format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recently discovered , superconducting compounds $`R`$Ni2B2C, where $`R`$ is rare earths (Lu, Tm, Er, Ho and Dy) and Y, still remain a hot topic of intensive research. Their crystallographic structure resembles that of high-Tc materials, albeit being 3D in electronic properties. The mechanism of Cooper pairing in these compounds is not known in detail although they are commonly believed to be mediated by the ordinary electron-phonon interaction, like A15. The boron isotope effect  clearly points that the phonons are involved in superconductivity . Whether these compounds are $`s`$ or $`d`$wave superconductors  is still under debate. The important sub-class in these materials is presented by the magnetic compounds ($`R=`$Tm, Er, Ho, and Dy), with the antiferromagnetic (AFM) order  and weak ferromagnetism (Er)  coexisting with superconductivity.

The measurements of the quasiparticle density of states (DOS) by tunneling spectroscopy encounters experimental difficulties, especially these refer to the magnetic superconductors. To our knowledge, no information is available about the electron-quasiparticle-interaction (EQI) spectral function measured by tunneling spectroscopy in the superconducting state, which unambiguously allows one to determine the mechanism of Cooper pairing.

An investigation of point contacts between a normal metal and a superconductor can partially solve these problems. The superconducting energy gap and DOS can be measured by Andreev-reflection spectroscopy , and EQI spectral function can be obtained by inelastic point-contact spectroscopy (PCS) both in the normal  and in the superconducting  states. Comparing the tunneling junction with point contacts, we can see that the boundary between $`R`$Ni2B2C-superconductor and vacuum (dielectric) in tunnel devices constitutes much stronger discontinuity than the interface between $`R`$Ni2B2C and a normal metal in point contacts, since in the latter case there is a Fermi-sea of electrons at both sides around the interface with no additional dielectric layer introduced. This discontinuity may severely influence the measurements making them different from the bulk properties.

The schematic experimental setup is shown in Fig.1. A small noble metal (Ag, Cu) rod with sharp edges touches the $`(ab)`$-plane edge of a flat $`R`$Ni2B2C single crystal or a sharp edge of a polycrystal with an a priory unknown orientation. Many spots can be tried both on the rod and along the $`R`$Ni2B2C edge for investigating the point contacts. The temperature and magnetic field can be varied, the latter, in case of a single crystal, is oriented either $``$ or $``$ to the $`ab`$ plane. The $`IV`$ characteristics and their first, $`R(V)=dV/dI(V)`$, and second, $`dR/dV(V)`$, derivatives are recorded by means of a standard lock-in technique. The latter equals $`dR/dV(V)=2\sqrt{2}V_2/V_1^2`$, where $`V_2`$ is the second harmonic and $`V_1`$ is the modulation rms voltage. The diameter of a point contact can be estimated through the Sharvin formula for a clean orifice $`d=27.5/\sqrt{R_0}`$ where $`d`$ is in nm, the nominator is the average of the noble metal and $`R`$Ni2B2C , and $`R_0`$ is the zero-bias normal-state resistance of a contact in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

## 2 Superconducting energy gap measurements by Andreev-reflection spectroscopy.

### BCS-like DOS in paramagnetic and antiferromagnetic state of $`R`$Ni2B2C ($`R`$=Dy, Tm)

Recently the temperature dependence of quasiparticle DOS has been measured in the DyNi2B2C-Ag point contacts  by means of Andreev-reflection spectroscopy. The $`R(V)`$-curves normalized by the normal-state $`R(V)`$ dependences are fitted very well with the Blonder-Tinkham-Klapwijk (BTK) theory  with a zero smearing parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . This evidences that the quasiparticle DOS is BCS-like in this material. The superconducting energy gap extrapolated to zero temperature equals (3.63$`\pm `$0.05) $`k_BT_c`$ which evidences that on the average DyNi2B2C is a moderately strong coupling superconductor. The only disagreement with the BTK theory is that the decrease of the differential resistance around zero bias in the superconducting state is typically a few percentage, instead of the order of one-half of a normal resistance . This can be due either to microscopic inhomogeneity of the material under the contact where only a small part reveals the unperturbed superconducting properties, or to the intrinsically decreased Andreev reflection from an AFM superconductor with ferromagnetically ordered DyC planes. It should be stressed that DyNi2B2C is the only $`R`$Ni2B2C compound which has $`T_c<T_N`$. Hence, one might think that the molecular field due to the AFM order averages to zero on the scale of superconducting coherence length except of very narrow directions almost parallel to the $`ab`$ planes.

The situation is different in TmNi2B2C where incommensurate spin wave ordering occurs at temperatures much below the superconducting transition $`(T_cT_m)`$ and the superconductivity develops in the paramagnetic state. Preliminary results  show that the overall behavior of $`R(V)`$-curves also fits the BTK predictions. That means that this compound also has the BCS form of quasiparticle DOS.

### Fine structure in temperature dependence of superconducting energy gap in ErNi2B2C near Tm.

The overall temperature dependence of the Andreev-reflection spectra in ErNi2B2C (Fig.2) also follows the BTK model. In this material $`T_c>T_m`$ and around $`T_m=6.5`$ K spin fluctuations depress the superconducting order parameter which manifested as the lowering of $`H_{c2}`$ near $`T_m`$ . Recently, this depression has been measured using the temperature dependence of the superconducting penetration depth $`\lambda (T)`$  which together with superconducting coherence length $`\xi (T)`$ permits determination of the temperature dependence of the thermodynamic critical field $`H_c=\varphi _0/[2\sqrt{2}\pi \xi (T)\lambda (T)]`$ proportional to the superconducting order parameter (energy gap). Direct measurement of the superconducting energy gap by means of the Andreev reflection and corresponding BTK fitting (Fig.2) is shown in Fig.3. There is a noticeable dip in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ around $`T_m`$, but the overall dependence follows the BCS law shown with the solid line. For this particular contact measured on polycrystalline sample with unknown orientation, the extrapolated gap is 1.82 mV (2$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$=4.23 $`k_BT_c)`$, which is larger than the average value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_BT_c=3.66\pm 0.4`$ , probably because of underestimated $`T_c`$. Interestingly, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-parameter drops around $`T_m`$ while it takes relatively large value at other temperatures. The barrier parameter $`Z`$ experiences no change around $`T_m`$. We emphasize that except the small anomaly around $`T_m`$, the quasiparticle density of states in superconducting state can be approximated by the BCS dependence both in paramagnetic and AFM states as follows from the BTK fits (Fig.2).

### Two superconducting states of HoB2Ni2C.

In the Ho-compound, the superconducting transition temperature ($`T_c=8.7`$ K) is close to that of the magnetic transition temperature ($`T_m8.5`$ K) into the incommensurate helical state with wave vector q$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{}`$=0.91c. Moreover, the incommensurate a-axis modulation with q$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}`$=0.55a also exists over the same temperature range along with the spiral-AFM transition. Both of these states collapse near the commensurate AFM transition with q=c and $`T_N5`$ K . The Andreev-reflection spectra of HoNi2B2C vividly mirror these transformations (Fig.4) . Below $`T_c`$ and down to $`T_N`$ the $`R(V)`$-spectra cannot be fitted by the BTK model. The shallow dip which appears around zero bias has an order of magnitude larger width than that expected for the given $`T_c`$. We emphasize that for $`T_cT6.5`$ K the Andreev spectra are completely different from those in the paramagnetic state of Dy, Tm and Er compounds. Hence, in HoNi2B2C we observed the magnetic transition at the same temperature as the superconducting one, but not at $`T_m`$=6.5 K as in the single crystals . It is probable that the uncompensated internal magnetic field along the $`ab`$ plane for the spiral structure leads to the gapless behavior of DOS in the temperature region discussed. Below the AFM transition ($`T<T_N=6.6`$ K), the spectra reveal the ordinary BTK behavior. Interestingly, the temperature dependence of the spectra follows the BCS law albeit with a new $`T_c^{}6.6`$ K. The BTK fits yield a zero-temperature energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1.04\pm 0.06`$ meV which gives $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_BT_c^{}=3.7\pm 0.2`$ for lower ”$`T_c^{}`$”, i.e. the same as for other $`R`$Ni2B2C . Using the upper $`T_c=8.5`$ K, one obtains unreasonably low $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_BT_c=2.8`$.

## 3 Point-contact spectroscopy of electron-quasiparticle-interaction spectral function.

### Principles of PCS.

The point-contact spectroscopy (PCS) involves studies of the nonlinearities of the $`IV`$ characteristics of metallic constrictions in the normal state, with the size $`d`$ smaller than the inelastic electron mean free path (m.f.p.) . In contrast to a tunneling junction, an ideal point contact has no barrier. PCS has the advantage that the material is probed into the depth of the current spreading region, which is of the order of the constriction size. This size should not be too large in order not to violate the conditions of the spectroscopic regime of the current flow: $`d\mathrm{min}(l_{in},\sqrt{l_{in}l_e}),`$ where $`l_e`$ and $`l_{in}`$ are the elastic and inelastic electron mean free paths, respectively.

In the ballistic regime ($`dl_e,l_{in}`$), the second derivative of the $`IV`$ characteristic, $`dR/dV(V)`$, is proportional to the electron-quasiparticle-interaction (EQI) spectral function analogous to the Eliashberg function for the electron-phonon-interaction (EPI):

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}R}{dV}(V)=\frac{4}{3}\frac{ed}{\mathrm{}v_F}g_{PC}(\omega )_{\mathrm{}\omega =eV};(T0)$$

Here $`g_{PC}(\omega )`$ is the EQI or EPI spectral function with kinematic restrictions imposed by the contact geometry. The factor $`4`$ (instead of $`8`$ as in homocontacts) is due to weak EPI coupling and much greater $`v_F`$ for the noble metal, as compared to $`R`$Ni2B2C. Correspondingly, the noble-metal EPI function is not seen in the spectrum. For the same reason, in the two-band model of $`R`$Ni2B2C , only the EQI spectral function for the band with the lowest Fermi velocity and largest EQI is seen in the spectrum.

In the spectroscopic regime no heating of the contact area occurs since the energy dissipation length, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon `$, is much larger than the contact size. However, if the contact size is large compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon `$, then there is local heating and the temperature rises up to $`T_0eV/3.63k_B`$. The thermal feature in the PC spectra can be quite large if at a particular temperature $`T_{cr}`$ a sharp increase in resistivity occurs like, for example, for the superconducting-normal or AFM-paramagnetic transitions. The voltage position of such transition on the $`IV`$ curve should depend on the input power $`V/R^2,`$ which means on the contact resistance.

### Comparison between phonon DOS and EQI spectral function for superconducting YNi2B2C and non-superconducting LaNi2B2C.

