text:
# Quasiparticle Thermal Conductivities in a Type-II Superconductor at High Magnetic Field

## I INTRODUCTION

The low-temperature, high-field region in the H-T phase diagram of an extreme type-II superconductor is the regime where the Landau level quantization of the electronic energies within the superconducting state is well defined, i.e. the cyclotron energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _c>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`T`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }(T,H)`$ is the BCS gap, $`T`$ is the temperature and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )`$ is the scattering rate due to disorder. This regime should be contrasted with the more familiar opposite limit of low magnetic fields and high temperatures where electrons occupy a huge number of Landau levels and where the temperature and/or impurity scattering broaden these levels and reduce the significance of Landau quantization. With the Landau level structure fully accounted for one discovers a qualitatively new nature of quasiparticle excitations at high fields: for fields $`H`$ below but near $`H_{c2}`$ the quasiparticle spectrum is gapless at a discrete set of points on the Fermi surface. These gapless excitations reflect a coherent quasiparticle propagation over many unit cells of a closely packed vortex lattice with fully overlapping vortex cores sasa1 ; akera ; pedro . The presence of such low-lying excitations makes an s-wave, “conventional” superconductor in a high magnetic field somewhat similar to an anisotropic, “unconventional” superconductor with nodes in the gap. In the low-temperature and high-field regime however, the nodes in the gap reflect the center-off-mass motion of the Cooper pairs in the magnetic field, in contrast to d-wave superconducting cuprates where such nodes are due to the relative orbital motion. This gapless behavior in bulk systems is found to persist to surprisingly low magnetic fields $`H^{}0.20.5H_{c2}`$. Below $`H^{}`$ the gaps start opening up in the quasiparticle spectrum and the system eventually reaches the low-field regime of localized states in the cores of isolated, well-separated vortices pedro . At the present time the strongest evidence for the quantization of quasiparticle orbits within the superconducting state comes from observations of the de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) oscillations in various superconducting materials dhva . The persistence of the dHvA signal deep within the mixed state, with the frequency of oscillations still maintaining the normal state value, can be attributed to the presence of a small portion of the Fermi surface containing gapless quasiparticle excitations, surrounded by regions where the gap is large sasa3 ; maniv .

Another useful probe of low-energy excitations in superconductors is measurement of their thermal transport. The simultaneous measurements of the field dependent longitudinal $`\kappa _{xx}(H,T)`$ and transverse $`\kappa _{xy}(H,T)`$ thermal conductivities are now feasible experimentally and can yield information on both quasiparticle dynamics and the pairing mechanism. The dependence of transport coefficients on magnetic field is currently a hotly debated issue in the scientific community in light of the experimental observation of field independent plateaus in the longitudinal thermal conductivity of high temperature superconductors (HTS) at low fields ($`H_{c1}<HH_{c2}`$) plateaus . The field-independent $`\kappa _{xx}`$ is attributed to the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ pairing mechanism at low fields and to the nodal structure of the resulting quasiparticle excitations marcel ; durst . The presence of propagating gapless quasiparticles in the superconducting state at low temperatures and high magnetic fields should also lead to transport properties qualitatively different from those found in s-wave superconductors at low fields, where the number of thermally activated quasiparticles is exponentially small and the only contribution to the thermal conduction is found along the field direction and originates from the bound states within vortex cores. Recently, the thermal conductivity of the borocarbide superconductor LuNi2B2C was measured down to $`T=70`$ mK by Boaknin et al. boaknin  in a magnetic field perpendicular to the heat current from $`H=0`$ to above $`H_{c2}=7`$ Tesla. In the limit of $`T0`$, a considerable thermal transport was observed in the mixed state of the superconductor ($`H_{c1}<HH_{c2}`$), indicating the presence of delocalized low-energy excitations at the Fermi surface. On the other hand, no thermal transport was observed at zero field, a result consistent with the s-wave superconducting gap without nodes at the Fermi surface.

The purpose of this work is to examine the contribution of low-energy quasiparticles to the thermal transport of conventional, i.e. extreme type-II superconductors in the regime of high magnetic fields and low temperatures. The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II we develop the Kubo formalism for the transport coefficients within the Landau level pairing mechanism while in Sec. III we incorporate disorder in the Green’s function description of a three-dimensional superconductor in a high magnetic field. We use the formalism of Sec. II and III in Sec. IV to examine both longitudinal $`\kappa _{xx}(H,T)`$ and $`\kappa _{zz}(H,T)`$ as well as transverse $`\kappa _{xy}(H,T)`$ conductivities in the regime of the freqency $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ and the temperature $`T0`$. Finally, in Sec. V we report on numerical calculations of the thermal transport in the borocarbide LuNi2B2C and the A-15 superconductor V3Si and compare our theoretical plots with the available experimental data.

## II KUBO FORMALISM IN THE LANDAU LEVEL PAIRING SCHEME

Thermal conductivities can be calculated within the framework of the Kubo formalism as a linear response of a system to an external perturbation mahan

$$\frac{\kappa _{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega },T)}{T}=\frac{1}{T^2}\frac{\mathrm{}m\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{ret}(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{ret}(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(i\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }+i\delta )`$ and

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(i\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle d^3x_1d^3x_2\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(1,2;i\mathrm{\Omega })},`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(1,2;i\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }<T_\tau j_i(x_1,\tau )j_j(x_2,0)>`$ (2)
is the spatially averaged, finite temperature thermal current-current correlation function tensor and $`\beta 1/k_BT`$. In order to derive the heat current operators $`𝐣(\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`𝐣(\mathrm{𝟐})`$ at the space-time point $`1=(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},\tau )`$ and $`2=(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐},0)`$ we follow the standard s-wave derivation in zero field ambe  and generalize it to our case of a non-uniform gap at high fields. A similar approach was recently utilized in Ref. 9 for a d-wave superconductor in zero field. The heat current carried by the quasiparticles can be computed within the standard variational procedure as

$$𝐣=\frac{}{(\psi )}\dot{\psi }+\dot{\psi }^{}\frac{}{(\psi ^{})}$$
(3)
from the Lagrangian density

