary to accumulate results of many
simulations, that is to construct an ensemble. This is done in
Fig. 2 in which trajectories were obtained by evolving eigenvalues of
60 different initial Hermitian matrices, clearly exhibiting a structure.
Indeed, trajectories starting on the real axis at the edge, cover regions of a
meniscus shape whose curvature decreases as eigenvalues more to the center are
considered. Trajectories starting at the central region of the
initial spectrum move inside strips. The presence of these strips is better
seen in Fig. 3 where points correspond to eigenvalues at the end of the
transition, that is for $t=1.$ The structure of the distribution of
points show that, statistically, eigenvalues preserve to some extent
the relative positions they had on the real axis.

\section{Concluding remarks}

In conclusion, evolving under the action of the external confining harmonic potential
and the repulsion force among them, eigenvalues present structures in their
trajectories and in their final distribution in the
complex plane which reflect the ordering they have on the real axis.
We remark that the present study can be considered as an instance of the so-called
parametric statistics used to characterize the evolution of individual
eigenvalues as a function of an external parameter\cite{Simons}.
In the case of complex eigenvalues, parametric evolution has been
experimentally investigated by considering resonances trapped
in an open microwave cavity in which the slit width can be
varied\cite{Persson}.

This work is supported by a CAPES/COFECUB project and MPP is supported
by the Brazilian agencies CNPq and FAPESP.


\section{Why remove classical time from quantum theory?}
\noindent Dynamical evolution in quantum theory is described by the Schr\"{o}dinger equation. The time parameter which is used for describing this evolution is part of a classical spacetime. By classical spacetime we mean both the underlying spacetime manifold, as well as the gravitational field [equivalently the metric] which resides on it. As we know, the gravitational field is determined by the distribution of classical matter according to the laws of the general theory of relativity. What is perhaps not so well appreciated is that, in accordance with the Einstein hole argument, a physical meaning cannot be attached to the points of the underlying manifold unless a dynamically determined metric tensor field resides on it ~\cite{Christian:98, Singh:2009}. Thus one can reasonably assert that classical spacetime, and hence also the time parameter used to describe evolution in quantum theory, is determined by classical bodies and fields. Now, the dynamics of classical objects is itself a limiting case of quantum dynamics. We see here the circularity of time in quantum theory. Quantum theory depends on classical time. But classical time is well-defined only after one considers the classical limit of quantum theory (Fig. 1).

\begin{figure} [ht]

  \centerline{\includegraphics{flowdiag.pdf}}
\caption{The circularity of time in quantum theory}
\end{figure}%

We hence conclude that there should exist an equivalent new formulation of quantum theory which does not depend on classical time. We have argued elsewhere that such a new formulation is a limiting case of a stochastic  non-linear theory. The non-linearity, which has to do with gravity,  becomes significant in the approach to the Planck mass/energy scale and possibly plays a role in explaining the collapse of the wave-function during a quantum measurement ~\cite{Singh:2006, Singh:2009}.

How should one go about constructing such a reformulation, which we will call Generalized Quantum Dynamics [GQD]? One is foregoing classical time, and along with it, the point structure of a spacetime manifold. A natural possibility is to replace the original spacetime by a non-commutative spacetime. Such a spacetime, and its associated dynamics, called Non-commutative Special Relativity [NSR], was proposed by us in a recent work ~\cite{Lochan-Singh:2011}. In NSR, evolution is described via a `proper time' constructed from taking the Trace over the non-commutative spacetime metric.

As will be described in the next section, a GQD is arrived at by constructing the equilibrium statistical thermodynamics of the underlying non-commutative special relativity ~\cite{Lochan:2012}. Section IV then sketches ongoing work on how one possibly recovers classical spacetime and classical matter fields, from considerations of statistical fluctuations around a GQD. This work, when complete, would be central to achieving a fundamental understanding of why superpositions of position states are absent in the macroscopic, classical world (Fig. 2).

\begin{figure} [ht]

  \centerline{\includegraphics{Figure2.pdf}}
\caption{From a non-commutative spacetime to the classical world, via GQD}
\end{figure}%

One notices that in the transition from a GQD to the classical world, there is no sign of ordinary quantum theory [which depends on classical time]! That recovery must take place separately, and that is where the connection of the time problem with the measurement problem emerges. In Fig. 2, by classical world is meant a universe which is {\it dominated} by classical matter fields. Only when such a dominance is given, can one talk of the existence of a classical spacetime; otherwise the Einstein hole argument will again come into play and forbid the occurrence of the ordinary spacetime manifold. However, not all matter is classical; there is a sprinkling of `quantum' fields, whose dynamics must be derived from first principles, given a classical time.

