text:
# Superconductivity, incoherence and Anderson localization in the crystalline organic conductor (BEDT-TTF)3Cl₂⋅2H2O at high pressures

## 1 Introduction

The study of electrically conducting crystalline materials made from organic molecules is an increasingly large and active area of research. The high degree of anisotropy and the strong electron-electron interactions in these crystalline organic conductors means that they can possess a wide variety of ground state phases . Of particular interest are the class of organic conductors which exhibit superconductivity, and the similarities between these and the “high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$” cuprate superconductors are well documented .

One family of such organic conductors are made using the charge transfer salts of the organic molecule bis(ethlyene-dithio)tetrathiafulvalene (BEDT-TTF). These tend to be layered materials with highly conducting planes of the BEDT-TTF molecules separated by anion layers (for a complete overview see ). Understanding the nature of the interlayer transport in these materials is important in achieving an grasp of the interactions that cause the superconductivity, which in many cases is thought to be non BCS-like . In a pressure and temperature phase diagram the superconducting state is frequently adjacent to a density-wave state caused by nesting of quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) pieces of the Fermi surface, and this leads to the suggestion that superconductivity is mediated by density wave fluctuations. The topology of the Fermi surface will obviously have an effect on its nesting properties. Thus measurements that investigate the nature of the interlayer transport in these materials are of particular significance, as coherent transport between the layers necessitates the existence of a three dimensional, rather than two dimensional, Fermi surface .

(BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O is so far unique in this family of organic crystal in that each of the BEDT-TTF ions has an average charge of $`+\frac{2}{3}`$e. Band calculations suggest that at room temperature and ambient pressure this material should be a semimetal , and thermopower and conductivity measurements confirm this . As the temperature is reduced below $`T160`$ K (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O undergoes a (semi)metal-insulator transition into a charge-density-wave (CDW) state . A further Fermi surface reconstruction occurs at $`T60`$ K and the sample then remains insulating down to very low temperatures. The application of hydrostatic pressure suppresses the onset of the density-wave state, and at 10.2 kbar a superconducting state is formed with $`T_\mathrm{c}`$=4 K. In their paper Lubczynski et al. observe that the onset of superconductivity coincides with a saturating magnetoresistance in fields of up to 15 T and suggest that this implies that it is quasi-two-dimensional (Q2D) carriers that are responsible for the superconducting transport . Lubczynski et al. also show that as the pressure is increased further the CDW transition is completely suppressed causing the liberation of the Q1D carriers and yielding a non-saturating magnetoresistance. Superposed over the top of this magnetoresistance they observe low-amplitude, low-frequency Shubnikov-de Haas (SdH) oscillations, indicating that the Q2D carriers are still present . Lubczynski et al. go on to state that if the pressure is still further increased above 14 kbar the superconducting state is destroyed and the material becomes metallic. Figure 1 shows the phase diagram proposed in Reference .

## 2 Experimental details

### 2.1 Sample properties

(BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O crystallizes in the triclinic space group P1̄, with $`a=11.214\pm 0.002`$ Å, $`b=13.894\pm 0.002`$ Å, $`c=15.924\pm 0.002`$ Å, $`\alpha =94.74\pm 1^{}`$, $`\beta =109.27\pm 1^{}`$ and $`\gamma =97.03\pm 1^{}`$ . The conducting planes of the (BEDT-TTF) molecules lie in the $`ab`$-plane with the long axis of the molecules lying approximately parallel to the $`c`$-axis (see Figure 2).

Using their electronic band structure calculation Whangbo et al. suggest that the in-plane Fermi surface of (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O at room temperature and pressure consists of an elongated closed electron pocket centred at the corner of the Brillouin zone, together with an open electron Fermi surface and an open hole Fermi surface oriented along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-Y ($`b^{}`$) direction (see Figure 2. As already mentioned, the material is a semimetal at room temperature and the ratio of resistivities along the crystal axes $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ is $`\rho _a:\rho _b:\rho _c=1:7:1000`$ .

The high purity, single crystal samples of (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O are grown electrochemically  and are black platelets generally of the order of $`2\times 2\times 0.05`$ mm3 with the plane of the plate corresponding to the highly conducting layers. The sample used in this paper was cleaved so that it would fit in a pressure cell and measured $`120\times 100\times 45\mu `$m3.

### 2.2 Two-axis rotation at high hydrostatic pressure

The experiments described in this paper involve rotation of the (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O sample about two axes in a high magnetic field at pressures of $`13.5\pm 0.3`$ kbar and $`14.0\pm 0.3`$ kbar. These pressures were achieved using the turnbuckle diamond anvil pressure cell (DAC) shown in Figure 3a. This DAC was designed and built in the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL), Tallahassee and consists of two natural diamonds enclosed in a body of high-tensile BeCu . The highly polished, flat faces of the diamonds are separated by a 65 $`\mu `$m thick, stainless steel gasket coated in alumina. Two wires of pressed gold are attached to each of the two broad faces of the sample using a paste made from a mixture of graphite and gold. The sample is then placed inside a cavity in the gasket, which is filled with a liquid pressure medium, in this case glycerine. The DAC is then assembled with the sample wires being electrically contacted to wires that emerge from the cell body and the required room temperature pressure is applied using a hydraulic press. Prior to removal from the press the pressure can be maintained by means of a screw-type locking mechanism. Figure 3b shows the sample used in this paper in position on the DAC, prior to assembly.

The magnetoresistance measurements were made using standard 4-wire AC techniques ($`f80`$ Hz) with the current applied in the interplane direction ($`I=125\mu `$A).

The pressure inside the sample cavity is calibrated by comparing the fluorescence of a fragment of ruby located alongside the sample in the DAC and the fluorescence of another fragment at the same temperature, but ambient pressure . This is measured using a helium-cadmium laser and a charge-coupled device detector. The change in wavelength of the ruby R1 fluorescence line as a function of pressure is well known  and independent of temperature. Thus the pressure in the sample cavity can be found at any temperature.

The two-axis rotation was achieved using an insert designed and built in Oxford. The angle between the normal to the $`ab`$-planes and the magnetic field (the $`\theta `$-angle) can be varied continuously via a motor and worm-drive arrangement and measured using a potentiometer. The in-plane, or azimuthal angle (the $`\varphi `$-angle) can be changed in discrete steps using a retractable rod that travels along the axis of the rotator. This should enable the B-field to be directed along all possible sample directions.

All measurements were performed at NHMFL, Tallahassee at temperatures of 500 mK and in fields of up to 33 T.

### 2.3 Effect of sample misalignment

It is possible in experiments such as those presented here that the sample axes are not accurately aligned, i.e. that the normal to the $`ab`$-planes is inclined at an unknown angle to the long axis of the DAC. This is especially true when the sample is located within a pressure cell for a number of reasons. Probably most important of these is the forces that act on the sample as the temperature is reduced and the pressure medium freezes. The necessity of having extremely thin contact wires means that the sample will move easily under even small forces. Another origin of this misalignment comes from the difficulty in cleaving these samples to be so small. After cleaving it will not be possible to guarantee that the plane of the sample will correspond exactly to the $`ab`$-planes. Whatever the cause, this offset means that the measured $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$-angles are not the true angles associated with the sample ($`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}`$). In fact by changing either of the measured angles we will be changing both $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}`$.

