\section{Introduction:\protect\\
}
\par
Occasionally in the development of quantum theory and quantum field theory,
something fundamental and simple is overlooked. This is the case with the
introduction of the ordered Poisson bracket and its consequences. It is shown
in this paper that the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation and the
commutation relation between position and momentum, the quantum bracket $[\hat
q, \hat p]=i\hbar$ \cite{Dirac}, is in fact a consequence of the principle of
invariance under a one parameter canonical transformation of the c-number
symmetric bracket. Furthermore, the relation between expectation values and
classical dynamics, and the probability interpretation of quantum theory are a
consequence of this procedure. In addition, a c-number dynamical equation is
derived, which provides the fundamental condition for the boson and fermion
operator commutation relations.
\par
Although the idea of the symmetric analog of the Poisson bracket has
appeared in the theory of differential geometry and algebraic ideals
\cite{D-V}, and in classical constraint dynamics \cite{FandK}, its clear relevance to
fundamental physics has not until now been demonstrated. The idea of the
ordered Poisson bracket and related symmetric and antisymmetric brackets has
been introduced in \cite{GandK} to provide a c-number analog of the usual
boson commutator and fermion anticommutator for quantum fields. From the basic
concept of the ordered bracket, the antisymmetric and symmetric brackets are
defined. The principle of invariance of the antisymmetric bracket under a one
parameter canonical transformation leads to Hamilton's dynamical equations,
and the generator of this transformation is the Hamiltonian. What is new and
surprising is that the analogous property for the symmetric bracket leads to
Schr\"odinger's equation, and the generator of the one parameter canonical
transformation in this case is the expectation value of the Hamiltonian
operator. Furthermore; these c-number brackets provide a natural derivation of
the boson and fermion commutation relations, when operator infinitesimal time
development equations are sought which have the c-number equations as a
displacement state expectation value.
\par
In this paper dimensionless phase space coordinates are used such that
$q_i\rightarrow q_i/q_o$, $p_i\rightarrow p_i/p_o$, and $q_o p_o=\hbar$. For a
given mass $M_o$, the natural units of length, time, and energy are
respectively,
 $\lambda={2\pi{\hbar}/{M_oc}}$, $T_o={2\pi{\hbar}/{M_oc^2}}$, and
${E_o}=M_oc^2=\hbar\omega_o$. If $M_o$ is chosen to be the Planck mass,
$M_P=\sqrt{\hbar c/G_N}$, then these units can be expressed in terms of natural physical
constants(Planck's reduced constant $\hbar$, the
speed of light $c$, and the
Newtonian gravitational constant $G_N$).

\section{Complex phase space and c-number brackets}
\par
Ordinary classical dynamics is usually discussed in terms
of real-valued phase space vector variables of the form
$(\vec q,\vec p)$.  However, its relation to quantum
theory and to fermion systems is much more transparent if
one changes these real phase space vector variables to the
complex-valued dimensionless phase space vector variables
$\vec a \equiv (\vec q + i\vec p/)/\sqrt{2}$
and their complex conjugates
$\vec a^{\, *} = (\vec q - i\vec p)/\sqrt{2}$.
In terms of components of both of these types
of phase space vector variables, the usual Poisson bracket of
ordinary classical dynamics is
\begin{eqnarray}
\{f,\, g\} &&\equiv \sum_k\left ({\partial f\over\partial q_k}
{\partial g\over\partial p_k} - {\partial g\over\partial q_k}
{\partial f\over\partial p_k}\right )\nonumber\\
&&= -\,{i}
\sum_k\left ({\partial f\over\partial a_k}
{\partial g\over\partial a^*_k} - {\partial g\over\partial a_k}
{\partial f\over\partial a^*_k}\right ).
\label{notes1}\end{eqnarray}
From the second Poisson bracket representation given
above, we abstract the semi-bracket,
which we call the ordered Poisson bracket,
\begin{equation}
\{f\circ g\}=\sum_k{\partial f\over\partial a_k}
{\partial g\over\partial a^*_k}
={\partial f\over\partial{\vec a}}\cdot
{\partial g\over\partial{\vec a}^*}.
\label{notes2}\end{equation}
We note
that while $\{f\circ g\}$ is linear in each of its two argument
functions $f$ and $g$, it is neither antisymmetric nor symmetric
under their interchange.  However, it does
satisfy the identity $\{f\circ g\} = \{g^*\circ f^*\}^*$, which
is in algebraic correspondence with the Hermitian conjugation
formula for the product of two Hilbert-space operators,
i.e., $\hat f\hat g = (\hat g^{\dagger}\hat f^{\dagger}
)^{\dagger}$.
From Eq. (\ref{notes2}) we define the c-number symmetric and antisymmetric brackets
\begin{equation}
\{f,\, g\}_{\pm} \equiv \{f\circ g\} \pm \{g\circ f\},
\label{{notes2a}}\end{equation}
where we note $\{f,g\}=-i\{f,g\}_-$.
We readily calculate the c-number symmetric and antisymmetric
brackets for the components of $\vec a$ and $\vec a^{\, *}$,
\begin{equation}
\{a_i,\, a_j\}_{\pm} = 0 = \{a_i^*,\, a_j^*\}_{\pm}, \quad
\{a_i,\, a_j^*\}_{\pm} = \delta_{ij} = \pm\{a_j^*,\, a_i\}_{\pm}.
\label{notes4}\end{equation}
\par
Infinitesimal canonical transformations, which leave the brackets invariant,
are now introduced.
The canonical transformations of ordinary classical dynamics
are mappings of the complex phase space vectors $\vec a\to\vec
A(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *})$ and
$\vec a^{\, *}\to \vec A^*(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *})$,
which preserve the antisymmetric
c-number Poisson bracket relations among the complex phase space vector
components. Also we consider the canonical transformations
of complex vector phase space mappings which preserve the c-number symmetric
bracket relations among the complex phase space vector components. It is
important to note that the complex phase space vectors are related to ordinary
classical mechanics phase space coordinates in the case of the antisymmetric
bracket; however, in the symmetric bracket case they correspond to the
expansion coefficients of either quantum wave functions or the c-number
limit of quantum fields.
\par
Specializing now to infinitesimal phase space transformations
$\vec a\to\vec A = \vec a + \delta\vec a(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *})$,
we readily calculate the c-number antisymmetric and symmetric
brackets for the components of $\vec A$ and $\vec A^*$ to first
order in $\delta\vec a$ and $\delta\vec a^{\, *}$,
\begin{equation}
\{A_i,\, A_j\}_{\pm} =
{\partial (\delta a_j)\over\partial a_i^*}\pm
{\partial (\delta a_i)\over\partial a_j^*}\, , \quad
\{A_i^*,\, A_j^*\}_{\pm} =
{\partial (\delta a_i^*)\over\partial a_j}\pm
{\partial (\delta a_j^*)\over\partial a_i}\, ,
\label{notes6}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\{A_i,\, A_j^*\}_{\pm} = \delta_{ij} +
{\partial (\delta a_i)\over\partial a_j} +
{\partial (\delta a_j^*)\over\partial a_i^*} =
\pm\{A_j^*,\, A_i\}_{\pm}.
\label{notes7}\end{equation}
If we now impose the requirement that this infinitesimal phase
space vector transformation
preserves the c-number antisymmetric or symmetric bracket
relations among the complex phase space vectors,
we obtain the three equations,
\begin{equation}
{\partial (\delta a_j)\over\partial a_i^*} = \mp
{\partial (\delta a_i)\over\partial a_j^*}\, , \quad
{\partial (\delta a_j^*)\over\partial a_i}= \mp
{\partial (\delta a_i^*)\over\partial a_j}\, , \quad
{\partial (\delta a_i)\over\partial a_j} +
{\partial (\delta a_j^*)\over\partial a_i^*} = 0.
\label{notes8}
\end{equation}
The last of these equations is independent of the value of
the $\mp$ symbol, and it is satisfied in
particular for one-parameter infinitesimal $\delta\vec a$ which
are of the form
\begin{equation}
\delta a_i = -\,{i}(\delta\lambda)
{\partial G\over\partial a_i^*},\qquad \delta a_j^* = {i}(\delta\lambda)
{\partial G\over\partial a_j},
\label{notes9}\end{equation}
where $\delta\lambda$ is a real-valued infinitesimal parameter
and $G(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *},\lambda)$ is a real-valued generating function.
We thus can readily verify that the last
equation in Eq. (\ref{notes8}) is satisfied.
From the two immediately preceding equations Eq. (\ref{notes9}), we
obtain the form of the equation which governs any continuous
one-parameter trajectory of sequential infinitesimal canonical
transformations in the complex vector phase space:
\begin{equation}
i{da_i\over d\lambda} =
{\partial G\over\partial a_i^*} \quad \hbox{or} \quad
-i{da_i^*\over d\lambda} =
{\partial G\over\partial a_i}\, .
\label{notes11}\end{equation}
In the most general circumstance, $G$ may have an explicit
dependence on $\lambda$.
These equations may be rewritten as the pair of real equations:
\begin{equation}
{dq_i\over d\lambda} =
{\partial G\over\partial p_i}\, , \quad
{dp_i\over d\lambda} =
-\, {\partial G\over\partial q_i}\, ,
\label{notes12}\end{equation}
which are generalized Hamilton's equations.

