text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity correspond to three vertices of Bronshtein’s ‘cube of theories’ constructed on axes labelled by the three dimensionful constants $`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`G_\mathrm{N}`$, which define the fundamental units of length, mass and time.? Each of these theories has been extremely successful in describing Nature, yet their union into a consistent (and comprehensible!) theory of quantum gravity still eludes us. Moreover it is often stated that the quantum effects of gravity may never be accessible to experiment because they would be manifest only on the tiny Planck length scale, $`l_\mathrm{P}\sqrt{\mathrm{}G_\mathrm{N}/c^3}1.6\times 10^{33}`$ cm (corresponding to the huge energy scale $`M_\mathrm{P}\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G_\mathrm{N}}2.2\times 10^8`$ g or $`1.2\times 10^{19}`$ GeV in units with $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$). However, gravity, being a non-renormalisable interaction in the language of quantum field theory, can perhaps leave a distinctive imprint at energies much lower than the Planck scale if it violates some fundamental symmetry of the effective low energy theory, resulting in qualitatively new phenomena (akin to the violation of parity in nuclear radioactive decay, at energies far below the true scale of the responsible weak interaction).

At present there are two main approaches to the quantisation of continuum gravity.? The first is the canonical programme for a non-perturbative and background-independent quantisation of general relativity, viz. the loop-gravity formalism.? The second is superstring theory,? and its non-perturbative D(irichlet)-brane extension.? Apart from these formal mathematical approaches there have been other discussions of the likely physical manifestations of quantum gravity, e.g of the possibility that quantum space-time has a ‘foamy’ structure,? in which Planck-size topological fluctuations resembling black holes with microscopic event horizons appear spontaneously out of the vacuum and subsequently evaporate back into it. These black-hole horizons have been viewed as providing an ‘environment’ that might induce quantum decoherence of apparently isolated matter systems.?,? In this picture Lorentz invariance (LI) would appear to be lost in the splitting between the matter system and the quantum-gravitational ‘environment’; such a breaking of LI can be considered a property of the quantum-gravitational ground state, and therefore a variety of spontaneous breaking. This also occurs in the loop-gravity formalism, as demonstrated in the semi-classical limit.?,? In critical string theory there is no Planck scale space-time foam but in non-critical ‘Liouville’ string theory,? the link can be made by viewing D-branes as space-time defects, giving rise to a cellular structure in the space-time manifold;?,? Thus it seems not unreasonable to expect spontaneous violation of LI at high energies as a generic signature of quantum gravitational effects. Although a comprehensive theoretical framework may be lacking at present, such an exciting possibility is adequate motivation for a phenomenological approach to the question of whether such tiny violations can be observed.?,?

## 2 Quantum gravity and possible modifications to dispersion relations

In this talk I will discuss whether astrophysical observations can test possible LI violations due to the quantum structure of space-time. We are interested in signatures that are characterised by deviations from conventional quantum field theory, which would presumably be suppressed by some power of the Planck mass.$`^\text{a}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{a}`$Our approach is somewhat different from identifying all possible LI violating terms which can be added to the Standard Model at the renormalisable level; the possible phenomenology of such terms and current experimental bounds on them have been discussed in detail elsewhere.?,? It appears that several such effects are at the edge of observability if the suppression is by just a single power of $`M_\mathrm{P}`$.

This may well be the case for the possible effects of a quantum-gravitational environment on the propagation of a massless particle such as a photon. At energies small compared to the Planck scale a series expansion of the usual dispersion relation in the small parameter $`E/M_\mathrm{P}`$ is justified, i.e. ?

$$c^2p^2=E^2\left[1+\xi \left(\frac{E}{M_\mathrm{P}}\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{E^2}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}\right)+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(1)
Such a relation with $`\xi =+1`$ is consistent with studies ? of quantum deformations of space-time symmetries (viz. the Hopf extension of Poincaré algebra), if we identify the ‘deformation parameter’ $`\kappa `$ as the inverse of the Planck length and impose rotational symmetry (i.e. invariance under the O(3) subgroup of the SO(3,1) Lorentz group).?$`^\text{b}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{b}`$A possible astrophysical test of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré deformations had been suggested earlier.? Such a deformed dispersion relation also arises in non-critical Liouville string theory, as has been demonstrated using the picture of D-brane recoil.? This is essentially because the action for such theories is proportional to the square root of the string tension (which has dimensions of the inverse of the fundamental length squared); by contrast in critical string theory the action is proportional to the string tension, consequently only corrections of $`𝒪(E^2/M_\mathrm{P}^2)`$ would be expected.?$`^\text{c}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{c}`$Such $`E^2/M_\mathrm{P}^2`$ corrections are also found for the dispersion relation of transversely polarised photons due to graviton induced vacuum polarisation in 3+1 dimensions.? Given however that the connection between critical string theory (in 10 dimensions) and our low energy world in 3+1 dimensions is still an open question, it would seem premature to dismiss the possibility of a dispersion term of $`𝒪(E/M_\mathrm{P})`$. It is more interesting to ask if we can test for such a term experimentally to obtain a constraint on theories. Somewhat unexpectedly this turns out to be possible.?

### 2.1 Time-of-flight studies of radiation from distant objects

Assuming the usual Hamiltonian equation of motion $`\dot{x_i}=H/p_i`$ to still be valid, the above dispersion relation (1) implies an energy dependent speed of light,

$$v=\frac{E}{p}c\left[1\xi \left(\frac{E}{M_\mathrm{P}}\right)\right].$$
(2)
We observe that the effect (2) is easy to distinguish from dispersion in any field theoretical vacuum or plasma, which always decreases with increasing energy.? Thus when we study a source at distance $`L`$, we will see a quantum gravity induced time delay (for $`\xi `$ +ve) in the arrival of the more energetic photons as compared to the less energetic ones (differing in energy by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) of order:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t\xi \frac{L}{c}\times \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{M_\mathrm{P}}.$$
(3)
An analogous effect arises in the semi-classical limit of loop gravity, if the gravitational degrees of freedom are assumed to be in a ‘weave’ state.?

