text:
# Interaction between a stationary electric charge and a stationary magnetic dipole

## 1 Introduction

In classical electromagnetism there is no interaction between an electric charge and a magnetic dipole if they are at rest in the same Lorentz frame. In general relativity the situation is different. I showed  that a charged magnetic dipole induces a rotational gravitational field which drags inertial frames.

Let us now consider the gravitational field resulting from a charge on the axis of a magnetic dipole, both at rest in a frame Minkowskian at infinity. Since both have mass, they need a strut between them to counter their mutual gravitational attraction, and this is represented by the usual well understood conical singularity. However, there is a second singularity between the charge and the dipole, of the type previously noticed between uncharged spinning particles , and called a torsion singularity. This represents a couple stopping the charge and dipole from spinning relative to one another.

To allow for spin 111The spinning particles considered in this Letter are classical. it is useful to endow the charge and dipole with angular momenta. To be precise, let us consider two point masses, $`m_1`$ carrying electric charge $`e`$ and angular momentum $`h_1`$, and $`m_2`$ with magnetic moment $`M`$ and angular momentum $`h_2`$. Both particles are fixed in position on the $`z`$-axis (but allowed to spin with the prescribed angular momenta), the first at $`z=b>0`$ and the second at $`z=b`$. Applying Einstein-Maxwell theory and using a method of approximation 222For a different approach to the problem of charged magnetic spinning particles see    . I find that there is a torsion singularity unless

$$2(m_1h_2+m_2h_1)=eM.$$
(1)
This means that if the parameters do not satisfy (1) there must be an applied couple acting on the particles.

The plan of the Letter is as follows. Section 2 contains the field equations and the metric of spacetime. In section 3 I derive the first approximation to the solution, and give a partial solution of the second approximation. This enables me in section 4 to exhibit the torsion singularity and to derive formula (1).

## 2 Field equations and metric

The field equations are those of Einstein-Maxwell theory for empty space:

$`R_k^i`$ $`=`$ $`2F^{ia}F_{ka}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _k^iF^{ab}F_{ab},`$ (2)
$`F_{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{i,k}A_{k,i},`$ (3)
$`F_{;k}^{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4)
Here $`R_k^i`$ is the Ricci tensor, $`F_{ik}`$ the electromagnetic field tensor and $`A_i`$ the vector potential; a comma denotes partial differentiation and a semi-colon covariant differentiation.

We use the stationary axially symmetric metric

$$ds^2=f^1e^\nu (dz^2+dr^2)ld\theta ^22nd\theta dt+fdt^2,.$$
(5)
where $`f,\nu ,l,n`$ are functions of $`z`$ and $`r`$ only. The coordinates will be numbered

$$x^1=z,x^2=r,x^3=\theta ,x^4=t.$$

The components of the vector potential are

$$A_i=(0,0,\psi ,\varphi )$$

and these too are functions of $`z`$ and $`r`$ only.

Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=lf+n^2;$$

then we find that the field equations (2) and (3) imply

$$R_3^3+R_4^4=\mathrm{\Delta }^1fe^\nu (\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{22})=0,$$

where suffices $`1`$ and $`2`$ mean differentiation with respect to $`z`$ and $`r`$. Assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be a monotonically increasing function of $`r`$, we may, without loss of generality , take the solution of this equation to be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=r$$

so that

$$lf+n^2=r^2.$$
(6)
With $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ chosen in this way the field equations (2) - (4) can be written as follows:

$`R_{11}+R_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{11}+\nu _{22}f^1^2f+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}f^2(f_1^2+f_2^2)`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^2f^2(w_1^2+w_2^2)=0,`$
$`R_{11}R_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`r^1\nu _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^2(f_1^2f_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^2f^2(w_2^2w_1^2)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`2r^2[f(\psi _2^2\psi _1^2)+l(\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2)+2n(\varphi _2\psi _2\varphi _1\psi _1)],`$
$`2R_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`r^1\nu _1+f^2f_1f_2r^2f^2w_1w_2`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`4r^2[l\varphi _1\varphi _2f\psi _1\psi _2n(\varphi _1\psi _2+\varphi _2\psi _1)],`$
$`R_4^4R_3^32wR_4^3`$ $`=`$ $`e^\nu [^2f+f^1(f_1^2+f_2^2)r^2f^3(w_1^2+w_2^2)]`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`2r^2e^\nu [(r^2+n^2)(\varphi _1^2+\varphi _2^2)+2fn(\varphi _1\psi _1+\varphi _2\psi _2)`$
$`+f^2(\psi _1^2+\psi _2^2)],`$
$`2R_4^3`$ $`=`$ $`r^2f^2e^\nu [f^2w+2(f_1w_1+f_2w_2)]`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`4r^2fe^\nu [n(\varphi _1^2+\varphi _2^2)+f(\varphi _1\psi _1+\varphi _2\psi _2)],`$
$`r^2^2\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}[\varphi _i(lf_i+nn_i)\psi _i(nf_ifn_i)],`$ (12)
$`r^2^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}[\psi _i(fl_i+nn_i)\varphi _i(ln_inl_i)],`$ (13)
where I have put

$`w`$ $`=`$ $`nf^1,`$ (14)
$`^2X`$ $`=`$ $`X_{11}+X_{22}+r^1X_2,`$
$`^2X`$ $`=`$ $`X_{11}+X_{22}r^1X_2,`$
The structure of eqns (7)-(13) is as follows: (10)-(13) give $`f,w,\varphi ,\psi `$ in terms of their sources,and $`\nu `$ is determined by (7)-(9), in which there is redundancy.

## 3 Approximate solution

We seek a solution for the two point masses described in the Introduction. As the solution is to be stationary the particles must be subject to constraints, and these will be represented in our solution by singularities.

I assume that the solution can be expanded in powers and products of the six parameters $`m_1,m_2,e,M,h_1,h_2`$, and use a method of approximation. For the zeroth approximation I take Minkowski spacetime with no electromagnetic field, so that in (4)

$$\stackrel{(0)}{\nu }=0,\stackrel{(0)}{f}=1,\stackrel{(0)}{l}=r^2,\stackrel{(0)}{n}=0.$$
(15)
The first (or linear) approximation arises when one ignores all non-linear terms in (6)-(14), whence one obtains

$$\stackrel{(1)}{\nu }=\stackrel{(1)}{C},\stackrel{(1)}{l}=r^2\stackrel{(1)}{f},^2\stackrel{(1)}{f}=0,^2\stackrel{(1)}{w}=0,\stackrel{(1)}{n}=\stackrel{(1)}{w},^2\stackrel{(1)}{\varphi }=0,^2\stackrel{(1)}{\psi }=0,$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{(1)}{C}`$is an arbitrary constant which we henceforth put equal to zero because a non-zero value would imply the existence of a cosmic string.

We now choose solutions of (16) representing the sources specified in section 1:

$`\stackrel{(1)}{f}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_i}{R_i}},`$ (17)
$`\stackrel{(1)}{w}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2h_ir^2}{R_i^3}},`$ (18)
$`\stackrel{(1)}{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{R_1}},`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{(1)}{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Mr^2}{R_2^3}}`$ (20)
where $`R_1=[r^2+(zb)^2]^{1/2},R_2=[r^2+(z+b)]^{1/2}`$ are both greater than the event horizon radii of the particles. The factor 2 is inserted into (18) to ensure agreement with the linear approximation to the Kerr solution.

Proceeding to the second approximation we insert (17-(20) into (7)-(13), ignoring all terms of the third and higher orders. This gives four equations of Poisson type for the second approximation to the essential unknowns, denoted $`\stackrel{(2)}{f},\stackrel{(2)}{w},\stackrel{(2)}{\varphi },\stackrel{(2)}{\psi };\stackrel{(2)}{\nu }`$ is then obtainable from (7)-(9), and $`\stackrel{(2)}{n}`$ and $`\stackrel{(2)}{l}`$ from (14) and (6).

The second approximation can be completely solved after long calculations, but here I solve it only for the function $`\stackrel{(2)}{w},`$ since this gives rise to the torsion singularity representing the rotational constraint which is my main interest in this Letter.

The second approximation to (11) may be written

$$^2\stackrel{(2)}{w}=2(\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{f}}\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{w}}+\underset{2}{\overset{(1)}{f}}\underset{2}{\overset{(1)}{w}})4(\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\varphi }}\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\psi }}+\underset{2}{\overset{(1)}{\varphi }}\underset{2}{\overset{(1)}{\psi }}).$$
(21)
All the terms on the right are specified in (17)-(20), and inserting these we find that (21) becomes

$`^2\stackrel{(2)}{w}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(2m_1h_2eM)r^2}{R_1^3R_2^5}}[r^2+(z5b)(z+b)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8m_2h_1r^2}{R_1^5R_2^3}}[r^2+(z+5b)(zb)]+8{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_ih_ir^2}{R_i^6}}.`$
A calculation then shows that the solution is

$`\stackrel{(2)}{w}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2m_1h_2eM)}{2b^2R_1R_2^3}}[r^4+2r^2(z^2+bz+2b^2)+(zb)(z+b)^3]`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2h_1}{b^2R_1^3R_2}}[r^4+2r^2(z^2bz+2b^2)+(z+b)(zb)^3]`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_ih_ir^2}{R_i^4}}+\stackrel{(2)}{K},`$
where $`\stackrel{(2)}{K}`$ is an arbitrary constant.

(22) is a particular integral of (21): I insert no complementary function because I assume that the sources have already been introduced in the first approximation (17)-(20). We shall also need $`n`$: from (14) this is given by

$$\stackrel{(1)}{n}=\stackrel{(1)}{w};\stackrel{(2)}{n}=\stackrel{(2)}{w}+\stackrel{(1)}{f}\stackrel{(1)}{w}.$$
(23)
## 4 Interpretation

One condition for regularity on the symmetry axis is that $`\nu =0`$ there. This is well known in the static non-electromagnetic case , in which it cannot be satisfied: there is a conical singularity on the axis representing a strut (or strings) supporting the particles against their mutual gravitational attraction. A similar singularity is, in general, present in our system, though it is modified by the presence of the spins and electromagnetic charges. I shall not consider this singularity in this Letter.

