text:
# Low-temperature spin relaxation in n-type GaAs

## I Introduction

The research on the physics of non–equilibrium spin in semiconductors has been conducted for more than 30 years, since first experiments on optical orientation of electron and nuclear spins, performed by G.Lampel  in Si, by R.Parsons  in GaSb, and by Zakharchenya et al  in GaAs. Basic facts and a considerable body of experimental and theoretical results related to bulk Group III-V semiconductors are collected in the monograph ”Optical Orientation”  issued in the 80-th. Later on, much new information concerning mainly low-dimensional structures has been obtained. Nevertheless, there remain gaps in this knowledge, that have become visible with the emerging of an application- directed angle on spin-related phenomena (spintronics) . Though it was known to specialists that n-type semiconductors demonstrate, generally, extended spin lifetimes , a recent finding of over- 100ns spin memory in bulk gallium arsenide with the donor concentration of 1016cm-3 became a surprise, and attracted an increased attention to n-type semiconductors as a possible base for spintronic devices. It was suggested that the spin lifetime as a function of donor concentration $`n_D`$ has a maximum at $`n_D`$ near 1016 cm-3. Later on, even longer spin lifetime of nearly 300ns was reported in a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure . However no detailed experimental or theoretical study of the dependence of the electron spin relaxation on doping has been done so far. This paper is aimed at filling this gap. The choice of GaAs for this study is justified not only by its prospective spintronic applications, but also by the fact that the physics of spin systems in this semiconductor is otherwise very well studied. Once an understanding of the spin relaxation processes is reached for GaAs, it can be easily extended to other semiconductors. We use optical orientation technique to measure the concentration dependence of the electron spin relaxation time in n-type epitaxial layers of GaAs at liquid-helium temperatures. Comparison of the experimental data with theory reveals the main mechanisms of spin relaxation relevant in this temperature range, and determines the limits to the spin lifetime in bulk n-type semiconductors.

## II Samples and experimental technique

We used 2mkm thick layers of GaAs between AlGaAs barriers, grown by the molecular-beam epitaxy ($`n_D=5.5\times 10^{14},2\times 10^{16},4.6\times 10^{16},5.6\times 10^{16},9\times 10^{16}cm^3`$); 20 mkm thick layers grown by liquid-phase epitaxy ($`n_D=1\times 10^{15},2\times 10^{15},2.1\times 10^{15},4\times 10^{15},4.5\times 10^{15},7\times 10^{15},1\times 10^{16},1.6\times 10^{16},2.8\times 10^{16}`$); a bulk Chochralskii-grown crystal ($`n_D=5\times 10^{17}cm^3`$); a 0.1mkm thick GaAs buffer layer of a multi-quantum well structure ($`n_D=1\times 10^{14}cm^3`$).

The samples were placed in a liquid-helium cryostat and pumped by a tunable Ti- sapphire laser, with the circular polarization of light being alternated in sign at a frequency of 26.61 kHz with a photoelastic quartz modulator. This allowed us to eliminate the effect of the lattice nuclear polarization on the optical orientation of the electrons (Chap.5 and 9 of Ref.4). The geomagnetic field was compensated to a level of not over 0.1 G at the sample. The PL polarization was measured in the reflection geometry by a circular-polarization analyzer. The PL was dispersed by a double-grating spectrometer (5 $`\AA /mm`$). A two-channel photon counting device synchronized with the quartz modulator provided measurement of the effective degree of circular polarization $`\rho _c=\frac{I_+I_{}}{I_++I_{}}`$ , where $`I_+`$ and $`I_{}`$ are the intensities of the $`\sigma _+`$ PL component under the $`\sigma _+`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ pumping, respectively. $`\rho _c`$ may be considered as a Stokes parameter characterizing the PL circular polarization. It is proportional to the amplitude value of the average electron spin induced by the alternate-polarized pump light.

The method of determination of the spin relaxation time in n-type semiconductors by steady-state optical orientation is based on the following physical grounds . After creation of an electron-hole pair by circularly polarized light, the hole rapidly loses the memory about its initial spin state. Then it recombines with an electron, besides under low pump intensity the probability of recombination with a photoexcited electron is negligible as compared with the probability to recombine with one of the unpolarized equilibrium electrons. Thus, spin- polarized photoexcited electrons eventually substitute unpolarized equilibrium electrons, and spin polarization accumulates in the crystal. If the density of photoexcited carriers is spatially uniform, then, under cw excitation, the spin lifetime is given by the expression:

$$T_S=\left(\frac{1}{\tau _s}+\frac{1}{\tau _J}\right)^1$$
(1)
where $`\tau _s`$ is the spin relaxation time, $`\tau _J=n/G`$, $`n`$ is the concentration of equilibrium electrons, and $`G`$ is the excitation density (the rate of creation of photocarriers per unit volume). The suppression of the electron spin orientation in transversal magnetic field (the Hanle effect) in this simplest case is described by the Lorentz curve:

$$s_z(B)=s_z(0)\frac{1}{1+\left(\mu _BgBT_S/\mathrm{}\right)^2}$$
(2)
where $`B`$ is the magnetic field, $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton, and $`g`$ is the electron g-factor.

If the concentration of photoexcited carriers significantly changes over the region where electron spins are polarized, it is not possible to describe the entire ensemble of electrons by the unique $`\tau _J`$. In this case, the Hanle curve is no longer Lorentzian. Also, spin diffusion may result in non-Lorentzian Hanle curves on the high-energy side of the PL spectrum . However, in our experiments none of these effects have been observed: within the experimental accuracy, the Hanle curves were Lorentzian and identical within the width of the PL lines.

As in GaAs the g-factor is known, Eq.(2) allows to determine $`T_{S\text{ }}`$from the Hanle effect: the half-width of the curve, $`B_{1/2}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mu _Bg}T_S^1,`$is proportional to the inverse spin lifetime. It follows from Eq.(1) that $`T_S`$ and, therefore, the width of the Hanle curve, depends on the excitation intensity. To obtain the value of $`\tau _s`$ , one should take $`T_S`$ in the low-pump limit.

## III Experimental results and discussion

PL spectra (Fig.1a) of samples with low doping level ($`n_D`$ $`<`$1015 cm-3) consist of up to 3 overlapping lines corresponding, to the best of our knowledge , to recombination of free excitons ($`X`$, $`1.5155eV`$), of excitons bound to neutral donors ($`D^0X,1.5145eV`$), and of excitons bound to charged donors ($`D^+X,1.5136eV`$). The free exciton recombination forms the high-energy wing of the spectrum. With the increase of donor concentration, these lines merge into one broad line. Under optical orientation conditions, PL is circularly polarized. Both the zero-field polarization and the width of the Hanle curve decrease with the decrease of excitation intensity, which is typical for optical orientation of equilibrium electrons . In samples with low donor concentration, the polarization degree is the highest at the high- energy wing corresponding to excitonic transitions, then it falls down to zero at the maximum of $`D^0X`$ line, and slightly increases with further decrease of the PL photon energy. The dip in the spectral dependence of $`\rho _c`$ results from coupling of spins of the two electrons in the $`D^0X`$ complex into a singlet state.

