text:
# Polarization of Quantum Hall States, Skyrmions and Berry Phase

## I Introduction

The quantum Hall effect (integral and fractional) appears in two-dimensional electron systems in a strong magnetic field. In such a high magnetic field (B $`10`$ T)the spin of the electron has no dynamical role and we can assume the electrons to be spinless in these fully polarized quantum Hall states. But when B has relatively smaller value i.e. when the Zeeman splitting is not so large, the corresponding system is not fully polarized. They are sometimes partially polarized and sometimes unpolarized. It is known from experiments that the QH states at filling factors $`\nu =4/3,8/5,\mathrm{}.`$ 2 ; 3  and at $`2/3`$ 4 ; 5  are unpolarized while the states at $`\nu =3/5`$ 5  and $`7/5`$ 2  are partially polarized. From numerical computations it is known 6  that the states with $`\nu =\frac{2}{2n+1}`$ are unpolarized and with $`\nu =\frac{1}{2n+1}`$ are fully polarized in the vanishing Zeeman splitting limit.

Wu, Dev and Jain 7  have studied this problem and reported that all even numerator QH states are unpolarized and all these states with the numerator and denominator odd are partially polarized or fully polarized (in the vanishing Zeeman splitting limit). Later Mandal and Ravishankar 8  proposed a global model which accounts for all the observed quantum Hall states in terms of an abelian doublet of Chern-Simons gauge fields, with the strength of the Chern-Simons term given by a coupling matrix. Hansonn, Karlhede and Leinaas 9  proposed a new effective field theory for partially polarized quantum Hall states. They determined the density and polarization for the mean field ground states by couplings to two Chern-Simons gauge fields. They derived a sigma model covariantly coupled to the Chern-Simons field and found mean field solutions which describe partially polarized states.

It is also observed that the low energy excitations in various polarization states are quite different. It is now confirmed that the low energy excitation states for a fully polarized quantum Hall state is a skyrmion whereas for unpolarized states skyrmion excitations are not possible. For partially polarized states also, skyrmion excitations do not seem to occur as the skyrmionic solitons and are found not to be of usual ones. Wu and Sondhi 10  have shown that in higher Landau levels, skyrmions are not the low energy excitations even at small Zeeman energies. Thus it follows that skyrmions are the quasiparticles only at $`\nu =1`$, $`1/3`$ and $`1/5`$.

In some earlier papers rev11 ; 12 , we have analyzed the hierarchy of quantum Hall states from the view point of chiral anomaly and Berry phase. It has been pointed out that this approach embraces in a unified way the whole spectrum of quantum Hall systems with their various characteristic features. Here we propose to study the various polarization states of quantum Hall skyrmions on the basis of this hierarchical model. Also, we shall study the low energy excitation states for various polarization states of quantum Hall fluid.

## II Polarization of Integer and Fractional Quantum Hall States

In some earlier papers rev11 , Basu and Bandyopadhyay have studied the whole spectrum of quantum Hall states (IQH) and (FQH) in a unified way from the chiral anomaly and Berry phase approach. It has been shown that the hierarchy of FQH states with filling factor $`\nu =p/q`$ ($`p`$ even or odd and $`q`$ odd) is interpreted in terms of the fact that the Berry phase associated with even number of flux quanta can be removed to the dynamical phase. For $`p`$ odd and $`p>1`$, the corresponding state attains a higher Landau level whereas for $`p`$ even, the system corresponds to particle-hole conjugate states.

In a spherical geometry we consider quantum Hall states in the two dimensional surface of a 3D sphere with a magnetic monopole of strength $`\mu `$ at the centre. The angular momentum relation is given by

$$𝐉=𝐫\times 𝐩\mu \widehat{𝐫},\mu =0,\pm 1/2,\pm 1,\pm 3/2\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
The spherical harmonics incorporating the term $`\mu `$ have been extensively studied by Fierz 13  and Hurst 14 . Following them we write

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m,\mu }\hfill & =& (1+x)^{(m\mu )/2}\dot{(1x)}^{(m+\mu )/2}\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{d^\mathrm{}m}{d_x^\mathrm{}m}\left[(1+x)^\mathrm{}\mu (1x)^{\mathrm{}+\mu }\right]e^{im\varphi }e^{i\mu \chi }\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and the quantities $`m`$ and $`\mu `$ just represent the eigenvalues of the operators $`i\frac{}{\varphi }`$ and $`i\frac{}{\chi }`$ respectively.

From the description of spherical harmonics we can construct a two-component spinor $`\theta =\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)`$ where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}u=Y_{1/2}^{1/2,1/2}\hfill & =& sin\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[i(\varphi \chi )/2\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ v=Y_{1/2}^{1/2,1/2}\hfill & =& cos\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[i(\varphi +\chi )/2\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
Then the $`N`$-particle wave function for the quantum Hall fluid can be written as

$$\psi _{}^{(m)}{}_{N}{}^{}=\underset{i<j}{}(u_iv_ju_jv_i)^m$$
(4)
where $`\nu =\frac{1}{m}`$, $`m`$ being an odd integer.

It is noted that $`\psi _{}^{(m)}{}_{N}{}^{}`$ is totally antisymmetric for odd $`m`$ and symmetric for even $`m`$. Following Haldane 14h , we can identify $`m`$ as $`m=J_i+J_j`$ for an $`N`$-particle system where $`J_i`$ is the angular momentum of the i-th particle. It is evident from eqn. (1) that with $`𝐫\times 𝐩=0`$ and $`\mu =\frac{1}{2}`$ we have $`J_i(J_j)=\frac{1}{2}`$ which gives us $`m=1`$, the complete filling of the lowest Landau level. From the Dirac quantization condition $`e\mu =\frac{1}{2}`$, we note that this state corresponds to $`e=1`$ describing the IQH state with $`\nu =1`$.

The next higher angular momentum state can be achieved either by taking $`𝐫\times 𝐩=1`$ and $`\mu =\frac{1}{2}`$ (which implies the higher Landau level) or by taking $`𝐫\times 𝐩=0`$ and $`\mu _{eff}=\frac{3}{2}`$ implying the ground state for the Landau level. However, with $`\mu _{eff}=\frac{3}{2}`$, we find the filling fraction $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ which follows from the condition $`e\mu =\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`\mu =\frac{3}{2}`$. Generalizing this we can have $`\nu =\frac{1}{5}`$ with $`\mu _{eff}=\frac{5}{2}`$.

It is noted that when $`\mu `$ is an integer, we can have a relation of the form

$$𝐉=𝐫\times 𝐩\mu \widehat{𝐫}=𝐫^{}\times 𝐩^{}$$
(5)
This indicates that the Berry phase which is associated with $`\mu `$ may be unitarily removed to the dynamical phase. Evidently, the average magnetic field may be considered to be vanishing in these states. The attachment of $`2m`$ vortices to an electron effectively leads to the removal of Berry phase to the dynamical phase. So, FQH states with $`2\mu _{eff}=2m+1`$ ($`m`$ an integer) can be viewed as if one vortex line is attached to the electron. Now we note that for a higher Landau level we can consider the Dirac quantization condition $`e\mu _{eff}=\frac{1}{2}n`$, with $`n`$ being a vortex of strength $`2\mathrm{}+1`$. This can generate FQH states having the filling factor of the form $`\frac{n}{2\mu _{eff}}`$ where both $`n`$ and $`2\mu _{eff}`$ are odd integers. In this case, we can write $`2\mu _{eff}=2m^{}\pm 1`$ with $`2m^{}=2mn`$. Indeed, we can write the filling factor as

$$\nu =\frac{n}{2\mu _{eff}}=\frac{1}{\frac{2\mu _{eff}1}{n}\pm \frac{1}{n}}=\frac{n}{2mn\pm 1}$$
(6)
where $`2\mu _{eff}1`$ is an even integer given by $`2m^{}=2mn`$. This is essentially the Jain classification scheme with the constraint of $`n`$ being an odd integer.

In this scheme, the FQH states with $`\nu `$ having the form

$$\nu =\frac{n^{}}{2mn^{}\pm 1}$$
(7)
with $`n^{}`$ an even integer can be generated through particle-hole conjugate states

$$\nu =1\frac{n}{2mn\pm 1}=\frac{n(2m1)\pm 1}{2mn\pm 1}=\frac{n^{}}{2mn^{}\pm 1}$$
(8)
where $`n(n^{})`$ is an odd(even) integer. This leads some observed FQH states with

$$\nu =\frac{p}{q}(p\mathrm{even},q\mathrm{odd}):\frac{2}{3},\frac{2}{5},\frac{4}{5},\frac{4}{7},\frac{4}{9},\frac{6}{11},\frac{6}{13},\mathrm{}$$
(9)
Besides. for $`\nu =\frac{p}{q}`$ with $`p>q`$ we can think of these states as condensates of one IQH state with $`\nu `$ an integer and one FQH state with $`\nu =\frac{p}{q}`$ ($`p<q`$). In this category, we have even numerator states such as $`\nu =\frac{4}{3},\frac{8}{5}`$ and $`\frac{10}{7}`$ 2 ; 3 .

Now to study the polarization states of various FQH systems, we observe that in the lowest Landau level, we have the filling factor $`\nu `$ given by $`\nu =\frac{1}{2\mu _{eff}}=\frac{1}{2m+1}`$. As we have pointed out that the attachment of $`2m`$ vortices to an electron leads to the removal of Berry phase to the dynamical phase and this effectively corresponds to the attachment of one vortex(magnetic flux) to an electron, this electron will be a polarized one.

This is also true for $`\nu =1`$ state, as in this case we have $`\mu =\frac{1}{2}`$ implying one vortex line (magnetic flux)is attached to an electron.

