text:
# Quantum Key Distribution over 67 km with a plug&play system

## I Introduction

Quantum cryptography or, more exactly, quantum key distribution (QKD) is the most advanced subject in the field of quantum information technologies. Since the introduction of the BB84 protocol by Bennett and Brassard in 1984  and their first implementation in 1992, many experiments have been performed by numerous groups (see e.g.  for a review). However, to our knowledge, all experiments to date were performed in laboratories or used laboratory equipment (e.g. liquid nitrogen cooled the detectors) or needed frequent alignments (e.g. control of polarisation or phase). In this paper, we present a turn-key, fibre-optic QKD-prototype that fits into two 19” boxes, one for Alice and one for Bob (see Fig.1). We tested the stability of the auto-compensating plug&play system  over installed terrestrial and aerial cables. Keys were exchanged over a distance of 67 km.

We start with a short introduction to the plug&play auto-compensating setup, before describing the features of the prototype. We then recall the relevant parameters of a QKD system and shortly discuss some security issues. Finally the results of the field tests are presented.

## II Plug&Play Prototype

Let’s recall the principle of the so called plug&play auto-compensating setup , where the key is encoded in the phase between two pulses travelling from Bob to Alice and back (see Fig. 2). A strong laser pulse (@1550 nm) emitted at Bob is separated at a first 50/50 beamsplitter (BS). The two pulses impinge on the input ports of a polarisation beamsplitter (PBS), after having travelled through a short arm and a long arm, including a phase modulator (PMB) and a 50 ns delay line (DL), respectively. All fibres and optical elements at Bob are polarisation maintaining. The linear polarisation is turned by 90 degrees in the short arm, therefore the two pulses exit Bob’s setup by the same port of the PBS. The pulses travel down to Alice, are reflected on a Faraday-mirror, attenuated and come back orthogonally polarized. In turn, both pulses now take the other path at Bob and arrive at the same time at the BS where they interfere. Then, they are detected either in D1, or after passing through the circulator (C) in D2. Since the two pulses take the same path, inside Bob in reversed order, this interferometer is auto-compensated. To implement the BB84 protocol, Alice applies a phase shift of $`0`$ or $`\pi `$ and $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ or $`\frac{3\pi }{2}`$ on the second pulse with PMA. Bob chooses the measurement basis by applying a $`0`$ or $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ shift on the first pulse on its way back.

The prototype is easy to use. The two boxes just have to be connected via an optical fibre. They are exclusively driven by two computers via the USB port. The two computers communicate via a ethernet/internet link. The system monitors on-line the temperature of the detectors, radiators and cases. The photon counters are Peltier-cooled, actively gated, InGaAs/InP APD’s . The darkcount noise of the detectors is measured during the initialization (the darkcount probability p$`_{dark\text{ }}`$is $``$10-5 per gate). Although the setup needs no optical alignment, the phases and the detection gates must be applied at the right time. Therefore, the system measures in a next step the length of the link (the operator has only to estimate the line’s length at more or less 5 km). The variable attenuator (VA) at Alice is set to a low level and bright laser pulses are emitted by Bob. The time delay between the triggering of the laser and a train of gates of the detectors is scanned until the reflected pulses are detected. The delays for the two 2.5 ns detection gates are adjusted, as well as the timing for the 50 ns pulse applied on the phasemodulator PM$`_{B\text{ }}`$. In the plug&play scheme, where pulses travel back and forth, (Rayleigh) backscattered light can considerably increase the noise. Therefore, the laser is not continuously pulsed, but trains of pulses are sent, the length of these trains corresponding to the length of the storage-line introduced for this purpose behind the attenuator at Alice’s. Consequently, the backward propagating pulses do no longer cross bright pulses in the fibre. For a storage line measuring approximately 10 km, a pulse train contains 480 pulses at a frequency of 5 MHz. A 90% coupler (BS10/90) directs most of the incoming light pulses to a APD-detector module (DA). It generates the trigger signal used to synchronise Alice’s 20 Mhz clock with the one of Bob. This synchronized clock allows Alice to apply a 50 ns pulse at the phasemodulator PMA exactly when the second, weaker pulse passes. Only this second pulse contains phase information and must be attenuated below the one-photon-per-pulse level. Measuring the height of the incoming pulses with DA would allow to adjust the attenuator in order to obtain the right average number of photons per outgoing pulse. For this purpose, the attenuator and the detector must be calibrated beforehand. In practice, we measure the incoming power with a power-metre. Random numbers are generated on both sides with a quantum random number generator . At Bob, clicks from each of the photon counters are written together with the index of the pulse into a buffer and transferred to the computer.

As a measure of security, the number of coincident clicks at both detectors is registered, which is important to limit beamsplitting attacks (see below). Morover, the incoming power at Alice is continuously measured with DA, in order to detect so called Trojan horse attacks.

## III Key parameters in QKD

### III.1 Key and error rates

The first important parameter is the raw key rate $`R_{raw}`$ between Alice, the transmitter, and Bob, the receiver:

$$R_{raw}=q\nu \mu t_{AB}t_B\eta _B$$
(1)
where $`q`$ depends on the implementation ($`\frac{1}{2}`$ for BB84 protocol, because half the time Alice and Bob bases are not compatible), $`\nu `$ is the repetition frequency, $`\mu `$ is the average number of photons per pulse, $`t_{AB}`$ is the transmission on the line Alice-Bob, $`t_B`$ is Bob’s internal transmission ($`t_B0.6`$) and $`\eta _B`$ is Bob’s detection efficiency ($`\eta _B0.1`$).

After $`R_{raw}`$ the second most important parameter is the quantum bit error rate (QBER) which consists of four major contributions:

$$QBER=\frac{falsecounts}{totalcounts}=QBER_{opt}+QBER_{dark}+QBER_{after}+QBER_{stray}$$
(2)
$`QBER_{opt}`$ is simply the probability for a photon to hit the false detector. It can be measured with strong pulses, by always applying the same phases and measuring the ratio of the count rates at the two detectors. This is a measure of the quality of the optical alignment of the polarisation maintaining components and the stability of the fibre link. In the ideal case, $`QBER_{opt}`$ is independent of the fibre length. $`QBER_{dark}`$ and $`QBER_{after}`$, the errors due to darkcounts and afterpulses, depend on the characteristics of the photon counters. $`QBER_{dark}`$ is the most important, it is the probability to have a darkcount per gate $`p_{dark}`$, divided by the probability to have a click $`p_{det}`$.

$$QBER_{dark}\frac{p_{dark}}{\mu t_{AB}t_B\eta _B}$$

$`QBER_{dark}`$ increases with the distance and consequently limits the range of QKD. $`QBER_{after}`$ is the probability to have an after pulse $`p_{after}(t)`$ summed over all gates between to detections:

$$QBER_{after}\underset{n=0}{\overset{n=\frac{1}{p_{det}}}{}}p_{after}\left(\tau +n\frac{1}{\nu }\right)$$
(3)
$`p_{after}`$, depending on the type of APD and on the temperature, decreases rapidly with time. Nevertheless for high pulse rates ($`\nu `$= 5 MHz) $`QBER_{after}`$ can become significant. For instance, for $`p_{det}=0.15\%`$ (corresponding to about 7 dB loss with $`\mu =0.1)`$ we measured a $`QBER_{after}`$ of about 4%. By introducing a dead time $`\tau `$ of 4 $`\mu s`$ (during this time, following a detection, no gates are applied), $`QBER_{after}`$ can be reduced to 1.5%. The bit rate $`R_{raw}`$ on the contrary, is only slightly reduced by a factor $`\eta _\tau `$:

$$\eta _\tau =\frac{1}{1+\nu p_{det}\tau }1$$
(4)
In this example, $`\eta _\tau `$ becomes 0.97 and 0.92, for 4 and 12 $`\mu s,`$ respectively. In our prototype the deadtime can be varied between 0 and 12 $`\mu s.`$ The optimum deadtime varies as a function of distance, in our measurements, however, we applied a constant deadtime of 4 $`\mu s.`$ Finally, $`QBER_{stray}`$, the errors induced by stray-light, essentially Rayleigh back-scattered light, is a problem proper to the plug&play setup. It can be almost completely removed with the help of Alice’s storage line and by sending trains of pulses as mentioned above. However, we have to introduce another factor $`\eta _{duty}`$ that reduces our bit rate. It gives the duty cycle of the emitted pulse-trains and depends on the length of Alice’s delay line $`l_D`$ and the length of the fibre link $`l_{AB}`$:

$$\eta _{duty}=\frac{l_D}{l_{AB}+l_D}$$
(5)
Hence with our prototype we can expect a raw rate of $`R_{raw}`$ of about:

$$R_{raw}=q\nu \mu t_{AB}t_B\eta _B\eta _{duty}\eta _\tau 140kHz\left(\mu t_{AB}\frac{l_D}{l_{AB}+l_D}\right)$$
(6)
### III.2 Error correction, privacy amplification and eavesdropping

The net secret key rate is further reduced during the error correction and privacy amplification process by a factor of $`\eta _{dist}`$. We didn’t implement error correction and privacy amplification for our field tests, but we would like to estimate roughly the net key rate that could be obtained with our system. In theory, $`\eta _{dist}`$ is simply given as the difference between the mutal information of Alice and Bob, $`I_{AB}`$, and Alice and Eve, $`I_{AE}`$:

$$\eta _{dist}=I_{AB}(D)I_{AE}$$
(7)
Due to the errors, $`I_{AB}`$ is smaller than 1. It is a function of the disturbance $`D`$, which is equal to the total $`QBER`$:

$$I_{AB}=1+Dlog_2D+(1D)log_2(1D)$$
(8)
In the following we estimate the information of Eve, $`I_{AE}`$. In the line of Felix et.al.  we make the following assumptions:

\- The measured QBER should, within the statistical limits, be equal to what is estimated according eq.2. If this is not the case, a real user won’t proceed and blindly apply privacy amplification, he will stop the key exchange and look for the problem. If the QBER is within these limits, we attribute to Eve the $`QBER_{opt}`$ ($``$0.5%) plus the error (2$`\sigma )`$ of the error estimation ($`0.5\%`$ for reasonably long keys), say 1% in total. In the case of perfect equipment of the eavesdropper and true single photon source this error corresponds to an information of $`\frac{2}{ln2}1\%3\%`$.

