text:
# Schwinger-boson calculation for a frustrated antiferromagnet

## I Introduction

The Schwinger-boson method is a versatile means of studying quantum spin systems arovas ; aa ; auerbach . It relies on the correspondence between spin and boson degrees of freedom defined by the Schwinger-boson transformation. The introduction of fictitious boson degrees of freedom permits the derivation of simple mean-field theories, with rotationally invariant order parameters which cannot be defined in terms of the original spins. Because the procedure explicitly preserves rotational invariance, spontaneous symmetry breaking need not be assumed, in contrast to standard spin-wave approaches. The method is therefore capable of describing collinear, spiral, and spin-liquid phases within a unified framework, where broken-symmetry phases are represented by Bose-condensed phases of Schwinger bosons hirsch . At the mean-field level, early Schwinger-boson calculations produced quantitatively disappointing results. However, small changes in the formalism greatly improve its accuracy without unduly complicating its use twist1 . In this paper we briefly review the application of the Schwinger-boson transformation to quantum Heisenberg magnets, beginning with the derivation of a rotationally invariant mean-field theory. We then show in some detail how Gaussian fluctuations around the mean-field solution can be included for arbitrary (non-Bravais) lattices. This generalizes the available results, which treat simple lattices. As an application, we examine the Shastry-Sutherland model, which has been the subject of renewed interest due to its experimental realization in $`\mathrm{SrCu}_2(\mathrm{BO}_3)_2`$ expt1 .

## II Schwinger-boson method

The Schwinger-boson transformation is an exact mapping from spin to boson degrees of freedom, given by $`\widehat{𝐒}\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}^{})_m𝝈_{mn}(\widehat{a}\widehat{b})_n`$; here $`m,n=1,2`$, and $`𝝈`$ is the vector of Pauli matrices. The original spin Hilbert space corresponds not to the full boson Hilbert space but rather to the ($`2S+1`$)-dimensional subspace in which $`\widehat{\delta n}=\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}2S=0`$. Our goal is to evaluate the partition function, $`𝒵(\beta )=\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{phys}}e^{\beta \widehat{}}`$, where $`\widehat{}(\{\widehat{𝐒}_i\})\widehat{}(\{\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{b}_i\})`$ is an arbitrary spin Hamiltonian transformed to a boson Hamiltonian, and the trace is restricted to the physical subspace. We can replace the restricted trace with a trace over the full boson Hilbert space using an appropriate projection operator for each spin:

$$\widehat{𝒫}_i=_\pi ^\pi \frac{d\lambda _i}{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left(i\lambda _i\widehat{\delta n}_i\right).$$
(1)
Then $`𝒵=\mathrm{Tr}(_i\widehat{𝒫}_i)e^{\beta \widehat{}}`$, which can be rewritten as a functional integral in the usual way. In particular, we obtain

$$𝒵(\beta )=\frac{𝒟\varphi _a𝒟\varphi _b𝒟\lambda \delta [_\tau \lambda ]\mathrm{exp}\left(𝒜[\varphi _a,\varphi _b,\lambda ]\right)}{𝒟\lambda \delta [_\tau \lambda ]},$$
(2)
where the Euclidean action is

$$𝒜=_0^\beta 𝑑\tau \left((\{\varphi _{ai},\varphi _{bi}\})+\underset{i}{}i\lambda _i\delta n_i+\underset{i;s=a,b}{}\varphi _{si}^{}_\tau \varphi _{si}\right).$$
(3)
The Lagrange multipliers $`\{\lambda _i\}`$ have been promoted to time-dependent variables; the inclusion of $`\delta [_\tau \lambda ]_{i,\tau }\delta (_\tau \lambda _i)`$ in the functional measure ensures that $`𝒵`$ remains the same.

The action (3) is invariant under local gauge transformations parametrized by $`\{\theta _i(\tau )\}`$: $`\lambda \lambda _\tau \theta ,\varphi e^{i\theta }\varphi `$. This gauge symmetry is associated with the conservation of total boson number on each site, which holds simply because the magnitude of each spin is constant. The gauge is partially fixed in Eq. (2) by the condition that $`_\tau \lambda =0`$; the remaining, unfixed, transformations are those where $`\theta `$ is time-independent. The action will often have additional symmetries, such as global SU(2) invariance; these depend entirely on the symmetries of the spin Hamiltonian.

We specialize to the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, $`\widehat{}=_{<ij>}𝒥_{ij}\widehat{𝐒}_i\widehat{𝐒}_j`$. Under the Schwinger-boson transformation $`\widehat{𝐒}_i\widehat{𝐒}_j`$ :$`\widehat{B}_{ij}^{}\widehat{B}_{ij}`$:$`\widehat{A}_{ij}^{}\widehat{A}_{ij}`$, where $`\widehat{A}_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{a}_i\widehat{b}_j\widehat{b}_i\widehat{a}_j)`$, $`\widehat{B}_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_j+\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{b}_j)`$, and :$`\widehat{𝒪}`$: is the normal-ordered form of $`\widehat{𝒪}`$. The bilinear operators $`\widehat{A}_{ij}`$ and $`\widehat{B}_{ij}`$ are invariant under simultaneous SU(2) rotations of spins $`i`$ and $`j`$, so they may take on vacuum expectation values even without spontaneous rotational symmetry breaking. This makes them convenient order parameters on which to base a mean-field theory. These operators are not, however, invariant under the U(1) gauge transformations described earlier (since they couple physical and unphysical states), so such theories retain some gauge degrees of freedom. These degrees of freedom become important when the order parameters are allowed to fluctuate around their average values.

We write the Hamiltonian in a form suitable for lattices with several spins per unit cell:

$$\widehat{}=\underset{𝐱n}{}𝒥_n\widehat{𝐒}_{𝐱,\mu _n}\widehat{𝐒}_{𝐱+𝐲_n,\nu _n}.$$
(4)
Here $`𝐱`$ labels the unit cell, $`\mu `$ and $`\nu =1,2,\mathrm{}N_{\mathrm{sites}}`$ are site labels within a unit cell, and $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}N_{\mathrm{bonds}}`$ is a bond label. We then formulate a mean-field theory with order parameters $`\{A_{𝐱n},B_{𝐱n}\}`$ by introducing complex Hubbard-Stratonovich fields $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, linearly coupling them to $`A`$ and $`B`$, and using them to integrate out the original boson fields $`\varphi `$. This yields a new representation of the partition function,

$$𝒵(\beta )=\frac{𝒟\alpha 𝒟\beta 𝒟\lambda \delta [_\tau \lambda ]\mathrm{exp}\left(𝒜_{\mathrm{eff}}[\alpha ,\beta ,\lambda ]\right)}{𝒟\alpha 𝒟\beta 𝒟\lambda \delta [_\tau \lambda ]\mathrm{exp}\left(𝒜_{\mathrm{HS}}[\alpha ,\beta ]\right)},$$
(5)
where the effective and Hubbard-Stratonovich actions are

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_{\mathrm{HS}}+\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\mathrm{M}}+{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \underset{𝐱\mu }{}}2iS_\mu \lambda _{𝐱\mu },`$ (6a)
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{HS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \underset{𝐱n}{}}𝒥_n(\alpha _{𝐱n}^{}\alpha _{𝐱n}+\beta _{𝐱n}^{}\beta _{𝐱n}).`$ (6b)
The denominator of (5) can be evaluated exactly, but it is convenient for normalization purposes to leave it as it stands. The dynamical matrix $`\widehat{\mathrm{M}}[\alpha ,\beta ,\lambda ]`$, defined in the Appendix, describes the propagation of Schwinger bosons coupled to the Hubbard-Stratonovich fields.

As noted by Trumper et al., the effective action (6a) has a gauge symmetry inherited from the boson action (3trumper . The gauge-fixing functional, currently given by $`\delta [_\tau \lambda ]`$, can be chosen more or less arbitrarily without changing the value of $`𝒵`$; this can be done with the Faddeev-Popov procedure. However, while the exact value of $`𝒵`$ is gauge-invariant, the terms in a general perturbative expansion of it are not. We will therefore retain the current gauge-fixing condition in what follows, but observe that this quantitatively affects our results, because the saddle-point expansion we use is not controlled by any gauge-invariant small parameter. By contrast, mean-field theories which take as order parameters either $`\{A_{𝐱n}\}`$ or $`\{B_{𝐱n}\}`$, but not both, have natural SU(N) generalizations in which the saddle-point expansion is controlled by 1/N auerbach .

Next we look for stationary points of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ with respect to its arguments. We consider only static and translationally invariant solutions of the form $`\alpha _{𝐱n}=\alpha _{𝐱n}^{}=\alpha _n`$, $`\beta _{𝐱n}=\beta _{𝐱n}^{}=\beta _n`$, and $`\lambda _{𝐱\mu }=i\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$, where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are real, and we work in the zero-temperature limit. With these restrictions we can derive the desired rotationally invariant mean-field equations. Collectively they take the variational form $`\delta E=0`$, where the energy per unit cell is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}E(\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}𝒥_n(\alpha _n^2\beta _n^2){\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}(2S_\mu +1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\mu }{}}\omega _{𝐤\mu },`$
and the quasiparticle energies $`\{\omega _{𝐤\mu }\}`$ are defined in the Appendix. This represents a set of $`2N_{\mathrm{bonds}}+N_{\mathrm{sites}}`$ coupled nonlinear equations, which must be solved numerically for the mean-field parameters $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$, $`\beta ^{(0)}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)}`$. (There are generally several gauge-equivalent saddle points, differing only in the signs of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$; which one of these is chosen as the mean-field solution is irrelevant.) The resulting boson propagator $`\widehat{𝒢}^{(0)}=(\widehat{\mathrm{M}}^{(0)})^1`$ enters into the calculation of fluctuation corrections. The ground-state energy per unit cell can be rewritten as $`\frac{1}{N}E^{(0)}=_n𝒥_n\left((\beta _n^{(0)})^2(\alpha _n^{(0)})^2\right)`$.

