format: text

text:
# New smooth counterexamples to the Hamiltonian Seifert Conjecture

## 1. Introduction

The problem of establishing the existence of periodic orbits on fixed level sets of Hamiltonian flows has been studied extensively and there are now many theorems which achieve this for a variety of level sets and symplectic manifolds, see e.g. \[Ch, FHV, Ho, HV, Ke, Vi\]. Helping to determine the limits of these existence theorems is a small set of examples of Hamiltonian flows with compact regular level sets containing no periodic orbits. The most important of these examples are defined on the standard symplectic $`^{2n}`$ for $`n3`$. These were constructed, independently and in different ways, by V. L. Ginzburg \[Gi1, Gi2\] and M. Herman \[Her\]. More precisely, smooth Hamiltonian flows with aperiodic level sets were built for $`n>3`$ in \[Gi1\] and \[Her\]; a $`C^{3ϵ}`$-example for $`n=3`$ also appeared in \[Her\]; and, finally, a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-example for $`n=3`$ was built in \[Gi2\]. For a thorough discussion of the relevance of these examples to the various existence theorems, as well as a list of all the (previously) known examples of Hamiltonian flows without periodic orbits, the reader is referred to \[Gi3\] and \[Gi4\].

In this paper, we describe new examples of smooth aperiodic Hamiltonian flows in $`^{2n}`$ for $`n3`$. These are built using Ginzburg’s symplectic version of a method due to Wilson \[Wi\], which uses aperiodic plugs to create aperiodic flows \[Gi1\]. In particular, we build a new symplectic plug (see Definition 2.1) which is similar to the ones constructed in \[Gi1\] and \[Gi2\] but which utilizes a different trap to destroy periodic orbits. The advantage of the plug described here is that the flow on the trap is quite simple and the necessary embeddings of the plug into Euclidean space are much easier to find.

In the remainder of this section, we briefly recall Wilson’s procedure for producing aperiodic flows and discuss how it has been used to find counterexamples to the Seifert conjecture. In the second section, we describe Ginzburg’s extension of this method to Hamiltonian flows. We then construct our new symplectic plug in the third section of the paper.

### 1.1. Counterexamples to the Seifert and Hamiltonian Seifert conjectures

One of the most well known conjectures concerning the existence of periodic orbits is the Seifert conjecture. This is the assertion that every nonvanishing vector field on $`S^3`$ must have a periodic orbit. Since it was posed (asked) in \[Se\], three counterexamples to this conjecture have been constructed, first in the $`C^1`$-category by P. Schweitzer \[Sc\], then in the $`C^{3ϵ}`$-category by J. Harrison \[Ha\], and ultimately in the $`C^\omega `$-category by K. Kuperberg \[KuK1\]. For a review of these constructions see \[KuK2\].

One can extend this conjecture to Hamiltonian flows in a number of ways \[Gi3\]. For the purposes of this paper, the Hamiltonian Seifert conjecture will be the assertion that every compact regular level set of a smooth function on a symplectic manifold must contain a periodic orbit of the corresponding Hamiltonian flow. Just as its namesake, this conjecture is known to be false. In particular, the constructions of Ginzburg, Herman and those defined here, can be used to produce counterexamples for any symplectic manifold of dimension at least six. However, the conjecture remains open for $`^4`$. It also continues to merit study because the rare examples of aperiodic Hamiltonian flows may help to illuminate the poorly understood boundary between existence and nonexistence results, (see $`\mathrm{\S }3.4`$ of \[Gi4\]).

All of the counterexamples mentioned above are built using a procedure which was introduced by Wilson in \[Wi\]. One begins with a manifold $`W`$ and a vector field $`X`$, both in the appropriate class, such that the periodic orbits of $`X`$ are well understood. Then local alterations are made to $`X`$ in order to open these closed trajectories. More precisely, suppose that $`X`$ has a periodic orbit which passes through the point $`wW`$. We would like to alter $`X`$ near $`w`$ so that

1. for the resulting vector field, the trajectory through $`w`$ is no longer closed
2. no new periodic orbits are created
3. the new vector field is still in the desired class.

