text:
# Anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the two Higgs doublet model

## 1 Introduction

The lepton flavor violating (LFV) interactions, non-zero electric dipole moments (EDM) and the anomalous magnetic moments (AMM) of leptons are among the most promising candidates to search for physics beyond the standard model (SM). The AMM of the muon have been studied in the literature extensively  and . The experimental result of the muon AMM by the g-2 Collaboration  has been obtained as

$`a_\mu =\mathrm{116\hspace{0.17em}592\hspace{0.17em}023}(151)\times 10^{11},`$ (1)
and recently, at BNL , a new experimental world average has been announced

$`a_\mu =\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}203}(8)\times 10^{10},`$ (2)
which has about half of the uncertainty of previous measurements. This result has opened a new window for testing the SM and the new physics effects beyond. The SM prediction for $`a_\mu `$ is written in terms of different contributions ;

$`a_\mu (SM)=a_\mu (QED)+a_\mu (weak)+a_\mu (hadronic),`$ (3)
where $`a_\mu (QED)=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}658\hspace{0.17em}470.57}(0.29)\times 10^{10}`$ and $`a_\mu (weak)=15.1(0.4)\times 10^{10}`$. The hadronic contributions are under theoretical investigation. With the new data from Novosibirsk , the calculation of the first order hadronic vacuum polarization to $`a_\mu (SM)`$ is obtained as $`684.7(7.0)\times 10^{10}`$ ($`701.9(6.1)\times 10^{10}`$) using the $`e^+e^{}`$ $`(\tau )`$ based result. The addition of the higher order contributions, $`10.0(0.6)\times 10^{10}`$ and light by light scattering $`8.6(3.2)\times 10^{10}`$, result in $`a_\mu (SM)=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}169.1}(7.8)\times 10^{10}`$ ($`a_\mu (SM)=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}186.3}(7.1)\times 10^{10}`$ based on $`e^+e^{}`$ $`(\tau )`$ data. Therefore, there is a $`3.0`$ ($`1.6`$) standard deviation from the experimental result and this could possibly be due to the effects of new physics, at present.

Various scenarios have been proposed to explain the nonvanishing value of the deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$  \- ,previously. The Supersymmetry (SUSY) contribution to $`a_\mu `$ has been investigated in . In  the new physics effect on $`a_\mu `$ has been explained by introducing a new light gauge boson. The prediction of the muon AMM has been estimated in the framework of leptoquark models in , the technicolor model with scalars and top color assisted technicolor model in , in the framework of the general two Higgs doublet model (2HDM) in  and also in . The work  was devoted to the Higgs mediated lepton flavor violating interactions which contributed to $`a_\mu `$. In this study, only the scalar Higgs exchange was taken into account by assuming that the pseudoscalar Higgs particle was sufficiently heavier than the scalar one. Finally, in , scalar scenarios contributing to $`a_\mu `$ with enhanced Yukawa coupling were proposed.

In , the upper bound on leptonic flavor changing coupling, related with the transition $`\tau \mu `$, has been obtained in the 2HDM as $`0.11`$, using the AMM of the muon by considering that the dominant contribution comes from the lighter scalar boson. In this case the uncertainty between the SM prediction and the experimentalone was taken as $`7.4\times 10^9`$ and it was emphasized that this bound would decrease to the values of $`0.03`$ with the reduction of the uncertainty up to a factor $`20`$.

In our work, we study the new physics effects on the AMM of the muon using the model III version of the 2HDM of reference , including both scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs boson effects, based on the assumption that the numerical value should not exceed the present experimental uncertainty, $`(12)\times 10^9`$. The new contribution to $`a_\mu `$ exists at one-loop level with internal mediating neutral particles $`h^0`$ and $`A^0`$ in our case, since we do not include charged FC interaction in the leptonic sector due to the small couplings for $`\mu \nu _l`$ interactions. In the calculations, we take into account the internal $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$ leptons and neglect the contribution coming from the internal $`e`$-lepton since the corresponding Yukawa coupling is expected to be smaller compared to the others. Furthermore, we also neglect the internal $`\mu `$-lepton contribution by observing the weak dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ on the $`\mu `$-$`\mu `$ coupling. We predict a stringent upper bound for the $`\mu `$-$`\tau `$ coupling and compare with the one, which is obtained by using the restriction coming from the EDM of $`\mu `$ lepton (see  for details).

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we present the new physics effects on the AMM of the muon in the framework of the general 2HDM. Section 3 is devoted to discussion and our conclusions.

## 2 Anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the model III version of two Higgs doublet model.

In the type III 2HDM, there exist flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC), mediated by the new Higgs bosons, at tree level. The most general Higgs-fermion interaction for the leptonic sector in this model reads as

$`_Y=\eta _{ij}^E\overline{l}_{iL}\varphi _1E_{jR}+\xi _{ij}^E\overline{l}_{iL}\varphi _2E_{jR}+h.c.,`$ (4)
where $`i,j`$ are family indices of leptons, $`L`$ and $`R`$ denote chiral projections $`L(R)=1/2(1\gamma _5)`$, $`l_{iL}`$ and $`E_{jR}`$ are lepton doublets and singlets respectively, $`\varphi _i`$ for $`i=1,2`$, are the two scalar doublets

$`\varphi _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ v+H^0& \end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}\chi ^+& \\ i\chi ^0& \end{array}\right)\right];\varphi _2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}H^+& \\ H_1+iH_2& \end{array}\right),`$ (11)
with the vacuum expectation values

$`<\varphi _1>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ v& \end{array}\right);<\varphi _2>=0.`$ (14)
With the help of this parametrization and considering the gauge and $`CP`$ invariant Higgs potential which spontaneously breaks $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ down to $`U(1)`$ as:

$`V(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(\varphi _1^+\varphi _1v^2/2)^2+c_2(\varphi _2^+\varphi _2)^2`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`+c_3[(\varphi _1^+\varphi _1v^2/2)+\varphi _2^+\varphi _2]^2+c_4[(\varphi _1^+\varphi _1)(\varphi _2^+\varphi _2)(\varphi _1^+\varphi _2)(\varphi _2^+\varphi _1)]`$
$`+`$ $`c_5[Re(\varphi _1^+\varphi _2)]^2+c_6[Im(\varphi _1^+\varphi _2)]^2+c_7,`$
the SM particles and new particles beyond can be collected in the first and second doublets respectively. Here $`H^0`$ is the SM Higgs boson and $`H_1(H_2)`$ are the new neutral Higgs particles. Since there is no mixing of neutral Higgs bosons at tree level for this choice of Higgs doublets, $`H_1(H_2)`$ is the usual scalar (pseudoscalar) $`h^0(A^0)`$.

