format: text

text:
# From 𝑈(1) Maxwell Chern-Simons to Azbel-Hofstadter: Testing Magnetic Monopoles and Gravity to ∼10⁻¹⁵m?

## I Discussion

### I.1 Introduction and Results

The motivations to this work are three fold. First magnetic monopoles have not been observed experimentally. Although due to the quantization of electrical charge, they should exist Dirac . Secondly, testing gravity turn out to be a difficult task. At large scales there is no assurance that black holes actually exist, although very dense objects have been observed bholes . While at small scales it has only been tested to the $`10^3`$ meters scale. Thirdly several studies have address, from a theoretical point of view, the mechanisms of confinement-condensate phase transitions in gauge theories. Its relation with gravitation is usually neglected.

In this work is described such a confinement-condensate phase transition which corresponds to a dynamical phase transition. Gravitation plays an important role. Field configurations with non trivial magnetic charge associated with metric deformations makes the gauge theory in the magnetic condensate phase free of essential singularities. These configurations constitute magnetic monopoles which are also white holes St\_0 ; St\_1 ; St\_2 ; St\_3 ; St\_4 , they interact gravitationally very weakly and reflect the incident matter. Here we call them monopole-white hole.

As far as the author knows the Localized phase for the Azbel-Hofstadter model are not considered in the literature (except maybe for PC\_0 ; PC\_1 ), since the corresponding phase space region corresponds to the gaps of the quantum theory. Although out of the scope of this work a possible experiment under strong magnetic fields could in principle be attained as in helium  where a confined phase for the electron was first observed. In the framework presented in this work, and based in the results of helium , the conditions for the existence of these configurations are in a regime of very low temperatures and strong magnetic field. In order to test the theoretical results obtained it would be necessary a strong magnetic field $`B5T`$ that would test the existence of magnetic monopoles and test gravity to $`10^{15}`$ meters scale. This topic is clearly not the expertise of the author and is not going to be developed here.

All the physical quantities on this work are expressed in SI units.

This work is organized as follows. In Section II it is build a map between a Topological Massive Gauge Theory TMGT\_01 ; TMGT\_02 ; AHPS ; BN\_1 ; LR\_1 ; AFC\_1 ; TM\_02 ; IK\_2 ; TM\_05 ; TM\_06 , a Compact $`U(1)`$ Maxwell Chern-Simons Quantum Field Theory and the Azbel-Hofstadter H ; brown ; AZ\_0 ; HO\_0 ; KS ; aa ; wieg\_1 ; wieg\_2 ; wieg\_3  model of nonrelativistic electrons on a periodic potential under a strong perpendicular magnetic field. The periodic potential in the former model corresponds to a periodic current $`J^\mu `$ on the first theory which reduces the gauge group to a discrete $`U(1)`$ (equivalently the quantum field theory is defined on a lattice). It is shown that the discrete gauge symmetries with linear gauge parameter correspond either to the quantum group $`U_q(sl_2)`$ (note that this group is also connected with area preserving diffeomorphisms IK\_1 ; IK\_1a ) or magnetic translation group depending on the gauge choice. The first correspond to Landau gauge while the second to the symmetric gauge. Both groups are in this way related to $`U(1)`$ trough the Topological Gauge Field Theory.

In Section III some results of the Azbel-Hofstadter model are analyse. It has two phases as studied in PC\_0 ; PC\_1 , one Extended, in which the magnetic translations symmetry is present. And the other one Localized, where that symmetry is broken. On compact Maxwell Chern-Simons theories there exist vortexes (or magnetic monopoles) AK\_1 ; AK\_2 ; AK\_3 ; AK\_4  which may be in a Confined or Condensate phase AK\_5 ; AK\_6 ; AK\_7 . Given the map build in this work, the Confined phase of the gauge theory corresponds to the Extended phase of the models, while the Condensate phase to the Localized one. Here the terms condensation and confinement are related to the condensation and confinement of magnetic charge, meaning that magnetic charge can only be physically observed on the condensate phase. In the Confinement phase only magnetic dipoles are observed.

In Section IV the configurations on both phases are analysed. In the Confined phase the gauge symmetry is present while in the Condensate phase the gauge symmetry is broken. This phase transition is shown to correspond to dynamical symmetry breaking thooft\_1 ; thooft\_2 ; polyakov\_1 ; polyakov\_2 ; thooft\_3 . The symmetry breaking is achieved by considering a particular magnetic monopole solution of the gauge fields together with a nontrivial metric configuration which constitutes the white hole St\_0 ; St\_1 ; St\_2 . One crucial consequence of this construction is that the association of the white hole to pure magnetic monopoles renders the energy of the configuration finite. In the Confined phase, gravity plays no special role, we are in a quantum regime where the solutions of the Shrödinger equation are the usual Landau levels in the presence of a magnetic field while in the Condensate phase we obtain electron filaments helium  attaching several magnetic monopole-white holes which we call in this work chains. We refer the reader to the work Dunne2  for $`SU(2)`$ BPS monopole chains.

### I.2 Open Issues

The most important point to further explore seems to be the relation between the gravity and gauge sectors of the theory. The configurations presented in this work are given at ansatz level without a full theoretical justification. A semi-classical treatment is given in St\_1 ; St\_2 . However the solutions of these works do not possess similar characteristics to our ansatze, namely the charge and energy of the configurations are not finite. Also following IK\_3 ; CM\_01 ; CM\_02  the author studied classical solutions for gauge Chern-Simons and a gravitational scalar field PC\_BH\_01 ; PC\_BH\_02 . However the results are not very promising. For the magnetic case PC\_BH\_03 , although horizons do exist, the usual Maxwell charges diverge. Only the Page charges are finite charges .

It is also important to stress that the usual $`2+1`$ gravity has no degrees of freedom. This problem may be solved by considering noncommutative gravity NCG\_01 ; NCG\_02 ; NCG\_03 ; NCG\_04 . Although have been suggested that gravity may behave noncommutatively at short distances NCG\_01  this subject is not physically well established. The problem is also linked to the proper definition of gauge invariant coordinate transformations J\_01  in noncommutative spaces (see J\_02  and references therein) and the constraints between the gauge and the gravitational fields madore . Most approaches consist of considering a first order correction to the commutative metric NCG\_03 ; St\_2 , but it would be interesting to study the solutions of the EOM corresponding to a full noncommutative metric. The main draw back is that, in this case, we are dealing with complex gravity.

The values of temperature ($`<1K`$) and magnitude of the magnetic field (5T) to achieve a condensate phase (Localized phase), are based on the experimental results of helium  and on the usual definition of strong magnetic field. Nevertheless we did not study the precise values for the phase transition. Based on the Coulomb Gas approach, Kogan and Kovner AK\_5  derived that the phase transition corresponds to the value of the CS coefficient $`1/\pi `$ (in natural units $`\mathrm{}=1`$). In the framework presented here it corresponds to a relatively weak magnetic field $`B=0.07435T`$. The conditions for the validity of the Coulomb Gas approach may not be appropriated for a low matter density experiment in the laboratory but certainly it could be appropriate for high matter density regions of our universe.

Once we are talking about magnetic charges, it would not be polite, not to discuss electromagnetic duality (see olive  and references therein). Taking the usual quantization relation $`eg=2\pi \mathrm{}N`$, between pure magnetic ($`g`$) and electric charges ($`e`$) we obtain from equation (IV.15) that $`Q_{mon}:=B/4=2\pi \mathrm{}N`$. This simply implies that the system will react to values of the magnetic field when it raises (or decreases) over some threshold $`B=8\pi \mathrm{}N`$.

Also it remains to explain what are the dynamics of the mechanisms presented here, namely how the white holes emerge dynamical, is it a mechanism similar to the formation of black holes collapse  or is it a completely different mechanism?

Finally the relation with $`U_q(sl_2)`$ and area preserving diffeomorphisms IK\_1a  suggests some relation with the Quantum Hall Effect. Note however that the solutions presented here are in the Gaps of the nonrelativistic quantum theory. They are not related to the Landau level solutions for the energy Bands. They correspond to Localized phases which (so far as the author knows) have only been detected recently on the experiments described and conducted by the authors of reference helium .

## II From $`3D`$ Topological Massive Gauge Theories to Electrons on Magnetic Fields

In this section is considered a compact $`U(1)`$ topological massive gauge theory, Abelian Maxwell Chern-Simons. This theory will have as a particular limit an effective description of some other system, electrons moving on perpendicular magnetic fields. The coupling of the topological term $`k`$ will be interpreted as an effective physical quantity, the external magnetic field.

### II.1 TMGT, $`3D`$ Maxwell Chern-Simons

Let us start with a $`3D`$ Abelian Compact Maxwell Chern-Simons Gauge Theory,

$`S_{TMGT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0\alpha _T}{V_3}}{\displaystyle _M}d^3x\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\gamma ^2}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+`$ (II.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{8\pi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda +A_\mu J^\mu ]`$
where $`F=dA`$ is the usual connection of the gauge field $`A`$ and a generic external $`3D`$ current $`J^\mu `$ for the gauge field was introduced. The coupling constants are introduced on a nonstandard way in order to simplify the phenomenology of the nonrelativistic limit studied in this work. $`M`$ is some Minkowski manifold allowing a $`2+1`$ splitting and having a topology $`M=\mathrm{\Sigma }\times R`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`2D`$ compact Riemann surface (with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$) and $`R`$ some finite interval which is going to play the role of time, the metric is considered to be $`2+1`$ decomposable (see for example AFC\_1 )

$$ds^2=dt^2+h_{ij}dx^idx^j$$
(II.2)
and therefore the factor containing the determinant of the metric reads $`\sqrt{g}=\sqrt{h}`$. The antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ is defined covariantly as

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }=\frac{\widehat{ϵ}^{\mu \nu \lambda }}{\sqrt{h}},$$
(II.3)
where $`\widehat{ϵ}^{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ is the usual numerical antisymmetric matrix with $`\widehat{ϵ}^{012}=1`$.

$`V_3`$ stands for a unit $`3D`$ spatial volume and has units of length cube ($`m^3`$), $`\alpha _T`$ stands for an effective constant which relates the $`2+1D`$ physical system to the $`3+1D`$ physics. In simple terms is related to the thickness of the system on the perpendicular direction, say $`x^3=z`$, it has therefore units of length ($`m`$). The physical meaning of $`\gamma `$ and $`k`$ will be addressed later on.

These theories are usually named Topological Massive Gauge Theories (TMGT) TMGT\_01 ; TMGT\_02 , topological due to the topological character of the CS term (it is a topological invariant) and massive since the gauge boson $`A`$ acquires a topological mass due to the coexistence of both Maxwell and CS terms $`M=k\gamma ^2/4\pi `$. This can be checked by the equations of motion for $`A`$. Taking its curl and rewriting it in terms of the dual field strength $`(F)^\mu =ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }/2`$ we obtain $`(^2M^2)(F)^\mu =0`$.

The Hamiltonian of such a system is easily computed to be (for further details see for example AFC\_1 ; TM\_05 ; TM\_06 ),

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_{TMGT}=& _\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2x\sqrt{h}\left[A_0\left(_i\pi ^i+\frac{k}{8\pi }ϵ^{ij}_iA_jJ^0\right)\right]+\hfill \\ & \frac{\mu _0\alpha _T}{2V_3}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2x\sqrt{h}\left[\frac{1}{4\gamma ^2}(ϵ_{ij}F^{ij})^2+c^2\gamma ^2\left(\pi _i\frac{k}{8\pi }ϵ_i^kA_k\right)\left(\pi ^i\frac{k}{8\pi }ϵ^{il}A_l\right)A_iJ^i\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(II.4)
where $`\pi ^i`$ are the canonical momenta conjugated to $`A_i`$

$$\pi ^i=\frac{1}{c^2\gamma ^2}F^{0i}+\frac{k}{8\pi }ϵ^{ij}A_j$$
(II.5)
and the $`A_0`$ was taken to be a Lagrange multiplier imposing the gauss law

$$_iE^i+\frac{k}{4\pi }b=J_0.$$
(II.6)
$`J_0`$ is some external charge distribution and the electric and magnetic fields are defined as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E^i& =& \pi ^i\frac{k}{8\pi }ϵ^{ij}A_j\hfill \\ & =& \frac{1}{c^2\gamma ^2}F^{0i},\hfill \\ \hfill b& =& \frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ij}F_{ij}\hfill \\ & =& F_{12}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(II.7)
Note that the $`2D`$ antisymmetric tensor is actually induced from the $`2+1D`$ dimensional one as $`ϵ^{ij}=ϵ^{0ij}`$.

