text:
# Center vortices in MCG – finite-size and gauge-copy effects

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Center projection in the direct version of maximal center gauge (DMCG)  is a tool for detecting center vortices in SU($`N`$) gauge theory. A number of numerical studies indicate that center vortices are ubiquitous in the QCD vacuum and give rise to the linear confining potential. Recently, however, the validity of the procedure based on center projection in MCG has been put in doubt by Bornyakov, Komarov, Polikarpov, and Veselov (BKPV) because of the Gribov copy problem . Thus we carefully investigate the dependence of DMCG results on lattice sizes, gauge copies and convergence criteria in SU(2) gauge theory.

In DMCG, the procedure is to maximize

$$R=\underset{\mu }{}\underset{x}{}\mathrm{Tr}_A[U_\mu (x)]$$
(1)
by an iterative over-relaxation procedure, where $`\text{Tr}_A[U]`$ is the trace of $`U`$ in the adjoint representation. Let $`R_n`$ denote the value of $`R`$ after $`n`$ over-relaxation sweeps. When $`R_n`$ is judged to have converged according to a criterion of the form

$$\frac{R_nR_{n50}}{R_n}<\delta ,$$
(2)
then the link variables $`U_\mu (x)`$ are projected onto the nearest center elements $`Z`$ using $`Z_\mu (x)=\mathrm{signTr}[U_\mu (x)]`$.

When this gauge-fixing procedure is applied to different gauge copies of a given lattice configuration, it converges not to the unique global maximum of $`R`$, but to different, local maxima corresponding to different (Gribov) copies. One way to minimize the gauge copy dependence is to carry out the over-relaxation procedure on a number $`N_{copy}`$ of random gauge copies and perform center projection on the copy with the largest value of $`R`$.

Center-projected Wilson loops, Creutz ratios, etc. are observables computed from the center-projected link variables. It was shown in a number of studies , that

* thin vortex excitations of the projected lattice (“P-vortices”) are located roughly in the middle of thick center vortices on the unprojected lattice;
* projected Creutz ratios $`\chi _{cp}(I,I)`$ are close to the asymptotic string tension on the unprojected lattice (“center dominance”);
* the density of P-vortices, for $`\beta 2.3`$, scales according to asymptotic freedom;
* removing center vortices (located via the projected lattice) from unprojected lattices also removes confinement and chiral symmetry breaking, and brings the topological charge to zero .

The question – why should this procedure work at all? – was addressed in ref. . There it was shown that in the absence of Gribov copies (i.e. if the gauge can be fixed to a global maximum of $`R`$) center projection in maximal center gauge will always locate a thin vortex inserted anywhere on the lattice. This was dubbed the “vortex-finding property” of MCG. However, the vortices in the QCD vacuum are not thin, but of finite thickness in physical units, and maximal center gauge is plagued with Gribov copies.

Thus we will study in this article the sensitivity of center-projected Creutz ratios and the P-vortex density with respect to: (i) the number $`N_{copy}`$ of used random gauge copies; (ii) the lattice size; and (iii) the convergence parameter $`\delta `$ in eq. (2). We will here only discuss direct maximal center gauge, although there exist alternatives like Laplacian center gauge  (which is free of the Gribov copy problem).

## 2 $`𝑵_{𝒄𝒐𝒑𝒚}`$ AND LATTICE SIZE DEPENDENCE

In the original simulations of ref. , only three gauge copies were used. Projected Creutz ratios $`\chi _{cp}(I,I)`$ were found to be close to the asymptotic string tensions reported by Bali et al. , for all $`I2`$. In , however, BKPV calculate Creutz ratios in the range $`N_{copy}[1,20]`$, and extrapolate to $`N_{copy}\mathrm{}`$ by fitting their data to the functional form $`\chi _{cp}^{N_{copy}}(I,I)=\chi _{cp}(I,I)+c(I,I)/\sqrt{N_{copy}}`$. They report that projected string tensions, at $`\beta =2.4,2.5`$, underestimate the full string tension by about $`20\%`$ at $`N_{copy}=20`$, and by $`30\%`$ in the extrapolation to $`N_{copy}\mathrm{}`$.

However, BKPV used lattice sizes $`12^4`$ at $`\beta =2.3,2.4`$, and $`16^4`$ at $`\beta =2.5`$, whereas the data reported in ref.  was obtained with lattice sizes $`16^4`$ at $`\beta =2.3,2.4`$, and with $`22^4`$ at $`\beta =2.5`$. Therefore the BKPV results may be seriously contaminated by finite-size effects. To find out, we have repeated the center-projection calculation at $`\beta =2.3`$ and $`\beta =2.5`$ on a variety of lattice sizes, for $`N_{copy}[1,20]`$. For the convergence parameter in eq. (2), we have used $`\delta =2\times 10^7`$.

In Fig. 1 we show results for the Creutz ratio $`\chi _{cp}^{N_{copy}}(4,4)`$ vs. $`N_{copy}`$ at $`\beta =2.5`$, for lattice sizes ranging from $`8^4`$ to $`28^4`$. As noted by BKPV, there is a slow downward trend in $`\chi _{cp}`$ as $`N_{copy}`$ increases, but this effect is much more pronounced on smaller lattices than on larger lattices. And although Creutz ratios on the smaller lattices grossly underestimate the full string tension $`\sigma `$ reported by Bali et al. , the data seems to approach $`\sigma `$ as the lattice size increases. These trends in the data are not unique to $`\chi _{cp}(4,4)`$ at $`\beta =2.5`$, but are typical of all of our results.

In Fig. 2 we display the projected Creutz ratios $`\chi _{cp}^{N_{copy}}(I,I)`$ for $`N_{copy}=5,10,15,20`$, and for the extrapolation $`N_{copy}\mathrm{}`$ on the largest lattices we have used: $`20^4`$ at $`\beta =2.3,2.4`$, and $`28^4`$ at $`\beta =2.5`$. As usual in MCG, all the $`\chi _{cp}(I,I)`$ for $`I2`$ are close to $`\sigma `$, and these results are not far from our earlier results reported in ref. . In Fig. 3, we show the average $`\overline{\chi }_{cp}`$ of the projected ($`N_{copy}\mathrm{}`$) Creutz ratios $`\chi _{cp}(I,I)`$ in the range $`I=25`$. Note the approach of $`\overline{\chi }_{cp}`$ to $`\sigma `$ as lattice size increases.

In addition we checked that the numerical results are stable with respect to the constant $`\delta `$ in eq. (2). We calculated $`\chi _{cp}`$ with convergence criteria $`\delta =10^2,10^3,10^4,2\times 10^7`$ at $`\beta =2.5`$ ($`24^4`$ lattice). For the weakest criterion $`\delta =10^2`$, Creutz ratios come out too high, but the results for the two smallest values of $`\delta `$ are fairly consistent, indicating that these numbers are not far from the $`\delta 0`$ limit.

## 3 VORTEX DENSITY AND THICKNESS

The lattice P-vortex density $`p`$ is the number of P-vortex plaquettes (i.e. plaquettes on the projected lattice with $`ZZZZ=1`$), divided by the total number of plaquettes on the lattice. $`p`$ is proportional to the average area taken up by P-vortices per unit lattice volume, and is determined from the center-projected plaquette expectation value via $`p=1/2(1W_{cp}[1,1])`$. If this quantity scales as predicted by asymptotic freedom, the expression

$$\stackrel{~}{p}p\left[\left(\frac{6\pi ^2}{11}\beta \right)^{102/121}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{6\pi ^2}{11}\beta \right)\right]^1$$
(3)
should be constant in the large $`\beta `$ limit. As can be seen from Fig. 4, there appears to be good evidence for this kind of scaling for $`\beta 2.2`$. The vortex densities at $`\beta =2.3,2.4,2.5`$ are taken from the largest used lattices and extrapolated to the $`N_{copy}\mathrm{}`$ limit. The other values (with $`N_{copy}=3`$) are taken from our previous work. It is interesting that the scaling of $`p`$, in the range $`\beta =2.32.5`$, is even better than the scaling of the full asymptotic string tension $`\sigma `$ in this range.

In order to avoid large finite size effects, relatively large lattices are required for center projection. We think that the relevant length scale is associated with the vortex thickness. Center vortices are surface-like objects in $`D=4`$ dimensions which have a finite thickness in physical units. The thick vortex surface (or “core”) bounds a Dirac 3-volume, which represents the region of discontinuity of a singular gauge transformation associated with the vortex. In ref.  we have explained the vortex-finding property of MCG in terms of the global properties of this singular gauge transformation. On a small lattice, with an extension comparable to the vortex thickness, these global aspects of the vortex field may be almost absent, and the minimal Dirac 3-volume could be quite small. In that case, the argument of ref.  breaks down. Thus we expect center projection to be less effective at finding vortices on small lattices, leading to underestimates of both $`\chi _{cp}`$ and $`p`$.

