text:
# Physics of Aberration rather than Special Relativity

Abstract A phenomenological explanation is presented for the physics of aberration, which is in contrast with special relativity physics. The effect of relativity is identified with an effect due to the velocity of observation being affected by the velocity of a moving particle. In contrast with the currently accepted view, it is demonstrated that the classical concepts of time and simultaneity are natural for describing relativistic phenomena.

Keywords Ether drift, Twin paradox, Time dilation, Superluminal motion, Aberration of starlight, Aberration of field, Liénard-Wiechert potential, Magnetic frequency.

1 Introduction

Einstein’s theory of special relativity has become a commonplace in modern physics, as taken for granted as Newton’s law of classical mechanics or the Maxwell equations of electromagnetism. However, it was resisted for many years because of the second postulate on which the theory is based. The second postulate, which states that the speed of light is independent of the motion of its source, destroys the concept of time as a universal variable independent of the spatial coordinates. It forces on us a radical rethinking of our ideas about time and space. Many attempts were made to invent theories that would explain all the observed facts without this assumption. Our changed concept of time is the result of its gradual establishment through experiments in violent controversy.

This work is another such attempt. In contrast with previous works, I tried to pick out an essential physical point in the relativistic formalism. Attention was focused on the Lorentz condition which led to the formulation of special relativity. In this attempt, I have come to see a physics behind the aberration of starlight. In this paper, I present a phenomenological explanation for the physics of aberration. This is in contrast with the relativistic explanation of special relativity physics. It begins by reasoning a physical origin of relativistic phenomena, leading to the relativistic form of equations on the basis of classical physics. There is no need to make an assumption. We need to rethink some of the established thought and review the understanding of special relativity physics.

2 Ether drift

The Michelson-Morley experiment was undertaken to investigate the possible existence of an ether drift . In principle, it consisted merely of observing whether there was any shift of the fringes in the Michelson interferometer when the instrument was turned through an angle of 90. Observations showed that the shift is at most but a small fraction of the predicted value. The negative result was explained as demonstrating the absence of the ether drift. However, it could have been due to the experiment itself being incapable of demonstrating the ether drift.

Fizeau performed an experiment to determine whether the speed of light in a material medium is affected by motion of the medium relative to the source and observer. The experiment is much in the same way as the Rayleigh refractometer except the tubes containing water flowing rapidly between the source and observer. An alteration of the speed of light was observed in the Fizeau experiment, which was in reasonable agreement with the value given by Fresnel’s dragging formula. In the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is assumed that the ether is in uniform motion through the source and observer. As viewed from the Fizeau experiment, the ether drift cannot be assumed in this arrangement. The circumstances are the same as for the Earth, whose motion cannot be defined without an extraterrestrial reference. Even if the Michelson-Morley experiment is performed in water flowing rapidly in one direction, the null result is expected since the velocity of the water flow cannot be defined in this arrangement. In the case of sound under the same circumstances, no change of pitch is to be expected as remarked by Rayleigh about Doppler’s principle .

We should mention the Michelson-Morley experiment performed with an extraterrestrial light source. Apparently, the motion of the light source relative to the half-silvered mirror is ineffective in changing the interference pattern. As shown in the Michelson interferometer, only the motion of the half-silvered mirror relative to one of the other two mirrors can give rise to an effect on the interference fringes. It is clear that the point of splitting into two beams plays the role of an effective source in that interferometer. The experiment using sunlight differs from the original only by taste rather than coverage.

3 Twin paradox

Lorentz obtained transformation equations by using a covariant condition which preserves the speed of light in all uniformly moving systems. Einstein showed that the transformation equations with the covariant condition require revision of the usual concepts of time and simultaneity, leading to the result that a moving clock runs more slowly than a stationary clock. Such a concept of time gives rise to the twin paradox, however. In mechanics, it is impossible by means of any physical measurements to label a coordinate system as intrinsically “stationary” or “uniformly moving”; one can only infer that the two systems are moving relative to each other. According to this fundamental postulate, like velocity and distance, time must also be symmetric with respect to the two systems. This is what the twin paradox points out.

We consider the experiments performed to verify the phenomenon of time dilation. The mean lifetime of $`\pi `$-mesons was determined using the decay of $`\pi `$-mesons at rest in a scintillator . In this method, the mean lifetime of $`\pi `$-mesons was determined by a direct measurement of the time required to decay. In order to investigate the phenomenon of time dilation, an attempt to measure the mean lifetime of a rapidly moving $`\pi `$-meson beam was undertaken . An experiment of this nature was arranged to measure the attenuation in flight of a $`\pi `$-meson beam of known lifetime using a scintillation counter telescope of a variable length. The measured mean free path was divided by the mean velocity to get the mean lifetime. The mean lifetime thus obtained, when the Lorentz time dilation was taken into account, was in fair agreement with the data measured in the rest system of $`\pi `$-mesons. It is generally recognized that these experiments have verified the phenomenon of time dilation.

However, those experiments have an ambiguous bearing on the phenomenon of time dilation. In the latter experiment, the relativistic correction was made directly in the mean lifetime, keeping the particle velocity intact. This is otherwise without example in high-energy physics, where the relativistic correction has been made in the form of four-vector velocity.

The four-vector velocity is conceived in the context of time and space, leading to the formulation of special relativity. The space components are defined as the rate of change of the path of a particle with respect to its proper time, the time component being defined as that of a light. Such a definition is a result of confusion, however, unless by intention. The four-vector velocity cannot be defined by the Lorentz time dilation; they are alternative conceptually. In fact, in that definition has the path dilation been disregarded. The mean free path measured in the experiment is not the distance of its proper lifetime but that multiplied by the $`\gamma `$ factor. Once the Lorentz time dilation is taken into account, there is no room for the four-vector velocity formulation. This is what we observe. Either the time dilation or the four-velocity can be consistent with the experimental result. From the experiment it is evident that the time dilation and the four-velocity are alternative. To see the definite result, the mean lifetime of a rapidly moving $`\pi `$-meson beam must be determined by direct measurement in experiment. The mean lifetime thus obtained will be the same as the data measured in the rest system of $`\pi `$-mesons if the twin paradox is the correct argument. Such an experiment has never been done in the past. Nevertheless, we can infer the result from a comparison with astronomical observations.

A series of observations by a new technique between 1968 and 1970 indicated that the components making up the nucleus of radio source 3C279 were in motion . The activity, which occurs on a scale of milliseconds of arc, could not have been detected with the techniques available before the early 1970s. Surprisingly, the speed of the components was estimated to be about ten times the speed of light. The mysterious phenomenon received scientific attention, immediately. Some other quasars such as 3C273 also turned out to be superluminal sources. From direct observations of the distances travelled and the times required it is reported that their nuclei contain components apparently flying apart at speeds exceeding the speed of light. The concept of the speed of light as a limiting speed of material particles, which has been confirmed in physics, has been questioned in astronomy.

It seems that the $`\pi `$-meson experiment and the observation of superluminal motion are equivalent. The only difference would be in their explanations. In physical meaning, the observation of superluminal motion is equivalent to an experiment that has measured directly the mean lifetime of a rapidly moving $`\pi `$-meson beam. It is certain therefore without requiring an explicit experiment that the mean lifetime of a rapidly moving $`\pi `$-meson beam obtained by direct measurement is equivalent to the mean lifetime in the $`\pi `$-rest system. Their equivalence leads us to the conclusion that a particle velocity itself appears dilated to the observer, keeping time intact. It is then only natural to predict an equal ageing of twins in relative motion, by which the twin paradox is resolved naturally. The Lorentz time dilation is nothing more than a merely mathematical relation. The phenomenon of time dilation is nothing but a physical misconception of it. As pointed out by the twin paradox, the concept of time dilation violates the relativity of uniformly moving systems.

4 Aberration of light

The Bradley observation of the aberration of starlight seems to be even more important to modern physics than previously thought. This is because the aberration effect can physically be interpreted as expressing an equation which is in contrast with the Lorentz condition leading to the formulation of special relativity. I would like to show a physics behind the aberration which is in contrast with special relativity physics.

In 1727, Bradley discovered an apparent motion of star which he explained as due to the motion of the Earth in its orbit. This effect, known as aberration, is quite distinct from the well-known displacements of the nearer stars known as parallax. Bradley’s explanation of this effect was that the apparent direction of the light reaching the Earth from a star is altered by the motion of the Earth during propagation. The reason for this is much the same as that involved when a little girl walking in the rain must tilt her umbrella forward to keep the rain off her feet.

Let the vector v represent the velocity of the Earth relative to a system of coordinates fixed in the solar system, and c that of the light relative to the solar system. Then the velocity of the light relative to the Earth has the direction of c, which is the vector difference between c and v. This is the direction in which the telescope must be pointed to observe the star image on the axis of the instrument. When the Earth’s motion is perpendicular to the direction of the star, the relation $`c^2v^2=c^2`$ follows from the vector difference. If we set $`c^{}=kc`$, we see that the observation is performed at speed $`c^{}`$ greater than when the Earth is at rest. Keeping in mind that the speed of light can be a measure of speed, the altered speed of observation may give rise to the same effect as would be the case if the velocity scale were altered at the moment of observation. Accordingly, the velocity of the Earth is supposed to be $`v^{}=kv`$ in relation to the observation. Taking this velocity of the Earth, the “Bradley” relation becomes $`c^2v^2=c^2`$. The velocity scale can then be written in the closed form $`k=1/(1v^2/c^2)^{1/2}`$. This is just the $`\gamma `$ factor in special relativity. As a result, the angle of aberration $`\alpha `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\beta ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha =1/\gamma ,\text{and}\mathrm{tan}\alpha =\gamma \beta ,$$
(1)
where $`\beta =v/c`$. The appearance as the velocity scale shows that the $`\gamma `$ factor is of an optic nature at the speed of observation. This means that the relativistic effect is in nature an optical phenomenon.

