text:
# The influence of the weak bond-energy dimerization on the single-particle optical conductivity of quasi-one-dimensional systems

## I Introduction

In recent years there has been a lot of experimental Jacobsen1 ; Jacobsen2 ; Degiorgi1 ; Degiorgi2 ; Schwartz ; Uchida ; Lupi  and theoretical Kim ; Emery ; Kupciccm  interest in low dimensional systems which exhibit a gap (for $`T`$ below the critical temperature $`T_c`$) or pseudogap ($`T>T_c`$) features in the low-frequency optical conductivity. In principle, it is possible to solve the single-particle contributions to the response functions for the ideal electronic system and then to take the single-particle damping phenomenologically. However, a good agreement with experiments cannot be achieved by such phenomenological extension of the standard transverse microscopic theory, which was the question raised by Kim at al. Kim . Instead, they developed a more rigorous method which fits well the single-particle conductivity in various quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) systems with the CDW instability.

Surprisingly, a straightforward calculation gives that the longitudinal microscopic response theory, with the phenomenologically treated disorder, also agrees with the single-particle optical conductivity measured in the CDW systems Kupcicup . The origin of the inconsistency between two microscopic approaches represents an interesting question which will be examined in the present paper. The purpose of the paper is threefold; first, to determine the gauge-invariance requirement for the electronic systems with the bond-energy dimerization (by considering the simplest case); second, to argue that in the weak-splitting limit the dielectric function has the usual form, at variance with the conclusions of the analysis based on the electric-dipole approximation ZBB  that the dielectric function has the Lorentz-Lorenz form even in this limiting case; finally, to illustrate that in the weak-splitting limit various Drude-like and non-Drude low-frequency metallic behaviours are possible.

In this paper, we shall consider the electronic system stabilized into an ordered phase described by the wave vector $`Q=\pi /a`$. It will be assumed that $`Q`$ differs from the doubled Fermi vector, $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$, leading to a metallic state with the bond-energy dimerization. Such assumption is natural, in particular in the strong-splitting case, describing primarily the molecular crystals with an important role played by the local field corrections. According to Refs. Brazovski1 ; Brazovski2 , the weak-splitting $`Q2k_\mathrm{F}`$ microscopic model should also be interesting. The optical conductivity obtained in this case is expected to be relevant to the CDW systems, both at $`T<T_c`$ and $`T>T_c`$, but for the frequencies well above the frequency of the pinned collective mode.

In Sec. 2 we determine the optical conductivity $`\sigma _\alpha ^{\mathrm{total}}(\omega )`$ and the associated dielectric function in the Q1D model with the weak bond-energy dimerization, taking properly into account gauge invariance of the response theory. Sec. 3 illustrates that the gauge invariance enables the rigorous treatment of the effective mass theorem (and the associated effective number of conduction electrons), as well as of the conductivity sum rules. Additionally, it is explained how the standard transverse treatment of the interband optical processes LRA ; Gruner  can be remedied. The development of $`\sigma _x^{\mathrm{total}}(\omega )`$ with doping is shown for a few characteristic cases. Finally, the concluding remarks are given in Sec. 4.

## II Theoretical model

We consider the Q1D electronic system with the bond-energy dimerization along the $`x`$ axis in the presence of the electromagnetic fields. The Hamiltonian reads as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n\sigma }{}}[t_>\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{n\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{n\sigma }+t_<\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{n+2a\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{n\sigma }`$ (1)
$`+t_b(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{n+b\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{n\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{n+b\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{n\sigma })+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.],`$
where the influence of the external fields is introduced through

$`\stackrel{~}{l}_{n\sigma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`l_{n\sigma }^{}e^{\mathrm{i}e/(\mathrm{}c)(𝐑_n+𝐫_l)𝐀(𝐑_n+𝐫_l)},`$ (2)
and where $`l_{n\sigma }^{}`$, $`l\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$, is a creation operator on the $`𝐑_n+𝐫_l`$ site. In order to preserve a simple form of the intracell phase factors, we approximate the positions of atoms within the unit cell of the dimerized case with their positions in the original lattice (for example, $`r_{\alpha x}=0`$ and $`r_{\beta x}=a`$, with $`𝐚_1=a\widehat{𝐱}`$ and $`𝐚_2=b\widehat{𝐲}`$ representing the primitive vectors of the original lattice). For the bond energies we assume that $`t_i<0`$ and $`|t_>|>|t_<|>|t_b|`$, i.e., the $`x`$ axis represents the strong axis of the present Q1D system.

In principle, it is possible to generalize the theory to include all relevant relaxation processes explicitly. Instead, we adopt an approach which assumes that in the clean (i.e. underdamped) limit one can separate the relaxation of the electron momentum on the static dimerization potential (or on the (quasi)static $`Q=\pi /a`$ phonon modes) from other electron scattering processes (related to the impurities and other phonon modes), calculate the dimerization (or (quasi)dimerization) effects exactly, and, finally, take the remaining relaxation effect into account phenomenologically.

### II.1 Bare Hamiltonian

The Bloch operators of the dimerized case satisfy the relation

$`L_{𝐤\sigma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}e^{\mathrm{i}𝐤𝐑_n}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}e^{\mathrm{i}k_xr_{lx}}U_{k_x}(L,l)l_{n\sigma }^{},`$
where $`e^{ik_xr_{lx}}`$ are the bare intracell phase factors, and where $`U_{k_x}(L,l)`$ represent the transformation-matrix elements dependent on an additional phase $`\phi (k_x)`$, as discussed below. For $`t_i<0`$, the band indices $`L=S`$ and $`L=A`$ stand for the lower (symmetric) and upper (antisymmetric) band, respectively. It is also assumed that the lower band is partially filled and the upper band is empty. If the Fermi level is in the upper band, the following expressions remain the same, only the electron picture has to be replaced by the hole picture.

Inserting $`𝐀(𝐑_n+𝐫_l)=0`$ in Eqs. (1) and (2), we obtain the bare Hamiltonian $`H_0`$. After diagonalization, this Hamiltonian becomes

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma L}{}}E_L(𝐤)L_{𝐤\sigma }^{}L_{𝐤\sigma }.`$ (4)
The Bloch energies are given by

$`E_{A,S}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`E_b(k_y)\pm E_a(k_x),`$ (5)
where

$`E_b(k_y)`$ $`=`$ $`2|t_b|\mathrm{cos}k_yb,`$
$`E_a(k_x)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\epsilon ^2(k_x)+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k_x)}.`$ (6)
The corresponding transformation-matrix elements are

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}U_{k_x}(S,\alpha )\hfill & U_{k_x}(S,\beta )\hfill \\ U_{k_x}(A,\alpha )\hfill & U_{k_x}(A,\beta )\hfill \end{array}\right)=`$ (9)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\mathrm{i}\phi (k_x)/2}& e^{\mathrm{i}\phi (k_x)/2}\\ e^{\mathrm{i}\phi (k_x)/2}& e^{\mathrm{i}\phi (k_x)/2}\end{array}\right),`$ (12)
where the auxiliary phase $`\phi (k_x)`$ satisfies the $`p`$-symmetry-gap relation

$`\mathrm{tan}\phi (k_x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(k_x)}{\epsilon (k_x)}}.`$ (13)
Other notation is given by

$`\epsilon (𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`2|t_a|\mathrm{cos}k_xa,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{sin}k_xa,`$ (14)
with $`2|t_a||t_>|+|t_<|`$ being the averaged intrachain bond energy and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0|t_>||t_<|`$ is the magnitude of the gap function.

One recognizes in Eqs. (LABEL:eq3) and (12) the total intracell phases of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (k_x)=k_xr_\alpha +\phi (k_x)/2`$, for the $`|\alpha n`$ states, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta (k_x)=k_xr_\beta \phi (k_x)/2`$, for the $`|\beta n`$ states. At this point it is interesting to note that if we take the strong-splitting limit, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/(2|t_a|)1`$, we obtain $`\phi (k_x)k_xa`$, and finally $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (k_x)\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta (k_x)`$. Such structure of the intracell phases suggests the usage of the molecular representation, based on the molecular orbitals $`1/\sqrt{2}(|\alpha n\pm |\beta n)`$, with a further electric-dipole approximation (for example, see Ref. ZBB ). In the weak-splitting limit, however, the atomic $`|ln`$ representation is more adequate, as argued in the below discussion of the interband current vertices.

### II.2 Electron-photon coupling

In order to write explicitly all relevant electron-photon coupling functions, we need the Taylor expansion in the vector potential of Eq. (1) to the second order. The first-order term and the direct second-order term become

$`H_1^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{LL^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[A_{x_i}(𝐪_i)J_{x_i}^{LL^{}}(𝐤)`$
$`\times L_{𝐤+𝐪_i\sigma }^{}L_{𝐤\sigma }^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.],`$
$`H_2^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2mc^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{LL^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[A_{x_i}^2(𝐪_i)\gamma _{x_ix_i}^{LL^{}}(𝐤;2)`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`L_{𝐤+𝐪_i\sigma }^{}L_{𝐤\sigma }^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.],`$
respectively, with $`x_i\{x,y\}`$. Furthermore, $`A_{x_i}(𝐪_i)`$ and $`A_{x_i}^2(𝐪_i)`$ represent the Fourier transforms of $`A_{x_i}(𝐫)`$ and $`A_{x_i}^2(𝐫)`$, and $`𝐪_i𝐚_i=0`$. The explicit form of the coupling functions, the current vertices $`J_{x_i}^{L_1L_2}(k_i)`$ and the bare Raman vertices $`\gamma _{x_ix_i}^{^{L_1L_2}}(k_i;2)`$, is given in the Appendix.

It is essential to notice that in the bond-energy dimerization model two physically different terms comprise the interband current vertices. The first term is dispersionless and corresponds to the intramolecular interband processes (between the states $`|\alpha n`$ and $`|\beta n`$). The second term describes all other, intermolecular interband processes. In the strong-splitting limit, one obtains the interband current vertices consisting mainly of the intramolecular contribution, $`J_x^{SA}(k_x)\mathrm{i}ea|t_>|/\mathrm{}`$, giving the associated dipole vertex of the form $`ea/2`$. Although in this case the response functions are complicated functions of the short-range dipole-dipole interactions, it is possible to apply the electric-dipole approximation, and to obtain the Q1D optical model extensively studied by Županović at al. ZBB . In the present article we want to extract physical information from the optical conductivity determined in the opposite (weak-splitting) limit. In this case the intramolecular and intermolecular interband processes are equally important, and, consequently, the local field corrections become negligible.