However, in the higher Landau level, this scenario will change. Indeed, in this case we have $`\nu =\frac{n}{2mn+1}`$ with $`n>1`$ and an odd integer.

Now from the relation (6), for $`n>1`$ and an odd integer

$$\nu =\frac{n}{2\mu _{eff}}=\frac{1}{\frac{2\mu _{eff}1}{n}\pm \frac{1}{n}}$$
(10)
where $`2\mu _{eff}1`$ is an even integer. We note that as even number of flux units can be accommodated in the dynamical phase we may consider this as $`\frac{1}{n}`$ flux unit is attached to an electron. This suggests that electrons will not be fully polarized as one full flux unit is not available to it. This will correspond to partially polarized states with $`\nu =p/q`$ ($`p>1`$ and odd, $`q`$ odd) which represents the states like $`\frac{3}{5},\frac{3}{7},\frac{5}{9}`$ and so on. It is observed here that IQH states like $`\nu =3,5`$ will also exhibit partially polarized states as from the Dirac quantization condition $`e\mu =\frac{n}{2}`$, for $`n>1`$ and odd, the filling factor $`\nu =n`$ is achieved with $`\mu =1/2`$. This suggest that one flux unit is shared by an electron in $`n`$ number of Landau levels so that each electron is attached with $`\frac{1}{n}`$ flux unit implying a partially polarized state.

Now we consider the states with the filling factor $`\nu =p/q`$ with $`p`$ even and $`q`$ odd. As we have pointed out earlier, this is achieved when we have particle-hole conjugate states given by $`\nu =1\frac{n}{2mn\pm 1}`$ with $`n`$ an odd integer. A hole configuration is described by the complex conjugate of the particle state, the spin orientation of the particle and hole state will be opposite to each other. Thus this will represent an unpolarized state. This gives us the general relation of unpolarized FQH states with filling factor $`\nu =p/q`$, $`p`$ even and $`q`$ odd.

## III Skyrmion Excitations in Arbitrary Polarized Quantum Hall States

It has been found that in quantum Hall systems deviations from the incompressible filling factor $`\nu `$ is accomplished by the degradation of the system’s spin polarization. This effect has been observed near $`\nu =1`$ in several experiments that directly probe the spin density of the electron gas 15e ; 16e ; 17e ; 18e  \]. By noticing that the dynamics of quantum Hall system with a spin polarized ground state will follow that of a quantum ferromagnet and that the skyrmion is a charged object of the system, Sondhi et.al.19 ; 20  proposed a phenomenological action which is valid for the long wave length and small frequency limit. In this scheme, the competition between the Zeeman and Coulomb terms sets the size and energy of the skyrmions. Recently, Basu, Dhar and Bandyopadhyay 21 ; 22  have proposed a pure sigma model formalism for skyrmions taking resort to spherical geometry where $`2D`$ electron gas resides on the surface of a $`3D`$ sphere with a magnetic monopole placed at the centre. To study the system in pure sigma model formalism an $`O(4)`$ nonlinear sigma model in $`3+1`$ dimensional manifold was introduced. In this framework, the quartic stability term introduced by Skyrme, known as the Skyrme term, determines the size of the quantum Hall skyrmions and the effect of the Zeeman energy and Coulomb energy is encoded in a certain parameter such that the size and energy are determined from the sigma model Lagrangian with the Skyrme term. Besides, the introduction of the topological $`\theta `$-term in the Lagrangian helps us to determine the spin and statistics of the skyrmion. The four order parameter fields help us to construct two independent $`SU(2)`$ algebras which are associated with the two mutually opposite orientations of the magnetization vector which resides on the $`2D`$ surface of the sphere.

The generalized Lagrangian is taken to be of the form 21

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L\hfill & =& 2\pi 𝒥_\mu ^S𝒜_\mu \frac{M^2}{16}Tr(_\mu U^{}_\nu U)\frac{1}{32\eta ^2}Tr[_\mu UU^{},_\nu UU^{}]^2\hfill \\ & & \frac{\theta }{16\pi ^2}{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}_{\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Here the topological current is defined as

$$𝒥_\mu ^S=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }Tr(U^1_\nu U)(U^1_\alpha U)(U^1_\beta U)$$
(12)
where $`𝒜_\mu `$ is a four-vector gauge field, $`\theta =g/c^2`$ with $`g=\nu e^2/h`$, the Hall conductivity and $`{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is a Hodge dual given by

$${}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }_{\lambda \sigma }$$
(13)
$`M`$ is a constant of dimension of mass and $`\eta `$ is a dimensionless coupling parameter.

The $`SU(2)`$ matrix $`U`$ is here defined as

$$U=n_0I+𝐧.\stackrel{}{\tau }$$
(14)
where the chiral fields $`n_0`$,$`n_1`$,$`n_2`$ and $`n_3`$ satisfy the relation $`n_i^2=1`$. It may be noted that in $`2+1`$ dimension, we have the normalized $`3`$-vector field $`𝐧`$ with $`n_i^2=1`$ where $`n_i`$ corresponds to the local spin direction. In the $`O(4)`$ model $`n_i(i=1,2,3)`$ corresponds to this spin direction which live on the $`2`$-dimensional surface of the sphere where the extra field $`n_0`$ helps us to consider three boost generators in $`(n_0,n_i)`$ planes. In view of this, we can consider two types of generators such that the generator $`M_k`$ rotates the $`3`$-vector $`𝐧(𝐱)`$ to any chosen axis and the boost generators $`N_k`$ would mix $`n_0`$ with the components of $`𝐧`$. We can now construct the following algebra

$$[M_i,M_j]=iϵ_{ijk}M_k$$

$$[M_i,N_j]=iϵ_{ijk}N_k$$

$$[N_i,N_j]=iϵ_{ijk}M_k$$
(15)
which is locally isomorphic to the Lie algebra of the $`O(4)`$ group. This helps us to introduce the left and right generators

$$L_i=\frac{1}{2}(M_iN_i)$$

$$R_i=\frac{1}{2}(M_i+N_i)$$
(16)
which satisfy

$$[L_i,L_j]=iϵ_{ijk}L_k$$

$$[R_i,R_j]=iϵ_{ijk}R_k$$

$$[L_i,R_j]=0$$
(17)
Thus the algebra has split into two independent subalgebras each isomorphic to a $`SU(2)`$ algebra and corresponds to the chiral group $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$. The left and right chiral group can now be taken to be associated with two mutually opposite orientations of the magnetization vector which resides on the $`2`$D surface of the sphere.

The topological charge of quantum Hall skyrmions is given by the winding number

$$Z=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}_{S^3}𝑑S_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }[(U^1_\nu U)(U^1_\lambda U)(U^1_\sigma U)]$$
(18)
which is related to the homotopy $`\pi _3(S^3)=Z`$ and the electric charge is given by $`\nu eZ`$. We observe here that the Pontryagin index given by

$$q=2\mu =\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}Tr^{}_{\mu \nu }_{\mu \nu }d^4x$$
(19)
introduces the Berry phase for quantum Hall states as $`\mu `$ represents magnetic monopole strength. When there is a monopole of strength $`\mu `$ at the centre, the flux through the sphere is $`2\mu `$ and the phase is given by $`e^{i\varphi _B}`$ where $`\varphi _B=2\pi \nu `$ (number of flux quanta enclosed by the loop). For $`Z=1`$, the skyrmion when moving around a closed loop acquires the Berry phase $`2\pi \nu N`$ where $`N`$ is the number of skyrmions enclosed by the loop. To find the spin and statistics, we consider a process which exchanges two skyrmions in the rest frame of the other skyrmion. This exchange effectively corresponds to the other skyrmion moving around the first in a half circle and hence it picks up a phase $`\pi \nu `$ which is the statistical phase of a skyrmion. For $`\nu =1`$ it is a fermion and $`\nu =1/m`$, $`m`$ being an odd integer it corresponds to an anyon in planar geometry. In general, the spin of the skyrmion having charge $`\nu eZ`$ is given by $`\nu Z/2`$.

Now to study the relevant quasiparticles for arbitrarily polarized states we observe the following possibilities.

1)Fully Polarized States :

In this case the spin orientation is fixed : up($``$) or down($``$). So for the chiral group $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ only one $`SU(2)_L(SU(2)_R)`$ group will be operative. From the homotopic relation $`\pi _3(SU(2))=Z`$, we will have solitons (skyrmions) with charge $`\nu eZ`$.

2)Partially Polarized States :

In this case it will not be possible to split the $`O(4)`$ group into two independent left and right chiral groups $`SU(2)_L`$ or $`SU(2)_R`$ as each of these represent sharp polarization states. Thus we cannot represent the relevant quasiparticles as skyrmions.

3)Unpolarized States :

In this case, we will have equal number of up and down spin electrons. Now from the homotopic relation $`\pi _3(SU(2)\times SU(2))=\pi _3(SO(4))=0`$, we note that there will be no skyrmions.

Thus we find that skyrmions are the relevant quasiparticles only at the filling factor given by $`\nu =1`$ and $`\nu =\frac{1}{2m+1}`$ with $`m=`$ an integer.

## IV Discussion

We have studied here the polarization states of quantum hall fluid at different filling factors from the hierarchical scheme in the framework of Berry phase. It is found that for IQH and FQH states with $`\nu =1`$ and $`\nu =\frac{1}{2m+1}`$, $`m`$ being an integer represent fully polarized states. The states with $`\nu =p`$ as well as $`\nu =p/q,p`$ odd, $`q`$ odd with $`p>1`$ represent partially polarized states and with $`\nu =p/q,p`$ even, $`q`$ odd with $`p>1`$ represent unpolarized states. It may be noted that the same result for unpolarized states has also been found from numerical computations 6  and an exact diagonalization study has revealed that at $`\nu =3/5`$, the system is partially polarized. These are also in agreement with experiments. Mandal and Ravishankar 8  have studied the polarization states in terms of an Abelian doublet of Chern-Simons gauge fields where the strength of the Chern-Simons term is given by a coupling matrix in the framework of composite fermion model. Their findings are also consistent with these results.

