text:
# Spin textures in slowly rotating Bose-Einstein Condensates

## I Introduction

In this section we discuss the two component Bose gas in order to develop intuitive understanding of how internal degrees of freedom affect a rotating condensate. Later we will apply this intuition to the spin-1 gas. In addition to simplicity, the two component gas has the advantage of extensive experimental investigations. As a concrete example one can consider two hyperfine states of 87Rb in a magnetic trap, as produced at JILA twocomponent . The order parameter here is a two-component single-particle wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }=(\psi _0,\psi _1)`$, where $`\psi _0`$ and $`\psi _1`$ are the macroscopically occupied spatial wavefunction of each of the hyperfine states. Using a phase-imprinting technique, the experimentalists are able to place one component, $`\psi _1`$ into a vortex state, while leaving $`\psi _0`$ in the ground state of the trap jilaphaseimprint . As a simple variational calculation shows var1 , this unusual ‘half-vortex’ state is actually the ground state of the system for some rotation speed, and in the limit of weak interactions in two-dimensions can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _0\\ \psi _1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ z/d\end{array}\right)e^{|z|^2/2d^2},$$
(1)
where $`z=x+iy`$ is the coordinate in the plane, and $`d=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega }`$ is the oscillator length, formed from Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$, the particle mass $`m`$ and the frequency $`\omega `$ of the harmonic trap which is confining the particles. One can interpret $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in terms of a pseudo-spin with polar angle $`\theta `$ and azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$, by writing

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{\rho }e^{i\chi }\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi /2}\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi /2}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`\rho `$ and $`\chi `$ represent the local density and phase. The pseudo-spin behavior is then shown in figure 1. In particular, at the center of the cloud, the $`\psi _1`$ component vanishes, and the pseudo-spin points “up.” At the edge of the cloud $`\psi _0`$ vanishes, and the pseudo-spin points “down.” In between, the pseudo-spin rolls from up to down, covering $`4\pi `$ steradians of the sphere. This texture is often referred to as a skyrmion in analogy to the work of T. H. Skrymi skyrmi . A detailed analysis of this two component Bose gas shows that these skyrmion textures are ubiquetous, and that in the rapidly rotating limit angular momentum is carried by a lattice of skyrmions twocomplat ; uedalat , where the geometry of the lattice is sensitive to the interaction parameters.

This (pseudo)spin-1/2 example teaches us that a rotating spinor condensate tends to carry angular momentum by twisting its spinor order parameter. Leanhardt et al. at MIT ketterleskyrmi  recently created the spin-1 and spin-2 analogy of this texture. Similar structures have been seen in rotating superfluid 3He-A he3 , and in quantum hall systems bilayer . The remainder of this Article predicts the equilibrium spin textures which will be found in rotating spin-1 condensates.

## II Symmetries of the order parameter

In this section we describe the order parameter of a spin-1 Bose gas.

As first discussed by Ho hospin  and by Machida and Ohmi machidaohmi , a trapped gas of spin-1 bosons interacting via a pairwise short-range interaction which is invarient under global spin rotations has a Hamiltonian of the form

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_j^2}{2m}}+U(r_j)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}V_{ij},`$ (3)
$`V_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(c_0+c_2𝐒_i𝐒_j)\delta (r_ir_j),`$ (4)
where $`i,j`$ running from 1 to $`N`$ label the particles, $`p_i`$, $`r_i`$ and $`𝐒_𝐢`$ are the momentum, position, and spin operators for each particle, $`m`$ is the particle mass, $`U(r)=m\omega ^2r^2/2`$ is the harmonic trapping potential, and $`V`$ is the pairwise interaction which is parameterized by two constants $`c_0`$ and $`c_2`$, which represent density and spin interactions. The most commonly studied alkali atoms have $`|c_2|/|c_0|0.051`$. Ferromagnetic $`(c_2<0)`$ and antiferromagnetic $`(c_2>0)`$ interactions are respectively found in 87Rb and 23Na hospin .

In a Bose condensate of spin-1 atoms, the order parameter is the three component wavefunction $`(\psi _1,\psi _0,\psi _1)`$ representing the single-particle state which is macroscopically occupied. The indices $`1,0,1`$ represent the spin projection along the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction. As pointed out by Machida and Ohmi machidaohmi , it is convenient to introduce a Cartesian representation of this wavefunction $`\psi _x=(\psi _1\psi _1)/\sqrt{2},\psi _y=i(\psi _1+\psi _1)/\sqrt{2},\psi _z=\psi _0`$, so that $`\stackrel{}{\psi }=(\psi _x,\psi _y,\psi _z)`$ transforms as a vector under spin rotations. The order parameter is conventionally normalized so that the density is $`\rho (r)=\stackrel{}{\psi }^{}(r)\stackrel{}{\psi }(r)`$. In the remainder of this paper we will freely move between the Cartesian \[$`\stackrel{}{\psi }=(\psi _x,\psi _y,\psi _z)`$\] and spherical \[($`\psi _1,\psi _0,\psi _1`$)\] representation of the wavefunction, depending upon which is most useful. In general, Latin indices (such as $`a,b`$) will refer to the Cartesian components, while Greek indices (such as $`\mu ,\nu `$) refer to the spherical components. Standard vector notation will be used when working within the Cartesian representation.

The local expectation value of the spin in the condensate is $`𝐒(r)=_j\delta (rr_j)𝐒_j=\stackrel{}{\psi }^{}(r)\times \stackrel{}{\psi }(r)/i`$. To minimize the spin interaction term for a ferromagnetic/antiferromagnetic gas one maximizes/minimizes $`|S|^2=|\stackrel{}{\psi }^{}\times \stackrel{}{\psi }|^2`$. Consequently a ferromagnetic gas prefers an order parameter with the structure

$$\stackrel{}{\psi }=𝐧+i𝐦,$$
(5)
where $`𝐧`$ and $`𝐦`$ are real vectors with $`𝐧𝐦`$ and $`|n|=|m|`$, corresponding to the spin with magnitude $`|S|^2=|\psi |^4`$ pointing out of the plane in which $`𝐧`$ and $`𝐦`$ lie. When restricted to this maximally polarized sector, the order parameter of the ferromagnetic gas can be taken to be the orthogonal triad $`𝐧,𝐦,𝐒`$, whose transformational properties are isomorphic to the group $`SO(3)`$. Conversely, in the antiferromagnetic gas, the order parameter prefers to have $`|S|^2=0`$, which gives

$$\stackrel{}{\psi }=e^{i\varphi }𝐧,$$
(6)
where $`𝐧`$ is a real vector and $`\varphi `$ is a phase. Thus antiferromagnetic interactions lead to an order parameter space isomorphic to $`S_2\times U(1)/Z_2`$, where $`S_2`$ is the sphere on which $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ lies, $`U(1)`$ is the symmetry of the phase $`\varphi `$, and the quotient with the two-element discrete group $`Z_2`$ represents the fact that $`\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ is invariant under simultaneously reversing the direction of $`𝐧`$ and taking $`\varphi \varphi +\pi `$. Without the phase, the order parameter space is the group $`S_2/Z_2`$, which can be identified with the projective plane $`RP_2`$. The importance of this projective structure has been emphasized by Zhou zhou .

A more intuitive approach to understanding the symmetries of the spin-1 condensate comes from considering the moments of the local spin operator. A ferromagnetic interaction favors a maximally polarized state; for example $`(\psi _1,\psi _0,\psi _1)=(1,0,0)`$, for which the local spin is $`𝐒=\widehat{𝐳}`$. In this case one can take $`𝐒`$, an object which transforms as a vector, to be the relevant order parameter for discussing spin textures. Antiferromagnetic interactions favor a minimally polarized state; for example $`(\psi _1,\psi _0,\psi _1)=(0,1,0)`$, for which $`𝐒=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. To find a useful order parameter, one must consider the fluctuations of the spin $`\delta S_a\delta S_b=\mathrm{Re}S_aS_bS_aS_b`$ whyreal , which for the $`(0,1,0)`$ state is $`\delta S_a\delta S_b=\delta _{ab}(1\delta _{az})`$, where $`\delta _{ab}`$ is the Kroneker delta. Consequently, this state has no spin fluctuations in the $`\widehat{z}`$ directions, and isotropic fluctuations in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. Due to the azimuthal symmetry, the spin fluctuation tensor $`\delta S_a\delta S_b`$ maps onto itself under rotation by $`\pi `$ radians. Equivalently, one can say that the spin fluctuations represent a nematic order parameter (meaning that it transforms under rotation as an arrow with no head on it.)

As a consequence of the disparate types of spin textures which involve vector and nematic order parameters, gases with ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions behave in quite distinct manners.

### II.1 Local Vorticity

We now discuss how the symmetries of the order parameter are related to the curl of the velocity field,

$$𝐯_𝐬=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2im}\left(\psi _a^{}\psi _a\psi _a\psi _a^{}\right),$$
(7)
where repeated indices are summed over. The key observation is that unlike a scalar condensate, the spin-1 condensate can have a velocity field with extended vorticity. This property is most simply understood by introducing a tensor

$$Q_{ab}=\frac{\psi _a^{}\psi _b}{_c\psi _c^{}\psi _c},$$
(8)
which carries all information about the local spin order parameters but no information about the density or phase. By construction Q is Hermitian ($`Q_{ab}=Q_{ba}^{}`$) and has trace $`1`$. We decompose $`Q`$ into a sum of irreducible tensor operators,

$`Q_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`Q^{(0)}\delta _{ab}/3+iϵ_{abc}Q_c^{(1)}/2+Q_{ab}^{(2)},`$ (9)
$`Q^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (10)
$`𝐐^{(\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐬=𝐒/\rho ,`$ (11)
$`Q_{ab}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(2/3)\delta _{ab}(S_aS_b+S_bS_a)/2\rho ^2,`$ (12)
where $`ϵ_{abc}`$ is the totally antisymmetric unit tensor and $`\rho `$ is the density. The three irreducible components are a constant scalar $`Q^{(0)}`$, a vector $`𝐐^{(\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ which represents the local spin order, and a symmetric traceless tensor $`Q^{(2)}`$ which represents the local spin fluctuations. The magnitude of these various components are constrained by the fact that $`Q`$ is idempotent ($`Q^2=Q`$), and hence

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}(Q^2)(\mathrm{Tr}Q)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`2/3+𝐐^{(\mathrm{𝟏})}𝐐^{(\mathrm{𝟏})}/2+\mathrm{Tr}((Q^{(2)})^2).`$ (14)
The last two terms are non-negative scalars which represent the amount of vector and nematic order. This expression clearly shows that these are competing order parameters, as increasing one of them requires reducing the other.

As demonstrated in appendix A, the vorticity can be written in terms of $`Q`$ as

$`\times 𝐯_𝐬`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}Q_{ab}(Q_{bc})\times (Q_{ca}).`$ (15)
In the spin polarized case $`2Q_{ab}=\delta _{ab}s_as_b+iϵ_{abc}s_c`$ (with $`𝐬𝐬=1`$) one recovers the Mermin-Ho mermho  relationship

$$\times 𝐯_𝐬=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}ϵ_{abc}s_a(s_b)\times (s_c).$$
(16)
In the purely (uniaxial) nematic case $`Q_{ab}=n_an_b`$ (with $`𝐧𝐧=1`$), one instead finds an irrotational flow, $`\times 𝐯_𝐬=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Note that equation (15) is correct for all spin, not just spin 1.

In a more geometric language, the superfluid velocity is the phase one-form associated with $`\psi `$, its curl is the phase two-form, and $`Q`$ is the operator which projects onto $`\psi `$. The relationship (15) between the projector and the phase two-form, is generally valid, and shows up in other contexts twoform .