Finally, we include fluctuations around the saddle point in the usual way, by expanding the action in a power series:

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{eff}}=𝒜^{(0)}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\frac{^2𝒜_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }}|_{(0)}\mathrm{\Psi }+𝒪(\mathrm{\Psi }^3),$$
(8)
where the fluctuation fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,\beta ^{},\beta )(\alpha ^{},\alpha ,\beta ^{},\beta )^{(0)}`$ do not include $`\lambda `$ due to our choice of gauge. The matrix of second derivatives, which is block-diagonal in reciprocal space, determines the Gaussian correction to the ground-state energy:

$$E^{(1)}=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\omega }{4\pi }\underset{𝐤}{}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(\widehat{𝟙}\widehat{\mathrm{D}}(𝐤,\omega )\right),$$
(9)
where

$$\mathrm{D}_{am,bn}(𝐤,\omega )=𝒥_m^1\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{𝒢}^{(0)}\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{M}}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝐤\omega ,am}^{}}\widehat{𝒢}^{(0)}\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{M}}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝐤\omega ,bn}}\right).$$
(10)
These expressions, together with the details provided in the Appendix, represent our main analytical results. We now discuss the numerical results for a particular lattice.

## III Shastry-Sutherland lattice

The Shastry-Sutherland model is a frustrated 2D antiferromagnet with bonds of two different strengths, as shown in Fig. 1. The relevant physical parameters are the ratio $`gJ_2/J_1`$ and the spin magnitude $`S`$. In the classical limit ($`S\mathrm{}`$) the ground state has Néel order for $`g2`$ and helical long-range order otherwise. For finite $`S`$ and sufficiently large $`g`$, the exact quantum ground state is known: it is fully dimerized, with the two spins on each $`J_2`$-bond in the singlet state shassuth . (This is often referred to as a spin-liquid phase due to the lack of long-range order.) The energy of this state is always $`2S(S+1)J_2`$ per unit cell. Moreover one expects the Néel order present at $`g=0`$ to persist up to some positive $`g_c(S)`$. We would like to clarify to what extent quantum fluctuations melt the classical spiral ordering. Our main interest is in the case $`S=1/2`$. This is the physically relevant case, and the existence of a spiral phase is in the greatest doubt here. A previous Schwinger-boson calculation at the mean-field level showed a spiral phase in the range $`1.1g1.65`$ albmila . This result has not been confirmed by exact diagonalization, since the spiral states are only energetically favorable on large lattices. High-order series expansions, starting from both $`g=\mathrm{}`$ and $`g=0`$, have been used to locate accurately the energetic crossover between the Néel and spin-liquid phases series ; however, these calculations provide no evidence for or against an intermediate spiral phase.

When describing helical phases it is common to use “twisted” periodic boundary conditions, where spins along one cluster boundary are rotated with respect to those on the opposite boundary twist1 ; twist2 . This procedure breaks rotational invariance and complicates the analysis somewhat, so we do not use it here. The price we pay is that helices with small pitch cannot be accommodated by small clusters with untwisted boundary conditions. We found that helical mean-field solutions exist for clusters with as few as 24 sites, suggesting that finite-size effects probably do not seriously alter our results on larger clusters.

We used the Schwinger-boson method to calculate the ground state energy for $`S=1/2`$. The mean-field equations can be solved numerically for the full range of $`g`$. For small $`g`$, the solution with lowest energy is purely antiferromagnetic ($`\alpha 0`$, $`\beta =0`$) on the strong $`J_1`$-bonds and purely ferromagnetic ($`\beta 0`$, $`\alpha =0`$) on the weaker $`J_2`$-bonds. This solution is unique and has ordering wavevector $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi )`$; we identify it as the Néel state. When $`g`$ is increased, new solutions with ordering wavevectors $`𝐐=(\pi \pm \delta q,\pi )`$ and $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi \pm \delta q)`$ appear through a bifurcation of the Néel state; we identify these solutions as helical states with pitch along the $`x`$-axis and $`y`$-axis respectively. The helical states are degenerate for square lattices. Finally, for sufficiently large $`g`$, the energy of the helical states exceeds that of the spin-liquid state, and the ground state becomes disordered.

The results for a small cluster (16-site, $`4\times 4`$) are shown in Fig. 2. The Néel state does not undergo any bifurcation here, due to the small size of the cluster. The Schwinger-boson mean-field estimate exceeds the exact ground state energy by a small and roughly constant amount over the full range of $`g`$. A second-order perturbative calculation around $`g=0`$ (that is, around the Néel state) yields similar results in the displayed range (although naturally perturbation theory is more accurate near $`g=0`$). Finally, the inclusion of Gaussian fluctuations in the Schwinger-boson calculation improves the accuracy, but for $`g1.3`$ only: for larger $`g`$ the results deteriorate rapidly.

In Fig. 3 we show the mean-field and Gaussian-order results for a larger, rectangular cluster (64-site, $`16\times 4`$), for which exact results are unavailable (except for the spin-liquid state). In this case the Néel state bifurcates at $`g1.2`$ into a helical state with pitch along the $`x`$-axis (the lower dashed curve). The energy of the Néel state is corrected by fluctuations just as in the smaller cluster: it is shifted downward by a small amount until $`g1.3`$, after which the computed correction becomes large and positive. Extrapolating from the small-cluster results, it seems probable that the upswing is again spurious, and that the true energy is bracketed by the mean-field and Gaussian-order results. The Gaussian correction to the energy of the helical state is uniformly positive.

We also checked the mean-field and Gaussian-order results for still larger clusters, at selected values of $`g`$. The bifurcation point occurs at slightly smaller $`g`$ on larger clusters, approaching $`g=1.1`$ in the thermodynamic limit, as seen in Ref. albmila . The nature of the corrections does not appear to change. Our conclusion is that the Shastry-Sutherland model with $`S=1/2`$ has a helical ground state, over a range of $`g`$ narrower than that suggested by mean-field Schwinger-boson theory. The range of stable wavevectors for spiral ordering is correspondingly reduced: we estimate that the helical state is stable for $`\delta q\pi /3`$, whereas the mean-field theory predicts stability for $`\delta q3\pi /8`$. These conclusions are necessarily tentative.

## IV Remarks

From a practical point of view, these results are not very satisfactory. Although the inclusion of Gaussian fluctuations improves the agreement between Schwinger-boson theory and exact diagonalization in some regions of parameter space, the improvement is not dramatic. Moreover, the correction is not uniformly good; it gives little reliable information about the region of interest, where the Néel and helical states have comparable energies.

The results can be interpreted in two ways. It may be that the very good agreement between the mean-field and exact ground-state energies is simply fortuitous; the partition function may not be dominated by contributions from the neighborhood of the mean-field solution. In that case no refinement of the present saddle-point expansion will yield better results. This is a real possibility; however, since the Schwinger-boson mean-field approach also gives accurate results on a number of other systems, it seems unlikely.

It also may be that we have failed to treat the gauge degrees of freedom properly. As noted earlier, the choice of gauge-fixing condition has a quantitative effect on the order-by-order results of the saddle-point expansion.111The authors of Ref. trumper  indicate that their results for a different lattice are independent of whether our gauge or the background gauge is chosen. We were unable to reproduce this coincidence for the Shastry-Sutherland model. We worked in a simple but otherwise arbitrary gauge. It would be preferable to control the expansion in a gauge-invariant way. This should be possible along the lines of Ref. auerbach  (and references therein): allow the number of boson “flavors” to become large, say N, and generalize the fields $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`\delta n`$ in a natural way to include these new flavors. When this is done correctly, the effective action for $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\lambda `$ will be proportional to N; the saddle-point expansion will then yield an asymptotic series in 1/N, each term of which is gauge-invariant. This program would put the present work on a sounder theoretical footing, by determining in what limit its results become exact. The key step is to generalize $`A`$ and $`B`$ simultaneously; this remains a challenge for the future.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was made possible in part by the kind support of Cornell University. The author was also supported in part by an ITP Graduate Fellowship from the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. That funding was through the NSF under Grant No. PHY89-04035. The author would like to thank Guang-Hong Chen for his collaboration during the early stages of this project.

## Appendix A Details of calculation

This appendix contains details about some aspects of the calculation which, while extraneous to the main body of the paper, are included for the sake of completeness.

The boson action (which was integrated out) has the form $`(\varphi _a^{}\varphi _b)\widehat{\mathrm{M}}(\varphi _a\varphi _b^{})^\mathrm{T}`$; i.e., it is anomalous. The dynamical matrix $`\widehat{\mathrm{M}}[\alpha ,\beta ,\lambda ]`$ has $`2\times 2`$ submatrices

$`(\widehat{\mathrm{M}})_{𝐤\omega \mu ,𝐤^{}\omega ^{}\mu ^{}}=\beta N\delta _{𝐤\omega \mu ,𝐤^{}\omega ^{}\mu ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\omega e^{iϵ\omega }& 0\\ 0& i\omega e^{iϵ\omega }\end{array}\right)`$
$`+\left(i\delta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\mu +{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\widehat{\mathrm{F}}_n^+)_{𝐤\mu ,𝐤^{}\mu ^{}}\left(i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Im}\beta _n}\right)\right)\widehat{𝟙}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\widehat{\mathrm{F}}_n^{})_{𝐤\mu ,𝐤^{}\mu ^{}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}\beta _n}\widehat{\sigma }_zi\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}\alpha _n}\widehat{\sigma }_y+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Im}\alpha _n}\widehat{\sigma }_x\right),`$
where all fields are Fourier-transformed, with arguments $`(𝐤𝐤^{},\omega \omega ^{})`$ suppressed, and

$$(\widehat{\mathrm{F}}_n^\pm )_{𝐤\mu ,𝐤^{}\mu ^{}}=\frac{1}{2}𝒥_n\left(\delta _{\mu \mu _n}\delta _{\mu ^{}\nu _n}e^{i𝐤^{}𝐲_n}\pm \delta _{\mu ^{}\mu _n}\delta _{\mu \nu _n}e^{i𝐤𝐲_n}\right).$$
(12)
The differing convergence factors $`e^{\pm iϵ\omega }`$ in the first term of $`\widehat{\mathrm{M}}`$ arise from the anomalous nature of the action. They must be taken into account properly to obtain the correct mean-field energy, Eq. (7), and to evaluate the Gaussian correction given by Eq. (9). However, in the latter equation only the first $`(n=1)`$ term from the expansion $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{𝟙}\widehat{\mathrm{D}})=_n\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\mathrm{D}}^n`$ needs these factors to force convergence of the $`\omega `$-integral, and the contribution to $`E^{(1)}`$ from this term can be shown to equal $`\frac{1}{2}E^{(0)}`$. For numerical work, then, it is simplest to rewrite the Gaussian correction as

$$E^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}E^{(0)}+_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\omega }{4\pi }\underset{𝐤}{}\left(\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\mathrm{D}}+\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{𝟙}\widehat{\mathrm{D}})\right)$$
(13)
and disregard the convergence factors.

