text:
# 𝑋𝑌 ring-exchange model on the triangular lattice

## I introduction

Multi-spin exchange models incorporating ring-exchange processes have been of interest since the early studies of magnetism in solid Helium-3 thouless ; hetherington . Ring-exchange processes could also play an important role in Wigner crystals near the melting density ceperley ; chakravarty , and in Mott insulators which retain a fair degree of local charge fluctuations macdonald . Indeed, neutron scattering experiments coldea  in insulating La2CuO4 have shown that aspects of the spin wave dispersion in the antiferromagnet may be understood by invoking ring-exchange terms. Another reason for the interest in such models is that they may support spin-liquid phases which are translationally invariant Mott insulators with no magnetic order, as indicated from numerics on triangular and Kagome lattices lhuillier . This has been established analytically in some models with U(1) symmetry leon ; motrunich , which may also be viewed as boson models. Finally, many models such as the quantum dimer model on a triangular lattice moessner , the easy-axis version of a generalized Heisenberg model on the Kagome lattice leon  and the easy-axis antiferromagnet on the pyrochlore lattice hermele  may be mapped onto effective ring-exchange models in their low energy subspace of states. Thus, understanding the phases and phase transitions in ring exchange models is important.

In this paper, we will focus on an $`XY`$ (“easy-plane”) ring-exchange model on the triangular lattice with both 4-spin and 2-spin exchange terms (with strengths $`K`$ and $`J`$ respectively) in the regime $`JK`$. This model is interesting from several points of view. First, several systems such as Wigner crystals and certain organic Mott insulators form a triangular lattice of spins with possibly appreciable ring-exchange processes, and the $`XY`$ spin problem is one tractable limit of such models. Second, easy-plane magnets on triangular lattices are known to exist (though mostly as stacked layers forming a three dimensional system) and this could be of some relevance to them — in fact, these systems have motivated several studies on easy-plane triangular quantum Heisenberg models luca . Finally, earlier work by some of us has shown that related models on the Kagome lattice are fractionalized leon , whereas they support a critical phase (the “exciton Bose liquid”) on the square lattice bosemet . This was essentially shown by perturbing around the pure ring-exchange limit ($`J=0`$) where the Kagome and square lattices respectively have $`𝒪(L^2)`$ and $`𝒪(L)`$ conserved quantities. It is thus worthwhile to examine cases where such extensive symmetries are absent from the outset even in the pure ring-exchange model, as is the case on the triangular lattice.

The principal results of this paper are: (i) We show that the U(1) four-spin exchange model on the triangular lattice (with $`S_z=0`$ or half-filling for the bosons) has a manifold of degenerate ground states and the correlation functions are critical in the ground states. We identify the appropriate symmetries and conserved quantities which give rise to this. (ii) Perturbing in the nearest neighbor exchange (boson hopping) we find that fluctuations select a four-fold set of states from the degenerate manifold and the system develops long-range order at zero temperature. The ordered states break the global U(1) symmetry as well as translational symmetry. (iii) In the ordered ground states, the superfluid/spin stiffness $`J^2/K`$ and is very small for small $`J/K`$. At any small nonzero temperature, the U(1) symmetry is restored and we are in a phase with power-law phase/spin order, which gives way to a disordered phase via a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless bkt  (BKT) transition for $`T>T_{BKT}J^2/K`$. However, the discrete symmetry of the broken translations is not destroyed until a higher temperature $`T_cJ`$. We analyze phase transitions at finite temperature and with in-plane magnetic fields within a Landau theory, and discuss the phase diagram and experimental consequences.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section II, we will present the Hamiltonian. In Section III we analyze its symmetries and conserved quantities, and define the dual representation of the model which allows us to analyze the instabilities of the system towards charge and energy ordering. We present arguments and numerical results to show that the model with $`J=0`$ has critical power-law correlations at $`T=0`$. In Section IV, we perturbatively analyze effects on introducing the nearest neighbor exchange (boson hopping) and find a phase-ordered state. We also discuss the phase diagram within Landau theory as a function of temperature and in-plane magnetic-field. We close with a discussion and speculations for three-dimensional generalizations and SU(2) invariant models in Section V.

## II model

We define the model in rotor variables as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1\phi _2+\phi _3\phi _4)`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\phi _i\phi _j)+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(n_i\overline{n})^2`$
where $`\phi _i`$ is the phase of the boson variable ($`\phi _i=0`$ and $`\phi _i=2\pi `$ are identified) and $`n_i`$ is the the canonically conjugate boson number (respectively the angle and angular momentum of a $`U(1)`$ rotor), satisfying the commutation relation $`[\phi _i,n_j]=i\delta _{i,j}`$. The terms $`\phi _1\mathrm{}\phi _4`$ in the first term of $`H`$ denote angles around 4-site plaquettes of the triangular lattice — there are three such kinds of plaquettes as shown in Fig. 1(a). The $`J`$-term denotes nearest-neighbor hopping of bosons while $`U`$ denotes a repulsive interaction between bosons. With $`U/K\mathrm{}`$, we can identify $`S_z(𝐫)=n_𝐫1/2`$, $`S^\pm (𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\phi _𝐫)`$ and this model reduces to a $`S=1/2`$ $`XY`$ quantum spin model with $`\overline{n}=1/2`$ corresponding to total $`S_z=0`$.

With $`J=0`$, changing $`\phi _𝐫\varphi _𝐫=\phi _𝐫+\pi `$ on the sites indicated by open circles in Fig. 1(b) changes the sign of $`K`$ (there are four such choices of a triangular sublattice on which to make this transformation, as is clear from the figure). Thus, for $`J=0`$, the ground state energy is independent of the sign of $`K`$. For nonzero $`J`$ however, the sign of $`K`$ is important.

For $`K<0`$, the leading perturbative corrections on including a nonzero $`J`$ are $`𝒪(J)`$, and the energy and phases depend on the sign of $`J`$ — for $`J<0`$ we get a ferromagnetic phase, while $`J>0`$ leads to a $`\sqrt{3}\times \sqrt{3}`$ Neel order, which are also the ground states for large $`|J/K|`$ (where we may ignore the 4-spin term). Thus there are no phase transitions at any nonzero $`J`$ and we only obtain the well-studied phases.

For $`K>0`$, as appropriate for say spin degrees of freedom in an electronic Mott insulator, it turns out that the leading perturbative corrections to the free energy are $`𝒪(J^2)`$. To this order, the free energy is independent of the sign of $`J`$ and we obtain a ferrimagnetic phase which breaks the global U(1) invariance as well as four-fold translational symmetry. The physics of this phase and the phase transitions out of it will be the focus of this paper. For large $`|J|/K`$ we of course recover the conventional phases mentioned above.

To make an estimate of the coupling constants in one case, let us imagine starting from the Hubbard model for electrons (with nearest neighbor hopping) at half-filling on a triangular lattice and perturbing in $`t/U`$ to derive an effective spin model with ring-exchange terms in the insulator. This takes the form

$`H_{\mathrm{spin}}`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}[(𝐒_1𝐒_2)(𝐒_3𝐒_4)+(𝐒_1𝐒_4)(𝐒_2𝐒_3)`$ (2)
$``$ $`(𝐒_1𝐒_3)(𝐒_2𝐒_4)]+{\displaystyle }_{i,j}J_{i,j}𝐒_i𝐒_j`$
where the first term involves all 4-site plaquettes on the triangular lattice. Adapting results from Ref. macdonald  to this case, we find $`J=4t^2/U28t^4/U^3`$, $`J^{}=J^{\prime \prime }=4t^4/U^3`$, $`K=80t^4/U^3`$. For $`U/t=6`$, numerical results imada  show that the model is in an insulating phase though still close to the metal-insulator boundary; in this case $`J/t=0.53`$, $`J^{}/t=J^{\prime \prime }/t=0.02`$, $`K/t=0.37`$. Clearly, it seems that one can describe the spin degrees of freedom in the insulator by setting the further-neighbor couplings $`J^{}=J^{\prime \prime }=0`$ and retaining only nonzero $`J,K`$. Indeed, exact-diagonalization studies lhuillier  find a spin-liquid phase for a closely related model in qualitative agreement with the Monte Carlo results on the Hubbard model imada . It thus seems profitable to understand the above model for $`J/K1`$ as a starting point to analyze this full problem. For $`U/K\mathrm{}`$, the Hamiltonian in Eq. 1 is precisely the $`XY`$ limit of the above model obtained by setting terms containing $`S_z`$ to zero.

## III Model with $`J=0`$

### III.1 Symmetries

For $`J=0`$, we can change the sign of $`K`$ by shifting $`\phi _𝐫\varphi _𝐫=\phi _𝐫+\pi `$ on any one of four sublattices of the triangular lattice indicated earlier (we will work with these ‘rotated’ variables $`\varphi _𝐫`$ and a ferromagnetic 4-spin term for convenience). This means shifting $`\varphi _𝐫\varphi _𝐫+\pi `$ on any two such sublattices leaves the action invariant and is a symmetry operation. We can identify this with a conservation of total boson number modulo two on alternate rows of the triangular lattice. These rows can run in any of the three symmetry directions of the lattice, this corresponds to a total of four symmetry operations including the identity.

