text:
# Complex structures on the Iwasawa manifold

## Introduction

It is well known that every even-dimensional compact Lie group has a left-invariant complex structure . By contrast, not all nilpotent groups admit left-invariant complex structures. In 6 real dimensions there are 34 isomorphism classes of simply-connected nilpotent Lie groups, and the study  reveals that 18 of these admit invariant complex structures. The complex Heisenberg group $`G`$ possesses a particularly rich structure in this regard, since it has a 2-sphere of abelian complex structures in addition to its standard bi-invariant complex structure $`J_0`$.

The Iwasawa manifold $`𝕄=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G`$ is a compact quotient of $`G`$, and any left-invariant tensor on $`G`$ induces a tensor on $`𝕄`$. As explained in §2, studies of Dolbeault cohomology suggest that the moduli space of complex structures on $`𝕄`$ is determined by the space of left-invariant complex structures on $`G`$. The set of such structures compatible with a standard metric $`g`$ and orientation is the union of $`\{J_0\}`$ and the 2-sphere already mentioned . The present paper shows that this description remains valid at the level of homotopy when one no longer insists on compatibility with $`g`$. This requires a new approach, in which complex structures are described by a basis of $`(1,0)`$-forms in echelon form (see Proposition 2.3). Similar techniques can be applied to other Lie groups and nilmanifolds, though we refer the reader to  for related studies.

We work mainly with the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ of $`G`$, and regard left-invariant differential forms on $`G`$ as elements of $`^k𝔤^{}`$. A special feature of the space $`𝒞(𝔤)`$ of all invariant complex structures on $`𝕄`$ is that any $`J`$ in $`𝒞(𝔤)`$ is compatible with the fibration of $`𝕄`$ as a $`T^2`$ bundle over $`T^4`$. Algebraically, this amounts to asserting that the 4-dimensional kernel $`𝔻`$ of $`d:𝔤^{}^2𝔤^{}`$ is necessarily $`J`$-invariant. As we show in §2, the essential features of an invariant complex structure $`J`$ are captured by its restriction to $`𝔻`$, and are encoded in a complex $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`X`$. In this way, topological questions are related to properties of the eigenvalues of $`X\overline{X}`$ and some matrix analysis described in .

The orientation of the restriction of an almost complex structure $`J`$ to $`𝔻`$ determines two connected components of $`𝒞(𝔤)`$ that we study separately. We establish global complex coordinates on the component $`𝒞_+`$ containing the complex structure induced by $`J_0`$, and show that it has the structure of a contractible complex 6-dimensional manifold. By exploiting an $`SU(2)`$ action on the second component $`𝒞_{}`$, we prove that this retracts onto the 2-sphere of negatively-oriented orthogonal almost complex structures on $`𝔻`$.

## 1 Preliminaries

The Iwasawa manifold $`𝕄`$ is defined as the quotient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G`$, where

$$G=\{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& z_1& z_3\\ 0& 1& z_2\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right):z_i\}$$

is the complex Heisenberg group and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the lattice defined by taking $`z_1,z_2,z_3`$ to be Gaussian integers, acting by left multiplication. We shall regard $`𝕄`$ as a real manifold of dimension $`6`$, and we let $`𝔤`$ denote the real 6-dimensional Lie algebra associated to $`G`$.

An invariant complex structure on $`𝕄`$ is by definition one induced from a left-invariant complex structure on the real Lie group underlying $`G`$. Such a structure is invariant by the action of the centre $`Z`$ of $`G`$, that persists on $`𝕄`$ ($`Z`$ consists of matrices for which $`z_1=0=z_2`$). The set of such structures can be identified with the set $`𝒞(𝔤)`$ of almost complex structures on the real Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ that satisfy the Lie algebraic counterpart

$$[JX,JY]=[X,Y]+J[JX,Y]+J[X,JY]$$

of the Newlander-Nirenberg integrability condition.

The natural complex structure $`J_0`$ of $`G`$, for which $`z_1,z_2,z_3`$ are holomorphic, is a point of $`𝒞(𝔤)`$ that satisfies the stronger condition $`[JX,Y]=J[X,Y]`$. It induces a bi-invariant complex structure of $`G`$ that therefore passes to a $`G`$-invariant complex structure on $`𝕄`$. We shall denote by $`𝒞^+(𝔤)`$ the subset consisting of complex structures inducing the same orientation as $`J_0`$.

The 1-forms

$$\omega ^1=dz_1,\omega ^2=dz_2,\omega ^3=dz_3+z_1dz_2,$$
(1)
are left-invariant on $`G`$. Define a basis $`\{e^1,\mathrm{},e^6\}`$ of real 1-forms by setting

$$\omega ^1=e^1+ie^2,\omega ^2=e^3+ie^4,\omega ^3=e^5+ie^6.$$
(2)
These 1-forms are pullbacks of corresponding 1-forms on the quotient $`𝕄`$, which we denote by the same symbols. They satisfy

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}de^i=0,1i4,\hfill & \\ de^5=e^{13}+e^{42},\hfill & \\ de^6=e^{14}+e^{23}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3)
Here, we make use of the notation $`e^{ij}=e^ie^j`$.

Let $`T^k^k/^k`$ denote a real $`k`$-dimensional torus. Then $`𝕄`$ is the total space of a principal $`T^2`$-bundle over $`T^4`$. The mapping $`p:𝕄T^4`$ is induced from $`(z_1,z_2,z_3)(z_1,z_2)`$. The space of invariant 1-forms annihilating the fibres of $`p`$ is

$$𝔻=e^1,e^2,e^3,e^4=\mathrm{ker}(d:𝔤^{}^2𝔤^{}),$$

and this 4-dimensional subspace of $`𝔤^{}`$ will play a crucial role in the theory.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`J`$ be any invariant complex structure $`J`$ on $`𝕄`$. Then $`p`$ induces a complex structure $`\widehat{J}`$ on $`T^4`$ such that $`p:(𝕄,J)(T^4,\widehat{J})`$ is holomorphic.

Proof. Let $`J`$ be an element of $`𝒞(𝔤)`$. The essential point is that $`𝔻`$ is $`J`$-invariant. Once this is established, it suffices to define $`\widehat{J}`$ to be the $`T^4`$-invariant complex structure determined on cotangent vectors by $`J|_𝔻`$. The pullback of a $`(1,0)`$-form on $`T^4`$ is then an invariant $`(1,0)`$-form on $`𝕄`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denote the space of $`(1,0)`$-forms relative to $`J`$. Then

$$dim(e^1,e^2,e^3,e^4,e^5_c\mathrm{\Lambda })=2.$$

If $`dim(𝔻_c\mathrm{\Lambda })=2`$ then $`J𝔻=𝔻`$, as required. If not, there exists a $`(1,0)`$-form $`\delta +e^5`$ with $`\delta 𝔻`$. This implies that

$$de^5\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2,0}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1,1},$$

and consequently that $`de^5\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1,1}`$. Similarly for $`e^6`$, and thus

$$\omega ^1\omega ^2=d\omega ^3=de^5+ide^6\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1,1},$$

implying that $`J\omega ^1J\omega ^2=\omega ^1\omega ^2`$ and hence

$$J\omega ^1,J\omega ^2=\omega ^1,\omega ^2.$$

Thus, the subspace $`\omega ^1,\omega ^2`$ is $`J`$-invariant, and $`J𝔻=𝔻`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Decreeing the 1-forms $`e^i`$ to be orthonormal determines a left-invariant metric

$$g=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}e^ie^i$$
(4)
on $`G`$. This induces metrics on $`T^4`$ and $`𝕄`$ (that we also denote by $`g`$) for which $`p`$ is a Riemannian submersion. The subset $`𝒞^+(𝔤,g)`$ of $`𝒞^+(𝔤)`$ corresponding to $`g`$-orthogonal oriented complex structures is now easy to describe in terms of Theorem 1.1.

###### Lemma 1.2.

The restriction of the mapping $`J\widehat{J}`$ to $`𝒞^+(𝔤,g)`$ is injective.

Proof. We need to describe the set of invariant orthogonal complex structures on $`T^4`$ in terms of 2-forms on $`𝔻`$. First recall that an element of $`𝒞^+(𝔤,g)`$ is determined by the corresponding fundamental $`2`$-form $`\gamma `$ satisfying $`\gamma (X,Y)=g(JX,Y)`$. Given $`J`$ in $`𝒞^+(𝔤,g)`$, both $`𝔻`$ and $`𝔻^{}=e^5,e^6`$ are $`J`$-invariant and there exists an orthonormal basis $`\{f^1,f^2,Jf^1,Jf^2\}`$ of $`𝔻`$ for which

$$\gamma =f^1Jf^1+f^2Jf^2\pm e^5e^6.$$
(5)
Then the fundamental 2-form of $`\widehat{J}`$ is

$$\widehat{\gamma }=f^1Jf^1+f^2Jf^2.$$
(6)
The fact that the overall orientation of $`J`$ on $`𝔤`$ is positive then determines uniquely the sign in (5). $`\mathrm{}`$

To continue the discussion in the above proof, fix either a plus or minus sign. Then

$$e^{12}\pm e^{34},e^{13}\pm e^{42},e^{14}\pm e^{23}$$
(7)
constitutes a basis of the 3-dimensional subspace $`_\pm ^2𝔻`$ giving rise to the celebrated decomposition

$$^2𝔻=_+^2𝔻_{}^2𝔻.$$
(8)
This determines a double covering $`SO(4)SO(3)_+\times SO(3)_{}`$, and there exist corresponding subgroups $`SU(2)_+`$, $`SU(2)_{}`$ of $`SO(4)`$ acting trivially on $`_{}^2𝔻`$, $`_+^2𝔻`$ respectively.

The 2-form (6) belongs to the disjoint union

$$𝒮_+𝒮_{},$$
(9)
where $`𝒮_\pm `$ is a 2-sphere in $`_\pm ^2𝔻`$. The choice of sign depends on whether $`\widehat{J}`$ is positively or negatively oriented and is duplicated in (5). For example $`J_0`$ has fundamental 2-form

$$\gamma =e^{12}+e^{34}+e^{56},$$

and $`\widehat{\gamma }=e^{12}+e^{34}𝒮_+`$. The product $`𝒮_+\times 𝒮_{}`$ may be identified with the Grassmannian of oriented 2-planes in $`^4`$ and this was the origin of the concept of self-duality . Notice that (3) implies that $`\text{Im}d`$ lies in the subspace $`_+^2𝔻`$ of self-dual 2-forms; from this point of view $`𝕄`$ is an ‘instanton’ over the torus $`T^4`$.

