format: text

text:
# Fractional vortices in the XY model with 𝜋 bonds

## I Introduction

The classical XY Hamiltonian is one of the most studied models in statistical physics. In its usual, unfrustrated form, it is written

$$H=\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}[1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)],$$
(1)
where $`\varphi _i`$ is a phase variable on the $`i^{th}`$ site ($`0\varphi <2\pi `$), the sum runs over distinct pairs $`ij`$, and $`J_{ij}`$ is the energy of the coupling between sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. In the ferromagnetic, nearest-neighbor case, $`J_{ij}`$ vanishes except between nearest-neighbor sites and all the $`J_{ij}`$’s are equal to a single positive constant $`J`$. In this case, for spatial dimensionality $`d3`$, there is a phase transition to a ferromagnetic state at a critical temperature, with conventional critical phenomena. If $`d=2`$, there is instead the Kosterlitz-Thouless-Berezinskii phase transition, in which pairs of oppositely charged integer vortices unbind at a finite temperature $`T_{KTB}`$ . The classical XY model has been found to describe a wide variety of systems with complex scalar order parameters, including bulk superconductors in $`d=3`$, superconducting films, Josephson junction arrays in $`d=2`$, and superfluid He4 films .

Recently, the XY model with anti ferromagnetic bonds i.e, with bond strengths $`J_{ij}<0`$ (also called $`\pi `$ bonds), has received much attention , in particular due to its possible relevance to high-Tc superconductors and other experimental systems . Specifically, if we consider the grain boundary between two high-Tc superconductors with suitable misorientation of the crystalline axes, then the resulting Josephson coupling across the boundary can have the coupling energy $`J_{ij}<0`$. This is a consequence of the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry of the order parameter in many high-Tc materials. Such grain-boundary interfaces have lately been studied in a variety of experiments and in several geometries. These experiments have led to interesting results, such as the observation of the trapping of half-integer and also other fractional flux quanta . These results can be explained using models involving $`\pi `$ bonds . Similar models involving $`\pi `$ bonds have also been developed to explain such phenomena as the paramagnetic Meissner effect , also observed in samples of high-Tc superconductors.

A key concept in understanding the effects of $`\pi `$ bonds is “frustration.” Consider, for example, the XY model on a square lattice with only the nearest-neighbor couplings nonvanishing. If a plaquette has an odd number of bonds, that plaquette is frustrated, in the sense that no choice of angles in the four grains making up the plaquette can simultaneously minimize all the bond energies. Thus, a single $`\pi `$ bond will cause the two plaquettes adjoining that $`\pi `$ bond to become frustrated. In a line of $`\pi `$ bonds, only the two plaquettes at the end of the line will become frustrated. Because of the frustrated plaquettes, it is non-trivial to find the ground state of the $`XY`$-model with $`\pi `$ bonds. In this paper, we will show, both numerically and by analytical arguments, that these ground states are characterized by certain spatial phase configurations which we call fractional vortices. We will also derive an expression for the interaction energy of two fractional vortices in the XY model.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we define the fractional vortices and calculate the interaction energy of a bound pair of fractional vortices for the XY model. In Section III, we study the ground state of XY-lattices containing a single $`\pi `$ bond, two $`\pi `$ bonds, and a string of $`\pi `$ bonds. In each case, using a variational ansatz for the ground-state configuration, we find that there is a critical $`\pi `$ bond strength, above which the ground state contains pairs of oppositely charged fractional vortices. To check these results, we directly calculate the ground-state energy of these lattices using a numerical relaxation technique based on the equations of motion for overdamped Josephson junctions. We find that both the ground-state energy and the critical $`\pi `$ bond strength, predicted by the variational approach, are in excellent agreement with the numerical results. Finally, in Section IV, we discuss the possible relevance of these numerical results to experiments carried out in systems containing $`\pi `$ junctions, such as high-Tc superconductors containing grain boundaries and tricrystals, as recently studied by Kirtley et al .

## II Fractional Vortices in the Unfrustrated XY model

Consider the Hamiltonian (1) for an XY model defined on a square lattice with $`N\times N`$ sites. If all the nearest-neighbor couplings are equal, this may be written

$$H=J\underset{ij}{}[1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)].$$
(2)
Hereafter, we shall use units such that $`J=1`$. The phase angle, $`\varphi _i`$, at point $`(x_i,y_i)`$ due to a fractional vortex of charge $`q`$ at point $`(x_0,y_0)`$ is defined to be

$$\varphi _i(x_0,y_0,q)=q\times \mathrm{tan}^1(\frac{y_iy_0}{x_ix_0}).$$
(3)
For $`q=1`$, we recover the standard configuration for an integer vortex. This definition can be seen as a generalization of the concept of half-vortices introduced by Villain  for the same model. Note that, while for the integer vortex the bond angles change continuously, the fractional vortex case is characterized by a branch cut, across which the bond angles are discontinuous.

This singularity leads to several other distinctions between integer and fractional vortices. For example, the energy associated with a single integer vortex is proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(N)`$. In the thermodynamic limit, this is a weak divergence which makes the KTB vortex-antivortex unbinding transition possible. By contrast, the energy of an unbound fractional vortex is $`N`$, since the number of bonds along the branch cut is $`N`$. Thus, it is energetically unfavorable at all temperatures to create isolated fractional vortices. But a bound pair of fractional vortices with charges $`q`$ and $`q`$ is much less expensive energetically, because then the branch cut is restricted to the line joining the two charges: the total energy should be proportional to the separation of the fractional vortices. For fixed $`q`$ and large enough separations, this energy is always larger than that of a pair of oppositely charged integer vortices, whose energy varies as the logarithm of their separation. Nevertheless, for fixed separation, it is always possible to find a non-integer $`q`$ such that that the energy of the fractional vortex pair is less than the corresponding energy for the integer vortices. In the following, we derive expressions for the energy of a bound pair of fractional vortices in the XY model, and compare them to numerical results obtained by calculating the energy explicitly for these configurations.

We first consider a bound pair of integer vortices of charge $`\pm 1`$ located at ($`x_0`$, $`y_0`$) and ($`x_1`$, $`y_1`$). The standard KT expression for the energy of the pair is obtained by approximating the Hamiltonian as

$$H\frac{1}{2}\underset{<ij>}{}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)^2.$$
(4)
For the phase configuration, we use $`\varphi _i=\varphi _i(x_0,y_0,+1)+\varphi _i(x_1,y_1,1)`$, where $`x_1x_0=n`$ and $`y_1y_0=0`$ (in units of the lattice constant $`a`$). Substituting this configuration into (4) gives the Kosterlitz-Thouless formula for the interaction energy, $`E_{KT}`$, of two oppositely charged integer vortices:

$$E_{KT}(n)=2\pi \left[\mathrm{ln}n+\frac{\pi }{2}\right].$$
(5)
In Fig. 1, we compare this expression to the energy of a pair of oppositely charged integer vortices, computed using the same phase configuration but the exact $`H`$. The discrepancy arises from the expansion of the cosine factor, which is inaccurate for the bonds closest to the vortices. This inaccuracy is remedied by a making a core correction i.e, by calculating the contribution from the bonds on the perimeter of the plaquettes surrounding the vortices exactly, rather than by a quadratic expansion. For large $`n`$, the core-correction energy, $`E_c(n)`$, is approximately given by

$$E_c(n)=\pi ^28+\frac{12\pi ^2}{2n^2}+\frac{8+\pi ^2}{16n^4}.$$
(6)
As can be seen from Fig. 1, the numerically calculated energy is well approximated by $`E_{KT}(n)+E_c(n)`$.

Next, we calculate the energy $`E(q,n)`$ of a pair of fractional vortices $`\pm q`$, separated by a distance $`n`$ in the $`x`$-direction, as shown schematically in Fig. 2. Note that $`E(1,n)`$ is simply the interaction energy of a pair of integer vortices, as just discussed. The phase configuration of this pair is then given by $`\varphi _i=\varphi _i(x_0,y_0,q)+\varphi _i(x_1,y_1,q)`$, where $`x_1x_0=n`$ and $`y_1y_0=0`$. We now divide the bonds into two groups: (A) those intersected by the line segment joining the two vortex centers; and (B) the remaining bonds. Let $`E_A(q,n)`$ and $`E_B(q,n)`$ be the corresponding energy contributions to $`E(q,n)`$ coming from these two groups of bonds. Thus $`E(q,n)=E_A(q,n)+E_B(q,n)`$. To obtain $`E(q,n)`$ we proceed as follows:

(1). We calculate $`E_A(1,n)`$, using the quadratic expansion for the cosine. $`E_A(1,n)`$ is simply the contribution to the total energy of a bound pair of integer vortices arising from the bonds along the branch cut. Note that there are $`n`$ bonds in region A. Once $`E_A(1,n)`$ is known, we get $`E_B(1,n)=E_{KT}(n)E_A(1,n)`$.

(2). We obtain $`E_B(q,n)`$ by noting that, in the quadratic approximation, $`E_B(q,n)=q^2E_B(1,n)`$.

(3). Finally, we determine $`E_A(q,n)`$ by directly evaluating it using the full expression for the cosine, not the quadratic expansion. This is necessary, because the bond angles in region A are not small for arbitrary $`q`$.

We now use the outlined procedure to obtain $`E(q,n)`$.

Step 1: Let $`\theta _{i,A}(1,n)\varphi _{iu}\varphi _{il}`$ denote the $`i^{th}`$ bond angle (cf. Fig. 2) in region A for q = 1. For the two-vortex configuration, $`\theta _{i,A}(1,n)`$ is given by

$$\theta _{i,A}(1,n)=2\left[\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{1}{2i1}\right)+\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{1}{2n2i+1}\right)\right]$$
(7)
Using the quadratic approximation, the corresponding energy contribution $`E_A(1,n)`$ is given by

$$E_A(1,n)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\theta _{i,A}^2(1,n).$$
(8)
Using the approximation: $`\mathrm{tan}^1\left[1/(2i1)\right]1/(2i1)`$ for $`i2`$, we find

$`E_A(1,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2n1}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\left[\gamma +2\mathrm{ln}222n\right]`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\psi \left(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\psi ^{}\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ (10)
$`E_B(1,n)`$ $`=`$ $`E_{KT}(n)E_A(1,n),`$ (11)
where $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\psi ^{}(x)`$ are the Digamma function and its derivative, $`\gamma `$ is Euler’s constant, and $`E_{KT}`$(n) is given by Eq. (5).

