text:
# Compressible dynamics of magnetic field lines for incompressible MHD flows

## 1 Introduction

An important property of ideal magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is the frozenness of magnetic field in the plasma: fluid particles remain pasted on their magnetic lines that are driven by the transverse velocity component. This remark is the starting point of a mixed Lagrangian-Eulerian description of ideal MHD flows, named magnetic line representation (MLR) and first formulated in . The idea originates from the vortex line representation (VLR) of hydrodynamic flows  that involves a two-dimensional Lagrangian marker labeling each vortex line, together with a parameterization of these lines. In three dimensions (3D), this representation enables one to partially integrate the Euler equations with respect to a continuous infinity of integrals of motion called the Cauchy invariants. A main peculiarity of the transformation associated with the vortex line dynamics is its compressible character that, as recently pointed out by one of the authors , is amenable of a simple interpretation. The Euler equations can be rewritten as the equations of motion for a charged compressible fluid moving under the action of effective self-consistent electric and magnetic fields satisfying Maxwell equations. The new velocity coincides with the velocity component transverse to vorticity, which, due to the frozenness property, identifies with the vortex line velocity. It is well known that the appearance of singularities in compressible flows is connected with the emergence of shocks, corresponding to the formation of folds in the classical catastrophe theory . In the gas-dynamic case, this process is completely characterized by the mapping defined by the transition from the usual Eulerian to the Lagrangian description. A zero of the Jacobian corresponds to the emergence of a singularity for the spatial derivatives of the velocity and density of the fluid. Due to the compressible character of VLR, the phenomenon of breaking becomes also possible for vortex lines in ideal incompressible fluids. Vortex line breaking was first studied for three-dimensional integrable hydrodynamics with Hamiltonian $`=|𝛀|𝑑𝐫`$ where $`𝛀`$ is the vorticity . This model and the Euler equation are both incompressible and have the same symplectic operator defining the Poisson structure. Breaking of vortex lines is associated with the touching of two vortex lines and results in an infinite vorticity. Recent numerical simulations  have suggested the possibility of such a scenario for the 3D Euler equations, but further investigations are required to reach a definite conclusion. In ideal MHD, we can expect the same behavior for the magnetic field which is a frozen-in quantity. In two dimensions (2D) however, the fact that vorticity is perpendicular to the flow plane while the magnetic field lies in it, puts a limit to the analogy, making magnetic field line breaking a priori possible in two dimensions, while singularities are excluded in 2D Euler flows. It will nevertheless be argued in this paper that magnetic field blowup is unlikely in 2D MHD.

In Section 2, we recall the Cauchy formula for MHD flows, which plays a central role in the derivation of the Weber type transformation discussed in Section 3. This transformation is obtained by extending ideas of paper to ideal incompressible MHD flows. We in particular indicate how the MHD equations can be partially integrated. Section 4 addresses the two-dimensional case where two conservation laws are established. In Section 5, we discuss the possibility of magnetic line breaking as a local blowup of the magnetic field, a process different from the gradient singularity associated with current sheets formation ( and references therein). A brief conclusion is provided by Section 6.

## 2 Cauchy formula in MHD

As well known, the magnetic field $`𝐡`$ in ideal incompressible MHD obeys

$$𝐡_t=\text{curl}(𝐯\times 𝐡),\text{div}𝐯=0,$$
(1)
that formally coincides with the equation governing the vorticity $`𝛀`$ in Euler hydrodynamics. Since only the transverse velocity $`𝐯_{}`$ to the local magnetic field is relevant in this equation, we introduce new Lagrangian trajectories

$$𝐫=𝐫(𝐚,t),$$
(2)
defined by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐫}{dt}}=𝐯_{}(𝐫,t)`$ (3)
$`𝐫|_{t=0}=𝐚.`$ (4)
It is easily established that the Jacobian matrix (of element $`\widehat{J}_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{x_j}{a_i}}`$) obeys

$$\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{J}=\widehat{J}U$$
(5)
where the matrix $`U`$ has elements $`U_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{v_j}{x_i}}`$. One then obtains the equations for the Jacobian $`J=\text{det}\widehat{J}`$ and for the inverse matrix $`\widehat{J}^1`$ with elements $`a_j/x_i,`$ (where $`𝐚=𝐚(𝐫,t)`$ is the inverse of the mapping defined in (2)), in the form

$$\frac{d}{dt}J=\text{div}𝐯_{}J$$
(6)
and

$$\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{J}^1=U\widehat{J}^1.$$
(7)
Since $`\text{div}𝐯_{}`$ is generically non zero, the mapping (2) is compressible and the Jacobian $`J`$ can vanish. This observation is central in the discussion of the possibility of magnetic field blowup presented in Section 5.

By means of eqs. (6) and (7), eq. (1) is transformed into

$$D_t\left(Jh_i\frac{a_j}{x_i}\right)=0,$$
(8)
where $`D_t=_t+(𝐯_{})`$ identifies with the material derivative $`d/dt`$ used in (3). Integration of this equation leads to a “new” vector Lagrangian invariant

$$I_j(𝐚)Jh_i\frac{a_j}{x_i}$$
(9)
that coincides with the initial magnetic field $`𝐡_0(𝐚)`$ and is the analog of the Cauchy invariants for ideal hydrodynamics. The magnetic field $`𝐡`$ is then given by

$$𝐡(𝐫,t)=\frac{(𝐡_0(𝐚)_𝐚)𝐫(𝐚,t)}{J}.$$
(10)
## 3 Weber type transformation

Equation (10) is the basis of the magnetic line representation . Another important formula for MLR follows from the velocity equation

$$_t𝐯+(𝐯)𝐯=p+\text{curl}𝐡\times 𝐡,$$
(11)
where we normalized the magnetic field by the factor $`\sqrt{4\pi \rho }`$ (where $`\rho `$ is the density) so that $`𝐡`$ has the dimension of a velocity.

We also decompose the velocity $`𝐯=𝐯_{}+𝐯_\tau `$ into transverse and tangential components and substitute in (11). As a result, eq. (11) is rewritten as

$$_t𝐯_{}+(𝐯_{})𝐯_{}=𝐄+𝐯_{}\times 𝐇+𝐅^{\mathrm{𝑚ℎ𝑑}},$$
(12)
where we introduced new effective “electric” and “magnetic” fields

$$𝐄=\left(p+\frac{v_\tau ^2}{2}\right)\frac{𝐯_\tau }{t},$$
(13)
$$𝐇=\text{rot}𝐯_\tau .$$
(14)
In eq. (12), the force $`𝐅^{\mathrm{𝑚ℎ𝑑}}=𝐣\times 𝐡`$, involves the renormalized current

$$𝐣=\text{curl}𝐡(𝐯𝐡)/h^2\text{curl}𝐯.$$
(15)
As seen from (13) and (14), the new auxiliary “electric” and “magnetic” fields can be expressed in terms of scalar and vector potentials $`\phi =p+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_\tau ^2}{2}}`$ and $`𝐀=𝐯_\tau `$, so that the two Maxwell equations

$$\text{div}𝐇=0,\frac{𝐇}{t}=\text{curl}𝐄$$

are automatically satisfied. In this case, the vector potential $`𝐀`$ has the gauge

$$\text{div}𝐀=\text{div}𝐯_{},$$

which is equivalent to the incompressibility condition $`\text{div}𝐯=0`$.

The two other Maxwell equations define auxiliary charge density and current which follow from relations (13) and (14).

New terms in the right hand side of eq. (12) also have a mechanical interpretation. The Lorentz force $`𝐯_{}\times 𝐇`$ plays the role of a Coriolis force. The potential $`\phi `$ has a direct connection with the Bernoulli formula. The term $`_t𝐯_\tau `$ results from the non-inertial character of the coordinate system.

In eq. (12), we make the change of variable defined by mapping (2). As a result, the equations of motion are expressed in a quasi-Hamiltonian form, analogous to eq. (20) of 222The first equation of the system (16) contains an addition term $`𝐅^{\mathrm{𝑚ℎ𝑑}}`$ and therefore we qualify (16) of quasi-Hamiltonian.

$$D_t𝐏=\frac{h}{𝐫}+𝐅^{\mathrm{𝑚ℎ𝑑}},D_t𝐫=\frac{h}{𝐏},$$
(16)
where the Hamiltonian $`h`$ is given by the standard expression

$$h=\frac{1}{2}(𝐏𝐀)^2+\phi p+\frac{𝐯^2}{2},$$

in terms of the generalized momentum $`𝐏=𝐯_{}+𝐀`$ (that identifies with $`𝐯`$), and thus coincides with the Bernoulli ”invariant” for a non-magnetic fluid.

Introducing a new vector

$$u_k=P_i\frac{x_i}{a_k},$$

depending on $`t`$ and $`𝐚`$, one easily obtains from (16) that this vector obeys

$$D_tu_k=\frac{}{a_k}\left(p+\frac{v_{}^2}{2}\frac{v_\tau ^2}{2}\right)+F_i^{\mathrm{𝑚ℎ𝑑}}\frac{x_i}{a_k}.$$
(17)
Using (10) and the identity

$$ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\frac{x_i}{a_\beta }\frac{x_j}{a_\gamma }=ϵ_{ijk}J\frac{a_\alpha }{x_k},$$
(18)
one has

$$F_i^{\mathrm{𝑚ℎ𝑑}}\frac{x_i}{𝐚}=𝐡_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)\times 𝐒,$$

where

$$𝐒=(𝐣_r)𝐚.$$

Equation (17) thus rewrites

$$D_t𝐮=_a\left(p+\frac{v_{}^2}{2}\frac{v_\tau ^2}{2}\right)+𝐡_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)\times 𝐒.$$
(19)
Integrating in time then leads to the Weber type transformation

$$𝐮=𝐮_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)+_a\mathrm{\Phi }+𝐡_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)\times 𝐖,$$
(20)
where the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies a Bernoulli type equation,

$$D_t\mathrm{\Phi }=p+\frac{v_{}^2}{2}\frac{v_\tau ^2}{2}$$

and the vector $`𝐖`$ obeys

$$D_t𝐖=𝐒.$$
(21)
If initially $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_{t=0}=0`$ and $`𝐖|_{t=0}=0`$, the integration “constant” $`𝐮_0(𝐚)`$ coincides with the initial velocity $`𝐯_0(𝐚)`$. This vector $`𝐮_0(𝐚)`$ is thus a new Lagrangian invariant.

To get a closed description we eliminate the pressure $`p`$ by applying the curl operator (with respect to $`𝐚`$-variables) on eq. (20)

$$\text{curl}_a𝐮=\text{curl}_a𝐮_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)+\text{curl}_a[𝐡_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)\times 𝐖].$$
(22)
This equation can also be rewritten as

$$𝛀(𝐫,t)=\frac{(𝛀_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚,t)_a)𝐫(𝐚,t)}{J}.$$
(23)
Here $`𝛀_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚,t)`$ is given by

$$𝛀_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚,t)=𝛀_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)+\text{curl}_a[𝐡_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)\times 𝐖],$$

where $`𝛀_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)`$ is the initial vorticity. When $`𝐡_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)=0`$, eq. (23) reduces to the Cauchy formula for vorticity in ideal hydrodynamics.

The vector $`𝐖`$ is determined from eq. (21) that rewrites

$$D_t𝐖=\frac{(𝐯𝐛)}{b^2}𝛀_0(𝐚,t)\frac{1}{J}\text{curl}_a\left(\frac{\widehat{g}𝐡_0(𝐚)}{J}\right)$$
(24)
where $`\widehat{g}`$ is the MLR metric tensor defined by

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{x_i}{a_\alpha }\frac{x_i}{a_\beta }$$

and $`𝐛=J𝐡`$ is given by (10).

As a result, we have two equations of motion for the mapping (3) and for the vector $`𝐖`$. Together with eqs. (10), (23) and the relation between velocity and vorticity,

$$𝛀=\text{curl}_r𝐯,\text{div}_r𝐯=0,$$
(25)
this constitutes a closed system of equations that provides a magnetic line representation for incompressible MHD (to be compared with ). These equations are solved with respect to two Lagrangian invariants $`𝐡_0(𝐚)`$ and $`𝛀_0(𝐚)`$. It is possible to show  that conservation of these invariants in MHD is a consequence of relabeling symmetry, as it is the case for Euler equation (see, e.g. the reviews ).