Upon quantization the commutation relations are

$$[\pi ^i(𝐱^{}),A^j(𝐱^{})]=i\mathrm{}\delta ^{ij}\delta ^{(2)}(𝐱𝐱^{})$$
(II.8)
and the commutation relations between the fields are computed to be

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill [E^i(𝐱),E^j(𝐱^{})]& =& i\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mu _0}\frac{k}{4\pi }ϵ^{ij}\delta ^{(2)}(𝐱𝐱^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill [E^i(𝐱),b(𝐱^{})]& =& i\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mu _0}ϵ^{ij}_j\delta ^{(2)}(𝐱𝐱^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(II.9)
where we assume the $`2d`$ delta functions to be normalized with a unit factor of area $`[V_2]=m^2`$.

The Hamiltonian (in the absence of external sources) depends only on the coordinate combinations $`\pi ^ikϵ^{ij}A_j/8\pi `$ such that

$$H=H(\pi ^1\frac{k}{8\pi }A_2,\pi ^2+\frac{k}{8\pi }A_1).$$
(II.10)
Being so, the most generic operator $`O`$ which commutes with the Hamiltonian, must depend on the coordinate combinations $`\pi ^i+kϵ^{ij}A_j/8\pi `$ such that

$`[H(\pi ^1{\displaystyle \frac{k}{8\pi }}A_2,\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{8\pi }}A_1),`$ (II.11)
$`O(\pi ^1+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{8\pi }}A_2,\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{8\pi }}A_1)]`$ $`=0`$
This fact is simply proved by using the commutation relations (II.8).

The most usual and known example of such an operator is, of course, the gauge transformation operator

$$U_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{\mu _0}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\alpha _T}{V_3}\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\sqrt{h}\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)\left(_iE^i+\frac{k}{4\pi }bJ_0\right)\right\}.$$
(II.12)
In this case the generator is simply a representation of $`U(1)`$. Note that, accordingly, the gauss law $`_i\left(\pi ^i+kϵ^{ij}A_j/8\pi \right)=0`$ depends only on $`\pi ^i+kϵ^{ij}A_j/8\pi `$. We consider from now on that the measure in the 2-dimensional integral is defined covariantly. For the sake of compactness of the equations we do not write the area factor either, so the factor $`\sqrt{h}\alpha _T/V_3`$ is implicit on all the $`2d`$ integration over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

### II.2 Compact TMGT

Being compact means that large gauge transformations are allowed. That is that the fields are defined up to close shifts around the holonomic cycles of the manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The generators of this cycles are none other than the Wilson lines

$$W_\alpha =\mathrm{exp}\left\{i_\alpha A_i𝑑x^i\right\}$$
(II.13)
for some non contractible close cycle $`\alpha `$. Also note that these objects are gauge invariant and constitute a basis for the topological wave functions of the theory as extensively studied BN\_1 ; LR\_1  (see also TM\_02 ; TM\_06  for more generic geometries).

Therefore $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a compact parameter, say in the interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$ and the boundary conditions on the gauge fields need to be compatible with the identification

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\pi .$$
(II.14)
Using the Schrödinger picture $`\pi =i\delta /\delta A`$, the gauge transformations acting on wave functions has the effect

$$U(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Psi }[A]=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{\mu _0}{\mathrm{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{k}{8\pi }bJ_0\right)\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }[A+d\mathrm{\Lambda }]$$
(II.15)
which must be invariant under a shift $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\pi `$ due to the compactness of the gauge group. Then it imposes the group (dimensionless) charge quantization condition

$$q=s_1+\frac{\mu _0}{\mathrm{}}\frac{k}{8\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }b=s_1+\frac{\mu _0}{\mathrm{}}\frac{k}{4}s_2,$$
(II.16)
for some integer $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$. Note that $`s_1`$ stands for the winding of the gauge group, i.e. how many times the gauge field winds on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ when a shift $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\pi `$ is considered.

In the case of the compact gauge theory there are local operators which create magnetic vortexes creating a charge of flux $`2\pi N`$ for some integer $`N`$ AK\_1 ; AK\_2 ; AK\_3 ; AK\_4 . The physical Hilbert space of the compact theory is obtained by constraining the Hilbert space of the noncompact theory. This is done by demanding invariance of the physical states under the action of any combination (product) of those vortex operators. They are obtained integrating by parts $`U`$ (II.12)

$$V(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{\mu _0}{\mathrm{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left[_i\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\pi ^i+\frac{k}{8\pi }ϵ^{ij}A_j\right)J_0\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]\right\}.$$
(II.17)
Interpreting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as an angle in the $`2D`$ plane and using the identity $`_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)=ϵ_i^j_j\mathrm{ln}|𝐱|`$ (from the the Cauchy-Riemann equations) one obtains

$`V(𝐱_0)=\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}[(E^i+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4\pi }}ϵ^{ij}A_j)\times `$
$`ϵ_i^k_k\mathrm{ln}|𝐱𝐱_0|\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱𝐱_0)J_0]\}.`$ (II.18)
This operator creates a vortex that generates magnetic flux. its commutator with the magnetic field is

$$[b(𝐱),V^N(𝐱_0)]=2\pi NV^N(𝐱_0)\delta ^{(2)}(𝐱𝐱_0),$$
(II.19)
where the $`2D`$ identity $`^2\mathrm{ln}|𝐱|=2\pi \delta (𝐱)`$ was used.

For compactness of the equations, in the following subsection, we use the notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0=𝐱𝐱_0`$.

### II.3 Vortex, Monopoles and Field Decomposition

These operators can be also interpreted as generators of discontinuities or cuts from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ in the complex plane that generate a change on the charge (or tunnelling effect between states with the same energy and different charges). On other words they are associated with singular gauge transformations or monopole-instantons processes.

Note that two operators $`V(𝐱)`$ and $`V(𝐱^{})`$ do not commute, generally

$`V(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐱_0)V(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},𝐱_0^{})=`$ (II.20)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0)\times \mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0^{})\right\}V(𝐱_0^{})V(𝐱_0)`$
where the integral

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}ϵ^{ij}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0)_j\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0^{})\delta ^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}ϵ^{ij}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0)_j\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0)`$ (II.21)
was considered and the explicit dependence on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ restored.

Also they have the property

$`V(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐱_0)V(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},𝐱_0^{})=`$ (II.22)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0)\times \mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱_0^{})\right\}V(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},𝐱_0).`$
So this operators indeed form a group, in this case is simply $`U(1)`$ as we already know.

For future use consider the decomposition of the spatial part of the gauge field $`A_i`$ into its longitudinal $`𝐚_1=\{a_{1i}\}`$ and transverse $`𝐚_2=\{a_{2i}\}`$ components

$$𝐀=𝐚_1+𝐚_2$$
(II.23)
such that by definition

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{c}.𝐚_10\hfill \\ \times 𝐚_1=0\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \{\begin{array}{c}.𝐚_2=0\hfill \\ \times 𝐚_20\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}& & \{\begin{array}{c}.A=.𝐚_1\hfill \\ \times A=\times 𝐚_2\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(II.24)
With this decomposition the magnetic field $`b`$ depends uniquely on the field $`𝐚_2`$. From the perspective of nontrivial magnetic configurations this fact can also be interpreted as $`𝐚_2`$ containing the singular part of the gauge field and $`𝐚_1`$ the regular part. Here singular means that it includes the discontinuities (singularities) that generate the magnetic charge.

Note that once we introduce an external source, it will reduce the symmetries of the theory. Nevertheless, depending on the specific configurations it will maintain some subgroup of the full gauge group. We will use this fact in the following section. A geometrical interpretation is that a local charge insertion (or more generally a current insertion) may be interpreted as a vertex insertion on the manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, this will clearly change the topology of the manifold, in particular its holonomy group. Note that by each insertion we create a new non contractible loop around that insertion. Due to the massiveness of the photon, its perturbative effect decays exponentially although the topology has effectively being modified. This matter will reduce the gauge symmetry group of the theory since physically it is creating an effective potential.

In the case of a $`xy`$ periodic lattice the $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry will be reduced to some discrete subgroup of $`U(1)`$ as it will be argued below.

### II.4 Electrons on a Magnetic Field

Consider a particular longitudinal gauge field $`𝐚_1=a`$, such that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A_i& =& 4\pi ϵ_i^ja_j\hfill \\ \hfill 1& =& |\times a|\hfill \\ \hfill 0& =& .a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(II.25)
The second condition is simply a choice of normalisation for the field $`a`$ and will be shown to be compatible with both the Landau and symmetric gauge. As argued above the magnetic field $`b`$ is null for longitudinal fields

$$b=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ij}F^{ij}=F_{12}=_ia^i=0$$
(II.26)
Rewrite now (II.4) as the simplified Hamiltonian

$$H_a=\frac{c^2\gamma ^2\mu _0}{2}\left(\pi +\frac{k}{2}a\right)^2+V$$
(II.27)
with the effective potential

$$V=\frac{4\pi }{\mu _0}\left(a_ij^i+\frac{1}{c^2}a_0\rho ^0\right),$$
(II.28)
where $`j^i=ϵ_j^iJ^j`$ and $`\rho ^0`$ are some effective current and charge distributions.

Making the identifications

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill k& =& \frac{2eB}{\mu _0},\hfill \\ \hfill \gamma ^2& =& \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\mu _0}{m_e},\hfill \end{array}$$
(II.29)
where $`e`$ and $`m_e`$ stand for the physical charge and mass of the electron and $`\mu _0`$ is the magnetic constant.

The Hamiltonian is easily rewritten as

$$H_B=\frac{1}{2m_e}\left(𝐩+eBa\right)^2+V.$$
(II.30)
It can be recognised as the Hamiltonian for electrons on a potential under an external perpendicular uniform magnetic field $`B`$. The momenta $`𝐩`$ stands for the nonrelativistic momenta and the original Chern-Simons coefficient $`k`$ is, in this way proportional to the external magnetic field. This means that the external magnetic field is related with the topological character of the Quantum Field Theory.

The coupling constants on the original TQFT were introduced in a not so standard way to achieve the correct phenomenology of the model which will be addressed in the last section of the paper. Their units on SI are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill [k]& =& A^2m^1s,\hfill \\ \hfill [\gamma ^2]& =& A^2m^1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(II.31)
With this convention the gauge field has units of length $`[a]=m`$.

The external magnetic field $`B`$ and the internal one $`b`$ should not be confused. The first one is encoded in the Chern-Simons coefficient and is imposed externally to the system. The second one is due to non trivial configurations of the transverse gauge fields. Also it is important to stress that the $`b`$ field is dimensionless, its dimensionfull counterpart can be taken from the expression (II.16) for the charges on the theory such that

$$\stackrel{~}{b}=\frac{B}{4\pi }b.$$
(II.32)
The $`2+1D`$ magnetic field $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ spreads over the thickness of the system on the third spatial dimension, in here is assumed that effectively it spreads uniformly over the distance $`\alpha _T`$ and is null away from the planar system where $`\alpha _T`$ stands for the thickness of the system on the third spatial direction (perpendicular to the $`x\times y`$ plane)

The vortex operator (II.17) in this effective limit is defined as

$$V_\lambda =\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_i\lambda .(p^i+eBa^i)\}$$
(II.33)
up to a multiplicative constant due to the potential which we can include in the normalization of the operator.

