text:
# The Post-Newtonian Treatment of the VLBI Experiment on September 8, 2002

## 1 Introduction

The gravitational VLBI experiment for measuring the relativistic effect of propagation of gravity field of orbiting Jupiter was conducted on September 8, 2002 by the National Radio Astronomical Observatory (USA) and the Max Plank Institute for Radio Astronomy (Germany). The idea of the experiment was proposed by Kopeikin  who had noted that an arbitrary-moving gravitating body deflects light not instantaneously but with retardation caused by the finite speed of gravity propagating from the body to the light ray. This is because positions of the gravitating bodies are connected to the light-ray particle by the gravity null cone which is defined by the equation for the retarded time in the gravitational Liénard-Wiechert potentials being solutions of the Einstein equations. The goal of the experiment was to confirm this prediction by making use of the close celestial alignment of Jupiter and the quasar J0842+1835. The goal of this paper is to make use of the parameterized post-Newtonian technique to reveal how the gravity propagation affects the light-ray trajectory. This approach allows us to confirm our previous theoretical results  by looking at the problem from different position.

The problem is formulated as follows. Light ray is emitted by a quasar (QSO J0842+1835) at the time $`t_0`$ and moves to the network of VLBI stations located on the Earth. As light moves, it passes through the variable gravitational field of the solar system, created by the orbital motion of Sun and other massive planets, and is received by the first and second VLBI stations at the times $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ respectively. Gravitational field of the solar system causes delay in the time of propagation of radio signals – the effect discovered by  in static gravitational field approximation. We noted  that the present-day accuracy of phase-reference VLBI measurements is sufficient to detect a 1.5 post-Newtonian111The first 1.0 post-Newtonian approximation is of order $`c^2`$, and 1.5 post-Newtonian correction to the Newtonian gravity is of order $`c^3`$.  correction to the Shapiro time delay incorporated implicitly into position of the light-ray deflecting body (see Fig.1) which must be taken at the retarded instant of time related to the time of observation by the equation of the gravity null-cone. We solved the Einstein-Maxwell system of differential equations and calculated this correction for Jupiter by making use of the post-Minkowskian approximation  with the retarded Liénard-Wiechert solutions of the Einstein equations. The retardation is caused by the finite speed of propagation of gravity $`c_g=c`$ which, as we have revealed in , enters the 1.5 post-Newtonian correction to the Shapiro time delay. Hence, we concluded that the VLBI experiment on September 8, 2002 is sensitive to the effect of the propagation of gravity and can be used to measure its speed.

Our primary paper  has given no particular details on the parameterization of the gravity propagation effect the amplitude of which was characterized by the parameter $`\delta `$. For this reason the physical meaning of the gravity propagation effect was not understood adequately by some researchers . By scrutiny inspection we found that  made an erroneous use of insufficient 1.0 post-Newtonian (static) approximation to discuss the high-order 1.5 post-Newtonian (dynamic) correction to the Shapiro time delay while  gave analysis of the problem of propagation of light ray in the time-dependent gravitational field of the solar system on the basis of the PPN formalism which was not sufficiently elaborated to tackle properly the 1.5 post-Newtonian approximation to general relativity (see appendix B).

In this paper we extend our theoretical analysis of the VLBI experiment by proving that the parameter $`\delta =c/c_g1`$, where $`c`$ is the speed of light and $`c_g`$ is the speed of gravity. Parameter $`\delta `$ is a measurable quantity and its determination will provided us with the numerical estimate of the magnitude of the propagation of gravity effect in terms of the speed of gravity $`c_g`$. The spectrum of plausible values of $`c_g`$ ranges from $`c_g=c`$ in general relativity to $`c_g=\mathrm{}`$ as advocated by . The VLBI experiment gives $`c_g/c=1.06\pm 0.21`$ . The values $`c_g<c`$ however are unlikely and ruled out, for example, by observations of cosmic rays .

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we discuss the linearized Einstein equations and the speed-of-gravity parameterization that is used in section 3 for derivation of the post-Newtonian metric tensor. Section 4 deals with the post-Newtonian time delay formula for light propagation. The effect of retardation of gravity in the gravitational time delay is explained in section 5. The differential VLBI time delay is derived in section 6 where we prove that our previous post-Minkowskian formulation of the VLBI delay is identical with the post-Newtonian presentation. Section 7 contains discussion of the basic results of the present paper.

Roman indices run from 1 to 3 while Greek indices run from 0 to 3. Repeated indices assume the Einstein summation rule. Indices are raised and lowered with the Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{diag}(1,+1,+1,+1)`$. The Kroneker symbol $`\delta _\beta ^\alpha =\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. We denote coordinates $`x^\alpha =(ct,x^i)`$ and partial derivatives $`_\alpha (c^1/t,/x^i)`$. Partial derivative associated with $`c_g`$ is denoted as $`ð_\alpha (c_g^1/\tau ,/x^i)`$, where $`\tau `$ relates to time $`t`$ via Eq. (3).

We use the boldface italic letters to denote spatial vectors, e.g, $`𝒂a^i=(a^1,a^2,a^3)`$. The dot between two spatial vectors is the Euclidean scalar product, $`𝒂\mathbf{}𝒃=a^1b^1+a^2b^2+a^3b^3`$. The cross between two spatial vectors denotes the Euclidean vector product, $`𝒂\times 𝒃\epsilon _{ijk}a^jb^k`$, where $`\epsilon _{ijk}`$ is the Levi-Civita symbol such that $`\epsilon _{123}=+1`$.

## 2 Linearized Einstein Equations and Their Parameterization

We make use of the following decomposition of the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$

$$\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`g=\mathrm{det}\left[g_{\mu \nu }\right]`$ and $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the gravitational field perturbation. When $`c_g=c`$ the linearized Einstein equations in harmonic gauge, $`_\alpha \gamma ^{\alpha \beta }=0`$, read

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+\mathbf{}^2\right)\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G}{c^4}}T^{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙),`$ (2)
where $`\mathbf{}^2^i_i`$ is the Laplace operator, and $`T^{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙)`$ is the stress-energy tensor of matter, and $`G`$ is the universal gravitational constant.

Special relativity postulates that in every inertial frame, there is a finite universal limiting speed $`c`$. Experimentally, the limiting speed $`c`$ is equal to the speed of light $`c_l`$ in vacuum with amazing precision . General relativity is a theory of gravitational field propagating with some speed $`c_g`$ that was equated by Einstein to the fundamental speed $`c`$ which appear in the wave operator in Eq. (2) while the right side of these equations contains a constant $`16\pi G/c^4`$ describing the coupling of gravity with matter. In what follows we intend to build up the parameterized version of the linearized Einstein equations (2) with the speed of gravity $`c_g`$ in such a way that allows to get both the Newtonian and special relativity limits simultaneously, i.e., $`c_g\mathrm{}`$ while $`c=\mathrm{const}.`$ We emphasize, however, that our approach is just the first step in this direction and further development is required.

Because in general relativity the speed of gravity $`c_g`$ is denoted by the same letter $`c`$ it is difficult (but possible) to discern the effects associated with $`c_g`$ from those associated with the fundamental speed $`c`$. Thus, a theoretical framework is needed to unravel $`c_g`$ from $`c`$ in the experimental gravitational physics. We shall develop in this paper a parameterized approximation to general relativity which allows to segregate $`c_g`$ from $`c`$ in the experiments conducted in weak gravitational fields. Development more advanced (non-linear) formalism goes beyond the scope of this paper. Such formalism will be required, for example, for setting experimental limits on the speed of gravity from binary pulsar timing .

In what follows, we shall keep notation for the speed of gravity and light as $`c_g`$ and $`c`$ respectively, and consider the speed of gravity $`c_g`$ as a parameter which can range from $`c`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. Speed of gravity characterizes temporal variation of gravitational field and the pace of its propagation. This implies that partial time derivatives of the metric tensor perturbation $`\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }`$ in the left side of the Einstein equations (2) must be parametrically associated with the speed $`c_g`$. This will lead to the wave operator depending explicitly on the speed of gravity $`c_g`$ considered as a parameter.

However, if one holds the time coordinate $`t`$ fixed for different values of the parameter $`c_gc`$ it would change the numerical value of the time coordinate $`x^0`$ of one and the same event and mix up the order of space-time points. For this reason, we will keep numerical value of the time coordinate $`x^0=ct`$ to be the same while changing $`cc_g`$. This assumes that the smooth transition from $`c`$ to $`c_g`$ in the left part of Eqs. (2) is to be accompanied with the introduction of a new time variable, $`\tau `$, which must scale simultaneously with the parameter $`c_g`$ in such a way that equality $`c_g\tau =ct`$ is preserved.

In other words, the variable $`\tau `$ must relate to time $`t`$ as follows

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`ϵt,`$ (3)
where $`ϵc/c_g=1+\delta `$ is a dimensionless parameter that provides the speed-of-gravity parameterization of Eqs. (2) and is used in their post-Newtonian expansion to keep track of the orders in the post-Newtonian expansion. As one will see later, the time $`\tau `$ parameterizes world lines of massive bodies comprising a gravitating system. Rescaling of the time variable means that the system with $`ϵ=1`$ is doing at time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ what the system for any other $`ϵ1`$ is doing at time $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/ϵ`$, i.e. the faster gravity propagates $`(ϵ0)`$ the shorter the time scale $`\tau `$. In other words, we are approaching to the Newtonian limit along the sequence of solutions of Eqs. (2) parameterized by the sliding parameter $`ϵ`$ but fixed value of $`x^0=ct`$. The Newtonian limit is given by $`ϵ=0`$, and in the limit $`ϵ=1`$ we restore the linearized Einstein equations (2).

The left side of Eqs. (2) is parameterized by the speed of gravity after making use of the replacements: $`cc_g`$, $`t\tau `$, and $`\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙)\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }(\tau ,𝒙)`$. This is, however, not enough because, if one wants to keep the form of the Eq. (2) be formally the same as the original Einstein equations in the harmonic coordinates, the gauge conditions must be re-written as $`ð_\alpha \gamma ^{\alpha \beta }(\tau ,𝒙)=0`$. Since the gauge conditions are directly related to the equations of motion of gravitating matter , their replacement implies that the stress-energy tensor must be replaced as well: $`T^{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙)\mathrm{\Theta }^{\alpha \beta }(\tau ,𝒙)`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{00}=T^{00}(\tau ,𝒙),\mathrm{\Theta }^{0i}=ϵT^{0i}(\tau ,𝒙),\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=ϵ^2T^{ij}(\tau ,𝒙).$$
(4)
This law of re-scaling of the stress-energy tensor is chosen by the requirement that the Newtonian limit is obtained when $`ϵ0`$ while the speed of light $`c`$ is constant. As for the formal structure of $`T^{\alpha \beta }(\tau ,𝒙)`$ we assume that it is the same as in special relativity. Equations of motion for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\alpha \beta }(\tau ,𝒙)`$ follow from the gauge conditions and are given by $`ð_\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }^{\alpha \beta }=0`$.

Finally, the parametric form of the linearized equations (2) in the parameterized harmonic gauge, $`ð_\alpha \gamma ^{\alpha \beta }(\tau ,𝒙)=0`$, is

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\tau ^2}}+\mathbf{}^2\right)\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(\tau ,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G}{c^4}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(\tau ,𝒙).`$ (5)
We emphasize once again that it would be illogical to obtain Eq. (5) from the Einstein equations (2) with a simple replacement $`cc_g`$ without changing the time coordinate $`t\tau `$. An attempt to leave the time coordinate unchanged would violate the order of events for different values of the sliding parameter $`c_g`$ and lead to different treatment of the problem of light propagation (see appendix B).

