text:
# Electron Spin Injection at a Schottky Contact

## Abstract

We investigate theoretically electrical spin injection at a Schottky contact between a spin-polarized electrode and a non-magnetic semiconductor. Current and electron density spin-polarizations are discussed as functions of barrier energy and semiconductor doping density. The effect of a spin-dependent interface resistance that results from a tunneling region at the contact/semiconductor interface is described. The model can serve as a guide for designing spin-injection experiments with regard to the interface properties and device structure.

Semiconductor device concepts that exploit the electron spin degree of freedom require an electrical means of injecting spin-polarized currents into a semiconductor. The two main experimental structures for meeting this requirement use injection from a ferromagnetic metal or from a spin-polarized semiconductor contact into a non-magnetic semiconductor. Such contacts are being studied both for their fundamental physics properties as well as for a range of technological possibilities reviewart . Measurements of spin-polarized electron injection are often made using a spin-LED configuration. In these experiments, electrons are injected into an n-type semiconductor from a polarized contact and are transported to a region in space, typically a quantum well, where they recombine with nominally unpolarized holes transported from an adjacent p-type doped region. The relative intensity of right- and left- circularly polarized light emitted from the quantum well gives a measure of the spin-polarization of the electron density in the recombination region. Recent measurements using injection from ferromagnetic contacts ploogmetal ; crowell ; jonkermetal  and from spin polarized diluted magnetic semiconductors contacts jonkerhet ; molenhet  have been reported.

Theoretical discussion of spin injection has centered around a conductivity mismatch between the contact and the semiconductor that can limit polarization of the injected carriers. These considerations were presented by Schmidt and coworkers schmidt . Smith and Silver smithsilver  subsequently included the possibility of a spin selective interface resistance that results from tunneling and can improve spin injection. Rashba formulated the problem in terms of an injection coefficient in which currents dominated by tunneling at the interface can overcome the limitations of a conductivity mismatch rashba . These existing theories treat the contact and semiconductor simply as uniform conductive media and do not address critical issues of the real structures used in experiments which typically consist of a Schottky contact with band bending in a depletion region.

Here, we present a model of spin-polarized electron injection from a reverse-biased Schottky contact. We analytically solve spin-dependent continuity and drift-diffusion equations in the depletion region and examine the influence of the interface and the depletion region on the spin-polarized current and carrier densities in the semiconductor. We include the possibility of a spin selective interface resistance that results from tunneling processes at a ferromagnetic contact tunnel . We emphasize the important distinction between spin-polarization of the injected electron current and of the electron density. Even if an injected current is highly polarized it can result in small changes in the spin population of conduction electrons if the electron gas into which injection occurs has a high density or the magnitude of the injection current is small.

An energy diagram for a Schottky barrier, which includes the possibility of a narrow tunneling region near the interface, is shown in Fig. 1. A heavily

doped region near the interface, as illustrated by the doping profile in the upper panel of Fig. 1, can be designed to form a sharp potential profile through which electrons tunnel. The heavily doped region reduces the effective Schottky energy barrier that determines the properties of the depletion region sze . The total barrier e$`\varphi _b`$ is divided into two parts, a tunneling region with barrier height e$`\varphi _t`$ and an effective Schottky barrier height $`eV_{bi}`$. The potential drop in the depletion region consists of the effective Schottky barrier height plus the applied reverse bias $`eV_R`$. Two parameters of the tunneling region, its tunneling resistance and the magnitude of the reduction of the effective Schottky barrier, can be separately controlled by the parameters of the doping profile, for example the height and width of the heavily doped region. The inset of Fig. 1 shows calculated current-voltage characteristics for two Schottky contacts with different bulk doping levels. Spin injection experiments are typically performed in reverse bias in which electrons are transported from the contact to the semiconductor.

The calculation decouples into a part for charge currents and densities and a part for spin currents and densities. The calculation for charge currents and densities is standard. We use a depletion approximation for the electrostatics and the diffusion/thermionic emission model for the electron current and density sze2 . We treat the spin current components using drift-diffusion equations

$$j_\eta =\sigma _\eta \frac{\left(\mu _\eta /e\right)}{x}$$
(1)
where $`j_\eta `$ is the current density, $`\sigma _\eta `$ is the conductivity, and $`\mu _\eta `$ is the electrochemical potential for electrons of spin type $`\eta `$$`=`$$``$,$``$. In the depletion region the conductivity varies with the local electron concentration $`n_\eta `$$`=`$$`\frac{1}{2}n_i\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(e\varphi +\mu _\eta \right)/kT\right]`$. The contact and bulk semiconductor outside the depletion region are taken to be uniformly conducting and the electrochemical potentials relax to equilibrium in these extended regions according to $`^2\mu _{}/x^2`$$`=`$$`\mu _{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ where $`\mu _{}`$$``$$`\mu _{}`$$`=`$$`\mu _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the spin-diffusion length in the contact or semiconductor. Because of the large electric field and rapidly varying electron density in the depletion region, a spin diffusion equation is not valid and we use spin-dependent continuity equations. Taking the difference in the continuity equations for the two spin types gives,

$$\frac{\left(j_{}j_{}\right)}{x}=\frac{en_i}{\tau _s}e^{e\varphi /kT}\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(2)
where $`\tau _s`$ is the spin lifetime in the semiconductor, $`n_i`$ is the intrinsic carrier density, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$$`=e^{\mu _{}/kT}`$$``$$`e^{\mu _{}/kT}`$. The spin lifetime and spin diffusion length are related by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$$`=`$$`(kT/e)`$$`\overline{\mu }`$$`\tau _s/2`$. The electron mobility is $`\overline{\mu }`$ and the $`\frac{1}{2}`$ appears because of particle conservation. Taking the difference in the drift-diffusion equations for the two spin types gives

$$j_{}j_{}=\frac{\overline{\mu }n_ikT}{2}e^{e\varphi /kT}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{x}.$$
(3)
Given that the electrostatic potential in the depletion region is quadratic, Eqs. 2 and 3 can be combined to give an equation of the form limitcase

$$\frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{x^2}+(ax+b)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{x}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=0$$
(4)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are known constants that follow from the electrostatic solution in the depletion region. Eq. 4 can be transformed to a confluent hypergeometric equation by a change of variables and thus solved analytically in terms of two matching coefficients trans . These coefficients are determined by matching to the solutions for $`\mu _{}`$ in the contact and in the charge-neutral region outside of the depletion region. Once the matching coefficients are known, the spin polarized currents and electron densities can be calculated. A spin-dependent interface resistance is incorporated to describe tunneling as in Ref. \[smithsilver, \].

The model can be applied both to metal / semiconductor contacts and to heterojunction contacts with injection from a heavily doped, spin-polarized semiconductor into a less heavily doped unpolarized semiconductor with a higher energy conduction band awschalom . We first consider parameters appropriate to the heterostructure case. In Fig. 2 we show the calculated

spin current polarization, $`(j_{}`$$``$$`j_{})/(j_{}`$$`+`$$`j_{})`$, as a function of position for a series of structures with different barrier heights (negligibly small, 0.05, 0.1 and 0.15 eV), an injection current density of $`10`$A$``$cm-2, and a bulk doping of $`5`$$``$$`10^{16}`$cm-3. The zero of position is the interface and the contact (semiconductor) at negative (positive) values of $`x`$. The symbol x on the curves indicates the edge of the depletion region. Results from Ref. \[smithsilver, \] for the same parameters are also shown. The contact is taken to be 95% spin polarized and with a conductivity twice that of the collecting semiconductor. It is assumed that the contact has a lower mobility but is more heavily doped than the collecting semiconductor so that depletion occurs in the collecting semiconductor. The interface resistance is zero. A mobility of $`\overline{\mu }`$=5000cm2/Vs, a spin diffusion length of 1$`\mu `$m for the collecting semiconductor, and a spin diffusion length of 100nm in the contact at T=300K are used throughout the paper. The top two curves, which are indistinguishable, show the calculation for negligible barrier height and for the constant conductivity model of Ref. \[smithsilver, \] which does not have a depletion region. In the limit of small energy barrier we recover the results of the constant conductivity model. There is a strong decrease in spin injection with increasing barrier height for fixed doping. The inset of Fig. 2 shows the difference in electrochemical potentials for spin-up and spin-down electrons, $`\mu _{}`$, as a function of position. As the barrier height increases there is a rapid drop in the difference in electrochemical potentials for spin-up and spin-down electrons across the depletion region. This rapid drop in $`\mu _{}`$ across the depletion region is the cause of the decreased spin injection with increasing barrier height seen in the upper panel of Fig. 2. The drop results because the depletion region has a low and rapidly varying electron density.

The heterostructure situation depicted in Fig. 2 is somewhat idealized in the sense that spin polarized n-type semiconductor injectors that do not require high magnetic fields and low temperatures are still being sought. However, it is feasible to grow ferromagnetic metals on semiconductors, for example, epitaxial films of Fe on GaAs. In Fig. 3 we show the calculated

current spin-polarization as a function of position from a metallic contact (contact resistivity equal to 10-5$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$$``$cm). We have, for comparison purposes, computed all curves for 90% of the reverse saturation current density (which, of course, varies with barrier energy and bulk doping). In Fig. 3a we show, for fixed bulk doping ($`5`$$``$$`10^{16}`$cm-3), current polarization curves corresponding to different effective barrier heights (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4eV) and a spin-selective resistance at the interface of 10-3$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm2 for spin-down current and half this value for spin-up current intres . A typical energy barrier for Fe/GaAs is e$`\varphi _b`$$``$0.7eV and we have assumed a barrier lowering due to a heavily doped region near the interface. Fig. 3b shows an analogous series of curves for a fixed energy barrier (0.2eV) and different bulk doping densities ($`5`$$``$$`10^{16}`$, $`1`$$``$$`10^{17}`$, $`5`$$``$$`10^{17}`$, and $`1`$$``$$`10^{18}`$cm-3) with the same interface resistance. Fig. 3c shows a series of curves in which the barrier height (0.2 eV) and bulk doping ($`510^{16}`$cm-3) are held fixed and the interface resistance is varied ($`10^3`$, $`10^4`$, $`10^5`$$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm2). From the results presented in Fig. 3, one sees that a depletion region is highly undesirable for spin injection. For efficient spin injection, the effective barrier height should not exceed about 0.2eV. Increasing the bulk doping improves the current spin-polarization because it reduces the width of the depletion region. It is also important to have a significant spin-dependent interface resistance. Spin injection is sensitive to the doping profile. To maximize spin injection, a heavily doped region near the interface should be used to reduce the effective energy barrier and form a spin-selective tunnel barrier to a ferromagnetic contact.