This is what is achieved by the theory of Trace Dynamics ~\cite{Adler:04, Adler:94, Adler-Millard:1996, RMP:2012} which is the classical dynamics of non-commuting matrices on a background classical spacetime. The equilibrium statistical thermodynamics of this matrix dynamics is shown to be the ordinary quantum theory.  Statistical fluctuations around equilibrium are shown to lead to non-linear modifications of the quantum theory, and this non-linearity is responsible for collapse of the wave-function during a quantum measurement (Fig. 3). In the limit when the non-linearity becomes strongly dominant, the non-linear theory reduces to classical mechanics.

\begin{figure} [ht]

  \centerline{\includegraphics{Figure3.pdf}}
\caption{From Trace Dynamics to a nonlinear theory, via standard quantum theory}
\end{figure}%

The connection between the problem of time and the problem of measurement is the following. In our opinion, Trace Dynamics should perhaps not be treated as a stand-alone theory. Because it gives a matrix (equivalently operator) status to matter degrees of freedom, while retaining a point-like structure for spacetime. This will again run into the kind of difficulties implied by the Einstein hole argument: a non-commutative nature for matter degrees is not consistent with a commutative nature for spacetime degrees, unless a dominant classical matter background is available. Thus, a logical starting point for Fig. 3 is to place it at the top of Fig. 2. First one starts from a non-commutative special relativity and derives a GQD, and from there the classical world with a classical time.  On this classical world one considers the matrix dynamics for select degrees of freedom (which are sub-dominant and not classical), and this eventually leads to a non-linear quantum theory. The physics which solves the problem of time in quantum theory is strongly correlated with the physics that solves the measurement problem in quantum theory (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 captures the philosophy of our approach, and the essence of this article. One starts from an NSR and arrives at a GQD. This is described in Section II. The transition from a GQD to the classical world is discussed in Section IV (the logical place would be Section III, but this work is as yet incomplete, and hence its discussion is left till the end). The derivation of ordinary quantum theory and the solution of the quantum measurement problem is discussed in Section III.

\begin{figure} [ht]

  \centerline{\includegraphics{Figure4.pdf}}
\caption{Solving the problem of time, and the problem of quantum measurement}
\end{figure}%

\section{A generalized quantum dynamics}
The mathematical formulation leading up to a GQD ~\cite{Lochan:2012} is strongly motivated by and based on the theory of Trace Dynamics developed by Stephen Adler and collaborators ~\cite{Adler:04}. The new added element is the assumption of a non-commutative spacetime with operator (equivalently matrix) coordinates $(\hat{t}, \hat{x}, \hat{y}, \hat{z})$, for which a proper time is defined by taking a trace over a line-element:
\begin{equation}
ds^{2} = Trd\hat{s}^2\equiv Tr[d\hat{t}^2 - d\hat{x}^2 - d\hat{y}^2 - d\hat{z}^2].
\end{equation}
This line element is invariant under coordinate transformations of the non-commuting coordinates, with their commutation relations being completely arbitrary. Fermionic / Bosonic matter degrees of freedom, described by non-commuting matrices, live on this spacetime, and are respectively characterized by whether they belong to odd / even  sector of the graded Grassmann algebra. A classical dynamics of these non-commuting matrix degrees of freedom $\hat{q}^i$ can be constructed to describe evolution with respect to the proper time $s$: we call this a non-commutative special relativity [NSR]. Thus as in special relativity, a `particle' is assigned a set of four coordinates $(\hat{t}, \hat{x}, \hat{y}, \hat{z})$, a four velocity is defined by taking their derivative with respect to the proper time, and a canonically conjugate four momentum $\hat{p}^{i}$ is defined by taking the `trace derivative' of the Trace Lagrangian (trace of a polynomial function of coordinates and velocities) with respect to the four velocity. From the Trace Lagrangian, one derives Lagrange equations of motion, a Trace Hamiltonian, and Hamilton's equations, as in ordinary mechanics ~\cite{Lochan-Singh:2011}.

