text:
# References

UICHEP-TH/01-1

Broken Supersymmetric Shape Invariant Systems and Their Potential Algebras

Asim Gangopadhyayaa,111agangop@luc.edu, asim@uic.edu, Jeffry V. Mallowa,222jmallow@luc.edu and Uday P. Sukhatmeb,333sukhatme@uic.edu

a) Department of Physics, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60626
b) Department of Physics (m/c 273), University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607

Abstract

Although eigenspectra of one dimensional shape invariant potentials with unbroken supersymmetry are easily obtained, this procedure is not applicable when the parameters in these potentials correspond to broken supersymmetry, since there is no zero energy eigenstate. We describe a novel two-step shape invariance approach as well as a group theoretic potential algebra approach for solving such broken supersymmetry problems.

In the formalism of supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SUSYQM), potentials with unbroken supersymmetry  and shape-invariance can be exactly solved by a well-known standard procedure . The potential algebras of these systems have also been identified , providing an alternate method of solution.

In this paper, we study shape invariant potentials in which the parameters have values such that the supersymmetry (SUSY) is spontaneously broken. For these systems, the usual shape invariance procedure does not enable one to determine the spectra, since there is no zero energy eigenstate . Inomata and Junker  studied these systems using a semiclassical method known as broken supersymmetric WKB (BSWKB). Their method yielded exact spectra for all solvable systems with broken supersymmetry known at the time of their work. In ref. , these systems were solved by a judicious change of parameters, mapping them to theories with unbroken SUSY. In this paper, our approach is to provide a systematic analysis using only shape invariance. For each of the potentials considered in ref. : the three dimensional harmonic oscillator, Pöschl-Teller I and II, we show that there exists a two-step shape invariance that renders them exactly solvable. The first step converts the initial potential into one which can be solved in a second step using the standard procedure of unbroken SUSY. While the treatment of this paper is mathematically similar to that of ref. , the approach presented here uses two separate forms of shape invariance and this leads in a natural manner to their underlying potential algebra. This is the first application, to our knowledge, of shape invariance to connect broken and unbroken SUSYQM potentials.

For completeness, we first provide in a brief review of supersymmetric quantum mechanics . Then, we demonstrate the two-step shape invariance method by explicitly considering the Pöschl-Teller I potential, showing the types of shape invariances it possesses, and exploiting these to determine the eigenspectrum. The same method is then extended to the three dimensional harmonic oscillator and Pöschl-Teller II potentials. Finally, we study the potential algebras underlying these systems, and generate their spectra by algebraic means.

Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics: In supersymmetric quantum mechanics , the partner potentials $`V_\pm (x,a_0)`$ are related to the superpotential $`W(x,a_0)`$ by $`V_\pm (x,a_0)=W^2(x,a_0)\pm W^{}(x,a_0)`$, where $`a_0`$ is a set of parameters. It is assumed that the superpotential is continuous and differentiable. Setting $`\mathrm{}=2m=1`$, the corresponding Hamiltonians $`H_\pm `$ have a factorized form

$$H_{}=𝒜^{}𝒜,H_+=𝒜𝒜^{},𝒜\frac{d}{dx}+W,𝒜^{}\frac{d}{dx}+W.$$
(1)
If either $`\psi _0^{()}(x,a_0)\mathrm{exp}\left(^xW(y,a_0)𝑑y\right)`$ \[or $`1/\psi _0^{()}(x,a_0)`$\] is normalizable, it is the ground state for $`H_{}`$ \[or $`H_+`$\] and corresponds to the case of unbroken SUSY. As can be explicitly checked $`𝒜\psi _0^{()}=0`$, and thus the ground state $`E_0^{()}`$ is zero. If, however, neither $`\psi _0^{()}`$ nor $`\frac{1}{\psi _0^{()}}`$ is normalizable, the SUSY is said to be spontaneously broken. The vanishing of the ground state energy is a sufficient and necessary condition for unbroken SUSY . In that situation, the Hamiltonians $`H_+`$ and $`H_{}`$ have exactly the same eigenvalues, except that $`H_{}`$ has an additional zero energy eigenstate. More specifically, the eigenstates of $`H_+`$ and $`H_{}`$ are related by

$$E_0^{()}=0,E_{n1}^{(+)}=E_n^{()},\psi _{n1}^{(+)}𝒜\psi _n^{()},𝒜^{}\psi _n^{(+)}\psi _{n+1}^{()},n=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(2)
Supersymmetric partner potentials are called shape invariant if they both have the same $`x`$-dependence up to a change of parameters $`a_1=f(a_0)`$ and an additive constant which we denote by $`R(a_0)`$ . The shape invariance condition is

$$V_+(x,a_0)=V_{}(x,a_1)+R(a_0)=V_{}(x,a_1)+g(a_1)g(a_0),$$
(3)
where, for future convenience we have expressed the constant $`R(a_0)`$ as a difference $`g(a_1)g(a_0)`$. The property of shape invariance, coupled with unbroken SUSY, permits an immediate analytic determination of energy eigenvalues and eigenfunctions , of $`H_{}(x,a_0)`$. The ground state energy of $`H_{}(x,a_0)`$ is zero, as we have assumed unbroken SUSY. If the change of parameters $`a_0a_1`$ does not break SUSY, $`H_{}(x,a_1)`$ then also has a zero energy ground state, and the corresponding eigenfunction is given by $`\psi _0^{()}(x,a_1)\mathrm{exp}\left(_{x_0}^xW(y,a_1)𝑑y\right)`$. Now using eqs. (2) and (3) we have

$$E_1^{()}=R(a_0),\psi _1^{()}(x,a_0)=𝒜^{}(x,a_0)\psi _0^{(+)}(x,a_0)=𝒜^{}(x,a_0)\psi _0^{()}(x,a_1).$$
(4)
Thus for unbroken SUSY, the eigenstates of the potential $`H_{}(x,a_0)`$ are

$`E_0^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`0,E_n^{()}={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}R(a_k)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left[g(a_{k+1})g(a_k)\right]=g(a_n)g(a_0),`$ (5)
$`\psi _0^{()}`$ $``$ $`e^{_{x_0}^xW(y,a_0)𝑑y},\psi _n^{()}(x,a_0)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+W(x,a_0)\right]\psi _{n1}^{()}(x,a_1),(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}).`$
Consequently, for a given shape invariant Hamiltonian $`H_{}(x,a_0)`$, each of its eigenvalues $`E_n^{()}(a_0)`$ and eigenfunctions $`\psi _n^{()}(x,a_0)`$ is obtainable from a related Hamiltonian $`H_{}(x,a_n)`$. However, these formulas are only valid provided that the Hamiltonians retain unbroken SUSY under change of parameters $`a_{k+1}=f(a_k)`$, $`k=1\mathrm{}n`$. In previous work on shape invariant potentials, changes of parameters corresponding to translation $`a_1=a_0+\beta `$  and scaling $`a_1=qa_0`$ with $`0<q1`$  have been discussed. However, a reflection change of parameters $`a_1=a_0`$, even if it maintained shape invariance, was not seriously considered since it could not maintain unbroken SUSY for the hierarchy of potentials built on $`H_{}`$.

Shape Invariant Potentials with Broken SUSY: We now develop and describe our two step approach for solving shape invariant problems with broken SUSY. To illustrate this approach, it is best to consider a specific example. Consider the Pöschl-Teller I superpotential

$$W(x,A,B)=A\mathrm{tan}xB\mathrm{cot}x;0<x<\pi /2.$$
(6)
The supersymmetric partner potentials are given by

$`V_{}(x,A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`A(A1)\mathrm{sec}^2x+B(B1)\mathrm{cosec}^2x(A+B)^2;`$
$`V_+(x,A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`A(A+1)\mathrm{sec}^2x+B(B+1)\mathrm{cosec}^2x(A+B)^2.`$ (7)
The function $`\psi _0^{()}(x,A,B)\mathrm{exp}\left(^xW(y,A,B)𝑑y\right)`$ is given by $`\psi _0^{()}(x,A,B)=\mathrm{cos}^Ax\mathrm{sin}^Bx`$. For $`A>0,B>0`$, the function $`\psi _0^{()}(x,A,B)`$ is normalizable and proportional to the ground state wave function, implying unbroken SUSY. Similarly, for $`A<0,B<0`$, the function $`1/\psi _0^{()}(x,A,B)`$ is normalizable, and one again has unbroken SUSY, and the spectrum is obtainable from shape invariance. However, for $`A>0,B<0`$, $`\psi _0^{()}(x,A,B)`$ is not normalizable due to its divergent behavior at $`x=0`$ while its reciprocal $`\frac{1}{\psi _0^{()}}`$ is not normalizable due to its divergent behavior at $`x=\frac{\pi }{2}`$, and hence SUSY is broken. Likewise, for $`A<0,B>0`$, one again has a broken SUSY situation. As mentioned before, the broken SUSY case has no zero energy state, and the standard shape invariance procedure \[eq. (2)\] cannot be used to get the eigenstates.

Let us now focus on the case $`A>0,B<0`$. The eigenstates of $`V_\pm (x,A,B)`$ are related by

$$\psi _n^{(+)}(x,a_0)=A(x,a_0)\psi _n^{()}(x,a_0);\psi _n^{()}(x,a_0)=𝒜^{}(x,a_0)\psi _n^{(+)}(x,a_0);E_n^{()}(a_0)=E_n^{(+)}(a_0).$$
(8)
The potentials of eq. (S0.Ex2) are shape invariant. In fact there are two possible relations between parameters such that these two potentials exhibit shape invariance. One of them is the conventional $`(AA+1,BB+1)`$. The shape invariance condition is given by

$$V_+(x,A,B)=V_{}(x,A+1,B+1)+(A+B+2)^2(A+B)^2.$$
(9)
For $`B`$ sufficiently large and negative, $`B+1`$ is also negative; thus the superpotential resulting from this change of parameters still falls in the broken SUSY category, and hence $`E_0^{()}(a_0)0`$. In the absence of this crucial result, even with shape invariance, we are not able to proceed further. This is the reason why the spectra of these systems remained undetermined by the methods of SUSYQM for so long.

