text:
# Electron transport and intrinsic mobility limits in two-dimensional electron gases of III-V nitride heterostructures

## I Introduction

Over the last decade, the III-V nitrides have matured as a technologically important semiconductor system. Various optoelectronic products based on the nitrides have already gone commercial ,; the material system holds abundant promise for more. Along with the technological importance, the nitrides offer a rich diversity of new physical phenomena such as large polarization fields and large band offsets . These novel phenomena present a new way of creating two-dimensional electron gases (2DEGs) at heterointerfaces - without intentional modulation doping. M-Plane growth on tetragonal LiAlO2 has been achieved , thus giving the experimentalist control over polarization fields. Recently, integral as well as fractional quantum hall effects have been observed in AlGaN/GaN 2DEGs, confirming that the 2DEGs are of high purity .

However the measured electron mobilities are still much lower than their counterparts in the AlGaAs/GaAs 2DEGs . It is now well known that low temperature electron mobility in the purest AlGaAs/GaAs 2DEGs is limited by Coulombic scattering by remote ionized donors . However, 2DEGs in AlGaN/GaN have been created without any intentional modulation doping; still the low temperature electron mobilities are much lower than the AlGaAs/GaAs 2DEGs. We present a detailed analysis of transport in the AlGaN/GaN 2DEG, and pinpoint the sources of scattering that are currently limiting low temperature electron mobilities.

## II 2DEG Transport theory

We first determine the transport regime to choose the correct theoretical treatment. Low-temperature transport in the nitride heterostructure 2DEGs is characterized by long mean free paths; typical numbers are $`L0.5\mu m`$ for a 2DEG of density $`n_{2D}=10^{13}/cm^2`$ and $`\mu =10,000cm^2/V.s`$. The Ioffe-Regel criterion $`k_FL>>\frac{1}{2\pi }`$ is exceeded many times over, which is characteristic of diffusive rather than hopping transport.

We point out an interesting fact : the characteristic dimensionless parameter $`r_s=E_{ee}/E_F`$ (the ratio of electron-electron potential energy and the kinetic energy), which is a measure of the importance of many-particle interactions, ranges from $`r_s=0.2`$ for AlGaN/GaN 2DEG density $`n_{2D}=10^{13}/cm^2`$ to $`r_s=2`$ for 2DEG density $`n_{2D}=10^{12}/cm^2`$. This means that for AlGaN/GaN 2DEGs with low 2DEG densities, many body effects such as exchange and interaction can play important effects. This sensitivity stems from the relatively heavy electron effective mass ($`m^{}=0.2m_0`$, $`m_0`$ being the free electron mass) compared to other III-V semiconductors. However, electron-electron scattering is elastic. Drift in response to applied external fields cannot be impeded by this form of scattering, since energy lost by one electron in a scattering event is gained by the other and both electrons contribute to the drift current. When combined with other scattering mechanisms, this form of scattering may affect the calculated mobility; however, we neglect such effects under the (qualified) assumption  that such corrections are indeed small.

So the treatment is best affected by neglecting localization and many-particle effects altogether, and treating electron wavefunctions as extended single particle Bloch states. Hence, transport is treated in the traditional regime of the Born-approximation. Scattering rate from a state $`|k>`$ to a state $`|k^{}>`$ is evaluated using Fermi’s Golden Rule,

$$S(k,k^{})=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}|H_{kk^{}}|^2\delta (E_k^{}E_k)$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the reduced Planck’s constant, $`H_{kk^{}}=<k^{}|V(r)|k>I_{kk^{}}`$ is the product of the matrix element $`<k^{}|V(r)|k>`$ of the scattering potential $`V(r)`$ between plane wave states $`<r|k>=1/\sqrt{A}e^{ik_{}r_{}}\chi (z)`$ and the matrix element $`I_{kk^{}}`$ between lattice-periodic Bloch functions. Owing to the wide bandgap of the nitrides, the matrix element $`I_{kk^{}}1`$, the approximation holding good even if there are large non-parabolicities in the dispersion .

Once the matrix element is determined for different forms of scatterers, transport scattering time is evaluated by summing over all the available final states

$$\frac{1}{\tau (k)}=N_{2D}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}S(k^{},k)(1\frac{𝐤^{}𝐤}{|k|^2}).$$
(2)
where $`N_{2D}`$ is the total number of scatterers in the 2D area $`A`$. Converting the summation to an integral over the quasi-continuous wavevector states and exploiting the degenerate nature of the carriers for averaging $`\tau (k)`$ (all electrons carrying current have energy $`EE_F`$), the measurable transport scattering rate $`\tau `$ reduces to the simple form

$$\frac{1}{\tau }=n_{2D}^{imp}\frac{m^{}}{2\pi \mathrm{}^3k_F^3}_0^{2k_F}|V(q)|^2\frac{q^2}{\sqrt{1(\frac{q}{2k_F})^2}}$$
(3)
where $`n_{2D}^{imp}=N_{2D}/A`$ is the areal density of scatterers, $`m^{}`$ is the conduction band electron effective mass, $`k_F=\sqrt{2\pi n_{2D}}`$ is the Fermi wavevector, $`n_{2D}`$ being the 2DEG density. Also, $`V(q)=V_0(q)F_{nm}(q)`$, where $`V_0(q)=<k^{}|V(r)|k>/ϵ_{2D}(q)`$ is the screened matrix element for a perfect 2DEG ($`|\chi (z)|^2=\delta (z)`$), and $`F_{nm}(q)`$ is a form factor that takes the finite extent of the realistic 2DEG along the $`z`$ direction into account. For low temperature transport in the lowest subband (the electric quantum limit), we denote the form factor by $`F_{11}(q)=P_0`$.

For accurate evaluation of scattering rates, the finite extent of the 2DEG along the $`z`$ direction must be accounted for. The exact nature of the spatial extent can be evaluated from a self-consistent solution of Schrodinger and Poisson equations using the charge control model for the device structure. Such a solution is shown in Figure 1 for an Al0.27Ga0.73N/GaN 2DEG . However, for analytic evaluation of scattering rates, the Fang-Howard variational wavefunction is a better candidate, and has been used successfully for transport calculations in the past. The form of the function is

$`\chi (z)=0,z<0`$ (4)
$`\chi (z)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{2}}}ze^{\frac{bz}{2}},z0.`$ (5)
where $`b`$ is a variational parameter. The parameter is chosen such that it minimizes the energy ; this is achieved when $`b=(33m^{}e^2n_{2D}/8\mathrm{}^2ϵ)^{1/3}`$, where the sybols have their usual meaning. This form of the wavefunction leads to a form factor

$$P_0=\eta ^3=(\frac{b}{b+q})^3$$
(6)
for transport in the electric quantum limit. Screening by free carriers in the 2DEG is also affected due to the finite extent. This is reflected in another form factor $`G(q)`$ entering the long-wavelength ($`q0`$) 2D dielectric function $`ϵ_{2D}(q)=1+\frac{q_{TF}}{q}G(q)`$. Here $`G(q)=\frac{1}{8}(2\eta ^3+3\eta ^2+3\eta )`$ , and $`q_{TF}`$ is the Thomas-Fermi wavevector. For a perfect 2DEG, $`\eta 1`$, and both form factors reduce to unity.

## III Defects and Scattering sources

Transport theory relies on the accurate identification of defects that lead to scattering of conduction electrons. Transport in AlGaAs/GaAs 2DEGs is well understood. The list of scattering sources comprises of ionized impurities, interface roughness at the AlGaAs/GaAs barrier, alloy scattering due to penetration of the 2DEG wavefunction into the barrier, and phonons. In AlGaN/GaN 2DEGs, all these scattering mechanisms are present, in addition to some others. Charged dislocations and charged surface donors are the new defects, and their effects on transport for 2DEGs have received little attention.

We find the scattering rates arising out of these new defects as well as the traditional defects for the AlGaN/GaN 2DEGs. Realistic values of impurity concentrations specific to AlGaN/GaN samples got from experimental characterization techniques are incorporated in the analysis.

### A Dislocations

Due to the large lattice mismatch of GaN with the substrates on which it is epitaxially grown (SiC and Sapphire), $`N_{disl}=1100\times 10^8/cm^2`$ dislocations are typically formed. These dislocations originate from the nucleation layer at the interface of the substrate and GaN, growing up to the surface without termination. The dislocations are observed to grow along the (0001) direction, piercing through interfaces.

The model used for the electrical nature of dislocations to study it’s effect on transport is that of a charged line - the dislocation is modeled as a line of dangling bonds, which introduce states in the energy gap. The dangling bonds are separated by a lattice constant $`c_0`$ along the (0001) direction. This model was introduced by Read and Shockley , and has been successful in explaining electron mobility in bulk semiconductors, including GaN. The lineal charge density is given by $`\rho _L=ef/c_0`$, where $`e`$ is the electron charge, and $`f`$ is the occupancy number for each available site.

There has been some controversy regarding the electrical activity of dislocations, as well as for the value of the occupation function $`f`$, given that dislocations are charged. Through scanning capacitance microscopy measurements, Hansen et. al.  showed that dislocations in GaN are electrically charged. Brazel et. al. and recently, Hsu et. al. have shown that dislocations offer highly preferential localized current paths. Additionally, Kozodoy et. al. showed a direct relationship of reverse leakage currents in GaN junction diodes to the number of dislocations. Schaadt et al confirm the notion of charged dislocations from their scanning capacitance voltage measurements, and are also able to predict the amount of charge on the dislocations and the screening lengths around the charged lines.