Current polarization is not the only important issue for spin injection experiments. A distinction should be made between the injected current polarization and the polarization of the electron density. In the spin-LED configuration, the observed degree of circularly polarized light is related to the spin-polarization of the electron density at the region in space where optical recombination occurs, typically in a quantum well. In Fig. 4a

we show, for the device parameters used in Fig. 3a, the electron density spin-polarization $`(n_{}`$$``$$`n_{})/(n_{}`$$`+`$$`n_{})`$ as a function of position in the semiconductor for a series of barrier heights at fixed doping. Only for the smallest effective Schottky barrier is there a significant density polarization persisting tens of nm into the semiconductor. This is the region of interest for measurements of circularly polarized emission in the spin-LED configuration. Fig. 4b shows the effect of varying bulk doping on the density spin-polarization (parameters as for Fig. 3b). Even though both the injection current density and the current polarization efficiency increase with increased bulk doping concentrations, the higher density electron gas becomes more difficult to polarize. There is a point of diminishing returns on heavy bulk doping. To achieve significant electron density polarization in the optical recombination region, the density there should be as low as possible consistent with a small depletion region to ensure good spin injection efficiency and large injection currents.

We have presented a model for electrical spin injection at a Schottky contact between a spin-polarized electrode and a non-magnetic semiconductor. We have found that a significant depletion region at a Schottky contact is highly undesirable for spin injection. Design of the doping profile is very important to maximize spin injection. A heavily doped region near the interface can be used to form a sharp potential profile through which electrons tunnel and which also reduces the effective Schottky energy barrier that determines the properties of the depletion region. The doping profile should be chosen so that the potential drop in the depletion region is as small as possible, but the tunneling region must also have a significant interface resistance (of order 10-3$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$$``$cm2). Spin injection measurements using a spin-LED configuration are sensitive to the electron density polarization in the optical recombination region. The electron density in this recombination region should be as low as possible, consistent with a small depletion region, so that it can be more easily spin polarized.

Acknowledgment: We thank F. X. Bronold and I. Martin for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the SPINs program of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.


format: text

text:
# Generalized Chaplygin Gas, Accelerated Expansion and Dark Energy-Matter Unification

## I Introduction

There is mounting evidence that the Universe at present is dominated by a smooth component with negative pressure, the so-called dark energy, leading to accelerated expansion. While the most obvious candidate for such component is vacuum energy, a plausible alternative is dynamical vacuum energy , or quintessence. These models most often involve a single field  or, in some cases, two coupled fields . However, these models usually face fine-tuning problems, notably the cosmic coincidence problem i.e. the question of explaining why the vacuum energy or scalar field dominate the Universe only recently. In its tracker version, quintessence models address this problem in that the evolution of the quintessence energy density is fairly independent of initial conditions; however, this seems to be achieved at the expense of fine-tuning the potential parameters so that the quintessence energy density changes behaviour around the epoch of matter-radiation equality so as to overtake the matter energy density at present, driving the Universe into accelerated expansion. Moreover, for quintessence models with shallow potentials, the quintessence field has to be nearly massless and one expects radiative corrections to destabilize the ratio beteween this mass and the other known scales of physics; on the other hand, the couplings of such a light field to ordinary matter give rise to long-range forces, which should have been detected in precision tests of gravity within the solar system, and time dependence of the constants of nature .

Recently, it has been suggested that the change of behavior of the missing energy density might be regulated by the change in the equation of state of the background fluid instead of the form of the potential, thereby avoiding the abovementioned fine-tuning problems. This is achieved via the introduction, within the framework of FRW cosmology, of an exotic background fluid, the Chaplygin gas, described by the equation of state

$$p=\frac{A}{\rho ^\alpha },$$
(1)
with $`\alpha =1`$ and A a positive constant. Inserting this equation of state into the relativistic energy conservation equation, leads to a density evolving as

$$\rho =\sqrt{A+\frac{B}{a^6}},$$
(2)
where $`a`$ is the scale factor of the Universe and $`B`$ is an integration constant. This simple and elegant model smoothly interpolates between a dust dominated phase where, $`\rho \sqrt{B}a^3`$, and a De Sitter phase where $`p\rho `$, through an intermediate regime described by the equation of state for stiff matter, $`p=\rho `$ . Interestingly, this setup admits a well established brane interpretation as Eq. (1), for $`\alpha =1`$, is the equation of state associated with the parametrization invariant Nambu-Goto $`d`$-brane action in a $`(d+1,1)`$ spacetime. This action leads, in the light-cone parametrization, to the Galileo-invariant Chaplygin gas in a $`(d,1)`$ spacetime and to the Poincaré-invariant Born-Infeld action in a $`(d,1)`$ spacetime (see  and references therein for a thorough discussion). Moreover, the Chaplygin gas is the only gas known to admit a supersymmetric generalization .

It is clear that this model has a bearing on the observed accelerated expansion of the Universe  as it automatically leads to an asymptotic phase where the equation of state is dominated by a cosmological constant, $`8\pi G\sqrt{A}`$. Subsequently, it has been shown that this model admits, under conditions, an inhomogeneous generalization which can be regarded as a unification of dark matter and dark energy . The unification idea has received much attention recently . For instance, in Ref.  it is suggested that dark matter might consist of quintessence (cosmon) lumps, and in Ref.  it is shown that spintessence-like models are generally unstable to formation of Q-Balls which behave as pressureless matter.

In this work, we consider the case of a generic $`\alpha `$ constant in the range $`0<\alpha 1`$ and show that it interpolates betwwen a universe dominated by dust and a De Sitter one via a phase described by a “soft” matter equation of state, $`p=\alpha \rho `$ ($`\alpha 1`$). We show that the model can be easily accomodated in the standard structure formation scenarios and does not leave any undesirable signature on the Cosmic Microwave Background power spectrum. Furthermore, we show that the model corresponds to a generalized Nambu-Goto action which can be interpreted as a perturbed $`d`$-brane in a $`(d+1,1)`$ spacetime.

## II The Model

Our starting point is the Lagrangian density for a massive complex scalar field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$$=g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\nu }V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2),$$
(3)
which, as suggested in Ref. , can be expressed in terms of its masss, $`m`$, as $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}m)\mathrm{exp}(im\theta )`$. The Lagrangian density (3) can then be rewritten as

$$=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\left(\varphi ^2\theta _{,\mu }\theta _{,\nu }+\frac{1}{m^2}\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }\right)V(\varphi ^2/2).$$
(4)
This sets the scale of the inhomogeneity since, assuming that spacetime variations of $`\varphi `$ correspond to scales greater than $`m^1`$, then

$$\varphi _{,\mu }<<m\varphi .$$
(5)
This is in contrast with the work of Ref. , where spatial homogeneity is assumed, and it is clearly a quite relevant contribution to generalize the use of the Chaplygin gas equation of state into the cosmological description. In this (Thomas-Fermi) approximation, the resulting Lagrangian density can now be written as

$$_{TF}=\frac{\varphi ^2}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\theta _{,\mu }\theta _{,\nu }V(\varphi ^2/2).$$
(6)
The corresponding equations of motion are given by

$$g^{\mu \nu }\theta _{,\mu }\theta _{,\nu }=V^{}(\varphi ^2/2),$$
(7)
$$(\varphi ^2\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\theta _{,\nu })_{,\mu }=0,$$
(8)
where $`V^{}(x)dV/dx`$. The field $`\theta `$ can be regarded as a velocity field provided $`V^{}>0`$, i.e.

$$U^\mu =\frac{g^{\mu \nu }\theta _{,\nu }}{\sqrt{V^{}}},$$
(9)
so that on the mass shell $`U^\mu U_\mu =1`$. It then follows that the energy-momentum tensor built from the Lagrangian density Eq. (6) takes the form of a perfect fluid whose thermodynamic variables can be written as

$$\rho =\frac{\varphi ^2}{2}V^{}+V,$$
(10)
$$p=\frac{\varphi ^2}{2}V^{}V.$$
(11)
Imposing the covariant conservation of the energy-momentum tensor for an homogeneous and isotropic spacetime

$$\dot{\rho }+3H(p+\rho )=0,$$
(12)
where $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ is the expansion rate of the Universe, we get, for the generalized Chaplygin gas equation of state, Eq. (1), a generalized version of Eq. (2)

$$\rho =\left(A+\frac{B}{a^{3(1+\alpha )}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+\alpha }}.$$
(13)
¿From Eqs. (10) and (11), we obtain

$$d\mathrm{ln}\varphi ^2=\frac{d(\rho p)}{\rho +p},$$
(14)
which, together with Eq. (1), leads to a relationship between $`\varphi ^2`$ and $`\rho `$:

$$\varphi ^2(\rho )=\rho ^\alpha (\rho ^{1+\alpha }A)^{\frac{1\alpha }{1+\alpha }}.$$
(15)
Further algebraic manipulation, introducing Eqs. (10), (11) and (14) into the Lagrangian density (6), shows that it is possible to establish a brane connection to this setting, as the resulting Lagrangian density has the form of a generalized Born-Infeld theory:

$$_{GBI}=A^{\frac{1}{1+\alpha }}\left[1(g^{\mu \nu }\theta _{,\mu }\theta _{,\nu })^{\frac{1+\alpha }{2\alpha }}\right]^{\frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha }},$$
(16)
which clearly reproduces the Born-Infeld Lagrangian density for $`\alpha =1`$. This Lagrangian density can be regarded as a $`d`$-brane plus soft correcting terms; indeed, expanding the root in Eq. (16) around $`\alpha =1`$, one obtains:

$`\left[1X^{\frac{1+\alpha }{2\alpha }}\right]^{\frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha }}`$ $`=\sqrt{1X}`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{X\mathrm{log}(X)+(1X)\mathrm{log}(1X)}{4\sqrt{1X}}}(1\alpha )`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E+F+G}{32(1X)^{3/2}}}(1\alpha )^2+𝒪((1\alpha )^3),`$ (19)
where $`Xg^{\mu \nu }\theta _{,\mu }\theta _{,\nu }`$ and

$$E=X(X2)\mathrm{log}^2(X),$$
(20)
$$F=2X(X1)\mathrm{log}(X)[\mathrm{log}(1X)2],$$
(21)
$$G=(X1)^2[\mathrm{log}(1X)4]\mathrm{log}(1X).$$
(22)
The potential arising from this model can be written as

$$V=\frac{\rho ^{1+\alpha }+A}{2\rho ^\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{2/\alpha }+\frac{A}{\mathrm{\Psi }^2}\right),$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }B^{(1\alpha /1+\alpha )}a^{3(1\alpha )}\varphi ^2`$, which reduces to the duality invariant, $`\varphi ^2A/\varphi ^2`$, and scale-factor independent potential for the Chaplygin gas.

The effective equation of state in the intermediate regime between the dust dominated phase and the De Sitter phase can be obtained expanding Eq. (13) in subleading order:

$$\rho A^{\frac{1}{1+\alpha }}+\left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha }\right)\frac{B}{A^{\frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha }}}a^{3(1+\alpha )},$$
(24)
$$pA^{\frac{1}{1+\alpha }}+\left(\frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha }\right)\frac{B}{A^{\frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha }}}a^{3(1+\alpha )},$$
(25)
which corresponds to a mixture of vacuum energy density $`A^{\frac{1}{1+\alpha }}`$ and matter described by the “soft” equation of state:

$$p=\alpha \rho .$$
(26)
In broad terms, the comparison between the cosmological setting we propose and the one emerging from the Chaplygin gas, discussed in Refs. , is exhibited in Figure 1. Naturally, a complete cosmological scenario involves the inclusion of radiation, which is related to the massless degrees of freedom of the Standard Model at a given temperature and that were dominant before recombination. These clearly do not affect any of the features of the scenario we propose here. Less trivial, however, is the treatment of the inhomogeneities we have allowed in our setting. We analyse this issue in what follows.