In the Yukawa interaction eq. (4), the part which is responsible for the FCNC at tree level reads as

$`_{Y,FC}=\xi _{ij}^E\overline{l}_{iL}\varphi _2E_{jR}+h.c..`$ (16)
Notice that, in the following we will replace $`\xi _{ij}^E`$ by $`\xi _{N,ij}^E`$ to emphasize that the couplings are related to the neutral interactions. The Yukawa matrices $`\xi _{N,ij}^E`$ have in general complex entries and they are free parameters which should be fixed by using the various experimental results.

The effective interaction for the anomalous magnetic moment of the lepton is defined as

$`_{AMM}=a_l{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4m_l}}\overline{l}\sigma _{\mu \nu }lF^{\mu \nu },`$ (17)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the electromagnetic field tensor and ”$`a_l`$” is the AMM of the lepton ”$`l`$”, $`(l=e,\mu ,\tau )`$. This interaction can be induced by the neutral Higgs bosons $`h^0`$ and $`A^0`$ at loop level in the model III, beyond the SM. As mentioned we do not take charged FC interaction in the leptonic sector due to the small couplings for $`\mu \nu _l`$ interactions.

In Fig. 1, we present the 1-loop diagrams due to neutral Higgs particles . Since, the self energy $`(p)`$ (diagrams $`a`$, $`b`$ in Fig. 1) vanishes when the $`l`$-lepton is on-shell, in the on-shell renormalization scheme, only the vertex diagram $`c`$ in Fig. 1 contributes to the calculation of the AMM of the lepton $`l`$. The most general Lorentz-invariant form of the coupling of a charged lepton to a photon of four-momentum $`q_\nu `$ can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`G_1(q^2)\gamma _\mu +G_2(q^2)\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu `$ (18)
$`+`$ $`G_3(q^2)\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5q^\nu `$
where $`q_\nu `$ is the photon 4-vector and the $`q^2`$ dependent form factors $`G_1(q^2)`$, $`G_2(q^2)`$ and $`G_3(q^2)`$ are proportional to the charge, AMM and EDM of the $`l`$-lepton respectively. Using the definition of AMM of the lepton $`l`$ (eq. (17)), $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{New}a_\mu `$ is extracted as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{New}a_\mu =a_\mu ^{(1)}+{\displaystyle _0^1}a_\mu ^{(2)}(x)𝑑x,`$ (19)
where $`a_\mu ^{(1)}`$ ($`_0^1a_\mu ^{(2)}(x)𝑑x`$) is the contribution coming from the internal $`\tau `$ ($`\mu `$) lepton. The functions $`a_\mu ^{(1)}`$ and $`a_\mu ^{(2)}`$ are given by

$`a_\mu ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_\tau }{64\pi ^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \tau }^E)^2+(\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E)^2)(F_1(y_{h^0})F_1(y_{A^0}))`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E|^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}(G_1(y_{h^0})+G_1(y_{A^0}))\},`$
and

$`a_\mu ^{(2)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_\mu }{64\pi ^2}}(x1)^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \mu }^E)^2+(\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \mu }^E)^2+2|\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \mu }^E|^2x}{1+(r_{h^0}2)x+x^2}}`$ (21)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \mu }^E)^2+(\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \mu }^E)^22|\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \mu }^E|^2x}{1+(r_{A^0}2)x+x^2}}\},`$
where $`F_1(w)`$ and $`G_1(w)`$ are

$`F_1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w(34w+w^2+2lnw)}{(1+w)^3}},`$
$`G_1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w(2+3w6w^2+w^3+6wlnw)}{(1+w)^4}}`$ (22)
Here $`y_H=\frac{m_\tau ^2}{m_H^2}`$ and $`r_H=\frac{m_H^2}{m_\mu ^2}`$, $`Q_\tau `$ and $`Q_\mu `$ are the charges of $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$ leptons respectively. In eqs. (20) and (21) $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^E`$ is defined as $`\xi _{N,ij}^E=\sqrt{\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^E`$. In eq. (19) we take into account internal $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$-lepton contributions since, the Yukawa couplings $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^E`$ $`i`$( or $`j`$)$`=e`$ are negligible (see Discussion part). Notice that we make our calculations for arbitrary $`q^2`$ and take $`q^2=0`$ at the end.

In our analysis we take the couplings $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$ and $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \mu }^E`$ complex in general and use the parametrization

$`\overline{\xi }_{N,ll^{}}^E=|\overline{\xi }_{N,ll^{}}^E|e^{i\theta _{ll^{}}}.`$ (23)
The Yukawa factors in eqs. (20) and (21) can be written as

$`((\overline{\xi }_{N,ll^{}}^E)^2+(\overline{\xi }_{N,l^{}l}^E)^2)=2cos\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _{ll^{}}|\overline{\xi }_{N,l^{}l}^E|^2`$ (24)
where $`l,l^{}=\mu ,\tau `$. Here $`\theta _{ll^{}}`$ are CP violating parameters which lead to the existence of the lepton electric dipole moment.

## 3 Discussion

The new physics contribution to the AMM of the lepton is controlled by the Yukawa couplings $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^E,i,j=e,\mu ,\tau `$ in the model III. These couplings can be complex in general and they are free parameters of the model under consideration. The relevant interaction (see eq. (17)) can be created by the mediation of the neutral Higgs bosons $`h^0`$ and $`A^0`$ beyond the SM, with internal leptons $`e,\mu ,\tau `$ (Fig. 1). However, in our predictions, we assume that the Yukawa couplings $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^E`$ and $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \mu }^E`$ are small compared to $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$ since their strength is proportional to the masses of the leptons denoted by their indices, similar to the Cheng-Sher scenerio . Notice that, we also assume $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^E`$ as symmetric with respect to the indices $`i`$ and $`j`$. Therefore, the number of free Yukawa couplings is reduced by two and one more coupling, namely $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$ still exists as a free parameter. This parameter can be restricted by using the experimental result of the $`\mu `$ EDM

$`d_\mu <10.34\times 10^{19}ecm.`$ (25)
at $`95\%`$ CL limit and the corresponding theoretical result for the EDM of the muon in the model III (see  for details). Since a non-zero EDM can be obtained in the case of complex couplings, there exist a CP violating parameter $`\theta _{\tau \mu }`$ coming from the parametrization eq. (23). Using the experimental restriction in eq.(25), the upper limit of the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$ is predicted at the order of the magnitude of $`10^3GeV`$.

