text:
# Multisoliton complexes in a sea of radiation modes

## I Introduction

The multi-soliton complex (MSC) is a new concept of modern nonlinear science . If we think of solitons as elementary particles, then we can imagine multi-soliton complexes (MSCs) as combinations of elementary particles such as atoms. In most cases an atom is an isolated particle, but it can demonstrate more complicated behavior. Mathematically speaking, a multi-soliton complex is a self-localized state which is a nonlinear superposition of several fundamental solitons. As it is a composite structure, we can expect it to behave in a more complicated way than a single fundamental soliton. At the same time, an MSC can behave as a single particle unless there is a substantial external perturbation which causes it to split into its primary constituents.

There are various phenomena in nonlinear physics which can be treated as MSCs, some of which are listed in Ref. . Here, we are mainly interested in optical applications. In fiber optics, an MSC is a single short pulse formed by a nonlinear superposition of fundamental solitons trapped in a common potential well, so that all of them have the same velocity . The nonlinear superposition can be either coherent or incoherent, in the sense that the phases of the separate solitons in the bunch can be either related or independent. The solitons in the group may be bound together, or at least may stay close to each other, simply because they have the same initial speed. The latter happens in the case of integrable systems.

Incoherent solitons in space  have recently attracted considerable attention , especially after the first experimental demonstration of their existence . Incoherent self-trapping in a biased photorefractive crystal is usually well-described by a set of $`M`$ coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations (NLSEs) with saturable nonlinearities . Moreover, in photorefractive media with a drift mechanism of nonlinear response, the Kerr-like nonlinearity is a good model . In the latter case, the equations become integrable, and this allows us to obtain solutions analytically. Moreover, the solution can be considered as a nonlinear superposition of a certain number of fundamental solitons and radiative waves. This fact allows a simple qualitative approach to the problem, in addition to having an exact solution.

The number of solitons in a complex depends on the nature of physical system, as well as on the initial conditions. Mathematically speaking, we will talk about $`N`$ fundamental solitons all having the same speed and moving (or resting) as a single complex. The value of $`N`$ can be $`1`$ (fundamental soliton) but can take large values up to infinity.

Elementary particles in nature never exist in isolation, but are submerged in a fluctuating radiation field. Similarly, MSCs can exist on top of a background plane wave and, more generally, on top of an arbitrary number of plane waves propagating in different directions. In this sense, we will talk about a sea of radiation modes, which can be stable with respect to modulational perturbations in both self-focusing and defocusing media . Plane waves can also serve as a basis for the existence of dark solitons. An incoherent soliton is an example of an MSC, and stable propagation of both dark and bright spatial optical solitons on an incoherent background has been observed in recent experiments .

In this work we present a class of exact solutions to the coupled set of $`M`$ equations which describe symmetric and asymmetric MSCs on a background which is formed from a nonlinear superposition of radiation modes. This differs from the earlier results presented in Refs.  where the background consisted of a single mode, and Refs. , where only some stationary solutions with $`sech^2`$-type intensity profiles were considered. Our new exact solution of MSCs in a sea of radiation modes accounts for an arbitrary number of both soliton and radiative components.

## II Model equations and their properties

It can be shown  that, for photorefractive media with a drift mechanism of nonlinear response, a good approximate model describing the propagation of $`M`$ self-trapped mutually incoherent wave packets in a planar waveguide is the set of NLSEs for a Kerr-type nonlinearity

$$i\frac{\psi _m}{z}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2\psi _m}{x^2}+\alpha \delta n\psi _m=0,$$
(1)
where $`\psi _m`$ denotes the $`m`$-th component of the beam, $`x`$ is the transverse coordinate, $`z`$ is the coordinate along the direction of propagation, $`\alpha `$ is the coefficient representing the strength of nonlinearity, and $`\delta n`$ is the change in refractive index profile created by all the incoherent components in the light beam. Because the response time of the nonlinearity is assumed to be long compared with temporal variations of the relative phases of all the components, the medium responds to the average light intensity, and this is just a simple sum of modal intensities . Then, after defining a new set of functions $`u_m(x,z)=\sqrt{|\alpha |}\psi _m(x,z)`$, we reduce Eq. (1) to the following set of normalized equations:

$$i\frac{u_m}{z}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2u_m}{x^2}+su_m\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}|u_j|^2=0.$$
(2)
Here $`1mM`$, $`M`$ is the number of components, while $`s=+1`$ in a self-focusing medium and $`s=1`$ in a defocusing material.

Let us briefly outline some general properties of Eqs. (2). The most remarkable fact is that these coupled equations are completely integrable by means of the inverse scattering technique (IST) . Specifically, any solution can be represented as a nonlinear superposition of solitary waves and radiation modes which correspond to the discrete and continuous parts of the IST spectrum, respectively.

Every fundamental soliton (labeled $`j`$) is characterized by several eigenvalues: (i) a complex wavenumber $`k_j=r_j+i\mu _j`$, (ii) a shift in the coordinate plane $`(x_j,z_j)`$, and (iii) a polarization vector $`𝐩^{(j)}`$ in the functional space, normalized to unity as $`_{m=1}^M\left|p_m^{(j)}\right|^2=1`$. The simplest bright single–soliton solution in a self-focusing medium ($`s=+1`$) can be written as:

$$u_m(x,z)=p_m^{(j)}r_j\mathrm{sech}(\beta _j)e^{i\gamma _j},$$
(3)
where $`\beta _j=r_j(\overline{x}_j\mu _j\overline{z}_j)`$, $`\gamma _j=\mu _j\overline{x}_j+(r_j^2\mu _j^2)\overline{z}_j/2`$, and $`(\overline{x}_j,\overline{z}_j)=(xx_j,zz_j)`$ are the shifted coordinates. We see that the peak soliton intensity and its inverse width are determined by the real part of the wavenumber $`r_j`$, while the imaginary part $`\mu _j`$ characterizes the soliton velocity in the transverse direction. Moreover, each fundamental soliton can be “spread out” into several incoherent components, as defined by the polarization vector.

The solution for a single radiation mode, in the form of a plane wave, can also be characterized by a similar set of parameters,

$$u_m(x,z)=p_m^{(j)}r_je^{i\sigma _j},$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _j=\mu \overline{x}_j+(2sr_j^2\mu _j^2)\overline{z}_j/2`$. Such a plane wave exists for either sign of nonlinearity, $`s=\pm 1`$, and it is stable in a self-defocusing medium. Moreover, an incoherent superposition of a large number of plane waves can be stable even in the self-focusing medium, as was shown in . In the presence of solitons, the plane waves are distorted, but due to the integrability of the original equations, the corresponding solutions can be obtained in an explicit form, as we demonstrate in the following section.

## III Explicit solutions for multi-soliton complexes on a background

It has been demonstrated in earlier studies  that a stationary MSC can only be formed by incoherently coupled fundamental solitons and radiation waves which have orthogonal polarization vectors, i.e. $`_{m=1}^Mp_m^{(j)}p_m^{(n)}=\delta _{jn}`$. We restrict our investigation to this important case. Then, the mathematical description can be simplified if we use the rotational symmetry of the functional space of the original Eqs. (2). Indeed, it is sufficient to find solutions $`u_j`$ where all the fundamental nonlinear eigenmodes belong to different components, $`p_m^{(j)}=\delta _{mj}`$, and then the full family of solutions can be determined using the following transformation:

$$\overline{u}_m=\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}R_{mj}u_j,$$
(5)
where the matrix $`R_{mj}`$ defines a rotation in the $`M`$-dimensional space (characterized by $`M1`$ angles), which preserves the MSC intensity profile $`_m|\overline{u}_m|^2_m|u_m|^2`$.

As follows from the IST, it is possible to construct the full solution by adding the radiation modes to bright MSCs. On the other hand, solutions for bright MSCs, having a zero far-field asymptotic in the self-focusing medium ($`s=+1`$) can be found by solving a set of linear equations :

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{M_s}{}}\frac{e_je_m^{}u_m}{k_j+k_m^{}}+\frac{1}{2r_j}u_j=e_j,$$
(6)
where $`M_s`$ is the number of fundamental solitons, and $`e_j=\chi _j\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _j+i\gamma _j\right)`$. Here the coefficients $`\chi _j`$ define the relative coordinate centers for the fundamental solitons. By choosing their values in a special way, the solutions of Eqs. (6) can be presented in a simple, symmetric form (see Refs.  for details).

In order to reveal the basic properties of radiation modes under the presence of an MSC, we perform a linear analysis, assuming that the wave amplitudes are vanishingly small and that they do not contribute to the intensity profile. We note that Eqs. (6) define an extension of the functional basis introduced by Kay and Moses  to construct reflectionless potentials. The difference is that in Ref.  the $`k_j`$ are real, whereas we performed a similar analysis and found that the results can be generalized to the case of complex wavenumbers. Specifically, we derived solutions for scattered plane waves, or radiation modes belonging to the continuous spectrum:

$$u_m=r_m\left(1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{M_s}{}}\frac{u_je_j^{}}{k_j^{}+i\mu _m}\right)e^{i\mu _m(\overline{x}_m\mu _m\overline{z}_m/2)}.$$
(7)
In general, we can have an arbitrary number ($`M_r`$) of radiation modes, and we assume that they belong to the components with $`M_s+1mM_s+M_r`$. Note that solution (7), which is valid in the limit $`r_m0`$, reduces to a simple plane-wave profile given by Eq. (4) in the absence of bright components. When the radiation wave amplitudes $`r_m`$ are not small, both the radiation modes and the bright soliton profiles defined by Eq. (6) are distorted according to the nonlinear superposition principle. In order to find MSC solutions on a finite background, we extend the approach introduced in Ref. . First, we multiply Eqs. (6) by $`u_j^{}/(k_ji\mu )`$, add the complex conjugate, and sum over the fundamental soliton numbers $`1jM_s`$. Comparing the resulting expression with Eq. (7), we obtain the following relation:

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{M_s}{}}\left|\frac{u_j}{k_j^{}+i\mu _m}\right|^2+\left|\frac{u_m}{r_m}\right|^2=1,$$
(8)
where the subscript $`m`$ indicates a radiation mode. The second step is to define the combined rotational–scaling transformation which changes the nonlinear eigenmode amplitudes while preserving the total intensity profile up to a constant background,

$$\stackrel{~}{I}=I_b+sI.$$
(9)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ is the full intensity of the re-scaled solution $`\stackrel{~}{u}_m(x,z)`$, and $`I_b=_{j=M_s+1}^{M_s+M_r}|r_j|^2`$ is the background intensity. Then, from Eq. (8), it immediately follows that the rescaling coefficients for the bright components should be defined as

$$|U_m|^2=s+\underset{j=M_s+1}{\overset{M_s+M_r}{}}\frac{r_j^2}{|k_m^{}+i\mu _j|^2},$$
(10)
while for the radiation modes we put $`U_m=1`$. Quite remarkably, this procedure can be used for both signs of nonlinearity ($`s=\pm 1`$). The propagation constants should also be modified accordingly, so that the resulting functions satisfy the original Eqs. (2). We finally obtain:

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_m(x,z)=U_me^{isI_bz}u_m(x,z).$$
(11)
At this point, the derivation of the analytical solutions for the MSCs existing on top of several radiation modes is complete, and the component profiles are defined by Eqs. (10) and (11) together with Eqs. (6) and (7). All such solutions correspond to multi-parameter families which can be generated with the help of the rotation transformation (5).