The energy-dependent refractive index (2) would induce dispersion in the arrival times of photons emitted in a short pulse by an astrophysical source. It is also possible that different photons with the same energy (frequency) might travel at different velocities, as is suggested by higher-order studies in the D-brane approach to quantum gravity.? This would provide a second possible source of dispersion in a wave packet, beyond that associated with differing frequencies:

$$\delta t\frac{\sqrt{\sigma ^2}}{L},$$
(4)
where $`\sigma ^2`$ denotes a quantum fluctuation about the specific classical background. Both these effects can be described in terms of quantum fluctuations in the light cone.?,? Moreover if the weave states of loop quantum gravity have definite parity then one also expects different propagation velocities for left- and right-handed polarised photons, viz. bi-refringence of the vacuum.? This possibility is however severely constrained already by observations of distant radio galaxies which exhibit detectable linear polarisation in their emissions;? the corresponding time delays for high energy photons in this model may then be too small to be observable. However a study of the propagation of spin 1/2 fermions in the semi-classical limit of loop quantum gravity shows that there would still be detectable time delays between neutrinos and photons from GRBs.?$`^\text{d}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{d}`$Such a time delay is also found ? for the LI violating extension of the Standard Model;? this may not however be observable if the pulses are smeared out due to the dispersive effect (4).?

The figure of merit for such tests is

$$M_{\mathrm{QG}}\xi \frac{LE}{c\mathrm{\Delta }t},$$
(5)
where $`M_{\mathrm{QG}}`$ is the highest energy scale that can be probed using a source of photons of energy $`E`$ at distance $`L`$ which exhibits distinct structure on a time scale of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. As we emphasised,? gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) have particularly large figures of merit. Some of them exhibit microstructures in their light curves of a millisecond or less, they are likely to emit $`\gamma `$ rays in the GeV or even TeV range, and many are now definitely known to be located at cosmological distances.? We estimated that GRB observations might already be sensitive to a quantum-gravity scale $`M_{\mathrm{QG}}10^{16}`$ GeV, and suggested that atmospheric Čerenkov telescopes (ACTs) would be able to improve on this sensitivity. The Whipple ACT group has applied this idea to observations of the active galactic nucleus (AGN) Mkn 421, establishing a lower limit $`M_{\mathrm{QG}}>4\times 10^{16}`$ GeV.? The potential of next-generation ACTs (such as VERITAS, MAGIC and HESS) for improving such limits has been assessed.? A similar lower limit has been inferred from observations of gamma-ray pulsars.? A careful analysis of present data on GRBs however finds a slightly weaker limit $`M_{\mathrm{QG}}>10^{15}`$ GeV,?$`^\text{e}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{e}`$A more severe limit of $`M_{\mathrm{QG}}>8.3\times 10^{16}`$ GeV was claimed to follow from observations of GRB 930131;? however this object has no measured redshift, hence a very uncertain distance. but remarkably enough, space-borne experiments such as AMS and, particularly, GLAST are expected to definitively find (or rule out) the expected time delay for $`M_{\mathrm{QG}}M_\mathrm{P}`$. Figure 2.1 demonstrates that GLAST (scheduled for launch in 2005) will be able to do this in just 2 years of operation!

### 2.2 Modifications of relativistic kinematics due to LI violation

Among the key considerations for the above experiments is the question of just how far can one see into the universe at high energies; for example at TeV energies, $`\gamma `$-rays are expected to be severely attenuated through pair-production on the intervening cosmic infra-red background (CIB) radiation (above a threshold energy $`m_e^2/E_{\mathrm{CIB}}10`$ TeV) so that ACTs should see an exponential cutoff in AGN spectra at such energies.? The absence of the expected cutoff in the spectra of the relatively nearby sources Mkn 421 ($`z=0.031`$) and Mkn 501 ($`z=0.033`$) was thus interpreted as setting limits on the (otherwise poorly known) intensity of the CIB.? This radiation is created by stars and reprocessed by dust so its intensity is sensitive to the entire history of galaxy formation and can be estimated in specific models.?

When the first direct measurements of the CIB were made, notably by the DIRBE instrument on COBE,? the fluxes proved surprisingly to be above the limits set by the above argument. It had been pointed out however ?,?,? that the LI violation implicit in the dispersion relationship (1) would affect the kinematics of the attenuation process $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$ such that there is no physical threshold for this process, hence no attenuation of TeV energy $`\gamma `$-rays even from very distant sources, independently of the intensity of the CIB.$`^\text{f}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{f}`$There is in fact no change in the threshold energy condition for the $`\kappa `$-deformed Poincaré algebra,? but there are significant corrections to the kinematics above threshold.?,? This possibility was promoted as a solution of the ‘IR-TeV $`\gamma `$-ray crisis’? created by the non-observation of a sharp cutoff in the spectrum of Mkn 501 upto $`21`$ TeV by the HEGRA ACT.? Their point is made in Figure 2.2 which shows an updated version of this argument.? The left panel shows a compendium of CIB observations with 3 reference curves drawn to indicate the range of possibilities — curve 1 is a ‘nominal’ fit, curve 2 is close to the expectations from modelling of galaxy formation,? while the ‘extreme’ curve 3 is drawn to match the highest CIB fluxes reported (which may have suffered contamination from zodiacal light). The right panel shows the intrinsic $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum of Mkn 501 reconstructed from the HEGRA observations.? Although the observed spectrum does bend down, particularly after reducing the intensity in the highest energy bin (down to the starred point) at 21.45 TeV to allow for possible spillover from lower energies,? making allowance for the expected attenuation by the CIB (especially at $`100\mu `$m) still requires a rather unphysical turnup in the intrinsic spectrum at $`10`$ TeV.? This is so even for the ‘nominal’ fit (curve 1), although the turnup is not as sharp as when the ‘extreme’ fit (curve 3) is used. There is no anomaly if curve 2 reflects the true CIB and this is indeed close to estimates based on galaxy evolution models.?,? However such estimates are necessarily model-dependent and have many uncertainties so it seems unreasonable to conclude on this basis alone that there is no problem.?,? Clearly the issue will be resolved with further observations of even more distant AGN, e.g. H1426+428 ($`z=0.129`$); present observations are in fact consistent with attenuation by the CIB with no need for LI violation.?

