two dimensional integrable field theories have become an area of extensive study .
their rich underlying mathematical structure allows for their exact solution .
this in turn provides valuable information about the wide range of physical phenomena which integrable field theories can be used to model , and more generally about non - perturbative field theory . a number of models have been studied in the presence of a boundary .
this has led to results for both the classical and quantum scattering of objects , like particles and solitons , off the boundary . in particular toda models
@xcite , the sine - gordon model @xcite , and the sinh - gordon model@xcite amongst others have been studied on the half - line .    in this paper
we study the classical two dimensional complex sine - gordon ( csg ) model in the presence of a boundary .
the model in the bulk is described by the following lagrangian    @xmath0    where @xmath1 , @xmath2 , @xmath3 , @xmath4 .
the field @xmath5 is complex , @xmath6 is a real coupling constant and the parameter @xmath7 can be changed by rescaling @xmath5 and will henceforth be set to one .
the lagrangian is invariant under global phase rotations of the field @xmath5 and this leads to a conserved @xmath8 charge .    as such
, the complex sine - gordon model comprises an integrable generalisation of the sine - gordon theory , with an internal @xmath8 degree of freedom .
it was first introduced independently by lund and regge as a model of relativistic vortices in a superfluid @xcite and by pohlmeyer in a dimensional reduction of a o(4 ) non - linear @xmath9-model @xcite .
it belongs to a class of generalisations of the sine - gordon theory , which in the literature is referred to as homogeneous sine - gordon theories .
the latter appear as @xmath10 gauged wess - zumino - witten models perturbed by a potential .
these generalisations describe integrable perturbations of @xmath11 conformal field theories and have been studied in the bulk in @xcite .
the csg model appears as the simplest case where @xmath12 and describes integrable perturbations of * z*@xmath13 parafermions by the first thermal operator @xcite .
the quantum case was also studied by dorey and hollowood in @xcite , and maillet and de vega in @xcite .
the csg model has found many applications in different fields of physics , from general relativity @xcite , to the description of propagating optical pulses in a non - linear medium @xcite . in the latter ,
the csg theory was used as a generalisation of the pioneering work of mccall and hahn @xcite , where the simple sine - gordon ( sg ) was used as a field theory description .
the csg theory provides for a more realistic description of optical pulses incorporating effects like frequency detuning and modulation , while at the same time the theory can be extended beyond the description of two - level atom systems to multi - level atom systems .    in the next section of this paper
some aspects of the theory in the bulk will be reviewed .
classical solutions , including particles , solitons and breathers will be presented for the model in the bulk clarifying previous treatments . unlike the sine - gordon model where the soliton solutions are topological in nature ,
the csg model solitons which carry a nether @xmath8 charge , have no obvious topological charge associated with them .
this follows from the trivial vacuum structure of the model for @xmath14 , although as we shall explain chargeless solitons do carry the topological charge of the sine - gordon model in a subtle way .
we also discuss the existence of breathers and find a class of charged breather solutions .    in section 3
, we consider the effect of introducing a boundary and suitable boundary conditions are found which preserve the integrability of the model.in order to do this we explicitly construct low - spin conserved charges by abelianising the lax pair description of the model , and ensure that these are conserved on the half - line by imposing boundary conditions .
we find a natural generalisation of the boundary conditions that ghoshal and zamolodchikov @xcite introduced for the sine - gordon theory .    the final section in the main body of the paper deals with the scattering of particles and solitons .
we find the corresponding solutions and use them to calculate the classical time - delay .
we also find solutions corresponding to boundary bound states .
the paper concludes with some general remarks about the results presented , as well as a few open questions that are related with some interesting properties of the model .
in this section we shall review some important features of the csg theory and establish our notation .
we present the equation of motion , the relation of the model with the sine - gordon theory and review the mathematical background in which the csg model can be regarded as a perturbed gauged wess - zumino - witten model
. moreover vacuum , soliton and multi - soliton solutions are written down in a compact form .
finally , we clarify the existing confusion concerning the existence of breathers within this model and present explicit breather solutions .
the lagrangian of the model was presented in ( [ eq : csglagr2 ] ) .
we assume without loss of generality @xmath15 since the parameter can be dropped by rescaling the field variables .
the equation of motion that follows is @xmath16 the relation between this model and sine - gordon becomes obvious if we substitute [ eq : u2phi ] u =  e^2 i  , with @xmath17 and @xmath18 real fields .
we use this notation here which gives a more standard connection with the sine - gordon theory but differs from previous treatments by @xmath19 .
this takes ( [ eq : csglagr2 ] ) to [ eq : lagphi ] = + 4 ^2 -4 ^2  .
this is essentially the form of the lagrangian derived by lund and regge , and pohlmeyer . by taking the field @xmath18 to be constant
the sine - gordon lagrangian emerges .
as was demonstrated by bakas @xcite the theory can be reformulated in terms of a gauged wzw action .
the corresponding action principle can be written as    [ eq : wzw1 ] s = s_gwzw+s_pot  .
the action term @xmath20 is the well known gauged wzw action @xmath21 this action is defined in a three - dimensional manifold @xmath22 whose boundary is our compactified normal two - dimensional space @xmath23 .
the field @xmath24 is an @xmath25 group element and @xmath26 is the extension of @xmath24 to the three dimensional manifold .
the last term introduces gauge fields @xmath27 and @xmath28 which act as lagrange multipliers .
the @xmath29 term is    s_pot =   ( g _ 3 g^-1 _ 3 )  .
this term breaks conformal invariance and thus gives rise to massive states .
varying the action yields the csg equations of motion which can be expressed in a zero curvature form @xcite    [ eq : lax ] [ + ( g + w g + i _ 3 )  ,  + ( |w- _ 3 g ) ] = 0  . from the variation of the gauge fields @xmath27 and @xmath28 , two constraint equations arise @xmath30 which are critical in order to make the identification with the csg theory .
the connexion between the @xmath25 matrix @xmath24 and the complex field @xmath5 of ( [ eq : csgeq1u ] ) is given by [ eq : g ] g = (    rr u & -i + -i v &    )  , where @xmath31 . the field variable @xmath32 should not be considered as an independent field but rather as an auxiliary field that is properly defined up to a constant through the constraint equations ( [ eq : const2 ] ) . in the gauge
where @xmath33 , the constraint equations take the form    = -i  ,   = -i  , whilst the equation of motion now becomes    [ eq : lax2 ] [ - a , - ] = 0  , where [ eq : a ] a= - ( g + i _ 3 )  ,  = _ 3 g  .
this compact zero - curvature form of the equations of motion demonstrates the integrability of the model and will prove useful when we come to consider transformations and conserved quantities in later sections .
from ( [ eq : csglagr2 ] ) it is easy to see that the energy of the csg model in the bulk is [ eq : bulkenergy ] h_bulk = dx ( + 4 u )  .
