format: text

text:
# 1 (a) An elementary square of the model with round inclusions, (b) a lattice of the model, the numbers 1,2 denotes squares with the corresponding concentrations.

In memory of my father

DUALITY AND EFFECTIVE CONDUCTIVITY

OF TWO-DIMENSIONAL TWO-PHASE SYSTEMS

S.A.Bulgadaev 111e-mail: sabul@dio.ru

Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics

Chernogolovka, Moscow Region, Russia, 142432

> The possible functional forms of the effective conductivity $`\sigma _{eff}`$ of the randomly inhomogeneous two-phase system at arbitrary values of concentrations are discussed. A new functional equation, generalizing the duality relation, is deduced for systems with a finite maximal characteristical scale of the inhomogeneities and its solution is found. A hierarchical method of the construction of the model random inhomogeneous medium is proposed and one such simple model is constructed. Its effective conductivity at arbitrary phase concentrations is found in mean field like approximation. The derived formulas (1) satisfy all necessary inequalities and symmetries, including a dual symmetry; (2) reproduce the known formulas for $`\sigma _{eff}`$ in weakly inhomogeneous case. It means that in general $`\sigma _{eff}`$ of the two-phase randomly inhomogeneous system may be a nonuniversal function and can depend on some details of the structure of the randomly inhomogeneous regions. The percolation limit of the randomly inhomogeneous two-phase systems is briefly discussed.

The electrical transport properties of the disordered systems have an important practical interest. For this reason they are intensively studied theoretically as well as experimentally. In this region there is one classical problem about the effective conductivity $`\sigma _{eff}`$ of inhomogeneous (randomly or regularly) heterophase system which is a mixture of $`N(N2)`$ different phases with different conductivities $`\sigma _i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$ We confine ourselves here by the simplest case of the two-dimensional heterophase systems with $`N=2.`$ Despite of its relative simplicity only some few general exact results have been obtained so far. Firstly, there is a general expression for $`\sigma _{eff}`$ in case of weakly inhomogeneous isotropic medium, when the conductivity fluctuations $`\delta \sigma `$ are smaller than an average conductivity $`\sigma `$ ($`\delta \sigma \sigma `$) similar to the analogous expression for the permitivity of the corresponding dielectric mixture

$$\sigma _{eff}=\sigma \left(1\frac{\sigma ^2\sigma ^2}{D\sigma ^2}\right),$$
$`(1)`$
where $`D`$ is a dimension of the system. In our simplest case of two-dimensional two-phase system $`\sigma =x\sigma _1+(1x)\sigma _2,\sigma ^2\sigma ^2=x(1x)(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )^2,`$ where $`x`$ is a concentration of the first phase, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\sigma _1\sigma _2`$, and the first formula takes a form

$$\sigma _{eff}=\sigma _1\left(1(1x)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{\sigma _1}\frac{x(1x)(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )^2}{2\sigma _1^2}\right)=$$

$$\sigma _+\left(1+(x1/2)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{\sigma _+}\frac{x(1x)(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )^2}{2\sigma _+^2}\right),$$
$`(1^{})`$
where $`\sigma _+=(\sigma _1+\sigma _2)/2.`$

Another general formula has been obtained for the case of a small concentration of one phase (for example, with a conductivity $`\sigma _2`$)

$$\sigma _{eff}=\sigma _1\left(1(1x)\frac{2(\sigma _1\sigma _2)}{\sigma _1+\sigma _2}\right),$$
$`(2)`$
where $`1x1`$ is a small concentration of the second phase and a round form of the inclusions of this phase is suggested.

The further progress in the solution of this problem is connected with papers . It was shown there that there is a dual transformation transforming one phase into another. This transformation allows to find an exact formula for $`\sigma _{eff}`$ in case of systems with equal concentrations of the phases $`x=x_c=1/2`$

$$\sigma _{eff}=\sqrt{\sigma _1\sigma _2}.$$
$`(3)`$
This remarkable formula is very simple and universal since it does not depend on the type of the inhomogeneous structure of the two-phase system. For systems with unequal phase concentrations the dual transformation gives a relation between effective conductivities at adjoint concentrations $`x`$ and $`1x`$ or in terms of a new variable $`ϵ=xx_c`$ ($`1/2ϵ1/2`$) at $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ`$

$$\sigma _{eff}(x,\sigma _1,\sigma _2)\sigma _{eff}(1x,\sigma _1,\sigma _2)=\sigma _1\sigma _2=\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,\sigma _1,\sigma _2)\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,\sigma _1,\sigma _2).$$
$`(4)`$
Eq.(4) means that a product of the effective conductivities at adjoint concentrations is an invariant. Due to this relation one can consider $`\sigma _{eff}`$ only in the regions $`xx_c`$ ($`ϵ0`$) or $`xx_c`$ ($`ϵ0`$).

In the following papers this dual transformation was generalized on systems in magnetic field , polycrystals  and heterophase (with $`N>2`$) systems . The formula (4) was also checked and improved for some regularly inhomogeneous systems (of the chess-board type) .

However the main interest in this problem has a formula for the effective conductivity at arbitrary phase concentrations. Another question appears naturally in this case: is this formula also universal or it can depend on the structure of the two-phase system? We will give here a general analysis of the possible functional forms of the effective conductivity in the case of arbitrary phase concentrations and will show that, due to the dual symmetry, in some cases the corresponding effective conductivities can be found in the explicit form. Then we will introduce the finite maximal scale averaging approximation (FMSA-approximation), deduce in the framework of this approximation a new equation, connecting the effective conductivities at different concentrations, and find its solution and its physical meaning. We will introduce also a new model of the random two-phase system which gives in the same approximation an effective conductivity, coinciding with one obtained by series expansion. All these results demonstrate that, in general, a formula for the effective conductivity may be nonuniversal even in the two-phase case. At the end of the paper we will briefly discuss some peculiarities of the percolation limit.

Let us start our investigation of the isotropic classical random two-phase system in the case of arbitrary concentrations with a general analysis. The basic equation is the Ohm law, connecting the local current $`𝐣(𝐫)`$ and local electric field $`𝐄(𝐫),`$

$$𝐣(𝐫)=\sigma (𝐫)𝐄(𝐫),$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ is a local conductivity. It must be supplemented with the corresponding boundary conditions on the boundaries of two phases

$$j_n^1=j_n^2,E_t^1=E_t^2,$$
$`(6)`$
where $`n,t`$ denote the normal and tangent components and $`1,2`$ correspond to different phases. The electric field $`𝐄(𝐫)`$ is a curl-free field

$$\times 𝐄(𝐫)=0,$$
$`(7)`$
and the current field is a divergenceless field

$$𝐣(𝐫)=0.$$
$`(8)`$
The effective conductivity $`\sigma _{eff}`$ of the isotropic system can be defined as a proportionality coefficient between averaged values of $`𝐣`$ and $`𝐄`$ over the area of the system

$$\overline{𝐣}=\sigma _{eff}\overline{𝐄},$$

$$\overline{𝐣}𝐣(𝐫)𝑑𝐫/S,\overline{𝐄}𝐄(𝐫)𝑑𝐫/S$$
$`(9)`$
where $`S`$ is an area of the system. Due to the linearity of the defining equations an effective conductivity of the random systems must be a homogeneous function of degree one of $`\sigma _i,i=1,\mathrm{},N.`$ In our case $`N=2`$ and it is convenient to use instead of $`\sigma _i,i=1,2`$ another combinations of $`\sigma _i`$: $`\sigma _\pm =(\sigma _1\pm \sigma _2)/2.`$ Then, introducing a new variable $`z=\sigma _{}/\sigma _+,(1z1),`$ an effective conductivity can be represented in the following, symmetrical relatively to both phases, form

$$\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,\sigma _+,\sigma _{})=\sigma _+f(ϵ,\sigma _{}/\sigma _+)=\sigma _+f(ϵ,z),$$
$`(10)`$
where $`\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,\sigma _+,\sigma _{})`$ and $`f(ϵ,z)`$ must have the next boundary values

$$\sigma _{eff}(1/2,\sigma _+,\sigma _{})=\sigma _1,\sigma _{eff}(1/2,\sigma _+,\sigma _{})=\sigma _2,$$

$$f(1/2,z)=1+z,f(1/2,z)=1z,f(ϵ,0)=1.$$
$`(10^{})`$
The duality relation, being a consequence of a duality of gradient and tangent fields in two dimensions , takes in these variables the form

$$f(ϵ,z)f(ϵ,z)=1z^2,$$
$`(11)`$
from which it follows that at critical concentration $`ϵ=0`$

$$f(0,z)=\sqrt{1z^2}.$$
$`(3^{})`$
Strictly speaking, this form of a duality relation is also a consequence of another exact relation for the effective conductivity, taking place at arbitrary concentrations for systems with the similar random structures of both phases of the system,

$$\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,\sigma _1,\sigma _2)=\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,\sigma _2,\sigma _1).$$
$`(12)`$
It means that the effective conductivity of the random two-phase system must be invariant under substitution of these phases ($`\sigma _1\sigma _2`$) with the corresponding change of their concentrations $`x1x`$ (or $`ϵϵ`$). In the new variables it means that

$$f(ϵ,z)=f(ϵ,z),f(ϵ,z)=f(ϵ,z).$$
$`(13)`$
For this reason a duality relation can be written also in the form

$$f(ϵ,z)f(ϵ,z)=1z^2.$$

It follows from (13) that the even ($`f_s`$) and odd ($`f_a`$) parts of $`f(ϵ,z)`$ relatively to $`ϵ`$ coincide with the even ($`f^s`$) and odd ($`f^a`$) parts of $`f(ϵ,z)`$ relatively to $`z`$

$$f^a(ϵ,z)\frac{1}{2}\left(f(ϵ,z)f(ϵ,z)\right)=f_a(ϵ,z)\frac{1}{2}\left(f(ϵ,z)f(ϵ,z)\right),$$

$$f^s(ϵ,z)\frac{1}{2}\left(f(ϵ,z)+f(ϵ,z)\right)=f_s(ϵ,z)\frac{1}{2}\left(f(ϵ,z)+f(ϵ,z)\right).$$
$`(14)`$
The simplest way to satisfy (13) corresponds to the following functional form of $`f(ϵ,z)`$

$$f(ϵ,z)=f(ϵz,ϵ^2,z^2)$$
$`(15)`$
One can conclude from (15) that in this case an expansion of $`f(ϵ,z)`$ near the point $`ϵ=z=0`$ does not contain terms linear in $`ϵ`$ and $`z`$ separately. Moreover, one can reduce to the form (15) any function satisfying (13), since every combination of functions of two variables, odd relatively to the inversion of their arguments, can be made even by multiplying or dividing them by $`ϵz`$

$$F(ϵ,z)=F(ϵ,z)=F(ϵ,z),F(ϵ,z)=ϵz\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ^2,z^2),$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ^2,z^2)=(ϵz)^1F(ϵ,z).$$

Analogously, the odd part $`f_a`$ can be represented in the form

$$f_a(ϵ,z)=2ϵz\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,z)$$
$`(16)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an even function of $`ϵ`$ and $`z`$ (the coefficient $`2`$ in front of $`ϵz`$ is chosen for further convenience).

The duality relation (11) in general case is not enough for the complete determination of $`f`$, it only connects $`f_a`$ and $`f_s`$

$$f_s^2f_a^2=1z^2.$$
$`(17)`$
It means that $`f_a`$ and $`f_s`$ considered at fixed $`z`$ as the functions of $`ϵ`$ satisfy to hyperbolic relation with a constant depending on $`z.`$ The relation (17) allows to express $`f(ϵ,z)`$ through its even or odd parts

$$f(ϵ,z)=f_a+\sqrt{f_a^2+1z^2}=f_s\pm \sqrt{f_s^21+z^2}.$$
$`(18)`$
For this reason it is enough to know only one of these two parts. Usually one prefers to choose an antisymmetric part as more simple. It follows from (1’) that in the weakly inhomogeneous case the odd part has the simplest form (16) with $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$

$$f_a(ϵ,z)=2ϵz.$$
$`(19)`$
As is well known, the substitution of (19) into (18) gives an effective conductivity in the effective medium (EM) approximation

$$\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,z)=\sigma _+\left[2ϵz+\sqrt{(2ϵz)^2+1z^2}\right],$$
$`(20)`$
This expression, being continued on arbitrary concentrations $`ϵ=x1/2`$ and inhomogeneities $`z,`$ reproduces in the corresponding limits both formulas (1’) and (2).