After this consideration, mention may be made of the difference between the present interpretation and the relativistic explanation. In the present interpretation, the velocity of the Earth and the velocity of light relative to it are respectively assumed to be $`\gamma v`$ and $`\gamma c`$, while the velocity of light relative to the solar system at rest is $`c`$. If the distance to the solar system is $`R`$, the distance to the Earth is $`\gamma R`$. Regardless of whether the Earth is at rest or in motion, consequently, the time required for light to reach the Earth is $`R/c`$. In the relativistic explanation, the velocity of the Earth and the velocity of light relative to it are respectively $`v`$ and $`c`$, whereas the velocity of light relative to the solar system at rest is assumed to be $`c/\gamma `$ in the Earth’s frame . The time required to reach the Earth is here $`\gamma R/c`$. Although explanations are different, the same relations are given for the angle of aberration. For the Michelson-Morley experiment, however, they are different. In contrast to the relativistic explanation, the null result is expected from the present interpretation.

Having revealed the hidden nature of the aberration of starlight, we are going to examine its effect on the equations of motion in Newtonian mechanics. From the vector difference between c and v for the velocity of light, a derivative with respect to time gives the equation of corresponding accelerations

$$\frac{d𝐜^{}}{dt}\frac{d𝐯^{}}{dt}=\frac{d𝐜}{dt}=0.$$
(2)
The scalar product of the accelerations in this equation with the corresponding velocity vectors is written

$$c^{}\frac{dc^{}}{dt}v^{}\frac{dv^{}}{dt}=0,\text{so}c\frac{d(\gamma c)}{dt}v\frac{d(\gamma v)}{dt}=0.$$
(3)
Equation (3) can also be obtained by differentiating the Bradley relation $`c^2v^2=c^2`$ with respect to time. The kinetic energy $`T`$ is defined in general to be such that the scalar product of the force and the velocity is the time rate of change of $`T`$. In comparing (3) with the definition of $`T`$, the relativistic expression for kinetic energy is seen to be $`T=\gamma mc^2`$ . In the present discussion, the mass has been treated as a constant . The Bradley relation $`c^2v^2=c^2`$ can then be expressed in terms of kinetic energy and momentum, which is the covariant energy-momentum equation with $`T^2/c^2p^2=m^2c^2`$. There is no difficulty in obtaining the relativistic form of energy and momentum equations along the physical line of thought in the framework of classical mechanics.

Because the aberration effect is ascribed to a change in the velocity of observation due to the motion of an observer, it is thought that relativistic phenomena would appear due to the measurement velocity being affected by a particle velocity. It is just like a vector difference between velocities. This illustrates why relativistic phenomena appear more pronounced as the velocity of particles approaches the velocity of light. The idea becomes clear. Is the effect of relativity just an effect due to the velocity of measurement being affected by the velocity of a particle? Understood as such, special relativity physics is identified itself as denoting the branch of physics which takes into consideration even the measurement velocity as affected by the particle velocity. This makes clear why the velocity of light appears in the equations of motion of a material particle. In this regard, a particle speed as fast as or faster than light, apart from the possibility of existence, is unobservable because such a particle goes beyond the limit of observation.

We suppose that the Earth is uniformly moving with velocity v with respect to the solar system. For simplicity, let the origins of the coordinates of the Earth and the solar system be coincident at time $`t=0`$, at which time the star emits a pulse of light. If this pulse of light reaches the solar system at a time $`t`$, the propagation paths of the light to the solar system and the Earth are respectively given by $`R=ct`$ and $`R^{}=c^{}t`$. Let $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ be the respective projections of $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ along the direction of v. By the Pythagoras theorem, then, the geometric figure of aberration gives us the expression

$$c^2t^2x^2=c^2t^2x^2.$$
(4)
The general form of expression for aberration stands in contrast with the Lorentz condition which led to the transformation equations. It suggests taking $`c^{}t`$ in place of $`ct^{}`$ as used in the Lorentz condition. They can be illustrated by the geometry of the Pythagoras theorem. In form, they correspond to an orthogonal transformation in a four-dimensional space consisting of the path of propagation of light and the three coordinates of space. It is important to notice their difference.

The aberration of starlight shows the simultaneous arrival of light signals starting from the star at the two points $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ in relative motion. The effect gives a physical interpretation for the four-dimensional space, which includes the observation in the description of motion. The Lorentz condition finds its explanation in a spreading spherical wave with time, which starts from the star and reaches the point $`x`$ at time $`t`$ and the point $`x^{}`$ at time $`t^{}`$. In the covariant form this gives the fourth coordinate as time. But it is given for the length of the path of propagation of light in terms of time. The Lorentz condition is a geometric relation. It has no physical bearing on a relative motion of the two points. With this very reason, the Lorentz transformation equations turn out to be the result of an ill-conceived marriage.

Seeing the Doppler effect, there is no doubt that the velocity of light is not independent of the motion of its source. The invariance of the velocity of light in all uniformly moving systems, which plays so decisive a role in the Lorentz transformation, has an ambiguous bearing on the experimental facts. To be consistent with observation for the aberration of starlight, the Doppler shift, and the Michelson-Morley experiment, the second postulate should be replaced by the restricted, but more accurate, postulate that the velocity of light appears the same in all uniformly moving systems if and only if the source and the observer are both in a given system.

While a pulse of light propagates to the Earth, the motion of the Earth displaces its position: $`x^{}=xvt`$. In the same manner as derived the Lorentz transformation equations we can obtain an expression for the propagation path of starlight to the Earth. The aberration of starlight expressed in (4) can equally be solved to give

$$c^{}t=\gamma (ctvx/c)\text{or}c^{}=\gamma c(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$
(5)
Since the ratio between $`x`$ and $`ct`$ is the direction cosine of the propagation path of starlight with respect to v, it can be expressed in the more familiar form of the Doppler shift formula. It is of interest to see that the aberration of starlight gives a general derivation of the relativistic formula for the Doppler shift. This leads us ultimately to consider the transverse Doppler shift as due to the aberration effect and thus as observed in the direction inclined at the angle of aberration toward the direction of motion of a moving source.

We can give a general derivation of the expression for the angle of aberration. As shown in the geometric figure, the ratio between the propagation path of starlight and the path of the Earth is a direction cosine. We obtain

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \beta }{1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta }\text{from}\frac{x^{}}{c^{}t}=\frac{\gamma (xvt)}{\gamma (ctvx/c)}.$$
(6)
This is the same expression as given by considering the transformation of the phase of light wave, by Einstein .

It has been shown algebraically that two successive transformations with velocity parameters $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ are equivalent to a single Lorentz transformation of parameter $`\beta =(\beta _1+\beta _2)/(1+\beta _1\beta _2)`$. This also follows from the ratio in (6), in consequence of the interpretation of $`x/ct`$ as the velocity parameter of a particle in the rest system and $`x^{}/c^{}t`$ as the velocity parameter of observer in the laboratory. The formula for the addition of velocities comes from the inverse transformation equations. The inverse equations differ only by a change in the sign of v. Note that the $`\gamma `$ factor is symmetric with respect to two systems in relative motion, the physics of relativity. It is misleading to introduce the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}/\gamma =\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ as a basis for the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis from $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}=\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }x`$ given as a consequence of the Lorentz transformation equations.

5 Aberration of fields

Newton’s gravitational force is a static force. There is no notion of propagation, an action at a distance. In modern physics, it is required that a force be transmitted with a velocity. If the gravitational field propagates with the velocity of light instead of instantaneously, the gravitational field must suffer aberration, just as light does. It is then realized that the aberration of starlight expresses the aberration of the gravitational field of star.

Let R be the radius vector from a star to the retarded position of the Earth. If the star is in a direction perpendicular to the motion of the Earth, the path of propagation of starlight to the Earth is given by $`R/\mathrm{cos}\alpha =\gamma R`$. The gravitational potential of the star can then be written as

$$\left[\frac{GM}{R}\right]_{tR/c}\text{and}\left[\frac{GM}{\gamma R}\right]_t.$$
(7)
We may infer this form of gravitational potential from the aberration of starlight. It shows that the gravitational potential at the point of observation at time $`t`$ is determined by the state of motion of the Earth at the retarded time $`tR/c`$, for which the time of propagation of light from the star to the observation point just coincides with $`R/c`$.

We can extend this to the case where the star is not in a direction perpendicular to the motion of the Earth. The propagation path of starlight to the Earth is then given by (5) as $`R^{}=\gamma R(1\beta 𝐧)`$, where n is a unit vector in the direction of R. The gravitational potential can thus be written in the general form

$$\frac{GM}{\gamma R(1\beta 𝐧)}.$$
(8)
If we define the gravitational field by the gradient of potential, then we obtain from the gravitational potential the expression

$$\frac{GM}{\gamma ^2R^2(1\beta 𝐧)^2}(𝐧\beta ),$$
(9)
where we have used $`R(1\beta 𝐧)=𝐧\beta `$ .

It is thought possible to express in a covariant form the aberration effect on the gravitational field. The gravitational field acting on the Earth is different in direction and magnitude from that when the Earth is at rest. In the geometric figure the difference is shown to be an acceleration that the moving Earth has during the propagation. The spatial variation in propagation of the gravitational field may be expressed in the form

$$\left[\frac{GM}{R^2}𝐧\right]_{tR/c}\left[\frac{GM}{\gamma ^2R^2(1\beta 𝐧)^2}(𝐧\beta )+\frac{d(\gamma 𝐯)}{dt}\right]_t.$$
(10)
This equation shows that the gravitational field acting on a moving system must be balanced by an acceleration the system would have during propagation. Total gravitational effects observed at a moving system will thus be the same, regardless of how fast it moves. This makes the gravitational field invariant in the covariant form.

