text:
# On associative conformal algebras of linear growth II

## Introduction

Conformal algebras were introduced in \[K1\] to provide algebraic formalism for the singular part of the OPE in the theory of vertex algebras. Since then they turned out to be a useful instrument in the study of vertex algebras (see, e.g., \[Ro\]), infinite-dimensional Lie superalgebras \[K3\], and in a generalized form, hamiltonian structures in integrable systems \[BDK\].

###### Definition 0.1.

A conformal algebra $`C`$ is a $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$-module endowed with bilinear operations $`n:CCC`$, $`n_0`$ such that for any $`a,bC`$

1. (locality axiom) $`anb=0`$ for $`n>N(a,b)`$

($`N(a,b)`$ is called the locality degree of $`a`$ and $`b`$);
2. $`(anb)=(a)nb+an(b)`$;
3. $`(a)nb=nan1b`$.

The number $`n`$ in $``$$`n`$ is called the order of multiplication $``$$`n`$ .

In this paper $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ is an algebraically closed field of zero characteristic. When clear, we refer to objects that are finite as modules over $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$ simply as finite.

One of the basic questions in the study of conformal algebras is the theory of representations of finite modules. Besides being of independent interest, it is also related to the study of representations of algebras of differential operators \[BKL2, Ze2\]. Thus ones of the most important associative conformal algebras are the algebras $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ which are the analogues of matrix algebras in “ordinary” theory. From an algebraic point of view, these are exactly simple unital associative conformal algebras of linear growth \[Re1\]. The next logical step is to describe all unital associative conformal algebras of linear growth. This paper contains such description.

###### Theorem 0.2.

Let $`C`$ be a unital conformal algebra of linear growth. Then

* if $`C`$ is prime, then $`C`$ is isomorphic to either $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ or a subalgebra of a current algebra over a prime algebra of linear growth;
* if $`C`$ is semisimple, then $`C`$ embeds into a direct sum of $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ and a current algebra over a semiprime algebra of zero or linear growth;
* if $`C`$ contains a nilpotent ideal, then its coefficient algebra is not semiprime.

The paper is virtually self-contained. The first section contains all necessary definitions and statements and basic examples of associative conformal algebras.

The second section is devoted to classification results and contains the proof of Theorem 0.2 (see Theorems 2.12, 2.16, and Lemma 2.13). We deal with prime conformal algebras first. The proofs follow along the lines of those in \[Re1\]; however, since we work in a more general setup, we need to repeat some of the steps for consistency of presentation.

The third section is concerned with subalgebras of prime conformal algebras; in particular we exhibit a non-current unital subalgebra of a current algebra.

Acknowledgements: the results of this paper first appeared in my thesis. I am grateful to my advisor Efim Zelmanov. The text was typeset with the use of conformal.sty package by Michael Roitman.

## 1. Preliminaries

A detailed exposition of conformal algebras can be found in \[K1, Chapter 2\] and in the survey papers \[K2, Ze1\]. The presentation here is guided by our needs in the next sections and is in no way complete. We also present several results on unital conformal algebras from \[Re1, Re2\].

Standard algebraic terminology easily carries over to the conformal case, thus an ideal $`I`$ of a conformal algebra $`C`$ is a conformal subalgebra such that $`CnII,InCI`$ for all $`n`$, a nilpotent ideal $`I`$ is such that the product of a fixed number of copies of $`I`$ (with multiplications of any order) is zero, a simple conformal algebra contains no ideals, a semisimple one contains no nilpotent ideals, etc.

### 1.1. Basic examples

Let $`A`$ be any algebra. We call elements of the extension $`A[[z,z^1]]`$ formal distributions on $`A`$. Let $`f(z)=_nf(n)z^{n1}`$ and $`g(z)=_ng(n)z^{n1}`$ be formal distributions on $`A`$. Define the product $``$$`m`$ , $`m_0`$, of $`f(z)`$ and $`g(z)`$ as

$$f(z)mg(z)=\mathrm{Res}_{w=0}f(w)g(z)(wz)^n$$

(by $`\mathrm{Res}_{w=0}h(w,z)`$ we mean a formal distribution in $`z`$ that is a coefficient at $`w^1`$ in $`h(w,z)`$ viewed as a formal distribution on the set $`A[[z,z^1]]`$). Two formal distributions are called local if only a finite number of such products are non-zero.

A set of mutually local formal distributions that is closed with respect to products $``$$`m`$ and the operator $`/z`$ is a conformal algebra. Clearly, as the application of $`/z`$ preserves locality (though changes it degree), the $`\mathrm{𝕜}[/z]`$-span of a set of mutually local distributions closed with respect to products $``$$`m`$ forms a conformal algebra. Moreover, we have

###### Lemma 1.1 (Dong’s lemma \[Li, K1\]).

Let $`f,g`$, and $`h`$ be pairwise mutually local formal distributions over either a Lie or associative algebra. Then for any $`n0`$, $`fng`$ and $`h`$ are again pairwise mutually local.

Thus, mutually local formal distributions over a Lie or associative algebra generate a conformal algebra.

It can be shown \[K1\] (see also \[Bo\] for a vertex algebra version of the same construction) that every conformal algebra $`C`$ embeds into formal distributions on some algebra. Moreover, there exists a universal algebra $`\mathrm{Coeff}C`$ (called the coefficient algebra of $`C`$) such that for any $`A`$, $`CA[[z,z^1]]`$, there exists a unique homomorphism $`\mathrm{Coeff}CA`$ such that the diagram

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Coeff}C[[z,z^1]]\stackrel{}{}A[[z,z^1]]\\ \\ C\end{array}$$

commutes. In particular, $`\mathrm{Coeff}C`$ “distinguishes” coefficients $`f(n)`$ of every element of $`fC`$ (or rather the corresponding formal distribution $`f(z)\mathrm{Coeff}`$). The subalgebra of coeffiecients at $`z^1`$ is denoted $`(\mathrm{Coeff}C)_0`$.

A conformal algebra is called associative (respectively, Lie) if the corresponding coefficient algebra is associative (respectively, Lie). For every identity satisfied by $`\mathrm{Coeff}C`$, one can write a corresponding conformal identity satisfied by $`C`$; however, for this exposition we do not require the explicit forms of conformal associativity, Jacobi identity, etc.

###### Example 1.2.

Let $`B`$ be any algebra. For every $`bB`$ consider the following formal distribution on $`B[t,t^1]`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{b}=\underset{n}{}bt^nz^{n1}.$$

Clearly for any $`b_1,b_2B`$, the formal distributions $`\stackrel{~}{b_1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b_2}`$ are mutually local: $`\stackrel{~}{b_1}m\stackrel{~}{b_2}=\delta _{0,m}\stackrel{~}{b_1b_2}`$. Thus by Dong’s Lemma 1.1, $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ generate a conformal algebra. It is called the current algebra over $`B`$ and is denoted $`\mathrm{Cur}B`$.

Observe that the conformal algebra generated by formal distributions $`bz^{n1}`$ on $`B`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Cur}B`$. However, for this conformal algebra $`B`$ is not a coefficient algebra $`\mathrm{Coeff}\mathrm{Cur}B`$ , whereas $`B[t,t^1]`$ is.

###### Example 1.3.

Denote by $`W`$ the Weyl algebra $`\mathrm{𝕜}x,t|xttx=1`$ and by $`W_t`$ its localization at $`t`$. We define the conformal algebra $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ as an algebra of formal distributions on $`W_t`$ generated by distributions $`L_A^k=Ax^kt^nz^{n1},k0,A\mathrm{End}_n(\mathrm{𝕜})`$.

In particular, $`\mathrm{Cend}_1`$ is generated by elements $`L^k=x^kt^nz^{n1}`$ for $`k=0,1`$. Their non-zero products are

$$\begin{array}{cc}& L^00L^0=L^0,L^00L^1=L^10L^0=L,\hfill \\ & L^01L^1=L^11L^0=L^0,\hfill \\ & L^10L^1=L^2,L^11L^1=L^1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.1)
It follows that $`\mathrm{Cend}_1`$ (and, as a consequence, $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ for any $`n`$) is not finite over $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$.

Observe also that $`L^0`$ generates a subalgebra isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{𝕜}`$ and that, in a broad sense, $`L^0`$ acts as (left) identity. This will be used later.

In the theory of representations of conformal algebras $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ plays the role $`\mathrm{End}_n(\mathrm{𝕜})`$ in ordinary theory, i.e., $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ is the conformal algebra of conformal linear maps on $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]^n`$.

###### Example 1.4.

Let $`B`$ be an associative algebra with a locally nilpotent derivative $`\delta `$. For every $`bB`$ consider the following formal distribution in $`B[t,t^1;\delta ][[z,z^1]]`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{b}=\underset{n}{}bt^nz^{n1}$$

(here $`B[t,t^1;\delta ]`$ is the Ore extension of $`B`$ localized at $`t`$, i.e., for any $`bB`$, $`bttb=\delta (b)`$). Such formal distributions are mutually local with each other, namely

$$\stackrel{~}{b_1}m\stackrel{~}{b_2}=(1)^m\stackrel{~}{b_1\delta ^m(b_2)},b_1,b_2B$$
(1.2)
and locality follows from nilpotence of $`\delta `$.