In the general situation shown in Figure 4, we measure the angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ (in the laboratory frame) and we wish to know the angles $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}`$ (in the sample frame). The difference between these two sets of angles is due to a misalignment of the two frames by an unknown angle in an unknown direction such that the angle between the $`z`$-axis and the $`z^{}`$-axis is $`ϵ`$ and the angle between the $`x`$-axis and the projection of the $`x^{}`$-axis onto the $`xy`$-plane is $`\psi `$. Writing down the transformation matrix for converting laboratory into sample frame leads us to the following equations for $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}`$:

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{true}}=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \psi )+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}ϵ`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \psi )\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}ϵ}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{true}}}}`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}(\varphi \psi )}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{true}}}}`$ (3)
For a highly anisotropic, layered superconductor like (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O the upper critical field ($`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$) will have a maximum when the magnetic field is in the $`ab`$-planes ($`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}=90^{}`$) . Thus if we set the magnetic field to be just below this maximum $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$, but above the field required for zero resistance then we will observe a sharp minimum in the resistance when we rotate the sample in a magnetic field. The minimum in resistance will occur when the sample is exactly in the plane of the sample . Setting $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ = 90 in Equation (1) gives:

$$\mathrm{cot}\theta =\mathrm{tan}ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \psi )$$
(4)
Fitting this equation to a plot of the $`\theta `$ positions of the resistance minima against $`\varphi `$ yields values for the constants $`ϵ`$ and $`\psi `$. Substituting these values into Equations (1), (2) and (3) gives a function for $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ that is single-valued over the range $`0<\theta _{\mathrm{true}}<180^{}`$ and a function for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}`$ that is single-valued over 360.

It is worth noting that as a result of this misalignment it will not be possible to access the $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}=0`$ and 180 directions for a given $`\varphi `$ except when $`\varphi =\psi `$.

## 3 Results and discussion

### 3.1 Anisotropy of the upper critical field

At both pressures measured in these studies the (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O sample undergoes a transition into a superconducting state at low temperatures. The $`T_\mathrm{c}`$’s at 13.5 kbar and 14.0 kbar are found to be $`3.2\pm 0.5`$ K and $`2.8\pm 0.5`$ K respectively, where $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is defined by the midpoint of the resistive transition. A study of the angular dependence of the upper critical field ($`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$) at each pressure was made by sweeping the field at fixed $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$-angles and using linear extrapolation to extract $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ as shown in Figure 5. For a discussion of why this method of extracting $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is preferable to simply taking the resistive midpoint, see Reference , Section 4. The results obtained by using this method are shown in Figure 6.

It was found that whilst $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ varies strongly with $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ it shows little or no $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}`$-dependence. It is possible to fit the data with the functional form of the predictions of the Ginsburg-Landau anisotropic effective mass approximation ;

$$B_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta _{\mathrm{true}})=\frac{B_{\mathrm{c2}}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _{\mathrm{true}})+\gamma ^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{\mathrm{true}})}},$$
(5)
in which $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is the upper critical field when $`B`$ is directed along the interplane direction and $`\gamma `$ is the square root of the ratio of the effective masses for interplane and in-plane motion respectively.

Although it is seen from Figure 6 that the data fit reasonably well to the formula, it would not be correct to infer an anisotropy of the effective masses from the values obtained from the fit. This is because the Ginsburg-Landau theory is based on the superconducting state being destroyed by orbital effects . In the case of highly anisotropic layered materials such as (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O, the flux lines can become trapped inside the layers when a sufficiently high in-plane magnetic field is applied, and in this situation the upper critical field in the in-plane direction ($`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$) will become very high (for a more complete discussion see Reference ). As $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is not particularly large in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O it is assumed that another effect is limiting the superconductivity in the presence of low in-plane fields.

Despite this failure of Ginsburg-Landau theory to describe the anisotropy of $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$, the functional form of Equation (5) is still valid as it is just derived from a vector sum of two competing critical fields and is independent of the mechanism responsible for these critical fields . Thus the $`\gamma `$ factor that is found from the fit is in fact just a measure of the critical field anisotropy and is found to be $`5.6\pm 0.2`$ and $`9.0\pm 0.3`$ for 13.5 kbar and 14.0 kbar respectively. In addition, when the field is perpendicular to the conducting planes the critical field will certainly be limited by orbital effects and so we can use the fits in Figure 6 to obtain valid values for $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ and hence the in-plane coherence length, $`\xi _{}`$, using the relation

$$B_{\mathrm{c2}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi \xi _{}^2},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux quantum . The values obtained, together with the other results mentioned in this section are shown in Table 1.

One mechanism that might explain the origin of $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O is the Pauli paramagnetic limit, also known as the Clogston-Chandrasekhar limit . In this case the superconductivity is destroyed by Zeeman splitting of the Cooper pairs at fields above $`B_{\mathrm{PPL}}`$. For an isotropic, BCS-like superconductor $`B_{\mathrm{PPL}}=1.84T_\mathrm{c}`$ . Applying this to (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O we find that $`B_{\mathrm{PPL}}=5.9\pm 0.9`$ T and $`5.2\pm 0.9`$ T for 13.5 kbar and 14.0 kbar respectively. It is seen from Figure 6 and Table 1 that the maximum $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ are significantly larger than these values for both pressures. It is apparent that this simple isotropic, BCS-like analysis is not able to describe the in-plane upper critical field in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O at these pressures and another mechanism needs to be invoked in order to explain the data.

Similar results were found for the organic superconductors (TMTSF)2PF6  and $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 . In their study Lee et al. show that the superconducting state in (TMTSF)2PF6 at a certain pressure persists in applied in-plane fields of up to 9 T , far exceeding the expected Pauli paramagnetic limit, although in (TMTSF)2PF6 the effect is more pronounced than for (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O due to the lower critical temperature ($`T_\mathrm{c}=1.2`$ K). Lee et al. also observe a marked $`\varphi `$-dependence of the in-plane upper critical field, which is not observed in the material studied here. The conclusion of Reference  is that (TMTSF)2PF6 is a strong contender for triplet Cooper pairing. In the case of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, Zuo et al. claim that the $`B_{\mathrm{PPL}}`$ derived from thermodynamic arguments is much bigger than the value suggested by BCS theory , whereas Singleton et al. suggest that the high in-plane critical field is caused by a field-induced transition into a Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) superconducting state . The FFLO state occurs when quasiparticles with opposite spin, whose Fermi surfaces are split by the magnetic field, form Cooper pairs with non-zero momentum . These examples highlight some of the possible mechanisms that enhance the in-plane critical field with respect to $`B_{\mathrm{PPL}}`$ in organic superconductors, however none of these mechanisms can be definitively attributed to (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O without further extensive measurements.

### 3.2 Angle dependence of the magnetoresistance

Figure 7a shows the interlayer magnetoresistance of (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O as a function of $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ in a steady magnetic field of 30 T. Three different values of the measured $`\varphi `$-angle are shown.