the most suitable candidate for a vacuum , would be a constant value for the field @xmath5 that would force the kinetic term involving derivatives to vanish and at the same time minimize the potential term .
it is clear to see from ( [ eq : u2phi ] ) and ( [ eq : lagphi ] ) that for @xmath14 the obvious choice is @xmath34 , while for @xmath35 the choice should be @xmath36 if we insist that @xmath37 .
the sign of the parameter @xmath6 divides the theory into two sectors . in the matrix potential formalism
, both sectors are treated simultaneously as the diagonal and off - diagonal parts of the field variable @xmath24 .
in this context the fields @xmath5 and @xmath38 are both solutions to the csg equation each derived for a specific choice of @xmath6 , and each corresponding to a different vacuum .
this is because the two sectors are connected by a duality transform which interchanges the sign of the coupling constant @xmath6 @xcite and simultaneously interchanges the role of @xmath5 and @xmath38 .
that is to say the theory is invariant under the change [ eq : dual1 ] g g = i _ 1 g = (    cc v & i + i u &    )  ,  - , the latter representing a transform akin to the krammers - wannier duality of the @xmath39 parafermion theory @xcite .
taking into account the invariance of the theory under this duality transform , we shall concentrate in this paper on the @xmath40 sector which corresponds to the diagonal part of the matrix formalism .
a suitable vacuum solution would be [ eq : vacuum ] g_vac = (    cc 0 & i e^- i   + i e^i & 0    )  .
this selection is consistent with the choices appearing in the beginning of this section with the diagonal @xmath14 sector , corresponding to the @xmath34 vacuum , while the off - diagonal @xmath35 to @xmath41 .
it is noted that the apparent singular behaviour of the lagrangian at @xmath42 does not appear as a problem embedded in the theory but is a direct consequence of the fact that the gauge fields @xmath43 are ill defined at the specific point .
the csg model , like the sine - gordon theory , possesses both particle and soliton solutions .
when small perturbations around the vacuum are considered u = 0 + ( x , t )  , the theory becomes linear when higher order terms in @xmath44 are ignored @xmath45 where @xmath46 .
the solution to the above equation is the familiar plane waves solution [ eq : planewave ] ( x , t ) = e^-i t ( a e^ikx + b e^-ikx ) , where @xmath47 and @xmath48 are related through @xmath49    different techniques have been used for the construction of soliton solutions like the inverse scattering method @xcite and the hirota method @xcite .
however both methods yield results that are both cumbersome and difficult to manipulate .
the transformation for the csg model provides a more elegant way to obtain soliton solutions and can be written in terms of two matrix variables @xmath24 and @xmath50 @xcite    @xmath51 & = & 0 \ , \\
\db g \g \s - \s \db f f^{-1 } + \frac{\sqrt{|\b|}}{\delta}(g   f^{-1 } \s - \s g f^{-1 } ) & = & 0 \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    it is easy to show that both @xmath50 and @xmath24 satisfy the csg equation as well as the constraint equation in the specific gauge choice . taking @xmath50 to be an already known solution , one can generate a new solution through the equations presented above .
one - soliton solutions can be derived by applying the transformation on the vacuum solutions @xmath52 of ( [ eq : vacuum ] ) .
each sector of the theory provides us with two sets of two first order differential equations that can be integrated , in order to provide the one - soliton solutions .
the diagonal elements of @xmath24 which correspond to the @xmath14 sector give @xmath53 the one - soliton solution that emerges is [ eq : usoliton ] u =  , where @xmath54 and @xmath55 are real parameters associated with the velocity and charge of the soliton respectively . this solution was originally derived by getmanov @xcite for the @xmath56 case .
in addition an expression for the phase @xmath32 which appears in its dual field @xmath38 , is also obtained [ eq : theta ] = - - ( ( a ) ( 2 ( a ) ) )  . respectively for the off - diagonal elements that correspond to the @xmath35 sector , the set of equations is @xmath57 that finally produce a different solution [ eq : vsoliton ] v = - e^i ( ( a ) ( 2 ( a ) ) + i ( a ) ) , with @xmath58 a real parameter associated with the vacuum of the theory .
this is the solution that was derived by lund and regge @xcite when considering the @xmath59 case .
a two - soliton solution can be obtained through a non - linear superposition technique .
starting from the vacuum of the theory and by the application of the transformation twice , a set of parameters \{@xmath60 } is used respectively in each step .
the same procedure is followed again where the two parameters are used in the opposite order . by demanding that the two results are equal
, one ends up with an equation for the two - soliton solution in matrix form g_2s = _ 3 ( _ 1 g_2 - _ 2 g_1 ) g_vac _ 3 ( _ 1 g_1 ^ -1 - _ 2 g_2
^ -1 ) ^-1  .
the matrix field variables @xmath61 are of the general form of ( [ eq : g ] ) , with elements [ eq:1soliton ] u_k =  , v_k = -e^i ( + i )  .
the identification one must make is : @xmath62 where @xmath63 is a total phase .
as expected @xmath64 has the same general form of equation ( [ eq : g ] ) @xmath65 the two - soliton solution and its complex conjugate are given by the diagonal elements of @xmath64 [ eq : u2s ] u_2s=  , [ eq : ub2s ] _
2s=  , while the off diagonal elements represent the dual field and its conjugate v_2s=  , _ 2s=  .
the expressions above represent two - soliton solutions to the equation of motion and are related through the duality transformation of ( [ eq : dual1 ] ) .
multi - soliton solutions can also be obtained by following the same technique . instead of the vacuum solution
, one can start from any given n - soliton solution @xmath66 and add solitons through the method described above , ending up with a @xmath67 solution .
nevertheless , multi - soliton solutions for this model are quite large and their calculation is beyond the scope of this paper .
in this section we argue that soliton - soliton and soliton - antisoliton solutions presented in the literature by previous treatments , do not represent distinct classes of solutions .
charged solitons are non - topological solutions , therefore a distinction between a soliton and an antisoliton is impossible . on the other hand chargeless solutions
may be realised as topological solitons and identified with the sine - gordon solitons .
the sine - gordon theory appears as the limit of the csg model when the charge parameter @xmath55 is set to zero .
we can substitute in the equation of motion of ( [ eq : csgeq1u ] ) [ eq : sg ] u= e^2i  , where @xmath18 is now a constant to recover the sine - gordon model in the usual form ^2 - ^2 + 2 2 = 0  .
the sine - gordon theory has topological solitons ( both kinks and antikinks ) interpolating between its degenerate vacuaa .
in contrast the csg theory has a single vacuum for @xmath14 , and therefore its solitons are not topological in nature , but are stable because of integrability alone .
the topological nature is hidden within the mapping of ( [ eq : sg ] ) and one has to be careful when trying to recover the sine - gordon soliton as a limit of the csg theory .