### II.2 Visualization

The ferromagnetic gas has a vector order parameter $`𝐒`$ which is visualized by drawing a vector at each point in space (as in figure 1). The antiferromagnetic gas has a more complicated order parameter. In the strongly antiferromagnetic limit, the order parameter has the form of eq. (6), and one can visualize the order by plotting a rod aligned along the direction $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ at each point in space. In general, the order parameter deviates from eq. (6), and it is more convenient to describe the order in terms of $`Q^{(2)}`$ or $`Q_{ab}^{(s)}=(Q_{ab}+Q_{ba})/2=(1/3)\delta _{ab}+Q_{ab}^{(2)}`$. The tensor $`Q^{(s)}`$ is simpler to work with than $`Q^{(2)}`$ as it is positive semidefinite (meaning that all eigenvalues are greater or equal to zero). In the case where $`\psi `$ is given by (6), then $`Q^{(s)}`$ has a single non-zero eigenvalue whose eigenvector points in the $`\widehat{n}`$ direction. In the general case, one can define $`\widehat{n}`$ to coincide with the direction of the largest eigenvector of $`Q^{(s)}`$.

Generically $`Q^{(s)}`$ has three distinct eigenvalues, and therefore describes a biaxial nematic, which cannot be represented solely in terms of $`\widehat{𝐧}`$. For a more complete picture of the local nematic order, one replaces the rods by elipsoids whose three principle axes coincide with the eigenvectors of $`Q^{(s)}`$. The length of the principle axes are taken to be proportional the eigenvalues. These ellipsoids are easily constructed by treating $`Q^{(s)}`$ as a linear transformation to a sphere. Starting from a sphere $`S`$, the resulting ellipsoid is defined as the set of points satisfying $`r_a^{}=Q_{ab}^{(s)}r_b`$, for $`𝐫S`$. In the uniaxial limit, $`Q_{ab}^{(s)}=Q_{ab}=n_an_b`$, two of the ellipsoid’s axes have length zero, and this degenerate ellipsoid becomes a rod pointing in the direction $`\widehat{𝐧}`$. In the ferromagnetic limit $`2Q_{ab}^{(s)}=\delta _{ab}s_as_b`$, the ellipsoid becomes a disc, whose normal is the spin vector $`𝐬`$.

In both the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic gas, the spins and directors point in three dimensional space. Due to this intrinsic three dimensionality, it is impossible to faithfully represent the spin textures on a two-dimensional sheet of paper. Consequently, in this Article we only provide sketches of the simplest textures. Animated representations of the more complicated structures can be found in the EPAPS archive epaps .

For simplicity, wherever possible we attempt to describe the nematic textures solely in terms of $`\widehat{𝐧}`$.

## III Lowest Landau level calculus

In this section we present a calculational scheme for studying Eq. (3). Our approximations are motivated by the limit where interactions are weak compared to the trapping potential. Weak interactions are naturally reached under fast rotation, as in the rotating frame the centrifugal force effectively reduces the trap strength, causing the cloud to spread out over a larger area, reducing the density and hence the interactions. Although motivated by this ultra-dilute limit, our approach gives an effective approximation to the properties of a system with much stronger interactions. For example, both static rokhsar  and dynamic vortmotion  properties of vortex lattices in a scalar condensate have been very successfully modeled by this method.

In the rotating frame the Hamiltonian is shifted to $`H^{}=H𝛀𝐋`$, where the vector $`𝛀`$ points along the axis of rotation with modulus given by the rate of rotation, and $`𝐋`$ is the angular momentum vector of the system. We restrict ourselves to two dimensions (taken to be the x-y plane), and rotate about $`\widehat{z}`$ axis. This dimensional restriction is consistent with the weakly interacting limit, where only a single mode of the trapping potential is occupied in the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction. To extend this method to describe the more general (3D) situation, one can use a Thomas-Fermi approximation as in homanyvortices .

In the absence of interactions, the eigenstates of the two-dimensional single particle Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{sp}}^{}=p^2/2m+m\omega ^2r^2/2\mathrm{\Omega }(r_xp_yr_yp_x)`$ have energies $`E_{nm}=\mathrm{}\omega +\mathrm{}(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })n+\mathrm{}(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })m,`$ and angular momentum $`L_{nm}=\mathrm{}(nm),`$ with $`n,m=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ If the interaction energy per particle is sufficiently small compared to $`\mathrm{}(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })`$ then one can build up the quantum state from the “Lowest Landau Level” (LLL), made up of the states with $`n=0`$. Here we restrict our analysis to the mean field level, where one single particle state is macroscopically occupied. The most general single particle state in the LLL can be written as

$$\psi _\mu (x,y)=\underset{j}{}c_{j\mu }\frac{z^j}{\sqrt{\pi j!}}e^{|z|^2/2},$$
(17)
where $`z=(x+iy)/d`$ is the coordinate in the plane in complex notation, scaled by the oscillator length $`d=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega }`$. The coefficients $`c_{j\mu }`$ can also be expressed in Cartesian notation $`𝐜_j=(c_{jx},c_{jy},c_{jz})`$. We normalize this wavefunction so that

$$𝑑x𝑑y\stackrel{}{\psi }^{}\stackrel{}{\psi }=\underset{j}{}𝐜_𝐣^{}𝐜_𝐣=1.$$
(18)
Substituting this ansatz into (3), and neglecting the zero point energy, the scaled energy per particle in the rotating frame becomes

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H\mathrm{\Omega }L_z}{N\mathrm{}(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{\psi }^{}\stackrel{}{\psi }}{2m}+\frac{m\omega ^2r^2}{2}(\stackrel{}{\psi }^{}\stackrel{}{\psi })\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{}{\psi }^{}(x_yy_x)\stackrel{}{\psi })+\frac{c_0N}{2}(\stackrel{}{\psi }^{}\stackrel{}{\psi })^2+\frac{c_2N}{2}|\stackrel{}{\psi }^{}\times \stackrel{}{\psi }|^2\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[(j+1)𝐜_𝐣^{}𝐜_𝐣+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\left[(1+\overline{c}_2)(\mathrm{Tr}𝐝_𝐣^{}𝐝_𝐣)\overline{c}_2|\mathrm{Tr}𝐝_𝐣|^2\right]\right],`$ (20)
$`(d_j)_{st}`$ $`=`$ $`2^j{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{k}}\right)^{1/2}(c_{jk})_s(c_k)_t,\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{Nc_0}{2\pi (\omega \mathrm{\Omega })}}.`$ (21)
Here ‘$`\mathrm{Tr}`$’ signifies taking the trace of a matrix. The simplicity of these equations illustrate the utility of the Cartesian representation of $`\psi `$. In the LLL, the system is parameterized by two dimensionless couplings; $`\eta `$, which measures the ratio between the interaction strength and the level spacing, and $`\overline{c}_2=c_2/c_0`$, the relative strength of spin and density interactions. Larger $`\eta `$ corresponds to faster rotation. If one rotates at speeds where $`\mathrm{\Omega }>\omega `$, the centrifugal force becomes stronger than the trapping force and the system becomes unstable. This centrifugal limit coincides with $`\eta \mathrm{}`$. One can experimentally tune $`\eta `$ between $`0`$ and $`+\mathrm{}`$.

In this Article we find the ground state as a function of $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{c}_2`$ by minimizing (20) with respect to the parameters $`𝐜_𝐣`$ using a conjugate gradient method. We truncate the allowed values of $`j`$ to be $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},J`$. Convergence is ensured by taking several values of $`J`$, ranging from $`2`$ to $`128`$, and finding that for sufficiently large $`J`$ the energy saturates. Although this variational approach is much simpler than directly minimizing the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, it is still a nontrivial numerical task. Since $`𝐜_𝐣`$ is a three component complex object, one has the equivalent of $`6J`$ real variational parameters. Symmetries can be used to reduce the number of independent parameters. All our results use the approximate physical value, $`\overline{c}_2=\pm 0.05`$ physicalc2 . For a discussion of other values of $`\overline{c}_2`$, see reijnders .

Not surprisingly, the energy landscape is quite complicated with many metastable local minima. Computationally, this large degree of metastability makes finding the absolute ground state quite difficult. In section IV we show how symmetries can be used to help find these minima. This symmetry approach is augmented by a brute-force search strategy where we run our minimization routines from a very large number of initial conditions, and select out the lowest energy minima found. Experimentally, the presence of so many local minima implies that the state found in the laboratory will depend strongly upon the method of preparation. Moreover, one would expect to see domain structures where different parts of the sample exhibit different phases.

### III.1 A More General Ansatz

Although all the numerical calculations presented here involve equation (20), it should be noted that by introducing an extra variational parameter, one can greatly extend the realm of validity of the LLL approximation. The resulting equations are not much more complicated than (20).

The extended LLL ansatz scales the lengths in (17) by a new variational parameter $`\nu `$ so that $`z=\nu ^{1/2}(x+Iy)/d`$. Neglecting zero point motion, the energy per particle is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H^{}}{N\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}\left(\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }\right]I_1+(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }){\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\nu I_2,`$ (22)
$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(j+1)𝐜_𝐣^{}𝐜_𝐣,`$ (23)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[(1+\overline{c}_2)(\mathrm{Tr}𝐝_𝐣^{}𝐝_𝐣)\overline{c}_2|\mathrm{Tr}𝐝_𝐣|^2\right].`$ (24)
Minimizing with respect to $`\nu `$ with $`\{𝐜_𝐣\}`$ fixed yields

$`H^{}`$ $`=`$ $`I_1\mathrm{}\left[\omega \sqrt{1+\eta {\displaystyle \frac{I_2}{I_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }}}\mathrm{\Omega }\right],`$ (25)
$`\nu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_2}{I_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }}.`$ (26)
In the limit $`\lambda =\eta [(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })/\omega ][I_2/I_1]1`$ one recovers (20). One can minimize (25) by the methods already discussed. Note that instead of depending upon only two experimental inputs, $`\eta ,`$ and $`\overline{c}_2`$, the minima in the extended LLL ansaztz also depends on the dimensionless ratio $`(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })/\omega `$.

## IV Symmetries of the spin textures

### IV.1 Symmetries

Given the complexity of the energy landscape, an unrestricted minimization of eq. (20) is a daunting task. The large number of variational parameters makes the computation expensive, and the large number of metastable minima means that an exhaustive search is needed to find the absolute minimum. Moreover, a classification scheme is needed to describe the minimal configurations once they are found. We solve all of these problems by studying the possible symmetries of the spin textures. In section VI.2, we discuss how these symmetries can be used to detect the textures. This strategy was inspired by discussions with Dan Rokhsar, who, with Dan Butts, used similar techniques in understanding vortex lattices in scalar condensates rokhsar .