In heavily-doped samples, the circular polarization is only observed at the high-energy wing of the spectrum (Fig.1b). This behavior reflects the Fermi-statistics of delocalized electrons in degenerate semiconductor crystals: only Fermi-edge electrons may have a non-zero average spin. The dependence of the polarization degree on the transversal magnetic field (the Hanle effect) is the same for all the PL energies. This is an evidence that, under sufficiently low excitation densities we used, the PL polarization at all the photon energies reflected the state of the same spin reservoir, namely that of equilibrium electrons , and the differences in the polarization degree were due to specific recombination conditions rather than to spin dynamics. Respectively, measuring $`T_S`$ at the limit of low pump density yielded the value of $`\tau _s`$ characterizing the electron ensemble of the sample under study.

An example of the dependence of $`T_S`$ on pump intensity is shown in Fig.2. The Hanle curve becomes steadily narrower with decreasing the intensity. The half-width of the Hanle curve vs pump is plotted in the inset. It is well fitted by a linear dependence, whose cutoff at zero pump gives the desirable spin relaxation rate. This procedure was used to determine $`\tau _s`$ for each of our samples. The results are shown in Fig.3. To fully represent the available experimental information, we plot here also data from Ref.8 obtained by use of time-resolved pump-probe technique. In spite of a considerable scattering of experimental points (this results, in our opinion, mainly from errors in determination of the donor concentration, and from incontrollable impurities present in the samples), they give an unambiguous picture of spin relaxation over a wide range of doping. The most remarkable feature of the concentration dependence of $`\tau _s`$ is that it has two maxima. With the increase of doping from 1014 cm-3 upwards $`\tau _s`$ , being initially about $`5ns`$, becomes longer, reaching values around $`180ns`$ at $`n_D3\times 10^{15}`$ $`cm^3`$ , then decreases down to approximately $`50`$ $`ns`$ at $`n_D1.5\times 10^{16}`$ $`cm^3`$. Further increase of the donor concentration results in an abrupt three-fold rise of the spin relaxation time, followed by its steady and steep decrease ($`\tau _s`$ becomes shorter by nearly four decimal orders over the next two orders in the donor concentration). The spin relaxation time is virtually the same at $`2`$and $`4.2K`$ , which suggests that in this temperature range scattering by phonons has practically no impact on the electron spin, and that, in heavily doped samples, we observe spin dynamics of electrons obeying a degenerate statistics .

We interpret this unusual concentration dependence as a manifestation of three mechanisms of spin relaxation relevant for equilibrium electrons at low temperature: hyperfine interaction with spins of lattice nuclei , anisotropic exchange interaction of donor-bound electrons , and the Dyakonov-Perel mechanism . The maximum at $`n_D=310^{15}cm^3`$ is due to a crossover between relaxation mechanisms originating from the hyperfine interaction with lattice nuclei and from the spin-orbit interaction. The peculiarity at $`n_D=210^{16}cm^3`$ is associated with the metal-to-insulator transition (MIT). It reflects the change of the specific mechanism through which the spin-orbit coupling affects the spin lifetime: in the metallic phase it is the DP mechanism, while in the insulator phase ($`n_D<210^{16}cm^3`$) it is the anisotropic exchange.

All the three mechanisms can be interpreted in terms of effective magnetic fields acting upon the electron spin. Spin-orbit interaction in crystals without inversion symmetry, like GaAs, is known to produce effective fields determined by the direction and value of the electron wave vector $`𝐤`$. Scattering by defects or phonons results in this field’s rapid changing in time; the spin is therefore exposed to a stochastic field which causes its relaxation . This is referred to as the Dyakonov-Perel mechanism. It has been shown that an analogous field affects the spin of an electron tunneling through a potential barrier . As a result, the exchange interaction of donor-bound electrons in GaAs turns out to be anisotropic, and the flip-flop transition of spins of two electrons coupled by the exchange interaction goes along with rotation of each of the spins through the same small angle $`\gamma 0.01`$, but in opposite directions. The axis of the rotation, as well as the value of $`\gamma `$, depends on the orientation of the pair of donors in the crystal. In the ensemble of randomly distributed donors, this process leads to relaxation of the total spin of the donor-bound electrons . Another contribution into the spin relaxation rate of localized electrons comes from their interaction with nuclear spins. As the donor-bound electron interacts with a great number of nuclei, $`N10^5`$, the effect of nuclei upon the electron spin $`𝐒`$ can be always presented as a Larmor precession of $`𝐒`$ in an effective ”hyperfine” magnetic field with contribution of all the nuclear spins within the electron orbit (Chapter 2 of Ref.4; Ref.13). The hyperfine field produced by the mean-squared fluctuation of the nuclear spin is equivalent to the combined action of $`\sqrt{N}300`$ spins, which amounts to approximately 54 $`Oe`$ for GaAs .

One can see that these three mechanisms give the qualitative picture of the concentration dependence of $`\tau _s`$, which is consistent with our experimental observations. Indeed, at low donor concentrations electrons are effectively isolated, and their spins precess independently in random static nuclear fields. This results in disappearance of the most part of the electron spin orientation within a few nanoseconds . Then, with increasing donor concentration, electron wave functions begin to overlap, and the isotropic exchange interaction brings about flip-flop transitions, which results in dynamical averaging of the hyperfine interaction: the electron spin ceases to be bound to a single donor and interacts with a greater number of nuclei, so that the effect of nuclear-spin fluctuations becomes smaller. As a result, $`\tau _s`$ increases. On the other hand, stronger overlap of wave functions is accompanied by a greater probability to lose spin orientation due to the anisotropic exchange interaction. Eventually, the anisotropic exchange becomes stronger than the hyperfine interaction, and the rise of the spin lifetime is changed for the decrease. Finally, above MIT, the Dyakonov-Perel (DP) mechanism governs spin relaxation. The increase of the Fermi wave vector with the electron concentration makes the DP spin relaxation faster, and $`\tau _s`$ gets steadily shorter. The discontinuity in the concentration dependence of $`\tau _s`$, observed at MIT, suggests that at this concentration spin relaxation in the insulator phase (via anisotropic exchange) is faster than in the metallic phase (DP). This conclusion agrees with the results of theoretical calculations for dielectric and metallic phases (see below); however, we cannot propose any quantitative theory of spin relaxation in the MIT region.

A common feature of all the spin relaxation mechanisms based on spin precession in random magnetic fields is that they can be suppressed by applying a longitudinal magnetic field. Indeed, this is equivalent to placing the electrons in a rotating frame, where transverse components of random fields are reduced as a result of dynamical averaging. The characteristic magnetic field required to suppress spin relaxation can be found from the relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L\tau _c=1`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ is the Larmor frequency, and $`\tau _c`$ is the correlation time of the random field. We performed experiments in longitudinal magnetic fields, placing our samples into a superconducting solenoid immersed in liquid helium under exhaust pumping (at 2K). This setup did not allow to measure the Hanle effect; however we were able to detect changes in spin relaxation time by measuring the dependence of $`\rho _c`$ on the magnetic field. Since we used excitation with light of alternating helicity, and detected the polarization signal at the modulation frequency (26.6 kHz), the field-induced circular polarization of PL  did not contribute into the measured signal, which was, respectively, entirely due to optical orientation of electron spins. The detected increase of $`\rho _c`$ with magnetic field was therefore associated with suppression of spin relaxation, and characteristic magnetic fields determined for each sample were used to calculate $`\tau _c`$. The results are shown by triangles in Fig.3. We were unable to measure $`\tau _c`$ for samples with donor concentration higher than 4$`10^{15}`$ cm-3 because strong magnetic fields required caused shifts of the PL spectral lines, which resulted in strong parasite signals due to the spectral dependence of $`\rho _c`$. Such measurements at higher donor concentrations can be possibly done using time-resolved techniques. The value of $`\tau _c`$ for the sample with donor concentration of $`10^{14}`$ cm-3, where $`\tau _c>\tau _s`$, and the regime of isolated donors is supposed to be realized , was calculated from experimental data by use of a more complicated procedure, as described in details in Ref.10.