Step 2. Using the results of step 1 and Eq. (5), we get

$$E_B(q,n)=q^2\left[2\pi \mathrm{ln}n+\pi ^2E_A(1,n)\right].$$
(12)
Step 3. The next step is to calculate $`E_A(q,n)`$. Bond angles in region $`A`$ are given by

$$\theta _{i,A}(q,n)=q\left[2\pi \theta _{i,A}(1,n)\right].$$
(13)
Correspondingly, the energy $`E_A(q,n)`$ is given by

$$E_A(q,n)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1\mathrm{cos}\left[\theta _{i,A}(q,n)\right]).$$
(14)
Since the bond angle $`\theta _{i,A}(q,n)`$ is not small for an arbitrary $`q`$, we cannot expand the cosine term only to second order. But for any $`q`$, the difference $`\theta _{i,A}(q,n)\theta _{n/2,A}(q,n)`$ is a small parameter for any $`i2`$. Expanding the cosine term in Eq. (14) to second order in this parameter, we obtain an expression for $`E_A(q,n)`$. This expression can be summed, and eventually gives

$`E_A(q,n)=(n2)\left[(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _n)+{\displaystyle \frac{8q^2}{n^2}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _n+{\displaystyle \frac{4q}{n}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _n\right]`$

$`+2\left\{1\mathrm{cos}\left[q\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2n1}}\right)\right]\right\}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4q^2}{n}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _n+q\mathrm{sin}\alpha _n\right]`$

$$\times \underset{m=2}{\overset{n1}{}}\theta _{m,A}(1,n)+\frac{q^2}{2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _n\underset{m=2}{\overset{n1}{}}\theta _{m,A}^2(1,n),$$
(15)
where

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=2}{\overset{n1}{}}}\theta _{m,A}(1,n)=`$ $`2\gamma 4+4\mathrm{ln}2+2\psi \left(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right),`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=2}{\overset{n1}{}}}\theta _{m,A}^2(1,n)=`$ $`\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n}}\left(\gamma +2\mathrm{ln}222n\right)`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n}}\psi `$ $`\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)2\psi ^{}\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ (18)
$`\alpha _n=q`$ $`\left(2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{4}{n}}\right).`$ (19)
Adding up the contribution from the two regions, we finally get the required expression for the energy of a bound pair of fractional vortices. As noted earlier, the core corrections must be included to attain high numerical accuracy. In the present case, it is sufficient to include these corrections only for the bonds labeled C1 and C2 in Fig. 2, using the procedure outlined earlier. This approximation is equivalent to extending region A to include bonds C1 and C2 . Correspondingly, the core-corrected total energy is given by

$$E(q,n)=E_A(q,n)+E_B(q,n)q^2\theta _c^2+2\left[1\mathrm{cos}(q\theta _c)\right]$$
(20)
where

$$\theta _c=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{2}{2n+1}.$$
(21)
Expressions (20) and (21) are compared to the results of numerical computation in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b); agreement between the two is excellent. On the basis of this agreement, which is equally good for all values of $`q`$ and $`n`$ which we have considered, we present this result as a good analytical expression for the interaction energy between two fractional vortices in the unfrustrated XY model on a square lattice. This result is a generalization of the integer vortex excitations proposed by Kosterlitz and Thouless.

For large $`n`$, we can further simplify the above expression by dropping terms of $`𝒪(1/n)`$ and smaller in Eq. (20) to get

$`E(q,n)`$ $`=`$ $`(n2)[1\mathrm{cos}(2\pi q)]+2\mathrm{ln}n\left[\pi q^2q\mathrm{sin}(2\pi q)\right]`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\pi ^2q^2+2\left[1\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{3\pi q}{2}})\right].`$
## III Fractional Vortices in the XY model With $`\pi `$ bonds

The fractional vortex configurations introduced in the previous section provide a natural way of characterizing the ground state of the XY model containing $`\pi `$ bonds. In this section, we implement this description by making a variational guess for the ground-state configuration using fractional vortices. We then compare our variational results with those obtained by numerically relaxing to the ground-state configuration, and find excellent agreement. In the following subsections, we will focus on obtaining the critical bond strength, $`\lambda _c`$, above which the ferromagnetic ground-state solution becomes unstable, and the ground-state configuration contains bound pairs of fractional vortices. For the case of one and two $`\pi `$ bonds, we also compare our results to those from previous studies by Vannimenus et al . Note that in these calculations, in which the goal is to calculate the threshold bond strength above which the ferromagnetic ground state becomes unstable rather than the absolute energies as a function of $`\lambda `$, it is unnecessary to include the core corrections. Hence, $`\lambda _c`$ can be calculated analytically as demonstrated below. The ground-state configuration and energy for $`\lambda >\lambda _c`$ do need the core corrections for greatest accuracy. We obtain them numerically using our variational guess and discuss them in the subsequent section.

### A One $`\pi `$ bond

We first consider the case of a single $`\pi `$ bond i.e, a single antiferromagnetic bond in a host of ferromagnetic bonds.

As before, we take the bond strength of the ferromagnetic bonds to equal unity, and we denoted the strength of the antiferromagnetic bond by $`\lambda `$ ($`\lambda 0`$). The problem is to obtain the ground-state configuration and energy for arbitrary strength, $`\lambda `$, of the $`\pi `$ bond.

To solve this problem, we make a variational guess for the ground-state configuration: it is the phase configuration corresponding to a bound pair of fractional vortices of strength $`\pm q`$, located at the centers of the two plaquettes adjacent to the $`\pi `$ bond. The charge, $`q`$, is a variational parameter with respect to which the ground-state energy is minimized for a given $`\lambda `$.

The total energy of this configuration discussed above is readily obtained using the procedure of the previous section, suitably corrected for the fact that we have a $`\pi `$ bond instead of a ferromagnetic bond. The angle difference across the $`\pi `$ bond is given by $`\theta _\pi =q\pi `$. Then, using Eqs. (8) and (12), we get

$$E_B(q)=\frac{1}{2}q^2\pi ^2,$$
(24)
while from Eq. (14) we find

$$E_A(q)=1+\lambda \mathrm{cos}(q\pi ).$$
(25)
Adding these two terms gives the total energy of the configuration. Minimizing this energy with respect to $`q`$ yields the condition

$$q\pi =\lambda \mathrm{sin}(q\pi ).$$
(26)
For $`\lambda 1`$, the ground-state configuration corresponds to $`q=0`$: all the phases are perfectly aligned. For $`\lambda >1`$,

the ground-state configuration corresponds to a bound pair of fractional vortices with charges $`\pm q`$ obtained by solving Eq. (26). Thus, the ferromagnetic ground state is unstable above a critical bond-strength value $`\lambda _c=1`$. The same value has been obtained previously by workers using different approaches .

### B Two $`\pi `$ bonds

We now consider the case of two parallel, adjacent $`\pi `$ bonds. As before, our variational guess for the ground state is the configuration corresponding to a bound pair of fractional vortices; we take these to be located as shown in Fig. 4(a). The corresponding total energy is again calculated using the procedure outlined in Section II. Using Eqs. (8) and (12), the energy contribution $`E_B(q)`$ is

$$E_B(q)=q^2\left\{2\pi \mathrm{ln}2+\pi ^2\left[\frac{\pi }{2}+2\mathrm{tan}^1(1/3)\right]^2\right\}.$$
(27)
Using Eq. (14), we get

$$E_A(q)=2+2\lambda \mathrm{cos}\left\{2q\left[3\pi /4\mathrm{tan}^1(1/3)\right]\right\}.$$
(28)
Adding these two contributions gives the total energy, which is to be minimized with respect to $`q`$ for a given $`\lambda `$. This procedure gives the critical value $`\lambda _c=0.563`$, which is in good agreement with the exact value $`\lambda _c=\pi /21`$, obtained by Vannimenus et al.

Next, we consider the case of two parallel, but non-adjacent $`\pi `$ bonds, as shown in Fig. 4(b). Taking the bond centers to have the coordinates $`(0,0)`$ and $`(m,n)`$,

we calculate the energy using the variational procedure described above with vortex charges as shown. For large separation between the bonds ($`\sqrt{m^2+n^2}1`$), this procedure gives

$$E_B(q)=q^2\left[2\pi ^22\alpha _{mn}(\pi \alpha _{mn})^2\right]$$
(29)
and

$$E_A(q)=2+2\lambda \mathrm{cos}\left[q(\pi +\alpha _{mn})\right],$$
(30)
where

$$\alpha _{mn}=\frac{m^2n^2}{(m^2+n^2)^2}.$$
(31)
Minimizing the total energy gives the critical bond strength as

$$\lambda _c=\frac{12\alpha _{mn}/\pi }{1+2\alpha _{mn}/\pi }.$$
(32)
Similarly, for two non-adjacent perpendicular $`\pi `$ bonds \[Fig. 4(c)\], we find

$$E_B(q)=q^2\left[2\pi ^22\beta _{mn}(\pi \beta _{mn})^2\right]$$
(33)
and

$$E_A(q)=2+2\lambda \mathrm{cos}\left[q(\pi +\beta _{mn})\right],$$
(34)
where

$$\beta _{mn}=\frac{2mn}{(m^2+n^2)^2}.$$
(35)
In this case, the critical bond strength is

$$\lambda _c=\frac{1\beta _{mn}/\pi }{1+\beta _{mn}/\pi }.$$
(36)
These results are identical to those obtained previously by Vannimenus et al, using a different approach . The agreement lends support to our hypothesis that the ground-state configuration of such systems can be characterized by a set of fractional vortices (in the cases considered here, a set of only two oppositely charged fractional

vortices). Besides having the merit of simplicity, our approach also easily yields the ground-state configuration and energy for arbitrary $`\lambda `$. Moreover, our procedure can be used to obtain the ground-state even when the separation between the bonds is not large. In particular, for two parallel bonds such that $`m=n=1`$, our variational procedure yields the surprising result that $`\lambda _c=1`$ for this configuration. The same result was obtained in a numerical study done by Gawiec et al. Finally, our variational ansatz can readily be generalized to longer $`\pi `$ bond chains, as we shall see in the next section.