The mean-field dynamical matrix is block-diagonal:

$$\frac{1}{\beta N}\widehat{\mathrm{M}}^{(0)}(𝐤,\omega )=i\omega \widehat{𝟙}\widehat{\sigma }_z+\widehat{A}(𝐤)\widehat{𝟙}+\widehat{B}(𝐤)\widehat{\sigma }_y,$$
(14)
where $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ are Hermitian matrices obtained from the general expression for $`\widehat{\mathrm{M}}`$. This can be diagonalized using a nonunitary (generalized Bogoliubov) transformation: there is a matrix $`\widehat{𝒮}(𝐤)=\widehat{G}(𝐤)\widehat{𝟙}+\widehat{H}(𝐤)\widehat{\sigma }_y`$ such that $`\widehat{𝒮}^{}=(\widehat{𝟙}\widehat{\sigma }_z)\widehat{𝒮}^1(\widehat{𝟙}\widehat{\sigma }_z)`$ and

$$\frac{1}{\beta N}(\widehat{𝒮}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{M}}^{(0)}\widehat{𝒮})_{\mu \mu ^{}}=\delta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\omega +\omega _{𝐤\mu }& 0\\ 0& i\omega +\omega _{𝐤\mu }\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
The quasiparticle energies $`\{\omega _{𝐤\mu }\}`$ are the square roots of the eigenvalues of $`(\widehat{A}+\widehat{B})(\widehat{A}\widehat{B})`$; these eigenvalues will be real and positive when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is large enough, and the mean-field solutions must be sought in that region. The diagonalizing matrix and the quasiparticle energies are analytically tractable for one- and two-site unit cells; in any case they are easy to obtain numerically. The boson propagator is then

$`\beta N\widehat{𝒢}_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{(0)}(𝐤,\omega )=`$
$`\widehat{𝒮}_{\mu \nu }(𝐤)\left(\begin{array}{cc}(i\omega +\omega _{𝐤\nu })^1& 0\\ 0& (i\omega +\omega _{𝐤\nu })^1\end{array}\right)\widehat{𝒮}_{\nu \mu ^{}}^{}(𝐤).`$
Finally, the mean-field derivatives of $`\widehat{\mathrm{M}}`$ with respect to the fluctuation fields are field- and frequency-independent, and can be read directly from Eq. (A).


format: text

text:
# The Stability Balloon for Two-dimensional Vortex Ripple Patterns

## Abstract

Patterns of vortex ripples form when a sand bed is subjected to an oscillatory fluid flow. Here we describe experiments on the response of regular vortex ripple patterns to sudden changes of the driving amplitude $`a`$ or frequency $`f`$. A sufficient decrease of $`f`$ leads to a “freezing” of the pattern, while a sufficient increase of $`f`$ leads to a supercritical secondary “pearling” instability. Sufficient changes in the amplitude $`a`$ lead to subcritical secondary “doubling” and “bulging” instabilities. Our findings are summarized in a “stability balloon” for vortex ripple pattern formation.

A flat bed of sand subjected to an oscillatory flow of water is seldom stable but instead displays the formation of patterns. Classical studies  have shown that after the flat bed becomes linearly unstable, so-called rolling grain ripples (small heaps of grains) are formed first. These are, however, always transient , and eventually strongly nonlinear vortex ripples are formed in a coarsening type process. These ripples have triangular crests with slopes roughly at the angle of repose, and the flow around the ripple crests is dominated by vortices that occur in the wake of the ripples. Together with the converging flow at the “wind” side of the ripples, these vortices yield sand mass transport directed toward the crests of the ripples, which is balanced by sand avalanching down when the slopes grow too large. The wavelength of such ripple patterns is comparable to the amplitude of the fluid motion which sets the scale for the size of the separation bubbles ; this wavelength is substantially larger than the most unstable wavelength of a flat bed .

To characterize the vortex ripples we have studied their pattern forming properties. From this perspective, the system combines a number of unique features. Firstly, the driving is anisotropic which results in alignment of the ripples perpendicular to the flow. This allows for studies in one-dimensional geometries , although our experiments indicate that instabilities of the ripples lead to intrinsically two dimensional patterns. Secondly, typical ripple wavelengths are essentially independent of the system and grain dimensions and $`f`$, but scale with the driving amplitude $`a`$ . Finally, due to the strongly nonlinear character of the development, it has so far not been possible to describe the pattern dynamics in terms of an “amplitude equation”.

Our setup consists of a tray of sand that is oscillated with amplitude $`a`$ and frequency $`f`$ in a tank of water, allowing us to study two-dimensional patterns. To probe the fully developed vortex ripples, we have studied their response to sudden changes of the control parameters $`a`$

and $`f`$. Our findings lead to a “stability balloon” for vortex ripple pattern formation shown in Fig. 1. First we study the amount of grain motion for patterns that have evolved “freely” from the flat bed and have a wavelength selected by the driving amplitude. This leads to the “freezing line” in Fig. 1 (and discussed in more detail in Fig. 3). In the second set of experiments we study the response of regular patterns with initially fixed wavelengths to changes in $`f`$ or $`a`$. We find that a secondary “pearling” instability (Fig. 4) occurs when the frequency is sufficiently increased, while secondary “doubling”

and “bulging” (Fig. 5) instabilities occur when the amplitude $`a`$ is decreased or increased respectively, beyond some threshold. A qualitative presentation of these instabilities has appeared in .

Experimental Setup –  Our setup is sketched in Fig. 2. An $`0.6\mathrm{m}\times 1\mathrm{m}`$ aluminum tray (A) suspended from rollers (B) mounted on a stiff frame (C) is immersed in a sufficiently deep tank (D) filled with water. To avoid sloshing, a 3 cm thick flat plate of Plexiglas (E) is placed on top of the tank. The frame and tray are driven with a continuously controllable frequency $`f`$ (period $`T`$) and amplitude $`a`$ by an ICME AC motor (F). The sides of the tray consist of 2 cm high straight boundaries, while the ends are triangular wedges with a slope of $`15^{}`$ and maximum height 2 cm (see Fig. 2); the rational behind these “soft” boundaries will be discussed below. The “sand” consists of spherical glass beads, ranging in sizes from 250 to 350 $`\mu `$m. The thickness of the sand layer is smallest in the troughs of the ripple pattern, but always larger than 5 mm. The whole setup is illuminated from the left side and filmed from above by a Dalsa 8 bit CAD4 CCD camera with $`1024^2`$ resolution. A trigger is mounted on the motor so that all pictures are taken at the same extremal position of the tray. For the values of the driving considered here (Fig. 1), typical ripple patterns consists of 15-20 ripple lengths. Suspension can be ignored and the maximal acceleration of the tray is well below the fluidization threshold. For appropriate values of $`a`$ and $`f`$, fairly regular ripple patterns grow from the flat bed. For example, for $`a=2.8`$ cm we find ripple patterns with wavelength 4.2 cm.

Grain motion – Once a fully developed pattern is formed, how does the number of grains in motion vary with $`f`$ and $`a`$? We observed that, due to irregularities in some grains, sand bed images usually display a number of very bright spots. The difference between two subsequent images is dominated by the appearance or disappearance of a number $`n`$ of such bright spots; we assume that $`n`$ is proportional to the number of grains which have moved.

To measure $`n`$ we proceed as follows: We start from a flat bed and obtain an equilibrated pattern by running the system for one hour, so that the driving amplitude selects the ripple wavelength, in contrast to the secondary instability experiments presented below. We then take

a series 50 images from which the average of $`n`$ is determined. The frequency is then lowered to a new value, the system is allowed to relax for fifteen minutes and fifty new images are recorded. This procedure is repeated for ten decreasing values of the frequency. In Fig. 3a, three examples of the number of moving grains as function of frequency are shown. For high frequencies $`n`$ saturates, and the corresponding data points were discarded in the analysis presented below; this leaves us with a total of 65 data points for 10 different values of $`a`$.

We wish to obtain a relation between $`a`$ and $`f`$ where $`n`$ is constant. It was previously suggested that the maximum non-dimensional shear stress on a flat bed, $`\sigma _m`$ would be a good measure of the forcing . If the boundary layer were laminar one would obtain that $`\sigma _maf^{2/3}`$ from the solution to Stokes second problem , while for turbulent flow a semi-empirical relation $`\sigma _ma^{1.75}f^2`$ would be appropriate . In Fig. 3c we have plotted $`\sqrt{n}`$ versus the turbulent expression $`a^{1.75}f^2`$ and obtain a fairly good linear relation, while the correlation between $`n`$ and the laminar expression $`af^{2/3}`$ is very weak (Fig. 3d).

Secondary instabilities –  So far we have described patterns with a wavelength that is selected by the driving amplitude. Now we ask what happens when a perfectly regular pattern is suddenly subjected to changes in the driving parameters $`a`$ or $`f`$.

Obtaining a completely regular pattern is not entirely trivial. Freely grown patterns contain defects, which may be annihilated only after long times (on the order of days), although other distortions of the pattern may then appear. These are partially driven by a small drift of the pattern, which has a velocity on the order of one

ripple wavelength per $`10^4`$ oscillations . The deformations due to the drift are partly eliminated by using the slanted boundaries, allowing ripples to “drift out” of the system (leading to a small loss of sand at the edge of the plate). To obtain completely regular initial conditions, we have adopted the following procedure: First a flat bed is obtained by fluidizing the sand during a short period of strong oscillations of the plate. Then a regular pattern is imprinted into the sand by pressing down a frame with parallel equally spaced metal ridges. Small irregularities are then eliminated by a few ($`10`$) oscillations of the plate.

By making large changes in $`a`$ or $`f`$ it is relatively simple to get regular secondary instability patterns as shown in Fig. 4 and 5. A study of the precise nature of these transitions involves runs performed at parameters close to the instability boundaries, and here the time scale for the development of instabilities diverges. As a result, the “ideal” dynamics may get hidden behind experimental artifacts. By introducing appropriate order parameters we will below precisely characterize both the pearling and the bulging instability.