### II.3 Optical conductivity in the weak-splitting limit

To obtain the gauge invariant form of the (transverse) optical conductivity in the ideal multiband models, it is necessary first to gather the diamagnetic photon self-energy with the real part of the static interband photon self-energies Pines ; Mahan . This results in the effective mass theorem Kupciccm

$`[m_{x_ix_i}^{SS}(k_{x_i})]^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\gamma _{x_ix_i}^{SS}(k_{x_i})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\gamma _{x_ix_i}^{SS}(k_{x_i};2)`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2|J_{x_i}^{SA}(k_{x_i})|^2}{e^2E_{AS}(k_x)}}.`$
Here $`E_{AS}(k_x)=E_A(𝐤)E_S(𝐤)=2E_a(k_x)`$. $`\gamma _{x_ix_i}^{SS}(k_{x_i})`$ is the static Raman vertex, which can also be written in the form $`(m/\mathrm{}^2)^2E_S(𝐤)/k_{x_i}^2`$ Abrikosov . When the local field corrections are absent for the symmetry reasons, or are negligible, the remaining contributions to the total photon self-energy lead to the ideal intraband and interband optical conductivities given by

$`\sigma _{x_i}^{\mathrm{intra}}(\omega ,\eta _1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2n_{x_i}^{\mathrm{eff}}}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\mathrm{}\omega +\mathrm{i}\eta _1}},`$ (17)
$`\sigma _{x_i}^{\mathrm{inter}}(\omega ,\eta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}\omega )^2|J_{x_i}^{SA}(k_{x_i})|^2}{E_{AS}^2(k_{x_i})}}`$ (18)
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{f_S(𝐤)}{\mathrm{}\omega E_{AS}(k_{x_i})+i\eta _2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_S(𝐤)}{\mathrm{}\omega +E_{AS}(k_{x_i})+\mathrm{i}\eta _2}}\},`$
respectively. The effective number of conduction electrons can be shown as an integral of the static Raman vertex over all occupied states Jacobsen2 ; Kupciclong ,

$`n_{x_i}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}\gamma _{x_ix_i}^{SS}(𝐤)f_S(𝐤),`$ (19)
or as an integral of the square of the electron group velocity over the Fermi surface,

$$n_{x_i}^{\mathrm{eff}}=m\frac{1}{V}\underset{𝐤\sigma }{}|v_{x_i}(k_{x_i})|^2\delta [E_S(𝐤)\mu ],$$
$`(14^{})`$
(notice that for the free electrons both of these expressions reduce to the total number of conduction electrons). Here $`f_S(𝐤)`$ is the abbreviation for the Fermi-Dirac function $`f[E_S(𝐤)]`$. Furthermore, notice that the expressions (17) and (18) describe the case of a normal photon incidence, $`𝐀(𝐫)=(A_x(y),0)`$, or the case of the parallel photon incidence, $`𝐀(𝐫)=(0,A_y(x))`$. The generalization of these expressions is straightforward, and will be briefly discussed below.

It is rather a good approximation to treat the single-particle damping (connected with the impurities and the remaining phonons) phenomenologically, by replacing the adiabatic terms $`\eta _j`$ with the corresponding damping energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jx_i}`$. Then the total conductivity becomes

$`\sigma _{x_i}^{\mathrm{total}}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{x_i}^{\mathrm{intra}}(\omega ,\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1x_i})`$ (20)
$`+\sigma _{x_i}^{\mathrm{inter}}(\omega ,\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2x_i}).`$
Finally, we obtain that the associated dielectric function reads as

$`\epsilon _{x_i}(\omega )`$ $``$ $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{i}}{\omega }}\sigma _{x_i}^{\mathrm{total}}(\omega ).`$ (21)
The contributions of the high-frequency optical processes, not included in Eq. (1), are assumed to be constant up to frequencies well above the considered frequency region, and are represented by $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}1`$.

## III Results and discussion

In the weak-splitting conductivity (20), $`2|t_a|`$ is the largest parameter of the model. In spite of the phenomenological description of the single-particle damping, this expression is a rather complicated function of the remaining parameters, $`2|t_b|`$, $`k_\mathrm{B}T`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ and $`E_{AS}(𝐤_\mathrm{F})`$ (the dependence of $`\sigma _{x_i}^{\mathrm{total}}(\omega )`$ on the parameter $`2𝐤_\mathrm{F}𝐐`$ is represented here through the bare interband threshold energy $`E_{AS}(𝐤_\mathrm{F})`$) which makes further rigorous analytic treatment very difficult. In this respect, we shall limit the below discussion only on some simple limiting cases.

### III.1 Strictly 1D limit

If the electronic system is treated as strictly one-dimensional, i.e. $`|t_b|=0`$, one obtains that the electron dispersion in the perpendicular direction, $`E_b(k_y)`$, vanishes. Similarly, for the incidence of the electromagnetic fields normal to the chains, the probability of the photon absorption (or emission) disappears, as well. In this case, the real part of the conductivity comprises only the $`\delta (\omega )`$ term, corresponding to the elastic photon scattering. According to the effective mass theorem (16), the coupling constant arises from two mutually competing terms, the diamagnetic term and the static contributions in the interband term, and is given by the $`\eta _10`$ limit of (17), with $`n_{x_i}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ given by (19). For non-normal incidence, the effective number of conduction electrons, $`n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, has to be replaced by $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, where $`\phi `$ is the angle between $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ and $`\widehat{𝐱}`$. In this way, one can derive the well-known anisotropic dispersion of the longitudinal plasma modes. Namely,

$`\sigma _x^{\mathrm{intra}}(\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}}{m}}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi ,`$ (22)
and finally

$`\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}^2(𝐪)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}m}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_x^2}{q_x^2+q_y^2}}.`$ (23)
To proceed with the numerical calculation, we will take the conductivity (20) in the usual Q1D limit, $`|t_a||t_b|0`$ (hereafter this limit is denoted by $`|t_b|0`$). In the optical conductivity considerations concerned only with the single-particle contributions, the “explicit” influence of the interchain hopping processes on Eq. (20), through the Bloch energies, can be neglected. Nevertheless, these processes will be taken into account implicitly, since they lead to a finite probability of the photon absorption (emission). In such circumstances the 1D version of Eq. (20), with the non-zero damping energies, can safely be used. Furthermore, we restrict the analysis on the case of normal photon incidence, where only the $`x_i=x`$ conductivity is non-zero. We also assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`𝐤_\mathrm{F}=k_\mathrm{F}\widehat{𝐱}`$.

### III.2 Gauge invariance

The gauge invariance of the conductivity (20) can be easily proved term by term, by the direct calculation of the longitudinal dielectric function, following the procedure developed in Refs. Kupciclong  and Kupciccm . The most important qualitative consequences of the gauge-invariance requirement are as follows.

Fig. 1 shows the influence of the dimerization on the (normalized) optical conductivity in the most interesting metallic case ($`k_\mathrm{F}=0.475\pi /a`$), where the $`T0`$ K total spectral weight is shared between the intraband and interband contributions nearly in equal proportions. The participation of the intraband (i.e. Drude) part in the total spectral weight raises significantly with increasing temperature. On the other hand, the temperature dependence of the dc conductivity $`\sigma _x^{\mathrm{dc}}\mathrm{Re}\{\sigma _x^{\mathrm{total}}(0)\}`$ results from two opposite effects, from this explicit temperature trend and from the implicit temperature dependence in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(T)`$ and/or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$. The experimental data illustrating this competition, measured in various low-dimensional systems, can be found in Refs. Jacobsen2 ; Schwartz ; Lupi , while a similar theoretical analysis is given in Ref. Emery .

More importantly, this figure illustrates that the interband contribution vanishes for $`\omega 0`$, independently of $`k_\mathrm{F}`$. Such behaviour is due to the gauge-invariance factor $`[\mathrm{}\omega /E_{AS}(k_x)]^2`$ in Eq. (18). The physical meaning of this observation is that in the metal-to-insulator phase transitions (for example, for $`k_F0.5\pi /a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_00`$) the dc conductivity has to vanish. The usual transverse approach, where the gauge-invariance factor is absent, gives, on the other hand, a finite $`\sigma _x^{\mathrm{dc}}`$ not only in the metallic regime, but also in the insulating regime (see Fig. 2 and an extensive discussion done in Ref. Kim ). These conclusions are valid not only for the bond-energy-dimerization optical models, but also for the site-energy-dimerization optical models Kupcicup , as well as for the single-particle contributions to $`\sigma _x^{\mathrm{total}}`$ in the systems with CDW or SDW instabilities.

To compare briefly the predictions of the present model with experiments, we apply it now to the insulating $`k_\mathrm{F}=0.5\pi /a`$ case, and, again, normalize the spectra. For the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.5|t_a|`$ describing the weak-splitting case, we obtain the results, shown in Fig. 2, which fit well the single-particle optical conductivity measured in the CDW ground state of K<sub>0.3</sub>MoO<sub>3</sub>. Notice that the usual transverse model (filled squares) significantly overestimates the subgap spectrum.

Finally, it should be recalled that the gauge invariant form of $`\sigma _x^{\mathrm{total}}`$ allows the consistent treatment of the conductivity sum rules Kupciccm . For the lower band partially filled, the spectral weights of the intraband and total conductivity are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{intra}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}}{m}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{total}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}\gamma _{xx}^{SS}(𝐤;2)f_S(𝐤),`$ (24)
respectively, and that of the interband contributions by $`(1/2)(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{total}}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{intra}}^2)`$. Moreover, the dc conductivity is directly related to the intraband spectral weight, according to the well-known relation $`\sigma _x^{\mathrm{dc}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{intra}}^2/(4\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$).

### III.3 $`|t_b|0`$, $`T0`$ limit

The characterization of the low-frequency metallic response is intimately connected with the energy region between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`E_{AS}(k_\mathrm{F})\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ (see Fig. 1, for example). In general, in the weak-splitting optical models, both the Drude-like behaviour (characterized by $`\mathrm{Re}\{\sigma _x(\omega )\}\omega ^2`$) and the non-Drude behaviour (where $`\mathrm{Re}\{\sigma _x(\omega )\}\omega ^\alpha ,\alpha <2`$) are possible, as can be seen from Fig. 3, where the real part of the conductivity for various Fermi wave vectors is given.

A more detailed insight into the low-frequency response can be achieved from the doping dependence of $`n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, which is shown in Fig. 4. The following conclusions are important: (i) The free-electron approximation (dashed curve) predicts the electronlike behaviour of the conduction electrons ($`n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}/\delta >0`$) in the entire doping range $`0\delta 2`$. (ii) The simple tight-binding model (dotted curve) leads to the electronlike regime for $`0\delta <1`$ and to the holelike regime ($`n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}/\delta <0`$) for $`1<\delta 2`$. (iii) The dimerized tight-binding model (solid curves) is characterized by the electronlike behaviour for $`0\delta <1\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ and $`1<\delta <1+\delta _\mathrm{c}`$, and by the holelike behaviour for $`1\delta _\mathrm{c}<\delta <1`$ and $`1+\delta _\mathrm{c}<\delta 2`$. (iv) The non-Drude response is expected in the $`1\delta _\mathrm{c}<\delta <1+\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ doping region, i.e., where the spectral weight of the interband contributions becomes comparable to the intraband spectral weight.

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ not to large, the critical doping $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Not surprisingly, for $`1\delta _\mathrm{c}<\delta =1\delta ^{}<1`$ the electronic system would be described by the effective mass approximation which is given by

$`V_0n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{m_{xx}^{}}}\delta ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{m_{xx}^{}}}\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{m}{m_{xx}^{}}}`$ (25)
with $`\delta ^{}`$ and $`m_{xx}^{}`$ representing, respectively, the number of doped holes (with respect to the half filling) and the effective mass of these holes. It must be noted that the effective mass $`m_{xx}^{}`$ is proportional now to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and that in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }_00`$ this mass vanishes.