The central feature of this matrix classical dynamics, which makes it different from point particle classical dynamics, is that it possesses a novel conserved charge:
\begin{equation}
 \hat{Q} = \sum_{r\in B}[\hat{q}_r,\hat{p}_r] -\sum_{r\in F}\{\hat{q}_r,\hat{p}_r\},
\end{equation}
where the commutators are for bosonic degrees of freedom, and anticommutators are for fermionic degrees.
We note that the commutators/anti-commutators also include pairs such as $[\hat{E}^i,\hat{t}^i]$ and $\{\hat{E}^i,\hat{t}^i\}$, where $\hat{E}^i$ is the energy variable canonically conjugate to $\hat{t}^{i}$.
This conserved charge $\hat{Q}$, which has the dimensions of action, is a consequence of the global unitary invariance of the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian. It would be trivially zero in the case of point-particle mechanics, but that is not the case here, and its existence is all the more remarkable, because the individual $q-q$, $q-p$, and $p-p$ commutators / anti-commutators are non-zero and completely arbitrary. The existence of this charge plays a central role in the emergence of quantum theory from this underlying level, as we will see shortly.

This matrix dynamics on a non-commutative `flat' space-time is according to us the fundamental dynamics, its symmetries being invariance of the operator spacetime metric under Lorentz transformations, and the global unitary invariance of the Lagrangian.

However this is not the dynamics we observe in our laboratory experiments. Hence one proposes that this dynamics must be coarse-grained over, much the same way that coarse graining over the microscopic degrees of freedom reproduces the statistical thermodynamics of macroscopic systems. Thus we shall develop the statistical thermodynamics of the above classical matrix dynamics, employing entirely conventional methods and techniques of equibrium statistical mechanics. The classical matrices are analogous to the atoms of a gas, and the coarse-graining is anaologous to constructing the thermodynamics of the gas, leading to its approximate macroscopic thermodynamic description. It is remarkable that the thermodynamics of this matrix dynamics will be the sought for GQD, which is a precursor to quantum theory, and in that sense quantum theory is an emergent phenomenon.

One starts by showing that a measure $d\mu$ can be defined in the phase space of the matrix degrees of freedom, and Liouville's theorem holds,  demonstrating the conservation of phase space volume. A probability density distribution $\rho(H,T;\hat{Q},\lambda)$ is defined in the phase space, where the `temperature' $T$ and the matrix $\lambda$ are respectively the Lagrange multipliers introduced to respect the conservation of the Hamiltonian and the charge $\hat{Q}$. A canonical ensemble is constructed and an equilibrium distribution is arrived at by maximizing the entropy
\begin{equation}
 S = - \int d \mu \rho \log \rho
\end{equation}
subject to the conservation constraints. As anticipated, the equilibrium distribution is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho = Z^{-1} \exp(Tr\lambda \hat{Q} - HT)
\end{equation}
with $Z$ being the partition function. An important result which can be proved is that the canonical ensemble average of $\hat{Q}$ is of the form
\begin{equation}
\langle\hat{Q}\rangle_{AV} = i_{eff}\hbar
\end{equation}
where $\hbar$ is a real positive constant of dimensions of action, and $i_{eff} = diag(i,-i,i,-i,...,i,-i)$ such that $Tri_{eff}=0$.

Now, the phase space measure, as well as the canonical average of an observable ${\cal O}$ given by
\begin{equation}
\langle {\cal O} \rangle_{AV} = \int d\mu \rho {\cal O}
\end{equation}
are invariant under constant shifts of dynamial variables in phase space. This leads to an important Ward identity for a polynomial function $W(z)$ of the dynamical variables $z$ in phase space.

Under the assumptions that $T$ is identified with the Planck scale, and we work much below that scale, and secondly that in the Ward identity the conserved charge $\hat{Q}$ can be replaced by its canonical average
$i_{eff}\hbar$ the Ward identity simplifies greatly, to the following
\begin{equation}
\langle {\cal D} z_{eff}\rangle_{AV}=0; \quad  {\cal D}z_{r eff} =i_{eff}[W_{eff}, z_{r eff}]-\hslash\sum_s\omega_{rs}\left(\frac{\delta {\bf W}}{\delta z_s}\right)_{eff}. \label{ModWard}
\end{equation}

This equation contains the essence of the sought for GQD! Here, $z_{eff}$ is that matrix component of the matrix dynamical variable $z$ which commutes with $i_{eff}$. Different choices of the polynomial $W$ lead
to different important results which contain the mathematical essence of GQD.