The second possibility is $`(AA+1,BB)`$. The corresponding relationship is given by

$$V_+(x,A,B)=V_{}(x,A+1,B)+(AB+1)^2(A+B)^2.$$
(10)
This change of parameters $`(AA+1,BB)`$ leads to a system with unbroken SUSY, since the parameter $`B`$ changes sign. Hence the ground state of the system with potential $`V_{}(x,A+1,B)`$ is guaranteed to be at zero energy. From eq. (10), we see that potentials $`V_+(x,A,B)`$ and $`V_{}(x,A+1,B)`$ differ only by a constant, hence

$$\psi _+(x,A,B)=\psi _{}(x,A+1,B);E_n^{(+)}(A,B)=E_n^{()}(A+1,B)+(A+1B)^2(A+B)^2.$$

Thus, if we knew the spectrum of the unbroken SUSY $`H_{}(x,A+1,B)`$, we would be able to determine the spectrum of $`H_+(x,A,B)`$ with broken SUSY. Since the parameters of the potential $`V_{}(x,A+1,B)`$ lie in the region necessary for unbroken SUSY, there is an extensive machinery, already at hand, to determine the eigenstates of this potential . The results are

$$E_n^{()}(A+1,B)=(A+1B+2n)^2(A+1B)^2.$$
(11)
When combined with eqs. (8) and (10), one gets

$`E_n^{()}(A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`(A+1B+2n)^2(A+B)^2;`$
$`\psi _n^{()}(y,A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+y)^{(1A)/2}(1y)^{B/2}P_n^{(B1/2,1/2A)}(y),`$ (12)
where $`y=\mathrm{cos}(2x)`$ and $`P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(y)`$ are Jacobi polynomials, in agreement with the results of ref. .

We have considered the Pöschl-Teller I potential in detail. Very similar analyses can be used for determining the eigenvalues and eigenstates of the three dimensional harmonic oscillator, as well as the Pöschl-Teller II problem. We will now briefly describe the treatment of these potentials.

The problem of the three dimensional harmonic oscillator with broken SUSY is described by the superpotential

$$W(r,l,\omega )=\frac{1}{2}\omega r\frac{l+1}{r};l<1.$$
(13)
The function $`\psi _0^{()}(r,l,\omega )=\mathrm{exp}\left(^rW(r^{},l,\omega )𝑑r^{}\right)=r^{l+1}e^{\omega r^2}`$ diverges near $`r0`$ for $`l<1`$ and hence corresponds to the case of broken SUSY. The supersymmetric partner potentials are

$$V_+(r,l,\omega )=\frac{\omega ^2r^2}{4}+\frac{(l+1)(l+2)}{r^2}\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)\omega ,V_{}(r,l,\omega )=\frac{\omega ^2r^2}{4}+\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\left(l+\frac{3}{2}\right)\omega .$$
(14)
These two partner potentials are shape invariant since

$$V_+(r,l,\omega )=V_{}(r,l+1,\omega )+2\omega .$$
(15)
For sufficiently large negative values of $`l`$, the potential $`V_{}(r,l+1,\omega )`$ also lies in the realm of broken SUSY. Thus, usual SUSYQM method again fails to deliver the spectrum. However, there is another change of parameters that also maintains shape invariance between these two partner potentials, namely

$$V_+(r,l,\omega )=V_{}(r,l2,\omega )(2l+1)\omega .$$
(16)
Since $`l<1`$, the potential $`V_{}(r,l2,\omega )`$ has unbroken SUSY and has a zero energy ground state. Combining the results of eqs. (14), (15) and (16), we get

$$E_n^{(+)}(l,\omega )=(2n2l1)\omega .$$
(17)
Our last example is the Pöschl-Teller II potential described by

$$W(r,A,B)=A\mathrm{tanh}rB\mathrm{coth}r;0<r<\mathrm{}.$$
(18)
The function $`\psi _0^{()}(r,A,B)\mathrm{exp}\left(^rW(r^{},A,B)𝑑r^{}\right)`$ is given by $`\psi _0^{()}(r,A,B)=\mathrm{cosh}^Ar\mathrm{sinh}^Br`$. Here, for $`A>0`$ and $`B<0`$, neither $`\psi _0^{()}(r,A,B)`$ nor its inverse are normalizable, and hence we have a system with broken SUSY. The supersymmetric partner potentials are given by

$`V_+(r,A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`A(A1)\mathrm{sech}^2r+B(B1)\mathrm{cosech}^2r+(A+B)^2`$
$`V_{}(r,A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`A(A+1)\mathrm{sech}^2r+B(B+1)\mathrm{cosech}^2r+(A+B)^2.`$ (19)
Here too we have two possible relations between parameters for these potentials to be shape invariant. They are

$$V_+(r,A,B)=V_{}(r,A1,B1)+(A+B)^2(A+B2)^2,$$
(20)
and

$$V_+(r,A,B)=V_{}(r,A1,B)+(A+B)^2(AB1)^2.$$
(21)
As explained in the previous two examples, the first transformation does not lead to the determination of the spectrum since the new parameters $`(A1,B1)`$ still correspond to broken SUSY for sufficiently large positive value of $`A`$. However, in the second type of transformation, the new values of the parameters $`(A1,B)`$ lie in the domain of unbroken SUSY and hence the spectrum of $`V_{}(r,A1,B)`$ can be determined by standard methods of supersymmetric quantum mechanics. The resulting spectrum is given by

$$E_n^{()}(A,B)=(A+B)^2(A1B2n)^2.$$

Spectra of Broken SUSY Problems using Potential Algebras: The shape invariance based approach to broken supersymmetric potentials discussed above also naturally leads us to the underlying potential algebra, which in turn allows us to determine the spectrum by algebraic means. We will see below that the algebraic approach closely mimics the SUSYQM approach, and, analogous to the combination of the two step invariances, here one has to combine two different algebras.

Again, we consider the Pöschl-Teller I potential to exemplify the algebraic method. Let us first examine the unbroken sector of the theory . Consider a set of three operators

$$J^+=c^1𝒜^{}(x,\alpha N,\beta N),J^{}=𝒜(x,\alpha N,\beta N)c,J_3=Nc^{}c,$$
(22)
where $`𝒜(x,\alpha N,\beta N)`$ is obtained by replacing the parameters $`A`$ and $`B`$ by the operators $`\alpha N`$ and $`\beta N`$ in eqs. (6) and (1). $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants to be determined later. Operators $`c,c^{}`$ and $`c^1`$ are chosen so as to satisfy444A coordinate realization of such operators is given by $`c=e^{i\varphi },c^1=e^{i\varphi }`$ and $`c^{}=i\frac{}{\varphi }e^{i\varphi }`$, where $`\varphi `$ is some arbitrary real variable. $`[c,c^{}]=1`$, and $`cc^1=c^1c=1`$. It follows that for any Taylor expandable function $`f(N)`$, one has $`f(N)c=cf(N1)`$ . One finds that the operators $`J_3,J^\pm `$ satisfy

$$[J_3,J^\pm ]=\pm J^\pm ;[J^+,J^{}]=(\alpha +\beta 2N)^2(\alpha +\beta 2N+2)^2.$$
(23)
The last commutation relation is a consequence of the shape invariance condition (9), where the Hamiltonians corresponding to the Pöschl-Teller I potential are given by $`\stackrel{~}{H}_+(x,\alpha N,\beta N)=J^{}J^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(x,\alpha N+1,\beta N+1)=J^+J^{}`$. To determine the spectrum of these Hamiltonians, we define,

$$J^+|n=a_{n+1}|n+1;J^{}|n=a_n|n1.$$
(24)
Applying the commutator $`[J^+,J^{}]`$ of eq. (23) on state $`|n`$, one gets:

$`a_{n+1}^2a_n^2=(\alpha +\beta +22N)^2(\alpha +\beta 2N)^2D(N1)D(N);`$
and its iteration yields

$$a_1^2a_0^2=D(1)D(0),a_2^2a_1^2=D(0)D(1),\mathrm{},a_k^2a_{k1}^2=D(k2)D(k1).$$
(25)
Adding all the rows of eq. (S0.Ex7), and demanding $`a_0=0`$ (this follows from $`J^{}|0=0`$ for unbroken SUSY) one gets $`a_k^2=D(1)D(k1)=(\alpha +\beta +2)^2(\alpha +\beta +22k)^2`$. This gives

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(x,\alpha k+1,\beta k+1)|k=\left[(\alpha +\beta +2)^2(\alpha +\beta +22k)^2\right]|k`$
Now, identifying $`\alpha k+1=A`$ and $`\beta k+1=B`$ in the above Hamiltonian yields

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(x,A,B)|k=\left[(A+B+2k)^2(A+B)^2\right]|k,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$
in agreement with eq. (11).