If there is some truth in this explanation, center projection works well only for lattices which are large compared to the vortex thickness. This thickness can be deduced from

* the ratio of “vortex-limited” Wilson loops;
* the vortex free energy as a function of lattice size;
* the adjoint string-breaking length.

Vortex-limited Wilson loops are defined in the following way : $`W_n(C)`$ is a Wilson loop evaluated on a sub-ensemble of unprojected configurations, selected so that precisely $`n`$ P-vortices, in the corresponding center-projected configurations, pierce the minimal area of the loop. For $`W_1(C)`$ we can further require that the negative P-vortex plaquette lies at (or touches) the center point of the rectangular loop. It is then expected that $`W_1(C)/W_0(C)1`$ in the limit where the vortex core is entirely contained within the loop. At $`\beta =2.3`$ the vortex appears to almost fit inside a $`5\times 5`$ loop , which leads to a rough estimate of the vortex radius of about 3 lattice spacings. A diameter of 6 lattice spacings at $`\beta =2.3`$ corresponds to a vortex thickness of about one fermi.

A second estimate is obtained from the recent numerical calculation of vortex free energy vs. lattice size . The vortex free energy is close to zero when the lattice extension is greater than the vortex thickness, and this again gives an estimate for the vortex thickness of a little over one fermi. Finally, if confinement is due to center vortices, then an $`R\times T`$ Wilson loop in the adjoint representation must change from a (Casimir scaling) area-law falloff to a (color-screening) perimeter-law falloff for $`R`$ greater than the vortex thickness . The adjoint string-breaking distance has been measured to be $`1.25`$ fm, which is roughly consistent with the other two estimates.

At $`\beta =2.5`$, one fermi corresponds to 12 lattice spacings. BKPV used at $`\beta =2.5`$ only a $`16^4`$ lattice which may simply be not large enough compared with the vortex thickness in order to reliably identify vortices using center projection.

The average distance between vortices is given by the vortex density. The P-vortex density, discussed above, is in fact an overestimate of the actual center vortex density because P-vortices fluctuate within the thick vortex core . A more accurate estimate of the center vortex density is arrived at by either “smoothing” the P-vortex surfaces, or else directly from the string tension using $`f=\frac{1}{2}(1e^\sigma )`$. The two estimates agree fairly well , and for $`\beta =2.3`$ we find $`f=0.063`$. This implies an average distance of $`f^{1/2}4`$ lattice spacings between the centers of vortex cores piercing a plane. Since we have already estimated the vortex thickness at $`\beta =2.3`$ to be about 6 lattice spacings, there must be some overlap between vortex cores. There is nothing in principle wrong with that; vortex cores are not impenetrable objects, and their long-range effects are associated with Dirac 3-volumes, rather than the detailed structure of the core. These findings indicate that the QCD vacuum is more like a liquid of vortices than a dilute gas.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

We have found that center-projected lattices are more sensitive to finite size effects than unprojected lattices. Precision results for center-projected Creutz ratios $`\chi _{cp}`$ require lattice sizes which are large compared to the physical vortex thickness of $`1\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}`$. The $`N_{copy}`$-dependence for $`\chi _{cp}`$ reported by BKPV  is greatly reduced as lattice size increases. On the largest lattices we have used, and with the extrapolation to the $`N_{copy}\mathrm{}`$ limit, our results lie quite close to the asymptotic string tension, and are stable with respect to the gauge-fixing convergence criterion. For the vortex density, we find good evidence for asymptotic scaling.111After the conference, a new paper of Bornyakov et al.  appeared. Using the method of simulated annealing, they find even higher maxima of $`R`$, eq. (1), and the center-projected string tension smaller than the physical one. It seems clear that a modification of the gauge-fixing procedure and/or condition is required.


format: text

text:
# Oscillations of Andreev states in clean ferromagnetic films

## Abstract

We investigate the influence of the exchange field on the Andreev bound states in a ferromagnetic (F) film backed on one side by a superconductor (S). Our model accounts for diffusive reflection at the outer surface and possible backscattering at the FS-interface. Phase shifting of the Andreev level by the exchange field results in an oscillatory behaviour of the density of states of F as a function of the layer thickness. We show that our results agree quantitatively with recent experiments.

Probing the proximity effect by tunneling spectroscopy of induced superconducting correlations has a long history. Early experiments on the proximity density of states  could be understood in the tunneling model of McMillan. Recently the spatial dependence of the proximity density of states in normal metals has been measured and successfully explained in terms of the quasiclassical theory. The influence of spin-splitting by a parallel magnetic field was measured in  and found to coincide with a Zeeman-split density of states. A new experimental and theoretical challenge is to extend these studies to the superconducting proximity effect in ferromagnets.

Previous experimental investigation have concentrated on thermodynamic properties of FS-multilayers. Here oscillations of the superconducting critical temperature $`T_\text{c}`$ as a function of the thickness of the F-layers have been predicted  and studied experimentally . However, the experimental evidence for these $`T_\text{c}`$-oscillation is not conclusive. This may result from an incomplete knowledge about the FS-interface quality. In our opinion, it is also questionable if the theoretical approach using the diffusive quasiclassical formalism  is applicable for F-layers of typical thicknesses $`1050`$Å.

The most recent experiments have concentrated on other properties of FS-layers. Ryazanov et al.  studied the supercurrent through a thin ferromagnetic layer and found a non-monotonic temperature dependence, which can be interpreted in terms of a $`\pi `$-phase shift due to the exchange splitting. Kontos et al. , on the other hand, have studied the density of states in a thin ferromagnetic layer in contact to a superconductor. An oscillatory behaviour of the induced superconducting correlation was observed for layers of different thicknesses and attributed to influence of the exchange field. It is this experiment, that motivated our present study.

Bearing this in mind, we study the superconducting proximity effect in a thin ferromagnetic layer. The F-film is characterized by an homogenous exchange splitting $`h`$. We model the film as a ballistic layer with rough boundaries. Band mismatch and disorder at the interface may lead to enhanced backscattering at the FS-boundary. We will derive a general formula for the subgap density of states depending only on the length distribution of classical trajectories in the F-layer. The resulting density of states shows as a signature of the exchange splitting an oscillatory behaviour as a function of layer thickness. Comparison to the experimental data show reasonable agreement keeping in mind the large uncertainty of some sample parameters.

The system we consider is sketched in Fig. 1. A thin ferromagnetic layer (F) of thickness $`d`$ is connected to a superconducting bank (S) on one side and bounded on the other side by an insulator. The F-layer is characterized by an exchange splitting, which we take into account as mean field $`h`$ in the Hamiltonian. The thickness $`d`$ is larger than the Fermi wave length $`\lambda _\text{F}`$ and smaller than the elastic mean free path $`\mathrm{}_{\text{imp}}`$ which allows for a quasi-classical description in the clean limit. Then, the real-time Eilenberger equation reads

$`i𝒗_\text{F}\mathbf{}\widehat{g}_\sigma (E,𝒗_\text{F},𝒓)=`$ (1)
$`[(E+\sigma h(𝒓))\widehat{\tau _3}i\widehat{\tau }_2\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓),\widehat{g}_\sigma (E,𝒗_\text{F},𝒓)].`$ (2)
Here $`\widehat{\tau }_i`$ denote the Pauli matrices, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)`$ is the (real) superconducting pair potential, and $`\sigma `$ ($`=\pm 1`$) labels the electron spin. The matrix Green’s functions have to obey the normalization condition $`\widehat{g}_\sigma ^2=1`$. Inside the F-layer $`h`$ is constant and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. We neglect the change of the pair potential in S, thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)=\text{const.}`$ inside the superconductor. We have solved Eq. (1) along each classical trajectory in F that comes from the superconductor and ends there. The density of states for $`|E|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on a given trajectory of length $`l`$ is then given by

$`N(E,l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_0}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}}\text{Re}\left[\text{Tr}\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{g}_\sigma (E,𝒗_\text{F},𝒓)\right]`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_0}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi v_\text{F}}{|E+\sigma h|}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\delta (ll_n),`$ (4)
where

$$l_n=\frac{v_\text{F}}{E+\sigma h}\left(n\pi +\mathrm{arccos}(E/\mathrm{\Delta })\right).$$
(5)
Here $`N_0`$ is the density of states at the Fermi level in the normal state. Inside the F-layer $`N_\sigma (E,l)`$ is constant along a given trajectory and depends only on the length of the trajectory $`l`$. Eq. (4) means that the density of states below $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a sum of $`\delta `$-peaks resulting from Andreev bound states. The energies follow from the quasi-classical quantization $`l=l_n`$. The total density of states can then be found by averaging (4) over all classical trajectories. Denoting the trajectory length distribution $`p(l)`$ we find for the density of states

$`N(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_0}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi v_\text{F}}{|E+\sigma h|}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p(l_n).`$ (6)
This formula presents the general result for subgap density of states of a quasiballistic ferromagnet connected to a superconductor. It is completely specified by the length distribution of classical trajectories. This depends only on the geometrical properties of the attached ferromagnet and the connecting interface.