Though at first sight a duality relation is not enough for finding $`f`$, usually systems with such symmetry have some additional hidden properties, permitting to obtain more information about function under question. Moreover, in some cases they can help to solve problem exactly (see, for example, ). Having this in mind, we will try to investigate the duality relation in more details. Since a homogeneous limit $`z0`$ is a regular point of $`f`$ it will be very useful to consider a series expansion of $`f`$ in $`z`$

$$f(ϵ,z)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_k(ϵ)z^k/k!,$$
$`(21)`$
where due to boundary conditions (10’)

$$f_0=1,f_1(ϵ)=2ϵ.$$
$`(22)`$
For every fixed $`z(0z1)`$ a function $`f`$ must be a monotonous function of $`ϵ.`$ Substituting the expansion (21) into (11) one obtains the following results:

(1) in the second order in $`z`$ it reproduces the universal formula (1’), thus the latter can be considered as a consequence of the duality relation;

(2) in general case there are the recurrent relations between $`f_{2k}`$ and $`f_{2k1},`$ corresponding to the connection (17);

(3) $`f_{2k+1}(ϵ)`$ are odd polynomials of $`ϵ`$ of degree $`2k+1`$ and $`f_{2k}(ϵ)`$ are even polynomials of $`ϵ`$ of degree $`2k`$ in agreement with (15).

Taking into account boundary conditions (10’) and an exact value (3’), one can show that the coefficients $`f_k`$ must have the next form

$$f_{2k+1}(ϵ)=ϵ(14ϵ^2)g_{2k2}(ϵ),k1,$$

$$f_{2k}(ϵ)=(14ϵ^2)h_{2k2}(ϵ),k1,$$
$`(23)`$
where $`g_{2k2}`$ and $`h_{2k2}`$ are some even polynomials of the corresponding degree and free terms of $`h_{2k2}`$ coincide with the coefficients in the expansion of (3’)

$$\sqrt{1z^2}=1z^2/2z^4/8z^6/16z^8/128z^{10}/256+\mathrm{}$$
$`(24)`$
It follows from (23) that $`f_3`$ is completely determined up to overall factor number $`g_0.`$ Since $`f_4`$ is determined through lower $`f_k(k=1,2,3)`$

$$f_4=4f_1f_33f_2^2=(14ϵ^2)[(8g_0+12)ϵ^23],$$
$`(25)`$
it is also determined by the coefficient $`g_0.`$ The case $`g_0=0=g_{2k+1}(k>1)`$ corresponds to the EM approximation and in this case $`f_{2k}(ϵ)(14ϵ^2)^k`$. Thus we see that in general case the arbitrariness of $`f`$ is strongly reduced by boundary conditions and known exact value and that the third and fourth orders are determined only up to one constant. Then one can suppose that any additional information about function $`f`$ can determine this constant or even the whole function. For this reason one can ask: what kind of functions can satisfy the duality relation (11)? In order to answer on this question it is convenient in the case $`z1`$ to pass from $`f`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{f}=f/\sqrt{1z^2}.`$ Then

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z)\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z)=1=\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z)\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z).$$
$`(11^{})`$
The duality relation gives some constraints on the possible functional form of $`\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z).`$ For example, assuming a functional form (15), one can write out a simple function:

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z)=\mathrm{exp}(ϵz\varphi (ϵ,z)),$$
$`(26)`$
where $`\varphi (ϵ,z)`$ is some even function of its arguments. It is easy to see that it automatically satisfies eq.(11’). Let us now consider two simple cases, when (a) $`\varphi (ϵ,z)`$ depends only on $`z,`$ (b) it depends only on combination $`ϵz.`$ Expanding the corresponding functions $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ in series one can check after some algebra that one can now determine all polynomial coefficients unambiguously! Another way to see this is to apply boundary conditions directly to the function (26). In the case (a) one obtains

$$\varphi (z)=1/z\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+z}{1z},\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z)=\left(\frac{1+z}{1z}\right)^ϵ.$$
$`(27)`$
In case (b), when $`\varphi `$ depends only on combination $`ϵz`$, one finds

$$\varphi (ϵz)=\frac{1}{2ϵz}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+2ϵz}{12ϵz},\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z)=\left(\frac{1+2ϵz}{12ϵz}\right)^{1/2}.$$
$`(28)`$
Series expansions of (27) and (28) coincide exactly with the corresponding expansions mentioned above. Unfortunately, analyzing an expansion of (26) under an assumption of regular behaviour of the coefficients $`\varphi _k(ϵ)`$ from a series expansion of $`\varphi (ϵ,z)`$

$$\varphi (ϵ,z)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi _k(ϵ)z^{2k}/k!$$

in $`ϵ`$

$$\varphi _k(ϵ)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi _{kl}(ϵ)^{2l}/l!,$$

one can show that now again the boundary conditions (10’) (or (23)) cannot define all coefficients completely. For example, $`f_3`$ and $`f_4`$ contain one free parameter $`\varphi _{10}:`$ $`g_0=6(\varphi _{10}1).`$ It is very important to find any other solutions. Below we will present two simple models having the effective conductivity just of two forms found above.

Firstly, we will obtain an additional equation for effective conductivity using a new composite method, which we will call as a finite maximal scale averaging approximation. In framework of this method one divides an averaging procedure on two steps. This approximation can be considered as some modification of the mean field approximation and it is applicable to the inhomogeneous systems with a finite maximal scale of the inhomogeneities. Below in this section we will use temporally, for clarity, the concentration variable $`x`$ instead of $`ϵ.`$ Let us consider two-dimensional two-phase randomly inhomogeneous system. It is easy to see that, in general, its effective conductivity will depend on a scale $`l`$ of a region over which an averaging is done. This takes place due to the possible existence of different characteristic scales in the inhomogeneous medium. In the most general case there will be a whole spectrum of these characteristic scales. This spectrum can be very different from discrete finite till continuous infinite and will define the inhomogeneity structure of the system. For this reason this spectrum can depend on concentration $`x.`$ It is obvious that the effective conductivity of the system can depend on this spectrum as a whole as well as on which area an averaging is fulfilled over. Suppose, for the simplicity, that the randomly inhomogeneous structure of our system has the scale spectrum with a maximal scale $`l_m(x),`$ which is finite for all $`x`$ in the region $`1x>1/2`$ (or $`1x`$ in the region $`01x<1/2`$). Let us assume that we know an exact formula for $`\sigma _{eff}(x,z)`$ of this system, which is applicable from scales $`l>l_m.`$ It means that this formula for $`\sigma _{eff}(x,z)`$ takes place after the averaging over regions with a mean size $`ll_m`$ and does not change for all larger scales $`ll_m.`$ Now consider a square lattice with the squares of length $`l_Ll_m`$ and suppose that they have the effective conductivities corresponding to different values of the concentrations $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ with equal probabilities $`p=1/2`$ (see Fig.1)

After the averaging over the scales $`ll_L`$ one must obtain on much larger scales $`ll_L`$ the same effective conductivity, but corresponding to another concentration $`x=(x_1+x_2)/2.`$ This is possible due to the similar random structure of different squares and due to the conjectures that in this model: (1) there are only two maximal characteristic scales $`l_m(x_i)l_i(i=1,2)`$ and the lattice square size $`l_Ll_i,l_m(x)`$, (2) the averaging procedures over these scales do not correlate (or weakly correlate) between themselves. Thus for compatibility all concentrations must be out of small region around critical concentration $`x_c,`$ where $`l_i`$ or $`l_m(x)`$ can be very large. We will call further this set of the conjectures the finite maximal scale averaging approximation (FMSA approximation). It can be implemented for systems with compact inhomogeneous inclusions with finite $`l_m`$. From the other side the effective conductivity on scales $`ll_L`$ must be determined by the universal Keller – Dykhne formula (3). Thus we obtain the next functional equation for the effective conductivity, connecting $`\sigma _{eff}(x,z)`$ at different concentrations,

$$\sigma _{eff}(x,z)=\sqrt{\sigma _{eff}(x_1,z)\sigma _{eff}(x_2,z)},x=(x_1+x_2)/2,(x_i,xx_c).$$
$`(29)`$
It must be supplemented by the boundary conditions (10’). This equation can be considered as a generalization of the duality relation (4), the latter being a particular case of (29) at $`x_1+x_2=1.`$ It follows from (29) that, due to the exactness of the duality relation, it really works for all concentrations $`x,`$ except maybe of small region near $`x=x_c`$ and $`z=1`$ (this region corresponds to the singular region of the percolation problem, see also below a discussion of the percolation limit). One can easily check that $`\sigma _{eff}`$ in low concentration limit (2) satisfies (29). Moreover, one can find an exact solution of this equation. It has an exponential form with a linear function of $`x`$ (or $`ϵ`$)

$$\sigma _{eff}(x,z)=\sigma _1\mathrm{exp}(ax+b),$$
$`(30)`$
where the constants $`a,b`$ can be determined from the boundary conditions

$$a=b,\mathrm{exp}b=\sigma _2/\sigma _1.$$
$`(30^{})`$
Substituting these coefficients into (30) one obtains

$$\sigma _{eff}(x,z)=\sigma _1\left(\sigma _2/\sigma _1\right)^{(1x)}=\sigma _+\sqrt{1z^2}\left(\frac{1+z}{1z}\right)^ϵ.$$
$`(31)`$
The solution (31) satisfies all symmetry relations (4,11’,13) and can be represented in the exponential form

$$\sigma _{eff}(x,z)=\sigma _+\sqrt{1z^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(ϵ\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+z}{1z}\right),$$
$`(31^{})`$
which exactly coincides with the case (a) from (27) with $`\varphi (ϵ,z)=\frac{1}{z}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+z}{1z}`$. Its odd part has a form

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_a(ϵ,z)=\mathrm{sinh}(ϵz\varphi (ϵ,z)),$$
$`(32)`$
and satisfies (17).

It is interesting to note that the form of the solution (31) means that in the considered approximation one has effectively an averaging of the $`\mathrm{log}\sigma `$ since it can be represented as

$$\mathrm{log}\sigma _{eff}=\mathrm{log}\sigma =x\mathrm{log}\sigma _1+(1x)\mathrm{log}\sigma _2.$$
$`(33)`$
This coincides with a note made in  for the case of equal concentrations $`x=1/2`$ and with analogous results obtained later for random system in the theory of the localization . One can check that (31) reproduces in the weakly inhomogeneous limit the universal Landau – Lifshitz expression (1). In the low concentration limit of the second phase it gives

$$\sigma _{eff}(x,z)=\sigma _1(1+(1x)\mathrm{log}\frac{1z}{1+z}+\mathrm{}),1x1,$$
$`(34)`$
what coincides with (2) in the weakly inhomogeneous case. Note that the expansion (34) contains the coefficients diverging in the limit $`|z|1.`$ Such behaviour of the coefficients denote the existence of a singularity in this limit (see below a discussion of this percolation limit).

Now we will show that an existence of the different functional forms for the effective conductivity denotes a nonuniversal character of this value for two-phase systems with different random structures. We will construct a model of two-dimensional isotropic randomly inhomogeneous two-phase system, using the composite method introduced above, and find a mean field like expression for its effective conductivity $`\sigma _{eff}(x,z)`$ in case of arbitrary phase concentrations $`x.`$ The derived formula satisfies again to all necessary symmetries, including a dual one, and coincides with the example case (b) from (28), realizing the second variant, when $`\stackrel{~}{f}(x,z)`$ depends (in this approximation) only on one combination of variables $`ϵz`$ and this dependence is described by the function analytical at small values of this variable.