Finally, the real part of the dielectric function is affected by the dimerization in the way shown in Fig. 5. In the Drude regime the influence of the dimerization is negligible, giving only one zero-crossing of $`\mathrm{Re}\{\epsilon _x(\omega )\}`$ placed at the frequency of the longitudinal intrachain ($`q_y=0`$ in Eq. (23)) plasma mode. In the non-Drude regime two zeros of the dielectric function appear, describing the intrachain plasma oscillations, as well. The first frequency corresponds to the intraband plasma oscillations and the latter one to the total plasma oscillations. As illustrated in the inset of figure, in the underdamped regime ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i<\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$), considered in this article, the zeros of $`\mathrm{Re}\{\epsilon _x(\omega )\}`$ are almost independent of the single-particle damping.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper we have studied the influence of the weak bond-energy dimerization on the optical properties of the Q1D systems, for the electron doping $`0\delta 1`$. It is found that the gap parameter has the $`p_x`$ symmetry. It is shown that the weak bond-energy dimerization leads to the dielectric function in which the local field corrections are negligible. The analysis reveals two different metallic states. First state corresponds to the usual electronlike Drude metal with the optical conductivity $`\mathrm{Re}\{\sigma _x(\omega )\}\omega ^2`$, with the effective number of electrons characterized by $`n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}/\delta >0`$ and only with one zero-point in $`\mathrm{Re}\{\epsilon _x(\omega )\}`$. Second metallic state is the non-Drude state characterized by the $`\omega ^\alpha `$ behaviour of the low-frequency contribution to $`\mathrm{Re}\{\sigma _x(\omega )\}`$, where $`\alpha <2`$. There are two zero-points in $`\mathrm{Re}\{\epsilon _x(\omega )\}`$, and the effective number of electrons exhibits the holelike behaviour $`n_x^{\mathrm{eff}}/\delta <0`$. The comparison with experimental data measured in various CDW systems shows good agreement for the single-particle contributions to the optical conductivity.

## Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Croatian Ministry of Science under the project 119-204.

## Appendix A Vertex functions

For the lower band partially filled and the upper band empty, relevant are the current vertices (again $`r_{\beta x}=a`$)

$`J_x^{SS}(k_x)`$ $`=`$ $`J_x^0[\mathrm{sin}k_xa\mathrm{cos}\phi (k_x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2|t_a|}}\mathrm{cos}k_xa\mathrm{sin}\phi (k_x)],`$
$`J_y^{SS}(k_x)`$ $`=`$ $`J_y^0\mathrm{sin}k_yb,`$ (26)
$`J_x^{SA}(k_y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}J_x^0[\mathrm{sin}k_xa\mathrm{sin}\phi (k_x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2|t_a|}}\mathrm{cos}k_xa\mathrm{cos}\phi (k_x)],`$
$`J_y^{SA}(k_y)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (27)
and the bare Raman vertices

$`\gamma _{xx}^{SS}(k_x;2)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{xx}^0[\mathrm{cos}k_xa\mathrm{cos}\phi (k_x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2|t_a|}}\mathrm{sin}k_xa\mathrm{sin}\phi (k_x)],`$
$`\gamma _{yy}^{SS}(k_y;2)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{yy}^0\mathrm{cos}k_yb.`$ (29)
Here $`J_{x_i}^0=e\mathrm{}/(a_im_{x_ix_i})`$, $`\gamma _{x_ix_i}^0=m/m_{x_ix_i}`$ and $`m_{x_ix_i}=\mathrm{}^2/(2|t_i|a_i^2)`$ ($`|t_i|\{|t_a|,|t_b|\}`$, $`a_i\{a,b\}`$).


format: text

text:
# Stable accelerating universe with no hair

## I Introduction

Knowing the fate of the universe has always possibly been the main goal of cosmology. The speculation on what the future of the universe might be has now become even more complicated. Following recent observations in supernovas Ia  a real revolution has stirred cosmology, leading to a plethora of new views, concepts and finally to an emerging entirely new cosmological scenario which some like to call the New standard Cosmology . Critically pivotal of such a scenario is the already overwhelmingly accepted view that the expansion of the present universe is accelerating . Whether this acceleration would continue forever or it will stop to recover decelerating expansion is still not known. The key ingredient that provides the repulsive force required by an accelerating universe is cosmic dark energy which, even though is not directly detectable, should make nearly the seventy percent of the total energy content in the universe. So far, two main candidates have been considered for dark energy: a positive cosmological constant  and the so-called quintessence field, a slowly-varying scalar field with negative pressure which only recently (in cosmic time) has started to dominate over all forms of matter . Several compelling arguments have been advanced \[5-7\] in favor of cosmic quintessence with respect to the cosmological constant.

It has recently been argued however \[8-10\] that if accelerating expansion continues eternally, then a future event horizon will inexorably form and this would represent the demise for any mathematically consistent formulation of quantum gravity and string theory, both in the case that the universe be now dominated by a positive cosmological constant or by a cosmic quintessential field with constant  or time-dependent  equation of state. This possibly is one of the greatest challenges ever posed to theoretical physics. The formation of a future event horizon, which would make it impossible to construct any consistent S-matrix for string theory, is an unavoidable consequence from the causal future development of any initial surface in the accelerating universe if quantum coherence is to be preserved. Nevertheless, there exist solutions to the static Einstein equations for an eternally accelerating universe endowed with a quintessence scalar field with constant equation of state which do not show any event horizon . This is made possible because such solutions possess a Kleinian signature that can lead to allowance of world lines traveling backward in time. Relative to the case of a positive cosmological constant, this may become one of the strongest arguments in favor of quintessence.

Along the evolution of the universe from its quantum era, tracking models can actually be represented  as a succession of $`\omega =p/\rho `$=Const. domains, ranging from $`\omega =+1`$ to $`\omega =1`$, separated by abrupt jumps and followed by the present accelerating expansion with $`1/3>\omega >1`$, which evolves from an attractor solution  and may or may not be characterized by a constant $`\omega `$. However, it seems to be a good enough approximation to also represent the present period of dark-energy dominated evolution by a quintessence model with $`\omega `$=Const. Therefore, investigating the spacetime of eternally accelerating universes whose expansion is driven by a quintessence scalar field with constant equation of state and does not show future event horizon appears to be of interest. This will be done in the present paper, specializing in the case $`\omega =2/3`$. We shall also deal with the issue of the stability of this eternally accelerating universe by considering the cosmological Lifshitz-Khalatnikov perturbations  on it. We check that the considered spacetime is stable and advance the conjecture that an eternally accelerating closed universe has no-hair.

The paper can be outlined as follows. In Sec. II we review the solutions to the Einstein equations corresponding to a quintessence scalar field with constant $`\omega `$, minimally coupled to Hilbert-Einstein gravity, both in the static and cosmological cases, for the whole range of state equations that covers all possible universes with accelerating expansion. We particularize in the case $`\omega =2/3`$ whose FRW metric is considered in some detail for the different geometries of the universe. The Lifshitz-Khalatnikov cosmic perturbations of this spacetime are studied in detail in Sec. III and it is checked that the spacetime is stable to them. We also advance the conjecture that an eternally accelerating closed universe has no-hair, discussing it by comparing with the purely de Sitter space. Finally we conclude and add some further remarks in Sec. IV.

## II The spacetime of an accelerating universe

The spacetime of the accelerating Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe endowed with a quintessence scalar field with constant state equation parameter $`1/3>\omega >1`$ corresponds to maximally symmetric spaces with negative spacetime curvature which are solutions of the Einstein equations. Since the conservation law for a generic quintessence scalar field should be taken to be $`\alpha \rho =a(t)^{3(1+\omega )}`$ (where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary integration constant, $`\rho `$ is the energy density of the quintessence field and $`a(t)`$ is the time-dependent scale factor), the Friedmann equations for the quintessential accelerating universe are

$$a^{2+3\omega }\ddot{a}+\frac{4\pi G(1+3\omega )}{3\alpha }=0$$
(1)
$$\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3\alpha }a^{3(1+\omega )}\pm \frac{1}{R^2a^2},$$
(2)
in which $`H`$ is the Hubble constant, $`R^2`$ is the spatial curvature constant, and the overhead dot denotes differentiation with respect to time $`t`$. Note that if we set $`\omega =1`$ the first term of the right-hand-side in Eq. (2.2) becomes a constant, and we obtain then a solution for the scale factor that describes just de Sitter space. Here we shall restrict ourselves to solve Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2) in two particular interesting cases. When we set $`\omega =1/3`$, i.e. at the onset of the accelerating regime, we obtain the solution

$$a(t)=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi G}{3\alpha }\frac{1}{R^2}}t+K_0,$$
(3)
where $`K_0`$ is an integration constant. Whereas in the spatially closed case with $`R^2=8\pi G/(3\alpha )`$ the scale factor (2.3) reduces to a simple constant that describes an Einstein static universe, in the spatially flat and open cases, or when $`R^2<8\pi G/(3\alpha )`$ for closed geometry, the universe will expand in just the uniform way.

For a constant equation of state with $`\omega =2/3`$, i.e. at the typical most interesting situation in which the universe expands in an accelerating fashion quite adjustable to what has been observed in recent supernova experiments , the scale factor solution to the Friedmann equations (2.1) and (2.2) can generally be written

$$a(t)=\frac{2\pi Gt^2}{3\alpha }+Kt+\frac{3\alpha \left(K^2+R^2\right)}{8\pi G}.$$
(4)
If, without any loss of generality, we set the integration constant $`K=0`$ (in what follows it will be seen that when we re-express the scale factor in terms of the compactified time $`\eta `$, the resulting solution does not explicitly depend on $`K`$), then this solution described the FRW spacetime of half a Lorentzian wormhole , from a throat at $`t=0`$, where $`a=a_0=3\alpha /(8\pi GR^2)`$, to the asymptotic region at $`t=+\mathrm{}`$. We furthermore notice that if for $`K=0`$ we allowed time $`t`$ to take also on negative values from $`t=0`$ down to $`t=\mathrm{}`$, then a complete wormhole would be obtained. Let us next assume for a moment that the two asymptotic regions at $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$ are identified to each other so that  any world lines for test particles or light signals approaching the infinity surface at $`t=+\mathrm{}`$ from $`t=0`$ would find themselves emerging from the infinity surface at $`t=\mathrm{}`$, toward $`t=0`$, and any of such lines approaching the infinity surface at $`t=\mathrm{}`$ also from $`t=0`$ would emerge from the infinity surface at $`t=+\mathrm{}`$, again toward $`t=0`$. None of these world lines had then reached any of the infinities. Thus, if the universe can be described as a compactified complete wormhole the way we have just described, then light signals traveling backward in time existed and could connect the whole spacetime in such a way that no event horizon would form up in the future . This is by no way implying the existence in the accelerating universe of any nonchronal regions containing closed timelike curves because for these curves to occur in our spacetime it would be necessary that the two asymptotic regions at $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$ were also set into motion relative to one another , which is not possible for the universe.

In what follows, we shall interpret the throat of the wormhole at $`t=0`$ as the latest hypersurface of the universe immediately before the onset of the accelerating regime. This will make the value of the constant $`3\alpha /8\pi G`$ very large. The three possible geometries associated with the FRW metric that correspond to solution (2.4) with $`K0`$ lead to the following expressions for the scale factor in terms of the conformal time $`\eta =𝑑t/a(t)`$.

(i) Spatially closed $`R^2>0`$

$$a(\eta )=\frac{3\alpha }{8\pi GR^2\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\eta /(2R)\right)},$$
(5)
with

$$\eta =2R\mathrm{arctan}\left[R\left(K+\frac{4\pi Gt}{3\alpha }\right)\right],$$
(6)
(ii) Spatially flat $`R^2=0`$

$$a(\eta )=\frac{3\alpha }{2\pi G\eta ^2},$$
(7)
with

$$\eta =\frac{2}{K+\frac{4\pi Gt}{3\alpha }},$$
(8)
(iii) Spatially open $`R^2<0`$

$$a(\eta )=\frac{3\alpha }{8\pi G|R|^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\eta /(2|R|)\right)},$$
(9)
with

$$\eta =2|R|\mathrm{arctanh}\left[|R|\left(K+\frac{4\pi Gt}{3\alpha }\right)\right].$$
(10)
Note that in all three cases the scale factor does not explicitly depend on the integration constant $`K`$.