Now, for the broken SUSY sector, we consider three additional operators

$`K^+=c^1𝒜^{}(x,\gamma N,(1)^N\delta ),K^{}=𝒜(x,\gamma N,(1)^N\delta )c,K_3=N,`$ (26)
with their algebra given by

$`[K_3,K^\pm ]=\pm K^\pm ,[K^+,K^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma N+(1)^N\delta )^2(\gamma N(1)^N\delta +1)^2.`$ (27)
The last commutation relation follows from the shape invariance condition (10) and $`K^{}K^+=H_+(x,\gamma N,(1)^N\delta )`$ and $`K^+K^{}=H_{}(x,\gamma N+1,(1)^N\delta )`$. As before, we define

$$K^+|n=b_{n+1}|n+1;K^{}|n=b_n|n1,$$
(28)
and one gets

$`b_n^2b_{n+1}^2=(\gamma n+(1)^n\delta )^2(\gamma n+1(1)^n\delta )^2.`$
At this point we would like to choose the starting values of $`n`$ and the constants $`\gamma ,\delta `$ to be such that ($`\gamma n`$), and $`(1)^n\delta `$ fall in the broken SUSY domain, where $`n`$ is an eigenvalue of the operator $`N`$ associated with a state $`|n`$. In algebraic terms, this implies that unlike the unbroken SUSY case, we cannot determine the values of $`b_n^2`$ as we do not know any state that is annhilated either by $`K_{}`$ or by $`K_+`$, and hence we can not set $`b_0=0`$. All we can do is to relate eigenstates of the Hamiltonians $`K^{}K^+`$ and $`K^+K^{}`$:

$`\psi _n^{(+)}(x,\gamma n,(1)^N\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _n^{()}(x,\gamma n+1,(1)^N\delta ),`$
$`E_n^{(+)}(\gamma n,(1)^N\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`E_n^{()}(\gamma n+1,(1)^N\delta )+b_n^2b_{n+1}^2.`$ (29)
However, due to the inversion of the second parameter $`(1)^N\delta `$ in eqs. (26) and (27), the Hamiltonian $`K^+K^{}=H_{}(x,\gamma N+1,(1)^N\delta )`$ corresponds to unbroken SUSY, and the discussion above can now be used to determine its eigenstates. This discovery lets us join the algebras of $`K^\pm ,K_3`$ with that of $`J^\pm ,J_3`$. We demand that for a specific eigenvalue of $`N`$,

$$H_{}(x,\gamma N+1,(1)^N\delta )=\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(x,\alpha N+1,\beta N+1),$$

i.e. $`\alpha =\gamma `$ and $`\beta =N1(1)^N\delta `$. Thus, the energy of the Hamiltonian $`H_{}(x,\gamma N+1,(1)^N\delta )`$, with $`\gamma N+1`$ and $`(1)^N\delta `$ as its parameters, is given by

$`E_k^{(+)}(\gamma k,(1)^k\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`E_k^{()}(\gamma k+1,(1)^k\delta )+b_{k+1}^2b_k^2`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\gamma k+1(1)^k\delta +2k\right)^2\left(\gamma k+(1)^k\delta \right)^2`$
Thus, Hamiltonians $`H_\pm (x,A,B)`$, with $`A,B`$ in the broken SUSY range, have eigenenergies

$$E_k^{(\pm )}(A,B)=\left[\left(A+1B+2k\right)^2\left(A+B\right)^2\right],$$
(30)
as obtained before.

A similar procedure yields the eigenstates of the Pöschl-Teller II and harmonic oscillator potentials in the broken SUSY phase.

We thank the U.S. Department of Energy for partial financial support.


format: text

text:
# Electronic structure of MgB2: x-ray emission and absorption studies

## I Introduction

The recent discovery of superconductivity in MgB2 with a $`T_c`$ close to 40 K  was an unexpected experimental achievement. Up to now, it is the highest Tc value reported for any binary compound . This value of $`T_c`$ is much higher than previously expected within the context of BCS theory . Not surprisingly, its discovery has given rise to much experimental and theoretical activity, having raised the possibility of a whole new class of superconductors.

The experimentally observed B isotope shift of Tc  and other experimental data  suggest conventional BCS $`s`$-wave electron-phonon coupling. However, careful analysis of the temperature and magnetic field dependence of the specific heat  suggests anisotropic or multiple gaps. The reported values of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_c=1.24`$ from tunneling measurements  also raise the possibility of multiple gaps, although the values below the BCS weak coupling limit of 3.5 have been attributed to surface effects. Even though there is growing evidence for conventional BCS $`s`$-wave electron-phonon coupling, the experimental picture is not yet entirely clear. In addition to theoretical explanations based on BCS theory,  an alternative explanation based on hole superconductivity has been proposed. Both theories are based on the results of band structure calculations of MgB2.

X-ray emission and absorption spectroscopies are powerful probes of the electronic structure of solids. Photon emission and absorption involve a transistion between electronic states. In the soft x-ray regime, one of the states is a localized, dispersionless core level. This allows for the interpretion of the measured spectra in terms of unoccupied states for absorption and occupied states for emission. Since dipole selection rules govern the transitions to or from the core level, it is actually the angular-momentum-resolved density of states (DOS) that is measured. Furthermore, since the core level is associated with a specific element in the compound, x-ray absorption and emission are also element specific. Finally, they have the advantage of being relatively insensitive to the quality of the sample surface, unlike x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) or ultraviolet photoemission, where in order to measure the bulk electronic structure it is necessary to prepare atomically clean, stoichiometric, and ordered surfaces, which are impossible to realize for sintered samples such as MgB2.

Recently, a high-resolution photoemission study of a sintered powder sample of MgB2 was carried out , however the behavior of the spectral function was analyzed only in the vicinity of the Fermi level. In the present paper, the x-ray emission and absorption spectra (XES and XAS) of the constituents have been studied in MgB2 and related compounds (graphite and AlB2). The results obtained are compared with the partial density of states and first-principles calculations of the intensities of x-ray spectra which take dipole matrix elements and selection rules into account.

## II Experimental Details

Both pressed powder and sintered polycrystalline MgB2 samples were used for measurements of the XES. The sintered polycrystalline sample was prepared as described in Ref. . X-ray diffraction measurements show that the sample is single-phased and electrical resistivity and DC magnetization measurements confirm the onset of a sharp superconducting transition at 39.5 K. The B K-emission and absorption spectra were studied on Beamline 8.0.1 at the Advanced Light Source (ALS) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory employing the soft X-ray fluorescence endstation. Emitted radiation was measured using a Rowland circle type spectrometer with spherical gratings and a multichannel two-dimensional detector. The measurements of the Mg L-emission spectra were performed using an ultrasoft x-ray grating spectrometer (R=1 m, n=600 l/mm) with electron excitation. The B K$`\alpha `$ and Mg L2,3 XES were measured with excitation energies far from the B $`1s`$ and Mg $`2p`$ thresholds (non-resonant spectra), with an energy resolution of 0.3 eV.

The Mg 2$`p`$ absorption spectra were also measured at the beamline BL-12A at the Photon Factory in KEK using photons from a synchrotron source. The energy resolution near the Mg 2$`p`$ threshold (50 eV) is 0.5 eV, using a 0.1 mm monochromator slit-width. For Mg 2$`p`$ measurements, we used a Si filter despite the Si 2$`p`$ absorption threshold at about 100 eV because at this beamline non-negligible 2nd order light is included in this energy region The absorption spectra were taken by recording the total electron yield (TEY) sample drain current. To remove surface contamination before the measurements, the sample was scraped with sandpaper and then striped off with vinyl tape repeatedly until the mark left on the tape was uniform. The vacuum was below $`1.0\times 10^6`$ torr and the measurements were carried out at room temperature.

In order to determine the position of the Fermi level and convert x-ray spectra to the binding energy scale of XPS (difference of measured XES energies and a selected XPS core level energy), B 1$`s`$ and Mg 2$`p`$ core levels were measured. As mentioned above, XPS for valence band states is very sensitive to surface contamination, nevertheless the binding energies of core levels can be determined after cleaning the surface. The XPS measurements have been carried out with an ESCA spectrometer manufactured by Physical Electronics (PHI 5600 ci). The monochromatized Al K$`\alpha `$ radiation had an FWHM of 0.3 eV and combined with the energy resolution of the analyzer (1.5% of the pass energy) results in an estimated energy resolution of somewhat less than 0.35 eV. XPS measurements of a MgB2 sample fractured in high vacuum have shown less oxygen content on the surface than those of sintered material. Further reduction of the oxygen content was achieved by ion etching. After cleaning the surface, we obtained the following values for the binding energies associated with the core levels: B $`1s`$ (185.5 eV) and Mg $`2p`$ (49.5 eV). These results agree well with recent XPS studies of MgB2 (the Mg $`2p`$ core level energy agrees within 0.2 eV)  which shows that the XPS core levels are not significantly influenced by oxidized surfaces, as shown in this study by comparing as-grown and etched surfaces in which the oxidized layer is effectively removed. This supports the use of these values in Fig. 3 to convert XES spectra to the binding energy scale.

## III Results and Discussion

The states at the Fermi level derive primarily from B and so the resulting band structure can be understood in terms of the boron sublattice. Mg can be described as ionized (Mg2+) in this compound. However, the electrons donated to the system are not localized on the anions, but rather are distributed over the whole crystal. The $`\sigma `$ ($`sp^2`$) bonding states which have B pxy character are unfilled, in contrast to graphite where the $`\sigma `$ states are completely filled and form strong covalent bonds. These $`\sigma `$ states form two small cylindrical Fermi surfaces around the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–A line and the holes at the top of the bonding $`\sigma `$ bands are believed to couple strongly to optical B–B modes and to play a key role in the superconductivity of MgB2.

Using the full potential LAPW code WIEN97,  we calculated the near edge absorption and emission spectra. According to the final-state rule formulated by von Barth and Grossmann,  accurate XES and XAS of simple metals may be obtained from ordinary one-electron theory if the relevant dipole matrix elements are calculated from valence functions obtained in the potential of the final state of the x-ray process: in other words, a potential reflecting the fully screened core hole for absorption but not for emission. Because we neglected core relaxation effects in our calculations, we expect significantly better agreement between theory and experiment for emission spectra. The calculated spectra are Lorentz broadened with a spectrometer broadening of 0.35 eV, with additional lifetime broadening for emission spectra.

