text:
# Optical and X-ray Afterglows in the Cannonball Model of GRBs

## 1 Introduction

The idea that GRBs are due to collimated emissions is not recent. In the case of GRBs from quasars it was discussed by Brainerd ; in the case of a funnel in an explosion, by Meszaros & Rees . In what is no doubt the relevant case: jets in stellar gravitational collapses, the idea has been developed over the years by Dar and collaborators  to . Now we know that long-duration GRBs are cosmological, originate in galaxies, are associated with supernovae (SNe) and have energies that would be ridiculously large for a stellar spherical explosion (a fireball). GRBs must be “jetted”.

In the currently dominating scenarios, the ejecta that beget a GRB and its afterglow (AG) are thrown off in a uniform cone with an opening angle $`\theta _j(0)`$. This cone expands sideways: the angle $`\theta _j(t)`$ subtended by the ejecta increases with time, delineating a firetrumpet, as in Fig. (1). Relativistic jets are ubiquitous in astrophysics. The ejecta of these real jets, as seen from their emission point up to the point where they eventually stop and expand, generally subtend angles that decrease with time: just the opposite of the assumed behaviour of firetrumpets. In the analysis of the observed jets, e.g. , it is the fixed angle of observation —and not the angle subtended by the ejecta— that plays a key role.

The Cannonball (CB) model is based on the contention that GRBs and their AGs are made by relativistically jetted balls of ordinary “baryonic” matter which, by a mechanism  that I will outline, stop expanding soon after their emission. The CB idea gives a good description of the properties of the $`\gamma `$-rays in a GRB, that we modelled in simple approximations . It gives an excellent and complete description of optical and X-ray afterglows, which we have modelled in full detail, as I outline here.

## 2 The GRB and its engine

We assume that in core-collapse SN events a tiny fraction of the parent star’s material, external to the newly-born compact object, falls back in a time of the order of very roughly one day . Given the considerable specific angular momentum of stars, it settles into an accretion disk around the compact object. The subsequent sudden episodes of catastrophic accretion —occurring with a chaotic time sequence that we cannot predict— result in the emission of CBs, lasting till the reservoir of accreting matter is exhausted. The emitted CBs initially expand in their rest system at a speed $`\beta _Tc`$, of the order of the speed of sound in a relativistic plasma ($`\beta _T=1/\sqrt{3}`$). These considerations are illustrated in Fig. (2).

From this point onwards, the CB model relies on processes whose outcome can be approximately worked out in an explicit manner. The collision of the CB with the SN shell heats the CB (which is not transparent at this point to $`\gamma `$’s from $`\pi ^0`$ decays) to a surface temperature that, by the time the CB reaches the transparent outskirts of the SN shell, is $`150`$ eV, further decreasing as the CB travels . The resulting quasi-thermal CB surface radiation, Doppler-shifted in energy and forward-collimated by the CB’s fast motion, gives rise to an individual pulse in a GRB . The GRB light curve is an ensemble of such pulses, often overlapping one another. The energies of the individual GRB $`\gamma `$-rays, as well as their typical total fluences, require CB Lorentz factors $`\gamma `$ of $`𝒪`$(103).

The CB model also explains the “Fe lines” seen in some X-ray AGs, as boosted hydrogen-recombination lines . Their properties require $`\gamma 10^3`$ and a baryonic number per cannonball $`N_{CB}6\times 10^{50}`$. Even in a GRB with very many significant pulses, the total mass of a jet of CBs would be comparable to that of the Earth: peanuts, by stellar standards.

The rest of this note is based on , and concentrates on afterglows, for which the CB theory is very simple.

## 3 Optical Afterglows: theory

When an expanding CB, in a matter of (observer’s) seconds, becomes transparent to its enclosed radiation, it loses its internal radiation pressure. If it has been expanding at a speed comparable to that of relativistic sound, should it not inertially continue to do so? No! We assume CBs to enclose a magnetic field maze, as the observed ejections from quasars and microquasars do. The interstellar medium (ISM) the CBs traverse has been previously partially ionized by the forward-beamed GRB radiation. The neutral ISM fraction is efficiently ionized by Coulomb interactions as it enters the CB. In analogy to processes occurring in quasar and microquasar ejections, the ionized ISM particles are multiply scattered, in a “collisionless” way, by the CBs’ turbulent magnetic fields. In the rest system of the CB the ISM swept-up nuclei are isotropically re-emitted, exerting an inwards force on the CB’s surface. This allows one to compute explicitly the CB’s radius as a function of time . The radius, for typical parameters, reaches a constant value $`R_{max}10^{14}`$ cm in minutes of observer’s time.

The ISM nuclei (mainly protons) that a CB scatters also decelerate its flight: its Lorentz factor, $`\gamma (t)`$, is calculable. Travelling at a large $`\gamma `$ and viewed at a small angle $`\theta `$, the CB’s emissions are strongly relativistically aberrant: in minutes of observer’s time, the CBs are parsecs away from their source. For a constant CB radius and an approximately constant ISM density, $`\gamma (t)`$ has an explicit analytical expression . Typically $`\gamma =\gamma (0)/2`$ at a distance of order 1 kpc from the source.

The ISM electrons entering a CB bounce off its enclosed magnetic domains, lose energy effectively by synchrotron radiation, and acquire a predictable power-law energy spectrum, $`dn_e/dEE^{3.2}`$, which implies a given distribution of the radiated photons: $`\nu dn_\gamma /d\nu \nu ^{1.1}`$ . The emitted energy rate, in a CB’s rest system, is equal to the rate at which the ISM electrons bring energy into the CB111The kinetic energy of a CB is mainly lost to the ISM protons it scatters; only a fraction $`m_e/m_p`$ is re-emitted by electrons, as the AG.. The AG fluence in the CB model is of the form:

$$F_\nu =f\nu ^\alpha [\gamma (t)]^{2\alpha }\left[\frac{2\gamma (t)}{1+\gamma (t)^2\theta ^2}\right]^{3+\alpha },$$
(1)
with $`\alpha 1.1`$ and $`f`$ an explicit normalization proportional to the ISM electron density, $`fn_e`$.

We assume that all long-duration GRBs are associated with SNe and, as a bold ansatz, we take these SNe to have the fluence of SN1998bw, properly transported in time and frequency to the GRB’s redshift . An observed AG’s fluence is then the sum of this SN, the background galaxy emission, and the CBs’ contribution, Eq. (1). Remarkably, this very simple theory very successfully describes the optical AGs, at all times, of every GRB of known redshift.

## 4 X-ray afterglows: theory

In the CB model, the X-ray emission by a GRB is more complex than its optical emission. During the GRB the emitted light at all energies is mainly of thermal origin (although it does not have a thermal spectrum) and, in a fixed energy interval, it decreases exponentially with time . A few seconds after the last GRB pulse (the last CB), this pseudothermal emission becomes a subdominant effect. For the next few hours, the evolution of a CB is interestingly complicated. In particular, its originally ionized material should recombine into hydrogen and emit Lyman-$`\alpha `$ lines that are seen Doppler-boosted to keV energies . Later, the CBs settle down to a much simpler phase, which typically lasts for months, till the CBs finally stop moving relativistically.

The X-ray AG is initially dominated by thermal bremsstrahlung (TB), which has a harder spectrum than synchrotron emission. This period of TB-dominance begins at a time $`t_{trans}`$, a few seconds after the end of the GRB, when the last CB becomes transparent to its enclosed radiation. A few minutes later, both the X-ray and optical AGs are dominated by synchrotron radiation, and their shapes are achromatic, as in Eq. (1).

The TB X-ray fluence decreases with time as $`R^3T^{1/2}`$, with $`R`$ the CB’s radius, still increasing linearly with time at an early stage. Depending on whether a CB’s cooling soon after $`t_{trans}`$ is dominated by TB, or by adiabatic losses, the X-ray fluence is $`t^5`$ or $`t^4`$, the first behaviour being expected for our typical CB parameters.

The previous considerations justify a very simple description of the X-ray light curves:

$$F_X(t)f_X(t_{trans})\left[\frac{t_{trans}}{t}\right]^5+F_{sync}(t),$$
(2)
where $`t`$ is the observer’s time since the ejection of the (last) CB, and $`F_{sync}(t)`$ is the synchrotron fluence in the X-band, i.e. Eq. (1) integrated in the relevant energy interval. The normalization $`f_X`$ is, once again, explicit in the CB model. Equation (2) provides an excellent description, at all times, of all the X-ray AGs of GRBs of known $`z`$.

## 5 Optical afterglows: results

GRBs have varied numbers, $`n_{CB}`$, of gamma-ray pulses, or CBs, which may have different initial Lorentz factors $`\gamma _0`$ and baryon numbers $`N_{CB}`$. This and other complications are eased by the fact that the AG light curve is the sum of temporally unresolved individual CB afterglows: we can characterize, as in Eq. (1), the AG with the parameters of one single CB, whose values represent a weighted average. The parameters to be fit are $`f`$, $`\theta `$ and $`\alpha `$ in Eq. (1), as well as two parameters entering the expression for $`\gamma (t)`$: $`\gamma _0`$ and the deceleration parameter $`x_{\mathrm{}}N_{CB}/(\pi R_{max}^2n_p)`$, with $`n_p`$ the ISM proton number density light-centuries away from the GRB’s progenitor.

The fits to the CB model are generally excellent. An example, GRB 970228, is shown in Fig. (3). Our only bad fit, that to GRB 000301c, is shown in Fig. (4). The occasional misfit is to be expected: the AG fluences are proportional to $`n_e`$, which is not constant for kpc distances, even in the halo of galaxies. The fitting procedure —which attributes to the errors a counterfactual purely-statistical origin— results in tiny 1 $`\sigma `$ spreads for the parameters, and in excellent confidence levels, on which one should not place excessive confidence.

The spectral slope in the optical-to-X-ray interval, $`\alpha `$, is the only parameter for which we have no reason to expect a range of different values. It is extremely satisfactory that the fitted values of $`\alpha `$ (extracted from the AG’s temporal shape at fixed $`\nu `$) are, within errors, compatible with all of the GRBs having a universal behaviour with the theoretically predicted value: $`\alpha 1.1`$. Most spectral measurements agree with this result and, for the ones that do not (and some of the ones that do) there is always a good reason not to worry: poorly-understood absorption. The distribution of $`\gamma _0`$ values agrees snugly with our expectation from the properties of the GRB: $`\gamma _010^3`$, and it is surprisingly narrow: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _0/\gamma _00.2`$. The values of $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$ should be fairly spread: they depend on $`n_p`$ close to the progenitor (that determines $`R_{max}`$) and $`n_e`$ in the region where the AG is emitted. Indeed, the $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$ values range for an order of magnitude above and below a typical prediction. The overall normalization $`f`$ of the optical afterglows is, with the other parameters fixed, $`fn_{CB}N_{CB}`$. The results from optical AG fits range for an order of magnitude above and below the prediction for a single dominant CB, $`n_{CB}=1`$, and our typical expected $`N_{CB}`$. This must be partially due to absorption uncertainties, for the X-ray fits result in 1/3 as much spread.

To summarize, the distributions of all parameters are in extremely good agreement with the expectations of the CB model and, if anything, they are astonishingly close to what they would be for “standard candle” GRBs.

#### 5.0.1 GRB 970508: a case of gravitational lensing

The AG of GRB 970508 has a most peculiar shape. An attempt to fit it with Eq. (1) is shown in Fig. (5): it is a miserable failure. But suppose the light from the CBs of this GRB is gravitationally lensed by a star or a binary, of mass $`2M_{}`$, placed roughly half-way to their position (the probability for something like this to happen is a few per-cent). The lensed AG, whose CB model parameters are entirely conventional, is shown in Fig. (6): the fit is fantastically good. Comparing Figs. (5) and (6), notice how time-asymmetric the amplification is (the time scale is logarithmic!). This is because, as the lensing occurs, the CBs are — in a specific predicted fashion— slowing down from an initial superluminal speed $`\mathrm{v}_{}500`$ c. Seing a result like this, one knows in one’s bones that one is on the right track!