Wu and Sondhi 10  have calculated the energies of quasiparticles for odd integer filling factors $`\nu =2k+1,k1`$ and have observed that skyrmions are not the low energy charged excitations even at small Zeeman energies. Mandal and Ravishankar 23  have studied the quasiparticles in partially polarized states and have observed that skyrmions in this case are not the usual one whereas for unpolarized states skyrmions do not exist at all. Here from the homotopic analysis we have found that skyrmions are the relevant quasiparticles only for fully polarized states whereas for partially polarized and unpolarized states skyrmionic excitations do not exist at all.


format: text

text:
# On the Lorentz Transformations of Momentum and Energy.

## 1 Introduction.

In the last few years several authors have suggested that the relativity principle and the Lorentz symmetry might not be valid for processes that involve ultra-high-energy particles and that in this way one could explain some unexpected observations in cosmic ray physics .

It has also been suggested that these new phenomena can also be explained maintaining the validity of the relativity principle and of the Lorentz symmetry, but assuming that the Lorentz group acts in a non-linear way on the energy and on the components of momentum .

This possibility, sometimes called “doubly special relativity”, has subsequently been discussed in many articles. A list of references and a summary of some results are given in ref. . Many authors have remarked that, in the proposed models, the non-linearly transforming variables are non-linear functions of the usual linearly transforming variables. More recently  it has been observed that a simple change of variables cannot affect the final results of a calculation concerning, for instance, the kinematics of particle collisions. As a consequence, at least in some important respects, the proposed “doubly special relativistic” theories are not physically distinguishable from the usual special relativistic formalism.

In order to discuss the possible existence of non-linearly transforming kinematic variables that are not functions of a linearly transforming four-vector, in ref.  we have adopted an abstract point of view, namely we have considered these four quantities as a (redundant) set of coordinates on a three-dimensional manifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, usually called the mass-shell. In differential geometry, it is a familiar fact that the important properties of the geometric objects do not depend on the choice of the coordinates. We have assumed that the Lorentz group acts continuously and transitively on $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, namely that $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is an homogeneous space. In the present paper we adopt this point of view and we derive some of the results of ref.  starting from more general assumptions.

Note that we only consider the transformation properties of energy and momentum on the mass shell. This is sufficient for a simple phenomenological treatment of the kinematics of particle propagation and collisions. For more theoretical considerations it is necessary to investigate the non-transitive action of the Lorentz group on the whole four-dimensional energy-momentum space. This harder problem is discussed in ref. .

In the usual relativistic theory, the mass-shell $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of a massive particle is defined in terms of the components of a four-vector $`\pi ^i=(\pi ^0,\stackrel{}{\pi })`$ by the equation

$$\pi _i\pi ^i=(\pi ^0)^2|\stackrel{}{\pi }|^2=1,\pi ^01.$$
(1)
Note that the quantities $`\pi ^i`$, which transform linearly under the Lorentz group, form a (redundant) set of coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, but we do not identify them with the components of the four-momentum. In a similar way, for a massless particle the manifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is defined by

$$\pi _i\pi ^i=0,\pi ^0>0.$$
(2)
It is a remarkable experimental fact that one can assign to every kind of particle a parameter $`m`$ in such a way that the four-momentum defined by

$$p^i=m\pi ^i$$
(3)
is conserved in collisions, at least if the energies lie in the range up to now accessible in laboratory experiments. For massive particles $`m`$ is the mass and for massless particles we can always put $`m=1`$, by means of a rescaling of the variables $`\pi ^i`$ that satisfy the dilatation invariant constraint (2).

As we have said above, a “trivial” deformation of the Lorentz transformations of the four-momentum of a particle can be introduced by modifying the relations (3), namely by introducing new coordinates in the same manifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. A non-trivial deformation replaces the abstract homogeneous space $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ by another (non isomorphic) one. The second possibility has been examined in ref.  with a negative result. However, a particular definition of “small” deformation was adopted there and with a more general definition the result could have been different. Here we want to settle this argument by considering all the mathematically possible three-dimensional homogeneous spaces, up to isomorphisms.

## 2 Three-dimensional homogeneous spaces.

A detailed classification of all the homogeneous spaces (with dimension smaller than six) of the Lorentz group is given in ref.  and here we summarize the results relevant for our problem. Some of the three-dimensional homogeneous spaces are transitive with respect to the action of the rotation subgroup. This means that any possible four-momentum of the particle can be obtained from another arbitrary four-momentum by means of a rotation. As a consequence, it is not possible to define a rotation-invariant energy. As it has been discussed in ref. , this is clearly a physically unacceptable feature and we disregard these spaces in the following.

All the other three-dimensional homogeneous spaces are isomorphic to one of the following five spaces (one of them depending on a continuous parameter $`k`$).

1. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^+`$ defined by eq. (1).
2. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^0`$ defined by eq. (2).
3. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^{}`$ defined by the equation

$$\pi _i\pi ^i=1.$$
(4)
4. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}^{}`$ obtained from the space $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^{}`$ by identifying opposite points $`\pm \pi ^i`$. One can also impose the condition $`\pi ^00`$ and identify only the points $`(0,\pm \stackrel{}{\pi })`$.
5. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,k}^0`$ ($`k>1`$) obtained from the space $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^0`$ by identifying points of the kind $`k^m\pi ^i`$, where $`m`$ is an arbitrary integer. One can also impose the condition $`1\pi ^0k`$ and identify only the points $`(1,\stackrel{}{\pi })`$ and $`(k,k\stackrel{}{\pi })`$.

The first three spaces are orbits in a four-vector space of the kind considerd by Wigner . The quantities $`\pi ^i`$ form a redundant set of global coordinates. The last two spaces (which were not taken into account in ref. ) cannot be considered as orbits in a four-vector space and the functions $`\pi ^i`$, being multi-valued, cannot be considered as global coordinates. However, every point of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ has a neighborhood in which a single value of these functions can be chosen in a continuous way and in this neighborhood they provide a redundant set of local coordinates, which transform as the components of a four-vector under Lorentz transformations sufficiently near to the identity.

It is important to remember that not all the points of the homogeneous spaces are (up to now) accessible to experimental investigation. It is clear that particles with extremely high energies are not available, but, for the massless particles, there are also problems with the extremely low energies corresponding to wave lengths larger than the planetary scale. We say that the points of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ that have been subjected to a detailed experimental investigation form the “accessible” kinematic region.

It is clear that the first two homogeneous spaces describe rather well, in the accssible kinematic region, the known properties of the massive and massless particles, respectively. We want to show that the other three spaces are not relevant for physics. Presumably, they would introduce serious problems in the construction of a consistent physical theory, for instance a quantum field theory. However, we shall not use this argument, because the effects we are considering could be consequences of quantum gravity, a not yet well established theory. We prefer to base our discussion on simple phenomenological reasonings, directly related to the experimental observations.

## 3 Conservation and transformation laws.

Our arguments are mainly based on the conservation of energy and momentum. As we have already said, the experiments suggest that that in a given open connected region of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ (the accessible kinematic region) one can define four functions $`p^i`$, interpreted as the energy and the components of the momentum, which are conserved. This means that if we consider the process $`A+BC+D`$, the equalities

$$p^i(\pi _A)+p^i(\pi _B)=p^i(\pi _C)+p^i(\pi _D)$$
(5)
are satisfied if $`\pi _A,\pi _B,\pi _C`$ and $`\pi _D`$ belong to the accessible kinematic region. We also assume that the energy $`p^0`$ is a scalar, the momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is a vector under rotations and the accessible kinematic region is rotationally invariant. Then we can put

$$p^0=f(\pi ^0),\stackrel{}{p}=g(\pi ^0)\stackrel{}{\pi },a<\pi ^0<b.$$
(6)
As we have reminded in ref. , it has been proven a long time ago  that the conservation of energy and momentum together with their transformation properties under rotations and other minor additional assumptions imply eq. (3). This result is in agreement with the assumptions adopted in ref. , namely that the linearly transforming quantities (3) are conserved in collisions, while the non-linarly transforming quantities (which are considered physically more significant) satisfy more complicated constraints.

However, the proofs that can be found in the textbooks  are not sufficiently general for our purposes, since they are given only for massive particles and assume that both the coordinates $`\pi ^i`$ and $`p^i`$ are defined on the whole homogeneous space $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Here we give a simple more general proof, which holds for all the five homogeneous spaces introduced above and assumes the conservation laws only in the interval $`a<\pi ^0<b`$.

It is sufficient to assume that energy and momentum are conserved in the elastic scattering of identical particles. One can also consider only “peripheral” scattering, namely final states that differ only slightly from the initial state. Besides eqs. (5) and (6), we only assume that the function $`f`$ has a continuous second derivative and that the function $`g`$ has a continuous first derivative.

If we consider the particular initial and final states defined by

$$\pi _A=(\omega ,0,0,\eta ),\pi _B=(\omega ,0,0,\eta ),$$

$$\pi _C=(\omega ,0,\eta \mathrm{sin}\theta ,\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta ),\pi _D=(\omega ,0,\eta \mathrm{sin}\theta ,\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(7)
it follows from eq. (6) that the conservation equation (5) is satisfied.