The magnetic line representation involving the local change of variables $`𝐫=𝐫(𝐚,t)`$, breaks down at singular points where the Jacobian is zero or infinity and the normal velocity is not defined.

Let us consider the null point $`𝐫=𝐫(t)`$ defined by

$$𝐡(𝐫(t),t)=0.$$
(26)
Differentiating this equation with respect to time, we get

$$\frac{𝐡}{t}+(\dot{𝐫}(t))𝐡=0,$$

with $`\dot{𝐫}(t)=𝐯(𝐫(t),t)`$, which shows that the null points are advected by the flow. The velocity $`𝐯`$ at these points is defined by inverting the curl operator in (25).

Null-points are topological singularities for the tangent vector field $`\tau (𝐫)`$. Their classification depends on the space dimension $`D`$. Topological constraints that can be considered as additional conditions for the MLR system, can be written as integrals of the vector field $`\tau (𝐫)`$ and its derivatives over the boundary of simply-connected regions (in 3D) or along closed contours (in 2D) enclosing the null-points. In $`D=2`$, one has

$$(\phi d𝐫)=2\pi m,$$
(27)
where $`\phi `$ is the angle between the vector $`\tau `$ and the $`x`$-axis and $`m`$ is an integer often called topological charge. It is equal to the total number of turns of the vector $`\tau `$ while passing around the closed contour encircling the null-point. For instance, for $`X`$-points or $`O`$-points, $`m=\pm 1`$.

In $`D=3`$, the topological charge is defined as the degree of the mapping $`𝒮^2𝒮^2`$, given by

$$_Vϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\tau [_\beta \tau \times _\gamma \tau ])𝑑S_\gamma =4\pi m,$$
(28)
where the integration is performed over the boundary $`V`$ of a region $`V`$ containing null-points.

Conditions (25)- (28) complete the MLR equations in the general case when the Jacobian has localized zeroes.

The above representation involves simultaneous use of Lagrangian variables in eqs. (3), (24), (10), (23) and Eulerian ones in (25), making the numerical integration of these equations very cumbersome. It is therefore of interest to look for a representation formulated in the sole physical space.

Let us consider the inverse of the mapping $`𝐚=𝐚(𝐫,t)`$. Using eq. (3), one has

$$_t𝐚+(𝐯_{})𝐚=0.$$
(29)
From (18), eq. (10) for the magnetic field rewrites

$$𝐡=ϵ_{ijk}h_{0i}(𝐚)[a_j\times a_k].$$
(30)
Formula (23) for the vorticity in $`𝐫`$-variable becomes

$$𝛀(𝐫,t)=\text{curl}(V_ia_i)$$
(31)
where

$$𝐕=𝐯_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)+𝐡_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)\times 𝐖.$$

Similarly, the equation of motion (21) for the vector $`𝐖`$ transforms into

$$_t𝐖+(𝐯_{})𝐖=(𝐣)𝐚,$$
(32)
with initial condition $`𝐖|_{t=0}=0`$. Here the generalized current $`𝐣`$ is given by (15).

These equations are completed by relation (25) and the definition of the normal velocity $`𝐯_{}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}𝐯`$, where the projector $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ is defined by means of the unit tangent vector $`\tau =𝐡/h`$ as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\tau _\alpha \tau _\beta `$. They provide a closed system for ideal MHD flows, where all the spatial derivatives are taken with respect to $`𝐫`$-variables.

## 4 Conservation laws in two dimensions

The magnetic line representation significantly simplifies in two dimensions where the magnetic field lies on the same plane as the flow. It is convenient to introduce, instead of the initial position $`𝐚`$, the scalar magnetic potential $`\psi `$ defined by

$$h_x=\frac{\psi }{y},h_y=\frac{\psi }{x},$$

and a Cartesian coordinate $`y`$.

By fixing $`\psi `$, we select a magnetic line given by

$$\frac{dx}{\psi /y}=\frac{dy}{\psi /x}.$$

The difference $`\psi _1\psi _2`$ is equal to the flux of magnetic field between two lines with different values of $`\psi `$.

In 2D, $`\psi `$ is a Lagrangian invariant, since it follows from the integration of the induction equation (1) that

$$\frac{\psi }{t}+(𝐯)\psi =0.$$
(33)
The potential

$$\psi =\psi (x,y,t)$$
(34)
can then be taken as a Lagrangian marker of the magnetic lines. Solving locally eq. (34) in the form $`y=y(x,\psi ,t)`$, provides the desired mapping that replaces (2).

This change of variables, being a mixed Lagrangian-Eulerian one, realizes a transformation to a curvilinear system of coordinates movable with magnetic lines. In order to implement the transformation from variables $`(x,y,t)`$ to $`(x,\psi ,t)`$ in eqs. (33) and (11), we use

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_\psi }}[f_ty_\psi f_\psi y_t],`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_\psi }}[f_xy_\psi f_\psi y_x],`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{y}}={\displaystyle \frac{f_\psi }{y_\psi }}.`$ (37)
where derivatives are taken relatively to $`(x,y,t)`$ in the left hand sides of the above equations and to $`(x,\psi ,t)`$ in the right hand sides.

Equation (34) for the magnetic potential then transforms into an equation for the magnetic line $`\psi `$

$$y_t+v_xy_x=v_y.$$
(38)
This equation is a kinematic condition. As the equation of motion (3), the dynamics of $`y`$ is prescribed by the velocity component normal to the magnetic field line $`y_t=v_{}\sqrt{1+y_x^2}`$ where $`v_{}=(𝐯𝐧)`$ and $`𝐧={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+y_x^2}}}(y_x,1)`$. In terms of the new variables, the magnetic field is given by

$$h_x=\frac{1}{y_\psi },h_y=\frac{y_x}{y_\psi },$$

which are equivalent to the Cauchy formula (10) for the magnetic field in 2D. The derivative $`y_\psi `$ in the denominators holds for the Jacobian $`J`$. The equation for the quantity $`y_\psi `$ can be found by differentiating (38) with respect to $`\psi `$ and applying the incompressibility condition in the form

$$\frac{v_x}{x}y_\psi \frac{v_x}{\psi }y_x+\frac{v_y}{\psi }=0.$$
(39)
This results in a continuity equation for $`y_\psi `$,

$$_ty_\psi +_x(v_xy_\psi )=0,$$
(40)
so that $`y_\psi `$ has the meaning of a layer density.

Another useful relation can be obtained from the equations for the velocity components $`v_x`$ and $`v_y`$ that now read

$$_tv_x+v_x_xv_x=_xp+(_\psi pj)\frac{y_x}{y_\psi },$$
(41)
$$_tv_y+v_x_xv_y=(_\psi pj)\frac{1}{y_\psi },$$
(42)
where $`j=\text{curl}𝐡`$ is the current directed along the $`z`$ direction. It is then convenient to introduce

$$U=v_x+y_xv_y,$$

where $`y_x`$ obeys the equation

$$_ty_x+v_x_xy_x+y_x_xv_x=_xv_y$$

derived from (38). The function $`U`$ coincides up to the factor $`1/\sqrt{1+y_x^2}`$ with the velocity component tangent to the magnetic field $`v_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+y_x^2}}}U`$. One easily gets

$$_tU+_x(v_xU)=_x(pv^2/2),$$
(43)
that can be viewed as a differential form of the Kelvin theorem.

Combination of eqs. (40) and (42) gives that $`w=v_yy_\psi `$ obeys

$$_tw+_x(v_xw)=_\psi p+j.$$
(44)
To find the analog of (23) in the 2D case, it is convenient to make the change of variables $`y=y(x,\psi ,t)`$ in the vorticity equation

$$_t\mathrm{\Omega }+(𝐯)\mathrm{\Omega }=j\times \psi .$$
(45)
Substituting relations (35\- 37) into (45) and using eq. (38), we get

$$_t\mathrm{\Omega }+v_x_x\mathrm{\Omega }_x=\frac{_xj}{y_\psi }.$$

Equations (40) and (43) provide conservation laws for 2D incompressible MHD. They remain valid in the hydrodynamic limit, provided $`\psi `$ is replaced by vorticity or by any other Lagrangian invariant.

## 5 Possibility of magnetic line breaking

An important property of the magnetic line representation concerns the compressibility of the mapping (2), which permits magnetic line breaking. At the breaking point, the magnetic field, according to (10), becomes infinite due to the vanishing of the Jacobian. As it follows from references , the possibility of vortex line breaking depends on the space dimension. For two-dimensional flows described by the Euler equations, vorticity is perpendicular to the flow plane and therefore $`\text{div}𝐯_{}=0`$. As the consequence, the corresponding mapping is incompressible and the Jacobian remains constant.

For 2D incompressible MHD, the situation is different since the magnetic field lies in the flow plane. The velocity can therefore be decomposed into transverse and longitudinal components relative to the magnetic field direction. In such a case $`\text{div}𝐯_{}0`$ and the breaking of magnetic lines is not a priori excluded.

Let us thus assume that a breaking of magnetic lines occurs. Denote by $`t=\stackrel{~}{t}(𝐚)>0`$ the positive roots of the equation

$$J(𝐚,t)=0,$$

and find the minimal value $`t_0=\mathrm{min}_a\stackrel{~}{t}(𝐚)`$ which defines the first instant of time when the Jacobian vanishes. Let $`𝐚=𝐚_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ be the Lagrangian coordinate of the point where this minimum is attained. We first consider that near the singular point, as $`tt_0`$, the Jacobian behaves as

$$J=\alpha (t_0t)+\gamma _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }a_i\mathrm{\Delta }a_j$$
(46)
where $`\alpha >0`$, $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is a positive definite (generically non-degenerated) matrix and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐚=𝐚𝐚_0`$. This assumes that the magnetic field does not vanish at the collapse point and in particular that the three vectors $`𝐫/a_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) lie in the same plane, with none of them vanishing. In this case, eq. (10) rewrites

$$𝐡=\frac{𝐛}{\alpha (t_0t)+\gamma _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }a_i\mathrm{\Delta }a_j}.$$
(47)
where $`𝐛=(𝐡_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐚)_𝐚)𝐫|_{𝐭_\mathrm{𝟎},𝐚_\mathrm{𝟎}}`$. This corresponds to a blowup of the magnetic field $`𝐡(𝐚_0)`$ like $`1/(t_0t)`$.

The MHD equations conserve the energy $``$ given by the sum of the kinetic $`_k={\displaystyle \frac{𝐯^\mathrm{𝟐}}{2}𝑑𝐫}`$ and magnetic $`_h={\displaystyle \frac{𝐡^\mathrm{𝟐}}{2}𝑑𝐫}`$ energies, that both have to remain finite as $`tt_0`$ .

Let us the estimate the contribution provided by a possible singularity (47), to the magnetic energy

$$_h\frac{b^2}{J^2}𝑑𝐫.$$
(48)
By changing variables from $`𝐫`$ to $`𝐚`$, the contribution to this integral arising from a ball of radius $`R\tau ^{1/2}`$ where $`\tau =t_0t`$ and centered in $`𝐚_0`$, rewrites

$$_h^sb^2\frac{d𝐚}{\alpha \tau +\gamma _{ij}a_ia_j}(t_0t)^{(D2)/2}.$$
(49)
The size of the retained ball is the largest compatible with the asymptotics. The contribution from the other region being most likely finite, we conclude that a magnetic field blowup in not excluded in 3D for the assumed expansion of the Jacobian. The same conclusion holds if the Jacobian vanishes like $`(t_0t)^n`$ at the singularity point, with a ball size modified accordingly. At a point where the matrix $`\gamma `$ is degenerated with e.g. one eigenvalue $`\lambda _1`$ being zero, the Jacobian locally becomes

$$J=\alpha (t_0t)+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}a_i^{}a_j^{}+\beta a_1^4.$$
(50)
where $`𝐚^{}`$ holds for the projection of the vector $`𝐚`$, transverse to the direction of the eigenvector associated with the zero eigenvalue. The contribution of the singularity to the magnetic energy then scales like $`_h^s(t_0t)^{1/4}`$, a behavior which again does not contradict the possible existence of a singularity.