Theoretical B K emission and absorption spectra of MgB2, which according to dipole selection rules ($`1s2p`$ transition) probe B 2$`p`$ occupied and unoccupied states, respectively, are presented in Fig. 1 (a, c). These calculations show that the intensity distributions of B K emission and absorption follow the B 2$`p`$ partial density of states very closely because the radial dipole matrix elements are monotonically increasing functions of energy within the valence and conduction bands. The experimental B K emission and absorption spectra (Fig. 1 (b, d)) are in good agreement with the calculated spectra. Note that the position of the Fermi level of XAS cannot be determined with the help of XPS measurements of core levels due to the different final states. The experimental and calculated XAS spectra shown in Figs. 12 are compared by aligning the Fermi levels. Our results are also in good agreement with other recent experimental studies. Callcott et al.  have reported soft x-ray fluorescence measurements and also XAS for the $`K`$-edge of B in MgB2. Comparing their results to our TEY (Fig. 1d) we find similar structures around 187 eV and 193 eV as observed in Ref. . Similar results were also obtained by Nakamura et al. . We do not find the peak labeled C in Ref.  around 195 eV, which was associated with boron oxide. We also obtained good agreement comparing our XES results with other B K-emission experimental data.

Calculated Mg L emission and absorption spectra which probe occupied and unoccupied Mg 3$`s`$ states are shown in Fig. 2 (a, c). The intensity distribution associated with the Mg L emission differs somewhat from the Mg 3$`s`$ partial DOS. The DOS is significantly changed by the dipole matrix elements which are necessary in order to recover the experimental XES shape. The contribution to the x-ray intensity is larger for states near the Fermi level relative to those at the bottom of the valence band, in accordance with the energy dependence of the radial dipole matrix elements. Again, we note reasonable agreement between the calculated (Fig. 2 (a, c)) and experimental spectra (Fig. 2 (b, d)).

All density-functional calculations appear to agree that Mg is substantially ionized . In order to provide direct experimental evidence for charge transfer from Mg, we compared the Mg L emission spectrum in MgB2 to that in pure Mg metal. The shift of the Mg core $`2p`$-level with respect to the Fermi level contains this information and will be called chemical shift. This does not involve counting of electrons in order to obtain the chemical potential, which would depend critically on the shape of the bands. Normally, one would expect a core level shift towards higher binding energies (positive shift) in losing valence charge because less electrons screen the Coulomb potential weaker and therefore the electrons are bound stronger.

Band structure calculations reveal, the Mg $`2p`$ level shows significant hybridization with the B $`p_z`$ level, which raises the former while lowering the latter, in difference to the simple picture outlined above. The mechanism is similar to an interacting two-level system, where new states are formed, one level is lowered in energy and the other level is pushed up in energy proportional to the overlap (hybridization) between the states.

A negative chemical shift of about 0.5 eV is found in the MgB2 spectrum with respect to that of pure Mg, which we hold as evidence for charge transfer from Mg to B atoms in this compound. The same negative chemical shift of 0.5 eV has been observed recently in XPS measurements  as well.

This is a very important effect because it lowers the $`\pi `$ ($`p_z`$) bands relative to the bonding $`\sigma `$ ($`sp^2`$) bands. This lowering of the B $`\pi `$ bands relative to the $`\sigma `$ bands, compared to graphite, causes $`\sigma \pi `$ charge transfer and $`\sigma `$-band hole doping, driving the superconductivity in MgB2 . To investigate this prediction further, we compared the K$`\alpha `$ XES ($`2p1s`$ transition) for graphite, AlB2, and MgB2 by alignment of the Fermi levels which were determined in the binding energy scale using XPS measurements of core levels: B $`1s`$ (MgB2)=185.5 eV, B $`1s`$ (AlB2)=188.5 eV,  and C $`1s`$ (graphite)=284.5 eV  (Fig. 3). As the figure shows, the major maximum originating from $`\sigma `$ states is shifted in MgB2 towards the Fermi level with respect to that of graphite. AlB2 occupies an intermediate position due to the higher electron concentration compared to MgB2 which results in filling of the $`\sigma `$ bands, decreasing $`N(E_f)`$ and finally destroying superconductivity.

## IV Conclusion

In conclusion, we have measured x-ray emission and absorption spectra of the constituents of the new superconductor MgB2 and found good agreement with results of band structure calculations and in particular calculations of intensities of x-ray spectra taking the necessary matrix elements into account. Further, according to our findings magnesium is positively charged in this compound, which supports the results of electronic structure calculations. The comparison of x-ray emission spectra of graphite, AlB2, and MgB2 supports the idea of superconductivity driven by hole doping of the covalent $`\sigma `$ bands. While the experimental results of our study cannot give direct insight into the mechanism of the superconductivity, they do support and lend credence to the standard band structure methods used in the theoretical analysis of this new and exciting material. This information could prove important in understanding and answering the questions which still exist.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank I. I. Mazin and O. Gunnarson for helpful discussions and comments and J. E. Pask for a critical reading of the manuscript. The Russian State Program on Superconductivity, Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project 00-15-96575) and NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant supported this work. JK would like to thank the Schloeßmann Foundation for financial support. Funding by the President’s NSERC fund of the University of Saskatchewan is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Determining the fraction of compact objects in the Universe using supernova observations

## I Introduction

Recent measurements of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) show that the Universe is very close to flat, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}1`$ . Since observations of Type Ia supernovae (SNe) indicate that the expansion rate of the Universe is accelerating, the major part of this total energy should have negative pressure, e.g., in the form of the cosmological constant corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ in a flat universe , in agreement with constraints on the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ from cluster abundances  and large-scale structure . Thus, a a concordance model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ has emerged.

The constitution of the total matter density is a matter of intense theoretical and experimental research. The energy density in baryonic matter as derived from Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.019\pm 0.0024`$  whereas CMBR measurements yield a somewhat higher value; $`0.022<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2<0.040`$ . Either way, the matter density in baryons is almost one order of magnitude smaller than the non-baryonic dark matter (DM) component. However, the BBN range for the baryon density still means that most of the baryonic matter is also dark.

There are various possibilities for the dark baryons to hide, examples are warm gas in groups and clusters (which is difficult to detect at present ), or in the form of massive compact halo objects (MACHOs), where indeed there have been detections . The long lines of sight to distant supernovae means that they are well suited to probe the matter content along the paths of the light rays, where gravitational lensing may occur where there are matter accumulations. Compact objects give more distinct lensing effects, enabling a distinction between diffuse matter and compact bodies along the light path. In particular, it may be possible to investigate whether the halo fraction deduced for the Milky Way from microlensing along the line of sight to the Large Magellanic Cloud, of the order of 20 % , is a universal number or if the average cosmological fraction is larger or smaller.

Regardless of its constitution, we can classify dark matter according to its clustering properties. In this paper we will use the terminology of smooth DM for DM candidates which tend to be smooth on subgalaxy scales, e.g., weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) such as neutralinos. The term compact DM will be reserved for MACHOs such as brown or white dwarfs and primordial black holes (PBHs) .

An advantage with gravitational lensing is that its effects can determine the distribution of dark matter independent of its constitution or its dynamical state. The topic of this paper concerns the use of the gravitational magnification of standard candles, such as Type Ia SNe, to determine the fraction of compact objects in a cosmological context.

In an early study, Rauch  concluded that with a sample of 1000 Type Ia SNe at redshift $`z1`$, one should be able to discriminate between the extreme cases of all DM as smooth or in compact objects. More recent work (Metcalf and Silk , Goliath and Mörtsell ) has shown that a sample of 50–100 SNe should be sufficient to make the same discrimination. Seljak and Holz  have found that it should be possible to actually determine the fraction of compact objects to 20 % accuracy with 100–400 Type Ia SNe at $`z=1`$. In this work we extend these studies by exploring the possibility to determine the fraction of compact objects using a future sample of Type Ia SNe distributed over a broad redshift range, with the intrinsic spread of absolute luminosity of the SNe and expected measurement error for a proposed space-borne mission, SNAP  taken into account.

In Sec. II we clarify the distinction between compact and non-compact dark matter objects. In Sec. III we discuss gravitational lensing of SNe and in Sec. IV, we present the Monte-Carlo simulation package used to predict this effect. Sec. V is concerned with the proposed satellite telescope which will be able to produce the data sets used in this study and in Sec. VI we present our results. The paper is concluded with a summary in Sec. VII.

## II Compact Objects

For an object to be compact in a lensing context, we demand that it is contained within its own Einstein radius, $`r_E`$. For a DM clump at $`z=0.5`$ and a source at $`z=1`$, $`r_E10^2(M/M_{})^{1/2}`$ pc in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`h=0.65`$ cosmology. Also, the Einstein radius projected on the source plane should be larger than the size of the source. A Type Ia SN at maximum luminosity has a size of $`10^{15}`$ cm, implying a lower mass limit of $`10^4M_{}`$ for the case described above.