The other possibility to get a constraint for the upper limit of $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$ is to use the experimental result of the muon AMM. In this work, we study the new physics effects on the muon AMM and predict a more stringent bound for the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$, with the assumption that the new physics effects are of the order of the experimental uncertainty of the muon AMM measurement. We also check the effect of the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \mu }^E`$ on AMM of the muon and observe that AMM has a weak sensitivity on this coupling. This insensitivity is due to the suppression coming from the factors $`r_{h^0}`$ and $`r_{A^0}`$ in the denominator of eq. (21). Therefore, we can take $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$ as the only free parameter.

Fig. 2 shows the $`|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E|`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{New}a_\mu `$ for $`sin\theta _{\tau \mu }=0.5`$, $`m_{h^0}=85GeV`$ and $`m_{A^0}=95GeV`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{New}a_\mu `$ is of the order of magnitude $`10^9`$, increases with increasing value of the coupling $`|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E|`$ and exceeds the experimental uncertainty, namely $`10^9`$. This forces us to restrict the coupling $`|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E|`$ as $`|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E|<30\pm 5GeV`$ for intermediate values of $`sin\theta _{\tau \mu }`$, $`0.4sin\theta _{\tau \mu }0.6`$. This is a much better upper limit compared to the one obtained using the experimental result of the $`\mu `$ EDM.

In Fig. 3, we show the $`sin\theta _{\tau \mu }`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{New}a_\mu `$ for $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E=30GeV`$, $`m_{h^0}=85GeV`$ and $`m_{A^0}=95GeV`$. Increasing values of $`sin\theta _{\tau \mu }`$ cause $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{New}a_\mu `$ to decrease and to lie within the experimental uncertainty.

In Fig. 4, we present $`m_{h^0}`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{New}a_\mu `$ for $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E=30GeV`$, $`sin\theta _{\tau \mu }=0.5`$, and $`m_{A^0}=95GeV`$. The upper limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{New}a_\mu `$ decreases with increasing values of $`m_{h^0}`$.

For completeness, we also show the $`|\xi _{N,\mu \mu }^E|`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{New}a_\mu `$ when the internal $`\mu `$-lepton contribution is taken into account. In this figure, it is observed that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{New}a_\mu `$ is only weakly sensitive to $`|\xi _{N,\mu \mu }^E|`$ for $`|\xi _{N,\mu \mu }^E|<0.1GeV`$ and therefore the internal $`\mu `$-lepton contribution can be safely neglected, for these values.

In this work, we choose the type III 2HDM of  for the physics beyond the SM and assume that only FCNC interactions exist at tree level, with complex Yukawa couplings. We predict an upper limit for the coupling $`|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E|`$ for the intermediate values of the imaginary part, by assuming that the new physics effects are of the order of the experimental uncertainty of muon AMM, namely $`10^9`$, and see that this leads to a much better upper limit, $`30GeV`$, compared to the one obtained by using the experimental result of the $`\mu `$ EDM, $`10^3GeV`$. In the calculations, we studied the internal $`\mu `$ lepton contributions as well. However, we observe that they give a negligible contribution to the AMM of muon. Furthermore, we neglect the $`e`$ lepton contribution. With more accurate future measurements of the AMM, it should be possible to constrain the parameters of the Two Higgs Doublet Model more stringently.

## 4 Acknowledgement

This work has been supported by the Turkish Academy of Sciences, in the framework of the Young Scientist Award Program. (EOI-TUBA-GEBIP/2001-1-8).


format: text

text:
# On the de Haas-van Alphen effect in inhomogeneous alloys.

## Abstract

We show that Landau level broadening in alloys occurs naturally as a consequence of random variations in the local quasiparticle density, without the need to consider a relaxation time. This approach predicts Lorentzian-broadened Landau levels similar to those derived by Dingle using the relaxation-time approximation. However, rather than being determined by a finite relaxation time $`\tau `$, the Landau level widths instead depend directly on the rate at which the de Haas-van Alphen frequency changes with alloy composition. The results are in good agreement with recent data from three very different alloy systems.

: J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.

The relaxation-time approximation (RTA), in which quasiparticles scatter in random events at a characteristic rate $`\tau ^1`$, has proved invaluable in understanding the electrical resistivity and thermal conductivity of metals . It has also been used to treat the de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) effect, i.e. magnetic quantum oscillations of the magnetisation . Dingle showed that the Lorentzian broadening of Landau levels in metals, observed using the dHvA, is qualitatively explained by the RTA for elastic scattering . The predicted exponential damping of quantum oscillations due to impurities, with a characteristic scaling temperature known as the Dingle temperature $`T_\mathrm{D}=\mathrm{}/2\pi k_\mathrm{B}\tau `$, was subsequently verified experimentally in the vast majority of known metals .

In spite of this apparent success, the RTA proves inadequate when considering thermodynamic functions of state, such as the electronic specific heat $`\gamma T`$ or magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$, because of the formation of bound states associated with impurities . More generally, impurities, surfaces or defects of any kind will modify the lattice periodicity and the local potential of the crystal, so that the quasiparticle wavefunctions (i.e. the eigenstates of a perfect, periodic, infinite crystal ) will no longer be eigenstates of the modified crystal . The assumption that the consequent alteration of, for example, the Landau level structure can be parameterised merely by a relaxation rate $`\tau ^1`$  seems to be a considerable oversimplification.

A deeper problem arises in the alloy Hs1-xDox, where Hs represents the host material and Do the dopant impurity. When $`x`$ becomes $`0.5`$, one should be concerned as to how far the distinction between “host” and “dopant” can be stretched. As numerous experiments have shown (see e.g References ), the quasiparticle wavefunctions are no longer those of the host material, weakly perturbed by enhanced impurity scattering. By contrast, Dingle’s model only considers the statistical broadening of Landau levels, without considering how the underlying bandstructure is being modified by the alloying .

In view of the difficulty in separating effects due to the variation of the bandstructure with $`x`$ and effects due to the changes in the actual quasiparticle lifetime, we have chosen to abandon the RTA and instead adopt a semi-empirical approach based on statistical variations of the local quasiparticle density in an alloy. The essential advantage of this approach is that the sensitivity of the electronic structure to $`x`$ is considered as the starting point. Our model is therefore related to the work of Woltjer . Using a spatially-varying electron density, Woltjer was able to provide convincing simulations of Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations and the Quantum Hall Effect in two-dimensional semiconductor systems without the need to invoke localisation . However, in contrast to Woltjer’s work, which involved numerical simulations of experimental data, in the current paper we provide an analytical solution which predicts the damping of dHvA oscillations.

