text:
# Determination of Substellar Mass Function of Young Open Clusters Using 2MASS and GSC Data

## 1. Introduction

Recent surveys have found a significant population of low-mass stars, brown dwarfs and planetary-mass objects in young open clusters. Since low-mass objects evolve little over the lifetime of the Universe, the present day mass function of these objects is a good representation of the Initial Mass Function (IMF). The mass function in this low-mass regime is however poorly known due to faintness of these objects and also due to uncertainty in the mass-luminosity relations. Low-mass objects at or below the Hydrogen Burning Mass Limit (HBML) of 0.08 M are known to be warmer and hence more luminous when young although they cool rapidly and fade with age (Baraffe et al. 1998). The combination of youth and proximity in some open clusters make them ideal targets for searches of low-mass objects below the HBML particularly at infrared wavelengths. In the present study we have adopted a statistical approach to determine the mass function (dN/dM $``$ M) of objects in the mass range $`0.5M_{}`$ to 0.025–0.05 M using data of three open clusters namely IC 348, $`\sigma `$ Orionis and Pleiades.

## 2. Sample Selection and Analysis

We have used the data from two extended sky surveys — 2MASS Second Incremental Release and the latest version of GSC — on the three open clusters. The limiting magnitudes of 16.5, 15.5, 15 and 21 in the $`J`$, $`H`$, $`K`$ and $`F`$ (POSS II IIIa-F) passbands, respectively, enable us to probe down to 0.025 M in IC 348 and $`\sigma `$ Orionis and 0.04M in Pleiades. Unlike most other previous studies which rely on confirming candidate low-mass objects through spectroscopy we use a statistical approach to estimate the number of low-mass objects. In this approach it is important to use several control fields close to each cluster to subtract the contribution of foreground and background objects. The nature of these two extended surveys permitted us to use several control fields and variable field sizes. Table 1 lists the positions and radii of the fields chosen for the three clusters.

In the first stage of analysis we merged the 2MASS and the GSC sources by taking 2MASS coordinates and cross correlating them with the GSC catalogue. A search radius of 2′′was found to be the optimum value for the cross correlation being small enough to reject spurious and multiple detections and large enough to include any minor positional uncertainties in the two catalogues. Selection criteria to pick out cluster members were derived by inspecting various colour magnitude diagrams (CMDs). The use of the F versus (F–R) CMD overcomes the degeneracies between the mass and distance found in the Ks versus (J–Ks) CMD, and minimizes the overlap between reddened background stars and low-mass members of the cluster. This leads to a more efficient rejection criteria for non members which is accomplished using the empirical data from Leggett (1992) and the theoretical isochrones of Baraffe et al. (1998). The selection criteria for low-mass members, derived using the suitably distance-scaled and extinction corrected model isochrones of Baraffe et al. (1998), are listed in Table 2. The sources satisfying the criteria are further statistically filtered for possible contaminants using the control fields. Details of the procedure are discussed in Tej et al. (2002). Finally, the masses of the selected candidates are determined by comparing observed magnitudes with those derived from evolutionary models (Baraffe et al. 1998 and Chabrier et al. 2000).

## 3. Results

We first carried out a detailed study for IC 348. For this cluster, we derived the mass function using the solar metallicity models of Baraffe et al (1998) and dusty models of Chabrier et al. (2000) both of which gave similar results. The location of low-mass members isolated by us and the spectroscopically confirmed low-mass members of Luhman (1999) are in good agreement which builds the confidence in our selection criteria. We then used the same methodology for $`\sigma `$ Orionis and Pleiades. The resulting exponents of the mass functions for IC 348, $`\sigma `$ Orionis and Pleiades are respectively 0.7, 1.2 and 0.5 with an estimated error of $`\pm `$ 0.2. For the younger clusters IC 348 and $`\sigma `$ Orionis, there is some hint of a possible dip in the mass function at the position of the HBML.

The results of this statistical approach (Table 3) imply that though the mass function continues to rise above the HBML it is appreciably flatter compared to the Salpeter mass function. In Figure 1 we have plotted the derived mass function for the three clusters. Taking the canonical Salpeter exponent of 2.35 in the mass range 1–10 M, the Chabrier exponent of 1.55 in the mass range 0.5–1.0 M and the values obtained by us below 0.5 M we estimate the mass contribution to be about 40% for objects below 0.5 M and 4% for objects below the HBML of 0.08 M. Our results are consistent with previous studies (e.g. Béjar et al., 2001) and suggest that although low-mass objects are at least as numerous as their stellar counterparts their contribution to the total mass of the cluster is small.

### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank Brian McLean and Mario Lattanzi (GSC-II project scientists) for access to the development version of GSC-II in advance of publication. We are grateful to I. Baraffe and F. Allard for making electronic versions of the latest models available and generating model isochrones for the nonstandard F passbands.

## References

Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard,F., & Hauschildt, P.H. 1998, A&A, 337, 403

Béjar, V.J.S., Martin, E.L., Zapatero Osorio, M.R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 830

Chabrier, G., Baraffee, I., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P.H. 2000, ApJ, 542, 464

Leggett, S.K. 1992, ApJS, 82, 351

Luhman, K. L. 1999, ApJ, 525, 466

Tej A., Sahu, K.C., Chandrasekhar, T. and Ashok, N.M. 2002 ApJ (in press) (astro-ph/0206325)


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent observations of spectral lines of distant quasars have suggested that the fine structure constant $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}c)`$ may have been slightly smaller in the very early universe . Although these claims are still tentative and rather controversial, they have helped rekindle interest in Dirac’s old idea  that the fundamental “constants” of physics may vary in time.

Varying fine structure constant has been studied in many papers, for example see . The authors of  derived the formulae for the time variation of the gravitational constant $`G`$ and of the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ in various models with extra dimensions and analyzed their consistency with the available observational data for distant supernovae, see also .

On the other hand, it is of interest to define an effective fine structure constant $`\alpha _{eff}`$ in terms of an effective Planck constant $`\mathrm{}_{eff}`$ so that we define $`\alpha _{eff}e^2/(4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}_{eff}c)`$. In this letter we obtain $`\mathrm{}_{eff}`$ based on the generalized uncertainty principle.

Based on simple and general considerations with either Newtonian gravitational theory or general relativity theory, the generalized uncertainty principle has been obtained in . Explicit expressions for the generalized uncertainty principle in extra dimensions are given and their holographic properties investigated . According to , in $`D`$ spatial dimensions the dimensionless constant of nature is proportional to

$$h^{2D}e^{D1}G^{(3D)/2}c^{D4}.$$
(1)
As argued in  our universe appears to possess a collection of fundamental or natural units of mass, length and time which can be constructed from the physical constants $`G`$, $`h`$ and $`c`$. A dimensionless constant can only be constructed if the electron charge, $`e`$, is also admitted and then we obtain the dimensionless quantity $`e^2/(hc)`$, first emphasized in . In a world with $`D`$ spatial dimensions the units of $`h`$ and $`c`$ remain $`ML^2T^1`$ and $`LT^1`$ in mass (M), length (L) and time (T). The units of $`G`$ become $`M^1L^DT^2`$. Gauss’ theorem relates $`e`$ to the spatial dimension and the units of $`e^2`$ are $`ML^DT^2`$ because the electric force changes in accord with $`F=qq^{}/r^2`$. It is important to note that the system of units that has been used in the above argument is not the international system of units which we use in this letter. As we know, in the international system of units, the fine structure constant is defined $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}c)`$ and in the Heaviside-Lorentz system $`\alpha =e^2/(\mathrm{}c)`$.

We show here that when one considers the generalized uncertainty principle, the corrections to the fine structure constant in $`D`$-dimensional space can be drawn.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we review to obtain the fine structure constant in $`D`$-dimensional space. In section 3, we present the generalized uncertainty principle in $`D`$-dimensional space and then obtain the corrected fine structure constant in $`D`$-dimensional space due to the generalized uncertainty principle. Finally, we discuss and conclude in section 4.

## 2 Fine structure constant in $`D`$-dimensional space

In this section, we derive the fine structure constant in $`D`$-dimensional space, see . First of all, we need to use the Newton’s gravitational constant in $`D`$-dimensional space. Let us first derive the exact relationship between Newton’s gravitational constants $`G_D`$ and $`G_3=G`$ in $`D`$ and $`3`$-dimensional space. Using the force laws in $`D`$ and $`3`$-dimensional space, which are defined by

$`F_D=G_D{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{r^{D1}}},`$ (2)
$`F_3=G_3{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}},`$ (3)
and the $`D`$-dimensional space Gauss’ law, one can derive the exact relationship between the gravitational constants $`G_D`$ and $`G_3`$

$$G_3=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}}{4\pi }\frac{G_D}{V_{(D3)}},$$
(4)
where $`V_{(D3)}`$ is the volume of $`(D3)`$ extra spatial dimensions and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}`$ is the area of a unit $`(D1)`$-sphere

