text:
# Aspects of spin-dependent dark matter search

## .1 Introduction

Nowadays the main efforts in the direct dark matter search experiments are concentrated in the field of so-called spin-independent (or scalar) interaction of a dark matter particle or the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP), with a nucleus. The lightest supersymmetric (SUSY) partilce (LSP) neutralino is assumed here as a best WIMP candidate. It is believed that this spin-independent (SI) interaction of dark matter (DM) particles with nuclei makes a dominant contribution to the expected event rate of detection of these particles. The reason is the strong (proportional to the squared mass of the target nucleus) enhancement of SI WIMP-nucleus interaction. The results currently obtained in the field are usually presented in the form of exclusion curves (see for example Fig. 1).

For the fixed mass of the WIMP the values of the cross section due to scalar elastic WIMP-nucleon interaction located above these curves are already excluded experimentally. There is also the DAMA closed contour which corresponds to the first claim for evidence for the dark matter signal due to the positive annual modulation effect Bernabei:2000qi .

In the paper we consider some aspects of the spin-dependent (or axial-vector) interaction of the DM WIMP with nuclei. There are at least three reasons to think that this spin-dependent (SD) interaction could also be very important. First, contrary to the only one constraint for SUSY models available from scalar WIMP-nucleus interaction, the spin WIMP-nucleus interaction supplies us with two such constraints (see for example Bednyakov:1994te  and formulas below). Second, one can notice Bednyakov:2000he ; Bednyakov:2002mb  that even with a very accurate DM detector (say, with sensitivity $`10^5`$events$`/`$day$`/`$kg) which is sensitive only to the WIMP-nucleus scalar interaction (with spinless target nuclei) one can, in principle, miss a DM signal. To safely avoid such a situation one should have a spin-sensitive DM detector, i.e. a detector with spin-non-zero target nuclei. Finally, there is a complicated (and theoretically very interesting) nucleus spin structure, which possesses the so-called long $`q`$-tail form-factor behavior for heavy targets and heavy WIMP. Therefore, the SD efficiency to detect a DM signal is much higher than the SI efficiency, especially for the heavy target nucleus and WIMP masses Engel:1991wq .

## .2 Zero Momentum Transfer

A dark matter event is elastic scattering of a relic neutralino $`\chi `$ (or $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$) from a target nucleus $`A`$ producing a nuclear recoil $`E_\mathrm{R}`$ which can be detected by a suitable detector. The differential event rate in respect to the recoil energy is the subject of experimental measurements. The rate depends on the distribution of the relic neutralinos in the solar vicinity $`f(v)`$ and the cross section of neutralino-nucleus elastic scattering Jungman:1996df ; Lewin:1996rx ; Smith:1990kw ; Bednyakov:1999yr ; Bednyakov:1996yt ; Bednyakov:1997ax ; Bednyakov:1997jr ; Bednyakov:1994qa . The differential event rate per unit mass of the target material has the form

$$\frac{dR}{dE_\mathrm{R}}=N\frac{\rho _\chi }{m_\chi }_{v_{\mathrm{min}}}^{v_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑vf(v)v\frac{d\sigma }{dq^2}(v,q^2).$$
(1)
The nuclear recoil energy $`E_\mathrm{R}=q^2/(2M_A)`$ is typically about $`10^6m_\chi `$ and $`N=𝒩/A`$ is the number density of target nuclei, where $`𝒩`$ is the Avogadro number and $`A`$ is the atomic mass of the nuclei with mass $`M_A`$. The neutralino-nucleus elastic scattering cross section for spin-non-zero ($`J0`$) nuclei contains coherent (spin-independent, or SI) and axial (spin-dependent, or SD) terms Engel:1992bf ; Engel:1991wq ; Ressell:1993qm :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^A}{dq^2}}(v,q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{||^2}{\pi v^2(2J+1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{SD}}^A(q^2)}{v^2(2J+1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{SI}}^A(q^2)}{v^2(2J+1)}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^A(0)}{4\mu _A^2v^2}}F_{\mathrm{SD}}^2(q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{SI}}^A(0)}{4\mu _A^2v^2}}F_{\mathrm{SI}}^2(q^2).`$
The normalized non-zero-momentum-transfer nuclear form-factors

$$F_{\mathrm{SD},\mathrm{SI}}^2(q^2)=\frac{S_{\mathrm{SD},\mathrm{SI}}^A(q^2)}{S_{\mathrm{SD},\mathrm{SI}}^A(0)}(F_{\mathrm{SD},\mathrm{SI}}^2(0)=1),$$
(3)
are defined via nuclear structure functions Engel:1992bf ; Engel:1991wq ; Ressell:1993qm

$`S_{\mathrm{SI}}^A(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L\mathrm{even}}{}}|J||𝒞_L(q)||J|^2|J||𝒞_0(q)||J|^2,`$ (4)
$`S_{\mathrm{SD}}^A(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L\mathrm{odd}}{}}\left(|N||𝒯_L^{el5}(q)||N|^2+|N||_L^5(q)||N|^2\right).`$ (5)
The transverse electric $`𝒯^{el5}(q)`$ and longitudinal $`^5(q)`$ multipole projections of the axial vector current operator, scalar function $`𝒞_L(q)`$ are given in the form

$`𝒯_L^{el5}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2L+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_0+a_1\tau _3^i}{2}}\left[\sqrt{L}M_{L,L+1}(q\stackrel{}{r}_i)+\sqrt{L+1}M_{L,L1}(q\stackrel{}{r}_i)\right],`$
$`_L^5(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2L+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1m_\pi ^2\tau _3^i}{2(q^2+m_\pi ^2)}}\right)\left[\sqrt{L+1}M_{L,L+1}(q\stackrel{}{r}_i)+\sqrt{L}M_{L,L1}(q\stackrel{}{r}_i)\right],`$
$`𝒞_L(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,\mathrm{nucleons}}{}}c_0j_L(qr_i)Y_L(\widehat{r}_i),𝒞_0(q)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_0j_0(qr_i)Y_0(\widehat{r}_i),`$
where $`a_{0,1}=a_n\pm a_p`$ (see (10)) and $`M_{L,L^{}}(q\stackrel{}{r}_i)=j_L^{}(qr_i)[Y_L^{}(\widehat{r}_i)\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i]^L`$ Engel:1992bf ; Engel:1991wq ; Ressell:1993qm . The nuclear SD and SI cross sections at $`q=0`$ (in (2)) have the forms

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{SI}}^A(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu _A^2S_{\mathrm{SI}}(0)}{(2J+1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _A^2}{\mu _p^2}}A^2\sigma _{\mathrm{SI}}^p(0),`$ (6)
$`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^A(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu _A^2S_{\mathrm{SD}}(0)}{(2J+1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\mu _A^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(J+1)}{J}}\left\{a_p𝐒_p^A+a_n𝐒_n^A\right\}^2`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _A^2}{\mu _{p,n}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(J+1)}{3J}}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^p(0)}𝐒_p^A+\mathrm{sign}(a_pa_n)\sqrt{\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^n(0)}𝐒_n^A\right\}^2.`$ (8)
Here $`\mu _A={\displaystyle \frac{m_\chi M_A}{m_\chi +M_A}}`$ is the reduced neutralino-nucleus mass. The zero-momentum-transfer proton and neutron SI and SD cross sections

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{SI}}^p(0)=4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _p^2}{\pi }}c_0^2,`$ $`c_0c_0^{(p,n)}={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}𝒞_qf_q^{(p,n)};`$ (9)
$`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^{p,n}(0)=12{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{p,n}^2}{\pi }}a_{p,n}^2`$ $`a_n={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}𝒜_q\mathrm{\Delta }_q^{(p)},a_p={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}𝒜_q\mathrm{\Delta }_q^{(n)}`$ (10)
depend on the effective neutralino-quark scalar $`𝒞_q`$ and axial-vector $`𝒜_q`$ couplings from the effective Lagrangian

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{q}{}\left(𝒜_q\overline{\chi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\chi \overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5q+𝒞_q\overline{\chi }\chi \overline{q}q\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(11)
and on the spin ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_q^{(p,n)}`$) and mass ($`f_q^{(p,n)}`$) structure of nucleons. The factors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q^{(p,n)}`$ parametrize the quark spin content of the nucleon and are defined by the relation $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_q^{(n,p)}s^\mu p,s|\overline{\psi }_q\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\psi _q|p,s_{(p,n)}`$. The total nuclear spin (proton, neutron) operator is defined as follows

$$𝐒_{p,n}=\underset{i}{\overset{A}{}}𝐬_{p,n}(i),$$
(12)
where $`i`$ runs over all nucleons. Further the convention is used that all angular momentum operators are evaluated in their $`z`$-projection in the maximal $`M_J`$ state, e.g.

$$𝐒N|𝐒|NJ,M_J=J|S_z|J,M_J=J.$$
(13)
Therefore $`𝐒_{p(n)}`$ is the spin of the proton (neutron) averaged over all nucleons in the nucleus $`A`$. The cross sections at zero momentum transfer show strong dependence on the nuclear structure of the ground state Engel:1995gw ; Ressell:1997kx ; Divari:2000dc .

The relic neutralinos in the halo of our Galaxy have a mean velocity of $`v300\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}=10^3c`$. When the product $`q_{\mathrm{max}}R1`$, where $`R`$ is the nuclear radius and $`q_{\mathrm{max}}=2\mu _Av`$ is the maximum momentum transfer in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }A`$ scattering, the matrix element for the spin-dependent $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }A`$ scattering reduces to a very simple form (zero momentum transfer limitEngel:1995gw ; Ressell:1997kx :

$$=CN|a_p𝐒_p+a_n𝐒_n|N𝐬_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=C\mathrm{\Lambda }N|𝐉|N𝐬_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}.$$
(14)
Here $`𝐬_\chi `$ is the spin of the neutralino, and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{N|a_p𝐒_p+a_n𝐒_n|N}{N|𝐉|N}=\frac{N|(a_p𝐒_p+a_n𝐒_n)𝐉|N}{J(J+1)}.$$
(15)
It is seen that the $`\chi `$ couples to the spin carried by the protons and the neutrons. The normalization $`C`$ involves the coupling constants, masses of the exchanged bosons and various LSP mixing parameters that have no effect upon the nuclear matrix element Griest:1988ma . In the limit of zero momentum transfer $`q=0`$ the spin structure function (5) reduces to

$$S_{\mathrm{SD}}^A(0)=\frac{2J+1}{\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2J(J+1).$$
(16)
Perhaps the first model to estimate the spin content in the nucleus for the dark matter search was the independent single-particle shell model (ISPSM) used originally by Goodman and Witten Goodman:1985dc  and later in Drukier:1986tm ; Ellis:1988sh ; Smith:1990kw . The ground state value of the nuclear total spin $`J`$ can be described by those of one extra nucleon interacting with the effective potential of the nuclear core.