The rotor Hamiltonian above describes bosons hopping on plaquettes of the triangular lattice. For $`J=0`$, the dynamics conserves the center of mass of the bosons, since the bosons hop equal distances in opposite directions on any plaquette. In other words the center of mass operator $`\widehat{𝐑}_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=_𝐫𝐫\widehat{n}_𝐫`$ satisfies $`[\widehat{𝐑}_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.},H]=0`$, and is a constant of motion. Thus, in deriving the imaginary-time path integral for the partition function in terms of $`\varphi `$, we may insert factors of $`\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪\widehat{𝐑}_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.})`$ with an arbitrary vector $`𝐪`$, since $`\widehat{𝐑}_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ commutes with $`H`$. This corresponds to $`\varphi _𝐫\varphi _𝐫+𝐪𝐫`$ being a symmetry of the phase-action.

If we identify $`\varphi =0`$ with $`\varphi =2\pi `$, or keep track of the fact that the charge is quantized the first symmetry operation discussed above is a special case of the second, and corresponds to choosing $`𝐪=𝐐_i(i=1,2,3)`$ where the momenta $`𝐐_i`$ are at the center of the edges of the Brillouin zone, indicated in Fig. 4(a). The above symmetries for $`J=0`$ imply we cannot have terms which depend on $`(\varphi )`$ in the phase action (in the path integral for the partition function). The lowest allowed gradient term on which the action can depend is of the form $`(^2\varphi )`$. We explicitly confirm this in a spin-wave calculation in Section III.C, where we show the collective mode disperses as $`\omega ^2(𝐤)|𝐤|^4`$ for small $`|𝐤|`$, and calculate its consequences for correlation functions. The presence of a nonzero $`J`$ explicitly breaks these symmetries, in fact $`J=0`$ will turn out to be a critical point of the model.

### III.2 Plaquette duality and dual action

For $`J=0`$, it is useful to define a dual representation for the model which permits us to obtain spin-wave theory as a well-defined limit of the model and to analyze instabilities of the spin-wave phase towards charge and energy ordering. For this purpose, we use a plaquette duality transformation bosemet  and work with dual variables $`\theta _P`$ and $`N_P`$ which reside at the centers of each of the 4-site plaquettes of the triangular lattice — these sites (labelled by $`P`$) form a Kagome lattice with nearest neighbour spacing $`1/2`$ in units of the lattice spacing of the original triangular lattice. Alternatively, we may label sites on the dual lattice as $`(𝐫,\alpha )`$, viewing the Kagome lattice as a triangular lattice three sites (labelled $`\alpha =1,2,3`$) per unit cell, and we will use this notation whenever convenient. Thus, there are three times as many sites (and hence degrees of freedom) on the dual lattice compared to the original, and this is reflected in a redundancy in the description which we will discuss shortly.

Define

$`\pi N_P`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi _1\varphi _2+\varphi _3\varphi _4)`$ (3)
$`\pi n_𝐫`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{hex}}{}}\theta _P{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{star}}{}}\theta _P,`$ (4)
where the angles $`\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _4`$ in Eq.(3) are around plaquette $`P`$ of the lattice with the convention indicated in Fig. 1(a). The sites $`\mathrm{hex}`$ and $`\mathrm{star}`$ lie on the 12-site unit of the Kagome lattice around the site $`𝐫`$ as shown in Fig. 2(a) (marked by ’+’ and ’-’ respectively), while the center of each Kagome unit lies on the triangular lattice (and is labelled $`𝐫`$). In these variables, the dual Hamiltonian on the Kagome lattice is

$`H_{\mathrm{dual}}`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\pi N_P)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{hex}}{}}\theta _P{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{star}}{}}\theta _P\pi \overline{n})^2`$
and the dual variables satisfy $`[N_P,\theta _P^{}]=i\delta _{P,P^{}}`$, with $`\theta _P/\pi `$ having integer eigenvalues, while $`N_P`$ has a continuous spectrum.

We pause to elaborate further upon the redundancy of the $`\theta `$ variables. Since only the combination $`n_𝐫`$ of the $`\theta _P`$ variables is physical, the Hamiltonian will be invariant under any integer multiple of $`\pi `$ shift of the $`\theta _P`$ that leaves all the $`n_𝐫`$ invariant. This can be done locally as follows. Pick any hexagon of the dual Kagome lattice, and choose two neighboring sites on this hexagon. Shift $`\theta _P\theta _P+\pi `$ on those sites, and simultaneously take $`\theta _P\theta _P\pi `$ on the sites on the opposite side of this hexagon, leaving the remaining two site of the hexagon (and all the other sites not on this hexagon) untouched as shown in Fig. 2(b). Since this leaves all physical properties invariant, this should be regarded as a local gauge symmetry. Such transformations are generated by the unitary operators

$$G_𝐫(𝐊_\alpha )=e^{i𝐊_\alpha _{\mathrm{hex}}(𝐫_P𝐫)N_P},$$
(6)
where $`𝐊_\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =1,2,3`$ are the three reciprocal lattice vectors for the triangular lattice. In the spirit of a gauge theory, we could restrict our consideration to physical gauge-invariant states which satisfy $`G_𝐫(𝐊_\alpha )=1`$. This can be rewritten suggestively as

$$\underset{\mathrm{hex}}{}(𝐫_P𝐫)N_P=0(\mathrm{mod}𝐚),$$
(7)
where $`𝐚`$ is an arbitrary Bravais lattice vector for the triangular lattice. As in Refs. leon ,bosemet , the operator $`N_P`$ may be regarded as the local “vortex number” (modulo $`2`$) on the site $`P`$ of the dual lattice. Thus the condition of Eq. (7) requires that the local vortex center of mass on each hexagonal plaquette of the Kagome lattice vanishes – the ambiguity by a Bravais lattice vector corresponding exactly to the ambiguity in $`N_P`$ by a shift of $`2`$. Thus the gauge-invariance of the dual description is related to the immobility of “vortices” in this model.

Using a Trotter decomposition, we may write the partition function as a discretized imaginary-time path integral in the standard manner. This leads to $`Z=𝒟\theta (𝐫,\tau )\mathrm{exp}(S\left[\theta (𝐫,\tau )\right])`$ with the action

$`S_{\mathrm{dual}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_\tau K}}){\displaystyle \underset{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau }{}}(\theta _{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau }\theta _{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau +1})^2`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\tau U}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{hex}}{}}\theta _P{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{star}}{}}\theta _P\pi \overline{n})^2`$
where the field $`\theta _{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau }/\pi `$ is an integer-valued field, $`ϵ_\tau =\beta /N_\tau `$ with $`\beta =1/T`$ is the inverse temperature, and $`N_\tau `$ is the number of imaginary time slices. The quantum problem at a temperature $`T`$ corresponds to the continuum limit $`ϵ_\tau 0`$, $`N_\tau \mathrm{}`$ with fixed $`1/ϵ_\tau N_\tau =T`$. Thus, we reduce the quantum model to an anisotropic $`(2+1)`$-dimensional classical model — since there is no sign-problem, this proves useful for carrying out Monte Carlo simulations in the dual representation to numerically test for charge ordering and plaquette-energy ordering in the ground state at arbitrary $`U/K`$.

### III.3 Effective theory and spin-wave approximation

We may rewrite the dual action as

$`S_{\mathrm{dual}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_\tau K}}){\displaystyle \underset{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau }{}}(\theta _{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau }\theta _{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau +1})^2`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\tau U}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{hex}}{}}\theta _P{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{star}}{}}\theta _P\pi \overline{n})^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q,𝐫,\tau ,\alpha }{}}v_{2q}^0\mathrm{cos}(2q\theta _{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau })`$
where the bare couplings $`v_{2q}^0`$ are chosen to enforce the integer constraint on $`\theta `$, and may be singular. We will now write down a low energy effective action in terms of $`\vartheta _{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau }=[\theta ]_f(Qmn)/2`$. Here $`[\theta ]_f`$ symbolically denotes an integration over the fast (high-energy) degrees of freedom while retaining the spatial structure of the lattice, $`Q=2\pi \overline{n}`$, and the site $`𝐫m\widehat{a}+n\widehat{b}`$ in terms of the basis vectors $`\widehat{a},\widehat{b}`$ of the triangular lattice shown in Fig. 1(b). The factor we have subtracted out eliminates the mean density $`\overline{n}`$ from the second (boson repulsion) term in the Hamiltonian.

