text:
# Zero temperature transition from d-wave superconductor to underdoped regime

## I  Introduction

In this paper, we are trying to study the nature of zero temperature quantum phase transition from d-wave superconductor at $`x>x_c`$ to the underdoped regime at $`x<x_c`$ of the high temperature superconductors ( Fig.1).

Fig 1: The temperature ( T ) versus doping ( $`x`$ ) diagram of high $`T_c`$ cuprates.

It is well known that inside the superconductor phase $`x>x_c`$, there are low energy quasi-particle excitations near the four nodes of the Fermi surface, the quantum phase fluctuation of the Cooper pair condensates are suppressed, the positive and negative vortices are bound together. As the doping decreases from the right to $`x_c`$, the phase fluctuation increases. At the underdoped regime $`x<x_c`$, the quantum phase fluctuations are so strong that they generate free $`hc/2e`$ vortices, destroy the long range phase coherence of the d-wave superconductor, therefore the superconducting ground state. However, the local short-range pairing still exists, the low energy quasi-particles at the four nodes remain. This quantum phase transition is driven by the condensation of $`hc/2e`$ vortices. Near the transition, there are strong coupling between the quasi-particles and the phase windings of $`hc/2e`$ vortices.

A lot of work has been done on a closely related problem where quasi-particles are coupled to the vortices generated by external magnetic field inside the superconducting state . In the following, we will first review these work, then will extend the methods developed in these work to study this quantum phase transition where the quasi-particles are coupled to the quantum fluctuation generated vortices.

Employing semi-classical approximation, Volovik pointed out that the circulating supercurrents around vortices induce Doppler energy shift to the quasi-particle spectrum, which leads to a finite density of states at the nodes . This effect ( Volovik effect) has been employed to attempt to explain the experimental observations  of longitudinal thermal conductivity $`\kappa _{xx}`$ in .

Starting from BCS Hamiltonian, Anderson  employed the first single-valued singular gauge transformation to study quasi-particle dynamics in the mixed state. Unfortunately, Anderson made an incorrect mean field approximation which violates the ”Time-Reversal” symmetry , therefore leads to the incorrect conclusion that there is Landau level quantization of energy levels of the quasi-particle. Franz and Tesanovic (FT) employed a different single-valued singular gauge transformation to map the quasi-particle in a square vortex lattice state to Dirac fermion moving in an effective periodic scalar and vector potential with zero average and studied the quasi-particle spectrum numerically . They did not see the signature of Landau level quantization in their numerical calculations

Unfortunately, in the vortex lattice state, the vector potential only provides a periodic potential instead of scattering quasi-particles, its effect on the energy spectrum and other physical quantities is not evident. This motivated Ye to study the quasi-particle transport in the disordered vortex state where the random AB phase scattering may show its important effects. In Ref., Ye observed that because infinite thin $`hc/2e`$ vortices do not break the T reversal symmetry, any correct mean field theory should respect this T symmetry. He showed exactly there is no Landau level quantization due to this T symmetry. He applied the singular transformation in the FT gauge to disordered vortex state and found that the long-range logarithmic interaction between vortices suppresses the fluctuation of superfluid velocity (scalar potential), but does not affect the fluctuation of the internal gauge field. Therefore the scalar field acquires a ” mass ” determined by the vortex density, but the gauge field remains ” massless ”. The quasi-particle scattering from the ”massless” internal gauge field dominates over those from the well-known ”massive” Volovik effect and the non-magnetic scattering at sufficient high magnetic field. This dominant scattering mechanism is a purely quantum mechanical effects which was completely missed by all the previous semi-classical treatments . In fact. it is responsible for the behaviors of both $`\kappa _{xx}`$ and $`\kappa _{xy}`$ in high magnetic field observed in the experiments .

When the vortices are generated by quantum fluctuations or thermal fluctuations, themselves are moving around, new physics may arise. From Newton’s third law, intuitively, the vortices must also feel the counter-acting AB phase coming from the quasi-particles. Therefore there is a mutual AB phase scattering between vortices and quasi-particles. In this paper, we enlarge the one singular gauge transformation developed in  to two mutual flux-attaching singular gauge transformations. We then apply them to study quasi-particles coupled to moving vortices near the zero temperature quantum critical point. In canonical quantization, we perform two singular transformations which are dual to each other to quasi-particles and moving vortices respectively. Just like conventional singular gauge transformation leads to conventional Chern-Simon (CS) term, the two mutual singular gauge transformations lead to mutual CS term. This elegant mutual CS term precisely describe the mutual AB phase scattering between vortices and quasi-particles. Alternatively, in path-integral presentation, the effective action describes the quasi-particle moving in both vector and scalar potentials due to the phase fluctuations of quantum generated vortices. By a duality transformation presented in Refs.  to a vortex representation, the quantum fluctuation generated vortices couple to quasi-particles by a mutual CS term, the vortices are also interacting with each other by long range logarithmic interactions due to charge fluctuation described by a Maxwell term. By carefully considering the periodicity of this mutual CS term, it can be shown that the effective action is essentially equivalent to the dual vortex representation derived by Senthil and Fisher (SF) from the elegant $`Z_2`$ gauge theory  except the Volovik effect missing in the $`Z_2`$ gauge theory is also explicitly incorporated into the present approach. Neglecting the charge fluctuation first and replacing the $`Z_2`$ mutual CS theory by the $`U(1)`$ mutual CS theory, we find a fixed line characterized by the mutual statistical angle $`\theta `$ and calculate the universal spinon, vortex and mutual Hall drag conductivities which continuously depend on $`\theta `$. This transition can also be viewed as a simplest confinement and deconfinement transition. The properties of the confinement and deconfinement phases on the two sides of the critical point are also discussed. We stressed explicitly that the periodicity of $`Z_2`$ mutual CS gauge theory on the lattice is not preserved by the $`U(1)`$ mutual CS theory in the continuum. When the $`U(1)`$ charge fluctuation is taken into account, we tentatively still replace the $`Z_2`$ mutual CS theory by the $`U(1)`$ CS mutual theory and treat both $`U(1)`$ fluctuations on the same footing. We find the $`U(1)`$ charge fluctuation turns the fixed line into a fixed point where charge $`\pm e`$ and spin 1/2 Dirac-like quasi-particle and charge $`2e`$ Cooper pairs are asymptotically decoupled. Although the result is pathological, it does suggest the spinon and holon are confined into electrons and Cooper pairs when condensing $`hc/2e`$ vortices, in contrast to the condensing of double strength $`hc/e`$ vortices discussed in  and reviewed in appendix C. Although we are unable to solve the critical behaviors of a combined $`Z_2`$ and $`U(1)`$ theory in this paper, we do stress that $`Z_2`$ periodicity should be treated correctly to understand the critical behaviors of a theory with both discrete $`Z_2`$ and continuous $`U(1)`$ gauge fields.

The paper is organized as the following. In the next section, we derive the effective action with both the mutual C-S interaction and the charge fluctuation, first in the path integral language, and then in canonical quantization representation. In Sec. III, we concentrate on the effect of the mutual C-S interaction and calculate the critical exponents and universal conductivities for general statistical angle $`\theta `$. Implications for double layers Quantum Hall System are given. Some details are relegated to appendix A. In appendix C, we concentrate on the effect of charge fluctuation which is the only gauge fluctuation in double strength $`hc/e`$ vortices. In Sec IV, we discuss the combined effect of mutual C-S interaction and charge fluctuation, we also stress the importance to keep the periodicity of $`Z_2`$ gauge field when considering a theory with both discrete $`Z_2`$ and continuous $`U(1)`$ gauge fields. In Sec. VI, we discuss the connection of our approach to the current fashion $`Z_2`$ gauge theory and point out the possible open problems. In appendix B, we apply the method developed in the main text to quenched random vortex array.