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}=\frac{2\pi ^{D/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}\right)}.$$
(5)
For $`D=3`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=4\pi `$ which is the surface area of a unit $`2`$-sphere. To obtain a general formula for the fine structure constant in $`D`$-dimensional space we propose that in $`D`$-dimensional space the fine structure constant can be written as

$$\alpha _D=\mathrm{}^\beta e^\gamma [\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}ϵ_{D,0}]^\eta c^\xi G_D^\tau ,$$
(6)
where $`ϵ_{D,0}`$ is the permittivity constant of the vacuum in $`D`$-dimensional space and its units can be obtained by the electric force law in $`D`$-dimensional space

$$F_D=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}ϵ_{D,0}}\frac{q_1q_2}{r^{D1}}.$$
(7)
From Eq. (7) we obtain the units of $`ϵ_{D,0}`$ to be equal to $`Q^2M^1L^DT^2`$. In a world with $`(D+1)`$-spacetime the units of $`\mathrm{}`$, $`c`$ and $`e`$ remain $`ML^2T^1`$, $`LT^1`$ and $`Q`$ in Mass $`(M)`$, length $`(L)`$, time $`(T)`$ and electric charge $`(Q)`$. Using Eq. (4) one can obtain the units of the Newton’s gravitational constant in $`D`$-dimensional space $`G_D`$ to be equal to $`M^1L^DT^2`$. Thus in $`D`$-dimensional space the dimensionless constant of nature, i.e. the fine structure constant has the units of

$$\left(ML^2T^1\right)^\beta Q^\gamma \left(Q^2M^1L^DT^2\right)^\eta \left(LT^1\right)^\xi \left(M^1L^DT^2\right)^\tau .$$
(8)
Because the fine structure constant in $`D`$-dimensional space is a dimensionless quantity, the sum of powers of mass ($`M`$), length ($`L`$), time ($`T`$), electric charge ($`Q`$) must be vanished. Therefore we have

$`\beta \eta \tau `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (9)
$`2\beta D\eta +\xi +D\tau `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (10)
$`\beta +2\eta \xi 2\tau `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)
$`\gamma +2\eta `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (12)
We know that in $`3`$-dimensional space we have $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}c)`$. So for $`D=3`$ we have the following conditions

$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (13)
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`2,`$ (14)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (15)
$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (16)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (17)
Using Eqs. (9)-(12) and conditions (13)-(17) one can obtain

$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`2D,`$ (18)
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`D1,`$ (19)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1D}{2}},`$ (20)
$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`D4,`$ (21)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3D}{2}}.`$ (22)
Thus in $`D`$-dimensional space the fine structure constant is equal to

$$\alpha _D=\mathrm{}^{2D}e^{D1}[\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}ϵ_{D,0}]^{(1D)/2}c^{D4}G_D^{(3D)/2}.$$
(23)
This equation is a general formula for the fine structure constant in $`D`$-dimensional space. For $`D=3`$, Eq. (23) leads us to $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}c)`$.

## 3 Corrections to the Fine Structure Constant

In $`D`$-dimensional space, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_i\mathrm{\Delta }p_j\mathrm{}\delta _{ij},$$
(24)
where $`x_i`$ and $`p_j`$, $`i,j=1\mathrm{}D`$, are the spatial coordinates and momenta, respectively. In $`D`$-dimensional space, the maximum uncertainty in the position of an electron in the ground state in hydrogen atom is equal to the radius of the first Bohr orbit, $`r_B`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=r_B=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}ϵ_{D,0}\mathrm{}^2}{me^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{4D}},$$
(25)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the electron. Eq.(25) in the case of $`D=3`$ yields the radius of the first Bohr orbit, so-called Bohr radius, $`r_B=4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}^2/(me^2)=5.29\times 10^{11}m`$. The general form of the generalized uncertainty principle is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_i\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }p_i}+\widehat{\beta }^2L_P^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p_i}{\mathrm{}},$$
(26)
where $`L_P=(\mathrm{}G_D/c^3)^{1/(D1)}`$ is the Planck length and $`\widehat{\beta }`$ is a dimensionless constant of order one. There are many derivations of the generalized uncertainty principle, some heuristic and some more rigorous. Eq. (26) can be derived in the context of string theory and non-commutative quantum mechanics. The exact value of $`\widehat{\beta }`$ depends on the specific model. The second term in r.h.s of Eq.(26) becomes effective when momentum and length scales are of the order of Planck mass and of the Planck length, respectively. This limit is usually called quantum regime. From Eq.(26) we solve for the momentum uncertainty in terms of the distance uncertainty, which we again take to be the radius of the first Bohr orbit. From Eq.(26), we are led to the following momentum uncertainty

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p_i}{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x_i}{2\widehat{\beta }^2L_P^2}\left(1\sqrt{1\frac{4\widehat{\beta }^2L_P^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }x_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right).$$
(27)
Eq.(25) gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{L_P}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}ϵ_{D,0}M_P^3G_D}{me^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{4D}},$$
(28)
where $`M_P=[\mathrm{}^{D2}/(c^{D4}G_D)]^{1/(D1)}`$ is the Planck mass. Recalling the standard uncertainty principle $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_i\mathrm{\Delta }p_i\mathrm{}`$, we define an “effective” Planck constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_i\mathrm{\Delta }p_ih_{eff}`$. From Eq.(26), we can write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_i\mathrm{\Delta }p_i\mathrm{}\left[1+\widehat{\beta }^2L_P^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p_i}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\right].$$
(29)
So we can define the effective Planck constant as

$$\mathrm{}_{eff}=\mathrm{}\left[1+\widehat{\beta }^2L_P^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p_i}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\right].$$
(30)
From Eqs.(27,28) and (30) we get

$`\mathrm{}_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\widehat{\beta }^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}ϵ_{D,0}M_P^3G_D}{me^2}}\right)^{\frac{2}{4D}}`$ (31)
$`\times `$ $`(1\sqrt{14\widehat{\beta }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{me^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}ϵ_{D,0}M_P^3G_D}}\right)^{\frac{2}{4D}}})^2].`$
Because the value of the expression $`\frac{me^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}ϵ_{D,0}M_P^3G_D}`$ is much less than one, we can expand Eq.(31). Therefore, we have

$$\mathrm{}_{eff}\mathrm{}\left[1+\widehat{\beta }^2\left(\frac{me^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}ϵ_{D,0}M_P^3G_D}\right)^{\frac{2}{4D}}\right].$$
(32)
So the effect of the generalized uncertainty principle can be taken into account by substituting $`\mathrm{}_{eff}`$ with $`\mathrm{}`$. For three-space dimension, from Eq.(32) we obtain

$$\mathrm{}_{eff}\mathrm{}\left[1+\widehat{\beta }^2\times 9.30\times 10^{50}\right].$$
(33)
Because the factor $`10^{50}`$ is much less than one, we conclude that the value of the effective Planck constant is very close to the value of the standard Planck constant. Substituting the effective Planck constant $`\mathrm{}_{eff}`$ from Eq.(31) into Eq.(23) we obtain the effective and corrected fine structure constant due to the generalized uncertainty principle

$$\alpha _{D,eff}=\mathrm{}_{eff}^{2D}e^{D1}[\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}ϵ_{D,0}]^{(1D)/2}c^{D4}G_D^{(3D)/2}.$$
(34)
This equation shows the corrections to the fine structure constant from the generalized uncertainty principle in $`D`$-dimensional space. For $`D=3`$, from (34) we obtain

$$\alpha _{eff}=\mathrm{}_{eff}^1e^2[4\pi ϵ_0]^1c^1=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}_{eff}c}.$$
(35)
From (33), we are led to

$$\alpha _{eff}\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}c}\left[1\widehat{\beta }^2\times 9.30\times 10^{50}\right].$$
(36)
This equation shows the corrections to the fine structure constant in three-space dimension from the generalized uncertainty principle.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper, we have examine the effects of the generalized uncertainty principle in the fine structure constant in $`D`$-dimensional space. We also discuss our calculations in three-space dimension. The general form of the generalized uncertainty principle is given by (26). The Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ undergoes corrections from the generalized uncertainty principle, and changes into $`\mathrm{}_{eff}`$ as given in Eq.(31) or approximately (32). Then we obtain the corrections to the fine structure constant in $`D`$-dimensional space as Eq.(34). As seen from Eq.(33), the value of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{eff}`$ is very close to each other because the factor $`10^{50}`$ is much smaller than one. For this reason the value of the fine structure constant due to the generalized uncertainty principle is very close to the value of the fine structure constant in the standard uncertainty principle which is $`\frac{1}{137}`$. The numerical results of Eq.(34) are in progress by the author.

## Acknowledgments

The author thanks Amir and Shahrokh for useful helps.


text:
# A Possible Via For Proving The Approach Of The Hubbard Ground States Toward Stripes And Other Doping States

## I Introduction and Outline

The contents of this very simple note amount to the observation that finite size numerical calculations can yield precise information on the form of the ground state on the infinite lattice. In particular, we will ask what might be stated if two exact numerical computations find non-uniform minima when both subjected to both open and closed boundary conditions. We will show that in such instances, the majority of the finite size fragments of the true ground state extending over the infinite lattice will display inhomogeneities intermediate between those obtained in the open and closed boundary condition miniminization on the finite fragment. Though the considerations that we have in mind are very general and apply to any finite range model, we will specifically address the two dimensional Hubbard and related models. The well known Hubbard model is given by

$$H=t\underset{ij,\sigma }{}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma })+U\underset{i}{}n_in_i,$$
(1)
where $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ creates an electron on site $`i`$ with spin $`\sigma `$ and $`j`$ is a nearest neighbor of $`i`$. This model contains both the movement of the electrons (hopping) ($`t`$, kinetic energy) and the interactions of the electrons if they are on the same site ($`U`$, potential energy). The Hubbard model is one of the simplest possible models of interacting electrons. In the large $`U`$ limit, the model reduces to the well known t-J model

$`H=t{\displaystyle \underset{ij,\sigma }{}}(c_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{j,\sigma }+H.c.)+J{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j`$ (2)
where $`\stackrel{}{S}_i=_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{i\sigma }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}c_{i,\sigma ^{}}`$ is the spin of the electron at site $`i`$, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are the Pauli matrices, and there is a constraint of no double occupancy of any site $`i`$ ($`n_i=_\sigma c_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{i,\sigma }`$ has expectation values 0 or 1).