Our Hamiltonian (3) is separately invarient under each of the following operations: (i) rotating spatial coordinates about the origin by an arbitrary angle $`\theta `$,

$`\psi (r_a)`$ $``$ $`𝐑_{ab}(\theta )\psi (r_b)`$ (27)
$`𝐑(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \end{array}\right);`$ (30)
(ii) Rotating all spins by arbitrary Euler angles $`\varphi `$, $`\theta `$, and $`\chi `$,

$`\psi _\mu `$ $``$ $`_{\mu \nu }(\theta ,\varphi ,\chi )\psi _\nu `$ (31)
$`(\theta ,\varphi ,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\chi S_z}e^{i\theta S_x}e^{i\varphi S_z};`$ (32)
where $`S_x,S_y,S_z,`$ are the operators for the spin components; (iii) simultaneously reflecting spatial coordinates across the line perpendicular to the unit vector $`\widehat{𝐧}`$, and applying the time reversal operator (which takes $`\psi _\mu \psi _\mu ^{}`$),

$`\psi _\mu (𝐫)`$ $``$ $`\psi _\mu ^{}(\overline{𝐑}_{\widehat{𝐧}}𝐫)`$ (33)
$`\overline{𝐑}_{\widehat{𝐧}}𝐫`$ $`=`$ $`𝐫2\widehat{𝐧}𝐫;`$ (34)
(iv) reflecting the spin across the plane perpendicular to the unit vector $`\widehat{𝐧}`$,

$`\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ $``$ $`\overline{}_{\widehat{n}}\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ (35)
$`\overline{}_{\widehat{n}}\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\psi }2\widehat{𝐧}\stackrel{}{\psi }.`$ (36)
and (v) a global gauge transformation by an arbitrary phase $`\chi `$,

$`\psi _\mu `$ $``$ $`e^{i\chi }\psi _\mu .`$ (37)
Although the Hamiltonian is invarient under each of these transformations, the mean-field wavefunction is not. We will classify spin textures by the way in which they break these symmetries.

### IV.2 Scalar

To see how these symmetries manifest in spin textures, it is helpful to first consider a scalar condensate rokhsar , for which only symmetries (i), (iii), and (v) are relevant. In the lowest Landau level approximation, the non-rotating scalar ground state is $`\psi (r)=e^{|r|^2}`$, which is invarient under (i) and (iii), but not (v): i.e. the only broken symmetry in the non-rotating condensate is the gauge symmetry.

At appropriate rotation speeds the ground state contains a single vortex, and (in the lowest Landau level) the order parameter becomes $`\psi =ze^{|r|^2/2},`$ where, as usual, $`z=x+iy`$. This single vortex state is no longer invarient under any of the transformations, (i), (iii), or (v). However, it is invarient under appropriate combinations. For example, rotating the spatial coordinate by any angle $`\theta `$ transforms $`ze^{i\theta }z`$, and can therefore be undone by a global gauge transformation (37) with $`\chi =\theta `$. This is an example of a continuous symmetry, as for each $`\theta `$ there is a combined spatial rotation and gauge transformation which leaves the state invarient. This symmetry is not restricted to the lowest Landau level approximation, and it should be clear that any condensate with a single vortex at the center will have this symmetry, expressed as

$$\psi (𝐑(\theta )𝐫)=e^{im\theta }\psi (𝐫),$$
(38)
where $`m`$ is a fixed integer which gives the number of quanta of circulation which are concentrated in the vortex core. An ordinary vortex has $`m=\pm 1.`$

At faster rotation speeds, the condensate will contain a small cluster of vortices. As an example, one can imagine two vortices, symmetrically placed at $`z=z_0`$, so that the order parameter is $`\psi =(zz_0)(z+z_0)e^{|r|^2/2}`$. No continuous symmetry exists here. However, there does exist a discrete symmetry in that this state is invarient under rotating space by $`\theta =\pi `$. Similarly, three vortices which form an equilateral triangle will be invarient under a rotation by $`\theta =2\pi /3`$. Such discrete symmetries are generally of the form

$$\psi (𝐑(2\pi /a)𝐫)=e^{2\pi im/a}\psi (𝐫),$$
(39)
where $`a`$ is an integer which, together with the integer $`m`$, describes the symmetry of the cluster of vortices.

The wave function for a cluster of vortices with a reflection plane will be invarient under a combination of a reflection across a fixed line, time reversal (complex conjugation), and a gauge transformation,

$$\psi (\overline{𝐑}_{\widehat{n}}r)^{}=\pm \psi (𝐫)$$
(40)
where the line of reflection is perpendicular to the unit vector $`\widehat{𝐧}`$. We have written the gauge transformation as a multiplication by $`\pm 1`$, as the only consistent phases are $`\chi =\pi ,0`$.

### IV.3 Spin 1

As with vortices in a scalar gas, spin textures in a spinor condensate are characterized by their properites under different combinations of symmetry operations. The spin degrees of freedom only introduce additional symmetries.

At low rotation speeds one expects to find a continuous symmetry, generically involving the simultateous rotation of space, spin, and phase. Without any loss of generality, we can take the spins to rotate about the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis, in which case the symmetry is formally described by the statement that there exists constants $`m`$ and $`n`$ such that for all $`\theta `$,

$$\psi _\mu (𝐑(\theta )r)=e^{im\theta }_{\mu \nu }(n\theta )\psi _\nu (r),$$
(41)
where $`𝐑(\theta )`$ represents a spatial rotation about the origin by an angle $`\theta `$, $`_{\mu \nu }(\varphi )`$ represents a spin rotation about the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis by an angle $`\varphi `$, and $`m,n`$ count the number of times the phase and spin angles rotate in comparison to the spatial angle $`\theta `$. Single valuedness of the left hand side of (41) constrains $`m`$ and $`n`$ to either both be integers, or both be half-integers. Further explanation of this constraint will be given in section IV.3.1.

Textures obeying (41) will be described as the ‘elemental,’ ‘single,’ or ‘azimuthally symmetric’ spin textures. They are the building blocks for all more complicated strucures.

At higher rotation speeds, this continuous symmetry is replaced with a discrete one. In analogy to the scalar case (39), the discrete rotational symmetry is of the form

$$\psi _\mu (𝐑(2\pi /a)r)=e^{im2\pi /a}_{\mu \nu }(n2\pi /a)\psi _\nu (r),$$
(42)
where $`a`$ is a fixed integer describing the geometry of the texture.

In addition to rotational symmetries, the state may have reflection symmetries. The most general form of reflection symmetry which we consider consists of simultaneously performing transformations (iii), (iv), and (v), namely reflecting the spatial coordinates accross a line, time reversal, reflecting the spins accross a plane, and multiplying by the factor $`\pm 1`$. By globally rotating our spins, we can always assume that the spin and spatial reflection planes coincide. Mathematically this symmetry can be expressed as

$$\left(\psi _\mu (\overline{𝐑}_{\widehat{𝐧}}r)\right)^{}=\pm (\overline{}_{\widehat{n}})_{\mu \nu }\psi _\nu (r),$$
(43)
where $`\widehat{n}`$ is the normal to the reflection plane, $`\overline{𝐑}_{\widehat{𝐧}}`$ is the spatial reflection and $`(\overline{}_{\widehat{n}})_{\mu \nu }`$ is the spin reflection. One can also consider the case where no spin reflection is performed

$$\left(\psi _\mu (\overline{𝐑}_{\widehat{𝐧}}r)\right)^{}=\pm \psi _\nu (r).$$
(44)
We will refer to (43) as a reflection and (44) as a partial reflection.

#### IV.3.1 implications

Enforcing the various possible symmetries describe in equations (41) through (44), greatly reduces the number of parameters which must be minimized. Given the explict form of the rotation operators

$`𝐑(\theta )z`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta }z`$ (45)
$`_{\mu \nu }(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mu \nu }e^{i\theta \mu },`$ (46)
and the lowest Landau level ansatz $`\psi _\mu =_jc_{\mu j}z^je^{|z|^2/2}`$, the continuous symmetry (41), restricts $`c_{\mu j}`$ to be zero unless

$$j=m+\nu n.$$
(47)
Since $`\nu =1,0,1`$, this requires any non-trivial texture to have $`m,n`$ both be integers, or both be half integers. At most three $`c_{\mu j}`$’s are non-zero. By combining an overall spin rotation, a spatial rotation, and a gauge transformation, these three parameters can be taken to be real. Using the normalization constraint $`_{j,\mu }|c_{\mu j}|^2=1`$, one is left with only two (real) variational parameters.

The discrete symmetries similarly reduce the number of parameters. For example the discrete rotation symmetry forces $`c_{\mu j}=0`$ unless

$$jm+\nu n(\mathrm{mod}a).$$
(48)
Up to an overall phase, enforcing the reflection symmetry (43) with $`\widehat{𝐧}=\widehat{𝐲}`$, requires $`c_{\mu j}`$ is real.

## V results

### V.1 Azimuthally Symmetric Textures

In the limit of very slow rotation, the angular momentum will be carried by a single ‘elemental’ spin texture, characterized by the continuous symmetry in equation (41). This structure is analogous to a single vortex. At faster rotation speed a cluster of these textures will form. Eventually the clusters will become regular lattices. In this section the structure of the ‘elemental’ spin textures will be explored.

#### V.1.1 Ferromagnetic

The ferromagnetic gas displays two different elemental textures, both of which are similar to the skyrmion encountered in the spin-1/2 case. These two textures, illustrated in figures 1 and 2, differ by the amount of solid angle ($`4\pi `$ or $`8\pi `$) traced out by the spin vectors as they move from pointing straight up at the center to straight down on the edge, and will therefore be referred to as $`4\pi `$ or $`8\pi `$ skyrmions. If one looks down from above, as shown in the top panels of figures 1 and 2, one can distinguish these textures by the number of times which the planar projection of the spin rotates when one circles the origin (once/twice for the $`4\pi `$/$`8\pi `$ texture). Higher order textures (where angles greater than $`8\pi `$ are subtended) are never found to have continuous azimuthal symmetries, and are always more appropriately described as a collection of $`4\pi `$ and $`8\pi `$ skyrmions. At faster rotation speeds, angular momentum is carried by a lattice of $`4\pi `$ or $`8\pi `$ skyrmions where their quantization axes takes on several different orientations. These textures only cover a full $`4\pi `$ and $`8\pi `$ steradians of solid angle when they exist in isolation in an infinite system. In a lattice, the skyrmions often touch before they can completely cover the sphere.

The $`4\pi `$ and $`8\pi `$ textures are described by (41), with $`m=n=1`$ and $`m=n=2`$. In a basis with spin projections (1,0,-1), the spinors take the form

$`|n=m=1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ az\\ bz^2\end{array}\right)e^{|z|^2/2},`$ (52)
$`|n=m=2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ az^2\\ bz^4\end{array}\right)e^{|z|^2/2}.`$ (56)
The real coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ are given by minimizing (20).

In the $`4\pi `$ skyrmion, the velocity field has its greatest curl at the center of the texture, while for the $`8\pi `$ skyrmion the curl is greatest on a ring of finite radius (see figure 3). According to the Mermin-Ho relationship (15) one can attribute these two distinct behaviors to the fact that the spins ‘bend’ fastest in these regions.

The $`8\pi `$ skyrmion can alternatively be interpreted as a composite of four $`4\pi `$ textures misnomer ; fujita . This interpretation is illustrated in figure 4, where the spins in figure 2 are rotated around the y-axis by 90 degrees. There are four points where the spins are pointing into/out of the page. These points lie on the outer edge of the ring of maximal $`\times v`$, and can be taken to be skyrmion cores. Note that their positions are not unique, and by globally rotating all of the spins, these points move around in a ring. This lack of uniqueness is a consequence of the high degree of symmetry of this state. The $`8\pi `$ steradians of solid angle subtended by the texture can be divided evenly among these smaller skyrmions, allowing us to attribute $`2\pi `$ steradians to each of them. Two of the sub-textures, labeled (A) and (C), have cores pointing out of the page, while the other two, labeled (B) and (D) point into the page. Equidistance between these cores the spins lie in the x-y plane. When circling (A) or (C) these planar spins rotate in a positive sense while around (B) or (D) they rotate in a negative sense.

