text:
# The Balian–Low theorem for the symplectic form on ℝ^{2𝑑}

## 1 Introduction

For a given function $`gL^2(^d)`$ we define the following two unitary operators on $`L^2(^d)`$:

$$M_n(g)(x)=e^{2\pi inx}g(x),n^d,$$

and

$$T_m(g)(x)=g(xm),m^d,$$

called modulation and translation operators, respectively. In 1946 Dennis Gabor  proposed to use these operators to define the collections of functions

$$g_{m,n}(x)=e^{2\pi inx}g(xm),m,n,$$

to be used in the analysis of information conveyed by communications channels. These systems have been studied extensively in recent years. The edited books by Benedetto and Frazier  and by Feichtinger and Strohmer , as well as Gröchenig’s treatise , provide detailed treatments of various issues of the theory. Gabor systems are especially interesting because of their effective role in the time-frequency analysis of a wide variety of signals.

Let us now introduce some terms and notation that will be used throughout this paper. We say that a collection $`\{f_k:k=1,\mathrm{}\}L^2(^d)`$ of functions is a frame for $`L^2(^d)`$, with frame bounds $`A`$ and $`B`$, if

$$fL^2(^d),Af_2^2\underset{k}{}|f,f_k|^2Bf_2^2.$$

A frame is tight if $`A=B`$; and a frame is exact if it is no longer a frame after removal of any of its elements. For any frame $`\{f_k:k=1,\mathrm{}\}`$ there exists a dual frame $`\{\stackrel{~}{f}_k:k=1,\mathrm{}\}`$ such that

$$fL^2(^d),f=\underset{k}{}f,f_k\stackrel{~}{f}_k=\underset{k}{}f,\stackrel{~}{f}_kf_k,$$
(1.1)
where the series converge in $`L^2(^d)`$. The choice of coefficients for expressing $`f`$ in terms of $`\{f_k:k=1,\mathrm{}\}`$ or $`\{\stackrel{~}{f}_k:k=1,\mathrm{}\}`$ is not unique, unless the frame is a basis. A frame is a basis if and only if it is exact, e.g., .

For a frame $`\{f_k:k=1,\mathrm{}\}L^2(^d)`$ we define the associated frame operator $`S`$ on $`L^2(^d)`$ by the rule,

$$fL^2(^d),S(f)=\underset{k}{}f,f_kf_k.$$

$`S`$ is a bounded and invertible map of $`L^2(^d)`$ onto itself. Given a frame $`\{f_k:k=1,\mathrm{}\}`$, our canonical choice of the dual frame $`\{\stackrel{~}{f}_k:k=1,\mathrm{}\}`$ will be defined by $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k=S^1(f_k)`$. If a frame is exact then $`\{f_k:k=1,\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{f}_k:k=1,\mathrm{}\}`$ are biorthogonal, that is,

$$f_k,\stackrel{~}{f}_l=\delta _{k,l}k,l=1,\mathrm{},$$

where $`\delta _{k,l}`$ denotes the Kronecker delta function, i.e., it is 1 if $`k=l`$ and 0 otherwise. It is elementary to show that $`S^1(g_{m,n})=(S^1(g))_{m,n}`$ for Gabor frames $`\{g_{m,n}\}`$.

The Fourier transform is the unitary transformation $``$ of $`L^2(^d)`$ onto itself, defined formally by

$$\widehat{f}(\xi )=(f)(\xi )=_^df(x)e^{2\pi ix\xi }𝑑x.$$

We write $`^d`$ for arguments of a function $`fL^2(^d)`$ and $`\widehat{}^d`$ for arguments of its Fourier transform.

We employ the standard notation in harmonic analysis, e.g., .

The following result is a version of the uncertainty principle for Gabor systems for the case $`d=1`$. It was first proved independently by Balian  and Low . Both proofs contained a gap, which was corrected; and the result was generalized by Coifman, Daubechies, and Semmes from Gabor systems which form orthonormal bases to Gabor systems which form exact frames , see also , . A different prof of Theorem 1.1 was given by Battle . Battle proved also an analogous result for wavelets .

###### Theorem 1.1

Balian–Low theorem (BLT). Let $`gL^2()`$ have the property that $`\{g_{m,n}:m,n\}`$ is a Gabor orthonormal basis for $`L^2()`$. Then

$$\left(_{}|g(x)|^2|x|^2𝑑x\right)\left(_\widehat{}|\widehat{g}(\xi )|^2|\xi |^2𝑑\xi \right)=\mathrm{}.$$
(1.2)
Remark. Our original goal in this paper was to obtain a generalization of Theorem 1.1 for functions of several variables. In the process, and after having obtained some of our main results, we became aware of the work of Gröchenig, Han, Heil, and Kutyniok , in which the authors also extend the Balian–Low theorem to $`d`$-dimensions. Two of their fundamental results may be compared with our Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.5. In fact, Theorem 2.5 is identical with the BLT for non-lattices in  and Theorem 2.1 extends the weak BLT for lattices in  to more general position and momentum operators. Further, using techniques from the theory of metaplectic representations, the authors in  generalize Theorem 2.5 to a Balian–Low type theorem for exact frames on symplectic lattices; for their setting their assertion states that there exists $`i\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ such that (2.8) below holds.

We follow a different path and prove that the choice of coordinates in (2.8) is not canonical, i.e., there is no “preference” for the directional derivatives and for multiplications by the standard basis coordinates. This means that one can work in any representation of $`^d`$, e.g., Theorem 3.6.

In Section 2 we prove the generalization of the Balian–Low theorem to $`d`$-dimensions in the standard coordinate system; this is Theorem 2.1. As a corollary, we prove a Balian–Low theorem for arbitrary non-negative quadratic forms (Corollary 2.3). In Section 3 we state and prove our main results, Theorem 3.6 and Theorem 3.7, which assert a Balian–Low phenomenon (3.6) similar to but more far-reaching than (1.2). The proof depends on our definition of generalized Fourier transforms which, in turn, allows us to reduce a rather general and comprehensive problem to the Balian–Low theorem in the standard coordinates as formulated in Theorem 2.5.

Our approach is both straightforward and natural. This is an essential part of our contribution. It is also based on the quantum mechanical point of view.

## 2 Balian–Low theorem in standard coordinates

Let $`v,w^d`$ be non-zero vectors. We define the following operators, wherever they make sense in $`L^2(^d)`$:

$$P_v(f)(x)=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}v^ix^i\right)f(x)$$

and

$$M_w(f)(x)=^1\left(\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}w^i\xi ^i\right)\widehat{f}(\xi )\right)(x)=^1(P_w(\widehat{f}))(x),$$

where $`v=(v^1,\mathrm{},v^d)=v^ju_j`$, $`u_j=(0,\mathrm{},0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ with $`1`$ in the $`j`$th coordinate, and $`v^j`$. These unit vectors $`u_j`$ define the standard Euclidean basis $`\{u_j:j=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ of $`^d`$. If the vectors $`v`$ and $`w`$ in the definitions of $`P_v`$ and $`M_w`$ are elements of the standard basis, then we shall use the notation $`P_i`$ and $`M_i`$ for the operators induced by the ith basis vector $`u_i`$.

The following result is our first generalization of the Balian–Low theorem. The technique of proof is a well-known method for proving Balian–Low type theorems. $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ denotes the canonical dual defined in Section 1.

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`\{g_{m,n}:m,n^d\}`$ be an exact frame for $`L^2(^d)`$. If $`v,w^d`$ satisfy $`vw0`$, then

$$P_v(g)_2M_w(g)_2P_v(\stackrel{~}{g})_2M_w(\stackrel{~}{g})_2=\mathrm{}.$$
(2.1)
Proof. We may assume without loss of generality that $`|v|=|w|=1`$, where $`||`$ denotes the Euclidean norm in $`^d`$. We shall proceed with a proof by contradiction; and so we assume that all four functions in (2.1) are elements of $`L^2(^d)`$. Because of the biorthogonality relations for $`g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ we compute
$`P_v(g),\stackrel{~}{g}_{m,n}`$ $`=`$ $`P_v(g),\stackrel{~}{g}_{m,n}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}v^im^i\right)g,\stackrel{~}{g}_{m,n}`$     $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _^d}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}v^i(x^im^i)\right)g(x)\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}(xm)}e^{2\pi inx}𝑑x`$     $`=`$ $`e^{2\pi imn}{\displaystyle _^d}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}v^ix^i\right)\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}(x)}g(x+m)e^{2\pi inx}𝑑x`$     $`=`$ $`e^{2\pi imn}g_{m,n},P_v(\stackrel{~}{g}).`$    (2.2)

From our assumption that $`M_w(g)L^2(^d)`$, it follows that the distributional partial derivative of $`g`$, $`_wg`$, belongs to $`L^2(^d)`$. From a standard result about Sobolev spaces, see, e.g., , Theorem 1.1, there exists a function $`h`$ such that $`g=h`$ $`a.e.`$, and $`h`$ is absolutely continuous on almost all straight lines parallel to the vector $`w`$. Thus the distributional directional derivative of $`g`$ coincides with the classical directional derivative $`D_w(g)`$ $`a.e.`$, and so

$$M_w(g)(x)=\frac{i}{2\pi }D_w(g)(x)a.e.$$

Moreover, our assumptions imply that $`D_w(g)`$, $`D_w(\stackrel{~}{g})L^2(^d)`$. Therefore, using integration by parts, an appropriate change of variables, and the biorthogonality relations between $`g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$, we can compute
$`g_{m,n},M_w(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _^d}g(xm)e^{2\pi inx}\overline{D_w(\stackrel{~}{g})(x)}𝑑x`$     $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _^d}D_w\left(g(xm)e^{2\pi inx}\right)\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}(x)}𝑑x`$     $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _^d}(D_w(g)(xm)e^{2\pi inx}`$     $`+`$ $`(wn)g(xm)e^{2\pi inx})\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}(x)}dx`$     $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^{2\pi imn}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _^d}\left(D_w(g)(x)+2\pi i(wn)g(x)\right)e^{2\pi inx}\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}(x+m)}𝑑x`$     $`=`$ $`e^{2\pi imn}\left(M_w(g),\stackrel{~}{g}_{m,n}+(wn)\delta _{m,0}\delta _{n,0}\right)`$     $`=`$ $`e^{2\pi imn}M_w(g),\stackrel{~}{g}_{m,n}.`$    (2.3)

Because of (2), (2), and the frame representation property (1.1), we have
$`P_v(g),M_w(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n^d}{}}P_v(g),\stackrel{~}{g}_{m,n}g_{m,n},M_w(\stackrel{~}{g})`$     $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n^d}{}}g_{m,n},P_v(\stackrel{~}{g})M_w(g),\stackrel{~}{g}_{m,n}`$     $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n^d}{}}M_w(g),\stackrel{~}{g}_{m,n}g_{m,n},P_v(\stackrel{~}{g})`$     $`=`$ $`M_w(g),P_v(\stackrel{~}{g}).`$    (2.4)

It is not difficult to verify that

$$[P_v,M_w]=\frac{1}{2\pi i}(vw)\mathrm{Id},$$
(2.5)
where the commutator $`[P_v,M_w]=P_vM_wM_wP_v`$ and where $`\mathrm{Id}`$ denotes the identity operator, e.g.,  where (2.5) appears for the position and momentum operators associated with the standard basis vectors; see also the trivial calculation in . Thus, for functions $`g`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}L^2(^d)`$, such that $`P_v(g)`$, $`P_v(\stackrel{~}{g})L^2(^d)`$ and $`M_w(g)`$, $`M_w(\stackrel{~}{g})L^2(^d)`$, we have

$`P_v(g),M_w(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ $`=`$ $`M_w(g),P_v(\stackrel{~}{g})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}(vw)g,\stackrel{~}{g}`$
$`=`$ $`M_w(g),P_v(\stackrel{~}{g})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}(vw).`$
Since we have assumed that $`vw0`$, we obtain a contradiction with our calculation (2).