Pearling –  When the driving frequency is increased beyond a certain critical value, we find a secondary “pearling” instability (Fig. 4). Here, the crests of the initial ripples remain essentially undisturbed, but in their troughs new small ripples (pearls) emerge, and the resulting pearling pattern is periodic with the pearls aligned on lines inclined by approximately 45 degrees. The pearling transition is a supercritical secondary instability. When pearls are formed, their strength quickly saturates at some well defined value, and they disappear when the frequency is lowered as shown in Fig. 4c: Starting from

an imprinted perfect ripple pattern with wavelength $`4.2`$ cm (corresponding to an amplitude $`a=2.8`$ cm), the system was driven at a low frequency of 0.67 Hz. After 1000 oscillations, the frequency was suddenly increased to $`f^{}`$, kept there for 500 oscillations and then again lowered to the initial frequency.

To characterize the strength of the pearls, we have measured $`PP`$, the total intensity in the primary satellite peaks of the power spectrum (Fig. 4b). Due to finite size effects and noise, $`PP`$ is not zero for perfect patterns, and as order parameter we therefore use $`\mathrm{\Delta }PP`$, the difference between mean values of $`PP`$ during period 1000-1500 and period 0-1000. A plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }PP`$ as a function of the quenching frequency $`f^{}`$ shows a a well-defined transition point, above which the order parameter increases continuously (see Fig. 4d). A further increase of the frequency leads to more erratic states and finally to fluidization where the ripple patterns are washed away.

Bulging: –  When the driving amplitude $`a`$ is increased sufficiently, the regular ripple patterns become unstable to two dimensional modulations. While we cannot completely rule out that this is a long wavelength instability , our data strongly suggests that the wavelength of this modulation in the longitudinal direction is locked on four times the wavelength of the underlying pattern, with a similar wavelength in the transversal direction. In contrast to the pearling instability, this instability is subcritical. The bulging deformations grow until neighboring ripples become so close that they form defects, which climb and glide rapidly through the system, finally leading to a regular pattern with a larger wavelength. For sequence of pictures showing the development of the instability see .

Close to the instability boundary it becomes very difficult to distinguish slow drift from slow development of the instability, and we have therefore developed the following sensitive measure for the onset of the instability. Starting with a perfect pattern of wavelength 4.2 cm, we suddenly shift the amplitude. To characterize the time evolution of the pattern, we have extracted the local values of the “longitudinal” ripple length $`\lambda _i`$ taken over the whole two-dimensional image. The variance $`V`$, defined as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^N(\lambda _i\overline{\lambda })^2/(N1)`$, is then a simple measure for the amount of deformations in the pattern. The evolution of $`V`$ is shown in Fig. 5b for a variety of values of the amplitude $`a`$.

Even below the formation of bulges, $`V`$ grows slowly due to slow large scale deformations of the pattern, although the growth rate is essentially independent of the driving amplitude $`a`$. For $`a`$ above some critical value, $`V`$ displays a clear, surprisingly linear, increase with time. In Fig. 5c we have plotted the maximum of $`(V(tf+100)V(tf))/100`$ for $`t`$ up to period 200. This quantity, which measures the maximum slope of $`V`$, clearly identifies the location of the secondary instability at $`a=3.55(5)`$ cm. In this way we can distinguish between slow expansion or contraction of the pattern and the bulging instability.

Doubling –  When the amplitude $`a`$ is decreased sufficiently, a sub-critical doubling instability occurs. The initial phase of the development of this instability suggests that it can be captured in a one-dimensional framework. When the driving amplitude gets sufficiently small, the separation vortices that drive the sand transport do no longer reach over the through between ripples. This leads to the formation of bumps in the ripple troughs, which in turn grow out to form new ripples. Behavior similar to this has been seen in numerical studies of 1D vortex ripple patterns . For a picture of this transition see .

Discussion and outlook –  We have characterized some of the pattern forming properties of fully developed vortex ripple patterns. By observing the number of moving grains on the ripples we have showed that the maximum shields parameter on the flat bed, calculated using the turbulent expression, is a relevant control parameter. We have shown that regular vortex ripple patterns are stable to small changes in the driving amplitude and frequency. When these changes become too large, however, the vortex ripples show a rich variety of secondary instabilities; pearling, bulging and doubling.

Vortex ripples pose many theoretical challenges. The existence of a stable band and the doubling transition have been found in a simple model of ripple patterns . The bulging and pearling are, to the best of our knowledge, not present in any simple theoretical models, such as Swift-Hohenberg type models incorporating local mass conservation, left right symmetry and a finite wavelength instability (which leads to spatial derivatives of order six). We believe that the origin of the instabilities is basically hydrodynamical and related to the dynamics of the separation zones. In the doubling transition it is thus clearly seen in the 1-d experiments that the new ripples originate approximately at the reconnection point for the separation vortex. The bulging and pearling transitions are genuinely 2-d and thus more complicated, but we speculate that the bulging transition is basically a Rayleigh-Plateau “sausage” instability of the almost cylindrical separation vortex, whereas the pearling instability might be related to the centrifugal instability of the cylinder, giving rise to transverse Taylor vortices. Obviously these ideas need considerable elaboration in view of the strong time dependent shear experienced by the separation vortex.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge discussions with M.-L. Chabanol, J. Krug, A. Stegner and E. Wesfreid.


text:
# One thing that general relativity says about photons in matter

## 1. Introduction

When writing a paper with the title given above, one is fully aware of the fact that it will be judged very differently by readers with different epistemological inclinations. Imagine that we strictly embrace what Schrödinger, in a memorable paper , dubbed “Der bewußte Wechsel des erkenntnistheoretischen Standpunkts”, and thereby “wir haben unsere naiv-realistische Unschuld verloren”. Photons are quantum theoretical entities, and the positivistic credo currently attached to quantum theory allows us to ask only questions that deal with quantities that can be observed, at least in principle, according to the quantum framework that we have adopted. Hence there is no room for the good old “Physik der Modelle” of the present writing, despite the fundamental role that such a kind of physics has played in fostering the very birth of quantum mechanics and of quantum field theory. For us, this sort of physics shall be simply incompetent to say anything on the subject, for it lies outside the allowed conceptual framework.

If, on the contrary, we still have not yet completely lost our ingenuous-realistic innocence, we may feel relieved if the problem that we should tackle quantum mechanically has a classical simile. In that case, we can hope to rely on some clear-cut argument of classical origin for guiding our steps if the quantum mechanical apparatus, despite its programmatic self-reliance, for some reason turns out to be inept at producing an answer whatsoever.

This lamentable occurrence happens when one attempts to deal with quantum optics in dielectric media. As recently stressed , the usual presentations rely on ad hoc effective Hamiltonians drawn in some way or other from the classical electromagnetism of continua, thereby avoiding the admittedly very hard, but necessary task of deriving an effective Hamiltonian from a fully quantum description of the whole system consisting of matter plus field. No wonder then, if after more than five decades from the first attempt at producing “phenomenological” photons in homogeneous, isotropic matter , , a unique, satisfactory answer is still lacking. One is still offered with diverging options. If one starts from Minkowski’s energy tensor , like Jauch and Watson did, one is presented with photons endowed with an unpalatable spacelike momentum-energy four-vector. If one starts instead from Abraham’s energy tensor , as both strong theoretical arguments  and sound experimental evidence  might suggest to do, one reaches the conclusion that photons in dielectric matter can not be defined, because the energy operator and the momentum operator have no common eigenvectors; furthermore, both the field energy and the field momentum are not constant in time . This seemingly odd result is instead quite reasonable, for Abraham’s tensor density has a nonvanishing four-divergence also in the absence of charges and currents, thereby entailing a continuous exchange of energy and momentum with the dielectric medium. Only by extracting from Abraham’s tensor a so called radiation tensor  with vanishing four-divergence did Nagy succeed  in producing photons in dielectric matter endowed with the expected timelike momentum-energy four-vector.

Since the subsequent works, quoted e.g. in ref. , have not led to a solution of the problem at issue, the reader with an ingenuous-realistic epistemological inclination may find interesting to learn what “die Physik der Modelle” has to say about photons in matter. For this reader we shall recall the existence of two very important results obtained many years ago. One was found by Whittaker et al.  and by Synge , the second one is already contained in the seminal paper by Gordon  and was later retrieved and extended  by Pham Mau Quan in a much simpler way through the theory of characteristics; both are now practically forgotten111There has been a recent upsurge of interest in Gordon’s effective metric. See e.g.  and references contained therein.. The joint use of these achievements of the past allows one to draw conclusions about the very existence of photons in isotropic dielectrics.

## 2. Synge’s photons in the vacuum of general relativity

“Die Physik der Modelle” has no room for such esoteric ideas as the wave-particle dualism, since things are supposed to exists in spacetime in a way totally independent of any act of measurement. Nothing however forbids to think that one and the same physical reality may be accounted for by more than one theoretical model. Therefore it is totally legitimate to check whether a given classical theory, let us say general relativity, can contain both a wave description and a particle description of the photon, and to investigate how the characteristic quantities of both descriptions are mutually related. This is just what the authors of refs.  and  have done for the photons in the vacuum of general relativity. Due to its masterful clearness, we shall report here Synge’s account in extenso.

If the atoms are treated as points, it is necessary that the photon be pictured as something capable of being emitted and absorbed by points. There is a venerable line of thought that leads to assume that the world-line of a photon is a null geodesic. In fact the forerunners of the photons, i.e. the light rays of geometrical optics, were postulated to be null geodesics of the spacetime metric $`g_{ik}`$ already in 1917 by Hilbert . The postulate was then shown to be a mere consequence of the electromagnetic equations in a gravitational field by von Laue ; the same result was later reproduced by Whittaker in a two-page note  that relies on the theory of characteristics. Synge was thus led to assume that the world line of a photon satisfies the equations

(2.1)
$$\frac{\delta }{\delta u}\frac{dx^i}{du}=0,g_{ik}\frac{dx^i}{du}\frac{dx^k}{du}=0,$$

where $`\delta /\delta u`$ stands for the absolute derivative with respect to the special parameter $`u`$.