To perform such alterations Wilson introduced the notion of an aperiodic plug. This consists of a compact manifold $`P`$ (with boundary), a carefully constructed vector field $`V`$ on $`P`$ and an embedding $`j:P^n`$ (where $`n=dimW`$) such that $`dj(V)`$ is constant near $`P`$. With this, the dynamical system defined by $`V`$ on $`P`$ can be inserted, via $`j`$, into a flow box around $`w`$. This insertion is made in such a way that the trajectories near $`w`$ become trajectories of $`V`$ whose flow has been tailored to accomplish the goals above. For example, with the exception of K. Kuperberg’s plug, the first goal is achieved by forcing the trajectory through $`w`$ to asymptotically approach an aperiodic orbit on an invariant submanifold $`MP`$. This trajectory is hence trapped in the image of $`P`$ and because of its asymptotic behavior is no longer closed. The submanifold $`M`$ together with its flow is called the trap (or core) of the plug.

In \[Wi\], Wilson uses the irrational flow on a two-dimensional torus as a trap and constructs a smooth plug which can be embedded in a flow box of dimension at least four. Schweitzer then constructs a $`C^1`$-plug in \[Sc\] which can be embedded in a flow box of dimension three and thus obtains the first counterexample to the original Seifert conjecture. The trap which allows Schweitzer to do this is a punctured two-dimensional torus with a flow that is trivial near the boundary and contains the (aperiodic) closure of an (aperiodic) orbit of the Denjoy flow in the interior. Unlike the complete torus, the punctured torus can be embedded into $`^3`$ in such a way that the standard normal vectors are everywhere parallel to a constant vector. This fact is what enables Schweitzer to suitably embed his plug into $`^3`$ and his crucial observation can be summarized as follows:

> The flow on the trap only needs to be aperiodic on an invariant closed subset.

The strength of this simple statement lies in the fact that we know of very few examples of totally aperiodic flows on closed manifolds of small dimension. In other words, it greatly increases the set of flows which may be used as the trap of a plug.

###### Remark 1.1.

A remarkable feature of K. Kuperberg’s plug is that, instead of using a known aperiodic flow as a trap, she creates an entirely new aperiodic dynamical system in dimension three (see \[KuK1, Gh\]).

In \[Gi1\] and \[Gi2\], Ginzburg uses a trap consisting of the horocycle flow on $`ST^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the unit cotangent bundle of a surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with constant negative curvature. This flow is not only aperiodic on all of $`ST^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, but is also minimal \[Hed\]. In order to use this trap to obtain the counterexample for $`n=3`$, it was necessary for Ginzburg to improve, in \[Gi2\], the dimensional constraints for some symplectic embedding results of M. Gromov \[Gr1, Gr2\]. Utilizing Schweitzer’s observation above, our choice of a trap is a relatively simple flow on $`𝕋^3`$ which is only aperiodic on an invariant subset. For this trap, the construction of the necessary embeddings is much simpler. Unfortunately, this choice does not allow us to reduce to the case $`n=2`$. Most likely, the construction of a counterexample for this final case (if it is even possible!) will require, as in \[KuK1\], the creation of an entirely new type of Hamiltonian dynamics.

### Acknowledgments.

I would like to express my gratitude to Viktor Ginzburg for his many encouraging and helpful comments. In particular, the relative simplicity of the construction presented here owes much to one of his suggestions.

## 2.  Symplectic plugs and aperiodic Hamiltonian flows

In this section we recall how the special nature of a Hamiltonian flow allows one to reformulate the Hamiltonian Seifert conjecture and to use a different type of plug to produce counterexamples.

We begin by considering the existence of periodic orbits for a nonvanishing vector field $`X`$ on an odd-dimensional manifold $`W`$. In the presence of an additional geometric structure on $`W`$ this question can be rephrased. Recall that a two-form is said to be maximally nondegenerate if its kernel is everywhere one-dimensional. Let us assume that we can find such a form $`\sigma `$ on $`W`$ so that $`X(w)`$ spans $`\mathrm{ker}\sigma (w)`$ for all $`wW`$. Then, instead of looking for periodic orbits of $`X`$, we may equivalently look for smooth maps $`\gamma :S^1W`$ for which $`\dot{\gamma }(t)`$ spans $`\mathrm{ker}\sigma (\gamma (t))`$ for all $`t[0,1].`$ Such maps are called closed characteristics of $`\sigma `$ on $`W`$ and we will identify those having the same image. If $`\gamma `$ is instead defined on some interval, i.e. the image isn’t a loop, it will just be called a characteristic of $`\sigma `$.

