text:
# The Wahlquist-Newman solution

## 1 Introduction

Among the few explicitly known stationary (non-static) and axially symmetric perfect-fluid spacetimes, the Wahlquist family  enjoys a privileged position. First, it is the oldest known solution and it remains, in some sense, the simplest one. More importantly, it has interesting physical properties (see  and references therein) which have made this metric a good candidate to describe the interior of an isolated rotating body in equilibrium. This view has been recently challenged in , where the matching conditions between the Wahlquist metric and a vacuum, asymptotically flat spacetime are claimed to be incompatible in a perturbative sense. This strongly indicates that the Wahlquist metric does not describe the interior or a rotating body in vacuum. In order to make this result conclusive it would be of interest to develop a proper theoretical analysis of the perturbative approach to the matching conditions.

In any case, the fundamental properties which make the Wahlquist metric so special are of geometrical nature. Indeed, this metric is known to be uniquely characterized among stationary, rigidly rotating, perfect-fluid spacetimes by any of the following, seemingly unrelated, properties (see  for a discussion),

* The Simon tensor vanishes .
* The spacetime admits a Killing tensor of type \[(11)(11)\].
* The spacetime is axially symmetric, the Weyl tensor is Petrov type D and the equation of state of the perfect fluid is $`\rho +3p=\text{const.}`$ .

For the purposes of this paper, characterization (1) will be the most relevant one. The Simon tensor  was put forward in order to obtain a unique characterization of the Kerr metric . More precisely, the Kerr spacetime is the only strictly stationary (i.e. with a Killing vector which is timelike everywhere), vacuum and asymptotically flat spacetime for which the Simon tensor vanishes. This fact, combined with (1), shows that there may exist a close relationship between the Wahlquist metric and the Kerr metric. However, no such relationship has been found so far. One of the aims of this paper is to show that the Kerr metric can be obtained as a particular, vacuum, subcase of the Wahlquist metric. In fact, we will also show that the Kerr-de Sitter metric , which is vacuum with a cosmological constant, belongs to the Wahlquist family in the limit $`\rho +p=0`$.

The existence of physically privileged charged generalization of the Kerr and Kerr-de Sitter metrics, namely the Kerr-Newman  and Kerr-Newman-de Sitter spacetimes, leads us to consider whether a similar, privileged, charged generalization of the Wahlquist metric exists. To analyze such a question we should first make precise the meaning of the term “privileged”. As we shall see, the Kerr, the Kerr-de Sitter and the Kerr-Newman-de Sitter metrics have very special geometric properties which relate the Weyl tensor, the Killing vector and the electromagnetic field (when one is present). Moreover, these conditions turn out to be fulfilled also by the Wahlquist metric. Thus, there exists a geometrically clear sense in which a privileged charged generalization of the Wahlquist metric might exist. We call it Wahlquist-Newman metric, first because it contains both Wahlquist and Kerr-Newman-de Sitter as particular cases and also in order to emphasize the very special geometrical properties fulfilled by this spacetime. The main objective of this paper is to obtain the explicit form of this metric. It turns out that the Wahlquist-Newman family contains eight arbitrary parameters. It represents a rigidly rotating perfect fluid, which may be charged or not, together with an electromagnetic field. The sources of the electromagnetic field are the perfect fluid (when this is charged) and/or a singularity of the spacetime. The latter corresponds to the singular source hidden behind the event horizon in the Kerr-Newman spacetime.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we recall the relationship between the vanishing of the Simon tensor and the Weyl tensor and we discuss which geometrical properties make the Kerr, Kerr-Newman, Kerr-Newman-de Sitter and Wahlquist metrics so special. In section 3, we rewrite the Wahlquist metric in such a way that the Kerr-de Sitter metric (and the Kerr metric) are contained as particular subcases. In section 4, we present the Wahlquist-Newman metric and we describe its fundamental properties. First, we stress that the geometrical properties described in section 2 also hold for this metric. Then, we give the explicit expressions for the energy-density, the pressure and the fluid velocity of the perfect fluid. The electromagnetic field and its charge current are also written down and the number of essential parameters in the family is discussed. We also show that the particular case in which the perfect fluid vanishes corresponds to the well-known Plebański metric , which is an important limiting case of the rotating C metric . This shows, in particular, that the Wahlquist-Newman spacetime contains the Kerr-Newman-de Sitter metric as a particular case. In section 5, we analyze the static limit of the Wahlquist-Newman metric. To do that, we rewrite the metric in a suitable coordinate system which admits an explicit static limit and which, in addition, allows for an extension of the Wahlquist-Newman spacetime across its horizon (although the metric represents a perfect fluid, it does have a regular horizon, as we shall see). Finally, we include an Appendix where Einstein-Maxwell’s equations under the assumptions of this paper are solved.

## 2 Geometric properties of the Wahlquist and the Kerr-Newman-de Sitter metrics

The Kerr metric and the Wahlquist metrics share the property that the Simon tensor  vanishes identically. The geometrical meaning of the vanishing of the Simon tensor in vacuum has been recently clarified in . The fundamental underlying property is a close relationship between the Weyl tensor and the stationary Killing vector. Properties of the Weyl tensor can be quite naturally described using the language of self-dual two forms, which are two-forms $`𝓧`$ satisfying $`𝓧^{}=i𝓧`$ where $``$ denotes the Hodge dual with respect to the volume form $`\eta _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$. From the Weyl tensor $`C_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ and the stationary Killing vector $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$ we can write down two canonical self-dual objects, the self-dual Weyl tensor $`𝒞_{\nu \mu \alpha \beta }C_{\nu \mu \alpha \beta }+\frac{i}{2}\eta _{\alpha \beta \rho \sigma }C_{\nu \mu }^{\rho \sigma }`$ and the so-called Killing form $`_{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \xi _\beta +\frac{i}{2}\eta _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^\gamma \xi ^\delta `$. It is natural to ask which spacetimes have the property that the self-dual Weyl tensor and the Killing form are related to each other. The simplest relationship between these two objects which respects all the symmetries of the self-dual Weyl tensor is (the object $`_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(g_{\alpha \gamma }g_{\beta \delta }g_{\alpha \delta }g_{\beta \gamma }+i\eta _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta })/4`$ is the canonical metric in the space of two-forms)

$`𝒞_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }=L\left(_{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma \delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }𝓕^\mathrm{𝟐}\right),`$ (1)
where $`L`$ is a complex, scalar function and $`𝓕^\mathrm{𝟐}_{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }`$. It turns out  that the vanishing of the Simon tensor in vacuum is equivalent to (1). We know that the Simon tensor vanishes for the Wahlquist metric. So, we can ask whether (1) holds also for the Wahlquist spacetime. A straightforward calculation shows that this is indeed the case. Actually, it can be seen that the original assumptions made by Wahlquist in order to find his spacetime, although written in another formalism (see ), can be rewritten so that they consist of condition (1) plus axial symmetry. Thus, with hindsight, Kramer’s uniqueness result  of the Wahlquist metric is equivalent to dropping the condition of axial symmetry from Wahlquist’s original assumptions.

Following the discussion in the Introduction, we can ask whether condition (1) is also fulfilled by Kerr-de Sitter, Kerr-Newman and Kerr-Newman-de Sitter. The answer is yes, as a simple calculation shows. However, the Kerr-Newman and the Kerr-Newman-de Sitter spacetimes contain, in addition, an electromagnetic field. So we should analyze whether this field fits nicely into the geometrical relation (1). This is very important for our purposes because it will determine what makes these charged spacetimes so special, and it will indicate how the charged generalization of Wahlquist metric should be defined. Let us call the electromagnetic field as $`K_{\alpha \beta }`$. This two-form defines canonically a self-dual two-form according to $`𝒦_{\alpha \beta }K_{\alpha \beta }+iK_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$. It can be easily checked that in Kerr-Newman and Kerr-Newman-de Sitter the self-dual electromagnetic field is proportional to the Killing form, i.e. $`𝒦_{\alpha \beta }_{\alpha \beta }`$. This is the most natural relationship one could think of between these two objects. Thus, all these metrics do have very special geometrical properties.

This discussion above indicates two things. First, that the Wahlquist metric is likely to contain the Kerr-de Sitter metric (and hence the Kerr metric) as a particular subcase and, second, that a charged generalization of Wahlquist should also exist satisfying the following properties: 1) It contains both Wahlquist and Kerr-Newman-de Sitter as subcases, 2) it satisfies the relationship (1) between the Weyl tensor and the Killing form and 3) its self-dual electromagnetic field is proportional to the Killing form. Its energy-momentum tensor should contain both an electromagnetic field part and a perfect-fluid part.

Table 1 shows graphically the interrelationships between these metrics. Single arrows indicate well-established and natural generalizations and arrows between question marks indicate plausible relations between metrics. In particular, it becomes apparent that some metric, the Wahlquist-Newman metric, should fill the lower, right corner of this table.

| Non-charged metrics |  | $`\frac{}{}`$Charged counterparts |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\frac{}{}`$ Kerr | $``$ | $`\frac{}{}`$ Kerr-Newman |
| $``$ |  | $``$ |
| $`\frac{}{}`$ Kerr-de Sitter | $``$ | $`\frac{}{}`$ Kerr-Newman-de Sitter |
| ? $``$  ? |  | ? $``$  ? |
| $`\frac{}{}`$ Wahlquist | $`\mathrm{?}`$ ? | $`\frac{}{}`$Wahlquist-Newman? |

Table 1: Relationships between the metrics discussed in this paper

## 3 Kerr-de Sitter limit in the Wahlquist family

Let us start by writing down the line-element of the Wahlquist family as it appears in . This is actually a generalization (by adding a discrete parameter) of the original Wahlquist metric as given in  and was originally given by Senovilla in  (see  for a discussion on the different published versions of the Wahlquist metric and their interrelationships). The Wahlquist line-element is

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}\left(dtAd\theta \right)^2+r^2d\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mu _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{du^2}{h_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dv^2}{h_2}}\right),`$ (2)
where

$`h_1(u)`$ $`=`$ $`h_0+ϵ_0\mathrm{cos}\left(2u\right)+\left(u+u_0\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(2u\right),`$
$`h_2(v)`$ $`=`$ $`h_0ϵ_0\mathrm{cosh}\left(2v\right)+\left(v+v_0\right)\mathrm{sinh}\left(2v\right),`$
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left(2u\right)+\mathrm{cosh}\left(2v\right),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{h_1h_2}{\kappa g}},r^2=4r_0^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2h_1h_2,`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa r_0\mathrm{cosh}\left(v_A\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa r_0\left(h_2\mathrm{cos}\left(2u\right)+h_1\mathrm{cosh}\left(2v\right)\right)}{h_1h_2}}.`$
All symbols with zero subscripts, as well as $`\kappa `$ and $`v_A`$, are arbitrary constants. The energy-momentum of this spacetime is a rigidly rotating perfect fluid (i.e. its velocity vector is proportional to the Killing vector $`\stackrel{}{\xi }=_t`$). The energy-density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$ are $`\rho =\mu _0\left(1\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}\right)`$ and $`p=\mu _0\left(3\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}1\right)`$, so that the equation of state is $`\rho +3p=2\mu _0`$. We want to rewrite this metric in such a way that the Kerr metric is included as a particular case. We first rescale $`u`$ and $`v`$ as follows, $`u=\beta y+\pi /2`$, $`v=\beta z`$, where $`\beta `$ is any non-zero constant. The function $`g`$ transforms into $`g=\mathrm{cosh}\left(2\beta z\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(2\beta y\right)`$. The constant $`\beta `$ is superfluous as long as it remains non-zero, but it may be that the limit $`\beta 0`$ gives another metric, perhaps the Kerr metric we are looking for. In order to work out this idea, we should make $`\beta 0`$ meaningful. This requires some redefinitions of constants. We start by defining