The effects of lensing by compact objects are different from those of lensing by halos consisting of smoothly distributed dark matter, such as in the singular isothermal sphere or Navarro-Frenk-White density profile (NFW; ), the main difference being the tail of large magnifications caused by small impact-parameter lines of sight near the compact objects. However, N-body simulations predict, besides the overall cuspy profiles of ordinary Galaxy-sized dark matter halos, also a large number of small subhalos on all length scales which can been resolved . The number density of the smaller objects, of mass $`M`$, follows approximately the law $`dN/dMM^2`$ as predicted by Press-Schechter theory. Thus one may expect a multitude of subhalos in each galaxy or cluster halo. In addition, N-body simulations show the less massive halos to be denser (mainly due to them being formed early when the background density was higher). Thus, it is appropriate to address the question whether this type of small-scale structure, and in particular the dense central regions of them, may give rise to lensing effects similar to the ones caused by truly compact objects.

To put a bound of these possible effects, we use the results of the most accurate numerical simulations to date . The density profiles within dark matter clumps obtained in the simulations can be fit by the Moore profile

$$\rho _M(r)=\frac{\rho _M^{}}{\left(\frac{r}{a}\right)^{1.5}\left(1+\left(\frac{r}{a}\right)^{1.5}\right)}$$
(1)
Here $`\rho _M^{}`$ and $`a`$ are not independent parameters, but related by the concentration parameter $`c_M=R_{200}/a`$, which depends on mass roughly as

$$c_M10.6M_{12}^{0.084}.$$
(2)
(Here $`M_{12}`$ is the virial mass in units of $`10^{12}`$ $`M_{}`$; $`R_{200}`$ is the virial radius where the average overdensity is 200 times the background density. Similar relations appear in the NFW simulations.)

Using these relations we can derive the mass $`M_R`$ (also in units of $`10^{12}`$ $`M_{}`$) within distance $`R_{pc}`$ parsecs from the center of the halo,

$$M_R10^7M_{12}^{0.4}R_{pc}^{1.5}$$
(3)
Comparing this with the Einstein radius for the same mass for a lensing event of typical distance $`D_{Gpc}`$ Gigaparsecs,

$$R_E10^4M_R^{0.5}D_{Gpc}^{0.5}\mathrm{pc},$$
(4)
we find that $`M_R`$ is within its own Einstein radius if

$$M_R10^4M_{12}^{1.6}D_{Gpc}^3.$$
(5)
The requirement that the lensing mass is greater than $`10^4M_{}`$ means that dark matter clumps of the Moore type with mass greater than around $`10^4M_{}`$ ($`M_{12}>10^8`$) will in principle contribute to compact lensing. However, it is only the very central, dense core that can contribute to the lensing, and we see from Eq. (5) that only a small fraction $`f`$ of the mass in the clump is within its own Einstein radius,

$$f=\frac{M_R}{M_{12}}10^4M_{12}^{0.6}D_{Gpc}^3.$$
(6)
Thus only clumps of Galaxy size contribute appreciably to the lensing, and this part is included in our standard calculations.

Since this analysis was made for Moore-type halos, which are more concentrated than NFW halos, we conclude that compact objects detected through lensing of supernovae cannot, according to current thinking about structure formation, be caused by clumps of particle dark matter formed through hierarchical clustering.

## III Gravitational lensing of supernovae

The effect of gravitational lensing on Type Ia SN measurements is to cause a dispersion in the Hubble diagram. In Fig. 1 we compare the dispersion due to gravitational lensing with the intrinsic dispersion and the typical measurement error for Type Ia SNe. In the upper left panel, we show an ideal Hubble diagram with no dispersion and in the upper right panel we have added the dispersion due to lensing (lens) in a universe with 20 % compact objects and 80 % smooth dark matter halos parametrized by the Navarro-Frenk-White formula . Comparing with the panel in the lower left where the intrinsic dispersion (intr) and measurement error (err) have been included, we see that the effects become comparable at a redshift of unity. In the lower right we see the most realistic simulation with intrinsic dispersion, measurement error and lensing dispersion.

Of course, the additional dispersion caused by gravitational lensing will be a source of systematic error in the cosmological parameter determination with Type Ia supernovae. However, a possible virtue of lensing is that the distribution of luminosities might be used to obtain some information on the matter distribution in the Universe, e.g., to determine the fraction of compact DM in our Universe.

## IV SuperNova Observation Calculator

To perform realistic calculations we have developed a numerical simulation package, SNOC (the SuperNova Observation Calculator). It can be used to estimate various systematic effects such as dust extinction and gravitational lensing on current SN measurements as well as the accuracy to which various parameters can be measured with future SN searches. In this paper, we use SNOC to obtain simulated samples of the intrinsic dispersion and gravitational lensing effects of Type Ia SNe over a broad redshift range.

The intrinsic dispersion and measurement error is represented by a Gaussian distribution with $`\sigma _m=0.16`$ mag. Gravitational lensing effects are calculated by tracing the light between the source and the observer by sending it through a series of spherical cells in which the dark matter distribution can be specified. For more details on the method, originally proposed by Holz and Wald, see .

We will model compact DM as point-masses and smooth DM as the Navarro-Frenk-White density profile. The exact parameterization of the smooth DM halo profile is not important for the results obtained in this paper . The results are also independent of the individual masses of the compact objects as well as their large scale clustering properties . As we have seen, the eventual small-scale structure in the “smooth” component does not act as a compact component.

## V Supernova/Acceleration Probe

To make realistic predictions of the statistics and quality of the supernova sample, we use the projected discovery potential of the Supernova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP) project. This is a proposed satellite telescope capable of discovering over 2000 Type Ia SNe per year in the redshift range $`0.1<z<1.7`$ . The most anticipated use of the data is to gain further accuracy in the determination of, e.g., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and the curvature of the Universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$, but also to give insight into the nature of the negative pressure energy component by constraining the equation of state , or the redshift dependence of the effective energy density . Here we show how the data also can be used to give information on the fraction of compact objects in the dark matter component.

More specifically, it is projected that in one year, SNAP will be able to discover, follow the light curves and obtain spectra for of the order of 2000 SNe. While the exact redshift distribution of the Type Ia supernovae to be followed by SNAP might be changed upon studies of the optimal search strategies for the primary goals of the project, we have used the Monte-Carlo generated sample spectra of 2366 SNe distributed according to the SNAP proposal , see Fig. 2, to make specific predictions.

## VI Results

Using SNOC, we have created large data sets of synthetic SNe observations with a variable fraction of compact objects ranging from 0 to 40 % using the following cosmological background parameter values: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`h=0.65`$. (For a discussion of how the halo distributions were generated, see .) These are used as reference samples. In Fig. 3, we have plotted the dispersion in the reference samples for 0 % (full line), 20 % (dashed line) and 40 % (dotted line) compact objects. In the upper panel, the lensing dispersion is plotted, i.e., the dashed line basically corresponds to the scatter in the upper right panel in Fig. 1. The zero value corresponds to the value one would obtain in a homogeneous universe (upper left panel in Fig. 1). Note that negative values correspond to magnified events, positive values to demagnified events. It is clear, that as the fraction of compact DM grows, lensing effects becomes larger in the sense that we have a larger fraction of highly magnified events. In the lower panel we have added a Gaussian intrinsic dispersion and measurement error, $`\sigma _\mathrm{m}=0.16`$ mag, making the distributions look more similar (cf., lower right panel in Fig. 1). Although this smearing obviously decreases the significance of the compact signal, it can be seen that the high-magnification tails still are clearly visible.

We have also created a large number of simulated one-year SNAP data sets (according to Fig. 2 above) with 6, 11 and 21 % compact objects. These are our experimental samples. By comparing each generated experimental sample with our high-statistics reference samples using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test, we obtain a confidence level for the hypothesis that the experimental sample is drawn from the same distribution as the reference sample. For each fraction of compact objects in the experiments (6, 11 and 21 %), we repeat this procedure for 1000 experimental realizations and pick out the reference sample which gives the highest confidence level for each experiment. Plotting the number of best-fit reference samples as a function of the fraction of compact objects in the reference sample, we can fit a Gaussian and thus estimate the true value and the dispersion. In each case, we get a mean value within 1 % of the true value and a one-sigma error less than 5 %, see Fig. 4.

As one could expect, and is shown in Fig. 1, lensing effects get larger at higher redshifts. At low redshifts the dispersion is completely dominated by the intrinsic dispersion. Therefore, we have only used the data from SNe at $`z>0.8`$, a total of 1387 SNe, to obtain the result in Fig. 4.***Of course, the data from SNe at $`z<0.8`$ can still be used to constrain the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In fact, with one year of SNAP data, it is possible to determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ with a statistical uncertainty of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ 0.02 .

In this analysis, we have assumed that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will be known to an accuracy where the error in luminosity is negligible in comparison to the intrinsic and lensing dispersion of Type Ia SNe. This assumption is not unreasonable with future CMBR observations combined with other cosmological tests and the SNAP data itself, nor is it crucial in the sense that we are dealing with the dispersion of luminosities around the true mean value, not the mean value itself. In order to test the sensitivity of our results to changes in the cosmological parameter values, we have performed a number of Monte-Carlo simulations using different sets of parameters in our experimental and reference samples and found the error in the total energy density in compact objects to be negligibleNote that the effect from lensing is proportional to the total energy density in compact objects, not the fraction of compact objects, see, e.g., . A higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ would therefore increase the sensitivity for smaller fractions.. Also, we have used a value of the intrinsic dispersion and measurement error of $`\sigma _\mathrm{m}=0.16`$ mag, a value which may be appreciably smaller in the future when the large data sample expected may allow, e.g., a more refined description and classification of supernovae. Using simulated data sets with $`\sigma _\mathrm{m}=0.1`$ mag, the one-sigma error in the determination of the fraction of compact objects, using the same cosmology as above, becomes less than 3 %, as depicted in Fig. 5.