If we apply to all the variables a boost along the third axis with a small rapidity $`\zeta `$, in such a way that it does not take the dynamical variables outside the open region where they are defined, we obtain

$$\pi _A^{}=(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta +\eta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta ,0,0,\omega \mathrm{sinh}\zeta +\eta \mathrm{cosh}\zeta ),$$

$$\pi _B^{}=(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta \eta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta ,0,0,\omega \mathrm{sinh}\zeta \eta \mathrm{cosh}\zeta ),$$

$$\pi _C^{}=(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta +\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta ,0,\eta \mathrm{sin}\theta ,\omega \mathrm{sinh}\zeta +\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\zeta ),$$

$$\pi _D^{}=(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta \eta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta ,0,\eta \mathrm{sin}\theta ,\omega \mathrm{sinh}\zeta \eta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\zeta ).$$
(8)
The conservation equations for the energy and the third component of momentum take the form

$$f(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta +\eta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta )+f(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta \eta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta )=$$

$$=f(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta +\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta )+f(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta \eta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta ),$$
(9)
$$(\omega \mathrm{sinh}\zeta +\eta \mathrm{cosh}\zeta )g(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta +\eta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta )+$$

$$+(\omega \mathrm{sinh}\zeta \eta \mathrm{cosh}\zeta )g(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta \eta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta )=$$

$$=(\omega \mathrm{sinh}\zeta +\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\zeta )g(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta +\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta )+$$

$$+(\omega \mathrm{sinh}\zeta \eta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\zeta )g(\omega \mathrm{cosh}\zeta \eta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\zeta ).$$
(10)
We calculate the second derivatives of both sides of eq. (9) and the first derivatives of both sides of eq. (10) and we put $`\zeta =0`$. If $`\eta >0`$ and $`\theta `$ is small, but not vanishing, we obtain the result

$$f^{\prime \prime }(\omega )=0,g^{}(\omega )=0.$$
(11)
We note that $`\eta =|\stackrel{}{\pi }|`$ can vanish only for $`\omega =\pi ^0=1`$, if $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }_3^+`$. It follows that $`\stackrel{}{p}=m\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ and $`p^0=a\pi ^0+b`$.

The quantities $`m,a`$ and $`b`$ depend on the kind of particle and can be determined, up to ambiguities due to the choice of the units, by considering low energy processes that involve many kinds of particles. From the conservation of $`p^0`$ and the Lorentz transformation law of $`\pi ^i`$, it follows that $`a\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ and $`b`$ are also conserved quantities. In order to avoid the conservation of two different vector quantities, we have to put (with a convenient choice of the units) $`a=m`$. The scalar conserved quantity $`b`$ (for instance, proportional to the electric charge), can be eliminated by changing the arbitrary additive constant of the energy, and the proof of eq. (3) is complete.

From eq. (3) and eqs. (1), (2), (4), we obtain dispersion laws of the kind

$$p^ip_i=C,$$
(12)
where $`C=m^2`$ in the case a), $`C=m^2`$ in the cases c) and d) and $`C=0`$ in the cases b) and e). We have shown in a very general way that, as a consequence of the relativity principle, in the kinematic region in which the energy-momentum conservation laws are valid, the dispersion law must have the usual quadratic Lorentz invariant form. We have also seen that only the usual mass-shell $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^+`$ can be used to describe massive particles.

## 4 Massless particles.

For massless particles, the situation is more delicate. From the experiments one can only deduce upper bounds to the absolute value of the constant $`C`$ which appears in the dispersion law and all the five homogeneous spaces are admitted from this point of view. A discussion of the upper bounds to the photon mass can be found in ref. .

In the case c), negative values of $`\pi ^0`$ are allowed, and, in order to avoid negative values of $`p^0`$, which are not observed, one has to modify eq. (3). For instance, one can use the formula

$$p^0=\frac{m}{2}\left(\pi ^0+((\pi ^0)^2+1)^{1/2}\right),\stackrel{}{p}=p^0|\stackrel{}{\pi }|^1\stackrel{}{\pi },$$
(13)
which coincides with eq. (3) for $`p^0m`$. For small values of $`p^0`$, the quantities $`p^i`$ are not given by eq. (3) and cannot be conserved. Note that both negative values of the energy and energy non-conservation are hardly compatible with a thermal equilibrium state of the radiation.

In the case d), if $`g(0)>0`$, the momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is discontinuous for $`\pi ^0=0`$ and cannot be conserved in the very low energy region. In fact, one can imagine situations in which one of the terms in eq. (5) is discontinuous, while the other three are continuous, which is a contradiction. If $`g(0)=0`$, $`g(\pi ^0)`$ cannot be constant and the conservation laws are again violated. A similar situation appears in the case e), in which the quantities $`p^i`$ are discontinuous at $`\pi ^0=m`$ (or at $`\pi ^0=km`$), unless we have $`f(m)=f(km)`$ and $`g(m)=kg(km)`$.

In conclusion, we cannot exclude that the homogeneous spaces $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3+}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,k}^0`$ can be used to decribe, for instance, the photon, but $`m`$ has to lie well below the accessible energy region. In the case $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,k}^0`$, moreover, we have to require that $`km`$ lies well above the accessible energy region. If these conditions are satisfied, these homogeneous spaces are experimentally indistinguishable form the space $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^0`$, which is traditionally adopted to describe massless particles.

The anomalies which could appear at energies of the order of the parameter $`m`$ concern the behavior of the long-wave electromagnetic waves, namely some modifications of the classical Maxwell equations. Of course, it is difficult to test the Maxwell equations at a distance scale larger than the planetary scale .

In cosmic ray physics, one is more interested in ultra-high-energy phenomena. In this energy range, the homogeneous spaces $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3+}^{}`$ are practically indistinguishable from the space $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^0`$ and they represent just a useless complication in the description of high energy massless particles.

The case $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,k}^0`$ deserves more attention. If $`f(\pi ^0)`$ is continuous, it cannot be a monotonic function and there is more than one state with the same energy $`p^0`$ and the same direction of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. One has to explain why these additional states are not observed in laboratory experiments. If $`f(\pi ^0)`$ is monotonic, we must have $`f(km)f(m)`$ and, if in a collision a particle with energy slightly larger than $`f(km)`$ is produced, it appears as a particle with energy near to $`f(m)`$, namely, in practice, it becomes unobservable. In a similar way, if in a low energy process a particle with energy smaller than $`f(m)`$ is emitted, it appears as a particle with energy near to $`f(km)`$, namely as a ultra-high-energy particle.

These predictions look rather incredible, even if the probability of these events can be made as small as we like by choosing the parameters $`m`$ and $`k`$. In any case, these strange features do not help in any way the explanation of the cosmic ray anomalies which have motivated our investigation.

All these considerations suggest that the only abstract homogeneous spaces which can reasonably be used for the description of particles are the hyperboloid $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^+`$ and the light-cone $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^0`$, in agreement with the conclusions of ref. .

## 5 Covariance and average velocity.

Another important property of the particles, besides their four-momentum, is their velocity. We do not mean the istantaneous velocity, which could be badly defined if the space-time has some kind of “granular” structure, but the average velocity over a time interval $`t`$ much larger than the scale $`t_0`$ of this structure, probably the Plank scale. If the time interval $`t`$ is also much larger than $`\mathrm{}/|\stackrel{}{p}|`$, the average velocity can be treated as a classical (non quantum) observable. It is operationally well defined if its value does not vary appreciably in the time interval $`t`$, namely if the external fields, including the curvature, are not too large and we exclude the collisions with other particles.

Under these conditions, we can describe the velocity by means of a ray in the Minkowski space-time (a stright line passing through the origin) parallel to the tangent to the world-line of the particle. In other words, the velocity space is the three-dimensional projective space corresponding to the Minkowski spacetime. With respect to the action of the Lorentz group it splits into three orbits. The time-like rays cross the hyperboloid (1) in one point and form an homogeneous space isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^+`$. The space-like rays cross the hyperboloid (4) in two opposite points and form an homogeneous space isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}^{}`$. The light-like rays form a two-dimensional orbit diffeomorphic to a sphere, called the celestial sphere. In ref.  it is indicated by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ and it is the only two-dimensional homogeneous space.

If the relativity principle is valid, there is a covariant mapping between the homogeneous space that describes the energy-momentum of a particle and the velocity space. The image of this mapping is one of the three orbits mentioned above. It has been shown in ref.  that this mapping is uniquely determined by the covariance. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^+`$ is trivially mapped onto itself, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^{}`$ is mapped onto $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}^{}`$ is mapped onto itself, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,k}^0`$ are mapped onto the celestial sphere $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$.

This means that, as a consequence of the relativity principle, the average velocity depends on the kinematic variables $`\pi ^i`$ in the usual way and this dependence is not affected by a possible non-linear choice of the energy-momentum coordinates $`p^i`$. This conclusion was also reached in refs. . If we require that the velocity is given by the familiar Hamilton equation, the coordinates $`p^i`$ cannot be chosen arbitrarily. It also follows that it is difficult to explain a possible dependence on the energy of the average velocity in vacuum of gamma rays without abandoning the relativity principle, namely without introducing privileged inertial frames (see also ).

## 6 Conclusions.

An important consequence of our analysis is that, as a consequence of the relativity principle, in the kinematic calculations one can always use the components of energy-momentum defined by eq. (3), which satisfy the usual dispersion law and are conserved in collisions with a center-of-mass energy in the range studied in laboratory experiments. Of course, one can use different coordinates, but the final result cannot change, since the effect of a modification of the dispersion law is compensated by a modification of the conservation laws.

This remark can be applied to the treatment of the GZK cutoff , which arises because protons with an energy larger than $`5\times 10^{10}GeV`$ colliding with the photons of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) reach the threshold for pion photoproduction and cannot cover a long intergalactic distance without loosing most of their energy.

