text:
# Potential Flow of Renormalization Group in Quasi-One-Dimensional Systems

## I Introduction

Quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) systems have attracted extensive attentions from both experimental and theoretical aspectsDagotto96 . Due to the low dimensionality, strong quantum fluctuations often give rise to surprising behaviors, which are rather different from our intuitions built in higher dimensions. It is then exciting to explore various exotic phenomena, such as spin-charge separationKim96 , unconventional electron pairingNoack94 ; Balents96  and so on, in the correlated Q1D systemsFabrizio93 ; Khveshchenko96 ; Schulz96 ; Lin97 ; Lin98 ; Ledermann00 . Note that, in addition to the ladder compounds, carbon nanotubes, nanoribbons and quantum wires, after integrating out fluctuations at higher energy, are also described by the Q1D theory. Therefore, not only posting a challenging task for academic curiosity, the understanding of the Q1D systems now becomes crucial as the technology advances to the extremely small nanometer scale.

Although our understanding of the strictly one-dimensional systems is greatly benefitted from exact solutions, it is often found that the Q1D systems are not soluble analytically. Furthermore, since the hopping along the transverse direction is relevant, the physics phenomena for Q1D systems can be dramatically different from the strictly 1D systems, such as electrons with mutual repulsive interactions are found to form unconventional “d-wave” Cooper pairs in the ladder systems. Therefore, the most reliable approach to clarify the competitions among various ground states is the renomalization group (RG) analysis. Since the number of allowed interactions are large, the derivation of the flow equations for all couplings under RG transformations becomes formidable. On the other hand, both numerical and analytical approaches seem to indicate rather simple phase diagrams for generic Q1D systems.

The simplicity of the phase diagram can be partially understood by the widely used scaling Ansatz of the couplings in weak couplingBalents96 ; Lin97 ; Lin98 ; Lecheminant04 ,

$`g_i(l){\displaystyle \frac{G_i}{(l_dl)}}1,`$ (1)
where $`G_i`$ are order one constants satisfying the non-linear algebraic constraints (discussed later) and $`l_d`$ is the divergent length scale where the flows enter the strong coupling regime. The Ansatz was motivated by the numerical observation that the ratios of renormalized couplings reach constant, as long as the bare interaction strength is weak enough. However, it is still puzzling why the phase diagrams, generated by many coupled non-linear flow equations, do not reflect the same level of complexity. In fact, for a complicated system with many couplings, the coupled non-linear differential equations are likely to produce chaotic flows generically. Even if the flow is not chaotic, it might as well rest on limit cycles. This peculiar possibility for quantum systems was addressed by Wilson and collaborators in a recent paperGlazek02 .

So the question remains: Why are the phase diagram and the RG flows so simple (without chaotic flow or limit cycle) in Q1D systems? We found the question can be answered by combining the weak-coupling RG analysis together with the non-perturbative Abelian bosonization technique. Note that the phases of the correlated ground state often lie in the strong coupling, so weak-coupling RG alone can not pin down the phase diagram. It is the powerful combination of the perturbative RG analysis and the non-perturbative bosonization technique which deliver the desired answer here.

Let us start with the weak-coupling RG. In the low-energy limit, the Q1D systems involve $`N_f`$ flavors of interacting fermions with different Fermi velocities, where $`N_f`$ is the number of conducting bands. Although constrained by various symmetries, the number of allowed interactions is tremendously large as $`N_f`$ increases. In general, the RG equations to the lowest order are already very complicated \- not to mention solving them analytically.

However, quite to our surprises, we found that, at one-loop level, the RG flows cab be derived from a potential, i.e. the coupled non-linear flow equations can be cast into this elegant form by an appropriate choice of coupling basis,

$$\frac{dh_i}{dl}=\frac{V(h_j)}{h_i},$$
(2)
where $`V(h_j)`$ is the RG potential. We emphasize that this is only possible after a unique transformation of the couplings, $`h_i(l)=L_{ij}g_j(l)`$ (up to a trivial overall factor for all couplings), where $`L_{ij}`$ is some constant matrix. The existence of the potential, which requires the coefficients in the RG equations to satisfy special constraints, also provides a self-consistent check on the RG equations derived by other approaches.

The flows of Eq. (2) in the multi-dimensional coupling space can be viewed as the trajectories of a strongly overdamped particle moving in a conservative potential $`V(h_i)`$. Note that the change of the potential $`V(h_i)`$ along the trajectory is always decreasing,

$$\frac{dV}{dl}=\frac{V}{h_i}\frac{dh_i}{dl}=\left(\frac{dh_i}{dl}\right)^20,$$
(3)
where summation over the index $`i`$ is implicitly implied. Therefore, it is obvious that the function $`V(h_i)`$ never increases along the trajectory and is only stationary at the fixed points where $`dh_i/dl=0`$. Thus, the RG flows have a simple geometric interpretation as the trajectory of an overdamped particle searching for potential minimum in the multi-dimensional coupling space.

This simple geometric picture rules out the possibilities of chaos and the exotic limit cycles in Q1D systems. The ultimate fate of the flows would either rest on the fixed points or follow along the “valleys/ridges” of the potential profileLin00 ; Konik02  to strong coupling. Since there is only one trivial fixed point at one-loop order, most of the time, the flows run away from the non-interacting fixed point. Starting from weak enough bare couplings, the ultimate fate of the flows is dictated by the asymptotes of the “valleys/ridges” of the potential profile. It provides the natural explanation why the ratios of the renormalized couplings reach constant in numerics. That is to say, the existence of RG potential implies that the ultimate fate of RG flows must take the scaling form described in Eq. 1. Detail properties of these asymptotes, referred as fixed rays, will be discussed in later section.

Since the ultimate fate of RG flows is described by the simple Ansatz in Eq. 1, the specific ratios of couplings simplify the effective Hamiltonian a lot. Making use of the Abelian bosonization, one can determine which sector acquires a gap, triggered from the weak-coupling instability. The phase of the ground state is then determined by watching which fixed ray (asymptote) the flows go closer to. Because there are only limited solutions of the fixed rays, the phase diagram is rather simple. Therefore, by combining the powerful techniques of weak-coupling RG and Abelian bosonization, we pin down the reason behind the simple-looking phase diagram out of the messy non-linear flow equations.

In fact, the combination of weak-coupling RG and Abelian bosonization goes beyond the usual mean-field analysis and is crucially important when there are more than one competing ordersLauchli04 . For instance, Lauchli, Honercamp and Rice recently studied the so-called “d-Mott” phase in one and two dimensions, where antiferromagnetic, stagger-flux and d-wave pairing fluctuations compete with each other simultaneously. The conclusion drawn from the numerical density-matrix RG in strong coupling agrees rather well with predictions made from one-loop analysis in weak coupling. This lends support to the powerful combination of weak-coupling RG and Abelian bosonization approach for strongly correlated systems.

Since the method of bosonizing the fixed rays is already developed in previous papersFabrizio93 ; Balents96 ; Lin97 ; Lin98 , we would concentrate on the novel existence of RG potential in this paper. In particular, we would construct the RG potential explicitly. The details of the bosonization and numerical results will be deferred for future publication. The remaining part of the paper is organized in the following: In Sec. II, the criterion for potential flows and the notation of fixed rays are explained. In Sec. III, we write down the effective Hamiltonian for generic Q1D systems and elaborate all possible interaction vertices in weak coupling. In Sec. IV, the Hamiltonian is re-written in terms of Majorana fermions and the RG potential is explicitly constructed. Finally, we close the paper by the section on discussions and the summary of the main results.

## II Criterion for Potential Flows

To prove the existence of the RG potential, it is helpful to study the general feature of one-loop RG equations of the Q1D systems first. In weak coupling, the most relevant interactions are the marginal four-fermion interactions, described by a set of dimensionless couplings $`g_i`$. The RG transformation to the one-loop order is described by a set of coupled non-linear first-order differential equations

$$\frac{dg_i}{dl}=M_i^{jk}g_jg_kF_i,$$
(4)
where the coefficients $`M_i^{jk}=M_i^{kj}`$ are symmetrical by construction. These constant tensors $`M_i^{jk}`$ completely determine the RG flows.

The solution for Eq. (4) can be viewed as the trajectory of a strongly overdamped particle under the influence of the external force $`F_i`$ in the multi-dimensional coupling space. Naively, one might rush to the conclusion that the conditions for the existence of a potential requires are,

$$\frac{F_i}{g_j}\frac{F_j}{g_i}=0,M_i^{jk}=M_j^{ik},$$
(5)
which implies that the tensor $`M_i^{jk}`$is totally symmetric. It is straightforward to check that the RG equations for the Q1D systems do not satisfy this criterion Lin97 ; Ledermann00 ; Chang04 .

However, under general linear transformations of the couplings $`h_i(l)=L_{ij}g_j(l)`$, the coefficients $`M_i^{jk}`$ transform into a new set of coefficients $`N_i^{jk}`$, which may become symmetric. For convenience, we introduce a set of matrices $`[𝑴(k)]_{ij}M_i^{jk}`$ to represent the coefficients. The symmetric criterion for $`N_i^{jk}=N_j^{ik}`$ requires the existence of a constant matrix $`𝑳`$ which satisfies the following constraints (for all $`k`$!),

$$𝑴(k)^T=(𝑳^T𝑳)𝑴(k)(𝑳^T𝑳)^1,$$
(6)
where superscript $`T`$ means transpose. In general, there is no guarantee why the strongly over-determined constraints would allow a solution for $`𝑳`$. In fact, it is a nontrivial task to just prove/disprove whether the desired linear transformation $`𝑳`$ exists. Surprisingly, for the Q1D systems, the hunt for the solution greatly simplifies if we formulate the problem in terms of Majorana fermions. The desired transformation becomes diagonal, $`L_{ij}=r_i\delta _{ij}`$, where $`r_i`$ is a set of rescaling factors and leads to the totally symmetric coefficients,

$$N_i^{jk}=\left(\frac{r_i}{r_jr_k}\right)M_i^{jk}.$$
(7)
So the search for the potential is now nailed down to find a set of rescaling factors $`r_i`$ in the Majorana representation. In later section, we demonstrate how to construct the RG potential explicitly in the Majorana representation. In fact, one can also construct the potential $`V(h_i)`$ directly from the RG equations for dopedLin97  and half-filledLedermann00 ; Chang04  Q1D systems. Both approaches lead the the same result and the detail work will be described elsewhere.

Before we leave this section, it is important to discuss a special set of analytic solution of Eq. 4, which is closely related to the scaling Ansatz in Eq. 1. Suppose the initial values of the couplings are $`g_i(0)=G_ig(0)`$, where $`g(0)=U1`$ and $`G_i`$ are order-one constants satisfying the non-linear algebraic constraint,

$$G_i=M_i^{jk}G_jG_k.$$
(8)
It is straightforward to show that the ratios between couplings remain the same and the complicated equations reduce to single one,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{dl}}=g^2.`$ (9)
For repulsive interaction $`U>0`$, the above equation can be solved easily $`g(l)=1/(l_dl)`$, where the divergent length scale $`l_d=1/U`$. Note that this implies the ratios of different couplings remain fixed in the RG flows,

$`g_i(l)={\displaystyle \frac{G_i}{l_dl}}.`$ (10)
These special analytic solutions are referred as “fixed rays” because the ratios of the renormalized couplings remain fixed along the flows. One immediately notices that these special set of solutions are nothing but the peculiar Ansatz found in the numerics. As explained in the introduction, if the RG potential exists, these fixed rays are the asymptotes of the “valleys/ridges” of the potential profile and capture the ultimate fate of RG flows completely.