Now we have to specify the trajectory length distribution for our particular case. We model the thin layer by a weakly disordered thin film with a rough surface and a rough SF-interface of average transparency $`T`$. A typical trajectory is depicted in Fig. 1. An electron coming from the bulk of S enters into the F-layer and after several reflections from the insulator and the FS-interface returns to the S-bank (see Fig. 1), where it is Andreev reflected as a hole which traverses the trajectory in the opposite direction. Thus, the elementary building block of a typical trajectory is the segment between two successive reflections from the superconductor. The number of blocks which form the total trajectory depends on the transparency of the interface, i. e. it is roughly $`1/T`$. First, let us consider the length distribution of one elementary block. Due to the roughness of the insulator and the FS-interface the quasi-particles undergo diffusive reflection from these boundaries. Incoming and outgoing direction are completely uncorrelated. Accounting for the weak bulk disorder we include a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(l/\mathrm{}_{\text{imp}})`$. The length distribution of one elementary block is then given by

$$p_0(l)=\frac{2d}{Cl^2}\left[\frac{l2d}{ld}+\frac{2d}{l}\mathrm{ln}\frac{ld}{d}\right]e^{l/\mathrm{}_{\text{imp}}}\theta (l/d2),$$
(7)
where $`C=\text{E}_2^2(d/\mathrm{}_{\text{imp}})`$ ($`\text{E}_2(z)=_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{exp}(zx)/x^2`$ is the exponential integral of second order). Second, we connect the elementary building blocks, if the S-F interface has an average transparency $`T`$. In determining the length distribution we assume that an particle either goes through the interface or is fully reflected. Only the number of these reflections depend on $`T`$. We do not take into account quantum mechanical interference for a single reflection at the FS-interface. Taking this into account will yield essentially the same results as our approach. By an expansion in the reflectivity $`R=1T`$ it is easy to see that the full distribution $`p(l)`$ obeys the integral equation

$$p(l)=Tp_0(l)+R𝑑l^{}p_0(l^{})p(ll^{}).$$
(8)
This is readily solved by a Fourier transformation. We obtain

$$p(l)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi }e^{ikl}\frac{TP_0(k)}{1RP_0(k)},$$
(9)
where $`P_0(k)=\text{E}_2^2(ikd+d/\mathrm{}_{\text{imp}})/C`$ is the Fourier transform of $`p_0(l)`$. The distribution $`p(l)`$ is plotted for $`T=0.1`$ and $`d/\mathrm{}_{\text{imp}}=0.1`$ in Fig. 1. It’s characteristics are a double peak structure close to the shortest trajectories $`l2d`$ resulting from trajectories reflected once or twice from the insulator. At large $`l`$ the distribution decays exponentially as $`\mathrm{exp}(l/\overline{l})`$, where $`\overline{l}=2d\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{}_{\text{imp}}/d)/T`$ is the mean trajectory length. For $`T1`$ $`p(l)`$ has only one peak close to $`2d`$. We therefore have two characteristic lengths of the distribution, the smallest possible trajectory length $`2d`$ and the average length $`\overline{l}`$. Which of these length scales will determine the total density of states will depend on the other parameters, in particular on $`h`$.

Combining Eqs. (4), (6) and (9) we obtain for the total DOS

$$N(E)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\sigma =\pm }{}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{TP_0(k_n)}{1RP_0(k_n)}e^{2ni\mathrm{arccos}E/\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(10)
where $`k_n=2n(E+\sigma h)/v_\text{F}`$. Thus, the density of states is fully expressed in terms of known functions. In the following we will discuss the parameter range of rather strong exchange fields in the limit of thin layers $`dv_\text{F}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The results presented below are in the most realistic case of small SF-interface transparency $`T1`$. In this limit the distribution of long lengths is well approximated as $`\mathrm{exp}(l/\overline{l})`$. Most probably the F-film has a non-uniform thickness due to the large scale roughness of the boundaries. For a smoothly varying thickness we can take this into account by averaging the (10) over a Gaussian distribution of the thicknesses around a mean value $`d`$. This will also lead to a smoothening of the sharp features in the DOS resulting from the lower cutoff in $`p(l)`$. The qualitative behavior will however not change. In practice, we have chosen a width of the distribution to be of order $`10\%`$ that corresponds to condition of the experiment .

For weak exchange fields when $`h\overline{l}/v_\text{F}1`$ the DOS at low energies $`E\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is mainly contributed from long trajectories with $`l\overline{l}`$. The DOS versus $`hd/T`$ is plotted for different energies in Fig 2. For $`h=0`$ (a normal film), $`N(E)`$ vanishes at zero energy and increases for finite energies ending with a peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The effect of the exchange field in the regime $`h<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is to split the DOS for the two spin bands. Thus the total DOS is the average of two by $`\pm h`$ shifted spectra resulting in a peak at zero energy and two dips at $`E=\pm h`$. Increasing $`h`$ further leads to a suppression of superconducting features of the DOS. The zero energy DOS increases roughly as $`(\pi v_\text{F}/h\overline{l})\mathrm{exp}(\pi v_\text{F}/2h\overline{l})/(1\mathrm{exp}(\pi v_\text{F}/h\overline{l}))`$, which follows from the approximation mentioned above. At finite energies $`N(E)`$ passes through minima corresponding to $`E=\pm h`$ before approaching the normal metal DOS.

For larger exchange fields when $`hd1`$ mainly the short trajectories of $`l2d`$ contribute to the energy dependence of $`N(E)`$. The DOS is close to that of the normal state. The interesting part are the small deviations of amplitude $`T`$ which oscillate as a function of $`dh`$. In Fig. 3 we have plotted $`(N(E)/N_01)/T`$ versus $`dh/v_\text{F}`$ for different energies. At small $`hd/v_\text{F}1`$ and $`E\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the DOS as a function of $`hd/v_\text{F}`$ still reminds of the double peak structure of the length distribution. For $`hd/v_\text{F}1`$, however, it develops coherent oscillations as a function of $`hd/v_\text{F}`$ with a period of $`\pi /2`$. Note that the magnitude and the sign of the oscillation depend on the energy. Maximal amplitudes of opposite sign always correspond to $`E=0`$ or $`|E|=\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Let us now discuss the relation of our results to the recent experiment performed in the group of Aprili . They observed DOS oscillation in thin films of the ferromagnetic alloy Pd1-xNix with $`x`$ of the order of 10% in contact with a Nb electrode. By tunneling spectroscopy they measured the differential conductance versus bias of the F-film at low temperatures $`300`$mK. Normalized to the normal state conductance this yields the density of states in the ferromagnetic layer. For two different thicknesses of the F-film, $`d_1=50`$Å and $`d_2=75`$Å the reduced density of states differs in sign and magnitude, but has the same functional energy dependence. The exchange field was estimated by several methods to be in the range $`h=515`$meV. These experimental determinations were, however, only sensitive to the average magnetization. In thin layers, it is reasonable to assume that the magnetic structure has multiple domains, inhomogeneous thickness (as already discussed before), and non-uniform Ni concentration. All these effects tend to suppress the measured values of the exchange field below the value, which results from the local Ni-doping level. We will therefore regard the experimental values of $`h`$ as lower bounds to the value used in our fits. In Fig. 4 we compare the data of Ref.  with our calculation. We have taken $`v_\text{F}=2\times 10^7\text{cm/s}`$ and $`h=29`$meV, and $`T=0.055`$. The agreement between the experimental data and our calculation is satisfactory. Both, the functional dependence and the sign change are correctly reproduced by our calculations.

In conclusion we have investigated theoretically the superconducting proximity effect in thin ferromagnetic layers in a quasi-ballistic model. We have found that the effect of the ferromagnet exchange field $`h`$ is to suppress the superconducting features in the density of states for $`dh/v_\text{F}T`$. At exchange fields larger than $`qv_\text{F}/d`$ the density of states oscillates around the normal state value as a function of $`dh/v_\text{F}`$ with a period of $`\pi /2`$ and an amplitude of the order of the interface transparency $`T`$. We have shown that the oscillation can lead to an inverted energy dependence of the density of states. This effect has been observed in the experiment of Ref. . We have achieved quantitative agreement between our theory and the experimental data.