### C  Chains of $`\pi `$ bonds

Next, we consider chains of $`\pi `$ bonds of length $`n3`$. In this case, we make the variational ansatz that the ground state consists of $`n/2`$ or $`(n+1)/2`$ pairs of oppositely charged fractional vortices for even or odd $`n`$, arranged as shown in Fig. 5. As before, we proceed by calculating the contribution to the total energy from regions A and B. However, the procedure outlined in Section II has to be generalized to include many pairs of fractional vortices. Since the details are significantly different from that outlined in section II, we briefly describe the generalized procedure below.

(1). We consider the case in which all charges have magnitude unity. The total energy of this configuration is given simply by the KT expression

$$E_{KT}=2\pi \underset{j<k}{}q_jq_k\mathrm{ln}(n_{jk})+\pi ^2\underset{j}{}q_j^2,$$
(37)
where $`n_{jk}`$ is the distance between the charges $`q_j`$ and $`q_k`$, and the second sum runs over all the individual charges, each of which has magnitude unity. This result is obtained by using a small-angle expansion for the contribution from each bond angle difference $`\theta _b`$, and summing those contributions to give

$$E_{KT}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{b}{}(\theta _b)^2.$$
(38)
The bond angle $`\theta _b`$ is, in turn, decomposed as

$$\theta _b=\underset{k}{}q_k\theta _{k,b},$$
(39)
where $`k`$ labels the position of the charges and $`\theta _{k,b}`$ is the contribution to $`\theta _b`$ from a charge of unit magnitude at $`k`$.

(2). Next, we consider the case in which the charges are fractional ($`|q|<1`$). The bonds can still be divided into classes A and B as discussed earlier. In the case of fractional charges, the bond angle differences in region B are still given by Eq. (39). Correspondingly, the energy contribution from bonds in region B is

$`E_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{b}{\overset{B}{}}}\theta _b^2`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{b}{\overset{A+B}{}}}\theta _b^2{\displaystyle \underset{b}{\overset{A}{}}}\theta _b^2,`$ (41)
where $`_b^B`$ and $`_b^A`$ denote sums over all bonds in region B and in region A.

(3). Finally we calculate the energy $`E_A`$, using suitable expressions for the bond angles in region A, as obtained from the multi-vortex configuration but without making the small angle expansion.

To minimize the resulting total energy, which is a function of all the $`q_k`$’s, we used two procedures: (i) Powell’s multidimensional direction set method, and (ii) a genetic algorithm. Both methods successfully converged to the same minimum energy and configuration, from which we deduced the critical bond strength, $`\lambda _c`$, for various values of $`n`$. Fig. 6 shows our results for $`\lambda _c(n)`$. As can be seen from the main part of the figure, it fits very well to the approximate expression $`\lambda _c1.16/n`$. A consequence of this $`1/n`$ dependence is: if the system has a finite concentration of $`\pi `$ bonds randomly distributed in the lattice, then in the thermodynamic limit $`\lambda _c0`$. This behavior follows from the fact that, in the thermodynamic limit, there is always a finite probability of having an arbitrarily large chain length $`n`$, and hence an arbitrarily small $`\lambda _c`$.

We now look at the variations in the bond angles along the $`\pi `$ bond chain as a function of chain length, $`n`$, and bond strength, $`\lambda `$ (for $`\lambda >\lambda _c`$). First, we discuss the variation with fixed bond strength, taking $`\lambda =1`$. Fig. 7 shows the ratio of the bond angles, $`\theta _i`$, along the chain (not including the central bond) to the bond angle across the first $`\pi `$ bond, $`\theta _1`$, as a function of position along the chain for various chain lengths. A number of features deserve mention. First, for a chain of length $`n=2m`$, the ratio of the bond angles, $`\theta _i/\theta _1`$, for $`i<m`$ is independent of $`m`$. Second, since the bond angle distribution is symmetric, we only need to look at the bonds in the range $`1im`$. Third, the bond angles increase monotonically as one moves along the chain from its edges to

the center i.e, as $`i`$ increases from 1 to $`m`$. The inset shows the variation of $`\theta _1`$ with chain length for $`\lambda =1`$. Note that with this choice of $`\lambda `$, the bond angles saturate quickly: they are roughly constant over the “interior bonds,” such that $`i3`$. Furthermore, this constant value (approximated by the central bond angle) approaches $`\pi `$ as the chain length $`n`$ increases.

Fig. 8 shows how the bond angles, $`\theta _i`$, vary with bond strength, $`\lambda `$, for a fixed chain length ($`n=20`$). As already seen in the previous figure, $`\theta _i`$ rapidly tends to saturate towards its central value with increasing $`i`$. Moreover, the central bond angle quickly increases from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$ as $`\lambda `$ increases for $`\lambda >\lambda _c`$. Thus, we can ‘tune’ the central bond angle to any desired fraction of $`\pi `$ by appropriately adjusting $`\lambda `$.

Although the underlying variables are the $`\theta _i`$’s, it is of interest to mention corresponding trends in the fractional charges. For small $`\lambda `$, these charges decrease monotonically with increasing $`i`$, so that the largest charges reside at the ends of the chain. For larger $`\lambda `$, charges comparable in magnitude to those at the ends appear away from the ends.

### D Numerical Check of Variational Procedure.

To check our variational approach, we have carried out an independent minimization to calculate the ground-state energy of the system containing $`\pi `$ bonds , without making any assumptions about the presence or absence of fractional vortices. To carry out this minimization, we imagine that the $`ij^{th}`$ bond is actually an overdamped Josephson junction connecting nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$. The current flowing through that bond from node $`i`$ to node $`j`$

is then

$$I_{ij}=I_{c,ij}\mathrm{sin}\left(\varphi _i\varphi _j\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2eR_{ij}}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\theta _i\theta _j\right),$$
(42)
and the sum of these currents must equal the total external current, $`I_i^{ext}`$, fed into node $`i`$:

$$\underset{b}{}I_{ij}=I_i^{ext}.$$
(43)
where $`I_{c,ij}`$ is the critical current of the junction between grains $`i`$ and $`j`$, and $`R_{ij}`$ is the corresponding shunt resistance. These equations can be put into dimensionless form using the definitions $`i_{ij}I_{ij}/I_c`$ and $`g_{ij}R/R_{ij}`$, where $`I_c`$ and $`R`$ are a convenient normalizing critical current and shunt resistance, and introducing the natural time unit $`\tau \mathrm{}/(2eRI_c)`$. Combining these equations yields a set of coupled ordinary differential equations which is easily reduced to matrix form and solved numerically, as described by many previous investigators. For our work, we employed a fourth-fifth order Runge-Kutta integration with variable time step.

For present purposes, we are interested, not in examining the dynamical properties of arrays with $`\pi `$ bonds, but rather in finding the minimum-energy configuration of such arrays. To that end, we have simply iterated this set of coupled equations of motion, with no external current, allowing the phases to evolve until they reach a time-independent configuration. As has been shown by previous workers, this configuration will correspond to a local minimum-energy state of the corresponding Hamiltonian $`H=_{ij}(\mathrm{}I_{c;ij}/2e)\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)`$. We then compare the resulting configuration and energy with those predicted by the fractional vortex variational ansatz for the ground state.

To make the comparison as straightforward as possible, we made the simplifying assumption $`R_{ij}=R`$ for all Josephson junctions, whether $`0`$ or $`\pi `$. We took $`i_{c,ij}=1`$ for all normal junctions, and $`i_{c;ij}=\lambda `$ for all $`\pi `$ junctions. Since no external current is to be applied to the system, we carry out these calculations using square arrays of junctions with periodic boundary conditions in both directions.

Each simulation begins with phases randomized at each grain. The system is then relaxed according to the Eqs. (42) and (43) for an interval of $`50100\tau `$. We then evaluate the final energy, as well as the phase difference, $`\theta _{ij}`$, across each $`\pi `$ junction. Once equilibrium is reached for a given $`\lambda `$, we increment or decrement $`\lambda `$, and the system is allowed to relax again without re-randomizing the phases. Even quite large arrays (50 $`\times `$ 50 plaquettes) relax quite quickly using this procedure, except near the critical point, but care must be taken to avoid taking data from simulations in which the system is trapped in a metastable state. We have used arrays ranging from 10 $`\times `$ 10 plaquettes to 50 $`\times `$ 50, and occasionally as large as 70 $`\times `$ 70 to examine convergence of equilibrium values.

Figs. 9 and 10 show the the exact ground-state energy and corresponding $`q`$ for the case of a single $`\pi `$ bond in a host of normal bonds, as calculated by this numerical procedure. The results are also compared to the total energy obtained from a ground-state configuration corresponding to a pair of bound fractional vortices of charge $`\pm q`$, calculated numerically. As shown in the figures, the agreement is excellent, thereby indicating that the ground-state energy is indeed well characterized by a bound pair of fractional vortices.

Figs. 11 and 12 show a similar comparison for the case of two $`\pi `$ bonds. Once again, the results obtained numerically from the RSJ equations for both the total energy

and the bond angle across the $`\pi `$ bonds, are in excellent agreement with those found from the fractional vortex ansatz, suggesting that the ground state, in the case of two $`\pi `$ bonds, is again well characterized, over a range of $`\lambda `$, by a pair of oppositely charged fractional vortices.

Finally, we briefly discuss the accuracy of our variational approximation for the “wave function,” i. e., the phase distribution in the ground state. As is well known, a variational wave function may give an excellent value for the ground state energy, but a less accurate picture of the ground state configuration. In particular, our variational approach ignores the spin-wave degrees of freedom in characterising the ground state of the frustrated XY model, but it is possible that they may be required to get an accurate description of the phase distribution. To test the accuracy of our variational phase distribution, we have compared it to the exact (numerical) phase distribution in the ground state in several cases. The difference between the two configurations is shown graphically in Fig. 13 for the case of two $`\pi `$ bonds. As can be seen, the difference between the variational and exact wave functions is almost always less than 2-3% of the bond angle at the $`\pi `$ junction. We have looked at the results for one and two $`\pi `$ bonds for varying bond strengths, and in all cases considered the discrepancy is small. Thus, we conclude that the phase distribution as well as the energy is well approximated by our variational ground state involving only fractional vortices.