Following the same line of reasoning, the Coulomb potential produced by a moving electron can be expressed in the form of (8) by replacing the gravitational charge $`GM`$ by the electronic charge $`e`$. The Coulomb field thus obtained is in formal agreement with the electric field of an electron in uniform motion in electrodynamics. We can make a comparison with the Liénard-Wiechert potential in terms of the retarded and present times:

$$\left[\frac{e}{R(1\beta 𝐧)}\right]_{tR/c},\left[\frac{e}{\gamma R(1\beta 𝐧)}\right]_t.$$
(11)
Since the relation of the retarded position to the present position of a moving electron is not, in general, known, the Liénard-Wiechert potential ordinarily permits only the evaluation of the field in terms of retarded position and velocity of the electron. In the present approach, the unknown effect occurring during the propagation is assumed to be an aberration effect on the field attributed to its finite propagation velocity. As applied to a moving source of light, the aberration effect on the propagation of light to the observer yields an expression equal to the relativistic formula for the Doppler shift. This furnishes support for that assumption. The unknown effect occurring during the propagation would be the aberration of the Coulomb field produced by a moving electron.

The electric field of a moving electron divides itself into a velocity field and an acceleration field . In the present approach, the Coulomb potential alone induces the velocity field. Thus to make this approach agree with the electric field of a moving electron, the vector potential should be deduced solely from the acceleration field. On the assumption that the $`\gamma `$ factor is cancelled out by the relativistic correction to velocity, this deductive reasoning leads to the following expressions for the vector potential:

$$\frac{e}{c}\left[\frac{𝐯}{R(1\beta 𝐧)}\right]_{tR/c},\frac{e}{c}\left[\frac{𝐯(𝐯𝐧)𝐧}{R(1\beta 𝐧)}\right]_t.$$
(12)
This shows that the vector potential is evaluated by the component of velocity perpendicular to n. When we view the vector potential in this way, we realize that the component of velocity parallel to n has been incorporated in the velocity of field propagation. This makes it reasonable to expect the form of (12). Actually, it is true that the velocity of source appears as perpendicular to n by the velocity of propagation relative to the velocity of source.

The Liénard-Wiechert potentials are to be evaluated at the retarded time. For derivatives, thus, we make use of transformations obtained by differentiating $`R=c(tt_0)`$:

$$\frac{}{t}=\frac{1}{(1\beta 𝐧)}\frac{}{t_0},=_R\frac{𝐧}{c(1\beta 𝐧)}\frac{}{t_0}.$$
(13)
When viewed from the present point, however, the aberration effect should be taken into consideration. In passing, we remark that the effect requires the vector potential to be transverse, satisfying the radiation gauge. In addition, the effect requires to evaluate the vector potential with respect to the path of propagation, $`c^{}dt`$ in place of $`cdt`$. In the radiation gauge, then, the electric field is given by

$$𝐄=\frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐀}{t}\frac{e}{c}\frac{𝐧\times (𝐯\times 𝐧)}{\gamma R^2(1\beta 𝐧)^2}+\frac{e}{c^2}\frac{𝐧\times \{(𝐧𝐯)\times \dot{𝐯}\}}{\gamma R(1\beta 𝐧)^3}.$$
(14)
The first term is a result of differentiating $`R`$ by noting here $`R=ct`$. The second term is in agreement with the acceleration field except the $`\gamma `$ factor. As shown by (14), in form, the time derivative is equivalent to the differential operator. In the intuitive form, therefore, the magnetic induction may be evaluated in terms of the electric field:

$$𝐁=\times 𝐀=\frac{𝐧}{c}\frac{}{t}\times 𝐀=𝐧\times 𝐄.$$
(15)
The aberration effect on the potential fields lends itself to incorporation in the classical theory of radiation.

We now consider the motion of an electron in a uniform magnetic field H. If the electron has no velocity component along the field, it moves along a circle in the plane perpendicular to the field. The electron moving in the field satisfies the equation

$$mv^2𝐫/r^2=e𝐯/c\times 𝐇.$$
(16)
There would be an aberration of uniform magnetic field because of its finite propagation velocity. The physics of the situation is reminiscent of the aberration of starlight, where the field replaces starlight and the electron replaces the Earth in its orbit. The angle between v and H must be $`\pi /2\alpha `$, instead of being $`\pi /2`$. The equation is written

$$mv^2/r=(evH/c)\mathrm{sin}(\pi /2\alpha ).$$
(17)
From the relation in (1), we find the magnetic frequency to be $`eH/\gamma mc`$. We can find a complete derivation of the relation for the magnetic frequency from the point of view of aberration. The $`\gamma `$ factor must be the aberration effect.

Insight into the relativistic velocity of an electron can be provided by considering the mechanism by which the velocity of an electron is determined. An electrostatic spectrograph to determine the velocity of an electron consists in balancing the magnetic and electric deflections against each other . The electron moving in a uniform magnetic field H, perpendicularly to H, describes a circular path of radius $`R_H`$:

$$mv^2𝐑_H/R_H^2=e𝐯/c\times 𝐇.$$
(18)
If this electron moves in a radial electric field E, it can describe a circular path of radius $`R_E`$ given by

$$mv^2𝐑_E/R_E^2=e𝐄.$$
(19)
The equation of motion for the electron moving in the fields H and E applied simultaneously is then given by balancing the centrifugal force arising from the magnetic deflection against the centrifugal force due to the electric deflection, by

$$e𝐄R_E=e𝐯/c\times 𝐇R_H.$$
(20)
Taking into account the aberration occurring in the form of the vector difference between v and H, the angle between v and H is tilted at an angle of aberration toward the direction of motion of the moving electron. Thus,

$$cER_E=vHR_H\mathrm{sin}(\pi /2\alpha ).$$
(21)
The velocity of the electron is found to be $`\gamma cER_E/HR_H`$, where $`\beta =ER_E/HR_H`$. In this regard, $`cER_E/HR_H`$ is seen to be the intrinsic velocity the electron would have if the velocity of propagation of the fields were infinite, thereby not suffering aberration. This elucidates why a particle velocity itself appears dilated to the observer. The speed of high-energy particles of $`\gamma v`$ can easily be superluminal phenomenologically. It should be noted that the apparent speed of high-energy particles is ascribed to the aberration of uniform magnetic field. The relativistic velocity is identified with the apparent velocity of which the $`\gamma `$ factor arises out of the effect of aberration.

6 Covariant Maxwell equations

We consider the electromagnetic fields seen by an observer in the system $`S`$ when a point charge $`q`$ moves by in a straightline path along the $`x`$ direction with a velocity v. Let $`S^{}`$ be the moving coordinate system of $`q`$. The charge is at rest in this system. But when viewed from the system $`S`$, the charge represents a current $`𝐉=q𝐯`$ in the $`x`$ direction. The electromagnetic fields are then related through Ampère’s law:

$$\left[\times 𝐁=\frac{4\pi }{c}𝐉+\frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐄}{t}\right]_S=\left[\times 𝐁=\frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐄}{t}\right]_S^{}.$$
(22)
Ampère’s law keeps its form invariant with respect to the two systems in relative motion. They are related at the same time, and so are the equations: $`t=t^{}`$. In the covariant form, nonetheless, it is instructive to write the equations of transformation between $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ in terms of $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$. For that purpose, instead of using $`ct`$ and $`c^{}t`$, we use here the Lorentz transformation equations.

Let us apply to the equation the Lorentz transformation of coordinates with $`[\gamma (ct\beta x),\gamma (xvt),y,z]_S=[ct,x,y,z]_S^{}`$. The $`y`$ and $`z`$ components are homogeneous equations. The transformation of these components is straightforward. The $`x`$ component is an inhomogeneous equation. Its transformation does not seem to be so.

By Coulomb’s law $`𝐄=4\pi q`$, the equation can be written as

$$\frac{B_z}{y}\frac{B_y}{z}=\frac{v}{c}(𝐄)+\frac{1}{c}\frac{E_x}{t}.$$
(23)
If we multiply the $`\gamma `$ factor and use the inverse equations, we can transform the equation into the form

$$\frac{}{y^{}}\left\{\gamma \left(B_z\frac{v}{c}E_y\right)\right\}\frac{}{z^{}}\left\{\gamma \left(B_y+\frac{v}{c}E_z\right)\right\}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{E_x}{t^{}}.$$

We may start with Faraday’s law. In exactly the same manner, we use the relation $`𝐁=0`$ to obtain the equations of transformation. This completes the transformation of electromagnetic fields from the Maxwell equations.

7 Concluding remarks

We are taught special relativity in such a way that the phenomenon of time dilation is daily verified in high-energy physics laboratories. But the verification is not so explicit; one can only infer the lifetime dilation from the mean free path for the $`\pi `$-meson decay measured in the experiment. Nor are we unanimous in accepting or interpreting the concept of time dilation. The superluminal motion is by no means mysterious. The astronomical observation has shown us that a particle velocity itself appears dilated to the observer phenomenologically. Had the time been measured directly, the $`\pi `$-meson experiment would have shown essentially the same. Not only the experiment but the theory is incomplete. The aberration of uniform magnetic field has been overlooking in physics. The effect of aberration gives rise to the $`\gamma `$ factor of velocity, which disproves the phenomenon of time dilation. For the relativistic mass, likewise, the aberration effect disproves the experimental result. The effect of relativity is due to the $`\gamma `$ factor of velocity arising out of aberration.

From special relativity we learn that the equations of motion should be covariant in the mathematical structure of time and space. By identical treatment of time and space, as Minkowski addressed , the forms in which the equations of motion are displayed gain in covariance. The Lorentz transformation equations were obtained by applying a covariant condition to two systems in relative motion. In the relative motion of two systems, however, it is assumed that time is the same in both systems. Two systems in relative motion cannot be covariant in time and space. The covariant condition can be satisfied by an equation for motion of a system or relative motion of two systems, providing a geometry in time and space for motion. But two systems in relative motion must not be confused with a relative motion of two systems. As noted by Sommerfeld , the fourth coordinate is not $`t`$ but $`ct`$. In the case of a moving source of light, furthermore, it is the velocity of light that appears dilated to the observer.