## VII Summary

The proposed SNAP satellite will be able to detect and obtain spectra for more than 2000 Typa Ia SNe per year. In this paper we have used simulated data sets obtained with the SNOC simulation package to show how one-year SNAP data can be used to determine the fraction of compact DM in our Universe to $`5\%`$ accuracy, assuming the intrinsic dispersion and measurement error is $`\sigma _\mathrm{m}=0.16`$ mag. If the intrinsic dispersion and measurement error can be further reduced, e.g., from a improved understanding of Type Ia SN detonation mechanisms, the accuracy can be improved even further.

## Acknowledgements

LB wishes to thank the Swedish Research Council for financial support, and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton for hospitality when part of this work was performed. AG is a Royal Swedish Academy Research Fellow supported by a grant from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation.


text:
# Why high Tc is exciting.

## I The unreasonable Fermi-liquid.

Much of the present day electronics revolution would not have been possible without the breakthroughs happening in the first half of the twentieth century in fundamental physics. In this era, the band-structure picture of electrons in solids emerged. This picture is based on the notion that the electrons behave approximately as non-interacting fermions and all what remains to be done is to solve the Schrödinger equation describing the motion of a single electron through the potential exerted by the static ion-lattice. The ultimate triumph of this idea was the explanation of conventional superconductivity in terms of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory. According to this theory, superconductivity is a sibling of the gas of non-interacting electrons. Under the influence of any attractive force, these fermions form pairs, and these pairs can subsequently be viewed as a gas of bosons which have to Bose-Einstein condense in the superconducting state.

This ‘paradigm’ has been extremely successful. Reading the older textbooks on the subject one gets the impression that it explains everything. Also in modern fields like mesoscopic- and nano physics it is taken as the omnipotent physical law, to the extent that theories are judged right or wrong pending their conformation to the principle. However, is it obvious? All one has to realize is that electrons carry around a unit of electrical charge, and in typical solids electrons are at average an Angstrom or so apart. Hence, a simple estimate shows that these electrons repel each other with an energy of order of electron-volts. How can such huge interactions be completely neglected?

In conventional systems, like copper wire, silicon chips and neutron stars, the answer to this question is well established: at the densities of interest the Fermi-energy, being the measure of the zero-point kinetic energy, is even larger than the Coulomb energy and under this condition one can pretend that the electrons do not interact. However, this argument only works when the interactions are long ranged while the potentials set by the ion lattice are weak. In this regard, copper cum suis are special and many systems have been identified where this argument does not apply. In such cases one faces a problem of principle. Even when quantum mechanics can be neglected, dense systems of strongly interacting particles (classical fluids) are very hard to describe, and quantum mechanics makes this much harder. Nevertheless, for a long time it appeared that nature was nice for theoretical physicists. Although one had to give up on a complete description, it appeared that one could get away with a Fermi-gas description at large length- and time scales: the Fermi-liquid notion of Landau.

Landau devised this strictly phenomenological description in the late 1950’s for $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, the first bad player which was identified. A number of other examples followed (like the heavy fermion systems) and in the late 1980’s the Fermi-liquid notion was implicitly or explicitly considered to be the universal truth. Apparently, the reasons why Landau’s ideas were initially considered as an act of immense intellectual courage were forgotten. Consider $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$; surely its low temperature collective physics is the Fermi-gas, although the effective fermions are much heavier than real $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ atoms. However, at the same time its short distance physics as measured by neutron scattering is barely different from that of the classical $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ fluid found at higher temperatures. This is disturbing since it is well understood that such a classical van der Waals fluid is far from being a non-interacting gas. It is much closer to a crystal with defects and all motions are highly concerted. Hence, a miracle is happening in quantum $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$: at short distances it is like a van der Waals fluid kept in a highly collective motion by quantum mechanics, changing at large distances in an entity where the effective $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ atoms seem to fly straight through each other, not noticing each others influence except than for the Pauli principle. How can this happen? I learned from Bob Schrieffer that nobody has a clue and that this problem was simply abandoned, out of despair.

These believes got badly shaken with the arrival of high Tc superconductivity. Despite its obvious failure in this context, the Fermi-liquid was defended with a religious zeal. In hindsight, the 1990’s can be characterized as the era where the condensed matter community was forced to abandon its paradigm, in a painful process which is not dissimilar from the sociological dynamics described by the philosopher Kuhn.

For whatever reason, society seems to become more and more susceptible to a phenomenon called hype. A good example is the recent outrage around e-commerce, but the physics community is susceptible as well. High Tc superconductivity started out like this in 1987. In the aftermath of the 1957 discovery of the BCS theory, a concerted effort was organized to increase the superconducting transition temperature by designing materials based on the BCS understanding. After 20 years or so this got stuck at a cold 24 K. The discovery of Bednorz and Müller of a $`T_c=34`$K superconductor in a copperoxide triggered a hype which got serious by the discovery of a truly high temperature (90 K) copperoxide superconductor by Paul Chu et al. in early 1987. For the next couple of years high Tc raged like a wildfire through the physics community, with the predictable outcome of a severe hangover when it became clear that the rewards associated with commercial superconductivity would not materialize.

As an unplanned side effect, these copper oxides were investigated in an unprecedented detail ($`\pm 10^5`$ papers) while it stimulated the refinement of a variety of experimental techniques, varying from crystal growth to photoemission and neutron scattering. The main result of this effort is that it once and for all proved the Fermi-liquid and the BCS theory to be wrong. Despite this huge amount of experimental information, high Tc superconductivity is still a mystery and it has only become more mysterious in the course of time. Being a mystery is not necessarily a sufficient condition for a flourishing science pursuit. However, it is a widespread sentiment among the specialists to be utterly fascinated by the problem, and this sentiment rests on the perception that the experiments guide us into novel but very fertile areas of physics research. The bottom-line is that since a couple of years the hangover is over.

## II Mesoscopic quantum dynamics: stripes.

The face of physics is a function of scale. In condensed matter the shortest scale is the lattice constant and the physics is that of electrons moving in their (quasi) atomic orbitals, often called ‘chemistry’. In the established paradigm (e.g., copper) it is envisaged that these chemistry electrons smoothly cross-over into Fermi-liquid quasi-electrons: all that happens is that the Coulomb interactions of the lattice scale disappear due to metallic screening. In cuprates and other correlated oxides this is an entirely different story. The lattice scale physics is reasonably well understood: it is the physics of the doped Mott-insulator. Nearly all transition metal salts are insulators and this is due to the dominance of the atomic Coulomb interactions localizing the electrical charges of the electrons (the Mott-insulating state). The spins of the electrons can still move freely and one typically finds quantum-antiferromagnets. High Tc superconductivity emerges when a CuO based Mott-insulator is doped. The active units are two dimensional CuO layers, separated by highly ionic oxidic layers containing uninteresting elements like $`La`$. By chemical substitutions in the latter one can add or remove electrons from the CuO layers. This introduces charge carriers into the planes, which delocalize quantum-mechanically. It is by now well understood that this delocalization, leading to the metallicity, is a highly collective affair. These moving charges scramble the spin system and as a result the antiferromagnet quantum-melts locally and the charge carrier is surrounded by a droplet of quantum spin liquid.

The above picture is appropriate for a single, isolated carrier but it changes drastically at the carrier densities of relevance to the superconductor which is rather high (one out of every eight unit cells contains a hole, or so). A collectivity sets in of a new kind having no precedent elsewhere: the electron stripes. Instead of moving independently, the charge carriers organize on lines, ‘rivers of charge’, separated by Mott-insulating and antiferromagnetic domains, and these lines themselves are subjected to quantum meandering motions on the CuO planes. As it turns out, these stripes can be brought to a standstill by a variety of tricks (the so-called LLT lattice deformations, external magnetic fields), all of which involve the removal of a relative small amount of kinetic energy from the electron system. Under these circumstances static stripe phases are formed where these ‘rivers of charge’, form a regular structure which can easily be studied by conventional means. It turns out that these stripe phases are ubiquitous in doped Mott-insulators: they have not only been found in cuprates but in all other doped Mott-insulators which have been studied up to now, like the manganites and the nickelates. In Leiden, Hans Brom and coworkers are investigating the ordering dynamics of the stripes using NMR and NQR, and these studies reveal that much remains to be understood, even when stripes are solidifying.

One statement is conclusive: static stripe phases are not great for superconductivity. In fact, when stripes become static the system tends to be (quasi) insulating. In a general sense they can be looked at as a special kind of Wigner (=electron) crystal. However, it appears that in the superconductors stripes are still around but now as quantum fluctuating textures with a physical reality on mesoscopic length (1-10 nanometer) and time scales (picoseconds). A crude analogy exists with the confinement phenomenon of quantum-chromo dynamics. Stripes start to form at a scale of a couple of lattice constants as relatively mildly fluctuating entities. However, upon increasing the scale these quantum fluctuations become more and more severe to get truly out of hand at picosecond time scales. This is like the process occurring in the QCD vacuum where at short distances the right objects are gluons and quarks. The quark/gluon fluctuations become more and more severe in going to large distances with the effect that a qualitative change in the physics occurs at the confinement scale where nuclear physics emerges. In the cuprate context, when the stripe quantum fluctuations get out of hand, the physics of the high Tc superconducting state emerges.

How do we know? The above picture is intimately linked to progress in ‘big gun’ condensed matter experimentation: photoemission and inelastic neutron scattering. Until recently, no experimental means were available to directly probe this dynamical regime of mesoscopic lengths and -times. How to probe fluctuating nanometer scale textures on a picosecond time scale? Static phenomena on nanometer length scales are easily accessible with ‘conventional’ nano-technology. Laser technology offers access to short times but averages automatically over micrometer lengths. However, both photoemisson and inelastic neutron scattering have in principle access to electronic textures on nanometer length scales, which are fluctuating on picosecond time scales. Due to an impressive progress over the last years, the data have become good enough to be conclusive about the stripy mesoscopics in the high Tc cuprates. Both experiments reveal features which indicate that both the spin- and the electron dynamics acquire a one dimensional character, consistent with the stripe picture on the aforementioned time- and length scales.

