text:
# Unconventional Vortices and Phase Transitions in Rapidly Rotating Superfluid 3He

## I Introduction

Rotating superfluid 3He with $`9`$ complex order parameters can sustain various exotic vortices not observable in superfluid 4He. This system can be a text-book case of unconventional vortices realized in multi-component superfluids and superconductors. I here report the richness and diversity of the vortex phase diagram in the unexplored region of rapid rotation, wishing to stimulate experiments in the frontiers as well as to give hints to what may be expected in the vortex phases of multi-component superconductors.

Extensive efforts have been made both theoretically and experimentally to clarify vortices of superfluid 3He; see Refs. Fetter86, ; Salomaa87, ; Hakonen89, ; Vollhardt90, ; Volovik92, ; Krusius93, ; Thuneberg99,  for a review. With multi-component order parameters, this system can be a rich source of unconventional vortices. Those already observed in rotation up to $`3`$ rad/s include: superfluid-core vortices in the B phase, i.e., the A-phase-core and double-core vortices;Ikkala82 ; Hakonen83 ; Salomaa83 ; Thuneberg87  vortices due to textures of the $`𝐥`$-vector in the A phase, i.e., the locked vortex 1,Fujita78 ; Pekola90  the continuous unlocked vortex,Hakonen82 ; Seppala83  the singular vortex,Seppala83 ; Simola87  and the vortex sheet.Parts94  The superfluid cores are possible in the B phase because the components not used in the bulk are available to fill in them. On the other hand, the A phase has a unique property that it can sustain vortices by a spatial variation of $`𝒍`$ without any amplitude reduction, as first pointed out by Mermin and Ho.Mermin76  Thus, experiments have already revealed rich structures.

Although $`\mathrm{\Omega }3`$ rad/s is three orders of magnitude faster than the lower critical angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}10^3`$ rad/s for a typical experimental cell of diameter $`5`$ mm, it is still far below the upper critical angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}(1T/T_c)\times 10^7`$ rad/s. Thus, theoretical calculations have been performed mostly within the isolated-vortex approximation in the B phase,Salomaa83 ; Thuneberg87 ; Ohmi83 ; Fogelstrom95  or within a constant amplitude in the A phase,Fujita78 ; Seppala83 ; Parts94 ; Parts95 ; Karimaki99  both of which are justified near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}`$, and not much has been known about the phases realized in rapid rotation. On the other hand, the polar state should be stable near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ at all pressures, as shown by SchopohlSchopohl80  and later by Scharnberg and KlemmScharnberg80  in a different context of $`p`$-wave superconductivity. This is because the line node of the polar state is most effective in reducing the kinetic energy dominant near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$. Thus, the phase near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ is completely different from the experimentally observed A and B phases at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, and there should be novel phases between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$. Although $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}(1T/T_c)\times 10^7`$ rad/s may not be attainable in the near future, clarifying the whole phase diagram of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ would stimulate experimental efforts towards the direction; it certainly remains as an intellectual challenge. In addition, such a study will be useful in providing an insight into the vortices of multi-component superconductors where $`H_{c2}`$ can be reached easily.

Following a previous work,Kita01  I present a more extensive study on vortices in superfluid 3He. To this end, I adopt the standard Ginzburg-Landau (GL) free-energy functional valid near $`T_c`$, as most calculations performed so far. To clarify the vortex phase diagram, however, I take an alternative approach to start from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ proceeding down towards $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}`$ as close as possible. A powerful way to carry out this program is the Landau-level expansion method (LLX), developed recentlyKita98 ; Kita98-2  and applied successfully to several other systems.Kita99 ; Yasui99 ; Kita00  Combining the obtained results with those around $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}`$ will provide a rough idea about the whole phase diagram over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$. It should also be noted that the results from the GL functional are expected to provide qualitatively correct results over $`0TT_c`$, as supported by a recent isolated-vortex calculation on the B phaseFogelstrom95  using the quasiclassical theory.Serene83

This paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the GL functional. Section III explains LLX to minimize the GL functional. Section IV provides a group-theoretical consideration on the classification of vortex lattices and the phase transitions between them. Sections V presents the obtained $`p`$-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ phase diagram over $`0.01\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ together with detailed explanations on the phases appearing in it. Section VI discusses a phase transition between the A-phase-core and double-core lattices extending the calculation down to $`0.0001\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$. Section VII summarizes the paper. Appendix A presents basic properties of the basis functions used in LLX.

## II Ginzburg-Landau functional

Superfluid 3He is characterized by $`9`$ complex order parameters $`A_{\mu i}`$ ($`\mu ,i=x,y,z`$) inherent in the $`p`$-wave pairing $`(L=1)`$ with spin $`S=1`$, where $`\mu `$ and $`i`$ denotes rectangular coordinates of the spin and orbital spaces, respectively. The GL free-energy functional near $`T_c`$ is given with respect to the second- and fourth-order terms of $`A_{\mu i}`$. Using the notation of Fetter,Fetter86  the bulk energy density reads

$`f_\mathrm{b}=`$ $`\alpha A_{\mu i}^{}A_{\mu i}+\beta _1A_{\mu i}^{}A_{\mu i}^{}A_{\nu j}A_{\nu j}+\beta _2A_{\mu i}^{}A_{\nu j}^{}A_{\mu i}A_{\nu j}`$ (1)
$`+\beta _3A_{\mu i}^{}A_{\nu i}^{}A_{\mu j}A_{\nu j}+\beta _4A_{\mu i}^{}A_{\nu j}^{}A_{\mu j}A_{\nu i}`$
$`+\beta _5A_{\mu i}^{}A_{\mu j}^{}A_{\nu i}A_{\nu j},`$
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta _j`$ are coefficients, and summations over repeated indices are implied. The gradient energy density is well approximated using a single coefficient $`K`$ as

$`f_\mathrm{k}=K(_i^{}A_{\mu i}^{}_jA_{\mu j}+_i^{}A_{\mu j}^{}_iA_{\mu j}+_i^{}A_{\mu j}^{}_jA_{\mu i}),`$ (2)
where $`\mathbf{}`$ is defined in terms of the angular velocity $`𝛀`$ as

$$\mathbf{}\mathbf{}i\frac{2m_3}{\mathrm{}}𝛀\times 𝐫.$$
(3)
In addition, there are tiny contributions from the dipole and Zeeman energies:

$`f_\mathrm{d}=g_\mathrm{d}(A_{\mu \mu }^{}A_{\nu \nu }+A_{\mu \nu }^{}A_{\nu \mu }\frac{2}{3}A_{\mu \nu }^{}A_{\mu \nu }),`$ (4)
$`f_\mathrm{m}=g_\mathrm{m}H_\mu A_{\mu i}^{}H_\nu A_{\nu i},`$ (5)
respectively. Given the coefficients in Eqs. (1)-(5), the stable state can be found by minimizing

$`F=F_0+F_1`$ (6)
with

$`F_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle (f_\mathrm{b}+f_\mathrm{k})𝑑𝐫},`$ (7a)
$`F_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle (f_\mathrm{d}+f_\mathrm{m})𝑑𝐫},`$ (7b)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the system. Important quantities in the functional are

$`\xi (K/\alpha )^{1/2}=\xi (0)/(1T/T_c)^{1/2},`$ (8a)
$`\xi _\mathrm{d}(K/g_\mathrm{d})^{1/2},`$ (8b)
$`H_\mathrm{d}(g_\mathrm{d}/g_\mathrm{m})^{1/2},`$ (8c)
which define the GL coherence length, the dipole length, and the characteristic magnetic dipole field, respectively.

The coefficients $`\alpha `$, $`\beta _j`$, $`K`$, $`g_\mathrm{m}`$, and $`g_\mathrm{d}`$ are fixed by exactly following Thuneberg’s procedureThuneberg87  used in identifying the B-phase core structures as follows. The weak-coupling theory yieldsFetter86

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{N(0)}{3}}(1T/T_c),`$ (9a)
$`\beta _2^\mathrm{W}=\beta _3^\mathrm{W}=\beta _4^\mathrm{W}=\beta _5^\mathrm{W}=2\beta _1^\mathrm{W}={\displaystyle \frac{7\zeta (3)N(0)}{120(\pi k_\mathrm{B}T_c)^2}},`$ (9b)
$`K={\displaystyle \frac{7\zeta (3)N(0)(\mathrm{}v_\mathrm{F})^2}{240(\pi k_\mathrm{B}T_c)^2}},`$ (9c)
where $`N(0)`$ and $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ are the density of states per spin and the Fermi velocity, respectively. The coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`K`$ are estimated by Eqs. (9b) and (9c) using the values of $`N(0)`$, $`T_c`$, and $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ determined experimentally by Greywall.Greywall86  In contrast, $`\beta _j^\mathrm{W}`$ cannot account for the stability of the A phase at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Strong-coupling corrections are included in $`\beta _j`$ by (i) using the Sauls-Serene values for $`1.2\text{ MPa}p3.44`$ MPa;Sauls81  (ii) adopting the weak-coupling result $`\beta _j^\mathrm{W}`$ at $`p=0`$ MPa; and (iii) interpolating the region $`0\text{ MPa}p1.2`$ MPa. With this procedure, the A-B transition for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ is predicted at

$`p_{\mathrm{pcp}}=2.85\text{MPa}.`$ (10)
It thus yields a qualitatively correct result that the A phase is stabilized on the high-pressure side, although the value is slightly higher than the measured $`2.1`$ MPa. The values of $`g_\mathrm{d}`$ have been studied extensively in a recent paper by Thuneberg.Thuneberg01  It is shown that the following formula nicely reproduces the values extracted from various experiments:

$`g_\mathrm{d}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{40}}\left[\gamma \mathrm{}N(0)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1.1339\times 0.45T_\mathrm{F}}{T_c}}\right]^2,`$ (11a)
where $`\mu _0`$ and $`\gamma `$ denotes the permeability of vacuum and the gyromagnetic ratio, respectively, and $`T_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi temperature defined by $`T_\mathrm{F}3n/4N(0)k_\mathrm{B}`$ with $`n`$ denoting the density. As for $`g_\mathrm{m}`$, the following weak-coupling expression is sufficient:
$`g_\mathrm{m}={\displaystyle \frac{7\zeta (3)N(0)(\gamma \mathrm{})^2}{48[(1+F_0^a)\pi k_\mathrm{B}T_c]^2}},`$ (11b)
with $`F_0^a`$ the Landau parameter. The values of $`F_0^a`$ are taken from WheatleyWheatley75  but corrected for the newly determined $`F_1^s`$ by Greywall;Greywall86  this $`F_1^s(p)`$ is tabulated conveniently in Ref. Vollhardt90, . Table 1 summarizes the pressure dependences of basic quantities thus calculated.