For the case of ordinary classical dynamics, antisymmetric bracket case
 (for which  $\mp = +$ in Eq. (\ref{notes8})), the first two of the group of three
equations which were given above are satisfied identically
for the one-parameter infinitesimal $\delta\vec a$ of the
generating function form which has just been given in Eq. (\ref{notes9}).
However, for the symmetric bracket case
(for which  $\mp = -$ in Eq. (\ref{notes8})), the first two of
that group of three equations impose the following constraint on
those real-valued generating functions
$G(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *},\lambda)$ of continuous one-parameter
canonical transformation trajectories:
\begin{equation}
{\partial^2 G\over\partial a_i\partial a_j} = 0 =
{\partial^2 G\over\partial a_i^*\partial a_j^*}\, .
\label{notes13}\end{equation}

\section {Fermion c-number dynamics}
\par
For the symmetric bracket case, which we call fermion c-number dynamics, the
generating functions of the continuous
one-parameter trajectories of sequential infinitesimal
canonical transformations
are constrained to be constant or linear in
each of $\vec a$ and $\vec a^{\, *}$, as well as real-valued.
The most general form for the
generating function is therefore
\begin{equation}
G(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *},\lambda) = G_0(\lambda) +
\sum_k\left (\tilde g_k(\lambda)a_k^* + \tilde g_k^*(\lambda)a_k\right ) +
\sum_l\sum_mG_{lm}(\lambda)a_l^*a_m,
\label{notes14}\end{equation}
where $G_0(\lambda)$ is real and $G_{lm}(\lambda)$ is a
Hermitian matrix.  Upon putting this constrained form
for $G$ into the complex phase space form of the
generalized Hamilton's equations Eq. (\ref{notes11}),
we arrive at
\begin{equation}
i{da_i\over d\lambda} =
\tilde g_i(\lambda) + \sum_j G_{ij}(\lambda)a_j,
\label{notes15}\end{equation}
which is a (possibly) inhomogeneous linear equation of matrix
Schr\"odinger form.
If $\tilde g_i(\lambda) = 0$, the preceding equation is a
general homogeneous type of Schr\"odinger equation, whereas
if
$\tilde g_i(\lambda) \propto\delta(\lambda - \lambda')$,
it is a general propagator type of Schr\"odinger equation.
It is clear that the c-number dynamics of the symmetric bracket case
must be linear and describable by a Schr\"odinger type equation.
\par
The generating functions of the continuous one-parameter
canonical transformation trajectories are usually considered
to be observables of classical theory when they
have no explicit dependence on the parameter.
Thus we restrict $G(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *},\lambda)$ to have
no  explicit
$\lambda$-dependence.
In the present case it is
always possible to suppress the inhomogeneous
part if the Hermitian matrix $G_{lm}$ is
not singular.  This is done by making the canonical
transformation
\begin{equation}
a_i\to A_i = a_i + \sum_j\left (G^{-1}\right )_{ij}\tilde g_j.
\label{notes16}\end{equation}
It is easily verified that these transformed $A_i$
also satisfy the c-number symmetric
bracket relations.
In terms of these $A_i$'s, the generalized Hamilton's
equations become
\begin{equation}
i{dA_i\over d\lambda} =
\sum_j G_{ij}A_j,
\label{notes17}\end{equation}
which are of the homogeneous Schr\"odinger matrix equation form,
while $G$ itself becomes
\begin{equation}
G(\vec A,\vec A^*) = G_0 -
\sum_l\sum_m\left (G^{-1}\right )_{lm}\tilde g_l^*\tilde g_m +
\sum_l\sum_mG_{lm}A_l^*A_m,
\label{notes18}\end{equation}
which has no inhomogeneous term.
\section{Derivation of the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation}

\par
The result found in Eq. (\ref{notes17}) following from the invariance of the
symmetric bracket can now be used to derive the time-dependent Schr\"odinger
equation. Choosing the parameter $\lambda$ to be a time parameter $t$ and
assuming that the canonical transformation Eq. (\ref{notes16}) has been made, the
dynamical equation Eq. (\ref{notes17}) for a time-independent $G_{ij}$ becomes
\begin{equation}
i{\dot a}_i(t)=\{g(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *}),\, a_i(t)\}_{+}=\sum_jG_{ij}a_j(t).
\label{se1}\end{equation}
Keeping the last term only in Eq. (\ref{notes18})
and changing
$\vec
A\rightarrow
\vec a$ and
$G(\vec A,\vec A^{\, *})\rightarrow g(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *})$,
the real valued generating function becomes
\begin{equation}
g(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *})=\sum_i\sum_ja^*_i(t)G_{ij}a_j(t).
\label{se2}\end{equation}
The Hermitian matrix element $G_{ij}$ is associated with an Hermitian
operator $\hat G$ such that
\[ G_{ij}=\bra{i}{\hat G}\ket{j},\]
where ${\ket{i}}$ form a orthonormal complete set of states with identity
operator $I=\sum_i \ket{i}\bra{i}$.
A general state expanded in this basis is
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi(t)}=\sum_i a_i(t)\ket{i},
\label{se3}\end{equation}
with $a_i(t)=\scp{i}{\psi(t)}$.
From Eq. (\ref{se1}),
follows the
relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_i{\dot a}_i(t)\ket{i}
&&=i{\partial \over \partial t}\ket{\psi(t)}=\sum_i\sum_j\ket{i}G_{ij}a_j(t)\nonumber \\
&&=\sum_i\sum_j\ket{i}\bra{i}{\hat G}\ket{j}a_j(t)\nonumber \\
&&=\sum_i\sum_j\ket{i}\bra{i}{\hat G}\ket{j}\scp{j}{\psi(t)}=I{\hat G}\ket{\psi(t)}\nonumber \\
&&i{\partial \over \partial t}\ket{\psi(t)}={\hat G}\ket{\psi(t)},\nonumber \\
\label{se4}
\end{eqnarray}
which is the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation when $\hat G$ is identified
with the Hamiltonian operator $\hat H({\hat q},{\hat p})$.
\par
We see here the difference in the interpretation of the quantities $a_i(t)$ in
the case of the antisymmetric and symmetric brackets. In the former these are
just the complex coordinates associated with position $q_i$ and momentum
$p_i$; whereas, in the latter, they represent the expansion coefficients of a
general quantum state in terms of an orthonormal basis. Both brackets lead to
the completeness relation
\begin{equation}
\bra{q}\{\ket{\psi(t)},\bra{\psi(t)}\}_{\pm}\ket{q'}=\delta(q-q').
\label{se5}\end{equation}
This is seen from
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\bra{q}\{\ket{\psi(t)},\bra{\psi(t)}\}_{\pm}\ket{q'}\nonumber \\
&&=\sum_i\sum_j\bra{q}\{a_i,a^*_j\}_{\pm}\ket{i}\bra{j}{q'}\rangle\nonumber \\
&&=\sum_i\sum_j\bra{q}\delta_{ij}\ket{i}\bra{j}{q'}\rangle=\bra{q}I\ket{q'}=\delta(q-q').\nonumber \\
\label{se6}
\end{eqnarray}