Although particular values of the parameter $`\omega `$ such as $`\omega =1/3`$ and $`\omega =2/3`$ would strictly make the usual sense only for homogeneous and isotropic FRW spacetimes, if we keep an equation of state $`p=\omega \rho `$ also in the case of spacetimes with static, spherically symmetric coordinates, one can also obtain the static metrics which correspond to the above particular cases for a given, fixed relation between the energy density and the metric components, much in the same way as the static metric for de Sitter space can be derived from the Einstein equations for static, spherically symmetric coordinates and an equation of state $`p=\omega \rho `$, whenever we set $`\omega =1`$. That static de Sitter metric can directly be related with a corresponding FRW metric for de Sitter space obtained from Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2) also for $`\omega =1`$ by means of embeddings in a common five-dimensional hyperboloid (see Refs.  and ). We next consider the generic metric that describes the spacetime in static, spherically symmetric coordinates $`t,r,\theta ,\varphi `$ for an equation of state $`p=\omega \rho `$ and positive spatial curvature, corresponding to an ansatz

$$ds^2=A(r)dt^2+B(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$

where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is the metric on the unit two-sphere, and $`A(r)`$ and $`B(r)`$ are metrical coefficients depending only on the radial coordinate $`r`$. Following Ref. , we take as the components of the energy-momentum tensor $`T_r^r=T_\theta ^\theta =T_\varphi ^\varphi =p`$ and $`T_0^0=\rho `$, that is $`T_r^r=T_\theta ^\theta =T_\varphi ^\varphi =\omega T_0^0`$, and hence we have the Einstein equations

$`8\pi G\omega \rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{rA}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4B}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2A^{\prime \prime }}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{(A^{})^2}{A^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2B^{}}{rB}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{AB}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2A^{}}{rA}}\right)`$
$$8\pi G\rho =\frac{1}{B}\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{B^{}}{rB}\right)+\frac{1}{r^2},$$

in which the prime denotes derivative with respect to the radial coordinate $`r`$. On the other hand, the components of the energy-momentum tensor must satisfy the gravitational equation  $`T_{i;k}^k=0`$. From this equation we can now obtain a relation between the metric component $`A(r)`$ and the energy density $`\rho `$, $`A(r)^{}=2\omega A(r)\rho ^{}/[\rho (1+\omega )]`$, which can be immediately integrated to give $`\alpha \rho =A(r)^{(1+\omega )/(2\omega )}`$, with $`\alpha `$ again an arbitrary integration constant. Note that for $`\omega =1`$, $`\rho `$ becomes a simple constant, so that the Einstein equations are straightforwardly solved to produce the well-known static de Sitter metric. In the case $`\omega =1/3`$ we can obtain the solution

$$A(r)=K_1\frac{8\pi GK_2}{3\alpha }\sqrt{1+\frac{3\alpha K_3}{8\pi Gr^2}}$$
(11)
$$B(r)=\left[\left(K_3+\frac{8\pi Gr^2}{3\alpha }\right)A(r)\right]^1,$$
(12)
where $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$ and $`K_3`$ are integration constant which are arbitrary unless by the condition $`K_1K_3=1`$. This metric shows an event horizon at

$$r=r_h=\left(\frac{3\alpha K_3K_1^2}{8\pi GK_2^2}\frac{8\pi G}{3\alpha K_3}\right)^1,$$

which marks the transition from a Kleinian-signature metric for $`r<r_h`$ to an Euclidean (Riemannian) metric for $`r>r_h`$. For the entire range of $`\omega `$-values in the accelerating interval $`1/3>\omega >1`$, we have the solution

$$A(r)=K(\omega ,\alpha )r^{4\omega /(1+\omega )}$$

$$B=\frac{\omega ^2+6\omega +1}{(1\omega )^2},$$

where

$$K(\omega ,\alpha )=\left(\frac{2\pi G(1+\omega )^2B}{\omega \alpha }\right)^{2\omega /(1+\omega )},1<\omega <1/3$$

Note that in the considered interval $`B`$ reduces to a simple dimensionless constant which is negative definite. Besides being singular at the origin of radial coordinate $`r`$, the two most interesting properties of this solution are: (i) it does not show any event horizon (so that, all world lines should necessarily be always connected to each other in both the static spacetime and, in spite of corresponding to an accelerating FRW spacetime, the cosmological spacetime described by metric (2.4)), and (ii) it has a Kleinian definite signature (- - + +). The latter property is consistent with property (i) and with a Lorentzian wormhole interpretation of the FRW metric with scale factor (2.4) for the following reason. Let us first introduce the coordinate change $`r=\mathrm{}\mathrm{tan}^2(\psi /2)`$, where $`\mathrm{}=K(\omega ,\alpha )^{(1+\omega )/(4\omega )}`$, with the new half-periodic coordinate $`\psi `$ running from $`\psi =0(r=0)`$ to $`\psi =\pi (r=\mathrm{})`$, and then consider a world line for matter defined by $`\theta ,\varphi `$=const., $`t=\beta \psi `$, in which $`\beta `$ is a real constant. The static metric reduces then to the line element

$$ds^2=\left[\beta ^2\mathrm{tan}^{8\omega /(1+\omega )}(\psi /2)B\mathrm{}^2\frac{\mathrm{tan}^2(\psi /2)}{\mathrm{cos}^4(\psi /2)}\right]d\psi ^2.$$

Since $`B`$ is a negative definite constant along the entire interval $`1<\omega <1/3`$, and $`\beta `$ is real, this line element is always timelike along that interval. Thus, an observer moving on the world line will always have an increasingly negative time coordinate, i.e. though that observer cannot even reach the point $`\psi =\pi `$ and, therefore, can never follow a closed timelike curve, it will always travel backward in time.

In this paper, we shall concentrate on the particular value $`\omega =2/3`$ which corresponds to a FRW metric that predicts an accelerating universe which conforms well to supernova results. In this particular case, the above solution reduces to

$$A(r)=\left(\frac{3\alpha }{23\pi Gr^2}\right)^4,B=23,$$
(13)
which retains all the properties which we have discussed for the generic case.

Most recent results on the large scale curvature of the universe provided by BOOMERanG  and other CMB anisotropy experiments  indicate that the universe is flat with a 95 percent confidence interval. This leaves a 5 percent uncertainty which, from the qualitative standpoint, tells us that the geometry of the universe can still be open or closed. On the other hand, along the development of physics we are used to finally discover that the apparently most probable simplest situations (circular orbits for planets and atomic electrons, spherical symmetry, etc) were often not the real case, but just a good approximation. If flatness is taken to represent the simplest possible geometry of the universe, we shall adhere to follow this empirical tendency by choosing for our accelerating universe with quintessential equation of state $`\omega =2/3`$ a closed geometry, hoping that, like for previous historical examples, this finally uncovers a richer structure. Moreover, one should expect that the conclusions on the stability of the universe against cosmological perturbations we are going to obtain in the next section for closed geometry would be also shared by flat geometry. In any event, a detailed consideration of the cases for flat and open geometries are left for future research. It is only for the sake of completeness that we shall finally include the metrical solution for any constant $`\omega `$ in the accelerating interval for the flat geometry. In FRW coordinates it reads

$$ds^2=dt^2+\left(\frac{6\pi G(1+\omega )^2t^2}{\alpha }\right)^{1/[3(1+\omega )]}\left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right).$$
(14)
This line element is valid for all $`1/3>\omega >1`$ and is associated with a corresponding static metric for any accelerating value of $`\omega `$  of which the metric coefficients in Eq. (2.13) become just the case for $`\omega =2/3`$. Therefore, metric (2.14) and its static counterpart should possess exactly the same properties as what were discussed before for metrics (2.4) and (2.13).

## III Cosmological perturbations

In this section we shall first briefly review those mathematical aspects of the perturbative technique developed first by Lifshitz  which will be later used to investigate the stability of our closed accelerating universe. For a closed FRW spacetime, perturbations of the four-metric are introduced by $`g_{ab}=g_{ab}+h_{ab}`$, with the perturbations satisfying the gauge $`h_{00}=h_{0\alpha }=0`$, $`a,b,\mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{},3`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},3`$. It is work remarking that, although we are working in an isotropic framework with a reference system which is always synchronous, after this choice of gauge, it is no longer a comoving system because the perturbations on the spatial components of the four-velocity can be generally nonzero . Perturbation of the Ricci tensor and, hence the Einstein equation, energy density and velocity can then be derived (for details see Refs. ). By taking as the most general metric perturbation

$$h_{\alpha \beta }=\lambda (\eta )P_{\alpha \beta }+\mu (\eta )Q_{\alpha \beta }+\sigma (\eta )S_{\alpha \beta }+\nu (\eta )H_{\alpha \beta },$$
(15)
where the coefficients $`\lambda ,\mu ,\sigma `$ and $`\nu `$ depend only on the $`\eta `$ time parameter, and $`P_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`H_{\alpha \beta }`$ are tensor harmonics which are defined by

$$Q_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{3}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }Q,^a_aQ^{(n)}=\left(1n^2\right)Q^{(n)}$$
(16)
$$P_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{_\alpha _\beta Q}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)}+Q_{\alpha \beta },S_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha S_\beta +_\beta S_\alpha ,$$
(17)
$$_a^aS_b^{(n)}=\left(2n^2\right)S_b^{(n)},^aS_a^{(n)}=0$$
(18)
$$_a^aH_{cd}^{(n)}=\left(3n^2\right)H_{cd}^{(n)},^aH_{ab}^{(n)}=0,H_a^{(n)a}=0,$$
(19)
with $`Q^{(n)}`$, $`S_a^{(n)}`$ and $`H_{cd}^{(n)}`$, respectively, the scalar, vector and tensor harmonics , an $`n`$ an integer order.

Inserting Eq. (3.1) into the perturbed expressions for the Einstein equations and the energy density and velocity components, and using the above definitions, we finally obtain (a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`\eta `$)

$$\lambda ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2a^{}\lambda ^{}}{a}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\left(\lambda +\mu \right)=0$$
(20)
$`\mu ^{\prime \prime }+\left(3C_s^2+2\right){\displaystyle \frac{a^{}\mu ^{}}{a}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(3C_s^2+1\right)\left[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)3\right]\left(\lambda +\mu \right)=0,`$ (21)
$$\sigma ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2a^{}\sigma ^{}}{a}=0$$
(22)
$$\nu ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2a^{}\nu ^{}}{a}+\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\nu =0$$
(23)
and

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }=\frac{a(\eta =0)^2}{9a^2}\left\{\left[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)3\right]\left(\lambda +\mu \right)+3\frac{a^{}\mu ^{}}{a}\right\}Q$$
(24)
$$\delta v^\alpha =\frac{P^\alpha }{12\left[1\left(a^{}/a\right)^2\right]}\left\{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\mu ^{}+\left[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)3\right]\lambda ^{}\right\},$$
(25)
for scalar harmonics, and

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }=0,\delta v^\alpha =\left[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)3\right]\sigma ^{}S^\alpha $$
(26)
for vector harmonics.

### III.1 scalar harmonics

The differential equations for the $`\eta `$-dependent coefficients $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$, representing metrical scalar perturbations of a closed FRW geometry for the scale factor (2.5) can be written as

$$\lambda ^{\prime \prime }+2\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)\lambda ^{}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\left(\lambda +\mu \right)=0$$
(27)
$$\mu ^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{3}\left[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)3\right]\left(\lambda +\mu \right)=0,$$
(28)
while the perturbations for energy density and velocity components become

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }=\frac{\mathrm{cos}^4(\eta /2)}{9}\left\{\left[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)3\right]\left(\lambda +\mu \right)+3\mathrm{tan}\eta \mu ^{}\right\}Q$$
(29)
$$\delta v^\alpha =\frac{P^\alpha }{12\left[1\mathrm{tan}^2(\eta /2)\right]}\left\{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\mu ^{}+\left[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)3\right]\lambda ^{}\right\},$$
(30)
where we have consistently taken for the speed of sound

$$C_s=\delta p/\delta \rho =\omega =2/3,$$
(31)
which corresponds to a quintessence scalar field with constant equation of state $`\omega =2/3`$ .