\- In the case of faint laser pulses and especially in the presence of high fibre losses, Eve can take advantage of multi-photon pulses and gain information while creating less or no errors. In this case, it is important to measure the length of the line and to register coincident clicks at Bob’s two detectors in order to limit Eve’s possibilities. We assume that Eve possesses perfect technology, but cannot efficiently measure the number of photons without disturbing them and cannot store them. Further, she disposes of fibers with losses as low as 0.15dB/km. Under these assumptions one can calculate Eve’s information per bit due to multi-photon pulses $`I_{2\nu }`$ and obtains about 0.06, 0.14 and 0.40 for, 5, 10 and 20 dB loss, respectively (for $`\mu =0.2`$ , 0.25dB/km fiber loss and 108 pulses sent). Consequently, we obtain

$$I_{AE}0.03+I_{2\nu }$$
(9)
With equations 7,8 and 9 we can caluclate a theoretical value of $`\eta _{dist}`$. In practice, $`\eta _{dist}`$ will be smaller due to the limitations of the used algorithm. Privacy amplification can be performed without additional bit loss in contrary to error correction. For our estimation, we use the results of Tancewsky et al  for $`I_{AB}^{}`$ after error correction

$$I_{AB}^{}=1+Dlog_2D\frac{7}{2}D$$
(10)
which is in fact considerably smaller than $`I_{AB}.`$ The information of Eve $`I_{AE}`$ is reduced by the same factor $`\frac{I_{AB}^{}}{I_{AB}}`$, too. Finally, we obtain the following estimation of $`R_{net}`$:

$`R_{net}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{dist}R_{raw}(I_{AB}I_{AE}){\displaystyle \frac{I_{AB}^{}}{I_{AB}}}R_{raw}`$ (11)
$``$ $`\left[1+Dlog_2D{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}D(0.03+I_{2\nu })(1(1D)log_2(1D){\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}D)\right]R_{raw}`$ (12)
## IV Field measurements

### IV.1 Visibilities

In principle the prototype can be tested in the lab by performing key exchange with different fibre losses and compare the measured QBER and bit rates with the estimated values according to the simple formulas developed above. There are two motivations for field tests on installed cables. The first reason is to check, if the auto-compensating setup is robust in many different situations. Several effects could reduce the visibility of the interference. First, we have previously shown that Faraday rotation due to the earth magnetic field cannot considerably decrease the visibility . Second, the time delay between the two pulses, travelling back and forth between Alice and Bob, could change due to a temperature drift. Let’s assume that the temperature of the fiber increases with a rate $`\theta \left[\frac{K}{h}\right].`$ The time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ between the two pulses is 54ns. If $`\theta `$ is constant for the whole trip of the pulses, the second pulse will see a fibre that is longer by $`\mathrm{\Delta }l:`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }l}{l}=\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }T$$
(13)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }l=\alpha 2l_{AB}\mathrm{\Delta }T=\alpha 2l_{AB}\theta \mathrm{\Delta }t$$
(14)
With $`\alpha =10^5\left[\frac{1}{K}\right],`$ $`l_{AB}=50km,`$ $`\theta =10\left[\frac{K}{h}\right]`$ we obtain $`150pm\lambda .`$ Hence this effect should be negligable especially since installed fibres have slow temperature drifts. On the contrary, slow temperature induced length drifts can be large enough that frequent readjustment of Bob’s delay become necessary. In fact, we noticed that during the heating up of Alice’s box within the first hour of operation, the changes in the delay line require a recalibration every 10 minutes or so. However, a bad synchronisation of the detection window does not affect $`QBER_{opt}`$. Finally, mechanical stress could change the fiber length and/or birefringence. If the birefringence changes rapidly, the pulses are no longer orthogonally polarized at the input of Bob, despite the Faraday mirror. In this case the two pulses might suffer different losses at Bob’s polarizing beamsplitter and the interference will no longer be perfect. Rapid changes in stress are unlikely in installed cables, a couple of meters below the surface. For this reason we tested the prototype also over an aerial cable. We had at our disposition two fibres of 4.35 km length, whereof 2.5 km in an aerial cable. In order to amplify a hypothetical effect we put Alice and Bob side by side and passed twice through the cable (config. A). In configuration B we inserted 1 spool of about 15 km at the other end of the cable. Hence, the pulses made the following trip: Bob, the aerial cable, 15 km spool, the aerial cable, 15 km Alice with her 10 km storage line and back.

To measure the visibilities we send relatively strong pulses (a couple of photons per pulse) with always the same, compatible phase values and look at the counts on the two detectors, $`R_{right}`$ and $`R_{wrong}`$ (substracting the counts due to detector noise). We obtain then the fringe visibility according to the standard definition:

$$V=\frac{R_{right}R_{wrong}}{R_{right}+R_{wrong}}$$
(15)
and the corresponding $`QBER_{opt}`$:

$$QBER_{opt}=\frac{1V}{2}$$
(16)
Table 1 summerises the result of visibility measurements over different cables. The indicated visibilities are the mean values over all four possible compatible phase settings. There was no considerable decrease of the visibility in any fibre, hence the auto-compensating interferometers worked well under all tested conditions.

fibre length \[km\] loss \[dB\] Visibility \[%\]    Geneva-Nyon (under lake) 22.0 4.8 99.70 $`\pm `$ 0.03  Geneva-Nyon (terrestrial) 22.6 7.4 99.81 $`\pm `$ 0.03  Nyon-Lausanne (terrestrial) 37.8 10.6 99.63 $`\pm `$ 0.05  Geneva-Lausanne (under lake) A 67.1 14.4 99.62 $`\pm `$ 0.06  Geneva-Lausanne (under lake) B 67.1 14.3 99.66 $`\pm `$ 0.05  Ste Croix (aerial) A 8.7 3.8 99.70 $`\pm `$ 0.01  Ste Croix (aerial) B 23.7 7.2 99.71 $`\pm `$ 0.01

Table 1: Visibility measurements on different fibres

We tried to simulate an extremely unstable fibre link in the lab. For this purpose, we put a fibre-optical polarisation scrambler (GAP-optique) at the output of Bob followed by 25 km of fibre. We measured the visibility as function of the scrambler frequency. This frequency is defined as the number of complete circles that the vector of polarisation would describe per second on the Poincaré sphere, if the birefringence changed uniformly. The visibility drops from 99.7% to 99.5% and 98% at frequencies of 40 Hz and 100 Hz respectively. This shows that the visibilities can decrease under rapid perturbations, however, it’s unlikely to find such conditions using installed fibres.

### IV.2 Key exchange

We performed key exchange over different installed cables, the longest connecting the cities of Lausanne and Geneva (see Fig.3). We used always the same file of random numbers, in a way that Bob could make the sifting and calculation of error rate without communication. We estimated the net key rate using equation (11). Table 2 gives an overview of the exchanged keys with $`\mu =0.2`$.

| fibre | length \[km\] | Key \[kbit\] | R$`{}_{raw}{}^{}[kHz]`$ | QBER \[%\] | R$`{}_{net}{}^{}[kHz]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Geneva-Nyon (under lake) | 22.0 | 27.9 | 2.06 | 2.0$`\pm 0.1`$ | 1.51 |
| Geneva-Nyon (terrestrial) | 22.6 | 27.5 | 2.02 | 2.1$`\pm 0.1`$ | 1.39 |
| Nyon-Lausanne (terrestrial) | 37.8 | 25.1 | 0.50 | 3.9$`\pm 0.2`$ | 0.26 |
| Geneva-Lausanne (under lake) A | 67.1 | 12.9 | 0.15 | 6.1$`\pm 0.4`$ | 0.044 |
| Geneva-Lausanne (under lake) B | 67.1 | 12.9 | 0.16 | 5.6$`\pm 0.3`$ | 0.051 |
| Ste Croix (aerial) A | 8.7 | 63.8 | 6.29 | 3.0$`\pm 0.1`$ | 4.34 |
| Ste Croix (aerial) B | 23.7 | 117.6 | 2.32 | 3.0$`\pm 0.1`$ | 1.57 |

Table 2: Overview of exchanged keys over different fibres ($`\mu =0.2)`$.

We notice that secure key exchange is possible over more than 60 km with about 50 Hz of net key rate.

## Conclusion

We presented a QKD prototype, which can be simply plugged into the wall, connected to a standard optical fibre and a computer via the USB port. It allows key exchange over more than 60 km, with a net key rate of about 60 bits per second. The system is commercially available .

## V Figures

Figure 1: Picture of the p&p system

Figure 2: Schematic of the p&p prototype

Figure 3: Satellite view of Lake Geneva with the cities of Geneva, Nyon and Lausanne.

## VI Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Michel Peris and Christian Durussel from Swisscom for giving us access to their fibre links, as well as Laurent Guinnard and Mario Pasquali for their help with the software and firmware, Jean-Daniel Gautier and Claudio Barreiro for their help with the electronics. Finally, we thank Régis Caloz for the satellite picture. This work was supported by the Esprit project 28139 (EQCSPOT) through Swiss OFES and the NCCR ”Quantum Photonics.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

String theory has given us an understanding of the dimension of spacetime as a crucial concept for building consistent quantum mechanical theories. This insight has been further strengthened with the introduction of supersymmetry, since the size of spinors depends not only on the size of spacetime but also on the possibility to implement the Majorana and the Weyl conditions. The little group for the superstring is $`SO(8)`$. This is really one of the most beautiful and unique groups. Its Dynkin diagram is the famous Mercedes symbol, and the group is really the Mercedes of the orthogonal groups. It has a triality symmetry and its three eight-dimensional vector, spinor and cospinor representations are readily interchangeable. In the light cone formulation of the superstring it is these three representations that build up the theory and in quantum calculations there are marvellous cancellations between the bosonic and fermionic contributions that render the theory perturbatively finite.