If the photon can be modeled as a point particle, we shall attribute to it a momentum-energy vector $`M^i`$ that is tangent to the photon’s world line and is parallelly propagated along it. One therefore poses:

(2.2)
$$M^i=\theta \frac{dx^i}{du},\frac{\delta M^i}{\delta u}=0,$$

where $`\theta `$, assumed to be positive, happens to be a constant thanks to (2.1). Since a photon is supposed to travel with the speed of light, it must have zero proper mass. Therefore it must be

(2.3)
$$M_iM^i=0;$$

the index of $`M^i`$ has been lowered with the metric $`g_{ik}`$; we choose by convention that the Minkowski form to which the latter can be transformed locally is $`\eta _{ik}diag(1,1,1,1)`$. We shall model an atom like a timelike point particle endowed with the momentum-energy vector

(2.4)
$$m_0u^i=m_0\frac{dx^i}{ds},ds^2g_{ik}dx^idx^k;$$

$`m_0`$ is the atom’s rest mass or rest energy, while $`u^i`$ is its four-velocity. The energy collected by an atom through the absorption of a photon can be calculated by postulating that the absorption process is ruled by the conservation law:

(2.5)
$$m_0^{}u_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=m_0u^i+M^i,$$

where $`m_0^{}`$ is the rest mass, and $`u_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}`$ is the four-velocity of the atom after the absorption of the photon. By rewriting the conservation law in covariant form and by multiplying the two forms term by term one finds

(2.6)
$$m_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}=m_0^2+2m_0M_iu^i,$$

i.e.

(2.7)
$$\frac{m_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}m_0^2}{2m_0}=M_iu^i.$$

For optical processes $`(m_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}m_0)/m_0`$ is very small with respect to unity, and this fact suggests defining the energy $`E`$ of a photon with momentum-energy vector $`M^i`$ relative to a pointlike “atom” endowed with four-velocity $`u^i`$ as

(2.8)
$$E=M_iu^i.$$

But another, equally time-honoured tradition leads to think of a photon as a wavelike phenomenon and to draw, with Synge, the spacetime diagram of Figure 1. In the wave model the photon is not pictured by just one null world-line, but by the two-dimensional ribbon $`A_0B_0BA`$, delimited by the null geodesics $`A_0A`$, $`B_0B`$, and by the line elements $`ds_0=A_0B_0`$, $`ds=AB`$, taken on the world-lines of the emitting and of the absorbing atom respectively.

To each null world-line within the ribbon it corresponds a phase of the wave process. The null lines drawn in the figure have, say, zero phase. If these lines are $`n+1`$ in number, it means that the emission process entails $`n`$ periods, and $`n`$ too shall be the number of the periods occurring in the absorption process. Therefore the frequency of emission, defined as the number of periods per unit proper time along the world-line of the emitting atom, shall read (with an ugly but otherwise innocuous licence in the notation)

(2.9)
$$\nu _0=n/ds_0,$$

while the frequency of absorption, defined with respect to the world line of the absorbing atom, turns out to be

(2.10)
$$\nu =n/ds.$$

By comparing these two equations one finds

(2.11)
$$\nu _0ds_0=\nu ds,$$

i.e. the relation governing the spectral shift in a gravitational field, whose quite general, geometrical derivation was first given in 1923 by Lanczos .

The special parameter $`u`$ must be chosen on each of the null geodesics of the ribbon $`A_0B_0BA`$. Since each of the $`u`$’s is given up to a linear transformation $`u^{}=au+b`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are constants that can be arbitrarily fixed on each null geodesic, we can freely assume that these parameters have a single starting value on $`A_0B_0`$ and a single terminal value on $`AB`$. If $`v`$ is another parameter, taken to be constant along the single null geodesic, the 2-space of the ribbon can be described by the equation

(2.12)
$$x^i=x^i(u,v),$$

while of course the partial differential equation

(2.13)
$$g_{ik}\frac{x^i}{u}\frac{x^k}{u}=0$$

needs to be satisfied. We are now equipped for considering further the particle model of the photon and for studying the relation between the energy release at the atom on the left side of the figure and the energy intake occurring at the atom on the right side. If $`M^i`$ is the momentum-energy vector of the photon, we can write

(2.14)
$$\frac{}{u}\left(M_i\frac{x^i}{v}\right)=\frac{\delta M_i}{\delta u}\frac{x^i}{v}+M_i\frac{\delta }{\delta u}\frac{x^i}{v}.$$

We have also

(2.15)
$$\frac{\delta }{\delta u}\frac{x^i}{v}\frac{^2x^i}{uv}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^i\frac{x^k}{v}\frac{x^l}{u}=\frac{\delta }{\delta v}\frac{x^i}{u},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^i`$ is the Christoffel connection built with $`g_{ik}`$. Since $`\delta M_i/\delta u=0`$, the right hand side of (2.14) can be rewritten as

(2.16)
$$M_i\frac{\delta }{\delta u}\frac{x^i}{v}=\theta g_{ik}\frac{x^k}{u}\frac{\delta }{\delta v}\frac{x^i}{u}=\frac{1}{2}\theta \frac{}{v}\left(g_{ik}\frac{x^i}{u}\frac{x^k}{u}\right)=0.$$

Hence one finds

(2.17)
$$\frac{}{u}\left(M_i\frac{x^i}{v}\right)=0,$$

and, with reference to Figure 1:

(2.18)
$$\left(M_i\frac{x^i}{v}\right)_{A_0}=\left(M_i\frac{x^i}{v}\right)_A.$$

Let $`u_0^i`$, $`u^i`$ be the four-velocities of the atoms at $`A_0`$ and at $`A`$ respectively. If $`dv`$ is the infinitesimal increment of the parameter $`v`$ when going from the null geodesic $`A_0A`$ to the neighbouring one $`B_0B`$, we can write:

(2.19)
$$\left(\frac{x^i}{v}\right)_{A_0}dv=u_0^ids_0,\left(\frac{x^i}{v}\right)_Adv=u^ids,$$

hence from (2.18) we get

(2.20)
$$\left(M_i\right)_{A_0}u_0^ids_0=\left(M_i\right)_Au^ids.$$

But the definition (2.8) of the energy of a photon absorbed (or emitted) by an atom allows to rewrite the last equation as just

(2.21)
$$E_0ds_0=Eds.$$

This is a really momentous result: if we divide term by term this equation, derived by considering the photon as a particle, and equation (2.11), that was obtained by considering the photon as a wave, we get eventually that it must be:

(2.22)
$$\frac{E_0}{\nu _0}=\frac{E}{\nu }.$$

Therefore, general relativity contains both a wave model and a particle model of the photon in vacuo, and the relation between the two models is such that when a photon is emitted by one atom and absorbed by another one in presence of a gravitational field, the ratio energy/frequency is the same for emission and for absorption. This ratio is independent of the behaviour of the gravitational field and of the state of motion of the two atoms.

## 3. Gordon’s reductio ad vacuum of the electromagnetic theory for a homogeneous, isotropic dielectric

In 1923 Walter Gordon showed  that Maxwell’s equations for matter that is homogeneous and isotropic when considered in its rest frame can be rewritten as Maxwell’s equations in vacuo, provided that we adopt, in writing those equations, not the true spacetime metric $`g_{ik}`$, but the effective metric

(3.1)
$$\sigma _{ik}=g_{ik}+\left(1\frac{1}{ϵ\mu }\right)u_iu_k$$

in which $`ϵ`$, $`\mu `$ are respectively the dielectric constant and the magnetic permeability of the dielectric medium, while $`u^i`$ is its four-velocity. This is a remarkable finding with far reaching consequences, and we shall spend some words to show how it comes about. By following the established convention , we represent the electric displacement and the magnetic field by the antisymmetric, contravariant tensor density $`𝐇^{ik}`$, while the electric field and the magnetic induction are accounted for by the skew, covariant tensor $`F_{ik}`$. With these geometrical objects we define the four-vectors:

(3.2)
$$F_i=F_{ik}u^k,H_i=H_{ik}u^k,$$

where $`u^i`$ is the four-velocity of matter. In general relativity a linear electromagnetic medium can be told to be homogeneous and isotropic in its rest frame if its constitutive equation reads

(3.3)
$$\mu H^{ik}=F^{ik}+(ϵ\mu 1)(u^iF^ku^kF^i).$$

Gordon noticed that (3.3) can be rewritten as

(3.4)
$$\mu H^{ik}=\left[g^{ir}(ϵ\mu 1)u^iu^r\right]\left[g^{ks}(ϵ\mu 1)u^ku^s\right]F_{rs},$$

and, since the contravariant form of the effective metric tensor (3.1) is

(3.5)
$$\sigma ^{ik}=g^{ik}(ϵ\mu 1)u^iu^k,$$

the constitutive equation can be rewritten as

(3.6)
$$\mu 𝐇^{ik}=\sqrt{g}\sigma ^{ir}\sigma ^{ks}F_{rs},$$

where $`gdet(g_{ik})`$. With some simple algebra one finds  that

(3.7)
$$\sigma =\frac{g}{ϵ\mu },$$

where $`\sigma det(\sigma _{ik})`$. Hence (3.3) can be eventually rewritten as

(3.8)
$$𝐇^{ik}=\sqrt{\frac{ϵ}{\mu }}\sqrt{\sigma }\sigma ^{ir}\sigma ^{ks}F_{rs}.$$

Therefore, apart from the constant factor $`\sqrt{ϵ/\mu }`$, the constitutive equation for this dielectric medium is just the same as the one occurring for a general relativistic vacuum. All the equations and all the theorems that hold for electromagnetism in the vacuum case will apply also to our medium, provided that $`\sigma _{ik}`$ be substituted for $`g_{ik}`$ in the original vacuum equations. In particular, we see that the results  found by von Laue and by Whittaker for the propagation of light rays in the vacuum of general relativity immediately apply to our dielectric medium: in the limit of geometrical optics, the light rays in a dielectric that is homogeneous and isotropic in its local rest frame shall be  the null geodesics of an “effective spacetime” endowed with the metric (3.1).

Gordon’s idea of the effective metric was later resumed by Pham Mau Quan . By availing of the theory of characteristics, he could extend Gordon’s just quoted result to dielectrics that are isotropic, but not homogeneous, since $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$ are assigned functions of the coordinates $`x^i`$.