$`Q(y,z){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\left(2\beta z\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(2\beta y\right)}{2\beta ^2}},`$ (3)
which is regular at $`\beta =0`$. The $`2\times 2`$ block spanned by $`\{u,v\}`$ in (3) takes the form $`Q\left(U(z)^1dz^2+V(y)^1dy^2\right)`$, where $`U=\mu _0h_2/(2\beta ^4)`$ and $`V=\mu _0h_1/(2\beta ^4)`$. The constants must be redefined so that $`U`$ and $`V`$ are regular at $`\beta =0`$. Furthermore $`\mu _0`$ should remain finite and non-zero (because of the relation $`\rho +3p=2\mu _0`$, which is non-zero in the Kerr-de Sitter metric). In addition, the number of parameters should not be reduced in the limit $`\beta 0`$. All this is achieved by the following redefinition of constants

$`\mu _0\text{ invariant},{\displaystyle \frac{h_0\mu _0}{2\beta ^4}}=Q_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _0}{2\beta ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{2\beta ^4}},{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0ϵ_0}{\beta ^2}}=\nu _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{\beta ^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0v_0}{\beta ^3}}=a_1,{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0\left(u_0+\pi /2\right)}{\beta ^3}}=a_2,`$ (4)
which brings $`U`$ and $`V`$ into the form

$`U=Q_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{2\beta ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\left(2\beta z\right)1}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{z\mathrm{sinh}\left(2\beta z\right)}{\beta }}\right]+\nu _0{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cosh}\left(2\beta z\right)}{2\beta ^2}}+a_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(2\beta z\right)}{2\beta }},`$
$`V=Q_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{2\beta ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\left(2\beta y\right)}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{sin}\left(2\beta y\right)}{\beta }}\right]+\nu _0{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\left(2\beta y\right)}{2\beta ^2}}+a_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\beta y\right)}{2\beta }}.`$ (5)
We should now analyze the $`\{t,\theta \}`$ block. The constants $`\kappa `$, $`r_0`$ and $`v_A`$ correspond to the freedom of performing linear coordinate changes in $`t`$ and $`\theta `$. Since the coordinates should remain adapted to the Killing vector $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$ (which is privileged both for the Wahlquist and for the Kerr metrics), we consider changes of the type $`\tau =b_1\left(t+b_2\theta \right),\sigma =b_3\theta `$. Let us choose

$`b_1={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\sqrt{\mu _0\kappa }}},b_2=2\kappa r_0\left(\mathrm{cosh}\left(v_A\right)1\right),b_3=4\beta ^3r_0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\mu _0}}},`$
which bring the Wahlquist line-element (3) into the form

$`ds^2=\lambda \left(d\tau {\displaystyle \frac{v_1V+v_2U}{VU}}d\sigma \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{UV}{\lambda }}d\sigma ^2+\left(v_1+v_2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{V}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dz^2}{U}}\right),`$ (6)
where $`U`$ and $`V`$ are given by (5), $`v_1`$, $`v_2`$ read

$`v_1={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\left(2\beta z\right)1}{2\beta ^2}},v_2={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\left(2\beta y\right)}{2\beta ^2}},`$ (7)
and $`\lambda =(VU)/(v_1+v_2)`$. All metric functions in (6) are independently regular at $`\beta =0`$. The structure of this line-element is very similar to the one given by Senovilla in , the only difference being the choice of parameters. It is not difficult to obtain the redefinitions which bring Senovilla’s form into (6). Thus, a regular limit $`\beta =0`$ could also have been obtained starting from that line-element. We preferred to start from (3) in order to deal only with essential parameters.

The explicit form of the metric (6) when $`\beta =0`$ is (after trivially reorganizing the block $`\{\tau ,\sigma \}`$)

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{V}}{y^2+z^2}}\left(d\tau z^2d\sigma \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{U}}{y^2+z^2}}\left(d\tau +y^2d\sigma \right)^2+\left(y^2+z^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{\widehat{V}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dz^2}{\widehat{U}}}\right).`$ (8)
where

$`\widehat{U}=Q_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{3}}z^4\nu _0z^2+a_1z,\widehat{V}=Q_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{3}}y^4+\nu _0y^2+a_2y,`$
$`\widehat{\lambda }=\nu _0+a_2{\displaystyle \frac{y}{y^2+z^2}}a_1{\displaystyle \frac{z}{y^2+z^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{3}}\left(y^2z^2\right).`$
This is the uncharged subcase of the Plebański metric , which is an important limiting case of the Plebański-Demiański metric, also called rotating C-metric . The constant $`a_1`$ is closely related to the NUT-parameter and $`a_2`$ is related to the mass parameter. A particular case of this metric is obtained by setting $`Q_0=a^2`$, $`\nu _0=1a^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$, $`a_1=0`$ and redefining $`a_22M`$ and $`\mu _0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. After the coordinate changes

$`y=r,z=a\mathrm{cos}\theta ,a\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{1+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}},\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{ta\varphi }{1+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}},`$ (9)
we obtain the Kerr-de Sitter metric  in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates.

$`ds^2=\rho ^2\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_r𝜶_{\mathrm{𝟎}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta 𝜶_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]+\rho ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }}\right),`$ (10)
where $`\rho ^2=r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r=\left(a^2+r^2\right)\left(1\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2\right)2Mr`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta =1+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$. The one-forms $`𝜶_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝜶_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ are

$`𝜶_\mathrm{𝟎}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}}\left(dta\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi \right),𝜶_\mathrm{𝟏}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}}\left[adt\left(a^2+r^2\right)d\varphi \right].`$
Of course, by setting $`a=0`$ in this metric we get the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric and the particular case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is the Kerr metric. Thus, the Wahlquist metric does contain Kerr-de Sitter (and Kerr) as a particular case, as we wanted to prove.

## 4 The Wahlquist-Newman family of metrics

The line-element of the Kerr-Newman-de Sitter spacetime can be obtained from (10) just by modifying the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ with an additive constant, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_r=\left(a^2+r^2\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }r^2\right)2Mr+q^2,`$
the constant $`q`$ being directly related to the electric charge of the black hole (and hence to the electromagnetic field). By analogy, we assume as a working hypothesis that the Wahlquist-Newman metric we are seeking can be obtained by modifying the functions on the block $`\{dy,dz\}`$ of the metric (6). The reason why we must allow both functions $`V(y)`$ and $`U(z)`$ to be changed instead of only one (as in the Kerr-Newman-de Sitter case) will become clear later. So, let us assume that the Wahlquist-Newman metric can be written in the form

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{v_1+v_2}}\left(d\tau v_1d\sigma \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{U_1}{v_1+v_2}}\left(d\tau +v_2d\sigma \right)^2+\left(v_1+v_2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{V_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dz^2}{U_1}}\right),`$ (11)
where $`V_1(y)`$ and $`U_1(z)`$ are unknown functions and $`v_1(z)`$, $`v_2(y)`$ are given by (7). We want to solve the Einstein-Maxwell field equations for an energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ consisting of two parts: a perfect-fluid component $`T_{\mu \nu }^{pf}`$ with the fluid velocity being proportional to the stationary Killing vector $`\stackrel{}{\xi }=_\tau `$ and an electromagnetic part $`T_{\mu \nu }^{em}`$. If we denote by $`K_{\mu \nu }`$ the electromagnetic field and by $`𝒦_{\mu \nu }`$ its self dual part, we want to impose $`𝓚𝓕`$, so that the fundamental geometric property satisfied by the Kerr-Newman metric is preserved. In Kerr-Newman, the electromagnetic field is source-free (more precisely, the source of the electromagnetic field is located at the singularity inside the black hole). This is most reasonable because there is no matter to support electric charge. In our case, however, there is a perfect fluid which may perfectly be charged. So, we admit a charge current $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ proportional to the fluid velocity $`\stackrel{}{u}`$. Hence, Maxwell’s equations read

$`d𝑲=0,d𝑲=4\pi 𝒋,𝒋=C𝝃,`$ (12)
where $`C`$ is a scalar function. Our aim is to solve Einstein-Maxwell’s field equations under these assumptions. Although the calculations are not very difficult, some manipulations are required. The details are given in the Appendix . The solution reads as follows

$`U_1(z)=Q_02\alpha _i^2+a_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{2\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma z}{4}}\left[\left(8\alpha _i2\gamma z\right)\mathrm{cosh}(2\beta z)+3\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{\beta }}\right]+`$
$`+\left(\nu _0+2\beta ^2\alpha _r^2+2\beta ^2\alpha _i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cosh}(2\beta z)}{2\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{2\beta ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(2\beta z)1}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{z\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{\beta }}\right],`$ (13)
$`V_1(y)=Q_0+2\alpha _r^2+a_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{2\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma y}{4}}\left[\left(2\gamma y8\alpha _r\right)\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)3\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{\beta }}\right]+`$
$`+\left(\nu _02\beta ^2\alpha _r^22\beta ^2\alpha _i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)}{2\beta ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{2\beta ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{\beta }}\right],`$ (14)
where $`\beta `$, $`Q_0`$, $`\mu _0`$, $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`\nu _0`$, $`\alpha _r`$, $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\gamma `$ are arbitrary constants. These symbols have been chosen so that the uncharged subcase (i.e. the Wahlquist metric) can be directly obtained just by setting $`\gamma =\alpha _r=\alpha _i=0`$. Thus, the Wahlquist-Newman family of metrics contains three more essential parameters than the Wahlquist family. It is worth pointing out that Kerr-Newman-de Sitter has only one additional parameter with respect to the Kerr-de Sitter metric (i.e. the charge of the black hole). The difference comes from the fact that, in our case, a non-vanishing charge current $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ is allowed. The electromagnetic field $`𝑲`$ of the Wahlquist-Newman spacetime is

$`𝑲=X_r\theta ^0dyX_i\theta ^1dz,`$
where $`\theta ^0=d\tau v_1d\sigma `$, $`\theta ^1=d\tau +v_2d\sigma `$, and the functions $`X_r`$ and $`X_i`$ are the real and imaginary parts of the complex function $`X=X_r+iX_i`$ given by

$`X={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(v_1+v_2\right)^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)\mathrm{cosh}(2\beta z)}{\beta ^2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{\beta ^2}}]\times `$
$`\left[\alpha _r{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma y}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{\beta }}\mathrm{cosh}(2\beta z)+i\left(\alpha _i{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma z}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{\beta }}\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)\right)\right].`$
The charge current of this electromagnetic field is

$`\stackrel{}{j}={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \beta ^2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}.`$ (15)
Thus, the constant $`\gamma `$ is directly related to the charge of the particles in the fluid. Notice that the value $`\gamma =0`$ (i.e. uncharged particles) is perfectly possible. In that case, the source of the electromagnetic field lies in the singularity $`v_1+v_2=0z=0,y=n\pi /\beta ,n\text{}`$, analogously as in the Kerr-Newman-de Sitter metric. When $`\gamma =0`$, the electromagnetic field is described by the two constants $`\alpha _r`$ and $`\alpha _i`$ but only the combination $`\alpha _r^2+\alpha _i^2`$ appears in the metric. This reflects the well-known electromagnetic duality symmetry of the source-free Einstein-Maxwell field equations. Thus, for uncharged particles the Wahlquist-Newman family adds only one parameter to the Wahlquist family, exactly the same as in the Kerr-Newman-de Sitter case.