Hence, experimental evidence strongly suggests that dislocations introduce states in band gap. However, the controversy has been in theoretical studies. Elsner et. al. calculated from both ab initio local density functional methods and density functional tight binding methods  for both pure edge and pure screw type dislocations. For screw type dislocations, the authors found deep states in the bandgap. They found no deep states in the gap for pure edge type dislocations. Calculations of Wright and Furthmüller  and Wright and Grossner , however, show that for both AlN and GaN, edge dislocations introduce electronic states in the gap. Leung et. al. did an energetics study of the occupation probabilities for the states introduced by threading edge dislocations, drawing upon the theoretical results of Wright et. al.. They find that electronic states introduced in the bandgap by threading edge dislocations can be multiply occupied, and the probability of occupation of sites is a function of the background doping density.

Scattering by charged dislocations in bulk semiconductors has been treated by several authors , including for GaN , . However, scattering by dislocations for reduced dimensional electron systems had not been analyzed until recently . We recently derived the scattering rates for a perfect two-dimensional electron gas (i.e., with zero spatial extent in the z-direction) for charged threading edge dislocations. We derive scattering rates in this work for a realistic two-dimensional electron gas with a finite spatial distribution in the z-direction. Figure 2 captures the essential model for the problem.

For simplicity, we assume the dielectric constants in the barrier and GaN to be same $`ϵ_b(AlGaN)ϵ_b(GaN)=ϵ`$. The dislocation line charge is written as $`\rho _L=ef/c_0`$, where $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`c_0`$ is the lattice constant in GaN along the (0001) direction, and $`f`$ is the fraction of occupied acceptor states introduced by the dislocation. The Fourier transform of the screened potential experienced by the 2DEG due to a differential charge element $`dQ=\rho _Ldz`$ located a distance $`z`$ away from the interface is given by

$$dU(q)=\frac{e\rho _L}{2ϵ}\frac{P_0e^{qz}dz}{q+q_{TF}G(q)}.$$
(7)
$`P_0`$ and $`G(q)`$ were introduced earlier. $`q_{TF}`$ is the Thomas-Fermi screening wavevector for 2D systems, given by $`q_{TF}=2/a_B^{}`$, $`a_B^{}`$ being the effective Bohr radius in 2D. The total potential seen at the 2DEG is got by summing potentials of all differential elements,

$$V(q)=\frac{e\rho _L}{2ϵ}\frac{2P_0}{q+q_{TF}G(q)}.$$
(8)
The scattering rate is evaluated by using Equation  as

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{disl}}=N_{dis}\frac{m^{}}{2\pi \mathrm{}^3k_F^3}_0^{2k_F}𝑑q|V(q)|^2\frac{q^2}{\sqrt{1(\frac{q}{2k_F})^2}}.$$
(9)
With the substitution $`u=q/2k_F`$, we reduce the expression to

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{dis}}=\frac{m^{}e^2\rho _L^2N_{dis}}{\mathrm{}^3ϵ^2}\frac{I(n_{2D})}{4\pi k_F^4}.$$
(10)
The dimensionless integral $`I(n_{2D})`$ depends on the 2DEG density. When $`b\mathrm{}`$ with $`a=q_{TF}/2k_F`$, the integral factor reduces to

$$I(a(n_{2D}))=\frac{\sqrt{1a^2}+a^2ln(\frac{1\sqrt{1a^2}}{a})}{a(1a^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}$$
(11)
which is the expression for a perfect 2DEG with no spatial extent in the $`z`$ direction.

We find the assumption in previous works for bulk GaN scattering , that $`f=1`$ predicts a lower low temperature mobility than the highest values reported till date. The energy calculations by Leung et. al show that typically only $`1050\%`$ of the states will be occupied $`(f=0.10.5)`$ for a background donor density of $`N_d10^{16}/cm^3`$ and dislocation densities in the $`10^810^{10}/cm^2`$ range (which is typical of high purity molecular beam epitaxy samples). Yu et. al.  reported $`f=0.5`$ from their scanning capacitance-voltage measurements. This makes dislocations much more benign as scatterers than initially thought - note that $`f^2`$ appears in the denominator in the expression for mobility. Electron mobility due to scattering by charged dislocations alone $`\mu _{disl}=e\tau _{disl}/m^{}`$ is shown in Figure  as a function of 2DEG carrier density. We show the values calculated for $`f=0.1,0.5,`$ and $`1`$. The dependence on 2DEG density is found to be $`\mu _{disl}n_{2D}^{1.34}`$ (for a perfect 2DEG, the dependence was found to be $`\mu _{disl}n_{2D}^{\frac{3}{2}}`$) . A useful numerical formula that can be incorporated in Monte-Carlo techniques for treating dislocation scattering limited electron mobility in 2DEGs is

$$\mu _{disl}=58667\times (\frac{10^8}{N_{disl}})\times (\frac{n_{2D}^{1.34}}{10^{12}})\times (\frac{1}{f^2})$$
(12)
where $`N_{disl},n_{2D}`$ are in $`cm^2`$, $`f`$ is the occupation function for filled states, and the mobility is in $`cm^2/Vs`$. There is no temperature dependence, reflecting the degenerate nature of the carriers. Also, at a dislocation density of $`10^9/cm^2`$, the mean spacing between the dislocations is $`300nm`$, whereas the Fermi wavelength for a 2DEG concentration of $`10^{13}/cm^2`$ is $`\lambda _F10nm`$. This implies that there can be no interference effects in transport - thus the approximation that the scatterers are randomly distributed is a good one.

### B Ionized impurity

The spirit of the HEMT 2DEG is a spatial separation of the 2DEG from the ionized donors, thus reducing scattering and improving electron mobility. State of the art AlGaN/GaN systems have $`N_{back}=10^{16}/cm^3`$ unintentional residual background donors. These donors have been detected by secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) measurements to be oxygen and silicon atoms that incorporate during the growth process. Transport scattering rate due to a homogeneous background donor density of $`N_{back}`$ is given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{back}}=N_{back}\frac{m^{}}{2\pi \mathrm{}^3k_F^3}(\frac{e^2}{2ϵ})^2_0^{2k_F}𝑑q\frac{P_0^2}{(q+q_{TF}G(q))^2}\frac{q}{\sqrt{1(\frac{q}{2k_F})^2}}.$$
(13)
The absence of intentional modulation donors implies that there is a different source of 2DEG electrons. We point out that polarization by itself cannot supply electrons, since on the whole, it is charge neutral. What polarization can do however, is induce the transfer of electrons from any other possible source to satisfy requirements of electrochemical equilibrium. Background impurity densities cannot be the source of the 2DEG electrons since their concentration is too low for providing the high density 2DEG densities observed.

Electrons in the 2DEG for nitride heterostructures are believed to be supplied by surface donor states. The positive surface charge forms a sheet-charge dipole with the 2DEG which tries to neutralize the polarization dipole in the AlGaN layer. Rizzi et. al. have confirmed the presence of surface donor states from XPS measurements . These experiments confirm the suspicion that the surface states are charged, and are responsible for forming the 2DEG, as inferred from a purely charge control analysis by Ibbetson .

The surface donor states will form a source of scattering identical to a delta-doped remote donor layer. Thus, the transport scattering rate for the surface donors can be treated in the same way as an ordinary delta-doped donor layer. If the sheet density of such donors is $`N_s`$, and is at a distance $`d`$ form the heterostructure interface (note that this is also the thickness of the AlGaN barrier), the scattering rate is given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _r}=N_s\frac{m^{}}{2\pi \mathrm{}^3k_F^3}(\frac{e^2}{2ϵ})^2_0^{2k_F}𝑑q\frac{P_0^2e^{2q|d|}}{(q+q_{TF}G(q))^2}\frac{q^2}{\sqrt{1(\frac{q}{2k_F})^2}}.$$
(14)
### C Alloy disorder

Alloy disorder scattering originates from the randomly varying alloy potential in the barrier. This form of scattering is known to be the mobility limiting mechanism for 2DEGs confined in an alloy channel such as in InGaAs/GaAs heterostructures. In 2DEGs confined in binary compounds, alloy scattering occurs as a result of the finite penetration of the 2DEG wavefunction into the barrier; the scattering rate is given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{alloy}}=\frac{m^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0(\delta V)^2x(1x)}{e^2\mathrm{}^3}\times \frac{\kappa _bP_b^2}{2}$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the volume associated with each Al(Ga) atom, $`\delta V`$ is the difference in potential by replacing a Ga atom by Al which is taken to be the conduction band offset between the AlN and GaN, $`\kappa _b=2\sqrt{2m^{}\mathrm{\Delta }E_c(x)/\mathrm{}^2}`$ is the wavevector characterizing the penetration of the wavefunction into the AlGaN barrier ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E_c(x)`$ is the conduction band offset), and $`P_b`$ is the integrated probability of finding the electron in the barrier. Figure 4 shows the probability $`P_b`$ as a percentage.

In AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructures, this form of scattering is small, and often negligible. However, in AlGaN/GaN heterostructures, the large electron effective mass, the high 2DEG density and the large alloy scattering potential all combine to make this form of scattering strong in spite of the confinement in the binary semiconductor. Figure  shows the alloy scattering limited electron mobility for a range of 2DEG densities and alloy compositions. The current highest mobilities reported in the AlGaN/GaN 2DEGs are highlighted, and the path to higher mobilities is clear from the plot.

### D Interface Roughness

Scattering at rough interfaces can be severe if the 2DEG density is high, since the 2DEG tends to shift closer to the interface as the density increases. Interfaces, however, can be grown nearly atomically flat by modern epitaxial growth techniques. The roughness at heterojunction interfaces has been traditionally modeled by a Gaussian autocovariance function. Scattering rate by a rough interface with a root mean square roughness height $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a correlation length $`L`$ is given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{ir}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2L^2e^4m^{}}{2ϵ^2\mathrm{}^3}(\frac{1}{2}n_{2D})^2_0^1𝑑u\frac{u^4e^{k_F^2L^2u^2}}{(u+G(u)\frac{q_{TF}}{2k_F})^2\sqrt{1u^2}}$$
(16)
where the integral is rendered dimensionless by the substitution $`u=q/2k_F`$.