As already mentioned in Section 2.3, it is difficult in such a measurement to separate the effects due to the azimuthal and out-of-plane angles, because as the sample is rotated in the $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$-direction, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}`$ will also change to an extent determined by the magnitude of the offset angle $`ϵ`$. In light of this, Figure 7b shows the same curves as in Figure 7a but as function of $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}`$. Because of the mixing of angles it is not easy to obtain a functional form for the magnetoresistance, but what is clear from the Figure is that there is a minimum in resistance at $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}=90`$ and a maximum when the field component in the interlayer direction takes its maximum value. This behaviour is contrary to the expectation that the magnetoresistance should be a minimum when the magnetic field is parallel to the applied current and a maximum when the field and current are perpendicular, as expected from semiclassical transport theory . However the situation is not without precedent in organic molecular crystals. (TMTSF)2PF6 at 9.8 kbar , (TMTSF)2ClO4  and $`\tau `$-\[P-(S,S)-DMEDT-TTF\]2(AuBr)(AuBr)y  all show this type of angle dependence in the interlayer resistance, and in all three cases it is attributed to the interlayer transport being incoherent in nature, i.e. the Fermi surface is a two-dimensional object that exists only in the conducting layers and the charge-carriers must undergo some kind of hopping mechanism to move from layer to layer.

This situation can arise when an in-plane magnetic field is applied to a sample even if the interlayer transport is coherent to begin with. Increasing the in-plane component of the field reduces the semiclassical width of the interplane component of the quasiparticle orbits. At a certain field this width will become less than the interlayer spacing, at which point the quasiparticles are essentially confined to a single conducting layer. This is the single-body confinement argument of Osada et al.  and their in-plane confinement field is given by $`B_{\mathrm{conf}}=4t_{}/ev_\mathrm{F}l_c`$, where $`t_{}`$ is the interlayer transfer integral, $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi velocity and $`l_c`$ is the interlayer spacing. Typical values of $`t_{}`$ and $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ for BEDT-TTF salts are 0.1 meV and 50 kms-1 respectively  and, for (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O, $`l_c=15.03`$ Å. Hence $`B_{\mathrm{conf}}5`$ T. For inclined fields it is $`B\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ that determines the in-plane component, thus in fields of 30 T (as in Figure 7) the interlayer transport should be incoherent for $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}10`$.

Strong and Clarke argue that the crossover from 3D to 2D transport can occur at much lower values of the in-plane field . Their reasoning is that the strong-correlation effects in highly anisotropic materials can be enhanced by a small in-plane field that introduces inelasticity into the interlayer transport and effectively reduces the coherent interlayer transfer integral to zero.

Whatever the cause of the incoherent interlayer transport, the result is the same; the semiclassical transport theory breaks down and the magnetoresistance will depend only on the interlayer component of the magnetic field, $`B\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$. This would account for the data of Figure 7a.

Figure 7c shows the $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}`$-dependence of the minimum in resistance that occurs at $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}=90`$. The solid line is a fit of the data to a cosine function with two-fold symmetry. By considering the Fermi surface shown in Figure 2 it is seen that applying the magnetic field along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-Y (or $`b^{}`$) direction will maximize the Lorentz force acting on both the Q1D and Q2D carriers for in this direction the field is perpendicular to the Q1D carrier velocity and also to the maximum of the Q2D electron velocity. This is essentially the same as the argument employed by Hussey et al. to describe the “High-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$” compound YBa2Cu4O8 in Reference . Here they conclude that the Q1D carriers dominate the interlayer resistance. This may also be true in the case of (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O, but the possible presence of the elongated Fermi surface pocket means that the contribution from the Q2D carriers cannot be neglected. We can, however, conclude that the $`b^{}`$ direction corresponds to $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}=0`$.

### 3.3 Magnetoresistance at 13.5 kbar

The magnetoresistance of (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O at 13.5 kbar is shown in Figure 8. The curves are data taken at different angles, the $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ angle varying from 23.7 to 83.1 and the $`\varphi _{\mathrm{true}}`$ angle varying very little. It is seen that for $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ angles away from 90 the data in fields up to 15 T resemble the saturating magnetoresistance observed by Lubczynski et al. . This suggests that we are in the region of the phase diagram proposed in that paper where the CDW is not yet fully suppressed and the transport is dominated by the Q2D carriers (i.e. in the superconducting state, just below $`P_\mathrm{c}`$, see Figure 1). At fields greater than 15 T the magnetoresistance becomes negative. For each of the curves $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ is a constant and so the data in Figure 8 cannot be explained by the $`B\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ dependence derived from the incoherent interlayer transport models of Osada or Strong and Clarke .

#### 3.3.1 Comparison with other materials.

It is worthwhile making a diversion at this point to discuss the results found in a few other organic conductors, as it may help to shed some light on the situation in hand. It has already been mentioned that at 9.8 kbar the behaviour of (TMTSF)2PF6 can be explained in terms of the Strong and Clarke many-body confinement picture . This leads to a decoupling of the conducting layers and a $`B\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ dependence of the interlayer magnetoresistance . However at lower pressures (6-8.3 kbar) all evidence for this decoupling is lost and the angle-dependence of the interlayer magnetoresistance follows the semi-classical $`B\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ result . This implies that the layers are coupled better at lower pressures, which is contrary to the expectation that a higher pressure will cause the electron orbitals to overlap to a greater degree and thus increase the coherence in the interlayer direction. Another curious matter concerns the magnetoresistance of (TMTSF)2PF6 at these low pressures when a in-plane field is applied parallel to the Q1D Fermi surface sheets. In this case the resistance saturates in field of up to 7 T . This contradicts the predictions of both the semi-classical and the Strong and Clarke theories, in which a non-saturating and diverging magnetoresistance are expected respectively. This is itself similar to the results found for (TMTSF)2ClO4, which is the material used to illustrate Osada’s single-body confinement effect . In the latter material Naughton et al. again noted a saturating magnetoresistance and in fact used high fields to show that there is an onset of negative magnetoresistance at around 28 T . Another negative magnetoresistance is recorded in the material $`\tau `$-\[P-(S,S)-DMEDT-TTF\]2(AuBr)(AuBr)y of Reference .

Thus it is seen that the effects observed in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O are not unique. However this brings us no closer to an explanation. In the much measured (TMTSF)2PF6 theoretical considerations predict a field induced re-entrance of the superconductivity . However in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O there is no evidence to suggest that observed down-turn of the magnetoresistance can be attibuted to a re-entrance. Moreover the predicted restoration of the superconductivity in anisotropic systems seems to require a purely Q1D system or a careful alignment of the applied magnetic field parallel to the Q1D Fermi surface sheets , whereas Q2D carriers have been observed in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O , and it is seen from Figure 8 that the negative magnetoresistance occurs for many different field directions.

