text:
# The overdensities of galaxy environments as a function of luminosity and color

## 1 Introduction

Elliptical and lenticular galaxies are over-represented in massive nearby galaxy clusters relative to the field (Dressler, 1980; Postman & Geller, 1984). Elliptical galaxies also tend to be redder, more luminous, more metal-rich, more gas-poor, and older in stellar population than spirals and irregulars (e.g., Tammann et al., 1979; Kormendy & Djorgovski, 1989; Roberts & Haynes, 1994). Indeed, it has also been found that color, luminosity, surface-brightness, gas content, stellar population age, and star-formation rate are all correlated with the overdensity of the galaxy environment (e.g., Kennicutt, 1983; Balogh et al., 2001; Martínez et al., 2002; Lewis et al., 2002; Blanton et al., 2002c; Gomez et al., 2002). Along the same lines, studies of the clustering of galaxies have found different clustering amplitudes for galaxies of different types, colors, and luminosities (e.g., Davis & Geller, 1976; Mo et al., 1994; Park et al., 1994; Norberg et al., 2002; Zehavi et al., 2002). What is not understood is which of the relationships with environment are causal and which are just a by-product of other, more fundamental correlations.

Conventional cosmological theories posit that galaxies reside inside dark matter concentrations or “halos” that grow from small random fluctuations at early times. The most overdense fluctuations will collapse first; in a gaussian random field, these preferentially reside within overdensities on larger scales, implying a correlation of halo mass with environment is expected (e.g., Mo & White, 1996; Lemson & Kauffmann, 1999). The relationships between the properties of a halo and the properties of the galaxy or galaxies it contains are not fully understood, so the conventional theories do not currently make strong predictions for the dependence of galaxy number overdensity on observable galaxy properties, although most studies suggest that luminosity and color will be related to overdensity (eg, Kauffmann et al., 1997, 1999; Benson et al., 2000). Whether or not this dark-matter halo picture ends up being useful or correct, and whatever turn out to be the important physical processes for making galaxies, the investigations started in this Letter will place important constraints on galaxy formation and evolution.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) is the best available data set for investigation of these relationships because of its sample size, high signal-to-noise imaging, sky coverage, and complete spectroscopy (e.g., York et al., 2000). Indeed, the SDSS has already made some relevant measurements, including the dependence of clustering on luminosity and color (Zehavi et al., 2002), the star-formation as a function of environment (Gomez et al., 2002), and the mean red-galaxy spectrum as a function of environment (Eisenstein et al., 2002). In this Letter, we investigate the mean galaxy number overdensities around galaxies of different colors and luminosities.

In what follows, a cosmological world model with $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(0.3,0.7)`$ is adopted, and the Hubble constant is parameterized $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, for the purposes of calculating distances and volumes (e.g., Hogg, 1999).

## 2 Data sample

The SDSS is taking $`ugriz`$ CCD imaging of $`10^4\mathrm{deg}^2`$ of the Northern Galactic sky, and, from that imaging, selecting $`10^6`$ targets for spectroscopy, most of them galaxies with $`r<17.77\mathrm{mag}`$ (e.g., Gunn et al., 1998; York et al., 2000; Stoughton et al., 2002).

All the data processing: astrometry (Pier et al., 2002); source identification, deblending and photometry (Lupton et al., 2001); calibration (Fukugita et al., 1996; Smith et al., 2002); spectroscopic target selection (Eisenstein et al., 2001; Strauss et al., 2002; Richards et al., 2002); spectroscopic fiber placement (Blanton et al., 2002b); and spectroscopic data reduction are performed with automated SDSS software.

Redshifts are measured on the reduced spectra by an automated system, which models each galaxy spectrum as a linear combination of stellar populations (Schlegel, in preparation).

The sample is statistically complete, with small incompletenesses coming primarily from (1) galaxies missed because of mechanical spectrograph constraints (6 percent; Blanton et al., 2002b), which does lead to a slight under-representation of high-density regions, and (2) spectra in which the redshift is either incorrect or impossible to determine ($`<1`$ percent). In addition, there are some galaxies ($`1`$ percent) blotted out by bright Galactic stars, but this incompleteness should be uncorrelated with galaxy properties.

For the purposes of computing large-scale structure statistics, we have assembled a subsample of SDSS galaxies known as the NYU LSS sample10. This subsample includes not only properties of the galaxies but also of survey selection function variations and angular coverage. For each galaxy in sample10, the sample includes a computed volume $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ representing the total volume of the Universe (in $`h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$) in which the galaxy could have resided and still made it into the sample. The calculation of these volumes is described elsewhere (Blanton et al., 2002c).

Galaxy luminosities and colors (measured by the standard SDSS petrosian technique; Petrosian, 1976) are computed in fixed bandpasses, using Galactic extinction corrections (Schlegel et al., 1998) and $`K`$ corrections (computed with kcorrect v1\_11; Blanton et al., 2002a). They are $`K`$ corrected not to the redshift $`z=0`$ observed bandpasses but to bluer bandpasses $`{}_{}{}^{0.1}g`$, $`{}_{}{}^{0.1}r`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{0.1}i`$ “made” by shifting the SDSS $`g`$, $`r`$, and $`i`$ bandpasses to shorter wavelengths by a factor of 1.1 (c.f., Blanton et al., 2002a, c). This means that galaxies at redshift $`z=0.1`$ (typical of the SDSS sample used here) have trivial $`K`$ corrections.

The sample of galaxies used here was selected to have apparent magnitude in the range $`14.5<r<17.77\mathrm{mag}`$, redshift in the range $`0.05<z<0.22`$, and fixed-frame absolute magnitude in the range $`M_{{}_{}{}^{0.1}i}>24.0\mathrm{mag}`$. These cuts left 124884 galaxies.

Overdensity estimators on two different length scales are used. On the $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ scale, the estimate of environment overdensity $`\delta _8`$ is based on the SDSS spectroscopic sample. It is a measure of the three-dimensional redshift-angle space number density excess around each galaxy. The comoving transverse distances and comoving line-of-sight distances (e.g., Hogg, 1999) are computed between each spectroscopic galaxy and its neighboring spectroscopic galaxies (not attempting to correct for peculiar velocities). Neighbors within an $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ comoving sphere in this space are counted; the result is divided by the prediction made from the galaxy luminosity function (Blanton et al., 2002d), and unity is subtracted to produce the overdensity estimate $`\delta _8`$. A galaxy in an environment with the cosmic mean density has $`\delta _8=0`$. Although the sample used to infer $`\delta _8`$ is flux-limited and not volume-limited, the resulting overdensity estimates have been shown to be redshift-independent in the median (Blanton et al., 2002c). If the spatial correlation function $`\xi (r)`$ has the form $`r^\gamma `$, then the mean overdensity around galaxies $`\delta _8`$ will be $`(3/[3\gamma ])\xi (8h^1\mathrm{Mpc})`$. Direct comparison of the $`\delta _8`$ and $`\xi (r)`$ requires a correction for the presence of redshift distortions due to infall and “fingers of God”.