Numerical calculations on the t-J model with open and cylindrical boundary conditions have found non-uniform “stripe” patterns  which have earlier been predicted earlier by approximate solutions to the Hubbard model , and argued for, very convincingly, by the addition of the strong Coulomb effects present in the cuprates . At the moment, there is no clear consensus as to whether these patterns display the genuine ground state of the bare Hubbard (or t-J) Hamiltonian or amount to a finite size artifact. We will argue that if periodic boundary condition calculations reproduce a similar periodic pattern for the bare Hubbard model or its more physical extension containing a few additional finite range Coulomb contributions then the existence of stripes is essentially proved for the infinite lattice within bounds that we will derive.

The outline is as follows: In section(II), we will introduce a simple discrete representation for depicting the charge and spin densities at various sites or plaquettes. All of the bounds that we derive will pertain to the way in which the global ground state tiling the infinite lattice will look in this representation. Our motivation for employing a discrete representation is obtain energy spectra for each representation whose minima are separated from each other by finite gaps. Next, in section(III), we label the various possible discrete configurations on a finite size fragment as “good” or “bad” depending on whether they appear as the ground state minima in various cases. If the numerical calculation on the finite size fragment reflects the true state of affairs, then in covering the true ground state on the infinite lattice we will find that within most finite size fragments the discrete configurations look much the same (up to trivial translations) as those suggested by the finite size numerical calculation. Ideally, each finite size fragment will look like that suggested by the numerical calculation (and will be “good”). In this short note we derive a bound on the number of “bad” textures that appear in the true ground state on the infinite lattice but are not anticipated from the finite size calculations (i.e. are not finite size minima). The actual bound that we derive is explicitly stated in section(IV).

In section(V), we quickly outline the path that we will follow in order to derive these bounds. In section(VIII), we derive lower bounds on the ground state energies in the various discrete sectors by examining the open boundary condition problem. In section(IX), trivial upper bounds on the global ground state energy density are attained by looking at the periodic boundary condition problem. In section(X), we fuse our lower and upper bounds to derive a bound on the number of “bad” blocks appearing in a covering of the global ground state minima which are not anticipated from finite size calculations. It is important to emphasize that as the discrete representation of the ground state is up to the user, we do not need to examine matters in detail. As discussed in section(XI), any single given calculation on the finite size system with open and closed boundary condition is sufficient to prove that in most finite size blocks the charge and spin expectation values will interpolate, in one global ground state spanning the entire lattice, between the values obtained in both numerical problems. Although the particular problem that we have in mind is that of stripes, these simple considerations are very general.

## II A discrete representation

We can coarse grain a two dimensional Hubbard system to ask the state of each individual plaquette. This is schematically illustrated for half of the plaquettes in Fig.(1), which is reproduced from . In what follows we will endow the electronic states with discrete bar code patterns specifying the coarse grained electronic states within each plaquette.

The bar code specification, detailed below, is completely up to the user. Given a wave-function $`|\psi `$ on the infinite system or finite size cluster, we compute the number and total spin expectation values for each individual plaquette on which the wave-function has support. To be more precise, if $`R`$ is a plaquette in the finite cluster $`\lambda `$ or in the infinite lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with vertices labeled by $`R_{1i4}`$, then the net charge and squared spin of $`R`$ are

$`\psi |{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_{R_i}|\psi n_R`$ (3)
$`\psi |[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\stackrel{}{S}_{R_i}]^2|\psi S_R(S_R+1).`$ (4)
We might specify plaquettes with occupancy $`n_R`$, to have an integer number of $`[n_R+1/2]`$ holes, with $`[\mathrm{}]`$ the integer part “function”. If greater accuracy is desired we may quantize the value of bar-coded charge in multiples of half a hole etc. We may similarly, arbitrarily decide to call the projected spin states within the plaquette as singlet, triplet etc. according to the appropriately rounded off value of $`S_R`$. Of course, the user may decide to round off the number density according to his or her own whim and based on the value of $`n_R`$, decide that $`R`$ is a plaquette with no holes, one holes, two holes etc. The bar code representation, does not do justice to the rich Hubbard states. This mapping, in the RG spirit, is not invertible. All of our proposed bounds pertain to bounding the frequency of these various bar code patterns.

Now, suppose, that we want to see if stripes are formed, or if some other interesting states might emerge (or not) for various dopings. In the coarse grained representation, this amounts to seeing charge and spin nestled in the corresponding plaquettes compromising these configurations. The cutoff criteria for rounding off the number and spin expectation values $`n_R`$ and $`S_R`$ might be readjusted to see most crisply the patterns that we wish to probe.

As the astute reader might have guessed, the purpose of focusing on abbreviated discrete coarse grained representations of the Hubbard states is that, the bottom of the energy spectra of discrete bar code sectors tend to be separated by finite gaps. Finite gaps are usually a good thing when we wish to prove the occurrence or non-occurrence of certain configurations.

If we wish to probe only the charge degrees of freedom, we may examine the occupancy of each individual site (and no longer focus on plaquettes) to see if it is occupied by, say, half a hole, or by a hole or by nothing whatsoever.

The bar code specification of the states need not be uniform. For instance, in what follows, to better incorporate open boundary condition aberrations of the ground states close to the boundary, we may partition the finite cluster $`\lambda `$ into plaquettes everywhere deep inside the cluster and take a coarser covering (e.g., by a three by three plaquette cluster) toward the edges: the bar code of the coarser covering toward the edges will be more loose and will enable more states. The coarse covering and rounding at the edges can be arbitrarily loose (it may uniformly set to a bar code symbol enabling all possible spin and charge distributions within) to effectively excise a finite thickness halo surrounding the boundary of $`\lambda `$. The reader can invent and improve such definitions.

## III A simple classification

Let us imagine that numerical results hint very strongly at a certain abbreviated ground state of the Hubbard or t-J model (e.g a bar code representation of the DMRG results of White and Scalapino along with a coarser covering toward the edges to better remove the effect of boundary conditions toward the edges). If a certain periodic abbreviated ground state appears with some period $`L`$ then the appearance of such a state and its cousins generated by translations (relying on the observed periodicity) on a finite $`L\times L`$ (or larger) slab $`\lambda `$ will be termed “good”. All other states not related by symmetry and not appearing in the numerical ground state will be defined as “bad”.

If the numerical results indeed reflect the true state of affairs and are not an artifact of spurious boundary conditions or other finite size effects, then in tiling the real physical infinite lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with all maximally overlapping windows $`\{\lambda \}`$, we should observe many more “good” states than “bad”.

## IV What are we after?

In a nutshell, we wish to show how we can bound the number of “bad” bar coded states in all maximally overlapping clusters $`\{\lambda \}`$ vis a vis the number of the “good” candidate states.

The bound that we will momentarily arrive at trivially reads

$`N_b({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\mathrm{\Delta }}})N_g.`$ (5)
The quantities $`\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are gaps that we will detail below.

## V The Means

Although not the most efficient, we will examine the energy of the system. The two gaps (or gap and anti-gap) $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\delta `$ are tied to the energy of the cluster $`\lambda `$ when subjected to open and periodic boundary conditions respectively. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes by (at least) how much the energy of any bar code configuration apart from the bar code sector of the true numerical ground state on the finite size cluster is elevated relative to the absolute energy minimum on the finite size cluster $`\lambda `$.

As will be shown below, a trivial lower bound on the energy of the system may be obtained by covering the entire lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with all maximally overlapping finite blocks $`\{\lambda \}`$, consequently registering the bar code representation within each block $`\lambda `$, and finally summing the lower bounds on the energies of each of the bar code patterns that appear while tiling the system with all these maximally overlapping windows $`\{\lambda \}`$. The gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ computed by examining constrained open boundary condition minima is the lower bound on the energy increase each time a “bad” bar coded pattern is encountered.

A trivial upper bound on the true ground state energy of the infinite system may be obtained by merely minimizing the energy on a $`\lambda `$ subject to periodic boundary conditions. Obviously, the open boundary condition minimum will be lower (or the same) when compared to its periodic boundary condition counterpart. The difference between the two is denoted by $`\delta `$. As the size of the cluster $`\lambda `$ becomes larger and larger, the periodic boundary condition and open boundary condition must veer toward each other. Small delta ($`\delta `$) is indeed small for large enough $`L`$.

There is one detail which we have so far tucked away under the rug- in evaluating the energies on finite size cluster $`\lambda `$ we must renormalize the parameters $`t,U,\mathrm{}`$ such that the sum of the Hamiltonians on each individual cluster

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{\{\lambda \}}{}}h_\lambda `$ (6)
is the global Hamiltonian on the entire system $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The number of nearest neighbor pairs differs from the number of the number of sites and consequently the parameters associated with these (t and U respectively) must be readjusted. A similar occurrence happens if longer range (yet obviously finite) interactions are introduced.

## VI Translational Symmetry

Translational symmetry is not broken in the scheme presented here. The reader will note that we examine all maximally overlapping blocks $`\{\lambda \}`$ in concert. We are not looking at a specific subset of clusters- that would indeed break translational symmetry.

This maximally overlapping covering is a bit non-traditional. Virtual hole evaporation and other processes that one might worry will not taken into account when examining small fragments of the cluster are very transparently accounted for by this and many other coverings. The maximal overlapping covering is more important for easily incorporating correctly longer range interactions (next nearest neighbor and beyond) The reader can invent a multitude of other variants.