The differential equations (3.13) and (3.14) still contain some residual gauge freedom for a complete specification of the choice of coordinates . Such an unphysical gauge corresponds in the present case to the particular solutions

$$\lambda =\mu =\mathrm{Const}$$
(32)
$$\lambda =\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\left(\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta \right),\mu =\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\left(\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta \right)+3\mathrm{sin}\eta .$$
(33)
These solutions will be conveniently subtracted from the general solutions to Eqs. (3.13) and (3.14). The latter solutions will be obtained with the help of the auxiliary functions $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$ introduced by the substitutions

$$\lambda +\mu =3\mathrm{sin}\eta \xi 𝑑\eta $$
(34)
$$\lambda ^{}\mu ^{}=2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\eta \right)\xi 𝑑\eta 3\mathrm{cos}\eta \xi 𝑑\eta +\zeta \mathrm{cos}\eta .$$
(35)
When substitutions (3.20) and (3.21) are introduced in Eqs. (3.13) and (3.14), we obtain the new coupled differential equations

$$\xi ^{}+\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)\xi +\frac{1}{3}\left[1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sec}^2(\eta /2)\right]\zeta =0$$
(36)
$`\zeta ^{}+\left[\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)\mathrm{tan}\eta \right]\zeta `$
$`+\left[2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\left(1+\mathrm{sec}\eta \right)3\left(1\mathrm{tan}\eta \mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)\right)\right]`$
$`=0.`$ (37)
Straightforward manipulations on these equations lead finally to

$$\zeta =\mathrm{sec}\eta \mathrm{cot}^2(\eta /2)y^{}$$
(38)
$$y^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)y^{}+\left[\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\frac{1}{4}+\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{tan}^2(\eta /2)\right]y=0,$$
(39)
where $`y=\xi \mathrm{sin}^2(\eta /2)`$.

Our task now is to solve Eqs. (3.24) and (3.25). Since obtaining exact solutions to these equations in closed form is very difficult, we shall derive approximate solutions in the extreme cases when $`\eta 0`$ (i.e. at the beginning of the accelerating phase) and $`\eta \pi `$ (i.e. toward the asymptotic future of the eternally accelerating expansion). In the first stages of accelerating expansion with $`\eta <<1`$, Eq. (3.25) can be approximated up to second order in $`\eta `$ as

$$\eta y^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{6}\left(12\eta ^2\right)y^{}+\left[\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\frac{1}{4}\right]\eta y=0.$$
(40)
At the smallest $`\eta `$ the solution can in turn be approximated in terms of Bessel function $`J_\nu `$ in the form

$$y\eta ^{3/2}J_{3/2}\left(\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)}\eta \right).$$
(41)
As $`\eta 0`$, we then have $`y\eta ^{3/2}`$. It follows that for the auxiliary functions $`\xi \eta `$, $`\zeta 4(1\eta ^2/3)`$, and hence, since all residual gauge given by Eqs. (3.10) will vanish as $`\eta 0`$, one consistently concludes that the metric and dark energy (density and velocity components) perturbations all vanish as one approaches the onset of the accelerating region. Had we chosen for the Bessel function any of the functions $`H_\nu `$ , then all the above perturbations would be pure imaginary and divergent as $`\eta 0`$.

Of greater interest to study the stability of our eternally accelerating universe is to consider the behaviour of perturbations in the asymptotic region $`\eta \pi `$ (i.e. $`t\mathrm{}`$). Thus, we next look at the solutions to Eqs. (3.24) and (3.25) as $`\eta \pi `$. Let us first introduce the change of time coordinate $`x=\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)`$ in Eq. (3.25) which then becomes

$$\left(1+x^2\right)^2\frac{d^2y}{dx^2}$$

$$+\frac{2}{x}\left(1x^4\right)\frac{dy}{dx}+\left[\frac{8}{3}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)1+3x^2\right]y=0,$$
(42)
which for large $`x`$ and even moderate $`\mathrm{}`$ admits an approximate solution again expressible in terms of the Bessel function $`J_\nu `$, i.e.

$$y\sqrt{\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)}J_{\sqrt{13}/2}\left[\sqrt{8\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)1}\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)\right].$$

As $`\eta \pi `$ this solution reduces to:

$$y\left[\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)\right]^{(1+\sqrt{13})/2},$$
(43)
or when expressed in terms of the auxiliary functions $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$,

$$\xi A(\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}^2(\eta /2)\left[\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)\right]^{(1+\sqrt{13})/2}$$
(44)
$$\zeta \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sec}\eta \left(1+\sqrt{13}\right)\xi ,$$
(45)
where $`A(\mathrm{})`$ is a finite constant that depends only on $`\mathrm{}`$ and whose precise value is not of interest in this paper. The use of these expressions in Eqs. (3.20) and (3.21) leads finally to the solutions for the perturbations coefficients

$$\lambda =\frac{A(\mathrm{})}{3+\sqrt{13}}\left[B(\mathrm{})12\mathrm{sin}^2(\eta /2)\right]\left[\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)\right]^{(5+\sqrt{13})/2}$$
(46)
$$\mu =\frac{A(\mathrm{})}{3+\sqrt{13}}\left[B(\mathrm{})+12\mathrm{sin}^2(\eta /2)\right]\left[\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)\right]^{(5+\sqrt{13})/2},$$
(47)
where $`B(\mathrm{})`$ is a finite constant given by

$$B(\mathrm{})=\frac{16}{5+\sqrt{13}}\left[1\sqrt{13}/8\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\right],$$

and we have subtracted the unphysical gauge associated with the particular solution given by Eqs. (3.19), i.e. $`\lambda =2C_1\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)(\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta )+C_2`$, $`\mu =2C_1\left[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)(\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta )3\mathrm{sin}\eta \right]C_2`$, with $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ two arbitrary integration constants. Using then Eqs. (3.15) and (3.16) we finally derive the perturbation in energy density and velocity components for the quintessence field which are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }}={\displaystyle \frac{2A(\mathrm{})\mathrm{cos}^4(\eta /2)\left[\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)\right]^{(5+\sqrt{13})/2}}{3\left(3+\sqrt{13}\right)\mathrm{csc}^2(\eta /2)}}\times `$
$`\left\{4\left[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)3\right]12\mathrm{sin}\eta \mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)+{\displaystyle \frac{5+\sqrt{13}}{4}}\left[B(\mathrm{})\mathrm{csc}^2(\eta /2)+12\right]\right\}Q`$ (48)
$`\delta v^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{A(\mathrm{})\mathrm{cos}^2(\eta /2)\left[\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)\right]^{(3+\sqrt{13})/2}}{(3+\sqrt{13})\mathrm{cos}\eta }}\{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)[{\displaystyle \frac{(5+\sqrt{13})}{4}}(B(\mathrm{})\mathrm{csc}^2(\eta /2)+12)12\mathrm{sin}\eta \left[\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)\right]^{(2+\sqrt{13})/2}]`$
$`[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)3][{\displaystyle \frac{(5+\sqrt{13})}{4}}(B(\mathrm{})\mathrm{csc}^2(\eta /2)+12)+12\mathrm{sin}\eta \left[\mathrm{cot}(\eta /2)\right]^{(2+\sqrt{13})/2}]\}P^\alpha .`$ (49)
All of the Eqs. (3.32) - (3.35) vanish as $`\eta \pi `$. Had we taken any of the two Bessel functions $`H_\nu `$  instead of $`J_\nu `$ for the solution of the differential equation (3.28), then we would have finally obtained the same expressions as (3.32) - (3.35), but with the sign for all $`\sqrt{13}`$ changed. These would again vanish as $`\eta \pi `$, so the accelerating closed universe resulting from the presence of a quintessence scalar field with constant equation of state $`\omega =2/3`$ appears to be stable to scalar Lifshitz-Khalatnikov perturbations.

### III.2 vector and tensor harmonics

For the case under consideration, perturbations associated with vector harmonics are described by coefficients that satisfy the differential equation

$$\sigma ^{\prime \prime }+2\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)\sigma ^{}=0,$$
(50)
with

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }=0,\delta v^\alpha =\left[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)3\right]\sigma ^{}S^\alpha .$$
(51)
The solution to Eq. (3.36) can be given in closed form and reads

$$\sigma =C_0+C_1\left(\frac{3}{4}\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta +\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{sin}(2\eta )\right),$$
(52)
where $`C_0`$ and $`C_1`$ are arbitrary integration constants. Now, from Eqs. (3.37) it follows that $`\sigma ^{}=0`$, so the constant $`C_1`$ should be zero too, and hence $`\sigma =C_0`$. Therefore, as usual , vector perturbations correspond to unphysical pure gauge and are hence irrelevant also for the eternally accelerating universe we are considering in this paper.

Let us next deal with the quite more interesting study of the gravitational waves associated with the perturbations generated by tensor harmonics. In our case, the coefficients for such perturbations are described by the differential equation

$$\nu ^{\prime \prime }+2\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)\nu ^{}+\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)\nu =0.$$
(53)
Two cases can now be distinguished. If $`\mathrm{}=0`$, then the solution for $`\nu (\eta )`$ is formally identical to that for $`\sigma (\eta )`$ given by Eq. (3.38), but its interpretation is different. It physically represents the time evolution of gravitational waves. We have obtained that, even though the gravitational wave amplitude does not vanish as $`\eta \pi `$, neither it grow as $`t\mathrm{}`$, at which limit $`\nu =C_{}C_0+3\pi C_1/4`$=Const. The neat effect of the whole evolution from $`\eta =0`$ to $`\eta =\pi `$on the zero-mode amplitude is an increase from $`C_0`$ to $`C_{}`$. If $`\mathrm{}0`$, then by introducing the coordinate change $`z=\mathrm{sin}(\eta /2)`$, Eq. (3.39) can written as

$$(1z^2)\nu ^{\prime \prime }+3z\nu ^{}+m(m+4)\nu =0,$$
(54)
in which $`m=2\mathrm{}`$. The solution to this differential equation can most easily be expressed in terms of ultraspherical (Gegenbauer) polynomials $`C_n^{(3)}`$  of odd degree $`n`$ and reads

$$\nu (\eta )=\mathrm{cos}^{5/2}(\eta /2)C_{2\mathrm{}1}^{(3)}\left[\mathrm{sin}(\eta /2)\right],\mathrm{}>0.$$
(55)
We can then show that this solution becomes proportional to $`t^{5/2}`$ as one approaches the asymptotic limit $`\eta =\pi `$. Thus, these gravitational modes (which all start with vanishing amplitude at $`\eta =0`$) become asymptotically suppressed as one goes to $`t=\mathrm{}`$. We have thereby excluded any unstable growing modes of the gravitational radiation in the accelerating regime driven by a quintessence field with constant equation of state $`\omega =2/3`$.

### III.3 No-Hair conjecture

Now, from the solution (3.38) for $`\mathrm{}=0`$ we obtain at large $`t`$,

$$\nu _{\omega =2/3}^{(0)}C_{}+\sqrt{\frac{27\alpha }{128\pi Ga}}C_1.$$
(56)
Thus, even though the value of $`\nu `$ provided by Eq. (3.30) would be expected to be larger than the corresponding value for the zero-mode, $`\nu _{ds}^{(0)}=C_2`$=Const., for de Sitter space , one may always choose the value of the constant $`C_{},C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ such that $`\nu _{\omega =2/3}^{(0)}`$ became smaller than $`\nu _{ds}^{(0)}`$ at sufficiently later times. For $`\mathrm{}0`$, from solution (3.41) at large $`t`$, we also obtain

$$\nu _{\omega =2/3}^{(\mathrm{})}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+4)!}{5!(2\mathrm{}1)!}\left(2a\right)^{5/4}.$$
(57)
The comparison of this with the corresponding de Sitter expression  $`\nu _{ds}^{(\mathrm{})}A_1+A_2\mathrm{exp}(3Ht)`$ (where $`H`$ is the Hubble constant and $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are constants which only depend on $`\mathrm{}`$) clearly implies that $`\nu _{\omega =2/3}^{(\mathrm{})}<\nu _{ds}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ even at moderate values of time $`t`$.