On the $`1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ scale, the estimate of environment overdensity $`\delta _1`$ is a deprojected angular correlation function. Around each spectroscopic target galaxy, galaxies are counted in the SDSS imaging in the magnitude range corresponding to $`M^{}\pm 1\mathrm{mag}`$ (passively-evolved and $`K`$-corrected as for an early-type galaxy) and within $`5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (transverse, proper; e.g., Hogg, 1999) at the spectroscopic galaxy redshift. The count is weighted so as to recover the estimated overdensity averaged over a *spherical* three-dimensional Gaussian window $`e^{r^2/2a^2}`$ with a radius of $`a=1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (proper). Details of the weighting and the method for correcting for the survey mask are given elsewhere (Eisenstein, 2002). The results do not depend on an assumed model of the correlation function but do depend inversely on the normalization of the luminosity function at the redshift in question. One advantage of this method is that the density can be estimated with a volume-limited and yet reasonably dense set of galaxies, even at the furthest reaches of the spectroscopic catalog. Another advantage is that the estimator is not affected by redshift distortions. If the spatial correlation function $`\xi (r)`$ has the form $`r^\gamma `$, then the mean overdensity around galaxies $`\delta _1`$ is $`(2/\sqrt{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }([3\gamma ]/2)\xi (1h^1\mathrm{Mpc})`$.

The two overdensity estimators $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _8`$ are very different; the deprojection technique is not possible on the large scale because of survey geometry constraints, and the redshift-angle sphere technique is not possible on the small scale because of peculiar velocities. Of course, that different estimators with different systematics are used on the two different scales makes their inter-comparison informative.

## 3 Results

Fig 1 shows the mean dependencies of overdensity on luminosity and color separately. Both show monotonic trends, with redder and more luminous galaxies, on average, in higher density regions. In each panel the mean is weighted by the inverse selection volumes $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

Panel (a) of Fig 2 shows the distribution of galaxies in the sample in the luminosity-color plane. The “red sequence” of old stellar populations, i.e., early-type galaxies, is visible. We will refer to galaxies on this sequence as “red” and those bluer as “blue.” The mode of the luminosity distribution is more luminous than $`L^{}`$. This is due to the classical Malmquist bias: more luminous galaxies are visible over a much larger volume and are therefore over-represented in the sample. Taking means weighted by $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ compensates for this bias.

Panels (b) and (c) of Fig 2 show the weighted mean environment overdensities $`\delta _8`$ and $`\delta _1`$ computed in a sliding box of luminosity width $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{{}_{}{}^{0.1}i}=0.5\mathrm{mag}`$ and color width $`\mathrm{\Delta }{}_{}{}^{0.1}(gr)=0.15\mathrm{mag}`$, at all colors and magnitudes at which the sliding box contains at least 200 galaxies. The trends of the two different density estimators are remarkably similar:

(1) Galaxies of every color and luminosity are, on average, in overdense regions ($`\delta >0`$). There are no unclustered or void populations that can be isolated by color and luminosity, in the color and luminosity ranges considered here.

(2) Very luminous ($`L>3L^{}`$) red galaxies are, on average, in more overdense regions than the average galaxy. This is not surprising, given that many clusters contain extremely luminous galaxies (e.g., Beers & Geller, 1983).

(3) Faint ($`L<(1/3)L^{}`$) red galaxies are also, on average, in more overdense regions than the average galaxy. This may be related to the observation that the luminosity function appears more dwarf-rich in clusters than in the field (e.g., Driver et al., 1994; Bernstein et al., 1995; de Propris et al., 1995; Trentham & Hodgkin, 2002).

(4) The mean overdensity of blue galaxies is independent of luminosity and increases with color, at least at luminosities $`L<3L^{}`$. That overdensity is related to color reflects the color–morphology and density–morphology relations (Dressler, 1980; Postman & Geller, 1984; Roberts & Haynes, 1994).

## 4 Discussion

We have shown that blue galaxies, i.e., galaxies bluer than the red sequence of old stellar populations, exhibit no correlation between their luminosities and the overdensity of their environments, at fixed color. The class of blue galaxies includes most spirals and irregulars.

On Fig 2 a line of (roughly) constant stellar mass is shown, derived by converting relations derived in the $`B`$ and $`R`$ bands (Bell & de Jong, 2001); the conversion is straightforward because $`B`$ and $`R`$ are very similar to $`{}_{}{}^{0.1}g`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{0.1}i`$. The line of constant mass is close to a line of constant luminosity. Similarly, a line of constant star-formation history is close to a line of constant color, with a small slope arising from the luminosity–metallicity relation (e.g., Vila-Costas & Edmunds, 1992; Zaritsky et al., 1994; Ryder, 1995). Fig 2 shows that, for spiral galaxies, mean overdensity is monotonically related to star-formation history. That there is a strong relationship between star-formation history and environment has been suggested before, both theoretically (eg, Kauffmann et al., 1999; Benson et al., 2000) and observationally (Balogh et al., 2001; Gomez et al., 2002). What is more remarkable is that, for galaxies with the colors of spirals, at fixed star-formation history, overdensity does not appear to depend on stellar mass at all.

The reddest galaxies show strong trends in overdensity at both the luminous and faint extremes. The former trend indicates that the very most luminous galaxies lie in the very largest overdensities; probably this is related to the fact that giant galaxies lie near the centers of clusters. The latter trend suggests that though high-density regions are expected to be rich in dwarf galaxies, those dwarfs will, by and large, be much redder than typical galaxies of their luminosity (Norberg et al. 2002; Zehavi et al, in preparation). That red galaxies have a minimum in their mean overdensity at luminosities near $`L^{}`$ could be partly due to the specific mixture of galaxy types at those luminosities; there is a large overlap with the distribution of spirals, and the red population contains a large number of Sa galaxies at those luminosities (e.g., Strateva et al., 2001).

At one point it was thought that dwarf galaxies might “fill the voids,” making them an underdense population in the mean. Our results rule this out, at least for dwarf galaxies selected by color and luminosity in the ranges considered here.

We thank Andreas Berlind, Douglas Finkbeiner, Jill Knapp, Ravi Sheth, Roman Scoccimarro, Iskra Strateva, and Simon White for useful discussions and software. This research made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System. MRB and DWH are partially supported by NASA (grant NAG5-11669) and NSF (grant PHY-0101738). DJE is supported by NSF (grant AST-0098577) and by an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship. Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are The University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, University of Pittsburgh, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.


format: text

text:
# Raman Spectra of Triplet Superconductor in Sr2RuO4

## I Introduction

The superconductivity in Sr2RuO4 was discovered in 1994.maeno  Shortly after the discovery of superconductivity, a possible triplet p-wave superconductivity with the following order parameter was postulated by Rice and Sigrist.rice ; maeno2

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{d}(k_x\pm ik_y),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the magnitude of the superconducting order parameter. Here $`\widehat{d}`$-vector is called spin vector perpendicular to the direction of the the spin associated with the condensed pair.vollhardt  Notice that this state is analogous to the $`A`$ phase of 3He and there is a full gap on the Fermi surface. Subsequently, the triplet superconducting nature has been confirmed by the constancy of 17O Knight shift (spin susceptibility) through $`T_c`$ for the magnetic field parallel to the $`ab`$ planeishida . The broken time reversal symmetry state have been also confirmed by the spontaneous magnetic moment found in $`\mu `$SR experimentluke . In general, the triplet superconductors have a variety of collective modes. The spin waves and the clapping mode with the order parameter of Eq. 1 were studied in Ref. tewordt ; kee ; kee2 . Further, the effect of the clapping mode on the sound wave was studied.kee2  However, this coupling is very small to detect the existence of the clapping mode.