It is very instructive to compare the phonon density of states, measured by inelastic neutron scattering, and the EPI (EQI) spectral function, obtained by PCS, for superconducting and non-superconducting compounds (Fig.5). For these we choose the nonmagnetic superconducting compound YNi2B2C and non-superconducting homologue LaNi2B2C . The phonon spectra measured by neutrons contain three groups of peaks: low-frequency modes (0–30 meV), middle-frequency group (40–60 meV) and boron high-frequency modes (100–160 meV) . For point-contact spectra, the high-frequency modes cannot be seen as separate peaks because of non-spectroscopic (thermal) regime of current flow where the m.f.p. becomes shorter than the contact size. For the same reason, the middle-size peaks are smeared, approaching the thermal regime. On the contrary, the low-frequency peaks are well resolved and can be compared with the phonon spectra. It should be noted that the neutron spectra are taken at room temperature while the PC spectra at liquid helium temperature. For non-superconducting LaNi2B2C the positions of the low-frequency peaks are very close in both spectra (a) and (b) whereas for YNi2B2C the whole low-frequency group in PC spectrum (d) is shifted appreciably below the neutron one (c). This substantial softening of the low-frequency peaks with decreasing temperature was thoroughly studied in Ref. by neutron scattering. A special problem arises with the low-frequency peak at $`4`$ meV, which is not resolved yet. In neutron scattering, the emergence of this peak coincides with the transition to the superconducting state and it is observed within a narrow solid angle of phonon wave vectors. In PCS it is seen both in the superconducting and sometimes in the normal state whereas in the latter case its intensity is greatly diminished by the magnetic field. Here we remind that in order to measure the PCS spectra the requisite magnetic field should be applied to suppress superconductivity. One should also take into account that the lowest-frequency peak is clearly seen in the EPI spectrum which is the phonon DOS weighted by the averaged EPI matrix element within a relatively large $`\left(45^{}\right)`$ solid angle.

Summarizing the PCS study of EQI function, one can argue that the low frequency modes are characteristic of the superconducting compounds while the behaviour of high energy part of the spectra does not differ appreciably for superconducting and non-superconducting compounds .

### Low-frequency phonon and crystal-electric-field excitation peaks in ErNi2B2C

In the $`R`$Ni2B2C compound where magnetic and superconducting orders coexist (i.e. $`R`$-ion is magnetic), the new branches of excitations appear which can interact with an electron. These are the magnons at temperatures below the characteristic magnetic transition temperatures ($`T_m,T_N`$) and crystal-electric-field (CEF) excitations. Neutron scattering experiments and magnetization measurements show that the characteristic energies in the latter case are absent in the range 2-10 meV in Ho-, and possibly, Dy-compounds . In Fig.6 the PC EQI spectra are shown for two different ErNi2B2C-Ag point contacts. Along with the second harmonic curves 1,2, $`V_2(V)`$, taken in the magnetic field needed to destroy superconductivity, the Fig.6 shows (insets) the Andreev-reflection spectra $`R(V)`$ for the same junctions. These curves serve as a ”passport” evidencing that there is an intact material under the contact. Both PC spectra have a large low-frequency peak at about 8-9 meV confirming that this low-frequency phonon feature is necessary for observation of the superconducting state. There is an additional structure at about 6 meV which most probably corresponds to the CEF-excitation determined in ErNi2B2C by neutrons . There is also a non-identified structure (maximum of $`R(V)`$) at zero bias which does not belong to superconductivity.

### Low-energy peaks in HoNi2B2C and DyNi2B2C compounds.

The low-energy parts of the EQI spectra of HoNi2B2C and DyNi2B2C are shown in Fig.7. These compounds possess the same ground state (commensurate AFM order with magnetic moments aligned ferromagnetically along the  direction on the $`R`$C planes ) though with different $`T_N`$. Their spectra are very similar in overall shape while the positions of peaks are different. The characteristic energies are hardly due only to the differences between the phonon branches since the masses of the constituent atoms are nearly the same. Quite definitely, the magnetic excitations should be involved. This follows from the strong temperature and magnetic field dependences of the intensity and energy position in HoNi2B2C . It is difficult to interpret these dependences, since the magnetic phase diagram in HoNi2B2C is very complicated. Fortunately, it is simpler in DyNi2B2C. The unexpected temperature dependence of the lowest-peak for the latter compound is shown in Fig.8 . At lowering the temperature, the lowest-frequency peak appears at about $`15`$ K, much above the superconducting order $`T_c=6`$ K and even the magnetic order $`T_N=10.6`$ K. Its height and area grow linearly with $`T`$ (see the lower inset), which means that its width remains approximately constant. It can also be seen in the superconducting state as a strong feature superimposed on the rapidly changing background due to the superconducting DOS. The other phonon lines ($`eV=1030`$ meV in Fig.8) are smeared due to the large background in the PC spectra without any noticeable overall change of intensity with temperature. We are inclined to relate the lowest-lying peak with magnetic excitations (like the same peak at $`eV=3.5`$ meV, Fig,7, in HoNi2B2C). It should not be the true magnon density of state peak, since it is observed above $`T_N`$ in DyNi2B2C, neither it is due to the CEF excitation, since no peak at this energy is expected. Its origin still remains a puzzle. Perhaps it may be attributed to the spin fluctuations which, judging from the neutron measurement, have a large tail at higher temperatures . In HoNi2B2C, the lowest-frequency peak mentioned above exists starting at $`T=12`$ K , which is also above the magnetic transition temperature $`T_m=8.5`$ K in this material.

## 4 Discussion

In literature  one can encounter a statement that at least the non-magnetic compounds $`R`$Ni2B2C (Y, Lu) are similar to A15 superconductors in that they have enhanced electron density of state at the Fermi energy and their Cooper-pairing mechanism involves phonons . Still, despite several attempts, no phonon structure was observed above the energy gap in the tunneling characteristics . In the tunneling characteristics of A15, a distinct phonon structure is observed with a proper value of the electron-phonon parameter $`\lambda `$ . For magnetic $`R`$Ni2B2C, the situation is even worse, since the superconducting energy gap is not safely measured , to say nothing about the above the gap spectroscopic structure. This situation is disturbing and similar to that in high-Tc superconductors where no structure is seen above the gap, yet .

Contrary to tunneling, the PC spectra show strong electron-quasiparticles interactions both with phonons and magnetic excitations. In principle, they can be studied both in normal and superconducting  states. Interpretation of these spectra is not straightforward, since several electron-quasiparticles interactions can interfere with each other. The magnetic structure can hinder the electron-phonon interaction responsible for Cooper pairing . On the other hand, the superconducting transition may lead to a change in magnetic order  since it affects the RKKY interaction. Even in the non-magnetic compounds, the proximity of the superconducting energy gap to nonadiabatic softening of phonon modes may lead to drastic changes in the phonon spectrum and electron-phonon interaction. Only the systematic study of PC spectra, both in non-magnetic and magnetic compounds in different magnetic fields and at various temperatures, can shed light on the peculiarities of Cooper pairing in these compounds. In this respect, the use of high quality single crystals is invaluable, since the properties of these compounds are often very anisotropic.


text:
# Logarithmic Conformal Field Theory Through Nilpotent Conformal Dimensions

## 1 Introduction

Since the paper by Belavin, Polyakov and Zamolodchikov  on the determining role of conformal invariance on the structure of two dimensional quantum field theories, an enormous amount of work has been done on the role of conformal field theories (CFTs) in various aspects of physics such as string theory, critical phenomena and condensed matter physics. Recently Gurarie  has pointed to the existence of LCFTs. Correlation functions in an LCFT may have logarithmic as well as power dependence. Such logarithmic terms were ruled out earlier due to requirements such as unitarity or non existence of null states.

In an LCFT, degenerate operators exist which form a Jordan cell under conformal transformations. In the simplest case one has a pair $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ transforming as:

$`\varphi (\lambda z)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (z),`$
$`\psi (\lambda z)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^\mathrm{\Delta }[\psi (z)\varphi (z)\mathrm{ln}\lambda ].`$ (1)
To our knowledge the first time that logarithmic terms appear was in . The emergence of the logarithmic term leads to a host of unusual properties. For instance the two point correlation functions can be derived from requirements of invariance under the action of Virasoro algebra generators $`L_0,L_{\pm 1}`$ .

$`\varphi (z^{})\varphi (z)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\psi (z^{})\psi (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z^{}z)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}(2a\mathrm{ln}(z^{}z)+b),`$
$`\psi (z^{})\varphi (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{(z^{}z)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}.`$ (2)
Generalization to higher dimensions and Jordan cells of a larger number of degenerate fields were immediate to follow . The development of LCFTs has had two concerns, its applications and structural matters. A good survey of both aspects can be found in . On the structural front, the development has been patchy. Where exactly do LCFTs fit into the larger family of CFTs requires elucidation. Interesting work on this issues has been done by Flohr  showing that in the minimal series, if $`p`$ and $`q`$ take values which are not coprime and fall out of the allowed range, LCFTs result. Also, singular vectors in LCFTs were analyzed by Flohr , using grassman variables, which suggests that there is a connection with supersymmetry. Connection with supersymmetry has been discussed elsewhere too . More recently in papers by Gurarie and Ludwig  and by Kausch  a more direct connection with supersymmetry has been pointed out. Another exciting development is the connection between AdS theories and LCFT . Indeed, if LCFTs are the natural framework for the AdS/CFT correspondence , then the natural supersymmetry of this theory also suggests that there is a possible connection between supersymmetry and LCFT. In this paper we follow up Flohr’s  idea by considering a nilpotent variable $`\theta `$, which is not anticommutative:

$`\theta _i^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\theta _i\theta _j`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _j\theta _i.`$ (3)
This is perhaps equivalent to restricting ourselves to the bosonic section of a supersymmetric theory. We derive the logarithmic conformal transformations by assuming that conformal dimensions have a nilpotent part. In fact let us postulate that a primary field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\theta )`$ exists with the following transformation law under scaling:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda z,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )}\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\theta ).`$ (4)
However the nilpotency of $`\theta `$ allows us to expand both sides of equation (4). Writing $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\theta )=\varphi (z)+\theta \psi (z)`$ and $`\lambda ^{(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )}=\lambda ^\mathrm{\Delta }(1\theta `$ln$`\lambda )`$ equation (4) reduces to the transformation laws given in equation (1). This gives a Jordan cell of rank 2. In order to get a higher order cell one has to assume a higher level of nilpotency for $`\theta `$. In general if the $`n`$th power of $`\theta `$ vanishes we have the following expansion for a field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\theta )`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0(z)+\varphi _1(z)\theta +\varphi _2(z)\theta ^2+\mathrm{}+\varphi _{n1}(z)\theta ^{n1}.`$ (5)
The components ($`\varphi _0\mathrm{}\varphi _{n1}`$) constitute a Jordan cell of rank $`n`$. To see this it is enough to expand both sides of equation (4), using equation (5). Any how, as all the known LCFTs only contain Jordan cells of rank two, we restrict our derivations to LCFTs of this type. So, through out this paper we shall assume $`\theta _i^2=0`$ . Generalization to higher rank Jordan cells is straight forward.

This paper is organized as follows. In section two we derive two and three point correlation functions. Before deriving four point functions it is necessary to discuss singular vectors (section 3) in the light of this new construction. In this section character formula are also derived. In section four we discuss the structure of the Kac determinant. In section five we derive four point functions. This leads to generalization of the hypergeometric function. The details of this calculation is discussed in appendix B. In section six we discuss the emergence of an extra energy momentum operator which is partner to the original energy momentum tensor. It appears that a pseudo identity operator and a second energy momentum tensor arise in every LCFT . We close this paper by discussing modifications which arise near a boundary.