We can find in the effect of aberration a phenomenological explanation of special relativity physics. This reflects that the physical origin of relativistic phenomena lies in the aberration of starlight. The emphasis should be on how the physics of special relativity can be replaced in form and content by the physics of aberration. In contrast with special relativity, this leads us to an understanding of relativistic phenomena using a physical reasoning. It is demonstrated that the usual concepts of time and simultaneity are natural for describing relativistic phenomena. Einstein’s argument is in essence a mathematical explanation based on the transformation equations. The resulting equations of Einstein’s theory had been proved to be correct, contributing greatly to modern physics. However, the correct result does not always warrant the correctness of assumption. In the past controversy, the incorrect argument is not in opponents’ minds but in Einstein’s theory assuming the dilation of time scales. The concept of time dilation makes no sense physically; time is an independent variable and motion is relative to each other.

Appendix: Remark on the superluminal motion

There has been a precision measurement of the neutrino velocity at 17 GeV with the OPERA detector at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory . The neutrino speed is measured by passing through about 730 km of the Earth’s crust from the CERN, showing values equivalent to the light speed within experimental errors. Intense debate on the experiment increases our interest in the OPERA result . At much higher energy, the amazing result is compatible with earlier measurement of the neutrino velocity at 3 GeV from the Fermilab NuMI beam with the MINOS detector .

In the early 1970s, we were aware of a superluminal motion from the observation of radio source 3C279. Most astronomers could not believe the motion to be the case because the superluminal velocity cannot be accepted by the theory of special relativity. The current explanation given in astronomy must be reasonable, but it cannot be a physical explanation for the superluminal motion.

From a phenomenological point of view it is evident that a particle velocity itself appears dilated to the observer by the $`\gamma `$ factor. The superluminal motion of jet in quasars must be such an apparent velocity. In fact, the intrinsic speed of the jet has been calculated by using the $`\gamma `$ factor required for the apparent velocity measured in the jet of 3C279 . The derivation of apparent velocity is detailed in astronomy. But it is the aberration effect. It is due to the vector difference between the velocities of jet and light. A pulse of light emitted by the jet is propagated to us in the apparent direction. Like the velocity, we may deduce the intrinsic direction from the jet image.

The neutrino velocity does not seem to be of the same character. The neutrino velocity has been determined with high accuracy through the measurement of the time of flight and the distance between the source of the neutrino beam at CERN and the OPERA detector at Gran Sasso Laboratory. The neutrino velocity cannot be an apparent velocity; the neutrino itself must be moving at such speed. Notice no effect of relativity in such measurement. Then the motion of neutrino is unobservable because the observation cannot catch up in speed with the neutrino. We can only observe the track of neutrino. This suggests their speed for why neutrinos could not be detected directly. Their negligible mass and neutral charge are technical reasons. In principle, we cannot apply the energy-momentum equation to the motion of neutrinos. This is because the four-momentum equation is given for the motion of a particle which is observable at the speed of light. Neutrino physics is a new physics beyond the observation and description of motion.

References

 F. T. Jenkins and H. E. White, Fundamentals of Optics (McGraw-Hill, 1976) 4th ed., p. 416

 J. W. S. Rayleigh, The Theory of Sound (Dover, 1945) vol. 2, p. 155

 M. Jakobson, A. Shulz, and J. Steinberger, Phys. Rev. 81 (1951) 894; C. E. Wiegand, Phys. Rev. 83 (1951) 1085

 R. P. Durbin, H. H. Loar, and W. W. Havens Jr, Phys. Rev. 88 (1952) 179

 Review article, “Quasar’s Jet; Faster Than Light?” Science in Korea (1982) 24

 W. K. H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism (Addison-Wesley, 1962) 2nd ed., p. 303

 H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, 1950), p. 202

 C. G. Adler, Am. J. Phys. 55 (1987) 739; L. B. Okun, Phys. Today (June 1989) 31

 H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity (Dover, 1952), p. 56

 Reference 6, p. 356

 J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (John Wiley & Sons, 1975) 2nd ed., p. 657

 M. M. Rogers, A. W. McReynolds, and F. T. Rogers Jr, Phys. Rev. 57 (1940) 379

 Reference 9, p. 75

 Reference 9, p. 92

 OPERA Collaboration, arXiv:1109.4897 (2011)

 A. G. Cohen and S. L. Glashow, arXiv:1109.6562 (2011); ICARUS Collaboration, arXiv:1110.3763 (2011)

 MINOS Collaboration, arXiv:0706.0437 (2007)

 B. G. Piner et al., arXiv:astro-ph/0301333 (2003)


format: text

text:
# Theory of valence transitions in ytterbium-based compounds

## I Introduction

The intermetallic compounds of the YbInCu4 family exhibit an isostructural transition from high-temperature state with trivalent Yb ions in the $`4f^{13}`$ configuration to the low-temperature mixed-valent state with Yb ions fluctuating between $`4f^{13}`$ and $`4f^{14}`$ configurations . The transition is particularly abrupt in high-quality stoichiometric YbInCu4 samples  with a transition temperature equal to $`T_v=42`$ K at ambient pressure; the susceptibility and the resistivity drop at $`T_v`$ by more than one order of magnitude in cooling, while the volume expansion is small, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V0.05`$. The valence change inferred from $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$ by using the usual ionic radii of Yb3+ and Yb2+ is about $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_f0.1`$, which is consistent with the valence measurements by the $`L_{III}`$-edge absorption . The critical temperature depends strongly on external pressure, magnetic field, and alloying . A recent review of the experimental data is given in Ref.  and here we just recall the main points which motivate our choice of model.

The integer-valent phase ($`TT_v`$) is characterized by a Curie-Weiss susceptibility  with very small Curie-Weiss temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }T_v`$. The Curie constant corresponds to the free moment of one magnetic f-hole in a $`J=7/2`$ spin-orbit state with $`\mu _{eff}=4.53\mu _B`$. The electrical resistance is large and has a small positive slope; it remains almost unchanged in magnetic fields up to 30 T . In some systems, like Yb1-xYxInCu4, the magnetoresistance is slightly negative, while in YbInCu4 (or YbIn1-xAgxCu4 for $`x=0.15`$) it is slightly positive . The Hall constant is large and negative, indicating a small number of carriers . The thermoelectric power has a rather small slope which one finds in a semiconductor with a nearly symmetric density of states . Recent data on the optical conductivity of YbInCu4  shows the absence of a Drude peak at high temperatures and a pronounced maximum of the optical spectral weight at about 1 eV. The high-temperature ESR data for Gd3+ embedded in YbInCu4 resemble those found in integer-valence semi-metallic or insulator hosts . Thus, the high-temperature phase indicates the presence of a well defined local moment but gives no signature of the Kondo effect. The overall behavior of the high-temperature phase is closer to that of a semi-metal or paramagnetic small-gap semiconductor than to a Kondo metal.

The mixed-valent phase ($`T<T_v`$) behaves like a Pauli paramagnet with moderately enhanced susceptibility and specific heat coefficient . The electrical resistance and the Hall constant are one order of magnitude smaller than in the high-temperature phase . The thermoelectric power  has a very large slope typical of a valence fluctuator with large asymmetry in the density of states. The susceptibility, the resistivity and the Hall constant do not show any temperature dependence below $`T_v`$, which is also typical of valence fluctuators. The optical conductivity shows a major change with respect to the high-temperature shape. The peak around 1 eV is reduced, the Drude peak becomes fully developed, and an additional structure in the mid-infrared range appears quite suddenly below $`T_v`$ . A large density of states at the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is indicated by the ESR data as well . Thus, the transition at $`T_v`$ seems to be from a paramagnetic semimetal to a valence fluctuator.

In contrast to usual valence-fluctuators, which are quite insensitive to the magnetic field, the YbInCu4 family of compounds also exhibit metamagnetic transitions when $`T<T_v`$. The Yb moment is fully restored at a critical field $`H_c(T)`$, with a Zeeman energy $`\mu _BH_c`$ comparable to the thermal energy $`k_BT_v`$. The metamagnetic transition defined by the magnetoresistance or the magnetization data  gives an H-T phase boundary $`H_c(T)=H_c^0\sqrt{1(T/T_v)^2}`$. The zero-temperature field $`H_c^0`$ is related to $`T_v`$ as $`k_BT_v/\mu _BH_c^0=1.8`$ .

To account for these features we need a model in which the non-magnetic, valence-fluctuating, metallic ground state can be destabilized by increasing temperature or magnetic field. Above the transition, we need a paramagnetic semiconductor with an average f-occupancy that is not changed much with respect to the ground state. The correct model for this system is a periodic Anderson model supplemented with a large Falicov-Kimball (FK) interaction term. The temperature or field induced transition suggests that one should place the narrow f-level just above the chemical potential $`\mu `$. The hybridization keeps the f-count finite below the transition, while large f-f correlations allow only the fluctuations between zero- and one-hole (magnetic) configurations. The low-temperature phase is close to the valence fluctuating fixed point and shows no Kondo effect. However, because of the Falicov-Kimball term, there is a critical f-occupation at which there is a transition into the high-temperature state with a large gap in the d- and f-excitation spectrum. The $`n_f`$ is driven to criticality either by temperature or magnetic field. In the high-temperature phase the hybridization can be neglected because the f-level width is already large due to thermal fluctuations, and quantum fluctuations are irrelevant. Unfortunately, the above model would be difficult to solve in a controlled way, and here we consider a simplified model in which the hybridization is neglected at all temperatures. This leads to a spin-degenerate Falicov-Kimball model which explains the collapse of the non-magnetic metallic phase at $`T_v`$ or $`H_c`$, and gives a good qualitative description of the high-temperature paramagnetic phase. However, the deficiency of the simplified model is that it yields a negligible f-count in the metallic phase and predicts a large change in the Yb valence at $`T_v`$ or $`H_c`$. It is clear that we can not obtain the valence fluctuating ground state and maintain the average f-occupancy below the transition without hybridization-induced quantum fluctuations. In what follows, we describe the model, explain the method of solution, and present results for static and dynamic correlation functions.