If we ignore the terms with $`v_{2q}^0`$, we obtain a Gaussian action in terms of $`\vartheta `$. Studying this action motivates us to guess that the effective low energy action may be of the form $`S_{\mathrm{dual}}^{\mathrm{eff}}=S_{\mathrm{dual}}^{(0)}+S_{\mathrm{dual}}^{(1)}`$ with

$$S_{\mathrm{dual}}^{(0)}=_\omega \underset{𝐤,\alpha ,\beta }{}\vartheta _{𝐤,\alpha ,\omega }\left(\frac{\omega ^2\delta _{\alpha \beta }}{2\pi ^2𝒦(𝐤)}+\frac{𝒰(𝐤)}{2\pi ^2}G_{\alpha \beta }(𝐤)\right)\vartheta _{𝐤,\beta ,\omega }$$
(10)
and

$$S_{\mathrm{dual}}^{(1)}=_\tau \underset{q,𝐫,\alpha }{}v_{2q}\mathrm{cos}(2q\vartheta _{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau }+Qqmn)+S_{\mathrm{higher}}$$
(11)
where we have defined renormalized couplings $`𝒰(𝐤),𝒦(𝐤)`$ (which are smooth nonzero functions of $`𝐤`$) and $`v_{2q}`$, the site $`𝐫(m,n)`$ as before, and the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`G_{\alpha ,\beta }(𝐤)=A_\alpha ^{}(𝐤)A_\beta (𝐤)`$ with

$`A_1(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`1+e^{ik_a}e^{ik_aik_b}e^{ik_b}`$
$`A_2(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`1+e^{ik_aik_b}e^{ik_a}e^{ik_b}`$
$`A_3(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`1+e^{ik_b}e^{ik_a}e^{ik_aik_b},`$ (12)
where $`k_a=𝐤\widehat{a}`$ and $`k_b=𝐤\widehat{b}`$. $`S_{\mathrm{higher}}`$ denotes other terms which might be generated in deriving the low energy action. For the present purposes, we will not write down the explicit form of these terms but we will discuss them later.

If we set $`v_{2q}=0`$ and ignore $`S_{\mathrm{higher}}`$, we can obtain the eigenmodes of the Gaussian action $`S_{\mathrm{dual}}^{(0)}`$ by diagonalizing $`G_{\alpha \beta }(𝐤)`$. We find there is one nonzero eigenvalue $`\lambda (𝐤)`$, and two zero eigenvalues. This corresponds to one dispersing mode ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$) and two nondispersive modes ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_{2,3}`$) with zero energy (flat bands) and the action at this level takes the form

$`S_{\mathrm{dual}}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\omega }{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2+^2(𝐤)}{2\pi ^2𝒦(𝐤)}}\right)|\mathrm{\Theta }_1(𝐤,\omega )|^2`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _\omega }{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\alpha =2,3}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2\pi ^2𝒦(𝐤)}}\right)|\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha (𝐤,\omega )|^2,`$
where we have set $`\lambda (𝐤)=^2(𝐤)/𝒰(𝐤)𝒦(𝐤)`$ so that $`(𝐤)`$ appears as the excitation energy of the collective mode $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$. Explicitly,

$`\lambda (𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`2[63\mathrm{cos}k_a3\mathrm{cos}k_b3\mathrm{cos}(k_a+k_b)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(k_ak_b)+\mathrm{cos}(2k_a+k_b)+\mathrm{cos}(2k_b+k_a)],`$
thus the dispersing mode $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ has one gapless point at $`𝐤=(0,0)`$. The leading dispersion away from this point is $`^2(𝐤0)=(9/16)𝒰(0)𝒦(0)|𝐤|^4`$ — as stated in subsection A, this dispersion is dictated by the symmetry of conservation of center of mass of the bosons which forbids a term $`|𝐤|^2`$.

We can also now see that the extra degrees of freedom (two per site of the triangular lattice) introduced in going over to the dual description manifest themselves as zero energy modes corresponding to unphysical fluctuations, while the dispersing mode corresponds to physical fluctuations. In fact, by Fourier transforming a general superposition $`f_2(𝐤)\mathrm{\Theta }_2(𝐤)+f_3(𝐤)\mathrm{\Theta }_3(𝐤)`$, we can show that the zero modes indeed arises from the local gauge symmetry generated by Eq. (6) in real space. More precisely, in the coarse-grained quadratic low energy theory, these discrete symmetry operations are promoted to continuous shifts (with arbitrary $`|𝐊_\alpha |`$). Similarly, Fourier transforming $`f_1(𝐤)\mathrm{\Theta }_1(𝐤)`$, we find that the physical fluctuations are composed precisely of the gauge invariant boson densities.

At this stage, we may reintroduce the boson phase fields by a Hubbard Stratonovitch decoupling of the time derivative term of the physical fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ (as in Ref. bosemet ), namely

$`e^{\frac{\omega ^2}{2\pi ^2𝒦(𝐤)}|\mathrm{\Theta }_1(𝐤,\omega )|^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D\varphi \varphi ^{}e^{\frac{^2(𝐤)}{2𝒰(𝐤)}|\varphi (𝐤,\omega )|^2}}`$
$`\times `$ $`e^{\frac{\omega (𝐤)}{2\pi \sqrt{𝒰(𝐤)𝒦(𝐤)}}\left(\varphi (𝐤)\mathrm{\Theta }_1^{}(𝐤)\varphi ^{}(𝐤)\mathrm{\Theta }_1(𝐤)\right)}.`$
Provided $`v_{2q}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{higher}}`$ are irrelevant and can be ignored, we can integrating out the field $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ which leads to a Gaussian action for the boson field $`\varphi `$,

$$S_\varphi ^{(0)}=_\omega \underset{𝐤}{}\left(\frac{\omega ^2+^2(𝐤)}{2𝒰(𝐤)}\right)|\varphi (𝐤)|^2.$$
(16)
This corresponds to a spin-wave (harmonic) approximation and may be used to evaluate boson correlation functions to zeroth order in $`v_{2q}`$.

### III.4 Boson correlation functions in spin-wave theory

To characterize the Gaussian theory $`S_\varphi ^{(0)}`$, we evaluate the space-time correlation functions for the boson creation operator $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{𝐫\tau })`$. At long times or large separations, these correlation functions reduce to

$`e^{i\varphi _{𝐫,0}}e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{𝟎},0}}`$ $``$ $`|𝐫|^{\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{3}}\sqrt{\frac{𝒰(0)}{𝒦(0)}}}`$
$`e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{𝟎},\tau }}e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{𝟎},0}}`$ $``$ $`|\tau |^{\frac{1}{4\pi \sqrt{3}}\sqrt{\frac{𝒰(0)}{𝒦(0)}}}.`$ (17)
Clearly, the Gaussian theory describes a critical liquid of the bosons with power law correlations arising from the gapless excitations dispersing as $`(𝐤)|𝐤|^2`$. From the long time behavior of the two-point correlation in a finite size system, we may evaluate the finite size scaling of the gap to adding a particle to be just $`\mathrm{\Delta }(L)𝒰(0)/L^2`$. In the thermodynamic system, the low energy density of states per unit volume of collective excitations is given by

$`N(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\delta (\omega (𝐤))`$ (18)
$`\stackrel{}{_{\omega 0}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{3𝒰(0)𝒦(0)}}}`$
which is a constant depending on the interactions. Thus, all low-energy long-wavelength properties of the liquid are determined in terms of the $`𝐤0`$ behavior of the functions $`𝒰(𝐤),𝒦(𝐤)`$. We next present arguments and numerical evidence that this Gaussian description of a critical liquid in the model with $`J=0`$ may be valid even in the presence of terms $`v_{2q}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{higher}}`$.

### III.5 Argument for irrelevance of higher order terms

To see whether the term $`v_{2q}`$ is relevant, we can evaluate the correlation functions of this operator, and we find it is local in space and exponentially decaying in time,

$$\mathrm{cos}2\vartheta _{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau }\mathrm{cos}2\vartheta _{\mathrm{𝟎},\beta ,0}\delta _{𝐫,0}\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }\mathrm{exp}(\gamma |\tau |)$$
(19)
with a constant $`\gamma >0`$. This is not hard to understand — it arises from the fact that the variable $`\vartheta `$ is a combination of the eigenmodes $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,2,3}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\vartheta _{𝐫,\alpha ,\tau }`$ is not “gauge-invariant”. As a result its spatial correlations are local, while the fluctuations of the zero-modes $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{2,3}`$ determine the exponential temporal decay. Clearly, $`v_{2q}`$ is irrelevant.

Consider the possible forms we can obtain for $`S_{\mathrm{higher}}`$. These terms would be of the form of cosines involving multiple $`\vartheta `$’s at different space-time points. However, similar arguments as above apply to these operators. The only operators which can have nonzero correlations at nonzero separation would be gauge-invariant combinations of the $`\vartheta `$’s. As we have shown, these are the local boson densities. Thus, if we admit only slow fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$, these would take the form of weak density-density interactions within a perturbative treatment and could renormalize the coefficients of the Gaussian action, but not cause an instability. Of course, such density-density interactions might lead to a charge-ordered state at strong couplings, but our arguments show that the Gaussian theory is perturbatively stable footnote .