## 2 Two and three point Correlation functions

Using transformation law of equation (4) we attempt to derive the form of correlation functions. Consider the two point functions

$`G(z_1,z_2,\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(z_1,\theta _1)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(z_2,\theta _2).`$ (6)
Within this correlation function, there exist the correlators $`\varphi _1(z_1)\varphi _2(z_2)`$, $`\psi _1(z_1)\varphi _2(z_2)`$, $`\varphi _1(z_1)\psi _2(z_2)`$ and $`\psi _1(z_1)\psi _2(z_2)`$, each of them being coefficient of 1, $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ and $`\theta _1\theta _2`$ respectively. So deriving the correlation function (6) and expanding it in powers of $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$, one easily finds the two point functions of the fields in the theory.

Translation invariance requires $`G`$, to be a function of $`z_1z_2`$ only. For rotation and scale invariance we must have

$`G(\lambda (z_1z_2),\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\theta _1)}\lambda ^{(\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\theta _2)}G((z_1z_2),\theta _1,\theta _2),`$ (7)
Choosing $`\lambda =(z_1z_2)^1`$, we get

$`G(z_1z_2,\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z_1z_2)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\theta _1+\theta _2}}}f(\theta _1,\theta _2).`$ (8)
For symmetry under special conformal transformations

$`z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z+b}},`$ (9)
firstly we observe that equation (8) is inconsistent unless $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ or $`f=0`$. Setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ we then get:

$`f(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`f(\theta _1,\theta _2)(z_1+b)^{(\theta _1\theta _2)}(z_2+b)^{(\theta _2\theta _1)}.`$ (10)
This does not lead to a vanishing $`f`$, since $`\theta _i`$’s are nilpotent. Specializing to the case of a rank 2 Jordan cell, we have as the most general possible solution of equation (10):

$`f(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`a_1(\theta _1+\theta _2)+a_{12}\theta _1\theta _2.`$ (11)
This leads to the two point function

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1,\theta _1)\mathrm{\Phi }(z_2,\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z_1z_2)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }+(\theta _1+\theta _2)}}}(a_1(\theta _1+\theta _2)+a_{12}\theta _1\theta _2)`$ (12)
which is identical to equation (2), if we expand $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_i,\theta _i)`$. The above results are easily generalized to a Jordan cell of rank $`n`$, and also to arbitrary dimensions.

Let us next consider the three point function

$`G(z_1,z_2,z_3,\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(z_1,\theta _1)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(z_2,\theta _2)\mathrm{\Phi }_3(z_3,\theta _3).`$ (13)
Again it is clear that if one obtains this correlation function, all the correlators such as $`\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _3`$, $`\varphi _1\varphi _2\psi _3`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ can be calculated readily by expanding this correlation function in terms of $`\theta _1`$, $`\theta _2`$ and $`\theta _3`$. Also note that these fields may belong to different Jordan cells. The procedure of finding this correlator is just the same as the one we did for the two point function. Like ordinary CFTs, the three point function is obtained up to some constants. Of course, in our case it is found up to a function of $`\theta _i`$’s, i.e.

$`G(z_1,z_2,z_3,\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3)`$ $`=`$ $`f(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3)z_{12}^az_{23}^bz_{31}^c,`$ (14)
where $`z_{ij}=(z_iz_j)`$ and

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Delta }_3+(\theta _1+\theta _2\theta _3),`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_1+(\theta _2+\theta _3\theta _1),`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3+\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+(\theta _3+\theta _1\theta _2).`$ (15)
There are some constraints on $`f(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3)`$, but further reduction requires specification the rank of Jordan cell. As we have taken it to be 2, we have:

$`f(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3)={\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{\overset{3}{}}}C_i(\theta _j+\theta _k)+{\displaystyle \underset{1i<j3}{}}C_{ij}\theta _i\theta _j+C_{123}\theta _1\theta _2\theta _3.`$ (16)
While symmetry considerations do not rule out a constant term on the right hand side of equation (16), but a consistent OPE forces this constant to vanish . This form together with the equations (14) - (16) leads to correlation functions already obtained in the literature. This is also consistent with the observation that in all the known LCFT’s so far the three point function of the first field in the Jordan cell vanishes.

In a similar fashion one can derive the form of the four point functions. But before this is done, we need to address the question of singular vectors in an LCFT.

## 3 Singular Vectors in LCFT

Considering the infinitesimal transformation consistent with equation (4) we have :

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon (z^{n+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}+(n+1)(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )z^n)\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (17)
This defines the action of the generators of the Virasoro algebra on the primary fields and points to the existence of a highest weight vector with nilpotent eigenvalue:

$`L_0|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta ,`$
$`L_n|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0,n1.`$ (18)
Nilpotent state $`|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$ can be considered as:

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta =|\varphi +\theta |\psi .$$
(19)
It can be easily seen that the law written in equation (19), leads to the well known equations:

$`L_0|\varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }|\varphi ,`$
$`L_0|\psi =\mathrm{\Delta }|\psi +|\varphi .`$ (20)
However the norm of this vector is complex. As discussed in , the norm of the state $`|\varphi `$ is zero and the states $`|\varphi `$ and $`|\psi `$ are not orthogonal to each other. Instead of orthogonality condition, one can choose

$$\psi |\varphi =\varphi |\psi =1.$$
(21)
The norm of $`|\psi `$ is not well defined and it is taken to be $`d`$. Putting all these together, one can define:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta |\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta =\theta +\overline{\theta }+d\overline{\theta }\theta .`$ (22)
In addition to these highest weight states, there are descendants which can be obtained by applying $`L_n`$’s on the highest weight vectors:

$`|\mathrm{\Delta }+n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}+n_k+\theta `$ $`=`$ $`L_{n_1}L_{n2}\mathrm{}L_{n_k}|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta .`$ (23)
To acquire more information about the content of descendants level by level, and hence the secondary operators, one usually computes the character formula:

$`\chi _\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}N+\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta |\eta ^{L_0\frac{c}{24}}|N+\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$ (24)
which by equation (23) simplifies to

$`\chi _\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta \frac{c}{24}}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}\eta ^Ng(N,\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta |\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta .`$ (25)
Writing $`g(N,\theta )=g_0(N)+\theta g_1(N)`$ we obtain four characters:

$`\chi _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\varphi ,\varphi )}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\chi _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\varphi ,\psi )}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\psi ,\varphi )}=\eta ^{\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{c}{24}}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}\eta ^Ng_0(N),`$
$`\chi _\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\psi ,\psi )}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{c}{24}}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}\eta ^N\left[g_1(N)+(d+\mathrm{ln}\eta )g_0(N)\right].`$ (26)
Appearance of logarithms in character formula have been discussed in .

There is a submodule in which states transform among themselves, under any conformal transformation. Such a submodule is generated from a state of the form given in equation (19), such that $`L_k|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^n(\theta )=0,k1`$. Properties of $`L_k`$ imply that it is sufficient to have:

$`L_k|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^n(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`0,k=1,2.`$ (27)
Such a vector is a linear combination of descendant vectors of level $`n`$, so we can write:

$`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^n(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}+n_m=n\}}{}}b^{(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_m)}L_{n_m}\mathrm{}L_{n_1}|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta .`$ (28)
A singular vector must also be orthogonal to the whole vector module and in particular itself. At level $`n`$, there are $`p(n)`$, (partition of n) unknown coefficients in a singular vector $`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^n`$ which need to be determined. The action of $`L_1`$ on equation (28) provides $`p(n1)`$ relations among the coefficients. One of the coefficients is arbitrary and the requirement that $`L_2|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^n(\theta )=0`$, gives $`p(n2)`$ relations. In the following we determine the null vectors at level 2 for a rank 2 Jordan cell. We thus have:

$`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(b^{(1,1)}L_1^2+b^{(2)}L_2\right)|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta ,`$ (29)
by applying $`L_1`$ we have:

$`\left[b^{(1,1)}[4(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )+2]L_1+3b^{(2)}L_1\right]|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (30)
Thus we have the solution $`b^{(1,1)}=3`$ and

$`b^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`[4(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )+2].`$ (31)
Further more

$`[6b^{(1,1)}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )+b^{(2)}(4\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}+4\theta )]|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (32)
We thus get:

$`16\mathrm{\Delta }^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }(c5)+c+2\theta (16\mathrm{\Delta }+c5)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (33)
We thus observe that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{5}{4}`$ or $`\frac{1}{4}`$, a logarithmic null vector exists if $`c=25`$ and 1 respectively. Therefore the if we write $`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^2(\theta )=|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^2(0)+\theta |\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^2(1)`$ then

$`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^2(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[3L_1^2(4\mathrm{\Delta }+2)L_2\right]|\varphi ,`$
$`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^2(1)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[3L_1^2(4\mathrm{\Delta }+2)L_2\right]|\psi 4L_2|\varphi .`$ (34)
By the same technique logarithmic singular vectors can be obtained at higher levels. In the appendix A we present a level 3 singular vector. These results are consistent with findings of . However there is evidence that, this method does not give all singular vectors , perhaps conditions of equation (27) are too strong.

## 4 Kac determinant in LCFT

In section 3 we discussed the singular vectors which occur at level 2 and 3 for a rank 2 Jordan cell. We saw that unlike ordinary CFT in an LCFT, for some special values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and c singular vectors exist. Our technique in section 3 for finding singular vectors was that, we demanded at level $`n`$, $`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^n(\theta )`$ be a primary field in the sense that $`L_1|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^n(\theta )=L_2|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^n(\theta )=0`$. As in an ordinary CFT we can relate the discussion of singular vectors in LCFT to Kac determinant. So it is necessary to find the form of the Kac determinant in the nilpotent $`\theta `$ formalism.

In ordinary CFTs, the Kac determinant arises out of setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }|M|\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to zero where the elements of $`M`$ have a general form like $`L_i^mL_j^n\mathrm{}`$. The nonzero contributions only come from parts like $`L_0^k`$ and these terms are replaced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$. In our case all the above is true except that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }`$ should be replaced by $`|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$, and since $`L_0|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta =(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$ all $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s are replaced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$. However now the norm of the state $`|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$ is given by equation (22), and all the coefficients of $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ have to vanish independently. One thus concludes that the determinant of the matrix $`M`$ should vanish. So, at level $`n`$ Kac determinant has the form:

$$\underset{n}{det}(c,\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )=\underset{r,s=1;1rsn}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta \mathrm{\Delta }_{r,s}(c)\right)^{p(nrs)},$$
(35)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{r,s}(c)`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{r,s}(c)=\frac{1}{96}\left[(r+s)\sqrt{1c}(rs)\sqrt{25c}\right]^2\frac{1c}{24}.$$
(36)
and $`p(nrs)`$ is the number of partitions of the integer $`nrs`$. In an ordinary CFT when the Kac determinant vanishes we have a singular vector. In our case and for a rank 2 Jordan cell the condition of vanishing $`det_n(c,\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )`$ are:

(i) If $`p(nrs)2`$ for some $`r`$ and $`s`$, Kac determinant vanishes for all values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that satisfy in $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{r,s}(c)`$.