Let us now extend the analytical results to the case where the background is composed of a continuum set of radiation modes, i.e. $`M_r+\mathrm{}`$. This case corresponds, for example, to spatial optical solitons excited by an incoherent light source . Then, the plane waves in the background can be characterized by an angular distribution function, $`R(\mu )`$ ($`0`$), so that $`R(\mu )d\mu `$ is the wave intensity corresponding to the tangents of inclination angles in the interval $`(\mu ,\mu +d\mu )`$. Therefore, the full background intensity is $`I_b=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}R(\mu )𝑑\mu `$, and the scaling coefficients for bright components are

$$|U_m|^2=s+_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{R(\mu )}{|k_m^{}+i\mu |^2}𝑑\mu .$$
(12)
We note that, for a finite number of radiation modes, the distribution function can be written as $`R(\mu )=_{j=M_s+1}^{M_s+M_r}r_j^2\delta (\mu \mu _j)`$, and then expression (12) reduces to Eq. (10).

The above results are valid for both self-focusing ($`s=+1`$) and self-defocusing ($`s=1`$) media. As follows from Eq. (9), the qualitative difference is that, in the former case we have bright complexes on a constant background while in the latter case dark dips are formed.

## IV Interaction properties of MSCs

The general analytical solutions can be used to obtain some important characteristics in a simple form. In particular, we can use the fact that the outcome of a soliton collision, in terms of total intensity, is not affected by the presence of the background. Therefore, according to earlier results , the interactions of MSCs are characterized by translational shifts of fundamental solitons after the collision, and these are given by

$$\delta x_j=\frac{1}{r_j}\underset{m}{}f_{jm}\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{k_j+k_m^{}}{k_jk_m}\right|.$$
(13)
Here the summation involves the fundamental solitons which feature in the collisions with the soliton number $`j`$. When the colliding soliton number $`m`$ comes from the right (i.e. has a larger $`x`$ coordinate before the impact), we put $`f_{jm}=+1`$ while we set $`f_{jm}=1`$ when it comes from the left. The shifts differ for each soliton in an MSC. As a result, the intensity profile of an MSC changes after collisions.

## V Modulation of background components

According to the general relation (9), the intensity profile is uniquely determined by the eigenvalues of the bright fundamental solitons and the background intensity $`I_b`$, but does not depend on the the angular distribution of radiation waves. However, the total intensity of the soliton components,

$`I_s={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M_s}{}}}|U_m|^2|u_m|^2,`$

and the intensity of the radiation modes,

$$I_r=I_b\underset{m=1}{\overset{M_s}{}}(|U_m|^2s)|u_m|^2,$$
(14)
both depend on the scaling coefficients $`U_m`$ defined in Eq. (12). As follows from Eq. (14), each fundamental soliton creates a hole in the background, and the corresponding modulation depth is proportional to the bright-dark coupling coefficient, given by the value $`(|U_m|^2s)`$. Quite interestingly, the radiation mode profiles are the same in self-focusing and self-defocusing media, provided the distribution function and soliton eigenvalues remain unchanged.

However, there are some key differences between solitons in self-focusing and self-defocusing media. In the former case, a modulation of the background is compensated by the bright components having larger amplitudes (since $`|U_m|^2>s`$, and $`s=+1`$). On the other hand, in a self-defocusing medium, a dark soliton creates an effective waveguide, which in turn can trap bright components. Such a self-trapping mechanism results in the limitation of the minimum dark soliton width. This happens because the maximum intensity contrast is limited by the value of the background intensity. As a matter of fact, the limitation can be even stricter, since the maximum modulation depth, $`=\mathrm{max}_x(I_bI)/I_b<1`$, cannot always reach the value of $`1`$. Then, according to Eq. (3), the characteristic width corresponding to one fundamental soliton cannot exceed the value $`(I_b)^{1/2}`$. The actual limit is determined by solving the existence conditions, which follow from the requirement for the right-hand side of Eq. (12) to be non-negative, since, by definition, $`|U_m|^20`$. It is interesting to note that these conditions involve only the individual wavenumbers of fundamental solitons, and they are automatically satisfied for interacting solitons forming MSCs.

Finally, we note that the radiation modes are characterized by a non-trivial phase modulation. For practical applications, it is especially important to know the phase jump, or the additional phase shift which appears due to the presence of bright fundamental solitons. Using Eqs. (6) and (7), we find the following relation,

$`e^{i\varphi (\mu )}={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M_s}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\mu k_m}{i\mu +k_m^{}}},`$

where $`\varphi `$ is the phase jump, and $`\mu `$ defines the inclination angle of the radiation mode. Then, the phase jump can be found as a sum over the phase shifts associated with individual fundamental solitons,

$$\varphi (\mu )=\underset{m=1}{\overset{M_s}{}}\varphi _m(\mu )=\underset{m=1}{\overset{M_s}{}}2\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{r_m}{\mu \mu _m}\right).$$
(15)
We see that the absolute values of the individual phase shifts are limited to $`\pi `$. However, the total phase jump can become larger than $`\pi `$ if $`M>1`$, i.e. if the MSC is composed of several fundamental solitons.

## VI General results for a Gaussian angular distribution

Let us now analyse the features of the bright-dark decomposition for a Gaussian-type angular distribution,

$$R(\mu )=I_b\frac{1}{\rho \sqrt{\pi }}e^{\mu ^2/\rho ^2},$$
(16)
where $`\rho >0`$ is the characteristic angular width. Since the integral in Eq. (12) cannot be expressed in elementary functions for arbitrary $`\rho `$, we first consider the limiting cases. Specifically, for a narrow angular distribution, i.e. $`\rho 1`$, we have $`(|U_m|^2s)I_b/(r_m^2+\mu _m^2)`$, while for $`\rho 1`$ (and $`\rho \mu _m`$) we obtain $`(|U_m|^2s)I_b\sqrt{\pi }/(\rho r_m)0`$. Therefore, we expect that, for a fixed background intensity $`I_b`$, the modulation of the radiation waves should be reduced (i) for wider angular distributions, i.e. larger $`\rho `$, and (ii) for MSCs having higher velocities $`|\mu _m|`$.

On the other hand, since the phase jump depends on the radiation mode wave number $`\mu `$, the excitation of solitons can be more difficult in cases of wider angular spectra of radiation modes, i.e. larger $`\rho `$. Additionally, for a moving MSC, i.e. when $`\mu _m=\mathrm{const}0`$, the dependence $`\varphi (\mu )`$ becomes asymmetric unless $`R(\mu \mu _m)=R(\mu _m\mu )`$.

## VII Bright MSC in a self-focusing medium

For a self-focusing nonlinearity ($`s=+1`$), MSCs exist in the form of bright localized waves having higher intensity than the background, as follows from Eq. (9). Examples of the total intensity profiles and the bright-dark mode decomposition are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 for different values of $`\rho `$. The MSC on the right has zero velocity (with the corresponding $`\mu _m=0`$), while the other MSC (on the left) has a positive velocity; thus in the latter case, the corresponding background modulation is smaller, as predicted in Sec. VI.

A collision between two MSCs is illustrated in Fig. 3. This example corresponds to the initial conditions shown in Fig. 1. A remarkable fact is that the total intensity profile does not depend on the value of $`\rho `$, provided that $`I_b`$ is preserved. The intensity profile for the collision will be the same for other values of $`\rho `$ or for other distribution functions. In these examples, the MSC actually has an intensity which is relatively small compared with the background level.

Note that the shape of each MSC changes after a collision, for the reasons discussed in Sec. IV. In particular, a symmetric MSC becomes asymmetric after a collision (see also Ref. \]). The presence of radiation does not influence this process. Another feature of a collision is that the lateral shift of the MSCs is relatively large. For example, it can easily be seen on the scale of Fig. 3. In contrast to single solitons, MSCs experience larger shifts in collisions, due to the multiple contributions from all the constituent fundamental solitons.

## VIII Dark solitons in self-defocusing medium

To describe MSCs on a background in a self-defocusing medium ($`s=1`$), we first have to determine the existence conditions, as outlined in Sec. V. Considering the case of the Gaussian distribution given by Eq. (16), we find that, for a narrow angular spectrum, in the lowest-order approximation, the existence condition is $`r_m^2+\mu _m^2I_b`$. Therefore, the minimum soliton width, which is of order $`r_m^1`$, can be achieved if the soliton velocity is zero. In the other limit where $`\rho 1`$ and $`\rho \mu _m`$, we have $`r_mI_b\sqrt{\pi }/\rho `$, i.e. the minimum width increases linearly with an increase in $`\rho `$. Numerically-calculated existence regions are shown in Fig. 4 for two values of $`\rho `$ in Eq. (16). The figure clearly shows that the existence region is very similar to that in the case of a single component radiation field when $`\rho `$ is relatively small. However, the existence regions become visibly different when $`\rho `$ is large.