There are nuclear structure calculations (including non-zero-momentum approximation) for spin-dependent neutralino interaction with helium 3He Vergados:1996hs ; fluorine 19F Vergados:2002bb ; Divari:2000dc ; Vergados:1996hs ; sodium 23Na Vergados:2002bb ; Ressell:1997kx ; Divari:2000dc ; Vergados:1996hs ; aluminium 27Al Engel:1995gw ; silicon 29Si Vergados:2002bb ; Ressell:1993qm ; Divari:2000dc ; chlorine 35Cl Ressell:1993qm ; potassium 39K Engel:1995gw ; germanium 73Ge Ressell:1993qm ; Dimitrov:1995gc ; niobium 93Nd Engel:1992qb ; iodine 127I Ressell:1997kx ; xenon 129Xe Ressell:1997kx  and 131Xe Ressell:1997kx ; Nikolaev:1993vw ; Engel:1991wq ; tellurium 123Te Nikolaev:1993vw  and 125Te Ressell:1997kx ; lead 208Pb Kosmas:1997jm ; Vergados:1996hs . The zero-momentum case is also investigated for Cd, Cs, Ba and La in Pacheco:1989jz ; Nikolaev:1993vw ; Iachello:1991ut .

There are several approaches (advocated by a few groups of researchers) to the more accurate calculation of the nuclear structure effects relevant to the dark matter detection. To the best of our knowledge an almost full list of the models includes the Odd Group Model (OGM) of Engel and Vogel Engel:1989ix  and their extended OGM (EOGM) Engel:1989ix ; Engel:1992bf ; Interacting Boson Fermion Model (IBFM) of Iachello, Krauss, and Maino Iachello:1991ut ; Theory of Finite Fermi Systems (TFFS) of Nikolaev and Klapdor-Kleingrothaus Nikolaev:1993dd ; Quasi Tamm-Dancoff Approximation (QTDA) of Engel Engel:1991wq ; different shell model treatments (SM) by Pacheco and Strottman Pacheco:1989jz ; by Engel, Pittel, Ormand and Vogel Engel:1992qb  and Engel, Ressell, Towner and Ormand, Engel:1995gw , by Ressell et al. Ressell:1993qm  and Ressell and Dean Ressell:1997kx ; by Kosmas, Vergados et al. Vergados:1996hs ; Kosmas:1997jm ; Divari:2000dc ; so-called “hybrid” model of Dimitrov, Engel and Pittel Dimitrov:1995gc  and perturbation theory (PT) based on calculations of Engel et al. Engel:1995gw .

## .3 Spin constraints

For the spin-zero nuclear target the experimentally measured event rate (1) of direct DM particle detection via formula (2) is connected with zero-momentum WIMP-proton (for the neutron the cross section is the same) cross section (7). The zero momentum scalar WIMP-proton (neutron) cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SI}}^p(0)`$ can be expressed through effective neutralino-quark couplings $`𝒞_q`$ (11) by means of expression (9). These couplings $`𝒞_q`$ (as well as $`𝒜_q`$) can be directly connected with the fundamental parameters of a SUSY model such as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`M_{1,2}`$, $`\mu `$, masses of sfermions and Higgs bosons, etc. Therefore experimental limitations on the spin-independent neutralino-nucleon cross section supply us with a constraint on the fundamental parameters of an underlying SUSY model.

In the case of the spin-dependent WIMP-nucleus interaction from measured differential rate (1) one first extracts limitation for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^A(0)`$ and therefore has in principle two constraints Bednyakov:1994te  for the neutralino-proton $`a_p`$ and neutralino-neutron $`a_n`$ spin effective couplings as follows from relation (7). From (7) one can also see that contrary to spin-independent case (6) there is no factorization of the nuclear structure for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^A(0)`$. Both proton $`𝐒_p^A`$ and neutron $`𝐒_n^A`$ spin contributions simultaneously entering formula (7) for the SD WIMP-nuclear cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^A(0)`$.

In the earlier considerations based on the OGM Engel:1989ix ; Engel:1992bf  one assumed that the nuclear spin is carried by the “odd” unpaired group of protons or neutrons and only one of either $`𝐒_n^A`$ or $`𝐒_p^A`$ is non-zero (the same is true in the ISPSM Goodman:1985dc ; Drukier:1986tm ; Ellis:1988sh ; Smith:1990kw ). In this case all possible target nuclei can naturally be classified into n-odd and p-odd groups. The current experimental situation for the spin-dependent WIMP-proton cross section is given in Fig. 2. The data are taken from experiments BRS, (NaI, 1992) Bacci:1994ip ; Bacci:1992pd , BPRS (CaF2, 1993) Bacci:1994tt , EDELWEISS (sapphire, 1996) deBellefon:1996jh , DAMA (NAI, 1996) Bernabei:1996vj , DAMA (CaF2, 1999) Bernabei:1997qb ; Belli:1999xh , UKDMS (NaI, 1996) Sarsa:1996pa ; Smith:1996fu ; Sumner:1999yw ; Spooner:2000kt , ELEGANT (CaF2, 1998) Ogawa:2000vi , ELEGANT (NaI, 1999) Fushimi:1999kp ; Yoshida:2000df , Tokio (LiF, 1999, 2002) Ootani:1998jy ; Minowa:1998ai ; Ootani:1999pt ; Ootani:1999xv ; Miuchi:2002zp , SIMPLE (C2ClF5, 2001) Collar:2000zw , CRESST (Al2O3, 2002) Angloher:2002in , PICASSO (CnFm, 2002) Boukhira:2002qj , ANAIS (NaI, 2002) Cebrian:2002vd  and NAIAD (NaI, 2003) Ahmed:2003su . The current experimental situation for the spin-dependent WIMP-neutron cross section is given in Fig. 3. The data are taken from the first experiments with natural Ge (1988, 1991) Caldwell:1988su ; Reusser:1991ri , xenon (DAMA/Xe-0,2) Belli:1996sh ; Belli:1996yf ; Bernabei:1998ad  and sodium iodide (NAIAD) Ahmed:2003su . In the future one can also expect exclusion curves for the SD cross section, for example, from the EDELWEISS and CDMS experiments with natural germanium bolometric detectors.

From Fig. 4 one can conclude that an about two-orders-of-magnitude improvement of the current DM experiment sensitivities is needed to reach the SUSY predictions for the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^p`$ provided the SUSY lightest neutralino (LSP) is the best WIMP particle candidate. There is the same situation for the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^n`$.

Further more accurate calculations of Iachello:1991ut ; Engel:1991wq ; Pacheco:1989jz ; Engel:1992qb ; Engel:1995gw ; Dimitrov:1995gc ; Ressell:1993qm ; Ressell:1997kx ; Vergados:1996hs ; Kosmas:1997jm ; Divari:2000dc  demonstrate that contrary to the simplified odd-group approach both $`𝐒_p^A`$ and $`𝐒_n^A`$ differ from zero, but nevertheless one of these spin quantities always dominates ($`𝐒_p^A𝐒_n^A`$, or $`𝐒_n^A𝐒_p^A`$). If together with the dominance like $`𝐒_{p(n)}^A𝐒_{n(p)}^A`$ one would have the WIMP-proton and WIMP-neutron couplings of the same order of magnitude (not $`a_{n(p)}a_{p(n)}`$), the situation could look like that in the odd-group model.

Nevertheless it was shown in Tovey:2000mm  that in the general SUSY model one can meet a case when $`a_{n(p)}a_{p(n)}`$. To solve the problem (to separate SD proton and neutron constraints) at least two new approaches were proposed. As the authors of Tovey:2000mm  claimed, their method has the advantage that the limits on individual WIMP-proton and WIMP-neutron SD cross sections for a given WIMP mass can be combined to give a model-independent limit on the properties of WIMP scattering from both protons and neutrons in the target nucleus. The method relies on the assumption that the WIMP-nuclear SD cross section can be presented in the form $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^A(0)=\left(\sqrt{\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^p|_A}\pm \sqrt{\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^n|_A}\right)^2`$, where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^p|_A`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^n|_A`$ are auxiliary quantities, not directly connected with measurements. Furthermore, to extract, for example, a constraint on the sub-dominant WIMP-proton spin contribution one should assume the proton contribution dominance for a nucleus whose spin is almost completely determined by the neutron-odd group. It may seem useless, especially because these sub-dominant constraints are always much weaker than the relevant constraints obtained directly with a proton-odd group target.

Another approach of Bernabei:2001ve  is based on introduction of another auxiliary quantity $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}=12{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _p^2}{\pi }}(a_p^2+a_n^2)`$, where $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =a_n/a_p`$. With these definitions the SD WIMP-proton and WIMP-neutron cross section can be given in the form $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^{n(p)}(0)=\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$. In Fig. 5 the WIMP-nucleon spin-mixed and scalar couplings allowed by annual modulation signature from the 100-kg DAMA/NaI experiment (57986 kg day) are given by filled region. The region (at 3 $`\sigma `$ C.L.) in the ($`\xi \sigma _{\mathrm{SI}}`$, $`\xi \sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}`$) space for 40 GeV$`<m_{\mathrm{WIMP}}<`$110 GeV covers all four particular couplings ($`\theta `$ = 0, $`\theta `$ = $`\pi /4`$, $`\theta `$ = $`\pi /2`$ and $`\theta `$ = 2.435 rad) reported in Bernabei:2001ve . Scatter plots give $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SI}}^p(0)`$ versus $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}`$ in effMSSM with $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$ and all coannihilation channels included from Bednyakov:2002dz  under the assumption of $`\xi =1`$. Red stars correspond to the same calculations but with $`m_{\mathrm{LSP}}<150`$GeV. In this mixed case the limits for the spin couplings depend on assumptions about the scalar coupling, and the relevant exclusion curve for the spin-dependent WIMP-proton cross section (not given in Fig. 2) can not be simply extracted from these mixed results of Bernabei:2003xg .

## .4 The role of the germanium-73 isotope

Comparing the number of exclusion curves in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 one can easily see that there are many measurements with p-odd nuclei and there is a lack of data for n-odd nuclei, i.e. for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^n`$. Therefore measurements with n-odd nuclei are needed. From our point of view this lack of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^n`$ measurements can be filled with new data expected from the HDMS experiment with the high-spin isotope 73Ge Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2002pg . This isotope looks with a good accuracy like an almost pure n-odd group nucleus with $`𝐒_n𝐒_p`$ (Table 1). The variation of the $`𝐒_p`$ and $`𝐒_n`$ in the table reflects the level of inaccuracy and complexity of the current nuclear structure calculations.