One can see that the measured values of $`\tau _c`$ fall into the nanosecond and sub-nanosecond range. Therefore, $`\tau _c`$ cannot be associated with the nuclear spin system which has much longer relaxation times (Chapter 2 of Ref.4), and must be attributed to electrons. This means that $`\tau _c`$ is in fact the local spin lifetime at a fixed donor; formally, this can be written as a decay time of the electron-spin correlation function:

$$\tau _c=\frac{1}{S\left(S+1\right)N_D}\underset{i}{}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝐒_i(0)𝐒_i(t)𝑑t$$
(3)
where angular brackets denote quantum-mechanical averaging, $`i`$ numerates donors, $`N_D`$ stands for the total number of donors in the crystal.

Due to various spin-conserving processes providing spin transfer within the impurity band, $`\tau _c`$ indeed can be much shorter than the spin lifetime of the entire electron ensemble. For donor-bound electrons at low temperature, the most relevant mechanism of spin transfer is exchange interaction of electrons localized at adjacent donors. This conclusion is qualitatively consistent with the steep decrease of $`\tau _c`$ with donor concentration - this is a consequence of increased overlap of electron wave functions. The estimation we performed using this model (see dotted line in Fig.3; details of calculations are given in the following section), indeed shows a good agreement with all the available experimental data on bulk samples, i.e. at concentrations from $`5.510^{14}cm^3`$ to $`410^{15}cm^3`$. At lower $`n_D`$, the exponential concentration dependence, characteristic for the exchange mechanism, gives very long $`\tau _c`$, which becomes much longer than corresponding spin relaxation times at concentrations of order and below $`10^{14}cm^3`$. This fact suggests that additional mechanisms of correlation decay may be significant at low donor concentrations, where the exchange interaction is less effective. This conclusion is backed by the data of Weisbuch, who reported the spin relaxation time as long as 20ns in a bulk GaAs sample with $`n_D=10^{13}cm^3`$. At such a low donor concentration, the regime of isolated donors must have been realized, which would have resulted in a shorter $`\tau _s`$, about 5ns, due to spin precession in the fluctuation nuclear field. A longer time observed indicates that, most likely, $`\tau _c`$ in that sample was rather short; however the specific reason for shortening the correlation time is not clear. One of the possible mechanisms, namely exchange interaction with free conduction-band electrons, was studied in Ref.10. It was shown that additional electrons present in space-charge layers of doped heterostructures can significantly reduce $`\tau _c`$. In presence of additional electrons, the spin lifetime in a GaAs layers in a MBE-grown multilayer structure (with the nominal doping level of $`10^{14}cm^3`$) was as long as 290 ns, which corresponds to $`\tau _c0.1ns`$. Recharging the GaAs layer under illumination allowed to reduce the spin lifetime nearly 100-fold , down to 5ns, while $`\tau _c`$ became as long as 17ns (these data are shown in Fig.3). The correlation time of 17ns is still much shorter that what can be expected of exchange interaction at $`n_D=10^{13}cm^3`$. Possibly, some background concentration of free electrons remained in the layer even under illumination, which would have explained why $`\tau _c`$ was shorter than expected in this specific sample. However, it remains unclear whether or not delocalized electrons can be present in bulk samples at liquid-helium temperatures. Our data do not give an unambiguous answer to this question, and the issue of mechanisms of correlation decay in samples with low donor concentrations remains open for future research.

## IV Theory

### A Isolating phase $`(n_D<2\times 10^{16})`$

In order to estimate whether or not the exchange interaction can provide the observed values of $`\tau _c`$, it is worth to note that the exponential dependence of the exchange constant $`J`$ on the inter-donor distance must result in an exponential decrease of $`\tau _c`$ with increasing donor concentration. In the limit of extremely low concentrations, only nearest neighbours contribute into the exchange interaction. The distribution function of the distance to the nearest neighbour has the maximum at $`r_10.54n_D^{1/3}`$. At higher concentrations, second-nearest neighbours having the peak of the distribution function at $`r_20.74n_D^{1/3}`$, and third–nearest neighbours ($`r_30.8n_D^{1/3}`$), also contribute into the interaction. It is easy to estimate that at $`10^{15}cm^3n_D10^{16}cm^3`$ the interaction with the nearest neighbour dominates, though second and third neighbours also contribute. Therefore, the correlation time can be estimated as:

$$\tau _c\mathrm{}/\xi J(r_c)$$
(4)
where $`r_c=\beta n_D^{1/3},`$ $`\beta `$ and $`\xi `$ are numerical factors of the order of one, $`J(R)=0.82E_B(R/a_B)^{5/2}\mathrm{exp}(2R/a_B)`$ (Ref.19). The value $`r_c=\beta n_D^{1/3}`$ has the meaning of the average characteristic distance between effectively interacting donors at the given concentration. Therefore, one should expect $`\beta `$ to be in between 0.54 and 0.8. Fig.3 shows that a good fit to the available experimental data for bulk samples by the Eq.(4) is reached at $`\beta =0.65`$ , $`\xi =0.8`$ (Fig.3, dotted line). In spite of some scattering of experimental points, the agreement with the model at very reasonable values of parameters is remarkable. This is indeed an evidence that $`\tau _c`$ in this concentration range is governed by the isotropic part of exchange interaction. One cannot exclude, however, that there exist other physical processes dominating the decay of the single-donor spin correlation (Eq.(3)) at low donor concentration, where the exchange interaction is ineffective. Since experimental data in this concentration range are insufficient, we consider it premature to include in the theoretical treatment specific mechanisms of the correlation decay which may be relevant here (see discussion at the end of the previous section). In the following, we will use the experimentally determined values of $`\tau _c`$ to calculate spin relaxation times.

With the knowledge of the concentration dependence of $`\tau _c`$, it becomes possible to calculate the contributions into the spin relaxation rate coming from hyperfine interaction and from anisotropic exchange interaction, and therefore to find out $`\tau _s`$ in the insulating phase. The expression for the spin relaxation time of donor-bound electrons due to hyperfine interaction with lattice nuclei was derived by Dyakonov and Perel. At zero external magnetic field it reads:

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{SN}}=\frac{2}{3}\omega _N^2\tau _c,$$
(5)
where $`\omega _N`$ is the frequency of the electron-spin precession in an effective fluctuating magnetic field produced by the nuclear spins within the electron orbit. For shallow donors in GaAs $`\omega _N^2^{1/2}=210^8s^1`$ (Ref 10). The spin dynamics of isolated localized electrons interacting only with nuclei (this case is possibly realized at donor concentrations of the order of, or less then, $`10^{14}cm^3`$) has been considered theoretically in Refs.14 and 20. Eq.(5), valid when $`\omega _N^2^{1/2}\tau _c1`$, is a result of motional averaging of the random hyperfine fields, acting upon the electron spin. As discussed above, the motional narrowing at $`n_D>110^{15}cm^3`$ is most likely due to rapid flip-flop transitions induced by the exchange interaction. In the ensemble of randomly distributed donors, these flip-flop transitions can be interpreted as jumping of a chosen spin over different donors. The spin, on the average, spends the time equal to $`\tau _c`$ at each of the donors it visits. Due to the anisotropy of the exchange interaction, each jump is accompanied by rotation of the spin through a small angle $`\gamma `$. This results in spin relaxation with the characteristic time $`\tau _{sa}`$, given by the expression:

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{sa}}=\frac{2}{3}\gamma ^2\tau _c^1,$$
(6)
The mean squared value of $`\gamma `$ as a function of the inter-donor distance $`R`$ can be calculated numerically using Eq.(16) of Ref.15, which gives the following approximate expression for $`\gamma ^2(R)`$ valid within the range of inter-donor distances from 1 to 20 Bohr radii :

$`\gamma ^2(R)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{}^3}{m\sqrt{2mE_g}E_Ba_B^3}}\times `$ (8)
$`\times \left(0.323+0.436\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a_B}}\right)+0.014\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a_B}}\right)^2\right)`$
where $`m`$ is the electron mass, $`E_B`$ and $`a_B`$ are the Bohr energy and the Bohr radius of the donor-bound electron, respectively; $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless factor at the cubic in $`k`$ term in the conduction-band Hamiltonian (Chapter 2 of Ref.4). For GaAs, $`\alpha `$ is known to be about 0.07 (Chapter 3 of Ref.4); here we use the value 0.063, determined in Ref.21 from spin-flip Raman scattering.

We took $`R_{av}=0.65\left(n_D\right)^{1/3}`$ for the average inter-donor distance relevant for the exchange interaction, as the above considerations suggest. The solid line in Fig.3 represents the theoretical concentration dependence of $`\tau _s`$, calculated as $`\tau _s=\left(1/\tau _{sn}+1/\tau _{sa}\right)^1`$. The concentration dependence of the correlation time $`\tau _c`$ at $`5\times 10^{14}cm^3<n_D<4\times 10^{15}cm^3`$ is taken from the experiment, while an extrapolation by Eq.(4) is used at $`4\times 10^{15}cm^3<n_D<2\times 10^{16}cm^3`$.

### B Metallic phase $`(n_D>2\times 10^{16})`$

The spin relaxation time at donor concentrations over 2$`\times 10^{16}`$ cm-3 , i.e. in the metallic phase, has been calculated assuming that the electron mean spin is accumulated near the Fermi level and that the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ $`k_BT`$. According to Chapter 3 of Ref.4, if the electron momentum scattering is dominated by collisions with charged impurities, the spin relaxation time of electrons with energy $`E`$ is:

$$\tau _S=\frac{315}{16}\alpha ^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2E_g}{E^3\tau _p(E)}$$
(9)
where $`\tau _p`$ is the momentum relaxation time. In the degenerate case we deal with, $`E`$ stands for the Fermi energy $`E_F=(3\pi ^2)^{2/3}\mathrm{}^2n_D^{2/3}/2m`$. To calculate $`\tau _p`$ as a function of $`n_D`$, we used the Brooks-Herring method , i.e. evaluated, in the Born approximation, the scattering cross-section of an electron off the Coulomb potential screened by the degenerate electron gas. This approach gives the following expression for $`\tau _p`$:

$$\frac{1}{\tau _p}=\frac{\pi n_De^4}{\epsilon ^2E_F^{3/2}\sqrt{2m}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(1+x\right)\frac{x}{1+x}\right]$$
(10)
where $`x=\frac{8mE_Fr_0^2}{\mathrm{}^2}=3^{1/3}\pi ^{5/3}a_Bn_D^{1/3}`$ , and the screening radius $`r_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\pi }{3}\right)^{1/6}\left(a_Bn_D^{1/3}\right)^{1/2}`$. Substituting Eq.$`\left(9\right)`$ into Eq.$`\left(8\right)`$, and assuming that $`E=E_F`$, we obtain the formula for the spin relaxation time:

$$\tau _S=\frac{315}{16}\alpha ^2\frac{E_g}{\pi ^5\mathrm{}^3a_B^2n_D^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(1+x\right)\frac{x}{1+x}\right]$$
(11)
which was used to calculate the theoretical curve for $`\tau _s\left(n_D\right)`$ at $`n_D>210^{16}cm^3`$.

One can see that the theory demonstrates a fairy good agreement with the experimental data all over the studied concentration range, both in dielectric and in metallic phase. A slight systematical shift of the calculated curve towards shorter $`\tau _s`$ in the metallic region may be due to overestimation of the momentum relaxation time in our calculations. Measurement of the low-temperature electron mobility along with the experiments on spin orientation may be helpful in order to clarify this point. And, of course, the peculiarity observed near MIT demands for detailed experimental and theoretical studies.

## V Conclusion

Our results show that natural limits for the low-temperature spin lifetime in bulk GaAs and other cubic compound semiconductors are placed by stochastic precession of electron spins in random fields created by the hyperfine interaction and by the spin-orbit interaction. Against commonplace expectations, the crossover between these two main modes of spin decay in GaAs occurs not at the metal-to-insulator transition ($`n_D`$ = 2$``$1016cm-3) but at lower donor concentrations ($`n_D(24).10^{15}`$cm-3), where electrons are bound to donors. A peculiarity related to the metal-to-insulator transition (MIT) is clearly seen in the dependence of the spin lifetime on doping near $`n_D`$ = 2$``$1016cm-3. This peculiarity is due to changing the specific mechanism through which the spin-orbit coupling affects the spin lifetime: in the metallic phase it is the Dyakonov-Perel (DP) mechanism, while in the insulator phase it is the anisotropic exchange interaction. Maximal value of $`\tau _s`$ of free Fermi-edge electrons in heavily-doped samples is reached just above the metal-to-insulator transition, where the Dyakonov-Perel relaxation is the weakest. Another maximum of $`\tau _s`$ is in the dielectric phase, at an optimal concentration determined by the interplay of the hyperfine interaction and the anisotropic exchange interaction. Specifically in bulk GaAs this is the absolute maximum of the spin lifetime, about 200 ns. However, this value is the lifetime of the mean spin of the entire electron ensemble. The spin lifetime at an individual donor, often discussed in relation to quantum information processing, is limited either by the period of precession in the fluctuation nuclear field ($`5ns`$), or by the spin transfer to other donors, characterized by the correlation time $`\tau _c`$. In our experiments, $`\tau _c`$ never exceeded $`20ns`$; in samples with the longest spin relaxation times ($`\tau _s180ns`$ at $`n_D(24)\times 10^{15}cm^3`$), $`\tau _c`$ was of the order of 0.2ns. $`\tau _c`$ is a very important parameter that determines the relative contributions of hyperfine and spin-orbit interactions and, ultimately, the spin lifetime of localized electrons for a given semiconductor. In bulk GaAs samples at $`n_D>5\times 10^{14}cm^3`$, it is governed by the exchange hopping of the electron spin over the impurity band. At lower concentrations, it may be affected by other processes, for instance, by exchange interaction with delocalized electrons. This fact opens a possibility to realize optical or electrical control over the spin lifetime of localized electrons in semiconductor structures.

## VI Acknowledgments

We are grateful to I.A.Merkulov for very helpful discussions. Partial support of the Russian Basic Research Foundation (grants 00-02-16991 and 01-02-17906), CRDF (grant RP1-2252), Volkswagen Foundation, UK EPSRC, DARPA/SPINS, and ONR is acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the study of non-perturbative aspects of field theories, solitons and instantons have played crucial roles. Especially, gauge theories on tori possess various topological characters which comes from the non-triviality of the topology of the tori, and have been studied intensively, for example, in order to explain quark confinement .