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2mci}}(\psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\alpha )𝐀`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2mc^2}}|𝐀|^2\psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}(\psi _\alpha ^{}\dot{\psi _\alpha }\dot{\psi _\alpha ^{}}\psi _\alpha )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g\psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha `$ (4)
where all the energies are measured with respect to the chemical potential and $`\dot{\psi }\psi /t`$. The Nambu’s two-component field operators $`\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha (𝐫)`$ are written in a compact notation for the sake of brevity. In extreme type-II superconductors, as soon as the magnetic field satisfies $`HH_{c1}(T)`$ the vector potential $`𝐀𝐀(𝐫)`$ can be safely assumed to be entirely due to the external field $`𝐇=\times 𝐀`$. This holds over most of the $`HT`$ phase diagram. We have used a simple BCS-model point interaction $`V(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})=g\delta (𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ in expression (4). To lowest order in the concentration of impurities, the electron-impurity interaction can be omitted in computing the heat current. The effect of disorder will be included later in the Green’s functions for a superconductor. The variational procedure (3) yields

$`𝐣(\mathrm{𝟏})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau _1}}(^{}{\displaystyle \frac{e𝐀^{}}{ci}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau _1^{}}}(+{\displaystyle \frac{e𝐀}{ci}})]\psi _\alpha ^{}(1^{})\psi _\alpha (1)|_{1^{}=1}`$ (5)
for the heat current operator. With this definition it is straightforward to calculate the correlation tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(1,2;i\mathrm{\Omega })`$ within the usual Hartree-Fock approximation (i.e., bare bubble approximation) defined by

$$<T_\tau \psi _i(1)\psi _k(2)\psi _l^{}(2^{})\psi _j^{}(1^{})>G_{il}(1,2^{})G_{kj}(2,1^{})$$
(6)
where $`G_{kl}`$ is the Nambu’s matrix Green’s function. Inserting (5) into (2) and with the help of (6) the current-current correlator becomes

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(1,2;\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}[i(\mathrm{\Omega }+\mu )(_1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{e𝐀(\mathrm{𝟏}^{})}{ci}})+i\mu (_1+{\displaystyle \frac{e𝐀(\mathrm{𝟏})}{ci}})]\times `$
$`\left[i(\mathrm{\Omega }+\mu )(_2+{\displaystyle \frac{e𝐀(\mathrm{𝟐})}{ci}})i\mu (_2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{e𝐀(\mathrm{𝟐}^{})}{ci}})\right]Tr\left[\tau _3G(1,2^{},\mathrm{\Omega }+\mu )\tau _3G(2,1^{},\mu )\right]_{11^{},22^{}}`$ (7)
where $`\tau _3`$ is a Pauli matrix, $`\mu =2\pi m/\beta `$ are bosonic Matsubara frequencies and $`1𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

It was shown in Ref. 1 that the mean-field Hamiltonian corresponding to the Lagrangian density (4) can be diagonalized in terms of the basis functions of the Magnetic Sublattice Representation (MSR), characterized by the quasi-momentum $`𝐪`$ perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field. The eigenfunctions of this representation in the Landau gauge $`𝐀=H(y,0,0)`$ and belonging to the $`m`$-th Landau level, are

$`\varphi _{k_z,𝐪,m}(𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^nn!\sqrt{\pi }l}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{b_y}{L_xL_yL_z}}}\mathrm{exp}(ik_z\zeta ){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi b_x}{2a}}k^2ikq_yb_y)\times `$
$`\mathrm{exp}[i(q_x+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k}{a}})x1/2(y/l+q_xl+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k}{a}}l)^2]H_m({\displaystyle \frac{y}{l}}+(q_x+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k}{a}})l),`$ (8)
where $`\zeta `$ is the spatial coordinate and $`k_z`$ is the momentum along the field direction, $`𝐚=(a,0)`$ and $`𝐛=(b_x,b_y)`$ are the unit vectors of the triangular vortex lattice, $`l=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/eH}`$ is the magnetic length and $`L_xL_yL_z`$ is the volume of the system. $`H_m(x)`$ is the Hermite polynomial of order $`m`$. Quasimomenta $`𝐪`$ are restricted to the first Magnetic Brillouin Zone (MBZ) spanned by vectors $`𝐐_\mathrm{𝟏}=(b_y/l^2,b_x/l^2)`$ and $`𝐐_\mathrm{𝟐}=(0,2a/l^2)`$.

Normal and anomalous Green’s functions for a clean superconductor in this representation can be constructed as

$`G_{11}(1,2;\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{n,k_z,𝐪}{}}\varphi _{n,k_z,𝐪}(1)\varphi _{n,k_z,𝐪}^{}(2)G_n(k_z,𝐪;\omega )`$
$`G_{21}(1,2;\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{n,k_z,𝐪}{}}\varphi _{n,k_z,𝐪}^{}(1)\varphi _{n,k_z,𝐪}^{}(2)F_n^{}(k_z,𝐪;\omega )`$ (9)
where $`\omega =(2m+1)\pi /\beta `$ are the electron Matsubara frequencies. Similar expressions can be written for the remaining two Nambu matrix elements. In writing (9) we have taken into account only diagonal (in Landau level index $`n`$) contributions to the Green’s functions. This is a good approximation in high magnetic fields where $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}\omega _c1`$ and the number of occupied Landau levels $`n_c`$ is not too large, which is the case for the extreme type-II systems under consideration. In this situation we are justified in using the diagonal approximation sasa1 ; pedro , in which the BCS pairs are formed by electrons belonging to mutually degenerate Landau levels located at the Fermi surface while the contribution from Landau levels separated by $`\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ or more is included in the renormalization of the effective coupling constant ($`g\stackrel{~}{g}(H,T))`$ vafek . As long as the magnetic field is larger than some critical field $`H^{}(T)`$ the off-diagonal pairing does not change the qualitative behavior of the superconductor in a magnetic field. The critical field $`H^{}`$ at $`T0`$ can be estimated from the dHvA experiments to be $`0.5H_{c2}`$ for A-15 and $`0.2H_{c2}`$ for borocarbide superconductors dhva .