On the other hand, Fig. 6 shows that for the ratio of $`a_n`$ to $`a_p`$ one can have the bounds

$$0.55<\left|\frac{a_n}{a_p}\right|<0.8.$$

The scatter plots in Fig. 6 were obtained in effMSSM Bednyakov:2002dz  when all coannihilation channels were included. The blue squares (black points) were calcualted with (without) the relic neutralino density constraint $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$. Therefore in the model the couplings are almost the same and one can safely neglect the $`𝐒_p^A`$-spin contribution in the analysis of the DM data with the 73Ge target (for which $`𝐒_p^A𝐒_n^A`$).

We would like to advocate the old odd-group-like approach for experiments with germanium detectors. Of course, from measurements with 73Ge one can extract not only the dominant constraint for WIMP-nucleon coupling $`a_n`$ (or $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^n`$) but also the constraint for the sub-dominant WIMP-proton coupling $`a_p`$ (or $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^p`$) using the approach of Tovey:2000mm . Nevertheless, the latter constraint will be much weaker in comparison with the constraints from p-odd group nuclear targets, like 19F or NaI. The fact illustrates the NAIAD (NaI, 2003) curve in Fig. 3, which corresponds to the sub-dominant WIMP-neutron spin contribution extracted from the p-odd nucleus Na.

## .5 Finite Momentum Transfer

As $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ becomes larger, the product $`qR`$ ceases to be negligible and the finite momentum transfer limit must be considered for heavier nuclei. With the isoscalar coupling constant $`a_0=a_n+a_p`$ and the corresponding isovector coupling constant $`a_1=a_pa_n`$ one splits $`S_{\mathrm{SD}}^A(q)`$ into a pure isoscalar, $`S_{00}`$, a pure isovector, $`S_{11}`$, and an interference term, $`S_{01}`$ Ressell:1997kx ; Ressell:1993qm :

$$S_{\mathrm{SD}}^A(q)=a_0^2S_{00}^A(q)+a_1^2S_{11}^A(q)+a_0a_1S_{01}^A(q).$$
(17)
The differential SD event rate has the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR_{\mathrm{SD}}^A}{dq^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}m_A}}{\displaystyle v𝑑vf(v)\frac{8G_F^2}{(2J+1)v^2}S_{\mathrm{SD}}^A(q)}.`$ (18)
Comparing the differential rate (18) together with the spin structure functions of (17) with the observed recoil spectra for different targets (Ge, Xe, F, NaI, etc) one can directly and simultaneously restrict both isoscalar and isovector neutralino-nucleon effective couplings $`a_{0,1}`$. These constraints will impose most model-independent restrictions on the MSSM parameter space free from any assumption of Tovey:2000mm ; Bernabei:2001ve . Perhaps, it would be the best to fit all data directly Tovey:2000mm  in terms of neutralino proton and neutron effective spin couplings $`a_{0,1}`$ or $`a_{p,n}`$ (see for example analysis of Miuchi:2002zp ) and not to use such spin quantities as $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^{p,n}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}`$.

Another attractive feature of the spin-dependent WIMP-nucleus interaction is the $`q`$-dependence of SD structure function (17). One knows that the ratio of SD to SI rate in the 73Ge detector grows with the WIMP mass Bednyakov:2000he ; Bednyakov:2002mb . The growth is much greater for heavy target isotopes like xenon. The reason is the different behavior of the spin and scalar structure functions with increasing momentum transfer. For example, the xenon SI structure function vanishes for $`q^20.02`$ GeV, but the SD structure function is a non-zero constant in the region (Fig. 7).

As noted by Engel in Engel:1991wq , the relatively long tail of the SD structure function is caused by nucleons near the Fermi surface, which do the bulk of the scattering. The core nucleons, which dominate the SI nuclear coupling, contribute much less at large $`q`$. Therefore the SD efficiency for detection of a DM signal is higher than the SI efficiency, especially for very heavy neutralinos.

## .6 Conclusion

The idea of this review paper is to attract attention to the role of the spin-dependent WIMP-nucleus interaction in the dark matter search experiments. The importance of this interaction is discussed. The fullest possible set of currently available exclusion curves for spin-dependent WIMP-proton and WIMP-neutron cross sections is given in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. Nowadays about two-orders-of-magnitude improvement of the current DM experiment sensitivities is needed to reach the SUSY predictions for the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}^{p,n}`$. It is noted that a near-future experiment like HDMS Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2002pg  with the high-spin isotope 73Ge being an almost pure n-odd nucleus can fill in this gap and can supply us with new important constraints for SUSY models.

The author thanks Prof. H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus for permanent collaboration and interest in the work, Drs. V.A. Kuzmin and F. Simkovic for helpful discussions and the RFBR (Grant 02–02–04009) for the support.


format: text

text:
# On Dirac sheet configurations of 𝑆𝑈(2) lattice fields

## 1 Introduction

In the confined phase, below but sufficiently close to $`T_c`$, applying cooling to Monte Carlo generated $`SU(2)`$ lattice gauge fields has shown a dyonic structure of metastable action plateaus . The dyons themselves correspond, in a good approximation, to the constituents of Kraan-van Baal-Lee-Lu (KvBLL) caloron solutions . The same cooling applied to lattice configurations in the deconfined phase acts entirely differently. There is no remnant dyonic structure. Instead of this, there are metastable events on some lowest action plateau (actually significantly below the one-instanton action $`S_{inst}=2\pi ^2`$). These configurations have vanishing topological density, and the action is purely magnetic. Such configurations have been already observed and discussed many years ago in papers by Laursen and Schierholz , and Veselov and Polikarpov .

In the present paper, from the perspective gained with the dyonic structure at high enough temperature, we try to give a new interpretation of the lowest action configurations seen in Refs. . For this goal we study them both in confined and deconfined phases. In the confinement phase we are in the fortunate position that we can observe the parent configurations which sometimes evolve into the configurations considered here. In all observed cases this parent configuration was a dyon-antidyon pair. Contrary to this, in the deconfined phase the cooling technique has been unable to exhibit potential parent configurations in the form of action plateaus, i.e. approximate solutions of the lattice equations of motion (metastable plateaus of action). We have critically examined the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole structure of the cooled configurations emerging from the deconfinement phase that was suggested in Ref. . We do confirm to see a minor fraction of magnetic configurations which resemble ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopoles at a first view. However, even for these rare events we find only a weak correlation between the localization of magnetic action and the positions of monopoles defined either in terms of the Polyakov line or of the magnetic charge in the Weyl gauge.

On the contrary, the similarity of the action dependence for these configurations on the spatial size of the lattice suggestively points toward their common nature. Most likely, in both cases we would expect quantized magnetic fluxes. The returned flux (unavoidable in the maximal Abelian projection for periodic boundary conditions and manifesting itself as a Dirac string) can be visualized as Dirac sheet (swept out by a Dirac string moving in Euclidean time). Hence, we adopt the name Dirac Sheets (DS) for this class of observed cooled lattice configurations. DS configurations are known as exact solutions of the lattice field equations in $`U(1)`$ LGT .

The paper is organized as follows.

In Section 2 we will provide all necessary lattice definitions, in particular the observables considered in order to identify KvB and DS solutions.

In Section 3 we report on the statistics and the properties of DS events observed both in the confined and the deconfined phases.

Section 4 contains our conclusions.

## 2 Production and characterization of DS solutions

Throughout this paper $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory in four-dimensional Euclidean space is considered on an asymmetric lattice with periodic boundary conditions in all four directions. The respective ensembles of configurations have been created by heat bath Monte Carlo using the standard Wilson plaquette action

$`S={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{x},t}{}}s(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{x},t}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu <\nu }{}}s(\stackrel{}{x},t;\mu ,\nu ),`$ (1)
$`s(\stackrel{}{x},t;\mu ,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}U_{x,\mu \nu }),U_{x,\mu \nu }=U_{x,\mu }U_{x+\widehat{\mu },\nu }U_{x+\widehat{\nu },\mu }^{}U_{x,\nu }^{}`$
with inverse coupling $`\beta =4/g_0^2`$. For simplicity the lattice spacing is set equal to $`a=1`$. The lattice size was $`N_s^3\times N_t`$ with the spatial extension $`N_s=8,10,12,16,20`$ and with the inverse physical temperature $`T^1N_t=4`$. For $`N_t=4`$ the model is known to undergo the deconfinement phase transition at the critical coupling $`\beta _c2.299`$ . Throughout this paper we will use two ensembles with $`\beta =2.2<\beta _c`$ and $`\beta =2.4>\beta _c`$.

The equilibrium field configurations in both ensembles have been cooled by iterative minimization of the Wilson action $`S`$. In one or another form, cooling is used in order to smooth out short-range fluctuations, while (initially) leaving untouched some large-scale properties of the configurations. The cooling method applied here is the standard relaxation method described long time ago in  and was used for investigation of instantons .

This method, if applied without any further limitation, easily finds approximate solutions of the lattice field equations as shoulders (plateaus) of the action as a function of cooling steps (relaxation history). Here we shall concentrate on smoothed fields at the very last stages of cooling, using a stopping criterium which selects the plateaus in the interval of action $`S0.6S_{\mathrm{inst}}.`$.

The emerging gauge field configurations were analyzed according to the spatial distributions of the following observables:

* action density computed from the local plaquette values:

$$s(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\underset{\mu <\nu }{}s(\stackrel{}{x},t;\mu ,\nu ),$$
(2)
(see eq.(1));
* topological density computed with the standard twisted plaquette discretization:

$$q_t(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{1}{2^432\pi ^2}\underset{\mu ,\nu ,\rho ,\sigma =\pm 1}{\overset{\pm 4}{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\mathrm{tr}\left[U_{x,\mu \nu }U_{x,\rho \sigma }\right];$$
(3)
* Polyakov loop defined as:

$$L(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}P$$
(4)
with

$$P(\stackrel{}{x})=\underset{t=1}{\overset{N_t}{}}U_{\stackrel{}{x},t,4},$$
(5)
where the $`U_{\stackrel{}{x},t,4}`$ represent the links in time direction;
* non-stationarity  defined as:

$$\delta _t=\underset{\stackrel{}{x},t}{}|s(\stackrel{}{x},t+1)s(\stackrel{}{x},t)|/S;$$
(6)
* violation of equations of motion $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{4N_s^3N_t}\underset{x,\mu }{}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\left[(U_{x,\mu }\overline{U}_{x,\mu })(U_{x,\mu }\overline{U}_{x,\mu })^{}\right],$$
(7)
where

$$\overline{U}_{x,\mu }=c\underset{\nu \mu }{}\left[U_{x,\nu }U_{x+\widehat{\nu },\mu }U_{x+\widehat{\mu },\nu }^{}+U_{x\widehat{\nu },\nu }^{}U_{x\widehat{\nu },\mu }U_{x+\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu },\nu }\right]$$

is the local link $`x,\mu `$ being the solution of the lattice equation of motion, with all degrees of freedom coupled to it held fixed. The factor $`c`$ is just a normalization of the staple sum such that $`\overline{U}_{x,\mu }SU(2)`$ 111The replacement $`U_{x,\mu }\overline{U}_{x,\mu }`$ is exactly the local cooling step as applied throughout this paper..
* Abelian magnetic fluxes and monopole charges defined within the Weyl (or generalized temporal) gauge, $`_0A_0=0`$, and the maximally Abelian gauge (MAG). The first one is obtained from the Polyakov gauge (PolG, achieved by diagonalizing $`P(x)`$ in each lattice site, followed by Abelian gauge transformations which render the (then diagonal) temporal links $`U_{\stackrel{}{x},\tau ;4}`$ independent on time $`\tau `$. The latter is found by maximizing the gauge functional $`A`$

$$A[g]=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x,\mu }{}\mathrm{tr}(U_{x,\mu }^g\tau _3U_{x,\mu }^g\tau _3),$$
(8)
under gauge transformations $`U_{x,\mu }U_{x,\mu }^g=g(x)U_{x,\mu }g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })`$. The abelianicity is the maximum value of this quantity divided by the number of links.