Smooth transformation of the linearized equations (2) of general relativity to the sequence of parametric space-times allows us to keep two speeds, $`c`$ and $`c_g`$, to be formally different for each value of $`ϵ1`$. The space-time parameterization is introduced via Eqs. (3)–(5) which can be understood as mapping of the physical metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙)`$ $`(ϵ=1)`$ into the sequence of solutions $`g_{\alpha \beta }(\tau =ϵt,𝒙)`$ of the linearized equations (5), where $`ϵ`$ is a parameter along the sequence. This sequence of solutions is generated for each value of $`ϵ`$ by the parametric stress-energy tensor of matter $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\alpha \beta }(\tau ,𝒙)`$ which is locally conserved. The mapping rule for connecting of identical events, having the same spatial coordinates on different slices of the parametric space-time manifold, is $`c_g\tau =ct`$.

## 3 The Post-Newtonian Metric Tensor

Let us work in the reference frame of the solar system with the origin located at its barycenter. Let $`T^{\alpha \beta }`$ be the stress-energy tensor of massive point-like particles

$`T^{\mu \nu }(\tau ,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}M_a\mathrm{}_a^1(\tau )u_a^\mu (\tau )u_a^\nu (\tau )\delta ^{(3)}\left(𝒙𝐱_a(\tau )\right),`$ (6)
where the index $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ enumerates gravitating bodies of the solar system, $`M_a`$ is the (constant) rest mass of the $`a`$th body, $`𝒙_a(\tau )`$ are time-dependent spatial coordinates of the $`a`$th body, $`𝒗_a(\tau )=d𝒙_a(\tau )/d\tau `$ is the orbital velocity of the $`a`$th body, $`u_a^\alpha =\mathrm{}_a(c,𝒗_a)`$ is the four-velocity of the $`a`$th body, $`\mathrm{}_a=\left(1v_a^2/c^2\right)^{1/2}`$, and $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝒙)`$ is a 3-dimentional Dirac’s delta-function.

Solution of Eq. (5) can be found in terms of the retarded Liénard-Wiechert tensor potentials ,

$`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(\tau ,𝒙){\displaystyle \frac{4G}{c^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_au_a^\alpha (s)u_a^\beta (s)}{r_a(s)c_g^1𝒗_a(s)𝒓_a(s)}},`$ (7)
which depend on the retarded time $`s=s(\tau ,𝒙)`$ determined for each body as a solution of the gravity null-cone equation

$$s=\tau \frac{r_a(s)}{c_g},$$
(8)
connecting position of $`a`$th body to the field point $`(\tau ,𝒙)`$, and $`𝒓_a(s)=𝒙𝒙_a(s)`$, $`r_a(s)=|𝒓_a(s)|`$. Notice that the retarded time $`s`$ is different for each body as it depends on the body’s position $`𝒙_a`$.

The post-Newtonian form of the metric tensor, used in the subsequent calculation of a light-ray propagation, is obtained after making use of the Taylor expansion of all functions in the left side of Eq. (7) about the present instant of time $`\tau `$. It yields

$`\gamma ^{00}(\tau ,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{GM_a}{c^2R_a}}+O\left(c^4\right),`$ (9)
$`\gamma ^{0i}(\tau ,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{GM_a}{c^3R_a}}v_a^i(\tau )+O\left(c^5\right),`$ (10)
$`\gamma ^{ij}(\tau ,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵ^2{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{GM_a}{c^4R_a}}v_a^i(\tau )v_a^j(\tau )+O\left(c^5\right),`$ (11)
where $`R_a=|𝑹_a|`$, $`𝑹_a=R_a^i=x^ix_a^i(\tau )`$. Let us note that in the Newtonian limit $`c_g\mathrm{}`$ ($`ϵ0`$) so that the post-Newtonian metric tensor (9)–(11) is reduced to the simple case with $`\gamma ^{00}`$ as the only significant gravitational field perturbation. This confirms the standard point of view that gravity propagates instanteneously in the Newtonian theory and is described by a single ‘scalar’ function. It is worth noticing that $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$ directly relates to the metric perturbations $`h_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }=\gamma _{\mu \nu }(\tau ,𝒙)(1/2)\eta _{\mu \nu }\gamma _\alpha ^\alpha (\tau ,𝒙)`$. In the limit $`ϵ=0`$ one has $`h_{00}=1/2\gamma _{00}`$ and $`h_{ij}=1/2\delta _{ij}\gamma _{00}`$. Thus, integration of the light ray propagation equation in this limit will yield exactly the Shapiro time delay for the gravitational field propagating instanteneously with infinite speed.

Calculation of the post-Newtonian limit (9)–(11) indicates that our parameterized model of the gravitational equations (5) can be interpreted as having the following values of the PPN parameters: $`\beta =\gamma =1`$, $`\alpha _1=8\delta `$, $`\alpha _2=\delta (\delta +2)`$, and all other PPN parameters are zero. We emphasize however that this interpretation makes sense only if one considers the time variable $`\tau `$ as physical. However, in our formalism time $`t`$ is physical and coincides with $`\tau `$ for $`ϵ=1`$. It should be also understood that the velocity $`𝒗_a(\tau )=d𝒙_a(\tau )/d\tau `$ of the gravitating bodies is numerically equal to the physical velocity $`𝒗_a(t)=d𝒙_a(t)/dt`$ in the approximation of uniform and rectilinear motion which we shall use later for analysis of the time delay 222Indeed, if one considers $`𝒙_a(\tau )=a+b\tau `$ with constant $`a`$ and $`b`$, then $`𝒙_a(t)=a+bt`$ and for any $`ϵ1`$ one has $`𝒗_a(\tau )=𝒗_a(t)=b`$. In other words, it is meaningless to define velocity as $`d𝒙_a/dt`$ or $`d𝒙_a/d\tau `$ without explicit indication of the argument of the function $`𝒙_a`$.. This remark is important to avoid misinterpretation of the velocity $`𝒗_a(\tau )`$ in Eq. (23).

The parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism  predicts that certain preferred frame (Lorentz-invariance violating) effects, which are proportional to the ratio $`c/c_g`$, would arise in case if $`c_gc`$. These effects are characterized by the product of either of two parameters $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$ with the speed $`𝒘`$ of the solar system with respect to the preferred frame. Under assumption that the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) defines the preferred frame, a limit has been established on $`\alpha _110^4`$ . But, we do not know if the CMBR does, in fact, define the preferred coordinate system. For example, future observations of relic gravitational wave background (GWB) could lead to the frame moving somehow differently with respect to the CMBR frame, since it is assumed that the GWB was formed in the very early universe, long before the CMBR decoupled from matter. Furthermore, modern multiconnected cosmologies challenge the cosmological Copernican Principle and indicates various possibilities for the preferred frame be not coinciding with the CMBR frame . We conclude that the existing limit on $`\alpha _1`$ is uncertain until we can confidently determine the preferred reference frame and the speed $`𝒘`$ of the solar system with respect to it from laboratory experiments measuring violation of the local Lorentz-invariance.

## 4 The Post-Newtonian Time Delay

In general relativity light propagates along null geodesics of the metric tensor $`g_{\alpha \beta }(\tau ,𝒙)`$. In our parameterized approach to general relativity we want to keep the speed of light equal to $`c`$ for any value of the parameter $`ϵ`$. This assumes that the equations of light propagation must be ordinary null geodesics expressed in terms of the Christoffel symbols approximated as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\alpha \beta }\left(_\nu h_{\beta \mu }+_\mu h_{\beta \nu }_\beta h_{\mu \nu }\right),$$
(12)
where $`h_{\mu \nu }=\gamma _{\mu \nu }(\tau ,𝒙)(1/2)\eta _{\mu \nu }\gamma _\alpha ^\alpha (\tau ,𝒙)`$, and the partial derivative $`_\alpha =(c^1/t,/x^i)`$ does not depend on $`ϵ`$. The speed of gravity $`c_g`$ appears in equations of light geodesics and, consequently in the gravitational time delay, explicitly through the numerical factors in the components of the metric tensor perturbations, and implicitly, through the dependence of coordinates $`𝒙_a(\tau )`$ of gravitating bodies on time $`\tau =ϵt=(c/c_g)t`$.

Because the speed of light is held constant we must use the coordinate time $`t`$ to parameterize light-ray trajectory while the time $`\tau `$ is used for parameterization of the world-lines of gravitating bodies deflecting the light ray. The undisturbed propagation of light in the absence of gravity is a straight line

$$x_N^i(t)=x_0^i+ck^i(tt_0),$$
(13)
where $`t_0`$ is time of emission, $`x_0^i`$ is position of the source of light at time $`t_0`$, $`k^i`$ is the unit vector in the direction of propagation of light from the source of the light to observer.

The post-Newtonian equation of light geodesic parameterized by coordinate time $`t`$ reads

$$\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2}=c^2k^\mu k^\nu \left(k^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^i\right),$$
(14)
where $`k^\mu =(1,k^i)`$ is the four-vector of the unperturbed light-ray path, the Christoffel symbols are given by Eq. (12) and should be taken on the unperturbed light-ray trajectory (13).

Double integration of Eq. (14) yields time of propagation of light from the point $`x_0^i`$ to $`x_1^ix^i(t_1)`$

$$t_1t_0=\frac{1}{c}|𝒙_1𝒙_0|+\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0),$$
(15)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0)=\frac{c}{2}k^\mu k^\nu k^\alpha _{t_0}^{t_1}𝑑t_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑\zeta \left[_\alpha h_{\mu \nu }(ϵ\zeta ,𝒙)\right]_{𝒙=𝒙_N(\zeta )}.$$
(16)
We emphasize that in order to integrate the right side of Eq. (16) one, first, has to take the derivative and, then, to substitute the unperturbed light ray trajectory for $`𝒙`$.

One can prove that

$$ck^\alpha \left[_\alpha h_{\mu \nu }(ϵt,𝒙)\right]_{𝒙=𝒙_N(t)}=\frac{d}{dt}\left[h_{\mu \nu }(ϵt,𝒙_N(t))\right],$$
(17)
where $`d/dt`$ denotes the total time derivative along the unperturbed light ray. By making use of Eq. (17) one can perform one integration in Eq. (16) and recasts it to a simpler form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0)=\frac{1}{2}k^\mu k^\nu _{t_0}^{t_1}h_{\mu \nu }(ϵt,𝒙_N(t))𝑑t.$$
(18)
This equation must be solved for $`ϵ1`$. It will show at what terms the speed of gravity appears explicitly. Then, we take a general relativistic limit $`ϵ1`$. This is a way to distinguish the effects associated with the speed of gravity (dynamics of gravitational field) from those related to the process of light propagation.

Relativistic time delay is found by performing integration in Eq. (18) with positions of the gravitating bodies in the metric tensor (9)–(11) treated as functions of time $`𝒙_a(\tau )=𝒙_a(ϵt)`$. The integral (18), however, is too complicated if the true orbital motion of gravitating bodies is used and its exact analytic calculation can not be done explicitly. For this reason, we approximate the integral by making use of a linear Taylor expansion

$`x_a^i(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`x_a^i(\tau _a)+v_a^i(\tau _a)(\tau \tau _a)+O\left(\tau \tau _a\right)^2,`$ (19)
$`v_a^i(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`v_a^i(\tau _a)+O\left(\tau \tau _a\right),`$ (20)
where $`\tau =ϵt`$ and $`\tau _a`$ is an arbitrary instant of time that can not be unambigiously determined in the post-Newtonian calculations. In order to fix $`\tau _a`$ one needs to resort to the post-Minkowskian result of integration of the light-ray propagation equation obtained in . This is a very subtle point closely related to the interpretation of the relativistic VLBI experiment. It is intuitievly clear that $`\tau _a`$ should be close to the time of observation but its exact value can be found only in the framework of the exact post-Minkowskian theory of integration of equations of light, propagating in variable gravitational fields . We shall show how to fix the value of $`\tau _a`$ in the next section.