## III Quasi-1D Ladder

Since the readers might not be familiar with Majorana representation, it is worthwhile to write down the Hamiltonian in terms of the familiar field operators for electrons first. To construct the RG potential, we first write down the general interacting Hamiltonian in weak coupling. To be concrete, we would take the $`N`$-leg ladder as the example. However, the general framework developed here can be applied to more general Q1D systems. In weak coupling, it is natural to work on the band structure first. Suppose the chemical potential cuts through $`N_f`$ flavors of bands at different Fermi momenta $`k_{Fi}`$ with velocities $`v_i`$. In the low-energy limit, the electron operator can be decomposed into chiral fields,

$$\psi _{i\alpha }(x)\psi _{Ri\alpha }(x)e^{ik_{Fi}x}+\psi _{Li\alpha }(x)e^{ik_{Fi}x},$$
(11)
where $`\alpha `$ is the spin index, and $`i`$ stands for the band index. The effective Hamiltonian density is simply a collection of $`N_f`$ flavors of Dirac fermions,

$`_0=\psi _{Ri\alpha }^{}(iv_i_x)\psi _{Ri\alpha }+\psi _{Li\alpha }^{}(iv_i_x)\psi _{Li\alpha }.`$ (12)
The summation over the band index $`i`$ runs through all $`N_f`$ flavors. In general, the velocities are different and can not be eliminated by rescaling the space-time coordinates $`(\tau ,x)`$ as in strictly one-dimensional systems.

Writing down all possible interactions is more laboring. By dimensional analysis, the most relevant interactions are the marginal four-fermion vertices. It turns out that the allowed vertices can be group together elegantly in terms of SU(2) currents. For convenience, we introduce the following SU(2) scalar and vector currents,

$`J_{Pij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{Pi\alpha }^{}\psi _{Pj\alpha },`$ (13)
$`𝑱_{Pij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{Pi\alpha }^{}𝝈_{\alpha \beta }\psi _{Pj\beta },`$ (14)
$`I_{Pij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{Pi\alpha }ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\psi _{Pj\beta },`$ (15)
$`𝑰_{Pij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{Pi\alpha }(ϵ𝝈)_{\alpha \beta }\psi _{Pj\beta },`$ (16)
where $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}=1`$ is the anti-symmetric Levi-Civita tensor and $`𝝈`$ are the Pauli matrices. The factor $`1/2`$ ensures the currents satisfy the conventional $`SU(2)`$ commutators.

At half filling, the particle-hole symmetry pairs up the Fermi momenta with the relation

$`k_{Fi}+k_{F\widehat{ı}}=\pi ,`$ (17)
where $`\widehat{ı}=(N+1)i`$. Other than the above relation, different Fermi momenta are generally incommensurate. In loose terms, the Fermi surface (points, in fact) is only nested between the pairs of bands $`i`$ and $`\widehat{ı}`$, with the nesting condition $`i+\widehat{ı}=N+1`$. After some algebra, it is straightforward to show that all momentum-conserving vertices can be expressed in terms of products of the SU(2) currents,

$`_{int}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{ij}^\rho J_{Rij}J_{Lij}\stackrel{~}{c}_{ij}^\sigma 𝑱_{Rij}𝑱_{Lij}`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}^\rho J_{Rii}J_{Ljj}\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}^\sigma 𝑱_{Rii}𝑱_{Ljj}`$
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{ij}^\rho J_{Rij}J_{L\widehat{ȷ}\widehat{ı}}\stackrel{~}{s}_{ij}^\sigma 𝑱_{Rij}𝑱_{L\widehat{ȷ}\widehat{ı}}.`$
The couplings $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{ij}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}`$ denote the Cooper and forward scattering between bands $`i`$ and $`j`$. The strange vertex $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{ij}`$, involving four different bands, arises from the pairing up of Fermi momenta, as described in Eq. 17. The superscripts $`\rho ,\sigma `$ label the charge and spin sectors of the couplings respectively.

Because $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ii},\stackrel{~}{c}_{ii}`$ describe the same vertex, to avoid double counting, we choose the diagonal piece of the forward scattering amplitude to vanish, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ii}=0`$. The same reason leads to $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{ii}=0=\stackrel{~}{s}_{i\widehat{ı}}`$. While it is not obvious at this point, the choice of signs for the scalar and vector couplings in Eq. 18 is such that they are all positive for the repulsive on-site interaction.

In addition to the vertices which conserve momentum exactly, there are also Umklapp interactions which conserve momentum only up to reciprocal lattice vector, $`\mathrm{\Delta }P=\pm 2\pi `$,

$`_{int}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{u}_{ij}^\rho }{2}}(I_{Rij}^{}I_{L\widehat{ı}\widehat{ȷ}}+I_{L\widehat{ı}\widehat{ȷ}}^{}I_{Rij}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{u}_{ij}^\sigma }{2}}(𝑰_{Rij}^{}𝑰_{L\widehat{ı}\widehat{ȷ}}+𝑰_{L\widehat{ı}\widehat{ȷ}}^{}𝑰_{Rij})`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{w}_{ij}^\rho }{2}}(I_{Ri\widehat{ı}}^{}I_{Lj\widehat{ȷ}}+I_{Lj\widehat{ȷ}}^{}I_{Ri\widehat{ı}}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{w}_{ij}^\sigma }{2}}(𝑰_{Ri\widehat{ı}}^{}𝑰_{Lj\widehat{ȷ}}+𝑰_{Lj\widehat{ȷ}}^{}𝑰_{Ri\widehat{ı}}).`$
Again, since $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{ii},\stackrel{~}{w}_{ii}`$ describe the same vertex, we set $`\stackrel{~}{w}_{ii}=0=\stackrel{~}{w}_{i\widehat{ı}}`$ to avoid double counting. Note that both kinds of vertices involve four different bands in general.

Away from half filling, the relation in Eq. 17 is no longer valid. As a result, the couplings $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{ij},\stackrel{~}{u}_{ij},\stackrel{~}{w}_{ij}`$ all become irrelevant because the fast oscillating phase arise from the finite momentum associated with the vertex. Therefore, we are left with the familiar Cooper and forward scatteringFootnote1  in the doped $`N`$-leg ladder.

All vertices discussed in above share a unique feature. While the vertices in Eq. 18 and 19 may involve four different bands, there are at most two different velocities associated with each vertex because $`v_i=v_{\widehat{ı}}`$, i.e. the velocities in each vertex always appear pairwise. This seemingly useless feature turns out to be strong enough to guarantee the existence of the RG potential when the Hamitonian is re-expressed in terms of Majorana fermions.

## IV Majorana Representation

Now we switch to the Majorana fermion basis and construct the RG potential explicitly. Without interactions, the band structure in low-energy limits is described by $`N_f`$ flavors of Dirac fermions with different velocities in general. Each flavor of Dirac fermions can be decomposed into two Majorana fermions. Combined with spin degeneracy, the $`4N_f`$ flavors of Majorana fermions are described by the Hamiltonian density

$$_0=\eta _{Ra}(iv_a_x)\eta _{Ra}+\eta _{La}(iv_a_x)\eta _{La},$$
(20)
where $`v_a`$ denotes the Fermi velocity for each flavor.

In general, a single vertex involves four different Fermi points, which generally would have four different velocities. However, the momentum conservation in weak coupling gives rise to the interesting constraint that the Fermi velocities must equal pairwise, as demonstrated explicitly in previous section. The interacting Hamiltonian in terms of the Majorana fermions take the form,

$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}(a,a^{};b,b^{})\eta _{Ra}\eta _{Ra^{}}\eta _{Lb}\eta _{Lb^{}}`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}(a,b;a^{},b^{})\eta _{Ra}\eta _{Rb}\eta _{La^{}}\eta _{Lb^{}},`$
where summations over allowed indices are implied. We emphasize that the allowed interactions might involve four different Fermi points labeled by $`a,a^{},b,b^{}`$, but only two different velocities $`v_a=v_a^{}`$ and $`v_b=v_b^{}`$ appear in a single vertex. By direct comparison, it is clear that the $`F`$vertex include $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{w}_{ij}`$ and the $`B`$vertex cover $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{ij}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{ij}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{ij}`$.

There are also other kinds of interactions allowed by momentum conservation,

$`H_c`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R}(a,a^{};b,b^{})\eta _{Ra}\eta _{Ra^{}}\eta _{Rb}\eta _{Rb^{}}`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{L}(a,a^{},b,b^{})\eta _{La}\eta _{La^{}}\eta _{Lb}\eta _{Lb^{}}.`$
The scaling dimensions of these vertices are $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_R,\mathrm{\Delta }_L)=(2,0),(0,2)`$, while the vertices in Eq. (21) have scaling dimensions $`(1,1)`$. Since the renormalization comes from loop integrations, only vertices with scaling dimensions differed by $`(n,n)`$, where $`n`$ is an integer, would renormalize each other. As a result, the chiral vertices in Eq. (22) remain marginal and only renormalize the corresponding Fermi velocities. Since the corrections only show up at two-loop order, we would ignore their contribution here. The pairwise-equal Fermi velocities in Eq. (21) make the classification of all vertices fairly simple as shown in Fig. 1. The names come from the fact that the forward-type ($`F`$-) vertices include the usual forward scatterings while the backward-type ($`B`$-) vertices include the backward scatterings.

To obtain the flow equations, we need to integrate out fluctuations at shorter length scale successively. The most convenient approach is by the operator product expansions (OPE) of these vertices which form a close algebra. The detail techniques to compute the renormalized interaction $`\delta _R`$ can be found in Ref.\[Lin97, \].

To one-loop order, the renormalization of the bare couplings come from four types of diagrams $`FFF`$, $`FBB`$, $`BBF`$ and $`BBB`$, shown in Fig. 2. Let us start with the first type of loop diagrams, $`FFF`$ in Fig. 2(a). The OPE of Majorana fermions can be computed straightforwardly and the mode elimination leads to the renormalized Hamiltonian density,

$`\delta ^R`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}(a,a^{\prime \prime };b,b^{\prime \prime })\stackrel{~}{F}(a^{\prime \prime },a^{};b^{\prime \prime },b^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{Ra}\eta _{Ra^{}}\eta _{Lb}\eta _{Lb^{}}}{\pi (v_a+v_b)}}dl`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`d\stackrel{~}{F}(a,a^{};b,b^{})\eta _{Ra}\eta _{Ra^{}}\eta _{Lb}\eta _{Lb^{}},`$
where $`dl=\mathrm{ln}b`$ is the logarithmic length scale. Here we have used the fact that $`v_a=v_{a^{\prime \prime }}=v_a^{}`$ and $`v_b=v_{b^{\prime \prime }}=v_b^{}`$. The factor $`1/\pi (v_a+v_b)`$ arises from the product of propagators with opposite chiralities and different velocities.

