text:
# Rotating Hele-Shaw cells with ferrofluids

## Abstract

We investigate the flow of two immiscible, viscous fluids in a rotating Hele-Shaw cell, when one of the fluids is a ferrofluid and an external magnetic field is applied. The interplay between centrifugal and magnetic forces in determining the instability of the fluid-fluid interface is analyzed. The linear stability analysis of the problem shows that a non-uniform, azimuthal magnetic field, applied tangential to the cell, tends to stabilize the interface. We verify that maximum growth rate selection of initial patterns is influenced by the applied field, which tends to decrease the number of interface ripples. We contrast these results with the situation in which a uniform magnetic field is applied normally to the plane defined by the rotating Hele-Shaw cell.

When a fluid is pushed by a less viscous one in a narrow space between two parallel plates (the so-called Hele-Shaw cell), the well-known Saffman-Taylor instability phenomenon arises , which takes the form of fingering . Traditionally, experiments and theory focus on two basic Hele-Shaw flow geometries: (i) rectangular  and radial . In rectangular geometry cells the less viscous fluid is pumped against the more viscous one along the direction of the flow. Meanwhile, in the radial geometry case, the less viscous fluid is injected to invade the more viscous one, through an inlet located on the top glass plate. In both geometries, the viscosity-driven instability leads to the formation of beautiful fingering patterns.

In recent years, the quest for new morphologies and richer dynamic behavior resulted in a number of modifications of the classic Saffman-Taylor setup . An interesting variation of the traditional viscosity-driven fingering instability is the investigation of radial Hele-Shaw flows in the presence of centrifugal driving. The inclusion of centrifugal forces can be considered by rotating the cell, with constant angular velocity, around an axis perpendicular to the plane of the flow. In this case, the interface instability can be driven by the density difference between the fluids. In the late 1980s Schwartz  performed the linear stability analysis of the rotating cell problem, in the limits of high density and viscosity contrast. More recently, Carrillo et al.  studied, both theoretically and experimentally, flow in a rotating Hele-Shaw cell in arbitrary density and viscosity contrast. They extended the linear analysis performed in  by considering that the inner fluid is injected in the cell through a hole at the center of rotation, with constant injection rate. The linear growth rate calculated in  shows that the interface instability can be driven by both the density difference and the viscosity contrast between the fluids. Their experimental results supported their theoretical analysis. Carrillo and co-workers also examined the radial displacement of a rotating fluid annulus, bound by a second fluid, in stable  and unstable  regimes. In another interesting work, Magdaleno et al.  applied a conformal mapping technique to argue that the effects of rotation can be used to prevent cusp singularities in zero surface tension Hele-Shaw flows.

Another stimulating modification of the traditional Saffman-Taylor problem in non-rotating Hele-Shaw cells considers the interface morphology when one of the fluids is a ferrofluid , and an external magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the cell plates. Ferrofluids, which are colloidal suspensions of microscopic permanent magnets, respond paramagnetically to applied fields. As a result of the ferrofluid interaction with the external field, the usual viscous fingering instability is supplemented by a magnetic fluid instability , resulting in a variety of new interfacial behaviors .

The richness of new behaviors introduced by both rotation and magnetic field into the traditional Saffman-Taylor problem, motivated us to analyze the situation in which these two effects are simultaneously present. In this work we perform the linear stability analysis for flow in a rotating Hele-Shaw cell, assuming that one of the fluids is a ferrofluid and that a magnetic field is applied. First, we consider the new situation in which a non-uniform, azimuthal, in-plane field is applied. The competition between rotation and magnetic field is analyzed. We show the azimuthal magnetic field provides a new mechanism for stabilizing the interface. It is the first time such a field induced, stabilizing mechanism is proposed, and proved to be effective for flow in rotating Hele-Shaw cells. Through the analysis of the maximum growth rate, we verify that the azimuthal magnetic field acts to decrease the number of interface ripples. Finally, we contrast these results with the destabilizing situation in which a uniform magnetic field is applied normally to the plane defined by the rotating Hele-Shaw cell.

Consider a Hele-Shaw cell of thickness $`b`$ containing two immiscible, incompressible, viscous fluids (see figure 1). Denote the densities and viscosities of the inner and outer fluids, respectively as $`\rho _1`$, $`\eta _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, $`\eta _2`$. The flows in fluids $`1`$ and $`2`$ are assumed to be irrotational. Between the two fluids there exists a surface tension $`\sigma `$. We assume that the inner fluid is the ferrofluid (magnetization $`\stackrel{}{M}`$), while the outer fluid is non-magnetic. During the flow, the fluid-fluid interface has a perturbed shape described as $`=R+\zeta (\theta ,t)`$, where $`\theta `$ represents the polar angle, and $`R`$ is the radius of the initially unperturbed interface.

In order to include centrifugal forces, we allow the cell to rotate, with constant angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, about an axis perpendicular to the plane of the flow (figure 1). To include magnetic forces, we consider the action of an external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{H}`$, produced by a long, straight wire carrying a current $`I`$, directed along the axis of rotation. By Ampere’s law, it can be shown that the steady current $`I`$ produces an azimuthal magnetic field external to the wire $`\stackrel{}{H}=(I/2\pi r)\widehat{\theta }`$, where $`r`$ is the distance from the wire, and $`\widehat{\theta }`$ is the unit vector pointing in the direction of increase of $`\theta `$.

Following the standard approximations used by Rosensweig  and others  we assume that the ferrofluid magnetization $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ is collinear with the external field $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ and that the influence of the demagnetizing field is neglected. It is also assumed that the ferrofluid is electrically nonconducting and that the displacement current is negligible. For the quasi two-dimensional geometry of a Hele-Shaw cell, the three dimensional flow may be replaced with an equivalent two-dimensional flow $`\stackrel{}{v}(x,y)`$ by averaging over the $`z`$ direction perpendicular to the plane of the Hele-Shaw cell. Imposing no-slip boundary conditions and a parabolic velocity profile one derives Darcy’s law for ferrofluids in a Hele-Shaw cell , which must be augmented by including centrifugal forces,

$$\eta \stackrel{}{v}=\frac{b^2}{12}\left\{\stackrel{}{}p\frac{1}{b}_{b/2}^{+b/2}\mu _0(\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{})\stackrel{}{H}𝑑z\rho \mathrm{\Omega }^2r\widehat{r}\right\},$$
(1)
where $`p`$ is the hydrodynamic pressure, $`\mu _0`$ is the free-space permeability, and $`\widehat{r}`$ denotes a unit vector pointing radially outward. Equation (1) describes non-magnetic fluids by simply dropping the terms involving magnetization.

Since the velocity field $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is irrotational, it is convenient to rewrite equation (1) in terms of velocity potentials. We write $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{}\varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ defines the velocity potential. Similarly, we rewrite the magnetic body force in equation (1) as $`\mu _0(\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{})\stackrel{}{H}=\mu _0M\stackrel{}{}H=\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where we have introduced the scalar potential

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mu _0M(H)𝑑H=\frac{\mu _0\chi H^2}{2},$$
(2)
with $`M=M(H)=\chi H`$, $`\chi `$ being a constant magnetic susceptibility.

With the definitions of $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we notice that both sides of equation (1) are recognized as gradients of scalar fields. After integrating both sides of equation (1), we evaluate it for each of the fluids on the interface. Then, we subtract the resulting equations from each other, and divide by the sum of the two fluids’ viscosities to get the equation of motion

$$A\left(\frac{\varphi _2+\varphi _1}{2}\right)+\left(\frac{\varphi _2\varphi _1}{2}\right)=\frac{b^2}{12(\eta _1+\eta _2)}\left\{\sigma \kappa \mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{1}{2}(\rho _2\rho _1)\mathrm{\Omega }^2r^2\right\}.$$
(3)
To obtain (3) we have used the pressure boundary condition $`p_1p_2=\sigma \kappa `$ at the interface, where $`\kappa =\left\{[r^2+2(r/\theta )^2r(^2r/\theta ^2)]/[r^2+(r/\theta )^2]^{3/2}\right\}`$ denotes the interfacial curvature in the plane of the Hele-Shaw cell. The dimensionless parameter $`A=(\eta _2\eta _1)/(\eta _2+\eta _1)`$ is the viscosity contrast.

For the purpose of the following linear analysis, we perturb the interface with a single Fourier mode

$$\zeta (\theta ,t)=\zeta _n(t)\mathrm{exp}(in\theta ),n=0,1,2,\text{}$$
(4)
The velocity potential for fluid $`j`$ ($`j=1,2`$ indexes the inner and outer fluids, respectively), $`\varphi _j`$, obeys Laplace’s equation $`^2\varphi _j=0`$ and can be written as

$$\varphi _j=\varphi _j^0+\varphi _{jn}\left(\frac{R^n}{r^n}\right)^{(1)^j}\mathrm{exp}(in\theta ),$$
(5)
where $`\varphi _j^0`$ are independent of $`r`$ and $`\theta `$.

We need additional relations expressing the velocity potentials $`\varphi _j`$ in terms of the perturbation amplitudes $`\zeta `$, in order to conclude our derivation and close equation (3). To find these, we considered the kinematic boundary condition , which refers to the continuity of the normal velocity across the interface. Inserting expression (4) for $`\zeta (\theta ,t)`$ and (5) for $`\varphi _j`$ into the kinematic boundary condition, we solved for $`\varphi _{jn}`$ consistently to first order in $`\zeta `$ to find

$$\varphi _{jn}=(1)^j\frac{R}{n}\dot{\zeta }_n,$$
(6)
where the overdot denotes total time derivative.

Substitute expression (6) for $`\varphi _{jn}`$ into equation of motion (3), and again keep only linear terms in the perturbation amplitude. This procedure eliminates the velocity potentials from equation (3), and we obtain the differential equation for the perturbation amplitudes $`\dot{\zeta }_n=\lambda (n)\zeta _n`$, implying that the relaxation or growth of the mode $`n`$ is proportional to the factor $`\mathrm{exp}[\lambda (n)t]`$, where

$$\lambda (n)=\frac{b^2\sigma n}{12(\eta _1+\eta _2)R^3}\left[N_\mathrm{\Omega }N_B(n^21)\right]$$
(7)
is the linear growth rate. We define the dimensionless parameters $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }=[R^3(\rho _1\rho _2)\mathrm{\Omega }^2]/\sigma `$, and $`N_B=\mu _0\chi I^2/(4\pi ^2\sigma R)`$ as the rotational and magnetic bond numbers, respectively. $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`N_B`$) measures the relative strength of centrifugal (magnetic) and capillary effects.