Concerning the nonrelativistic quantum problem, the symmetric and Landau gauge correspond to

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_s& =& (\frac{y}{2},\frac{x}{2}),\hfill \\ \hfill a_L& =& (0,x)\hfill \end{array}$$
(II.34)
respectively and both are related by a gauge transformation $`\lambda ^{}=xy/2`$, such that $`a_s=a_L+d\lambda ^{}`$.

We considering the effective potential II.28 to be periodic with unit cell $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}=(d_x,d_y)`$. The previous local $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations operators $`V_\lambda `$ (II.33) are therefore identified with lattice translations operators. For the case of the symmetric gauge, with $`\lambda =\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}.𝐫`$, they correspond to magnetic translation operators while for the Landau gauge they correspond to the generators of $`U_q(sl_2)`$ as will be computed in the next subsection. In this sense both the Magnetic Translation Group and $`U_q(sl_2)`$ correspond to distinct discrete subgroups of $`U(1)`$ with linear gauge parameter and are related by a gauge transformation $`\lambda ^{}=xy/2`$.

## III The Azbel-Hofstadter Model

The Azbel-Hofstadter AZ\_0 ; HO\_0  is a model that describes Bloch electrons, i.e. electrons on a $`2D`$ periodic potential under a strong perpendicular magnetic field. It is a model on the lattice and the energy eigenvalues are computed by demanding the wave functions solutions periodicity to be compatible with the lattice (see wieg\_1 ; wieg\_2  for exact asymptotic solutions). In this way one gets the band/gap structure (depending on the magnetic flux per unit cell) of the theory which constitutes a fractal (Cantor set) known as the Hofstadter butterfly (see wieg\_3  for a recent review). A key point of this model is that the periodicity of wave functions is only possible for rational magnetic flux per unit cell. The physics for irrational values of the magnetic flux can nevertheless be studied by considering a succession of rational values which converge to that irrational value. Even in this irrational limit the structure of the spectrum is maintained although the number of bands and gaps become infinite.

### III.1 Periodic Potential and the Magnetic Translations Group

Take now a periodic potential represented by a $`2D`$ lattice of unit cell with sides $`d_x`$ and $`d_y`$ (i.e. a planar rectangular crystal) of size $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ with periodic boundary conditions on both directions $`x`$ and $`y`$. This means our space becomes a square torus of area $`A_{T^2}=L_xL_y`$. For other boundary conditions one would get other topologies.

In the presence of a periodic potential the spatial translation symmetry is broken down to a discrete version, which spans the equipotential points on both directions of the potential lattice. When a Magnetic field is present the theory is no longer symmetric under the usual translations, but it still is under the magnetic translations. On the presence of a periodic potential and for a particular gauge choice (Landau gauge), the magnetic translations are reduced to only two generators that constitute the $`U_q(sl_2)`$ quantum group.

To see it explicitly let us built the magnetic generators brown

$$T(𝐑_d)=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝐑_d.(\pi eBa)\}$$
(III.1)
such that $`𝐑_d`$ stands for some vector of the potential lattice. Note that these operators indeed commute with the Hamiltonian

$$[T(𝐑_d),H_B]=0$$
(III.2)
since the potential value is the same at points related by the shift $`𝐑_d`$ and the commutation relation $`[\pi eBa,\pi +eBa]=0`$ holds. Note that in the absence of external magnetic field these operators become simply the translation operators $`T(𝐑_d)=\mathrm{exp}\{i𝐑_d.\pi /\mathrm{}\}`$ as argued before.

Furthermore only two of such generators are necessary to span each of the equipotential spaces. They are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_x& =& T(𝐑_{d_x})\hfill \\ \hfill T_y& =& T(𝐑_{d_y})\hfill \end{array}$$
(III.3)
They indeed work as local gauge operators $`V_a`$ given by (II.33) for the symmetric gauge with parameters $`\lambda _x=d_xx`$ and $`\lambda _y=d_yy`$.

Acting on wave functions we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T_x\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=& \mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{eB}{\mathrm{}}d_xd_y\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(x+dx,y)\hfill \\ \hfill T_y\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=& \mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{eB}{\mathrm{}}d_xd_y\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y+d_y)\hfill \end{array}$$
(III.4)
in accordance to (II.15).

Also one gets

$$T_xT_y=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{eB}{\mathrm{}}d_xd_y\right\}T_yT_x$$
(III.5)
in accordance with (II.20).

To complete the definition of the group consider

$$T_xT_y=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{eB}{2\mathrm{}}d_xd_y\right\}T_{x+y}$$
(III.6)
So we just defined the group of magnetic translations and become apparent that it is described correctly in terms of discretized local $`U(1)`$ gauge operators of a compact Abelian Maxwell Chern-Simons Massive Gauge theory. Moreover in the Topological Quantum Field Theory they are vortex operators. Here, in the Azbel-Hofstadter model, they are interpreted as the generators of the quantum group that generalises translations on the presence of an external magnetic field. This group can easily be interpreted as the possible interpolations (tunnelling effect) between non-distinguishable field configurations of the theory or equivalent vacua, also commonly called on the $`3D`$ Field Theory framework monopole-instantons.

### III.2 Harper Equation from Landau Gauge

For the Landau gauge $`a_L=(0,x)`$ the previous group generators acting on wave functions are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_x\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)& =& \mathrm{exp}\left(ik_x\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(x+dx,y)\hfill \\ \hfill T_y\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)& =& \mathrm{exp}\left(ik_y\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\pi \omega \right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)\hfill \end{array}$$
(III.7)
where $`\omega `$ is the flux per unit cell over $`\mathrm{}`$

$$\omega =\frac{eB}{\mathrm{}}d_xd_y$$
(III.8)
In this gauge the group has a one-dimensional representation for each Bloch wave vector $`(k_x,k_y)`$. There is no shift on the $`y`$ direction because in the Landau gauge the canonical momentum $`p_y`$ is null (see the original works H ; brown ; AZ\_0 ; HO\_0  for further details).

The theory is in this way mapped into a one dimensional model by writing the Hamiltonian as

$$H=T_x+T_x^1+\lambda \left(T_y+T_y^1\right)$$
(III.9)
where $`\lambda =d_y/d_x`$. The resulting discretized shrödinger equation is the well know second order Harper equation H

$$\psi _{n+1}+\psi _{n1}+2\lambda \mathrm{cos}(2\pi (\omega n+\varphi _0))\psi _n=E\psi _n$$
(III.10)
where $`k_x=0`$, $`\varphi _0=k_y`$ and $`E`$ is the energy eigenvalue. Under the map $`x_n=\psi _{n1}/\psi _n`$ the first order Harper map is obtained KS

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x_{n+1}& =& \frac{1}{x_nE+2\lambda \mathrm{cos}(2\pi \varphi _n)}\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi _{n+1}& =& \omega n+\varphi _0\hfill \end{array}$$
(III.11)
The Lyapunov exponent corresponding to the $`x`$ dynamics is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{y}& =& \underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}y_n\hfill \\ \hfill y_n& =& \mathrm{log}\frac{x_{n+1}}{x_n}=\mathrm{log}x_{n+1}^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(III.12)
Aubry and André aa  proved that the Lyapunov exponent $`\overline{y}=2\gamma `$, being $`\gamma `$ the localisation length and that $`\overline{y}0`$ always. For $`\overline{y}=0`$, the phase is Extended and for $`\overline{y}<0`$ the phase is Localized.

### III.3 Phases of Azbel-Hofstadter model: Bands and Gaps

Numerically the two phases of these maps where studied to some extend in PC\_0 ; PC\_1 ; KS ; aa .

Relating them with the original Azbel-Hofstadter one checks that the Extended phases corresponds to the original energy bands and the localized phases to the gaps.

In PC\_1  were studied the attractors in the Localized phases in the $`x\times \varphi `$ plane. It was suggested a classification of the many localized phases of this map by integers $`\eta `$. The magnetic flux $`\omega ^{}=(\sqrt{5}1)/2`$ is taken to be the limit of the succession $`\omega _n=F_{n1}/F_n`$ where $`F_0=F_1=1`$ and the relation $`F_n=F_{n1}+F_{n2}`$ define the Fibonacci succession.

The full phase diagram for that irrational magnetic flux $`\omega =(\sqrt{5}1)/2`$ is shown in figure 1.

The integers labels are the winding of the attractors on the $`x\times \varphi `$ torus. This torus is obtained by considering the identification on $`\varphi :01`$ and on $`x:\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ on the plane $`x\times \varphi `$. Figure 2 is an example of such attractors for $`\eta =11`$ and $`\eta =10`$.

Note that each winding corresponds to $`x`$ going trough $`x=\pm \mathrm{}`$ and crossing, necessarily, the line $`x=0`$. The first case means simply that the wave function is going trough zero and does not constitute a problem, but the second one is translated in terms of the original wave function into the existence of divergences for the null values of $`\varphi `$. These are essential singularities. Therefore the conclusion is that the solutions of the wave functions do exist on the Localized phases (gaps) but are not physical since they are not normalizable.

Then the question which remains to answer is if the localized phases and all the structure described in PC\_1  does correspond to any physics at all or if it is just a mathematical curiosity.

## IV Physics on the Gaps

As explained so far one manage to go from a Topological Quantum Field Theory to a quantum mechanics model of nonrelativistic electrons on magnetic fields and then mapped it into a simple dynamical system described by an one-dimensional map.

At the dynamical system level it was concluded that there are two kind of phases, one Extended and the other one Localized. While on the Extended phase the map have $`2D`$ attractors and the iterations spread in the $`x\times \varphi `$ plane according to some probability distributions PC\_0 , on the Localized phases there are stable one-dimensional attractors.

At the nonrelativistic quantum level these results must be interpreted in other terms. The Azbel-Hofstadter model is precisely based on finding the solutions of the Shrödinger equation which preserve the magnetic translations symmetry. Therefore the previous Extended phases correspond to the energy bands of the quantum system while the Localized ones to the gaps of the theory. So, although numerical solutions for the Schrödinger equation were found, they are not physical since are not square integrable due to essential divergences. Something must be missing in our picture.

### IV.1 Symmetry Breaking and Phase Transitions

Let us go back to the TQFT framework and re-examine the previous results. The magnetic translations are now the gauge transformations, the Extended phases correspond to a regime where the gauge symmetry is present while the Localized ones to a regime where the gauge symmetry is somehow broken.

The issue here is symmetry breaking and the theory being renormalizable or not. In the broken regime the theory is nonrenormalizable which translates to our nonrelativistic quantum limit as the wave functions being non normalizable. So the problem to solve is a very old one: symmetry breaking maintaining the theory renormalizable!

As widely known the symmetry breaking must however be nonexplicitly in order that the broken theory is still renormalizable. This issue has been well studied and is in the origin of the Higgs-Kibble mechanism Higgs\_1 ; Higgs\_2 ; Kibble  of spontaneous symmetry breaking. There the symmetry is broken by choosing a particular point of the several degenerated vacua. For the setup presented here, the natural way out, is to consider specific field configurations allowed on the theory which break the gauge invariance. Again this is an old subject, we have some degenerate vacua and we are choosing some particular configuration which minimises the energy of the system constituting then a classical background. These are often called monopoles thooft\_1 ; thooft\_2 ; polyakov\_1 ; polyakov\_2 ; thooft\_3  and constitute what is know as dynamical symmetry breaking. By allowing such configurations the gauge symmetry is broken in exchange of field configurations but the theory is still renormalizable. This is also the same mechanism which in M/string-theory compactifications break the supersymmetry due to the choice of some particular vacua manifold (classical solution of the gravity theory).