## II  The effective action

Following the notation in Refs., we define $`d_{}=c_{}(x),d_{}=c_{}^{}`$ . Because there are equal number of positive and negative vortices, we divide the positive vortices into two subsets $`\varphi _{p1},\varphi _{p2}`$ and negative vortices into two subsets $`\varphi _{n1},\varphi _{n2}`$. We define $`\varphi _A=\varphi _{p1}+\varphi _{n1},\varphi _B=\varphi _{p2}+\varphi _{n2}`$ and introduce the spinon by performing a general singular unitary transformation $`d=Ud_s`$:

$$H_s=U^1HU,U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi _A}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi _B}\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
where $`\varphi _A+\varphi _B=\varphi `$ is the phase of the Cooper pair. The original transformation  is devised for static vortices. Here we extend it to moving vortices whose phase $`\varphi `$ is also fluctuating, therefore, depends on both the space and time. The spinon is charge neutral. In Anderson’s gauge, $`\varphi _A=0,\varphi _B=\varphi `$ or vice versa. In the former(latter), the spinon is electron-like ( hole-like).

Expanding $`H_s`$ around the node 1 where $`\stackrel{}{p}=(p_F,0)`$, we obtain the linearized quasi-particle Lagrangian $`_{qp}`$ in the presence of the external gauge potential $`A_\mu `$:

$`_{qp}^u`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1^{}[(_\tau ia_\tau )+v_f(p_xa_x)\tau ^3+v_2(p_ya_y)\tau ^1]\psi _1`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`\psi _1^{}\psi _1v_fv_x(\stackrel{}{r})+i\psi _1^{}\tau ^3\psi _1v_\tau (\stackrel{}{r})+(12,xy)`$ (3)
where $`v_\mu =\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}_\mu \varphi \frac{e}{c}A_\mu `$ is the gauge-invariant superfluid momentum, it acts as a scalar scattering potential, $`a_\mu =\frac{1}{2}_\mu (\varphi _A\varphi _B)`$ is the AB gauge field due to the phase winding of vortices . Note that the external gauge potential only appear explicitly in the superfluid momentum $`v_\mu `$. Because there are equal number of positive and negative vortices in both $`\varphi _A`$ and $`\varphi _B`$, on the average, the vanishing of $`v_\mu `$ and $`a_\mu `$ is automatically ensured, in this case, the Anderson gauge turns out to be more convenient than FT gauge. In the following, we use the electron-like Anderson gauge where $`a_\mu =\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi `$ .

We get the corresponding expression at node $`\overline{1}`$ and $`\overline{2}`$ by changing $`v_fv_f,v_2v_2`$ in the above Eq.

$`_{qp}^l`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{\overline{1}}^{}[(_\tau ia_\tau )v_f(p_xa_x)\tau ^3v_2(p_ya_y)\tau ^1]\psi _{\overline{1}}`$ (4)
$``$ $`\psi _{\overline{1}}^{}\psi _{\overline{1}}v_fv_x(\stackrel{}{r})+i\psi _{\overline{1}}^{}\tau ^3\psi _{\overline{1}}v_\tau (\stackrel{}{r})+(\overline{1}\overline{2},xy)`$ (5)
Performing a P-H transformation $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{1\alpha }=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\psi _{\overline{1}\beta }^{}`$ and the corresponding expression at node $`\overline{2}`$, the above Eq. becomes:

$`_{qp}^l`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}[(_\tau +ia_\tau )+v_f(p_x+a_x)\tau ^3+v_2(p_y+a_y)\tau ^1]\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1v_fv_x(\stackrel{}{r})+i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}\tau ^3\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1v_\tau (\stackrel{}{r})+(12,xy)`$ (7)
In order to make the final expressions explicitly $`SU(2)`$ invariant, we perform the singular gauge transformation $`\psi _{12\alpha }=e^{i(\varphi _A\varphi _B)}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{1\alpha }`$ and the corresponding transformation at node $`\overline{2}`$, then $`a_\mu a_\mu `$, Eq.7 takes the same form as Eq.3 . Adding the two equations leads to:

$`_{qp}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{1a}^{}[(_\tau ia_\tau )+v_f(p_xa_x)\tau ^3+v_2(p_ya_y)\tau ^1]\psi _{1a}`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\psi _{1a}^{}\psi _{1a}v_fv_x(\stackrel{}{r})+i\psi _{1a}^{}\tau ^3\psi _{1a}v_\tau (\stackrel{}{r})+(12,xy)`$ (9)
where $`a=1,2`$ is the spin indices. $`\tau ^s`$ matrices are acting on particle-hole space. As intended, the above Eq. is explicitly $`SU(2)`$ spin invariant. Equivalently, we can start with the explicitly spin $`SU(2)`$ invariant approach advocated in Ref. and perform the singular gauge transformation in the p-h  space.

$`_{qp}`$ enjoys gauge symmetry $`U(1)_u\times U_s(1)`$ ( in fact, it is $`U(1)\times Z_2`$ ), the first being uniform and second being staggered gauge symmetry: Uniform (or external) $`U_u(1)`$ gauge symmetry

$`c_\alpha `$ $``$ $`c_\alpha e^{i\chi },d_\alpha d_\alpha `$ (10)
$`\varphi _A`$ $``$ $`\varphi _A+\chi ,\varphi _B\varphi _B+\chi `$ (11)
Under this uniform $`U(1)`$ transformation, the corresponding fields transform as:

$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\varphi +2\chi ,A_\alpha A_\alpha +_\alpha \chi `$ (12)
$`v_\alpha `$ $``$ $`v_\alpha ,a_\alpha a_\alpha `$ (13)
$`d,v_\alpha ,a_\alpha `$ all are invariant under this external $`U(1)`$ transformation. Therefore the spinon $`d_\alpha `$ is charge neutral to the external magnetic field.

Staggered (or internal) $`U_s(1)`$ gauge symmetry

$`c_\alpha `$ $``$ $`c_\alpha ,d_\alpha d_\alpha e^{i\chi }`$ (14)
$`\varphi _A`$ $``$ $`\varphi _A+\chi ,\varphi _B\varphi _B\chi `$ (15)
Under this internal $`U(1)`$ transformation, the corresponding fields transform as:

$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\varphi ,A_\alpha A_\alpha `$ (16)
$`v_\alpha `$ $``$ $`v_\alpha ,a_\alpha a_\alpha +_\alpha \chi `$ (17)
Although the spinon $`d_\alpha `$ is charge neutral to the external magnetic field, it carries charge $`1`$ to the internal gauge field $`a_\alpha `$.

It is easy to realize that $`U_u(1)`$ acts only on the boson sector, since the spinon is charge neutral, $`U_s(1)`$ acts only on the fermion sector. In fact, $`U_s(1)`$ should be a discrete local $`Z_2`$ symmetry , because up and down $`hc/2e`$ vortices are equivalent and do not break T symmetry .

The phase fluctuation is simply $`2+1`$ dimensional X-Y model:

$$_{ph}=\frac{K}{2}v_\mu ^2=\frac{K}{2}(_\mu \varphi 2A_\mu )^2$$
(18)
After absorbing the scalar potential scattering part ( Volovik term) into $`_{ph}`$, we can write the total Lagrangian $`=_{qp}+_{ph}`$ as:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{1a}^{}[(_\tau ia_\tau )+v_f(p_xa_x)\tau ^3+v_2(p_ya_y)\tau ^1]\psi _{1a}`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`(12,xy)+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}(_\mu \varphi A_\mu ^{eff})^2`$ (20)
where $`A_\mu ^{eff}=2A_\mu K^1J_\mu `$ and the quasi-particle electric current is : $`J_0=\psi _j^{}\tau ^3\psi _j,J_x=v_f\psi _1^{}\psi _1,J_y=v_f\psi _2^{}\psi _2`$.

From Eq.20, it is easy to identify the two conserved Noether currents: spinon current and electric current.

The spinon current is given by:

$`j_0^s`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1^{}(x)\psi _1(x)+\psi _2^{}(x)\psi _2(x)`$ (21)
$`j_x^s`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1^{}(x)v_F\tau ^3\psi _1(x)+\psi _2^{}(x)v_2\tau ^1\psi _2(x)`$ (22)
$`j_y^s`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1^{}(x)v_2\tau ^1\psi _1(x)+\psi _2^{}(x)v_F\tau ^3\psi _2(x)`$ (23)
Obviously the spinon current only comes from quasi-particle. In principle, the spinon current is not conserved due to scatterings between different nodes which lead to anomalous terms not included in Eq.20. However, the inter-node scatterings involve large momenta transfer $`\stackrel{}{K}_i\stackrel{}{K}_j`$ for $`ij`$, so we neglect them due to momentum conservation in the long wave-length limit of the phase fluctuation . The exact conserved spin current $`\stackrel{}{j}_\mu ^S`$ is with $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2`$ inserted in the above spinon currents.