When Nambu matrix (9) is inserted in Eq. 7 and the space average in (2) is performed, the longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xx}(i\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Pi }_{yy}(i\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and transverse (Hall) $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}(i\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Pi }_{yx}(i\mathrm{\Omega })`$ current-current correlation functions become

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(i\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m^2l^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,k_z,𝐪}{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }+2\omega )^2{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2}}\times `$
$`Tr[\tau _3G_n(k_z,𝐪,i\mathrm{\Omega }+i\omega )\tau _3G_{n+1}(k_z,𝐪,i\omega )`$
$`\pm \tau _3G_{n+1}(k_z,𝐪,i\mathrm{\Omega }+i\omega )\tau _3G_n(k_z,𝐪,i\omega )]`$ (10)
where the $`+`$ sign corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xx}(i\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the $``$ sign corresponds to $`i\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}(i\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`\omega =(2m+1)\pi /\beta `$ are electronic Matsubara frequencies. On the other hand the longitudinal (parallel to the external magnetic field) current-current correlation function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{zz}(i\mathrm{\Omega })`$ becomes

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{zz}(i\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,k_z,𝐪}{}}k_z^2(\mathrm{\Omega }+2\omega )^2`$
$`\times Tr\left[\tau _3G_n(k_z,𝐪,i\mathrm{\Omega }+i\omega )\tau _3G_n(k_z,𝐪,i\omega )\right].`$ (11)
In order to perform the summation over the Matsubara frequencies $`\omega `$, we introduce a spectral representation for the Nambu matrix $`G_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega )`$ as

$$G_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega _1\frac{A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega _1)}{i\omega \omega _1}$$
(12)
where the spectral function matrix $`A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega )`$ is defined as

$$A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }ImG_n^{ret}(k_z,𝐪,\omega ).$$
(13)
When the spectral representation of the Green’s functions (12) is used back in (10) and (11) respectively, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(i\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m^2l^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n,k_z,𝐪}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2\frac{n+1}{2}}`$
$`\times Tr[\tau _3A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega _1)\tau _3A_{n+1}(k_z,𝐪,\omega _2)`$
$`\pm \tau _3A_{n+1}(k_z,𝐪,\omega _1)\tau _3A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega _2)]\times S`$ (14)
and

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{zz}(i\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n,k_z,𝐪}{}}k_z^2{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2}`$
$`\times Tr\left[\tau _3A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega _1)\tau _3A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega _2)\right]\times S`$ (15)
where $`S`$ contains Matsubara sums i.e.

$$S=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{\omega }{}(\mathrm{\Omega }+2\omega )^2\frac{1}{(i\mathrm{\Omega }+i\omega \omega _1)(i\omega \omega _2)}.$$
(16)
The sum can be evaluated in the standard way by picking up the contributions from each of the poles of the summand mahan . After the analytic continuation $`i\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }+i\delta `$ we obtain the retarded function $`S_{ret}`$

$$S_{ret}=\frac{(2\omega _2+\mathrm{\Omega })^2n_F(\omega _2)(2\omega _1\mathrm{\Omega })^2n_F(\omega _1)}{\omega _2\omega _1+\mathrm{\Omega }+i\delta }$$
(17)
where $`n_F(\omega )`$ is the Fermi function.

In order to obtain the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ we need to find an imaginary part of $`S_{ret}`$ when calculating the longitudinal conductivity $`\kappa _{xx}(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ and $`\kappa _{zz}(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$. On the other hand, since $`S_{ret}`$ enters the expression for $`i\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in (14) we need to find the real part of $`S_{ret}`$. Using the identity

$$\frac{1}{x+i\delta }=P\frac{1}{x}i\pi \delta (x)$$
(18)
and taking the imaginary part of (16), we find that the diagonal conductivities become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{xx}}{T}}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{yy}}{T}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4m^2l^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_z,𝐪}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\omega {\displaystyle \frac{(2\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })^2}{T^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_F(\omega )n_F(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2}}Tr\left[\tau _3A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })\tau _3A_{n+1}(k_z,𝐪,\omega )+\tau _3A_{n+1}(k_z,𝐪,\omega +𝛀)\tau _\mathrm{𝟑}𝐀_𝐧(𝐤_𝐳,𝐪,\omega )\right]`$ (19)
and

$$\frac{\kappa _{zz}}{T}=\frac{\pi }{4m^2}\underset{n,k_z,𝐪}{}k_z^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega \frac{(2\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })^2}{T^2}\frac{n_F(\omega )n_F(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{\Omega }}Tr\left[\tau _3A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })\tau _3A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega )\right]$$
(20)
Similarly, taking the real part of (16) with the help of (18) yields for the off-diagonal conductivity:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{xy}}{T}}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{yx}}{T}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m^2l^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_z,𝐪}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\omega {\displaystyle \frac{(2\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })^2}{T^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_F(\omega )n_F(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2}}Tr\left[\tau _3B_{n+1}(k_z,𝐪,\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })\tau _3A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega )\tau _3B_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })\tau _3A_{n+1}(k_z,𝐪,\omega )\right]`$ (21)
where the function $`B_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is defined as

$$B_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega _1\frac{A_n(k_z,𝐪,\omega _1)}{\omega \omega _1+\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(22)
## III GREEN’S FUNCTIONS IN THE PRESENCE OF DISORDER