Note that in $`2+1`$D the dynamical Symmetry breaking is also associated to a confined-condensate phase transition of the theory as will be discussed to some extension later on.

### IV.2 Monopoles and White Holes

Consider now the results computed on the work of Stichel St\_2  (see also its references and in particular St\_0 ; St\_1 ) where a classical deformation of the gauge field yields both a monopole-like configuration and a deformation of the metric which constitutes a gravitational white hole. Note that although the framework of that paper is different it translates to the framework presented here if in the decomposition (II.24) $`𝐀=𝐚_1+𝐚_2`$ the second field $`𝐚_2`$ is considered at classical level to be a deformation of the first one $`𝐚_1`$.

There the original theory is of a nonrelativistic point particles coupled to gauge fields which are deformed in order to allow time-dependent area preserving diffeomorphisms. Here the starting point is a quantum field theory which has as a particular nonrelativistic quantum mechanical limit, classical electrons travelling on a perpendicular magnetic field. Some non-trivial field configurations on the original quantum field theory will translate, in the classical limit, to a deformation of the gauge field and a deformation of the metric which constitutes a geometric bag or monopole. It is this deformation that interests us in the scope of this work. Also note that as explained before, at the TQFT level, any magnetic field depends only on the field $`𝐚_2`$. The existence of non trivial magnetic field configurations breaks the gauge symmetry since the path integral is not invariant under large gauge transformations (see for instance AHPS ), this is also the reason why in AFC\_1  there are only functional wave functions for trivial magnetic field configurations $`b=0`$.

Physical particles are called in $`2+1D`$ vortexes while the term monopoles is associated with instantons (tunnelling processes). In this work the term magnetic monopole is used to denote physical static particles constituted by gauge field configurations on the $`2D`$ spatial plane.

It is important to stress that the configurations presented here are pure magnetic monopoles with finite energy. This is only possible due to the inclusion of the nontrivial gravitational configurations.

Let a generic gauge transformation be decomposed into two components

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱,t)=\underset{\alpha }{}\varphi (𝐱𝐱_\alpha )+\lambda (𝐱,t),$$
(IV.1)
where $`\lambda `$ is a regular function and $`\varphi `$ is a spatial singular function

$$\varphi (𝐱)=\mathrm{arctan}\frac{x}{y}.$$
(IV.2)
Take only one singular point at $`(x,y)=(0,0)`$ and consider a time independent hedgehog solution for the gauge fields $`A`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \hfill A_x& =& y\left(1\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{\theta }/r^2}\right)\frac{2N}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }},\hfill \\ \hfill A_y& =& x\left(1\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{\theta }/r^2}\right)\frac{2N}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }},\hfill \\ \hfill A_0& =& \mathrm{const}\hfill \end{array}$$
(IV.3)
which constitutes a monopole configuration, and the corresponding metric solution

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \hfill h^{xx}& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{1}{1\frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{r^2}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }(2\frac{r^2}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }})}{r^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }}\frac{x^2}{r^2}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill h^{xy}& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }(2\frac{r^2}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }})}{r^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }}\frac{xy}{r^2},\hfill \\ \hfill h^{yy}& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{1}{1\frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{r^2}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }(2\frac{r^2}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }})}{r^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }}\frac{y^2}{r^2}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(IV.4)
where $`r^2=x^2+y^2`$ stands for the planar radius and $`N`$ is an integer with units of length square $`[N]=m^2`$ that parameterises the monopole charge.

The parameter of these configurations is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }=e^2\alpha _n^4\frac{k}{4\pi c}=\frac{e^7}{2\pi }\left(\frac{\mu _0}{m_e}\right)^4\frac{B}{c\mu _0},$$
(IV.5)
with units of length square $`[\stackrel{~}{\theta }]=m^2`$. It is therefore proportional to the external perpendicular magnetic field

The electric field is null since $`A_0=\text{const}`$ and the magnetic field of the configuration is computed to be

$$b(r)=\frac{2N}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}\left(2+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }2r^2}{r^2\sqrt{1\frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{r^2}}}\right).$$
(IV.6)
The determinant of the inverse metric is

$$h^1(r)=\frac{r^2}{r^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }}$$
(IV.7)
and as expected the metric is asymptotically flat

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}h(r)=1.$$
(IV.8)
The gravitational configuration corresponds in this nonrelativistic quantum mechanical limit to a white hole with radius

$$r_0^2=\frac{e^7}{2\pi }\left(\frac{\mu _0}{m_e}\right)^4\frac{B}{c\mu _0}$$
(IV.9)
which reflects any incident wave function as described in detail in the last section of St\_2 .

By request of the referee we proceed to analyse the properties of the monopole-white hole and compute the asymptotic solutions of the Schrödinger equation.

In planar polar coordinates the metric is given by

$$ds^2=\sqrt{2}dr^2+\frac{r^4}{\sqrt{2}(r^2\theta )}d\phi .$$
(IV.10)
Although the curvature is null everywhere, $`R=0`$ as expected in two dimensional gravity, the contraction of two Ricci Tensors is

$$R_{ij}R^{ij}=\frac{(r^22\theta )^4}{r^4(r^2\theta )^4}.$$
(IV.11)
The vanishing $`\theta `$ limit is well defined, $`lim_{\theta 0}R_{ij}R^{ij}=1/r^4`$ corresponding to the flat metric, as it should since $`\theta `$ is the deformation parameter. Clearly $`r=r_0=\sqrt{\theta }`$ is singularity. We will next show that it also constitutes a white-horizon such that the wave function vanishes at $`r=r_0`$. This fact agrees with the interpretation of the monopole-white hole being a physical particle of radius $`r_0`$. We note that the deformation of the space induces a planar angle deficit, hence $`r_0`$ is a conical singularity. The angular variable is defined only on the range $`[0,2\pi \sqrt{1\theta /r^2}[`$.

To show that the wave functions are well defined in the presence of these particle and they don’t penetrate the core, take the gauge field $`𝐚_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ as the deformation, such that the monopole configuration is due to this field. The final deformed Hamiltonian for the gauge field $`𝐚_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is rewritten in the symmetric gauge as

$`m_eH_{def}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\pi _ieB\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{ik}x^k\right)\left(\pi ^jeB\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{jl}x^l\right)h^{ij}`$ (IV.12)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\pi _r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(leBr^2)^2}{\sqrt{2}(r^2\theta )}},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{ij}=\sqrt{h}ϵ^{ij}`$ is the covariant antisymmetric tensor, the vacuum energy (IV.2) is shifted, $`(x^1,x^2)=(x,y)`$ and $`l`$ is the canonical angular momentum $`l=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{ij}x^ih^{jk}\pi _k=\sqrt{h}\pi _\phi `$.

In the following we compute the wave function solution using the Schrödinger picture with $`\pi _r=\mathrm{}_r`$ and Moyal-Weyl quantization procedure as described in St\_2 . Basically the normal ordering prescription for a product of operators corresponds to all possible monomial combinations, or equivalently stated we consider the full (noncommutative) star product of operators $`f_1(\widehat{p})f_2(\widehat{q})=\mathrm{exp}\{i\mathrm{}(^2/pq)\}f_1(p)f_2(q)|_{p\widehat{p},q\widehat{q}}`$ (see eq (3.4-3.7) of castellani ), which in our simple Hamiltonian is exactly an expansion to order 2 on $`\mathrm{}`$. Therefore we obtain the Scrödinger equation

$`[E{\displaystyle \frac{(leBr^2)^2}{\sqrt{2}m_e(r^2\theta )}}+`$ (IV.13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}^2}{m_e}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}}_r\sqrt{h}_r+{\displaystyle \frac{r^4(3r^2+\theta )}{\sqrt{2}(r^2\theta )^4}})]\psi =0`$
Taking the limit of $`r\sqrt{\theta }`$, we solve the asymptotic schödinger equation, finding

$$\psi (r)=(r^2\theta )^{\frac{25}{8}}(r^22\theta )^{\frac{7}{2}+\frac{(l2eB\theta )^2}{8\mathrm{}^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{16}\left(\frac{eBr^2(4leB(r^2+4\theta ))}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{(30r^2+26\theta )\theta }{(r^2\theta )^2}\right)\right\}.$$
(IV.14)
In the limit $`r=\sqrt{\theta }`$ the wave function vanishes independently of the angular momentum eigenvalue $`l`$. Note also that the asymptotic solution does not depend on the energy of the solution. Then we proved that effectively the electron wave function does not penetrate the core of the monopole-white hole.

One can now interpret the white hole, a gravitational deformation induced by the gauge fields, as being a physical particle, the monopole or a geometric bag. A full description would also need to take into account the white hole quantum numbers. This issue is not going to be studied here, see for instance Ply  (and references therein). In the scope of this work, let us simply compute some relevant quantities of such a particle, the energy, charge and mass density.

The energy of the configuration is finite as required and is just the integral of the magnetic field squared

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E_{mon}& =& \frac{\pi \mu _0\alpha _T}{4\gamma ^2V_3}𝑑rh^1(r)rb(r)^2\hfill \\ & =& \frac{N\pi \mu _0\alpha _T}{4\gamma ^2V_3}\left(3\mathrm{ln}2\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

The physically measurable charge of the magnetic monopole is

$$Q_m=\frac{B}{4}𝑑rrb(r)=\frac{B}{4}N$$
(IV.15)
as expected. For $`N=1`$ we have the fundamental charge allowed on the theory.

Considering that the monopole is spherical (in $`3D`$ terms), the constant $`\alpha _T`$ is of the same order of magnitude of the white hole’s radius. Therefore we obtain

$$\rho _{mon}=\mathrm{1.195\; 10}^{17}\frac{1}{B}.$$
(IV.16)
For strong values of the magnetic field (say of order $`B^2=25T^2`$ \- see equation (IV.21) in the end of the article) we get a value for the density of order $`10^{16}Kgm^3`$. This is somewhere between the density of the electron ($`10^{13}`$) and nuclear matter ($`10^{18}`$ \- considering $`r_p1fm`$).

As a final remark note that the procedure described in St\_2  takes in account the gauss law constraint and therefore gauge fixes the theory. The point is that on a theory containing gravity both the degrees of freedom of gravity and the gauge theory will be constrained together such that for a particular nontrivial field configuration the gauge symmetry is broken (or gauge fixed if one prefers to say so) in exchange of a nontrivial gravitational background. Also it must be stressed that the metric (IV.4) is not the one presented on St\_2 , there the ansatz corresponds to an anion (with both electric and magnetic charge) and renders the determinant of the metric to be always $`1`$. The metric presented here has determinant $`1`$ only asymptotically rendering finite energy pure magnetic monopole-white hole configurations. In terms of the quantum field theory these issues must be translated into the existence of a gravitational sector of the theory. This is not going to be studied here.

### IV.3 Confinement and Condensation of Monopoles

Let us analyse the results of the previous subsection at the level of the TQFT. In the early works on Topological Massive Gauge Theories (see for instance AHPS ) the monopole charge was imposed to average to zero over the entire manifold in order to preserve gauge invariance of the path integral. It was studied in AK\_5  that $`2+1`$D compact Maxwell Chern-Simons has two distinct phases. In the confined phase the magnetic charge is confined such that the monopoles are paired. The total charge is null for each pair and the monopole charge is in this way screened. This is the phase in which gauge symmetry is unbroken, there are only trivial configurations of magnetic field. In the condensate phase the magnetic charge condensates and the monopoles are not paired any longer. The total magnetic charge has now a non null value AK\_6 ; AK\_7 . See figure 3 for a suggestive picture of both phases.

The above arguments strongly suggest that the existence of monopole condensation on the TQFT is intrinsically linked to the deformation of the classical gauge field and metric in the classical limit.