## IV Summary and Possible Significance

The original motivation for this work was to study $`\pi `$ bonds in relation to the experiments of Kirtley et al  on $`\pi `$-grain boundaries in high-Tc superconductors.

Sigrist and Rice have shown that the Josephson coupling across a grain boundary between two $`d`$-wave superconductors can have either sign, depending on their crystallographic orientations, thereby giving rise to the possibility of $`\pi `$-grain boundaries. Of course, in the present model, we are treating not a $`\pi `$-grain boundary, but rather a string of $`\pi `$ bonds in the discrete XY model. Nevertheless, we argue that this string could be viewed as a crude model of such a grain boundary. It has been argued that even so-called ‘single-crystal’ high-Tc superconductors can be effectively represented as an array of superconducting grains weakly interacting via the Josephson coupling between them . The typical lattice spacing for the high-Tc materials in such a model has been quoted to be as large as 1 $`\mu m`$. Thus, the chain of $`\pi `$ bonds in our model can be taken as representing the coupling of grains across a $`\pi `$-grain boundary, and the length of the chain will depend on the dimensions of the grain boundary, and the interpretation of the effective lattice spacing.

Now we turn to a summary of the experiments. The relevant experiments fall into two categories. In the tricrystal experiments, the intersections of three grain boundaries at a “tricrystal point” were studied. At special orientations of the grain boundaries, these experiments found that a half quantum of flux is trapped around the tricrystal point - a result that has been interpreted as verifying the $`d`$-wave symmetry of the superconducting order parameter. In the tricrystal geometry, observing a trapped half-flux quantum can then be explained by the fact that one of the grain boundaries can be taken to be a $`\pi `$-boundary . In the second class of experiments, a triangular (or a hexagonal) single-crystal superconductor was inserted into a single crystal superconducting host of the same material, but with crystal axes misoriented with respect to those of the inclusion. In these systems, Kirtley et al have found evidence of fractional (not half-integer) flux entrapment. These results have been interpreted as evidence that the superconducting order parameter violates time-reversal symmetry, either in the bulk or at an interface. Indeed, recent experiments have reported fractional flux entrapment even in the absence of $`\pi `$-grain boundaries , possibly supporting the existence of an order parameter which violates time-reversal symmetry.

If, in the triangular inclusion, only one of the three boundaries is a $`\pi `$-boundary, the two “zero” boundaries will have little effect on the arrangement of the order parameter phases, and can reasonably be ignored. Similarly, in the tricrystal, if only one of the three grain boundaries is a $`\pi `$-boundary, this boundary would correspond to a semi-infinite chain of $`\pi `$ bonds, while the other two “zero” boundaries can again be ignored in the model. Thus, a finite chain of $`\pi `$ bonds may be suitable for modeling the triangular inclusions, and the extrapolation for long chain lengths is relevant for the tricrystal experiments.

Next, we speculate about the relationship of our results to the observed trapping of non-half-integers of flux in triangular inclusions. The trapped flux is usually related to the phase difference across the grain boundary by the following argument, which we restate to apply to our geometry. Consider a closed integration contour $`C`$ (of radius $`ra`$) centered at one end of the grain boundary, and passing through the grain boundary. We wish to consider the flux enclosed by this loop. The path is taken to be deep inside the grains, so that the Meissner effect dictates that the supercurrent density $`𝐣=0`$. Since $`𝐣\varphi (2\pi /\mathrm{\Phi }_0)𝐀`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the phase of the superconducting wave function, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/(2e)`$ is the superconducting flux quantum, and $`𝐀`$ is the vector potential, it follows that

$$\varphi =\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}𝐀.$$
(44)
Now let $`C=C^1+C^2`$, where $`C^1`$ is the part of the contour not including the grain boundary. In the approximation that $`C^2`$ can be taken to be infinitesimally short, the integral $`_{C^2}𝐀𝐝\mathrm{}0`$. In addition, we have $`_{C^2}\varphi 𝐝\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$, the phase discontinuity across the grain boundary. But also $`\varphi `$ must be continuous around $`C`$, modulo $`2\pi `$. Combining all these conditions with Eq. (44), we find that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\pi n\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(45)
where $`n`$ is an integer and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the flux enclosed by the entire contour. Thus, the flux enclosed by $`C`$ is related

to the phase defect across the $`\pi `$ junction in the loop. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ is a non-half-integer fraction of $`2\pi `$ in the ground state, then the flux enclosed will also correspondingly be fractional. Hence, a non-half-integer fractional flux is correlated with a phase jump across the grain boundary which is a non-integer fraction of $`\pi `$.

Our results show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \pi `$ for an interior bond in a finite chain of $`\pi `$ bonds. In fact $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ can be ‘tuned’ to be any fraction of $`\pi `$ by simply varying the strength of the bonds for any finite chain length. Thus, a necessary condition for the occurrence of a non-half-integer flux quantum is indeed satisfied. But this result still does not demonstrate that the the trapped vortices correspond to non-half-integer flux quanta, because our calculations do not include the magnetic fields induced by the currents near the $`\pi `$-grain boundary. These fields will change $`𝐀`$, and hence, the phase arrangement itself to some extent. Thus, we cannot rigorously infer the magnetic flux when these inductive effects are omitted from the calculations .

Although our present calculations do not include these inductive effects, it is still instructive to look at the phase distribution as if Eq. (45) were valid anyway. In particular, let us try to model the flux configuration obtained by scanning the $`\pi `$-grain boundary using an idealized square SQUID. We take the flux through the SQUID to be the same as that through the corresponding contour $`C`$ as described above. According to the argument just given, the flux passing through the SQUID is therefore proportional to the sum of the phase jumps $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_i\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i`$ around the SQUID contour, across those bonds for which the phase has a discontinuity. In our simplified model for the flux

through the SQUID, these discontinuities occur across the two bonds where the contour, taken counterclockwise around the SQUID, intersects the $`\pi `$-grain boundary or its extension along the x axis.

In order to make a reasonable connection to the experimental geometry, we estimate the lattice spacing $`a`$ in our model using

$$E_J=I_c\mathrm{\Phi }_0/c=a^2J_c\mathrm{\Phi }_0/c,$$
(46)
where $`E_J`$ is the Josephson coupling energy between adjacent grains, $`I_c`$ is the associated intergranular critical current, $`J_c`$ is the macroscopic critical current density set by the Josephson effect coupling, and $`a`$ is the lattice spacing of the granular array.

Using the experimental estimates for $`E_J`$ and $`J_c`$ (see Ref. $`13`$), we estimate $`a=1.1\mu m`$, which is in agreement with the typical value for these materials . Since the triangular insertions are roughly $`20\mu m`$ in length (for each side), we have looked at the results for a $`\pi `$ bond chain of length 20 lattice spacings, with the SQUID diameter also taken to correspond to the experimental diameter. In Fig. 14(a), we show $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as calculated for a $`\pi `$ bond chain of length $`n=20`$ and strength $`\lambda =0.25`$, and a SQUID of diameter $`d=10`$. In Fig. 14(b), we show the same for a chain of length $`n=40`$. We note that for a fixed bond strength, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ becomes more concentrated near the chain ends with increasing chain length $`n`$. Furthermore, we can also make $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ more localized near the chain ends by increasing $`\lambda `$, as shown in Fig. 14(b).

The profile of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, shown in Fig. 14(a), strikingly resembles the flux profile measured in Ref. $`13`$ across one side of a triangular insertion. In view of this similarity, it would be interesting to see if the changes we see with bond strength and chain length are also found experimentally. (Experimentally, the strength of the bonds can be changed by varying the misorientation angles of the inclusions.) If inductive effects do not change the qualitative picture presented above, then these experiments would provide evidence supporting the interpretation of the grain boundary as a string of $`\pi `$ bonds.

We also comment on the fact that Kirtley et al were able to reproduce their measured flux configuration with a certain arrangement of fractional magnetic charges. Our picture suggests one way of understanding why this modeling works. The key is that the flux distribution is closely related to the gauge-invariant phase jump ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{ij}`$) across the boundary, given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{ij}=\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{ij}(2\pi /\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\mathrm{\Delta }A_{ij},$$
(47)
where $`i,j`$ label sites connected by a bond across the grain boundary, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{ij}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{ij}`$ are the corresponding discontinuities in the vector potential and the phase across that bond. A nonzero $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{ij}`$ can therefore be attributed either to a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{ij}`$ or a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{ij}`$ (or a combination of both). In our calculations, we have assumed a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{ij}`$ and take $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{ij}=0`$ across the branch cut. The opposite choice ($`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{ij}0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{ij}=0`$) corresponds to a fractional magnetic monopole, since the vector potential of a magnetic monopole changes discontinuously across a branch cut. Since the physical quantity is the gauge-invariant phase difference, these pictures are equivalent.

In summary, we have introduced a set of “fractional vortex ” excitations in the XY model, and have derived an expression for the interaction energy of a bound pair of fractional vortices. Furthermore, we have studied the ground state of the XY model on a two-dimensional lattice containing $`\pi `$ bonds. For strings of $`\pi `$ bonds of any length, we find that there exists a minimum bond strength, above which the ground state can be characterized by pair(s) of oppositely charged fractional vortices. We have verified this ansatz by carrying out independent numerical simulations for the ground-state configuration of this system. Finally, we have discussed the possible connection between these calculations and the trapped fractional flux quanta, which are observed near grain boundaries in high-Tc superconductors.