We also emphasize that $`𝒙_a(\tau _a)`$ and $`𝒗_a(\tau _a)`$ are coordinate and velocity of the $`a`$th gravitating body taken at the time $`\tau _a`$ on its real trajectory. Hence, if time $`\tau `$ in the expansions (19), (20) is significantly different from $`\tau _a`$, the position $`𝒙_a(\tau )`$ of the body approximated on the basis of these expansions can be very far away from its real position at the time $`\tau `$. This indicates to the limitation of the post-Newtonian integration technique which can be cured only within the post-Minkowskian approach , .

Substituting Eqs. (13), (19) and (20) for $`𝒙`$, $`𝒙_a(\tau )`$ and $`𝒗_a(\tau )`$ in the metric perturbations (9)–(11) and integrating, we obtain the relativistic time delay

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0)=2\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{GM_a}{c^3p_a}\left(1\frac{2}{c_g}𝒌\mathbf{}𝒗_a\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(p_aR_{1a}𝒑_a\mathbf{}𝑹_{1a}\right)+C_1(𝒌,𝒙_0),$$
(21)
where $`p_a=|𝒑_a|`$, $`𝒑_a𝒌𝒗_a/c_g`$ 333The speed of gravity $`c_g`$ appears in the expression for the vector $`𝒑_a`$ because one has $`𝒙(t)𝒙_a(\tau )c𝒌tϵ𝒗_at=c𝒑_at`$. From the physical point of view it means that motion of light and the bodies in the gravitating system goes on different time scales if $`c_gc`$., $`𝑹_{1a}𝒙_1𝒙_a(\tau _1)`$, $`R_{1a}=|𝑹_{1a}|`$, $`\tau _1=ϵt_1`$, $`𝒙_1𝒙(t_1)`$, $`𝒙_a(\tau _1)`$ and $`𝒗_a`$ must be understood as given by Eqs. (19), (20).

The constant term $`C_1(𝒌,𝒙_0)`$ is the value of the integral in Eq. (18) taken at time $`t_0`$ when light was emitted by the quasar. It has no real physical meaning in the post-Newtonian approach and could violate consistency of the calculation for close celestial objects being members of our galaxy. However, the quasar in the relativistic VLBI experiment on September 8, 2002 is lying extremaly far away, so that the constant $`C_1`$ is unimportant in the following discussion because it can be ruled out in calculation of the differential VLBI time delay that is a real observable quantity. Physically meaningful value of the constant of integration $`C_1`$ can be also obtained only by making use of the post-Minkowskian approach , , .

## 5 The Retardation of Gravity

By making use of the post-Minkowskian theory of light propagation we have predicted  that the VLBI experiment on September 8, 2002 is able to measure the speed of gravity by observing the effect of the retardation of gravity propagating from the sun-orbiting Jupiter to light ray. In this section we confirm this interpretation on the basis of the post-Newtonian approach. To this end, let us recast Eq. (21) to another form by making use of the Taylor expansion of vector $`𝒑_a`$ with respect to the small parameter $`v_a/c_g`$. This yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0)=2\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{GM_a}{c^3}\left(1\frac{1}{c_g}𝒌\mathbf{}𝒗_a\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[p_a\left(R_{1a}𝒏_a\mathbf{}𝑹_{1a}\right)\right]+C(𝒌,𝒙_0),$$
(22)
where $`C(𝒌,𝒙_0)`$ is (another) constant of integration and the unit vector 444We again emphasize that the velocity $`𝒗_a𝒗_a(\tau _a)`$ is the physical velocity of the $`a`$th body.

$$𝒏_a=𝒌\frac{1}{c_g}𝒌\times (𝒗_a\times 𝒌)$$
(23)
explicitly describes a change in the direction of propagation of light that can be interpreted as dragging of the light-ray caused by the flux of the gravitational field generated by the translational motion of $`a`$th body. This phenomena can be equivalently interpreted as the effect of aberration of gravity, i.e. displacement of the observed body from its present to retarded position, which is unobservable in the equations of motion of slowly-moving particles  but can be detected in the light-ray deflection relativistic experiments in time-dependent gravitational fields.

This can be demonstarted if one chooses the time $`\tau _a`$ in Eqs. (19) and (20) to be coinciding with the retarded time $`s_1`$ corresponding to the instant of observation $`t_1`$ and reflecting the fact that gravity takes finite time to propagate from the moving gravitating body to observer. This time is calculated from Eq. (8) as follows

$$s_1=\tau _1\frac{r_{1a}(s_1)}{c_g},$$
(24)
where $`\tau _1=ϵt_1`$, $`𝒓_{1a}(s_1)=𝒙_1𝒙_a(s_1)`$, and $`r_{1a}(s_1)=|𝒓_{1a}(s_1)|`$. The geometric distance $`𝑹_{1a}`$ between the observer and the $`a`$th body reads

$`𝑹_{1a}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒓_{1a}(s_1){\displaystyle \frac{r_{1a}(s_1)}{c_g}}𝒗_a(s_1)+O(c_g^2),`$ (25)
$`R_{1a}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{1a}(s_1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_g}}𝒗_a(s_1)\mathbf{}𝒓_{1a}(s_1)+O(c_g^2).`$ (26)
Substituting Eqs. (25) and (26) to Eq. (22) and reducing similar terms one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0)=2\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{GM_a}{c^3}\left(1\frac{1}{c_g}𝒌\mathbf{}𝒗_a\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[r_{1a}(s_1)𝒌\mathbf{}𝒓_{1a}(s_1)\right]+C(𝒌,𝒙_0).$$
(27)
This formula gives the post-Newtonian time delay in terms of the retarded position of the solar system bodies and coincides in the limit $`c_gc`$ with the analogous formula derived by  on the basis of the post-Minkowskian approach 555Let us emphasize that if one did not choose $`\tau _1=s_1`$ such a coincidence could not be achieved.. It is evident from Eq. (24) that the retardation in Eq. (27) is due to the finite speed of propagation of gravity $`c_g`$ because Eq. (24) is just the equation of the gravity null cone describing propagation of gravity between the moving gravitating body and the point of observation. Relativistic VLBI experiment on September 8, 2002 measured the retarded position of Jupiter in the sky through the gravitational deflection of light of the quasar which was in the plane of the sky at the distance of $`14`$ jovian radii from Jupiter (see Fig. 2).

## 6 Discussion

We have constructed a speed-of-gravity parameterization of the linearized equations of general relativity and calculated a speed-of-gravity correction to the Shapiro time delay given by Eq. (27). Its post-Newtonian expansion is identical with Eq. (12) from our previous work  where we used the post-Minkowskian approach and introduced the fitting parameter $`\delta `$ on a phenomenological basis. The present paper proves that on the sequence of the parametric space-times manifolds, $`\delta =c/c_g1`$ and distinguishes two fundamental speeds in the Einstein and Maxwell equations. Hence, the relativistic VLBI experiment conducted on September 8, 2002 allows to determine the speed of gravity and to measure its numerical value.

Einstein theory of general relativity predicts that perturbation of the gravitational field produced by orbital motion of Jupiter propagates with the speed of gravity $`c_g=c`$ towards the position of the light-ray particle traveling from quasar to Earth. This prediction can be tested by VLBI technique without direct detection of gravitational waves. The VLBI experiment gives the magnitude of the retardation-of-gravity effect in terms of its speed $`c_g/c=1.06\pm 0.21`$ . We conclude that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light within our experimental error.

### 6.1 Acknowledgments

We are grateful to B. Mashhoon, G. Schäfer, B. Iyer, I.I. Shapiro, A. Aliev and M. Lattanzi for fruitful and stimulating discussions as well as for criticism of this work. My special thanks go to Dr. Henry W. White for his support of this research as a chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy of the University of Missouri-Columbia. A part of this work was supported by the Feza Gürsey Institute (Istanbul, Turkey) and Torino Astronomical Observatory (Italy) travel grants. The Epply Foundation for Research Award 002672 was essential in pursuing this advanced research.

## Appendix A Comments on the paper by Asada

Asada  calculated the relativistic time delay which formally coincides with our formula (27). Asada’s calculations are not complete as he postulated in his calculations that position of Jupiter must be fixed at the retarded instant of time $`s_1=t_1(1/c)|𝒙_1𝒙_J(s_1)|`$. Such postulate is a plausible assumption but not a mathematical proof. For this reason Asada’s interpretation of the relativistic VLBI experiment on September 8, 2002 is ungrounded.

In our previous paper  we have solved the system of the Einstein and light geodesic equations without making any restrictive assumptions about the motion of Jupiter and proved that the position of Jupiter must be taken at the retarded instant of time $`s_1`$ which is an argument of the metric tensor and, hence, describes the effect of propagation of gravity with the gravity speed $`c_g=c`$.

## Appendix B Comments on the paper by Will

Will  calculated the relativistic time delay by making use of the matched asymptotic technique of the solutions of the light geodesic equation solved in the near- and far-zone fields of the gravitational potentials $`U`$ and $`V_i`$ obtained from the field equations

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+\mathbf{}^2\right)U(t,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{c^2}}\rho (t,𝒙),`$ (28)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+\mathbf{}^2\right)V_i(t,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{c^3}}\rho (t,𝒙)v^i(t,𝒙),`$ (29)
where $`\rho (t,𝒙)`$ is the density of matter and the time $`t`$ is the same as in the light geodesic equations.

Eqs. (28), (29) are not Einstein equations and are written in a particular gauge which was not clearly described. Furthermore, we notice that the field equations (28), (29) are, in fact, disconnected from the light geodesic equations. Indeed, assuming that $`c_gc`$ and using a single time scale $`t`$ imply that vacuum must be considered as having a ”refractive” index $`nc/c_g1`$ and the equations of light propagation should have extra terms proportional to $`n1`$  that were not discussed in . The whole problem of the unambiguous interpretation of the VLBI experiment under discussion is, in fact, a matter of construction of a self-consistent bi-metric theory of gravity and electromagnetism. The PPN formalism  can not play a role of such a theory as it consists of a set of plausible but, in any other aspect, disconnected assumptions about how gravity and electromagnetic fields behave if general theory of relativity is violated.

There are two other concerns about validity of the calculations given by Will . The first concern relates to the meaning of the retarded time $`s_a=\sigma r_a(\sigma ,s_a)/c_g`$ in the arguments of the bodies $`𝒙_a(s_a)`$. Will insists (see appendix of ) that coefficients of the Taylor expansion $`𝒙_a(s_a)=𝒙_a(0)+𝒗_a(0)s_a+\mathrm{}`$ must be understood as taken at the time $`\sigma =0`$. This contradicts to the definition of the Taylor expansion given in any mathematical textbook. By definition of the Taylor expansion the coefficients $`𝒙_a(0)`$ and $`𝒗_a(0)`$ in the formula given above are taken at the retarded time $`s_a=0`$ 666Misinterpretation of the retarded time arguments led Will to the erroneous use of the Taylor expansion in his Eq. (34) that, as a matter of fact, must be used along with the gravity null cone equation (18).. This instant of time can coincide with that $`\sigma =0`$, if and only if, the retarded time equation $`s_a=r_a(0,s_a)/c_g`$ has a solution $`s_a=0`$. From the astronomical point of view it means that the light ray must pass through the light-ray deflecting body. This is indeed coincides with what is shown in the figure of Will’s paper. However, in the relativistic VLBI experiment on September 8, 2002 light was passing pretty far away from Jupiter at the distance of about $`14`$ jovian radii (see Fig. 2). Hence, for $`\sigma =0`$ the time $`s_a0`$ in the VLBI experiment.