It should be noted finally that, although Thuneberg’s procedure is adopted here, qualitative features of the phase diagram (Fig. 1) obtained below are expected to be the same among the models for $`\beta _j=\beta _j(p)`$ which yields the A-B transition at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. This has been checked for the spin-fluctuation-feedback model of Anderson and Brinkman.Anderson78 ; Leggett75

## III Method

To minimize Eq. (6), let us first rewrite the order parameters as

$`A_{\mu i}=R_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu i},`$ (12)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the spin-space rotation and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu i}`$ is the order parameter of the restricted space where the spin coordinates are fixed conveniently relative to the orbital ones. We then find that the gradients of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu i}`$ and $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ do not couple in Eq. (2) due to the orthogonormality: $`R_{\mu \lambda }R_{\nu \lambda }=\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. The characteristic lengths for $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu i}`$ and $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ are given by $`\xi `$ and $`\xi _\mathrm{d}`$ of Table 1, respectively, where we observe that $`\xi _\mathrm{d}`$ is much longer than both $`\xi `$ and the intervortex distance $`l_\mathrm{c}`$ defined below in Eq. (14) for the relevant range $`0.0001\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ considered here. It hence follows that $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ is virtually kept constant in space. It can be fixed by Eq. (7b) after obtaining $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu i}`$ from Eq. (7a). This is due to the smallness of Eq. (7b) relative to Eq. (7a).

To minimize Eq. (7a) with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu i}`$, I assume uniformity along $`𝛀\widehat{𝐳}`$. I then define creation and annihilation operators $`(a^{},a)`$ satisfying $`aa^{}a^{}a=1`$ as

$`a^{}{\displaystyle \frac{l_\mathrm{c}}{\sqrt{2}}}(_x+i_y),a{\displaystyle \frac{l_\mathrm{c}}{\sqrt{2}}}(_x+i_y),`$ (13)
with

$`l_\mathrm{c}(\mathrm{}/4m_3\mathrm{\Omega })^{1/2}.`$ (14)
It is also convenient to introduce the quantities:

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu z},\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(\pm 1)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu x}i\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu y}),`$ (15)
which denote the expansion coefficients of $`\widehat{k}_z`$ and $`(\widehat{k}_x\pm i\widehat{k}_y)/\sqrt{2}`$, respectively. Now, Eq. (2) can be rewritten in terms of Eqs. (13)-(15) as

$`f_\mathrm{k}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{l_\mathrm{c}^2}}\{(1+|m|)[\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(m)}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(m)}+2(a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(m)})^{}a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(m)}]`$ (16)
$`2[(a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(1)})^{}a^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(1)}+a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(1)}(a^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(1)})^{}]\}.`$
Equations (1), (4), and (5) are transformed similarly using $`A_{\mu i}^{}A_{\nu i}=A_\mu ^{(m)}A_\nu ^{(m)}`$ and $`A_{\mu i}A_{\nu i}=A_\mu ^{(m)}A_\nu ^{(m)}`$.

From Eq. (16) and the bilinear term in Eq. (1), we find that the $`p`$-wave superfluid transition is split, due to the uniaxial anisotropy $`𝛀`$, essentially into those of different $`m`$ channels as

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\alpha }{4m_3K}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}\hfill & \text{: polar}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{3+\sqrt{6}}{6}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}\hfill & \text{: ABM}\text{-}\text{(SK)}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}\hfill & \text{: ABM}\text{+}\hfill \end{array},`$ (20)
in agreement with the results of SchopohlSchopohl80  and Scharnberg and Klemm.Scharnberg80  Here the first and third ones correspond to the polar state ($`\widehat{k}_z`$) and the Anderson-Brinkman-Morel (ABM) state ($`\widehat{k}_x+i\widehat{k}_y`$) with $`l_z=1`$, respectively, both in the $`N=0`$ Landau level. In contrast, the ABM- (also called as Scharnberg-Klemm or SK state) is not a pure ABM state; it is made up of the $`\widehat{k}_xi\widehat{k}_y`$ state in the $`N=0`$ Landau level and the $`\widehat{k}_x+i\widehat{k}_y`$ state in the $`N=2`$ Landau level. Equation (20) tells us that it is the polar state $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(0)}0`$ which is realized at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$. Its stability is due to the line node in the $`xy`$ plane perpendicular to $`𝛀`$ which works favorably to reduce the kinetic energy dominant near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$. Indeed, given the condition that the average gap amplitude on the Fermi surface is constant, the superfluid density $`\rho _{xx}`$ of the polar state $`\rho _{xx}^{\mathrm{polar}}3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤\widehat{k}_x^2\widehat{k}_z^2=3/15`$ is half that of the ABM state $`\rho _{xx}^{\mathrm{ABM}}\frac{3}{2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤\widehat{k}_x^2(\widehat{k}_x^2+\widehat{k}_y^2)=6/15`$. This explains the difference of the factor $`2`$ between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}^{(0)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}^{(1)}`$. As seen in Table 1, this $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ is of order $`(1T/T_c)\times 10^7`$ rad/s.

With these preparations, Eq. (7a) is minimized by LLX.Kita98  In the end, it can be performed quite efficiently, especially near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$, with the Ritz variational method of expanding $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(m)}`$ in some basis functions and carrying out the minimization with respect to the expansion coefficients. Convenient basis functions for periodic vortex lattices are obtained using the magnetic translation operator:

$$T_𝐑\mathrm{exp}[𝐑(\mathbf{}+2im_3𝛀\times 𝐫/\mathrm{})],$$
(21)
where $`𝐑`$ denotes a lattice point spaned by two basic vectors:

$`\{\begin{array}{c}𝐚_1(a_{1x},a_{1y},0)\hfill \\ 𝐚_2(0,a_2,0)\hfill \end{array},a_{1x}a_2=2\pi l_\mathrm{c}^2.`$ (24)
Hence those lattices have a unit circulation quantum $`\kappa h/2m_3`$ per every basic cell,Fetter86  as required. The basic vectors of the corresponding reciprocal lattice are given by

$$\{\begin{array}{c}𝐛_1(𝐚_2\times \widehat{𝐳})/l_\mathrm{c}^2\hfill \\ 𝐛_2(\widehat{𝐳}\times 𝐚_1)/l_\mathrm{c}^2\hfill \end{array}.$$
(25)
The magnetic Bloch vector is defined in the Brillouin zone of the reciprocal lattice as

$$𝐪\frac{\mu _1}{𝒩_\mathrm{f}}𝐛_1+\frac{\mu _2}{𝒩_\mathrm{f}}𝐛_2\left(\frac{𝒩_\mathrm{f}}{2}<\mu _j\frac{𝒩_\mathrm{f}}{2}\right),$$
(26)
where $`𝒩_\mathrm{f}`$ is an even integer with $`𝒩_\mathrm{f}^2`$ denoting the number of $`\kappa `$ in the system. Using these quantities, the basis functions are obtained as simultaneous eigenstates of $`a^{}a`$ and $`T_𝐑`$ asKita98

$`\psi _{N𝐪}(𝐫)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=𝒩_\mathrm{f}/2+1}{\overset{𝒩_\mathrm{f}/2}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{i[q_y(y+l_\mathrm{c}^2q_x/2)+na_{1x}(y+l_\mathrm{c}^2q_xna_{1y}/2)/l_\mathrm{c}^2]}`$ (27)
$`\times \mathrm{e}^{ixy/2l_\mathrm{c}^2(xl_\mathrm{c}^2q_yna_{1x})^2/2l_\mathrm{c}^2}`$
$`\times \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi l_\mathrm{c}/a_2}{2^NN!\sqrt{\pi }V}}}H_N({\displaystyle \frac{xl_\mathrm{c}^2q_yna_{1x}}{l_\mathrm{c}}}),`$
where $`N`$ denotes the Landau level and $`H_N`$ is the Hermite polynomial.Abramowitz  Useful properties of $`\psi _{N𝐪}`$ are summarized in Appendix A. Let us expand $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(m)}`$ in $`\{\psi _{N𝐪}\}`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(m)}(𝐫)=\sqrt{V}\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{𝐪}{}c_{N𝐪}^{(\mu m)}\psi _{N𝐪}(𝐫).$$
(28)
Then substitute Eq. (28) into Eq. (7a), perform a change of variables $`(x,y)=(a_{1x}s,a_{1y}s+a_2t)`$, and carry out the integration in Eq. (7a) with respect to $`(s,t)`$. Now, Eq. (7a) is transformed into a functional of the expansion coefficients $`\{c_{N𝐪}^{(\mu m)}\}`$ and a couple of lattice parameters:

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\beta \mathrm{cos}^1(a_{1y}/a_1)\hfill & \text{: apex angle}\hfill \\ \rho a_2/a_1\hfill & \text{: length ratio}\hfill \end{array},`$ (31)
as

$`F_0=F_0[\{c_{N𝐪}^{(\mu m)}\},\beta ,\rho ].`$ (32)
For a given $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, this $`F_0`$ is minimized directly.