If $W$ is chosen to be the operator Hamiltonian $H$, this Ward identity becomes the Heisenberg equations of motion
\begin{equation}
\langle {\cal D} z_{eff}\rangle_{AV}=0; \quad  {\cal D}z_{r eff} =i_{eff}[H_{eff}, z_{r eff}]-\hslash\dot{z}_{r eff}. \label{ModWard1}
\end{equation}
A dot denotes derivative with respect to the proper time $s$. We recall that the operator time $\hat{t}$ is one of the dynamical variables $z$.

Next, if we choose $W=\sigma_vz_v$ we get
\begin{equation}
 i_{eff}{\cal D}z_{r eff} =[z_{r eff}, \sigma_v z_{v eff}]-i_{eff}\hslash\omega_{rv}\sigma_v \label{ModWard2}
\end{equation}
which gives the emergent canonical commutation rules for the bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom. Thus we obtain, what we call effective canonical commutators of the canonically averaged matter degrees of freedom.
For a bosonic pair
\begin{equation}
 [q^{\mu},q'^{\nu}]=0; \quad  [q^{\mu},p_{\nu}]=i_{eff}\hslash\delta^{\mu}_{\nu},
\end{equation}
while for a fermionic pair
\begin{equation}
 \{q^{\mu},q'^{\nu}\}=0; \quad \{q^{\mu},p_{\nu}\}=i_{eff}\hslash\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}.
\end{equation}
This leads to the desired non-commutativity amongst configuration variables and the corresponding momenta of  matter degrees of freedom, at the emergent level. Evidently, there is included now a
operator time - energy commutation relation. In anticipation of the standard quantum theory that will eventually emerge from here, we identify the constant $\hbar$ with Planck's constant.

In ths sense, a Generalized Quantum Dynamics which does not refer to a classical time emerges from the underlying non-commutative special relativity in the statistical thermodynamic limit ~\cite{Lochan:2012}. One does have a concept of time-evolution, but this evolution is with respect to the proper time $s$ constructed from the trace of the operator spacetime line-element. In Section IV we will discuss how one possibly proceeds from this GQD to recover classical time.

Furthermore, since at the fundamental matrix level, the theory is Lorentz invariant as shown in
~\cite{Lochan-Singh:2011}, if we add another assumption of
 boundedness of $H_{eff}$ and existence of zero eigenvalue of $\vec{P}_{eff}$ corresponding to a unique eigenstate $\psi_0$, there exists a
proposed correspondence between canonical ensemble average quantities and Lorentz-invariant Wightmann functions in the emergent field theory,
$$ \psi_0^{\dagger}\langle P({z_{eff}})\rangle_{\hat{AV}}\psi_0=\langle vac |P({{\cal X}_{eff}})|vac \rangle. $$

We can also obtain an equivalent Schr\"{o}dinger picture corresponding to the emergent Heisenberg picture of space-time dynamics. For that, we define
$$U_{eff}(s)=\exp{(-i_{eff}\hslash^{-1} s H_{eff})},$$
such that
$$\frac{d}{ds}U_{eff}(s)=-i_{eff}\hslash^{-1}H_{eff}U_{eff}(s).$$
Then, for a Heisenberg state vector $\psi$ we form Schr\"{o}dinger picture state vector $\psi_{schr}(s)$, for space-time degrees of freedom
$$ \psi_{schr}(s)=U_{eff}(s)\psi,$$
$$i_{eff}\hslash \frac{d}{ds}\psi_{schr}(s)=H_{eff}\psi_{schr}(s).$$
Thus we obtain Schr\"{o}dinger evolution for the phase-space variables at the canonical ensemble average level.

We note that time and space continue to retain their operator status, although they now commute with each other.

\section{Trace dynamics and the quantum measurement problem}
Let us once again have a look at Fig. 4. We have thus far outlined how the lowermost arrow [NSR to GQD] is realized. In the next Section we will discuss the next arrow [GQD to the classical world]. For the purpose of the present section, let us assume the classical world as given: matter fields are classical and classical spacetime obeys the laws of general relativity. The universe is dominated by classical matter, which is responsible for the generation of a classical spacetime - in particular there exists a classical time with respect to which evolution can be defined.