The second concern relates to the definition of the point of the closest approach of the light ray to the moving body. After removing the misinterpretation of the Taylor expansion in  one has to understand that Will has postulated that the point of the closest approach is reached by light at the instant of the retarded time $`s_a=0`$. Will also postulated that at the point of the closest approach the light-ray-propagation unit vector $`𝒌`$ and that of the impact parameter $`𝒅_a(s_a)=𝝃𝒙_a(s_a)`$ must be orthogonal in the Euclidean sense. We emphasize that the point of the closest approach of light ray to the body must be found after solution of the corresponding equation giving the distance between the body and the light particle as a function of time, let say, $`D(\sigma ,s_a)=|c𝒌\sigma +𝒅_a(s_a)|`$. Finding the minimum of this function from the condition $`dD(\sigma ,s_a)/d\sigma =0`$, shows that at the point of the closest approach the two vectors $`𝒌`$ and $`𝒅_a(s_a)`$ are not orthogonal and their Euclidean dot product is proportional to the relativistic terms of order $`d_av_a/c_g`$ which are important in the subsequent calculations of the time delay. All such terms are absent in  that along with the previous our comments casts strong doubts on the validity of Will’s calculations and his interpretation of the relativistic VLBI experiment conducted by Fomalont and Kopeikin .


format: text

text:
# Oscillating Solitons Pinned to a Nonmagnetic Impurity in Layered Antiferromagnets

thanks: Corresponding author : Afranio Rodrigues Pereira.
Tel.: 55-31-3899-2988; fax: 55-31-3899-2483.

## Abstract

We argue that an oscillatory motion of impurity-pinned solitons may occur in layered antiferromagnetic compounds. The characteristic frequencies of these modes, that may be detected by resonance or inelastic neutron scattering, are estimated analytically and depend on the soliton sizes and types.

Magnetically ordered materials, Solitons, High-Tc superconductors, impurities, antiferromagnets.

In recent years there has been much interest in the static and dynamic properties of layered compounds. These materials are well-known to exhibit quasi-two-dimensional (2D) magnetism at low temperatures and, in addition to the possibilities in technological applications, they have been useful in testing theories pertinent to low dimensional systems. The 2D behavior of these structures arises because the ratio of the interlayer coupling $`J_z`$ to intralayer coupling $`J`$ is of the order $`J_z/J10^310^5`$. The 2D effects can be experimentally observed in a narrow temperature interval just above the ordering temperature. The theory of these systems is contained in the Heisenberg Hamiltonians (isotropic and anisotropic). The isotropic Heisenberg magnets in two dimensions are described by the Hamiltonian $`H=\pm J_{i,j}\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j`$, where $`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$ is the spin located at site $`i`$, the summation is taken over the nearest-neighbor sites on a square lattice, and the - and + signals represent ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic coupling constants respectively. The continuum version of this Hamiltonian is given by the 2D $`O(3)`$ non-linear $`\sigma `$ model, which has long been of interest also to particle theorists because of its strong analogy with four-dimensional Yang-Mills theory. For Heisenberg antiferromagnet (AFM), the non-linear $`\sigma `$ model is described in terms of the Néel state and gives the antiferromagnetic long-wavelength fluctuations in the limit of zero temperature. It is represented by the following Hamiltonian :

$$H_\sigma =\frac{1}{2}J[(_\mu \stackrel{}{n})(^\mu \stackrel{}{n})]d^2x,\mu =1,2,$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ denotes the Néel unit vector $`(n_1^2+n_2^2+n_3^2=1)`$ characterizing the direction of the sublattice magnetization of the antiferromagnet. It is also well-known that this model supports interesting soliton-like solutions, obtained by Belavin and Polyakov1  using topological considerations. In terms of the conformal representation $`w=(n_1+in_2)/(1n_3)`$, which is simply the stereographic projection of the Néel vector onto the complex plane, the Belavin-Polyakov soliton (BV-soliton) located at the origin and with unitary topological charge is expressed as $`w_s=z/R`$, where $`z=x+iy`$ and $`R`$ is the soliton size. It implies that the third Néel vector component $`n_3`$ is given by

$$n_3=\frac{|z|^2R^2}{|z|^2+R^2}.$$
(2)
Furthermore, it is useful to change variables from $`(x,y)`$ to $`(n_3,\varphi =\mathrm{tan}^1(y/x))`$, in terms of which we can express the ratio $`n_2/n_1=\mathrm{tan}\varphi `$. Qualitatively, the configuration is radial, pointing down at the origin and up at infinity. The energy of these excitations is found to be independent of the soliton size due to the scale invariance of the non-linear $`\sigma `$ model and it is given by $`E_s=4\pi J`$. The significance of these non-linear excitations for 2D magnets was recognized early in connection with the critical properties of these systems. For example, it was shown that the existence of large localized excitations will cause the correlation length to remain finite at any nonzero temperature1 . Considering the dynamical properties, the translation motion of this structure may be responsible for a central peak in the out-of-plane dynamic correlation function2 ; 3 . Recently, Zaspel et al4 ; 5  have shown that the Belavin-Polyakov solitons dominate the thermodynamics in the fluctuation region immediately above the Néel temperature of a large class of nearly classical 2D antiferromagnets. Besides, these authors6 ; 7  have also shown that the introduction of a very small amount of nonmagnetic impurities into the magnetic sites of a classical 2D antiferromagnet creates a new type of static (impurity-pinned) soliton that affects the Arrhenius, $`e^{E_s/T}`$, temperature-dependent EPR linewidth by drastically changing the parameter $`E_s`$. Using an approach on a discrete lattice, they considered the spin vacancy located at the soliton center and obtained two different impurity-solitons ( the P-soliton and the I-soliton), which were detected in the layered antiferromagnet $`(C_3H_7NH_3)_2M_xMn_{lx}Cl_4`$ through EPR measurements6 ; 7 . The P-soliton has the same structure of the BV-soliton but without a spin at its center, which results in a vortex singularity at the center. The I-soliton has smaller size and energy than the P-soliton, so it also has a configuration slightly different from the P-soliton. In this letter we argue that these solitons oscillate on the static spin vacancy and estimate the frequencies of these oscillatory modes of solitons analytically. It is suggested that this effect may be observed in electron spin resonance or inelastic neutron scattering experiments.

In a recent paper, Pereira and Pires8  considered the problem of a soliton interacting with a nonmagnetic impurity in the continuum limit by modifying Hamiltonian (1) introducing a nonmagnetic impurity potential as follows:

$$H_I=\frac{1}{2}J[(_\mu \stackrel{}{n})(^\mu \stackrel{}{n})]V(\stackrel{}{r})d^2x,\mu =1,2,$$
(3)
where $`V(\stackrel{}{r})=1`$ if $`|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{d}|a`$, and $`V(\stackrel{}{r})=0`$ if $`|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{d}|<a`$. Here, the impurity is localized at position $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ from the origin, and $`a`$ is the lattice constant. This lack of magnetic interaction inside the circle of radius $`a`$, means that a spin located at $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ was removed from the lattice. From now we will consider the nonmagnetic impurity localized at the origin, $`\stackrel{}{d}=(0,0)`$. If the soliton center coincides with the impurity center, this field theory reproduces the two soliton solutions of Refs. 6 ; 7  and still gives the sizes, energies and configurations of these solitons in an analytical way. For the P-soliton, almost entire space is mapped onto the plane, but part of the spin space sphere around the origin is not included in the mapping. It means that the stereographic projection of the Néel vector onto the complex plane is perfect for $`r=|z|a`$, so we can write the P-soliton configuration as

$$\frac{n_{2P}}{n_{1P}}=\mathrm{tan}\varphi ;n_{3P}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \text{for}r<a,\\ \hfill n_3& \text{for}ra.\end{array}$$
(4)
For the I-soliton, the mapping is smoothly deformed, leading to the following configuration

$$\frac{n_{2I}}{n_{1I}}=\mathrm{tan}\varphi ;n_{3I}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \text{for}r<a,\\ \hfill n_3+b(R)(1n_3^2)& \text{for}ra,\end{array}$$
(5)
where the function $`b(R)`$ was obtained minimizing the energy of excitation (5) for each value of the soliton size and it is given in the interval $`0<b(R)1/2`$8 . The subscript P and I refer to the topological and impurity-centered solitons (P\- and I-solitons) respectively. The energy of these two solitons depends on $`R`$ with the I-soliton energy smaller than the P-soliton energy, but as $`R\mathrm{}`$, $`E_IE_P4\pi J`$. This continuum theory permits also to compare the solitons size $`(R_I=[(1+4b^2)^{1/2}2b]R,R_P=R)`$ showing that the I-soliton is smaller than the P-soliton8 .

The field theory given by (3) still shows that, if the soliton center is displaced in relation to the nonmagnetic impurity center, an effective interaction between the soliton and impurity that is attractive at short range is induced. If the soliton center and the spin vacancy center are separated by a distance $`r_0`$, the system energy can be approximated by8

$$E_{r_0>a}E_s\left[1\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{Ra}{r_0^2+R^2}\right)^2+F_{}(r_0,R)F_+(r_0,R)\right],$$
(6)
where

$$F_\pm (r_0,R)=\frac{R^2a(r_0\pm a)^2}{[(r_0\pm a)^2+r_0^2]^{1/2}[(r_0\pm a)^4R^4]}.$$
(7)
Equation (6) shows that, for $`r_0<R`$, the soliton energy decreases as the soliton center approximates to the impurity. It indicates that there is a short-range attractive well with length scale on the order of $`R`$. On the other hand, if the soliton center is localized at distance $`r_0>R`$ from the spin vacancy, the effective potential between the soliton and the nonmagnetic impurity is repulsive. However, although expression (6) correctly suggests that it is energetically favorable for the soliton to nucleate about the spin vacancy, this equation is valid only for separations larger than one lattice spacing $`(r_0>a)`$8 . In fact, in the limit that the separation vanishes $`(r_00)`$, the soliton configuration changes to either the P-soliton or I-soliton configuration, which are radially symmetric and represent local minima of energy8 . Then, if there is a spin vacancy exactly at the soliton center, Eq.(6) should give the values $`E_I(R)`$ or $`E_P(R)`$, depending on which soliton was formed (the I\- or P-soliton). Hence, in the limit $`r_00`$, we use an expansion of the energy around the bottom of the well as follows

$$E_{r_00}(r_0,R)E_\alpha (R)+\frac{1}{2}r_0^2\left(\frac{d^2E}{dr_0^2}\right)_{r_0=0}+\frac{1}{3}r_0^3\left(\frac{d^3E}{dr_0^3}\right)_{r_0=0}+\mathrm{},$$
(8)
where $`\alpha =`$P or I represents one of the two possible solitons. For small displacements, we can neglect the high-order terms in the expansion. The complete function $`E(r_0,R)`$ is likely to be a smooth interpolation between the limit (8) and Eq. (6), with the transition between these expressions occurring at $`r_0a`$. Keeping only the harmonic term in (8), we get

$$\left(\frac{d^2E}{dr_0^2}\right)_{r_0=0}=K=2\frac{E_sE_\alpha (R)}{a^2}+2E_s\left[\frac{R^2}{\sqrt{5}[R^4(2a)^4]}\frac{R^2}{4(R^2+a^2)^2}\right],$$
(9)
where $`R>2a`$. Equation (8) is interpreted as follows: the first term is just the rest mass of the P\- or I-soliton and the remaining terms may be attributed to the interaction potential energy $`U(r_0)`$ of the impurity-soliton system, as a function of their separation $`r_0`$. This attractive interaction at short-range suggests that, in general, soliton solutions near nonmagnetic impurities may not be static. Spinless atoms may exert some force on the magnetic solitons, in addition to distorting them, and cause them to accelerate. If the force obtained from a potential agrees with the mass times acceleration of the soliton, then, due to the form of the effective potential in Eq.(8), which is an attractive well, we expect that the soliton center may have an oscillatory motion on the impurity. This Newtonian behavior may really happen to magnetic nonlinear excitations. For example, in 2D easy-plane magnetic systems, Wysin9 ; 10  has shown that vortex excitations have motions that are the same as those predicted from a simple Newtonian dynamical equation of motion for the vortex center, involving a force $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ and effective mass $`M`$, i.e.,

$$\stackrel{}{F}=M\frac{d\stackrel{}{\nu }}{dt},$$
(10)
where $`\stackrel{}{\nu }`$ is the velocity of the vortex center. In this case, the mass depends on the system size since a vortex is not a localized object. But, if the anisotropy is weak, the mass of the out-of-plane AFM vortices may actually reach a finite limit for large system size. Besides, it was shown that for a simple harmonic motion, the mass was found as

$$M=\frac{K}{\omega _0^2}$$
(11)
where $`\omega _0`$ is the translation mode frequency and $`K`$ is the spring constant9 ; 10 . Here, we assume that the results of Ref.9  extrapolate, with appropriate modifications, to the isotropic case, i.e., to the Lorentz-invariant O(3) nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model, which represents the isotropic AFM. Thus, since the soliton is a localized structure, the rest mass would be expressed as $`M_\alpha =E_\alpha (R)/c^2`$11 , where $`c=2JSa/\mathrm{}`$ is the velocity of the long-wavelength spin waves ($`\alpha =`$P or I).