The electric current is given by:

$$j_\mu ^e=\frac{}{A_\mu ^{eff}}=K(_\mu \varphi A_\mu ^{eff})=K(_\mu \varphi 2A_\mu )+J_\mu $$
(24)
Where the first part coming from Cooper pair and the second from the quasi-particle. Although they are not separately conserved, their sum is.

The Noether current due to the the symmetry under $`\varphi \varphi +\chi `$ can be written as:

$$j_\mu ^t=\frac{}{(_\mu \varphi )}=K(_\mu \varphi A_\mu ^{eff})\frac{1}{2}j_\mu ^s=j_\mu ^e\frac{1}{2}j_\mu ^s$$
(25)
It is a combination of electric and spinon currents, therefore also conserved.

Following Refs., we perform a duality transformation to Eq.20

$`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}(_\mu \varphi A_\mu ^{eff})^2i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi j_\mu ^s`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`ij_{e\mu }(_\mu \varphi A_\mu ^{eff})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K}}j_{e\mu }^2i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi j_\mu ^s`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`ij_\mu ^t_\mu \theta +ij_\mu ^t_\mu \varphi ij_\mu ^eA_\mu ^{eff}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K}}j_{e\mu }^2`$ (28)
Where we have separated topological trivial spin-wave part and topological non-trivial vortex parts.

Integrating out the spin-wave part, we get the conservation equation for the total current $`j_\mu ^t=j_\mu ^e\frac{1}{2}j_\mu ^s`$. In fact, as shown in the previous paragraphs, $`j_\mu ^e`$ and $`j_\mu ^s`$ are separately conserved. Therefore we can introduce spin and electric gauge fields by:

$`j_\mu ^s`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^s`$ (29)
$`j_\mu ^e`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^e`$ (30)
We can also define the vortex current:

$`j_\mu ^v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu _\lambda \varphi `$ (31)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^v`$ (32)
where $`a_\mu ^v=_\mu \varphi /2\pi `$ is the vortex gauge field.

Substituting the above expressions into Eq.28, we reach:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4K}}f_{e\mu \nu }^2+i_\mu \varphi j_\mu ^tiA_\mu ^{eff}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^e`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4K}}f_{e\mu \nu }^2+ia_\mu ^tj_\mu ^viA_\mu ^{eff}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^e`$ (34)
where $`a_\mu ^t=a_\mu ^e\frac{1}{2}a_\mu ^s`$ is the total gauge field felt by the moving vortices.

Using $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for the vortex operator and adding the quasi-particle part, we get the following effective action:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1^{}[(_\tau ia_\tau ^\psi )+v_f(p_xa_x^\psi )\tau ^3+v_2(p_ya_y^\psi )\tau ^1]\psi _1`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`(12,xy)`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`|(_\mu ia_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }ia_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \theta }}a_\mu ^\psi ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\mu \nu }^2iA_\mu ^{eff}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda \mu ϵ_{ij}_ia_j`$ (38)
where $`V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)=m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+g_\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Phi }|^4+\mathrm{}`$ stands for the short range interaction between the vortices. The last term is due to Berry phase in the boson representation  which can be absorbed into $`A_\mu ^{eff}`$ by redefining $`A_\mu ^{eff}A_\mu ^{eff}+i\mu \delta _{\mu 0}`$, it acts like an external magnetic field in the $`\widehat{z}`$ ( namely $`\mu =0`$ ) direction. There are one species of vortex and $`N=4`$ species of Dirac fermion( 2 spin components at 2 nodes at the upper plane), the mutual statistical angle $`\theta =\pm 1/2`$. We also changed the notation by setting $`a^\psi =a^v,a^\mathrm{\Phi }=a^s,a^e=a`$.

Although we derived the above equation in the electron-like Anderson gauge, in fact, it holds in any gauge. Eq.38 again enjoys the gauge symmetry $`U(1)\times U(1)`$, the first only acting on the vortex sector is the electric $`U(1)`$ gauge field, the second on both the vortex and fermion sectors is the $`U(1)`$ mutual CS gauge field. The mutual Chern-Simon term enforces the constraints: $`2\pi \theta j_\mu ^s=ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Phi },2\pi \theta j_\mu ^v=ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^\psi `$. Physically, it means that when a quasi-particle encircles a vortex, it picks up a phase $`2\pi \theta `$. Equivalently when a vortex moves around a quasi-particle, it also picks up a phase $`2\pi \theta `$. Although the conventional C-S term breaks T symmetry and has periodicity under $`\theta \theta +2`$ , the mutual C-S term does not  break T symmetry and has periodicity under $`\theta \theta +1`$. For example, $`\theta =1/2`$ is equivalent to $`\theta =1/2`$. In fact, this mutual CS term at $`\theta =1/2`$ should be the same as the $`Z_2`$ mutual CS term on the lattice discussed in Ref.. Therefore strictly speaking $`a^\psi `$ and $`a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are $`Z_2`$ gauge fields, only $`a_\mu `$ is a $`U(1)`$ gauge field. The Doppler-shifted term ( Volovik effect) is encoded in the last term in Eq.38. This effect was not taken into account in the $`Z_2`$ gauge theory .

In canonical quantization language, it is very instructive to compare the well-known singular gauge transformation leading to composite fermion in $`\nu =1/2`$ system by Halperin, Lee and Read (HLR)  to the singular gauge transformations performed in the spinon-vortex system in this paper. The crucial difference is that in the former, we attach electron’s own $`\theta `$ flux to itself ( $`\theta =2`$ in $`\nu =1/2`$ system to keep fermion statistics intact ), the constraint $`\times \stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{r})=2\pi \theta \rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ in Coulomb gauge $`_ia_i=0`$ leads to composite fermion $`\psi _c`$ coupled to conventional CS term which breaks T symmetry, has periodicity under $`\theta \theta +2`$; however, in the latter, we attach vortex’s $`\theta =1/2`$ flux to quasi-particle or vise versa, the two constraints $`\times \stackrel{}{a}^\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=2\pi \theta j_0^v(\stackrel{}{r}),\times \stackrel{}{a}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r})=2\pi \theta j_0^s(\stackrel{}{r})`$ in Coulomb gauges $`_ia_i^\psi =_ia_i^\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ naturally leads to quasi-particles and vortices are coupled by mutual CS term in additional to the electrical gauge field which mediates the logarithmic interaction between vortices. The mutual CS term does not break T symmetry, has periodicity under $`\theta \theta +1`$.

It is important to point out that when a vortex is moving around a closed loop, it pick up two phases, one is $`Z_2`$ phase due to the spinon current, described by the mutual C-S term, another is $`U(1)`$ phase due to the total electric charge current described by the Maxwell term. In the following section, we will neglect the electric charge fluctuation and concentrate the mutual statistics term. In Sec. IV, we will study the effect of charge fluctuation described by the Maxwell term. For completeness, we relegate the review of the effect of charge fluctuation to appendix B.

For simplicity, we take the relativistic form for both fermion and boson, because the anisotropies in Eq.38 are expected to be irrelevant near the zero temperature QCP .

## III  The effect of mutual statistics

In this section, we neglect the charge fluctuation, namely setting $`a_\mu =0`$ in Eq.38. The charge fluctuation can be suppressed by condensing $`hc/e`$ vortices reviewed in appendix C. We could add the kinetic and potential terms for the $`hc/e`$ vortex operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ to Eq.38:

$$_{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}=|(_\mu i2a_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }_2|^2+V(|\mathrm{\Phi }_2|)$$
(39)
As shown in appendix C, there is no mutual statistical interaction between spinon and $`hc/e`$ vortices $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. The long range logarithmic interaction between $`hc/2e`$ vortices $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`hc/e`$ vortices $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is mediated by the electrical gauge field $`a_\mu `$. Condensing $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_2>=\mathrm{\Phi }_{20}`$ will generate a mass term $`\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{20}^2}{2}(a_\mu )_t^2`$ which dominates over the Maxwell term. Integrating out $`a_\mu `$ leads to

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{20}^2}[\frac{1}{4}(f_{\mu \nu }^{A^{eff}})^2iA_\mu ^{eff}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu j_\lambda ^v+(j_\mu ^v)_t^2]$$
(40)
All the generated terms only renormalize the short range interactions already included in $`V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$. The model is also closely related to the Hall drag problem in double layer Quantum Hall system , therefore the model itself is interesting on its own right and deserves detailed investigation.