From this viewpoint the emergence of M-theory as an even more general theory was unexpected. Can one find some group-theoretic reasons why an eleven-dimensional spacetime should make special sense. The classic reason is that it is the maximal one to carry a supermultiplet with the graviton as the highest spin field. Can one argue for it from the point of view of the little group $`SO(9)`$? Its Dynkin diagram does not carry the same beauty as that of $`SO(8)`$. There is no symmetry in it and we know of no cars using it as a symbol, not even the Trabant. (We apologize to our good friends in Eastern Germany). However, $`SO(9)`$ is also a beautiful group in the sense of having a wealth of internal relations between the irreps, again making it a strong candidate for a fundamental symmetry. It was discovered by Ramond  that some of its irreps naturally group together into triplets which are such that bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom match up. In fact there is an infinity of triplets with identical properties to the smallest one, which is the supergravity multiplet of eleven dimensions. This makes the triplets interesting not only from a mathematical point of view but also from a quantum physical one. In a higher order loop calculation in a supersymmetric theory there are huge cancellations between the fermionic and the bosonic contributions since their contributions can be written in terms of group theoretic indices related to the little group which match up . Exactly the same kind of matching occurs in fact for all the triplets, making them candidates for a quantum theory extending supergravity.

The higher triplets involve higher spin massless fields. A problem in string theory not fully understood is what happens in the limit of infinite Regge slope, i.e. the zero-tension limit. Here all fields will be massless and will have arbitrarily high spins. No natural solution to this problem has been found in ten dimensions so it is interesting to ask if one could find a natural theory in eleven dimensions with massless fields of arbitrary spin. We now have candidates among the triplets mentioned above. An interesting question is what happens to the symmetries of a massive theory when all particles become massless. Usually the linearly realized symmetry is enhanced as it happens when a spontaneously broken symmetry is restored. The gauge invariance will be restored as usual but what would happen to the (spacetime) supersymmetry of the string? It would not be changed if it is a global symmetry, but for higher spins it will be a local symmetry coupled to reparametrization and to higher spin field symmetry so we expect it to be part of a restored symmetry. Will it be enlarged? We do not know but it seems likely that, if there is a fundamental theory for the massless fields, they should all be connected. If we treat this theory in the light cone gauge all symmetries should be global and the only supersymmetry that could connect an infinite representation irreducibly occurs when the order N of the supersymmetry goes to infinity. In the sequel we will show another kind of symmetry and infinite irreps that are connected to the triplets above which is a generalization of supersymmetry.

Since the discovery of the triplets there has been great progress in the mathematical understanding of their beautiful properties . The punch line is that this phenomenon occurs when there is a subgroup with the same rank as the full group. In the case above $`SO(9)`$, alias $`B_4`$, is a subgroup of $`F_4`$ with the same rank, and the quotient space $`F_4/B_4`$ has Euler number three giving a triplet of $`SO(9)`$ to every irrep of $`F_4`$. We have elsewhere  listed the cases with up to 16-dimensional cosets and in this list we find multiplets with the above properties, extending the multiplets of besides the 11-dimensional supergravity also $`N=8`$ supergravity, $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills and the $`N=2`$ hypermultiplet. There is a beautiful equation due to Kostant  which is a Dirac-like equation on the coset, which has as solutions the multiplets.

It is quite interesting that the exceptional algebra $`F_4`$ enters into the description of an 11-dimensional theory. We have seen the exceptional groups emerge as gauge groups and there is a direct line from the gauge group of the Standard Model via $`SU(5)=E_4`$ and $`SO(10)=E_5`$ up to the ultimate exceptional group $`E_8`$, the Volvo of the groups. So far there has not been any trace of exceptional groups extending the space time symmetry. There is a simple reason for this since they relate tensor and spinor representations of their orthogonal subgroups, while spin statistics treat them differently. However, the exceptional groups are the most unique and beautiful ones and it is many physicists’ dream that they represent the ultimate symmetry of the world. In the preceding report Pierre Ramond outlined our study of the case $`F_4/SO(9)`$. In this report I will then discuss in quite some detail the simpler case of $`SU(3)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$, which we interpret as a model for higher spin massless fields in four dimensions, generalizing the $`N=2`$ hypermultiplet.

One question that will arise is if we should use all triplets as a candidate theory or if there is a natural selection among them. In this report we show a method where we define a superfield which naturally has an equal number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom and is a natural extension of the superfield containing the smallest multiplet. We will use a light-cone frame formulation which will tie together the superspace with the external symmetry. We will show that the infinite superfield which is a solution to Kostant’s equation is a representation of a new infinitely extended superalgebra.

## 2 Euler Triplets for $`SU(3)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$

In the following, we present a detailed analysis of the Euler triplets associated with the coset $`SU(3)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$. There is an infinity of Euler triplets which are solutions of Kostant’s equation associated with the coset. The most trivial solution describes the light-cone degrees of freedom of the $`N=2`$ hypermultiplet in four dimensions, when the $`U(1)`$ is interpreted as helicity. Hence we begin by reminding the reader of the well-known light-cone description of that multiplet.

### 2.1 The $`N=2`$ Hypermultiplet in 4 Dimensions

The massless $`N=2`$ scalar hypermultiplet contains two Weyl spinors and two complex scalar fields, on which the $`N=2`$ SuperPoincaré algebra is realized. Introduce the light-cone Hamiltonian

$$P^{}=\frac{p\overline{p}}{p^+},$$
(2.1)
where $`p=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(p^1+ip^2).`$ The front-form supersymmetry generators satisfy the anticommutation relations

$`\{𝒬_+^m,\overline{𝒬}_+^n\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta ^{mn}p^+,`$
$`\{𝒬_{}^m,\overline{𝒬}_{}^n\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta ^{mn}{\displaystyle \frac{p\overline{p}}{p^+}},m,n=1,2,`$ (2.2)
$`\{𝒬_+^m,\overline{𝒬}_{}^n\}`$ $`=`$ $`2p\delta ^{mn}.`$
The kinematic supersymmetries are expressed as

$$𝒬_+^m=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}\theta _mp^+,\overline{𝒬}_+^m=\frac{}{\theta ^m}+\overline{\theta }_mp^+,$$
(2.3)
while the kinematic Lorentz generators are given by

$`M^{12}`$ $`=`$ $`i(x\overline{p}\overline{x}p)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }^m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}},`$ (2.4)
$`M^+`$ $`=`$ $`x^{}p^+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta _m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _m}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\theta }^m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}},`$
$`M^+`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(M^{+1}+iM^{+2})=xp^+,\overline{M}^+=\overline{x}p^+,`$
where $`x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^1+ix^2)`$, and where the two complex Grassmann variables satisfy the anticommutation relations

$`\{\theta _m,{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _n}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\overline{\theta }^m,{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^n}}\}=\delta ^{mn},`$
$`\{\theta _m,{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^n}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\overline{\theta }^m,{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _n}}\}=0.`$
The (free) Hamiltonian-like supersymmetry generators are simply

$$𝒬_{}^m=\frac{\overline{p}}{p^+}𝒬_+^m,\overline{𝒬}_{}^m=\frac{p}{p^+}\overline{𝒬}_+^m,$$
(2.5)
and the light-cone boosts are given by

$`M^{}`$ $`=`$ $`x^{}p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{x,P^{}\}+i{\displaystyle \frac{p}{p^+}}\theta _m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _m}},`$ (2.6)
$`\overline{M}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`x^{}\overline{p}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\overline{x},P^{}\}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{p}}{p^+}}\overline{\theta }^m{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}}.`$
This representation of the superPoincaré algebra is reducible, as it can be seen to act on reducible superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^{},x^i,\theta _m,\overline{\theta }^m)`$, because the operators

$$𝒟_+^m=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}\theta _mp^+,$$
(2.7)
anticommute with the supersymmetry generators. As a result, one can achieve irreducibility by acting on superfields for which

$$𝒟_+^m\mathrm{\Phi }=[\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^m}\theta _mp^+]\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(2.8)
solved by the chiral superfield

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{},x^i,\theta _m)=\psi _0(y^{},x^i)+\theta _m\psi ^m(y^{},x^i)+\theta _1\theta _2\psi ^{12}(y^{},x^i).$$
(2.9)
The field entries of the scalar hypermultiplet now depend on the combination

$$y^{}=x^{}i\theta _m\overline{\theta }^m,$$
(2.10)
and the transverse variables. Acting on this chiral superfield, the constraint is equivalent to requiring that

$$𝒬_+^m2p^+\theta _m,\overline{𝒬}_+^m\frac{}{\theta _m},$$
(2.11)
where the derivative is meant to act only on the naked $`\theta _m`$’s, not on those hiding in $`y^{}`$. This light-cone representation is well-known, but we repeat it here to set our conventions and notations.

### 2.2 Coset Construction

Let $`T^A`$ , $`A=1,2,\mathrm{}8`$, be the generators of $`SU(3)`$. Among those, $`T^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, and $`T^8`$ generate its $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ subalgebra. Introduce Dirac matrices over the coset

$$\{\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b\}=2\delta ^{ab},$$

for $`a,b=4,5,6,7`$, to define the Kostant equation over the coset $`SU(3)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$ as

$$𝒦/\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{a=4,5,6,7}{}\gamma ^aT_a\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$

The Kostant operator commutes with the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ generators

$$L_i=T_i+S_i,i=1,2,3;L_8=T_8+S_8.$$
(2.12)
These are a sum of the $`SU(3)`$ generators and the $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$spin” part, expressed in terms of the $`\gamma `$ matrices as

$$S_j=\frac{i}{4}f_{jab}\gamma ^{ab},S_8=\frac{i}{4}f_{8ab}\gamma ^{ab},$$
(2.13)
where $`\gamma ^{ab}=\gamma ^a\gamma ^b,ab,`$ and $`f_{jab},f_{8ab}`$ are structure functions of $`SU(3)`$.

The Kostant equation has an infinite number of solutions which come in groups of three representations of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$, called Euler triplets. For each representation of $`SU(3)`$, there is a unique Euler triplet, each given by three representations

$$\{a_1,a_2\}[a_2]_{\frac{2a_1+a_2+3}{6}}[a_1+a_2+1]_{\frac{a_1a_2}{6}}[a_1]_{\frac{2a_2+a_1+3}{6}},$$

where $`a_1,a_2`$ are the Dynkin labels of the associated $`SU(3)`$ representation. Here, $`[a]`$ stands for the $`a=2j`$ representation of $`SU(2)`$, and the subscript denotes the $`U(1)`$ charge. The Euler triplet corresponding to $`a_1=a_2=0`$,

$$\{0,0\}=[0]_{\frac{1}{2}}[1]_0[0]_{\frac{1}{2}},$$

describes the degrees of freedom of the $`N=2`$ supermultiplet, where the properly normalized $`U(1)`$ is interpreted as the helicity of the four-dimensional Poincaré algebra.