Figure  shows how the distance of the centroid of the 2DEG distribution from the heterojunction interface for different alloy concentrations varies with the 2DEG sheet density. The dependence was calculated from the self-consistent Fang-Howard variational wavefunction. The dependence on the 2DEG density is characteristically much stronger than on alloy composition. Interface roughness scattering affects transport even in the presence of a binary barrier (i.e., absence of alloy scattering). Recently, Yulia et. al. reported the successful growth of AlN/GaN heterostructures, which removes alloy scattering completely . In such high-density samples, the mobility is interface roughness scattering limited, and the calculated low temperature mobilities are well explained by our theory.

A large distribution of interface roughness sites can form localized states of the 2DEG instead of the extended states for high density samples; this limit was analyzed by Zhang and Singh, who proposed that in such a case, transport will require phonon assisted hopping . However, since the highest reported mobilities are for low density samples ($`n_{2D}10^{12}/cm^2`$) with no temperature dependence of conductivity for $`T30K`$, we believe that transport in the best samples is by band conduction.

Interface roughness scattering limited transport mobility has a characteristic $`L^6`$ dependence for 2DEGs in quantum wells (of thickness $`L`$), which can be observed by transport measurements on quantum wells of different thicknesses. An interesting feature of the III-V nitrides is that due to the unscreened polarization fields in thin epitaxial layers, there is a large band-bending inside the well even under no external bias. Hence the 2DEG samples one interface much more than the other; this acts as an in-built mechanism to restrict interface roughness effects on 2DEGs confined in thin unscreened quantum wells.

### E Phonons

Phonon scattering limits electron mobility at temperatures $`T80K`$ for 2DEGs. Scattering by three types of phonons are known to affect transport - by deformation potential acoustic phonons, piezoelectric acoustic phonons, and polar optical phonons.

Scattering by both types of acoustic phonons is considered elastic for all practical purposes. Scattering rates of the two types of phonons have been widely studied; we use the form of scattering rate derived for the Fang-Howard wavefunction .

Polar optical phonon (POP) energy for the wurtzite GaN crystal lattice is higher than other III-Vs $`(\mathrm{}\omega _{pop}=92meV)`$. Scattering by polar optical phonons is highly inelastic. Treatment of scattering of electrons confined to two dimensions by polar optical phonons has proved to be a difficult problem to solve, and no satisfactory theory exists. In spite of the highly inelastic nature of polar optical phonon scattering, an approximate momentum relaxation rate in 2DEGs was derived by Gelmont, Shur, and Stroscio , which accurately explains experimental data over a wide temperature range . The result (in CGS units) is given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{pop}}=\frac{2\pi e^2\omega _0m^{}N_B(T)G(k_0)}{\kappa ^{}k_0\mathrm{}^2F(y)}$$
(17)
Here, $`k_0=\sqrt{2m^{}(\mathrm{}\omega _{pop})/\mathrm{}^2}`$ is the polar optical phonon wavevector, $`N_B`$ is the bosonic distribution function $`N_B(T)=1/(exp[\mathrm{}\omega _{pop}/k_BT]1)`$, and $`F(y)`$ is given by

$$F(y)=1+\frac{1e^y}{y},$$
(18)
$`y`$ being the dimensionless variable $`y=\pi \mathrm{}^2n_{2D}/m^{}k_BT`$. For mobility calculations at high temperatures, we use this expression.

### F Other scattering mechanisms

Unintentionally doped (UID) GaN exhibits a n-type nature. Initially, it was attributed to the formation of nitrogen vacancies. However, careful study of the energetics of formation of such vacancies by Van De Walle and Neugebauer has shown that formation of nitrogen vacancies is energetically unfavorable . Zhu and Sawaki  derived the scattering rates by possible nitrogen vacancies and tried explaining bulk transport properties from their theoretical calculations. In light of recent revelations of little chance of formation, we choose not to include nitrogen vacancies in our analysis of electron transport. However, we point out that vacancy formation energies may be lowered around dislocations; we leave this question open for further studies. In an earlier work, we presented the theory of scattering arising from the coupling of polarization dipoles with alloy disorder . Current highest mobility values are much lower than the mobility limited by dipole scattering; so we do not include that form of scattering in this work.

## IV Electron Mobility

Armed with the scattering rates, we are in a position to relate the theoretical values to experimentally observed transport measurements. We consider low-temperature transport first.

### A Low Temperature

At low temperatures, the different scattering processes act independently; Matheissen’s rule offers a simple way of combining the effect of all scatterers. Figure  shows a low temperature mobility ($`\mu =e\tau /m^{}`$) map as a function of the 2DEG sheet density $`n_{2D}`$. The calculation was done with a dislocation density of $`n_{2D}=5\times 10^8/cm^2,f=0.1`$, background density $`n_{back}=10^{16}/cm^3`$, surface donor density $`n_s=n_{2D}`$ which is required from charge control, alloy composition $`x=0.09`$, and interface roughness parameters $`L=`$10Å, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$2Å. Every source of scattering has been considered, and the relative effects are clearly visible in the plot.

Total mobility shows a characteristic maximum; at low sheet densities $`n_{2D}10^{12}/cm^2`$, charged impurity scattering from background donors, surface donors and dislocations limit electron mobility. Relative concentration of the particular form of charged impurity will determine which is the dominant scatterer. However, as is evident from the calculation, mobility at typical AlGaN/GaN sheet densities is limited by short range scatterers due to alloy disorder and interface roughness. In the range of 2DEG densities $`n_{2D}10^{12}/cm^2`$, alloy scattering or interface roughness scattering dominate, depending on the nature of the barrier. The shaded bands labeled 1 and 2 depict the present-day highest experimental values reported. Samples whose measured values lie in band 1 have alloy barriers of low alloy composition, whereas those in band 2 are for 2DEGs at AlN/GaN heterointerfaces. The importance of short range scatterers was also pointed out by Hsu and Walukiewicz in their recent work .

The mobility limit for $`n_{2D}n_{cr}=10^{12}/cm^2`$ is ‘intrinsic’ in the sense that removal of charged defects (dislocations, background impurities, etc) will not be useful in improving the mobility. The critical density $`n_{cr}`$ can be used as a guideline for designing high mobility 2DEG structures. We predict that highest low temperature mobilities will be achieved for low density ($`n_{2D}n_{cr}`$) 2DEGs. For the same carrier density, a barrier of AlN will have a larger mobility than an AlGaN barrier.

If carrier densities are lowered below the critical density $`n_{cr}`$, the effects of charged impurities will be visible. Reduction of carrier density in the AlGaN/GaN 2DEG is not straightforward, since the 2DEG is not controlled by intentional modulation doping. Gating is one way of achieving low carrier densities; another way is the growth of GaN (or low composition AlGaN) cap layers on top of the AlGaN barrier layer. Introduction of acceptors in the barrier can also be used to reduce the 2DEG density by compensation, though p-doping in the nitrides is currently not under good control, and it will open another source of scattering.

### B High temperature

At high temperatures ($`T>100K`$), the approximation that various scattering processes are independent breaks down due to strong optical phonon scattering. However, since the total scattering rate is dominated by optical phonon scattering, using Matheissen’s rule will not cause significant deviations from a more accurate calculation .

We plot the experimental mobility and carrier concentration values for a high mobility AlGaN/GaN 2DEG in Figure . The sample growth specifics was reported elsewhere . The theoretically calculated values of mobility are also plotted for the particular 2DEG, showing the effect of all scattering mechanisms. It is clear that the mobility (which is one of the highest reported) is limited by alloy scattering at low temperatures.

For AlGaN/GaN heterostructures that have a parallel conducting channel, the 2DEG contribution to transport mobility is masked at high temperatures by transport in the parallel channel. In such cases, it is important to note that the measured hall mobility has contributions from both the 2DEG and a parallel channel which is in general of lower mobility. The parallel channel is through low mobility 3D carriers thermally activated from unintentional donors which freeze out at low temperatures. So pure 2DEG effects can be seen only at cryogenic temperatures. This leads to the discrepancy in measured and theoretical mobility calculated for pure 2DEGs. This is evident in Figure  - there is an onset of parallel conduction through carriers in the parallel 3D layer. The sharp increase in measured carrier concentration is accompanied by a drop (shaded region) in measured mobility from the theoretical values, which are calculated for a pure 2DEG. Room temperature 2DEG mobilities exceeding $`\mu _{300K}=2000cm^2/Vs`$ have been reported for samples in which parallel conduction is negligible, or through a high mobility channel . Removal of the parallel conducting layer will help in reaching the theoretical mobility limits for 2DEGs imposed by POP scattering.

## V Conclusions

In conclusion, the insensitivity of high density AlGaN/GaN 2DEG transport to various charged impurities in general, and charged dislocations in particular was shown. The possible charge configuration of dislocation states was extracted from experimental mobility values. Mobility limiting scattering mechanisms were determined. Alloy disorder scattering was shown to be limiting mobilities for AlGaN/GaN 2DEGs at low temperatures. Interface roughness scattering is the mobility limiting scattering mechanism for high density 2DEGs at AlN/GaN interfaces. Ways of getting around these apparent ‘intrinsic’ limits to achieve higher mobilities were outlined. Effect of parallel conduction at room temperature was shown to affect measured mobility and cause deviations from the theoretically predicted values.