In the meantime, the sample quality of Sr2RuO4 has been improved. The cleanest sample shows the transition temperature close to the optimal $`T_c=1.5K`$ deduced from the $`T_c`$ dependence of the residual resistivity.mackenzie  All these high quality samples exhibit the character of nodal superconductors; the $`T^2`$ behavior of the specific heatnishizaki , the $`T`$-linear dependence of superfluid densitybonalde , the $`T^3`$ behavior of $`1/T_1`$ in NMRishida3 , the $`T^2`$ behavior of the ultrasonic attenuationlupien , and the $`\sqrt{H}`$ dependence of the specific heat in a magnetic fieldnishizaki  at low temperature. These low temperature behaviors of the specific heat and superfluid density are consistent with a f-wave superconductor with nodes in the order parameter.hasegawa ; won ; dahm ; miyake ; graf

On the other hand, the quasi-two dimensional system with strong paramagnon (the ferromagnetic spin fluctuation) favors the p-wave superconductor as given in Eq. 1.sigrist ; sato  In order to understand this situation, the nodal structure of the order parameter becomes of crucial importance. In a series of papers, Won and Maki have shown that the magneto-thermal conductivity for $`T\stackrel{~}{v}\sqrt{eH}\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ will provide the direct access to this questionwon2 ; won3 , where $`\stackrel{~}{v}=\sqrt{v_av_c}`$ and $`v_{a,c}`$ are the anisotropic Fermi velocities. Such experiments have been carried out by Tanatar et altanatar  and Izawa et alizawa . The result is consistent with the f-wave superconductor with horizontal nodes of Eq. 2, even though the thermal conductivity data cannot exclude a small admixture, a few % of p-wave order parameter, Eq. 1.

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{d}[(k_x\pm ik_y)\mathrm{cos}(ck_z)],$$
(2)
where $`c`$ is the lattice constant along the $`c`$-axis.

Parallel to this development, Zhitomirsky and Ricezhito  have proposed an alternative model, multi-gap model for Sr2RuO4. As it is known that the Fermi surfaces in Sr2RuO4 consist of three different bands labeled by $`\alpha `$-, $`\beta `$-, and $`\gamma `$-bandsmaeno2 , it is also believed that the superconductivity arises mainly in the $`\gamma `$-band. It was proposed that a full gap with p-wave, Eq. (1) exists in the active band $`\gamma `$, while line nodes with f-wave order parameter, Eq. 3 develops in the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ due to proximity effect.zhito

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{zr}(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{d}[(k_x\pm ik_y)\mathrm{cos}(ck_z/2)].$$
(3)
While this model could reproduce the specific heat data by Nishizaki et alnishizaki , and the magnetic penetration depth data by Bonalde et albonalde ; kusunose , they have not attempted to calculate the magneto-thermal conductivity which should be more revealing. Note that the f-wave superconductor associated with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$-bands in Ref. zhito  is similar to the Eq. 2, but not the same. The model with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{zr}`$ produced much larger ($``$ 30 times) $`cos(2\varphi )`$ term in the angular dependence of magneto-thermal conductivity. The better test of the nodal position can be done through the angle (azimuthal angle of $`𝐤`$ from the $`a`$-axis) dependence of the thermal conductivitydahm ; maki .

More recently, Deguchi et al observed a double transition in the specific heat with the magnetic field near $`H_{c2}`$, and this experimental result was interpreted in terms of multigap model.deguchi  On the other hand, the behavior of the specific heat and the magnetic penetration depth for low temperature $`(TT_c)`$ and the low field $`(HH_{c2})`$ appears to be consistent with the f-wave order parameter given in Eq. 2. At the moment, it is not clear whether the order parameter of Eq. 2, or the multigap model with the order parameters of Eq. 1 and Eq. 3 is adequate. This is the fundamental issue for Sr2RuO4.

In this paper, we study the Raman spectra of spin triplet superconductors in Sr2RuO4. We consider three different order parameters given in Eq. 1, 2, and 3 sketched in Fig. 1; (a) p-wave with a full gap, (b) f-wave with horizontal nodes, and (c) f-wave with node at the zone boundary. We identify the clapping modevollhardt  in these superconductors and consider its effect on Raman spectra. We show that (1) the Raman spectroscopy can detect the clapping mode, and (2) it can discriminate the multigap model from the single gap model.

For the p-wave superconductor, the frequency of the clapping mode was found at $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$kee , and this mode exists as a sharp resonance in $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ modes of Raman spectra. For the f-wave superconductors (Eqs. 2 and 3), the frequency of the clapping mode gets smaller than that of the p-wave, $`1.02\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as expected due to the existence of node, and this mode is also detectable in $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ modes of Raman spectra. While the weighted sum of the clapping mode contributions from the p-wave and the f-wave appears in the multigap model, the single gap model of Eq. 2 has the contribution from solely the clapping mode in the f-wave superconductor.

The paper is organized as follows. The formalism to identify the clapping mode and its effect on the Raman spectra is summarized in the section II. The results of the Raman spectra of $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ modes for p-wave and f-wave superconductors are presented in the section III and IV, respectively. The conclusion and discussion will be followed in the section V. The details of computing the correlation functions are presented in Appendix.

## II Formalism of Raman spectra and clapping mode

The electronic Raman scattering in superconductors are well described in Ref. devereaux . Therefore, here we give a brief summary of the Raman spectra. The Raman spectra $`S_i`$ in superconductors measure effective density fluctuations, and its strength of the scattering is determined by the Raman vertex, $`\gamma _i`$. One can select the Raman vertex which allows for different projections on the Fermi surface. The intensity of the each Raman mode provides information on the gap structure along the Fermi surface. The Raman spectra in superconductors is determined from

$$S_i^0(\omega ,𝐪0)=Im\left[\gamma _i,\gamma _i\frac{\gamma _i,1}{1,1}\right].$$
(4)
Here we use the following notational convenience,

$$A,B=T\underset{n}{}\underset{𝐩}{}\mathrm{Tr}[A\rho _3G(𝐩,\omega _n)B\rho _3G(𝐩𝐪,i\omega _ni\omega _\nu )],$$
(5)
where the single particle Green’s function, $`G(i\omega _n,𝐤)`$, in the Nambu space is given by

$$G^1(i\omega _n,𝐤)=i\omega _n\xi _𝐤\rho _3\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{k}\widehat{\rho })\sigma _1.$$
(6)
Here $`\rho _i`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are Pauli matrices acting on the particle-hole and spin space, respectively. $`\omega _n=(2n+1)\pi T`$ is the fermionic Matsubara frequency, and $`\xi _𝐤=(k_x^2+k_y^2)/2m\mu `$ where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. The Raman vertics, $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ are written as

$`\gamma _{B1g}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$
$`\gamma _{B2g}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi ),`$ (7)
where $`\varphi `$ is the angle of the wave-vector $`𝐤`$ on the Fermi surface. The second term of Eq. 4 is a back-flow term due to the charge conservation, which can be seen in the limit of $`\gamma _i=`$ const. In this case, Raman intensity should vanishes because there is no density fluctuation in the homogeneous limit of $`𝐪0`$ in a superconductor.