#### 5.0.2 GRB 990123 and its mother’s wind

For this GRB, there are good optical data starting exceptionally early: $`22.18`$ seconds after its detected beginning . The AG rises abruptly to a second point at $`t=47.38`$ s, and decreases thereafter. We can very simply describe this AG from this point onwards, as shown in Fig. (7). From the fitted values of $`\mathrm{z}`$, $`\gamma _0`$ and $`\theta `$, we conclude that at that time the CBs are a mere $`x=0.46`$ pc away from the progenitor star. This is precisely where the density profile ought to be $`nr^2`$, induced by the parent-star’s wind and ejecta. This early, the CB’s deceleration is negligible: an $`r^2`$ density profile implies an optical AG declining as $`t^2`$. The shape and normalization of the early AG are precisely the expected ones (the inferred local density is $`0.54\mathrm{cm}^3`$ at $`\mathrm{x}0.46`$ pc). The CB model describes the full history of an optical AG.

## 6 X-ray afterglows: results

Once again, I can only show a subsubset of our results. The X-ray AG of GRB 010222, and its CB-model’s description, are shown in Fig. (8). The early decline is dominated by thermal bremsstrahlung and has the expected $`t^5`$ decline. The late AG is achromatic: the shape of the late X-ray fluence is that obtained with the parameters resulting from the fit to the optical AG. The normalizations at early and late times are in the expected range. The approximation of a constant ISM density in the normalization of $`F_{sync}(t)`$ in Eq. (2) should be inappropriate between $`2\times 10^3`$ and $`0.2`$ days. There are no data in that domain except for GRB 991216 and perhaps 970508, which suggest an initial density variation $`1/\mathrm{r}^2`$, resulting in an observed $`\mathrm{t}^2`$ decline, as in the optical AG of GRB 990123, shown in Fig. (7).

Our worst but most significant fit to an X-ray AG is that to GRB 980425, shown in Fig. (9). Unlike the observers  we assume the AG was produced by the CBs and not by conventional ejecta of the associated SN 1998bw, from which a much weaker signal is to be expected.

### 6.1 Even GRB 980425 is “normal”

The optical AG of this close-by GRB is dominated by SN1998bw, and we have extracted its AG parameters ($`\theta `$, $`\gamma _0`$, etc.) from the X-ray fit of Fig. (9). The fitted viewing angle is $`\theta 8.3`$ mrad; $`\gamma _0750`$, etc. are normal. If the CBs of GRB 980425 had been viewed from a typical viewing angle, $`\theta 1/\gamma _0`$, the equivalent isotropic energy would have been in the range of all other GRBs. If for this case the ISM density and CB radius were the same as for other GRBs, the predicted intensity of the X-ray “plateau” is $`4\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, as observed . The “normal” GRB energy and X-ray AG fluence strongly support the association of SN1998bw with (a not exceptional) GRB 980425.

The parameters of the X-ray AG can be used to predict the magnitude and shape of the optical AG of the blended SN 1998bw/GRB 980425 system, see Fig. (10). The CBs’ contribution dominates at late time and is in perfect agreement with the HST observation  on day 778. At that time the SN and the CB (this is a single-pulse GRB) were far enough from each other, and close enough to us, to be resolvable! . Alas, the rare occasion was missed.

Interpreted in the CB model, the fluence and soft spectrum of GRB980425, as well as its X-ray and optical AGs were “normal”. It was simply much closer, and viewed at a much larger angle than other GRBs.

### 6.2 Are GRBs associated with SNe?

The complete success of the CB model in describing optical AGs results in an excellent exposition  of the GRB/SN association. It is useful to discuss the issue in order of diminishing redshift. In the six more distant GRBs there is no evidence for or against a SN 1998bw-like component, two examples are given in Figs. (4) and (7). In the next five closer cases there is evidence, ranging from fairly weak to very strong; see Fig. (6) for GRB 970508, for which the light curve —in the CB model— clearly requires a SN component. The other seven of these cases —000418, 980613, 991216, 980703, 991208, and 990712, shown in Figs. (11) to (16) and 970228, shown in Fig.(3)— a SN1998bw-like contribution is required, to varying levels of statistical confidence. Finally, GRB 980425, at $`z=0.0085`$ is indeed associated to a SN . The general trend is clear. With its excellent description of afterglows, the CB model’s predictions for the “proper” AG from the CBs provide an excellent “background” on top of which to discern a SN contribution. The conclusion is that, the closer a GRB is, the better the evidence for a SN. For the more distant GRBs, a SN could not be seen, even if it was there. In all cases where the SN could be seen, it was seen; the evidence gaining in significance as the distance diminishes. The conclusion that all long-duration GRBs are associated with SNe is irresistible.

### 6.3 What fraction of SNe emit GRBs?

The $`\gamma `$-ray fluence of a GRB  is $`[2\gamma _0/(1+\gamma _0^2\theta ^2)]^3`$. The $`\theta `$ dependence is the steepest parameter dependence of the CB model. It is reasonable to attribute the range of equivalent spherical energies mainly to the $`\theta `$ dependence (as if GRBs were otherwise standard candles). Excepting GRB 980425, the observed spread in equivalent energy then corresponds to a spread $`\theta 0`$ to $`\theta _{max}2.4/\gamma `$. Thus the fraction of observable GRBs (with the current or past sensitivity) is $`f(\gamma )=2\pi \theta _{max}^2/(4\pi )2.84/\gamma ^2`$, with two jets of CBs per event. The rate of Type II/Ib/Ic SNe in the observable universe, multiplied by $`f(10^3)`$, coincides with the observed rate of GRBs, as if every SN emitted GRBs! But the observational errors are very large; distant SNe may be more frequent than in current estimates, if the star formation rate continues to increase above $`z1`$; the efficiency of GRB detection as a function of fluence has not been taken into account in this estimate. In spite of these uncertainties, the conclusion, in the CB model, is that a very large fraction of SNe emit GRBs. Then, why is SN1998bw peculiar? We have seen that in X-rays it is not: they were CB-induced. Other peculiarities should also be due to how close to the GRB “axis” this SN was observed.

## 7 Conclusions and social affairs

At the time I gave this talk and submitted it to the Woods Hole GRB conference proceedings, we had not yet worked out the CB-model’s predictions for radio afterglows. By the time I am posting it on the web, we have made significant progress: once again, the CB model’s predictions are uncharacteristically simple and succesful . We have no CB-model explanation for the scintillation behaviour of GRB 970508 . Other than that, the CB model explains well all properties of GRBs. In the case of optical and X-ray afterglows, which I have outlined, the CB-model’s predictions are univocal (as opposed to multiple-choice), very explicit, analytical in fair approximations, quite simple, very complete, and extremely successful. I doubt that this statement applies to other models of GRBs.

I am not saying that the CB model will stand all future tests. But I would expect that —confronted with a simple and successful model— most scientists would, at least, say: Hum!  and ask good questions. Not the case. Four of our papers on this subject,  to , have already been rejected by referees who found no single error, and/or stuck to bad numerical questions, even after being proved numerically (i.e. inarguably) wrong. This rejection statistics makes me feel that the GRB community has officially certified us… as crackpots. All this reflects, I suspect, the global rise of fundamentalism. Some people, almost literally in this case, still refuse to “look through the telescope”. A GRB theorist, sitting on the first row in my talk, was kind enough to enact my social comments. Indeed, he rose in ire to exclaim: I am glad that the referee system is working! He then stuck to a bad numerical question. Most of the rest of the questions period was not this aggressive222Most… but not all. Another GRB theorist stated his suspicion that I was not presenting radio results, not because we had not yet worked them out, but because they were no good!!! For my first experience at a GRB conference, this was not bad: a bit like dancing flamenco on a mine field.: there is still hope in science’s sempiternal contest with faith.


format: text

text:
# Incompressible surfaces and (1,1)-knots

## 1. Introduction

An important problem in knot theory is that of determining all incompressible surfaces in a given knot complement. The purpose of this paper is to give a characterization of all $`(1,1)`$-knots which admit a closed meridionally incompressible surface in their complement. The family of $`(1,1)`$-knots is an interesting class of knots which has received considerable attention recently (see for example , , ). Recall that $`k`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-knot if there is a standard torus $`T`$ in $`S^3`$ such that $`k`$ is of 1-bridge with respect to $`T`$, that is, $`k`$ intersects $`T`$ in two points, which divide $`k`$ into two arcs which are parallel to arcs lying on $`T`$. The family of $`(1,1)`$-knots contains the torus knots, 2-bridge knots, and is contained in the class of tunnel number one knots. Recall that a knot $`k`$ has tunnel number one if there exists an arc $`\tau `$ embedded in $`S^3`$, with $`k\tau =\tau `$, such that $`MintN(k\tau )`$ is a genus 2-handlebody.

Some results are known about incompressible surfaces in complements of tunnel number one knots, and in particular about $`(1,1)`$-knots. It is known that the complement of a tunnel number one knot does not contain any essential meridional planar surface, i.e a planar surface which is incompressible, $``$-incompressible and whose boundary consists of meridians of the knot . There are tunnel number one knots whose complement contains an essential torus; such knots have been classified by K. Morimoto and M. Sakuma  (see also ), and it turns out that all of them are $`(1,1)`$-knots. The author constructed for any $`g2`$, infinitely many tunnel number one knots whose complement contains a closed incompressible and meridionally incompressible surface of genus $`g`$ . Many of these knots are $`(1,1)`$-knots.

The construction given in  is roughly as follows (see Section 2 for more details):

Take $`n`$ parallel tori $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_n`$, standardly embedded in $`S^3`$, and take an essential curve $`\gamma _i`$ in each one of the tori. Take $`n1`$ straight arcs $`\alpha _i`$ joining consecutive curves. The union of the curves and the arcs form a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which we call a toroidal graph. Note that $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a handlebody of genus $`n`$. If the curves $`\gamma _i`$ satisfy certain natural conditions then $`S=N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is incompressible in $`S^3intN(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Let $`\eta (\gamma _i)`$ be a neighborhood of $`\gamma _i`$ in the torus $`T_i`$, this is an annulus. Now let $`k`$ be a knot in level position with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; by this we mean that $`k(\eta (\gamma _i))(N(\alpha _i))`$, such that $`k\eta (\gamma _i)`$ consists of two arcs for $`2in1`$, $`k\eta (\gamma _i)`$ is one arc for $`i=1,n`$, and $`kN(\alpha _i)`$ consists of two straight arcs. It follows that $`k`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-knot, and if $`k`$ is well wrapped in $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, then $`S`$ is incompressible in $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })k`$.

In Section 3 we show that if $`k`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-knot and $`S`$ is a closed meridionally incompressible surface in its complement, then $`k`$ and $`S`$ come from the above construction. To do that, consider first the following equivalent definition of $`(1,1)`$-knots. Let $`T\times IS^3`$, where $`I=[0,1]`$, and $`T`$ is an standard torus. A knot $`k`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-knot if and only if $`k`$ lies in $`T\times I`$, so that $`k(T\times \{0\})=k_0`$ is an arc, $`k(T\times \{1\})=k_1`$ is an arc, and $`k(T\times (0,1))`$ consists of two straight arcs, i.e., arcs which cross transversely every torus $`T\times \{x\}`$. Let $`k`$ be a knot in such a position and let $`S`$ be a closed meridionally incompressible surface in the complement of $`k`$. $`S`$ can be isotoped, keeping $`k`$ fixed, so that most of $`S`$ lie in the product $`T\times I`$. Now put $`S`$ in Morse position in the product $`T\times I`$. By analyzing the singular points of the surface we show that it can be positioned so that it looks like $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ for a certain toroidal graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and that $`k`$ is in level position with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The class of $`(1,1)`$-knots can be defined for any manifold $`M`$ having a Heegaard decomposition of genus 1, that is, it can be defined for $`M=S^3,S^1\times S^2`$ or a lens space $`L(p,q)`$. The definition is the same, where $`T`$ is supposed to be a Heegaard torus. Our results are also valid for $`(1,1)`$-knots in these manifolds.