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with W. Walukiewicz, I. B. Yaacov, P. Tavernier, M. Manfra, and A. Rizzi.


format: text

text:
# Virtual Quantum Subsystems

## Abstract

The physical resources available to access and manipulate the degrees of freedom of a quantum system define the set $`𝒜`$ of operationally relevant observables. The algebraic structure of $`𝒜`$ selects a preferred tensor product structure i.e., a partition into subsystems. The notion of compoundness for quantum system is accordingly relativized. Universal control over virtual subsystems can be achieved by using quantum noncommutative holonomies

In the last few years we witnessed a strong reviving of the interest about the notion of quantum entanglement . This is mainly due to the essential role that such a concept is supposed to play in quantum information processing (QIP) . Whenever one has a compounded (or multi-partite) quantum system, in the space of admissible states there exist states which display uniquely quantum correlations. These states are referred to as entangled and correspond algebraically to the existence, in a vector space obtained by a tensor product, of vectors $`|\psi `$ that are not expressible by a simple product e.g., $`|\psi _1|\psi _2.`$

Given a physical system $`S,`$ the way to subdivide it in subsystems is in general by no means unique. On the contrary it is a widespread praxis in theoretical physics as well as in everyday life to consider different partitions into subsystems in dependence of both the physical regime and the the necessities of the description. It is is indeed a quite common experience to refer sometimes to a system e.g., an atom, as elementary and sometime as composite e.g., made out electrons and nucleons. The emergence of a distinguished multi-partite structure is strongly dependent of the physical regime e.g., the energy-scale, at which one is working and on the set of observations (experiments) the observer is interested in. This is of course a well-known lesson from history of physics e.g., fundamental vs composite particles, weak-strong coupling dualities, renormalization group etc.

Clearly even the notion of entanglement is affected by some ambiguity being relative to the selected multi-partite structure. States that are entangled with respect to a given partition in subsystems can be separable with respect to another. Or the other way around: states of a system $`S`$ that is regarded as elementary can be viewed as entangled once $`S`$ is endowed with a multi-partite structure. In this case one is in the, somehow paradoxical, situation of having entanglement seemingly without entanglement.

The above ambiguity is removed as soon as, according to some criterion, a preferred multi-partite structure is selected among the family of all possible partition into subsystems. This selection has in most cases a well defined meaning: the system $`S`$ is viewed as composed by $`S_1,S_2,\mathrm{}`$ if one has some operational access (is able to ”access”, ”control”, ”measure”) the individual degrees of freedom of $`S_1,S_2,\mathrm{}`$. In other terms it is the set of ”available” interactions that individuates the relevant multi-party decomposition and not an a priori, god-given partition into elementary subsystems. In this letter we shall make an attempt towards a formalization of the ideas brought about by these simple remarks. Our final goal is to provide a satisfactory algebraic definition of what a quantum subsystem is in an operationally motivated framework.

Let us stress that the notion of virtual subsystem that we shall introduce admits as a particular instance the one of quantum code ,  and noiseless subsystems ,. This remark should make clear that virtual subsystems already play an important role in QIP. In particular error avoiding quantum codes i.e., decoherence-free  have been recently also experimentally observed , .

Compoundness and tensor products. Let us begin by recalling the basic algebraic structures associated with compoundness. Let $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ be two classical systems with configuration manifolds $`M_i(i=1,2).`$ Roughly speaking the associated quantum systems have state-spaces given by $`_i=(M_i)`$ where $``$ denotes some suitable (complex-valued) function space over the $`M_i`$’s e.g., $`L^2`$-summable functions. Notice that these spaces (actually abelian $`C^{}`$-algebras ) are the classical “observable” spaces; the quantum ones are given by the operator (non-abelian) algebras End$`(_i).`$ In the classical realm the manifold associated with the joint systems $`S_1S_2`$ is given by the cartesian product $`M_1\times M_2.`$ It follows that at the quantum level one has $`_{S_1S_2}=_1_2`$ indeed $`(M_1\times M_2)`$ is given by a suitable closure of $`(M_1)(M_2).`$ This basic functorial identity is the algebraic ground for the quantum theory axiom associating to a bi-partite systems a state-space given by the tensor products of the state-spaces describing the subsystems. The extension to $`N`$-partite systems is obvious. One has another elementary, yet remarkable, functorial relation given by the canonical  isomorphism $`\text{End}(_1_2)\text{End}(_1)\text{End}(_2).`$ Even in the quantum realm the observable algebra associated with a joint systems is given by the tensor product of the subsystem subalgebras.

Our key observation is that different kinds of compoundness can emerge in the same system when one considers different sets of observables as the physical ones. Indeed quite often it makes sense to refer to a subalgebra $`𝒜`$ (rather than the full operator algebra) as to the physical observable algebra. Limitations of physical resources may lead to select a specific class of operators to be considered as realizable. For instance energy supply limitations lead naturally to restrict to operators $`X`$ which have vanishing matrix elements between energy eigenstates whose energy difference exceeds some bound $`E.`$ At the dynamical-algebraic level the selection of a particular multi-party decomposition means that the algebra of (operationally relevant) observables $`𝒜`$ has a tensor product structure (TPS) i.e, $`𝒜𝒜_i`$ such that all the observables belonging to the individual $`𝒜_i^{}`$s can be effectively implemented.

Before passing to general constructions it is useful to consider a very simple example in which one has a set of subsystems (degrees of freedom) associated with a rapidly growing sequence of energy scales. Starting from the ground state and increasing the energy available one is able to excite more and more subsystems that at lower energy were frozen. This situation is realized, for instance, in systems in which one has confined directions or in the cases in which an adiabatic decoupling between fast and slow degrees of freedom has been performed: the effective dimensionality of the system is a function of the energy scale.

The TPS manifold. Let us consider an Hilbert space $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^n`$ with a priori no tensor product structure. A first very natural question is how many inequivalent TPS’s can be assigned over $``$? Or more physically: in how many different ways $``$ can be viewed as the state-space of a multipartite quantum system? If $`n`$ is a prime number there are no possibilities: the system is elementary. If $`n`$ is not prime it has a non-trivial prime factorization: $`n=_{i=1}^rp_i^{n_i}(p_i<p_{i+1}).`$ If the exponent $`n_i`$ of the $`i`$-th prime factor of $`n`$ is not one then several regroupings are possible e.g., $`r=1,p_1=2,n_1=33=1+1+1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}=1+2`$ corresponding to the state-space factorizations $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^8\text{ }\mathrm{C}^2\text{ }\mathrm{C}^2\text{ }\mathrm{C}^2`$ and $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^8\text{ }\mathrm{C}^2\text{ }\mathrm{C}^4.`$ When more than one $`p_i`$ appear in the decomposition of $`n`$ we see that many other possibilities of writing $`n`$ as a product of integers arise. In general, given $`n,`$ we introduce the set of factorizations $`𝒫_n=\{P𝐍/_{mP}m=n\}`$ where $`𝐍`$ denotes the set of natural numbers.

Given a factorization $`P=\{n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_{|P|}\}𝒫_n`$ of $`n`$ is assigned one has the (non-canonical) isomorphisms $`\phi :_{j=1}^{|P|}\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{n_j}.`$ In the following such isomorphisms will be referred to as tensor product structures (TPS) over $`,`$ and subsystems of the associated multi-party decomposition as virtual.

Given a distinguished TPS , say $`\phi _0,`$ one can identify the group of unitaries $`𝒰()`$ and $`𝒰(_j\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{n_j})`$ via the algebra isomorphism $`U\phi _0^1U\phi _0`$. A suitable quotient of this latter unitary group parametrizes the space of inequivalent TPS’s. Indeed two elements $`U`$ and $`W`$ of $`𝒰(_j\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{n_j})`$ define equivalent TPS’s if either $`U=U_1WU_2`$ where the $`U_i`$’s are multi-local transformation i.e., $`U_i_{k=1}^{|P|}U(n_k),(i=1,2);`$ or the $`U_i`$s are permutations of factors with equal dimension. In the first case the TPS’s differ just by a change of the basis in each factor, in the second by the order of the factors that in turn amounts simply to a relabelling of the subsystems. The space of inequivalent TPS’s over $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^n`$ will be denoted by $`𝒯_n.`$

Once a given multiplicative partition $`(n_i)`$ of $`n`$ is chosen along with a particular $`\phi `$ one has $`=_{i=1}^N_i,(_i:=\phi (\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{n_i}))`$ then End$`()_{i=1}^N𝒜_i`$ where $`𝒜_i:=\text{End}(_i).`$ For any set of unitaries in $``$ labelled by the elements $`\lambda `$ of some manifold $`,`$ e.g., external fields, one can define $`𝒜_i(\lambda ):=U_\lambda 𝒜_iU_\lambda ^{},(i=1,\mathrm{},N)`$ that describes a family of multipartite structures over $``$ parametrized by points of $``$. As noticed above not all the points of $``$ necessarily correspond to different TPS’s. Indeed it can happen that different $`\lambda `$’s can result in the same structure e.g., $`U_\lambda 𝒜_iU_\lambda ^{}=𝒜_i.`$ If a state is entangled (product) with respect to a TPS labelled by $`\lambda 𝒯_n`$ it will be referred to as $`\lambda `$-entangled ($`\lambda `$-product).

If $`E:\text{ }\mathrm{R}_0^+`$ denotes an entanglement measure over $``$ with respect to a given TPS, say $`\lambda =0,`$ one has that $`E_\lambda :=EU_\lambda `$ is a $`\lambda `$-entanglement measure. In turn the latter provides a natural measure of the ”distance” between the TPS at $`\lambda 0`$ and that at $`\lambda =0.`$ Indeed it appears quite natural to say that the more the $`\lambda =0`$ product states are $`\lambda `$-entangled the more the TPS at $`\lambda `$ differs from the one at the origin. To make this idea quantitative one has to make it independent on the particular state; this can be done either by maximizing or by taking the average over all the $`0`$-product states. In this latter case one finds that the distance one is looking for is nothing but the (square root of) entangling power of $`U_\lambda `$ : $`e(U)=𝑑\psi _1𝑑\psi _2E(U|\psi _1|\psi _2).`$ Here the integral is done with respect to the uniform e.g., Haar, measure over the pure product state manifold.