Inspecting equation (7) for the linear growth rate $`\lambda (n)`$ we observe the interplay of rotation, magnetic field and surface tension in determining the interface instability. If $`\lambda (n)>0`$ the disturbance grows, indicating instability. As usual, the contribution coming from the surface tension term has a stabilizing nature ($`\sigma `$ stabilizes modes of large $`n`$). The factor $`(n^21)`$ in equation (7) arises directly from the first order terms in $`\zeta `$ present in the curvature, while the overall factor of $`n`$ can be traced to the fact that in the generalized Darcy’s law (1) the velocity is proportional to gradients of an effective pressure. With these considerations in mind, let us focus on the relation between rotation and magnetic field. As a result of centrifugal forcing $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ may be either positive or negative, depending on the relative values of the fluid’s densities. If the inner fluid is more dense $`(\rho _1>\rho _2)`$, $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$ and rotation plays a destabilizing role. The opposite effect arises when $`\rho _1<\rho _2`$. On the other hand, the azimuthal magnetic field contribution $`N_B`$ always tends to stabilize the interface. This indicates that the rotation-driven instability could be delayed or even prevented if a sufficiently strong non-uniform, azimuthal magnetic field is applied in the plane of the flow.

A physical explanation for the stabilizing role of the magnetic field can be given based on its symmetry properties and non-uniform character. Notice that such a field possesses a radial gradient. The magnetic field influence is manifested as the existence of a body force due to field nonuniformity. The field produces a force directed radially inward, that tends to move the ferrofluid toward the current-carrying wire (regions of higher magnetic field). This force opposes the centrifugal force and favors interface stabilization. This effect is similar to the gradient-field stabilization mechanism discussed by Rosensweig  for inviscid three dimensional fluid flow problems, and by Zahn and Rosensweig  for viscous, unconfined ferrofluids.

In order to illustrate the role of the magnetic effects in the linear stages of the interface evolution, we plot in figure 2 the dimensionless growth rate $`\overline{\lambda }(n)=[12(\eta _1+\eta _2)R^3/b^2\sigma ]\lambda (n)`$ as a function of the mode number $`n`$, taking $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }`$=200 and $`N_B`$=0, 100, 200. As expected, for zero applied field ($`N_B=0`$) the interface is unstable. If we increase the magnitude of the applied field ($`N_B=100`$), even though we get a narrower band of unstable modes, the interface remains unstable. If we keep increasing the magnetic field intensity, $`\overline{\lambda }(n)`$ becomes negative for all $`n>1`$, and the interface tends to stabilize. In figure 2 we see that for $`N_B=200`$ the interface is stable, due to the action of the azimuthal magnetic field.

A relevant physical quantity can be extracted from the linear growth rate: the fastest growing mode $`n^{}`$, given by the closest integer to the maximum of equation (7) with respect to $`n`$ (defined by setting $`d\lambda (n)/dn=0`$),

$$n_{max}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\left[1+(N_\mathrm{\Omega }N_B)\right]}.$$
(8)
As discussed by Carrillo et al.  for the non-magnetic, rotating case, $`n^{}`$ is strongly correlated to the number of ripples present in the early stages of pattern formation. With the help of their experiments, the authors in  compared the number of ripples with $`n^{}`$ and found a remarkable agreement. Taking this fact into account, and inspecting equation (8) we verify that, for positive $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, an increasingly larger $`N_B`$ does not only tend to decrease the finger growth rate, but also tends to decrease the number of interface ripples. The azimuthal magnetic field (or correspondingly, $`N_B`$) can be seen as a control parameter to discipline the number of interface undulations.

We conclude by contrasting the results obtained above (non-uniform, tangential field) with those which arise when a uniform external magnetic field is applied perpendicular to a rotating Hele-Shaw cell containing ferrofluid. By performing the linear stability analysis of the system, and using the closed form expressions for the magnetic term, recently derived in reference , we obtain the following linear growth rate

$$\lambda ^{}(n)=\frac{b^2\sigma n}{12(\eta _1+\eta _2)R^3}\left[N_\mathrm{\Omega }+𝒟_n(p)N_B^{}(n^21)\right],$$
(9)
where

$$𝒟_n(p)=\frac{p^2}{2}\left\{\left[\psi \left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\psi \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)\right]+\left[Q_{n1/2}\left(\frac{p^2+2}{p^2}\right)Q_{1/2}\left(\frac{p^2+2}{p^2}\right)\right]\right\},$$
(10)
$`N_B^{}=\mu _0M^2b/2\pi \sigma `$ is the magnetic bond number for the perpendicular field configuration, and $`p=2R/b`$ is the aspect ratio. The aspect ratio $`p`$ should not be confused with the pressure. $`Q_n`$ represents the Legendre function of the second kind, while the Euler’s psi function $`\psi `$ is the logarithmic derivative of the Gamma function . Notice that the function $`𝒟_n(p)0`$ for $`n>0`$. In contrast to the non-uniform, azimuthal applied field discussed earlier, a uniform, perpendicular magnetic field tends to destabilize the interface. If the interface is already unstable with respect to rotations ($`N_\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$), the introduction of the magnetic field increases the interface instability even further. On the other hand, if the outer fluid is more dense ($`N_\mathrm{\Omega }<0`$), the interface can still be deformed by the action of a perpendicular magnetic field.

By comparing the perpendicular field growth rate expression (9) with its azimuthal field counterpart (7), we notice that the presence of the function $`𝒟_n(p)`$ in (9) increases the complexity of the problem. Simple expressions for the azimuthal case may become not so simple in the perpendicular field situation. Consider, for example, the calculation of the fastest growing mode $`n^{}`$. In contrast to the simple expression for $`n_{max}`$ obtained in the azimuthal case (see equation (8)), the equivalent expression for the perpendicular configuration cannot be written in a simple form. It is now given by the solution of the transcendental equation

$$n^2=\frac{1}{3}\left[1+N_\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{}{n}\left(n𝒟_n(p)\right)N_B^{}\right].$$
(11)
Numerical evaluation of equation (11) shows that $`n_{max}`$ (and consequently, $`n^{}`$) increases with the magnitude of the perpendicular applied field. In this case, larger values of $`N_B^{}`$ tend to increase the number of interface ripples (see figure 3).

In summary, we have shown that the inclusion of magnetic effects into the rotating cell problem provides new mechanisms for stabilizing/destabilizing the interface. Based on the relative simplicity of the experimental Hele-Shaw setup, it would be of considerable interest to perform experiments in Hele-Shaw cells simultaneously including centrifugal, magnetic and injection driving. The combination of these effects is likely to lead to new and exciting interfacial patterns in the highly nonlinear regime.

This work was supported by CNPq and FINEP.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

FIG. 1: Schematic configuration of the rotational Hele-Shaw flow with ferrofluid.

FIG. 2: Variation of the dimensionless growth rate $`\overline{\lambda }(n)=[12(\eta _1+\eta _2)R^3/b^2\sigma ]\lambda (n)`$ as a function of $`n`$ for $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }=200`$ and (a) $`N_B=0`$, (b) $`N_B=100`$, and (c) $`N_B=200`$. The peak location and width of the band of unstable modes decrease with increasing $`N_B`$.

FIG. 3: Plot of $`n_{max}`$ as a function of $`N_B^{}`$ for increasing values of $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`p=20`$. These curves are obtained by numerically solving equation (11).


format: text

text:
# Tunneling between the giant gravitons in 𝐴𝑑𝑆₅×𝑆⁵

## Abstract

I consider the giant gravitons in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. By numerical simulation, I show a strong indication that there is no instanton solution describing the direct tunneling between the giant graviton in the $`S^5`$ and its dual counterpart in the $`AdS_5`$. I argue that it supports the supersymmetry breaking scenario suggested in ref.

preprint:  UT-KOMABA 00-13

Stable extended brane configurations in spaces of the type $`AdS_m\times S^n`$, called giant gravitons, are interesting in connection with the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondences. It was suggested that they might provide a mechanism to realize the so-called “stringy exclusion principle”. According to this principle, which is shown in the conformal field theory side, there is an upper bound to the weight of a chiral primary state. For the duality between the supergravity on $`AdS`$ space and the boundary conformal field theory to hold, we should be able to see this in the gravity side too, weight being mapped to the angular momentum in $`S^n`$. In fact, a spherical D or M(n-2)-brane embedded in the $`S^n`$ part of $`AdS_m\times S^n`$ was considered in ref., which has the same quantum numbers as a point-like Kaluza-Klein excitation. It was shown that the size of this configuration grows with the angular momentum. Since the angular momentum is now bounded by the radius of $`S^n`$, this seemed to provide a natural explanation for the stringy exclusion principle. However, a puzzle remained since there are also a point-like state, and a stable extended brane embedded in $`AdS_m`$ space, called ‘(dual) giant graviton’, which are degenerate with the giant graviton in $`S^n`$. Obviously, they do not have any upper bound on the angular momentum. One possible way out of this puzzle was suggested in ref.. It was suggested that due to the quantum tunneling, the degeneracy of these states might get lifted, and there might be no supersymmetric state when the angular momentum exceeds the upper bound. In this light it is interesting to study instanton solutions connecting these configurations, which might break supersymmetry via the tunneling effect. In fact, the instantons describing the tunneling between a giant graviton and the point-like graviton were found in analytic form for both $`AdS_m`$ and $`S^n`$ cases. The values of the Euclidean action for these solutions were obtained, and their supersymmetry(SUSY) properties were investigated. It was found that they are $`\frac{1}{4}`$ BPS states, whereas the giant gravitons and the point-like one are all $`\frac{1}{2}`$ BPS states.

It would be interesting to see whether there is also an instanton solution describing the direct tunneling between the two types of giant gravitons. We consider this problem for the case of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. This is the simplest case to work on with the test brane formalism, since the dimensionalities of the initial and the final branes are the same. By numerical simulation, we show a strong indication that there is no instanton solution directly connecting the two giant gravitons directly. We argue that this supports the SUSY breaking scenario suggested in ref..