In $`D=2`$, the conclusion can be different. Since the contribution of the selected ball to the magnetic energy does not tend to zero as $`tt_0`$, a small extension of this domain to a ball of size $`R`$ can lead to a logarithmic divergence $`_h^sB^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma R^2}{\alpha \tau }\mathrm{}`$. The divergence becomes more dramatic in the case of a degenerate matrix $`\gamma `$, for which $`_h^s(t_0t)^{1/4}`$. This observation leads us to conjecture that a blowup of the magnetic field is probably excluded in two dimensions but not necessary in three dimensions. Note that the conservations laws (40) and (43) for the two-dimensional problem derived in Section 3, could possibly be useful for a rigorous proof of the absence of magnetic blowup.

## 6 Conclusion

The mechanism for a finite-time singularity addressed in this paper corresponds to the breaking of magnetic field lines resulting in a catastrophic amplification of the local magnetic field strength. It is worth to notice that this process does not contradict the necessary condition for blowup in MHD  that represents the analog of the Beale-Kato-Majda inequality . According to  the velocity and magnetic field retain their smoothness on a time interval $`[0,T]`$ as long as

$$_0^T(|\mathrm{\Omega }(t)|_{\mathrm{}}+|j(t)|_{\mathrm{}})𝑑t<\mathrm{}.$$

Hence a finite-time singularity of any kind must be accompanied by the blow-up of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`𝐡`$. However, this criterion does not exclude a blowup of the magnetic field as well. Constraints are nevertheless provided by regularity theorems; a result for example states that the solution remains globally smooth if the initial magnetic field has a mean component sufficiently large compared to the fluctuations, assumed to be localized . This property is a consequence of the fact that only counter-propagating Alfvén wave packets nonlinearly interact.

A specific conclusion of this paper is that magnetic field blowup resulting from magnetic line breaking is unlikely in two dimensions. Nevertheless, the present formalism cannot capture the behavior near a neutral X-point. Numerical evidence and self-similar reductions however indicate that in this case the current amplification is exponential in time  .

Furthermore, recent direct numerical simulations of 3D MHD indicate the formation of quasi-two dimensional current sheets that result in a depletion of the nonlinearity strength , a mechanism that could prevent singularities. In order to validate the blowup scenario discussed in this paper, it is thus of interest to look for initial conditions that do not lead to bidimensionalization and has an initial velocity field whose component transverse to the local magnetic field has a significant divergence.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by INTAS (grant no. 00-00292). The work of E.K. was also supported by the RFBR (grant no. 00-01-00929). E.K. wishes to thank the Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, where this work was initiated and completed, for its kind hospitality during visits supported by the Landau-CNRS agreement.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Phase Transitions in the One-Dimensional 𝑆=1 Spin-Orbital Model: Implications for Cubic Vanadates

## I Introduction

Orbital fluctuations in correlated electron systems have attracted much interest recently. They play a particularly important role in transition metal oxides, where the low-energy physics is controlled by the orbital as well as spin degrees of freedom. Orbitals of $`d`$-electrons possess characteristic spatial anisotropy, which sometimes results in remarkable phenomena such as the reduction of effective dimensions. For instance, in cubic vanadates such as YVO3 and LaVO3, an effective one-dimensional (1D) system is formed along the $`c`$-axis at low temperatures, which has been shown by a number of experiments Kawano ; Ren-N ; Ren-PRB ; Noguchi ; Miyasaka ; Blake ; Ulrich  on spin and orbital orderings. For YVO3, there are two magnetic phases: $`C`$-type antiferromagnetic order (ferromagnetic along $`c`$-axis and antiferromagnetic in $`ab`$ plane) at higher temperatures $`77K<T<114K`$, and $`G`$-type spin order (antiferromagnetic in all three directions) at lower temperatures $`T<77K`$.Blake  As for the orbital sector, the $`G`$-type orbital-antiferromagnetic correlations develop below $`T200K`$ and it changes to the $`C`$-type order (in-phase alignment of orbitals along the $`c`$-axis) below $`T=77K`$. On the other hand, in LaVO3, the magnetic order is always of the $`C`$-type and the orbital correlations are of the $`G`$-type.Miyasaka  On empirical grounds, difference in the ground state of these two compounds is usually attributed to larger lattice distortions in YVO3.Blake  More specifically, an increase in octahedral tilting in YVO3 supports ferro-type alignment of orbitals along the $`c`$-axis, hence stabilizing the $`G`$-type spin order in the ground state of YVO3. This argument has been supported by electronic structure calculations.Mizokawa2  In vanadates, there are two electrons in the threefold degenerate $`t_{2g}`$ level, and it is believed that orbital degrees of freedom are crucial for understanding the interplay between different orderings in these compounds and their highly unusual magnetic properties.Ren-N ; Ren-PRB ; Noguchi ; Miyasaka ; Blake ; Ulrich

Based on the above experiments, an effective spin-orbital model has been proposed,Khaliullin  which may properly describe low-energy physics of the cubic vanadates. The 1D version of this model consists of the $`S=1`$ Heisenberg spin model with two-fold degenerate orbitals \[see Eqs.(1) and (2)\]. It has been demonstrated that this effective 1D model contains rich and essential properties inherent in spin-orbital systems.Sirker  A similar quasi-1D orbital model has been also proposed for LaVO3.Motome

In this paper, by calculating the ground-state energy, the spin and orbital correlation functions, and the magnetization curve by means of the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method, DMRG  we investigate quantum phase transitions of the 1D $`S=1`$ spin-orbital model, which may be relevant for explaining the magnetic properties of cubic vanadates, in particular, for understanding the phase transitions observed in YVO3. We obtain the phase diagram in the plane of the Hund’s coupling $`J_H`$ and the external magnetic field $`h`$. To make the model more realistic, we introduce also an additional ferromagnetic interaction $`V`$ to the orbital sector, which may drive the system to an orbital-ferromagnetic phase. We discuss the importance of this interaction for the low-temperature phase of YVO3 below 77K.

This paper is organized as follows. After brief discussion of the model in Sec. II, we present in Sec. III the DMRG results for the ground-state energy, the spin/orbital correlation functions in a magnetic field, and show the magnetic phase diagram at absolute zero. In Sec. IV, we address the effects of the ferromagnetic orbital coupling driven by lattice distortions. Brief summary is given in Sec. V.

## II Model

We start with 1D version of an effective Hamiltonian, which has been proposed to describe the spin and orbital properties of cubic vanadates: Khaliullin ; Sirker

$``$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐒_i𝐒_{i+1}+1)\widehat{J}_{i,i+1}+\widehat{K}_{i,i+1}]`$ (1)
$``$ $`h{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}S_i^z,`$
where $`𝐒_i`$ is the $`S=1`$ spin operator at the $`i`$-th site. $`J(4t^2/U)`$ is the superexchange interaction scale, which we will take as the energy unit in the following discussions. $`\widehat{J}_{i,j}`$ and $`\widehat{K}_{i,j}`$ are the operators acting on the doubly-degenerate orbital degrees of freedom, and are given as

$`\widehat{J}_{i,j}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+2R)\left(𝐓_i𝐓_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)r\left(T_i^zT_j^z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)R,`$
$`\widehat{K}_{i,j}`$ $`=`$ $`R\left(𝐓_i𝐓_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)+r\left(T_i^zT_j^z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right),`$ (2)
where $`𝐓_i`$ is the $`T=1/2`$ pseudo-spin operator for the orbital sector. The terms proportional to $`R=\eta /(13\eta )`$ and $`r=\eta /(1+2\eta )`$ with $`\eta =J_H/U`$ originate from the Hund’s coupling (normalized by the on-site Coulomb interaction $`U`$). The effective model (1) is derived via the second-order perturbation calculation in $`t/U`$ ($`t`$ is the electron hopping amplitude) for the cubic vanadates, where two correlated electrons occupy $`t_{2g}`$ orbitals at each site. The microscopic derivation can be found in Ref. Khaliullin, . Physically, the external field $`h`$ in the above Hamiltonian can be regarded as the interchain molecular field present in a realistic 3D system. note1

For $`h=\eta =0`$, it has been concluded that the ground state of the model (1) is the orbital valence bond (OVB) solid state for which both of the spin and orbital sectors are in a dimer-type singlet state with gapful excitations. Sirker ; Shen ; Ulrich  Furthermore, it was obtained Sirker ; Ulrich  that a first-order transition from the OVB solid state to the fully polarized spin state with gapless orbital singlet may occur around a critical value $`\eta _c0.11`$. Since the analysis of Refs. Sirker, ; Ulrich,  is based on the finite-temperature DMRG method, it is difficult to discuss the behavior at lower temperatures. It is thus desirable to study zero-temperature properties to establish the precise phase diagram, which is addressed below in this paper. We further investigate the effects of a magnetic field, as well as of an additional ferromagnetic orbital coupling (which will be specified in Sec. IV).

Before closing this section, we make a brief comment on the spin-orbital model. The $`S=1`$ model (1) may be regarded as a specific extension of the $`S=1/2`$ spin-orbital model, which has been studied extensively. Suther ; Affleck ; Itakura ; Azaria ; Itoi ; Pati ; Yamashita  The ground-state phase diagram of the latter model has been already established by the DMRG method. Itoi ; Pati ; Yamashita  A simple isotropic $`S=1`$ generalization leads to the model which has the OVB ground state.Sirker ; Shen  We will see below that the extended model, which includes anisotropic orbital interactions, the magnetic field and also an additional ferromagnetic orbital interaction, exhibits interesting quantum phase transitions.

## III Magnetic Phase Diagram

We first consider the effect of the Hund’s coupling. To this end, we precisely determine the critical value $`\eta _c`$ between the OVB solid state and the spin-ferromagnetic state. We show the $`\eta `$-dependence of the energy and the correlation functions calculated by the infinite DMRG method DMRG  for $`h=0`$ in Figs. 1 and 2. It is seen from Fig. 1 that for small values of the Hund’s coupling, the energy of the OVB solid state is lower than that of the spin-ferromagnetic state. In this region, both of the spin and orbital correlation functions show the even-odd $`i`$-dependence reflecting a dimer character of the OVB solid state (see Fig. 2). More precisely, for $`i=even`$, two adjacent orbitals form nearly perfect dimer pairs (namely, $`𝐓_i𝐓_{i+1}`$ is close to $`0.75`$) while the spins prefer the ferromagnetic alignment with a positive value of $`𝐒_i𝐒_{i+1}0.9`$. On the other hand, for $`i=odd`$, the value of the orbital correlation is almost zero while spins form a singlet pair with $`𝐒_i𝐒_{i+1}1.5`$, which is much less than the value ($`=2`$) expected for a spin-1 isolated dimer. note2  The above behavior is characteristic of the OVB solid state. Increasing $`\eta `$, the energy of the OVB solid state is getting closer to that of the spin-ferromagnetic state, and eventually a first-order phase transition occurs between these two phases at a critical value of $`\eta _c=0.1055\pm 0.0005`$. The detail around the transition is shown in the inset of Fig. 1. Beyond the critical value $`\eta _c`$, the even-odd $`i`$-dependence of the correlation functions disappears and both of the spin and orbital correlations become spatially uniform with

$`S_i^zS_{i+1}^z=1,𝐓_i𝐓_{i+1}=\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$ (3)
as should be expected.bethe  Our conclusion that the ground state changes from the OVB solid to the spin-ferromagnetic state, and also the value of $`\eta _c`$ at which the transition occurs, is in good agreement with Ref. Sirker, .

The effective spin (orbital) exchange coupling constants, which are determined by local orbital (spin) correlations, change drastically at the phase transition. Just below $`\eta _c`$, the spin interactions $`J_s=\widehat{J}_{i,i+1}/2`$ are equal to $`J_F0.38`$ within the ferromagnetic bonds, and $`J_{AF}0.05`$ between the spins belonging to different dimers. Above the transition, $`J_s0.21`$ in all the bonds, supporting uniform Heisenberg-like orbital dynamics. Similarly, the orbital exchange constant $`J_{orb}=(1+2R)𝐒_i𝐒_{i+1}+1/2+R`$ changes from: $`J_{orb}1.4`$ ($`0.02`$) in strong (weak) bonds below $`\eta _c`$, to the uniform value $`J_{orb}1.46`$ above $`\eta _c`$.