The family of formal distributions $`\{\stackrel{~}{b}|bB\}`$ spans the conformal algebra called the differential conformal algebra $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$. Obviosuly, $`(\mathrm{Coeff}\mathrm{Diff}B)_0=B`$.

Observe that for a trivial $`\delta `$, $`\mathrm{Diff}B=\mathrm{Cur}B`$. Also, $`\mathrm{Cend}_n=\mathrm{Diff}\mathrm{𝕜}[x]`$ with the standard derivation.

It was shown in \[Re2\] that $`B`$ and $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$ have equivalent categories of representations. The lattice of ideals of $`B`$ is isomorphic to the lattice of $`\delta `$-stable ideals of $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$. Namely, to a $`\delta `$-stable ideal $`I`$ of $`B`$ there corresponds the ideal $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ of $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$ spanned by $`\{\stackrel{~}{b}|bI\}`$. Conversely, to an ideal $`J`$ of $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$ there corresponds the ideal $`\overline{J}=\{b|\stackrel{~}{b}J\}`$ of $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{J}}=J`$, $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{I}}=I`$.

As a corollary we have the following

###### Lemma 1.5.

$`\mathrm{Diff}A`$ is simple if and only if $`A`$ is differentiably simple.

### 1.2. Unital conformal algebras

The study of ordinary associative algebras begins with the study of unital ones, i.e. those containing $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$. By analogy, in the conformal case one should start by considering associative conformal algebras that contain a subalgebra of rank $`1`$ acting faithfully in some sense.

It can be shown that $`\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{𝕜}`$ is the unique associative conformal algebra with non-zero multiplication that is free of rank $`1`$. Moreover, it can be shown that every module $`M`$ over $`\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{𝕜}`$ splits as $`M=M_0M_1`$, where $`\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{𝕜}nM_0=0`$ for every $`n`$ and every element of $`M_1`$ is fixed by the action of $`e0`$ for any generator $`e`$ of $`\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{𝕜}`$ \[Re2\]. This motivates the following definition:

###### Definition 1.6.

An associative conformal algebra $`C`$ is unital if $`\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{𝕜}`$ embeds into $`C`$ and for the action of the image of this embedding, $`C=C_1`$.

A generator of $`\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{𝕜}C`$ is called a conformal identity and is denoted $`e`$. Observe that a conformal identity is not unique (see Lemma 2.8).

Unlike in the ordinary case, it is not clear how one can “adjoin identity ” to a torsion-free conformal algebra (a unital conformal algebra is automatically torsion-free). However, a differential conformal algebra $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$ always embeds into a unital conformal algebra: for this one needs only to adjoin identity to $`B`$. Thus we will always assume below that a differential conformal algebra is unital. Unless stated otherwise, we will also assume that $`e=\stackrel{~}{1}`$.

Modulo a technical condition, the converse of the above observation is also true. For a conformal algebra $`C`$ denote by $`L(C)`$ the set $`\{a|anb=0bC,n_0\}`$.

###### Theorem 1.7.

Let $`C`$ be a unital conformal algebra such that $`L(C)=0`$. Then $`C=\mathrm{Diff}B`$ for a unital associative algebra $`B`$.

In particular, a semisimple unital conformal algebra is always differential.

### 1.3. Gelfand-Kirillov dimension

he Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of a finitely generated algebra (of any variety) $`A`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{GKdim}A=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}dim(V^1+V^2+\mathrm{}+V^r)}{\mathrm{log}r},$$

where $`V`$ is a generating subspace of $`A`$ \[KL\]. This definition easily carries over to the conformal case.

Let $`C`$ be a finitely generated conformal algebra (over any variety). Define $`C_r`$ to be the $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$-span of products of at most $`r`$ generators with any positioning of brackets and multiplications of any order.

Since the powers of $``$ can be gathered at the beginning of conformal monomials (with a probable change in the orders of multiplications), it is clear that $`_rC_r=C`$. For a given ordered collection of generators and a given positioning of brackets, the number of non-zero monomials is finite because of locality. Therefore, $`\mathrm{rk}C_r`$ is finite.

###### Definition 1.8.

Let $`C`$ be a finitely generated conformal algebra. Then

$$\mathrm{GKdim}C=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{rk}_{\mathrm{𝕜}[]}C_r}{\mathrm{log}r}.$$
(1.3)
Conformal Gelfand-Kirillov dimension has the same basic properties as the ordinary one: it is invariant of the choice of the generating set, $`\mathrm{GKdim}`$ of a subalgebra or a quotient algebra does not exceed that of the algebra, etc.

For a conformal associative algebra $`C`$, $`\mathrm{GKdim}\mathrm{Coeff}C\mathrm{GKdim}C+1`$ \[Re1, Theorem 2.2\] (the inequality is sometimes strict, e.g., when $`C`$ is torsion). One can show directly that for a differential conformal algebra, $`\mathrm{GKdim}\mathrm{Diff}B=\mathrm{GKdim}B`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{GKdim}\mathrm{Cend}_n=1`$. The main result of \[Re1\] is the following

###### Theorem 1.9.

Let $`C`$ be a simple unital associative conformal algebra of Gelfand-Kirillov dimension $`1`$. Then $`C`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ for some $`n`$.

In the next section we present the generalization of this theorem.

## 2. Semisimple conformal algebras of linear growth

In this section we generalize Theorem 1.9 and achieve the complete generalization of unital conformal algebras of $`\mathrm{GKdim}`$ $`1`$.

As follows from Lemma 1.5, $`C`$ is simple if and only if $`\mathrm{Coeff}C`$ is differentiably simple. Following this correspondence, we define a larger subclass of unital associative conformal algebras: we call $`C`$ prime whenever $`(\mathrm{Coeff}C)_0`$ is prime (since being prime is, in some sense, equivalent to being differentiably prime). Also, recall that $`C`$ is semisimple if it does not contain non-zero nilpotent ideals. The latter condition is equivalent to having a semiprime coefficient algebra (see Lemma 2.13).

### 2.1. Classification of associative algebras of linear growth

The following theorem was proven in \[SSW\] (see also \[SW\]):

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`A`$ be a finitely generated algebra of linear growth. Then

(i) The nilradical N(A) of $`A`$ is nilpotent.

(ii) If $`A`$ is semiprime (i.e. if $`N(A)=0`$), then it is a finite module over its center $`Z(A)`$ which is also finitely generated.

Several facts from the original proof of this theorem will be used below as well.

### 2.2. Prime unital conformal algebras of linear growth

We are going to classify prime unital conformal algebras of linear growth. It is well known that a differentiably simple algebra is necessarily prime (see, e.g. \[Po\]), hence Theorem 1.9 also follows from such a classification.

Let $`A`$ be a finitely generated prime algebra of linear growth. Then by Theorem 2.1, it is a finite module over its center $`Z(A)`$. Moreover, it is easy to see that for any derivation $`\delta `$ of $`A`$, $`Z(A)`$ is $`\delta `$-stable: for $`aZ(A)`$, $`0=\delta ([a,b])=[\delta (a),b]+[a,\delta (b)]=[\delta (a),b]`$ for any $`bA`$.

Thus, we begin by considering the case of a prime commutative finitely generated algebra.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`A`$ be a finitely generated prime commutative algebra with a locally nilpotent derivation $`\delta `$, $`\mathrm{GKdim}A=1`$. Then either $`A\mathrm{𝕜}[x],\delta =/x`$ or $`\delta =0`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`A`$ is prime, a non-zero algebraic element of $`A`$ must be invertible, hence all its algebraic elements lie in $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$.

Consider two sets of transcendental elements of $`A`$:

$`S_1`$ $`=\{xA|\text{all non-zero }\delta ^n(x)\text{ are transcendental}\},`$
$`S_2`$ $`=\{xA|\text{for some }n\text{}\delta ^n(x)0\text{ and is algebraic}\}.`$
Clearly, both sets are $`\delta `$-stable. Assume both are non-empty. Without loss of generality we can pick $`x_1S_1`$, $`x_2S_2`$ such that $`\delta (x_1)=0`$, $`\delta (x_2)=1`$. As $`\mathrm{tr}.\mathrm{deg}A=1`$, $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are algebraically dependent. In any statement of dependence of $`x_2`$ over $`\mathrm{𝕜}[x_1]`$ the degree in $`x_2`$ can be lowered by application of $`\delta `$. Therefore, one of the $`S_i`$’s is empty.

Consider now the case $`A=\mathrm{𝕜}+S_1`$. Assume that there exists an element with a non-zero derivation. Without loss of generality we can consider $`x`$ and $`y`$ such that $`\delta (x)=y,\delta (y)=0`$. Just as above, consider a statement of dependence of $`x`$ over $`\mathrm{𝕜}[y]`$. Application of $`\delta `$ lowers the degree in $`x`$ (though it increases the degree in $`y`$), a contradiction. Therefore, $`\delta `$ kills all transcendental elements.