Below, we wish to explore the possibility of linking this supersymmetric triplet to those for which $`a_{1,2}0`$, while preserving at least relativistic invariance. Of particular interest will be the algebraic operations that link the different Euler triplets. Their use will enable us to define supersymmetry-like operations acting on the higher Euler triplets, which serve as the shadow of the light-cone supersymmetry of the lowest Euler triplet.

The $`U(1)`$ charges of the higher triplets are generally rational numbers, which means that they display parastatistics, but the triplets for which

$$a_1=a_2,\mathrm{mod}(3),$$

contain half-odd integer or integer $`U(1)`$ charges, and satisfy Fermi-Dirac statistics. A self-conjugate subset

$$\{a,a\}:[a]_{\frac{a+1}{2}}[2a+1]_0[a]_{\frac{a+1}{2}},$$

contains equal number of half-odd integer-helicity fermions and integer-helicity bosons, and satisfy CPT. As the helicity gap between the representations increases indefinitely in half integer steps, the symmetry operations that relate its members have helicities $`\pm (a+1)/2`$. When $`a=0`$, they can be identified with the usual supersymmetries, and they are fermionic as long as $`a`$ is even.

The others are generated from complex representations with $`N=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, of the form

$$\{a,a+3N\}:[a]_{\frac{a+N+1}{2}}[2a+3N+1]_{\frac{N}{2}}[a+3N]_{\frac{a+N+1}{2}}.$$

The helicity gap also increases in half integer steps, starting at one-half. Since CPT requires states of opposite helicity, these must be accompanied by their conjugates, $`\{a+3N,a\}`$, with all helicities reversed.

A special case deserves consideration: when $`a=0`$, the helicity gap can be as small as $`1/2`$, like the regular supersymmetry. The simplest example is

$$\{0,3\}:[0]_1[4]_{\frac{1}{2}}[3]_1,$$

where the helicity gap is $`3/2`$ and $`1/2`$. When we add the $`CPT`$ conjugate

$$\{3,0\}:[0]_1[4]_{\frac{1}{2}}[3]_1,$$

we end up with states separated by half a unit of helicity as in the supersymmetric multiplets. As they occur in different representations of $`SU(2)`$, equality between bosons and fermions is achieved only after including the CPT conjugate. Unlesss the $`SU(2)`$ is broken, relativistic supersymmetry cannot be implemented on these states. The case $`N=2`$ yields states of helicity $`1`$ and $`3/2`$, and $`N=3`$ contains eleven states of helicity $`2`$, and so on.

It appears that while Poincaré symmetry can be implemented on an infinite subset of Euler triplets, relativistic supersymmetry can be realized on a finite subset, and only after the $`SU(2)`$ is broken. In particular the need for operators that shift helicity by more than half units makes it unlikely that a relativistic supersymmetric theory of Euler triplets can be found.

In addition, the higher Euler triplets include states with helicities larger than $`2`$, which cannot be interpreted as massive relativistic states since they do not arrange themselves in $`SO(3)`$ representations. Hence they must be viewed as massless particles in four dimensions, leading to a theory of massless states of spin higher than $`2`$.

There are well-known difficulties with such theories. In particular, they do not have covariant energy momentum tensors, and in the flat space limit they must decouple from the gravitational sector, although these no-go theorems do not apply if there is an infinite number of particles, and there exist theories which circumvent them. Our purpose is to investigate if a relativistic theory can be formulated with an infinite number of Euler multiplets, in which a light-cone version of a new type of space-time fermionic symmetry is present.

### 2.3 Grassmann Numbers and Dirac Matrices

In order to use the superfield technique we will identify the spin part of the $`U(1)`$ generator $`S_8`$ with the spin part in Equ. (2.4) taking the condition (2.8) into account. This will mean that we write also $`S_i`$ in terms of the $`\theta ^{}s`$. An appropriate representation is then

$`\gamma ^4+i\gamma ^5`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}𝒬_+^1,\gamma ^4i\gamma ^5=i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}\overline{𝒬}_+^1`$ (2.14)
$`\gamma ^6+i\gamma ^7`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}𝒬_+^2,\gamma ^6i\gamma ^7=i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}\overline{𝒬}_+^2,`$ (2.15)
in terms of the kinematic $`N=2`$ light-cone supersymmetry generators defined in the previous section. We can check that $`S_8`$ indeed agrees with the spin part of Equ. (2.4) (after proper normalization). As the Kostant operator anticommutes with the constraint operators

$$\{𝒦/,𝒟_+^m\}=0,$$
(2.16)
its solutions can be written as chiral superfields, on which the $`\gamma `$’s become

$`\gamma ^4+i\gamma ^5`$ $`=`$ $`2i\sqrt{2p^+}\theta _1,\gamma ^4i\gamma ^5=i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _1}}`$ (2.17)
$`\gamma ^6+i\gamma ^7`$ $`=`$ $`2i\sqrt{2p^+}\theta _2,\gamma ^6i\gamma ^7=i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p^+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _2}},`$ (2.18)
The complete $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$spin” parts of the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ generators, expressed in terms of Grassmann variables, do not depend on $`p^+`$,

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\theta _1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _2}}+\theta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _1}}),S_2={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\theta _1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _2}}\theta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _1}})`$ (2.19)
$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\theta _1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _1}}\theta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _2}}),S_8={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}(\theta _1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _1}}+\theta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _2}}1).`$ (2.20)
Using Grassmann properties, the $`SU(2)`$ Casimir operator can be written as

$$\stackrel{}{S}^2=\frac{3}{4}(\theta _1\frac{}{\theta _1}\theta _2\frac{}{\theta _2})^2;$$
(2.21)
it has only two eigenvalues, $`3/4`$ and zero. These $`SU(2)`$ generators obey a simple algebra

$$S_iS_j=\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{S}\delta _{ij}+\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{ijk}S_k.$$
(2.22)
The helicity, identified with $`S_8`$ up to a normalizing factor of $`\sqrt{3}`$, leads to half-integer helicity values on the Grassmann-odd components of the (constant) superfield representing the hypermultiplet.

### 2.4 Linear Realization of $`SU(3)`$

The $`SU(3)`$ generators can be conveniently expressed on three complex variables and their conjugates. Define for convenience the differential operators

$$_1\frac{}{z_1},\overline{}_1\frac{}{\overline{z}_1},\mathrm{etc}.,$$

in terms of which the generators are given by

$$T_1+iT_2=z_1_2\overline{z}_2\overline{}_1,T_1iT_2=z_2_1\overline{z}_1\overline{}_2,$$

$$T_4+iT_5=z_1_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_1,T_4iT_5=z_3_1\overline{z}_1\overline{}_3,$$

$$T_6+iT_7=z_2_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_2,T_6iT_7=z_3_2\overline{z}_2\overline{}_3,$$

and

$$T_3=\frac{1}{2}(z_1_1z_2_2\overline{z}_1\overline{}_1+\overline{z}_2\overline{}_2),$$

$$T_8=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}(z_1_1+z_2_2\overline{z}_1\overline{}_1\overline{z}_2\overline{}_22z_3_3+2\overline{z}_3\overline{}_3).$$

These act as hermitian operators on holomorphic functions of $`z_{1,2,3}`$ and $`\overline{z}_{1,2,3}`$, normalized with respect to the inner product

$$(f,g)d^3zd^3\overline{z}e^{_i|z_i|^2}f^{}(z,\overline{z})g(z,\overline{z}).$$

Acting on the highest-weight states, the $`SU(3)`$ quadratic Casimir operator is

$$C_2^{SU(3)}\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}T_aT_a|_{\mathrm{highest}\mathrm{weight}}=T_3(T_3+1)+T_8(T_8+\sqrt{3}).$$

The second Casimir operator is cubic, and of no concern here. Rather than labelling the representations in terms of their eigenvalues, it is more convenient to introduce the positive integer Dynkin labels $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$. We have

$$T_3|a_1,a_2>=\frac{a_1}{2}|a_1,a_2>,T_8|a_1,a_2>=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}(a_1+2a_2)|a_1,a_2>,$$

so that

$$C_2^{SU(3)}=(a_1+a_2)+\frac{1}{3}(a_1^2+a_1a_2+a_2^2).$$

The highest-weight states of each $`SU(3)`$ representation are holomorphic polynomials of the form

$$z_1^{a_1}\overline{z}_3^{a_2},$$

where $`a_1,a_2`$ are its Dynkin indices: all representations of $`SU(3)`$ are homogeneous holomorphic polynomials. We further note that any function of the quadratic invariant

$$Z^2|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2+|z_3|^2,$$

can multiply these polynomials without affecting their $`SU(3)`$ transformation properties.

Finally we note that the Casimir operator of the $`SU(2)`$ subalgebra is given by

$$\stackrel{}{T}\stackrel{}{T}=\frac{1}{4}D_{}(D_{}+2),$$
(2.23)
where

$$D_{}=z_1_1+z_2_2+\overline{z}_1\overline{}_1+\overline{z}_2\overline{}_2,$$

so that the spin of the $`SU(2)`$ representation is simply

$$J=\frac{1}{2}D_{}.$$
(2.24)
### 2.5 Solutions of Kostant’s Equation

Consider now Kostant’s equation

$$𝒦/\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{a=4,5,6,7}{}\gamma ^aT_a\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$

Expanding the solutions and the Dirac matrices in terms of Grassmann variables yields two independent pairs of equations

$$(T_4+iT_5)\psi _1+(T_6+iT_7)\psi _2=0;(T_4iT_5)\psi _2(T_6iT_7)\psi _1=0,$$

and

$$(T_4iT_5)\psi _0(T_6+iT_7)\psi _{12}=0;(T_6iT_7)\psi _0+(T_4+iT_5)\psi _{12}=0,$$

that is

$$(z_1_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_1)\psi _1+(z_2_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_2)\psi _2=0;(z_3_1\overline{z}_1\overline{}_3)\psi _2(z_3_2\overline{z}_2\overline{}_3)\psi _1=0,$$

$$(z_3_1\overline{z}_1\overline{}_3)\psi _0(z_2_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_2)\psi _{12}=0;(z_3_2\overline{z}_2\overline{}_3)\psi _0+(z_1_3\overline{z}_3\overline{}_1)\psi _{12}=0.$$