In order to exemplify the notion of TPS manifold of we now introduce a family of TPS’s over an infinite dimensional state-space parametrized by a group of $`N\times N`$ matrices. Let us consider $`N`$ harmonic oscillators. The global state-space is given by $`_N:=_{i=1}^N_i`$ where each of the factors is the single boson Fock space i.e., $`_i=\text{span}\{|n\}_{n𝐍}`$ associated with the annihilation and creation operators $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^{},(a_i^{}a_i|n=n|n).`$ Let $`UU(N)`$ be a complex $`N\times N`$ unitary matrix. The operators $`a_i^U:=_{j=1}^NU_{ji}a_j(i=1,\mathrm{},N)`$ represents new bosonic modes i.e., $`[a_i^U,a_j^U]=\delta _{ij},[a_i^U,a_j^U]=0,`$ moreover one has $`=_{j=1}^N_i^U`$ where the $`_j^U`$’s are the Fock spaces associated with the $`a_j^U`$’s. Notice that the Fock vacuum $`|0:=_i|0_i`$ is $`U`$ independent i.e., $`a_J^U|0=0(U,j)`$. One has $`_j^U𝒜_j^U|0`$ where $`𝒜_j^U`$ is the algebra generated by $`a_j^U`$ and $`a_j^U.`$ States like $`a_j^U|0`$ are unentangled with respect to the TPS defined by the given $`U`$ but entangled with respect to the one associated with e.g., $`U=𝟙.`$

Virtual bi-partitions. Now we address the following issue: when is it legitimate to consider a pair of observable algebras as describing a bi-partite quantum system? Suppose that $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ are two commuting $``$-subalgebras of $`𝒜:=\text{End}()`$ such that the subalgebra $`𝒜_1𝒜_2`$ they generate i.e., the minimal $``$-subalgebra containing both $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2,`$ amounts to the whole $`𝒜`$ and moreover one has the (non-canonical) algebra isomorphism

$$𝒜_1𝒜_2𝒜_1𝒜_2.$$
(1)
The standard, genuinely  bi-partite, situation is of course $`=_1_2,𝒜_1=\text{End}(_1)𝟙,𝒜_\mathrm{𝟚}=𝟙\text{End}(_\mathrm{𝟚}).`$ If $`𝒜_1^{}:=\{X/[X,𝒜_1]=0\}`$ denotes the commutant of $`𝒜_1,`$ in this case one has that $`𝒜_1^{}=𝒜_2.`$

It is important to mention that a prototypical and ubiquitous situation described by Eq. (1) is when $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ are local observable algebras associated to disjoint regions of space at equal time. More generally such an independence of local degrees of freedom e.g., quantum fields, is encoded in terms of commutativity between observables supported on causally disconnected domains . Notice also the spatial separation between parties e.g., Alice and Bob, is a common assumption in protocols for quantum communication e.g, teleportation .

The point of view advocated in this letter is to consider condition (1) as the definition of bi-partite system. regardless the ”real” compoundness or not of the underlying state-space. Accordingly we shall consider as ”real” entanglement the one occurring in that case. The (nearly obvious) point is that: in order to take computational advantage from this virtual entanglement one must have access to i.e., to be able to control the subalgebras $`𝒜_{1,2}.`$ As far as the operations in $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ are easily realizable (accessible) in the lab we shall consider them as primitive and local, regardless how they look at the original level.

The theory of noiseless subsystems ,  provides an important exemplification as well as source of inspiration for the approach to compoundness advocated here. Let us consider a system made of $`N`$ ”real” subsystems e.g., qubits. Suppose that the algebra of relevant interactions is given by $`𝒜_1𝒜_1^{}`$ where $`𝒜_1`$

$$𝒜_1_J𝟙_{𝕟_𝕁}𝕄_{𝕕_𝕁}(\text{ }\mathrm{C}).$$
(2)
This decomposition reads at the state-space level as $`_J\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{n_J}\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{d_J}.`$ For a fixed label $`J`$ one has that the elements of $`𝒜_1`$ ($`𝒜_1^{}`$) act as the identity on the $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{n_J}`$ ($`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{d_J}`$) factor. This means that the system is viewed, for all practical purposes, as a bipartite one, in which the observables of the first (second) subsystems are given by $`𝒜_1`$ ($`𝒜_1^{}`$). For collective decoherence, $`𝒜_1`$ is the interaction algebra generated by couplings with the environment invariant under qubit permutations. While $`𝒜_1^{}`$ is given by any linear combinations of permutation operators . In particular the latter algebra is generated by exchange i.e., Heisenberg like operators between the different pairs of qubits .

Generally speaking Eq. (2) shows in which sense an observable algebra $`𝒜_1`$ ($`𝒜_1^{}`$) is associated with a collection of virtual subsystems, i.e., the $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{d_J}`$ ($`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{n_J}`$) factors, labelled by its spectrum. It is worth to observe that when $`𝒜_1`$ is abelian all the $`d_J`$’s are equal to one. In this case, if $`n_J>1,`$ the $`J`$-th factor of the state-space decomposition describes a sort of hybrid bi-partite system in which one of the factors is quantum whereas the other represents a classical system with a one-point configuration space. This is exactly the situation one meets in the case of quantum codes, both error correcting  and error avoiding . In this latter case the algebra $`𝒜_1`$ is generated by the operators coupling the computing system with its environment and $`𝒜_1^{}`$ is the set of interactions necessary to perform computations entirely within the decoherence-free sector .

To make clear the connection with quantum error correction let us consider a set $`\{X_i\}_{i=1}^k`$ of $`kn`$ linear independent traceless ”parity” operators over $`(\text{ }\mathrm{C}^2)^n,`$ such that $`X_i=X_i^{},X_i^2=𝟙,[𝕏_𝕚,𝕏_𝕛]=\mathrm{𝟘},(𝕚,𝕛=\mathrm{𝟙},\mathrm{},𝕜).`$ Following standard arguments of quantum error correction  one can show that the $`X_i`$’s generate an abelian algebra $`𝒜\text{ }\mathrm{C}𝐙_2^k.`$ The associated state-space decomposition is given by

$$_{J𝐙_2^k}\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{2^{nk}}\text{ }\mathrm{C}\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{2^{nk}}\text{ }\mathrm{C}^{2^k}.$$
(3)
It easy to see that the commutant of $`𝒜`$ contains the algebra of operators over the first factor in the decomposition above This means that the set of operators with well-defined parities defines and controls a virtual subsystem of $`nk`$ bits. Analogously the set of ”odd” operators ($`\{O/i\{X_i,O\}=0\}`$) defines and controls the second $`k`$-qubit subsystem. For instance the parity $`X_1:=\sigma _x𝟙`$ defines the natural bi-partite structure over $`(\text{ }\mathrm{C}^2)^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ whereas $`X_1^{}=\sigma _x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ defines TPS such that states like $`2^{1/2}(|00\pm |11)`$ are unentangled. Notice that in errror correction theory the first (second) subsystem is related to the code (syndrome). For any unitary $`U,`$ the operators $`X_i(U):=UX_iU^{}`$ span an algebra isomorphic to $`𝒜`$ above. Again one has a continuous set of TPS’s parametrized by points of a unitary group .

Turning back to the characterization of pairs of (finite-dimensional) subalgebras satisfying Eq. (1) by using Eq. (2) it is easy to prove the following

Proposition Let $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ be two commuting $``$-subalgebras of a finite dimensional $``$-algebra $`𝒜.`$ Necessary and sufficient condition for the validity of (1) is that $`𝒜_1𝒜_1^{}=\text{ }\mathrm{C}𝟙`$ i.e., $`𝒜_1`$ is a factor.

Holonomic control on subsystems. In this paragraph we show that the Holonomic approach to QC  provides a natural setting for the issue of information processing within a (virtual) subsystem.

Let $`X\text{End}()M_{nd}(\text{ }\mathrm{C})`$ be an hermitean operator with a spectrum of $`d`$ iso-degenerate eigenvalues i.e., $`X=_{i=1}^dx_i_{k=1}^n|kiki|,`$ and $`\{U_\lambda \}_\lambda U()`$ a set of unitaries parametrized by the point of some (control) manifold $`.`$ Then the set of $`X(\lambda ):=U_\lambda XU_\lambda ^{},`$ is a family that in the generic case, for sufficiently large $`D=`$dim $``$ satisfies the conditions for (universal) holonomic quantum computation  on the $`n`$-dimensional degenerate eigenspace $`𝒞_i=\text{span}\{|ki\}_{k=1}^n\text{ }\mathrm{C}^n|i,(i=1,\mathrm{},d)`$ of $`𝟙_𝕟𝕏.`$ This implies that the holonomy group Hol$`(A_i)`$ associated with the connection $`u(n)`$-valued 1-forms $`A_i^{ab}=a|i|U_\lambda ^{}dU_\lambda |b|i,d:=_{\mu =1}^Dd\lambda _\mu _\mu ,(a,b=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ is the whole $`U(𝒞_i)U(n)|ii|`$ . By denoting collectively with $`A`$ the set of the $`A_i`$’s one can therefore write that

$$\text{Hol}(A)_{i=1}^dU(n)|ii|U(n)𝟙_𝕕.$$
(4)
The last inclusion tells us in that in the generic case the holonomy group of $`A`$ will contain the whole unitary group of the $`\text{ }\mathrm{C}^n`$ subsystem. Once the holonomic family $`\{X(\lambda )\}_\lambda `$ is given, any transformation i.e., computations in the first subsystem can be generated holonomies. Notice that, since for real quantum case one must have $`n2,`$ the holonomy group is necessarily nonabelian.