Remark. The claim (2.1) is true if in Theorem 2.1 we consider the more general system $`\{g_{m,n}:(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an arbitraty lattice in $`^{2d}`$. For an analogous result for position and momentum operators associated with the integer lattice $`^{2d}`$ see Theorem 8 in .

###### Corollary 2.2

Let $`\{g_{m,n}:m,n^d\}`$ be an exact frame for $`L^2(^d)`$. If $`v,w^d`$ satisfy $`vw0`$, then

$$P_v(g)_2M_w(g)_2=\mathrm{}.$$

Proof. In view of Theorem 2.1, it is enough to show that $`P_v(g)L^2(^d)`$ if and only if $`P_v(\stackrel{~}{g})L^2(^d)`$, and that $`M_w(g)L^2(^d)`$ if and only if $`M_w(\stackrel{~}{g})L^2(^d)`$. This, in turn, was proved by Daubechies and Janssen  for the position and momentum operators associated with the standard basis vectors, see also , Theorem 7.7. The proof for arbitrary operators $`P_v`$ and $`M_w`$ is analogous, and it uses the $`d`$-dimensional Sobolev space argument which we have used in the proof of Theorem 2.1 instead of 1-dimensional considerations .

Example. To show that the condition $`vw0`$ is necessary consider $`L^2(^2)`$ with the orthonormal Gabor basis generated by

$$g(x,y)=\chi _{[0,1]}(x)^1\left(\chi _{[0,1]}\right)(y)$$

and the vectors $`v=(1,0)`$ and $`w=(0,1)`$. Then

$`P_v(g)_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _^2}|xg(x,y)|^2𝑑x𝑑y`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}\left|x\chi _{[0,1]}(x)\right|^2𝑑x{\displaystyle _{}}\left|^1(\chi _{[0,1]})(y)\right|^2𝑑y<\mathrm{}`$
and

$`M_w(g)_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _^2}|\eta \widehat{g}(\xi ,\eta )|^2𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}\left|(\chi _{[0,1]})(\xi )\right|^2𝑑\xi {\displaystyle _{}}\left|\eta (\chi _{[0,1]})(\eta )\right|^2𝑑\eta <\mathrm{}.`$
###### Corollary 2.3

Let $`\omega (x)`$ be any positive quadratic form on $`^d`$ and let $`\{g_{m,n}:m,n^d\}`$ be an exact frame for $`L^2(^d)`$. Then

$$\left(_^d\omega (x)|g(x)|^2𝑑x\right)\left(_{\widehat{}^d}\omega (\xi )|\widehat{g}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi \right)=\mathrm{}.$$

Proof. Clearly, for any vector $`v0`$ we have $`vv0`$. Thus, from Corollary 2.2 it follows that for any $`\alpha _k0`$ and $`v_k^d`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},d`$, where some $`\alpha _k>0`$, either

$$\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}\alpha _k_^d\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}v_k^ix^i\right)^2|g(x)|^2𝑑x\right)=\mathrm{}$$

or

$$\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}\alpha _k_{\widehat{}^d}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}v_k^i\xi ^i\right)^2|\widehat{g}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi \right)=\mathrm{}.$$

The result follows since any quadratic form on $`^d`$ is of the form

$$\omega (x)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}\alpha _k\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}v_k^ix^i\right)^2,$$

where the $`\alpha _k`$s are non-negative.

We now consider a countable collection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of vectors in $`^{2d}`$. For any pair $`(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`m,n^d`$, we shall associate the translation-modulation transformation $`T_{m,n}`$ defined on $`L^2(^d)`$ as follows:

$$T_{m,n}(g)(x)=e^{2\pi inx}g\left(x+m\right).$$

From now on we shall write $`g_{m,n}=T_{m,n}(g)`$. The study of nonuniform Gabor systems, i.e., those Gabor systems which are associated with a set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is not a lattice, has increased in recent years because of applications of such systems to problems in signal processing, e.g., , , , . Of course, not all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s generate orthonormal bases or even frames. In order for a Gabor system to have good signal representation properties, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must satisfy certain density conditions. The most general results so far in this direction were obtained by Ramanathan and Steger  and by Christensen, Deng, and Heil .

Example. One easily constructs examples of uniform orthonormal Gabor bases for $`L^2(^d)`$. The most simple example is $`g(x)=\chi _{[0,1]^d}`$ with the lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=^{2d}`$. More interestingly there is the work of Liu and Wang , where the authors provide examples of nonuniform Gabor bases and frames, i.e., examples where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not a lattice.

For $`d=1`$ let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=[0,1][3,4]`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left\{6+\{1,0,1\}\right\}\times \left\{\frac{1}{2}\right\}.$$

Then $`g(x)=(1/\sqrt{2})\chi _\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ forms an orthonormal basis with translations and modulations in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We would like to stress that although $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a periodic set it is not a lattice, since in general a sum of two vectors in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not an element of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

 also provides an account of differences between nonuniform Gabor bases in 1 and higher dimensions.

To prove Theorem 2.5 we shall need the following lemma, the proof of which is similar to the proof of analogous statements in Theorem 2.1.

###### Lemma 2.4

Let $`gL^2(^d)`$, and let $`\{g_{m,n}:(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ be an orthonormal basis for $`L^2(^d)`$. If $`P_i(g),M_i(g)L^2(^d)`$, then

$$g_{m,n},P_i(g)=e^{2\pi imn}P_i(g),g_{m,n}$$
(2.6)
and

$$g_{m,n},M_i(g)=e^{2\pi imn}M_i(g),g_{m,n}.$$
(2.7)
Proof. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does not posses a lattice structure we cannot use (2) and (2). Indeed, the fact that a dual to a Gabor frame is also a frame of Gabor type holds only for systems associated with lattices. However, the assumption that $`\{g_{m,n}:(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`L^2(^d)`$ compensates for this lack of structure in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

$`g_{m,n},P_i(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _^d}g(xm)e^{2\pi inx}\overline{P_i(g)(x)}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`e^{2\pi imn}{\displaystyle _^d}g(x)e^{2\pi inx}\overline{(x_i+m_i)g(x+m)}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`e^{2\pi imn}\left(P_i(g),g_{m,n}+m_ig,g_{m,n}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`e^{2\pi imn}P_i(g),g_{m,n}.`$
The last equality above follows from the orthogonality of $`\{g_{m,n}:(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$. Similarly, using orthogonality and the integration by parts formula, we calculate

$`g_{m,n},M_i(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _^d}g(xm)e^{2\pi inx}\overline{D_i(g)(x)}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _^d}D_i\left(g(xm)e^{2\pi inx}\right)\overline{g(x)}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^{2\pi imn}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _^d}\left(D_i(g)(x)+2\pi im_ig(x)\right)e^{2\pi inx}\overline{g(x+m)}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`e^{2\pi imn}\left(M_i(g),g_{m,n}+m_ig,g_{m,n}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`e^{2\pi imn}M_i(g),g_{m,n}.`$
###### Theorem 2.5

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2d}`$ be a countable sequence of vectors with the property that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Let $`\{T_{m,n}:(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ be the associated family of translation-modulation transformations, and assume $`\{g_{m,n}:(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`L^2(^d)`$ for some $`gL^2(^d)`$. For any $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$,

$$P_i(g)_2M_i(g)_2=\mathrm{}.$$
(2.8)
Proof. Because of (2.6), (2.7), the representation property of bases, and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we obtain
$`M_i(g),P_i(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}M_i(g),g_{m,n}g_{m,n},P_i(g)`$     $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}g_{m,n},M_i(g)P_i(g),g_{m,n}`$     $`=`$ $`P_i(g),M_i(g).`$    (2.9)

On the other hand, again using the classical result from  used in Theorem 2.1, we note that $`M_i(g)L^2(^d)`$ implies that $`g/x^i`$ exists $`a.e.`$ Thus, integration by parts yields

$$M_i(g),P_i(g)=P_i(g),M_i(g)\frac{1}{2\pi i},$$

which, in turn, leads to a contradiction with the calculation (2).

## 3 Balian–Low theorem and symplectic forms

The standard symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`^{2d}`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }((x,y),(\xi ,\eta ))=x\eta y\xi ,$$

for any $`x,y,\xi ,\eta ^d`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }((x,0),(0,\xi ))=x\xi `$. This observation, when compared to Theorem 2.1, suggests a direction which we are going to follow in this section, and which yields our main result, Theorem 3.6.

Definition. a. A symplectic basis for $`^{2d}`$ with respect to the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a basis $`\{a_j,b_j:j=1,\mathrm{},d\}^{2d}`$ for $`^{2d}`$ for which

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(a_i,a_j)=\mathrm{\Omega }(b_i,b_j)=0$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(a_i,b_j)=\delta _{i,j},$$

for all $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},d`$.

b. If $`\{\nu _i:i=1,\mathrm{},d\}^d`$ is any orthonormal basis for $`^d`$, then $`a_i=(\nu _i,0)`$, $`b_i=(0,\nu _i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$, is a symplectic basis for $`^{2d}`$. For a non-trivial example in $`^4`$ take the row vectors of the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}& \frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}& 0& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\\ 0& 1& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\\ \frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}& 0\end{array}\right).$$

c. Consider the space $`^{2d}`$ with coordinates $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^d,y^1,\mathrm{},y^d)`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the symplectic form on $`^{2d}`$. A Lagrangian plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in $`^{2d}`$ is a $`d`$-dimensional subspace with the property that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|_\mathrm{\Pi }=0.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a Lagrangian plane in $`^{2d}`$ and if $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_d\mathrm{\Pi }^{2d}`$ is a basis for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ then, in particular, we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v_i,v_j)=0,$$

for all $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},d`$. For classical treatments of these and other related notions see, e.g., , . A similar approach is used by Hörmander  to define Fourier Integral Operators, a special case of which we consider below. A recent exposition of related results in case of Hermitian symplectic geometry is due to Harmer .

We now define the differential operators $`\{Q_{v_j},j=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ associated with a given basis $`\{v_j:j=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ for a given Lagrangian plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Each $`Q_{v_j}`$ is defined by its action on a function $`h`$ as follows:

$$Q_{v_j}(h)(x)=\frac{i}{2\pi }_j(h)(x)+f_j(x)h(x),$$
(3.1)
where

$$_j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}v_j^{k+d}\frac{}{x^k}$$

and

$$f_j(x)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}v_j^kx^k.$$

Recall that $`v_j^k`$ is the $`k`$th coordinate of the vector $`v_j^{2d}`$ and that $`x=_{k=1}^dx^ku_k^d`$.

The next result serves as the main motivation for our work. It is analogous to a similar observation about commutators of position and momentum operators that was asserted in equation (2.5). Its proof is also a straightforward calculation.

###### Proposition 3.1

For any two vectors $`v,w^{2d}`$

$$[Q_v,Q_w]=\frac{i}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }(v,w)\mathrm{Id},$$

where the commutator $`[A,B]=ABBA`$.

For the purpose of the next definitions we shall make the following assumption: for given vectors $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_d^{2d}`$, define $`B_v(j,k)=v_j^{k+d}`$, $`j,k=1,\mathrm{},d`$, to be a $`d\times d`$ matrix, and assume that it is non-degenerate, i.e.,

$$detB_v0.$$

As a consequence of Proposition 3.1 we observe that the $`Q_{v_j}`$s commute with each other if the $`v_j`$s form a basis for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. This commutativity implies, in particular, that $`_kf_j=_jf_k`$, and so we deduce that $`f_j(x)=_j(xF_vx)`$, for some quadratic form $`F_v`$. Thus the common eigenfunction for all the operators $`\{Q_{v_j}\}`$ has the form:

$$\psi _\xi (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|detB_v}|}e^{2\pi ix^tB_v^1\xi +2\pi ix^tF_vx},$$

for any $`\xi ^d`$. Moreover, let $`A_v(j,k)=v_j^k`$, $`j,k=1,\mathrm{},d`$. Then, the commutativity of the $`Q_{v_j}`$s implies that

$$A_vB_v^tB_vA_v^t=0,$$
(3.2)
where $`A^t`$ is the adjoint of $`A`$. It follows from (3.2) that $`B_v^1A_v`$ is symmetric. It is also easy to see that

$$F_v=\frac{1}{2}B_v^1A_v.$$

Let us now define the following generalized Fourier transforms $`_v`$ on the space of tempered distributions on $`^d`$, through their action on the space of Schwartz functions:

$$_v(h)(\xi )=_^dh(x)\overline{\psi _\xi (x)}𝑑x=_^dh(x)\frac{1}{\sqrt{|detB_v}|}e^{2\pi ix^tB_v^1\xi \pi ix^tB_v^1A_vx}𝑑x.$$

The operators $`_v`$ are unitary when restricted to $`L^2(^d)`$, since they are combinations of unitary transformations.