Moreover, from the above discussion it follows that any physical effects driven by the gravitational radiation modes (3.42) and (3.43) should in any event be very small, since their physical wavelengths respectively increase with $`a^{1/6}`$ and $`a^{5/12}`$. Thus physical quantities involving at least two derivatives of the metric are then suppressed asymptotically by powers of the inverse of these wavelengths. These results appears to be implying a cosmic ”no-hair” theorem  for our accelerating closed universe endowed with a quintessence field with constant equation of state $`\omega =2/3`$. According, furthermore, to our discussion above, it would rather be a question on the relative values of the constants involved in the expressions for coefficients $`\nu `$ whether the no-hair de Sitter attractor or our no-hair attractor is the final solution for an accelerating universe. Of course, the model discussed in this paper is a simple one, so that one should extend this discussion to include other models with different spatial geometries and constant or ”tracking” equations of state.

## IV Conclusions

Motivated by the huge impact produced by supernova observations , in this paper we have studied some new characteristics of the cosmological and static spacetimes of accelerating universes whose expansion is driven by a slowly-varying quintessence scalar field with constant equation of state $`1/3>\omega >1`$. Particularizing at the observationally most favored case $`\omega =2/3`$, it was shown that these spacetimes do not possess any future event horizon, a property which is not obviously shared by de Sitter space. The reason that justifies this result is that, even though closed timelike curves are not permitted to exist in these spacetimes, world lines traveling backward in time are allowed to occur on it, so connecting any otherwise causally disconnected regions, and hence preventing the formation of future event horizons. This result could have considerable interest for particle physics and quantum gravity because it manifestly avoids the serious, perhaps fatal difficulties for string theory (and actually any quantum field theory that depends on the presence of particles at infinity) posed by the existence of a future event horizon \[8-10\]. This would be just another reason in favor of preferring quintessence over a positive cosmological constant, since asymptotically de Sitter space inexorably leads to the formation of an event horizon.

The stability of the closed space with accelerating expansion induced by a quintessence field with an equation of state $`\omega =2/3`$ to the cosmological Lifshitz-Khalatnikov perturbations  on the three-sphere has been also studied in detail. Although there exist more elaborated, covariant methods for dealing with cosmological perturbations , we have followed here the original Lifshitz-Khalatnikov treatment because of its greater adequacy to distinguish among the involved physical effects. It was obtained that, at least for a closed geometry in the case $`\omega =2/3`$ the space is stable to both, the scalar and tensorial perturbations, and that the damping of small physical effects induced by the resulting gravitational waves allows one to conjecture that -much like it happens in asymptotic de Sitter space- eternally accelerating universes induced by quintessential fields have no-hair, so becoming final attractors along the evolution of the universe. It would be the value taken on by the constants that characterize the amplitude of the gravitational radiation what would finally decide whether the attractor of de Sitter universe or the attractors of $`\omega >1`$ quintessential accelerating universes are going finally to dominate and drive the future cosmological evolution. This is a matter which cannot be decided in the present paper, but that appears to be decisive to avoid the above-mentioned severe conflict between accelerating universe and string theory (or possibly any competing quantum theory, if there were any). Since our present understanding of any of the theories involved at this conflict is still too rudimentary, it is still rather premature to say anything definite about it.

It is expected that the results obtained in this paper for the closed geometry can be applied to flat geometry too. In particular, it appears that the no-hair conjecture be a key ingredient also for the spatially flat case. Finally, the rather intriguing implication that in any eternally accelerating universe driven by quintessence there would be world lines (followed by light signals and possibly some kind of matter) traveling backward in time need further consideration. After all, if such lines were allowed to exist, then the meaning of cosmological evolution itself should actually require a deep revision.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by DGICYT under Research Project No. PB98-0520.


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The Duffin-Kemmer-Petiau (DKP) equation is a first order relativistic equation, similar to the Dirac’s one, which describes fields of spin 0 and 1 . The basic aspects and properties of the DKP equation which are necessary to the comprehension of this work can be found in the references , where it was adopted the same metric signature. For a historical review covering the theory until the decade of 1970 we refer to reference .

Recently there have been a renewed interest in DKP theory. For instance, it has been studied in the context of QCD , covariant hamiltonian dynamics , in the Causal Approach , in the context of five-dimensional galilean covariance , in the scattering $`K^+`$-nucleus , and in curved space-times , among other situations.

One important question concerning the DKP theory is about the equivalence or not of its spin 0 and 1 sectors to the Klein-Gordon (KG) and the Proca theories, respectively. This is an old question for which, nowadays, still lacks a complete answer. Recently, there have been some efforts to give strict proofs of equivalence between the KG equation and the spin 0 sector of the DKP equation in various situations . In the same context, some aspects regarding the minimal interaction with the electromagnetic field have been clarified . Moreover, the equivalence between the DKP and the KG and the Proca fields for spin 0 and 1 has also been proved in the context of a riemannian space-time .

On the other hand, the study of the DKP theory for massive spin 0 fields minimally coupled to Riemann-Cartan (RC) space-time has been carried out in the reference , where it was shown that, in the context of Einstein-Cartan theory, the DKP formalism naturally induces an interaction between the spin 0 field and the space-time torsion, breaking the equivalence with the KG equation, which does not present any interaction with torsion. In the same reference it was also discussed the conceptual differences between this kind of interaction and that which appears in the context of the Teleparallel Equivalent of General Relativity (Teleparallelism theory), where the spin 0 sector of DKP field and KG field are completely equivalent.

Our aim in this paper is to complete this analysis by studying massive spin 1 fields in Riemann-Cartan space-times using the DKP theory, both in the context of Einstein-Cartan and Teleparallelism theories, and comparing the results with those obtained in the framework of Proca’s field approach. In the next section we present the DKP theory in Minkowski space-time. In section 3 we introduce minimally coupling to the Riemann-Cartan space-time and select the spin 1 sector in order to compare the results with those obtained through Proca’s field. In section 4 we analyse both the DKP and the Proca fields in the context of the Teleparallelism theory and, in section 5, we present our concluding remarks.

## II DKP field in Minkowski space-times

The Duffin-Kemmer-Petiau equation in Minkowski space ($`M^4`$) is given by

$$i\beta ^a_a\psi m\psi =0,$$
(1)
where $`a=0,1,2,3`$ are spatiotemporal Minkowski indexes***The Latin alphabet will be used throughout this paper to indicate Minkowski indexes while Riemman-Cartan indexes will be indicated by Greek letters.. The matrices $`\beta ^a`$ obey the DKP algebra, given by

$$\beta ^a\beta ^b\beta ^c+\beta ^c\beta ^b\beta ^a=\beta ^a\eta ^{bc}+\beta ^c\eta ^{ba};$$
(2)
with $`\eta ^{ab}`$ being the metric tensor of Minkowski space-time with signature $`(+)`$.

The DKP equation (1) is very similar to the Dirac’s one, but the algebraic properties of $`\beta ^a`$ matrices, which have no inverses, make it more difficult to deal with. This equation can also be obtained from the Lagrangian density

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\beta ^a_a\psi \frac{i}{2}\left(_a\overline{\psi }\right)\beta ^a\psi m\overline{\psi }\psi ,$$
(3)
where $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\eta ^0`$, $`\eta ^0=2\left(\beta ^0\right)^21`$ and we choose $`\beta ^0`$ to be hermitian and $`\beta ^i`$ $`\left(i=1,2,3\right)`$ anti-hermitian.

It can be shown  that DKP algebra has only 3 inequivalent irreducible representations, with degrees 1, 5 and 10. The first one is trivial $`\left(\beta ^a=0\right)`$, having no physical significance, while the other two represent fields of spin 0 and 1, respectively. Moreover, for any representation, one can define a set of operators (Umezawa’s “projectors”) which selects the scalar and vector sectors of the DKP field .

## III The Einstein-Cartan theory

From now on we follow the definitions and notations from the references  for the DKP field in curved manifolds. We remember that the covariant derivative $``$ in the Einstein-Cartan theory (which assumes a Riemman-Cartan space-time geometry) has an affine connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$, not necessarily symmetric in the lower indexes, whose antisymmetric part $`Q_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$ is the Cartan torsion, i. e.,

$$Q_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }).$$
(4)
Then we can write the affine connection as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }K_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha },$$
(5)
where $`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}^\alpha `$ is the Christoffel symbol (or the riemannian part of the connection) and $`K_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$ is the contorsion tensor, defined as

$$K_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=Q_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }Q^\alpha {}_{\nu \mu }{}^{}+Q_\mu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu }{}^{}.$$
(6)
The covariant derivative of the DKP field is given by

$$_\mu \psi =D_\mu \psi =\left(_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\omega _{\mu ab}S^{ab}\right)\psi $$
(7)
and is formally similar to that of Dirac’s field . In this expression $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ is the spin connection and $`S_{ab}=\beta _a\beta _b\beta _b\beta _a`$. The matrices $`\beta ^\mu `$ are defined through contraction with the tetrad (or vierbein) fields $`e^\mu _a`$, i.e. $`\beta ^\mu =e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}\beta _{}^{a}`$, and they satisfy the generalized DKP algebra

$$\beta ^\mu \beta ^\nu \beta ^\alpha +\beta ^\alpha \beta ^\nu \beta ^\mu =\beta ^\mu g^{\nu \alpha }+\beta ^\alpha g^{\nu \mu },$$
(8)
where $`g^{\nu \mu }`$ is the Riemann-Cartan metric tensor. In the Einstein-Cartan theory the spin connection can be written in terms of the affine connection and the tetrad field as

$$\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}=\gamma _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}K_\mu {}_{}{}^{ba},$$
(9)
where

$$K_\mu {}_{}{}^{ba}=K_\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}=e^{\alpha a}e^{\beta b}K_{\mu \alpha \beta },$$
(10)
while $`\gamma _\mu ^{ab}`$ is the riemannian part of the spin connection, given by

$$\gamma _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}=\gamma _\mu {}_{}{}^{ba}=e_{\mu i}(C^{abi}C^{bia}C^{iab}),$$
(11)
being $`C^{abi}`$ the Ricci rotation coefficientsThe brackets in this expression denote antisymmetrization of the enclosed indexes.

$$C_{ab}{}_{}{}^{i}=e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}\left(x\right)e^\nu {}_{b}{}^{}\left(x\right)_{[\mu }e_{\nu ]}{}_{}{}^{i}.$$
(12)
The Lagrangian density for the DKP field minimally coupled  to the Riemann-Cartan manifold is given by

$$=\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\beta ^\mu _\mu \psi \frac{i}{2}\left(_\mu \overline{\psi }\right)\beta ^\mu \psi m\overline{\psi }\psi \right],$$
(13)
from which we get the equation of motion for the massive DKP field in the Einstein-Cartan theory as

$$i\beta ^\mu _\mu \psi +\frac{i}{2}K_{\sigma \mu }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }\beta _{}^{\mu }\psi m\psi =0.$$
(14)
We can promptly see that this equation differs from the one that would be obtained from the Minkowskian DKP equation of motion (1) through the minimal coupling procedure as is usual in Einstein-Cartan theory .