## VII Chemical Potential and Doping

Throughout the minimization procedures, the number of holes is not held fixed over each of the small clusters $`\lambda `$. A chemical potential term is inserted instead to provide the correct density of holes over the entire lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The renormalization of the chemical potential term with the size of the block $`L`$ is identical to the scaling of the on-site Hubbard repulsion term $`U`$.

## VIII Lower Bounds (via Constrained Open Boundary Condition Minima)

Here we give the reader a flavor of how constrained lower bounds may be easily generated and employed. In order to set the stage for things to come and to distill the essentials, we will start by examining the situation when the cluster $`\lambda `$ is the minimal single plaquette. Later on we will show how all of this may be trivially extended for larger covering clusters.

The state of the system is a linear combination of the states in the basis vectors in the Hilbert space spanned by

$`|e_\alpha ^{}=|1^{}|2^{}\mathrm{}|N^{},`$ (7)
where $`|i^{}`$ specifies the state of the electron (including. its absence- i.e. a hole) at site $`i`$.

Now, let us imagine duplicating the basis vectors at every site. At each site $`i`$ we assign two basis vectors $`|i^A`$ and $`|i^B`$.

Let us furthermore define the even sublattice basis state by

$`|e_A=|Plaquette_0|Plaquette_2\mathrm{}`$ (8)
where each of the plaquettes $`\{|Plaquette_{2n}\}`$ lies in the even (A) sublattice.

Each plaquette basis state vector in the even sublattice is given by a direct product of the electronic basis state vectors at each one of its four sites

$`|Plaquette_{2k}={\displaystyle \underset{i^APlaquette_{2k}}{}}|i^A`$ (9)
where, as before, $`|i^A`$ denotes the individual electronic state at site $`i`$.

Similar definitions and expressions may be written for the odd (B) sublattice.

As we must constrain

$`|i^A=|i^B`$ (10)
for each lattice site $`i`$, the Hilbert space spanned by

$`|e_\beta =|e_A|e_B`$ (11)
contains the physical Hilbert space of Eqn.(7) as a special subspace.

Now, let us write the full (range one Hubbard or t-J) Hamiltonian as

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(H_A+H_B)`$ (12)
with $`H_A`$ having non-vanishing matrix elements only within the $`\{|e_A\}`$ (which is the same as the $`\{|i_A\}`$) subspace. Similarly, $`H_B`$ has matrix elements only within the $`B`$ subspace. The factor of one half in Eqn.(12) was inserted due to the doubling of degrees of freedom. Each electronic state makes an appearance twice- once in the $`\{|i_A\}`$ basis and once in the $`\{|i_B\}`$ basis. Now, note that the decomposition of Eqn.(12) is such that each Hamiltonian on the right hand side does not connect sites on different plaquettes- there are no inter-plaquette interactions in either $`H_A`$ or $`H_B`$. We may write

$`H_A={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}h_{2k}`$ (13)
$`H_B={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}h_{2k+1}`$ (14)
where $`\{h_n\}`$ are Hamiltonians that reside only in the local basis of the $`n`$th plaquette.

As we increased the size of the Hilbert space, the minimum over the real physical Hilbert space is bounded from below by the minimum attained by its extended replicated counterpart:

$`\underset{|e_\alpha ^{}}{\mathrm{min}}\{H\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\underset{|e_A}{\mathrm{min}}\{H_A\}+\underset{|e_A}{\mathrm{min}}\{H_B\}\right]`$ (15)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N}{4}}[\mathrm{min}\{h_{2k}\}+\mathrm{min}\{h_{2k+1}\}].`$ (16)
This is a trivial bound on the ground state energy of the system.

Suppose now that we were not interested in the global ground state but rather a restricted minimum. We can minimize the energy of the system subject to the constraint that within each odd plaquette we have one boson (hole pair) and within each even plaquette we have one hole. As the replicated Hilbert space is larger than the physical one (it includes the latter as a special subset) we will still trivially have

$`\mathrm{min}_{|e_\alpha ^{}}\{H\}`$ such that within each odd plaquette we have a hole pair and within each even plaquette we have a single hole $`\frac{N}{4}[\mathrm{min}\{h_{2k}\}`$ such that we have one hole in the $`2k`$-th plaquette \+ $`\mathrm{min}\{h_{2k+1}\}`$ such that we have a hole pair in the $`(2k+1)`$-th plaquette $`].`$

All that we are doing above is tiling the lattice with dominos and for each of the two sides of the domino ($`A`$ and $`B`$) we find the minimum.

If we want to prove lower bounds on a more complicated commensurate structure (not a checkerboard one as we just considered now e.g. one with hole pairs on the red squares and single holes on the black squares) then we can consider clusters instead of single plaquettes and dominos.

Suppose that we want to prove that the ground state for a certain filling generates a certain commensurate pattern which occupies finite $`(L\times L)`$ blocks (clusters). To do that, we might naively consider all possible bar code sectors. However, that is not necessary. As we will detail in section(XI), it is sufficient to find the periodic boundary condition minimum (whatever it may be) and to combine it with the unrestrained open boundary condition minimum in order to obtain powerful bounds on a properly defined “good” sector that includes both minima.

The number of naive bar code sectors is exponential in the area of the cluster. This number is lowered by symmetry. The bulk of these bar code configurations are likely of high energy and the number of contenders for the low lying configurations might not be as forbidding. If we are examining natural potential candidates for the states appearing at 1/8 doping, the commensurability is very low and the number of various sectors is very small. Instead, for merely establishing a minimal gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we can simply compute the global minima anywhere outside the “good” bar code sectors and compare to the unconstrained global minima (occurring, by definition in the “good” bar code states.

To proceed with the analysis of the $`(L\times L)`$ case, we generate $`L^2`$ replicas of the electronic state $`|i^{}`$ at each site. We envision covering the lattice with all maximally overlapping $`(L\times L)`$ blocks $`\lambda `$. We may next define Hamiltonians $`\{h_\lambda \}`$ residing in the local subspace of the $`L\times L`$ block. For a fragment (cluster) of size $`L\times L`$ plaquettes, there is a multiplicative factor of $`1/(L(L+1))`$ that comes in the definition of $`h_\lambda `$ for a pure nearest neighbor (e.g. t-J) model when evaluating the energy of the entire system by summing over the energies in all maximally overlapping $`L\times L`$ blocks $`\lambda `$.

Similarly, for the Hubbard model, in tiling the entire plane by maximally overlapping small $`L\times L`$ fragments $`\lambda `$ each site (U) is over-counted $`(L+1)^2`$ times while each kinetic term (t) is over-counted $`L(L+1)`$ times. Consequently, for the Hubbard model, one will need to examine the readjusted values of $`t,U`$ on the single $`L\times L`$ fragment of plaquettes so as to produce the correct energies on the entire lattice.

By covering the lattice with all $`L\times L`$ fragments $`\{\lambda \}`$ and computing the energy within each fragment, and summing all of the lower bounds on the energies together, we may derive very generous lower bounds on the energies of the global system when the latter is subject to the demand that an $`L\times L`$ cluster if it belongs to a certain bar code sector.

It is important to emphasize that the bar code notation does not provide quantum numbers. The bar code values simply code in for rounded off values of the various expectation values. Each bar code configuration corresponds to many possible quantum states. Each individual state in the real physical Hilbert space also makes an appearance in the extended replicated Hilbert space (but not the converse). As a consequence, in performing a constrained minimum over a certain bar code sector or its complement, any state in the real physical Hilbert space that satisfies the correct expectation values bounds on the number occupancies etc. also makes an appearance in the replicated Hilbert space and therefore the minimum in the replicated space is lower (or the same) as that of the real unreplicated Hilbert space.

## IX Upper bounds - via The Periodic Boundary Condition Problem

It is very easy to find an upper bound on the energy of a minimizing $`L\times L`$ configuration when the latter is embedded in the infinite lattice. We simply note that by the variational principle,

$`\psi _{var}|H|\psi _{var}\underset{|e_\alpha ^{}}{\mathrm{min}}\{H\}.`$ (17)
Now let us choose the variational wave-function $`|\psi _{var}`$ to be the one that minimizes the Hamiltonian on an $`L\times L`$ system when subjected to periodic boundary conditions. Non-uniform states can easily (and do in many problems) appear as periodic boundary condition minima; periodic boundary conditions merely constrain the components of the allowed wave-numbers to be integer multiples of $`(2\pi /L)`$. As $`|\psi _{var}`$ satisfies periodic boundary conditions, the $`L\times L`$ wave-function may trivially cover the entire macroscopic lattice. This state will belong to some sector. If it does not belong to the true macroscopic ground state pattern, we might need to increase $`L`$ until the periodic boundary condition minimum will lie in the “good” ground state sector of the system.

Just as in the discussion in the previous section, we will need to renormalize the interaction parameters in an open finite block $`h_\lambda `$ so that the sum of all these,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}h_\lambda =H.`$ (18)
The normalization will be the same as in the previous case of the derivation of lower bounds. After all, when tiling the plane with all possible $`(L\times L)`$ blocks $`\{\lambda \}`$, the number of single points (U) and “bonds” (t or J) that are being counted is unique. The ground state of the entire system is trivially bounded from above by

$`Nϵ_{good},`$ (19)
with

$`\psi _{var}|h_\lambda |\psi _{var}=ϵ_{good},`$ (20)
where the expectation value is now evaluated for $`|\psi _{var}`$ on the open $`L\times L`$ cluster.

(Notwithstanding, when periodic boundary conditions are employed, and the final periodic $`L\times L`$ system is unraveled to cover the entire lattice each site (with its associated interaction energy $`U`$ in the Hubbard model), and each link (with its associated kinetic energy (t) and (for the t-J model) its associated exchange energy J) appear in exactly $`L^2`$ different blocks $`\{\lambda \}`$.)