nonetheless a subtle remnant of the topology survives the mapping to the complex sine - gordon theory . to see this consider how a sg soliton is mapped to csg soliton
this is shown in fig.[fig : vacuum ] .
consider now how the potential term behaves as @xmath68 increases for the single soliton solution . as a function of @xmath5 we can express the potential as 2 = 2 = 2 u  , where @xmath18 has been ignored as a total phase .
note that we should take the branch cut with opposite signs on each side of the point @xmath69 , @xmath70 .
we shall see that the changing sign of the branch cut for a chargeless soliton will be important when we come to consider the theory with a boundary .    in some sense
the topology of the chargeless @xmath5-soliton is embedded in the the branch cut that appears at the singular point @xmath70 .
the choice of branch corresponds to a different vacuum for @xmath17 and therefore to a different topological charge .
however , when the charge parameter @xmath55 is not zero , then the @xmath5-soliton does not reach the sick point @xmath70 and remains non - topological . in this case
no real distinction can be made between a soliton and an antisoliton . in the sine - gordon case ,
the antikink solution is derived from the kink by changing the sign of the parameter @xmath71 of the transformation .
this effectively corresponds to a parity and time reversal transformation which finally produces an antikink solution . examining ( [ eq:1soliton ] ) we see that in the csg case this change actually leads to the complex conjugate solution , by changing the sign of the complex phase . the change of sign in both @xmath72 and @xmath68 , can be cancelled by taking the charge parameter @xmath73 .
it is thus clear that instead of changing the sign of @xmath71 , one could effectively change the sign of @xmath55 to derive an antisoliton .
since the soliton solution is a smooth function in @xmath55 , the antisoliton is not a distinct object but can be identified with the soliton itself .
this also has an effect on the two - soliton solution .
if we follow the same steps as in the sine - gordon two - soliton solution then the solution @xmath74 of ( [ eq : u2s ] ) corresponds to both a soliton - soliton and a soliton - antisoliton solution depending on the choice of sign for the parameter @xmath75 .
the parameter @xmath75 can be chosen in such a way as to describe one of the following @xmath76 here we have taken the two solitons to have equal and opposite velocity ( in general this is not the centre of mass since differently charged solitons have different masses , but it will be convenient for our discussion when we introduce a boundary later on ) . also for reasons of simplicity we will refer to the soliton - soliton solution as @xmath77 ( @xmath78 ) and to the soliton - antisoliton as @xmath79 ( @xmath80 ) .
however since no topological distinction exists between the soliton and antisoliton sector , it is possible to find a transformation of the parameters of the solution which effectively acts as a change of sign for the parameter @xmath75 .
in fact , a set of transformations exists that maps @xmath77 to @xmath79 but we restrict ourselves to the simplest cases .    before introducing the transformation , we need to introduce arbitrary shifts in @xmath68 , which are crucial not only for this mapping but also later when we consider breathers and soliton reflections .
the shifts appear in exponentials , so it is more helpful to consider the shifts in the following forms @xmath81 the parameters @xmath82 are directly related with both @xmath54 and @xmath55 and correspond to the arbitrary initial positions in @xmath68 , in the real ( @xmath83 ) and imaginary phases ( @xmath84 ) respectively , that appear in the one - soliton solution .
specifically the parameter @xmath85 represents a translation in @xmath68 , while the @xmath86 parameter represents a phase shift in the internal @xmath8 space . for reasons of simplicity ,
we include in the definition of @xmath86 the total phase @xmath87 which appears in ( [ eq:1soliton ] ) .
henceforth these parameters will be referred as phase shifts , since they are directly related to the time - delay effect of the scattering process .
now that we have defined the arbitrary phase shifts we start with the soliton - soliton solution @xmath88 which comes from the two - soliton solution @xmath74 when we choose @xmath89 .
we consider the following transformation @xmath90 although this is enough to change a single soliton to an antisoliton , this is not the case for the two - soliton solution .
the phase shifts have also to be fixed in a specific way to complete the mapping between @xmath77 and @xmath79 @xmath91 this effectively changes the sign of @xmath75 in the expression @xmath77 converting one of the solitons to an antisoliton .
in contrast with the single soliton where the antisoliton can not be properly defined , in the two - soliton case there is a point of reference .
a distinction between a soliton and an antisoliton can only be realised as a specific choice of the relative sign between the parameters @xmath92 and @xmath54 which does not in any case lead to topologically distinct solutions
.    the same mapping between @xmath77 and @xmath79 can also be achieved by making the following transformation a_2 a_2 +  , which effectively changes the sign of all trigonometric functions involving the parameter @xmath93 sending the solution @xmath94 .
this transformation will be used again on a later section when we come to consider soliton reflections , to demonstrate exactly the equivalence of the two sets of solutions .
there are conflicting views in the literature concerning the existence of breathers @xcite .
the problem arises because the transformation @xmath95 which is usually used to generate breathers from a two - soliton solution traveling with equal and opposite velocities , does not necessarily lead to a solution of the equations of motion . while the technique has been widely used before on other models , the fact that the csg equation involves both @xmath5 and @xmath96 , implies that naively analytically continued solutions do not necessarily satisfy the equation of motion .
so it is not clear , for instance , that all the breather like `` solutions '' of @xcite do satisfy the csg equations of motion .
however , since the sine - gordon is embedded in csg model by taking @xmath5 to be chargeless , the sine - gordon breather solutions do satisfy the csg equations of motion . in fact a family of charged , complex breather solutions does exist in csg model . although it is quite hard to actually check if a general breather solution satisfies the equation of motion , a trick can be used instead .
we consider the two - soliton solution of ( [ eq : u2s ] ) and we demand that this solution is even in @xmath54 so that is effectively a function of @xmath97 . now
the transformation @xmath98 , does nt change the reality properties of the solution but simply introduces an overall minus sign into the arbitrary parameter @xmath97 , which is irrelevant . making the solution even in @xmath54 , means that a few restrictions have to be imposed .
firstly , the charge parameters have to be taken equal or opposite according whether @xmath99 is plus or minus one respectively .
secondly , some of the arbitrary position parameters , have now to be fixed . however , up until now all the arbitrary phase shifts that appeared were either complex ( @xmath100 ) or real ( @xmath101 ) and there was no distinction between the shifts that originated from the space or time part of the phase .
however , when constructing a breather solution , by analytical continuation of the @xmath54 parameter a separation between the space and time shifts is induced .
all shifts that associated with space end up as real parameters , while time shifts become imaginary .
we can restrict ourselves to shifts only in the @xmath68 direction .
one could also consider more general phases which are complex and also depend on time and the parameter v. these however correspond to either @xmath8 rotations or time translations which make their use obsolete .
the arbitrary shift parameters are now both real @xmath102 and should be compared with the general form of ( [ eq : shifts ] ) . in order to make a breather solution from the soliton - soliton case the following relations are required @xmath103 where the signs in these equation are correlated .    it should be noted that more breather solutions may exist .