#### 3.3.2 The effects of Anderson localization.

The most likely mechanism responsible for the negative magnetoresistance at high magnetic fields, at least in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O, is the presence of Anderson localization within the conducting planes . According to Fukuyama and Yoshida the variable-range hopping mechanism responsible for conduction in the localized regime would give rise to a large negative magnetoresistance . The explanation is that a random potential produces the Anderson localized states i.e. states below the mobility edge, $`E_\mathrm{c}`$. If the Fermi energy, $`E_\mathrm{F}`$, lies below $`E_\mathrm{c}`$ then at low temperatures conduction is only possible by means of variable-range hopping. Application of a magnetic field leads to a Zeeman splitting of the electronic energy levels, and with further increases in field the difference between $`E_\mathrm{c}`$ and energy of an electron with spin parallel to the magnetic field decreases, leading to an increase in the conductivity. This effect will be enhanced when $`E_\mathrm{c}`$-$`E_\mathrm{F}`$ is small, such as in the vicinity of a metal-nonmetal transition  (like that due to the destruction of the CDW in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O). The conductivity resulting from these considerations would have the form ;

$`\sigma \mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{T}}\right)^{1/2}\left\{1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g\mu _\mathrm{B}B/(E_\mathrm{c}E_\mathrm{F})\right)^{\beta d/n}\right\}\right]`$
$`+\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{T}}\right)^{1/2}\left\{1\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g\mu _\mathrm{B}B/(E_\mathrm{c}E_\mathrm{F})\right)^{\beta d/n}\right\}\right].`$ (7)
Here $`T_0`$ is a characteristic temperature proportional to ($`E_\mathrm{F}`$)d, where $`d`$ is the dimensionality of the system, $`n`$ is an integer (which for the simplest model is equal to $`d+1`$ ), $`g`$ is the effective g-factor (which is assumed to be $`2`$), $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ is the Bohr magneton and $`\beta 1`$. Following the analysis of Fukuyama and Yoshida it is noted that because of the relationship between $`d`$ and $`n`$, $`\beta d/n`$ is always of the order of 1, and equation Equation (7) is not particularly sensitive to its precise value. Thus we choose $`\beta d/n=1`$ for a fit to the magnetoresistance data of Figure 8. The result of the fitting is shown in Figure 9 and it is seen that the fit is good at all angles. A value for $`T_0`$ can be obtained from the temperature dependence of the resistance, which follows the form $`R\mathrm{exp}[(T_0/T)^{1/n}]`$ (although in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O this is complicated by the CDW and superconducting transitions). Using this value, together with the results obtained from the fit for data with an almost exactly in-plane field, $`E_\mathrm{c}`$-$`E_\mathrm{F}`$ is estimated to be about 6 meV. When the Zeeman energy ($`\frac{1}{2}g\mu _\mathrm{B}B`$) of an electron approaches $`E_\mathrm{c}`$-$`E_\mathrm{F}`$ the electrons will no longer be confined to the localized states and the negative magnetoresistance is expected to saturate. This can be seen in the inset of Figure 9 which shows the fitted magnetoresistance saturating in a magnetic field of about 100 T which corresponds to the estimated Zeeman energy of 6 meV.

Another prediction of the Anderson localization model of Fukuyama and Yosida is the existence of a critical applied electric field, proportional to $`T^{4/3}`$, above which the conduction can no longer be considered as Ohmic . At the low temperatures used here the applied current produces an electric field across the sample well below this critical value. However at higher temperatures the resistance of the sample increases by several orders of magnitude and this could lead to the critical electric field being exceeded when even reasonably small currents are applied. This might account for the region of non-Ohmic conductivity observed by Lubczynski et al. between 150 and 30 K at ambient pressure.

If this Anderson localization effect is indeed responsible for the observations in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O, then the mechanism responsible for introducing disorder and randomizing the potential must be considered. Ulmet et al. discuss the shape of the anion as a possible source in the family of organic conductors (DMtTSF)2X, as they only observe the effects of localization in crystal with a tetrahedral anion . However a much more likely candidate in the case of (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O is the CDW itself, which at 13.5 kbar has not yet been fully suppressed. The presence of the density wave could introduce scattering centres in the conducting planes and hence lead to localization. It is also possible that even low levels of intrinsic disorder due to impurities or vacancies could have a considerable effect on the conduction properties of cystalline organic conductors of reduced dimensionality. It has recently been suggested that the anomalously broad superconducting transition in such crystals can be accounted for by very small impurity concentrations ($`0.2\%`$.

### 3.4 Magnetoresistance at 14.0 kbar

Figure 10 shows the magnetoresistance of (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O at the slightly higher pressure of 14.0 kbar. It is seen that the magnetoresistance is no longer negative, and is in fact positive and non-saturating at all angles. It is also seen that for field sweeps with $`\theta _{\mathrm{true}}`$ away from 90, low-amplitude, low-frequency SdH oscillations are superposed over the background magnetoresistance. In the analysis of Lubczynski et al. this implies that the sample is in the region of the phase diagram where the CDW has been completely suppressed and the transport is dominated by the liberated Q1D carriers (i.e. in the superconducting state, just above $`P_\mathrm{c}`$, see Figure 1. The background magnetoresistance for all angles can be fitted well with a $`B^{3/2}`$ dependence, which is the result found by Strong and Clarke  in (TMTSF)2PF6 and described using their incoherent transport model .

The fact that the negative magnetoresistance due to Anderson localization is not observed at 14.0 kbar is unsurprising if we attribute the random potential that causes the localization to the CDW fluctuation. Here the CDW is no longer present and so localization effects are not expected. Even if the Anderson localization is not directly caused by the CDW we might expect the liberation of the Q1D carriers to increase the carrier density to such an extent that any scattering centres present are effectively screened from the charge carriers and the variable-range hopping does not occur. Thus at 14.0 kbar the angle-dependent and field-dependent magnetoresistance imply an interlayer incoherence in which Anderson localization is no longer an important consideration.

### 3.5 $`P_\mathrm{c}`$ and the superconducting state

If the Anderson localization model suggested here is to be applied to (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O it is necessary to reclarify the significance of the critical pressure, $`P_\mathrm{c}`$. In Section 1 $`P_\mathrm{c}`$ was defined as the pressure at which the CDW transition temperature approaches 0 K, and hence at low temperatures it is also the pressure that separates the regions of saturating and non-saturating magnetoresistance in fields of up to 15 T. Lubczynski et al. attributed these regions to the conduction being dominated by Q2D and Q1D carriers respectively . However in the present analysis the saturating magnetoresistance is merely a precursor to a negative magnetoresistance caused by Anderson localization. Thus it is not possible to deduce the nature of the dominant carriers below $`P_\mathrm{c}`$, and the dotted line in Figure 1, which intercepts the pressure axis at $`P_\mathrm{c}`$, merely separates the region where the effects of the localization are observed and the region at higher pressure where they are not. In the region above $`P_\mathrm{c}`$ the existence of the Q2D carriers is implied by the SdH oscillations observed at high fields.

It should be noted that $`P_\mathrm{c}`$ for the sample discussed in this paper is approximately 1 kbar higher than the value obtained by Lubczynski et al. . However if, as suggested, the low temperature electronic properties in the region just below $`P_\mathrm{c}`$ are dominated by random localization effects then a certain degree of sample dependence is expected.