Let us consider the following two-dimensional model. There is a simple square lattice with the squares consisting of a random layered mixture of two conducting phase with constant conductivities $`\sigma _i,i=1,2`$ and the corresponding concentrations $`x`$ and $`1x.`$ A schematic picture of such square is given in Fig.2.

The layered structure of the squares means that the squares have some preferred direction, for example along the layers. Let us suppose that the directions of different squares are randomly oriented (parallelly or perpendicularly) relatively to the external electric field, which is directed along $`x`$ axis. In order for system to be isotropic the probabilities of the parallel and perpendicular orientations of squares must be equal or (what is the same) the concentrations of the squares with different orientations must be equal $`p_{||}=p_{}=1/2.`$

Such lattice can model a random system consisting from mixed phase regions, which can be roughly represented on the small macroscopic scales as randomly distributed plots with the effective ”parallel” and ”serial” connections of the layered two-phase mixture (Fig.2). The lines on the squares denote their orientations.

This structure can appear, for example, on the intermediate scales when a random medium is formed as a result of the stirring of the two-phase mixture. The corresponding averaged parallel and perpendicular conductivities of squares $`\sigma _{||}(x)`$ and $`\sigma _{}(x)`$ are defined by the following formulas

$$\sigma _{||}(x)=x\sigma _1+(1x)\sigma _2=\sigma _+(1+2ϵz),$$

$$\sigma _{}(x)=\left(\frac{x}{\sigma _1}+\frac{1x}{\sigma _2}\right)^1=\sigma _+\frac{1z^2}{12ϵz}.$$
$`(35)`$
Thus we have obtained the hierarchical representation of random medium (in this case a two-level one). On the first level it consists from some regions (two different squares) of the random mixture of the two layered conducting phases with different conductivities $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ and arbitrary concentration. On the second level this medium is represented as a random parquet constructed from two such squares with different conductivities $`\sigma _{||}`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$, depending nontrivially on concentration of the initial conducting phases, and randomly distributed with the same probabilities $`p_i=1/2`$ (Fig.2). This representation allows us to divide the averaging process into two steps (firstly averaging over each square and then averaging over the lattice of squares) and implement on the second step the exact formula (3). This can be considered as some modification of the FMSA approximation. As a result one obtains for the effective conductivity of the introduced random two-phase model the following formula, which is applicable for arbitrary concentration

$$\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,z)=\sigma _+\sqrt{1z^2}\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z),\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z)=\left[\frac{1+2ϵz}{12ϵz}\right]^{1/2},$$
$`(36)`$
This function has all necessary properties and satisfies equation (11’) and symmetry (13). It coincides with the type (b) from (28) and has another possible functional form, automatically satisfying the duality relation (11’)

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z)=B(ϵ,z)/B(ϵ,z)$$
$`(37)`$
with a function $`B(ϵ,z)=[1+2ϵz]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ which depends only on the combination $`ϵz.`$

It is interesting to compare this formula with the known general formulas. In order to do this one needs to find an asymptotic behaviour of the derived effective conductivity in different limiting cases. Let us consider firstly its behaviour for small phase concentrations.

(a) In case of small concentration of the first phase $`x1`$ one gets

$$\sigma _{eff}(x,z)\sigma _2\left(1+\frac{2xz}{1z^2}\right).$$
$`(38)`$
It follows from (38) that an addition of small part of the first higher conducting phase increases an effective conductivity of the system as it should be.

(b) In the opposite case of small concentration of the second phase $`1x1`$ one obtains

$$\sigma _{eff}(x,z)\sigma _1\left(1\frac{2(1x)z}{1z^2}\right),$$
$`(39)`$
i.e. an addition of the phase with smaller conductivity decreases $`\sigma _{eff}.`$ It is worth to note that both these expressions for arbitrary values of the conductivities $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ differ from equation (2) and coincide with it only in the weakly inhomogeneous case $`z1`$. It must be not surprising because a form of the inclusions of the second phase in this model has completely different, layered, structure. In the low concentration expansion as well as directly in formula (36) one can see again that the divergencies appear in the limit $`z1.`$

(c) In case of almost equal phase concentrations $`x=1/2+ϵ,`$ $`ϵ1`$ one obtains

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z)1+2ϵz,\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,z)\sigma _+\sqrt{1z^2}\left(1+2ϵz\right).$$
$`(40)`$
The Keller – Dykhne formula (3) is reproduced for equal concentrations.

The antisymmetric part of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ has the following form

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_a(ϵ,z)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}^2(ϵ,z)1}{2\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ,z)}=\frac{2ϵz}{\left[14ϵ^2z^2\right]^{1/2}}.$$
$`(41)`$
It follows from formula (41) that for $`ϵ1`$ and (or) $`z1`$ the odd part $`f_a`$ coincides in the first order with the corresponding expression from the effective medium theory. The corresponding function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,z)=\frac{\sqrt{1z^2}}{\left[14ϵ^2z^2\right]^{1/2}}.$$
$`(42)`$
In other words it is an analytic function of $`ϵz`$ near $`ϵz=0`$. Basing on this formula one can conjecture that an exact expression for $`\stackrel{~}{f}_a(ϵ,z)`$ of this model will have a similar structure in general case with $`\sigma _i0`$ or $`1z1`$. One must note that at the same time the formula (36) does not satisfy the equation (29) except of the trivial case $`x_1=x_2.`$

For the comparison of the different expressions of the effective conductivity we have constructed three-dimensional plots of $`f(ϵ,z)`$ in the EM approximation, in the FMSA approximation and of the hierarchical model in FMSA-like approximation (fig.3,4).

It follows from these plots that all three formulas for $`\sigma _{eff}`$, despite of their different functional forms, differ from each other weakly for $`z0,8`$ due to very restrictive boundary conditions (10’) and the exact Keller-Dykhne value. This range of $`z`$ corresponds approximately to the ratio $`\sigma _2/\sigma _110^1.`$ For the smaller ratios a difference between these functions become distinguishable.

Now let us consider in the more details the derived formulas for $`\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,z)`$ in case when $`\sigma _20(z1).`$ It is clear that for regularly inhomogeneous medium one can always construct such distribution of the conducting phase that $`\sigma _{eff}(ϵ,1)`$ will differ from zero for all $`1/2ϵ>1/2`$. But in the case of randomly inhomogeneous medium the limit $`\sigma _20`$ is equivalent to the well known percolation problem . In terms of $`z`$ it corresponds to the limit $`z1`$ and is also similar to the superconducting limit $`\sigma _1\mathrm{}`$. Strictly speaking, an implementation of the duality transformation (4) is not obvious in this case. However, if one supposes that the dual symmetry relation (4) fulfills in this limit too due to a continuity then it follows from (4) that

$$\sigma _{eff}(ϵ)\sigma _{eff}(ϵ)=0.$$
$`(43)`$
The relation (43) does not contradict to the known basic results of the percolation theory that $`\sigma _{eff}(ϵ)=0`$ for $`ϵ0`$ and $`\sigma _{eff}(ϵ)0`$ for $`ϵ>0`$. Moreover it follows from the general formula (17) that in this case $`\sigma _s=|\sigma _a|`$ and $`\sigma _{eff}(ϵ)=\sigma _a+|\sigma _a|`$. It gives

$$\sigma _{eff}(ϵ)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0,& ϵ0,\\ \hfill 2\sigma _a,& ϵ>0.\end{array}$$
$`(44)`$
This means that a behaviour of $`\sigma _{eff}(ϵ)`$ in the percolation theory is completely determined by its odd part. From a general discussion of the functional structure of the conductivity of the two-dimensional randomly inhomogeneous systems and the known experimental and numerical results it is known that in the percolation limit the effective conductivity $`\sigma _{eff}`$ must have a nonanalytical behaviour near the percolation edge $`x_c=1/2`$ or at small $`ϵ>0`$

$$\sigma _{eff}(ϵ)\sigma _1(xx_c)^t\sigma _1ϵ^t,$$
$`(45)`$
where a critical exponent of the conductivity $`t`$ is slightly above 1 and can be represented in the form $`t=1+\delta .`$ Since the values of this exponent found by the numerical calculations are confined to be in the interval (1,10 – 1,4) , then $`\delta `$ have to be small and belongs to the interval (0.1 – 0.4). It follows from general formula (44) that one must have

$$f_a(ϵ,z)\underset{z1,ϵ0_+}{\overset{}{}}ϵ^t.$$
$`(46)`$
It means that the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,z)`$ has at small $`ϵ`$ some crossover on $`z`$ under $`z1`$ from a regular (analytical) behaviour to a singular one. At the moment an exact form of this crossover is unknown. For example, it can be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,z)\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0(z^2)+\mathrm{\Phi }_1(z^2)ϵ^2\right)^{\delta (z)/2},z1,$$
$`(47)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(z^2)0,`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(z^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_10`$ and $`\delta (z)\delta 0`$ when $`z1.`$

However, as it follows from the formulas obtained above, one gets always $`\sigma _{eff}0`$ in the limit $`\sigma _20`$, except the region near $`x=1.`$ It means that all these formulas obtained in FMSA approximation are not valid in the limit $`\sigma _20.`$ This is confirmed by the appearance of the divergencies in the expansions of $`\sigma _{eff}`$ in small concentrations in the limit $`z1.`$ This fact is a consequence of the made approximation. For example, in case of the model of the layered squares this is due to the ”closing” or ”locking” effect of the layered structure in the adopted approximation in the limit $`\sigma _20.`$ In order to obtain a finite conductivity in this model above threshold concentration $`x_c`$ one needs to take into account the correlations between adjacent squares. It is easy to show that near the threshold an effective conductivity is determined by random conducting clusters formed out of the crossing random layers from neighboring elementary squares. As is well known, the mean size of these clusters diverges near the percolation threshold  and for this reason the FMSA approximation cannot be applicable for the description of $`\sigma _{eff}`$ in the limit $`z1(ϵ>0)`$ and of the percolation problem. It follows from figs. 3 that the EM approximation overestimates $`\sigma _{eff}`$, and both other formulas underestimate it in the region $`z1,ϵ>0.`$ We hope to investigate this limit in detail in the subsequent papers.

Thus we have discussed the possible functional forms of the effective conductivity of the two-phase system at arbitrary values of concentrations. A new functional equation, generalizing the duality relation, was deduced in the FMSA approximation and its solution was found. We have constructed also a hierarchical model of the random inhomogeneous medium and have found its effective conductivity in the same approximation at arbitrary phase concentrations. All formulas for the effective conductivity have the different functional forms. They

(1) satisfy all symmetries including the dual symmetry and all necessary inequalities,

(2) reproduce the general formulas for $`\sigma _{eff}`$ in the weakly inhomogeneous case.

All these results confirm a conjecture that, in general, $`\sigma _{eff}`$ of the two-phase randomly inhomogeneous system may be a nonuniversal function and can depend on some details of the structure of the randomly inhomogeneous regions. Analogous conclusions were done in paper  during a discussion of the possibility to find the generalization of the formula (3) for case $`N3`$.

The obtained formulas can be used for the approximation of the effective conductivity of some real randomly inhomogeneous systems like a corresponding formula of the EM approximation. The introduced composite method of the construction of the model random medium can be generalized on the other ways of determination of the effective intermediate conducting boxes. It can be done for different types of boxes as well as for different numbers of the possible types of the boxes. It is clear that then one will have to use another formulas instead of (3).

This work was supported be RFBR grants 00-15-96579 and 02-02-16403.


text:
# Search for MSSM Higgses at the Tevatron

## 1 MOTIVATION

The Higgs mechanism breaks electroweak symmetry in the Standard Model, giving mass to particles through its couplings. Current data from electroweak precision measurements points to a light Higgs ($`M_{Higgs}<199`$ GeV @ 95% CL ). However, the Higgs has never been definitively observed ($`M_{Higgs}>114`$ GeV at 95% CL ).

A Standard Model Higgs suffers from the so-called hierarchy problem. The theory needs fine-tuned parameters to accomodate a light Higgs mass. Supersymmetry offers a solution to this problem, through a symmetry between fermions and bosons.