The remaining case is $`A=\mathrm{𝕜}+S_2`$. Choose $`x`$ such that $`\delta (x)=1`$. Let $`y`$ be an arbitrary element with $`\delta (y)\mathrm{𝕜}`$. Then $`xy(\delta (y))^1\mathrm{𝕜}`$ and $`y\mathrm{𝕜}[x]`$. For an arbitrary $`yS_2`$, by induction on the minimal $`n`$ such that $`\delta ^n(y)\mathrm{𝕜}`$, we also obtain $`y\mathrm{𝕜}[x]`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.3.

The final part of the proof of the above lemma can be also deduced from a result in \[Wr\].

###### Corollary 2.4.

Let $`A`$ be a finitely generated differentiably simple commutative algebra of growth $`1`$ with a locally nilpotent derivation. Then $`A\mathrm{𝕜}[x]`$.

###### Proof.

Indeed, if $`A\cong ̸\mathrm{𝕜}[x]`$, it must be simple. Therefore, $`A`$ is a field of transcendental degree $`1`$ and can not be finitely generated. ∎

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`A`$ be a finitely generated prime algebra with a locally nilpotent derivation $`\delta `$, $`\mathrm{GKdim}A=1`$. Then $`A`$ is either isomorphic to $`\mathrm{End}_n(\mathrm{𝕜}[x]),\delta =/x`$, or $`A`$ can be embedded into an algebra $`B`$ such that $`\delta `$ extends to an inner derivation of $`B`$ determined by a nilpotent element.

###### Proof.

As mentioned above, $`A`$ is a finite module over its center $`Z(A)`$ which is finitely generated and has linear growth. Clearly, $`Z(A)`$ is prime and $`\delta `$-stable.

Case 1. $`Z(A)=\mathrm{𝕜}[x]`$ and $`\delta |_{Z(A)}=/x`$.

Consider subalgebra $`A_0=\mathrm{ker}\delta `$. We begin by demonstrating that $`A_0`$ generates $`A`$ as a module over $`Z(A)`$. More precisely, every $`aA`$ is of the form $`_1^n{\displaystyle \frac{x^i}{i!}}a_i`$, $`a_iA_0`$, where $`n`$ is such that $`\delta ^n(a)=0,\delta ^{n1}(a)0`$. Indeed, with the inductive assumption $`\delta (a)=_1^{n1}{\displaystyle \frac{x^i}{i!}}b_i`$, $`b_iA_0`$, consider $`a_0=a_1^{n1}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{i+1}}{(i+1)!}}b_i`$. Since $`\delta (a_0)=0`$, we see that $`a`$ is also a polynomial in $`x`$ over $`A_0`$. Moreover, this polynomial form is unique for any $`aA`$. Indeed, if $`_1^nx^ia_i=0,a_iA`$, applying a necessary number of derivations shows that the coefficient at the highest power is $`0`$. In particular, this implies that $`A=\mathrm{𝕜}[x]A_0`$.

Fix a subset $`\{a_i\}`$ of $`A_0`$ that generates $`A`$ as a module over $`Z(A)`$. Any product of elements of $`A_0`$ is a linear combination $`p_i(x)a_i`$ over $`Z(A)`$ with the derivation $`(p_i(x)/x)a_i=0`$. This implies $`A_0=\mathrm{Span}_\mathrm{𝕜}(a_i)`$ is finite dimensional.

Clearly any ideal of $`A_0`$ can be lifted to $`A`$, thus $`A_0`$ is prime as well and therefore simple over $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ \[Rw, 2.1.15\]. Hence, $`A=\mathrm{End}_n(\mathrm{𝕜}[x])`$ and $`\delta =/x`$.

Case 2. $`\delta |_{Z(A)}=0`$.

Let $`F`$ be the field of fractions of $`Z(A)`$ and consider the finite-dimensional simple $`F`$-algebra $`B=F_{Z(A)}A`$. Clearly, $`\delta `$ extends to a derivation of $`B`$ and is, therefore, an inner nilpotent derivation, $`\delta =\mathrm{ad}a`$ \[Ja\]. We may take $`a`$ to be nilpotent (it is enough to pick any $`a`$ such that $`\delta =\mathrm{ad}a`$ and take its nilpotent part, since the semisimple part must commute with all elements of $`B`$). ∎

###### Remark 2.6 (\[Re1\]).

If we strengthen the condition of Lemma 2.5 to $`A`$ being differentiably simple, by Corollary 2.4 we will have to consider Case 1 of the above lemma only. This implies Theorem 1.9.

###### Remark 2.7.

It follows that there exist no finitely generated simple associative current conformal algebras of linear growth. However, this (quite unexpected) result can be deduced directly from Theorem 2.1. Indeed, if $`\mathrm{Cur}A`$ is such an algebra, then $`A`$ must be simple and have linear growth. So should its center, hence it is a field of transcendental degree $`1`$.

In the more general framework of prime conformal algebras, the second case of Lemma 2.5 merits further consideration. We notice first that by a change of conformal identity, one can discount the twisting on the coefficient algebra introduced by an inner derivation:

###### Lemma 2.8.

Let $`C`$ be a differential conformal algebra over algebra $`A`$ with an inner derivation determined by a nilpotent element. Then $`C\mathrm{Cur}A`$.

###### Proof.

We have $`\delta =\mathrm{ad}r`$ for a nilpotent $`r`$. Clearly, $`A[t,t^1;\delta ]`$ is isomorphic to the polynomial algebra $`A[s,s^1]`$ via the mapping $`trs`$. To prove that corresponding differential algebras $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{Cur}A`$ are isomorphic as well, we first show that the formal distribution $`e^{}=(tr)^nz^{n1}`$ belongs to $`C`$. Indeed, in this case, the conformal subalgebra of $`C`$ generated by $`e^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}0e^{},aA`$, is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Cur}A`$.

Let $`m`$ be the degree of nilpotency of $`r`$. Since $`\delta (r)=0`$, $`t`$ and $`r`$ commute; therefore,

$$e^{}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{1}{k!}^k\left(r^kt^nz^{n1}\right)\mathrm{Diff}A.$$

Conversely, $`(\stackrel{~}{r}0e^{})0e^{}=\stackrel{~}{r}`$ lies in the above subalgebra, hence, so does $`e`$. Thus, this subalgebra coincides with $`C`$. ∎

###### Corollary 2.9.

Let $`C`$ be a simple unital associative conformal algebra that is finite over $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$. Then $`C\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{End}_n(\mathrm{𝕜})`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`C=\mathrm{Diff}A`$ where $`A`$ is differentiably simple. Since $`A`$ is finite, it must be simple \[Bl\]; thus $`A\mathrm{End}_n(\mathrm{𝕜})`$ and all its derivations are inner. The rest follows from Lemma 2.8. ∎

###### Remark 2.10.

The above result also follows from the classification of simple Lie conformal algebras that are finite over $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$ in \[DK\]. In fact, in this line of proof one does not require unitality; though, we still get only $`\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{End}_n(\mathrm{𝕜})`$ as an answer \[K2\]. This shows that every simple associative conformal algebra that is finite over $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$ is unital.

Of course, in general not every associative conformal algebra is unital and one can not simply “adjoin” a conformal identity as in the ordinary case. However, in every known case, a conformal algebra can be embedded into a unital one.

###### Conjecture 2.11.

Every $``$-torsion free associative conformal algebra can be embedded into a unital conformal algebra.

Another question is: if such embeddings $`CC^{}`$ exist for a given conformal algebra $`C`$, what is the lower bound on $`\mathrm{GKdim}C^{}`$?

Clearly, when $`C`$ has a faithful representation that is finite over $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$, $`C`$ embeds into $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$. Moreover, when $`C`$ is finite itself it can be embedded into a finite conformal algebra (this follows from the classification and so far no direct proof is known). So, in such cases it is always possible to find $`C^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{GKdim}C^{}=\mathrm{GKdim}C`$.

We can now translate the statement of Lemma 2.5 into the language of conformal algebras:

###### Theorem 2.12.

Let $`C`$ be a prime unital finitely generated associative conformal algebra with $`\mathrm{GKdim}C=1`$. Then $`C`$ is isomorphic to either $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ or a subalgebra of a current algebra over a finitely generated prime algebra.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 2.5, $`(\mathrm{Coeff}C)_0`$ is either $`\mathrm{End}_n(\mathrm{𝕜})\mathrm{𝕜}[x]`$ with a nilpotent derivation given by $`/x`$ or a subalgebra of a prime algebra with an inner derivation determined by a nilpotent element. In the first case, $`C`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ and in the second case it is a subalgebra of a current algebra by Lemma 2.8. In general, this current algebra might be infinitely generated but by construction one may choose an appropriate prime current subalgebra. ∎

Essentially, this classification is the best one can hope for; this is explained in Section 3.

### 2.3. Classification of semisimple conformal algebras of linear growth

We begin by translating semisimplicity of conformal algebras of linear growth into a condition for its coefficient algebra.