### A Spin $`1`$ sector

Now we use the Umezawa’s “projectors” $`R^\mu `$ and $`R^{\mu \nu }`$ in order to analyse the spin $`1`$ sector of the theory. We remember that each component of $`R^\mu \psi `$ is a vector and each one of $`R^{\mu \nu }\psi `$ is a second rank antisymmetric tensor . Applying these operators on the left of equation of motion (14) we get, respectively,

$`mR^\mu \psi =i\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\nu (R^{\mu \nu }\psi ),`$ (16)
$`m(R^{\mu \nu }\psi )=i\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒟}^\nu R^\mu \psi \stackrel{~}{𝒟}^\mu R^\nu \psi \right),`$ (17)
where the derivative operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\nu `$ is defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\mu =_\mu +\frac{1}{2}K_{\sigma \mu }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }.$$
(18)
Combining both the equations (III A) we get the equation of motion for the massive vector field $`R^\mu \psi `$

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\beta \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\alpha T^{\alpha \beta \mu }+m^2(R^\mu \psi )=0,$$
(19)
or, written explicitly,

$$(_\beta +\frac{1}{2}K_{\sigma \beta }{}_{}{}^{\sigma })(_\alpha +\frac{1}{2}K_{\sigma \alpha }{}_{}{}^{\sigma })T^{\alpha \beta \mu }+m^2(R^\mu \psi )=0,$$
(20)
where we have defined $`T^{\alpha \beta \mu }=g^{\alpha \beta }(R^\mu \psi )g^{\alpha \mu }(R^\beta \psi )`$.

#### 1 Proca’s field

In Minkowski space-time the Lagrangian density for Proca’s field is given by

$$_{_{}}=\frac{1}{4}F_{ab}F^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}m^2A_aA^a,$$
(21)
where $`F_{ab}=_aA_b_bA_a`$ is the field strength tensor.

When the procedure of minimal coupling to the Riemann-Cartan manifold is performed on the above Lagrangian we obtain

$$__𝒰=\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu A^\mu +F_{\mu \nu }Q_\sigma ^{\mu \nu }A^\sigma Q_{\mu \nu }^\rho Q_\sigma ^{\mu \nu }A_\rho A^\sigma \right),$$
(22)
where

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu .$$
(23)
The equations of motion for the field $`A_\mu `$, obtained from this Lagrangian, are given by

$$(_\nu +K_{\sigma \nu }{}_{}{}^{\sigma })(^\nu A^\mu ^\mu A^\nu )+m^2A^\mu =0,$$
(24)
or

$$(_\beta +K_{\sigma \beta }{}_{}{}^{\sigma })_\alpha T^{\alpha \beta \mu }+m^2A^\mu =0,$$
(25)
being $`T^{\alpha \beta \mu }=g^{\alpha \beta }A^\mu g^{\alpha \mu }A^\beta `$. These equations show the usual interaction between Proca´s field and torsion, as known in literature, and are very different from equations (19) and (20) given by the DKP approach for the spin $`1`$ field in the Einstein-Cartan theory.

### B Comparison between DKP and Proca fields

In order to compare the results obtained through DKP field with those from Proca’s one we will use the explicit representation of $`\beta `$ matrices given in . With this representation we have

$`R^\mu \psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^\mu \\ 0_{9x1}\end{array}\right),R^{\mu \nu }\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^{\mu \nu }\\ 0_{9x1}\end{array}\right),\mu =0,1,2,3,`$where the ten-component DKP field is

$`\psi =(\psi ^0,\psi ^1,\psi ^2,\psi ^3,\psi ^4,\psi ^5,\psi ^6,\psi ^7,\psi ^8,\psi ^9)^T.`$We have denoted the field components as

$`\psi ^4=\psi ^{23},\psi ^5=\psi ^{31},\psi ^6=\psi ^{12},\psi ^7=\psi ^{10},\psi ^8=\psi ^{20},\text{and}\psi ^9=\psi ^{30},`$so that we get from equation (III A)

$$\psi ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{m}\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒟}^\nu \psi ^\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒟}^\mu \psi ^\nu \right).$$
(26)
Finally, we can define $`\psi ^\mu =\sqrt{\frac{m}{2}}A^\mu `$, with $`A^\mu `$ being a real vector field. Then, using the explicit form of $`\psi `$ given above, the DKP Lagrangian (13) can be rewritten in terms of the fields $`A^\mu `$ as

$$=\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{4}U_{\mu \nu }U^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu A^\mu \right),$$
(27)
where

$$U^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{𝒟}^\mu A^\nu \stackrel{~}{𝒟}^\nu A^\mu .$$
(28)
The Lagrangian above can be written explicitly as

$``$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2A_\mu A^\mu +F_{\mu \nu }Q_\sigma ^{\mu \nu }A^\sigma +`$ (30)
$`Q_{\mu \nu }^\rho Q_\sigma ^{\mu \nu }A_\rho A^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }Q_\sigma ^{\mu \nu }A^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu }),`$
where the tensor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }=K_{\sigma \mu }^\sigma A_\nu K_{\sigma \nu }^\sigma A_\mu .$$
(31)
Due to the presence of the last three terms in the above Lagrangian it is not equivalent to the minimally coupled Proca’s Lagrangian (22). In fact, it is straightforward to see from (28) that the minimally coupled DKP Lagrangian (equation (13) or (30)) is equivalent to that obtained from the Minkowskian Proca Lagrangian by means of the following non-minimal substitutionBesides, of course, the global multiplication by the factor $`\sqrt{g}`$.

$$_a\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\mu .$$
(32)
## IV DKP field in the Teleparallel theory

The analysis of DKP field coupled to gravitation in the framework of the Teleparallel Equivalent of General Relativity  was developed in reference . Specifically, it was considered the spin 0 sector of the theory and the results were compared to those obtained from KG field. Here we will extended such analysis to the spin 1 sector of the DKP theory and compare the results with those obtained from Proca’s field.

We remember that the DKP Lagrangian minimally coupled to the Riemann space-time (which is the space-time of General Relativity and is a special case of the Riemann-Cartan space-time whose torsion vanishes identically) can be equivalently written in terms of the Teleparalell structure, which describes fields in a Weitzenböck space-time (another special case of a Riemann-Cartan space-time whose curvature vanishes identically).

To construct the equations for DKP field in the Teleparallel framework we will start from the corresponding equations for DKP theory in General Relativity, as given in reference . Then, we will simply replace the riemannian quantities in these equations by the corresponding teleparallel ones, according to the rules

$`\underset{\alpha \beta }{\overset{_r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\mu }+K_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\mu },`$ (34)
$`\underset{\mu }{\overset{_r}{}}\psi \left(_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{\mu \alpha \beta }S^{\alpha \beta }\right)\psi ,`$ (35)
$`\underset{\mu }{\overset{r}{}}\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }\left(\stackrel{}{}_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{\mu \alpha \beta }S^{\alpha \beta }\right).`$ (36)
Making so, the General Relativity Lagrangian written in terms of the Teleparalell structure is given by

$$=e\left\{\frac{i}{2}\left[\overline{\psi }\beta ^\mu \left(_\mu \frac{1}{2}K_{\mu \alpha \beta }S^{\alpha \beta }\right)\psi \overline{\psi }\left(\stackrel{}{}_\mu +\frac{1}{2}K_{\mu \alpha \beta }S^{\alpha \beta }\right)\beta ^\mu \psi \right]m\overline{\psi }\psi \right\},$$
(37)
from which we get the equation of motion

$$i\beta ^\mu \left(_\mu \frac{1}{2}K_{\mu \alpha \beta }S^{\alpha \beta }\right)\psi m\psi =0.$$
(38)
### A Spin 1 sector

Now we apply the operators $`R^\mu `$ and $`R^{\mu \nu }`$ on the equation of motion (38). From the results of  and making use of the rules (IV) we get

$`R^\mu \psi ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{m}}𝒟_\nu (R^{\mu \nu }\psi )`$ (40)
$`R^{\mu \nu }\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{m}}\left[𝒟^\mu (R^\nu \psi )𝒟^\nu (R^\mu \psi )\right],`$ (41)
where the covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$ is defined as§§§The derivative $`𝒟_\mu `$ is sometimes referred to as the teleparallel version of General Relativity’s covariant derivative , because it is nothing more than the General Relativity covariant derivative written in terms of the teleparallel quantities.

$$𝒟_\mu =_\mu +K_\mu ,\text{with}_\mu =_\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,$$
(42)
In these last expressions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ is the Cartan connection

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=e^\alpha {}_{i}{}^{}_{\mu }^{}e_\nu {}_{}{}^{i},`$which is associated with the Weitzenböck space, and $`K`$ is the corresponding contorsion tensor, as given by equation (6).

Combining the equations (40) and (41) we obtain the equation of motion for the spin 1 DKP field in the Teleparallel framework

$$𝒟_\nu \left[𝒟^\nu (R^\mu \psi )𝒟^\mu (R^\nu \psi )\right]+m^2(R^\mu \psi )=0.$$
(43)
### B Proca’s field

The General Relativity Lagrangian density of Proca’s field, written in terms of the Teleparallel structure, is given by

$$=e\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu A^\mu \right).$$
(44)
This expression could be obtained from the Proca’s Lagrangian in Minkowski space by means of the following prescription  Besides, we must multiply the whole lagrangian by a factor $`e=\mathrm{det}|e^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}|=\sqrt{g}`$ to make it a scalar density.

$`_a𝒟_\mu _\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu +K_\mu =_\mu +K_\mu .`$The stress tensor for the Proca’s field in the Teleparallel structure is given by

$`F_{\mu \nu }=𝒟_\mu A_\nu 𝒟_\nu A_\mu .`$By using the explicit form of $`D_\mu `$ and the definition of torsion and contorsion tensors, it is an easy task to verify that

$`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ,`$and from the Lagrangian (44) we get the teleparallel version of the Proca’s equation

$$𝒟_\nu F^{\nu \mu }+m^2A^\mu =0.$$
(45)
Thus, comparing equations (43) and (45), we conclude that the DKP and the Proca theories for massive spin 1 fields in the context of the Teleparallel description of General Relativity are completely equivalent. This is an expected result because both Proca theory and the spin 1 sector of DKP theory give the same results in the context of General Relativity, of which the Teleparallelism is an equivalent description.

## V Concluding Remarks

In the reference  it was shown that the spin 0 sector of DKP theory is not equivalent to Klein-Gordon theory in the context of Einstein-Cartan theory with minimal coupling procedure. Differently to what happens with the KG theory, in which does not appear any interaction between the scalar field and the space-time torsion, in the DKP theory this interaction naturally arises. It is interesting to notice that the concept of a scalar field interacting naturally (i.e. through a minimal coupling procedure) with torsion  is useful in the context of a quantum theory of matter fields in a Riemann-Cartan space-time because it gives the possibility of constructing a renormalizable theory .

Here we completed this analysis by studying the massive spin 1 sector of DKP theory. We showed that the spin 1 sector of DKP theory and Proca theory are inequivalent in the context of Einstein-Cartan theory with minimal coupling. Although in this context Proca’s formalism allows an interaction between massive spin 1 fields and the space-time torsion (see the Lagrangian (22)), the DKP formalism presents a more general interaction with the torsion, containing all the terms present in the Proca Lagrangian plus three additional terms (see equation (30)).

Still extending the analysis of reference , we considered the massive spin 1 sector of DKP theory in the framework of the Teleparallel Equivalent of General Relativity. Nevertheless the fact that in this framework the gravitational field is associated with the space-time torsion and not with curvature, the DKP and the Proca approaches give identical results. This was an expected result since both formalisms are equivalent in the context of General Relativity.