### A  Quantum Critical point

In order to calculate conductivities, we add two source fields $`A_\mu ^\psi `$ and $`A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for the quasi-particles and vortex respectively:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu ia_\mu ^\psi iA_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`|(_\mu ia_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }iA_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \theta }}a_\mu ^\psi ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (42)
where $`a=1,2,3,4`$ stands for $`N=4`$ species of Dirac fermion. In fact, two Maxwell terms for $`a^\psi `$ and $`a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be added to the above equation, but they are subleading to the mutual CS term in the low energy limit. It is expected that there is no periodicity under $`\theta \theta +1`$ in the continuum limit.

If the theory is properly regularized on the lattice, it should has the periodicity under $`\theta \theta +1`$, for example, $`\theta =1/2`$ should be equivalent to $`\theta =1/2`$. In fact, $`\theta =1/2`$ mutual $`U(1)`$ CS theory could be the same as the $`Z_2`$ mutual CS theory developed in .

The RG calculation in Refs. can be used to show that $`\theta `$ is exactly marginal, therefore there is a line of fixed points determined by the mutual statistical angle $`\theta `$. In order to calculate the spin conductivity along this fixed line, a source field could be introduced to couple to the spin current $`\stackrel{}{j}_\mu ^S=\psi _\alpha ^{}\gamma _\mu (\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{\alpha \beta }\psi _\beta `$. Similar calculations follow.

Integrating out both fermion and boson leads to:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_\mu ^\psi (k)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\psi (k)a_\nu ^\psi (k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_\mu ^\psi (k)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\psi \mathrm{\Phi }}(k)a_\nu ^\mathrm{\Phi }(k)`$ (43)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }(k)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Phi }(k)a_\nu ^\mathrm{\Phi }(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }(k)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{\Phi }\psi }(k)a_\nu ^\psi (k)`$ (44)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\theta }}(a_\mu ^\psi (k)A_\mu ^\psi (k))ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }k_\lambda (a_\nu ^\mathrm{\Phi }(k)A_\nu ^\mathrm{\Phi }(k))`$ (45)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\theta }}(a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }(k)A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }(k))ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }k_\lambda (a_\nu ^\psi (k)A_\nu ^\psi (k))`$ (46)
where the exact forms of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^s`$ are dictated by gauge invariance and Furry’s theorem :

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\psi (k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(k)k(\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}})`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\psi \mathrm{\Phi }}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{\Phi }\psi }(k)=\mathrm{\Pi }_2(k)ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }k_\lambda `$ (48)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Phi }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3(k)k(\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}})`$ (49)
Where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1,\mathrm{\Pi }_2,\mathrm{\Pi }_3`$ are the polarizations for $`a^\psi a^\psi ,a^\psi a^\mathrm{\Phi },a^\mathrm{\Phi }a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

If we are only interested in DC conductivities, for simplicity, we can put $`\stackrel{}{k}=0`$, Eq.46 becomes ( for the most general form, see appendix A):

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_i^\psi (\omega _n)\mathrm{\Pi }_1|\omega _n|a_i^\psi (\omega _n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_i^\psi (\omega _n)\mathrm{\Pi }_2ϵ_{ij}\omega _na_j^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n)`$ (50)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_i^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n)\mathrm{\Pi }_3|\omega _n|a_i^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_i^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n)\mathrm{\Pi }_2ϵ_{ij}\omega _na_j^\psi (\omega _n)`$ (51)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\theta }}(a_i^\psi (\omega _n)A_i^\psi (\omega _n))ϵ_{ij}\omega _n(a_j^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n)A_j^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n))`$ (52)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\theta }}(a_i^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n)A_i^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n))ϵ_{ij}\omega _n(a_j^\psi (\omega _n)A_j^\psi (\omega _n))`$ (53)
If we define $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n)=ϵ_{ij}a_j^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n),\stackrel{~}{A}_i^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n)=ϵ_{ij}A_j^\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _n)`$, the above equation becomes diagonal in the spatial indices $`i=1,2`$. Finally, integrating out $`a_i^\psi ,\stackrel{~}{a}_i^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ leads to

$$=\frac{1}{2}(A_i^\psi ,\stackrel{~}{A}_i^\mathrm{\Phi })\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma ^\psi & \sigma ^H\\ \sigma ^H& \sigma ^\mathrm{\Phi }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}A_i^\psi \\ \stackrel{~}{A}_i^\mathrm{\Phi }\end{array}\right)$$
(54)
Where spinon, vortex and mutual Hall drag conductivities are:

$`\sigma ^\psi `$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta }})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_3+(1/\theta \mathrm{\Pi }_2)^2}}`$ (55)
$`\sigma ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta }})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_3}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_3+(1/\theta \mathrm{\Pi }_2)^2}}`$ (56)
$`\sigma ^H`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta }})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_2\theta (\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_3+\mathrm{\Pi }_2^2)}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_3+(1/\theta \mathrm{\Pi }_2)^2}}`$ (57)
In fact, all the three conductivities can be written in the elegant connection formula:

$$\rho _{ij}=(\rho _{FB})_{ij}\theta ϵ_{ij}$$
(58)
with the conductivity tensor of fermion and boson given by

$$\sigma _{FB}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Pi }_1& \mathrm{\Pi }_2\\ \mathrm{\Pi }_2& \mathrm{\Pi }_3\end{array}\right)$$
(59)
Although its form is similar to the conventional connection formulas discussed in , the physical interpretations of the conductivities are quite different (see the following).

When the vortices are generated by external magnetic field and pinned by impurities as discussed in , the total conductivity is the same as the fermion conductivity because the static vortex do not contribute. As explained in appendix B, the static vortices only feel the electric gauge field $`a_\mu `$, but not the statistical gauge field $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

The above expressions are exact, but $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1,\mathrm{\Pi }_2,\mathrm{\Pi }_3`$ can only be calculated perturbatively in the coupling constant $`g^2=2\pi \theta `$. The renormalized propagators for $`a^\psi `$ and $`a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be found from the following Feymann diagrams:

Fig 2: The renormalized propagators for $`a^\psi `$ (thick wiggle line ) and $`a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (thick dashed line). The thin wiggle line stands for $`a^\psi `$, the dashed thin line for $`a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the thin solid line for fermion propagators, the thick solid line for the boson propagators.

By using the bare propagators $`<a_\mu ^\psi a_\nu ^\mathrm{\Phi }>=ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }k_\lambda /k^2`$ and the bare fermion and boson loop results $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{f0}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{b0}=\frac{g^2}{16}k(\delta _{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu /k^2)`$, we can find easily the renormalized $`a^\psi `$ and $`a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ propagators $`G_{\mu \nu }^\psi =G_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{g^2}{16}\frac{1}{k}(\delta _{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu /k^2)`$. In contrast to the conventional CS theory studied in , the propagators are even in $`k`$, this is because the theory respects $`T`$ symmetry. On the other hand, in contrast to the Maxwell propagators, they behave as $`1/k`$ instead of $`1/k^2`$.

The three loop diagrams for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ are given by:

Fig 3: The three loop diagrams of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$. The thick wiggle line stands for the renormalized propagators of $`a^\psi `$, the thin solid line stands for the fermion propagator. The one loop diagram is not shown.

By using $`G_{\mu \nu }^\psi `$ and extracting the symmetric part of the gauge propagator in the large $`N`$ results in Refs., we are able to calculate the above three loop diagrams. Furry’s theorem can be used to eliminate large number of null diagrams. We get the following series:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1=N\frac{\pi }{8}(1+\frac{3}{16}\frac{g^4}{(2\pi )^2}+g^8+\mathrm{})$$
(60)
where $`N=4`$ is due to the sum over 4 species of Dirac fermions.