To begin with, we consider a D3-brane living in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space, whose metric is of the form,

$$ds^2=ds_{AdS}^2+ds_S^2$$
(1)
with

$$ds_{AdS}^2=\mathrm{cosh}^2\beta dt^2+L^2d\beta ^2+L^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta (d\alpha _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _1(d\alpha _2^2+\mathrm{sin}\alpha _2^2d\alpha _3^2))$$
(2)
and

$$ds_S^2=L^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\varphi ^2+L^2d\theta ^2+L^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (d\chi _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi _1(d\chi _2^2+\mathrm{sin}\chi _2^2d\chi _3^2)),$$
(3)
$`L`$ being the scale of the $`AdS_5`$ and $`S^5`$. The background gauge field components in the orthonormal frame is given by

$$F_{\widehat{t}\widehat{r}\widehat{\alpha }_1\widehat{\alpha }_2\widehat{\alpha }_3}=F_{\widehat{\varphi }\widehat{\theta }\widehat{\chi }_1\widehat{\chi }_2\widehat{\chi }_3}=\frac{4}{L}.$$
(4)
and the corresponding gauge fields in the coordinate basis are

$`A_{t\alpha _1\alpha _2a_3}`$ $`=`$ $`L^3\mathrm{sinh}^4\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _1\mathrm{sin}\alpha _2`$ (5)
$`A_{\varphi \chi _1\chi _2\chi _3}`$ $`=`$ $`L^3\mathrm{sin}^4\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\chi _1\mathrm{sin}\chi _2.`$ (6)
We now consider the worldvolume action of the D3-brane embedded in this background, which is given by:

$$S=T𝑑\tau \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}d\sigma _i(\sqrt{g}+A_{M_1M_2M_3,M_4}\frac{X^{M_1}}{\tau }\frac{X^{M_2}}{\sigma _1}\frac{X^{M_3}}{\sigma _2}\frac{X^{M_4}}{\sigma _3})$$
(7)
where $`g`$ is the determinant of the induced metric on the world-volume,

$$g_{ij}=\frac{X^M}{x^i}\frac{X^N}{x^j}G_{MN}$$
(8)
with $`G_{MN}`$ being the background metric, $`X^M`$ the coordinates on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, ($`\tau ,\sigma ^i`$) the coordinates on the world-volume, and $`T`$ the tension of the brane. We set the world-volume gauge field and the fermions to zero, which is a consistent ansatz when we consider a classical solution, since they appear in the action from the quadratic order.

We consider a configuration where the coordinates of the D3-brane have components both in $`AdS_5`$ and $`S^5`$, and projections to $`AdS_5`$ and $`S^5`$ both have the spherical topology. Then it is convenient to use the gauge where we set

$`\alpha _i`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _i=\sigma _i`$ (9)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`\tau .`$ (10)
We can also consistently set $`\frac{\theta }{\sigma _i}`$,$`\frac{\beta }{\sigma _i}`$, and $`\frac{\varphi }{\sigma _i}`$ to zero, since they are at least of quadratic order. After angular integrations, we get the Lagrangian:

$$=\frac{N}{L}\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}^2\beta L^2\dot{\beta }^2L^2\dot{\theta }^2L^2\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }(\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^{3/2}+\frac{N}{L}\mathrm{sinh}^4\beta +N\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}^4\theta .$$
(11)
where we set $`T=\frac{N}{2\pi ^2L}`$ using background flux quantization condition. $`N`$ is an integer corresponding to the number of D3-branes which are the sources of the background spacetime. We obtain the canonical momenta in usual way,

$`P_\theta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\theta }}}={\displaystyle \frac{NL\dot{\theta }(\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^{3/2}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}^2\beta L^2\dot{\beta }^2L^2\dot{\theta }^2L^2\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}}`$ (12)
$`P_\beta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\beta }}}={\displaystyle \frac{NL\dot{\beta }(\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^{3/2}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}^2\beta L^2\dot{\beta }^2L^2\dot{\theta }^2L^2\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}}`$ (13)
$`P_\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\varphi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{NL\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^{3/2}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}^2\beta L^2\dot{\beta }^2L^2\dot{\theta }^2L^2\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}}+N\mathrm{sin}^4\theta .`$ (14)
We see that since the Lagrangian has no $`\varphi `$ dependence, $`P_\varphi `$ is a conserved quantity. The Hamiltonian is obtained by the Legendre transformation,

$$H=\frac{N}{L}\mathrm{cosh}\beta \sqrt{(\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^3p_\beta ^2p_\theta ^2+\frac{(p\mathrm{sin}^4\theta )^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}+\frac{N}{L}\mathrm{sinh}^4\beta .$$
(15)
where $`p\frac{P}{N}`$ for all the coordinates. We also made the Euclidean continuation $`p_\beta ^2`$, $`p_\theta ^2p_\beta ^2,p_\theta ^2`$ and $`HH`$. The problem is now reduced to a two dimensional relativistic classical mechanics, $`p_\varphi `$ being treated as a c-number which we write as $`m`$ from now on. The instanton solution is found by solving the Hamiltonian equation

$$\dot{q}^i=\frac{H}{p_i}\dot{p}_i=\frac{H}{q^i}$$
(16)
with $`q^i=(\beta ,\theta ),p_i=(p_\beta ,p_\theta )`$. We could not solve this equation analytically, so we made a numerical simulation. In fact, since (16) is a first-order differential equation, there is always unique solution to a given initial condition. By energy conservation, the particle with energy $`E`$ moves only in the region $`V(\theta ,\beta )<E`$, where the potential is defined as

$$V(\theta ,\beta )H(p_\theta =p_\beta =0).$$
(17)
Therefore the contour $`V=E`$ is the set of turning points. The equal-height contour of the potential is depicted for $`m=0.5`$ in Fig.1. The general features are the same for other values of $`m`$. In particular, there are three potential hills corresponding to the zero-sized brane at the origin, and the two kinds of giant gravitons at $`(\theta ,\beta )=(\mathrm{sin}^1\sqrt{m},0)`$ and $`(\theta ,\beta )=(0,\mathrm{sinh}^1\sqrt{m})`$. An instanton solutions should have the boundary conditions such that it is at one of the hill-tops at $`t\mathrm{}`$, and reaches another hill-top at $`t\mathrm{}`$. In order to impose the boundary condition at $`t\mathrm{}`$, we note that in this limit the problem reduces to that of the non-relativistic mechanics in the presence of an inverted harmonic potential. Assuming the initial configuration at $`t\mathrm{}`$ is a (dual) giant graviton, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\theta }{m}}\dot{\theta }`$ $``$ $`2\delta \theta `$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\beta }{m}}\dot{\beta }`$ $``$ $`2\delta \beta `$ (19)
where the $`\delta \theta `$ and $`\delta \beta `$ are the perturbations around the potential hill. Here we used the fact

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{\theta ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{\beta ^2}}=2m.`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{\theta \beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (21)
for the potential hills corresponding to the giant gravitons. We then tune the direction of the initial velocity, $`j\delta \dot{\theta }/\delta \dot{\beta }=\delta \theta /\delta \beta `$ so that the particle reaches another hill-top at $`t\mathrm{}`$. The evolution was done using the 4-th order Runge-Kutta methods, where we approximate

$$f(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)\underset{n=0}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^n}{n!}\frac{^n}{t^n}f(t)$$
(22)
with time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.0001L`$, in the Java programming language.

We could reproduce the instanton solution connecting one of the giant gravitons and the point-like solution by shooting the particle directly toward the origin. We could see that the graph was in almost perfect agreement with the known analytic form, for the motion between the hill tops. We also checked the energy conservation for arbitrary trajectories, and found that the energy is indeed constant without any visible deviation. These results assure us of the accuracy of our simulations. We then use this simulation method to look for the instanton solution connecting two giant gravitons directly, by changing the direction of the initial velocity. Typical behavior of our particle for several initial directions are depicted in Fig.1, for $`m=0.5`$. The qualitative behaviors are the same for other values of $`m`$.

Surprisingly, we find that in our particle reach the other potential hill only if we shoot the particle almost toward the origin. That is, the solution looks like the sum of two instantons connecting the giant gravitons with the point-like configuration. In fact, as we decrease $`\delta \theta ,\delta \beta `$ to increase the time spent near the initial hill top, we have to tune the direction of the initial velocity more and more toward the origin in order for the particle to reach the final hill-top, which makes particle spend longer time near the origin. Therefore we see that our solution is just a remnant of the two-instanton effect.

Since this is the only way one can make our particle reach the final hill-top, we conclude that there is no instanton solution describing the direct tunneling between the giant gravitons.

To strengthen our statement, we consider a special limit, $`m<<1`$. Since the coordinates of the giant gravitons are of order $`O(\sqrt{m})`$, and we are interested in the motion of the particle between them, we have

$`\theta \beta `$ $``$ $`O(\sqrt{m})`$ (23)
$`p_\theta p_\beta `$ $``$ $`O(m^{3/2}),`$ (24)
and to the leading order in $`m`$, the Hamiltonian Eq.(15) reduces to

$$H=\frac{p_\theta ^2+p_\beta ^2}{2m}m(\frac{\theta ^2+\beta ^2}{2})+\theta ^4+\beta ^4\frac{(\theta ^2+\beta ^2)^3}{2m}$$
(25)
which is now a non-relativistic system. We subtracted the constant $`m`$. The Hamiltonian above is of order $`O(m^2)`$, and we have thrown away the terms of $`O(m^3)`$ and higher. We then solve the Hamiltonian equation (16) with this Hamiltonian. We see that the $`m`$ can be scaled out by redefining

$$\theta ,\beta \sqrt{m}\theta ,\sqrt{m}\beta .$$
(26)
The potential hills are now at $`(\theta ,\beta )=(0,0),(1,0),(0,1)`$. Because of the symmetry under the exchange the coordinates $`\theta \beta `$, we see that the trajectory of an instanton solution between the $`S^5`$ and $`AdS_5`$ giant gravitons should intersect the line $`\theta =\beta `$ orthogonally. Also, the magnitude of the velocity $`v_0`$ at this point is given by the energy conservation,

$$\frac{v_0^2}{2}\frac{r_0^2}{2}+\frac{r_0^4}{2}\frac{r_0^6}{2}=0$$
(27)
where $`r_0`$ is the distance of this point from the origin. Therefore we only have to change the parameter $`r_0`$ and see whether our particle reaches the hill-top. We note that it reaches the hill-top only in the limit $`r_00`$. Therefore again, we see that the only solution connecting the giant gravitons is the two-instanton solution. This result is plotted in Fig.2 for several values of $`r_0`$.

These results indicate that the tunneling between the giant gravitons happen only through the instantons connecting them with the point-like configuration. This implies that the system is effectively one-dimensional, as far as instanton effects are concerned. In particular, the SUSY breaking scenario suggested in ref. can now be made more concrete, by making analogy with the case of one-dimensional supersymmetric quantum mechanics with double and triple potential well. The crucial ingredient in SUSY breaking and restoration in the one-dimensional quantum mechanics is the fermionic zero modes, which make neighboring instanton and (anti)-instanton form so-called instanton molecule.