\section{Derivation of $[{\hat q},{\hat p}]=\lowercase{i}\hbar$}

\par
The principle of symmetric bracket invariance leads to quantum mechanics
because it leads to the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation and to a derivation of
the Dirac bracket relation $[\hat q, \hat p]=i.$
Firstly, one considers the results of the invariance of the antisymmetric
bracket under a one parameter canonical transformation.
The time development of a real function $f(\vec a,\vec a^*,t)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\dot f=-i\{f,H\}_{-}
+{{\partial  f}\over{\partial  t}},
\label{(1)}\end{equation}
and the dynamical equations for the coordinates are
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot a_i &&=-i\{a_i,H\}_{-}=-i{{\partial  H}\over{\partial  a_i^*}}\nonumber \\
\dot a_i^* &&=-i\{a_i^*,H\}_{-}=i{{\partial  H}\over{\partial  a_i}}.\nonumber \\
\label{(2)}\end{eqnarray}
These are equivalent to Hamilton's equations of classical mechanics.
\par
The invariance of the symmetric bracket under a one parameter canonical
transformation gives dynamical equations for the coordinates(wave function
expansion coefficients in this case). It is convenient to write Eq. (\ref{se1}) and
its complex conjugate as
\begin{eqnarray}
i{{\partial  {\vec a}}\over{\partial  t}}&&=\hat G\cdot {\vec a}\nonumber \\
-i{{\partial  {\vec a^*}}\over{\partial  t}}&&={\vec a^*}\cdot\hat G.\nonumber \\
\label{(3)}\end{eqnarray}
These are Schr\"odinger's equations for $a_i$ and $a_i^*$ (i can also be a
continuous index). The time development of a real
function $\bar f(\vec a,\vec a^*,t)
={\vec a^*}\cdot\hat F \cdot {\vec a}$, which depends on
the generator for the one parameter canonical transformation
$g(\vec a,\vec a^*)={\vec a^*}\cdot\hat G \cdot {\vec a}$, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\dot{\bar f}}&&={\dot{\vec a^*}}\cdot\hat F \cdot {\vec a}+
{\vec a^*}\cdot\hat F \cdot {\dot{\vec a}}+
{\vec a^*}\cdot{\partial\hat F\over \partial t} \cdot {\vec a}\nonumber \\
{\dot{\bar f}}&&=-i {\vec a^*}\cdot [\hat F,\hat G]\cdot{\vec a}
+{\overline{\partial  f}\over{\partial  t}},\nonumber \\
\label{(4)}\end{eqnarray}
which follows from Eq. (\ref{(3)}).
Here $\hat F$ and $\hat G$ are Hermitian matrices(operators).
For the discrete index case
\begin{equation}
\bar f(\vec a,\vec a^*,t)
=\sum_i\sum_j\scp{\psi(t)}{i}\bra{i}\hat F(t)\ket{j}\scp{j}{\psi(t)}
=\bra{\psi(t)}\hat F(t)\ket{\psi(t)},
\label{(4a)}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\bar f(\vec a,\vec a^*,t)
=\int\int\scp{\psi(t)}{p}\bra{p} \hat F(t) \ket{p'}\scp{p'}{\psi(t)} dpdp',
\label{(4b)}\end{equation}
for the continuous index $p$. The form of $g({\vec a},{\vec a}^*)$ shows that
classical results are to be associated with  expectation values. When $\hat G$
is identified with the Hamiltonian operator $\hat H$ and $\ket{i}$ is an
eigenstate of the Hamiltonian with eigenvalues $E_i$, the bilinear form of
$g({\vec a},{\vec a}^*)$ leads to the statistical interpretation of quantum
mechanics. This is seen from
\begin{equation}
\bar H=\vec a \cdot\hat H\cdot \vec a
=\sum_i E_i\vert a_i\vert^2=\bra{\psi(t)}\hat H\ket{\psi(t)},
\label{(4c)}\end{equation}
with
\[ \scp{\psi}{\psi}=\sum_i \vert a_i\vert^2=1. \]
\par
The classical dynamics case(antisymmetric bracket result Eq. (\ref{(1)})
for the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H(a,a^*)={{p^2}\over{2m}}+V(q)
\label{(5)}\end{equation}
gives the result for $f(a,a^*)=q$ that
$\dot q=p/m$. For the c-number symmetric bracket result Eq. (\ref{(4)})
to give a result for $\bar f$ that corresponds to
classical mechanics, one identifies $\hat G$ with the Hamiltonian
operator $\hat H({\hat p},{\hat q})$, and observes that
$\dot{\bar q}=\bar p/m$ when $[\hat q,\hat p]=i$.
This is found from the expectation value
\begin{equation}
\bar f=\bra{\psi(t)}\hat f(t)\ket{\psi(t)}
=\bra{\psi}\hat U^\dagger(t)\hat f(t)\hat U(t)\ket{\psi},
\label{(5a)}\end{equation}
with $\ket{\psi}=\ket{\psi(0)}$, $\hat U(t)=exp(-it\hat H)$ and the
relation
\begin{equation}
{d\bar f\over dt}=\bra{\psi(t)}i[\hat H,\hat f]
+{\partial \over \partial t}\hat f(t)\ket{\psi(t)},
\label{(5b)}\end{equation}
which corresponds to Eq. (\ref{(4)}) when Eq. (\ref{se3}) is used.
Choosing $\hat f(t)=\hat q$ and using the Hamiltonian operator found from
Eq. (\ref{(5)}), one finds
\begin{equation}
{d\bar q \over dt}=\bra{\psi(t)}i[{{\hat p}^2\over 2m},\hat q]\ket{\psi(t)}
={\bar p\over m}
\label{(5c)}\end{equation}
when $[\hat q,\hat p]=i$, which of course is equivalent to $[{\hat{a}},{\hat{a}}^\dagger]=1$.
The appropriate correspondence between force and the potential function
follows from Eq. (\ref{(5b)}) when $\hat f(t)={\hat p}$. This gives the result
\begin{equation}
{d\bar p\over dt}=-\bra{\psi(t)}{\partial V(q)\over \partial q}\ket{\psi(t)},
\label{(5d)}\end{equation}
since the quantum bracket relation between ${\hat p}$ and ${\hat q}$ implies
\begin{equation}
[{\hat p},V(q)]=-i{\partial V(q)\over \partial q}.
\label{(5e)}\end{equation}
This is of course the well known result of Ehrenfest \cite{ehren}, and
the appropriate states to use in the evaluation of these
expressions when associating them with corresponding classical equations is
the minimum uncertainty displacement states discussed in a Sec. VI.
These results  clearly shows that
quantum mechanics is a consequence of the principle of symmetric bracket
invariance, and this is
clearly an advance in the understanding of the origin and properties
of quantum theory.
\par
The above proof depends upon the association of the quantum operators with
observed quantities through the prediction of distributions for the spectrum
of the operators and expectation values. Naturally, the generating function
$g(\vec a^*,\vec a)$ given in Eq. (\ref{se2}) leading to the invariance of the
symmetric bracket, is of this form. Since $\hat G$ can be identified with the
Hamiltonian $\hat H({\hat q},{\hat p})$, this requires the existence of the expectation
values for the operators $\hat p$ and $\hat q$. A related derivation of the
result $[\hat q,\hat p]=i$, which depends upon the association of
distributions and  expectation values of the selfadjoint operators $\hat q$
and $\hat p$ with the classically observed values, is found in \cite{TGPRL},
and a similar approach is found in \cite{ah}. The argument of Dirac
\cite{Dirac} leading to $[\hat q,\hat p]=i$ is incorrect because it depends
upon the non-classical concept of non-commuting quantities in the definition
of the classical Poisson bracket.
\par
It is easily seen that the argument above for the non-relativistic Hamiltonian
leading to the quantum bracket result applies to the relativistic Dirac
Hamiltonian associated with a fermion. Furthermore, the importance of the
natural relation between the expectation value of an operator and its observed
classical values, which emerges from the principle of invariance of the
symmetric bracket, also resolves the dilemma of Dirac where he finds the
eigenvalues of $\dot {\hat q}$ to be $\pm c$, \cite{Dirac2}.  The correct
result for a free relativistic Dirac particle of mass $m$, momentum $p$, and
energy $E$ is
\begin{equation}
\dot{\bar q}={p\over E}=\beta,
\label{(6)}\end{equation}
where, using $\hbar=c=1$ and the conventions of \cite{LandL},
\begin{eqnarray}
p&&=\gamma \beta m\nonumber \\
E&&=\gamma m\nonumber \\
\gamma&&=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}.\nonumber \\
\label{(7)}\end{eqnarray}
This follows from the time derivative of the expectation value
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\bar q}&&={d\over dt}\bra{\psi(t)}\hat q\ket{\psi(t)}\nonumber \\
&&=-i\bra{\psi(t)}[\hat q,\hat H]\ket{\psi(t)}\nonumber \\
&&=\bar u(p)\vec{\gamma}u(p)/2E={\vec{p}\over E},\nonumber \\
\label{(8)}\end{eqnarray}
where for a free Dirac particle
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat H &&=\gamma^0\vec\gamma\cdot \vec p + \gamma^0 m,\nonumber \\
\scp{x}{\psi(t)} &&=\psi(x,t)={1\over \sqrt{2E}}u(p)e^{-ipx}\nonumber \\
px &&=p^0t-\vec p\cdot \vec r\nonumber \\
\bar u(p) &&=u^\dagger(p)\gamma^0\nonumber \\
\bar u(p)u(p) &&=2m.\nonumber \\
\label{(9)}\end{eqnarray}
This removes the need for the notion of zitterbewegung, which is associated
with the Heisenberg operator but not with the observed mean value of the
operator through the expectation value.

\section{Quantum field operators associated with $\lowercase{a_i}$
and $\lowercase{a_i^*}$}

\par
For each index $i$, one can associate an operator with the complex numbers
$a_i$ through the matrix element
\begin{equation}
a_i=\bra{a_i}{\hat{a}}_i\ket{a_i}.
\label{o1}\end{equation}
As shown in the next section,
the operator relations which are consistent with the infinitesimal
time development
equations for both bracket relations Eq. (\ref{se1}) and Eq. (\ref{(2)})
involving the complex numbers $a_i$ are
\begin{equation}
\{a_i,\, a_j^*\}_{\pm} = \delta_{ij}=[{\hat{a}}_i,{\hat{a}}^\dagger_j]_{\pm}.
\label{o2}\end{equation}
Introducing the notation $a=a_i$, we can discuss both the case of boson
operators and fermion operators without loss of generality.
In both cases, the states to use in Eq. (\ref{o1}) are defined as
displacement states
\begin{equation}
\ket{a}={\hat D}(a)\ket{0}.
\label{o3}\end{equation}
In the boson case, the displacement operator is
\begin{equation}
{\hat D}(a)=e^{a{\hat{a}}^\dagger-a^*{\hat{a}}},
\label{o4}\end{equation}
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(q) &&=\sigma(p)=1/\sqrt{2},\quad \sigma(q)\sigma(p)=1/2 \nonumber \\
\sigma^2(A) &&=\bra{a}\A^2\ket{a}-\bra{a}\A\ket{a}^2\nonumber \\
a &&=\bra{a}{\hat{a}}\ket{a},\quad a^*=\bra{a}{\hat{a}}^\dagger\ket{a}.\nonumber \\
\label{o5}\end{eqnarray}
The interpretation of $a_i$ in this case is clear. The state $\ket{a_i}$ is
the minimum uncertainty state, and the $a_i$'s are the complex numbers that
appear in the antisymmetric bracket Eq. (\ref{notes4}) and Hamilton's equations, i.e.
classical coordinates.
\par
The fermion case can be treated in a similar manner; however, there are some
modifications in interpretation. The displacement operator in this case is
\begin{eqnarray}
{\hat D}(\xi) &&=e^{\xi{\hat{a}}^\dagger-\xi^*{\hat{a}}},\quad \xi=|\xi|e^{+i\phi}\nonumber \\
\ket{a} &&={\hat D}(\xi)e^{-i\phi/2}\ket{0}=\cos(|\xi|)e^{-i\phi/2}\ket{0}
+e^{+i\phi/2}\sin(|\xi|)\ket{1}.\nonumber \\
\label{o6}\end{eqnarray}
This give the following:
\begin{eqnarray}
a &&=\bra{a}{\hat{a}}\ket{a}={\sin2|\xi| \over 2}e^{i\phi}\nonumber \\
a^* &&=\bra{a}{\hat{a}}^\dagger\ket{a}={\sin2|\xi| \over 2}e^{-i\phi}\nonumber \\
\bra{a}{\hat{a}}^\dagger{\hat{a}}\ket{a} &&=\sin^2|\xi|,\quad
\bra{a}{\hat{a}}{\hat{a}}^\dagger\ket{a}=\cos^2|\xi|\nonumber \\
 &&\bra{a}{\hat{a}}{\hat{a}}^\dagger +{\hat{a}}^\dagger{\hat{a}}\ket{a}=1,\nonumber \\
\label{o7}\end{eqnarray}
when
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\hat{a}}\ket{0} &&={\hat{a}}^\dagger\ket{1}=0 \nonumber \\
{\hat{a}}\ket{1} &&=\ket{0},\quad{\hat{a}}^\dagger\ket{0}=\ket{1}. \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray*}
An analogous calculation for $\sigma(q)$ and $\sigma(p)$ for the fermion case
gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(q) &&=(1-\sin^2(2|\xi|)\cos^2(\phi))^{1/2}/\sqrt{2}\nonumber \\
\sigma(p) &&=(1-\sin^2(2|\xi|)\sin^2(\phi))^{1/2}/\sqrt{2}\nonumber \\
\sigma(q) &&\sigma(p)\geq 0.\nonumber \\
\label{o8}\end{eqnarray}
The last inequality in Eq. (\ref{o8})  does not violate the minimum uncertainty
inequality, $\sigma(q)\sigma(p)\geq 1/2$, since $[{\hat q},{\hat p}]\neq i$, and ${\hat q}$
and ${\hat p}$ are not conjugate coordinates.