Now, let $`H`$ be a smooth function on a symplectic manifold $`(Q,\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and let $`W`$ be a compact regular level set of $`H`$. Denote by $`X_H`$ the Hamiltonian vector field defined by the equation

$$i_{X_H}\mathrm{\Omega }=dH.$$

This vector field is tangent to $`W`$ and nonvanishing there. It is also easy to verify that $`\sigma =\mathrm{\Omega }|_W`$ is maximally nondegenerate and that $`X_H`$ spans $`\mathrm{ker}\sigma `$. From the discussion above, we see that the Hamiltonian Seifert conjecture can be reformulated as a statement which asserts the existence of closed characteristics for certain maximally nondegenerate two-forms. In particular, the conjecture concerns those forms which are obtained by restricting a symplectic form to a hypersurface in a symplectic manifold. With this formulation of the conjecture in mind, Ginzburg introduced the following notion of a symplectic plug in \[Gi1\] as a tool to construct counterexamples.

###### Definition 2.1.

A symplectic plug for dimension $`2n`$ $`(n>2)`$ is a product manifold $`P=[1,1]\times N^{2n2}`$, equipped with an exact maximally nondegenerate two-form $`\omega `$ and embeddings $`j:P^{2n1}`$ and $`J:P^{2n}`$ such that the following conditions hold:

$`\mathrm{ker}\omega `$ is vertical (parallel to $`[1,1]`$) near $`P.`$

there exists a point $`(1,\stackrel{~}{p})\{1\}\times N`$ such that any characteristic of $`\omega `$ through this point does not pass through $`\{1\}\times N.`$

a characteristic through $`(1,p)\{1\}\times N`$ which meets $`\{1\}\times N`$ must do so at $`(1,p)`$.

$`\omega `$ has no closed characteristics in $`P`$.

$`j^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{2n2}=\omega `$ near $`P,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2n2}`$ is the pullback of the canonical symplectic form on $`^{2n2}`$ via the projection $`^{2n1}^{2n2}`$.

for a given $`\delta >0`$ we have $`J:P[\delta ,\delta ]\times ^{2n1}`$ and $`J^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{2n}=\omega `$. Moreover, if we let $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ be the map $`j`$ with its range identified with $`\{0\}\times ^{2n1}^{2n}`$, then $`J=\stackrel{~}{j}`$ near $`P`$ and $`J`$ is isotopic to $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ relative to $`P`$.

###### Remark 2.2.

It is perhaps unnecessary to include the embedding $`j`$ in this definition. However, as described below, this map allows a symplectic plug to be used for the slightly different purpose of destroying closed characteristics for any maximally nondegenerate two-form. It also helps to clarify the construction of the embedding $`J`$. Indeed, here and in \[Gi1\] the map $`J`$ is of the form $`J=fj`$ where $`f:^{2n1}^{2n}.`$ While $`j`$ is again used to destroy a closed characteristic, the map $`f`$ now ensures that this is done without disturbing the symplectic structure. When the domain of $`f`$ is identified with $`\{0\}\times ^{2n1}^{2n}`$ we will denote it by $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ so that $`J=\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{j}`$.

Symplectic plugs were constructed for $`n3`$ in \[Gi1\] and \[Gi2\]. In \[Gi1\], Ginzburg also describes how a symplectic plug for dimension $`2n`$ can be used to produce counterexamples to the Hamiltonian Seifert conjecture in $`^{2n}`$. This procedure is described below.

As a first step, we will show that a symplectic plug can be used to destroy closed characteristics of a maximally nondegenerate two-form $`\sigma `$ on an odd-dimensional manifold $`W^{2n1}`$. In fact, assuming that $`\sigma `$ has only a finite number of closed characteristics we will construct from it a new maximally nondegenerate two-form with none. Let $`wW`$ be a point in the image of one of the closed characteristics of $`\sigma `$ and choose a small open neighborhood of $`w`$ which does not meet the others. This neighborhood can be chosen to be diffeomorphic to an open ball $`B^{2n1}^{2n1}`$ in such a way that $`\sigma `$ gets identified with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2n2}`$. This is a version of a flow box around $`w`$ since the characteristics of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2n2}`$ in $`^{2n1}`$ are all straight. We can then use $`j`$ to insert $`(P,\omega )`$ into this neighborhood so that $`(1,\stackrel{~}{p})`$ gets mapped to $`w`$. Let $`\sigma ^{}`$ be the form which equals $`\sigma `$ outside $`j(P)`$ and $`\omega `$ inside. By (P.1) and (P.5), we see that $`\sigma ^{}`$ is well-defined, smooth and maximally nondegenerate. Properties (P.2), (P.3) and (P.4) then imply that the characteristics of $`\sigma ^{}`$ through $`w`$ are no longer closed and $`\sigma ^{}`$ has no new closed characteristics. We have thus succeeded in finding a maximally nondegenerate two-form on $`W`$ with exactly one less closed characteristic than $`\sigma `$. Applying this procedure to the other closed characteristics we have shown that the existence of symplectic plugs for $`n3`$ implies the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.3 (\[Gi1, Gi2\]).