Similarly it has been noted that photopion production of ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECR) on the cosmic microwave background (CMB), $`p\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }(1232)\pi ^+\mathrm{}`$, which ought to result in a ‘GZK’ cutoff ? of their energy spectrum above $`5\times 10^{10}`$ GeV (if they are indeed protons of extragalactic origin), may be evaded by LI violation at high energies.?,?,?,?,? This is an interesting possibility given that the UHECR spectrum is seen to extend well beyond the GZK cutoff while their sky distribution is consistent with isotropy, suggestive of cosmologically distant sources.? However there are plausible alternative explanations for this, for example such UHECRs may originate locally in the halo of our Galaxy, thus evading GZK energy losses while still being quasi-isotropic.?,? The ongoing Pierre Auger experiment will soon provide improved determinations of the composition, spectral shape and anisotropy of UHECRs which will critically test such explanations.

The existence of ‘threshold anomalies’ is thus rather controversial from the observational point of view. As a cautionary theoretical note, the assumption of energy conservation implicit in recent analyses of scattering kinematics ?,?,?,?,? may not in fact be valid — e.g. in the space-time foam picture energy is conserved only in a statistical sense.?,?,? In this picture there is no connection between the TeV $`\gamma `$-ray and the UHECR puzzles which require e.g. very different values of the LI violating parameter.? This is in contrast to the claim ?,? that both of these puzzles, as well as an alleged ‘anomaly’ in the development of cosmic ray air showers,?$`^\text{g}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{g}`$It is stated ? that the observed development of cosmic ray air showers can be explained “by assuming that ultra-high-energy neutral pions are much more stable than low energy ones”. However the cited source ? does not claim any such anomaly; the authors simply obtain a bound on possible LI violating effects.? A subsequent analysis ? notes on the contrary that the dispersion effect (1) would imply unacceptable changes in the development of the em cascade — however this conclusion is based on assuming energy conservation which may be invalid as noted above. can all be traced to the same quantum gravity induced dispersion effect (1). This underlines the limitations of a purely ‘phenomenological’ approach — without explicit guidance from a theory of quantum gravity, it is difficult to be certain of the effects of possible LI violation in different experimental contexts.

Alternatively one can simply parameterise every possible LI violating term that can be added to the low energy effective theory, with LI assumed to hold in the ‘preferred’ frame identified by the (absence of a) dipole anisotropy in the CMB.? In such schemes, particles in any other frame may move faster or slower than light (in contrast to the space-time foam picture where only subluminal motion is possible ?). This suggests other interesting astrophysical tests e.g. if the maximum attainable speed of photons $`c_\gamma `$ exceeds the maximum attainable speed of electrons $`c_e`$ then photons of high enough energy would be unstable against decay $`\gamma e^+e^{}`$; if the reverse were true then one can have Čerenkov radiation $`ee\gamma `$ in vacuo.?,? Since we do observe photons of energy upto $`20`$ TeV from distant AGN ? and infer the existence of electrons with energies upto $`100`$ TeV (from observations of non-thermal X-rays and TeV $`\gamma `$-rays in some supernova remnants,? restrictive limits can be set on such LI violating effects, in addition to those discussed earlier concerning possible ‘threshold anomalies’ ?,?,? and pion stability.? A systematic analysis of such constraints has recently been undertaken ?,? in the framework of the quantum gravity inspired dispersion relation (1), but allowing for a different value of $`\xi `$ for photons than for other particles (the correspondance to the alternative LI violating formalism ? can be made ? by setting $`\xi _iE/M_\mathrm{P}`$ equal to $`c_\gamma ^2c_i^2`$). These analyses deduce joint constraints on the LI violating parameters from a careful examination of the relativistic kinematics of all ‘forbidden’ processes (assuming energy conservation) and find that a large region of parameter space is ruled out as seen in Figure 2.2.? This shows the allowed region in $`\xi \eta `$ space, where $`\xi `$ is the same quantity as defined for photons in Eq.(1) but now defined with opposite sign, and $`\eta `$ is defined similarly for electrons. Thus Eq.(1) would suggest $`\xi =\eta =1`$ as has been considered in previous work.?,?,?,? We see that this is not ruled out, which is unsurprising since in this case there is no ‘superluminal’ motion.

## 3 Conclusions

Our modest proposal ? that a possible effect of quantum gravity on the propagation of photons may be amenable to observation, has triggered quite a burst of activity and been generally well received by theorists.? However, as already remarked, one needs a concrete formalism to do further work, in particular to study the possible effects of the associated spontaneous LI violation for relativistic kinematics. So far this has been done mainly in the framework of the Liouville string theory model of space-time foam,?,? the semi-classical limit of loop quantum gravity,?,?,? the deformed $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra,?,?$`^\text{h}`$footnotetext: $`^\text{h}`$The recent ‘Doubly Special Relativity’ constructions ?,? also fall in this category.? and in a model for quantum energy-momentum uncertainties in space-time foam.? As these unconventional ideas attract increasing attention in the community, new phenomenological tests are being suggested. For example it has been noted that if energetic particles can travel faster than gravitons then they would emit gravitational Čerenkov radiation at an unacceptable rate.? Moreover the dispersive effects of space-time foam, if flavour dependent, would induce neutrino oscillations with parameters in conflict with experiment.? The associated light cone fluctuations may also distort the observed Planckian spectrum of the CMB.? The non-critical Liouville string model has been shown to escape these constraints,? but the consequences for other models remain to be worked out and confronted with observations. What is clear is that there is indeed a phenomenology of quantum gravity and that this is a most exciting time for its practitioners.

Acknowledgments

I thank Dharamvir Ahluwalia and Naresh Dadhich for the invitation to participate in this meeting, all the participants for making it such a stimulating experience, and IUCAA for its generous hospitality. This talk draws on work done with (and by) Nick Mavromatos and collaborators, who I thank for many discussions. I acknowledge a travel grant from the UK Particle Physics & Astronomy Research Council.