\section{Infinitesimal c-number transformations and their relation to boson and fermion
operators}

\par
The infinitesimal transformations induced by the c-number symmetric and
antisymmetric brackets have analogous relations involving operators, and these
lead naturally to the boson and fermion operator relations Eq. (\ref{o2}). For the
antisymmetric bracket, the transformation associated with a time $dt$ is
\begin{equation}
a_i(dt)=a_i(0)+idt\{H(\vec a,\vec a^*),a_i(0)\}_-,
\label{it1}\end{equation}
and the appropriate operator equation to associate with this c-number equation
is
\begin{equation}
{\hat{a}}_i(dt)={\hat{a}}_i(0)+idt[{\hat H}({\hat{a}},{\hat{a}}^\dagger),{\hat{a}}_i(0)].
\label{it2}\end{equation}
With ${\hat{a}}_i={\hat{a}}_i(0)$, the commutation relation for ${\hat{a}}_i$ and ${\hat{a}}^\dagger_j$ in this case follows from the
relation $[{\hat q},{\hat p}]=i$, which is a consequence of Eq. (\ref{(5c)}), and is the boson
commutator
\begin{equation}
[{\hat{a}}_i,{\hat{a}}^\dagger_j]=\delta_{ij}.
\label{it3}\end{equation}
The associated classical Hamiltonian is found from the normal ordered matrix
element
\begin{equation}
H(\vec a,\vec a^*)=\bra{\vec a}:\hat H:\ket{\vec a},
\label{it4}\end{equation}
with $\ket{\vec a}=\ket{ a_0}\ket{ a_1}\cdots\ket{a_n}$,
where $\ket{ a_i}$ are the minimum uncertainty states defined
in Eq. (\ref{o4}).
Here normal ordering is defined as moving the operators ${\hat{a}}^\dagger_i$ to the left
according to the boson commutation operation. In this way, the c-number
equation Eq. (\ref{it1}) is a consequence of the expectation
value of Eq. (\ref{it2}),
using the displacement states $\ket{\vec a}$ found from Eq. (\ref{o4}).
\par
The infinitesimal c-number transformation associated with the symmetric
bracket implies both the boson commutation and fermion anticommutation
relations. For the c-number symmetric bracket, the infinitesimal
transformation is
\begin{equation}
a_i(dt)=a_i(0)-idt\{g(\vec a,\vec a^*),a_i(0)\}_+,
\label{it5}\end{equation}
and the appropriate operator equation to associate with this is
\begin{equation}
{\hat{a}}_i(dt)={\hat{a}}_i(0)+idt[{\hat g}({\hat{a}},{\hat{a}}^\dagger),a_i(0)],
\label{it6}\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\hat g=\vec {\hat{a}}^\dagger\cdot\hat G\cdot \vec {\hat{a}},
\label{it7}\end{equation}
and ${\hat{a}}_i={\hat{a}}_i(0)$.
It is now shown that Eq. (\ref{it6}) yields the c-number
equation Eq. (\ref{it5}) when
the operators satisfy
either the boson commutator or fermion anticommutator relation Eq. (\ref{o2}).
This follows from using
\begin{eqnarray}
[\hat g,{\hat{a}}_i] &&=-\sum_j\sum_k([{\hat{a}}_i,{\hat{a}}^\dagger_j]{\hat{a}}_k+{\hat{a}}^\dagger_j[{\hat{a}}_i,{\hat{a}}_k])G_{jk} \nonumber \\
 &&=-\sum_j\sum_k(\delta_{ij}{\hat{a}}_k)G_{jk},\, boson\,\, case \nonumber \\
 &&=-\sum_j\sum_k((1-2{\hat{a}}^\dagger_j{\hat{a}}_i){\hat{a}}_k+2{\hat{a}}^\dagger_j{\hat{a}}_i{\hat{a}}_k)G_{jk},\, fermion\,\, case  \nonumber \\
 &&\equiv -
\sum_k
G_{ik}{\hat{a}}_k, \nonumber \\
\label{it9}\end{eqnarray}
and one finds
\begin{eqnarray}
{\hat{a}}_i(dt) &&=\sum_j (\delta_{ij}-idtG_{ij}){\hat{a}}_j \nonumber \\
\bra{\vec a}{\hat{a}}_i(dt)\ket{\vec a}
 &&=\sum_j \bra{\vec a}(\delta_{ij}-idtG_{ij}){\hat{a}}_j\ket{\vec a} \nonumber \\
a_i(dt)
&&=\sum_j
(\delta_{ij}-idtG_{ij})a_j, \nonumber \\
\label{it10}\end{eqnarray}
which agrees with Eq. (\ref{se1}) and Eq. (\ref{it5}).
Here the state $\ket{\vec a}$ is defined as the direct product of
displacement states,
$\ket{\vec a}=\ket{ a_0}\ket{ a_1}\cdots\ket{a_n}$, found
from either
Eq. (\ref{o4}) for the boson case or Eq. (\ref{o6}) for the fermion case.

\section{Quantum fields}

\par It is seen from the above that the infinitesimal transformations obtained
in both the antisymmetric and symmetric bracket case have corresponding
operator equations, if the operators ${\hat{a}}_i$ and ${\hat{a}}^\dagger_j$ satisfy the boson
commutation relations in the former case and the fermion anticommutation
relations in the latter. Thus the expansion of quantum fields in these
operators is a natural consequence of the relations found for the associated
c-numbers. In both cases the usual quantum field expansion \cite{LandL} is
\begin{equation}
\Psi(\vec r,t)=\sum_i({\hat{a}}_i(t)\psi_i(\vec r)+\bd_i(t)\psi_i^*(\vec r)),
\label{qf1}\end{equation}
where $\bd_i(t)={\hat{a}}_i(p_{i0}<0)$, with four-momentum time
component $p_0$,
is an antiparticle creation operator.
The associated c-number fields are found by forming the matrix
element with the displacement state $\ket{\vec a}$ appropriate to either
the boson or the fermion case.
\par
The Dirac equation, which is of Schr\"odinger type, can of
course describe a c-number fermion system, but the
Klein-Gordon and Maxwell equations, although they are
linear, are not of Schr\"odinger type.  For
example, in one spatial dimension a discretized version
of the Klein-Gordon equation is
\begin{equation}
\ddot q_i -
(1/(2\Delta x))^2
(q_{i + 2} - 2q_i + q_{i - 2}) +
m^2 q_i
= 0.
\label{cx1}\end{equation}
This can be replaced by the first-order equation pair
\begin{equation}
\dot q_i = p_i, \quad \dot p_i =
(1/(2\Delta x))^2
(q_{i + 2} - 2q_i + q_{i - 2}) -
m^2 q_i,
\label{cx2}\end{equation}
which is a version of Hamilton's equations for the
particular Hamiltonian
(time evolution generating function and observable)
\begin{equation}
H(\vec q,\vec p) = {1\over 2}\sum_k\left (p_k^2 +
(1/(2\Delta x))^2
(q_{k + 1} - q_{k - 1})^2 +
m^2 q_k^2\right ).
\label{cx3}\end{equation}
The constraint equations Eq. (\ref{notes13}) on fermion system
c-number generating functions $G$, which
were previously written in terms of the complex
$(\vec a,\vec a^{\, *})$ vector phase
space variables, translate in terms of the real
$(\vec q,\vec p)$ vector phase space variables
into the pair of real-valued constraint equations:
\begin{equation}
{\partial^2 G\over\partial q_i\partial q_j} =
{\partial^2 G\over\partial p_i\partial p_j}\, , \quad
{\partial^2 G\over\partial q_i\partial p_j} =
-\, {\partial^2 G\over\partial q_j\partial p_i}.
\label{cx4}\end{equation}
For the discretized Klein-Gordon Hamiltonian
given above, we have that
\begin{equation}
{\partial^2 H\over\partial q_i\partial q_{i + 2}} =
-(1/(2\Delta x))^2 \neq 0
\quad\hbox{and}\quad
{\partial^2 H\over\partial p_i\partial p_{i + 2}} = 0,
\label{ cx5}\end{equation}
which is not in accord with the first of the
preceding pair of c-number fermion system
generating function constraint equations.
Thus the Klein-Gordon equation is not of Schr\"odinger
type and cannot describe a c-number fermion
system.
\par
We have seen that c-number fermion dynamics is necessarily described by a
Schr\"o\-ding\-er type equation, i.e., is necessarily already first quantized,
and it has no classical version Therefore, its quantization with
anticommutators is inevitably second quantization. On the other hand, the
boson commutation relations are consistent with the results of the
antisymmetric c-number bracket equations, and the first and second quantized
theories involving bosons commutation relations can be directly related to the
classical theories through the displacement states Eq. (\ref{o4}).