Our starting point is Eq. (8), which can be shown to admit as first integral a position dependent function $`B(\stackrel{}{r})`$, after a convenient choice of comoving coordinates where the velocity field is given by $`U^\mu =\delta _0^\mu /\sqrt{g_{00}}`$ . Taking for the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the proper time $`d\tau =\sqrt{g_{00}}dx^0`$, and $`\gamma g/g_{00}`$ as the determinant of the induced $`3`$-metric, then

$$\gamma _{ij}=\frac{g_{i0}g_{j0}}{g_{00}}g_{ij}.$$
(27)
Since for the relevant scales, function $`B(\stackrel{}{r})`$ can be regarded as approximately constant, we get

$$\rho =\left(A+\frac{B}{\gamma ^{(1+\alpha )/2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+\alpha }}.$$
(28)
This result suggests that the Zeldovich method for considering inhomogeneities can be implemented through the deformation tensor :

$$D_i^j=a(t)\left(\delta _i^jb(t)\frac{^2\phi (\stackrel{}{q})}{q^iq^j}\right),$$
(29)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ are generalized Lagrangian coordinates so that

$$\gamma _{ij}=\delta _{mn}D_i^mD_j^n,$$
(30)
and $`h`$ is a perturbation

$$h=2b(t)\phi _{,i}^{}{}_{}{}^{i},$$
(31)
with $`b(t)`$ parametrizing the time evolution of the inhomogeneities. Hence, using Eqs. above and Eqs. (24) - (25), it follows that

$$\rho \overline{\rho }(1+\delta ),p\frac{A}{\overline{\rho }^\alpha }(1\alpha \delta ),$$
(32)
where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is given by Eq. (13) and the density contrast, $`\delta `$, is related to $`h`$ through

$$\delta =\frac{h}{2}(1+w),$$
(33)
and $`w`$ reads

$$w\frac{p}{\rho }=\frac{A}{\overline{\rho }^{1+\alpha }}.$$
(34)
The metric (30) leads to the following $`00`$ component of the Einstein equations:

$$3\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{1}{2}\ddot{h}+H\dot{h}=4\pi G\overline{\rho }[(1+3w)+(13\alpha w)\delta ],$$
(35)
where the unperturbed part of this equation corresponds to the Raychaudhuri equation

$$3\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=4\pi G\overline{\rho }(1+3w).$$
(36)
Using the Friedmann equation for a flat spacetime

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho },$$
(37)
Eq. (35) can be written as a differential equation for $`b(a)`$:

$$\frac{2}{3}a^2b^{\prime \prime }+(1w)ab^{}(1+w)(13\alpha w)b=0,$$
(38)
where the primes denote derivatives with respect to the scale-factor, $`a`$.

Finally, from Eqs. (13) and (34), we derive an expression for $`w`$ as a function of the scale-factor, using the observational input that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }2/3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M1/3`$  are, respectively, the fractional vacuum and matter (dark + baryons) energy densities

$$w(a)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^{3(1+\alpha )}}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^{3(1+\alpha )}}.$$
(39)
We have used this expression to integrate Eq. (38) numerically, for different values of $`\alpha `$. We have set $`a_{eq}=10^4`$ for matter-radiation equilibrium and $`a_0=1`$ at present, taking as initial condition $`b^{}(a_{eq})=0`$. Our results are shown in Figures 2 and 3.

We find that generalized Chaplygin scenarios start differing from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM only recently ($`z1`$) and that, in any case, they yield a density contrast that closely resembles, for any value of $`\alpha 0`$, the standard CDM before the present. Notice that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM corresponds effectively to setting $`\alpha =0`$ in Eq. (39) and removing the factor $`13\alpha w`$ in Eq. (38). Figure 3 shows also that, for any value of $`\alpha `$, $`b(a)`$ saturates as in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM case.

As for the density contrast, $`\delta `$, we can see, using Eqs. (31), (33) and (39), that the ratio between this quantity in the Chaplygin and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM scenarios is given by:

$$\frac{\delta _{Chap}}{\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM}}=\frac{b_{Chap}}{b_{\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM}}\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^3}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^{3(1+\alpha )}},$$
(40)
meaning that their difference diminishes as $`a`$ evolves. In Figure 4, we have plotted $`\delta `$ as a function of $`a`$ for different values of $`\alpha `$; hence, we verify for any $`\alpha `$ the claim of Refs. , for $`\alpha =1`$, that the density contrast decays for large $`a`$. Figure 4 also shows the main difference in behaviour of the density contrast between a Universe filled with matter with a “soft” or “stiff” equations of state as the former resembles more closely the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM.

## III Discussion and Conclusions

In this work, we have considered a generalization of the Chaplygin equation of state, $`p=\frac{A}{\rho ^\alpha }`$, with $`0<\alpha 1`$. We have shown that, as in the case of the Chaplygin gas, where $`\alpha =1`$, the model admits a $`d`$-brane connection as its Lagrangian density corresponds to the Born-Infeld action plus some soft logarithmic corrections. Furthermore, spacetime is shown to evolve from a phase that is initially dominated, in the absence of other degrees of freedom on the brane, by non-relativistic matter to a phase that is asymptotically De Sitter. This behaviour is similar to one of the Chaplygin gas. The intermediate regime in our model corresponds to a phase where the effective equation of state is given by $`p=\alpha \rho `$. We have estimated the fate of the inhomogeneities admitted in the model and shown that these evolve consistently with the observations as the density contrast they introduce is smaller than the one typical of CDM scenarios and closer to the ones predicted by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM in comparison to the Chaplygin $`\alpha =1`$ case.

Hence, given the fundamental nature of the underlying physics behind the Chaplygin gas and its generalizations, it appears that it contains some of the key ingredients in the description of the Universe dynamics at early as well as late times.

###### Acknowledgements.

M.C.B. and O.B. acknowledge the partial support of Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portugal) under the grant POCTI/1999/FIS/36285. The work of A.A. Sen is fully financed by the same grant. We also would like to thank the authors of Ref.  for their relevant comments and suggestions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years we have worked extensively on a numerical method  for solving exactly supersymmetric field theories in $`1+1`$ and $`2+1`$ dimensions. We call this method supersymmetric discrete light-cone quantization (SDLCQ), and we have successfully applied it to many theories and addressed a number of interesting issues . The world is, however, not exactly supersymmetric, and it is therefore important to learn how to generalize SDLCQ to solve non-supersymmetric theories.

With this objective in mind we focus in this work on the interrelation of the numerical simulations of four separate theories. Two of these theories are supersymmetric, and two are not. The objective is to learn something about soft supersymmetry breaking within the context of these numerical simulations. We want to know if softly broken theories make sense in the context of SDLCQ and how these broken theories are related to non-supersymmetric theories of adjoint fermions and adjoint bosons that have been discussed in the literature.

The two non-supersymmetric simulations are those of Klebanov, Demeterfi and Bhanot  (KDB). The first is a calculation of a gauged adjoint fermion in 1+1 dimensions and the second is a calculation of a gauged adjoint boson in $`1+1`$ dimensions. The third theory we will consider is again a gauged adjoint fermion theory in 1+1 dimensions but now with a special mass value that makes the theory supersymmetric . Finally, the fourth theory is the $`N=(1,1)`$ SYM that one obtains by dimensionally reducing SYM in 2+1 dimensions to 1+1 dimensions . Henceforth we will refer to this theory as SYM. Starting with this fourth theory we consider the theories that are obtained by adding a large mass for one of the fields. The large mass freezes out that field, leaving the low-mass bound states to have primarily only constituents of the other field.

The numerical method that we use to simulate these theories is discrete light-cone quantization (DLCQ). When this method is applied to the continuum hamiltonian of a theory, it is called just DLCQ, and it produces a finite dimensional hamiltonian. When this method is applied to the continuum supercharge of a supersymmetric theory, it produces a finite dimensional supercharge which is then used to calculate a finite dimensional hamiltonian, $`P^{}=(Q^{})^2/\sqrt{2}`$. We refer to this approximation as supersymmetric DLCQ or SDLCQ.

To discretize the hamiltonian or supercharge, we introduce discrete longitudinal momenta $`k^+`$ as fractions $`nP^+/K`$ of the total longitudinal momentum $`P^+`$, where $`K`$ is an integer that determines the resolution of the discretization and is known in DLCQ as the harmonic resolution . We then convert the mass eigenvalue problem $`2P^+P^{}|M=M^2|M`$ ($`P^\pm =(P^z\pm P^0)/\sqrt{2}`$) to a matrix eigenvalue problem by introducing a basis where $`P^+`$ is diagonal. Because light-cone longitudinal momenta are always positive, $`K`$ and each $`n`$ are positive integers; the number of constituents is then bounded by $`K`$. The continuum limit is recovered by taking the limit $`K\mathrm{}`$.

Of course, we can write the continuum hamiltonian for a supersymmetric theory and apply DLCQ to it. This yields a different finite dimensional approximation to the hamiltonian than does SDLCQ. Recently we have developed a technique for writing down directly finite-dimensional DLCQ hamiltonians that are identical to the hamiltonians obtained in SDLCQ .

In constructing the discrete approximation we drop the longitudinal zero-momentum mode. For some discussion of dynamical and constrained zero modes, see the review  and previous work . Inclusion of these modes would be ideal, but the techniques required to include them in a numerical calculation have proved to be difficult to develop, particularly because of nonlinearities. For DLCQ calculations that can be compared with exact solutions, the exclusion of zero modes does not affect the massive spectrum . In scalar theories it has been known for some time that constrained zero modes can give rise to dynamical symmetry breaking .

In section 2 we discuss SYM in both the SDLCQ and DLCQ formulation. We consider in some detail the singular terms in the hamiltonian formulation and their action on the Fock basis. In section 3 we add a large boson mass to this theory and discuss the resulting pure fermion theory. We compare our results to the fermionic theories of KDB and Kutasov . In section 4 we add a large fermionic mass to the full SYM theory and discuss the pure boson theory that is obtained. We find a new theory of adjoint bosons with properties similar to the full SYM theory. We consider the behavior of this theory with a small bare mass term for the boson and the relation of this theory to the KDB theory of adjoint bosons. We also present yet another theory similar to the KDB theory that arises from the discussion. In section 5 we summarize the results of this investigation of supersymmetry breaking and the implication for higher dimensional theories.