We shall now consider two different representations of functions or even distributions associated with two different Lagrangian planes: $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ with the basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_d`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the basis $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_d`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{0\}`$. Moreover, assume that $`B_v`$ and $`B_w`$ are non-degenerate. Define the $`d\times d`$ matrix $`Y_{v,w}(i,j)=\mathrm{\Omega }(v_i,w_j)`$. Note that $`Y_{v,w}=\mathrm{Id}`$ if and only if $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_d,w_1,\mathrm{},w_d\}`$ forms a symplectic basis for $`^{2d}`$.

###### Lemma 3.2

$$detY_{v,w}0.$$

Proof. Indeed, if $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{0\}`$, then $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_d,w_1,\mathrm{},w_d\}`$ forms a (not necessarily symplectic) basis for $`^{2d}`$. In this basis the matrix of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has the form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & Y_{v,w}\hfill \\ Y_{v,w}\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

and so, $`(detY_{v,w})^2=det\mathrm{\Omega }0`$.

The matrix $`Y_{v,w}`$ can be represented, with the use of matrices $`A_v`$, $`A_w`$, $`B_v`$, $`B_w`$, as:

$$Y_{v,w}=A_vB_w^tB_vA_w^t.$$

As a consequence, we derive the following formula, which we shall use in the proof of Theorem 3.6:

$$F_vF_w=\frac{1}{2}\left(B_v^1A_vB_w^1A_w\right)=\frac{1}{2}B_v^1Y_{v,w}(B_w^1)^t.$$
(3.3)
###### Lemma 3.3

For any tempered distribution $`h`$ on $`^d`$, the relationship between its “$`v`$” and “$`w`$” generalized Fourier transform representations is

$`_w(h)(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|detY_{v,w}|}}}e^{\pi i\eta ^tY_{v,w}^1B_vB_w^1\eta +\pi i\sigma /4}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _^d}e^{\pi i\xi ^t(Y_{v,w}^1)^t\eta +\pi i\eta ^tY_{v,w}^1\xi \pi i\xi ^t(B_v^1)^tB_w^tY_{v,w}^1\xi }_v(h)(\xi )𝑑\xi ,`$
where $`\sigma `$ is the difference between the positive and negative squares of the quadratic form $`F_vF_w`$.

Proof. The expression in Lemma 3.3 is to be understood in the sense of distributions, and thus it is enough to check its validity on Schwartz functions. Note that the inverse of the generalized Fourier transform $`_v`$ has the form:

$$h(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|detB_v}|}_^de^{2\pi ix^tB_v^1\xi +2\pi ix^tF_vx}_v(h)(\xi )𝑑\xi .$$

Taking the generalized Fourier transform $`_w`$ of this expression and using (3.3), we obtain

$`_w(h)(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|detB_vB_w|}}}{\displaystyle _^d}{\displaystyle _^d}e^{2\pi ix^t(B_w^1\eta B_v^1\xi )+2\pi ix^t(F_vF_w)x}_v(h)(\xi )𝑑x𝑑\xi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi i\sigma /4}}{\sqrt{|detY_{v,w}|}}}{\displaystyle _^d}e^{\pi i(B_w^1\eta B_v^1\xi )^tB_w^tY_{v,w}^1B_v(B_w^1\eta B_v^1\xi )}_v(h)(\xi )𝑑\xi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|detY_{v,w}|}}}e^{\pi i\sigma /4\pi i\eta ^tY_{v,w}^1B_vB_w^1\eta }`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _^d}e^{\pi i\xi ^t(B_v^1)^tB_w^tY_{v,w}^1B_vB_w^1\eta +\pi i\eta ^tY_{v,w}^1\xi \pi i\xi ^t(B_v^1)^tB_w^tY_{v,w}^1\xi }_v(h)(\xi )𝑑\xi .`$
In order to finish the proof, it is now enough to observe that

$$B_w^tY_{v,w}^1B_v=B_v^t(Y_{v,w}^1)^tB_w,$$

due to (3.3), and that the above representation of $`_w`$ simplifies exactly to the formula in the statement of Lemma 3.3.

We shall now introduce two more representations of tempered distributions associated with a collection of vectors $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_d,w_1,\mathrm{},w_d\}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{}_v(g)(\xi )=e^{\pi i\xi ^t(B_v^1)^tB_w^tY_{v,w}^1\xi }_v(g)(\xi )$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{}_w(g)(\eta )=e^{\pi i\sigma /4}e^{\pi i\eta ^tY_{v,w}^1B_vB_w^1\eta }_w(g)(\eta ).$$

Remark. In view of Steger’s observation, these modifications of the generalized Fourier transforms may be compared to the metaplectic representations of symplectic transformations which send bases of Lagrangian planes into elements of the standard basis for $`^{2d}`$.

###### Proposition 3.4

If $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_d,w_1,\mathrm{},w_d\}`$ forms a symplectic basis in $`^{2d}`$, i.e., $`Y_{v,w}=\mathrm{Id}`$, then the relation between $`\stackrel{~}{}_v`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_w`$ takes the form of the standard Fourier transform:

$$\stackrel{~}{}_w(g)(\eta )=_^de^{2\pi i\xi \eta }\stackrel{~}{}_v(g)(\xi )𝑑\xi .$$
(3.4)
Proof. It follows easily from Lemma 3.3 that

$$\stackrel{~}{}_w(g)(\eta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|detY_{v,w}|}}_^de^{\pi i[\xi ^t(Y_{v,w}^1)^t\eta +\eta ^tY_{v,w}^1\xi ]}\stackrel{~}{}_v(g)(\xi )𝑑\xi .$$
(3.5)
Since $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_d,w_1,\mathrm{},w_d\}`$ is a symplectic basis for $`^{2d}`$, we have $`Y_{v,w}=\mathrm{Id}`$, and so (3.5) reduces to (3.4).

We can view (3.4) as a formal and general expression for the usual Fourier transform of distributions. We also note that $`\stackrel{~}{}_v`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_w`$ are unitary transformations when restricted to $`L^2(^d)`$.

It is evident that the operators $`_v`$ and $`_w`$ composed with operators $`Q_{v_j}`$ and $`Q_{w_j}`$, respectively, become multiplications by $`j`$th coordinates. We use this fact to deduce the following lemma, which we shall use in the proof of our Theorem 3.6.

###### Lemma 3.5

For each $`j=1,\mathrm{},d`$, the operators $`Q_{v_j}`$ are multiplications by $`\xi _j`$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{}_v`$ representation, and all operators $`Q_{w_j}`$ are multiplications by $`\eta _j`$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{}_w`$ representation, i.e.,

$`\stackrel{~}{}_v(Q_{v_j}(g))(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _j\stackrel{~}{}_v(g)(\xi ),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_w(Q_{w_j}(g))(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _j\stackrel{~}{}_w(g)(\eta ).`$
We can now formulate and prove our main results.

###### Theorem 3.6

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2d}`$ be a countable sequence of points with the property $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Let $`\{T_{m,n}:(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ be the family of associated translation-modulation transformations $`T_{m,n}`$. For a function $`gL^2(^d)`$, assume that $`\{g_{m,n}=T_{m,n}(g):(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ forms an orthonormal basis for $`L^2(^d)`$. For any two vectors $`v,w^{2d}`$ for which the symplectic form is non-vanishing, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v,w)0,$$

we have

$$Q_v(g)_2Q_w(g)_2=\mathrm{}.$$
(3.6)
Proof. $`i.`$ Without loss of generality we may assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v,w)=1`$. There exists a collection of vectors $`\{v_2,\mathrm{},v_d,w_2,\mathrm{},w_d\}^{2d}`$ such that if we let $`v_1=v`$ and $`w_1=w`$, then $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_d,w_1,\mathrm{},w_d\}`$ forms a symplectic basis of $`^{2d}`$. (This result is a simple algebraic fact; for its Hermitian version see .) With these vectors we associate the corresponding differential operators $`Q_{v_1},\mathrm{},Q_{v_d}`$, $`Q_{w_1},\mathrm{},Q_{w_d}`$, and the induced $`d\times d`$ matrices $`A_v,A_w,B_v,B_w`$. For this part of the proof assume that

$$detB_v0\mathrm{and}detB_w0.$$

Due to the assumption about the basis $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_d,w_1,\mathrm{},w_d\}`$, the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_v^t\hfill & B_v^t\hfill \\ A_w^t\hfill & B_w^t\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

is symplectic, i.e.,

$$A_vB_v^tB_vA_v^t=0,A_wB_w^tB_wA_w^t=0,$$
(3.7)
and

$$A_vB_w^tB_vA_w^t=\mathrm{Id},A_wB_v^tB_wA_v^t=\mathrm{Id}.$$
(3.8)
Given a vector $`(p,q)^{2d}`$, we use translation by $`x`$ and the symmetry of $`B_v^1A_v`$ to calculate

$`\stackrel{~}{}_v(T_{p,q}(g))(\xi )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\sqrt{detB_v}|}}e^{\pi i\xi ^t(B_v^1)^tB_w^t\xi }{\displaystyle _^d}g(x+p)e^{2\pi ix^t(B_v^1\xi +q)\pi ix^tB_v^1A_vx}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`c_{p,q}e^{\pi i\xi ^t(B_v^1)^tB_w^t\xi 2\pi ip^tB_v^1\xi }_v(g)(\xi +B_vq+A_vp),`$
where $`c_{p,q}`$ is a complex constant of absolute value equal to 1. Recall that for a symplectic basis, $`Y_{v,w}=\mathrm{Id}`$. Because of this and the symmetry of $`B_wB_v^1`$, which, in turn, follows from (3.3), we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{}_v(T_{p,q}(g))(\xi )=c_{p,q}e^{2\pi i((B_v^1)^tp+B_wq+B_wB_v^1A_vp)\xi }\stackrel{~}{}_v(g)(\xi +B_vq+A_vp).$$

Therefore we can write

$$\stackrel{~}{}_v(T_{p,q}(g))(\xi )=c_{p,q}T_{(p^{},q^{})}\left(\stackrel{~}{}_v(g)\right)(\xi ),$$

where

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}p^{}\hfill \\ q^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}A_vp+B_vq\hfill \\ (B_v^1)^tp+B_wq+B_wB_v^1A_vp\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(3.9)
(3.3) yields $`A_w=(B_v^1)^t+B_w(B_v^1A_v)^t`$. Thus, using the symmetry of $`B_v^1A_v`$, we can write (3.9) in a more familar form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}p^{}\hfill \\ q^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_v\hfill & B_v\hfill \\ A_w\hfill & B_w\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p\hfill \\ q\hfill \end{array}\right).$$

Overall, we obtain that in the $`\stackrel{~}{}_v`$ representation, a Gabor system remains a Gabor system, but associated with a new set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{}_v(T_{m,n}(g))=c_{m^{},n^{}}(\stackrel{~}{}_v(g))_{m^{},n^{}},$$

where the primes indicate the elements of the new sequence. Since we know that $`\stackrel{~}{}_v`$ is unitary on $`L^2(^d)`$, if $`\{g_{m,n}:(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`L^2(^d)`$ then so is $`\{c_{m^{},n^{}}(\stackrel{~}{}_v(g))_{m^{},n^{}}:(m^{},n^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. Thus, using Theorem 2.5 and invoking Proposition 3.4, we obtain that

$$\xi _1\stackrel{~}{}_v(g)(\xi )_2\eta _1\stackrel{~}{}_w(g)(\eta )_2=\mathrm{}.$$
(3.10)
Moreover, because of Lemma 3.5, we know that $`Q_{v_1}`$ becomes multiplication by $`v_1`$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{}_v`$ representation, and similarly $`Q_{w_1}`$ becomes multiplication by $`w_1`$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{}_w`$ representation, both in the sense of distributions. Thus (3.10) is equivalent to (3.6), since the generalized Fourier transforms are unitary on $`L^2(^d)`$ and because of Lemma 3.5.