Numerical minimizations have been performed as follows: (i) Cut the series in Eq. (28) at some $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and substitute it into Eq. (7a). The convergence can be checked by increasing $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$, as increasing $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is guaranteed to yield a better solution with a lower $`F_0`$. (ii) Numerical integrations in Eq. (7a) are performed using the trapezoidal rule which is known very powerful for periodic functions. To this end, the basis functions of $`NN_{\mathrm{max}}`$ on the discrete points are tabulated at the beginning of the calculations. Equation (32) is thereby evaluated for each set of arguments. It has been necessary to increase $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$ from $`6`$ near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ to $`360`$ at $`0.01\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$, and the integration points in the basic cell from $`6^2`$ to $`36^2`$ accordingly to obtain the relative accuracy of order $`10^8`$ for $`F_0`$. (iii) Equation (32) is minimized first with respect to $`\{c_{N𝐪}^{(\mu m)}\}`$ by Powell’s method or the conjugate gradient method,NumRec  and then, if necessary, with respect to $`(\beta ,\rho )`$ by Powell’s method. The conjugate gradient method is about $`10`$ times faster, although the programming is far more cumbersome. Powell’s method is fast enough for $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.05\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$. (iv) Second-order transitions are identified carefully by combining group-theoretical considerations of Sec. IV with signals of the relative change in the slope of $`F_0/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Its analytic expression is obtained asDGR89 ; Kita98

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_0}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle f_\mathrm{k}d𝐫},`$ (33)
so that it can be calculated quite accurately without recourse to any numerical differentiation.

Once $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}`$ are fixed as above, Eq. (12) is substituted into Eq. (7b). Considering $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ constant in space, as mentioned before, the three independent parameters of the matrix $`\underset{¯}{R}`$ are then determined by minimizing Eq. (7b).

Some phases encountered below have a common feature that all the components other than

$$𝐝(R_{xz},R_{yz},R_{zz});\stackrel{~}{𝐀}(\stackrel{~}{A}_{zx},\stackrel{~}{A}_{zy},\stackrel{~}{A}_{zz})$$
(34)
can be put equal to zero. For those states, $`F_1`$ is given by

$$F_1=g_\mathrm{d}(\widehat{d}_\mu M_{\mu \nu }\widehat{d}_\nu \frac{2}{3}\stackrel{~}{𝐀}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐀}),$$
(35)
where $`\mathrm{}\frac{1}{V}\mathrm{}d𝐫`$, and $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ is defined by

$$M_{\mu \nu }2\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu +\stackrel{~}{𝐀}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐀}H_\mu H_\nu /H_\mathrm{d}^2.$$
(36)
It hence follows that $`𝐝`$ points parallel to the eigenvector corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue of $`\underset{¯}{M}`$.

## IV Group-Theoretical Considerations

### IV.1 Classification of Vortices

As in the case of ordinary solids,Hahn02 ; Brandley72  various vortex lattices can be classified according to their symmetry. It turns out that the operator (21), the basis functions (27), and the expansion (28) are quite useful for this purpose.

Classification of isolated vortices in superfluid 3He has been carried out by Salomaa and VolovikSalomaa83 ; Salomaa87  and Thuneberg.Thuneberg87  Such classification for vortex lattices has been performed recently by Karimäki and Thuneberg,Karimaki99  without recourse to Eqs. (21)-(28), however. It is shown below that making use of Eqs. (21)-(28) provides a transparent classification scheme.

To start with it is necessary to define “symmetry operations” unambiguously, since we are considering a phenomenological GL functional rather than a microscopic Hamiltonian. In the case of a Hamiltonian, “symmetry operations” mean those operations which commute with the Hamiltonian. In the present case of a GL functional, “symmetry operations” are defined as those operations which keep all the physical (i.e. observable) quantities invariant. Let us restrict ourselves to orbital degrees of freedom, as appropriate when Eq. (7b) can be regarded as a tiny perturbation. Then, besides $`f_\mathrm{b}+f_\mathrm{k}`$ of Eqs. (1) and (2), there are three relevant physical quantities:

$`\rho (𝐫)\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i},`$ (37a)
$`j_i(𝐫){\displaystyle \frac{4m_3K}{\mathrm{}}}\text{Im}(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}^{}_j\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu j}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu j}^{}_i\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu j}`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu j}^{}_j\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}),`$ (37b)
$`l_i(𝐫)i\epsilon _{ijk}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu j}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu k}/\rho (𝐫),`$ (37c)
which denote the density, current, and normalized orbital angular momentum of Cooper pairs, respectively. A general operator $`\widehat{𝒮}`$ transforms $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}`$, $`_i`$, and $`\epsilon _{ijk}`$ in these expressions as

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}(𝐫)\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}^{(𝒮)}(𝐫)𝒮_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu j}(\underset{¯}{𝒮}^1𝐫)𝒮_{ji}^1,`$ (38a)
$`_i_i^{(𝒮)}𝒮_{ii^{}}_i^{},`$ (38b)
$`\epsilon _{ijk}\epsilon _{ijk}^{(𝒮)}𝒮_{ii^{}}𝒮_{jj^{}}𝒮_{kk^{}}\epsilon _{i^{}j^{}k^{}},`$ (38c)
where $`(\underset{¯}{𝒮})_{\mu \nu }=𝒮_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes a matrix representation of $`\widehat{𝒮}`$. Now, symmetry of a vortex lattice is specified by those operations $`\{\widehat{𝒮}\}`$ which keep the physical quantities invariant as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}f_\mathrm{b}(𝐫)+f_\mathrm{k}(𝐫)=f_\mathrm{b}^{(𝒮)}(𝐫)+f_\mathrm{k}^{(𝒮)}(𝐫)\hfill \\ \rho (𝐫)=\rho ^{(𝒮)}(𝐫)\hfill \\ 𝐣(𝐫)=𝐣^{(𝒮)}(𝐫)\hfill \\ 𝐥(𝐫)=𝐥^{(𝒮)}(𝐫)\hfill \end{array},$$
(39)
where $`𝐣^{(𝒮)}`$, for example, denotes the expression obtained by substituting Eq. (38) into Eq. (37b). The collection of these operations $`\{\widehat{𝒮}\}`$ forms a group, which characterize the relevant vortex lattice.

Since $`T_𝐑`$ of Eq. (21) commutes with $`\mathbf{}`$ of Eq. (3), the operator $`T_𝐑`$ plays exactly the same role as the translation operator of the ordinary space group. This is one of the main reasons why the basis functions (27), which are eigenstates of $`T_𝐑`$, is advantageous in expanding the order parameters as Eq. (28).

As an example, let us specifically consider Phase IV of Fig. 1 given below. It corresponds to the hexagonal lattice of the normal-core vortex in the B phase which was discovered in the isolated-vortex calculation by Ohmi, Tsuneto, and Fujita.Ohmi83  The present calculation with LLX shows that non-zero order parameters can be expressed as

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(0)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}c_{N𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N𝐪_1},`$ (40a)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_x^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}+c_{N+4𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+4𝐪_1}],`$ (40b)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_y^{(1)}=i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}c_{N+4𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+4𝐪_1}],`$ (40c)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_x^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}+c_{N+2𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+2𝐪_1}],`$ (40d)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_y^{(1)}=i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}c_{N+2𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+2𝐪_1}],`$ (40e)
where the summations run over $`N=6n`$ ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$), $`𝐪_1`$ is a magnetic Bloch vector which can be chosen arbitrarily due to the broken translational symmetry, and all $`c_{N𝐪_1}^{(m)}`$’s are real. It is convenient to fix $`𝐪_1=\frac{1}{2}(𝐛_1+𝐛_2)`$ so that a core is located at the origin, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{A}_i^{(m)}(\mathrm{𝟎})=0`$. Then, with the properties of $`\psi _{N𝐪_1}`$ given by Eq. (58), one can show that the order-parameter matrix $`(\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{A}})_{\mu i}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}`$ satisfies

$`\underset{¯}{R}_\phi \underset{¯}{\overset{~}{A}}(\underset{¯}{R}_\phi ^1𝐫)\underset{¯}{R}_\phi ^1=\mathrm{e}^{i\phi }\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{A}}(𝐫),`$ (41a)
$`\underset{¯}{\sigma }_x\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{A}}^{}(\underset{¯}{\sigma }_x^1𝐫)\underset{¯}{\sigma }_x^1=\mathrm{e}^{5i\pi /4}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{A}}(𝐫),`$ (41b)
$`\underset{¯}{\sigma }_y\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{A}}^{}(\underset{¯}{\sigma }_y^1𝐫)\underset{¯}{\sigma }_y^1=\mathrm{e}^{i\pi /4}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{A}}(𝐫),`$ (41c)
$`\underset{¯}{\sigma }_h\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{A}}(\underset{¯}{\sigma }_h^1𝐫)\underset{¯}{\sigma }_h^1=\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{A}}(𝐫),`$ (41d)
where $`\underset{¯}{R}_\phi `$ and $`\underset{¯}{\sigma }_i`$ $`(i=x,y)`$ denote, respectively, a rotation around the $`z`$ axis by $`\phi =n\pi /3`$ and the mirror reflection with respect to the plane perpendicular to the $`i`$ axis. Using Eq. (41) in Eq. (38), one can show that Eq. (39) holds for the four operations of Eq. (41). Similar considerations show that, besides $`T_𝐑`$, there are symmetry operations in Phase IV listed in the fourth row of Table 2. Here the primitive cell is spanned by the basic vectors (24), thus containing a single circulation quantum. If $`T_𝐑`$ is identified with the usual translation operator, this space group can be labeled as $`P6/mm^{}m^{}`$.Brandley72

The same consideration is performed for every stable vortex phase found numerically. The results are summarized below in Table 2.