Introducing a simple rescaling of the original couplings according to their associated velocities

$$F(a,a^{};b,b^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{v_av_b}}\stackrel{~}{F}(a,a^{};b,b^{}),$$
(24)
the RG equation is

$$\frac{dF(a,a^{};b,b^{})}{dl}=\gamma _{ab}F(a,a^{\prime \prime };b,b^{\prime \prime })F(a^{\prime \prime },a^{};b^{\prime \prime },b^{})+\mathrm{},$$
(25)
where $`\gamma _{ab}=2\sqrt{v_av_b}/(v_a+v_b)`$. Repeating similar calculations, the RG equation for $`F(a,a^{\prime \prime };b,b^{\prime \prime })`$ contains a term $`\gamma _{ab}F(a,a^{};b,a^{})F(a^{\prime \prime },a^{};b^{\prime \prime },b)`$ and similar result for the renormalization of $`F(a^{\prime \prime },a^{};b^{\prime \prime },b^{})`$. Therefore, the flow equations can be derived from a potential,

$$V(F)=\gamma _{ab}F(a,a^{};b,b^{})F(a,a^{\prime \prime };b,b^{\prime \prime })F(a^{\prime \prime },a^{};b^{\prime \prime }b^{}).$$
(26)
The RG potential for the $`(FBB)`$ and $`(BBB)`$ cases shown in Fig. 2(b-c) and 2(d) can be constructed in a similar fashion. Finally, combining all contributions together, the weak-coupling RG flows for Q1D systems are described by the potential

$`V(F,B)=B(a,b;a^{},b^{})B(b,c;b^{},c^{})B(c,a;c^{},a^{})`$ (27)
$``$ $`\gamma _{ab}B(a,b^{};a^{},b)B(a^{\prime \prime },b^{};a^{},b^{\prime \prime })F(a,a^{\prime \prime };b,b^{\prime \prime })`$
$``$ $`\gamma _{ab}F(a,a^{};b,b^{})F(a,a^{\prime \prime };b,b^{\prime \prime })F(a^{\prime \prime },a^{};b^{\prime \prime }b^{}),`$
Summations over all allowed indices are again implied. The merits to use Majorana representation enables us to construct the RG potential explicitly. Note that if one starts from a ‘wrong’ basis, it is far from trivial to realize the fact that the non-linear flows can be derived from a single potential. However, in the Majorana representation, the linear transformation to the potential basis is diagonal $`L_{ij}=r_i\delta _{ij}`$. After appropriate rescaling of couplings, the explicit form of the RG potential is derived. We have checked for the doped and half-filled Q1D systems and found all potentials agree with Eq. (27).

There is one loose end about the rescaling factors. For most physical systems, the rescaling factor is slightly more complicated than $`(2\pi \sqrt{v_av_b})^1`$. the subtlety arises from the degeneracies of the couplings imposed by physical symmetries. This is best illustrated by the following simple example. Consider the RG equations for three couplings $`g_i`$, where $`i=1,2,3`$,

$$\frac{dg_i}{dl}=\underset{jk}{}\frac{|ϵ_{ijk}|}{2}g_jg_k.$$
(28)
Since $`|ϵ_{ijk}|`$ is totally symmetric, the corresponding RG potential is $`V(g)=g_1g_2g_3`$. Suppose the system has some symmetry, such as $`U(1)`$ symmetry for charge conservation, and the couplings are degenerate $`g_2=g_3`$. The RG equations are simplified,

$$\frac{dg_1}{dl}=g_2^2,\frac{dg_2}{dl}=g_1g_2.$$
(29)
It is straightforward to show that we need to perform a rescaling transformation, $`(h_1,h_2)=(g_1,\sqrt{2}g_2)`$ to obtain the potential $`V(h)=h_1(h_2)^2/2`$. In fact, for couplings with $`n`$-fold degeneracy, an additional rescaling factor $`\sqrt{n}`$ is necessary to bring them into the potential basis. Therefore, the total rescaling factor is

$$r_i=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{n_i}{v_av_b}},$$
(30)
where $`n_i`$ is the degeneracy number of the coupling $`g_i`$, with Fermi velocities $`v_a`$ and $`v_b`$.

## V Conclusions and Discussions

So far, we have shown the existence of the RG potential by explicit construction, which proves the the widely used Ansatz in Eq. 1. In fact, the asymptotes of the RG flows are governed by the special set of fixed-ray solutions. This in turns explains the simplicity of the phase diagram, even though the RG equations are rather complicated.

The absence of exotic fates of the RG flows is also found in earlier work on 2D melting theoryKosterlitz73  or the Kondo related problemsAnderson70 . However, the simplicity of RG flows in these systems is not quite the same as described here. Since the number of marginal couplings in these problems is few, analytic solution of the flows often show that it is possible to define some conserved quantity associated with each flow lines. This is where the simplicity comes from. On the other hand, we have also looked into these well-known flows to check whether they can be derived from a single potential. It is not too surprising that this is indeed the case because the requirement of potential flows loose up quite a bit when the number of couplings is small.

With the help of non-perturbative Abelian bosonization, it is not essentially important whether the RG flows can be cast into potential form beyond one-loop order. However, it remains an interesting and open question at this moment. Note that the coefficients of the one-loop RG equations are unique, protected by the leading logarithmic divergences. The next order calculations bring in lots of complications and subtleties, including the non-universal coefficients in the RG equations, velocity renormalization and so on. It is not clear at this moment whether it is even sensible to pursue the RG potential beyond one-loop order.

Another interesting issue concerns the connection between the potential $`V(h_i)`$ and the Zamolodchkov’s c-function $`C(g_i)`$ of (1+1)-dimensional systems with Lorentz and translational symmetriesZamolodchikov86 . A generic Q1D system we studied here has neither Lorentz invariance (due to different Fermi velocities) nor translation symmetry (due to Umklapp processes). While both $`V`$ and $`C`$ are non-increasing along the RG flows, the exact relation between them remains unclear at this point. We emphasize that the existence of a non-decreasing function $`C`$ along RG flows only implies that $`dC/dl=(C/g_i)(dg_i/dl)0`$ and is not strong enough to show that the flows can be derived from a potential. Thus, the potential flows are closely related to the c-theorem but they are not equivalent in general. In addition, we do not know any easy generalization of c-theorem that does not rely on the Lorentz and translational symmetries. However, one can easily check that in the special limiting case where Lorentz and translation symmetries are restored, the $`C`$-function indeed coincides with the potential we find. This indicates that there may be a general form of c-theorem waiting to be discovered.

In conclusion, we have shown that the RG transformation for Q1D systems in weak coupling is described by potential flows. Therefore, neither chaotic behaviors nor exotic limit cycles could occur. The different Fermi velocities and the degeneracies imposed by physical symmetries give rise to non-trivial rescaling factors, which hinder this beautiful structure behind the RG transformation. The explicit form of the potential is obtained after appropriate rescaling of the couplings in Majorana basis.

We thank Leon Balents, Matthew Fisher, Y.-C. Kao, Andreas Ludwig and S.-K. Yip for fruitful discussions. In particular, HHL is thankful for illuminating counter example in dynamical systems provided by Leon Balents. HHL appreciates financial supports from National Science Council in Taiwan through Ta-You Wu Fellow and grants NSC-91-2120-M-007-001 and NSC-92-2112-M-007-039. CYM acknowledges support from NSC of Taiwan under grant NSC-92-2112-M-007. The hospitality of KITP, where part of the work was carried out, and supports from NSF PHY99-07949 are great appreciated.


format: text

text:
# References and links

## 1  Introduction

During the last years a spectacular development in the storage and manipulation of cold atoms in optical lattices  has taken place. Greiner et al. , to name one important example, succeeded in experimentally driving a quantum phase transition between a superfluid and a Mott-insulating phase in bosonic systems. This experimental progress has revived the interest in the Bose-Hubbard model \[Eq. (1)\] as a generic Hamiltonian for strongly correlated bosons, by which the quantum phase transition can be described . The Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian has been used previously in condensed matter physics to study the adsorption of noble gases in nanotubes , or Cooper pairs in superconducting films with strong charging effects . In this context a lot of work has already been done to characterize the quantum phase transition, the statistics, and the low-energy excitations of the Bose-Hubbbard model . However, new interesting questions arise now due to the good tunability of the experiments with optical lattices. In particular, it becomes possible to study time-dependent processes such as driven quantum phase transitions . A theoretical understanding of such phenomena is challenging, since the characteristics of the superfluid phase — where the atoms tend to delocalize throughout the lattice and large fluctuations in the local density exist —, and the Mott-insulating phase — where the number fluctuations decrease, and a gap in the excitation spectrum opens – must be covered at the same time. Both regions are separated by a non-analyticity of the spectrum, which implies that a perturbative study  works best in strong coupling limit, while a Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov mean field works best in the superfluid regime. In addition it is possible to develop a mean field theory  based on a Gutzwiller ansatz : this reproduces the mean field theory in the superfluid limit, as well as the limit of infinite interaction, which raises the hope that the theory also interpolates properly between these limits.

In this paper we develop a variational description of the ground state of an ensemble of cold atoms in an one-dimensional optical lattice. Our trial wavefunction treats the connections between neighboring sites as entities which decouple in the limit of infinitely large lattices. We apply this technique first to the quantum rotor model —which describes the lattice for large and commensurate occupation per site , and has also been used to describe an array of Josephson junctions —, and next to the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian. The accuracy of the variational theory in both models is confirmed by several comparisons. In the quantum rotor case, we use a spin wave approximation in the limit of weak interaction, and a first order perturbation theory in the limit of weak tunneling. For the Bose-Hubbard model we compare against results obtained applying the quasi-exact, numerical DMRG method to one-dimensional lattices with up to 128 sites, and also with calculations based on the Gutzwiller ansatz. Our conclusion is that the variational picture of self-regulated connections between sites provides a rather cheap and simple, but very good description of the local properties of the system in the superfluid and insulator regimes, and a fairly good interpolation across the quantum phase transition. It cannot describe, however, the algebraic decay with distance of the off-diagonal elements of the one-particle density matrix. The simplicity of the method suggests a possible generalization to higher dimensionalities and other physical models.

The outline of the paper is as follows: In Sec. 2 we introduce the quantum rotor model as a possible limit of the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian. Next, information about the ground state of the quantum rotor model is obtained variationally as the solution of a Mathieu equation. We can estimate energies, correlation functions and length, and the variance of the density as a function of the only free parameter. A comparison with perturbative estimates demonstrates the accuracy of the method when computing local properties. Since the quantum rotor model is only an approximate description of the optical lattice, in Sec. 3 we develop a similar variational theory for the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian. After bringing the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian to an appropriate form, we can estimate the local properties of its ground state. The variational solutions are compared in Sec. 3.3 with the results of DMRG studies of the Bose-Hubbard model. We confirm that the variational method describes very well the local properties of both the Mott-insulator and the superfluid regime, and provides a fairly good interpolation across the phase transition. Finally, in Sec. 4 we summarize our results and comment on possible extensions.

## 2  Quantum phase model

### 2.1  Relation to the Bose-Hubbard model

In this section we show the equivalence of the Bose-Hubbard model

$$H_{BH}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\left[J(a_{j+1}^{}a_j+a_j^{}a_{j+1})+\frac{U}{2}a_j^{}a_j^{}a_ja_j\right]\frac{U}{2}M\overline{n}(\overline{n}1),$$
(1)
and the quantum rotor model for large and integer occupation $`\overline{n}`$ . In our notation, $`M`$ is the number of lattice sites and $`N=\overline{n}M`$ the number of atoms. Both the Bose-Hubbard model and the quantum rotor model show a phase transition due to the interplay between the kinetic term proportional to $`J`$ and the interaction term proportional to $`U`$. For convenience we have subtracted the ground state energy in the perfect insulator limit $`U/J\mathrm{}`$.

If we expand a configuration of the lattice using Fock states

$$|\psi =\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}c_\stackrel{}{n}|\stackrel{}{n}=\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}c_\stackrel{}{n}|n_1\mathrm{}|n_M,$$
(2)
and the number of particles per lattice site is large, $`n_k>1`$, we may approximate the hopping terms as follows

$$a_l^{}a_j|\psi =\sqrt{\overline{n}(\overline{n}+1)}𝒫A_l^+A_j^{}|\stackrel{}{n}+|\mathrm{\Delta }_{lj}$$
(3)
Here, $`A^\pm |n=|n\pm 1`$ are ladder operators and $`𝒫`$ projects on states with non-negative occupation numbers, $`n_k0`$. To lowest order the error $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{lj}`$ is

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_{lj}=\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}c_\stackrel{}{n}\frac{(\overline{n}+1)(n_j\overline{n})+\overline{n}(n_l\overline{n})}{2\sqrt{\overline{n}(\overline{n}+1)}}|\stackrel{}{n},$$
(4)
and its norm is bound by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{lj}\sqrt{\frac{\overline{n}^2+(\overline{n}+1)^2}{2\overline{n}(\overline{n}+1)}}\sigma _l,$$
(5)
where $`\sigma _l=(n_l\overline{n})^2`$ is the variance in the number of particles per lattice site. For the approximation (3) to be valid, the uncertainty in the number of atoms must be small compared to the mean value, $`\overline{n}\sigma `$, and the interaction energy must exceed the neglected terms, $`U\overline{n}(\overline{n}1)J\sigma `$.