The clapping mode is the fluctuation of the order parameter which can be written as $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho _3\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2i\varphi )(\sigma _1\pm i\sigma _2)\rho _3`$ in the Nambu space, As it is indicated in the fluctuation of the order parameter, $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2i\varphi )`$, this mode can directly couple to $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ channels of the Raman spectra. The clapping mode makes the additional contribution to the Raman intensity given by

$$S_i=S_i^0+\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{\gamma _i,\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\gamma _i}{g^1\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}\right),$$
(8)
where $`g`$ is the coupling constant which mediates superconducting state, and the coupling between the fluctuation of the order parameter and the light scattering with Raman vertex, $`\gamma _i`$. On the other hand, the $`A_{1g}`$ mode does not couple to the clapping mode. Therefore $`S_{A_{1g}}`$ is given by the first term in Eq. 8. Note that $`S_i^0`$ is the same for all three modes ($`B_{1g}`$, $`B_{2g}`$, and $`A_{1g}`$) for each order parameter. This indicates the existence of the axial symmetry and horizontal nodes in the order parameter, if there is any.

## III Raman spectra of $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ in p-wave superconductor

The order parameter of Eq. 1 has a full gap on the Fermi surface, therefore the bare Raman intensity in p-wave superconductor is same as that of s-wave superconductor.

$$S_{B_{1g}}^0=Im\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi ),\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )=\frac{2\pi N(0)\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega \sqrt{\omega ^24\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\theta (\omega ^24\mathrm{\Delta }^2).$$
(9)
Note that the Raman intensity is zero for the frequency, $`\omega <2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ due to the presence of the full gap.

The coupling to the collective mode leads to the additional contribution to the Raman spectra. While the $`A_{1g}`$ mode has the same frequency dependences as $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ as far as the bare Raman intensity, $`S^0`$ is concerned, this mode does not couple to the clapping mode. The Raman intensity due to the clapping mode can be obtained by computing the correlation functions presented in the Appendix. Here we summarize the result of the correlation functions.

$`Re\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\gamma _{B_{1g}}`$ $`=`$ $`N(0)\left[\omega \mathrm{\Delta }f\right],`$
$`Re\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`g^1N(0)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\right)f\right],`$ (10)
where $`f`$ is given by

$$f(\omega ,T)=_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E\frac{\mathrm{tanh}(E/2T)}{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\frac{1}{4E^2\omega ^2}.$$
(11)
Since the imaginary part of $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ are zero for the frequency, $`\omega <2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the clapping mode appears as a resonance in the Raman spectra for $`B_{1g}`$, which is given by

$`S_{B_{1g}}^{clapp}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`Im\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{B_{1g}},\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\gamma _{B_{1g}}}{g^1\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`2\pi N(0)\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2f(\omega ,T)\delta (\omega ^22\mathrm{\Delta }^2).`$
The Raman intensity, $`B_{1g}(\omega )`$ is plotted in Fig. 2 with a finite impurity scattering, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It is important to note that there is a resonance at the frequency of $`\omega =\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with a Lorentzian shape. The same is true for $`B_{2g}`$ channel.

## IV Raman spectra of $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ in f-wave superconductor

We consider the f-wave order parameter of Eq. 2, and the cylindrical Fermi surface independent of $`k_z`$. Since there is a node along the $`k_z`$ direction, we expect the finite bare Raman intensity, $`\gamma _i,\gamma _i`$ at low frequency,

$`S_{B_{1g}}^0`$ $`=`$ $`Im\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi ),\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$ (13)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4N(0)\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega }}\left[K({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{\Delta }}})E({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{\Delta }}})\right]\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{4T}},`$
where $`K`$ and $`E`$ are complete Elliptical integral of first and second kinds, respectively.

The contribution from the coupling to the clapping mode is given by

$$S_{B_{1g}}^{clapp}=N(0)\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{4\omega _c^R\omega _c^ID(\omega ,T)}{(\omega ^2\omega _C^R)^2+4(\omega _c^R\omega _c^I)^2},$$
(14)
where

$$D(\omega ,T)=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dE}{4E^2\omega ^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(K(\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Delta }})E(\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Delta }})\right)\mathrm{tanh}\frac{E}{2T}$$
(15)
The frequency of the clapping mode and its damping are obtained as

$`\omega _c^R`$ $`=`$ $`1.02\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`\omega _c^I`$ $`=`$ $`0.57\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (16)
where the $`\omega _c^I`$ is computed from the formula, $`\frac{\mathrm{Im}\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}{N(0)\omega _c^RD(\omega ,T)}`$, and $`\mathrm{Im}\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given in the Appendix, Eq. 26. The Raman intensity due the clapping mode is shown in Fig. 3. It is important to note that the shape of the Raman intensity is not Lorentzian, but it has asymmetry. The Raman spectra for the another proposed f-wave, Eq 3 are identical to the result presented here for the order parameter of Eq. 2.

## V Conclusion

Within the framework of the weak-coupling BCS theory, we have studied the Raman spectra of two-dimensional p-wave (Eq. 1) and f-wave (Eqs. 2 and 3) superconductors; the candidate for Sr2RuO4. The clapping mode with angular momentum $`\pm 2`$, parallel to the c-axis is common to these ground states, which break the chirial symmetry. We have shown that the clapping mode has the frequency of $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$, and $`1.02\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ for p-wave and f-wave superconductors, respectively. We have also shown that the clapping mode couples both sound wavekee , and $`B_{1g}`$ and $`B_{2g}`$ modes of the Raman spectra. While the coupling to the sound wave is very small, the clapping mode appears as a huge resonance in Raman spectra. Therefore, if the present experimental difficulty is overcome, the Raman spectroscopy provides a unique window to probe the clapping mode.

Investigating the clapping mode in Raman spectra will also probe the order parameter of Sr2RuO4. The single model of the f-wave shows only contribution from the clapping mode of f-wave order parameter( Fig. 3 ). On the other hand, the multigap model proposed by Zhitomirsky and Rice should be the weighted sum of the p-wave (Fig. 2) and f-wave (Fig. 3) contribution. It is important to note that the maximum gap of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{zr}(0.20.5)\mathrm{\Delta }_{BCS}`$ on the $`\alpha `$\- and $`\beta `$-bands, while the maximum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`\gamma `$-band with p-wave is set to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{BCS}`$ which is the energy scale we used in our figures. Therefore, for the multigap model, the contribution from f-wave order parameter, Eq. 3 should be peaked around $`(0.20.5)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (with the contribution from p-wave around $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }`$), while single gap model gives the peak around $`1.02\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The Raman spectroscopy can discriminate the multigap model from the single gap model.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Canada Research Chair (H.-Y. K), and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. (H.-Y. K, C.-H. C) K. Maki would like to thank Y. Matsuda for a useful discussion.

## Appendix A

### A.1 the clapping mode and its contribution on Raman, $`B_{1g,2g}`$ in p-wave superconductor

The fluctuation of the order parameter corresponds to the clapping mode, and it can be written as $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho _3e^{\pm 2i\varphi }(\sigma _1\pm i\sigma _2)\rho _3`$. Its coupling to the $`\gamma _{B1g}`$ mode of Raman spectra, and its propagator, $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ are obtained by computing the following correlation function within weak coupling theory.