Explicitly, $`\delta =L/(L+1)\times `$ (the minimum on $`\lambda `$ with periodic boundary conditions when also including bonds connecting opposite boundaries) - (open boundary condition minimum on $`\lambda `$ when constrained to lie outside the “good” bar-code sector).

The factor of L/(L+1) originates from the fact that when tiling the plane with clusters $`\lambda `$ there are no interactions amongst opposite sides of $`\lambda `$ that can be accounted for. The computation for the open and closed boundary condition blocks are done on equal footing.

If $`ϵ_{good}`$ is of lower value than the lower bounds (see the previous section) which we will obtain for all other “bad” sectors then we immediately prove that the ground state of the entire lattice is favorably ($`N_bN_g`$) in the same sector as the periodic boundary condition minimum. That is, in each $`L\times L`$ window we will likely see the same pattern modulu trivial translations. If $`ϵ_{good}`$ is not lower than the lower bounds on the other sectors, we might need to increase the size of our $`L\times L`$ blocks and re-compute upper and lower bounds.

That the two bounds should cross is to be expected for coarse covering as, in the large $`L`$ limit, the periodic boundary condition state becomes the true ground state of the system, and changing it to a different sector (altering any given plaquette(s) to a different bar code state) will entail a finite energy penalty.

## X Putting all of the pieces together- Gaps and Antigaps

If the energy gap separating the open boundary condition minimum on all “bad” sectors from the periodic boundary condition minimum within the “good” sector is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and if the open boundary condition minimum (within the “good” sector) is lower by $`\delta `$ compared to the periodic boundary condition minimum, then if within the maximal tiling of the plane with all maximally overlapping clusters, the number of clusters lying within the “good” sector is $`N_g`$ and the number of clusters lying within the “bad” sector is $`N_b`$ then the energy difference between that configuration is elevated by at least

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}[N_b\mathrm{\Delta }N_g\delta ]`$ (21)
relative to the periodic boundary condition minimum.

In the limit of large cluster size, both the periodic boundary condition minimum and the open boundary condition minimum must match with that of the global ground state energy state: $`\delta 0`$.

For large enough clusters, the lower bound, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, on the energy penalty as compared to the true global ground state becomes meaningful. Only bad clusters of number

$`N_b({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\mathrm{\Delta }}})N_g`$ (22)
will not elevate the ground state according to our bound (i.e. will not lead to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}>0`$). By their very definition, the gaps must satisfy $`\delta <\mathrm{\Delta }`$ if both the open and periodic boundary condition minima give rise to the same bar coded state(s), and $`N_b`$ is always smaller than $`N_g`$. The bounds become increasingly serious as the ration $`(\delta /\mathrm{\Delta })`$ diminishes.

Note that as the open boundary condition problem is not translationally invariant, we will in general find patterns that are related to each other by translations on the global lattice yet have different minimal energies on the open boundary condition problem on the fragment (cluster). In such a case, the bounds will even improve. If several good patterns have relative “anti-gaps” $`\delta _i`$ then for those we will replace $`N_g\delta `$ in the bound by the appropriate sum of $`\{\delta _i\}`$. In the most stringent bound, we may set, of course, $`\delta \mathrm{max}_i\delta _i`$.

Even if we have a finite size block $`\lambda `$ for which the periodic boundary condition and the open boundary condition minima lie in different abbreviated bar code sectors, the more “detailed balance” equation,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\lambda _i\}}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_i\delta _i)0,`$ (23)
will lead to a strong constraint.

## XI A Possible Via For Proving Stripes On the Infinite Lattice

If results similar to the end product of the DMRG calculations of White and Scalapino  are found for a system with both open and closed boundary conditions (similar to the pattern depicted in Fig.(4)) then the existence of stripes on the infinite lattice will effectively be proven for that Hamiltonian. All states with densities in between (and including) the two extremes (the periodic and open boundary condition minima) will occur (up to trivial translations) at least 50% of the time. The proof is trivial: both the open and closed boundary condition minima lie in the same sector (this is how we readjusted the definition of the “good” sector) and consequently $`\delta <\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Inserted in Eqn.(22), this demonstrates that $`N_bN_g`$\- i.e. “good” charge order will be observed in more than a half of the blocks $`\{\lambda \}`$. In general, Eqn.(23) will impose restrictions on the form of the ground state.

If the stripes found by DMRG are a finite size artifact and indeed do result from the use of the open boundary conditions, then we can add additional short Coulomb repulsions (always present in the real system) to enhance non uniform charge order in both the open boundary condition problem (which already displays non-uniform order without this enhancement) and within the periodic boundary condition problem and to establish rigorous bounds on non-uniform charge and spin densities.

The real question is, of course, what system sizes are required before nonuniform charge order might be observed within the ground state of a system subjected to periodic boundary conditions. Periodic boundary conditions merely favor certain commensurate Fourier modes: non-uniform configurations do, of course, arise. Nevertheless, generically, charge density like oscillations within the ground state are far easier to observe in systems subject to open boundary conditions. If the commensurability is low, e.g. natural candidate ground states for 1/8 doping, then one might naively expect the periodic ground state not to deviate by much relative to that on an open fragment.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Assa Auerbach for numerous conversations and correspondence.


text:
# Broken Relativistic Symmetry Groups, Toroidal Moments and Superconductivity in Magnetoelectric Crystals

## 1 \- Introduction

The aim of this paper is to present a possible link between magnetoelectric effects and toroidal moments via the concept of relativistic crystalline groups  and to see how this link can be applied to derive a possible origin of superconductivity in electric and magnetic crystals. These crystals are characterized by their magnetic groups which are subgroups of the Shubnikov group $`O(3)1^{}`$. Among the 122 magnetic groups, only 106 are compatible with the existence of a linear or quadratic magnetoelectric effect . Let us recall that, in these groups, the time inversion $`1^{}`$ appears in addition to or in combination with orthogonal transformations of the Euclidean space.

In the present paper, we will consider relativistic symmetry group theory in crystals. Therefore, we need an extension from the Shubnikov group $`O(3)1^{}`$ to the group $`O(1,3)`$ in the Minkowski space. More particularly, our attention will be devoted to transformations of $`O(1,3)`$ leaving invariant polarization and magnetization vectors and generating a subgroup of the relativistic point group associated to the magnetic group $`G`$ of a given crystal, namely the normalizer $`N(G)`$ of $`G`$ in $`O(1,3)`$.

This subgroup may not be identified to the magnetic group if $`G`$ leaves invariant a particular non-zero velocity vector, i.e., if $`G^{}`$ and $`GG^{}`$ are isotropy groups of $`O(1,3)`$. If such a vector exists and $`G^{}G`$, one strictly speaks about the relativistic crystalline symmetry $`G^{}`$. We can represent, as in figure 1, the list of the magnetic groups for which one can have in a crystal a spontaneous magnetization, a spontaneous polarization or an invariant non-zero velocity vector . Thus, as it can be seen in the figure 1, only 31 magnetic groups are compatible with the existence of a relativistic crystalline symmetry (see the groups contained into the lowest circle). The invariant non-zero velocity vectors can be linked with toroidal moments from the point of view of magnetic symmetries as it has been already shown in previous papers . In that one, we will explain how toroidal moments might be generated from broken relativistic crystalline symmetries and give a few assumptions in order to construct a superconductivity model.

## 2 \- Preliminaries

The toroidal moments $`𝐓^{(\mathrm{})}`$ are polar tensors which change sign under time inversion, like velocity vectors $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ or current vectors $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ of electric charges. There are referred in toroidal phase transitions as the order parameter and in particularly, in the superdiamagnetism of superconductors or dielectric diamagnetic bodies containing densely packed atoms (“agregates”) . In such systems, in presence of spontaneous currents, there may exist states for which the configuration of the associated currents has a tore-shaped solenoid with a winding and so a dipolar toroidal moment (see figure 2).

More generally, the toroidal moments appear as form factors in the multipolar Taylor expansion of the current vectors satisfying the four-dimensional conservation law

$$_\mu j^\mu (\stackrel{}{x},t)=0.$$

For a system with a dipolar toroidal moment $`\stackrel{}{T}`$, the current density equals

$$\stackrel{}{j}=curl(curl(\stackrel{}{T})).$$

The vector $`\stackrel{}{T}`$ is equal itself to $`\stackrel{}{x}\xi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$, where $`\xi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ is the second Helmotz potential. In case of static multipolar electric moments, this latter can be expanded up to a constant factor as

$$\xi \underset{k,\mathrm{},m}{}k^2𝐅_{k,m}^{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{}{x})𝐓_m^{\mathrm{}}(k^2,t),$$

where the $`𝐅_{k,m}^{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ functions are the basis functions of the Helmotz equation. The toroidal moments components $`𝐓_m^{\mathrm{}}(k^2=0,t)`$ are defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐓_m^{\mathrm{}}(0,t)=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{}\pi }}{(2\mathrm{}+1)}r^{\mathrm{}+1}[\{𝐘^{(\mathrm{}1)}\hfill \\ +\frac{2\sqrt{\mathrm{}}}{(2\mathrm{}+3)\sqrt{\mathrm{}+1}}𝐘^{(\mathrm{}+1)}]𝐣^1(\stackrel{}{x},t)\}^{\mathrm{}}_md^3x,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`r=\stackrel{}{x}`$, $`𝐘^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is the well-known spherical harmonic of order $`\mathrm{}`$, $`𝐣^1\stackrel{}{j}`$ is the current vector expressed in the spherical basis and $``$ indicates the tensor product of two irreducible tensor operators. For $`\mathrm{}=1`$, we obtain the toroidal dipole moment of a given configuration of currents, and $`𝐓_m^1`$ can be expressed in a cartesian basis as follows

$$𝐓^1\stackrel{}{T}=\frac{1}{10}\{\stackrel{}{x}(\stackrel{}{x}.\stackrel{}{j})r^2\stackrel{}{j}\}d^3x.$$

It has been shown  that, without any other modifications, one can formally substitute $`\stackrel{}{T}`$ for $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ in figure 1. We can remark that this kind of configuration of currents can be created from a solenoidal configuration of currents. The closure of the latter one can be obtain applying an external magnetic field, but we will present another possibility.