Following the previous procedure the Bose-Hubbard model becomes

$$H_{QR}=𝒫\underset{j}{}\left[2J\rho (A_{j+1}^+A_j^{}+A_j^+A_{j+1}^{})+\frac{U}{2}(A_j^z)^2\right]$$
(6)
Here $`\rho =\sqrt{\overline{n}(\overline{n}+1)}`$ is approximately the density, $`A_j^z=a_j^{}a_j\overline{n}`$ is essentially the number operator and we have used that $`_jA_j^z|\psi =0`$ when we work with states that have a fixed, commensurate number of particles. In the following we will define the energy per lattice site as

$$\epsilon \frac{1}{M}H_{QR}.$$
(7)
Since the physically interesting states will be concentrated around large occupations, $`n_k=\overline{n}`$, the usual step now is to drop the projector, $`𝒫`$, and move to the basis of phase states, defined by

$$\stackrel{}{n}|\stackrel{}{\varphi }=e^{i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\varphi }}(2\pi )^{M/2},\stackrel{}{\varphi }[\pi ,\pi ]^M.$$
(8)
In doing so, we obtain the identification $`A_j^\pm e^{\pm i\varphi _k}`$ and $`A_j^zi/\varphi _j`$, which produces the usual representation of the quantum rotor model

$$H_{QR}=\underset{j}{}\left[2J\rho \mathrm{cos}(\varphi _j\varphi _{j+1})\frac{U}{2}\frac{^2}{\varphi _j^2}\right],$$
(9)
with the associated state writen as

$$|\psi =(2\pi )^{M/2}d^M\varphi e^{i\overline{n}{\scriptscriptstyle \varphi _k}}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{\varphi })|\stackrel{}{\varphi }.$$
(10)
A similar derivation is possible using path integrals .

### 2.2  Variational ansatz

In this section we estimate the properties of the ground state of $`H_{QR}`$ variationally. Due to the previous splitting (10), any wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{\varphi })`$ can only depend on the phase difference between neighboring wells, $`\xi _j=\varphi _{j+1}\varphi _j`$. These new quantum variables describe the connections between neigboring sites. In the limit of large lattices it seems reasonable to assume that these connections become independent from each other adopting the product state

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{\varphi })=\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^Mh(\varphi _j\varphi _{j+1}).$$
(11)
This representation becomes exact in the Mott-insulating limit, $`U/J\mathrm{}`$, where $`h_{mott}(\xi )=1`$, and in the superfluid limit, $`U/J0`$, where $`h_{sf}(\xi )=_n\delta (\xi 2\pi n)`$, as can be verified by direct substitution in Eq. (10).

Even though the phase representation is the best one to find a trial wavefunction, it is not the optimal one for performing computations. It is instead more convenient to work with the variables which are conjugate to the phase differences $`\xi _j=\varphi _{j+1}\varphi _j`$. These are the new quantum numbers, $`w_k`$, given by

$$n_k=w_kw_{k1}+\overline{n}.$$
(12)
In terms of these numbers, the ansatz (11) reveals itself as a simple product wavefunction

$$|\psi =|\stackrel{~}{h}^{(M1)}=\underset{\stackrel{}{w}}{}\stackrel{~}{h}_{w_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{h}_{w_{M1}}|w_1\mathrm{}|w_{M1},$$
(13)
with coefficients given by the Fourier transform

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_m=h(\xi )e^{im\xi }𝑑\xi .$$
(14)
As sketched in Fig. 1, the $`w_k`$ play the roles of chemical potentials which are established between different wells: the difference between the potentials on the extremes of a site gives the fluctuations over the mean and commesurate occupation $`\overline{n}`$. In this picture

$$H_{QR}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M1}{}}\left[2J\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^++\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{})+\frac{U}{2}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^z\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k1}^z)^2\right],$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm |w=|w\pm 1`$ are new infinite-dimensional ladder operators and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^z|w=w|w`$.

By minimizing the energy associated with $`H_{QR}`$ over all states within a given ansatz we can both obtain an upper bound to the energy of the ground state and approximate its wave function. A simple computation with our product ansatz leads to the result \[compare (7)\]

$$\epsilon [\stackrel{~}{h}]4J\rho \mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^++U(\mathrm{\Sigma }^z)^2U\mathrm{\Sigma }^z^2,$$
(16)
where the expected values are computed over a single connection, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^z=_ww|h_w|^2`$, and the wavefunctions are assumed to be normalized, $`_w|h_w|^2=1`$. Since the stationary states have a well defined parity, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{(w)}=(1)^P\stackrel{~}{h}_w`$, the optimal variational state must satisfy the linear equation

$$2J\rho (\stackrel{~}{h}_{j+1}+\stackrel{~}{h}_{j1})+Uj^2\stackrel{~}{h}_j=\epsilon _{est}\stackrel{~}{h}_j,$$
(17)
which is nothing but the Fourier transform of a Mathieu equation

$$\left[\frac{U}{2}\frac{^2}{\xi ^2}2J\rho \mathrm{cos}(\xi )\right]h(\xi )=\epsilon _{est}h(\xi ),$$
(18)
The estimated ground state energy per site is given by the lowest eigenvalue of either equation.

Using the product ansatz and the same approximations required to derive $`H_{QR}`$, we can also compute other properties of the ground state. For instance, the variance of the number of atoms per lattice site

$`\sigma _j^2`$ $`=`$ $`(a_j^{}a_j\overline{n})^2=2(\mathrm{\Sigma }^z)^2.`$ (19)
and the correlation functions

$`a_{j+1}^{}a_j`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}\rho \gamma _1,`$ (20)
$`a_{j+l}^{}a_j`$ $`=`$ $`\rho {\displaystyle \underset{k=j}{\overset{j+l}{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}=\rho \gamma _1^l,`$ (21)
which decay exponentially with the distance. This implies that the ansatz (13) only describes properly the decay of the correlations in the Mott-insulating regime, since the correlations in the superfluid regime follow a power law decay. However, as we will see below, local magnitudes ($`\sigma ,\gamma _1,\epsilon \mathrm{}`$) are properly estimated even if long–range ones are not.

We have solved Eq. (17) numerically in a truncated space. The results are summarized in Fig. 2, where we also plot reference estimates arising from two other analytical methods. In the limit $`UJ`$ we compare with a first order perturbative calculation around the solution $`|\psi =1`$, which is possible thanks to the energy gap of order $`𝒪(U)`$ in the excitation spectrum. In the limit $`JU`$ we rather use a spin wave or harmonic approximation in which the cosine-term of the Hamiltonian $`H_{QR}`$ is expanded up to second order in the phase difference between neighboring sites \[see Sec. 2.3\]. This approximation is valid in the superfluid regime, where the phase does not vary much between neighboring wells. From the graphical comparison we see that, as expected, the variational wavefunction provides a fairly accurate description of the ground state of the quantum rotor model in both the superfluid and insulating limits. As a side note, we must remark that this ground state has a divergent fluctuation of the number of particles per site as $`J0`$. This disagrees from the expected behavior of the ground state of the original Bose-Hubard Hamiltonian, and it reminds us that $`H_{QR}`$ can only model the atomic ensemble when the variance, $`\sigma `$, is small compared to the mean occupation number, $`\overline{n}`$.

### 2.3  Harmonic approximations to the quantum phase model

In the limit $`JU`$ it is possible to estimate the ground state of the rotor model (6) analytically. Since we are deep in the superfluid regime, the wavefunction will be concentrated around the line $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\mathrm{}=\varphi _M`$, and we can approximate

$$H_{QR}\underset{j}{}\left[\frac{U}{2}\frac{^2}{\varphi _j^2}J\rho (\varphi _j\varphi _{j+1})^2\right].$$
(22)
If we remove the periodic boundary conditions on $`\varphi _i`$ and change variables, the preceding Hamiltonian may be diagonalized, $`H=_k\omega _k\left(A_k^{}A_k+\frac{1}{2}\right)`$, with frequencies given by $`\omega _k=\sqrt{8J\rho U}|\mathrm{sin}(\pi k/M)|`$, where $`k`$ is an integer in the range $`M+1<2k<M`$ which labels the different values of the momentum in the lattice. The ground state energy \[Fig. 4(a)\] may be estimated as the zero-point energy of the harmonic oscillator. For large $`M`$, the sum over $`k`$ may be replaced with an integral, giving

$$E_g\frac{2M}{\pi }\sqrt{2J\rho U}.$$
(23)
The variance of the number of particles is related to the expectation value of the momentum using the same procedure as above

$$\sigma \frac{1}{\pi }\sqrt{\frac{8J\rho }{U}}.$$
(24)
## 3  The Bose-Hubbard model

In this section we apply to the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian the techniques that were developed in Sec. 2. We will do it in three steps: First we will develop a phase representation which is valid for all occupation numbers. Next we will prove that this representation is equivalent to a similarity transformation of the Hamiltonian which brings it to a form similar to (6), at the price of losing Hermiticity. Finally we will show how to implement the ansatz of independent connections (13) to produce estimates for the usual set of observables ($`\epsilon ,\gamma _1,\sigma `$), which are to be validated with DMRG calculations.

### 3.1  Coherent states

The phase coherent states $`|\varphi `$ are defined by

$$n|\varphi =e^{in\varphi }/\sqrt{n!}.$$
(25)
Unlike the phase states defined in Sec. 2, they are not orthogonal to each other, $`\varphi |\theta =\mathrm{exp}\left[e^{i(\theta \varphi )}\right]`$, but they form a complete basis, so that an expansion like (10) is still possible. A nice property of the coherent states is that we can rewrite the operators $`a`$, $`a^{}`$, $`a^{}a`$, etc, in terms of the phases very easily. For instance, $`a|\varphi =e^{i\varphi }|\varphi `$, $`a^{}|\varphi =ie^{i\varphi }\frac{}{\varphi }|\varphi `$, and $`a^{}a|\varphi =i\frac{}{\varphi }|\varphi `$. Using this representation, we obtain an effective Hamiltonian for the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{\varphi })`$, i.e. $`H_{BH}|\psi =(2\pi )^{M/2}d^M\varphi e^{i\overline{n}{\scriptscriptstyle \varphi _k}}[H_{coh}^t\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{\varphi })]|\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$, which is of the form

$$H_{coh}^t=J\underset{i,j}{}\left[2(\overline{n}+1)\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)ie^{i(\varphi _i\varphi _j)}\frac{}{\varphi _j}\right]+\frac{U}{2}\underset{j}{}\left(\frac{^2}{\varphi _j^2}\right).$$
(26)
Here $`H_{coh}^t`$ stands for the tranpose of $`H_{coh}`$. This operator was already used in Ref.  to study the Bose-Hubbard model with only two sites. On the one hand, it is a non-Hermitian operator111The hermiticity of $`H_{BH}`$ is maintained due to an implicit projection that takes place when we reconstruct the state $`H_{BH}|\psi `$ from $`H_{coh}^t\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{\varphi })`$ (See Ref. ). and we cannot do a simple variational study. On the other hand the Hamiltonian still depends on the phase differences, and it is reasonable to look for approximate eigenstates which have the form (11). This will be done in the following section. However, since working with phase variables is inconvenient, we will develop a representation similar to that of Eq. (15) in the following.