$`ii.`$ First, let us observe that, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v,w)=1`$, we cannot have both $`(v^{1+d},\mathrm{},v^{2d})=0`$ and $`(w^{1+d},\mathrm{},w^{2d})=0`$. Therefore, without loss of generality, we assume that $`(v^{1+d},\mathrm{},v^{2d})0`$.

Recall that according to (3.1) we write $`Q_v=\frac{i}{2\pi }_v+f_v`$. Thus we may always find a (non-unique) non-degenerate linear transformation of $`^d`$ such that the operator $`\frac{i}{2\pi }_v`$ becomes $`\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^1}`$, in the new coordinates. The operator $`Q_v`$ can be then written as

$$Q_v=\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^1}+\stackrel{~}{a}_v^1\stackrel{~}{x}^1+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_v^d\stackrel{~}{x}^d.$$

We also note that

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_v^1\stackrel{~}{x}^1+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_v^d\stackrel{~}{x}^d=\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^1}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}_v^1\frac{(\stackrel{~}{x}^1)^2}{2}+\stackrel{~}{a}_v^2\stackrel{~}{x}^1\stackrel{~}{x}^2+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_v^d\stackrel{~}{x}^1\stackrel{~}{x}^d\right)=\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^1}q(\stackrel{~}{x}).$$

We define a unitary transformation $`U`$ of $`L^2(^d)`$ to be

$$U(g)(\stackrel{~}{x})=e^{2\pi iq(\stackrel{~}{x})}g(\stackrel{~}{x}).$$

It is easy to verify that the operator $`Q_v`$ takes the form $`\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^1}`$ in this new representation, i.e.,

$$U(Q_v(g))(\stackrel{~}{x})=\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^1}U(g)(\stackrel{~}{x}).$$

Also, the operator $`UQ_wU^1`$ may be written in an analogous form:

$$\stackrel{~}{b}_w^1\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^1}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{b}_w^d\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^d}+\stackrel{~}{a}_w^1\stackrel{~}{x}^1+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_w^d\stackrel{~}{x}^d.$$

We shall consider three different possibilities for the differential part of the operator $`UQ_wU^1`$.

$`ii.a.`$ In case $`\stackrel{~}{b}_w=(\stackrel{~}{b}_w^1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{b}_w^d)=0`$, $`UQ_wU^1`$ has the form

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_w^1\stackrel{~}{x}^1+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_w^d\stackrel{~}{x}^d.$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v,w)=1`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{a}_w^1=1`$. We make the following non-degenerate linear transformation in $`^d`$:

$$z^1=\stackrel{~}{a}_w^1\stackrel{~}{x}^1+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{a}_w^d\stackrel{~}{x}^d,z^2=\stackrel{~}{x}^2,\mathrm{},z^d=\stackrel{~}{x}^d.$$
(3.11)
Thus we obtain

$$UQ_vU^1=\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{z^1},UQ_wU^1=z^1,$$

and the problem reduces to the standard Balian-Low theorem, Theorem 2.1.

$`ii.b.`$ If $`\stackrel{~}{b}_w=\alpha b_v=(\alpha ,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ and $`\alpha 0`$ then, since we again have $`\stackrel{~}{a}_w^1=1`$, by making the same transformation (3.11) as in part $`ii.a`$, we obtain:

$$UQ_vU^1=\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{z^1},UQ_wU^1=\alpha \frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{z^1}+z^1.$$

It is again easy to see that our result follows from the standard Balian-Low theorem.

$`ii.c.`$ Finally we consider the case $`\stackrel{~}{b}_w\alpha b_v`$ for all $`\alpha `$. We can make a linear transformation in $`^d`$ such that $`UQ_vU^1`$ remains the differentiation with respect to the first coordinate $`z^1`$, and the differential part of $`UQ_wU^1`$ becomes the differentiation with respect to the second coordinate $`z^2`$, i.e.,

$$UQ_vU^1=\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{z^1},UQ_wU^1=\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{}{z^2}+z^1+c_w^2z^2+\mathrm{}+c_w^dz^d.$$

We now define the following two families of vectors in $`^{2d}`$:

$`v_1`$ $`=`$ $`(0,\mathrm{},0;1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`v_2`$ $`=`$ $`(0,c_w^2,c_w^3,\mathrm{},c_w^d;0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`v_3`$ $`=`$ $`(0,c_w^3,0,\mathrm{},0;0,0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`v_d`$ $`=`$ $`(0,c_w^d,0,\mathrm{},0;0,\mathrm{},0,1)`$
and

$`w_1`$ $`=`$ $`(1,c_w^2,c_w^3,\mathrm{},c_w^d;0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`w_2`$ $`=`$ $`(0,1,0,\mathrm{},0;1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`w_3`$ $`=`$ $`(0,c_w^3,1,0,\mathrm{},0;0,0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`w_d`$ $`=`$ $`(0,c_w^d,0,\mathrm{},0,1;0,\mathrm{},0,1),`$
and associated with them operators

$`Q_{v_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^1}}`$
$`Q_{v_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^2}}+c_w^2z^2+c_w^3z^3+\mathrm{}+c_w^dz^d`$
$`Q_{v_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^3}}+c_w^3z^2`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`Q_{v_d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^3}}+c_w^dz^2`$
and

$`Q_{w_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^2}}+z^1+c_w^2z^2+c_w^3z^3+\mathrm{}+c_w^dz^d`$
$`Q_{w_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^1}}+z^2`$
$`Q_{w_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^3}}+c_w^3z^2+z^3`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`Q_{w_d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^d}}+c_w^dz^2+z^d.`$
It is not difficult to verify that $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_d;w_1,\mathrm{},w_d\}`$ forms a symplectic basis in $`^{2d}`$ and that the matrices $`B_v`$ and $`B_w`$ are both non-degenerate. Thus we have reduced this situation to the case described in part $`i`$.

Remark. We used the notion of a symplectic matrix in the proof of Theorem 3.6. A matrix $`M`$ is symplectic if it preserves the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }(Mv,Mw)=\mathrm{\Omega }(v,w)`$, for all $`v,w^{2d}`$. The collection of all such matrices forms a group, the so-called symplectic group, which plays a significant role in the study of Hamiltonian systems. In fact, the symplectic matrices generate invertible transformations which take a Hamiltonian system into another such system of differential equations, see, e.g., , , .

Following  we say that a lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2d}`$ is symplectic if

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=rM(^{2d})$$

for some $`r\{0\}`$ and $`M`$ a symplectic matrix. A generalized Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{}_v`$ maps a symplectic lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ into another symplectic lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, according to the formula (3.9).

###### Theorem 3.7

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2d}`$ be a lattice. Let $`\{T_{m,n}:(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ be the family of associated translation-modulation transformations $`T_{m,n}`$. For a function $`gL^2(^d)`$, assume that $`\{g_{m,n}=T_{m,n}(g):(m,n)\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ forms an exact frame for $`L^2(^d)`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ be the canonical dual to $`g`$. For any two vectors $`v,w^{2d}`$ for which the symplectic form is non-vanishing, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v,w)0,$$

we have

$$Q_v(g)_2Q_w(g)_2Q_v(\stackrel{~}{g})_2Q_w(\stackrel{~}{g})_2=\mathrm{}.$$
(3.12)
Proof. The proof is analogous to the proof of Theorem 3.6. We start with the case where vectors $`v=v_1,w=w_1`$ allow an extension $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_d,w_1,\mathrm{},w_d\}`$ which forms a symplectic basis of $`^{2d}`$ and has non-degenerate associated matrices $`B_v`$ and $`B_w`$. The generalized Fourier transforms $`\stackrel{~}{}_v`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_w`$ change the operators $`Q_v`$ and $`Q_w`$ into position and momentum operators, $`P_1`$ and $`M_1`$, in appropriate representations, respectively. Moreover, $`\stackrel{~}{}_v`$ maps the lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ into another lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}^{2d}`$. Since generalized Fourier transforms are unitary in $`L^2(^d)`$, we finish by using, instead of Theorem 2.5, a version of Theorem 2.1 for general lattices, see the remark after the proof of Theorem 2.1.

The general case is reduced to the above situation analogously to the general case in Theorem 3.6.

Acknowledgments. The second named author presented this work at the Analysis and Probability Related to Solvable Lie Groups conference in Zakopane in June 2002. Afterwards it was brought to our attention by Professor Tim Steger that Theorem 3.6 can also be proved using the theory of metaplectic representations. We gratefully acknowledge Professor Steger for his comments. We also gratefully acknowledge Professor Raymond Johnson for making us aware of the connection between the work of Hörmander and our results.

The first named author was partially supported by NSF-DMS Grant 0139759 (2002–2005) and the General Research Board of the University of Maryland.

John J. Benedetto
Department of Mathematics
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742, USA
jjb@math.umd.edu

Wojciech Czaja
Mathematical Institute
University of Wrocław
50-384 Wrocław, pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4, Poland
czaja@math.uni.wroc.pl
and
Department of Mathematics
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742, USA
wojtek@math.umd.edu

Andrei Ya. Maltsev
L.D.Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics
119334 ul. Kosygina 2, Moscow, Russia
maltsev@itp.ac.ru
and
Department of Mathematics
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742, USA


format: text

text:
# Mediating states in 180Ta

## I Introduction

180Ta is the only nucleus present in nature in an isomeric state ($`9^{}`$) at an energy of 75.3 keV. Its solar abundance is very small (2.48, normalized to $`10^{12}`$ for Si), thus presenting a challenge for different nucleosynthesis models (see  for a detailed discussion of proposed production scenarios).

In the s-process site thermal photons may excite higher-lying states in 180Ta which then decay back either to the $`1^+`$ ground state or to the $`9^{}`$ isomer. To find these mediating states (MS) Belic et al.  used the Stuttgart Dynamitron facility with both enriched ($`5.6\%`$) and natural Ta targets. Irradiations were performed for bremsstrahlung endpoint energies $`E_0=0.8`$$`3.1`$ MeV. Depopulation of the isomer was observed down to $`E_01.01`$ MeV. This means that the lowest MS may have an excitation energy $`E_{MS}=1.085`$ MeV (above the ground state). The experimental total integrated depopulation cross section $`I_D`$ then turns out to be $`(5.7\pm 1.2)`$ eV fm2. Higher lying mediating states (below 2 MeV) were found at $`E_{MS}=1.30`$ MeV ($`I_D=27`$ eV fm2), 1.51 MeV ($`I_D=24`$ eV fm2), 1.63 MeV ($`I_D=70`$ eV fm2), and 1.93 MeV ($`I_D=111`$ eV fm2). The structure, spin and parity of the MS remain unknown, calculations in the framework of the two-quasiparticle-plus-phonon model (TQPM)  failed to reproduce their energies as well as $`I_D`$’s (MS found for $`E_{MS}>2.4`$ MeV).

## II Model description

For a theoretical description of 180Ta we use the standard axially symmetric rotor model including Coriolis mixing . The intrinsic degrees of freedom are described in the framework of the TQPM . The model Hamiltonian is given by a deformed axially symmetric average field (Nilsson potential with parameters from ), monopole pairing interaction (proton and neutron gaps from ) and a long-range residual multipole-multipole interaction:

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{mm}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\lambda =2,3;\mu }{}\kappa _0^{(\lambda \mu )}\widehat{Q}_{\lambda \mu }\widehat{Q}_{\lambda \mu }.$$
(1)
The strength constants, $`\kappa _0^{(\lambda \mu )}`$, are fitted to experimental energies of the $`\lambda \mu `$–vibrational states of the even-even core or taken from systematics.