Another condition for regularity on the symmetry axis is that $`n=0`$ there: for otherwise, from (6), $`l`$ must change sign. If this happens there exist closed timelike curves, $`r=0`$ is no longer a spatial axis of symmetry, and the character of spacetime is radically different. Following Letelier   I refer to a part of the axis on which $`n0`$ as a torsion singularity. In our case we see from (18) and (23) that $`n=0`$ on $`r=0`$ in the first approximation, but in the second approximation $`\stackrel{(2)}{n}=0`$ requires $`\stackrel{(2)}{w}=0`$ there. Using $`\stackrel{(2)}{K}`$ we can make $`\stackrel{(2)}{w}`$ vanish on the axis either for $`z<b`$ or for $`z>b`$, but not for both unless

$$eM=2(m_1h_2+m_2h_1).(1)$$

There will be no torsion singularity if (1) is satisfied. Otherwise there must be a singularity which, I have argued previously  for a configuration of uncharged spinning particles, represents a couple maintaining the spins at values which do not satisfy (1). A remarkable feature of (1) is that the distance between the particles does not occur in it.

In the special case in which the particles have no angular momentum (i.e. when $`h_1=h_2=0`$), there will be a singularity representing a couple needed to keep them from spinning. It is tempting to conjecture that, if the two particles were placed in position, supported against collapse, but allowed to spin, their angular momenta would change until (1) was satisfied, and that the system would then remain in a steady state.

If we introduce the angular momenta per unit mass $`a_1,a_2`$, (1) may be written

$$a_1+a_2=eM/2m_1m_2,$$

so that if either $`e`$ or $`M`$ is zero,

$$a_1+a_2=0,$$

a relation which has appeared several times in a similar context    .

Finally it should be remembered that the results of this Letter have been derived from the first and second approximations to the equations (7)-(13). Work with higher approximations may affect the conclusions, in particular formula (1).

## References

 W.B.Bonnor, Phys. Lett. A158 (1991) 23.
 W.B.Bonnor, Class. Quantum Grav. 18 (2001) 1381.
 J.L.Synge, Relativity:The General Theory (North-Holland,Amsterdam, 1960) p.309.
 P.S.Letelier, Class. Quantum Grav. 12 (1995) 471.
 P.S.Letelier and S.R.de Oliveira, Phys. Lett. A238 (1998) 101.
 W.B.Bonnor and J.P.Ward, Commun. math. Phys. 28 (1972) 323.
 T.J.T.Spanos, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 1633.
 N.Bretón and V.S.Manko, Class. Quantum Grav. 12 (1995) 1969.
 N.Bretón, V.S.Manko and J.A.Sánchez, Class. Quantum Grav. 16 (1999) 3725.
V.S.Manko, J.D.Sanabria-Gómez and O.V.Manko, Phys. Rev. 62 (2000) 044048.
V.S.Manko, E.Ruiz and J.D.Sanabria-Gómez, Class. Quantum Grav. 17 (2000) 3881.


format: text

text:
# Spin-wave spectrum of copper metaborate in the commensurate phase 10𝐾<𝑇<21𝐾

## 1 Introduction

Copper metaborate, CuB2O4, crystallizes with the space group $`I\overline{4}2d`$ ($`D_{2d}^{12}`$) with 12 formula units in the chemical cell. Although the chemical structure was already solved 30 years ago by x-ray measurements (, see Fig. 1), it was only recently that the surprising details of the magnetic structure have been revealed with help of various experimental techniques (-). At TN=21K the magnetic system undergoes a second order phase transition from a paramagnetic into a commensurate antiferromagnetic state with a magnetic propagation vector $`\stackrel{}{k}_0=(0,0,0)`$, i. e. the dimension of the magnetic unit cell is identical with the chemical one. Below T=10K the propagation vector changes continuously from $`\stackrel{}{k}_0=(0,0,0)`$ to $`\stackrel{}{k}_0=(0,0,0.15)`$ (r. l. u.) at

T=200mK, showing that the magnetic structure becomes incommensurate with respect to the chemical lattice along the tetragonal c-axis. Near T we observed higher order harmonics in the diffraction pattern of neutron diffraction measurements , which indicates the existence of a magnetic soliton lattice in this compound without the application of an external field.

The peculiarities of the magnetic structures are due to the existence of two nonequivalent types of Cu 2+ ions, labeled Cu(A) and Cu(B) in the following. The Cu(A) ion is located at site $`4b`$ (point symmetry $`S_4,00\frac{1}{2}`$) and is at the center of a square unit formed by four oxygen ions. Cu(B) is at site $`8d`$ (point symmetry $`C_2,x\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{8}`$, x=0.0815) and is surrounded by six oxygen ions located at the vertices of a distorted octahedron. In the commensurate phase (T=10K$`<`$T$`<`$TN=21K), the Cu(A) moments are confined close to the tetragonal plane and the value of the moment at T=12K is nearly the same as the value of a free Cu 2+ spin of 1$`\mu _B`$ . In contrast, the value of the Cu(B) magnetic moment reaches only a value of 0.25 $`\mu _B`$ at T=12K. Hence, the magnetic state in the commensurate phase seems to be mainly governed by the exchange interactions of the ‘strong’ (in the magnetic sense) Cu(A) subsystem. Exchange interactions inside the second subsystem, as well as between the two spin systems are much weaker and become only important below the second transition which occurs at T\*, leading to the observed changes in the magnetic structure.

In this work we analysed the spectrum of spin excitations in the commensurate phase in order to determine the exchange parameters in the strong subsystem. This entailed much simplification of the complex magnetic system in CuB2O4, but our assumptions are justified by the excellent agreement between experimental data and theory, as we shall demonstrate below.

## 2 Experimental details

The inelastic neutron scattering experiments were performed at the Institut Laue Langevin (ILL), Grenoble, on the thermal triple-axis spectrometer IN22. The spectrometer was operated in the constant final energy mode with a neutron wave vector $`k_f`$=2.662 Å-1. Contamination from higher order neutron wavelengths has been suppressed by the use of a pyrolitic-graphite placed in the scattered beam. In order to increase the neutron intensity, the collimation was removed from the beam and the analyzer was horizontally focussed. In this configuration, the energy resolution at the elastic position was about 0.8 meV. A single crystal of CuB2O4 of about 0.5 cm3 was mounted inside an 4He cryostat of ILL-type with the \[q,q,0\] and \[0,0,q\] crystallographic directions in the scattering plane. Typical constant q-scans taken with a counting time of $``$4 minutes/point are shown in Fig.3. Additional scans were taken on the cold neutron triple-axis spectrometers TASP (SINQ) with a final wave-vector $`k_f`$=1.64 Å-1 and IN14 (ILL) with a final wave-vector $`k_f`$=1.55 Å-1 which yielded an improved energy resolution ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ 0.20 meV) and showed that the high energy branch of the spin-wave excitations in CuB2O4 goes to $`\mathrm{}\omega =0`$ when $`\stackrel{}{q}0`$. In addition, a low energy branch with a dispersion confined below $`\mathrm{}\omega `$1.5 meV could be identified. This branch has dispersive modes along the c-axis only.

## 3 Spin-wave theory

The analysis of the upper (high energy) branches in the spin-wave spectrum of copper metaborate can be done in a first approximation by neglecting interactions between the different subsystems and assuming exchange interactions in the ‘strong’ subsystem Cu(A) only. In the following, we considered the exchange interactions with four neighbour atoms at the positions $`(0,\pm \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{4})`$ and $`(\pm \frac{1}{2},0,\frac{1}{4})`$ relativ to the central Cu(A) ion. Interactions with additional neighbours can only exist in long cation chains (see Fig.1,) and do not influence the quality of the analysis of the spin-wave spectrum as shown below. For the same reasons we ignored other possible weak interactions such as anisotropic exchanges within the basal plane and dipole-dipole interactions. Measurements of the magnetization , the magnetic resonance  and neutron investigations of the magnetic structure  have shown that Cu(A) ions form a two-sublattice antiferromagnetic structure with magnetic moments placed almost in the tetragonal plane (”easy plane”). The Hamiltonian with S=$`\frac{1}{2}`$ is thus of the form

$$H=J_z\underset{ij}{}S_i^zS_j^z+J_{xy}\underset{ij}{}(S_i^xS_j^x+S_i^yS_j^y)+h(\underset{i}{}S_i^y+\underset{j}{}S_j^y).$$
(1)
The parameter $`h`$ plays the role of an external magnetic field ($`h=g\mu _BH`$) applied in the basal plane $`h=h_y`$, or describes the Dzyaloshinskii field where $`z`$ is the tetragonal axis of the crystal and $`J_{xy}>J_z`$. The Holstein-Primakoff transformation within the spin wave theory approach  for each sublattice ($`x_iy_iz_i`$) and ($`x_jy_jz_j`$) is defined as

$`S_{i,j}^x=S+b_{i,j}^+b_{i,j}`$
$`S_{i,j}^y=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2}}}(b_{i,j}^++b_{i,j})`$ (2)
$`S_{i,j}^z=i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2}}}(b_{i,j}b_{i,j}^+).`$
The relations between the crystal coordinate system and the local axes are given by

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`x_i\mathrm{cos}\alpha y_i\mathrm{sin}\alpha =x_j\mathrm{cos}\alpha y_j\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`x_i\mathrm{sin}\alpha +y_i\mathrm{cos}\alpha =x_j\mathrm{sin}\alpha y_j\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`z_{i,j},`$
as shown in Fig. 2. Using the above equations, the Hamiltonian up to the second power in the quantization operators becomes

$$H=H_0+H_1+H_2.$$

The requirement that the linear part of the Hamiltonian, $`H_1`$, vanishes, leads to a condition for the orientation of the equilibrium magnetization of each sublattice:

$$\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\frac{h}{2h_{}},$$

where $`h_{}=nSJ_{xy}`$. $`n`$ is the number of nearest neighbours, $`H_0=nS^2J_{xy}N`$ the energy of the ground state and N the number of spins in one sublattice. For the evaluation of the spin-wave spectra, one has to consider the part in the Hamiltonian which is quadratic in the quantization operators, i.e. $`H_2`$. Substituing Eq. 3 in $`H_2`$ yields