The main result of  may now be summarized by

###### Theorem 1.3.

The space $`𝒞^+(𝔤,g)`$ is the disjoint union of $`\{J_0\}`$ and the 2-sphere of all $`g`$-orthogonal almost complex structures $`J`$ on $`𝔤`$ for which $`\widehat{J}𝒮_{}`$.

Let

$$𝒵_{}^{}=\{J𝒞^+(𝔤,g):\widehat{J}𝒮_{}\}$$

denote the 2-sphere featuring in this theorem; we use the notation of . Consider $`SO(4)`$ as a subgroup of $`GL(6,)`$ by letting it act trivially on $`e^5,e^6`$. Since $`d(𝔤^{})`$ is spanned by 2-forms in $`_+^2𝔻`$, the subgroup $`SU(2)_{}`$ is a group of Lie algebra automorphisms of $`𝔤`$, acting transitively on $`𝒵_{}^{}`$. This observation will be important in §4.

## 2 Deformation of $`J_0`$

The main purpose of what follows is to generalize Theorem 1.3 by removing the orthogonality constraint. We begin by decomposing the space of all almost complex structures on $`𝔻`$ as

$$𝒜_+𝒜_{},$$

where $`𝒜_\pm `$ consists of those structures inducing a $`\pm `$ orientation on $`𝔻`$. This is the extension of (9) in the non-metric situation, and

$$𝒜_\pm \frac{GL^+(4,)}{GL(2,)}\frac{SO(4)}{U(2)}𝒮_\pm .$$

We then set

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`𝒞_\pm =\{J𝒞^+(𝔤):\widehat{J}𝒜_\pm \}`$.

In contrast to $`𝒜_\pm `$, the definition of $`𝒞_\pm `$ incorporates the requirement of integrability. If the overall orientation of $`𝔤`$ is not fixed, we obtain

$$𝒞(𝔤)=𝒞_+𝒞_{}(𝒞_+)(𝒞_{}),$$

where $`𝒞_\pm =\{J:J𝒞_\pm \}`$. Signs that appear as subscripts refer exclusively to the orientation on $`𝔻`$.

In order to gain a greater understanding of the subsets $`𝒞_+,𝒞_{}`$, we now describe a completely different set-theoretic partition of $`𝒞^+(𝔤)`$, in which $`J_0`$ plays the role of an origin. We use the notation (1), with $`\overline{\omega }^{123}=\overline{\omega }^1\overline{\omega }^2\overline{\omega }^3`$ etc.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let
$`𝒞_0^{}`$ be the open subset of $`𝒞^+(𝔤)`$ consisting of complex structures admitting a basis $`\{\alpha ^1,\alpha ^2,\alpha ^3\}`$ of $`(1,0)`$-forms for which $`\alpha ^{123}\overline{\omega }^{123}0`$.
$`𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the complement $`𝒞^+(𝔤)𝒞_0^{}`$.

The zero subscript emphasizes that comparisons are being made with reference to $`J_0`$, and elements of $`𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ are ‘infinitely far’ from $`J_0`$ in the sense that the coefficients in (10) below become unbounded.

###### Proposition 2.3.

If $`J𝒞_0^{}`$ then there exists a basis $`\{\alpha ^i\}`$ of $`(1,0)`$-forms and $`a,b,c,d,x,y`$ in $``$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \alpha ^1& =& \omega ^1+a\overline{\omega }^1+b\overline{\omega }^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha ^2& =& \omega ^2+c\overline{\omega }^1+d\overline{\omega }^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha ^3& =& \omega ^3+x\overline{\omega }^1+y\overline{\omega }^2+u\overline{\omega }^3,\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where $`u=ad+bc`$.

Proof. Theorem 1.1 implies that $`\alpha ^1,\alpha ^2`$ can be chosen so that their real and imaginary components span $`𝔻`$. The condition $`\alpha ^{123}\overline{\omega }^{123}0`$ ensures that $`\omega ^1,\omega ^2,\omega ^3`$ appear with non-zero coefficients. We thus obtain the description (10) for some $`u`$. The equation relating $`a,b,c,d,u`$ is a direct consequence of the integrability condition

$$d\alpha ^3\alpha ^{123}=0$$

expressing the fact that $`d\alpha ^3`$ has no $`(0,2)`$-component. $`\mathrm{}`$

For the remainder of this section, we focus on $`𝒞_0^{}`$. In (10), $`\widehat{J}`$ is the almost complex structure on $`𝔻`$ with $`(1,0)`$-forms

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \alpha ^1& =& \omega ^1+a\overline{\omega }^1+b\overline{\omega }^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha ^2& =& \omega ^2+c\overline{\omega }^1+d\overline{\omega }^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
and is conveniently represented by the matrix

$$X=(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}).$$
(12)
The characteristic polynomial of $`X\overline{X}`$ has the form

$$c(x)=x^2\gamma x+\delta ,$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma =\text{tr}(X\overline{X})=|a|^2+|d|^2+2\text{Re}(b\overline{c}),\hfill \\ \delta =det(X\overline{X})=|u|^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\lambda ,\mu `$ denote the roots of $`c(x)`$. An inspection of the coefficients $`\gamma ,\delta `$ shows that $`\lambda ,\mu `$ are either both real of the same sign or complex conjugates. The following result is less obvious.

###### Lemma 2.4.

If $`\lambda ,\mu `$ are real and non-positive, then $`\lambda =\mu 0`$.

Proof. Let $`z=b\overline{c}`$. The inequality $`0|z|+\text{Re}(z)`$ implies that

$$0|bc|+\text{Re}(b\overline{c})|bcad|+|ad|+\text{Re}(b\overline{c}).$$

Thus,

$$02|adbc|+|a|^2+|d|^2+2\text{Re}(b\overline{c})=2\sqrt{\delta }+\gamma .$$

If $`\gamma <0`$ then the discriminant $`\gamma ^24\delta `$ is negative and the roots of $`c(x)`$ are not real. $`\mathrm{}`$

A direct calculation reveals that

$$\alpha ^{12}\overline{\alpha }^{12}=(1\gamma +\delta )\omega ^{12}\overline{\omega }^{12}=c(1)\omega ^{12}\overline{\omega }^{12}.$$

Whence

###### Proposition 2.5.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \alpha ^{12}\overline{\alpha }^{12}& =& 4(1\lambda )(1\mu )e^{1234},\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha ^{123}\overline{\alpha }^{123}& =& 8i(1\lambda )(1\mu )(1\lambda \mu )e^{12\mathrm{}6}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This proposition implies that the sign of $`(1\lambda )(1\mu )`$ corresponds to that of $`𝒞_\pm `$. Moreover, $`\lambda \mu 0`$, so that

(i) $`J𝒞_+𝒞_0^{}0\lambda \mu <1`$,

(ii) $`J𝒞_{}𝒞_0^{}\lambda \mu >1`$.

Note that $`\mu =\overline{\lambda }`$ implies that $`c(1)=|1\lambda |^2>0`$, and is only admissible for $`J𝒞_+`$.

Figure 1

The possibilities for the unordered pair $`\{\lambda ,\mu \}`$ are illustrated schematically in Figure 1. The two labelled regions correspond to condition (i), with the origin a common point of intersection. The semi-circular region corresponds to $`\text{Im}\lambda >0`$ and $`|\lambda |<1`$. By contrast, points $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ south-east of the diagonal line $`\lambda =\mu `$ represent those of the real plane in the usual way: the triangular region bounds points arising from $`𝒞_+`$ with $`\lambda >\mu 0`$ and the shaded region represents points satisfying (ii).

Remark. The similarity class of $`X\overline{X}`$ is invariant by the action

$$Xg^1X\overline{g},gGL(2,),$$

that characterizes the relation of ‘consimilarity’ . This action is known to be transitive on the set of $`X`$ corresponding to a fixed similarity class of $`X\overline{X}`$, provided $`X\overline{X}0`$. In particular, if $`X\overline{X}`$ is diagonalizable with $`\lambda ,\mu `$ positive then there exists $`gGL(2,)`$ such that

$$X=g^1(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\lambda }& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{\mu }\end{array})\overline{g}$$

(the sign of the square roots can be changed by modifying $`X`$) \[6, 4.6.11\]. Points in the open triangular region therefore represent $`GL(2,)`$ orbits of $`𝒜_+`$ that consist of projections (via Theorem 1.1) of complex structures in $`𝒞_+`$. On the other hand, $`𝒞_{}`$ contains elements for which $`\lambda `$ is infinite and the corresponding eigenvector of $`X\overline{X}`$ determines a point of $`^1`$ that re-appears as a 2-sphere in Theorem 4.5 below.

We are focussing attention on the set $`𝒞(𝔤)`$ of left-invariant complex structures on $`G`$. The right action of $`G`$ induces a transitive action on $`𝕄`$ and an induced action on $`𝒞^+(𝔤)`$. Given an element $`J`$ of $`𝒞^+(𝔤)`$, let $`R_G(J)`$ denote the orbit of $`J`$ induced by this action.