(ii) If $`p(nrs)=1`$ for some pairs of $`(r,s)=(r_1,s_1),(r_2,s_2),\mathrm{}`$ we can have vanishing determinant if at least $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{r_i,s_i}(c)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{r_j,s_j}(c)`$. In this case unlike (i) we are limited to special values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`c`$ which last condition is held. As an example we consider Kac determinant at level 3. Since

$$p(3rs)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\hfill & \text{r}\text{=1 , s=1}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{r}\text{=1 , s=2 or r=2 , s=1}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{r}\text{=1 , s=3 or r=3 , s=1}\hfill \end{array},$$
(37)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,1}=0`$ and other $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{r,s}`$ are nonzero, therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,1}`$ is a case of (i) and others are cases of (ii)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,3}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3,1}\{\begin{array}{cc}c=1,\mathrm{\Delta }=1\hfill & \\ c=25,\mathrm{\Delta }=3\hfill & \end{array},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,1}\{\begin{array}{cc}c=1,\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{4}\hfill & \\ c=25,\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{5}{4}\hfill & \end{array},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,3}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,1}c=28,\mathrm{\Delta }=2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3,1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,1}c=2,\mathrm{\Delta }=0.`$ (38)
These results are consistent with those of . We observe that LCFTs are possible only when the Kac determinant has multiple zeros. This means that we have an LCFT only when degenerate conformal weights exist. Cases have been seen before, the simplest LCFT is $`c=2`$ first given by .

## 5 Four point functions

To obtain further information about the theory with which we are concerned, such as surface critical exponents, OPE structure, monodromy group etc. one should compute four point correlation functions. In the language we have developed so far, the four point correlation functions depend on four $`\theta `$’s in addition to the coordinates of points:

$`G(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3,\theta _4)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(z_1,\theta _1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_4(z_4,\theta _4)`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`f(\eta ,\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3,\theta _4){\displaystyle \underset{1ij4}{}}z_{ij}^{\mu _{ij}}.`$
where

$`\mu _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_k+\theta _k)(\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\theta _i)(\mathrm{\Delta }_j+\theta _j),\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{z_{41}z_{23}}{z_{43}z_{21}}}`$ (41)
This form is invariant under all conformal transformations. Although there is no other restrictions on $`G`$ due to symmetry considerations, but because of OPE structure, the four-point function $`\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi `$ should vanish , that is, the term independent of $`\theta _i`$’s in $`G`$ is zero. Thus in addition to the differential equations which should be satisfied by $`G`$, one must impose the condition $`\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi =0`$ on the solution derived.

If there is a singular vector in the theory, a differential equation can be derived for $`f(\eta ,\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3,\theta _4)`$. Let us consider a theory which contains a singular vector of level two. As seen in previous section the singular vector in such a theory is:

$$\chi ^{(2)}(z_4,\theta _4)=\left[3L_1^2(2(2\mathrm{\Delta }_4+1)+4\theta _4)L_2\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_4(z_4,\theta _4).$$
(42)
As this vector is orthogonal to all the other operators in the Verma module

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3\chi ^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (43)
one immediately is led to the differential equation:

$$\left[3_{z_4}^2(2(2\mathrm{\Delta }_4+1)+4\theta _4)\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\theta _i}{(z_iz_4)^2}\frac{_{z_i}}{z_iz_4}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{\Phi }_4=0.$$
(44)
By sending points to $`z_1=0,z_2=1,z_3\mathrm{}`$ and $`z_4=\eta ,`$ we find:

$`_\eta ^2f+[{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{14}}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{24}}{1\eta }}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2\eta 1}{\eta (1\eta )}}]_\eta f+[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{14}(\mu _{14}1)}{\eta ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{24}(\mu _{24}1)}{(1\eta )^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{14}\mu _{24}}{\eta (1\eta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\theta _1\mu _{14})}{\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\theta _2\mu _{24})}{(1\eta )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mu _{12}}{\eta (1\eta )}}]f`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (45)
where $`\alpha =\frac{1}{3}\left[2(2\mathrm{\Delta }_4+1)+4\theta _4\right]`$. Renormalizing using

$`H(\eta ,\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3,\theta _4)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{\beta _1+\mu _{14}}(1\eta )^{\beta _2+\mu _{24}}f(\eta ,\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3,\theta _4),`$ (46)
we find that $`\beta _i`$ satisfy

$`\beta _i(\beta _i1)+\alpha (\beta _i\mathrm{\Delta }_i\theta _i)`$ $`=`$ $`0,i=1,2`$ (47)
and $`H`$ satisfies the hypergeometric equation:

$`\eta (1\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{d^2H}{d\eta ^2}}+[c(a+b+1)\eta ]{\displaystyle \frac{dH}{d\eta }}abH`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (48)
where

$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`(\beta _1+\beta _2)(\beta _1+\beta _2+2\alpha 1)+\alpha (\mathrm{\Delta }_4\mathrm{\Delta }_3+\theta _4\theta _3),`$
$`a+b+1`$ $`=`$ $`2(\beta _1+\beta _2+\alpha ),`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`2\beta _1+\alpha .`$ (49)
We can now write down the solution of equation (48) in terms of the hypergeometric series

$$H(a,b,c;\eta )=K(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3,\theta _4)h(a,b,c;\eta ),$$
(50)
where

$$h(a,b,c;\eta )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a)_n(b)_n}{n!(c)_n}\eta ^n,$$
(51)
with $`(x)_n=x(x+1)\mathrm{}(x+n1),(x)_0=1.`$ And

$$K(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3,\theta _4)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}k_i\theta _i+\underset{1i<j4}{}k_{ij}\theta _i\theta _j+\underset{1i<j<k4}{}k_{ijk}\theta _i\theta _j\theta _k+k_{1234}\theta _1\theta _2\theta _3\theta _4.$$
(52)
Note that the coefficients in equation (51) contain nilpotent terms. Therefore equation (51) actually describes more than one solution. This expansion results in 16 functions. This is natural because as seen in the case of two and three point functions, inside the correlator (40) there exist sixteen distinct correlation functions. Of course, if all the fields belong to the same Jordan cell, only four of them may be independent and the rest are related by crossing symmetry. Also, one of them which only contains $`\varphi `$ fields, vanishes and hence only three independent functions remain. The form of these functions may be obtained by expanding equation (50) and collecting powers of $`\theta _i`$’s. Note that expanding equation (48) leads to sixteen differential equations all of which are not independent. The general form of these equations is given in appendix B. As an example we solve equation (48) for the special case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\mathrm{\Delta }_3=\mathrm{\Delta }_4=\frac{1}{4}`$. In this case one of the solutions of equation (47) is:

$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\theta _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta _4+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta _1\theta _4,`$
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\theta _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta _4+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta _2\theta _4.`$ (53)
We then find from equation (49):

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`2+\theta _1+\theta _2+\theta _3+\theta _4+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\theta _1+\theta _2+\theta _3)\theta _4,`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`1+\theta _1+\theta _2\theta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta _4+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\theta _1+\theta _2\theta _3)\theta _4,`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`2+2\theta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta _4+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\theta _1\theta _4.`$ (54)
Finally from equations (40), (46) and (50) we get expressions for the various four point functions. For example

$`\psi (z_1)\varphi (z_2)\varphi (z_3)\varphi (z_4)=k_1\eta ^{\frac{2}{3}}(1\eta )^{\frac{2}{3}}h_0(\eta ){\displaystyle \underset{1i<j4}{}}z_{ij}^{\frac{1}{6}}.`$ (55)
Where $`h_0(\eta )`$ is given in appendix B. The other four point functions having 2, 3 or 4 $`\psi `$’s can be calculated in the same way. In these functions, depending on how many $`\psi `$’s are present in the correlators, different functions appear on the right hand side. If there is no $`\psi `$ in the correlator, the correlator is zero, if there is one $`\psi (z_i)`$, only $`H_i`$ appears, if there are two $`\psi `$’s, $`H_i`$ and $`H_{ij}`$ appear, and so on. The situation is just the same for the two or three point functions. For example the two point function $`\varphi (z)\psi (0)`$ is written in terms of the function $`z^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and in the correlator $`\psi (z)\psi (0)`$ there exist both functions $`z^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and $`z^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ln$`z`$.

## 6 Energy momentum tensor

Two central operators in a CFT are the energy momentum tensor, $`T`$ with conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$ and the identity operator, $`I`$ with conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. However, $`T`$ is a secondary field of the identity, because $`L_2I=T`$.

In an LCFT degenerate operators exist which form a Jordan cell under conformal transformation. This holds true for the identity as well. The existence of a logarithmic identity operator has been discussed by a number of authors .

Now consider the identity operator $`I_0`$ and its logarithmic partner $`I_1`$. According to equation (1) this pair transforms as:

$`I_0(\lambda z)`$ $`=`$ $`I_0(z),`$
$`I_1(\lambda z)`$ $`=`$ $`I_1(z)I_0(z)\mathrm{ln}\lambda .`$ (56)
So according to our convention, we define a primary field $`I(z,\theta )`$:

$$I(z,\theta )=I_0(z)+\theta I_1(z).$$
(57)
with conformal weight $`\theta `$. Under scaling, $`I(z,\theta )`$ transforms according to equation (4). Thus we have:

$`L_0I_0(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`L_0I_1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`I_0(z).`$ (58)
this was first observed in $`c=2`$ theory by Gurarie .

Here we wish to find the field $`T(z,\theta )`$ with conformal weight $`2+\theta `$ which is a secondary of $`I(z,\theta )`$ in the sense:

$$L_2I(z,\theta )=T(z,\theta ).$$
(59)
By writing $`T(z,\theta )=T_0(z)+\theta T_1(z)`$ and since $`L_0T(z,\theta )=(2+\theta )T(z,\theta )`$ we have:

$`L_0T_0(z)`$ $`=`$ $`2T_0(z),`$
$`L_0T_1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`2T_1(z)+T_0(z).`$ (60)
This points to the existence of an extra energy momentum tensor . By applying $`L_2`$ on both sides of equation (59) we have:

$`L_2T_0(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}I_0(z),`$
$`L_2T_1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}I_1(z)+4I_0(z).`$ (61)
The first of this pair exists in an ordinary CFT, so $`T_0(z)`$ leads to the Virasoro algebra, while $`T_1(z)`$ must leads to a new algebra . We now attempt at finding the OPE of the extra energy momentum tensor, $`T_1(z)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\theta )`$ and $`T(z,\theta )`$. Because of OPE’s invariance under scaling and according to our convention it is sufficient to change conformal weight of each field to $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta `$. Consider the following OPE:

$$T_0(z^{})\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta }{(z^{}z)^2}\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\theta )+\frac{_z\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\theta )}{z^{}z}+\mathrm{}.$$
(62)
This relation leads to the familiar OPE for $`T(z^{})\varphi (z)`$ a new OPE:

$$T_0(z^{})\psi (z)=\frac{\varphi (z)+\mathrm{\Delta }\psi (z)}{(z^{}z)^2}+\frac{_z\psi (z)}{z^{}z}+\mathrm{}.$$
(63)
Also

$$T_0(z^{})T(z,\theta )=\frac{\frac{c(\theta )}{2}I(\theta )}{(z^{}z)^4}+\frac{2+\theta }{(z^{}z)^2}T(z,\theta )+\frac{_zT(z,\theta )}{z^{}z}+\mathrm{},$$
(64)
where $`c(\theta )=c_1+\theta c_2`$. Again we obtain two OPE, one of them is $`T(z^{})T(z)`$ which is known from CFT and the other is:

$$T_0(z^{})T_1(z)=\frac{\frac{c_1}{2}I_1(z)+\frac{c_2}{2}I_0}{(z^{}z)^4}+\frac{T(z)+2T_1(z)}{(z^{}z)^2}+\frac{_zT_1(z)}{z^{}z}+\mathrm{}.$$
(65)
The emergence of an extra energy momentum tensor and central charge have been noticed by Gurarie and Ludwig , although our approach is very different.