As it can be seen from Eq. (8), a small displacement $`r_0`$ of the P\- or I-soliton center away from the exact impurity center (which is, in our model, the center of the circle of radius $`a`$) involves an energy increase. It is clear that these off-centered solutions are true bound states, because their energy is smaller than the free soliton mass. Any perturbation of the soliton will make it drift to the center of the well. The off-centered solutions are unstable. In fact, for displacements much less than the lattice spacing, the short-range potential well is close to harmonic, and can be described by an effective linear force acting on the soliton. The effective force constant $`K=(d^2E/dr_0^2)_{r_0=0}`$ can be approximated by Eq. (9). Then, the frequencies of the oscillations of the solitons in a trapped state may be estimated analytically. Since this elastic constant is a function of $`E_\alpha (R)`$, then, to determine the frequencies of the solitons oscillation modes, an analytical expression for the rest energy of the pinned-solitons would be useful. In Ref.6 , it was shown that the energies of the two solitons can be written through the same expression $`E_\alpha (R)=E_sR^2/(R^2+a_\alpha ^2)`$, but with different $`a_\alpha `$’s ($`a_p=0.23a`$ for the P and $`a_I=1.01a`$ for the I soliton). Using these results, the solitons oscillation mode frequencies on a nonmagnetic impurity can be estimated as

$$\omega _\alpha =\sqrt{2}\frac{c}{a}\left[\frac{a_\alpha ^2}{R^2}+(R^2+a_\alpha ^2)\left(\frac{a^2}{\sqrt{5}[R^4(2a)^4]}\frac{a^2}{4(R^2+a^2)^2}\right)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(12)
Figure 1 shows the frequencies for the two solitons as a function of their sizes. Of course, large solitons oscillate slower than small solitons. As a consequence, in general, P-solitons oscillate slower than I-solitons.

The analysis of the spectrum of small-disturbance (the mesons of the theory or magnons) on a non-linear excitation always exhibits zero-frequency modes $`\omega =0`$, whenever the theory possesses a continuum symmetry. Although the soliton’s energies (6) (or (8)) are invariant under spatial rotations around the z-axis (which for the hedgehog is equivalent to an iso-rotation around the internal 3-axis), they are not invariant under a translation in the x-y plane. In the presence of a nonmagnetic impurity, there is no possibility of a soliton to move away from a position by translations and keeping $`E`$ unchanged. The impurity breaks the translational symmetry of the system, and thus, there are not zero-frequency modes associated to translations on the xy-plane (translation zero-modes). The oscillatory modes given by Eq.(12) can be considered to be driven by the force caused by the lattice defect (the spin vacancy), which can be evaluated independently of the spin-wave spectrum. To see this, we consider the change of the out-of-plane component of the Néel vector $`n_3`$ as the soliton center moves for a small displacement $`r_0<<a`$ from the impurity center. Since the soliton oscillates on the nonmagnetic impurity, we write $`r_0=A\mathrm{sin}(\omega _\alpha t)`$, where A is the oscillation amplitude assumed to be small. Then, the time dependent difference $`ϵ_\alpha (\stackrel{}{r},t)=n_{3\alpha }(r_0)n_{3\alpha }(0)`$ gives the change of the out-of-plane component of the Néel vector as the soliton (P or I) oscillates. This difference can be easily evaluated. After linearizing in the small quantity, we obtain $`ϵ_\alpha (\stackrel{}{r},t)Im[A^\mu _\mu n_{3\alpha }\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _\alpha t)]`$. This expression shows that, if $`\omega _\alpha `$ were zero, the function $`n_{3\alpha }(A^\mu )=n_{3\alpha }(0)+A^\mu _\mu n_{3\alpha }`$ would describe a soliton which had been uniformly translated on the plane by a small amount $`A^\mu =(A^1,A^2)`$ (translational mode). However, our solution has a nonzero frequency $`\omega _\alpha `$, which implies in $`n_{3\alpha }(A^\mu )=n_{3\alpha }(0)+A^\mu _\mu n_{3\alpha }\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _\alpha t)`$ leading to an oscillatory motion for the soliton. These results can have a different interpretation. Here, the translational modes can be identified by viewing the motions of the spins that result when a given spin-wave eigenfunction is added to the original soliton structure. Then, the small-disturbance waveform $`ϵ_\alpha (\stackrel{}{r},t)=A^\mu _\mu n_{3\alpha }\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _\alpha t)`$ may also be viewed as out-of-plane spin waves with well defined frequency and angular momentum about the static soliton structure $`n_{3\alpha }`$, which the center is localized exactly at the impurity center. It means that, instead of thinking about an oscillating soliton, we can imagine a stopped soliton surrounded by these magnons. In fact, using polar coordinates $`(r,\varphi )`$ and supposing that $`A^\mu =(0,A)`$, we have

$$ϵ_\alpha (\stackrel{}{r},t)=Im\left(\frac{n_{3\alpha }}{y}e^{i\omega _\alpha t}\right)=Im\left(\frac{4AR^2r}{(r^2+R^2)^2}e^{i(m\varphi \omega _\alpha t)}\right)$$
(13)
where $`m=\pm 1`$ is the angular momentum channel. In this interpretation, the above expression gives the time dependent deformation of the static soliton. In particular, if one could observe the spin motions around the impurity (or in the central core of the soliton), their instantaneous directions could be used to estimate the position of the soliton center. Equation (13) shows that the small-disturbance amplitude goes to zero as $`r\mathrm{}`$ and hence, it describes magnon modes, which are localized at a soliton. The soliton-impurity interaction may induce magnon local modes around the spin vacancy. These magnon local modes on the nonmagnetic impurity have frequencies that depend on the soliton type (P or I ) and size. In a discrete lattice, the possible sizes $`R`$ are given by $`R_l=la`$ ($`l`$ is a positive integer) and then, the possible modes have also a discrete spectrum, whose frequencies are

$$\omega _{\alpha ,l}=\sqrt{2}\frac{c}{a}\left[\frac{\delta _\alpha ^2}{l^2}+(l^2+\delta _\alpha ^2)\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}(l^416)}\frac{1}{4(l^2+1)^2}\right)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(14)
where $`\delta _\alpha `$ is a number ($`\delta _p=0.23`$ for the P-soliton and $`\delta _I=1.01`$ for the I-soliton). Note that $`l3`$, since the vacancy at the soliton center forbids the formation of solitons with size smaller than $`3a`$ in a discrete lattice. For $`l=3`$, $`\omega _{P,3}=0.302c/a`$ and $`\omega _{I,3}=0.561c/a`$, while for $`l=4`$, $`\omega _{P,4}=0.197c/a`$ and $`\omega _{I,4}=0.402c/a`$, which typically have values $`(10^{11}10^{13})s^1`$. It is expected that local modes with well defined frequencies are induced around nonmagnetic impurities via soliton. Resonances at the characteristic frequencies can be in principle observed in electron spin resonance or inelastic neutron scattering experiments. Since these modes can occur only if P\- or I\- solitons are centered on the nonmagnetic impurity, resonance and neutron scattering measurements provide some methods to experimentally detect this effect and consequently, these two pinned solitons.

Equation (12) keeps certain similarities with the results obtained by Wysin9 ; 10  for vortices in easy-plane magnets. The spin configuration of a vortex (or the magnetization inhomogeneity) extends to the limits of the system, causing its inertia against motion inside the system to depend on the system size. Hence, the effective vortex mass increases as the square of the system radius and the translational mode frequencies diminish as the reciprocal system size9 ; 10 . In our case, since the magnetization inhomogeneity depends on the soliton radius, the translational frequencies diminish as the reciprocal soliton size.

The above results are valid only for small displacements satisfying $`r_0<<a`$. For large displacements, in which the soliton has to move for more than one lattice spacing, $`r_0>a`$, nonlinear terms are present in the interaction force and besides, in real magnetic materials, discreteness effects must be considered. These effects can be described through a periodic pinning potential. These calculations are out of the scope of this paper.

Layered magnetic compounds of the form $`(C_nH_{2n+1}NH_3)_2MX_4`$, where $`M`$ is a transition metal ion and $`X`$ is $`Cl`$ or $`Br`$, are nearly-classical spin systems for $`M=Mn^{2+}`$ and $`X=Cl`$ (the $`Mn`$ ion has a spin 5/2). Hence, under nonmagnectic doping ions (such as $`Mg`$ or $`Cd`$), these materials are good candidates to experimentally detect these modes and testing the theory. Finally, we would like to point out that our theory may also have some relevance to quantum spin systems12 ; 13 ; 14 . In fact, the well known technique of spin coherent states effectively replaces spin operators by classical vectors $`\stackrel{}{S}=(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and incorporates the quantum features by means of the path integral over all space-time configurations of $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$. Important 2D systems exhibiting quantum magnetism are the high-Tc cuprate superconductors. In particular, concerning the problem of impurities, recent nuclear magnetic resonance measurements involving the high-Tc cuprate superconductors, have shown that a substitution of the spin-1/2 $`Cu^{2+}`$ in the $`CuO`$ plane by a strong nonmagnetic impurity, such as spin-0 $`Zn^{2+}`$, enhances the antiferromagnetic correlations around the impurity13 . We also suggest that these results have some relevance in the quantum Hall effect, where spin textures called skyrmions play important roles in the two-dimensional electron gas14 ; 15 .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by CNPq (Conselho Nacional para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa) Brazil.


text:
# Magnetic Fingerprints of Fractal Spectra and Duality of Hofstadter Models

## Abstract

We study the de-Haas van Alphen oscillations in the magnetization of the Hofstadter model. Near a split band the magnetization is a rapidly oscillating function of the Fermi energy with lip shaped envelopes. For generic magnetic fields this structure appears on all scales and provides a thermodynamic fingerprint of the fractal properties of the model. The analysis applies equally well to the two dual interpretations of the Hofstadter model and the nature of the duality transformation is elucidated.

Department of Physics, Technion, 32000, Haifa, Israel

The Hofstadter model  describes non-interacting (spinless) electrons moving in the plane under the combined action of magnetic field and a periodic potential. The model is a paradigm for quantum systems with singular continuous spectra ; Chern numbers in the integer quantum Hall effect ; Fractal quantum phase diagrams ; Quantum integrable models  and Non-commutative geometry . It has been realized experimentally in  and measurements of the Hall conductance phase diagram are in good agreement with theoretical predictions of .

Previous studies of the thermodynamics of the Hofstadter model have focused on minima of the ground state energy . Our aim is to examine the possibility that the de Haas-van Alphen oscillations, which are a basic tool in the study of the geometry of Fermi surfaces of metals , also provide a tool for studying its non-commutative analog. We show that when the magnetic flux per unit cell is close to rational multiple of the flux quantum, the magnetization oscillates as a function of the chemical potential in the vicinity of the bands of the rational flux, as in the de Hass-van Alphen effect. As the deviation from rational flux becomes smaller, the frequency of the oscillations increases, so that in the limit of the deviation tending to zero the oscillations fill an area bounded by a limiting envelope. The envelopes have the following universal features: They are smooth functions of the chemical potential except for logarithmic pinching at a single point, associated with a logarithmic divergence of the density of states, and they are pinched linearly at the edges of the bands. These properties give the envelopes suggestive lip-like shapes.