### III.6 Numerical results

To confirm the above arguments we have carried out Monte Carlo calculations on the dual model using a Metropolis algorithm, for lattice sizes upto 432 spatial-sites and 48 time-slices, and periodic boundary conditions. We find no evidence of any charge ordering for $`\overline{n}=1/2`$, even for large $`U/K`$. We have compared the density-density correlations and find agreement with what we expect from a Gaussian theory $`S_{\mathrm{dual}}^{(0)}`$. In particular, we show results for the compressibility $`\kappa `$ defined through $`\kappa =\chi _{nn}(𝐤0,\omega _n=0)`$ where

$$\chi _{nn}(𝐤,\omega _n)=\underset{𝐫,\tau }{}e^{i𝐤𝐫+i\omega _n\tau }n(𝐫,\tau )n(\mathrm{𝟎},\tau ).$$
(20)
Within the Gaussian theory, $`\kappa =1/ϵ_\tau 𝒰(0)`$. In Fig. 3 we plot the scaled compressibility $`(ϵ_\tau K)\kappa `$ which is expected to scale as $`K/𝒰(0)`$. We find that that it is nonzero at all $`U/K`$ in the quantum ($`\tau `$-continuum) limit, with $`𝒰(0)/K5`$ as $`U/K\mathrm{}`$. We have also checked and found no evidence for energy ordering on the plaquettes of the triangular lattice. Thus, we believe that for $`\overline{n}=1/2`$, the ring-exchange model with $`J=0`$ is well described by the Gaussian fixed-point action $`S_{\mathrm{dual}}^{(0)}`$ where terms with $`v_{2q}`$ and all other terms $`S_{\mathrm{higher}}`$ are irrelevant.

## IV Perturbing in nearest neighbor coupling $`J`$

### IV.1 Ordered ground state

To perturb in the nearest-neighbor exchange $`J`$, it is convenient to work in the phase representation which we have argued remains a valid ‘fixed-point’ description of the pure ring-exchange model for all values of the bare coupling $`U/K`$. In this, we make the approximation of completely ignoring irrelevant operators — this seems reasonable in retrospect since we will find that the system acquires long-range phase order at $`T=0`$.

The nearest-neighbor perturbation we add to the Gaussian phase action takes the form

$`S_J`$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle }d\tau [(1)^n\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{m,n,\tau }\varphi _{m+1,n,\tau })`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`(1)^m\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{m,n,\tau }\varphi _{m,n+1,\tau })`$
$`+`$ $`(1)^{m+n}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{m,n,\tau }\varphi _{m+1,n+1,\tau })]`$
where we have chosen to label sites on the triangular lattice as $`𝐫=m\widehat{a}+n\widehat{b}`$, and we are working in rotated variables $`\varphi _𝐫`$ for which the ring-exchange term is ferromagnetic.

To carry out a systematic expansion, we define $`\varphi _𝐫=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_𝐫+𝐐𝐫`$ with an arbitrary vector $`𝐐`$. This allows us to examine at the effect of perturbing in $`J`$ in any of the ground states of the degenerate manifold to see if fluctuations select any state. Perturbing in $`S_J`$ around the pure ring-exchange Gaussian theory, we find that the corrections to the free energy vanish at leading order in $`J`$. At $`𝒪(J^2)`$, we find a correction to the free energy density

$`\delta f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta J^2\left(\mathrm{cos}^2Q_a+\mathrm{cos}^2Q_b+\mathrm{cos}^2(Q_a+Q_b)\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle _\tau }(1)^n\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{0,0,0}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{1,0,0}+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{m,n,\tau }+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{m+1,n,\tau })_0`$
where $`\mathrm{}_0`$ is the expectation value evaluated in the Gaussian theory, $`Q_a𝐐\widehat{a}`$, $`Q_b𝐐\widehat{b}`$, and we have used the six-fold symmetry of the triangular lattice to simplify certain intermediate expressions. The expectation value may be analytically evaluated at small $`U/K`$ by expanding the cosine term since its argument is small in the Gaussian theory, and we find that the sum over $`m,n`$ is positive. Thus, (i) the corrections to the free energy are independent of the sign of $`J`$, and (ii) minimizing $`\delta f`$ with respect to variations of $`𝐐`$ corresponds to maximizing $`\left(\mathrm{cos}^2Q_a+\mathrm{cos}^2Q_b+\mathrm{cos}^2(Q_a+Q_b)\right)`$ which leads to ordering at four wavevectors $`𝐐_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1\mathrm{}4`$) which are shown in Fig. 4(a). We expect this order to persist even at large effective $`(U/K)`$ (recall that the bare $`U/K\mathrm{}`$ in the $`S=1/2`$ spin limit). To obtain the ordered states in the original phase variables, we rotate back $`\varphi (𝐫)\phi (𝐫)=\varphi (𝐫)\pi `$ on the triangular sublattice and we then find, as shown in Fig. 4(b), that the resulting ordered states break (i) global $`U(1)`$ spin rotational invariance and (ii) four-fold translational invariance. For small $`J/K`$, such states have been shown to occur at finite magnetic fields for the classical version of a related SU(2) invariant ring-exchange model momoi , and this ordering has been called $`uuud`$ (for ‘up-up-up-down’ which is the spin order on a 4-site plaquette, but in the plane in our case). Here, we find such an ordered state is stabilized by quantum fluctuations in the $`XY`$ limit even in zero magnetic field.

### IV.2 Fluctuations in the ordered state

As shown above, in the presence of a nonzero $`J`$, the model has an ordered ground state. This order breaks U(1) invariance. At the same time, it also breaks translational symmetry. In the boson language, this state may be viewed as a superfluid coexisting with broken translational order. This broken discrete symmetry is also evident from our implicit choice of a state $`𝐐_\alpha `$ to minimize the free energy. Thus, we expect two kinds of excitations at low energies about the ordered state — (i) phase fluctuations, and (ii) domain walls in the discrete order.

It is easy to see that with $`\varphi _𝐫=𝐐𝐫+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_𝐫`$, there is an energy cost $`(𝐐𝐐_\alpha )^2`$ for small deviations $`|(𝐐𝐐_\alpha )|1`$ where $`𝐐_\alpha `$ denotes any one of the ordering vectors. This implies that the long wavelength effective theory of phase fluctations around each of these ordered states is described by an action of the form

$$S=_{𝐫,\tau }\left(\frac{1}{U_{\mathrm{eff}}}(_\tau \phi )^2+J_s(\phi )^2+K_{\mathrm{eff}}(^2\phi )^2\right)$$
(23)
with a nonzero $`J_s`$, and effective couplings $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`K_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. For small $`U/K,J/K`$, we find $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}U`$, $`K_{\mathrm{eff}}K`$ and $`J_sJ^2/K\sqrt{U/K}`$. Thus, phase fluctuations are controlled by the phase stiffness $`J_s`$.

A sharp domain wall separating regions with different $`𝐐_\alpha `$ order would cost an energy $`K`$ per unit length. However, since the model is spin-disordered for $`J=0`$, we expect that a smooth deformation of the spin configuration by making a domain wall with nonzero width $`\xi _D`$, would cost less energy. Indeed, using the above action one can estimate the energy per unit length of a straight domain wall as $`e_{\mathrm{dom}}=\gamma _1K_{\mathrm{eff}}/\xi _D+\gamma _2J_s\xi _D`$. where $`\gamma _{1,2}1`$ are constants. Minimizing the energy cost with respect to $`\xi _D`$, we find that $`\xi _D^{}\sqrt{K_{\mathrm{eff}}/J_s}`$, and thus domain wall excitations cost an energy $`e_{\mathrm{dom}}^{}\sqrt{K_{\mathrm{eff}}J_s}`$ per unit length. For small $`U/K`$, $`e_{\mathrm{dom}}^{}J(U/K)^{1/4}`$.

### IV.3 Phase transitions at finite temperature

At high temperature, we expect the model to be in a fully disordered phase where the $`U(1)`$ symmetry as well as the discrete broken symmetry is restored. To study these phase transitions, we appeal to the above estimates of the spin stiffness and domain wall energies. For $`U/K1`$, since the spin stiffness $`J_sJ^2/K`$, while the domain wall energy per unit length $`e_{\mathrm{dom}}JJ_s`$, we expect the $`U(1)`$ symmetry to be restored via a BKT transition bkt  at a temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BKT}}J_s`$ once vortices are included in the effective theory, while the discrete symmetry is not restored until a much higher temperature $`T_cJ`$. Thus there is an intermediate phase with exponentially decaying spin correlations, but with the discrete order still present. This bears resemblance to proposed scenarios of chiral ordering in the $`XY`$ antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice as well as the $`SU(2)`$ multiple-spin exchange model. However, in contrast to the $`XY`$ model where a single scale, namely the two-spin exchange coupling, sets the scale for both transition temperatures, the transition temperatures are governed by distinct energy scales in the present case, and the discrete symmetry corresponds to broken translational invariance.