It is worth noting that equations (56) imply that $`I_0`$ vanishes whereas $`I_1=1`$ . This immediately results in the vanishing of $`T_0T_0`$.

## 7 Boundary

Let us now consider the problem of LCFT near a boundary. As shown in  in an ordinary CFT, if the real axis is taken to be the boundary, with certain boundary condition that $`T=\overline{T}`$ on the real axis, the differential equation satisfied by n-point function near a boundary are the same as the differential equations satisfied by 2n-point function in the bulk. This trick may be used in order to derive correlations of an LCFT near a boundary . Here we rederive the same results using the nilpotent formalism. Again we consider an LCFT with a rank 2 Jordan cell. First we find the one point functions of this theory. By applying $`L_0,L_{\pm 1}`$ on the correlators, one obtains:

$`(_z+_{\overline{z}})\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\overline{z},\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`(z_z+\overline{z}_{\overline{z}}+2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\overline{z},\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`(z^2_z+\overline{z}^2_{\overline{z}}+2z(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )+2\overline{z}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta ))\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\overline{z},\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (66)
In these equations, we have assumed that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a scalar field so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. The first equation states $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\overline{z},\theta )`$ is a function of $`z\overline{z}`$ and the solution to the second equation is:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(y,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(\theta )}{y^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta )}}},`$ (67)
where $`y=z\overline{z}`$. The third line of equation (66) is automatically satisfied by this solution. Expanding $`f(\theta )`$ as $`a+b\theta `$ one finds:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(y,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{y^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{y^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}(b2a\mathrm{ln}y).`$ (68)
As the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y,\theta )`$ is decomposed to $`\varphi (y)+\theta \psi (y)`$ one can read the one-point functions $`\varphi (y)`$ and $`\psi (y)`$ from the equation (68):

$`\varphi (y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{y^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}},`$ (69)
$`\psi (y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}(b2a\mathrm{ln}y).`$ (70)
To go further, one can investigate the two-point function $`G(z_1,\overline{z}_1,z_2,\overline{z}_2,\theta _1,\theta _2)=\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1,\overline{z}_1,\theta _1)\mathrm{\Phi }(z_2,\overline{z}_2,\theta _2)`$ in the same theory. Invariance under the action of $`L_1`$ implies:

$`(_{z_1}+_{\overline{z}_1}+_{z_2}+_{\overline{z}_2})G`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (71)
The most general solution of this equation is $`G=G(y_1,y_2,x_1,x_2,\theta _1,\theta _2)`$, where $`y_1=z_1\overline{z}_1,y_2=z_2\overline{z}_2,x=x_2x_1`$ and $`x_i=z_i+\overline{z}_i`$. By invariance under the action of $`L__0`$ we should have :

$`[y_1{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_1}}+y_2{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_2}}+x{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta _1)+2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta _2)]G`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (72)
which implies:

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^{4\mathrm{\Delta }+2\theta _1+2\theta _2}}}f(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\theta _1,\theta _2).`$ (73)
where $`\alpha _1=\frac{y_1}{x}`$ and $`\alpha _2=\frac{y_2}{x}`$. Now consider the action of $`L_1`$ on $`G`$:

$`(x_1+x_2)[y_1{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_1}}+y_2{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_2}}+x{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta _1)+2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta _2)]G`$
$`+[xy_1{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_1}}xy_2{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_2}}+(y_1^2y_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+2x(\theta _1\theta _2)]G=0.`$ (74)
The first bracket is zero because of equation (72). Substituting the solution (73) in equation (74) the function $`f`$ satisfies:

$`\left(\alpha _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{f}{\alpha _1}}+\left(\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{\alpha _2^2\alpha _1^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{f}{\alpha _2}}+2\left(2\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta _1+\theta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1\theta _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}\right)f=0.`$ (75)
The most general solution of above is:

$`f(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha _1\alpha _2)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta _1+\theta _2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{\alpha _1}}\right)^{\theta _1\theta _2}g({\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}},\theta _1,\theta _2),`$ (76)
where $`g`$ is an arbitrary function. So the two-point function $`G`$ is found up to an unknown function:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1,\overline{z}_1,\theta _1)\mathrm{\Phi }(z_2,\overline{z}_2,\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(y_1y_2)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta _1+\theta _2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{y_2}}\right)^{\theta _1\theta _2}h\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2+y_1^2+y_2^2}{y_1y_2}}\right),`$ (77)
which is the same as the solution obtained in .
Acknowledgement We are grateful to M. Flohr for thorough reading of the manuscript and helpful comments. We would like also to thank I. I. Kogan, and M. R. Rahimi-Tabar for discussions and comments.

## 8 Appendix A: Level 3 singular vector

In this appendix we derive level 3 singular vectors. According to equation (28) the general form of a singular vector at level 3 is:

$`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^3(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`(b^{(1,1,1)}L_1^3+b^{(1,2)}L_1L_2+b^{(3)}L_3)|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta .`$ (78)
By applying $`L_1`$ on both sides of above equation and use of Virasoro algebra and equation (18), we have:

$`[6b^{(1,1,1)}(\mathrm{\Delta }+1+\theta )L_1^2+b^{(1,2)}(3L_1^2+2(\mathrm{\Delta }+2+\theta )L_2)+4b^{(3)}L_2]|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta =0.`$ (79)
Because $`L_1^2`$ and $`L_2`$ are independent we must have

$`6(\mathrm{\Delta }+1+\theta )b^{(1,1,1)}+3b^{(1,2)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`2(\mathrm{\Delta }+2+\theta )b^{(1,2)}+4b^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (80)
If we choose $`b^{(1,1,1)}=1`$ and find $`b^{(1,2)}`$ and $`b^{(3)}`$ in equation (80) we get the singular vector at level 3 for rank 2 Jordan cell as:

$`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^3(\theta )=\{L_1^32(\mathrm{\Delta }+1+\theta )L_1L_2`$
$`+[(\mathrm{\Delta }+1)(\mathrm{\Delta }+2)+(2\mathrm{\Delta }+3)\theta ]L_3\}|\mathrm{\Delta }+\theta .`$ (81)
Now if we demand that $`L_2|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^3(\theta )=0`$ we have:

$`[3\mathrm{\Delta }^2+7\mathrm{\Delta }2c(\mathrm{\Delta }+1)]+\theta [6\mathrm{\Delta }c+7]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (82)
and therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`c`$ are restricted to the values:

$`c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }^27\mathrm{\Delta }+2}{\mathrm{\Delta }+1}}=6\mathrm{\Delta }+7.`$ (83)
From these relations we observe that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$ or 1 which corresponds to $`c=25`$ and 1 respectively. For these values, the singular vector is orthogonal to any other vector. In particular, $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^3(\theta )|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^3(\theta )=0`$.

Now we are ready to find the explicit form of the singular vectors. By using equation (81) and

$`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^3(\theta )=|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^3(0)+\theta |\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^3(1),`$ (84)
we have:

$`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^3(0)`$ $`=`$ $`[L_1^32(\mathrm{\Delta }+1)L_1L_2+(\mathrm{\Delta }+1)(\mathrm{\Delta }+2)L_3]|\varphi `$ (85)
and

$`|\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta },c}^3(1)=[L_1^32(\mathrm{\Delta }+1)L_1L_2+(\mathrm{\Delta }+1)(\mathrm{\Delta }+2)L_3]|\psi `$
$`+[2L_1L_2+(2\mathrm{\Delta }+3)L_3]|\varphi .`$ (86)
As expected equation (85) is exactly the level 3 singular vector of a normal CFT. But in such theories there is no restriction on the values of $`c`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. On the other hand in LCFT’s the presence of a second null vector forces us to allow only certain values of $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as given by equation (83). We observe that some null vectors obtained in  are missing, in other words we have an incomplete set. The reason for this may be that equation (27) sets too strong a condition within LCFT .

## 9 Appendix B: Hypergeometric Functions

In this appendix we show that equation (48) can be considered as 16 differential equations. However one of them is trivial because it vanishes due to OPE constraints . According to equation (49) $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$, $`H`$ are functions of $`\theta _i`$’s. We write any of them in a general form:

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}H_i\theta _i+\underset{1i<j4}{}H_{ij}\theta _i\theta _j+\underset{1i<j<k4}{}H_{ijk}\theta _i\theta _j\theta _k+H_{1234}\theta _1\theta _2\theta _3\theta _4$$
(87)
and in a similar way for $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$. Now by substitution of them in equation (48) we obtain 15 differential equations:

$$DH_i=0$$
(88)
$`DH_{ij}=\{[c_i(a_i+b_i)\eta ]{\displaystyle \frac{dH_j}{d\eta }}+(a_0b_i+a_ib_0)H_j+ij\}`$
$`DH_{ijk}=[[c_k(a_k+b_k)\eta ]{\displaystyle \frac{dH_{ij}}{d\eta }}+(a_0b_k+a_kb_0)H_{ij}`$
$`[c_{ij}(a_{ij}+b_{ij})\eta ]{\displaystyle \frac{dH_k}{d\eta }}+(a_0b_{ij}+a_ib_j+a_{ij}b_0)H_k+cyclicterms]`$ (90)
$`DH_{1234}=[[c_l(a_l+b_l)\eta ]{\displaystyle \frac{dH_{ijk}}{d\eta }}+(a_0b_l+a_lb_0)H_{ijk}`$
$`[c_{ij}(a_{ij}+b_{ij})\eta ]{\displaystyle \frac{dH_{kl}}{d\eta }}+(a_0b_{ij}+a_ib_j+a_{ij}b_0)H_{kl}`$
$`[c_{ijk}(a_{ijk}+b_{ijk})\eta ]{\displaystyle \frac{dH_l}{d\eta }}+(a_0b_{ijk}+a_{ijk}b_0+a_kb_{ij}+a_{ij}b_k)H_l`$
$`+cyclicterms]`$
where

$$D:=\eta (1\eta )\frac{d^2}{d\eta ^2}+[c_0(a_0+b_0+1)\eta ]\frac{d}{d\eta }a_0b_0.$$
(92)
Let us now obtain from equation (51), first few terms of 16 functions that are solutions of differential equations, given above for the special case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\frac{1}{4}`$

$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`F(2,1,2,\eta )=1+\eta +\eta ^2+\eta ^3+\mathrm{}`$
$`h_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{},h_2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{12}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{}`$
$`h_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{},h_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{7}{9}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{36}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{}`$
$`h_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{29}{72}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{},h_{13}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{}`$
$`h_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{},h_{14}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{12}}\eta ^3`$
$`h_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{70}{27}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{281}{72}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{},h_{34}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{49}{54}}\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{259}{216}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{}`$
$`h_{123}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{9}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{},h_{124}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{41}{162}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{317}{648}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{}`$
$`h_{134}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{121}{162}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{455}{648}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{},h_{234}={\displaystyle \frac{32}{27}}\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{46}{18}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{}`$
$`h_{1234}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{137}{81}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{6}}\eta ^3+\mathrm{}.`$ (93)
where $`Dh_0=0`$.


text:
# Exact Eigenstates for Trapped Weakly Interacting Bosons in Two Dimensions

## Abstract

A system of $`N`$ two-dimensional weakly interacting bosons in a harmonic trap is considered. When the two-particle potential is a delta function Smith and Wilkin have analytically proved that the elementary symmetric polynomials of particle coordinates measured from the center of mass are exact eigenstates. In this study, we point out that their proof works equally well for an arbitrary two-particle potential which possesses the translational and rotational symmetries. We find that the interaction energy associated with the eigenstate with angular momentum $`L`$ is equal to $`aN(N1)/2+\left(ba\right)NL/2`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the interaction energies of two bosons in the lowest-energy one-particle state with zero and one unit of angular momentum, respectively. Additionally, we study briefly the case of attractive quartic interactions. We prove rigorously that the lowest-energy state is the one in which all angular momentum is carried by the center of mass motion.