In both cases, Abelian link angles $`\theta _{x,\mu }`$ are then defined by Abelian projection onto the diagonal $`U(1)`$ part of the link variables $`U_{x,\mu }SU(2)`$. According to the DeGrand-Toussaint prescription  a gauge invariant magnetic flux $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_p`$ through an oriented plaquette $`p(x,\mu \nu )`$ is defined by splitting the plaquette $`\mathrm{\Theta }_p=\theta _{x,\mu }+\theta _{x+\widehat{\mu },\nu }\theta _{x+\widehat{\nu },\mu }\theta _{x,\nu }`$ into $`\mathrm{\Theta }_p=\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_p+2\pi n_p,n_p=0,\pm 1,\pm 2`$ such that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_p(\pi ,+\pi ]`$. The magnetic charge of an elementary 3-cube $`c`$ is then $`m_c=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{pc}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_p.`$

For the cooling procedure of equilibrium gauge field configurations we have kept the standard periodic boundary conditions on the $`4D`$ torus.

Finally, cooling was stopped at some ($`n`$-th) cooling iteration step when the following criteria for the action $`S_n`$ were simultaneously fulfilled:

* $`S_n<0.6S_{\mathrm{inst}}`$,
* $`S_n2S_{n1}+S_{n2}<0`$.

The last condition means that the relaxation just passed a point of inflection. As we have empirically observed, the point of inflection always coincides, within an accuracy of plus/minus one global cooling step, with a minimal violation of the equations of motion $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This can be understood as follows. If violation of equations of motion $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, i.e. equations of motion are fulfilled we are in the local minimum of the action where its variation is zero. If violation of equations of motion $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has the minimum the variation of the action has also the minimum and second variation of the action is zero what means that the action goes through the point of inflection.

## 3 Properties of Dirac Sheets in the confined and the deconfined phases

### 3.1 Cooling

We have investigated DS events on lattices $`N_s^3\times N_t`$ with $`N_t=4`$ and $`N_s=8,10,12,16,20`$. The statistics and the mean actions of various types of configurations selected by the cooling process are presented in Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2 where the dependence of $`\overline{S}/S_{inst}`$ on $`N_s/N_t`$ and $`N_t/N_s`$ is shown to have the tendency $`S_{DS}/S_{inst}N_t/N_s`$. Their properties are summarized in Table 2 and illustrated by the remaining Figures. We have found DS becoming very stable at action values $`S_{\mathrm{inst}}N_t/N_s`$. The (color-)electric contribution to the total action is very small compared with the magnetic contribution. Moreover, they are perfectly static with the values of nonstaticities $`\delta _t`$ shown in Table 2. Employing MAG we have convinced ourselves that they are almost Abelian (see the abelianicity $`A`$ in Table 2), and only a small fraction contains MAG monopoles.

In the confinement phase it happens quite rarely that they appear directly in the result of the cooling process. In all cases observed they appear after dyon-antidyon pairs have been observed at $`SS_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ which annihilate in the final stage of relaxation. The Abelian monopole content of DS in the deconfinement phase, if it is obtained by Abelian projection in the Weyl gauge, amounts to monopole-antimonopole pairs being present in $`60÷90\%`$ of those cooled configurations.

We originally had found this type of solution for fixed holonomy boundary conditions (f.h.b.c.) . These DS for f.h.b.c. were seen to be oriented very exactly in plane and to have non-zero action for plaquettes in one of the space-space coordinate planes $`(x,y)`$, $`(x,z)`$ or $`(y,z)`$. They had the same action values $`S/S_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ as we have found lateron for the case of periodic boundary conditions. We had also found configurations which contained two DS orthogonal to each other at action values twice as large than for one DS. We shall not further comment on such events in this paper.

### 3.2 Can DS configurations be viewed as ’t Hooft-Polyakov
monopoles in the deconfinement phase ?

In contrast to previous parlance (these configurations have been called ”monopole” ($`M`$) configurations in Refs. ) we have called them here Dirac Sheet (DS) configurations from the beginning. Now we want to provide some more facts supporting this interpretation. In the beginning let us recall several features which originally suggested the interpretation as ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopoles.

There should be

* a minimum of the dynamically generated ”Higgs field” $`\mathrm{tr}(A_0/T)^2`$
* a maximum of the (almost purely) magnetic action density $`\mathrm{tr}B^2`$
* a pair of pointlike Abelian magnetic charges, one carrying action and the other being spurious.

.

We have studied these signatures for our configurations cooled down below the one-instanton level starting from the deconfinement phase, i.e. from equilibrium Monte Carlo configurations on a $`16^3\times 4`$ lattice at $`\beta =2.4`$. All these configurations have one maximum of the magnetic action and a relatively shallow maximum of the Polyakov line. A subset of these configurations, considered in the Weyl or maximally Abelian gauge, respectively, has a pair of corresponding static magnetic charges. The relative frequencies actually to find the indicated Abelian monopole structure is given in Table 2.

One of the cooled configurations with a Weyl gauge monopole pair is portrayed in Figure 3 where we show the profiles of action density and Polyakov line over the $`(x,z)`$ plane which cuts the configuration and contains the maximum of action density. In Figure 4 the positions of the static monopole pair are projected onto that $`(x,z)`$ plane. This event indeed shows a structure as reported in Ref. .

For a more quantitative assessment, we have compared the positions of the maxima of three-dimensional action density and the Polyakov loop. We found the average distance equal to $`7\pm 2`$ lattice spacings, whereas for the maximum of the action density and the position of the nearest Weyl gauge magnetic monopole the distances are somewhat less, $`5.2\pm 1.6`$ lattice spacings. These distances are certainly smaller than the maximal three-dimensional distance $`8\sqrt{3}13`$ but are difficult to reconcile with a static extended particle (monopole) interpretation.

Monopoles obtained in the MAG are present only in approximately $`<15\%`$ of all DS events (see also Table 2). One of the rare cases when a DS event in the deconfinement phase shows an Abelian monopole-antimonopole pair in MAG is presented in Figs.5 and 6.

### 3.3 More on the Dirac sheet interpretation

At this point it might be useful to focus on the striking volume dependence of the action (common to both phases) and on the surprising stability of the cooled DS configurations (which distinguishes the confinement phase) in order to understand similarities and differences between the ways how these configurations originate from the respective vacuum of the two phases.

The dependence of $`\overline{S}/S_{inst}`$ on $`N_s/N_t`$ and $`N_t/N_s`$ is shown on Figures 1 and 2. In the confined phase for $`N_s=20`$ all 7 DS events were absolutely stable with $`S_{DS}/S_{inst}=N_t/N_s`$. The number $`N_t/N_s`$ can be understood as follows. Let there be a quantized homogeneous Abelian magnetic flux in some spatial ($`x`$, $`y`$ or $`z`$) direction. The Abelian magnetic field is equal to $`B_x^3=4\pi /N_s^2`$. Its action is equal to

$$S_{DS}=\frac{4}{g_0^2}(1\mathrm{cos}(\frac{B_x^3}{2}))N_s^3N_t\frac{1}{2g_0^2}(B_x^3)^2N_s^3N_t=\frac{8\pi ^2}{g_0^2}\frac{N_t}{N_s}=S_{inst}\frac{N_t}{N_s}.$$
(9)
All 7 DS events in the confined phase for $`N_s=20`$ (when put into MAG) show such an Abelian magnetic field. There arises the question: why for other (smaller) $`N_s`$ in the confined phase the fluxes are not always homogeneous and absolutely stable, and why the fluxes are unstable for all $`N_s`$ in the deconfined phase. The probable answer is that magnetic flux (during the process of $`D\overline{D}`$ annihilation) is not always closed over the ”boundary” in some periodic spatial direction. If the size of dyons in the $`D\overline{D}`$ pair is small compared to the spatial size of the lattice, the annihilation is almost pointlike and the magnetic flux has a good chance to be closed.

The size distribution of dyons depends on holonomy. In the confined phase the measure of holonomy $`L=\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \omega )`$ ($`\omega `$ being the holonomy parameter) is distributed in the neighbourhood of zero. For lower plateaus of action the distribution approaches more and more the semicircle law (Haar measure). Then $`\omega `$ is distributed over the range $`0\omega 1/2`$ and the size of the lighter dyon as known from the KvB solution ($`N_t/4\pi \omega `$ for $`0\omega 1/4`$ and $`N_t/4\pi (1/2\omega )`$ for $`1/4\omega 1/2`$ measured in lattice spacings) varies from $`N_t/\pi `$ to the maximal value possible on the finite lattice. In the deconfined phase, the holonomy becomes closer and closer to the trivial one ($`L\pm 1`$) and the dyons (in the dyon-antidyon pair) are strongly delocalized. As mentioned in the Introduction, during cooling in the deconfined phase the dyon-antidyon pair itself does not become visible on a well-established plateau.

The correlation between holonomy and stability of DS events is shown in Figure 7 for both phases. It can be understood if the configurations are really emerging from the annihilation of a dyon-antidyon pair. The Figure presents scatter plots where each DS event is represented by two points: ($`s_{min}`$, holonomy) and ($`s_{max}`$, holonomy) with $`s_{min}`$ and $`s_{max}`$ being the action density at sites where it is minimal and maximal, respectively). Provided that the holonomy remains far enough from trivial, we obtain DS events from the confined phase which consist of homogeneous Abelian magnetic fluxes. The homogeneity is expressed by $`s_{min}=s_{max}`$ and corresponds to the successful annihilation of more or less pointlike dyon-antidyon pairs. However, for values of holonomy close to trivial holonomy DS events in both confined and deconfined phase occur as unstable magnetic fluxes which are not closed as the result of annihilation of less localized (and ”massless”, i. e. low-action) dyons. The unstable DS in confined and deconfined phases have similar characteristics as can be seen from the first and third rows (shown separately for each $`N_s`$) in Table 2.