In order to better understand the discrete transition, let us identify the appropriate order parameter and construct a Landau theory. Since the discrete symmetry is easily identified with translations in the original variables $`\phi _𝐫`$, we will discuss it in terms of that. As shown in Fig. 4(b), the ordered state at $`T=0`$ has broken translational invariance associated with ordering of $`\mathrm{cos}(\phi _i\phi _j)`$ on nearest-neighbor bonds. Since there is a nearest-neighbor spin exchange term $`J`$, this leads to ordering in the energy density. We identify the broken discrete symmetry with energy ordering on the bonds. To identify the appropriate order parameter for this transition, note that we may write $`K_{𝐫,i}=𝐒_𝐫𝐒_{𝐫+\widehat{a}_i}`$ where $`\widehat{a}_i(i=1,2,3)`$ are the unit lattice vectors making an angle $`2\pi /3`$ with each other (specifically, $`\widehat{a}_1=\widehat{a}`$, $`\widehat{a}_2=\widehat{b}`$, and $`\widehat{a}_3=(\widehat{a}+\widehat{b})`$). Labelling the four ordered states by $`\mu =0\mathrm{}4`$ and with $`a_0=0`$, we can write the expectation value in any of these ordered states as $`K_{𝐫,i}^\mu =\mathrm{cos}(𝐐_i𝐫)\mathrm{cos}(𝐐_i\widehat{a}_\mu )`$. For a general superposition,

$$K_{𝐫,i}=\underset{\mu =0\mathrm{}4}{}B_\mu \mathrm{cos}(𝐐_i𝐫)\mathrm{cos}(𝐐_i\widehat{a}_\mu )$$
(24)
and we identify $`B_\mu `$ as the appropriate order parameter for the Landau theory. Under shifts of $`B_\mu B_\mu +\lambda `$, the physical correlation $`K_{𝐫,i}`$ is unchanged. Thus we require the Landau functional to be invariant under such shifts. Further, studying the transformation of $`K_{𝐫,i}`$ under symmetry operations of the lattice (unit translations, $`\pi /3`$-rotations, and reflections about the $`3`$ mirror planes), we find that such symmetry operations correspond to all possible permutations of the set $`\{B_\mu \}`$. For the Landau theory we find beyond quadratic order, one cubic invariant and two quartic invariants. It appears likely that the finite temperature phase transition restoring this discrete symmetry is in the same universality class as a $`4`$-state Potts model.

To summarize, we expect the system to exhibit with increasing temperature a BKT transition with $`T_{\mathrm{BKT}}J^2/K`$ from a state with power law spin correlations to a state with exponentially decaying spin correlations. The discrete broken symmetry associated with energy ordering on the bonds of the lattice is expected to be restored above a temperature $`T_cJ`$, with the transition being in the universality class of the 4-state Potts model. In a weak applied in-plane magnetic field, the $`U(1)`$ invariance is lost, and the BKT transition would become rounded but the discrete transition would survive as a finite temperature transition. At large enough fields, we expect a first order transition to a state where all the spins point in the same direction and the translation invariance is restored.

## V discussion and conclusions

Studying an $`XY`$ model with four-spin couplings and small two-spin exchange, we have obtained a ferrimagnetically ordered ground state and analyzed phase transitions out of this phase. Since the ground state is phase ordered, we expect our result to be stable to small out-of-plane couplings involving $`S_z`$. Similarly, introducing weak couplings between such ordered two-dimensional planes would lead to a three-dimensionally ordered state tsuneto , where the spin/phase order would persist to finite temperature. We thus expect this state might be of some interest for Mott insulators on a triangular lattice. If such an ordered state exists, it could be detected in neutron diffraction studies. The spin-disordered state with persisting discrete broken symmetry may be indirectly observable through lattice distortions if the spins couple to the lattice.

We can also analyze the opposite limit from the one studied in the paper, where we assume “easy axis” anisotropy in the model in Eq. (2) and weak $`J/K`$. In this Ising limit, we find eight degenerate ground states for the spin model, again of the $`uuud`$ type, with the spins aligned along $`S_z`$-axis. These states correspond to charge-ordered incompressible states for the bosons at density $`\overline{n}=1/4`$ or $`\overline{n}=3/4`$ (four ground states at either density). It may be that any anisotropy which takes us away from the SU(2) invariant model leads to ordered ground states, while the $`SU(2)`$-invariant model seems to be a uniform spin liquid lhuillier ; imada . It would be interesting to further explore this possibility.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the NSF through grants DMR-9985255 and PHY99-07949, and by the Sloan and Packard foundations. We would like to thank Luca Capriotti, Matthew Fisher, Eduardo Fradkin, Akakii Melikidze and Ashvin Vishwanath for useful discussions and comments on the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Observations on noncommuting coordinates and on fields depending on them

##

The idea that configuration-space coordinates may not commute

$$[x^i,x^j]=i\theta ^{ij}$$
(1)
where $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is a constant, anti-symmetric two-index object, has arisen recently from string theory, but in fact it has a longer history. Like many interesting quantum-mechanical ideas, it was first suggested by Heisenberg, in the late 1930s, who reasoned that coordinate noncommutativity would entail a coordinate uncertainty and would ameliorate short-distance singularities, which beset quantum fields. He told his idea to Peierls, who eventually made use of it when analyzing electronic systems in an external magnetic field, so strong that projection to the lowest Landau level is justified. But this phenomenological realization of Heisenberg’s idea did not address issues in fundamental science, so Peierls told Pauli about it, who in turn told Oppenheimer, who asked his student Snyder to work it out and this led to the first published paper on the subject .

The coordinate noncommutativity in the lowest Landau level is very similar to today’s string-theory origins of noncommutativity – both rely on the presence of a strong background field. Also, thus far, it is the only physically realized example of noncommuting coordinates, so let me describe it in a little detail . We consider the motion of a charged ($`e`$) and massive ($`m`$) particle in a constant magnetic field ($`B`$) pointing along the $`z`$ direction. All interesting physics is in the $`x`$$`y`$ plane. The Lagrangian for this planar motion is

$$L=\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2)+\frac{e}{c}(\dot{x}A_x+\dot{y}A_y)V(x,y)$$
(2)
where the vector potential $`𝑨`$ can be chosen as $`(0,xB)`$ and $`V(x,y)`$ describes additional interactions (“impurities”). In the absence of $`V`$, the quantum spectrum consists of the well-known Landau levels $`|N,d`$, where $`N`$ indexes the level’s energy eigenvalue, and $`d`$ describes the infinite degeneracy of each level. The separation between levels is $`O(B/m)`$, so that in the strong magnetic field limit only the lowest Landau level $`|0,d`$ is relevant. But observe that the large $`B`$ limit corresponds to small $`m`$, so projection on the lowest Landau level is also achieved by setting $`m`$ to zero in (2). In that limit the Lagrangian (2), in the chosen gauge, becomes

$$L_\mathrm{}L\mathrm{}=\frac{e}{c}Bx\dot{y}V(x,y).$$
(3)
This is of the form $`p\dot{q}H(p,q)`$, and immediately identifies $`\frac{e}{c}Bx`$ and $`y`$ as canonical conjugates, leading in the usual way to the commutator

$$[x,y]=i\frac{\mathrm{}c}{eB}.$$
(4)
\[The “Peierls substitution” consists of determining the effect of the impurity by computing the eigenvalues of $`V(x,y)`$, where $`x`$ and $`y`$ are noncommuting.\]

For another perspective, consider a calculation of the lowest Landau level matrix elements of the $`[x,y]`$ commutator.

$$0,d|xyyx|0,d^{}=M(d,d^{})M^{}(d^{},d)$$
(5)
where

$$M(d,d^{})=0,d|xy|0,d^{}.$$
(6)
We evaluate (6) by inserting intermediate states in product $`xy`$:

$$M(d,d^{})=\underset{s}{}0,d|x|ss|y|0,d^{}.$$
(7)
If the sum is over *all* the degenerate Landau levels, then one finds that (5) vanishes: $`x`$ and $`y`$ do commute! But if one pretends that the world is restricted to the lowest Landau level and includes only that level (with its degeneracy) in the intermediate state sum

$$M_\mathrm{}L\mathrm{}=\underset{d^{\prime \prime }}{}0,d|x|0,d^{\prime \prime }0,d^{\prime \prime }|y|0,d^{}$$
(8)
one finds that in this truncated state space, eq. (7) becomes consistent with (4):

$$0,d|[x,y]|0,d^{}=i\frac{\mathrm{}c}{eB}0,d|0,d^{}.$$
(9)
Let me now return to the general and abstract problem of noncommuting coordinates. When confronting the noncommutativity postulate (1), it is natural to ask which (infinitesimal) coordinate transformations

$$\delta x^i=f^i(x)$$
(10)
leave (1) unchanged. The answer is that the (infinitesimal) transformation vector function $`f^i(x)`$ must be determined by a scalar $`f(x)`$ through the expression

$$f^i(x)=\theta ^{ij}_jf(x).$$
(11)
Since $`_if^i(x)=0`$, these are recognized as volume-preserving transformations. \[They do not exhaust all volume preserving transformations, except in two dimensions. In dimensions greater two, (11) defines a subgroup of volume-preserving transforms that also leave $`\theta ^{ij}`$ invariant.\]

The volume-preserving transformations form the link between noncommuting coordinates and fluid mechanics. Since the theory of fluid mechanics is not widely known outside the circle of fluid mechanicians, let me put down some relevant facts . There are two, physically equivalent descriptions of fluid motion: One is the Lagrange formulation, wherein the fluid elements are labeled, first by a discrete index $`n`$: $`𝑿_n(t)`$ is the position as a function of time of the $`n`$th fluid element. Then one passes to a continuous labeling variable $`n𝒙:𝑿_n(t)𝑿(t,𝒙)`$, and $`𝒙`$ may be taken to be the position of the fluid element at initial time $`𝑿(0,𝒙)=𝒙`$. This is a comoving description. Because labels can be arbitrarily rearranged, without affecting physical content, the continuum description is invariant against volume-preserving transformations of $`𝒙`$, and in particular, it is invariant against the specific volume-preserving transformations (11), provided the fluid coordinate $`𝑿`$ transforms as a scalar:

$$\delta _f𝑿=f^i(𝒙)\frac{}{x^i}𝑿=\theta ^{ij}_i𝑿_jf.$$
(12)
The common invariance of Lagrange fluids and of noncommuting coordinates is a strong hint of a connection between the two.