Let us next consider the magnetic properties of the model (1) for finite values of $`h`$. We have calculated the magnetization curve as well as the correlation functions. The results of the magnetization are shown in Fig. 3 for two typical choices of the Hund’s coupling. As seen from the case of $`\eta =0`$ in Fig. 3, the ground state in small fields is still in the OVB solid state, rendering the magnetization zero up to a critical field $`h_{c1}`$ due to the existence of the spin gap. Beyond the critical field $`h_{c1}`$, the spin sector becomes gapless, resulting in the square-root increase of the magnetization near the critical field $`h_{c1}`$. We note that this transition in the spin sector is a kind of Pokrovsky-Talapov transition, i.e. an insulator to gapless-liquid transition triggered by filling-control.prokovsky  Therefore, the ferro/antiferromagnetic alternating spin correlation still exists even in the gapless phase. The magnetization then smoothly increases until we encounter a sudden jump at the second critical field $`h_{c2}`$, where the system undergoes a first-order transition to the fully polarized spin state with the orbital sector forming a gapless $`T=1/2`$ Heisenberg pseudo-spin chain. Note that in contrast to the spin sector, the orbital sector is always gapful for $`0h<h_{c2}`$. For $`\eta =0`$ ($`\eta =0.05`$), the corresponding critical field is $`h_{c2}=0.122`$ ($`h_{c2}=0.065`$).

Shown in Fig. 4 are the correlation functions for $`\eta =0`$ under magnetic fields. As mentioned above, in weak fields, both of spin and orbital correlations exhibit the even-odd dependence characteristic of the OVB solid state. Their values are unchanged up to $`h_{c1}`$, beyond which the even-odd dependence is gradually suppressed. Notice that the spin correlation function shows a cusp singularity at $`h_{c1}`$ while the orbital correlation function smoothly changes. This is because the spin sector shows an insulator to gapless-liquid transition, whereas the orbital sector still stays in the gapful phase, which is affected by magnetic fields indirectly via the spin-orbital interaction. In magnetic fields beyond $`h_{c2}`$, the spin and orbital correlation functions take the values given in (3) corresponding to the fully polarized spin state with a gapless orbital Heisenberg chain. Similar behavior in the field dependence of the correlation functions is observed for other choices of the Hund’s coupling, as far as the ground state is in the OVB solid state at $`h=0`$.

We thus end up with the zero-temperature magnetic phase diagram, which is shown in Fig. 5. There are three distinct phases in the $`\eta `$-$`h`$ plane. In the region of weak fields and weak Hund’s couplings, the OVB solid state is stabilized in the phases I and II; the orbital sector is gapful while the spin sector is gapful (gapless) in the phase I (II). The transition from the phase I to II is of Pokrovsky-Talapov type. On the other hand, the transition from the phase II to the spin-ferromagnetic phase III is of first order.

For the spin/orbital dimerized state at $`\eta =0`$, we estimated the spin gap from the magnetization curve and obtained $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s0.01J`$. This is actually much larger than the Haldane gap that one would expect from a simple picture of spin-2 dimers coupled by a weak antiferromagnetic exchange. Indeed, at $`\eta =0`$ an effective spin exchange constant between the dimers is estimated as $`J_{eff}=\frac{1}{8}𝐓_i𝐓_j+\frac{1}{4}0.036`$. This would give the spin-2 Haldane gap about $`0.085J_{eff}0.003`$ only.Scholl ; Yamamoto  The large spin gap in the spin-orbital model is due to a dynamical coupling between two sectors, as discussed in Ref. Sirker, . We notice that our result for the spin gap is still much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s0.041J`$, obtained in Ref. Sirker,  from the finite-temperature spin susceptibility $`\chi `$ computed by the transfer-matrix DMRG method. As the latter method is available at finite temperatures only, Ref. Sirker,  estimates the spin gap by extrapolating the data with a function of $`\chi \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_s/T)/\sqrt{T}`$. We think that the above discrepancy may arise from this (somewhat ambiguous) extrapolation procedure.

## IV Effects of the Ferromagnetic Orbital Interaction

For representative values of $`J_H0.68`$eV and $`U\frac{20}{9}J_H4.5`$eV for vanadates, Mizokawa  one obtains that the ratio $`\eta =J_H/U0.11`$ is slightly above its critical value. Therefore, our results are consistent with the experimental fact that the ferromagnetic chain is stabilized along the $`c`$-axis in the ground state of LaVO3.Miyasaka  However, the superexchange model (1) alone is not sufficient to understand the origin of the spin-$`G`$ type ground state in YVO3, and also to understand the physics behind the spin/orbital reordering at $`T=77K`$. In order to describe low-temperature properties of YVO3 more precisely, it is desirable to take into account the pure-orbital interaction in addition to the spin/orbital couplings involved in the Hamiltonian (1). The orbital interaction to be included has the following Ising-like form,Khaliullin

$`_o=V{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}T_i^zT_{i+1}^z.`$ (4)
This describes a ferromagnetic orbital coupling, which competes with the antiferromagnetic orbital coupling in the Hamiltonian (1). Physically, this term is important because apart from the superexchange mechanism there is also a lattice contribution to the orbital interactions. As mentioned in the introduction, tilting of octahedra in perovskites (caused by ionic mismatch effects) leads to a tendency that orbitals are aligned ferromagnetically along the $`c`$-axis. This effect is stronger when we go from La- to Y-based compound.Mizokawa2  We thus expect that the ferromagnetic Ising orbital coupling along the $`c`$-axis may be particularly relevant for YVO3, in order to explain why its ground state shows spin-antiferro/orbital-ferromagnetic structure along the $`c`$-axis.

We choose here three different values of the Hund’s coupling and calculate the energy as a function of V. In Fig. 6(a), the $`V`$-dependence of the energy for three competing states is shown for the OVB ground state ($`\eta =0.05`$). There is a direct first-order transition from the OVB state to the orbital-ferromagnetic state. On the other hand, when the Hund’s coupling is slightly above the critical value $`\eta _c`$ ($`\eta =0.11`$), we encounter different behavior, as seen in Fig. 6(b). Namely, the ground state is the spin-ferromagnetic (orbital-ferromagnetic) state for small $`V`$ (large $`V`$), but for intermediate $`V`$, the OVB solid state is stabilized, which results from the competition of the above two (spin-ferromagnetic or orbital ferromagnetic) interactions. Stabilization of the orbital disordered OVB state by finite $`V`$-interaction (induced by lattice distortion) is a remarkable result. The physics behind this observation is that the lattice-driven interaction (4) introduces frustration into the orbital sector, competing with antiferro-type alignment of orbitals due to the superexchange process. For even larger $`\eta `$ \[Fig. 6(c)\], $`V`$ induces a direct phase transition from the spin-ferromagnetic state to the orbital-ferromagnetic state.

The phase diagram thus obtained in the $`\eta `$-V plane is shown in Fig. 7. There are three distinct phases in this figure. For small $`\eta `$ and $`V`$, the OVB solid state is stabilized in the phase I, which is driven to the orbital-ferromagnetic phase IV with the increase of $`V`$. In the latter phase IV, the spin sector is described by an $`S=1`$ isotropic antiferromagnetic spin chain, and thus its ground state is a spin liquid with Haldane-gap excitations. In the spin-ferromagnetic phase III, the orbital sector is described by the $`XXZ`$ pseudo-spin model, which results from (1) and (4):

$`=\stackrel{~}{J}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝐓_i𝐓_{i+1}V{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}T_i^zT_{i+1}^z.`$ (5)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{J}=J/(13\eta )`$, and we have discarded irrelevant constant terms. According to the well known results for the $`S=1/2`$ $`XXZ`$ spin chain with ferromagnetic Ising anisotropy,xxz  the ground state is in a gapless liquid phase for $`V<2\stackrel{~}{J}`$, and in a fully polarized ferromagnetic phase for $`V2\stackrel{~}{J}`$. Therefore it might be possible to have the orbital-ferro/spin-ferromagnetic ground state in the region $`V2/(13\eta )`$ in units of $`J`$. However, it turns out that since the first-order transition from the phase III to IV occurs at the phase boundary shown in Fig. 7, there is no available window of the parameters which can stabilize the orbital-ferro/spin-ferromagnetic ground state.

The ferromagnetic orbital interaction $`V`$ may be relevant to the first-order phase transition observed in YVO3 at $`T=77K`$, where the spin ordering changes from the $`G`$-type (below $`77K`$) to the $`C`$-type (above $`77K`$) structure. If we focus on the pattern of ordering in the $`c`$-direction, the transition occurs from the spin-antiferro/orbital-ferromagnetic ground state to the spin-ferro/orbital-antiferromagnetic state. Furthermore, recent neutron scattering experiments have revealed a substantial modulation of the ferromagnetic spin couplings along the $`c`$-direction at $`T>77K`$, which indicates the appearance of orbital dimer correlations at finite temperatures.Ulrich  According to the results obtained here, such a temperature-driven first-order transition may possibly occur when the system is located in the phase IV near the tricritical point in the phase diagram (Fig. 7), and thus close to the phases III and I. For example, $`V1.5`$ may be a reasonable choice for $`\eta 0.12`$, which may give rise to the competition of the phases at finite temperatures. This is in fact quite realistic situation, as the atomic value of Hund’s coupling parameter for vanadates is indeed close to this value. Mizokawa  Finally, we wish to mention that the gapless orbital-liquid (gapful spin-liquid) state in the phase III (IV) is expected to show an orbital (spin) antiferromagnetic order when realistic three-dimensional effects are properly taken into account, being consistent with experimental findings.

## V Summary

We have investigated quantum phase transitions of the 1D $`S=1`$ spin-orbital model relevant to cubic vanadates. By means of the DMRG calculation, we have determined the zero-temperature phase diagram in a magnetic field. We have found that the magnetic field induces the phase transitions twice for the case of OVB ground state. The lower-field transition is of Pokrovsky-Talapov type, which drives the spin sector to a gapless spin liquid while keeping the orbital sector always gapful. On the other hand, the high-field transition is first order to the spin-ferromagnetic state, where the orbital state is driven to a gapless isotropic $`T=1/2`$ orbital chain.

We have considered the evolution of spin and orbital correlations as a function of the Hund’s coupling, and obtained that the ground state of the superexchange model is spin-ferromagnetic for the realistic values of $`J_H`$. This is consistent with the formation of ferromagnetic spin chains along the $`c`$-axis in LaVO3.

The introduction of the ferromagnetic Ising coupling $`V`$ to the orbital sector induces a first-order phase transition to the orbital-ferro/spin-antiferromagnetic state. This may explain the stabilization of the $`G`$-type spin order observed in YVO3 at temperatures below 77K. We found also that the intermediate values of $`V`$-interaction may stabilize the spin/orbital dimer phase. This phenomenon reflects competition between the superexchange and lattice effects, and, surprisingly enough, it occurs for $`J_H`$-values realistic for vanadates. The proximity of different spin/orbital states in the ground state may result in an entropy-driven phase transition at finite temperature, similar to that observed in YVO3. In the future study, it is desirable to discuss whether such a temperature-driven first-order transition may be indeed possible in the spin-orbital model including the ferromagnetic orbital interaction and also the interchain coupling effects. This may provide a key to clarify some essential spin/orbital properties of YVO3 at low temperatures.

## Acknowledgements

This work was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan. A part of computations was done at the Supercomputer Center at the Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo and Yukawa Institute Computer Facility.


text:
# Spinning Pulsating String Solitons in 𝐴𝑑𝑆₅×𝑆⁵

## 1 Introduction

Recent progress in understanding the conjectured duality  between super string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and $`𝒩=4`$ SU(N) super Yang-Mills theory in Minkowski space is based on scaling relations between energy and angular momentum for straight spinning strings . Circular pulsating strings have also been analysed in some detail . Even more recently, multi spin and multi R-charge solutions were constructed  and classified .

The geometry of Anti de Sitter space profoundly alters the properties of strings, as compared to Minkowski space. For instance, for a straight spinning string in Anti de Sitter space , the energy scales with the angular momentum, while in Minkowski space it scales with the square root of the angular momentum. Similarly, for a circular pulsating string in Anti de Sitter space , the energy scales with the square of the amplitude, while in Minkowski space it scales with the amplitude (the amplitude is of course not a coordinate-invariant, but the maximal circumference is).