Hence, the problem is especially to determine the origin of, from one hand, the permanent solenoidal currents and, on the other, the permanent closure of these latter. The occurence of such phenomena is precisely discussed in connection with the breaking of the relativistic crystalline symmetries.

## 3 \- Magnetoelectric Effects and Relativistic Symmetries

The state of a crystal is described with a one-valued function $`f`$ depending on the electric, magnetic or/and constraint fields. Generally, $`f`$ is taken to be the free enthalpy. The various properties of the crystal manifest themselves in the appearance of various tensors as coefficients, in the Taylor expansion of the function $`f`$, in terms of the different fields :

$$\begin{array}{c}f={}_{}{}^{o}P_{i}^{}E^i+{}_{}{}^{o}M_{i}^{}H^i\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{2}\left(ϵ_oϵ_{ik}E^iE^k+\mu _o\mu _{ik}H^iH^k\right)\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{c}\alpha _o\alpha _{ik}E^iH^k+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`{}_{}{}^{o}P`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{o}M`$ are respectively the electric and magnetic spontaneous polarizations, $`ϵ_{ik}`$ and $`\mu _{ik}`$, the electric permitivity and magnetic permeability, and $`\alpha _{ik}`$, the magnetoelectric succeptibility. Let us define the electric polarization component $`P_i`$ and the magnetic polarization component $`M_i`$ via

$$P_i\frac{f}{E^i}={}_{}{}^{o}P_{i}^{}+ϵ_oϵ_{ik}E^k+\frac{1}{c}\alpha _o\alpha _{ik}H^k+\mathrm{},$$

and

$$M_i\frac{f}{H^i}={}_{}{}^{o}M_{i}^{}+\mu _o\mu _{ik}H^k+\frac{1}{c}\alpha _o\alpha _{ik}E^k+\mathrm{}.$$

A tensor is different from zero if it remains invariant under all the symmetry transformations of the magnetic group of the crystal. The relativistic invariance of the non-zero permitted tensors of the Taylor expension has to be imposed because of the relativistic covariance of the Maxwell equations determining the dynamics of the electric and magnetic fields. Hence, a supplementary invariance is considered in addition to all the previous ones. Consequently, one applies the relativistic invariance to the second order term of the expension of $`f`$. It can be written  in the following form

$$f^{(2)}=\frac{1}{8c}\chi ^{(\alpha \beta )(\gamma \delta )}𝐅_{\alpha \beta }𝐅_{\gamma \delta },$$

where $`𝐅`$ is the Faraday tensor of the applied electromagnetic field and $`\chi `$ the relativistic succeptibility tensor.

We can represent the pairs of indices $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ and $`(\gamma ,\delta )`$ by a single index

$$\{\begin{array}{c}(0,1)1,\hfill \\ (0,2)2,\hfill \\ (0,3)3,\hfill \\ (2,3)4,\hfill \\ (3,1)5,\hfill \\ (1,2)6.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then, $`\chi `$ can be represented by a $`6\times 6`$ matrix:

$$\chi ^{(\alpha \beta )(\gamma \delta )}\sqrt{\frac{ϵ_o}{\mu _o}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ϵ^B& \hfill \alpha \mu ^1\\ \hfill {}_{}{}^{t}(\alpha \mu ^1)& \hfill \xi \mu ^1\end{array}\right),$$

with $`ϵ^B`$ = $`ϵ\alpha \mu ^1{}_{}{}^{t}\alpha `$ ($`t`$ as transposition) and where $`ϵ`$, $`\mu `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\xi `$ are respectively the electric succeptibility tensor, the magnetic permeability tensor, the magnetoelectric succeptibility tensor and the magnetic succeptibility tensor.

The relativistic invariance imposes constraints (i.e. algebraic expressions) between the components of the tensors $`ϵ`$, $`\mu `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\xi `$. But before establishing these expressions, the relativistic crystalline group $`G^{}`$ has to be determined. The definition of $`G^{}`$ is the following: $`G^{}`$ is the maximal group satisfying the relations

$$G^{}N(G)K(𝐏_{e.m.})$$

and

$$G=G^{}O(3)1^{},$$

where $`G`$ is the magnetic group of the crystal, $`K(𝐏_{e.m.})`$ the relativistic point group leaving invariant the polarization tensor $`𝐏_{e.m.}`$ of the crystal:

$$𝐏_{e.m.}𝐏_{e.m.}^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}\chi ^{(\alpha \beta )(\gamma \delta )}𝐅_{\gamma \delta },$$

and $`N(G)`$ (i.e. the relativistic point group associated to $`G`$) the normalizer of $`G`$ in $`O(1,3)`$, i.e.:

$$N(G)=\left\{gO(1,3)/gGg^1G\right\}.$$

In fact in these kinds of definitions, one can also consider the polarization tensor $`𝐏_{e.m.}`$ not only defined as the polarization tensor of the whole crystal, but also from a more locally viewpoint, as the polarization tensor of an “elementary magnetic cell” of the crystal. We will consider this definition in all the further sections.

There are two cases of groups $`K(𝐏_{e.m.})`$ which are particularly interesting for the following discussion, viz., $`K_M`$ and $`K_{\mathrm{}}(a,b)`$, when using Asher notations . These groups leave invariant the following polarization vector $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ and magnetization vector $`\stackrel{}{M}`$:

$$K_M:\stackrel{}{M}(\stackrel{}{0})//O_z\text{and}\stackrel{}{P}=\stackrel{}{0},$$

$$K_{\mathrm{}}(a,b):\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{M}.\stackrel{}{P}0\text{and}\stackrel{}{M}.\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{M}.\stackrel{}{P},\hfill \\ \\ \stackrel{}{P}//O_z\text{and}\stackrel{}{M}O_y,\hfill \\ \\ \text{with}a=c|M_x|/\stackrel{}{P},\hfill \\ \\ b=c|M_z|/\stackrel{}{P},\hfill \\ \\ \text{and}ab\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The generators of $`K_M`$ and $`K_{\mathrm{}}(a,b)`$ are

$$K_M\left\{m_y^{},\overline{1},R_z(\varphi ),L_z(\chi )/\varphi ,\chi \right\},$$

$$\begin{array}{c}K_{\mathrm{}}(a,b)\{m_y^{},L(\varphi ;a,b),\overline{L}(\chi ;a,b)\hfill \\ /\varphi ,\chi \},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`R_z(\varphi )`$ is a rotation of angle $`\varphi `$ around the z axis, $`L_z(\chi )`$ is a special transformation with velocity $`\beta c`$ in the z direction111$`\chi =\mathrm{cosh}^1([1/(1\beta ^2)]^{\frac{1}{2}})=\mathrm{cosh}^1(\gamma ).`$  and

$$L(\varphi ;a,b)=S^1(a,b)R_z(\varphi )S(a,b),$$
(1)
$$\overline{L}(\chi ;a,b)=S^1(a,b)L_z(\chi )S(a,b),$$

where

$$S(a,b)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill C& \hfill 0& \hfill S& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill c& \hfill 0& \hfill s\\ \hfill S& \hfill 0& \hfill C& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill s& \hfill 0& \hfill c\end{array}\right),$$

with $`S(a,b)SO_y(1,1)\times SO_y(2)`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}C=\mathrm{cosh}(\xi ),\hfill & S=\mathrm{sinh}(\xi ),\hfill \\ c=\mathrm{cos}(\omega ),\hfill & s=\mathrm{sin}(\omega ),\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\xi `$, $`\omega `$ are functions of a and b. Then, the procedure for establishing the constraints on the components of the tensor $`\chi `$ is the following: considering that $`G=m_y^{}`$ for example, then the normalizer $`N(G)`$ of $`m_y^{}`$ in $`O(1,3)`$ is

$$N(G)=O_y(1,1)\times O_y(2).$$

We deduce that if $`K(𝐏_{e.m.})=K_M`$ then the generators of the relativistic crystalline group $`G_M^{}`$ are

$$G_M^{}\{m_y^{},R_z(\pi )\},$$

whereas if $`K(𝐏_{e.m.})=K_{\mathrm{}}(a,b)`$:

$$G_{\mathrm{}}^{}(a,b)\{m_y^{},L(\pi ;a,b)\}.$$

The constraints on the tensor $`\chi `$ obviously derive from the relations ($`hG^{}`$)

$$\chi ^{(\alpha \beta )(\gamma \delta )}=h_\mu ^\alpha h_\nu ^\beta h_\eta ^\gamma h_\rho ^\delta \chi ^{(\mu \nu )(\eta \rho )}.$$

Clearly, these constraints change in function of $`G^{}`$ itself, absolutly depending on the polarization and magnetization vectors. Thus, if for example the system passes from $`\stackrel{}{P}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ to $`\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{0}`$, it involves naturally a “breaking of the relativistic crystalline symmetry”. We must pay attention to this definition of the breaking of a symmetry, since usually a breaking involves a reduction to a proper subgroup of a given one, whereas in this case $`G_M^{}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{}}^{}(a,b)`$ are conjugate groups in $`O(1,3)`$ (see relation (1)). But nevertheless it can be considered as a breaking because the conjugate group is not a subgroup and the intersection of the two is a proper one of the broken group.