it is possible that through certain restrictions a more general breather solution can be obtained , but a direct confirmation through the equations of motion is rather difficult .
an analysis of the quantum csg model @xcite suggests that the soliton can be identified with the elementary particle since the vacuum of the theory and the one - soliton are not topologically distinct solutions .
evidence of this conjecture exists even in the classical picture . from our experience with the sine - gordon model , we would expect to identify the particle with the lowest energy breather solution .
it would seem to follow that the breather whose energy and charge correspond to that of a single particle should be equivalent to a single soliton .
this remarkable fact can be shown as follows .
we consider the static single - soliton solution [ eq : staticsoliton ] u_s =  , where @xmath104 .
the mass of the static soliton is given by ( [ eq : bulkenergy ] ) which after integration gives m_s = 4 m ( a_s )  , while the charge of the soliton is given by q_s = i = 4 ( [ a_s ] - a_s )  .
the mass of a breather is twice the mass of a single soliton solution at velocity @xmath54 , which has been analytically continued @xmath105 m_b =  .
the breather solution is effectively constructed from two one - soliton solutions , each with charge q_b = 4 ( [ a_b ] - a_b )  . in order to have a chance of identifying the breather with the soliton , we demand that the mass of a breather is equal to the mass of a static single soliton and that their charges also coincide m_s = m_b  ,  q_s = 2 q_b  . from the above relations ,
one can solve for the parameter @xmath106
if this value is substituted into the breather , then the solution collapses to a static single - soliton carrying double the charge @xmath107 .
in other words , the single - soliton can always be considered as a bound state of two single - solitons carrying half the charge .
the argument can be used recursively so that a soliton can be regarded as an infinite collection of solitons carrying fractions of the original charge . at each level
a soliton is identified with a breather emerging out of a soliton pair of half the original charge . in the classical picture
this process can be carried out indefinitely , but in the quantum case the finite character of the mass states restricts this procedure .
this is not surprising since the static single - soliton of ( [ eq : staticsoliton ] ) can be viewed as a bound state due to the oscillation effect which creates a breather - like behaviour .
this is consistent with the fact that any breather can collapse to to this solution when the parameter @xmath54 is properly fixed .
it can therefore be realised as a breather solution after the collapse , exhibiting all of its former properties .
one point that has to be emphasized is that breathers constructed with the method described in the previous section are not chargeless .
this is due to the fact that the choice of the charge parameters @xmath108 is such that both solitons that are combined to create a breather have the same charge .
this is confirmed by the above demonstration in which a breather collapses to a single soliton solution which carries double the charge of the breather s solitons .
neutral breathers do exist but only at the chargeless limit and can be identified with the breathers of the simple sine - gordon theory .
in the following sections we consider the effect of introducing a boundary into the csg model .
although we are free to add any boundary potential to the lagrangian , we choose to investigate those potentials and their corresponding boundary conditions which preserve integrability .
such choices allow the non - perturbative solution of the model which is one of the main motivation for its study .
once such suitable conditions are introduced we examine the scattering of particles and solitons , and determine the necessary conditions for the existence of boundary bound states .
we shall consider a boundary condition to have preserved the integrability of the csg model , if we can still construct an infinite number of commuting conserved charges .
in contrast with the theory in the bulk , the introduction of a boundary destroys the translation invariance of the model but preserves the time translation invariance .
it is thus expected that the momentum will not be conserved , whilst the energy will .
this situation also holds for the higher - spin conserved quantities .
all energy - like , parity - even quantities can be conserved , unlike their momentum - like , parity - odd partners . nevertheless ,
since there is an infinite number of conservation laws , the main goal would be to concentrate on the conservation of the parity - even quantities .
the presence of the spectral parameter @xmath109 in the lax pair of ( [ eq : lax2 ] ) implies the existence the infinite conserved currents in the bulk that can be determined through the method used by turok and olive @xcite .
this is achieved by performing a gauge transformation @xmath110 [ eq : gauge2 ] = u a u^-1 + u u^-1  , in such a way that the commutator of the transformed gauge fields @xmath111 and @xmath112 of the lax pair to be zero .
the equation of motion becomes ( | - ) = ( + )  , where the normal time and space derivatives are used .
in the theory in the bulk we integrate over @xmath68 .
if @xmath113 , then q( ) = ^_- ( | - )  dx = ^_- ( + )  dx = ^_-  .
since at infinity the fields are taken to vanish so that @xmath111 and @xmath114 approach a fixed value , it follows that the right - hand side vanishes . as @xmath111 and @xmath112 can be expanded as an infinite laurent series in @xmath115 , the coefficients of each power of @xmath115 , provides us with an infinite number of conserved charges .
when a boundary is introduced the left - hand side involving the spatial derivative does not vanish since now the integration takes place over the semi - infinite interval .
instead one is left with an equation of the form    ^0_- ( |a - a )  dx = _ x=0 where the left - hand side is evaluated at the boundary . instead of demanding that the right - hand side vanishes
, we instead ask that it can be expressed as a total time derivative with the help of suitable conditions , thus leading to a conserved quantity .
we begin by finding explicit expressions for `` low - spin '' conserved charges of the csg model in the bulk by solving for the abelianizing gauge transformation @xmath110 order by order in the spectral parameter .
let @xmath110 be a general real @xmath25 matrix , with @xmath116 .
the diagonal elements of @xmath110 can be taken equal due to residual gauge freedom which leave @xmath111 and @xmath114 in an abelian form .
thus @xmath110 takes the form u= (    cc 1 & +     )  , where @xmath117 is a function of the fields and should not be associated with the space variable .
we demand that @xmath110 diagonalises both @xmath118 and @xmath119 at the same time .
the transformed fields lie both in the @xmath120 direction and the non - zero diagonal elements can be identified with the conserved currents . taking @xmath118 to be a= (    cc i & e + - & -i    ) , with @xmath121 and @xmath122 , we demand that the non - diagonal part of @xmath123 vanishes @xmath124 the conserved quantities
can also be written in terms of @xmath117 and @xmath125 j= -i - +  .
the same matrix @xmath110 , should also diagonalise @xmath126 , which is given by ( [ eq : a ] ) |a = (    cc d & p + & -d    )  , where @xmath127 and @xmath128 .
the choice of @xmath129 , @xmath130 and @xmath131 is not accidental .
they actually represent the electric field , the polarization and the population inversion field variables respectively , when this theory is used to describe the propagation of optical pulses in a non - linear medium @xcite . when @xmath110 acts on @xmath119 , we again demand the off diagonal parts to vanish . examining the matrix explicitly yields @xmath132 it is easy to see that these equations are equivalent to equations ( [ eq : offdiag1 ] ) .