### IV.2 Phase Transitions

The expansion (28) is also useful for enumerating possible transitions in vortex-lattice phases. Indeed, we can use the known results from the space groupLandauV  using the correspondence $`\mathrm{exp}(𝐑\mathbf{})T_𝐑`$ and (Bloch states)$``$(magnetic Bloch states).

We first summarize basic features of the conventional Abrikosov lattices with a single order parameter within the framework of LLX: Kita98  (a) Any single $`𝐪=𝐪_1`$ suffices to describe them, due to broken translational symmetry of the vortex lattice. Each unit cell has a single circulation quantum $`\kappa `$. (b) The hexagonal (square) lattice is made up of $`N=6n`$ ($`4n`$) Landau levels ($`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$), and the expansion coefficients $`c_{N𝐪_1}`$ can be chosen real. (c) More general structures are described by $`N=2n`$ levels. Odd-$`N`$ basis functions, some of which have finite amplitudes at the cores of even-$`N`$ basis functions (see Appendix A), never participate in forming the order parameter, because such mixing is energetically unfavorable.

With multi-component order parameters, there can be a wide variety of vortices, which may be divided into two categories. I call the first category as “fill-core” states with a single circulation quantum per unit cell, i.e., only a single $`𝐪=𝐪_1`$ is relevant. Here the cores of the conventional Abrikosov lattice are filled in by some superfluid components using odd-$`N`$ wavefunctions of Eq. (27). The second category may be called “shift-core” states, where core locations are not identical among different order-parameter components. The corresponding lattice has an enlarged unit cell with multiple circulation quanta. General structures with $`n_\kappa `$ circulation quanta per unit cell can be described using $`n_\kappa `$ different $`𝐪`$’s, and the unit cell becomes $`n_\kappa `$ times as large as that of the conventional Abrikosov lattice. For example, structures with two quanta per unit cell can be described by choosing

$$𝐪_1=\frac{𝐛_1+𝐛_2}{2},𝐪_2=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(42)
where $`𝐛_1`$ and $`𝐛_2`$ are reciprocal lattice vectors defined by Eq. (25).

With these observations, we now realize that following second-order transitions are possible in a two-component system. (i) Deformation of a hexagonal or square lattice within a single-$`𝐪`$ lattice. This accompanies entry of new even-$`N`$ basis functions, and the coefficients $`\{c_{N𝐪}\}`$ become intrinsically complex. (ii) The entry of odd-$`N`$ basis functions within a single-$`𝐪`$ lattice, i.e. a transition into a fill-core lattice. Here, cores of even-$`N`$ basis functions are filled in by some superfluid components not used in the bulk phase. The transition occurs below some critical angular velocity smaller than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}/3`$. (iii) Mixing of another wave number $`𝐪_2`$, i.e. a transition into a shift-core lattice. When applied to this system, the Lifshitz conditionLandauV  concludes exclusively that $`𝐪_2𝐪_1`$ should be half a basic vector $`𝐛_j`$ $`(j=1,2)`$ of the reciprocal lattice, i.e. the only possibility is doubling of the unit cell.

Though not complete for the present nine-component system, the above list covers most of the transitions found below. The case (ii) corresponds to superfluid-core states such as the A-phase-core and double-core vortices in the B phase, whereas (iii) will be shown to describe a unit cell with two circulation quanta like the continuous unlocked vortex of the A phase.Thuneberg99  Since no odd-order couplings exist between $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(0)}`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^{(1)},\stackrel{~}{A}_\lambda ^{(1)})`$ in Eqs. (1)-(5), we also realize that a state of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^{(1)}0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\lambda ^{(1)}0`$ accompanies a second-order transition as we decrease $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$.

## V Phase Diagram for $`\mathbf{0.01}𝛀_{\mathrm{𝐜𝟐}}\mathbf{}𝛀\mathbf{}𝛀_{\mathrm{𝐜𝟐}}`$

Figure $`1`$ displays the obtained $`p`$ -$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ phase diagram for $`0.01\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$, where five different phases I-V are present. Symmetry properties of each phase, which have been clarified by group-theoretical considerations similar to that given around Eq. (41), are summarized in Table 2. Also, critical values of the transitions are listed in Table 3. Each phase is explained below in detail.

According to Eq. (20), the normal$``$superfluid transition in rotation occurs at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}^{(0)}`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(0)}0`$. Thus, in Phase I just below $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$, the polar state is realized to form the conventional hexagonal lattice as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(0)}=\sqrt{V}\underset{N}{}c_{N𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}$$
(43)
with $`N=6n`$ $`(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$, $`\beta =\pi /3`$, and $`\rho =1`$. All $`c_{N𝐪_1}^{(0)}`$ can be put real, and $`𝐪_1`$ is conveniently chosen as Eq. (42) so that a core is located at the origin. As already discussed below Eq. (20), the stability of the polar state near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ can be attributed to its line node in the plane perpendicular to $`𝛀`$ which works favorably to reduce the kinetic energy dominant near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$. It follows from Eq. (35) that the $`𝐝`$-vector of Eq. (34) at $`H=0`$ lies along an arbitrary direction in the $`xy`$ plane which is fixed spontaneously. This degeneracy is lifted by a field in the plane so that $`𝐝𝐇`$ is realized.

In Phase II, $`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(\pm 1)}`$ also become finite ascomment1

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}c_{N𝐪_2}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_2},`$ (44a)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}c_{N𝐪_2}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_2}.`$ (44b)
The $`N`$’s in Eqs. (43)-(44) are even numbers, and all the coefficients are essentially complex except $`c_{0𝐪_1}^{(0)}`$ which can be chosen real using a gauge transformation. The I-II transition is second-order corresponding to the SK line of Eq. (20). Indeed, $`N=0`$ and $`N=2`$ Landau levels are dominant in Eqs. (44a) and (44b), respectively. Due the presence of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(0)}`$, however, the critical angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{II})}`$ is somewhat lowered from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}^{(1)}=0.9082\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ of Eq. (20), as seen in Fig. 1. The vector $`𝐪_2`$ is shifted from $`𝐪_1`$ by half a basic vector $`𝐛_j`$, so that the unit cell is doubled carrying two circulation quanta. Thus, Phase II is composed of interpenetrating polar and SK sublattices. This superposition with shifted core locations is energetically more favorable than that with the identical core locations, because $`A_{\mu i}^{}A_{\mu i}`$ becomes finite everywhere. It is convenient to choose $`𝐪_2=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.comment2  Then $`\rho =1`$ holds throughout, and as seen in Fig. 2 calculated for $`p=2.0`$ MPa, the apex angle $`\beta `$ changes continuously throughout the phase between $`\pi /3`$ and $`\pi /2`$. This is a centered rectangular lattice with the primitive vectors given by $`𝐚_1\pm 𝐚_2`$. Figure 3 displays the order-parameter amplitudes at $`p=2.0`$ MPa over $`a_2x,ya_2`$ for (a) $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.863\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ with $`\beta =\pi /3`$ (still in polar state), (b) $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.852\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ with $`\beta =0.414\pi `$ (Phase II), and (c) $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.849\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ with $`\beta =\pi /2`$ (just below the II-III boundary). We observe that the SK state grows gradually from $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.8623\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ with the largest amplitude at the cores of the polar state. The $`𝐝`$-vector has the same character as Phase I.

In Phase III, the system remains in the square lattice with $`\beta =\pi /2`$ and $`\rho =1`$. Only $`N=4n`$, $`4n`$, and $`4n+2`$ ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$) Landau levels are relevant in Eqs. (43), (44a), and (44b), respectively. Whereas all $`c_{N𝐪_1}^{(0)}`$’s can be put real, the coefficients $`c_{N𝐪_2}^{(1)}`$ are complex with a common phase $`\pi /4`$ relative to $`c_{0𝐪_1}^{(0)}`$. The II-III transition is second-order, as may be realized from the square-root behavior of Fig. 2. As $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is decreased from the boundary, the SK sublattice with the coefficients $`c_{N𝐪_2}^{(1)}`$ grows rapidly. Also within the SK sublattice, the ABM(+) component with the coefficients $`c_{N𝐪_2}^{(1)}`$ becomes less important at lower $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ so that the sublattice approaches to the pure ABM state with $`l_z=1`$. Figures 4(a)-(d) display the order-parameter amplitude (37a) and the orbital angular momentum (37c) calculated over $`a_2x,ya_2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.05\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ at $`p=2.0`$ MPa. We realize from these figures that Phase III at lower $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is essentially the A-phase mixed-twist lattice with polar cores and double circulation quanta per unit cell.Fetter86 ; Ho78  Indeed, as seen in Fig. 4(d), the $`𝐥`$-vector rotates from downward at the origin to horizontally outward or inward towards polar cores. A group-theoretical consideration, similar to that given around Eq. (41), clarifies that this phase is characterized by the symmetry operations given in the third row of Table 2; they are defined with respect to a polar core, i.e., p site of Fig. 4(d). It is worth comparing Fig. 4 with Fig. 3(c) at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.849\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$. The cores at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.849\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ now acquire a large ABM amplitude with $`l_z=1`$, and the points with the maximum polar amplitude at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.849\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ turn into cores, i.e., singular points of the vector field $`𝐥(𝐫)`$ where the amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}`$ is also smallest. Notice that this phase is stable at all pressures. It is also worth pointing out that, although both carrying double quanta per unit cell, this structure is completely different from the vortex-sheet-like structure found in a two-component system.Kita99  The $`𝐝`$-vector has the same character as Phase I.