Our results imply that if in the complement of a $`(1,1)`$-knot $`k`$ in $`M`$ there is a closed meridionally incompressible surface, then the surface bounds a handlebody in $`M`$ in which $`k`$ lies. In general the knots constructed in Section 6 of  do not have this property. So we can construct for any such $`M`$, many tunnel number one knots which are not $`(1,1)`$-knots. See Corollary 1 in Section 2.

## 2. Statement of results

Let $`M`$ be a compact orientable 3-manifold, and let $`SS^2`$ be a compact orientable surface in $`M`$, either properly embedded or contained in $`M`$. Let $`k`$ be a knot in $`M`$ disjoint from $`S`$. We say that $`S`$ is meridionally compressible if there is an embedded disk $`D`$ in $`M`$, with $`SD=D`$, which is a nontrivial curve in $`S`$, and so that $`k`$ intersects $`D`$ at most in one point. Otherwise $`S`$ is called meridionally incompressible. In particular, if $`S`$ is meridionally incompressible then it is incompressible in $`Mk`$. If the surface $`S`$ is a 2-sphere, then $`S`$ is usually defined to be incompressible if it is not the boundary of a 3-ball; similarly we define it to be meridionally incompressible if it is incompressible.

In what follows $`M`$ is $`S^3,S^1\times S^2`$, or a lens space $`L(p,q)`$. If $`k`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-knot in $`M`$ (or in general, a tunnel number one knot), and $`S`$ is an incompressible sphere in $`Mk`$, then it can be proved that $`k`$ is a trivial knot, i.e., $`k`$ is the boundary of a disk. So there are two cases of $`(1,1)`$-knots which contain an incompressible sphere: 1) $`M=S^1\times S^2`$, or $`L(p,q)`$, $`k`$ a trivial knot, and $`S`$ a sphere in $`M`$ bounding a ball in which $`k`$ lies. 2) $`M=S^1\times S^2`$, $`k`$ a trivial knot, and $`S`$ a non-separating sphere in $`Mk`$. From now on we will assume that we are not in this situation, that is, we assume that all our surfaces are of genus $`1`$. If $`S`$ is a closed non-separating surface in the complement of a tunnel number one knot $`k`$ in $`M`$, then by doing an argument similar to that in , , or , and applied to our situation, it follows that either the knot is trivial or there is a closed non-separating surface in the complement of $`k`$ disjoint from an unknotting tunnel, which is clearly impossible. So assume in what follows that all surfaces are separating.

In  some constructions are given of tunnel number one knots whose complements contain a closed meridionally incompressible surface. The simplest of those knots are also $`(1,1)`$-knots. We describe this construction.

Let $`T`$ be a Heegaard torus in $`M`$, and let $`I=[0,1]`$. Consider $`T\times IM`$. $`T\times \{0\}=T_0`$ bounds a solid torus $`R_0`$, and $`T_1=T\times \{1\}`$ bounds a solid torus $`R_1`$, such that $`M=R_0(T\times I)R_1`$. Choose $`n`$ distinct points on $`I`$, $`e_1=0,e_2,\mathrm{},e_n=1`$, so that $`e_i<e_{i+1}`$, for all $`in1`$. Consider the tori $`T\times \{e_i\}`$ (so $`T\times \{e_1\}=T_0`$, $`T\times \{e_n\}=T_1`$). There is a natural projection of each of these tori into $`T\times \{e_1\}`$. A slope in $`T`$ is a class of isotopy of essential simple closed curves. Slopes in $`T\times \{x\}`$ are in one to one correspondence with slopes in $`T\times \{y\}`$, for any $`x,yI`$, so comparing curves on different tori is accomplished via this isotopy. If $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are two slopes on $`T`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta ,\gamma )`$ denotes, as usual, their minimal geometric intersection number. Denote by $`\mu _M`$ the essential simple closed curve on $`T\times \{e_n\}`$ which bounds a meridional disk in $`R_1`$, and denote by $`\lambda _M`$ the essential simple closed curve on $`T\times \{e_1\}`$ which bounds a disk in $`R_0`$. So $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu _M,\lambda _M)=1`$ if $`M=S^3`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu _M,\lambda _M)=0`$ if $`M=S^1\times S^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu _M,\lambda _M)=p`$ if $`M=L(p,q)`$. By a straight arc in a product $`T\times [a,b]`$ we mean a properly embedded arc which is transverse to every torus $`T\times \{x\}`$ in the product.

Let $`\gamma _i`$ be a simple closed essential curve embedded in the torus $`T\times \{e_i\}`$. Let $`\alpha _i`$, for $`1in1`$, be a straight arc in $`T\times [e_i,e_{i+1}]`$, joining $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\gamma _{i+1}`$, and assume that $`\alpha _i\alpha _j=\mathrm{}`$ if $`ij`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the 1-complex consisting of the union of all the curves $`\gamma _i`$ and the arcs $`\alpha _j`$. So $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a trivalent graph embedded in $`M`$. We say that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a toroidal graph of type $`n`$, $`n2`$, if it satisfies the following:

1. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _1,\lambda _M)2`$, that is, $`\gamma _1`$ is not homotopic to the core of the solid torus $`R_0`$.
2. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _i,\gamma _{i+1})2`$, for all $`in1`$.
3. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _n,\mu _M)2`$, that is, $`\gamma _n`$ is not homotopic to the core of the solid torus $`R_1`$.

We define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be a toroidal graph of type 1, if it consists of a single curve $`\gamma _1`$ in $`T\times \{e_1\}`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _1,\lambda _M)2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma _1,\mu _M)2`$. See Figure 1 for an example of a toroidal graph of type 2 in $`S^3`$.

Figure 1

Let $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be a regular neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is a genus $`n`$ handlebody. We can assume that $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is made of the union of $`n`$ solid tori $`N(\gamma _i)`$, which are joined by $`(n1)`$ 1-handles $`N(\alpha _j)`$. Note that there are disks $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_{n1}`$, properly embedded in $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, with $`D_j`$ contained in $`N(\alpha _j)`$ and intersecting $`\alpha _j`$ once. These disks cut $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ into $`n`$ solid tori.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a toroidal graph in $`M`$. Then $`S=N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is incompressible in $`MintN(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

This is proved in Theorem 4.1 of  for the case $`M=S^3`$; the proof in the general case is essentially the same. Note that if any of the conditions for a toroidal graph fails, then $`S`$ will be compressible.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\gamma _i)(\alpha _i)`$ be a toroidal graph of type $`n`$, with $`n2`$. Denote by $`\eta (\gamma _i)`$ a regular neighborhood of $`\gamma _i`$ in the torus $`T\times \{e_i\}`$, this is an annulus, we can assume that $`N(\gamma _i)(T\times \{e_i\})=\eta (\gamma _i)`$.

A knot $`k`$ contained in $`T\times I`$ is level with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if it satisfies the following:

1. $`k(T\times \{e_1\})`$ consists of one arc contained in $`int\eta (\gamma _1)`$.
2. $`k(T\times \{e_i\})`$ consists of two arcs contained in $`int\eta (\gamma _i)`$, for $`2in1`$.
3. $`k(T\times \{e_n\})`$ consists of one arc contained in $`int\eta (\gamma _n)`$.
4. $`k(T\times (e_i,e_{i+1}))`$ consists of two straight arcs contained in $`intN(\alpha _i)`$, for $`1in1`$.

In the special case of a toroidal graph of type 1, we say that $`k`$ is level with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if: (1) $`kT_0`$ is a single arc contained in $`\eta (\gamma _1)`$, and (2) $`k(T\times (0,1])`$ is a single arc which can be projected to an arc on $`\eta (\gamma _1)`$. So if a knot $`k`$ is level with respect to a toroidal graph of type 1, it is either a torus knot, or a satellite of a torus knot.

It is not difficult to see that if $`k`$ is level with respect to a toroidal graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then $`k`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-knot; to see this, just isotope $`k`$ so that $`k(T\times (0,1))`$ consists of two straight arcs. By construction, if $`k`$ is level with respect to a toroidal graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then $`k`$ lies in $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, and $`k`$ intersects each disk $`D_i`$ twice. By cutting $`k`$ along the disks $`D_i`$, and then joining its endpoints with an arc on $`D_i`$, we get $`n`$ knots $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n`$ embedded in $`N(\alpha _1),\mathrm{},N(\alpha _n)`$ respectively. We say that $`k`$ is well wrapped in $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ if the wrapping number of each $`k_i`$ in $`N(\alpha _i)`$ is $`2`$.

See Figure 2 for an example of a knot which is level with respect to the toroidal graph in Figure 1.

Figure 2

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`k`$ be a knot which is level with respect to a toroidal graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of type $`n`$. Assume also that $`k`$ is well wrapped in $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Then the closed surface $`S=N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is meridionally incompressible in $`Mk`$.

This is proved in Theorem 5.1 of . It is not difficult to see that if $`k`$ is level with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but it is not well wrapped in $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ then $`S`$ is compressible in $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })k`$.

In this paper we prove the following,

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`k`$ be a $`(1,1)`$-knot in $`M`$. Let $`S`$ be a closed meridionally incompressible surface in $`Mk`$. Then there is a toroidal graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so that $`S=N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, and $`k`$ is level with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In the special case that the surface $`S`$ is a torus, this result has been previously proved in , where all the $`(1,1)`$-knots which contain an incompressible torus are determined. In the case that $`M=S^3`$, this result follows from  and , for in those papers all tunnel number one knots in $`S^3`$ which contain an essential torus are determined, and all of them turn out to be $`(1,1)`$-knots (see 4.8 in ).

An important problem about $`(1,1)`$-knots and meridionally incompressible surfaces that remains open is: is it possible for a $`(1,1)`$-knot to have two nonisotopic closed meridionally incompressible surfaces ?  It would be natural to conjecture a negative answer for this question. Such a conjecture has been verified for satellite $`(1,1)`$-knots in $`S^3`$ . In paticular this implies that if a $`(1,1)`$-knot in $`S^3`$ contains a closed meridionally incompressible surface of genus $`2`$ in its complement, then it is a hyperbolic knot.

We remark that there are $`(1,1)`$-knots which contain closed incompressible, but meridionally compressible surfaces. If a knot contains such a surface $`S`$, then by doing meridional compressions one gets an incompressible meridional surface $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, i.e., a surface which intersects the knot in meridians. If enough meridional compressions are done then the surface $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ will be meridionally incompressible, that is, if $`D`$ is a disk with $`D\stackrel{~}{S}=D`$, and which intersects $`k`$ in one point, then $`D`$ is parallel in $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ to a boundary component of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. It can be proved that for given integers $`g1,n1`$ ($`g0,n1`$), there exist $`(1,1)`$-knots in $`S^3`$ ($`S^1\times S^2`$ or $`L(p,q)`$) which contain a meridionally incompressible surface of genus $`g`$ with $`2n`$ punctures . A similar result for tunnel number one knots in $`S^3`$ was proved previously in , but those knots do not seem to be $`(1,1)`$-knots. This contrasts with the main result of , which shows that if a tunnel number one knot contains an incompressible meridional surface of genus $`0`$ then $`M`$ has a $`S^1\times S^2`$ or $`L(p,q)`$ summand.

Given a tunnel number one knot $`k`$, it is a difficult problem to determine if $`k`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-knot. A method for determining this for knots in $`S^3`$ is done in , by using some computations coming from quantum invariants, and some explicit examples are given. Another approach is given in , where the existence of such knots is proved, but no explicit example is given. We can give more examples of such phenomena. Theorem 3 implies that if a $`(1,1)`$-knot $`k`$ contains a closed, meridionally incompressible surface, then the surface bounds a handlebody in $`M`$ in which $`k`$ lies. But in general, the knots constructed in Section 6 of  do not have this property. That construction was done for knots in $`S^3`$, but it is not difficult to see that it works with the obvious modifications for knots in $`S^1\times S^2`$ or in a lens space $`L(p,q)`$. In particular we have,

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`k`$ be a knot as in Theorem 2. Let $`K`$ be an iterate of $`k`$ as in Theorem 6.4 of . Then $`K`$ is a tunnel number one knot which is not a $`(1,1)`$-knot.