Conclusions. We analyzed some the consequences of the non uniqueness of the decomposition of a given system $`S`$ into subsystems. Such non-uniqueness implies, at the quantum level, a fundamental ambiguity about the very notion of entanglement that accordingly becomes a relative one. One can parametrize the space of all possible partitions i.e, tensor product structures, of a $`n`$-dimensional quantum state-space by the points of a set $`𝒯_n.`$ The fact of considering all the points in $`𝒯_n`$ on the same footing (that amounts to establishing a democracy between different TPS’s) provide a relativization of the notion of entanglement. Without further physical assumption, no partition has an ontologically superior status with respect to any other. The subsystems associated with all these possible i.e, potential multi-party decomposition were referred to as virtual. A distinguished point of $`𝒯_n`$ is selected i.e., made actual only once the relevant algebra $`𝒜`$ of ”physical” observables is given. Indeed considering a given partition as the privileged has a strong operational meaning, in that it depends on the set of resources effectively available to access and to control the degrees of freedom of $`S.`$ Different sets of resources give rise to different partitions physically relevant. We provided several examples of natural, though hidden, multipartite structures arising from the given algebraic structure of $`𝒜.`$ We briefly showed that the holonomic approach to quantum computation provides one natural way to address the issue of controllability within virtual subsystems. We believe that this democratic approach to quantum compoundness is, on the one hand, sound from the conceptual point of view, and on the other hand possibly relevant to QIP.

The author acknowledges R. R. Zapatrin and M. Rasetti for stimulating discussions and encouragement.


text:
# Geodesics on extensions of Lie groups and stability; the superconductivity equation

## 1 Introduction

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 is the geodesic equation on the volume preserving diffeomorphism group with $`L^2`$ metric  , Burger’s equation is the geodesic equation on $`\mathrm{Diff}(S^1)`$ with $`L^2`$ metric , the Korteweg-de-Vries equation is the geodesic equation on the Virasoro-Bott group with $`L^2`$ metric , the Camassa-Holm shallow water equation  is the geodesic equation on $`\mathrm{Diff}(S^1)`$ and on the Virasoro-Bott group with $`H^1`$ metrics   , the averaged Euler equation is the geodesic equation on the volume preserving diffeomorphism group with $`H^1`$ metric  , 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 with $`L^2`$ metric  .

The Lagrangian (exponential) instability of geodesics is determined by the negativity of the sectional curvature. In this way Arnold  showed the instability in most directions of Euler equation for ideal flow, Shkoller  showed that averaged Euler equation is more stable than Euler equation for ideal flow, Misiolek   has results on the stability of the Korteweg-de-Vries and Camassa-Holm equations and Zeitlin and Kambe  for ideal hydrodynamics.

In this paper we are concerned with the equations of motion of an ideal charged fluid in a given magnetic field $`u_t=_uu\rho u\times B\mathrm{grad}p`$, $`\rho _t=d\rho .u`$, $`\mathrm{div}u=0`$ and the superconductivity equation (obtained for $`\rho =1`$) as geodesic equations.

We consider the central extension by the 1-torus $`𝕋`$, due to Ismagilov , of the group of exact volume preserving diffeomorphisms of a compact Riemannian manifold $`M`$, corresponding to the Lichnerowicz Lie algebra cocycle $`\omega (X,Y)=_M\eta (X,Y)\mu `$, where $`\eta `$ is a closed 2-form on $`M`$. This extension exists only if the cohomology class of $`\eta `$ is integral. In the 3-dimensional case $`\eta `$ corresponds to the magnetic vector field $`B`$ and the integrability condition on $`\eta `$ is equivalent to flux quantization of magnetic field: $`_S(Bn)𝑑S`$ for every closed surface $`S`$ in $`M`$. In the case $`H^{n1}(M,)=0`$, the group of exact volume preserving diffeomorphisms coincides with the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms, and the superconductivity equation is proved to be the geodesic equation on the central extension with right invariant $`L^2`$-metric.

To drop out the condition $`H^{n1}(M,)=0`$ we can consider a non-central extension of the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms: the group of volume preserving automorphisms of a principal $`𝕋`$-bundle $`P`$ over $`M`$ possessing a principal connection with curvature form $`\eta `$. Again we have to impose the integrality condition on $`[\eta ]`$. We consider the right invariant $`L^2`$-metric coming from the Kaluza-Klein metric on $`P`$. Then the geodesic equations are the equations of motion of an ideal charged fluid. For $`\rho =1`$ we get again the superconductivity equation as a geodesic equation.

To get information on the Lagrangian stability of the superconductivity equation, we compute the sectional curvature in the case of the flat 3-torus in both settings (general and central extension) and the result is: the superconductivity equation is more stable than Euler equation for ideal flow.

Like in the book of Arnold and Khesin , the approach followed throughout the paper is formal. For example a proof of the existence of geodesic flow on Fréchet manifolds is not available in the literature: for the intricacies of the rigorous geometric approach to this field see Hamilton’s paper about the inverse function theorem of Nash and Moser . The ILH (inverse limit of Hilbert) Lie group setting and well posedness of the Cauchy problem for the superconductivity equation will be treated elsewhere.

## 2 Superconductivity equation

Let $`M`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold with Levi Civita connection $``$ and volume form $`\mu `$. Let $`B`$ be an $`(n2)`$ vector field on $`M`$ (i.e. $`BC^{\mathrm{}}(^{n2}TM)`$) such that $`\eta =(1)^{n2}i_B\mu `$ is a closed two-form. The cross product of a vector field $`X`$ with $`B`$ is the vector field $`X\times B=(i_{XB}\mu )^{\mathrm{}}=(i_X\eta )^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Then we can write the generalized equations of motion of an ideal charged fluid for a time dependent divergence free vector field $`u`$ and a time dependent real smooth function $`\rho `$ on $`M`$:

$$u_t=_uu\rho u\times B\mathrm{grad}p$$

$$\rho _t=d\rho .u,$$
(1)
where the index $`t`$ denotes partial derivation by $`t`$. When at $`t=0`$ the function $`\rho `$ is a constant, say $`\rho =1`$, then $`\rho `$ is a constant at every $`t`$ and we get the generalized superconductivity equation

$$u_t=_uuu\times B\mathrm{grad}p.$$
(2)
In case $`M`$ is a 3-dimensional manifold, $`B`$ is simply a vector field and the condition $`\eta =i_B\mu `$ closed is equivalent to the condition $`B`$ divergence free. Moreover, the cross product is the usual vector product. Then equation (1) models the motion of an ideal charged fluid in a given magnetic field $`B`$: $`u`$ represents the velocity field and $`\rho `$ the charge density. The superconductivity equation (2) models the motion of a high density electronic gas in a magnetic field: $`u`$ represents the velocity field of the electronic gas. Its similarity to Euler equation comes from the fact that at high density, because of the repelling of particles, an electron gas behaves like a fluid.

Zeitlin  and Roger  already showed that the superconductivity equation can be regarded as the Euler equation on the central extension of the Lie algebra of divergence free vector fields on $`M`$ by the Lichnerowicz cocycle. Poisson structures for superconductors are given in .

If the closed 2-form $`\eta `$ is integral we will obtain both equations (1) and (2) as geodesic equations on extensions of the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms. The integrality condition on $`\eta `$ translates into a quantization of the magnetic flux: the flux of $`B`$ across any closed surface is integral

$$_S(Bn)𝑑S.$$
(3)
This magnetic field seems to be produced by Dirac monopols.

## 3 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  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

$$u_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}u,$$
(4)
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

$$_X^GY=dY.R_X+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}Y+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ad}(Y)^{}X\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ad}(X)Y,$$
(5)
for $`X,YC^{\mathrm{}}(G,𝔤)`$.

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

$$𝒦(X,Y)=\frac{<(X,Y)Y,X>}{<X,X><Y,Y><X,Y>^2},$$
(6)
so the sign of the expression $`<(X,Y)Y,X>`$ determines the sign of the sectional curvature. Its expression in the right trivialization is

$`<(X,Y)Y,X>`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}Y+\mathrm{ad}(Y)^{}X^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{ad}(X)Y^2`$
$`<\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}X,\mathrm{ad}(Y)^{}Y>`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}Y,\mathrm{ad}(X)Y>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<\mathrm{ad}(Y)^{}X,\mathrm{ad}(Y)X>.`$
An example:   Let $`G=\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$ be the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms of a compact Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ with induced volume form $`\mu `$, Levi Civita covariant derivative $``$ and Riemannian curvature tensor $`R`$. Let $`𝔤=𝔛_{vol}(M)`$ the Lie algebra of divergence free vector fields. We consider the right invariant metric on $`G`$ given by the $`L^2`$ inner product $`<X,Y>=_Mg(X,Y)\mu `$. 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

$$u_t=_uu\mathrm{grad}p,\mathrm{div}u=0,$$
(8)
the covariant derivative for right invariant vector fields is $`_X^GY=P_XY`$ and the curvature

$`<(X,Y)Y,X>`$ $`=<R(X,Y)Y,X>`$ (9)
$`+<Q_XX,Q_YY>Q_XY^2,`$
with $`P`$ and $`Q`$ the orthogonal projections on the spaces of divergence free respectively gradient vector fields.

Let $`𝕋^2`$ be the two-dimensional torus and $`X_k`$ the Hamiltonian vector field with Hamiltonian (stream function) $`\mathrm{cos}kx`$, $`k^2`$, $`x𝕋^2`$. The curvature of $`\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(𝕋^2)`$ in any two-dimensional direction containing the direction $`X_k`$ is non-positive.

## 4 Geodesics on general Lie group extensions

Consider an exact sequence of homomorphisms of Lie groups

$$1HEG1$$
(10)
and the corresponding exact sequence of homomorphisms of Lie algebras

$$0𝔥𝔢𝔤0,$$
(11)
i.e. the Lie group $`E`$ is an extension of $`G`$ by $`H`$. A section $`s:𝔤𝔥`$ induces the following mappings:

$`b:𝔤\mathrm{Der}(𝔥),b(X)Y=[s(X),Y]`$ (12)
$`\omega :𝔤\times 𝔤𝔥,\omega (X_1,X_2)=[s(X_1),s(X_2)]s([X_1,X_2])`$ (13)
with properties

$`[b(X_1),b(X_2)]b([X_1,X_2])=\mathrm{ad}(\omega (X_1,X_2))`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{cycl}{}}\omega ([X_1,X_2],X_3)={\displaystyle \underset{cycl}{}}b(X_1)\omega (X_2,X_3).`$ (15)
The Lie algebra structure on the extension $`𝔢`$, identified as vector space with $`𝔤𝔥`$ via the section $`s`$, in terms of $`b`$ and $`\omega `$ is

$$[(X_1,Y_1),(X_2,Y_2)]=([X_1,X_2],[Y_1,Y_2]+b(X_1)Y_2b(X_2)Y_1+\omega (X_1,X_2)$$
(16)
Special cases: when $`\omega =0`$ we get semidirect products, when $`𝔥`$ is abelian and $`b=0`$ we get central extensions with Lie algebra cocycle $`\omega `$.