Regarding the perfect fluid, its velocity is, by assumption, proportional to $`_\tau `$ so only the energy-density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$ remain to be given. They can be directly obtained from the expressions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho +3p}{2}}=\mu _0+\beta ^2\gamma ^2+\beta \gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\alpha _r\gamma y\right)\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)+\left(2\alpha _i\gamma z\right)\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{v_1+v_2}},`$
$`\rho +p=2\beta ^2\lambda ,`$ (16)
where $`\lambda =(V_1U_1)(v_1+v_2)=\xi ^\alpha \xi _\alpha `$ is minus the squared norm of the Killing vector. When the particles are uncharged ($`\gamma =0`$) the perfect fluid satisfies $`\rho +3p=2\mu _0`$ as in the Wahlquist family. When $`\gamma 0`$, there is no functional relation between $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ and therefore no barotropic equation of state. Thus, the presence of an electric charge in the particles seems to change the thermodynamic properties of the perfect fluid (this cannot be made certain until a proper thermodynamic analysis is done).

From (14) we observe that both functions $`V_1`$ and $`U_1`$ have a smooth limit $`\beta 0`$ (the integration constants were chosen carefully so that this property holds). The expressions for the density and pressure (16) shows that $`\beta =0`$ corresponds to having no perfect fluid but rather a cosmological constant with value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mu _0`$. The electromagnetic field in this case is source-free, as it should be because no matter is present. The explicit form for $`v_1`$, $`v_2`$, $`U_1`$ and $`V_1`$ in the limit $`\beta =0`$ is, after redefining $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ and $`\nu _0`$ so that the constant $`\gamma `$ disappears (no trace of $`\gamma `$ can be left in this case because the charge current vanishes)

$`v_1=z^2,v_2=y^2,U_1=Q_02\alpha _i^2+a_1z\nu _0z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{3}}z^4,`$
$`V_1=Q_0+2\alpha _r^2+a_2y+\nu _0y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{3}}y^4.`$ (17)
The metric (11) with the functions (17) is the Plebański limit of the rotating $`C`$-metric, as expected, and therefore it contains the Kerr-Newman-de Sitter metric as a particular case.

Hence, metric (11) contains both the Wahlquist and Kerr-Newman-de Sitter metrics. Furthermore, a simple calculation shows that the geometric relationship (1) is also satisfied by this metric. Since the self-dual electromagnetic field is proportional to the Killing form of $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$ by construction, we conclude that (11) is the Wahlquist-Newman metric we are seeking (this completes Table 1). This family of metrics contains eight arbitrary parameters (or nine if we count $`\beta `$).

Finally, we can now see why both functions $`U_1`$ and $`V_1`$ had to be modified instead of only one as in Kerr-Newman-de Sitter. In the cosmological constant case, both functions get modified by the inclusion of an electromagnetic field (see (17). However, a redefinition of $`Q_0`$ can be used to compensate one of the changes. In the perfect-fluid case, the modifications are more complicated and cannot be reabsorbed by redefinitions of constants.

## 5 Extension of the Wahlquist-Newman solution <br>and static limit

The metric as written in (11) does not have an obvious static limit. Analyzing whether such a limit exists is relevant because the Wahlquist metric has an interesting, spherically symmetric static limit, namely the Whittaker solution  which represents an isolated fluid ball in equilibrium. Moreover, the static limit of the Plebański metric has interesting subcases, like the fundamental Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Reissner-Nordström metric or the so-called rotating topological black holes (see e.g. ). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the static limit of the Wahlquist-Newman spacetime may also have interesting properties. We devote this section to find this limit.

To do that, the coordinate system in (11) must clearly be changed. We choose a coordinate system which, in addition, extends the metric (11) across its Killing horizon, which is contained within the set of points where the Killing vectors $`_\eta `$ and $`_\sigma `$ span a null two-plane. Notice, that this can only happen at points where $`\lambda 0`$. From the perfect-fluid interpretation of (11) this would seem to be impossible. However, the energy-momentum tensor of (11) is regular at the points where $`\lambda =0`$, i.e. at the ergospheres of the Killing vector $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$. Indeed, the electromagnetic field is easily seen to be regular there and even though the velocity of the perfect fluid becomes singular where $`\lambda =0`$, the combination $`(\rho +p)u_\alpha u_\beta =\lambda ^1(\rho +p)\xi _\alpha \xi _\beta =2\beta ^2\xi _\alpha \xi _\beta `$ is finite. Obviously the perfect-fluid interpretation breaks down at the ergospheres of $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$ but still the spacetime is regular. This indicates that horizons may also be present in the Wahlquist-Newman spacetime. In order to find them, we should evaluate $`N=(_\tau ,_\tau )(_\sigma ,_\sigma )(_\tau ,_\sigma )^2`$ where $`(,)`$ means scalar product with the metric (11). A simple calculation gives $`N=V_1U_1`$. Thus, $`N`$ vanishes at the points where either $`V_1`$ or $`U_1`$ vanish. It is not clear a priori whether we should try to extend the metric across the hypersurface $`V_1=0`$ or across the hypersurface $`U_1=0`$. We known from (9) that the coordinate $`y`$ is radial and $`z`$ angular, at least in the limit $`\beta =0`$ without electromagnetic field. Therefore, we choose to extend the spacetime across $`V_1(y)=0`$. Let us choose the region $`V_1(y)>0`$ and define the following coordinate transformation

$`v=\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{v_2}{V_1}𝑑y},\phi =\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_1}𝑑y}.`$
It is easy to check that the metric can be cast into the form

$`ds^2=\lambda \left(dv+v_1d\phi \right)^2+2\left(dyU_1d\phi \right)\left(dv+v_1d\phi \right)+Q\left({\displaystyle \frac{dz^2}{U_1}}+U_1d\phi ^2\right),`$ (18)
where $`Qv_1+v_2`$. This metric is regular at $`V_1(y)=0`$ and can therefore be extended. It is straightforward to check that the hypersurface $`y=y_0`$ with $`V_1(y_0)=0`$ is null and that the Killing vector $`v_2(y_0)_\tau +_\sigma `$ is also null and tangent to this hypersurface. Thus, $`y=y_0`$ is a Killing horizon. Extensions of spacetimes are not unique in general. The extension we have performed, however, is uniquely determined by the geometric condition (1) which still holds in the extended spacetime. Thus, this is the natural extension of the Wahlquist-Newman metric from the geometrical point of view. It must be emphasized, however, that this extension may not be the most relevant from the physical point of view because the extended region contains, in addition to an electromagnetic field, a charged tachyonic fluid, which is rather unphysical.

We can now try to determine the static limit of (18). From Kerr-de Sitter, we know that some limit $`z\text{const}`$ will be involved. So, we should avoid using $`z`$ as a coordinate. We accomplish this as follows. Let us consider a connected two-dimensional manifold $`S`$ endowed with the metric

$`h={\displaystyle \frac{1}{U_1(z)}}dz^2+U_1(z)d\phi ^2,`$ (19)
and volume form $`\eta _h=dzd\phi `$. Denote by $`_h`$ the Hodge dual in $`(S,h,\eta _h)`$. We obviously have $`_hdz=U_1d\phi `$ and $`d_hdz=\frac{dU_1}{dz}\eta _h`$. Furthermore, the one-form $`𝝎=v_1(z)d\phi `$ on $`S`$ satisfies $`d𝝎=\frac{dv_1}{dz}\eta _h`$. The scalar curvature of the metric (19) is easily computed to be $`R(h)=\frac{d^2U_1}{dz^2}`$. With these definitions, the metric (18) can be written as

$`ds^2=\lambda (dv𝝎)^2+2(dy_hdz)(dv𝝎)+Qh.`$ (20)
In this metric, $`z`$ need not be a coordinate any longer and can be regarded just as a real function defined on $`S`$. The functions $`Q`$ and $`\lambda `$ depend on the spacetime point only through the values of $`y`$ and $`z`$ at that point. $`\stackrel{}{\xi }=_v`$ is static if

$`𝝃d𝝃=V_1\lambda _{,z}dv\eta _h+dy\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}Q\lambda _z\eta _h+\left(\lambda _{,z}dz+\lambda _{,y}_hdz\right)\left(𝝎dv\right)\right]=0,`$
which holds if and only if $`\lambda _{,z}=0`$ and $`_hdz=0`$. Thus, $`z=z_0=\text{const}`$ and $`\lambda _{,z}|_{z=z_0}=0`$. From $`\lambda =(V_1U_1)/Q`$ and (7), (14) this can only happen iff $`z_0=0`$ and $`a_1=2\gamma \alpha _i`$. In that case, the one-form $`𝝎`$ and the scalar curvature of $`h`$ are

$`d𝝎=\left({\displaystyle \frac{dv_1}{dz}}|_{z=0}\right)\eta _h=0,R(h)={\displaystyle \frac{d^2U_1}{dz^2}}|_{z=0}=2\left[\nu _0+2\beta ^2\left(\alpha _r^2+\alpha _i^2\right)\gamma ^2\right].`$
Thus, $`𝝎`$ is locally exact and can be reabsorbed into the coordinate $`v`$. Since $`h`$ is of constant curvature, there exist coordinates $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ such that

$`h=B^2\left[dx_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1,ϵ)dx_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1,x_1)=\mathrm{sinh}(x_1)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(0,x_1)=x_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1,x_1)=\mathrm{sin}(x_1)`$ and $`B\text{}`$ satisfies

$`ϵB^2=\nu _0+2\beta ^2\left(\alpha _r^2+\alpha _i^2\right)\gamma ^2.`$ (21)
Inserting this into (20) we find that the static limit of the Wahlquist-Newman metric is

$`ds^2=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }dv^2+2dydv+{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)}{2\beta ^2}}B^2\left(dx_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1,ϵ)dx_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),`$ (22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\lambda (y,0)`$ reads explicitly

$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=(\nu _02\beta ^2\alpha _r^22\beta ^2\alpha _i^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta ^2}{1\mathrm{cos}\left(2\beta y\right)}}\{2(\alpha _r^2+\alpha _i^2)+a_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{2\beta }}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{2\beta ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{\beta }}]+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma y}{4}}[(2\gamma y8\alpha _r)\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)3\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{\beta }}]\}.`$
We call this metric Whittaker-Reissner-Nordström metric. Its energy-momentum tensor is (in the region $`\lambda >0`$) the sum of a perfect-fluid and an electromagnetic field. The density and pressure of the perfect fluid can be read off from (16) after inserting $`z=0`$. The electromagnetic field can be obtained by performing the coordinate changes we made in get the static limit. The result is

$`K={\displaystyle \frac{2\beta ^2}{1\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)}}\left[2\alpha _r+\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{2\beta }}y\right)\right]dvdy2\alpha _i\eta _h,`$
where the two-form $`\eta _h`$ is $`\eta _h=B^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_1,ϵ)dx_1dx_2`$. Its charge current is still given by (15). The metric (22) is static and spherically symmetric as long as $`[\nu _0+2\beta ^2(\alpha _r^2+\alpha _i^2)\gamma ^2]>0`$. When this expression is zero or negative, the spacetime is plane symmetric and “hyperbolic” symmetric respectively. When the electromagnetic field vanishes and $`\nu _0>0`$ the metric is the spherically symmetric perfect-fluid found by Whittaker . The limit $`\beta 0`$ gives the de Sitter-Reissner-Nordström metric (when $`ϵ=1`$) or its hyperbolic or plane counterparts. Another physically relevant subcase of Whittaker-Reissner-Nordström is $`\alpha _r=\alpha _i=a_2=0`$ and $`\nu _0>\gamma ^2`$. This represents a charged fluid ball in equilibrium, with no singularities inside.