The $`4\pi `$ skyrmion has lower energy than the uniformly polarized state $`(\psi _1,\psi _0,\psi _1)=(1,0,0)`$ if and only if $`\eta >2/(1+c_2)`$. This is a second order (continuous) phase transition. Between the region of stability of the $`4\pi `$ and $`8\pi `$ skyrmions, a more complicated texture is found. Details of this intervening state will be given in section V.2. A graphical comparison of the energies of these states as a function of $`\eta `$ is made in figure 7.

#### V.1.2 Antiferromagnetic

The antiferromagnetic gas, with its nematic order parameter, supports a much different set of textures than the ferromagnetic gas. In particular, one finds that angular momentum is predominantly carried by $`\pi `$-disclinations, which as illustrated in figure 5 are objects around which the nematic director rotates by 180 degrees ($`\pi `$ radians). There is no consistent way to define the direction of the director at the center of the $`\pi `$-disclination, and one therefore calls these textures “topological” meaning that there is a loss of continuity at the core. The topological nature of this excitation makes it very similar to a vortex, for which there is no way to define the phase of the order parameter at the center. In the case of a vortex, this lack of continuity causes the density to vanish at the core. For the experimentally relevant spin-1 gases, the density interaction is much stronger than the spin interaction, and it is favorable to fill the core with ferromagneticaly ordered atoms.

Thus, angular momentum is carried by $`\pi `$ disclinations with ferromagnetic cores. The spins in the core align perpendicular to the plane in which the nematic directors lie. In the fast rotating limit, one finds a square lattice of these $`\pi `$ disclinations with their cores aligned in an antiferromagnetic checkerboard pattern.

The $`\pi `$ disclination is described by (41) with $`n=m=1/2`$. In a basis with spin projections (1,0,-1), the spinors take the form

$$|n=m=1/2=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ bz\end{array}\right),$$
(57)
where the real number $`b`$ is given by minimizing (20) The $`\pi `$-disclination has a lower energy than the uniform nematic state $`(\psi _1,\psi _0,\psi _1)=(0,1,0)`$ if and only if $`\eta >22\sqrt{2c_2}+𝒪(c_2)`$. This is a first order (discontinuous) phase transition.

We find one other azimuthally symmetric texture in the gas with antiferromagnetic interactions. This state has the same mathematical structure as (52), except that here $`b>0`$, while in the ferromagnetic case $`b<0`$. As sketched in figure 6, this texture consists of a nearly uniform nematic ring with a ferromagnetic core. The spins in the ferromagnetic core bend like the skyrmion in figure 1. The nematic ring has its directors canted slightly from the $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ axis, forming a crown-shaped texture. We do not find any composite textures which include this structure.

### V.2 Composite Textures

At higher rotation speeds, angular momentum is not carried by single ‘elemental’ textures, but rather by a small collection of these objects. At very fast rotation speeds one expects to find a regular lattice. We study these more complicated objects by minimizing (20), sequentially constraining the wavefunction to have the symmetries in (41) through (44).

Our numerical results are summarized in figures 7 through 11. Figure 7 shows the energy of states with various symmetry properties. The data is scaled so as to bring out the important features. There are two parts to the scaling: (1) $`^2`$ is plotted rather than just $``$ because in the fast rotating limit one expects $`\eta ^{1/2}`$. This dependence is made apparent by noting how various terms in the energy scale with the total size of the cloud; $`I_2r^2`$ and $`I_41/r^2`$. Minimizing with respect to $`r^2`$ then gives $`\eta ^{1/2}`$. (2) We subtract $`\beta \eta `$ from $`^2`$, where $`\beta `$ is an emperically determined constant. Removing this linear term makes the differences in the curves easier to see. We use $`\beta =1.7125`$ ($`1.8084`$) for the ferromagnetic (antiferromagnetic) data.

The curves in figure 7 are labeled by the letters (A) through (S) and can be described as follows:
Ferromagnetic States: (A) The uniformly polarized state. (B) The $`4\pi `$-skyrmion state $`|n=1,m=1`$ described in section V.1.1. (C) A texture with a single reflection plane consisting of two elementary structures: a $`4\pi `$ skyrmion near the origin, and a second object at whose center the ferromagnetic order vanishes, to be replace by nematic order. (D) The $`8\pi `$-skyrmion state $`|n=2,m=2`$ described in section V.1.1. (E) Similar to (C), except the $`4\pi `$ skyrmion is replace by an $`8\pi `$ one. (F) A texture with two reflection symmetries and a discrete rotation symmetry (with a=2,n=m=1). Two $`8\pi `$ skyrmions with their axes canted with respect to one-another lie on one axis, while two weakly nematic regions, where the ferromagnetic order is reduced, lie on the other. (G) A texture with two reflection symmetries and a discrete rotation symmetry (with a=4,n=1,m=0). At the center lies a nematic region. Four $`8\pi `$ skyrmions with canted axes form a square surrounding the center. (G) as with (G), but the square is distorted into a rhombus, resulting in a lower symmetry (a=2,n=1,m=1). (H) A texture with four reflection axes and a discrete rotation symmetry (a=4,n=1,m=1). There are four $`8\pi `$ skyrmions, symmetrically situated with their axes nearly lying in a plane.
Nematic States: (I) The uniform nematic state. (J) The $`\pi `$-disclation with ferromagnetic core described in section V.1.2. (K) A nematic ring with a ferromagnetic core described in section V.1.2. (L) Four $`\pi `$-disclinations forming a square. The feromagnetic cores are aligned antiferromagnetically. This state has two reflection planes, and a four-fold rotational symmetry (a=4,n=2,m=2). (L) As with (L), but the square is slightly deformed into a rhombus, and the perfect antiferromagnetic alignment of the cores is slightly distorted. The rotational symmetry is reduced (a=2,n=1,m=1). (M) Five $`\pi `$ disclinations form a regular pentagon. The ferromagnetic order at the cores lies completely in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. Contains a reflection plane and a five-fold rotational symmetry (a=5,n=2,m=0). (M) As with (M), but the perfect five-fold symmetry is slightly distorted with the pentagon of disclinations stretched along one axis. This state only has a single reflection plane and no rotational symmetry. (N) Dominated by two stripes of three $`\pi `$ disclinations organized into a (nearly) square lattice, this texture has a full reflection plane and a partial reflection plane (accross which the spatial but not spin degrees of freedom are reflected.) (O) Eight $`\pi `$ disclinations: one at the center, surrounded by seven others. The central core points in the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction, while the surrounding cores are canted slightly in the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction from the $`xy`$ plane. Contains one reflection plane and a seven-fold rotational symmetry (a=7,n=3,m=-3). (P) Nine $`\pi `$ disclinations forming a square lattice with their ferromagnetic cores aligned antiferromagnetically. This state contains two refection planes and a four-fold rotation symmetry (a=4,n=1/2,m=1/2). (P) As with (P), but the square lattice is deformed towards having a tear-drop shaped set of eight disclinations surrounding the central one. This state only has a single reflection plane and no rotational symmetries. (Q) A pattern of ten disclinations; two central disclinations surrounded by a distorted oval of eight others. This state has a single reflection plane. (R) A distorted square lattice, consisting of twelve disclinations. Contains one reflection plane. (S) A distorted square lattice of fourteen disclinations. Contains two reflection planes, and a discrete rotation symmetry (a=2,n=2,m=2).

Three dimensional animated representations of these states are stored on the epaps archive epaps .

From this data one can calculate several observables including: the angular momentum and the degree of spin polarization as a function of $`\eta `$. These results are shown in figures 8 and 9. The angular momentum is measurable through collective mode experiments scissor , while spin polarization could be measured through magnetic susceptability. In figures 10 and 11, we show spatial distributions of the density $`\rho `$, vorticity $`\widehat{𝐳}\times 𝐯`$, spin density $`|S|^2`$, and nematic order $`Q_{ab}^{(2)}Q_{ba}^{(2)}`$ for each of these textures.

## VI Discussion

### VI.1 Alternative classification of skyrmions

The division of a given texture into elemental skyrmions is not unique, as is illustrated by the two ways of thinking about the $`8\pi `$ skyrmion in section V.1.1. Above we chose to discuss composite textures in terms of the spin behavior at the density maxima (which is analogous to looking at the $`8\pi `$ skyrmion from the angle in figure 2). This is a natural taxonomy scheme in that it reduces the total number of skyrmions which need to be considered, at the cost of introducing $`8\pi `$ skyrmions. It is enlightening to also describe the texture in terms of the spin behavior at the density minima (analogous to the view of the $`8\pi `$ skyrmion in figure 4 in terms of four smaller textures). The advantage of this latter viewpoint is illustrated by considering texture (H). At the local minima of the density, the spin points into or out of the page in a manner suggestive of two interpenetrating square lattices. The textures around each minima can be described as Mermin-Ho skyrmions (or merons) mermho  where at the center the spin points in the $`\pm \widehat{z}`$ direction, and then rolls over to lie in the plane. In the vicinity of each texture the spins trace out $`2\pi `$ steradians, covering half of a sphere.

Under this interpretation the following states have new descriptions: (D) Four skyrmions form a square. Two of their quantization axes point into the page, two out of the page. (E) Along the x-axis the density has three minima, and there are correspondingly three elemental textures, two skyrmions and a nematic region. (F) Three skyrmions lie along the x-axis. (G) Four skyrmions form a square and a nematic region sits at the center. (G) As (G) but the skyrmions form a rectangle. (H) Two interpenetrating square skyrmion lattices with four $`4\pi `$ skyrmions pointing into the page and five pointing out.

### VI.2 Experimental Consequences

In this section we address the questions of how to experimentally create and measure these spin textures.

Creation: One should be able to create these spin textures by the same techniques used to create vortex lattices in scalar condensates vortexperiments . These methods include; ‘stirring’ the cloud with a detuned laser, rotating an ellipsoidal trap, and cooling a rotating cloud through the BEC phase transition. Several caveats must be kept in mind however: (i) stray magnetic fields and magnetic field gradients must be minimized, and (ii) the large degree if degeneracy in this system combined with experimental randomness may lead to more complicated spin textures than those seen here. In particular, at fast rotation speeds one would expect to find a domain structure, where different parts of the clouds contain different lattices of skyrmions/disclinations.

Detection: We propose directly imaging these textures. First, one turns off the atomic trap, allowing the cloud of atoms to expand. If a magnetic field gradient is introduced during the expansion, the different components ($`\psi _1,\psi _0,\psi _1`$) will become spatially separated as in a “Stern-Gerlach” experiment. Each of the three components can then be separately imaged. This detection method has been used to observe skyrmion textures in the pseudospin-1/2 case at JILA jilaphaseimprint  and in the spin-1 and 2 case at MIT ketterleskyrmi . An illustrative density profile for the three components of texture (H) is shown in figure 12. Note that the Hamiltonian (3) is invarient under a global rotation of all the spins. In principle, this means that an experiment may create spin textures with a randomly chosen global orientation. Figure 12 (a) and (b) shows the components of the same spin texture, but with the spins uniformly rotated. The differences between the two figures demonstrates how sensitive the component densities are to global spin orientations.

A second detection scheme makes use of the birefringent properties of a spinor condensate. As shown in iaccopo , light, when detuned from the fundamental transition of the atoms by a frequency which is large compared to the hyperfine structure but small compared to the fine structure, interacts with the spin textures in a simple manner. At these frequencies, the ferromagnetic regions are optically active, meaning that circularly polarized light aligned with the spins travels at a different speed than the opposite circular polarization. Consequently, the polarization axis of linearly polarized light rotates when it passes through a ferromagnetic region. The angle of rotation is proportional to the projection of the ferromagnetic order along the light propegation direction. No such rotation occurs when the light passes through a nematic region.