## 4 \- Relativistic broken symmetries and toroidal moments

We can summarize the previous results as follows.

By defining:

$$\overline{1}L_y(a,b)=S^1(a,b)\overline{1}S(a,b),$$

we have

$$\{\begin{array}{c}S(a,b)N(G),\hfill \\ \\ K_M^S=S(a,b)^1K_MS(a,b)\hfill \\ =K_{\mathrm{}}(a,b)\overline{1}L_y(a,b),\hfill \\ \\ N(G)\left\{\overline{1}L_y(a,b)\right\}=\{1\},\hfill \\ \\ K_{\mathrm{}}(a,b)K_M^S,\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$G_M^{}=S(a,b)G_{\mathrm{}}^{}(a,b)S^1(a,b).$$
(2)
These results can be generalized in the case of a group $`K_M`$ corresponding to a magnetization vector $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ in the perpendicular plane of the z-axis and not necessary parallel to $`O_z`$.

Then, we would have ($`O_M:\stackrel{}{M}`$-axis)

$$G_M^{}(\theta )=\{m_y^{},R_{O_M}(\pi )\}=R_y(\theta )G_M^{}R_y^1(\theta ),$$

where $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ and $`O_z`$.

Obviously, the relation (2) would be analogous, replacing $`S(a,b)`$ by $`R_y(\theta )S(a,b)=S(a,b,\theta )=S(a^{},b^{})`$. It follows also from this relation (2) that the broken symmetry we generate, is again associated to the concept of conjugaison in the group $`O(1,3)`$ with respect to the connected component of the $`N(G)`$ group. Then, we consider the following classical physical system: $`G_M^{}(\theta )`$ is the relativistic crystalline group of an elementary polarized cell of the crystal, with an electron not in interaction with this cell in the initial state. We also assume that this electron has initially (before intraction) a Galilean motion with a velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ parallel to $`O_y`$ and that the axis of motion is at the distance $`x_o0`$ of the $`y`$-axis. Then, the electron interacts with the cell, inducing (by a “local magnetoelectric effect”), an electric polarization, breaking the initial relativistic crystalline symmetry group $`G_M^{}(\theta )`$.

During the interaction, the resulting symmetry group is $`G_{\mathrm{}}^{}(a^{},b^{})`$. The transformation from one symmetry to the other is realized with the matrix $`S(a^{},b^{})SO_y(1,1)\times SO_y(2)`$. It means that we pass with $`S(a^{},b^{})`$, from one frame to another in which the motion of the electron is kept, i.e., Galilean. In some way, we can speak of a kind of “inverse kinetomagnetoelectric effect” . Thus, the motion of the electron in the laboratory frame is determined by $`S(a^{},b^{})`$, i.e., a rotation around the $`y`$-axis and a boost along the same axis. From the latter characteristics of the motion of the electron and those of $`S(a^{},b^{})`$, the electron will possess a solenoidal motion around the $`y`$-axis.

Then, considering similarly another cell and an electron moving with a fast solenoidal motion along an axis parallel to the $`y`$-axis, the interaction with the cell might provide a closure of the solenoidal configuration into a toroidal configuration in case of an adiabatic process. Let us precise this dynamic from a more mathematical viewpoint in the case of a “classical motion” only, since this latter is phenomenologically closed to the quantum one.

## 5 \- The evolution equation

We have precised the meaning of the transformation $`S`$: it equivalently defines a change of Galilean frame during the electron-cell interaction. We will use this “equivalence principle” (\*) to obtain the type of motion or trajectories of the interacting electrons. We consider that passing from a non-interacting electron-cell system to an interacting one, is equivalent to pass from a Galilean frame $`𝐑_t`$ to another $`𝐑_{}^{}{}_{t^{}}{}^{}`$, with the transformation $`S`$ keeping in these two frames, the direction of a velocity vector $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ invariant, irrespectively of its module.

The coordinates of the position vector of the electron will be $`\stackrel{~}{X}=(t,x,y,z)`$ in $`𝐑_t`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{}=(t^{},x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ in $`𝐑_{}^{}{}_{t^{}}{}^{}`$.

It follows that

$$\stackrel{~}{X}^{}=S\stackrel{~}{X},$$
(3)
where $`SN(G)`$ and $`S`$ function of $`t^{}`$ (or $`t`$).

At this stage, if $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{}`$ have a variation due to an infinitesimal change of the $`𝐑_t`$ and $`𝐑_{}^{}{}_{t^{}}{}^{}`$ frames, then in order to keep the relativistic covariance of the relation (3), this transformation has to be an infinitesimal Lorentz transformation in $`N(G)`$. Hence

$$\stackrel{~}{X}^{}+d\stackrel{~}{X}^{}=(\mathrm{𝟏}dn^{})\stackrel{~}{X}^{},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{X}+d\stackrel{~}{X}=(\mathrm{𝟏}dn)\stackrel{~}{X},$$
(4)
where $`dn`$ and $`dn^{}`$ are elements of the Lie algebra of $`N(G)`$. Then, from equation (3), we deduce that

$$d\stackrel{~}{X}^{}=(dS)\stackrel{~}{X}+Sd\stackrel{~}{X}=((dS)S^1)\stackrel{~}{X}^{}+Sd\stackrel{~}{X},$$

and from equation (4)

$$d\stackrel{~}{X}^{}=((dS)S^1)\stackrel{~}{X}^{}(SdnS^1)\stackrel{~}{X}^{},$$

$$d\stackrel{~}{X}^{}=((dS)S^1SdnS^1)\stackrel{~}{X}^{}=dn^{}\stackrel{~}{X}^{}.$$
(5)
Now, if we ascribe the variations of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{}`$ to the determination of these two 4-vectors in a third frame $`𝐑_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{t^{\prime \prime }}{}^{}𝐑_{}^{}{}_{t^{}+dt^{}}{}^{}`$ obtained from $`𝐑_{}^{}{}_{t^{}}{}^{}`$ by an infinitesimal evolution in time: $`dt^{}`$, of this latter frame, then equation (5) can be written as

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{X}^{}}{dt^{}}=\left(\left(\frac{dS}{dt^{}}\right)S^1S\left(\frac{dn}{dt^{}}\right)S^1\right)\stackrel{~}{X}^{}.$$

Of course, we recognize a gauge transformation with respect to the $`N(G)`$ group of an affine connexion $`dn/dt^{}`$ of the frames bundle of the Minkowski space, since we have the well-known relation in gauge theory

$$dn^{}=SdnS^1(dS)S^1.$$

More, we recognize particularly a kind of Thomas precession equation  which explains the solenoidal motion of the electron during the interaction with the magnetic cell. Let us add that in accordance with the equivalence principle (\*) we gave, the $`𝐑_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{t^{\prime \prime }}{}^{}`$ frame can be associated to an evolution of the electron-cell interaction (or of the breaking of the relativisic crystalline symmetry of the cell). If for instance, $`S`$ is of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}S=\hfill \\ \left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cosh}\left(\xi t^{}\right)& 0& \mathrm{sinh}\left(\xi t^{}\right)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\left(\omega t^{}\right)& 0& \mathrm{sin}\left(\omega t^{}\right)\\ \mathrm{sinh}\left(\xi t^{}\right)& 0& \mathrm{cosh}\left(\xi t^{}\right)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\left(\omega t^{}\right)& 0& \mathrm{cos}\left(\omega t^{}\right)\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\stackrel{~}{X}=(ct,x_o,vt,0)`$, where $`v=\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the module of the invariant velocity vector $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, we obtain

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ct^{}& =& ct\mathrm{cosh}(\xi t^{})vt\mathrm{sinh}(\xi t^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill x^{}(t^{})& =& x_o\mathrm{cos}(\omega t^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill y^{}(t^{})& =& vt\mathrm{cosh}(\xi t^{})ct\mathrm{sinh}(\xi t^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill z^{}(t^{})& =& x_o\mathrm{sin}(\omega t^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, because of the equivalence principle (\*), the relations above must be satisfied whatever is the module $`v`$. Then, we have necessarily $`\xi =0`$ and the time $`t^{}`$ has to be equaling to the time $`t`$ of the laboratory frame. Then $`y^{}(t)=vt`$ and $`x^{}(t)^2+z^{}(t)^2=1`$. Hence, the electron has a solenoidal motion as expected. In conclusion, only $`SO(2)`$ acts on the dynamic of the electron because of the equivalence between $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$, whereas $`N(G)`$ is the gauge group of the electron-cell system. To conclude, the motion of the electron is invariant with respect to the maximal group contained in $`N(G)O(3)`$. Let us remark that the inclusion in $`O(3)`$ is a well-known result of the precession theory.

In the case of a polarized electron, the Thomas precession of its spin along the trajectory would lead to a toroidal configuration of spin currents . On the other hand, if the electron has a fast solenoidal motion before the interaction with the cell, then with the condition that the interaction is adiabatic, one will obtain, by the latter process, a slow solenoidal motion of the mean position of the electron, and so a toroidal motion during the interaction.

## 6 \- The compatible Shubnikov groups

In the case of the $`m_y^{}`$ symmetry, such toroidal motions cannot be completly compatible with this symmetry because they produce a non-vanishing orbital moment along the $`y`$-axis. Then, in order to have a non-zero toroidal moment, it is necessary to assume the existence of a second electron coupled with the first one with the same toroidal moment but with an opposed orbital moment. In this case the crystal will be in a kind of “ferro-toroidal” phase ($`T^2`$) (the exponent 2 for two electrons).