In such a classical world, how does one realize quantum theory, so essential to successfully describe the very large number of quantum phenomena observed in the laboratory? The traditional approach of course is to start from a classical dynamics for a system with given configuration varables and their canonical momenta, to replace Poisson brackets by commutation relations, hence introducing Planck's constant, and to replace Hamilton's equations of motion by Heisenberg equations of motion [equivalently the Schr\"{o}dinger equation].

This approach [and the equivalent path-integral formulation], although extremely successful, ought to be regarded as not completely satisfactory, and  `phenomenological' in nature. Because it pre-assumes as given the knowledge of its own limiting case, namely classical dynamics. One should not have to `quantize' a classical theory; rather there should be some guiding symmetry principles for developing a quantum theory, and then deriving classical mechanics from quantum theory as a limiting case. This requirement is in the same spirit whereby one does not arrive at special relativity by `relativizing' Galilean mechanics, or one does not arrive at general relativity by `general relativizing' Newtonian gravitation. The more fundamental theory stands on its own feet, and the limiting case only arises as an approximation - the prior knowledge of the limiting case should not be essential for the construction of the fundamental theory.

An offshoot of arriving at quantum theory by `quantization' is that this leaves us without an understanding of the absence of macroscopic superpositions [the Schr\"{o}dinger cat paradox] and of the quantum measurement problem. [Unless of course one accepts the many-worlds interpretation as an explanation, or one believes in Bohmian mechanics as being the correct mathematical formulation of quantum theory].

Trace Dynamics ~\cite{Adler:04} sets out to derive quantum theory from an underlying matrix dynamics where select matter degrees of degrees $\hat{q}^i$ are described by non-commuting matrices [whereas the rest of the matter fields, which dominate the Universe, continue to be treated as classical] and a classical [Minkowski] spacetime is a given. These matrices represent bosonic / fermionic degrees of freedom, depending on whether they belong to the even / odd sector of the graded Grassmann algebra. Like in the previous section, a classical dynamics is constructed for these matrix degrees, with the difference that now time evolution is with respect to a classical time, as opposed to a proper time constructed from the operator spacetime line-element. Given a Trace Lagrangian, one derives Lagrange's equations of motion, a Hamiltonian, and Hamilton's equations of motion.  Once again, as a consequence of global unitary invariance there is a conserved charge with dimensions of action, the Adler-Millard charge
\begin{equation}
 \tilde{C} = \sum_{r\in B}[\hat{q}_r,\hat{p}_r] -\sum_{r\in F}\{\hat{q}_r,\hat{p}_r\},
\end{equation}
where the commutators are for bosonic degrees of freedom, and anticommutators are for fermionic degrees.
This time round though, there is no pair such as $(E^i,t^i)$ in the commutators, because time is not an operator. In fact it should be emphasized that the construction in this section proceeds in very much the same fashion as in the previous section, except that a classical spacetime is given. More precisely, the approach adopted in the previous section was developed by us completely following the work of Adler and collaborators as described in this section.  This matrix dynamics is Lorentz invariant, under transformation of the ordinary space-time coordinates.

An equilibrium statistical mechanics for this matrix dynamics is constructed, as before, by maximizing the entropy, and as before it can be shown that the canonical average of $\tilde{C}$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
\langle\tilde{C}\rangle_{AV}=i_{eff}\hbar.
\end{equation}
A Ward identity holds, from which one deduces, after replacing the Adler-Millard charge by its canonical average, the standard quantum relations of quantum theory, the Heisenberg equations of motion, and by taking the non-relativistic limit one can write the equivalent description of the dynamics in terms of the Schr\"{o}dinger equation. The correspondence between canonical ensemble averages and Wightmann functions is proposed as before. In this way one recovers ordinary relativistic quantum field theory, and its non-relativistic limit,  from the underlying classical matrix dynamics. This is the step described by the lower arrow in the upper half of Fig. 4.