## 2 The Supersymmetric Theory

The SYM is given by the supercharge

$`Q^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i2}^{1/4}g}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk_1dk_2dk_3\delta (k_1+k_2k_3)\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{k_1k_2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_2k_1}{k_3}}[a_{ik}^{}(k_1)a_{kj}^{}(k_2)b_{ij}(k_3)b_{ij}^{}(k_3)a_{ik}(k_1)a_{kj}(k_2)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{k_1k_3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1+k_3}{k_2}}[a_{ik}^{}(k_3)a_{kj}(k_1)b_{ij}(k_2)a_{ik}^{}(k_1)b_{kj}^{}(k_2)a_{ij}(k_3)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{k_2k_3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_2+k_3}{k_1}}[b_{ik}^{}(k_1)a_{kj}^{}(k_2)a_{ij}(k_3)a_{ij}^{}(k_3)b_{ik}(k_1)a_{kj}(k_2)]`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_3}})[b_{ik}^{}(k_1)b_{kj}^{}(k_2)b_{ij}(k_3)+b_{ij}^{}(k_3)b_{ik}(k_1)b_{kj}(k_2)]{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\},`$
which in turn defines the hamiltonian by virtue of the anticommutation relation $`\{Q^{},Q^{}\}=2\sqrt{2}P^{}`$. Throughout this paper we will write expressions in a continuum form for notational convenience; however, it is to be understood that all the calculation are discrete in momentum space. The numerical method SDLCQ simply means that we apply DLCQ to the supercharge and then square the finite dimensional representation of the supercharge to get the Hamiltonian. Recently we found the hamiltonian that in the DLCQ approximation reproduces the SDLCQ hamiltonian

$`P^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2(k_1)}{k_1}}(a^{}a+b^{}b)+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk_1dk_2dk_3dk_4[`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`A_1b^{}b^{}bb+A_2(b^{}bbbb^{}b^{}b^{}b)+B_1a^{}a^{}aa+B_2(a^{}aaa+a^{}a^{}a^{}a)`$
$`+`$ $`C_1b^{}b^{}aa+C_2a^{}a^{}bb+C_3b^{}a^{}ba+C_4a^{}b^{}ab+C_5b^{}a^{}ab+C_6a^{}b^{}ba`$
$`+`$ $`D_1(a^{}abba^{}b^{}b^{}a)+D_2(a^{}babb^{}a^{}b^{}a)+D_3(a^{}bbab^{}b^{}a^{}a)`$
$`+`$ $`D_4(b^{}baa+b^{}a^{}a^{}b)+D_5(b^{}aba+a^{}b^{}a^{}b)+D_6(b^{}aab+a^{}a^{}b^{}b)],`$
where the coefficient in front of the dynamic mass term is given by

$$\mu ^2(k_1)=_0^{k_1}𝑑k_2\frac{(k_1+k_2)^2}{k_2(k_1k_2)^2}=_0^{k_1}𝑑k_2(\frac{4k_1}{(k_2k_1)^2}+\frac{1}{k_2}).$$
(3)
It is convenient to define the instantaneous mass contributions to the Hamiltonian, $`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}^{}(\mathrm{boson})`$ and $`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}^{}(\mathrm{fermion})`$, as

$`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}^{}(\mathrm{boson})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k_1a(k_1)^{}a(k_1){\displaystyle _0^{k_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_2}{(k_2k_1)^2}},`$
$`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}^{}(\mathrm{fermion})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k_1b(k_1)^{}b(k_1){\displaystyle _0^{k_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_2}{(k_2k_1)^2}},`$ (4)
which are part of $`\mu `$ defined above. The coefficients of the pure fermion and the pure boson terms are

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`PV{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(k_4k_2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(k_1+k_2)^2}}\delta _{1,3}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{k_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{k_2^2}}),`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(k_2+k_3)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(k_1+k_2)^2}},`$
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4k_1k_2k_3k_4}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_2)(k_3k_4)}{(k_1+k_2)^2}}PV{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1+k_3)(k_2+k_4)}{(k_4k_2)^2}}\right),`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4k_1k_2k_3k_4}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(k_3k_2)(k_1+k_4)}{(k_3+k_2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_2)(k_3+k_4)}{(k_1+k_2)^2}}\right).`$ (5)
The term $`\delta _{1,3}`$ only makes sense in a discrete formulation and vanishes in the continuum limit; however, it does not appear in a conventional DLCQ formulation. This term arises from normal ordering the square of the discrete supercharges rather than normal ordering the continuum formulation of the supercharge and then discretizing this result. These terms are part of what insures that this hamiltonian is exactly supersymmetric. A detailed discussion of the origin of these term can be found in . Similarly, when obtaining the SDLCQ hamiltonian version of the Kutasov model one finds for the same reason a different discrete formula for the mass term than in conventional DLCQ .

The singularities in $`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}`$ cancel the singularities in $`A_1`$ and $`B_1`$. This cancellation is commonly seen in light-cone calculations and is not related to supersymmetry. We demonstrated that this occurs for both the pure fermionic and pure bosonic theories by considering the effect of these terms on Fock states. We will see that KDB in their theory of adjoint bosons treat these singularities differently than they are treated in SDLCQ and in the KDB and Kutasov treatment of adjoint fermions.

The $`1/k_2`$ term in $`\mu `$ is a real logarithmic mass divergence. In a non-supersymmetric theory this requires a mass renormalization. Here in a supersymmetric theory the bound states are such that this term is finite.

It is interesting to compare this to the QCD2 model described by Kutasov , where

$`Q^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i2}^{1/4}g}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk_1dk_2dk_3\delta (k_1+k_2k_3)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_3}})[b_{ik}^{}(k_1)b_{kj}^{}(k_2)b_{ij}(k_3)`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`b_{ij}^{}(k_3)b_{ik}(k_1)b_{kj}(k_2)].`$
From normal ordering the discrete supercharge we find that the hamiltonian for this theory contains the terms $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, $`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}^{}(\mathrm{fermion})`$ and the mass term with $`m^2=\frac{g^2N_c}{\pi }`$. We note that it does not contain the real logarithmic divergence seen in SYM.

## 3 Pure Adjoint Fermion Theories

The pure adjoint fermion theories that we wish to consider are the DLCQ hamiltonian theory studied by KDB , the supersymmetric model of Kutasov , and the pure fermion theory one obtains by including a large mass for the adjoint bosons in SYM. Let us start by considering the effect of $`A_1`$ and $`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}^{}`$ on a typical Fock state

$$|bbb>=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dsdndk}{N^{3/2}}f(s,n,k)\mathrm{Tr}[b^{}(s)b^{}(n)b^{}(k)]|0>.$$
(7)
We find

$`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}^{}|bbb>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2N}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dsdndk}{N^{3/2}}}\delta (s+n+kP^+)\mathrm{Tr}(b^{}(s)b^{}(n)b^{}(k)|0>`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{s+n}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{(st)^2}}f(s,n,k).`$
The factor of three is from using the cyclic symmetry to combine the action on all three permutations. The effect of the singular term in $`A_1`$ on this Fock state is

$`P_{\mathrm{sing}}^{}|bbb>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2N}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dsdndk}{N^{3/2}}}\delta (s+n+kP^+)\mathrm{Tr}(b^{}(s)b^{}(n)b^{}(k)|0>`$ (9)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{s+n}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{(st)^2}}f(t,s+nt,k).`$
Again the factor of three is from using the cyclic symmetry to combine the action on all three permutations. We see that the singularities in these terms at $`s=t`$ cancel, leaving an integral that is well defined and finite in the principal value prescription. In Ref.  the authors explicitly consider the integral equation for the Hamiltonian of adjoint fermions and find this cancellation. Numerically all the theories involving adjoint fermions handle this singularity the same way. They include both terms and omit the discrete point $`s=t`$.

It is already known that the KDB  and Kutasov  formulations produce the same numerical results for a bare mass squared of $`g^2N_c/\pi `$ in the continuum limit. We want to consider the SYM theory and add a larger adjoint boson mass term ($`x=m_{\mathrm{boson}}^2\pi /g^2N`$) to the square of the supercharge, which will freeze out the bosons. Of course, if we also subtract from the square of the supercharge the logarithmically divergent fermion mass term and add a bare mass term with $`m^2=g^2N_c/\pi `$, we reproduce the results of the Kutasov model. For completeness we have checked this, and it works exactly for bound states well below the mass of the heavy boson.

The main question that we consider in this section is whether the theory we obtain by simply adding a large mass for the boson is a sensible theory. We have looked at this numerically and the answer is no! It produces negative-mass bound states that do not disappear as we increase the resolution. We can repair this problem by adding a bare mass for the adjoint fermion, but this does not guarantee a sensible theory. For example, if we add a mass of $`m^2=g^2N_c/\pi `$, we effectively have the Kutasov model with a logarithmically divergent mass term included. We expect this model to produce bound-state masses that diverge logarithmically. In Fig. 1(a) we have plotted the lowest bound states of this theory and of the Kutasov model. The fit to the mass of this theory is

$$M^2=\frac{g^2N_c}{\pi }[23.2213.66\frac{1}{K}1.48\mathrm{log}(K)].$$
(10)
Therefore the pure fermionic theories that are obtained by adding a large boson mass require a mass renormalization exactly as we expected.

Within the context of SDLCQ we have also looked at the decoupling of the heavy bosonic states in more detail. At resolution $`K=4`$, for example, we can look at the evolution of the lowest-mass bound states as a function of the boson mass $`x`$ in units of $`g^2N_c/\pi `$. At this resolution, the pure fermionic state $`b^{}(3)b^{}(1)`$ mixes with $`a^{}(3)a^{}(1)`$ and $`a^{}(2)a^{}(2)`$. The corresponding hamiltonian matrix for the set of states {$`b^{}(3)b^{}(1)`$, $`a^{}(3)a^{}(1)`$, $`a^{}(2)a^{}(2)`$} is

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}21.88& 0.96& 1.41\\ 0.96& 8.33+5.33x& 12.24\\ 1.41& 12.24& 18+4x\end{array}\right).$$

At large $`x`$ the lowest mass eigenstate is $`\{1,\theta _1,\theta _2\}`$, where $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are the bosonic components. We find that $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ fall off linearly with $`1/x`$.

## 4 Pure Adjoint Boson Theories

The pure boson theories that we want to compare are the theory of KDB and SYM theory with a large mass for the adjoint fermion. Physically the bosons in these theories are the transverse gluons of the (2+1)-dimensional parent theory; therefore, these states are effectively (1+1)-dimensional glueballs.

First we consider the result of simply adding a large fermion mass to the SYM theory. This leaves us with the pure boson theory which contains the $`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}^{}`$ term and the logarithmically divergent mass term, just as in the fermion theory. Recall that the fermion theory with the logarithmically divergent mass had a divergent spectrum, but surprisingly the low-mass states of the boson theory, seen in Fig. 1(b), are linear as functions of $`1/K`$, and therefore the continuum spectrum obtained by extrapolating to $`K=\mathrm{}`$ appears to remain finite. We have calculated one state out to resolution $`K=20`$, to check for any logarithmic dependence, and found none. A partial explanation for this has to lie in the stringy nature of these bound states. In the spectrum of the pure SYM we found that, as we increased the resolution, new bound states appeared with more partons and with a lower mass. This abundance of low-mass states with many partons is what we refer to as the stringy nature of the theory. Interestingly we see this property for this pure glue theory here in Fig. 1(b). The fact that the logarithmically divergent mass term does not give rise to a divergent spectrum as a function of the resolution is apparently related to the stingy nature of the bound states.