References


format: text

text:
# Inelastic Neutron Scattering Signal from Deconfined Spinons in a Fractionalized Antiferromagnet

## I introduction

Theories of spin-charge separation in the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates have been hotly debated almost since the original discovery of these materials . Finding a theory of electrons in more than one spatial dimension which exhibits zero-temperature spin-charge separation has proved to be as theoretically challenging as it is phenomenologically appealing . It can be argued that all such theories will admit, in the low-energy limit, a formulation in terms of a $`Z_2`$ gauge theory . Recent papers have addressed the problem of finding microscopic models of electrons which become fractionalized in some range of their parameters . It remains an important task to enumerate concrete, experimentally- measurable consequences of these exciting theoretical ideas. Previously, we have explored the consequences of two-dimensional fractionalization on the spectral function, as probed by angle-resolved photo-emission spectroscopy . In this paper, we calculate the inelastic neutron scattering signal from spinons in a fractionalized antiferromagnet ($`AF^{}`$). We find that these spin-1/2, charge-less excitations lead to a continuum of excitations above a gap. Because we are interested in the parent insulators of cuprate superconductors, we have taken a phenomenological model for the spinons which gives them both a Néel gap arising from antiferromagnetic ordering and a *d*-wave pairing gap which becomes the pseudogap at moderate doping and the superconducting gap in the superconducting phase. We contrast this signal with the signal from excitations in a conventional antiferromagnet and calculate the strength of the spinon signal compared to the magnon signal (which is also present). This comparison estimates the feasibility of measuring this anomalous signal in the parent insulators. We also discuss higher-order effects stemming from interactions between spinons and magnons.

## II the model

The $`AF^{}`$ phase has been discussed elsewhere  and here we use the same phenomenological model introduced and justified  previously. We assume that the steps of: (1) deriving a lattice Hamiltonian containing all important effective interactions between electrons and (2) splitting the electron into chargon and spinon fields ($`c_{i\alpha }=b_if_{i\alpha }`$) and deriving the appropriate $`Z_2`$ gauge theory have been performed and we have arrived at the following effective low-energy Hamiltonian for the system in 2-dimensional fractionalized phases:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}[t_s\widehat{f}_{i\alpha }^{}\widehat{f}_{j\alpha }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\widehat{f}_i\widehat{f}_jt_c\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{b}_j+H.c.]`$ (2)
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{b}_i(1x)]^2+H_g,`$
$`H_g`$ $`=`$ $`g{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}\widehat{𝐒}_i\widehat{𝐒}_j,`$ (3)
where the spinon pairing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ is taken to be *d*-wave:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}+\mathrm{\Delta }\hfill & \text{along}\widehat{x},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }\hfill & \text{along}\widehat{y},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
and the spin operator is $`\widehat{𝐒}_i=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{f}_i^{}𝝈\widehat{f}_i`$. Here, $`<i,j>`$ are nearest neighbors on a 2d square lattice. The $`U`$ term is a Hubbard-like interaction for $`(1x)`$ chargons per unit cell.

We now briefly justify this model for the underdoped cuprate materials on phenomenological grounds. For sufficiently small doping and low temperatures such that the $`Z_2`$ theory exhibits fractionalization, the Hamiltonian is as written in Eq.(2). At temperatures below the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the spinons are effectively paired into *d*-wave singlets and there is a *d*-wave gap to spin-1/2 excitations. For large enough $`g`$ (and an additional minuscule 3d spin coupling) the system develops long-range antiferromagnetic order. At half-filling, the chargons are gapped into an insulating phase and we obtain a fractionalized insulator with long-range Néel order and an additional *d*-wave gap to spin-1/2 excitations, previously dubbed $`AF^{}`$ . Moving away from half-filling, the antiferromagnetic order will be quickly suppressed, while for $`t_cU`$ and with an additional long-range Coulomb interaction, one still expects the chargons to be insulating. We then have a fractionalized insulating phase with a *d*-wave gap to spin-1/2 excitations. Within a spin-charge separation scenario, this phase is identified with the pseudogap regime in the cuprates. For chargon hopping, $`t_c`$, sufficiently large, the chargons Bose condense, giving a *d*-wave superconductor. At large dopings, we expect the system to recover Fermi liquid properties, as occurs when the vortex excitations (visons) in the Ising gauge field condense thereby confining the spinons and chargons to form the electron. A schematic phase diagram is shown in Fig. 1. In this paper, we elucidate further some of the properties of the $`AF^{}`$ phase, found at half-filling.

Recent experiments by Bonn, Moler,et al put limits on the likelihood of this sort of spin-charge separation in $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}`$, although the experiments have only been performed on one sample so far . The question of spin response in an antiferromagnet which is fractionalized is nevertheless well-posed and could be relevant to other materials. Also, it is quite possible that some other sort of exotic order lurks in the cuprates; this work would then serve as an illustrative calculation.

## III Effective Hamiltonian for the Spin Sector

In this paper we work at half-filling, where the charge degrees of freedom will be gapped into a Mott insulating phase, and calculate the spin response of the system, appropriate for magnetic probes such as neutron scattering. Hence, from here on, we assume that the relevant piece of the Hamiltonian in Eq.(2) is that containing the spin degrees of freedom and we ignore the charge degrees of freedom. At temperatures much less than the vison energy, the chargons and spinons are essentially non-interacting, so this is reasonable in a fractionalized phase.

$`H_g`$ (Eq.(3)) may be decoupled in a path integral, using a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. This gives us the following low-energy theory for the spin sector:

$`H_{\text{spin}}={\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}[t_s\widehat{f}_i^{}\widehat{f}_j+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\widehat{f}_i\widehat{f}_j+H.c.]`$ (6)
$`g{\displaystyle \underset{iA,\mu }{}}𝐍_{i,\mu }\left(\widehat{𝐒}_i\widehat{𝐒}_{i+\mu }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{iA,\mu }{}}\left(𝐍_{i,\mu }\right)^2,`$
where $`𝐍`$ is a 3-component vector of classical fields living on the nearest-neighbor links of the lattice, which we have broken into its two square sublattices, labeled $`A`$ and $`B`$ and shown in Fig. 2. $`\mu \{\pm \widehat{x},\pm \widehat{y}\}`$.