Gauge theories on four-dimensional tori $`T^4`$ have the mysterious duality, that is, Fourier-Mukai-Nahm duality, which is one-to-one correspondence (more strongly hyperKähler isometry) between instanton moduli space on the torus $`T^4`$ and that on the dual torus $`\widehat{T}^4`$ . The duality transformation is called Nahm transformation which originated in the application of ADHM construction  to BPS monopoles . One of the interesting points is that under the Nahm transformation, the rank of the gauge group and the instanton number are interchanged. Physically, the transformation is just the T-duality transformation.

Gauge theoretical analysis are often strong to study D-brane dynamics, such as tachyon condensation . Nahm transformation is taken for the gauge fields on D-brane and hence is expected to describe more in detail in some points than usual T-duality transformation and to reveal new aspects of D-brane dynamics.

In the present paper, we study gauge theories on tori in diverse dimensions and take explicit Nahm-like transformations via the Dirac zero modes in the background of the gauge fields. We construct various explicit gauge fields which have constant curvatures. This specifies the corresponding D-brane systems. We find the explicit Dirac zero modes in the background of the gauge fields which show consistency with the family index theorem . By using the zero mode, we give new gauge fields on the dual torus in canonical ways, which is consistent with the T-duality transformation of the corresponding D-brane systems including DD̄ systems. We focus on two- and four-dimensional tori. The higher-dimensional extension is straightforward.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we discuss gauge theories on two-dimensional tori and T-duality transformation of D0-D2 brane systems. In section 3, we discuss gauge theories on four-dimensional tori and T-duality transformation of D0-D4 brane systems, which is Nahm transformation. In section 4, we discuss the higher-dimensional extensions. Finally in section 5, we give conclusions and some comments on noncommutative extensions of the present discussion.

## 2 Gauge fields on $`T^2`$ and T-duality

In this section, we discuss gauge fields on two-tori $`T^2`$ and the gauge theoretical descriptions of T-duality transformations of D0-D2 brane systems. We first give a general scheme of two-dimensional version of Nahm transformation and then apply it to some explicit gauge fields. The key point in the transformation is to find the Dirac zero mode. The result shows a beautiful duality and is consistent with T-duality. We mainly treat a flux solution where the rank of the gauge field is $`N`$ and the first Chern number111In the present paper, we use the word “the $`n`$-th Chern number” as the integral of the $`n`$-th Chern character. (the magnetic flux) is $`k`$ which corresponds to $`k`$ D0-branes and $`N`$ D2-branes on $`T^2`$. Finally we comment on the generalization to non-flux solutions including D0-D̄0 branes on D2-branes on $`T^2`$.

For simplicity, we set the both periods of the torus $`T^2`$ $`2\pi `$.

First of all, we shall recall general results of Atiyah-Singer family index theorem. The detailed discussion is given later soon.

Main theorem is:

ch(ind
/Dξ)=T2nch(𝒫)ch(E),chsubscriptind
/D𝜉subscriptsuperscript𝑇2𝑛ch𝒫ch𝐸\displaystyle\mbox{ch}({\mbox{ind}}\mbox{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}_{\xi})=\int_{T^{2n}}\mbox{ch}({\cal P})\mbox{ch}(E), (3)
where $`\text{ch}(E):=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{exp}(F/2\pi i)`$ represents the Chern character of the vector bundle $`E`$ over a $`2n`$-dimensional torus and $`F`$ is the curvature two form of $`E`$. The $`i`$-th Chern character $`\text{ch}_i(E)`$ is concretely represented as

$`\text{ch}_1(E)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{Tr}F,\text{ch}_2(E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{Tr}FF,\mathrm{}.`$
$`𝒫`$ are called the Poincaré bundle. On even dimensional tori, the Dirac operator $`\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ D\hfill \end{array}_\xi `$ is decomposed into two Weyl components $`𝒟_\xi `$ and $`\overline{𝒟}_\xi `$. ind
/Dξsubscriptind
/D𝜉\mbox{ind}\mbox{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}_{\xi} is then defined as ind
/Dξ:=ker𝒟¯ξker𝒟ξassignsubscriptind
/D𝜉kernelsubscript¯𝒟𝜉kernelsubscript𝒟𝜉\mbox{ind}\mbox{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}_{\xi}:=\ker{\bar{\cal D}}_{\xi}-\ker{\cal D}_{\xi}, which belong to $`K_0`$-group over the dual torus $`\widehat{T}^{2n}`$. If the dimension of either $`\mathrm{ker}\overline{𝒟}_\xi `$ or $`\mathrm{ker}𝒟_\xi `$ is constant with respect to $`\xi `$, the index theorem implies the dimensions of both $`\mathrm{ker}\overline{𝒟}_\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{ker}𝒟_\xi `$ are constant, and then $`\mathrm{ker}\overline{𝒟}_\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{ker}𝒟_\xi `$ are vector bundles over dual torus. Physically this is just the DD̄ system. In particular if $`\mathrm{ker}𝒟_\xi `$ is trivial, the index bundle ind
/Dξsubscriptind
/D𝜉\mbox{ind}\mbox{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}_{\xi} becomes so called zero-mode bundle $`\mathrm{ker}\overline{𝒟}_\xi =:\widehat{E}`$ over the dual torus.

Now we define the two-dimensional Nahm transformation explicitly. Suppose that the gauge group is $`U(N)`$ and the first Chern number is $`k`$. The coordinates of torus $`T^2`$ and the dual torus are denoted by $`(x_1,x_2)`$ and $`(\xi _1,\xi _2)`$, respectively. The indices run as follows: space indices $`\mu ,\nu =1,2`$; D2 indices $`u,v=1,\mathrm{},N`$; D0 indices $`p,q=1,\mathrm{},k`$.

Let us consider two-dimensional (massless) Dirac operator on $`T^2`$:

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ D\hfill \end{array}:=\gamma _\mu D_\mu =\gamma _\mu (_\mu +A_\mu ),`$
where $`\gamma _\mu =i\sigma _\mu ,\mu =1,2`$. ($`\sigma _i`$ are usual Pauli matrices.) The Dirac operator act on the section of the tensor product of the vector bundle $`E`$ and spinor bundle $`S`$ on $`T^2`$.