The three loop diagrams for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3`$ are given by:

Fig 4: The three loop diagrams of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3`$. The thick dashed line stands for the renormalized propagator of $`a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the thick solid line stands for the boson propagator. The one loop diagram is not shown.

For bosons, only one loop result is known:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_3=N\frac{\pi }{8}(1+g^4+g^8+\mathrm{})$$
(61)
Note that both $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3`$ are even functions of $`\theta `$.

From Furry’s theorem, one of the first non-vanishing diagram for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ is:

Fig 5: One of the four loop diagrams of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$. the thin solid line stands for the fermion propagator, the thick solid line for the boson propagator. All the other four loop diagrams can be obtained by shuffling the positions of the three bare propagator lines.

The series is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2=N(g^6+g^{10}+\mathrm{})`$ which is an odd function of $`\theta `$.

From Eq.57, $`\sigma ^\psi ,\sigma ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are even functions of $`\theta `$, but the mutual Hall drag conductivity is an odd function of $`\theta `$. These are expected from P-H transformation. Under the P-H transformation of the vortex operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ in Eq.42, it can be shown that $`A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi },\theta `$ is equivalent to $`A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi },\theta `$. From Eq.54, we reach the same conclusions. Specifically, $`\sigma ^H`$ takes opposite values for $`\theta =\pm 1/2`$, the periodicity under $`\theta \theta +1`$ is not preserved. Experimentally, the Hall drag conductivity can be detected by measuring the transverse voltage drop ( or transverse temperature drop for thermal conductivity ) of spinons due to the longitudinal driving of vortices. The Hall drag conductivity in double layer Quantum Hall systems has been investigated by several authors . In double layer systems, the electrons in different layers are treated as two different species. There is a mutual CS interaction between the two species (both are fermions) which is directly responsible for this Hall drag conductivity, although the Coulomb interaction between the two species is responsible for the Coulomb ( longitudinal ) drag . This example shows that no external magnetic field is needed to produce a Hall effect ! However, $`\theta =\pm 1/2`$ are very special points, $`U(1)`$ mutual CS term reduces to $`Z_2`$ field, there should be no  Hall drag conductivity just like $`\alpha =\pm 1/2`$ vortex leads to no Hall conductivity.

Again, by using the large $`N`$ result of , we find the anomalous dimensions of the fermion and vortex to two loops:

Fig 6: The two loop diagrams for the self energies of spinon (a) and vortex (b). The renormalized operators are used.

The results are:

$`\eta _\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{48\pi ^2}}`$ (62)
$`\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{XY}{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{12\pi ^2}}N`$ (63)
where $`\eta _{XY}0.038`$ is the anomalous dimension for the 3d XY model.

The correlation length exponent can also be calculated to two loops by the insertion of the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

Fig 7: The cross stands for the operator insertion of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

The result is:

$$\nu =\nu _{XY}\frac{g^4}{12\pi ^2}N$$
(64)
where $`\nu _{XY}0.672`$ is correlation length exponent for the 3d XY model.

It is instructive to go to dual representation of Eq.42, namely go to the boson representation:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu ia_\mu ^\psi iA_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a+|(_\mu ia_\mu ^\varphi )\varphi |^2+V(|\varphi |)`$ (65)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(f_{\mu \nu }^\varphi )^2+ia_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu (a_\lambda ^\varphi a_\lambda ^\psi /\theta )iA_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^\varphi `$ (66)
where $`V(|\varphi |)=m_\varphi ^2|\varphi |^2+g_\varphi |\varphi |^4+\mathrm{}`$,

Integrating out $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ leads to the constraint up to a pure gauge:

$$a_\mu ^\psi =\theta a_\mu ^\varphi $$
(67)
Substituting the above constraint to Eq.66 and setting $`a_\mu ^\varphi =a_\mu `$, we find:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu i\theta a_\mu iA_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\mu \nu }^2`$ (68)
$`+`$ $`|(_\mu ia_\mu )\varphi |^2+V(|\varphi |)iA_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda `$ (69)
The above Eq. indicates that fermions and bosons are coupled to the same gauge field whose dynamics is described by Maxwell term instead of C-S term. This Eq. is simply $`2+1`$ dimensional combination of spinor QED and scalar QED. The RG analysis at $`4ϵ`$ by dimensional regularization is possible, because the marginal dimension of all the relevant couplings are 4. However a RG analysis directly at $`2+1`$ dimension is formidable, the physical meaning and the exact marginality of $`\theta `$ is obscure in the boson representation. However they are evident in the dual vortex representation Eq.42. It is evident that there is no periodicity under $`\theta \theta +1`$ in Eq.69.

If we perform duality transformation again on Eq.69 to go to the vortex representation, then we recover Eq.38 upon neglecting the two Maxwell terms relative to the mutual C-S term.

In the next subsection, setting the two source terms vanishing, we look at the properties of the different phases on the two sides of this quantum critical point.

### B  Disorder and superconducting phases

In the disordered phase, the vortex condense $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ which generates a mass term for $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Eq.42

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}{2}(a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi })_t^2$$
(70)
where the subscript $`t`$ means transverse projection.

Integrating out the massive $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ leads to a Maxwell term for $`a_\mu ^\psi `$:

$$=\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu ia_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a+\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}(f_{\mu \nu }^\psi )^2$$
(71)
This is simply $`2+1`$ dimensional spinor QED which was studied by large N expansion in . In fact, we reach the same description from the boson representation Eq.69. Because in the disordered phase, the boson $`\varphi `$ is massive, therefore can be integrated out, it generates the Maxwell term $`\frac{1}{4m_\varphi }f_{\mu \nu }^2`$ which dominates over the existing non-critical Maxwell term. We reach Eq.71 after identifying $`m_\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }_0^2`$.

In the superconductor phase, the vortex $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is massive, therefore can be integrated out, it leads to the old Maxwell term $`\frac{1}{4m_\mathrm{\Phi }}(f_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Phi })^2`$. Integrating out $`a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ generates a mass term:

$$=\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu ia_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a+\frac{m_\mathrm{\Phi }}{2}(a_\mu ^\psi )_t^2$$
(72)
where $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the mass of the vortex.

The Dirac fermions become free. In fact, we reach the same description from the boson representation Eq.69. Because in superconductor phase, the boson $`\varphi `$ condense, therefore generates a mass term $`\frac{\varphi _0^2}{2}(a_\mu )_t^2`$ which renders the Maxwell term ineffective. We reach the same conclusion from both sides by identifying $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi _0^2`$.

In short, in the disordered phase, the system is described by spinor QED Eq.71; in the superconductor side, by free Dirac fermion. We can view the transition as the simplest confinement-deconfinement transition. In the confined ( disordered ) phase, the boson and fermion are confined together by the fluctuating gauge field. In the deconfined ( superconductor) phase, the boson condensed, the fermion becomes free. There is a line of fixed point governed by the mutual statistical angle $`\theta `$ separating the two phases.

## IV  The effect of charge fluctuation

In this section, we try to investigate the effect of charge fluctuation on the fixed line characterized by the statistical angle $`\theta `$ discussed in the last section. In the last section, we pointed out the periodicity of $`Z_2`$ gauge CS term on the lattice is not preserved by $`U(1)`$ gauge CS term in the continuum. In this section, we try to consider the combined effects of $`Z_2`$ mutual statistical gauge fluctuation and $`U(1)`$ electrical gauge fluctuation. After replacing the $`Z_2`$ discrete gauge theory by a $`U(1)`$ mutual CS theory, we treat $`U(1)`$ mutual CS theory and $`U(1)`$ electrical gauge theory on the equal footing. Although the replacement leads to somewhat misleading conclusions, the heuristics derivation suggests that the condensation of $`hc/2e`$ vortex condensation indeed leads to the confinement of spinon and chargon into Cooper pair and electron, in contrast to the condensation of $`hc/e`$ vortex. We do not intend to understand the critical behaviors of a combined $`Z_2`$ and $`U(1)`$ theory in this paper. We simply stress that $`Z_2`$ periodicity should be treated correctly to understand the critical behaviors of a theory with both discrete $`Z_2`$ and continuous $`U(1)`$ gauge fields.