A thorough investigation of the geometry of the Wahlquist-Newman and Whittaker-Reissner-Nordström spacetimes would be of interest. Also, studying the physical applications of this geometrically privileged metrics should be a matter of further investigation.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank J.M.M Senovilla for very useful suggestions and criticisms on a previous version of the paper. I would also like to thank the Albert Einstein Institute for kind hospitality.

## Appendix

In this appendix we solve the Einstein-Maxwell equations under the assumptions described in Sect. 4. Let us start be introducing an orthogonal tetrad

$`\theta ^0=d\tau v_1d\sigma ,\theta ^1=d\tau +v_2d\sigma ,\theta ^2=dy,\theta ^3=dz,`$ (23)
so that the metric (11) takes the form

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{v_1+v_2}}(\theta ^0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{U_1}{v_1+v_2}}(\theta ^1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{v_1+v_2}{V_1}}(\theta ^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{v_1+v_2}{U_1}}(\theta ^3)^2.`$
We take the volume form $`\eta =\theta ^0\theta ^1\theta ^2\theta ^3`$. Lowering the indices to $`\stackrel{}{\xi }=_\tau `$ we find

$`𝝃={\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{v_1+v_2}}\theta ^0+{\displaystyle \frac{U_1}{v_1+v_2}}\theta ^1.`$
In order to impose $`𝒦_{\alpha \beta }_{\alpha \beta }`$, we need to evaluate the Killing form $`𝓕`$ associated to $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$. After a simple computation we obtain

$`𝓕={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_{1}^{}{}_{,y}{}^{}+iU_{1}^{}{}_{,z}{}^{}}{v_1+v_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_1U_1}{\left(v_1+v_2\right)^2}}\left(iv_{1}^{}{}_{,z}{}^{}v_{2}^{}{}_{,y}{}^{}\right)\right]\left(\theta ^0\theta ^2+i\theta ^1\theta ^3\right),`$ (24)
where $`Q=v_1+v_2`$. Thus, two of the three linearly independent (complex) coefficients of the Killing form $`𝓕`$ are identically zero. Since the fluid velocity $`\stackrel{}{u}\stackrel{}{\xi }`$, the perfect-fluid part of the energy-momentum tensor reads

$`T^{pf}=\left(D{\displaystyle \frac{V_1^2}{Q^2}}p{\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{Q}}\right)(\theta ^0)^22D{\displaystyle \frac{V_1U_1}{Q^2}}\theta ^0\theta ^1+\left(D{\displaystyle \frac{U_1^2}{Q^2}}+p{\displaystyle \frac{U_1}{Q}}\right)(\theta ^1)^2+pQ\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\theta ^2)^2}{V_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\theta ^3)^2}{U_1}}\right),`$
where $`p`$ is the pressure and the density $`\rho `$ is obtained from the scalar $`D`$ by $`\rho +p=Q^1D\left(U_1V_1\right)`$. The electromagnetic field $`𝑲`$ is required to satisfy

$`𝓚=X\left[\theta ^0\theta ^2+i\theta ^1\theta ^3\right],`$
where $`X`$ is a complex scalar function. Hence, the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^{em}=(1/4)𝓚_{\mu \alpha }\overline{𝓚}_\nu ^\alpha `$ takes the diagonal form

$`T^{em}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X\overline{X}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{Q}}(\theta ^0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{U_1}{Q}}(\theta ^1)^2{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{V_1}}(\theta ^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{U_1}}(\theta ^3)^2\right].`$
Using units in which $`8\pi G=c=1`$ and denoting by $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ the Einstein tensor of (11), the Einstein equations $`G_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }^{em}+T_{\mu \nu }^{pf}`$ become

$`G_{00}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{U_1}}G_{01}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_1^2}{Q^2}}G_{22}=0,G_{11}+{\displaystyle \frac{U_1}{V_1}}G_{01}{\displaystyle \frac{U_1^2}{Q^2}}G_{33}=0,`$ (25)
$`D={\displaystyle \frac{G_{01}Q^2}{V_1U_1}},p={\displaystyle \frac{V_1G_{22}}{2Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{U_1G_{33}}{2Q}},`$ (26)
$`X\overline{X}={\displaystyle \frac{U_1G_{33}}{Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_1G_{22}}{Q}}.`$ (27)
The two equations (25) are identically satisfied by the metric (11). Actually, it can be proven that allowing $`v_1(y)`$ and $`v_2(z)`$ to be arbitrary, the two equations (25) force them to be (7). Thus, our assumption that $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ remain unchanged implies no loss of generality. The two equations in (26) can be regarded as defining expressions for $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ (we do not impose any equation of state for the perfect fluid a priori). Equation (27) needs to be solved in combination with the Maxwell’s equations (12), which we now analyze. The electromagnetic field is required to be Lie constant along the Killing vector fields $`_\tau `$ and $`_\sigma `$. Thus $`X=X(y,z)`$. In our case, it is simpler to solve Maxwell’s equations by looking for an electromagnetic potential $`𝑨`$ satisfying $`d𝑨=𝑲`$. Since $`𝑨`$ can be chosen to be Lie constant along the Killing vectors, we can write

$`𝑨=A_0(y,z)\theta ^0+A_1(y,z)\theta ^1+A_2(y,z)\theta ^2+A_3(y,z)\theta ^3,`$
so that its exterior derivative takes the form

$`d𝑨=[_yA_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{Q}}]\theta ^0\theta ^2[_zA_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{A_0}{Q}}]\theta ^0\theta ^3[{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}_yA_1+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{Q}}]\theta ^1\theta ^2+[_zA_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{A_0}{Q}}]\theta ^1\theta ^3+[_yA_3_zA_2]\theta ^2\theta ^3.`$ (28)
Decomposing $`X`$ into its real and imaginary parts $`X=X_r+iX_i`$, the electromagnetic field reads $`𝑲=X_r\theta ^0\theta ^2X_i\theta ^1\theta ^3`$. Imposing now $`d𝑨=𝑲`$ we obtain, first of all, that the coefficient in $`\theta ^2\theta ^3`$ must vanish. Thus $`A_2\theta ^2+A_3\theta ^3`$ is closed and can be redefined away by a a gauge transformation. So, we can put $`A_2=A_3=0`$. The vanishing of the coefficients in $`\theta ^0\theta ^3`$ and $`\theta ^1\theta ^2`$ in (28) implies $`A_0=\stackrel{~}{A}_0(y)/Q`$ and $`A_1=\stackrel{~}{A}_1(z)/Q`$. The remaining components of $`d𝑨=𝑲`$ give expressions for $`X_r`$ and $`X_i`$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ and their derivatives. A convenient way of writing them is

$`X_r=_y\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_0+\stackrel{~}{A}_1}{v_1+v_2}}\right],X_i=_z\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_0+\stackrel{~}{A}_1}{v_1+v_2}}\right].`$ (29)
We turn now into the equation $`d𝑲=4\pi 𝒋`$, which after using the form of $`𝑲`$ and $`𝒋`$ reads

$`\left(X_{i,z}+X_i{\displaystyle \frac{v_{1,z}}{Q}}+X_r{\displaystyle \frac{v_{2,y}}{Q}}\right)\theta ^0\theta ^2\theta ^3+\left(X_{r,y}X_i{\displaystyle \frac{v_{1,z}}{Q}}X_r{\displaystyle \frac{v_{2,y}}{Q}}\right)\theta ^1\theta ^2\theta ^3`$
$`=4\pi C\left(\theta ^1\theta ^2\theta ^3\theta ^0\theta ^2\theta ^3\right).`$ (30)
This implies $`X_{r,y}X_{i,z}=0`$, or using (29),

$`\left(_{yy}+_{zz}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_0+\stackrel{~}{A}_1}{Q}}\right]=0.`$ (31)
Defining the complex variable $`\zeta =y+iz`$, the general solution of (31) is $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0+\stackrel{~}{A}_1=Q[g(\zeta )+\overline{g(\zeta )}]`$, where $`g`$ is a holomorphic function of $`\zeta `$. In terms of $`\zeta `$, the function $`Q=v_1+v_2`$ becomes simply $`Q=\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}(\beta \zeta )\mathrm{sin}(\beta \overline{\zeta })`$. It remains to impose that $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ depend only on $`y`$ and $`z`$ respectively, or equivalently $`\left(_{\zeta \zeta }_{\overline{\zeta }\overline{\zeta }}\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_0+\stackrel{~}{A}_1\right)=0`$. This implies the following equation for $`g`$,

$`g_{,\zeta \zeta }+2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\beta \zeta )}{\mathrm{sin}(\beta \zeta )}}g_\zeta =\overline{g}_{,\overline{\zeta }\overline{\zeta }}+2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\beta \overline{\zeta })}{\mathrm{sin}(\beta \overline{\zeta })}}\overline{g}_{\overline{\zeta }}.`$
Thus, there exits a real constant $`\beta ^2\gamma `$ such that each term of this equation equals $`\beta ^2\gamma `$. The resulting ODE can be integrated once to give (after choosing the integration constant so that the limit $`\beta 0`$ exists)

$`g_\zeta ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \zeta )}}\left[\alpha +\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\beta \zeta )\mathrm{cos}(\beta \zeta )}{2\beta }}\right)\right],`$ (32)
where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary complex constant. From this expression we could easily integrate $`g(\zeta )`$ and obtain $`𝑨`$. However, to obtain $`𝑲`$ we only need to determine $`X`$,

$`X=X_r+iX_i=\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_0+\stackrel{~}{A}_1}{Q}}\right)=2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\zeta }}\left(g(\zeta )+\overline{g}(\overline{\zeta })\right)=2g_{,\zeta }.`$
The scalar $`C`$ can now be read off from (30), the result being $`C=\gamma \beta ^2/2\pi `$. We can now solve the Einstein field equation (27). First, we need to evaluate $`X\overline{X}`$. Decomposing $`\alpha `$ into its real and imaginary parts as $`\alpha =\alpha _r+i\alpha _i`$, and using (32) we get $`X\overline{X}=4Q^1Y\overline{Y}`$, where