We now want to contrast this stringy theory with the model considered by KDB . There are two main differences between these two models. First, KDB renormalizes away the logarithmically divergent mass term. Second, they use a different approach to treat the singularity in the $`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}^{}`$ term and the singular term in $`B_1`$. This issue is a little complicated, so let us start our discussion by considering the effect of these two terms on a typical Fock state

$$|aaa>=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dsdndk}{N^{3/2}}f(s,n,k)\mathrm{Tr}[a^{}(s)a^{}(n)a^{}(k)]|0>.$$
(11)
We find

$`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}^{}(\mathrm{boson})|aaa>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2N}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dsdndk}{N^{3/2}}}\delta (s+n+kP^+)\mathrm{Tr}(a^{}(s)a^{}(n)a^{}(k)|0>`$ (12)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{s+n}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{(nt)^2}}f(s,n,k).`$
This is, of course, the same as the result for adjoint fermions. The singular interaction term in $`B_1`$ gives

$`P_{\mathrm{sing}}^{}|aaa>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2N}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dsdstdk}{N^{3/2}}}\delta (s+n+kP^+)\mathrm{Tr}(a^{}(s)a^{}(n)a^{}(k)|0>`$ (13)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{s+n}}dt{\displaystyle \frac{(t+n)(n+2st)f(t,s+nt,k)}{2\sqrt{nst(n+st)}(nt)^2}}.`$
This expression has a complicated coefficient not present for fermions. We see that at the singular point $`n=t`$ the two terms cancel; therefore, the combination is non-singular in the principal value prescription. Numerically, in the SDLCQ calculation, these two terms are simply included in their discrete form with the singular points removed. This exactly parallels the adjoint fermion calculations discussed above.

KDB treat the singularities differently, however. To regularize the singularity in $`B_1`$ they add and subtract a term

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2N}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dsdstdk}{N^{3/2}}}\delta (s+n+kP^+)\mathrm{Tr}(a^{}(s)a^{}(n)a^{}(k)|0>`$
$`\times f(s,n,k){\displaystyle _0^{s+n}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{(t+n)(n+2st)}{2\sqrt{nst(n+st)}(nt)^2}}.`$ (14)
The part that is subtracted makes Eq. (13) finite in the principal value sense. For the part that is added they cut out the singular point and do the remaining principal value integral exactly and include it in the integral equation. The singular part cancels exactly the singularity in $`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}`$.

The remaining finite part of $`P_{I\mathrm{mass}}`$ has the form of a mass term with $`m^2=2g^2N/\pi `$. They lump this term together with the logarithmically divergent mass term and a bare mass term, to form a renormalized mass term. In principle this appears to be simply a different way of renormalizing the mass and a different way of making the singularity finite in the principal value prescription.

Numerically KDB find a very different spectrum than we found above. Their spectrum is very QCD-like, with the lowest-mass bound states having primarily two gluons and masses of about $`4g^2N_c/\pi `$. The higher mass states have dominant components with a small number of particles. KDB did the calculation using anti-periodic boundary conditions, and we have repeated the calculation using both periodic and anti-periodic boundary conditions. We get the same results by both methods, and our anti-periodic calculation agrees exactly with KDB. The convergence is similar in both methods when one takes into account the fact the you have to go to twice the resolution with anti-periodic boundary conditions to get the same number of data points.

It is interesting to make a direct comparison of the KDB approach with SDLCQ. To make this comparison we will repeat the SDLCQ calculation, but now we will drop the divergent mass term and add a bare mass term as KDB do and then calculate the spectrum for various values of the bare mass.

With the bare mass equal to zero the theory is unstable and generates a negative mass for the bound states. For $`m^2=g^2N_c/\pi `$ the mass of the lowest bound state as a function of the resolution is shown in Fig. 2(a). It clearly does not converge well as a function of $`1/K`$. It is possible that in the continuum limit the mass of this state goes to zero, but it also possible that it becomes negative. The fit shown is

$$M^2=\frac{g^2N_c}{\pi }[6.002.80\frac{1}{K}+1.29078\mathrm{log}(K)].$$
(15)
The lowest-mass bound state for $`m^2=2g^2N_c/\pi `$ is shown in Fig. 2(b), and we see that the bound state is well behaved and is fit nicely by a linear plot in $`1/K`$. In fact the entire spectrum for this theory is well behaved. An inspection of the wave functions of this theory shows that it has a valence structure similar to KDB but not identical.

## 5 Discussion

We have considered the effect of adding a large boson or fermion mass to SYM and compared the results with those known for pure fermionic and pure bosonic theories discussed in the literature . We find that when we add a large boson mass the SYM theory the resulting theory is not a sensible theory unless we also subtract a logarithmically divergent mass term. Otherwise this logarithmically divergent mass term causes the spectrum to diverge logarithmically with the resolution. When we subtract the logarithmically divergent mass (renormalize it away), we find the one-parameter family of theories considered by KDB and Kutasov.

When we add a large fermion mass to the SYM theory, the resulting bosonic theory does appear to be a sensible theory. The masses are linear in $`1/K`$ and have a well defined continuum limit. The spectrum is very stringy, as is the spectrum of the original SYM theory. As we increase the resolution, we find states with lower masses and more partons. In comparing it to the work of KDB, we see that they renormalized away the logarithmically divergent mass term, treat the Coulomb singularity differently from the way it is treated in SDLCQ, and add a bare mass. The spectrum that they find also converges well in $`1/K`$, and the spectrum is very QCD-like. The low-mass states have a few valence partons, and, as one increases the resolution, one finds higher mass states. When we renormalize away the logarithmically divergent mass and add a bare mass but use the SDLCQ treatment of the Coulomb singularity, we also find a QCD-like spectrum for some values of the bare mass. If the bare mass is too small, however, we find that the spectrum is badly behaved.

In summary, adding a large fermion mass to SDLCQ produces a sensible theory while adding a large boson mass does not. The SDLCQ hamiltonian formulation in 1+1 dimensions is simple enough that we are able to identify the operator that needed to be added or altered to produce sensible theories. In higher dimensions there is a larger list of operators to consider and this will represent a significant challenge.

## 6 Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy. One of the authors (S.P) would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Aspen Center of Physics where part of the work was completed. The authors would like to acknowledge conversations with U. Trittmann, O. Lunin, and J. Hiller.


text:
# Energy Spectrum of Neutral Collective Excitations in Striped Hall States

## I Introduction

The two-dimensional electron system under a strong magnetic field shows astonishing diversity in experiments and theories. The quantized Hall conductance is observed in the incompressible quantum liquid state. Fractional quantum Hall states (FQHS) have anyonic quasi-particles in the excited states. Around the half-filled lowest Landau level, the composite Fermi liquid state which has an isotropic Fermi surface is observed. At the half-filled second Landau level, on the other hand, the fractionally quantized Hall conductance is observed; it is suggested that the state has an energy gap due to the Cooper pairing of the electrons.

Recently, highly anisotropic states, which have extremely anisotropic longitudinal resistances, have been observed around the half-filled third and higher Landau levels. It is believed that the anisotropic state is the striped Hall state which is a unidirectional charge density wave in the mean field theory. The anisotropy of the resistance is naturally explained by the anisotropic Fermi surface in the magnetic Brillouin zone. It was predicted that fluctuation effects turn the striped Hall state into the smectic or nematic liquid crystal. A low energy theory was studied in the coupled Luttinger liquid picture using the Hartree-Fock approximation. A peculiar response to external modulations was predicted in a perturbation theory and numerical calculations.

In the highly anisotropic states, underlying symmetries are spontaneously broken and Nambu-Goldstone (NG) modes should appear. It is important to find the property of the NG mode. In this paper, we investigate the property of the NG mode in striped Hall states. In the two-dimensional system under a uniform magnetic field, the system has the magnetic translation and rotation symmetry. In the striped Hall state, a magnetic translation in one direction is broken to the discrete translation and the rotation is also broken to the $`\pi `$-rotation, spontaneously. We prove the Goldstone theorem for the striped Hall state using the commutation relation between charges and currents corresponding to the broken and unbroken symmetry. The theorem shows that a gapless neutral excitation exists and couples with the density operator. The spectrum of the neutral collective excitation is obtained in the single mode approximation numerically at the half-filled third Landau level. The spectrum has a multiple line node structure and cusps. Furthermore, the spectrum has anisotropic feature, that is, in one direction it resembles the liquid Helium spectrum with the phonon and roton minimum, and in another direction it resembles the FQHS spectrum. To show the validity of the single mode approximation in the present system, we compare the spectrum with the particle-hole excitation spectrum in the Hartree-Fock approximation.

The paper is organized as follows. Conserved currents in the two-dimensional system under a uniform magnetic field are clarified in Sec. II. In Sec. III, a mean field theory for the striped Hall state is presented. Goldstone theorem for the striped Hall state is proved in Sec. IV. The spectrum for the neutral collective excitation in the striped Hall state is obtained in the single mode approximation and compared with the particle-hole excitation spectrum in the Hartree-Fock approximation in Sec. V. Summary is given in Sec. VI.

## II Conserved currents in a uniform magnetic field

Let us consider the two-dimensional electron system in a uniform magnetic field $`B=_xA_y_yA_x`$. We ignore the spin degree of freedom and use the natural unit ($`\mathrm{}=c=1`$) in this paper. We introduce two sets of coordinates, relative coordinates and guiding center coordinates. The relative coordinates are defined by

$$\xi =\frac{1}{eB}(i_y+eA_y),\eta =\frac{1}{eB}(i_x+eA_x).$$
(1)
The guiding center coordinates are defined by

$$X=x\xi ,Y=y\eta .$$
(2)
These coordinates satisfy the following commutation relations,

$`[X,Y]=[\xi ,\eta ]=i/eB,`$ (3)
$`[X,\xi ]=[X,\eta ]=[Y,\xi ]=[Y,\eta ]=0.`$ (4)
The operators $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are the generators of the magnetic translations of the one-particle state in $`y`$ direction and $`x`$ direction respectively. The angular momentum $`J`$ is written as

$$J=\frac{eB}{2}(\xi ^2+\eta ^2X^2Y^2).$$
(5)
$`J`$ is the generator of the rotation of the one-particle state.

The total Hamiltonian $`H`$ for the interacting charged particles is the sum of the free Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ and the Coulomb interaction Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ as follows,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+H_{\mathrm{int}},`$ (6)
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫)\frac{m\omega _c^2}{2}(\xi ^2+\eta ^2)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫)},`$ (7)
$`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫^{})V(𝐫𝐫^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)},`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the electron field operator, $`\omega _c=eB/m`$ and $`V(𝐫)=q^2/r`$ ($`q^2=e^2/4\pi ϵ`$, $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant) for the Coulomb potential.