###### Lemma 2.13.

Let $`\mathrm{Diff}A`$ be an associative conformal algebra of zero or linear growth. Then $`\mathrm{Diff}A`$ is semisimple if and only if $`A`$ is semiprime.

###### Proof.

By construction from Lemma 1.5, an ideal J of $`\mathrm{Diff}A`$ is nilpotent if and only if the corresponding ideal $`\overline{J}`$ of $`A`$ is nilpotent. Indeed, if for any $`a_0,\mathrm{},a_n`$, $`(\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{a_0}0\mathrm{})0\stackrel{~}{a_n}=0`$, then $`a_0\mathrm{}a_n=0`$ and, conversely, if $`(\overline{J})^n=0`$, then $`(\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{a_0}m_1\mathrm{})m_n\stackrel{~}{a_n}=0`$ as $`\overline{J}`$ is $`\delta `$–stable.

Thus, if $`\mathrm{Diff}A`$ contains a nilpotent ideal, so does $`A`$.

Conversely, if $`A`$ is not semiprime, its nilradical $`N(A)`$ is $`\delta `$-stable \[Rw, 2.6.28\] and nilpotent (Theorem 2.1, (i) for the case of linear growth). Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{N(A)}`$ is nilpotent. ∎

Thus, we are able to classify semisimple conformal algebras of linear and zero growth.

We need an easy (and probably known) technical lemma first.

###### Lemma 2.14.

Let $`A=_iA_i`$ be a finite direct sum of unital associative algebras $`A_i`$. Then a derivation $`\delta `$ on $`A`$ restricts to each $`A_i`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`e_i`$ be the identity in $`A_i`$. Since $`\delta (e_ie_j)=e_i\delta (e_j)+\delta (e_i)e_j=0`$ and the summands lie in $`A_i`$ and $`A_j`$ respectively, we have $`\delta (e_i)e_j=0`$ (for any $`ji`$). Thus, $`\delta (e_i)A_i`$. Now, as $`\delta (e_i)=\delta (e_i^2)=2\delta (e_i)`$, it follows that $`\delta (e_i)=0`$. Consequently, $`\delta (A_i)=\delta (A_ie_i)=\delta (A_i)e_iA_i`$. ∎

The classification of semisimple unital conformal algebras of $`\mathrm{GKdim}1`$ follows:

###### Lemma 2.15 (\[K2\]).

Let $`C`$ be a semisimple unital finitely generated associative conformal algebra that is finite over $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$. Then $`C_{i=1}^k\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{End}_{n_i}(\mathrm{𝕜})`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is the same as for Corollary 2.9. Let $`C=\mathrm{Diff}A`$. By Lemma 2.13, we have $`A_{i=1}^k\mathrm{End}_{n_i}(\mathrm{𝕜})`$. The nilpotent derivation that leads to $`C`$ is inner, hence its effects can be removed by a change of conformal identity as in Lemma 2.8. ∎

###### Theorem 2.16.

Let $`C`$ be a semisimple unital finitely generated associative conformal algebra, $`\mathrm{GKdim}C=1`$. Then $`C`$ embeds into a direct sum of a current algebra over a semiprime algebra of zero or linear growth and $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ for some $`n`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`C=\mathrm{Diff}A`$ be determined by a nilpotent derivation $`\delta `$. By Lemma 2.13, A is semiprime. It follows from various lemmas in \[SSW\] that $`A`$ splits as $`A=BF`$ where $`B`$ is semiprime Goldie and $`F`$ finite-dimensional.

We have $`Q=Q(B)=_iQ_i`$, a semisimple Artinian quotient algebra of $`B`$. By Lemma 2.14, $`\delta `$ restricts to $`B`$. The standard construction of $`Q(B)`$ implies that $`\delta `$ can be extended to $`Q`$ and we can again restrict it to $`Q_i`$ (though it is no longer locally nilpotent at this stage). We obtain a system of prime ideals $`P_i=B_{ij}Q_j`$. Clearly, $`P_i`$ is $`\delta `$-stable, hence so is $`B/P_i`$. As $`B_iB/P_i`$ with the action of $`\delta `$ preserved, we have $`\mathrm{Diff}B_i\mathrm{Diff}B/P_i`$. Also, $`\mathrm{Diff}A=\mathrm{Diff}B\mathrm{Diff}F`$.

Thus, $`\mathrm{Diff}A`$ embeds into a direct sum of prime conformal algebras of linear growth and a $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$-finite semisimple conformal algebra. We have two types of components in this sum: some come from subalgebras of $`\mathrm{Cend}_m`$, hence their sum can be viewed as a subalgebra of $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ for some $`n`$. Others are subalgebras of prime current algebras of growth not exceeding $`1`$. Thus, their sum is a subalgebra of a semiprime current algebra. ∎

## 3. Examples of subalgebras of prime unital conformal algebras

In this section we discuss what kinds of conformal algebras can live inside typical examples of prime conformal algebras.

The most innocently looking one is a current algebra over a prime algebra.

In the proof of Lemma 2.8 we relied on the simple fact that to each locally nilpotent derivation of $`\mathrm{Coeff}C`$ corresponds a conformal identity and a canonical basis of $`C`$, hence the effect of the derivation could be “untwisted.” This is not necessarily true for all subalgebras of $`C`$.

###### Remark 3.1.

Let $`C^{}`$ be a unital conformal subalgebra of a unital current algebra $`C`$ with the same conformal identity. Then $`C^{}`$ itself is current. Indeed, let $`a=_0^n^k\stackrel{~}{a_k}C^{}`$. Then $`(1)^nn!\stackrel{~}{a_n}=aneC^{}`$, hence, by induction all $`\stackrel{~}{a_k}C^{}`$.

However, when conformal identities of the conformal algebra and its subalgebra are different, the approach in the above remark can not be used. Such a situation arises in the setting of Theorem 2.12: let $`C^{}`$ be a subalgebra of $`C=\mathrm{Diff}A`$, where the derivation on $`A`$ is inner, $`\delta =\mathrm{ad}a`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{a}C^{}`$, the change of conformal identity prescribed by Lemma 2.8 can not be performed inside $`C^{}`$, thus $`C^{}`$ becomes a possibly non-current subalgebra of a current algebra $`C`$. Consider the following

###### Example 3.2.

Let $`A=\mathrm{End}_2(\mathrm{𝕜}[x])`$ and $`\delta =\mathrm{ad}e_{12}`$ be a locally nilpotent derivation on $`A`$. Remark that $`\mathrm{Diff}A`$ is current by Lemma 2.8. Let $`B=\mathrm{End}_2(x\mathrm{𝕜}[x])`$ with the identity adjoined. $`B`$ is $`\delta `$-stable, so $`\mathrm{Diff}B\mathrm{Diff}A`$; however, we will show below that $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$ is not current for any choice of conformal identity.

More generally, it turns out that whenever the derivation is external with respect to $`C^{}`$, $`C^{}`$ can not be current. The following statement is, in some sense, the converse of Lemma 2.8.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`C`$ be an associative conformal algebra such that for different choices of conformal identities, $`C\mathrm{Cur}A`$ and $`C\mathrm{Diff}B`$ for a nilpotent derivation $`\delta `$. Then $`\delta `$ can be made inner on $`A`$, i.e., there exists $`aA`$ such that the conformal algebra $`\mathrm{Diff}A`$ determined by $`\mathrm{ad}a`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$ with the isomorphism preserving the conformal identity. Moreover, $`a`$ is nilpotent.

###### Proof.

We fix the following notations: $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$, $`aA`$, is the canonical basis of $`\mathrm{Cur}A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ is its conformal identity. For $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$, $`\overline{b}`$ is the canonical basis and $`\overline{e}`$ the conformal identity.

We also identify the elements of $`\mathrm{Cur}A`$ and $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$ via the given isomorphism. Thus, we have $`\overline{e}=^i\stackrel{~}{e_i}`$ for some $`e_iA`$. For an arbitrary $`bB`$, $`\overline{b}=^i\stackrel{~}{b_i}`$. Since $`\overline{b}=\overline{b}0\overline{e}`$, we have $`\overline{b}=(^i\stackrel{~}{b_i})0(^i\stackrel{~}{e_i})=^i\stackrel{~}{b_0e_i}`$. Thus, $`b_i=b_0e_i`$.

In particular this implies that if $`b0`$, then $`b_00`$. Moreover, $`(bb^{})_0=b_0b_0^{}`$ as $`\overline{bb^{}}=\overline{b}0\overline{b^{}}`$. This establishes a map $`BA`$, $`bb_0`$. Now we have to show that it extends to a map of given conformal algebras.

We also remark that as $`\overline{b}=\overline{e}0\overline{b}`$, we see that $`e_0b_0=b_0`$.