So, unstable DS events in confined and deconfined phases are similar. There is no absolute gap between unstable and absolutely stable DS events in the confined phase. This can be an argument in favor of their common nature. The stable DS events found in the confined phase are purely Abelian magnetic fluxes.

## 4 Conclusions

We have generated $`SU(2)`$ lattice gauge fields at non-zero temperature, both in the confined and the deconfined phases. We have cooled them in order to analyze the structure of the lowest action plateau (which in fact is below the one-instanton action). We have found certain structures (”Dirac sheets”) that resemble homogeneous Abelian magnetic fluxes. The action dependence on the spatial lattice size $`N_s`$ favors such an interpretation. For the deconfinement phase, where an ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole interpretation has been advocated, the loose correlation between different possible definitions of how to localize the monopole as an extended heavy particle makes this picture less convincing. Instead, we have looked for another interpretation in terms of how the original dyonic structure (which is different in the two phases) becomes destroyed by the cooling process. In the infinite volume limit $`N_s\mathrm{}`$, these DS structures disappear. Therefore, we interprete them as artefacts of the finite lattice volume.

## Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the kind hospitality of the Instituut-Lorentz of the Universiteit Leiden extended to three of us (E.-M.I., B.V.M. and M.M.-P.) and helpful discussions with Pierre van Baal and Falk Bruckmann when the revised version of this paper became completed. This work was partly supported by RFBR grants 04-02-16079, 03-02-16941 and 02-02-17308, by the INTAS grant 00-00111, the CRDF award RP1-2364-MO-02, DFG grant 436 RUS 113/739/0 and RFBR-DFG grant 03-02-04016, by Federal Program of the Russian Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology No 40.052.1.1.1112. One of us (B.V.M.) gratefully appreciates the support of Humboldt-University Berlin where this work was initiated.


text:
# A metallic phase in lightly doped La2-xSrxCuO4 observed by electron paramagnetic resonance

## Abstract

In the low doping range of $`x`$ from 0.01 to 0.06 in La2-xSrxCuO4, a narrow electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) line has been investigated. This line is distinct from the known broad line, both due to probing Mn2+ ions. The narrow line is ascribed to metallic regions in the material, and its intensity increases exponentially upon cooling below $``$ 150 K. The activation energy deduced $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = 460(50) K is nearly the same as that found in the doped superconducting regime by Raman and neutron scattering. The intensity of the narrow EPR line follows the same temperature dependence as the resistivity anisotropy in lightly doped La2-xSrxCuO4 single crystals.

preprint: PREPRINT ()

The generic phase diagram in hole-doped cuprates is by now well established. At a critical concentration of doping $`x_{c1}`$ 0.06, superconductivity sets in at $`T`$ = 0, and ends at a higher doping level $`x_{c2}`$ 0.25 Tallon . Both are the critical endpoints of the superconducting phase- transition line Schneider . At the former, a transition from an insulating to the superconducting state has been assumed untill very recently Schneider . However, using finite-size scaling for the susceptibility of a series of concentrations $`x<x_{c1}`$, the following was inferred: The material consists of antiferromagnetic (AF) domains of variable size, separated by metallic domain walls Johnston . More recently Ando et al. corroborated this early finding by measuring the in-plane resistivity anisotropy in untwinned single crystals of La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) and YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO) in the lightly doped region, interpreting their results in terms of metallic stripes present Ando1 . Previouse electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) measurements in LSCO at $`x=0.03<x_{c1}`$ revealed in addition to a broad EPR line observed in the entire doping range $`x`$ Alika1 , a narrow line Alika2 . It was interpreted as stemming from a metallic phase distinct from the volume in which the broader line is due to. The latter showed a clear isotope effect in its linewidth Alika1 ; Alika2 , the narrow one did not. In the present letter, we describe a thorough EPR investigation of the behavior of the narrow line for concentrations 0.01 $`x`$ 0.06, i.e. below $`x_{c1}`$. Of special interest is the exponential increase of the narrow-line intensity upon cooling. The activation energy inferred is nearly the same as that deduced from other experiments for the formation of bipolarons Bipolaron , pointing to the origin of the metallic stripes present.

The La2-xSrxCu0.98Mn0.02O4 polycrystalline samples with 0$``$x$``$0.06 were prepared by the standard solid-state reaction method. The EPR measurements were performed at 9.4 GHz using a BRUKER ER-200D spectrometer equipped with an Oxford Instruments helium flow cryostat. In order to avoid a signal distortion due to skin effects, the samples were ground and the powder was suspended in paraffin. We observed an EPR signal in all samples. The signal is centered near $`g2`$, a value very close to the $`g`$-factor for the Mn2+ ion. Figure 1 shows typical EPR spectra for an $`x`$ = 0.03 sample at two different temperatures. One can see that at 290 K only a single EPR line of Lorentzian shape is observed. However, with decreasing temperature a second line appears (see Fig. 1 (b)), and the EPR spectra can be well fitted by a sum of two Lorentzian lines with different linewidths: a narrow and a broad one. Figure 2 presents the temperature dependence of the linewidths of the two signals. Similar two-component EPR spectra were observed in other samples with different Sr concentrations up to $`x`$= 0.06. At $`x`$= 0.06, only a single EPR line is seen in the entire temperature range, in agreement with our previous studies of samples with 0.06 $`x`$ 0.20 Alika1 .

Figure 3 shows the temperature dependence of the EPR intensity for samples with different Sr concentrations. One can see that the two components observed for samples below $`x`$ = 0.06 follow a completely different temperature dependence. The intensity of the broad component strongly decreases with decreasing temperature. On the other hand, the intensity of the narrow component is negligible at high temperatures and starts to increase substantially below $``$150 K. We note that the temperature below which the intensity of the broad line decreases shifts to lower temperatures with increasing doping. However, the $`I(T)`$ dependence for the narrow line is practically doping-independent. It starts to increase almost exponentially below $``$150 K. A similar tendency is observed also for the temperature dependence of the EPR linewidth. The linewidth of the broad component and its temperature dependence are strongly doping-dependent, whereas the linewidth of the narrow component is very similar for all samples with different Sr doping.

It is important to point out that the observed two-component EPR spectra are an intrinsic property of the lightly doped LSCO and are not due to conventional chemical phase separation. We examined our samples using x-ray diffraction, and detected no impurity phases. Moreover, the temperature dependence of the relative intensities of the two EPR signals rules out macroscopic inhomogeneities and points towards a microscopic electronic phase separation. The qualitatively different behavior of the broad and narrow EPR signals indicates that they belong to distinct regions in the sample. First we notice that the broad line vanishes at low temperatures. This can be explained by taking into account the AF order present in samples with very low Sr concentration Johnston . It is expected that upon approaching the AF ordering temperature, a strong shift of the resonance frequency and an increase of the relaxation rate of the Cu spin system will occur. This will break the bottleneck regime of the Mn2+ ions, and as a consequence the EPR signal becomes unobservable Alika1 .

In contrast to the broad line, the narrow signal appears at low temperatures and its intensity increases with decreasing temperature. This indicates that the narrow signal is due to the regions where the AF order is supressed. It is known that the AF order is destroyed by the doped holes, and above $`x`$ = 0.06 AF fluctuations are much less pronounced Niedermayer . Therefore, it is natural to relate the narrow line to regions with locally high carrier concentration and high mobility. This assumption is strongly supported by the absence of an oxygen isotope effect on the linewidth of the narrow line as well Alika2 . It was shown previously that the isotope effect on the linewidth decreases at high charge-carrier concentrations close to the optimum doping Alika1 . We obtain another important indication from the temperature dependence of the EPR intensity. Because we relate the narrow line to hole-rich regions, an exponential increase of its intensity at low temperatures indicates an energy gap for the existence of these regions. In the following we will argue that this phase separation is assisted by the electron-phonon coupling. More precisely, the latter induces anisotropic interactions between the holes via the phonon exchange, resulting in the creation of extended nano-scale hole-rich regions.

It was shown that the interaction between holes via the phonon exchange reduces to usual elastic forces if we neglect the retardation effects and optical modes Aminov . In this case the interaction between the holes is highly anisotropic, being attractive for some orientations and repulsive for others Kochelaev . The attraction between holes may result in a bipolaron formation when holes approach each other closely enough. The bipolaron formation can be a starting point for the creation of hole-rich regions by attracting of additional holes. Because of the highly anisotropic elastic forces these regions are expected to have the form of stripes. Therefore the bipolaron formation energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be considered as an energy gap for the formation of hole-rich regions. In applying this model to the interpretation of our EPR results we have to keep in mind that the spin dynamics of the coupled Mn-Cu system experiences a strong bottleneck regime Elshner . In a bottleneck regime, the EPR linewidth of the joint signal is controlled mainly by the spin relaxation rate of the Cu spin-system, and the EPR intensity is proportional to the sum of spin susceptibilities $`I\chi _{Mn}+\chi _{Cu}`$ Elshner . The latter results in a Curie-Weiss temperature dependence of the EPR intensity as the spin susceptibility of Mn is much larger than that of the strongly correlated Cu spin system.

Taking into account this remark we conclude that the EPR intensity of the narrow line is proportional to the volume of the sample occuppied by the hole-rich regions because Mn ions are randomly distributed in the sample. We expect that in the underdoped samples the volume in question is proportional to the number of bipolarons, which can be estimated in a way used by Mihailovic and Kabanov Bipolaron . If the density of states is determined by $`N\left(E\right)E^\alpha `$, the number of the bipolarons is

$$N_{\mathrm{bipol}}=\left(\sqrt{z^2+x}z\right)^2,z=KT^{\alpha +1}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T}},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the bipolaron formation energy, $`x`$ is the level of hole doping, and $`K`$ is a temperature- and dopig-independent parameter. The EPR intensity from the hole-rich regions will be proportional to the product of the Curie-Weiss susceptibility of the bottlenecked Mn-Cu system and the number of the bipolarons

$$I_{\mathrm{narrow}}\frac{C}{T\theta }N_{\mathrm{bipol}}.$$
(2)
The experimental points for the narrow-line intensity were fitted for the two-dimensional system ($`\alpha `$=0), and we used the value $`\theta `$ = -8 K, which was found from measurements of the static magnetic susuceptibility (an attempt to vary $`\theta `$ yielded about the same value). The parameters $`K`$ and $`\theta `$ were kept the same for all samples; the only free parameter was the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The results of the fit are shown in Fig. 3 (a,b). For the bipolaron formation energy we obtained $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=460(50) K, which is practically doping-independent. These values agree very well with the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ obtained from the analysis of inelastic neutron-scattering and Raman data in cuprate superconductors Bipolaron . Recently Kochelaev et al. performed theoretical calculations of the polaron interactions via the phonon field using the extended Hubbard model Kochelaev . They estimated the bipolaron formation energy and obtained values of 100 K $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ 730 K, depending on the value of the Coulomb repulsion between holes on neighboring copper and oxygen sites $`V_{pd}`$, 0 $`V_{pd}`$ 1.2 eV. This means that the experimental value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be understood in terms of the elastic interactions between the polarons.