The minimum soliton width versus $`\rho `$ is shown in Fig. 5. This result shows that the distribution function for the radiation field influences the properties of an MSC, namely it changes the limiting parameters for the existence of an MSC, although the intensity profile of the MSC is not directly influenced by the properties of the radiation field.

Figure 6 shows an example of intensity distribution for the case of a self-defocusing medium (i.e. dark MSCs on a background). We have chosen the soliton eigenvalues to be the same as in Figs. 1 and 3. According to our general expression (9), the total intensity profiles in self-defocusing and self-focusing media are “mirror-images” relative to the level of the background. Even the radiation mode intensities coincide in these two cases, cf. Figs. 1(c) and 6(c). However, the bright component intensities are different, as is clearly seen in Fig. 1(b) and 6(b). This is a manifestation of the nontrivial nature of the nonlinear superposition of the solitons and the background components.

Figure 7 shows the collision of two MSCs on a background. Again, we can see that the nonstationary intensity profile created by the soliton interaction during collision is the ”mirror image” of that for bright MSCs in a self-focusing medium, as shown in Fig. 3. The symmetry relation is mathematically exact. Correspondingly, the lateral shift is also governed by the same rules as those for a bright MSC.

An important consequence is that the change of refractive index induced by incoherent MSCs has exactly the same pattern in cases of self-focusing and self-defocusing media with Kerr-type nonlinearity. This remarkable fact can be used to design linear multimode waveguides and X-junctions with special properties. Moreover, the MSCs are controlled by many parameters (fundamental soliton eigenvalues), and therefore a wider variety of requirements can be satisfied in comparison with X-junctions formed by a collision of two solitons.

## IX Conclusions

In conclusion, we have obtained an exact solution for multisoliton complexes on top of a multi-component background composed of radiation waves in Kerr-type nonlinear media. We have identified similarities and differences between bright and dark MSCs which exist in self-focusing and self-defocusing media, respectively. In particular, we have found that the intensity profiles in these two cases are “mirror-images” relative to the level of the background, and that they depend only on the eigenvalues of the fundamental solitons. For example, the reshaping of MSCs after collisions is determined by the lateral shifts of the fundamental solitons and is not affected by background components. On the other hand, the width of dark solitons has a minimum, and this value depends strongly on the angular distribution of the radiation waves. We have derived analytical estimates of the key soliton characteristics for the case of a Gaussian angular distribution of radiation waves, and presented numerical examples illustrating the principal features of bright and dark MSCs.


format: text

text:
# References

A Second Look at Single Photon Production in $`S+Au`$ Collisions at 200 A$``$GeV and Implications for Quark Hadron Phase Transition

Dinesh Kumar Srivastava1 and Bikash Chandra Sinha1,2

1 Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre,
1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Calcutta 700 064, India

2 Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics,
1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Calcutta 700 064, India

Erratum: Eur. Phy. J. C 12 (2000) 109. Abstract

It has been recently shown  that the values of $`J_T`$ and $`J_L`$ which appear in Eq.(2) and (5) are too large by a factor of 4, in the Ref. . Correcting for this changes the Fig. 2 (see below). More-over, now the emissions from the quark matter dominate only for $`p_T<`$ 1 GeV/$`c`$. The basic result of the paper, that the upper limit of the single-photon production is consistent with the rates for photon production at two-loop level remains valid.


text:
# Aharonov-Bohm oscillations and spin transport in a mesoscopic ring with a magnetic impurity

## Abstract

We present a detailed analysis of the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) interference oscillations manifested through transmission of an electron in a mesoscopic ring with a magnetic impurity atom inserted in one of its arms. The spin polarization transport is also studied. The electron interacts with the impurity through the exchange interaction leading to exchange spin-flip scattering. Transmission in the spin-flipped and spin-unflipped channels are explicitly calculated. We show that the entanglement between electron and spin-flipper states lead to a reduction of AB oscillations in spite of absence of any inelastic scattering. The spin-conductance (related to spin-polarized transmission coefficient) is asymmetric in the flux reversal as opposed to the two probe conductance which is symmetric under flux reversal. We point out certain limitations of this model in regard to the general notion of dephasing in quantum mechanics.

Quantum transport in open mesoscopic systems has attracted considerable attention in the last two decades . In this area, the study of phase coherent transmission of electrons in the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) ring occupies a prominent place . Study of dephasing and decoherence  of electrons in this geometry is very timely  to understand basic issues related to quantum phenomena. By introducing a magnetic impurity atom (to be referred to as the spin-flipper, or the flipper, for short) in one arm of the ring, one can couple the spin of the electron ($`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$) to the spin of the flipper ($`\stackrel{}{S}`$) via the exchange interaction . This leads to scattering of the electron in which the spin state of the electron and the impurity is changed without any exchange of energy. Additionally, this scattering leads to the entanglement-induced reduction of interference pattern . Let the electron be incident from the left reservoir with its spin pointing “up” (see Fig. 1). The spin of the electron passing through the upper arm may or may not be flipped by the flipper. In the case that the spin is unflipped, one would expect the usual AB-oscillations of the transmission due to interference of the partial waves passing through the upper and the lower branches of the ring. However, in the case that the spin is flipped, one would think, guided by naive intuition, that a path detection has taken place and hence one would be led to conclude that the interference pattern for the spin-down component would be wiped out. This is true provided we consider only two forward propagating partial waves. However, there are infinitely many partial waves in this geometry which are to be superposed to get the total transmission. These arise due to the multiple reflections from the junctions and the impurity site. Consider, for example, an incident spin-up particle moving in the upper arm which is flipped at the impurity site and gets reflected to finally traverse the lower arm before being transmitted. Naturally, this partial wave will interfere with the spin-flipped component transmitted along the upper arm. This results in non-zero transmission for the spin-flipped electron. Thus on taking into account the multiple reflections (more than just two partial waves) the presence of magnetic impurity does not lead to ”which-path” information. However, the presence of magnetic impurity leads to the reduction of AB-oscillations.

In this work we study the reduction of amplitude of AB-oscillations arising due to the flipper. Within the same model we also study spin-polarized transport. There has been a great deal of interest in the concept of spintronics , wherein, one manipulates with the spin of the charge carriers. Devices in which the electron spin stores and transmits information are being studied. Finally we discuss the limitations of this model (based on the interaction induced entanglement of quantum states) to the general understanding of dephasing in quantum systems. We study the problem using the quantum waveguide theory approach  and the spin degree of freedom of the electron is dealt with in line with Ref. . We consider an impurity consisting of a flipper capable of existing in M different discrete internal spin states and located at a particular position on the upper arm of the ring (see Fig. 1). The spin $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ of the electron couples to the flipper spin $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ via an exchange interaction $`J\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{S}\delta (xl_3)`$. The magnetic flux threading the ring is denoted by $`\varphi `$ and is related to the vector potential $`A=\varphi /l`$, $`l`$ being the ring circumference . During passage of the electron through the ring, the total spin angular momentum and its $`z`$-component remain conserved. We analyze the nature of spin-up/down and total transmission (reflection) coefficients. For this we consider the incident electron to be spin-polarized in the up-direction. We also show that up/down-transmission coefficients are asymmetric in flux reversal, i.e., total spin polarization (related to spin conductance ) is asymmetric in flux reversal. As expected we find that the total transmission coefficient which is the sum of spin-up and spin-down transmission coefficients is symmetric in the flux reversal.

Let $`l_2`$ be the length of the lower arm of the ring and the impurity atom be placed at a distance $`l_3`$ from the junction J1, $`l_4`$ being the remaining segment length of the upper arm. The various segments of the ring and its leads are labeled as shown in Fig. 1 and the wave functions in these segments carry the corresponding subscripts. The wave functions in the five segments for a left-incident spin-up electron can be written as follows:

$`\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`(e^{ikx}+r_ue^{ikx})\chi _m\alpha +`$ (2)
$`r_de^{ikx}\chi _{m+1}\beta ,`$
$`\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`(A_ue^{ik_1x}+B_ue^{ik_2x})\chi _m\alpha +`$ (4)
$`(A_de^{ik_1x}+B_de^{ik_2x})\chi _{m+1}\beta ,`$
$`\psi _3`$ $`=`$ $`(C_ue^{ik_1x}+D_ue^{ik_2x})\chi _m\alpha +`$ (6)
$`(C_de^{ik_1x}+D_de^{ik_2x})\chi _{m+1}\beta ,`$
$`\psi _4`$ $`=`$ $`(E_ue^{ik_1x}+F_ue^{ik_2x})\chi _m\alpha +`$ (8)
$`(E_de^{ik_1x}+F_de^{ik_2x})\chi _{m+1}\beta ,`$
$`\psi _5`$ $`=`$ $`t_ue^{ikx}\chi _m\alpha +t_de^{ikx}\chi _{m+1}\beta .`$ (9)
where $`k_1=k+(e\varphi /\mathrm{}cl)`$, $`k_2=k(e\varphi /\mathrm{}cl)`$, $`k`$ is the wave-vector of incident electron. The wavefunction in Eq. 2 is a correlated function (entangled state) of the electron and the impurity spin which takes into account that the exchange interaction conserves the $`z`$-component of the total spin. The subscripts $`u`$ and $`d`$ represent “up” and “down” spin states of the electron with the corresponding spinors $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ respectively (i.e., $`\sigma _z\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\alpha `$, $`\sigma _z\beta =\frac{1}{2}\beta `$) and $`\chi _m`$ denotes the wave function of the impurity  with $`S_z=m`$ (i.e., $`S_z\chi _m=m\chi _m`$). The reflected (transmitted) waves have amplitudes $`r_u`$ ($`t_u`$) and $`r_d`$ ($`t_d`$) corresponding to the “up” and “down” spin components respectively. Continuity of the wave functions and the current conservation at the junctions J1 and J2 imply the following boundary conditions.