According to (1.2), $`\overline{\delta (b)}=\overline{e}1\overline{b}`$ for any $`bB`$. We will now calculate $`\overline{e}1\overline{b}`$ in $`\mathrm{Cur}A`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{e}1\overline{b}& =(^i\stackrel{~}{e_i})1(^i\stackrel{~}{b_0e_i})\hfill \\ & =\stackrel{~}{e_0}1(^i\stackrel{~}{b_0e_i})\stackrel{~}{e_1}0(^i\stackrel{~}{b_0e_i})\hfill \\ & =^i(\stackrel{~}{e_0}1\stackrel{~}{b_0e_i})+i^{i1}(\stackrel{~}{e_0}0\stackrel{~}{b_0e_i})^i\stackrel{~}{e_1}0\stackrel{~}{b_0e_i}\hfill \\ & =i^{i1}\stackrel{~}{e_0b_0e_i}^i\stackrel{~}{e_1b_0e_i}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.1)
(the last equality is valid, as we are working with a current algebra: products of positive orders of basis elements are $`0`$).

On the other hand,

$$\overline{\delta (b)}=^i\stackrel{~}{\delta (b)_0e_i}.$$
(3.2)
Comparing the coefficients at $`^0`$ in (3.1) and (3.2), we see that $`\delta (b)_0e_0=e_0b_0e_1+e_1b_0e_0`$. Since $`\delta (b)_0e_0=\delta (b)_0`$, we see that $`\delta (b)_0=\mathrm{ad}(e_1)b_0`$. In particular, this implies that $`\mathrm{ad}(e_1)`$ is nilpotent.

Consider now a differential algebra $`\mathrm{Diff}A`$ over $`A`$ determined by $`\mathrm{ad}(e_1)`$. By the above, we obtained a injective map $`(B,\delta )(A,\mathrm{ad}(e_1))`$ of differential algebras; therefore, $`\mathrm{Diff}B`$ embeds into $`\mathrm{Diff}A`$ with the embedding given by $`\overline{b}\stackrel{~}{b_0}`$.

It remains to show that such an embedding is surjective. Since $`\mathrm{Cur}A\mathrm{Diff}A`$, it is possible to express $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$, $`aA`$, as $`\stackrel{~}{a}=_j^j\overline{a_j}`$, where $`a_jB`$. Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{a}=_{i,j}^{i+j}\stackrel{~}{(\overline{a_j})_i}`$. As $`C`$ is free over $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]`$, $`a=(\overline{a_0})_0`$. This show that the constructed map is an isomorphism.

For our purposes, we need also to show that $`e_1`$ is nilpotent. Substitute $`\overline{b}=\overline{e}`$ in (3.1). The coefficient at $`^j`$ in the last line is $`\stackrel{~}{e_{j+1}}\stackrel{~}{e_1e_j}`$. Since $`\overline{e}1\overline{e}=0`$, we obtain by induction that $`e_j=(e_1)^j`$ for $`j1`$. As the expression for $`\overline{e}`$, $`^i\stackrel{~}{e_i}`$, is a finite sum, we see that $`e_1`$ is nilpotent. This completes the proof. ∎

###### Corollary 3.4.

Let $`A^{}`$ be a subalgebra of $`A`$ and $`aA`$ a nilpotent element. Then the conformal algebra $`\mathrm{Diff}A^{}`$ determined by $`\mathrm{ad}a`$ is current if and only if there exists $`a^{}A^{}`$, $`\mathrm{ad}a=\mathrm{ad}a^{}`$.

###### Proof.

If such $`a^{}`$ exists, the statement follows from the proof of Lemma 2.8.

Otherwise, assume that $`\mathrm{Diff}A^{}`$ is current for some choice of conformal identity. By Lemma 3.3, $`\mathrm{Diff}A^{}`$ is determined by an inner derivation (for the same choice of conformal identity). Hence, there exists such $`a^{}`$. ∎

This shows that the subalgebra in Example 3.2 is indeed never current.

###### Remark 3.5.

Such examples can be constructed with ease. In particular, this means that the classification in Theorem 2.12 is the best possible for the case of prime conformal algebras.

Just as subalgebras of current algebras, subalgebras of $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ also appear naturally. However, this happens either when such a subalgebra acts on a given finite module or in the context of Theorem 2.16. In either case the conformal identities of $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ and its subalgebra coincide. Thus, we essentially speak of subalgebras of $`\mathrm{End}_n(\mathrm{𝕜})\mathrm{𝕜}[x]`$ (with the same identity).

Such subalgebras are too general to describe (cf. Theorem 2.1), even in the prime case \[SW\]. The only known result is that on differentiably simple subalgebras, i.e. Theorem 1.9 and Corollary 2.9, and here the resulting conformal subalgebras are isomorphic to either $`\mathrm{Cend}_m`$ or $`\mathrm{Cur}\mathrm{End}_m(\mathrm{𝕜})`$.

The case of simple subalgebras is obviously important for conformal representation theory. Kac’s conjecture \[K2\] describes all subalgebras of $`\mathrm{Cend}_n`$ that act irreducibly on the standard module $`\mathrm{𝕜}[]^n`$. The unital conformal algebras from the list are the ones described above; therefore, we can say that our results in this section confirm Kac’s conjecture for unital algebras (see also \[BKL1\]).


format: text

text:
# Dynamical Mean Field Theory for transition temperature and optics of pseudocubic manganites.

## I Introduction

Pseudocubic manganites such as $`La_{1x}Sr_xMnO_3`$ are of continuing interest to physicists and materials scientists for many reasons, including the possibility that the materials are ’half metals’, in other words, have ferromagnetic ground states with fully spin polarized conduction bands. The possibility of ’half metallicity’ was understood in the 1950s by Wollan, Kohler, Zener, Goodenough, and Anderson Zener51 ; Wollan55 ; Anderson55 ; Goodenough55 , but remains controversial today, with some calculations Pickett96  and some Soulen  (but not all Park98 ) experiments suggesting the presence of minority carriers.

In the pseudocubic manganites such as $`La_{1x}Sr_xMnO_3`$ the possible half metallicity arises from correlation and crystal-field effects involving the $`Mn`$ d-levels, which in a naive formal-valence picture contain $`4x`$ d-electrons (see e.g Ref Wollan55  for further discussion). In brief, in these materials the nearly cubic crystal field splits the d-multiplet into a lower-lying $`t_{2g}`$ symmetry triplet and a higher lying $`e_g`$-symmetry doublet. Correlation effects cause the $`t_{2g}`$ levels to contain three electrons with parallel spin, producing an electrically inert $`S=3/2`$ ’core spin’, while the remaining $`1x`$ electrons go into $`e_g`$-symmetry orbitals and can move throughout the crystal subject to a Hund’s coupling $`J`$ which favors configurations in which an $`e_g`$ electron on a given site has its spin parallel to the core spin on that site oxygen  Evidently, if the Hund’s coupling is strong enough, then a state in which all of the core spins are aligned will also have a fully polarized conduction band; therefore the crucial question becomes: what is the value of $`J`$?

From the earliest days Zener51 ; Anderson55  through the revival of interest in the mid 1990s Millis96b  and including recent literature Evertz2002a ; Evertz2003 ; Hotta01 , many workers have assumed that $`J`$ is much larger than the electronic bandwidth. Such a large value of $`J`$ has been argued to lead to interesting observable effects including a temperature dependent optical spectral weight in the physically relevant $`\omega <4eV`$ regime Millis96b  and to provide a direct connection between optical conductivity and the values of the magnetic transition temperatures Chattopadhyay00 . A temperature dependent optical spectral weight has indeed been observed Quijada98 . Even more importantly, the experimental phenomenology Quijada98  suggests that there is a strong connection between electronic energetics and magnetic order and that in particular changes in electron kinetic energy occurring as the system is driven through ferromagnetic-non-ferromagnetic transitions lead to the observed Cheong98  multiphase behavior, suggesting again a very large value of $`J`$. On the other hand, Measurements on gas-phase $`Mn`$ Sugano70  suggest a relatively small $`J`$ (comparable to the electronic bandwidth), and measurements on related transition metal oxides Hillebrecht84 ; Hillebrecht85  suggest that gas-phase values for $`J`$ are only weakly renormalized by solid-state effects. On the other hand, many workers (including most of the references listed above) interpret experiments in the ’double-exchange’ picture which requires a $`J`$ much larger than the bandwidth. Determining the magnitude of $`J`$ and the effect of magnetic order on energetics is therefore an important issue, which remains controversial.

Tokura and co-workers noted Tokura97  that the optical conductivity may contain direct information about the value of $`J`$: in a paramagnetic state optical processes were possible in which an electron moves from one site, where it was locally parallel to the core spin, to an adjacent site in which (because the core spin is differently oriented) it is locally antiparallel. Such transitions should occur at an energy set by the Hund’s coupling $`J`$, and should become visible as the temperature is raised. Ref. Chattopadhyay00  analysed this issue in detail, presenting a comparison between theory and experiment which was argued to exclude the possibility that the ‘antiparallel‘ transitions had been observed.