\section{Time development of $\lowercase{a_i}$ and $\lowercase{{\hat{a}}_i}$}

\par
From the infinitesimal transformations which preserve the brackets, it is
possible to obtain the global representations of the operators which produce
the time development of the coordinates $a_i$. For the c-number antisymmetric
bracket case,  the time development operator obtained from Eq. (\ref{it1}) is
\begin{eqnarray}
a_i(t) &&=U(t)a_i=e^{i t\delta_-(H)}a_i \nonumber\\
\delta_-(H)a_i  &&=\{H,a_i\}_- \nonumber\\
\delta_-^2(H)a_i &&=\{H,\{H,a_i\}_-\}_-, etc. \nonumber\\
a_i(0) &&=a_i. \nonumber\\
\label{td1}\end{eqnarray}
As an example, if $H=a^*a$, then one finds $a(t)=e^{-it}a$.
Under time development, one can show that the antisymmetric bracket is
invariant,
\[ \{a_i(t),a_j^*(t)\}_-=\{a_i,a_j^*\}_-=\delta_{ij}. \]
The proof is as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
 &&\{a_i(t),a_j^*(t)\}_- \nonumber\\
 &&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{m=0}^\infty
{(it)^{n+m} \over n!m!}\{\delta^n_-(H)a_i,\delta^m_-(H)a_j^*\}_- \nonumber\\
 &&=\sum_{p=0}^\infty
{(it)^{p} \over p!}\sum_{m=0}^p{p! \over (p-m)!m!}
\{\delta^{p-m}_-(H)a_i,\delta^m_-
(H)a_j^*\}_- \nonumber\\
 &&=\sum_{p=0}^\infty
{(it)^{p}\delta_-^p(H)\over p!}\{a_i,a_j^*\}_-
=e^{i t\delta_-(H)}\{a_i,a_j^*\}_-=\delta_{ij}. \nonumber\\
\label{td2}\end{eqnarray}
In the above, $p=n+m$, and use has been made of
\[ \delta_-^p(H)\{a_i,a_j^*\}_-
=\sum_{m=0}^p {p \choose m}\{\delta^{p-m}_-(H)a_i,\delta^{m}_-(H)a_j^*\}_-, \]
which follows from the Jacobi identity
\[ \delta_-(H)\{a_i,a_j^*\}_-=\{\delta_-(H)a_i,a_j^*\}_-
+\{a_i,\delta_-(H)a_j^*\}_-. \]
\par The time development generated by the c-number symmetric bracket can be
studied in a similar manner. Here the time development operator obtained
from
Eq. (\ref{it5}) for the c-number phase space coordinates is
\begin{eqnarray}
a_i(t) &&=V(t)a_i=e^{-i t\delta_+(g)}a_i \nonumber\\
\delta_+(g)a_i  &&=\{g,a_i\}_+ \nonumber\\
\delta_+^2(g)a_i &&=\{g,\{g,a_i\}_+\}_+, etc. \nonumber\\
a_i(0) &&=a_i, \nonumber\\
\label{td4}\end{eqnarray}
and $g={\vec a^*}\cdot {\hat G}\cdot {\vec a}$.
Since
\[ \{g,a_i\}_+=\sum_{j}G_{ij}a_j, \]
one finds
\begin{equation}
a_i(t)=\sum_j(\delta_{ij}-itG_{ij}+{(it)^2\over 2!}\sum_k G_{ik}G_{kj}
+\dots) a_{j}.
\label{td4a}\end{equation}
Defining the operator $\hat G$, which must be Hermitian since $g$ is real,
as done after Eq. (\ref{se2}), we see that
Eq. (\ref{td4a}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
a_i(t)
 &&=\sum_j\bra{i}(I-it{\hat G}+{(it)^2\over 2!}{\hat G}^2+\dots)\ket{j}a_j \nonumber\\
 &&=\bra{i}e^{-it\hat G}\ket{\psi}=\scp{i}{\psi(t)}, \nonumber\\
\label{td5}\end{eqnarray}
since $a_j=\scp{j}{\psi(0)}=\scp{j}{\psi}$.
\par
It is now easy to demonstrate that the invariance of
the c-number symmetric bracket
results from the unitary transformation ${\hat U}(t)=e^{-it\hat G}$.
This is seen from
\begin{eqnarray}
 &&\{a_i(t),a^*_j(t)\}_+
=\{\bra{i}{\hat U}(t)\ket{\psi},\bra{\psi}{\hat U}^\dagger(t)\ket{j}\}_+, \nonumber\\
 &&=\sum_k\sum_l\{\bra{i}{\hat
U}(t)\ket{k}\bra{k}\psi
\rangle,\langle\psi\ket{l}\bra{l}{\hat U}^\dagger(t)\ket{j}\}_+ \nonumber\\
 &&=\sum_k\sum_l\bra{i}{\hat
U}(t)\ket{k}\bra{l}{\hat U}^\dagger(t)\ket{j}\{a_k,a_l^*\}_+ \nonumber\\
 &&=\sum_k\sum_l\bra{i}{\hat
U}(t)\ket{k}\bra{l}{\hat U}^\dagger(t)\ket{j}\delta_{kl}
=\bra{i}{\hat U}(t){\hat U}^\dagger(t)\ket{j}=\delta_{ij}. \nonumber\\
\label{td6}\end{eqnarray}
\par
In the case of the quantum boson or fermion operators, the invariance
of the commutation relations Eq. (\ref{o2})
follows from the unitarity of the time development operator,
${\hat U}(t)=e^{-it{\hat H}}$ obtained from Eq. (\ref{it2}) for the boson case
or ${\hat U}(t)=e^{-it\hat G}$ obtained from
Eq. (\ref{td5}) for the fermion case, such that
\begin{eqnarray}
{\hat{a}}_i(t) &&={\hat U}^\dagger(t){\hat{a}}_i {\hat U}(t)
=\sum_{n=0}^\infty {(it)^n{\hat D}^n({\hat H})\over n!}{\hat{a}}_i \nonumber\\
{\hat D}({\hat H}){\hat{a}}_i  &&=[{\hat H},{\hat{a}}_i] \nonumber\\
{\hat D}^2({\hat H}){\hat{a}}_i  &&=[{\hat H},[{\hat H},{\hat{a}}_i]], etc. \nonumber\\
{\hat{a}}_i(0) &&={\hat{a}}_i. \nonumber\\
\lbrack{\hat{a}}_i(t),{\hat{a}}^\dagger_j(t)\rbrack_{\pm} &&={\hat U}^\dagger(t)\lbrack{\hat{a}}_i,{\hat{a}}^\dagger_j\rbrack_{\pm}{\hat U}(t)
=\delta_{ij}. \nonumber\\
\label{td3}\end{eqnarray}

\section{Angular Momentum}

\par
It is interesting to note that the c-number antisymmetric bracket generates
the algebra of orbital angular momentum, and that there is a c-number
differential operator representation of the $SU(2)$ Lie algebra. The
components of orbital angular momentum are (for $i,j$, and $k=1,2$ or $3$)
\begin{equation}
l_i=i\sum_i\sum_j\epsilon_{ijk}a_ia_j^*,
\label{am0}\end{equation}
with $\epsilon_{ijk}$ antisymmetric in its indices and $\epsilon_{123}=1$.
For the classical coordinates $a_i{}$, the following relations are found:
\begin{eqnarray}
\{l_i,l_j\}_- &&=i\sum_k\epsilon_{ijk}l_k,\nonumber \\
\{l^2,l_j\}_- &&=0\nonumber \\
\{l_i,q_j\}_- &&
=i\sum_k\epsilon_{ijk}q_k,\,\,\,\{l_i,p_j\}_-=i\sum_k\epsilon_{ijk}p_k.\nonumber \\
\label{am1}\end{eqnarray}
A differential operator representation for the $SU(2)$ algebra is given
by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\hat J}_{\pm} &&={\hat J}_1\pm i{\hat J}_2   \nonumber\\
{\hat J}_+ &&=a^*{\partial \over \partial a},
\,\,\,\, {\hat J}_-=a{\partial \over \partial a^*}   \nonumber\\
{\hat J}_3 &&={1\over 2}
(a^*{\partial \over \partial a^*}-a{\partial \over \partial a}) \nonumber\\
\lbrack{\hat J}_3,{\hat J}_{\pm}\rbrack u(j,m) &&=\pm {\hat J}_{\pm}u(j,m)  \nonumber\\
\lbrack{\hat J}_+,{\hat J}_-\rbrack u(j,m) &&=2{\hat J}_3u(j,m)=2m u(j,m)  \nonumber\\
u(j,m) &&={a^{*j+m}a^{j-m}\over\sqrt{(j+m)!(j-m)!}}  \nonumber\\
{\hat J}^2u(j,m) &&={\hat K}({\hat K}+1)u(j,m)=j(j+1)u(j,m)  \nonumber\\
{\hat K} &&={1\over 2}
(a^*{\partial \over \partial a^*}+a{\partial \over \partial a})  \nonumber\\
{\hat J}_{\pm}u(j,m) &&=\sqrt{j(j+1)-m(m\pm 1)}u(j,m\pm 1).  \nonumber\\
\label{am2}\end{eqnarray}
For the functions $u(j,m)$ the inner product is define, with $j\geq j'$, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle u(j,m)|u(j',m')\rangle
&&={1\over 2\pi N(j,m)}\int_0^{2\pi}{\partial^{4j} u^*(j,m)u(j',m')\over
\partial^{2j}a^*\partial^{2j}a}d\phi\nonumber \\
 &&=\delta_{jj'}\delta_{mm'}\nonumber \\
N(j,m) &&={(2j)!(2j)!\over(j+m)!(j-m)!}\nonumber \\
\label{am3}\end{eqnarray}
with $a=\rho e^{i\phi}$.

\section{Conclusions}

\par
In this paper it has been shown that both quantum theory and the quantum field
theory of bosons and fermions are a natural consequence of the principle of
invariance of the symmetric bracket, a concept which is analogous to the
bracket invariance principle that appears in classical dynamics. Just as the
invariance of the c-number antisymmetric bracket under a one parameter
canonical transformation leads to dynamical equations, which determine the
classical dynamical flow in coordinate phase space, the invariance of the
c-number symmetric bracket under a one parameter canonical transformation leads
to a dynamical equation, Eq. (\ref{it5}), which determines the  dynamical flow of
quantum states. In the former case, the dynamical equations are Hamilton's
equations; however, in the later, the dynamical equation is a time-dependent
Schr\"odinger type equation Eq. (\ref{notes17}), which is equivalent to generalized
Hamilton's equations Eq. (\ref{notes11}) or Eq. (\ref{notes12}) for the real part $q_i$ and
imaginary part $p_i$ of the coordinates $a_i(t)=\scp{i}{\psi(t)}$.  The truly
remarkable consequences of the principle of invariance of the symmetric
bracket are the derivation of the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation and
the quantum bracket relation $[\hat q,\hat p]=i\hbar$. This argument makes the
time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation a consequence of bracket invariance, and
it replaces with a logical derivation the heuristic conjectures of
Schr\"odinger \cite{esh2},\cite{esh4}, and  \cite{esh5} leading to the
discovery of his famous equation. Furthermore, it removes $[\hat q,\hat
p]=i\hbar$ and the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation  from the status of
postulates of quantum theory. Along with these results comes the association
naturally of expectation values of quantum operators with corresponding
classical quantities, and the statistical interpretation of quantum theory. In
addition, the c-number time development equation Eq. (\ref{it5}) found from this
principle provides a natural condition for the emergence of the quantum field
theory of bosons and fermions, when the antisymmetric bracket is associated
with the boson operator commutator and the symmetric bracket is associated
with the fermion operator anticommutator.  It is clear that both the first
quantized and second quantized theories of bosons have an associated c-number
dynamics; namely, classical dynamics and classical field theory. These are
found from the expectation values and matrix elements of operators using boson
minimum uncertainty displacement states. However, fermion c-number dynamics is
not classical dynamics, but it is already a first quantized theory, as seen
from the derivation in Eq. (\ref{se4}). The second quantized version is the quantum
field theory of fermions. The c-number coordinates in this case satisfy the
c-number dynamical equation Eq. (\ref{it5}), and they are found as matrix elements
of fermion operators using the fermion displacement states.
\par It is clear that the
fermion dynamics resulting from the symmetric bracket invariance, allows the
gauge couplings that are known to lead to renormalizable theories for fermion
dynamics, i.e. QED, and QCD. The old four-fermion theory of beta decay, which
did not require the intermediation of the W boson, clearly has an equation of
motion which involves fermion phase space variables in a nonlinear fashion,
which thus cannot be of the (necessarily linear) Schr\"odinger equation type
that is here required by invariance of the symmetric bracket. This does not
mean that effective theories with nonlinear fermion interactions are not
useful approximations. Examples of such approximate theories are the Hubbard
model \cite{Frad} and the composite vector boson model \cite{TGPR}, where
nonlinear interactions may be introduced using path integral methods with
auxiliary fields.
\vfill\eject


\section{Introduction}
We found a quasi-particle state of gluons whose existence has eluded detection
all these years.
In this talk I will discuss how that comes  about,
and what use we can make of it.
A quasi-particle is made up of an arbitrary number of gluons,
but it couples to
their high-energy source like a single one: as
a colour-octet object whose emission preserves helicity of the source.
Quasi-particles emerge naturally as a result of factorization and
coherence. They are present in all
non-abelian theories, including the Yukawa theory of nucelons
and pions, and not just QCD.