## 4. The relation between the wave and the particle model of the photon in an isotropic dielectric

Thanks to the findings of Whittaker, Synge, Gordon and Pham Mau Quan recalled in the two previous sections, we can build both a wave and a particle model of the photon in an isotropic dielectric and investigate how the two models are mutually related in the new situation.

The wave model of the photon in an isotropic dielectric, i.e. in a medium with the constitutive equation (3.3), where $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$ have an assigned dependence on $`x^i`$, needs no explanation. The spacetime diagram of Figure 1 can be drawn as it stands also in the case of the isotropic dielectric, and we find that the relation between the frequencies of the photon measured on the world lines of the emitting and of the absorbing atoms is still given by equation (2.11). Let us only emphasize that the line elements $`ds_0`$ and $`ds`$ measure the proper time of the pointlike atoms in the actual spacetime and are therefore defined by the true spacetime metric $`g_{ik}`$.

The particle model of the photon entails instead important changes, that are however both mandatory and natural, if one keeps in mind the equivalence between the propagation in the dielectric and the propagation in a general relativistic vacuum with the effective metric $`\sigma _{ik}`$ given by equation (3.1). We know from  that the light rays in the dielectric are null geodesics with respect to that metric. The definition of these geodesics is no longer provided by equation (2.1). It reads instead:

(4.1)
$$\frac{{}_{}{}^{\sigma }\delta }{\delta u}\frac{dx^i}{du}\frac{d^2x^i}{du^2}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{kl}^i\frac{dx^k}{du}\frac{dx^l}{du}=0$$

cum

(4.2)
$$\sigma _{ik}\frac{dx^i}{du}\frac{dx^k}{du}=0;$$

we shall henceforth denote with $`{}_{}{}^{\sigma }\delta /\delta u`$ the absolute derivative performed with the affine connection

(4.3)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{kl}^i=\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{im}\left(\sigma _{mk,l}+\sigma _{ml,k}\sigma _{kl,m}\right);$$

$`u`$ is again a special parameter. If the photon in the dielectric can be modeled as a point particle, we shall attribute to it a momentum-energy vector $`M^i`$ tangent to its world line, defined by (4.1) and (4.2); the equivalence with the vacuum case forces us to assume that $`M^i`$ is parallelly propagated along that world line. One therefore still poses

(4.4)
$$M^i=\theta \frac{dx^i}{du},$$

but now, instead of $`\delta M^i/\delta u=0`$, one shall write

(4.5)
$$\frac{{}_{}{}^{\sigma }\delta M^i}{\delta u}=0.$$

Thanks to (4.1) the scalar $`\theta `$, assumed to be positive, happens again to be a constant. This photon travels with the speed of light in the spacetime with the metric $`\sigma _{ik}`$; hence in this “effective spacetime” it must exhibit zero proper mass. Therefore it must be:

(4.6)
$$M_{(i)}M^i\sigma _{ik}M^iM^k=0;$$

we adopt henceforth Gordon’s convention of enclosing within round parentheses the indices moved with the effective metric $`\sigma _{ik}`$. Let us now look at this photon in the true spacetime, the one with $`g_{ik}`$ as metric tensor. Equation (4.6) can be rewritten as

(4.7) $`M_{(i)}M^i=\left[g_{ik}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\mu }}\right)u_iu_k\right]M^iM^k`$
$`=M_iM^i+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\mu }}\right)\left(u_iM^i\right)^2=0,`$
When measured with the metric $`g_{ik}`$ of the true spacetime the momentum-energy vector $`M^i`$ will not be a null one, and with some trepidation we now check whether it is spacelike, as it occurs with the photon obtained by Jauch and Watson in their phenomenological quantum electrodynamics , or whether it is timelike, as Nagy instead found , and as it is required by the consistency of the particle model. Equation (4.7) says that

(4.8)
$$M_iM^i=\left(\frac{1}{ϵ\mu }1\right)\left(u_iM^i\right)^2,$$

and since $`ϵ\mu >1`$, one finds that $`M_iM^i<0`$. Therefore, with our sign convention for the metric, the momentum-energy vector of the photon happens to be timelike; the particle model is a consistent one, and the photon in the dielectric behaves like an ordinary massive point particle, for which a rest frame exists.

As a consequence we can repeat here, with the due changes, the argument leading to equation (2.21). We start again from the conservation equation (2.5) that rules the absorption process of a photon by an atom; we shall assume that it holds, in unaltered form, also in the dielectric. However, if we lower the indices of (2.5) with $`g_{ik}`$ and multiply term by term the contravariant and the covariant form of the conservation law we do not get (2.6), since $`M_iM^i`$ no longer vanishes. One gets instead

(4.9)
$$m_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}=m_0^2+2m_0M_iu^i+\left(\frac{1}{ϵ\mu }1\right)\left(u_iM^i\right)^2;$$

however for optical processes the last term is negligible with respect to the other ones. The form (2.8) can still be used to define, with the same degree of approximation as in the vacuum case, the energy $`E`$ of a photon with momentum-energy vector $`M^i`$ relative to a pointlike “atom” endowed with four-velocity $`u^i`$. We can avail of Figure 1 also for dealing with the photon as a particle, and we retain the parametrisation of the “ribbon” $`A_0B_0BA`$ exactly as it stands in the vacuum case. Since now equation (4.5) is substituted for the second equation (2.2), let us consider the quantity

(4.10)
$$\frac{}{u}\left(M_{(i)}\frac{x^i}{v}\right)=\frac{{}_{}{}^{\sigma }\delta M_{(i)}}{\delta u}\frac{x^i}{v}+M_{(i)}\frac{{}_{}{}^{\sigma }\delta }{\delta u}\frac{x^i}{v};$$

the first term at the right hand side vanishes due to (4.5). We have also

(4.11)
$$\frac{{}_{}{}^{\sigma }\delta }{\delta u}\frac{x^i}{v}\frac{^2x^i}{uv}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{kl}^i\frac{x^k}{v}\frac{x^l}{u}=\frac{{}_{}{}^{\sigma }\delta }{\delta v}\frac{x^i}{u},$$

hence we obtain

(4.12)
$$M_{(i)}\frac{{}_{}{}^{\sigma }\delta }{\delta u}\frac{x^i}{v}=\theta \sigma _{ik}\frac{x^k}{u}\frac{{}_{}{}^{\sigma }\delta }{\delta v}\frac{x^i}{u}=\frac{1}{2}\theta \frac{}{v}\left(\sigma _{ik}\frac{x^i}{u}\frac{x^k}{u}\right)=0$$

due to (4.2). Therefore

(4.13)
$$\frac{}{u}\left(M_{(i)}\frac{x^i}{v}\right)=0$$

and, again with reference to Figure 1:

(4.14)
$$\left(M_{(i)}\frac{x^i}{v}\right)_{A_0}=\left(M_{(i)}\frac{x^i}{v}\right)_A.$$

The same argument as in Section 2 leads to write now

(4.15)
$$\left(M_{(i)}u^i\right)_{A_0}ds_0=\left(M_{(i)}u^i\right)_Ads.$$

Since

(4.16) $`M_{(i)}u^i\sigma _{ik}M^iu^k=\left[g_{ik}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\mu }}\right)u_iu_k\right]M^iu^k`$
$`=M_iu^i\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\mu }}\right)M_iu^i={\displaystyle \frac{M_iu^i}{ϵ\mu }},`$
instead of (2.20) one finds

(4.17)
$$\left(\frac{M_iu^i}{ϵ\mu }\right)_{A_0}ds_0=\left(\frac{M_iu^i}{ϵ\mu }\right)_Ads,$$

hence one eventually obtains that the ratio, say, between the energy emitted by the atom on the left side of Figure 1 and the energy absorbed by the atom on the right side is no longer given by equation (2.21), since now

(4.18)
$$\left(\frac{E}{ϵ\mu }\right)_{A_0}ds_0=\left(\frac{E}{ϵ\mu }\right)_Ads,$$

i.e. the ratio depends on the values that $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$ happen to assume at the spacetime location of the emitting and of the absorbing atom respectively. Since, however, the relation (2.11) between the frequencies does not undergo any change when going from the vacuum case to the case of the isotropic dielectric, instead of the vacuum equation (2.22) we get

(4.19)
$$\left(\frac{E}{\nu ϵ\mu }\right)_{A_0}=\left(\frac{E}{\nu ϵ\mu }\right)_A.$$

## 5. Conclusion

The last equation summarizes one thing that general relativity has to say about photons in isotropic dielectric matter, provided that its “Physik der Modelle” is not declared a priori incompetent to deal with such a definitely quantum affair. In the case of the general relativistic vacuum, investigated by Whittaker et al.  and by Synge , the particle and the wave model of the photon are mutually related in a way that, at least for optical photons, has an important point of agreement with the quantum theory of radiation. One should not be as naive as to identify concepts stemming from so different theoretical constructions like general relativity and quantum field theory just because these concepts have been christened with the same name in both theories. But also with this proviso it is indeed remarkable that in general relativity the ratio of the two invariant quantities $`E`$ and $`\nu `$, associated to the photon as shown in Section 2, has at the absorption just the same value that it exhibits at the emission. This ratio is totally independent of the way the photon travels from the emitting to the absorbing atom, and is also independent of the state of motion of these atoms. A theoretician that still has a penchant for an ingenuous-realistic epistemology can feel enticed by these findings into taking very seriously the concept of photon in vacuo, in keeping with Einstein’s famous complaint222 Letter to Michele Besso of December 12, 1951: “The whole fifty years of conscious brooding have not brought me nearer to the answer to the question ‘What are light quanta?’. Nowadays every scalawag believes that he knows what they are, but he deceives himself”. English translation by J. Stachel ..

The same theoretician will draw from the result of Section 4, expressed in equation (4.19), the following hints. If the dielectric is homogeneous and isotropic, it is likely that the program  of deriving an effective Hamiltonian from a fully quantum description of the whole system consisting of matter plus field will be worth the inordinate effort it presumably requires. In fact the classical wave and the classical particle models do exist and show that in such a medium the ratio of the invariants $`E`$ and $`\nu `$ will be the same at the emission and at the absorption, just as it happens in vacuo. For a homogeneous, isotropic dielectric the very existence of “phenomenological photons” derived by quantization from the effective Hamiltonian mentioned above is therefore an expected occurrence, since a classical simile is already known to exist.