$`\psi _1(x=0)=\psi _2(x=0),`$ (10)
$`\psi _1(x=0)=\psi _3(x=0),`$ (11)
$`\psi _1^{}(x=0)=\psi _2^{}(x=0)+\psi _3^{}(x=0),`$ (12)
$`\psi _3^{}(x=l_3)\psi _4^{}(x=l_3)=G(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{S})\psi _3(x=l_3),`$ (13)
$`\psi _3(x=l_3)=\psi _4(x=l_3),`$ (14)
$`\psi _4(x=l_3+l_4)=\psi _5(x=0),`$ (15)
$`\psi _2(x=l_2)=\psi _5(x=0),`$ (16)
$`\psi _2^{}(x=l_2)+\psi _4^{}(x=l_3+l_4)=\psi _5^{}(x=0).`$ (17)
Here $`G=2mJ/\mathrm{}^2`$ is the coupling constant indicative of the “strength” of the spin-exchange interaction. The primes denote the spatial derivatives of the wave functions. Equations (2) along with the boundary conditions (10) were solved to obtain the amplitudes $`t_u`$, $`t_d`$, $`r_u`$ and $`r_d`$. Owing to the large length of the expressions in the following we confine ourselves to the graphical interpretation of the results. We have taken the flipper to be a spin-half object ($`M=2`$) situated in the upper arm. Now, depending upon the initial state of the flipper we have possibility of either spin-flip scattering ($`\sigma _z=1/2,S_z=1/2`$) or no spin-flip scattering ($`\sigma _z=1/2,S_z=1/2`$), as demanded by the conservation of the total spin and its $`z`$-component. In the case of no-spin-flip scattering ($`\sigma _z=1/2,S_z=1/2`$) the problem at hand reduces to that of simple potential scattering from the impurity. We have set $`\mathrm{}=2m=1`$ and throughout the value of interaction strength $`G`$ is given in dimensionless units. The parameters used for the analysis are mentioned in the figure captions.

To begin with we take a look at the symmetry properties of the transport coefficients in spin-flip scattering case where the electron spin is opposite to the flipper spin. It is worth noting that due to the presence of spin degree of freedom the problem in hand although one-dimensional becomes a multichannel problem. Figure 2 shows the spin-up reflection coefficient $`R_u=|r_u|^2`$, spin-down reflection coefficient $`R_d=|r_d|^2`$ and total reflection coefficient $`R=R_u+R_d`$ as a function of the magnetic flux parameter $`\eta =\varphi /\varphi _0`$, $`\varphi _0`$ being the flux quantum $`hc/e`$. We clearly see the AB-oscillations with flux periodicity of $`2\pi \varphi _0`$. All three reflection coefficients are symmetric in the flux reversal as expected on general grounds.

In Fig. 3 we plot the spin-up transmission coefficient $`T_u=|t_u|^2`$ (thin line), spin-down transmission coefficient $`T_d=|t_d|^2`$ (dashed line) and total transmission coefficient $`T=T_u+T_d`$ (thick line) versus $`\eta `$. It unambiguously shows that though the total transmission $`T`$ (related to the two-terminal electrical conductance) is symmetric in flux reversal the spin-up $`T_u`$ and spin-down $`T_d`$ components are asymmetric under flux reversal. These transmission coefficients show AB-oscillations with flux periodicity of $`2\pi \varphi _0`$. We have verified this behavior of the reflection and transmission coefficients for various values of wave vector $`k`$ of the incident electron and impurity strength $`G`$. These observations are consistent with the reciprocity relations for transport in multichannel systems  and are a consequence of the general symmetry properties of the Hamiltonian . The transmission coefficient at flux $`\varphi `$ for the case when the incident particle is spin-up and the impurity is spin-down is equal to the transmission coefficient for the case when incident particle is spin-down and impurity is spin-up but the flux direction is reversed. For the spin-polarized transport the total polarization $`T_uT_d`$ is related to the spin-conductance . The above symmetry properties imply that the spin-conductance is asymmetric under the flux reversal. This can be easily noted from Fig. 4. In the figure we have plotted the variation of spin polarization $`\chi =(T_uT_d)/T`$ as a function of the magnetic flux $`\varphi `$. This spin-polarization can be experimentally measured by using the well known spin-valve (magnetic valve or filter) effect . In this method ferromagnetic metal pads are used at the junctions between the sample and the reservoirs. Using a ferromagnetic metal contact one can inject spin-polarized electrons. The transmitted electron intensity or current can be measured by tuning the magnetization axis of the ferromagnetic contact at the drain. This contact acts as a spin-polarizer. The current depends on the relative angle of polarization between the transmitted electrons and the ferromagnetic metal contact at the drain (well-known $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta /2)`$ dependence) . Our actual system may comprise of a single channel clean metallic ring and by doping it with a paramagnetic impurity atom  (or impurities ) which has a virtual state in the continuum. It is also possible to use a quantum dot with one excess electron in one of the arm to replace the role of a magnetic impurity. It should be noted that at zero temperature the total electrical and spin conductances are to be calculated by summing up with equal weight-age the total transmission coefficients for all the four cases, i.e., $`\sigma _z=\pm 1/2`$ and $`S_z=\pm 1/2`$.

As discussed in the introduction, due to multiple reflections the presence of a spin-flipper in one arm does not lead to ”which-path” information. This would have implied the complete blocking of spin-down transmission. In contrast we clearly observe the AB-oscillations for the case of $`T_d`$ originating from multiple reflections. We now address the question of partial loss of interference due to the spin-flipper. In Fig. 5 we have plotted the total transmission coefficient $`T=T_u+T_d`$ for the spin-flip scattering (SFS) case , and $`T=T_u`$ ($`T_d=0`$) for the no spin-flip scattering (NSFS) case for different parameters as indicated in the figures 5(a-d). As expected $`T`$ exhibits AB oscillations which are periodic in flux with a period $`\varphi _0`$ and they are symmetric under flux reversal. It is interesting to note, however, that the interference fringe visibility (or the magnitude of amplitude of AB oscillations) for the SFS case is always smaller than that for the case of NSFS. This clearly indicates partial decoherence.

To quantify the decoherence, we calculate the amplitude of AB oscillations by taking the difference between the maximum and the minimum of total transmission coefficient as a function of flux $`\varphi `$ over one period of the oscillation. A plot of the variation of the amplitude of oscillation of total transmission $`T`$ with the interaction strength $`G`$ for the two cases, no spin-flip scattering (NSFS: $`S=1/2m=1/2`$) and spin-flip scattering (SFS: $`S=1/2m=1/2`$), are shown in figures Fig. 7 and 6. The two figures correspond to two different locations of the impurity in the upper arm of the ring. Other parameters are mentioned in the respective figure captions. Note, however, the signature of loss of interference is that the amplitude of AB oscillation of transmission coefficient for the spin-flip case is always smaller than that for the no spin-flip case for all non-zero values of coupling strength $`G`$. In other words the reduction of amplitude of AB oscillations is stronger for the spin-flip scattering case. We have verified the above observation for other parameters in the problem. Thus the presence of spin-flipper reduces the AB-oscillations. This substantiates our claim of decoherence due to entanglement.

At this point we are inclined to think that the harmonic components of the total transmission $`T(\eta )`$ in $`\eta =\varphi /\varphi _0`$ might be able to shed more light on the issue. So, with the hope of extracting some systematics we plot the $`n^{th}`$ harmonic component $`a_n=_0^{2\pi }T(\eta )\mathrm{cos}(n\eta )𝑑\eta `$ for $`n=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$ as a function of strength $`G`$ for the spin-flip scattering as well as no spin-flip scattering cases. The plots are shown in Fig. 8 for first four harmonic components. As can be seen the harmonic components do not show any systematics in the sense that the higher harmonic components can dominate over the lower harmonic components at certain values of strength $`G`$ for spin-flip scattering as well as no spin-flip scattering cases. Also, the $`n^{th}`$ harmonic component for spin-flip scattering could dominate over that of the no spin-flip scattering component. These features of the harmonic components are manifestations of the multiple scattering nature of the transport in such ballistic systems as against the observation of domination of lowest harmonic component ($`n=1`$) in the case of transport in the presence of evanescent modes . Guided by the naive intuition mentioned earlier we would have expected the lowest harmonic to dominate. This reiterates the important role played by the reflection at the impurity site. We would like to emphasize that irrespective of the behavior of the harmonic components (say for a particular case $`n^{th}`$ harmonic component in the spin-flip case is dominant over the same $`n^{th}`$ harmonic component for no-spin-flip case) the AB-oscillations of the total transmission are always suppressed in the spin-flip case.

In order to make sure that nothing unusual happens at other energies we study the $`T`$, $`T_u`$ and $`T_d`$ as functions of $`kl`$ for the case of spin-flip scattering. Figure 9 reveals an interesting fact, namely at $`kl=2\pi +4n\pi ,n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ the $`T_d`$ component vanishes independent of the value of interaction strength $`G`$. In the $`\eta 0`$ case this happens at $`kl=4n\pi ,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. At these values of the incident wave-vectors the electron wave function at the impurity site happens to be zero. As a result the electron does not interact with the impurity at all and consequently there is no spin-flip scattering at these energies. However, these k-points are to be distinguished from those at which although $`T_d`$ is zero but in addition $`T_u=1`$, because at these resonant energies the restriction $`T+R=1`$ forces $`T_d,R_u`$ and $`R_d`$ to be zero.

In our separate study  we have analysed the same model in regard to current magnification effect  which is also a purely quantum phenomenon. Against our naive intuition we find that in some parameter regime spin-flip scattering (or entanglement) enhances the magnitude of the current magnification as opposed to the suppression of the AB-oscillations. According to the general notion of dephasing or decoherence one expects all typical features of quantum mechanical probability effects to be suppressed. In full generality dephasing can be defined as the phenomenon by which quantum mechanical systems behave as though they are described by classical probability theory. Only the presence of inelastic scattering or coupling the system to infinite environmental degrees of freedom (bath), leading to irreversible loss of phase memory, can dephase both AB-oscillations and reduce current magnification effect simultaneously. We believe that the suppression of some quantum features and non-suppression other quantum effects is a characteristic of entanglement and the absence of inelastic scattering. We expect the same in other models based only on the notion of entanglement. Moreover, let us emphasize that in our model the environment consists of a single atom only.