$`\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )(i\omega _\nu ,𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\mathrm{Tr}[\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho _3G(𝐩,\omega _n)\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$ (17)
$`\times \rho _3G(𝐩𝐪,i\omega _ni\omega _\nu )],`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }(i\omega _\nu ,𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\mathrm{Tr}[\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho _3G(𝐩,\omega _n)\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ (18)
$`\times \rho _3G(𝐩𝐪,i\omega _ni\omega _\nu )].`$
After summing over the frequency, the correlation functions are written as

$`Re\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\gamma _{B1g}`$ $`=`$ $`N(0){\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4E^2\omega ^2}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2T}}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\left[N(0)\omega \mathrm{\Delta }f\right],`$
where $`f(\omega ,T)`$ is given by Eq. 11. There is no imaginary part of the above correlation function. On the other hand, the correlation function of the order parameter fluctuation is given by

$`Re\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`N(0){\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega ^24E^2}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2T}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`g^1\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\right)f\right],`$
where

$$g^1=\frac{N(0)}{2}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dE}{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{E}{2T}$$
(21)
Now the imaginary part of the above correlation function is

$`Im\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`N(0){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\omega }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E{\displaystyle \frac{2E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2T}}`$ (22)
$`\times \left(\delta (\omega 2E)+\delta (\omega +2E)\right)`$
$`=N(0){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^22\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\sqrt{\omega ^24\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{4T}}\theta (\omega 2\mathrm{\Delta }).`$
Note that $`Im\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is $`0`$ for $`\omega <2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is the regime we are interested in. Therefore, the Raman intensity for $`B_{1g}`$ as well as $`B_{2g}`$ for p-wave for $`\omega <2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ should be

$`Im\left({\displaystyle \frac{[\gamma ,\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho _3][\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho _3,\gamma ]}{g^1[\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho _3,\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho _3]}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`Im{\displaystyle \frac{2N(0)\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2f}{(\omega ^22\mathrm{\Delta }^2)+i\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ (23)
$`=2\pi N(0)\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2f\delta (\omega ^22\mathrm{\Delta }^2),`$
where a finite $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ could come from the impurity scattering. The clapping mode appears as a huge resonance with Lorentzian shape (with a finite $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) at the frequency of $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ shown in Fig. 2.

### A.2 the clapping mode and its contribution on Raman, $`B_{1g,2g}`$ in f-wave superconductor

Using the correlation functions, Eq. 18, we obtained the following results for the f-wave superconductor.

$`Re\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N(0)\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{\omega ^24E^2}}`$ (24)
$`\times \left(A({\displaystyle \frac{E}{\mathrm{\Delta }}})\right)\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2T}}`$
Using the definition of $`D(\omega ,T)`$, Eq. 15, the above correlation function can be written as

$$Re\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )=N(0)\left[\omega \mathrm{\Delta }D(\omega ,T)\right]$$
(25)
On the other hand, the propagator of the clapping mode is given by

$`Re\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`g^1{\displaystyle \frac{2N(0)}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{4E^2\omega ^2}}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2}}A({\displaystyle \frac{E}{\mathrm{\Delta }}})\mathrm{\Delta }^2B({\displaystyle \frac{E}{\mathrm{\Delta }}})\right)\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2T}}`$
$`=`$ $`g^1N(0){\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2\omega _c^2}{2}}D(\omega ,T)`$
$`Im\delta \mathrm{\Delta },\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N(0)}{\omega }}\left(\omega ^2A({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{\Delta }}})2\mathrm{\Delta }^2B({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{\Delta }}})\right)`$ (26)
$`\times \mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{4T}},`$
where

$`A(k)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(K(k)E(k)\right)`$
$`B(k)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left[(k^2+2)K(k)2(k^2+1)E(k)\right]`$
$`\omega _c`$ $``$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }^2B(k)/A(k).`$ (27)
Therefore, one can determine the position of the clapping mode, $`\omega _c^R`$, using the following relations.

$$2k^2=\frac{1}{3}\left(2+\frac{k^2K(k)2k^2E(k)}{K(k)E(k)}\right),$$
(28)
where $`k=\omega _c^R/(2\mathrm{\Delta })`$. This gives,

$$\omega _c^R=1.02\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(29)


text:
# The Group-Theoretical Classification of Some Multiparticle States in the Presence of Magnetic Field and Periodic Potential

## I Introduction

The quantum Hall effect and high temperature superconductivity have given raise to interest in properties of the two-dimensional electron gas subjected to electric and magnetic fields. The observation of (negatively) charged excitons shields  has recalled a forty-year old concept of excitons “trions” or “charged excitons” introduced by Lampert in 1958 lamp . Recently, such excitons, consisting of two holes and an electron or two electrons and hole (denoted $`X^\pm `$, respectively), have been investigated both experimentally and theoretically exper ; theor ; dzy .

In this paper classification based on translational symmetry in the presence of a periodic potential and an external magnetic field is presented. To perform this task the so-called magnetic translation operators, introduced by Brown brown  and Zak zak , are used. These operators commute with the standard Hamiltonian of an electron in the magnetic field $`𝐇=\times 𝐀`$ and a periodic potential $`V(𝐫)`$

$$=\frac{1}{2m}\left(𝐩+\frac{e}{c}𝐀\right)^2+V(𝐫).$$
(1)
This paper exploits the fact that after imposing the Born–von Kármán (BvK) periodic conditions the magnetic translations form a finite-dimensional projective representation of the 2D translation group. Kronecker products of irreducible projective representations can be applied to description of multiparticle states flo99 .

The aim of this work is to present classification of three-particle states (strictly speaking states of particle-particle-antiparticle systems) when at the first step states of a pair of identical (charged) particles are constructed. Such an approach allow to discuss pair states, what may be important in considerations of high-$`T_\text{c}`$ superconductors, where Cooper pairs are confined to Cu-O planes. A pair particle-antiparticle is also considered and a particle is added in the next step, what leads to the particle-particle-antiparticle system. States of such systems are also determined by means of direct conjugation of three representations. More detailed discussion of trions is also presented in another author’s article jmpnew .

Investigating problems, which involve the magnetic field $`𝐇`$ determined by the vector potential $`𝐀`$, one has to keep in mind that some results may depend on a chosen gauge, though physical properties should be gauge-independent. Two gauges are most frequently used in description of the 2D electron systems: the Landau gauge with $`𝐀=[0,Hx,0]`$ and the antisymmetric one with $`𝐀=(𝐇\times 𝐫)/2`$. The relations between these gauges were discussed in the earlier article jmpold . For the sake of simplicity the considerations are limited the Landau gauge, but the previous results jmpold  and the concept of rays weyl  together with application of a local basis transformation enable us to show that classification obtained here is gauge-independent. The presented results correspond to the limit of high magnetic fields, i.e. there is no Landau level mixing.