Phase IV is a hexagonal lattice of the B-phase normal-core vortex or o-vortex, which was found in the isolated-vortex calculation by Ohmi, Tsuneto, and Fujita.Ohmi83  However, it was concluded later by another isolated-vortex calculationSalomaa83  that this normal-core vortex is a metastable state. Indeed, the vortex has never been observed experimentally. The present calculation shows, however, that it will be stabilized as we increase $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The non-zero components besides Eq. (43) are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_x^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}+c_{N+4𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+4𝐪_1}],`$ (45a)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_y^{(1)}=i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}c_{N+4𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+4𝐪_1}],`$ (45b)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_x^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}+c_{N+2𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+2𝐪_1}],`$ (45c)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_y^{(1)}=i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}c_{N+2𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+2𝐪_1}],`$ (45d)
where $`N=6n`$, $`\beta =\pi /3`$, $`\rho =1`$, and all the coefficients are real. Figure 5 plots the order-parameter amplitudes along $`x`$ direction calculated for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.025\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ at $`p=0.0`$ MPa. They already display the same features as those obtained by the isolated-vortex calculations.Ohmi83 ; Salomaa83 ; Thuneberg87  The III-IV boundary in Fig. 1 is a first-order-transition line, approaching towards $`p=p_{\mathrm{pcp}}`$ at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and vanishing for $`p>p_{\mathrm{pcp}}`$, as expected. Thus, this line may be regarded as the A-B phase boundary in finite $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is convenient here to parameterize the rotation matrix $`\underset{¯}{R}`$ of Eq. (12) asFetter86

$$R_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{cos}\theta +n_\mu n_\nu (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }n_\lambda \mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(46)
where $`𝐧`$ is a unit vector. Then it is found that, as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is decreased, the rotation angle $`\theta `$ approaches from below to the bulk value $`\mathrm{cos}^1(1/4)`$, as seen in Fig. 6. The $`𝐧`$-vector at $`H=0`$ lies along an arbitrary direction in the $`xy`$ plane which is fixed spontaneously. Upon applying the magnetic field in the plane, the state $`𝐧𝐇`$ is realized.

Phase V continuously fills in Phase-IV core regions with the superfluid components not used in Phase IV. Besides those of Phase IV, the solution indeed has new non-zero components which are made up only of odd Landau levels as

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_x^{(0)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N+1𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+1𝐪_1}+c_{N+5𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+5𝐪_1}],`$ (47a)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_y^{(0)}=i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N+1𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+1𝐪_1}c_{N+5𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+5𝐪_1}],`$ (47b)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}c_{N+5𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+5𝐪_1},`$ (47c)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}c_{N+1𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+1𝐪_1},`$ (47d)
where $`N=6n`$, $`\beta =\pi /3`$, $`\rho =1`$, and all the coefficients are real. Figure 7 plots the order-parameter amplitudes along $`x`$ direction calculated for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.01\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ at $`p=0.0`$ MPa. The core superfluid components satisfy $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{A}_{zx}=\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{A}_{zy}`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{A}_{xz}=\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{A}_{yz}`$ at the origin. As may be realized from this figure, this state corresponds to the A-phase-core vortex or axisymmetric v-vortex found theoretically by Salomaa and Volovik,Salomaa83  which also has been observed experimentally.Ikkala82 ; Hakonen83  Indeed, using the properties of $`\psi _{N𝐪_1}`$ given in Eq. (58), one can show that the order-parameter matrix $`\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{A}}(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i})`$ satisfies Eqs. (41a)-(41c) but not Eq. (41d). Thus, the present calculation has clarified for the first time that a vortex lattice with superfluid cores can be described by a superposition of odd Landau levels. The IV-V phase boundary is a second-order transition, as anticipated by Salomaa and Volovik based on a single-vortex consideration,Salomaa83  which is driven mainly by the $`N=1`$ Landau level. Due to the presence of finite order parameters composed of even Landau levels, however, the critical angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{(\mathrm{IV}\mathrm{V})}`$ is lowered from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}/3`$ expected for the pure $`N=1`$ Landau level to become smaller than $`2\times 10^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ rad/s, as seen in Fig. 1. The $`𝐧`$-vector has the same character as Phase IV.

## VI Transition between A-Phase-core and Double-core lattices

Using the same parameters as those given in Table 1, ThunebergThuneberg87  carried out an isolated-vortex calculation. He thereby succeeded in identifying two kinds of vortices experimentally found in the B phase near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}`$. According to his calculation, the double-core vortex is stable below about 2.5 MPa over the $`A`$-phase-core vortex. Combining his result with the phase diagram of Fig. 1, we naturally anticipate another phase transition below $`0.01\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ from the A-phase-core lattice to the double-core lattice at low pressures.

To find the transition, I have performed a variational calculation down to $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.0001\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ at $`p=0.0`$ MPa using $`N3000`$ Landau levels. The hexagonal lattice is assumed to simplify the calculation, and I have taken $`72\times 72`$ integration points of equal interval per unit cell. It has been checked that increasing integration points further does not change $`F`$ beyond $`10^8`$ order. Unfortunately, however, $`N3000`$ Landau levels at $`0.0001\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ are still not enough to obtain enough convergence. Indeed, it has been observed that including more Landau levels as $`N1800`$, $`2400`$, $`3000`$ change the amplitudes of the core superfluid components to a noticeable level and lower the critical angular velocity of the transition. Also, since the isolated double-core vortex has only a discrete $`\pi `$-rotational symmetry about $`z`$ axis, the double-core lattice is expected to deform spontaneously from the hexagonal structure. Thus, the present calculation is a variational one to clarify the nature of the transition as well as to estimate an upper bound for the critical $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It should be noted, however, that assuming the hexagonal lattice hardly change the free energy in this low-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ region with a large intervortex distance, and does not affect the critical $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if the transition happens to be second-order.

Figure 8 displays the order parameters along $`x`$ axis at $`p=0.0`$ MPa and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.00015\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$. The relations $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{A}_{zx}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{A}_{zy}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{A}_{xz}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{A}_{yz}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ still hold; hence the system remains in Phase V of the A-phase-core lattice. Comparing Fig. 8(a) with Fig. 7, we observe that the core superfluid components have grown substantially, and the bulk components $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{xx}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{yy}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{zz}`$ are somewhat depleted in the core region. However, Fig. 8(b) shown over the longer distance $`0x/\xi 100`$ indicates that the requirement $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{A}_{xz}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{A}_{yz}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ of the A-phase-core vortex is unfavorable for a further growth of $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{A}_{xz}`$. Thus, we see clearly that the system wants to break the symmetry of the A-phase-core vortex around $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.00015\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$.

Figure 9 shows the order parameters for a slightly lower $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.0001\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ at $`p=0.0`$ MPa along (a) $`x`$ axis and (b) $`y`$ axis. Here the symmetry of the A-phase-core vortex is manifestly broken as $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{A}_{xz}(\mathrm{𝟎})\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{A}_{yz}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{A}_{zx}(\mathrm{𝟎})\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{A}_{zy}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$. Thus, the double-core lattice, also called Phase VI, is realized. Indeed, these $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu i}`$ have the same qualitative features as those of the isolated double-core vortex calculated by Thuneberg.Thuneberg87  The order parameters are given explicitly by

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(0)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}c_{N𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N𝐪_1},`$ (48a)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_x^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}+c_{N+4𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+4𝐪_1}]`$
$`+\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[d_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}+d_{N+4𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+4𝐪_1}],`$ (48b)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_y^{(1)}=i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}c_{N+4𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+4𝐪_1}]`$
$`i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[d_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}d_{N+4𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+4𝐪_1}],`$ (48c)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_x^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}+c_{N+2𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+2𝐪_1}]`$
$`+\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[d_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}+d_{N+2𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+2𝐪_1}],`$ (48d)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_y^{(1)}=i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}c_{N+2𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+2𝐪_1}]`$
$`+i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[d_{N𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N𝐪_1}d_{N+2𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+2𝐪_1}],`$ (48e)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_x^{(0)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N+1𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+1𝐪_1}+c_{N+5𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+5𝐪_1}]`$
$`+\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[d_{N+1𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+1𝐪_1}+d_{N+5𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+5𝐪_1}],`$ (48f)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_y^{(0)}=i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N+1𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+1𝐪_1}c_{N+5𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+5𝐪_1}]`$
$`i\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[d_{N+1𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+1𝐪_1}d_{N+5𝐪_1}^{(0)}\psi _{N+5𝐪_1}],`$ (48g)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N+5𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+5𝐪_1}+d_{N+1𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+1𝐪_1}],`$ (48h)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(1)}=\sqrt{V}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[c_{N+1𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+1𝐪_1}+d_{N+5𝐪_1}^{(1)}\psi _{N+5𝐪_1}],`$ (48i)
with $`N=6n`$, $`\beta =\pi /3`$, and $`\rho =1`$. All the coefficients are real, and terms with $`d_{N𝐪_1}^{(m)}`$, which are absent in the A-phase-core vortex, bring new asymmetry between $`\stackrel{~}{A}_x^{(m)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_y^{(m)}`$ as well as new terms in $`\stackrel{~}{A}_z^{(1)}`$.

It follows from Figs. 8 and 9 that a phase transition occurs between $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.00015\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.0001\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ at $`p=0.0`$ MPa. As already noted, however, $`N3000`$ Landau levels are still not enough to identify the critical value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{(\mathrm{V}\mathrm{VI})}`$ or the order of the transition. Including more Landau levels has been observed to decrease $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{(\mathrm{V}\mathrm{VI})}`$, so that the present value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{(\mathrm{V}\mathrm{VI})}0.0001\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ should be considered as an upper bound for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{(\mathrm{V}\mathrm{VI})}`$ at $`p=0.0`$ MPa. It is also expected from Fig. 1 that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{(\mathrm{V}\mathrm{VI})}(p)`$ is a decreasing function of $`p`$. As for the order of the transition, the isolated-vortex calculation by ThunebergThuneberg87  clarified that it is first-order near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}`$. However, it can be second-order from a purely group-theoretical viewpoint. Therefore, it is possible that the transition at $`p=0.0`$ MPa is second-order, changing its nature into first-order through a tricritical pointLandauV  as we increase $`p`$.