In conclusion, we have studied in detail the nature of reduction of AB-oscillations in mesoscopic ring in the presence of a spin-flipper in one of its arms. The presence of magnetic impurity makes the polarized transmission coefficient asymmetric in flux reversal whereas the total transmission coefficient is symmetric in line with the theoretical expectations. We have also pointed out the limitations of this entanglement based model in describing the phenomenon of dephasing in quantum systems. Further case of spin-flipper with higher number of internal states and spin-flippers in both arms of the ring are under investigation.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of us (DS) would like to thank Professor S. N. Behera for extending hospitality at the Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar.


text:
# Electro-Strong Interaction and High 𝑄² Events at HERA

## 1 Introduction

The standard model of particle physics is widely regarded as representing the actual structure of matter, because of the diversity of phenomena that are in agreement with it. However, the model includes a large number of empirically determined parameters. It is, therefore, either incomplete, or, as the name suggests, a model only. The inclusion of the phenomenon of confinement in the model renders it especially difficult to confirm or falsify unequivocally, because the confined particles are not able to be studied in isolation.

In this paper an alternative to the standard model is discussed. The alternative was developed about the same time as the standard model (Yock, 1969), and it shares some features with that model. However, it unifies electromagnetic and strong interactions, and is a theory of electro-strong interactions. Its most distinctive requirements are the presence of two scales of length within hadrons, $`10^{15}m`$ and $`10^{18}m`$ respectively, and the onset of fundamental electro-strong effects at the shorter scale. The electron-proton collider known as HERA at Hamburg affords the first opportunity to search directly for such effects. The present status of the search is discussed here.

The layout of the paper is as follows. The electro-strong theory is summarized in §2. A generalized Yuakawa model with two scales of length is presented in §3. The HERA experiment is discussed in §4. Conclusions are given in §5.

## 2 Theory of Electro-Strong Interactions

The electro-strong theory predates the standard model, yet it shares basic hypotheses with that model. These include the existence of hadron constituents with dual charges, confinement or strong binding by a massless gauge field, charge neutrality of bound states, and the nuclear force being a reidual effect of the confinement interaction (Yock, 1969; Fritzsch et al., 1973; Gross & Wilzcek, 1973; Weinberg, 1973). In contrast to the standard model, however, the fundamental gauge of the electro-strong theory was taken to be the normal electromagnetic group, $`U(1)`$. The hadronic constituents were assumed to be heavy and highly charged, and termed ’subnucleons’.

Four generations of subnucleons, that are not replications of one another, were assumed to exist. Conservation laws of baryon number and strangeness, etc., were shown to follow from electric charge conservation. Weak interactions were included, but only qualitatively. The presence of strong interactions in the theory prevented the author from attempting detailed calculations. The theory is highly conjectural (Yock, 1991).

The theory was formulated in an attempt to construct a field theory that is free of the renormalisation divergences and broken symmetries of conventional theory. It has not been demonstrated by direct calculation that either of these goals has been achieved. Nor is it known if they are achievable (Feynman, 1985). The attempt followed here rests on the assumption that a physical zero exists to the generalized Gell-Mann-Low function for the full theory with weak, strong and electromagnetic interactions included.

## 3 Generalized Yukawa Model

Low-energy experiments show no hint of highly electrically charged constituents within the proton. Consequently, a generalised Yukawa model of hadrons was proposed (Yock, 1970). The nucleon, for example, was envisaged as a bare, composite nucleon surrounded by a cloud of composite, virtual pions, as shown schematically in the figure. The size of the bare nucleon was conjectured to be $`10^{18}m`$, much smaller than the extent of the pion cloud $`10^{15}m`$. With these two scales of length, the presence of the high electric charges would remain hidden at all but the highest energies.

The model requires electrons to be scattered coherently by the bare nucleon at SLAC energies, and that $`\nu W_2(Q^2/2M\nu )\times f(Q^2/2M\nu )`$, where $`f(x)`$ is the probability that the bare nucleon has charge $`+e`$ and fraction $`x`$ of the total nucleon mass. This assumes the bare nucleon is heavier than the individual bare mesons, and that it therefore dominates the scattering at SLAC energies (Yock, 1991).

The model is only rudimentary, but it is probably consistent, at least in principle, with the wealth of low-energy nuclear phenomena that have been accounted for in terms of meson exchange models. It may also receive support from high-energy data. Recently, the ZEUS group at HERA reported clear evidence of a high rate of energetic neutron production in the forward direction in deep inelastic $`ep`$ interactions (Derrick, et al., 1996; Breitweg, et al., 2001). The fraction of these events is approximately 10% of all deep inelastic events, and is independent, within statistics, of the energy and momentum transferred to the electron. Also, the energy spectrum of the neutrons shows no variation with these quantities. These observations are directly suggestive of the original Yukawa model. If the electron interacts with a bare meson in the meson cloud whilst leaving the bare nucleon a spectator, then the above results would follow. This was confirmed by the ZEUS group (Derrick et al., 1996).

The above observations are, however, inconsistent with the standard model, at least as it is normally envisaged. This of course holds that the proton consists of valence quarks, sea quarks and gluons confined in a volume of extent $`1fm^3`$. Together with this mix, quark-antiquark pairs comprising virtual mesons are sometimes included (Watson, 1999). Such a structure, in which all the proton’s constituents are continuously interacting with one another, and which does not include a spectator component, would seem unlikely to give rise to the observed events. A standard calculation by the ZEUS group (Derrick et al., 1996) confirmed this.

## 4 Deep-inelastic electron-proton scattering at HERA energies

The generalized Yukawa model requires new phenomena to occur in $`ep`$ interactions at energies higher than those reached by SLAC. At momentum transfers sufficient to reveal substructure in the bare nucleon, the nature of the interaction should change qualitatively. The scattering would be caused by the individual subnucleons, and the cross-section determined by their high charges. An excess of events should occur in comparison to any parameterisation of the data that does not include substructure, such as the standard model. As the threshold is approached, form factor effects would be expected to occur.

Possible evidence for such behaviour was reported recently by both the H1 and ZEUS collaborations at HERA (Adloff et al., 1997; Breitweg et al., 1997). These groups reported an excess of events at momentum transfers $`Q^230,000`$ $`(GeV/c)^2`$ in $`e^+p`$ interactions, corresponding to the onset of a new interaction between positrons and constituents of the proton that acts over a range $`10^{18}m`$ with a strength intermediate between electromagnetic and strong interactions. The excess was, however, at a marginal level of confidence, and it was further reduced with continued running (Adloff et al., 2001; Schneider, 2002).

Clearly, further data are required. The luminosity of the HERA collider is presently being increased by an order of magnitude. This should suffice to clearly reveal substructure in the proton if it is present as proposed above. Ideally, the centre-of-mass energy should also be increased. This could be achieved by combining the LHC and LEP machines at CERN to form a giant $`ep`$ collider.

## 5 Conclusions

Theories of the structure of the proton have evolved over the years. The structureless model of Rutherford was followed successively by Yukawa’s meson model, and then a series of quark models of ever-increasing complexity (Watson, 1999). The transition from the Yukawa model to the modern quark models represented a clean break, possibly too clean.

Hybrid models that combine features of the modern theories of hadron structure, and the older theory of Yukawa, are conceivable. Such models appear to have been considered at the time of the original SLAC experiments, albeit briefly, (Mehra, 1994). A general feature of such models is likely to be the presence of two scales of length within hadrons. Both high-energy and low-energy data exist that support the Yukawa model.

One specific hybrid model was discussed here. This is based on a scheme of electro-strong interactions, and it requires the presence of two scales of length. It also requires an excess of high transverse momentum events in deep inelastic $`ep`$ interactions at centre-of-mass energies of order some hundreds of $`GeV`$ in comparison to models with only one scale. A possible hint of an excess has already been reported at the HERA $`ep`$ collider. The collider is presently being upgraded. This will permit a clearer test to be carried out.

The electro-strong theory is an alternative to the standard model, and as such it assumes that the quark model is a model only, i.e. that quarks are not real particles. This is not the first time the suggestion has been made (Gell-Mann, 1964; Richter, 1995). Neither are the HERA data the first to be problematical for the standard model. The spin of the proton, and the lifetimes of the strange particles, for example, have long been unexplained (Bass & Roeck, 2002; Cheng, 1989). Also, the Higgs boson has not been detected. Conceptual problems, such as fractional charge, replication symmetry and symmetry breaking are also present. The electro-strong theory represents one attempt to avoid such concepts.

## 6 References

Adloff, C. et al. (1997). Z. Phys. C 74, 191.
Adloff, C. et al. (2001). Eur. Phys. J. C 19, 269.
Bass, S.D. & De Roeck, A. (2002). Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 105.1.
Breitweg, J. et al. (1997). Z. Phys. C 74, 207.
Breitweg, J. et al. (2001). Nucl. Phys. B 596, 3.
Cheng, H. -Y. (1989). Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 4, 495.
Derrick, M. et al. (1996). Phys. Lett. B 384, 388.
Feynam, R.P. (1985). QED, Princeton University Press, Ch. 4.
Fritzsch, H., Gell-Mann, M. & Leutwyler, H. (1973). Phys. Lett. B 47, 365.
Gell-Mann, M. (1964). Phys. Lett. 8, 214.
Gross, D., & Wilczek, F. (1973). Phys. Rev. D 8, 3633.
Mehra, J. (1994). The Beat of a Different Drum, Oxford University Press, Ch. 23.
Richter, B. (1995). Science 267, 1612.
Schneider, M. (2002). ArXiv:hep-ex/0201042.
Watson, A. (1999). Science 283, 472.
Weinberg, S. (1973). Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 494.
Yock, P.C.M. (1969). Int. J. Theor. Phys. 2, 247.
Yock, P.C.M. (1970). Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 61, 315.
Yock, P.C.M. (1991). Particle World 2, 87.


text:
# The Universal Negative Poisson Ratio of Self-Avoiding Fixed-Connectivity Membranes

## Abstract

We determine the Poisson ratio of self-avoiding fixed-connectivity membranes, modeled as impenetrable plaquettes, to be $`\sigma =0.37(6)`$, in statistical agreement with the Poisson ratio of phantom fixed-connectivity membranes $`\sigma =0.32(4)`$. Together with the equality of critical exponents, this result implies a unique universality class for fixed-connectivity membranes. Our findings thus establish that physical fixed-connectivity membranes provide a wide class of auxetic (negative Poisson ratio) materials with significant potential applications in materials science.