## V Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Kathryn Moler, Yong-Baek Kim and Rajiv Singh for helpful conversations. We are grateful for support from NSF grant DMR97-31511, the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium through Purdue University. Grant No. DE-FG 02-90 45427, and NASA, Division of Microgravity Sciences, Grant No. NCC 8-152. RVK would also like to acknowledge the support of the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Division of Materials Research. Calculations were carried out using the IBM SP2 and the ORIGIN 2000 at the Ohio Supercomputer Center.


text:
# Black holes: new horizons

## I Brief history

The eve of a new millenium provides a particularly opportune occasion to review the status of any enterprise and its foreseeable future. The study of black holes is relatively young by scientific timescales; although Schwarzschild found the first such solution in 1916, almost immediately after Einstein formulated General Relativity , its global structure was described only in 1960 with the paper of Kruskal, reportedly written by Wheeler, who is acknowledged as coining the term black hole in the late 1960s. Similarly, the rotating generalization of the Schwarzschild solution was found only in 1963 by Kerr. The paradigm which developed may perhaps be marked by the 1973 article of Bardeen, Carter & Hawking, enunciating the four laws of black-hole mechanics, or the 1973 textbooks of Hawking & Ellis and Misner, Thorne & Wheeler. Reviews in Hawking & Israel stylishly etch this theory in stone. However, a few have come to the view that a more local, dynamical paradigm is required, for instance to understand the black-hole collisions which are expected to be observed by gravitational-wave detectors. The millenial Marcel Grossmann meeting provided a timely opportunity to bring together some of the few (we happy few) whose research relates to this theme.

The standard paradigm for black holes consists mainly of statics and asymptotics. By statics I mean the study of stationary black holes and perturbations thereof. Here a black hole is defined by a Killing horizon, with which one can associate a surface area $`A`$ and a surface gravity $`\kappa `$. (Throughout the article, definitions and notation are referred to cited texts, in the spirit of a review). Uniqueness theorems restrict the class of solutions, in vacuo to the Kerr black holes parametrized by mass $`m`$ and angular momentum $`J`$. A first law relates perturbations by

$$\delta m=\frac{\kappa \delta A}{8\pi }+\mathrm{\Omega }\delta J$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity of the horizon. A zeroth law expresses the constancy of $`\kappa `$ and a third law excludes reducing $`\kappa `$ to zero, for instance by test-particle perturbations. The terminology here is analogous to that of thermodynamics, with which a genuine connection was conjectured by Bekenstein and found by Hawking and others: quantum fields radiate from stationary black holes with a black-body spectrum at temperature $`\kappa /2\pi `$. Thus black holes presumably have an entropy $`A/4`$, leading to much speculation concerning desirable quantum gravity.

With regard to this unanticipated connection, it is interesting to note that thermodynamics itself is undergoing a radical paradigm shift from the theory promulgated in old-fashioned textbooks and lecture courses, in which the first and second laws are formulated with derivatives which are either static state-space perturbations or proudly meaningless, to a local, dynamical theory in which the first and second laws are local field equations involving space-time derivatives of tensorial fields, just as in the rest of physics. This originated in 1940 with the revolutionary work of Eckart on relativistic thermodynamics, but the non-relativistic version apparently took decades longer and is still foreign to most thermodynamics textbooks. Such historical oddities and timescales clearly show that science is less logical and more sociological than its preferred public image. Will black-hole physics fare better?

By asymptotics I mean the study of conformal infinity in asymptotically flat space-times. Penrose showed how conformal transformations $`g\mathrm{\Omega }^2g`$ can be used to define conformal boundaries of the space-time, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, which are at infinite distance and/or time. At future null (lightlike) infinity $`\mathrm{}^+`$, the Bondi mass-energy $`E`$ measures the unradiated energy of the space-time, while the Bondi flux $`\phi _{}`$ measures the energy flux $`\psi =\mathrm{\Omega }^2\phi `$ of the gravitational waves or other radiation. They are related by the Bondi energy-loss equation

$$_{}E=\widehat{}\phi _{}$$
(2)
with the corresponding equation for past null infinity $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ obtained by interchanging $`\pm `$. The original work of Bondi and others is acknowledged as the first to show conclusively that gravitational waves carry energy.

The wrong turn occured, in my view, by applying asymptotic concepts to define black holes. Existing textbooks define a black hole by an event horizon, a phrase popular enough to title a recent film. This is the boundary of the causal past of $`\mathrm{}^+`$, meaning that it is defined by a boundary condition applied infinitely far in the future, about which we can know nothing, according to relativistic causality. The location of the event horizon, or even its existence, is known only after the universe has ended, or, depending on one’s religious beliefs, to the gods looking down on space-time as a vast Penrose diagram. It cannot be known to mere mortals in the here and now. This is illustrated in Fig.1:***For the uninitiated, a Penrose diagram compactly summarizes the causal features of a space-time, as far as two dimensions allow. Light rays run diagonally upwards, separating spatial (sideways) directions from future (upwards) and past (downwards) directions. Also, conformal boundaries at infinite distance and/or time are rendered finite. an observer crossing the event horizon feels no gravitational field at all and has never experienced curved space-time. The event horizon does not have any physical effect. Such a horizon could be passing through you, gentle reader, at any given instant; no-one would notice. More realistically, since the actual universe is not thought to be asymptotically flat, event horizons do not actually exist, and therefore neither do black holes, by the standard definition. This may come as some surprise to those observing black holes or their signatures; I mention it only to highlight the shameful state of accepted black-hole theory.

More practical researchers, such as those making numerical simulations, usually characterize black holes by marginal surfaces, spatial surfaces which are extremal in a null hypersurface. Marginal surfaces are often described by the derogatory term apparent horizon, which leads to confusion with the textbook definition of the latter, due to Hawking. Apparent horizons are defined in asymptotically flat space-times: one chooses an asymptotically flat spatial hypersurface and finds all outer trapped surfaces lying in the hypersurface; the boundary of this outer trapped region is the apparent horizon of the hypersurface. However, this is so slicing dependent that there are global slicings of the Schwarzschild black hole with no apparent horizon. Moreover, even with a well chosen slicing of a general space-time, it is impractical to check every embedded surface to see whether it is outer trapped. In practice, people use marginal surfaces, based on the proposition of Hawking that a suitably smooth apparent horizon is a marginal surface, cf.. Algorithms exist to find marginal surfaces in numerical simulations, as described by Deirdre Shoemaker during the session. For instance, a black-hole coalescence may be defined by the appearance of a family of marginal surfaces enclosing the two original families.

Marginal surfaces seem, then, to provide the way forward. However, without further qualification they cannot be taken to define black holes, as they can occur in white-hole horizons, Cauchy horizons, cosmological horizons and wormhole horizons, and do occur through every point of de Sitter space-time. My own proposal for the required refinement, trapping horizons, is described in the following. An earlier suggestion by Tipler was compared by Brien Nolan during the session. More recently, Ashtekar has proposed using isolated horizons, which are essentially null trapping horizons. A significant body of work is currently being developed on isolated horizons, as reported by Jerzy Lewandowski, Olaf Dreyer and Alejandro Corichi. Similar ideas for cosmological horizons were presented by Jun-ichiro Koga, and Daisuke Ida discussed both trapping horizons and apparent horizons. The session also included various work on conservation laws, Killing horizons and event horizons.

## II Trapping horizons

Imagine enclosing a star with a roughly spherical spatial surface at some moment of time. Imagine detonating a flash of light simultaneously at each point of the surface. Two wavefronts form, one ingoing and one outgoing. Normally one expects the outgoing wavefront to have increasing area and the ingoing wavefront to have decreasing area. This is measured at each point by the expansions $`\theta _\pm `$ of light rays in the wavefronts: $`\theta _+>0`$ for the outgoing wavefront and $`\theta _{}<0`$ for the ingoing wavefront. However, the gravitational field of the star tends to drag things toward it, including light. Thus the outgoing wavefront does not expand as much as if the star were not present. The effect increases closer to the star and for larger mass. For large enough mass, for a surface close enough, it may happen that the outgoing wavefront has decreasing area. This is a black hole: all light and therefore matter are confined inside a shrinking area. The idea then is that the boundary of the black hole at a given time is a marginal surface, meaning that one wavefront has instantaneously parallel light rays, in this case $`\theta _+=0`$. To characterize a black hole, it is also important that the ingoing wavefront is converging, $`\theta _{}<0`$, and that $`\theta _+`$ is decreasing in the ingoing direction.

With such reasoning, I defined a trapping horizon as basically a hypersurface foliated by marginal surfaces. As above, a marginal surface is a spatial surface, usually assumed compact, on which one null expansion vanishes, fixed here as $`\theta _+=0`$. I call the horizon future or past if $`\theta _{}<0`$ or $`\theta _{}>0`$ respectively, and outer or inner if $`_{}\theta _+<0`$ or $`_{}\theta _+>0`$ respectively. Here the null derivatives $`_\pm `$ are with respect to a double-null foliation adapted to the horizon, i.e. two intersecting families of null hypersurfaces whose intersections include the marginal surfaces. Then I propose defining a non-degenerate black hole by a future outer trapping horizon.Degenerate black holes are those for which $`\theta _+`$ decreases in the $`_{}`$ direction, but $`_{}\theta _+`$ is not strictly negative, for instance the extreme (maximally charged) Reissner-Nordström black hole. However, they are not expected to be physically attainable; indeed, this is one possible formulation of the third law, as subsequent definitions of surface gravity reveal. More precisely, I suggest that a non-degenerate black hole exists only if such a horizon exists. As to the converse, I do not wish to rule out strengthening the definition. For instance, it seems reasonable to expect any surface sufficiently close to a marginal surface and inside the horizon to be a trapped surface, meaning $`\theta _+\theta _{}>0`$. In contrast, the definition cannot be weakened without losing some basic properties expected of black holes, as described in the next section.

The four non-degenerate types of trapping horizon occur for the generic Reissner-Nordström black hole, where they label the various Killing horizons as the terminology suggests, as shown in Fig.2. Examples of gravitational collapse to a black hole are depicted in Fig.3. For the massless Klein-Gordon field in spherical symmetry, Christodoulou showed that generic collapse satisfies cosmic censorship, in the sense that a spatial singularity forms inside a future trapping horizon. In this case, it is straightforward to show that a trapping horizon must be of the outer type. However, other matter models such as dust allow the horizon to have an inner part.