Conserved charges are obtained as the spatial integral of the zeroth component of the Noether currents for the symmetries. We define the conserved charges, $`Q`$, $`Q_X`$, $`Q_Y`$, and $`Q_J`$ for U(1), magnetic translations, and rotation symmetry respectively, as follows,

$`Q={\displaystyle j^0(𝐫)𝑑𝐫},`$ (9)
$`Q_X={\displaystyle j_X^0(𝐫)𝑑𝐫},Q_Y={\displaystyle j_Y^0(𝐫)𝑑𝐫},`$ (10)
$`Q_J={\displaystyle j_J^0(𝐫)𝑑𝐫}.`$ (11)
Noether currents are defined by

$`j^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}v^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }),`$ (12)
$`j_X^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}v^\mu X\mathrm{\Psi }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{eB}}\delta _y^\mu ,`$ (13)
$`j_Y^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}v^\mu Y\mathrm{\Psi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{eB}}\delta _x^\mu ,`$ (14)
$`j_J^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}v^\mu J\mathrm{\Psi })+ϵ_{0\mu i}x^i,`$ (15)
where $`v^\mu =(1,𝐯)`$, $`𝐯=\omega _c(\eta ,\xi )`$, Re means real part, and $``$ is the Lagrangian density for the total Hamiltonian $`H`$. These charges commute with the total Hamiltonian $`H`$ and obey the following commutation relations,

$`[Q_X,Q_Y]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}Q,`$ (16)
$`[Q_J,Q_X]`$ $`=iQ_Y,`$ (17)
$`[Q_J,Q_Y]`$ $`=iQ_X.`$ (18)
The U(1) charge $`Q`$ commutes with all conserved charges. We assume that $`Q`$ is not broken and the ground state is the eigenstate of $`Q`$ as $`Q|0=N_e|0`$ where $`N_e`$ is a number of electrons. It should be noted that these symmetries are not broken in the Laughlin state. Hence the NG mode does not exist. The Laughlin state is the eigenstate of $`Q_J`$ and annihilated by $`Q_X+iQ_Y`$.

The commutation relations between the conserved charges and the current density operators read,

$`[Q_X,j^\mu ]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}_yj^\mu ,[Q_Y,j^\mu ]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}_xj^\mu ,`$ (19)
$`[Q_X,j_X^\mu ]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}_yj_X^\mu ,[Q_Y,j_X^\mu ]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}_xj_X^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}j^\mu ,`$ (20)
$`[Q_X,j_Y^\mu ]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}_yj_Y^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}j^\mu ,[Q_Y,j_Y^\mu ]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}_xj_Y^\mu .`$ (21)
The U(1) charge $`Q`$ commutes with all Noether currents. If the expectation value of the right hand side of these equation is not zero, corresponding symmetry is spontaneously broken. In the striped Hall state discussed in the next section, $`_xj^\mu `$ is not zero and the magnetic translation symmetry in $`x`$ direction is spontaneously broken.

## III Symmetry breaking in the striped Hall state

In this section, we study the self-consistent solution for the striped Hall state in the Hartree-Fock approximation. The state breaks the translation and rotational symmetry spontaneously.

We use the von Neumann lattice (vNL) base for the one-particle states. A discrete set of coherent states of guiding center coordinates,

$`(X+iY)|\alpha _{mn}=z_{mn}|\alpha _{mn},`$ (22)
$`z_{mn}=a(mr_s+i{\displaystyle \frac{n}{r_s}}),m,n;\mathrm{integers},`$ (23)
is a complete set of the $`(X,Y)`$ space. These coherent states are localized at the position $`a(mr_s,n/r_s)`$, where a positive real number $`r_s`$ is the asymmetric parameter of the unit cell. By Fourier transforming these states, we obtain the orthonormal basis in the momentum representation

$`|\beta _𝐩={\displaystyle \underset{mn}{}}e^{ip_xm+ip_yn}|\alpha _{mn}/\beta (𝐩),`$ (24)
$`\beta (𝐩)=(2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\tau )^{1/4}e^{\frac{i\tau p_y^2}{4\pi }}\vartheta _1({\displaystyle \frac{p_x+\tau p_y}{2\pi }}|\tau ),`$ (25)
where $`\vartheta _1`$ is a Jacobi’s theta function and $`\tau =ir_s^2`$. The two-dimensional lattice momentum $`𝐩`$ is defined in the Brillouin zone (BZ) $`|p_i|<\pi `$. Next we introduce a complete set in $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ space, that is the eigenstate of the one-particle free Hamiltonian,

$$\frac{m\omega _c^2}{2}(\xi ^2+\eta ^2)|f_l=\omega _c(l+\frac{1}{2})|f_l.$$
(26)
The Hilbert space is spanned by the direct product of these eigenstates

$$|l,𝐩=|f_l|\beta _𝐩,$$
(27)
where $`l`$ is the Landau level index and $`l=0`$, 1, 2, $`\mathrm{}`$. We set $`a=1`$ $`(eB=2\pi )`$ in the following calculation for simplicity.

Electron field operator is expanded by the vNL base as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{\mathrm{BZ}}\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}b_l(𝐩)𝐫|l,𝐩,$$
(28)
where $`b_l`$ is the anti-commuting annihilation operator. $`b_l(𝐩)`$ obeys the non-trivial boundary condition, $`b_l(𝐩+2\pi 𝐍)=e^{i\varphi (p,N)}b_l(𝐩)`$, where $`\varphi (p,N)=\pi (N_x+N_y)N_yp_x`$ and $`𝐍=(N_x,N_y)`$ are intergers. The Fourier transform of the density $`\rho (𝐤)=𝑑𝐫e^{i𝐤𝐫}j^0(𝐫)`$ is written as

$`\rho (𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ll^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{BZ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}b_l^{}(𝐩)b_l^{}(𝐩\widehat{𝐤})f_l|e^{ik_x\xi +ik_y\eta }|f_l^{}`$ (30)
$`\times e^{\frac{i}{4\pi }\widehat{k}_x(2p_y\widehat{k}_y)},`$
where $`\widehat{𝐤}=(r_sk_x,k_y/r_s)`$. Conserved charges are written in the momentum representation as

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{BZ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}b_l^{}(𝐩)b_l(𝐩),`$ (31)
$`Q_X`$ $`=`$ $`r_s{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{BZ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}b_l^{}(𝐩)(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_x}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_y}{2\pi }})b_l(𝐩),`$ (32)
$`Q_Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_s}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{BZ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}b_l^{}(𝐩)i{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_y}}b_l(𝐩),`$ (33)
$`Q_J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{BZ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}b_l^{}(𝐩)[l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ (35)
$`+\pi \{r_s^2(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_x}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_y}{2\pi }})^2+r_s^2(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_y}})^2\}]b_l(𝐩).`$
As seen in Eq. (33), the magnetic translation in the real space is equivalent to the magnetic translation in the momentum space. The free kinetic energy is quenched in a magnetic field and the one-particle spectrum becomes flat. Therefore the free system in a magnetic field is translationally invariant in the momentum space. We show that there exists the Fermi surface in the mean field solution for the striped Hall state. The existence of the Fermi surface indicates the violation of the translational symmetry in the momentum space or in the real space.

The mean field state is constructed as

$$|0=N_1\underset{𝐩\mathrm{F}.\mathrm{S}.}{}b_l^{}(𝐩)|\mathrm{vac},$$
(36)
where F.S. means Fermi sea, $`N_1`$ is a normalization constant, and $`|\mathrm{vac}`$ is the vacuum state in which the $`l1`$ th and lower Landau levels are fully occupied. The mean field of the two-point function for the electron field is given by

$`0|b_l^{}(𝐩)b_l^{}(𝐩^{})|0`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ll^{}}\theta (\mu ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(𝐩))`$ (38)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}(2\pi )^2\delta (𝐩𝐩^{}+2\pi 𝐍)e^{i\varphi (p,N)},`$
where $`\mu `$ is a chemical potential and one-particle energy $`ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(𝐩)`$ is determined self-consistently in the Hartree-Fock approximation. We assume that the magnetic field $`B`$ is so strong that Landau level mixing effects can be neglected. Then we use the Hamiltonian projected to the $`l`$ th Landau level

$`P_lHP_l`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _cN_e^{}(l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+H^{(l)},`$ (39)
$`H^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`P_lH_{\mathrm{int}}P_l,`$ (40)
where $`P_l`$ is the projection operator to the $`l`$ th Landau level and $`N_e^{}`$ is a number of electrons occupying the $`l`$ th Landau level. The free kinetic term is quenched and the total Hamiltonian is reduced to the Coulomb interaction term projected to the $`l`$ th Landau level, $`H^{(l)}`$.

It was shown that the mean field state with Fermi sea $`|p_y|<\pi \nu _{}`$ satisfies the self-consistency equation at the filling factor $`\nu =l+\nu _{}`$ ($`0<\nu _{}<1`$) in the Hartree-Fock approximation  and corresponds to the striped Hall state whose density is uniform in $`y`$ direction and periodic with a period $`r_s`$ in $`x`$ direction. The one-particle energy $`ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(𝐩)`$ depends only on $`p_y`$ in this self-consistent solution. The Fermi sea and corresponding charge density distribution in $`x`$-$`y`$ space are sketched in Fig. 1. The period of stripe is $`r_s`$. The electric current flows along each stripes. Note that the true charge density and current density distribution in the mean field theory are not sharp as shown in the figure but fuzzy. As seen in Fig. 1 (b), $`_xj^0`$ and $`_xj^y`$ are not zero and the magnetic translation in $`x`$-direction and rotation symmetry are spontaneously broken, but a finite magnetic translation in $`x`$-direction by the period of stripe $`r_s`$ and $`\pi `$ rotation symmetry are preserved.

Hartree-Fock energy per area for the striped Hall state is calculated as

$`E_{\mathrm{HF}}`$ $`=`$ $`0|H^{(l)}|0/L^2`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_y}{2\pi }}ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(p_y),`$ (42)
where $`L^2`$ is an area of the system. $`E_{\mathrm{HF}}`$ depends on the period of the stripe $`r_s`$ and the optimal value of $`r_s`$ is determined by minimizing $`E_{\mathrm{HF}}`$. At the filling factor $`\nu =2+\frac{1}{2}`$, the optimal value is $`r_s^{}=2.474`$.

## IV Goldstone theorem for the striped Hall state

In this section, we assume that the magnetic translation in $`x`$ direction and rotation symmetries are broken, and the magnetic translation in $`y`$ direction, finite translation in $`x`$ direction with a period $`r_s`$ and $`\pi `$ rotation are preserved in the striped Hall state. The Goldstone theorem for the striped Hall state is proven under these general assumptions.