Fixed-connectivity (also known as polymerized, tethered or crystalline) membranes are fluctuating and flexible fishnet-like two-dimensional surfaces with nodes of fixed coordination number (for two recent reviews see ). Physical examples include such naturally occurring structures as polymerized Langmuir-Blodget films  and the spectrin/actin cytoskeleton  of erythrocytes (mammalian red blood cells). A wide variety of additional examples is discussed in . Current advances in soft condensed matter experimental techniques suggest the likelihood of many new realizations of fixed-connectivity membranes such as cross-linked DNA networks as well as composite structures that include fixed-connectivity membranes as fundamental ingredients. One universal and remarkable feature of the low-temperature (so-called flat) phase of non-self-avoiding (phantom) fixed-connectivity membranes is that they expand transversely when stretched longitudinally . In other words, they exhibit a negative Poisson ratio . Such materials have been dubbed auxetic .

In this letter we estimate, via Monte Carlo simulations, the Poisson ratio of physical self-avoiding fixed-connectivity membranes. We establish that they are also auxetic materials with a Poisson ratio and roughness exponent in statistical agreement with those of flat phantom membranes. Thus there appears to be a unique universality class of flat fixed-connectivity membranes, whether they arise from high bending rigidity or self-avoidance. Direct experimental measurements should be able to measure this negative Poisson ratio and test universality. The remarkable properties of auxetic membranes suggest a rich new avenue of exploration in materials synthesis.

A fixed-connectivity membrane may be modeled as an elastic surface with bending rigidity and self-avoidance . The free energy is composed of an elastic and a self-avoiding contribution:

$`F_{fcm}=F_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}}+F_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{a}}.`$ (1)
The elastic free-energy $`F_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}}`$ is given by

$`F_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}}(𝐮,h)={\displaystyle d^2𝐱\left[\frac{\kappa }{2}(_\alpha _\beta h)^2+\mu u_{\alpha \beta }^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}u_{\alpha \alpha }^2\right]}`$ (2)
where $`𝐮`$ denotes phonon modes, $`h`$ denotes height modes, $`\kappa `$ is the bending rigidity and $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ are the classical Lamé coefficients. The self-avoiding free-energy we take to be of the Edwards form

$`F_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐱d^2𝐲\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{r}(𝐱)\stackrel{}{r}(𝐲))},`$ (3)
where $`b`$ determines the strength of self-avoidance. The strain tensor $`u_{\alpha \beta }`$  is related to the embedding $`\stackrel{}{r}(𝐱)`$, defining the membrane by

$`\stackrel{}{r}(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐱+𝐮(𝐱)+\widehat{z}h(𝐱)`$ (4)
$`u_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\alpha u_\beta +_\beta u_\alpha +_\alpha h_\beta h)`$ (5)
Combined efforts both on the analytical and numerical side have led to a complete clarification of the phase diagram of the phantom case ($`b=0`$) and detailed estimates for the critical exponents, as shown in Fig. 1 and Table I. The phase diagram consists of a crumpled phase (associated with the Gaussian fixed point GF) and a flat phase (associated with a flat phase fixed-point FL), with an intermediate infrared-unstable crumpling transition (CT), as depicted in Fig. 1.

The self-avoiding model of Eq. (1) with no bending rigidity ($`\kappa =0`$) has proven to be tractable numerically . The model possesses a unique infrared fixed point (SA) describing a flat phase, with detailed results for critical exponents given in Table I. From the analytical standpoint there is evidence for a unique SA , but the calculations are inconclusive on whether it describes a flat or a crumpled phase .

A look at Table I reveals that the critical exponents and the Poisson ratio of both phantom and self-avoiding membranes coincide within the error bars quoted, implying that the FL and the SA are equivalent. This is a very surprising result since it means that the same long wavelength limit is reached via two very different routes: either sufficiently large bending rigidity or strong self-avoidance in the absence of bending rigidity. This is even more remarkable considering the very different short-distance structure of the two models: a membrane with large bending rigidity is very smooth at short distances while a purely self-avoiding membrane in the absence of bending rigidity is extremely rough.

In light of our results, we suggest the renormalization group (RG) flows depicted in Fig. 1. Given these flows and the equivalence of the SA and the FL, there must be a full line of equivalent fixed points $`b(\kappa )`$ joining them, with no RG flow on the line (corresponding to a marginal direction). Since these are the infrared stable fixed points of the system, all the relevant physics is described by this line. The crumpling transition present for phantom membranes may be reached only by an extremely precise tuning of the parameters involved in the problem. This would make the crumpling transition in the model described very difficult to verify experimentally.

We see that the combination of fixed-connectivity (integrity of the lattice) and self-avoidance sufficiently restricts the entropy of crumpled configurations as to destroy the crumpled phase. It was already observed in  that next-to-nearest neighbor self-avoidance, discretized by hard-sphere potentials, induces a positive bending rigidity. On the other hand the impenetrable plaquette model treated here is very flexible, since only strictly self-intersecting configurations are forbidden, and hence the physical mechanism flattening the membrane is clearly more general than the simple induced bending rigidity discussed above.

We performed a Monte Carlo simulation of a suitable discrete version of the model (Eq. (1)), as described in . The Poisson ratio $`\sigma `$ for a two-dimensional system deformed from its mean length $`l`$ by $`\delta l`$ is determined by

$$\sigma =\frac{\delta w/w}{\delta l/l},$$
(6)
where $`\delta w/w`$ measures the fractional change in the transverse extent (width) of the system. In  it is shown that linear response theory gives

$$\sigma =\frac{\overline{u_{xx}}\overline{u_{yy}}_c}{\overline{u_{yy}}^2_c},$$
(7)
where $`u^2_c`$ is the connected statistical average over Monte Carlo configurations and $`\overline{u}`$ is the spatial average over the surface.

Our results are presented in Fig. 2(A) and show that the Poisson ratio $`\sigma =1/3`$ obtained in simulations of flat phantom fixed-connectivity membranes is also a good estimate of the Poisson ratio for the pure self-avoiding model. Error bars have been calculated with the Jacknife method .

To calibrate the influence of the boundary on our results we calculated the Poisson ratio excluding concentric outer shells of nodes neighboring the boundary. In particular we performed the numerical analysis discarding shells of boundary nodes of increasing extent. The results are presented in Fig. 2(B).

The exclusion of larger shells of boundary sites slightly increases the absolute value of the Poisson ratio. For sufficiently small reduced linear size, $`|\sigma |`$ begins to decrease due to finite size effects. There is consequently competition between boundary and finite size effects. Finite size effects become important only when a sizeable fraction of nodes near the boundary are excluded. Note that we can also make a consistent check of our analysis by systematically excluding shells of nodes from the boundary in towards the center of the lattice and comparing the lattices of reduced size thus obtained with equal volume non-truncated lattices.

Thus we can compare, for example, the $`L=65`$ result with that from the reduced $`L=95`$ lattice and likewise the $`L=49`$ result with that from the reduced $`L=95`$ and $`L=65`$ lattices. The matching given by this comparison is consistent. In fact we are able to reproduce the $`L=65`$, $`L=49`$ and $`L=33`$ results simply by reducing the $`L=95`$ lattice. The deviations found in this comparison are another measure of boundary effects.

Traditional materials get thinner when stretched and fatter when squashed, since it is typically difficult to increase their volume very much when deformed.***A volume preserving deformation has Poisson ratio $`0.5`$. Any value less than $`0.5`$ involves some increase in volume under deformation. A negative Poisson ratio implies a very large volume increase. In the unusual world of auxetics the opposite happens, with a number of interesting implications and potential applications. There are several well known auxetic materials. The earliest example, dating from more than a century ago, is that of a pyrite crystal , which has a Poisson ratio in certain directions of $`\sigma 0.14`$. More recently some polyester foams under certain pressure conditions have proved to be isotropic auxetic materials with Poisson ratios as large as $`\sigma 0.7`$ . A nice mechanical model for auxetic materials was given in  (see Fig. 3). One of the rare naturally occurring auxetics is $`\mathrm{SiO}_2`$ in its $`\alpha `$-crystobalite phase .

The underlying mechanism driving fixed-connectivity membranes auxetic has some similarities to that illustrated in Fig. 3. Submitting a membrane to tension will suppress its out-of-plane fluctuations, forcing it entropically to expand in both in-plane directions. More physically, the out-of-plane undulations renormalize the elastic constants (the Lamé coefficients), in such a way that the long-wavelength bulk modulus is less than the shear modulus, which is the signature of a two-dimensional auxetic material.

Auxetic materials have desirable mechanical properties such as higher in-plane indentation resistance, transverse shear modulus and bending stiffness. They have clear applications as sealants, gaskets and fasteners. They may also be promising materials for artificial arteries, since they can expand to accomodate sudden increases in blood flow.

We can model a realistic fixed-connectivity membrane with an elastic free energy and either large bending rigidity or self-avoidance. This is of practical importance in modeling since, for example, we may replace the more complicated non-local self-avoidance term with a large bending rigidity. It remains an important theoretical challenge to verify this conclusion analytically.

In this letter we have ignored the role of topological defects. We think that a sufficiently large defect density may affect the actual value of the Poisson ratio, but a detailed discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this paper.

It is our hope that the results presented in this letter will encourage materials scientists and condensed matter experimentalists to further study the elastic and mechanical properties of fixed-connectivity membranes and, in particular, to measure the Poisson ratio of these novel systems.

The work of M.B., A.C. and A.T. has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under contract No. DE-FG02-85ER40237. A.T. acknowledges funding from the materials computation center, grant NSF-DMR 99-76550 and NSF grant DMR-0072783.


text:
# Projectively equivariant quantization and symbol calculus: noncommutative hypergeometric functions

## 1 Introduction

Let $`M`$ be a smooth manifold and $`𝒮(M)`$ the space of smooth functions on $`T^{}M`$, polynomial on the fibers; the latter is usually called the space of symbols of differential operators. Let us furthermore assume that $`M`$ is endowed with an action of a Lie group $`G`$. The aim of equivariant quantization  (see also , and ) is to associate to each symbol a differential operator on $`M`$ in such a way that this quantization map intertwines the $`G`$-action.