Something very remarkable is achieved next, by the upper arrow in the top half of Fig. 4. One examines the role played by the statistical fluctuations around equilibrium, for the case of the non-relativistic Schr\"{o}dinger equation.  These are taken into account by revisiting the Ward identity, and instead of replacing $\tilde{C}$ by its canonical average, one replaces $\tilde{C}$ by the canonical average plus correction terms. These correction terms represent the ever-present statistical fluctuations around equilibrium, analogous to the Brownian motion corrections to equilibrium thermodynamics. These fluctuations induce a [linear] modification of the non-relativistic Schr\"{o}dinger
equation, the modifications being caused by the stochastic fluctuations, and if one assumes the fluctuations to be of the white noise type, they can be described by the It\^o representation of Brownian motion.

In order to make contact with the quantum measurement problem, one must now make a somewhat ad hoc assumption [which must eventually be justified from a deeper understanding of Trace Dynamics, and perhaps of the possible involvement of gravity]. The point is that the Schr\"{o}dinger equation, after including fluctuations, turns out not to be norm-preserving. Now one knows from particle number conservation in non-relativistic quantum theory that norm must be preserved during evolution. While norm-preservation must eventually be proved from deeper principles, for now one defines a new wave-function by dividing the original wave-function by its norm, so that the new wave-function preserves norm. This new wave-function obeys a {\it non-linear} Schr\"{o}dinger equation while continuing to depend on the statistical fluctuations.

This non-linear Schr\"{o}dinger equation contains within itself a special class, which coincides with the so-called models of Continuous Spontaneous Localization [CSL] developed by Ghirardi, Rimini, Weber and Pearle ~\cite{Ghirardi:86, Pearle:76, Ghirardi2:90,  Bassi:03} to explain the absence of macroscopic superpositions and to provide a dynamical explanation for the collapse of the wave-function during a quantum measurement. A prototype of such models is the one particle stochastic non-linear Schr\"{o}dinger equation
~\cite{Diosi:89}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:qmupl1}
d \psi_t  =  \left[ -\frac{i}{\hbar} H dt + \sqrt{\lambda} (q - \langle q \rangle_t) dW_t
 - \frac{\lambda}{2} (q - \langle q \rangle_t)^2 dt \right] \psi_t,
\end{equation}
where $q$ is the position operator of the particle, $\langle q \rangle_t \equiv \langle \psi_t | q | \psi_t \rangle$ is the quantum expectation, and $W_t$ is a standard Wiener process which encodes the stochastic effect. Evidently, the stochastic term is nonlinear and also nonunitary. The collapse constant $\lambda$ sets the strength of the collapse mechanics, and it is chosen proportional to the mass $m$ of the particle according to the formula
$
\lambda = \frac{m}{m_0}\; \lambda_0,
$
where $m_0$ is the nucleon's mass and $\lambda_0$ measures the collapse strength.

This equation can be used to prove the absence of macroscopic superpositions and solve the quantum measurement problem, and furthermore its predictions for experiments in the mesoscopic regime differ from those of the standard linear Schr\"{o}dinger equation ~\cite{Bassi:03, RMP:2012, Essay:2012}. This allows the stochastic non-linear quantum quantum dynamics, and hence Trace Dynamics, albeit indirectly, to  be confirmed or ruled out by laboratory tests in the foreseeable future. The structure of the equation naturally provides an amplification mechanism - collapse becomes more and more important for larger systems. Furthermore, as can be anticipated by the very nature of its construction [norm-prservation], this non-linear equation dynamically reproduces the Born probability rule for the random outcomes of successive quantum measurements on an observable.

Although more remains to be done [why fluctuations should preserve norm; can the CSL model be uniquely derived from trace dynamics, is the collapse constant $\lambda$ a new constant of nature, or is it determined by already known fundamental constants via involvement of gravity in collapse], it is unquestionably true that trace dynamics provides a very natural and attractive avenue for understanding the origin of probabilities during quantum measurement, although the Schr\"{o}dinger dynamics is by itself deterministic. It has to do with the universal presence of statistical fluctuations: if the Schr\"{o}dinger equation is a thermodynamic approximation to the underlying matrix dynamics, the stochastic non-linear corrections to the Schr\"{o}dinger equation which are responsible for dynamical collapse, and the origin of probabilities, are a consequence of the unavoidable presence of fluctuations around thermodynamic equilibrium.