###### Proposition 2.6.

If $`J`$ is given by (10) and (12), then

$$dim_{}R_G(J)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }X=0,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }u=0\text{ and }X0,\hfill \\ 2\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. Right translation leaves invariant the 1-forms $`\omega ^1,\omega ^2`$ in (1), but maps $`\omega ^3`$ to $`\omega ^3+p\omega ^1+q\omega ^2`$ for arbitrary $`p,q`$. Thus

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \alpha ^3& & \alpha ^3+p\omega ^1+q\omega ^2+u(\overline{\omega }^3+\overline{p}\overline{\omega }^1+\overline{q}\overline{\omega }^2)\hfill \\ & =& \alpha ^3+p(\alpha ^1a\overline{\omega }^1b\overline{\omega }^2)+q(\alpha ^2c\overline{\omega }^1d\overline{\omega }^2)+u(\overline{\omega }^3+\overline{p}\overline{\omega }^1+\overline{q}\overline{\omega }^2)\hfill \\ & =& \alpha ^3+p\alpha ^1+q\alpha ^2+u\overline{\omega }^3+(u\overline{p}apqc)\overline{\omega }^1+(u\overline{q}bpdq)\overline{\omega }^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

This has the effect of replacing $`(x,y)`$ by $`(x+u\overline{p}apcq,y+u\overline{q}bpdq)`$ in (10). If $`X=0`$ then $`J`$ is unchanged, and $`R_G(J)=\{J\}`$. The remaining cases follow from the fact that $`u=0`$ if and only if $`ap+cq`$ is proportional to $`bp+dq`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

A point of the moduli space of complex structures on $`𝕄`$ consists of an equivalence class of a complex structure (invariant or not) under the action of the diffeomorphism group. A neigbourhood of it at a smooth point $`J`$ can be identified with a subset of $`H^1(𝕄,𝒪(T_J))`$, where $`T_J`$ denotes the holomorphic tangent bundle of $`J`$. This vector space is isomorphic to the corresponding cohomology group of the Dolbeault complex

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,0}(T)\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,1}(T)\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,2}(T)\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,3}(T)0.$$
(13)
Now, at least if $`J`$ has rational coefficients relative to the basis $`\{e^i\}`$, it is known that the cohomology of (13) coincides with that of the finite-dimensional subcomplex formed by restricting to left-invariant forms of type $`(p,q)`$ .

The cohomology of the invariant subcomplex is easily computed in the case of $`𝕄`$, using the techniques of . In all cases, $`\mathrm{ker}\overline{}:\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,1}(T)\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,2}(T)`$ has dimension 6, whereas $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,0}(T))`$ has dimension 0,1,2, consistent with the above proposition. This phenomenon leads to the jumping of Hodge numbers at $`J_0`$ described in . In any case, it implies that the true moduli space of complex structures on $`𝕄`$ has dimension $`4`$ at generic points. It is also suggests that every point is represented by an invariant complex structure, though the moduli space is singular at $`J_0`$ and other boundary points in Figure 1.

## 3 Study of $`𝒞_+`$

In recovering $`J`$ from $`\widehat{J}`$, we need only worry about the coefficients of $`\alpha ^3`$ in (10), for which $`u`$ is determined by $`a,b,c,d`$ and $`x,y`$ are arbitrary complex numbers. Connectivity properties of $`𝒞^+(𝔤)`$ are determined by those of its dense subset $`𝒞_0^{}`$, and one expects the topology to be captured by that of the domains (i),(ii) characterizing the choice of $`\{\lambda ,\mu \}`$. Results in this and the next sections will confirm that $`𝒞_+`$ and $`𝒞_{}`$ are the connected components of $`𝒞^+(𝔤)`$.

###### Proposition 3.7.

$`𝒞_+𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$.

Proof. Let $`J𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}`$. Suppose that $`\{\alpha ^1,\alpha ^2,\alpha ^3\}`$ is a basis of $`(1,0)`$-forms of $`J`$ with the real and imaginary components of $`\alpha ^1,\alpha ^2`$ spanning $`𝔻`$. Consider the two cases:

(i) $`\alpha ^{12}\overline{\omega }^{12}0`$. This implies that $`\alpha ^3\overline{\omega }^1,\overline{\omega }^2,\overline{\omega }^3`$. The positive overall orientation of $`J`$ then forces $`\widehat{J}𝒜_{}`$, and $`J`$ cannot be in the same connected component as $`J_0`$.

(ii) $`\alpha ^{12}\overline{\omega }^{12}=0`$ and $`\alpha ^3\overline{\omega }^1,\overline{\omega }^2,\overline{\omega }^3`$. Then $`\alpha ^1,\alpha ^2\overline{\omega }^1,\overline{\omega }^2\{0\}`$, and $`\widehat{J}`$ has a non-zero $`(1,0)`$-form $`A\overline{\omega }^1+B\overline{\omega }^2`$, which (without losing generality) we may take to equal $`\alpha ^1`$. If

$$\alpha ^2=P\omega ^1+Q\omega ^2+C\overline{\omega }^1+D\overline{\omega }^2,$$

then the integrability of $`J`$ forces $`ADBC=0`$, and (subtracting a multiple of $`\alpha ^1`$) we may suppose that $`C=D=0`$. But then $`\widehat{J}𝒜_{}`$, and again $`J𝒞_+`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.8.

$`𝒞_+`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒰\times ^2`$ where $`𝒰`$ is a star-shaped subset of $`^4`$.

Proof. Proposition 3.7 implies that $`\{\widehat{J}:J𝒞_+\}`$ is a subset of

$$𝒰=\{X^4:(1\lambda )(1\mu )>0,0\lambda \mu <1\},$$

using the notation (12). We shall show that if $`X𝒰`$ then $`tX𝒰`$ for any $`t[0,1]`$, a fact that is illustrated by Figure 1. Indeed, if the eigenvalues $`\lambda ,\mu `$ of $`X\overline{X}`$ are complex conjugates, then the defining condition for $`𝒰`$ is $`|\lambda |<1`$, which becomes $`t^2|\lambda |<1`$ and remains valid. Suppose now that $`\lambda ,\mu `$. Then $`(1\lambda )(1\mu )`$ becomes

$$f=(1t^2\lambda )(1t^2\mu ),$$

an expression with roots $`t_1^2=1/\lambda `$ and $`t_2^2=1/\mu `$. If $`\lambda ,\mu `$ are both negative then $`f`$ has no real roots and is always strictly positive. If $`\lambda ,\mu `$ are both positive then at least one of $`1/\lambda ,1/\mu `$ is greater than 1, and $`(1\lambda )(1\mu )>0`$ implies that both are greater than 1. It follows that $`f>0`$ for all $`t[0,1]`$, as required.

The restriction of $`p`$ to $`𝒞_+`$ is a trivial bundle, whose fibre is obtained by varying only $`x,y`$, and $`𝒞_+`$ can be identified with $`𝒰\times ^2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The complex structure induced on $`𝒞_0^{}`$ and $`𝒰\times ^2`$ by the coefficients in (10) obviously coincides with that induced by the natural inclusion

$$𝒞(𝔤)𝔾\mathrm{r}_3(^6)$$

obtained by mapping an invariant complex structure $`J`$ to the span of a $`(3,0)`$-form $`\alpha ^{123}`$. This is also the natural complex structure induced from that of the potential tangent space $`H^1(𝕄,𝒪(T_J))`$ to the moduli space . From this point of view, as a complex manifold, $`𝒞_+`$ can be identified with an open set of the quadric in $`^7`$ defined by the equation $`u=ad+bc`$.

Remark. A completely different approach to describing complex structures on a 6-dimensional nilmanifold is based on properties of a $`(3,0)`$-form $`\alpha ^{123}=\varphi +i\psi `$. The real component $`\varphi `$ is a closed 3-form belonging to the open orbit $`𝒪`$ of elements of $`^3𝔤^{}^{20}`$ with stabilizer isomorphic to $`SL(3,)`$. As a consequence, any element $`\varphi `$ of $`𝒪`$ determines a corresponding almost complex structure $`J_\varphi `$ and $`\psi =J_\varphi \varphi `$ . The kernel of $`d:^3𝔤^{}^4𝔤^{}`$ has dimension 15, and $`d(J_\varphi \varphi )=0`$ turns out to be a single cubic equation in the coefficients of $`\varphi `$. This provides a description

$$𝒞(𝔤)\{\varphi \mathrm{ker}d𝒪:d(J_\varphi \varphi )=0\}/^{}.$$

More details will appear elsewhere.

Consider an element $`J𝒞_+`$ whose restriction to $`𝔻`$ is $`g`$-orthogonal and therefore an element of $`𝒮_+`$. A point of $`𝒮_+`$ at ‘finite’ distance from $`\widehat{J_0}`$ is given by (11) with $`g(\alpha ^i,\alpha ^i)=0`$ for $`i=1,2`$ and $`g(\alpha ^1,\alpha ^2)=0`$. This implies that $`a=d=0`$ and $`b=c`$. It follows that the space of $`(1,0)`$-forms of $`J`$ has a basis

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \beta ^1& =& \omega ^1+b\overline{\omega }^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \beta ^2& =& b\overline{\omega }^1+\omega ^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \beta ^3& =& \omega ^3+x\overline{\omega }^1+y\overline{\omega }^2b^2\overline{\omega }^3.\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
Thus $`\{\lambda ,\mu \}=\{|b|^2\}`$, and $`|b|<1`$.

###### Corollary 3.9.

$`\{\widehat{J}:J𝒞_+\}𝒮_+`$ is an open hemisphere.

Proof. From (14), an element $`\widehat{J}𝒮_+`$ has $`(1,0)`$-forms

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \alpha ^1& =& e^1+ie^2+be^3ibe^4,\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha ^2& =& be^1+ibe^2+e^3+ie^4.\hfill \end{array}$$

Setting

$$A=\frac{1|b|^2}{1+|b|^2},B=i\frac{\overline{b}b}{1+|b|^2},C=\frac{b+\overline{b}}{1+|b|^2}$$

gives $`A^2+B^2+C^2=1`$ and

$$\frac{\alpha ^1\overline{b}\alpha ^2}{1+|b|^2}=e^1+i(Ae^2+Be^3+Ce^4).$$

In the notation (7) with plus signs, the fundamental 2-form of $`\widehat{J}`$ equals

$$e^1(Ae^2+Be^3+Ce^4)+\mathrm{}=A\omega _1+B\omega _2+C\omega _3.$$

The condition $`|b|<1`$ translates into $`A>0`$, that describes a hemisphere in $`𝒮_+`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Example. The almost complex structure $`I`$ on $`𝔻`$ with space of $`(1,0)`$-forms

$$e^1+ie^3,e^4+ie^2=\omega ^1+i\overline{\omega }^2,\omega ^2i\overline{\omega }^1$$

has $`b=i`$ in (14) and is a point on the equator $`A=0`$ of $`𝒮_+`$. If $`I`$ were to equal $`\widehat{J}`$ with $`J𝒞_+`$, then $`J`$ has a $`(1,0)`$-form of type

$$\alpha ^3=\omega ^3+x\omega ^1+y\omega ^2+\overline{\omega }^3,$$

with the final coefficient $`+1`$ necessary to satisfy the integrability condition. But then $`\alpha ^{12}\overline{\alpha }^{12}\alpha ^3\overline{\alpha }^3=0`$, which is impossible.