$`Y=\alpha _r+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma y}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{\beta }}\mathrm{cosh}(2\beta z)+i\left(\alpha _i+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma z}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{\beta }}\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)\right).`$
Einstein’s equation (27) reads, after dropping a factor $`Q=v_1+v_2`$,

$`\left(v_1+v_2\right)\left(U_1G_{33}V_1G_{22}\right)4Y\overline{Y}=0,`$ (33)
which is a rather long equation involving the functions $`V_1`$, $`U_1`$ and their derivatives. Since they are functions of different variables, a reasonable strategy is to try and separate this equation. This can be accomplished after taking the partial derivative of (33) with respect to $`y`$ and $`z`$. The resulting expression separates nicely into the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}}\left[V_{1,yyy}+4\beta ^2V_{1,y}+8\beta ^2\gamma \mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)\left(\gamma y2\alpha _r\right)\right]=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}}\left[U_{1,zzz}4\beta ^2U_{1,z}+8\beta ^2\gamma \mathrm{cosh}(2\beta z)\left(\gamma z2\alpha _i\right)\right]=4\mu _0,`$
where $`\mu _0`$ is the separation constant. Thus, we are faced with two linear, third order ordinary differential equations. Their solution can be explicitly written down in the following form, after choosing carefully the integration constants so that the limit $`\beta 0`$ exists,

$`U_1=L_1+a_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{2\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma z}{4}}\left[\left(8\alpha _i2\gamma z\right)\mathrm{cosh}(2\beta z)+3\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{\beta }}\right]+`$
$`+S_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(2\beta z)1}{2\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{2\beta ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(2\beta z)1}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{z\mathrm{sinh}(2\beta z)}{\beta }}\right],`$
$`V_1=L_0+a_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{2\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma y}{4}}\left[\left(2\gamma y8\alpha _r\right)\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)3\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{\beta }}\right]+`$
$`+S_0{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)}{2\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{2\beta ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(2\beta y)}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{sin}(2\beta y)}{\beta }}\right],`$
where $`L_0`$, $`L_1`$, $`S_0`$, $`S_1`$, $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are integration constants. Inserting these expressions back into the Einstein equation (33), we find that the equation is satisfied if and only if $`S_1+S_0=4\beta ^2\left(\alpha _r^2+\alpha _i^2\right)`$ and $`L_1=L_02\left(\alpha _r^2+\alpha _i^2\right)`$. By redefining $`S_0`$, $`S_1`$ and $`L_0`$ in a trivial way we obtain the form for $`U_1`$ and $`V_1`$ given in (14).


format: text

text:
# Formation of hyperfine fields in alloys

\[

## Abstract

This work deals with the analysis of experimental data on the average magnetization of $`Fe_{1x}Me_x`$ (Me=Sn,Si) disordered alloys, the average and local hyperfine fields (HFF) at the Fe nuclei. The effect of the metalloid concentration on the HFF is studied with the help of the results of first- principles calculations of ordered alloys. The disorder is taken into account by means of model systems. The dependences obtained correspond to those experimentally observed. Experimental data on the ratio of the average HFF at Fe nuclei to the average magnetisation in alloys with sp-elements show that the ratio decreases proportionally with the metalloid concentration. This change in the ratio is bound up with three factors. First, the contribution of the valence electron polarization by the neighboring atoms, that is positive (unlike the polarization by the own magnetic moment), increases with the change of the disorder degree (increase of concentration). Second, the appearance of the impurities, i.e. metalloid atoms, in the nearest environment of Fe leads to the orbital moment increase. And, finally, the change of the disorder degree, as in the first case, results in an increase in the orbital magnetic moment and its positive contribution to the HFF. The value and the degree of the influence of these contributions to the HFF is discussed.

\]

In the experimental physics of solids there are few methods for measuring local characteristics. Prominent among them are nuclear techniques (e.g. Mossbauer spectroscopy) determining the hyperfine magnetic fields (HFF) at nuclei. It is widely believed that these techniques can reflect some chemical and topological features of the atomic surroundings of the excited nuclei. Indeed, in numerous studies these spectra are interpreted in terms of phenomenological models considering only the nearest atomic environment (see e.g. \[1-3\]). There is no doubt that such a description is often useful and efficient. We think, however, that there are some cases when such a simplified approach is not justified. Moreover, for the spectra of transition metals and alloys on their basis, the successful description within the framework of such models is rather an exception than a rule, and every time additional arguments are needed to justify these limitations. For example, such an approach makes some sense in the case of disordered systems due to strong localization of the d- electrons responsible for the itinerant magnetism of transition metals . This is one of the reasons why sometimes the spectra of disordered alloys are successfully described by the Jaccarino-Walker- type models where the local magnetic moments (LMM) and HFFs are assumed to be proportional to the number of metalloid atoms in the nearest environment.

In our opinion, even in this case the experimental spectra may provide more reliable and complete information without the use of phenomenological models and restriction to the nearest environment. One should then analyze the HFF peculiarities from the ”first-principles” calculations. This work is devoted to such an analysis of the hyperfine magnetic fields, magnetization and local magnetic moments and their interrelation in the disordered $`Fe_{1x}Sn_x`$, $`Fe_{1x}Si_x`$ alloys. Here the magnetic characteristics of clusters with a given impurity configuration in disordered alloys are taken from the first-principles calculations of the translationally invariant systems, supposing the interaction between the clusters to be not significant because of small free length of electron in these alloys. Nowadays, there is no possibility to conduct these calculations for the disordered systems, moreover, it should be noted that even calculations of the ordered alloys often do not give the required agreement with experiment and reveal only the main features of the HFF and LMM behavior.

The calculations were performed by the full-potential linearized augmented plane wave method (FLAPW) using the WIEN-97 program package . The results are presented in Table 1.

The systems were simulated on a BCC lattice which in the disordered alloys under consideration is retained within a wide concentration range . The lattice parameters were chosen in accordance with the experimental values for x=3.125 at.% and x=6.25 at.%. It should be mentioned that even at small concentrations the BCC lattice is somewhat distorted due to the repulsion/attraction by the Sn/Si atom of the surrounding Fe atoms. As shown in our paper , the changes in magnetic characteristics because of this relaxation are insignificant. Though the results in Table 1 were obtained with allowance for this relaxation, we do not discuss it here.

1. AVERAGE AND LOCAL MAGNETIC MOMENTS.

Fig.1 presents the experimental data and the calculated averages of the magnetic moment per one Fe atom.

The average magnetic moment $`M=_iMd^i+M^{int}`$, where $`Md^i`$ is the spin magnetic moment over the muffin-tin (MT) sphere of the i-th Fe atom (hereinafter we will refer to this value as local magnetic moment, LMM), $`M^{int}`$ is the spin magnetic moment over the unit cell without the MT- spheres. The main contribution to the LMM comes from the d-electrons that are almost entirely inside the MT-sphere, whereas $`M_{int}`$ is formed by the s- and p- electrons and has a small negative value as compared to the LMM. We do not take into account the contribution of the orbital magnetic moment that is about 0.045 $`\mu _B`$ in our calculations. In experiments this value is 1.5?2 times larger and comprises 0.08 $`\mu _B`$ . It is believed that the inclusion of the orbital polarization in the exchange-correlation potential  improves the agreement between the calculations and the experimental values, but here we didn’t use such a potential supposing that the calculated value can be multiplied by the factor close to two. The main reason for the neglect of the orbital contribution lies in the fact that its variations with concentration and configuration of metalloid atoms are small as compared to M even with allowance of the actual value and amounts less than 1 % (see the last but one column in Table 1), whereas the Mdi variations range up to 15 %. Fig.1 displays a rather good agreement of the magnetic moment with the experimental data, though the theoretical values of the magnetic moment are somewhat higher than the experimental ones. We believe that the disorder, which is not taken into account here, reduces the magnetization by 2-3 % . Let us mention some peculiarities of the magnetic moments formation.

A. The magnetic moment does not depend on the metalloid type and, as shown in Ref.10, is governed by the lattice parameter, a. At equal concentrations, the lattice parameter of the Sn alloy is greater than that of the Si alloy, so the magnetic moment in the first case is greater.

B. The LMM of the Fe atom closest to the impurity is of the smallest among others value (Table 1). As noted in Ref.10, this difference is defined by the competition between two mechanisms: the LMM reduction due to flattening of the d-band because of the s-d hybridization that is the strongest near the impurity, and the LMM increase due to narrowing of the d-band because of a decrease of the wave function overlap. There also exists third mechanism of the LMM reduction due to the difference in the impurity-potential screening by d-electrons (the difference in pushing out the impurity levels by the bands with spin up and down), which was revealed in this work by a comparison of the number of d-electrons within the MT-sphere for different Fe-atom positions (there are more d-electrons near the impurity, Table 1).

C. The LMMs are concentration dependent. So the LMM of the Fe atom closest to the Si atom is 2.181 $`\mu _B`$ at x=3.125 at.% ($`Fe_{31}Si`$), and 2.262 $`\mu _B`$ at x=6.25 at.% ($`Fe_{15}Si`$). This LMM increase with concentration holds in general for all the non-equivalent positions (Table 1). However, in spite of the LMM increase, the average magnetic moment in the $`Fe_{1x}Si_x`$ system somewhat decreases 2.238 $`\mu _B`$ -¿ 2.230 $`\mu _B`$ (Fig.1). This is the result of a higher probability of finding a Fe atom with a neighboring impurity, which increases the number of Fe atoms having lower LMM values.

2. HYPERFINE MAGNETIC FIELDS AT NUCLEI.

The program package WIEN-97 allows one to calculate the interaction between the nucleus magnetic moment and the spin and orbital magnetic moments of the electron subsystem. The spin dipole contributions are small ( 2 $`÷`$ 3 kGs), they are suppressed due to the symmetry relations, and the main contribution comes from the spin polarization at the nucleus (Fermi-contact interaction) and the orbital magnetic moment. The Fermi-contact interaction may be divided into $`H_i^{core}`$ (the core-electron polarization) and $`H_i^{val}`$ (the valence-electron polarization), and hence, the resulted field at the i-th site contains three terms: $`H^i=H_i^{core}+H_i^{val}+H_i^{orb}`$. For the core-electron polarization the simple relation $`H_i^{core}=\gamma ^sMd_i`$ is satisfied, where $`\gamma ^s`$ does not depend to a high accuracy on neither the metalloid type nor its concentration, and is determined only by the approximation for the exchange-correlation potential. Here we use the GGA approximation  which gives $`\gamma ^s123kGs/\mu _B`$. In our opinion just this simple expression between the LMM and Hcore makes it possible to use phenomenological models neglecting the effect of the atoms in the second, third, etc. coordination spheres. Really, from Table 1 one can see that the main distinctions in LMM at a certain concentration are connected with the presence or absence of the metalloid atom in nearest environment. So, this also determines the variations in $`H_i^{core}`$. Though the experiments showed that the proportionality between the magnetic moment and HFF is not as good as we found, and the proportionality coefficient essentially decreases with concentration. As we shall see later this is connected with the other two contributions to the HFF.