It follows from these results that at magnetic flux ratios which are irrational numbers well approximated by infinitely many rationals numbers, magnetic oscillations bounded by lip-shaped envelopes occur on all energy scales. In this sense, the magnetic oscillations provide a fingerprint of the fractal spectra of the model.

A second issue of the Hofstadter model that we discuss is duality. The Hofstadter model approximates the Schrödinger equation in two dual limits: When the magnetic field is a weak perturbation of a Bloch band and remarkably also in the dual limit when the magnetic field is so strong that the periodic potential is a perturbation of the lowest Landau level. As we shall see, the thermodynamic properties of the dual limits are related by an interesting duality transformation of the thermodynamic potential, Eq. (3) below. We examine the consequences of the duality for the magnetization and the Hall conductance in some detail.

The spectral analysis of the Hofstadter model reduces to studying a family of one dimensional problems parameterized by a conserved quasi-momentum $`\xi `$. For the sake of concreteness and simplicity we shall consider the case where the periodic potential has square symmetry. In this case the corresponding Hamiltonian is:

$$\left(H(\phi ,\xi )\psi \right)(j)=\psi (j1)+\psi (j+1)+2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \phi j+\xi )\psi (j),$$
(1)
It is known that $`H`$ describes the splitting of a Bloch band by a weak transverse magnetic field, and also the splitting of a Landau level by a weak periodic potential. $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^1`$ are the values of flux through a unit cell, measured in units of quantum flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/e`$, in the split Bloch and split Landau cases, respectively. Note that $`\phi `$ is a dimensionless quantity.

Although $`H(\phi ,\xi )`$ depends analytically on $`\phi `$ its spectral properties are sensitive to the flux: When $`\phi `$ is a rational number the spectrum is a finite collection of energy bands, while for (almost all) irrational fluxes it is a Cantor set of zero Lebesgue measure .

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b(T,\mu ,\phi )`$ be the thermodynamic potential per unit cell of a split Bloch band. By gauge invariance, time-reversal and electron-hole symmetry, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ satisfies

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_b(T,\mu ,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b(T,\mu ,\phi )`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b(T,\mu ,\phi +1)=\mu +\mathrm{\Omega }_b(T,\mu ,\phi )`$
It follows that the thermodynamic properties for all $`\phi `$ and $`\mu `$ are determined by those for $`0\phi 1/2,\mu <0`$. $`\mu =0`$ corresponds to the half-filling point of electron-hole symmetry. The phase diagram of the split Bloch band is displayed on the left hand side of Fig. 1. The phases are labelled by the values of the Hall conductance, whose relation to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given in Eq. (4) below. The phase diagram displays the symmetry properties shown in Eq. (2). The phase diagram is periodic in $`\phi `$, see Eq. (2); a single period is given in Fig. 1.

It is straightforward to arrive from the the thermodynamics of the split Bloch band to that of the split Landau level by observing that the energy spectra of the two models are the same. The difference is that the number of states per unit area in a split Bloch band is a constant independent of the magnetic field, whereas the number of states per unit area of a Landau level is proportional to the magnetic field. Therefore the thermodynamic potentials of a split Landau level, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l`$, and split Bloch band are related by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_l(T,\mu ,\phi )=\phi \mathrm{\Omega }_b(T,\mu ,\phi ^1)$$
(3)
This is a duality transformation: It is symmetric under the interchange $`bl`$. It implies that the thermodynamics of the split Bloch band determine the thermodynamics of a split Landau level and vice versa. It follows from Eq. (3) that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l`$ is not periodic, although $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ is, simply because of the factor $`\phi `$ on the right. A part of the phase diagram of the split Landau level is shown on the right hand side of Fig. 1, and it is evidently aperiodic.

To derive the relation between the magnetization and Hall conductances of the two models recall that the filling fraction $`\rho `$, the magnetization per unit area, $`m`$, and Hall conductance , $`\sigma `$, are given by

$$\rho =\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu }\right)_\phi ,m=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\phi }\right)_\mu ,\sigma =\frac{e^2}{h}\left(\frac{\rho }{\phi }\right)_\mu .$$
(4)
The magnetization and the Hall conductances of the two models are therefore related by:

$`m_l(\mu ,T,\phi ^1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}\mathrm{\Omega }_b(\mu ,T,\phi )\phi m_b(\mu ,T,\phi );`$
$`\sigma _l(\mu ,T,\phi ^1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}\rho _b(\mu ,T,\phi )\phi \sigma _b(\mu ,T,\phi )`$ (5)
The duality relation of the Hall conductances is a generalization of a relation that follows from the Diophantine equation in .

The magnetization is related to the Hall conductance by the Maxwell relation

$$\left(\frac{m}{\mu }\right)_\phi =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0\left(\frac{\rho }{\phi }\right)_\mu =\frac{1}{ec}\sigma .$$
(6)
It follows that whenever the Hall conductance is quantized, the magnetization has a quantized slope that is an integer multiple of $`1/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. In the Hofstadter model $`\sigma _b`$ and $`\sigma _l`$ are quantized in the gaps . It follows that the magnetization has quantized (and therefore also constant) slopes in the gaps.

We now turn to a more detailed study of the magnetization in the gaps at $`T=0`$, starting with $`m_b`$. For a fixed rational $`\phi `$ this is a finite collections of lines. From Eqs. (2), (4) it follows that $`m_b`$ is a symmetric function of $`\mu `$.

When $`\phi =p/q`$, with $`p`$ and $`q`$ relatively prime, the magnetization can be computed numerically. In this case the potential in Eq. (1) is periodic with period $`q`$ and the spectral analysis of $`H(\phi ,\xi )`$ further reduces to the study of $`q\times q`$ matrices $`𝐇(\phi ,\xi ,\eta )`$ labelled by a second Bloch (quasi) momentum $`\eta `$. The magnetization $`m_b(\mu ,\phi )`$ in the gap of a split Bloch band can be shown to be given by

$$\frac{q}{2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_0}\underset{<,>}{}_0^{2\pi /q}𝑑\eta _0^{2\pi /q}𝑑\xi \frac{2\mu (\epsilon _>+\epsilon _<)}{2\left(\epsilon _>\epsilon _<\right)^2}\mathrm{Im}<u_>\left|\frac{𝐇}{\eta }\right|u_<><u_<\left|\frac{𝐇}{\xi }\right|u_>>.$$
(7)
$`\epsilon `$ are the eigenvalues and $`u`$ the corresponding eigenvectors of the matrix. $`>,<`$ refer to states above and below the gap. Our numerical results are based on this equation.

Our investigation of the magnetization in the gaps bears an interesting relation to the work of , who study of the energy $`E`$ per unit cell of the Hofstadter model. $`E`$ is the Legendre transform of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$$E(\rho ,\phi )=\mu \rho \mathrm{\Omega }(\mu ,\phi ),$$
(8)
and  focused especially on its minima for fixed $`\rho `$. The properties of the Legendre transform imply that maxima of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a function of $`\phi `$, i.e., points where $`m=0`$ and $`\sigma >0`$, are (local) minima of $`E`$. It follows from our semi-classical analysis (see below) that $`E(\rho ,\phi )`$ has a minimum in every gap for $`\phi =1/q`$, see for example Fig. 2. It also follows from Eq. (8) that $`E`$ has a cusp as a function of $`\phi `$ at the gaps, with tangent slopes given by the limiting values of $`m`$ at the ends of the gap.

The Hofstadter model can be viewed as the result of Peierls substitution , which stipulates that in a weak magnetic field the classical Hamiltonian

$$H_B(\xi ,\eta )=2\mathrm{cos}\xi +2\mathrm{cos}\eta $$
(9)
is quantized by imposing $`[\xi ,\eta ]=2\pi i\phi `$. Fluxes near $`\phi =0`$ can then be analyzed by semiclassical methods where the role of $`\mathrm{}`$ is played by $`2\pi \phi `$. The classical $`\xi \eta `$ phase space is the two dimensional torus. Since its area is $`(2\pi )^2`$, quantization of the torus is consistent provided the number of states, $`1/\phi `$, is an integer. For this reason we shall assume that $`\phi =1/q`$.

The classical Hamiltonian $`H_B(\xi ,\eta )`$ is a Morse function with one minimum, (at energy $`4`$), one maximum, (at energy $`4`$), and two saddle points (at energy zero). It follows that the classical trajectories with $`E0`$ are contractible and bound a disc like domain. Only the level set $`E=0`$ winds around the torus.

Let

$$S(E)=_{H_B<E}𝑑\xi d\eta $$
(10)
be the classical action associated with a trajectory of energy $`E`$. By the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization rule, the negative part of the spectrum is given, to leading order in $`\phi `$, by those energies $`E_n`$ for which

$$S(E_n)=(n+\gamma )\phi ,\gamma =1/2,n=1,\mathrm{},q/2$$
(11)
This gives a good approximation to the spectrum provided that $`\phi `$ is small and $`E`$ is far from the separatrix. More precisely, one needs $`\phi |E|`$. The energy $`E_n`$ of Eq. (11) is then an approximation to the $`n`$-th energy band which is exponentially localized in energy near $`E_n`$. Near the separatrix one finds wider bands which we do not study . We therefore assume below that $`\mu \phi `$. The magnetization for $`\mu \phi `$ then follows by Eq. (2). The region which we do not study, $`|\mu |=O(\phi )`$, becomes arbitrarily small in the limit $`\phi 0`$. This is a limit we eventually take.

Fixing the chemical potential in the $`n`$-th gap with $`\mu <0`$, the semiclassical thermodynamic potential at $`T=0`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_b=\mu \rho \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}E_j=\mu n\phi \phi \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}S^1\left((j+\gamma )\phi \right).$$
(12)
By the second Euler-Maclaurin formula, the sum can be approximated by an integral (to $`O(1/q^2)`$),

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_b(\mu ,\phi )=\mu n\phi _0^{\phi n}S^1(x)𝑑x,\mu <0.$$
(13)
The magnetization in the $`n`$-th gap is therefore

$$m_b=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\left(\mu S^1(n\phi )\right)n$$
(14)
and vanishes when $`\mu =S^1(n\phi )`$. Since $`\gamma =1/2`$ this happens in the middle of the gap, a property also evident in Fig. 2.

Since the slope of $`m_b`$ in the $`n`$-th gap is $`n/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, the magnetization increases in this interval from $`n(E_nE_{n1})/2\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ to $`+n(E_nE_{n1})/2\mathrm{\Phi }_0.`$ The extremal value $`L_b`$ of the magnetization in the $`n`$-th gap is therefore

$$L_b=\pm \frac{n\phi }{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}S_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}(n\phi ).$$
(15)
Fixing the chemical potential $`\mu `$ and letting $`\phi 0`$, the product $`n\phi `$ approaches the limiting value $`S(\mu )`$, see (11). The envelope approaches

$$L_b(\mu ,\phi =0)=\pm \frac{S(\mu )}{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0S^{}(\mu )}.$$
(16)
The graph of $`L_b(\mu ,0)`$ is shown in Fig. 2 overlayed with numerical results for the magnetization that follow from the (exact) Eq. (7). This graph is an analog of the de Haas-van Alphen oscillations in metals .