Formula (12) will take a very suggestive form when we rewrite it in terms of a bracket defined for functions of $`𝒙`$ by

$$\{𝒪_1(𝒙),𝒪_2(𝒙)\}=\theta ^{ij}_i𝒪_1(𝒙)_j𝒪_2(𝒙).$$
(13)
Note that with this bracket we have

$$\{x^i,x^j\}=\theta ^{ij}.$$
(14)
So we can think of bracket relations as classical precursors of commutators for a noncommutative field theory – the latter obtained from the former by replacing brackets by $`i`$ times commutators, à la Dirac. More specifically, we shall see that the noncommuting field theory that emerges from the Lagrange fluid is a noncommuting U(1) gauge theory.

This happens when the following steps are taken. We define the evolving portion of $`𝑿`$ by

$$X^i(t,𝒙)=x^i+\theta ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j(t,𝒙).$$
(15)
(It is assumed that $`\theta ^{ij}`$ has an inverse.) Then (12) is equivalent to the suggestive expression

$$\delta _f\widehat{A}_i=_if+\{\widehat{A}_i,f\}.$$
(16)
When the bracket is replaced by $`(i)`$ times the commutator, this is precisely the gauge transformation for a noncommuting U(1) gauge potential $`\widehat{A}_i`$. Moreover, the gauge field $`\widehat{F}_{ij}`$ emerges from the bracket of two Lagrange coordinates

$$\{X^i,X^j\}=\theta ^{ij}+\theta ^{im}\theta ^{jn}\widehat{F}_{mn}$$
(17)
$$\widehat{F}_{mn}=_m\widehat{A}_n_n\widehat{A}_m+\{\widehat{A}_m,\widehat{A}_n\}.$$
(18)
Again (18) is recognized from the analogous formula in noncommuting gauge theory.

What can one learn from the parallelism of the formalism for a Lagrange fluid and a noncommuting gauge field? One result that has been obtained addresses the question of what is a gauge field’s covariant response to a coordinate transformation. This question can be put already for commuting, non-Abelian gauge fields, where conventionally the response is given in terms of a Lie derivative $`L_f`$:

$$\delta _fx^\mu =f^\mu (x)$$
(19)
$$\delta _fA_\mu =L_fA_\mu f^\alpha _\alpha A_\mu +_\mu f^\alpha A_\alpha .$$
(20)
But this implies

$$\delta _fF_{\mu \nu }=L_fF_{\mu \nu }f^\alpha _\alpha F_{\mu \nu }+_\mu f^\alpha F_{\alpha \nu }+_\nu f^\alpha F_{\mu \alpha }$$
(21)
which is not covariant since the derivative in the first term on the right is not the covariant one. The cure in this, commuting, situation has been given some time ago : Observe that (20) may be equivalently presented as

$`\delta _fA_\mu =L_fA_\mu `$ $`=f^\alpha \left(_\alpha A_\mu _\mu A_\alpha i[A_\alpha ,A_\mu ]\right)`$ (22)
$`+f^\alpha _\mu A_\alpha i[A_\mu ,f^\alpha A_\alpha ]+_\mu f^\alpha A_\alpha `$
$`=f^\alpha F_{\alpha \mu }+D_\mu (f^\alpha A_\alpha ).`$
Thus, if the coordinate transformation generated by $`f^\alpha `$ is supplemented by a gauge transformation generated by $`f^\alpha A_\alpha `$, the result is a gauge covariant coordinate transformation

$$\delta _f^{}A_\mu =f^\alpha F_{\alpha \mu }$$
(23)
and the modified response of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ involves the gauge-covariant Lie derivative $`L_f^{}`$:

$$\delta _f^{}F_{\mu \nu }=L_f^{}F_{\mu \nu }f^\alpha D_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }+_\mu f^\alpha F_{\alpha \nu }+_\nu f^\alpha F_{\mu \alpha }.$$
(24)
In the noncommuting situation, loss of covariance in the ordinary Lie derivative is even greater, because in general the coordinate transformation functions $`f^\alpha `$ do not commute with the fields $`A_\mu ,F_{\mu \nu }`$; moreover, multiplication of $`x`$-dependent quantities is not a covariant operation. All these issues can be addressed and resolved by considering them in the fluid mechanical context, at least, for linear and volume-preserving diffeomorphisms. The analysis is technical and I refer you to the published papers . The final result for the covariant coordinate transformation on the noncommuting gauge potential $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$, generated by $`f^\alpha (X)`$, is

$$\delta _f^{}\widehat{A}_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\{f^\alpha (X),\widehat{F}_{\alpha \mu }\}+\text{reordering terms.}$$
(25)
Note that the generating function $`f^\alpha (X)`$ enters the anticommutator with covariant argument $`X`$. $`f^\alpha `$ is restricted to be either linear or volume-preserving; in the latter case there are reordering terms, whose form is explicitly determined by the fluid mechanical antecedent.

Next, I shall discuss the Seiberg-Witten map , which can be made very transparent by the fluid analogy. The Seiberg-Witten map replaces the noncommuting vector potential $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ by a nonlocal function of a commuting potential $`a_\mu `$ and of $`\theta `$; i.e., the former is viewed as a function of the latter. The relationship between the two follows from the requirement of stability against gauge transformations: a noncommuting gauge transformation of the noncommuting gauge potential should be equivalent to a commuting gauge transformation on the commuting vector potential on which the noncommuting potential depends. Formally:

$$\widehat{A}_\mu (a+\mathrm{d}\lambda )=\widehat{A}_\mu ^{G(a,\lambda )}(a).$$
(26)
Here $`\lambda `$ is the Abelian gauge transformation function that transforms the Abelian, commuting gauge potential $`a_\mu `$; $`G(a,\lambda )`$ is the noncommuting gauge function that transforms the noncommuting gauge potential $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$. $`G`$ depends on $`a_\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$, and one can show that it is a noncommuting 1-cocycle .

Moreover, when the action and the equations of motion of the noncommuting theory are transformed into commuting variables, the dynamical content is preserved: the physics described by noncommuting variables is equivalently described by the commuting variables, albeit in a complicated, nonlocal fashion.

The Seiberg-Witten map is intrinsically interesting in the unexpected equivalence that it establishes. Moreover, it is practically useful for the following reason. It is difficult to extract gauge invariant content from a noncommuting gauge theory because quantities constructed locally from $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ are not gauge invariant; to achieve gauge invariance, one must integrate over space-time. Yet for physical analysis one wants local quantities: profiles of propagating waves, etc. Such local quantities can be extracted in a gauge invariant manner from the physically equivalent, Seiberg-Witten mapped commutative gauge theory .

Let me now use the fluid analogy to obtain an explicit formula for the Seiberg-Witten map; actually, we shall present the inverse map, expressing commuting fields in terms of noncommuting ones. For our development we must refer to a second, alternative formulation of fluid mechanics, the so-called Euler formulation. This is not a comoving description, rather the experimenter observes the fluid density $`\rho `$ and velocity $`𝒗`$ at given point in space-time $`(t,𝒓)`$. The current is $`\rho 𝒗`$ and satisfies with $`\rho `$ a continuity equation

$$\frac{}{t}\rho +\mathbf{}(\rho 𝒗)=0.$$
(27)
The theory is completed by positing an “Euler equation” for $`𝒗/t`$, but we shall not need this here.

Of interest to us is the relation between the Lagrange description and the Euler description. This is given by the formulas

$$\rho (t,𝒓)=\mathrm{d}x\delta \left(𝑿(t,𝒙)𝒓\right)$$
(28a)
$$\rho (t,𝒓)𝒗(t,𝒓)𝒋(t,𝒓)=\mathrm{d}x\frac{}{t}𝑿(t,𝒙)\delta \left(𝑿(t,𝒙)𝒓\right).$$
(28b)
(The integration and the $`\delta `$-function carry the dimensionality of space.) Observe that the continuity equation (27) follows from the definitions (28), which can be summarized by

$$j^\mu (t,𝒓)=\mathrm{d}r\frac{}{t}X^\mu \delta (𝑿𝒓)$$
(29)
$$X^0=t$$

$$_\mu j^\mu =0.$$
(30)
The (inverse) Seiberg-Witten map, for the case of two spatial dimensions, can be extracted from (29), (30. (The argument can be generalized to arbitrary dimensions, but there it is more complicated .) Observe that the right side of (29) depends on $`\widehat{𝑨}`$ through $`𝑿`$ \[see (15)\]. It is easy to check that the integral (29) is invariant under the transformations (12); equivalently viewed as a function of $`\widehat{𝑨}`$, it is gauge invariant \[see (16)\]. Owing to the conservation of $`j^\mu `$ \[see (30)\], its dual $`\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \mu }j^\mu `$ satisfies a conventional, commuting Bianchi identity, and therefore can be written as the curl of an Abelian vector potential $`a_\alpha `$, apart from proportionality and additive constants:

$$\begin{array}{c}_\alpha a_\beta _\beta a_\alpha +\text{constant}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \mu }\mathrm{d}x\frac{}{t}X^\mu \delta (𝑿𝒓)\\ _ia_j_ja_i+\text{constant}\epsilon _{ij}\mathrm{d}x\delta (𝑿𝒓)=\epsilon _{ij}\rho .\end{array}$$
(31)
This is the (inverse) Seiberg-Witten map, relating the $`𝒂`$ to $`\widehat{𝑨}`$.