This is because whenever an (anti)-instanton is separated very far from the rest, the fermionic zero mode around this (anti)-instanton makes the path-integral vanish. We expect that this qualitative picture does not change for our system, the only difference being the number of fermionic zero modes. Then the calculation would be almost identical to the one-dimensional quantum mechanics. As we sum the multi-instanton configuration, any contribution from the odd number of (anti-) instantons vanish. Also, the fact that (anti-) instantons move in pairs gives different combinatorics from the case of the dilute instanton gas. When $`m>1`$, we expect that the Hamiltonian matrix between the two minima would be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Ke^{2A}I& 0\\ 0& Ke^{2A}I\end{array}\right)$$
(28)
where $`A`$ is the Euclidean action of the instanton between the $`AdS_5`$ giant graviton and the zero-sized brane, K is the determinant due to the non-zero fluctuation modes, $`I`$ and $`0`$ are the $`2^8`$ dimensional identity and zero matrices respectively. We see that the energy is lifted and consequently the SUSY is broken. When $`m<0`$, the instanton molecule picture implies that the Hamiltonian matrix between the three minima is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Ke^{2A}I& 0& \sqrt{K\stackrel{~}{K}}e^{AB}I\\ 0& (Ke^{2A}+\stackrel{~}{K}e^{2B})I& 0\\ \sqrt{K\stackrel{~}{K}}e^{AB}I& 0& \stackrel{~}{K}e^{2B}I\end{array}\right)$$
(29)
where now $`B`$ is the Euclidean action of the instanton between the $`S^5`$ giant graviton and the zero-sized brane, and $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is again the determinant due to the non-zero fluctuation modes around it. We now see that there is a short multiplet whose energy is not lifted and therefore still supersymmetric.

Note that it was very crucial in this argument that there is no direct tunneling between the giant graviton in $`S^5`$ and its dual counterpart in $`AdS_5`$. Had there been such an instanton, the picture of SUSY breaking would have been very obscure.

Of course it remains to be explicitly shown that the instantons really form molecules due to the fermionic zero modes. Also, we need to prove that there is no instanton solution which either is not spherical or has non-vanishing worldvolume gauge fields. These issues are left for the future investigations.

The numerical simulations in this paper can be performed at http://hep1.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~jul/giant1/Applet1.html .

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks Antal Jevicki, Tamiaki Yoneya, Seungjoon Hyun, Sumit Das, Øyvind Tafjord, and Piljin Yi for useful discussions and comments. This work was supported by the Japanese Society for Promotion of Science through the Institute of Physics, University of Tokyo.


text:
# Fractionally charged magneto-excitons

## Abstract

The photoluminescence (PL) spectrum of a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) in the fractional quantum Hall regime is studied. The response of the 2DEG to an optically injected valence hole depends on the separation $`d`$ between the electron and hole layers. At $`d`$ smaller than the magnetic length $`\lambda `$, the PL spectrum shows recombination of neutral ($`X`$) and charged ($`X^{}`$) excitons. At $`d>\lambda `$, the hole binds one or two Laughlin quasielectrons (QE) of the 2DEG to form fractionally charged excitons (FCX), $`h`$QE or $`h`$QE2. Different FCX states have different optical properties, and their stability depends critically on the presence of QE’s in the 2DEG. This explains discontinuities observed in the PL spectrum at such (Laughlin) filling factors as $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ or $`\frac{2}{3}`$.

The photoluminescence (PL) spectrum of a quasi-two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) measures the one-particle Green’s function describing removal of an electron ($`e`$) at the position of the valence hole ($`h`$). Thus, PL probes the electron correlations in the close vicinity of the (optically injected) hole, which, depending on the type of response of the 2DEG to the perturbation associated with this hole, may or may not resemble the original correlations of an unperturbed 2DEG. In an unperturbed 2DEG in a sufficiently high magnetic field $`B`$, the electrons fill a fraction $`\nu `$ of the degenerate lowest Landau level (LL). The short range of the Coulomb $`e`$$`e`$ repulsion in this LL causes Laughlin correlations (i.e., avoiding pair states of the smallest relative pair angular momentum) which lead to the incompressible-fluid Laughlin–Jain ground states  and the fractional quantum Hall (FQH) effect  at a series of fractional LL fillings, $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$, $`\frac{2}{3}`$, $`\frac{2}{5}`$, etc. Two effective parameters describe perturbation introduced by the hole: strength $`U`$ and range $`D`$ of its Coulomb potential $`V_{UD}`$. Although the hole’s density profile in the plane parallel to the 2DEG is determined by its confinement to the lowest LL, potential $`V_{UD}`$ can still be varied by placing the hole at a finite distance $`d`$ from the 2DEG. This is realized experimentally in asymmetric quantum wells or heterojunctions, where an electric field perpendicular to the 2DEG causes spatial displacement of electron and hole layers. Depending on the relation between $`D`$ and $`U`$ and the length and energy scales of the 2DEG (magnetic length $`\lambda `$ and the energy gap $`\delta =\epsilon _{\mathrm{QE}}+\epsilon _{\mathrm{QH}}`$ to create a QE–QH pair), two distinct types of response occur:

(i) In the “strong-coupling” regime, the hole binds one or two electrons to form neutral ($`X`$) or charged ($`X^{}`$) excitons . Although for different reasons (“hidden symmetry” for $`X`$  and Laughlin $`e`$$`X^{}`$ correlations for $`X^{}`$ ), both quasiparticles (QP) are weakly coupled to the remaining electrons, and PL probes their binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the optical properties (oscillator strength $`\tau ^1`$ and emission energy $`\omega `$) rather than the original correlations of the unperturbed 2DEG.

(ii) In the “weak-coupling” regime, the distant hole interacts (weakly) with Laughlin excitations of the 2DEG (attracts quasielectrons QE and repels quasiholes QH), and the dynamics and PL of the system can be understood in terms of these three ($`h`$, QE, and QH) QP’s .

In this Letter, we study the crossover between these two phases and identify another, “intermediate-coupling” regime. In this regime, as in (ii), the Laughlin $`e`$$`e`$ correlations dominate over the $`e`$$`h`$ correlations, and neither $`X`$ nor $`X^{}`$ states form. However, in contrast to (ii), the $`h`$–QE attraction is sufficiently strong to cause binding of one or two QE’s to a hole to form fractionally charged excitons (FCX) $`h`$QE or $`h`$QE2. The FCX’s, together with a “decoupled hole” state $`h`$, are the relevant QP’s whose interaction with one another and with the underlying Laughlin state is weak and can be treated perturbatively. The single-particle properties of these QP’s determine the low-energy dynamics and PL of the 2DEG at $`d`$ larger than but comparable to $`\lambda `$. The critical dependence of the stability of different FCX’s on the presence of QE’s in the 2DEG causes discontinuities observed  in the PL spectrum at $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ or $`\frac{2}{3}`$, where the type of free Laughlin QP’s changes (and the FQH effect  occurs). These discontinuities resemble those found at $`\nu =1`$, 2, … , although the reconstruction of radiative QP’s at integer $`\nu `$ is driven by the competition between $`V_{UD}`$ and the (single-particle) cyclotron energy, while the effect discussed here depends on the special form of many-body correlations in the lowest LL. Let us also note that our results do not support the earlier theory  which involved neutral “anyon excitons” $`h`$QE3 (we find that these complexes are neither stable nor radiative at any $`d`$ or $`\nu `$).

An infinite, spin-polarized 2DEG at a fractional filling factor $`\nu `$ is modeled by a finite system of $`N`$ electrons confined to the lowest shell (LL) of a Haldane sphere of radius $`R`$. The angular momentum of this shell is $`l=S`$, half the strength of Dirac’s magnetic monopole (defined in the units of elementary flux, so that $`4\pi R^2B=2Shc/e`$ and $`\lambda =R/\sqrt{S}`$). The electrons interact with one another and with a valence hole of the same angular momentum $`l_h=S`$, moving in the lowest LL of a parallel 2D layer, separated from the 2DEG by a distance $`d`$. After the constant cyclotron and Zeeman terms are omitted, the reduced $`Ne`$$`h`$ Hamiltonian contains only the $`e`$$`e`$ and $`e`$$`h`$ interactions defined by a pair of 2D potentials, $`V_{ee}(r)=e^2/r`$ and $`V_{eh}(r)=e^2/\sqrt{r^2+d^2}`$.

Using Lanczos-based algorithms we were able to diagonalize Hamiltonians of up to nine electrons and a hole at $`2S3(N1)`$ corresponding to $`\nu \frac{1}{3}`$. Obtained energies and wavefunctions of low-lying $`Ne`$$`h`$ states were labeled by total angular momentum $`L`$ and its projection $`M`$. From the energy spectra, all bound states of a 2DEG coupled to a hole (depending on $`d`$ and $`\nu `$) were identified, and their binding energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ were calculated. From the wavefunctions, the PL energy $`\omega `$ and oscillator strength $`\tau ^1`$ of each QP were calculated. The total QP angular momenta $`l`$ result from addition of angular momenta of their constituent particles ($`h`$, $`e`$, and QE).

Conservation of both orbital quantum numbers in a finite-size calculation is a major advantage of using Haldane’s (spherical) geometry to model an infinite (planar) 2DEG with a full 2D translational invariance. Conversion of the results between the two geometries follows from the exact mapping between the two spherical numbers, $`L`$ and $`M`$, and two conserved quantities on a plane: total angular momentum projection $``$ and an additional quantum number $`𝒦`$ associated with partial decoupling of the center-of-mass motion in a homogeneous magnetic field. Resolution of both $``$ and $`𝒦`$ (or $`L`$ and $`M`$) of the QP’s is essential for identification of the optical selection rule: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }𝒦=0`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=\mathrm{\Delta }M=0`$) which results from the commutation of both $``$ and $`𝒦`$ (or $`L`$ and $`M`$) with the PL operator.

The bound states of a hole and either electrons or QE’s can be determined by studying the interactions of the constituent particles. A two-body interaction is defined by a pseudopotential, the pair interaction energy $`V`$ as a function of an appropriate pair orbital quantum number. The pseudopotentials most important for our analysis are shown in Fig. 1 for a few values of $`d`$.