The homogeneity operators

$$D=z_1_1+z_2_2+z_3_3,\overline{D}=\overline{z}_1\overline{}_1+\overline{z}_2\overline{}_2+\overline{z}_3\overline{}_3$$

commute with $`𝒦/`$, allowing the solutions of Kostant equation to be arranged in terms of homogeneous polynomials, on which $`a_1`$ is the eigenvalue of $`D`$ and $`a_2`$ that of $`\overline{D}`$. The solutions can also be labeled in terms of the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ generated by the operators

$$L_i=T_i+S_i,i=1,2,3;L_8=T_8+S_8.$$

The solutions for each triplet, conveniently written explicitly only for the highest weight states, are of the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`z_3^{a_1}\overline{z}_2^{a_2},\mathrm{labels}[a_2]_{\frac{2a_1+a_2+3}{6}},`$ (2.25)
$`+`$ $`\theta _1z_1^{a_1}\overline{z}_2^{a_2},\mathrm{labels}[a_1+a_2+1]_{\frac{a_1a_2}{6}},`$ (2.26)
$`+`$ $`\theta _1\theta _2z_1^{a_1}\overline{z}_3^{a_2},\mathrm{labels}[a_1]_{\frac{2a_2+a_1+3}{6}}`$ (2.27)
$`+`$ $`lowerweights,`$ (2.28)
where $`[\mathrm{}]`$ are the $`SU(2)`$ Dynkin labels. The lower weight states in the same Euler triplet can be obtained by repeated action of the lowering operator

$$L_1iL_2=\theta _2\frac{}{\theta _1}+(z_2_1\overline{z}_1\overline{}_2),$$

giving us all the states within each the Euler triplet. Each triplet differs from the next by the degree of homogeneity. This implies that it is possible to move across the triplets by simple multiplication or differentiation. This is the object of the next section. The general solution to Kostant’s equation is obtained by summing over the labels $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ and multiplying every term with a space-time field.

## 3 Relating the Triplets

In our notation, all Euler triplets can be written in terms of superfields with components of specific dependence on the internal $`z_i`$ and $`\overline{z}_i`$ variables:

* The $`\{0,0\}`$ Euler triplet is described by the superfield

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}=a_0+a_1\theta _1+a_2\theta _2+a_{12}\theta _1\theta _2,$$
(3.1)
where the $`a`$’s do not depend on the internal $`z`$ variables, only on the center of mass variables $`y^{}`$, and $`x_i`$, cf. (2.8). Kinematic supersymmetry acts on its components by means of the operators

$$𝒬_+^m2p^+\theta _m,\overline{𝒬}_+^m\frac{}{\theta _m},$$
(3.2)
so that this superfield describes the $`N=2`$ Hypermultiplet on the light-cone.
* The superfield

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{1,0\}}=b_0z_3+b_1z_1\theta _1+b_2(z_1\theta _2+z_2\theta _1)+b_3z_2\theta _2+\theta _1\theta _2(b_{12}z_1+b_{12}^{^{}}z_2),$$

where the $`b`$’s depend only on the center of mass variables, describes the $`\{1,0\}`$ triplet.
* The $`\{2,0\}`$ Euler triplet is represented by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{2,0\}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_0z_3^2+c_1z_1^2\theta _1+c_2(z_1^2\theta _2+2z_1z_2\theta _1)+c_3(\theta _1z_2^2+2z_1z_2\theta _2)+`$
$`+c_4z_2^2\theta _2+(c_{12}z_1^2+c_{12}^{}z_1z_2+c_{12}^{\prime \prime }z_2^2)\theta _1\theta _2,`$
with the $`c`$’s depending on the center of mass variables as above.

While there is no supersymmetry among the components of the higher Euler triplets, there are some supersymmetry-like operations which relate members of the Euler triplets, which we call shadow supersymmetry.

To further study algebraic operations that relate these superfields, it is convenient to introduce the projection operators onto the components of the chiral superfields:

$`P_0`$ $`=`$ $`(1𝒫_1)(1𝒫_2),P_1=𝒫_1(1𝒫_2),`$
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_2(1𝒫_1),P_{12}=𝒫_1𝒫_2,`$
where $`𝒫_i\theta _i/\theta _i`$, $`i=1,2`$. They satisfy the relations

$$P_aP_b=\delta _{ab}P_a.$$
(3.3)
Our first task is to construct spectrum generating ladder operators which, when applied to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{a,0\}}`$, generate all components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{a+1,0\}}`$. Since the non-Grassmann component for each triplet differs simply by the power in $`z_3`$, we start with the operator

$$A_0^{}z_3P_0,$$
(3.4)
which multiplies the lowest component of any superfield by $`z_3`$. It is an $`SU(2)`$ singlet but carries $`1/3`$ helicity, and acts as a raising operator between Euler triplets. The corresponding lowering operator is

$$A_0P_0\frac{}{z_3}.$$
(3.5)
These two operators act as harmonic oscillators on the lowest superfield component

$$[A_0,A_0^{}]=P_0.$$
(3.6)
The $`\theta `$-dependent terms of two adjacent Euler triplets differ by single powers of $`z_1`$ or $`z_2`$. Hence we are led to consider the $`SU(2)`$-doublet operator $`z_i(1P_0)`$, where $`(1P_0)`$ is the projection operator onto the $`\theta `$-dependent terms. When applied to the lowest Euler triplet, it generates some of the states in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{1,0\}}`$, and more, as it fails to single out the requisite combinations of $`z`$’s and $`\theta `$’s. For this we need the operator

$$𝒫=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\underset{i,j=1,2}{}z_i\theta _j\frac{}{z_j}\frac{}{\theta _i}\right).$$
(3.7)
It carries no helicity and is a singlet of $`SU(2)`$, as we can see by rewriting it in the form

$$𝒫=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+2\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{T}+\frac{1}{2}\theta _i\frac{}{\theta _i}(z_j\frac{}{z_j}+\overline{z}_j\frac{}{\overline{z}_j})\right).$$
(3.8)
Acting on the terms linear in $`\theta `$’s, it reduces simply to

$$𝒫=\frac{1}{2}+\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{T}+J/2,$$
(3.9)
while it is equal to one-half on the $`1,\theta _1\theta _2`$ terms. With the help of

$$(\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{T})^2=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{T}+\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{S}J(J+1),$$
(3.10)
we see that on the terms linear in $`\theta `$’s,

$$𝒫^2=(J+\frac{1}{2})𝒫.$$
(3.11)
so that

$$=\frac{𝒫}{J+\frac{1}{2}},$$
(3.12)
is a true projection operator on the $`\theta `$-linear terms. It is easy to check that

$`𝒫z_1\theta _1=z_1\theta _1`$ ; $`𝒫z_2\theta _2=z_2\theta _2;`$
$`𝒫(z_2\theta _1+z_1\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`(z_2\theta _1+z_1\theta _2),`$ (3.13)
while the unwanted combination is annihilated

$$𝒫(z_2\theta _1z_1\theta _2)=0.$$
(3.14)
Multiplying the $`\theta `$-dependent superfield components in the $`SU(2)`$ spin $`j`$ representation by $`z_i`$, produces two $`SU(2)`$ representations, $`j+1/2`$ and $`j1/2`$. The action of $`𝒫`$ is to project out the latter (like the well-known projection that appears in $`LS`$ coupling problems). Hence the $`SU(2)`$-doublet “creation” operators have the simple form

$$A_i^{}𝒫(1P_0)z_i.$$
(3.15)
Explicit computations yield

$`A_0^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_0z_3`$
$`A_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_1z_1\theta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{2}}(z_1\theta _2+z_2\theta _1)+a_{12}z_1\theta _1\theta _2,`$
$`A_2^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2}}(z_1\theta _2+z_2\theta _1)+a_2z_2\theta _2+a_{12}z_2\theta _1\theta _2,`$
so that their action on the lowest Euler triplet generates all the states in $`\{1,0\}`$, although with some redundancy. A similar construction holds for the step-down operators, viz

$$A_i𝒫(1P_0)\frac{}{z_i}.$$
(3.16)
Obviously, they annihilate the lowest Euler triplet

$$A_0\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}=A_1\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}=A_2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}=0.$$
(3.17)
The double application of the step-up operators on the lowest Euler triplet,

$`(A_0^{})^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_0z_3^2,`$
$`(A_1^{})^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_1z_1^2\theta _1+a_2(z_1^2\theta _2+2z_1z_2\theta _1)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_{12}z_1^2\theta _1\theta _2,`$
$`(A_2^{})^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_1(z_2^2\theta _1+2z_1z_2\theta _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_2z_2^2\theta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_{12}z_2^2\theta _1\theta _2,`$
$`A_1^{}A_2^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_2(z_2^2\theta _1+2z_1z_2\theta _2)+a_1(z_1^2\theta _2+2z_1z_2\theta _1)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_{12}z_1z_2\theta _1\theta _2,`$
$`A_2^{}A_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,0\}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_1(z_1^2\theta _2+2z_1z_2\theta _1)+a_2(z_2^2\theta _1+2z_1z_2\theta _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_{12}z_1z_2\theta _1\theta _2,`$
generates only the states in the $`\{2,0\}`$ multiplet, although the same states can be generated by different sets of operators. This construction generalizes easily to all triplets of the form $`\{a_1,0\}`$: acting on any triplet $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{a_1,0\}}`$, the step-up operators $`A_{0,1,2}^{}`$ yield all the states in the three $`SU(2)`$ representations of the triplet $`\{a_1+1,0\}`$.

In a completely analogous way we can find “ladder”operators that can take us between the various levels $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,a_2\}}`$. The first level is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,1\}}=\overline{b}_0\overline{z}_2\overline{b}_{}^{^{}}{}_{0}{}^{}\overline{z}_1+\overline{b}_1\overline{z}_2\theta _1+\overline{b}_2(\overline{z}_2\theta _2\overline{z}_1\theta _1)\overline{b}_3\overline{z}_1\theta _2+\overline{b}_{12}\overline{z}{}_{3}{}^{}\theta _{1}^{}\theta _2,$$

where the $`\overline{b}`$’s depend only on the center of mass variables as above.