We consider also the right invariant metric on the Lie group $`E`$ given at the identity by the positive inner product on $`𝔢`$:

$$<(X_1,Y_1),(X_2,Y_2)>_𝔢=<X_1,X_2>_𝔤+<Y_1,Y_2>_𝔥,$$
(17)
where $`<,>_𝔤`$ and $`<,>_𝔥`$ are positive definite inner products on $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔥`$ such that the transposes $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}:𝔤𝔤`$ and $`\mathrm{ad}(Y)^{}:𝔥𝔥`$ exist for any $`X𝔤`$ and $`Y𝔥`$. To write the transpose of $`\mathrm{ad}(X,Y)`$ in the extended Lie algebra, we have to impose further conditions. We suppose the transpose $`b(X)^{}:𝔥𝔥`$ exists for any $`X𝔤`$ and there exist maps $`h:𝔥L(𝔤)`$ linear (actually $`h`$ takes values in the space of skew-adjoint operators on $`𝔤`$) and $`l:𝔥\times 𝔥𝔤`$ bilinear, defined by the relations

$$<\omega (X_1,X_2),Y>_𝔥=<h(Y)X_1,X_2>_𝔤$$
(18)
$$<b(X)Y_1,Y_2>_𝔥=<l(Y_1,Y_2),X>_𝔤.$$
(19)
Then the transpose of $`\mathrm{ad}(X,Y)`$ is

$`\mathrm{ad}(X_1,Y_1)^{}(X_2,Y_2)=`$ $`(\mathrm{ad}(X_1)^{}X_2+h(Y_2)X_1l(Y_1,Y_2),`$
$`\mathrm{ad}(Y_1)^{}Y_2+b(X_1)^{}Y_2)`$ (20)
###### Proposition 1.

With the conditions above, the geodesic equation on the Lie group extension $`E`$ with right invariant metric, written in terms of the right logarithmic derivative $`(u,\rho )`$ with $`u:I𝔤`$ and $`\rho :I𝔥`$ is:

$$u_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}uh(\rho )u+l(\rho ,\rho )$$

$$\rho _t=\mathrm{ad}(\rho )^{}\rho b(u)^{}\rho $$
(21)
We are interested in the special case when $`b(X)`$ is skew-adjoint for all $`X𝔤`$: $`<b(X)Y_1,Y_2>+<Y_1,b(X)Y_2>=0`$. This will be called the isometric case, like in , where the semidirect product with this special condition is studied.

###### Proposition 2.

On an isometric extension of $`𝔤`$ by abelian $`𝔥`$, the geodesic equation in terms of the right logarithmic derivative $`(u,\rho )`$ is

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

$$\rho _t=b(u)\rho $$
(22)
and the curvature tensor at the identity for the extended group is:

$$<^E((X_1,Y_1),(X_2,Y_2))(X_2,Y_2),(X_1,Y_1)>=<^G(X_1,X_2)X_2,X_1>$$

$$<b(X_1)Y_2b(X_2)Y_1,\omega (X_1,X_2)>\frac{3}{4}\omega (X_1,X_2)^2$$

$$+\frac{1}{4}h(Y_2)X_1+h(Y_1)X_2^2<h(Y_1)X_1,h(Y_2)X_2>$$
(23)
$$+<\omega (X_1,_{X_1}^GX_2),Y_2>+<\omega (X_2,_{X_2}^GX_1),Y_1>$$

$$<\omega (X_2,_{X_1}^GX_1),Y_2><\omega (X_1,_{X_2}^GX_2),Y_1>,$$

where $`^G`$ denotes the Riemannian curvature at the identity in $`G`$ and $`^E`$ in the extended group $`E`$.

In the particular case of an isometric semidirect product of $`𝔤`$ with an abelian Lie algebra $`𝔥`$, the only non-zero term at the right hand side is $`<^G(X_1,X_2)X_2,X_1>`$.

Geodesics and curvature on one-dimensional extensions of Lie groups

Next we consider another special case: one-dimensional central extensions $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ of $`G`$ with Lie algebra $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ defined by the Lie algebra cocycle $`\omega :𝔤\times 𝔤`$. Then the Lie algebra bracket on $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}`$ is $`[(X_1,a_1),(X_2,a_2)]=([X_1,X_2],\omega (X_1,X_2))`$. On the extended group we consider the right invariant metric given at the identity by the following positive definite inner product on $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}`$: $`<(X_1,a_1),(X_2,a_2)>=<X_1,X_2>+a_1a_2`$.

Suppose the transpose $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}:𝔤𝔤`$ with respect to the inner product exists for all $`X𝔤`$ and the Lie algebra cocycle can be written in the form $`\omega (X_1,X_2)=<k(X_1),X_2>`$ with $`k:𝔤𝔤`$; it follows $`k`$ is skew-adjoint operator and $`k(X)=h(1)X`$.

###### Proposition 3.

With the conditions above, the geodesic equation on the one-dimensional central extension $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$, in terms of the right logarithmic derivative $`(u,a)`$ is

$$u_t=\mathrm{ad}(u)^{}uak(u),a.$$
(24)
The sign of the sectional curvature in the extended group is given by the sign of

$$<\stackrel{~}{}((X_1,a_1),(X_2,a_2))(X_2,a_2),(X_1,a_1)>=<(X_1,X_2)X_2,X_1>$$

$$\frac{3}{4}\omega (X_1,X_2)^2+\frac{1}{4}k(a_1X_2a_2X_1)^2$$
(25)
$$\omega (_{a_1X_2a_2X_1}^GX_1,X_2)+\omega (_{a_1X_2a_2X_1}^GX_2,X_1),$$

where $``$ denotes the Riemannian curvature at the identity in $`G`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in the extended group $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$.

With this formula applied to the Virasoro-Bott extension, considering $`L^2`$ and $`H^1`$ metrics, we can recover the results of Misiolek on the sign of the sectional curvature and so on the Lagrangian (exponential) stability of the Korteweg-de-Vries and Camassa-Holm equations  .

## 5 Lichnerowicz cocycle

Let $`M`$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with Levi Civita connection $``$ and volume form $`\mu `$. Any closed two-form $`\eta `$ on $`M`$ determines a Lie algebra cocycle, called Lichnerowicz cocycle, on the Lie algebra of divergence free vector fields $`𝔛_{vol}(M)`$:

$$\omega (X,Y)=_M\eta (X,Y)\mu $$
(26)
Does it exist a corresponding Lie group cocycle on the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms $`\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$? The existence of a smooth local group cocycle $`c`$ integrating $`\omega `$ follows from , where this result is proved in general for Lie groups modeled over sequentially complete locally convex spaces.

When the cohomology class of $`\eta `$ is integral, results of Ismagilov   imply the existence of a global group extension of the subgroup of exact volume preserving diffeomorphisms $`\mathrm{Diff}_{exact}(M)`$ by the torus $`𝕋`$, corresponding to a Lichnerowicz Lie algebra extension determined by $`\eta `$. A volume preserving diffeomorphism is called exact if there is an isotopy $`\phi _t\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$ from $`\phi _0=\mathrm{id}_M`$ to $`\phi _1=\phi `$ such that $`\frac{d}{dt}\phi _t=X_t\phi _t`$ and $`i(X_t)\mu `$ is an exact $`(n1)`$-form. In case $`H^{n1}(M,)=0`$, the subgroup of exact diffeomorphisms coincides with the identity component of $`\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$.

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`M`$ be a compact manifold with $`H^{n1}(M,)=0`$ and $`[\eta ]H^2(M,)`$. Then the generalized superconductivity equation

$$u_t=_uuu\times B\mathrm{grad}p.$$
(27)
is a geodesic equation on a central extension of the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms with right invariant $`L^2`$ metric.

###### Proof.

The transpose of $`\mathrm{ad}(X)`$ with respect to the $`L^2`$ inner product on the Lie algebra of divergence free vector fields exists: $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}X=P_XX`$. and the Lichnerowicz cocycle is of the required form $`\omega (X,Y)=<k(X),Y>`$ with $`k(X)=P(X\times B)`$. Then proposition 3 can be applied with initial condition $`a=1`$. ∎

## 6 Volume preserving automorphisms of <br>a principal $`𝕋`$-bundle

Let $`M`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold with volume form $`\mu `$ and $`\eta `$ a closed differential two-form with integral cohomology class $`[\eta ]`$. Then there exists a principal $`𝕋`$-bundle $`\pi :PM`$ and a principal connection form $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(P)`$ having curvature $`\eta `$. The associated Kaluza-Klein metric on $`P`$, defined at a point $`xP`$ by

$$\kappa _x(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y})=g_{\pi (x)}(T_x\pi .\stackrel{~}{X},T_x\pi .\stackrel{~}{Y})+\alpha _x(\stackrel{~}{X})\alpha _x(\stackrel{~}{Y}),$$
(28)
determines the volume form $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\pi ^{}\mu \alpha `$ on $`P`$.