Before further discussing expressions (19), (20) and (21) we should go back to the question of spectral functions or, alternatively, Green’s functions for the superconductor in a magnetic field. The Green’s function for the clean superconductor can be easily found following Ref. 14 with their “Fourier transforms” in the quasi-momentum space expressed in the Nambu formalism as

$$𝒢_n=\frac{1}{(i\omega )^2E_n(k_z,𝐪)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\omega +ϵ_n(k_z)& \mathrm{\Delta }_{nn}(𝐪)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{nn}^{}(𝐪)& i\omega ϵ_n(k_z)\end{array}\right)$$
(23)
where

$`E_{n,p}(k_z,𝐪)=p\mathrm{}\omega _c\pm \sqrt{ϵ_n^2(k_z)+|\mathrm{\Delta }_{n+p,np}(𝐪)|^2}`$
$`ϵ_n(k_z)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2k_z^2}{2m}}+\mathrm{}\omega _c(n+1/2)\mu `$ (24)
is the quasiparticle excitation spectrum of the superconductor in high magnetic field near points $`k_z=\pm k_{Fn}=\sqrt{2m(\mu \mathrm{}\omega _c(n+1/2))/\mathrm{}^2}`$ calculated within the diagonal approximation sasa1 ; pedro , where $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}\omega _c1`$. For the quasiparticles near the Fermi surface ($`k_zk_{Fn}`$) it suffices to consider only the $`E_{n,p=0}`$ bands. The gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{nn}(𝐪)`$, which in the MSR representation can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{nm}(𝐪)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^m}{2^{n+m}\sqrt{n!m!}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}exp(i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{b_x}{a}}k^2)\times `$
$`exp(2ikq_yb_y(q_x+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k}{a}})^2l^2)H_{n+m}[\sqrt{2}(q_x+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k}{a}})l],`$ (25)
turns to zero on the Fermi surface at the set of points in the MBZ with a strong linear dispersion in $`q`$. The excitations from other, $`p0`$ in (24), bands are gapped by at least a cyclotron energy and their contribution to the quasiparticle transport can be neglected at low temperatures ($`T\mathrm{\Delta }(T,H)\mathrm{}\omega _c`$). Once the off-diagonal pairing in (9) is included, the excitation spectrum cannot be written in the simple form (24) and a closed analytic expression for the superconducting Green’s function cannot be found. Nevertheless, when these off-diagonal terms are treated pertubatively as in Ref. 3 the qualitative behavior of the quasiparticle excitations, characterized by the nodes in the MBZ, remains the same. This statement is correct in all orders of the perturbation theory and therefore is exact as long as the pertubative expansion itself is well defined i.e. as long as $`H>H^{}(T)`$. Once the magnetic field is lowered below $`H^{}`$, gaps start opening up at the Fermi surface signalling the crossover to the low-field regime of quasiparticle states localized in the cores of widely separated vortices norman1 .

In a dirty but homogenous superconductor with the coherence length $`\xi `$ much longer than the effective distance $`\xi _{imp}`$ over which the impurity potential changes ($`\xi /\xi _{imp}>>1`$), the superconducting order parameter is not affected by the impurities and still forms a perfect vortex lattice. For such a system, the bare Green’s function in (9) is dressed via scattering through the diagonal (normal) self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^N(i\omega )`$ and off-diagonal (anomalous) self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nn}^A(𝐪,i\omega )`$ .sasa2  A dressed Green’s function is obtained by replacing $`\omega `$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{nn}(𝐪)`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{nn}(𝐪)`$ in (9) where

$`i\stackrel{~}{\omega }i\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }^N(i\omega )`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{nn}(𝐪)\mathrm{\Delta }_{nn}(𝐪)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nn}^A(𝐪,i\omega ).`$ (26)
In order to calculate the spectral functions in (19) the analytical continuation should be performed so that $`G_{ret}(k_z,𝐪,\omega )=G(k_z,𝐪,i\omega \omega +i\delta )`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ret}^{N,A}(\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{N,A}(i\omega \omega +i\delta )`$ with the impurity scattering rate in the superconducting state defined as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )=Im\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ret}^N(\omega )`$. It was shown by the authors in Ref. 14 that the anomalous self energy does not qualitatively change the form of the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{nn}(𝐪)`$ at low energies and therefore $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nn}^A(𝐪,\omega )`$ will be neglected in further calculations. At the same time, the real part of the normal self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^N(\omega )`$ can be either neglected or absorbed into $`ϵ_n(k_z)`$.

## IV THERMAL CONDUCTIVITIES IN $`T0`$ LIMIT

We are interested in calculating thermal conductivities in (19) and (21) in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ and small $`T`$ such that $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )`$. In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ the difference of Fermi functions in (19) becomes

$$\frac{n_F(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })n_F(\omega )}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{n_F}{\omega }.$$
(27)
This function is sharply peaked around $`\omega =0`$ at very low temperatures so that we are justified in expanding the integrand in (19) and (21) around $`\omega =0`$ up to second order in $`\omega `$ and setting the scattering rate to a constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega =0)`$. In the high-field superconductors the largest contribution to the thermal conductivity comes from the quasiparticle excitations at the Fermi surface with momenta $`𝐪`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐪)max(T,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ while the excitations gapped by large $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐪)`$ give exponentially small contributions. Therefore, in order to simplify the integration over the MBZ and summation over the Landau level index in (19) and (21) we linearize the excitation spectrum (24) around nodes at the Fermi surface sasa3 . This enables us to obtain approximate but analytic expresions for thermal transport coefficients which capture the qualitative behavior near $`H_{c2}`$. Keeping this in mind and with the help of the Sommerfeld expansion achroft  the longitudinal conductivity $`\kappa _{xx}(H,T)=\kappa _{yy}(H,T)`$ and $`\kappa _{zz}(H,T)`$ at low temperatures become