By a high-energy source,
I mean a source with large {\it total} energy. The source may be a highly
relativistic particle with a small mass, or a non-relativistic particle with
a very large mass. For simplicity, I shall refer to these two cases
respectively as a relativistic source and a non-relativistic source.

By a non-abelian theory, I mean one
in which the
spin and/or the internal quantum numbers of the high-energy source
can be altered by the emission of bosons.
In the case of pions emitted
from a massive non-relativistic nucleon, it is
the spin and the isospin of the
nucleon that are affected by the emission.
In the case of QCD it is the colour of the source.
But in the case of photons emitted
from a relativistic electron, neither the charge nor the helicity of
the electron is changed, so in this case the source is abelian.

After sketching the origin of the quasi-particle, and its connection with
factorization and cohernece, I will discuss two cases in which it makes its
presence felt. I believe these applications barely scratch the surface,
and the importance of these quasi-particles goes far beyond these two
examples, but exactly in what way remains to be seen.

\begin{figure}[b!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig1.ps,height=3.5in,width=3.5in}}
\vspace{10pt}
\caption{(a). A Feynman tree amplitude with vertex factors $V_i$; (b).
A one-boson amplitudes with on-shell sources; (c). The factorization of
a Bose-Einstein symmetrized amplitude into the product of one-boson
amplitudes; (d) and (e). Two separate factorization into quasi-particle
amplitudes.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

\section{The Emergence of Quasi-Particles}
Consider the tree diagram Fig.~1(a), in which $n$ bosons
are emitted from an energetic source via
vertex factors $V_i$.  The source is assumed to be
energetic so that recoils suffered from the emissions can be ignored.
As a result, its transverse position $x_{\perp}$
is fixed, and so is the $x_\perp$ of every boson emerging
from it.
In the case of a relativistic source, we may
assume it to move parallel to the
$z$-axis near the speed of light, hence
its $x^-\equiv
x^0-x^3$ coordinate is fixed, thereby determining also
the $x^-$ coordinate of all
the emerging bosons.
For a non-relativistic source,
its $x^3$ coordinate and that of the bosons are fixed.
All in all,  three out of four coordinates of all the off-shell bosons
are identical. If the fourth
one  is also the same for all the bosons, a coherent state will
emerge. It turns out that  non-trivial inputs are required
to determine this fourth coordinate to achieve coherence.

It is necessary to invoke Bose-Einstein symmetry, which in  this case
simply means summing up the $n!$ permuted tree amplitudes.
For abelian sources, the vertices $V_i$'s can be regarded
simply as numbers. In that case we will show that every boson of
 the BE-symmetrized amplitude
has its momentum component $k^-=k^0-k^3=0$ if the source is
relativistic, and $k^0=0$ if the source is non-relativistic.
This is the fourth coordinate
we are after for a coherent state.

The conclusion follows as a result of factorization.
After the summation, each boson
is allowed to be emitted anywhere along the
tree, irrespective of the location of the others.
Hence the $n$-boson amplitude is factorized into a product of $n$
single-boson emission amplitudes. This is depicted in Fig.~1(c), where
a vertical cut on the tree indicates factorization.
For a relativistic source that is on-shell,  its momentum component
$p^-=p^0-p^3=0$, so by momentum conservation (see Fig.~1(b)) $k^-=0$
for every boson as claimed. For a non-relativistic source that is on-shell,
$p^0$ is fixed at its on-shell mass $M$, so by momentum conservation
$k^0=0$.
Note that neither conclusion is valid for the boson momenta
in a Feynman diagram like Fig.~1(a), where off-shell sources
are involved. In that case, uncertainty in energy prevents $p^-$
or $p^0$ to be fixed, so it is not true that $k^-$ or $k^0$ is zero.
Bose-Einstein symmetrization
and the resulting factorization are crucial to reach these conclusions.

Note also that this kind of coherent state is very different from
those encountered at low temperatures, where Bose-Einstein condensation
may occur. The coherent state we have is described by a mixture of
spatial and momentum coordinates, and it is not an energy eigenstate.
What is `cold' in the present context is the lack of recoil, instead
of the lack of thermal fluctuation.
Hence the physics outcome between the two are completely different as well.

For non-abelian sources
this simple factorization is no longer valid. The vertex factors
$V_i$ fail to commute with one another, so correction terms involving their commutators must be added \cite{LAM}. It turns out that
each of these correction terms is still factorizable,
but generally into products of {\it quasi-particle} amplitudes
instead of single-boson amplitudes.
In other words, it is the $k^-$ or the $k^0$ coordinates
of the quasi-particles as a whole that are zero, but not the individual
bosons within each quasi-particle.
As remarked before, a quasi-particle may consist of any number $k$ of
bosons, but instead of coupling to the source via the product of vertex
factors $V_1V_2\cdots V_k$, it does so via the nested commutator
$[V_1,[V_2,[\cdots,[V_{k-1},V_k]\cdots]]]$. In the case of QCD when
$V_i$ are colour matrices, the nested commutator is given by
a linear sum of
colour matrices, so the quasi-particle couples just like a colour-octet
object. Moreover, since each gluon making up the quasi-particle
does not flip the helicity of the source, neither will the quasi-particle.

Exactly how each correction term factorizes depends on the permutation.
I list here three examples for $n=8$: $[1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8],\
[8521|3|74|6],\ [1|2|3|864|75]$,
in which a vertical bar indicates the position where
factorization takes place. The general rule is simply that
a bar should be put behind a number iff no number to its right is smaller
than it. The first example is identical to abelian factorization.
In the second example, the source emits a quasi-particle of four
gluons, one of two gluons, and two with one gluon each (a quasi-particle
with one gluon is just a gluon). In the third example, there are three
quasi-particles with one gluon each, one with three gluons, and one with
two gluons. The last two examples involve nested commutators so they
will not be present for abelian sources. In fact, other than the first
example, no other permutation can contribute in the case
of an abelian source
for exactly the same reason.

Letting $Q$ denote a quasi-particle, the general structure of each
factorized amplitudes is therefore of the form
\begin{equation}
[Q|Q|\cdots|Q],
\label{qqq}\end{equation}
where the different quasi-particles $Q$ appearing in this equation may
consist of different number of gluons.

\section{Composite Source}
Suppose the source is made up of $N$ constituents, each capable of emitting a boson via the vertex $V_i=\psi^\dagger t_i\psi$, where $\psi$ and
$\psi^\dagger$ are the annihilation and creation operators
for the constituents. For example, the source may be a nucleus with
$N$ nucleons, or a nucleon with $N$ quarks.
Being a one-body operator,
the matrix elements of $V_i$ is expected to be of order $N$.
Being a $k$-body operator, the matrix element of a product of $k$ $V_i$'s
is expected to be of order $N^k$.
In contrast, the nested commutator of $k$ $V_i$'s is of the form $\psi^\dagger T\psi$,
with $T$ given by the nested commutator of the $t_i$'s,
so it is still a one-body operator and
 its matrix element is proportional to $N$.  If the an $n$-boson amplitude
in \eq{qqq} contains
$p$ quasi-particles, then that term is of order $N^p$,
with $p\le N$, and not
$N^n$ that each Feynman tree diagram is expected to have.
Except for the identical permutation whose amplitude factorizes
completely as in
 $[1|2|3|\cdots|n]$, so that $p=n$, all the others have $p<n$
and hence contribute subdominantly when $N\gg 1$. The smaller $p$
is the less it contributes.
If for some reason all the terms with $n\ge p\ge p_0+1$ vanish, then
the amplitude is of order $N^{p_0}$. It can still be computed easity
from the quasi-particle amplitudes with $p\le p_0$, but it
is extremely difficult to calculate it directly from Feynman tree diagrams,
especially when $p^0\ll n$. To do so
we must compute each Feynman diagram
to the subleading order $N^{p_0}$ before a finite sum can be obtained
upon summation, a highly non-trivial task.

Such a behaviour indeed happens
in the process $\pi+{\cal N}\to (n-1)\pi+{\cal N}$, calculated in
large-$N$ QCD \cite{LARGEN}. In that case, the nucleon ${\cal N}$ consists
of $N$ quarks. Its mass is of order $N$ so it is a non-relativistic
energetic source. The effective
Yukawa interaction $t=g(\vec\sigma\cdot\vec k)
(\vec \tau\cdot\vec\pi(\vec k))$ is non-abelian because it flips the spin
and the isospin of the nucleon. Each Feynman tree amplitude is of order
$N^n/\sqrt{N}^n$ because it consists of $n$ vertices and the
propagators are of order 1. A normalization factor $1/\sqrt{N}$
per pion is put in as usual \cite{LARGEN}. The amplitude
is huge for every $n>0$ in the limit $N\gg 1$. In this strong-coupling
limit one might think that very little could be said
about the reaction, and certainly
the Feynman-diagram description is useless
even when loops are included. Yet the phenomenology of baryons
in large-$N$ QCD is very successful in describing nature \cite{BARYONS}.
What happens is that when the $n!$ permuted diagrams are summed up, a
tremendous amount of
cancellation takes place, so that the final $n$-pion amplitude is of
order $N^{1-n/2}$ rather than $N^{n/2}$ of the individual diagrams.
The total pion-nucleon amplitudes now become weak
for $n>2$, so we can understand
why loops are not needed and why phenomenology can be successful. In order
to prove this cancellation in a brute-force way, each diagram must be
calculated down to $(n-1)$ subleading orders, for at the end
everything else
above it will be cancelled in the sum. This is quite an impossible task
for large $n$, and this is where the advantage of the factorized formula
\eq{qqq} shows up \cite{LL1}.
If the number $p$ of quasi-particle amplitudes in
\eq{qqq} is larger than 1, then it vanishes
because of energy conservation. In that case one of these
$p$ factorized components must consist of only outgoing pions, which
 violates energy conservation since the nucleons are on-shell.
As a result we are left with only terms with $p=1$,
whose matrix element is $N/\sqrt{N}^n=N^{1-n/2}$, as claimed.