The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) contains two Higgs doublets, leading to five physical Higgs bosons: Two neutral CP-even states (h and H), one neutral CP-odd (A), and two charged states ($`H^+`$ and $`H^{}`$). At tree-level, the masses are governed by two parameters, often taken to be $`m_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . When $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >>1`$ , A is nearly degenerate with one of the CP-even states (denoted $`\varphi `$). Where $`m_A130`$ GeV ($`m_A130`$), $`m_Am_h`$ ($`m_Am_H`$).

In this same large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, the cross sections for some production mechanisms such as $`ppA(\varphi )`$ and $`ppA(\varphi )b\overline{b}`$ are enhanced by factors of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta ^2(\mathrm{sec}\beta ^2)`$. For example, with $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ and $`m_A=100`$ GeV, the cross sections for $`ppA`$ and $`pp\varphi `$ are each of order 10 pb. The cross section for $`ppA/\varphi b\overline{b}`$ is smaller, but within the same order of magnitude. In the same region, the branching ratios to $`A/\varphi b\overline{b}`$ and $`\tau \tau `$ dominate, at $`90\%`$ and $`10\%`$ respectively, independent of mass.

Due to their similar masses, cross-sections and branching ratios in the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, we search for both A and $`\varphi `$ simultaneously. At the Tevatron, we search for $`ppA/\varphi \tau \tau `$ (the $`b\overline{b}`$ final state is expected to be overwhelmed by dijet background) and $`ppA/\varphi b\overline{b}b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$.

## 2 SEARCH FOR $`ppA/\varphi \tau ^+\tau ^{}`$

This search is underway at CDF. The dominant issues for this analysis are: tau identification, ditau mass reconstruction, irreducible background from $`Z\tau \tau `$, and event loss at the trigger level.

Wherever not specified, we use the benchmark case of $`m_A=95`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ to quote efficiencies and cross-sections.

### 2.1 Tau Identification

Compared to QCD jets, taus are highly collimated, leaving narrow jets with low track and photon multiplicity, and low mass.

In CDF, when selecting taus, one typically requires a jet with high visible $`E_T`$ containing a high $`p_T`$ track. The jet is required to be isolated in a $`10^o30^o`$ annulus around the high $`p_T`$ track. The visible energy in a $`10^o`$ cone is required to satisfy low track and photon multiplicity requirements and to reconstruct a mass $`m<1.8`$ GeV. Additionally, a requirement is made on the charge of the tracks in the $`10^o`$ cone when appropriate. In Run I, CDF acheived fake rates in the range 1.2 - 0.7 % for jet $`E_T`$ between 20 and 200 GeV.

### 2.2 Ditau Mass Reconstruction

The full mass of a ditau system may be reconstructed  if the neutrinos are assumed to travel in the same direction as their parent taus, by solving the following system of equations:

$$E_x^{meas}/=E_x^{\tau 1}/+E_x^{\tau 2}/$$
(1)
$$E_y^{meas}/=E_y^{\tau 1}/+E_y^{\tau 2}/$$
(2)
where $`E_{x,y}^{meas}/`$ are the x and y components of the measured event missing energy, and $`E_{x,y}^{\tau 1}/`$ and $`E_{x,y}^{\tau 2}/`$ denote the missing energy from each tau.

Equations 1 and 2 do not give a meaningful solution when the taus are back-to-back in the transverse plane. Therefore, we require that $`|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |>0.3`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle between the tau candidates.

When the solution to Equations 1 and 2 gives $`E^{\tau 1}/<0`$ or $`E^{\tau 2}/<0`$, the event is thrown out, causing about 50% of the Higgs signal to be lost. However, 97% of W+jets events are rejected in this way, which would otherwise be a formidable background.

We generate $`A/\varphi \tau \tau `$ events in Pythia 6.203 with $`m_A=95`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$. After simulation of the Run I CDF detector, a ditau mass distribution is reconstructed with a mean value of 93.7 GeV with an RMS of 24.1 GeV.

### 2.3 Irreducible Background

The dominant *reducible* backgrounds to this analysis are QCD, $`Zee`$, and W+jets. $`Z\tau \tau `$ is an irreducible background, but Higgs events are more efficient for this search than Z’s for a couple of reasons.

First, in the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, $`A/\varphi `$’s have a high branching ratio to taus (9%) compared to Z’s (3.7%). Second, an $`A/\varphi `$ is typically produced with a stiffer $`p_T`$ than a Z. This means that the requirement $`|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |>0.3`$, which is nearly equivalent to $`p_T^{A/\varphi /Z}>15`$ GeV, is $`30\%`$ more efficient for Higgs events than Z events.

### 2.4 Triggers

Since there was no $`\tau `$ trigger in Run I at CDF, the analysis uses a lepton trigger requiring $`p_T>18`$ GeV, seeking events with one leptonic and one hadronic decay. Since only half of the signal events decay in this way, and of these, only 20% contain a lepton which satisfies the $`p_T`$ requirement within the acceptance, the signal rate is greatly diminished at the trigger level.

This major loss at the trigger level is problematic, since the cross section drops by a factor of 4 from $`m_A=95`$ GeV to $`m_A=120`$ GeV, before the mass reconstruction, with an RMS of 24 GeV, can discriminate from $`Z\tau \tau `$. Therefore, in Run II, CDF and D0 are both implementing triggers designed for tau physics. Lowered $`p_T`$ thresholds and new decay modes available will greatly increase the acceptance for this search.

In Run II, CDF and D0 both have lepton + track triggers and $`\tau +E_T/`$ triggers. In addition, both experiments are triggering on events with two hadronic taus. CDF’s trigger is calorimeter-based, while D0’s is track-based.

The Run I search for $`A/\varphi \tau \tau `$ is still work in progress, and the Run II analysis is also in the works.

## 3 SEARCH FOR $`ppA/\varphi b\overline{b}b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$

CDF performed this search in Run I. Both experiments expect to improve on the analysis in Run II.

### 3.1 Run I search

The Run I search at CDF utilized a 4-jet trigger requiring $`\mathrm{\Sigma }E_T>125`$ GeV. Three b-tags were required based on displaced vertices, and the b jets were required to be separated in azimuthal angle, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi >1.9`$. To optimize sensitivity, the $`E_T`$ cuts on the jets varied with mass hypothesis. For mass hypothesis below 120 GeV (above 120 GeV), the second and third b-tagged jets (first and second jets) ordered in $`E_T`$ were chosen for the mass reconstruction. The search is performed in mass windows dependedent on mass hypothesis.

The product of branching ratio and acceptance ranged from 0.2 to 0.6% in the mass range 70 and 300 GeV. For a mass hypothesis of 70 GeV, 5 events were observed with 4.6 $`\pm `$ 1.4 expected. Only these 5 events appear in the higher mass windows. No excess above predicted is observed. Figure 1 shows the $`m_A\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region excluded.

### 3.2 Run II Improvements

At CDF, studies of $`Zb\overline{b}`$ events show an improved dijet mass resolution after correcting for muons, $`E_T/`$, and nonlinearities in the hadronic calorimeter. Separate studies of QCD jets using similar techniques show a 30% improvement in jet resolution.

B-tagging in Run II at CDF will be improved with the new ability to reconstruct three-dimensional tracks. Extended coverage from $`|\eta |<1`$ (Run I) to $`|\eta |<2`$ means improve b-jet and lepton acceptance. Additionally, new triggers will also recover acceptance, including a displaced track trigger, and an improved multijet trigger.

With a new silicon detector, D0 will also be performing this search in Run II, expecting a 12% dijet mass resolution. Both experiments perform a study of their expected sensitivity to $`ppA/\varphi b\overline{b}b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ in Run II, and obtain similar results. We present the D0 study here.

D0 also uses a multijet trigger, requiring four jets, each with $`E_T>15`$ GeV. To maximize sensitivity, mass dependent $`E_T`$ cuts are made on the jets. At least 3 b tags are required. All mass combinations are plotted, and a 2.5$`\sigma `$ $`b\overline{b}`$ mass window is used. With 2$`fb^1`$, D0 concludes that the Tevatron is expected to exclude $`m_A<160`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ at 95% CL, and a 5$`\sigma `$ discovery for $`m_A<115`$ GeV for the same $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

Run I results of the search for $`A/\varphi \tau \tau `$ at CDF are to be completed soon, and a first glimpse of Run II data is on the way.

The Run I search for $`ppA/\varphi b\overline{b}b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ derives lower mass limits for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in excess of 35. In Run II with both experiments searching for this decay mode, the Tevatron is expected to exclude (or make a discovery in) a significant region of MSSM parameter space. Both experiments are optimistic about improvements from triggers, jet resolution, and b-tagging to make this search even stronger than the current projections.


text:
# 𝛾-ray emission from Outer-Gap of pulsar magnetosphere

## Abstract

We develop a model for $`\gamma `$-ray emission from the outer magnetosphere of pulsars (the outer-gap model). The charge depletion causes a large electric field which accelerates electrons and positrons. We solve the electric field with radiation and pair creation processes self-consistently, and calculate curvature spectrum and Inverse-Compton (IC) spectrum. We apply this theory to PSR B0833-45 (Vela) and B1706-44 for which their surface magnetic fields, observed thermal X-rays are similar to each other. We find that each observed cut-off energies of the $`\gamma `$-rays are well explained. By inclusion of emission outside the gap, the spectrum is in better agreement with the observations than the spectrum arising only from the inside of the gap. The expected TeV fluxes are much smaller than that observed by CANGAROO group in the direction of B1706-44.

## 1 Introduction

The Compton Gamma Ray Observatory has detected seven $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars. The observed light curves and energy spectra have been used to discriminate possible radiation models. Moreover, the next-generation $`\gamma `$-ray space telescopes and the ground based Cherenkov telescopes will further constrain to the models.

The pulsed $`\gamma `$-rays imply that the electrons and positrons are accelerated up to about 10 TeV in the magnetosphere. For the outer-gap model (Chen, Ho & Ruderman, 1986), Hirotani & Shibata (1999, HS) solved the accelerating electric field with curvature radiation and pair creation processes self-consistently. They showed that the electric field along the magnetic field does not extend to the light cylinder, and calculated curvature spectra can explain the EGRET observations in the GeV bands. However, the gap emission could not explain the observations in the MeV band. Hence, to improve the HS model, we take account of the radiation from the outside of the gap and compare the corrected spectrum with the observations.

## 2 One dimensional model

In this section, we introduce the HS model and represent the Poisson eq. which describes the accelerating electric field, the continuity eqs. for particles and $`\gamma `$-rays , following HS.

### 2.1 Basic equations

We deal with the structure along the magnetic field lines. If the gap width ($`W`$) along the magnetic field is much less than the light radius ($`\varpi _{lc}`$), we can approximate the magnetic field lines as straight lines in the gap, and the electric field structures can be treated as one-dimensional, where the arc length from the surface along the last-closed line is denoted by $`s`$ : we can write down the Poisson equation as

$$\frac{dE_{||}}{us}=4\pi e\left(N_+N_{}\frac{\rho _{GJ}}{e}\right),$$
(1)
where $`E_{||}`$ is the electric field along the magnetic field, $`N_+`$ ($`N_{}`$) is the electron (positron) number density, and $`\rho _{GJ}`$ is the Goldreich-Julian (GJ) charge density. Above equation describes that the charge depletion relative to $`\rho _{GJ}`$ causes $`E_{||}`$.

By taking account of the electron-positron pair creation process, the continuity equations for particles and $`\gamma `$-rays are

$$\pm B\frac{d}{ds}\left(\frac{N_\pm }{B}\right)=\frac{1}{c\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Psi }}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ_\gamma [\eta _pG_++\eta _{}G_{}],$$
(2)
$$\pm B\frac{d}{ds}\left(\frac{G_\pm }{B}\right)=\frac{\eta _{p\pm }G_\pm +\eta _cN_\pm }{c\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(3)
where $`G_+`$ ($`G_{}`$) is the distribution function of outward (inward) propagating $`\gamma `$-rays, $`ϵ`$ refers to the photon energy in units of the electron’s rest mass energy, $`B`$ is the magnetic field strength, $`\eta _{p\pm }`$ is the pair-creation rate, $`\eta _c`$ is the emissivity of curvature radiation, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the angle between the particle’s motion and the meridional plane. We describe $`G_\pm `$ in several energy bins and represent then as $`G_\pm ^i`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{})`$. The particle’s Lorentz factor in the gap is obtained by assuming that particle’s motion immediately saturated at the balance between the electric and the radiation reaction forces, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sat}=\left(\frac{3R_c^2}{2e}E_{||}\right)^{1/4},$$
(4)
where $`R_c`$ is the curvature radius of dipole magnetic field lines.