The model Hamiltonian is treated in the BCS approximation. One-phonon even-even core excitations are obtained using the standard RPA . All terms of the two quasiparticle interaction in the model Hamiltonian corresponding to the neutron-proton multipole-multipole interaction are replaced by a diagonal Gaussian force with central, spin-spin, Majorana and Majorana spin-spin components with parameters from .

The intrinsic model wave-functions are composed of one-neutron-quasiparticle plus one-proton-quasiparticle and one-neutron-quasiparticle plus one-proton-quasiparticle plus phonon components:

$$\psi _K=\{\underset{np}{}C_{npK}\alpha _n^{}\alpha _p^{}+\underset{npg}{}D_{npgK}\alpha _n^{}\alpha _p^{}Q_g^{}\},$$
(2)
where the parameters $`C_{npK}`$ and $`D_{npgK}`$ are determined using the variational principle.

## III Results and conclusions

In the model, vibrational admixtures in neutron-proton wave functions can be calculated. Taking into account the Coriolis mixing (without any attenuation) enables us to predict possible transitions between the ground state and the isomer. Recently, we improved our calculations . The model space comprises now 260 lowest intrinsic two-quasiparticle states with one-phonon components and corresponding rotational bands. For the calculation of electromagnetic transitions (and branching ratios of the 180Ta levels to the ground state and the isomer), $`e_{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{eff}}(`$E1$`)=1.2e`$ and $`e_{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{eff}}(`$E1$`)=0.8e`$, $`e_{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{eff}}(`$E2$`)=e`$ and $`e_{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{eff}}(`$E2$`)=0.2e`$, $`e_{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{eff}}(`$E3$`)=e`$ and $`e_{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{eff}}(`$E3$`)=0.2e`$, $`g_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{red}}=0.7`$ and $`g_\mathrm{R}=0.26`$ were used. Theoretical energies were replaced by known experimental energies  and internal conversion was taken into account.

The main results can be summarized as follows:

1. There are no MS at low energies (below 600 keV). This is demonstrated in Fig. 1 where theoretical energies vs. intrinsic spin projection $`K`$ and parity are plotted.
2. The total experimental transition rate $`W_{tot}`$ for the process ‘isomer $``$ MS $``$ ground state’ can be calculated from

$$W_{tot}=\frac{I_D}{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{E_{MS}75.3\text{ keV}}{\pi \mathrm{}c}\right)^2$$
(3)
and compared with the theoretical transition rate

$$W=\frac{8\pi }{\mathrm{}}\underset{Xl}{}\frac{l+1}{l[(2l+1)!!]^2}\left(\frac{E_{MS}75.3\text{ keV}}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^{2l+1}B_{eff}(Xl),$$
(4)
where we sum over the relevant multipolarities E1, E2, and M1. $`B_{eff}(Xl)`$ is the effective reduced transition probability for the process ‘isomer $``$ MS $``$ ground state’. In Fig. 2 the summed $`W_{tot}`$ and $`W`$ are compared. The main trend is reproduced but we still fail to account for 1 or 2 orders of magnitude.

In our theoretical calculations using the TQPM and the standard axially-symmetric rotor model including Coriolis mixing low-lying mediating states were found for the first time. The lowest mediating state lies at 670 keV, but the transition rate from the isomer to the ground state is very small (see Fig. 2). A larger increase of the transition rate was found in the region around 1.2 MeV near the lowest experimentally observed mediating state.


text:
# The Work of Vladimir Voevodsky

Vladimir Voevodsky was born in 1966. He studied at Moscow State University and Harvard university. He is now Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

Among his main achievements are the following: he defined and developed motivic cohomology and the $`𝐀^1`$-homotopy theory of algebraic varieties; he proved the Milnor conjectures on the $`K`$-theory of fields.

Let us state the first Milnor conjecture. Let $`F`$ be a field and $`n`$ a positive integer. The Milnor $`K`$-group of $`F`$ is the abelian group $`K_n^M(F)`$ defined by the following generators and relations. The generators are sequences $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ of $`n`$ units $`a_iF^{}`$. The relations are

$`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{k1},xy,a_{k+1},\mathrm{},a_n\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{k1},x,a_{k+1},\mathrm{},a_n\}+\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{k1},y,a_{k+1},\mathrm{},a_n\}`$
for all $`a_i,x,yF^{}`$, $`1kn`$, and the Steinberg relation

$$\{a_1,\mathrm{},x,\mathrm{},1x,\mathrm{},a_n\}=0$$

for all $`a_iF^{}`$ and $`xF\{0,1\}`$.

On the other hand, let $`\overline{F}`$ be an algebraic closure of $`F`$ and $`G=\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F)`$ the absolute Galois group of $`F`$, with its profinite topology. The Galois cohomology of $`F`$ with $`𝐙/2`$ coefficients is, by definition,

$$H^n(F,𝐙/2)=H_{\mathrm{continuous}}^n(G,𝐙/2).$$

Theorem 1. (Voevodsky 1996 ) Assume $`1/2F`$ and $`n1`$. The Galois symbol

$$h_n:K_n^M(F)/2K_n^M(F)H^n(F,𝐙/2)$$

is an isomorphism.

This was conjectured by Milnor in 1970 . When $`n=2`$, Theorem 1 was proved by Merkurjev in 1983. The case $`n=3`$ was then solved independently by Merkurjev-Suslin and Rost.

There exists also a Galois symbol on $`K_n^M(F)/pK_n^M(F)`$ for any prime $`p`$ invertible in $`F`$. When $`n=2`$ and $`F`$ is a number field, Tate proved that it is an isomorphism. In 1983 Merkurjev and Suslin proved that it is an isomorphism when $`n=2`$ and $`F`$ is any field. Both Voevodsky and Rost have made a lot of progress towards proving that, for any $`F`$, any $`n>0`$ and any $`p`$ invertible in $`F`$, the Galois symbol is an isomorphism.

The map $`h_n`$ in Theorem 1 is defined as follows. When $`n=1`$, we have $`K_1^M(F)=F^{}`$ and $`H^1(F,𝐙/2)=\mathrm{Hom}(G,𝐙/2)`$. The map

$$h_1:F^{}/(F^{})^2\mathrm{Hom}(G,𝐙/2)$$

maps $`aF^{}`$ to the quadratic character $`\chi _a`$ defined by

$$\chi _a(g)=g(\sqrt{a})/\sqrt{a}=\pm 1$$

for any $`gG`$ and any square root $`\sqrt{a}`$ of $`a`$ in $`\overline{F}`$. That $`h_1`$ is bijective is a special case of Kummer theory. When $`n2`$, we just need to define $`h_n`$ on the generators $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ of $`K_n^M(F)`$. It is given by a cup-product:

$$h_n(\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\})=\chi _{a_1}\mathrm{}\chi _{a_n}.$$

The fact that $`h_n`$ is compatible with the Steinberg relation was first noticed by Bass and Tate.

Theorem 1 says that $`H^n(F,𝐙/2)`$ has a very explicit description. In particular, an immediate consequence of Theorem 1 and the definition of $`h_n`$ is the following

Corollary 1. The graded $`𝐙/2`$-algebra $`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}H^n(F,𝐙/2)`$ is spanned by elements of degree one.

This means that absolute Galois groups are very special groups. Indeed, it is seldom seen that the cohomology of a group or a topological space is spanned in degree one.

Corollary 2. (Bloch) Let $`X`$ be a complex algebraic variety and

$`\alpha H^n(X(𝐂),`$ $`𝐙)`$ a class in its singular cohomology. Assume that $`2\alpha =0`$. Then, there exists a nonempty Zariski open subset $`UX`$ such that the restriction of $`\alpha `$ to $`U`$ vanishes.

If Theorem 1 was extended to $`K_n^M(F)/pK_n^M(F)`$ for all $`n`$ and $`p`$, Corollary 2 would say that any torsion class in the integral singular cohomology of $`X`$ is supported on some hypersurface. (Hodge seems to have believed that such a torsion class should be Poincaré dual to an analytic cycle, but this is not always true.)

With Orlov and Vishik, Voevodsky proved a second conjecture of Milnor relating the Witt group of quadratic forms over $`F`$ to its Milnor $`K`$-theory .

A very serious difficulty that Voevodsky had to overcome to prove Theorem 1 was that, when $`n=2`$, Merkurjev made use of the algebraic $`K`$-theory of conics over $`F`$, but, when $`n2`$, one needed to study special quadric hypersurfaces of dimension $`2^{n1}1`$. And it is quite hard to compute the algebraic $`K`$-theory of varieties of such a high dimension. Although Rost had obtained crucial information about the $`K`$-theory of these quadrics, this was not enough to conclude the proof when $`n>3`$. Instead of algebraic $`K`$-theory, Voevodsky used motivic cohomology, which turned out to be more computable.

Given an algebraic variety $`X`$ over $`F`$ and two integers $`p,q𝐙`$, Voevodsky defined an abelian group $`H^{p,q}(X,𝐙)`$, called motivic cohomology. These groups are analogs of the singular cohomology of CW-complexes. They satisfy a long list of properties, which had been anticipated by Beilinson and Lichtenbaum. For example, when $`n`$ is a positive integer and $`X`$ is smooth, the group

$$H^{2n,n}(X,𝐙)=\mathrm{CH}^n(X)$$

is the Chow group of codimension $`n`$ algebraic cycles on $`X`$ modulo linear equivalence. And when $`X`$ is a point we have

$$H^{n,n}(\mathrm{point})=K_n^M(F).$$

It is also possible to compute Quillen’s algebraic K-theory from motivic cohomology. Earlier constructions of motivic cohomology are due to Bloch (at the end of the seventies) and, later, to Suslin. The way Suslin modified Bloch’s definition was crucial to Voevodsky’s approach and, as a matter of fact, several important papers on this topic were written jointly by Suslin and Voevodsky . There exist also two very different definitions of $`H^{p,q}(X,𝐙)`$, due to Levine and Hanamura; according to the experts they lead to the same groups. But it seems fair to say that Voevodsky’s approach to motivic cohomology is the most complete and satisfactory one.

A larger context in which Voevodsky developed motivic cohomology is the $`𝐀^1`$-homotopy of algebraic manifolds , which is a theory of “algebraic varieties up to deformations”, developed jointly with Morel . Starting with the category of smooth manifolds (over a fixed field $`F`$), they first embed this category into the category of Nisnevich sheaves, by sending a given manifold to the sheaf it represents. A Nisnevich sheaf is a sheaf of sets on the category of smooth manifolds for the Nisnevich topology, a topology which is finer (resp. coarser) than the Zariski (resp. étale) topology. Then Morel and Voevodsky define a homotopy theory of Nisnevich sheaves in much the same way the homotopy theory of CW-complexes is defined. The parameter space of deformations is the affine line $`𝐀^1`$ instead of the real unit interval $`[0,1]`$. Note that, in this theory there are two circles (corresponding to the two degrees $`p`$ and $`q`$ for motivic cohomology)! The first circle is the sheaf represented by the smooth manifold $`𝐀^1\{0\}`$ (indeed, $`𝐂\{0\}`$ has the homotopy type of a circle). The second circle is $`𝐀^1/\{0,1\}`$ ( note that $`𝐑/\{0,1\}`$ is a loop). The latter is not represented by a smooth manifold. But, if we identify $`0`$ and $`1`$ in the sheaf of sets represented by $`𝐀^1`$ we get a presheaf of sets, and $`𝐀^1/\{0,1\}`$ can be defined as the sheaf attached to this presheaf. This example shows why it was useful to embed the category of algebraic manifolds into a category of sheaves.