## II Calculations

The Hamiltonian of the Falicov-Kimball model  consists of two types of electrons: conduction electrons (created or destroyed at site $`i`$ by $`d_{i\sigma }^{}`$ or $`d_{i\sigma }`$) and localized electrons (created or destroyed at site $`i`$ by $`f_{i\sigma }^{}`$ or $`f_{i\sigma }`$). The conduction electrons can hop between nearest-neighbor sites on the D-dimensional lattice, with a hopping matrix $`t_{ij}=t^{}/2\sqrt{D}`$; we choose a scaling of the hopping matrix that yields a nontrivial limit in infinite-dimensions . The $`f`$-electrons have a site energy $`E_f`$, and a chemical potential $`\mu `$ is employed to conserve the total number of electrons $`n_d+n_d+n_f+n_f=n_{tot}`$. The Coulomb repulsion $`U_{ff}`$ between two $`f`$-electrons is infinite and there is a Coulomb interaction $`U`$ between the $`d`$\- and $`f`$-electrons that occupy the same lattice site. An external magnetic field $`h`$ couples to localized electrons with a Landé g-factor. The resulting Hamiltonian is

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{ij,\sigma }{}}(t_{ij}\mu \delta _{ij})d_{i\sigma }^{}d_{j\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(E_f\mu )f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }`$ (1)
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}d_{i\sigma }^{}d_{i\sigma }f_{i\sigma ^{}}^{}f_{i\sigma ^{}}+U_{ff}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}f_i^{}f_if_i^{}f_i`$ (2)
$`\mu _Bh{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}\sigma (2d_{i\sigma }^{}d_{i\sigma }+gf_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }).`$ (3)
The model can be solved in the infinite-dimensional limit by using the methods of Brandt-Mielsch . We consider the hypercubic lattice with Gaussian density of states $`\rho (ϵ)=\mathrm{exp}[ϵ^2/t^2]/\sqrt{\pi }t^{}`$, and take $`t^{}`$ as the unit of energy ($`t^{}=1`$). Our calculations are restricted to the homogeneous phase.

The local conduction-electron Green’s function satisfies Dyson’s equation

$$G^\sigma (z)=\frac{\rho (ϵ)}{z+\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^\sigma (z)ϵ}𝑑ϵ,$$
(4)
where $`z`$ is a complex variable and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\sigma `$ is the local self energy which does not depend on momentum . In infinite dimensions, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\sigma `$ is defined by a sum of skeleton diagrams, which depend on the local d-propagator $`G^\sigma `$ but not on $`t_{ij}`$. The exact self-energy functional for the FK model is obtained by calculating the thermodynamic Green’s function  of an atomic system coupled to an external time-dependent field $`\lambda ^\sigma (\tau )`$

$$G_{\mathrm{atom}}^\sigma (\tau )=\frac{1}{𝒵}\mathrm{Tr}_{df}T_\tau e^{\beta H_{\mathrm{atom}}}d_\sigma (\tau ^{})d_\sigma ^{}(\tau )S(\lambda ),$$
(5)
where the S-matrix for the $`\lambda `$-field is

$$S(\lambda )=T_\tau e^{_0^\beta 𝑑\tau _0^\beta 𝑑\tau ^{}\lambda (\tau ,\tau ^{})d_\sigma ^{}(\tau )d_\sigma (\tau ^{})},$$
(6)
and $`H_{\mathrm{atom}}`$ is obtained from the Hamiltonian (3) by removing the hopping and keeping just a single lattice site. The exact solution for $`G_n^\sigma [\{\lambda _m\}]`$ at Matsubara frequency $`i\omega _n=i\pi T(2n+1)`$ is given by,

$$G_n^\sigma =\frac{w_0}{[G_{0n}^\sigma ]^1}+\frac{w_1}{[G_{0n}^\sigma ]^1U},$$
(7)
where $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ are the f-occupation numbers ($`w_1=1w_0`$, $`w_0=𝒵_0/𝒵`$) and

$$𝒵_0(\lambda ,\mu )=2e^{\beta \mu /2}\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{(i\omega _n)G_{0n}^{}}2e^{\beta \mu /2}\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{(i\omega _n)G_{0n}^{}},$$
(8)
with

$$𝒵(\lambda ,\mu )=𝒵_0(\lambda ,\mu )+2e^{\beta (E_f\mu )}𝒵_0(\lambda ,\mu U).$$
(9)
The bare Green’s function satisfies

$$G_{0n}^\sigma =\frac{1}{i\omega _n+\mu \lambda _n^\sigma },$$
(10)
with $`\lambda _n`$ the Fourier transform of the external time-dependent field.

The self-energy functional $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^\sigma [G_n^\sigma ]`$ can now be obtained  by using the Dyson equation for the atomic propagator,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^\sigma =[G_{0n}^\sigma ]^1[G_n^\sigma ]^1,$$
(11)
and eliminating $`G_{0n}^\sigma [\{\lambda _m\}]`$ from Eqs. (7) and (11). The mapping onto the lattice is achieved by adjusting $`G_{0n}^\sigma `$ in such a way that $`G_n^\sigma [\{\lambda _m\}]`$ satisfies the lattice Dyson equation (4).

The numerical implementation of the above procedure is as follows: We start with an initial guess for the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\sigma `$ and calculate the local propagator in (4). Using (11) we calculate the bare atomic propagator $`G_{0n}^\sigma `$ and find $`𝒵_0`$ and $`𝒵`$. Next we obtain $`w_0`$, $`w_1`$ and find $`G_n^\sigma `$ from (7). Using $`G_{0n}^\sigma `$ and $`G_n^\sigma `$, we compute the atomic self energy and iterate to the fixed point.

The iterations on the imaginary axis give static properties, like $`n_f`$, the f-magnetization $`m_f(h,t)`$, and the static spin and charge susceptibilities. Having found the f-electron filling $`w_1`$ at each temperature, we iterate Eqs. (4) to (11) on the real axis and obtain the retarded dynamical properties, like the spectral function, the resistivity, the magnetoresistance, and the optical conductivity. At the fixed point, the spectral properties of the atom perturbed by $`\lambda `$-field coincide with the local spectral properties of the lattice.

## III Results and discussion

We studied the model for a total electron filling of 1.5 and for several values of $`E_f`$ and $`U`$. The main results can be summarized in the following way.

The occupancy of the f-holes at high temperatures is large and there is a huge magnetic degeneracy. The f-holes are energetically unfavorable but are maintained because of their large magnetic entropy. In Fig.(1) we show $`n_f`$ as a function of temperature, plotted for $`U=4t^{}`$, and $`E_f/t^{}`$ from -0.2 to -0.7. Below a certain temperature, which depends on $`U`$ and $`E_f`$, there is a rapid transition to the low-temperature phase. The transition becomes sharper and is pushed to lower temperatures as $`E_f`$ decreases at constant $`U`$. However, we restrict ourselves to continuous crossovers here, since the region with first-order transitions leads to numerical instabilities.

The uniform f-spin susceptibility is obtained by calculating the spin-spin correlation function  and is given by $`\chi (T)=Cn_f(T)/T`$, where $`C=g_L^2\mu _B^2J(J+1)/3k_B`$ is the Curie constant.

The $`\chi (T)/C`$ is shown in Fig. (2) for $`U/t^{}=4`$ and for $`E_f`$ as quoted in Fig.(1). The $`T_v`$ is obtained from the maximum of the $`\chi (T)/C`$ and the values corresponding to various parameters used in this paper are quoted in the caption of Fig. (2). The high-temperature susceptibility follows an approximate Curie-Weiss law, but the Curie-Weiss parameters depend on the fitting interval.

The interacting density of states $`\rho _d(\omega )`$ for the conduction electrons is shown in Fig.(3) for $`U/t^{}=4`$ and $`E_f/t^{}=0.5`$, and for several temperatures. (The energy is measured with respect to $`\mu `$.) The high-temperature DOS has a gap of the order of $`U`$, and the chemical potential is located within the gap. Below the transition $`n_f`$ is small, the correlation effects are reduced, and $`\rho _d(\omega )`$ assumes a nearly non-interacting shape, with large $`\rho _d(\mu )`$ and halfwidth $`Wt^{}`$.

The transport properties of the high-T phase are dominated by the presence of the gap, which leads to a small dc conductivity with a weak temperature dependence. The transport properties of the paramagnetic phase are unrelated to the spin-disorder Kondo scattering (there is no spin-spin scattering in the FK model). Below the transition the conductivity increases and assumes large metallic values.

The intraband optical conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )`$ is plotted in Fig.(4) as a function of frequency, for several temperatures. Above $`T_v`$, we observe a reduced Drude peak around $`\omega =0`$ and a pronounced high-frequency peak around $`\omega U`$. The shape of $`\sigma (\omega )`$ changes completely across $`T_v`$. Below $`T_v`$ the Drude peak is fully developed and there is no high-energy (intraband) structure. However, if the renormalized f-level is close to $`\mu `$, the interband d-f transition could lead to an additional mid-infrared peak. The ratio of the high-frequency peak in Fig(4) and the corresponding value of $`T_v=0.15t^{}`$, is $`U/T_v=26`$. For the same value of U and $`E_f=0.7t^{}`$ ($`T_v=0.03t^{}`$) we obtain $`U/T_v=130`$, while for $`E_f=0.75t^{}`$ ($`T_v=0.02t^{}`$) we find $`U/T_v200`$ (not shown).