This shows that there exists tunnel number one knots in $`S^1\times S^2`$ or in a lens space $`L(p,q)`$ which are not $`(1,1)`$-knots, and explicit examples are easy to construct. Those seem to be the first examples of that phenomenon.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 3

Consider $`T\times IM`$, where $`T`$ is a Heegaard torus for $`M`$, and let $`T_0`$, $`T_1`$, $`R_0`$, $`R_1`$ be as in Section 2. Let $`k`$ be a $`(1,1)`$-knot, and assume that $`k`$ lies in $`T\times I`$, such that $`k(T\times \{0\})=k_0`$ is an arc, $`k(T\times \{1\})=k_1`$ is an arc, and $`k(T\times (0,1))`$ consists of two straight arcs.

Suppose there is a closed meridionally incompressible surface $`S`$ in $`Mk`$. Assume that $`S`$ intersects transversely $`T_0`$ and $`T_1`$. Let $`S_0=SR_0`$, $`S_1=SR_1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{S}=S(T\times I)`$.

Let $`\pi :T\times II`$ be the height function, where we choose $`0`$ to be the highest point, and $`1`$ the lowest. We may assume that the height function on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is a Morse function. So there is a finite set of different points $`X=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_m\}`$ in $`I`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is tangent to $`T\times \{x_i\}`$ at exactly one point, and this singularity can be a local maximum, a local minimum, or a simple saddle. For any $`yX`$, $`T\times \{y\}`$ intersects $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ transversely, so for any such $`y`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}(T\times \{y\})`$ consists of a finite collection of simple closed curves called level curves, and at a saddle point $`x`$, either one level curve of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ splits into two level curves, or two level curves are fused into one curve.

Define the complexity of $`S`$ by the pair $`c(S)=(|S_0|+|S_1|+|\stackrel{~}{S}|,|X|)`$ (where $`|Y|`$ denotes the number of points if $`Y`$ is a finite set, and the number of connected components if it is a surface; give to such pairs the lexicographical order). Assume that $`S`$ has been isotoped so that $`c(S)`$ is minimal.

###### Claim 1.

The surfaces $`S_0`$, $`S_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ are incompressible in $`R_0`$, $`R_1`$, and $`(T\times I)k`$ respectively.

###### Proof.

Suppose one of the surfaces is compressible, say $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, and let $`D`$ be a compression disk, which has to be disjoint from $`k`$. Then $`D`$ is essential in $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ but inessential in $`S`$. By cutting $`S`$ along $`D`$ we get a surface $`S^{}`$ and a sphere $`E`$. Note that $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ are isotopic in $`Mk`$ (this could fail if $`M=S^1\times S^2`$, but if it fails then there would be an incompressible sphere in $`Mk`$, and then $`k`$ would be a trivial knot and $`S`$ a sphere). For $`S^{}`$ we can similarly define the surfaces $`S_0^{}`$, $`S_1^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{}`$. Note that $`|S_i|=|S_i^{}|+|ER_i|`$, $`i=1,0`$, so either $`|S_0^{}|<|S_0|`$ or $`|S_1^{}|<|S_1|`$, for $`E`$ intersects at least one of $`R_0`$, $`R_1`$. Also $`|\stackrel{~}{S}^{}||\stackrel{~}{S}|`$, so $`c(S^{})<c(S)`$, but this contradicts the choice of $`S`$. ∎

This implies that $`S_0`$ is a collection of trivial disks, meridian disks and essential annuli in $`R_0`$. If a component of $`S_0`$ is a trivial disk $`E`$, then $`E`$ bounds a disk on $`T_0`$ which contains $`k_0`$, for otherwise $`|S_0|`$ could be reduced. If a component of $`S_0`$ is an essential annulus $`A`$, then $`A`$ is parallel to an annulus $`A^{}T_0`$, and $`A^{}`$ must contain $`k_0`$, for otherwise $`|S_0|`$ could be reduced. This also implies that the slope of $`A`$ cannot consist of one longitude and several meridians of the solid torus $`R_0`$, for in this case $`A`$ would also be parallel to $`T_0A^{}`$, and then $`|S_0|`$ could be reduced. It also implies that $`S_0`$ cannot contain both essential annuli and meridian disks. A similar thing can be said for $`S_1`$.

###### Claim 2.

$`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ does not have any local maximum or minimum.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ does have a maximum. It will be shown that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ has a component which is either a disk, an annulus, a once punctured annulus, or a once punctured torus which is parallel to a subsurface in $`T_1`$. Choose the maximum at lowest level, say at level $`x_i`$, so that there are no other maxima between $`x_i`$ and 1. So $`\stackrel{~}{S}(T\times \{x_i\})`$ consists of a point and a collection of simple closed curves. Just below the level $`x_i`$, the surface $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ intersects the level tori in simple closed curves, so below the maximum, a disk $`E_1\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is being formed; if $`x_i`$ is the last singular point then the disk $`E_1`$ will be parallel to a disk on $`T_1`$.

Look at the next singular level $`x_{i+1}`$, $`x_i<x_{i+1}<1`$. If this is a local minimum, or a saddle whose level curves are disjoint from the boundary curve of $`E_1`$, then we can interchange the singularities. If it is a saddle point involving the curve $`E_1`$ and another curve, then both singular points cancel each other. If it is a saddle formed by an autointersection of the curve $`E_1`$, then the disk $`E_1`$ below the maximum transforms into an annulus $`E_2`$, which must be parallel to an annulus in some $`T\times \{y\}`$, for otherwise the annulus $`E_2`$ would be compressible in $`T\times [0,y]`$, and then either $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ would be compressible or could be isotoped to reduce the number of singular points. For any $`y`$ just below $`x_{i+1}`$, $`E_2`$ consists of two parallel curves $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$. If $`c_1`$ is a trivial curve on $`T\times \{y\}`$ which bounds a disk disjoint from $`k`$, then by cutting $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ with such disk, we get a surface $`S^{}`$ isotopic to $`S`$, but with $`c(S^{})<c(S)`$, for $`S^{}`$ has less singular points than $`S`$. If $`c_1`$ bounds a disk which intersects $`k`$ once, then $`S`$ would be meridionally compressible. So there remain two possibilities, either $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are essential curves on $`T\times \{y\}`$ or $`c_1`$ bounds a disk which intersects $`k`$ twice.

Look at the next singular level $`x_{i+2}`$. If it is a local minimum or a saddle whose level curves are disjoint from the annulus $`E_2`$, then again we can interchange the singularities (note that these curves cannot be inside the solid torus bounded by $`E_2`$ and an annulus in $`T\times \{x_{i+2}\}`$, for there would be a maximum in there). If it is a saddle joining the annulus $`E_2`$ with another curve, then by pushing $`E_2`$ down the singular point $`x_{i+2}`$ is eliminated. So this singular point has to be of the annulus with itself, and then a new surface $`E_3`$ is formed. The surface $`E_3`$ has to be a once punctured torus or a once punctured annulus, which is parallel to some $`T\times \{y^{}\}`$, for otherwise $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ would be compressible or could be isotoped to reduce the number of singular points. If there is one more singular point of $`E_3`$ with itself, then the surface $`E_4`$ which will be formed would be compressible, for a component of its boundary would bound a disk in some $`T\times \{y^{\prime \prime }\}`$ disjoint from $`k`$. We conclude that either $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is compressible, the number of singular points is not minimal, or a component of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, say $`S^{}`$, it is parallel to a surface in $`T_1`$. In the latter case the surface $`S^{}`$ is disjoint from $`k_1`$, and then it can be pushed to $`R_1`$, reducing $`c(S)`$. ∎

At a nonsingular level $`y`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}(T\times \{y\})`$ consists of simple closed curves. If such a curve $`\gamma `$ is trivial in $`T\times \{y\}`$, then it bounds a disk in that torus. If such a disk is disjoint from $`k`$, then by the incompressibility of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, $`\gamma `$ bounds a disk in $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, which give rise to a single maximum or minimum, contradicting Claim 2. Such a disk cannot intersect $`k`$ once, for $`S`$ is meridionally incompressible, so $`\gamma `$ bounds a disk which intersects $`k`$ twice.

###### Claim 3.

Only the following types of saddle points are possible.

1. A saddle changing a trivial simple closed curve into two essential simple closed curves.
2. A saddle changing two parallel essential curves into a trivial curve.

###### Proof.

At a saddle, either one level curve of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ splits into two level curves, or two level curves are joined into one level curve. If a level curve is trivial in the corresponding level torus and at a saddle the curve joins with itself, then the result must be two essential simple closed curves, for if the curves obtained are trivial, then $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ would be compressible or meridionally compressible. If in a level there are nontrivial curves of intersection, then there is an even number of them, for $`S`$ is separating. So if a curve is nontrivial and at the saddle joins with itself, then the result is a curve with the same slope as the original and a trivial curve, for the saddle must join points on the same side of the curve. If two trivial level curves are joined into one, then because the curves must be concentric, the surface $`S`$ would be compressible. So only the following types of saddle points are possible:

1. A saddle changing a trivial simple closed curve into two essential simple closed curves.
2. A saddle changing two parallel essential curves into a trivial curve.
3. A saddle changing an essential curve $`\gamma `$ into a curve with the same slope as $`\gamma `$, and a trivial curve.
4. A saddle changing an essential curve $`\gamma `$ and a trivial curve into an essential curve with the same slope as $`\gamma `$.

We want to show that only saddles of types 1 and 2 are possible. Look at two consecutive saddle points. We note that in many cases $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ can be isotoped so that two consecutive singular points can be put in the same level, and in that case a compression disk for $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ can be found. Namely,

1. A type 3 is followed by a type 1, see Figure 3(a).
2. A type 3 followed by a type 2, see Figure 3(b).
3. A type 1 is followed by a type 4, see Figure 3(c).
4. A type 2 followed by a type 4, see Figure 3(d).
5. A type 3 followed by a type 4, see Figure 3(e) and 3(f).

Figure 3

The dots in Figure 3 indicate the points of intersection between $`k`$ and some $`T\times \{y\}`$, and the dotted line indicates the path followed by the second saddle point. Note that in all the other cases it may not be possible to put the two saddles points in the same level.

Suppose there are singularities of type 3, and take the lowest one, say at level $`x_m`$. If there is a singularity at level $`x_{m+1}`$, then it is of type 1, 2, or 4, which contradicts the previous observation. So $`x_m`$ is in fact the last singularity. Then $`S_1`$ consists of at least a disk, and at least one annulus or a meridian disk. Isotope $`S`$ so that the saddle at $`x_m`$ is pushed into $`R_1`$, this can be done without moving $`k_1`$. If $`S_1`$ contained a meridian disk and a trivial disk, which joined in $`x_m`$, then now there is just one meridian disk, reducing $`c(S)`$ by 2. If $`S_1`$ contained an annulus and a disk, which joined in the singularity, then now there is just one annulus, reducing $`c(S)`$ by 2.

If there is a saddle of type 4, then take the highest one. If it is not a level $`x_1`$, then it is preceded by a singularity of type 1, 2, or 3, which is a contradiction. So it is a level $`x_1`$. Push the singularity to $`R_0`$. Doing an argument as in the previous case we get a contradiction. ∎

###### Claim 4.

$`S_0`$ ($`S_1`$) does not contain any meridian disk of $`R_0`$ ($`R_1`$).