03.75.Fi,05.30.Jp,67.40.Db

The study of Bose-Einstein condensation in trapped atomic gases has attracted a great deal of attention in the past few years . One of the central issues has been the possibility of creating quantized vortices in these dilute atomic gases. Recently, vortex states in various systems have been experimentally observed . Some theoretical investigations on quantized vortices and on rotating Bose condensates have also been carried out both in the Thomas-Fermi limit of strong interactions  and in the limit of weak interactions  between the atoms. For the weakly interacting bosons one is naturally led to study the model of $`N`$ two-dimensional bosons in a harmonic trap with weak repulsive delta-function interactions . One important theoretical problem here is to understand the properties of the system with a given total angular momentum $`L`$. Numerical studies have shown that when $`L>N`$ the lowest-energy state is the one where an array of singly quantized vortices is formed . However, due to the complexity of these states, very few analytic results are known. In the range $`0LN`$ the structure of lowest-energy states turns out to be simpler. Numerical computations by Bertsch and Papenbrock  showed that the interaction energy of the lowest-energy states has a very simple form and decreases linearly with $`L`$ (the only exception being that for $`L=1`$). They also noted that the wave functions for the lowest-energy states are simply the elementary symmetric polynomials of complex coordinates relative to the center of mass. Very recently, this remarkable formula for interaction energy was derived analytically by Jackson and Kavoulakis . Moreover, Smith and Wilkin  proved that these symmetric polynomials are indeed exact eigenstates (see Ref. for an alternative proof). In this note, we point out that the analytic proof by Smith and Wilkin works not only for a delta-function potential but also for an arbitrary potential which possesses translational and rotational symmetries. In this more general case, we find that the formula for the interaction energy still has the similar form of that for a delta-function potential. In addition, we briefly study the case of attractive quartic potential. We prove rigorously that, as in the cases of attractive delta-function and harmonic potentials, the lowest-energy state is the one where all angular momentum is carried by the center of mass motion.

Our model Hamiltonian is $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{V}`$, where

$$\widehat{H}_0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{1}{2}_i^2+\frac{1}{2}𝐫_i^2\right]$$
(1)
is the one-particle part and

$$\widehat{V}=\underset{i<j}{}v\left(\left|𝐫_i𝐫_j\right|\right)$$
(2)
is the two-particle interaction. Note that the two-particle potential has been taken to possess translational and rotational symmetries. We also assume that the interaction term is weak and does not make the system unstable. It is known that in the absence of interaction the one-particle spectrum is given by

$$E_{n_r,l}=n_r+\left|l\right|+1,$$
(3)
where $`n_r`$ is the radial quantum number and $`l`$ is the angular momentum. For the system of $`N`$ non-interacting bosons, the lowest-energy states with a given total angular momentum $`L`$ can be obtained by putting all bosons in the states with $`n_r=0`$, and with $`l`$ of the same sign as $`L`$. Obviously, there is a huge degeneracy which equals to the number of ways to distribute $`L`$ units of angular momentum among $`N`$ bosons.

When the two-particle interaction is added the degeneracy will, in general, be lifted. If the interaction is weak enough, it suffices to analyze this problem by using the first-order degenerate perturbation theory. We therefore need to diagonalize $`\widehat{V}`$ in the restricted Hilbert space of lowest-energy states with angular momentum $`L`$. We shall do it in the second quantized form. For a positive $`L`$ (as we always assume), the relevant normalized one-particle wavefunctions for the states with $`n_r=0`$ are given by

$$\psi _l(r,\theta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{l!\pi }}r^le^{il\theta }e^{r^2/2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{l!\pi }}z^le^{\left|z\right|^2/2},$$
(4)
where $`l0`$ and $`z=x+iy`$. is the complex coordinate. We denote by $`a_l`$ and $`a_l^{}`$ the operators which annihilate and create one boson in the one-particle state $`\psi _l`$. Our Fock space is spanned by the basis states of the form

$$|n_0,n_{1,}n_{2,}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_k\frac{\left(a_k^{}\right)^{n_k}}{\sqrt{n_k!}}|0,$$
(5)
where $`|0`$ is the Fock vacuum and the occupation numbers $`n_i^{}s`$ satisfy

$$\underset{k}{}n_k=N;\underset{k}{}kn_k=L.$$
(6)
The second quantized form of $`\widehat{V}`$ is

$$\widehat{V}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j,k,l}{}V_{ijkl}a_i^{}a_j^{}a_la_k,$$
(7)
where the matrix elements are given by

$$V_{ijkl}=d^2zd^2z^{}\psi _i^{}\left(z\right)\psi _j^{}\left(z^{}\right)v(\left|zz^{}\right|)\psi _k\left(z\right)\psi _l\left(z^{}\right).$$
(8)
Most of these matrix elements are actually vanishing. Indeed, the rotational symmetry of $`\widehat{V}`$ implies that $`V_{ijkl}=0`$ unless $`i+j=k+l`$. This, of course, corresponds to the conservation of total angular momentum in two-particle collisions, an important feature of a rotationally symmetric potential. The translational symmetry of $`\widehat{V}`$ also leads to a set of constraints on $`V_{ijkl}`$. Since the potential is real, this symmetry can be simply expressed by

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{}{z_i}\widehat{V}=0,$$
(10)
where $`\frac{}{z_i}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{}{x_i}i\frac{}{y_i}\right)`$. It is easy to check that the second quantized form of this condition reads

$$[\widehat{L}_{},\widehat{V}]=0,$$
(11)
where $`\widehat{L}_{}=_k\sqrt{k+1}a_k^{}a_{k+1}`$. To work out the constraints imposed by Eq.(11), we write

$`\widehat{V}`$ $`=`$ $`v_0a_0^{}a_0^{}a_0a_0+v_1a_1^{}a_1^{}a_1a_1+v_{10}a_1^{}a_0^{}a_1a_0`$ (13)
$`+v_{11}a_2^{}a_0^{}a_1a_1+v_{11}^{}a_1^{}a_1^{}a_2a_0+\mathrm{}.`$
Here we have intentionally displayed only five terms since the other terms turn out to be irrelevant for our analysis (see also Ref.). Because $`\widehat{V}`$ is hermitian, $`v_0,v_1`$ and $`v_{10}`$ must be all real. For later uses, we also note that

$$v_0=\frac{1}{2}V_{0000};v_1=\frac{1}{2}V_{1111}.$$
(14)
Substituting Eq.(13) into Eq.(11) yields

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`[\widehat{L}_{},\widehat{V}]`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`(v_{10}2v_0)a_0^{}a_0^{}a_1a_0+(2v_1v_{10}+\sqrt{2}v_{11})a_1^{}a_0^{}a_1a_1`$ (17)
$`+\mathrm{}.`$
Thus, the constraints, which are completely determined by the displayed terms in Eq.(13), are

$$v_{10}=2v_0;v_{11}=\sqrt{2}(v_0v_1).$$
(18)
These two constraints are direct consequences of the translational symmetry and will play an crucial role in later analysis.

To proceed further, it is necessary to introduce the elementary symmetric polynomials

$$e_L=\underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_L}{}z_{i_1}z_{i_2}\mathrm{}z_{i_L},$$
(19)
where $`LN`$. The polynomial $`e_L`$ is related to the state $`|NL,L`$ by

$`z_{1,}z_2,\mathrm{},z_N|NL,L`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(NL\right)!L!}{\pi ^NN!}}\right]^{1/2}e_Le^{\frac{1}{2}_{i=1}^N\left|z_i\right|^2}\text{.}`$ (21)
Therefore, we shall use $`e_L`$ to represent the state $`|NL,L`$. In fact, it is not hard to see that there is an one-to-one correspondence between the monomial symmetric polynomials of degree $`L`$ and the basis states in our Fock space . Consequently, each symmetric polynomial uniquely specifies a quantum state. We also like to remark that the coordinate representation of the operator $`\widehat{L}_+\widehat{L}_{}^{}`$ is simply $`NR`$, where $`R=_iz_i/N`$ is the center of mass coordinate. Thus, the symmetric polynomial $`R^ke_L\left(k0\right)`$ represents the state $`\widehat{L}_+^k|NL,L`$. Furthermore, since $`\widehat{L}_+`$ commutes with $`\widehat{V}`$, we have $`\widehat{V}\widehat{L}_+^k|NL,L=\widehat{L}_+^k\widehat{V}|NL,L`$. Equivalently, we may write it as

$$\widehat{V}R^ke_L=R^k\widehat{V}e_L.$$
(22)
The elementary symmetric polynomials measured from the center of mass are defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_M=\underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_L}{}\left(z_{i__1}R\right)\left(z_{i__2}R\right)\mathrm{}\left(z_{i_M}R\right).$$
(23)
Note that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ is the trivial zero function. It has been proven by Smith and Wilkin  that the state represented by Eq.(23) is an exact eigenstate when $`v(\left|𝐫\right|)`$ is a delta function. Here we follow the steps in their proof. First, we write

$`\stackrel{~}{e}_M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L=2}{\overset{M}{}}}\left(1\right)^{ML}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(NL\right)!}{(NM)!\left(ML\right)!}}R^{ML}e_L`$ (25)
$`+(1)^{M1}{\displaystyle \frac{N!\left(M1\right)}{(NM)!M!}}R^M.`$
Next, by using Eq.(13) we obtain

$`\widehat{V}|NL,L`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`[v_0(NL)(NL1)+v_1L(L1)`$ (29)
$`+v_{10}(NL)L]|NL,L`$
$`+v_{11}\sqrt{L(L1)(NL+1)}|NL+1,L2,1.`$
The monomial symmetric polynomial representing the state $`|NL+1,L2,1`$ is

$$\underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_{L2}}{\overset{ji_1,i_2,\mathrm{}i_{L2}}{}}z_{i_1}z_{i_2}\mathrm{}z_{i_{L2}}z_j^2=NRe_{L1}Le_L.$$
(30)
In terms of symmetric polynomials, Eq.(29) becomes

$`\widehat{V}e_L`$ $`=`$ $`[v_0(NL)(NL1)+v_1L(L1)`$ (33)
$`+v_{10}(NL)L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}v_{11}L(NL+1)]e_L`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}v_{11}N(NL+1)Re_{L1}.`$
It should be noted that even though Eq.(30) is valid only for $`L2`$ Eq.(33) holds in the whole range $`0LN`$ if the convention $`e_1=0`$ is taken. Up to this point, we have not made any use of the conditions given by Eqs.(18). To uncover the role played by these conditions, we point out that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_M`$ is a genuine eigenstate if Eq.(33) has the form:

$$\widehat{V}e_L=[f(N)+Lg(N)]e_L(NL+1)g(N)Re_{L1},$$
(34)
where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are two arbitrary functions of $`N`$. This statement can be easily proved by operating $`\widehat{V}`$ on the right hand side of Eq.(25) and by using Eqs.(22) and (34). We also find that when Eq.(34) holds the eigenvalue associated with $`\stackrel{~}{e}_M`$ is given by

$$\epsilon _{M,N}=f(N)+g(N)M.$$
(35)
It is remarkable that Eqs.(18) are precisely the required conditions for making Eq.(33) of the form given by Eq.(34). Indeed, by substituting Eqs.(18) into Eq.(33) we get

$`\widehat{V}e_L`$ $`=`$ $`[v_0N(N1)+(v_1v_0)NL]e_L`$ (37)
$`(v_1v_0)N(NL+1)Re_{L1}.`$
As a result, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_M`$ is an exact eigenstate and the corresponding eigenvalue is

$`\epsilon _{M,N}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[v_0N(N1)+(v_1v_0)NM\right]`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[V_{0000}N(N1)+(V_{1111}V_{0000})NM\right].`$ (39)
Still we have a spectrum which varies linearly with the angular momentum $`M`$. It is worth noting that $`V_{0000}`$ $`\left(V_{1111}\right)`$ represents the interaction energy of two bosons in the lowest-energy state with $`l=0`$ $`(l=1)`$. Eq.(39) represents the main result of the present work. As a verification of this formula, we consider the delta-function potential

$$v\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)=2\pi \eta \delta \left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right),$$
(40)
where $`\eta `$ is a small dimensionless parameter. Simple calculations show

$$V_{0000}=\eta ;V_{1111}=\frac{1}{2}\eta .$$
(41)
Consequently, Eq.(39) gives

$$\epsilon _{L,N}^{delta}=\frac{\eta }{2}\left[N(N1)\frac{1}{2}NL\right],$$
(42)
in agreement with the results of Refs..