We thank M. Aprili and T. Kontos for sharing their data with us prior to publication, which was the initiation of this work. W.B. was financially supported by the “Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM) and a Feodor Lynen Fellowship of the “Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung”. M.Z. gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Iranian Ministry of Science, Research and Technology and the TU Delft.


text:
# Microscopic Models of Two-Dimensional Magnets with Fractionalized Excitations

## I Introduction.

The advent of polyacetylene  and the fractional quantum Hall effect  showed that quantum number fractionalization is a robust possibility in condensed matter physics. The quantum numbers of the low-energy excitations of these systems are fractions of those of the microscopic degrees of freedom, the electrons. There are charge $`e`$, spin $`0`$ and charge $`0`$, spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ spin-charge separated excitations in polyacetylene and other $`1D`$ systems. The fractional quantum Hall state at filling fraction $`\nu =1/m`$ has charge $`e/m`$, statistics $`\pi /m`$ excitations; more exotic possibilities lurk at other $`\nu `$. Despite a flurry of interest generated by the suggestion  that spin-charge separation is the mechanism for high-temperature superconductivity in the cuprates, it is, at present, unclear whether spin-charge separation can occur in a $`2D`$ magnet. There is a set of long-wavelength field-theories  which describe the properties of putative fractionalized magnets, but their existence has been controversial for want of a concrete microscopic model of spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ moments coupled by short-ranged interactions in which fractionalization occurs. In this paper, we construct such a microscopic model of a $`2D`$ magnet. We find the exact ground state and neutral, spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ (spinon) and charge $`e`$, spinless (holon) excited eigenstates as well as a $`\text{Z}_2`$ vortex. The fractionalized excitations reflect the topological order  of the ground state which is evinced by its fourfold degeneracy on the torus  – a degeneracy which is unrelated to translational or rotational symmetry – and is described by a $`\text{Z}_2`$ gauge theory . Our construction implies that fractionalization is a reasonable possibility for magnets with short-ranged interactions. Our model is a member of a family of models, another of which is integrable and realizes the toric quantum error correction code . The models are related to the quantum dimer model  and lie at the confluence between superconductivity, topology, gauge theory, and fault-tolerant quantum computation.

Our purpose here is to show that such microscopic models do exist, at least in principle, so we construct a model with the aim that it be deep within a phase supporting fractionalized excitations, not that it be a realistic description of any particular physical system. (As we discuss below, Kitaev , in beautiful work, has constructed an exactly soluble model with many of the desired properties, but it does not have any conserved quantum numbers, so it is not ‘fractionalized’ in the sense of admitting fractional quantum numbers.) However, we insist that our model be expressed in terms of spin-$`1/2`$ electrons, so that it is truly microscopic. Consequently, our analysis differs in a number of key respects from earlier ones which dealt with models  which are not, strictly speaking, microscopic electronic models or else relied on various assumptions  in to order reduce the microscopic models to effective models which exhibit fractionalization. We avoid the need for such assumptions or modifications (however benign they may seem) by endowing our model with the following properties which distinguish it from other models which have been considered in this context: (1) Ising symmetry, (2) translational symmetry which is broken by hand, and (3) adiabatic continuability to an integrable model .

A real magnet will have many additional complications, but these are unimportant so long as it shares the key feature of our model, namely topological order. In pioneering work, Wen  observed that phases of matter in two dimensions with fractionalized excitations are not characterized by a local order parameter, in contrast to more familiar phases such as crystals. Rather, their universal properties are encapsulated by topological quantum numbers, such as their ground state degeneracy on a torus or higher genus surface, over and above any degeneracy which is due to broken symmetry. Degeneracy which is due to topological order persists in the presence of local perturbations such as impurities, which break translational and rotational symmetry. (This observation will prove important since it guides us to construct our model on lattices which penalize states which would break translational and rotational symmetry on a square lattice.) This is completely different from the two-fold degeneracy associated with an Ising antiferromagnet, which is removed by the application of a small symmetry-breaking field at even one point. Topological order is well-established theoretically in the fractional quantum Hall effect , where it is manifested by the existence of excitations with non-trivial braiding statistics .

Along with spinons and holons, a spin-charge separated state must have $`\text{Z}_2`$ vortices , which have been recently dubbed ‘visons’ . Topological order implies the existence of a gap in the vison spectrum. It is not necessary for all other excitations to be gapped (see, for instance, the construction of Ref. ). This is analogous to the situation in a conventional ordered state such as a superconductor, which can have gapless quasiparticles if, for instance, it has $`d`$-wave symmetry or impurities. They do not preclude a stable SC state so long as there is a gap to the creation of vortices. Similarly, in our topologically-ordered states the existence of a vison gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$, is necessary to guarantee the existence of distinct topological sectors of the Hilbert space on the torus, as we will describe below. We compute the vison gap and present evidence that the rest of the spectrum is gapped (though, we reiterate, this is not a major issue). The integrable model in the family is fully gapped.

The concept of topological order is very attractive theoretically because it is precise, but it is sobering to note that it has not been possible, to date, to directly measure most of the topological quantum numbers – such as the braiding statistics – of a fractional quantum Hall state. On the other hand, this very feature has generated considerable interest in the use of topologically-ordered states for quantum computation. The inaccessibility of topological degrees of freedom to local probes insulates them against many forms of decoherence, the bête noir of the quantum computation program.

This point was made by Kitaev  in a beautiful paper in which he constructed a concrete model exhibiting the requisite topological order and a fault-tolerant quantum error correcting code which could be implemented in it (see also Ref. ). The integrable model in our family is equivalent to Kitaev’s. For our purposes, the model of greater physical interest is the one which conserves $`S^z`$ and exhibits quantum number fractionalization, which is of intrinsic interest and might be relevant to high-temperature superconductivity . It could also prove useful for quantum computing since their spin and charge quantum numbers allows for the manipulation of spinons and holons. Harnessing the otherwise elusive visons also becomes a real possibility if the proposed experiment of Ref.  can be implemented. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the energy scale associated with topological order in a magnet is likely to be an exchange constant $`J1000K`$. Thus, a magnet with fractionalized excitations has many attractive features as a milieu for quantum computation (for another, see Ref.  and refs. therein).

## II The Model.

Our model has spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ degrees of freedom, $`𝐒_\alpha `$, living on the links of a lattice which we specify below. They are not gauge fields, but gauge-invariant, physical degrees of freedom which happen to be located on the links of the lattice (we return to this point later). The Hamiltonian is:

$$H_0=J_1\underset{i}{}g\left(S_i^z\right)J_2\underset{p}{}F_pP_p+J_3\underset{p}{}P_p$$
(1)
where $`S_i^z_{\alpha 𝒩(i)}S_\alpha ^z`$, and $`𝒩(i)`$ is the set of links emanating from site $`i`$. The definitions of $`F_p`$, $`P_p`$ are:

$`F_p{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha p}{}}S_\alpha ^x`$ (2)
$`P_pf\left(S_{\alpha _1}^z+S_{\alpha _2}^z\right)f\left(S_{\alpha _2}^z+S_{\alpha _3}^z\right)f\left(S_{\alpha _3}^z+S_{\alpha _4}^z\right)`$ (3)
where $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _4`$ are the links of plaquette $`p`$, enumerated clockwise. At a site with coordination number $`z`$, $`g(x)=(2x+z2)^2/4`$. $`f(x)=1x^2`$. This model is closely related to the quantum dimer model  (please see below).

The operator $`g\left(S_i^z\right)`$ annihilates states (and only those states) which have $`S_i^z=1`$, i.e. which have one and only one neighboring spin. The operator $`F_p`$ ‘flips’ plaquette $`p`$ by flipping the four spins around it; an example of such flip is shown in Fig. 1. The operator $`P_p`$ is a projection operator which annihilates all states except those in which up- and down-spins alternate around $`p`$ – see Fig. 2. Plaquettes are assumed to have four sides. however, they can be put together irregularly or can overlap, as the parallelogram-shaped plaquettes of the triangular lattice do.

We will take $`J_1,J_2,J_3>0`$.

## III The Lattice.

Some care is required in the choice of lattice. As we will see below, the model (1) is tractable at $`J_2=J_3`$. We would like to choose a lattice so that the ground state exhibits the key feature from which all of the interesting physics follows: fourfold ground state degeneracy on the torus even in the presence of local translational-symmetry-breaking fields.

This can be accomplished if (1) the lattice does not allow accidental symmetries which will increase the ground state degeneracy, a requirement which can usually be satisfied by taking a non-bipartite lattice and (2) the lattice has a unit cell which includes several plaquettes, so as to frustrate states in which the up-spins form an ordered crystal (i.e. a spin-density-wave). There are many possible lattices which satisfy these requirements. Our basic strategy for constructing these lattices is to take a Bravais lattice and introduce a periodic array of ‘defects’. These defects pin a spin-density-wave state and make it non-degenerate, but they do not affect the fourfold degeneracy of the topologically-ordered state. We arrange these defects with a spacing which is incommensurate with the likely spin-density-wave states so that these states are frustrated and lifted in energy. Certain types of defects will also make it easier to satisfy (1).