### A  Quantum critical point

Putting $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }a_\mu `$ in Eq.38, we get

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu ia_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a+|(_\mu ia_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$ (73)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \theta }}a_\mu ^\psi ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Phi }ia_\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu (a_\lambda ^\psi /\theta +A_\lambda ^{eff})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\mu \nu }^2`$ (74)
Integrating out the electric gauge field $`a_\mu `$ leads to:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu ia_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a+|(_\mu ia_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$ (75)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \theta }}a_\mu ^\psi ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_\mu ^\psi /\theta +A_\mu ^{eff})_t^2`$ (76)
Comparing to Eq.42, it is easy to see that the charge fluctuation leads to a mass term for the gauge field $`a_\mu ^\psi `$. Shifting $`a_\mu ^\psi /\theta +A_\mu ^{eff}a_\mu `$ and adding the gauge fixing term $`\frac{1}{2\alpha }(_\mu a_\mu )^2`$, we can integrate out the massive  gauge field $`a_\mu `$ in Lorenz gauge $`\alpha =0`$ and find:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu i\theta A_\mu ^{eff})\psi _a+|(_\mu ia_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$ (77)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(f_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Phi })^2i(A_\mu ^{eff}+\theta j_\mu ^s)ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Phi }+(j_\mu ^s)_t^2`$ (78)
Note the Maxwell term for $`a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is generated by the integration over the massive $`a_\mu `$.

Setting $`A_\mu =0`$, integrating out the fermions only leads to higher derivative terms than the Maxwell term:

$$=|(_\mu ia_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)+\frac{1}{4}(f_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Phi })^2+\mathrm{}$$
(79)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ means higher than second order derivatives. Therefore the vortex and fermion are asymptotically decoupled. It indicates that the charge fluctuation neglected in the last section destroy the fixed line characterized by $`\theta `$. However, very different conclusions are reached in Ref.. We believe that the authors failed to treat the charge gauge field fluctuation correctly.

Just like the last section, it is instructive to go to dual representation of Eq.76, namely go to the boson representation:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu ia_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a+|(_\mu ia_\mu ^\varphi )\varphi |^2+V(|\varphi |)`$ (80)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(f_{\mu \nu }^\varphi )^2+ia_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu (a_\lambda ^\varphi a_\lambda ^\psi /\theta )`$ (81)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_\mu ^\psi /\theta +A_\mu ^{eff})_t^2`$ (82)
Integrating out $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ leads to the same constraint as Eq.67 up to a pure gauge:

$$a_\mu ^\psi =\theta a_\mu ^\varphi $$
(83)
Substituting the above constraint to Eq.82 and setting $`a_\mu ^\varphi =a_\mu `$, we find:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu i\theta a_\mu )\psi _a+|(_\mu ia_\mu )\varphi |^2+V(|\varphi |)`$ (84)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_\mu +A_\mu ^{eff})_t^2`$ (85)
Comparing to Eq.69, the only difference is that the gauge field acquires a mass due to the charge fluctuation which renders the Maxwell term ineffective. Up to irrelevant couplings, we can safely set $`a_\mu =A_\mu ^{eff}`$ in the above equation and find

$$=\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu i2\theta A_\mu )\psi _a+|(_\mu i2A_\mu )\varphi |^2+V(|\varphi |)+\mathrm{}$$
(86)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ means the irrelevant couplings between bosons and fermions.

The above Eq. leads to in-consistent conclusion that the original charge neutral spinon $`\psi `$ becomes charged: carrying charge $`e`$ for $`\theta =1/2`$ and $`e`$ for $`\theta =1/2`$. Therefore we also reach ambiguous conclusions for $`\theta =1/2`$ and $`\theta =1/2`$. The reason is that we replace the $`Z_2`$ CS gauge theory on the lattice which explicitly respects the equivalence between $`\theta =1/2`$ and $`\theta =1/2`$ by the $`U(1)`$ CS theory which does not respect this equivalence in the continuum limit. Identifying $`a_\mu ^\psi `$ which is a discrete $`Z_2`$ gauge field with $`A_\mu `$ which is a $`U(1)`$ gauge field is a direct consequence of this problematic replacement.

### B  Disordered and superconducting phases

We follow the discussions in the previous section. In the disordered phase, the vortex condense $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ which generates a mass term for $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Eq.76. Integrating out the massive $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ leads to a Maxwell term for $`a_\mu ^\psi `$.

$$=\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu ia_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a+\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}(f_{\mu \nu }^\psi )^2+\frac{1}{2}(a_\mu ^\psi /\theta +A_\mu ^{eff})_t^2$$
(87)
The Dirac fermions become free and carry spin $`1/2`$ and charge $`2\theta e`$. In fact, we reach the same conclusion from the boson representation Eq.85.

In the superconductor phase, the vortex $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is massive, therefore can be integrated out, it leads to the old Maxwell term $`\frac{1}{4m_\mathrm{\Phi }}(f_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Phi })^2`$. Integrating out $`a^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ generates a mass term for $`a_\mu ^\psi `$:

$$=\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu ia_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a+\frac{m_\mathrm{\Phi }}{2}(a_\mu ^\psi )_t^2+\frac{1}{2}(a_\mu ^\psi /\theta +A_\mu ^{eff})_t^2$$
(88)
where $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the mass of the vortex.

Diagonizing the last two mass terms leads to a continuously changing charge . In fact, we reach the same description from the boson representation Eq.85. Because in superconductor phase, the boson condense $`<\varphi >=\varphi _0`$, therefore generates a mass term for $`a_\mu `$:

$$=\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu i\theta a_\mu )\psi _a+\frac{\varphi _0^2}{2}(a_\mu )_t^2+\frac{1}{2}(a_\mu +A_\mu ^{eff})_t^2$$
(89)
Which is essentially the same as Eq.88 after the identification $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi _0^2`$.

Again, the pathological claims are due to the artifact of replacing the $`Z_2`$ mutual statistical gauge theory by a $`U(1)`$ mutual CS theory, then treating $`Z_2`$ gauge field and $`U(1)`$ electrical gauge field on the same footing. Although all these results are the artifacts of this replacement, they do suggest that the mutual statistical interaction between $`hc/2e`$ vortex and spinons leads to the confinement of spinon and chargon into electron and Cooper pair.

## V discussions and conclusions

The original singular gauge transformation  was proposed for static vortices. In this paper, we extend the singular gauge transformation to moving vortices generated by quantum fluctuation. By making a close analogy to the conventional singular gauge transformation of FQH system, we perform singular gauge transformations attaching flux of moving vortices to quasi-particles or vice versa. Just like conventional singular gauge transformation leads to conventional CS term, the two mutual singular gauge transformations lead to mutual CS term. In this way, we propose a intuitive and physical transparent approach to bring out explicitly the underlying physics associated with the condensation of the $`hc/2e`$ vortices.

Based on the earlier work by Balents, Fisher and Nayak , Senthil and Fisher developed $`Z_2`$ gauge theory  to study quasi-particles coupled to vortices generated by quantum fluctuations. By breaking electrons and Cooper pairs into smaller constitutes: chargons with charge $`e`$, spin $`0`$ and spinons with charge $`0`$,spin $`1/2`$, SF introduced a local $`Z_2`$ gauge degree of freedom to constrain the Hilbert space to the original one. The effective action describes both chargons and spinons coupled to local fluctuating $`Z_2`$ gauge theory with a doping dependent Berry phase term. By the combination of standard duality transformation of 3 dimensional XY model and that of $`Z_2`$ gauge theory, the action is mapped into a dual vortex representation where the $`hc/2e`$ vortices and spinons are coupled by a mutual $`Z_2`$ CS gauge theory. As usual vortices in XY model, the $`hc/2e`$ vortices also couple to a fluctuating $`U(1)`$ gauge field which mediates the long-range logarithmic interaction between the vortices. Starting from the dual representation, the authors in Ref. studied a transition from d-wave superconductor to confined Mott insulator driven by the condensing of $`hc/2e`$ vortices. In order to study the critical behaviors of this particular confinement and de-confinement transition, they replaced the $`Z_2`$ mutual CS theory on the lattice by $`U(1)`$ mutual CS theory in the continuum and performed renormalization Group (RG) analysis. Unfortunately, some of their RG analysis are incorrect as demonstrated in Sec.IV.