## 4 Study of $`𝒞_{}`$

We have remarked (Theorem 1.3) that the imposition of the standard metric implies that $`J_0`$ is the only orthogonal structure in its component $`𝒞_+`$. Whilst $`J_0`$ is convenient for the study of $`𝒞_+`$, it is less so for $`𝒞_{}`$. For example, all the points of $`𝒵_{}^{}`$ belong to $`𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}`$, making calculations difficult in the coordinates of (10). We shall therefore re-formulate Definition 2.2 with respect to one particular element in $`𝒵_{}^{}`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

Let
$`J_1𝒞_{}`$ denote the complex structure for which $`\eta =\omega ^1\overline{\omega }^2\overline{\omega }^3`$ is a $`(3,0)`$-form,
$`𝒞_1^{}`$ be the open subset of $`𝒞^+(𝔤)`$ consisting of complex structures admitting a basis $`\{\beta ^1,\beta ^2,\beta ^3\}`$ of $`(1,0)`$-forms for which $`\beta ^{123}\overline{\eta }0`$, and
$`𝒞_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the complement $`𝒞^+(𝔤)𝒞_1^{}`$.

The analogue of Proposition 2.3 is

###### Proposition 4.2.

If $`J𝒞_1^{}`$ then $`\beta ^i`$ may be chosen so that

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \beta ^1& =& \omega ^1+a\overline{\omega }^1+b\omega ^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \beta ^2& =& \overline{\omega }^2+c\overline{\omega }^1+d\omega ^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \beta ^3& =& \overline{\omega }^3+x\overline{\omega }^1+y\omega ^2+v\omega ^3,\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`a,b,c,d,x,y,v`$ and $`d=av`$.

Proof. This follows from Theorem 1.1 and the equation $`d\beta ^3\beta ^{123}=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Because of the equation $`d=av`$, $`v`$ is unconstrained if $`a`$ happens to vanish, and this contrasts with the situation in the previous section. Let $`𝒜_1^{}`$ be the set of almost complex structures on $`𝔻`$ with a basis of $`(1,0)`$-forms consisting of

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \beta ^1& =& \omega ^1+a\overline{\omega }^1+b\omega ^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \beta ^2& =& \overline{\omega }^2+c\overline{\omega }^1+d\omega ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
for some $`a,b,c,d`$. The almost complex structure $`\widehat{J_1}`$ corresponds to $`a=b=c=d=0`$.

Example. Recall that the projection $`J\widehat{J}`$ maps $`𝒵_{}^{}`$ onto $`𝒮_{}`$. Elements of $`𝒮_{}`$ have the form (16) with $`a=d=0`$ and $`b=c`$, except that $`\widehat{J_1}`$ corresponds to $`b`$ and $`c`$ infinite. Thus, any element of $`𝒮_{}\{\widehat{J_1}\}`$ equals $`\widehat{J}`$ for some $`J𝒞_1^{}`$ (compare Corollary 3.9).

With respect to the basis $`\{e^1,e^2,e^3,e^4\}`$ of $`𝔻`$, the element $`\widehat{J_1}`$ is represented by the matrix

$$Q_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)SO(4).$$

We can then identify $`𝒜_{}`$ with the orbit $`\{X^1Q_1X:XGL^+(4,)\}`$, any element of which admits a polar decomposition

$$X^1Q_1X=SP,$$
(17)
where $`S`$ is symmetric positive-definite and $`PSO(4)`$.

###### Lemma 4.3.

With the above notation, $`P^2=1`$, and the resulting mapping $`r:𝒜_{}𝒮_{}`$ defined by $`SPP`$ is a retraction.

Proof. By first diagonalizing $`S`$, we may find a symmetric matrix $`\sigma `$ for which

$$S=e^\sigma =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{k!}\sigma ^k.$$

We claim that $`e^{t\sigma }P𝒜_{}`$ for all $`t[0,1]`$. Since $`(SP)^2=1`$,

$$SP=P^1S^1=(P^1S^1P)(P^1),$$

in which $`P^1S^1P=P^TS^1P`$ is positive-definite symmetric. Uniqueness of the polar decomposition implies that $`S=P^1S^1P`$ and $`P=P^1`$, so $`P^2=1`$. It follows also that $`\sigma =P^1\sigma P`$ and

$$e^{t\sigma }P=(P^1e^{t\sigma }P)P=P^1(e^{t\sigma })^1=(e^{t\sigma }P)^1,$$

as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 4.4.

$`r^1(Q_1)\{\widehat{J}:J𝒞_1^{\mathrm{}}\}=\mathrm{}`$.

Proof. Given an element $`SQ_1`$ of $`r^1(Q_1)𝒜_1^{}`$ with $`(1,0)`$-forms as in (16), we claim that $`b=c`$. Identifying almost complex structures with $`4\times 4`$ matrices, $`1+iSQ_1`$ annihilates the $`(1,0)`$-forms $`\beta ^1,\beta ^2`$ of (16). Extending the standard metric $`g`$ on $`𝔻`$ to a complex bilinear form,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0& =& g((1+iSQ_1)\beta ^1,Q_1\beta ^2)g(Q_1\beta ^1,(1+iSQ_1)\beta ^2)\hfill \\ & =& 2g(\beta ^1,Q_1\beta ^2)\hfill \\ & =& 2i(bc),\hfill \end{array}$$

as stated.

In analogy to Proposition 2.5, we have

$$\beta ^{12}\overline{\beta }^{12}=(1\lambda )(1\mu )e^{1234},$$
(18)
where $`\lambda ,\mu `$ are the eigenvalues of $`Y\overline{Y}`$ with $`Y=(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& d\end{array})`$. Since $`Y\overline{Y}`$ is Hermitian, $`\lambda ,\mu `$ are non-negative. Equation (18) forces $`\lambda ,\mu `$ to lie in the interval $`[0,1)`$, and $`Y`$ is bounded. Thus, $`r^1(Q_1)𝒜_1^{}`$. Finally suppose that $`SQ_1=\widehat{J}`$ with $`J𝒞_1^{\mathrm{}}`$. From (15), it must be the case that $`J`$ has a $`(1,0)`$-form $`\beta ^3`$ belonging to the span of $`\overline{\omega }^1,\omega ^2,\omega ^3`$. But this is impossible, given that $`J𝒞^+(𝔤)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 4.5.

$`𝒞_{}`$ has the homotopy type of a 2-sphere.

Proof. Let $`𝒱=\{J𝒞_{}:\widehat{J}r^1(Q_1)\}`$. We first show that this space is contractible. As a consequence of the previous proposition, a complex structure $`J`$ in $`𝒱`$ has a basis of (1,0)-forms

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \beta ^1& =& \omega ^1+ta\overline{\omega }^1+tb\omega ^2\hfill \\ \hfill \beta ^2& =& \overline{\omega }^2+tb\overline{\omega }^1t^2av\omega ^2\hfill \\ \hfill \beta ^3& =& \overline{\omega }^3+tx\overline{\omega }^1+ty\omega ^2+tv\omega ^3,\hfill \end{array}$$

for some $`a,b,x,y,v`$ and (for the moment) $`t=1`$. But if we now allow $`t`$ to vary in the interval $`[0,1]`$, these forms define a complex structure in $`𝒱`$. This process defines a homotopy

$$𝒱\times [0,1]𝒱,$$

with the property that $`(J,0)`$ maps to $`J_1`$ for all $`J`$ in $`𝒱`$.

The fact that all elements of $`𝒵_{}^{}`$ are equivalent under a $`SU(2)_{}`$ action (see the remarks at the end of §1) allows us to extend the above to all the fibres of $`r`$ over all points of the 2-sphere $`𝒵_{}^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Combined with the theorem in §3, we can conclude

###### Theorem 4.6.

$`𝒞^+(𝔤)`$ has the same homotopy type as $`𝒞^+(𝔤,g)`$, where $`g`$ is the inner product (4).

Acknowledgments. Thanks are due to John Rawnsley for indicating the proof of Lemma 4.3, and for help in connection with the remark in §2.

Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, 24–29 St Giles’, Oxford, OX1 3LB, UK

Dipartimento di Matematica, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy


format: text

text:
# Comparison of Phase Boundaries between Kagomé and Honeycomb Superconducting Wire Networks

\[

## Abstract

We measure resistively the mean-field superconducting-normal phase boundaries of both kagomé and honeycomb wire networks immersed in a transverse magnetic field. In addition to their agreement with theory about the overall shapes of phase diagrams, they show striking one-to-one correspondence between the cusps in the honeycomb and kagomé phase boundaries. This correspondence is due to their geometric arrangements and agrees with Lin and Nori’s recent calculation. We also find that for the frustrated honeycomb network at $`f=1/2`$, the current patterns in the superconducting phase differ between the low-temperature London regime and the higher-temperature Ginzburg-Landau regime near $`T_c`$.

\]

The complex and interesting properties of superconducting networks of a variety of geometries in a magnetic field have been extensively studied in recent years . Their properties, as shown in the rich structure of the superconducting-normal phase diagram, are found to be very sensitive to the topology, and particularly to the connectivity of the structure. Dips or cusps in the resistively measured transition temperature, as a function of the external magnetic field, are indications of the lock-in of a favorable flux arrangement in the structure. Our experimental results on the comparison of honeycomb and kagomé networks demonstrate the interesting effects of geometric structure on the phase boundaries.

The samples we used are aluminum networks fabricated at Cornell Nanofabrication Facility with electron-beam lithography. The overall size of the samples are $`0.8\times 0.8mm`$. The lattice constant is $`1\mu m`$, with a wire width of $`0.2\mu m`$, and a thickness of $`50nm`$. The standard four-probe technique is used for the measurement.