## III General laws

I showed that several fundamental properties of trapping horizons follow directly from the Einstein equations, provided that the matter satisfies a standard local energy condition. The dominant energy condition states that a future-causal observer measures future-causal or zero energy-momentum. This implies the weak energy condition, which states that a causal observer measures non-negative energy density. This in turn implies the null energy condition, which states that the energy density in a null frame is non-negative.

The signature law states that an outer (respectively inner) trapping horizon is achronal (respectively causal), assuming the null energy condition. Here achronal means spatial (spacelike) or null and causal means temporal (timelike) or null. The null case is non-generic in the sense that special (local stationarity) conditions are required on the matter and geometry. Thus a black-hole horizon is generically spatial and always one-way traversible: one can enter but not leave the horizon. This is a fundamental property expected of black holes, without which a definition would not be acceptable.

The second law states that a future outer or past inner (respectively past outer or future inner) trapping horizon has non-decreasing (respectively non-increasing) area element, again assuming the null energy condition. Here the orientation is such that, in the null limit, it is future-null. Thus for a black-hole horizon,

$$A^{}0$$
(3)
where $`A`$ is the area of the marginal surfaces and the prime denotes the derivative along a vector generating the marginal surfaces, with the above orientation. Moreover, $`A^{}`$ vanishes if and only if the horizon is null, which includes both Killing horizons and isolated horizons. Thus the area of a black hole cannot decrease and generically increases. Again this is an expected property of black holes, analogous to the second law of thermodynamics. Note the difference with the textbook second law for event horizons, due to Hawking, who conjectured such a property of apparent horizons.

The topology law states that future or past outer trapping horizons have topologically spherical marginal surfaces, assuming the dominant energy condition. Again this is an expected property of black holes. If one allows degenerate black holes, then toroidal topology is possible, but highly non-generic, e.g. the marginal surface must be Ricci flat. Similarly, if one allows non-compact marginal surfaces, planar topology is possible, but this is hardly of astrophysical relevance. Non-orientable topology is ruled out by the future or past condition.

Another general result obtained by these methods is that, in the presence of a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, black holes have an area limit: outer trapping horizons satisfy $`A4\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus black holes are smaller than the cosmological horizon scale, corresponding to an area $`12\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In summary, trapping horizons provide a local, dynamical definition of a black hole with expected properties. The definition is practical in the sense that marginal surfaces can be found in numerical simulations, with the future outer condition being straightforward to check. It is also simple and intuitive: the horizon is where outgoing light rays are just trapped by the gravitational field. The next phase of research consists of identifying the relevant physical quantities and finding the equations relating them. This should include and generalize what is known in statics and asymptotics, principally the first law (1) and the Bondi energy-loss equation (2) respectively. Thus we need local, dynamical definitions of quantities such as mass-energy $`E`$ and $`m`$, surface gravity $`\kappa `$, energy flux $`\psi `$ of gravitational waves and so on. This constitutes the framework I call black-hole dynamics. So far, the program has been completed only in symmetric cases, discussed in the next two sections.

Without the local energy conditions, trapping horizons may also be used to define dynamic (traversible) wormholes. Then, depending on the sign of the energy density of the matter, black holes and wormholes are locally interconvertible. For example, an initially Schwarzschild black hole evaporates by Hawking radiation as a dynamic wormhole. This leads to a theory of wormhole dynamics, to be described elsewhere.

## IV Spherical symmetry

The black-hole dynamics framework has been developed in detail in spherical symmetry. Here the area $`A`$ of the spheres is a geometrical invariant. Since the null expansions are $`\theta _\pm =_\pm \mathrm{ln}A`$, the basic definitions can be formulated and extended in terms of $`A`$, or more conveniently, the areal radius $`r=\sqrt{A/4\pi }`$: a sphere is untrapped, marginal or trapped as $`r`$ is spatial, null or temporal respectively. A trapping horizon is outer, degenerate or inner as $`^2r`$ is positive, zero or negative respectively.

There is a natural choice of time given by the Kodama vector $`k`$, defined up to orientation by $`kr=0`$ and $`kk=rr`$. This reduces to the usual Killing vector for Schwarzschild or Reissner-Nordström black holes. In general, a sphere is trapped, marginal or untrapped if $`k`$ is spatial, null or temporal respectively. Thus a trapping horizon occurs where $`k`$ is null, just as a Killing horizon occurs where the Killing vector is null. A noteworthy difference is that, for Killing horizons, the normalization of the Killing vector is determined by an asymptotic boundary condition, that it be unit at infinity, whereas the normalization of $`k`$ is fixed locally.

The energy-momentum density with respect to $`k`$ is the vector $`j=Tk`$, where $`T`$ is the energy-momentum-stress tensor of the matter. Then both $`k`$ and $`j`$ are covariantly conserved:

$`k=0`$ (4)
$`j=0.`$ (5)
These Noether currents therefore admit Noether charges

$`V={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{}k=\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3`$ (6)
$`E={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{}j=\frac{1}{2}r(1rr)`$ (7)
defined on each sphere, i.e. independent of the choice of spatial hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with regular centre. Then $`V`$ is the areal volume, while $`E`$ is the desired energy. This definition of mass or energy is common and appears to have been given first by Misner & Sharp. It has many desired physical properties, including that it reduces to the Bondi energy at $`\mathrm{}^\pm `$.

I define surface gravity $`\kappa `$ by

$$k(k)=\kappa r.$$
(8)
That is, the vectors on each side of the equation are parallel, and $`\kappa `$ is defined as the proportionality factor. On a trapping horizon $`_\pm r=0`$, $`k=\pm r`$, so that the equation takes the same form as the usual definition of stationary surface gravity in terms of the stationary Killing vector. Thus we have a natural generalization of surface gravity for dynamic black holes. Note as above that the normalization of $`\kappa `$ is determined locally, without recourse to asymptotic boundary conditions. The surface gravity evaluates as $`\kappa =^2r/2`$ on a trapping horizon, and therefore has the desired property that $`\kappa >0`$, $`\kappa =0`$ or $`\kappa <0`$ on outer, degenerate or inner trapping horizons respectively. Thus any formulation of the third law expressing $`\kappa \to ̸0`$ is related to the unattainability of degenerate black holes.

Associated with the matter are two invariants of $`T`$, an energy density $`w`$, which is interpreted as a work density, and an energy flux covector $`\psi `$. The dominant energy condition implies $`w0`$ and the null energy condition implies that $`\psi `$ is outward achronal in untrapped regions. At null infinity $`\mathrm{}^\pm `$, projecting $`r^2\psi `$ along $`_{}`$ yields the Bondi flux $`\phi _{}`$. Thus the Bondi flux has been localized for any sphere in the space-time.

The Einstein equation implies what I call the unified first law

$$E=A\psi +wV.$$
(9)
The two terms are interpreted as energy-supply and work terms respectively, analogous to the heat supply and work of the first law of thermodynamics. Projecting the equation along $`\mathrm{}^+`$, it reduces to the Bondi energy-loss equation (2), since $`A=\widehat{}r^2`$ and $`w0`$. Generally

$$_\pm E=A\psi _\pm $$
(10)
at $`\mathrm{}^{}`$. Thus the Bondi energy loss has been localized.

Projecting the unified first law (9) along a trapping horizon,

$$E^{}=\frac{\kappa A^{}}{8\pi }+wV^{}$$
(11)
where the prime denotes the same derivative as in the second law (3). The term involving area and surface gravity has the same form as that of the textbook first law (1) of black-hole statics, with a space-time derivative replacing the perturbation. Thus I call the equation the first law of black-hole dynamics. The work term may be checked for the Maxwell field, for which $`w=^2/8\pi `$ is the energy density of an electric field $`=e/r^2`$, where $`e`$ is the charge. Note that for the Reissner-Nordström black hole, the energy is $`E=me^2/2r`$, so that the form of the work term depends on whether $`E`$ or $`m`$ appears on one side of the first law. In general, one knows $`E`$ but not $`m`$, since there is no known local prescription for the latter which works for all matter fields.

Thus the two principal equations of statics and asymptotics, the first law (1) and the Bondi energy-loss equation (2), have been unified into a single energy conservation equation (9) which holds throughout the space-time. This unified first law also includes a first law of relativistic thermodynamics: projecting it along the flow of a thermodynamic material yields

$$\dot{E}=\alpha \dot{Q}p\dot{V}$$
(12)
where the dot denotes the material derivative, $`p`$ is the radial pressure, $`\dot{Q}`$ is the heat supply and $`\alpha `$ is a red-shift factor. Apart from this Tolman-like factor, which is 1 in the Newtonian limit, the equation has the same form as the textbook first law of thermodynamics. Thus a genuine connection with thermodynamics has been found, to be added to the famous connection between surface gravity and temperature. This also suggests that even dynamic black holes have an entropy $`A/4`$.

The Einstein equation yields an explicit expression for the surface gravity:

$$\kappa =\frac{E}{r^2}4\pi rw.$$
(13)
Apart from the matter term, this has the same form as Newton’s law of gravitation. This allows various inequalities relating area, energy and surface gravity. It also implies a zeroth law, given here for the first time: if $`w^{}=0`$ along a null trapping horizon, then

$$\kappa ^{}=0.$$
(14)
The null condition is an expression of local stationarity of the trapping horizon, $`A^{}=0`$, while $`w^{}=0`$ is a corresponding expression for the matter, e.g. $`^{}=0`$ or $`e^{}=0`$ for an electric field. The space-time need not be stationary, as emphasized for isolated horizons, so this is a non-trivial generalization of the textbook zeroth law.

In summary, the black-hole dynamics framework is essentially complete in spherical symmetry: one knows the relevant physical quantities $`(A,k,E,\kappa ,\psi ,w)`$ and the equations relating them. There is a unified first law and, for black holes, zeroth, first and second laws, which all involve the same derivative, that generating the trapping horizon. Compare here with the textbook zeroth, first and second laws, which all involve different derivatives, except where the second law reduces to an equality. This is ironically reminiscent of the confusion of derivatives which plagued thermodynamics; see Truesdell for a critical history.