Different bound states are marked on the curves for $`d=0`$. The pseudopotentials of $`h`$–QE (a) and $`h`$–QE2 (b) pairs were calculated in a $`7e`$$`h`$ system at $`2S=17`$ and 16, respectively. The allowed values of pair angular momentum $`L`$ result from addition of $`l_h=S`$ and either $`l_{\mathrm{QE}}=SN+2`$ or $`l_{\mathrm{QE}_2}=2l_{\mathrm{QE}}1`$ (note that we use fermionic description of QE’s ; $`l_{\mathrm{QE}}`$ is equal to angular momentum of the excited shell of Jain’s composite fermions (CF)). To assure that exactly one or two QE’s interact with a hole at any $`d`$ (and no spontaneously created QE–QH pairs “dress” the FCX), the $`e`$$`h`$ interaction used to calculate the $`h`$–QEn wavefunctions was multiplied by $`ϵ^11`$. The pseudopotentials were calculated by subtracting from the eigenvalues obtained with this reduced potential the appropriate energy of the 2DEG together with the interaction energy of the hole and uniform density $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ fluid, and then multiplying by $`ϵ`$. Both pseudopotentials have been shifted so that $`V_{h\mathrm{QE}_n}=0`$ at the maximum $`L`$ (maximum average $`h`$–QEn separation $`r`$). In addition to the $`h`$QE and $`h`$QE2 states, we also marked the $`h`$QE\* state which later will be important in the analysis of PL. The $`V_{\mathrm{QE}\mathrm{QE}}`$ of an unperturbed 2DEG (c) was calculated for 11 electrons at $`2S=28`$. For identical fermions, the pair quantum number increasing with increasing $`r`$ is the relative angular momentum $`=2lL`$ (an odd integer). Remarkably, despite QE’s being charge excitations, the QE–QE interaction is not generally repulsive, and the low energy of the QE2 molecule at $`=1`$ additionally stabilizes the $`h`$QE2.

Occurrence of $`h`$QEn states of Fig. 1(ab) requires the presence of free or induced QE’s in the 2DEG, and thus depends on both $`\nu `$ and the strength of $`h`$–QEn attraction relative to $`\delta =\epsilon _{\mathrm{QE}}+\epsilon _{\mathrm{QH}}`$ (marked in each frame). At $`d<2\lambda `$, the $`h`$–QE attraction in both $`h`$QE and $`h`$QE\* exceeds $`\delta `$, and these QP’s will occur at any value of $`\nu `$ close to $`\frac{1}{3}`$. However, at $`d>2\lambda `$, the $`h`$–2DEG coupling is too weak to induce QE–QH pairs, the hole can only bind existing QE’s, and $`h`$QE and $`h`$QE\* will only occur at $`\nu >\frac{1}{3}`$ (at $`\nu <\frac{1}{3}`$, holes repel free QH’s and cause no local response of the 2DEG). Similarly, the comparison of $`V_{h\mathrm{QE}_2}`$ and $`2\delta `$ in Fig. 1(b) shows that at sufficiently small $`d`$ the hole induces two QE–QH pairs, and the most stable QP at any value of $`\nu `$ close to $`\frac{1}{3}`$ is $`h`$QE2.

Knowing the QP’s and their angular momenta allows understanding of the low-energy spectra of $`Ne`$$`h`$ systems at any values of $`d`$ and $`\nu `$. A few spectra for $`N=9`$ are shown in Fig. 2.

At smaller $`d`$, the QP’s are $`e`$, $`X`$, and $`X^{}`$ with $`l=S`$, 0, and $`S1`$, respectively. The low-lying states describe either a Laughlin-correlated two-component $`(N2)e`$$`X^{}`$ fluid or an $`X`$ (nearly) decoupled from a (also Laughlin-correlated) $`(N1)e`$ state. A system containing electrons and charged excitons can contain four types of Laughlin QP excitations: QEe, QHe, QE$`_X^{}`$, or QH$`_X^{}`$, whose angular momenta can be found from a generalized CF model. In Fig. 2(a), a standard CF-type analysis predicts that the ground state at $`L=2`$ contains a single QE$`_X^{}`$. In Fig. 2(b), a band of QE$`_X^{}`$–QHe pair states with $`1L6`$ starts at the energy close to the lowest $`(N1)e`$$`X`$ state at $`L=0`$ ($`X`$ decoupled from the Laughlin $`8e`$ state). Note that the present interpretation of Fig. 2(b) invalidates the concept of a “dressed” exciton $`X^{}`$ which turns out to be unstable toward the formation of an $`X^{}`$ (coupling of an $`X`$ with $`k0`$ to the 2DEG is too strong to be treated perturbatively). At larger $`d`$, the QP’s are $`h`$, $`h`$QE, and $`h`$QE2 with $`l=S`$, $`N2`$, and $`\frac{1}{2}(N1)`$, respectively. An isolated $`h`$QE2 is the ground state at $`L=4`$ in Fig. 2(c). In Fig. 2(d), two low-energy bands occur: at $`L6`$ the $`h`$QE2 (weakly) interacts with a remaining QH, and the band at $`L7`$ describes the $`h`$–QE dispersion of Fig. 1(a), with $`h`$QE and $`h`$QE\* being the two lowest states.

The recombination of QP’s must locally conserve $``$ and $`𝒦`$. The associated selection rules can be more easily obtained in the spherical geometry, where an area containing an isolated QP is represented by a whole (finite) system with appropriate $`2S`$, and the two conserved quantities are $`L`$ and $`M`$. At smaller $`d`$, the only radiative state is $`X`$. The $`X^{}`$ is dark because $`l_X^{}=S1`$ is different from $`l=S`$ of an electron left behind in the final state. At larger $`d`$, efficient $`h`$QEn recombination must occur with the minimum number of QE’s and QH’s involved. For $`\nu \frac{1}{3}`$, such processes are $`h\mathrm{QE}_n(3n)\mathrm{QH}+\gamma `$, where $`n3`$ and $`\gamma `$ denotes emitted photon. To find the $`h`$QEn and $`(3n)`$QH angular momenta we use $`l_h=S`$ and $`l_{\mathrm{QE}}=l_{\mathrm{QH}}=SN+2`$, where $`2S=3(N1)n`$. For the initial states, the result is: $`l_h=\frac{3}{2}(N1)`$, $`l_{h\mathrm{QE}}=N2`$, $`l_{h\mathrm{QE}^{}}=N1`$, $`l_{h\mathrm{QE}_2}=\frac{1}{2}(N1)`$, and $`l_{h\mathrm{QE}_3}=3`$. For the final states: $`L_{3\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{H}}l_{\mathrm{QH}_3}=\frac{3}{2}(N1)`$, $`L_{2\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{H}}=l_{\mathrm{QH}_2}j`$ (where $`l_{\mathrm{QH}_2}=N1`$ and $`j`$ is an even integer), and $`l_{\mathrm{QH}}=\frac{1}{2}(N1)`$. From the comparison of these values, it is clear that the only allowed radiative processes are:

$`h`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{QH}_3+\gamma ,`$ (1)
$`h\mathrm{QE}^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{QH}_2+\gamma ,`$ (2)
$`h\mathrm{QE}_2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{QH}+\gamma .`$ (3)
Because $`\tau ^1`$ is proportional to the overlap between annihilated $`e`$ and $`h`$ charges, and $`h`$ is smaller than QH, the following ordering of PL oscillator strengths is expected: $`\tau _{h\mathrm{QE}_2}^1>\tau _{h\mathrm{QE}^{}}^1>\tau _h^1`$. Because of the high energy of the QH2 and QH3 molecules ($`V_{\mathrm{QH}\mathrm{QH}}`$ is strongly repulsive at $`=1`$ ), we also predict: $`\omega _{h\mathrm{QE}_2}>\omega _{h\mathrm{QE}^{}}>\omega _h`$.

The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\omega `$, and $`\tau ^1`$, calculated from the exact wavefunctions of the $`h`$QEn states identified in the $`8e`$$`h`$ spectra similar to those of Fig. 2, are plotted as a function of $`d`$ in Fig. 3.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the total interaction energy of the hole and either electrons or QE’s, and does not include the attraction of the hole to the underlying Laughlin state. The results of exact calculations shown in Fig. 3 confirm our predictions based on the analysis of the pseudopotentials of Fig. 1. In particular, $`h`$QE2 is the most strongly bound and most strongly radiative complex in the entire range of $`d`$ in which the FCX’s form. The change of correlations (replacing of $`X`$’s and $`X^{}`$’s by $`h`$QEn’s) between $`d=\lambda `$ and $`2\lambda `$ is best seen in the $`\tau ^1`$ curves in Fig. 3(c). Good agreement of the exact (lines) and approximate ($`ϵ^11`$; symbols) calculation at $`d>2\lambda `$ indicates that the $`h`$QEn’s are virtually uncoupled from the charge excitations of the 2DEG (and thus have well defined $`n`$ and $`d`$-independent wavefunctions).

Since the stability of different $`h`$QEn QP’s depends critically on the presence of free QE’s, their most striking signature in PL experiments should be discontinuities at Laughlin filling factors, such as $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ or $`\frac{2}{3}`$. Schematic PL spectra at $`\nu \frac{1}{3}`$ predicted by our model are shown in Fig. 4. Consecutive frames correspond to increasing $`d`$ (although the actual critical values may change considerably in a more realistic model):

(a) The $`X`$ and radiative (not discussed here) $`X^{}`$ states are observed, the lowest being the bright spin-singlet $`X^{}`$ (the singlet $`X^{}`$ does not occur in the very high magnetic field limit, $`\mathrm{}\omega _ce^2/\lambda `$, emphasized in this paper). (b) The $`X^{}`$’s unbind but the $`X`$’s still exist and dominate the PL spectrum (FCX’s have smaller $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\tau ^1`$). (c) The FCX’s become visible due to their increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$; $`h`$QE’s occur (and give rise to the $`h`$QE\* recombination) at any $`\nu `$ because of the spontaneous creation of one QE–QH pair in response to the hole charge; the (more strongly bound) $`h`$QE2’s occur only at $`\nu >\frac{1}{3}`$. (d) Both $`h`$QE’s and $`h`$QE2’s exist only at $`\nu >\frac{1}{3}`$; at $`\nu <\frac{1}{3}`$, the hole causes no (local) response of the 2DEG, and the recombination occurs from the “decoupled hole” state $`h`$. (e) The $`X`$’s unbind.

In conclusion, we have studied PL from a 2DEG in the FQH regime as a function of the $`e`$$`h`$ layer separation $`d`$. The QP’s of this system have been identified, which (depending on $`d`$) consist of either one or two electrons or up to two Laughlin QE’s bound to a hole. The angular momenta, binding and recombination energies, and oscillator strengths of the QP’s have been calculated and used to explain the numerical energy spectra and the experimental PL spectra of the 2DEG at an arbitrary $`d`$. The discontinuities in the PL spectra of spatially separated systems at $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ or $`\frac{2}{3}`$ have been understood.