$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`h_{}({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_i^+b_i+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}b_j^+b_j)B{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(b_i^+b_j+b_ib_j^+)C{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(b_i^+b_j^++b_ib_j),`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2}}(J_{xy}\mathrm{cos}2\alpha J_z),C={\displaystyle \frac{S}{2}}(J_{xy}\mathrm{cos}2\alpha +J_z).`$ (3)
The Fourier transform

$$b_{i,j}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{k}{}b_{1k,2k}\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}_{i,j})$$

where $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is a vector in reciprocal space, leads to the momentum representation of the Hamiltonian

$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(h_{}(b_{1k}^+b_{1k}+b_{2k}^+b_{2k})2B(B_kb_{1k}^+b_{2k}+h.c.)2C(B_kb_{1k}^+b_{2k}^++h.c.)),`$
$`B_k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{c}/4)\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{b}/2)+\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{c}/4)\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{a}/2).`$ (4)
The factor $`B_k`$ represents the $`k`$-dependence of the exchange interactions in the Cu(A) subsystem. A separation into independent branches in the excitation spectrum is obtained by expressing the operators of each sublattice with help of collective-excitations operators $`a_k`$ and $`c_k`$ through

$`b_{1k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(a_ke^{i\phi _k}+c_ke^{i\psi _k})`$
$`b_{2k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(a_ke^{i\eta _k}+c_ke^{i\xi _k}),`$
with the requirement for the phases that $`\phi _k\eta _k=\psi _k\xi _k=\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta )=B_k/B_k^{}`$, respectively. Using this transformation, we obtain

$`H_2={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}((h_{}2B\sqrt{B_kB_k^{}})a_k^+a_k+(h_{}+2B\sqrt{B_kB_k^{}})c_k^+c_k`$ (5)
$`2C\sqrt{B_kB_k^{}}(a_ka_kc_kc_k+h.c.)).`$
The diagonalization of the square-law part  gives two branches of spin waves with Eigenenergies

$$E_k^{a,c}=\sqrt{\left(h_{}2(B+C)\sqrt{B_kB_k^{}}\right)\left(h_{}2(BC)\sqrt{B_kB_k^{}}\right)}.$$
(6)
## 4 Comparison with the experiment

For the high symmetry directions with $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ along \[q,q,0\], \[q,q,q\] and \[0,0,q\] respectively, and in zero magnetic field (i.e. $`\mathrm{cos}2\alpha =1`$), Eq. 6 simplifies to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_k^{a,c}}{h_{}}}=\sqrt{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_zc}{4}}(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_xa}{2}}+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_yb}{2}})\right)\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{J_z}{2J_{xy}}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_zc}{4}}(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_xa}{2}}+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_yb}{2}})\right)}.`$ (7)
$`k_x`$, $`k_y`$ and $`k_z`$ are $`\frac{2\pi }{a}h`$, $`\frac{2\pi }{b}k`$ and $`\frac{2\pi }{c}l`$, respectively, where h,k and l are the Miller indices. In the isotropic case ($`J_{xy}=J_z`$), the two spin wave branches of Eq. 7 are degenerate. A small anisotropy lifts the degeneracy and the two branches split in an acoustic and an optic mode (compare Fig.4). We obtain a good agreement between Eq. 4 and the experimental data from a least-squares fit for the following values of the exchange parameters:

$$\mathrm{nSJ}_{\mathrm{xy}}=7.7\pm 0.1\mathrm{meV},\mathrm{J}_{\mathrm{xy}}=45\mathrm{K},\frac{\mathrm{J}_\mathrm{z}}{\mathrm{J}_{\mathrm{xy}}}=0.95\pm 0.01.$$
(8)
The obtained spin wave spectra are shown in Fig. 7. From our experimental data, we have only clear evidence of one dispersion branch (neglecting the low energy branch along c in this analysis). However, numerical calculations based on the Random Phase Approximation (RPA) method show that, at the zone center, the intensity of the optical branch is weak. Hence, due to limitations in intensity and resolution, it appears that exchange values given in Eq. 8 represents an upper bound of anisotropy in the Cu(A) magnetic sublattice. We note also that with these parameters the theoretical curves for the direction $`\stackrel{}{k}`$=(0,0,q) lie somewhat below the experimental points (Fig. 4a). This is probably due to the fact that we neglected weak interactions betwee Cu(A) and Cu(B), as noted above. The interaction within the Cu(B) subsystem itself leads to a second phase transition toward the incommensurate magnetic phase at $`T^{}10K`$.

As noted above, we observed a second excitation branch with dispersion along the (0,0,q) direction only. It is confined to energies much lower than the spin-wave branch considered here. This branch is probably related to spin excitations of the Cu(B) subsystem, which is still disordered above $`T^{}`$. An analysis of the dispersion and temperature dependences of these excitations is in progress and will be published later.

## 5 Conclusion

We have determined the spectrum of magnetic excitations in copper metaborate in the commensurate magnetic phase at T=12K by means of inelastic neutron scattering. Two branches of excitations have been observed with different characteristics. Whereas the low-energy branch is attributed to fluctuations within the Cu(B) sublattice, which only starts to order below $`T^{}`$, the spin-wave analysis of the dispersion of the upper branch allowed us to determine the exchange interactions within the Cu(A) sublattice. The precision of the spin model introduced here can be estimated by comparing the exchange parameters with values calculated from the molecular-field theory. This allows us to estimate the transition temperature from the paramagnetic into the antiferromagnetic state. In particular, if this transition is caused by the interaction inside the Cu(A) subsystem only, the temperature of the phase transition $`T_N`$ should give values for the exchange parameters which are close to the results of our spin-wave analysis . The staggered molecular field on every spin $`g\mu _B(H_{e,1}S_1+H_{e,2}S_2)`$ is obtained for a single pair interaction $`JS_1S_2`$ from

$$g\mu _BH_{e,1(2)}=\frac{1}{2}S_{2(1)}J.$$
(9)
As a result, the relation between the Néel temperature and the exchange interaction becomes  111Note, that the absence of a factor 1/2 in , as well as in a series of others publications, leads to a decrease of the exchange values estimated from the Néel (respectively Curie) temperature.

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{JnS(S+1)}{3}=k_BT_N.$$
(10)
For $`T_N=21K`$ we obtain $`J=42K`$. This value is close to the result of the spin-wave analysis, which shows that the theoretical analysis of the spin-wave spectrum in copper metaborate in the temperature range $`T^{}<T<T_N`$ can be described in a first approximation as an antiferromagnetic ordered subsystem of Cu(A) ions with an anisotropic exchange of ‘easy plane’ type. Although the spins at the Cu(B) site are still disordered above T=10K, interactions between the two subsystems influences the excitation spectrum and leads to a shift of the spin-wave spectrum, in particular along the $`z`$-axis.

This work is done under partial support from RFBR (grant 01-02-17270). We also thank E. Kusmin, M. Popov and A. Pankratz for fruitful discussions and L.P. Regnault for his help in setting up the experiment on IN22.

*


text:
# Conservation laws for multidimensional systems and related linear algebra problems

## 1. Introduction

It is well known that conservation laws are of fundamental importance for clarifying the structure of PDEs. In particular, a common feature of soliton equations is to have conservation laws of arbitrarily high order. Existence of higher order conservation laws imposes very strong conditions on a system of PDEs. Explicit formulation of these conditions would help to classify integrable systems of a given type.

The straightforward study of the conserved current condition is hampered by the fact that one is interested in equivalence classes of conserved currents modulo trivial ones. Therefore, it is convenient to switch from a conserved current to its characteristic, which is the same for equivalent currents and satisfies the equation adjoint to the linearization of the initial system .

Thus a part of the problem is to determine conditions for the adjoint linearized equation to have higher order solutions $`\chi `$. In the present article we perform the first natural step in this direction. For determined, possibly multidimensional, systems of PDEs we find the conditions imposed on the symbol of the system by the fact that some higher order vector-functions satisfy the adjoint linearized equation modulo lower order terms.

More precisely, we consider systems of generalized evolution form

$$\frac{^hu^i}{t^h}=F^i(x_j,t,\frac{^su^a}{t^s},\frac{^{i_1+\mathrm{}+i_n}u^b}{x_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{i_n}}),$$
(1)
$$i,a,b=1,\mathrm{},m,j=1,\mathrm{},n,s=0,\mathrm{},h1,i_1+\mathrm{}+i_nN,$$

with $`t`$-derivatives of fixed order $`h>0`$ on the left-hand side and with the right-hand side dependent on lower order $`t`$-derivatives and arbitrary space derivatives.

To any $`m`$-component vector-function $`\chi `$ of the variables $`x_j,t,u^i`$ and their derivatives we associate its symbol with respect to the space variables $`x_j`$, which is an $`m\times m`$ matrix, whose entries are homogeneous polynomials in $`n`$ variables of degree equal to the order $`\mathrm{o}(\chi )`$ of $`\chi `$ with respect to $`x_j`$.

Let $`A`$ be the symbol of the right-hand side of (1) and $`S`$ be the symbol of the characteristic $`\chi `$ of a conservation law for (1). It turns out that if $`\mathrm{o}(\chi )>O`$, where $`ON`$ is some constant associated to (1), then the adjoint linearized equation implies the matrix equation

$$SA=(1)^{N+h}A^tS.$$
(2)
Here and below $`A^t`$ is the transpose of $`A`$.

A linear algebra problem arises naturally: for what matrices $`A`$ does there exist a nonzero matrix $`S`$ such that (2) holds? In addition, since for known integrable systems there are normally higher conservation laws with nonsingular $`S`$, one is also interested for which $`A`$ the matrix $`S`$ can be taken nonsingular, i.e., when the matrices $`A`$ and $`\pm A^t`$ are similar (conjugate).

In solving these problems there is a difference between the cases $`n=1`$ and $`n>1`$. If $`n=1`$, one can switch from homogeneous polynomial in one variable matrices $`A`$ and $`S`$ to the corresponding matrices of coefficients and, allowing the coefficients to be complex, make use of the Jordan normal form . While if $`n>1`$ then the entries of the matrices belong to the field of rational functions in several variables, which is essentially not algebraicly closed, hence the Jordan normal form is not generally applicable. Using more sophisticated algebraic technique, we prove the following effective criteria.

###### Theorem.

For any $`m\times m`$ matrix $`A`$ with the entries from an arbitrary field $`F`$ and the characteristic polynomial $`d(\lambda )F[\lambda ]`$ we have the following.