The collisions between ultra-high energy protons and the CMB photons have a low center-of-mass energy and, as we have seen, can be treated by means of the usual kinematic formalism. It is also correct to use the cross-sections measured in laboratory experiments and the argument leading to the GZK cutoff for the energy coordinate defined by eq. (3) cannot be avoided.

In conclusion, the present more general analysis confirms the results of ref. , namely that if the arrival of cosmic rays with energy beyond the GZK cutoff  is confirmed (see, however, ref.  and references therein), we have to consider the following alternatives.

1. The cosmic rays do not come from the far intergalactic space.
2. The relativity principle is valid and the energy defined by eq. (3) is subject to the GZK cutoff, but it is not the energy evaluated in the experiments. This may happen because the collisions of the cosmic rays with the nuclei in the high atmosphere, which have a center-of-mass energy much larger than the collisions studied in the terrestrial laboratories, have unexpected features, possibly a breakdown of the conservation laws.
3. The relativity principle is not valid and there are privileged inertial frames. The fundamental laws may still be Lorentz covariant, but some long-range vector or tensor field may have a non vanishing expectation value that singles out the privileged frames.


text:
# Spin-blockade spectroscopy of a two-level artificial molecule

## Abstract

Coulomb and spin blockade spectroscopy investigations have been performed on an electrostatically defined “artificial molecule” connected to spin polarized leads. The molecule is first effectively reduced to a two-level system by placing both constituent atoms at a specific location of the level spectrum. The spin sensitivity of the conductance enables us to identify the electronic spin-states of the two-level molecule. We find in addition that the magnetic field induces variations in the tunnel coupling between the two atoms. The lateral nature of the device is evoked to explain this behavior.

Considerable experimental and theoretical effort is currently being applied towards the realization, characterization and manipulation of artificial molecules double\_dots  building largely on progress in studies of artificial atoms ciorga00 ; single\_dots ; tarucha96 . The main focus is on building spintronic nanostructures, including single and coupled quantum dot devices, in which a single electron or a single spin can be isolated and probed spintronics . Connecting a single quantum dot to spin polarized leads effectively resulted in a simple spin transistor ciorga00 ; ciorga02 ; ciorga01 ; jordan . Coupled quantum dot systems are technologically important for the creation of entangled spin states for quantum information applications such as the construction of quantum gates qbits .

In this Letter we report on Coulomb and spin blockade spectroscopy studies of a spintronic nanostructure consisting of two laterally coupled quantum dots in series connected to spin polarized leads via tunnel barriers. Although the total number of electrons in each dot was larger than one comment\_1 , it is possible, by applying a magnetic field, to reduce effectively the two-dot system to a two-level molecule, to which we can controllably add up to four “valence” electrons. The above condition is achieved at filling factor $`\nu =2`$ in the dot, a regime well described in our studies on single dot devices ciorga02 ; ciorga01 . In a Fock-Darwin picture of a quantum dot spectrum this corresponds to the region just after the last orbital crossing tarucha96 ; tarucha00 . The localized spatial distribution of the relevant wavefunctions allows us to treat electrons occupying the lowest (highest) energy orbitals as “core” (valence) electrons. Two valence orbitals, lying at the edge of the individual quantum dots, can be coupled and de-coupled by means of electrostatic gates. The total spin of the valence electrons in the molecular states controls the current through the system, because of the spin polarized leads. The spin of quantum molecules can be tuned in a similar fashion to the spin in single dots—by lowering magnetic field slightly below its $`\nu =2`$ value and inducing singlet-triplet transitions in the individual dots ciorga02 ; tarucha00 . In addition to the the amplitude modulation of the current through the molecule, we also observe variations in the inter-dot tunnel coupling as the magnetic field is reduced.

Figure 1(a) shows a scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of our coupled quantum dot device. The dots are defined within the two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) of a GaAs-AlGaAs heterostructure. Negative voltages applied to the pairs of gates 1T-0B, 2T-2B and 3T-4B define the lead-to-left-dot, inter-dot and right-dot-to-lead tunnel barriers, respectively. Gates 1B and 3B are used not only to change the number of electrons but also to tune the energy levels of each dot. The dot-to-lead tunnel conductance is always set so that the coupled dot system is well isolated from the leads ($`2e^2/h`$), whereas the inter-dot tunnel conductance can be tuned from zero to $`2e^2/h`$ to control the inter-dot coupling. The device employs the same gate geometry that allowed us to realize single lateral quantum dots containing a single electron ciorga00 ; ciorga02 . The conductance $`G`$ was measured using standard lock-in techniques.

Consider first two well-isolated dots, each containing an even number of electrons, in the regime of filling factor $`\nu =2`$. We can picture electrons in this phase as occupying just a simple ladder of states within the first Landau level (1LL), associated with an approximately parabolic confining potential in each dot nu2 . As depicted in Fig. 1(b), the wavefunction of each of these states can be regarded as a “ring” with a radius that increases with the energy of the state. Each state is occupied by a pair of electrons with opposite spin. These “core” electrons form a spin singlet droplet of electrons within each dot ciorga02 . We consider these two droplets as the “vacuum”, state to which “valence” electrons are added (Fig. 1(c)).

With both dots set at $`\nu =2`$, the empty valence orbitals are located at the edges of both droplets. If we now lower the inter-dot barrier, only these outermost valence orbitals become significantly coupled (Fig. 1b). The two dots now effectively form a very simple artificial molecule in which valence electrons can occupy two molecular states that are delocalized over both dots blick . A representation of the molecular states of the effective two-level system is shown in Fig. 1(d) for the case when the energy of the left and the right dot edge orbitals are matched ($`\epsilon _L=\epsilon _R`$). In this case, the molecular states are the related symmetric (S) and anti-symmetric (AS) states. Valence electrons can be manipulated by different operations, eg. adding/subtracting electrons to/from the system or, at a fixed number of electrons, reducing the magnetic field from its $`\nu =2`$ value to transfer an electron between the outermost orbital of the 1LL and the innermost orbital of 2LL within each dot (Fig. 1c)ciorga02 .

We now proceed to demonstrate how Coulomb blockade (CB) spectroscopy is used to measure the energy difference between S and AS molecular states. Figure 2(a) shows a grayscale plot of the measured conductance through the two dots, as a function of voltages $`V_L`$ and $`V_R`$ applied to gates 1B and 3B, respectively. The number of core electrons localized in the left and the right dot is 12 and 14, respectively ($`N_{core}=(12,14)`$). A small mismatch in the occupation number of both dots allows us to separate the effects related to coupling of orbitals belonging to the 1LL and the 2LL, as will be discussed later. The magnetic field is set to $`B=1.05`$T—in the $`\nu =2`$ regime. Large Coulomb blockaded regions of zero conductance are separated by two conductance peaks labeled “A” and “B”. The position and amplitude of these peaks vary in the $`(V_L,V_R)`$ plane. The region where A and B are closest, and their amplitude is largest, corresponds to a pair of triple points, labeled as “$`\alpha `$” and “$`\beta `$”, in the charging diagram of the double-dot system blick . The CB regions are labeled with numbers corresponding to the number of valence electrons ($`N_V=`$0, 1 and 2) occupying the two-level system.

On conductance peak A, at point $`\alpha `$, electrons tunnel one-by-one from the left lead to the right lead through the S state of the two-level system, and the number of valence electrons fluctuates between 0 and 1 ($`N_V=01`$). Peak B corresponds to the situation where $`N_V=12`$. The observation that peaks A and B have opposite curvature, i.e. they are not parallel, in Fig. 2(b) suggests that at point $`\beta `$ electrons are transported through the AS state, with the S state permanently occupied with one electron ziegler . This simple observation leads us to the level filling scheme depicted in Fig. 2(c) which we will confirm by spin blockade spectroscopy discussed below.

The energy spacing between peaks A and B in Fig. 2(b) is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\gamma _M+\sqrt{(\epsilon _L\epsilon _R)^2+4t^2}`$, where $`\gamma _M`$ is the inter-dot charging energy and $`t`$ is the tunnel coupling energy ziegler . The energies of the left and the right dot edge orbitals, $`\epsilon _L`$ and $`\epsilon _R`$ , can be adjusted by gate voltages $`V_L`$ and $`V_R`$. From the minimum value of the spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{min}=\gamma _M+2t`$, we estimate $`\gamma _M`$ 160 $`\mu `$eV and $`t`$ 30 $`\mu `$eV at 1.05 T blick ; conv\_factor . This occurs for the condition $`\epsilon _L=\epsilon _R`$ identified by the black dashed line in the $`(V_L,V_R)`$ plane which crosses peaks A and B at points $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively. When the two levels are detuned by the gates, i.e. $`\epsilon _L\epsilon _R`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases, the S and AS states become bonding and anti-bonding states pi , and amplitude of the peaks decreases blick ; ziegler .