If we estimate the f-d correlation in YbInCu4 from the 8000 $`cm^1`$ peak in the optical conductivity data , we obtain the experimental value $`U1`$ eV. Together with $`T_v=42`$ this gives the ratio $`U/T_v200`$. If we take $`U/t^{}=4`$ and adjust $`E_f/t^{}`$ so as to bring the theoretical value of $`T_v`$ in agreement with the the thermodynamic and transport data on YbInCu4, we get a high-frequency peak in $`\sigma (\omega )`$ at about 8000 $`cm^1`$, 6000 $`cm^1`$, and 1500 $`cm^1`$, for $`E_f=0.75t^{}`$, $`E_f=0.7t^{}`$, and $`E_f=0.5t^{}`$, respectively.

The f-electron magnetization $`m_f(h)`$ is plotted in Fig.(5) versus reduced magnetic field $`h/t^{}`$, for several temperatures. Above the characteristic temperature $`T_v^{}T_v/2`$, the $`m_f(h)`$ curves exhibit typical local moment behavior. Below $`T_v^{}`$ we find a metamagnetic transition at a critical field $`H_c`$; the $`m_f(h)`$ is negligibly small below $`H_c`$ and the local moment is fully restored above $`H_c`$.

Taking the inflection point of the $`m_f(h)`$ curves, calculated for several values of U and $`E_f`$, as an estimate of $`H_c(T)`$ we obtain the phase boundary which is shown in Fig.(6), together with the expression $`H_c(T)/H_c^0=\sqrt{1(T/T_v^{})^2}`$. Note, the $`T_v^{}`$ values in Fig.(6) differ by more than an order of magnitude, while the ratio $`k_BT_v^{}/\mu _BH_c^0`$ is only weakly parameter dependent.

The metamagnetic transition is also seen in the field-dependent electrical resistance $`R(h,T)`$ which is plotted in Fig.(7) as a function of $`h/t^{}`$, for several temperatures. A substantial change in the $`R(h,T)`$ across $`T_v^{}`$ or $`H_c`$ is clearly seen.

## IV Summary

From the preceding discussion it is clear that Falicov-Kimball model captures the main features of the experimental data for YbInCu4 and similar compounds. The temperature- and field-induced anomalies are related to a metal-insulator transition, which is caused by large FK interaction and triggered by the temperature- or the field-induced change in the f-occupancy. At high temperatures, we find a large gap in $`\rho _d(\omega )`$; we expect a similar gap in the f-electron spectrum as well. At low temperatures, both gaps are closed, and the renormalized f-level renormalizes down to the chemical potential.

Our calculations describe doped Yb systems with broad transitions but appear to be less successful for those compounds which show a first-order transition. The numerical curves can be made sharper (by adjusting the parameters) but they only become discontinuous in a narrow parameter range. The main difficulty with the FK model is that it predicts a substantial change in the f-occupancy across the transition and associates the loss of moment with the loss of f-holes. But in the real materials the loss of moment seems to be due to the valence fluctuations, rather than to the reduction of $`n_f`$. The description of the valence fluctuating ground state would require the hybridization and is beyond the scope of this work. The actual situation pertaining to Yb ions in the mixed-valence state might be quite complicated, since one would have to consider an extremely asymmetric limit of the Anderson model, in which the ground state is not Kondo-like, there is no Kondo resonance, and there is no single universal energy scale which is relevant at all temperatures .

We speculate that the periodic Anderson model with a large FK term will exhibit the same behavior as the FK model at high temperatures. Indeed, if the conduction band and the f-level are gapped, and the width of the f-level is large, then the effect of the hybridization can be accounted for by renormalizing the parameters of the FK model. On the other hand, if the low-temperature state of the full model is close to the valence-fluctuating fixed point with the conduction band and hybridized f-level close to the Fermi level, then the likely effect of the FK correlation is to renormalize the parameters of the Anderson model.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge discussions with Z. Fisk, B. Lüthi, M. Miljak, M. Očko, and J. Sarrao. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DMR-9973225.


text:
# Stripes And Nodal Fermions As Two Sides Of The Same Coin.

## I the paradox

Paradoxes are among the best weaponry available to a scientist. The paradox in science is associated with a flaw in the theoretical understanding on the most basic level. Recently an interview with Edward Witten was broadcasted on dutch TV. The interviewer tried to corner Witten, arguing that quantum-gravity is a shaky affair because it is not accessible by experimental means. Witten was prepared for this question, arguing that the situation is not that bad because quantum gravity is firmly rooted in a grand paradox. Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally incompatible. This is intimately linked to basic assumptions that are so self evident that they are not even explicitly formulated. The pursuit of string-theory should be considered as an attempt to lay bare these hidden assumptions, and in this sense progress is made.

We want to suggest that high $`T_c`$ superconductivity is in a similar state. The field revolves around a grand paradox, with the added merit that it has experimental physics on its side.

The arrival of a paradox is accompanied by raging controversy, and the controversy in high $`T_c`$ superconductivity is not easy to overlook. The community has bifurcated in two schools of thought. The first school rests on the conceptual backbone of conventional BCS theory and has been quite successful in addressing the physics of the fully developed superconducting stateohrenstein . Their stronghold are the quasiparticles associated with the d-wave order parameter. The other school refers to the growing body of empirical and theoretical evidence suggesting that the electrons have been eaten by dynamical stripesohrenstein ; zanature . The paradox is that stripes and nodal fermions are mutually exclusive.

The basic assumption underlying stripes is that the electrons are expelled from the magnetic domains, with the unavoidable consequence that the soft charge degrees of freedom are associated with the motions inside the stripes. Since the stripes are oriented along the $`(1,0)/(0,1)`$ lattice directions the low energy propagating electronic excitations should be found along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X/Y`$ directions in the Brillioun zone. Along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$ the excitations have to traverse the insulating domains and this should cause a severe damping if not a complete gapping. Instead, photo-emission shows relatively sharp dispersive features along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$ which are quite like the nodal fermions of a d-wave superconductor. The messy fermions are found along the stripe directions.

It seems a widespread reflex to postulate a ‘two-fluid’ picture: stripes and nodal fermions reflect separate universes, both governed by their own laws, which are for whatever reason completely disconnected. One has no other choice within the confines of BCS theory and the present understanding of dynamical stripes. However, this is no more than admitting defeat in the face of the paradox.

We want to pose the following question: can it be that stripes and nodal fermions are two manifestations of an underlying unity while they appear as dissimilar because of flawed hidden assumptions in the theory?

The remainder of this text will be a modest attempt to make the mind susceptible to the possibility that a positive answer exists for this question. A tactics will be followed which is not dissimilar to the habits in string theory. An alternative theory is suggested, of a highly speculative kind while its consequences are far from clear because of severe technical difficulties. However, it has the special merit that it does not suffer from the paradox, thereby shedding some light on what can be wrong in the current understanding.

The burden is on the stripe side. One has to get out of the narrow interpretations of textbook BCS theory to appreciate the nodal fermions on a sufficiently general level, and this work has already been done by others – see the next section. Our speculation is that the current way of viewing dynamical stripes is too classical. Instead, we assert that the superconducting- and stripe states are related by duality (section 3). Static stripes and superconductivity are competing orders and the duality principle of quantum field theory states that the competing phases can be viewed as ‘two sides of the same coin’kleinert : the disordered state (the superconductor) can be viewed as a condensate of the topological excitations (disorder fields) associated with the ordered state (the static stripes). The topological excitations of the stripe phase (‘stripe dislocations’) have such an unusual structure that it is a-priori unreasonable to assume that the associated disorder field-theory does not support nodal fermions.

## II The nodal fermions as Dirac spinons.

All what is needed on this side of the coin is to obtain a sufficiently general view on the nature of what has to be demonstrated: the nodal fermions. Although controversialfisher , we will take here the conservative position that BCS is correct as the fixed point theory. One has to be, however, aware of the over-interpretations associated with the weak-coupling treatments in the textbooks. These are twofold: the ultraviolet is not governed by a non-interacting electron gas, even not to some degree of approximationanderson . Secondly, Bogoliubov quasiparticles are in fact $`S=1/2`$ excitations of the spin system (spinons) which acquire fully automatically a finite electron pole-strength in the superconducting statekivelson .

$`H_0`$ is not a Sommerfeld gas. The universality principle states that systems differing greatly at microscopic scales can nevertheless exhibit the same physics at macroscopic scales. BCS is a universal theory and its infrared structure can be deduced from a simple model. The standard textbook approach sets off by guessing a zero-th order Hamiltonian ($`H_0`$) which depicts the large energy scale physics. In systems such as Aluminum, the Fermi-liquid renormalizations are basically complete at $`T_c`$ and $`H_0`$ is simply the Sommerfeld gas Hamiltonian. All one has to do is to add a small perturbation (the BCS-attractive interaction) which leaves the UV physics unaltered (the Fermi surface) while veering the system to the correct IR fixed point. Although the fixed point might still be the same, the way one gets there is entirely different in cupratesanderson ; pines . There is no such thing as a close approach to the Fermi-liquids at short scales- and times as is the case in Al. Instead, the analysis of Shen and coworkers of the photo-emission suggests that at truly large energies the electrons move in stripes: the ‘holy cross’zxshen ; zascience . Upon descending in energy, the cross starts to deteriorate and the nodal fermions start to appear. It is as if the nodal fermions are a long wavelength phenomenon associated with the quantum disordering of stripes!

It is only at low temperatures, deep in the superconducting state that one finds features which behave like quantum-mechanically propagating particles (the ‘quantum protection principle’pines ). The ramification is that it is not necessary to deduce a large, noninteracting Fermi-surface from quantum stripes. It is only necessary to demonstrate that the vacuum structure supports massless electron-like excitations living on Dirac cones: the nodal fermions.