Experimentally, the present result implies that, as we increase $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ above $`3`$ rad/s, the double-core region will shrink in the $`p`$-$`T`$ plane to be replaced by the A-phase-core region, vanishing eventually in a rotation of $`10^310^4`$ rad/s. In addition, the phase boundary between the double-core and A-phase-core vortices may change its character from first-order to second-order in increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. A systematic study for $`\mathrm{\Omega }10^2`$ rad/s may be able to detect this shrinkage of the double-core region as well as to provide an estimate for the critical $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where the double-core vortex disappears.

## VII Summary

Based on a new approach starting from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ down towards $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}`$, the present calculation has revealed a rich phase diagram of rapidly rotating superfluid 3He. Six phases have been found in the $`p`$-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ plane, and we now have a complete story of how the polar hexagonal lattice near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ develops into the A-phase-core and double-core vortices experimentally observed in the B phase. Interestingly, the polar or the ABM state is favorable over the isotropic Balian-Werthamer state for $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$.

The present study have also clarified prototypes of vortices expected in multicomponent superfluids and superconductors. With multiple order parameters, it is possible, and may be energetically favorable, to fill cores of an existing component with others not used yet. These unconventional vortices have been classified here into two categories, i.e., “shift-core” and “fill-core” states. The former vortex lattices are composed of interpenetrating sublattices of different components which can be described by using multiple magnetic Bloch vectors $`(𝐪_1,𝐪_2,\mathrm{})`$. They have an enlarged unit cell with multiple circulation quanta. This category includes Phase III of Fig. 1 where the mixed-twist lattice is realized at low $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and also, the vortex sheet expected in two-component systems.Kita99 ; Kita00  In both cases, spatial variation of the $`𝐥`$-vector is the main origin of vorticity. The latter vortex lattices, which may be realized for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}/3`$, can be described using odd $`N`$ Landau levels with the same magnetic Bloch vector. This includes the A-phase-core and double-core lattices in the B phase.

Superfluid 3He is a unique system with $`9`$ order parameters without intrinsic anisotropies. In spite of every difficulty to realize $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}(1T/T_c)\times 10^7`$, the whole phase diagram over $`0\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$ is worth establishing experimentally to advance our knowledge on unconventional vortices. As a first step of this project, however, it may not be so difficult to observe shrinkage of the double-core region in the $`p`$-$`T`$ plane in increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Observations of vanishing double-core region in the $`p`$-$`T`$ plane and the appearance of the normal-core vortex will mark next two stages. To realize $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c2}`$, it will be necessary either to acquire $`\mathrm{\Omega }10^3`$-$`10^7`$ rad/s at low temperatures or to perform accurate experiments in the region $`1T/T_c10^3`$$`10^8`$. In the former case, the sample size should be made adequately small to keep the pressure constant over it; for example, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=0.1`$ MPa at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=10^6`$ rad/s for the sample radius of $`R=5\times 10^5`$ m.

Theoretically, it still remains as a future problem to establish a complete phase diagram of the A-phase region, i.e., how the mixed-twist lattice of Phase III grows into either of the locked vortex 1, the continuous unlocked vortex, the singular vortex, or the vortex sheet, which have been established by low-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ calculations.Thuneberg99  This fact also implies that there may be multiple unknown phases waiting to be discovered experimentally in moderate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a great pleasure to acknowledge enlightening discusions with and/or comments from V. Eltsov, M. Fogelström, M. Krusius, N. Schopohl, E. Thuneberg, G. E. Volovik, and P. Wölfle. This research is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.

## Appendix A Properties of $`\psi _{N𝐪}`$

(i) The basis functions satisfy the orthonormality:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{N𝐪}|\psi _{N^{}𝐪^{}}=\delta _{NN^{}}\delta _{\mathrm{𝐪𝐪}^{}}\hfill \\ \underset{N𝐪}{}|\psi _{N𝐪}\psi _{N𝐪}|=1\hfill \end{array}.$$
(49)
(ii) Upon applying Eq. (21) with $`𝐑n_1𝐚_1+n_2𝐚_2`$, the basis function $`\psi _{N𝐪}`$ is transformed as

$$T_𝐑\psi _{N𝐪}(𝐫)=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐪𝐑\mathrm{i}\pi n_1n_2}\psi _{N𝐪}(𝐫).$$
(50)
(iii) The function $`\psi _{N𝐪}`$ is obtained from $`\psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ by a magnetic translation as

$$\psi _{N𝐪}(𝐫)=T_{l_\mathrm{c}^2𝐪\times \widehat{𝐳}}\psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}(𝐫).$$
(51)
It thus follows that $`\psi _{N𝐪}`$ and $`\psi _{N𝐪^{}}`$ are essentially the same function, differing only in the location of zeros.

(iv) The basis function $`\psi _{N𝐪}(𝐫)`$ vanishes at

$`𝐫={\displaystyle \frac{𝐑}{2}}l_\mathrm{c}^2𝐪\times \widehat{𝐳}\mathrm{for}\{\begin{array}{c}n_1n_2=\mathrm{odd};N\text{: even},\hfill \\ n_1n_2=\mathrm{even};N\text{: odd}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (54)
Thus, $`\psi _{N𝐪_1}(\mathrm{𝟎})=0`$ for $`𝐪_1(𝐛_1+𝐛_2)/2`$ and $`N=2n`$.

(v) Generally, $`\psi _{N𝐪_1}(𝐫)`$ and $`\psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}(𝐫)`$ at least satisfy

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{N𝐪_1}(𝐫)=\mathrm{e}^{i(N1)\pi }\psi _{N𝐪_1}(𝐫)\hfill \\ \psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}(𝐫)=\mathrm{e}^{iN\pi }\psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}(𝐫)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(55)
(vi) For centered rectangular lattices with $`\rho =1`$, $`\psi _{N𝐪}(𝐫)`$’s for $`𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐪_1`$ satisfy, in addition to Eq. (55), the following equality corresponding to the mirror reflection with respect to the plane including $`𝐳`$ and $`𝐚_1+𝐚_2`$:

$`\psi _{N𝐪}(x\mathrm{cos}\beta +y\mathrm{sin}\beta ,x\mathrm{sin}\beta +y\mathrm{cos}\beta )`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _{N𝐪})\psi _{N𝐪}^{}(x,y),`$ (56)
where $`\phi _{N𝐪}`$ is a constant which does not depend on $`𝐫`$.

(vii) For the square lattice with $`\beta =\pi /2`$ and $`\rho =1`$, the basis functions $`\psi _{N𝐪_1}(𝐫)`$ and $`\psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}(𝐫)`$ satisfy

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{N𝐪_1}(\underset{¯}{R}_\phi ^1𝐫)=\mathrm{e}^{i(N1)\phi }\psi _{N𝐪_1}(𝐫)\hfill \\ \psi _{N𝐪_1}(x,y)=\mathrm{e}^{i\pi /2}\psi _{N𝐪_1}^{}(x,y)\hfill \\ \psi _{N𝐪_1}(y,x)=\mathrm{e}^{i\pi (N2)/2}\psi _{N𝐪_1}^{}(x,y)\hfill \\ \psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}(\underset{¯}{R}_\phi ^1𝐫)=\mathrm{e}^{iN\phi }\psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}(𝐫)\hfill \\ \psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}(x,y)=\psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}^{}(x,y)\hfill \\ \psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}(y,x)=\mathrm{e}^{i\pi N/2}\psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}^{}(x,y)\hfill \end{array},$$
(57)
where $`\underset{¯}{R}_\phi `$ denotes a rotation around $`z`$ axis by $`\phi =n\pi /2`$. It hence follows that $`\psi _{N𝐪_1}(\mathrm{𝟎})=0`$ except $`N=4n+1`$, and $`\psi _{N\mathrm{𝟎}}(\mathrm{𝟎})=0`$ except $`N=4n`$.

(viii) For the hexagonal lattice with $`\beta =\pi /3`$ and $`\rho =1`$, the basis function $`\psi _{N𝐪_1}(𝐫)`$ satisfies

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{N𝐪_1}(\underset{¯}{R}_\phi ^1𝐫)=\mathrm{e}^{i(N1)\phi }\psi _{N𝐪_1}(𝐫)\hfill \\ \psi _{N𝐪_1}(x,y)=\mathrm{e}^{i\pi /4}\psi _{N𝐪_1}^{}(x,y)\hfill \\ \psi _{N𝐪_1}(x,y)=\mathrm{e}^{i\pi /4+i(N1)\pi }\psi _{N𝐪_1}^{}(x,y)\hfill \end{array},$$
(58)
where $`\phi =n\pi /3`$. Thus, $`\psi _{N𝐪_1}(\mathrm{𝟎})=0`$ except $`N=6n+1`$.


format: text

text:
# Probing QCD at Medium 𝑄²11footnote 1Introductory talk at the “European Workshop on the QCD Structure of the Nucleon” in Ferrara, Italy (April 2002). Transparencies including figures may be found at http://www.fe.infn.it/qcd-n02/talks.htm

## 1 First step: MEASURING MATRIX ELEMENTS

### 1.1 Inclusive Deep Inelastic Scattering

Data on hadron structure comes primarily from high energy collisions. In order to separate the collision from the bound state dynamics we use QCD factorization theorems . The classic example is deep inelastic lepton scattering (DIS), $`epe+X`$, in the Bjorken limit of high photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ and energy $`\nu `$ in the target proton rest frame. The DIS cross section is given by the distribution of partons carrying momentum fraction $`x_B=Q^2/2m_p\nu `$. The parton distributions can be expressed in terms of matrix elements of the nucleon target, e.g., for the quark distribution

$`f_{\mathrm{q}/N}(x_B,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑y^{}\mathrm{exp}(ix_Bp^+y^{}/2)}`$
$`\times `$ $`N(p)|\overline{\mathrm{q}}(y^{})\gamma ^+\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left[ig{\displaystyle _0^y^{}}𝑑w^{}A^+(w^{})\right]\mathrm{q}(0)|N(p)`$
Here $`y^{}=y^0y^3`$ measures the ‘Ioffe’ distance between the photon interaction vertices in the production amplitude and its complex conjugate. The Ioffe distance is along the light-cone (LC) since $`y^+=𝒪\left(1/\nu \right)`$ and $`y_{}=𝒪\left(1/Q\right)`$ vanish in the Bjorken limit. The path ordered exponential ensures the gauge invariance of the matrix element and physically represents final state Coulomb scattering of the outgoing (struck) quark. This scattering affects the DIS cross section, and hence the parton distributions, within the coherence length $`\nu /Q^2y^{}`$ of the virtual photon. Note that it is essential for this picture that the virtual photon is moving (mainly) in the negative $`z`$-direction, $`q^{}2\nu 1/y^+\mathrm{}`$ in the Bjorken limit, whereas $`q^+=Q^2/q^{}1/y^{}`$ is fixed.