If the dielectric is not homogeneous, however, the same equation (4.19) shows that the constancy of the ratio between $`E`$ and $`\nu `$ is no longer ensured. Therefore, for such a medium, a classical simile of the quantum theoretical photon cannot be found. One should remind of this circumstance before waving the magic wand of quantisation over an effective Hamiltonian for an inhomogeneous dielectric, be it derived from the quantum electrodynamics of vacuum, or just drawn with some argument from the classical electrodynamics of continua.


text:
# References

hep-th/0106055

IC/2001/51

Branes Wrapped on Coassociative Cycles

Rafael Hernández

The Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics
Strada Costiera, 11. $`34014`$ Trieste, Italy

Abstract

We obtain a supergravity solution arising when D6-branes are wrapped on coassociative four-cycles of constant curvature in seven manifolds of $`G_2`$ holonomy. The solutions preserve two supercharges and thus represent supergravity duals of three dimensional Yang-Mills with $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. When uplifted to eleven dimensions our solution describes M-theory on the background of an eight manifold with Spin(7) holonomy.

e-mail address: rafa@ictp.trieste.it

An interesting possibility to construct gravity duals of field theories with low supersymmetry is that provided by branes wrapped on supersymmetric cycles. As cycles will not in general have covariantly constant spinors, supersymmetry will only be preserved after an identification of the spin connection on the cycle with some external $`R`$-symmetry gauge fields; this identification defines a topologically twisted supersymmetric field theory  (a detailed classification of different twists can be found in ). The way the cycle is embedded in a higher dimensional manifold determines the amount of preserved supersymmetry. When the number of branes is large, the uplifts to ten or eleven dimensions of the solutions, found in an adequate gauged supergravity, represent a gravity dual description of field theories with reduced supersymmetry. The case originally considered by Maldacena and Núñez  was that of fivebranes and D3-branes wrapped on holomorphic curves, and has been applied in a series of related works to different dimension branes wrapped on diverse supersymmetric cycles -.

In , Edelstein and Núñez studied a configuration of D6-branes wrapping holomorphic two-cycles and special Lagrangian three-cycles. When the size of the cycles is taken to zero, their solutions represent respectively a supergravity description of the infrared dynamics of five dimensional $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills, or four dimensional Yang-Mills with $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. D6-branes wrapping an $`S^3`$ in $`T^{}S^3`$ had previously been proposed to be dual through a conifold transition to a type IIA geometry with the D6-branes replaced by RR fluxes on the blown up $`S^2`$ . However, a better understanding of this duality came in terms of M-theory on a seven manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy , where it corresponds to an $`S^3`$ flop transition  (see also - for further recent developments). These results were extended by Gomis in , where it was argued how compactifications of M-theory on manifolds with reduced holonomy arise as the local eleven dimensional description of D6-branes wrapped on supersymmetric cycles in manifolds of lower dimension and with a different holonomy group. The authors of  explicitly reproduced the geometry of a manifold with $`G_2`$ holonomy and of the small resolution of the conifold when uplifting to eleven dimensions the solutions they found in eight dimensional maximal gauged supergravity, which is the natural arena to perform twisting for D6-branes.

The purpose of this letter is to use the approach of  to study one of the lifts considered in , namely D6-branes wrapped on a coassociative four-cycle in a seven manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy, which were shown to lift to M-theory on an eight manifold with Spin(7) holonomy group. Coassociative four-cycles are supersymmetric cycles preserving $`1/16`$ supersymmetry. Therefore, a collection of D6-branes wrapped on a coassocitive cycle will lead to a three dimensional gauge theory with $`N=1`$ supersymmetry.

In this letter we will construct a supergravity solution corresponding to D6-branes wrapped on a coassociative four-cycle, which represents a supergravity dual of a three dimensional gauge theory with two supercharges. The lift to eleven dimensions of this solution, following an argument identical to that in , is then shown to correspond to an M-theory background which is a direct product of three dimensional Minkowski space and a manifold with Spin(7) holonomy. In order to do so, we will first shortly review maximal gauged supergravity in eight dimensions.

Maximal gauged supergravity in eight dimensions was constructed by Salam and Sezgin  through Scherk-Schwarz compactification  of eleven dimensional supergravity on an $`SU(2)`$ group manifold. The field theory content in the gravity sector of the theory 111The fields arising from reduction of the eleven dimensional three-form are a scalar $`B`$, three vector fields $`B_1^i`$, three two-forms $`B_2^i`$ and a three-form $`B_3`$. However, we will only consider pure gravitational solutions of the eleven dimensional theory, so that all $`B`$ fields can be set to zero. consists of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, a dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, five scalars given by a unimodular $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`L_\alpha ^i`$ in the coset $`SL(3,𝐑)/SO(3)`$ and an $`SU(2)`$ gauge potential $`A_\mu ^i`$, besides from the pseudo Majorana spinors $`\psi _\mu `$ and $`\chi _i`$ on the fermion side.

The Lagrangian for the bosonic fields is given, in $`\kappa =1`$ units, by

$$e^1=\frac{1}{4}R\frac{1}{4}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}F_{\mu \nu }^iF^{\mu \nu i}\frac{1}{4}P_{\mu ij}P^{\mu ij}\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2\frac{g^2}{16}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}(T_{ij}T^{ij}\frac{1}{2}T^2),$$
(1)
with $`e`$ the determinant of the achtbein $`e_\mu ^a`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }^i`$ the Yang-Mills field strenght. The Cartan decomposition of the $`SL(3,𝐑)/SO(3)`$ coset defines the symmetric and traceless quantity $`P_{\mu ij}`$, as well as its antisymmetric counterpart, $`Q_{\mu ij}`$,

$$P_{\mu ij}+Q_{\mu ij}L_i^\alpha (_\mu \delta _\alpha ^\beta gϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }A_\mu ^\gamma )L_{\beta j},$$
(2)
which depends on the scalars parameterizing the coset and on the $`SU(2)`$ gauge fields. The potential energy associated to the scalar fields is given by the $`T`$-tensor

$$T^{ij}L_\alpha ^iL_\beta ^j\delta ^{\alpha \beta },$$
(3)
and $`TT_{ij}\delta ^{ij}`$. Note that curved directions are labelled by greek indices, while flat ones are labelled by latin, and that $`\mu ,a=0,1,\mathrm{},7`$ are spacetime coordinates, while $`\alpha ,i=8,9,10`$ are in the group manifold.

Bosonic solutions to the equations of motion,

$`R_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`P_{\mu ij}P_\nu ^{ij}+2_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}F_{\mu \gamma }^iF_\nu ^{\gamma i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_{\mu \nu }^2\mathrm{\Phi },`$
$`_\mu (e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}F^{\mu \nu i})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}P_\mu ^{ij}F_j^{\mu \nu }gg^{\nu \gamma }ϵ^{ijk}P_{\gamma jl}T_k^l,`$
$`_\mu P^{\mu ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta ^{ij}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}F_{\mu \nu }^iF^{\mu \nu j}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij},`$ (4)
with $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}`$ a combination of the T-tensor

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}T_k^iT^{jk}\frac{1}{2}TT^{ij}\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ij}(T_{kl}T^{kl}\frac{1}{2}T^2),$$
(5)
preserve supersymmetry if the supersymmetry variations for the fermions vanish,

$`\delta \psi _\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_\gamma ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}e^\mathrm{\Phi }F_{\mu \nu }^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma ^{\mu \nu }10\delta _\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{g}{288}}e^\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ijk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma Tϵ=0,`$
$`\delta \chi _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_{\mu ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _{ij}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Gamma }^j\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^\mathrm{\Phi }F_{\mu \nu i}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{g}{8}}e^\mathrm{\Phi }(T_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{ij}T)ϵ^{jkl}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}ϵ=0,`$ (6)
where the covariant derivative is

$$𝒟_\mu ϵ=_\mu ϵ+\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}ϵ+\frac{1}{4}Q_{\mu ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}ϵ.$$
(7)
A convenient representation for the Clifford algebra will be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^a=\gamma ^a\times 11,\mathrm{\Gamma }^i=\gamma _9\times \sigma ^i,$$
(8)
where $`\gamma _9=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\mathrm{}\gamma ^7`$, so that $`\gamma _9^2=11`$, and $`\sigma ^i`$ are Pauli matrices. Furthermore, it will prove useful to introduce $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\frac{1}{6i}ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ijk}=\gamma _9\times 11`$.

In this letter we are going to consider D6-branes wrapped on a coassociative four-cycle $`S^4`$ in a seven manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy. The spin connection for the coassociative four-cycle is $`SO(4)`$. When we wrap the D6-branes on the four-cycle the $`SO(1,6)\times SO(3)_R`$ symmetry group of the unwrapped branes splits as $`SO(1,2)\times SO(4)\times SO(3)_R`$. The twisting is performed by identifying the structure group of the normal bundle, $`SO(3)_R`$, with $`SU(2)_L`$ in $`SO(4)SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$. This leads to a pure gauge theory in three dimensions with two supercharges. There are no scalars  because the bundle of anti self-dual two-forms is trivial (which amounts to taking the four-sphere rigid as a coassociative submanifold ).