Lubczynski et al. also suggest that the fact that the onset of superconductivity coincides with the appearance of the saturating magnetoresistance implies that it is Q2D carriers that form the superconducting pairs. Extending this idea to the model presented here suggests that there is a connection between the superconducting state and the Anderson localization. This theory is undermined by the fact that the superconductivity exists in the region above $`P_\mathrm{c}`$ where the effects of localization are no longer observed. In fact it seems much more likely that the onset of both the superconductivity and the negative magnetoresistance occurs in the region close to the complete suppression of the CDW where there are just enough free carriers available to observe any type of electrical conduction effect whatsoever.

## 4 Conclusions

In summary, we have measured the angle-dependent interlayer magnetoresistance of the pressure-induced organic superconductor (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O at two pressures; one at which there is evidence for a CDW state, and one at which this CDW is completely suppressed. At both pressures the in-plane upper critical field exceeds the Pauli paramagnetic limit and an incoherent interlayer transport mechanism is observed in the presence of a in-plane magnetic field component. At the lower pressure a negative magnetoresistance is seen, indicating that the transport is dominated by variable-range hopping caused by a degree of Anderson localization in the highly conducting organic layers. At the higher pressure the magnetoresistance becomes positive and the effects of Anderson localization are no longer observed following the complete suppression of the CDW state. This implies a strong connection between the CDW and the Anderson localization.

The Anderson localization model of Fukuyama and Yosida  is currently the only mechanism that can explain all the effects observed in (BEDT-TTF)3Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$2H2O.

We also note the similarities in physical properties of this material and several other organic molecular crystals; in particular $`\tau `$-\[P-(S,S)-DMEDT-TTF\]2(AuBr)(AuBr)y , (TMTSF)2ClO4  and (TMTSF)2PF6 ; and suggest that it is possible that the Anderson localization model described here could be used to explain the negative and saturating magnetoresistances observed in these materials.

This work is supported by EPSRC (U.K.). NHMFL is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), the National Science Foundation, and the State of Florida. We thank Steve Blundell for stimulating discussions.

## References


format: text

text:
# Rotating Topological Black Brnaes in Various Dimensions and AdS/CFT Correspondence

## I Introduction

The AdS conformal field theory (CFT) correspondence conjecture asserts that there is a relation between a super gravity or string theory in $`(n+1)`$-dimensional anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetimes and a conformal field theory (CFT) living on an $`n`$-dimensional boundary Mal1 . This equivalence enables one to remove the divergences of the action and conserved quantities of gravity in the same way as one does in field theory. Indeed the CFT-inspired boundary counterterms furnish a means for calculating the action and conserved charges intrinsically without reliance on any reference spacetime Kls ; BK1 ; Hen . The efficiency of this approach has been demonstrated in a broad range of examples in the spacially infinite limit, where the AdS/CFT correspondence applies Emp ; Mann ; Awad . Although the AdS/CFT correspondence applies for the case of spacially infinite boundary, it was also employed for the computation of the conserved and thermodynamical quantities in the case of a finite boundary Deh1 . These ideas have been recently extended to the case of asymptotically de Sitter spacetimes Stro1 ; Deh2 .

In this paper we want to apply the AdS/CFT correspondence to the case of rotating topological black branes whose $`(n1)`$-surfaces at fixed $`r`$ and $`t`$ have nontrivial topology with nonconstant curvature Kl97 ; Kl98 . Although in the non-rotating case one can compactify these hypersurfaces to obtain topological black holes TBH1 ; TBH2 , in the rotating case this cannot be done. The AdS/CFT correspondence has been used for the case of topological black holes with constant curvature horizon Emp ; Cai ; Ghez , but it has not applied to the case of rotating higher genus black branes until now. Thus it is worthwhile to investigate the efficiency of the AdS/CFT correspondence for this type of black branes. It is remarkable to mention that the counterterms introduced in Ref. Kls  cannot remove the $`r`$ divergences in the action of rotating topological black branes in more than five dimensions. But as it is known the expression for $`I_{ct}`$ obtained by the algorithm given in Ref. Kls  is not unique, and one can add any functional of curvature invariants that vanish at infinity in a given dimension. So, we first modify the counterterms and then we show that the $`r`$ divergences of the action and the conserved charge densities of these spacetimes in various dimension up to seven are removed. Also we introduce the general five-dimensional topological Kerr-AdS solution which describes rotating black brane in AdS spacetime with two rotational parameters.

The outline of our paper is as follows. In Sec. II we review the basic formalism and introduce the modified counterterms. Section III will be devoted to the consideration of topological Kerr-AdS metric with one rotational parameter in various dimensions. We also show that the modified counterterms remove the divergences in $`r`$ for the densities of the action and the conserved charges. In Sec. IV the general five-dimensional topological Kerr-AdS spacetimes with two rotational parameters is introduced, and the action and conserved charge densities computed. We finish our paper with some concluding remarks.

## II The Action and Conserved Quantities

The gravitational action of $`(n+1)`$-dimensional spacetimes $``$, with boundary $`\delta `$ is

$$I_G=\frac{1}{16\pi }_{}d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(\text{ }2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+\frac{1}{8\pi }_{}d^nx\sqrt{\gamma }\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma ).$$
(1)
The first term is the Einstein-Hilbert volume (or bulk) term with negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n(n1)/(2l^2)`$ and the second term is the Gibbons-Hawking boundary term which is chosen such that the variational principle is well-defined. The manifold $``$ has metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and covariant derivative $`_\mu `$. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ of any boundary(ies) $``$ of the manifold $``$, with induced metric(s) $`\gamma _{ij}`$. In general the first and second terms of Eq. (1) are both divergent when evaluated on solutions, as is the Hamiltonian, and other associated conserved quantities. Rather than eliminating these divergences by incorporating a reference term in the spacetime BY ; BCM , a new term, $`I_{ct}`$, is added to the action which is a functional only of the boundary curvature invariants. For an asymptotically AdS spacetime, this has been done in Ref. Kls  through the use of an algorithmic procedure. These counterterms up to seven dimensions are

$$I_{ct}=\frac{1}{8\pi }_{_{\mathrm{}}}d^nx\sqrt{\gamma }\left\{\frac{n1}{l}\frac{lR}{2(n2)}\frac{l^3}{2(n4)(n2)^2}\left(R_{ab}R^{ab}\frac{n}{4(n1)}R^2\right)+\mathrm{}\right\},$$
(2)
where $`R`$, $`R_{abcd}`$, and $`R_{ab}`$ are the Ricci scalar, Riemann tensor and Ricci tensor of the boundary metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$. Indeed, there may exist a very large number of possible invariants one could add in a given dimension, but in Ref. Kls  only a finite number of them have been introduced. These counterterms have been used by many authors for a wide variety of the spacetimes, including Schwarzschild-AdS, topological Schwarzschild-AdS, Kerr-AdS, Taub-NUT-AdS, Taub-bolt-AdS, and Taub-bolt-Kerr-AdS Emp ; Mann ; Awad . Although the counterterms introduced in Ref. Kls  can remove the divergences of the action and conserved charges of these spacetimes, one may show that these counterterms cannot remove the divergences in $`r`$ of the action of topological Kerr-AdS in more than five dimensions. In order to remove the $`r`$ divergences, we should modify the counterterms (2) by adding the following curvature invariant term to it:

$$I_{ct}^{}=\frac{1}{8\pi }_{_{\mathrm{}}}d^nx\sqrt{\gamma }\frac{l^3}{2(n1)(n4)(n^24)}^2R.$$
(3)
It is remarkable to mention that the counterterm (3) is equal to zero for the case of black holes whose horizons have positive or negative constant curvature. The total action can be written as a linear combination of the gravity term (1) and the counterterms (2) and (3) as

$$I=I_G+I_{ct}+I_{ct}^{}.$$
(4)
Using the Brown and York definition BY  one can construct a divergence free stress-energy tensor from the total action (4) as