## V Cylindrical symmetry

The black-hole dynamics framework has also been applied in cylindrical symmetry, which has the additional complexity of gravitational waves. Here the basic geometrical invariants are the circumferential radius $`\rho `$ and, up to a constant scale, the specific length $`\mathrm{}`$ of the cylinders. Writing $`r=\rho \mathrm{}`$, the definitions of trapped, marginal and untrapped surfaces, and outer, degenerate and inner trapping horizons, all take the same form as in spherical symmetry. There is a canonical time vector $`k`$ defined by the same formulas, which is covariantly conserved, $`k=0`$, with Noether charge $`V=\pi r^2`$. An important difference with spherical symmetry is that the corresponding energy-momentum density per specific length of the matter, $`j[T]=\mathrm{}^2Tk`$, is generally not conserved. Physically this is because gravitational waves carry energy.

Remarkably, it is possible to include the energy of the gravitational waves in a combined conservation law. The key physical quantity is the gravitational potential $`\varphi =\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{}`$. One invariant of the Einstein equation is a wave equation for $`\varphi `$:

$$^2\varphi =4\pi \varrho $$
(15)
where $`\varrho `$ is an invariant of $`T`$. In the Newtonian limit, this reduces to the Poisson equation of Newtonian gravity, with $`\varrho `$ reducing to the density and $`\varphi `$ reducing to the Newtonian gravitational potential. Then I define the energy-momentum-stress tensor of the gravitational waves

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{2\varphi \varphi (\varphi \varphi )g}{8\pi }$$
(16)
which has the Klein-Gordon form. Then the energy-momentum density per specific length of the gravitational waves is $`j[\mathrm{\Theta }]=\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Theta }k`$. The combined energy-momentum density is then covariantly conserved:

$$j[T+\mathrm{\Theta }]=0.$$
(17)
The corresponding Noether charge is an energy per specific length, $`E=\frac{1}{8}(1\mathrm{}^2rr)`$, originally due to Thorne.

With the energy of the gravitational waves included, definitions and results follow analogously to those in spherical symmetry. Surface gravity $`\kappa `$ may be defined by $`k(k)=\mathrm{}\kappa r`$. The matter admits a work density $`w`$ and an energy flux $`\psi [T]`$, with a corresponding $`\psi [\mathrm{\Theta }]`$, the energy flux of the gravitational waves. (The original reference used $`\psi /\mathrm{}`$). Then the Einstein equation implies the unified first law

$$\mathrm{}E=A\psi [T+\mathrm{\Theta }]+\mathrm{}^1wV$$
(18)
where $`A=2\pi r`$ is the specific area. The first law of black-hole dynamics is the projection along a trapping horizon:

$$\mathrm{}E^{}=\frac{\kappa A^{}}{8\pi }+\frac{wV^{}}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(19)
The zeroth law is $`\kappa ^{}=0`$ along a null trapping horizon with $`(w/\mathrm{})^{}=0`$. A first law for cosmic strings also follows by projecting the unified first law along the string.

## VI Current directions

Of the physically important quantities familiar from statics and asymptotics, those not yet considered are angular momentum and angular velocity. For instance, in a black hole collision, one expects that a certain proportion of the initial angular momentum will be radiated away as gravitational waves. Thus angular momentum should enter the first law, as in the static first law (1), and presumably satisfy a conservation law of its own, as in Newtonian physics. However, there is no agreed local definition of angular momentum for dynamic black holes, even in symmetric cases. The natural arena seems to be axisymmetry, though twisted cylindrical symmetry might prove simpler. New ideas are needed here. One idea is a Noether-current method which recovers the Komar integrals for both energy and angular momentum in vacuo, but allows generalization to certain matter fields.

Also needed are generalizations of the physical quantities already defined in spherical or cylindrical symmetry. For instance, Mukohyama proposed a general definition of surface gravity

$$\kappa =\frac{1}{16\pi r}g^+(2_{(+}\theta _)+\theta _+\theta _{})$$
(20)
where $`r=\sqrt{A/4\pi }`$, $`A=1`$ and the integrals are over spatial surfaces in the double-null foliation adapted to the trapping horizon. This is a quasi-local rather than local definition, as it requires knowledge of the whole surface. The simplest definition of quasi-local energy generalizing the spherically symmetric energy, satisfying some similar properties, is the Hawking energy

$$E=\frac{r}{16\pi }(Rg^+\theta _+\theta _{})$$
(21)
where $`R`$ is the Ricci curvature scalar of the surface. Then there is a first law with the same form as (11), for a certain definition of $`w`$, which now may be non-zero in vacuo. This should presumably include angular momentum, but as above, this is not properly understood. If this form of the first law is accepted, there is a corresponding zeroth law just as in spherical symmetry (14). As to a third law for dynamic black holes, this seems to be still a completely open question.

If general black holes prove to be beyond human understanding, approximation methods may still be useful. For instance, for linearized gravitational waves, it is well known how to construct an effective energy tensor analogous to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of cylindrical symmetry. I recently proposed a quasi-spherical approximation which can be used to describe gravitational waves from roughly spherical black holes. The physical quantities and laws of black-hole dynamics, along with gravitational-wave dynamics, generalizing the relativistic Poisson equation (15), can be formulated in this context, to be described elsewhere.

Recently Ashtekar has encouraged work on isolated horizons, which are null trapping horizons with certain additional conditions. This is more general than traditional statics in that an isolated horizon is not necessarily a Killing horizon. The situation can be thought of as analogous to dynamic equilibrium rather than static equilibrium: the space-time need not be stationary, but the part of interest, the black-hole horizon, is unchanging. This can be used to describe black holes in quiescent states between dynamic processes, as depicted in Fig.4. First and zeroth laws for isolated horizons have been given, the second law reducing to an equality. A particularly remarkable result is a quantum-geometrical derivation of black-hole entropy.

## VII Perspective

This has been a personal view of black-hole theory based on current knowledge, necessarily diverging from generally accepted theory. I have presented a framework for investigating black-hole dynamics, without pretence to a complete theory. There is already ample evidence that this quest is successfully proceeding: symmetric cases have been completely analyzed, with all physically important quantities known, and there are general laws such as the second law, with at least suggestions for general first and zeroth laws. Further development requires further ideas, which presents exciting opportunities for original research. This is particularly timely given the anticipated era of gravitational-wave astronomy, which promises unprecedented interplay between black-hole theory and observation. I hope that the dawn of the new millenium will herald a shift towards a more local, dynamical understanding of black holes.

I am grateful to the organizers of the Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting for the invitation to organize the Generalized Horizons session, to the National Science Foundation for a travel grant, and to the other contributors.


text:
# Quantum Codes from Cyclic Codes over 𝐺𝐹(4^𝑚)

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we use the ideas of Calderbank et al to construct a new class of quantum codes from cyclic codes over $`GF(4^m)`$. In particular, the following theorem from  can be used directly to obtain quantum codes from certain codes over $`GF(4)`$.

###### Theorem 1

:

Suppose $`C`$ is a $`(n,k)`$ linear code over $`GF(4)`$ self-orthogonal with respect to the hermitian inner product. Suppose also that the minimum weight of $`C^{}C`$ is $`d`$. Then a $`[[n,n2k,d]]`$ quantum code can be obtained from $`C`$.

The hermitian inner product between $`u,vGF(4)^n`$ is defined to be

$$u.v=u_1\overline{v}_1+u_2\overline{v}_2+\mathrm{}+u_n\overline{v}_n$$
(1)
where $`\overline{w}=w^2`$ for $`wGF(4)`$. From now on, orthogonality over $`GF(4)`$ will be with respect to the hermitian inner product defined above.

In this paper, we consider self-orthogonal codes over $`GF(4)`$ that are obtained as $`4`$-ary images of $`4^m`$-ary cyclic codes of length $`n|(4^m1)`$. Binary images of self-orthogonal codes over $`GF(2^m)`$ have been used to obtain quantum codes in . Using Theorem 1 and working with $`4`$-ary images usually results in smaller dimension quantum codes at the same efficiency and minimum distance.

We begin with a discussion of $`q`$-ary images of cyclic codes over $`GF(q^m)`$. Then we present a method to obtain self-orthogonal codes over $`GF(4)`$ as images of codes over $`GF(4^m)`$.

## 2 $`q`$-ary images

### 2.1 Some Definitions and Notation

The finite field $`GF(q^m)`$ can be considered to be a vector space of dimension $`m`$ over the field $`GF(q)`$. Let $`B=\{\beta _1,\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _m\}`$ be a basis for $`GF(q^m)`$ over $`GF(q)`$. The map $`d_B:GF(q^m)^nGF(q)^{mn}`$ is defined so that for $`𝐮=\{u_1,u_2\mathrm{},u_n\}GF(q^m)^n`$,

$$d_B(𝐮)=\{u_{11},u_{21},\mathrm{},u_{n1},u_{12},\mathrm{},u_{n2},\mathrm{},u_{1m},\mathrm{},u_{nm}\}$$

where $`u_i=_{j=1}^mu_{ij}\beta _j,u_{ij}GF(q),\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}in`$.

Notice that $`d_B`$ is not the obvious expansion of $`𝐮`$ in terms of $`B`$ but a permutation of the expansion.

A linear code $`C`$ of length $`n`$ over $`GF(q^m)`$ is a vector subspace of $`GF(q^m)^n`$. The $`q`$-ary image of $`C`$ with respect to $`B`$ is defined to be $`d_B(C)`$ which is a linear code of length $`mn`$ over $`GF(q)`$.