We impose some boundary conditions. The inner ($`s_1`$) and outer ($`s_2`$) boundaries are defined so that $`E_{||}`$ vanishes, i.e., $`E_{||}(s_1)=E_{||}(s_2)=0`$. We assume that the $`\gamma `$-rays do not come into the gap through the boundaries, $`G_+^i(s_1)=G_{}^i(s_2)=0`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{}.m)`$. We allow the particles to come into the gap. The particle flux is given by the non-dimensional parameters $`j_1`$ and $`j_2`$ as follows:

$$\frac{N_+(s_1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }B(s_1)/2\pi ce}=j_1,\frac{N_{}(s_2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }B(s_2)/2\pi ce}=j_2.$$
(5)
The particle continuity equation (2) yields

$$\frac{N_+(s)}{\mathrm{\Omega }B(s)/2\pi ce}+\frac{N_{}(s)}{\mathrm{\Omega }B(s)/2\pi ce}=\text{const along s}=j_{tot}.$$
(6)
From eqs. (5) and (6), the current carriers created in the gap per unit flux tube is $`j_{gap}=j_{tot}j_1j_2`$. The total current should be determined by the global condition which includes pulsar wind. Therefore, we use $`(j_{tot},j_1,j_2)`$ as free model parameters.

### 2.2 X-ray & infrared (IR) field

Because the $`\gamma \gamma `$ pair-creation process is important in the outer magnetosphere, we need the X-rays for the target-photons in our case. In the present paper, we use the observed black body radiation from the pulsar surface for the X-rays (Table 1). We also need the IR field to calculate IC flux. The IR field is inferred from optical and radio observations for Vela, X-ray and radio observations for B1706-44 with a single power-low, because there are no available IR observations.

## 3 Radiation from outside of the gap

Near the boundaries, the real Lorentz factor of the accelerated particles must be lager than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sat}`$ given by eq.(4), because the particle’s cooling time for the radiation becomes larger than the crossing time for the gap. So, the particles come out from the gap with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{out}`$ $`a`$ $`few`$ $`times`$ $`10^7`$ and emit $`\gamma `$-rays outside of the gap. Since the typical damping length for the curvature radiation is

$$l_{dam}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{m_ec^2}{e^2}\frac{R_c^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^3}=0.4\varpi _{lc}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{100\text{rad}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{10^7}\right)^3\left(\frac{R_c}{0.5\varpi _{lc}}\right)^2,$$
(7)
the $`\gamma `$-ray radiation from the outside of the gap are also important unless $`W\varpi _{lc}`$.

We apply the our model to Vela and B1706-44 with the observed parameters in Table 1. We adopt $`(j_{tot},j_1,j_2)=(0.201,0.191,0.001)`$ and $`a_{inc}=45^{}`$ for the angle between axes of rotation and magnetization for both pulsars.

## 4 Result

### 4.1 Electric field structure

The calculated $`E_{||}`$ for both pulsars are shown in Fig.1. The gap width $`W`$ is shorter than $`\varpi _{lc}`$. $`W`$ is characterized by the pair-creation mean free path, which is given approximately by $`W\underset{¯}{}c/(\eta _p\eta _c𝑑ϵ)^{1/2}`$ by using the fact $`\eta _{p+}\eta _p`$, due to the difference in the collision angle between $`\gamma `$-ray and X-ray. For Vela and B1706-44, one finds the mean free path to be shorter than $`\varpi _{lc}`$.

We find that Vela has a nearer distance from the surface to the gap and larger calculated $`E_{||}`$ than B1706-44 when we adopt the same $`(j_{tot},j_1,j_2)`$ and $`a_{inc}`$. This is because Vela has the shorter rotation period and larger GJ density in the gap than B1706-44. The dependence of the assumed distance from the earth to B1706-44 is also shown in Fig.1. In general, if we adopt a nearer distance to the pulsar, the electric field becomes large, because the decrease in the estimated X-ray luminosity from the observations extends the gap width.

### 4.2 Gamma-ray spectra

The calculated spectrum of outward propagating $`\gamma `$-rays radiated in the gap for Vela is shown in Fig.2(a) as dashed-line. The spectral cut-off around GeV is responsible for the acceleration limit. We find that this spectrum is in agreement with the EGRET observations (Thompson et.al. 1999) in the GeV bands. In the MeV bands, however, it is inconsistent with the observations. This is because the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sat}`$ makes the curvature spectrum with $`E^2FE^\alpha `$,$`\alpha 4/3`$ in the MeV bands, although the observations have $`\alpha 1/3`$.

In §3, we have pointed out that if $`W\varpi _{lc}`$, the curvature radiation from the outside of the gap is important. In the outside of the gap where $`E_{||}`$ is vanished, the particles lose their energy by the radiation, the spectrum of which extends to the MeV band (dotted-line in Fig.2(a)). By inclusion of this emission, the total spectrum (solid-line in Fig.2(a)) is in good agreement with the EGRET observations.

The calculated $`total`$ $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum for B1706-44 is shown in Fig.2 (b). We find that the calculated peak energy becomes slightly less than Vela because $`E_{||}^{B1706}<E_{||}^{Vela}`$ (§§4.1), and this peak energy also explains the observations. As mentioned in §§4.1, since the calculated $`E_{||}`$ becomes large as we assume the nearer distance to the pulsar, the spectrum becomes hard if we adopt a nearer distance. For 1.8 kpc, the calculated spectrum appears to be consistent with the observations. However, we must assume a large cross-section area of the gap, $`A_{}=(10W)^2(\varpi _{lc})^2`$, to obtain the observed fluxes. Because the gap locates at $`s0.5\varpi _{lc}`$ (Fig.1), such $`A_{}`$ should be unrealistic.

Fig.2 (b) also shows the calculated IC spectrum from the gap. The sharp-cut off in the spectrum which corresponds to the acceleration limit appears around 10TeV. Since IR flux might be overestimated, TeV flux would be less than $`10^{12}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. Moreover, this calculated flux hardly depends on the distance to the pulsar. On these ground, we conclude that it is difficult to explain the unidentified TeV components observed by CANGAROO group (Kushida et.al., 2002) in the direction of B1706-44 with this model.

## 5 Discussion

In summary, we obtained the spectrum in good agreement with the EGRET observations for Vela by inclusion of the curvature radiation from the outside of the gap. We found that the observed peak energies for Vela and B1706-44 may imply that the almost the same currents in units of GJ value are running through the gap for both pulsars.

From Fig.2 (a), we recognize that the calculated spectrum is inconsistent with the COMPTEL observations. If we try to explain this observations, we need the very small curvature radius as compared with the dipole, which is unlikely. Therefore, this MeV emission will be obtained by inclusion of the synchrotron emission by pairs.

In §§4.2, we showed that we need very large $`A_{}`$ to explain the observations of B1706-44. This may be due to the small $`j_{tot}`$, about 20% of the GJ current. However, if we adopt the nearly ($`j_{tot}1`$) or super ($`j_{tot}>1`$) GJ current with this model, the gap width will be quenched.

Quite recently, Hirotani et.al. (2002) showed that the value of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sat}`$ given by eq.(4) and also $`\gamma `$-ray fluxes calculated with this $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sat}`$ are overestimated, because particles in the gap do not immediately saturate. But, the general features of the gap model and the result that we must take account of the radiation from the outside of the gap to explain the observations above 100MeV are not altered.

$`Acknowledgments`$ We thank Drs. Tanimori and Kushida for useful discussion for B1706-44 and the CANGAROO group for holding the symposium.

## References

> Cheng K.S., Ho C., Ruderman M.A. 1986, ApJ 300, 500
>
> Gotthelf E.V., Halpern J.P., Dodson R. 2002, ApJ 567, L125
>
> Kushida J. et.al. 2002, ”The Universe Viewed in Gamma-Rays (Universal Academy Press)”
>
> Hirotani K., Shibata S. 1999, MNRAS 308, 54 (HS)
>
> Hirotani K., Harding A.K., Shibata S. 2002, to be submitted
>
> Ögelman H., Finley J.P., Zimmermann H.U. 1993, Nat 361, 136
>
> Thompston D.J. et.al. 1999, ApJ 516, 297


text:
# A New Kind of Graded Lie Algebra and Parastatistical Supersymmetry This project supported by National Natural Science Foundation of china and LWTZ 1298.

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the symmetry plays a fundamental role in theoretical physics research. When a new symmetry of investigating system is revealed, it will lead not only to better understanding of the system but sometimes give rise to establishing unexpected and important relations between different theories and lines of research. Parastatistics first was introduced as an exotic possibility extending the Bose and Fermi statistics , and for the long period of time the interest to it was rather academic. Recently it finds applications in the physics of the quantum Hall effect and it probably is relevant to high temperature superconductivity , so it draws more and more attentions from both theoretical and experimental physicists. Supersymmetry, established in the early 70’s, unifies Bose and Fermi symmetry and leads to deeply developments of field and string theories which become the cornerstones of modern theoretical physics. A natural question is, can we unify parabosons and parafermions into some kind of supersymmetric theories? Though some recent researches indicated that the so-called parasupersymmetry (paraSUSY) maybe unifies these paraparticles , nevertheless, the two concepts, i.e., the parastatistics and the supersymmetry, seem to be still independent from the point of view of algebraic structure. In fact, the mathematical basis of usual supersymmetry is $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra , in which not only commutators but also anticommutators are involved. However, the characteristic of algebraic relations of parastatistics is trilinear commutation relations, or double commutation relations. Thus two paraparticles neither commute nor anticommute with each other, and in place of this, three paraparticles satisfy some complicated commutation relations, which certainly bring some intrinsic difficulties into the research of paraSUSY.

A new kind of graded Lie algebra (we call it $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra) is introduced in this paper to provide a suitable mathematical basis for the paraSUSY theories. This $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra is a natural extension or generalization of the usual $`Z_2`$ one. Especially, the trilinear commutation relations of parastatistics can automatically appear in the structure of $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra, therefore, supersymmetric theories based on the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra may unify the concepts of parastatistics and supersymmetry. It can be shown that the algebraic structure of paraSUSY systems indeed is the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra. So we can classify and analyse the possible symmetries and supersymmetries of paraparticle systems more systematically and more effectively from the point of view of $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra.

The paper is arranged as follows. In section 2 the mathematical definition of the $`Z_{2,2}`$ is introduced with some examples showing how to produce a $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra from a usual Lie algebra, especially how to derive the characteristic trilinear commutation relations of parastatistics. In section 3 we demonstrate that the algebraic structure of systems consisting of parabosons and parafermions is nothing but the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra. We analyse the various symmetries and supersymmetries of paraparticle systems in section 4, and give some summary and discussion in the last section.

## 2 $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra

Let vector space $`𝐋`$ over a field $`𝐊`$ be a direct sum of four subspaces $`L_{ij}`$ (i,j=0,1), i.e.,

$$𝐋=L_{00}L_{01}L_{10}L_{11}.$$
(1)
For any two elements in $`𝐋`$, we define a composition (or product) rule, written $``$, with the following properties

(i) Closure: For $`u,v𝐋`$, we have $`uv=w𝐋`$, i.e.,

$$𝐋𝐋𝐋.$$
(2)
(ii) Bilinearity: For $`u,v,w𝐋`$, $`c_1,c_2𝐊`$, we have

$`(c_1u+c_2v)w=c_1uw+c_2vw,`$
$`w(c_1u+c_2v)=c_1wu+c_2wv.`$ (3)
(iii) Grading: For $`uL_{ij},vL_{mn},(i,j,m,n=0,1)`$, we have

$$uv=wL_{(i+m)mod2,(j+n)mod2}.$$

i.e.

$$L_{ij}L_{mn}L_{(i+m)mod2,(j+n)mod2},$$
(4)
where $`mod2`$ means cutting $`2`$ when $`i+m=2`$. For instance, $`L_{00}L_{00}L_{00}`$, $`L_{10}L_{11}L_{01}`$, $`L_{11}L_{11}L_{00}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$.