Furthermore it was argued in AK\_6  that in the continuum limit of the Abelian theory the vortexes are not present due to being logarithmically UV divergent and therefore the monopole effect would be negligible anyway. The mechanisms which regularize the theory seem to be two folded. Both considering a periodic current in the same manner that the periodic potential is considered in the original Azbel-Hofstadter model such that the theory is always defined on a lattice and taking in account gravitational effects in order to correctly regularize the theory. Given the framework of the Azbel-Hofstadter model the theory is defined on a lattice due to the periodicity of the external current (the effective periodic potential). This is not enough since the wave functions are not normalizable and one has to account also for gravitational configurations.

### IV.4 Divergences Removed on the Gaps, Chains of Filaments and Monopoles

The punch line is that, if we allow configurations where monopoles have a non null net charge together with a gravitational deformation, they will preserve the finitude of the wave function. Moreover the value of the net charge must still be a multiple of the fundamental magnetic charge due to the fact that the full effect is still due to a set of such particles. The monopole number would be related to the number of essential (nonremovable) singularities of the bare wave function which are present in the pure gauge theory. That number is simply given by the winding number of the dynamical system on the $`x\times \varphi `$ plane, that is the classification index of the phase diagrams on the last section!

Furthermore if one takes the wave function to be defined as a function of the phase $`\varphi `$ one knows that the divergences are located on the points where the attractors are null. These will be the points where the white holes must stand in order the theory to be well defined and the wave functions divergences absent.

Translating it in more formal terms note that the phase $`\varphi _n=\varphi _0+\omega n`$ parameterizes a discretized line. For irrational values of $`\omega `$ we can define a continuum phase $`\varphi `$ which parameterises the attractors on the $`x\times \varphi `$ plane

$$x(\varphi )=\psi (\varphi )/\psi (\varphi +\delta \varphi )$$
(IV.17)
($`x`$ should not be confused with the spatial coordinate - see figure 2). For a given string of length $`L_l`$ the phase is simply a normalized parameter

$$\varphi =\frac{l}{L_l}l[0,L_l]$$
(IV.18)
Now one can consider wave functions of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(l)e^{{\scriptscriptstyle f(l)}.dl}$$
(IV.19)
such that the function $`f(l)`$ defines the linear attractor on the localized phases

$$x(l)=\frac{\psi (l)}{\psi (l+\delta l)}=e^{F(l)F(l+\delta l)}$$
(IV.20)
where $`F(l)`$ stands for the value of the primitive of $`f`$ evaluated at $`l`$.

Once one considers the theory with monopole-white holes the wave function is physically well defined and one obtains a chain constitute by electron filaments attached to monopoles. The position of the monopole-white holes on the chain will be located at the divergences of the bare wave functions and its number will correspond to the before mention $`\eta `$ (the label of the phase). See figure 4 for a picture of such a chain.

### IV.5 Possible Phenomenology

A experimental analysis is out of the scope of this work and the expertise of the author. However a brief phenomenological analysis is carried out for the sake of completeness.

To have an order of magnitude of the physical effects consider some strong magnetic field $`B`$, meaning that

$$\mu B>>1$$
(IV.21)
where $`\mu `$ is the electron mobility. Taking it to be of order $`\mu 10m^2V^1s^1`$ helium  one requires a magnetic field of order $`B5T`$. Then the radius of the monopole-white hole is of order

$$r_0=\sqrt{\frac{e^7}{2\pi }\left(\frac{\mu _0}{m_e}\right)^4\frac{B}{c\mu _0}}10^{15}m$$
(IV.22)
This results indicate that in principle it is possible to test the theoretical results presented in this work with present day technology.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by SFRH/BPD/5638/2001 and SFRH/BPD/17683/2004. The author thanks everyone who contributed to the development of the ideas presented here, helped with several technical difficulties and pointed out literature.


text:
# Untitled Document

Set theory and cyclic vectors

Nik Weaver**Supported by NSF grant DMS-0070634 Math Subject Classification numbers: 03E35, 03E50, 47A15, 47A16

Let $`H`$ be a separable, infinite dimensional Hilbert space and let $`S`$ be a countable subset of $`H`$. Then most positive operators on $`H`$ have the property that every nonzero vector in the span of $`S`$ is cyclic, in the sense that the set of operators in the positive part of the unit ball of $`B(H)`$ with this property is comeager for the strong operator topology.

Suppose $`\kappa `$ is a regular cardinal such that $`\kappa \omega _1`$ and $`2^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$. Then it is relatively consistent with ZFC that $`2^\omega =\kappa `$ and for any subset $`SH`$ of cardinality less than $`\kappa `$ the set of positive operators in the unit ball of $`B(H)`$ for which every nonzero vector in the span of $`S`$ is cyclic is comeager for the strong operator topology.

1. Introduction

Let $`H`$ be a separable, infinite dimensional Hilbert space and let $`B(H)`$ be the set of bounded linear operators $`A:HH`$. A closed subspace $`E`$ of $`H`$ is invariant for such an operator $`A`$ if $`A(E)E`$. The invariant subspace problem (ISP) for Hilbert spaces asks whether there exists an operator $`AB(H)`$ whose only closed invariant subspaces are $`\{0\}`$ and $`H`$.

It was shown by Enflo  that there exists a bounded operator on a Banach space that has no proper closed invariant subspaces. Read  showed that the Banach space could be taken to be $`l^1=l^1(𝐍)`$. A simplified version of Read’s example is given in . The ISP remains open for Hilbert spaces; it is also unknown whether there exists a separable, infinite dimensional Banach space on which every bounded operator has a proper closed invariant subspace.

This note was motivated by the observation that the ISP for Hilbert spaces can be rephrased as a question about the existence of a generic filter on a certain poset. (This material is not needed for Section 2.) The construction is this. Let $`P`$ be the poset consisting of all partially defined operators $`A`$ on the Hilbert space $`l^2=l^2(𝐍)`$ with the properties

(a) $`\mathrm{dom}(A)`$ is a finite dimensional subspace of $`l^2`$;

(b) if $`E`$ is a subspace of $`\mathrm{dom}(A)`$ and $`A(E)E`$ then $`E=\{0\}`$; and

(c) $`A<1`$.

Order $`P`$ by reverse inclusion. For any unit vectors $`v,wl^2`$ define

$$D_{v,w}=\{AP:\text{ there exists }n\text{ such that }A^n(v)\text{ is defined and }A^nv,w0\}.$$

It is not too hard to see that every $`D_{v,w}`$ is dense in $`P`$, and a filter of $`P`$ which intersects every $`D_{v,w}`$ defines a bounded operator with no proper invariant subspaces. Conversely, if there is such an operator it can be scaled to have norm $`<1`$, and then its finite dimensional restrictions define a filter of $`P`$ which intersects every $`D_{v,w}`$. Thus, the ISP for Hilbert space can be cast in set-theoretic terms: it is equivalent to the existence of a $`D`$-generic filter on $`P`$, where $`D=\{D_{v,w}:v,wl^2`$ and $`v=w=1\}`$.

The poset $`P`$ is not ccc, but this is not essential; for example, it can be replaced by the countable poset of all finite matrices with rational entries, ordered by a reasonable notion of approximate inclusion. Thus, one can apply Martin’s axiom (see, e.g., ) to obtain the consistency of an operator which meets “many” of the sets $`D_{v,w}`$. This raises the possibility that the ISP for Hilbert space may be independent of ZFC. However, the assertion that $`AB(l^2)`$ has no invariant subspaces is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ (it can be reformulated as “for all unit vectors $`v,wl^2`$ there exists $`n`$ such that $`A^nv,w0`$”) and hence absolute, so if the ISP is independent, this cannot be shown using a straightforward forcing argument.

2. A relative consistency result

As we indicated above, although Martin’s axiom alone will not suffice to prove the consistency of an operator with no proper closed invariant subspaces (unless this can already be proven in ZFC), it does allow one to prove partial results in this direction. In this section we present perhaps the strongest natural result along these lines. It was in fact originally proven directly from Martin’s axiom, but here we give a better proof based on a suggestion of Kenneth Kunen.

It is easy to see that the operator $`AB(H)`$ has no proper closed invariant subspaces if and only if every nonzero vector is cyclic, i.e., for every nonzero $`vH`$ the span of the sequence $`(A^nv)`$ is dense in $`H`$. Thus, the more cyclic vectors $`A`$ has, the “closer” it gets to being a counterexample to the ISP.

If $`X`$ is a Banach space then we let $`[X]_1`$ denote its closed unit ball. The strong operator topology on $`B(H)`$ is generated by the basic open sets

$$𝒪_{B,E,ϵ}=\{AB(H):A|_EB<ϵ\}$$

taken over $`ϵ>0`$, $`E`$ a finite dimensional subspace of $`H`$, and $`B:EH`$ a linear map. If $`H`$ is separable then this topology is second countable and its restriction to $`[B(H)]_1`$ is metrizable by $`d(A,A^{})=2^n(AA^{})(v_n)`$, where $`(v_n)`$ is a countable dense subset of $`[H]_1`$. Moreover, this metric is complete, so $`[B(H)]_1`$ with the relative strong operator topology is a Polish space.

Let $`[B(H)]_1^+`$ denote the set of positive operators $`A[B(H)]_1`$, i.e., those self-adjoint operators which satisfy $`0Av,v1`$ for all $`vH`$. (In the case of complex scalars, self-adjointness follows from the second condition.) If $`H`$ is separable then $`[B(H)]_1^+`$ is a Polish space via the same metric which shows that $`[B(H)]_1`$ is Polish.

Lemma. Let $`H`$ be a separable, infinite dimensional Hilbert space and let $`E`$ be a finite dimensional subspace of $`H`$. Then the set of operators in $`[B(H)]_1^+`$ for which every nonzero vector in $`E`$ is cyclic is comeager for the relative strong operator topology.

Proof. Let $`(x_n)`$ be an orthonormal basis of $`H`$. For $`m𝐍`$ and $`\delta >0`$ let $`U_{m,\delta }`$ be the set of operators $`A[B(H)]_1^+`$ such that

$$d(x_m,\mathrm{span}\{A^kv:k𝐍\})<\delta $$

for every nonzero $`vE`$. We will show that $`U_{m,\delta }`$ is open and dense in $`[B(H)]_1^+`$ for every $`m`$ and $`\delta `$. Intersecting the sets $`U_{m,\delta }`$ over all $`m`$ and all $`\delta `$ of the form $`\delta =1/n`$ yields the set of $`A[B(H)]_1^+`$ for which $`\mathrm{span}\{A^kv:k𝐍\}=H`$ for every nonzero $`vE`$; so we will have shown that this set is a countable intersection of open, dense sets, as desired.

Fix $`m`$ and $`\delta `$ for the remainder of the proof. We first show that $`U_{m,\delta }`$ is open. Let $`AU_{m,\delta }`$ and for each unit vector $`vE`$ let $`f(v)`$ be the smallest integer such that

$$d(x_m,\mathrm{span}\{A^kv:0kf(v)\})<\delta .$$

Then the function $`f`$ is upper semicontinuous on the unit sphere of $`E`$ (which is compact), so $`f`$ is bounded. Let $`N`$ be an upper bound for $`f`$ and let $`F=\mathrm{span}\{A^kv:vE,0kN\}`$ and

$$\delta ^{}=sup\{d(x_m,\mathrm{span}\{A^kv:0kN\}):vE,v=1\}.$$

Since $`E`$ is finite dimensional, so is $`F`$. Also, by compactness of the unit sphere $`\delta ^{}<\delta `$. Now for $`ϵ>0`$ let $`U_ϵ`$ be the set of operators $`B[B(H)]_1^+`$ which satisfy $`(BA)w<ϵ`$ for all $`w[F]_1`$. This set is strong operator open for each positive $`ϵ`$. For each unit vector $`vE`$ let $`g(v)`$ be the supremum of the set of $`ϵ>0`$ such that $`BU_ϵ`$ implies

$$d(x_m,\mathrm{span}\{B^kv:0kN\})\frac{1}{2}(\delta ^{}+\delta )<\delta .$$

Then every vector in the unit sphere of $`F`$ has a neighborhood in which $`g`$ is bounded away from $`0`$, so $`g`$ must be bounded below by some positive $`ϵ`$, and we have $`AU_ϵU_{m,\delta }`$ for this $`ϵ`$. Thus $`U_{m,\delta }`$ is strong operator open.