1. The matrices $`A`$ and $`A^t`$ are always similar.
2. A nonzero $`m\times m`$ matrix $`S`$ such that $`SA=A^tS`$ exists if and only if the polynomials $`d(\lambda )`$ and $`d(\lambda )`$ have a common divisor of positive degree.
3. The matrices $`A`$ and $`A^t`$ are similar if and only if all the invariant factors $`d_i(\lambda )`$ of $`A`$ (certain divisors of the characteristic polynomial ) satisfy $`d_i(\lambda )=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}d_i(\lambda )}d_i(\lambda )`$. In particular, $`d(\lambda )=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}d(\lambda )}d(\lambda )`$, which in the case $`\mathrm{char}F2`$ implies $`\mathrm{tr}A=0`$ and, if $`m`$ is odd, $`detA=0`$.

Statements $`2`$ and $`3`$ of the theorem give a necessary condition for existence of higher conservation laws for systems (1) with odd $`N+h`$. In particular, a scalar equation ($`m=1`$) of the form (1) with odd $`N+h`$ can not have conservation laws of order greater than $`O`$. For different ways to write system (1) in the generalized evolution form the symbols $`A`$ and the resulting conditions are generally different. In order to have higher conservation laws a system of PDEs must satisfy all conditions obtained from various ways to write it in the generalized evolution form.

Let us discuss the previous research on this theme. It seems that only evolution systems ($`h=1`$) in one space variable ($`n=1`$) were studied in this respect. For such systems equation (2) was obtained by a similar technique in  and rediscovered in . In  it is noticed that $`SA=A^tS`$ for nonsingular $`S`$ implies $`det(A+\lambda 𝐈)=(1)^mdet(A\lambda 𝐈)`$, which is a weaker version of our Statement $`3`$. Here and below $`𝐈`$ is the unity matrix. In  Statement $`2`$ is proved for complex matrices, and the corresponding necessary condition for existence of conservation laws of order greater than the order of the evolution system is formulated. Even in this simplest case our result is stronger, since the upper bound $`O`$ is normally much smaller than the order of the system (see the examples in Section 7).

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the method of characteristics of conservation laws is recalled. We specify the method for systems of generalized evolution form in Section 3 and derive equation (2) in Section 4. The above theorem on quadratic matrices is proved in Section 5. In Section 6 we explicitly formulate the obtained necessary conditions for existence of higher conservation laws. Finally, Section 7 contains some mathematical physics equations of the form (1), which violate these conditions and, therefore, do not have conservation laws of order greater than $`O`$. This result allows us to describe all conservation laws for two basic equations in the theory of viscous transonic gas flows (see, for example,  and references therein) and for two popular reaction-diffusion systems: the Brusselator model and the Belousov-Zhabotinskii system \[10, Section 15.4\].

## 2. Characteristics of conservation laws

This is a brief review of the method of characteristic for computation of conservation laws. We refer to  for more details.

Consider a system $``$ of differential equations

$$F_s(y_i,v^j,\mathrm{},v_I^k,\mathrm{})=0,s=1,\mathrm{},p,$$
(3)
with independent variables $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_a`$, unknown functions $`v^1,\mathrm{},v^b`$, and

$$v_I^k=\frac{^{|I|}v^k}{y_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}y_a^{i_a}},I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_a)_+^a,$$

being their derivatives. Here and below $`_+`$ is the set of nonnegative integers and $`|I|=i_1+\mathrm{}+i_a`$.

Let $``$ be the algebra of smooth functions of the variables $`y_i`$, $`u^j`$, and $`u_I^j`$. Although the whole set of the variables is infinite, each function is supposed to depend only on a finite subset. Denote by $`_{}`$ the quotient algebra with respect to the ideal $``$ generated by the left-hand sides of equations (3) and their differential consequences $`D_{y_{i_1}}\mathrm{}D_{y_{i_k}}(F_s)`$. Here

$$D_{y_i}=\frac{}{y_i}+\underset{j,I}{}u_{I+1_i}^j\frac{}{u_I^j}$$

is the *total derivative with respect to* $`y_i`$, where $`1_i`$ is the multi-index with $`1`$ at the $`i`$-th place, the other indices of $`1_i`$ being zero. For two equivalent functions $`f_1,f_2,f_1f_2,`$ one has $`f_1(y_i,v^j(y_i))=f_2(y_i,v^j(y_i))`$ for any local solution $`v^j(y_i)`$ to (3).

By definition, the ideal $``$ is invariant under the action of $`D_{y_i}`$, which, therefore, defines a derivation $`\overline{D}_{y_i}`$ of $`_{}`$. A *conserved current for* (3) is an $`a`$-tuple $`J=(J_1,\mathrm{},J_a)`$, where $`J_k_{}`$, that satisfies the equation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{a}{}}\overline{D}_{y_i}(J_i)=0.$$
(4)
A conserved current is called *trivial*, if it has the form

$$J_k=\underset{l<k}{}\overline{D}_l(_{lk})\underset{k<l}{}\overline{D}_l(_{kl})$$

for some functions $`_{kl}_{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}k<la`$. Two conserved currents are said to be *equivalent* if they differ by a trivial one. *Conservation laws* are defined to be the equivalent classes of conserved currents.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{J}_k`$ be such that $`J_k=\stackrel{~}{J}_k+`$. Identity (4) means that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{a}{}}D_{y_i}(\stackrel{~}{J}_i)=\underset{s,I}{}g_I^sD_y^I(F_s)$$
(5)
for some functions $`g_I^s`$, only a finite number of which is nonzero. Here and in what follows for each multi-index $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_a)`$ we denote $`D_y^I=D_{y_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}D_{y_a}^{i_a}`$. Consider the functions

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_s=\underset{I}{}(1)^{|I|}D_y^I(g_I^s),s=1,\mathrm{},p.$$
(6)
Generally speaking, representation (5) and functions $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_s`$ are not uniquely defined by the conserved current $`J`$. Assume that system (3) is non-overdetermined and nondegenerated , then the corresponding elements $`\chi _s=\stackrel{~}{\chi }_s+`$ of $`_{}`$ are well-defined by $`J`$ and are all zero if and only if $`J`$ is trivial. The $`p`$-tuple $`\chi =(\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _p)`$ is the same for equivalent conserved currents and is called the *characteristic* (or *generating function* ) of the corresponding conservation law.

In addition, $`\chi `$ satisfies the *adjoint linearized equation*

$$K(\chi )=0,$$
(7)
where $`K`$ is the $`b\times p`$ matrix differential operator with the entries

$$[K]_{ij}=\underset{I}{}(1)^{|I|}\overline{D}_y^I\frac{F_j}{v_I^i}.$$
(8)
The homological interpretation of these concepts can be found in .

## 3. Formulas for systems of generalized evolution form

Consider a system $``$ of $`m`$ partial differential equations in $`n+1`$ independent variables $`t,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ and $`m`$ unknown functions $`u^1,\mathrm{},u^m`$ of the form

$$\frac{^hu^i}{t^h}=F^i,i=1,\mathrm{},m,$$
(9)
where $`F^i`$ are smooth functions of the variables $`x_j,t,u^a`$ and the following derivatives

$$\frac{^{i_1+\mathrm{}+i_n}u^b}{x_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{i_n}},i_1,\mathrm{},i_n_+,\frac{^su^a}{t^s},s<h.$$
(10)
For each multi-index $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)_+^n`$ and integer $`s0`$ we denote

$$u_{s,I}^i=\frac{^{|I|+s}u^i}{t^sx_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{i_n}}.$$
(11)
Let us describe the algebra $`_{}`$ for this system. By induction on $`s`$, it follows from (9) that the derivatives $`u_{s,I}^i`$ with $`sh`$ are expressed in terms of

$$t,x_j,u_{s,I}^i,s<h.$$
(12)
Therefore, for each function of $`t,x_j,u^i`$ and arbitrary derivatives (11) there is a unique equivalent modulo (9) function of variables (12). Thus we can identify $`_{}`$ with the algebra of smooth functions of variables (12). Below all functions are supposed to be from $`_{}`$.

The restrictions $`\overline{D}_{x_i},\overline{D}_t:_{}_{}`$ of the total derivatives are written in coordinates (12) as follows

$$\overline{D}_{x_i}=\frac{}{x_i}+\underset{k,I,s}{}u_{s,I+1_i}^k\frac{}{u_{s,I}^k},$$

$$\overline{D}_t=\frac{}{t}+\underset{k,I,s<h1}{}u_{s+1,I}^k\frac{}{u_{s,I}^k}+\underset{k,I}{}D_x^I(F^k)\frac{}{u_{h1,I}^k}.$$
(13)
The equation $`\overline{D}_tJ_0+_{i=1}^n\overline{D}_{x_i}J_i=0`$ for a conserved current $`J=(J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_n)`$ implies the identity

$$D_tJ_0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}D_{x_i}J_i=\underset{i,I}{}\frac{J_0}{u_{h1,I}^i}D_x^I(u_{h,0}^iF^i),$$

which is the specification of (5) for system (9). According to general formula (6), the characteristic $`\chi =(\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _m)`$ is computed as follows

$$\chi _i=\underset{I}{}(1)^{|I|}\overline{D}_x^I(\frac{J_0}{u_{h1,I}^i}).$$
(14)
From (7) and (8) we see that the characteristic regarded as a column vector satisfies the equation

$$(1)^h\overline{D}_t^h(\chi )=L(\chi ),$$
(15)
where $`L`$ is the $`m\times m`$ matrix differential operator with the entries

$$[L]_{ij}=\underset{I}{}(1)^{|I|}\overline{D}_x^I\frac{F^j}{u_{0,I}^i}+\underset{s=0}{\overset{h1}{}}(1)^s\overline{D}_t^s\frac{F^j}{u_{s,0}^i}.$$
(16)
## 4. Solving the adjoint equation for the highest order terms

For a (vector-)function $`f`$ the maximal integer $`k`$ such that $`f/u_{s,I}^i0`$ for some $`0s<h,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}im,|I|=k`$ is called the order of $`f`$ and denoted by $`\mathrm{o}(f)`$. If $`f/u_{s,I}^i=0`$ for all $`s,i,I`$ then we set $`\mathrm{o}(f)=1`$. The maximal integer $`s<h`$ such that $`f/u_{s,I}^i0`$ for some $`1im,|I|=\mathrm{o}(f)`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{t}(f)`$. The order of the characteristic of a conservation law for (9) is called the *order* of the conservation law.