In this paper we reexamine the previous work Millis96b ; Chattopadhyay00 , using a more realistic tight- binding parametrization of the relevant portions of the band structure in combination with a dynamical mean field treatment of the interaction between electrons and core spins and employing more detailed and extensive numerics. While various aspects of this physics have been extensively studied, especially for model systems, we believe that this paper is the first to combine a realistic band parametrization with a complete treatment of dynamical and thermodynamic quantities such as the conductivity (for both low-T and $`T>T_c`$), spin-wave stiffness and transition temperature. (Of course, many important studies of static properties using realistic bands have appeared: for a recent example see Popovic02 . We also note that in early important work Takahashi and Shiba computed $`T=0`$ optical conductivities using a similar parametrization of band theory Takahashi98 .) We compute magnetic transition temperatures, optical conductivities and optical spectral weights and the $`T=0`$ spin-wave stiffness for a range of model parameters and by comparison to experiment estimate the actual physical parameters for the material. We find that contrary to statements made in some previous work Chattopadhyay00  a moderate value of $`J`$ provides a reasonable account of many aspects of the optical spectrum and a plausible account of the magnetic transition temperature and $`T=0`$ spin wave stiffness. The differences with previous work apparently arise because the calculations of Ref Millis96b ; Chattopadhyay00  were performed on perhaps oversimplified model systems. Also some of the results Chattopadhyay00  contain numerical errors.

## II Model

### II.1
Hamiltonian

We consider electrons moving among sites of a simple cubic lattice according to a tight binding model with hopping matrix elements obtained from band theory and coupled to a local classical ’core spin’. Thus we write:

$$H=H_{band}+H_{int}$$
(1)
For the interaction we take a local coupling of core spins to conduction electrons:

$$H_{int}=J\underset{a,b,\alpha ,\beta ,i}{}\stackrel{}{S}_ic_{a,i,\alpha }^+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\alpha \beta }c_{a,i,\beta }.$$
(2)
We obtain $`H_{band}`$ from LSDA band calculations Pickett96 ; Satpathy97 , which are consistent with straightforward quantum chemical (Goodenough-Kanamori) considerations. Both approaches suggest that the itinerant electrons lie in two symmetry related bands which may be thought of as arising from electrons hopping among $`e_g`$ symmetry local orbitals and are reasonably well described by a nearest neighbor tight binding model Ahn00 ; Chattopadhyay00  . To write this hopping it is convenient to adopt a Pauli matrix notation in which the up state is the $`|x^2y^2>`$ orbital and the down state is the $`|3z^2r^2>`$ orbital. The basic hopping is orbital dependent so that

$$H_{band}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i\delta ab\alpha }{}(t(\delta )^{ab}c_{i+\delta ,a,\alpha }^+c_{ib\alpha }+H.c.)$$
(3)
where $`\delta `$ is a vector connecting site $`i`$ to a nearest neighbor and the hopping is determined by a 2x2 matrix given after Fourier transformation by

$$\epsilon =\epsilon _0(p)+\stackrel{}{\epsilon }(p)\stackrel{}{\tau }$$
(4)
with $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ the usual Pauli matrices, $`b`$ the lattice constant,

$$\epsilon _0(p)=t(\mathrm{cos}(p_xb)+\mathrm{cos}(p_yb)+\mathrm{cos}(p_zb))$$
(5)
and $`\stackrel{}{\epsilon }(p)=(\epsilon _x(p),0,\epsilon _z(p))`$ with

$`\epsilon _x(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}t}{2}}(\mathrm{cos}(p_xb)\mathrm{cos}(p_yb))`$ (6)
$`\epsilon _z(p)`$ $`=`$ $`t(\mathrm{cos}(p_zb){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cos}(p_xb)+\mathrm{cos}(p_yb))`$ (7)
The energy eigenvalues are

$$E_\pm =\epsilon _0\pm \sqrt{\epsilon _x^2+\epsilon _z^2}$$
(8)
Note that along the zone diagonals ((1,1,1) etc) $`\epsilon _{z,x}=0`$ so the two bands are degenerate and along the line to any cube face ((1,0,0) and equivalent) one of the two bands is dispersionless. These two features occur, to a high degree of accuracy, in the calculated band structure, lending support to the nearest neighbor tight binding modelling.

The best fit to the calculated band theory leads to $`t=0.67eV`$. This, for example, implies that at band filling $`n=0.7`$ the density of states per $`Mn`$-ion is $`0.57/eV`$ which reproduces almost exactly the local spin density approximation value $`0.58/eV`$ per $`Mn`$-ion quoted on p. 1154 of Ref Pickett96 . (Note also that Pickett96  contains a misprint Pickett00  in the value of the Drude plasma frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=1.9eV`$. The correct band theory value is very close to the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=\sqrt{4\pi e^2D/b}=3.1eV`$ which follows using $`t=0.67eV`$ in Eq. 12 below).

The energy bands extend from $`3t`$ to $`+3t`$. Useful quantities to characterize the state of the system include the particle density

$$n=\underset{a,\sigma }{}<c_{ia\sigma }^+c_{ia\sigma }>$$
(9)
the density of states

$$D(ϵ)=\frac{n}{\mu }$$
(10)
(whose $`T=0`$ value is shown for different $`J`$ values in the upper panel of Fig. 1), the ’kinetic energy’ per site $`K=\frac{<H_{band}>}{N}`$ ($`N`$ is the number of sites) given by

$$K=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{\delta a\sigma i}{}t^{ab}(\delta )<c_{ia\sigma }^+c_{i+\delta a\sigma }+H.c.>$$
(11)
and the ’Drude weight’ $`D`$ which for a spin polarized system and current flowing in the $`z`$ direction is

$$D_z=b^3\frac{d^3p}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}\underset{\lambda =+,}{}\left(\frac{E_\lambda (p)}{b^2p_z}\right)^2\delta (E_\lambda (p)\mu )$$
(12)
Figure 2 shows the kinetic energy (divided by 3 to facilitate comparison to optics) and Drude weight, plotted against particle density for a fully spin polarized gound state.

### II.2 Conductivity

To obtain the conductivity we require a coupling between the electric field and the electronic states. We represent the electric field by a vector potential $`A`$ and adopt the Peierls phase approximation, $`t_{ij}t_{ij}e^{i\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{R}_{ij}}`$. This approximation has been argued to be accurate in other transition metal oxide contexts Ahn00 ; Millis00  and was also used by Takahashi and Shiba Takahashi98 . The current density operator in the $`z`$ direction is

$$\widehat{J}_z\frac{\delta \widehat{H}}{Nb^3\delta A_z}=\frac{2te}{b^2}\left(\mathrm{sin}(p_zb)\frac{eb}{c}A\mathrm{cos}(p_zb)\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
The expectation value of the term in $`J`$ proportional to $`A`$ gives the total oscillator strength, $`S(\mathrm{})`$ in the conduction band contribution to the optical conductivity (see Maldague76 ; Quijada98 ; Millis00  for details). We have

$$S(\mathrm{})=\frac{e^2}{3b}K$$
(14)
The conductivity is

$$\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{S(\mathrm{})\chi _{jj}(\mathrm{\Omega })}{i\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(15)
with $`\chi _{jj}`$ the usual Kubo formula current-current correlation function evaluated using $`J`$ evaluated at $`A=0`$.

### II.3 Spin Wave stiffness

To compute the $`T=0`$ spin wave stiffness we follow the standard procedure outlined in Millis95 ; Millis99  We compute the energy cost of a small amplitude, long wavelength rotation of the order parameter away from the fully polarized ferromagnetic state, which we take to be aligned with the $`z`$ axis. The calculation is most easily carried out by locally rotating the spin quantization axis to align with the local spin direction, so that the $`T=0`$ Hamiltonian becomes (note repeated orbital and spin indices $`a,b,\alpha ,\sigma ,\sigma ^{}`$ are summed over)

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,\delta }{}t^{ab}(\delta )c_{i+\delta ,a,\sigma }^+c_{i,b\sigma ^{}}R_{i+\delta \sigma \alpha }^+R_{i\alpha \sigma ^{}}+H.c.$$
(16)
where $`R`$ are the usual $`S=1/2`$ rotation matrices. We find two terms. The first one arises from the term in $`R^+R`$ proportional to the square of the deviation, $`\stackrel{}{m}_q`$ of the magnetization from its ordered state value and is ($`K`$ is the kinetic energy defined above in Eq 11).

$$E^{(1)}=\frac{K}{24}\left(qa\right)^2\stackrel{}{m}_q\stackrel{}{m}_q$$
(17)
while the second one arises from inserting the expression for the term in $`R^+R`$ which is linear in $`\stackrel{}{m}_q`$ into the familiar second order perturbation theory expression, and is

$$E^{(2)}=\left(qa\right)^2\stackrel{}{m}_q\stackrel{}{m}_qI_{SW}(J)$$
(18)
with

$$I_{SW}(J)=\underset{p}{}t^2\mathrm{sin}^2(p_z)\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_+(p)+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(p)\right)$$
(19)
where (note we have suppressed the momentum labels to avoid clutter in the equations)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+=\frac{f(E_{})\left(J\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )+\mathrm{cos}^4(\theta )\sqrt{\epsilon _x^2+\epsilon _z^2}\right)}{2J\left(J+\sqrt{\epsilon _x^2+\epsilon _z^2}\right)}$$
(20)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=\frac{f(E_+)\left(J\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )\mathrm{sin}^4(\theta _p)\sqrt{\epsilon _x^2+\epsilon _z^2}\right)}{2J\left(J\sqrt{\epsilon _x^2+\epsilon _z^2}\right)}$$
(21)
and $`\mathrm{tan}(\theta )=\epsilon _x/\left(\sqrt{\epsilon _x^2+\epsilon _z^2}+\epsilon _z\right).`$

The spin wave stiffness $`D_{SW}`$ as conventionally defined is given by twice the total coefficient of $`\left(q\right)^2\stackrel{}{m}_q\stackrel{}{m}_q`$ divided by the ordered moment, i.e.

$$D_{SW}=\left[\frac{K}{12}2I_{SW}(J)\right]b^2$$
(22)
This expression applies to the tight binding band structure and to all $`J`$ such that the ground state is fully polarized. It is consistent with those obtained by Kubo and Ohata Kubo72  and Furukawa Furukawa96  who considered simpler models in the infinite $`J`$ and (Furukawa) first $`1/J`$ correction. We have evaluated $`D`$ (Eq 22) for the chemical potential $`\mu =1`$ corresponding to the widely studied $`0.7`$ doping; results, made dimensionless by dividing by $`tb^2`$ are shown in Fig. 3.