Nodal fermions are spinons. As a next step, it is even not necessary to reinvent the electron. All that needs to be done is to find excitations carrying spin quantum number $`S=1/2`$ living on the Dirac cones. The superconducting condensate will take care of connecting these to the electrons. For this purpose we only have to remind the reader of an insight by Kivelson and Roksharkivelson , further elaborated by Fisher and coworkersfisher . According to the textbooks, the Bogoliubov quasiparticle is an electron because it has a pole-strength proportional to the square of a coherence factor. The finiteness of the pole-strength implies that the quantum numbers carried by the external electron can be attached to the excitations supported by the vacuum structure of the superconductor. Although spin- and momentum quantum numbers are sharply defined in the BCS state, there is a subtlety associated with the quantum of electrical charge: charge density is a fluctuating quantity in the superconductor and charge quanta can be added and removed at will from the condensate. Hence, the charge of the external electron can always be ‘dumped’ in the condensate.

To summarize, instead of reinventing aluminum, all what has to be done is to find out if a quantum disordered stripe phase can be constructed, which is superconducting while it carries $`S=1/2`$ excitations with a nodal-fermion dispersion.

## III Stripe duality.

One of the quiet revolutions of mathematical physics is the discovery of the field-theoretic principle of duality. At first it appears as a mathematically rigorous procedure which can be carried through to the end in only a few simple cases (e.g., ref. kleinert ). However, it seems to reflect a physical principle of a far greater generality. Especially in the condensed matter context it has a stunning consequence: except for the critical state, the universality of duality seems to suggest that there are no truely disordered states at zero temperature. What appears as disorder is actually order of the disorder operators.

Duality can be formulated as an algorithm, with the following subroutines: (a) Characterize the order in the system in terms of an order parameter structure. (b) Enumerate the topological excitations, and link them to singular configurations of the order fields defined in (a). A single topological excitation suffices to destroy the order everywhere. (c) At a critical value of the coupling constant these topological excitations will proliferate, signalling the transition to the ‘disordered’ state. (d) The constituents of the disordered state are the topological excitations of its ‘ordered’ partner. As these objects interact this in turn defines a ‘disorder’ field theory describing the condensation of the disorder matter. The ‘disordered’ state corresponds with an ordered state in terms of the topological excitations of the ‘ordered’ state.

Why should this have anything to do with the cuprates? Static stripes and superconductivity are clearly competing forms of order. When stripe order sets in, superconductivity is suppressed and vice versa. Moreover, it appears that this competition is governed by a (near) continuous quantum phase transitionzanature . This is not unimportant, since duality is only rigorously defined in continuum field theory and therefore the characteristic length scales should be large as compared to the lattice constant. Dynamical stripes seem to fulfill this condition at least in the underdoped regime. Finally, the ordered stripe phase and the superconductor appear to be very different states of matter, but this is not an a-priori problem. After all, the central notion of duality is that one is supposed to be the ‘maximally disordered’ version of the other, although at elevated energies they are bound to merge in a single critical regime. The remainder of this section is intended to illustrate the problems encountered in the duality construction which are so severe that it cannot be excluded that it is actually the correct way of viewing these matters.

According to the duality recipe, we have to start out specifying precisely what stripe order means. A stripe phase is a highly organized entity and characterized by a variety of distinct, coexisting orders:
(i) The stripe phase is a Wigner-crystal. This is obvious: the electrons form a crystal, breaking translational and rotational symmetry. We will adopt here the viewpoint that a fully ordered stripe state exists which can be used as reference state where translational symmetry is broken both parallel- and perpendicular to the stripes.
(ii) The stripe phase is a Mott-insulator. We use here ‘Mott-insulator’ in the general sense that the charge order discussed under (i) is commensurate with the underlying crystal structurezascience , causing a full gap in the charge excitation spectrum. This is actually controversial, and not of central importance in the present context. It is merely helpful, because there is nothing mysterious about an insulating stripe phase. Specifically, we will associate a conserved charge of $`2e`$ to the stripe Mott-insulator, since with this choice the correct superconductivity emerges directly (see, however, fisher ). The insulator would then correspond with a $`2k_F`$ on-stripe density wavebosch .
(iii) The stripe phase is a collinear antiferromagnet. This is also obvious. Even when the charge order stays complete, the antiferromagnet can quantum disorder all by itselfsachdev , and this is especially worth a consideration in the bilayer systems. However, we will ignore this possible complication since the focus here is in first instance on the 214 system where the charge ordered systems seem always to be Néel ordered as well.
(iv) The stripe phase is ‘topologically’ ordered. This is the novelty of the stripe phase: whenever stripes are observed in cuprates and nickelates the charges are localized on the antiphase domain walls in the Néel state. It is intuitively clear that this is a form of order, although of an unusual kind. In the fully disordered stripe phase this ‘anti-phase boundarieness’ must also be destroyed. Hence, the topological excitations of the topological order have to be considered and these are predominantly responsible for the unusual nature of the disorder theory.

Given the complexity of stripe order, one anticipates a rather rich disorder-field theory. This is indeed the case. However, this structure can be built up starting from an elementary topological texture of a remarkable simplicity: the stripe dislocation as sketched in fig. 1. This is a stripe which is just ending somewhere in the middle of the sample. In the present context one should appreciate this object as a quantum particle, which can freely propagate through the lattice, occurring at a finite density in the quantum disordered stripe state.

The disorder fields are responsible for the fixed point physics in the disordered state, and these reflect the topological charges associated with the constituent topological excitations. What are the conserved charges associated with the stripe dislocations? Everything one needs to know for the charge sector is available, and the problems are associated with the topological- and spin sectors.

Let us first shortly discuss the charge sector – this will be discussed in detail elsewhere. The ordered reference state is assumed to be a Mott-insulator, characterized by local conservation of charge. The stripe dislocation destroys this local charge conservation and is thereby an electrically charge particle carrying the charge quantum of the insulator. Assuming this charge to be 2e and neglecting of the sign structure associated with the spin sector, the dislocations become hard-core bosons. Moreover, if the dislocations can move freely, then the infinitely long dislocation world lines of the dislocated state will wind around each other. The resulting entangled state is none other than a superconductor. This is just the inverse of the well known Abelian Higg’s duality in 2+1 Dkleinert . This is not all, because the stripe phase is not just a featureless Mott-insulator but its charge sector also breaks translational- and rotational symmetry. The dislocation of fig. 1 is the topological defect associated with the restoration of translational symmetry, carrying a Burger’s vector topological charge. Rotational symmetry is restored by a distinct topological excitation, and it is expected that these disclinations are initially suppressed. Although dislocations restore translational invariance, they leave the rotational symmetry breaking unaffected and this is the quantum-nematic state as introduced by Kivelson et. al. kivelson\_nematics  (see also Balents and Nelsonbalents ). As will be discussed elsewhere us , instead of the single nematic of Kivelson et. al. one finds actually a variety of physically distinct nematic like phases if one starts from a Mott-insulating stripe phase. For the present purposes all what matters is, however, that a state exists which is dislocated while the dislocations are subjected to 2+1D motions.

The stage is now set for the case we wish to make. The question is: what is the meaning of ‘topological order’ (or ‘antiphase-boundarieness’) and what does it mean to destroy this topological order? Our assertion is that the low energy effective theory associated with this ‘order’ is actually not an order parameter theory, but instead a geometrical theory. The spin system lives in a ‘internal’ space which is different from the space experienced by an external observer. In the absence of stripe dislocations this internal space is ‘flat’, but the dislocations are sources of ‘curvature’. For the quantum antiferromagnet all that matters is the bipartiteness of the underlying lattice geometry. ‘Curved’ means that this bipartiteness is destroyed by the stripe dislocations. The spin system of the stripe-dual lives on a frustrating lattice which itself is fluctuating.

This can be discussed in a fairly rigorous setting, but given the space limitations let us just illustrate the main steps on an intuitive-geometrical level. What does anti-phase boundarieness mean? In fact, it does not make sense to call stripes domain walls in the spin system. Domain walls occur when a $`Z_2`$ symmetry is in charge and the (semiclassical) spin system is $`O(3)`$ invariant. Stripes are in this sense non-topological and some other principle is in charge, and this should be made explicit in order to construct the duality. This is a geometric principle and our claim is based on an exact result in 1+1D physics where ‘antiphase boundarieness’ is called ‘spin-charge separation’.

Spin-charge separation has been demystified in a seminal contribution by Ogata and Shiba Ogata . By inspecting the Bethe-Ansatz wave-function of the Hubbard model in 1+1D in the large $`U`$ limit they come up with a particular prescription for constructing the spin dynamics. Although it does not seem to be fully appreciated, this involves the notions of a geometric theory: on the most basic level it is similar to the Einstein theory of gravity. Their prescription is as follows: choose a particular distribution of holes on the lattice, and the amplitude of this configuration in the wave function will be entirely given by the configuration of the charges. Every given distribution of holes defines a pure spin problem which is indistinguishable at large U from the Heisenberg spin chain after a redefinition of the lattice. This is the ‘squeezing’ operation: take out the holes, together with the sites where they reside, and substitute an antiferromagnetic exchange bond between the spins neighbouring the hole for the taken out hole+site. In a geometrical language, the external observer (us) experiences the full chain. However, the internal observer (spin system) experiences a different space: the squeezed chain where the holes and their corresponding sites have been removed. Although the internal observer is ‘blind’ for the charge dynamics, it does matter for the external observer and this gives rise to a particular simple factorizable form for the spin-spin correlation function measured by the latter. Since this correlator is universal, the geometric structure which it reflects is also universal, and apparently even realized in the weak coupling (Tomonaga-Luttinger) limit.