Using this effect, one can envisage an experimental setup where the sample is imaged with polarized light, but with a crossed polarizer in front of the detector. Only light which has its polarization axis rotated by passing through a ferromagnetic region will reach the detector. Thus, one could directly image the ferromagnetic cores of the $`\pi `$ disclinations found in the antiferromagnetic gas.

### VI.3 Quantum Hall physics

At even higher rotation speeds, quantum fluctuations are expected to melt the regular lattices of spin textures. The states produced from this melting are highly nontrivial, with strongly-correlated structures reminiscent of the multilayer quantum hall effect quantum\_Hall\_papers . Exactly how the textures discussed here are connected with the correlated states are a matter of current research.

## VII acknowledgement

I would like to thank Dan Rokhsar, Kareljan Shoutens, and Michael Berry for respective discussions of the symmetries of small clusters of vortices in scalar condensates, reference reijnders , and section II.1. I am indebted to Tin-Lun Ho for his advice, support, and critical comments. This work was partially supported by NASA Grants NAG8-1441, NAG8-1765, and by NSF Grants DMR-0109255, DMR-0071630.

## Appendix A Local Vorticity

In this appendix we derive equation (15), which relates the curl of the velocity to the spin order parameter. Introducing a scaled order parameter $`\varphi _c=\psi _c/\sqrt{n}`$, the superfluid velocity is given by

$$𝐯_𝐬=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2im}(\varphi _c^{}\varphi _c\varphi _c\varphi _c^{}),$$
(58)
where repeated indices are summed over. The vorticity is thus given by

$$\times 𝐯_𝐬=\frac{\mathrm{}}{im}(\varphi _c^{}\times \varphi _c).$$
(59)
This expression is related to (15) by noting that

$`Q_{ab}Q_{bc}\times Q_{ca}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _a^{}\varphi _b\varphi _c\varphi _a\varphi _b^{}\times \varphi _c^{}`$ (63)
$`+\varphi _a^{}\varphi _b\varphi _b^{}\varphi _c^{}\varphi _c\times \varphi _a`$
$`+\varphi _a^{}\varphi _b\varphi _c^{}\varphi _c\varphi _b^{}\times \varphi _a`$
$`+\varphi _a^{}\varphi _b\varphi _b^{}\varphi _a\varphi _c\times \varphi _c^{}.`$
The terms (63) and (63) vanish on account of respectively being antisymmetric in the indices $`b,c`$ and $`a,c`$. Noting that $`\varphi _a^{}\varphi _a=(\varphi _a^{}\varphi _a)\varphi _a\varphi _a^{}`$, one sees that the term (63) is antisymmetric in the indices $`a,b`$ and therefore also vanishes. Finally, using $`\varphi _a^{}\varphi _a=1`$, one finds

$$Q_{ab}Q_{bc}\times Q_{ca}=\varphi _c^{}\times \varphi _c,$$
(64)
which combined with (59) yields (15). Note that this result is not dependent on the atoms being spin 1, but is completely general.


format: text

text:
# Coexistence of different vacua in the effective quantum field theory and Multiple Point Principle

## 1 Introduction

Dealing with quantum vacuum whose ‘microscopic’ physics is still unknown the high-energy, general-relativity and condensed-matter communities use different experience developed in working in each of those fields . In condensed matter there is a rather general class of fermionic systems, where the relativistic quantum field theory gradually emerges at low energy and where the momentum-space topology is responsible for the mass protection for fermions, so that masses of all the fermions are much smaller than the natural energy scale provided by the microscopic (trans-Planckian) physics . Since the vacuum of the Standard Model belongs to the same universality class of quantum vacua, this condensed-matter example provides us with some criteria for selection of the particle physics theories: the theory which incorporates the Standard Model must be consistent with its condensed-matter analog.

Here we apply such criteria to the Multiple Point Principle (MPP) . According to MPP, Nature chooses the parameters of the Standard Model such that two or several phases of the quantum vacua have the same energy density. These phases coexist in our Universe in the same manner as different phases of quantum liquids, such as superfluid phases A and B of 3He or mixtures of 3He and 4He liquids. Using MPP Nielsen and co-workers arrived at some prediction for the correlation between the fine structure constants in their extension of the Standard Model. The fine tuning of the coupling constants is similar to the fine tuning of the chemical potentials of the coexisting quantum liquids in equilibrium.

The problem of the Standard Model parameters is thus related to the problem of the vacuum energy, and correspondingly to the cosmological constant problem. It was suggested  that MPP can serve as a basic principle to explain the present value of the cosmological constant. From the condensed-matter point of view such connection is rather natural. According to observations the cosmological constant is (approximately) zero in our phase of the quantum vacuum, that is why it must be (almost) zero in all the coexisting vacua as well. In condensed matter such nullification of the vacuum energy occurs for the arbitrary phase of the quantum vacuum. This happens due to the thermodynamic Gibbs-Duhem relation, according to which the microscopic (trans-Planckian) degrees of freedom exactly cancel the contribution to the vacuum energy from the low-energy (sub-Planckian) degrees of freedom . The phenomenon of nullification is so general that it must be applicable to any macroscopic system including the quantum vacuum of relativistic quantum fields, irrespective of whether the vacuum is true or false, and even if we do not know the microscopic physics.

Since the MPP is justified by condensed-matter analog, we can apply it to different problems related to quantum vacuum. Here we discuss the scenario of the baryonic asymmetry of the Universe, which follows from MPP.

## 2 Adjustment of the quantum vacuum after phase transition

The phase transitions between different quantum vacua does not influence the phenomenon of nullification of the vacuum energy: the energies of the vacuum is zero both above the transition and also after some transient period below the phase transition. In quantum liquids, the microscopic degrees of freedom which adjust themselves to nullify the energy density in a global equilibrium are the underlying bare particles – atoms of the liquid. The number density $`n`$ of atoms changes after the phase transition and this compensates the change of the vacuum energy. For example, after the phase transition between superfluid 3He-A and superfluid 3He-B the relative change in the particle density is

$$\frac{\delta n}{n}\frac{T_c^2}{E_F^2}.$$
(1)
Here the superfluid transition temperature $`T_c`$ characterizes the energy scale of the superfluid phase transition, and also the transition between 3He-A and 3He-B; the Fermi energy $`E_FT_c`$ characterizes the atomic (Planck) energy scale of the liquid. It is important that the correction to the microscopic parameter $`n`$ (and also to $`E_F`$: $`\delta E_F/E_F\delta n/n`$) is very small, and thus it does not influence the parameters of the effective theory of superfluidity in the low-energy corner.

The translation to the language of the Standard Model is almost straightforward. Let us consider the relative change of the microscopic (trans-Planckian) parameters needed to nullify the vacuum energy of the Standard Model after, say, the electroweak phase transition. In this case one must identify $`T_cE_{\mathrm{ew}}`$ and $`E_FE_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ (the Planck energy). The relative change of the microscopic parameters in quantum liquids corresponds to the relative change of the Planck physics parameters, and thus one can identify $`\delta n/n\delta E_{\mathrm{Pl}}/E_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. However, the equation (1) is not applicable for the Standard Model. The reason is that the fermionic density of states (DOS) in Standard Model above the electroweak phase transition differs from DOS in liquid 3He above the superfluid phase transition. The vacuum in non-superfluid normal 3He above the superfluid transition belongs to the Fermi-surface universality class, while the vacuum of the Standard Model above the electroweak transition belongs to the universality class with Fermi points. That is why they have different density of fermionic states: $`N(E)\mathrm{Const}E_F^2E_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$ in the vicinity of the Fermi surface and $`N(E)E^2`$ in the vicinity of the Fermi point. Thus the energy density related to superfluidity is $`T_c^2N(E=T_C)T_c^2E_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$, while the energy denstity involved in the electroweak transition is $`E_{\mathrm{ew}}^2N(E=E_{\mathrm{ew}})E_{\mathrm{ew}}^4`$. This gives an additional factor $`E_{\mathrm{ew}}^2/E_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$, as a result the relative correction to the Planck energy needed to compensate the energy change of the vacuum after the electroweak transition is

$$\frac{\delta E_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{E_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\frac{E_{\mathrm{ew}}^4}{E_{\mathrm{Pl}}^4}.$$
(2)
Such response of the vacuum is so extremely small that it cannot influence the parameters of the effective low-energy theory – the Standard Model.

This demostrates that the adjustment of the deep vacuum does not lead to any sizable correlation between the parameters of the Standard Model, and thus the cosmological constant problem has nothing to do with the parameters of the effective theory. However, the MPP contains a more strong assumption than the statement that each vacuum always acquires zero energy. It assumes that several essentially different vacua have zero energy simultaneously, i.e. these vacua coexist in the same Universe (though the phase boundaries between different vacua can be well behind the cosmological horizon). The coexistence, though it does not influence the parameters of the effective theories, leads to other physical consequences, such as baryonic asymmetry of Universe. Let us discuss the principles of the coexistence of quantum vacua using as an example the coexisting quantum liquids, where the coexistence can be regulated both by microscopic and macroscopic parameters (analogs of microscopic or macroscopic fermionic charges).

## 3 Coexisting vacua

Let us first consider the quantum liquid formed by the mixture of $`k`$ sorts of atoms. An example of the mixture of $`k=2`$ components is provided by the liquid solution of 3He atoms in 4He liquid. The number of atoms $`N_a`$ of each species $`a`$ is conserved, and it serves as the conserved microscopic fermionic charge of the vacuum (the ground state of the mixture). The relevant vacuum energy whose gradient expansion gives rise to the effective quantum field theory for quasiparticles at low energy is

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}=\frac{1}{V}\underset{a=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mu _a𝒩_a_{\mathrm{vac}},$$
(3)
where $``$ is the Hamiltonian of the system; $`𝒩_a`$ is the particle number operator for atoms of sort $`a`$ in the mixture; and $`\mu _a`$ is their chemical potential. If the liquid is in equilibrium it obeys the Gibbs-Duhem relation which expresses the energy $`E=`$ through the other thermodynamic varaibles including the temperature $`T`$, the entropy $`S`$, the particle number $`N_a=𝒩_a`$ and the pressure $`P`$:

$$ETS\underset{a=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mu _aN_a=PV.$$
(4)
From this thermodynamic relation and Eq.(3) one obtains at $`T=0`$ the familiar equation of state for the vacuum, which is valid both for relativistic and non-relativistic systems:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}=ϵ\underset{a=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mu _an_a\frac{1}{V}\left(E\underset{a=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mu _aN_a\right)=P,$$
(5)
where we also introduced the energy density $`ϵ=E/V`$ and particle number density $`n_a=N_a/V`$.

If the system is isolated from the environment, its pressure is zero and thus the energy density is zero too:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}=P=0.$$
(6)
For such condensed-matter systems, in which the effective gravity emerges in the low-energy corner, this equation means that the effective cosmological constant is zero. This nullification occurs without fine-tuning for any vacuum since the microscopic degrees of freedom – the particle number densities $`n_a`$ and chemical potentails $`\mu _a`$ – automatically adjust themselves in equilibrium in such a way that the Gibbs-Duhem relation (4) is satisfied.

The more components the liquid has, the more flexible is the vacuum state, and as the result the number $`\nu `$ of different vacua which can coexist is bigger. In such flexible system the Multiple Point Principle naturally emerges. For the system with $`k`$ components, the maximal number of different vacua which can coexist being separated by the phase boundaries is $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}=k`$ (see Fig. 1 for $`\nu =k=3`$), and all of these vacua have zero energy density: $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}^{(i)}=0`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$). This results from the following consideration. The coexisting vacua must have the same chemical potentials $`\mu _a`$ because of the exchange of particles between the vacua. They also have the same pressure $`P=0`$ (and the same temperature $`T=0`$). Thus for each vacuum $`i`$ the pressure as a function of the chemical potentials must be zero: $`P^{(i)}(\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _k)=0`$. All these $`\nu `$ equations can be satisfied simultaneously if $`\nu k`$.