To ensure uniformity of current, we lithographically put wide gold pads on two opposite sides of the sample, each covering the entire edge of the network. The transition temperature is measured with a fixed sample resistance which is maintained by a feed-back loop with a Linear Research LR-130 controller. The temperature is measured by a Stanford SR-850 lock-in amplifier with a transformer-coupled home-made resistance bridge. The zero-field transition temperature is measured to be around $`1.2K`$ at half of the normal resistance.

In fig.1(a) we show the experimental result of the measured phase boundary $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_C(f)`$ of the honeycomb lattice with a locked sample resistance $`R=R_n/100`$, where $`R_n`$ is the normal-state resistance above the transition. As a common procedure , $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_C`$ is obtained by a subtraction of the measured $`T_C(f)`$, defined as the temperature where $`R=R_n/100`$, from a smooth parabolic (in $`f`$) background. This subtraction compensates for the critical field of the finite-width wires.

The filling ratio $`f=\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in units of the flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$($`hc/2e`$) per hexagon. As predicted by the mean field calculation, cusps in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_C(f)`$ curves are observed at $`f=1/3,2/5,1/2,3/5,`$ and $`2/3`$.

In fig.1(b) we plot the phase boundary of the kagomé lattice for $`f`$ in the range $`[0,1/8]`$, which is measured for the same sample resistance ratio of $`1/100`$. Notice here $`f`$ is the flux per elementary triangle, instead of per hexagon, and a magnetic field of $`f=1/8`$ corresponds to one flux quantum per unit cell (a unit cell consists of one hexagon and two triangles).

As we can see from fig.1(a)and (b), there is a one-to-one correspondence of cusps between the two phase boundaries. For all the clearly visible cusps in the phase boundary of honeycomb lattice, i.e. $`f=1/3,2/5,1/2,3/5,2/3`$, we also observe cusps at the corresponding positions in the phase boundary of kagomé lattice at $`f=1/24,1/20,1/16,3/40,1/12`$. To make the comparison precise, if $`p/q`$ is the value of $`f`$ for a cusp in honeycomb phase boundary, then we can observe a cusp at $`p/8q`$ in the kagomé phase boundary.

Since the phase boundary of the kagomé lattice in  is symmetric about $`f=1/2`$, we will limit our discussion to $`f[0,1/2]`$.

The correspondence of the cusps in the phase boundaries also exist between $`f[0,1]`$ of the honeycomb lattice and $`f[1/8,2/8]`$ and $`[2/8,3/8]`$ of the kagomé lattice. This correspondence breaks down for $`f[3/8,1/2]`$, and is discussed below.

The shape and position of the cusps in $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_C(f)`$ curves can be simply understood in the following way. An ordered state is usually obtained by locking fluxoids into a regular commensurate pattern to reduce the energy of the system. Although there are a finite number of degenerate states associated with this pattern, which are just translations or rotations of the original pattern, they are separated by large energy barriers.

The addition (or subtraction) of a small number of (extra) flux quanta $`\delta n`$ can be viewed as adding vortices (or antivortices) to the locked ground state pattern. However, each extra (or absent) flux quantum produces a vortex (antivortex) that has a nonzero energy due to the resulting supercurrents. Thus the energy of the system is increased for either sign of $`\delta n`$, i.e. $`EE_0D_\pm \left|\delta n\right|`$, where $`D_+`$ is the energy cost of each extra flux quantum and $`D_{}`$ is the cost of a removed flux quantum. So, to lowest order in $`\delta n`$, the total increase of the energy is proportional to the density of the added (subtracted) flux quanta, and this in turn leads to the lowering of $`T_c`$. In the end, ordered states correspond to local maxima in $`T_c`$, which appear as downward cusps in the plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_C`$.

To examine the similarity between honeycomb and kagomé more closely, let us examine $`f=1/3`$ (for honeycomb, $`f=1/24`$ for kagomé ) and study the ground-state fluxoid configuration, as illustrated in fig.2. Fig.2(a) is the fluxoid pattern for honeycomb at $`f=1/3`$, and fig.2(b) is the corresponding pattern for kagomé at $`f=1/24`$. The shaded hexagons in fig.2(a) and (b) represent one fluxoid and the unshaded hexagons and triangles represent zero fluxoid. To make the comparison more direct, in fig.2(c) we plot these two networks on top of each other with proper scale between them. As we can see, the fluxoids in both networks form the same symmetric pattern.

We can also show that for other values of $`f=p/q`$ for the honeycomb network, the fluxoid configurations for $`f=p/8q`$ in the kagomé network are the same as the corresponding honeycomb configuration.

The similarity in shapes of the phase boundaries between fig.1(a) and fig.1(b) suggests a more significant relationship between the two lattices. As shown in fig.2(c), the lattice formed by all the hexagons in the kagomé lattice is the same as the honeycomb lattice. Therefore, if, in the kagomé lattice, all the small triangles are left empty, and fluxoids only stay in the hexagons, we would expect strong similarities of phase boundaries between the two networks. Since the area of a hexagon in the kagomé lattice is six times larger than that of a triangle, it costs more energy to add one fluxoid to a triangle than to a hexagon when $`f[0,1/8]`$ (if we neglect the effects of network).

The fact that the correspondence with the honeycomb phase boundary exists on the kagomé for $`f[0,1/8]`$, $`[1/8,2/8]`$, and \[2/8, 3/8\], but not \[3/8,1/2\], suggests that fluxoids do not go into the triangles in the kagomé lattice until $`f=3/8`$, regardless of $`f`$ being rational or irrational (for $`f>5/8`$ we therefore expect the triangles to be completely filled). Therefore for $`f[0,3/8]`$, the phase boundary is completely determined by the configuration of fluxoids in the hexagons which are relatively arranged as in the honeycomb lattice.

A calculation based on quantum interference with multiple-loop Aharonov-Bohm Feynman Path-Integral approach is carried out by Lin and Nori . Their results, which are directly connected to the underlying topology, predict exactly the same similarity as seen in our experimental data.

Another interesting comparison between the honeycomb and kagomé superconducting wire networks is at $`f=1/2`$ for both lattices. As we know, both systems have a large degeneracy of ground states at half-filling . While the phase boundary shows a normal cusp at $`f=1/2`$ for honeycomb, calculation  gives a reverse cusp (a minimum of $`T_c(f)`$) for kagomé . In our experiment, this reverse cusp is observed in niobium kagomé samples,  but is smoothed out for our aluminum samples in the mean field regime .

For the kagomé lattice, there are many possible ways to accommodate $`4\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ of total fluxoids in a unit cell. In Fig.3(a), we show one ground-state configuration that has $`3\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ per hexagon, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ in the up-pointing triangles, and no fluxoids in the down-pointing triangles. Notice that all the currents in Fig.3(a), as well as in all other $`f=1/2`$ ground states are equal in magnitude. Under this condition, we can move the fluxoids in the six triangles around one hexagon, as we do from Fig.3(a) to 3(b), without changing the configuration elsewhere and without increasing the energy. Such local rearrangements can be done anywhere in the network, demonstrating that the ground-state entropy is proportional to the area of the network. If this kagomé network is treated in Ginzburg-Landau theory in the limit of very thin wires, this extensive degeneracy of the lowest free-energy states persists throughout the superconducting phase.  In fact, the number of modes that are critical (soft) at $`T_c`$ in Ginzburg-Landau theory is also extensive; a localized soft mode can be made on each hexagon, and in addition to this “flat band” of soft modes, there is one more zero-momentum soft mode.  This degeneracy is an essential ingredient in the reason why this system exhibits the reverse cusp in its phase boundary at $`f=1/2`$ It is also worth noting that somewhat similar things happen at and near $`f=1/2`$ in the so-called $`𝒯_3`$ lattice, which is a dual to the kagomé lattice . See also Laguna, et al. , where the same degeneracy is seen for vortices in a continuum superconductor with a kagomé -symmetric pinning potential.

The honeycomb network at $`f=1/2`$ has some things in common with the kagomé case. At low temperatures there are an infinite number of ground state current configurations, as pointed out by Shih and Stroud  for the corresponding Josephson-junction array. One such pattern is shown in Fig. 4. In this pattern the fluxoid arrangement in each row has only two possibilities, but these possibilities may be chosen independently in each row, resulting in a ground-state entropy proportional to the linear size of the system. However, unlike the degeneracy in the kagomé network, this degeneracy does not persist throughout the superconducting phase when the system is treated using Ginzburg-Landau theory. What happens is that near enough to $`T_c`$, when the coherence length is of order the lattice spacing or larger, a new, lower-free-energy pattern enters that has an added nonuniformity in the magnitude of the superconducting order parameter. This pattern is shown in Fig. 5. The bold arrows indicate currents flowing along wire segments where the magnitude of the order parameter is relatively large, while the lighter arrows are currents flowing along wire segments where the magnitude is smaller. The magnitudes of the currents are actually identical, so where the order parameter magnitude is large, the (gauge-invariant) phase gradient is small, and vice versa. This is the pattern that the $`f=1/2`$ honeycomb network orders into at $`T_c`$. It does not have infinite degeneracy; it just has the finite number of degenerate states obtained from Fig. 5 by discrete translations and rotations (12 in all). Thus this is a “locked” commensurate state and the cusp in the phase boundary is of the usual sign, as is seen both in our experimental results and in Lin and Nori’s numerical results.  At some temperature below $`T_c`$, while the system is crossing from the Ginzburg-Landau regime to the London regime (where the order parameter magnitude nonuniformities are strongly suppressed) the system must show a superconducting-to-superconducting phase transition between the two types of current patterns shown in Figs. 4 and 5. We have not yet seriously investigated this latter phase transition.

In conclusion, we have studied the superconducting-normal phase boundaries of honeycomb and kagomé lattices. Their shapes are in good agreement with the mean field theory. The position of the cusps in the phase boundary shows a correspondence between the two types of networks, which demonstrates the effect of topology of the structure on the phase boundaries. The comparison of the two phase boundaries at $`f=1/2`$ reveals the different natures of their degeneracy.