We begin by analyzing Eq.(6) at the mean field level. We find antiferromagnetic Néel ordering and a quadratic theory for the spinons which can be solved exactly. We derive a self-consistency equation for the mean field approximation which connects the magnitude of the Néel order to properties of the spinons. Fluctuations about this mean field solution lead to spin-waves (as in the conventional antiferromagnet). Thus, we find that the fractionalized antiferromagnetic phase has two spin-carrying excitations: the spin-1 magnons and the spin-1/2 spinons, which interact with each other. To deal with these interactions, we treat the spinons as a perturbation: setting $`t_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, one recovers the conventional antiferromagnet and its spin-wave excitations. Integrating out the spinons to each order in $`t_s/g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g`$ would give modifications of the spin-wave theory due to the spinons. If one wishes to find higher-order properties of the spinons, one may start with the mean field result and then integrate out the magnons, generating interactions between the spinons. In the limit $`t_s,\mathrm{\Delta }g`$, it is clear that the theory in Eq.(6) can be solved in a controlled fashion.

### A Mean Field Theory

First, we ignore the spinons, setting $`t_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and reducing $`\widehat{𝐒}_i`$ to the usual spin-1/2 quantum operator. Eq.(6) becomes:

$`H_g^{\text{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{iA}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}𝐍_{i,\mu }𝐍_{i,\mu }`$ (8)
$`g{\displaystyle \underset{iA}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}𝐍_{i,\mu }\left(\widehat{𝐒}_i\widehat{𝐒}_{i+\mu }\right).`$
Choosing $`\widehat{z}`$ as the spin quantization axis, this is minimized classically by:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{S}}_i^z|_{iA}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|_{iA},`$ (9)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{S}}_j^z|_{jB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|_{jB},`$ (10)
leading to a Hamiltonian for the field $`𝐍`$:

$$H_g^{\text{eff}}=\frac{g}{2}\underset{iA}{}\underset{\mu }{}\left(𝐍_{i,\mu }\right)^2g\underset{iA}{}\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{N}_{i,\mu }^z.$$
(11)
This is minimized by: $`\mathrm{N}_{i,\mu }^zN_0=1i,\mu `$.

Plugging this mean field solution for $`𝐍`$ back into Eq.(6) gives a Hamiltonian for the spin sector at the mean field level which is quadratic in the spinons:

$`H_{\text{spin}}^{\text{MFT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}[t_s\widehat{f}_{i\alpha }^{}\widehat{f}_{j\alpha }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\widehat{f}_i\widehat{f}_j+H.c.]`$ (13)
$`4g{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}N_0\widehat{z}\widehat{𝐒}_i^𝝅+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{iA,\mu }{}}N_0^2,`$
where we have retained $`\widehat{z}`$ as the spin quantization axis and have written $`_i(1)^{x+y}\widehat{𝐒}_i_i\widehat{𝐒}_i^𝝅=\frac{1}{2}_𝐤\widehat{f}_{𝐤+𝝅}^{}𝝈\widehat{f}_𝐤`$. The lattice spacing has been set to unity.

The full solution to this quadratic spinon Hamiltonian has been given elsewhere  and here we reproduce only the dispersion:

$$_𝐤^2=N_g^2+ϵ_𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2,$$
(14)
with

$`N_g`$ $`=`$ $`2gN_0,`$ (15)
$`ϵ_𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`2t_s(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y),`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y).`$ (17)
### B Self-Consistency of the Mean Field Solution

The mean field solution with $`N_0=1`$ is found formally in the limit $`t_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, and one expects the spinons to reduce the Néel order from this maximum value. We therefore take a mean field solution of the form $`\mathrm{N}_{i,\mu }^z=N_0`$ and demand that it be a saddle point of the full theory, Eq.(13):

$`Z[N_0]`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}_{\{\widehat{f},\widehat{f}^{}\}}e^{\beta H^{\text{MFT}}[N_0,\widehat{f},\widehat{f}^{}]},`$ (18)
$`Z[N_0]`$ $``$ $`e^{S^{\text{MF}}[N_0]}.`$ (19)
Tracing out the quadratic spinons gives an expression for $`S^{\text{MF}}[N_0]`$ and the saddle point condition, $`\delta S^{\text{MF}}/\delta N_0=0`$, gives a self-consistent equation for $`N_0`$. At zero temperature, this is:

$$1=2g\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{_k[N_0]},$$
(20)
with $`_k[N_0]`$ given in Eq.(14).

It is easy to check that for $`t_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, Eq.(20) gives $`N_0=1`$. For $`t_s,\mathrm{\Delta }g`$, one finds the perturbative result:

$$N_01\frac{(2t_s)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{8g^2}+\mathrm{}.$$
(21)
At large values of $`t_s/g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g`$, one expects the spinons to drive the Néel order to zero, even at zero temperature. In order to keep our calculations controlled, we work in the limit $`t_s,\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ and treat the spinons as a perturbation. The reasonableness of this limit for the physical systems in question will be discussed later.

### C Fluctuations About the Mean Field

We see from the self-consistent mean field calculation of the previous section that the Néel order is reduced at zero temperature by the spinons. Even in the absence of the spinons (i.e. in the pure-spin model with $`t_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$) we know that fluctuations in the order parameter are important and lead to magnons. This suggests the following program for calculating the spin excitations in $`AF^{}`$ beyond the mean field level. First, set $`t_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and work with the spin-1/2 quantum operator, $`\widehat{𝐒}_i`$. “Integrating out” these operators on each site leads to an effective theory of fluctuations in the field $`𝐍`$ and gives the spin-wave dispersion. Then, one may integrate out the spinons perturbatively in $`t_s/g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g`$. This will lead to interactions between the magnons and give corrections to the magnon dispersion.