To investigate the effect of the magnetic field on the spin of the molecular states, in the regime where singlet-triplet transitions are observed in single dots, spin blockade spectroscopy was performed. This spin sensitive technique was originally used for single dot devices ciorga00 ; ciorga02 ; pawel . Because of the spin polarization of the leads, the tunneling rates for spin-down electrons are higher than for spin-up electrons and the spin injection/detection mechanism is enabled. Hence, if a molecular state is already occupied by a spin-down electron, only the spin-up tunneling channel is available and the current is substantially reduced. Figure 3(a) shows the amplitude of the conductance peaks A and B at points $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ ($`\epsilon _L=\epsilon _R`$), related to the addition of valence electrons to the molecular states, as a function of perpendicular magnetic field. Since $`N_{core}`$ is different for each dot, the position of the triple points (the condition $`\epsilon _L=\epsilon _R`$) in the $`(V_L,V_R)`$ plane can, and does, change slightly with magnetic field, as seen in Fig. 4(a). The origin for this is discussed later. Conductance plots between 0.89 T and 1.05 T, similar to the one shown in Fig. 2(a), are carefully repeated and the conductance at points $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ extracted. Remarkably, not just the magnetic field dependence of the conductance, but also the amplitude, are practically identical for both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. This reveals that both added electrons must have the same spin. Therefore, due to Pauli exclusion principle, they must be added successively to the S state (at point $`\alpha `$) and the AS state (point $`\beta `$). Within the discussed field span we can clearly distinguish three different regimes in terms of the conductance level. These are characterized by “low”(LO), “very low” (VLO) and “high” (HI) amplitude. The electronic configurations we deduce for the core electrons for these three regimes are shown in Fig. 3(b). The observed variation of the amplitude at points $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ will now be explained by a combination of the lateral extent of the S and AS molecular states, depicted in Fig. 3(c), and the spin polarized injection/detection mechanism.

Over the range of magnetic field where the amplitude at points $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is high, electrons move through edge-edge molecular states (originating from the coupling of edge orbitals of each dot) at $`\nu =2`$ (Fig. 1b). As the amplitude at both points is high, it must be a spin-down electron that is added to the system in both $`N_V=01`$ and $`N_V=12`$ transitions. Hence, during HI phase, for $`N_V=1`$, one spin-down electron occupies the edge-edge S state, and for $`N_V=2`$ both edge-edge S and AS states are occupied by one spin-down electron each. Such a level filling scheme, depicted in the rightmost panel of Fig. 3(c), confirms the results of CB measurements.

As the magnetic field is decreased away from the $`\nu =2`$, different orbitals come into play, and the amplitude of points $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ falls dramatically as we enter the VLO regime. At fields below about 1.03T the innermost orbital of the 2LL in each dot becomes the lowest unoccupied valence orbital, as illustrated in the middle panel of Fig. 3(b) (this is well established from single quantum dot experiments ciorga02 ). As this “center” orbital is highly localized at the center of the dot(Fig. 1b), it is expected to overlap weakly with the center orbital from the second dot when forming center-center molecular states. This is confirmed when we examine in detail the middle plots of Fig. 4. We find that the position of peaks A and B shows almost no curvature near the triple points, i.e. $`t0`$ $`\mu `$eV at 1.00 T comment\_2 . At points $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, spin-down electrons may still tunnel through the S and AS states, but a reduction in amplitude at these points is dominated by the reduction in the coupling to the leads. Since the number of core electrons in the two dots is set different, then when the empty edge orbitals in the two dots are aligned in the HI regime (rightmost panel of Fig. 3b), the empty center orbital in the left dot lies at a higher energy than the equivalent center orbital in the right dot. For this reason, the $`\epsilon _L=\epsilon _R`$ condition must occur at a slighly different position in the $`(V_L,V_R)`$ plane for the center-center S and AS states in the VLO regime than for edge-edge states in the HI regime. This is clearly seen in the middle plot of Fig. 4(a). Hence, during the VLO phase, for $`N_V=1`$, one spin-down electron occupies the center-center S state, and for $`N_V=2`$ both center-center S and AS states are occupied by one spin-down electron each, as depicted in the middle panel of Fig. 3(c).

Finally, the LO regime is entered when the magnetic field $`B`$ is decreased below 0.92 T. The empty center orbital in each dot continues to be lowered in energy relative to the highest occupied edge orbital, so eventually it is energetically favorable for the spin-up electron to transfer from the edge orbital to the center orbital, flipping its spin in the process, as depicted in the leftmost panel of Fig. 3(b). This constitutes a singlet-triplet transition for an even-electron dot, well described by studies on single-dot devices ciorga02 ; ciorga01 ; tarucha00 . We see that the triple points move back to a position similar to that in the HI regime, and the tunnel coupling energy recovers to a value close to that observed in the HI regime ($`t25`$ $`\mu `$eV at 0.91 T). From these observations, it is clear that in the LO regime it is again the edge orbitals that are responsible for the formation of the molecular states, but with the important difference that the edge-edge S and AS states already contain two spin-down electrons (leftmost panel in Fig. 3c). Note that the edge valence orbital discussed here is not the one involved in the HI regime but the orbital one-step down in the ladder of states of the 1LL in the respective dots. Lowering $`B`$ reduces then $`N_{core}`$ and increases $`N_V`$ by two. Since now initially $`N_V=2`$ and both the spin-down valence states are full, peaks A and B correspond to filling the edge-edge S and AS states with spin-up electrons comment\_3  and the resulting current is low, due to spin blockade. In a simple picture, the difference between the LO and HI phases is due to the spin blockade of molecular states triggered by the transfer of one electron between the edge and center orbitals of each individual dot. This is supported by observed $`B`$-dependence of peaks related to adding $`N_V=3,4`$ at $`\nu =2`$. The peaks are still paired, but their amplitude pattern is reversed, i.e. HI (LO) becomes LO (HI) while VLO is unchanged. This is shown in the Fig. 3(a) inset.

In summary, we have demonstrated a spintronic nanostructure with an achievable two-level system in which one can determine and manipulate the states of artificial molecules at the single spin level. The experimental data are fully consistent with our simple model, and lead to a conclusion that spin effects described in this Letter are the artificial molecule analogue of odd-even effects observed for artificial atoms.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank D.G. Austing for very helpful discussions. M.P.L. acknowledges financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. A.S.S. and P.H. acknowledge the support from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.


text:
# Quasars are more luminous than radio galaxies – so what?

## 1 Introduction

As the cosmological applications of radio galaxies become clearer, it is important to realize that they do not represent a fundamental class of object. Searches for high-redshift radio sources use spectral index and optical magnitude selection criteria which result in the exclusion of radio-loud quasars even though these are fundamentally the same objects, according to the standard AGN unification paradigm. While this does not matter if one is using radio galaxies simply as signposts to locate and study places where large-scale structure is developing TNJ1338 ; SR2002 , it is possible that they could be used to measure the rate of formation of (spinning) supermassive black holes and/or clusters. To do this, however, requires not just an understanding of radio source physics BRW , but also a renormalization to account for the missed quasar population. A quantitative understanding of how orientation affects the observed properties of extragalactic radio sources is therefore required to fully exploit these objects.

## 2 The receding torus

The ubiquity of the ‘big red bump’ longward of $`1\mu `$m in the spectra of QSOs QED , together with the interpretation of this as thermal emission from hot dust Barvainis ; Fairall9 , seems to indicate that dust will always exist as close to the active nucleus as physics allows. If this is the same dust that is responsible for hiding the nucleus from direct view in narrow-line objects, then it must lie further from the nucleus in objects with higher ionizing luminosities. The assumption that the height of the obscuring structure (‘torus’ in unification parlance) remains constant leads to the receding torus model L91 ; HGD ; Bart . In this scenario, more luminous objects have a higher probability of being observed as quasars, and consequently the mean ionizing luminosity of quasars in an orientationally-unbiased (radio-selected) sample will be higher than that of radio galaxies. It therefore follows that any quantity which is more strongly correlated with ionizing luminosity than with radio luminosity will also be higher in quasars than radio galaxies Bart . Indeed, studies of \[O iii\] JB90 ; L94 , mid-to-far-infrared MFIR ; vanB , and submillimetre CJW850  luminosities indicate that quasars are indeed more luminous than radio galaxies in these properties by factors of a few. Since the receding torus model was first described at around the same time as the earliest of these studies, it has always surprised me that it did not gain greater acceptance as a way to explain these differences, which were incompatible with a picture where the torus opening angle was the same in all objects. The lack of a difference in \[O ii\] luminosities between quasars and radio galaxies Hes  is due to the insensitivity of this line to the strength of the ionizing continuum Bart , while the apparent lack of a difference in \[O iii\] luminosity at high redshift JR97  is probably a result of large measurement uncertainties — the lack of a significant difference does not equate to the two classes having the same luminosity, and the data are also consistent with quasars being twice as luminous in this line, as is seen at lower redshift L94 .

## 3 Observational evidence

Of course, the key assumption in the receding torus model is that the height of the torus is independent of AGN luminosity. While this seems to be a reasonable zeroth-order assumption, it need not be true since the AGN luminosity is correlated with black hole mass, and therefore also with the mass of the host galaxy; it is quite possible that either or both of these quantities might affect the height of the torus. However, several pieces of observational evidence indicate that the height of the torus is not a strong function of luminosity.

1. The quasar fraction in different samples should increase with AGN luminosity as the inner wall of the torus is pushed away QSOfrac ; Jenny .
2. The fraction of lightly-reddened quasars (i.e., those where broad wings are seen on H$`\alpha `$ but not H$`\beta `$) should decrease with luminosity as the solid angle over which lines of sight ‘graze’ the edge of the torus decreases SRL99 .
3. The strength of ‘big red bump’ relative to the ionizing continuum should be less in more luminous objects as the solid angle subtended by the torus decreases SR2000 ; DLG . This is the cleanest and most quantitative test and the model fits the data well (Fig. 1).

Interestingly, there is also evidence that in the most luminous quasars, where the inner wall of the torus is pushed beyond a few parsecs, that the torus disintegrates completely DLG . The most distant SDSS quasars therefore provide an accurate census of the number of supermassive black holes in the early Universe.