Thus far operator noncommutativity has not been taken into account. To do so, we must provide an ordering for the $`\delta `$-function depending on the operator $`X^i=x^i+\theta ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j`$. This we do with the Weyl prescription by Fourier transforming. The final operator version of equation (31), restricted to the two-dimensional spatial components, reads

$$\mathrm{d}re^{i𝒌𝒓}(_ia_j_ja_i)=\epsilon ^{ij}\left[\mathrm{d}xe^{i𝒌𝑿}(2\pi )^2\delta (𝒌)\right]$$
(32)
where the $`x`$ integral over an operator ($`𝑿`$) dependent integrand is interpreted as a trace. Here the additive and proportionality constants are determined by requiring agreement for weak noncommuting fields.

Formula (32) has previously appeared in a direct analysis of the Seiberg-Witten relation . Now we recognize it as the (quantized) expression relating Lagrange and Euler formulations for fluid mechanics.


text:
# Doubly Helical Coronal Ejections from Dynamos and their Role in Sustaining the Solar Cycle

## 1 Introduction

The helical magnetic dynamo is the basis for a promising class of mechanisms to explain large scale magnetic fields observed in stars and galaxies Parker (1974); Moffatt (1978); Krause & Rädler (1980); Parker (1993). The basic “$`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$” dynamo is the specific version most relevant for strongly sheared rotators (Fig. 1). Interface $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$ dynamos (Parker 1993; Charbonneau & MacGregor 1996; Markiel & Thomas 1999) include the fact that, unlike for galaxies and disks, the dominant shear layer is beneath the dominant turbulent region.

Focusing on the simplest “$`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$” picture (Fig. 1), consider an initially weak toroidal (=encircling the rotation axis) loop of the magnetic field embedded in the astrophysical plasma rotator. The magnetic field is coupled to the plasma so the field is carried or stretched in response the plasma motion. Now imagine, as in the sun, that there is an outwardly decreasing density gradient. Consider the motion of a rising turbulent swirl of gas, threaded by a magnetic field. Conservation of angular momentum dictates that the swirl will writhe oppositely to the underlying rotation of the system. This means that the initially toroidal field threading the swirl gains a radial component. Statistically, rising swirls in the northern (southern) hemisphere writhe the field clockwise (counterclockwise). This is the “$`\alpha `$” effect and is shown by the writhed loop of Fig. 1a for the northern hemisphere. Differential rotation at the base of the loop shears the radial field (the “$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$”-effect). The bottom part of the loop amplifies the initial toroidal seed loop as shown in Fig. 1b, whilst the top part of the loop diffused away (the “$`\beta `$” effect). In doing so, magnetic flux is amplified: the flux penetrating the tilted rectangular surface is zero in Fig. 1a, but finite in Fig. 1b.

This process is represented mathematically by averaging the magnetic induction equation over a local volume and breaking all quantities (velocity $`𝐔`$, magnetic field $`𝐁`$ in Alfvén velocity units, and normalized current density $`𝐉\times 𝐁`$) into their mean (indicated by an overbar) and fluctuating (indicated by lower case) components. The result is Moffatt (1978): $`_t\overline{𝐁}=\times (\alpha \overline{𝐁}+\overline{𝐔}\times \overline{𝐁})+(\beta +\lambda )^2\overline{𝐁},`$ where $`\lambda `$ is the microphysical diffusivity. The $`\overline{𝐔}`$ term incorporates the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-effect, the $`\beta `$ term incorporates the turbulent diffusion (assuming constant $`\beta `$) and the first term on the right incorporates the $`\alpha `$-effect. In the kinematic theory Moffatt (1978) $`\alpha `$ is given by $`\alpha =\alpha _0=(\tau /3)\overline{𝐮\times 𝐮}`$. Here $`\tau `$ is a turbulent damping time and $`\overline{𝐮\times 𝐮}`$ is the kinetic helicity, which dictates the $`\alpha `$-effect described physically above. Usually, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are prescribed as input parameters.

A long standing problem has been the absence of properly incorporating the (time-dependent) backreaction from the growing magnetic field on the driving turbulent motions. This stimulated criticisms of mean-field dynamos Piddington (1981); Cattaneo & Hughes (1996) and motivated interface dynamo models Parker (1993). But the backreaction is now much better understood. Steady-state studies of $`\alpha `$-quenching Cattaneo & Hughes (1996) apply only at fully saturated dynamo regimes, not at early times, when the backreaction is just beginning to be important. There the growth is fast, and most relevant for astrophysics. Demonstrating this requires including the time-evolution of the turbulent velocity, subject to magnetic forces. Carrying this out formally Blackman & Field (2002) and using a closure in which triple correlations act as a damping term, amounts to replacing $`\alpha =\alpha _0`$ by $`\alpha =\alpha _0+(\tau /3)\overline{𝐛\times 𝐛}`$, where the second term is the backreaction. It arises from $`(\times 𝐛)\times \overline{𝐁}`$, the force associated with the action of the small scale current and the large scale field. This residual form of $`\alpha `$ has long been thought Pouquet et al. (1976) to be the real driver of the helical dynamo and has been employed in attempts to understand its quenching Zeldovich et al. (1983); Kleeorin & Ruzmaikin (2002); Field & Blackman (2002); Blackman & Brandenburg (2002) From the form of $`\alpha `$, it is evident that a large current helicity can offset the kinetic helicity and quench the dynamo Field & Blackman (2002); Blackman & Brandenburg (2002).

In section 2 we summarize the successful backreaction theory, and show how it predicts ejection of twist and writhe of opposite sign. In section 3 we give a new pictorial of dynamo action that includes magnetic helicity conservation, and discuss a simulation of a rising flux ribbon. Observational implications are discussed in section 4, and we conclude in section 5.

## 2 Role of Magnetic Helicity Conservation

The principle of magnetic helicity conservation determines the strength of the current helicity correction term in $`\alpha `$ discussed in the previous section. The magnetic helicity, defined by a volume integral $`H𝐀𝐁dV𝐀𝐁V`$, satisfies Woltjer (1958); Berger & Field (1984)

$$_tH=2\lambda C\text{surface terms},$$
(1)
where the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ is related to $`𝐀`$ by $`𝐁=\mathbf{}\times 𝐀`$, and the current helicity $`C`$ is defined by $`C𝐉𝐁V`$. Without the surface terms (which represent flow through boundaries) $`H`$ is well conserved: for $`\lambda 0`$ the $`\lambda `$ term in (1) converges to zero Berger (1984).

The magnetic helicity is a measure of “linkage” and “twist” of field lines Berger & Field (1984). Equation (1) then means that in a closed system, the total amount of twist and writhe is conserved. If the large scale field is writhed one way, then the small scale field must twist oppositely. In the sun, differential rotation and cyclonic convection (the $`\alpha `$-effect) are both sources of helicity, Berger & Ruzmaikin (2000); DeVore (2000) but here we focus on the $`\alpha `$-effect, which generates large scale poloidal structures.

The $`\alpha `$-effect does not produce a net magnetic twist but produces simultaneously positive and negative magnetic twists on different scales Seehafer (1996); Ji (1999); Blackman & Field (2000); Brandenburg (2001); Field & Blackman (2002). The importance of this scale segregation of $`H`$ for the backreaction term in $`\alpha `$ is easily seen in the two-scale approach. Here we write $`H=H_1+H_2`$, where $`H_1=\overline{𝐀}\overline{𝐁}V`$ and $`H_2=\overline{𝐚𝐛}V`$ correspond to the volume integrated large and small scale contributions respectively. For $`C`$, we then have $`C=\overline{𝐉}\overline{𝐁}V+\overline{𝐣𝐛}V=k_1^2H_1+k_2^2H_2`$, where $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ represent the wavenumbers (inverse gradients) associated with the large and small scales respectively, and the second equality follows rigorously for a closed system. The current helicity backreaction in $`\alpha `$ is thus $`k_2^2H_2`$.

We now relate $`\overline{𝐁}`$ to $`H_1`$. We define $`ϵ_1`$ such that the large scale magnetic energy $`\overline{𝐁}^2V=H_1k_1/ϵ_1`$ and where $`0<|ϵ_1|1`$, where $`|ϵ_1|=1`$ only for a force-free helical large scale field (i.e. for which $`\overline{𝐉}||\overline{𝐁}`$ so that the force $`\overline{𝐉}\times \overline{𝐁}=0`$). In the northern hemisphere $`ϵ_1>0`$. By writing conservation equations analogous to (1) for $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ respectively, we obtain

$$_tH_1=2S2\lambda k_1^2H_1\text{surface terms}$$
(2)
and

$$_tH_2=2S2\lambda k_2^2H_2\text{surface terms}$$
(3)
where we have used $`S=(\alpha k_1/ϵ_1\beta k_1^2)H_1`$ and $`\alpha =(\alpha _0+\frac{1}{3}\tau k_2^2H_2/V)`$. The case without surface terms and with $`ϵ_1=1`$ represents a dynamo without differential rotation. The solution Field & Blackman (2002); Blackman & Brandenburg (2002); Blackman & Field (2002) shows that for initially small $`H_2`$ but large $`\alpha _0`$, $`H_1`$ grows. Growth of $`H_1`$ implies the oppositely signed growth of $`H_2`$. This $`H_2`$ backreacts on $`\alpha _0`$, ultimately quenching $`\alpha `$ and the dynamo.