With $`t_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ set to zero, the effective spin Hamiltonian, Eq.(6), reduces to $`H_g^{\text{eff}}[𝐍,\widehat{𝐒}]`$, Eq.(8). In this section we look at fluctuations of the field $`𝐍`$ around the mean field solution. We therefore set $`\mathrm{N}^z=1`$ on all links and look at the fluctuations, $`𝐍\widehat{z}\mathrm{N}^z𝐍^{}`$. $`H_g^{\text{eff}}`$ can then be written in the following form:

$`H_g^{\text{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{iA}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left(𝐍_{i,\mu }^{}\right)^2+H^{\text{int}},`$ (22)
$`H^{\text{int}}=H_0+H_1,`$ (23)
$`H_0=4g{\displaystyle \underset{iA}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{S}}_i^z+4g{\displaystyle \underset{jB}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{S}}_j^z,`$ (24)
$`H_1=g{\displaystyle \underset{iA,\mu }{}}\widehat{𝐒}_i^{}𝐍_{i,\mu }^{}+g{\displaystyle \underset{jB,\mu }{}}\widehat{𝐒}_j^{}𝐍_{j\mu ,\mu }^{}.`$ (25)
Integrating out the operators $`\widehat{𝐒}_i`$ on each site amounts to performing perturbation theory in $`H^{\text{int}}`$. To second order, the resulting effective action for $`𝐍^{}`$ is:

$`exp\{S^{\text{eff}}[𝐍^{}]\}=\text{Tr}_{\{\widehat{𝐒}\}}e^{\beta H_g^{\text{eff}}[𝐍,\widehat{𝐒}]},`$ (29)
$`S^{\text{eff}}[𝐍^{}]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\tau [{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{iA,\mu }{}}|𝐍_{i,\mu }^{}|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{16}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{iA}{}}|_\mu 𝐍_{i,\mu }^{}|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{jB}{}}|_\mu 𝐍_{j\mu ,\mu }^{}|^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64g}}({\displaystyle \underset{iA}{}}|_\mu _\tau 𝐍_{i,\mu }^{}|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{jB}{}}|_\mu _\tau 𝐍_{j\mu ,\mu }^{}|^2)],`$
where $`\tau `$ is imaginary time and we have set the temperature to zero.

Since we are interested in obtaining a long-wavelength theory for the spin-waves, we make the coarse-graining: $`𝐍_{i,\mu }^{}𝐍_i^{}`$, $`iA`$. This amounts to working in the basis of the Goldstone modes of the theory. With this approximation, we arrive at the effective action:

$`S^{\text{eff}}[𝐍^{}]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\tau [{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{3g}{4}}|𝐍_i^{}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16g}}|_\tau 𝐍_i^{}|^2)`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,i^{}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}𝐍_i^{}𝐍_i^{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16g}}_\tau 𝐍_i^{}_\tau 𝐍_i^{}^{}\right)`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,i^{\prime \prime }}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{g}{8}}𝐍_i^{}𝐍_{i^{\prime \prime }}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64g}}_\tau 𝐍_i^{}_\tau 𝐍_{i^{\prime \prime }}^{})],`$ (32)
where all sites are on the A sublattice, $`\mathrm{}`$ refers to nearest-neighbor pairs, and $`\mathrm{}`$ refers to next-nearest-neighbor pairs. Fourier transforming to $`𝐤`$ and (imaginary) $`\omega `$ gives:

$$S^{\text{eff}}=_{𝐤,\omega }g|𝐍^{}(𝐤,\omega )|^2\left[\left(1\gamma _𝐤^2\right)+\frac{\omega ^2}{4g^2}\left(1+\gamma _𝐤^2\right)\right],$$
(33)
with

$$\gamma _𝐤\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y).$$
(34)
This immediately gives the lowest-order magnon dispersion, $`\omega _k=2g\sqrt{(1\gamma _k^2)/(1+\gamma _k^2)}`$. This dispersion is similar to the usual one found using, for instance, Holstein-Primakov bosons (see, for instance, Ref.), but the ratio of the spin-wave velocity to the maximum of the dispersion is different. Even neglecting spinons entirely, this is only a lowest-order result for fluctuations of the field $`𝐍`$. Working to higher orders in the perturbation theory of Eqns.(23-25) will generate a more realistic spin-wave theory of the conventional antiferromagnet. For the purposes of calculating the INS response, we satisfy ourselves with the lowest-order result for the magnons.

The lowest-order effect of the spinons, as we have seen in Section III B, will be to reduce $`\mathrm{N}^z`$ from unity. At higher order, we expect interactions with the spinons to further affect the magnon dispersion. However, it would be wise for the purposes of comparing the magnon and spinon INS responses to take into account this over-all reduction of the Néel order by the spinons. Therefore, we make the substitution: $`ggN_0`$, where $`N_0`$ is set by the self-consistency condition, Eq.(20), giving a “self-consistent” magnon dispersion:

$$\omega _𝐤=2gN_0\sqrt{\frac{1\gamma _𝐤^2}{1+\gamma _𝐤^2}}.$$
(35)
One important consequence of this calculation is that it allows one to set the parameter $`g`$ in terms of experimentally-measured properties of the magnon spectrum. Because it is probably less sensitive to details of magnon interactions, we choose to set $`g`$ by the maximum of the magnon dispersion rather than by the spin-wave velocity near $`𝐤=(0,0)`$. In the Heisenberg model, the maximum of the magnon dispersion is $`2J`$; we therefore make contact with this model by identifying $`J=gN_0`$. Many experimental probes of the undoped cuprates find $`J`$ to be around 150 meV .

## IV Inelastic Neutron Scattering Response

What is the difference in spin response between the model given in Eq.(2) and a spin-charge confined antiferromagnet? The lowest energy spin excitations in both systems are the spin-1 magnons dictated by Goldstone’s theorem in this symmetry-broken phase. For the confined insulator, the lowest-energy spin-1/2 excitations would presumably be something like single electrons, which have a huge Mott gap (on the order of a few eV in the cuprates). In contrast, we see immediately that provided one is in the regime where Eq.(2) holds (i.e. at temperatures and energies small compared to the vison gap), the lowest energy spin-1/2 excitations are spinons which propagate as independent excitations above the Néel (and *d*-wave) gap which is on the order of $`J`$ 0.1 eV. In the previous sections, we have laid out a theory of the spin degrees of freedom in a fractionalized insulator with long-range Néel order. Now, we calculate the INS signal in $`AF^{}`$ using the lowest-order theories of the magnons, Eq.(33), and spinons, Eq.(13).