the diagonal part yields the other component of the conserved current |j = ( 2 d + 2 ) + . in order to solve the two sets of equations ( [ eq : offdiag1 ] ) or equivalently ( [ eq : offdiag2 ] )
, we consider an expansion of @xmath117 and @xmath125 in powers of @xmath133 @xmath134 the coefficients @xmath135 and @xmath136 can be determined by direct substitution into ( [ eq : offdiag1 ] ) and ( [ eq : offdiag2 ] ) , and by demanding that the coefficients in all powers of @xmath133 vanish . up to order o(@xmath137 ) one finds @xmath138 now that @xmath117 and @xmath125 have been defined , we can also express the conserved quantities as a series in @xmath115 .
each order of @xmath115 , provides a conserved quantity and since the series of @xmath115 in @xmath117 and @xmath125 does not terminate , we thus have an infinite number of conserved quantities as expected from the integrability of the csg model .
the two components of the conserved current up to @xmath139 ) can be read off as coefficients in the following expansion of @xmath86 and @xmath140 @xmath141 and it can be checked that this current is conserved explicitly from the equation of motion .    in the above we have constructed conserved currents that lead to conserved charges in the bulk . however , as we have previously argued , conserved charges on the half line are expected to take the form of an integral over a _
parity - even _ conserved current .
the conserved currents above are neither parity even or odd . to rectify this we note that our system of equations and constraints possess a @xmath142 invariance involving parity transformations which can be used to construct a  reflected " set of conserved currents .
the  reflected " set of conserved currents is easily obtained through the substitution @xmath143 in the expressions ( [ eq : currents1 ] ) including those derivatives involved in the definition of @xmath129 .
the new set of currents @xmath144 , @xmath145 , can now be combined with the former set to produce pure parity odd and even currents .    in the presence of a boundary only parity even quantities are conserved .
the desired form of the equations to emerge is  ( parity  even ) =  ( parity  odd ) . by combining the two sets of currents one can separate the odd and even quantities for all powers of @xmath109 . =
we examine the @xmath146 term in the expansion which gives ( e + + 2 ( d+ ) ) = ( - e + 2 ( d- ) ) , where @xmath147 , etc .
after integration over the semi - infinite interval , the right hand side representing the parity odd part is ( u , ) = ( ) u + ( )  .
this is a total derivative provided that =  ,  =  . the conserved quantity at hand , in terms of @xmath5 and @xmath96 , is then [ eq : conserv1 ] h = _ -^0 ( 2 + 4 ( 2 |u|^2 - 1 ) ) dx - [ w]_x=0  ,
since this quantity actually represents the energy of the system , @xmath148 can be identified with the energy contribution of the boundary term .
when constructing the odd and even quantities of the @xmath149 term , one ends up with @xmath150 once more the parity - odd right hand side which after integration yields @xmath151 should be written as a total time derivative in order to force the currents to be conserved at the boundary .
a set of boundary conditions have to be introduced to ensure that his is the case ( app . [ app1 ] ) .
using the equations of motion , the parity - odd part of ( [ eq:2ndrhs ] ) can be written as a total derivative if the following restrictions are enforced @xmath152 the boundary constant @xmath153 is defined by the theory and is responsible for the way fields react to the boundary .
consistency of the two equations in ( [ eq : bc ] ) implies that @xmath153 should be considered a real parameter . when one makes the transformation described in ( [ eq : u2phi ] ) , the new boundary conditions for the fields @xmath17 and @xmath18 are = - c ( )  ,  = 0  , which clearly shows that @xmath153 has to be real .
it has to be pointed out that ( [ eq : bc ] ) is not the only set of boundary conditions that can be derived . a number of isolated  dirichlet "- like conditions also exists .
however , we restrict ourselves only to cases where the space derivatives of the fields appear .
if we take the field @xmath5 to be real , the system is reduced to the sine - gordon equation with a boundary condition @xmath154 .
this is the subset of integrable boundary conditions of the sine - gordon model presenting the @xmath142 symmetry @xmath155 .
the corresponding conserved quantity , is rather large and is omitted .
since the necessary conditions for the integrability of the model have been established , we study the scattering of particles and solitons off the boundary .
we begin this section with the effects of introducing a boundary potential to the vacuum of the theory .
we continue with the scattering of particles and solitons and derive the phase shifts induced by the process .
finally , we investigate the necessary conditions for the existence of boundary bound states .
when a boundary term is introduced , the vacuum of the theory that we discussed in section ( 2.2 ) , does not necessarily remain unchanged .
it is exactly this contribution that needs to be carefully examined before any statements are made about the minimum energy configuration .
although , the vacuum solution of the theory in the bulk is a strong candidate , soliton solutions could also be considered in the attempt to both minimize the energy functional and satisfy the boundary conditions of ( [ eq : bc ] ) .
we begin by first determining the energy contribution of the boundary term .
the full lagrangian of the model is now _
tot = l + _ b .
the boundary term @xmath156 , can be determined by the variation principle of the total action .
the variation of the @xmath157 term yields = u + + ( _ u ) + ( _ )  .
when the euler - lagrange equations are used , two terms survive since the model is considered in the semi - infinite interval where the fields do not vanish at the boundary = _ ( u ) + _ ( )  . from the variation of the boundary term one has = u +  .
the variation of the action vanishes when the remaining terms evaluated at the boundary are forced to cancel .
the two interrelated equations that emerge are @xmath158    by substituting the boundary conditions of ( [ eq : bc ] ) , these can easily be solved for the boundary term _
b = 2 c  .
we now consider the total energy of the system , now comprising of two parts [ eq : totenergy ] h_tot = h_bulk + h_b  , where the term @xmath159 , represents the energy in the bulk and the second term @xmath160 represents the energy contribution from the boundary [ eq : hb ] h_b = - 2 c  , which is evaluated at @xmath161 .
this energy contribution makes the determination of the vacuum difficult .
the sign of the boundary constant @xmath153 is not set , which could provide either a positive or negative contribution to the total energy of the system .
this clearly shows that although the original choice for a vacuum should not be discarded , one should also consider other static solutions which in conjunction with the sign of @xmath153 could provide a lower energy vacuum than before .
apart from the original choice for a vacuum , one can consider static multi - soliton solutions .
we restrict ourselves to one - soliton solutions since experience with similar models usually makes multi - soliton solutions unsuitable candidates .
when considering one - soliton solutions , one has the equations of the transformation ( [ eq : back1 ] ) which are always true to simplify expressions .
in particular we first consider the @xmath162 term representing the energy in the bulk _
bulk = dx ( + m^2 u )  , with @xmath163 . by direct substitution of the equations a simplified expression of the bulk energy
is acquired [ eq : bulkenergy2 ] h_bulk = dx ( 2 m^2 u )  . when the above expression is integrated throughout space , the result
can be identified with the mass of the soliton solution @xmath5 .