For definite discussions, the periodic boundary condition in $`(X,Y)`$ space is imposed for $`\alpha _{mn}|\beta _𝐩`$ and $`𝐩`$ is discretized as $`𝐩=(2\pi n_x/L_x,2\pi n_y/L_y)`$, where $`n_x`$, $`n_y`$ are integers and $`L_x`$, $`L_y`$ are numbers of lattice sites in the $`x`$ direction and $`y`$ direction, respectively. Therefore the well-defined translation operators in the Hilbert space are $`e^{i2\pi n_xQ_X/r_sL_x}`$ and $`e^{i2\pi n_yr_sQ_Y/L_y}`$. For the striped Hall state, unbroken operators are $`Q`$, $`e^{i2\pi Q_X/r_sL_x}`$, $`e^{i2\pi r_sQ_Y}`$ and $`e^{i\pi Q_J}`$. Then we can specify the state using the eigenvalues of the unbroken operators as

$`H|n`$ $`=`$ $`E_n|n,`$ (43)
$`e^{i2\pi \frac{Q_X}{r_sL_x}}|n`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i2\pi \frac{Q_X^{(n)}}{r_sL_x}}|n,`$ (44)
$`e^{i2\pi r_sQ_Y}|n`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i2\pi r_sQ_Y^{(n)}}|n,`$ (45)
$`Q|n`$ $`=`$ $`N_e|n,`$ (46)
where $`n0`$ and $`|0`$ is the ground state for the striped Hall state. For the ground state $`|0`$, we can show that $`e^{i2\pi Q_X^{(0)}/r_sL_x}=\pm 1`$ and $`e^{i2\pi r_sQ_Y^{(0)}}=\pm 1`$. We can also show that $`e^{i\pi Q_J}|0=\pm |0`$ (See Appendix A). The thermodynamic limit $`L_x`$, $`L_y\mathrm{}`$ should be taken at the last stage of calculations. For example, $`Q_X`$ is defined by $`lim_{L_x\mathrm{}}\frac{r_sL_x}{2\pi i}(e^{i2\pi Q_X/r_sL_x}1)`$. Since $`Q_X`$ and $`Q_Y`$ correspond to the magnetic translation in $`y`$ and $`x`$ direction respectively, the eigenvalues $`Q_X^{(n)}`$ and $`Q_Y^{(n)}`$ are regarded as a kind of momentum in $`y`$ and $`x`$ direction respectively.

Let us show the Goldstone theorem for the striped Hall state. An expectation value for $`|0`$ of the commutation relations Eq. (19) for the broken charge $`Q_Y`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}_xj^0(𝐫,t)`$ $`=`$ $`0|[Q_Y,j^0(𝐫,t)]|0`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{}0|[j_Y^0(𝐫^{},t^{}),j^0(𝐫,t)]|0}`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle }d𝐫^{}\{0|j_Y^0(𝐫^{},t^{})|nn|j^0(𝐫,t)|0`$ (50)
$`h.c.\},`$
where $`h.c.`$ means hermitian conjugate. The left-hand side of this equation is not zero and does not depend on time $`t`$. The right-hand side of this equation is rewritten by using translation operators in $`t`$ and $`𝐫`$. Note that $`j_Y^0`$ is transformed covariantly under the magnetic translation in $`y`$ direction, that is,

$`e^{i2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }yQ_X}j_Y^0(𝐫)e^{i2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }yQ_X}`$ $`=`$ $`j_Y^0(𝐫+(0,\mathrm{\Delta }y))`$ (52)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }yj^0(𝐫+(0,\mathrm{\Delta }y)).`$
In the $`x`$ direction, we use the notation $`𝐫=(N_xr_s+\overline{x},y)`$, where $`N_x`$ is an integer and $`0<\overline{x}<r_s`$. Using the relation $`[Q,j^0]=0`$ and Eqs. (44) and (52), the right-hand side of Eq. (47) is rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{r_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{x}^{}}{r_s}}[\{0|j_Y^0((\overline{x}^{},0),0)|nn|j^0((\overline{x},0),0)|0`$ (53)
$`\times e^{i(t^{}t)(E_nE_0)}h.c.\}\delta (Q_X^{(0)}Q_X^{(n)})\delta _{\frac{1}{r_s}}(Q_Y^{(0)}Q_Y^{(n)})`$ (54)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}\{0|j^0((\overline{x}^{},0),0)|nn|j^0((\overline{x},0),0)|0`$ (55)
$`\times e^{i(t^{}t)(E_nE_0)}+h.c.\}\delta ^{}(Q_X^{(0)}Q_X^{(n)})\delta _{\frac{1}{r_s}}(Q_Y^{(0)}Q_Y^{(n)})]`$ (56)
where $`\delta _{\frac{1}{r_s}}(Q_Y^{(0)}Q_Y^{(n)})`$ is a periodic Dirac’s delta-function with a period $`1/r_s`$. The derivative of the Dirac’s delta-function appears in the second term. We assume the completeness $`1=_n|nn|=|00|+_\alpha 𝑑𝐪|𝐪,\alpha 𝐪,\alpha |`$. Here $`|𝐪,\alpha `$ is an excited state with eigenvalues $`𝐐^{(n)}=𝐐^{(0)}+𝐪`$, $`E_n=E_0+\mathrm{\Delta }E_\alpha (𝐪)`$, and species index $`\alpha `$. Then Eq. (53) is rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _0^{r_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{x}^{}}{r_s}}[\{0|j_Y^0((\overline{x}^{},0),0)|\mathrm{𝟎},\alpha \mathrm{𝟎},\alpha |j^0((\overline{x},0),0)|0`$ (57)
$`\times e^{i(t^{}t)\mathrm{\Delta }E_\alpha (\mathrm{𝟎})}h.c.\}`$ (58)
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{q_x}}0|j^0((\overline{x}^{},0),0)|𝐪,\alpha \mathrm{𝟎},\alpha |j^0((\overline{x},0),0)|0`$ (59)
$`\times e^{i(t^{}t)\mathrm{\Delta }E_\alpha (\mathrm{𝟎})}h.c.\}_{𝐪=0}],`$ (60)
where we use the relation $`0|Q|𝐪,\alpha =0`$. The left-hand side of Eq. (47) does not depend on $`t`$ and equals Eq. (58). Hence there exists the NG mode whose excitation energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{NG}}(𝐪)`$ goes to zero as $`𝐪0`$. Since the matrix elements in Eq. (58) must not be zero, NG mode $`|𝐪,\mathrm{NG}`$ belongs to the neutral charged sector and couples with the striped Hall state through the density operator, that is,

$$𝐪,\mathrm{NG}|j^0|00,$$
(61)
in $`𝐪0`$.

This NG mode is a phonon due to breaking of a magnetic translation. NG modes (phonon) also appear in the Wigner crystal in the absence of a magnetic field. In this case, the second term in Eq. (58) is absent. It would be interesting if this term is observed in the quantum Hall system. In the next section, we investigate the excitation spectrum using the density operator $`j^0`$ which couples with the NG mode.

## V Neutral collective excitations in the striped Hall state

In this section we calculate the spectrum for a neutral collective excitation at the half-filled third Landau level using the single mode approximation. This method was used for the Liquid Helium by Feynman first  and applied to the FQHS later. The single mode approximation is successful in the FQHS because the backflow problem is absent for the electron states projected to the $`l`$ th Landau level.

First we define the Fourier transformed density operator in guiding center coordinates as

$`\rho _{}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`P_l{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫)e^{ik_xX+ik_yY}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)P_l}`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{BZ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}b_l^{}(𝐩)b_l(𝐩\widehat{𝐤})e^{\frac{i}{4\pi }\widehat{k}_x(2p_y\widehat{k}_y)}.`$ (63)
Density operator $`\rho (𝐤)`$ is related to $`\rho _{}(𝐤)`$ as $`P_l\rho (𝐤)P_l=e^{k^2/8\pi }L_l(k^2/4\pi )\rho _{}(𝐤)`$, where $`L_l`$ is the Laguerre polynomial. Using $`\rho _{}(𝐤)`$, $`H^{(l)}`$ is written as

$$H^{(l)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\rho _{}(𝐤)v_l(k)\rho _{}(𝐤),$$
(64)
where $`v_l(k)=e^{k^2/4\pi }(L_l(k^2/4\pi ))^22\pi q^2/k`$ for the Coulomb potential. It is well-known that the density operators projected to the Landau level are non-commutative, that is,

$$[\rho _{}(𝐤),\rho _{}(𝐤^{})]=2i\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{𝐤\times 𝐤^{}}{4\pi }\right)\rho _{}(𝐤+𝐤^{}).$$
(65)
Using this relation, we obtain the following commutation relations,

$`[Q_X,\rho _{}(𝐤)]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{2\pi }}\rho _{}(𝐤),`$ (66)
$`[Q_Y,\rho _{}(𝐤)]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{2\pi }}\rho _{}(𝐤).`$ (67)
Therefore the state defined by

$$|𝐤=\rho _{}(𝐤)|0$$
(68)
is an eigenstate of $`e^{i2\pi Q_X/r_sL_x}`$ and $`e^{i2\pi r_sQ_Y}`$ with eigenvalues $`e^{i2\pi (Q_X^{(0)}\frac{k_y}{2\pi })/r_sL_x}`$ and $`e^{i2\pi r_s(Q_Y^{(0)}+\frac{k_x}{2\pi })}`$ respectively. The quantum number $`𝐪`$ for the excited state is related to $`𝐤`$ as $`k_i=2\pi ϵ^{ij}q_j`$. We use the state $`|𝐤`$ as a neutral collective excitation state in the single mode approximation.

The variational excitation energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ is written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤|(H^{(l)}E_0)|𝐤}{𝐤|𝐤}}={\displaystyle \frac{f(𝐤)}{s(𝐤)}},`$ (69)
$`f(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`0|[\rho _{}(𝐤),[H^{(l)},\rho _{}(𝐤)]]|0/2N_e^{},`$ (70)
$`s(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`0|\rho _{}(𝐤)\rho _{}(𝐤)|0/N_e^{}.`$ (71)
$`s(𝐤)`$ is the so-called static structure factor. To derive these expressions, we use the relation $`f(𝐤)=f(𝐤)`$ and $`s(𝐤)=s(𝐤)`$ due to $`\pi `$ rotation symmetry. See appendix A. Using the commutation relation (65), $`f(𝐤)`$ is written as

$`f(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k^{}}{(2\pi )^2}v_l(k^{})\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{𝐤^{}\times 𝐤}{4\pi }\right)}`$ (73)
$`\times \{s(𝐤+𝐤^{})s(𝐤^{})\}`$
From Eq. (73) the variational excitation energy is calculable if we know the static structure factor $`s(𝐤)`$. Using the mean field state (36) for the striped Hall state, $`s(𝐤)`$ becomes

$`s(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{BZ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}\theta (\mu ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(p_y))`$ (76)
$`\times \{1\theta (\mu ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(p_y\widehat{k}_y))\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{N_x}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{\nu _{}}}\delta (\widehat{k}_x+2\pi N_x)\delta (\widehat{k}_y)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu _{}N_x)}{\pi N_x}}\right)^2.`$
The first term behaves as $`|k_y|/2\pi r_s\nu _{}`$ at small $`k_y`$ and periodic in $`k_y`$ direction with a period $`2\pi r_s`$. The second term has sharp peaks at $`𝐤=(2\pi N_x/r_s,0)`$. These peaks correspond to the period for the stripe of the charge density. This behavior in the static structure factor was also obtained in the numerical calculation in a small system. The numerical results for the energy spectrum $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`\nu =2+1/2`$ are shown in Figs. 2-4.