Assume that $`dimW5`$ and $`\sigma `$ has a finite number of closed characteristics. Then there exists a closed maximally nondegenerate two-form $`\sigma ^{}`$ which is homotopic to $`\sigma `$ and has no closed characteristics.

###### Remark 2.4.

Two closed maximally nondegenerate two-forms are said to be homotopic if they can be joined by a one parameter family of such forms all lying in the same cohomology class. The existence of the homotopy in Theorem 2.3 follows from one between $`\omega `$ and a two-form $`\omega _1`$ which has a vertical kernel and satisfies $`j^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{2n2}=\omega _1`$. This homotopy is defined in Remark 3.3 and is not a necessary feature for a symplectic plug.

We can now use the embedding $`J`$ to extend the previous theorem to one which applies to a hypersurface $`W`$ in a symplectic manifold $`(Q^{2n},\mathrm{\Omega }).`$ Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_W`$ has a finite number of closed characteristics and let $`wW`$ be a point on one of them. There exists a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`w`$ in $`Q`$ which doesn’t meet the other closed characteristics on $`W`$ and is also a symplectic flow box, i.e. it is diffeomorphic to an open ball $`B^{2n}^{2n}=\times ^{2n1}`$ in such a way that the intersection of $`B^{2n}`$ with $`\{0\}\times ^{2n1}`$ corresponds to $`UW`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ gets identified with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2n}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_{UW}`$ gets identified with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2n2}`$ on $`\{0\}\times ^{2n1}`$. We then use $`J`$ (corresponding to a sufficiently small $`\delta `$) to insert $`(P,\omega )`$ into $`U`$ so that $`J(P)UW`$ and $`(1,\stackrel{~}{p})`$ gets mapped to $`w`$. Let $`W^{}`$ be the hypersurface which is equal to $`W`$ outside of $`U`$ and agrees with the image of J inside of $`U`$. We claim that $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_W^{}`$ has exactly one less closed characteristic than $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_W`$. To see this, we view the insertion of $`(P,\omega )`$, by $`J=\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{j}`$, as a two step process (see Remark 2.2). The primary insertion uses $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ to map $`(P,\omega )`$ into $`UW`$. As above, this yields a new form $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ on $`W`$ with exactly one less closed characteristic than $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_W`$. The map $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ then deforms $`W`$ into $`W^{}`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\stackrel{~}{f}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ takes the characteristics of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ through $`wW`$ to the characteristics of $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_W^{}`$ through $`wW^{}`$, which can therefore never be closed. Repeating this process for the other closed characteristics we get;

###### Theorem 2.5 (\[Gi1, Gi2\]).

Assume that $`dimQ6`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_W`$ has a finite number of closed characteristics. Then there exists a smooth hypersurface $`W^{}Q`$, $`C^0`$-close and isotopic to $`W`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_W^{}`$ has no closed characteristics.

Letting $`W`$ be an irrational ellipsoid in $`(^{2n},\mathrm{\Omega }_{2n})`$ with $`n3`$, the latter result yields concrete examples of smooth hypersurfaces (regular level sets) without closed characteristics (periodic orbits), see Corollary 3.3 and Corollary 3.4 in \[Gi3\].

## 3. A new symplectic plug

We will now describe the construction of a new symplectic plug for $`n=3`$. This procedure can easily be generalized to work for $`n>3`$.