The ladder operators can now be defined as

$$\overline{A}_i^{}\overline{𝒫}\overline{z}_i,$$
(3.18)
where

$$\overline{𝒫}=(1ϵ_{ij}ϵ_{kl}\overline{z}_i\theta _k\frac{}{\overline{z}_l}\frac{}{\theta _j})$$
(3.19)
and

$$\overline{A}_{12}^{}P_{12}\overline{z}_3$$
(3.20)
and the “annihilation”operators correspondingly as

$$\overline{A}_i\overline{𝒫}(1P_{12})\frac{}{\overline{z}_i},$$
(3.21)
and

$$\overline{A}_{12}P_{12}\frac{}{\overline{z}_3}$$
(3.22)
With these operators we have the neccessary means to step up and down in the full superfield. We can in this way find all the triplets. In the next section we study how to move within the triplets. Note that we have not specialized to the triplets with (half-)integer spins but kept the discussion general.

## 4 Shadow Supersymmetry

While “naked” supersymmetry acts on the components of the lowest Euler multiplet, we can define “shadow” supersymmetry operations on the components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{1,0\}}`$ through the use of the step operators. Define the operators

$$𝒬_{ab}^{[i]}A_a^{}\theta _iA_b,$$
(4.23)
where $`a,b=0,1,2`$, and $`i=1,2`$, and their inverses

$$\overline{𝒬}_{ab}^{[i]}A_a^{}\frac{}{\theta _i}A_b.$$
(4.24)
The idea here is that we first step down and perform a supersymmetry on the lowest multiplet and then step up again. Since the step operators are well defined and keeps us in the superfield these operations will close on the $`\{1,0\}`$ triplet. The anticommutator will typically yield terms of the form $`z_i\frac{}{z_i}P_j`$. The anticommutator will also close on higher Euler triplets since again the step procedure is well defined.

Similarly we can define the operators

$$Q_{ab}^{[i]}\overline{A}_a^{}\theta _i\overline{A}_b,$$
(4.25)
where $`a,b=0,1,2`$, and $`i=1,2`$, and their inverses

$$\overline{Q}_{ab}^{[i]}\overline{A}_a^{}\frac{}{\theta _i}\overline{A}_b.$$
(4.26)
They operate in a similar fashion on $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\{0,1\}}`$ and indeed on the whole superfield. We can extend these shadow supersymmetries to operations that step up N steps

$$𝒬_{a_1a_2..a_Nb_1b_2\mathrm{}b_N}^{[i]}A_{a_1}^{}A_{a_2}^{}..A_{a_N}^{}\theta _iA_{b_1}A_{b_2}\mathrm{}A_{b_N},$$
(4.27)
where $`a_i,b_j=0,1,2`$, and $`i=1,2`$, and their inverses

$$\overline{𝒬}_{a_1a_2..a_Nb_1b_2\mathrm{}b_N}^{[i]}A_{a_1}^{}A_{a_2}^{}\mathrm{}A_{a_N}^{}\frac{}{\theta _i}A_{b_1}A_{b_2}..A_{b_N}$$
(4.28)
and similarly for the ones with $`\overline{A}`$. The anticommutators between these operators will again close to terms of the form $`z_i\frac{}{z_i}P_j`$.

We can also check the anticommutators

$$\{𝒬_{a_1a_2..a_Nb_1b_2\mathrm{}b_N}^{[i]},\overline{𝒬}_{a_1a_2..a_Mb_1b_2\mathrm{}b_M}^{[i]}\}$$

to see that they close to step operators.

We have hence found a an infinite superalgebra for which the superfield is a representation. We have not been able to to write it, though, in a compact form. However, we want to stress that the representation has those marvellous properties that we described earlier.

We have here treated the general case. If we want to specialize to the triplets with (half)-integer helicities we have to demand powers of the step operators such that we only step between those triplets.

## 5 Discussion and conclusions

In this report I have given an explicit solution to Kostant’s equation leading to an infinite extension of the spectrum of the $`N=2`$ hypermultiplet. I have shown how one can define operators that take us between any states in the infinite-dimensional superfield defining a extended superalgebra. This solution defines a kinetic term for the supermultiplet. The next step for this action would be to try to find an interaction which carries the same symmetry as the kinetic term. In principle this could be tried in the same way as interaction terms are constructed in the light cone frame as nonlinear terms in the dynamic generators. However, we should remember that no interaction term has been found for the hypermultiplet. A further direction of the study would be to try to go back to a covariant formalism. There is no standard way though to do it in the light cone frame so it is difficult to say how hard such a problem is. We should remember though that this is a just a simpler example than the case we really want to study, $`F_4/SO(9)`$ and it is not clear how valuable these further studies are.

Acknowledgments: I wish to congratulate Marc Henneaux to the very well deserved Francqui Prize and to thank him and Alexander Sevrin for their kind invitation to this exceptional meeting. I would also like to thank Prof. L. Eyckmans and the Francqui Foundation for the hospitality extended to me at several occasions. I find the Francqui Foundation be a role model for how a foundations should work to promote excellent science. This work is done in collaboration with Pierre Ramond.


text:
# Defect structures and torque on an elongated colloidal particle immersed in a liquid crystal host

## I Introduction

Colloidal dispersions of small particles in nematic liquid crystals are a novel type of soft matter. Topological defects Lubensky et al. (1998); Stark (1999) and additional long-range forces between the colloidal particles Lev and Tomchuk (1999); Borštnik et al. (1999, 2000) are immediate consequences of the orientational ordering of the liquid crystal molecules. The nematic-induced interparticle interaction brings a new range of effects to the system: supermolecular structures Poulin et al. (1997); Poulin and Weitz (1998), cellular structures Anderson et al. (2001); Anderson and Terentjev (2001), and even a soft solid Meeker et al. (2000) can be observed. Colloidal dispersions in liquid crystals also have a wide variety of potential applications Russel et al. (1989).

The subject of this paper is the liquid crystal ordering and equilibrium orientation of an elongated solid particle inside a uniformly aligned nematic liquid crystal. On the list of problems one has to clarify are: (1) the nematic ordering around the particle (including possible topological defects); (2) the type and strength of the orientational coupling between the particle and its aligned molecular environment; (3) the effect of confinement on the orientational ordering of the particle, i.e. the equilibrium orientation of the particle close to the bounding surface. The solution to these problems is essential to understand the behavior of magnetic or nonmagnetic particles of colloidal size inherently present in biological liquid-crystalline tissues like cellular membranes. These problems also arise in ferroliquid crystals – the suspensions of single-domain ferroparticles in liquid crystals Brochard and de Gennes (1970).

The answer to the first question is known for spherical colloidal particles with homeotropic anchoring of the director at the particle surface Lubensky et al. (1998); Poulin et al. (1997); Poulin and Weitz (1998); Kuksenok et al. (1996); Shiyanovskii and Kuksenok (1998); Mondain-Monval et al. (1999); Ruhwandl and Terentjev (1997); Stark (1999, 2001). Isolated particles provide a spherical confining geometry for the liquid crystal. Sufficiently strong homeotropic anchoring induces a hedgehog defect with topological charge $`+1`$. The total topological charge of the whole system is zero, and an additional defect must be created to compensate the radial hedgehog. Two types of defect are possible: a hyperbolic hedgehog with a topological charge $`1`$, called a dipolar or satellite defect; or a $`\frac{1}{2}`$ strength disclination ring that encircles the spherical particle, called a quadrupolar or Saturn-ring defect. The dipolar (satellite) defect is a point defect, while the quadrupolar (Saturn ring) is a line defect. Theoretical and numerical work based on elastic theory Ruhwandl and Terentjev (1997); Stark (1999), as well as computer simulation Billeter and Pelcovits (2000); Andrienko et al. (2001) , suggests that the dipole configuration is stable for micron-sized droplets. It is the one usually realized experimentally. The Saturn-ring defect appears if the droplet size is reduced or an external field is applied Gu and Abbott (2000); Loudet and Poulin (2001).

The same topological arguments are applicable for a non-spherical colloidal particle with homeotropic anchoring of the director at the particle surface. For an elongated particle with length $`L`$ and transverse size $`D<<L`$, and both $`L`$ and $`D`$ much greater than the dimensions of the molecules of the liquid crystal, one can have a disclination line of strength $`1`$, a pair of disclination lines of strength $`\frac{1}{2}`$, as well as the ‘escaped radial’ structure, in which the director bends over to become perpendicular to the particle surface Burylov and Raikher (1994).

However, from the energetic point of view, the situation is different from the case of the spherical particle. For the elongated particle, both defects are disclination lines. The elastic energy per unit length associated with a disclination of strength $`m`$ is $`\pi Km^2\mathrm{ln}(R/r_0)`$, where $`R`$ is the size of the sample and $`r_0`$ is a lower cutoff radius (the core size) Stephen and Straley (1974). This means that the free energy of a pair of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ disclinations is always smaller than that of a single $`1`$ disclination. Therefore, one can expect that the pair of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ disclinations will always be a stable configuration. In principle, the $`1`$ defect can still form a metastable state.

The answer to the second question is not known even in the framework of phenomenological (continuum) theory Burylov and Raikher (1994). The results of the theory only indicate that, depending on the type and strength of anchoring, the equilibrium position of the particle may be either parallel or perpendicular to the liquid crystal director. The parameter governing the situation is the ratio of the particle radius to the extrapolation length of the nematic liquid crystal.

Obtaining an analytical expression for the torque (or elastic free energy) at arbitrary tilt angle $`\theta `$ seems to be hardly possible due to the loss of symmetry of the director distribution and the presence of defects. Qualitative analysis shows that the proper argument for the free energy should be $`(𝒏_0𝒏)^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ since the problem is bilinear in both the unperturbed director orientation $`𝒏_0`$ and the unit vector along the symmetry axis of the rod, $`𝒏`$. A simple form of the free energy angular dependence has been proposed in Ref. Burylov and Raikher (1994)

$$(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )=_{}+(_{}_{})\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,$$
(1)
which gives a $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ dependence for the torque and predicts that the director response has a maximum at $`\theta =\pi /4`$ and is absent at $`\theta =0,\pi /2`$. However, it is clear that eqn (1) is oversimplified. The defect structure changes while the particle rotates. The nematic ordering evolves in a complicated way that can hardly be approximated with a $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ dependence of the torque. At the same time, this dependence is vital for a macroscopic description of the system which treats coupling of colloidal particles with the nematic host via an effective potential.