$$\frac{\kappa _{xx}(H,T)}{\kappa _{xx}^N(H,T)}=(\frac{4}{\pi }1)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^2+\frac{7\pi ^2}{5}(1\frac{3}{\pi })\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^2$$
(28)
and

$$\frac{\kappa _{zz}(H,T)}{\kappa _{xx}^N(H=0,T)}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^2+\frac{7\pi ^2}{15}\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^2.$$
(29)
$`\kappa _{xx}^N(H,T)`$ is the thermal conductivity of the normal metal in a magnetic field abrikosov

$$\kappa _{xx}^N(H,T)=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\frac{n_e}{2m^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{(\mathrm{}\omega _c)^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}T$$
(30)
where $`n_e=\frac{1}{2\pi l^2}_nk_{Fn}`$ is electronic density in the system. On the other hand the transverse conductivity $`\kappa _{xy}(H,T)=\kappa _{yx}(H,T)`$ becomes

$$\frac{\kappa _{xy}(H,T)}{\kappa _{xy}^N(H,T)}=(\frac{4}{\pi }1)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^2+\frac{7\pi ^2}{5}(1\frac{3}{\pi })\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^2$$
(31)
where $`\kappa _{xy}^N(H,T)`$ is the off-diagonal thermal conductivity of the normal metal in magnetic field abrikosov

$$\kappa _{xy}^N(H,T)=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\frac{n_e}{m^{}\omega _c}\frac{(\mathrm{}\omega _c)^2}{(\mathrm{}\omega _c)^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}T.$$
(32)
Relations (28), (29) and (31) obtained when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ within the “linearized spectrum aproximation” tell us that there is still a considerable thermal transport in the mixed state of the superconductor. This is in stark contrast to the exponential suppresion of transport characteristic of an s-wave superconductor in zero field. Furthermore, relations (28), (29) and (31) indicate that when passing from the normal to the superconducting state, both longitudinal and transverse transport coefficients $`\kappa /T`$ are reduced from their respective normal state values by the factor $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta })^2`$ (the term linear in $`(T/\mathrm{\Delta })^2`$ is negligible at low temparatures even for very clean superconductors). The factor $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta })^2`$ measures the fraction of the Fermi surface $`𝒢`$ containing gapless quasiparticle excitations at $`T=0`$. The size of $`𝒢`$ is determined by both the total number of nodes in the excitation spectrum (24) and the areas in different branches where the BCS gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is very small but not necessarily zero. This result, obtained here for the thermal coefficients, is consistent with the behavior of some other superconducting observables that measure the presence of low-energy excitations at the Fermi surface. One such experimentally confirmed behavior is the reduction of the de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) oscillation’s amplitude in both A-15 and borocarbide superconductors when the sample becomes superconducting dhva . The drop in the overall amplitude in passing from the normal to the superconducting state reflects the presence of a small portion of the Fermi surface $`𝒢`$ containing coherent gapless excitations while the rest is gapped by large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. sasa3

## V COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENT

Recently, the longitudinal thermal conductivity of the borocarbide superconductor LuNi2B2C was measured down to $`T=70`$ mK by Boaknin et al. boaknin  in a magnetic field from $`H=0`$ to above $`H_{c2}=7`$ Tesla. In the limit of $`T0`$, a considerable thermal transport is observed in the mixed state of the superconductor ($`H_{c1}<HH_{c2}`$), indicating the presence of delocalized low-energy excitations at the Fermi surface. The authors argue that this observation is strong evidence for a highly anisotropic gap function in LuNi2B2C, possibly with nodes. On the other hand, no sizable thermal conductivity was observed in zero field, the result expected for a superconducting gap without nodes.

The Boaknin et al. result is consistent with the observation of dHvA oscillations down to fields $`H^{}H_{c2}/5`$ in YNi2B2C, a close cousin of LuNi2B2C as well as in V3Si where the oscillations persist down to fields $`H^{}H_{c2}/2`$.dhva  It was shown by us that the drop in the dHvA amplitude observed in these experiments can be atributed to the quantization of quasiparticle orbits within the superconducting state which results in the formation of nodes in the gap sasa3 . This quantum regime behavior in fields $`H^{}<H<H_{c2}`$ is due to the center-off-mass motion of the Cooper pairs, in contrast to the d-wave or anisotropic s-wave where nodes in the gap are due to the relative orbital motion. Therefore it makes sense to compare the theory developed in this paper with the experimental data in Ref. 10. A quick check tells us that the expression (28), where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H)/\mathrm{\Delta }(H)<1`$, does not hold through the entire range of fields used in the experiment. Therefore, we numerically compute the longitudinal thermal conductivity directly from Eq. 19, without using any additional aproximations, for both the borocarbide superconductor LuNi2B2C as well as for the A-15 superconductor V3Si.