\section{Damping Explosive Total Cross Sections}
Total cross section can be obtained from the forward elastic amplitude
via the optical theorem. This amplitude is difficult to compute
even assuming the coupling constant
$\alpha_s$ to be small, for at high cm energy complicated loop
diagrams must be included. This is so because
each time we add a loop to the diagram, we
add an extra factor of $\alpha_s$ but the loop integration may also
produce an extra $\ln s$. Thus a diagram of order $2n+2$
may give a contribution proportional to $\alpha_s(\alpha_s\ln s)^n$,
which is of order $\alpha_s$ if $\xi\equiv\alpha_s\ln s=O(1)$.
This is why diagrams of all orders must be included.

Computing multi-loop diagram is a difficult task which can be
accomplished only with suitable approximations. In the {\it leading-log
approximation}, which keeps only the lowest power of $\alpha_s$ while
keeping the variable $\xi$ fixed, the total cross section
so computed is proportional to
$\alpha_s^2\exp(4\alpha_s\ln s \ln 2N_c/\pi)$. This is the famous
BFKL formula \cite{BFKL}. With $\alpha_s\simeq 0.19$, for example,
the cross section
according to this formula grows with energy like $s^{0.5}$. At this rate
the size of a proton becomes ten times the size of the Uranium nucleus
at LHC energy, and one hundred times its size at $10^{20}$ eV, the highest
energy cosmic-ray reaching earth. For better or for worse, this alarming
growth is not realized. In fact, Froissart bound forbids the total
cross section to grow faster than $\ln^2s$ at asymptotic energies.
The theoretical challenge then is how to produce sufficient amount of
corrections in QCD to satisfy the Froissart
bound. Since the BFKL computation already includes all the
important contributions in the leading-log approximations,
{\it viz.,} all terms of order $\alpha_s^2$ when $\xi$
is kept fixed, clearly subleading terms of order $\alpha^m$
with $m\ge 3$ are needed for the Froissart bound.
As explained in the last section,
the factorization formula \eq{qqq} is capable of extracting
subleading terms $N^p$ for $p<n$ in that case. Similarly,
\eq{qqq} can be used to extract subleading terms
$\alpha_s^m$ with $m\ge 3$ \cite{DKL}. The result is shown in Fig.~1(b),
where the thick vertical lines represent quasi-particles, and the
thin vertical cuts on the two horizontal lines represent factorization.
It can be shown that an amplitude with $p$ vertical quasi-particle
lines is of order $\alpha_s^p$; this is analogous to the situation
of the last section in which an amplitude with $p$ quasi-partilces
is proportional to $N^p$.

\begin{figure}[b!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig2.ps,height=3.5in,width=3.5in}}
\vspace{10pt}
\caption{(a). A two-particle collision diagram showing a hot central
region and a `cold' peripheral region; (b). Factorization of
the scattering amplitude into quasi-particle amplitudes. An
amplitude with $p$ quasi-particle exchanges can be shown to be of
order $\alpha_s^p$ if $\alpha)s\ln s$ is of order 1.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

For $\alpha_s\ll 1$ and $\xi=O(1)$, the dominant scattering
amplitude comes from diagrams with $p=1$ (alone), indicated in Fig.~2(b)
by $\delta_1$. Remebering that each quasi-particle carries an octet
colour, we conclude that the dominant amplitude is a colour-octet
amplitude (in the $t$-channel), whose magnitide is $O(\alpha_s)$.
It has been known long ago \cite{REGGEON} that the dominant amplitude
is obtained by the exchange of a colour-octet Reggeon, so from these
two equivalent descriptions
we can identify the quasi-particle with the Reggeon. What has thus been
achieved here is an algebraic characterization of the Reggeon,
as the colour-octet object obtained
through factorization and coherence, rather than a pole in the angular
momentum plane as is usually defined.

A quasi-particle in QCD is not the same as a gluon, but a quasi-particle
in QED is identical to a photon because all the nested commutators vanish.
This distinction is ultimately
the reason why gluons reggeize but photons do not.

Total cross section is related to the forward part of the {\it elastic}
scattering amplitude, so only the exchange of colour-singlet object
contributes to it. The dominant amplitude then comes from the exchange
of two interacting Reggeons, indicated by $\delta_2$
in Fig.~2(b), or two non-interacting Reggeons $\delta_1^2$. The
result is of order $\alpha_s^2$, and it is the BFKL Pomeron \cite{BFKL},
which as mentioned before violates unitarity.
$s$-channel unitarity and the Froissart bound are restored  when
we incorporate the singlet part of $p$-Reggeon exchanges,
with all $p\ge 3$
included. For virtual-photon proton total cross section, as measured
at HERA \cite{ZEUS}, this results in a shallower growth of
total cross section with energy for a smaller virtuality $Q^2$
of the virtual photon, as shown in Fig.~3.

For details see Ref.~\cite{DKL}.

Finally one might ask why coherence
 should have anything to do with high-energy collisions.
After all, the centre of collision will be hotter than the centre of
a star (Fig.~2(a)), whereas Bose-Einstein coherence usually
happens at low
temperature. The answer is that although the centre is hot, the
peripheral regions are `cold', and that is sufficient to produce
factorization as indicated in Fig.~2(b).

\begin{figure}[b!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig3.ps,height=3.5in,width=3.5in}}
\vspace{10cm}
\caption{
Energy dependence of $\gamma^*p$ total cross section as a function
of photon virtuality $Q^2$. Data is from Ref.~[8]. The dotted
line represents a dependence of $s^{0.08}$ obeyed by all hadronic total
cross sections.
The dash line gives a $s^{0.5}$ variation predicted by
the leading-log BFKL Pomeron, and the solid line is the prediction of
the unitary theory in Ref.~[6].}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}


\section{Introduction}

According to the scaling theory of localization \cite{abrahams},
all states are localized for non-interacting particles in
two dimensions ($2d$).
This absence of a metallic state in $2d$ is nowadays challenged
since a lot of transport measurements, following the pioneering
experiments of Kravchenko and co-workers \cite{kravchenko},
give evidence of an insulator-metal transition (IMT) when
the carrier density is increased.
Many experimental results suggest that Coulomb repulsion drives
this phenomenon:
(1) In a very clean heterostructure the IMT was observed
at a Coulomb energy to Fermi energy ratio
$r_s\approx 35$ \cite{yoon}, close to $r_s\approx 37$ for which
a clean Wigner crystal melts according to Monte Carlo simulations
\cite{tanatar};
(2) In more disordered samples, the IMT typically occurs
at $r_s\approx 10$, again compatible with the value expected for
the melting of a pinned Wigner crystal \cite{chui};
(3) At a weaker $r_s$ interactions no longer dominate and a
re-entry towards an insulating phase (Fermi glass of weakly
interacting localized particles) was observed at $r_s\approx 6$ in
\cite{hamilton}.
As at the IMT $k_F l \approx 1$ ($k_F$ denoting the Fermi wave vector
and $l$ the elastic mean free path), disorder is important and has to
be considered, together with interactions, in a non perturbative way.

Taking advantage of numerical techniques,
we consider a model of $N$ Coulomb interacting spinless fermions
in a disordered square lattice with $L^2$ sites.
The Hamiltonian reads:
\begin{equation}
\label{hamiltonian}
H=-t\sum_{<i,j>} c^{\dagger}_i c_j +
\sum_i v_i n_i +U \sum_{i\neq j} \frac{n_i n_j}{2 r_{ij}},
\end{equation}
where $c^{\dagger}_i$ ($c_i$) creates (destroys) an electron in
the site $i$, $t$ is the strength of the hopping terms
between nearest neighbours ($t=1$ in the following) and $r_{ij}$
the inter-particle distance for a $2d$ torus.
The random potential
$v_i$ of the site $i=(i_x,i_y)$ with occupation number
$n_i=c^{\dagger}_i c_i$
is taken from a box distribution of width $W$. The interaction strength
$U$ yields $r_s=U/(2t\sqrt{\pi n_e})$ for a filling factor $n_e=N/L^2$.
A Fermi golden rule approximation for the elastic scattering time
leads, for $n_e\ll 1$, to $k_F l \approx 192 \pi n_e (t/W)^2$.

\section{Persistent currents}

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfxsize=13cm\epsfysize=13cm\epsffile{fig1.eps}}
\caption{
(a) Log-averages of the ground state longitudinal current $I_l$
(open circles) and transverse current $I_t$ (filled circles)
at $W=5$.
Insert: the same at $W=15$.
(b) Distribution $P_\theta$ of the ground state local currents
angles at $W=5$, for $r_s=0$ (dotted line), $r_s=6.3$ (full line),
and $r_s=42$ (dashed line).
Insert: fraction $c_p$ of paramagnetic samples for $W=5$
(circles), $W=10$ (squares) and $W=15$ (diamonds).
(c) Log-average of the longitudinal current at $W=5$, for the
ground state (circles), the first excited state (squares), the
second-fourth excited states (diamonds), the fifth-ninth excited
states (triangles up), and the tenth-nineteenth excited states
(triangles down). Arrows indicate increase (or decrease) of the
longitudinal current with excitation energy.
Insert: the same at $W=15$.
(d) Same as in (c) but for the transverse current at $W=5$.
Insert: fraction of paramagnetic samples as a function of the
excitation energy $\epsilon$ at $W=5$, for $r_s=0$ (circles),
$r_s=6.3$ (squares), and $r_s=42$ (diamonds).
}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