Now we take the tensor product of (the pull-back of) $`E`$ and the Poincaré bundle $`P`$ on $`T^2\times \widehat{T}^2`$ The connection of the Poincaré bundle is given by $`i\xi _\mu `$. Hence the connection of this tensor bundle is $`D_\mu (\xi )=_\mu +A_\mu i\xi _\mu `$ and the Dirac operator is as follows:

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ D\hfill \end{array}_\xi `$ $`:=`$ $`\gamma _\mu D_\mu (\xi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 𝒟_\xi \\ \overline{𝒟}_\xi & 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ D\hfill \end{array}_\xi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒟_\xi \overline{𝒟}_\xi & 0\\ 0& \overline{𝒟}_\xi 𝒟_\xi \end{array}\right).`$
Let us suppose that the (chiral-decomposed) Dirac operator $`𝒟_\xi `$ has no smooth solution. Then the (family) index theorem says that the Dirac operator $`\overline{𝒟}_\xi `$ has independent normalized $`k`$ solutions:

$`\overline{𝒟}_\xi \psi =0,`$ (7)
where $`\psi (x,\xi )`$ is $`N\times k`$ matrix in which the each row vector $`\psi ^p`$ is the independent solution and is called the Dirac zero mode. The gauge field on the dual torus can be constructed by the orthonormal projection onto the zero-mode bundle: $`\widehat{D}_\mu =P\widehat{}_\mu =(\psi \psi ^{})\widehat{}_\mu `$, or explicitly,

$`\widehat{A}_\mu (\xi )={\displaystyle _{T^2}}d^2x\psi ^{}\widehat{}_\mu \psi .`$ (8)
The dual gauge field is on the dual torus and anti-Hermite. Hence the gauge group is actually $`U(k)`$. According to the family index theorem (3) :

$`\mathrm{rank}(\widehat{E})=C_1(E),\widehat{C}_1=\mathrm{rank}(E).`$
This means that the two-dimensional Nahm transformation exchanges the rank of gauge group and the first Chern number, which is consistent with T-duality transformation of D0-D2 brane system.

In the general arguments above, we assumed the existence of vector bundles with $`\mathrm{ker}𝒟_\xi =0`$. Such a vector bundle actually exists for each topological charge with positive first Chern number. It can be described by a simple solution which describes $`k`$ D0-branes as flux on $`N`$ D2-branes:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=e^{ikx_2/N}U,\mathrm{\Omega }_2=V,UV=e^{2\pi ik/N}VU,`$ (9)
$`A_1=0,A_2={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{N}}x_1,F_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{N}},C_1={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{T^2}}d^2xF_{12}=k.`$ (10)
Here the matrices $`U`$ and $`V`$ are $`N\times N`$ matrices defined by

$`U_{uv}=\delta _{uv}e^{\frac{2\pi iku}{N}},V_{uv}=\delta _{u+1,v}+\delta _{uN}\delta _{v1}.`$ (11)
The patching matrices (transition functions) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x_1,x_2),\mathrm{\Omega }_2(x_1,x_2)`$ specify the topology of the bundle and act on the section $`\psi `$ in the fundamental representation of the gauge group as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x_1,x_2)\psi (x_1,x_2)=\psi (x_1+2\pi ,x_2),\mathrm{\Omega }_2(x_1,x_2)\psi (x_1,x_2)=\psi (x_1,x_2+2\pi ).`$ (12)
In fact, the patching matrices (9) are defined so that the cocycle condition for the vector bundle holds

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1^1(x_1+2\pi ,x_2)\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1(x_1+2\pi ,x_2+2\pi )\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x_1,x_2+2\pi )\mathrm{\Omega }_2(x_1,x_2)=1,$$

and the covariant derivatives (10) also satisfy the following compatibility conditions:

$`(_\mu +A_\mu )(x_1+2\pi ,x_2)=\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x_1,x_2)(_\mu +A_\mu )(x_1,x_2)\mathrm{\Omega }_1^1(x_1,x_2),`$
$`(_\mu +A_\mu )(x_1,x_2+2\pi )=\mathrm{\Omega }_2(x_1,x_2)(_\mu +A_\mu )(x_1,x_2)\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1(x_1,x_2)`$
for $`\mu =1,2`$. The general form of the section is given by

$`\psi _u(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[ix_1\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{k}{N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{2\pi }}+u+Ns\right)+p\right\}\right]\varphi ^p\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{2\pi }}+u+Ns+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{k}}p\right).`$ (13)
One can confirm that this actually satisfies Eq. (12) for each $`u`$.

This section actually has no $`\mathrm{ker}𝒟_\xi `$. Now let us solve the Dirac equation (7) and give the form of the dual bundle. The zero mode have to have the general form (13) and satisfies the Dirac equation and the normalized condition. The solution is

$`\psi _u^p(\xi ,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\pi k}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[ix_1\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{k}{N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{2\pi }}+u+Ns\right)+p\right\}\right]`$ (14)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\xi _2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{2\pi }}+u+Ns{\displaystyle \frac{N}{k}}(\xi _1p)\right\}\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\pi {\displaystyle \frac{k}{N}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{2\pi }}+u+Ns{\displaystyle \frac{N}{k}}(\xi _1p)\right\}^2\right].`$
This solution have several interesting points. First, the summation over $`p`$ in the general section (13) is dropped out in the zero-mode because of the normalization condition and hence label $`p`$ runs just from 1 to $`k`$, which suggests the index theorem on the number of Dirac zero mode. Second, if we take the opposite sign for the first Chern number, then the Gaussian factor in the third line of Eq. (14) diverges and there is no normalized zero-mode of Dirac operator $`\overline{𝒟}`$. Instead in this case, there is $`k`$ normalized zero mode of $`𝒟`$, which also clearly suggests the index theorem.

Finally we get the dual gauge field from Eq. (8):

$`\widehat{A}_1=2\pi i{\displaystyle \frac{N}{k}}\xi _2,\widehat{A}_2=0,\widehat{F}_{12}=2\pi i{\displaystyle \frac{N}{k}},\widehat{C}_1={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{T}^2}}d^2\xi \widehat{F}_{12}=N.`$
where the patching matrices are

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1=\widehat{V},\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=e^{2\pi iN\xi _1/k}\widehat{U}.`$ (15)
where $`\widehat{U},\widehat{V}`$ are $`k\times k`$ matrices like (11) such as $`\widehat{U}\widehat{V}=e^{2\pi i\frac{N}{k}}\widehat{V}\widehat{U}`$. We also note that the result is already expected at the stage of the zero mode (14). It is in fact compatible with the dual patching matrices (15) except for the factor $`e^{ix_2}`$ which disappears in the integration over torus $`T^2`$.

Thus, we can show that the vector bundles defined by Eq. (9) and (10) are transformed to those of the same type. In particular, the transformation exchange the rank of gauge group and the first Chern number beautifully. As stated above, one can also begin with vector bundles with negative first Chern numbers. In this case, one obtains some systems on D̄2-branes. Only the trivial bundle, that is, the vector bundle with zero first Chern number, can not be transformed in the context of these differential geometry. In fact, from the index theorem the rank of the dual ‘bundle’ is zero. This is a coherent sheaf on the dual torus and can be treated in the framework of the algebraic geometry.

There are some simple generalizations. Let $`E_{(N,k)}`$ and $`\widehat{E}_{(k,N)}`$ be the bundle in question on torus $`T^2`$ and on the dual torus $`\widehat{T}^2`$, respectively. We can construct the product bundle $`E_{(N_1,k_1)}\mathrm{}E_{(N_n,k_n)}`$. In this case, the curvature is not a scalar matrix in general and the corresponding D0-brane is not regarded as a flux. Especially if $`k_i>0,k_j<0`$ for some $`i,j`$, then the D-brane configuration contains $`k_i`$ D0-branes and $`k_j`$ anti-D0-brane. In fact, when one consider the fluctuation around the solution, the fluctuation of the fields between the D-branes $`E_{(N_i,k_i)}`$ and $`E_{(N_j,k_j)}`$ have negative mass square, which implies that the fluctuation includes tachyon modes and the system is unstable. 222The fluctuation spectrum is studied in detail in, for example, . Similar situations are discussed in noncommutative cases in . It is interesting that we can take the explicit T-duality transformation of such DD̄ systems in the context of the gauge theories on D-branes in the present way. (See also .)