## 4 Coexistence of vacua regulated by effective fermionic charges

Does the coexistence of quantum vacua lead to observable consequences for the effective field theories emerging in these vacua? The answer is yes, if some of the variables $`n_a`$ are soft variables belonging to the low-energy world, such as the density of the baryonic charge stored in the vacuum. An example is provided by the superfluid phases of 3He, A and B, which can coexist at $`T=0`$ and $`P=0`$ in an applied magnetic field $`𝐇`$ . The corresponding vacuum energy density is

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}=ϵ\mu n𝛀𝐒,$$
(7)
where $`n`$ is the number density of 3He atoms; $`𝐒`$ is the density of the angular momentum which comes from the spins of the atoms (each atom has spin $`\mathrm{}/2`$); $`𝛀=\gamma 𝐇`$; and $`\gamma `$ is the gyromagnetic ratio of the 3He atom. For a given direction of the magnetic field, say $`𝐇=H\widehat{𝐳}`$, the liquid can be represented as the mixture of the $`k=2`$ components, with spin up and spin down:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}=ϵ\mu _{}n_{}\mu _{}n_{},$$
(8)
where

$$n_{}=\frac{n}{2}+\frac{S_z}{\mathrm{}},n_{}=\frac{n}{2}\frac{S_z}{\mathrm{}},\mu _{}=\mu +\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Omega },\mu _{}=\mu \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(9)
Since we have effectively $`k=2`$ components, the $`\nu =2`$ vacua can coexist in the absence of the environment, i.e. at $`P=0`$. This is the reason why A and B phases can coexist at $`T=0`$ and $`P=0`$.

As distinct from the variable $`n`$, the fermionic charge $`S_z`$ is a soft variable since in typical situations it is zero (in the absence of external magnetic field). When the two vacua coexist, both variables $`n`$ and $`S_z`$ adjust themselves to nullify the pressure (and thus to nullify the ‘cosmological constant’ $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}`$) in each of the two phases. However, while the change of the particle density is negligibly small, $`\delta n/nT_c^2/E_F^21`$, the change of the variable $`S_z`$ is essential since it changes from zero. The energy density related to non-zero $`S_z`$ is on the order of $`S_z^2/E_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$. Comparing this with the superfluid energy $`T_c^2E_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$ one obtains that the characteristic spin density of the vacuum which emerges to compensate the AB phase transition is

$$|n_{}n_{}|T_cE_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2,\frac{|n_{}n_{}|}{|n_{}+n_{}|}\frac{T_c}{E_{\mathrm{Pl}}}.$$
(10)
This is much bigger than the relative change in the particle density $`n`$ after adjustment in Eq.(1). As a result the parameters of the effective theory, which describe superfluidity, also change considerably. In particular, the originally isotropic B-phase becomes highly anisotropic in the applied magnetic field (or at non-zero spin density of the liquid) needed for coexistence of A and B phases.

Note that $`S_z`$ is the fermionic charge of the vacuum, and in principle it is not related to the fermionic charge of matter, since in our example the matter (quasiparticles) is absent. However, the charge asymmetry in the vacuum sector can cause the charge asymmetry in the matter sector due to exchange between the vacuum and matter. The resulting excess of the fermionic charge in the matter sector can induce the non-zero matter density even at $`T=0`$. This is similar to the non-zero matter density in our Universe caused by the baryonic asymmetry of matter. Let us consider how this baryonic charge can be induced.

## 5 Coexistence and the baryonic asymmetry of the vacuum

Let us start with the baryonic charge of the vacuum of the relativistic quantum field exploiting an analogy between the macroscopic global charges: the spin $`S_z`$ of the quantum liquid in its ground state and the global charges in our quantum vacuum, such as the baryonic charge $`B`$ (or the family charge $`F`$ ). The spin $`S_z`$ of the liquid must be nonzero to provide the coexistence of the A and B vacua in superfluid 3He at $`T=0`$. In the same manner the baryonic charge $`B`$ or family charge $`F`$ could naturally arise in the quantum vacuum to establish the equilibrium between the coexisting phases of the vacuum.

Let us consider the coexistence of several vacua whose physics differ below the energy scale $`E_{ce}E_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. Such vacua can result from the broken symmetry phase transition, which occurs at $`TE_{ce}`$, and we assume that the ordered phases differ by their residual symmetries $`H`$. The energy densities involved in the coexistence of the vacua are on the order of $`E_{ce}^4`$. Let us assume that the coexistence is regulated by the exchange of the baryonic charge between the vacua. Then one can estimate the density of this baryonic charge in the vacua by equating the energy density difference $`E_{ce}^4`$ and the energy density of the vacuum due to the nonzero charge density $`B`$. If the baryonic charge is stored in the microscopic degrees of freedom of the quantum vacuum, the energy density related to this charge must be on the order of $`B^2/E_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$. As a result the baryonic charge density of the vacuum needed for the coexistence of different vacua is

$$B_{\mathrm{vac}}E_{ce}^2E_{\mathrm{Pl}}.$$
(11)
Thus the coexistence results in the baryonic asymmetry in the vacuum sector. In turn, the non-zero baryonic charge of the vacuum could be in the origin of the baryonic asymmetry of the matter in our Universe – an excess of the baryons over antibaryons, $`n_B>n_{\overline{B}}`$. Let us consider this mechanism of baryogenesis.

## 6 From baryonic asymmetry of the vacuum to baryonic asymmetry of Universe

If an exchange of the baryonic charge between the vacuum and matter is possible, the chemical potential for the baryons in matter must be equal to the chemical potential for the baryonic charge in the vacuum. The latter is non-zero due to the non-zero baryonic charge in the vacuum sector in Eq.(11):

$$\mu _B\frac{B_{\mathrm{vac}}}{E_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\frac{E_{ce}^2}{E_{\mathrm{Pl}}}.$$
(12)
At temperature $`T\mu _B`$ one obtains the following estimation for the baryonic charge stored in the matter sector (in the gas of relativistic fermions):

$$B_{\mathrm{matter}}=n_Bn_{\overline{B}}T^2\mu _B\frac{T^2E_{ce}^2}{E_{\mathrm{Pl}}}.$$
(13)
However, the exchange between the vacuum and matter occurs (due to axial anomaly) only at $`T`$ above the electroweak transition, $`T>E_{\mathrm{ew}}`$. Below the transition, at $`T<E_{\mathrm{ew}}`$ the exchange with the quantum vacuum is highly suppressed: the transition rate due to the sphaleron mechanism becomes exponentially weak . At the moment of the phase transition, i.e. at $`TE_{\mathrm{ew}}`$, the baryonic asymmetry of matter (primordial baryon-to-entropy ratio) is:

$$\eta =\frac{n_Bn_{\overline{B}}}{s}\frac{T^2\mu _B}{T^3}\frac{E_{ce}^2}{E_{\mathrm{ew}}E_{\mathrm{Pl}}}.$$
(14)
Below the transition, the baryonic charge in the matter sector is completely separated from the vacuum and evolves together with matter, while the density of the baryionic charge in the vacuum sector remains constant.

In the matter sector the baryonic density evolves in the same way as the entropy, and thus the baryon-to-entropy ratio $`\eta `$ remains the same as at the moment of transition. To obtain the value $`\eta 10^{10}`$, which follows from the cosmological observations , the characteristic energy $`E_{ce}`$, related to the baryonic charge of the vacuum, must be

$$E_{ce}10^5\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{ew}}E_{\mathrm{Pl}}}10^6\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(15)
In analogy with A and B phases of 3He, this corresponds to the transition temperature $`T_c`$ at which the coexisting vacua were formed due to symmetry breaking.

The main point in this scenario of the baryogenesis is that the vacuum and matter are two subsystems, whose properties related to the fermionic (baryonic) charge are different. In condensed matter the analogous exchange of spin charge between the superfluid vacuum and quasiparticles (matter) plays an important role in the spin dynamics of the system (see  and Sec.8.6 in ).

## 7 Conclusion

In conclusion, the gravitating part of the vacuum energy is always zero in equilibrium vacuum, $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}=0`$, even if the cosmological phase transition occurs. The nullification after the phase transition is supported by automatic adjustment of the microscopic ultraviolet degrees of freedom. However, because of the huge energy stored in the microscopic degrees, the relative change in the microscopic parameters is extremely small, and this adjustment practically does not influence the parameters of the effective infrared theories. As a result, the Multiple Point Principle, which implies the coexistence of two or several different (i.e. not connected by symmetry) naturally occurs, and all the coexisting vacua automatically acquire zero energy without any fine-tuning.

If the Universe is on the coexistence curve, this may lead to the observable physical consequences related to the fermionic charges of the vacuum and matter. In particular, if the coexistence is regulated by the exchange of the baryonic charge, all the coexisting vacua acquire the baryonic asymmetry. The latter in turn gives rise to the baryonic asymetry in the matter sector.

According to Eqs.(15) and (11) the density of the baryonic charge in the vacuum sector is rather high, $`B_{\mathrm{vac}}10^{26}E_{\mathrm{Pl}}^3`$. What are the consequences of such $`CP`$ violation in the quantum vacuum is the subject of further investigations.

I thank A.F. Andreev for illuminating discussion. This work was supported by ESF COSLAB Programme and by the Russian Foundations for Fundamental Research.


text:
# CERN-TH/2003-229 NEW PERSPECTIVES FOR B-PHYSICS FROM THE LATTICE

## 1 B-physics and lattice QCD

The truly beautiful results from recent B-physics experiments  represented highlights of this conference. Some of them, such as the $`\mathrm{B}\overline{\mathrm{B}}`$ mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{d}`$, require knowledge of QCD-matrix elements for their interpretation in terms of parameters of the standard model of particle physics and its possible extensions. This motivates investigations in lattice QCD, our best founded theoretical formulation of QCD. Indeed, this formulation allows for the computation of low energy hadronic properties through the Monte Carlo evaluation of the Euclidean path integral. While such a computation necessarily involves approximations, which we will discuss, the important property of the lattice approach is that all approximations can be systematically improved.

Before going into the details we summarize the goals of lattice QCD computations with b-quarks. They motivate the considerable effort involved.

* The determination of parameters of the CKM matrix, which in the Standard Model are fundamental parameters of Nature. In particular the unitarity triangle should be determined and over-constrained in order to test the Standard Model. The necessary non-perturbative matrix elements should be computed through lattice QCD.
* A precise computation of the b-quark mass, which enters many phenomenological predictions and plays a rôle in grand unification and other questions beyond the Standard Model.
* A determination of the spectrum and lifetimes of b-Hadrons.
* Non-perturbative tests of the Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) which is applied frequently to simplify the dynamics of heavy quarks, but is difficult to test experimentally.

The starting point of a lattice computation is the QCD Lagrangian, formulated on the discretized 4-dimensional Euclidean space-time, i.e. on a hyper-cubic lattice with spacing $`a`$ . The beauty of this theory is that it contains only the (bare) gauge coupling $`g_0`$ and the (bare) quark masses as parameters. After these parameters have been fixed by a small set of experimental observables, say the masses of proton, pion, kaon, D-meson and B-meson, all observables become predictions of the theory111For simplicity we neglect the top quark and assume that electroweak effects are treated as perturbations.. In order to have a finite number of variables in the Monte Carlo evaluation of the path integral, one considers a finite space time of linear size $`L`$, mostly with periodic boundary conditions. One then has to approach

* the infinite volume limit, $`L\mathrm{}`$ and
* the continuum limit, $`a0`$ .