It should also be emphasized that the theory of wave-function collapse discussed here [CSL] is a non-relativistic theory, as also is the starting point wherein the connection between trace dynamics and CSL is developed. Despite several attempts, a relativisitic theory of wave-function collapse does not yet exist ~\cite{RMP:2012}. One clear difficulty is that the norm-preservation condition, which permits the construction of the non-linear stochastic Schr\"{o}dinger equation, is not necessarily available anymore.

\section{From the generalized quantum dynamics, to Trace Dynamics}
The ideas discussed in this section are a report on work in progress, and hence have not yet taken final shape in terms of a mathematical formulation.

Trace Dynamics takes a classical spacetime as given, and on this given spacetime it considers the matrix dynamics of selected degrees of freedom, for which quantum behaviour is derived. To our understanding, a fully consistent treatment of these select degrees, which is in accordance with the Einstein hole argument, should also associate an operator space-time with these degrees, as discussed in Section II. However, and this is crucial, one makes an {\it assumption} that this operator spacetime associated with these select degrees of freedom makes a very negligible impact on the classical spacetime produced by the dominant classical matter fields. This assumption is what allows one to proceed with a pre-given classical spacetime while developing trace dynamics. It is possible however, as discussed towards the end of this section, that this assumption may have to be revisited, in order to understand better the fundamental nature of EPR quantum correlations [no signalling, but yet an `action at a distance', as during the collapse of the wave-function].

One must face next the hard problem of understanding the transition from a GQD to a classical world. At a simplistic level, one could take the following approach. One should consider the statistical fluctuations about the equilibrium, at which GQD holds. However, one knows how to do that only in the non-relativistic case. The non-relativistic limit of the GQD cannot be defined by "going to speeds much less than speed of light", since time and space are still operators and there clearly is no classical notion of speed here. However, in the Lorentz transformations which define the invariance of the operator spacetime line-element, the one-parameter invariance  along a given direction is defined by the parameter $\beta$ which in the classical limit is defined as $v/c$. A non-relativistic limit of GQD can hence be defined by taking the limit $\beta\ll 1$. In this limit one can demand that the fluctuations preserve norm in the Schr\"{o}dinger equation, in which case the Schr\"{o}dinger equation is transformed to a non-linear equation, of which the CSL type stochastic equation is a special case. Evolution is described with respect to the proper time $s$ defined from the trace of the operator spacetime element, and the Hamiltonian depends on configuration degrees of freedom which include operator time. As before, one can consider the many-particle macroscopic limit and show that macroscopic superpositions are absent. However, something else extremely significant happens now. The absence of macroscopic superpositions in the matter sector implies the absence of superpositions of different spacetime quantum states corresponding to the operator status of space and time, thereby leading to the {\it emergence of a classical spacetime}. This is an important lesson, even though yet understood only in the non-relativistic and flat case: the emergence of a classical macroscopic description for matter comes hand in hand with the emergence of classical spacetime - the two are inseparable, and this inseparability is entirely in accord with the Einstein hole argument. If quantum theory is an emergent phenomenon [emerging from trace dynamics], so is classical spacetime an emergent phenomenon [emerging again from the generalized trace dynamics]. The matrix degrees of freedom may well be called the `atoms of spacetime'.

A greater challenge is to understand the relativistic case: how is the ordinary spacetime of special relativity to be recovered from GQD, when the norm-preservation condition is not apparently available.

An even greater challenge is to recover classical gravity! When one proceeds from GQD to recover the classical world, not only should the classical spacetime manifold emerge, but there must emerge also classical gravity, which satisfies Einstein equations. Only then can consistency with the Einstein hole argument be ensured. Now GQD by itself has no gravity. Thus it seems we must return again to the lowermost level, and propose that gravity be introduced at the level of matrix dynamics itself, possibly by going from the `flat' operator spacetime element to the `curved' operator spacetime element:
\begin{equation}
ds^{2} = Trd\hat{s}^2\equiv Tr{\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}d\hat{x}^{\mu}d\hat{x}^{\nu}}.
\end{equation}