Finally, we consider the case of quartic potential

$$v\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)=\frac{\eta }{8}\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|^4.$$
(43)
When $`\eta <0`$ the repulsive force between two particles which are moved away from the trap center in opposite directions would eventually be stronger than the trapping forces acting on them. We thus expect that in this case the harmonic trap is unable to stably confine the bosons in a finite region of space. To avoid instability we assume that the interaction is attractive;i.e., $`\eta >0`$. The purpose of studying this case is two-fold. First, it serves as an additional example to which our results are applied. Secondly, it provides a new case, in addition to the cases of delta-function and harmonic potentials, where the lowest-energy states can be analytically determined. After some straightforward algebras we get the following expression for the two-particle interaction:

$`\widehat{V}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{N}(\widehat{N}1)+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}\widehat{N}\widehat{L}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{L}(\widehat{L}1)`$ (45)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\widehat{N}\widehat{J}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\widehat{J}_+\widehat{L}_{}+\widehat{L}_+\widehat{J}_{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\widehat{L}_{++}\widehat{L}_{}],`$
where $`\widehat{N}=_ka_k^{}a_k`$, $`\widehat{L}=_kka_k^{}a_k`$ and we have defined

$`\widehat{J}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}k^2a_k^{}a_k;`$ (46)
$`\widehat{J}_+`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{J}_{}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(k+2\right)\sqrt{k+1}a_{k+1}^{}a_k;`$ (47)
$`\widehat{L}_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{L}_{}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{(k+2)(k+1)}a_{k+2}^{}a_k.`$ (48)
In this case the interaction energy associated with $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ is found to be

$$\epsilon _{L,N}^{quartic}=\frac{\eta }{2}\left[N(N1)+\frac{5}{2}NL\right].$$
(49)
The interaction energy increases linearly with $`L`$. Now $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ is no longer the lowest-energy state with angular momentum $`L`$. We find that, as in the case of attractive delta-function potential , the lowest-energy state is the one where all angular momentum is absorbed by the center of mass motion. However, the proof used in Ref. is not applicable here since the matrix elements $`V_{ijkl}`$ are not all non-positive. We prove it by deriving a lower bound for the interaction energy. To this end, we first note that operating $`\widehat{L}_+`$ on an eigenstate amounts to adding an unit of angular momentum to the center of mass coordinate and the resulting state is still an eigenstate with the same eigenvalue. Therefore, only the states, called intrinsic states and denoted by $`|L,N_{int}`$, which have no center of mass excitation, need to be considered. Such states are characterized by

$$\widehat{L}_{}|L,N_{int}=0.$$
(50)
By using Eq.(50), $`{}_{int}{}^{}L,N\left|\widehat{L}_{++}\widehat{L}_{}\right|L,N_{int}^{}0`$, and

$${}_{int}{}^{}L,N\left|\widehat{J}\right|L,N_{int}^{}L_{int}L,N|L,N_{int},$$
(51)
we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{int}{}^{}L,N\left|\widehat{V}\right|L,N_{int}^{}}{{}_{int}{}^{}L,N|L,N_{int}^{}}}`$ (52)
$``$ $`\eta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N(N1)+NL+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}L(L1)\right].`$ (53)
This inequality holds for all $`L0`$. Since $`|N,0`$ is the only eigenstate corresponding to eigenvalue $`\eta N(N1)/2`$, the lowest-energy state with a given angular momentum $`L`$ must be $`\widehat{L}_+^L|N,0`$, the state in which all angular momentum is in the center of mass motion. It has been argued  (see Ref., however) that this state is uncondensed and is an example of the fragmented condensate of Nozières and Saint James . Moreover, the presence of such an uncondensed lowest-energy state is believed to be a general feature of the attractive interactions . Our study supplies one more example supporting this belief.

In conclusion, we have extended the work by Smith and Wilkin  to the models of $`N`$ bosons in a 2D harmonic trap interacting via arbitrary rotationally and translationally symmetric potentials. We have shown that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ remains an exact eigenstate and the associated interaction energy varies linearly with the angular momentum. Our analysis reveals the importance of rotational and translational symmetries in proving this result and makes clear the physical meaning of the coefficients appearing in the formula for the interaction energy. We also briefly discuss the problem of attractive quartic interactions. A lower bound for the interaction energy of intrinsic states is derived. Based on this, we find that the lowest-energy state for a given angular momentum $`L`$ is the one in which all angular momentum is carried by the center of mass motion.

This work is supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan under Grant No. NSC-89-2112-M-018-002.

Note added.—– A large class of interacting boson systems is considered in a recent preprint by T. Papenbrock and G.F. Bertsch . Our main results are in agreement with their findings.


text:
# Very Large Telescope Observations of the peculiar globular cluster NGC 6712. Discovery of a UV, H𝛼 excess star in the coreBased on observations collected at ESO-VLT, Cerro Paranal, Chile

## 1 Introduction

Two main classes of X-ray sources have been found to exist in Galactic globular clusters (GGCs): (i) high luminosity X-ray sources (with $`L_X>10^{34.5}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$), the so-called Low Mass X-ray Binaries, LMXB; (ii) low luminosity X-ray sources (hereafter LLGCXs) with $`L_X<10^{34.5}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$). Although the true nature of these objects is still a matter of debate, both these categories of objects are thought to be associated with interacting binary systems. In particular, LMXBs, because of their X-ray bursts, might be binary systems with an accrete neutron star, while LLGCXs (or at least the faintest LLGCXs with $`L_X<10^{32}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$) are supposed to be binary systems in which a white dwarf (instead of a neutron star) is accreting material from a late type dwarf (main sequence or sub-giant branch star; see Verbunt et al. 1994), and, for this reason, they might be possibly connected to cataclysmic variables (CVs).

In dense environments such as the cores of GGCs one can expect interacting binaries to result from the evolution of various kinds of binary systems, with a variety of origins and nature. For example, binaries in dense clusters could have been created by dynamical processes (Hut & Verbunt 1983; Bailyn 1995), while in low-density clusters they might result from the evolution of primordial systems (Verbunt & Meylan 1988).

In this scenario, the case of NGC 6712 is quite interesting. Although it is a relatively loose, intermediate density GGC ($`c=0.9`$, $`Log\rho _03`$;, Djorgovski & Meylan 1993), it is one of the 12 (out of 150) GGCs harbouring in its core a LMXB burster ($`1RXSJ185304.8084217`$; see Voges et al. 1999). Indeed, NGC 6712 is the lowest density cluster in the Galaxy containing a LMXB: its central density is significantly lower than the mean density of GGCs containing LMXBs ($`<Log\rho _0^{LMXB}>=4.9\pm 0.3`$, Bellazzini et al. 1995).

The optical counterpart to the X-ray burster in NGC 6712 has long been searched (see Cudworth 1988, Bailyn et al. 1988, Nieto et al. 1990). Finally, it has been identified by ground based observations as a faint UV-excess star (star $`S`$) by Bailyn et al. (1991) and Auriere & Koch-Miramond (1992) and afterwards confirmed from HST observations by Anderson et al. (1993).

Moreover, NGC 6712 shows another peculiar characteristic: its orbit, as computed by Dauphole et al. (1996), suggests that this cluster has experienced a severe interaction with the Galaxy during its numerous passages through the disk and bulge. Preliminary VLT observations (De Marchi et al., 1999), now confirmed by Andreuzzi et al. (2000), fully support this picture, since the main sequence (MS) luminosity function (LF) shows that the mass fuction of the cluster has been severely depleted of lower mass stars, probably stripped by the tidal force of the Galaxy.

As part of a long term project specifically devoted to the study of the global stellar population in a sample of GGCs, we imaged the core of NGC 6712, exploiting the exceptional performances of the ESO Very Large Telescope. The complete data set, together with other specific aspects connected to the unevolved (MS) and evolved (red giant branch, horizontal branch, etc.) stars, are discussed separately in a series of companion papers (Andreuzzi et al. 2000, Paltrinieri et al. 2000, in preparation). In this letter, we briefly discuss the properties of a few UV-excess stars, in particular we report on the discovery of an object with strong UV and H$`\alpha `$ excess, located in the very central region of NGC 6712, a few arcsec away from the optical counterpart to the LMXB source.

## 2 Observations and results

The data have been obtained on 1999 June 16 at the ANTU Unit Telescope 1 (UT1) of the Very Large Telescope (VLT) at ESO on Cerro Paranal (Chile) using FORS1. A large set of frames were secured in the central region of NGC 6712, using different levels of resolutions. Here we discuss only the results obtained from short multiband exposures using the High Resolution (HR) mode of FORS1. In this configuration the plate-scale is $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1/pixel`$ and the FORS1 $`2048\times 2048`$ pixel2 array has a global field of view of $`3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4\times 3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4`$. The data consist of five 10 s $`B`$-, $`V`$-, $`R`$-band exposures, five 120 s $`U`$-band exposures and one 700 s $`H\alpha `$ exposure, roughly centered on the cluster center. All the observations were performed in service mode under good seeing conditions (FWHM$`=0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}40\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$).

A more detailed description of the observations and reductions of the data-set discussed in this Letter will be given elsewhere (Paltrinieri et al. 2000). In short, all the reductions have been carried out using ROMAFOT (Buonanno et al. 1983), a package specifically developed to perform accurate photometry in crowded fields. Independent searches have been performed in the best blue ($`U,B`$) and in the best red ($`V,R`$) images, in order to properly optimize the search for blue and red objects. The blue and the red masks with the star positions have been then adapted to each individual stellar image and the PSF-fitting procedure performed. The blue and the red data-set were then matched together and a final catalogue with the average instrumental magnitude in each filter and coordinates has been compiled for all the stars identified in the FORS1 field of view.