### 2.2 q-ary images of $`q^m`$-ary Cyclic Codes

A discussion of $`q`$-ary images of $`q^m`$-ary codes can be found in . We use a description of $`q`$-ary images, similar to that of , to study self-orthogonality and we also present an alternative proof for one of the theorems in . Consider a $`q^m`$-ary cyclic code, $`C`$, of length $`n|(q^m1)`$ and dimension $`k`$ with generator polynomial $`g(x)`$ of degree equal to $`nk`$. So,

$$g(x)=\underset{zZ}{}(x\gamma ^z)$$

where $`\gamma GF(q^m)`$ is a primitive $`n^{th}`$ root of unity and $`Z\{0,1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ is the zero set of $`C`$ ($`|Z|=nk`$). Consider the cyclotomic cosets modulo $`n`$ under multiplication by $`q`$. Let $`C_s`$ be the coset with coset representative $`s`$. Let us define,

$$Z_q=\underset{\{s|C_sZ\}}{}C_s$$

In other words, $`Z_q`$ is the union of all the cyclotomic cosets that are subsets of $`Z`$. Let $`g_q(x)=_{zZ_q}(x\gamma ^z)`$. Since $`Z_qZ`$ is a union of cyclotomic cosets, $`g_q(x)`$ is a polynomial over $`GF(q)`$ and $`g(x)=g_q(x)g_q^{}(x)`$. The polynomial $`g_q(x)`$ is hereafter referred to as the maximal factor of $`g(x)`$ over $`GF(q)`$. Let $`B=\{\beta _1,\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _m\}`$ be a basis for $`GF(q^m)`$ over $`GF(q)`$ and $`𝐜=\{c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_n\}C`$. The codeword polynomial

$$c(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_ix^{i1},c_iGF(q^m)$$

is expanded in terms of the basis $`B`$ as

$$c(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}c_{ij}\beta _j)x^{i1},c_{ij}GF(q)$$

Rewriting,

$$c(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{ij}x^{i1})\beta _j$$

$$c(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}c_j(x)\beta _j,c_j(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{ij}x^{i1}$$
(2)
Since $`𝐜C`$, $`d_B(𝐜)=\{c_{11},c_{12},\mathrm{},c_{nm}\}d_B(C)`$. It is seen that any codeword of $`d_B(C)`$ is a concatenation of the coefficients of the polynomials $`c_j(x),1jm`$. The next theorem further characterizes these polynomials.

Let the degree of $`g_q(x)`$ be $`nl`$. The following theorem from  relates $`g_q(x)`$ and $`c_j(x),1jm`$. We give an alternative proof for the theorem in .

###### Theorem 2

:

The polynomials $`c_j(x),1jm`$ from (2) are codeword polynomials of the cyclic code of length $`n`$ generated by $`g_q(x)`$.

Proof:

Any codeword polynomial $`c(x)`$ from $`C`$ can be written as $`c(x)=g(x)m(x)`$ where
$`m(x)GF(q^m)[x]/(x^k1)`$. So, $`c(x)=g_q(x)g_q^{^{}}(x)m(x)`$. Expanding the coefficients of $`g_q^{^{}}(x)m(x)`$ in the basis, $`B`$, and rearranging as done before, we get $`g_q^{^{}}(x)m(x)=_{j=1}^mf_j(x)\beta _j`$ where $`f_j(x)GF(q)[x]/(x^l1)`$. So, $`c(x)=_{j=1}^mf_j(x)g_q(x)\beta _j`$. Comparing with (2), $`c_j(x)=g_q(x)f_j(x)`$. Hence, the result.

### 2.3 Self-orthogonal q-ary images

A code is self-orthogonal if it is contained in its dual, defined with respect to some inner product. It can be shown that a code is self-orthogonal if and only if the inner product of any two codewords is equal to zero.

The following theorem can be used to obtain self-orthogonal images of cyclic codes.

###### Theorem 3

:

Let $`C`$ be a cyclic code over $`GF(q^m)`$ of length $`n|(q^m1)`$ with generator polynomial $`g(x)`$ whose maximal factor over $`GF(q)`$ is $`g_q(x)`$. Let $`T_m(C)`$ be the cyclic code (over $`GF(q)`$) of length $`n`$ generated by $`g_q(x)`$. If $`T_m(C)T_m(C)^{}`$, $`d_B(C)d_B(C)^{}`$ for any basis $`B`$.

Proof: Since the codewords of $`d_B(C)`$ are concatenations of codewords from $`T_m(C)`$, the result follows.

Note: During the review process, one reviewer pointed out that the above theorem generalizes (by the same proof) to any linear code over $`GF(q^m)`$ if we define $`T_m(C)`$ to be the trace of $`C`$ with respect to $`GF(q)`$. In the case of cyclic codes in Theorem 3, the trace of $`C`$ is exactly the cyclic code of length $`n`$ over $`GF(q)`$ generated by $`g_q(x)`$.

## 3 Quantum codes

### 3.1 Quantum BCH codes

To be in a position to use Theorem 3 for $`q=4`$, we need to determine the self-orthogonality of cyclic codes over $`GF(4)`$. The next theorem from  used mainly for the construction of quantum BCH codes describes a necessary and sufficient condition for self-orthogonality of cyclic codes over $`GF(4)`$.

###### Theorem 4

:

A linear cyclic code over $`GF(4)`$ of length $`n|(4^m1)`$ and generator polynomial $`g(x)`$ is self-orthogonal if and only if

$$g(x)g^{}(x)0mod(x^n1)$$

where if $`g(x)=_{r=0}^{n1}g_rx^r`$

$$g^{}(x)=GCD(\overline{g}_0+\underset{r=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\overline{g}_{nr}x^r,x^n1)$$

and $`\overline{g}_i=g_i^2`$.

Generator polynomials of cyclic codes of length $`n|(4^m1)`$ over $`GF(4)`$ are usually specified in terms of their zeros in $`GF(4^m)`$. So, it is useful to interpret Theorem 4 in terms of the zeros(or nonzeros) of the cyclic code.

Let $`\gamma GF(4^m)`$ be a primitive $`n^{th}`$ root of unity. Let $`g(x)=g_0+g_1x+g_2x^2+\mathrm{}+g_{n1}x^{n1}`$. Assume $`\gamma ^z`$ is a root of $`g(x)`$. Then,

$$g(\gamma ^z)=g_0+g_1\gamma ^z+g_2\gamma ^{2z}+\mathrm{}+g_r\gamma ^{(n1)z}=0$$

$$\overline{g}_0+\overline{g}_1\gamma ^{2z}+\overline{g}_2\gamma ^{4z}+\mathrm{}+g_{n1}\gamma ^{(n1)2z}=0$$

$$\overline{g}_0+\overline{g}_1(\gamma ^{2z})^{n1}+\overline{g}_2(\gamma ^{2z})^{n2}+\mathrm{}+\overline{g}_{n1}(\gamma ^{2z})=0$$

So, the polynomial $`\overline{g}_0+\overline{g}_1x^{n1}+\overline{g}_2x^{n2}+\mathrm{}+\overline{g}_{n1}x`$ has $`\gamma ^{2z}`$ as a root. Since $`\gamma ^{2z}`$ is a root of $`x^n1`$, it is seen that it is also a root of $`g^{}(x)`$. Since the $``$ operation is an involution on the factors of $`x^n1`$, it follows that if $`Z\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ is the set of zeros of $`g(x)`$, $`Z^{}=\{2zmodn|zZ\}`$ is the set of zeros of $`g^{}(x)`$. The following corollary recasts Theorem 4 in terms of zero and nonzero sets.

###### Corollary 5

:

Let $`C`$ be a cyclic code over $`GF(4)`$ of length $`n|(4^m1)`$ with zero set $`Z\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ and nonzero set $`S=\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},n1\}Z`$. If $`2SmodnZ`$, $`C`$ is self-orthogonal.

Example : Let $`n=15`$. The cyclotomic cosets modulo $`n`$ under multiplication by 4 are {0},{1,4},{2,8},{3,12},{5},{6,9},{7,13},{10},{11,14}. So, the (15,6) cyclic code (over GF(4)) with zero set $`Z=\{0,5,10,1,4,11,14,3,12\}`$ (zeros in GF(16)) will be self-orthogonal since the nonzeros, $`S=\{7,13,2,8,6,9\}`$ are such that $`2SmodnZ`$. Since $`S`$ has four consecutive integers, the minimum distance of the dual of this code is $`d=5`$. So by Theorem 1, a $`[[15,3,5]]`$ quantum code may be obtained from this self-orthogonal cyclic code.

A detailed table of quantum BCH codes can be found in .

### 3.2 Quantum codes from $`4`$-ary images

The following corollary (to Theorems 3 and 4) may be used for construction of cyclic codes (over $`GF(4^m)`$) whose $`GF(4)`$-images are hermitian-self-orthogonal. Let $`Z_n=\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$. Divide $`Z_n`$ into the cyclotomic cosets modulo $`n`$ under multiplication by 4. Let $`C_s`$ be the coset represented by $`s`$.

###### Corollary 6

:

Let $`S`$ be the nonzero set of a cyclic code of length $`n|(4^m1)`$ over $`GF(4^m)`$. For $`SZ_n`$, let $`\overline{S}=Z_nS`$ and $`S^c=_{sS}C_s`$. If $`2S^cmodn\overline{S^c}`$, all images of $`C`$ are hermitian-self-orthogonal.

Proof: $`S^c`$ and $`\overline{S^c}`$ are exactly the nonzero and zero sets of $`T_m(C)`$. By Corollary 5 and Theorem 3, the result follows.

As an example, consider the $`16`$-ary (15,4) cyclic code with nonzero set $`S=\{6,7,8,9\}`$. Hence, $`S^c=\{6,9,7,13,2,8\}`$ and $`\overline{S^c}=\{0,1,4,3,12,5,10,11,14\}`$. Since $`2S^cmodn=\{3,12,1,4,11,14\}\overline{S^c}`$, all images of $`C`$ are self-orthogonal. Using Theorem 1, a $`[[30,14,5]]`$ quantum code may be obtained from any $`GF(4)`$-image of this code. This code meets the lower bound specified in  for codeword length $`n=30`$ and message length $`k=14`$.

In general, a $`(n,k,d)`$ code of length $`n|(4^m1)`$ over $`GF(4^m)`$ with self-orthogonal images over $`GF(4)`$ results in a $`[[mn,mn2mk,d]]`$ quantum code.

Table 1 is a partial list of the quantum codes that can be constructed starting with Reed-Solomon codes over $`GF(4^m)`$ for $`m=2,3,4`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We have provided a construction for quantum codes starting from cyclic codes over $`GF(4^m)`$.

## Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Dr. Eric M. Rains, AT&T Research, for his help with interpretations in  and the two reviewers for providing helpful comments.