Now we must show that $`U_{m,\delta }`$ is strong operator dense in $`[B(H)]_1^+`$. Fix $`A[B(H)]_1^+`$, a finite dimensional subspace $`F`$ of $`H`$ which contains $`E`$ and $`x_m`$, and $`ϵ>0`$. We will find an operator $`BU_{m,\delta }`$ such that $`(BA)w<ϵ`$ for all $`w[F]_1`$. Let $`F^{}=\mathrm{span}(F+A(F))`$, let $`n=\mathrm{dim}(F^{})`$, let $`P_F^{}`$ be the orthogonal projection of $`H`$ onto $`F^{}`$, and let $`A^{}=P_F^{}AP_F^{}`$. Note that $`A^{}v=Av`$ for all $`vF`$. Next, choose an integer $`r>4n/\delta ^2`$ and let $`X`$ be a subspace of $`H`$ of dimension $`nr`$ which contains $`F^{}`$. We can identify $`X`$ with the tensor product space $`𝐊^n𝐊^r`$ (where $`𝐊`$ is the scalar field, $`𝐊=𝐑`$ or $`𝐊=𝐂`$) in such a way that $`F^{}`$ is identified with $`𝐊^n\{(r^{1/2},\mathrm{},r^{1/2})\}`$.

Since $`A`$ is positive and $`A1`$, the same is true of $`A^{}`$. Thus $`F^{}`$ is spanned by eigenvectors of $`A^{}`$, each of which belongs to an eigenvalue between 0 and 1, inclusive. Let $`v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_n^{}`$ be an orthonormal set of eigenvectors belonging to the eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$. (The $`\lambda _i`$ need not be distinct.) According to the above identification we have $`v_i^{}=v_i(r^{1/2},\mathrm{},r^{1/2})`$ for some orthonormal basis $`\{v_i\}`$ of $`𝐊^n`$.

Let $`\{w_j:1jr\}`$ be the standard orthonormal basis of $`𝐊^r`$. Then the vectors $`v_iw_j`$ constitute an orthonormal basis of $`X𝐊^n𝐊^r`$. Define $`B^{}B(X)`$ by setting $`B^{}(v_iw_j)=\lambda _iv_iw_j`$. Then $`B^{}`$ is positive, $`B^{}1`$, and $`B^{}|_F=A^{}|_F=A|_F`$.

To complete the proof, we will show that there exists $`B[B(X)]_1^+`$ such that $`BB^{}<ϵ`$ and $`BP_XU_{m,\delta }`$. We will define $`B`$ by choosing an orthonormal basis $`\{e_{ij}\}`$ of $`X`$ and corresponding values $`0\sigma _{ij}1`$ and setting $`Be_{ij}=\sigma _{ij}e_{ij}`$. If each $`e_{ij}`$ is sufficiently close to $`v_iw_j`$ and each $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is sufficiently close to $`\lambda _i`$ then we will have $`BB^{}<ϵ`$. Thus, we must show that there exist $`\{e_{ij}\}`$ and $`\{\sigma _{ij}\}`$ arbitrarily close to $`\{v_iw_j\}`$ and $`\{\lambda _i\}`$ which achieve $`BP_XU_{m,\delta }`$.

First, we claim that there exist orthonormal bases $`\{e_{ij}\}`$ arbitrarily close to the basis $`\{v_iw_j\}`$ with the property that every $`n`$-element subset of the set $`\{P_F^{}(e_{ij})\}`$ is linearly independent. That is, any $`n`$ vectors in the basis orthogonally project to independent vectors in $`F^{}`$. This is true because, for any $`n`$ indices $`i_1j_1,\mathrm{},i_nj_n`$ the family of bases $`\{e_{ij}\}`$ for which the vectors $`P_F^{}(e_{i_1j_1}),\mathrm{},P_F^{}(e_{i_nj_n})`$ are dependent is a variety of codimension 1 in the manifold of all orthonormal bases. Thus, the family of bases for which some $`n`$ elements project onto a dependent set is a union of $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{rn}{n}\right)`$ meager sets, and hence meager. So, we can perturb the basis $`\{v_iw_j\}`$ by an arbitrarily small amount and achieve this condition.

Now, having chosen $`\{e_{ij}\}`$ so as to satisfy the previous claim, we conclude by showing that any choice of distinct values $`\sigma _{ij}`$ such that each difference $`|\sigma _{ij}\lambda _i|`$ is sufficiently small will ensure $`BP_XU_{m,\delta }`$. To see this, observe first that for any nonzero $`vF^{}`$ at most $`n1`$ of the inner products $`v,e_{ij}`$ are zero. Otherwise, $`n`$ of the vectors $`e_{ij}`$ would be orthogonal to $`v`$, and hence $`n`$ of the vectors $`P_F^{}(e_{ij})`$ would be orthogonal to $`v`$, which would imply linear dependence since $`\mathrm{dim}(F^{})=n`$. This contradicts the previous claim. Now for each nonzero $`vF^{}`$ let

$$F_v=\mathrm{span}\{e_{ij}:v,e_{ij}0\}.$$

Distinctness of the $`\sigma _{ij}`$ implies that the vectors $`B^kv`$ are linearly independent for $`0k<\mathrm{dim}(F_v)`$; since $`F_v`$ clearly contains $`\mathrm{span}\{B^kv:k𝐍\}`$ (it contains $`v`$ and is invariant for $`B`$) this shows that the two are equal. Thus, we must show that $`d(x_m,F_v)<\delta `$. But $`x_mF^{}`$, so $`|x_m,v_iw_j|r^{1/2}`$ for every $`i`$ and $`j`$. We may therefore assume that $`|x_m,e_{ij}|2r^{1/2}<\delta /\sqrt{n}`$ for every $`i`$ and $`j`$. Thus, if $`x_m^{}=x_mP_{F_v}(x_m)`$ then

$$x_m^{}^2=\underset{e_{ij}F_v}{}|x_m,e_{ij}|^2<n(\delta ^2/n)=\delta ^2,$$

i.e., $`x_m^{}<\delta `$, since $`F_v`$ contains all but at most $`n1`$ of the vectors $`e_{ij}`$. This shows that $`d(x_m,F_v)<\delta `$, as desired.

Since a countable intersection of comeager sets is comeager, the lemma immediately implies the following result.

Theorem 1. Let $`H`$ be a separable, infinite dimensional Hilbert space and let $`S`$ be a countable subset of $`H`$. Then the set of operators in $`[B(H)]_1^+`$ for which every nonzero vector in the span of $`S`$ is cyclic is comeager in $`[B(H)]_1^+`$.

Theorem 2. Let $`H`$ be a separable, infinite dimensional Hilbert space and let $`\kappa `$ be a regular cardinal such that $`\kappa \omega _1`$ and $`2^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$. Then it is relatively consistent with ZFC that $`2^\omega =\kappa `$ and for any subset $`SH`$ of cardinality $`<\kappa `$ the set of operators in $`[B(H)]_1^+`$ for which every nonzero vector in the span of $`S`$ is cyclic is comeager in $`[B(H)]_1^+`$.

Proof. It is relatively consistent with ZFC + MA that $`2^\omega =\kappa `$ (, Theorem 6.3). Let $`SH`$ be a subset of cardinality $`<\kappa `$. Then the span of $`S`$ is a union of fewer than $`\kappa `$ finite dimensional subspaces of $`H`$, and the lemma implies that for each such subspace $`E`$ the set of operators in $`[B(H)]_1^+`$ for which every nonzero vector in $`E`$ is cyclic is comeager. The proof is completed by observing that MA implies that the intersection of fewer than $`2^\omega `$ comeager sets in a Polish space is comeager (, Corollary 22C).

Theorem 1 is related to the main theorem of . That result implies, for instance, that for any countable linearly independent subset $`S`$ of a separable, infinite dimensional Hilbert space $`H`$ there exists $`AB(H)`$ for which every $`vS`$ is cyclic.

Sophie Grivaux has pointed out to me that in Theorem 1 one can explicitly construct an operator for which every nonzero vector in the span of $`S`$ is cyclic. Namely, first find an orthonormal basis of $`H`$ whose span contains $`S`$ (this can be accomplished by applying the Gram-Schmidt algorithm to $`S`$); then one can show directly that the operator $`V+V^{}`$, where $`V`$ is the unilateral shift for the new basis, has the desired property. Moreover, with a little work this idea can be used to show that the operators in $`[B(H)]_1^+`$ for which every nonzero vector in the span of $`S`$ is cyclic is dense for the strong operator topology .

I wish to thank Sophie Grivaux, Kenneth Kunen, and Peter Rosenthal for helpful discussions.

 B. Beauzamy, Introduction to Operator Theory and Invariant Subspaces, North-Holland (1988).

 P. Enflo, On the invariant subspace problem for Banach spaces, Acta Math. 158 (1987), 213-313.

 D. H. Fremlin, Consequences of Martin’s Axiom, Cambridge University Press (1984).

 S. Grivaux, personal communication.

 I. Halperin, C. Kitai, and P. Rosenthal, On orbits of linear operators, J. London Math. Soc. 31 (1985), 561-565.

 K. Kunen, Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs, Elsevier (1980).

 C. J. Read, A solution to the invariant subspace problem on the space $`l_1`$, Bull. London Math. Soc. 17 (1985), 305-317.

Math Dept.

Washington University

St. Louis, MO 63130 USA

nweaver@math.wustl.edu


text:
# Tuning of the Fano Effect through a Quantum Dot in an Aharonov-Bohm Interferometer

## Abstract

The Fano effect, which arises from an interference between a localized state and the continuum, reveals a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. We have realized a tunable Fano system in a quantum dot (QD) in an Aharonov-Bohm interferometer, which is the first convincing demonstration of this effect in mesoscopic systems. With the aid of the continuum, the localized state inside the QD acquires itinerancy over the system even in the Coulomb blockade. Through tuning of the parameters, which is an advantage of the present system, unique properties of the Fano effect on the phase and coherence of electrons have been revealed.

When a discrete energy level is embedded in a continuum energy state and there is coupling between these two states, a resonant state arises around the discrete level. In 1961, Fano proposed FanoPRB1961  that in such a system a transition from an arbitrary initial state occurs through the two interfering configurations — one directly through the continuum and the other through the resonance level — and that this quantum mechanical interference yields a characteristic asymmetric line shape in the transition probability. This is the Fano effect, a ubiquitous phenomenon observed in a large variety of experiments including neutron scattering AdairPR1949 , atomic photoionization Fano1986 , Raman scattering CerdeiraPRB1973 , and optical absorption FaistNature1997 . While a statistically averaged nature of the system containing contributions from numerous sites is observed in these experiments, the Fano effect is essentially a single-impurity problem describing how a localized state embedded in the continuum acquires itinerancy over the system MahanMPP . Therefore, an experiment on a single site would reveal this fundamental process in a more transparent way. While the single-site Fano effect has been reported in the scanning tunneling spectroscopy study of an atom on the surface MadhavanScience1998 ; LiPRL1998  or in transport through a quantum dot (QD) GoresPRB2000 , there is little, if any, controllability in either case since the coupling between the discrete level and the continuum is naturally formed.