The authors acknowledge support by the Materials Research Program of Basic Energy Sciences, US Dept. of Energy and helpful discussions with P. Hawrylak (NRC, Ottawa) and M. Potemski (HMFL, Grenoble). AW acknowledges support from the KBN grant 2P03B05518.


text:
# The Expansion of the X-ray Remnant of Tycho’s Supernova (SN1572)

## 1. Introduction

Measurement of the current rate of expansion provides essential information on the dynamical state of supernova remnants (SNRs). This is particularly true for the so-called historical remnants, those for which the date of the supernova (SN) explosion is known, since a comparison of the average expansion rate with the current expansion rate yields a measure of the deceleration. Unfortunately, the rate of expansion, although rapid compared to most astrophysical objects in the cosmos, is still rather long on human timescales, necessitating measurements over the course of years, if not decades, in order to attain accurate results. ROSAT was the first X-ray observatory that had sufficient angular resolution ($``$4′′ half-power radius for the High Resolution Imager) and operated for a long enough time that significant measurements of the expansion rate of young SNRs are possible.

The time-averaged expansion rate of Tycho’s SNR based on the outermost extent of the remnant ($``$8 in diameter) in either the radio or X-ray band and its well-known age is $``$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$56 yr-1. The observed proper motion of the optical filaments, which are believed to trace the location of the blast wave, indicate much lower current expansion rates ranging from 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$18 yr-1 to 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$28 yr-1 (Kamper & van den Bergh 1978). Evidently these filaments are locations where significant deceleration of the SN blast wave has occurred. From the width of the broad H$`\alpha `$ emission Smith et al. (1991) derive shock velocities in the range 1500–2800 km s-1 that, when combined with the proper motion measurements, imply a distance of 1.5–3.1 kpc. This range is in good agreement with other distance estimates to the remnant (Green 1984; however, see Schwarz et al. 1995) and in the following I adopt a value of 2.3 kpc for the distance. Because the optical filaments cover only a limited portion of Tycho’s SNR, the optical data are unable to provide a comprehensive picture of the expansion of the remnant.

The radio remnant of Tycho’s SN has also been observed to be expanding at the current epoch (Strom, Goss, & Shaver 1982; Tan & Gull 1985; Reynoso et al. 1997, hereafter R97). Although in each successive analysis the radio data have improved, the basic result of these studies have remained in general agreement. The current radio expansion rate, averaged over the outer rim, is 0.113 % yr-1 or, expressed equivalently, the expansion parameter, defined as $`Rt^m`$, is $`m=0.471\pm 0.028`$. This result is between the free expansion rate, $`m1`$, and the expansion rate expected for a remnant in the Sedov phase of evolution, $`m=0.4`$. There is significant azimuthal variation of the radio expansion rate, while interior features appear to show the same expansion rate as the rim (R97).

Vancura, Gorenstein, & Hughes (1995), using data from two satellite observatories, quoted a current X-ray expansion rate for the SNR based on a 11.5 yr time baseline that was consistent with these other values. Here I present more accurate results on the X-ray expansion of Tycho’s SNR using high resolution images accumulated by the ROSAT satellite in two epochs separated by 4.55 yr. A preliminary report on this work, using a different analysis approach, was given by Hughes (1997).

## 2. Observations

The reduction of the X-ray data closely follows that done in an earlier study of Kepler’s SNR (Hughes 1999, hereafter H99); interested readers are referred there for more details. A log of the high resolution Einstein111 The Einstein observation is included here for completeness and in fact results for only the two ROSAT data sets are presented below. Preliminary studies found that the Einstein/ROSAT expansion results were inconsistent with the ROSAT/ROSAT ones, yielding expansion values a factor of 1.6–1.9 times higher. The Einstein and ROSAT comparison is subject to more uncertainty due to differences in the instrumental point-spread functions and spectral bandpasses. The latter effect, combined with spatial variations in the X-ray spectrum of Tycho’s SNR (Vancura et al. 1995), is the likely cause of the discrepancy.  and ROSAT imaging observations of Tycho’s SNR is given in Table 1. The columns list the observatory, start date, the Modified Julian Day (MJD) corresponding to the average date of the observation, and the effective duration (live-time corrected). Figure 1 shows the image from observation R2.

TABLE 1
Observations of Tycho’s SNR
Observatory Start Date Ave. MJD Duration (s)    Einstein 1979 Feb 8 43,913.3 $`50409.2`$  ROSAT (R1) 1990 Jul 28 48,100.7 $`22163.7`$  ROSAT (R2) 1995 Feb 5 49,763.7 $`104332.1`$

The ROSAT high resolution imager (RHRI) data were processed in some detail. The data were filtered in pulse height to reduce background. Pulse height channels 1 to 11 were used for the first epoch ROSAT observation (R1) and channels 1 to 12 were used for the second epoch observation (R2). This reduced the background level by 5%-7% while the source rates were nearly unaffected ($``$1% change). Aspect drift throughout an observation was corrected by aligning separate images made from the data corresponding to each orbit. The images from all the sub-intervals (typically 1500 s long) were registered to the nearest $`0^{\prime \prime }.5`$ pixel, shifted, and added. For R1 the initial registration of the individual maps from the standard analysis was fairly good: all of the individual maps were already aligned relative to each other to within $``$2′′ or better. In the case of R2 there was clear evidence for a drift in aspect throughout the observation. The mean registration error was $``$3′′, although some of the individual images were misregistered by up to 10′′. For both epochs, the shift-and-add alignment technique produced images with a noticeably improved point response function.

The grain scattering halo from Tycho’s SNR (Mauche & Gorenstein 1986; Predehl & Schmitt 1995) extends over the entire field of view of the HRI, which makes background estimation difficult. The background level was estimated by fitting a spatial power-law component (for the scattering halo) plus a constant background level to the surface brightness profile over the 5 to 15 radial range. The fitted power-law components were consistent between the two RHRI pointings (index of $``$2.3), although the background levels differed by some 15%, $`4.2\times 10^3`$ cts s-1 arcmin-2 for R1 and $`3.7\times 10^3`$ cts s-1 arcmin-2 for R2. This difference is within the variation observed from field to field for the RHRI (David et al. 1998).

Exposure maps were generated for the RHRI observations as before (see H99). Over the portion of the field containing the image of the remnant the ratio of exposure between the first and second epochs varied between 0.963 and 1.045. These corrections are small in comparison to the flux differences I measure and are uncorrelated with image structure in the remnant. Nevertheless, these maps are included in the model fits described below.

The exposure- and deadtime-corrected, background-subtracted RHRI count rates of Tycho’s SNR within a radius of 8 are $`9.092\pm 0.020\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`9.209\pm 0.009\mathrm{s}^1`$ from the first and second epoch images, respectively. This difference in count rates ($``$1%) is consistent with the range of RHRI rates seen in calibration observations of the SNR N132D (see H99).

Finally I comment on possible changes in the plate scale using observations of the Andromeda galaxy, which was observed by the RHRI in July 1990, 1994, and 1995, and January 1996. I extracted these data and used the positions of 10 isolated, moderately bright X-ray point sources to constrain the relative rotation angle and plate scale change between pairs of observations. I find no evidence for a change in the RHRI plate scale and set a limit of $``$0.008% yr-1 on any changes for timescales of 4 yrs or more.

## 3. Expansion Results

The expansion rate was determined using fitting software that takes one image (“model”) and compares it to another (“data”) as described in H99. The model image was scaled in intensity, shifted in position, and expanded (or contracted) in spatial scale to match the data using, as the figure-of-merit function, the maximum likelihood statistic for Poisson-distributed data. The fitted spatial scale factor yields the global mean expansion rate, which is assumed to be uniform across the entire remnant.

Over the 4.55 yrs between observations R1 and R2, Tycho’s SNR expanded annually by an amount $`0.124\pm 0.011\%\mathrm{yr}^1`$. The error bar is statistical at $`1\sigma `$ and includes uncertainty from Poisson noise in both observations as well as plate scale changes assuming the limit given above. This result is highly significant both in terms of the final error bar and the reduction in the value of the likelihood statistic for fits with and without any expansion.

In order to determine the expansion rate as a function of radius and azimuthal angle, one needs to know the position of the expansion center. The current X-ray data do not allow for the determination of this quantity (see H99), so I have opted to just define the geometric center of the remnant at $`0^\mathrm{h}25^\mathrm{m}19^\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}64}^{}08^{}10^{\prime \prime }`$ (J2000) as the nominal center of expansion. I then investigated how the results depended on this choice by varying the center position by 40′′ in each of the four cardinal directions. I found that the different choices of center could be nearly perfectly compensated for by appropriate choices of the relative alignment of the two images. (Since there were no serendipitous point sources in the field, it was not possible to do an independent registration of the images.) This result is not surprising since non-optimal image alignment or choice of expansion center will each introduce a sinusoidal term in the expansion rate as a function of azimuth. In effect what I have done is to remove any such sinusoidal term from the results, regardless of origin. My approach is different from that of R97 who used a fixed expansion center (defined by the center of the nearly circular western limb) to measure the radio expansion of Tycho’s SNR. And indeed their fractional expansion results do contain a significant sinusoidal term. Because of these complications a detailed comparison between the X-ray and published radio azimuthal variation is not particularly enlightening and will not be pursued in this work. However, since a sinusoid averages to zero over a full cycle, this difference does not affect the comparison of the radio and X-ray global mean expansion rates. As concerns the X-ray azimuthal expansion, I note that the weighted average rate, $``$0.13% yr-1, is consistent with the global mean X-ray rate and that there are statistically significant azimuthal variations on angular scales of 10 to 90 (similar to those in Hughes 1997).