Our model is applicable to systems for which the lattice parameters are only weakly dependent on $`x`$  and for dHvA oscillations arising from circular Fermi surface cross-sections. Encouragingly, it predicts Lorentzian-broadened Landau levels similar to those described by Dingle . However, rather than being determined by a finite relaxation time $`\tau `$, the Landau level widths instead depend directly on the rate at which the dHvA frequency $`F(x)`$ changes with $`x`$, enabling estimates to be made that compare very favourably with experiment.

The starting point of the model is the fact that $`x`$, the local concentration of Do in Hs, is subject to statistical variations about the mean value $`\overline{x}`$. This will lead to a spread of Fermi-surface cross-sections $`A(x)`$ about the mean $`A(\overline{x})`$. As the dHvA frequency is given by $`F=(\mathrm{}/2\pi e)A`$ , the variation in $`A`$ in turn leads to a spread of dHvA frequencies $`F(x)`$ and to phase smearing effects . In this paper we restrict ourselves to simple circular Fermi surface cross-sections of $`k`$-space area $`A`$ that are easy to relate to the local quasiparticle concentration $`N(x)`$ . However, rather than assuming that $`N(\overline{x})`$ is linearly dependent on $`\overline{x}`$, we choose a semi-empirical approach whereby $`A^{}(\overline{x})`$ and $`F^{}(\overline{x})`$, the derivatives respectively of the mean cross-section $`A(\overline{x})`$ and mean dHvA frequency $`F^(\overline{x})`$ with respect to $`\overline{x}`$, are those obtained from experiment. The dHvA frequency $`F(x)`$ corresponding to a particular value of $`x`$ can then be obtained from

$$F(x)F(\overline{x})+[x\overline{x}]F^{}(\overline{x}).$$
(1)
Given the finite separation, $`a`$, between ions , the average number of Hs and Do ions encountered in a quasiparticle path comprising $`p`$ orbits of the circular cyclotron trajectory is determined by binomial statistics; the path will be of length $`2\pi pl_\mathrm{c}(\overline{x})=2\pi p\sqrt{2\mathrm{}F(\overline{x})/eB^2}`$. For such a path, $`mxn`$ of these will be of the Do type and $`nm[1x]n`$ of these will be of the Hs type. The probability that $`m`$ of these ions are of type Do, corresponding to a local dopant concentration $`x=m/n`$ (and local dHvA frequency $`F(x)`$), is therefore

$$p(m,n)=\frac{\overline{x}^m[1\overline{x}]^{nm}n!}{m![nm]!}.$$
(2)
Under standard experimental conditions, $`n`$ will always be a large number in metals. Taking the “necks” of Au as one example of a Fermi surface cross section ($`F_\mathrm{N}`$ 1530 T) that is not especially large , $`a`$ 2.6 Å while $`l_\mathrm{c}`$ 1400 Å in a magnetic field of $`B10`$ T, implying that that $`n540`$. Clearly, it would be impractical to work with such a large number terms in calculations. It is well known, however, that the skew factor $`\eta =1/\sqrt{6\overline{x}[1\overline{x}]n}`$ for the binomial distribution vanishes for large $`n`$, causing the binomial distribution to become well approximated by the normal distribution . In implementing this approximation, the mean becomes $`\mu _m=n\overline{x}`$ and the variance becomes $`\sigma _m^2=n\overline{x}[1\overline{x}]`$. Following the established idea that a variation in $`F`$ results in a “phase-smearing” which produces a damping of the dHvA effect  the damping factor becomes the result of the Fourier transformation

$`R_\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sigma _m}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{[x\overline{x}]^2n^2}{2\sigma _m^2}}\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi p[x\overline{x}]F^{}(\overline{x})}{B}}\right)\mathrm{d}x.`$ (3)
Making the substitution $`\varphi 2\pi p[x\overline{x}]F^{}(\overline{x})/B`$, and performing the integration in the $`\varphi `$ domain, we obtain

$`R_\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _\varphi }}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{2\sigma _\varphi ^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )d\varphi `$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _\varphi ^2}{2}}\right),`$ (4)
where

$$\sigma _\varphi ^2=\frac{2\pi p\overline{x}[1\overline{x}]F^{}(\overline{x})^2a}{B}\sqrt{\frac{e}{2\mathrm{}F}}$$
(5)
is now the phase-variance.

The expected symmetry between Hs and Do is immediately seen in the presence of both $`[1\overline{x}]`$ and $`\overline{x}`$ terms in Equation (5), enabling this model to be applied across an entire alloy series $`0`$ $`<x<`$ 1. More satisfyingly, since the exponent is linear in both the harmonic index $`p`$ and $`1/B`$, the functional form of $`R_\mathrm{i}`$ is exactly that obtained by Dingle using the RTA . After inverse Fourier transformation and the parabolic band substitution $`F=m^{}E/\mathrm{}e`$, a Lorentzian Landau-level line shape

$$f(E)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\pi [E^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2]},$$
(6)
is obtained, with the level width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\overline{x}[1\overline{x}]F^{}(\overline{x})^2a}{m^{}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}e^3}{8F}}.$$
(7)
This latter result implies that a Lorentzian broadening of the Landau levels results naturally from frequency-smearing effects caused by the substitution of dopants without needing to consider the concept of a relaxation time .

We now consider whether this model can account for a significant amount of the Landau-level broadening observed in well known alloy systems. Three experiments involving approximately circular Fermi-surface cross-sections are considered.

Ag impurities in Au. Dilute alloys of the form AgxAu1-x provide a useful test case, since the lattice parameters of Au and Ag are very similar and the neck orbit, giving rise to a dHvA frequency of $`F_\mathrm{N}`$ 1530 T in Au, is thought to be very circular . To facilitate a comparison with existing experimental data, the results of our model are stated in terms of an effective Dingle temperature

$$T_\mathrm{D}=\frac{\overline{x}[1\overline{x}]F^{}(\overline{x})^2a}{\pi k_\mathrm{B}m^{}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}e^3}{2F}}.$$
(8)
On inserting the appropriate values for Ag0.01Au0.99, of $`F_\mathrm{N}^{}`$ 650 T, $`m^{}`$ 0.29 $`\times m_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`a`$ 2.7 Å for the face-centered cubic lattice , we obtain $`T_\mathrm{D}1.1`$ K per percent of Ag, which compares favourably with the experimentally obtained value of 0.8 K per percent of Ag . Thus our model for Landau-level broadening appears to be able to predict reasonable values for the observed $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ in AgxAu1-x.