To measure delocalization effects induced by interactions,
we study the sensitivity of the ground state to a change in the
boundary conditions \cite{letter1}.
Boundary conditions are always taken periodic in the transverse
$y$-direction, and such that the system encloses an
Aharonov-Bohm flux $\phi$ in the longitudinal $x$-direction. Imposing
$\phi=\pi/2$ ($\phi=\pi$ corresponds to anti-periodic boundary
conditions), one drives a persistent current of total longitudinal
and transverse components given by
\begin{equation}
\label{current}
I_{l}=- \frac{\partial E_0}{\partial \phi}
=\frac{\sum_i I_i^l}{L}
\,\,\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\,\,
I_{t}=\frac{\sum_i I_i^t}{L},
\end{equation}
with $E_0$ ground state energy.
The local current $I_i^l$ flowing at the site $i$ in the longitudinal
direction is defined by $I_i^l =2 {\rm Im} \langle \Psi_0 |
c^{\dagger}_{i_{x}+1,i_y} c^{}_{i_x,i_y} | \Psi_0 \rangle$, with an
analogous expression for $I_i^t$ ($|\Psi_0\rangle$ is the ground state
wavefunction).
The response is paramagnetic if $I_{l}>0$ and diamagnetic if $I_{l} < 0$.
Exact diagonalization techniques (Lanczos method) are possible only
for small system sizes and here we consider $N=4$ particles in
$L^2=36$ sites, for $W=5,10,15$ ($k_F l=2.7,0.7,0.3$ respectively)
and $0\leq r_s \leq 42$. We summarize in Fig. \ref{fig1} results
from a statistical study of an ensemble of $10^3$ clusters.
$|I_l|$ and $|I_t|$ have acceptable log-normal distributions for
all values of $r_s$ when $W\geq 5$ \cite{letter1} and therefore
the log-averages shown in Fig. \ref{fig1} can be considered as typical
values of the persistent currents:
$I_{l,\mbox{typ}}=\exp<\ln|I_{l}|>$, with an analogous expression
for $I_{t,\mbox{typ}}$ (brackets indicate ensemble average).
Fig. \ref{fig1} (a) shows that the ground state transverse current
is suppressed before the longitudinal current.
It is then possible to single out an intermediate phase, in which
the local currents flow in an ordered way along the direction imposed
by the flux \cite{letter1,berkovits}. This behaviour is evident in
Fig. \ref{fig1} (b): the ground state local current angles
$\theta_i=\arctan(I_i^t/I_i^l)$ undergo a transition from a
nearly uniform angular distribution (glass of currents randomly
directed in the plane) towards a distribution strongly peaked in the
longitudinal direction. As a consequence, the sign of the magnetic
response becomes independent of the microscopic realization of the
random potential (see Fig. \ref{fig1} (b) insert).
Notice that, for a not too strong disorder ($k_F l >1$), in the
intermediate phase $I_{l,\mbox{typ}}$
is enhanced by interactions up to a factor $3$
(for $W=5$, $r_s\approx 6$) before being suppressed due
to charge crystallization \cite{letter1}.
Fig. \ref{fig1} (c) displays the behaviour of the longitudinal
current for the $20$ lowest energy levels. The enhancement in
$I_{l,\mbox{typ}}$ disappears away from the ground state.
In addition, it is possible to
identify three different regimes when $W=5$: for
approximately $r_s<2$ and
$r_s>17$ the longitudinal current increases with the excitation
energy $\epsilon$, all the contrary for intermediate $r_s$ values.
We remind that experimentally the metallic (insulating)
phase has been identified \cite{kravchenko,yoon,hamilton}
from a decrease (increase) with temperature
of a related transport property, the conductance.
For $W=15$, $I_{l,\mbox{typ}}$ always
decreases with $\epsilon$ (Fig. \ref{fig1} (c) insert),
indicating that a too strong disorder
probably forbids a metallic phase in the thermodynamic limit.
Fig. \ref{fig1} (d) shows that, increasing $\epsilon$, the
transverse current is suppressed at larger $r_s$ values, eventually
compatible with $r_s$ values at which the longitudinal current is
suppressed. This fact suggests that the intermediate phase
is destroyed at large enough temperatures. For $\epsilon>2$
(the Fermi energy is given by $\epsilon_F=\pi n_e t = 0.35$) the sign
of the persistent current is disorder dependent at any $r_s$ value
(Fig. \ref{fig1} (d) insert).

\section{Finite size scaling for the $N$ body localization length}

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfxsize=13cm\epsfysize=13.cm\epsffile{fig2.eps}}
\caption{
(a) Distribution of the logarithms of the charge density variation
$|\delta\rho|$ for $L=31$, $r_s=0$, $W=10$, $r=5$, fitted by a
log-normal function of mean $\mu=-8.6$ and variance $\sigma^2=4.2$.
Insert: the same at $r_s=5.9$, with $\mu=-7.5$, $\sigma^2=3.0$.
(b) Log-average of $|\delta\rho|$ as a function of $r$, for
$L=28$, $W=10$, $r_s=0$ (circles), $r_s=2.0$ (squares),
$r_s=3.9$ (diamonds), and $r_s=5.9$ (triangles).
The lengths $\xi_L$ are given by the inverse slopes of the straight
lines.
Insert: the same for a quasi-one dimensional geometry ($L_x=80$,
$L_y=8$) at $W=8$ (ensemble of $10^3$ clusters).
(c) Reduced localization length $\xi_L/L$ as a function of $r_s$
for $W=10$, $L=24$ (circles), $L=28$ (squares), $L=31$ (diamonds).
Insert: ratios $\xi_L/L$ mapped onto the scaling curve $f$ as a
function of the reduced scaling length $\xi/L$.
Localized branch (filled symbols): $r_s=0$ (triangles up),
$r_s=1.0$ (triangles left), $r_s=2.0$ (triangles down), $r_s=2.9$
(triangles right), $r_s=3.3$ (circles), $r_s=3.9$ (squares).
Delocalized branch (open symbols): $r_s=4.5$ (squares),
$r_s=4.9$ (triangles), $r_s=5.3$ (diamonds), $r_s=5.9$ (circles).
(d) Log-average of $|\delta\rho|$ as a function of $r_s$ for $N=4$
particles in a $6\times 6$ lattice, $r=1$, $W=5$ (circles) and
$W=15$ (squares) (ensemble of $5\times 10^2$ clusters). 1B states
are filled in starting from the lowest energy one.
}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

Though small clusters exhibit an enhancement of $I_l$ for intermediate
$r_s$, exact diagonalization does not allow to vary system size and
to establish if the intermediate phase is metallic at the thermodynamic
limit. In order to answer this question and to understand how Coulomb
interaction destroys Anderson localization, we extend
\cite{letter2} finite size scaling analysis \cite{pichard,kramer}
to interacting systems.
We consider an ensemble of $5\times 10^3$ clusters with $N=3,4,5$ particles
in square lattices of size $L=24,28,31$ respectively, corresponding to
very low filling factors $n_e\approx 5\times 10^{-3}$.
To have Anderson localization inside these
sizes we consider a large disorder to hopping ratio
$W/t=10$. Therefore the low energy tail of the one body (1B) spectrum
is made of impurity states trapped at some site $i$ of exceptionally
low $v_i$. As we are interested in studying the effect of Coulomb
repulsion on genuine Anderson localized states we get rid of the
band tail. Typically we ignore the $L^2/2$ first 1B levels
(but results do not change provided that the Fermi level if out
of the band tail, $\epsilon_F>-4t$; under this condition one can
roughly estimate $k_F l\approx 1$). From this restricted subset of 1B
states we build a basis for the N body (NB) problem, truncated to the
$N_H=10^3$ Slater determinants of lowest energy (convergence tests
are discussed in \cite{letter2}).
The scaling ansatz for the NB problem reads
\begin{equation}
\label{ansatz}
\frac{\xi_L}{L}=f\left(\frac{L}{\xi}\right),
\end{equation}
where we assume it is possible to map the localization length
$\xi_L$ at the system size $L$ onto a scaling curve $f(L/\xi)$,
with $\xi$ characteristic scaling length of the infinite system.
To characterize the NB ground state by a suitable localization
length $\xi_L$, we consider the change $\delta \rho_j$ of the charge density
induced by a small change $\delta v_i$ of the random potential $v_i$ located
at a distance $|i-j|$.
To improve the statistical convergence,
we calculate more precisely the change $\delta \rho (r) =
\sum_{j_y} \delta \rho_{r,j_y}$ of the charge density on the $L$
sites of coordinate $j_x=r$ yielded by the change $v_{0,i_y}
\rightarrow 1.01 v_{0, i_y}$ for the $L$ random potentials
of coordinate $i_x=0$.
Fig. \ref{fig2} (a) shows that $|\delta \rho(r)|$
is reasonably fitted by a log-normal distribution. Therefore it
makes sense to characterize the typical strength of the fluctuations by
$\delta \rho_{\mbox{typ}} (r) = \exp <\ln | \delta \rho (r)| >$
and extract the length $\xi_L$ over which the perturbation is effective
from the exponential decay $\delta \rho_{\mbox{typ}} (r) \propto
\exp(-r/\xi_L)$.
Such a decay occurs only over a scale $ r << L/2$ since the boundary
conditions are periodic.  In Fig. \ref{fig2} (b) the lengths $\xi_L$
are obtained from the slope of the linear parts of the curves
(straight lines). A good exponential decay on a much larger interval
can be observed in a quasi one dimensional geometry ($L_x\gg L_y$).
Fig. \ref{fig2} (c) gives how the reduced localization length $\xi_L/L$
depends on $r_s$ for the three considered sizes. A critical point
appears at $r_s^F\approx 4.3$: for $r_s<r_s^F$,
$\xi_L/L$ decreases with $L$ (Fermi glass) while it increases for
$r_s>r_s^F$ (Coulomb metal).
Fig. \ref{fig2} (c) insert verifies the scaling ansatz
(\ref{ansatz}): assuming suitable
scaling lengths $\xi$ all the data can be mapped onto a
single scaling curve $f$, which develops two branches, as typical
of second order phase transitions (like the 1B Anderson transition in
three dimensions \cite{pichard,kramer}).
A power fit of $\xi\propto |r_s-r_s^F|^{-\nu}$ yields a rough estimate
for the critical exponent $\nu\approx 4$.
In the quasi one dimensional case we were able to detect a strong
interaction induced enhancement of the localization length
(see Fig. \ref{fig2} (b) insert) but no signature of a phase transition.
Fig. \ref{fig2} (d) shows that a local perturbation in the random potential
plays a role similar to a change in the boundary conditions. For the small
system sizes accessible to exact diagonalization it is not possible to
extract the length $\xi_L$. However, it is possible to see how the
typical value $\delta\rho_{\mbox{typ}}(r)$, evaluated for example when
$r=1$, evolves with $r_s$. This quantity increases in the intermediate
phase before decreasing due to charge crystallization.
Unfortunately it is not possible, within the approximate technique
described above, to evaluate how $\xi_L$ changes with $L$ in
the Wigner crystal phase.

\section{Conclusions}

Coulomb repulsion can drive a two dimensional system of
spinless fermions in a random potential towards a new metallic phase, the
Coulomb metal, which is different from the Fermi glass and the Wigner
crystal. The local current $I_i$ could be the order parameter
driving the Fermi glass-Coulomb metal transition (through $\theta_i$)
and the Coulomb metal-Wigner crystal transition (through $|I_i|$).

\vspace*{0.25cm} \baselineskip=10pt{\small \noindent This work is
partially supported by the TMR network ``Phase coherent dynamics of
hybrid nanostructures'' of the EU.}