In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ and $`T0`$ the expression (19) yields

$$\frac{\kappa }{T}=\frac{\pi }{12m}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{}\omega _c}\underset{n}{\overset{n_c}{}}(n+1)\underset{k_z,𝐪}{}\frac{1}{E_{n,p=0}^2(k_z,𝐪)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\frac{1}{E_{n+1,p=0}^2(k_z,𝐪)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}$$
(33)
where the number of Landau levels involved in superconducting pairing $`n_c=E_F/\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ varies as a function of magnetic field. In the borocarbide superconductor LuNi2B2C $`n_c`$ can be estimated as $`n_c33`$ at $`H_{c2}`$ and $`n_c1147`$ at field of $`H=0.2`$ Tesla (these numbers were obtained using an effective mass of $`0.35m_e`$ and Fermi velocity $`v_F=2.76\times 10^7`$ cm/s as reported in Ref. 18). On the other hand, the number of occupied Landau levels in the A-15 superconductor V3Si is much larger: $`n_c241`$ at $`H_{c2}=18.5`$ Tesla and $`n_c4470`$ at $`H=1`$ Tesla (we used an effective mass of $`1.7m_e`$ and Fermi velocity $`v_F=2.8\times 10^7`$ cm/s from Ref. 19 in this estimate). The scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega =0)`$ in (33) is, in general, modified relative to the normal state scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ when the system becomes superconducting. Indeed, the self-consistent calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Ref. 14 gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H)=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Delta }(H)/2}`$. We assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H)=\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{1H/H_{c2}}`$ which is a good approximation for the range of fields used in the experiment.

The dashed line in Fig. 1 shows the magnetic field dependence of the quasiparticle thermal conductivity $`\kappa /T`$ for the borocarbide superconductor LuNi2B2C in the limit of $`T0`$ obtained by the numerical evaluation of (33), where values for the BCS gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and normal state inverse scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ are taken from Ref. 10. The full circles in Fig. 1 are the experimental data of Boaknin et al. boaknin  for the same superconductor. The full line in Fig. 1 shows the theoretical plot obtained by numerical evaluation of (33) for the A-15 superconductor V3Si where values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ are taken from Ref. 19. There is a significant difference in the behavior of $`\kappa /T`$ in these two superconducting systems characterized by much smaller thermal transport in V3Si when compared to the transport in LuNi2B2C in the same range of magnetic fields. This observation indicates that the number of gapless or near gapless excitations at the Fermi surface in the V3Si is very small at $`HH_{c2}`$. In order to understand this difference, one has to notice that in magnetic fields $`H<H^{}=0.5H_{c2}`$ the number of occupied Landau levels in V3Si system is huge ($`4500`$) and that V3Si is away from the regime of coherent gapless excitations of high fields. On the other hand, the number of occupied Landau levels in LuNi2B2C is much smaller ($`1000`$) and it seems that there are still many gapless excitations left at low fields. It is suprising though that significant thermal transport exists down to $`H0.015H_{c2}`$, a field much smaller than the critical field $`H^{}=0.2H_{c2}`$ for this system, where most of the quasiparticle spectrum should be gapped. Note, however, that a possible source for such a significant transport at low fields might be the highly anisotropic s-wave gap function in LuNi2B2C, as suggested in Ref. 10. If there is such anisotropy along one or more directions on the Fermi surface, the range of validity of our theory may be extended to fields lower than the simple estimate for $`H^{}`$.comment  In this regard, we alert the reader that at the lowest fields in Fig. 1 ($`H0.04H_{c2}`$) our theory is stretched to its very limits and its quantitative accuracy diminishes.

## VI CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we develop expressions for the longitudinal and transverse quasiparticle thermal conductivities for an extreme type-II superconductor in a magnetic field. We utilize the Landau level formalism of superconducting pairing in a magnetic field to obtain, within the Kubo mechanism of linear response to an external perturbation, thermal currents perpendicular and parallel to the external magnetic field. From there, current-current correlation functions are introduced within the Matsubara finite temperature mechanism in order to derive closed expressions for thermal conductivities $`\kappa _{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$. We examine the transport coefficients $`\kappa _{ij}/T`$ in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ and $`T0`$ and find that there is considerable thermal transport in the mixed state of a superconductor with an s-wave symmetry due to the creation of gapless exitations in the magnetic field. This is in contrast to the zero field thermal transport which is exponentially small for an s-wave superconductor with no nodes in the gap. Furthermore, when passing from the normal to the superconducting state the thermal coefficients $`\kappa _{ij}/T`$ become reduced with respect to their normal state values by a factor $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta })^2`$ which measures the fraction of the Fermi surface that contains coherent gapless or near gapless excitations in a magnetic field. In this respect, thermal conductivities behave similarly to the dHvA oscillations in which the amplitude is also reduced at the superconducting transition. Finally, we numerically compute the longitudinal thermal conductivity for two realistic superconducting systems, the borocarbide LuNi2B2C and the A-15 superconductor V3Si. The thermal transport in LuNi2B2C is much larger in magnitude than the thermal transport of V3Si at the same field. This result indicates that the borocarbide LuNi2B2C might still be in the regime of delocalized quasiparticle states even at fields much lower than the critical field $`H^{}0.2H_{c2}`$ (estimated from the dHvA experiments dhva ; comment ). The agreement of our theoretical plot with the experimental data for LuNi2B2C taken by Boaknin et al. boaknin  over a wide range of fields used in the experiment is suprisingly good.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank E. Boaknin and L. Taillefer for sharing their knowledge of the subject with us. This work is supported by a grant from the Research Corporation (SD and TPP) and by the NSF Grant DMROO-94981 (ZT).


format: text

text:
# Taking Kaluza seriously leads to a non-gauge-invariant electromagnetic theory in a curved spacetime

## abstract

Kaluza’s metric with the cylinder condition is considered without the weak gravitational field approximation. It is shown that these hypotheses lead to a non-gauge-invariant electromagnetic theory in a curved space-time. The problem of electro-gravitational unification is considered from this point of view.

## 1 Introduction

In the early Twenty’s, Theodor Kaluza showed that by adding a fifth dimension to space-time electromagnetism could be geometrized side by side with gravitation, namely that provided one assumed proportionality of the electromagnetic potentials to the mixed components $`(\mu 5)`$ of the metric tensor, one could derive the set of the equations of the Einstein-Maxwell theory(1). Inasmuch as it gives nothing more that electromagnetism and gravitation, with no effective extension of the physical picture, Kaluza’s theory is subject to the obvious remark that it does not produce anything new, thus representing a purely formal transcription of already existing theories.