Photometric calibration of the instrumental magnitude was then performed using ten photometric standard stars in selected areas PG1528, PG2213, PG2331 (Landolt 1992). $`H\alpha `$ magnitudes were treated and calibrated like $`R`$-band images, except that an offset of $`4`$ mag was applied in order to account for the relative filter efficiency.

Figure 1 shows the $`U,UV`$ CMD for more than 10,000 stars measured in the FORS1-HR field of view. As can be seen, apart from one bright blue object at $`U15.8,UV0.8`$ (a cooling post-AGB star?), which will be discussed elsewhere (Paltrinieri et al. 2000, in preparation), only three relatively faint ($`U>18`$) UV-excess stars ($`UV<0`$) have been found to significantly lie outside the main loci defined by the cluster stars. These stars ($`\mathrm{\#}10261`$, $`\mathrm{\#}9774`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}8916`$) are marked as large filled triangles in Figure 1. The peculiar blue colour of these stars is confirmed by the $`V,BV`$ CMD (Figure 1 b): where the three stars also clearly lie outside the sequences defined by cluster stars.

In order to further confirm the anomalous blue colours of the three stars plotted in Figure 1, we retrieved public WFPC2-HST data from the archive. Four 300 sec exposures through the F330W filter and one 160 sec exposure in F439W, have been analysed. The standard procedure described in Ferraro et al. (1997a) was used to reduce these HST-images. The $`(m_{F330W}m_{F439W},m_{F330W})`$ CMD is plotted in Figure 2(a), where only stars in the Planetary Camera (PC) have been plotted. As can be seen, both star $`\mathrm{\#}10261`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}9774`$ are confirmed to be UV-excess object, while star $`\mathrm{\#}8916`$ is well outside the field of view of the PC.

A further test of the nature of these UV-excess stars can be made by checking whether they exhibit $`H\alpha `$-emission. Figure 2 b shows the $`(H\alpha R,H\alpha )`$ CMD. Only unsaturated stars in the long $`H\alpha `$ exposure have been plotted. The CMD reveals that only star $`\mathrm{\#}10261`$ (among 10,000 stars measured) shows a significant excess of $`H\alpha `$ emission. The other two UV-excess stars have normal colour ($`(H\alpha R)>0.1`$), and thus they are fully compatible, within the errors, with the $`(H\alpha R)`$ colour of normal cluster MS stars.

## 3 Properties of the UV-excess stars

The absolute magnitudes and colours of the three UV-excess stars have been computed adopting a distance modulus of $`(mM)_0=14.56`$ and $`E(BV)=0.33`$ (see the discussion in Paltrinieri et al. 2000). Both distance modulus and reddening estimates have been obtained applying the method described in Ferraro et al. (1999a).

In order to properly locate the three UV-excess stars with respect to the cluster centre, we have determined the gravity centre ($`C_{grav}`$) of the cluster following the procedure already adopted in other papers (Ferraro et al. 1999b): we averaged the X and Y pixel coordinates of all stars with $`V<20`$ and lying within 1000 pixel ($`100^{\prime \prime }`$) of the cluster centre, at first extimated by eye. $`C_{grav}`$ turns out to be located at $`\alpha _{\mathrm{J2000}}=18^\mathrm{h}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}53}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}04}\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}6,\delta _{J2000}=08\mathrm{°}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}42}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}18}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}50`$ which is $`6^{\prime \prime }`$ NE of the luminosity centre reported in the Djorgovski (1993) compilation.

Grindlay et al. (1984) provide an accurate position (within a few arcsec) of the LMXB derived from Einstein HRI at $`\alpha _{\mathrm{J2000}}=18^\mathrm{h}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}53}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}04}\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}91,\delta _{J2000}=08\mathrm{°}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}42}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}15`$. More recently, Lehto et al. (1990) detected a radio emission from the X-ray source in NGC 6712 and their accurate Very Large Array position suggests that the global uncertainty on the position of the X-ray source can be hardly larger than a few arcsec.

Absolute positions, relative distances with respect to the $`C_{grav}`$ and to the X-ray source, and the absolute magnitudes of the three UV-excess stars marked in Figure 1 and 2 are listed in Table 1. With the exception of star $`\mathrm{\#}8916`$, which is located $`84^{\prime \prime }`$ away from the cluster center, well outside the cluster core ($`r_c=56^{\prime \prime }`$ Harris 1996), the other two objects (namely $`\mathrm{\#}9774`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}10261`$) are very close to each other and within a few arcsec of the cluster centre and of the nominal position of the X-ray source (see Figure 3).

Star $`\mathrm{\#}9774`$ is star $`S`$ identified by Anderson et al. (1993) as the optical counterpart to the LMXB. Its positions (see Table 1) turns to be only $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ away from the X-ray source (in agreement with Anderson et al. (1993)). Our observations confirm that it is the bluest object within $`15^{\prime \prime }`$ of the X-ray source’s nominal position, and for this reason it remains the best candidate to be the optical counterpar to the LMXB. Following this assumption, we can use the B magnitude obtained from our photometry to derive the parameter $`\zeta =B_0+2.5LgF_X(\mu J)`$. This parameter has been used by Van Paradjis & McClintock (1995) to characterize the ratio of X-ray to optical flux for LMXB in the field, and recently used by Deutsch et al. (1998) to derive the mean characteristics of LMXBs in GGCs. Assuming for the reddening the figure quoted above, we obtain $`B_0=19.33`$, and with the X-ray flux listed in van Paradjis (1995), we obtain $`\zeta =21.44`$, a value fully compatible with the mean value obtained by van Paradjis & McClintock (1995) for LMXBs in the field $`<\zeta >=21.8\pm 1.0`$.

## 4 Discussion

Star $`\mathrm{\#}10261`$ is the brightest object among the three faint UV-sources marked as large triangles in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Moreover it is the only object showing a clearcut $`H\alpha `$ excess. Star $`\mathrm{\#}10261`$ is, however, located $`17^{\prime \prime }`$ away from the X-ray source: this distance seems to be too large to suggest a physical connection between this object and the X-ray source.

$`H\alpha `$ emission and UV-excess detected for star $`\mathrm{\#}10261`$, however, suggest that this object might be a binary system in which a compact object (neutron star or white dwarf) is accreting material from a secondary star via an accretion disc (the accretion disc being the primary source of the UV emission and of the $`H\alpha `$ emission lines; see Robinson 1976).

Thus star $`\mathrm{\#}10261`$ is an additional excellent candidate LMXB in quiescence (since quiescent LMXBs show strong $`H\alpha `$ emission - Grindlay 1994) or a CV. Although its colours are fully compatible with the typical values obtained for CVs in the field: ($`VR=0.5`$, Echevarria & Jones 1984, $`UB=1.0`$), its absolute magnitude (see Table 1) is somewhat bright for a CV in quiescence. It is still compatible with the magnitude of the accretion disc of a dwarf nova at maximum of outburst ($`M_V=36`$, Warner 1987). On the other hand, the fact that bright CVs in outburst are expected not to show strong $`H\alpha `$ emission lines (Grindlay, 1994) works against this scenario.

X-ray to optical flux ratio is an important clue in disentangling CVs and quiescent LMXBs (Grindlay 1984). Thus, to shed some light on the true nature of this object, we searched for possible X-ray emission in this area. The images retrieved from the ROSAT archive, however, do not show any secondary X-ray emission at the location of star $`\mathrm{\#}10261`$. Yet, this object is so close to star $`S`$ (see Figure 3), that high resolution, high sensitivity X-ray observations are needed to reveal possible X-ray emission from this object, since the expected X-ray flux from a CV or a quiescent LMXB is significantly lower (up to 4 orders of magnitude) than that of an X-ray buster: if a dim X-ray source were connected to $`\mathrm{\#}10261`$, it would be totally overwhelmed by the X-ray emission from the burster.

LMXBs have been found to be very overabundant (by a factor of $`100`$) in GGCs with respect to the field, where they are expected to form by the evolution of primordial binaries. This finding is generally interpreted as evidence that the high stellar density has led to many capture binaries. On the other hand NGC 6712, has a probability to form LMXB via two body encounters which is $`10^510^6`$ times smaller that high-density clusters (Bellazzini et al. 1995). Thus the discovery of another by-product of the evolution of a binary system in this low density cluster increases the mystery about the formation of these objects.

Another possible by-product of binary systems evolution has been recently serendipitously discovered (Deutsch et al. 1999) a few arcsec away from the brightest X-ray source ever observed in a GGC, in the core of NGC6624. We note here, however, that the discovery of multiple binary systems in the vicinity of the very small core ($`r_c4^{\prime \prime }`$) of the high-density ($`Log\rho _05.6`$), post-core collapsed NGC6624 is much less surprising than what we have found in the central regions of NGC 6712, since the internal dynamical evolution of the cluster surely plays a fundamental rule in the formation of these objects. In fact, there is now a growing consensus that dynamical evolution of the cluster can produce, via collisions, several classes of peculiar objects (see, for example the exceptionally large population of collisional blue stragglers recently discovered in the core of the high-density GGC M80 - Ferraro et al. 1999a).

On the other hand, NGC 6712 is not the only low-density GGCs in which candidate interacting binary systems have been found: for example, two faint UV-excess stars, probably connected to low luminous X-ray emission have been recently discovered (Ferraro et al. 1997b) through HST observation in the core of M 13, a GGC with central density $`Log\rho _03.4`$, comparable to that of NGC 6712. These observations suggest that interacting binaries (LMXBs and CVs) are also present in low-density GGCs, where they might originate from the normal evolution of primordial binaries (see Davies 1997).

Furthermore, evidence is now mounting that the dynamical history of NGC 6712 is much more complex than that of other normal GGCs. The orbit computed by Dauphole et al. (1996) for this cluster suggests that it is experiencing a strong interaction with the disc and the bulge of the Galaxy. This interaction might have deeply modified the structure of this cluster, over the last 10 Gyr. The inverted mass function found by De Marchi et al. (1999) and recently confirmed by Andreuzzi et al. (2000), is a clear signature of strong tidal stripping. Moreover, Takahashi & Portegies Zwart (2000), from extensive N-body simulations, have recently found that such a signature is very rare and only appears in clusters which have lost $`99\%`$ of their initial mass. These facts suggest that NGC 6712 was much more massive and, probably, much more concentrated in the past than it is today (Grindlay 1985 suggested it is a post collapsed core in re-expansion phase), since its dynamical evolution is driving it towards dissolution. If this scenario finds further support in the observations, then we could conclude that what we are observing now is only the fossil remnant core of one of the most massive cluster in the Galaxy, may be even more massive than $`\omega `$ Cen. Stellar interactions among its stars, could have produced, at some earlier epoch, a variety of exotic objects such as interacting binaries. Due to mass segregation, some of these high-mass by-products are still confined in the most inner region of the dissolving core (Takahashi & Portegies Zwart 2000) and might reveal their existence in the form of the peculiar objects that we have discussed in this Letter.

We warmly thanks Luigi Stella and Gianluca Islael for useful comments on the first draft of the paper. We are also grateful to Wolfgang Voges for making the ROSAT archive images of NGC 6712 available to us and to Enrico Vesperini and Oleg Gnedin for many useful discussions on the dynamical evolution of Galactic clusters. The financial support of the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) and of the Ministero della Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (MURST) to the project Stellar Dynamics and Stellar Evolution in Globular Clusters is kindly acknowledged. F. R. F. gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of the Visitor Program during his stay at ESO, when most of this work has been carried out.