While the statistical errors of the Monte Carlo decrease $`1/\sqrt{\text{computer time}}`$ at fixed $`a`$, $`L`$, a reduction of the total error requires to approach the above limits. Therefore the total error decreases much more slowly as computers get faster. Progress is made by better formulations of the problems, the development of better computational algorithms and the rapid increase in computer speed. Here we want to explain the particular challenges one faces in reaching small overall errors in B-Physics and discuss recent advances in facing them. Some results will be shown, mainly to illustrate the progress that has been made. A more comprehensive list of results can be found in .

## 2 The challenges

### 2.1 Renormalization

One of the challenges that one faces has to do with the fact that interesting transitions originate from the electroweak interactions, which we can not treat simultaneously with QCD in the simulations. One then adopts the (good) approximation to treat the electroweak interactions at the lowest non-trivial order in the electromagnetic and weak coupling. Consequently one has an effective Hamiltonian, valid at energies far below the electroweak scale, which contains the quark and gluon fields but not the photon and the electroweak bosons. For example a left-left 4-fermion operator is one of the operators in the effective Hamiltonian and its matrix element determines $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{d}`$. The renormalization of such operators is a non-trivial task, but besides perturbation theory  powerful non-perturbative approaches have been developed  and they are continuously improved and applied to new operators . We will come back to this challenge in our discussion of the HQET.

### 2.2 The multi-scale problem

Even after eliminating the electroweak scale by considering low energy matrix elements, b-physics always contains two more scales apart from the typical QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{O}(1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$. The first is the scale of the light quark masses, or better the mass of the pion and the second is the large mass of the b-quark itself. To understand what this means in practical terms, consider a lattice with $`32^3\times 64`$ points, as it is presently possible in the quenched approximation but still prohibitively expensive for the full theory.222After integration over the quark fields the Boltzmann weight of the path integral contains a factor of the determinant of the Dirac operator. In the quenched approximation the dependence of this determinant on the gluon fields is neglected. In a perturbative language this corresponds to neglecting quark loops, but keeping all the gluon exchanges.  Choosing $`L2.5\mathrm{fm}`$ and $`a0.1\mathrm{fm}`$, one notices that $`L`$ is comparable to the Compton wave length $`m_\pi ^1`$, namely $`L2/m_\pi `$, and at the same time the b-quark mass is larger than the inverse lattice spacing: $`m_\mathrm{b}\frac{3}{2}a^1`$. Instead we should have

$`Lm_\pi ^1,`$ (1)
$`am_\mathrm{b}^1,`$ (2)
in order to keep finite size effects due to pion propagation around the periodic world small ( eq. (1)) and to properly resolve the propagation of a b-quark (eq. (2)). It is known that effects of the first type will become rapidly (exponentially) small when $`L>4m_\pi ^1`$ , while the dominant discretization errors due to a heavy b-quark are given by $`\mathrm{O}((am_\mathrm{b})^2)`$ if the theory is $`\mathrm{O}(a)`$-improved (i.e. linear $`a`$ effects are removed ). The latter behavior sets in roughly for $`a<\frac{1}{4}m_\mathrm{b}^1`$ . On a $`32^3\times 64`$ lattice one is far from satisfying these constraints. An additional very relevant factor is that the computational cost of simulating full QCD grows rapidly when quark masses are lowered. This means that presently simulations at the physical values of the light quark masses are impossible.

In short: the light quarks are too light and the heavy quarks are too heavy for present computing capabilities.

In order to obtain results, a reformulation of the theory (or specific problem) is needed or extrapolations have to be performed.

### 2.3 Chiral extrapolations

Reliable extrapolations of numerical data are possible when sufficient analytic knowledge of the functional dependence on the extrapolation parameter exists and when the data are available in a range where the analytic formulae apply. Concerning the light quark mass dependence, chiral perturbation theory furnishes an expansion in terms of them, which is also applicable in the case of heavy-light mesons . Unfortunately it remains unclear up to now, how small the quark mass has to be in order that this expansion is applicable at the quantitative level. Most current simulations reach light quark masses which are about half as heavy as the strange quark mass and an agreement with the analytic formulae could not yet be established . For recent reviews of the numerical situation with an emphasis on B-physics see refs. .

As an example we would like to mention only that estimates of the uncertainty for the phenomenologically important ratio $`\xi =(F_{\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}}\sqrt{B_{\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}}})/(F_{\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{d}}\sqrt{B_{\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{d}}})`$ range approximately from 5 %  to 10 % . In our opinion these estimates have to be substantiated by simulations with smaller quark masses, where contact with the chiral perturbation theory expansion can be demonstrated. It appears that this requires both faster computers and the development of algorithms which perform better, in particular at small quark masses. First steps have been taken , and new ideas exist . These very important developments are not specific to B-physics. We therefore do not discuss them further.

### 2.4 Heavy quarks on the lattice.

Before coming to the methods for dealing with the problem of a heavy b-quark, let us give an illustration of the extent of the problem. It has been very well investigated for the charm quark , which is a factor 4 lighter than the b-quark. In Fig. 1, we show the renormalization group invariant (RGI) charm mass333A definition is given in eq. (6), below., computed on four lattices, between $`a=0.1\mathrm{fm}`$ and $`a=0.05\mathrm{fm}`$. Three definitions of the renormalized quark mass were considered, differing by discretization errors $`\mathrm{O}(a^2)`$. The figure shows that on lattices of the chosen size (from $`16^3\times 32`$ to $`32^3\times 64`$) one can control the discretization errors by extrapolation, but it is also obvious that this will not be possible for much heavier quarks. For b-quarks other approaches have to be considered. The following list summarizes what is being discussed.

* Extrapolation in the mass of the heavy quark, $`m_h`$.
* Effective theories which implement an expansion in $`1/m_\mathrm{b}`$: NRQCD and HQET.
* The “Fermilab approach” .
* Anisotropic lattices with $`a_{\mathrm{time}}a_{\mathrm{space}}`$ .
* Combinations, in particular of 1. and 2.
* Extrapolation of finite volume effects in the quark mass .

1. is clearly applicable once $`m_h`$ can be made large enough for the functional form, a power series in $`1/m_h`$, to be accurate. If $`F(m_h,am_h)`$ is the desired observable at finite lattice spacing and (unphysical) heavy quark mass, one has to evaluate

$`F(m_\mathrm{b},0)=\underset{m_hm_\mathrm{b}}{lim}\underset{am_h0}{lim}F(m_h,am_h)`$ (3)
by two subsequent extrapolations whose order is important. In practice a residual uncertainty remains due to the assumptions made in the extrapolation $`m_hm_\mathrm{b}`$.
2. Effective theories should be rather accurate since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_\mathrm{b}`$ is a small expansion parameter, which controls both NRQCD and HQET. For reasons which will become clear below, NRQCD has predominantly been used in recent years although its continuum limit does not exist. In this theory one must keep the lattice spacing finite and control the discretization errors by adding terms to the Lagrangian that remove them approximately. An additional source of errors is that the coefficients in the Lagrangian are usually determined perturbatively. Below we will report on recent progress in HQET on the lattice.
3. The Fermilab approach was discussed at last year’s conference .
4. The possibility whether anisotropic lattices do permit a situation $`a_{\mathrm{space}}m_\mathrm{b}>1`$ for the interesting matrix elements is still under discussion . In any case, giving up the symmetry between space and time allows for dimension four operators in the Lagrangian which break Euclidean invariance. To obtain a Euclidean invariant continuum limit (and thus Lorenz invariance after rotation to Minkowski space), these parameters have to be tuned properly. For full QCD with dynamical fermions, this is a non-trivial task if non-perturbative precision is desired.
5. Combining the effective theory at the lowest order, (the “static theory”), with (1.) turns extrapolations into an interpolations, reducing the influence of assumptions concerning the $`1/m_h`$-dependence considerably.
6. This new idea put forward at Tor-Vergata  will be explained below.

The dominant approach in the last decade has been to compare several methods with their strengths and weaknesses and apply the result to phenomenology if different methods agree. New developments offer the chance to establish precise results without recourse to crosschecks through other methods.

## 3 New developments

### 3.1 Non-perturbative HQET

The lattice Lagrangian of (velocity zero) HQET,

$`_{\mathrm{HQET}}=\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{h}D_0\psi _\mathrm{h}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{kin}}}{2m_\mathrm{b}}}\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{h}𝐃^2\psi _\mathrm{h}{\displaystyle \frac{c_\sigma }{2m_\mathrm{b}}}\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{h}𝐁\sigma \psi _\mathrm{h}+\mathrm{}`$ (4)
has the same form as the continuum one to order $`1/m_\mathrm{b}`$; only the definitions of the covariant derivatives $`D_\mu `$ and the chromomagnetic field strength $`𝐁`$ are of course lattice specific. Together with a similar expansion of the operators who’s matrix elements one is interested in, it implements a systematic expansion in terms of $`1/m_\mathrm{b}`$ for B-mesons at rest . Despite its attractive feature of having a continuum limit order by order in the $`1/m_\mathrm{b}`$-expansion, it has not been applied very much in recent years. The reason is threefold.

First, already in lowest order of the effective theory, called the static approximation, statistical errors grow rapidly as the Euclidean time-separation of correlation functions is made large (Fig. 2, filled symbols). But it is in the large time range, say $`x_0>1.5\mathrm{fm}`$, where masses and low energy matrix elements may safely be extracted.

Second, the number of parameters in the effective theory grows with the order in the expansion in $`1/m_\mathrm{b}`$.

Third, these parameters have to be determined non-perturbatively; otherwise the continuum limit does not exist  (fine tuning of parameters). This fact is due to the mixing of higher dimensional operators, such as $`\frac{1}{2m_\mathrm{b}}\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{h}𝐃^2\psi _\mathrm{h}`$ with lower dimensional ones, such as $`\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{h}D_0\psi _\mathrm{h}`$. A perturbative estimate of the parameters in the Lagrangian (or equivalently of the mixing coefficients) to order $`g_0^{2l}`$ would leave a perturbative

$`\mathrm{remainder}g_0^{2(l+1)}a^pa^p[\mathrm{ln}(a\mathrm{\Lambda })]^{(l+1)}\text{ }\stackrel{a0}{}\mathrm{}.`$ (5)
This basic fact is unavoidable in an effective theory formulated with a cutoff.

Recently it was shown that the first point is overcome by considering alternative discretizations of the static theory , which differ only in the way the gauge fields enter the latticized covariant derivative. So-called HYP-links  correspond to the triangles in Fig. 2 and result in errors at the % level at $`x_0=1.5\mathrm{fm}`$ with an only slow growth as $`x_0`$ is increased. Very importantly, it was also shown that $`a`$-effects with this new discretization are small .

The second and third point above can be solved in one go if the parameters of HQET are non-perturbatively determined from those of QCD. In this way the predictive power of QCD is transfered to HQET.

The basic idea how to do this , illustrated in Fig. 3, is easily explained. In a finite volume of linear extent $`L_0=\mathrm{O}(0.2\mathrm{fm})`$, one may realize lattice resolutions such that $`m_\mathrm{b}a1`$ and the b-quark can be treated as a standard relativistic fermion. At the same time the energy scale $`1/L_0=\mathrm{O}(1\mathrm{GeV})`$ is still significantly below $`m_\mathrm{b}`$ such that HQET applies quantitatively. Computing the same suitable observables in both theories relates the parameters of the HQET Lagrangian to those of QCD (matching). One then remains in HQET, changing iteratively to larger and larger volumes, and computes HQET observables in each step. Finally, in a physically large volume (linear extent $`\mathrm{O}(2\mathrm{fm})`$) the desired matrix elements are accessible. At the end any dependence on the unphysical intermediate volume physics is gone except for terms of the order $`\mathrm{O}((L_0m_\mathrm{b})^{(n+1)})`$ if the effective theory was considered up to order $`n`$.