Finally, as it is well known, the application of the minimal coupling procedure to the Maxwell Lagrangian induces a coupling to the space-time torsion which breaks the gauge invariance of the theory, a consequence which is usually avoided by the introduction of non minimal couplings. From the results of reference  and those of the present work we saw that, in the context of Einstein-Cartan theory, the DKP field with minimal coupling is equivalent to performing non-minimal couplings in the KG or Proca’s fields. Then, it seems interesting to investigate if the use of DKP field in the study of massless spin 1 fieldsWe observe that DKP formalism for massless spin 1 fields cannot be obtained as a limiting case of the massive theory, as it happens in the case of Maxwell and Proca theories. on Einstein-Cartan backgrounds can give further insights on the incompatibility between gauge invariance and the interaction with torsion. This question is presently under our investigation.

## VI Acknowledgements

B.M.P. and R.C. thank to CNPq for partial and full support, respectively. J.T.L. and R.G.T. thank to Instituto de Física Teórica (IFT) for granting them access to its facilities during the development of this work.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the characteristic features of mathematical physics is the use of abstract notions from mathematics in shedding light on physical problems and, along with this, the use of commutative diagrams by the discussion of general concepts in quantum physics . However, the application of the latter technique to particular, even though important questions from the quantum theory of solids is rather inchoate. Thus, it is our aim in what follows to sift into the essence of such a particular problem making use of the language of commutative diagrams. More specifically, we shall speculate on the interrelation between the criterion for existence of interface states, on the one hand, and their localization in the common energy gap at the interface, on the other. To be definite, we shall consider an abrupt heterostructure comprising two different narrow-gap semiconductors in epitaxial contact.

In order to make the reading of the present paper as self-consistent as possible, let us sketch in the physical object under consideration. Heterostructures between narrow-gap semiconductors belong to the most important ingredients in solid-state electronics , and the two-band narrow-gap approximation, introduced initially by Keldysh  and Wolff , grew up lately in the method of choice by the discussion of their basic properties. Nowadays, there exists a variety of such approximations, and one could expect a new revival in this field due to recent experiments  providing strong confirmation of the wave-function hybridizations in narrow-gap heterostructures.

As a matter of fact, the theory of such heterostructures splits mainly in two quite different hybridization-based approaches: (i) considerations based on a Dirac-type equation (for a review see e.g. ), and (ii) a scattering-matrix theory  based on the hybridization procedure from the narrow-gap approximation of Pendry and Gurman  and subsequently generalized to account for the band-edge discontinuities in the energy-band profile at the interface . It is this latter approach that we are here using as a starting point in what follows.

## 2 Preliminaries

To begin with, let us recall that a quantum theory of crystalline semiconductor may be characterized by the pair {$`G`$,$`E_g`$}, $`G`$ and $`E_g`$ being the relevant crystal space group and the width of the energy gap, respectively. In what follows we are dealing with crystals with symmetry characterized by the presence of a mirror plane and a centre of symmetry in this plane. As regards the energy gaps, they are taken to be small and for simplicity, we suppose that they are opened in centre or edge of the corresponding Brillouin zone. (The generalization to gaps opened in a general position inside the Brillouin zone is straightforward ). By this way we consider heterostructures comprising two different crystalline materials of the above mentioned type, the interface being chosen parallel to the mirror planes characterizing the symmetry of the two crystals in epitaxial contact. For such heterostructures the $`S`$-matrix characterizing the interface as a scatterer

$`S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r& \tau \\ t& \rho \end{array}\right)`$
takes the form

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha e^{i\psi }& i\sqrt{n(1\alpha ^2)}e^{i(\psi +\phi )/2}\\ i\sqrt{\frac{(1\alpha ^2)}{n}}e^{i(\psi +\phi )/2}& \alpha e^{i\phi }\end{array}\right)`$ (4)
where $`n`$ is defined by the ratio of the group velocities of the flux-carrying Bloch waves on both sides of the interface; the real-valued positive quantities $`\alpha `$ and $`\psi `$ stand for the modulus and the argument of the reflection coefficient $`r`$, respectively; and the real positive $`\phi `$ is the argument of the other reflection coefficient $`\rho `$. The main result thus obtained in  is that in this case there may exists at most one interface state, the necessary and sufficient condition for its appearance being given by

$$\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\psi +\varphi _1}{2}\right)=\frac{1\alpha }{1+\alpha }\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{\phi +\varphi _2}{2}\right).$$
(5)
Here $`\varphi _j`$ $`(j=1,2)`$ are parameters characterizing the energy gap of the left $`(j=1)`$ and the right $`(j=2)`$ crystals.

## 3 Two rigorous results and their physical interpretation

The problem that faces us now is how to factorize the physical interpretation of $`(2)`$ into two rigorously defined subproblems: (i) for existence of an interface solution and, if such a localized state does exist, (ii) for finding its position in the common energy gap. The reformulation of these problems in the language of commutative diagrams leads in a natural way to the nontrivial result that they are dual in the sense of categorical duality222For the mathematical tools from the theory of commutative diagrams, needed for what follows, see e.g. .. However, the price of this is that in what follows we are forced to use a kind of mathematical manner, typical for the exposition of such results. Hence, both of the above subproblems have to be formulated as relevant propositions, followed by the rigorous proof of each of them.

As regards e.g. the first subproblem, its physical essence reduces to traversing the common energy gap in search for such values of energy, for which eq. (2) holds. Thus rigorously speaking, we arrive at our

Proposition 1. The criterion for existence of interface states is given by the requirement for the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{c}\\ E(E_g)\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \begin{array}{c}\\ \stackrel{p_2}{}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \begin{array}{c}\\ \varphi _2\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}\\ p_1\hfill \end{array}\hfill & & \begin{array}{c}\\ q_2\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}\\ \varphi _1\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \stackrel{q_1}{}\hfill & \begin{array}{c}\\ I_1=I_2=I_0\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
to be commutative, i.e.

$$q_1p_1=q_2p_2$$
(7)
for some $`EE_g`$, for which $`E=dom(q_1p_1)=dom(q_2p_2)`$ is the energy of the interface state.

Let us only sketch the

Proof: To every value of the energy from the common gap $`E_g`$ we juxtapose a corresponding value of $`\varphi _j`$ ($`j=1,2`$) by the arrows

$$p_j:E\varphi _jj=1,2.$$
(8)
Then, defining the arrows $`q_j`$($`j=1,2`$) by

$`q_1`$ $`:`$ $`\varphi _1I_1=\mathrm{tan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi +\varphi _1}{2}}\right)`$ (9)
$`q_2`$ $`:`$ $`\varphi _2I_2={\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{1+\alpha }}\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi +\varphi _2}{2}}\right),`$
we construct the composites of arrows $`q_1p_1`$ and $`q_2p_2`$. Traversing the common energy gap in search for such values of $`EE_g`$, for which the diagram is commutative, we easily observe that this is just this $`EE_{is}`$ which is obtained as solution of (2). $`\mathrm{}`$

The particular value of $`I_0(=I_1=I_2)`$ thus obtained is the starting point by the discussion of the second subproblem we are here interested in, namely, the localization of the interface state in the common gap. Obviously, in order to answer this question it is sufficient that at least one of the compositions $`p_1^1q_1^1`$ or $`p_2^1q_2^1`$ do exist. As a matter of fact, for this particular case we shall prove a more general result in the next

Proposition 2. To any commutative diagram (of the category of diagrams (3))defining the existence of an interface state corresponds a dual to it (”opposite”) diagram which specifies the position of this interface state in the common energy gap.

Proof: The duality principle is a handy way to have (at once) the dual theorem and, in the categorical language, duality is defined by the process ”Reverse all arrows” . Thus, the diagram dual to our diagram (3) comprises the composite arrows $`(q_jp_j)^1=p_j^1q_j^1`$($`j=1,2`$). On account of (5) immediately follow

$`q_1^1`$ $`:`$ $`I_0\varphi _1=2\mathrm{tan}^1I_0\psi `$ (10)
$`q_2^1`$ $`:`$ $`I_0\varphi _2=2\mathrm{cot}^1\left(I_0{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha }{1\alpha }}\right))\phi .`$
What remains to be done is to deduce the explicit form of the arrows $`p_j^1`$ ($`j=1,2`$). From the hybridization procedure for two-band narrow-gap semiconductors  one obtains

$$\frac{v_j^{in}(K_jK_{0j})(EE_{0j})}{v_j^{in}}+(V_j^{})_+e^{i\varphi _j}=0,j=1,2,$$
(11)
where $`K_j`$ is the component of the Bloch-wave vector (for the relevant crystal) which is perpendicular to the interface; $`E_{oj}`$ and $`K_{0j}`$ designate the point in the Brillouin zone of the $`j`$th crystal where the energy gap is opened; the quantity

$$(V_j^{})_+=a_j^+V_j^{}a_j^{}$$

is the matrix element of this component $`V_j^{}`$ of the relevant crystal potential which is responsible for opening the corresponding energy gap of the $`j`$th crystal by the narrow-gap hybridization with the Bloch waves $`a_j^\pm `$; and $`v_j^{in}`$ are the group velocities of the incoming waves on both sides of the interface.

For the particular case of an energy gap opened in centre or edge of the Brillouin zone, $`K_j`$ is complex-valued, its real part being $`Re(K_j)=K_{0j}`$. Thus, we obtain from (8)

$$p_j^1:\varphi _jE=E_{0j}+v_j^{in}(V_j^{})_+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _j,j=1,2.$$
(12)
From (7) $`÷`$ (9) immediately follows that for the case under consideration both composite arrows $`p_j^1q_j^1`$ ($`j=1,2`$) do exist and, consequently, the position of the interface state $`E_{is}`$ in the common gap at the interface is defined in an unique way by

$$E_{is}=\text{codom}I_0$$
(13)
This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 1. Making use of e.g. the composite arrow $`p_1^1q_1^1`$ from (10) we obtain

$$E_{is}=E_{01}+v_1^{in}(V_1^{})_+\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{tan}^1I_0\psi ).$$
(14)
Corollary 2. From the duality of the two problems - for existence of an interface state and for finding its position in the common energy gap - and as a result of their reformulation in terms of mutually opposite diagrams immediately follows that the passage from the one to the other is obtain under the action of a contravariant functor $`Op`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We close with some remarks concerning the comparison between the present approach with the other one (based on a Dirac-type equation) we have referred to in the beginning.

Let us first of all mention that the name ’Dirac-type equation’ is somewhat misleading for this is only a suggestion that it is formally obtained from the relativistic wave equation of Dirac by replacing the universal constant ’velocity of light $`c`$’ by the so called ’interband velocity matrix element $`v`$’ . Hence, the relevant theory of such interface states has nothing to do with the relativistic-quantum theory of interface states (, see also ).

In addition, it is worth noting that the present alternative approach seems to be more convenient by the discussion of the essence of basic problems in the two-band narrow-gap quantum theory of semiconductor heterostructures.

An instructive example in this direction is the duality between existence condition and construction procedure for the particular above discussed problem. It may be also considered as a nice example for unusual but useful application of a modern mathematical tool– the notion of of commutative diagrams– to a particular problem from the theory of solids. It is worth nothing that, as regards the scattering-theoretical approach to heterojunction problems, it is important to take into account the specific features characterizing the scattering by potentials with different finite asymptotics for $`x\mathrm{}`$ and $`x+\mathrm{}`$, respectively . What is more, as regards the use of heterojunction $`S`$\- matrices (like those from ) as a starting point, the situation is even additionally complicated due to the need to take into account Bloch waves in the two different crystals in epitaxial contact and the relevant generalizations of the properties characterizing a heterojunction $`S`$\- matrix.

## Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to R. Rajaraman and G. Grahovski for useful discussions.