The existence and uniqueness of equivariant quantization in the case where $`M`$ has a flat projective (resp. conformal) structure, i.e., when $`G=\mathrm{SL}(n+1,)`$ with $`n=dim(M)`$ (resp. $`G=\mathrm{SO}(p+1,q+1)`$ with $`p+q=dim(M)`$) has recently been proved in the above references.

More precisely, let $`_\lambda (M)`$ stand for the space of (complex-valued) tensor densities of degree $`\lambda `$ on $`M`$ and $`𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }(M)`$ for the space of linear differential operators from $`_\lambda (M)`$ to $`_\mu (M)`$. These spaces are naturally modules over the group of all diffeomorphisms of $`M`$. The space of symbols corresponding to $`𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }(M)`$ is therefore $`𝒮_\delta (M)=𝒮(M)_\delta (M)`$ where $`\delta =\mu \lambda `$. There is a filtration

$$𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }^0𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }^1\mathrm{}𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }^k\mathrm{}$$

and the associated module $`𝒮_\delta (M)=\mathrm{gr}\left(𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }\right)`$ is graded by the degree of polynomials:

$$𝒮_\delta =𝒮_{0,\delta }𝒮_{1,\delta }\mathrm{}𝒮_{k,\delta }\mathrm{}$$

The problem of equivariant quantization is the quest for a quantization map:

$$𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }:𝒮_\delta (M)𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }(M)$$
(1.1)
that commutes with the $`G`$-action. In other words, it amounts to an identification of these two spaces which is canonical with respect to the geometric structure on $`M`$.

The inverse of the quantization map:

$$\sigma _{\lambda ,\mu }=\left(𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }\right)^1$$
(1.2)
is called the symbol map.

In this Letter, we will restrict considerations to the projectively equivariant case. Without loss of generality, we will assume $`M=S^n`$ endowed with its standard $`\mathrm{SL}(n+1,)`$-action. The explicit formulæ for the maps (1.1) and (1.2) can be found in  for $`n=1`$ and in  for $`\lambda =\mu `$ in any dimension. Our purpose is to rewrite the expressions for $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ and $`\sigma _{\lambda ,\mu }`$ in a more general way which, in particular, extends the quantization to a bigger class of symbols of pseudo-differential operators.

## 2 Projectively equivariant quantization map

In terms of affine coordinates on $`S^n`$, the vector fields spanning the canonical action of the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{sl}(n+1,)`$ are as follows

$$\frac{}{x^i},x^i\frac{}{x^j},x^ix^j\frac{}{x^j},$$

with $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ (the Einstein summation convention is understood).

Will will denote by $`\mathrm{aff}(n,)`$ the affine subalgebra spanned by the first-order vector fields. We will find it convenient to identify locally, in each affine chart, the spaces $`𝒮_\delta `$ and $`𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ via the “normal ordering” isomorphism

$$:P(x)^{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}\xi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\xi _{i_k}(i\mathrm{})^kP(x)^{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}\frac{}{x^{i_1}}\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^{i_k}}$$
(2.3)
which is already equivariant with respect to $`\mathrm{aff}(n,)`$. An equivalent means of identification is provided by the Fourier transform

$$\left((P)\varphi \right)(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^{n/2}}_{^{2n}}e^{(i/\mathrm{})\xi ,xy}P(y,\xi )\varphi (y)𝑑y𝑑\xi $$
(2.4)
where $`P(y,\xi )=_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}P(y)^{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}\xi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\xi _{i_k}`$ and where $`\varphi `$ is a compactly supported function (representing a $`\lambda `$-density in the coordinate patch). This mapping extends to the space of pseudo-differential symbols (defined in the chosen affine coordinate system).

The purpose of projectively equivariant quantization is to modify the map $``$ in (2.3) in order to obtain an identification of $`𝒮_\delta `$ and $`𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ that does not depend upon a chosen affine coordinate system, and is, therefore, globally defined on $`S^n`$.

Recall  that the (locally defined) operators on $`𝒮_\delta `$, namely

$$=\xi _i\frac{}{\xi _i},\mathrm{D}=\frac{}{x^i}\frac{}{\xi _i},$$
(2.5)
(where the $`\xi _i`$ are the coordinates dual to the $`x^i`$) commute with the $`\mathrm{aff}(n,)`$-action on $`T^{}S^n`$. The Euler operator, $``$, is the degree operator on $`𝒮_\delta =_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}𝒮_{k,\delta }`$ while the divergence operator $`\mathrm{D}`$ lowers this degree by one.

Let us now recall (in a slightly more general context) the results obtained in . The $`\mathrm{SL}(n+1,)`$-equivariant quantization map (1.1) is given on every homogeneous component by

$$𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }|_{𝒮_{k,\delta }}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{k}{}}C_m^k(i\mathrm{}\mathrm{D})^m|_{𝒮_{k,\delta }}$$
(2.6)
where the constant coefficients $`C_m^k`$ are determined by the following relation

$$C_{m+1}^k=\frac{km1+(n+1)\lambda }{(m+1)(2km2+(n+1)(1\delta ))}C_m^k$$
(2.7)
and the normalization condition: $`C_0^k=1`$.

As to the projectively equivariant symbol map (1.2), it retains the form

$$\sigma _{\lambda ,\mu }|_{𝒮_{k,\delta }}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{k}{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_m^k\left(\frac{\mathrm{D}}{i\mathrm{}}\right)^m|_{𝒮_{k,\delta }}$$
(2.8)
where the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{C}_m^k`$ are such that

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{m+1}^{k+1}=\frac{k+(n+1)\lambda }{(m+1)(2km+(n+1)(1\delta ))}\stackrel{~}{C}_m^k$$
(2.9)
and, again, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_0^k=1`$ for all $`k`$.

###### Remark 2.1.

The expressions (2.6) and (2.8) make sense if

$$\delta 1+\frac{\mathrm{}}{n+1}$$

with $`\mathrm{}=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ For these values of $`\delta `$, the quantization and symbol maps do not exist for generic $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$; see  for a detailed classification.

In contradistinction with the operators $``$ and $`\mathrm{D}`$ defined in (2.5), the quantization map $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ and the symbol map $`\sigma _{\lambda ,\mu }`$ are globally defined on $`T^{}S^n`$, i.e., they are independent of the choice of an affine coordinate system.

## 3 Noncommutative hypergeometric function

Our main purpose is to obtain an expression for $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ and $`\sigma _{\lambda ,\mu }`$ valid for a larger class of symbols, namely for symbols of pseudo-differential operators. We will rewrite the formulæ (2.6), (2.7) and (2.8), (2.9) in terms of the $`\mathrm{aff}(n,)`$-invariant operators $``$ and $`\mathrm{D}`$ in a form independent of the degree, $`k`$, of polynomials.

It turns out that our quantization map (1.1) involves a certain hypergeometric function; let us now recall this classical notion. A hypergeometric function with $`p+q`$ parameters is defined (see, e.g., ) as the power series in $`z`$ given by

$$F\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1,\mathrm{},a_p\\ b_1,\mathrm{},b_q\end{array}|z\right)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a_1)_m\mathrm{}(a_p)_m}{(b_1)_m\mathrm{}(b_q)_m}\frac{z^m}{m!}$$
(3.10)
with $`(a)_m=a(a+1)\mathrm{}(a+m1)`$. This hypergeometric function is called confluent if $`p=q=1`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

The projectively equivariant quantization map is of the form

$$𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }=F\left(\begin{array}{c}A_1,A_2\\ B_1,B_2\end{array}|Z\right)$$
(3.11)
where the parameters

$$\begin{array}{cc}A_1=+(n+1)\lambda ,\hfill & A_2=2+(n+1)(1\delta )1,\hfill \\ B_1=+\frac{1}{2}(n+1)(1\delta )\frac{1}{2},\hfill & B_2=+\frac{1}{2}(n+1)(1\delta ),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.12)
are operator-valued, as well as the variable

$$Z=\frac{i\mathrm{}\mathrm{D}}{4}.$$
(3.13)
###### Proof.

Recall that for a hypergeometric function (3.10), one has

$$F\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1,\mathrm{},a_p\\ b_1,\mathrm{},b_q\end{array}|z\right)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_mz^m$$

with

$$\frac{c_{m+1}}{c_m}=\frac{1}{m+1}\left[\frac{(a_1+m)\mathrm{}(a_p+m)}{(b_1+m)\mathrm{}(b_q+m)}\right].$$

Let us replace $`km`$ by the degree operator $``$ in the coefficients $`C_m^k`$; the expression (2.6) can be therefore rewritten as $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }=_{m=0}^kC_m()(i\mathrm{}\mathrm{D})^m`$. From the recursion relation (2.7), one readily obtains

$$\frac{C_{m+1}()}{C_m()}=\frac{1}{4(m+1)}\left[\frac{\left(+(n+1)\lambda +m\right)\left(2+(n+1)(1\delta )1+m\right)}{\left(+\frac{1}{2}(n+1)(1\delta )\frac{1}{2}+m\right)\left(+\frac{1}{2}(n+1)(1\delta )+m\right)}\right]$$

completing the proof. ∎

###### Corollary 3.2.

The quantization map is given by the series

$$𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }=\underset{m=0}{\overset{k}{}}C_m()(i\mathrm{}\mathrm{D})^m$$
(3.14)
where

$$C_m()=\frac{1}{m!}\frac{(+(n+1)\lambda )_m}{\left(2+(n+1)(1\delta )+m1\right)_m}.$$
(3.15)
###### Remark 3.3.

Let us stress that the operator-valued parameters (3.12) and the variable (3.13) entering the expression (3.11) do not commute. We have therefore chosen an ordering that assigns the divergence operator $`\mathrm{D}`$ to the right.

In the particular and most interesting case of half-densities (cf. ), the expression (3.11) takes a simpler form.