however , now the integration is over the half line and specifically over the @xmath164 $ ] region .
the same equations can be used to express the @xmath165 term of ( [ eq : hb ] ) .
specifically , the boundary constant @xmath153 is determined by direct comparison of the equations of ( [ eq : back1 ] ) and the boundary condition which appears in ( [ eq : bc ] ) c = (  e^i(+ ) +   e^-i(+ ) )  . with @xmath32 given by ( [ eq : theta ] ) . at @xmath161 and assuming that @xmath166 , the above expression simplifies to [ eq : c ] c =  .
this implies that @xmath167 .
since both @xmath168 and @xmath153 are defined by the theory , the above relation is true only for specific choices of the boundary parameter @xmath153 .
alternatively , one can think of this restriction emerging from the fact that for @xmath169 , no choice of @xmath170 satisfies the boundary condition .    in the case where we choose @xmath34 as a possible vacuum , the only remaining term in the total energy is _
tot = - 2 c  .
alternatively , one can consider a one - soliton solution where v is set to zero which appears in ( [ eq : staticsoliton ] ) . in this case , both terms of ( [ eq : totenergy ] ) depend on the initial position of the soliton .
however , after some calculations , the @xmath170 dependence drops out and the total energy is given by a the following expression _
tot = 2 m ( a )  .
it is far from obvious , which vacuum choice provides the minimum energy configuration . to determine this
, one has to look at the expression of the boundary constant @xmath153 in ( [ eq : c ] ) .
this can be rewritten in the following form [ eq : vfun ] y^2 + = ^2(a )  , where f^2 = ^2 ( m ( a ) x_0 )  ,  y =  . in the above relation @xmath168 and @xmath153 should be treated as fixed parameters , while @xmath171 can be varied through @xmath170 .
the left hand side of ( [ eq : vfun ] ) is monotonically decreasing as @xmath171 increases since @xmath172 .
we observe the following @xmath173 this shows that moving the soliton away from the boundary decreases the energy of the system . on the extreme case where the soliton is placed at infinity
, the model behaves as if no soliton exists , and the only contribution is the boundary term which coincides with the vacuum solution of @xmath34 . on the contrary as the soliton is placed closer to the boundary the energy increases .
the maximum energy occurs when @xmath174 at which point @xmath175 so that @xmath176 which is greater than the energy @xmath177 of the @xmath34 vacuum .
although the choice of vacuum in the bulk seems to be the most suitable choice in the boundary case too , one can not rule out multi - soliton solutions that might provide lower energy configurations .
this demands tedious calculations and remains as one of the open questions for this model .      in this section
we investigate the reflection of solitons from the boundary .
mathematically this can be represented by a two - soliton solution satisfying the boundary condition .
one of the solitons represents the incoming soliton whilst the other represents the reflected one .
the point where the two solitons actually meet along the whole line as well as the phase shift due to their collision create an overall time - delay effect which can be calculated directly through the parameters of the scattering .
this time - delay can be attributed to the interaction of the soliton with the boundary .
however , the most difficult step is to determine the restrictions that have to be imposed so that the two - soliton solution satisfies the boundary condition [ eq : bc_2s ] u_2s = - c u_2s  .    energy and charge conservation laws
demand that both the mass and the charge of the soliton are conserved by the boundary .
this restricts the choice of the charge parameters @xmath178 to be either equal or opposite .    due to the large expressions involved in the calculation ,
one is forced to expand both sides of the equation ( [ eq : bc_2s ] ) to a taylor series in exponentials of @xmath72 , and match each term of the same order .
each term provides us with an equation involving the boundary parameter @xmath153 . as mentioned in the previous section , the boundary constant has to be a real parameter .
the real and imaginary parts of the equation yield two constrains on the parameters .
let us consider this in more detail .
we begin with a two - soliton solution , where the parameters are chosen in such a way so as to describe a soliton - soliton scattering . in this case
, the charge parameters are taken to be opposite @xmath179 and the parameters to be @xmath180 .
furthermore , we adopt the following parametrisation which is more natural = e^  ,   = e^i   ,  v = ( )  . after both sides of the boundary equation
are expanded as a taylor series in time , we can discard the imaginary parts from all terms by using the following relation [ eq : res1 ] ( ) = - ( ) ( a ) (  ) . when the above equation is used the infinite set of equations collapse to a single constraint [ eq : res2 ] c = m ( a ) ( )  ( )  .
when the shift parameters are fixed according to the above relations , the two - soliton solution satisfies the boundary condition and this process describes a soliton being reflected by the boundary .
the fact that only relative shifts in both normal and internal @xmath8 space are important should be expected from time translational and @xmath8 invariance of the model .
the non - topological solitons in the csg theory are reflected as solitons carrying the same charge @xmath181 .
this is because the boundary potential does not break the @xmath8 symmetry since it depends only on @xmath182 .
we shall consider @xmath55 and @xmath183 as fixed parameters and use equations ( [ eq : res1 ] ) and ( [ eq : res2 ] ) to determine the parameter @xmath115 in terms of @xmath153 . by eliminating the parameter @xmath184 ,
one ends up with the following quadratic equation for @xmath153 ^2 - 2+(()^2+(a)^2 ) m^2 = 0  .
the solutions of the above equation can be plotted to present the dependence on @xmath115 .
the plot involves two branches ( fig .
[ plot1 ] ) due to the sign ambiguity , which are mutually exclusive .
the plot shows that a soliton can always be reflected by the boundary .
the branches meet at the points c= m  ,  (  ) =  .    in the limit @xmath185
the two branches of the plot can be identified with the soliton - soliton and soliton - antisoliton sector of the reflection process at the sine - gordon limit ( fig .
[ plotsg ] ) . for fixed values of @xmath183 and @xmath186 ,
it is the value of the boundary constant @xmath153 which determines whether a soliton is reflected as a soliton or an antisoliton . for @xmath153 small , a soliton
is reflected as an antisoliton ( neumann boundary conditions for @xmath187 ) , while for @xmath153 large a soliton is reflected as a soliton ( dirichlet boundary conditions for @xmath188 ) .
for @xmath189 the branches do not meet as in the csg case .
this specific value of @xmath153 corresponds to a logarithmic divergence that appears in the classic time delay for the sine - gordon case .
these results coincide with the results derived by previous treatments of the boundary sine - gordon model @xcite .
the time delay which appears at the scattering of a soliton off the boundary , can be calculated directly from the asymptotic values of the solution at @xmath190 .
we begin with the two - soliton solution and change to a frame of reference which moves with the incoming soliton ( i.e. @xmath191 . in the limit @xmath192
the solution becomes [ eq : sminus ] s_- = _
t- u_2s =  , where a_1=   ,  ( b_1)= - and p =  ,   +  r =  .