Kondo alloys. Our model can also be applied to the CexLa1-xB6 series. Because this is a Kondo system in which the effective mass varies with the magnetic field, it is more meaningful to present the results in terms of a mean free path, since this quantity is not renormalised by the interactions that give rise to Kondo behaviour . In having abandoned the RTA, however, we have in effect also abandoned the concept of a mean free path. Nevertheless, by making a comparison with the formulae of Dingle, we can define an effective mean free path,

$$l_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{2\mathrm{}F}{e\overline{x}[1\overline{x}]F^{}(\overline{x})^2a}.$$
(9)
On inserting the appropriate values of $`F_{\alpha ,3}`$ 7970 T, $`F_{\alpha ,3}^{}`$ 550 T and $`a`$ 4.0 Å, for the worst-case alloy $`x=`$ 0.5 , we obtain $`l_{\mathrm{eff}}350`$ nm, which is within experimental error of the maximum value obtained experimentally . Thus, this model can explain why the broadening of the Landau levels in the CexLa1-xB6 intermetallic compounds was observed to be unexpectedly low .

A doped insulator. Finally, it is interesting to consider the case of a doped insulator, to investigate whether one should expect to observe the dHvA in such systems. Low density, weakly-ferromagnetic electron-gas systems, which have been of recent interest, certainly fall into the category, and dHvA oscillations have been observed . The simplest model is that of a variable density, $`N`$, where $`N(x)=xN^{}`$. On deriving $`F(x)`$ and $`F^{}(x)`$ for a spherical Fermi surface, we obtain

$$\frac{\sigma _\varphi ^2}{2}=\frac{p}{24}[1x]\frac{\mathrm{}a}{eB}N^{}.$$
(10)
Interestingly, at very low concentrations, $`x`$ 0, the extent to which the quantum oscillations are damped does not depend on $`x`$. Since no estimates of the $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ or $`l_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ have been published , the best we can do is estimate the lowest field at which we should expect quantum oscillations to be observed. According to Dingle , the threshold field is given approximately by the inequality $`\omega _\mathrm{c}\tau \stackrel{>}{}1`$. The equivalent inequality according to our model is $`\varphi ^2\stackrel{>}{}2\pi `$. Upon substituting $`a`$ 4.0 Å and $`N^{}`$ 5$`\times `$1027 m-3 , we obtain $`B\stackrel{>}{}`$ 9 T. This is in very good agreement with experiment; Goodrich  reports that dHvA oscillations are only observed at fields of 10 T and greater.

In summary, we have shown that Lorenzian broadening of Landau levels in alloys can be derived statistically by considering a distribution of Fermi surface cross-sections, without invoking the relaxation-time concept. We have considered three alloy systems, and shown that the extent to which the Landau levels are broadened, or the extent to which the quantum oscillations are damped, compares favourably with experiment. In view of the current experimental interest in alloy systems, we hope that this paper stimulates further consideration of, for example, more general Fermi-surface shapes and the effect of lattice mismatch between host and impurity.

Work at Los Alamos is supported by the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the State of Florida. JS acknowledges additional support by EPSRC (UK). We should like to thank Charles Mielke and Albert Migliori for very helpful discussions.


text:
# Geodesics and curvature of semidirect product groups

## 1 Introduction

00footnotetext: 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification: 58D05, 58B2000footnotetext: Key words and phrases: semidirect product, geodesic, curvature, stability, magneto-hydrodynamics

Important partial differential equations were obtained as geodesic equations on diffeomorphism groups with right invariant $`L^2`$ or $`H^1`$ metrics: Euler equation of motion of an incompressible ideal fluid and the averaged Euler equation are geodesic equations on the volume preserving diffeomorphism group \[A\]\[MRS\], the Korteweg-de-Vries equation and Camassa-Holm shallow water equation are geodesic equations on the Virasoro-Bott group \[OK\]\[M1\], Burger’s equation and Camassa-Holm equation are geodesic equations on $`\mathrm{Diff}(S^1)`$ \[K\], the superconductivity equation is geodesic equation on a central extension of the volume preserving diffeomorphism group \[V2\].

Semidirect products are applied to study differential equations in physics, like ideal magneto-hydrodynamics and compressible magneto-hydrodynamics, heavy top, compressible fluid, elasticity, plasma. In some cases one can write the differential equation as a geodesic equation on semidirect product groups with right invariant metrics: Kirchhoff equations for a rigid body moving in a fluid are geodesic equations on the Euclidean group, the equations of ideal magneto-hydrodynamics are geodesic equations on the semidirect product of the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms and the linear space of divergence free vector fields \[ZK\], the equation of passive motion in ideal hydrodynamics is geodesic equation on the semidirect product of the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms and the linear space of smooth functions \[H\].

Arnold suggested an approach to the stability of those differential equations obtained as geodesic equations on a Lie group with right invariant metric, by studying the curvature of this weak Riemannian manifold. The curvature tensor enters the Jacobi equation and this, being the linearization of the geodesic equation, controls the infinitesimal stability of geodesics. As in the finite-dimensional case, one can expect that negative curvature causes exponential instability of geodesics. In this way Arnold \[A\] showed the instability in most directions of Euler equation for ideal flow, Shkoller \[S\] showed that the averaged Euler equation is more stable than Euler equation for ideal flow and Zeitlin and Kambe \[ZK\] showed that the equations of ideal magneto-hydrodynamics are more stable than Euler equation for ideal flow. There are also results on the stability of the Korteweg-de-Vries and Camassa-Holm equations \[M1\]\[M2\] and superconductivity equation \[V2\].

In this paper we determine the geodesics and the curvature in the general setting: semidirect product groups with right invariant metrics. In the special case of an isometric semidirect product $`GH`$, the curvature is shown to be the sum of the curvatures of the two groups $`G`$ and $`H`$. The formulas are applied to several examples like: linear action, conjugation, $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, magnetic extension of a group: $`G𝔤^{}`$.

## 2 Right invariant metrics on Lie groups

In this paragraph we give expressions for the geodesic equation, Levi-Civita covariant derivative and curvature for Lie groups with right invariant metrics (see \[MR\] for a nice presentation of this subject).