In this Letter, we report the first tunable Fano experiment. We have clarified characteristic transport properties arising from this effect, such as the delocalization of the discrete level and the excitation spectra of the Fano system. External control of the relative phase between a localized state and the continuum indicates that the Fano parameter should be treated as a complex number.

To realize a well-defined Fano system, we designed an Aharonov-Bohm (AB) ring with a QD embedded in one of its arms as seen in Fig. 1 (a), similar to those in previous studies YacobyPRL1995 ; SchusterNature1997 ; vanderWielScience2000 ; JiScience2000 . The AB ring is essentially a double-slit interferometer of electrons. In contrast, the QD KastnerPT1993 , a small electron droplet isolated from its leads by tunneling barriers, has discrete energy levels arising from the electron confinement and the charging energy that is much larger than the thermal energy $`k_BT`$ ($`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $`T`$ is the temperature). In the Coulomb blockade (CB) regime, the single-particle level in the QD can be controlled electro-statically by the gate voltage ($`V_g`$), and only when the level matches the chemical potential of the leads conduction through the QD is allowed. Thus, our “modified” AB interferometer has the continuum energy state in one arm and the discrete energy level in the QD in the other arm. If the coherence of the electron is fully maintained during tunneling through the QD and during propagation through the arm, interference of traversing electrons will occur through two different configurations. Physically, this situation is exactly a realization of the Fano system RyuPRB1998 ; KangPRB1999 ; WohlmanCM2001 ; KimCM2001 . The present system is unique in that it is controllable through several parameters; the position of the discrete level inside the QD, the coupling between the continuum and the discrete levels, and the phase difference between two paths are controlled by $`V_g`$, the control gate voltage ($`V_C`$), and the magnetic field ($`B`$) penetrating the ring, respectively.

Figure 1 (b) shows the fabricated Fano system on a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) system at an AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructure (mobility $`=9\times 10^5`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}/`$Vs, sheet carrier density $`=3.8\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, and electron mean free path $`l_e8`$ $`\mu `$m). The ring-shaped conductive region was formed by wet-etching the 2DEG. The length of one arm of the ring is $`L2`$ $`\mu `$m. The Au/Ti metallic gates were deposited to control the device. The three in the lower arm were used for defining a QD (with $``$ 80 electrons contained in its area about 0.15$`\times `$0.15 $`\mu `$m2) and the gate in the upper arm is $`V_C`$ for switching the transition through the continuum state on and off. Measurements were performed between 30 mK and 800 mK in a dilution refrigerator by a standard lock-in technique in the two-terminal setup with an excitation voltage of 10 $`\mu `$V (80 Hz) between the source and the drain. Noise filters were inserted into every lead at $`T<1`$ K as well as at room temperature.

First, we pinched off the upper arm by applying large negative voltage on $`V_C`$. The QD was defined in the lower arm by tuning the side-gate voltages ($`V_L`$ and $`V_R`$). The lower panel of Fig. 2 (a) shows the pronounced peaks in the conductance $`G`$ through the QD as sweeping $`V_g`$, namely, a typical Coulomb oscillation expected for QDs in the CB regime. The small irregularity of the peak positions reflects that of the addition energy and supports the occurrence of transport through each single level inside the QD.

Next, we made the upper arm conductive. Because the control gate and the QD are well separated electrostatically, a clear one-to-one correspondence is observed between the two results in Fig. 2 (a), ensuring that the discreteness of the energy levels in the QD is maintained. It is noteworthy that the line shapes of the oscillation become very asymmetric and show even dip structures. This is a clear sign of the Fano effect. Indeed, each peak can be well fitted by the Fano line shape FanoPRB1961  $`G(ϵ)`$ of the form

$$G(ϵ)\frac{(ϵ+q)^2}{ϵ^2+1},ϵ=\frac{V_gV_0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}$$
(1)
where $`V_0`$ is the energy of the resonance position, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the width of the resonance. The real parameter $`q`$, which is the ratio of the matrix elements linking the initial state to the discrete and continuum parts of the final state, serves as a measure of the degree of coupling between both. The line shape analysis for several resonance levels gives $`|q|=0.2`$$`7`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }3`$ meV as the typical results of the fitting are shown in Fig. 2 (b). The observed $`|q|`$ values are correlated with the values of the conductance of the original Coulomb peak in that a large peak tends to have a large $`|q|`$. The dip structure with $`|q|<1`$ indicates a strong destructive interference, supporting that the electron passing the QD retains sufficient coherency to interfere with the one passing the arm in spite of the significant charging effect inside and around the QD. This is in contrast with the previous reports YacobyPRL1995 ; SchusterNature1997 ; vanderWielScience2000 ; JiScience2000 , where the coherence was limited to a fraction of the transmission through the QD.

The Fano effect was found to be prominent within several specific magnetic field ranges such as around $`B`$ 0.3, 0.9, and 1.2 T, while it was less pronounced in the other ranges. This implies that the coherence of the transport through the QD strongly depends on $`B`$. A similar role of $`B`$ is reported in the Kondo effect in a QD vanderWielScience2000 . Such phenomena arise from the change of the electronic states caused by $`B`$ in each mesocopic system, while this remains to be clarified theoretically.

When the temperature increased, decoherence increased and the asymmetric Fano line shapes gradually evolved into an ordinary Lorentzian line shape corresponding to $`|q|\mathrm{}`$ as clearly seen in Fig 2 (c). Due to the loss of coherence over the interferometer at $`T450`$ mK, the system is simply a classical parallel circuit of the QD and the arm, being no longer in the Fano state.

We measured the differential conductance at the lowest temperature as a function of both source-drain bias ($`V_{sd}`$) and $`V_g`$. Figure 3 depicts that the resonating conductance peak of the width $`70`$ $`\mu `$eV (colored white) stretches along the line of $`V_{sd}=0`$ V with the Coulomb diamond superimposed. The appearance of the zero-bias conductance peak even in the CB region indicates that the transmission through the QD is now allowed due to the aid of the continuum in the opposite arm. Such delocalization of the electron in the CB region is highly analogous with that observed in the QD in the Kondo regime Goldhaber-GordonNature1998 ; CronenwettScience1998 ; SchmidPhysicaB1998 , although the mechanism is different; Delocalization in the Kondo dot occurs through resonating spin singlet-pair formation, while resonance due to the configuration interaction between the discrete state and the continuum is the cause in the Fano regime MahanMPP .

In our system, the discrete level and the continuum are spatially separated, allowing us to control Fano interference via the magnetic field piercing the ring as shown in Figs. 4 (a), (b), and (c). The line shape changes periodically with the AB period of $`3.8`$ mT, which agrees with that expected from the ring dimension. Figure 4 (b) illustrates that the oscillation amplitude at the conductance maximum is of the same order as the net peak height, again ensuring that the transmission through the QD occurs coherently. As $`B`$ is swept, an asymmetric line shape with negative $`q`$ continuously changes to a symmetric one and then to an asymmetric one with positive $`q`$; the sign of interference can be controlled by the AB effect. Typical results are presented in Fig. 4 (a). The Fano effect is usually characterized by an asymmetric line shape, while a perfect symmetric line shape is obtained at a specific magnetic field here. Since the magnetic field mainly affects the phase difference between the two paths through the resonant state and the continuum, the aforementioned periodic behavior is most likely explained systematically by introducing a complex number $`q`$ whose argument is a function of $`B`$ or the AB flux, although an expression of such $`q`$ applicable to our case is not known at present. Here, Eqn. (1) is generalized to $`G(ϵ)|ϵ+q|^2/(ϵ^2+1)=\left((ϵ+\mathrm{}q)^2+(\mathrm{}q)^2\right)/(ϵ^2+1)`$. Qualitatively, even when the coupling strength $`|q|`$ is almost independent of $`B`$, the $`B`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{arg}(q)`$ yields asymmetric and symmetric line shapes of $`G`$ for $`\mathrm{}q\mathrm{}q`$ and $`\mathrm{}q\mathrm{}q`$, respectively. In the original work by Fano FanoPRB1961  and most of the subsequent studies based on his theory, the asymmetric parameter $`q`$ has been implicitly treated as a real number, while this is valid only when the system has the time-reversal symmetry and thus the matrix elements defining $`q`$ can be taken as real. Our experiment indicates that when this condition is broken, for example, by applying the magnetic field, $`q`$ should be a complex number, which has not been explicitly recognized.

Figure 4 (c) represents the result over three Fano resonances in the $`V_g`$-$`B`$ plane. Clear AB oscillation is observed even at the conductance valley between the resonant peaks. This provides another evidence that the state in the QD becomes delocalized with the aid of the continuum. In Fig. 4 (c) we also plot the conductance maximum as a function of $`V_g`$, where the phase is observed to change by $`2\pi `$ rapidly but continuously across the resonance. Since the measurement was performed in the two-terminal setup that allows only phase changes by multiples of $`\pi `$ due to reasons of symmetry, the continuous behavior of the AB phase is unexpected, but may be attributed to the breaking of the time-reversal symmetry LeePRL1999 ; OudenaardenNature1998 . The AB phase changes only slightly at the conductance valley and, therefore, all the adjacent Fano resonances are in phase, indicating that the resonance peaks are correlated to each other LeePRL1999 . Several theoretical predictions on the behavior of the AB phase in the Fano system have been reported RyuPRB1998 ; KangPRB1999 ; WohlmanCM2001 ; KimCM2001 , while none of them perfectly reproduces the overall behavior discussed above. Further study is needed to fully understand the behavior of the AB phase coexistent with the Fano effect.

It is also worth comparing our result with those in previous two-terminal experiments for a normal QD YacobyPRL1995  and a Kondo QD vanderWielScience2000 . In the former case, it was found that the AB phase jumps by $`\pi `$ at the resonant peak and that the adjacent Coulomb peaks are in phase. For a Kondo QD, no phase change is observed in the Kondo valley and only one of the two Coulomb peaks located at the side of the valley exhibits the $`\pi `$ phase flip. Thus, the behavior of the AB phase in the present Fano system is qualitatively different from both. At this moment, the observed phase of electrons through a QD, especially through a Kondo QD vanderWielScience2000 ; JiScience2000 , remains open, where the Fano effect is recently predicted to play an important role WohlmanCM2001 ; BulkaPRL2001 ; HofstetterPRL2001 . Our result provides an important experimental indication that this effect critically affects the phase evolution of electrons through such a quantum system similar to ours, particularly when the coherence is highly preserved.

In conclusion, we have clarified a peculiar quantum transport through the QD-AB-ring hybrid system, which is caused by the Fano effect due to the sufficiently coherent transport through the QD and the ring. While this effect has been observed in a variety of physical systems, the present system is the first convincing realization of a Fano system that can be tuned. Delocalization of the discrete levels in the QD due to this effect shows up both in the resonating zero-bias peak in the differential conductance and in the considerable AB amplitude in the CB. Controlling of the Fano line shape by the magnetic field has revealed that the Fano parameter $`q`$ will be extended to a complex number. The behavior of the AB phase is found to be very different from the previous results, indicating that our system is not simply a QD with an adjective reference arm but should be regarded as a novel quantum system.

This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research and by a Grant-in-Aid for COE Research (“Quantum Dot and Its Application”) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This contribution is mainly based on results presented in Refs. . We will briefly summarize the main conclusions obtained in these articles and then focus on a critical discussion of these results and their comparison to experimental data  and look for possible solutions (of the HBT-puzzle).

One motivation to study two-particle correlations at small relative momenta is due to their predicted sensitivity to a phase transition from quark-gluon matter to hadronic matter . In particular, for a first-order phase transition, larger hadronization times were expected to lead to considerably enhanced interferometry radii, characterizing the space-time extension of the particle-emitting source, compared to, for example, a purely hadronic scenario. Moreover, one is highly interested in the properties of such a phase transition as the critical temperature $`T_c`$ or the latent heat. The radii should also depend on the initial specific entropy density or the initial thermalization time of the quark-gluon phase.