### 3.2  Variational procedure for non-Hermitian operators

In this section we will find the best variational function which has the product form of Eq. (11). However, as it happened in Sec. 2, instead of working with phase variables it is more convenient develop a representation of the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian in terms of connections. This is once more a two-steps process. First we use a similarity transformation suggested by the definition of the coherent states

$$O|\stackrel{}{n}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\sqrt{n_k!}|\stackrel{}{n}.$$
(27)
Since $`Oa_jO^1=A_j^{}`$ and $`Oa_j^{}O^1=A_j^zA_j^+`$, we find

$`H_{coh}`$ $`=`$ $`OH_{BH}O^1`$
$`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}(A_i^z+\overline{n})A_i^+A_j^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(A_j^z)^2.`$
The Hamiltonians (26) and (3.2) are equivalent: while one is defined in terms of phase variables, the other one is defined with occupations numbers, and both are related by a Fourier transform. The second and final step is to rewrite everything in terms of connections, using the quantum numbers from Eq. (12), and the relations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^x=\mathrm{\Sigma }^++\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^y=i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$. The result is a decomposition of the Hamiltonian

$`H_{coh}`$ $`=`$ $`H_1+H_2,`$ (29)
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[J\overline{n}\mathrm{\Sigma }^x+iJ\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^z\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^y+U(\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^z)^2\right],`$
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[J(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j1}^z\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j+1}^z\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{})+U\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^z\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j+1}^z\right],`$
into terms which are local, $`H_1`$, and terms which involve pairs of connections, $`H_2`$.

For the quantum rotor model we proved that the optimal product wavefunction was an eigenstate of a Hamiltonian which did not couple connections, like $`H_1`$. The difference now is that, since the operator $`H_{coh}`$ is not Hermitian, we cannot establish a variational principle and that proof is no longer valid. Nevertheless, we will again propose a variational ansatz which is an eigenstate of the local operator $`H_1|\stackrel{~}{h}^M=M\epsilon _{est}|\stackrel{~}{h}^N`$. Using the following equality

$$\epsilon _0=\underset{\psi 0}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{\psi |H_{BH}|\psi }{\psi ^2}=\underset{\chi 0}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{\chi |O^2H_{coh}|\chi }{\chi |O^2|\chi },$$
(30)
and the product ansatz $`|\chi =|\stackrel{~}{h}^M`$, we arrive to an upper bound for the lowest eigenvalue of the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian, expressed in terms of the non-Hermitian one

$$\epsilon _0\epsilon _{\mathrm{est}}+\frac{1}{N}\frac{\stackrel{~}{h}|^MO^2H_2|\stackrel{~}{h}^M}{\stackrel{~}{h}|^MO^2|\stackrel{~}{h}^M}\epsilon _{est}+\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _{est}.$$
(31)
The way to use this variational principle is as follows. First, for a given $`J`$ and $`U`$ we compute the lowest eigenstate of $`H_1`$ and this way obtain $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$. After the equivalence (14), finding the ground state of the local Hamiltonian $`H_1`$ becomes equivalent to solving a modified Mathieu equation

$$\left[U\frac{^2}{\xi ^2}2J(\overline{n}+1)\mathrm{cos}(\xi )2J\mathrm{sin}(\xi )\frac{}{\xi }\right]h=\epsilon _{est}h,$$
(32)
which describes exactly the static properties of a pair of sites with open boundary conditions . Once we have $`\epsilon _{est}`$ we must still compute the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _{est}`$ using a rather straightforward expansion which is shown in Sec. 3.4. Surprisingly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _{est}`$ happens to be negative, so that it is actually an improvement over the simple estimate given by $`\epsilon _{est}`$ \[See Fig. 5\].

From the optimal variational state, $`|\psi =O^1|\stackrel{~}{h}^M`$, and the estimate for the energy, $`\epsilon _{var}=\epsilon _{est}+\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _{est}`$, we may compute other observables. For the density fluctuations and nearest neighbor correlations we use the virial theorem

$`a_{j+1}^{}a_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{J}}\epsilon _{var},`$ (33)
$`\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{U}}\epsilon _{var}\overline{n}^2,`$ (34)
whereas for other properties one has to evaluate numerically the matrix products shown in Sec. 3.4. This allows us to prove that for the product states $`|\stackrel{~}{h}^M`$ correlations decay exponentially, opposite to what is expected in the superfluid phase, whose correlations should decay algebraically. Nevertheless, as we will see next, this family of states does estimate accurately the local properties of the optical lattice.

### 3.3  Comparison to DMRG results

We will now compare the results for the ground state energy, the correlation functions, and the variance of the particle number provided by the two variational ansatz, (18) and (32), and the Gutzwiller ansatz  with those obtained by DMRG studies of the Bose-Hubbard model. The DMRG, developed 1992 by White  in the area of condensed matter theory, is a very powerful numerical tool to investigate static and dynamic properties of strongly correlated quasi-one-dimensional spin, fermionic or bosonic quantum systems. The DMRG is an essentially quasi-exact numerical method. The fundamental ideas stem from real space renormalization methods: the system size is grown iteratively while the (exponentially diverging) size of the Hilbert space is kept constant by decimation. Hereby one tries to retain only that subset of states that is essential to describe the physical quantity under consideration. In DMRG these are expectation values with respect to low-lying states (“target states”), and in particular with respect to the ground state wave function.

DMRG builds up the system linearly: at each growth step, suitable density matrices for the target states are derived that yield information on the relevance of Hilbert space states. Building on this information, the states and operators are projected onto Hilbert subspaces of fixed dimension $`M`$ containing the most relevant states. $`M`$ is chosen to be small enough to be handled numerically, but large enough to obtain the desired accuracy; numerical results can be extrapolated in $`M`$ to the exact limit of infinite $`M`$ in the thermodynamic limit. However, results presented here have converged for the largest $`M`$ considered and no further extrapolation was necessary.

Details on the DMRG method may for example be found in . In the case of the Bose-Hubbard model the DMRG has been used to study properties of the system . The results of DMRG agree very well with exact diagonalization results for small systems, with quantum Monte-Carlo simulations e.g. , and with 13th order perturbation theory .

We have used the DMRG to study the properties of the ground state of the Bose-Hubbard model on one-dimensional lattices with 128 sites, and commensurate fillings $`\overline{n}=1,2,`$ and $`3`$. In Figs. 3(a-c) we show the results for the mean energy per site $`\epsilon `$, the nearest neighbor correlations, $`c_1=a_{j+1}^{}a_j`$, and the variance $`\sigma `$ of the density, calculated both with the DMRG and with the variational estimates developed above. As expected, there are no indications of the phase transitions in these quantities, neither in the variational results nor in the numerical solutions. Rather, an inflexion of the nearest neighbor correlation points out the location of the superfluid-insulator transition which lies roughly between $`3\overline{n}`$ and $`4\overline{n}`$ (see  and ref. therein). The agreement of the two methods is fairly good above the phase transition and below it.

A more detailed comparison is provided in Fig. 4 for the case $`\overline{n}=1`$. In this figure we plot together results from the DMRG, the variational ansatz derived above, the quantum rotor model and the well-known Gutzwiller ansatz. The Gutzwiller ansatz  is a variational ansatz which reduces the wave function to a product of single-site wave functions, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_G=\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^M|\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_j=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}f_m^{(j)}|m_j`$ and $`f_m^{(j)}`$ are constants. Such a wavefunction cannot be used in the one-dimensional Mott insulator regime, because a perturbative study of the Gutzwiller ansatz shows that the corrections of order $`𝒪(J/U)`$ are lost and all correlations become zero. However this ansatz gives good results in the superfluid regime, where the long-range order is well described by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$, and we can use these results and those of the DMRG to assert the accuracy of our variational estimates. As Fig. 4 shows, in the Mott insulator regime, the DMRG results agrees perfectly with our variational theory for the Bose-Hubbard model and for the quantum rotor model. Close to the phase transition is the point at which the quantum rotor model no longer describes well the atoms in the optical lattice due to the growth of density fluctuations. At this point we also observe a small disagreement between the DMRG and the coherent states, which is due to the growth of long range correlations and vanishes as we get deeper into the superfluid regime.

### 3.4  Numerical evaluation of the upper bound

In this section we will show how to compute the corrections to the local energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _{est}`$, from Eq. (31). We basically need a method to compute expectation values of the operator $`O^2`$ around product states which have the form

$$|\varphi =|\stackrel{~}{h}_1\mathrm{}|\stackrel{~}{h}_{k1}|A\stackrel{~}{h}_k|B\stackrel{~}{h}_{k+1}|\stackrel{~}{h}_{k+2}\mathrm{}|\stackrel{~}{h}_M,$$
(35)
in which at most two contiguous vectors are affected by two single-connection operators. For instance, this is the case of $`H_2|\psi `$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^z`$, and also of $`|\psi `$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are just the identity. After some manipulations it is possible to write, for the optimal variational state $`|\psi =O^1|\stackrel{~}{h}^M`$,

$`O^2H_2_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M2}{}}}\stackrel{}{u}^tO(HO)^{k1}Z_kO(HO)^{Mk1}\stackrel{}{u},`$
$`Z_k`$ $`=`$ $`J(H_zOH_+H_{}OH_z)U(H_zOH_z),`$
with the real matrices and vectors

$`H_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{h}_i|^2\delta _{ij},`$
$`(H_\alpha )_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{h}_i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^\alpha \stackrel{~}{h})_i|^2\delta _{ij},`$
$`O_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}[(ij+\overline{n})!]^{1/2},& ij\overline{n}\\ 0,& ij<\overline{n}\end{array},`$
$`u_i`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{i0},`$
$`i,j`$ $``$ $`,\alpha \{+,,z\}.`$
We have used this technique to compute numerically the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _{est}`$ using different lattice sizes and found small or no differences for more than 30 sites. Intuitively, this is because in the limit of large powers the matrices $`(HO)^\alpha `$ become projectors on the eigenvector with the largest eigenvalue.

Using the same type of expansion we may compute other correlations

$$a_{k+\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}a_k_\psi =\frac{\stackrel{}{u}^tO(HO)^{k1}(H_{}O)^\mathrm{\Delta }(HO)^{Mk+1}\stackrel{}{u}}{\stackrel{}{u}^tO(HO)^M\stackrel{}{u}}.$$
(37)
For large values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and large lattices, the numerator will decay exponentially as $`\gamma _1^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\gamma _1`$ is the largest eigenvalue of the matrix $`H_{}O`$.

## 4  Conclusions

In this work we have studied analytically and numerically the properties of the ground state of an ensemble of bosonic atoms in an 1D optical lattice. For the study of the atomic ensemble we have used both the quantum rotor model and the Bose-Hubbard model. Exploiting the fact that in these models there exists only nearest neighbor hopping and local interactions, we have developed a variational wavefunction that may be used to easily estimate local properties, such as the energy per well, the nearest neigbor correlations and the fluctuations of the density. In the case of the quantum rotor model we have verified our results with perturbative calculations around the strongly interacting regime, and with a spin wave approximation around the superfluid regime. In the case of the Bose-Hubbard model we have compared the variational estimates with numerical results obtained using the DMRG technique for a maximum density of three atoms per well. We have concluded that this procedure leads to fairly good estimates of local ground state properties of both Hamiltonians, in both the superfluid and the insulator regime, the largest disagreement being localized around the phase transition. In future work we forsee the application of these methods to time dependent problems.