TABLE 2
X-ray Expansion Rates with Radius for
Tycho’s SNR
Radial range Exp Rate Sys Err  (arcmin) (% yr-1) (% yr-1)    0.0 – 1.5 $`0.212\pm 0.088`$ ($``$0.090, $`+`$0.036)  1.5 – 2.0 $`0.178\pm 0.057`$ ($``$0.019, $`+`$0.008)  2.0 – 2.4 $`0.124\pm 0.051`$ ($``$0.017, $`+`$0.016)  2.4 – 2.8 $`0.133\pm 0.033`$ ($``$0.008, $`+`$0.006)  2.8 – 3.2 $`0.080\pm 0.022`$ ($``$0.000, $`+`$0.006)  3.2 – 3.6 $`0.107\pm 0.015`$ ($``$0.003, $`+`$0.005)  3.6 – 4.0 $`0.117\pm 0.012`$ ($``$0.004, $`+`$0.006)  4.0 – 4.4 $`0.167\pm 0.012`$ ($``$0.010, $`+`$0.008)  4.4 – 5.2 $`0.176\pm 0.043`$ ($``$0.004, $`+`$0.003)

In the remainder of this section I focus on the radial variation of the X-ray expansion rate. Here the fits were carried out separately for several different annular regions about the geometric center of the remnant. Most of the radial bins were 24′′ wide although the innermost and outermost annuli were somewhat thicker. There were only two fit parameters: the fractional expansion rate and the change in intensity. Numerical values for the expansion rate are given in Table 2 and are plotted in Figure 2 along with the change in the X-ray flux and for reference the surface brightness profile. In the bottom two panels the error bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the small boxes surrounding the data points show the range of values that come from fits using the four different expansion centers. Only for the data point closest to the remnant’s center is this a significant error. Between the two epochs the X-ray flux appears to have changed only very slightly over the image of the remnant, i.e., by less than 2%. The weighted average expansion rate is $``$0.13% yr-1, although I can reject the hypothesis that the expansion rate is constant with radius at more than the 99.9% confidence level ($`\chi ^2=17.65`$ for 3 d.o.f.) based on the four data points near the rim (radii between 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 and 4$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4). I find that the expansion parameter increases from $`m=0.34\pm 0.10`$ just inside the bright rim of Tycho’s SNR to a value $`m=0.71\pm 0.06`$ at the outermost edge of the SNR. The rapid motion of the outermost edge is the principal cause of the non-uniform radial expansion rate. In fact, over the interior portion of the SNR, covering radii from $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8`$ to $`4\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$, the X-ray data are consistent with an expansion parameter of $`m=0.45\pm 0.04`$. The large expansion rate for the outer rim, plus evidence for a slower rate further in, was also found by Hughes (1997) using an entirely different analysis technique.

The published radio expansion parameter of Tycho’s SNR, $`m=0.471\pm 0.028`$ (R97), corresponds to the expansion of the rim. This value disagrees, by more than $`3\sigma `$, with the expansion rate of the X-ray rim just derived. Tycho’s SNR thus joins the two other youngest remnants of Galactic SN (Cas A and Kepler’s SNR) in showing considerably higher expansion rates in the X-ray compared to the radio (see discussion and references in H99). For Tycho’s SNR it is clear that the main difference between the X-ray and radio results occurs at the remnant’s outermost edge where the forward shock is plowing into the ambient interstellar medium (ISM). The slower motion of interior features (i.e., the reverse-shocked ejecta) is consistent across the radio ($`m0.44`$; R97) and X-ray ($`m0.45`$) bands.

## 4. Discussion and Results

Numerous authors (Chevalier 1982; Dwarkadas & Chevalier 1998; Truelove & McKee 1999) have modeled the expansion rates of young supernova remnants. Dwarkadas & Chevalier (1998) in particular examined how different assumed density profiles for the SN ejecta affect the evolution of the resulting remnant, assumed to be interacting with a uniform density ISM. They considered three principal cases: a power law profile ($`\rho r^7`$), an exponential profile, and a constant density profile. The expansion parameter uniquely defines the age and radius of the remnant, conventionally expressed in scale-free variables. The constants of proportionality between the scaled values and the true physical radius and age depend on the three independent dimensional parameters: explosion energy $`E`$, ejecta mass $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$, and ambient density $`\rho _0`$. Thus, given the known size $`R=2.8(D/2.3\mathrm{kpc})\mathrm{pc}`$ and age $`t=425\mathrm{yr}`$ of Tycho’s SNR it is possible to determine two of the three dimensional parameters. Here I assume that the ejecta mass is $`1.4M_{}`$ and solve for the other two quantities.

The power-law profile predicts a maximum expansion parameter of $`m=0.57`$ which is too low to be consistent with the X-ray expansion rate. The other two model ejecta profiles can accommodate the high rate observed for the forward shock; however, the inferred values of $`E`$ and $`\rho _0`$ are quite different in the two scenarios. Compared to the uniform density case, the expansion parameter for the exponential profile model falls more rapidly with time, so that for a given value of the expansion parameter the scaled age and radius are smaller for the exponential profile. The inferred dimensional parameters for the exponential profile are $`E_{51}=E/10^{51}\mathrm{erg}(0.10.2)(M_{\mathrm{ej}}/1.4M_{})(D/2.3\mathrm{kpc})^2`$ and $`n_0=\rho _0/\mu _\mathrm{H}(0.0040.08)(M_{\mathrm{ej}}/1.4M_{})(D/2.3\mathrm{kpc})^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$ ($`\mu _\mathrm{H}`$ is the mean mass per hydrogen atom), rather low values for Tycho’s SNR. On the other hand, more appropriate values are obtained using the uniform density ejecta model: $`E_{51}(0.40.5)(M_{\mathrm{ej}}/1.4M_{})(D/2.3\mathrm{kpc})^2`$ and $`n_0(0.30.6)(M_{\mathrm{ej}}/1.4M_{})(D/2.3\mathrm{kpc})^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$. These are fully consistent with the values that Hamilton, Sarazin, & Szymkowiak (1986) found in their study of Tycho’s X-ray spectrum in which they also assumed a uniform density ejecta profile. Thus it appears that both the expansion of the forward shock and the X-ray emission properties of Tycho’s SNR can be well explained with this simple model. What about the slower motion of the reverse-shocked ejecta?

Truelove & McKee (1999) have parameterized the evolution of both the forward and reverse shocks in young SNRs for a number of cases, including a uniform density ejecta model. For the range of scaled ages that describe the expansion of the forward shock, the reverse shock expansion parameter is $`m_{\mathrm{RS}}=0.510.63`$. This rate is in reasonable agreement with the measured expansion parameter of the interior portions of Tycho’s SNR ($`m=0.45\pm 0.04`$). (Although equating the motion of the ejecta to the reverse shock is not strictly correct, it serves as a reasonable first approximation.) An acceptable joint fit ($`\chi ^2=2.7`$ for 1 d.o.f.) to the measured X-ray expansion parameters is obtained for best-fit values of $`m0.64`$ (forward) and $`m0.49`$ (reverse). The inferred values of $`E`$ and $`n_0`$ in this case are similar to those quoted above.

The forward shock expansion rate implies a shock velocity of $`4600\pm 400(D/2.3\mathrm{kpc})\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which in turn implies a mean post-shock temperature of $`kT_S=\frac{3}{16}\mu m_pv_S^2=25\pm 4(D/2.3\mathrm{kpc})^2\mathrm{keV}`$ for a mean mass per particle of $`\mu =0.61`$, which assumes a fully-ionized plasma with 10% helium. This temperature is quite a bit higher than the estimate, by Hwang, Hughes, & Petre (1998), of the post-shock electron temperature of the blast wave in Tycho’s SNR, $`kT_e4\mathrm{keV}`$. This difference most likely arises from either the non-equilibration of electron and ion temperatures at the shock front or the partition of a significant fraction of the shock energy in Tycho’s SNR into relativistic particles as was recently found to be the case in SNR E0102.2$``$7219 (Hughes, Rakowski, & Decourchelle 2000). Discriminating between these possibilities will be the focus of a future article.

This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. Partial support was provided by NASA grant NAG5-6420.


text:
# Anomalous Scaling of the SO(8) Symmetric Phases in the Two-Leg Ladder

\[

## Abstract

We carry out a complete analytical stability study for the SO(8) symmetric phases in the weakly-interacting two-leg ladder. It is shown that the SO(8) symmetry is robust under generic perturbations. Since there are no fixed points in the one-loop renormalization group equations, the conventional classification of relevant and irrelevant perturbations fails in this case. A new classification is defined and explained in detail. It leads to the anomalous scaling in the ratios of excitation gaps and an universal exponent $`1/3`$ is extracted. This new method is also applied to the well studied 2D Ising model and similar exponent is calculated.

\]

Introduction.— Ladder materials have attracted lots of attentions in the past decade because of both theoretical and experimental interest . In particular, lots of efforts were focused on the simplest two-leg ladder . Without doping, there is one electron per site on average (usually referred as “half-filled”). Because of the Coulomb repulsion, charge excitations acquire a gap which makes the two-leg ladder a Mott’s insulator. Besides, due to the tendency for singlet bond formation across the rungs of the ladder, spin-liquid behavior is expected. Both numerical and analytical approaches support that the ground state at half filling is in the Mott-insulating spin-liquid phase .

In general, one expects that charge and spin gaps could be rather different. Surprisingly, a complete degeneracy of charge, spin and single particle gaps emerges in the asymptotic weak coupling limit. Based on the one-loop renormalization group (RG) analysis, the effective low-energy theory for the two-leg ladder is described by the exactly soluble Gross-Neveu model with a global SO(8) symmetry. Other than the exact degeneracy of excitation gaps, many interesting results can be drawn from the Bethe Ansatz solution. There have been critics  about the unexpected restoration of the SO(8) symmetry in weak coupling, concerning about the stability of the symmetry under generic perturbations and the limitation of the RG equations derived in weak coupling. It was argued that the SO(8) symmetry derived by perturbative calculations is fragile because the system eventually flows toward the fixed point in strong coupling.

In this Letter, we address both points by performing a complete an analytical study for the stability in the vicinity of the SO(8) symmetric phases. It should be emphasized that this beautiful symmetry restoration in weak coupling does not implies that the fixed point in strong coupling is SO(8) symmetric at all. On the contrary, the symmetry reflects the local topology of RG flows near the trivial Fermi liquid fixed point which can be safely described by perturbative calculations. Indeed it is rather obvious that, when the interaction $`U`$ is much larger than the bandwidth $`t`$, the charge gap is much larger than the spin gap. Thus, the symmetry in the strong coupling is completely destroyed. As to the stability of the symmetry under generic perturbations, the complete stability check shows that the SO(8) symmetry is robust in weak coupling. Even though some couplings are relevant according to the conventional classification, they do not destroy the symmetry but only give rise to anomalous corrections which scale as $`(U/t)^{1/3}`$. A new classification of “relevant” and “irrelevant” perturbations is necessary here. Finally, we apply the new method to the well-known 2D Ising model and show that the anomalous scaling behavior near the critical point can be very general, as long as more than two relevant couplings are present.