It is interesting to compare our results with other experiments performed in lightly doped LSCO. Recently Ando et al. measured the in-plane anisotropy of the resistivity $`\rho _b/\rho _a`$ in single crystals of LSCO with $`x`$ = 0.02-0.04 Ando1 . They found that at high temperatures the anisotropy is small, which is consistent with the weak orthorhombicity present. However, $`\rho _b/\rho _a`$ grows rapidly with decreasing temperature below $``$ 150 K. This provides macroscopic evidence that electrons self-organize into an anisotropic state because there is no other external source to cause the in-plane anisotropy in La2-xSrxCuO4. We notice that the temperature dependence of the narrow EPR line intensity is very similar to that of $`\rho _b/\rho _a`$ obtained by Ando et al. (see Fig. 2(d) in Ref. 4). To make this similarity clear, we plotted $`I_{narrow}(T)`$ and $`\rho _b/\rho _a(T)`$ on the same graph (see Fig. 4). It is remarkable that both quantities show very similar temperature dependences. It means that our microscopic EPR measurements and the macroscopic resistivity measurements by Ando et al. provide evidence of the same phenomenon: the formation of hole-rich metallic stripes in lightly doped LSCO well below $`x_{c1}`$ = 0.06. This conclusion is also supported by a recent angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) study of LSCO that clearly demonstrated that metallic quasiparticles exist near the nodal direction below $`x`$=0.06 Shen .

Finally, we would like to comment on the observability of the phase separation in our EPR experiments. The main difference of the EPR signals from the hole-rich and hole-poor regions is the spin relaxation rate of the Cu spin system, which results in different EPR linewidths. One would expect these local differences of the relaxation rate to be averaged out by the spin diffusion. The spin diffusion in the CuO2 plane is expected to be very fast because of the huge exchange integral between the Cu ions. A rough estimate shows that during the Larmor period a local spin temperature can be transported over 100 Cu-Cu distances. It means that all the different nanoscale regions will relax to the lattice with a single relaxation rate, and we cannot distinguish them with EPR. However, the AF order which appears below $`T_N`$ in the hole-poor regions in lightly doped LSCO freezes the process of spin diffusion, and this is the reason we can see different EPR lines from the two types of regions. From this we expect that with increasing doping, where magnetic order gets suppressed, spin diffusion will become faster, extended, and we can no longer distinguish different regions with EPR. This is most probably what happens in samples with $`x`$ 0.06, where only a single EPR line is observed Alika1 . This does not mean that the phase separation in hole-rich and hole-poor regions does not exist at $`x`$ 0.06, but that the spin diffusion averages out the EPR response from these regions. In fact, recent Raman and infrared measurements provided evidence of one-dimensional conductivity in LSCO with $`x`$ = 0.10 Hackl . Also, recent ARPES measurements showed that the nodal quasiparticle spectral weight changes smoothly with doping without any anomaly at $`x`$ = 0.06 Shen , indicating that the electronic phase separation exists also at higher doping levels.

In summary, EPR measurements in lightly doped LSCO revealed the presense of two resonance signals: a narrow and a broad one. Their behavior indicates that the narrow signal is due to hole-rich metallic regions and the broad signal due to hole-poor AF regions. The narrow-line intensity is small at high temperatures and increases exponentially below $``$ 150 K. The activation energy inferred, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = 460(50) K, is nearly the same as that deduced from other experiments for the formation of bipolarons, pointing to the origin of the metallic stripes present. We found a remarkable similarity between the temperature dependences of the narrow-line intensity and recently measured resistivity anisotropy in CuO2 planes in lightly doped LSCO Ando1 . The results obtained provide the first magnetic resonance evidence of the formation of hole-rich metallic stripes in lightly doped LSCO well below $`x_{c1}`$ = 0.06.

This work is supported by SNSF under the grant IP7-, BIK and AS are partially supported by INTAS-01-0654 and CRDF REC-007.


text:
# Some Remarks on the Geodesic Completeness of Compact Nonpositively Curved Spaces

Let $`X`$ be a geodesic space. We say that $`X`$ is geodesically complete if every geodesic segment $`\beta :[0,a]X`$ from $`\beta (0)`$ to $`\beta (a)`$ can be extended to a geodesic ray $`\alpha :[0,\mathrm{})X`$, (i.e. $`\beta (t)=\alpha (t)`$, for $`0ta`$).

If $`X`$ is a compact npc space (“npc” means: “non-positively curved”) then it is almost geodesically complete, see . ($`X`$, with metric $`d`$, is almost geodesically complete if its universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ satisfies the following property: there is a constant $`C`$ such that for every $`p,q\stackrel{~}{X}`$ there is a geodesic ray $`\alpha :[0,\mathrm{})\stackrel{~}{X}`$, $`\alpha (0)=p`$, and $`d(q,\alpha )C`$.)

Then it is natural to ask if in fact every compact npc space has some kind of geodesically complete npc core. In view of this, we ask the following question: (this question was already stated in , p. 4)

Question. Does a compact npc geodesic space $`Z`$ have a subspace $`A`$, such that the inclusion $`AZ`$ is a homotopy equivalence and $`A`$, with the intrinsic metric, is npc and geodesically complete?

Remark. One could also ask whether there is such an $`A`$ that is also totally geodesic in $`Z`$, but this is certainly false. Just take $`Z`$ to be a flat 2-torus minus an open disk. Then the only possibility for $`A`$ is a figure eight that can not be totally geodesic in $`Z`$.

If $`Z`$ is piecewise smooth npc 2-complex, then, by collapsing the free faces, we get a subcomplex which is, with its intrinsic metric, geodesically complete and npc (see , and also , p.208). Hence the answer to the problem above is YES, when $`Z`$ is piecewise smooth a 2-complex.

For the general case the answer is NO. To show this, in section 2 we construct a space $`Z`$ with the following properties:

First Example. $`Z`$ is a finite piecewise flat npc 3-complex with the property that there is no $`PL`$ subspace $`A`$ of $`Z`$ such that

(i) The inclusion $`\iota :AZ`$ is a homotopy equivalence.

(ii) $`A`$, with the intrinsic metric determined by the metric of $`Z`$, is npc geodesically complete.

But the space $`Z`$ we construct in this example does have a subspace $`A`$ satisfying $`(i)`$ and also $`(ii)`$ but with other geodesic metric (not the intrinsic one). Hence we are forced to ask a deeper question.

Question. Does a compact npc geodesic space $`Z`$ have a subspace $`A`$, such that the inclusion $`AZ`$ is a homotopy equivalence and $`A`$ admits a geodesic metric that is npc and geodesically complete?

For this question the answer is also NO. To show this, in section 3 we construct an space $`Z`$ with the following properties:

Second Example. $`Z`$ is a finite piecewise flat npc 3-complex with the property that there is no $`PL`$ subspace $`A`$ of $`Z`$ such that

(i) The inclusion $`\iota :AZ`$ is a homotopy equivalence.

(ii) $`A`$ admits a npc geodesically complete geodesic metric.

Of course the second example is also acounterexample to the first question but, eventhough it is a little non-standard to present these counterexamples in this way, we think it is interesting to show how the constructions evolve.

Still, the space $`Z`$ we construct for theorem E is homotopically equivalent to a npc geodesically complete space. Hence we are again forced to ask an even deeper question, for which we do not know the answer.

Open Question. Is a compact npc geodesic space $`Z`$ homotopically equivalent to a compact npc geodesically complete geodesic space $`Z^{}`$?

We say that a group is npc if it is isomorphic to the fundamental group of a compact npc geodesic space, and a group is gc-npc (i.e. geodesically complete non-positively curved) if it is isomorphic to the fundamental group of a compact npc geodesically complete geodesic space. With these definitions, we restate the open problem above in the following way: Is every npc group a gc-npc group? Remark that if we drop the compactness condition the answer is always YES, at least in the $`PL`$ category: let $`K`$ be a piecewise flat npc simplicial complex. Embed it in some $`\text{}^N`$ and let $`Y`$ be the hyperbolization of $`\text{}^N`$ relative to $`K`$. $`Y`$ can be given a complete npc metric having $`K`$ as a totally geodesic subspace (see ). Let $`Z`$ be the cover of $`Y`$ relative to the subgroup $`\pi _1(K)`$ of $`\pi _1(Y)`$. Then $`Z`$ is a non-compact npc geodesically complete space having $`K`$ as a deformation retract.

For a group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ define the min-gc-dimension and the max-gc-dimension in the following way. min-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the minimun of the $`n`$’s such that there is a compact npc geodesically complete $`n`$-complex with fundamental group isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If there is not such complex we put min-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=+\mathrm{}`$. Similarly max-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the maximun of the $`n`$’s such that there is a compact npc geodesically complete $`n`$-complex with fundamental group isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If there is not such complex we put max-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{}`$, and if there are infinite such $`n`$’s we write max-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=+\mathrm{}`$

Note that we always have $`gd\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ min-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, provided min-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{}`$. Here $`gd\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the geometric dimension of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This motivates the following quetion.

Open Question. Is it true that min-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = gd $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, provided that min-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{}`$?

In  it is given an example of a group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with $`gd\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, that is the fundamental group of a npc compact 3-complex but it is not the fundamental group of a npc compact 2-complex. Hence, at least one of the two open problems above have a negative answer.

It is easy to show that for the infinite cyclic group $`F_1`$ we have min-gc-dim $`F_1`$=max-gc-dim $`F_1=gdF_1=cd=F_1=1`$. Here $`cd`$ is the cohomological dimension. But for $`n>2`$ things are different. ($`F_n`$ denotes the free group with $`N`$ generators.)

Proposition 1. max-gc-dim $`F_n>1`$, for $`n2`$.