###### Proof.

Suppose $`S_0`$ contains meridian disks, and possibly some trivial disks. If $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ has no singular points, then it would be a collection of annuli, and $`S`$ would be a sphere; suppose then that there are some singularities on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. The first saddle is of type 1 or 2, as in Claim 3. If it is of type 1, then a trivial disk joins to itself. This singularity can be pushed to $`S_0`$, so now there is an annulus in $`S_0`$ of meridional slope, but this shows that $`S`$ is compressible. If the first singularity is of type 2, then two of the meridian disks are joined by a saddle. Push this singularity to $`R_0`$, possibly moving the arc $`k_0`$. Then the two disks are transformed into a trivial disk. The arc $`k_0`$ is in the ball bounded by such trivial disk and a disk in $`T_0`$, so $`k_0`$ can be rearranged to be level. This reduces $`|S_0|`$ by one. If $`S_1`$ contains meridian disks a similar argument can be done. ∎

###### Claim 5.

$`S_0`$ ($`S_1`$) consists only of annuli.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`S_0`$ contains a trivial disk. Look at the first singularity of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. If it is of type 2, then there is an annulus in $`S_0`$, and its boundary components are joined in the saddle. So just after the saddle there is a disk $`E`$ contained in a level torus whose boundary is a nontrivial curve on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$; this disk intersects $`k`$, but because $`S_0`$ contains a trivial disk, $`E`$ can be pushed above this trivial disk to avoid intersections with $`S`$ or $`k`$, so it would be a compression disk for $`S`$. See Figure 4(a). So the first singularity has to be of type 1, and a trivial disk touches with itself. Push the singularity to $`R_0`$, so instead of the disk we have now an annulus, this leaves $`|S_0|`$ unchanged, but reduces $`|X|`$ by one. ∎

Figure 4

Note that if the first singularity is of type 2, and $`S_0`$ does not contain any disk, then the path followed by the singularity may be quite complicated, as shown in Figure 4(b), and then a disk as the one found in Figure 4(a) is not a compression disk for $`S`$, for it intersects $`k`$.

###### Claim 6.

$`S_0`$ ($`S_1`$) is just one annulus.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`S_0`$ consists of $`p`$ annuli, $`p>1`$. These annuli are nested, with the innermost one, say $`S_0^{}`$, cobounding with an annulus in $`T_0`$ a solid torus with interior disjoint from $`S`$ and containing an arc of $`k`$. As $`S_0`$ consists only of annuli, the first saddle is of type 2, and it has to join the two boundary curves of the innermost annuli $`S_0^{}`$. The next singularity must be also of type 2, joining now the curves of the second innermost annuli, for if the next singularity is of type 1, then it is not difficult to see that there is a compression disk for $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. So the first $`p`$ singularities are of type 2. At a level just after the first $`p`$ singularities, the intersection of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ with that level torus consists of $`p`$ nested trivial curves, the innermost one bounding a disk which intersects $`k`$ in two points. The next singularity must be of type 1, and joins the outermost of such curves with itself. The next $`p1`$ singularities are also of type 1, for otherwise there would be a compression disk for $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. At a level just after these singularities, the intersection of $`S`$ with that level consists of $`2p`$ essential curves. Two of these curves bound an annulus in the level torus which intersects $`k`$ in two points; note that these curves are in the same component of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ as the boundary curves of $`S_0^{}`$.

This shows that if $`S_0`$ consists of $`p`$ annuli, then the first $`p`$ singularities are of type 2, which are followed by $`p`$ singularities of type 1, and then are followed by $`p`$ singularities of type 2, and so on. This implies in particular that $`S_0\stackrel{~}{S}`$ consists of $`p`$ connected components. Note that the component which contains the annulus $`S_0^{}`$ remains always being innermost, that is, at each level torus, its curves of intersection with that torus bound an annulus or a disk which intersects $`k`$ in two points. Then in $`T_1`$, this component bound an annulus which contains an arc of $`k`$. This implies that in $`R_1`$ there is an annulus component of $`S_1`$, say $`S_1^{}`$, having these curves as its boundary components, that is, $`S_1^{}`$ is an innermost annulus in $`R_1`$, so $`S_0^{}\stackrel{~}{S}S_1^{}`$ is a connected component of $`S`$, which contradicts the fact that $`S`$ were connected. So we conclude that $`S_0`$ is just one annulus, similarly $`S_1`$. ∎

###### Claim 7.

If $`|X|=0`$, then $`S=N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, for a toroidal graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of type 1, and $`k`$ is level with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Proof.

As $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$ are annuli, and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ has no singular points, it follows that $`S`$ is a torus. Then $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$ determine the same slope in $`T_0`$ and $`T_1`$ respectively, so $`S=N(\gamma _1)`$, where $`\gamma _1`$ is a curve in $`T_0`$ lying in the annulus parallel to $`S_0`$. It follows from the definitions that $`k`$ is level with respect to $`\gamma _1`$. ∎

In what follows suppose that $`|X|1`$. The proof of Claim 6 implies the following:

###### Claim 8.

$`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ has an even number of saddle points. The sequence of saddle points can be written as $`\{y_1,z_1,y_2,z_2,\mathrm{},y_n,z_n\}`$, where $`y_i`$ is a saddle of type 2, and $`z_i`$ is a saddle of type 1. So in a level $`y_i<v<z_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}T\times \{v\}`$ consists of a trivial curve on $`T\times \{v\}`$, and in levels $`0u<y_1`$, $`z_i<u<y_{i+1}`$ and $`z_n<u1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}T\times \{u\}`$ consists of two essential curves on $`T\times \{u\}`$, say of slope $`r_i`$.

###### Claim 9.

$`S=N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ for a certain toroidal graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`k`$ can be isotoped to be level with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Proof.

Choose nonsingular levels $`u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_{n+1}`$, so that $`u_1=0`$, $`z_i<u_{i+1}<y_{i+1}`$, and $`u_{n+1}=1`$. So $`\stackrel{~}{S}(T\times \{u_i\})`$ consists of two simple closed essential curves of slope $`r_i`$. These curves bound an annulus in $`T\times \{u_i\}`$ which intersects $`k`$ in two points. Let $`\gamma _i`$ be an essential curve in the interior of this annulus.

Choose nonsingular levels $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$, so that $`y_i<v_i<z_i`$. So $`\stackrel{~}{S}(T\times \{v_i\})`$ consists of a simple closed curve which bounds a disk $`D_i`$ in $`T\times \{v_i\}`$ which intersects $`k`$ in two points.

Let $`\alpha _i`$ be an straight arc in $`[u_i,u_{i+1}]`$, joining $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\gamma _{i+1}`$, and which is disjoint from $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the 1-complex consisting of the union of all the curves $`\gamma _i`$ and the arcs $`\alpha _j`$. So $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a trivalent graph embedded in $`M`$. Do a level preserving ambient isotopy in $`T\times I`$, keeping $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ fixed and disjoint form $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, so that at a level $`v_i`$, the disk $`D_i`$ is isotoped to a tiny neighborhood of the point $`D_i\alpha _i`$, and at a level $`u_i`$, the two curves in $`\stackrel{~}{S}(T\times \{u_i\})`$ bound an annulus which is a tiny neighborhood of the curve $`\gamma _i`$. Between the levels $`v_i`$ and $`v_{i+1}`$, the surface $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and the disks $`D_i`$ and $`D_{i+1}`$ bound a solid torus $`P_i`$, which is foliated by disks, annuli and two singular disks; it is foliated by disks between the levels $`v_i`$ and $`z_i`$, and between $`y_{i+1}`$ and $`v_{i+1}`$, it is foliated by annuli between the levels $`z_i`$ and $`y_{i+1}`$, and there are singular disks at the levels $`z_i`$ and $`y_{i+1}`$. At the top of $`P_i`$ is the disk $`D_i`$, at the bottom the disk $`D_{i+1}`$, and at a middle level the annulus $`\eta (\gamma _i)`$. It follows that $`S`$ is in fact the boundary of a regular neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The slopes of the curves $`\gamma _i,\gamma _{i+1}`$ must satisfy $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r_i,r_{i+1})2`$, for otherwise the surface $`S`$ would be compressible. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a toroidal graph of type $`n+1`$.

When doing the isotopy the knot $`k`$ is also modified, but because the isotopy is level preserving, the arcs $`k(T\times I)`$ are still straight arcs. Note that $`kP_i`$ consists of two straight arcs with endpoints in $`D_i`$ and $`D_{i+1}`$, so each of these arcs intersects each surface in the foliation of $`P_i`$ exactly once. So $`kP_i`$ is like a 2-braid in $`P_i`$. $`P_i\alpha _{i1}`$ is a straight arc with one endpoint in $`D_i`$ and the other in $`\gamma _i`$, and $`P_i\alpha _i`$ is a straight arc with one endpoint in $`D_{i+1}`$ and the other in $`\gamma _i`$. Now $`kP_i`$ can be isotoped, keeping its endpoints in $`D_i`$ and $`D_{i+1}`$, so that $`kN(\alpha _{i1})`$ and $`kN(\alpha _i)`$ both consist of two straight arcs, and $`k\eta (\gamma _i)`$ consists of two arcs.

Above the level $`v_1`$, the annulus $`S_0`$, the surface $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and the disk $`D_1`$ bound a solid torus $`P_0`$. $`kP_0`$ consists of two straight arcs going from $`D_1`$ to $`\eta (\gamma _0)`$, and an arc lying in $`\eta (\gamma _0)`$. $`P_0\alpha _1`$ consist of a straight arc going from $`D_1`$ to $`\gamma _0`$. Now it is not difficult to see that $`kP_0`$ can be isotoped so that it consists of two straight arcs lying in $`N(\alpha _1)`$, and an arc in $`\eta (\gamma _0)`$. A similar argument can be done for $`P_n`$, the solid torus lying below the disk $`D_n`$. This shows that $`k`$ is level with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. ∎

The proof of Theorem 3 is now complete.

Acknowledgement. Part of this work was done while visiting the Department of Mathematics of The University of California at Santa Barbara in 1999. I am grateful for their hospitality. This research was partially supported by a NSF grant, and by a sabbatical fellowship from CONACYT. I am also grateful to the anonymous referee for doing valuable suggestions.


text:
# Reflection of two-gap nature in penetration depth measurements of MgB2 film

## I introduction

Since the discovery of superconductivity in metallic MgB2, abundant research has been carried out to elucidate its basic mechanism. MgB2 has some notable features which contrast with cuprate superconductors. First, electron coupling is mediated by phonons, as indicated by the observation of a prominent isotope effect. However, the transition temperature, $`T_c39`$K, might be somewhat higher than the theoretical prediction assuming a conventional phonon mechanism. Recently, it was suggested that anisotropy in electron-phonon couplings plays a significant role in the unusually high transition temperature. Secondly, many theoretical and experimental works suggest that MgB2 has two separate gaps and that the symmetry of each gap is $`s`$-wave with a substantial gap anisotropy. The Fermi surface of MgB2 consists of two nearly cylindrical (2D) sheets and two tubular networks (3D). While the value of the gap associated with 3D sheets is in the range $`0.5\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c0.95`$, for 2D networks the value is about $`1.8\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c2.2`$. This double-gap structure and its anisotropic nature would be expected to play an important role in the physical properties of the compound.

In the early stages of MgB2 study, a number of groups claimed unconventional superconductivity or $`s`$-wave order parameter symmetry from penetration depth measurements on various forms of samples. For example, Prozorov et al. showed a clear exponential behavior of $`\lambda (T)`$ measured using a microwave technique for MgB2 wires. On the other hand, Pronin et al. reported the penetration depth measurements of $`c`$-axis oriented films with $`T_c32`$ K. They claimed that the penetration depth shows $`T^2`$ temperature dependence rather than exponential behavior at low temperatures, and suggested a strong gap anisotropy or the existence of nodes in the gap as its origin. At present, some of the results of penetration depth measurements and their interpretations are still controversial.

In this work, we measure the magnetic penetration depth of a high-quality MgB2 film via a mutual-inductance technique. At low temperatures, the superfluid density, $`\rho _s\lambda ^2(T)`$, shows a clear exponential temperature dependence. However, the model assuming a single gap does not describe the experimental results. A full calculation within the BCS framework assuming existence of a double gap, successfully describes our data. The values of the two gaps obtained from fits to the data are consistent with previous reports. Also, the contributions of each gap to the superfluid density are deduced from the analysis.