We will give two examples, $`T^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$. $`T^{}`$ is based on the triangular lattice (which, without defects, was exploited in this context by Moessner and Sondhi , see below); the defects are missing sites, as depicted in Fig. 3. Even a single such missing site frustrates the staggered state – a special type of crystalline state with no “flippable” plaquettes – as depicted in Fig. 3. (A “flippable” plaquette is a plaquette which is not annihilated by $`P_p`$ – see Fig. 2. It has alternating up- and down-spins whose direction can be reversed by application of $`F_pP_pS_{\alpha _1}^+S_{\alpha _2}^{}S_{\alpha _3}^+S_{\alpha _4}^{}+\text{h.c.}`$. Left to its own devices, $`F_p`$ will flip any plaquette, even the ones which are not ‘flippable’; $`P_p`$ prevents this. On the triangular lattice, a plaquette is any primitive parallelogram.). In $`T^{}`$, an array of sites is missing, so that the lattice is given by

$$\left\{𝐑\right|𝐑=n_1(a\widehat{𝐱})+n_2\left(\frac{a}{2}\widehat{𝐱}+\frac{\sqrt{3}a}{2}\widehat{𝐲}\right);n_1,n_20\text{mod}k\}$$
(4)
where $`k`$ is an arbitrary integer (this is just one such example, many other $`T^{}`$-type lattices can be constructed along these lines). Another possibility, $`S^{}`$, is the square lattice in which some of the plaquettes are split in two, as in Fig. 4 . This must be done so as to split some plaquettes horizontally and others vertically, in order to frustrate staggered states aligned in both directions. These split plaquettes may be viewed as elementary dislocations in a perfect square lattice and thus they serve to model “real-life” defects.

## IV Ground States and Topological Order.

The first term in (1) requires each site to have one and only one neighboring up-spin, so that $`S_i^z=1`$, in which case it vanishes. On the square lattice, this leads to a magnetic moment which is half that of a fully polarized state. In our model, this magnetic moment does not result from spontaneous ordering; the magnetization is actually fixed at a non-zero value. However, it is possible to have a system which will spontaneously undergo an Ising-like transition into such phase . We will call a state with both spin-charge separation and ferromagnetism $`F^{}`$, following the nomenclature of Ref. . The coexistence of conventional long-range order and quantum number fractionalization is familiar in $`1D`$ and $`2D`$: in polyacetylene, fractionalization coexists with CDW order; in easy-axis magnetic chains, with antiferromagnetism; at the $`\nu =1/3`$ quantum Hall plateau, charge $`e/3`$ quasiparticles can form a crystal and the topological order (and quantum Hall effect) will not be disrupted.

The ground state of this model on $`T^{}`$ or $`S^{}`$ can be found exactly for $`J_2=J_3`$. Every plaquette costs zero energy, so long as all flippable plaquettes are taken in the linear combination $`|\psi +F_p|\psi `$ . Since every spin configuration is obtainable from every other one by the repeated application of $`F_pP_p`$ , the ground state is the superposition with equal amplitudes of all possible configurations of spins satisfying $`S_i^z=1`$. The ground state is annihilated by $`H_0`$.

Let us consider the crystalline states which compete with the topologically-ordered state. On the square and triangular lattices , the staggered state state does not mix with other states under $`F_pP_p`$ since it is annihilated by this operator. It is a zero-energy ground state which is degenerate with the topologically ordered state. These two distinct ground states, have become degenerate at the first-order phase transition point $`J_2=J_3`$.

Fortunately, this is not the case on our lattices, as we now demonstrate. The staggered state has finite energy density at $`J_2=J_3`$ on $`T^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$ since it is frustrated on these lattices. On $`T^{}`$, there is no perfect staggered state. Consider a single defect (missing site). It is clearly impossible to have a perfect staggered state in the presence of the defect. The closest that we can come to a perfect staggered state (a which we will call a maximally staggered state) is either (a) a state which has a string of flippable plaquettes originating at the defect and extending to infinity or (b) a state with one vertex which is frustrated by having $`S_i^z=2`$. If we take $`J_1\mathrm{}`$, then only (a) is possible. When we introduce an array of defects, the strings of flippable plaquettes will originate at one defect and terminate at another. Under the action of $`F_p`$, this state will mix with all of the others. Hence, a maximally staggered state will have energy density proportional to $`\sqrt{\rho }J_2`$ in this limit (where $`\rho `$ is the defect density). However, for $`J_2\mathrm{}`$, only (b) is possible and the energy density of the maximally staggered state is proportional to $`\rho J_1`$. More generally, for $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ finite, the energy density of the maximally staggered state will be $`\rho J_1/2`$ for small defect density $`\rho `$ and will be proportional to $`\sqrt{\rho }J_2`$ at large $`\rho `$. One might wonder whether there is some other crystalline state (e.g. one with a large unit cell) which has zero energy. However, if such a state contains ‘flippable’ plaquettes, it will mix under the action of $`F_p`$ with all of the other states with flippable plaquettes . Hence, such a state will cost finite energy.

We can repeat the above analysis for $`S^{}`$. On $`S^{}`$, we can frustrate one plaquette for each defect, with energy density $`\rho J_2`$. On the perfect square lattice, the $`F^{}`$ ground state is not fourfold degenerate. It is critical , and unstable to a columnar state as $`J_3`$ is decreased . This is not the case on $`T^{}`$ or $`S^{}`$, so we do not need to worry about the columnar state, either.

The ground state may be visualized in the following way. Consider some reference configuration of spins which is annihilated by the first term of equation (1) and color all of the links which have up-spins. Now take any other configuration which is also annihilated by the first term of equation (1) and do the same. By placing one graph on top of the other, and erasing all links at which both graphs coincide, we obtain a collection of loops on the lattice. If we visualize states in terms of their associated loop graphs, then the ground state is given by a superposition of different loop configurations.

Since $`H_0`$ conserves modulo $`2`$ the winding numbers of these loops about either of the generators of the torus, there are $`4`$ degenerate ground states on the torus, $`\psi _{(n_1,n_2)}`$, $`n_1,n_2=0,1`$, with $`0,1`$ corresponding to even or odd winding numbers. By straightforward extension, the degeneracy on a genus $`g`$ surface is $`4^g`$. Although we have computed this degeneracy only at the special coupling constant value $`J_2=J_3`$, we believe that it is robust over some range of parameters because it is characterized by an integer, $`4`$. This integer cannot change as a result of infinitesimal perturbations, but only as a result of a perturbation which is sufficiently strong that it moves the system across a phase transition at which this integer changes discontinuously.

On the perfect square lattice, the directed winding number (not merely the winding number modulo $`2`$) is conserved because the lattice is bipartite. As a result, there are $`L\times L`$ sectors. $`S^{}`$ is not bipartite, so it has only 4 topologically-distinct ground states.

## V Spinons and Holons.

The fourfold ground state degeneracy implies the existence of fractionalized excitations, so long as it is unrelated to translational and rotational symmetry, a condition which is satisfied as a result of our choice of lattice. To see this, imagine cutting open the torus along its second generator, thereby producing an annulus. The ground state $`\psi _{(0,0)}`$ has non-zero projection on the ground state of the annulus because it will have some amplitude to have zero loops encircling the torus. $`\psi _{(1,0)}`$ does not, but it does have finite projection on a finite-energy excited state of the annulus because it must have at least one loop circuiting the torus and it must have some amplitude to have only one. This finite-energy excitation has, by construction, a spinon at the inner and outer edges of the annulus, as in Laughlin’s construction of charge $`e/3`$ quasiparticles in the fractional quantum Hall effect . The inner edge of the annulus can be shrunk and filled in since our discussion depends only on the topology, but not the geometry of the lattice. This construction can be done on a torus of any size, so the spinon at the boundary can be taken arbitrarily far away from the one in the interior with finite energy cost.

This general argument can be substantiated in our model by a direct construction of spinon and holon excitations. Two spinons may be created by flipping a single up-spin into a down-spin. This changes $`S^z`$ by $`1`$ and creates $`2`$ sites with $`S_i^z=2`$. These sites can be moved apart; each one carries $`S^z=\frac{1}{2}`$ and costs energy $`J_1`$. A holon may be constructed by simply removing a spin from one of these spinon sites. This removes charge $`e`$ and spin $`S^z=\frac{1}{2}`$ from a neutral $`S^z=\frac{1}{2}`$ excitation, thereby producing a spinless charge $`e`$ excitation. There will now be a site with $`S_i^z=\frac{3}{2}`$, so the holon costs energy $`J_1/4`$. In the loop picture, spinons and holons reside at the endpoints of broken loops.