It is quite extraordinary that such a homotopy theory of algebraic manifolds exists at all. In the fifties and sixties, interesting invariants of differentiable manifolds were introduced using algebraic topology. But very few mathematicians anticipated that these “soft” methods would ever be successful for algebraic manifolds. It seems now that any notion in algebraic topology will find a partner in algebraic geometry. This has long been the case with Quillen’s algebraic $`K`$-theory, which is precisely analogous to topological $`K`$-theory. We mentioned that motivic cohomology is an algebraic analog of singular cohomology. Voevodsky also computed the algebraic analog of the Steenrod algebra, i.e. cohomological operations on motivic cohomology (this played a decisive role in the proof of Theorem 1). Morel and Voevodsky developed the (stable) $`𝐀^1`$-homotopy theory of algebraic manifolds. Voevodsky defined algebraic cobordism as homotopy classes of maps from the suspension of an algebraic manifold to the classifying space MGL. There is also a direct geometric definition of algebraic cobordism, due to Levine and Morel (see Levine’s talk in these proceedings), which should compare well with Voevodsky’s definition. And the list is growing: Morava $`K`$-theories, stable homotopy groups of spheres, etc$`\mathrm{}`$

Vladimir Voevodsky is an amazing mathematician. He has demonstrated an exceptional talent for creating new abstract theories, about which he proved highly nontrivial theorems. He was able to use these theories to solve several of the main long standing problems in algebraic $`K`$-theory. The field is completely different after his work. He opened large new avenues and, to use the same word as Laumon, he is leading us closer to the world of motives that Grothendieck was dreaming about in the sixties.

Vladimir Voevodsky

June 4, 1966

| 1989 | B.S. in Mathematics, Moscow University |
| --- | --- |
| 1992 | Ph.D. in Mathematics, Harvard University |
| 1992–1993 | Institute for Advanced Study, Member |
| 1993–1996 | Harvard University, Junior Fellow of Harvard Society of Fellows |
| 1996–1997 | Harvard University, Visiting Scholar |
| 1996–1997 | Max-Planck Institute, Visiting Scholar |
| 1996–1999 | Northwestern University, Associate Professor |
| 1998–2001 | Institute for Advanced Study, Member |
| 2002 | Institute for Advanced Study, Professor |

V. Voevodsky (right) and C. Soulé


text:
# Faint and peculiar objects in GAIA: results from GSC-II

## 1. The Second Guide Star Catalogue

The Second Guide Star Catalogue (GSC-II) project (Lasker et al. 1995, McLean et al. 2000) is a collaborative effort between the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and the Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino (OATo) with the support of the European Space Agency (ESA) - Astrophysics Division, the European Southern Observatory (ESO) and GEMINI. The aim of this project is the construction of an all-sky catalogue containing classifications, colors, magnitudes, positions and proper motions of $``$ 1 billion objects down to the magnitude limit of the plates ($`B_J`$ $``$ 22.5). At the moment, GSC-II is one of the largest stellar catalogue with the only comparable one being USNO-B (Monet et al. 2002).

GSC-II is based on about 7000 photographic Schmidt plates (POSS and AAO) with a large field of view (6.4$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 6.4^{}`$). All plates were digitized at STScI utilizing modified PDS-type scanning machines with 25 $`\mu `$m square pixels (1.7 ′′/pixel) for the first epoch plates, and 15 $`\mu `$m pixels (1 ′′/pixel) for the second epoch plates. Each digital copy of the plate was analyzed by means of a standard software pipeline which performs object detection and computes parameters, features and classification for each identified object. Position and magnitude for each object was found from astrometric and photometric calibrations which utilized the Tycho2 (Høg et al. 2000) and the GSPC-2 (Bucciarelli et al. 2001) as reference catalogs.
The first public release of GSC-II (GSC2.2) was delivered in June 2001 and contains 445,851,237 objects down to $`B_J<19.5`$ and $`R_F<18.5`$ providing positions with an average accuracy of 0.2 arcsec, photographic photometry $`B_J`$ and $`R_F`$ with 0.15-0.2 mag accuracy and classification (stellar/extended objects) accurate to 90$`\%`$.

## 2. Search for nearby Halo White Dwarfs

Cool white dwarf (WD) stars are the remnants of stars which were born when the Milky Way was very young. A WD cools and fades in a well defined manner, thus the WD luminosity function is imprinted with the star formation history of the Galaxy back to its very beginning. In particular, detecting the end of the WD sequence will provide a direct measure of the age of the Galaxy and its fundamental components, i.e. the disk, thick disk and the halo (Fontaine, Brassard & Bergeron 2001). The usefulness of WDs as stellar chronometers has been stimulated by the recent progress in the cooling models based on non-grey atmospheres and refinements of the internal physics (e.g. Hansen 1999, Chabrier et al. 2000) for both DA and non-DA WDs with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}<4000`$ K, which are the temperatures expected for ancient halo WDs. In this range, cooling WDs with hydrogen atmosphere start to become fainter but bluer because of the strong H2 opacity due to the collision induced absorption (CIA) towards longer wavelengths, whereas helium atmosphere WDs continue to redden.

In addition, it has been suggested that Pop.II WDs could contribute significantly to the baryonic fraction of the dark Halo. In fact they are obvious candidates for the MACHOs revealed by the LMC microlensing surveys (Alcock 2000) which seem to indicate that $``$ 20% of the dark matter is tied up in objects with $``$ 0.5 M. The most extensive survey to date (Oppenheimer et al. 2001) provides a lower limit on the space density of $`\rho 10^4`$ pc-3, that is, 5 times larger than expected from the canonical stellar halo, and $`1`$% of the expected local dark halo density. These results are still a matter of debate. In fact Reid, Sahu and Hawley (2001) claimed that the kinematics of the Oppenheimer sample is consistent with the high-velocity tail of the thick disk. Moreover these stars have a spread in age that is more consistent with a thick disk population (Hansen 2001).

The aim of our survey is to search for halo WDs using plate material from the GSC-II in the Northern hemisphere and improve the measurements of halo WDs space density. Also, we will confront the WD models with our sample of cool ancient objects in order to improve the cooling tracks of WDs with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}<4000`$ K. Although WDs should be a typical component of the Halo, such objects are very difficult to observe because they are extremely faint. In fact, theoretical cooling tracks by Chabrier et al. (2000) predict an absolute magnitude of $`M_V=16.2`$ and 17.3 for a 0.6 M WD of 10 and 13 Gyr respectively (excluding the nuclear burning phases). Objects with these magnitudes are observable only within a few tens of parsecs with the GSC-II material which contains objects down to the plate limits of 22.5, 20.8 and 19.5 mag for the blue $`B_J`$, red $`R_F`$ and infrared $`I_N`$ plates respectively.

### 2.1. Plate material, processing and selection criteria

Our survey covers an area of $``$ 1300 square degrees which corresponds to 40 regions in the sky, mostly located toward the North Galactic Pole (NGP). In order to detect high proper motion objects, we processed POSS-II plates (blue, red, infrared) with epoch difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$t $``$ 2-10 yr by means of the standard GSC-II pipeline. Also, we performed object matching and derived proper motions using the procedure described in Spagna et al. (1996), then faint ($`R_F>16`$ mag) and fast moving ($`0.3<\mu <2.5^{\prime \prime }`$/yr) stars were identified. Each target was checked by a visual inspection of POSS-I and POSS-II plates in order to reject the false detections (e.g. mismatches and binaries) and to confirm its proper motion. Another very useful parameter for the selection of the targets is the reduced proper motion (RPM), $`H=m+5\mathrm{log}\mu 5`$. The RPM diagram, $`H_R`$ vs. ($`B_JR_F`$), was adopted to identify faint objects with high proper motion and to separate disk ad halo WDs from late type dwarfs and subdwarfs. Figure 1 (left panel) shows the RPM diagram for a set of regions. Here, the thick solid and dotted lines show the locus of the disk dwarfs and the halo subdwarfs based on the 10 Gyr isochrones down to 0.08 M from Baraffe et al. (1997, 1998) with \[Fe/H\]=0 and -1.5, respectively. Dashed and dot-dashed lines show the cooling tracks of 0.6 M WD s with hydrogen atmosphere from Chabrier et al (2000). We adopted mean tangential velocities (towards the NGP) of $`V_T=38`$ km/s (disk) and 270 km/s (halo). Thin lines indicates the 2$`\sigma `$ kinematics thresholds. Finally, spectral analysis is required for a confirmation of the nature of the selected candidates.

### 2.2. Spectroscopic follow-up and preliminary results

Low resolution spectroscopy is suitable to recognize the spectral type and the main chemical composition of the stars. Spectroscopic observations were carried out with the 3.5 m TNG (La Palma), the 4.2 m WHT (La Palma), and the 3.5 m at Apache Point Observatory (USA). Most of the targets were observed in the first semester 2002 at TNG using the low resolution spectrograph DOLORES (Device Optimized for Low Resolution) with the LR-B Grism1 which gave a nominal dispersion of 2.8 Å/px and useful wavelength coverage from 3000 to 8800 Å. We performed spectroscopic follow-up for candidates from 800 square degrees (1/50 of the sky) which corresponds to $`60\%`$ of our total area. The number of halo WD candidates after the selection criteria was 47 and we obtained 32 spectra plus JHK infrared photometry for 12 stars during 3 nights. The results are remarkable: of the 32 observed targets, 23 are WDs and 12 have no H$`\alpha `$ line. We also found 4 M dwarfs, 2 subdwarfs, a binary system (dM+WD) and 3 interesting peculiar objects. The left panel of Figure 1 shows the RPM diagram for these 800 square degrees. The observed objects and those classified as white dwarfs are marked with different symbols. The right panel of Figure 1 shows a few confirmed cool WDs in our sample, including a ”coolish” DA (top spectrum) with a weak H$`\alpha `$ line and two cool WDs, while Figure 2 shows the peculiar objects.

## 3. Peculiar objects and classification problems

An unexpected result of this survey is the discovery of a significant fraction of objects with a very complex nature. Some examples are presented in Figure 2, where the top left panel shows a peculiar DQ WD, with extremely strong $`C_2`$ absorption bands, while the bottom left shows a magnetic carbon rich WD. On the top right is a probable very hot magnetic WD and the bottom right an unresolved binary system WD+dM. We point out that all these cases could not be classified properly till their spectra became available. Even when spectra are available, the classification can be tricky for objects with extreme physical properties and no previous observations or good theoretical models. This was the case of the peculiar carbon rich WD named GSC2U J131147.2+292348 (Fig. 1, top left). The object is fast moving ($`\mu 0.48`$ arcsec yr-1), and faint ($`V18.7`$). A check on the SIMBAD database revealed that the star was not in the NLTT catalogue (Luyten 1979) but, quite surprisingly, was listed as a quasar candidate (object OMHR 58793) by Moreau & Reboul (1995), who measured an UV excess but did not detect any proper motion, perhaps because of a cross-matching error. The real nature of this object was realized after a thorough analysis of its spectrum with the support of infrared photometry (Carollo et al. 2002), even though the lack of adequate models in the literature was a serious problem.

## 4. The impact of the GAIA mission

The main impact of GAIA with respect to the faint and nearby objects, such as the large variety of WD types, will be the determination of accurate distances by means of the trigonometric parallaxes for all the objects detectable in the solar neighborhood down to $`V20`$ mag. Distances will directly provide the absolute magnitudes which will permit a robust, even if preliminary, identification of these objects as WDs. Thus, the fact that the information from the GAIA spectrograph and the medium band photometric system will not be available for the faintest objects is not as dramatic a problem as in the case of current ground based surveys.

We expect that GAIA will carry out a complete census of WDs, including the faintest ancient and cool WDs previously discussed. To this regard, GAIA will provide a complete and unbiased sample (i.e. not kinematically selected). Moreover, accurate tangential velocities will be derived from proper motions also in the cases where radial velocities are not available, and will help to separate the halo and disk WDs. Of course, a large fraction of non-DA WDs including a certain percentage of peculiar objects will also be detected by GAIA. Broad band photometry should help to identify these cases by means of their anomalous colors also for the dimmest objects without any further spectro-photometric data. Clearly, this is a challenging and non trivial issue for the classification task of the GAIA data reduction. Moreover, among the many science cases that GAIA data will address, these objects point out the logical necessity to complement the astrometric and spectro-photometric observations of peculiar or unclassified objects with a spectroscopic follow-up with large ground based telescopes. Fortunately, it will probably not be difficult to obtain observing time with 4-8 meters telescopes at the epoch when the first GAIA results will be delivered ($``$ 2015?).