Comparison with Yang-Mills computations (see for instance ) is based on detailed analysis of the subleading terms in the scaling relations. It is therefore of impotance to search for general families of strings for which it is still possible to obtain analytical results. In the present paper, we explicitly construct new families of string solitons in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. Our strings are straight and spinning in one direction but circular and pulsating in another, and with a non-trivial coupling between the two. Pulsating multi spin solutions are also constructed. In each case, we obtain the explicit solutions in terms of elliptic functions, analyse the scaling relations in various limits, and compare with previously known results. We note in passing that our solutions fall outside the classification of

The paper is organised as follows: In Section 2, we set our notation and conventions, and derive and analyse the solutions which are spinning in $`AdS_5`$ but pulsating in $`S^5`$. Section 3 is devoted to the ”opposite” situation, i.e. pulsating in $`AdS_5`$ but spinning in $`S^5`$. In Section 4, we take the simplest multi spin solution  and generalise it to be pulsating in $`S^5`$. Finally in Section 5, we present our conclusions and we suggest some further investigations in these directions.

## 2  Spinning in $`AdS_5`$ but Pulsating in $`S^5`$

We take the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ line-element in the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+H^2r^2)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1+H^2r^2}}+r^2(d\beta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta d\varphi ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\beta d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2)`$ (2.1)
$`+`$ $`H^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\psi ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (d\psi _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\psi _1d\psi _2^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\psi _1d\psi _3^2))`$
where $`H^1`$ is the scale of $`AdS_5`$ and the radius of $`S^5`$. The ’t Hooft coupling in this notation is $`\lambda =(H^2\alpha ^{})^2`$.

The string which is straight and spinning in $`AdS_5`$ but circular and pulsating in $`S^5`$, is obtained by the ansatz

$$t=t(\tau ),r=r(\sigma ),\beta =\pi /2,\varphi =\omega \tau ,\theta =\theta (\tau ),\psi =\sigma $$
(2.2)
with the remaining coordinates being arbitrary constants.

The $`t`$-equation is solved by $`t=c_0\tau `$, and then the $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ equations become

$$r^{\prime \prime }\frac{H^2r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}r}{1+H^2r^2}H^2c_0^2(1+H^2r^2)r+\omega ^2(1+H^2r^2)r=0$$
(2.3)
$$\ddot{\theta }+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta =0$$
(2.4)
while the non-trivial conformal gauge constraint is

$$\frac{H^2r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{1+H^2r^2}+\dot{\theta }^2H^2c_0^2(1+H^2r^2)+H^2r^2\omega ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =0$$
(2.5)
Notice that Eq.(2.5) involves $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ derivatives. However, everything is consistently solved by

$`r(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_0\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0}{\sqrt{\omega ^2H^2c_0^2}}}\text{cn}\left(\sqrt{\omega ^2H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0}\sigma |{\displaystyle \frac{H^2c_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _0}{\omega ^2H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0}}\right)`$ (2.6)
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta (\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\text{sn}(\tau |H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0),\hfill & Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0<1\hfill \\ \text{sn}(Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\tau |1/(H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0)),\hfill & Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0>1\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.9)
where $`\alpha _0`$ is an integration constant. In the first case of Eq.(2.9) the string oscillates around one of the poles, while in the second case it oscillates between the two poles. In the limiting case, $`Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0=1`$, it oscillates between a pole and the equator. To ensure that $`r(\sigma )`$ is periodic, we have the condition

$`2\pi \sqrt{\omega ^2H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0}`$ $`=`$ $`4K\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^2c_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _0}{\omega ^2H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0}}\right)`$ (2.10)
where $`K`$ is a complete elliptic integral.

The solution (2.6)-(2.9) is parametrised by $`(c_0,\omega ,\alpha _0)`$, of which one is fixed by Eq.(2.10). It is convenient to trade the two remaining parameters for

$`AHc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0`$ (2.11)
$`B{\displaystyle \frac{Hc_0\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0}{\sqrt{\omega ^2H^2c_0^2}}}`$ (2.12)
$`A`$ is the amplitude of $`\mathrm{sin}\theta (\tau )`$, while $`B`$ is the extension of $`Hr(\sigma )`$. Actually, $`A`$ can only be interpreted as the amplitude as long as $`Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _01`$, but since the solution for $`\theta (\tau )`$ is defined for any $`Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0`$, we also define the amplitude for any $`Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0`$. Now (2.10)-(2.12) leads to

$`\mathrm{tan}\alpha _0={\displaystyle \frac{\pi A\sqrt{1+B^2}}{2BK\left(\frac{B^2}{1+B^2}\right)}}`$ (2.13)
It is straightforward to compute the conserved energy and spin (the R-charge is zero). In the present parametrisation, they are

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{1+B^2}}{\pi H\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{B^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2A^2(1+B^2)}{4K^2\left(\frac{B^2}{1+B^2}\right)}}}E\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{1+B^2}}\right)`$ (2.14)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{1+B^2}}{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{1+B^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2A^2(1+B^2)}{4K^2\left(\frac{B^2}{1+B^2}\right)}}}\left(E\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{1+B^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+B^2}}K\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{1+B^2}}\right)\right)`$ (2.15)
Now we can consider the short strings in $`AdS^5`$ corresponding to $`B<<1`$. We get

$`E`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{B^2+A^2}`$ (2.16)
$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2H^2\alpha ^{}}}B^2\sqrt{1+A^2}`$ (2.17)
such that

$`\alpha ^{}E^2{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{H^2\alpha ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2S}{\sqrt{1+A^2}}}`$ (2.18)
For $`A0`$, corresponding to small oscillations near one of the poles of $`S^5`$, we get

$`\alpha ^{}E^22S`$ (2.19)
as in Minkowski space. For $`A1`$, corresponding to oscillations between a pole and the equator of $`S^5`$, we get

$`E/H{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H^2\alpha ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (2.20)
while for $`A>>1`$, corresponding to high frequency oscillations between the poles of $`S^5`$, we get

$`E/H{\displaystyle \frac{A}{H^2\alpha ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{S}{A^2}}`$ (2.21)
and the energy is now completely dominated by the contribution from the oscillations.

For $`B>>1`$, corresponding to long strings in $`AdS_5`$, we get

$`E`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi H\alpha ^{}}}\left(B^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}B\right)\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2A^2}{4\mathrm{log}^2B}}}`$ (2.22)
$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}}}\left(B^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}B\right)\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2A^2}{4\mathrm{log}^2B}}}`$ (2.23)
such that

$`E/HS{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{4\mathrm{log}^2B+\pi ^2A^2}`$ (2.24)
where $`B=B(S,A)`$ is the solution of

$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2B^2}{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2A^2}{4\mathrm{log}^2B}}}`$ (2.25)
If the logarithm dominates over $`A`$ in Eq.(2.25), we have

$`B^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}S}{2}}`$ (2.26)
such that

$`E/HS`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}S}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi A^2}{2H^2\alpha ^{}\mathrm{log}(\frac{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}S}{2})}}`$ (2.27)
This formula is valid for arbitrary $`A`$, provided that $`A<<\mathrm{log}(H^2\alpha ^{}S)`$, in particular, it holds for $`A0`$ and $`A1`$. If $`A`$ dominates over the logarithm in Eq.(2.25), we have instead

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{\mathrm{log}B}}{\displaystyle \frac{H^2\alpha ^{}S}{A}}`$ (2.28)
such that

$`E/HS`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{H^2\alpha ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2AH^2\alpha ^{}}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{A}{H^2\alpha ^{}S}}`$ (2.29)
which holds for $`A>>\mathrm{log}(H^2\alpha ^{}S)`$.

It is interesting that (2.27) and (2.29) are formally quite similar to the results obtained by Russo  if we replace the amplitude $`A`$ with the shifted R-charge $`H^2\alpha ^{}J+2/\pi `$. But the physics is of course completely different here.

## 3  Spinning in $`S^5`$ but Pulsating in $`AdS_5`$

We now consider a string which is spinning in $`S^5`$ but circular and pulsating in $`AdS_5`$. It is obtained by the ansatz

$$t=t(\tau ),r=r(\tau ),\beta =\pi /2,\varphi =\sigma ,\theta =\theta (\sigma ),\psi =\nu \tau $$
(3.1)
with the remaining coordinates being arbitrary constants.

The $`t`$-equation can be integrated to

$`\dot{t}={\displaystyle \frac{c_0}{1+H^2r^2}}`$ (3.2)
and then the $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ equations become

$$\ddot{r}\frac{H^2\dot{r}^2r}{1+H^2r^2}+\frac{H^2c_0^2r}{1+H^2r^2}+(1+H^2r^2)r=0$$
(3.3)
$$\theta ^{\prime \prime }+\nu ^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta =0$$
(3.4)
while the non-trivial conformal gauge constraint is

$$\frac{H^2\dot{r}^2}{1+H^2r^2}+\theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{H^2c_0^2}{1+H^2r^2}+H^2r^2+\nu ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =0$$
(3.5)
Again, the constraint mixes $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ derivatives, but the solution is easily obtained as

$`r(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{H\sqrt{2}}}\left(\sqrt{(1+H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0)^2+4H^2c_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _0}(1+H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0)\right)^{1/2}`$
$`\times \text{cn}\left(((1+H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0)^2+4H^2c_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _0)^{1/4}\tau |m\right)`$ (3.6)
$$\mathrm{sin}\theta (\sigma )=\frac{Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0}{\nu }\text{sn}\left(\nu \sigma |\frac{H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0}{\nu ^2}\right)$$
(3.7)
where the elliptic parameter of the $`r`$-expression is

$$m=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1+H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0}{2\sqrt{(1+H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0)^2+4H^2c_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _0}}$$
(3.8)
Eq.(3.2) can now be integrated in terms of an elliptic integral of the third kind, but we shall not need the explicit expression. The solution (3.7) is valid for $`Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\nu `$. There is another solution for $`Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0>\nu `$ but it is believed to be unstable  so we shall not consider it here. To ensure periodicity of $`\theta (\sigma )`$, we have the condition

$`2\pi \nu `$ $`=`$ $`4K\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0}{\nu ^2}}\right)`$ (3.9)
As in the previous section, it is convenient to trade the two remaining parameters (say $`c_0`$ and $`\alpha _0`$) for two new ones

$$A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\sqrt{(1+H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0)^2+4H^2c_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _0}(1+H^2c_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0)\right)^{1/2}$$
(3.10)
$`B={\displaystyle \frac{Hc_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0}{\nu }}`$ (3.11)
such that $`A`$ is the amplitude of $`Hr(\tau )`$ while $`B`$ is the extension of $`\mathrm{sin}\theta (\sigma )`$. As noted in the introduction, the amplitude is coordinate dependent. A coordinate invariant measure of the oscillations is given by the maximal circumference. This is precisely our $`A`$, up to a factor of $`2\pi `$.

A straightforward computation gives the energy and R-charge in this parametrisation (the spin is zero)

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{1}{H\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{A^2\left(A^2+1+{\displaystyle \frac{4B^2}{\pi ^2}}K^2(B^2)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4B^2}{\pi ^2}}K^2(B^2)}`$ (3.12)
$`J={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}}}\left(K(B^2)E(B^2)\right)`$ (3.13)
First consider short strings in $`S^5`$ corresponding to $`B<<1`$

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{A^2\left(A^2+1+B^2\right)+B^2}`$ (3.14)
$`J{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2H^2\alpha ^{}}}`$ (3.15)
such that

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{A^2\left(A^2+1+2H^2\alpha ^{}J\right)+2H^2\alpha ^{}J}`$ (3.16)
For $`A0`$ we get

$`\alpha ^{}E^22J`$ (3.17)
which is like in Minkowski space. For $`A>>1`$ we get

$`E/H{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{H^2\alpha ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2H^2\alpha ^{}}}+J`$ (3.18)
such that the energy is completely dominated by the pulsation, $`EA^2`$.

Now consider long strings in $`S^5`$ (’long’ meaning extending almost down to the equator) corresponding to $`B1`$

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{A^2\left(A^2+1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{1B^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{1B^2}}}`$ (3.19)
$`J`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{1B^2}}1\right)`$ (3.20)
such that

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{A^2\left(A^2+1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}(\pi H^2\alpha ^{}J+2)^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}(\pi H^2\alpha ^{}J+2)^2}`$ (3.21)
For $`A0`$ we get

$`E/HJ{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi H^2\alpha ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{JA^2}{2}}`$ (3.22)
For $`A>>1`$ we must distinguish between different cases. If $`A>>H^2\alpha ^{}J`$ we get

$`E/H{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{H^2\alpha ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H^2\alpha ^{}J^2`$ (3.23)
If $`A<<H^2\alpha ^{}J`$ we get

$`E/HAJ+{\displaystyle \frac{A^3}{2H^4\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}J}}`$ (3.24)
The scaling relations obtained here are, to our knowledge, completely new. They generalise the ones of Gubser, Klebanov and Polyakov  and supplement the ones of Russo .