$`T^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\{(\mathrm{\Theta }^{ab}\mathrm{\Theta }\gamma ^{ab}){\displaystyle \frac{n1}{l}}\gamma ^{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{n2}}(R^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R\gamma ^{ab})`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{l^3}{(n4)(n2)^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^{ab}(R^{cd}R_{cd}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4(n1)}}R^2){\displaystyle \frac{n}{2(n2)}}RR^{ab}`$
$`+2R_{cd}R^{acbd}{\displaystyle \frac{n2}{2(n1)}}^a^bR+^2R^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(n1)}}\gamma ^{ab}^2R]+\mathrm{}\}.`$
To compute the conserved charges of the spacetime, one should choose a spacelike surface $``$ in $``$ with metric $`\sigma _{ij}`$, and write the boundary metric in ADM form:

$$\gamma _{ab}dx^adx^a=N^2dt^2+\sigma _{ij}\left(d\varphi ^i+V^idt\right)\left(d\varphi ^j+V^jdt\right),$$

where the coordinates $`\varphi ^i`$ are the angular variables parametrizing the hypersurface of constant $`r`$ around the origin. Then the conserved quantities associated with the stress tensors of Eq. (5) can be written as

$$𝒬(\xi )=_{_{\mathrm{}}}d^{n1}\varphi \sqrt{\sigma }T_{ab}n^a\xi ^b,$$
(6)
where $`\sigma `$ is the determinant of the metric $`\sigma _{ij}`$, $`\xi `$ and $`n^a`$ are the Killing vector field and the unit normal vector on the boundary $``$ .

Now in the following sections we study the implications of including the modified counterterms for the class of rotating topological spacetimes in various dimensions. For each Killing vector $`\xi `$ , there exist an associated conserved charge. For our case, rotating topological spacetimes, the first Killing vector is $`\xi =/t`$ and therefore its associated conserved charge is the total mass of the system enclosed by the boundary given by

$$M=_{_{\mathrm{}}}d^{n1}\varphi \sqrt{\sigma }T_{ab}n^a\xi ^b.$$
(7)
The charge associated to a rotational Killing symmetry generated by $`\zeta =/\varphi `$ is the angular momentum written as

$$J=_{_{\mathrm{}}}d^{n1}\varphi \sqrt{\sigma }T_{ab}n^a\zeta ^b,$$
(8)
but in our case there is no global rotational Killing symmetry. However, the vector $`\zeta =/\varphi `$, although it is not a Killing vector, obeys locally the condition $`_{(a}\zeta _{b)}=0`$ and is therefore a kind of approximate symmetry, or a locally exact symmetry.

In the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence the limit in which the boundary $``$ becomes infinite ($`_{\mathrm{}}`$) is taken, and the counterterm prescription ensures that the divergences in $`r`$ of the action, mass, and angular momentum are removed. No embedding of the surface $``$ into a reference spacetime is required and the quantities which are computed are intrinsic to the spacetimes. In our case since the boundary $``$ cannot be compactified, the divergences in the angular variables parametrizing the hypersurface $``$ remain.

## III Topological Kerr-AdS Metric With One Rotational Parameter

In this section we consider the class of higher genus ($`g>1`$) rotating topological solutions of the Einstein equation with negative cosmological constant in various dimensions with one rotational parameter. These solutions in $`(n+1)`$ dimension can be written as Kl97 ; Kl98 :

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}{\rho ^2}}(dt+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi d\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}dr^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi }}d\chi ^2`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi \mathrm{sinh}^2\chi }{\rho ^2}}[adt{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2+a^2)}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}d\varphi ]^2+r^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n3},`$
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n3}`$ is the metric of a unit $`(n3)`$-dimensional compact pseudosphere and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ $`=`$ $`(r^2+a^2)({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}1)2mr^{4n},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}},`$
$`\rho ^2`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi .`$ (10)
One may note that Eqs. (9 and 10) describe spacetimes which reduce in the case of $`a=0`$, to the topological Schwarzschild -AdS black holes in $`(n+1)`$ dimension. Hence we expect the parameters $`m`$ and $`a`$ to be associated with the mass and angular momentum of the spacetime respectively. The metric of Eq. (9) is a limit case of the generalized Petrov-type D solution of the Einstein equation with cosmological constant in $`(n+1)`$ dimension introduced in Kl98 .

The metric induced on a spacelike $`(n1)`$-surface at fixed coordinates $`r`$ and $`t`$ is

$$\frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi }d\chi ^2+[(r^2+a^2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi a^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi \mathrm{\Delta }_r]\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi }{\rho ^2}d\varphi ^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n3}.$$
(11)
Note that the Gaussian curvature of this metric is not constant and one cannot compactify the $`(\chi \varphi )`$ sector Kl98 . In order to have a Euclidean metric we have to require that the term in the bracket of Eq. (11) be positive. That is

$$(r^2+a^2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi a^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi \mathrm{\Delta }_r>0.$$
(12)
This condition restricts the allowed values of the mass parameter and we will consider it in various dimensions in the following sections.

### III.1 Topological Kerr-AdS4 Metric

The metric of Eqs. (9) and (10) for $`n=3`$ is a limit case of the metric of Plebanski and Demianski Pleb  which is the most general known Petrov type-D solution of the source-free Einstein-Maxwell equation with cosmological constant in four dimensions Kl97 . This metric has two inner and outer horizons located at $`r_{}`$ and $`r_+`$ provided the mass parameter $`m`$ lies between $`m_{1,crit}mm_{2,crit}`$ and only an outer horizon if the parameter $`m`$ is outside of this range, where $`m_{1,crit}`$ and $`m_{2,crit}`$ are the two critical masses given by:

$`m_{1,crit}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{3\sqrt{6}}}\sqrt{1+33{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{a^6}{l^6}}+(114{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}})^{3/2},}`$
$`m_{2,crit}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{3\sqrt{6}}}\sqrt{1+33{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{a^6}{l^6}}(114{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}})^{3/2}.}`$ (13)
The metric induced on the $`2`$-hypersurface at fixed $`r=`$const$`>r_+`$ and $`t=`$const is Euclidean provided the parameter $`mm_{1,crit}`$. Thus although this metric has a horizon for all values of $`m`$, to have a Euclidean metric on the $`2`$-surface outside the horizon we should restrict the allowed values of the mass parameter to $`mm_{1,crit}`$. Note that this range introduced here is a little greater than the one introduced in Ref. Kl97  and this is due to the fact that we restrict ourself to outside of the horizon.