The proportionality $`H_i^{orb}=\gamma ^{orb}M_i^{orb}`$ is fulfilled in a somewhat worse way, but still rather satisfactorily. Note, however, that $`\gamma ^{orb}`$ is positive and about five times larger in magnitude than $`\gamma ^s`$. Hence, if the changes of $`M_i^{orb}`$ affect the magnetic moment only slightly, the changes in Horbi may amount to 20 kGs even at low concentrations (see Table 1). The nature of these changes in disordered alloys is discussed in more detail in Ref.12. Here we mention only the main features. The $`H_i^{orb}`$ increases along with the $`M_i^{orb}`$ increase with concentration. The $`H_i^{orb}`$ takes the largest value at the atom closest to the metalloid atom. The increase of $`H_i^{orb}`$ with allowance for the actual values of $`M_i^{orb}`$, that are twice as large as the calculated one, comprises 15$`÷`$20 kGs even at low concentrations as compared to that in pure Fe. On the strength of the qualitative character of the last statement, we can say about the tendency of the variations. Finally, as shown in , the orbital contribution increases also with disorder (that is, with concentration).

The $`H_i^{val}`$ behaves in a more complicated way. This is primarily associated with strong delocalization of the s- and p-like electrons that interfere at sites with different magnetic and charge properties, and therefore the $`H_i^{val}`$ behavior cannot be in fact quantitatively predicted. However, we succeeded in revealing some qualitative regularities supported by experimental evidence. First of all, we analyzed the valence contribution using the simple functional dependence of the magnetic moment screening in the RKKY (Ruderman - Kittel - Kasuya \- Yosida) theory, as it was done in Ref.9: $`H_i^{val}=A+B_jM_j^dcos(2k_fr/T+\varphi )/r^3`$. Such a simplified treatment of $`H_i^{val}`$ is hardly justified in our case, but we hope to have determined the main qualitative dependences. Solving the inverse task for the ordered cluster of size 200 a.u. we receive the most probable values of A, B, T and $`\varphi `$ in the alloys $`Fe_{15}Sn`$ and $`Fe_{31}Sn`$. The corresponding functions of $`Bcos(2k_fr/T+\varphi )/r^3`$ are shown in Fig.2.

Of special interest is the fact that for both concentrations the spin polarization of electrons is positive for the I and II coordination spheres, which entirely contradict the results of a similar processing of the experimental data. This is due to the fact that during processing of the experimental data the difference between H0 (HFF at the nucleus of the Fe atom without the metalloid atoms in its nearest environment) and H1 (with one impurity atom in the nearest environment) was attributed to the changes in $`H^{val}`$, whereas in an alloy there are differences in the local magnetic moment that primarily affect $`H^{core}`$ and $`H^{orb}`$. Fig.3 presents the experimental $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ as a function of concentration.

Table 1 shows that the difference between these quantities can be successfully explained by the LMM magnitude and hence by the core-electron polarization. However, if everything were determined only by $`H_i^{core}`$ we should expect an increase in $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ with concentration in accordance with the LMM increase, which is not the case, as for the $`Fe_{1x}Sn_x`$ alloy the magnetic moment increases much more quickly than H0 and H1, and there is no increase at all for Si. In reality the expected increase is compensated by the decrease in magnitude of the configurationally averaged negative contribution $`H^{val}`$. Fig.4 gives the averaged values of $`H^{val}`$ of a disordered cluster of size 200 a.u. with a certain number of impurities in the first coordination sphere.

The averaging was performed in assumption that the Fe atoms are distributed randomly and polarize the conductivity electrons at distance r according to the model function for concentrations 6.25 and 3.125 % (see Fig.2). The decrease of the averaged Hval with concentration is due to the positive values of the RKKY polarization at the distance of the first and second coordination spheres (see Fig.2). Two main features in the behavior of the Hval averaged over configurations can be noticed. First, the magnitude of $`H_{val}`$ at the Fe atom without impurities in nearest environment is less by 5-10 kGs than $`H_{val}`$ at the Fe atom with one impurity in the environment, and second, the magnitude of the averaged $`H_{val}`$ decreases with concentration for both configurations of the environment.

Thus, the use of the ”first-principles” calculations makes it possible to explain the main peculiarities of the HFF behavior in the low-concentration disordered alloys $`Fe_{1x}Me_x`$. The difference between $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ $`H_0H_120`$ kGs consists of $`H_0^{val}H_1^{val}7÷10`$ kGs, $`H_0^{core}H_1^{core}15÷25`$ kGs and $`H_0^{orb}H_1^{orb}5÷10`$ kGs. The decrease of the proportionality coefficient between the HFF and the magnetic moment with concentration results from the decrease of magnitude of $`H_{val}`$ and increase of magnitude of $`H_{orb}`$ that are opposite to the $`H_{core}`$.

We believe that the general relations obtained here will be useful in processing the experimental data on the HFFs in disordered alloys of transition metals and nonmagnetic impurities.

The present work was supported by Russian Foundation for Fundamental Researches, Grant No 00-02-17355.


text:
# Memory effects in response functions of driven vortex matter

## Abstract

Vortex flow in driven type II superconductors shows strong memory and history dependent effects. Here, we study a schematic microscopic model of driven vortices to propose a scenario for a broad set of these kind of phenomena ranging from “rejuvenation” and “stiffening” of the system response, to “memory” and “irreversibility” in I-V characteristics.
PACS numbers: 05.50.+q 75.10.-b 47.32.Cc 74.60.Jg

An important discovery in the dynamics of vortices driven by an external current in type II superconductors is the presence of strong “memory” and history dependent effects in vortex flow (see for instance  and ref.s therein). These off-equilibrium phenomena, particularly important at low temperatures, crucially affect the overall system behaviour and, thus, have also important consequences for technological applications. Here we present a microscopic model to explain their origin and their connections with other “aging” phenomena of vortex matter such as the rearrangement of vortex domains during creep. In relation to recent experimental results , we discuss in particular the nature of “memory” effects observed in the response of the system to an external drive, i.e., the I-V characteristic. Our model explains the peculiar form of “memory” observed in vortex flow at finite $`T`$, which we call an “imperfect memory”. In the same framework one can explain other “anomalous” properties such as those of time dependent critical currents. The essential step is to identify the relevant time scales in the dynamics. Finally, we stress the similarities and the important differences with other “glassy” systems, such as supercooled liquids or disordered magnets (see  and ref.s therein).

We consider a schematic coarse grained model introduced to describe anomalous relaxation of vortices in superconductors, namely a system of repulsive particles wandering in a pinning landscape in presence of an external drive. The model describes several phenomena of vortex physics, ranging from a reentrant phase diagram in the $`(B,T)`$ plane, to the “anomalous second peak” in magnetisation loops (the “fishtail” effects), glassiness and “aging” of slow magnetic relaxation, the “anomalous creep” at very low temperatures, and many others .

A system of straight parallel vortex lines, corresponding to a magnetic field $`B`$ along the $`z`$-axis, interacts via a potential : $`U(r)=\frac{\varphi _0^2}{2\pi \lambda ^2}\left[K_0(r/\lambda ^{})K_0(r/\xi ^{})\right]`$, $`K_0`$ being the MacDonald function, $`\xi `$ and $`\lambda `$ the correlation and penetration lengths ($`\xi ^{}=c\xi /\sqrt{2}`$, $`\lambda ^{}=c\lambda `$, $`c=(1B/B_{c2})^{1/2}`$). The typical high vortex densities and long $`\lambda `$ imply that the vortex system is strongly interacting. To make it theoretically more tractable, as proposed in , one can coarse grain in the $`xy`$-plane by introducing a square grid of lattice spacing $`l`$ of the order of the London length, $`\lambda `$. The number of vortices on the $`i`$-th coarse grained cell, $`n_i`$, is an integer number smaller than $`N_{c2}=B_{c2}l^2/\varphi _0`$  ($`B_{c2}`$ is the upper critical field and $`\varphi _0=hc/2e`$ is the flux quantum). The coarse grained interaction Hamiltonian is thus : $`=\frac{1}{2}_{ij}n_iA_{ij}n_j\frac{1}{2}_iA_{ii}n_i_iA_i^pn_i`$. The first two terms describe the repulsion between the vortices and their self energy, and the last the interaction with a random pinning background. For sake of simplicity, we consider the simplest version of $``$: we choose $`A_{ii}=A_0=1`$; $`A_{ij}=A_1<A_0`$ if $`i`$ and $`j`$ are nearest neighbours; $`A_{ij}=0`$ otherwise; the random pinning is delta-distributed $`P(A^p)=(1p)\delta (A^p)+p\delta (A^pA_0^p)`$.

In analogy with computer investigation of dynamical processes in fluids, the time evolution of the model is simulated by a Monte Carlo Kawasaki dynamics  on a square lattice of size $`L`$  at a temperature $`T`$. The system is periodic in the $`y`$-direction. The two edges parallel to the $`y`$-axis are in contact with a vortex reservoir, i.e., an external magnetic field, of density $`N_{ext}`$. Particles can enter and leave the system only through the reservoir. The above model, called ROM, is described in full details in .

The system is prepared by zero field cooling and then increasing $`N_{ext}`$ at constant rate up to the working value (here, $`N_{ext}=10`$). Then we monitor the system relaxation after applying a drive, $`I`$ (due to the Lorentz force), in the $`y`$-direction. As in similar driven lattice gases , the effect of the drive is simulated by introducing a bias in the Metropolis coupling of the system to the thermal bath: a particle can jump to a neighbouring site with a probability min$`\{1,\mathrm{exp}[(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵI)/T]\}`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the change in $``$ after the jump and $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ for a particle trying to hop along or opposite to the direction of the drive and $`ϵ=0`$ if orthogonal jumps occur. A drive $`I`$ generates a voltage $`V`$ :

$$V(t)=v_a(t)$$
(1)
where $`v_a(t)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }t}_{t\mathrm{\Delta }t}^{t+\mathrm{\Delta }t}v(t^{})𝑑t^{}`$ is an average vortex “velocity” in a small interval around the time $`t`$. We consider such an average to improve the statistics on $`V(t)`$ and choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ accordingly. Here, $`t`$ is the Monte Carlo time (measured in units of single attempted update per degree of freedom), $`v(t)=\frac{1}{L}_iv_i(t)`$ is the instantaneous flow “velocity”, $`v_i(t)=\pm 1`$ if the vortex $`i`$ at time $`t`$ moves along or opposite to the direction of the drive $`I`$ and $`v_i=0`$ otherwise. The data presented below are averaged over up to 3072 realizations of the pinning background.