Recently, the effect of confinement on the orientation of an anisotropic colloidal particle has been predicted Roth et al. (2002). It has been shown that there is an ‘entropic’ torque on a hard rod-like particle dissolved in a solution of hard spheres when the rod is positioned close to the hard wall. The torque appears because of the density modulation of spheres near the wall and depletion forces between the wall and the hard rod. This torque might play an important role in the ‘key-lock’ principle in biological systems and provide an understanding of how a non-spherical ‘key’ macromolecule can adjust its position and orientation near the ‘lock’ macromolecule. We, therefore, expect the torque on the particle close to the wall to be different from the bulk-induced torque because of the additional, entropic contribution.

In this paper, we present the results of molecular dynamics (MD) and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the topological defects that appear in the nematic mesophase around an elongated colloidal particle. Using the MD technique, we also study the force and the torque on the particle suspended in the bulk of the nematic mesophase and the modification of this torque when the particle is close to the cell substrate.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II we present the computational details and molecular models we use to simulate the liquid crystal mesophase and the interaction of the molecules with the particle surface and the cell substrates. Section III contains the results of the MD and MC simulations: density, director, order parameter maps, and order tensor profiles of the defects. Here we also present the results for the torque on the particle in the cell bulk and near the wall. Concluding remarks and comparison of the techniques are given in section IV.

## II Molecular model and simulation methods

Figure 1 shows the geometry of a single particle in the cell. The rod shape is chosen to be a spherocylinder, i.e. a cylinder of length $`L`$ and diameter $`\sigma _r`$ which has spherical caps of diameter $`\sigma _r`$. The particle is tilted in the $`zy`$ plane. The orientation of the particle is specified by the angle $`\theta `$ between the $`z`$ axis and the symmetry axis of the cylinder.

### II.1 Molecular dynamics

Molecular dynamics simulations were carried out using the soft repulsive potential, describing (approximately) ellipsoidal molecules

$$v_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}4\epsilon _0\left(\varrho _{ij}^{12}\varrho _{ij}^6\right)+\epsilon _0,\hfill & \hfill \varrho _{ij}^6<2\\ 0\hfill & \hfill \varrho _{ij}^6>2\end{array}.$$
(2)
Here $`\varrho _{ij}=(r_{ij}\sigma _{ij}+\sigma _0)/\sigma _0`$; $`r_{ij}`$ is the center-center separation, $`\sigma _0`$ a size parameter, $`\epsilon _0`$ an energy parameter (both taken to be unity) and the orientation-dependent diameter $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is defined by

$`1{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0^2}{\sigma _{ij}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{𝒓}_{ij}𝒖_i+\widehat{𝒓}_{ij}𝒖_j)^2}{1+\chi (𝒖_i𝒖_j)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{𝒓}_{ij}𝒖_i\widehat{𝒓}_{ij}𝒖_j)^2}{1\chi (𝒖_i𝒖_j)}}\right],`$
where $`\chi =(\kappa ^21)/(\kappa ^2+1)`$, $`\kappa `$ being the elongation. In this work we used $`\kappa =3`$ throughout. The orientation dependence is written in terms of the direction of the center-center vector $`\widehat{𝒓}_{ij}=𝒓_{ij}/r_{ij}`$ and the unit vectors $`𝒖_i`$, $`𝒖_j`$ which specify the molecular symmetry axes. The potential (2) may be thought of as a variant of the standard Gay-Berne potential Berne and Pechukas (1972); Gay and Berne (1981) with exponents $`\mu =0,\nu =0`$.

The systems consisted of $`N=64,000`$ particles. A reduced temperature $`k_\mathrm{B}T/ϵ_0=1`$ was used throughout (for this model, the phase behavior is not sensitively dependent on temperature, as there are no attractive forces). The system size was chosen so that the number density of the liquid crystal far from the rod was $`\rho \sigma _0^30.34`$. For this system, in the reduced units defined by $`\sigma _0`$, $`ϵ_0`$ and $`m`$, a timestep $`\delta t=0.004`$ was found suitable. The molecular moment of inertia was fixed as $`I=2.5m\sigma _0^2`$. Periodic boundary conditions as well as slab geometry with walls confining the system in the $`z`$ direction were considered.

The interaction of molecule $`i`$ with the rod was given by a shifted Lennard-Jones repulsion potential having exactly the same form as eqn (2), but with $`\rho _{ij}`$ replaced by $`\rho _i=(|𝒓_i𝒓_s|\sigma _r/2+\sigma _0/2)/\sigma _0`$. Here $`𝒓_s=\gamma _i𝒏`$, where $`\gamma _i=\mathrm{sign}(𝒏𝒓_i+z_r\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{min}(L/2,|𝒏𝒓_i+z_r\mathrm{cos}\theta |)`$, $`𝒏=(0,\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ is a unit vector along the symmetry axis of the rod, $`z_r`$ is the distance from the center of the rod to the center of the coordinates. In slab geometry the interaction with the walls was given by the same formula, eqn (2), replacing particle $`j`$ by the wall $`w`$, setting $`\rho _{iw}=(|z_{iw}|\sigma _{iw}/2+\sigma _0/2)/\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _{iw}^2=\kappa _w^2+(1\kappa _w^2)(1e_{iz}^2)`$. $`\kappa _w`$ represents an effective particle elongation as seen by the wall. We used $`\kappa _w=1`$ which gives strong homeotropic orientation of the molecules at the wall Andrienko et al. (2001).

The radius and length of the rod were steadily increased from zero to the desired value during $`10^3`$ steps. Then the system was equilibrated for $`10^6`$ steps. During equilibration we scaled the velocities of the molecules to achieve $`k_\mathrm{B}T/ϵ_0=1`$.

The production run for every tilt angle of the rod was $`10^6`$ steps. The force $`𝑭`$ and the torque $`𝑴`$ on the rod were calculated using the repulsive force $`𝒇_i`$ from the rod on the particle $`i`$

$`𝑭`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}𝒇_i,`$
$`𝑴`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\gamma _i\left[𝒇_i\times 𝒏\right].`$ (3)
### II.2 Monte Carlo simulation

Monte Carlo simulations were based on the Lebwohl-Lasher (LL) lattice model Lebwohl and Lasher (1972). Within this model uniaxial nematic molecules (or, alternatively, close-packed molecular clusters Berggren et al. (1994)) are represented by ‘spins’ fixed on a cubic lattice of spacing $`a`$. The spins are allowed to rotate freely, which reproduces the orientational behavior of the liquid crystal sufficiently well.

To define the topology of the colloidal particle, a ‘jagged’ cylinder of diameter $`\sigma _r`$ was carved from the cubic lattice, with its long axis fixed along the $`y`$ axis of the coordinate system. The orientations of spins representing the particle were kept fixed during the simulation and were chosen in agreement with the desired boundary conditions at the particle surface, in our case homeotropic. At outer boundaries of the simulation box periodic boundary conditions were assumed. The total interaction energy for our model system consisting of nematic spins was calculated as

$`U={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}ϵ_{ij}P_2(\mathrm{cos}\beta _{ij}),`$ (4)
with $`P_2(x)=\frac{1}{2}(3x^21)`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\beta _{ij}=𝒖_i𝒖_j`$. Here $`𝒖_i`$ denotes the unit vector giving the orientation of the spin located at the $`i`$th lattice site. The sum in eqn (4) is taken over nearest neighbors only. The $`ϵ_{ij}`$ constants represent the interaction strengths and are denoted by $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ_p`$ for nematic-nematic and nematic-solid particle interactions respectively.

The simulation box size was set to $`30a\times 30a\times 30a`$, which for the chosen cylinder diameter ($`\sigma _r=10a`$) amounts to 24600 nematic spins and to 840 spins representing the surface of the solid particle. Our simulations started from a configuration with a random orientation of nematic spins. The final results did not depend on the choice of the starting configuration.

The standard Metropolis scheme Metropolis and Ulam (1949) was then employed to update nematic spin orientations Fabbri and Zannoni (1986); Barker and Watts (1969), maintaining a rejection ratio close to 0.5. The system was equilibrated during $`6\times 10^4`$ MC cycles. After this $`6.6\times 10^4`$ successive spin configurations were accumulated and used as input for the calculation of order tensor.

In the simulation, temperature was set to $`T^{}=k_BT/ϵ=1`$, which ensures the existence of the nematic phase (note that for a bulk sample the LL model exhibits a nematic-isotropic transition at $`T^{}=1.1232`$ Fabbri and Zannoni (1986)). The strengths of nematic-nematic and nematic-solid particle interactions were set equal, $`ϵ_p=ϵ`$, which corresponds to the strong anchoring regime with the extrapolation length of the order of a few lattice spacings $`a`$ Priezjev and Pelcovits (2000).

### II.3 Order tensor

For both techniques, the local order tensor $`𝑸(𝒓)`$ was calculated

$$Q_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{n}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left\{\frac{3}{2}u_{k\alpha }u_{k\beta }\frac{1}{2}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\right\},$$
(5)
where there are $`n`$ molecules present in each bin, $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ is the Kronecker delta, $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an ensemble average, $`\alpha ,\beta =x,y,z`$. Note that in the MC case we have $`n=1`$ (bins correspond to lattice points) and that averaging is performed over MC cycles only. Diagonalizing the $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ tensor, for each bin, gives three eigenvalues, $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$, and $`Q_3`$, plus the three corresponding eigenvectors. The eigenvalue with the largest absolute value defines the order parameter $`S`$ for each bin. The biaxiality $`P`$ is then calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the remaining two eigenvalues of the order tensor $`𝑸`$.

## III Simulation results and discussion

### III.1 Defect structure

We started our simulations with a rod of infinite length, $`L=\mathrm{}`$, positioned along the $`y`$ axis, normal to the director. In this case the director rotates in the $`xz`$ plane and we effectively have a two-dimensional situation.

#### III.1.1 MC results

Fig. 2 shows the director field and the order parameter map, in the plane perpendicular to the long axis of the colloidal particle.