## III Method of Evaluation

### III.1 Overview

To evaluate the non-ground-state properties of $`H`$ we use the dynamical mean field methodMetznerVoll89 ; muellhartmann89a ; Georges96 ; Chattopadhyay00  This method is extensively described and justified elsewhere, and is relevant here because the principal interactions are local. In brief the central approximation concerns the electron Green function. For the band structure of present relevance the electron Green function is written in general as

$$𝐆(z,p)=(z𝚺(p,z)\epsilon (p)+\mu )^1$$
(23)
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,z)`$ the self energy. In the dynamical mean field method one takes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be $`p`$independent, i.e. to depend only on $`z`$. The important quantity is then the momentum integrated Green function

$`G_{momint}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`b^3{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}𝐆(𝐳,𝐩)}`$ (24)
The local Green function, being a function of frequency only, may be derived from a local quantum field theory, which is specified by a partition function $`Z_{loc}`$ given in terms of a mean field function $`a(\tau )`$. This is in general a matrix in orbital and spin indices (which we do not explicitly write here)

$`Z_{loc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟c^+cExp[{\displaystyle }d\tau d\tau ^{}c^+(\tau )𝐚(\tau \tau ^{})c(\tau ^{})`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\tau H_{int}]`$
¿From this action one may extract a local Green function $`G_{loc}`$ and self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ via

$$G_{loc}(\tau )=\frac{\delta lnZ_{loc}}{\delta a(\tau )}=\left(a\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^1$$
(26)
The mean field function $`a`$ is fixed via the constraint that the local Green function calculated from $`Z_{loc}`$ is identical to the momentum integrated Green function obtained from Eq 24, using the local self energy defined in the second equality in Eq 26, i.e.

$$G_{loc}(z)=G_{momint}(z)$$
(27)
In the present problem the two orbitals are degenerate so it is not necessary to consider orbital indices in $`G_{loc}`$. For T=0K a ferromagnetic core spin configuration yields a spin dependent but frequency independent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma =\sigma _zJ`$. For $`T>T_c`$ Eq 27 is an integral equation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is solved by numerical iteration.

### III.2
Conductivity

In the dynamical mean field approximation there are no vertex corrections for the current current correlation function khurana ; Georges96 , so it is given by

$`\chi _{jj}(i\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}}`$ (28)
$`Tr\left[𝐉_𝐳𝐆(p,i\mathrm{\Omega }+i\omega _n)𝐉_𝐳𝐆(p,i\omega _n)\right]`$
with $`G`$ given by Eq. 23 using the momentum independent self energy from the final solution of Eq 26.

The Matsubara sum and analytical continuation may easily be performed, and the dissipative part of the conductivity is given by $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega })=Im[\chi _{jj}(\mathrm{\Omega }i\delta )]/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is convenient to transform within the trace to a orbital basis which diagonalizes the Green functions. In the model considered here the self energy is the same for both orbitals, and so we may split the result into an intra- and interband part, writing

$`\sigma _{inter/intra}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\pi }\theta (\omega ,\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t^2sin^2(p_z)\epsilon _x^2}{ϵ_x^2+ϵ_z^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{inter/intra}`$
with

$`\theta (\omega ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(\omega )f(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{intra}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _x^2A^{(1)}(\omega )A^{(1)}(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })}{(ϵ_z+\sqrt{ϵ_x^2+ϵ_z^2})^2}}`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _x^2A^{(2)}(\omega )A^{(2)}(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })}{(ϵ_z\sqrt{ϵ_x^2+ϵ_z^2})^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{inter}`$ $`=`$ $`A^{(1)}(\omega )A^{(2)}(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (32)
$`+A^{(2)}(\omega )A^{(1)}(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })`$
The quantities $`A`$, $`\epsilon `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ depend on momentum $`p`$ which we have not written explicitly to avoid confusing clutter in the equations: for example, the band-n ($`n=1,2`$) spectral function $`A^{(n)}(p,\omega )=Im[\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )]((\omega E_n(p)Re[\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )])^2+Im[\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )]^2)^1`$.

At $`T>T_c`$ the conductivity is calculated using the self energy obtained from the solution of the mean field equations. For $`T0`$ the spin-induced self energy vanishes (except for the spin-dependent energy shift) and we have added a modest impurity broadening (scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )=\tau ^1=0.1t`$) so the Drude peak is visible on the same scale as the interband term. The calculated $`T=0`$ conductivity is shown in Fig. 4.

### III.3 Transition Temperature

To determine the transition temperature it is convenient to write the mean field function in the presence of a uniform magnetization m, which is in principle a matrix in spin space, as

$$𝐚=a_0\mathrm{𝟏}+a_1\sigma 𝐦$$
(33)
and to take the magnetization direction to be parallel to $`z`$ so that after integrating out the fermions we obtain for the impurity model action (the two is for orbital degeneracy)

$$S_{imp}=2\underset{n}{}Tr\mathrm{ln}[a_0+a_1\sigma _z+J\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{\sigma }]$$
(34)
We can evaluate the trace over spins, getting ($`\theta `$ is the angle between the core spin direction and the magnetization direction, which is taken to be the $`z`$ direction)

$$S_{imp}(\theta )=2\underset{n}{}\mathrm{ln}[a_0^2a_1^2J^2S^22a_1JS\mathrm{cos}(\theta )]$$
(35)
Assuming (as detailed studies of simpler model systems have confirmed Millis96b ) that the transition is second order we may study it by linearizing in $`a_1`$, so that the magnetization $`m`$ is given by

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`<{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(\mathrm{cos}(\theta )Exp[S(\theta )]\right)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta Exp[S(\theta )]}}>`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4JS}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i\omega _n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{a_0^2J^2S^2}}+O(a_1^3)`$
The impurity (local) Green function corresponding to Eq 35 is

$`G_{loc}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a_0+a_1\sigma _z+J\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)^1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(a_0\sigma _z[a_1(1+\frac{2}{3}\frac{J^2S^2}{a_0^2J^2S^2})+Jm])}{(a_0^2J^2S^2)}}+𝒪(a_1^2)`$
where the average has been taken over the action defined by Eq 35. From Eq III.3 we may compute the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=G_{loc}^1+a_0+a_1\sigma _z`$ finding $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\sigma _z`$:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J^2S^2}{a_0}}`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{J^2S^2}{a_0^2}}a_1{\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2J^2S^2}{a_0^2}}JSm`$ (39)
Finally, $`𝐚`$ is fixed from

$`G_{loc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr{\displaystyle \frac{d^dp}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}\left[\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\sigma _z\epsilon _p\right]^1}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr{\displaystyle \frac{d^dp}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}\left[\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_0\epsilon _p\right]^1}+`$
$`\left[\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_0\epsilon _p\right]^1\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\sigma _z\left[\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_0\epsilon _p\right]^1`$
$`=`$ $`I_1(\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_0)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\sigma _zI_2(\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_0)`$
with $`I_n(z)=\frac{d^dp}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}\left(\frac{1}{z\epsilon _p}\right)^n`$.

Eqs. 36-40 give an equation for Tc, which contains only a0 and the paramagnetic solution of Eq. 27 which we denote here as $`G_0`$.

$$T_c=4J^2T_c\underset{i\omega _n}{}\left[\frac{G_0^2I_2}{(3a_0^2J^2)G_0^2+J^2I_2}\right]$$
(41)
This formula shows explicitly that in weak coupling $`T_cJ^2`$.