Until recently the path ordered exponential was regarded as a gauge artifact that does not affect the cross section and can be eliminated by choosing the LC gauge $`A^+=0`$. I return to this question in the next section.

Integrating Eq. (1.1) over the momentum fraction $`x_B`$ and observing that the quark distribution is non-vanishing only for $`1x_B1`$ one derives sum rules which relate a local $`(y^{}=0)`$ matrix element to moments of the quark distribution. Thus in the case of a nucleon with polarization $`s`$ one finds a sum rule for the quark helicity distribution

$$s^\mu _0^1𝑑x\left[f_{\mathrm{q}/N}^{}(x_B,Q^2)f_{\mathrm{q}/N}^{}(x_B,Q^2)+(\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}})\right]=N(p,s)|\overline{\mathrm{q}}(0)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{q}(0)|N(p,s)$$
(2)
Measurements of DIS on longitudinally polarized targets, pioneered by the EMC collaboration , have given the surprising result that quark helicities account for only a small fraction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }.23`$ of the proton spin. The remaining spin must arise from quark orbital motion and gluons. Efforts to formulate a measurable DIS sum rule for the total angular momentum $`J`$ of the target have, however, not been successful (see  for recent theoretical and experimental reviews).

### 1.2 Deeply Virtual Exclusive Scattering

The QCD factorization theorem has been extended to the case of exclusive final states, e.g., Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS), $`epe\gamma p`$ . In the Bjorken limit $`Q^2,\nu \mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`x_B`$ the amplitude is dominated by the ‘handbag’ configuration familiar from DIS, where the lower (target) vertex is now referred to as the Generalized Parton Distribution (GPD) . The DVCS handbag differs from the DIS one in several important respects:

* It is the amplitude for the specific $`e\gamma p`$ final state – thus its absolute square gives the exclusive cross section.
* The final photon is real, which requires that a total ‘plus’ momentum $`x_Bm_p`$ is transferred from the target. This momentum transfer is shared by the two partons connecting the photons to the target, leaving an integral over the fraction $`x`$ of plus momentum carried by the first parton. The struck quark line between the photon vertices is far off-shell except when the first parton transfers the full amount, $`x=x_B`$.
* The GPD’s are thus only indirectly given by the measured exclusive cross section, symbolically

$$\sigma (DVCS)\left|_1^1𝑑xGPD\right|^2$$
(3)
In practice, it is necessary to construct models for the GPD’s and then test how well they fit the data using the relation (3).
* The initial and final protons may have different transverse momentum and helicity. This implies the existence of two new GPD’s, which appear multiplied with the momentum transfer in the handbag amplitude and which thus do not contribute to the forward amplitude measured in DIS.

All GPD’s are given by matrix elements analogous to Eq. (1.1), where the initial and final nucleons have different momenta and spin (more generally, the final baryon may be an excited $`N^{}`$). Hence the GPD’s provide much new information on nucleon properties.

The GPD’s satisfy sum rules of the form

$$_1^1𝑑xGPD(x,x_B,t)=F(t)$$
(4)
where $`t`$ is the invariant momentum transfer between the nucleons and $`F(t)`$ is the nucleon electromagnetic form factor. Moreover,

$$_1^1𝑑xxGPD(x,x_B,t=0)=2J$$
(5)
where $`J`$ is the total spin of the nucleon and the GPD involves the new distributions which do not contribute to DIS. Hence the generalization to non-forward matrix elements allows a sum rule for the total angular momentum. Note that $`t=0`$ is outside the physical region, requiring an extrapolation of the data. The practical significance of Eq. (5) will depend on the reliability of the GPD models (both quark and gluon GPD’s contribute to the proton spin). Some interesting phenomenology is already presented in section 4.2.3 of Ref. .

Models for the GPD’s are constrained by the fact that they should reduce to the standard DIS distributions in the forward limit, and by sum rules like (4). First model predictions for single spin asymmetries  are in qualitatively agreement with DVCS data from HERMES  and CLAS .

I refer to the comprehensive review  and these proceedings for more detailed discussions of deeply virtual exclusive processes and their description in terms of GPD’s. These studies are very promising and experimentally challenging, motivating dedicated facilities. They have invigorated the study of hadron structure and remind us that there is much to learn about the proton besides its inclusive structure function.

## 2 Second step: DYNAMICS OF MATRIX ELEMENTS

Given that we have measured hadron matrix elements – preferably in several different processes to test factorization – we need to address what these elements teach us about hadron structure. This question is somewhat vague, as the matrix elements represent long distance physics for which we lack a clear formalism in QCD. However, we may try to approach it in the spirit of the factorization theorems: Use perturbation theory as a model of soft dynamics, and take properties that hold at all orders as generally valid. Hadrons are then described as a superposition of quark and gluon Fock states, and expressions can be found for the matrix elements in terms of the Fock state wave functions.

I shall here briefly describe two issues related to the interpretation of matrix elements in which I have recently been involved.

### 2.1 Parton Distributions are Not Probabilities

There has been a general impression that the parton distributions measured in DIS can be simply interpreted as probabilities for finding a parton in the hadron. Thus interactions occurring after the virtual photon is absorbed on a target parton would not affect the DIS cross section. Recent work  shows that the situation is not that simple.

The argument that parton distributions are probabilities is deceptively simple. One chooses the light-cone (LC) gauge $`A^+=0`$ in the expression (1.1) for the quark distribution to reduce it to

$`𝒫_{\mathrm{q}/N}(x_B,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑y^{}\mathrm{exp}(ix_Bp^+y^{}/2)N(p)|\overline{\mathrm{q}}(y^{})\gamma ^+\mathrm{q}(0)|N(p)_{y^+=y_{}=0}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle ^{k_i^2<Q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}dx_id^2k_i\right]|\psi _n(x_i,k_i)|^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=q}{}}\delta (x_Bx_j)`$
The second equality follows by noting that all states and fields are evaluated at the same LC time $`y^+=0`$. Thus when the nucleon state $`|N,y^+=0`$ is expanded on its quark and gluon Fock states $`n`$ the matrix element reduces to a sum of probabilities for states that contain a quark with momentum fraction $`x_B`$. See Ref.  for a detailed derivation in the case of Generalized Parton Distributions.

This argument contains a subtle but important flaw, which implies that the probability $`𝒫_{\mathrm{q}/N}`$ of Eq. (2.1) does not equal the parton distribution $`f_{\mathrm{q}/N}`$ of Eq. (1.1). $`f_{\mathrm{q}/N}`$ is the leading twist result for the DIS cross section in the Bjorken limit for a general $`(A^+0)`$ gauge. The path ordered exponential in (1.1) arises from keeping only the asymptotically large terms $`q^{}A^+`$ in the rescattering of the struck quark on the target gluon field. This is correct in all gauges except LC gauge where this term vanishes. Thus the two limits $`q^{}=2\nu \mathrm{}`$ and $`A^+0`$ do not commute. This occurs even in the Born term of elastic quark scattering (see Section 7 of Ref. ). The correct result is obtained by choosing LC gauge before the high energy limit.

It turns out  that there is a non-vanishing contribution to the path ordered exponential from asymptotic times in LC gauge. Using a specific prescription for the singularity of the LC gluon propagator $`d_{LC}^{\mu \nu }(k)`$ at $`k^+=0`$ this asymptotic contribution can be chosen to vanish. The final state interaction effects may then be (partly) mapped into a complex target wave function.

One may intuitively understand why the probability expression (2.1) cannot contain all the physics of DIS scattering. The struck quark rescatters on its way out of the target, and the rescattering amplitudes must be added coherently within the coherence length $`\nu /Q^2=1/(2m_px_B)`$ of the virtual photon. The contribution of on-shell intermediate states between the rescatterings gives the amplitudes complex relative phases. These phases are crucial for understanding diffraction and shadowing phenomena in DIS . In the absence of rescattering contributions the amplitude is given by the (stable) target wave function, which contains no on-shell intermediate states and hence does not have dynamical phases222This holds in covariant gauges, and in LC gauge when the propagator singularity at $`k^+=0`$ is regularized using a principal value prescription.. These arguments were explicitly verified by means of a perturbative model calculation in Ref. .