The expectation is that operator Einstein equations can be assumed to hold at the matrix dynamics level, and coarse graining would lead to Einstein equations for the canonically averaged operator metric, self-consistently coupled with the `curved space' GQD which depends on the canonically averaged operator metric. [While of course this idea remains to be developed mathematically, one cannot help noticing the resemblance it bears to the Schr\"{o}dinger-Newton system studied by Di\'{o}si ~\cite{Diosi:84} and
Penrose ~\cite{Penrose:96} and others ~\cite{RMP:2012} in the context of studying gravity induced dynamical wavefunction collapse]. From here, one possibly proceeds to study the impact of statistical fluctuations on the equilibrium GQD and canonically averaged Einstein equations. This system is now non-linearly self-coupled, and it could be that one may not have to by hand bring in the assumption of norm-preservation to arrive at a stochastic non-linear CSL type collapse model which obeys the Born rule. In the macroscopic limit, such a non-linear system could be responsible for making both macroscopic objects and the associated spacetime and gravity behave classically. Once such a classical world is recovered, one can implement the construction described in Section III, for arriving at quantum theory starting from trace dynamics for the select degrees of freedom.

Our ideas may provide a useful way out for a better understanding of the apparent `action at a distance' which seems to prevail during the seemingly instantaneous collapse of the wave-function and in EPR-type quantum correlations. Perhaps one must not entirely disregard the implications of the operator space-time metric line-element associated with the [sub-dominant] quantum system, as was done in Section III while deriving quantum theory on a given classical space-time background. A quantum system always `carries' such a line-element with itself, in the sense that the most fundamental matrix level of description always exists, although we coarse grain it to arrive at what we observe at a higher level. Seen from the viewpoint of this operator line-element, which is non-commutative in nature, there is no point-structure to the spacetime associated with it, no definite light-cone structure, and no pre-given causal order, although it does have operator-level Lorentz invariance.  Thus from the point of view of this line-element, `wave-function collapse' can well happen in a unsurprising manner which otherwise appears as `instantaneous action at a distance' from the point of view of the externally given classical spacetime, because the latter possesses a causal structure. But this latter causal structure is not intrinsic to the quantum system under study - its something we choose to employ for our convenience, and then we `cry foul'! Indeed since there is no violation of special relativity in a EPR measurement, the apparent strangeness could simply be a case of trying to describe the process from an inaccurate perspective. Support for our idea also comes from an important recent paper ~\cite{Brukner:11}, where it has been shown that if one does not assume a predefined global causal order, there are multipartite quantum correlations which cannot be understood in terms of definite causal order and spacetime may emerge from a more fundamental structure in a quantum to classical transition.

In summary, in this work we have addressed the two key fundamental obstacles which still hold us back from getting a better understanding of quantum theory: the problem of time and the problem of quantum measurement. The problem of time suggests that a fundamental description of spacetime which is more compatible with quantum theory than the conventional one, is a non-commutative spacetime. The passage from a non-commutative spacetime to the commutative one that we see around us is through a coarse graining: akin to a passage from microscopic Newtonian mechanics to macroscopic thermodynamics via statistical mechanics. Quantum theory also emerges as the equilibrium description from the underlying level via a coarse graining. Statistical thermodynamics invariably implies Brownian motion fluctuations around equilibrium, and these are what result in quantum theory being an approximation to a stochastic non-linear theory, and dynamically explain the collapse of the wave-function and the emergence of probabilities during a quantum measurement. Thus the problem of time and the problem of quantum measurement are related to each other; their solution possibly springs from the same underlying source. Ongoing laboratory experiments are testing whether quantum theory is indeed an approximation to a non-linear theory, and these experiments also indirectly test the idea that the issues of time and measurement in quantum theory are related to each other.
\bigskip

\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements:} It is a pleasure to thank Angelo Bassi, Suratna Das, Kinjalk Lochan and Hendrik Ulbricht for collaboration and fruitful discussions. I would like to thank the organizers of the conference Quantum Malta 2012 for holding a very stimulating conference, and the conference participants for insightful discussions. I am grateful to Thomas Filk for illuminating conversations on quantum theory, and for encouraging me to write this article. I would also like to thank Albrecht von M\"{u}ller and the Parmenides Foundation for organizing the Parmenides Workshop: The present - perspectives from physics and philosophy (Wildbad Kreuth, Germany, October, 2006) where some early ideas leading to the present work were described ~\cite{Singh:2009}.

This work was made possible through the support of a grant
from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are
those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton
Foundation. The support of the Foundational Questions Institute is also gratefully acknowledged.

\smallskip

A much more detailed bibliography of works relevant to this article can be found in ~\cite{RMP:2012}.

\newpage