## II Magnetic translations as projective representations

Magnetic translation operators $`T(𝐑)`$ commuting with the Hamiltonian (1) form a projective representation of the translation group $`𝒯`$ brown , i.e.

$$T(𝐑_1)T(𝐑_2)=T(𝐑_1+𝐑_2)\mu (𝐑_1,𝐑_2);$$

$`𝐑_1,𝐑_2𝒯`$, $`\mu (𝐑_1,𝐑_2)\text{U}(1)`$. It should be stressed that due to the presence of a magnetic field $`𝐇`$ all interesting physical (as well as mathematical) features take place in the plane perpendicular to $`𝐇`$. Therefore, we assume $`𝐇=H\widehat{𝐳}`$ and a two-dimensional crystal lattice determined by vectors $`𝐚_1`$, $`𝐚_2`$ lying in the $`xy`$-plane is considered. The concept of magnetic translations can be generalized to a local gauge of the vector potential $`𝐀`$, $`d`$-dimensional lattices, and the spatially inhomogeneous magnetic field jmpold ; flomc ; thom . The periodic boundary conditions give rise to the flux quantization:

$$q\varphi =\frac{l}{n},n|N,\mathrm{gcd}(l,n)=1;$$

$`q=Q/e`$, where $`Q`$ is a particle charge, $`\varphi `$ is a flux through the unit lattice cell, and $`N`$ is the Born–von Kármán period. All possible pairs $`(l,n)`$ label different irreducible representations of the translation group $`𝒯`$. Two notes are in a place. At first, please note that the formula presented means, it fact, quantization of the product $`q\varphi `$ and should be applied to systems containing particles with $`|q|>1`$ jmpold . In their original works Brownbrown  and Zakzak  dealt with electrons only. In the case $`n=N`$ each $`l`$, mutually prime with $`N`$, determines a projective irreducible representation (irrep) in the unique way. In the other cases ($`1n<N`$) there is an additional pair of indices $`𝐤[k_1,k_2]`$ ($`0k_j<(N/n)`$, $`j=1,2`$), so there are $`(N/n)^2`$ $`n`$-dimensional nonequivalent projective irreps of $`𝒯`$. Each of these irreps has the same factor system $`\mu (𝐑_1,𝐑_2)`$ determined by the pair $`(l,n)`$ BB . This property is related to the concept of the so-called magnetic cells and magnetically periodic conditions brown ; flomc .

## III Product of projective irreps

Assuming the Landau gauge, $`𝐀=[0,Hx,0]`$, the finite-dimensional projective irrep of the 2D translation group can be chosen as ($`n=N`$)

$$D_{jk}^l[n_1,n_2]=\delta _{j,kn_2}\omega _N^{ln_1j},$$

where $`\omega _N=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \text{i}/N)`$ and all expressions are calculated modulo $`N`$; vectors of the translation group $`𝒯𝐑=n_1𝐚_1+n_2𝐚_2`$ are replaced by their coordinates, $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$, in the crystal basis. In the terms of the basis vectors of the irrep we obtain

$$D^l[n_1,n_2]|w=\omega _N^{ln_1(wn_2)}|wn_2.$$

The other special case, $`n=1`$, leads to the $`N^2`$ standard (vector) irreps of the translation group labeled by wave vector $`𝐤`$, i.e.

$$D^𝐤[n_1,n_2]=\omega _N^{k_1n_1+k_2n_2},$$
(2)
where $`𝐤=[k_1,k_2]`$, $`k_1,k_2=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$.

The Kronecker product of representations $`D^l`$ (for any $`n`$) corresponds to the addition of charges (for a fixed $`H`$) flo99 ; flopro . In particular

$`D^lD^l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}D^𝐤;`$ (3)
$`D^lD^lD^l`$ $`=`$ $`N^2D^l\text{ for }n=N.`$ (4)
In the further considerations we limit ourselves to the case, when one-particle states are described by representations with $`n=N`$. It means that crystal and magnetic periods jmpold  are identical and we consider products of representations $`D^l`$ for $`l`$ mutually prime with $`N`$.

## IV States of pairs

### IV.1 States of particle-antiparticle pair

The particle-antiparticle pair is very simple to consider. Taking into account Eq. (3) one can construct symmetry adapted basis consisting of vectors

$$|0_𝐤=N^{1/2}\underset{s=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega _N^{sk_2}|s_+|sxk_1_{},$$

where $`xl=1modN`$ ($`x=l^1modN`$). The vector $`|0_𝐤`$ transform as the basis vector of the one-dimensional (vector) representation $`D^𝐤`$ determined in Eq. (2). The subscript ‘+’ (‘–’) denotes states of a particle (an antiparticle, respectively).

### IV.2 Pair of identical particles

In the case of a pair of identical particles, i.e. considering the product $`D^lD^l`$, one has to distinguish cases of odd and even $`N`$. The first case ($`N`$ odd) is easy to solve since

$$D^lD^l=ND^{2l}.$$

One of possible forms of the irreducible basis is

$$|s_2^r=|s+r_+|sr_+,s,r=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1,$$
(5)
where the subscript ‘2’ indicates states of a pair and $`r`$ is the repetition index.

The case $`N=2M`$ leads to the representations product in the following form

$$D^lD^l=M(D^{l;[0,0]}D^{l;[1,0]}D^{l;[0,1]}D^{l;[1,1]}).$$

The representations $`D^{l;[k_1,k_2]}`$, $`k_1,k_2=0,1`$ form a complete set of nonequivalent $`M`$-dimensional projective irreps of $`𝒯`$. They can be expressed by a general formula BB

$$D^{l;[k_1,k_2]}[n_1,n_2]|s=\omega _N^{ln_1(2s2\eta +k_1)}(1)^{\xi k_2}|s\eta _+,$$

where $`k_1,k_2=0,1`$, $`\eta =n_2modM`$, $`\xi =1`$ for $`Msn_22M`$ and $`\xi =0`$ otherwise. The irreducible bases can be chosen in the following way

$$|s_2^{r;[k_1,k_2]}=2^{1/2}\left(|s+r_+|sr+k_1_++(1)^{k_2}|M+s+r_+|M+sr+k_1_+\right)$$
(6)
with $`s,r=0,1,2,\mathrm{},M1`$, where $`s`$ labels vectors and $`r`$ is the repetition index.

### IV.3 Symmetrization of states

Having determined the basis $`|s_2`$ for pairs of identical particle it is natural and obvious to investigate the symmetry properties related with the transposition of particles. As in all above problems the case of odd $`N=2M+1`$ is quite easy. It follows from Eq. (5) that $`r=0`$ leads to symmetric states

$$|0_+|0_+,|1_+|1_+,\mathrm{},|N1_+|N1_+.$$

The other $`N^2N=N(N1)`$ vectors correspond to $`N1=2M`$ representations labeled by $`r=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. To construct symmetric (antisymmetric) states it is enough to take combinations

$$|s_2^{r\pm }=2^{1/2}(|s+r_+|sr_+\pm |sr_+|s+r_+),$$

where $`r=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$ now.

In the case of even $`N=2M`$ the product $`D^lD^l`$ decomposes into $`M`$ copies of four $`M`$-dimensional projective representations. Since the symmetrization of states has a slightly different form in each of these cases then they are considered separately.