Let $`G`$ be a Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Let $`\rho _x`$ be the right translation by $`x`$. Any right invariant bounded Riemannian metric on $`G`$ is determined by its value at the identity $`<,>:𝔤\times 𝔤`$, a positive definite bounded inner product on $`𝔤`$. Let $`g:IG`$ be a smooth curve and $`u:I𝔤`$ its right logarithmic derivative (the velocity field in the right trivialization) $`u(t)=T\rho _{g(t)^1}.g^{}(t)`$. In terms of $`u`$ the geodesic equation for $`g`$ has the expression (here $`u_t=\frac{du}{dt}`$)

$$u_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}u,$$

where $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}`$ is the adjoint of $`\mathrm{ad}(X)`$ with respect to $`<,>`$, if this adjoint does exist.

The right trivialization induces an isomorphism $`R:C^{\mathrm{}}(G,𝔤)𝔛(G)`$ given by $`R_X(x)=T\rho _x.X(x)`$. In terms of this isomorphism, the Levi-Civita covariant derivative is

$$_X^GY=dY.R_X+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}Y+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ad}(Y)^{}X\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ad}(X)Y,$$

for $`X,YC^{\mathrm{}}(G,𝔤)`$.

The sectional curvature $`𝒦`$ and the Riemannian curvature $``$ are related by

$$𝒦(X,Y)=\frac{<(X,Y)Y,X>}{<X,X><Y,Y><X,Y>^2},$$

so the sign of the expression $`<(X,Y)Y,X>`$ determines the sign of the sectional curvature. Its expression in the right trivialization is

$`<(X,Y)Y,X>`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}Y+\mathrm{ad}(Y)^{}X^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{ad}(X)Y^2`$
$`<\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}X,\mathrm{ad}(Y)^{}Y>`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}Y,\mathrm{ad}(X)Y>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<\mathrm{ad}(Y)^{}X,\mathrm{ad}(Y)X>.`$
An example \[A\]: Let $`G=\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$ be the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms of a compact Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ and $`𝔤=𝔛_{vol}(M)`$ the Lie algebra of divergence free vector fields. We consider the right invariant metric on $`G`$ given by the $`L^2`$ inner product $`<X,Y>=_Mg(X,Y)\mathrm{vol}`$. Let $``$ be the Levi Civita covariant derivative and $`R`$ the Riemannian curvature tensor. The transpose of $`\mathrm{ad}(X)`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}Y=P(_XY+(X)^{}Y)`$, the geodesic equation in terms of the right logarithmic derivative is Euler equation for ideal flow

$$u_t=_uu\mathrm{grad}p,\mathrm{div}u=0,$$

the covariant derivative for right invariant vector fields is $`_X^GY=P_XY`$ and the curvature

$`<(X,Y)Y,X>`$ $`=<R(X,Y)Y,X>`$
$`+<Q_XX,Q_YY>Q_XY^2,`$
with $`P`$ and $`Q`$ the orthogonal projections on the spaces of divergence free respectively gradient vector fields.

## 3 Geodesics and curvature of semidirect
product groups

Let $`G`$ and $`H`$ be Lie groups with right invariant metrics given by positive definite inner products $`<,>`$ on their Lie algebras $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔥`$. Let $`B`$ be an action of $`G`$ on $`H`$ by group homomorphisms with $`B:G\times HH`$ smooth. Then the semidirect product group $`GH`$ is a Lie group with group operation: $`(g_1,h_1)(g_2,h_2)=(g_1g_2,h_1B(g_1)h_2)`$. We denote by $`\beta :G\mathrm{Aut}𝔥`$ the map defined by $`\beta (g)=T_eB(g)`$ and $`b:𝔤\mathrm{Der}𝔥`$ the differential of $`\beta `$ at the identity. Then $`b`$ defines a semidirect product of Lie algebras $`𝔤𝔥`$ by $`[(X_1,Y_1),(X_2,Y_2)]=([X_1,X_2],[Y_1,Y_2]+b(X_1)Y_2b(X_2)Y_1)`$ and this is the Lie algebra of $`GH`$. On the semidirect product group we consider the right invariant metric given at the identity by the following positive definite inner product on its Lie algebra: $`<(X_1,Y_1),(X_2,Y_2)>=<X_1,X_2>+<Y_1,Y_2>`$.

We make the following assumptions: the transpose of $`\mathrm{ad}(X)`$, $`\mathrm{ad}(Y)`$ and $`b(X)`$ with respect to the inner products in $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔥`$ exist for all $`X𝔤`$ and $`Y𝔥`$ and there exists a bilinear map $`h:𝔥\times 𝔥𝔤`$ defined by the relation

$$=<h(Y_1,Y_2),X>.$$

Then the transpose of $`\mathrm{ad}(X,Y)`$ exists in the semidirect product Lie algebra and

$$\mathrm{ad}(X_1,Y_1)^{}(X_2,Y_2)=(\mathrm{ad}(X_1)^{}X_2h(Y_1,Y_2),\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)^{}Y_2+b(X_1)^{}Y_2).$$

###### Proposition 1.

With the assumptions above, on the semidirect product Lie group $`GH`$ with right invariant metric, the geodesic equation in terms of the right logarithmic derivative $`(u,\alpha ):I𝔤𝔥`$ is

$$u_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}u+h(\alpha ,\alpha )$$

$$\alpha _t=\mathrm{ad}(\alpha )^{}\alpha b(u)^{}\alpha .$$

After some computations and using the relation

$$<h(Y_1,Y_2),\mathrm{ad}(X_1)X_2>=$$

implied by the Lie algebra homomorphism property of $`b`$, we get the following formula for the curvature:

###### Proposition 2.

Suppose that the map $`h`$ and the transpose of $`\mathrm{ad}(X)`$, $`\mathrm{ad}(Y)`$ and $`b(X)`$ exist. Then the sign of the sectional curvature in the semidirect product group is given by the sign of

$$\begin{array}{c}<\stackrel{~}{}((X_1,Y_1),(X_2,Y_2))(X_2,Y_2),(X_1,Y_1)>=<^G(X_1,X_2)X_2,X_1>\hfill \\ \hfill +<^H(Y_1,Y_2)Y_2,Y_1>+\frac{1}{4}h(Y_1,Y_2)+h(Y_2,Y_1)^2<h(Y_1,Y_1),h(Y_2,Y_2)>\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}<h(Y_1,Y_2)+h(Y_2,Y_1),\mathrm{ad}(X_1)^{}X_2+\mathrm{ad}(X_2)^{}X_1>\\ \hfill +<h(Y_1,Y_1),\mathrm{ad}(X_2)^{}X_2>+<h(Y_2,Y_2),\mathrm{ad}(X_1)^{}X_1>\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{4}b(X_1)^{}Y_2+b(X_2)^{}Y_1^2\frac{3}{4}b(X_1)Y_2b(X_2)Y_1^2\\ \hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\\ \hfill ++\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\\ \hfill <\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)^{}Y_1,b(X_2)^{}Y_2><\mathrm{ad}(Y_2)^{}Y_2,b(X_1)^{}Y_1>\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}<\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)^{}Y_2,b(X_1)^{}Y_2+b(X_2)^{}Y_1b(X_1)Y_2+b(X_2)Y_1>\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}<\mathrm{ad}(Y_2)^{}Y_1,b(X_1)^{}Y_2+b(X_2)^{}Y_1b(X_2)Y_1+b(X_1)Y_2>\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}<\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)Y_2,b(X_1)^{}Y_2b(X_2)^{}Y_1+3b(X_1)Y_23b(X_2)Y_1>,\end{array}$$

where $`^G`$ and $`^H`$ denote the Riemannian curvature of $`G`$ and $`H`$.

###### Corollary 3.

The sign of the sectional curvature of a two-dimensional plane spanned by $`(X_1,0)`$ and $`(X_2,0)`$ is given by the expression

$$<\stackrel{~}{}((X_1,0),(X_2,0))(X_2,0),(X_1,0)>=<^G(X_1,X_2)X_2,X_1>.$$

The sign of the sectional curvature of a two-dimensional plane spanned by $`(X,0)`$ and $`(0,Y)`$ is given by the expression

$$<\stackrel{~}{}((X,0),(0,Y))(0,Y),(X,0)>=<h(Y,Y),\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}X>$$

$$\frac{1}{4}(b(X)+b(X)^{})Y^2+\frac{1}{2}b(X)^{}Y^2\frac{1}{2}b(X)Y^2.$$

The sign of the sectional curvature of a two-dimensional plane spanned by $`(0,Y_1)`$ and $`(0,Y_2)`$ is given by

$$<\stackrel{~}{}((0,Y_1),(0,Y_2))(0,Y_2),(0,Y_1)>=<^H(Y_1,Y_2)Y_2,Y_1>$$

$$+\frac{1}{4}h(Y_1,Y_2)+h(Y_2,Y_1)^2<h(Y_1,Y_1),h(Y_2,Y_2)>.$$

In the special case when the action $`\beta `$ of $`G`$ on $`𝔥`$ is by isometries, the formulas reduce considerably. We call this the isometric case. We have then

$$+<Y_1,b(X)Y_2>=0,$$

i.e. $`b(X)`$ is skew-adjoint and so the bilinear map $`h:𝔥\times 𝔥𝔤`$ is skew-symmetric. The geodesic equation reduces to

$$u_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}u$$

$$\alpha _t=\mathrm{ad}(\alpha )^{}\alpha +b(u)\alpha .$$

###### Proposition 4.

In the isometric case the sign of the sectional curvature of the semidirect product is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}<\stackrel{~}{}((X_1,Y_1),(X_2,Y_2))(X_2,Y_2),(X_1,Y_1)>\hfill \\ \hfill =<^G(X_1,X_2)X_2,X_1>+<^H(Y_1,Y_2)Y_2,Y_1>.\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Each $`b(X)`$ is a derivation of the Lie algebra $`𝔥`$ and this implies

$$<\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)Y_2,b(X)^{}Y_3>=.$$

Using this and proposition 2, the result follows. ∎

## 4 Examples

1. Linear action. Let $`V`$ be a vector space with an inner product $`<,>`$ and $`B`$ a linear action of $`G`$ on $`V`$. The semidirect product Lie group $`GV`$ has the Lie algebra $`𝔤V`$. In this case the geodesic equation becomes

$$u_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}u+h(v,v)$$

$$v_t=b(u)^{}v.$$

If in addition the action $`B`$ is by isometries, we get the geodesic equation: $`u_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}u,v_t=b(u)v`$.

2. Conjugation. Let $`B`$ be the action of $`G`$ on $`G`$ by conjugation. The Lie algebra of $`GG`$ is $`𝔤𝔤`$ with action $`b(X)=\mathrm{ad}(X)`$. Then the map $`h:𝔤\times 𝔤𝔤`$ is $`h(Y_1,Y_2)=\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)^{}Y_2`$ and the geodesic equation on the semidirect product written for the right logarithmic derivative $`(u,v)`$ is

$$u_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}u\mathrm{ad}(v)^{}v$$

$$v_t=\mathrm{ad}(v)^{}v\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}v.$$

If the inner product is Ad-invariant, then $`<[X,Y],Z>+<Y,[X,Z]>=0`$ and the geodesic equation becomes $`u_t=0,v_t=[u,v]`$.

3. Natural action of diffeomorphisms on functions. Let $`M`$ be a compact Riemannian manifold and $`B(\phi )f=f\phi ^1`$ the natural action of the diffeomorphism group on the space of smooth real functions. The Lie algebra of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ is $`𝔛(M)C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ with action $`b(X)f=X(f)`$, which is exactly the Lie algebra of differential operators of the first order on $`M`$. We consider the $`L^2`$ metrics on vector fields and on functions, i.e. $`<X,Y>=_Mg(X,Y)\mathrm{vol}`$ and $`<f_1,f_2>=_Mf_1f_2\mathrm{vol}`$. The transpose of $`\mathrm{ad}(X)`$ in $`𝔛(M)`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}Y=_XY+(\mathrm{div}X)Y+(X)^{}Y`$ (see \[V1\]). Moreover: $`b(X)^{}f=X(f)+f\mathrm{div}X`$ and $`h(f_1,f_2)=f_2\mathrm{grad}f_1`$. By proposition 1 we find that the geodesic equation on $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ is

$$u_t=_uu(\mathrm{div}u)u\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{grad}g(u,u)f\mathrm{grad}f$$

$$f_t=u(f)f\mathrm{div}u.$$

If we restrict to the subgroup $`\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, we are in the isometric case. The geodesic equation in this case models the passive motion in ideal hydrodynamical flow \[H\]:

$$u_t=_uu\mathrm{grad}p$$

$$f_t=u(f).$$

From proposition 4 it follows that the sign of the sectional curvature in this case is

$$\begin{array}{c}<\stackrel{~}{}((X_1,f_1),(X_2,f_2))(X_2,f_2),(X_1,f_1)>=<(X_1,X_2)X_2,X_1>\hfill \end{array}$$

where $``$ denotes the curvature of $`\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$ and $`R`$ the curvature of $`M`$. As a consequence we get the result of \[ZK\] (obtained there in the case of a 2-torus) that the group manifold $`\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ is flat in all sections containing a direction $`(0,f)`$.