Consider the ring $`[q_1,\mathrm{},q_n]`$ of polynomials in $`n`$ variables with $``$ as the ring of coefficients. For each multi-index $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ denote by $`q^I`$ the monomial $`q_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}q_n^{i_n}[q_1,\mathrm{},q_n]`$. For any $`k`$-component vector-function $`\chi =(\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _k)`$ and two integers $`a,b0`$ let $`𝐒^{a,b}(\chi )`$ be the $`k\times m`$ matrix with the entries

$$[𝐒^{a,b}(\chi )]_{ij}=\underset{|I|=a}{}\frac{\chi _i}{u_{b,I}^j}q^I[q_1,\mathrm{},q_n].$$

We call the nonzero matrix $`𝐒^{\mathrm{o}(\chi ),\mathrm{t}(\chi )}(\chi )`$ the *symbol* of $`\chi `$ and denote it by $`𝐒_\chi `$.

Let $`A`$ be the symbol of the right-hand side $`(F^1,\mathrm{},F^m)`$ of (9) and set $`N=\mathrm{o}(F^1,\mathrm{},F^m)>0`$. By assumption (10), one has $`\mathrm{t}(F^1,\mathrm{},F^m)=0`$. Therefore, by definition,

$$[A]_{ij}=\underset{|I|=N}{}\frac{F^i}{u_{0,I}^j}q^I.$$
(17)
Applying the Leibniz rule, differential operators (16) can be uniquely rewritten in the usual form

$$[L]_{ij}=\underset{|I|N}{}f_I^{ij}\overline{D}_x^I+\underset{s<h}{}g_s^{ij}\overline{D}_t^s.$$

In particular, from definition (16) one has

$$f_I^{ij}=(1)^N\frac{F^j}{u_{0,I}^i}I:|I|=N.$$
(18)
We set

$$O=\underset{i,j,I,s}{\mathrm{max}}\{1,\mathrm{o}(f_I^{ij})N,\mathrm{o}(g_s^{ij})N\}.$$
(19)
From definition (16) it follows that $`ON`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\chi `$ be the characteristic of a conservation law for (9). If $`\mathrm{o}(\chi )>O`$ then we have

$$𝐒_\chi A=(1)^{N+h}A^t𝐒_\chi .$$
(20)
###### Proof.

Set $`a=N+\mathrm{o}(\chi ),b=\mathrm{t}(\chi )<h`$. Equation (15) implies, in particular,

$$(1)^h𝐒^{a,b}(\overline{D}_t^h(\chi ))=𝐒^{a,b}(L(\chi )).$$
(21)
Set

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{k,I,s<h1}{}u_{s+1,I}^k\frac{}{u_{s,I}^k}.$$

Clearly, for any vector-function $`\psi `$ with $`\mathrm{o}(\psi )0`$ and $`\mathrm{t}(\psi )<h1`$ we have

$$\mathrm{o}(\mathrm{\Delta }(\psi ))=\mathrm{o}(\psi ),\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{\Delta }(\psi ))=\mathrm{t}(\psi )+1,𝐒_{\mathrm{\Delta }(\psi )}=𝐒_\psi .$$
(22)
By formula (13) and assumption (10), for any vector-function $`\chi `$ with $`\mathrm{o}(\chi )0`$ the vector-function $`\overline{D}_t^h(\chi )`$ does not depend on the coordinates $`u_{s,I}^j`$ with $`|I|>a`$ or $`|I|=a,s>b`$. Moreover, from the whole expression

$$\overline{D}_t^h(\chi )=(\frac{}{t}+\mathrm{\Delta }+\underset{k,I}{}D_x^I(F^k)\frac{}{u_{h1,I}^k})^h(\chi )$$

only the part

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^b(\underset{k,I}{}D_x^I(F^k)\frac{}{u_{h1,I}^k})\mathrm{\Delta }^{h1b}(\chi )$$

contributes to $`𝐒^{a,b}(\overline{D}_t^h(\chi ))`$.

Therefore, by the definition of $`𝐒^{a,b}`$, properties (22), and formula (17), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐒^{a,b}(\overline{D}_t^h(\chi ))=𝐒^{a,b}(\mathrm{\Delta }^b(\underset{k,I}{}D_x^I(F^k)\frac{}{u_{h1,I}^k})\mathrm{\Delta }^{h1b}(\chi ))=\hfill \\ \hfill =𝐒^{a,0}(\underset{k,|I|=\mathrm{o}(\chi )}{}D_x^I(F^k)\frac{\chi }{u_{b,I}^k})=𝐒_\chi A.\end{array}$$
(23)
Now let us compute the right-hand side of (21). In the case $`\mathrm{o}(\chi )>O`$ only the part $`_{|I|=N}f_I^{ij}\overline{D}_x^I`$ of $`[L]_{ij}`$ contributes to $`𝐒^{a,b}(L(\chi ))`$, since $`\overline{D}_t^s(\chi )`$ for $`s<h`$ does not depend on $`u_{p,I}^j`$ with $`|I|=a,pb`$ and the number $`a`$ is greater than the order of any coefficient $`f_I^{ij}`$ or $`g_s^{ij}`$. Therefore, taking into account formulas (18) and (17), we obtain

$$𝐒^{a,b}(L(\chi ))=(1)^NA^t𝐒_\chi .$$

Combining this with (23) and (21), one gets (20). ∎

In the next section we study the conditions imposed on $`A`$ by equation (20).

## 5. Linear algebra problems

For a ring $`R`$ we denote by $`M_k(R)`$ the ring of $`k\times k`$ matrices with entries from $`R`$. Consider an arbitrary field $`F`$ and denote by $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ its algebraic closure, i.e., the minimal algebraicly closed extention of $`F`$.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`AM_k(F)`$ and let $`d(\lambda )=det(A\lambda 𝐈)`$ be the characteristic polynomial of $`A`$. A nonzero matrix $`SM_k(F)`$ such that

$$SA=A^tS$$
(24)
exists if and only if the polynomials $`d(\lambda )`$ and $`d(\lambda )`$ have a common divisor of positive degree. Equivalently, there are two roots $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2\stackrel{~}{F}`$ of $`d(\lambda )`$ such that $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2=0`$.

###### Proof.

The polynomials $`d(\lambda )`$ and $`d(\lambda )`$ have a common divisor of positive degree if and only if they have a common root $`\lambda `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$, i.e., both $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda `$ are roots of $`d(\lambda )`$.

If (24) holds then for any similar to $`A`$ matrix $`A^{}=CAC^1,CM_k(F)`$, one has $`S^{}A^{}=A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}S^{}`$ with $`S^{}=C_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{t}SC^1`$. Let us regard $`A`$ as a matrix from $`M_k(\stackrel{~}{F})M_k(F)`$. Then we can assume $`A`$ to be in the Jordan normal form. For such $`A`$ one can easily show that the linear map

$$M_k(\stackrel{~}{F})M_k(\stackrel{~}{F}),SSA+A^tS,$$

has a nontrivial kernel if and only if there are two eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2\stackrel{~}{F}`$ of $`A`$ such that $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2=0`$ (see  for $`F=`$).

It remains to prove that if (24) holds for some $`SM_k(\stackrel{~}{F})`$ then there is nonzero $`S^{}M_k(F)`$ such that $`S^{}A=A^tS^{}`$. Consider a (possibly infinite) basis $`\{a_i\}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ regarded as a vector space over $`F`$. One has $`S=_ia_iS_i`$, where $`S_iM_k(F)`$. Since $`AM_k(F)`$, equation (24) implies $`S_iA=A^tS_i`$. ∎

Recall some criteria for two matrices $`A,BM_k(F)`$ to be similar (see, for example, \[4, Chapter 13\]). Consider the ring $`F[\lambda ]`$ of polynomials in one variable. A matrix $`CM_k(F[\lambda ])`$ is said to be *unimodular* if $`detC`$ is nonzero and belongs to $`F`$. For any matrix $`AM_k(F)`$ the matrix $`A\lambda 𝐈M_k(F[\lambda ])`$ admits a *canonical decomposition*

$$A\lambda 𝐈=C_1DC_2,C_1,D,C_2M_k(F[\lambda ]),$$
(25)
such that $`C_1,C_2`$ are unimodular, while $`D`$ is diagonal. Moreover, the polynomials $`d_i=[D]_{ii}`$ have the leading coefficient $`1`$, and $`d_{i+1}`$ is divisible by $`d_i`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},k1`$. Then the $`k`$ polynomials $`d_i`$ are defined uniquely by $`A`$ and are called the *invariant factors* of $`A`$. Note that there is a simple procedure to compute the invariant factors \[4, Chapter 13\].

###### Proposition 1 (\[4, Chapter 13\]).

Two matrices $`A,BM_k(F)`$ are similar if and only if they have the same invariant factors.

We call a polynomial $`d(\lambda )=_ia_i\lambda ^iF[\lambda ]`$ *skew* if $`d(\lambda )=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}d(\lambda )}d(\lambda )`$, i.e., for all $`i\mathrm{deg}d(\lambda )+1mod2`$ one has $`a_i=0`$.

###### Theorem 3.

For any $`AM_k(F)`$ we have the following.

1. The matrices $`A`$ and $`A^t`$ are similar.
2. The matrices $`A`$ and $`A^t`$ are similar if and only if each invariant factor of $`A`$ is skew. In this case the characteristic polynomial is also skew. In particular, in the case $`\mathrm{char}F2`$ we have $`\mathrm{tr}A=0`$ and, if $`k`$ is odd, $`detA=0`$.

###### Remark 1.

Note that in the case $`\mathrm{char}F=2`$ the second statement of this theorem as well as Theorem 2 are trivial.

###### Proof.

Consider canonical decomposition (25) for $`A`$. Taking the transpose, we obtain

$$A^t\lambda 𝐈=C_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}DC_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{t},$$
(26)
which is a canonical decomposition for $`A^t`$, since $`C_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{t},C_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}`$ are clearly unimodular. Therefore, the invariant factors of $`A^t`$ are the same, which, by Proposition 1, implies that $`A`$ and $`A^t`$ are similar.