Here, we discuss relativistic transport calculations at RHIC energies that describe the initial dense stage by hydrodynamics  and the later more dilute stages by microscopic transport  of the particles. The two models are matched at the hadronization hypersurface . In the hadronic phase the particles are allowed to rescatter and to excite resonances based on cross sections as measured in vacuum. One example, the K$`\pi `$ cross section, is shown in Fig. 1. For the initial dense (hydrodynamical) phase of a QGP a bag model equation of state exhibiting a first-order phase transition is employed. Hence, a phase transition in local equilibrium that proceeds through the formation of a mixed phase, is considered. The details of this relativistic hybrid transport model can be found elsewhere .

Fig. 1: Measured and modeled K$`{}_{}{}^{+}\pi _{}^{}`$ cross section as a function of the center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. The large peak shows the K$`{}_{}{}^{}(892)`$ resonance.

Fig. 2 shows a typical space-time evolution within this model. The contour lines of the freeze-out hypersurfaces of pions extend to rather large radii and times compared to the size of the mixed phase. In this hadronic phase many soft collisons take place that hardly modify the single-particle spectra but have a strong impact on the correlation functions that measure the final freeze-out state.

Fig. 2: Transverse radius - time plane showing contour lines of the freeze-out hypersurfaces. The grey-shaded area shows the extension of the mixed phase.

Studying this in detail lead to the following conclusions : (i) The dissipative hadronic phase leads to a rather large duration of emission. (ii) The $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ ratio, thought to be a characteristic measure of this emission duration, increases with transverse momentum. (iii) The specific dependencies of the interferometry radii on the QGP properties are rather weak due to the dominance of the hadronic phase. This even leads to qualitative differences if calculations with and without this subsequent hadronic phase are compared (dependence on the critical temperature).

## 2 Why kaons?

The kaon correlations provide a severe test of the pion data and have several advantages . In particular, the kaon density is much lower than the pion density . Hence, multiparticle correlations that might play a role for the pions are of minor importance for the kaons. Also, the contributions from long-lived resonances are under better control for kaons. The $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ ratio for kaons is shown in Fig. 3. Most important is the strongly increased sensitivity to $`T_c`$ and the specific entropy density (SPS vs. RHIC) at larger transverse momenta ($`K_T1`$GeV/c). This enhanced sensitivity is also driven by a strong increase of the direct emission component (from the phase boundary) at high $`K_T`$ as shown in Fig. 4. More and more kaons (up to $`30\%`$) escape the initial stages (unperturbed by the hadronic phase).

Fig. 3: $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ for kaons at RHIC (full symbols) and at SPS (open symbols), as a function of $`K_T`$ for critical temperatures $`T_c160`$MeV and $`T_c200`$MeV, respectively.

Fig. 4: Fraction of kaons $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{origin}}`$ that origin from a particular reaction channel prior to freeze-out. These are resonance decays (full circles), direct emission from the phase boundary (stars), elastic meson-meson (diamonds), or elastic meson-baryon (open circles) collisions. The upper and lower diagrams are for RHIC and SPS initial conditions for $`T_c160`$MeV (left) and $`T_c200`$MeV (right), respectively.

Fig. 5 shows the correlation parameters $`R_\mathrm{o},R_\mathrm{s},R_\mathrm{l}`$and $`\lambda `$ as obtained from the explicit calculation of the correlation functions  in the respective transverse momentum bins and subsequent fitting of these correlation functions to a Gaussian form of the correlator $`C_2=1+\lambda \mathrm{exp}(R_\mathrm{o}^2q_\mathrm{o}^2R_\mathrm{s}^2q_\mathrm{s}^2R_\mathrm{l}^2q_\mathrm{l}^2)`$. Most important, we learn that even for a first-order phase transition scenario the interferometry radii are not unusually large. The transverse radii $`R_\mathrm{o}`$ and $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ are less than $`7`$fm. Moreover, we also note a strong effect of a finite momentum resolution (fmr) that has to be corrected for in the experimental analysis. The radii and the $`\lambda `$ intercept parameter are reduced by the fmr. The reduction is stronger for higher $`K_T`$. Experimental data for the kaons from the RHIC experiments will be available soon. At the moment, the pion data are of great interest.

## 3 Pion interferometry radii - theory versus data

The table shows the experimental STAR data (average of $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+`$ data plus generous error bars)  and the results of fitting the 3-dimensional correlation functions (as obtained from the transport calculations (RHIC initial conditions, $`T_c160`$MeV) + correlation after burner (by Pratt) ) to a Gaussian correlator.

Fig. 5: Kaon HBT-parameters $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ (circles), $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ (squares), $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ (diamonds) and $`\lambda 10`$ (triangles) as obtained from a $`\chi ^2`$ fit of $`C_2`$ to an Gaussian ansatz for Au+Au collisions at RHIC as calculated with $`T_c160`$MeV (top) and $`T_c200`$MeV (bottom). Full and open circles correspond to calculations with and without taking momentum resolution effects into account, respectively.

|  |  | STAR | T | Tfmr |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| low | $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ | $`5.9\pm 0.5`$ | $`8.2`$ | $`7.4`$ |
| $`K_T1`$ | $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ | $`5.7\pm 0.5`$ | $`5.7`$ | $`5.4`$ |
|  | $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ | $`1.04`$ | $`1.4`$ | $`1.4`$ |
| med. | $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ | $`5.3\pm 0.6`$ | $`8.0`$ | $`6.8`$ |
| $`K_T2`$ | $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ | $`5.3\pm 0.5`$ | $`5.3`$ | $`4.8`$ |
|  | $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ | $`1.0`$ | $`1.5`$ | $`1.4`$ |
| high | $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ | $`4.5\pm 0.6`$ | $`7.7`$ | $`6.1`$ |
| $`K_T3`$ | $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ | $`5.1\pm 0.6`$ | $`4.8`$ | $`4.3`$ |
|  | $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ | $`0.88`$ | $`1.6`$ | $`1.4`$ |

Since the data are corrected they should be compared to the calculations (T) that do not take into account fmr. While the $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ radii appear to be described even too good the $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ radii are too large compared to the data. However, these pion radii are considerably smaller than the corresponding radii obtained from the coordinate-space points and using expressions for the Gaussian radius parameters based on a saddle-point integration over the source function . Only the values presented in the table which are obtained from the complete calculation and the performed fits should be compared to data. The $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ ratio is also larger than unity for the fitted values and confirms the so-called HBT-puzzle, i.e., the RHIC data from STAR and PHENIX  indicate a decreasing ratio with $`K_T`$ (even below 1) and all calculations show only ratios larger 1. Note however, that the exp. data are consistent in the sense that they can be described by a single set of fit parameters . On the other hand, there is presently no dynamical transport model describing this trend.

## 4 Discussion of the HBT-puzzle

### 4.1 Experimental Uncertainties and SPS data

The following list provides an overview which corrections enter the experimental data analysis. All of them are thought to be under relatively good control and accounted for in the systematic error bars. The numerous corrections illustrate the difficult, complex and challenging task to extract the true correlation parameters from the raw data. Without further commenting we list the corrections  (i) two-track resolution, (ii) particle identification (electrons, contributions from weak decays, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), (iii) track splitting (one particle interpreted as two), (iv) track merging (two particles interpreted as one, requirement of seperated tracks, affects low $`q`$ pairs and reduces radii), (v) Coulomb corrections (should be under good control, except maybe influence of weak decay pions), (vi) momentum resolution (strong $`K_T`$ dependent correction, reduces radii, see, e.g., Fig. 5), (vii) collider mode peculiarities (collision vertex, i.e., acceptance region varies event by event)

At the CERN-SPS, pion  and kaon  interferometry have been investigated for Pb+Pb collisions. These data (see, e.g., ) seem to support an increasing $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ ratio with $`K_T`$, being larger than 1. This would mean a real qualitative change of the reaction dynamics from SPS to RHIC energies.

### 4.2 Model assumptions and uncertainties

Next, we provide a list of theoretical assumptions and uncertainties, that is by far not complete. (a) the hadronization process itself is usually modelled via a prescription, (b) the binary collision approximation (here only used for the later dilute stages after hadronization) requires in principle sufficiently low particle densities, (c) the approximation ideal fluid dynamics (local thermal distributions, no dissipation) is certainly questionable, in particular if applied for the later dilute stages, (d) the limitations of pure hydrodynamical calculations as for example given due to the (pre/de)scription of the freeze-out, (e) the choice of the hadronization hypersurface to switch between models needs to be further elaborated (although it seems to be somehow a natural choice due to the limitations of the individual models), (f) the assumption of cylindrical symetric transverse expansion and longitudinal scaling flow (should be justified at midrapidity and high energies), (g) the role of in-medium effects (both on the hadron properties or the equation of state), (h) the assumption that nucleation proceeds via hadronic bubbles (well-mixed phase scenario) may be questioned \[see below\], (i) the large number of hadronic states in the model equation of state may not be realized (they speed up the hadronization ($`\tau _H\tau _is_i/s_H(T_c)`$)) and reduce the time-delay signal. So neglecting them should even increase the observed differences.

Fig. 6, taken from Ref.  by Zschiesche et al., addresses several uncertainties. First of all, the dependence on the latent heat (strong first-order vs. weak first-order vs. cross-over phase transition with a vanishing latent heat) is examined. Secondly, the effect of varying the choice of the freeze-out temperature $`T_f`$ is investigated.

Fig. 6: Figure taken from  (Zschiesche et al.). Pure hydrodynamical calculations with a strong first-order (solid line), a weaker first-order (dotted line), and a cross-over (dashed line) phase transition and different freeze-out temperatures $`T_f`$.

Although reducing the latent heat reduces the large $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ ratios, the $`K_T`$ dependence of the data cannot be described. Lowering the freeze-out temperature also does not help in this approach. Even rather exotic initial conditions, for example, a collective flow prior to a typical equilibration time of the order of $`\tau _i1`$fm/c, do not provide a notable improvement . What could help is a strongly opaque source (see also ) that suppresses the spatial component in the out radius compared to the side radius (leaving out of the discussion the role of $`xt`$-correlations).

A completely different model scenario (illustrated in Fig. 7) is existent if the large expansion rate of the system leads to strong supercooling below a spinodal temperature $`T_S`$ such that the system disintegrates rather instantaneously . In this case of a spinodal instability the soft mixed phase vanishes. As a result the reaction times are quite short what should be reflected in the interferometry radii and their ratio. This has to be estimated in a quantitative way.

Fig. 7: Illustration of the effective potential for temperatures around the critical temperature $`T_c`$ in the case of a slow nucleation via a mixed phase (bubble nucleation) (left) and in an explosive scenario that leads to supercooling down to a spinodal temperature $`T_s`$ at or below which the system disintegrates rather instantaneously (right).

## 5 Summary

We demonstrated that the kaon interferometry measurements, in particular at high $`K_T`$, will provide an exellent probe of the space-time dynamics (close to the phase boundary). In addition they represent a severe test of the pion correlations and may help to better understand the HBT-puzzle, i.e., the difference in the $`K_T`$ dependence of the $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ ratio between the model predictions and the experimental (RHIC) data. A closer look showed us that the differences are due to the $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ radii (which are larger in the model calculations) while the $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ radii seem to be described reasonably. Finally, we discussed some possible origins of these differences.

Acknowledgments

SS would like to thank the organizers of this very active and productive workshop for invitation. SS is supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through a Feodor Lynen Fellowship and DOE Grant No. DE-AC03-76SF00098. SS is grateful to S. Bass, A. Dumitru, D. Hardtke, and S. Panitkin for fruitful collaborations.