Kaluza’s results were however obtained in the weak field approximation. A few years later Oskar Klein re-discovered the fifth dimension, and, with an appropriate choice of the metric, was able to re-obtain Kaluza’s results(2). In this paper we take the attitude to stick to Kaluza’s original choice for the metric, but to avoid taking the weak field approximation from the start. Calculations shall be carried out exactly throughout, and a weak field approximation shall be considered, as a final step, only for the electromagnetic field.

Thus rephrased, Kaluza’s framework proves richer than commonly believed. It turns out that it does not merely reproduce the Einstein-Maxwell theory, but describes a theory of the electromagnetic field in an actually curved space-time, with an extra electro-gravitational coupling. A notable feature is a formal breaking of the electromagnetic gauge invariance, not unlike the one taking place, for instance, in the transition to superconductivity, exhibited by the form of the coupling and the appearance of a mass term in the wave equation. I thought it worthwhile to present this result not as much for its direct physical interest but for its formal resemblance to other cases of symmetry breaking.

## 2 Hypotheses and assumptions

Following Kaluza’s basic idea we deal with a 5-dimensional world to which we attribute a 5-dimensional Riemann geometry. We also assume that the components of every tensor are independent from $`x^5`$, that is $`_5=0`$.

From now on, all our tensors will be projected on the 4-dimensional space-time, and we will use the convention that every tensor with a subscript 5 on its left lives on the 5-dimensional space, while the same tensor with subscript 4 lives on the 4-dimensional space. Latin capital letter indexes run from 1 to 5, Greek indexes from 1 to 4.

With these hypotheses we write the 5-dimensional metric as

$$g_{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & g_{\alpha \beta }& & 2aA_\alpha \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & 2aA_\beta & & 1\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
with $`a`$ a dimensionless constant.

We define the following two quantities

$`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`_\alpha A_\beta _\beta A_\alpha `$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`_\alpha A_\beta +_\beta A_\alpha `$ (3)
where, according to Kaluza’s interpretation, $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the electromagnetic field.
For the mathematical form of the 5-source tensor we generalize the 4-Energy-Momentum tensor of the matter, so we can write

$$T_{AB}=\sigma _0u_Au_B$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is the proper inertial mass density.

We may now define the following two quantities :
1) $`\mu _0\sigma _0`$, where $`\mu _0`$ is the proper gravitational charge density;
2) $`\frac{ac}{2}\rho _0\sigma _0u_5`$, where $`\rho _0`$ is the proper electric charge density.

We observe that

* since $`\sigma _0`$ is not negative and $`u_5`$ mag assume every value we obtain that the gravitational charge cannot be negative, while the electric one can be positive, negative, or null;
* writing $`\rho _0=\frac{2}{ac}\mu _0u_5`$, we can see massless charged particles cannot exist.

Projected on the 4-dimensional space-time and using these definitions, the 1-source tensor is

$`{}_{5}{}^{}T_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _0{}_{5}{}^{}u_{\alpha }^{}{}_{5}{}^{}u_{\beta }^{}`$ (5)
$`{}_{5}{}^{}T_{5\beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ac}{2}}_5u_\beta \rho _0`$ (6)
Setting $`G=1`$, we finally write the Einstein 5-dimensional equations

$$G_{AB}+\frac{8\pi }{c^2}T_{AB}=0$$
(7)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ cannot be both equal to 5. These, projected on the 4-dimensional space-time, split in a set of tensor equations of order 2, and a set of vector equations

$`{}_{5}{}^{}G_{\alpha \beta }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{c^2}}\mu _0{}_{5}{}^{}u_{\alpha }^{}{}_{5}{}^{}u_{\beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (8)
$`{}_{5}{}^{}G_{5\beta }^{}+a{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{c}}_5u_\beta \rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (9)
## 3 Calculus and approximations

Now we start the calculus of the Levi-Civita connection and of the Riemann, Ricci and scalar curvatures; from the last two we obtain the Einstein tensor.

For the Levi-Civita connection we find

$`{}_{5}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,\alpha \beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{4}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,\alpha \beta }^{}`$ (10)
$`{}_{5}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,\alpha 5}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`aF_{\alpha \mu }`$ (11)
$`{}_{5}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5,\alpha \beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`a\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ (12)
For the Einstein tensor we obtain

$`{}_{5}{}^{}G_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{4}{}^{}G_{\alpha \beta }^{}+O_{\alpha \beta }(a^2)+O_{\alpha \beta }^{}(a^4)`$ (13)
$`{}_{5}{}^{}G_{5\beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`a(_4_\mu F_\beta ^\mu A_\beta {}_{4}{}^{}R)+\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta (a^3)+\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^{}(a^1)`$ (14)
where $`O_{\alpha \beta }(a^2)`$ and $`O_{\alpha \beta }^{}(a^4)`$ are two tensors that behave as $`a^2`$ and $`a^4`$, when $`a0`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta (a^3)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^{}(a^5)`$ are two vectors that behave as $`a^3`$ and $`a^5`$ in the same limit.
We then make the approximation according to which the dimensionless constant $`a`$ is very small, with the physical interpretation that the electromagnetic field is not strong enough as to contribute to the space-time curvature.