Multiplying (26) by $`1`$ and substituting $`\lambda `$ in place of $`\lambda `$, we obtain

$$A^t\lambda 𝐈=C_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}(\lambda )D(\lambda )C_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}(\lambda ).$$
(27)
Denote $`C_1^{}=C_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}(\lambda )`$, $`C_2^{}=TC_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}(\lambda )`$, and $`D^{}=D(\lambda )T`$, where $`TM_k(F)`$ is the diagonal matrix with the entries $`[T]_{ii}=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}[D]_{ii}}`$. From (27) we obtain the canonical decomposition $`A^t\lambda 𝐈=C_1^{}D^{}C_2^{}`$ for $`A^t`$. According to Proposition 1, $`A`$ and $`A^t`$ are similar if and only if $`D^{}=D`$, which says that all the invariant factors $`[D]_{ii}`$ of $`A`$ are skew. In this case the characteristic polynomial is also skew, since from (25) it is evidently equal to the product of the invariant factors multiplied by $`(1)^k`$. ∎

## 6. Necessary conditions for existence of higher conservation laws

According to Theorem 1, a necessary condition for existence of conservation laws for (9) of order greater than $`O`$ is that there is a nonzero $`m\times m`$ matrix $`𝐒_\chi `$ with entries from $`[q_1,\mathrm{},q_n]`$ such that (20) holds. Let us treat $`A`$ and $`𝐒_\chi `$ as matrices with entries from the field $`F`$ of rational functions in $`n`$ variables $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n`$. Then Theorem 2 implies the following.

###### Theorem 4.

If $`N+h`$ is odd and system (9) possesses a conservation law of order greater than $`O`$, then the characteristic polynomial $`d(\lambda )=det(A\lambda 𝐈)`$ and the polynomial $`d(\lambda )`$ have a common divisor of positive degree. Equivalently, there are eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ of $`A`$ (possibly in the algebraic closure of $`F`$) such that $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2=0`$.

###### Remark 2.

Evidently, introducing the new dependent variables

$$u^{i,s}=\frac{^su^i}{t^s},i=1,\mathrm{},m,s=0,\mathrm{},h1,$$

we can rewrite (9) in the usual evolution form. But if $`h>1`$ then the symbol of the right-hand side of the obtained evolution system has zero determinant and, therefore, automatically satisfies the condition in Theorem 4, even if the initial system does not meet this condition. Therefore, it is essential to consider the generalized evolution form.

Analyzing examples of known soliton equations, we can conjecture that for (9) to be integrable there must exist higher order conservation laws with nonsingular matrix $`𝐒_\chi `$. Therefore, it is worth formulating a necessary condition for existence of such *nonsingular* conservation laws. According to Theorem 3 (2), we obtain the following criterion.

###### Theorem 5.

If $`N+h`$ is odd and system (9) has a nonsingular conservation law of order greater than $`O`$ then all the invariant factors of the matrix $`A`$ are skew. In this case its characteristic polynomial is also skew. In particular, $`\mathrm{tr}A=0`$ and, if $`m`$ is odd, $`detA=0`$.

If $`m=1`$ then $`A`$ is a nonzero $`1\times 1`$ matrix, and Theorem 4 implies the following.

###### Theorem 6.

A scalar equation ($`m=1`$) of the form (9) with odd $`N+h`$ can not have conservation laws of order greater than $`O`$.

###### Remark 3.

To obtain stronger conditions, it is sometimes useful to write a system of PDEs in several ways in the form (9). For example, for a scalar evolution equation $`u_t=u_{xxx}+u_{yy}+f(u,u_x,u_y,u_{xx})`$ the condition is empty, since the sum of $`h=1`$ and $`N=3`$ is even. But rewriting the equation in the generalized evolution form with respect to $`y`$ as follows $`u_{yy}=u_{xxx}+u_tf(u,u_x,u_y,u_{xx})`$, we see, according to Theorem 6, that there are no higher conservation laws.

###### Remark 4.

If $`N+h`$ is even then, according to Theorem 3 (1), equation (20) is always solvable and imposes no restrictions on the symbol $`A`$ of (9). That is, equation (15) is solvable with respect to the highest order terms. In this case, to obtain nontrivial conditions for (9) to have higher conservation laws, deeper analysis of (15) is needed.

## 7. Examples

### 7.1. The viscous transonic equation

The nonlinear viscous transonic equation

$$u_{tt}=u_{xxx}+u_xu_{xx}\frac{\alpha }{t}u_t$$
(28)
describes the asymptotic form of a gas flow in the sonic region (see  and references therein). The following conserved currents for (28) were found in

$$(u_tt^\alpha ,u_{xx}t^\alpha \frac{u_x^2}{2}t^\alpha ),(u_tt+(\alpha 1)u,u_{xx}t\frac{u_x^2}{2}t).$$
(29)
All other conserved currents mentioned in  are trivial.

Let us show that (29) span the whole space of conservation laws for (28). We have

$$L=\overline{D}_x^3+\overline{D}_x^2u_x\overline{D}_xu_{xx}+\overline{D}_t\frac{\alpha }{t}=\overline{D}_x^3+u_x\overline{D}_x^2+u_{xx}\overline{D}_x+\frac{\alpha }{t}\overline{D}_t\frac{\alpha }{t^2}.$$

According to (19), one has $`O=1`$. By Theorem 6, since $`N+h=5`$ is odd, the characteristic $`\chi `$ of any conservation law is a function of $`x,t`$ only. Equation (15) reads

$$\chi _{tt}=\chi _{xxx}+u_x\chi _{xx}+u_{xx}\chi _x+\frac{\alpha }{t}\chi _t\frac{\alpha }{t^2}\chi .$$

This implies $`\chi _x=0`$ and

$$\chi _{tt}=\frac{\alpha }{t}\chi _t\frac{\alpha }{t^2}\chi .$$
(30)
The characteristics $`t^\alpha ,t`$ of conserved currents (29) span the space of solutions to (30). Therefore, (29) span the space of conservation laws.

### 7.2. Another equation for viscous transonic flows

The equation

$$v_{yy}=2v_{xt}+v_xv_{xx}v_{zz}\mu v_{xxx},$$
(31)
where $`\mu `$ is a nonzero real constant, models nonstationary transonic flows around a thin body with effects of viscosity and heat conductivity when the velocity of the gas is close to the local speed of sound, see  and references therein.

For this equation we obtain

$$L=\mu \overline{D}_x^3+2\overline{D}_x\overline{D}_t\overline{D}_z^2+v_x\overline{D}_x^2+v_{xx}\overline{D}_x.$$

By definition (19), we have $`O=1`$. According to Theorem 6, since $`N+h=5`$ is odd, the characteristic $`\chi `$ of any conservation law is a function of $`x,y,z,t`$ only. Equation (15) implies

$$\chi _x=0,\chi _{yy}+\chi _{zz}=0.$$
(32)
Each function $`\chi `$ satisfying (32) is indeed the characteristic of the conserved current

$$\overline{D}_y(\chi v_y\chi _yv)+\overline{D}_z(\chi v_z\chi _zv)+\overline{D}_x(\mu \chi v_{xx}\frac{1}{2}\chi v_x^22\chi v_t)=0.$$
(33)
Therefore, any conserved current for (31) is equivalent to a conserved current of the form (33).

### 7.3. The Brusselator model

The Brusselator model governing certain chemical reactions is the following multidimensional system

$`v_t`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2v}{x_i^2}}+v^2w(b+1)v+a,`$ (34)
$`w_t`$ $`=c{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2w}{x_i^2}}v^2w+bv,`$
where $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c0`$ are real parameters \[10, Section 15.4\]. By definition (16) we have

$$L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_i\overline{D}_{x_i}^2+2vw(b+1)& 2vw+b\\ v^2& c_i\overline{D}_{x_i}^2v^2\end{array}\right).$$

The symbol $`A`$ is diagonal with $`[A]_{11}=_iq_i^2`$ and $`[A]_{22}=c_iq_i^2`$. By definition (19), we have $`O=1`$. By Theorem 4, since $`[A]_{11}0`$, $`[A]_{22}0`$, and $`[A]_{11}+[A]_{22}0`$, the characteristic $`\chi =(\chi _1,\chi _2)`$ of any conservation law is a function of $`x_i,t`$ only. For such $`\chi `$ equation (15) reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _1}{t}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\chi _1}{x_i^2}}+(2vw(b+1))\chi _1(2vwb)\chi _2,`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _2}{t}}`$ $`=v^2\chi _1+c{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\chi _2}{x_i^2}}v^2\chi _2.`$
Evidently, (35) implies $`\chi _1=\chi _2`$. Then (35) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _1}{t}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\chi _1}{x_i^2}}\chi _1,`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _1}{t}}`$ $`=c{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\chi _1}{x_i^2}}.`$
Clearly, for $`c=1`$ the only solution to (36) is $`\chi _1=0`$, while for $`c1`$ the general solution is

$$\chi _1=\chi _2=G(x_i)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{ct}{c1}),$$
(37)
where $`G(x_i)`$ is an arbitrary solution to the equation

$$G+(c1)\underset{i}{}\frac{^2G}{x_i^2}=0.$$
(38)
Each solution (37) is indeed the characteristic of the conserved current

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{D}_t(G\mathrm{exp}(\frac{ct}{c1})(v+w))+\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{D}_{x_i}(\mathrm{exp}(\frac{ct}{c1})(\frac{G}{x_i}(v+cw)G(v_{x_i}+cw_{x_i})\frac{a}{n}G\mathrm{d}x_i))=0.\end{array}$$

Thus if $`c1`$ then these conserved currents span the space of conservation laws; while if $`c=1`$ then there are no nontrivial conservation laws for (34).

### 7.4. The Belousov-Zhabotinskii system

This system describes certain chemical reactions and reads \[10, Section 15.4\]

$`v_t`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2v}{x_i^2}}+v(1vrw)+Lrw,`$
$`w_t`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2w}{x_i^2}}bvwMw.`$
Here $`r,L,b,M`$ are real constants. Evidently, Theorem 4 implies that this system does not possess conservation laws of nonnegative order. Similarly to the above examples, analysis of equation (15) for characteristics of order $`1`$ shows that in the nonlinear case $`b0`$ there are no nontrivial conservation laws at all.

## Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Iosif Krasilshchik for his very stimulating attention to this work and many helpful remarks, to Arkadiy Onishchik for attracting author’s attention to the used algebraic technique, and to Ruud Martini and Vladimir Sokolov for useful discussions.


text:
# The Effect of the Tilted Field in the Fractional Quantum Hall Systems: Numerical Studies for the Solid-liquid Transition

\[

## Abstract

We construct a generalized Laughlin-liquid wave function and a variational electron solid wave function when the magnetic field is tilted. The energy of the liquid state is evaluated by Monte Carlo methods while the energy of the solid state is calculated by the optimization. Comparing these two energies for a given tilted angle $`\theta `$, it is seen that the critical filling factor $`\nu _c`$ of $`\theta `$ of the solid-liquid transition increases as the tilted angle. The implication to the experiment is that: i) the insulating phase may harder be melt as $`\nu 1/5`$ such that the width of the valley of the longitudinal resistance may become narrow as the filed is tilted; ii) it is expected that even in the vicinity of $`\nu =1/3`$ for the electron system in the presence of the tilted field, the insulating phase may be observed.

\]

After the fractional quantum Hall effects (FQHE)  was revealed, the measurement in a tilted field has become an established technique. Mostly, the tiled field is used to explore the spin related effects . It also affected the transport of the bilayer system due to the in-plane field couples to the psuedospin degrees of freedom . The high Landau level stripe phase is strongly influenced by the tilted field . For the spin polarized system, the tilted field effects are produced by either the finite thickness of the layer  or the subband Laudau level coupling . For the later case, only a numerical diagonalization for a small system was carried out. One of focuses in the present work is trying to construct a Laughlin-type many-particle wave function when the magnetic field is tilted.

In the early days that Laughlin’s wave function was established, a set of the numerical works to check Laughlin’s original wave function was presented. Compared to the energy of the electron solid state, which is estimated by a variational method , it was found that the critical filling factor $`\nu _c`$ is around $`\frac{1}{6.5}`$. Considering the Landau level mixing, it was said that the electron solid state may appear in a much larger filling factor . The finite layer thickness can soften the short range behavior of the Coulomb interaction and thus leads to favor the competing electron solid . However, at the exact $`\nu =1/m`$, the Laughlin-Jastrow correlation for the electron solid may leads to the melt of the electron solid  while the energy of the liquid state at an arbitrary filling factor is higher than that from the interpolating between the odd-denominator filling factor  , which may explain an reentrant insulating phase near $`\nu =1/5`$ for the electron  and $`\nu =1/3`$ for the hole .

In this work, we plan to study the competition between the solid and liquid states as vary of the tilted field through the subband Landau level coupling. We perform Monte Carlo simulations for a generalized Laughlin state in the presence of the tilted field. As expected, the liquid state energy is lowered as increasing the tilted angle. Meanwhile, we use a variational wave function for the solid state in the tilted field and optimize the corresponding energy. The solid state energy is also lowered as increasing the tilted angle, whose magnitude lowered is always larger than that of liquid state energy. We can see that the critical filling factor for the solid-liquid transition may be considerably lifted. In this work, we do not consider the Laughlin-Jastrow correlation to the electron solid yet, which leads to an instability of the electron solid exactly at $`\nu =1/m`$ for $`m`$ an odd integer . Thus, although the tilted field effect may not destroy the liquid state at the exact filling factor $`1/5`$, the insulator-quantum Hall liquid transition may become harder to be melt as $`\nu 1/5`$ such that the width of the valley of the longitudinal resistance may be narrowed as the tilted angle increases. Taking the energy lowered by the Laudau level mixing in the zero tilted field  as an estimation, one may even expect that the insulating phase will be observed near $`\nu =1/3`$ for the electron systems in the presence of the tilted field.

To consider the subband effect, we assume a quasi-two-dimensional electron gas confined by a harmonic potential with $`V(z)=\frac{1}{2}m_e\mathrm{\Omega }^2z^2`$, where $`m_e`$ is the electron band mass and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the frequency of the harmonic potential in the perpendicular direction $`z`$. The applied magnetic field is tilted by an angle $`\theta `$ to the two-dimensional $`xy`$ plane. The single-particle problem has been solved in literature . To construct a many-particle Laughlin-type state for the convenience of the numerical calculation, we take an alternative way. Working in the symmetric gauge, although the rotational symmetry of two dimensions is broken by the in-plane field, there is still a conserved quantity, $`L_\xi =b_\xi ^{}b_\xi `$ no matter whether the magnetic field is tilted, where $`\xi =x+iy`$ and $`b_\xi ^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(_{\overline{\xi }}+\frac{1}{2}\xi )`$ is the generator of the magnetic translation. The eigen state of $`L_\xi `$ thus is the same as that in $`B_{}=0`$. The eigen state of the single-particle Hamiltonian for $`B_{}0`$, then, can be the linear combination of the degenerate states with a given eigen value $`m_L`$ of $`L_\xi `$,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{m_L}(\stackrel{}{r})={\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2}{}}C_{n_1n_2}^{\stackrel{~}{n}_1\stackrel{~}{n}_2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{n_1n_2m_L}(\stackrel{}{r}),`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n_1n_2m_L}(\stackrel{}{r})=f_{n_1n_2m_L}(\stackrel{}{r})e^{\frac{1}{4}|\xi |^2\frac{1}{2}z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ (2)
$`a_\xi ^{n_1}a_z^{n_2}b_\xi ^{m_L}e^{\frac{1}{4}|\xi |^2\frac{1}{2}z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}},`$ (3)
where the unit of the magnetic length $`l_B=\sqrt{\frac{c\mathrm{}}{eB_{}}}=1`$ has been used and $`a_\xi ^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(_\xi +\frac{1}{2}\overline{\xi })`$ and $`a_z^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(_z^{}+z^{})`$ are the harmonic operators with the frequencies $`\omega _c=\frac{eB_{}}{m_ec}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, respectively; $`z^{}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{1/2}z`$ with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\omega _c`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\omega _{}^2`$ and $`\omega _{}==\frac{eB_{}}{m_ec}`$. The combination constants $`C_{n_1n_2}^{\stackrel{~}{n}_1\stackrel{~}{n}_2}`$ can be determined by a standard method to find the common eigen states of two commutated operators. For the ground state, one denotes $`C_{n_1n_2}^{00}=C_{n_1n_2}`$, for example, $`C_{10}=C_{01}=0`$ and

$`C_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\omega _+\omega _{}}{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}}C_{00},`$ (4)
for $`C_{00}`$ is determined by the normalized condition. Other $`C_{n_1n_2}`$ can be deduced by recursive relations. Here $`\omega _\pm ^2=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2+\omega _c^2)\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2\omega _c^2)^2+4\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\omega _c}`$ are the corresponding frequencies to the diagonalized harmonic operators.

For the liquid state, following Laughlin’s track in writing down his wave function, the required incompressible wave function for the odd denominator filling factor $`\nu =1/m`$ has the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_m(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{r}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{n_1n_2}{}}C_{n_1n_2}a_{\xi _i}^{n_1}a_{z_i}^{n_2})`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(\xi _i\xi _j)^me^{\frac{1}{4}_i(|\xi _i|^2+2z_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}`$ (6)
$``$ $`\widehat{P}^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{r}_N)|m,`$ (7)
where $`|m`$ is the common Laughlin state. To see the incompressibilty, one defines the electron density for this state

$`\rho _e(\stackrel{}{r})=m|\widehat{P}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i)\widehat{P}^{}|m/m|\widehat{P}\widehat{P}^{}|m.`$ (8)
Since $`m|[\widehat{P},_i\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i)]|m=D_rm|m=0`$ (see (15)) , it is easy to show $`\rho _e(\stackrel{}{r})=m|_i\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i)|m/m|m`$, which exactly equals to the density of the Laughlin state for $`B_{}=0`$. Thus, the state is incompressible.

In the same spirit, for the solid state, the variational wave function reads

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_c(\stackrel{}{r}_i)=\widehat{P}^{}\psi ^c(\xi _i)e^{\frac{1}{2}_iz_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}},`$ (9)
where $`\psi ^c`$ is the variational wave function for $`B_{}=0`$

$`\psi ^c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}u_iB_{ij}u_j\right]`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(|u_i|^2+(\overline{\xi }_iR_i+\xi _i\overline{R}_i)]],`$ (11)
where $`u_i`$ is the site fluctuations of the electrons away from the equilibrium sites $`R_i`$ and $`B_{ij}`$ are the variational parameters. Similar to Lam and Girvin’s, the optimal parameters, in the momentum space, are given by

$`B_\stackrel{}{q}=e^{i\theta _q}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _L(q)\omega _T(q)}{\omega _L(q)+\omega _T(q)}},`$ (12)
where $`\theta _q`$ is a phase factor and $`\omega _L(q)`$ and $`\omega _T(q)`$ are the effective longitudinal and transverse phone frequencies, which are determined by the dynamic matrix $`𝒟`$ . Since the field is tilted, $`𝒟`$ in the present case is related to an effective potential

$`V_{eff}(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{})=𝒫_{rr^{}}V(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{})`$ (13)
$`=[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩}}(D_r^{}D_r+D_r^{}^{}D_r^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩^2}}D_r^{}D_rD_r^{}^{}D_r^{}]V(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}),`$ (14)
$`D_r={\displaystyle \underset{n_2=0;n_1,l=1}{}}C_{n_1n_2}z_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{n_2}C_{n_1}^l(\overline{\xi }/2)^{n_1l}_\xi ^{n_1l},`$ (15)
where $`𝒩=_{n_1n_2}C_{n_1n_2}^2`$.

The energies we shall compare for the solid and liquid states are

$`E_{c,m}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵN}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{c,m}|{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j|}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{c,m}.`$ (16)
Since the analytic single-particle wave function in the symmetric gauge is not ready yet, $`C_{n_1n_2}`$ has to be truncated . Fortunately, we find that for the practical value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c`$ and a modest tilted angle, the first order approximation, i.e., considering $`C_{11}`$-contribution only, may be a very good one. The expect energy of the approximation single particle state compares to the exact ground state energy only a few percentage higher . Thus, we consider the subband and the tilted field contribution from $`C_{11}`$ only.