It was shown in the text that our resulting general effective action Eq.38 at the two special statistical angles $`\theta =\pm 1/2`$ is essentially equivalent to the dual vortex representation of $`Z_2`$ gauge theory developed by SF, except it also bring out explicitly the Volovik effect which was missed in SF’s $`Z_2`$ gauge theory.

As explicitly stressed in this paper, the $`U(1)`$ mutual CS theory in the continuum does not have the required periodicity under $`\theta \theta +1`$. In order to preserve this periodicity when the mutual statistical angle takes special values $`\theta =\pm 1/2`$, a $`Z_2`$ mutual CS theory must be enforced on the lattice. Again, two ways of regularization may lead to different conclusions. In fact, the periodicity of the conventional CS theory under $`\theta \theta +2`$ is also a very intricate issue. On the one hand, the perturbative RG expansion in terms of the statistical angle $`\theta `$ in the continuum limit in Refs. does not have this periodicity. On the other hand, properly regularized on the lattice, the CS theory does have this periodicity . The two different regularization do lead to different conclusions on the Quantum Hall transitions. It also leads to notorious Hall conductivity difficulty at $`\nu =1/2`$ . Although we are unable to solve the critical behaviors of this combined $`Z_2`$ and $`U(1)`$ gauge fields coupled to spinons and $`hc/2e`$ vortices, we stressed the importance of putting the theory on the lattices to keep the periodicity of $`Z_2`$ mutual CS term and shed considerable lights on the physical picture and structure of the quantum transitions driven by $`hc/2e`$ vortices. We suggest that it may be possible to trace out the $`Z_2`$ gauge fluctuation on the lattice first to get an effective action without the discrete gauge fields, then take continuum limit of it and perform RG calculation. Further work is needed to sort out all the possible phases and to understand the critical behaviors of the phase transitions between these phases.

This work was supported by NSF Grant No. PHY99-07949, university of Houston and DMR-97-07701. We thank M. P. A. Fisher, S. Girvin, S. Kivelson, P. A. Lee, S, Sachdev, T. Senthil, Z. Tesanovic, Y. S. Wu and Kun Yang for helpful discussions.

## A  The most general form of the gauge propagators

Adding the gauge fixing terms $`\frac{1}{2\alpha }((_\mu a_\mu ^\psi )^2+(_\mu a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi })^2)`$ to Eq.42, we can find the gauge field propagators by inverting the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(k)k(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2})+\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{\alpha }& \mathrm{\Pi }_2(k)ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }k_\lambda \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_2(k)ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }k_\lambda & \mathrm{\Pi }_3(k)k(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2})+\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{\alpha }\end{array}\right)$$
(A1)
The results are:

$`(G_{\psi \psi })_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha k_\mu k_\nu }{k^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_3}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_3+\mathrm{\Pi }_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}(\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}})`$ (A2)
$`(G_{\psi \mathrm{\Phi }})_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`(G_{\mathrm{\Phi }\psi })_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_2}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_3+\mathrm{\Pi }_2^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }k_\lambda }{k^2}})`$ (A3)
$`(G_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }})_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha k_\mu k_\nu }{k^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_3+\mathrm{\Pi }_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}(\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}})`$ (A4)
In the Landau gauge $`\alpha =0`$ and putting $`\stackrel{}{k}=0`$, we recover the results calculated in Sec. III.

## B  Application to static disordered vortex array

In Ref., Ye pointed out that the long range Logarithmic interaction between vortices suppress the superfluid velocity fluctuation, but does not affect the internal gauge field fluctuation. He concluded that the quasi-particle scattering from the random gauge field dominate over that from the superfluid velocity ( the Volovik effect). In this appendix, by using the formalism developed in the main text, we provide additional evidence for this conclusion.

For random pinned vortices, the static vortices do not feel the statistical gauge field $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Eq.38. This corresponds to a mass term for this gauge field. Adding the mass term to the equation and integrating out $`a_\mu ^\mathrm{\Phi }`$, it generates a Maxwell term for $`a_\mu ^\psi `$ :

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu ia_\mu ^\psi )\psi _a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(f_{\mu \nu }^\psi )^2`$ (B1)
$`+`$ $`|(_\mu ia_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\mu \nu }^2iA_\mu ^{eff}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda `$ (B2)
In the above Eq. the averages over $`a_\mu ^\psi ,a_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }`$ should be understood as quenched instead of annealed averages. As discussed in the main text, the long-range logarithmic interaction between vortices represented by the Maxwell term suppress the fluctuation of the superfluid velocity. The quasi-particle is moving in a long-range correlated random magnetic field and short-range correlated scaler potential, in consistent with the physical picture in Ref..

## C  $`hc/e`$ vortices, Spin-charge separation and Mott insulator

In sec III, neglecting the charge fluctuation, we concentrated on the effect of mutual C-S term. In this appendix, we do the opposite, namely neglecting the mutual C-S term, but concentrate on the effect of charge fluctuation. This is realized by using neutral-like transformation, namely setting $`\varphi _A=\varphi _B=\varphi /2`$ which is single-valued in the resulting $`hc/e`$ vortices. The double strength vortex and its stability was investigated in Ref., the associated spin-charge separation has been discussed extensively in Refs.. In this appendix, to contrast with $`hc/2e`$ vortices discussed in the main text, we review their results, fill in some details and also get the new result on the expression of current operator $`I_\mu `$ in the superconducting phase.

Putting $`\varphi _A=\varphi _B=\varphi /2`$, namely setting $`a_\mu =0`$ in Eq.20 leads to:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{1a}^{}[_\tau +v_fp_x\tau ^3+v_2p_y\tau ^1]\psi _{1a}+(12,xy)`$ (C1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}(_\mu \varphi A_\mu ^{eff})^2`$ (C2)
where the effective gauge field is $`A_\mu ^{eff}=A_\mu K^1J_\mu `$. There is no internal gauge field $`a_\mu `$, because double vortices do not scatter the quasi-particles.

Performing duality transformation to vortex representation leads to

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu _\mu \psi _a+|(_\mu ia_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+V(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$ (C3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\mu \nu }^2iA_\mu ^{eff}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu a_\lambda \mu ϵ_{ij}_ia_j`$ (C4)
where the last ( Berry phase ) term can be absorbed into $`A_\mu ^{eff}`$ by redefining $`A_\mu ^{eff}A_\mu ^{eff}+i\mu \delta _{\mu 0}`$. Comparing with Eq.38, there is only charge fluctuation. There is no mutual C-S term, namely $`\theta =0`$ or any integer .

The duality transformation to boson representation is

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu _\mu \psi _a+|(_\mu ia_\mu ^\varphi )\varphi |^2+V(|\varphi |)`$ (C5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(f_{\mu \nu }^\varphi )^2+ia_\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu (a_\lambda ^\varphi A_\lambda ^{eff}/\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\mu \nu }^2`$ (C6)
Integrating out the electric gauge field leads to

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu _\mu \psi _a+|(_\mu ia_\mu ^\varphi )\varphi |^2+V(|\varphi |)`$ (C7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(f_{\mu \nu }^\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_\mu ^\varphi A_\mu ^{eff})_t^2`$ (C8)
Setting $`a_\mu ^\varphi =A_\mu ^{eff}`$ up to irrelevant term leads to

$$=\psi _a^{}\gamma _\mu _\mu \psi _a+n_0\varphi ^{}_\tau \varphi +|(_\mu iA_\mu )\varphi |^2+V(|\varphi |)+\mathrm{}$$
(C9)
where the second term is the Berry phase term and $`\mathrm{}`$ means the irrelevant couplings between bosons and fermions. The above Eq. is essentially the same as Eq.C2. Bosons and fermions are asymptotically decoupled. The fermions (spinons) carry only spin 1/2, the bosons ( holons) carry only charge $`e`$. There is spin-charge separation. The long-range Coulomb interaction could be incorporated by adding the dynamic term for the time component of the gauge field $`\frac{1}{2}k|A_0(k)|^2`$ . Without the fermionic part, the action is the same as the superconductor-insulator transitions in dirty metals studied in , except here condensed is a charge $`e`$ boson instead of a Cooper pair.