We thank Yeong-Lieh Lin and Franco Nori for many discussions and for sending us theoretical results. We also thank Kyungwha Park and Roderich Moessner for helpful discussions. The work at Princeton University was supported by NSF Grants No. DMR 98-09483 and 98-02468.

Fig.1

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4


text:
# References

Confinement and domain walls in high density quark matter

Dam T. Son
Physics Department
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027, USA

In this talk I will review some recent progress in our understanding of properties of high density quark matter. This talk is based mainly on the papers , done in collaboration with D. Rischke, M. Stephanov, and A. Zhitnitsky.

In recent years, our knowledge of dense quark matter has considerably expanded. We now understand that, quark matter at high densities exhibits the phenomenon of color superconductivity, which determines the symmetry of the ground state and its infrared dynamics. In the simplest case of $`N_f=2`$ massless quarks, the ground state of at high baryon densities is the 2SC state , characterized by the condensation of diquark Cooper pairs. These pairs are antisymmetric in spin ($`\alpha ,\beta `$), flavor ($`i,j`$) and color ($`a,b`$):

$`q_{L\alpha }^{ia}q_{L\beta }^{jb}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{abc}X^c,`$
$`q_{R\alpha }^{ia}q_{R\beta }^{jb}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{abc}Y^c.`$ (1)
$`X^c`$ and $`Y^c`$ are complex color 3-vectors. In the ground state, they align along the same direction in the color space and break the color SU(3)c group down to SU(2)c. Thus, five of the original eight gluons acquire “masses” by the Meissner effect, similar to the Higgs mechanism. The remaining three gluons are massless (perturbatively). Because of Cooper pairing, the spectrum of quark excitations carrying SU(2) color charge has a gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The physics below the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is governed by the pure gluodynamics in the remaining unbroken SU(2) sector. As shown in Ref. , the process of high-density “deconfinement” is quite nontrivial in this case: the quarks are always confined, however, the confinement radius grows exponentially with increasing density.

Below the scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, heavy (gapped) degrees of freedom decouple and the remaining fields can be described by a local effective Lagrangian. The absence of quarks carrying SU(2) charges below $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (all are bound into SU(2) singlet Cooper pairs) implies that the medium is transparent to the SU(2) gluons: there is no Debye screening and Meissner effect for these gluons. Mathematically, the gluon polarization tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{\mu \nu }(q)`$ vanishes at $`q=0`$, which can be checked by a direct calculation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ at small $`q`$ . However, although a static SU(2) charge cannot be completely Debye screened by SU(2) neutral Cooper pairs, it can still be partially screened if the medium is polarizable, i.e., if it has a dielectric constant $`ϵ`$ different from unity. Analogously, the medium can, in principle, have a magnetic permeability $`\lambda 1`$.

The requirements of locality, gauge and rotational invariance, and parity fixes the effective action below the scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the following form

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{g^2}d^4x\left(\frac{ϵ}{2}𝐄^a𝐄^a\frac{1}{2\lambda }𝐁^a𝐁^a\right),$$
(2)
where $`E_i^aF_{0i}^a`$ and $`B_i^a\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}F_{jk}^a`$. Explicit calculations  gives

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`1+\kappa =1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\mu ^2}{18\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}},`$ (3)
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (4)
Since at high densities, the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is exponentially suppressed compared to the chemical potential $`\mu `$ , $`ϵ1`$, i.e., the dielectric constant of the medium is very large. This can be interpreted as a consequence of the fact that the Cooper pairs have large size (of order $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and so are easy to polarize. The magnetic permeability, in contrast, remains close to 1 due to the absence of mechanisms that would strongly screen the magnetic field.

The effective strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s^{}`$ in the theory (2), the equivalence of $`\alpha _s=g^2/(4\pi \mathrm{}c)`$ in the vacuum, is very small at the matching scale with the microscopic theory (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$). In our dielectric medium, the Coulomb potential between two static charges separated by $`r`$ is $`g^2/(ϵr)`$. Thus, we have to replace $`g^2`$ by $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=g^2/ϵ`$. The velocity of light $`c`$ also needs to be replaced by the velocity of gluons $`v=1/\sqrt{ϵ}`$. This gives

$$\alpha _s^{}=\frac{g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{4\pi \mathrm{}v}=\frac{g^2}{4\pi \sqrt{ϵ}}=\frac{3}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{g\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mu }.$$
(5)
The coupling increases logarithmically as one moves to lower energies, since pure SU(2) Yang-Mills theory is asymptotically free. This coupling becomes large at the confinement scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{}`$, which is the mass scale of SU(2) glueballs. Since $`\alpha _s^{}`$ is tiny (because $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu 1`$), it takes long to grow, and the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{}`$ is thus very small. Using the one-loop beta function, one can estimate

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\beta _0\alpha _s^{}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\sqrt{2}\pi }{11}\frac{\mu }{g\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\beta _0=22/3`$ in SU(2) gluodynamics. The possible relevance of the light glueballs for astrophysics was discussed by Ouyed and Sannino .

In Ref.  we show that at high baryon densities QCD must have domain walls. The simplest case allowing for domain walls is again $`N_f=2`$ massless flavors. In perturbation theory, there is a degeneracy of the ground state with respect to the relative U(1) phase between $`X^a`$ and $`Y^a`$ in Eq. (1). This is due to the U(1)A symmetry of the QCD Lagrangian at the classical level. This fact implies that the U(1)A symmetry is spontaneously broken by the color-superconducting condensate. Since this is a global symmetry, its breaking gives rise to a Goldstone boson, which carries the same quantum numbers as the $`\eta `$ boson in vacuum.

The field corresponding to $`\eta `$ boson can be constructed explicitly. Indeed

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=XY^{}X^aY^a,$$
(7)
in contrast to $`X`$ and $`Y`$, is a gauge-invariant order parameter. Furthermore $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ carries a nonzero U(1)A charge. Under the U(1)A rotations

$$qe^{i\gamma _5\alpha /2}q,$$
(8)
the fields (1) transform as $`Xe^{i\alpha }X`$, $`Ye^{i\alpha }Y`$, and therefore $`\mathrm{\Sigma }e^{2i\alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus, the color-superconducting ground state, in which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$, breaks the U(1)A symmetry. The Goldstone mode $`\eta `$ of this symmetry breaking is described by the phase $`\phi `$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=|\mathrm{\Sigma }|e^{i\phi }.$$
(9)
Under the U(1)A rotation (8), $`\phi `$ transforms as

$$\phi \phi +2\alpha .$$
(10)
At low energies, the dynamics of the Goldstone mode $`\phi `$ is described by an effective Lagrangian, which must take the following form,

$$L=f^2[(_0\phi )^2u^2(_i\phi )^2].$$
(11)
Two free parameters of this Lagrangian are the decay constant $`f`$ of the $`\eta `$ boson, and its velocity $`u`$. In general, $`u`$ may be different from 1 since the Lorentz invariance is violated by the dense medium. For large chemical potentials $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, the leading perturbative values for $`f`$ and $`u`$ have been determined by Beane et al. :

$$f^2=\frac{\mu ^2}{8\pi ^2},u^2=\frac{1}{3}.$$
(12)
In particular, the velocity of the $`\eta `$ bosons, to this order, is equal to the speed of sound. The fact that $`f\mu `$ plays an important role in our further discussion.

It is well known that the U(1)A symmetry is not a true symmetry of the quantum theory, even when quarks are massless. The violation of the U(1)A symmetry is due to non-perturbative effects of instantons. Since at large chemical potentials the instanton density is suppressed (see below), the $`\eta `$ boson still exists but acquires a finite mass. In other words, the anomaly adds a potential energy term $`V_{\mathrm{inst}}(\phi )`$ to the Lagrangian (11),

$$L=f^2[(_0\phi )^2u^2(_i\phi )^2]V_{\mathrm{inst}}(\phi ).$$
(13)
The curvature of $`V_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ around $`\phi =0`$ determines the mass of the $`\eta `$.

A standard symmetry argument determines periodicity of $`V_{\mathrm{inst}}(\phi )`$. One can formally restore the U(1)A symmetry by accompanying (8) by a rotation of the $`\theta `$-parameter

$$\theta \theta +N_f\alpha =\theta +2\alpha .$$
(14)
This symmetry must be preserved in the effective Lagrangian, so the latter is invariant under (10) and (14). This means that the potential $`V_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ is a function of the variable $`\phi \theta `$, unchanged under U(1)A. Since we know that the physics is periodic in $`\theta `$ with period $`2\pi `$, we can conclude that, at the physical value of the theta angle $`\theta =0`$, $`V_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ is a periodic function of $`\phi `$ with period $`2\pi `$.

Moreover, at large $`\mu `$, $`V_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ can be found from instanton calculations explicitly. The infrared problem that plagues these calculations in vacuum disappears at large $`\mu `$: large instantons are suppressed due to Debye screening. As a result, most instantons have small size $`\rho 𝒪(\mu ^1)`$ and the dilute instanton gas approximation becomes reliable. One-instanton contribution, proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(\phi \theta )`$, dominates in $`V_{\mathrm{inst}}`$. Therefore,

$$V_{\mathrm{inst}}(\phi )=a\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}\phi ,$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the BCS gap, and $`a`$ is a dimensionless function of $`\mu `$ estimated in Ref. . Here we only note that $`a`$ vanishes in the limit $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. This is an important fact, since it implies that the mass of the $`\eta `$ boson,

$$m=\sqrt{\frac{a}{2}}\frac{\mu }{f}\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pi \sqrt{a}\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(16)
becomes much smaller than the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at large $`\mu `$. In this case the effective theory (13) is reliable, since meson modes other than $`\eta `$ have energy of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e., are much heavier than $`\eta `$ and decouple from the dynamics of the latter.

The Lagrangian (13) with the potential (15) is just the sine-Gordon model, in which there exist domain-wall solutions to the classical equations of motion. The profile of the wall parallel to the $`xy`$ plane is

$$\phi =4\mathrm{arctan}e^{mz/u},$$
(17)
so the wall interpolates between $`\phi =0`$ at $`z=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\phi =2\pi `$ at $`z=\mathrm{}`$. The tension of the domain wall is

$$\sigma =8\sqrt{2a}uf\mu \mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(18)
A good analog of this domain wall is the $`N=1`$ axion domain wall, which also interpolates between the same vacuum.