One can generalize the latter procedure to other magnetic groups. The groups $`G`$ for which toroidal moments may exist, must possess a normalizer $`N(G)`$ containing the group $`O(2)`$. From the classification of the normalizers given by E. Asher, one can state that the only (fifteen groups plus the group 1) compatible magnetic groups are

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}1,& \overline{1}^{},& 2,& 2^{},& 3,& 3^{},& 4,& 4^{},\\ 6,& 6^{},& m,& m^{},& 2/m^{},& 2^{}/m,& 4/m^{},& 6/m^{}.\end{array}$$

Then, applying the latter tools, we can work out the toroidal phases for each magnetic group, knowing the possible orientations of the magnetic, electric and kinetic polarization and the permitted $`K(𝐏_{e.m.})`$ groups. The results are given in Table I, following the H. Schmid classification and notations .

In order to illustrate how to construct the Table I, one can give two examples: the group $`m`$, and a AA-type one. In the case of $`m`$, the orientations of $`\stackrel{}{P}`$, $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ are represented in figure 3. The normalizer $`N(m)`$ is: $`O_{xz}(1,2)\dot{\times }m_y`$. The possible basic continuous transformations from one polarization state to another one are ($`S(a)`$: boost, $`R_y(\theta )`$: rotation around the $`y`$-axis with an angle $`\theta `$. The null polarization and magnetization vectors are not indicated):

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{}{P}& & \stackrel{}{P}^{}\text{and}\widehat{(\stackrel{}{P},\stackrel{}{P}^{})}=\theta ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill K_P& & K_{}(a,\theta )=\hfill \\ & & R_y^1(\theta )S^1(a)K_PS(a)R_y(\theta ),\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{}{M}& & \stackrel{}{P}\text{and}\stackrel{}{M}^{}//\stackrel{}{M},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill K_M& & K_{}(a)=S^1(a)K_MS(a),\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{}{M}& & \stackrel{}{M}^{}//\stackrel{}{M},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill K_M& & K_M^{}=K_M,\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{}{P}& & \stackrel{}{P}^{}\text{and}\widehat{(\stackrel{}{P},\stackrel{}{P}^{})}=\theta ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill K_P& & K_P^{}(\theta )=R_y^1(\theta )K_PR_y(\theta ).\hfill \end{array}$$

All the other transformations can be deduced from these four. The computation of the groups $`G^{}`$ in each case shows that no conjugaisons are possible between two groups $`G^{}`$ with a rotation around an axis contained in the plane $`m`$. It follows that no broken symmetry appears and consequently no toroidal moments contained in the plane $`m`$. Only conjugaisons with $`R_y(\theta )`$ can be taken, which may suggest the existence of kind of “antiferro-toroidal phases” along the $`y`$-axis ($`\overline{T}_y`$) (Two opposite toroidal moments per magnetic cell along the $`y`$-axis). In the case of $`G`$ groups of type AA, any orientations in each sublattices of the crystal are permitted so that toroidal moments may appear if oblique fields exist since in this case, it is always possible to conjugate by a rotation two $`K(𝐏_{e.m.})`$ groups. As a result, making the same kind of computation as above, we find that only 12 groups among the 16 ones tabulated in Table I are associated to a non-trivial $`SO(2)`$ action, and then can induced a creation of a solenoidal motion, i.e. anyons.

From these results, one can do few hypothesis as conclusion about a model of superconductivity in magnetoelectric crystals.

## 7 \- Conclusion

We have seen in the previous sections that the breaking of relativistic symmetry can produce a toroidal moment. But in the same time, the electron, interacting with the cell, acquires an orbital moment, whereas, in the initial state, the orbital moment of the electron-cell system was zero. As a result, a quasi-particle is produced during the interaction with a non-zero orbital moment in order to keep the total orbital moment. This quasi-particle is associated with a broken symmetry. Strictly speaking, it is a Goldstone boson. The latter one is connected with the propagation in the crystal of the broken symmetry, i.e., the variation of the local polarization and magnetization resulting from a magnetoelectric interaction between cells and electrons. Consequently, it will carried an electric and magnetic moment and a non-vanishing orbital moment.

Then, one can consider a superconductivity model fitting the B.C.S. theory where the Goldstone bosons, and not the phonons, will couple the electrons of the Cooper pairs. Models of the electron-hole pairing involving toroidal moments have been already studied in the case of excitonic-insulators . Let us mention that the Goldstone bosons will interact between themselves via their electric and magnetic moments, i.e., via segnetomagnon modes. Obviously, such bosons can be directly responsible for the coupling of two toroidal moments in the $`T^2`$ phase for example.

We can precise the characteristics of the Goldstone bosons considering the cyon theory . Indeed, the cyons are types of atoms with one electron and no nucleus in which the electron is constrained to move in a toroidal domain of the space. The cyon theory has been linked with another one: the dyon theory . The dyons are made of one electron and a Dirac monopole as nucleus of the atom. In the model described in this paper, in order to explain the origin of toroidal moments, we considered an electron with a solenoidal motion in the initial state.

Bearing in mind that the potential vector $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ of a Dirac monopole can be generated by a semi-infinite solenoid of electrical currents along the semi-infinite singularity axis of the potential vector, we can consider that the interaction of the electron with the cell will produce a dyon in which the single electron would have an orbital with a toroidal configuration. Hence, we would obtain a cyon and a Dirac monopole. Let us note that a link exists between toroidal moments and magnetic charges, as it has been already shown . The toroidal configuration will be associated with an invariance of the electron-cell system with respect to the group $`N(G)`$ only (containing $`SO(2)`$ as a gauge group of the dyon and of the potential vector of the monopole). Then, it follows that we may consider the Goldstone bosons associated with the breaking of the relativistic symmetry as an effective Dirac monopole. We can also precise that we assumed an adiabatic electron-cell interaction so that a Berry phase appears from a Yang-Mills gauge field in the equivalent quantum system. It has been shown that this gauge field can be associated to an anomaly such as a monopole for example.

If we turn out to Lagrangian formalism, the latter remark means that beginning with a Lagrangian describing the electrons and invariant with respect to the space group of the crystal, we will consider the interaction with the cell in the crystal via magnetoelectric effects, adding perturbative Lagrangians coming from a gauge interaction associated to the gauge group $`N(G)`$. This group will break the relativistic crystalline symmetry of the cell during the interaction. The resulting electromagnetic gauge field will be associated to the effective Dirac monopole in such a way that the total Lagrangian be invariant only with respect to the group $`N(G)`$ (the connected component of $`N(G)`$ being the gauge group). Furthermore, the question arises to know if two electrons with a toroidal configuration of currents, and consequently producing a toroidal moment, may described anyons and the breakdown of time-reversal (T) and parity (P) symmetries . Indeed, toroidal moments break these two symmetries but not the PT one as expected in anyon theory. More, cyons are anyons, and the flux tube of anyons can be generated by a monopole .

From an experimental viewpoint, it would be necessary to characterize the toroidal moments by interaction with light or hyperfrequency electric or/and magnetic fields. Absorption of far infra-red light under static magnetic fields have been applied and measurements of the circular dichroism are now available . To close, let us note that under highfrequency fields the crystal would present a diamagnetic-paramagnetic transition .

Acknowledgements

The author greatly thanks Prof. H. Schmid of the University of Geneva who suggested the present work. I have appreciated his great experience on this subject and his hospitality in his laboratory. I would like also to thank Dr. J.-P. Rivera of the University of Geneva for his relevant remarks. I would like also to dedicate this work to Prof. M. Kibler of the Institut de Physique Nucléaire de l’Université Claude Bernard (Lyon, France) for his continuous help and encouragements.

Figure captions

Table I:

* “Weak ferromagnetism” permitted (I. F. Dzyaloshinskii, (1957) ).
* “Weak ferroelectricity” permitted.

Type of ordering:

* $`M`$ = pyro-, ferro- or ferrimagnetic;
$`P`$ = pyro-, ferro- or ferrielectric.
* $`\overline{M}`$ = antiferromagnetic;
$`\overline{P}`$ = antiferroelectric or orthoelectric.
* $`T`$ = pyro-, ferro-, or ferritoroidal;
$`T^2`$ = same phases as $`T`$ but with two electrons per toroidal moment.
* $`\overline{T}`$ = antiferrotoroidal phase;
$`\overline{T}^2`$ = same phases as $`\overline{T}`$ but with two electrons per toroidal moment.
* $`\overline{T}_y`$ = antiferrotoroidal phase along the $`y`$-axis.
* H: spontaneous magnetization permitted;
E: spontaneous polarization permitted.
* EH: linear magnetoelectric effect permitted.
* EEH and HEE: second-order magnetoelectric effect.
* $`P^S`$: invariant electric polarization vector; $`M^S`$: invariant magnetization vector;
$`T^S`$: invariant toroidal vector;
$`v`$: velocity vector.
* +: meaning all directions permitted.
* $`\dot{\times }`$: semi-direct product.
* ($`y`$): perpendicular to the $`y`$-axis, $`y`$: along the $`y`$-axis.
* $`m_v`$: symmetry with respect to the $`v`$-plane.

Figure 2:
Configuration of a current having a toroidal dipole moment. The arrows on the torus indicate the current direction, and the moment is directed along the symmetry axis of the torus.

Figure 3:
Orientations of the polarization vectors $`P`$ and $`M`$, and the velocity vector $`v`$ in case of a $`m`$ symmetry.