## 3 Gauge fields on $`T^4`$ and T-duality

In this section, we discuss anti-self-dual gauge fields on four-tori $`T^4`$ and gauge theoretical descriptions of T-duality transformation of D0-D4 brane systems which is known as Nahm transformation. General scheme of the transformation is the same as that of D0-D2. The important point is that this transformation preserves the self-duality of the gauge fields.

In this case, we have to consider usual four-dimensional theory. As the previous section, the Dirac operator with real parameter is defined as follows:

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ D\hfill \end{array}_\xi `$ $`:=`$ $`\gamma _\mu D_\mu (\xi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 𝒟_\xi \\ \overline{𝒟}_\xi & 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ D\hfill \end{array}_\xi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒟_\xi \overline{𝒟}_\xi & 0\\ 0& \overline{𝒟}_\xi 𝒟_\xi \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}D^2+\eta ^{()\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }& 0\\ 0& D^2+\eta ^{(+)\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right),`$
where $`D_\mu (\xi )=_\mu +A_\mu i\xi _\mu `$ and the gamma matrices are

$`\gamma _\mu `$ $`:=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e_\mu \\ \overline{e}_\mu & 0\end{array}\right).`$
The Euclidean 4-dimensional Pauli matrices are defined by

$`e_\mu :=(i\sigma _i,1),\overline{e}_\mu =(i\sigma _i,1)`$
and satisfy the following relations:

$`\overline{e}_\mu e_\nu =\delta _{\mu \nu }+i\eta _{\mu \nu }^{i(+)}\sigma _i,e_\mu \overline{e}_\nu =\delta _{\mu \nu }+i\eta _{\mu \nu }^{i()}\sigma _i.`$
Here $`\eta _{\mu \nu }^{i(\pm )}`$ are called ’t Hooft symbol and are anti-symmetric and (anti-)self-dual.

First let us consider four-dimensional Dirac operator with real parameter $`\xi _\mu `$. Suppose that the gauge group is $`U(N)`$ and the gauge field is anti-self-dual whose instanton number $`C_2`$ (the second Chern number) is $`k`$.

Here we suppose that the Dirac operator $`𝒟_\xi `$ has no smooth solution. Then index theorem implies that the Dirac operator $`\overline{𝒟}_\xi `$ has independent normalized $`k`$ solutions:

$`\overline{𝒟}_\xi \psi =0,`$ (19)
where the each column corresponds to the independent $`k`$ solution and hence $`\psi `$ can be considered as $`2N\times k`$ matrix. Then we can construct the gauge field on the dual torus $`\widehat{T}^4`$ just as in two-dimensional case:

$`\widehat{A}_\mu ={\displaystyle _{T^4}}𝑑x^4\psi ^{}\widehat{}_\mu \psi .`$
The second Chern number of the gauge field $`\widehat{A}`$ is $`N`$. This transformation is in fact one-to-one and called Nahm transformation.

In the following, we construct various (anti-)self-dual gauge field and take the Nahm transformation by solving the Dirac equations.

The first example is very simple. It is essentially given by the tensor product of the previous example on two-dimensional torus.

The anti-self-dual gauge field is given as follows:

$`A_1=0,A_2={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{N}}x_1\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N},A_3=0,A_4=\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{N}}x_3.`$ (20)
The curvature is

$`F_{12}=F_{34}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{N}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N}\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N}.`$
and the second Chern number is $`k^2`$. This bundle is constructed as tensor-like product $`E_{(N,k)}E_{(N,k)}`$. Because of the opposite twist, self-duality of the gauge field are realized. The gauge group is considered as $`U(N^2)`$.

The Dirac zero mode is essentially the product of two-dimensional case:

$`\psi _{uu^{}}^{pp^{}}(\xi ,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\pi k}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}e^{ix_1(\frac{k}{N}(\frac{x_2}{2\pi }+u+Ns)+p)}e^{2\pi i\xi _2(\frac{x_2}{2\pi }+u+Ns\frac{N}{k}(\xi _1p))}e^{\frac{\pi k}{N}(\frac{x_2}{2\pi }+u+Ns\frac{N}{k}(\xi _1p))^2}`$ (21)
$`\times e^{ix_3(\frac{k}{N}(\frac{x_4}{2\pi }+u^{}+Nt)+p^{})}e^{2\pi i\xi _4(\frac{x_4}{2\pi }+u^{}+Nt\frac{N}{k}(\xi _3p^{}))}e^{\frac{\pi k}{N}(\frac{x_4}{2\pi }+u^{}+Nt\frac{N}{k}(\xi _3p^{}))^2}.`$
Then the dual gauge field becomes

$`\widehat{A}_1=2\pi i{\displaystyle \frac{N}{k}}\xi _2\mathrm{𝟏}_{k\times k},\widehat{A}_2=0,\widehat{A}_3=\mathrm{𝟏}_{k\times k}2\pi i{\displaystyle \frac{N}{k}}\xi _4,\widehat{A}_4=0.`$
whose second Chern number is $`N^2`$ and gauge group is $`U(k^2)`$. So D0-brane charge and D4-brane charge are exchanged.

As discussed previously, there is a simple generalization of this: the Nahm transformation of $`(E_{(N_1,k_1)}E_{(N_1,k_1)})\mathrm{}(E_{(N_n,k_n)}E_{(N_n,k_n)})`$ where the rank of the gauge group is $`_{i=1}^nn_i^2`$ and the second Chern number is $`_{i=1}^nk_i^2`$. If we take $`_{i=1}^nk_i=0`$, then the first Chern number becomes all zero and D2-brane charges disappear. The discussion in the $`n=2,N_1=1,N_2=1,k_1=1,k_2=1`$ case coincides with that in . Alternatively, if we consider a self dual configuration as $`E_{(N_1,k_1)}E_{(N_1,k_1)}`$, it is transformed to the systems on D̄4-brane. Moreover, if one consider the direct sum of a anti-self-dual configuration and a self dual configuration, one can see that the fluctuations corresponding to the modes between them are negative and include the tachyonic modes similarly as discussed on the two-dimensional tori.

The previous example has the separate form between 1-2 direction and 3-4 direction. But we can treat the mixed version as follows. For simplicity, we focus on $`G=U(1),C_2=2`$.

The gauge field is given by

$`A_1=0,A_2={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}(x_1x_3),A_3=0,A_4={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}(x_1+x_3).`$
The field strength is

$`F_{12}=F_{34}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }},F_{14}=F_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}.`$
Now $`F_{14}`$ part contributes more to the second Chern number. Hence the number becomes two.