the parameters @xmath193 and @xmath194 represent regular shifts that were introduced in ( [ eq : shifts ] ) .
the solution , as expected , describes a single incoming soliton at early time far away from the boundary .
we repeat the same calculation , but now we change to the frame of reference of the outgoing soliton ( i.e. @xmath195 ) and calculate the limit of the two - soliton solution at @xmath196 which yields [ eq : splus ] s_+ = _
t=+ u_2s =  , where a_2 =   ,  ( b_2)=  , and  q =  . once again this is a single soliton solution representing the reflected soliton far away from the boundary wall .
the asymptotic solutions @xmath197 , @xmath198 contain all the information needed to calculate the time - delay .
the latter is a combination of two separate events .
firstly , a phase shift is induced during the scattering of the two solitons . before the two solitons
re - emerge as two separate entities , the reconfiguration of the solution creates a phase shift which is equivalent to a time delay .
secondly , the centre of mass of the two - soliton solution does not necessarily lies at the boundary .
this implies that the two solitons actually meet at a different point than @xmath161 .
this creates again a time delay which may be either positive or negative corresponding to an attractive or repulsive boundary potential respectively .    ignoring any interaction between the two solitons
, one can project the trajectories of @xmath197 and @xmath198 on @xmath199 diagram and find the point where these cross ( fig .
[ fig : scat1 ] ) .
the distance of this point from the boundary is proportional to the time delay @xmath200 which in the diagram is given by the distance ( ac ) .
the time delay corresponds to the time interval in which the soliton appears to be absorbed by the boundary before it reemerges as a well defined entity .
the two solitons move across the following lines @xmath201 as dictated by ( [ eq : splus ] ) and ( [ eq : sminus ] ) .
the lines cross at x_0 = ( x_1 - x_2 + ) = +  , since @xmath202 .
the time delay is finally _
csg = = +  . in the expression above , the first term of the right - hand side represents the time delay caused by the non - symmetric character of the solution with respect to the boundary . in the special case where @xmath203
, the centre of mass lies on the boundary and the term vanishes .
the second term is independent of the initial position of the two solitons or the boundary potential and is caused by the phase shift of the scattering process .
the relative position of the two solitons are however fixed according to the constraint equations ( [ eq : res1 ] ) and ( [ eq : res2 ] ) which ensure that solution satisfies the boundary condition .
specifically the parameter @xmath115 corresponds exactly to the @xmath204 difference up to the overall factor @xmath130 .
it is thus possible to express the time delay in terms of the boundary constant , by solving the constraint equations and substituting the relative position of the solitons .
we choose to express the velocity parameter @xmath54 in terms of the rapidity @xmath183 for simplicity reasons .
after a few straightforward calculations we recover the following expression for the time delay    _ csg = where q= in the special limit of @xmath186 , the time delay for the sine - gordon model is recovered _
sg = ( ^2 ( ) )  .
this is exactly the time delay calculated for the sine - gordon theory in the presence of a boundary @xcite for the restricted class of boundary conditions which admit @xmath205 as a vacuum to which the chargeless limit of csg correspond .      in this section
we examine the spectrum of bound states . once again , for the the boundary condition to be satisfied we need to restrict some of the parameters in the solution .
the simplest bound state that we can have is the static single soliton that was introduced in ( [ eq : staticsoliton ] ) .
the solution is not really static , as the imaginary phase survives the setting of the speed parameter @xmath54 to zero .
the solution is static only in the sense that the centre of mass does nt translate in the @xmath68 direction , although the wave oscillates with fixed angular velocity @xmath206 .
when a boundary is introduced a static soliton can satisfy the boundary condition for @xmath207 when its position is fixed according to equation ( [ eq : c ] ) . at the chargeless limit any time dependence vanishes and the solution collapses to a static single soliton of the sine - gordon theory , fixed at the boundary .
breathers that have been constructed by the method described in section ( [ sec : e1 ] ) can also be shown to satisfy the boundary condition .
the condition that @xmath153 is real still holds
. however , all the arbitrary phase shifts are now real numbers and constrained .
we examine breather solutions that emerge from the soliton - soliton case .
just as before , the solution does satisfy the boundary condition with some restrictions involving the arbitrary parameters .
once more a taylor expansion of the boundary equation is needed .
the parametrization used in this case is k_1=e^  ,  j_1 = e^  ,  v= ( )  , while the parameters @xmath208 and @xmath209 have been been properly fixed so that this is a breather solution .
the first restriction needed for the solution to satisfy the boundary condition is ( 2 ) = - ( a ) ( ) ( 2 )  .
the parameter @xmath183 plays the role of the rapidity , which has now been analytically continued .
the second restriction which completes the necessary requirements for a boundary bound state is c= m ( a ) ( ) ( ) . both relations can be recovered by analytical continuation of the corresponding relations of ( [ eq : res1 ] ) and ( [ eq : res2 ] ) after the necessary restrictions for a breather solution have been already taken into account .
it is instructive to examine the relation between the parameters @xmath153 and @xmath115 ( fig .
[ fig : clbreather ] ) since it provides valuable insight to the structure of bound states .
there are two distinct regions of values of @xmath153 that do not correspond to any bound state .
this regions are defined by the limit values c = m ( ( a ) ( ) ( a ) ( ) )  . at the chargeless limit ,
the regions collapse to the single values c = m  , which coincided with the logarithmic divergence appearing in the time delay for the soliton reflection .      in this section
we consider the spectrum of particles and their reflection factors in the presence of a boundary .    for small fluctuations around the vacuum @xmath34 ,
the boundary condition ( [ eq : bc ] ) becomes _ 1 ( x , t ) = - c ( x , t ) . in order to calculate the reflection factor
when particles bounce of the boundary wall , we substitute in the last relation the particle solutions presented in ( [ eq : planewave ] ) .
the constant @xmath118 of the right propagating waves is taken to be one , since it has to do with the characteristics of the particle beam .
the reflection factor is identified with the constant @xmath22 , which corresponds to a phase change as the particles encounter the boundary b =  .
the reflection factor , as expected , depends on @xmath153 which as stated before , appears as a free , real parameter in the boundary condition . for @xmath210 ,
the reflection factor is equal to @xmath211 and no phase appears between the two waves upon their scattering off the boundary .
this is consistent with the fact that the boundary term is proportional to the boundary constant , so when @xmath153 is set to zero , the boundary term vanishes .
particle solutions can be related to bound states through the pole appearing in @xmath22 .
indeed one may choose @xmath212 and apply this to a solution of the form @xmath213 .
the remaining terms depend explicitly on the boundary constant ( x , t ) = e^-i(t+-icx )  .
this solution is square integrable only for a specific range of values for the boundary constant .
specifically if @xmath153 is positive then the solution is not square integrable since it is exponentially increasing as @xmath214 .    when @xmath215 , then @xmath216 represents a square integrable exponentially decreasing solution as @xmath217 .