The non-symmetrized basis of the representation $`D^{l;[0,0]}`$ is given by Eq. (6) as

$$|s_2^{r;[0,0]}=2^{1/2}\left(|s+r_+|sr_++|M+s+r_+|M+sr_+\right).$$

The case $`r=0`$ again gives $`M`$ symmetric states. To consider the other $`M1`$ representations one has to check the parity of $`M`$. If $`M=2\mu `$, then for $`r=\mu `$ we have $`Mr=r`$ and $`M+r=Nr`$, so in this case all vectors are symmetric. The other vectors form symmetric and antisymmetric states in the standard way and it also concerns the case of odd $`M`$.

The ‘additional’ symmetric state found above for $`N=4\mu `$ is ‘lost’ considering $`D^{l;[1,0]}`$. Its irreducible basis given by Eq. (6)

$$|s_2^{r;[1,0]}=2^{1/2}\left(|s+r_+|sr+1_++|M+s+r_+|M+sr+1_+\right)$$

have no symmetric states for $`M=2\mu `$, but for odd $`M=2\mu 1`$ and $`r=\mu `$ the above formula reads

$$|s_2^{\mu ;[1,0]}=2^{1/2}\left(|s+\mu _+|s\mu +1_++|s\mu +1_+|s+\mu _+\right),$$

so these states are symmetric.

The similar considerations have to be performed for representations $`D^{l;[k_1,1]}`$ with special attention to the fact that

$`|sr_+|s+r_+`$ $``$ $`|M+sr_+|M+s+r_+`$
$`=\left(|s+r^{}_+|sr^{}_++|M+s+r^{}_+|M+sr^{}_+\right),`$
where $`r=0,1,\mathrm{},M1`$ and $`r^{}=Mr`$.

## V States of trions

Trions $`X^\pm `$ were introduced in 1958 by Lampert lamp  as excitons consisting of two holes and an electron ($`X^+`$) or two electrons and a hole ($`X^{}`$). This concept can be generalized to any system of two particles and one antiparticle.

### V.1 Direct conjugation

In this case the Kronecker product of three representations presented in Eq. (4) should be considered. It can be verified that the symmetry adapted vectors can be constructed as

$$|w_t^{pq}=|w+p_+|w+q_+|w+p+q_{},$$
(7)
where a pair $`(p,q)`$, $`p,q=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$, plays a role of a repetition index and the subscript $`\pm `$ denotes vectors of the irreps $`D^{\pm l}`$, respectively.

For $`p=q`$ the states obtained are symmetric with respect to the transposition of identical particles. In the other cases ($`pq`$) symmetric and antisymmetric combinations can be formed:

$$|w_t^{pq\pm }=2^{1/2}(|w_t^{pq}\pm |w_t^{qp}),$$

where now $`q>p=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$. One obtains $`N(N1)/2`$ antisymmetric states $`|w_t^{pq}`$ and $`N(N+1)/2`$ symmetric ones $`|w_t^{pq+}`$.

### V.2 Conjugation via the neutral pair

In this case we start from the particle-antiparticle pair considered in Sec. IV.1 and the product of three representations is written as

$$\left(D^lD^l\right)D^l=\underset{𝐤}{}D^𝐤D^l.$$

Since for each $`𝐤`$ one has $`D^𝐤D^l=D^l`$, then each such product yields states

$$|w_t^𝐤=\omega _N^{wk_2}|0_𝐤|wxk_1_+.$$

Equations obtained lead to the final expression ($`xl=1modN`$, $`N^{1/2}`$ is a normalization factor)

$$|w_t^𝐤=N^{1/2}\omega _N^{wk_2}\underset{s=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega _N^{sk_2}|s_+|sxk_1_{}|wxk_1_+.$$

In such a state there is a kind of symmetry between a particle and antiparticle, but there is no symmetry between two identical particles in the trion $`X^+`$. Since there are $`N^2`$ trion states labeled by $`w`$ then it is possible to construct states symmetric and antisymmetric with respect to transposition of particles.

Scalar products with the vectors obtained previously are

$${}_{t}{}^{[k_1,k_2]}w|w_{t}^{pq}=N^{1/2}\omega _N^{pk_2}\delta _{q+xk_1,0}.$$

In the simplest case $`N=2`$ this formula yields (the unique representation is obtained for $`l=x=1`$);

$`|w_t^{00}=2^{1/2}\left(|w_t^{[0,0]}+|w_t^{[1,0]}\right),`$ $`|w_t^{01}=2^{1/2}\left(|w_t^{[0,0]}|w_t^{[1,0]}\right),`$
$`|w_t^{11}=2^{1/2}\left(|w_t^{[0,1]}|w_t^{[1,1]}\right),`$ $`|w_t^{10}=2^{1/2}\left(|w_t^{[0,1]}+|w_t^{[1,1]}\right).`$
Symmetrization of the formulas in the right column leads to the following expressions

$`|w_t^{[0,1]+}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|w_t^{[0,0]}|w_t^{[1,0]}+|w_t^{[0,1]}+|w_t^{[1,1]}\right)/2,`$
$`|w_t^{[0,1]}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|w_t^{[0,0]}|w_t^{[1,0]}|w_t^{[0,1]}|w_t^{[1,1]}\right)/2.`$
### V.3 Conjugation via the pair of identical particles

In this case we use the results of Sec. IV.2, so we start from products

$$D^{2l}D^l=ND^l,D^{l;[k_1,k_2]}D^l=MD^l.$$

Note that in both cases we obtain copies of the representation $`D^l`$.

The first case corresponds to $`N`$ odd and again is very simple. One of possible choice of basis vectors is

$$|w_t^v=|w+v_2|w+2v_{},w=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1,$$

where $`v=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$ is the repetition index. Taking into account the previous results

$$|w_t^{r,v}=|w+v_2^r|w+2v_{}=|w+v+r_+|w+vr_+|w+2v_{}.$$

The states

$$|w_t^{pq}=|w+p_+|w+q_+|w+p+q_{}$$

obtained previously correspond to $`p=v+r`$ and $`q=vr`$ (calculated mod $`N`$). Note that for $`N=2M`$ this relations can not be inverted since $`v=(p+q)/2`$ and $`r=(pq)/2`$ have no solutions mod $`N`$ for odd $`p+q`$ and $`pq`$, respectively.

In the case $`N=2M`$ considerations are a bit more difficult, but since one knows the final results, states $`|w_t^{pq}`$, then they may serve as a useful hint. There are $`N^2=4M^2`$ different bases labeled by $`p,q=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$, however if $`p^{}=p+M`$ and $`q^{}=q+M`$ then states $`|w_t^{pq}`$ and $`|w_t^{p^{}q^{}}`$ have the same third element in the tensor products because

$$|w_t^{p^{}q^{}}=|w+p+M_+|w+q+M_+|w+p+q_{}.$$

Therefore, they can be gathered into $`2M^2=NM`$ pairs

$$|w_t^{pq}\text{and}|w_t^{(p+M)(q+M)}.$$

The ranges of indices have to be chosen in such a way that pairs $`pq`$ and $`(p+M)(q+M)`$ run over two separate sets. For each pair $`p,q`$ one can form two new bases, labeled by ‘+’ and ‘–’, respectively,

$$|w_t^{pq\pm }=|w_t^{pq}\pm |w_t^{(p+M)(q+M)},$$
(8)
so

$$|w_t^{pq\pm }=|w+p+q_{}\left(|w+p_+|w+q_+\pm |w+p+M_+|w+q+M_+\right).$$

These vectors have the second part (in parentheses) in the form resembling Eq. (6). Hence, one has to relate the repetition index $`r`$ and a label $`u`$ of a vector $`|u_{}`$ of the representation $`D^l`$ with the repetition indices $`p,q`$ and $`\pm `$ in Eq. (8). The solution of this problem leads to a proper choice of pairs $`pq`$. This has been discussed in more details elsewhere flo2001 .