## 4 Implications

None of the pieces of evidence presented in the previous section is consistent with what some authors refer to as the ‘simplest’ unification scenario, where broad- and narrow-line objects are separated by a single critical angle, independent of AGN properties. This should not be a cause of concern, since such a scenario is unrealistic, requiring either the inner walls of the torus to unphysically remain at the same distance from the nucleus irrespective of the AGN luminosity, or the torus height to increase in a contrived manner so as to maintain a constant opening angle. In addition, the first and third points above favour a torus rather than a warped disk since together they indicate that the obscuration is caused by the hot dust close to the nucleus, rather than by a warp at larger distances; the strong correlation between nuclear extinction and viewing angle in narrow-line radio galaxies also favours a torus rather than a warped disk SWW2000 .

As explained earlier, the receding torus model results in the mean (ionizing) luminosity of quasars in a sample being brighter than the mean (ionizing) luminosity of radio galaxies. The factor by which quasars are more luminous depends on two quantities: (i) the mean opening angle of the torus in the sample, which is fixed by the observed quasar fraction, and (ii) the spread in the distribution of ionizing luminosities in the sample. This second quantity is impossible to measure, but can be estimated as the convolution of the observed radio luminosity distribution with a Gaussian representing the scatter in the radio–ionizing luminosity correlation. Unfortunately, this scatter is also unknown; I previously adopted 0.6 dex Bart  from the scatter in the radio–optical correlation SBGS , although the use of $`M_B`$ as a tracer of the total ionizing luminosity adds uncertainties due to differences in rest-frame wavelength, extinction, and optical/UV spectral index; tighter correlations do exist RS91  and I believe the true scatter is lower. For now, I shall leave this as a free parameter.

The solid black region in Fig. 2 indicates that quasars exceed radio galaxies by a factor of 2–20 for reasonable values of the $`L_{\mathrm{rad}}`$$`L_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ dispersion (also, this number is insensitive to the quasar fraction)111Note that fig. 4 in ref. Bart  is incorrect due to improper normalization.. These values are larger than the factors of 2–5 by which quasars are observed to be more luminous than radio galaxies MFIR ; L94 ; vanB ; CJW850 , but this is due to the simplistic assumption that all tori have the same height. If torus heights are drawn from a log-normal distribution, the overluminosity is reduced since it increases the likelihood of low-$`L_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ objects being seen as quasars (since some will have short tori) while decreasing the likelihood of high-$`L_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ objects being seen as quasars (since some will have tall tori). This is represented by the gray regions in Fig. 2 where it can be seen that a significant difference in luminosities persists even when the torus height is allowed to vary by 1 dex. It is therefore inevitable that quasars will be, on average, more luminous in their ionizing radiation than radio galaxies, and hence more luminous in any related quantities (e.g., emission line and infrared luminosities, which arise from the reprocessing of ionizing photons). This is exactly what is observed, and adds additional support for the receding torus.

## 5 Further studies

None of the observational results quoted in this paper arose from a deliberate attempt to test the receding torus model. However, the success of this model, together with the intriguing possibility that Fig. 2 could be used to estimate the scatter in the $`L_{\mathrm{rad}}`$$`L_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ correlation and the range of torus heights, makes further study worthwhile.

First, the correlation in Fig. 1 should be extended to lower luminosities by studying fainter samples of radio-loud quasars at the same redshift (e.g., from the 7C sample); a sufficiently large number can be studied with an 8-m telescope in a few nights.

Second, direct evidence for an increase in the opening angle of the torus should be sought by looking at the distributions of the core-to-lobe ratio, $`R`$, in different samples. This measurement can be converted into an approximate viewing angle SWW2000  and the torus opening angle can be inferred from the distributions of quasars and radio galaxies.

## 6 Summary

The receding torus model provides a successful quantitative and physical framework within which to unify broad- and narrow-line AGN. The quantitative aspect is important for studies of the high-redshift Universe since neither optically-selected QSOs nor radio/optically-selected radio galaxies represent a fundamental class of object and their number densities must be related to the total (radio-loud) AGN number density by accounting for the missing population (narrow- and broad-line, respectively).


text:
# Traversable wormholes with arbitrarily small energy condition violations

(1 January 2003; Revised 28 March 2003; -ed )

## Abstract

Traversable wormholes necessarily require violations of the averaged null energy condition; this being the definition of “exotic matter”. However, the theorems which guarantee the energy condition violation are remarkably silent when it comes to making quantitative statements regarding the “total amount” of energy condition violating matter in the spacetime. We develop a suitable measure for quantifying this notion, and demonstrate the existence of spacetime geometries containing traversable wormholes that are supported by arbitrarily small quantities of “exotic matter”.

Lorentzian wormholes, exotic matter

Introduction: We know that traversable wormholes require “exotic matter”, that is, violations of the averaged null energy condition \[ANEC\] morris-thorne ; topological ; visser ; book . But, do we need “large” amounts of ANEC violating matter or are “small” amounts sufficient to do the job? This question is particularly interesting in view of the fact that quantum effects are known to induce *some* energy condition violations violation . Furthermore numerical evidence suggests that quantum effects may be sufficient to support a wormhole throat hochberg . On the other hand, there are significant limitations (the Ford–Roman “quantum inequalities” and their variants) on the “size” and “distribution” of quantum-induced energy condition violations quantum .

To set the stage, consider the four great results of global analysis in classical GR — the area increase, positive mass, singularity, and topological censorship theorems. Some of these classical results seem to survive the introduction of quantum physics, others do not.

In the case of the area increase theorem (see, *e.g.*, hell ) we know that quantum effects, though extremely tiny, violate the ANEC (and other energy conditions) and are a necessary pre-condition for Hawking radiation flux . The effect though tiny is *secular*, so it accumulates and completely reverses the conclusion of the classical area increase theorem once quantum effects are brought into account.

In contrast, for the positive mass theorem yau  the situation is rather different. For a finite spherically symmetric static distribution we know (using curvature coordinates) that

$$m_{\mathrm{}}=m_0+_{\mathrm{max}\{0,2m_0\}}^{\mathrm{}}4\pi r^2\rho (r)dr.$$
(1)
So if the asymptotic mass is to be “large” and negative, then similarly either the central “bare” mass $`m_0`$ or the integrated density must be large and negative. You cannot get large negative asymptotic mass from infinitesimal weak energy condition \[WEC\] violations.

The situation with respect to the singularity theorems (see, *e.g.*hell ) is intermediate. The various ways currently known of violating the energy conditions twilight  lead to “technical” violation of the singularity theorems — the hypotheses of the singularity theorems (as currently formulated) are not satisfied by empirical reality. Whether it is possible to avoid singularities armed only with arbitrarily small quantities of ANEC violating matter is not presently known.

With regard to topological censorship, the key question is this: Is the existence of traversable wormholes more akin to the situation with the area increase theorem (infinitesimal ANEC violations reverse the conclusion of the theorem) or is it more akin to the situation with regard to positive mass (large WEC violations needed for a large negative mass)? We shall answer this question by explicit example — we work with static spherically symmetric spacetimes and develop a suitable quantitative measure of the “total amount” of exotic matter. We then display a particular class of spacetime geometries that contain a traversable wormhole (and thereby violate topological censorship), but which are supported by arbitrarily small quantities of exotic matter.

We conclude that the topological censorship theorem is more akin to the area increase theorem than to the positive mass theorem — small violations of the energy conditions are sufficient to evade the conclusions of the theorem.

Constructing the wormhole: Consider a static spherically symmetric spacetime and go to Schwarzschild coordinates (curvature coordinates) morris-thorne ; book :

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi (r)]\mathrm{d}t^2+\frac{\mathrm{d}r^2}{1b(r)/r}+r^2(\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{d}\phi ^2).$$
(2)
Then, using the Einstein field equations, the components of the diagonal energy–momentum tensor in an orthonormal basis turn out to be (units — $`G=c=1`$morris-thorne ; book  :

$$\rho =\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{b^{}}{r^2};p_r=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left[\frac{b}{r^3}+2\left\{1\frac{b}{r}\right\}\frac{\varphi ^{}}{r}\right]$$
(3)
$$p_t=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left\{1\frac{b}{r}\right\}\left[\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\varphi ^{}\left(\varphi ^{}+\frac{1}{r}\right)\right]\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{b}{r}\right)^{}\left(\varphi ^{}+\frac{1}{r}\right)$$
(4)
where $`\rho `$, $`p_r`$, and $`p_t`$ are the energy density, the radial and tangential pressures respectively. If the equation $`b(r)=r`$ has a nontrivial solution $`r_0`$, and $`\mathrm{exp}[\varphi (r_0)]0`$, then we can cut the spacetime at $`r=r_0`$, and paste it onto a second copy of itself, *with a $`C^2`$ geometry at $`r=r_0`$*. The extrinsic curvature of the hypersurface $`r=r_0`$ ($`\eta `$ is proper radial distance) is

$$K_{ab}\frac{h_{ab}}{\eta }=\frac{h_{ab}}{r}\frac{r}{\eta }=\frac{h_{ab}}{r}\sqrt{1b(r)/r}0.$$
(5)
As long as $`\mathrm{exp}[\varphi (r_0)]0`$ you can go to an orthonormal basis and have $`K_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}=0`$. (Hatted indices denote components in an orthonormal basis.) The junction condition formalism junction  now guarantees the geometry is $`C^2`$ across the gluing hypersurface. (Under normal conditions the junction formalism yields a $`C^1`$ geometry, it is the vanishing of the extrinsic curvature at the junction that in this case makes the geometry $`C^2`$.)

The ANEC integral along a radial null geodesic is

$$I=[\rho +p_r]\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi ]d\lambda =[\rho +p_r]\mathrm{exp}[\varphi ]d\eta .$$
(6)
An integration by parts yields (see pp. 133-134 of book )

$$I=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{r^2}e^\varphi \sqrt{1\frac{b}{r}}dr<0.$$
(7)
Unfortunately this is a line integral, with dimensions (mass)/(area), not a volume integral, and so gives no useful information regarding the “total amount” of energy-condition violating matter.