Initially, we compare the data with the low-temperature expansion formula for $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ assuming one or two gaps to get a rough estimate of the gap values. Then, we refine the values from a full calculation of the penetration depth. Finally, we consider how the penetration depth is affected by gap anisotropy.

## II experimental aspects

The MgB2 thin film was fabricated using a two-step method; the detailed process is described elsewhere. First, an amorphous boron thin film was deposited on a (1 $`\overline{1}`$ 0 2) Al2O3 substrate of $`1\times 1`$ cm2 at room temperature by pulsed laser. Then, the boron thin film was put into a Nb tube with high purity Mg metal (99.9%), and the Nb tube was then sealed using an arc furnace in an Ar atmosphere. Finally, the heat treatment was carried out at 900C for 10 to 30 minutes in an evacuated quartz ampoule, which was sealed under high vacuum. The film thickness is 0.3 $`\mu `$m, confirmed by scanning electron microscopy. X-ray diffraction patterns indicated that the MgB2 thin film has a highly $`c`$-axis-oriented crystal structure normal to the substrate surface; no impurity phase is observed.

The penetration depth, $`\lambda (T)`$, was measured using a two-coil mutual inductance technique described in detail elsewhere. The MgB2 film is centered between drive and pick-up coils with diameter of $`1`$ mm. The inset of Fig. 1 schematically illustrates the measurement configuration. A current (1 mA$`I_d`$ 30 mA) at 50 kHz in the drive coil induces screening currents in the film. The net magnetic field from the drive coil and the induced current in film are measured as a voltage across the pick-up coil. Because the coils are much smaller than the film, the applied field is concentrated near the center of the film and demagnetizing effects at the film perimeter are not relevant. All data presented here are taken in the linear response regime. Figure 1 shows representative mutual inductance, $`M(T)`$, data measured with $`I_d30`$ mA for $`T25`$ K and $`I_d2`$ mA for $`T25`$ K. The mutual inductance technique enables us to extract absolute values as well as temperature dependence of the penetration depth from the mutual inductance data.

The procedure to extract $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ from $`M(T)`$ is the following: First, a constant background (zero position) due to stray couplings between coils is subtracted from raw data. This constant background can be estimated from measuring at $`T=4.2`$ K the mutual inductance of Pb foil with identical shape and area as substrate using the same measurement probe. In this background measurement, the magnetic penetration depth of Pb is so small compared to foil thickness that no magnetic field goes through film. After the subtraction of the background, the data is normalized to the value of mutual inductance at $`T=50`$ K (initial position). The normalization removes uncertainties associated with amplifier gains and nonideal aspects of the coil windings. The subtracted and normalized mutual inductance is converted to complex conductivity, $`\sigma =\sigma _1i\sigma _2`$, where $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ are real and imaginary parts of the conductivity. Finally, the penetration depth is determined from the imaginary part of conductivity via the relationship $`\sigma _2=1/\mu _0\omega \lambda ^2`$, where $`\mu _0`$ is the magnetic permeability of vacuum and $`\omega `$ is the frequency of drive current. The accuracy of $`\lambda ^2`$ is limited by 10% uncertainty in film thickness. However, the temperature dependence of $`\lambda ^2`$ is unaffected by the uncertainty. The other inset of Fig. 1 displays $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ curves deduced from $`M(T)`$ measured at two different $`I_d`$ levels. Although the signal-to-noise ratio of upper curve ($`I_d=10`$ mA for $`T`$ 25 K) is smaller than that of lower one ($`I_d=30`$ mA for $`T`$ 25 K), two curves do not show any quantitative difference. (Upper curve was shifted by 10 $`\mu `$m-2 for comparison.)

## III Results and discussion

### A Theoretical description of data assuming a single gap

Figure 2 shows $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ at temperatures below 15 K. The value of $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ at $`T1.3`$ K is about 43 $`\mu `$m-2, which corresponds to $`\lambda 150`$ nm. To examine the temperature dependence of $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ at low temperatures, we fit first $`5`$% drop in $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ to an exponential-type function $`\lambda ^2(T)1c\mathrm{exp}(D/T)`$, where $`c`$ are $`D`$ are adjustable parameters. As presented by thin solid line in the figure, the fit is reasonably good. On the other hand, when we fit the data in the same temperature region to a quadratic form $`\lambda ^2(T)1(T/T_0)^2`$ as in Ref. , the fit deviates significantly from the data (dashed line in the same figure). The $`\chi ^2`$ values for exponential and quadratic fits are $`3.96\times 10^5`$ and $`5.13\times 10^4`$, respectively.

The exponential $`T`$-dependence of $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ at low temperatures can be regarded to reflect $`s`$-wave order-parameter symmetry in this compound. For clean BCS-type superconductors, $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ is given by

$$\frac{\lambda ^2(T)}{\lambda ^2(0)}=12_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{f(E)}{E}\right)D(E)𝑑E,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the superconducting energy gap, $`f(E)[\mathrm{exp}(E/k_BT)+1]^1`$ is the Fermi distribution function, and $`D(E)E/(E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{1/2}`$, is the quasiparticle density of states (DOS). This equation can be expanded at low temperatures, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is nearly constant, in the following way:

$$\frac{\lambda ^2(T)}{\lambda ^2(0)}1\left(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }(0)}{k_BT}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ is the energy gap at zero temperature. Thin solid line in Fig. 3 represents Eq.(2) fitted to data. The comparison between data and theory is restricted to the first $`5`$% drop in $`\lambda ^2(T)`$, where the $`T`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not significant. This comparison yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)=4.29`$ meV $`[\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c=1.31]`$ and $`\lambda ^2(0)=43.2`$ $`\mu `$m-2. The gap value is significantly smaller than the BCS weak coupling limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c1.76`$. Using the gap value deduced above, $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ in the whole temperature region below $`T_c`$ can be obtained by a full BCS calculation using Eq. (1). If the above one-gap fit is valid, the full calculation is expected to describe the experimental $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ for the entire temperature region below $`T_c`$. Thin solid line in the inset of Fig. 3 represents this full calculation. The curve does not give a correct description of the data at high temperatures. While the data show negative curvature at high temperatures, the theoretical line shows weakly positive curvature.

### B Theoretical description of data assuming a double gap

A number of experimental and theoretical groups have proposed the existence of two gaps in the DOS of MgB2. The larger gap belongs to the quasi-2D Fermi surface derived from B-B ($`\sigma `$) bonds, and the smaller gap belongs to the quasi-3D Fermi surface derived from B-Mg-B ($`\pi `$) bonds. We model this two-gap nature by writing $`D(E)`$ as a sum of two BCS DOS. Thus, low-temperature expansion of $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ can be expressed by

$`\lambda ^2(T)`$ $``$ $`\lambda _S^2(0)\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_S(0)}{k_BT}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_S(0)/k_BT)\right]`$
$`+\lambda _L^2(0)\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_L(0)}{k_BT}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_L(0)/k_BT)\right],`$
where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(0)`$ \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(0)`$\] and $`\lambda _S^2(0)`$ \[$`\lambda _L^2(0)`$\] are the value of the small (large) gap and the contribution of small (large) gap to total superfluid density ($`\lambda ^2`$), respectively. For comparison with data, it is more convenient to convert the above equation to the following form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2(T)}{\lambda ^2(0)}}`$ $``$ $`1c_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_S(0)}{k_BT}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_S(0)/k_BT)`$ (3)
$`c_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_L(0)}{k_BT}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_L(0)/k_BT),`$ (4)
where $`\lambda ^2(0)=\lambda _S^2(0)+\lambda _L^2(0)`$, $`c_1=\lambda _S^2(0)/\lambda ^2(0)`$, and $`c_2=(1c_1)`$.

At very low temperatures, the change of superfluid density with temperature, i.e., the quasiparticle excitation, is dominated by the small gap. In other words, the role of the large gap in $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ is relevant at higher temperatures. Thus, we extend the fitting region up to $`15`$% drop in $`\lambda ^2(T)`$. 15% drop in $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ corresponds to about 10% drop in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)/\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ in the BCS weak coupling limit. Accordingly, in this fit about 10% error due to change of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be expected. Figure 4 shows the comparison of Eq. (4) with data. From this fit, we obtains two distinct gap values, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(0)=2.57`$ meV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(0)=5.82`$ meV, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(0)/k_BT_c=0.79`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(0)/k_BT_c=1.78`$. In the case of the small gap, the value is consistent with previous reports. But the large gap value is somewhat smaller than those in the literatures (Table I).

The success of the fit motivates a full calculation in the extended temperature range for a more precise description of the data. We assume isotropic $`s`$-wave gaps on the two pieces of Fermi surface, and perform a full calculation of $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ according to

$$\frac{\lambda ^2(T)}{\lambda ^2(0)}=12\left[c_1_{\mathrm{\Delta }_S}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{f}{E}\right)D_S(E)𝑑E+c_2_{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{f}{E}\right)D_L(E)𝑑E\right],$$
(5)
where $`c_1`$ is adjustable parameter which determines the contribution of the small gap to the superfluid density and $`c_2=(1c_1)`$.

Figure 5 shows our attempt to fit the data using Eq.(5). Except near $`T_c`$, the theoretical line gives a good fit to the data. From this, we obtain the gap values $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(0)=2.61\pm 0.41`$ meV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(0)=6.50\pm 0.33`$ meV. These are fairly consistent with previous reports (Table I). Also, the contributions of each gap to $`\lambda ^2(0)`$, i.e., $`c_2=0.79\pm 0.06`$ is deduced. The inset of Fig. 5 shows theoretical $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ curves, where the contributions of each gap are separately plotted.

In the above analysis, we described the $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ theoretically assuming the gaps ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$) being isotropic on the Fermi surfaces. According to a recent theoretical calculation, the values of the small and large gaps are distributed in the range of 1 meV $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S3`$ meV and 6.5 meV $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L7.5`$ on the Fermi surfaces. Here we suppose two phenomenological models for gap distribution. In the first model, the gap is distributed uniformly around the average value of gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. In the alternative model, we assume the normal (Gaussian) distribution of the gap. Using these models, we calculate theoretical curves of $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ assuming $`\pm 25`$% variation of gap around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ on the Fermi surface. The gap distribution of $`\pm 25`$% is sufficient to account for real gap anisotropy in MgB2. The calculations reveal that the change in $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ due to the gap distribution is not significant. In fact, the maximum change in $`\lambda ^2`$ due to the gap anisotropy is only about 2% in the case of the uniform distribution. The normal gap distribution causes negligibly small change in $`\lambda ^2`$. These results lead us to the conclusion that the gap anisotropy on the Fermi surface of MgB2 is not relevant in determining the temperature dependence of the penetration depth.

## IV Summary

The magnetic penetration depth $`\lambda (T)`$ of a high-quality, $`c`$-axis oriented MgB2 film was obtained from mutual-inductance measurements in the linear-response regime. The exponential temperature dependence of $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ at low temperatures suggests a nodeless gap on the Fermi surface. However, the data could not be described by the $`s`$-wave theory assuming a single gap even at low temperatures. On the other hand, the data were successfully described by the full calculation of $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ with two distinct gap values: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(0)=2.61\pm 0.41`$ meV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(0)=6.50\pm 0.33`$ meV. At $`T=0`$, the contribution of the small gap to the superfluid density was found to be 21%. Finally, two phenomenological models to account for gap-size distribution on the Fermi surface were considered. It was found that gap-size distribution in MgB2 does not play a significant role in determining the temperature dependence of the penetration depth.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by DOE Grant DE-FG02-90ER45427 through the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium (MSK, JAS, and, TRL) and by Creative Research Initiatives of the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology (WNK, HJK, EMC, and SIL).


text:
# Spin Ordering and Quasiparticles in Spin Triplet Superconducting Liquids

## Abstract

Spin ordering and its effect on low energy quasiparticles in a p-wave superconducting liquid are investigated. We study the properties of a novel $`2D`$ p-wave superconducting liquid where the ground state is spin rotation invariant. In quantum spin disordered liquids, the low energy quasiparticles are bound states of the bare Bogolubov- De Gennes ($`\mathrm{B}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{G}`$) quasiparticles and zero energy skyrmions, which are charge neutral bosons at the low energy limit. Further more, spin collective excitations are fractionalized ones carrying a half spin and obeying fermionic statistics. In thermally spin disordered limits, the quasi-particles are bound states of bare $`\mathrm{B}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{G}`$ quasi-particles. The latter situation can be realized in some layered p-wave superconductors where the spin-orbit coupling is weak.