## Acknowledgments

We thank W. Zwerger for fruitful discussions. J. J. García-Ripoll and J. I. Cirac thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 631) and the Kompetenznetzwerk Quanteninformationsverarbeitung der Bayerischen Staatsregierung. C. K. and U. S. thank the Hess-Preis of the DFG and the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes for financial support. Work at the University of Innsbruck is supported by the Austrian Science Foundation, EU Networks and the Institute for Quantum Information. P.Z. thanks the Max Planck Institut für Quantenoptik for hospitality during his stay in Garching, and thanks the Humboldt Foundation for support during this stay.


text:
# On stationary metrics in five dimensions

## 1 Introduction

The metric of a four-dimensional rotating mass is described by the Kerr-metric. This metric is algebraically special: it has Petrov type D. As far as we know, there is no easy mathematical or physical reason for this surprising result. The Schwarzschild metric also has Petrov type D. However, this already follows from the isometries of the metric, without using the detailed form of it. A rotating black hole has very few isometries and it has taken physicists a long time to find its metric. Kerr found it by looking within the class of metrics of Petrov type D; he was lucky to find it there.

In this paper we point out that something similar holds in five dimensions. The five-dimensional Schwarzschild metric has Petrov type 22 (see ref  for a discussion of the five-dimensional Petrov classification). This is not surprising – it follows again from the isometries. Things are more interesting for rotating black holes. In Section 2, we prove that the Myers-Perry solution  with one non-zero angular momentum has Petrov type 22 as well. In Section 3, we prove a converse statement: the Myers-Perry solution is the only five-dimensional metric satisfying the following conditions.

1. The metric has 3 commuting Killing vectors and is invariant under 2 discrete $`_2`$ transformations.
2. The metric has Petrov type 22.
3. The metric is asymptotically flat at infinity.

## 2 The Petrov type of the Myers-Perry solution

In this section, we derive the Petrov type of the Myers-Perry metric

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2=& \frac{R^2}{\rho ^2}\left(dta\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi \right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}\left(\left(r^2+a^2\right)d\varphi adt\right)^2+\hfill \\ & \frac{\rho ^2}{R^2}dr^2+\rho ^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
with $`\rho ^2=r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ and $`R^2=r^22M+a^2`$. The Petrov classification in five dimensions  is basically an invariant classification of the Weyl spinor

$$\psi _{abcd}=(\gamma ^{ij})_{ab}(\gamma ^{kl})_{cd}C_{ijkl},$$

where $`C_{ijkl}`$ is the Weyl tensor and $`\gamma _i`$ are the five-dimensional gamma matrices111We use the following convention for the gamma matrices: $`\gamma _1=i\sigma _11,\gamma _2=\sigma _21,\gamma _3=\sigma _3\sigma _1,\gamma _4=\sigma _3\sigma _2,\gamma _5=\sigma _3\sigma _3.`$. We choose the following dual tetrad

$`e^t={\displaystyle \frac{R}{\rho }}\left(dta\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi \right),e^\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\rho }}\left(\left(r^2+a^2\right)d\varphi adt\right),`$
$`e^r={\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{R}}dr,e^\theta =\rho d\theta ,e^\psi =r\mathrm{cos}\theta d\psi .`$
A calculation then gives the Weyl polynomial

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi _{abcd}x^ax^bx^cx^d=\frac{48M}{\rho ^2}\left(\frac{(x^1)^2}{z}\frac{(x^2)^2}{\overline{z}}\frac{(x^3)^2}{\overline{z}}+\frac{(x^4)^2}{z}\right)^2,$$

with $`z=r+ia\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. This polynomial is the square of a polynomial of degree 2, hence, the Myers-Perry solution has Petrov type 22 in the notation of ref. .

## 3 The Myers-Perry solution is unique

We now prove that the Myers-Perry solution is unique within a certain restricted class of metrics of Petrov type 22. The outline of the proof is as follows. We make ansätze for the tetrad, the connection $`\omega `$ and the Weyl spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and solve the equations

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=d\omega +\omega \omega ,`$ (2)
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }+[\omega ,\mathrm{\Omega }]=0.`$ (3)
In these equations, the curvature $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is completely determined by the Weyl spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ because the Ricci tensor vanishes. The condition on the Petrov type simplifies the Weyl spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ drastically. This makes it possible to find all solutions. The ansätze can be found in section 3.1, the simplification of the Weyl spinor is discussed in section 3.2 and the solutions of the field equations are given in section 3.3. It can be seen that only the Myers-Perry solution is flat at infinity, which proves its uniqueness. Although the Petrov condition simplifies the field equations very much, the derivation of the solutions is still rather tedious. Some details can be found in appendix A.

### 3.1 The ansätze

Our coordinates are $`t,\varphi ,r,\theta ,\psi `$. We assume that the metric has 3 commuting Killing vectors which we choose as $`_t,_\varphi `$ and $`_\psi `$. In addition, we assume that the metric is invariant under two $`_2`$ transformations:

* $`(t,\varphi )(t,\varphi )`$, this reflects that the metric is invariant if the rotation reverses and time flows backwards
* $`\psi \psi `$ .

The most general ansatz for the tetrad is then as follows. The vectors $`e_t`$ and $`e_\varphi `$ are linear combinations of $`_t`$ and $`_\varphi `$, the vectors $`e_r`$ and $`e_\theta `$ are linear combinations of $`_r`$ and $`_\theta `$ and $`e_\psi `$ is proportional to $`_\psi `$. The coefficients in these linear combinations depend only on the variables $`r`$ and $`\theta `$. The commutators then read

$`[e_t,e_r]`$ $`=\mu e_t+\alpha e_\varphi `$ $`[e_\varphi ,e_r]`$ $`=\kappa e_t+\zeta e_\varphi `$
$`[e_t,e_\theta ]`$ $`=\nu e_t+\beta e_\varphi `$ $`[e_\varphi ,e_\theta ]`$ $`=\lambda e_t+\eta e_\varphi `$
$`[e_r,e_\psi ]`$ $`=\sigma e_\psi `$ $`[e_r,e_\theta ]`$ $`=\delta e_r+\epsilon e_\theta `$ (4)
$`[e_\theta ,e_\psi ]`$ $`=\tau e_\psi `$
It can be shown that the most general ansatz for the Weyl spinor consistent with the above tetrad, is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi _{1111}& =\overline{\psi }_{3333}=(T_{11}T_{21})+i(T_{12}T_{22})\hfill \\ \hfill \psi _{1122}& =\overline{\psi }_{3344}=W_1+iW_2\hfill \\ \hfill \psi _{1133}& =V_1V_2\hfill \\ \hfill \psi _{1144}& =\overline{\psi }_{2233}=I_2+iI_3\hfill \\ \hfill \psi _{2222}& =\overline{\psi }_{4444}=(T_{11}+T_{21})+i(T_{12}+T_{22})\hfill \\ \hfill \psi _{2244}& =V_1+V_2\hfill \\ \hfill \psi _{1234}& =\frac{1}{2}I_1\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
The ansatz for the tetrad breaks the local Lorentz group $`O(1,4)`$ to $`O(1,1)_{t\varphi }\times O(2)_{r\theta }`$. Under this group the ansatz for the Weyl spinor transforms as

$$\underset{T_{ij}}{\underset{}{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})}}\underset{V_i}{\underset{}{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}}\underset{W_i}{\underset{}{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})}}\underset{I_1,I_2}{\underset{}{2(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}}\underset{I_3}{\underset{}{(\mathrm{𝟏}^{},\mathrm{𝟏}^{})}}$$

### 3.2 The condition on the Petrov type

The Weyl polynomial associated with the Weyl spinor (5) is $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi _{abcd}x^ax^bx^cx^d`$. It can be written as a square of a polynomial of degree 2 if and only if one of the following four cases holds.

* Case A: $`I_1=0`$, $`W_1^2+W_2^2=V_1^2V_2^2=I_2^2+I_3^2`$ and an extra condition on $`T_{ij}`$:

+ If $`V_i`$ is light-like, this extra condition is $`T_{ij}=0`$.
    + If $`V_i`$ is time-like, it is difficult to write this extra condition in a manifestly $`O(1,1)_{t\varphi }\times O(2)_{r\theta }`$ invariant way. If we choose the particular frame $`W_2=V_2=0`$ and $`W_2=V_1`$, it reads $`T_{11}=3I_2,T_{22}=3I_3`$ and $`T_{12}=T_{21}=0`$.
* Case B: $`I_2=I_3=T_{ij}=V_i=0`$ and $`W_1^2+W_2^2=I_1^2`$ .
* Case C: $`I_2=I_3=T_{ij}=W_i=0`$ and $`V_1^2V_2^2=I_1^2`$ .
* Case D: $`T_{ij}=W_i=V_i=0`$ and $`I_2^2+I_3^2=I_1^2`$ .

### 3.3 Solutions of the field equations

The classification contains the following metrics

1. The Kasner metric with exponents $`(1/2,1/2,1/2,1/2)`$

$$ds^2=dt^2+\frac{1}{t}dx^2+t(dy^2+dz^2+du^2)$$
(6)
This metric is not asymptotically flat.
2. $$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2=& \frac{1}{r^2}\left(dt+2af(\theta )d\varphi \right)^2+r^2f^{}(\theta )^2d\varphi ^2\hfill \\ & +\left(\frac{b}{r^2}\frac{a^2}{r^4}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+(br^2a^2)d\psi ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
with $`f(\theta )`$ a polynomial of degree 2. If one does a Wick transformation $`rir`$, the metric can be interpreted as a five-dimensional spatially homogeneous cosmological model222I would like to thank S. Hervik for pointing this out. . The isometry algebra is $`A_{4,10}`$ in the notation of ref. . The metric reduces to the Kasner metric if $`a=0`$. This metric is not asymptotically flat.
3. $$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2=& \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^2}{\rho ^2}\left(dta\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi \right)^2+\frac{k_2k_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}\left(\left(r^2+a^2\right)d\varphi adt\right)^2+\hfill \\ & \frac{\rho ^2}{\stackrel{~}{R}^2}dr^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{k_2k_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\rho ^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`\rho ^2=r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}^2=k_1r^22M+k_2a^2`$. This metric has Lorentz signature only if $`k_2k_10`$. If $`k_10`$, the metric is actually the Myers-Perry solution (1). If $`k_1=0`$, it is not asymptotically flat.

Hence, we see that the Myers-Perry solution is the unique metric that (i) has three commuting Killing vectors $`_t`$, $`_\varphi `$ and $`_\psi `$, (ii) is invariant under $`(t,\varphi )(t,\varphi )`$ and $`\psi \psi `$, (iii) is asymptotically flat and (iv) has Petrov type 22.

## 4 Conclusions

The well-known “no-hair” theorems of four-dimensional gravity do not hold in five dimensions for the general stationary case. For example, in  a rotating ring was found with the same mass and angular momentum as the Myers-Perry solution, but with a different horizon topology. In the static case on the other hand, one can prove that asymptotically flat solutions are unique . See also ref.  for a speculation that uniqueness properties hold in higher dimensions if one (i) specifies the horizon topology and (ii) only considers stable solutions. The uniqueness theorems can also be saved by adding supersymmetry: in ref.  it is proven that the BMPV solution  is the only supersymmetric black hole of minimal $`N=1`$, $`D=5`$ supergravity. It is nice that the Myers-Perry solution is unique within the class of metrics of Petrov type 22. This result could shed some light on the structure of solutions of five-dimensional gravity.

It would be interesting to generalize the above analysis. Some possibilities are the following.

* We have restricted our study of the Myers-Perry solution by putting one of the angular momenta to zero. The above analysis can probably be generalized to the case with two angular momenta.
* Preliminary investigations indicate that the rotating ring found by Reall  has Petrov type 22. The generalization of this rotating ring to two non-zero angular momenta is not known. It is possible that it can be found in the class of metrics of Petrov type 22.
* The charged generalization of the Myers-Perry solutions is not known. The following reasons suggest that it might be of Petrov type 22.