Because min-gc-dim $`F_n`$=1, for all $`n`$, we have that in general is not true that min-gc-dim and max-gc-dim are equal. And also, in general, it is not true that max-gc-dim and gd are equal. In fact in general it is not true that min-gc-dim and max-gc-dim are equal, even if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the fundamental group of a closed manifold, as the next proposition asserts.

Proposition 2. Let $`G_n`$ denote the fundamental group of the genus n surface. Then max-gc-dim $`G_n>2`$, for n large.

In fact this proposition is a corollary of the following proposition.

Proposition 3. For every m there is an k such that max-gc-dim $`G_nm`$, for $`nk`$.

In fact, using the same method of the proof of Proposition 3 we get that also for $`F_n`$ we get: For every m there is an k such that max-gc-dim $`F_nm`$, for $`nk`$.

From the proof of proposition 1, it seems that the answer to the following problem is YES.

Open Question. Is max-gc-dim $`F_n`$ finite?

Or, more generally.

Open Question. Is max-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ finite, provided min-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{}`$?

Open Question. Assume that min-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{}`$, and let min-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ m $``$ max-gc-dim $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Does there exist a compact npc geodesically complete m-complex with fundamental group isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$?

The next proposition says that a npc group can be made geodesically complete after making a free product with some free group, at least in the $`PL`$ category.

Proposition 4. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the fundamental group of a finite piecewise flat npc simplicial complex. Then there is an n such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }F_n`$ is gc-npc.

The number $`n`$ in proposition D is very large and it would be interesting to know the relationship between $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For example for $`n=1`$ we can ask:

Open Question. Does $`\mathrm{\Gamma }F_1`$ gc-npc implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gc-npc.

Finally, it is important to remark that geodesic completeness is a useful property related to rigidity results. In certain cases rigidity results in the manifold category can be generalized replacing the manifold condition by the geodesic completeness condition. See for example the work of Leeb , and Davis-Okum-Zheng . One of the simplest cases of this is the topological version of Gromoll-Wolf-Lawson-Yau torus theorem (see ,). For example, if $`Z`$ is a compact npc geodesic space homotopically equivalent to some torus $`\text{𝕋}^n`$ then there is a totally geodesic embedding $`\text{𝕋}^nZ`$ and easily follows that if $`Z`$ is geodesically complete, $`Z`$ is isometric to $`\text{𝕋}^n`$. But propositions C and D show that geodesic completeness is, in general, not enough. In fact, the dimension of the spaces could be the same and, still, we do not get rigidity, as the next proposition shows.

Proposition 5. For $`n2`$ there is a finite piecewise flat npc geodesically complete 2-complex $`Z`$ with $`\pi _1(Z)G_n`$ and $`Z`$ is not a 2-manifold.

Hence, if we want to generalize rigidity results (like Farrell-Jones topological rigidity of npc manifolds) to non-manifold categories, we need more than geodesic completeness. On the other hand the singularities of the $`Z`$ we construct in proposition F are quite trivial and one wonders whether this is a general fact.

Here is a short outline of the paper. In section 1 we give some definitions and a lemma. In section 2 we construct the first example. In section 3 we construct the second example. In section 4 we prove propositions 1,3,4 and 5.

1. Definitions.

1. Definitions and Lemmas.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ denote the canonical $`n`$-simplex (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ is the convex hull of the $`n+1`$ points $`(1,0,\mathrm{},0),\mathrm{},(0,\mathrm{},0,1)`$ in $`\text{}^{n+1}`$). Let also $`\text{𝕋}^n`$ denote the $`n`$-torus with its canonical $`PL`$ structure. Now, let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a $`PL`$ subspace of $`\text{𝕋}^3`$ $`PL`$ homeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. We construct the $`PL`$ space $`T`$ by taking two copies $`T^0`$ and $`T^1`$ of $`\text{𝕋}^3`$ and identifying them along $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and we consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`T^0`$ and $`T^1`$ as a $`PL`$ subspaces of this quotient space $`T`$.

Consider a pair $`(K,A)`$, where $`K`$ is a $`PL`$ space, $`A=\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _r\}`$, and each $`\sigma _i`$ is a $`PL`$ subspace of $`K`$ $`PL`$ homeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Given these data we construct the $`PL`$ space $`𝒯(K,A)`$ by taking, for each $`\sigma _i`$, a copy of $`T`$ and identifying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`\sigma _i`$. We consider $`K`$, each copy $`T_i`$ of $`T`$, and each copy $`T_i^j`$ of $`\text{𝕋}^j`$, $`j=0,1`$ as being $`PL`$ subspaces of $`𝒯(K,A)`$. Also, if $`J`$ is a $`PL`$ subspace of $`K`$ with $`\sigma _iJ`$, for all $`i`$, we can consider $`𝒯(J,A)𝒯(K,A)`$.

Finally, a free face of a simplicial complex $`J`$ is a $`n`$-simplex $`\sigma `$ in $`J`$ that is the face of exactly one $`n+1`$-simplex in $`J`$.

Lemma 1.1. Let $`K`$ and $`A`$ be as above and $`Y`$ a closed $`PL`$ subspace of $`X=𝒯(K,A)`$ such that the inclusion $`\iota :YX`$ is a homotopy equivalence. Then $`T_iY,i=1,\mathrm{},r.`$

proof. Take a point $`p`$ in $`T_iK`$, for some $`i=1,\mathrm{}r`$. We have that $`H_3(X,X\{p\})\text{}`$. (Here $`H`$ denotes homology with  coefficients.) Also, the map $`H_3(X)H_3(X,X\{p\})`$ is onto. Because $`\iota _{}:H_3(Y)H_3(X)`$ is an isomorphism, we get that the composition $`H_3(Y)H_3(X)H_3(X,X\{p\})`$ is onto. Hence $`Y`$ is not contained in $`X\{p\}`$. This means that $`T_iKY`$. Hence $`T_i=\overline{T_iK}\overline{Y}=Y`$. This proves the lemma.

Remark. Note that lemma 5.1 implies that each $`\sigma _i`$ is in $`Y`$. Hence we have that $`Y=𝒯(J,A)`$, for some closed $`PL`$ subspace $`J`$ of $`K`$, with $`\sigma _iJ`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$.

Lemma 1.2. Let $`K`$ and $`A`$ be as above and $`J`$ a $`PL`$ subspace of $`K`$. If the inclusion $`\eta :𝒯(J,A)𝒯(K,A)`$ is a homotopy equivalence, then the inclusion $`\iota :JK`$ is also a homotopy equivalence.

proof. We have the following diagram.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}J& \stackrel{\iota }{}& K\\ \alpha & & \beta \\ 𝒯(J,A)& \stackrel{\eta }{}& 𝒯(K,A)\\ r& & s\\ J& \stackrel{\iota }{}& K\end{array}$$

Here all the arrows of the upper square are inclusions and the vertical arrows of the lower square are retractions induced by retractions of each $`T_i`$ to $`\sigma _i`$. Applying the $`i`$-th homotopy functor to the diagram above we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\pi _i(J)& \stackrel{\iota _{}}{}& \pi _i(K)\\ \alpha _{}& & \beta _{}\\ \pi _i(𝒯(J,A))& \stackrel{\eta _{}}{}& \pi _i(𝒯(K,A))\\ r_{}& & s_{}\\ \pi _i(J)& \stackrel{\iota _{}}{}& \pi _i(K)\end{array}$$

Because $`r\alpha =id_J`$, $`s\beta =id_K`$ and $`\eta _{}`$ is, by hypothesis, an isomorphism we get that $`\iota _{}`$ is an isomorphism. This proves the lemma.

Lemma 1.3. Let $`J`$ be a $`PL`$ subspace of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$, $`A=\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _r\}`$ a set of $`PL`$ subsets of $`J`$, $`PL`$ equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Assume that $`B=A=_i\sigma _i`$ is contractible. If $`Y=𝒯(J,A)`$ admits a npc geodesically complete geodesic metric, then $`J`$ is two dimensional (i.e. $`PL`$ equivalent to a two complex).

proof. We can assume that $`J`$ is a simplicial complex such that each $`\sigma _i`$ is a subcomplex of $`J`$. Let $`K`$ be a simplicial complex $`PL`$ equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$, such that we can consider $`J`$ as being a subcomplex of $`K`$. Suppose that $`J`$ contains at least one 3-simplex. Let $`c=c_k`$, a $`\text{}_2`$ simplicial 3-chain in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$, where the $`c_i`$’s are all the 3-simplices of $`J`$, without repetition. Because $`Y`$ is geodesically complete we have that $`Y`$ does not have free faces (see ). Hence, every 2-simplex in $`J`$ is in the boundary of at least two 3-simplices of $`Y`$. But $`J\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$, thus every 2-simplex of $`J`$ is in the boundary of exactly two 3-simplices, unless the 2-simplex lies in some $`\sigma _iB`$. Hence $`c=0`$, and follows that $`H_3(\mathrm{\Delta }^3,B)0`$. This is a contradiction because $`B`$ is contractible, hence $`H_3(\mathrm{\Delta }^3,B)=0`$. This proves the lemma.

Lemma 1.4. Assume that $`X=𝒯(K,A)`$ admits a npc geodesic metric $`d`$. Then $`K`$ is totally geodesic in $`X`$.

proof. First, by the topological flat torus theorem (see, for example, ), it is easy to see that each $`T_i^j`$, is totally geodesic, for all $`i`$ and $`j=0,1`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=T_0^iT_i^1`$ is totally geodesic. We prove now that $`K`$ is also totally geodesic. Let $`p,qK`$, and $`\alpha :[0,d(p,q)]X`$ a geodesic with $`\alpha (0)=p`$, and $`\alpha (d(p,q))=q`$. For each $`T_i`$ let $`a=min\{t:\alpha (t)T_i\}`$ and $`b=max\{t:\alpha (t)T_i\}`$. Then $`\alpha _{[a,b]}`$ is a geodesic joining $`\alpha (a)`$ to $`\alpha (b)`$. But $`\alpha (a),\alpha (b)T_iK`$ (because is open), hence $`\alpha (a),\alpha (b)T_iK=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. But we saw before that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ is totally geodesic. Consequently $`\alpha [a,b]\mathrm{\Lambda }_iK`$. This proves the lemma.

2. First Example.

Consider $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3\text{}^4`$ with the flat metric induced by $`\text{}^4`$. Fix a vertex $`v`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$. Let $`A=\{\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3\}`$, where the $`\sigma _i`$’s are the 2-simplices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$ that contain $`v`$. Write $`B=A=\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3`$. Take $`X=𝒯(\mathrm{\Delta }^3,A)`$. Consider $`\text{𝕋}^3`$ with it canonical flat metric and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{𝕋}^3`$ isometric to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Because each $`\sigma _i`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$ is isometric to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, all the identifications used to construct $`X`$ are isometries. Hence this determines a piecewise flat npc metric on $`X`$.