As concluded from topological considerations, either a $`1`$ strength disclination line or a pair of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ lines can form in the neighborhood of the particle. The $`1`$ line, however, does not seem to be stable and splits into a pair of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ lines during the MC evolution, even if it is taken as initial configuration in the simulation run. This behavior agrees with simple estimates of defect line free energies. Moreover, a stable ‘escaped radial’ structure was also not observed in our simulations. In MC simulations the pair of defect lines always forms close to one of the simulation box diagonals although the cross section of the colloidal particle is axially symmetric (ignoring its jagged shape); see the director field shown in Fig. 2. This symmetry breaking may be attributed to two effects of different origin. The first one (and, according to our tests, the more important one) is the repulsion between defects maximizing the defect-to-defect distance (recall the periodic boundary conditions), while the second one is a finite-size effect originating from collective fluctuations, resulting in a tendency to align the nematic along the simulation box diagonal Braun and Viney (2001). We believe, however, that these phenomena, as well as the presence of the colloidal particle, do not considerably affect any of the qualitative features characterizing the disclination line inner structure. Moreover, the presence of the colloidal particle is reflected only in an enhancement of the degree of nematic order in the immediate surroundings of the particle. The inner structure of a defect line is further characterized by variations in order tensor components, $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$, and $`Q_3`$, obtained after diagonalization of the order tensor $`𝑸`$, eqn (5). This is the most convenient way of describing the structure of the defect, because of the possible biaxiality and negative values of the uniaxial order parameter in the core region.

Fig. 3 shows the $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$, and $`Q_3`$ profiles plotted along the $`z`$ axis through the left of the two disclinations shown in Fig. 2. In Fig. 3 the disclination is located at $`d=20a`$. Note that the left-right assymetry of the profiles with respect to the defect position is caused solely by the presence of the colloidal particle. As shown by Fig. 3, the $`Q_1`$ component changes from its positive bulk value ($`0.6`$), coinciding with the value of the order parameter $`S`$) to some negative value ($`0.3`$) after passing through the disclination. At the same time, the $`Q_2`$ component increases from a negative value ($`0.3`$) to a large positive value ($`0.6`$), which roughly equals twice the absolute value of the negative one. This behavior is attributed to the director rotation by approximately $`\pi /2`$ when we cross the defect along the $`z`$ axis; see Fig. 2. On the other hand, the value of the $`Q_3`$ component does not change too much, indicating that the variation in the nematic ordering mostly occurs in the $`xz`$ plane, perpendicular to the symmetry axis of the particle. Alternatively, $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$, and $`Q_3`$ profiles can be interpreted also in terms of order parameters $`S`$ and $`P`$ (see Fig. 3, upper panel). When the defect line is approached, the uniaxial order parameter $`S`$ decreases from its temperature-defined bulk value and drops even below zero in the defect center. Note that there the nematic director, i.e., the eigenvector corresponding to the negative eigenvalue, is directed along the long axis of the solid particle. On the other hand, the biaxiality – close to zero far enough from the defect – increases when the defect line is approached, reaches a maximum and, finally, in the very center of the defect, again drops to a value which is close to zero. The characteristic length scales for these variations are of the order of a few ($`5`$) lattice spacings $`a`$ and agree with the estimates for the correlation length in the nematic phase Fabbri and Zannoni (1986).

Qualitatively, molecular ordering close to a disclination line can be summarized as follows. In the very center of the defect molecular ordering is uniaxial with $`S<0`$ and $`P0`$. Far enough from the defect line the nematic liquid crystal is uniaxial again, however, with $`S>0`$ and $`P=0`$, as expected in a homogeneous or in a weakly distorted bulk sample. In the intermediate ring-like region, nematic ordering is biaxial with $`P0`$. These conclusions agree also with results from alignment tensor-based phenomenological analyses of topological defects both of half-integer Schopohl and Sluckin (1987) and integer strength Sonnet et al. (1995).

#### III.1.2 MD results

As has already been mentioned, the configuration with two $`\frac{1}{2}`$ disclination lines is more energetically favorable than a single $`1`$ strength disclination. We noticed this performing the molecular dynamics simulation: for all studied diameters of the rod ($`\sigma _r/\sigma _0=520`$) the $`1`$ strength disclination appears immediately after expanding the colloid particle in the nematic state. However, during the equilibration, it splits into two $`\frac{1}{2}`$ disclination lines which then move towards the equatorial plane. The evolution dynamics is quite slow, one needs about $`10^6`$ steps for the $`\frac{1}{2}`$ disclinations to reach the equator. We were not able to observe ‘escaped radial’ configuration, probably due to the small size of the colloidal particle.

A typical director map together with the density map is shown in Fig. 4. The bulk density, $`\rho _\mathrm{b}\sigma _0^30.34`$, is slightly different from the number density, $`\rho \sigma _0^3=N/V=0.33`$, because of the volume taken by the rod. In the direction of the disclinations the density modulation, typical for a nematic-wall interface, vanishes due to partial melting of the liquid crystal in the disclination core region. This melting damps the influence of the droplet surface on the interface region.

Two $`\frac{1}{2}`$ disclinations are located very close to the droplet surface and the director distortion vanishes very quickly in the liquid crystal bulk. The core region extends over a few molecular lengths. In MD simulations, the pair of defect lines forms perpendicular to the director. Since we use the director constraint algorithm Germano (2001), the director far from the particle is aligned along the $`z`$ axis, contrary to the situation with MC simulation results, where the director is along the box diagonal. The director constraint damps the effects of the defect repulsion and effective fluctuation of the director.

To emphasize the complex structure of the defect core we plot the order tensor components $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$, $`Q_3`$, after diagonalizing the local order tensor, eqn (5), in Fig. 5. Qualitatively, the order tensor has the same look as in MC simulations: the nematic phase is uniaxial far from the core and biaxial in the core region, with variation of the biaxiality across the core. However, MD results predict a more complicated structure of the core region, attributed to the liquid crystal density oscillation near the particle surface (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, upper panel). The variation of the order tensor components is given by the superposition of the nematic order variation due to the density modulation and intrinsic variation due to the presence of the defect.

### III.2 Torque on the particle

To measure the torque on the rod of finite length, we performed MD simulations in a box with periodic boundary conditions, applying a global constraint for the director along the $`z`$ axis Germano (2001). An independent measurement was performed in slab geometry. In the slab geometry, the director orientation far from the rod was fixed by the confining walls. The walls provided strong homeotropic (along the $`z`$ axis) anchoring of the director. The rod was fixed either in the center of the simulation box or at some distance $`z`$ from the bottom wall. $`M_x>0`$ ($`<0`$) corresponds to a torque which tends to align the rod perpendicular (parallel) to the director far from the particle, $`𝒏_0=𝒆_z`$.

The torque on the rod, calculated using eqn (3), is presented in Fig. 6. Results presented in Fig. 6 indicate that the dependence of the torque on the rod tilt angle is far from the $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$, proposed in Burylov and Raikher (1994). Moreover, the torque is not equal to zero for $`\theta =0^0`$, i.e. there is some symmetry breaking and the orientation of the rod along the director is not even metastable.

For better understanding, a slice in the $`yz`$ plane is shown in Fig. 7, for different tilt angles of the rod. Fig. 7a shows that the director distribution around the rod is not axially symmetric. This is the reason for the non-zero torque for $`\theta =0^0`$. Strong director variations near the rod are responsible for the large value of the torque. As the rod rotates, the director field becomes less and less frustrated, Fig. 7b, and finally we have a stable orientation of the rod perpendicular to the director, Fig. 7c.

In principle, the configuration with axial symmetry is also possible, when the rod is along the $`z`$ axis. However, we were not able to observe it in our simulations even when disordered, isotropic configurations containing the colloidal particle were compressed to the ordered, nematic state. This method, in principle, gives the lowest free-energy configurations in an unbiased way.

In Fig. 6 we also present the torque and the force on the particle near the wall. Besides the torque on the particle because of the average molecular orientation of the liquid crystal host, there is an effective interaction between the particle and the wall. The presence of this depletion-like interaction can be understood as a result of interactions between the particle and the liquid crystal molecules which themselves interact with the wall. In other words, if the volume close to both the wall and the particle overlap, then the host liquid gains accessible volume and can increase its entropy. To show that the depletion force is responsible for this ‘entropic’ contribution to the torque, we plot the depletion force $`\beta \sigma _0F_z(\theta )`$ in Fig. 6. The correlation between the change in the depletion force and the change in the torque is evident. As the rod moves closer to the wall the value of the ‘entropic’ torque increases and can even affect the equilibrium position and orientation of the particle.

For the parameters used in our simulation, the contribution of the ‘entropic’ torque only modifies the dependence of the total torque on the particle tilt angle. However, this contribution can dominate, for example, when the system is close to the nematic-isotropic transition. Then the colloidal particle might have a tilted orientation when approaching the wall. Further work on these aspects is in progress.

## IV Conclusions

We used molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo techniques to study a small elongated colloidal particle suspended in a nematic liquid crystal. Homeotropic boundary conditions and strong anchoring create a hedgehog defect on the particle surface. We have studied the defect structure around the particle that cancels this hedgehog defect.

Our simulation results show that, in the case of a very long particle, with transverse size much less than its length, a configuration with two $`\frac{1}{2}`$ defects is stable. An initial configuration with one $`1`$ strength disclination evolves spontaneously into two $`\frac{1}{2}`$ disclination lines. For a particle with transverse size of the order of its length, the $`\frac{1}{2}`$ ring defect encircling the particle was found to be stable. The orientation of the ring changes as the particle tilts with respect to the director. Using order tensor and density maps we are able to resolve the structure of the core of the defect: the nematic phase is strongly biaxial near the defect core.

Comparing the structure of the disclination core obtained using molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo simulation techniques we are able to study influence of the density modulation of the mesophase in the core region.

We have also studied the torque on a particle tilted with respect to the director at large distances from a wall, and modification of this torque when the particle is close to the wall. Our results show, that the dependence of the torque on the tilt angle is complex, and does not vanish even when the particle is along the director. Analysis of the director distribution around the particle shows that this is due to the broken axial symmetry of the director distribution around the particle. In addition, when the particle is close to the wall, the torque is modified because of the depletion-like interaction of the particle with the wall.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by EPSRC grants GR/L89990, GR/M16023, through INTAS grant 99-00312, and by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Slovenia (Grant No. J1-7470). MD simulations used the GBMEGA program of the ‘Complex Fluids Consortium’ with computer time allocated at the Edinburgh Parallel Computer Center and the CSAR facility. D.A. acknowledges the support of the Overseas Research Students Grant; M.P.A. is grateful to the Alexander von Humboldt foundation, the British Council ARC program, and the Leverhulme Trust. G.S. thanks P. Pasini, C. Zannoni, and C. Chiccoli for the training in MC simulation techniques.