In this limit, we obtain

$${}_{5}{}^{}u_{\mu }^{}=_4u_\mu $$
(15)
so that

$`{}_{5}{}^{}T_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{4}{}^{}T_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ (16)
$`{}_{5}{}^{}T_{5\beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ac}{2}}_5u_\beta \rho _0={\displaystyle \frac{ac}{2}}_4u_\beta \rho _0={\displaystyle \frac{ac}{2}}j_\beta `$ (17)
and

$`{}_{5}{}^{}G_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{4}{}^{}G_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ (18)
$`{}_{5}{}^{}G_{5\beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`a(_4_\mu F_\beta ^\mu A_\beta {}_{4}{}^{}R)`$ (19)
In this approximation, the Einstein’s equations become

$`{}_{4}{}^{}G_{\alpha \beta }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{c^2}}_4T_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (20)
$`a(_4_\mu F_\beta ^\mu A_\beta {}_{4}{}^{}R+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{c}}j_\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (21)
Omitting the subscript 4, we finally have Einstein’s equations for the gravitational field

$$G^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{8\pi }{c^2}T^{\alpha \beta }$$
(22)
separated from the electromagnetic one as our approximation requires, and a new kind of 4-vector equations

$$_\mu F^{\mu \beta }+A^\beta R=\frac{4\pi }{c}j^\beta $$
(23)
We observe that :

* In the electromagnetic vacuum one has

$$_\mu F^{\mu \beta }+A^\beta R=0$$
(24)
linear in the electromagnetic potential.
* taking the covariant quadridivergence of this equation gives a subsidiary condition of the form

$$_\mu (A^\mu R)=0$$
(25)
Indeed, from the identity

$$_\mu _\lambda S_{\alpha \beta }_\lambda _\mu S_{\alpha \beta }S_{\alpha \nu }R_{\beta \lambda \mu }^\nu +S_{\nu \beta }R_{\alpha \lambda \mu }^\nu $$
(26)
where $`R_{\beta \lambda \mu }^\nu `$ is the Riemann curvature and $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$ a generic tensor, one obtains with a little algebra

$$_\mu _\alpha S^{\mu \alpha }_\alpha _\mu S^{\mu \alpha }$$
(27)
If $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$ is an antisymmetric tensor one then has

$$_\mu _\alpha S^{\mu \alpha }0$$
(28)
This identity and the continuity equation for the electric current $`_\alpha j^\alpha =0`$ lead to the subsidiary condition.

With this subsidiary condition, the field equations read

$`_\mu F^{\mu \beta }+A^\beta R`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (29)
$`_\mu (A^\mu R)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (30)
and describe a non-gauge-invariant 4-vector massive field.

In the gravitational vacuum we have $`R0`$ and the equations for the electromagnetic field reduce to

$$_\mu F^{\mu \alpha }=\frac{4\pi }{c}j^\alpha $$
(31)
Furthermore, we have the identities

$$ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }_\gamma F_{\alpha \beta }=0$$
(32)
i.e. the whole set of Maxwell’s inhomogeneous and homogeneous equations in a curved space-time.

## 4 Summary

As we have already observed, we have a set of 5 equations for the electromagnetic field in the matter

$`_\mu F^{\mu \alpha }+A^\alpha R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{c}}j^\alpha `$ (33)
$`_\mu (A^\mu R)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (34)
This a Proca-like system of equations describing a non-gauge- invariant 4-vector massive field. This can be interpreted in this way: when an electromagnetic field propagates in a space-time with a non-vanishing scalar curvature, it couples with the gravitational one and this coupling brakes the gauge symmetry, giving a mass to the photon.

However, since $`R`$, calculated in a fixed point, is different from $`0`$ if and only if the proper inertial mass density does not vanish in that point, and since when $`R0`$ the matter undergoes a gravitational collapse, one has a hint as to why, even assuming the validity of the present framework, the non-gauge-invariant term does not show up in Maxwell’s equations and why the photon mass has always been found equal to $`0`$.

The non-gauge-invariance of this theory is also interesting for a discussion about the problem of unification. Following Pauli, every theory which is generally covariant and gauge invariant can be formulated in Kaluza’s form; although this theory is generally covariant, it is not gauge invariant, and thus, it cannot be formulated in Kaluza’s form unless this possibility is warranted by its own structure.

For a more general discussion about unified theories we can recall Lichnerowicz’s definition of a unified theory(3):

”A theory is unified in a broad sense if, in the representation of the fields and in the form of the equations, it attributes symmetrical roles to the two fields; in particular, in the conceptions of general relativity, the two fields emanate from the same geometry. A theory is unified in a strict sense if the exact equations govern a non-decomposable hyperfield, and they can only approximately be decomposed into two field equations when one of the fields dominates the other.”

From this point of view, both Kaluza’s theory and this extension satisfy Lichnerowicz’s definition of a unified theory in the broad sense, since the gravitational and the electromagnetic field emanate from the same geometry. However, Kaluza’s original theory is nothing more than the Einstein-Maxwell theory, while, in this extension, we have Einstein and Maxwell theories in a curved space-time as the approximated form of a 4-tensor theory and of a 4-vector one which are two different space-time projections of a same 5-tensor theory.

From these considerations we obtain, as Pauli already said(4), that the Kaluza’s theory is not a unified theory in the strict sense; but from the same considerations we also obtain that this theory is a unified theory in the strict sense.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank prof. S.Bergia for encouragement and help, dott.A.P.Franco, R.Govoni and F. Nironi for critical comments and computer support.

## References

* Th. Kaluza, Zum Unit$`\ddot{a}`$tsproblem der Physik, Sitzungsber. D. Berl. Akad. 465 (1918). English translation in T. Appelquist, A. Chodos and P.G.O. Freund, Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories (Addison-Wesley, 1987) pp.61-68.
* O. Klein, Quantentheorie und F$`\ddot{u}`$nfdimensionale Relativit$`\ddot{a}`$tstheorie, Zeitschrift f$`\ddot{u}`$r Physik 37 895-906. English translation in T. Appelquist, A. Chodos and P.G.O. Freund, Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories (Addison-Wesley, 1987) pp.76-87.
* A. Lichnerowicz, Theories Relativistes de la Gravitation et de l’Electromagnetisme (Masson, 1955).
* W. Pauli, Theory of Relativity (1958).