Another phase with domain walls is that of kaon condensation. The likelihood of this phase was recently emphasized by Schäfer and other authors . The crucial observation is that kaons have small masses  in the color-flavor locked phase (CFL)  of high-density QCD. A relatively small strangeness chemical potential is thus sufficient to drive kaon condensation. Moreover, it was argued that the mass of the strange quark also works in favor of kaon condensation. In contrast to the conventional charge kaon condensation in nuclear matter, in the CFL phase it is the neutral kaons which are more likely to condense. This is due to the inverse mass ordering  of mesons in the CFL phase, which makes the neutral kaons lighter than the charge kaons, at least at very high densities.

In a recent paper  we show that the $`K^0`$-condensed phase has in its spectrum an extremely light bosonic particle, whose presence implies the existence of non-topological metastable domain walls. Again, this feature can be understood easily from symmetry arguments. The $`K^0`$ condensate spontaneously breaks a global U(1) symmetry: the strangeness. The phase of this condensate becomes a Goldstone boson. However, since strangeness is violated by weak processes, the would-be Goldstone boson acquires a very small mass proportional to $`G_F^{1/2}`$. At very low energies, the effective Lagrangian for $`\phi `$ must have the form of the sine-Gordon theory, which possesses domain wall solutions interpolating between $`\phi =0`$ and $`\phi =2\pi `$. More recently, vortons were discussed by Kaplan and Reddy .

It is interesting to note that if baryon number is violated, the superfluid Goldstone mode also acquires a mass. Since the superfluid order parameter is a dibaryon, the mass square of the superfluid Goldstone boson is proportional to the amplitudes of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ transitions. The experimental bound on $`n\overline{n}`$ oscillations, $`\tau _{n\overline{n}}>10^8`$ s, put an upper limit on the mass of the Goldstone boson, $`m<10^7`$ eV. The thickness of the corresponding domain wall is larger than about 1 m, and still might be less than the radius of neutron stars. However, unless the neutron star under consideration rotates very slowly, a domain wall that thick is unlikely to exist because of the high density of vortices, which are separated by distances of order $`10^2`$ cm.

Finally, domain walls of the type discussed above also exist in two-component Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) . Recently, two different hyperfine spin states of 87Rb, which were condensed in the same trap by the technique of sympathetic cooling . A similar state has been observed for sodium gas . Binary BEC breaks spontaneously two global U(1) symmetries. It is moreover possible to couple two condensates by a driving electromagnetic field tuned to the transition frequency. In this case atoms can be interconverted between the two spin states and the numbers of atoms of each species are not conserved separately anymore; only the total number of atoms is constant. In this case, only one U(1) symmetry remains exact, the other one is explicitly violated. The violated U(1) group corresponds to the relative phase between the two condensate. The Goldstone boson arising from the spontaneous breaking of this U(1) symmetry acquires a gap and gives rise to the domain walls.

I am grateful to the R. Ouyed and F. Sannino for organizing this meeting, and thank D. Rischke, M. Stephanov and A. Zhitnitsky for fruitful collaboration.


text:
# Quasiparticles and c-axis coherent hopping in high 𝑇_𝑐 superconductors

\[

## Abstract

We study the problem of the low-energy quasiparticle spectrum of the extended t-J model and analyze the coherent hopping between weakly coupled planes described by this model. Starting with a two-band model describing the $`CuO`$ planes and the unoccupied bands associated to the metallic atoms located in between the planes, we obtain effective hopping matrix elements describing the c-axis charge transfer. A computational study of these processes shows an anomalously large charge anisotropy for doping concentrations around and below the optimal doping.

\]

The anomalous charge transport of high $`T_c`$ materials is still among the most important open problems related with the physics of these compounds. It is now accepted that in order to build a complete theory of high temperature superconductivity, a deep understanding of the normal state properties of these compounds is needed and one of the most intriguing questions concerns precisely the charge dynamics. The cuprate high $`T_c`$ superconductors have crystalline structures consisting of $`CuO`$ planes which makes all of them highly anisotropic materials. The electrical conductivity reflects the anisotropy: while in the plane it shows a metallic behavior, along the c-axis in the underdoped regime, it indicates an incoherent charge transport; moreover, it has an anomalous temperature behavior, and its frequency dependence is not of the Drude type .

Band structure calculations together with a semiclassical theory of charge transport, predict a metallic behavior in all directions with an anisotropy much smaller than the experimental values. Electron-electron interactions may strongly renormalize the bare parameters, however within the framework of the Fermi-liquid theory the observed anisotropy cannot be understood. This led Anderson and others to propose the failure of the conventional Fermi-liquid theory in these compounds .

An important amount of experimental data has been accumulated during the last years. Among other things, the formation of charge stripes in the normal state has been confirmed. Whether this is relevant for the occurrence of superconductivity is not yet clear, however it should be taken into account in a detailed description of the normal phase.

Here we revisit the problem of the low-energy quasiparticle spectrum of the extended t-J model and analyze the coherent hopping between weakly coupled planes. Our starting point is a stack of $`CuO`$ planes coupled via the electron hopping $`t_{}(𝐤)`$ to higher energy intermediate states. The intermediate states represent the unoccupied bands associated to the metallic atoms located in between the planes.

In a single-particle theory, the intermediate states can be easily eliminated through a canonical transformation giving rise to an effective hopping between consecutive $`CuO`$ planes of the form $`t_{}^0(𝐤)=t_{}^2(𝐤)/\mathrm{\Delta }E_𝐤`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_𝐤`$ the one-particle energy difference between $`𝐤`$-states of the $`CuO`$ and the intermediate layer bands. The principal symmetry of $`t_{}^0(𝐤)`$ is obtained from electronic structure calculations and for the case of $`YBaCuO`$ it is given by $`[\mathrm{cos}(k_xa)\mathrm{cos}(k_ya)]^2`$ .

In what follows we use an uncorrelated empty band to describe the intermediate states and the extended t-J model to describe the $`CuO`$ planes. The extended t-J model including hole hopping to second and third nearest-neighbor (NN) sites, and with J/t consistent with experimental values, reproduces the photoemission results of the parent insulating materials. In the standard notation the model Hamiltonian describing the plane $`l`$ is:

$$H_l=J\underset{i,j}{}𝐒_{li}𝐒_{lj}\underset{n,m}{}t_{nm}c_{ln\sigma }^{}c_{lm\sigma }$$
(1)
where the matrix element $`t_{nm}`$ is $`t`$ for NN, $`t^{}`$ for second NN and $`t^{\prime \prime }`$ for third NN, $`c_{lm\sigma }`$ destroys an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ at site $`m`$ and double occupation is not allowed. Using the many-body states, we perform a canonical transformation that eliminates the intermediate states and generates an effective Hamiltonian that includes a charge transfer matrix element between two consecutive $`CuO`$ planes. Let us first consider the case of a single hole. The two-plane states of the system are indicated as $`|\psi _{0,\nu }^1|\psi _{1,\nu ^{}}^2`$ where $`|\psi _{m,\nu }^l`$ is the many-body wave function of plane $`l`$ with $`m`$ holes and quantum numbers $`\nu `$ and the corresponding energy is $`E_{m,\nu }`$. We take the plane with no holes in its ground state indicated by $`\nu =0`$. The effective matrix elements connecting the states $`|\psi _{0,0}^1|\psi _{1,\nu }^2`$ and $`|\psi _{1,\nu }^1|\psi _{0,0}^2`$ accounts for a hopping - from one plane to the other - of a single hole. The one-hole quantum numbers $`\nu `$ include the crystal momentum $`𝐤`$, spin variables and other quantum numbers $`\mu `$ that uniquely identify the state and in what follows we take $`\nu (𝐤,\sigma ,\mu )`$. Due to the momentum and spin conservation of the Hamiltonian, the effective hopping of a hole with momentum $`𝐤`$ and spin $`\sigma `$ is given by:

$$\stackrel{~}{t}_{}(𝐤)=\frac{t_{}^2(𝐤)M_1(𝐤,\sigma ,\mu )M_2^{}(𝐤,\sigma ,\mu )}{E_{0,0}E_{1,(𝐤,\sigma ,\mu )}\epsilon _{𝐤\sigma }}$$
(2)
where $`\epsilon _{𝐤\sigma }`$ is the energy to add an electron at the intermediate band, $`M_1(𝐤,\sigma ,\mu )=\psi _{1,(𝐤,\sigma ,\mu )}^1|c_{1𝐤\sigma }|\psi _{0,0}^1`$ and $`M_2^{}(𝐤,\sigma ,\mu )=\psi _{0,0}^2|c_{2𝐤\sigma }^{}|\psi _{1,(𝐤,\sigma ,\mu )}^2`$ are the matrix element for the creation and destruction of a hole in the planes. We calculate many-body energies and matrix elements by exact diagonalization of small clusters with periodic boundary conditions.

Consider the one-hole ground state in a 16-site cluster: this state has momentum $`𝐤=(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ and the product of the matrix elements in Eq.(2) is the weight of the quasiparticle peak $`Z_k`$. Since the same factor $`Z_k`$ renormalizes the in-plane hole mass, for one hole close to the Fermi surface, interactions do not renormalize the anisotropy. The one-hole state with $`𝐤=(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ can be viewed as a spin-$`1/2`$ and charge $`e`$ quasiparticle, where the spins across the hole have ferromagnetic correlations. To distinguish this excitation from others that appear at different regions of the Brillouin zone (BZ), we refer to it as the $`\alpha `$-type spin-$`1/2`$ quasiparticle. This quasiparticle exists for all the momenta in the BZ and its energy can be obtained simply by following the lowest energy peak of the one-particle spectral density, i.e. its dispersion relation, shown in Fig.(1), gives the one-hole photoemission (PES) dispersion of the insulator. It is important to note that this quasiparticle is not the lowest energy state for all momenta $`𝐤`$. For realistic parameters that fit the PES ($`J/t=0.4`$ , $`t^{}/t=0.35`$ and $`t^{\prime \prime }/t=0.25`$), the lowest energy states in the $`4\times 4`$ cluster with $`𝐤=(0,0)`$ and $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ have total spin $`3/2`$. These high spin states have been obtained in clusters of different sizes (up to 20 sites) and for different parameters. However it is not clear that in the thermodynamic limit they will remain being the lowest energy excitations around the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`M`$ points. These states can be interpreted as high spin quasiparticles that occur as a precursor of the Nagaoka state. The magnetization is confined around the hole like in a polarized spin bag. These states are not connected to the ground state of the undoped system when a hole is created; in other words the matrix elements in Eq.(2) are zero and these excitations do not propagate \- to lowest order - from one plane to the other. The reason is that when a hole is created on the spin-zero ground state of the insulating system, the resulting states have total spin $`1/2`$, and the spin wave function is orthogonal to the spin-$`3/2`$ excitations.