Our fascination towards excitations carrying quantum numbers distinct from electrons in condensed matter systems dated back at least twenty years ago . It is now widely accepted that there are a variety of strongly interacting systems where quasiparticles carry only a fraction of quantum numbers an electron has. All known examples, though have been discovered in very diversified condensed matter systems which bear no similarities at first sight, appear to share one remarkable common feature. It is topological excitations interacting with electrons one way or the other which make all sorts of exotic quasiparticles or collective excitations possible. This also lies in the heart of earlier examples discovered in field theories and mathematical physics.

In this letter, we scrutinize the spin ordering and its influences on excitations, particularly, on the fractionalization of quasiparticles and collective spin excitations in $`2D`$ spin triplet p-wave superconductors. Spin triplet superconducting states are believed to exist in $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, many heavy-fermion superconductors and most recently layer perovskite $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ crystals. We report the existence of a new $`2D`$ spin triplet p-wave superconducting state which is spin rotation invariant. This new state is characterized by a finite range spin correlation and $`hc/4e`$ vortices as the elementary topological excitations. The elementary quasiparticles are Bogolubov-De Gennes (BdeG) quasiparticles hosted in zero energy skyrmions. The spin collective excitations are shown to be fractionalized ones carrying a half spin and obeying fermionic statistics, by contrast to the spin wave excitations in spin ordered p-wave superconducting states(SOpSSs). We should mention that the general fractionalization pattern in some p-wave superconductors was recently classified in.

For a p-wave superconductor with an order parameter $`𝐝(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(k_x+ik_y)\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )𝐧`$, the Hamiltonian in the Nambu space of $`\mathrm{\Psi }=(\psi ^+,i\tau _2\psi )`$ can be written as,

$`H=\sigma _3ϵ+{\displaystyle \underset{i=x,y}{}}\sigma _i\{_i,\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}_+,`$ (1)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is defined as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{exp}(i\sigma _3\chi )(𝐧\tau )`$ and $`ϵ(𝐤)=\mathrm{}^2𝐤^2/2mϵ_F`$. We use $`\sigma `$ as the Nambu space Pauli matrix and $`\tau `$ as the spin space one. We assume the spin-orbit interactions are weak and $`𝐧`$ is a unit vector in a sphere $`S^2`$. The internal space of the symmetry broken state is $`=[S^1\times S^2]/Z_2`$. The order parameter observes a discrete symmetry: $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐧,\chi )\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐧,\chi +\pi )`$ and represents a quantum spin nematic p-wave superconducting state.

Spin-phase separation To obtain an effective theory, we integrate over the fermionic degrees of freedom and make a gradient expansion. At low temperatures, we report the result as

$`=𝒮_{ab}𝐏_{sa}𝐏_{sb}𝒯_0\mathrm{\Phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left(𝐄^2+𝐁^2\right)`$ (2)
$`+𝒮_{ab}^{\alpha \beta }_a𝐧_\alpha _b𝐧_\beta 𝒯^{\alpha \beta }_t𝐧_\alpha _t𝐧_\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{4\pi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }𝐀_\mu 𝐅_{\nu \lambda }.`$ (3)
$`𝐏_s=\frac{1}{2}\chi +e𝐀^{em}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}_t\chi +e\varphi ^{em}`$ are the gauge invariant momentum and potentials respectively. The superscript $`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{m}`$ is introduced to distinguish the usual electric magnetic vector potential $`𝐀^{em}`$ from the topological field $`𝐀`$ defined below in terms of $`𝐧`$. $`𝒯_0\nu _0^1`$ is a unity at $`T=0`$ and varies smoothly as a function of the temperature, $`\nu _0`$ is the averaged density of states at the fermi surface. $`𝐅_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}𝐧_\mu 𝐧\times _\nu 𝐧`$, and $`𝐀`$ is the vector potential of $`𝐅_{\mu \nu }`$. $`𝒮_{ab}^{\alpha \beta }=\delta ^{\alpha \beta }𝒮_{ab}`$, $`𝒮_{ab}=\rho _0/2m\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_{ab}`$; and $`𝒯^{\alpha \beta }=\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\nu _0\stackrel{~}{𝒯}`$. Finally, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_{ab}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}`$ and $`𝒩`$ are calculated as

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}𝐯_a𝐯_bF(𝐤)},\stackrel{~}{𝒯}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}F(𝐤)};`$ (4)
$`𝒩={\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{4\pi }ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\frac{𝐌_\alpha }{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}\frac{𝐌_\beta }{k_x}\frac{𝐌_\gamma }{k_y}F(𝐤)};`$ (5)
$`F(𝐤,T)={\displaystyle \frac{}{ϵ^2(𝐤)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2(T)}{E(𝐤)}}\mathrm{tan}({\displaystyle \frac{E(𝐤)}{2kT}}).`$ (6)
$`\rho _0`$, $`m`$ and $`ϵ_F`$ are the density, mass and fermi energy respectively; $`E(𝐤)=\sqrt{ϵ^2(𝐤)+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2𝐤^2/k_F^2}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the temperature dependent gap. At zero temperature, $`𝒩`$ is quantized to be unity in 2D. The director $`𝐌`$ is defined as $`𝐌(𝐤)=(v_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐤_x,v_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐤_y,ϵ(k))`$; $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_F`$. When the director $`𝐧`$ is a planar vector confined in the $`\theta =\pi /2`$ equator, i.e. $`𝐧=(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,0)`$, the spatial gradient terms coincide with previous results for the A phase of $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$. The action is valid when the frequency and the wave vector are smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$ and $`\xi _0^1(T)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)/v_F`$ respectively.

Eq.3 suggests a few important properties of the quantum spin nematic p-wave superconductors. First of all, the dynamics of spin $`𝐧`$ and phase $`\chi `$ is completely decoupled at the low frequency limit(except the entanglement due to a $`Z_2`$ projection in the functional integral, which we will not discuss in this paper). It reflects spin-phase separation in a p-wave superconductor. Second, for an isotropic fermi surface which interests us in this article, $`𝒮_{ab}=\delta _{ab}\rho _s(T)/2m`$, and $`\rho _s(T)`$ is the temperature dependent superfluid density which vanishes at the critical temperature $`T_c`$. So the spin and phase dynamics are characterized by an $`O(3)`$ $`\sigma `$-model (NL$`\sigma `$M) and an $`xy`$ model respectively. At the mean field approximation, $`𝐧=𝐞_z`$ and $`\chi `$ is a constant. This corresponds to a conventional SOpSS. There are three Goldstone modes; two of them are spin waves $`\delta 𝐧=(1,\pm i,0)`$ with a linear dispersion. In an isotropic case, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_{ab}=\delta _{ab}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}`$; the spin wave velocity is $`v_s(T)=v_F\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{𝒮}/2\pi \stackrel{~}{𝒯}}`$. And the last mode is the usual plasma wave, with a dispersion $`\omega =\sqrt{2\pi e^2\rho _0k/m}`$ in $`2D`$ at $`T=0`$.

The topological term was previously derived in. This term, orignating from the broken time reversal and parity symmetries, determines the topological order in the fields $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and defines the structure of quasiparticles. Implications of topological terms in other unconventional superconductors were also explored recently. Here, we investigate the spin ordering, zero energy spin textures and quasiparticles based on Eq.3. Let us emphasis that Eq.3 is valid as far as the quasiparticles are gapped and the gradient expansion is possible; physically, it says all low lying collective excitations below the BCS energy gap are correctly described by the action.

Spin ordering Because of an extra branch of Goldstone modes in the spin sector, the spin order is more fragile than the phase order in the problem. In $`2D`$, this provides a unique possibility of spin disordered p-wave superconducting states (SDpSSs) where the $`S^2`$-symmetry is restored and only the $`U(1)`$-symmetry is broken. Such a state which is rotation invariant in nature differs from the conventional SOpSSs where the $`S^2`$ symmetry is broken and there is a long range order in $`𝐧`$.

The finite temperature phase diagrams of the $`O(3)`$ Nonlinear $`\sigma `$ Model (NL$`\sigma `$M) were previously analyzed in great details. In the current situation, just as the superfluid velocity $`\rho _s(T)`$, all coefficients in the action, $`𝒮_{ab}^{\alpha \beta },𝒯_{ab},𝒮_{ab},𝒯`$ depend on temperatures because of quasiparticle excitations. Taking this into account, we arrive at the following results in $`2D`$.

When $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0ϵ_F`$, the spin order is established at zero temperature and the correlation length

$$\xi _2=\frac{v_s(T)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_s(T)},\mathrm{\Delta }_s=T\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi [\rho _s(T)/2m\mathrm{\Gamma }]}{T}\right)$$
(7)
is finite only at finite temperatures(in a saddle point approximation). Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$. For most of p-wave superconductors, the gap energy is about $`1K`$ and the Fermi energy of order $`1eV`$, the superconductors are spin ordered at zero temperature. However, the liquids are spin disordered (in the absence of spin-orbit coupling) at any finite temperature as shown in Eq.7. On the other hand, when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is much larger than the fermi energy, the spin long range order could be spoiled by quantum fluctuations and the rotation invariance is preserved. We will be concerned with both situations, thermal and quantum $`2D`$ SDpSSs in the following discussion.

Zero energy skyrmions  One of the most important feature of the quantum SDpSS is the existence of topological order and consequently topological stable zero energy skyrmions in the absence of spin stiffness. In $`(2+1)`$ space $`𝐱=(\tau ,𝐫)`$, it is convenient to introduce a field, $`𝐇_\eta =\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\eta \mu \nu }𝐅_{\mu \nu }`$. $`𝐇_\tau =𝐅_{xy}`$ represents $`U(1)`$ magnetic fields along $`z`$ direction, $`𝐇_x=𝐅_{y\tau }`$ and $`𝐇_y=𝐅_{\tau x}`$ are the $`x,y`$-components of the electric field. To facilitate a calculation at finite temperatures, the perimeter along $`\tau `$-direction $`L_\tau `$ is taken to be finite, i.e. $`L_\tau =(kT)^1`$. Consider a rotating skyrmion terminated at the origin in a $`S^2\times S^1`$ space $`𝐧(\rho ,\varphi )=(\mathrm{sin}\theta (\rho )\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }),\mathrm{sin}\theta (\rho )\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }),\mathrm{cos}\theta (\rho ))`$ where

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=Q_m\varphi \gamma (\tau ),`$ (8)
$`\theta (\rho ,\tau )=2arcos{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\sqrt{\rho ^2+v_s^2\tau ^2}}}\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau ),`$ (9)
$`\gamma (\tau +L_\tau )\gamma (\tau )=N2\pi .`$ (10)
One can confirm that $`𝐇=Q_m2\pi \delta (\tau )\delta (𝐫)`$, corresponding to a space-time monopole of charge $`Q_m`$ in $`2+1`$d. As $`\rho ,\tau `$ approach infinity, $`𝐇(\rho ,\tau )`$ becomes vanishly small. The action of this Euclidean space monopole event is finite ($`a1`$),

$$𝒮_{m.}=\frac{a\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{16\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_s}+i\gamma _B,\gamma _B=\frac{Q_m𝒩}{4}[\gamma (L_\tau )\gamma (\tau _0)].$$
(11)
However, it has a Berry’s phase due to the topological term, which characterizes a rotation of the skyrmion during its duration. $`\gamma _B(0)`$ obviously depends on the temporal coordinate at which the skyrmion is terminated, leading to destructive interferences between monopoles centered at different $`\tau _0`$ with different rotation angles $`\gamma _B`$.