The strategy is formulated in such a way that the continuum limit can be taken in each individual step. To explain this we take a look at the simple equation which – at the lowest non-trivial order in $`1/m_\mathrm{b}`$ (static approximation) – relates the B-meson mass to the mass of the b-quark. For definiteness we take the RGI quark mass. It is given by the large $`\mu `$ asymptotics of the running mass, $`\overline{m}(\mu )`$ (in any scheme) via,

$`M_\mathrm{b}=\underset{\mu \mathrm{}}{lim}\overline{m}_\mathrm{b}(\mu )\left[2b_0\overline{g}^2(\mu )\right]^{d_0/2b_0},`$ (6)
with $`b_0,d_0`$ the lowest order coefficients of the beta-function and the anomalous dimension of the quark mass, respectively (conventions as in ). In contrast to $`\overline{m}_\mathrm{b}(\mu )`$, the RGI-mass, $`M_\mathrm{b}`$, is scheme independent.

In static approximation it is related to the mass of the B-meson, $`m_\mathrm{B}`$, via

$`m_\mathrm{B}=\underset{a0\text{ in HQET}}{\underset{}{E_{\mathrm{stat}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{stat}}(L_2)}}+\underset{a0\text{ in HQET}}{\underset{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{stat}}(L_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{stat}}(L_0)}}+\underset{a0\text{ in QCD}}{\underset{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(L_0,M_\mathrm{b})}}+\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M_\mathrm{b}).`$ (7)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(L,M_\mathrm{b})`$ denotes the energy of a state with quantum numbers of a B-meson but defined in a finite volume world of linear extent $`L`$. The exact definition of this state  is not important to understand the idea but is quite relevant for the success of a numerical computation of $`M_\mathrm{b}`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{stat}}(L)`$ is the same energy but evaluated in static approximation and $`E_{\mathrm{stat}}`$ denotes the energy (mass) of a B-meson state in large volume in static approximation. As mentioned before we have $`L_00.2\mathrm{fm},L_2=4L_0`$.

To appreciate eq. (7), one should first note that energies in the effective theory are related to energies in QCD by a shift $`m_{\mathrm{bare}}`$ which is universal in the sense of being independent of the state. This corresponds to a term $`m_{\mathrm{bare}}\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{h}\psi _\mathrm{h}`$ in eq. (4), which we have dropped there following standard conventions. Since the operator $`\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{h}D_0\psi _\mathrm{h}`$ mixes with the lower dimensional one $`\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{h}\psi _\mathrm{h}`$ under renormalization, the parameter $`m_{\mathrm{bare}}`$ is linearly divergent ($`1/a`$) and must be determined non-perturbatively. Its universality means

$`m_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{stat}}+m_{\mathrm{bare}},`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(L,M_\mathrm{b})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{stat}}(L)+m_{\mathrm{bare}},`$ (9)
with one and the same $`m_{\mathrm{bare}}`$ at fixed $`a`$. One may now use eq. (9) to determine the parameter $`m_{\mathrm{bare}}`$ in the effective Lagrangian from QCD and then insert it into eq. (8) to determine $`m_\mathrm{B}`$. This represents the general logics for obtaining results in the HQET. In order to arrive at the continuum limit of the prediction, one groups terms as in eq. (7), where $`m_{\mathrm{bare}}`$ drops out of the energy differences $`E_{\mathrm{stat}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{stat}}(L_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{stat}}(L_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{stat}}(L_0)`$ and the continuum limit can be taken separately for each of the terms as indicated.

Indeed, in the quenched approximation a precise continuum limit has been taken for all terms  except for the energy difference $`E_{\mathrm{stat}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{stat}}(L_2)`$. Here  uses values for $`E_{\mathrm{stat}}`$ from the literature (l.h.s. Fig. 4). With the new discretization  more precise results are obtained (r.h.s. Fig. 4), and they also have the linear $`\mathrm{O}(a)`$-errors removed. The full analysis with the new data has not yet been performed. Using for the time being the value of $`L_0(E_{\mathrm{stat}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{stat}}(L_2))=0.46(5)`$ one obtains  (we do not distinguish $`\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/(L_0M_\mathrm{b}))`$ and $`\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M_\mathrm{b})`$ )

$`r_0M_\mathrm{b}=16.12(28)+\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M_\mathrm{b})\overline{m}_\mathrm{b}^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\overline{m}_\mathrm{b}^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})=4.12(8)\mathrm{GeV}+\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M_\mathrm{b})`$ (10)
in the quenched approximation and with $`r_0=0.5\mathrm{fm}`$. It is worth emphasizing that such a result is based on the non-trivial relation between the bare quark masses on the lattice and the RGI-masses established in .

### 3.2 Results for $`F_{\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}}`$

As a further new development, we show in Fig. 5 a recent computation of the decay constant of the $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}`$ meson in quenched approximation  using method number 5 in our list of Sect. 2.4. HQET predicts the mass dependence

$`F_{\mathrm{PS}}\sqrt{m_{\mathrm{PS}}}/C_{\mathrm{PS}}(M/\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{RGI}}+\mathrm{O}(1/m_{\mathrm{PS}}),`$ (11)
of the decay constant $`F_{\mathrm{PS}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{RGI}}`$ is independent of the heavy quark mass. It has recently been computed in the continuum limit of the static approximation . The factor $`C_{\mathrm{PS}}`$ is a function of the ratio of the RGI mass of the heavy quark and the QCD Lambda parameter. It is now known quite accurately from perturbation theory due to the 3-loop result of . Also the numbers of $`F_{\mathrm{PS}}`$ at finite quark mass shown in Fig. 5 have been extrapolated to the continuum limit . While the subsequent interpolation in $`1/m_{\mathrm{PS}}`$ is obviously safe, an extrapolation with just results for $`1/(r_0m_{\mathrm{PS}})>0.15`$ would depend on the functional form assumed. The present result $`F_{\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}}=206(10)\mathrm{MeV}`$  is in good agreement with the recent one from the Tor-Vergata group .

### 3.3 The Tor-Vergata approach:
Extrapolation of finite volume effects in the quark mass

The starting point of this method is the same as in Sect. 3.1: in an intermediate volume (e.g. of size $`L_1^3\times 2L_1`$) the lattice spacing can be made small enough to be able to treat b-quarks as relativistic fermions. The decay constant $`F(M_h,L_1)`$ can then be computed for $`M_h=M_\mathrm{b}`$. While in the non-perturbative HQET, this was used to obtain the parameters in the effective theory, de Divitiis et al. remain in the relativistic theory, but introduce as their central observables finite size effects $`\sigma _\mathrm{F}`$ in the following way444 For $`4L_11.6\mathrm{fm}`$ further finite size effects are expected to be very small (at least in the quenched approximation).

$`F(M_\mathrm{b},\mathrm{})F(M_\mathrm{b},4L_1)=\underset{=\sigma _\mathrm{F}(M_\mathrm{b},2L_1)}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \frac{F(M_\mathrm{b},4L_1)}{F(M_\mathrm{b},2L_1)}}}}\times \underset{=\sigma _\mathrm{F}(M_\mathrm{b},L_1)}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \frac{F(M_\mathrm{b},2L_1)}{F(M_\mathrm{b},L_1)}}}}\times F(M_\mathrm{b},L_1).`$ (12)
The idea is that the finite size effects $`\sigma _\mathrm{F}`$ depend strongly on the dynamics of the light quark, but if $`M_h`$ is large enough, they hardly depend on that variable. It is thus expected that finite volume effects can smoothly be extrapolated in the heavy quark mass, $`\sigma _\mathrm{F}(M_\mathrm{b},L_1)=lim_{M_hM_\mathrm{b}}\sigma _\mathrm{F}(M_h,L_1)`$.

Setting $`L_10.4\mathrm{fm}`$, a numerical computation was performed in the quenched approximation. Of course, the three factors in eq. (12) are obtained by an extrapolation to the continuum limit at fixed $`M_h`$, followed by an extrapolation in $`M_h`$ to $`M_\mathrm{b}`$ for $`\sigma _\mathrm{F}`$, while $`F(M_\mathrm{b},L_1)`$ could be determined directly at $`M_h=M_\mathrm{b}`$. The most difficult extrapolations are those concerning the step $`2L_14L_1`$, since there $`a4L_1/320.05\mathrm{fm}`$ on lattices with maximally $`32^3\times 64`$ points. They are shown in Fig. 6.

Comparing the r.h.s. of Fig. 6 with Fig. 5 one notices that (looking at the central values) in both cases the last point of the finite mass numbers differs from the result at $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}=m_{\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}}`$ by about 7%.

The final result is

$`F_{\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}}=192(6)(4)\mathrm{MeV}.`$ (13)
Applying the same method also to the computation of the b-quark mass, yields  $`\overline{m}_\mathrm{b}^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\overline{m}_\mathrm{b}^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})=4.33(10)\mathrm{GeV}`$.

### 3.4 Summary

The new developments discussed in this section attack the problem of a heavy quark mass in ways where all necessary renormalizations are performed non-perturbatively (only in $`C_{\mathrm{PS}}`$ an $`\mathrm{O}(\alpha (m_\mathrm{b})^3)`$ uncertainty remains) and the continuum limit can be taken in each step. They have been shown to be applicable in numerical computations, yielding good accuracy after propagating errors through all the steps. In fact, all the errors quoted in this section can be further reduced in the quenched approximation.

## 4 Perspectives

We start with some possible straight forward improvements of the above results.
First, the precision in Sect. 3.1 and 3.2 can easily be improved. Once this is done, one may quantify the size of $`1/m_\mathrm{b}`$ corrections rather precisely. In this context we note that it is surprising that so far there is no sign of $`(1/m_\mathrm{c})^2`$ terms in the charm region (see Fig. 5 and Fig. 6). Better precision is desirable to pin those down.
Second, a very promising improvement would be to combine the method of Sect. 3.3 with Sect. 3.1: the finite size effects $`\sigma _\mathrm{F}`$ can be computed in the HQET. Then the mass-extrapolation in Fig. 6 will also be turned into an interpolation and even larger precision and confidence can be achieved.

In our opinion it is most important (and more ambitious) to extend the calculations in the HQET to the level of including $`1/m_\mathrm{b}`$ corrections. We do not see any major obstacles on the way to reaching this goal. The severe problem of power divergences can be overcome by the non-perturbative matching of QCD and HQET sketched in Sect. 3.1. In contrast to the other methods discussed, the consequent use of an effective theory to describe the b-quark is a way to entirely eliminate the mass scale of the b-quark and thus the necessity of using large lattices. This then opens the possibility to obtain results in full QCD, once the usual (and large) problems with dynamical fermions, which have nothing to do with the heaviness of the b, are solved. Indeed, as emphasized in Sect. 2.3 we finally do need results with light dynamical quarks in order to apply them to phenomenology with confidence.
Acknowledgments. I am indebted to my collaborators in the ALPHA-collaboration for the possibility to present new results at this conference, prior to publication. I thank the Tor Vergata group for communications on their approach and for sending the data in Fig. 6. Furthermore I am grateful to the CERN theory division for its hospitality and L. Giusti for comments on the manuscript.