## VI Visons.

Consider now the operator

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p\underset{\alpha c_p}{}2S_\alpha ^z$$
(5)
where $`c_p`$ is any curve which starts at the center of plaquette $`p`$, connects it to the center of a neighboring plaquette $`p^{}`$, and continues in this manner through the centers of a sequence of neighboring plaquettes, running to infinity (or the boundary of the system). The product in equation (5) is over all links $`\alpha `$ which intersect $`c_p`$. Under the action of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$, each loop configuration receives a $`1`$ if $`c_p`$ has an odd number of intersections with colored links and $`1`$ if it has an even number of intersections with colored links. When a holon or spinon follows a trajectory encircling $`p`$, the intersection number must change by one, so $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ creates a $`\text{Z}_2`$ vortex, or ‘vison’ , at plaquette $`p`$.

The statistics of holons and spinons depend on the energetics of the model: by binding to a vison, they can switch their statistics between bosonic and fermionic . Our Hamiltonian does not allow holons or spinons to move: they are infinitely heavy. However, a small perturbation will allow them to move and will give rise to the energetics which determines whether they bind with visons and, thereby, their statistics.

The fourfold degeneracy of the ground state – or, in other words, the topological order – guarantees the existence of a vison energy gap. To see this, consider the degenerate states $`\psi _{(0,0)}\pm \psi _{(1,0)}`$ on the torus. Now imagine creating a vison pair at plaquette $`p`$, taking one vison around the second generator of the torus, and annihilating the pair at $`p`$. This is equivalent to acting on our state with an operator similar to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$, but with the curve $`c_p`$ in equation (5) replaced by a closed curve which passes through $`p`$ and encircles the torus along its second generator. This operator exchanges $`\psi _{(0,0)}\pm \psi _{(1,0)}`$. The amplitude for such a process is essentially the exponential of the Euclidean action required for such a virtual process to occur, $`e^{cL\mathrm{\Delta }_v}`$ where $`L`$ is the length of the loop around the torus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ is the vison gap, and $`c`$ is a constant. Hence, the energy splitting between states $`\psi _{(0,0)}`$ and $`\psi _{(1,0)}`$ is $`e^{cL\mathrm{\Delta }_v}`$. Since we know that this splitting vanishes in the thermodynamic limit, the vison gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ must be finite.

This conclusion is supported by a direct calculation. The creation of a vison at $`p`$ takes the state $`|\psi +F_p|\psi `$ into $`|\psi F_p|\psi `$, with an energy cost $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$. Since the vison creation operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ commutes with all of the terms in equation (1) except for the $`J_2`$ term at plaquette $`p`$, with which it anticommutes, a state with one vison, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$, has excitation energy:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p\left|H\right|\mathrm{\Phi }_p=2J_20|P_p|0$$
(6)
Hence, the vison gap is equal to $`2J_2`$ multiplied by the density of flippable plaquettes. This may be computed at $`J_2=J_3`$ by the Grassmann techniques discussed below. In an integrable model which we discuss below, exact vison eigenstates and energy eigenvalues may be found.

From equation (6), we see that the vison gap will be non-vanishing whenever $`0|F_pP_p|00`$, i.e. whenever the spins fluctuate in the ground state, as they generically do in our model, even outside the topologically ordered phase. However, this is not particularly consequential. Consider the analogous situation in a superfluid: it is possible to define a vortex energy above the transition (e.g. the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition) which varies smoothly across the transition. However, this energy is only meaningful in the superfluid state (or, perhaps, near it). Similarly, the vison gap becomes meaningful in the topologically ordered phase. Outside this phase, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ is merely an operator which creates some complicated gapped excitation.

A vison gap is necessary for topological order; a gap in the rest of the spectrum is not. However, the equal-time spin-spin correlation function in the ground state is exponentially decaying, as may be seen from an exact mapping between the ground state of our model and the field theory of free lattice fermions , according to which it is a square root of the eight-fermion correlator. This decays exponentially with distance since these fermions, though massless on a regular square lattice, acquire mass in the presence of lattice distortions such as that shown in Fig. 4 (the details of this calculation will be published elsewhere). Hence, it is natural to conclude that there is an energy gap to all excited states; this may be argued via the single-mode approximation. This computation has been carried out on the triangular lattice by Moessner and Sondhi , who found that the single-mode approximation suggests that the system is indeed gapped.

## VII A Family of Models.

We can gain further insight into the spectrum of our model by generalizing it to the following family of models:

$`H=H_0`$ $`+`$ $`J_1^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}y\left(S_i^z\right)`$ (7)
$``$ $`J_2^{}{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\left[F_p\left(1P_p\right)\left(1P_p\right)\right]`$ (8)
where $`y(x)=\frac{2}{3}x\left(x^24\right)(x+1)`$ (for $`z=4`$) and $`J_2=J_3`$ in $`H_0`$. As $`J_1^{},J_2^{}`$ are increased, two things occur: loop crossings are allowed  and plaquette flips of ‘unflippable’ plaquettes are allowed. The topological order is preserved because the winding number modulo $`2`$ is conserved. In the extreme limit $`J_1^{}=J_1`$, $`J_2^{}=J_2`$, there are eight equally likely configurations at each site (corresponding to those of the eight-vertex model) and the model is now integrable because $`[g\left(S_i^z\right)+y\left(S_i^z\right)]`$ and $`F_p`$ commute among themselves and, hence, with the Hamiltonian, for all $`i`$, $`p`$. Hence, we can simultaneously diagonalize all of these operators. They have eigenvalues $`0`$ and $`1`$, respectively, in the ground state; a $`g\left(S_i^z\right)+y\left(S_i^z\right)=1`$ eigenvalue is a quasiparticle excitation at $`i`$ and $`F_p=1`$ is a vison at $`p`$. This model is equivalent to Kitaev’s . The ground state of this integrable model has the same topological order (fourfold degeneracy) as that of (1), but its quasiparticle excitations do not carry spin since it is not conserved. Since there is no projection operator $`P_p`$ in $`H`$, the vison energy is exactly $`2J_2`$. Crystalline states have energy $`J_2/2`$ per plaquette above the ground state.

## VIII Field Theoretic Description.

The configurations allowed in the ground state of the integrable model are described by closed loops – in other words, by the configurations of the Ising model on the dual lattice (equivalent to the eight-vertex model). The dynamics of the plaquette flip operator is the same as that of a transverse field in the Ising model. Hence, the integrable model is equivalent at low energies to the transverse field Ising model which, in turn, is dual to a $`\text{Z}_2`$ gauge theory. Since the topological order associated with $`H_0`$ is the same as that of the integrable model, it, too, is described by a $`\text{Z}_2`$ gauge theory , as proposed in refs .

Note that $`S_i^z`$ is conserved for all $`i`$ in our model (1). Hence, there is an independent $`\text{U}(1)`$ symmetry at each site of the lattice. However, only time-independent transformations leave the Lagrangian invariant. Hence, this is an ordinary (but large) symmetry group; it is not a gauge symmetry, which must allow time-dependent transformations. All of the degrees of freedom in (1) are physical. This is similar to the symmetry of a set of noninteracting spins in a magnetic field, $`H=_i𝐁𝐒_i`$, which also has an independent $`\text{U}(1)`$ at each site of the lattice.

## IX Quantum Dimer Models.

Our model (1) can be mapped to the quantum dimer model , in which it is assumed that that there are spins located at the sites of a lattice and that each spin forms a singlet dimer with one of its nearest neighbors. In (1), an up-spin link corresponds to a dimer; a down-spin link to the absence of a dimer; spinons, to empty sites (which are holons in the dimer model). Then the first term in equation (1) requires each spin to form a dimer with exactly one of its neighbors. The $`J_2`$ and $`J_3`$ terms are precisely the dimer kinetic and potential energies of Ref. . Our $`F^{}`$ state of (1) is simply the resonating valence bond (RVB)  ground state of the quantum dimer model on the same lattice. Recently, Moessner and Sondhi  gave compelling evidence that the triangular lattice quantum dimer model has an RVB ground state over a substantial range of parameters terminating at a first-order phase transition at $`J_2=J_3`$ into the staggered state. According to our arguments, the RVB state is the unique, exact ground state at $`J_2=J_3`$ on $`T^{}`$.

## X $`\text{SU}(2)`$ symmetric models.

There is no reason to believe that an $`\text{SU}(2)`$ symmetric magnet cannot be topologically-ordered. If we wish to apply the preceding results, then the quantum dimer model can be the starting point for the discussion of an $`\text{SU}(2)`$ symmetric topologically-ordered magnet . There is some numerical evidence  that a model of spins on the triangular lattice with strong four-spin exchanges – reminiscent of the plaquette flip operator – has a topologically-ordered ground state with fourfold degeneracy.