In this case, the corresponding section is of the form

$`\psi (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,t,p_2}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i(x_1x_3)\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{2\pi }}+s+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\right)i(x_1+x_3)\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_4}{2\pi }}+t+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\right)\right]`$ (22)
$`\times \varphi ^p({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{2\pi }}+s+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{x_4}{2\pi }}+t+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}).`$
This can also be written as

$`\psi (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,t,p_2}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[ix_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2x_4}{2\pi }}+s^{}\right)ix_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2+x_4+p}{2\pi }}+t^{}\right)\right]`$
$`\times \varphi ^p({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{2\pi }}+s+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{x_4}{2\pi }}+t+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}).`$
where $`s^{}:=st`$ and $`t^{}:=s+t+p`$ run over $`^2`$ densely. The fact explains the reason why $`p`$ is necessary in Eq. (22). In the process of solving the Dirac equation $`\overline{𝒟}_\xi \psi =0`$, one can see that the solutions are of the form

$`\psi ^p=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _+^p\\ \psi _{}^p\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ c\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i(x_1x_3){\displaystyle \frac{x_2^{}}{2\pi }}i(x_1+x_3){\displaystyle \frac{x_4^{}}{2\pi }}\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[(a_2(x_2^{})^2+a_4(x_4^{})^2+a_{24}x_2^{}x_4^{}+b_2x_2^{}+b_4x_4^{})\right]`$
where $`x_2^{}:=x_2+2\pi (s+p/2)`$, $`x_4^{}:=x_4+2\pi (t+p/2)`$, $`c,a_2,a_4,a_{24},b_2,b_4`$ and especially $`\mathrm{Re}(a_2)>0`$, $`\mathrm{Re}(a_4)>0`$. Solving the differential equations leads quadratic equations. Especially, the quadratic equation for $`c`$ is obtained:

$$c^2+2c1=0.$$

This equation has the two solutions: $`c=1\pm \sqrt{2}`$. On the other hand, both $`a_2`$ and $`a_4`$ are positive only when $`c=1+\sqrt{2}`$ because of $`a_2+a_4=(1+c)/2\pi `$. For fixed $`c`$, the rest variables $`a_2,a_4,a_{24},b_2,b_4`$ are determined uniquely. Thus we can confirm that there are two orthogonal Dirac zero-modes $`(\psi _+^p,\psi _{}^p)`$ for $`p=0,1`$.

Next, the $`\xi `$ dependence is determined by normalizing these zero-modes. We get

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _+^p\\ \psi _{}^p\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ c\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i(x_1x_3){\displaystyle \frac{x_2^{}}{2\pi }}i(x_1+x_3){\displaystyle \frac{x_4^{}}{2\pi }}\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Re}(X^t)\left(\begin{array}{cc}2a_2& a_{24}\\ a_{24}& 2a_4\end{array}\right)\mathrm{Re}(X)i\mathrm{Re}(X^t)\left(\begin{array}{cc}2a_2& a_{24}\\ a_{24}& 2a_4\end{array}\right)\mathrm{Im}(X)\right]`$
where

$$X=\left(\begin{array}{c}x_2^{}\\ x_4^{}\end{array}\right)+2\pi \left(\begin{array}{cc}1+c& 1c\\ 1c& 1+c\end{array}\right)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}(\xi _1+i\xi _2)+c(\xi _3+i\xi _4)\\ (\xi _3i\xi _4)+c(\xi _1i\xi _2)\end{array}\right).$$

Then the dual gauge field is obtained as

$$A_1=\frac{2\pi i}{2}(\xi _2+\xi _4)\mathrm{𝟏}_{2\times 2},A_2=0,A_3=\frac{2\pi i}{2}(\xi _2+\xi _4)\mathrm{𝟏}_{2\times 2},A_4=0.$$

One can then confirm that the topological numbers agree with the ones expected from the T-duality or the family index theorem (3), in particular the rank is two and $`\widehat{C}_2=1`$.

## 4 Generalizations

We can easily generalize the previous discussions to higher-dimensional case. The family index theorem (3) holds in every even dimensions and the zero-mode bundle can be constructed in fact even if we suppose that there is no kernel of $`𝒟`$. Hence we can perform the explicit higher-dimensional Nahm transformation for the constant curvature gauge field in . The zero mode can be constructed as the product of the two-dimensional zero-mode (14) as in four dimensional one (21).

Note that we can construct any other constant curvature bundles in terms of Heisenberg modules  and take their Nahm transformations for arbitrary dimensional tori. Heisenberg modules are known as projective modules (noncommutative analogue of vector bundles) over noncommutative tori with constant curvature connections , but they can also be used in commutative cases. Recall the constant curvature bundles we have used in the body of this paper. The forms of their sections, for example Eq. (13) and Eq. (22), are essentially determined by $`\varphi ^p`$ for fixed Chern characters. The $`\varphi ^p`$’s are nothing but the Heisenberg modules. Generally, the Heisenberg modules over $`n`$ dimensional (noncommutative) tori are described as functions on $`^d\times ^d^{}\times F`$ where $`F`$ is a finite group and $`2d+d^{}=n`$. They are specified by defining the action of the generators of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(T^n)`$. Here $`^d^{}`$ part corresponds to that the bundle is trivial for the corresponding $`d^{}`$ directions of the torus. This means that its Nahm dual module is not described by a vector bundle. Hence we consider the case $`^d\times F`$ where $`n=2d`$. Then one can see that the $`\varphi ^p`$ in Eq. (13) is the case $`d=1,F=_k`$. Similarly, the example (20) corresponds to the case $`d=2,F=_k\times _k`$. $`\varphi ^p`$ in Eq. (22) and its dual bundle are then the case $`d=2,F=1`$ and $`d=2,F=_2`$, respectively. Any Heisenberg module has a constant curvature. Moreover, when one construct the twisted bundles corresponding to the Heisenberg module as in our examples, the constant curvature on the Heisenberg module is compatible with that on the twisted bundle. Namely, our examples of the Nahm transformations are essentially those accomplished by using Heisenberg modules and the extensions to any other constant curvature bundles can also be done in terms of Heisenberg modules.

## 5 Conclusions and Discussions

We studied the transformations of gauge fields which correspond to the T-duality transformations on even dimensional tori. On two-dimensional tori, after expanding general arguments of the transformations, we presented the explicit example, where we considered a constant curvature bundle for any topological number and took the Nahm-like transformation. The dual bundle was confirmed to be the same type as the original constant curvature bundle, and the result certainly agrees with the T-duality transformations. On four-dimensional tori, we considered the instanton configurations of gauge fields and their transformations, which are just the Nahm transformations. Applying the results to the two-dimensional situations, we constructed various constant curvature bundle and took their Nahm transformations explicitly. One can also consider the direct sum of these constant curvature bundle and their Nahm-like transformations. We saw that these situations generally express the T-duality transformations of DD̄ systems. Finally we commented about higher dimensional extensions. In particular, for any topological number the corresponding constant curvature bundle and their Nahm-like transformations can be obtained in terms of Heisenberg modules.

One of the future direction is noncommutative extensions of the Nahm transformation. A noncommutative Nahm transformation is discussed formally in , however the noncommutative Nahm transformation have not ever performed. From the viewpoint along this paper, one may deal with the noncommutative version of the twisted bundles discussed in . However, it is difficult to solve the Dirac equation consistently since it is a differential equation on noncommutative space. One may also consider Heisenberg modules. However, one arrives at the same problem if one tries to obtain the Dirac zero modes by solving a differential equation. Another approach is to define the tensor product between two Heisenberg modules directly like as in . Also, noncommutative versions of index theorems may be useful. Anyway, this problem seems to be relevant to the Morita equivalence  of DD̄ system on noncommutative tori  from physical viewpoints. We would like to report such directions elsewhere.

Acknowledgments

We would greatly like to thank T. Takayanagi for collaboration at the early stage of this work. We are very grateful to A. Kato and Y. Matsuo for advice, and P. van Baal, M. Furuta, A. Schwarz and Y. Terashima for useful comments. We also acknowledge the Summer Institute 2001 at Fuji-Yoshida where this work began, and the YITP at Kyoto university during the YITP workshop YITP-W-02-04 where this work was completed. The work of M.H. was supported in part by the Japan Securities Scholarship Foundation (#12-3-0403). The work of H.K. was supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.