Finally, we mention the fact that objects with such a peculiar spectral distribution as those shown in Figure 2 could be affected by residual systematic errors due to a chromaticity effect (Gai et al. 1998, Lindegreen 1998) not properly corrected by the standard astrometric calibrations. However, this does not seem a critical problem for nearby objects (i.e. having large values of parallax and proper motion). Also, the possibility that the multiple observations of these high proper motion objects are not correctly matched in crowded regions can probably be avoided by means of a robust matching algorithm.

## References

Alcock, C. 2000, Science, 287, 74

Baraffe, I. et al. 1997, A&A, 327, 1054

Baraffe, I. et al. 1998, A&A, 337, 403

Bucciarelli, B. et al. 2001, A&A, 368, 335

Carollo, D. et al. 2002, A&A, 393, L45

Chabrier, G. et al. 2000, ApJ, 543, 216

Fontaine, G., Brassard, P. & Bergeron, P. 2001, PASP, 113, 409

Gai M., Carollo D., Lattanzi M.G. 1998, Techn. Note, SAG-ML-007, Chromaticity in the GAIA Interferometric Configuration

Hansen, B.M.S. 1999, ApJ, 520, 680

Hansen, B.M.S. 2001, ApJ, 558, L39

Høg, E. et al. 2000, A&A, 355, 27

Lasker B.M. et al. 1995, in ESA SP-379, Future Possibilities for Astrometry in Space, ed. Perryman M.A.C., van Leeuwen F. & Guyenne T.-D., Jun 19-21, Cambridge (England, UK), 137

Lindegreen, L. 1998, Technical Report, SAG-LL-024, Calculation of Chromatic Displacement

Luyten, W.J. 1979, NLTT, Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota

McLean B.J. et al. 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser., ADASS IX, ed. Manset N., Veillet C. & Crabtree D. Oct 3-6, 1999, Kohala Coast (HI, USA), 216, 145-148

Monet, D.G. et al. 2002, AJ, in press, (astro-ph/0210694)

Moreau, O., Reboul H. 1995, A&AS, 111, 169

Oppenheimer, B.R. et al. 2001, Science, 292, 698

Reid, N.I., Sahu, K.C, & Hawley, S.L. 2001, ApJ, 559, 942

Spagna, A. et al. 1996, A&A, 311, 758


text:
# Doping and temperature dependence of superfluid weights for high 𝑇_𝑐 cuprates

## Abstract

Using the improved U(1) and SU(2) slave-boson approaches of the t-J Hamiltonian \[Phys. Rev. B 64, 052501 (2001)\] that we developed recently, we report the doping and temperature dependence of the superfluid weight. It is shown that at low hole doping concentration $`x`$ and at low temperatures $`T`$ there exists a propensity of a linear decrease of the superfluid weight $`n_s/m^{}`$ with temperature, and a tendency of doping independence in the linearly decreasing slope of $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T)`$ vs. $`T`$ in agreement with the experimentally observed relation $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T)=\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,0)\alpha T`$ with $`\alpha `$, a constant. It is also demonstrated that both $`T_c`$ and $`n_s/m^{}`$ increase with hole doping concentration $`x`$ in the underdoped region, reaches a saturation(maximum) at a hole doping above optimal doping and decreases beyond the saturation point in the overdoped region. Such a reflex (decreasing) behavior of $`T_c`$ and $`n_s/m^{}`$ is attributed to the weakening of coupling between the spin(spinon pair order) and charge(holon pair order) degrees of freedom in the overdoped region. All of these findings are in agreement with $`\mu `$SR measurements.

Presently there exist two outstanding physical problems of superfluid weights to be resolved. One is the understanding of the so-called ‘boomerang’ (reflex) behavior and the other, the doping independence of linear decrease of superfluid weight $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T)`$ vs. temperature $`T`$. More than a decade ago the transverse field muon-spin-relaxation($`\mu `$-SR) measurements of the magnetic penetration depth $`\lambda `$ in high $`T_c`$ copper oxide superconductors revealed the ‘boomerang’ behavior of the superconducting temperature $`T_c`$ and the superfluid weight $`n_s/m^{}`$, that is, a linear increase of both $`T_c`$ and $`n_s/m^{}`$ in the underdoped region, a saturation of $`T_c`$ at optimal doping and a decrease (reflex) of both $`T_c`$ and $`n_s/m^{}`$ in the overdoped region as the hole doping concentration increases. However, theoretical explanations of this boomerang (reflex) behavior are still incomplete. Most recently, magnetic penetration depth($`\lambda `$) measurements showed a doping independence in the linearly decreasing slope of the superfluid weight with increasing temperature obeying the relations $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T)=\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,0)\alpha T`$ in the underdoped region where $`x`$ is the hole concentration and $`\alpha `$, a constant. In these experiments, the normalized superfluid weight shows a universal behavior as a function of scaled temperature, that is, $`\frac{n_s/m^{}(x,T)}{n_s/m^{}(x,0)}=1\beta (T/T_c)`$. This universal behavior has been interpreted by the phase fluctuation model, or the quasiparticle model based on the Landau-Fermi liquid theory. However, apart from these phenomenological models the theoretical explanation of this universal behavior from a microscopic theory is largely unaccomplished.

There have been numerous efforts to theoretically explain the microscopic origin for this doping independent propensity of the decreasing slope of the observed superfluid weight with increasing temperature. However, until now the problem still remains unexplained. Earlier U(1) slave-boson theories of the $`tJ`$ Hamiltonian predicted that at small hole doping the superfluid weight $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T)`$ as a function of temperature is strongly doping ($`x^2`$) dependent. This is in direct conflict with the $`\mu `$SR measurements. Lee and Wen proposed that the SU(2) theory which incorporates the low energy phase fluctuations of order parameters may resolve this problem. Recently D.-H. Lee presented a U(1) slave-boson theory concerned with the low energy fluctuations of order parameters and the excitations of massless Dirac fermions at the d-wave nodal point. This theory, also, showed the $`x^2`$ dependence of $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}`$ at finite temperature. Most recently Wang et al. also showed that the recently proposed d-density wave theory fails to predict the doping independence of the linearly decreasing slope of superfluid density vs. temperature.

Earlier, we presented an improved U(1) and SU(2) slave-boson approach of the t-J Hamiltonian which differs from other slave-boson approaches to the t-J Hamiltonian in that coupling between the charge and spin degrees of freedom is manifested in the slave-boson representation of the Heisenberg term of $`J_{<i,j>}(𝐒_i𝐒_j\frac{1}{4}n_in_j)`$, by naturally admitting the charge degree of freedom exhibited in the intersite charge coupling energy term of $`\frac{1}{4}n_in_j`$. In this theory holons (charges) are subject to attractive interaction as a result of coupling to the spinon singlet pairs. As a result, holons form holon pairs and the holon-pair bosons undergo bose condensation at low temperatures. This is the major difference of the present holon-pair boson theory as compared to other earlier theories which pay attention to singe-holon bose condensation. Our theory was shown to predict the arch shaped superconducting (holon-pair bose condensation) temperature $`T_c`$ as a function of doped hole concentration $`x`$, in agreement with the experimentally observed phase diagram. It is, thus, of great interest to employ this theory for checking its predictability of the boomerang and both the doping and temperature dependence of the superfluid weight.

Since the predicted results of various physical properties are qualitatively indistinguishable between the U(1) and SU(2) slave-boson theories, below we present only the SU(2) theory for generality. In the SU(2) slave-boson representation, the electron operator is given by $`c_\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h^{}\psi _\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =1,2`$, where $`\psi _1=\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ f_2^{}\end{array}\right)`$, $`\psi _2=\left(\begin{array}{c}f_2\\ f_1^{}\end{array}\right)`$ and $`h=\left(\begin{array}{c}b_1\\ b_2\end{array}\right)`$ are respectively the doublets of spinon and holon annihilation operators in the SU(2) theory. The SU(2) slave-boson representation of the t-J Hamiltonian shows

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}[(f_{\alpha i}^{}f_{\alpha j})(b_{1j}^{}b_{1i}b_{2i}^{}b_{2j})+h.c.`$ (6)
$`+(f_{2i}f_{1j}f_{1i}f_{2j})(b_{1j}^{}b_{2i}+b_{1i}^{}b_{2j})+h.c.]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}(1+h_i^{}h_i)(1+h_j^{}h_j)\times `$
$`(f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}h_i^{}h_i`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[i\lambda _i^{(1)}(f_{1i}^{}f_{2i}^{}+b_{1i}^{}b_{2i})+i\lambda _i^{(2)}(f_{2i}f_{1i}+b_{2i}^{}b_{1i})`$
$`+i\lambda _i^{(3)}(f_{1i}^{}f_{1i}f_{2i}f_{2i}^{}+b_{1i}^{}b_{1i}b_{2i}^{}b_{2i})],`$
where $`\lambda _i^{(1),(2),(3)}`$ are the real Lagrangian multipliers to enforce the local single occupancy constraint in the SU(2) slave-boson representation. It is noted that the inclusion of the charge-charge interaction $`\frac{J}{4}n_in_j`$ in the Heisenberg Hamiltonian results in the coupling between the spin (spinon) and charge (holon) degrees of freedom. It is easy to show that under inverse SU(2) transformation of the above expression we recover the original form of the U(1) slave-boson representation given in the literature.

After relevant Hubbard-Stratonovich transformations, the holon action is obtained to be

$`S^b(𝐀,\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^f,\mathrm{\Delta }^B,h)={\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau [{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}h^{}(𝐫_i,\tau )(_\tau \mu )h(𝐫_i,\tau )`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f|^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij;\alpha \beta }^b|^2+x^2\right)`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}(e^{iA_{ij}}h^{}(𝐫_i,\tau )U_{ij}^bh(𝐫_j,\tau )+c.c.)`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}(|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f|^2h^{}(𝐫_i,\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^B(h^{}(𝐫_j,\tau ))^T+c.c.)],`$ (10)
and the spinon action,

$`S^f(\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^f,\psi )={\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau [{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\psi ^{}(𝐫_i,\tau )_\tau \psi (𝐫_i,\tau )`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{J(1x^2)}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}\left(|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\chi _{ij}|^2\right)`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{4}}(1x)^2{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}(\psi ^{}(𝐫_i,\tau )U_{ij}^f\psi (𝐫_j,\tau )+c.c.)].`$ (13)
Here various symbol definitions are as follows. $`h(𝐫_i,\tau )=\left(\begin{array}{c}b_1(𝐫_i,\tau )\\ b_2(𝐫_i,\tau )\end{array}\right)`$ is the SU(2) doublet of holon field, and $`\psi (𝐫_i,\tau )=\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1(𝐫_i,\tau )\\ f_2^{}(𝐫_i,\tau )\end{array}\right)`$, the SU(2) doublet of spinon field. $`𝐀`$ is the electromagnetic(EM) field. $`U_{i,j}^b=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\chi _{ij}^{}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f& \chi _{ij}\end{array}\right)`$ and $`U_{i,j}^f=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\chi _{ij}^{}& 2\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f\\ 2\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f& \chi _{ij}\end{array}\right)`$ are respectively the order parameter matrices of hopping($`\chi _{ij}`$) and spinon pairing($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f`$). Here $`\chi _{i,i+l}=\eta e^{i\alpha _l(𝐫_i)}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l^0+\theta _l(𝐫_i))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i+l}^f=\eta e^{i\beta _l(𝐫_i)}\mathrm{sin}(\theta _l^0+\theta _l(𝐫_i))`$, with $`\eta =\sqrt{|\chi |^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }^f|^2}`$ and $`\theta _l^0=\pm \mathrm{tan}^1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_f}{\chi }`$(the sign $`+()`$ is for the $`\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}`$ link parallel to $`\widehat{x}`$ ($`\widehat{y}`$)). $`\alpha _l(𝐫_i)`$ represents the phase fluctuations of the hopping order parameter, $`\beta _l(𝐫_i)`$, the phase fluctuations of the spinon pairing order parameter, and $`\theta _l(𝐫_i)`$, the relative phase fluctuations between the amplitudes of hopping and spinon pairing order parameters. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij;11}^b& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij;12}^b\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij;21}^b& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij;22}^b\end{array}\right)`$ is the matrix of the holon pairing order parameter.