## XI Summary.

We have demonstrated that quantum number fractionalization and topological order are an eminently reasonable possibility for two-dimensional magnets by constructing a microscopic model which exhibits these phenomena. Our result links two problems of great interest: quantum number fractionalization in $`2D`$ quantum magnets and the investigation of physical systems which are suitable platforms for fault-tolerant quantum computation (this link was also noted in Ref. ). A possible nexus with ideas about superconductivity – either in the cuprates or elsewhere – leads to potentially fruitful avenues for further research in both areas.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to express our gratitude to S. Chakravarty, L. Chayes, M. Freedman, A. Kitaev, R. B. Laughlin, R. Shankar, R. Rajaraman, T. Senthil, and, especially, S. Kivelson for valuable conversations. C.N. and K.S. are both supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-9983544. C.N. is also supported by the A. P. Sloan Foundation.


text:
# Pinning of the domain walls of the cluster spin-glass phase in LTT La2-xBaxCuO4

## I Captions to figures

Fig. 1 Elastic energy loss coefficient of LSCO and LBCO at doping $`x=0.03`$ and 0.06, measured at $`1.5`$ kHz.

Fig. 2 Relative variation of the Young’s modulus of the samples of Fig. 1. The rise of the modulus below 40 K in LBCO $`x=0.06`$ is attributed to the formation of LTT phase.

Fig. 3 Comparison between the absorption and real part of the dynamic Young’s modulus of LSCO (1.7 kHz) and LBCO (1.2 kHz) at $`x=0.03`$ in the region of the freezing into the CSG state. The curves of LSCO have been multiplied by 1.45.

Fig. 4 Intensity $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the elastic energy loss contribution of the domain walls in the CSG state as a function of doping for LSCO and LBCO; the datum at $`x=0.025`$ is from Ref. . The continuous lines are obtained from the expression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x\right)`$ discussed in the text. The data and the curves are normalized at $`x=0.03`$.


text:
# References

Ion $`H_2^+`$ is the simplest one-electron molecular system, which is more stable than hydrogen atom. It appears to be one of the most studied problems in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. In particular, the wealth of physical phenomena displayed by this system when placed into a magnetic field becomes of a great importance in astrophysics, solid state and plasma physics. For instance, as the magnetic field grows the system becomes more and more strongly bound and compact. Such a behavior leads naturally to a guess that in spite of the huge temperatures on neutron star surfaces their atmosphere can still contain molecular objects . On the other hand, a shrinking of the equilibrium distance between protons with the growth of magnetic field, increases drastically the probability of nuclear fusion . It is quite surprising that such a shrinking is also accompanied by a change from ionic to covalent character at $`510^{11}G`$  (see also ). The goal of this Letter is two-fold. Firstly, to show that the system $`(ppe)`$ has always a minimum and correspondingly the molecular ion $`H_2^+`$ can exist for magnetic fields $`4.41410^{13}G`$. Secondly, to demonstrate that for $`B5\times 10^{11}G`$ and for some orientations of the molecular axis the ion becomes unstable dissociating to $`H\text{-atom}+p`$. The variational method is used to study this problem.

The Hamiltonian which describes the $`H_2^+`$ molecular ion placed in a uniform constant magnetic field directed along the $`z`$axis, $`=(0,0,B)`$ (see, for example, ) is given by

$$=\widehat{p}^2+\frac{2}{R}\frac{2}{r_1}\frac{2}{r_2}+(\widehat{p}𝒜)+𝒜^2,$$
(1)
(see Fig.1), where $`\widehat{p}=i`$ is the momentum. $`𝒜`$ is a vector potential, which corresponds to the magnetic field $``$.

The vector potential for given magnetic field is defined ambiguously, up to a gauge factor. Thus, the Hamiltonian is gauge-dependent but not the observables. Since we are going to use an approximate method for solving (1) our energies can be gauge-dependent (only the exact ones would be gauge-independent). Hence one can choose the form of the vector potential in an optimal way. Let us consider a certain one-parameter family of vector potentials corresponding to the constant magnetic field $`B`$ (see for example )

$$𝒜=B((1\xi )y,\xi x,0),$$
(2)
where $`\xi `$ is the parameter to be fixed in a certain optimal way. If $`\xi =1/2`$ we get a gauge called symmetric or circular, while $`\xi =0`$ corresponds to an asymmetric gauge (see ). By substituting (2) into (1) we arrive at the Hamiltonian

$$=^2+\frac{2}{R}\frac{2}{r_1}\frac{2}{r_2}+iB[(1\xi )y_x+\xi x_y]+B^2[\xi ^2x^2+(1\xi )^2y^2].$$
(3)
The idea of choosing an optimal gauge has widely been exploited in quantum field theoretical considerations. It has also been discussed in connection with the problem at hand (see for instance  and references therein). Perhaps, the first constructive (and remarkable) attempt to apply this idea was made by Larsen . In his study of the ground state it was explicitly shown that gauge dependence of energy can be quite significant and even an oversimplified optimization procedure improves the numerical results.

Our aim is to study the ground state of (3). It is not difficult to see that there exists a certain gauge for which Hamiltonian (3) has a real ground state eigenfunction. This gauge will be here sought after and correspondingly deal with real trial functions in our variational calculations. In this case one can prove that the expectation value of the term $`B`$ in (3) vanishes when it is taken over any real normalizable function. So, without loss of generality we can omit this term in the Hamiltonian. Finally, the recipe of our variational study can be formulated as follows: *Construct an adequate variational real trial function , which reproduces the original potential near Coulomb singularities and at large distances, where $`\xi `$ should be included as a parameter. Perform a minimization of the energy functional by treating the trial function’s free parameters and $`\xi `$ on the same footing.* In particular, such an approach enables one to eventually find the *optimal* form of the Hamiltonian. The above recipe was successfully applied in a previous study of $`H_2^+`$ in magnetic field  and led to predict the existence of the exotic ion $`H_3^{++}`$ at $`B10^{11}G`$ .

One of the simplest trial functions satisfying the above-mentioned criterion is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1=e^{\alpha _1(r_1+r_2)B[\beta _{1x}\xi x^2+\beta _{1y}(1\xi )y^2]},$$
(4)
(cf. ) where $`\alpha _1,\beta _{1x,1y}`$ are variational parameters. We here assume that $`\xi [0,1]`$ which is a restriction that will later be justified. Actually, this is a Heitler-London function multiplied by the lowest Landau orbital associated with the gauge (2). Presumably this function describes internuclear distances near the equilibrium and a covalent character. Another possible trial function is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\left(e^{\alpha _2r_1}+e^{\alpha _2r_2}\right)e^{B[\beta _{2x}\xi x^2+\beta _{2y}(1\xi )y^2]},$$
(5)
(cf. ) where $`\alpha _2,\beta _{2x,2y}`$ are variational parameters. This is a Hund-Mulliken function multiplied by the lowest Landau orbital. One can assume that for a sufficiently large internuclear distance $`R`$ this function dominates, thus giving an essential contribution in this regime. Hence, it describes an interaction of a hydrogen atom and a proton (charged center), and can also describe a possible decay mode of $`H_2^+`$ onto them. There are two natural ways$``$linear and non-linear$``$to incorporate the behavior of the system both near equilibrium and at long distances in a single trial function. The non-linear interpolation is of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{31}=\left(e^{\alpha _3r_1\alpha _4r_2}+e^{\alpha _3r_2\alpha _4r_1}\right)e^{B[\beta _{3x}\xi x^2+\beta _{3y}(1\xi )y^2]},$$
(6)
(cf. ) where $`\alpha _{3,4},\beta _{3x,3y}`$ are variational parameters. This is a Guillemin-Zener function multiplied by the lowest Landau orbital. The linear superposition is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{32}=A_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1+A_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2,$$
(7)
where one of the parameters $`A_{1,2}`$ is kept fixed. The final form of the trial function is a linear superposition of functions (6) and (7)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{trial}=A_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1+A_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2+A_{31}\mathrm{\Psi }_{31},$$
(8)
where only two out of the three parameters $`A`$’s are variationally treated. The total number of variational parameters in (8) is fourteen when $`\xi `$ is included.

It is easy to prove a general statement that if a system possesses axial rotational symmetry (in our case it appears if the molecular axis coincides with the magnetic line, $`\theta =0^o`$, see Fig. 1), the optimal gauge corresponds to $`\xi =1/2`$ (symmetric or circular gauge). It is precisely the gauge which was used in most of previously performed $`H_2^+`$-studies. However, this is not the case if $`\theta 0^o`$. As an example one can see in Fig. 2 the behavior of $`\xi `$ as a function of $`\theta `$ at $`B=10^{12}G`$. It is typical behavior for all studied magnetic fields both weak and strong, up to the non-relativistic limit, $`B=4.414\times 10^{13}G`$. It justifies our above assumption with regard to the domain of gauge parameter, $`\xi [0,1]`$.