$`L_b(\mu ,0)`$ is the mother of all lips: We shall argue below that the lips at other (rational) fluxes are deformations of it, in both the the split-Bloch and split-Landau versions of the model. The lips associated with the split Landau level $`L_l(\mu ,1/n)`$, with integer $`n`$, are particularly simple deformations of the mother of all lips. This can be seen as follows: From Eq. (Magnetic Fingerprints of Fractal Spectra and Duality of Hofstadter Models)

$$L_l(\mu ,1/n)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0\mathrm{\Omega }_b(\mu ,\mathrm{})nL_b(\mu ,0)$$
(17)
Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ is a convex, and therefore continuous, function of $`\mu `$, Eq. (17) describes a scaling of $`L_b(\mu ,0)`$ and a shifting of its baseline, see Fig. 3. The special case $`m_l(\mu ,\mathrm{})`$ ($`n=0`$) is different: The lip is scaled to zero width, and $`m_l(\mu ,\mathrm{})`$ is a continuous function of $`\mu `$.

Although the actual shape of the lip $`L_b(\mu ,0)`$ cannot be expressed in terms of elementary functions, its qualitative features can be readily understood and are determined by the critical points of the band function $`H_B(\xi ,\eta )`$. Let $`\delta \mu `$ denote the distance of $`\mu `$ from a band edge. Since $`H_B`$ is non-degenerate, the action, $`S(\mu )`$ is linear in $`\delta \mu `$ near the maximum and the minimum—as for the harmonic oscillator. This says that the lip terminates linearly:

$$S(\mu )|\delta \mu |,L_b(\mu ,0)\pm \delta \mu .$$
(18)
Near the separatrix at $`E=0`$, which passes through the two saddle points of $`H(\xi ,\eta )`$, the density of states diverges logarithmically and $`L_b`$ vanishes logarithmically

$$S(\mu )S(0)\mu \mathrm{log}|\mu |,L_b(\mu ,0)\pm (\mathrm{log}\delta \mu )^1.$$
(19)
Consider now the magnetization for $`\phi `$ close to a rational $`p/q`$. Since the gap edges are Hölder continuous of order 1/2 in $`\phi `$ , the $`q1`$ gaps ($`q2`$ for even $`q`$) persist for nearby fluxes and so does the magnetization in these gaps. The $`q`$ bands, however, splinter. This breakup can be described by semiclassical methods as follows : For rational flux $`\phi =p/q`$, the $`q\times q`$ matrix $`𝐇(\phi ,\xi ,\eta )`$ gives rise to $`q`$ magnetic Bloch bands $`E_j(\xi ,\eta ),j=1,\mathrm{},q`$. Each magnetic Bloch band has one maximum, one minimum and two saddle points that have coinciding energies, and are linked by a separatrix. This is a consequence of Chambers relation . For $`\phi `$ close to $`p/q`$, the $`q\times q`$ matrix valued function is quantized by imposing the commutation relation $`[\xi ,\eta ]=2\pi i(\phi p/q)`$.

The semiclassical strategy leading to the qualitative description of the lip at $`\phi =0`$ remains valid in this more general case, but the details are different. (For example, $`\gamma `$ does not take a universal value $`1/2`$ but rather becomes a function of $`E`$ and $`\phi `$.) However, one still expects that the envelope of the magnetization is pinched linearly at the band edges and logarithmically at the separatrix. This gives all $`L_b(\mu ,p/q,j),j=1,\mathrm{},q`$, a lip-like shape, a distorted version of Fig. 2. Getting explicit expressions for $`L_b(\mu ,p/q,j)`$ is a hard problem which lies beyond the scope of this paper. However, numerical support for our claims is given in Fig. 4. Here the magnetization as a function of the chemical potential is shown for the flux $`\phi =\frac{1}{3+\frac{1}{40}}`$ which is close to $`\frac{1}{3}`$. The three bands of $`\phi =\frac{1}{3}`$ split and give rise to rapidly oscillating magnetization with distorted lip-shaped envelopes.

Band splitting occurs on all energy scales of the Hofstadter butterfly, because of its fractal nature. We have shown that band splitting is always accompanied by de Haas-van Alphen oscillations in the magnetization. The fractality of the spectrum is reflected by the fact that the magnetic oscillations occur on arbitrarily small energy scale. The fingerprints of fractality are most evident for flux ratios $`\phi `$ which are irrational numbers that are well approximated by rationals (e.g. Liouville numbers). For such $`\phi `$ the graph of the magnetization as a function of $`\mu `$, such as those shown in Figs. 2 and 4, is itself fractal, with magnetic oscillations bounded by lip-like envelopes appearing on infinitely many scales.

Acknowledgment: This work is supported by the Technion fund for promotion of research and by the EU grant HPRN-CT-2002-00277.


text:
# Path Group in gauge theory and gravityReported at the XXIV International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics (ICGTMP-2002 or Group 24), Paris, July 15-20, 2002.

## 1 Introduction

One of the most important concepts in the modern quantum field theory is gauge field. This concept was introduced  on the basis of gauge symmetry, i.e. invariance under localized (depending on space-time points) symmetry groups. Later it became clear that gauge theory may be naturally formulated on the basis of such mathematical formalism as connections in fiber bundles and their curvatures. Gravity was from the very beginning formulated as theory of curved (pseudo-)Riemannian spaces. Fiber bundles turned out to be also efficient mathematical formalism for gravitational fields.

Here we shall give a short survey of an alternative mathematical background for both gauge theory and gravity, namely Path Group (, see  for reviews). Path Group (PG) is a generalization of translation group differing from the latter in that it may be applied to particles in external gauge and gravitational fields.

Formally Path Group may be defined as a set of certain classes of continuous curves in Minkowski space (generalization on the case of paths in an arbitrary group space is possible). Concept of PG came up as development of the Suvegesh’s groupoid of parallel transports  (a groupoid differs from a group in that not any pair of its elements may be multiplied). The goal was to find a universal group such that parallel transports in various space-times be its representations.

The concept of PG may be obtained also in the attempt to globalize infinitesimal translations of a tangent space to a curved space-time. PG arises then instead of the usual translation group since curvature makes translations in different directions not commutative (see  for other types of non-commutative translations).

PG reduces geometry to algebra: various geometries (gauge and gravitational fields) are nothing else than representations of the universal PG. In case of gauge fields the representation is simpler in that Lorentz group may be factorized out. In case of gravitational fields both Lorentz and PG (united to give the generalized Poincaré group) essencially participate in the constructions.

The natural character of PG is seen from the facts that it allows 1) to give a group-theoretical interpretation of covariant derivatives (both for gravitational or/and gauge fields) as generators of relevant representations of PG, 2) to formulate and prove a non-Abelian version of Stokes theorem and 3) to reduce the path integral in a curved space-time to the path integral in the flat space (a quantum version of Equivalence Principle)

## 2 Path Group

An element of Path Group (PG) is defined as a class of curves in Minkowski space constructed in such a way that the classes form a group. For curves in Minkowski space, $`\{\xi \}=\{\xi (\tau )\}`$, operation of multiplication $`\{\xi ^{}\}\{\xi \}`$ may be naturally defined as passing of two curves one after another and inversion $`\{\xi \}^1`$ as passing the same curve in the opposite direction. However, the set of all continuous curves is not, in respect to these operation, a group: 1) not all pairs of curves may be multiplied to give a continuous curve, 2) multiplication (when defined) is not assotiative and 3) product of a curve by its inverse does not yield a unit element (i.e. such one that multiplication by it does not change an arbitrary curve).

To correct the second defect, one may consider differently parametrized curves to be equivalent (and include them in the same class). To correct the third defect, one may consider equivalent those curves which differ by inclusion of ‘appendices’ of the form $`\{\xi \}^1\{\xi \}`$ (and go over to else wider classes of curves). At last, the first defect is overcome if we include in the same class those curves which differ by general shift: $`\xi ^{}(\tau )=\xi (\tau )+a`$ (see Figure).

The resulting class of curves is called a path and denoted by $`p`$ or $`[\xi ]`$. All paths form Path Group $`P`$. A path may be presented by any curve from the corresponding class.

If the curves which differ by general shift are not considered equivalent, we have more narrow classes. The end points are the same for all curves in such a class. It may be therefore called a pinned path and denoted as $`\widehat{p}=p_x^x^{}=[\xi ]_x^x^{}`$ (or $`p_x`$) where $`x`$ is the initial and $`x^{}`$ final point of any curve presenting the given pinned path.

All pinned paths form a groupoid $`\widehat{P}`$ since not any pair of pinned paths may be multiplied. Pinned paths are often convenient for constructing representations of the group $`P`$ of free paths. It is important that the pair $`p,x`$ of a free path and a point unambiguously determines the pinned path $`p_x`$ starting in $`x`$ and having the same shape as $`p`$.

Paths may be defined  for an arbitrary group space $`G`$ leading to the group of paths $`P(G)`$ in $`G`$ (the role of general shift is played in this case by right shift in the group). We shall restrict ourselves by considering only the path group in Minkowski space, $`P=P()`$. This will prove to be sufficient for applications to gauge theory and gravity.

## 3 Gauge fields as representations of PG

Theory of free elementary particles is governed by the group of translations. Starting from Path Group instead of the translation group we obtain theory of particles in an external gauge field. Gauge fields thus arise independently of the idea of gauge symmetry.

The key point for constructing theory of particles is that Path Group $`P`$ (generalized translations) acts on Minkowski space $``$ transitively. An important consequence is that particles have to be described by the induced representations of Path Group.

### 3.1 Group and localization

Theory of elementary particles may be constructed starting from a certain group and implying the requirement of locality  (see  for an analogous construction). In our case Path Group $`P`$ will play the role of the governing group and Minkowski space $``$ the role of the localization space. Note that the action of the group $`P`$ on the space $``$ is naturally defined as shifting a point $`x`$ along the path $`pP`$ (see Figure).

An arbitrary point in $``$ is invariant under the action of closed paths (loops). Therefore, the subgroup of loops $`LP`$ is a stabilizer of an arbitrary point. This means that the space $``$ may be presented as a quotient space $`=P/L`$.

If some point $`𝒪`$ is chosen as an origin in $``$, then the point $`x`$ is identified with the coset $`p^{}LP/L`$ where $`x=p^{}𝒪`$. The space $`=P/L`$ will serve in our case as a localization space.

The general scheme of constructing theory of particles starting from the group and localization space is following .

Let theory of particles be governed by the group $`P`$ (which may be symmetry or kinematic group) and characterized by localization in the space $``$ (i.e. the subspace of states $`_x`$ is defined in which the particle is localized in an arbitrary point $`x`$ of $``$). Then the group $`P`$ must act on the space $``$ (so that $`p:xpx`$ for $`x`$, $`pP`$), and this action must be in accord with the representation $`U`$ of $`P`$ acting in the space of the particle’s states:

$$U(p)_x=_{px}.$$

A representation $`U(P)`$ possessing this property is called imprimitive.

Assume that the action of $`P`$ on $``$ is transitive (this may be done without loss of generality, because otherwise we may divide $``$ in imprimitive subspaces). Then $``$ is a homogeneous space and can be presented as a quotient space, $`=P/L`$, with an appropriate subgroup $`LP`$.

The representation $`U(P)`$ acts then transitively on the set of subspaces $`\{_x|x=P/L\}`$. According to the imprimitivity theorem , such a representation (transitive but imprimitive) is equivalent to the representation induced from some representation $`\alpha (L)`$ of the subgroup $`L`$:

$$U(P)=\alpha (L)P.$$

This gives a receipt for constructing theory of local particles. Knowing the group $`P`$ and the space $`=P/L`$ of localization we can restore the representation $`U(P)=\alpha (L)P`$ acting in the space of states $``$ of the particle (and therefore can restore the space $``$ itself). To do this, we have 1) to choose arbitrarily a representation $`\alpha (L)`$ of the subgroup $`L`$ and 2) to induce it onto the whole group $`P`$.