## 4  Pulsating Multi Spin Solutions

Multi spin and multi R-charge solutions were recently obtained by Tseytlin and Frolov . Such solutions can easily be combined with pulsation. Here we take for simplicity the simplest 2 spin solution in $`AdS_5`$ and couple it with pulsation in $`S^5`$. The ansatz is

$$t=c_0\tau ,r=r_0=\text{const.},\beta =\sigma ,\varphi =\omega \tau ,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\omega \tau ,\theta =\theta (\tau ),\psi =\sigma $$
(4.1)
with the remaining coordinates being constants. This is a circular string in $`AdS_5`$ spinning in two different directions. It is also a circle in $`S^5`$, but pulsating there.

The $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ equations become

$$\omega ^2=1+H^2c_0^2$$
(4.2)
$$\ddot{\theta }+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta =0$$
(4.3)
while the non-trivial conformal gauge constraint is

$$\dot{\theta }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta H^2c_0^2(1+H^2r_0^2)+H^2r_0^2(1+\omega ^2)=0$$
(4.4)
The $`\theta `$ equation and constraint are solved by

$`\mathrm{sin}\theta (\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}A\text{sn}(\tau |A^2),\hfill & A<1\hfill \\ \text{sn}(A\tau |1/A^2),\hfill & A>1\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.7)
where

$$A=H\sqrt{c_0^22r_0^2}$$
(4.8)
with the same interpretation as in Section 2. The energy $`E`$ and the 2 spins $`S_1=S_2S`$ are easily computed

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+H^2r_0^2)\sqrt{2H^2r_0^2+A^2}}{H\alpha ^{}}}`$ (4.9)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^2}{2\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{2r_0^2H^2+A^2+1}`$ (4.10)
For short strings (say $`Hr_0<<1`$) we get

$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^2}{2\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{A^2+1}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{H^2r_0^2}{A^2+1}}\right)`$ (4.11)
such that

$`H^2r_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{2H^2\alpha ^{}S}{\sqrt{A^2+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4H^4\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}S^2}{(A^2+1)^2}}`$ (4.12)
which inserted into $`E`$ gives

$`E(S,A){\displaystyle \frac{1}{H\alpha ^{}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2H^2\alpha ^{}S}{\sqrt{A^2+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4H^4\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}S^2}{(A^2+1)^2}}\right)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4H^2\alpha ^{}S}{\sqrt{A^2+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{8H^4\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}S^2}{(A^2+1)^2}}+A^2}`$ (4.13)
For $`A=0`$ we get

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{S}}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}(1+H^2\alpha ^{}S)`$ (4.14)
which to leading order is just the Minkowski result $`\alpha ^{}E^2=2(2S)`$. For $`A=1`$ we get

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H\alpha ^{}}}(1+2^{3/2}H^2\alpha ^{}S)`$ (4.15)
and for $`A>>1`$

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H\alpha ^{}}}(A+2H^2\alpha ^{}S)`$ (4.16)
For long strings (say $`Hr_0>>1`$) we get

$`E/H2S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2H^2r_0^2+A^2}}{H^2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H^2r_0^2}{2H^2\alpha ^{}\sqrt{2H^2r_0^2+A^2}}}`$ (4.17)
Now we have to distinguish between different cases. If $`Hr_0>>A`$ we get from (4.10)

$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Hr_0^3}{\sqrt{2}\alpha ^{}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{A^2+1}{4H^2r_0^2}}\right)`$ (4.18)
such that

$`Hr_0(\sqrt{2}H^2\alpha ^{}S)^{1/3}{\displaystyle \frac{A^2+1}{12(\sqrt{2}H^2\alpha ^{}S)^{1/3}}}`$ (4.19)
which when inserted into (4.17) gives

$`E/H2S{\displaystyle \frac{3(\sqrt{2}H^2\alpha ^{}S)^{1/3}}{2^{3/2}H^2\alpha ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4A^21}{2^{7/2}H^2\alpha ^{}(\sqrt{2}H^2\alpha ^{}S)^{1/3}}}`$ (4.20)
This result is valid for $`H^2\alpha ^{}S>>\{1,A^3\}`$, and therefore holds in particular for $`A=0`$ and $`A=1`$. Notice also that the pulsation only gives a contribution to the non-leading terms, in this limit. On the other hand, if $`Hr_0<<A`$ we get from Eq.(4.10)

$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Ar_0^2}{2\alpha ^{}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^2H^2}{A^2}}\right)`$ (4.21)
such that

$`H^2r_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{2H^2S\alpha ^{}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{4S^2\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}H^4}{A^4}}`$ (4.22)
and insertion into (4.17) gives

$`E/H2S{\displaystyle \frac{A}{H^2\alpha ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{S}{A^2}}`$ (4.23)
which holds for $`1<<H^2\alpha ^{}S<<A^3`$. Thus, in this limit, the pulsation completely changes the scaling relation.

All our results reduce for $`A=0`$ to those obtained in , but otherwise they are quite different. It is straightforward also to generalise the multi R-charge solutions of  to include pulsation in $`AdS_5`$, but we shall not go into the details here.

## 5  Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, we have found several new relatively simple families of string solitons in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. They generalise some of the previously known solitons in the sense that they combine spin and pulsation in a non-trivial way. For each family, we analysed in detail the scaling relations between energy and angular momentum. The scaling relations reduce in a certain limit ($`A=0`$) to previously known relations, but are otherwise quite different.

It would be interesting to find the Yang-Mills operators corresponding to the spinning pulsating strings constructed here. It seems, however, to be a highly non-trivial problem due to the coupling between spin and pulsation. The Yang-Mills operators for spinning strings were given in , and those for pulsating strings were suggested in , but it is not clear how to combine them.

Another direction which could be interesting to pursue, is to consider linearised perturbations around these solutions. Classically, this could reveal how the pulsation affects the stability properties of spinning strings, a question which could be important especially for the multi spin solutions of . At the quantum level, the perturbations could give a contribution to the scaling relations, similarly to the results obtained in .

These problems are currently under investigation.


text:
# New Pulsars from Arecibo Drift-Scan Searches

## References

Camilo, F., Nice, D. J. & Taylor, J. H. 1993, ApJ, 412, L37

Lorimer D. R., et al. 2003, MNRAS, submitted

McLaughlin, M. A. et al. 2003, ASP Vol. 203

Nice, D. J., Sayer, R. W. & Taylor, J. H. 1996, ApJ, 466, 87


text:
# Non-abelian Berry’s phase and Chern numbers in higher spin pairing condensates

## I Introduction

Topological gauge structure and Berry’s phaseBerry (1984) play an increasingly important role in condensed matter physics. The quantized Hall conductance can be deeply understood in terms of the first Chern classThouless et al. (1982); Kohmoto (1985). The fractional quantum Hall effect can be fundamentally described by the $`U(1)`$ topological Chern-Simons gauge theoryZhang et al. (1989). The effective action for ferromagnetsAuerbach (1994) and one dimensional antiferromagnetsHaldane (1983a, b) contain Berry phase terms which fundamentally determine the low energy dynamics. More recently, Berry’s phase associated with the BCS quasi-particles in pairing condensates has also been studied extensively. Volovik (1992); Read and Green (2000); Hatsugai et al. .

However, most of the well known applications of the geometrical phase in condensed matter physics involves Berry’sBerry (1984) original abelian U(1) phase factor. More recently, the non-abelian SU(2)Wilczek and Zee (1984); Zee (1988); Avron et al. (1988) Berry’s phase (or holonomy, to be precise) has been systematically investigated in the context of condensed matter systems. Demler and ZhangDemler and Zhang (1999) investigated the quasi-particle wave functions in the unified SO(5) theory of antiferromagnetism and superconductivity, and found that the SDW and the BCS quasi-particle states accumulate an SU(2) Berry’s phase (or holonomy) when the order parameter returns to itself after an adiabatic circuit. Zhang and HuZhang and Hu (2001) found a higher dimensional generalization of the quantum Hall effect based on a topologically non-trivial SU(2) background gauge field. Rather surprisingly, the non-abelian SU(2) holonomy also found its deep application in the technologically relevant field of quantum spintronicsMurakami et al. (2003, ). All these condensed matter applications are underpinned by a common mathematical framework, which naturally generalizes the concept of Berry’s U(1) phase factor. This new class of applications is topologically characterized by the second Chern class and the second Hopf map, and applies to fermionic systems with time reversal invariance.

In this paper, we investigate the non-trivial topological structures associated with the higher spin condensates. We first review the momentum space gauge structure of the spin one condensate, namely the A phase of $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$. As it has been pointed outVolovik (1992), the momentum space gauge structure of the pairing condensate is given by that of the t’Hooft-Polyakov monopole. We then investigate the new system of spin 2 (quintet) pairing condensate of the underlying spin 3/2 fermions. The most general Hubbard model of spin 3/2 fermions has recently been introduced and investigated extensively by Wu et al.Wu et al. (2003), who found that the model always has a generic SO(5) symmetry in the spin sector. Building on this work, we show here that the fermionic quasi-particles of the quintet pairing condensate can be described by the second Hopf map. Similar to the SDW+BCS system investigated by Demler and ZhangDemler and Zhang (1999), the quasi-particles of the quintet pairing condensate also accumulate an SU(2) holonomy. The quintet pairing condensate can be experimentally realized in a number of systems. Cold atoms with spin 3/2 in the continuum or on the optical lattice can be accurately described by the model of local contact interactionsWu et al. (2003) $`U_0`$ and $`U_2`$. These interaction parameters can be experimentally tunes over a wide range, including the range for stable quintet condensates. Effective spin 3/2 fermions can also be realized in solid state systems with at least two Kramers doublets, for example in bands formed by $`P_{3/2}`$ orbitals.

In the rest of this paper, we shall use spin-1/2 system to be short for the spin-$`1/2`$ superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$-A and spin-$`3/2`$ system for the $`s`$-wave spin-3/2 superconductor in the quintet channel. The repeated indices are summed assumably throughout this paper.

## II superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$-A

### II.1 Goldstone manifold and the $`1^{st}`$ Hopf map

The general form of the equilibrium order parameter in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$-A phase can be written asVolovik (1992)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)_{ai}=\mathrm{\Delta }_k\widehat{d}_a\left(\widehat{e}_i^{(1)}+i\widehat{e}_i^{(2)}\right),`$ (1)
where the spin index ($`a`$) and and orbital index($`i`$) run from $`1`$ to $`3`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ is a complex number that contains the information of the magnitude and the $`U(1)`$ phase. $`\widehat{d}`$ is the normal vector of the plane to which the spin direction is restricted. The orthogonal vectors $`\widehat{e}^{(1)}`$, $`\widehat{e}^{(2)}`$ and $`\widehat{l}=\widehat{e}^{(1)}\times \widehat{e}^{(2)}`$ form a local physical coordinate frame.

The Goldstone manifold of the order parameter is given byVolovik (1992)

$`R_a`$ $`=`$ $`G/H={\displaystyle \frac{U(1)\times SO(3)^{(L)}\times SO(3)^{(S)}}{SO(2)^{(S)}\times U(1)^{combined}\times Z_2^{combined}}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`S^2\times SO(3)_{relative}/Z_2.`$
Here $`SO(3)_{relative}`$ denotes such rotations about the axis $`\widehat{l}`$ that lead to new degenerate states which are relative towards gauge transformationsVolovik (1992). The $`U(1)^{combined}`$ comes from the fact that the A-phase state is invariant under combined transformationVolovik (1992) of the gauge transformation with the parameter $`\varphi `$ from the $`U(1)`$ group and the orbital rotation of $`\widehat{e}^{(1)}`$, $`\widehat{e}^{(2)}`$ and $`\widehat{l}`$ about axis $`\widehat{l}`$ by the same angle $`\varphi `$. The $`Z_2^{combined}`$ denotes the combined operation that $`\widehat{d}\widehat{d},\mathrm{\Delta }_k\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$. This combined discrete symmetry leads to the existence of half-quantum vorticesVolovik (1992). Around a half-quantum vortex, the vector field $`\widehat{d}`$ is continuously rotated into $`\widehat{d}`$ and the $`U(1)`$ phase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ continuously evolves from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$ when the order parameter returns to itself after an adiabatic circuit.