After integration over the holon and spinon fields, we obtain the total free energy,

$`F(𝐀)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle D\chi D\mathrm{\Delta }^fD\mathrm{\Delta }^B}`$ (14)
$`e^{\beta (F^b(𝐀,\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^f,\mathrm{\Delta }^B)+F^f(\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^f))},`$ (15)
where $`F^b(𝐀,\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^f,\mathrm{\Delta }^B)=\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}Dhe^{S^b(𝐀,\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^f,\mathrm{\Delta }^B,h)}`$ is the holon free energy and $`F^f(\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^f)=\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}D\psi e^{S^f(\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^f,\psi )}`$, the spinon free energy.

To compute the EM current response function, we first obtain the total free energy by integrating out the three phase fields $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\theta `$ above. We obtain a formula for the EM current response function, up to the second order,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{lm}(\omega ,𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{lm}^{b(A,A)}(\omega ,𝐪)`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a^1,a^2=\theta ,\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{^{}},m^{^{}}=\widehat{x},\widehat{y}}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ll^{^{}}}^{b(A,a^1)}(\omega ,𝐪)\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^b(\omega ,𝐪)+\mathrm{\Pi }^f(\omega ,𝐪)\right]_{a^1,l^{^{}};a^2,m^{^{}}}^1\mathrm{\Pi }_{m^{^{}}m}^{b(a^2,A)}(\omega ,𝐪),`$ (17)
where $`\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^b(\omega ,𝐪)+\mathrm{\Pi }^f(\omega ,𝐪)\right]_{a^1,l^{^{}};a^2,m^{^{}}}^1`$ is the inverse matrix element of $`[\mathrm{\Pi }_{l^{^{}}m^{^{}}}^{b(a^1,a^2)}(\omega ,𝐪)`$ $`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{l^{^{}}m^{^{}}}^{f(a^1,a^2)}(\omega ,𝐪)]`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{lm}^{b(a^1,a^2)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{lm}^{f(a^1,a^2)}`$ represent the isospin current response functions of holons and spinons respectively to gauge fields $`a^1,a^2=\theta ,\alpha ,`$ or $`\beta `$. Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{lm}^{b(A,A)}(\omega ,𝐪)`$ is the EM current response function of holon to the EM field. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{lm}^{b(a^1,A)}`$ is the isospin current response function of holon to both gauge fields $`a`$ and $`A`$. It is noted that the SU(2) isospin current of holon(spinon) is defined as $`j_{\alpha ,l}^{b(f)}=\beta \frac{\delta F^{b(f)}}{\delta a_{i,i+l}^\alpha }`$, and analogously for the ‘EM’ current, $`j_l=\beta \frac{\delta F}{\delta A_l}`$. In the SU(2) slave-boson theory, the response function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ll^{^{}}}^{b(A,a^1)}`$ of the holon isospin current to the EM field vanishes owing to the contribution of the $`b_2`$-boson in the static and long-wavelength limit. Therefore the superfluid weight of the total system is given only by the holon current response function,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_s}{m^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}\underset{𝐪0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ll}^{b(A,A)}(\omega =0,𝐪).`$ (18)
Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{lm}^{b(A,A)}(\omega ,𝐪)`$ is computed from the use of the usual linear response theory for the holon action Eq.(10).

In Fig. 1(a), with the use of our slave-boson theory we show the temperature dependence of superfluid weight for a wide range of doping concentrations covering both underdoping and overdoping. The slope of each curve represents the variation of superfluid weight with temperature which is not in precise agreement with observations, overestimating the superfluid weight $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,0)`$ at $`T=0K`$ and further $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T)`$ reaches zero rather abruptly compared to the observation which showed a slower drop. We would like to point out that a close look at Fig. 1 of the above experimental paper reveals a linear slope behavior only in the lower temperature region and a quick non-linear drop of superfluid weight at the higher temperature region. Such a change of slope from linearity is qualitatively in agreement with our results although our theory predicted a faster drop in $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(T)`$. The continuous drop in the predicted superfluid weight indicates a second order phase transition. We believe that improvement can be achieved if we can introduce the $`t^{^{}}`$ term in our t-J Hamiltonian which is known to cause a good agreement with the observed dispersion energy by showing realistic cold and hot spots. The contribution of the hot spot in the Brillouin zone becomes increasingly important with increasing temperature up to $`T_c`$ to allow classical phase fluctuations.

As temperature increases, the predicted superfluid weight shows a tendency of linear decrease in $`T`$ with nearly identical slopes particularly at low temperatures in the underdoped region. To rigorously check such a propensity of doping independence in the slope of $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}`$ vs. $`T`$, we computed differences in the superfluid weight at $`T=0`$ and $`T0`$, that is, $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T)\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,0)`$ at each $`x`$. The results are shown in Fig. 1 (b). A decrease of the superfluid weight with temperature at all dopings is predicted although the temperature dependence of the superfluid weight does not show a clear linearity at all temperatures as shown in Fig. 1 (b). There exists a tendency of linear decrease with a nearly identical slope particularly in the underdoped region only at low temperature. Although the temperature dependence of $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T)`$ does not show a global linearity by yielding a good fit to the empirical relation of $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T)=\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,0)\alpha (x)T\alpha ^{^{}}(x)T^2O(T^3)`$, the linear slope $`\alpha (x)`$ is found to be doping in dependent only in the underdoped region at low temperature as is clearly shown in Fig. 1 (b). As shown in the figure it is found that the variation of the slope, that is, the superfluid weight $`n_s/m^{}`$ vs. $`T/t`$ at low temperatures does not appreciably change in the underdoped region ($`x=0.04`$, $`0.07`$ and $`0.1`$). On the other hand, in the overdoped region ($`x=0.16`$, $`0.18`$ and $`0.2`$) the slope of the superfluid weight with temperature is no longer doping-independent quite unlike the underdoped case, again, in agreement with observation. The predicted optimal doping is $`x_o=0.13`$. It is noted that there exists a crossing behavior between the underdoped and overdoped lines of superfluid weights vs. temperature as shown in Fig. 1(a). This prediction is consistent with measurements.

In Fig. 1(c) we display the the normalized superfluid weight ($`\frac{n_s/m^{}(x,T)}{n_s/m^{}(x,0)}`$) as a function of the scaled temperature ($`T/T_c`$) for various hole concentrations. As shown in the figure, the normalized superfluid weight begins to decrease linearly at low temperature and drops more rapidly at higher temperature, by showing a convex line shape in qualitative agreement with experiments. The decrease of superfluid weight with temperature occurs as a consequence of diminishing spin singlet pairing order with increasing temperature. This is readily understood from the holon pairing term (the last term in Eq. (2)) which reveals the interplay of the spin (spinon) singlet pairing order with the holon pairing order; the spin singlet pairing order is predicted to decrease with temperature. Thus the decrease of the superfluid weight with increasing temperature occurs by breaking the holon pairs (hole pairs) in connection with the diminishing singlet pairing order at higher temperatures. A linear decrease of superfluid weight is predicted at low temperature and a rapid decrease at higher temperature, displaying a convex line shape. This trend of the convex line shape for all doping cases is in complete agreement with observation. Although the predicted $`\beta `$ value in the relation of $`\frac{n_s/m^{}(x,T)}{n_s/m^{}(x,0)}=1\beta (T/T_c)`$ shows linear decrease particularly in the lower temperature region in agreement with observation, its $`\beta `$ value scattered around $`0.055`$ fails to quantitatively agree with the empirical value of $`\beta 0.5`$ independent of doping in the underdoped region . Such discrepancy indicates that the inclusion of the next nearest hopping ($`t^{^{}}`$) term is important. This is because the Fermi surface segment grows from the nodal point initially at half-filling and closes near $`(\pi ,0)`$ as hole doping reaches optimal doping and beyond as is well-known from the angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy measurements. In the future the inclusion of the $`t^{^{}}`$ term is necessary to take a good account of classical phase fluctuations in the region of the hot spot at high temperatures near and at $`T_c`$

According to the present theory the superconductivity is accomplished by the condensation of the Cooper pairs of d-wave symmetry as composites of the holon pairs of s-wave symmetry and the spinon pairs of d-wave symmetry. Thus the Cooper pairs can be regarded as composite objects resulting from such coupling of the spin (spinon pairing) and charge (holon-pairing) degrees of freedom.

To clearly show the effect of coupling between the spin(spinon) and charge(holon) degrees of freedom, we calculated the superfluid weight by varying the antiferromagnetic spin-spin coupling, that is, the Heisenberg coupling $`J`$. In Fig.2, we show the $`J`$ dependence of superfluid weight at $`x=0.1`$ for three different choices of $`J/t=0.2,0.3`$ and $`0.4`$. As $`J`$ increases, a decreasing tendency in the slope of the superfluid weight vs. temperature is predicted. For stronger Heisenberg coupling $`J`$ and thus the spinon pairing strength (order), it is more difficult to thermally break the holon-pairs due to a larger holon-spinon coupling. Such coupling effect is manifested in the last term of Eq.(10). This results in the more slowly decreasing slope of the superfluid weight with increasing temperature for large $`J`$, as shown in the figure.

In Fig.3, we show the predicted boomerang behavior in the plane of $`T_c`$ vs. $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T0)`$, by showing a linear relationship between the two in the underdoped region and the ‘reflex’ behavior in the overdoped region based on the U(1) theory. By the reflex behavior we mean the decrease of both $`T_c`$ and $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}`$ as the hole doping concentration increases in the overdoped region. This predicted trend is consistent with the measurements of the muon-spin-relaxation rates $`\sigma `$ ($`\sigma n_s/m^{}T_c`$). The pseudogap temperature is predicted to rapidly decrease in the overdoped region in agreement with observation. The predicted pseudogap caused by the appearance of the spinon pairing order $`\mathrm{\Delta }^f`$ decreases in the overdoped region and this, in turn, causes a decrease in holon pairing $`\mathrm{\Delta }^b`$ and the coupling effect between the charge (holon-pair) and spin (spinon pair) degrees of freedom in the overdoped region thus a decrease in both $`T_c`$ and $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}`$. This coupling between $`\mathrm{\Delta }^f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^b`$ is exhibited in the last term of Eq.(10). Such coupling appears in exactly identical manner in both the U(1) and SU(2) theory. Thus the boomerang behavior of the SU(2) theory is qualitatively the same as that of the U(1) theory.

In summary, we have found the following qualitatively salient features for the doping and temperature dependences of the superfluid weight. We demonstrated the nearly doping independence in the slope of superfluid weight vs. temperature in the underdoped region, thus satisfying the experimentally observed relation $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T)=\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,0)\alpha T`$ with $`\alpha `$, a constant. On the other hand, in the overdoped region the doping dependence in the slope of the superfluid weight with temperature is correctly predicted in agreement with observation. From the present study we found a tendency of the boomerang behavior in the locus of $`T_c`$ with the variation of hole doping and superfluid weight in the plane of $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}(x,T0)`$ vs. $`T_c`$. This is in qualitative agreement with the $`\mu `$-SR experiments. The decreasing (boomerang) behavior of $`T_c`$ and $`\frac{n_s}{m^{}}`$ in the overdoped region is attributed to the weakened coupling of holon pairs to the spin pairing order.

One(SHSS) of us acknowledges the generous supports of Korea Ministry of Education(HakJin Program 2002-2003) and the Institute of Basic Science Research (2002-2003) at Pohang University of Science and Technology.