More interesting are the one-hole lowest energy states at $`𝐤=(\pi ,0)`$ or $`(0,\pi )`$. These states have been studied recently in some detail. The spin correlations across the hole are antiferromagnetic (AFCAH), like in 1D systems, and it has been speculated that this is an indication of charge and spin separation in the 2D t-J model. Similar to the high spin excitation case, here also, the matrix elements connecting this state with the ground state of the undoped system by creating a hole is zero. Although the total spin of the $`𝐤=(\pi ,0)`$ lowest energy excitation is $`1/2`$, the symmetry of its spin wave function is orthogonal to that of $`c_{1𝐤\sigma }|\psi _{0,0}^1`$. The one-hole spectral density of the insulator does not show any structure at the energy of this state as shown in Fig. (2b). Again, to lowest order, this excitation does not propagate from one plane to the other. This is a property of the $`tt^{}t^{\prime \prime }J`$ model and it is not observed in the t-J model for similar values of J/t.

In order to qualitatively determine the regions of the BZ where the different type of excitations are the lowest energy ones, we have continuously changed the boundary conditions in the cluster and the results are shown in Fig. (1). In a region around the $`X`$ point, the spin-$`1/2`$ states with AFCAH are stable (dashed line). If these excitations actually describe a region of charge and spin separation, the dashed line branch does not correspond to the dispersion of a single quasiparticle but to the superposition of a holon and a spinon. It has been suggested that these states play a central role in the many-holes states and may be responsible for the formation of stripes. As we show below, they are also relevant for the coherent hopping along the c-axis in the doped systems.

Summarizing the one-hole results, we have shown that in different regions of the BZ, the lowest energy excitations are of different nature. Close to the Fermi surface ($`𝐤=(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$), there is a spin-$`1/2`$ quasiparticle that propagates along the c-axis with an effective hopping renormalized with the $`Z_{k_F}`$ factor. At the $`X`$ point, the anomalous spin-$`1/2`$ excitation with AFCAH is the lowest energy state. A hole in this state is confined, up to second order in $`t_{}`$, in a single plane. Here the word confinement is used in the sense that there is no bonding- antibonding splitting of the degenerate two-plane lowest energy state. In Fig.(2c) the matrix element for different values of $`𝐤`$ is shown. Higher order terms may generate a coherent hopping for this type of excitations. In any case, we expect these higher order terms to generate a very small dispersion along the c-axis . Moreover, it should be noted that for the 20-site cluster, for the $`𝐤=(0,\pi )`$ state with robust AFCAH, the second order matrix elements non zero but very small, i.e. the quasiparticle peak in the spectral density of the insulator has an extremely small weight , leading to a strongly renormalized c-axis hopping for this state, in qualitative agreement with the results for the 16-site system. The non-crossing approximation in larger systems also gives zero weight .

Let us now turn to the many-holes states. For the same parameters as above, the two-hole ground state of the $`4\times 4`$ cluster has total momentum $`𝐤=(0,\pi )`$ or $`(\pi ,0)`$ and spin zero. In these states, the hole-hole correlation function $`n_in_j`$ with $`n_i`$ the hole number at site $`i`$, clearly shows the tendency to stripe formation. For the state with $`𝐤=(0,\pi )`$ \[$`(\pi ,0)`$\], the holes are mostly aligned in the same row along the $`x`$ \[$`y`$\] direction as shown in Fig (2d). These results are in agreement with previous results obtained in ladders and clusters. In the 18-site cluster, stripes are observed in the three holes ground state . Based on the spin correlations across the hole, it has been argued that these stripes are made out of one-hole building-blocks with AFCAH. In other words, the two holes wave function has a large component of the one-hole wave function of the $`𝐤=(0,\pi )`$ type. This could strongly influence the charge mobility along the c-axis. We first analyze the case of two $`4\times 4`$ planes with three holes corresponding to a doping $`x0.094`$. With a straightforward extension of the previous treatment and notation, we calculate the effective matrix element mixing the two (degenerate) states with wavefunctions $`|\psi _{1,\nu }^1|\psi _{2,\xi }^2`$ and $`|\psi _{2,\xi }^1|\psi _{1,\nu }^2`$ which now are $`M_1(𝐤,\nu ,\xi )=\psi _{2,\xi }^1|c_{1𝐤\sigma }|\psi _{1,\nu }^1`$ and $`M_2^{}(𝐤,\nu ,\xi )=\psi _{1,\nu }^2|c_{2𝐤\sigma }^{}|\psi _{2,\xi }^2`$. For these matrix elements to be non zero, the operators $`c_{1𝐤\sigma }`$ and $`c_{2𝐤\sigma }^{}`$ have to be chosen to conserve total momentum and spin.

If the two planes are in their ground state, the product of these matrix elements is smaller than for the one-hole case. This result, is consistent with the conjecture that the two holes wave function is mainly made out of one-hole building blocks with AFCAH since, as we showed above, this type of excitation tends to be confined in one plane. This effect is largely enhanced when doping increases as in the case of five holes in two $`4\times 4`$ planes ($`x0.156`$). In this case, if the planes are in the ground state, with two and three holes respectively, the effective matrix element to transfer a charge from one plane to the other is exactly zero and to lowest order, charge is confined in the planes. In fact as shown in Fig. (3b), the PES of the system with two holes has no structure at the energy of the three-hole ground state. The case of four holes ($`x=0.125`$) deserves a special comment: the ground state of the uncoupled planes has two holes in each one and the hopping mixes it with excited states. It has been proposed to artificially shift the energy levels of the states with one hole in one plane and three in the other to recover a degeneracy. These shifts are unimportant when calculating the matrix elements which are $`\psi _{3,\xi _0}^1|c_{1𝐤\sigma }|\psi _{2,\nu _0}^1\times \psi _{1,\eta _0}^2|c_{2𝐤\sigma }^{}|\psi _{2,\nu _0}^2`$ with the indices $`\xi _0`$, $`\eta _0`$ and $`\nu _0`$ corresponding to the ground state of a plane with the indicated number of holes. These matrix elements are precisely the ones calculated in the two previous cases and the product is zero. For the case of 6 holes in two $`4\times 4`$ planes we reach similar conclusions.

Finally we have evaluated the effective hopping for large number of holes, $`9`$ and $`11`$ holes in the two planes which correspond to dopings $`x`$ larger than the optimal doping. In this region, the effective hopping calculated always in second order in $`t_{}`$ and in the ground state, are non-zero.

We have also studied the effective hopping along the c-axis for 18-site and 20-site clusters, and small doping. For the 18-site cluster, and the same parameters as before, the two holes low energy spectrum presents a quasidegeneracy between the spin zero and spin one states. The effective hopping calculated in the lowest energy $`S=0`$ state, which we believe is the relevant in the thermodynamic limit, shows the same behavior as in the $`4\times 4`$ cluster, indicating that our results are not dominated by the particular symmetry of these clusters.

In Fig. 3(c) we summarize the results for the matrix elements, which give an estimate of ratio $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{}/t_{}^0`$ as a function of the doping $`x`$, here with $`t_{}^0`$ is the bare hopping obtained from band structure calculations. Our results show that while a single hole propagates along the c-axis, for doping close and smaller than the optimal doping $`x_{op}0.2`$ the lowest order hopping evaluated in the ground state cancels and increases for $`x>x_{op}`$. This behaviour suggest that when stripes are stabilized, the c-axis hopping reduces to very small values. These results are in agreement with previous calculations  which suggest that the weight of the quasiparticle peak decreases in the presence of stripes. As we mentioned above, higher order terms generate a non-zero hopping. However, at least in the one-hole case in the two $`\sqrt{8}\times \sqrt{8}`$ planes, these contributions are very small reducing the bare hopping by a factor smaller than $`10^3`$.

For the sake of completeness we have also calculated the in-plane Drude weight $`D`$ for the same parameters as before. As shown in Fig. 3(d) $`D`$ increases with doping (as in the t-J model ) in the region were $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{}`$ presents a marked depletion. Our treatment, based in a canonical transformation and the estimation of matrix elements by exact diagonalization of small clusters is not appropriate to give a definite answer to what may be the most relevant question related to the charge dynamics in high $`T_c`$ materials, that is whether under some conditions real confinement of charge excitations in the $`CuO`$ planes is obtained. However our results are consistent with, and can explain, the available experimental data. The behavior here obtained is robust under changes of the parameters within the accepted range of values. On one hand, to lowest order in $`t_{}`$, in the ground state charge is confined for doping $`x`$ close to and below the optimal doping $`x_{op}`$. Higher order terms in $`t_{}`$ may generate a small coherent hopping $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{}t_{}\times 10^3`$. Estimations of the bare hopping using LDA band structure calculations give $`t_{}=0.25`$ eV for the case of bilayers and $`t_{}0.03`$ eV for the interplane matrix element. That means that down to very low temperatures ($`kT\stackrel{~}{t}_{}`$), we expect a diffusive-like propagation along the c-axis with an anomalous temperature dependence. On the other hand, the small cluster calculations are remarkable in the sense that they predict an anomalously large charge anisotropy precisely in the region where superconductivity is stable. This agrees with the experimental data and strengthens the ideas developed by Anderson and coworkers  that argued that the lack of single particle intraplane coherent hopping enhances superconductivity.

We thank A.A. Aligia, A. Ceccatto, and B. Normand for helpfull discussions. This work was parcially supported by the CONICET, ANPCYT(02151).