### A Magnetic Neutron Scattering Cross-Section

The differential cross-section for neutrons scattering by wave-vector $`𝐪=𝐤_f𝐤_i`$ and energy $`\omega `$ off electronic spins is :

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }d\omega }\frac{|k_f|}{|k_i|}F^2(𝐪)\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\left(\delta _{\alpha \beta }\frac{q_\alpha q_\beta }{q^2}\right)𝒮^{\alpha \beta }(𝐪,\omega )$$
(36)
($`\alpha `$,$`\beta =x,y,z`$), where $`F^2(𝐪)`$ is a form factor and the spin structure factor is:

$$𝒮^{\alpha \beta }(𝐪,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{1}{1e^{\omega /k_BT}}\text{Im}\chi ^{\alpha \beta }(𝐪,\omega ),$$
(37)
where

$$\chi ^{\alpha \beta }(𝐪,i\omega _n)=_0^\beta 𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _n\tau }T_\tau \widehat{\mathrm{S}}_𝐪^\alpha (\tau )\widehat{\mathrm{S}}_𝐪^\beta (0)$$
(38)
is the imaginary-time spin-spin correlation function. At temperatures such that $`k_BT\omega `$, we can take the zero-temperature limit:

$$\frac{1}{1e^{\omega /k_bT}}\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega )$$
(39)
with $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ the Heavyside-step function. The spin-1/2 operators are given by the usual expression with electron operators replaced by spinon operators: $`\widehat{𝐒}(𝐪,\tau )=_𝐤\widehat{f}_{𝐪+𝐤}^{}(\tau )𝝈\widehat{f}_𝐤(\tau )`$.

The model outlined in the sections above provides a theory of the spin response in $`AF^{}`$. In the next section, we use the lowest-order results to calculate the magnon and spinon signals (respectively) in inelastic neutron scattering. We include a brief discussion of higher-order effects.

### B Magnon Response

Starting from the $`t_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ spin Hamiltonian, Eq.(8), it is straightforward to calculate the spin-spin response function by including a source term in the effective action of the form: $`_i\widehat{𝐒}_i𝐊_i`$. The result, to lowest order in fluctuations of $`𝐍`$ is:

$`𝒮_{\text{magnons}}^+(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(1+\gamma _𝐪^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma _𝐪)^2}{\sqrt{1\gamma _𝐪^4}}}\delta (\omega \omega _𝐪),`$ (40)
with $`\gamma _𝐪`$ and $`\omega _𝐪`$ given in Eqns.(34-35). While the exact form of this response function differs from that found in, say, the Holstein-Primakov formalism, it has the same universal features. By universal properties we mean that the limits of both the response function and the spin-wave dispersion as $`𝐪(0,0)`$ and $`𝐪(\pi ,\pi )`$ are the same for all calculational methods because they are dictated by symmetries. Including intra-spin-wave interactions modifies the non-universal aspects of the dispersion (e.g. the spin-wave velocity near $`𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}`$) and yields direct multi-magnon contributions to the spin structure factor. These direct multi-magnon processes are of a much lower weight than the single magnon processes and so we ignore them.

To first order then, the magnon response to neutron scattering in $`AF^{}`$ has the same universal features as in a conventional antiferromagnet. This calculation allows us to fix the parameters in our theory: we have seen in Section III C that the energy scale $`gN_0=J`$ to this order. Additionally, the magnitude of the direct spinon signal can be compared with the magnitude of this well-established magnon signal.

### C Spinon Response

As detailed in Section III A, at the mean field level, the spinon part of the Hamiltonian in Eq.(2) is quadratic and has been solved elsewhere . The spin-flip and longitudinal structure factors for the spinons are as follows:

$`𝒮_f^+(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝐤}[(1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{𝐪𝐤}}{_{𝐪𝐤}}})(1+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_𝐤}{_𝐤}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐪𝐤}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤}{_{𝐪𝐤}_𝐤}}`$ (42)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N_g^2}{_{𝐪𝐤}_𝐤}}]\times \delta (\omega _{𝐪𝐤}_𝐤),`$
$`=`$ $`𝒮_f^+(𝐪,\omega ),`$ (43)
$`𝒮_f^{zz}(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _𝐤}[(1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{𝐪𝐤}}{_{𝐪𝐤}}})(1+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_𝐤}{_𝐤}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐪𝐤}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤}{_{𝐪𝐤}_𝐤}}`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_g^2}{_{𝐪𝐤}_𝐤}}]\times \delta (\omega _{𝐪𝐤}_𝐤)`$
$`+\text{elastic (Bragg) response,}`$
where $`N_g,ϵ_k,\mathrm{\Delta }_k,`$ and $`_k`$ are defined in Eqns. (14-17).

These formulas have a few salient features. Spin-flip neutron scattering leaves a spin-1 excitation in the sample with momentum $`𝐪`$ and energy $`\omega `$. The expression for $`𝒮_f^+`$ simply sums the ways of destroying a spin-down (-up) spinon at momentum $`𝐤`$ and creating a spin-up (-down) spinon at momentum $`𝐪𝐤`$, with the constraint that the energy cost for this process must be $`\omega `$. The rest of the expression is the zero-temperature probability that the state at $`𝐤`$ is occupied and the one at $`𝐪𝐤`$ is unoccupied, appropriate for fermions. If one takes $`N_g=0`$ (corresponding to no Néel order), the full spin-rotation invariance of the spinon system is restored and $`𝒮^+=𝒮^{zz}`$, as expected.

For INS using unpolarized neutrons, the differential cross section is a combination of these two signals, but it is possible using polarized neutrons to obtain signals from these two channels separately (albeit at a large cost to the intensity). It is worth noting that, provided one aligns the polarized neutron spins along the direction of the staggered magnetization, the signal due to single magnons is only in the “spin-flip” sector, i.e. $`𝒮_{\text{1 magnon}}^{zz}=0`$. The first contribution to $`𝒮^{zz}`$ from spin-waves alone occurs in the two-magnon channel which is of a greatly reduced weight compared to the single magnon signal. The spinons then constitute the only magnetic signal of reasonable weight in this channel at energy scales of order J.