This theme is actually more general. I refer to a recent piece by Laughlin and coworkers (‘the middle way’), where it is argued that more surprises should be hidden in this mesoscopic dynamical regime which will only reveal themselves when the appropriate experimental machinery is available. For instance, a central mystery in biology is why proteins act as flawless machines, and this is obviously related again to hard-to-probe mesoscopic dynamics. Surely, neither photoemission nor neutron scattering have to say much about this mystery, and Laughlin et al. argue that it should be a highest priority for experimentalists to figure out new machines giving access to these scales.

## III Competing orders

It is definitely not so that with the dynamical stripes the problem of high Tc superconductivity is solved. Along the lines of the QCD analogy of the previous section, at the stripe ‘confinement’ scale, the face of physics changes drastically and the long wavelength physics of the superconductor is yet a completely different story. This long wavelength regime is easily accessible by conventional condensed matter experimentation and it is in this regime where the mystery is most manifest. Superficially, it has features which resemble a BCS superconductor, and there was a period that the opinion was widespread that the cuprate superconductors somehow rediscovered BCS physics at sufficiently low temperatures and large scales (compare with the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ example). However, in hindsight it appears that a variety of anomalies were worked under the rug, while other anomalies became manifest with the improving experimentation.

There is no debate regarding the metallic state realized at temperatures above the superconducting transition: it is a quantum state of matter which has not a single feature in common with the Fermi-liquid. The newest data indicate that this state continues smoothly into the superconducting state and it is therefore an appropriate starting point to discuss high Tc’s anomalies. One does not have to dig deep: the simple property resistivity makes the point as clear as anything else. The resistivity in the normal state of the best high Tc superconductors behaves in an extremely simple fashion: it just increases linearly with temperature, from $`T_c100`$K up to the highest temperatures measured (1200 K). This is one example of the regularity of the high Tc phenomenon as I mentioned earlier: such a simple behavior should have a simple and elegant explanation. Viewed from a Fermi-gas perspective it is utterly unreasonable. When the electrical current is carried by quasiparticles it has to be that the resistivity is a more interesting function of temperature than a straight line. The reason is that the dissipation mechanism of the quasiparticle current has to change as function of temperature. At low temperature, there are only other quasiparticles around and the resistivity should be proportional to $`T^2`$. At intermediate temperatures phonons take over and a non-universal behavior is expected while at high temperatures the inelastic mean free path becomes of order of the lattice constant and the resistivity should become temperature independent. Hence, quasiparticle currents cannot cause linear resistivities and something else is carrying the current! What else can it be instead? There is only a single idea around which makes sense. It is rooted in a simple and general idea: the current is carried by the quantum-critical fluctuation associated with a quantum phase transition.

To appreciate the meaning of this sentence, one should not be scared by quantum-field theory. Quantum-field theory projects an image that it is an incomprehensible, overly mathematical affair which is barely ever of consequence, at least outside the realms of high energy physics. This is quite besides the truth. It is better be regarded as a collection of powerful principles and concepts which appear as increasingly simple and beautiful when one gets used to the idea. The problem is just that it is a relatively novel discipline which emerged in its present incarnation in the 1970’s, and it is still to be included in the physics teaching programs. Apparently, field theory is becoming alive in the context of high Tc superconductivity, but also in quantum Hall and quantum magnetism, and this is the real reason behind the perception that substantial progress is made in quantum condensed matter physics.

Quantum-field theory is about the quantum mechanics of systems with an infinity of degrees of freedom and such systems are governed by principles which are different from those of the few particle problems getting exposure in the textbooks. Its modern incarnation rests on the path-integral formalism: a quantum system in D space dimensions can be viewed as a statistical physics problem in D+1 dimensions, with some special effects like the (anti) periodicity in the time direction, Berry phases, etcetera. The role of temperature in the statistical physics problem is taken by the coupling constant, measuring the strength of the quantum fluctuations, while physical temperature enters the quantum problem as the inverse length of the imaginary time axis.

Taking this seriously, the idea of quantum-criticality becomes exceedingly simple. Statistical physics is about phase transitions between ordered states, breaking some symmetry spontaneously, and disordered states where the symmetry is restored. At the phase transition these two collective states of matter are competing and when the phase transition is continuous this competition looks the same on all scales, up to some short distance cut-off. This universe becomes self-similar, which in turn implies that correlation functions become algebraic, decaying like $`x^\eta `$. Imagine now an ordered system at zero temperature, where the strength of the quantum-fluctuations can be tuned from the outside. At some point a transition will follow to a quantum-disordered state. According to the path integral formalism one can think about this quantum phase transition as a classical phase transition in space-time. When this is a continuous transition the path-integral formalism implies that in space-time a self-similar state is realized: the quantum critical state. Since everything is algebraic, also the real-time dynamics becomes algebraic and dynamical responses behave typically like power laws $`1/E^\alpha `$ (‘cusps’, ‘branch cuts’), where $`E`$ is the energy pumped in the system from the outside. This is in marked contrast with quasi-particle excitations which show up as sharp spikes (‘poles’) in response functions. Quasiparticles correspond with lumps of energy localized at some point in space-time and at the the critical point this is not possible because the quasiparticle breaks the scale invariance. Instead, what one has are excitations (‘quantum critical fluctuations’) which fill all of space-time.

During the last few years, the quality of the data on the high Tc superconductors, coming from photoemission, neutron scattering and optical experiments have improved dramatically. Although these experiments measure different properties, they all show that the low lying excitations of the have a cusp like nature, at least in the best cuprate superconductors. This in itself already gives a strong support that we are dealing with a quantum-critical system. However, a cross-check is possible. The above discussion refers to data taken at very low temperatures. A next specialty of the quantum critical state is that temperature plays a quite peculiar role. As already stated, in the path-integral formalism temperature enters as the inverse length of the imaginary time axis and at zero temperature the time axis is infinitely long. However, at finite temperatures the time axis has a finite length and, therefore, temperature breaks the scale invariance in space-time! Hence, besides the short distance cut-off (which can be argued to be easily of order 1000 K in the cuprates) the only scale in the problem is temperature itself! Using general properties of finite size scaling one can argue that zero frequency properties measured at a finite temperature should be just linearly proportional to temperature. I set out to explain why the resistivity is behaving like this, to find a most natural and general rational for this behavior in terms of quantum criticality! This is not all because many other properties, including those at finite energies and temperatures, find a natural explanation within this framework.

## IV Hidden order.

Phase transitions tend to happen at isolated points in control parameter space and the same applies to quantum-phase transitions. The most important control parameter is the coupling constant, parametrizing the strength of the quantum fluctuations, and there are good reason to believe that this coupling constant is in turn controlled by the amount of doping in the high Tc cuprates. The perfect quantum-criticality as described in the previous section is found at a particular doping which is in the close vicinity of the doping density where $`T_c`$ is at maximum. Going away from this point, bumps and wiggles (e.g., ‘pseudo-gap’) appear in physical properties which are consistent with the notion that, although the system cannot make a choice at short distances/short times/high temperatures, it has made up its mind at large distances/long times/low temperatures. The phase transition is about two competing states of matter which are differing in symmetry and away from the phase transition one of the two states wins the contest. What are these states?

So much is clear that the quantum criticality is found right in the middle of the superconducting regime, and surely these two states cannot be distinguished on their capacity to spontaneously break the gauge symmetry. Something else is disordering. On the high doping side there is a sense that things start to look more normal (BCS-like). Although far from being a proven fact, the notion is popular that this state is at least symmetry-wise indistinguishable from a conventional superconductor. Hence, on the underdoped side a form of order has to be present which is alien to a Fermi-liquid type superconductor. Remarkably, it is at present completely unclear what this order is. Although it reveals its presence indirectly through the quantum-criticality, it is apparently impossible to see it directly. Experimentalists have tried hard and found nothing. For this reason it is called the hidden order.

To unravel the nature of this hidden order is the holy grail of high Tc. Given that it disappears at the maximum Tc, the belief is widespread that it also will tell us something about the origin of the superconductivity. A number of ingenious theoretical proposals are around where this link is made quite explicit. These all belong to the class of theories based on the idea of spin-charge separation. The basic idea is quite simple. It is asserted that the electrons fall apart in particles which carry the charge of the electron (‘holons’) and excitations which carry its spin (‘spinons’). The electron is a fermion which cannot bose condense to form a superconductor. However, when the spinon carries away the fermionic character of the electron the holon is a charge e boson and these bosons can in principle condense at a high temperature. Although it is well established that spin-charge separation happens all the time in one dimensional systems, it has appeared to be very difficult to demonstrate that it can happen in higher dimensional systems like the cuprate superconductors. There is a variety of uncontrolled theories around, based on spin-charge separation, which all have the structure of a QCD-like gauge theory. These have in common that besides the superconductivity very unconventional forms of long range order can occur. A first example is the $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory by Patrick Lee and coworkers, suggesting that the hidden order is a flux phase. In a flux phase, spontaneous electrical currents are flowing around the plaquettes in the lattice, setting up a pattern of magnetic moments. These moments are not easy to observe because they are very small. However, they are in principle observable and experimentalists have looked hard without finding anything. A more recent idea is the Ising (Z2) gauge theory for spin-charge separation by Matthew Fisher and coworkers. They propose a transition where the topological character of the gauge-vacuum is changing, coming up with the prediction that in the hidden order phase the system should remember that it contained Abrikosov flux lines, even when it is made non-superconducting. In the mean time, experiments have been performed to check this prediction, with a negative outcome.