+ As shown in this paper, the uncharged limit has Petrov type 22.
    + The non-rotating limit (five-dimensional Reissner-Nordstrøm metric) has Petrov type 22 as well.
    + The charged rotating black hole in four dimensions (the Kerr-Newmann metric) has the same Petrov type as the uncharged rotating black hole, i.e. Petrov type $`D`$.

It seems worthwhile to look for the charged generalization within the class of metrics of Petrov type 22.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported in part by the NSF grant PHY-0098527. It is a pleasure to thank H. Reall, S. Hervik, G. Gibbons and W. Siegel for discussions.

## Appendix A More details

In this appendix, we solve the Einstein equations with the ansätze (4) and (5). As discussed in section 3.2, the Petrov condition leads to four different cases. These are discussed separately.

### Case A

We only discuss the case where $`V_i`$ is time-like. $`V_i`$ light-like is a special case of Case C, which is discussed below. We assume $`V_10`$, otherwise, it follows from (3.2) that the space is flat. From the Bianchi equations (3), we obtain $`\kappa =\beta =0`$, $`\epsilon =\zeta `$, $`\delta =\nu `$ and
$`\tau I_3=\alpha V_1`$    $`\tau I_2=(2\nu +\tau )V_1`$        $`\sigma I_3=\lambda V_1`$    $`\sigma I_2=(2\zeta +\sigma )V_1`$
Combining the above equations with the Petrov condition (3.2) leads to

$`\nu \sigma +\tau \sigma +\tau \zeta =0`$ (9)
$`\alpha ^2+4\nu ^2+4\nu \tau =0`$ (10)
$`\lambda ^2+4\zeta ^2+4\zeta \sigma =0`$ (11)
Furthermore, combining (9) with (2) gives

$$\lambda \alpha =4\zeta \nu $$
(12)
At this point, we want to choose coordinates such that $`e_r=A\zeta _r`$ and $`e_\theta =B\nu _\theta `$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are two functions. However, we can only make this choice if $`\zeta `$ and $`\nu `$ are both non-zero. Therefore, we have to treat the cases $`\zeta =0`$ or $`\nu =0`$ separately. This is a bit unfortunate because it will turn out that the solutions in the latter cases can be obtained as limits of solutions in the case $`\zeta 0\nu `$. Anyway, we break up case A into 5 subcases.

#### Case A.1: $`\nu 0`$ and $`\zeta 0`$

From (2) and (12), one obtains $`e_r\nu =3\zeta \nu `$ and $`e_\theta \zeta =3\zeta \nu `$. Using these equations, one can show that there are coordinates such that

$$e_r=\frac{\rho ^2}{r}\zeta _r\text{and}e_\theta =\frac{\rho ^2}{a^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }\nu _\theta ,$$

where $`\rho ^2=r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$. The solution of (2) and (3) is the metric (8).

#### Case A.2: $`\nu =0`$ and $`\tau =0`$

From the Bianchi identities, one obtains $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\mu =\zeta `$. The resulting field equations are then easily solved. The solution is the metric (7).

#### Case A.3: $`\nu =0`$ and $`\tau 0`$

From the Bianchi identities, one obtains $`\lambda =\alpha =0`$, $`I_3=0`$, $`I_2=V_1`$ and $`\zeta =\sigma `$. The solutions in this case are the Schwarzschild metric and the Kasner metric (6).

#### Case A.4: $`\zeta =0`$ and $`\sigma =0`$

This case leads again to the metric (7).

#### Case A.5: $`\zeta =0`$ and $`\sigma 0`$

This case leads again to the Schwarzschild metric or the Kasner metric.

### Case B

We can choose $`W_2=0`$ and $`W_1=I_1`$ by an $`O(2)_{r\theta }`$ transformation. Furthermore, we can use an $`O(1,1)`$ boost to put $`\alpha =\beta =0`$. The Bianchi equations yield $`\kappa =0`$, $`\epsilon =\zeta `$, $`\mu =\zeta `$, $`\delta =0`$ and $`\tau =0`$. Using the commutation relations (4), we can choose coordinates in which the metric has the form

$$ds^2=A(r)d\psi ^2+B(r)dr^2+r^2d\stackrel{~}{s}^2(t,\theta ,\varphi ).$$

From Einstein’s equations, it directly follows that the three-dimensional metric $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ is Einstein, hence has constant curvature. If $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ is Euclidean, we obtain the Kasner metric (6). If $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ is a sphere, we obtain the Schwarzschild metric.

### Case C

If $`I_1=0`$, we can choose $`V_1=V_2`$ by an $`O(1,1)_{t\varphi }`$ transformation. If $`I_10`$, we make $`V_2=0`$ and $`V_1=I_1`$ by a boost. In both cases, Einstein’s equations lead to flat space.

### Case D

We put $`\alpha =\beta =\nu =0`$ by an $`O(1,1)_{t\varphi }\times O(2)_{r\theta }`$ transformation. From the Bianchi identities, one can rather easily see that there are only solutions if $`I_3=0`$ and $`I_2=I_1`$. The Bianchi identities then give $`\eta =\kappa =\lambda =0`$ and $`\zeta =\mu =\sigma `$. The solution is the Kasner metric (6).


text:
# Radio Detection of Cosmic Ray Air Shower by the CODALEMA Experiment

## 1 Motivation

Radio emission from cosmic ray air showers has been predicted in the 60’s askaryan . In the subsequent decade, several experiments have asserted the observation of such emission jelley ; Weeks . For this period, following the review of Allan Allan , different mechanisms of electromagnetic pulse generation have been identified, such as negative charge excess (10-25%) in the shower. For our purpose, calculations of the electromagnetic pulse were performed within a simple model considering only this negative charge excess contribution. The resulting electric field can be expressed as :

$$\stackrel{}{E}(t)=\frac{1}{4\pi ϵ}\underset{t^{}}{}\frac{e(t^{})(1\beta ^2)(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\beta })}{R^2|1\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\beta }|^3}+\frac{1}{4\pi ϵc}\underset{t^{}}{}\frac{e^{}(t^{})(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\beta })}{R(1\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\beta })|1\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\beta }|}$$

with $`\stackrel{}{\beta }=\stackrel{}{v}/c`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{R}/R`$, and $`c(tt^{})=R`$ the distance between the moving charges of the shower and the observation point. For the numerical simulation, we have assumed a charge excess distribution $`e(t^{})`$ along the shower axis with $`7.10^9`$ charges at the maximum for a 100 EeV EHECR and no spatial shower extension. The corresponding electric fields for 3 different impact parameters $`b`$ in a vertical shower configuration are shown on Fig.1.

These electric fields are strong enough to be measured. It is worth noting that the pulse width increases with the impact parameter. Thus, a complete knowledge of the pulse waveform enables to determine the charge profile of the shower and consequently the energy of the primary EHECR. Due to the large frequency content of the Fourier spectrum (see Fig. 2), broadband antennas are requested for the most accurate pulse shape determination. It is also possible, by an appropriate narrow-band frequency filter, to use stand-alone triggered antennas. Moreover, using at least 3 antennas in time coincidence enable to reconstruct the shower direction.

## 2 The CODALEMA experiment

These considerations motivated us to implement a demonstrative experiment, named CODALEMA, at the Radio Observatory of Nançay nancay  (France). CODALEMA uses 6 large frequency bandwidth antennas (1-100 MHz) in time coincidence. The experimental central array (83 m x 87 m) consists of the corner antennas of the Réseau Décamétrique de Nançay (RDN) and a narrow-filtered antenna (33-65 MHz) used as a trigger. One additional antenna linked by optical fiber is located 1 km East from the central array (see Fig. 3).

The data acquisition system is based on 3 LeCroy digital oscilloscopes (1 GS/s) which record the amplified antenna voltage signal. Our first task has been to identify the various sources of background, mainly the radio broadcasting stations. Bandpass filters (24-82 MHz) suppress the AM and FM bands. Additional anthropic noise comes from the acquisition room’s air-conditioning and the computing network hub : these effects have been filtered out. Within these precautions we have reached a trigger rate of 12 events/hour for a 40 $`\mu `$V triggering antenna signal; among them 85% have been already identified as noise pulses.

## 3 First results

A typical 6 antennas coincidence signal, triggered by the dedicated narrow filtered antenna of the central array is shown Fig. 4. After a preliminary analysis of time delays, we can assert that such an event is not compatible with identified sources of noise and can be considered as a possible candidate for cosmic ray air shower radio emission. CODALEMA has been now recording data at a duty cycle of 100% since mid-march 2003, and until the end of 2003.

Acknowledgments : We thank J.Martino and N.Dubouloz for their full supports.


text:
# Lock-in transitions in ErNi₂B₂C and TbNi₂B₂C

thanks: Current address: Electron Spin Science Center, Department of Physics, Pohang University of Science & Technology, Pohang, 790-784, South Korea. (Version )

## Abstract

High resolution x-ray magnetic scattering has been used to determine the variation with temperature of the magnetic modulation vector, $`\tau `$, in $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ to study the interplay between the weakly ferromagnetic (WFM) phase and proposed lock-in transitions in these materials. At temperatures below the WFM transitions, the modulation wave vectors are within the resolution limit of the commensurate values $`11/20`$ and $`6/11`$ for $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$, respectively.

Investigations of the physical properties of the superconducting rare-earth nickel boride-carbides, $`R\mathrm{Ni}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ ($`R`$ = $`\mathrm{Gd}`$$`\mathrm{Lu}`$, $`\mathrm{Y}`$), continue to provide insight into the interplay between superconductivity and magnetism (For recent overviews, see refs. Müller and Narozhnyi, 2001a, b.)

Recently, $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ attracted special attention when the possible coexistence of superconductivity and weak ferromagnetism (WFM) was indicated by several measurementsCanfield et al. (1996); Kawano et al. (1999); Gammel et al. (2000). A similar WFM state also exists in $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$Cho et al. (1996); Dervenagas et al. (1996); Song et al. (2001a). The similarity of the crystallographic and magnetic properties of these compounds suggests a common origin of the WFMWalker and Detlefs (2003). In order to study the interplay between WFM and the dominant antiferromagnetic (AFM) order we have performed a comparative study of these two compounds using the technique of x-ray resonant magnetic scattering.

In $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$, superconductivity is observed below $`T_C=10.5\mathrm{K}`$. Neutron diffraction experiments Sinha et al. (1995); Zarestky et al. (1995) show that below $`T_N=6.0\mathrm{K}`$ it orders in a transverse spin density wave with modulation wave vector $`\tau _a(0.55,0,0)`$ and magnetic moments aligned parallel to the $`(0,1,0)`$-axis of the crystal. As the temperature is lowered, higher harmonic satellites develop, indicating that the spin density wave squares up; the modulation wave vector was reported to be approximately independent of temperatureSinha et al. (1995); Zarestky et al. (1995).

A phase transition into a state with a weak ferromagnetic (WFM) component of about $`0.33\mu _\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{Er}`$ (at $`T=2\mathrm{K}`$) is observed at $`T_{\mathrm{WFM}}2.3\mathrm{K}`$Canfield et al. (1996); Kawano et al. (1999); Gammel et al. (2000). Whereas this transition is clearly resolved in zero-field specific heat measurementsCanfield et al. (1996), the magnetic moment of the ground state has to be extrapolated from magnetization measurements at finite fields above $`H_{C1}`$Canfield et al. (1996). The structure and origin of this WFM state remain unclear. Recently, neutron scatteringChoi et al. (2001); Kawano-Furukawa et al. (2002) showed that the WFM state is intimately linked to the appearance of *even* order harmonic components of the spin wave and a lock-in of the modulation wave vector, $`\tau `$, onto a commensurate position. However, the values of $`\tau `$ these two groups cite do not agree: Whereas Choi et al.Choi et al. (2001) find $`\tau =0.548`$, Kawano-Furukawa et al.Kawano-Furukawa et al. (2002) report $`\tau =11/20=0.55`$. Finally, an increase of the scattered intensity at nuclear Bragg peaks confirmed the presence of a WFM componentKawano et al. (1999); Choi et al. (2001).