## 5 Magnetic extension of a group

Let $`G`$ be a Lie group and $`\mathrm{Ad}^{}`$ the coadjoint action on the dual $`𝔤^{}`$. The semidirect product $`G𝔤^{}`$ is called the magnetic extension of the group $`G`$ and it is isomorphic to the cotangent group $`T^{}G`$.

Let $`A:𝔤𝔤^{}`$ be the operator defined for $`X𝔤`$ by

$$(A(X),Y)=<X,Y>$$

for any $`Y𝔤`$. Here $`<,>`$ is a fixed inner product on $`𝔤`$ and $`(,)`$ denotes the pairing between $`𝔤`$ and its dual. In the case of the Lie algebra of divergence free vector fields, $`A`$ is called the inertia operator of a fluid and it is invertible on the regular part of the dual space. The dual space $`𝔤^{}`$ in this case is naturally isomorphic to the quotient space $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1/d\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ of differential 1-forms modulo exact 1-forms and $`A`$ sends a vector field $`X`$ to the coset of the 1-form $`X^{\mathrm{}}`$ obtained via the Riemannian metric.

We consider again the general case of a Lie group $`G`$ with an inner product on its Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, such that the transpose of $`\mathrm{ad}(X)`$ exists for any $`X𝔤`$. We denote by $`𝔤_{reg}^{}`$ the image of $`A`$ in $`𝔤^{}`$, so $`A:𝔤𝔤_{reg}^{}`$ is an isomorphism. Let $`<,>`$ be the inner product on $`𝔤_{reg}^{}`$ induced via $`A`$ by the inner product in $`𝔤`$. Next we will restrict on the subgroup $`G𝔤_{reg}^{}`$. The map $`h:𝔤_{reg}^{}\times 𝔤_{reg}^{}𝔤`$ is defined by $`<\mathrm{ad}^{}(X)a,b>=<X,h(a,b)>`$, so $`h(A(Y_1),A(Y_2))=\mathrm{ad}(Y_2)^{}Y_1`$. The coadjoint action on the image of $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}^{}(X)A(Y)=A(\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}Y)`$, so the transpose of $`b(X)=\mathrm{ad}^{}(X)`$ exists and $`b(X)^{}A(Y)=A(\mathrm{ad}(X)Y)`$.

###### Proposition 5.

If the transpose of $`\mathrm{ad}(X)`$ exists for any $`X𝔤`$, then the geodesic equation of $`G𝔤_{reg}^{}`$, written for the right logarithmic derivative $`(u,A(v)):I𝔤𝔤_{reg}^{}`$, is

$$u_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}u+\mathrm{ad}(v)^{}v$$

$$v_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)v.$$

For $`G=\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ we obtain Kirchhoff equations for a rigid body moving in a fluid. For $`G=\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$ with $`L^2`$ metric on its Lie algebra of divergence free vector fields, we obtain as geodesic equation the equations of ideal magneto-hydrodynamics (see also \[ZK\] \[H\]):

$$u_t=_uu+_BB\mathrm{grad}p$$

$$B_t=[u,B].$$

We apply proposition 2 and find that the sign of the sectional curvature in $`G𝔤_{reg}^{}`$ is given by the sign of

$$\begin{array}{c}<\stackrel{~}{}((X_1,A(Y_1)),(X_2,A(Y_2)))(X_2,A(Y_2)),(X_1,A(Y_1))>\hfill \\ \hfill =<^G(X_1,X_2)X_2,X_1>+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)^{}Y_2+\mathrm{ad}(Y_2)^{}Y_1^2\\ \hfill <\mathrm{ad}(X_1)Y_1,\mathrm{ad}(X_2)Y_2><\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)^{}Y_1,\mathrm{ad}(Y_2)^{}Y_2>\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}<\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)^{}Y_2+\mathrm{ad}(Y_2)^{}Y_1,\mathrm{ad}(X_1)^{}X_2+\mathrm{ad}(X_2)^{}X_1>\\ \hfill +<\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)^{}Y_1,\mathrm{ad}(X_2)^{}X_2>+<\mathrm{ad}(Y_2)^{}Y_2,\mathrm{ad}(X_1)^{}X_1>\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ad}(X_1)Y_2+\mathrm{ad}(X_2)Y_1^2\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{ad}(X_1)^{}Y_2\mathrm{ad}(X_2)^{}Y_1^2\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}<\mathrm{ad}(X_1)Y_1,\mathrm{ad}(X_2)^{}Y_2>\frac{1}{2}<\mathrm{ad}(X_2)Y_2,\mathrm{ad}(X_1)^{}Y_1>\\ \hfill +<\mathrm{ad}(X_1)Y_2,\mathrm{ad}(X_2)^{}Y_1>+<\mathrm{ad}(X_2)Y_1,\mathrm{ad}(X_1)^{}Y_2>\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}<\mathrm{ad}(X_1)Y_2,\mathrm{ad}(X_1)^{}Y_2>\frac{1}{2}<\mathrm{ad}(X_2)Y_1,\mathrm{ad}(X_2)^{}Y_1>.\end{array}$$

With this formula applied to $`G=\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$ we get information on the stability of ideal magneto-hydrodynamics. For example the sign of the sectional curvature of a two dimensional plane spanned by $`(0,A(Y_1))`$ and $`(0,A(Y_2))`$ is given by $`\frac{1}{4}P(_{Y_1}Y_2+_{Y_2}Y_1)^2<P_{Y_1}Y_1,P_{Y_2}Y_2>`$ and the sign of the sectional curvature of a mixed two dimensional plane is the sign of

$$\begin{array}{c}<\stackrel{~}{}((X,0),(0,A(Y)))(0,A(Y)),(X,0)>=<P_XX,P_YY>\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}P(_YX+(X)^{}Y)^2+\frac{1}{2}[X,Y]^2\frac{1}{2}P(_XY+(X)^{}Y)^2.\end{array}$$

In the case of the 2-torus we can recover the result of \[ZK\] that ideal magneto-hydrodynamics is more stable than ideal hydrodynamics.