We carried out extensive studies of the ground state $`1\sigma _g`$ of $`H_2^+`$ for magnetic fields $`B=04.414\times 10^{13}G`$ and orientations ranging from $`0^o`$ (parallel configuration) to $`90^o`$ (perpendicular configuration). They turned out to be more accurate than any available results yet obtained except for a domain of small magnetic fields for the perpendicular configuration, where the results by Wille  appear to be slightly better 111These results were obtained using a basis set expansion including up to approximately 500 terms depending on the value of magnetic field.. The detailed numerical analysis and comparison with available calculations will be published elsewhere.

As previously obtained by other authors  we confirm quantitatively a natural expectation that the parallel configuration is the most stable for all magnetic fields $`B4.414\times 10^{13}G`$, where non-relativisitic considerations are valid. The total energy of the molecular ion $`H_2^+`$ as a function of angle $`\theta `$ for different magnetic fields, is shown in Fig. 3. For any magnetic field in the region $`B=04.414\times 10^{13}G`$ and any orientation a well-pronounced minimum in the total energy is attained at finite internuclear distances. This is in contradiction with a statement by Khersonsky  about the non-existence of a minimum for some values of the magnetic field and orientation. Perhaps, it it worth to emphasize that in that article the variational study was carried out using a trial function which is almost coincident with that of eq.(5). We can thus presume that the above statement is an artifact arising from insufficient accuracy of calculations. The horizontal line in Fig. 3 presents the hydrogen atom total energy in the magnetic field (see ). For magnetic fields $`B>1.8\times 10^{11}G`$ the total energy of the atom becomes lower than that of $`H_2^+`$ for angles larger than some critical angle, $`\theta _{cr}`$. It points to the possible dissociation channel $`H_2^+H\text{-atom}+p`$. The dependence of the critical angle $`\theta _{cr}`$ on the magnetic field is shown in Fig. 4. It is quite striking that dissociation occurs for a wider and wider range of orientations as the magnetic field grows reaching $`25^o\theta 90^o`$ for $`B=4.414\times 10^{13}G`$.

Acknowledgments

This article is dedicated to the memory of B.B. Kadomtsev.

A.T. wishes to thank K.G. Boreskov (ITEP, Moscow) and B.I. Ivlev (IF-UASLP, Mexico) for useful discussions. A.T. wants to express a gratitude to LPTHE (Orsay) for hospitality extended to him where this work was finished.

This work was supported in part by DGAPA Grant # IN120199 (México).


text:
# Possible Observation of a Second Kind of Light

## Abstract

According to classical electrodynamics, sunlight that is passed through an iron layer can be detected with the naked eye only if the thickness of the layer is less than 170nm. However, in an old experiment, August Kundt was able to see the sunlight with the naked eye even when it had passed an iron layer with thickness greater than 200nm. To explain this observation, we propose a second kind of light which was introduced in a different context by Abdus Salam. A tabletop experiment can verify this possibility.

August Kundt  passed sunlight through red glass, a polarizing Nicol, and platinized glass which was covered by an iron layer. The entire experimental setup was placed within a magnetic field. With the naked eye, Kundt measured the Faraday rotation of the polarization plane generated by the transmission of the sunlight through the iron layer. His result was a constant maximum rotation of the polarization plane per length of $`418,000^{}`$/cm or $`1^{}`$ per 23.9nm. He verified this result until thicknesses of up to 210nm and rotations of up to $`9^{}`$.

In one case, on a very clear day, he observed the penetrating sunlight for rotations of up to $`12^{}`$. Unfortunately, he has not given the thickness of this particular iron layer he used. But if his result of a constant maximum rotation per length can be applied, then the corresponding layer thickness was $`290`$nm.

Let us recapitulate some classical electrodynamics to determine the behavior of light within iron. The penetration depth of light in a conductor is

$$\delta =\frac{\lambda }{2\pi \gamma },$$
(1)
where the wavelength in vacuum can be expressed by its frequency according to $`\lambda =1/\sqrt{\nu ^2\epsilon _0\mu _0}`$. The extinction coefficient is

$$\gamma =\frac{n}{\sqrt{2}}\left[1+\left(1+\left(\frac{\sigma }{2\pi \nu \epsilon _0\epsilon _r}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/2},$$
(2)
where the refractive index is $`n=\sqrt{\epsilon _r\mu _r}`$. For metals we get the very good approximation

$$\delta \left(\frac{1}{\pi \mu _0\mu _r\sigma \nu }\right)^{1/2}.$$
(3)
The specific resistance of iron is

$$1/\sigma =8.7\times 10^8\mathrm{\Omega }\text{m},$$
(4)
its permeability is $`\mu _r1`$. For red light of $`\lambda =630`$nm and $`\nu =4.8\times 10^{14}`$Hz we get the penetration depth

$$\delta =6.9\text{nm}.$$
(5)
Only a small fraction of the sunlight can enter the iron layer. Three effects have to be considered. (i) The red glass allows the penetration of about $`\epsilon _150\%`$ of the sunlight only. (ii) Only $`\epsilon _2=2/\pi 64\%`$ of the sunlight can penetrate the polarization filter. (iii) Reflection losses at the surface of the iron layer have to be considered. The refractive index for electric photon light is given by

$$\overline{n}^2=\frac{n^2}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\sigma }{2\pi \epsilon _0\epsilon _r\nu }\right)^2}\right).$$
(6)
For metals we get the very good approximation

$$\overline{n}\sqrt{\frac{\mu _r\sigma }{4\pi \epsilon _0\nu }}.$$
(7)
The fraction of the sunlight which is not reflected is

$$\epsilon _3=\frac{2}{1+\overline{n}}=\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{\mu _r\sigma /(4\pi \epsilon _0\nu )}}$$
(8)
and therefore $`\epsilon _30.13`$ for the system considered. Taken together, the three effects allow only $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2\epsilon _34\%`$ of the sunlight to enter the iron layer.

The detection limit of the naked eye is $`10^{13}`$ times the brightness of sunlight provided the light source is pointlike. For an extended source the detection limit depends on the integral and the surface brightness. The detection limit for a source as extended as the Sun (0.5 diameter) is $`l_d10^{12}`$ times the brightness of sunlight. If sunlight is passed through an iron layer (or foil, respectively), then it is detectable with the naked eye only if it has passed not more than

$$(\mathrm{ln}(1/l_d)+\mathrm{ln}(\epsilon _1\epsilon _2\epsilon _3))\delta 170\text{nm}.$$
(9)
Reflection losses by haze in the atmosphere further reduce this value.

Kundt’s observation can hardly be explained with classical electrodynamics. Air bubbles within the metal layers cannot explain Kundt’s observation, because air does not generate such a large rotation. Impurities, such as glass, which do generate an additional rotation, cannot completely be ruled out as the explanation. However, impurities are not a likely explanation, because Kundt was able to reproduce his observation by using several layers which he examined at various places.

Quantum effects cannot explain the observation, because they decrease the penetration depth, whereas an increment would be required.

The observation may become understandable if Kundt has observed a second kind of electromagnetic radiation, the magnetic photon rays. They are predicted by a quantum field theoretical model of the electromagnetic interaction which includes Dirac magnetic monopoles . This model can be constructed in a manifestly covariant and symmetrical way if the two potential concept  is used. One potential corresponds to the electric Einstein photon , the other one to the magnetic Salam photon . A few years ago, I predicted the interaction cross-section of the magnetic photon to be $`f=1.5\times 10^6`$ times that of an electric photon of the same energy . Each process which produces electric photons is expected to create also magnetic photons which are $`1/f=7\times 10^5`$ times harder to create, to shield, and to absorb than electric photons. Hence, the penetration depth of magnetic photon light of $`\lambda =630`$nm in iron is $`\delta /f5`$mm.

To learn whether Kundt has indeed observed magnetic photon rays, his experiment has to be repeated.

The easiest test to verify/falsify the magnetic photon is to illuminate a metal foil of thickness $`1,\mathrm{},100\mu `$m by a laser beam (or any other bright light source) and to place a detector (charge coupled device or photomultiplier tube) behind the foil. If a single foil is used, then the expected reflection losses are less than 30%. If a laser beam of the visible light is used, then the absorption losses are less than 15%. My model  has to be considered as falsified if the detected intensity is less than $`1.0\times 10^{12}`$ times the intensity that would be detected if the metal foil were removed and the laser beam would directly illuminate the detector.