it oscillates with constant angular velocity @xmath218 and is therefore a stable bound state .
it can also be viewed as the tail of a static one - soliton solution satisfying the boundary condition , with the parameters adjusted in such a way its centre of mass goes to positive infinity .
examining the condition ( [ eq : c ] ) for the static soliton to obey the boundary condition , this limit can be achieved as @xmath219 , i.e. we must take the charge is such a way that @xmath220 .
finally in the region @xmath221 , the solution can increase exponentially in time .
this shows that the vacuum solution @xmath34 is no longer stable .
in fact the particle behaviour which corresponds to a small perturbation around the vacuum seems to be ever increasing .
this instability can be understood through a rather impressive mechanism in which a chargeless soliton is emitted from the boundary , effectively changing the value of @xmath153 so that @xmath34 is now stable .
recall from section ( [ sec : sad ] ) that for a chargeless soliton we should take the opposite sign for @xmath222 on each side of the centre of the soliton where @xmath42 .
the instability can be viewed as a left moving chargeless soliton which approaches the boundary from @xmath223 . in the beginning while the soliton is far away from the boundary @xmath34 so that the boundary potential of ( [ eq : hb ] ) is @xmath224 . as the centre of the soliton passes through @xmath161 , the sign of the square root in the boundary potential changes . as the soliton moves to @xmath225 , @xmath5 returns to @xmath226 near the boundary but now we take the boundary energy with the opposite sign @xmath227 .
effectively the sign of @xmath153 has been flipped to a positive value .
the energy released from the boundary is @xmath228 , which is greater than the rest mass of a single chargeless soliton . at @xmath229 ,
the soliton is emitted with infinitesimal velocity .
as @xmath153 decreases , more energy is given up by the boundary and the soliton can be emitted with larger @xmath54 .
this process agrees with the infinite time - delay effect which was encountered in the soliton reflections section .
the soliton emission represents the time reversal picture of that effect in the chargeless soliton case ( fig .
[ plotsg ] ) .
it follows that we need never consider the situation where @xmath221 .
the csg model is one of the simplest generalisations of the sine - gordon theory , but nonetheless has a rich and fascinating mathematical structure .
in the first part of the paper we have examined the spectrum of the theory in the bulk and written down explicit two - soliton solutions within the framework of the matrix potential .
we also demonstrated how to construct breather solutions in an elegant way avoiding the problems that arise by the analytical continuation of the parameter @xmath54 .
there are two ways in which soliton solutions of the csg model differ qualitatively from those of the sine - gordon model .
firstly , the solitons can be charged , so that whilst there centre of mass remains fixed , the solutions are not static .
the second feature is that the csg does not possess degenerate vacua , and so the solitons are non - topological .
there is therefore no distinction between solitons and antisolitons which can be interchanged by a continuous variation of the charge parameter @xmath55 .
nevertheless , the topological nature of the sine - gordon theory can be recovered as the choice of branch cut of @xmath230 in the chargeless limit as was demonstrated in section [ sec : sad ] .
a direct consequence of the non - topological nature of the csg soliton is that the breather solution can collapse to a single soliton when the parameter v is properly fixed , tying in with the picture presented in @xcite that particle and solitons can be identified in the quantum limit .    in the second part of the paper we introduced a boundary term in the csg lagrangian and demanded that the system remains integrable .
first we constructed low - spin conserved quantities of the theory using abelianisation of the lax pair , and then derived suitable boundary conditions in order to preserve these . in the presence of a boundary , we examined the vacuum structure and showed that the bulk vacuum @xmath34 remained the true vacuum in the boundary case .
soliton reflections off the boundary were also studied and the necessary constraint equations were written down in terms of the phase shift parameters .
the set of equations was derived by demanding that the two - soliton solution satisfies the boundary condition .
moreover the time delay induced by the scattering process was calculated in terms of the boundary constant c and was found to coincide in the chargeless limit with the time delay of the sine - gordon theory .
finally we looked for classical solutions corresponding to boundary bound states .
we found that it was possible to construct both bound soliton and bound breather solutions .
we also found a bound state in the particle spectrum .
this was unstable when parameter @xmath153 associated with the boundary energy was in the range @xmath221 . in this case
the boundary emits a chargeless soliton , effectively changing the sign of the boundary parameter @xmath153 to @xmath231 .
we end our discussion by pointing out a few aspects of the model that appear quite interesting and deserve further study . as mentioned in the introduction the csg theory was used to generalise the existing field theory approach of optical pulse propagating in a non - linear medium .
a physical interpretation of the results appearing in this paper would be extremely interesting , especially the physical meaning of breather solutions and their application to physical geometries .
an obvious extension of our results is to consider the quantum case of the boundary csg model .
the s - matrix for the model in the bulk , which corresponds to perturbed @xmath39 parafermions , is known .
it would be interesting to see if one can find a quantum reflection matrix , compatible with this s - matrix and with the classical results presented in this paper .
as the simplest case in the family of homogeneous sine - gordon theories , the results might shed light on the more complicated models in the family .
we would like to thank patrick dorey and roberto tateo for illuminating discussion during the preparation of this work .
in order to construct an infinite number of conserved quantities when a boundary is introduced , we need to express the parity odd terms of the equations of motion as total time derivatives .
the corresponding term of order @xmath232 is in terms of the fields @xmath5 and @xmath96 @xmath233    since we need the above expression to be a total time derivative we can eliminate any second order spatial derivatives of the fields by using the equations of motion of ( [ eq : csgeq1u ] ) @xmath234 we take advantage of the fact that we are free to add total time derivatives on this expression , since this represents a conserved quantity .
the expression simplifies significantly by adding the following term ( 4 )  , which yields @xmath235 we are looking for boundary conditions that are of the form u = f(u , )  ,  = g(u , )  , where @xmath171 and @xmath236 are functions of the fields not involving derivatives . by direct substitution of the above into ( [ ap : l21 ] )
we get @xmath237 the expression above does represent a total derivative when all terms are forced to vanish by selecting suitable functions @xmath171 and @xmath236 .
the two separate differential equations that appear involving the undefined functions @xmath238 can easily be solved to yield [ ap : l23 ] f(u , ) = s_1(u )  ,   g(u , ) = s_2 ( )  .
in addition , the last two terms in ( [ ap : l22 ] ) imply that f =  g  , using the above relation and solutions of ( [ ap : l23 ] ) into the remaining terms of ( [ ap : l22 ] ) , we can determine the remaining undefined functions @xmath239 and @xmath240 . the final form of the boundary conditions are @xmath241 where c is a real constant .                      h.  j. de  vega , j.  ramirez  mittelbrunn , m.  ramon  medrano , and n.  sanchez .
the general solution of the 2-d sigma model stringy black hole and the massless complex sine - gordon model . ,
b323:133138 , 1994 .