Proposition 2.1. There is no $`PL`$ subspace $`Y`$ of $`X`$ such that

(i) The inclusion $`\iota :YX`$ is a homotopy equivalence.

(ii) $`Y`$, with the intrinsic metric determined by the metric of $`X`$, is geodesically complete non-positively curved.

proof. Suppose such a $`Y`$ exists. By the remark after lemma 5.1. we have that $`Y=𝒯(J,A)`$, for some $`PL`$ subspace $`J`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$, and each $`\sigma _iJ`$. By lemma 5.3, $`J`$ is two complex. Hence $`link(v,J)`$ is one dimensional. Because $`\sigma _iJ`$ and $`v\sigma _i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, we get a loop of length $`3\frac{\pi }{3}=\pi `$ in $`link(v,J)`$ (each $`\sigma _i`$ determines a path of length $`\frac{\pi }{3}`$ in $`link(v,J)`$). Thus $`J`$, with the intrinsic metric, is not npc. But lemma 5.4 says that $`J`$ is totally geodesic in $`Y`$, hence $`J`$ is npc, a contradiction. This proves the proposition.

If we choose $`J=\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3`$, and $`Y=𝒯(J,A)`$, then we can provide this $`Y`$ with a geodesically complete piecewise flat npc metric: give each $`\sigma _i`$ a flat metric in such a way that the angle at $`v\sigma _i`$ is $`\frac{\pi }{3}`$ and choose the 2-simplices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ accordingly. (Note that this metric on $`Y`$ is not the intrinsic metric.)With this choice of $`Y`$ we certainly have that the inclusion $`\iota :YX`$ is a homotopy equivalence. Consequently, our space $`X`$ does admit a $`PL`$ subspace $`Y`$ that admits a geodesically complete non-positively curved metric. In our next example this will not happen.

3. Second Example.

Consider again $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3\text{}^4`$ with the flat metric induced by $`\text{}^4`$. Let $`L\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$ be a contractible two complex with no free faces. (Take for example the house with two rooms, see .) Let $`A`$ be the set of all 2-simplices of $`L`$ and take $`X=𝒯(\mathrm{\Delta }^3,A)`$. Note that we can give $`X`$ a npc piecewise flat metric in the following way. Let $`\sigma _iA`$ and choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_iT_i`$ isometric to $`\sigma _i`$. In this way all the identifications used to construct $`X`$ are isometries and this determines a piecewise flat npc metric on $`X`$.

Proposition 3.1. There is no $`PL`$ subspace $`Y`$ of $`X`$ such that

(i) The inclusion $`\iota :YX`$ is a homotopy equivalence.

(ii) $`Y`$ admits a geodesically complete non-positively curved geodesic metric.

proof. Suppose such a $`Y`$ exists. By the remark after lemma 5.1. we have that $`Y=𝒯(J,A)`$, for some $`PL`$ subspace $`J`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$, and that each $`\sigma _iJ`$. Hence we can assume that $`J`$ is a simplicial complex and that $`L`$ is a subcomplex of $`J`$. By lemmas 5.2 and 5.3, $`J`$ is a contractible two complex.

claim. $`J`$ has no free faces (or, in this case, free edges).

If $`J`$ has a free edge $`e`$, we have two possibilities. First, if $`e`$ is not in $`L`$ then $`e`$ would also be a free edge of $`Y`$, but this is impossible because $`Y`$ is geodesically complete non-positively curved, thus has no free faces (see ). Second, $`e`$ can not be in $`L`$ because $`LJ`$ and $`L`$, by hypothesis, has no free faces. This proves the claim.

But the claim and lemma 5.4 imply that $`J`$ is a contractible complex with no free faces that admits a geodesically complete npc geodesic metric. This is impossible (see ). This proves the proposition.

So, our $`X`$ above does not have a subspace that admits a geodesically complete npc geodesic metric. But there is a space $`Z`$ homotopically equivalent to $`Y`$ that admits a geodesically complete npc geodesic metric. In fact, $`X`$ is homotopically equivalent to a finite wedge of tori, which certainly admits such a metric.

4. Proofs of Propositions 1,3,4 and 5.

proof of proposition 1. Let $`C=[0,1]\times \text{𝕊}^1`$. Then $`C`$ is npc and $`S_0=\{0\}\times \text{𝕊}^1`$ and $`S_1=\{1\}\times \text{𝕊}^1`$ are totally geodesic in $`C`$. Let $`s_0`$ be an embedded segment of length one in the interior of $`C`$. Let $`n`$3. Let $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_{n2}`$ be embedded segments in the interior of $`C`$ of length $`\frac{1}{n2}`$ such that $`s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_{n2}`$ are all disjoint. Let $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n2}`$ be segments of length $`\frac{1}{n2}`$ embedded in $`S_1`$ with $`S_1=u_i`$. Because all $`s_i`$’s, $`i>0`$, and $`u_i`$’s are totally geodesic and isometric (they have the same length) we can identify each $`s_i`$, $`i>0,`$ with $`u_i`$. Also, because $`S_0`$ and $`s_0`$ have the same length there is a surjective local isometry $`s_0S_0`$, and we can use this local isometry to identify $`s_0`$ with $`S_0`$. Let $`Z`$ be the resulting space. Then $`Z`$ is npc, compact and it is easy to see that $`\pi _1(Z)F_n`$. Also the simplicial complex $`Z`$ has no free faces. Hence it is geodesically complete (see , p.208).

For $`n=2`$ the construction is similar. Just replace the cylinder $`C=[0,1]\times \text{𝕊}^1`$ by a Moebius band. This proves proposition 1.

proof of proposition 4. The proof is similar to the proof of proposition 1. Let $`Z`$ be a finite piecewise flat npc simplicial complex. Let $`\sigma `$ be a free face of dimension $`l`$. Then $`\sigma `$ is in the boundary of exactly one $`(l+1)`$-simplex. Call this simplex $`\tau `$. Subdivide $`\sigma `$ and let $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_k`$ be the $`l`$-simplices of this subdivision and assume $`diams_i<diam\sigma `$. Then we can find disjoint $`l`$-simplices $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_k`$ in the interior of $`\tau `$ such that each $`u_i`$ is isometric to $`s_i`$. Identify each $`s_i`$ with $`u_i`$. After this there are no free faces contained in $`\sigma `$. Do this for every free face. After a finite number of steps we get a finite piecewise flat npc simplicial complex $`Y`$ with no free faces. Consequently $`Y`$ is geodesically complete. Also it is easy to see that $`\pi _1(Y)=\pi _1(Z)F_N`$ for some large $`N`$. This proves proposition E.

proof of proposition 5. Let $`n`$ 2. Let $`P\text{}^2`$ be a regular $`4n`$-gon. We can identify the sides of $`P`$ to obtain a piecewise flat npc 2-simplex $`Y`$ homeomorphic to the surface of genus $`n`$. In this particular case the npc metric induced on $`Y`$ by $`P`$ is a flat metric, except for the vertex $`v`$, where the length $`\mathrm{}`$ of link is larger than $`2\pi `$. By the $`PL`$ Gauss-Bonnet formula $`2\pi (22n)=2\pi \mathrm{}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{}=2\pi (2n1)6\pi `$. Let $`s_0`$ and $`s_1`$ be embedded segments on $`Y`$ of the same length such that $`s_0s_1=v`$ and the two angles determined by $`s_0`$ and $`s_1`$ at $`v`$ are each larger than $`2\pi `$. This is possible because $`\mathrm{}6\pi `$. Let $`Z`$ be obtained from $`Y`$ identifying $`s_0`$ with $`s_1`$. This space $`Z`$ satisfies the statement of the proposition. This proves proposition F.

Before proving proposition 3 we prove a lemma.

Lemma 4.1. Let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_j,\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _j`$ be positive real numbers. Then there is piecewise flat npc complex $`W`$ homeomorphic to a 2-surface with an open disk deleted, such that the boundary of $`W`$ consists of $`j`$ geodesic segments $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_j`$ of lengths $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_j`$ and the angle at the initial point of $`s_i`$ is larger than $`\theta _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}j`$.

proof. Let $`Y`$ be the space of the proof of proposition F. Let $`V`$ be obtained from $`Y`$ in the following way. Delete the segment $`s_0`$ from $`Y`$ and glue back two copies of $`s_0`$ which will intersect in their initial and final points. Then $`V`$ is homeomorphic to a surface with an open disk deleted. Also $`V`$ is piecewise flat and npc and its boundary consists of two segments and two vertices with angles $`2\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{}=2\pi (2n1)`$ (see the proof of prop. F). Note that we can choose $`Y`$, $`n`$, and the length of $`s_0`$ arbitrarily. Hence taking several spaces like this $`V`$ and gluing them along the boundaries it is not difficult to show that we can find the required $`W`$.

proof of Proposition 3. Let $`m3`$ be a positive integer. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^m`$ be the canonical $`m`$-simplex. By proposition E there is a finite piecewise flat geodesically complete npc $`m`$-complex $`U`$ with $`\pi _1(U)=\pi _1(\mathrm{\Delta }^m)F_r=F_r`$, for some large $`r`$, and we can assume $`r`$ even. Let $`R`$ be a 1-complex $`PL`$-embedded in $`U`$ such that the inclusion $`RU`$ is a homotopy equivalence. Then $`R`$ has the homotopy type of a wedge of $`r`$ circles. Because $`r`$ is even there is a map $`\rho `$ from the boundary $`\text{𝕊}^1=D`$ of the 2-disk $`D`$ to $`R`$ such that if we glue $`D`$ with the mapping cylinder of $`\rho `$ along $`D`$ we obtain a closed surface of genus $`\frac{r}{2}`$. We can assume that $`\rho `$ is a simplicial map and let $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_j`$ be a subdivision of $`D`$ in segments such that $`\rho `$ is simplicial on each $`s_i`$. Let $`a_i`$ be the length of $`\rho (s_i)`$ and choose $`\theta _i2\pi \alpha _i`$, where $`\alpha _i`$ is the angle at the initial point of $`\rho (s_i)`$ between the segments $`\rho (s_i)`$ and $`\rho (s_{i1})`$. Let $`W`$ be the space given by lemma 8.1 corresponding to these $`a_i`$’s and $`\theta _i`$’s. Hence we have a map $`\psi :WU`$ with $`\psi (W)R`$, that is a local isometry. Let $`Z`$ be obtained by gluing $`W`$ and the mapping cylinder of $`\psi :WU`$ along $`W`$. Then $`Z`$ is an $`m`$-complex and it is homotopically equivalent to a closed surface, and it is also a finite geodesically complete npc piecewise flat complex. This proves proposition 3.