(iv) Supersymmetrization: For $`uL_{ij},vL_{mn}`$, we have

$$uv=(1)^{g(u)g(v)}vu,$$
(5)
here we assign to any $`uL_{ij}`$ a degree $`g(u)=(i,j)`$ which satisfies

$$g(u)g(v)=(i,j)(m,n)=im+jn,$$

$$g(u)+g(v)=(i,j)+(m,n)=(i+m,j+n)_{mod2},$$

where $`vL_{mn}`$. Obviously, the $`g(u)`$ looks like a two-dimensional vector and the above two expressions are exactly dot product and additive operations of the two-dimensional vectors.

(v) Generalized Jacobi identities: For $`uL_{ij},vL_{kl},wL_{mn},(i,j,k,l,m,n=0,1)`$, we have

$$u(vw)(1)^{g(u)g(w)}+v(wu)(1)^{g(v)g(u)}+w(uv)(1)^{g(w)g(v)}=0.$$
(6)
It is easily to know that there are totally 20 different possibilities for constructing the generalized Jacobi identities from 4 subspaces of $`𝐋`$ $`(C_4^1+C_4^1C_3^2+C_4^3=20).`$

Definition: A linear space satisfying the above conditions (i)-(v) is called the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra.

For instance, one can define the product rule on $`𝐋`$ as

$$uv=uv(1)^{g(u)g(v)}vu,$$
(7)
for $`u,v𝐋`$, where the elements $`u`$, $`v`$ can be treated as operators in some Hilbert space and the expression $`uv`$ can be understood as a product of the two operators, it is straightforward to check this product rule satisfying the above conditions (ii), (iv) and (v). Furthermore, if one impose the closure and the grading on the product rule (7), the all elements in $`𝐋`$ will form a $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra according to commutation or anticommutation relations, and the generalized Jacobi identities will take the usual trilinear (or double brackets) form.

Thus we give the full definition of the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra. It is easy to see that the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra is a directly generalization or extension of the usual $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra in the following several aspects: their product rules are the same, and both of them have the three basic characters of graded Lie algebra, i.e., grading, supersymmetrization and generalized Jacobi identities. The only difference between them is, for $`Z_2`$ case, which is a direct sum of two subspaces, the grading is one-dimensional, and for $`Z_{2,2}`$ case, which is a direct sum of four subspaces, the grading is two-dimensional. Correspondingly, the degree of elements in $`Z_2`$ is only a number, and that in $`Z_{2,2}`$ is a two-dimensional vector. It is worth mentioning that there are only four possibilities to construct the generalized Jacobi identities in terms of trilinear or double brackets mathematically, i.e.,

$`[A,[B,C]]+[B,[C,A]]+[C,[A,B]]=0,`$
$`[A,\{B,C\}]+[B,\{C,A\}]+[C,\{A,B\}]=0,`$
$`[A,\{B,C\}]+\{B,[C,A]\}\{C,[A,B]\}=0,`$
$`[A,[B,C]]+\{B,\{C,A\}\}\{C,\{A,B\}\}=0.`$ (8)
Here we want to point out that only the first three expressions of (8) appear in the generalized Jacobi identities of the usual $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra , however, all the four expressions of (8) will appear in the generalized Jacobi identities of $`Z_{2,2}`$. This fact indicates that the $`Z_{2,2}`$ is more complete in the algebraic structure, and has higher symmetries than $`Z_2`$. Their further connection will become clearer later in the symmetry analysis.

Now we take the Lie algebra $`su(1,1)`$ as an example to show how to produce the $`Z_{2,2}`$ extension of $`su(1,1)`$. We take $`su(1,1)`$ as the $`L_{00}`$ subspace which is three-dimensional, however, the dimensions of subspaces $`L_{01}`$, $`L_{10}`$ and $`L_{11}`$ are restricted by the generalized Jacobi identities. Simple calculations show that in a nontrivial maximum-dimensional extension, the above three subspaces can only contain 2, 2 and 1 elements respectively. Using the notations of elememts in different subspaces showing in the Table 1, we have

$`[\tau _1,\tau _2]=\tau _3,[\tau _2,\tau _3]=\tau _1,[\tau _3,\tau _1]=\tau _2,`$
$`[\tau _i,Q_\alpha ]=(t_i)_{\alpha \beta }Q_\beta ,[\tau _i,a_m]=(c_i)_{mn}a_n,[\tau _i,f]=0,`$
$`\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=(h_i)_{\alpha \beta }\tau _i,\{Q_\alpha ,a_m\}=\lambda _1(\sigma _2)_{\alpha m}f,\{Q_\alpha ,f\}=\lambda _2(I)_{\alpha m}a_m,`$
$`\{a_m,a_n\}=(d_i)_{mn}\tau _i,\{a_m,f\}=\lambda _3(I)_{m\alpha }Q_\alpha ,`$ (9)
where $`i=1,2,3`$, $`m,n=1,2`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta =1,2`$. The first line in (9) is the Lie algebraic relations in $`L_{00}`$ subspace, and the others on (9) are the algebraic relations of the $`Z_{2,2}`$ extension. All the structure constants such as $`t_i,c_i,h_i,d_i`$ are determined by the generalized Jacobi identities as

$`t_1=\sigma _1/2,t_2=\sigma _2/2,t_3=i\sigma _3/2,c_i=t_i,`$
$`h_1=2i\lambda _1\lambda _2\sigma _3,h_2=2\lambda _1\lambda _2I,h_3=2\lambda _1\lambda _2\sigma _1,`$
$`d_1=2i\lambda _1\lambda _3\sigma _3,d_2=2\lambda _1\lambda _3I,d_3=2\lambda _1\lambda _3\sigma _1,`$
where $`\sigma _i`$ and $`I`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`(2\times 2)`$ unit matrix respectively. It needs to be explained that the three undetermined constants $`\lambda _i`$ may be absorbed into redifinitions of the elements in $`L_{01}`$, $`L_{10}`$ and $`L_{11}`$ subspaces.

If we consider a unitary representation of the $`Z_{2,2}`$ extension of the $`su(1,1)`$, and take the constants as $`\lambda _1=i`$, $`\lambda _2=0`$ and $`\lambda _3=2`$, then under mappings $`2i\tau _3M(a)`$, $`2(\tau _1+i\tau _2)B^{}`$, $`2(\tau _1+i\tau _2)B`$, $`a_1a^{}`$ and $`a_2a`$, we can derive from (9) the following relations

$`[M(a),a]=a,[B,a]=0,[B,a^{}]=2a,`$
$`\{a^{},a\}=2M(a),\{a,a\}=2B,`$ (10)
together with the adjoint ones. Obviously, these relations are exactly equivalent to the single mode paraboson algebraic relations

$$[\{a^{},a\},a]=2a,[\{a,a\},a]=0,[\{a,a\},a^{}]=4a.$$
(11)
Thus we see that the parastatistical algebraic relations can be automatically derived from the $`Z_{2,2}`$ algebraic relations.

## 3 Algebraic structure of parastatistics

Let us consider a paraparticle system consisting of M-mode parabosons (whose creation and annihilation operators are denoted by $`a_k^{}`$ and $`a_k`$ respectively) and N-mode parafermions (denoted by $`f_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`f_\alpha `$), whose algebraic structure can be expressed in terms of the following 12 independent relations (the Latin indices take values from 1 to M, and the Greek ones from 1 to N)

$`[a_k,\{a_l^{},a_m\}]=2\delta _{kl}a_m,[f_\alpha ,[f_\beta ^{},f_\gamma ]]=2\delta _{\alpha \beta }f_\gamma ,`$
$`[a_k,\{a_l,a_m\}]=0,[f_\alpha ,[f_\beta ,f_\gamma ]]=0,`$
$`[a_k,[f_\alpha ^{},f_\beta ]]=0,[f_\alpha ,\{a_k^{},a_l\}]=0,`$
$`[a_k,\{a_l,f_\alpha \}]=0,\{f_\alpha ,\{a_k,f_\beta \}\}=0,`$
$`[a_k,\{a_l^{},f_\alpha \}]=2\delta _{kl}f_\alpha ,\{f_\alpha ,\{a_k^{},f_\beta \}\}=0,`$
$`[a_k,\{a_l,f_\alpha ^{}\}]=0,\{f_\alpha ,\{a_k,f_\beta ^{}\}\}=2\delta _{\alpha \beta }a_k.`$ (12)
Other parastatistical relations of this system can be derived from the above 12 basic relations by taking Hermitian conjugate or by using the generalized Jacobi identities (8). Now we define the following 6 new operators

$`\{a_k^{},a_l\}=2M_{kl}(a),\{a_k,a_l\}=2B_{kl}(a),\{a_k,f_\alpha \}=2F_{k\alpha },`$
$`[f_\alpha ^{},f_\beta ]=2M_{\alpha \beta }(f),[f_\alpha ,f_\beta ]=2B_{\alpha \beta }(f),\{a_k^{},f_\alpha \}=2Q_{k\alpha },`$ (13)
with their Hermitian conjugate operators. Since $`M_{kl}^{}(a)=M_{lk}(a)`$ and $`M_{\alpha \beta }^{}(f)=M_{\beta \alpha }(f)`$, actually, there are totally 10 kinds of new operators independently, i.e.,

$$M_{kl}(a),B_{kl}(a),B_{kl}^{}(a),M_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\alpha \beta }^{}(f),F_{k\alpha },F_{k\alpha }^{},Q_{k\alpha },Q_{k\alpha }^{}.$$

Using these new operators one can rewrite (12) as

$`[a_k,M_{lm}(a)]=\delta _{kl}a_m,[a_k,M_{\alpha \beta }(f)]=0,[a_k,B_{lm}(a)]=0,`$
$`[f_\alpha ,M_{kl}(a)]=0,[f_\alpha ,M_{\beta \gamma }(f)]=\delta _{\alpha \beta }f_\gamma ,[f_\alpha ,B_{\beta \gamma }(f)]=0,`$
$`[a_k,F_{l\alpha }]=0,[a_k,Q_{l\alpha }]=\delta _{kl}f_\alpha ,[a_k,Q_{l\alpha }^{}]=0,`$
$`\{f_\alpha ,F_{k\beta }\}=0,\{f_\alpha ,Q_{k\beta }\}=0,\{f_\alpha ,Q_{k\beta }^{}\}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }a_k.`$ (14)
Furthermore, by virtue of (13), (14) and (8), one can derive the following closed algebraic relations satistied by the new operators