Because of the striking similarities in their magnetic properties, it is useful to compare $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ to $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$. Whereas the latter is not superconducting, it displays the same local moment anisotropy in the paramagnetic phase (easy axes $`(1,0,0)`$ and $`(0,1,0)`$) and forms an AFM structure closely related to that of $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$. In neutron scattering experimentsDervenagas et al. (1996) the magnetic modulation wave vector is found to decrease from $`\tau =(0.551,0,0)`$ at $`T_N=14.9\mathrm{K}`$ to $`(0.545,0,0)`$ below $`T_{\mathrm{WFM}}7\mathrm{K}`$. Unlike in the $`\mathrm{Er}`$ compound, the $`\mathrm{Tb}`$ magnetic moments are aligned *parallel* to the modulation wave vector, forming a *longitudinal* spin wave. Furthermore, a phase transition to a WFM state similar to that of $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$, albeit in the absence of superconductivity, occurs around $`T_{\mathrm{WFM}}7\mathrm{K}`$Cho et al. (1996); Sánchez et al. (1998), with magnetic moment $`0.55\mu _\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{Tb}`$ at $`T=2\mathrm{K}`$. Again, the neutron experimentsDervenagas et al. (1996) indicate that the appearance of a WFM moment may be related to a lock-in of the AFM spin wave to a commensurate propagation vector, in this case $`\tau =6/11=0.545`$.

A recent Ginzburg-Landau type analysisWalker and Detlefs (2003) shows that a lock-in to $`\tau =M/N𝐆`$ ($`𝐆`$ = reciprocal lattice vector) with $`M`$ even and $`N`$ odd directly induces weak ferromagnetism as secondary order. This result is confirmed by a mean field analysisJensen (2002) of $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$.

In both compounds the magnetic ordering transitions are accompanied by structural distortions which lower the crystal symmetry from tetragonal (space group $`I4/mmm`$) to orthorhombic ($`Immm`$)Detlefs et al. (1997a); Song et al. (1999); Kreyssig et al. (2001). This distortion breaks the symmetry between the $`(1,0,0)`$ and $`(0,1,0)`$ crystallographic directions and thus leads to an unique easy axis of the magnetic moment ($`\mu (0,1,0)`$ in $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$, and $`\mu (1,0,0)`$ in $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$) and the modulation wave vector ($`\tau (1,0,0)`$ in both compoundsDetlefs et al. (1999); Song et al. (2001b)). Since these magneto-elastic effects were not reported in the earlier studiesDervenagas et al. (1996); Kawano-Furukawa et al. (2002); Choi et al. (2001), it appears doubtful that they had the resolution necessary to clearly resolve a lock-in transition into a commensurate state. We therefore performed high-resolution resonant magnetic scattering experiments using synchrotron x-raysGibbs et al. (1988); Hannon et al. (1988) on both $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$.

Single crystals of $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ were grown at the Ames Laboratory using a high-temperature flux growth techniqueCanfield et al. (1994); Cho et al. (1995). Platelets extracted from the flux were examined by x-ray diffraction and were found to be high quality single crystals with the $`(0,0,1)`$-axis perpendicular to their flat surface. The $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ sample was cut perpendicular to the $`(1,0,0)`$ direction and the resulting face was mechanically polished to obtain a flat, oriented surface for x-ray diffraction. The sample dimensions after polishing were approximately $`2\times 1.5\times 0.5\mathrm{mm}^3`$. The $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ sample, the same one used in our earlier studiesSong et al. (1999, 2001b), had a $`(0,0,1)`$ polished face.

The synchrotron experiments were carried out at XMAS CRG and at the Troïka undulator beamline (ID10C) of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF). The samples were mounted on the cold finger of a Displex closed cycle refrigerator equipped with an additional Joule-Thompson stage111This cryostat is a prototype of a system now commercially available from A.S. Scientific Products Ltd, Abingdon, UK.. The base temperature of this configuration was approximately $`1.7\mathrm{K}`$.

Fig. 1 shows scans through selected magnetic and charge reflections of $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$. The variation of the $`a`$-axis lattice parameter is significant and has to be taken into account when calculating the modulation wave vectorDetlefs et al. (1999) (the horizontal scale is identical in all three panels). The corresponding raw data for $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ are shown in Fig. 2.

The data presented in Fig. 1 were fitted to a Lorentzian-squared line shape. $`\tau `$ in units of the reciprocal lattice was calculated from

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_H(1+\tau ,0,7)Q_H(\tau ,0,8)`$ (1)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_H(\tau ,0,8)}{Q_H(1+\tau ,0,7)+Q_H(\tau ,0,8)}},`$ (2)
where $`𝐐=(Q_H,Q_K,Q_L)`$ is the scattering vector. The resulting data are presented in Fig. 4.

For the case of $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ a similar calculation was applied to the measured positions of the $`(2\pm \tau ,0,0)`$ magnetic Bragg reflectionsDetlefs et al. (1999):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[Q(2+\tau ,0,0)+Q(2\tau ,0,0)\right]`$ (3)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[Q(2+\tau ,0,0)Q(2\tau ,0,0)\right]}{\left[Q(2+\tau ,0,0)+Q(2\tau ,0,0)\right]}}.`$ (4)
The resulting data are presented in Fig. 4.

For both samples, the directly measured lattice parameter is in good agreement with the one calculated from the position of the magnetic reflections and with our earlier experiments Detlefs et al. (1997b); Detlefs et al. (1999); Song et al. (1999, 2001b). We estimate the relative systematic errors to be below $`1\times 10^3`$, as indicated in Figs. 4 and 4. Clearly, these are systematic errors – the noise level is at least a factor of 10 smaller.

The importance of using this procedure is underlined by the discrepancy between our value and that given by Choi et al. Choi et al. (2001). The latter, $`\tau _{\mathrm{Choi}}=0.548`$, can be reproduced from our raw data by simply dividing the low temperature $`Q`$-value of the $`(2+\tau ,0,0)`$ reflection, $`Q=4.5823\mathrm{\AA }^1`$ by the reciprocal lattice parameter at $`T=6.1\mathrm{K}`$, $`\frac{2\pi }{a}=\frac{1}{2}Q(2,0,0)=\frac{1}{2}3.5988\mathrm{\AA }^1=1.7994\mathrm{\AA }^1`$. Using the high temperature value of $`Q(2,0,0)`$ corresponds to taking the average of the $`Q`$-values of the $`(2,0,0)`$ and $`(0,2,0)`$ peaks. We obtain $`Q/\frac{2\pi }{a}=2.5472+\tau _{\mathrm{Choi}}`$.

In both compounds the variation of $`\tau `$ vs. temperature flattens out dramatically as $`T_{\mathrm{WFM}}`$ is approached; within the error cited above their modulation wave vectors agree with the commensurate values indicated by the dashed lines in Figs. 4 and 4. Their absolute values, $`\tau _{\mathrm{Er}}=11/20`$, and $`\tau _{\mathrm{Tb}}=6/11`$, probably differ because of small difference in the lattice parameters and electronic structures, resulting in different spacings between the nested parts of the Fermi surfaces.

However, there is no sign of a discontinuous change of the modulation at the proposed WFM transition. On the contrary, it appears as if the modulation wave vector was changing continuously, and as if it was not constant, i.e. not locked to a commensurate value, below $`T_{\mathrm{WFM}}`$. This behavior is confirmed by the neutron dataChoi et al. (2001); Kreyssig et al. (2003).

Our results are consistent with a second order lock-in transition to the commensurate values given aboveWalker and Detlefs (2003). In this scenario, the magnetic structure is composed of commensurate blocks separated by domain walls often called “discommensurations”Walker and Detlefs (2003). Across these domain walls the phase of the spin density wave shifts by a defined value, in a way similar to the “spin slip” structures observed in $`\mathrm{Ho}`$Gibbs et al. (1985). The modulation wave vector $`\tau `$ of the structure is obtained from the Fourier transform over several blocks, including the domain walls. The discrepancy between the actual $`\tau `$ and the commensurate value is then proportional to the average phase shift per unit length along the modulation wave vector, i.e. the density of domain walls. When the temperature of the system is varied the domain walls shift until in the limit $`T0`$ the distance between them becomes infinite and the wave vector truly commensurate. For $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$, this theory has to be modified to take into account domain wall pinning which is expected to be significant because of the large magneto-elastic strain induced by the orthorhombic distortion associated with the AFM phase transitionDetlefs et al. (1997a); Song et al. (1999); Kreyssig et al. (2001).

The net ferromagnetic moment per formula unit resulting from the above commensurate structures would be $`2/N`$ of the saturation moment, i.e., $`1/10\mu _{\mathrm{Er}}`$ and $`2/11\mu _{\mathrm{Tb}}`$, respectively. These numbers have to be compared to the measured fractions (at $`T=2\mathrm{K}`$), $`0.33\mu _\mathrm{B}/7.8\mu _\mathrm{B}1/24`$ for $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$Canfield et al. (1996), and $`0.55\mu _\mathrm{B}/9.5\mu _\mathrm{B}1/17`$ for $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$Cho et al. (1996). That the observed WFM moment is significantly smaller than the predicted value might indicate that the saturated, completely ordered state was not reached at the measurement temperature, or that only a finite volume fraction of the sample undergoes the WFM transition. Furthermore, in $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ the observed magnetization is lowered by the diamagnetism of the superconducting state. Note also that $`\tau _{\mathrm{Er}}=11/20`$ does not have the form $`N/M\stackrel{}{G}`$ with $`N`$ even and $`M`$ odd, so that the lock-in does not necessarily induce weak ferromagnetismWalker and Detlefs (2003).

Finally, we note that the specific heat of $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ exhibits a broad anomaly near the WFM transition (Fig. 4(c)), whereas the specific heat of $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ (Fig. 4(c)) shows no indication of the WFM transition. This might be related to the different form of the commensurate value, odd/even vs. even/odd, for the $`\mathrm{Er}`$ and $`\mathrm{Tb}`$ compound, respectively Walker and Detlefs (2003).

In summary, we have performed high resolution magnetic x-ray diffraction measurements to study the AFM host structures of $`\mathrm{ErNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\mathrm{TbNi}_2\mathrm{B}_2\mathrm{C}`$ close to the weak ferromagnetic transition at $`T_{\mathrm{WFM}}`$. We determined the modulation wave vector $`\tau `$ with high precision, taking into consideration the magneto-elastic distortion associated with the antiferromagnetic order. In both materials above $`T_{\mathrm{WFM}}`$ $`\tau `$ varies strongly with temperature, whereas below $`T_{\mathrm{WFM}}`$ the variations are much smaller, but still finite and observable. Across the whole temperature range the variations are continuous, so that first order transitions can be excluded. Our observations are consistent with a second order lock-in transition in the presence of discommensurationsWalker and Detlefs (2003).

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to A. I. Goldman, H. Furukawa-Kawano, P. L. Gammel, and M. B. Walker for stimulating discussions. We also wish to thank the ESRF and the beamline staff of ID10C for assistance with the experiments. Ames Laboratory is operated for the U. S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-82. This work was supported by the Director for Energy Research, Office of Basic Sciences.