## VI Other gauges

A trivial factor system $`\theta `$ is determined by any mapping $`\varphi :G\text{U}(1)`$ as

$$\theta (𝐑,𝐑^{})=\varphi (𝐑)\varphi (𝐑)/\varphi (𝐑+𝐑^{}).$$

Let $`D`$ be a projective representation with a factor system $`\mu `$. A new representation $`D^{}`$ determined as $`D^{}(𝐑)=\varphi (𝐑)D(𝐑)`$ has an equivalent factor system $`\mu ^{}=\theta \mu `$. On the other hand, for any unitary operator $`S`$ and $`D^{\prime \prime }(𝐑)=SD(𝐑)S^1`$ one obtains

$$D^{\prime \prime }(𝐑)D^{\prime \prime }(𝐑^{})=\mu (𝐑,𝐑^{})D^{\prime \prime }(𝐑+𝐑^{}).$$

Therefore, equivalent representations have identical factor systems alt . It means that equivalent factor systems, corresponding to different gauges jmpold , lead to nonequivalent representations. However, it will be shown below, that these factors (so gauges, too) are related to a local transformation of state space.

The most popular gauges, i.e. the Landau and the symmetric ones, are the special cases of the so-called linear gauge thom , which has the form

$$𝐀(𝐫)=H[\beta y,(1\beta )x].$$

The relation between the vector potential $`𝐀`$ and the factor system of a projective representation jmpold  yields that $`\beta =0`$ corresponds to the representation considered above, whereas $`\beta =1`$ and $`\beta =1/2`$, determining the other form of the Landau gauge and the (anti)symmetric one $`𝐀=(𝐇\times 𝐫)/2`$ thom ; flo97 . Thus relation leads to matrices

$`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{jk}^{l}[n_1,n_2]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{j,kn_2}\omega _N^{ln_1k},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{1/2}D_{jk}^{l}[n_1,n_2]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{j,kn_2}\omega _N^{ln_1(j+k)/2}.`$
In a general case one obtains

$${}_{}{}^{\beta }D_{jk}^{l}[n_1,n_2]=\delta _{kj,n_2}\omega _N^{ln_1[(1\beta )j+\beta k]}=\delta _{kj,n_2}\omega _N^{ln_1(j+\beta n_2)}=\omega _N^{ln_1n_2\beta }{}_{}{}^{0}D_{jk}^{l}[n_1,n_2].$$

The action of operators $`{}_{}{}^{\beta }D_{}^{l}`$ for vectors $`[n_1,0]`$ and $`[0,n_2]`$ on the basis vectors yields

$${}_{}{}^{\beta }D_{}^{l}[n_1,0]|j=\omega _N^{ln_1j}|j,{}_{}{}^{\beta }D_{}^{l}[0,n_2]|j=|jn_2.$$

Therefore, they behave in the same way for all real numbers $`\beta `$. The differences can be only noticed for general translations $`[n_1,n_2]`$ and, moreover, the non-zero matrix elements obtained for different $`\beta `$ appear in the same places (it is controlled by the $`\delta _{kj,n_2}`$), but are multiplied by different powers of $`\omega _N^l`$. Let us recall that projective representations are sometimes, especially in physics brown , called ray representations. Since only a module of a bracket $`j|k`$ has a physical meaning, then vectors (complex functions) $`|j`$ and $`|k`$ are determined up to factors $`\lambda \mathrm{U}(1)`$ weyl . Therefore, a chosen state $`|j`$ represents in fact a ray, i.e. the set $`||j=\{\lambda |j\lambda \mathrm{U}(1)\}`$. In a general case

$${}_{}{}^{\beta }D_{jk}^{l}[n_1,n_2]=j|{}_{}{}^{\beta }D_{}^{l}[n_1,n_2]|k=\delta _{kj,n_2}\omega _N^{ln_1j\beta }\omega _N^{ln_1j}\omega _N^{ln_1k\beta }.$$

Therefore, replacing each vector $`|j`$ by an element of the same ray $`|j^{}=\omega _N^{ln_1j\beta }`$ one obtains

$$j^{}|{}_{}{}^{\beta }D_{}^{l}[n_1,n_2]|k^{}=\omega _N^{ln_1(jk)\beta }j|{}_{}{}^{\beta }D_{}^{l}[n_1,n_2]|k=\delta _{kj,n_2}\omega _N^{ln_1j}={}_{}{}^{0}D_{jk}^{l}[n_1,n_2].$$

However, this transformation is local, because it depends on $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$, since $`kj=n_2`$ for non-zero matrix elements. If can be verified that equations obtained above are invariant under this transformation, so all relations derived here for the Landau gauge are valid for other linear gauges.

## VII Final remarks

In this work the Kronecker products of irreducible projective representations of the two-dimensional translation group are applied to to the group-theoretical classification of multiparticle states in systems subjected to the external magnetic field. Such states may be useful in the considerations of quantum wells, high-$`T_\text{c}`$ superconductors and the fractional quantum Hall effect. In this last case, there is special interest in trions, which are a special case of considered here the system consisting of two particles and one antiparticle.

Due to internal structure of trion the degeneracy is higher and there are many possibilities to construct states $`|w_t`$; some of them have been discussed above. In these simplified considerations there are no interactions between trions or mixing of Landau levels and the spin or angular momentum numbers have not been considered. Taking into account spins will allow to construct states completely antisymmetric with respect to the permutational symmetry. Such problem has been discussed lately by Dzyubenko et al. dzy  for the case of free trions (i.e. without a periodic potential, so there is no discrete translational symmetry). A sum of indices in the RHS of Eq. (7), taking into account signs of charges, is $`(2w+p+q)(w+p+q)=w`$, what is equal to the index in the LHS of this equation. This is the same result as presented in dzy , where the total angular momentum projection of a trion equals $`(n_1m_1)+(n_2m_2)(n_3m_3)`$ with $`(n_jm_j)`$ being the total angular momentum projection for holes ($`j=1,2`$) and an electron ($`j=3`$); $`n`$ and $`m`$ are the Landau level and the oscillator quantum numbers, respectively. It is interesting that Dzyubenko et al. obtained their results in the antisymmetric gauge $`𝐀=(𝐇\times 𝐫)/2`$, whereas in the presented considerations the Landau gauge has been used. It confirms that the physical properties are gauge-independent. On the other hand, the actual form of wave functions is not discussed here, but the relations between representations and their product are taken into account only. These relations are independent of the matrix representations and, similarly, the form of resultant basis is independent of the function form: for a given Born–von Kármán period $`N`$ and any linear gauge irreducible projective representations are $`N`$-dimensional and their action on basis vectors are similar (up to a factor system) brown ; zak ; jmpold ; flo98 . This is proven by taking into account the notion of rays and ray representations.

## Acknowledgments

This work is partially supported by the Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) within the project No. 8 T11F 027 16.