$`[M_{kl}(a),M_{mn}(a)]=\delta _{ml}M_{kn}(a)\delta _{kn}M_{ml}(a),`$
$`[M_{kl}(a),B_{mn}(a)]=\delta _{km}B_{ln}(a)\delta _{kn}B_{ml}(a),`$
$`[B_{kl}(a),B_{mn}^{}(a)]=\delta _{mk}M_{nl}(a)+\delta _{nl}M_{mk}(a)+\delta _{ml}M_{nk}(a)+\delta _{nk}M_{ml}(a),`$
$`[B_{kl}(a),B_{mn}(a)]=0;`$ (15)
$`[M_{\alpha \beta }(f),M_{\sigma \rho }(f)]=\delta _{\sigma \beta }M_{\alpha \rho }(f)\delta _{\alpha \rho }M_{\sigma \beta }(f),`$
$`[M_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\sigma \rho }(f)]=\delta _{\alpha \sigma }B_{\beta \rho }(f)\delta _{\alpha \rho }B_{\sigma \beta }(f),`$
$`[B_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\sigma \rho }^{}(f)]=\delta _{\sigma \alpha }M_{\rho \beta }(f)\delta _{\rho \beta }M_{\sigma \alpha }(f)+\delta _{\sigma \beta }M_{\rho \alpha }(f)+\delta _{\rho \alpha }M_{\sigma \beta }(f),`$
$`[B_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\sigma \rho }(f)]=0;`$ (16)
$`[M_{kl}(a),M_{\alpha \beta }(f)]=0,[M_{kl}(a),B_{\alpha \beta }(f)]=0,[M_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{kl}(a)]=0,`$
$`[B_{kl}(a),B_{\alpha \beta }(f)]=0,[B_{kl}(a),B_{\alpha \beta }^{}(f)]=0;`$ (17)
$`[M_{kl}(a),F_{m\alpha }]=\delta _{km}F_{l\alpha },[M_{\alpha \beta }(f),F_{k\gamma }]=\delta _{\alpha \gamma }F_{k\beta },`$
$`[B_{kl}(a),F_{m\alpha }]=0,[B_{kl}^{}(a),F_{m\alpha }]=\delta _{km}Q_{l\alpha }\delta _{lm}Q_{k\alpha },`$
$`[B_{\alpha \beta }(f),F_{k\gamma }]=0,[B_{\alpha \beta }^{}(f),F_{k\gamma }]=\delta _{\beta \gamma }Q_{k\alpha }^{}+\delta _{\alpha \gamma }Q_{k\beta }^{},`$
$`[M_{kl}(a),Q_{m\alpha }]=\delta _{lm}Q_{k\alpha },[M_{\alpha \beta }(f),Q_{k\gamma }]=\delta _{\alpha \gamma }Q_{k\beta },`$
$`[B_{kl}(a),Q_{m\alpha }]=\delta _{km}F_{l\alpha }+\delta _{lm}F_{k\alpha },[B_{kl}^{}(a),Q_{m\alpha }]=0,`$
$`[B_{\alpha \beta }^{}(f),Q_{k\gamma }]=\delta _{\alpha \gamma }F_{k\beta }^{}\delta _{\beta \gamma }F_{k\alpha }^{},[B_{\alpha \beta }(f),Q_{k\gamma }]=0;`$ (18)
$`\{F_{k\alpha },F_{l\beta }\}=0,\{Q_{k\alpha },Q_{l\beta }\}=0,\{F_{k\alpha },F_{l\beta }^{}\}=\delta _{\beta \alpha }M_{lk}(a)\delta _{lk}M_{\beta \alpha }(f),`$
$`\{Q_{k\alpha },Q_{l\beta }\}=0,\{Q_{k\alpha },Q_{l\beta }^{}\}=\delta _{\beta \alpha }M_{kl}(a)+\delta _{kl}M_{\beta \alpha }(f),`$
$`\{F_{k\alpha },Q_{l\beta }\}=\delta _{kl}B_{\alpha \beta }(f),\{F_{k\alpha },Q_{l\beta }^{}\}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }B_{kl}(a),`$ (19)
with their Hermitian conjugate ones. After observing these relations carfully, one can see that the 10 new operators form the usual $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra, whose Bose subspace includes the operators $`M_{kl}(a),B_{kl}(a),B_{kl}^{}(a),M_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\alpha \beta }^{}(f)`$, and whose Fermi subspace includes the operators $`F_{k\alpha },F_{k\alpha }^{},Q_{k\alpha },Q_{k\alpha }^{}`$. Moreover, if considering the whole algebraic relations (13-19) together, one can find that actually the following 14 operators ($`a_k,a_k^{},f_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{},M_{kl}(a),B_{kl}(a),B_{kl}^{}(a),M_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\alpha \beta }^{}(f),F_{k\alpha },F_{k\alpha }^{},Q_{k\alpha },Q_{k\alpha }^{}`$) form a $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebraic system according to the product rule (7) (we may call it para-Lie superalgebraic system), the oprators of whose four subspaces are showing in the Table 2. Obviously, from the point of view of the algebraic structure, this para-Lie superalgebraic system is exactly equivalent to the parasystem consisting of the four kinds of operators $`a_k,a_k^{},f_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{}`$ according to the trilinear or double commutaion relations (12). Thus we arrive at a conclusion: The parastatistical algebraic relations (12) are equivalent to the para-Lie superalgebraic relations (13-19) on the algebraic structure, and the latter is the algebraic relations of $`z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra mathematically. This conclusion can be written as following theorem

Theorem: The algebraic structure of parastatistics is a $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra.

## 4 Symmetries and supersymmetries of a para-Lie superalgebraic system

¿From the point of view of the para-Lie superalgebra or the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra, it is easily to analyse the symmetries and supersymmetries of a paraparticle system as follows:

(1) From (15) and (16) it is clear that the two subset ($`M_{kl}(a),B_{kl}(a),B_{kl}^{}(a)`$) and ($`M_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\alpha \beta }(f,)B_{\alpha \beta }^{}(f)`$) form the dynamical symmetry algebras of a pure parabose and a pure parafermi subsystems (sp(2M,R) and so(2N,R)) respectively. So the whole subspace $`L_{bose}`$ (see the Table 2) forms a Lie algebra $`sp(2M,R)so(2N,R)`$.

(2) From (15-19) it is clear that the whole subspace $`L_{Bose}L_{Fermi}`$ form a $`Z_2`$ greded Lie algebra, in which $`(M_{kl}(a),M_{\alpha \beta }(f),F_{k\alpha },F_{k\alpha }^{})`$ and $`(M_{kl}(a),M_{\alpha \beta }(f),Q_{k\alpha },Q_{k\alpha }^{})`$ form two dynamical supersymmetric algebras of the paraparticle system respectively. It should be pointed out that for the former there is no way to construct a dynamical model with a positive definite Hamiltonian, so it is a unaccepted supersymmetry in physics, however, for the latter it is indeed possible to realize dynamical sypersymmetric models with definite physical meanings.

(3) From (13-19) it is clear that $`(a_k,a_k^{},M_{kl}(a),B_{kl}(a),B_{kl}^{}(a))`$ form a pure parabose statistical algebra $`osp(1/2M)`$, so the whole subspace $`L_{Bose}L_{Parabose}`$ form a $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra $`osp(1/2M)so(2N,R)`$.

(4) Similarly, $`(f_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{},M_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\alpha \beta }(f),B_{\alpha \beta }^{}(f))`$ form a pure parafermi statistical algebra $`so(2N+1,R)`$, so the whole subspace $`L_{Bose}L_{Parafermi}`$ form a Lie algebra $`so(2N+1,R)sp(2M,R)`$.

Furthermore, besides the parabosons and parafermions (with $`p>1`$ where $`p`$ is the paraststistcs order), one can include ordinary bosons and fermions ($`p=1`$) in the considering system, or more detailed, put creation and annhilation operators of the bosons (fermions) into the subspace $`L_{Bose}`$ ($`L_{Fermi}`$). Since according to the product rule of $`Z_{2,2}`$, either the commutators or anticommutators between para- and non-para- particles will be zero, the whole algebraic structure of the enlarging system is not changed. In other words, for the system consisting of bosons, fermions, parabosons and parafermions, the algebraic structure of its statistical relations is still the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra. Therefore, we can analyse the various potential supersymmetries of such a system unifiedly within the framework of $`Z_{2,2}`$. Futher research shows that only the following three kinds of supersymmetries (including six different cases) are possible mathematically between the four kinds of particles:

(i) The supersymmetries between boson and fermion or paraboson and parafermion, which are realized by some fermi-like supercharges $`Q_F`$;

(ii) The supersymmetries between boson and parafermion or paraboson and fermion, which are realized by some parafermi-like supercharges $`Q_{Pf}`$;

(iii) The supersymmetries between boson and paraboson or fermion and parafermion, which are realized by some parabose-like supercharges $`Q_{Pb}`$.

After detailed analysis we find that it is not possible to write out a positive definite Hamiltonian in the case (iii), so we do not consider the case (iii) further. To our knowledge, so far only part of the above six possible supersymmetric cases has been studied in the literature. For instance, the sypersymmetry of boson and fermion in the case (i) is studied by ordinary supersymmetric quantum mechanics , and the sypersymmetry of boson and parafermion in the case (ii) is studied in the paraSUSY quantum mechanics . Other supersymetric cases need to be studied further. Comparing with the ordinary statistics in which there is only one kind of supersymmetry, i.e., boson-fermion sypersymmetry, the parastatistics allows existance of more supersymmetries. This also indicates that the paraSUSY can be analysed and studied more conveniently within the framework of $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra.

## 5 Conclusion

The concept of $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra is introduced in this paper, which has intrinsic connection with the parastatistics and the paraSUSY. The $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra can unify not only paraboson and parafermion, but also boson, fermion, paraboson and parafermion within one algebraic structure. It is well-known that when the order $`p`$ of parastatistics goes to $`1`$, the parastatistics will reduce to the ordinary statistics, as well as the parabose and the parafermi subspaces will reduce to the ordinary bose and fermi subspaces, so the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra will reduce to the ordinary $`Z_2`$ one. Therefore for the ordinary statistics only the $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra is needed. However, when $`p>1`$, except original bose and fermi subspaces, one has to introduce two extra parabose and parafermi subspaces into the algebraic structure. In this sense we say that the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra is more complete in the structure and with higher symmetry than the $`Z_2`$ one. Considering the discussion in section 2, we can also say that the $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra (or orsinary statistics) is an one-dimensional reduction of the $`Z_{2,2}`$ one (or parastatistics), and the $`Z_{2,2}`$ (or parastatistics) is a two-dimensional generalization of the $`Z_2`$ (or ordinary statistics). A high-dimensional system has higher symmetry and is more complete constructionally than a low-dimensional system, this is a common fact. Also in this sense, we may call the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra ( para-Lie superalgebra) as ”two-dimensional” $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra (ordinary Lie superalgebra). Of course, searching Fock space representations of the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra and constructing concrete paraSUSY dynamical models are very important and urgent problems. We will present the Fock representation for a system with one-mode parabose and one-mode parafermi degrees of freedom and discuss relevant paraSUSY dynamical model in a separate paper.


text:
# Correlation Gap in Armchair Carbon Nanotubes

## I Introduction

In the last few years exciting experiments have been done on single wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT). It has been shown that SWCNT can behave as a true quantum wire showing coherent transport Tans et al. (1997), Luttinger–liquid behaviour was proposed Bockrath et al. (1999) and there are indications for intrinsic superconductivity Tang et al. (2001). The typical dimensions of the CNT used in these experiments are a few $`\mathrm{nm}`$ for the

diameter and several hundreds of $`\mathrm{nm}`$ for the length. Treating CNT in a single particle picture, the electronic properties depend strongly on chirality Saito et al. (1998). In particular armchair CNT are metalic and their Fermi surface at half–filling consists of two points only. At this so-called Fermi points, bands with nearly linear dispersion relations cross (Fig. 1). This property makes armchair CNT an ideal candidate for a one–dimensional quantum wire forming a Luttinger liquid Egger and Gogolin (1998).

In 1997 Balents and Fisher Balents and Fisher (1997) considered the problem of the correlation gap in half–filled $`(n,n)`$ armchair carbon nanotubes. By excluding all but the lowest bands and using an on–site Hubbard interaction $`U`$, they mapped the problem onto a two–chain Hubbard model with an effective interaction $`u_n=U/n`$. For this model it is known from renormalisation group (RG) calculations (see Balents and Fisher (1997) and references therein) that the functional dependence of the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`u_n`$ and $`t`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{exp}(ct/u_n)\text{if }u_nt.$$
(1)
In other words, $`(n,n)`$ armchair CNT at half–filling with large enough $`n`$ are predicted to be metallic for practical purposes since the correlation gap is exponentially small.

In this paper we argue that the scaling law in Eqs. (1) can only be valid, even for large $`n`$, if at the same time the interaction strength $`U`$ is not too large. This can already be seen from the $`2D`$ limit, i.e. when $`n`$ approaches infinity. In this limit we expect a metal–insulator transition at some critical value $`U_{cr}`$ of the interaction strength Sorella and Tosatti (1992); Furukawa (2001). Even at finite $`n`$ the gap will be exponentially small only up to $`U_{cr}`$ but will grow linearly for larger values of $`U`$. In the following we derive the scaling law of the gap as a function of $`n`$ and $`U`$. This gap is determined from Hartree–Fock (H–F) calculations where we take into account all the bands. We expect from the H–F method that it produces the correct functional dependence in the exponent of the correlation gap. This is the case for the Hubbard model in one dimension where the Bethe Ansatz solution is reproduced up to a prefactor Gebhard (1997). On qualitative grounds we show how we can get this scaling law from a RG argument.