If we fix the local orthogonal frame in an arbitrary direction and adiabatically move the quasi-particle around a line defect of half-quantum vortex, the trajectory of the order parameter is a closed loop on the $`S^2/Z_2`$ space. On the other hand, the degrees of freedom of the quasi-particle (a 2-dimensional spinor) forms a 3-dimensional sphere $`S^3`$ and the trajectory of the quasi-particle on $`S^3`$ is not closed. This adiabatic evolution defines the following map

$`S^3S^2/Z_2.`$ (3)
In the topological terminology, Eq.(3) is determined by the third homopotic group denoted by $`\pi _3(S^2/Z_2)`$. Due to a theorem in the Homopoty theoryHilton (1953)

$`\pi _k(S^n/Z_2)=\pi _k(S^n),\text{for}k2.`$ (4)
Eq.(3) is homopotically equivalent to the first Hopf map $`S^3S^2`$ i.e., U(1) Berry phase in the FQHE and other nano-structure in the semiconductorsYau et al. (2002); Yang et al. .

### II.2 Berry connection, $`1^{st}`$ Chern number, t’Hooft-Polyakov monopole and Dirac monopole

If we define the spinor as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{}=(c_{k,\frac{1}{2}}^{},c_{k,\frac{1}{2}}^{},c_{k,\frac{1}{2}},c_{k,\frac{1}{2}}),`$ (5)
the mean field Hamiltonian for $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$-A is given by

$`={\displaystyle \underset{k}{\overset{^{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{}H_k\mathrm{\Psi }_k`$ (6)
with

$`H_k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_k\sigma ^0& 𝚫_k\\ & \\ 𝚫_k^{}& ϵ_k\sigma ^0\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
where $`𝚫_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_k\widehat{d}_a\sigma ^aR`$ and $`R=i\sigma ^2`$. $`ϵ_k`$ is the kinetic energy on the lattices referenced from the Fermi surface and the summation of momentum $`k`$ is over half of the Brillouin zone to avoid the double counting. Here, $`\sigma ^0`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix and $`\sigma ^{1,2,3}`$ are Pauli matrices.

The Berry phase connection (BPC) is defined by the differential change of states projecting to themselves. In this paper, it will be illustrated by using the state with a positive eigenvalue. BPC obtained from the state with a negative eigenvalue is simply the complex conjugate to the one with the eigenvalue of a different sign. The BPC and its field strength can be obtained respectively.

$`A_a=iA_a^c{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c}{2}},A_a^c=\epsilon _{abc}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{d}_b}{d}}.`$ (11)
and

$`F_{bc}^a=`$ $`_bA_c^a_bA_c^a+ϵ_{ade}A_b^dA_c^e`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}ϵ_{bce}\widehat{d}_e\widehat{d}_a,`$ (12)
The gauge invariant magnetic field can be defined as

$`B^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{abc}F_{bc}^ed_e={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{d}_a}{d^2}}.`$ (13)
This is a U(1) magnetic-monopole like field in the $`d`$-space. It emerges when there are line defects in the $`\widehat{d}`$ field, $`e.g.`$, half-quantum vortices in the superfluid $`He3A`$ phase. If we transport the spin-1/2 fermion adiabatically around the vortex,the electronic wavefunction gains the phase accumulated due to the $`\widehat{d}`$ field, as we discussed previously. Moreover, the first Chern number can be computed easily.

$`𝒞_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{d}S}=1.`$ (14)
This is the famous t’Hooft-Polyakov monopole (TPM) Volovik (1992); Weinberg (1996). Different from the Dirac monopole, the gauge field of TPM is non-abelian and finite everywhere over $`S^2/Z_2`$ while the Dirac magnetic monopole is abelian and has a singularity string. There is a deep and direct relation between them, which can be achieved by a singular gauge transformationBoulware et al. (1976); Ohnuki and Kitakado (1993); Chern et al. .

The present $`SO(3)`$ Berry phase defines a $`SO(3)`$ gauge theory on $`S^2/Z_2`$. Using the covariant derivative $`D_a=_a+A_a`$, the $`SO(3)`$ generators in the presence of t’Hooft-Polyakov monopole can be written asYang (1978)

$`L_{ab}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ab}id^2f_{ab},a=1,2,3`$ (15)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ab}=id_aD_b+id_bD_a`$ and $`f_{ab}=iF_{ab}^c\frac{\sigma _c}{2}`$. Defining $`I_a=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{abc}L_{bc}`$, one finds easily that $`[I_a,I_b]=iϵ_{abc}I_c`$ satisfying the $`SO(3)`$ algebra. Using Eq.(11) and Eq.(12), one can show

$`L_{ab}=L_{ab}^{(0)}+ϵ_{abc}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c}{2}}`$ (16)
where $`L^{(0)}`$ is the orbital angular momentum, defined by $`L_{ab}^{(0)}=id_a_b+id_b_a`$. DefineOhnuki and Kitakado (1993)

$`V=\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta \sigma _{3a}d_a}{\sqrt{d^2d_3^2}}}\right]`$ (17)
where $`\sigma _{ab}=ϵ_{abc}\sigma _c/2`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta =d_3/d`$. One can perform a singular $`SO(3)`$ gauge transformation on $`L_{ab}`$ such that $`J_{ab}=VL_{ab}V^{}`$ where

$`J_{\mu \nu }=id_\mu _\nu +id_\nu _\mu +ϵ_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _3}{2}}`$ (18)
$`J_{\mu 3}=id_\mu _3+id_3_\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{d_\nu }{d+d_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _3}{2}}`$ (19)
with $`\mu ,\nu =1,2`$. $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }`$ is the antisymmetry tensor which has only one component $`ϵ_{12}=1`$ in this case. It is obvious that $`J_{\mu \nu }=J_{12}`$ forms the $`U(1)`$ generator on $`S^2/Z_2`$. From the definition of Eq.(15), one can extract the $`U(1)`$ BPC regardless the unnecessary $`\frac{\sigma _3}{2}`$.

$`a_\mu =iϵ_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{d_\nu }{d(d+d_3)}},a_3=0`$ (20)
and the finite $`U(1)`$ field strength over $`S^2/Z_2`$

$`F_{ab}=iϵ_{abc}{\displaystyle \frac{d_c}{d^3}}`$ (21)
We should notice that the singular gauge transformation we used has a singularity string along the negative $`z`$-axis. Therefore, while the covariant $`SO(3)`$ BPC is finite over the whole $`\widehat{d}`$ field, the $`U(1)`$ BPC has a singularity string which is reflected through the transformation. This transformation is only valid on the northern hemisphere including the equator of the $`S^2/Z_2`$. One is able to choose another gauge which has the singularity along the positive $`z`$-axis to describe the transformation on the southern hemisphere.

The role of this singular gauge transformation is very intriguing. We can view the covariant $`SO(3)`$ gauge potential $`A_a^c`$ in Eq.(11) as a vector $`d_c`$ pointing in the isospin space. The singular gauge transformation is nothing but the rotation of the spin vector from $`d_c`$ to $`d_3`$. Therefore, the invariant subgroup of $`SO(3)`$ is emerged from the isometry group of the equator of $`S^2/Z_2`$, which is $`U(1)`$. This mechanism accounts for the appearance of the $`U(1)`$ Berry phase in this problem. As a result, the $`SO(3)`$ Berry phase in this system is essentially equivalent to the $`U(1)`$ Berry phase.

## III $`s`$-wave quintet pairing condensate in spin-3/2 system

### III.1 Goldstein manifold and the $`2^{nd}`$ Hopf map

Another candidate for non-trivial gauge structures is the spin-3/2 fermionic system with contact interaction, in which an exact $`SO(5)`$ symmetry was identified recentlyWu et al. (2003). It may be studied in the ultra-cold atomic systems, like 9Be, 132Cs, 135Ba, 137Ba. The four-component spinor $`(c_{\frac{3}{2}},c_{\frac{1}{2}},c_{\frac{1}{2}},c_{\frac{3}{2}})^T`$ forms the spinor representations of the $`SU(4)`$ group which is the unitary transformation of the four-component complex spinor. The kinetic energy term has the explicit $`SU(4)`$ symmetry. However, the $`s`$-wave contact interaction term breaks the $`SU(4)`$ symmetry to $`SO(5)`$. Because of the $`s`$-wave scattering, there are only the singlet and quintet channels as required by the Pauli’s exclusion principle. Interestingly, the spin $`SU(2)`$ singlet and quintet channels interaction can also be interpreted as $`SO(5)`$ group’s singlet and 5-vector representations.

The Cooper pair structures has also been studied in spin-3/2 systemHo and Yip (1999); Wu et al. (2003). The singlet and quintet pairing channel operators are described by

$`\eta ^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_\alpha ^{}(r)R_{\alpha \beta }c_\beta ^{}(r)`$
$`\chi _a^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}c_\alpha ^{}(r)(\mathrm{\Gamma }^aR)_{\alpha \beta }c_\beta ^{}(r).`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^a`$ are the $`SO(5)`$ Gamma matrices which takes the form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& iI\\ iI& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _i& 0\\ 0& \sigma _i\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }^5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (28)
satisfying the Clifford algebra $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^a,\mathrm{\Gamma }^b\}=2\delta ^{ab}`$. The $`SO(5)`$ charge conjugate matrix $`R`$ is given by

$`R=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _2& 0\\ 0& \sigma _2\end{array}\right)`$ (31)
The quintet pairing structure is spanned by the five polar like operators $`\chi _{15}^{}`$, whose expectation value has a 5-vector and a phase structure as $`d_ae^{i\varphi }`$. The Goldstone manifold for the quintet pairing is

$`R_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{SO(5)_sSO(3)_LU(1)}{SO(4)_sSO(3)_LZ_2}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`S^4U(1)/Z_2,`$
where the $`Z_2`$ symmetry comes from the combined operations $`d_ad_a,\varphi \varphi +\pi `$.

Because the 4-component spinor forms the 7-dimensional sphere, similar to the spin $`1/2`$ case, the adiabatic transportation of the quasi-particle around a half-quantum vortex in our spin-3/2 system defines a map

$`S^7S^4/Z_2,`$ (33)
which is homopotically equivalent to the second Hopf map $`i.e.`$ $`S^7S^4`$.

### III.2 Berry connection, $`2^{nd}`$ Chern number, SO(4) monopole and Yang monopole

Let us introduce the spinor

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{}=(c_{k,\frac{3}{2}}^{},c_{k,\frac{1}{2}}^{},c_{k,\frac{1}{2}}^{},c_{k,\frac{3}{2}}^{},c_{k,\frac{3}{2}},c_{k,\frac{1}{2}},c_{k,\frac{1}{2}},c_{k,\frac{3}{2}}),`$ (34)
where $`c_{k\sigma }^{}`$ is the creation operator of an electron with the spin component $`\sigma `$ and momentum $`k`$. The mean field Hamiltonian can be written as

$`={\displaystyle \underset{k}{\overset{^{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{}H_k\mathrm{\Psi }_k`$ (35)
with

$`H_k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_k\mathrm{\Gamma }^0& 𝚫_k\\ & \\ 𝚫_k^{}& ϵ_k\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\end{array}\right)`$ (39)
where $`ϵ_k`$ is the kinetic energy on the lattices referenced from the Fermi surface. $`𝚫_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_kd_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^aR`$ while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ contains the magnitude and the phase of the superconducting (SC) order parameter. The momentum $`k`$ is summed only over half of the Brillouin zone to avoid the double counting. The subscript $`a`$ runs from $`1`$ to $`5`$. $`d_a`$ forms a 4-dimensional sphere $`S^4`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$ is the $`4\times 4`$ identity matrix, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^a`$ are given by Eq.(28). The eigenvalues of Eq.(39) are

$`\lambda =\pm E_k=\pm \sqrt{ϵ_k^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_k|^2}`$ (40)
and their corresponding engenvectors are

$`\psi _\alpha ^+(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(E_k+ϵ_k)^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}(E_k+ϵ_k)|\alpha \\ \\ 𝚫_𝐤^{}|\alpha \end{array}\right)`$ (44)
$`\psi _\alpha ^{}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(E_k+ϵ_k)^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}𝚫_𝐤|\alpha \\ \\ (E_k+ϵ_k)|\alpha \end{array}\right)`$ (48)
where $`|\alpha `$ are $`SU(4)`$ spinors.