Using Eq. (4) the action in the limit in which the boundary becomes infinite can be written as

$$I_4=\beta _+^{(4)}_{_{\mathrm{}}}_B^{(4)}\mathrm{sinh}\chi d\chi d\varphi ,$$
(14)
where $`\beta _+^{(4)}`$ and $`_B^{(4)}`$ are the inverse Hawking temperature of the event horizon and the action density on the boundary at infinity given as

$`\beta _+^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi l^2r_+(r_+^2+a^2)}{3r_+^4+(a^2l^2)r_+^2+a^2l^2}},`$ (15)
$`_B^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi \mathrm{\Xi }}}\{mr_+({\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{l^2}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi )\}.`$ (16)
Note that the $`r`$ divergences of the action density $`_B^{(4)}`$ on the boundary at infinity are removed, but since one cannot compactify $``$, the divergences in $`\chi `$ still remain Kl98 . Using Eqs. (7) and (8) the total mass $`M`$ and the total angular momentum $`J_\varphi `$ are

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{_{\mathrm{}}}}_B^{(4)}\mathrm{sinh}\chi d\chi d\varphi ;_B^{(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Xi }}},`$ (17)
$`J_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{_{\mathrm{}}}}𝒥_B^{(4)}\mathrm{sinh}\chi d\chi d\varphi ;𝒥_B^{(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{3ma}{8\pi \mathrm{\Xi }^2}}\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi .`$ (18)
These expressions show that the parameters $`m`$ and $`a`$ could be associated with the mass and angular momentum of the spacetime, respectively. As in the case of action, again the $`r`$ divergences have been removed as one expects from AdS/CFT correspondence.

### III.2 Topological Kerr-AdS5 Metric

For the case of $`n=4`$ the metric given by Eqs. (9) and (10) has two inner and outer horizons located at $`r_{}`$ and $`r_+`$, provided the parameter $`m`$ lies between $`m_{1,crit}mm_{2,crit}`$, and only an outer horizon if the parameter $`m>`$ $`m_{2,crit}`$, where $`m_{1,crit}`$ and $`m_{2,crit}`$ are the two critical masses given by

$`m_{1,crit}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{8}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\right)^2,`$ (19)
$`m_{2,crit}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^2.`$ (20)
The metric induced on the $`3`$-hypersurface at fixed $`r=`$const$`>r_+`$ and $`t=`$const is Euclidean for all the allowed values of the mass parameter $`m>m_{1,crit}`$. Using Eq. (4), one can write the total action as

$$I_5=\beta _+^{(5)}_{_{\mathrm{}}}_B^{(5)}\mathrm{cosh}\chi \mathrm{sinh}\chi d\chi d\varphi d\psi ,$$
(21)
where $`\beta _+^{(5)}`$ and $`_B^{(5)}`$ are the inverse Hawking temperature of the event horizon and the action density on the boundary at infinity is given as

$`\beta _+^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi l^2(r_+^2+a^2)}{r_+(2r_+^2+a^2l^2)}},`$
$`_B^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi \mathrm{\Xi }}}\left\{8m+l^2\left[3\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\right)^28{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^4}{l^4}}+2\left(9{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}9{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}}8{\displaystyle \frac{a^2r_+^2}{l^4}}\right)\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi +19{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}}\mathrm{cosh}^4\chi \right]\right\}.`$
Using Eqs. (7) and (8) the total mass $`M`$ and the total angular momentum $`J_\varphi `$ can be written as

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{_{\mathrm{}}}}_B^{(5)}\mathrm{cosh}\chi \mathrm{sinh}\chi d\chi d\varphi d\psi ,`$ (22)
$`J_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{_{\mathrm{}}}}𝒥_B^{(5)}\mathrm{cosh}\chi \mathrm{sinh}\chi d\chi d\varphi d\psi ,`$ (23)
where the mass and angular momentum densities $`_B^{(5)}`$ and $`𝒥_B^{(5)}`$ are

$`_B^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi \mathrm{\Xi }}}\left\{24m+l^2\left[(4\mathrm{\Xi }^2)+2(6\mathrm{\Xi }){\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi +7{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}}\mathrm{cosh}^4\chi \right]\right\},`$ (24)
$`𝒥_B^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ma}{2\pi \mathrm{\Xi }^2}}\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi .`$ (25)
It is remarkable to note that the mass density $`_S^{(5)}`$ computed in Eq. (24) is not zero in the limit of $`m=0`$. This is a common feature for all the asymptotically (A)dS spacetimes. Again the $`r`$ divergences of the action, mass, and angular momentum densities are removed but the divergences in $`\chi `$ still remain.

### III.3 Topological Kerr-AdS7 Metric

The topological Kerr-AdS7 with one rotational parameter given by Eqs. (9) and (10) has two inner and outer horizons located at $`r_{}`$ and $`r_+`$ provided the mass parameter $`m`$ lies between $`m_{1,crit}mm_{2,crit}`$, and only an outer horizon if the parameter $`m`$ is greater than $`m_{2,crit}`$ where $`m_{1,crit}`$ and $`m_{2,crit}`$ are the two critical masses given by

$`m_{1,crit}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^4}{27}}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{a^6}{l^6}}+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}}\right)^{3/2}\right\},`$ (26)
$`m_{2,crit}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^4}{27}}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{a^6}{l^6}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}}\right)^{3/2}\right\}.`$ (27)
The metric induced on the $`5`$-hypersurface at fixed $`r=`$const$`>r_+`$ and $`t=`$const is Euclidean for all the allowed values of the mass parameter $`mm_{1,crit}`$. Using Eq. (4), one can write the total action as

$$I_7=\beta _+^{(5)}_{_{\mathrm{}}}_B^{(7)}\mathrm{cosh}^3\chi \mathrm{sinh}\chi \mathrm{cosh}\psi \mathrm{sinh}\psi d\chi d\varphi d\psi d\eta d\zeta ,$$
(28)
where $`\beta _+^{(7)}`$ and $`_B^{(7)}`$ are the inverse Hawking temperature of the event horizon and the action density on the boundary at infinity given as

$`\beta _+^{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi l^2r_+(r_+^2+a^2)}{3r_+^4+2r_+^2(a^2l^2)a^2l^2}},`$
$`_B^{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{640\pi \mathrm{\Xi }}}\{80m+l^4[25(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^6}{l^6}})47{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}})80{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^6}{l^6}}`$
$`+6(18\mathrm{\Xi }^257{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}20{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^4}{l^4}}){\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi +79(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}}\mathrm{cosh}^420{\displaystyle \frac{a^6}{l^6}}\mathrm{cosh}^6\chi ]\}.`$
Again using Eqs. (7 & 8), the total mass $`M`$ and the total angular momentum $`J_\varphi `$ can be written as:

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{_{\mathrm{}}}}_B^{(7)}\mathrm{cosh}^3\chi \mathrm{sinh}\chi \mathrm{cosh}\psi \mathrm{sinh}\psi d\chi d\varphi d\psi d\eta d\zeta ;`$ (29)
$`J_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{_{\mathrm{}}}}𝒥_B^{(7)}\mathrm{cosh}^3\chi \mathrm{sinh}\chi \mathrm{cosh}\psi \mathrm{sinh}\psi d\chi d\varphi d\psi d\eta d\zeta ,`$ (30)
where the mass and angular momentum densities are:

$`_B^{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{640\pi \mathrm{\Xi }}}\{400m+l^4[25101{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}}+5{\displaystyle \frac{a^6}{l^6}}`$
$`+3(6356{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}}){\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi +3(9417\mathrm{\Xi }){\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{l^4}}\mathrm{cosh}^4\chi +55{\displaystyle \frac{a^6}{l^6}}\mathrm{cosh}^6\chi ]\},`$
$`𝒥_B^{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{ma}{\mathrm{\Xi }^2}}\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi .`$
Although the divergences in $`r`$ have been removed, the $`\chi `$ divergences still remain.

## IV The General Topological Kerr-AdS Metric in Five Dimension

The general rotating black hole in five dimensions can have at most two rotational parameters Hawk . Thus one can write the metric of five dimensional topological black brane with two rotational parameters as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}{\rho ^2}}(dt+{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_a}}d\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{b\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_a}}d\psi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }}d\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}dr^2`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1+r^2/l^2}{r^2\rho ^2}}[abdt+{\displaystyle \frac{b(r^2+a^2)\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_a}}d\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{a(r^2+b^2)\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_b}}d\psi ]^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta \mathrm{sinh}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}(adt{\displaystyle \frac{r^2+a^2}{\mathrm{\Xi }_a}}d\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta \mathrm{cosh}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}(bdt{\displaystyle \frac{r^2+b^2}{\mathrm{\Xi }_b}}d\varphi ),`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}(r^2+a^2)(r^2+b^2)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}})2m,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_a`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}},\mathrm{\Xi }_b=1+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{l^2}},`$
$`\rho ^2`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta b^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta .`$ (32)
The metric given by Eqs. (31) and (32) is the solution of the Einstein equation with negative cosmological constant. It has two inner and outer horizons provided the mass parameter $`m`$ is greater than the critical mass $`m_{crit}`$:

$`m_{crit}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24l^2}}\{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{1/3}+6^4\mu ^2(a^2b^2l^2)^{4/3}(1+\mu ^6)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{1/3}+15\mu ^4(a^2b^2l^2)^{2/3}4(a^4+b^4+l^4)\},`$
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ $`=`$ $`18^3a^4b^4l^4\{1+20\mu ^6\mu ^{12}+(18\mu ^6)^{3/2}\},`$
$`\mu ^6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(a^2+b^2+l^2)^3}{216a^2b^2l^2}}.`$ (33)
Using Eq. (4), one can write the total action as

$$I_5^{}=\beta _+^{(5)}_{_{\mathrm{}}}_S^{(5)}\mathrm{cosh}\chi \mathrm{sinh}\chi d\chi d\varphi d\psi ,$$
(34)
where $`\beta _+^{(5)}`$ and $`_B^{(5)}`$ are the inverse Hawking temperature of the event horizon and the action density on the boundary at infinity given as

$`\beta _+^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi l^2r_+(r_+^2+a^2)(r_+^2+b^2)}{2r_+^6+(a^2+b^2+l^2)r^4+a^2b^2l^2}},`$
$`_B^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi \mathrm{\Xi }_a\mathrm{\Xi }_b}}\{8m+3(a^2+l^2)(14{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{l^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{l^2}}(b^4b^2r_+^22r_+^4)`$
$`2[10\mathrm{\Xi }_b9\mathrm{\Xi }_a+8(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{l^2}})](a^2b^2)\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{19}{l^2}}(a^2b^2)^2\mathrm{cosh}^4\chi \}.`$
Again the total mass $`M`$ and the total angular momenta $`J_\varphi `$ and $`J_\psi `$ calculated from Eqs. (7) and (8) are given by Eqs. (22) and (23) where the mass and angular momentum densities are

$`_B^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi \mathrm{\Xi }_a\mathrm{\Xi }_b}}\{24m+l^2(4\mathrm{\Xi }_b^2\mathrm{\Xi }_a^2)`$
$`2(6\mathrm{\Xi }_b\mathrm{\Xi }_a)(a^2b^2)\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{7}{l^2}}(a^2b^2)^2\mathrm{cosh}^4\chi \},`$
$`𝒥_\varphi ^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ma}{2\pi \mathrm{\Xi }_a^2\mathrm{\Xi }_b}}\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi ,𝒥_\psi ^{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{mb}{2\pi \mathrm{\Xi }_a\mathrm{\Xi }_b^2}}\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi .`$
Again note that the mass density in the limit of $`m=0`$ vanishes and all the $`r`$ divergences in the densities are removed.

## V Closing Remarks

In this paper we have considered a class of higher genus solutions of the Einstein equation with negative cosmological constant which represents rotating topological black branes with one rotating parameter in more than three dimensions. Also we have introduced the general topological Kerr-AdS solutions in five dimensions with two rotating parameters. Since one is interested in outside the horizon we have modified the allowed values of the mass parameter $`m`$, for topological Kerr-AdS4 given in Ref. Kl97 , and introduced these values for topological Kerr-AdS in various dimensions up to seven.

The main aim of this paper was the investigation of the efficiency of the AdS/CFT correspondence for these rotating topological black branes. We have found out that the counterterms introduced in Kls  cannot remove the $`r`$ divergences of the action of these spacetimes in more than five dimensions. But as it is well known, the expression for $`I_{ct}`$ obtained by the algorithm given in ref. Kls  is not unique, and one can add any functional of curvature invariants that vanish at infinity in a given dimension. Thus in order to remove the $`r`$ divergences in action we modified these counterterms by adding a suitable curvature invariant term to it. Although this term vanishes for black holes whose horizons have negative or positive curvature constant, we have shown that it removes the divergences of the action of higher genus rotating topological black branes in more than five dimensions. Using modified counterterms, we have computed the conserved mass and locally conserved angular momentum densities of rotating topological Kerr-AdS spacetimes in various dimensions through the use of a Brown-York boundary stress tensor. We found out that although the $`r`$ divergences of all the densities on the boundary $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ are removed, the divergences in $`\chi `$ still remain. This is due to the fact that one cannot compactify the boundary $``$. As in the case of asymptotically (A)dS black holes, we found out that in the limit of $`m=0`$ the mass density of these spacetimes in odd dimensions is not zero.

The efficiency of the AdS/CFT correspondence for higher dimensional rotating topological black branes and other solutions of the Einstein equation such as cosmological $`C`$-metric and the extension of these ideas to the case of asymptotically de Sitter spacetimes remain interesting subjects for future investigations. Also removing the divergences in $`\chi `$ of the action and conserved charges and calculating finite values of these quantities remain an open issue, which we leave for the future.