## II The correlation gap from H–F calculations

We are going to think about a SWCNT as a rectangular graphite monolayer rolled up into a cylinder. This is equivalent to considering a rectangular honeycomb lattice (Fig. 2) with the appropriate

periodic boundary conditions. All the SWCNT can be classified by their chirality vector $`𝑪_𝒉=n𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}+m𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, where $`𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are the basis vector of the honeycomb lattice, while $`n`$ and $`m`$ are integers with $`m<n`$ Saito et al. (1998). $`𝑪_𝒉`$ determines into which direction the graphene layer is rolled up. As discussed in the introduction, the armchair CNT are of particular interest since at half–filling they are always metallic in the non-interacting electron approximation (see Fig. 1). Armchair CNT are characterized by chiral vectors of the form $`𝑪_𝒉=n𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}+n𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, i.e. $`n=m`$. An example is shown in Fig. 2. In our calculations we take the tubes to be very long and we use also periodic boundary conditions at the ends of the tube. To determine the charge gap in $`(n,n)`$ armchair nanotubes, we consider the following model with nearest neighbor hopping and on–site Hubbard interaction at half–filling:

$$H=\underset{i,j\sigma }{}(t_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)+U\underset{i}{}n_in_i$$
(2)
$`\sigma `$ is the spin index and $`i,j`$ sum over the sites of a rectangular armchair–type honeycomb lattice with periodic boundary conditions. $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ are the fermion creation operators and $`n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$. The hopping integrals $`t_{ij}`$ are restricted to nearest neighbors and are taken to be equal to a single $`t`$ for all the hoppings. In the case of half–filling and on bipartite lattices with non–frustrated hopping, the H–F Hamiltonian is Gebhard (1997)

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j\sigma }{}}t_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3)
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[n_in_i+n_in_in_in_i\right]`$
with the expectation values given by

$$n_{i\sigma }=1/2\left(1+m(1)^i\lambda _\sigma \right)$$
(4)
where $`\lambda _{\sigma \sigma }=1`$, $`\lambda _{\sigma \sigma }=1`$ and $`m=\left|n_in_i\right|`$. This Hamiltonian can be diagonalized by a Bogoliubov transformation and it yields the self–consistent H–F equation for the sublattice magnetisation:

$$m=\frac{2}{N}\underset{𝒌1^{st}BZ}{}\frac{Um}{\sqrt{U^2m^2+4ϵ^2(𝒌)}}$$
(5)
$`N`$ is the total number of sites and $`ϵ(𝒌)`$ is the tight binding dispersion relation for a single graphite layer given by:

$`ϵ^2(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`3t^2+2t^2[\mathrm{cos}(𝒌𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏})+\mathrm{cos}(𝒌𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ (6)
$`+\mathrm{cos}(𝒌(𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}))]`$
Finally the gap is obtained from the sublattice magnetisation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{k}{\mathrm{min}}\sqrt{U^2m^2+4ϵ^2(k)}=Um$$
(7)
In Fig. 3 the numerical results for the correlation gap are shown. We have two parameters to vary, the tube diameter which is proportional to $`n`$ and the interaction strength $`U`$. We tried to fit the H–F results to $`cU/t\mathrm{exp}(\lambda t/U)`$ when we varied $`U`$ and to $`c\mathrm{exp}(\lambda n)`$ for a variation of $`n`$. We see that these fits break down at a critical value of the interaction strength $`U_{cr}^{HF}=2.23t`$. There is no exponential decay beyond $`U_{cr}^{HF}`$. In particular for $`U=U_{cr}^{HF}`$ we can fit the data to $`c/n`$, a power law. All our calculations can be summarized in the following scaling law

$$\mathrm{\Delta }/t=1/n\mathrm{exp}\left\{\alpha n(t/Ut/U_{cr}^{HF})\right\}$$
(8)
with $`\alpha =5.44`$. $`U_{cr}^{HF}`$ is identical to the critical value in the H–F approximation to open a gap in the two–dimensional honeycomb lattice. We see that if $`U`$ is approaching $`U_{cr}^{HF}`$ the exponent is going to vanish and we are left with a power law $`\mathrm{\Delta }=t/n`$.

## III RG–argument

To compute the charge gap from a RG–calculation we need to compute the RG–equation up to third order in the running coupling constant Larkin and Sak (1977). For armchair CNT the effective coupling constant is given by $`g=U/n`$ Balents and Fisher (1997) and we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ the renormalized coupling constant corresponding to the momentum cutoff $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$. The third order equation is Penc and Mila (1994)

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{g}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{D}}=\frac{1}{\pi v_c}\stackrel{~}{g}^2+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2v_c^2}\stackrel{~}{g}^3$$
(9)
with $`v_c=v_F+U/(2\pi n)`$. The RG flow has to be stopped at the strong coupling region. This should occur when the momentum cutoff $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ corresponds to the energy scale of the charge gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ Larkin and Sak (1977). The flow of the running coupling constant has to be stopped at the first relevant energy scale. In the usual one–band picture this energy scale is just the kinetic energy $`t`$. But in the present problem there is another energy scale entering before: It is the gap to the next band which is of order $`t/n`$ . This argument leads to $`\stackrel{~}{g}(\mathrm{\Delta }_c)t/n`$. Now we can integrate out the degrees of freedom far from the Fermi level, and we get

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c/v_c}^{\stackrel{~}{D}_0}\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{D})=_{\stackrel{~}{g}(\mathrm{\Delta }_c)}^gd\stackrel{~}{g}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}^2}{\pi v_c}\left(1\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{2\pi v_c}\right)\right)^1$$
(10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{D}_0`$ is the initial cutoff with $`\stackrel{~}{g}(\stackrel{~}{D}_0)=g=U/n`$. To leading order in $`g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}(\mathrm{\Delta }_c)`$ we obtain

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_c/v_c}{\stackrel{~}{D}_0}\right)\beta \frac{t}{g}+\gamma \frac{t}{\stackrel{~}{g}(\mathrm{\Delta }_c)}.$$
(11)
Identifying the relevant energy scales we can write the charge gap as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_c\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta t/(U/n)+\gamma n\right).$$
(12)
We note that this argument leads to the H–F result.

## IV Discussion

Fig. 4 summarizes our results obtained from H–F calculations and the RG argument on the correlation gap in armchair CNT.

We observed that there is an exponentially small gap only if $`UU_{cr}^{HF}`$, even for large $`n`$. $`U_{cr}^{HF}`$ is a critical value for the interaction strength. For values $`U<U_{cr}^{HF}`$ the correlation gap follows an exponential scaling law. For $`U>U_{cr}^{HF}`$ the gap is growing linearly. The actual value of the hopping integral $`t`$ in SWCNT is about $`2.4`$ $`\mathrm{eV}`$ Mintmire et al. (1992). This value is large and as a consequence we observe in the case $`UU_{cr}^{HF}`$ a finite gap which is of order $`\mathrm{meV}`$. As an example we look at a $`(10,10)`$ CNT assuming an interaction strength of $`U=2t`$. In this case we obtain for the gap a value of $`0.006t`$ which corresponds to an energy of $`14`$ $`\mathrm{meV}`$ and a temperature of $`160`$ $`\mathrm{K}`$. For smaller CNT the gap is even larger.
These results are based on two approximations, namely the description of electron-electron interactions in terms of a Hubbard model with only on-site repulsion, and the calculation of the gap within Hartree-Fock theory. Let us now critically review these approximations.
Hubbard model: It is by now well accepted that metallic nanotubes behave as Luttinger liquids with an exponent controlled by the long-range tail of the Coulomb repulsion and by the finite length of the tube Egger and Gogolin (1998). However, when it comes to calculating the correlation gap in half-filled systems, the short-range part of the correlations plays a dominant role. This is most easily seen in the atomic limit where the hopping integrals are assumed to be vanishingly small. So let us assume for a moment that the system is described by the Hamiltonian:

$$H=U\underset{i}{}n_in_i+\underset{(i,j)}{}V_{ij}n_in_j$$
(13)
where $`n_i=n_i+n_i`$ is the total density, and where $`V_{ij}`$ is the long-range part of the repulsion that does not need to be specified. According to Mott’s prescription to evaluate the gap Mott (1990), one has to compare the energy of a uniform configuration with that of a configuration with a doubly occupied site and a hole far apart from each other. The only difference comes from the energy of the electron that has been moved, and the energy increase is precisely equal to $`U`$ since it still interacts with further neighbours in the same way. So, even in the presence of long-range Coulomb repulsion, the value of the charge gap is controlled by the on-site repulsion $`U`$ in the atomic limit. Of course, away from the atomic limit, the long-range part of the Coulomb interaction will play a role. To get a quantitative estimate of the charge gap in that case is a very difficult problem though which has not been solved even in the simplest case of a pure one-dimensional model, but if anything the longer range part of the Coulomb repulsion is expected to reinforce the tendency to localize the charge, hence to increase the charge gap. So to use a simple Hubbard model with only on-site repulsion to calculate the correlation gap of a half-filled system is a reasonable assumption, and the value is probably an underestimate of the actual gap in the presence of the long-range part of the Coulomb repulsion. For the present purpose this is all we need since our main conclusion is to argue that the gap might be larger than previously assumed.
Hartree-Fock approximation: In purely one-dimensional systems, Hartree-Fock is known to reproduce correctly the exponential form of the gap as a function of $`U`$, but the prefactor of the exponential is wrong, and the gap is overestimated by a factor $`\sqrt{t/U}`$. This is only a problem for very small values of $`U/t`$, but in the range of interest to us, namely not too far from $`U_{cr}`$, this is not a problem any more. In two dimensions, very little is known precisely regarding the value of the correlation gap for models without perfect nesting. Luckily enough, the Hubbard model on the honeycomb lattice has been extensively studied by Monte Carlo simulations, and although the gap could not be calculated, the critical value $`U_{cr}`$ has been determined by looking at the development of magnetic long-range order Sorella and Tosatti (1992); Furukawa (2001), and the value is around $`U_{cr}=3.6t`$. This is clearly larger than the Hartree-Fock result $`U_{cr}^{\mathrm{HF}}=2.23t`$, but the order of magnitude is the same. Since the gap is anyway expected to grow linearly with $`U`$ beyond the critical value, the main result of Hartree-Fock that the gap in the nanotube geometry could take large values if $`U`$ is not too far below $`U_{cr}`$ is expected to remain true beyond Hartree-Fock.
The relevance of this calculation depends crucially on the actual value of $`U`$ in nanotubes. What we need here is the atomic value for carbon. The fact that graphite, a system of very weakly coupled honeycomb planes, is a semi-metal and not an insulator just tells us that $`U`$ does not exceed $`U_{cr}`$. Besides, values often quoted for fullerenes are of no help since they concern the molecule $`C_{60}`$ and not the atomic value for carbon. The most relevant value which we could find in the literature was for polyacetylene where an on–site repulsion of $`5`$$`10`$ $`\mathrm{eV}`$ is generally used Jeckelmann and Baeriswyl (1995). So we believe that values in the range of $`2t`$ to $`4t`$ are to be expected. In particular, a value of $`U`$ near the critical one seems plausible. Thus if in real CNT $`UU_{cr}`$, a correlation gap of a few $`\mathrm{meV}`$ has to be present and a gap of such magnitude could in principle be observed experimentally.
This of course will only be true for SWCNT at half–filling. Currently available CNT seem to have some self–doping which shifts the Fermi–level to an energy where several bands are cut. This turns the CNT metallic independently of their chirality. There are ongoing experimental efforts however identifying the nature of the doping and producing undoped samples, and we are confident that it will be soon be possible to test the conclusions of the present work.