We are interested in the system with the presence of half-quantum vortices. The formation of this kind of vortices is very similar to the ones in the spin-1/2 system. If we transport the spin-3/2 fermion adiabatically around one of them, a nontrivial phase is accumulated due to the $`\widehat{d}`$ field. The BPC and the covariant field strength can be obtained respectively by

$`A_a={\displaystyle \frac{i}{d^2}}d_c\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ca},a=1,2,3,4,5`$ (49)
and

$`F_{abc}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{d^3}}(d_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{bc}+d_b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ca}+d_c\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab})`$ (50)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}=\frac{1}{4i}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^a,\mathrm{\Gamma }^b]`$ making up of the $`SO(5)`$ generators. Similar non-abelian gauge structures also appeared in the pseudoparticle field in high dimensionsJackiw and Rebbi (1976); Adler (1972, 1973). Instead of the first Chern number, we have the non-vanishing second Chern number.

$`𝒞_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_d\text{Tr}\left(F_{abc}F_{abc}\right)}=1.`$ (51)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ denotes the integration over the angular part of $`d_a`$. The field strength on $`S^4`$, $`f_{ab}=[D_a,D_b]=_aA_b_bA_a+[A_a,A_b]`$, can be obtained

$`f_{ab}=i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}P_{ab,cd}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd}`$ (52)
where $`P_{ab,cd}=\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{ac}\delta _{bd}\delta _{ad}\delta _{bc}+\delta _{ad}d_bd_c\delta _{bd}d_ad_c\delta _{ac}d_bd_d+\delta _{bc}d_ad_d)`$. $`P_{ab,cd}`$ is a $`10\times 10`$ matrix because $`a`$ and $`b`$ are anti-symmetric as well as $`c`$ and $`d`$. Similar to the projection operator $`\delta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{q}_\mu \widehat{q}_\nu `$ in QED, $`P_{ab,cd}`$ is the transverse projection operator from 10-dimensional space to 6-dimensional space satisfying $`d_aP_{ab,cd}=0`$. The relation between $`F_{abc}`$ and ordinary field strength $`f_{ab}`$ can be revealed if we define $`G_{ab}`$ which is dual to $`F_{abc}`$ by $`G_{ab}=ϵ_{abcde}F_{abc}`$Adler (1972, 1973). Then, one can show

$`f_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{abcde}{\displaystyle \frac{d_c}{d}}G_{de}.`$ (53)
Because of the projection operator $`P_{ab,cd}`$ in $`f_{ab}`$, the fundamental degrees of freedom of the gauge structure in this problem is not $`SO(5)`$ but $`SO(4)`$, because SO(4) has six generators. We shall show that it is able to make a route from $`f_{ab}`$ to the $`SO(4)`$ gauge field strength using a singular gauge transformation. Similar to the analysis in the second section, the transformation operator in this $`SO(5)`$ case has the following form

$`U=\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{5\mu }d_\mu }{\sqrt{d^2d_5^2}}}\right],\mu =1,2,3,4`$ (54)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta =d_5/d`$. Then, Eq.(49) becomes

$`a_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{d(d+d_5)}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu }d_\nu ,\mu =1,2,3,4`$ (55)
$`a_5=0,`$ (56)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ are the $`SO(4)`$ generators in the $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ representation which have the following form

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\eta _{\mu \nu }^i\frac{\sigma _i}{2}& 0\\ & \\ 0& \overline{\eta }_{\mu \nu }^i\frac{\sigma _i}{2}\end{array}\right)`$ (60)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }^i=ϵ_{i\mu \nu 4}+\delta _{i\mu }\delta _{4\nu }\delta _{i\nu }\delta _{4\mu }`$ is the t’Hooft symbol, $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ runs from 1 to 4. In this reducible representation of $`SO(4)`$ gauge group, one can easily distillate the $`SU(2)`$ ingredients because $`SO(4)=SU(2)SU(2)`$. The self-dual $`SU(2)`$ gauge field is given by

$`a_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{d(d+d_5)}}\eta _{\mu \nu }^id_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _i}{2}}\mu =1,2,3,4`$
$`a_5=0.`$ (61)
Similar to the spin-1/2 system, we obtain the $`SO(4)`$ BPC which is only defined on the northern hemisphere with the equator. The singularity string along the negative $`z`$-axis inherits from the singular gauge transformation. The role of the singular gauge transformation by $`U`$ can be also interpreted as the rotation of a 5-dimensional vector from an arbitrary direction $`d_a`$ to $`d_5`$ in the 5-dimensional isospin space. Therefore, the invariant subgroup is the isometry group of the equator $`S^3/Z_3`$, which is $`SO(4)`$. Surprisingly, the the representation we achieve in SO(4) gauge theory is the reducible $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$, which is the direct sum of two $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory. Thus, the $`SU(2)`$ Berry phase naturally arises in this system.

This $`SU(2)`$ nature of the Berry phase in the spin-3/2 system is manifested if we choose a special spinor $`|\alpha `$ such that $`𝚫_𝐤|\alpha =|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤|e^{i\varphi _\alpha }|\alpha `$, which is studied by Demler and ZhangDemler and Zhang (1999). In this representation, $`|\alpha `$ is not only a $`SU(4)`$ spinors but also a $`SO(5)`$ one. Then, the BPC is given by

$`A_i^{\pm \alpha \beta }=\psi _\alpha ^\pm |_i|\psi _\beta ^\pm =\alpha |_i|\beta .`$ (62)
This is exactly the $`SU(2)`$ holonomy in the context of Demler and ZhangDemler and Zhang (1999). The special choice of the spinors $`|\alpha `$ is equivalent to fixing $`\widehat{d}_a=\widehat{d}_5`$ in our notion.

## IV Conclusion and discussion

In summary, we found that the SU(2) non-Abelian Berry phase emerges naturally in quintet condensates of spin 3/2 fermions. The underlying algebraic structures for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ and the spin-3/2 system are the $`1^{st}`$ and the $`2^{nd}`$ Hopf map respectively. The Chern numbers for both cases were obtained in a standard manner. In the previous case, only the first Chern number is non-vanishing, while in the later case, only second Chern number is non-zero. Both systems appear to have *finite* gauge potential, which means that the BPC can be defined covariantly everywhere over the $`d`$-field. However, the corresponding $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ gauge connections can only be defined patch by patch in the $`d`$-space. The bridge across between the finite gauge connection and the one with singularity is constructed by the singular gauge transformation, which can only be defined patch by patch in the $`d`$-space as wellMoody et al. (1986). The singular gauge transformation also bear with some physical meaning. It can be understood as the rotation in the spin (isospin) space, namely $`d_a`$. When the spin (isospin) points to the north pole, the invariant subgroup becomes the isometry group of the equator. When it is rotated by the gauge transformation, the gauge structure becomes finite and covariant over the whole $`d`$ space.

To experimentally manifest this topological effect, the spin-3/2 ultra-cold atomic systems may serve as a promising candidate. It may also shed some light on measuring the second Chern number, which has not be revealed by any system so far. Furthermore, our calculation can also be generalized to consider the spin-$`\frac{7}{2}`$ superconductors in which the algebraic structure is suggested to be the third Hopf mapBernevig et al. (2003).

This work is supported by the NSF under grant numbers DMR-0342832 and the US Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under contract DE-AC03-76SF00515. HDC and CJW are also supported by the Stanford Graduate Fellowship.


text:
# A note on regularization and renormalization

## I Introduction

The systematics of renormalization rests on solid ground since several years. The problem of singular functions that comes from an ill defined Lagrangian can be taken care of via the procedure of introducing counter terms. If in addition the Lagrangian is renomalizable it is enough to add one set of counterterms which takes care of the infinities to all ordersHOOFT . In this paper we will consider certain function bundles whose sections may be ”regularized” with the help of the linear differential operator in the space of linear operators which it is a section above. Furthermore the Fourier transform will prove to be a homeomorphism onto the Fourier counterpart of the bundle. In this bundle the functions will yield finite results. In the next section we will show that one may define a quotient bundle that is isomorphic to the Fourier bundle and study how this comes about. We study why the results become finite and why this is actually what happens in differential renormalization.

## II regularization and renormalization of the function bundle

Consider the space of linear differential operators, call it $`\xi `$. Consider the function algebra consisting of functions with well defined Fourier transform together with the functions generated by applying an operator to these. The added functions do not necessarily have a Fourier transform. This algebra is for each operator $`L\xi `$ a section over the point $`L\xi `$, call it $`𝒜_L`$. The function bundle we will study is the one spanned by these sections.

First we define the Fourier transform of a function in $`𝒜_L`$. We do so by formal integration by parts where the surface terms are neglected. If the function is in the subalgebra consisting of functions with Fourier transform $``$ the surface terms are zero so the only change is for the functions generated by $`L`$. For such a function one has $`f=Lg=a_i^ig`$ and thus performing formal integration by parts results in a convolution of the Fourier transform of derivatives of the operator coefficients $`a`$ and the fourier transform of $`g`$. If the operator consists of only derivatives this gives just multiplication by a power of p. This map is a homeomorphism between $`𝒜_L`$ and $`\widehat{𝒜}_L`$.

If we now construct an ideal $`_L`$ of the algebra we may take quotient with this ideal and construct a quotient algebra $`𝒜_L/_L`$. First we define a character $`ϵ:𝒞`$ by $`ϵ(f)=\widehat{f}(p)`$ where we chose p in the character such that it coincides with the map $``$. With this we may define an ideal of $`𝒜`$ as $`=\{a(bϵ(b))|b,a𝒜\}`$.

It is now strait forward to use the fundamental homeomorphism theorem kostrikin  to show that the below diagram commutes.

$`𝒜\widehat{𝒜}`$
$``$
$`𝒜/`$ (1)
To prove this we observe that it is enough to show that $``$ is in the kernel of the homomorphism between $`𝒜`$ and $`\widehat{𝒜}`$. But due to the choice of p that coincides with $``$ this is trivial. Thus the isomorphism between the quotient bundle and the fourier bundle is induced by the above diagram.

One may argue that the skipping of surface terms is unphysical, but it turns out that this can be seen as a counterterm procedure in the following way. Assume that the function is determined from some Lagrangian and depends only on the square of $`x_\mu `$. And that L fulfills the same invariance. The surface terms in n dimensional euclidian space can be written,

$`{\displaystyle _{S_ϵ}}𝑑\sigma _\mu f(x)\left({\displaystyle 𝑑x_\mu Lg}\right)=`$
$`ϵ^{n1}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{n/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n/2)}}f(0)\left({\displaystyle 𝑑x_\mu Lg}\right)_{x^2=ϵ^2}+𝒪(ϵ)`$ (2)
where $`S_ϵ`$ is the surface of an epsilon ball about the origin. We assume above that $`Lg`$ obeys euclidian invariance. This terms times a constant can be added to the Lagrangian as a counterterm as in dzf  and the constant determined to cancel the surface term in $``$. Further trouble may still arise at the boundary of an infinite sphere but in most cases where $`f`$ is an exponential this will be damped out by oscillations dzf .

The procedure of differential regularization and renormalization is an example of the above. Take $`\varphi ^4`$ theory as an example and look to the point $`(^2,1/x^4)`$. In the function bundle one has a logarithm with a free mass parameter as the function which $`^2`$ acts upon to produce $`1/x^4`$. The free parameter traces out a path through the section $`𝒜_^2`$ of the function bundle. The Fourier map takes this path onto a path through the corresponding Fourier section.

Future work must look into the problem of symmetries, and among them those which generate Ward identities. Due to the fact that regularization may invalidate the Ward identities among greens functions these are only formal for bare Green functions Perez . Although the function bundle contains bare Green functions it is in no way trivial to show that the map induced by the diagram will obey these symmetries and thus generate appropriate Ward identities which hold globally on the bundle. Symmetries such as gauge symmetries can be proved to be fulfilled on certain paths through the bundle dzf ; Perez  but to see if some general results may be obtained further work is necessary. The cases which has been checked using DRdzf  obeys Callan-Symanzik equations for the free parameters which trace out the path through the sections of the bundle. Generally one will have different integration constants for each $`L\xi `$. These can be coupled to each other using modified Ward identities that couple different paths together. So far this has just been done for a few examples mentioned earlier.

The bundles presented above gives a new way of viewing renormalization since we can look at the bundle of renormalizible functions as a whole. Certainly much work lie ahead if one is to understand the total structure of this construction, but the pavement is made and thus one may start the process of generalizing the ideas which has been set on formal basis during the past decades.