The group of volume preserving automorphisms of the principal bundle $`P`$, denoted by $`E=\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(P)^𝕋=\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(P)\mathrm{Diff}(P)^𝕋`$ is an extension of the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms $`G=\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$ by the abelian gauge group $`H=C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝕋)`$. The corresponding exact sequence of Lie algebras is

$$0C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)𝔛_{vol}(P)^𝕋𝔛_{vol}(M)0.$$
(29)
The principal connection $`\alpha `$ provides us with a section $`s(X)=X^H`$, $`X^H`$ representing the horizontal lift of the divergence free vector field $`X`$ on $`M`$. It is easy to verify that the horizontal lift $`X^H`$ is again divergence free, with respect to the volume form $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ on $`P`$. The identification of $`𝔛_{vol}(P)^𝕋`$ with $`𝔛_{vol}(M)C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$ (as vector spaces only) via the section $`s`$ is $`(X,f)X^H+(f\pi )\xi `$, where $`\xi `$ denotes the fundamental vector field of the principal torus action (in particular $`\alpha (\xi )=1`$).

The mapping $`b`$ induced by $`s`$ is minus the usual action of vector fields as derivations on the algebra of smooth functions $`b(X)f=df.X`$ and $`\omega `$ is the restriction of the curvature two-form $`\eta `$ to divergence free vector fields, since the curvature measures the deviation of the horizontal bundle from integrability: $`(\eta (X_1,X_2)\pi )\xi =[X_1^H,X_2^H][X_1,X_2]^H`$.

The $`L^2`$ inner product on $`𝔢=𝔛_{vol}(P)^𝕋`$ coming from the Kaluza-Klein metric on $`P`$ is easily shown to be the sum of the $`L^2`$ inner products on $`𝔤=𝔛_{vol}(M)`$ and $`𝔥=C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$:

$$<(X_1,f_1),(X_2,f_2)>_𝔢=_Mg(X_1,X_2)\mu +_Mf_1f_2\mu $$
(30)
(here we impose the condition that the integral of the 1-form $`\alpha `$ along the fibers of $`P`$ is 1; otherwise we get a constant factor at the right side of the equality above).

###### Proposition 5.

The geodesic equation on the group of divergence free automorphisms of the principal $`𝕋`$-bundle $`P`$ with right invariant $`L^2`$ metric coming from the Kaluza-Klein metric on $`P`$, written in terms of the right logarithmic derivative $`(u,\rho )`$, $`u:I𝔛_{vol}(M)`$, $`\rho :IC^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$, is:

$$u_t=_uu\rho u\times B\mathrm{grad}p$$

$$\rho _t=d\rho .u,$$
(31)
the equations of motion of an ideal charged fluid.

###### Proof.

All the conditions required in proposition 2 are fulfilled by this extension. The mapping $`h:C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)L(𝔛_{vol}(M))`$ is $`h(f)X=P(fX\times B)`$ and the mapping $`l:C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)𝔛_{vol}(M)`$ is $`l(f_1,f_2)=P(f_1\mathrm{grad}f_2)`$. We have again denoted by $`P`$ the orthogonal projection on the space of divergence free vector fields on $`M`$. The transpose $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^{}X=P(_XX)`$ and $`b(X)`$ is skew-adjoint. Now proposition 2 can be applied. ∎

The geodesic equation on $`\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(P)^𝕋`$, for the initial condition $`(u_0,a)`$ with $`u_0𝔛_{vol}(M)`$ and $`a`$, is $`u_t=_uuau\times B\mathrm{grad}p`$, like for the central extension corresponding to the Lichnerowicz cocycle. So, if $`a=1`$, we obtain the superconductivity equation as a geodesic equation also for arbitrary compact Riemannian manifolds $`M`$ (i.e. without the condition $`H^{n1}(M,)=0`$ we had to impose in section 5), especially in the interesting case of the flat 3-torus $`𝕋^3`$. We remark that the vector subspace $`\{(X,a):X𝔛_{vol}(M),a\}`$ is not a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔛_{vol}(P)^𝕋`$.

## 7 Curvature computations

The expressions in propositions 2 and 3 determine the sign of the sectional curvature and we get informations on the Lagrangian stability of geodesics. A geodesic is Lagrangian stable if all geodesics with sufficiently close initial conditions at time zero remain close for all $`t0`$ . This is a notion of stability referring to the motion, not to the velocity field.

The sign of the sectional curvatures of the same two-dimensional plane spanned by $`(X_1,a_1)`$, $`(X_2,a_2)`$ with $`a_1,a_2`$ can differ for the two extensions of $`\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$: the central extension $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and the general extension $`E=\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(P)^𝕋`$. Using $`h(a)X=ak(X)`$ for $`a`$ and $`X𝔛_{vol}(M)`$ we get

$$<^E((X_1,a_1),(X_2,a_2))(X_2,a_2),(X_1,a_1)>=<^G(X_1,X_2)X_2,X_1>$$

$$\frac{3}{4}\eta (X_1,X_2)^2+\frac{1}{4}k(a_1X_2a_2X_1)^2$$
(32)
$$\omega (_{a_1X_2a_2X_1}^GX_1,X_2)+\omega (_{a_1X_2a_2X_1}^GX_2,X_1),$$

where $`_X^GY=P_XY`$ and the formula for $`^G`$ is (9). This expression is very similar to the expression of the curvature in the central extension, only instead of $`\omega (X_1,X_2)^2=(_M\eta (X_1,X_2)\mu )^2`$ we get in this case $`\eta (X_1,X_2)^2=_M\eta (X_1,X_2)^2\mu `$.

The flat 3-torus

Next we do curvature computations for $`M=𝕋^3`$, the 3-torus, in both settings: central extension by $``$ and general extension by $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$, although in the first case only the existence of a local group cocycle integrating the Lichnerowicz cocycle is known ($`H^2(𝕋^3)0`$).

Let $`M=𝕋^3=^3/(2\pi )^3`$ be the flat 3-torus. The Fourier basis is $`e_k(x)=e^{ikx}`$, where $`k^3`$. We complexify the Lie algebra of divergence free vector fields on the torus, as well as the inner product, commutator and Levi Civita connection. A vector field on the torus is written in the Fourier basis as $`u=_ku_ke_k`$ with $`u_k^3`$. The reality condition is $`u_k=\overline{u}_k`$ and the divergence free condition is $`ku_k=0`$. Moreover

$`[u,v]`$ $`=i((lu_k)v_l(ku_l)v_k)e_{k+l}`$ (33)
$`Q(u)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|k|^2}}(ku_k)ke_k`$ (34)
$`_uv`$ $`=i(lu_k)v_le_{k+l}.`$ (35)
A 3-dimensional version of Arnold’s non-positivity result for the curvature of the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms on the 2-torus was obtained in : for $`U_p=u_pe_p+u_pe_p`$ and $`X=_kv_ke_k`$,

$$<(U_p,X)X,U_p>=Q_{U_p}X^20.$$
(36)
###### Proposition 6.

Let $`B=B_0`$ be a constant vector field on the 3-torus. Let $`U_p=u_pe_p+u_pe_p`$ and $`V_p=v_pe_p+v_pe_p`$ be divergence free vector fields on the 3-torus with the additional condition $`u_p`$ and $`v_p`$ real and orthogonal. Then the sectional curvature of the two-dimensional plane spanned by $`(U_p,1)`$ and $`(V_p,0)`$ on the central extension $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ (respectively on the general extension $`E`$) of $`\mathrm{Diff}_{vol}(M)`$ is positive if and only if $`|u_p|^2<\frac{1}{6(2\pi )^3}`$ (respectively $`|u_p|^2<\frac{1}{3}`$).

###### Proof.

We observe that $`_{U_p}V_p=0`$, so in the curvature formula (14) applied to $`(U_p,1),(V_p,0)`$, only 2 terms are non-zero:

$$<\stackrel{~}{}((U_p,1),(V_p,0))(V_p,0),(U_p,1)>=\frac{3}{4}\omega (U_p,V_p)^2+\frac{1}{4}k(V_p)^2.$$
(37)
Using the Fourier coefficients, we get the following expressions of the cocycle $`\omega `$ and of the mapping $`k`$:

$$\omega (u,v)^2=(_{𝕋^3}\mu (B,u,v)\mu )^2=(2\pi )^6(\mu (B_k,u_l,v_m)\delta (k+l+m))^2$$
(38)
$$\eta (u,v)^2=_{𝕋^3}\mu (B,u,v)^2\mu =(2\pi )^3\mu (B_k,u_l,v_m)^2\delta (k+l+m)$$
(39)
and

$$k(u)=P(u\times B)=((u_l\times B_k)\frac{1}{|k+l|^2}((k+l)(u_l\times B_k))(k+l))e_{k+l}.$$
(40)
From the hypothesis, $`(p,u_p,v_p)`$ is an orthogonal basis of $`^3`$. In the associated orthonormal basis the coordinates of $`B_0`$ are denoted by $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ (respectively $`^E`$) be the curvature tensor of the central (respectively general) extension of the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms. Then

$`<\stackrel{~}{}`$ $`((U_p,1),(V_p,0))(V_p,0),(U_p,1)>={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(2\pi )^6(\mu (B_0,u_p,\overline{v}_p)`$
$`+\mu (B_0,\overline{u}_p,v_p))^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\pi )^3(B_0\times v_p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|p|^2}}\mu (p,B_0,v_p)p)^2`$ (41)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\pi )^3a_1^2|v_p|^2(16(2\pi )^3|u_p|^2).`$
So the sectional curvature on the central extension is positive if and only if $`|u_p|^2<\frac{1}{6(2\pi )^3}`$. An analogous computation for $`^E`$ gives the condition $`|u_p|^2<\frac{1}{3}`$. ∎

In conclusion, the superconductivity equation on the 3-torus is more stable than Euler equation for ideal flow.

Acknowledgments: I address special thanks to the referee for suggesting to consider the $`L^2`$-metric coming from the Kaluza-Klein metric associated with the principal connection. Part of this paper was done during my visit at the Institute of Mathematics in Erlangen; I gratefully acknowledge Prof. K. Strambach and the staff of the Institute for their hospitality.