A discussion of parameters is wise at this point. Working in units of $`gN_0=J`$, we will use $`t_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=J`$ to calculate $`𝒮^{\alpha \beta }`$ for the spinons. This gives numerical values of these constants which are reasonable for the undoped cuprates. However, one may wonder whether they violate our above working assumptions $`t_s/g,\mathrm{\Delta }/g1`$. Indeed, it is not immediately obvious how to set the parameter $`g`$. Here, we take the following tack: the quantity $`gN_0`$ is set by comparison between the magnon dispersion in Eq. (35) and the maximum of the magnon dispersion in INS experiments. This gives $`gN_0=J150meV`$. The parameters $`t_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ may similarly be set by experiments and we use the values given above. With these two constraints, the self-consistency equation, Eq. (20), becomes an equation for the parameter $`g`$. It is clear that if the values of $`t_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are too large, the equation for $`g`$ will have no solutions. For the parameters above, using the expansion (valid for small $`t_s/g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g`$) in Eq.(21) as a first iteration yields $`g1.4J`$. Plugging the resultant values of $`t_s/g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g`$ into the full self-consistent equation for $`N_0`$, the right hand side of Eq.(20) can be numerically integrated for various values of $`N_0`$. The result is shown in Fig. 3. It is clear from the graph that the value of $`N_0`$ which satisfies the self-consistent equation is $`N_00.7`$. This gives $`gN_0=.98JJ`$, and we have our self-consistent parameters. We note that the value $`N_00.7`$ is still rather close to the “no spinon” mean field value of unity, so that treating the spinons as a perturbation is somewhat justified .

The above expression for $`𝒮_f^+`$ can be numerically integrated to obtain the spinon response. This has been performed, approximating the $`\delta `$-function in energy with a Lorentzian of width $`ϵ=0.01J`$. None of the salient features of the results were influenced by the specific values of parameters (such as $`t_s,\mathrm{\Delta },ϵ`$).

### D INS Signal

In Figs. 5 and 6 we present the lowest-order results for $`𝒮^+=𝒮_f^++𝒮_{\text{magnons}}^+`$, corresponding to spin-flip neutron scattering. All energies are in units of $`J=gN_0`$. Note that we have taken the staggered magnetization to point in the $`\widehat{z}`$-direction, but since our theory does not contain terms which couple the spin and spatial variables (as, say, a spin-orbit coupling would), the spin axes can be rotated independently of the spatial axes.

As $`𝒮^{\alpha \beta }(𝐪,\omega )`$ is a function of three variables (for the effectively two-dimensional cuprates of interest), we show here a few views of this function. Fig.5, shows contour plots of the intensity as a function of distance along cuts in the $`(q_x,q_y)`$ plane (shown in Fig.4) and energy. For the magnon signal, the $`\delta `$-function in Eq.(40) has been replaced with a “box” function:

$$\delta (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1/ϵ\hfill & \text{for}ϵ/2<x<ϵ/2,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{else},\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
with $`ϵ=0.06J10meV`$. In these plots, we see the magnon dispersion with zeros at $`𝐪=(0,0)`$ and $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ and a vanishing weight near $`(0,0)`$. Above this, we see the spinon continuum turn on with a lower-bound which is modulated with twice the period of the magnon dispersion. We see in this plot that the spinon signal is appreciable.

In Fig.6, we show contour plots of the spinon intensity as a function of $`q_x`$ and $`q_y`$ at constant values of the energy. We see that the spinon intensity at turn-on ($`\omega =4J`$) is largest near the corners at $`(0,0),(\pi ,\pi )`$, etc. For comparison, Fig. 6(d) shows plots of the single magnon weight (Eq.(40)) as a function of $`q_x`$ and $`q_y`$.

In Fig. 7 we present contour plots of $`S_f^{zz}(𝐪,\omega )`$ sequentially along the cuts in Fig. 4. We note again that, to first order, there is no magnon contribution to this correlation function and so the two-spinon continuum visible in these plots should in principle be the primary magnetic source of INS in this channel.

### E Higher Order Effects

At higher orders in the perturbation theory of Eqns. (23 -25), we would expect spin wave interactions (present and important for detailed features even when $`t_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are zero) to modify the magnon dispersion and lead to multi-magnon signals in both the $`𝒮^+`$ and $`𝒮^{zz}`$ channels. This calculation would be the same as for a conventional antiferromagnet (since $`t_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$) and would presumably lead to the actual spin-wave response in a conventional antiferromagnetic system. At higher orders in $`t_s/g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g`$, we would obtain magnon interactions mediated by spinons, which are not present in conventional antiferromagnets. Being gapped excitations, the spinons are inherently a “high energy” phenomena as far as the spin-waves are concerned. We might therefore expect them to influence most heavily the high-energy portions of the magnon dispersion. One can see from the graphs given in Section IV D that the lower edge of the spinon continuum has a minimum near $`(\pi ,0)`$, where the magnon dispersion has one of its maxima. One would expect interactions between these two excitations to effect the dispersions most heavily near these points of closest approach. While the effect of unconventional excitations such as spinons can in principle be seen in the spin-wave response, we have chosen in this paper to focus on the direct spinon contribution to inelastic neutron scattering, shown in the previous section. The spin-waves will also affect the spinon signal at higher orders, however, probably not in any dramatic fashion.

## V Conclusions

In this paper we have presented a theory of the spin excitations of the fractionalized antiferromagnet, $`AF^{}`$, in the limit where the visons can be ignored. This theory is Eq.(6). This phase has both long-ranged antiferromagnetic order and the topological order associated with fractionalization . It contains two spin-carrying excitations: the spin-1 magnons and the spin-1/2 spinons, which interact with each other. The theory is well-defined and can be solved in a controlled manner in the limit $`t_s/g,\mathrm{\Delta }/g1`$. In this paper, we have found the lowest-order theories of these two excitations and have calculated the dynamic spin-spin response functions of each, appropriate for inelastic neutron scattering experiments.

To lowest order, the magnon signal is the same as in a conventional antiferromagnet, but higher-order effects of the spinons should lead to modifications of the dispersion, particularly near $`(\pi ,0)`$. The main anomalous feature of the INS signal from $`AF^{}`$ is the presence of a spinon continuum at energies $`4J`$, which exists even in the longitudinal response, where the magnons are expected to be absent at lowest-order.

We are grateful to Gabe Aeppli, Radu Coldea, Steve Girvin, Steve Nagler, Doug Scalapino, Alan Tennant, and Senthil Todadri for helpful discussions. This research was supported by the NSF under Grants DMR-9704005 and PHY-9907949.