Taking this geometrical principle as physical law, how does it generalize to a higher dimension? The only feature of the embedding space which matters for the quantum antiferromagnet is the bipartiteness of the lattice. There are two ways of dividing a bipartite lattice in two sublattices and this defines a sublattice parity $`p`$: $`p=+1`$ or $`p=1`$ if the covering is $`\mathrm{}ABAB\mathrm{}`$ or $`\mathrm{}BABA\mathrm{}`$, respectively. Divide now both the original- and the squeezed lattice in two sublattices: it is immediately seen that relative to the squeezed lattice the sublattice parity on the original lattice flips every time a hole is passed. The sublattice parity is the ‘hidden’ $`Z_2`$ symmetry!

This generalizes in a unique way to the D dimensional bipartite lattice. In order to keep the bipartiteness intact in the absence of the holes, the holes have to lie on D-1 dimensional manifolds. Hence, in 2+1D the holes are localized on 1+1D manifolds: the stripes. These manifolds can be of arbitrary shape in principle: the stripe fluctuations. Since the spin system on the higher dimensional squeezed lattice is unfrustrated, it will show long-range Néel order. When the hole manifolds order, this spin order will also become manifest.We claim that this prescription is consistent with all available experiments on stripes. We emphasize that we take here a phenomenological stand: the reason that this happens should be given by microscopic theory and this is far from settled. However, if the interest is in the long wavelength behavior one might as well pose the principle and take it for granted as long as it is consistent with the experiments.

In 2+1D the form of order described in the above can be destroyed in a way which is impossible in 1+1D: the stripe dislocation is the topological excitation of the ‘topological’ (sublattice parity) order in 2+1 D. Although it can be stated more precisely, it is already clear from Fig. 1: the sublattice parity order of the upper part of the figure cannot be matched with the lower part. More precisely, the space experienced by the spin system (the squeezed lattice) is no longer bipartite. This loss of bipartiteness, a frustration, is analogous to spatial curvature. In prior works geometric\_frustration , geometrically frustrated systems have been investigated on their own right- there frustration was incurred by the noncommuting nature of the generators of translation. In the present context, the frustration inherent in the loss of bipartiteness may be similarly reformulated in a geometrically precise manner us . Charge (stripe) dislocations destroy spin charge separation and act as gravitational sources for the spin texture.

The analogy with gravity becomes more literal in the classical limit. Consider $`S\mathrm{}`$ and static dislocations. The Néel order parameter texture is as indicated with the arrows in Fig. 1. This can be called a ‘$`\pi `$-vortex’ (see also zachar ), since it looks like ‘half’ the topological excitation of a $`O(2)`$ system. However, the spin system is $`O(3)`$ invariant and the soliton of the $`O(3)`$ system in 2+1D is the skyrmion, corresponding with a texture where the plane in which the order parameter rotates in internal space depends on the direction one takes in the embedding space. The rotation in Fig. 1 is in a single plane (like a vortex) and therefore it does not carry a conserved topological spin charge. Also notice that it is distinguished from a $`O(2)`$ vortex because it carries a zero-mode. Ascribe the rotation as indicated in the figure to the equator of the $`O(3)`$ sphere. Keeping the order parameter fixed at left- and right infinity, degenerate configurations are obtained by canting the order parameter ‘above’ the dislocation in the direction of one of the poles.

Interestingly,the above is exactly reproduced by embedding a $`O(3)`$ sigma model in a 2+1D space with a metric given by Einstein theory in the presence of a mass source of strength $`8Gm=1`$ ($`G`$ is Newton’s constant and $`m`$ the mass). In this limit, stripe dislocations act like the famous ‘conical singularities’ of 2+1D gravity conical\_signularity . Unfortunately, the stripe dislocations are not Lorentz invariant, otherwise the semiclassical theory of quantum stripes would reduce to an exercise in 2+1D quantum gravity!

Although these textures are non-topological, they are clearly ‘disorder operators’ in the spin system and when the stripe dislocations are proliferated while their spin zero-modes are also disordered, they will destroy the Néel order completely, giving rise to a dynamical mass-gap. However, there is a next subtlety: even when $`2e`$ is chosen for the electrical charge quantum the theory can no longer be bosonic when free stripe dislocations are present. In order to see this, we have to go back to the lattice geometry. Take the Ogata-Shiba prescription and remove the charge-stripes, substituting an anti-ferromagnetic bond for the lattice sites where the stripe reside. The lattice geometry as seen by the spins is as indicated in the inset of Fig. 1. At the dislocation a ‘pentagon’ plaquette is found and this is directly recognized as a spin frustration event causing minus signs which cannot be transformed away.

The ground state wave function of a nearest-neighbor Heisenberg spin system on a bipartite lattice is nodeless. This is easily seen as follows. Keep the spin operators on the $`A`$ sublattice fixed and regauge the spin-operators on the $`B`$ sublattice according to $`S^zS^z`$ and $`S^\pm S^\pm `$ which leaves the commutation relations unaffected. In the basis which is diagonal in the Ising term, all off-diagonal matrix elements become negative and this means that the ground state wave function only contains positive definite amplitudes. Repeating this on the squeezed spin lattice associated with the stripe dislocation, one finds a seam of positive bonds, starting at the dislocation and ending at infinity. The location of this seam is without physical meaning; it is easily checked that by repeatedly applying the gauge transformations us ; Gauge-strings  the sign-string can be moved arbitrarily through the plane, and the locus of the string is therefore a gauge freedom. Elsewhere we will argue that the spin-system is also insensitive to the locus of the half-infinite stripe attached to the dislocation and this means that the stripe dislocation the stripe dislocation appears in the spin system as a quantum particle attached to infinity by the sign string.

In the presence of irreducible signs mathematical physics comes to a grinding halt, and we are not aware of a precedent for the above sign structure. All one can say in general is that deep in the semi-classical regime signs are not immediately detrimental. Studies of the $`J1J2`$ model show that the Néel state is robust against a substantial degree of geometrical frustration while the (spin-Peierls) physics found at optimum frustration can be understood without referral to Marshall signsread . However, also in the semi-classical case one encounters a problem with the above, which now takes the shape of a Wess-Zumino-Witten type Berry phasefradkin . In the derivation of the semi-classical theory using the spin-coherent state path integral formalism one encounters imaginary terms in the Euclidean action which are proportional to the topological (Berry-) phase which takes care of the quantization of the microscopic spin. In a many-spin system it takes the form $`S_{WZW}=S_\stackrel{}{r}_0^1𝑑\tau _0^\beta 𝑑t\stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{r},t,\tau )_t\stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{r},t,\tau )\times _\tau \stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{r},t,\tau )`$ ($`t`$ is imaginary time). In the 1+1D case and for large $`S`$, this reduces to $`2\pi Sq`$, where the integer $`q`$ is the Skyrmion number associated with the order parameter texture in space-time. For half-integer spin this leads to alternating signs in the the quantum partition function and these are believed to be responsible for the collapse of the mass gap of the integer spin systemshaldane .

It was pointed out that in the large $`S`$ limit these topological terms are inconsequential for the 2+1D quantum antiferromagnet on the bipartite latticefradkin . This lattice can be divided into even and odd 1+1D rows, and the topological phase associated with the even ‘chains’ exactly compensate those of the odd ‘chains’. Consider now the stripe dislocation. Computing the topological phase for the ‘conical’ texture of Fig. 1, we find that the compensation is no longer complete. The texture can be smoothly deformed because the phase itself is topological, and it is easily demonstrated that it corresponds precisely with the 1+1D topological phase associated with the additional row in the lattice of half-infinite length, starting at the dislocation. Hence, even in the semi-classical case ‘sign’ problems remain although it is not at all clear to us what these imply.

## IV  The faith of the paradox.

What did we accomplish? In fact very little. Following the duality algorithm to the letter, we found that in combination with our understanding of the ‘antiphase-boundarieness’ of the stripes a novel problem is generated. We have no clue regarding the nature of the solution of this problem.

However, it is interesting to revisit the paradox discussed in the introduction. Its signature was that it was not possible to simultaneously take stripes and nodal fermions seriously. In this stripe-duality framework this is no longer true. The paradox has been resolved to yield a question: could it be that the stripe-disorder fields support nodal fermion excitations?

Let us first completely neglect the signs and in this case we know what to do. In the superconducting phase the world lines of the dislocations are winding around each other. To every world line a spin texture is attached of the kind as indicated in Fig. 1 – the signature of the spin system as it appears in the inelastic neutron scattering suggests that the spin system can be considered as semiclassical and since the spin-wave velocity is large it might well be that the spins can follow the charge motions nearly instantaneously. The ‘$`\pi `$-vortices’ are clearly disordering events in the spin system and, interestingly, they exert this disordering influence in the same way in all the directions in space. The ‘$`\pi `$-vortex’ covers the half-infinite plane ‘above’ (fig. 1) the dislocation and since the dislocation occurs at all ‘vertical’ positions the spin system is disordered identically in all directions. A quantum fluid of ‘$`\pi `$-vortices’ does not know about the directionally of stripes. This is a somewhat too rigorous resolution of the stripes-nodal fermion paradox: a dynamical mass gap should be generated in the spin sector and this gap should be rather uniform in momentum space, because of the isotropic disordering influence of the $`\pi `$-vortices.

Fortunately, there are the minus signs. Although little can be said in general, they do cause destructive interferences and have a reputation to diminish spin-gaps in favor of massless spinon excitations. The effective spin problem to be solved is that of a quantum-antiferromagnet living on a bipartite lattice pierced by the local frustration events associated with the stripe dislocations which themselves are moving around quantum mechanically. Is there any reason to exclude that this behaves like a d-wave superconductor?

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge stimulating discussions with S. A. Kivelson, H. V. Kruis, and O. Y. Osman. Financial support was provided by the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), which is sponsored by the Netherlands Organization of Pure Research (NWO).