In order to describe the deformation on the worldvolume of the D6-brane we will choose the metric ansatz

$$ds^2=e^{2f}dx_{1,2}^2+dr^2+e^{2h}ds_4^2,$$
(9)
where the four-sphere metric will be taken as de Sitter’s metric on $`S^4`$,

$$ds_4^2=\frac{a^4}{(a^2+\xi ^2)^2}(d\xi ^2+\xi ^2(\omega _1^2+\omega _2^2+\omega _3^2)),$$
(10)
with $`\omega _i`$ the left-invariant one-forms on $`SU(2)`$ as a group manifold. The parameter $`a`$ is the diameter of the four-sphere, and will be later on identified with the instanton size. From the structure equations, the $`O(4)`$ connections $`\omega _{ab}`$ of $`S^4`$ can be easily shown to be

$$\omega _{4i+4}=\frac{a^2\xi ^2}{a^2+\xi ^2}\omega _i,\omega _{67}=\omega _1,\omega _{75}=\omega _2,\omega _{56}=\omega _3.$$
(11)
The twisting amounts to an identification of the spin connection with the $`R`$-symmetry. In this case, it is possible to get rid of the scalars $`L_\alpha ^i`$,

$$L_\alpha ^i=\delta _\alpha ^i,$$
(12)
so that

$$P_{ij}=0,Q_{ij}=gϵ_{ijk}A^k.$$
(13)
Thus, the twisting is performed by turning on an $`SU(2)`$ gauge field obtained by identifying the self-dual combinations of the spin connection on $`S^4`$ with $`Q_{ij}`$, $`A^1=\frac{1}{g}(\omega _{45}\omega _{67})`$ (+ cyclic), where $`\omega _{45}\omega _{67}`$ (+ cyclic) are self-dual combinations of the spin connection on $`S^4`$ 222This construction is simply related to the fact that the instanton with unit second Chern number is the Hopf fibration of $`S^7`$.. The gauge field is then that for the charge one $`SU(2)`$ instanton on $`S^4`$,

$$A=\frac{1}{g}\frac{a^2}{a^2+\xi ^2}i\omega _i\sigma ^i.$$
(14)
Imposing the projections on a coassociative cycle

$$\gamma _{45}^{}ϵ=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{23}ϵ,\gamma _{46}^{}ϵ=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{31}ϵ,\gamma _{47}^{}ϵ=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12}ϵ,$$
(15)
and

$$\gamma _{ab}^+ϵ=0,$$
(16)
where the minus and plus signs refer to anti self-dual and self-dual parts, respectively, and $`a,b=4,5,6,7`$, as well as

$$\gamma _rϵ=i\gamma _9ϵ,$$
(17)
together with (14) for the gauge field, leads the BPS equations to

$`f^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}{3}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ga^2}}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }2h}+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{8}}e^\mathrm{\Phi },`$
$`h^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ga^2}}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }2h}+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{8}}e^\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (18)
After the change of variables

$$r(\rho )=\frac{(ga^3)^{1/2}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\left[\frac{2}{3}\rho _2^{2/3}F_1[\frac{9}{20},\frac{1}{4},\frac{11}{20};\frac{l^{10/3}}{\rho ^{10/3}}]+3l^{3/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{9}{20}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)}{10\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{10}\right)}\right],$$
(19)
a solution to the BPS equations can be shown to be

$$e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=(ga)^3\left(\frac{3}{20}\right)^3\rho ^3\left(1\frac{l^{10/3}}{\rho ^{10/3}}\right)^{3/2},e^{2h}=ga\frac{27}{400}\rho ^3\left(1\frac{l^{10/3}}{\rho ^{10/3}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(20)
where $`l^{10/3}`$ is an integration constant.

The lift to eleven dimensions of this solution, using the elfbein in , leads to 333It is immediate to check that the simpler solution $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=g^2a^2/20r^2`$, $`e^{2h}=r^2`$ to the system of equations (18), when lifted to eleven dimensions, reproduces a solution which is three dimensional Minkowski space times a metric whose level surfaces $`r=\text{constant}`$ tend to the homogeneus squashed Einstein metric on the seven-sphere, as already noted in  concerning the large $`\rho `$ limit of (21).

$$ds_{11}^2=dx_{1,2}^2+\frac{d\rho ^2}{\left(1\frac{l^{10/3}}{\rho ^{10/3}}\right)}+\frac{9}{100}\rho ^2\left(1\frac{l^{10/3}}{\rho ^{10/3}}\right)(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_iA^i)^2+\frac{9}{20}\rho ^2ds_4^2,$$
(21)
which is the metric of a Spin(7) holonomy manifold  444See also - for different approaches to this metric., with the topology of an $`𝐑^4`$ bundle over $`S^4`$.

We have thus been able to reproduce, by studying the M-theory description of a configuration of D6-branes wrapped on a coassociative submanifold, the metric constructed in  for an eight manifold with Spin(7) holonomy. This was one of the lifts already proposed in , where it was shown how there is an M-theory realization involving Spin(7) holonomy of the strong coupling description of D6-branes wrapped on a coassociative cycle.

Recently new explicit metrics on complete non compact Riemann eight manifolds with Spin(7) holonomy have been constructed . As a difference with the previously known metric of , the ones found in  exhibit an asymptotically locally conical behavior. It would be interesting to understand this feature and to reproduce the metrics using a lift to eleven dimensions of some eight dimensional supergravity solution.

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank M. Blau, C. Gómez, K. Narain and S. Randjbar-Daemi for useful discussions. This research is partly supported by the EC contract no. HPRN-CT-2000-00148.


text:
# 1 Results for 𝑊_𝑐 and 𝜈, for the anisotropic AM [] using SOS of TM data (open symbols) and ELS data (filled symbols) for various fit functions. The error bars show the 95% confidence intervals. The accuracy of TM localization lengths data is an order of magnitude higher than that of the ELS data and the system sizes of TM data are larger than for ELS data, giving systematically larger 𝜈 values for the former. The goodness of a fit is reflected in the size of the symbol. The 2 thick error bars mark high quality ELS fits for large system sizes. The gray ∘ and □ and the corresponding error bars (dashed lines) represent 𝜈_"Suslov" of TM data and ELS data for the anisotropic AM, respectively. The solid line marks the result of [].

In a recent communication to the cond-mat archives, Suslov  severely criticizes a multitude of numerical results obtained by various groups for the critical exponent $`\nu `$ of the localization length at the disorder-induced metal-insulator transition (MIT) in the three-dimensional (3D) Anderson model (AM) of localization as “entirely absurd” and “evident desinformation”. These claims are based on the observation that there still is a large disagreement between analytical, numerical and experimental results for the critical exponent . The author proposes, based on a “simple procedure to deal with corrections to scaling”, that the numerical data support $`\nu 1`$, whereas recent numerical papers find $`\nu =1.58\pm 0.06`$ .

As we show below, these claims are entirely wrong. The proposed scheme does neither yield any improved accuracy when compared to the existing finite-size scaling (FSS) methods, nor does it give $`\nu 1`$ when applied to high-precision data.

FSS at the Anderson MIT has a noteworthy history, reaching a first peak with the seminal papers of Pichard/Sarma  and MacKinnon/Kramer . Especially in Ref. , the groundwork for a reliable, numerical FSS procedure was laid and scaling curves could be constructed that proved the existence of an MIT in 3D. In these and later studies based on the same analysis technique , the critical exponent $`\nu `$, as estimated from the divergence of the infinite-size localization and correlation lengths $`\xi (W)`$ at the transition $`W_c`$, i.e., $`\xi |1W/W_c|^\nu `$, is systematically underestimated, since the divergent nature at the transition can only be poorly captured by FSS of data obtained for small system sizes and large errors $`\epsilon `$ in these finite-size data. However, as more powerful computers became availably in the last decade, one observed a trend towards larger values of $`\nu 1.35`$  for $`\epsilon 1\%`$.

In 1994, high-precision data ($`\epsilon 0.2\%`$) showed a hitherto neglected systematic shift of the transition point $`W_c`$ with increasing system size. Taking this into account phenomenologically, $`\nu =1.54\pm 0.08`$ was found . A subsequent approach by Slevin/Ohtsuki  incorporated these shifts as irrelevant scaling variables and further allowed for corrections to scaling due to nonlinearities. With higher-precision data ($`\epsilon 0.1\%`$), they found $`\nu =1.57\pm 0.04`$. Further results for, e.g., the AM with anisotropic hopping , the off-diagonal AM , the AM in a magnetic field , confirmed this value of $`\nu `$ within the error bars (see Fig. 1). Also, $`\nu `$ is identical for the MIT as a function of disorder or energy . We emphasize that a properly performed Slevin/Ohtsuki scaling (SOS) procedure needs to assume various fit functions and that the final estimates are to be suitably extracted from many such functional forms ; bootstrap  or Monte Carlo methods  then need to be employed for a precise estimate of error bars.

We have tested the method proposed by Suslov  first with the transfer-matrix (TM) data of Refs.  with $`\epsilon 0.1\%`$; we find $`\nu _{\text{Suslov}}=1.75\pm 0.17`$ for the anisotropic and $`1.55\pm 0.04`$ for the random-hopping AM. The SOS gives $`\nu =1.61\pm 0.07`$  and $`\nu =1.54\pm 0.03`$ , respectively. Using for a second test energy-level-statistics (ELS) data  with $`\epsilon 1\%`$, we find $`\nu _{\text{Suslov}}=1.51\pm 0.25`$, whereas SOS gives $`1.45\pm 0.2`$ . Last, for artificially generated data with precisely known $`W_c=16.5`$ and varying $`\nu [0.5,2.0]`$ the results of the Suslov method are comparable to the results of the MacKinnon/Kramer FSS and slightly less reliable than the SOS.

We conclude that the method proposed by Suslov also yields $`\nu 1.58`$ and not $`\nu 1`$ for the MIT of the AM.

In principle, the Suslov method does not need to assume any functional form of the FSS curves just as the MacKinnon/Kramer method. As a numerical tool, the Suslov method is not unreasonable, but certainly not better than the established methods: it does not take into account the systematic shift due to irrelevant scaling variables, it relies on an a-priori knowledge of $`W_c`$ and inherently produces rather large error bars for the critical exponent. We note that Suslov in his numerical test  used data for $`3`$ small system sizes $`6^3`$, $`12^3`$ and $`28^3`$, while currently sizes $`50^3`$ (for ELS) and $`18^2\times 10^8`$ (for TM) are standard. It is evident to people with experience in FSS that Suslov’s erroneously small $`\nu `$ is due to his use of too few and too small system sizes.

In conclusion, high-precision numerics with error $`\epsilon 0.1\%`$ together with all the above mentioned FSS methods produce a critical exponent $`\nu 1.58>1`$ for 3D. The numerical values of $`\nu `$ for dimensions $`2<d<3`$  and $`4`$  remain valid, they are certainly not “entirely absurd” although there is only limited agreement with the field theoretic approach . Similarly precise data are much harder to obtain for our experimental colleagues, but recent advances in this direction show a clear trend towards increasing $`\nu `$ .

P. Cain, M.L. Ndawana, R.A. Römer and M. Schreiber
Institut für Physik, Technische Universität
D-09107 Chemnitz, Germany

($`Revision:1.12`$, printed: )
PACS numbers: 72.15.Rn, 71.55.Jv, 71.23.An