## IV Results

As noted above, the band calculation is well fit by a $`t`$ of about $`0.67eV`$. The physically relevant densities correspond to $`n<1`$ and the most experimentally relevant density range is $`n=0.60.8`$ where the ground state is in fact a ferromagnetic metal. We have calculated the magnetic transition temperature as a function of band filling for different values of the Hund’s coupling $`J`$. Representative results are shown in Fig. 5. We see that the calculated transition temperatures become noticeably higher than the experimental range ($``$ 400K) once $`J`$ becomes greater than a number of the order of unity. Ref Chattopadhyay00  argued that the calculated transition temperatures for $`Jt`$ were consistent with experimental data. We now believe that this conclusion was based on normalizing to an incorrect value for the kinetic energy and should be disregarded. The present calculation reveals, in agreement with results obtained by previous workers, that even modest values of $`J`$ suffice to push transition temperatures into a range higher than the highest observed $`T_c`$. Corrections to the mean field approximation are believed Chattopadhyay00  in this problem to reduce $`T_c`$ by of the order of $`30\%`$ and do not change this conclusion.

The transition temperature data therefore suggest that a relatively modest $`J`$, corresponding to a local spin flip energy $`2J23eV`$ and less than the full bandwidth $`4eV`$, might be appropriate for the CMR manganite materials. Such a value of $`J`$ would be consistent with the value $`J2.7eV`$ appropriate for gas-phase $`Mn`$ (note that spectroscopic studies such as Hillebrecht84 ; Hillebrecht85  indicate that the Hund’s coupling is much less renormalized by solid-state effects than is the on-site Coulomb interaction). Our computed values for the $`T=0`$ spin wave stiffness also support a lower value for $`J`$. Values in physical units may be obtained by multiplying the data shown in Fig 3 by $`tb^29.67`$ (using the numerical values $`t=0.67eV`$ and $`a=3.8\AA `$). A $`J=2.5t`$ yields a $`D=300meV\AA ^2`$, already much higher than the $`D160190eV\AA ^2`$ observed Baca98  in optimally metallic manganites.

Further evidence that a smaller value of $`J`$ might be appropriate comes from our calculated optical conductivity, shown in Fig. 6 for $`T>T_c`$ and various values of $`J`$. Comparison to Fig 4 shows that if $`J`$ is larger than about 1eV, then as $`T`$ is raised a new feature becomes visible at an energy of order $`2J`$. This feature arises from motion of carriers from one site to another site with an antialigned spin, and its existence was noted by Tokura and co-workers Tokura97 . Such a feature is visible in experimental data at an energy of about $`3eV`$ Quijada98 .

Comparison of Fig. 7 to the data of Quijada98  shows that a $`J=2.5t1.5eV`$ would approximately reproduce the observed peak position and magnitude. For smaller values of J the peak becomes difficult to distinguish from the interband transition; for larger values the peak moves to higher energies than is observed and the oscillator strength decreases below what is observed. The Table shows the oscillator strength in the “ peak at $`2J`$”, obtained by integrating $`\sigma _{T_c}\sigma _0`$ from the highest zero-crossing up to $`w=\mathrm{}`$ and converting to kinetic energy via Eq 14 (e.g. the integration for $`J=3.33eV`$ and $`n=0.7`$ includes the area between 5.8eV and 9.6eV). It is also convenient to define K$`_{T_c}`$, the total spectral weight of $`\sigma `$ at Tc, by evaluating Eqs 11, 14 at $`T=T_c`$. The ratio $`K_{anti}/K_{T_c}`$ can be compared with the experimental results of RefQuijada98 .

Ref Chattopadhyay00  argued, on the basis of calculations based on an oversimplified Bethe-lattice model, that the observed oscillator strength in the putative ’peak at $`2J`$’ was too large to be consistent with the calculation. The present calculations, which are based on the more realistic tight binding model, suggest that this is not the case.

Previous work Millis96b ; Chattopadhyay00  has drawn attention to a relationship between optical spectal weight (i.e. kinetic energy) changes and the value of the magnetic transition temperature. Our new results indicate that this result is of less generality than suspected. Fig. 8 compares, for different values of $`J`$, the optical spectral weight at $`T=T_c`$ (dashed and dotted lines) and $`T=0`$ (solid line). The $`J=\mathrm{}`$ limit reveals the expected approximately 30% decrease in spectral weight between $`T=0`$ and $`T=T_c`$, but the other traces reveal that the situation is more complicated in general. Indeed, at $`T=0`$ and for $`J`$ sufficiently large, only one spin band is occupied, and the band is therefore filled to a higher level, thereby losing kinetic energy. On the other hand, at $`T>T_c`$ both spin directions are equally probable, so electrons can redistribute themselves to the lower parts of the band, thereby gaining kinetic energy. However, in the paramagnetic phase the non-vanishing $`J`$ blocks some hopping processes. At intermediate $`J`$ these two processes compete, and as seen in Fig. 8, which one is dominant depends on both the value of $`J`$ and the band-filling. The blocking process is always dominant only at very large $`J`$.

The non-systematic change of kinetic energy upon magnetic ordering observed for reasonable values of $`J`$ suggests that the relation, proposed in previous work Chattopadhyay00 , between change in kinetic energy and value of transition temperature is not as general as expected. The lower panel of Fig. 9 shows the value of the transition temperature, plotted against change in kinetic energy for several different carrier densities, with $`J`$ as an implicit parameter. Also shown, as the solid line, is the result obtained in Ref Chattopadhyay00  (the different slope occurs because the results of Chattopadhyay00  are for an orbitally non-degenerate model). A linear dependence seems to be reasonable and is consistent with the ideas in Ref.Chattopadhyay00  \- but we observe, that the slope is doping dependent. The upper panel in Fig. 9 shows the same plot for several different $`J`$, with carrier density as an implicit parameter. A much more complicated appearance is obvious. We see that the relation between $`T_c`$ and kinetic energy is not at all universal, but depends strongly on electron density, essentially for the reasons given in the paragraph above.

## V Conclusions

We have presented a detailed analysis of the optical conductivity and magnetic transition temperature of electrons using a quasirealistic band structure and Hund’s coupling to classical ’core spins’. Our main finding is that, in contrast to a widely-made assumption in the manganite literature but in agreement with quantum chemical estimates and gas-phase measurements, a moderate value of the Hund’s coupling $`J1.31.5eV=2.5t`$ (large enough to fully polarize the conduction band at $`T=0`$ but less than the LSDA band width) suffices to account both for the order of magnitude of the magnetic transition temperature and for a feature observed in the optical conductivity in the paramagnetic phase. We have also presented predictions for the evolution of this feature as the carrier density is varied. Errors in previous work Chattopadhyay00  (arising from use of an oversimplified band structure and from numerical errors) have been corrected. We have also presented results for the spin-wave stiffness expected for a fully polarized ground state and a tight-binding band structure at arbitrary $`J`$.

We observe that even with a modest $`J`$ the spin wave stiffness and transition temperature are rather overestimated. It is possible to fix up these discrepancies by adding a phenomenological antiferromagnetic core-spin-core-spin coupling, as has been proposed by many authors. However, in our view a more serious problem remains: if these estimates for $`J`$ are accepted, then our basic understanding of the physics of the manganites must be reconsidered, because for these value of $`J`$ the change in kinetic energy between ferromagnetic and paramagnetic state is very small. A series of experiments has made it clear that the ’colossal’ magnetoresistance is associated with a change in electronic state from a more or less fermi-liquid like state to a state with strong local lattice distortions, leading to either short ranged or long ranged charge and orbital ordering. Previous work Millis96b , based on a large-J limit, had predicted this behavior as a consequence of the decrease in kinetic energy as spins were disordered, allowing the localizing tendency of the electron-phonon interaction to overcome the banding tendency of the electrons and produce a new phase. An approximately $`40`$ per cent decrease in conduction band oscillator strength, which is naturally associated to a decrease in electronic kinetic energy, is indeed observed, and was argued to be consistent with this physics. However, if J is in the range proposed here, then the disordering of the spins does not significantly change the electronic kinetic energy and another explanation for the high temperature second phase and thus for the ’colossal’ magnetoresistance must be sought.

One possibility is that a ’Hubbard U’ interaction is important, and reduces the electronic kinetic energy and band width to the point where even the modest $`J`$ we find here can have a strong effect. However, the total conduction band spectral weight observed at low T is close to the full band theory value, and indeed the while our simple calculation does not reproduce the detailed lineshape, the calculated magnitude of the conductivity in the 1-3eV is in reasonable agreement with data, suggesting that Hubbard-U effects are perhaps not so important. It is possible, however, that the good agreement is accidental, and that contributions from other orbitals (for example, ’wrong spin’ $`t_{2g}`$ electrons) are important in the real materials, although they are absent in our calculations. We also note that the susceptibility of the finite J paramagnetic state to local (or long ranged) lattice distortions has not been computed. It might be that even though the kinetic energies of the $`T=0`$ and $`T>T_c`$ phases are similar (at moderate J), the $`T>T_c`$ phase is more susceptible to local lattice distortions. This possibility urgently deserves further investigation.

Acknowledgements: We thank G.A. Sawatzky, D. Singh and H.D. Drew for helpful discussions and acknowledge support by the University of Maryland-Rutgers MRSEC. B.M. additionally thanks the Stiftung der Deutschen Wirtschaft (SDW) and the Wuerzburg-Rutgers exchange program.