The basic volume-integral theorem relates the asymptotic mass to the throat radius $`r_0`$ and the density by

$$m_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{r_0}{2}+_{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}4\pi r^2\rho (r)dr$$
(8)
This is a simple generalization of the ordinary mass formula for relativistic stars to traversable wormholes. footnote1  Now

$$dV=4\pi r^2dr;dV=2_{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}4\pi r^2dr.$$
(9)
is a very natural integration measure in Schwarzschild coordinates. This is the measure that appears in the simplest formula for the total mass. Indeed, including both asymptotic regions, we have

$$\rho dV=2m_{\mathrm{}}r_0.$$
(10)
We now develop our key volume-integral result, using this *same*$`r^2\mathrm{d}r`$” measure. It is easy to check that

$$\rho +p_r=\frac{1}{8\pi r}\left\{1\frac{b}{r}\right\}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi ]}{1b/r}\right)\right]^{}.$$
(11)
Then integrating by parts

$`{\displaystyle [\rho +p_r]dV}=\left[(rb)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi ]}{1b/r}}\right)\right]_{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}}(1b^{})\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi ]}{1b/r}}\right)\right]dr.`$ (12)
The boundary term at $`r_0`$ vanishes by our construction of the wormhole. The boundary term at infinity vanishes because of the assumed asymptotic behaviour. Then

$$[\rho +p_r]dV=_{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}(1b^{})\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi ]}{1b/r}\right)\right]dr.$$
(13)
This volume-integral theorem provides information about the “total amount” of ANEC violating matter in the spacetime. footnote2  For the transverse pressure we have

$$p_t=p_r+\frac{r}{2}\left\{p_r^{}+(\rho +p_r)\varphi ^{}\right\},$$
(14)
but in the general case this does not lead to a particularly useful volume integral. We emphasise that it is $`p_r`$ that is guaranteed to be associated with ANEC violations, whereas inequalities associated with $`p_t`$ generically represent “normal” matter.

Specialization 1: Spatial Schwarzschild. Now consider the special case where the spatial metric is exactly Schwarzschild, that is $`b(r)2m=r_0`$. Then $`\rho =0`$ throughout the spacetime and we get the very simple result

$$p_rdV=_{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi ]}{12m/r}\right]dr.$$
(15)
Thus the total ANEC violating component of the stress-energy is finite and bounded. Suppose in particular that we have a wormhole whose field only deviates from Schwarzschild in the region from the throat out to radius $`a`$. Then we can further simplify the above to

$$p_rdV=_{r_0}^a\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi ]}{12m/r}\right]dr.$$
(16)
Under this same restriction the ANEC integral satisfies

$$I<\frac{2}{4\pi }_a^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{r^2}dr=\frac{1}{2\pi a},$$
(17)
and so is strictly bounded away from zero. Now

$$_{r_0}^a\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi ]}{12m/r}\right]dr<_{r_0}^a\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}]}{12m/r}\right]dr.$$
(18)
Evaluating this last integral

$$p_rdV>(a2m)\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}]}{12m/a}\right]2m\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a}{2m}\right).$$
(19)
This is useful because it is an explicit *lower* bound on the total amount of radial stress in terms of $`\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and the size of the region of ANEC violating matter. Similarly

$$p_rdV<(a2m)\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}]}{12m/a}\right]2m\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a}{2m}\right).$$
(20)
This is now an *upper* bound in terms of $`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}`$ and the size of the region of ANEC violating matter. If we now choose geometries such that $`\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}`$ are not excessively divergent, \[no worse than $`(a2m)^\delta `$ with $`\delta <1`$\], we can take the limit $`a2m`$ to obtain

$$p_rdV0.$$
(21)
That is: By considering a sequence of traversable wormholes with suitably chosen $`a`$ and $`\varphi (r)`$ \[and $`b(r)=2m`$\] we can construct traversable wormholes with arbitrarily small quantities of ANEC-violating matter. (With the ANEC line integral nevertheless remaining finite and negative.) Since this result is rather important, we now provide an even more explicit example.

Specialization 2: Piecewise $`R=0`$ wormhole.
We now consider a segment of $`R=0`$ wormhole (zero Ricci scalar) zero  truncated and embedded in a Schwarzschild geometry. For $`r(r_0=2m,a)`$ take

$$\mathrm{exp}[\varphi (r)]=ϵ+\lambda \sqrt{12m/r},$$
(22)
and for $`r(a,\mathrm{})`$ take

$$\mathrm{exp}[\varphi (r)]=\sqrt{12m/r}.$$
(23)
Continuity implies

$$ϵ+\lambda \sqrt{12m/a}=\sqrt{12m/a},$$
(24)
so that

$$\lambda =1\frac{ϵ}{\sqrt{12m/a}}.$$
(25)
There is ANEC violating matter confined to the region $`[r_0,a)`$ and a thin shell of *quasi-normal* matter at $`r=a`$footnote3  (Quasi-normal meaning it’s not ANEC violating, or for that matter violating other energy conditions, namely the Weak Energy Condition (WEC) or the Strong Energy Condition (SEC). It does however violate the Dominant Energy Condition (DEC); see book  for details on the different energy conditions.

Computing the extrinsic curvature at $`r=a>2m`$:

$$K_{ab}=\frac{h_{ab}}{\eta }=\frac{h_{ab}}{r}\frac{r}{\eta }=\frac{h_{ab}}{r}\sqrt{12m/a}.$$
(26)
Then the only non-trivial component is

$$K_{tt}^+=\sqrt{12m/a}\frac{2m}{a^2},$$
(27)
while

$$K_{tt}^{}=\lambda \sqrt{12m/a}\frac{2m}{a^2}.$$
(28)
The only non-zero component of the discontinuity is

$$[K_{tt}]=(1\lambda )\frac{2m}{a^2}\sqrt{12m/a}=ϵ\frac{2m}{a^2}.$$
(29)
In an orthonormal frame

$$[K_{\widehat{t}\widehat{t}}]=\frac{ϵ\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}m/a^2}{12m/a}.$$
(30)
Since the extrinsic curvature is non-zero, the junction condition formalism implies that the metric is $`C^1`$ at $`r=a`$. The only component of stress-energy that picks up a delta-function contribution is $`p_t`$. That is

$$p_r=\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{2mϵ}{r^3(ϵ+\lambda \sqrt{12m/r})}\mathrm{\Theta }(ar);$$
(31)
$`p_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{mϵ}{r^3(ϵ+\lambda \sqrt{12m/r})}}\mathrm{\Theta }(ar)`$ (32)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ2m/a^2}{12m/a}}\delta (\eta \eta _a).`$
Note that at the throat ($`r=2m`$)

$$p_r=\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{1}{(2m)^2}=\frac{p_t}{2},$$
(33)
both of which are finite for all $`a`$ and $`ϵ`$.

The volume integral is

$$p_rdV=2mϵ_{2m}^a\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{r\left(ϵ+\lambda \sqrt{12m/r}\right)},$$
(34)
which evaluates (after a little work) to

$$p_rdV=2mϵϵ_s\left\{\frac{ϵϵ_s\mathrm{ln}\left[ϵ^2(1ϵ_s^2)/ϵ_s^2\right]+(ϵϵ_s)\mathrm{ln}\left[(1ϵ_s)/(1+ϵ_s)\right]}{(ϵϵ_s)^2ϵ^2ϵ_s^2}\right\}.$$
(35)
Here we have introduced

$$ϵ_s=\sqrt{12m/a}.$$
(36)
Once $`p_rdV`$ is known, $`p_tdV`$ is trivial. It is easiest to consider

$$[p_r+2p_t]dV=\frac{2ϵm}{\sqrt{12m/a}}=2\frac{ϵ}{ϵ_s}m.$$
(37)
The point is that $`p_rdV`$ can be made arbitrarily small by suitably choosing $`ϵ`$ and $`a`$. For example, take $`ϵ/ϵ_s`$ fixed, and let $`ϵ0`$. Now in that case $`[p_r+2p_t]dV`$ remains finite, but you could just as easily choose $`ϵ_s=\sqrt{ϵ}0`$, or even $`ϵ_s`$ fixed and $`ϵ0`$, in which case both integrals tend to zero. Thus the volume integrals of both $`p_r`$ and $`p_t`$ can both be made arbitrarily small while the volume integral of $`\rho `$ is identically zero by construction. In this particular example the geometry is sufficiently simple that an integration in terms of the proper volume $`\sqrt{g_3}\mathrm{d}^3x`$ can also be explicitly carried out. Qualitatively similar results are obtained.

We emphasise that the particular details of the geometry we have written down are nowhere near as important as the general principle that energy condition violations can be made arbitrarily small.

Conclusions: The specific examples presented in this Letter make essential use of spherical symmetry, and it is not yet clear to us how to usefully extend these ideas to more general situations — that is however not critical to the central point of this Letter; any explicit example of a traversable wormhole with infinitesimal ANEC violations will serve to illustrate the point we wish to make.

Let us now summarize the key result: ANEC violations are certainly needed to support traversable wormholes, but by appropriate choice of the wormhole geometry the total quantity of ANEC violating matter can be made infinitesimally small. Quantum physics is known to lead to small violations of the ANEC, and indeed quantum-induced ANEC violations are known to be an essential precondition for the violation of the area-increase theorem engendered by the existence of Hawking radiation. Thus topological censorship shares with the area increase theorem the fact that its conclusions can be radically altered by subtle quantum effects. (In contrast, generating macroscopic violations of the positive mass theorem requires macroscopic violations of the energy conditions.)