To characterise the properties of history dependent effects, we consider a striking manifestation of “memory” observed in experiments where the drive is cyclically changed . A drive $`I`$ is applied to the system and, after a time $`t_1`$, abruptly changed to a new value $`I_1`$; finally, after waiting a time $`t_2`$, the previous $`I`$ is restored and the system evolves for a further $`t_3`$ (see lower inset of Fig.1). The measured $`V(t)`$ is shown in the main panel of Fig.1 for $`T=0.1`$. A first observation is that after the switch to $`I_1`$ the system seems to abruptly reinitiate its relaxation approximately as if it has always been at $`I_1`$ (see for example the dashed curve in Fig.1), a phenomenon known as “rejuvenation” in thermal cycling of spin-glasses and other glassy systems . The more surprising fact is, however, that for $`I_1`$ small enough (say $`I_1I^{}`$, $`I^{}`$ to be quantitatively defined below) when the value $`I`$ of the drive is restored the voltage relaxation seems to restart from where it was at $`t_1`$, i.e., where it stopped before the application of $`I_1`$ (see Fig.1). Actually, if one “cuts” the evolution during $`t_2`$ and “glues” together those during $`t_1`$ and $`t_3`$, an almost perfect matching is observed (see upper inset of Fig.1). What is happening during $`t_2`$ is that the system is trapped in some metastable states, but not completely frozen as shown by a small magnetic, as well as voltage, relaxation. These non trivial “memory” effects are experimentally found in vortex matter  and glassy systems . We call them a form of “imperfect memory”, because they tend to disappear when the time spent at $`I_1`$ becomes too long or, equivalently (as explained below) when, for a given $`t_2`$, $`I_1`$ becomes too high, as clearly shown in the inset of Fig.1. These “rejuvenation and memory” effects are very general in off-equilibrium “glassy” dynamics and can be found well above the ideal glass transition point, $`T_c`$ , whenever the observation time scales are shorter than the intrinsic relaxation scale $`\tau _V`$ (to be defined below).

We now turn to some additional aspects concerning the time dependent properties of the current-voltage characteristic. As in real experiments on vortex matter , we let the system undergo a current step of hight $`I_0`$ for a time $`t_0`$ before starting to record the I-V by ramping $`I`$, as sketched in the inset of Fig.2. Fig.2 shows (for $`T=0.1`$) that the I-V depends on the waiting time $`t_0`$. The system response is “aging”: the longer $`t_0`$ the smaller the response, a phenomenon known as “stiffening” in glass formers . These effects are manifested in a violation of time translation invariance of the two times correlation functions, which have dynamical scaling properties  analogous to those of glass formers .

These simulations also reproduce the experimentally found time dependence of the critical current . Usually, one defines an effective critical current, $`I_c^{eff}`$, as the point where $`V`$ becomes larger than a given threshold (say $`V_{thr}=10^5`$ in our case): one then finds that $`I_c^{eff}`$ is $`t_0`$ and $`I_0`$ dependent (like in experiments  $`I_c^{eff}`$ is slowly increasing with $`t_0`$, see Fig.2).

It is interesting to consider another current cycling experiment which outlines the concurrent presence of irreversibility and memory effects. The I-V is measured by ramping $`I`$ up to some value $`I_{max}`$. Then $`I`$ is ramped back to zero, but at a given value $`I_w`$ the system is let to evolve for a long time $`t_w`$. Finally, $`I`$ is ramped up again (see inset of Fig.3). The resulting irreversible $`V(I)`$ is shown in Fig.3. For $`I>I_w`$ the decreasing branch of the plot (empty circles) slightly deviates from the increasing one (filled circles), showing the appearance of irreversibility. This is even more apparent after $`t_w`$: for $`I<I_w`$ the two paths are clearly different. Interestingly, upon increasing $`I`$ again (filled triangles), $`V(I)`$ doesn’t match the first increasing branch, but the latest, the decreasing one: in this sense there is coexistence of memory and irreversibility. Also very interesting is that by repeating the cycle with a new $`I_w`$ (squares), the system approximately follows the same branches. This non-reversible behaviour is also found in other glassy systems . However, spin glasses, for instance, show the presence of the so called chaos effects . The chaos effect is absent in our system as it is also in other ordinary glass formers . This kind of interplay between irreversibility and memory can be checked experimentally in superconductors and thereby assess the present scenario.

The above experiments outline a set of very important “history” dependent phenomena (“rejuvenation”, “imperfect memory”, “stiffening” and “irreversibility” of response, etc…). A crucial theoretical step to understand them is the identification of the characteristic time scales of the driven dynamics. This we now discuss.

Upon applying to the system a small drive, $`I`$, its response, $`V`$, relaxes following a pattern with two very different parts: at first a rapidly changing non-linear response is seen, later followed by a very slow decrease towards stationarity (see $`V(t)`$ in Fig.4 for $`T=1`$ and $`I\{1,2,3\}`$). For instance, for $`I=3`$ in a time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t210^1`$, $`V`$ leaps from about zero to $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_i210^3`$, corresponding to a rate $`r_i=\mathrm{\Delta }V_i/\mathrm{\Delta }t10^2`$. This is to be compared with the rate of the subsequent slow relaxation from, say, $`t=210^1`$ to $`t=10^4`$, $`r_f10^7`$: $`r_i`$ and $`r_f`$ differ of 5 orders of magnitude.

In agreement with experimental findings , the slow relaxation of $`V(t)`$ has a characteristic double step structure, which asymptotically can be well fitted by stretched exponentials : $`V(t)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _V)^\beta `$. The above long time fit defines the characteristic asymptotic scale, $`\tau _V`$, of relaxation. The exponent $`\beta `$ and $`\tau _V`$ are a function of $`I`$, $`T`$ and $`N_{ext}`$ (see inset Fig.4): in particular $`\tau _V(I)`$ decreases with $`I`$ and seems to approach a finite plateau for $`I<I^{}`$, with $`I^{}O(1)`$. In this sense, the presence of a drive $`I`$ makes the approach to stationarity faster and has an effect similar to an increase in $`T`$. A reasonable fit for $`\tau _V(I)`$ is: $`\tau _V(I)=(\tau _V^0\tau _V^{\mathrm{}})/[1+(I/3I^{})^a]+\tau _V^{\mathrm{}}`$, with $`\tau _V^0=2590`$, $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{}}=1720`$, $`I^{}=0.86`$ and $`a=2`$.

The outlined properties of $`\tau _V`$ clearly explain the history dependent effects in the experiments previously considered. For instance, the “imperfect memory”, discussed in Fig.1, is caused by the presence of a long, but finite, scale $`\tau _V`$ in the problem: for a given $`I_1`$ the system seems to be frozen whenever observed on times scales smaller than $`\tau _V(I_1)`$. Thus, if $`t_2`$ is short enough ($`t_2<\tau _V(I_1)`$) the system preserves a strong “memory” of its state at $`t_1`$. The weakening of such a “memory” found for higher currents $`I_1`$ in Fig.1, is also a consequence of the strong decrease of $`\tau _V(I)`$ with $`I`$. The phenomenon of “rejuvenation” (see Fig.1) is, in turn, a consequence of the presence of the extremely fast first part of relaxation found in $`V(t)`$ upon applying a drive and of the above long term memory. The existence of the slow part in the $`V(t)`$ relaxation also affects the “stiffening” of the response in the I-V of Fig.2, which is due to the non-stationarity of the vortex flow on scales smaller that $`\tau _V`$. Actually, in Fig.2, for a given $`I`$ the value of $`V`$ on the different curves corresponds to the system being probed at different stages of its non-stationary evolution (this also outlines that the proper definition of $`I_c`$ is the asymptotic one given later on). Finally, in brief, the fact that $`\tau _V(I)`$ is smaller at high currents, $`I`$, and larger at small $`I`$ (and $`T`$), is responsible for the surprisingly concomitant effects of irreversibility and memory of Fig.3.

The origin of these time dependent properties of the driven flow, and in turn those of I-V’s, traces back to the concurrent vortex creep and reorganisation of vortex domains. In fact, both with or without an external drive, the system evolves in presence of a Bean like profile (see Fig.5) which in turn relaxes following stretched exponentials  with a characteristic time scale $`\tau _M`$. An important discovery is that $`\tau _M(I)`$ and $`\tau _V(I)`$ are approximately proportional, as shown in Fig.5. This outlines that the strong non-linear, non-stationary voltage relaxation is structurally related to the reorganisation of vortices during the creep (a fact confirmed by recent experiments ). By assuming that the system is composed of evolving vortex domains characterised by drive dependent (free) energy barriers which grow with the sizes of the domains, a hierarchy of time scales naturally arises. The simultaneous presence of both long time scales (“aging modes”) and short time scales is a simple mechanism able to describe the above phenomena (see ).

Finally, let us notice that the existence at $`T=1`$ of a finite $`\tau _V`$ limit for $`I0`$ (see Fig.4) implies that the flux flow can be activated for any finite $`I`$. This shows that the system’s asymptotic (i.e., for $`t\mathrm{}`$) critical current, $`I_c`$, is zero. It is possible that the asymptotic value of $`I_c`$ can be non-zero for real three dimensional systems if vortex line cutting is negligible. The above also points out that a true divergence in $`\tau _V(I)`$, i.e., a true asymptotic finite $`I_c`$, can be found only for $`T<T_c`$, $`T_c`$ being the ideal glass transition point , where by definition $`\tau _M(T)|_{I=0}`$ diverges .

The few key “experiments” we discussed in the context of our schematic microscopic model depict a new clear scenario for “aging” and “memory” effects in driven vortex matter. In the present framework a broad range of phenomena can be understood (from response “stiffening” and “rejuvenation”, to time and history dependent critical currents, $`I_c^{eff}`$). We stress that most of these features can also be found well above the ideal glass transition point $`T_c`$. We have shown how creep and response functions in driven media are related. Theoretically intriguing is the observation of similar behaviours found in vortex matter and others glass formers such as random magnets and supercooled liquids.


text:
# Spin-charge separation: From one hole to finite doping

## Abstract

In the presence of nonlocal phase shift effects, a quasiparticle can remain topologically stable even in a spin-charge separation state due to the confinement effect introduced by the phase shifts at finite doping. True deconfinement only happens in the zero-doping limit where a bare hole can lose its integrity and decay into holon and spinon elementary excitations. The Fermi surface structure is completely different in these two cases, from a large band-structure-like one to four Fermi points in one-hole case, and we argue that the so-called underdoped regime actually corresponds to a situation in between.

Spin-charge separation idea  has become a very basic concept in understanding the doped Mott-Hubbard insulator models related to high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. It states that the system has two independent elementary excitations, neutral spinon and spinless holon, respectively, as opposed to a single elementary excitation in conventional metals — the quasiparticle that carries both spin and charge quantum numbers. In literature, it has been usually assumed that the quasiparticle excitation would no longer be stable in such a spin-charge separation state and should decay into more elementary spinon and holon excitations once being created, e.g., by injecting a bare hole into the system as illustrated in Fig. 1(a).

But in this work we will show an example that the fate of the quasiparticle can be drastically different from what has been previously perceived. Specifically, based on a consistent spin-charge separation theory we find that a quasiparticle excitation does not simply break up into a pair of free holon and spinon and disappear in the metallic regime. On the contrary, it remains topologically stable in a form of spinon-holon bound state whose symmetry is fundamentally different from a pair of simple spinon and holon as sketched in Fig. 1(b).

Such a spin-charge separation theory  is based on a generalized slave-particle representation of the $`tJ`$ model in which the electron (hole) operator is expressed as follows

$$c_{i\sigma }=h_i^{}b_{i\sigma }e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}$$
(1)
where holon $`h_i^{}`$ and spinon $`b_{i\sigma }`$ are both bosonic fields, satisfying the no-double-occupancy constraint $`h_i^{}h_i+_\sigma b_{i\sigma }^{}b_{i\sigma }=1`$. These spinon and holon fields describe the elementary excitations in the mean-field state  which is controlled by a single bosonic RVB order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^s`$ and reduces to the Schwinger-boson mean-field state  in the limit of half-filling.