### 3.1. The trap

As a trap, we will use the constant-speed geodesic flow of the flat metric on the two-dimensional torus. In terms of a Hamiltonian flow, this is defined on $`(T^{}𝕋^2,d\lambda )`$, the cotangent bundle of the two-dimensional torus equipped with its canonical symplectic structure. With respect to the (global) coordinates $`\{\theta _1,\theta _2,p_1,p_2\}`$ on $`T^{}𝕋^2=𝕋^2\times ^2`$, let $`H`$ be the standard kinetic energy function defined by

$`H:T^{}𝕋^2`$ $``$
$`(\theta _1,\theta _2,p_1,p_2)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p_1^2+p_2^2).`$
Set $`M`$ equal to $`\{H=R^2\}`$ and denote by $`S`$ the dense subset of $`M`$ consisting of points with $`(p_1,p_2)`$ satisfying $`\frac{p_2}{p_1}`$. It is easy to check that the Hamiltonian vector field of $`H`$ on $`M`$ has only base components and that the flow on the torus $`𝕋^2\times \{(p_1,p_2)\}`$ is the constant linear flow with slope $`\frac{p_2}{p_1}`$. Hence, each torus corresponding to a rationally independent pair $`(p_1,p_2)`$ is an invariant closed subset of $`M`$ on which the flow is aperiodic. Alternatively, this situation can be described as follows. The manifold $`M`$ is diffeomorphic to the three dimensional torus and is equipped with an exact, maximally nondegenerate two-form $`d\eta =d\lambda |_M`$. Any characteristic which starts in $`S`$ stays in $`S`$ and all such characteristics are not closed. The manifold $`M`$ together with the form $`d\eta `$ will be the trap of our symplectic plug.

Switching to polar coordinates $`(p_1,p_2)(r,\theta _3)`$ we see that $`\overline{\theta }=(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3)`$ is a set of coordinates on $`M`$ and

$$\eta =R\mathrm{cos}(\theta _3)d\theta _1+R\mathrm{sin}(\theta _3)d\theta _2.$$

We will call the angle $`\theta _3`$ irrational if it corresponds to a rationally independent pair $`(p_1,p_2)`$.

### 3.2. The plug

Let $`N=[ϵ,ϵ]\times M`$ so that $`P=[1,1]\times [ϵ,ϵ]\times M`$. We label the coordinates for the two intervals by $`t`$ and $`x`$, respectively. Consider the two-form on $`P`$ defined by

$$\omega =d(A(\theta _3,x,t)\eta +B(x,t)dt),$$

for smooth functions $`A`$ and $`B`$ of the indicated coordinates.

###### Claim 3.1.

Let the functions $`A`$ and $`B`$ have the following properties:

$`A>0`$.

$`A_x^{}0`$, with equality only at $`(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_3,0,\pm \frac{1}{2})`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_3`$ is a fixed irrational angle. These are also the only two critical points of $`A`$.

$`A=1+x`$ near $`P`$.

$`A`$ is even in $`t`$.

$`B=0`$ near $`P`$.

$`B=x`$ near $`(0,\pm \frac{1}{2})`$.

$`B`$ is odd in $`t`$.

Then, $`\omega `$ is maximally nondegenerate on $`P`$ and (P.1), (P.2), (P.3) and (P.4) hold.

###### Remark 3.2.

Functions satisfying the conditions in the claim are easily constructed.

###### Proof.

Treating $`\omega `$ as a family of skew–symmetric matrices parameterized by $`P`$, it is easy to check that the coefficient of the linear term in the characteristic polynomial of $`\omega (\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3,x,t)`$ is

$$R^4A^2(A_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+A_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+R^2B_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(A^2+A_{\theta _3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).$$

Clearly, $`\omega `$ is maximally nondegenerate if and only if this coefficient is never zero. By properties (A.1) and (A.2), the first term only vanishes at $`(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_3,0,\pm \frac{1}{2})`$. At these points the second term becomes

$$R^2B_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}A^2$$

which does not equal zero by property (B.2). Thus, $`\omega `$ is maximally nondegenerate.

Near the boundary of $`P`$ we have

$$\omega =dx\eta +(1+x)d\eta .$$

Since $`\eta `$ is nondegenerate on $`\mathrm{ker}d\eta `$, we see that $`\frac{}{t}`$ spans $`\mathrm{ker}\omega `$ near $`P`$. Hence, $`\omega `$ has property (P.1).

In order to check (P.2), (P.3) and (P.4), we consider a nonvanishing vector field $`V`$ on $`P`$ such that $`V`$ spans $`\mathrm{ker}\omega `$. We choose $`V`$ so that it equals $`\frac{}{t}`$ near $`P`$ and we recall that any characteristic of $`\omega `$ is equivalent (after some reparameterization) to a trajectory of $`V`$.