As predicted by the Goldstone theorem in the previous section, the energy spectrum obtained by the single mode approximation is gapless at $`𝐤=0`$. In fact, we can show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ behaves as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=|k_y|(Ak_x^2+Bk_y^4+\mathrm{O}(k_x^2k_y^2,k_x^4)),$$
(77)
at small $`𝐤`$ for a short-range potential. The reason for the absence of $`|k_y|^3`$ term is that the coefficient of $`|k_y|^3`$ vanishes by the condition $`\frac{E_{\mathrm{HF}}}{r_s}=0`$ at $`r_s=r_s^{}`$. For the Coulomb potential case, the logarithmic corrections are added in Eq. (77). See appendix B.

In addition to the gapless structure of the energy spectrum at $`𝐤=0`$ due to NG mode, the results obtained by the single mode approximation present more rich structure. First we notice a periodic line node structure, that is, the energy spectrum vanishes at $`k_y=2\pi N_yr_s`$. Except for $`k_x=0`$, the dispersion at line node is linear. Second we notice that the energy spectrum has cusps at $`k_y=\pi (2N_y+1)r_s`$. This is caused by the presence of the Fermi surface in the mean field state (36), which produces cusps in the first term of Eq. (76). Third the $`k_x`$ dependence of the spectrum becomes weak at the large wave number. Fourth the spectrum has distinct features in different directions. Fig. 2 shows that the spectrum in $`k_x`$ direction has a similarity with the collective excitation in FQHS which has an energy gap at any wave number and magneto-roton structure. Fig. 4 shows that the spectrum in $`k_y`$ direction has a similarity with the collective excitation in Liquid Helium which has phonon and roton spectrum. Fourth feature comes from the anisotropy of the Fermi sea. As seen in Fig. 1 (a), in $`p_x`$ direction, the electron state is fully filled and has an energy gap. Therefore the system resembles FQHS in this direction. In $`p_y`$ direction, on the other hand, there is a Fermi surface and electron state is gapless. First three features are understandable from comparison with the particle-hole excitation spectrum in the Hartree-Fock approximation.

For the large wave number $`|k|>2\pi /a`$, it is expected that the excitation state becomes close to the free particle state. In the FQHS, the neutral excitation spectrum becomes close to the pair creation energy for the quasi-particle and quasi-hole. In the striped Hall state, the one-particle energy is $`ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(p_y)`$ in the Hartree-Fock approximation and the free part of Hamiltonian becomes

$$H_{\mathrm{HF}}=_{\mathrm{BZ}}\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(p_y)b_l^{}(𝐩)b_l(𝐩).$$
(78)
Therefore the excitation spectrum $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ph}}(𝐤)`$ for the state of particle-hole pair $`b_l^{}(𝐩+\widehat{𝐤})b_l(𝐩)|0`$ is bounded as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ph}}(𝐤)|ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(\pi \nu _{}+\widehat{k}_y)ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(\pi \nu _{})|.$$
(79)
$`\pi \nu _{}`$ is a Fermi wave number. Lower bound of the particle-hole excitation spectrum for $`\nu =2+1/2`$ is shown in Fig. 5.

As seen in this figure the particle-hole excitation spectrum vanishes and its slope diverges at $`k_y=\pi N_yr_s`$. See Appendix B. This singularity is caused by the divergence of Fermi velocity $`ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}/p_y`$ at Fermi momentum. The spectrum $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ and close to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ near $`k_y=2\pi N_yr_s`$ for a large wave number. The existence of the Fermi surface leads to zero of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ at $`k_y=\pi (2N_y+1)r_s`$, because the excitation energy for a hole inside the Fermi sea near the one Fermi surface and a particle outside the Fermi sea near the other Fermi surface is close to zero. The spectrum $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ near $`k_y=\pi (2N_y+1)r_s`$ and has cusps. Hence the low energy excitation is well-approximated by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ near $`k_y=2\pi N_yr_s`$ and by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ near $`k_y=\pi (2N_y+1)r_s`$. In a usual Fermi system, the single mode approximation seems not to work well because of the particle-hole excitation near the Fermi surface at low energies. In the present case, however, the low energy excitation near the Fermi surface is suppressed by the divergence of Fermi velocity at Fermi surface. Hence the single mode approximation is expected to work well in the present system.

At a finite $`k_x`$, the spectrum is linear in $`k_y`$ at small $`𝐤`$, which is similar to the one obtained by the hydrodynamics of quantum Hall smectics. At $`k_x=0`$, however, the spectrum is proportional to $`k_y^5`$, which disagrees with the results in the hydrodynamics of quantum Hall smectics. This discrepancy may be resolved by higher order correction to the static structure factor or by modifying the effective Hamiltonian in the hydrodynamics. At large $`𝐤`$, in which the hydrodynamic theory cannot be applied, the periodic line node structure is found in the single mode approximation for the first time.

## VI Summary

We have studied neutral collective excitations in the striped Hall state. The Goldstone theorem has been proved in a system with the magnetic translation symmetry. We have obtained the neutral excitation spectrum in the striped Hall state using the single mode approximation. The spectrum has a new rich structure. The neutral collective mode includes the NG mode due to spontaneous breaking of magnetic translation symmetry. The spectrum is highly anisotropic, that is, the dispersion in $`k_x`$ direction is similar to that of FQHS and the dispersion in $`k_y`$ is similar to that of Liquid Helium. The spectrum is compared with the particle-hole excitation spectrum. The former has line nodes with a linear dispersion and the latter has line nodes with a diverging Fermi velocity. We hope these excitations will be observed in experiments for the evidence of the striped Hall state.

###### Acknowledgements.

Two of the authors (T. A. and N. M.) thank A. Dorsey and W. Pan for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by the special Grant-in-Aid for Promotion of Education and Science in Hokkaido University provided by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sport, and Culture, Japan, and by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority area of Research (B) (Dynamics of Superstrings and Field Theories, Grant No. 13135201) from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sport, and Culture, Japan.

## A

In this appendix, we prove the relation $`e^{i\pi Q_J}|0=\pm |0`$, $`f(𝐤)=f(𝐤)`$ and $`s(𝐤)=s(𝐤)`$ for the striped Hall state. As seen in Eq. (33), the generator for rotation is a free kinetic energy in a uniform magnetic field in the momentum space. Therefore it is convenient to expand the operator $`b_l(𝐩)`$ by the eigenstate of the free kinetic energy as

$`b_l(𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_{ll^{}}\psi _l^{}(𝐩),`$ (A1)
$`𝐃^2\psi _l^{}(𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}(l^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\psi _l^{}(𝐩),`$ (A2)
where $`𝐃=(r_s(i\frac{}{p_x}\frac{p_y}{2\pi }),r_s^1i\frac{}{p_y})`$, $`\psi _l^{}(𝐩)`$ is given by

$`\psi _l^{}(𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`N_l^{}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}H_l^{}({\displaystyle \frac{r_s(p_y+2\pi (n+\frac{1}{2}))}{\sqrt{2\pi }}})`$ (A4)
$`\times e^{\frac{r_s^2}{4\pi }(p_y+2\pi (n+\frac{1}{2}))^2}e^{i(n+\frac{1}{2})p_x+i\pi n},`$
$`N_l^{}`$ is a normalization constant, $`H_l`$ is the Hermite polynomial, and $`\psi _l^{}`$ has a symmetry $`\psi _l^{}(𝐩)=(1)^{l^{}+1}\psi _l^{}(𝐩)`$. Using this new base, $`Q_J`$ reads

$$Q_J=\underset{ll^{}}{}b_{ll^{}}^{}(l+l^{}+1)b_{ll^{}}.$$
(A5)
Then we obtain the following relation,

$`e^{i\pi Q_J}b_l(𝐩)e^{i\pi Q_J}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}}{}}b_{ll^{}}e^{i\pi (l+l^{}+1)}\psi _l^{}(𝐩)`$ (A6)
$`=`$ $`(1)^lb_l(𝐩).`$ (A7)
Since the Fermi sea for the striped Hall state is invariant under the $`\pi `$ rotation, the ground state $`|0`$ is an eigenstate of $`e^{i\pi Q_J}`$ with an eigenvalue $`1`$ or $`1`$. Using Eq. (A6), one can prove that

$`e^{i\pi Q_J}\rho _{}(𝐤)e^{i\pi Q_J}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{}(𝐤),`$ (A8)
$`e^{i\pi Q_J}H^{(l)}e^{i\pi Q_J}`$ $`=`$ $`H^{(l)}.`$ (A9)
Inserting $`e^{i\pi Q_J}`$ and $`e^{i\pi Q_J}`$ in the definition of $`f(𝐤)`$ and $`s(𝐤)`$, one can prove that $`f(𝐤)=f(𝐤)`$ and $`s(𝐤)=s(𝐤)`$ using Eq. (A8).

## B

In this appendix, we show that the anisotropic behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ in Eq. (77) comes from the condition $`\frac{E_{\mathrm{HF}}}{r_s}=0`$.

Using the Fourier series expansion, the one-particle energy $`ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(p_y)`$ and the Hartree-Fock energy are written as

$`ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(p_y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}v_{\mathrm{HF}}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n}{r_s}}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{inp_y}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{2}n}{\pi n}},`$ (B1)
$`E_{\mathrm{HF}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}v_{\mathrm{HF}}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n}{r_s}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{2}n}{\pi n}}\right)^2,`$ (B2)
$`v_{\mathrm{HF}}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`v_l(k){\displaystyle d^2rv_l(2\pi r)e^{i𝐤\times 𝐫}}.`$ (B3)
Furthermore, using Eq. (76), $`f(𝐤)`$ in Eq. (73) is written as

$`f(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{odd}}{}}\{v_{\mathrm{HF}}(\sqrt{({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n}{r_s}}+k_x)^2+k_y^2)}v_{\mathrm{HF}}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n}{r_s}})\}`$ (B5)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{nk_y}{2r_s}}{\pi n}}\right)^2.`$
At $`k_x=0`$ and small $`k_y`$, it is easy to see that the coefficient of $`k_y^4`$ is proportional to $`\frac{E_{\mathrm{HF}}}{r_s}`$. Therefore $`\frac{E_{\mathrm{HF}}}{r_s}=0`$ leads to vanishing of the coefficient of $`k_y^4`$ at $`k_x=0`$ and the lowest order is $`k_y^6`$ at $`k_x=0`$. Since $`s(𝐤)`$ is proportional to $`|k_y|`$ at small $`k_y`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=\frac{f(𝐤)}{s(𝐤)}`$ behaves as $`|k_y|^5`$ at $`k_x=0`$ and small $`k_y`$.

Note that $`v_{\mathrm{HF}}(𝐤)`$ behaves as $`1/k`$ at large $`k`$ for the Coulomb potential. Hence the slope of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{HF}}(p_y)`$ at $`p_y=\pm \pi /2`$ diverges logarithmically in Eq. (B1). In Eq. (B5), the Fourier transformation of $`\mathrm{O}(k_x^2,k_y^2)n^5`$ with respect to $`k_y`$ results in a term of $`\mathrm{O}(k_x^2,k_y^2)k_y^4\mathrm{log}|k_y|`$. Therefore the correction of $`\mathrm{O}(k_x^2,k_y^2)|k_y|^3\mathrm{log}|k_y|`$ is added in Eq. (77) for the Coulomb potential.