As a result, the fluctuations of space-time monopole events per unit volumn are($`c1`$)

$$<Q_m^2>=\delta (𝒩)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{c\xi _0^2}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{16\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_s}).$$
(12)
Eq.12 shows that at any finite $`𝒩`$ all monopole events are suppressed due to destructive interferences. It also implies that for $`𝒩0`$ the ground state has an infinite-fold degeneracy compared with that of $`𝒩=0`$.

There are at least two important intraconnected consequencies of the destructive interferences. First, Eq.12 indicates the conservation of the Skyrmion charges at $`𝒩0`$ in a quantum SDpSS, that is in the absence of the spin rigidity. If we define $`c_w\left(\{𝐧(𝐫)\}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑x𝑑y𝐇_z`$ as the total number of Skyrmions living on the 2D sheet, in the presence of space-time monopoles $`Q_m`$ at $`\{𝐫^m,\tau _m\}`$,

$$\frac{c_w(\tau )}{\tau }=Q_m\delta (\tau \tau _m).$$
(13)
A space-time monopole essentially connects a trivial vacuum to a Skyrmion configuration and causes a change in the topological charge $`c_w`$ by one unit. At $`𝒩=1`$, following Eqs.13, 12, we conclude that a skyrmion whose energy could vanish in the absence of the spin stiffness, is a well-defined topological configuration in a quantum SDpSS. This remarkable feature which doesn’t exist at $`𝒩=0`$ is also a consequency of a zero energy fermionic mode hosted by instantons.

Second, the suppression of monopole events leads to very distinct behaviors of fields $`𝐅_{\mu \nu }`$ in SDpSSs. The Wilson-loop integral defined as $`𝒲_{U(1)}=<𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐀𝑑𝐫\right)>`$ has different asymptotical behaviors in the large loop limit in the presence or absence of topological order in $`c_w`$. When the topological charge $`c_w`$ is conserved at any finite $`𝒩`$, $`𝒲_{U(1)}=\mathrm{exp}(L_cC_1)`$ ($`L_c`$ is the perimeter of the Wilson loop) and the gauge fields are deconfining. This is true for a quantum SDpSS at zero and finite temperatures as far as $`L_\tau `$ is longer than the duration of space-time monopoles. However, in a thermal SDpSS, $`c_w`$ is unconserved and the gauge fields are confining (except around the quantum critical point which I will not discuss here).

Quasi-particles We now employ the generalized Bogolubov-De Gennes equation to study the properties of quasiparticles in SDpSSs. In the presence of a topological configuration of $`𝐧(𝐫)`$, it is convenient to introduce a gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }U_s(𝐧)U_c(\chi )\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and work in a rotated representation; then one obtains a new Hamiltonian

$`H=\sigma _3ϵ(i\widehat{})+v_\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\{\sigma _i\tau _3,i\widehat{}_i\}_+.`$ (14)
Here $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_F`$, $`i\widehat{}=i𝐀_c𝐀_s`$ is a covariant derivative. We have defined $`U_s^1𝐝\tau U_s=\tau _3`$, $`U_c^1\sigma _i\mathrm{exp}(i\sigma _3\chi )U_c=\sigma _i`$. The vector potentials are defined in terms of the $`U(1)`$ rotation $`U_c`$ and $`SU(2)`$ rotation $`U_s`$ as $`𝐀_{c\mu }=iU_c^1_\mu U_c=\sigma _3(𝐀_\mu ^{em}+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \chi )`$, $`𝐀_{s\mu }=iU_s^1_\mu U_s=\tau _\alpha `$ $`𝐖_\mu ^\alpha `$ ($`\mu =0,1,2`$, stands for coordinates in $`1+2`$ dimension space.). An explicit calculation also shows that $`𝐖_\mu ^3=𝐀_\mu `$. At last, the corresponding Lagrangian density is

$`_{BdeG}=\mathrm{\Psi }^+\left(\widehat{_\tau }(𝐀_\mu ^{em},𝐀_{s\mu })\right)\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (15)
and $`\widehat{_\tau }=_\tau \sigma _3A_0^{em}\tau 𝐀_{s0}`$.

Following Eq.14, besides a usual electric magnetic charge defined with respect to $`𝐀_{e.m.}`$ fields, a BdeG quasiparticle also carries a unit $`U(1)`$-charge with respect to $`𝐀_\mu `$ fields and is minimally coupled with $`𝐅_{\mu \nu }`$. The energy of a BdeG particle is determined by the Wilson loop integral of $`𝐀`$. In quantum SDpSSs, the Wilson loop integral decays exponentially as a function of the perimeter of the loop. The interactions between BdeG quasiparticles mediated by the topological fields $`𝐅_{\mu \nu }`$ are rather weak and the BdeG quasiparticle energy is finite. But most importantly, in this case, skyrmions themselves carry $`U(1)`$ charges with respect to the fields $`𝐀_\mu `$. This is indicated in Eq.3 if we introduce the skyrmion density-current density as $`4\pi 𝐣_\mu =𝒩ϵ_{\mu \nu \eta }_\nu 𝐀_\eta `$ and express the topological term in a form of minimal coupling $`𝐣_\mu 𝐀_\mu `$. By minimizing the action of $`+_{BdeG}`$ with respect to $`𝐀_0`$, $`𝐀^{em}`$ and taking $`𝒩=1`$ at low temperature limit, we do obtain a saddle point equation $`4\pi <\mathrm{\Psi }^+\tau _3\mathrm{\Psi }>=𝐞_z\times 𝐀`$, $`<\mathrm{\Psi }^+\sigma _3\mathrm{\Psi }>=0`$. This indicates that a skyrmion configuration carries a half spin but no charge. In other words, a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ but chargeless BdeG quasiparticle is hosted by, or confined with a skyrmion, with the confinement mediated by the spin fluctuations.

To examine the BdeG quasiparticles dressed with spin textures, we consider a skyrmion in polar coordinates $`(\rho ,\varphi )`$. The director has a spatial distribution as $`𝐧(\rho ,\varphi )=(\mathrm{sin}\theta (\rho )\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta (\rho )\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta (\rho ))`$; $`\theta (\rho )`$ is a smooth function of $`\rho `$, the asymptotics of which is $`\theta (\rho =0)=0`$ and $`\theta (\rho \mathrm{})=\pi `$. The corresponding $`𝐀`$ field can be chosen as

$$𝐀=\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta (\rho )}{2\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta }𝐞_\varphi ,\times 𝐀=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta (\rho )}{2\rho }\frac{\theta (\rho )}{\rho }𝐞_z.$$
(16)
The $`SU(2)`$ field $`𝐖^\alpha `$ at $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ can be shown to take a simple form; $`𝐖_i^3=𝐀_i`$($`i=1,2`$), $`𝐖_0^3=0`$ and $`𝐖_\mu ^1=𝐖_\mu ^2=0`$.

A BdeG quasiparticle remains gapped in a texture. However, following Eq.11 when a spin-$`1/2`$ BdeG particle moves in a closed circle of radius $`\rho `$ in a skyrmion defect, it acquires a Berry’s phase of $`\pi [1\mathrm{cos}\theta (\rho )]`$ which approaches $`2\pi `$ at an infinity $`\rho `$. Consequently, under the interchange of coordinates, the two-body wave function of composite quasiparticles acquires an additional $`\pi `$ phase because of hosting skyrmions, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_2,𝐫_1)`$, which also follows the linking number theorem for skyrmions. These composite quasi-particles are therefore Bosons. We also observe the BdeG quasiparticles are charge neutral at $`ϵ(𝐤)=0`$ with respect to an em field; they also carry zero $`U(1)`$ charges so to minimize the interaction between composite excitations. The life time of the quasiparticles is limited by the life time of zero energy skyrmions; for the quantum disordered case, the zero energy skyrmions are stable even at low temperatures.

In thermal SDpSSs, the suppression of space-time monopoles is incomplete since $`L_\tau `$ is longer than the monopoles’ duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^1`$. The gauge field then is confining and the BdeG quasi-particles form bound states, with zero or one total spin. This unexpected feature should be observed in future experiments on some layered p-wave superconductors.

Collective spin excitations The nature of the collective spin excitations in an SDpSS can be explored in a spinor representation of Eq.3. By introducing $`\eta ^+\tau \eta =𝐧`$, $`\eta =(\eta _1,\eta _2)^T`$ and $`\eta ^+\eta =1`$, we obtain for $`\eta `$ the following Lagrangian in SDpSSs,

$$_\eta =\frac{1}{2f^2}|(i_\mu 𝐀_\mu )\eta |^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_s(T)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)}\eta ^+\eta +\frac{𝒩}{4\pi }ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }𝐀_\mu 𝐅_{\nu \lambda }.$$
(17)
And $`\eta `$ is a bosonic field carrying a unit charge with respect to $`𝐀`$ fields and spin $`1/2`$. In Eq.17, $`2f^2=2m\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{𝒮}\stackrel{~}{𝒯}}\rho _0`$; we have introduced the following rescaling: $`tt\xi _0/v_s`$, $`𝐫𝐫\xi _0`$.

In quantum SDpSSs, an $`\eta `$\- quantum is bound with a skyrmion such that the bound state becomes a fermion. Each spin one spin wave excitation which is an elementary excitation in an SOpSS, is fractionalized into two elementary fermionic spinors hosted in skyrmions in quantum SDpSSs. Each spinor-skyrmion composite is a spin-$`1/2`$ excitation carrying no $`U(1)`$ charge, by contrast to a bare $`\eta `$ excitation. In the thermal SDpSSs , the spin collective excitations are spin-wave ones with spin one.

$`\frac{\mathrm{}c}{4e}`$ vortices For the sake of completeness, I am also listing some properties of vortices. The linear defects in a symmetry broken state with an internal space $`=[S^1\times S^2]/Z_2`$ have been recently discussed extensively in the context of Bose-Einstein condensates of $`{}_{}{}^{23}Na`$. In SOpSSs, the linear defects are superpositions of $`hc/4e`$ vortices and $`\pi `$-disclinations because of the $`Z_2`$ symmetries in the problem. And a bare $`hc/4e`$ vortex is forbidden because of the catastrophe of a cut. In SDpSSs, however, $`hc/4e`$ vortices can exist by their own right and are elementary excitations.

The SDpSS discussed here has the following order parameters: $`<\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}>=0,Tr<\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}>0,<\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )>0`$. The existence of $`SC^{}`$ with $`<\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}>=0`$ , $`Tr<\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}>0`$, $`<\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )>=0`$, and other fractionalized states examined in  appears to be beyond the model studied here. Physically, the SDpSS has Josephson oscillations of $`2eV`$ frequency while in $`SC^{}`$ the frequency is $`4eV`$.

In the presence of spin-orbital couplings, the mean field solution indicates that the director of $`𝐧`$ points along $`\pm 𝐞_z`$ direction and the internal space is $`[Z_2\times S^1]/Z_2`$. However, at an energy scale higher than the spin-orbit coupling ones, $`𝐧`$ would be free to rotate on a two-sphere. The spin order-disorder transition still takes place at a finite temperature below the superconductor-metal transition temperature $`T_c`$ when the spin-orbit scattering rate is much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(0)`$. As the spin is disordered, the above discussions on the spin textures and BdeG quasiparticles are still valid.

In conclusion, we also would like to remark that some aspects of the BdeG quasiparticles in spin disordered superconductors considered here reminisce the chiral-bag defect model for the nucleon . The presence of spin-$`1/2`$ bosonic chargeless BdeG excitations in a quantum SDpSS is an example of fermi number fractionalization; it belongs to the same class phenomenon as the mid-gap quasiparticles hosted in domain wall excitations in one dimension polyacetylene and the statistical transmutation proposed in some magnetic models . It is my pleasure to thank P. W. Anderson, E. Demler, D.Khmelnitskii, K. Schoutens and F. Wilczek for useful discussions, and X. G. Wen for a conversation on instantonic zero modes. Finally, I am grateful to P.Wiegmann for explaining to me the global anomalies and patiently scrutinizing my arguments.