It is straightforward to check that

$$\omega \omega dt=R^2AA_x^{}\mu ,$$

where $`\mu `$ is the standard volume form with respect to our coordinates on $`P`$. Since $`i_V\omega =0`$, it follows that the $`t`$-component of $`V`$, $`V_t`$, satisfies

$$V_t\omega \omega =R^2AA_x^{}i_V\mu .$$

This equation implies that $`V_t`$ vanishes only when $`R^2AA_x^{}`$ does. Hence, by property (A.2), $`V_t`$ equals zero along the two-dimensional tori $`𝕋_\pm ^2`$ defined by $`(\theta _3,x,t)=(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_3,0,\pm \frac{1}{2})`$, respectively. By continuity and our choice of $`V`$ near $`P`$, we also see that $`V_t`$ is strictly positive away from these tori. On $`𝕋_\pm ^2`$,

$$\omega =A(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_3,0,\pm \frac{1}{2})d\eta +dxdt.$$

Hence, $`V`$ is tangent to both tori and lies in the kernel of $`d\eta `$ on each. This means that the flows of $`V`$ on $`𝕋_\pm ^2`$ are both conjugate to the irrational flow for the angle $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_3`$. Let $`L^{}(𝕋_{}^2)`$ be the negative limit set of $`𝕋_{}^2`$ under the flow of $`V`$. The previous observations then imply that all the points in

$$\left(\{1\}\times N\right)L^{}(𝕋_{}^2)$$

asymptotically approach the aperiodic flow on $`𝕋_{}^2.`$ Consequently, the trajectories of $`V`$ through all of these points are trapped in $`P`$ and property (P.2) holds.

At this point, it is also easy to see that none of the trajectories of $`V`$ are closed and hence (P.4) is satisfied. Since $`V_t`$ is nonnegative, any periodic orbit of $`V`$ would have to lie on either $`𝕋_+^2`$ or $`𝕋_{}^2`$. However, this is impossible since the flow of $`V`$ on both these sets is aperiodic.

Now, let $`\psi :PP`$ be the map which sends $`tt`$ and acts as the identity on the $`N`$-component. By properties (A.4) and (B.3), it is possible to choose $`V`$ such that

$$d\psi (V)=V.$$

Consider a trajectory of $`V`$ (a characteristic of $`\omega `$) which starts at some point $`(1,p)\{1\}\times N`$ and exits $`P`$ through $`\{1\}\times N`$. The $`t`$-component $`V_t`$ can not vanish along this trajectory since it would then be trapped in one of the internal tori $`𝕋_\pm ^2`$ and could never exit $`P`$. Consequently, the (anti-)symmetry of $`V`$ described above implies that as the trajectory progresses from $`t=0`$ to $`t=1`$ it retraces, in reverse, the progress it made along the $`N`$-component from $`t=1`$ to $`t=0`$. Hence, the trajectory must exit at $`(1,p)`$ and property (P.3) has been verified. ∎

In order to complete the construction of our plug we must find embeddings $`j:P^5`$ and $`J:P^6`$ which satisfy (P.5) and (P.6). First, consider the restriction of $`\omega `$ to

$$\{1\}\times N[ϵ,ϵ]\times M.$$

We call this restriction $`\rho `$ and note that

$$\rho =dx\eta +(1+x)d\eta .$$

This form restricts to the hypersurface $`\{0\}\times M`$ as $`d\eta .`$ Notice that $`[ϵ,ϵ]\times M`$ can also be considered as a (closed) neighborhood of $`M`$ in $`T^{}𝕋^2`$ and recall that the canonical symplectic form $`d\lambda `$ also restricts to $`M`$ as $`d\eta `$. Using Weinstein’s Extension theorem \[We\], it is easy to show that two symplectic forms which agree on a compact oriented hypersurface are equivalent in a neighborhood of that hypersurface, see \[MS, Exercise 3.35, p.102\]. Hence, for sufficiently small $`ϵ`$ there exists a symplectomorphism

$$\varphi _1:([ϵ,ϵ]\times M,\rho )(𝒩(M),d\lambda ),$$

where $`𝒩(M)`$ is an open neighborhood of $`M`$ in $`T^{}𝕋^2`$. Next, for sufficiently small $`R`$ (and $`ϵ`$), we can assume that $`𝒩(M)`$ lies in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the zero section in $`T^{}𝕋^2`$. Invoking the Lagrangian Neighborhood theorem, there exists a symplectomorphism