The key feature in the bosonization formulation (1) is the phase shift field $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}(\sigma )^ie^{i\mathrm{\Theta }_{i\sigma }^{string}}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i\sigma }^{string}\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_i^h\right]`$, in which $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b=_{li}\theta _i(l)\left(_\alpha \alpha n_{l\alpha }^b1\right)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h=_{li}\theta _i(l)n_l^h`$, and $`\theta _i(l)=\text{Im ln }(z_iz_l)`$. It is a vortex-like phase field which precisely keeps track of the singular phases (signs) involved in the doped $`tJ`$ model known as the phase string effect .

The decomposition (1) implies that in order for a quasiparticle created by $`c_{i\sigma }`$ to decay into holon-spinon elementary excitations, a phase shift $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }`$ must take place in the background. Since $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }`$ is basically an infinite-body operator in the thermodynamic limit, the dissolution of a quasiparticle would take virtually infinite time to realize under a local perturbation which means that a quasiparticle will practically remain a stable and independent excitation even in a background of holon-spin sea. In fact, it can be shown  that $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}`$, due to its vorticities, introduces a new “angular-momentum-like” quantum number to the quasiparticle such that the excitation is orthogonal to the ground state as well as those states of elementary holon and spinon excitations. Therefore, the phase shift field not only plays a role leading to a non-Fermi liquid (with the quasiparticle weight $`Z=0`$) as conjectured  by Anderson on a general ground, but also attaches a distinct quantum number to the quasiparticle to ensure its integrity in the metallic phase.

To further understand the phase shift effect, let us construct $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ is the ground state of $`H_{tJ}`$. Then by computing its energy cost one can show

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|H_{tJ}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_G|H_{tJ}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G\mathrm{ln}L$$
(2)
which diverges logarithmically with the sample length scale $`L`$. But the quasiparticle state $`c_{i\sigma }|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ should cost only a finite energy relative to the ground-state energy. It thus imples that the holon and spinon constituents on the r.h.s. of (1) can no longer behave as mean-field free elementary excitations: They have to absorb the effect of the vortex-like phase shift $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}`$ to result in the finiteness of the quasiparticle energy. Clearly here one has to go beyond the mean-field treatment of individual holon and spinon as $`c_{i\sigma }`$ involves an infinite body of them. Upon detailed examination, it is found  that the holon field $`h_i^{}`$ has to be bound to $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b}`$ while $`b_{i\sigma }`$ to $`e^{i\frac{\sigma }{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h}`$ in (1). But while $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}`$ is well-defined, these two phase factors are not single-valued by themselves except in the zero doping limit. Consequently, at finite doping the holon and spinon constituents are generally confined together due to their binding to $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}`$.

Involving infinite-body holons and spinons, the quasiparticle excitation has to be treated more carefully before applying the mean-field approximation. Using the exact Hamiltonian to determine the equation of motion $`i_tc_{i\sigma }(t)=[H_{tJ},c_{i\sigma }(t)]`$ and then introducing the mean-field order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^s`$ in the high order terms, one finds

$`i_tc_{i\sigma }(t)t_{eff}{\displaystyle \underset{l=NN(i)}{}}c_{l\sigma }+\mu c_{i\sigma }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}J\mathrm{\Delta }^s{\displaystyle \underset{l=NN(i)}{}}\left[e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}h_i^{}b_{l\sigma }^{}e^{i\sigma A_{il}^h}+\mathrm{}\right]`$ (3)
where $`t_{eff}=\frac{t}{2}(1+\delta )`$, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. $`A_{il}^h`$ is the difference of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h/2`$ at site $`i`$ and $`l`$. Note that without the “scattering” term, (Spin-charge separation: From one hole to finite doping) would give rise to a bare quasiparticle kinetic energy $`ϵ_𝐤=2t_{eff}(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$. The “scattering” effect in the second line of (Spin-charge separation: From one hole to finite doping) actually corresponds to the decaying process of the quasiparticle into holon and spinon constituents. But the presence of $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}`$ prevents a real decay since such a vortex field would cost a logarithmically divergent energy if being left alone as discussed above. Nonetheless, at

$$E_{\text{quasiparticle}}>E_{\text{holon}}+E_{\text{spinon}}$$
(4)
a strong signature of spin-charge separation is expected to show up in the spectral function as the logarithmic potential is not important in short-range, high-energy regime.

In the ground state, the bosonic holons are Bose condensed with $`h_i^{}=h_0\sqrt{\delta }`$ and the d-wave superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{SC}0`$ . Based on (Spin-charge separation: From one hole to finite doping), one can find a coherent contribution from the “scattering” term. The decomposition (1) may be rewritten in two parts: $`c_{i\sigma }=h_0a_{i\sigma }+c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ where $`a_{i\sigma }b_{i\sigma }e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}`$ and $`c_{i\sigma }^{}=(:h_i^{}:)b_{i\sigma }e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}`$ with $`:h_i^{}:h_i^{}h_0`$. Correspondingly, the single-electron propagator may be expressed as

$$G_e=h_0^2G_a+G_e^{},$$
(5)
where one has

$$h_0^2G_a(𝐤,\omega )h_0^2\left(\frac{u_𝐤^2}{\omega E_𝐤}+\frac{v_𝐤^2}{\omega +E_𝐤}\right).$$
(6)
with $`E_𝐤=\sqrt{(ϵ_𝐤\mu )^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤|^2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\frac{3}{4}J_𝐪\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐪\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤+𝐪}^{SC}}{h_0^2}\right)`$ in which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐪=\mathrm{cos}q_x+\mathrm{cos}q_y`$. And like in the BCS theory, $`u_𝐤^2=[1+(ϵ_𝐤\mu )/E_𝐤]/2`$ and $`v_𝐤^2=[1(ϵ_𝐤\mu )/E_𝐤]/2`$.

The large “Fermi surface” is defined by $`ϵ_𝐤=\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ then represents the energy gap opened at the Fermi surface which is d-wave-like as illustrated in Fig. 2 by the “V” shape lines. Note that in the ground state, there also exists an independent discrete spinon excitation level  at $`E_s\delta J`$ which leads to $`E_g=2E_s41`$$`meV`$ (if $`J100`$$`meV`$) magnetic peak at $`\delta 0.14`$. This latter spin collective mode is independent of the quasiparticle excitation at the mean-field level.

While $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^{SC}`$ apparently scales with the doping concentration $`\delta `$ ($`h_0\sqrt{\delta }`$) and vanishes at $`\delta 0`$, the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ does not and can be extrapolated to a finite value in the zero doping limit where $`T_c=0`$. Namely

$$\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤(T=0)}{T_c}\mathrm{}$$
(7)
at $`\delta 0`$, whereas the BCS theory predicts a constant.

The quasiparticle thus gains a “coherent” part $`h_0a`$ which should behave similarly to the conventional quasiparticle in the BCS theory as it does not further decay at $`E_𝐤<E_s`$. In this sense, the quasiparticle partially restores its coherence in the superconducting state. Such a coherent part will disappear as a result of vanishing superfluid density. The total spectral function as the imaginary part of $`G_e`$ can be written as $`A_e(𝐤,\omega )=h_0^2A_a(𝐤,\omega )+A_e^{}(𝐤,\omega )`$ so that at $`h_00`$, even though $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ does not scale with $`h_0`$, the superconducting coherent part $`h_0^2A_a`$ vanishes altogether, with $`A_e`$ reduces to the normal part $`A_e^{}`$ at $`T>T_c`$.

Destruction of Fermi surface: Deconfinement of quasiparticle. The existence of a large Fermi surface, coinciding with the non-interacting band-structure one, can be attributed to the integrity of the quasiparticle due to the confinement of spinon and holon. But such a confinement disappear in the zero-doping limit where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h`$ vanishes while $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b}`$ becomes single-valued. In this limit, the single-electron propagator may be expressed in the following decomposition form

$$G_eiG_fG_b$$
(8)
where

$$G_f=iT_th_i^{}(t)\left(e^{i\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b(t)}e^{i\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^b(0)}\right)h_j(0)$$
(9)
and

$$G_b=i(\sigma )^{ij}T_tb_{i\sigma }(t)b_{j\sigma }^{}(0)$$
(10)
without the multi-value problem.

Here the large Fermi surface is gone except for four Fermi points at $`𝐤_0=(\pm \pi /2,\pm \pi /2)`$ with the rest part looking like all “gapped” . In fact, in the convolution form of (8) the “quasiparticle” peak (edge) is essentially determined by the spinon spectrum $`E_𝐤^s=2.32J\sqrt{1s_𝐤^2}`$ with $`s_𝐤=(\mathrm{sin}k_x+\mathrm{sin}k_y)/2`$ through the spinon propagator $`G_b`$, since the holon propagator $`G_f`$ is incoherent . The intrinsic broad feature of the spectral function is obtained due to the convolution law of (8) and is a direct indication of the composite nature of the quasiparticle, which is also consistent with the ARPES results  as well as the earlier theoretical discussion . Furthermore, at high energy or equal-time limit, the singular phase factor $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b}`$ also contributes to a large “remnant Fermi surface” in the momentum distribution function $`n(𝐤)`$ which can be regarded as a precursor of the large Fermi surface in the confining phase at finite doping, which is also consistent with the ARPES experiment .

The above one-hole picture may have an important implication for the so-called pseudo-gap phenomenon in the underdoped region of the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. Even though the confinement will set in once the density of holes becomes finite, the “confining force” should remain weak at small doping, and one expects the virtual “decaying” process in (Spin-charge separation: From one hole to finite doping) to contribute significantly at weakly doping to bridge a continuum evolution between the Fermi-point structure in the zero-doping limit to a full large Fermi surface at larger doping. Recall that in the one-hole case decaying into spinon-holon composite happens around $`𝐤_0`$ at zero energy transfer, while it costs higher energy near $`(\pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,\pi )`$, which shouldn’t be changed much at weakly doping. In the confinement regime, the quasiparticle peak in the electron spectral function defines a quasiparticle spectrum and a large Fermi surface as discussed before. Then due to the the virtual “decaying” process in the equation of motion (Spin-charge separation: From one hole to finite doping), the spectral function will become much broadened with its weight shifted toward higher energy like a gap-opening near those portions of the Fermi surface far away from $`𝐤_0`$, particularly around four corners $`(\pm \pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,\pm \pi )`$. With the increase of doping concentration and reduction of the decaying effect, the suppressed quasiparticle peak can be gradually recovered starting from the inner parts of the Fermi surface towards four corners $`(\pm \pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,\pm \pi )`$.

Furthermore, at small doping (underdoping), something more dramatic can happen in the present spin-charge separation state : a microscopic type of phase separation has been found in this regime which is characterized by the Bose condensation of bosonic spinon field. Since spinons are presumably condensed in hole-dilute regions , the propagator will then exhibit features looking like in an even weaker doping concentration or more “gap” like than in a uniform case, below a characteristic temperature $`T^{}`$ which determines this microscopic phase separation. Therefore, the “spin gap” phenomenon related to the ARPES experiments in the underdoped cuprates may be understood as a “partial” deconfinement of holon and spinon whose effect is “amplified” through a microscopic phase separation in this weakly-doped regime. $`T^{}`$ also characterizes other “spin-gap”properties in magnetic and transport channels in this underdoping regime .