For the liquid state, we evaluate the energy in (16) by Monte Carlo methods. The detailed simulation technique has been described by Morf and Halperin  for the disk geometer. We consider a finite system. The positive charge neutralizing the electron is uniformly distributed on a disk of radius $`R_m=\sqrt{2mN}l_B`$. The energy calculated, at Monte Carlo step $`s`$, is

$`E_N^{(s)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵN}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}_i^{(s)}\stackrel{}{r}_j^{(s)}|}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}U(\stackrel{}{r}_i^{(s)}),`$ (17)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}_i^{(s)}`$ is the position of the $`i`$-th electron in the $`s`$-th Monte Carlo step; $`U(\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$ is the energy of the $`i`$-th electron interacting to the neutralizing background:

$`U_B(\stackrel{}{r}_i)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle _{rR_m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }_e}{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i|}},`$ (18)
where $`\overline{\rho }_e=\frac{\nu }{2\pi l_B^2}`$ is the average electron density. In the Monte Carlo simulation, we have used the unit of the ion-disk radius $`R_0=(\pi \overline{\rho }_e)^{1/2}`$. The probability distribution we used in the Monte Carlo simulation has included the tilted field effect, i.e.,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m|^2`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{n_1n_2}{}}C_{n_1n_2})a_{\xi _i}^{n_1}a_{z_i}^{n_2}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(\xi _i\xi _j)^m`$ (19)
$`\times `$ $`e^{\frac{1}{4}_i(|\xi _i|^2+2z_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}|^2=e^{H_m}.`$ (20)
In the real calculation, the perpendicular component $`z^{}`$ can always integrated out by hands. We identify this energy of the $`s`$-th Monte Carlo step as the liquid state energy per electron. The simulations were done for the finite systems $`N=20,30,42`$ and $`71`$. For $`N=20`$ and $`30`$, this energy was computed by 50 independent Monte Carlo simulations, each of which consists of $`170,000`$ Monte Carlo steps. For $`N=42`$ and $`71`$, the corresponding numbers are $`30`$ and $`110,000`$. The results for $`E_m`$ are fitted by the polynomials

$`E_mA+B_1/\sqrt{N}+B_2/N,`$ (21)
where and in the following, the energy unit is $`e^2/ϵl_B`$. We identify the zero-th order coefficient $`A`$ as the result of thermodynamic limit. The values of $`A(\nu )`$ of $`\theta `$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c=0.8`$ and $`0.4`$ are listed in Table I.

Table I(a) The thermodynamic limit of $`E_m`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c=0.8`$.

| $`\theta `$ | $`A(1/3)`$ | $`A(1/5)`$ | $`A(1/7)`$ | $`A(1/9)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | -0.4099 | -0.3275 | -0.2809 | -0.2499 |
| $`\pi /7`$ | -0.4131 | -0.3292 | -0.2820 | -0.2509 |
| $`\pi /5`$ | -0.4146 | -0.3300 | -0.2825 | -0.2511 |
| $`\pi /4`$ | -0.4163 | -0.3307 | -0.2830 | -0.2514 |

Table I(b) The thermodynamic limit of $`E_m`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c=0.4`$.

| $`\theta `$ | $`A(1/3)`$ | $`A(1/5)`$ | $`A(1/7)`$ | $`A(1/9)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\pi /8`$ | -0.4151 | -0.3303 | -0.2827 | -0.2512 |
| $`\pi /5`$ | -0.4176 | -0.3315 | -0.2835 | -0.2518 |
| $`\pi /4`$ | -0.4258 | -0.3356 | -0.2862 | -0.2537 |

For $`\theta =0`$, $`A`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c`$, e.g., for $`\nu =1/3`$, we have $`A=0.4099`$, which is consistent with results by Levesque et. al  and Morf and Halperin .

According to the results of the thermodynamic limit, one can figure out the energies dependent on the filling factor $`\nu `$ and the tilted angle $`\theta `$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c=0.8`$, one can fit the energy $`E_\theta (\nu )`$ by the following interpolation formulas

$`E_0=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.166\nu ^{1.241}0.009\nu ^{2.18},`$ (22)
$`E_{\frac{\pi }{7}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.154\nu ^{1.241}0.010\nu ^{2.18},`$ (23)
$`E_{\frac{\pi }{5}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.148\nu ^{1.241}0.009\nu ^{2.18},`$ (24)
$`E_{\frac{\pi }{4}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.144\nu ^{1.241}0.017\nu ^{2.18}.`$ (25)
For $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c=0.4`$, the fitting results are

$`E_{\frac{\pi }{8}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.146\nu ^{1.241}0.010\nu ^{2.18},`$ (26)
$`E_{\frac{\pi }{6}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.138\nu ^{1.241}0.015\nu ^{2.18},`$ (27)
$`E_{\frac{\pi }{4}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.110\nu ^{1.241}0.026\nu ^{2.18}.`$ (28)
The first one in (24) is corresponding to $`\theta =0`$, which is consistent with the result of Levesque et al . One observes that the exponents in the fit formulas are not dependent on the tilted field; Neither are almost the coefficients of $`\nu ^{2.18}`$ except in the last one of (27) which may be because the approximation single-particle wave function is a little bit poor in this parameter ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon /\epsilon 13\%`$).

Now, we turn to the electron solid. The strategy we take is the same as Lam and Girvin’s : Expanding the Coulomb interaction to the second order of the fluctuation $`u_i`$ and determining the variational parameter $`B_{ij}`$. Then, calculate the energy (16) exactly. To the harmonic approximation, the harmonic term $`E_{c,h}`$ of the energy is given by

$`E_{c,h}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}(\omega _T(q)+\omega _L(q))^2`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left(\mathrm{Tr}𝒟(q)+\sqrt{4\mathrm{D}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}𝒟(q)}\right),`$ (30)
where $`𝒟`$ is the effective dynamic matrix and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the wave vector in the Brillouin zone. Comparing to the uncorrelated energy $`E_{uc,h}=\frac{2m}{N}_q(\omega _T^2(q)+\omega _L^2(q))`$, the fluctuation is lowered the energy because the transverse modes are favored while the longitudinal modes are disfavored .

The numerical results of $`E_\theta (\nu )`$ are as follows. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c=0.8`$, one has

$`E_0=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.2430\nu ^{3/2}+0.1610\nu ^{5/2},`$ (31)
$`E_{\frac{\pi }{7}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.2200\nu ^{3/2}+0.1598\nu ^{5/2},`$ (32)
$`E_{\frac{\pi }{5}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.1971\nu ^{3/2}+0.1596\nu ^{5/2},`$ (33)
$`E_{\frac{\pi }{4}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.1728\nu ^{3/2}+0.1594\nu ^{5/2}.`$ (34)
For $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c=0.4`$, it is

$`E_{\frac{\pi }{8}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.1926\nu ^{3/2}+0.1595\nu ^{5/2},`$ (35)
$`E_{\frac{\pi }{6}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.1619\nu ^{3/2}+0.1593\nu ^{5/2},`$ (36)
$`E_{\frac{\pi }{4}}=0.782133\nu ^{1/2}+0.0992\nu ^{3/2}+0.1592\nu ^{5/2},`$ (37)
The first one in (33) corresponds to the energy of $`\theta =0`$, which is consistent with Lam and Halperin’s result . We see that again the coefficients of $`\nu ^{5/2}`$ are almost not affected by the tilted field.

Using the fitting results (24) and (33), (27) and (36), one can obtain the estimated critical filling factors of $`\theta `$ (Table II).

Table II(a) The critical filling factors for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c=0.8`$.

| $`\theta `$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\theta (1/3)`$ | $`\nu _c`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | -0.015 | 6.63 |
| $`\pi /7`$ | -0.013 | 6.45 |
| $`\pi /5`$ | -0.010 | 5.58 |
| $`\pi /4`$ | -0.007 | 4.54 |

Table II(b) The critical filling factors for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _c=0.4`$.

| $`\theta `$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\theta (1/3)`$ | $`\nu _c`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\pi /8`$ | -0.009 | 5.46 |
| $`\pi /6`$ | -0.007 | 4.45 |
| $`\pi /4`$ | -0.002 | 3.46 |

In Table II, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\theta (1/3)`$ is the energy difference between the liquid and solid at $`\nu =1/3`$, whose magnitude reduces considerably as the tilted angle increases from 0 to $`\pi /4`$. In this work, we did not check the Laughlin-Jastrow correlation to the electron solid. It has been pointed out that the solid may be unstable at the exact $`\nu =1/5`$ due to this correlation . Thus, our variational calculation may not be enough to completely understand the physics at the exact odd denominator filling factor $`1/m`$. Due to the instability, the Hall plateau may not disappear. However, our calculation indicates that the insulating phase may harder be melt as $`\nu 1/5`$ such that the width of the valley of the longitudinal resistance may become narrow as the tilted angle increases.

On the other hand, although our result did not show the critical filling factor is shifted to near 1/3, the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\theta (1/3)`$ reduces remarkably as the field is tilted. According to Ref., after accounting the Laudau level mixing, the energies of the solid and liquid states for $`\theta =0`$ are lowered about $`0.8\%`$ and $`0.1\%`$ respectively at $`\nu 1/3`$ and $`r_s=\frac{e^2/ϵR_0^2}{\nu \mathrm{}\omega _c/2}2`$. The lowering of the energy of the solid is larger than that of the liquid about $`0.002\frac{e^2}{ϵl_B}`$, which can nearly overcome the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\theta (1/3)`$ for large angles $`\theta `$ in Table II. If one assumes the energy lowering due to the Laudau level mixing is independent of the tilted field and considers the energy of the liquid state for $`\nu `$ being nearly but not exactly $`1/3`$ is in fact higher than our interpolating estimation , it is possible that at a large tilted angle, the energy of the solid becomes lower than that of liquid for $`\nu 1/3`$. Thus it may be anticipated that in the vicinity of $`\nu =1/3`$ for the electron system in the presence of the tilted field, the insulating phase may be observed for a larger tilted angle. To verify this expected phenomenon, both further experimental and numerical works are required.

The authors were grateful to the discussions with R. R. Du, Z. B. Su and F. C. Zhang. This work is partially supported by NSF of China.