Besides these ideas centered around the spin-charge separation idea, there are a number of other proposals around like the ‘conventional’ flux phases (Varma, Laughlin and coworkers), as well as the ideas of Sachdev and coworkers regarding a possible symmetry change of the superconducting state itself. Although the books are not closed on the subject, it appears that these all suffer from the same problem as the gauge theories: if around, these kinds of order should have been observed in the mean time. Let me finally turn to a suggestion from our Leiden group. I find that it should be taken seriously, for two reasons: (a) it is firmly based on stuff we know is real, the stripes, (b) it is sufficiently outrageous to have a chance to be even true.

## V Stripes and geometric order.

I have now arrived at the point where the circle can be closed. I started out the discussion of high Tc superconductivity with the anomalous behaviors called dynamical stripes, to give it no further mention in the discussion of the long-wavelength quantum critical behaviors. Could it be that the stripes and the quantum criticality have to do with each other? This is not obvious. Recalling the analogy with QCD, the experiments indicate that the stripy stuff literally disappears at a scale which is to be considered as small in the context of the quantum-critical behaviors seen in the optimally superconductors. Although stripes occur at distances which are quite large as compared to the lattice constant, stripy things should be around on macroscopic scales to be of relevance to the hidden order and the quantum criticality. Stripes can be forced to order, so that this requirement is fulfilled, but for this to happen one has to pay the price that superconductivity disappears.

These statement are based on the perception that stripe order coincides with charge order and spin order (antiferromagnetism). These orders are easy to observe. The meaning of the dynamical stripes is that the charge- and spin are indeed observed, but that they appear to be deep in the quantum disordered regime, far from the phase transition. At the same time, I also argued that the low energy physics of the cuprates emerges from this ‘stripy ultraviolet’ which is so strikingly different from the electron ultraviolet of simple metals. Is there something in this ‘short’ distance stripe physics which we have overlooked, which can survive up to the macroscopic scale?

I gave in fact an incomplete characterization of stripe order in the second section. Stripes are more than just spin and charge order. They carry yet another form of order which is so unfamiliar that it only got formulated mathematically last year, although the community at large has been staring at it since 1994. The crucial experimental observation is that the charge stripes are at the same time Ising domain walls in the stripe antiferromagnet. Every time one passes a charge stripe the spin ordering pattern changes from up-down-up-down to down-up-down-up. Why this happens is actually quite well understood. Many theoretical calculations, including the ones which led to the theoretical discovery of the stripes by Gunnarsson and myself in 1987, have reproduced this ‘anti-phase boundarieness’. This physics is not essential for the further discussion and I refer the reader to the relevant literature. Viewed from a symmetry perspective, the anti-phase boundarieness at first appears as an absurdity. Domain walls are topological defects associated with a discrete (Ising-like, $`Z_2`$) symmetry. The problem is that the spin system is a Heisenberg spin system: the antiferromagnetic order parameter can as well point along the z-, x- or y-direction, or anywhere in between. In theorist’s jargon this is called $`O(3)`$ symmetry and such a symmetry only allows for topological defects called skyrmions, which are entirely different from domain walls. Hence, calling stripes domain walls in the spin system is just a misnomer.

As it turns out, the same basic $`Z_2`$ structure is present in the exact (Bethe-ansatz) solutions for the one dimensional systems. It turns out to be responsible for the spin-charge separation: the Ising domain wall becomes a point (or ‘particle’) in one dimension and it binds to the electron, thereby ‘eating’ the spin of the electron, turning it into a holon. In two dimensions, domain ‘points’ turn into domain ‘lines’ and after binding the electrons to these domain lines one obtains precisely the stripes. Stripes might be called ‘spin-charge separation in two dimensions’ or, semantically more correct, the Luttinger liquid might be called a ‘mildly fluctuating one dimensional stripe phase’.

I have still not answered the question: the stripe (or holon) is a domain wall in what? Much helped by the highly advanced theory for the one dimensional case we only recently figured out the answer. This stuff is sublattice parity.

Sublattice parity refers to a geometrical property of the space in which the spin system lives. Given that spin system is antiferromagnetic, there is a crucial difference between a bipartite and non-bipartite embedding space. A bipartite lattice is one which can be subdivided into two sublattices (A and B) and a simple square lattice as realized in the cuprates is a good example. This subdivision can be done in two ways: $`\mathrm{}ABAB\mathrm{}`$ or $`\mathrm{}BABA\mathrm{}`$, and this ‘sublattice parity’ is obviously an Ising degree of freedom. Given that the nearest-neighbor interactions are by far the strongest, one can realize a neat antiferromagnet on such a bipartite lattice by just putting, say, up-spins on the A- and down spins on the B-sublattice. If the bipartiteness is destroyed, the spin system gets frustrated because one can no longer satisfy the requirement that all neighboring spins are anti-parallel. In fact, the only property of the embedding space which matters for the quantum antiferromagnet is if the embedding space is bipartite or not.

Strangely, the Bethe-Ansatz solutions for the one dimensional systems show unambiguously that the electron charge binds to flips in the sublattice parity. This defines a new bipartite space in which the spins move and this is behind the explanation of spin-charge separation. Applying this one dimensional recipe to the two dimensional case one obtains the stripes. The antiphase-boundariness as seen in the experiments reveals that sublattice parity is around as a ‘hidden variable’. In the static stripe phases this sublattice parity is ordered, because every time one crosses a charge stripe the antiferromagnet reverses its direction, without any exception.

Therefore, in the ordered stripe phases sublattice parity order is far from hidden. However, it is not hard to imagine that sublattice parity actually goes undercover. A priori, there is nothing against the theoretical possibility that the charge- and spin degrees of freedom quantum disorder, long before sublattice parity order gives up. Imagine that the stripes are still intact lines, maintaining their domain wall character, while these lines themselves form a quantum fluid. Only if one would take snapshots one would be able to see that there are two different types of domains. If one waits too long one only sees the average, characterized by equal amounts of A-B-A-B and B-A-B-A sublattice parity. One would expect that eventually at sufficiently high doping even sublattice parity order should disappear. For instance, assuming that the overdoped state of the cuprates is a conventional BCS superconductor, it has to be that sublattice parity order has disappeared because this kind of order is alien to a conventional superconductor. Sublattice parity order has to disappear at a quantum-phase transition. Our suggestion is that high Tc’s hidden order is sublattice parity order, which is disappearing at the famous quantum critical point.

This is the simple idea. However, as a pleasant circumstance we found out that it is like opening a Pandora’s box of interesting theoretical physics. The reason is that sublattice parity is a geometrical structure, comparable but far simpler than the physical space-time of general relativity. At the quantum phase transition, where the sublattice parity order is disappearing, it is not so much the spins or the charges which go critical, but it is instead the effective space-time in which they are living which is undergoing the critical fluctuations. This suggests that it has something to do with the notoriously difficult problem of quantum gravity. However, we are much helped by the rather simple nature of ‘sublattice gravity’. With little success, theorists have attempted to map gravity on a gauge theory. We found out that this strategy does become very successful in the present context: the gauge theory of relevance turns out to be Wegner’s $`Z_2`$ gauge theory. This is a lucky circumstance, because this is one of the few gauge theories which is completely understood. Among others, the phase transition where sublattice parity order disappears turns out to correspond with the confinement transition of the gauge theory which is known to be a second order transition.

Did we solve the problem? It is too early to say, because we are still facing considerable theoretical difficulties associated with the fermion signs – we seem to have a reasonable understanding of the theory when the matter (spin-, charge-) fields are bosonic but there are theoretical- as well as experimental (nodal states) reasons to believe that a sign structure is around. More worrisome, when the stripes are dynamical sublattice parity order gets very well hidden indeed! It seems fundamentally impossible to observe it directly and only its indirect influence on especially the spin system is accessible by experimental means. We do in fact predict a new type of spin-like order (the quantum spin-nematic) which can be nailed down using conventional experimental means but it is not said that this state is also realized. It is a weird state and it cannot be excluded that it is lying somewhere on an experimentalists shelf, as suspected machine problem. However, we are not optimistic in this regard and there is nothing in the theory saying that this state has to be realized.

The bottom-line is that sublattice parity order is suffering from the problem that it is too well hidden. For the time being we take the liberty to continue working on it, finding inspiration in Dirac’s principle that when the mathematics is beautiful nature will do it.

## VI Further reading.

1. M. Buchanan, ‘Mind the pseudogap’, Nature 409, 8 (2001).
2. R. B. Laughlin, D. Pines, J. Schmalian, B.P. Stojkovic and P. Woynes, ‘The middle way’, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sc. USA, 97, 28 (2000); R. B. Laughlin and D. Pines, ‘The Theory of Everything’, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sc. USA, 97, 32 (2000).
3. J. Orenstein and A. J. Millis, ‘Advances in the physics of high-temperature superconductivity’, Science 288, 468 (2000).
4. J. Zaanen, ‘Superconductivity: self-organized one dimensionality’, Science 286, 251 (1999); ‘High-temperature superconductivity: stripes defeat the Fermi-liquid’, Nature 404, 714 (2000).
5. V. J. Emery, S. A. Kivelson and J. M. Tranquada, ‘Stripe phases in high temperature superconductors’, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sc. USA, 96, 8814 (1999).
6. S. Sachdev, ‘Quantum Phase Transitions’, Cambridge U. Press, New York (1999).
7. J. Zaanen, O.Y. Osman, H. V. Kruis, Z. Nussinov and J. Tworzydlo, ‘The geometric order of stripes and Luttinger liquids’, cond-mat/0102103.