Since the sun is a differentially rotating open system, differential rotation and surface terms are important. The former forces $`|ϵ_1|<1`$, and $`ϵ_1`$ a function of time to reflect the solar cycle. The presence of surface terms generally requires the use of the relative magnetic helicity Berger & Field (1984) but to capture the key points, we can instead treat them as diffusion terms Brandenburg, Dobler, & Subramanian (2002). We combine the $`\lambda `$ and surface terms of both (2) and (3) into the forms $`\nu _1k_1^2H_1`$ and $`\nu _2k_2^2H_2`$ respectively. We consider the volume average $``$ to be taken over one hemisphere and assume that surface terms represent diffusion into the corona. On time scales much shorter than the 11 year solar half cycle, the left sides of (2) and (3) are negligible and the system is in a relatively steady state. We then see that the boundary terms are equal and opposite Blackman & Field (2000). Here this implies $`\nu _1k_1^2|H_1|\nu _2k_2^2|H_2|`$. Since the boundary diffusion terms represent a flux of (relative) magnetic helicity to the exterior, these quantities are connected to measurable observables. We therefore predict that the shedding rates of small scale twist and large scale writhe from the $`\alpha `$ effect are equal in magnitude and opposite in sign.

## 3 Revising the “Textbook” Dynamo Pictorial

The helicity conservation, shedding, and magnetic backreaction are represented simply in Figs. 1c–e for the northern hemisphere. The key is representing the field by a two-dimensional ribbon instead of a one-dimensional line.

Comparing Figs. 1a & b ($`H`$ conservation not included) with Figs. 1c & d ($`H`$ conservation included) we see that in the latter, as the $`\alpha `$-effect produces its large scale writhe (the loop corresponding to gradient scale $`k_1^1`$) it also twists the ribbon (corresponding to gradient scale $`k_2^1`$). The large-scale writhe is right handed, but the twist along the ribbon is left-handed and so the total $`H`$ is conserved. This is the simplest generalization of the picture in Fig. 1a, to include helicity conservation. The ribbon should be thought of as a mean field, averaged over smaller fluctuations, and so the actual field need not be so smooth.

The top view is shown in Fig. 1e for comparison to observations. In the northern hemisphere we expect an N shaped (or reverse-S) sigmoid prominence and in the southern hemisphere we would expect an S shaped sigmoid. In Fig. 1e we also show the backreaction force corresponding to the small-scale magnetic twist along the ribbon: it fights against writhing or bending the ribbon. Eventually this twisting would suppress the $`\alpha `$ effect (and thus statistically, its hemispheric average $`\alpha `$ entering (2) and (3)), which thrives on being able to writhe the ribbon. In the sun, such sigmoid structures precede CMEs Pevtsov & Canfield (1999) which on time scales of order days or weeks dissipate both the writhe and twist. In doing so, they help alleviate the backreaction on the $`\alpha `$ effect, and allow a net amplification of magnetic flux inside the sun as shown in Fig. 1c. Some loops produced by the dynamo may not escape, implying that some of the simultaneous diffusion of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ is hidden in the solar interior. But even so, the helicity fluxes of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ from the loops which do escape, should still be equal and opposite. Getting rid of $`H_2`$ simultaneously with $`H_1`$, either internally or externally, is what alleviates the backreaction, external removal by means of CMEs is one important aspect of how this occurs. Removal of $`H_2`$ implies that by solar minimum the $`\alpha `$ effect is again driven by $`\alpha _0`$, allowing the cycle to repeat.

We have performed a numerical simulation to measure the magnetic helicity spectrum of a buoyant magnetic flux ribbon in the presence of rotation which confirms the basic ideas that twist and writhe emerge with opposite sign. Though rising flux tube simulations have been carried out in the past Abbett et al. (2000) they have not focused on the magnetic helicity spectrum. We started with a toroidal, horizontal flux tube and a vertically dependent sinusoidal modulation of the entropy along the ribbon. This destabilizes the ribbon to buckle and rise in one portion. The boundaries were sufficiently far away to use a Fourier transform to obtain power spectra (Fig. 2). After $`6`$ free-fall times the spectrum shows mostly positive magnetic helicity together with a gradually increasing higher wavenumber component of negative spectral helicity density. The latter is the anticipated contribution from the twist along the ribbon.

## 4 Observational Implications

In comparing the above results with observations note that the magnetic helicity is a volume integral, so the ribbon on which the twisted prominence arises may have a hidden twist elsewhere inside the sun. This subtlety is surmounted by use of the relative magnetic helicity Berger & Field (1984) which allows a quantifiable interpretation of locally twisted structures. Observations typically measure the current helicity density, $`𝐉𝐁`$, within a single structure, from which hemispheric averages can be computed, or the surface-integrated relative magnetic helicity fluxes.

Existing observations seem to be consistent with our basic picture. First, the observed N sigmoids outnumber S sigmoids by a ratio of 6:1 in the northern hemisphere with the expected reverse relation in the southern hemisphere Rust & Kumar (1996). Studies of sigmoids such as Gibson et al. 2002 and refs. therein) do seem to show qualitative agreement with our picture. Figure 2a of Gibson et al. (2002) shows a TRACE image of an N-sigmoid (right-handed writhe) with left-handed twisted filament of the active region NOAA AR 8668, typical of the northern hemisphere just as we predict. (As our theory is statistical in nature, it is also not surprising that occasionally N sigmoids such as AR8100 (as opposed to S sigmoids) appear in the southern hemisphere Green et al. (2002). But even for AR8100, the writhe is opposite in sign to the twist along the prominence.) Second, recent work confirms a basic hemispheric dependence of the sign of small scale current helicity, corresponding to the twist along the ribbon in Fig. 1c. Measurements of small scale current helicity densities and surface-integrated relative magnetic helicity fluxes Chae (2000); Berger & Ruzmaikin (2000) as well as fits to line of sight magnetograms of solar active regions Seehafer (1990); Rust & Kumar (1996); Bao et al. (1999); Pevtsov & Latushko (2000) show primarily negative values in the north and positive in the south. These studies measure the sign of the twist along the ribbon not the writhe of the ribbon itself. We therefore agree that signs of current helicity measured by these line of sight magnetograms are characteristic of the small scale rather than the large scale field Rädler & Seehafer (1990). Twist is expected at the apex of a writhed prominence since the density is lowest (Parker 1974; Choudhuri 2002).

In sum, Fig. 1e, showing an N sigmoid is consistent with the dominant structures of the northern hemisphere. Large scale positive writhe dominates in the north, and large scale negative writhe dominates in the south. Small scale twists along the prominences are predominately negative in the north and positive in the south, so as to produce a very small net helicity in each hemisphere. This is complementary to Demoulin et. al (2002) where oppositely signed twist an writhe from shear were shown to be able to largely cancel, producing a small total magnetic helicity. Here we focused on the $`\alpha `$-effect which has the same effect. Finally note that our $`\overline{𝐁}`$ represents a local averaging over the small scale twist so that $`\overline{𝐁}`$ has only the writhe (Fig. 1a is thus applicable to $`\overline{𝐁}`$, whereas Fib 1c shows both $`\overline{𝐁}`$ and $`𝐛`$). On even larger scales, the globally averaged field computed by an azimuthal average $`\overline{𝐁}_\varphi `$, is weaker than $`\overline{𝐁}_\varphi `$ in a local structure, due to the small filling fraction.

## 5 Conclusion

We have suggested that a new understanding of how helical dynamos conserve magnetic helicity may help resolve several mysteries of the solar magnetic field. We have shown that large and small scale helicities of approximately equal magnitude should be ejected into the solar corona as part of the sustenance of the solar cycle. The large scale helicity corresponds to the writhe of a prominence, whilst the small scale helicity corresponds to the twist along the prominence. We emphasize the importance of simultaneously detecting large and small scale contributions to the losses of helical magnetic fields in pre-CME sigmoid structures at the solar surface. The observations seem to be roughly consistent with our simple picture at present but more studies and detailed modeling will be needed to test these ideas. Our Fig. 1 illustrates the basic concepts through a new pictorial representation of the mean field dynamo that includes magnetic helicity conservation and the backreaction. The implications are also relevant for large scale dynamos in other stars and disks in astrophysics.

EB acknowledges DOE grant DE-FG02-00ER54600, and the Dept. of Astrophys. Sciences at Princeton for hospitality during a sabbatical. We acknowledge PPARC supported supercomputers at Leicester and St Andrews, and the Odense Beowulf cluster is acknowledged.