###### Corollary 3.4.

If $`\lambda =\mu =\frac{1}{2}`$, the quantization map (3.11) reduces to the confluent hypergeometric function

$$𝒬_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}=F\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 2\mathrm{E}\\ \hfill \mathrm{E}\end{array}|\frac{i\mathrm{}\mathrm{D}}{4}\right)$$
(3.16)
with the notation: $`\mathrm{E}=+\frac{1}{2}n`$.

It is a remarkable fact that the expression for inverse symbol map (1.2) is much simpler. It is given by a confluent hypergeometric function for any $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$.

###### Theorem 3.5.

The projectively equivariant symbol map (1.2) is given by

$$\sigma _{\lambda ,\mu }=F\left(\begin{array}{c}+(n+1)\lambda \hfill \\ 2+(n+1)(1\delta )\hfill \end{array}|\frac{D}{i\mathrm{}}\right).$$
(3.17)
The proof is analogous to that of Theorem 3.1.

It would be interesting to obtain expressions of the projectively equivariant quantization and symbol maps as integral operators similar to (2.4).

## 4 Some examples

We wish to present, here, a few applications of the projectively equivariant quantization to some special Hamiltonians on $`T^{}S^n`$.

The first example deals with the geodesic flow. Denote by $`\mathrm{g}`$ the standard round metric on the unit $`n`$-sphere and by $`H=\mathrm{g}^{ij}\xi _i\xi _j`$ the corresponding quadratic Hamiltonian. In an affine coordinate system, it takes the following form

$$H=\left(1+x^2\right)\left(\delta ^{ij}+x^ix^j\right)\xi _i\xi _j$$
(4.18)
where $`x^2=\delta _{ij}x^ix^j`$ with $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Moreover, we will consider a family of such Hamiltonians belonging to $`𝒮_\delta `$, namely $`H_\delta =H\sqrt{g^\delta }`$ where $`g=det(\mathrm{g}_{ij})`$.

In order to provide explicit formulæ, we need to recall the expression of the covariant derivative of $`\lambda `$-densities, namely $`_i=_i\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^j`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

The projectively equivariant quantization map (1.1) associates to $`H_\delta `$ the following differential operator

$$𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }(H_\delta )=\mathrm{}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+C_{\lambda ,\mu }R\right)$$
(4.19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{g}^{ij}_i_j`$ is the Laplace operator; the constant coefficient is

$$C_{\lambda ,\mu }=\frac{(n+1)^2\lambda (\mu 1)}{(n1)((1\delta )(n+1)+1)}$$
(4.20)
and $`R=n(n1)`$ is the scalar curvature of $`S^n`$.

###### Proof.

The quantum operator (4.19) is obtained, using (3.11)–(3.13), by a direct computation. However, the formula (4.19) turns out to be a particular case of (5.4) in  since the Levi-Civita connection is projectively flat. ∎

Another example is provided by the $`\alpha `$-th power $`H^\alpha `$ of the Hamiltonian $`H`$, where $`\alpha `$. We will only consider the case $`\lambda =\mu `$ in the sequel.

###### Proposition 4.2.

For

$$\alpha =\frac{1n}{4}$$
(4.21)
one has $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\lambda }(H^\alpha )=H^\alpha `$.

###### Proof.

Straightforward computation leads to

$$D(H^\alpha )=2\alpha (4\alpha +n1)H^{\alpha 1}(1+x^2)\xi ,x$$

and (2.6) therefore yields the result. ∎

We have just shown that the Fourier transform (2.4) of $`H^{(1n)/4}`$ is well-defined on $`S^n`$ and actually corresponds to the projectively equivariant quantization of this pseudo-differential symbol.

If we want to deal with operators acting on a Hilbert space, we have to restrict now considerations to the case $`\lambda =\mu =\frac{1}{2}`$.

For the $`3`$-sphere only, the above quantum Hamiltonian on $`T^{}S^nS^n`$ is as follows

$$𝒬_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}(H^{\frac{1}{2}})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}$$
(4.22)
and can be understood as a quantized “length element” in the sense of .

Acknowledgements: We thank P. Lecomte and E. Mourre for numerous enlightening discussions.


text:
# Corrections to scaling for percolative conduction: anomalous behavior at small L

## I INTRODUCTION

According to finite size scaling theory, the conducance of a finite random resistor network is expected to vary with the system size:

$`<\sigma >=L^t[a+bf(L)]`$ (1)
Here $`t0.982`$  is the conductivity exponent and $`f(L)`$ is the correction to scaling term which vanishes as the size of the system becomes infinite .In this work we study the behavior of the correction-to-scaling for finite systems that can be simulated on a computer.

Recently Grassberger  numerically studied the conductance of random resistor networks on the square lattice by numerical simulations for $`2L4096`$. He found that for bond percolation networks the corrections-to-scaling are nonmonotonic: there is a dip in the corrections-to-scaling present at small lattice sizes. Even though this effect is rather weak, it can be clearly distinguished by high precision numerical simulations. In the site percolation networks this behavior is absent. Grassberger showed that the bond percolation data could be fitted to the log-periodic form $`<\sigma >L^t\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{log}(L))`$ and pointed out that only the comparison with site percolation resistor networks enables us to reject this. Because this behavior is not understood we wanted to investigate it further by studying systems defined on different lattices. One question we ask is whether this behavior is the result of the strong shape dependence of the probability distribution of conductances for small system sizes. To answer this we simulated square lattice percolating networks and calculated the arithmetic, geometric and harmonic means (Grassberger  used the arithmetic mean to obtain the conductance). Another question is whether the oscillations are universal or particular to the square lattice used in . To test the universality we also simulated bond percolation resistor networks on triangular and honeycomb lattices.

Our paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we give the details of our numerical work and present our results, Section 3 contains the discussion and conclusions.

## II Numerical simulations

The systems we study are random resistor networks that are connected to perfectly conducting busbars at the two opposite edges of the array, while the transverse boundaries are free. To simulate a random resistor network we start with a bond percolation network and assign unit conductance to the bonds that are present while a missing bond gives zero conductance. The calculation of the network conductance for a given configuration of conductances is done by the Lobb-Frank algorithm , which uses a succession of star-triangle (ST) and triangle-star (TS) transformations to reduce the network to an equivalent chain of resistors.

Our square lattice simulations were performed on rectangles $`(0xL,1yL)`$, with the perfectly conducting busbars placed at $`x=0`$ and $`x=L`$. This means that the lattice (busbars excluded) has dimensions $`(L1,L)`$. The reason for this choice is to ensure that the bond system is self-dual (see Ref. 3 and references therein). To simulate systems on a triangular lattice we add a diagonal resistor to each unit cell of the square lattice without changing the position of the busbars. This way of representing the triangular network changes the geometry of the system - effectively the shape of the boundary becomes a rhombus . Simulations on the honeycomb lattice are done by starting with a honeycomb resistor network and replacing the leftmost column of resistors with perfect conductors and attaching the rightmost column of nodes to a perfectly conducting busbar. The pictures of these networks can be found in Ref. 4. The systems were taken to be at the percolation threshold, where $`p_c=0.5`$ for square lattice, $`p_c=2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /18)=0.34729`$ for the triangular lattice and $`p_c=12\mathrm{sin}(\pi /18)=0.65271`$ for the honeycomb lattice . For the square lattice the conductance was obtained by exact enumeration for $`L4`$, while for the triangular lattice exact enumeration was used to obtain the result for $`L=2`$. For other system sizes the number of random configurations generated was at least $`10^7`$.

Our results for the square lattice are shown in Fig. 1, for the triangular lattice in Fig. 2 and for the honeycomb lattice in Fig. 3. We plot the conductance multiplied by $`L`$ raised to the conductivity exponent $`t=0.982`$ as a function of $`L`$ on a semilogarithmic scale.

In these figures full points (circles) are obtained by using the arithmetic mean, stars are obtained from the geometric mean and crosses correspond to the harmonic mean (where the averages are computed using only the samples with nonzero conductance). The errors are smaller than the size of the points on the graphs. The points in Fig. 1 obtained by the arithmetic mean match the data obtained by Grassberger in .

## III Discussion and Conclusions

Let us first consider our results for the networks defined on a square lattice.

The data obtained by using the arithmetic mean start at a low value for the lowest lattice size $`(L=2)`$ and then there is a jump to a high value at lattice size $`L=3`$ followed by the monotonic decrease up to $`L10`$. If we use the harmonic or geometric mean the jump is not present - $`<\sigma >L^t`$ is a monotonically decreasing function until it reaches a minimum. Thus the behavior at $`L=2`$ is affected by the peculiar (and very discrete) distribution of conductances.

In all three cases a minimum is present at low $`L`$. Our numerical investigation of conduction on a square lattice shows that the dip in the correction-to-scaling term for small systems does not get averaged out by using different means to obtain the conductance. We did not find the anomalous behavior for the systems defined on triangular and honeycomb lattices. The dip at small $`L`$ is not present and the behavior is quite similar to those obtained in Ref. 1 for the case of site percolation on a square lattice.

The anomaly present in the case of square lattice is rather weak - only high precision simulations are able to reveal it. We notice that changing $`L`$ by a fraction of the lattice spacing will strongly affect the behavior of $`<\sigma >L^t`$ for small $`L`$ while the large $`L`$ results will be practically unaffected. Replacing $`L`$ by $`L\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as the independent variable gives a monotonic function for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.05`$; for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.1`$ the corrections-to-scaling behave qualitatively in the same way as the results obtained for the other systems mentioned above (Ziff  used a similar constant in connection with crossing probability problems). This is illustrated in Fig. 4.

In the case of triangular and honeycomb systems the rescaling of $`L`$ does not qualitatively change the behavior of $`<\sigma >L^t`$ \- in particular, the oscillation at small $`L`$ does not occur. This is shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 for triangular and honeycomb lattices, respectively.

The justification for this adjustment of $`L`$ is that the theory is formulated in the continuum limit while the discrete systems we simulated have the smallest scale equal to the lattice spacing. While for the large systems this should not matter, the small system results might be affected by this if we are doing very precise simulations.

The author thanks J. P. Straley for critical reading of the manuscript.