The rescattering phase was subsequently shown  to give a leading twist single spin asymmetry in semi-inclusive DIS,i.e., a correlation between the jet angle and the transverse polarization of the nucleon target in $`e+N_{}e+jet+X`$. This ‘Sivers Effect’  was welcome in view of the large asymmetry observed experimentally . Such a correlation had been thought to be of higher twist, but the proof turned out to be incorrect since it ignored the complex phase arising from the path ordered exponential .

The universality of the rescattering corrections in different processes is presently under study. The single spin asymmetry in the Drell-Yan process should be reversed compared to DIS, since the phase arising from initial state rescattering is the complex conjugate of that from final state interactions . Very recently, the model used for studying shadowing in DIS was applied to the Drell-Yan process . The result indicates that there could be essential differences between the rescattering corrections in the two processes.

While the dynamics of parton distributions thus appears considerably richer than previously anticipated, it should be noted that the rescattering effects discussed above are nevertheless fully determined by the target wave function. The struck quark does not have time to emit or absorb real, transverse gluons in the target. Consequently the quark does not influence the target gluon field, it only ‘samples’ this field via Coulomb scattering. In a theory with only scalar interactions the rescattering effect would be absent, and the DIS cross section would be given by the parton probabilities analogous to Eq. (2.1).

From a quantitative point of view, the effects of rescattering on the cross section should be important mainly at low $`x_B`$ where the coherence length of the virtual photon is long. In particular, diffractive DIS and the shadowing of nuclear parton distributions are primary manifestations of rescattering.

### 2.2 (Semi-) Exclusive Processes at Large t

A perturbative QCD (PQCD) formalism for exclusive processes at large momentum transfer $`|t|`$, such as $`epep`$ (electromagnetic form factors) and fixed angle hadron scattering, was developed more than two decades ago . The scattering amplitude factorizes into a hard (perturbative) scattering kernel and a ‘distribution amplitude’ for each participating hadron. The distribution amplitude is given by the wave function of the lowest (valence quark) Fock state with a transverse size of order $`1/\sqrt{|t|}`$. Intuitively, only compact Fock states can absorb large momentum transfer without radiating particles.

Quantitative estimates of the scattering kernel have shown that it tends to be dominated by ‘endpoint’ configurations where one valence quark carries most of the hadron momentum . In this ‘Feynman mechanism’ the fast quark absorbs all the momentum transfer, while the wee quarks have no preferential direction of motion and thus can form a bound state with the fast quark in both the initial and final states. The endpoint configurations are not compact, and should asymptotically be suppressed by Sudakov form factors. Their magnitude is sensitive to the shape of the distribution amplitude near its endpoints.

Data on exclusive cross sections obey ‘dimensional scaling’ rules already at modest momentum transfers . This is in accordance with the hard QCD formalism , even though the precocity of the scaling is surprising. The early scaling appears accidental in models based on endpoint contributions , which are assumed to be asymptotically non-leading due to the Sudakov effects.

Polarization data is a sensitive indicator of the hardness of the reaction mechanism, since quark helicity is conserved in PQCD when the momentum transfer is large compared to the (effective) quark mass. In the exclusive PQCD formalism  the hadron helicity is given by the sum of the helicities of its valence quarks, implying hadron helicity conservation in hard processes.

Little polarization data has so far been available at large $`t`$. However, Jlab data on polarized $`epep`$  suggests that the ratio of the proton flip to non-flip form factors $`F_2(t)/F_1(t)`$ decreases more slowly with $`t`$ than $`1/(t)`$, which is the prediction of the exclusive QCD formalism .

ZEUS recently published  striking data on polarization effects in the process $`\gamma +pV+Y`$, at large momentum transfer $`|t|\stackrel{<}{_{}}12\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ between the projectile photon and the vector meson $`V=\rho ^0,\varphi ,J/\psi `$. The mass of the target dissociative system $`Y`$ is small compared to the hadronic invariant mass $`80W/\mathrm{GeV}120`$. In this semi-exclusive kinematics the cross section is expected  to be governed by the hard subprocess $`\gamma g+\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}+g`$, with the quark pair forming the vector meson via its distribution amplitude. The dependence on the target proton is given by the inclusive gluon distribution evaluated at $`x=t/(M_Y^2t)`$.

The $`\gamma +p\rho ^0+Y`$ cross section (integrated over $`x0.01`$) scales as $`d\sigma /dt(t)^n`$, with $`n=3.21\pm 0.04\pm 0.15`$ in close agreement with $`n=3`$ expected from dimensional counting. The corresponding data on $`\varphi `$ production gives a power $`n=2.7\pm 0.1\pm 0.2`$. The ratio $`\sigma (\varphi )/\sigma (\rho )2/9`$ for $`t\stackrel{>}{_{}}3\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ in accordance with flavor SU3. These features suggest that the subprocess is hard and described by PQCD.

Helicity conservation at the level of the hard subprocess requires that the quark and antiquark are created with opposite helicities. Hence the $`\rho `$ meson they form is predicted to be longitudinally polarized, $`\lambda _\rho =0`$. At the level of the external particles, on the other hand, helicity conservation implies that the $`\rho `$ meson have the same helicity as the (real) projectile photon, i.e., $`\lambda _\rho =\pm 1`$. We thus have a situation where helicity conservation at the external particle level is in conflict with helicity conservation at the quark level.

The ZEUS data  shows that $`s`$-channel helicity is nearly conserved in the entire measured range ($`t6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$) for both $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ mesons. Hence helicity is violated at the subprocess level. In PQCD this brings a suppression factor proportional to the quark mass squared, $`m_q^2/(t)`$. The cross section is then expected to scale with a power $`n=4`$, whereas the data is closer to the dimensional counting rule $`n=3`$. Taken at face value, this means that the subprocess is soft (allowing helicity flip) yet obeys the dimensional counting rule. Given the other examples of precocious scaling the possibility that soft physics obeys dimensional counting merits consideration.

It is possible to directly measure the size of the subprocess from the dependence on the virtuality $`Q^2`$ of the projectile photon. For subprocesses with transverse size $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}1/Q`$ little dependence on the photon virtuality is expected. While there is as yet no data on the $`Q^2`$-dependence at large $`|t|`$, we have studied this in PQCD for the (somewhat simpler) subprocess $`\gamma u\pi ^+d`$ . The result is interesting. The amplitude for this process involves an integral over the momentum fraction $`z`$ carried by the $`u`$-quark of the form $`𝑑z\varphi _\pi (z)/z`$. Since the distribution amplitude vanishes at the endpoints, $`\varphi _\pi (z)z`$ for $`z0`$, the amplitude is dominated by finite $`z`$ and the process appears compact. On the other hand, the derivative of the amplitude wrt. the photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ brings an additional factor of $`1/z`$ to the integrand, making the integral (logarithmically) singular at the endpoints. Hence $`d\sigma /dQ^2dt`$ is (formally) infinite at $`Q=0`$, corresponding to an infinite transverse size! Clearly the endpoint contributions are delicate, and merit further study.

## 3 Third step: SOFT QCD

In parallel with developing our understanding of hard QCD processes we need to consider also the soft, long-distance regime. The challenge is to devise a systematic approximation scheme for QCD which is both formally exact and phenomenologically relevant at low orders. The QCD origin of successful phenomenological descriptions such as the quark and Regge models needs to be demonstrated.

Perturbation theory merits a particularly close look, given the similarity of the hadron spectrum with positronium and the indications that the soft and hard regimes are related (cf. Bloom-Gilman duality  and the dimensional scaling discussed above). The perturbative expansion is formally exact and very successful at short distances. In fact, it is the success of PQCD that makes us confident about the correctness of QCD.

Standard PQCD fails to describe prominent features of long distance physics, including chiral symmetry breaking and confinement. This is plausibly due to the expansion being based on an empty, perturbative vacuum. Although vacuum fluctuations are systematically included in the PQCD expansion, the effects of a gluon condensate cannot be mimicked at finite orders.

However, we may choose to perturb around $`|in`$ and $`out|`$ states that contain free quark and gluon pairs. Formally, any state at asymptotic time $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$ relaxes to the true ground state at finite $`t`$ (assuming that there is a non-zero overlap). The partons in the asymptotic state only modify the Feynman $`i\epsilon `$ prescription of the standard PQCD rules. A promising modification of the on-shell gluon and (massless) quark propagators was recently proposed ,

$`D_g^{ab,\mu \nu }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2+i\epsilon }}+C_g(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p)\right]`$ (7)
$`S_q^{AB}(p)`$ $`=`$ δAB[i

p

/
p2+iε+Cq(2π)4δ4(p)]superscript𝛿𝐴𝐵delimited-[]𝑖

p

/
superscript𝑝2𝑖𝜀subscript𝐶𝑞superscript2𝜋4superscript𝛿4𝑝\displaystyle\delta^{AB}\left[\frac{i\parbox[b]{6.00006pt}{$p$}\parbox[b]{5.50003pt}{ \raisebox{-0.86108pt}{$/$}}}{p^{2}+i\varepsilon}+C_{q}(2\pi)^{4}\delta^{4}(p)\right] (8)
which corresponds to adding gluons and massless quarks with vanishing 3-momenta to the asymptotic states. This prescription maintains Lorentz invariance at each order of the perturbative expansion. The PQCD expansion based on the modified propagators is formally as justified as the standard one, and agrees with it for short distance processes since the off-shell propagators are unchanged.

The modified expansion captures more of the long-distance features of QCD at low orders in $`\alpha _s`$. Thus a finite gluon condensate $`F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\alpha _sC_g^2`$ arises through the 4-gluon coupling at two-loop level. The addition of $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ pairs to the asymptotic states breaks chiral symmetry spontaneously, causing $`\overline{\psi }\psi C_q`$. At the same time, the vector and axial vector currents are conserved, ensuring gauge invariance and a massless pion. Further studies will show whether this approach can provide a real QCD description of hadron physics. To my mind the effects of modifying the boundary conditions of PQCD have not received the attention they deserve.