Inducing a representation $`\alpha (L)`$ of a subgroup onto the whole group $`P`$ may be achieved in the following way . Vectors of the carrier space $``$ of the induced representation $`U(P)=\alpha (L)P`$ are presented by functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(p)`$ on $`P`$ with values in the carrier space $`_\alpha `$ of $`\alpha (L)`$ with the additional structure condition imposed on the functions:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(pl)=\alpha (l^1)\mathrm{\Psi }(p),lL,pP$$

The induced representation acts on these functions by left shifts:

$$(U(p)\mathrm{\Psi })(p^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }(p^1p^{}),p,p^{}P.$$

The representation $`\alpha (L)`$ is arbitrary in this construction. It describes internal degrees of freedom of the particle which it possesses even if its localization in $``$ is fixed. States of the particle are described by the functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(p)`$ depending on elements of the group $`P`$. In our case these are paths, so we arrive to the non-local formalism of path-dependent wave functions. It is a group-theoretical version of Mandelstam’s path-dependent fields .

However, despite of the non-local form, the theory must be essentially local because the requirement of locality was imposed from the very beginning. Therefore, explicitly local form of the representation must exist.

For constructing this form we need an extension $`\alpha (P)`$ of the representation $`\alpha (L)`$ onto the group $`P`$ such that $`\alpha (pl)=\alpha (p)\alpha (l)`$ for arbitrary $`pP`$ and $`lL`$. Local wave functions $`\psi (x)`$ may be defined then as

$$\psi (x)=\alpha (p^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(p^{})$$

where the point $`x`$ corresponds to the coset $`p^{}LP/L`$. Now the action of the induced representation is given by

$$(U(p)\psi )(x)=\alpha (p^{})[\alpha (p^1p^{})]^1\psi (p^1x)$$

(for simplicity we denote this representation by the same letter although it is only equivalent but not identical to the preceding one).

### 3.2 Particles in gauge field

Applying the general scheme to the Path Group $`P`$, its subgroup of loops $`L`$ and Minkowski space $`=P/L`$, we obtain that the representation $`\alpha (L)`$ describes a gauge field and the induced representation $`U(P)=\alpha (L)P`$ presents a particle in this field. We shall illustrate this approach starting from the usual description of a gauge field by vector-potential.

Making use of a vector-potential $`A_\mu (x)`$, introduce a representation of the groupoid of pinned paths by ordered exponentials

$$\widehat{\alpha }(\widehat{p})=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left\{i_{\widehat{p}}A_\mu (x)𝑑x^\mu \right\}$$

(integration here is performed along any of the curves from the class $`\widehat{p}`$). Fixing an (arbitrarily) point $`𝒪`$ as an origin of $``$, we may associate a pinned paths $`p_𝒪`$ (starting in $`𝒪`$) with any free path $`pP`$. In these notations, the representation of loops may be expressed as $`\alpha (l)=\widehat{\alpha }(l_𝒪)`$ and the expansion of this representation onto the whole group $`P`$ (with the properties specified above) as $`\alpha (p)=\widehat{\alpha }(p_𝒪)`$.

This determines a local form of the representation $`U(P)=\alpha (L)P`$ which is given by the following elegant formula:

$$(U(p)\psi )(x)=\widehat{\alpha }(p_x^{}^x)\psi (x^{}).$$

Another very convenient form of the same (or rather equivalent) representation may be expressed in terms of only free paths:

$$U(p)=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left\{_p𝑑\xi ^\mu _\mu \right\}\text{where}(_\mu \psi )(x)=\left(\frac{}{x^\mu }iA_\mu (x)\right).$$

The covariant derivatives are therefore generators of the representation $`U(P)`$ of Path Group (just as ordinary derivatives are generators of translations). By this the group-theoretical interpretation of covariant derivatives is given.

The representation of the group of loops, $`\alpha (L)`$, provides in this scheme a non-local description of a gauge field. This description is better than local descriptions by vector-potential and by field stregth. Indeed, the first of these descriptions is redundant since various vector-potentials may correspond to the same physical situation, and the second is insufficient because non-local topological effects (such as Aharonov-Bohm effect) cannot be described by field strength. The ‘intermediate’ non-local description by $`\alpha (L)`$ is adequate.

The scheme presented here leads to gauge fields without usage of gauge transformations and the idea of gauge invariance. Gauge transformations arise in this scheme as presentation of arbitrariness in the local description of gauge fields by vector-potentials. Let us change the vector-potential $`A_\mu `$ to $`A_\mu ^{}`$ in such a way that the representation of $`L`$ does not change, $`\alpha ^{}(l)=\alpha (l)`$, i.e. the non-local path-dependent description of the gauge field is the same. Then the new and old vector-potentials may be shown to be connected by a gauge transformation.

### 3.3 Non-Abelian Stokes theorem

One more evidence of natural character of the non-local path-dependent presentation of gauge fields is the non-Abelian version of Stokes theorem .

Any loop may be presented as a product of small ‘lasso’ of the form $`p^1\delta lp`$ with $`\delta l`$ being a very small loop and $`p`$ finite path (see Figure).

The product is then of the form $`l=𝒫_jp_j^1\delta l_jp_j`$. From the multiplicative properties of the representation $`\alpha (L)`$ we have

$$\alpha (l)=𝒫\underset{j}{}[\alpha (p_j)]^1\widehat{\alpha }\left((\delta l_j)_{x_j}\right)\alpha (p_j)=𝒫\underset{j}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}_{\mu \nu }(p_j)\sigma _j^{\mu \nu }\right)$$

where $`x=p𝒪`$ is a point which the path $`p`$ brings the origin $`𝒪`$ to, $`\delta l_x`$ is a pinned loop having the shape $`\delta l`$ and starting in $`x`$, and $`_{\mu \nu }(p)=[\alpha (p)]^1F_{\mu \nu }(p𝒪)\alpha (p)`$. Symbolically this may be presented in the form

$$𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(i_\mathrm{\Sigma }A_\mu (x)𝑑x^\mu \right)=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }F_{\mu \nu }(x)𝑑x^\mu dx^\nu \right)$$

which is an ordered-exponential form of the non-Abelian Stokes theorem. Other forms of this theorem are in .

## 4 Paths in gravity

Path Group may be used for description of a gravitational field (curved space-time) and particles in a gravitational or gauge + gravitational field . Minkowski space plays the role of a standard tangent space, connected with the curved space-time in a nonholonomic way.

### 4.1 Flat models of curves and fiber bundle of frames

There is a natural (but non-holonomic) mapping  of the curves (paths) in the tangent space onto the curves in the curved space-time $`𝒳`$ (see Figure).

The necessary relations may be presented in terms of the fiber bundle $``$ (over $`𝒳`$) consisting of local frames i.e. bases $`b=\{b_\alpha |\alpha =0,1,2,3\}`$ of tangent spaces in the points $`x𝒳`$. Coordinates in $``$ are $`\{x^\mu ,b_\alpha ^\mu \}`$.

The key instrument for this end are (horizontal) basis vector fields in $``$:

$$B_\alpha =b_\alpha ^\mu \left(\frac{}{x^\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda (x)b_\beta ^\nu \frac{}{b_\beta ^\lambda }\right)$$

The representation of Path Group by operators acting on functions in $``$ as well as the action of $`P`$ on $``$ are readily defined:

$$U(p)=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(_p𝑑\xi ^\alpha B_\alpha \right),(U(p)\psi )(b)=\psi (bp).$$

Thus defined mapping $`p:bbp`$ is a parallel transport along the curve in $`𝒳`$ which corresponds to the path $`p`$ in $``$ in the sense of the above mentioned mapping.

If the connection conserves the metric, these operatins may be restricted on the subbundle $`𝒩`$ of orthonormal frames yielding operators $`U(p)`$ acting on functions in $`𝒩`$ and the mapping $`p:nnp`$ such that

$$(U(p)\psi )(n)=\psi (np).$$

Thus, the action of Path Group $`P`$ by parallel transports is defined on $`𝒩`$. Lorentz group $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ acts on $`𝒩`$ as the structure group of the fiber bundle, i.e. $`\lambda :nn\lambda `$ where $`(n\lambda )_\alpha ^\mu =n_\beta ^\mu \lambda _\alpha ^\beta `$. Therefore the action of their semidirect product (generalized Poincaré group $`Q=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathit{\subset \times }P`$) is defined.

More precisely, the elements of $`Q`$ are of the form $`q=p\lambda `$ (where $`pP`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$), multiplication of them is determined by the relation $`\lambda [\xi ]\lambda ^1=[\lambda \xi ]`$, while the action of $`Q`$ on fiber bundle $`𝒩`$ is defined as $`nq=np\lambda =(np)\lambda `$ ($`p:nnp`$ being a parallel transport and $`\lambda :nn\lambda `$ the action of the structure group). The resulting action of $`p\lambda `$ (Figure, left diagram) is in accord with the multiplication law in the group $`Q`$.

### 4.2 Holonomy Subgroup

Holonomy Subgroup $`H`$ of the generalized Poincaré group $`Q`$ is defined in respect to the (arbitrarily chosen and fixed) local frame $`n_0𝒩`$ as the subset leaving $`n_0`$ invariant (a stationary subgroup of $`n_0`$) so that $`h=p\lambda H`$ if $`n_0p\lambda =n_0`$ (see Figure, right diagram).

Holonomy Subgroup $`H`$ in the generalized Poincaré group $`Q`$ plays the role (for gravity) analogous to the subgroup of loops $`L`$ in the Path Group $`P`$ (for gauge theory). This is why a representation $`\alpha (H)`$ represents a gauge + gravitational field while the induced representation $`U(Q)=\alpha (H)Q`$ describes particles in this combined field. If the representation $`\alpha `$ is trivial, $`\alpha (h)1`$, the induced representation describes particles in a pure gravitational field (corresponding to the Holonomy Subgroup $`H`$).

Holonomy Subgroup $`HQ`$ determines geometry. The geometry (including topology) may be restored if the subgroup $`H`$ is given. This reconstruction procedure may be applied  to explore geometry of hyperbolic, or Lorentzian, cones, starting from $`H=\{l\nu ^k|lL,kZ\}`$ where $`\nu `$ is a fixed element of the Lorentz group.

### 4.3 Quantum Equivalence Principle

Various quantum analogues of the Einstein’s Equivalence Principle may be defined. Validity of the quantum equivalence principle (QEP) depends of course on its definition. It is advantageous however to define QEP in such a way that it be valid. Path Group (together with the natural non-holonomic mapping of the curves in Minkowsky space onto the curves in the curved space-time) makes this possible  (see also ).

A very brief formulation of QEP may be given as follows: evolution of a quantum particle in a curved space-time $`𝒳`$ must be described by the same Feynman path integral as in the flat space-time, if the paths in the standard tangent space $``$ are used in the integral instead of the corresponding curves in the curved space-time $`𝒳`$.

Technically it is convenient to express QEP in terms of the representation $`U(P)`$ introduced above, putting $`U(P)`$ in the integrand of (flat) Feynman path integral instead of the ordinary translation. This may be done not only for purely gravitational but also for gravitational + gauge field (see  for details).

## 5 Conclusion

In the present paper we considered Path Group $`P`$ (which generalizes translation group) and demonstrated the following issues:

1) Gauge fields are described by representations $`\alpha (L)`$ of the subgroup $`LP`$ of loops. Particles in such a field are presented by the induced representation $`U(Q)=\alpha (L)Q`$. Non-Abelian Stokes theorem is naturally formulated and proved in terms of the representation $`\alpha (L)`$.

2) For application to gravity the generalized Poincaré group $`Q`$ is necessary which is a semidirect product of Path Group by Lorentz group.

3) Geometry of a curved space-time (including non-trivial topology) is presented by the Holonomy Subgroup $`HQ`$.

4) Gauge + gravitational field is presented by the Holonomy Subgroup $`H`$ together with its representation $`\alpha (H)`$ while particles in this field are described by the representation $`\alpha (H)Q`$.

5) Quantum Equivalence Principle is naturally formulated in terms of Feynman path integral and natural non-holonomic mapping of curves in Minkowski space onto the curves in the curved space-time.