The SO(8) symmetric rays.— For the two-leg ladder at half filling, the number of possible interactions is greatly reduced to nine in weak coupling. Within the one-loop RG calculations, these nine couplings $`g_i`$ are described by a set of coupled first-order differential equations,

$$\frac{dg_i}{dl}=A_{jk}^ig_jg_k,$$
(1)
where $`A_{jk}^i`$ are nine $`9\times 9`$ constant matrices. These matrices can be found by rewriting the RG equations given in Ref.. For a generic interacting Hamiltonian, the bare values for these nine couplings can be straightforwardly determined. However, it is generally very difficult to obtain the solution for these coupled flow equations in analytical form.

Simple analytical solutions emerge if the interactions are chosen in a specific way. These special solutions are later referred as “symmetric rays”. Suppose the bare couplings of the specific interacting Hamiltonian are $`g_i(0)=r_ig(0)`$, where $`g(0)=(U/t)1`$ is small while $`r_i`$ are order one constants which satisfy the algebraic constraint,

$$r_i=A_{jk}^ir_jr_k.$$
(2)
It is straightforward to show that the ratios between couplings remain the same and the nine complicated equations reduce to single one, $`\dot{g}=g^2`$ ! The solution is $`g(l)=1/(l_dl)`$, where the divergent length scale $`l_d=(t/U)`$. Of course, one should keep in mind that the solution $`g(l)`$ is only valid when it does not flow out of the weak coupling regime. These special Hamiltonians, whose couplings are described by these symmetric rays, turn out to be SO(8) symmetric. For the two-leg ladder, four different phases (named as D-Mott, S-Mott, CDW and SP in Ref.) are of the central concerns.

It was shown previously that the two-leg ladder in weak coupling always scales into one of the four different symmetric phases . However, this numerical approach was criticized that the SO(8) symmetric phases might have instabilities which happen not to be tackled by the limited types of interactions considered in the numerical study. To make up the fissure, a complete stability check near the SO(8) symmetric rays is desirable.

Stability analysis.— To describe the RG flows in the vicinity of the SO(8) symmetric rays, it is sufficient to consider the linearized version of Eq. (1). For a generic interaction, the couplings are separated into symmetric and asymmetric parts, $`g_i(l)=r_ig(l)+\mathrm{\Delta }g_i(l)`$. In the vicinity of the symmetric rays, the deviations are small, $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_i(l)g(l)`$. Keeping the leading order term, the linearized RG equations are

$$\frac{d(\mathrm{\Delta }g_i)}{dl}=\frac{B_{ij}}{(l_dl)}\mathrm{\Delta }g_i,$$
(3)
where $`B_{ij}=2A_{jk}^ir_k`$. The matrix $`B_{ij}`$ can be brought into diagonal form by a linear transformation. As a consequence, the RG equations decouple into nine independent ones,

$$\frac{d(\delta g_i)}{dl}=\frac{\lambda _i}{(l_dl)}\delta g_i,$$
(4)
where $`\delta g_i`$ are couplings after the linear transformation and $`\lambda _i`$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix $`B_{ij}`$. Although the matrix $`B_{ij}`$ are different for each SO(8) symmetric rays, the eigenvalues are identically the same

$$\lambda _i=2,\frac{2}{3},\frac{2}{3},\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3}.$$
(5)
This coincidence implies that the results of the stability check only rely on the symmetry group but not on the details of the phases .

So far, we have a single equation, $`\dot{g}=g^2`$, describing the renormalization along the symmetric rays and nine for deviations from the rays as in Eq. (4). Apparently, there must be one redundant equation among them because the original number of equations is only nine. It doesn’t take long to find out that it corresponds to the flow equation with largest eigenvalue $`\lambda =2`$. This corresponds to a trivial case that all couplings are shifted along the symmetric ray, i.e. $`\delta g_i=r_i\delta g`$. Since the flow along the ray is described by $`\dot{g}=g^2`$, linearization leads to $`\delta \dot{g}=2g(l)\delta g`$. Since we only need eight equations to describe the deviations from the symmetric rays, the $`\lambda =2`$ equation is only an artifact and should be ignored.

The other eight eigenvalues describe how the flow goes once the bare couplings are off the ray. Starting from the bare values $`\delta g_i(0)=\delta r_ig(0)`$, where $`\delta r_ir_i`$. The solutions of Eq. (4) are

$$\delta g_i(l)=\frac{\delta r_i}{(l_dl)^{\lambda _i}}\left(\frac{U}{t}\right)^{1\lambda _i}.$$
(6)
According to conventional classification , for $`\lambda _i<0`$ the deviations diminish under RG transformations as shown in FIG. 1(a) and thus are classified as irrelevant couplings. For $`\lambda _i>0`$, any small deviations get enhanced and the flow is pushed away from the symmetric rays as in FIG. 1(b) and 1(c). These are classified as relevant couplings. The conventional wisdom tells us that there are three relevant couplings ($`\lambda _i=2/3`$) and five irrelevant ones ($`\lambda _i=1/3`$). Since a generic interaction in principle could generate asymmetric deviations in all couplings, one might rush to the incorrect conclusion that the SO(8) symmetry is not stable. However, the first-glance guess is wrong because the conventional classification is based on the perturbative analysis near a $`fixedpoint`$ while we are dealing with running symmetric rays. A new set of rules to identify relevant perturbations is in order.

The crucial criterion is whether the deviations $`\delta g_i(l)`$ grow larger than the symmetric coupling $`g(l)=(l_dl)^1`$. Just growing larger than the bare values under RG transformations is not qualified as a relevant perturbation. This subtle but important difference is best illustrated by calculating gap functions using scaling arguments. If the degeneracy of excitation gaps is maintained, the SO(8) symmetry is robust and vice versa.

Anomalous scaling.— Since the RG equations are only valid in weak coupling, we cut off the RG procedure when the symmetric coupling $`g(l_c)=1`$. At this cutoff length scale $`l_c`$, the deviations in Eq. (6) are

$$\delta g_i(l_c)\left(\frac{U}{t}\right)^{1\lambda _i}.$$
(7)
For $`\lambda _i>1`$, the deviations are larger than the symmetric coupling and should be classified as “relevant”. As long as $`\lambda _i<1`$, the deviations at the cutoff length scale are still vanishingly small and should be viewed as “irrelevant”. This new classification is different from the conventional one for $`0<\lambda _i<1`$. We would see clearly soon that the new classification is appropriate for stability check near a running symmetric ray. The grey regime $`0<\lambda _i<1`$ between the new and conventional rules gives rise to anomalous scaling exponents.

Under RG transformations, the gap functions scale like,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i[g(0),\delta g_i(0)]=e^{l_c}\mathrm{\Delta }_i[1,\delta g_i(l_c)],$$
(8)
where $`\delta g_i(l_c)`$ are at most of order $`(U/t)^{1/3}`$. The key point is that, although some perturbations are enhanced to order $`(U/t)^{1/3}`$, which is larger than the bare order $`U/t`$ values, they are still small at the cutoff length scale. The effective Hamiltonian can be separated into two parts $`H=H_0+\delta H`$ – the SO(8) symmetric and asymmetric parts. Since the asymmetric part is of order $`(U/t)^{1/3}`$, the changes of the gaps would be of the same order by standard perturbation theory. Without the deviations, the SO(8) symmetry guarantees the exact degeneracy of all gaps, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }[1,0]=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The presence of perturbations modifies the gap functions,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i[1,\delta g_i(l_c)]=\mathrm{\Delta }\left[1+c_i\left(\frac{U}{t}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(9)
It is clear that, in the weak coupling limit $`U/t0`$, the degeneracy of all gaps is recovered. It implies that the SO(8) symmetry is indeed robust under generic perturbations.

The anomalous scaling exponent $`1/3`$ is clearly seen in the ratios between charge, spin and single particle gaps (see FIG. 2),

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}1+c_{ij}\left(\frac{U}{t}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(10)
This simple exponent is rather fascinating because the RG equations we started from are very messy. But, despite of which SO(8) symmetric phases the system flows into, the exponent of the gap function corrections is universally equal to $`1\lambda _i=1/3`$!

2D Ising model.— The anomalous scaling discussed here is not limited to the particular two-leg ladder at all. As long as more than two relevant couplings (according to the conventional classification) are present, this interesting phenomena shows up somewhere. Here we use the 2D Ising model as another example. The RG flow diagram for the model is shown in FIG. 3. There are two relevant perturbations near the critical point – the magnetic field $`h`$ and the temperature deviation from the critical point $`t`$. It is well known that the magnetization $`m[h,t]`$ scales differently with respect to these two relevant perturbations,

$`m[u,0]`$ $``$ $`u^{1/\delta },`$ (11)
$`m[0,u]`$ $``$ $`u^\beta .`$ (12)
Here $`1/\delta =1/15`$ and $`\beta =1/8`$. Although both are relevant, the magnetic field grow faster than the later under RG transformations. We would find out that the scaling of magnetization $`m[h,t]`$ in the presence of both perturbations looks similar to the scaling behavior with only non-zero magnetic field. Suppose now we start from a bare coupling in the vicinity of the critical point, $`(h,t)=u(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$ with $`0<\theta <\pi /2`$. The scaling function of the magnetization is $`m[h,t]=h^{1/\delta }F(t^\mathrm{\Delta }/h)`$ with the exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\beta \delta =15/8>1`$. Since the argument inside the scaling function $`t^\mathrm{\Delta }/hu^{\mathrm{\Delta }1}`$ is small, we can expand the function around zero. After a bit algebra, the magnetization is

$$\frac{m[u\mathrm{cos}\theta ,u\mathrm{sin}\theta ]}{m[u,0]}1+c(\theta )u^{7/8}.$$
(13)
Notice that the exponent comes from $`\mathrm{\Delta }1=7/8`$. It is clear that, when close to the critical point $`u0`$, the magnetization scales as if the temperature deviation is not present at all. In this sense, the temperature deviation $`t`$ should be called “irrelevant”. However, it does lead to a non-trivial correction with anomalous exponent $`7/8`$.

In summary, we have shown analytically that the SO(8) symmetric phases are stable in weak coupling. Since we are dealing with symmetric rays but not fixed points, a new classification is defined and explained in detail. Corrections to the SO(8) symmetry at finite but still weak couplings acquire a non-trivial exponent $`1/3`$ in the ratios of excitation gaps.

We thank Leon Balents and Matthew Fisher for useful discussions. This work is supported by National Science Council in Taiwan under grant number NSC 89-2112-M-007-101.