In the underdoped regime, the vortex condenses $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ which generates a mass term for $`a_\mu `$ in Eq.C4 $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2(a_\mu )_t^2`$. Integrating out the massive $`a_\mu `$ leads to a Maxwell term for $`A_\mu ^{eff}=A_\mu K^1J_\mu `$ from which we can identify the automatically conserved electric current $`I_\mu =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}(_\nu ^2J_\mu _\mu _\nu J_\nu )`$ .

In the superconductor phase, the vortex $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is massive, therefore can be integrated out, it leads to the old Maxwell term $`\frac{1}{4m_\mathrm{\Phi }}(f_{\mu \nu })^2`$. Integrating out $`a_\mu `$ generates a mass term $`\frac{1}{2}m_\mathrm{\Phi }(A_\mu ^{eff})_t^2`$. From the mass term, we can identify the automatically conserved electric current $`I_\mu =m_\mathrm{\Phi }(J_\mu )_t`$. Note that although the quasi-particle electric current is not conserved itself, the total electric current $`I_\mu =m_\mathrm{\Phi }(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2})J_\nu (q)`$ is conserved.


format: text

text:
# The Duality of Spiral Structure, and a Quantitative Dust Penetrated Morphological Tuning Fork at Low and High Redshift

## 1. Introduction

There is a fundamental limit in predicting what an evolved stellar disk might look like (Block et al. 1999). The greater the degree of decoupling, the greater is the uncertainty. The fact that a spiral might be flocculent in the optical is very important, but it is equally important to know whether or not driving the dynamics is a grand design old stellar disk.

Decouplings between stellar and gaseous disks are cited in many studies including Grosbøl & Patsis (1998), Elmegreen et al. (1999), Block et al. (1999) and Puerari et al. (2000). The Hubble type of a galaxy does not dictate its dynamical mass distribution (Burstein & Rubin 1985). For example, the Fourier spectra of the evolved disks of NGC 309 (Sc) and NGC 718 (Sa) are almost identical and both galaxies belong to the same $`\beta `$ bin (see Figs. 1 and 2; both NGC 309 and NGC 718 are illustrated in Fig. 2).

## 2. Bar Strengths Derived from Gravitational Torques

The most elegant way of measuring bar strength is based on a definition given by Combes & Sanders (1981). The methodology uses the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(R,\theta )`$ of the bar embedded in a disk and they define the bar strength at radius $`R`$ as

$$Q_T(R)=\frac{F_T^{max}(R)}{<F_R(R)>}$$
(1)
where $`F_T^{max}(R)`$ = $`(\mathrm{\Phi }(R,\theta )/\theta )_{max}`$ represents the maximum amplitude of the tangential force at radius $`R`$ and $`<F_R(R)>=R(d\mathrm{\Phi }_0/dR)`$ is the mean axisymmetric radial force at the same radius, derived from the $`m`$ = 0 component of the gravitational potential. Let $`Q_{bi}`$ be the value of $`Q_T^{max}`$ in quadrant $`i`$. Then we define the bar strength as

$$Q_b=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}Q_{bi}/4.$$
(2)
Seven gravitational bar strength classes, from class 0 (no bar) to 6 (strongest), are elucidated by Buta & Block (2001). Galaxies classified as ‘SB’ in Fig. 3 span a wide range of bar strengths, from class 2 to class 6. Apparently ‘strong’ highly elongated bars (e.g. M 83, Fig. 1) may only have a weak gravitational potential bar class (Fig. 2).

## 3. A Dust Penetrated Tuning Fork

Galaxies are firstly binned according to the dominant Fourier harmonic H$`m`$; all galaxies illustrated in Fig. 2 have a regular two-armed ($`m=2`$) morphology. Higher order harmonics H3 (e.g. NGC 5054, Fig. 1) and H4 are recognised, but rarer. A ubiquity of $`m=1`$ and $`m=2`$ spirals in the near-infrared is found (Block et al. 1994). Galaxies are further subdivided into three dust penetrated groups ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$) based on the pitch angle of the arms derived from the Fourier spectra (Block & Puerari 1999). These classes are inextricably related to the rate of shear in the stellar disk, as determined by $`A/\omega `$ (Block et al. 1999; Fuchs, this volume). Here $`A`$ is the first Oort constant and $`\omega `$ is the angular velocity. The final quantitative morphological parameter is the bar strength.

For the galaxies illustrated in Fig. 2, the bar strengths as deduced from their gravitational potentials, are 1 (NGC 2857), 2 (M 83), 4 (NGC 3992), 1 (NGC 309), 2 (NGC 718), 3 (NGC 2543), 0 (NGC 7083), 2 (NGC 5371) and 5 (NGC 1365). M 83 is thus fully classified as H2$`\alpha `$2. H2= 2-armed spiral; ‘$`\alpha `$: tightly wrapped arms and the final number indicating a bar strength here of 2. NGC 1365, with two wide open arms, is classified as H2$`\gamma `$5.

## 4. Dust Penetrated Morphology in the High-redshift Universe: Clues from NGC 922

The tuning fork in Fig. 2 may serve as a z=0 template when galaxies at $`z0.51`$ are imaged in their dust penetrated 2$`\mu m`$ regime. Results from the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) North and South show a large percentage of high-redshift galaxies whose appearance falls outside traditional classification systems. The nature of these objects is poorly understood, but sub-mm observations indicate that at least some of these systems are heavily obscured (Sanders 1999). This raises the intriguing possibility that a physically meaningful classification system for high-redshift galaxies might be more easily devised at rest-frame infrared wavelengths, rather than in the optical regime. Practical realization of this idea will become possible with the advent of the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST).

In order to explore the capability of NGST for undertaking such science, Block et al. (2001) present NASA-IRTF and SCUBA observations of NGC 922, a chaotic system in our local Universe which bears a striking resemblance to objects such as HDF 2-86 ($`z=0.749`$) in the HDF North. If objects such as NGC 922 are common at high-redshifts, then this galaxy may serve as a local morphological ‘Rosetta stone’ bridging low and high-redshift populations. Block et al. (2001) show that quantitative measures of galactic structure are recoverable in the rest-frame infrared for NGC 922 seen at high redshifts using NGST, by simulating the appearance of this galaxy at redshifts $`z=0.7`$ and $`z=1.2`$ in rest-frame $`K^{}`$ (Fig. 5). Our results suggest that the capability of efficiently exploring the rest-wavelength IR morphology of high-$`z`$ galaxies should probably be a key factor in deciding the final choice of instruments for the NGST.

### Acknowledgments.

IP (INAOE, Mexico) and RJB (University of Alabama, AL) are Distinguished Visitors, Anglo American Astronomy Program. Much gratitude to sponsors SASOL and Anglo-American, to all our collaborators, and to D. A. Crocker for preparation of Fig. 2. OSU Galaxy Survey Images NGC 4062/NGC 5054 courtesy J. Frogel (NSF grants AST-9217716 and AST-9617006); M 83 and NGC 1365 at $`Ks`$ courtesy O. K. Park and K. Freeman. We dedicate this paper to the pioneering photographic work of James D. Wray.

## References

Block, D. L. et al. 1994, A&A, 288, 365

Block, D. L. & Puerari, I. 1999, A&A, 342, 627

Block, D. L. et al. 1999, Ap&SS, 269, 5

Block, D. L. et al. 2001, A&A, in press

Burstein, D. & Rubin, V. 1985, ApJ, 297, 423

Buta, R. J. & Block, D. L. 2001, to appear ApJ

Combes, F. & Sanders, R. H. 1981, A&A, 96, 164

Elmegreen, D.M. et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 2618

Grosbøl, P. J. & Patsis, P. A. 1998, A&A, 336, 840

Puerari, I. et al. 2000, A&A, 359, 932

Sanders, D. B. 1999, Ap&SS, 269, 381

Takamiya, M. 1999, ApJS, 122, 109