$$\varphi _2:(𝒩(M),d\lambda )(^4,\mathrm{\Omega }_4)$$

onto a neighborhood surrounding a Clifford torus in $`^4`$. Composing $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ we get a symplectomorphism

$$\varphi :([ϵ,ϵ]\times M,\rho )(^4,\mathrm{\Omega }_4).$$

We now define the embedding $`j`$ by

$`j:P=[1,1]\times N`$ $`\times ^4=^5`$
$`(t,p)`$ $`(t,\varphi (p)).`$
Since $`\omega =\rho `$ near all of $`P`$, $`j`$ satisfies (P.5).

###### Remark 3.3.

To form the homotopy discussed in Remark 2.4, we replace $`A`$ and $`B`$ in the definition of $`\omega `$ by the family of functions

$`A_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`(1\tau )A+\tau (1+x)`$
$`B_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`(1\tau )B.`$
The resulting two-forms, $`\omega _\tau `$, are all maximally nondegenerate and by the construction of $`j`$ we also have $`j^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_4=\omega _1`$.

As noted in Remark 2.2, the embedding $`J`$ is of the form $`J=fj`$ for some embedding $`f:j(P)^5^6`$. For simplicity we will identify $`j(P)`$ with $`P`$. We then choose $`f`$ so that it maps $`P`$ into $`\times P\times ^5`$. On $`\times P`$ we have coordinates $`(y,t,x,\overline{\theta })`$. Recalling that $`j^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_4)=\rho `$ we see that with respect to these coordinates

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_6|_{\times P}`$ $`=`$ $`dydt+\rho `$
$`=`$ $`d(ydt+(1+x)\eta ).`$
Let $`f:P\times P`$ be defined by

$$(t,x,\overline{\theta })(B,t,A1,\overline{\theta }).$$

Property (A.2) ensures that $`f`$ is indeed an embedding. In addition, we may choose the function $`B`$ to be arbitrarily small so that given any $`\delta >0`$ the image of $`f`$ will lie in $`(\delta ,\delta )\times ^5`$. Note also that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are equal to $`1+x`$ and $`0`$ on $`P`$, respectively, and are also isotopic to these functions. This implies that $`f`$ equals $`id`$ near the $`P`$ and is isotopic to $`id`$ relative to $`P`$. Hence, we only need to prove that $`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_6=\omega `$. In fact, we can verify the stronger fact that

$$f^{}(\underset{\alpha }{\underset{}{ydt+(1+x)\eta }})=A\eta +Bdt.$$

To see this let $`vT_pP.`$ Then

$`f^{}\alpha (v)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (f)[df(v)]`$
$`=`$ $`(A\eta +Bdt)[df(v)]`$
$`=`$ $`(A\eta +Bdt)[v],`$
where the last equality holds because $`f`$ acts like the identity on $`t`$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$. With this, the construction of our symplectic plug is complete.


text:
# Electronic States and Transport Phenomena in Quantum Dot Systems

## I Introduction

In disk-shaped quantum dots fabricated on semiconductors, discrete energy levels show an atomic-like shell structure. These energy levels are filled consecutively with increasing the number of electrons, as shown in the periodic table of atoms. By coupling quantum dots, molecular orbitals between the dots have been observed. In these artificial atoms and molecules, we can control several parameters, e.g., number of electrons, strength of Coulomb interaction, coupling to external leads, using gate and bias voltages, applying magnetic fields and so forth, and even realize situations which are not possible in conventional solid-state systems. The fundamental study of these systems is exploring new and rich physics.

In this paper we review our theoretical work on electronic states in quantum dots and discuss various transport phenomena. We examine many-body states for a few electrons confined in the dots. In “vertical” quantum dots, the strength of the electron-electron Coulomb interaction is comparable to the discrete level spacing. To calculate the electronic states, we adopt the exact diagonalization method which is the best way to take account of the Coulomb interaction. When a magnetic field $`H`$ is applied perpendicularly to the dots, the wavefunctions are shrunk and hence the interaction becomes more effective. As a result, the ground state changes to a strongly correlated state at some values of $`H`$. The transitions of the ground state have been observed experimentally, in agreement with our calculations.

The electronic states in the dots influence the transport properties. The conductance peaks of the Coulomb oscillation are examined using the obtained many-body states. The peak height exhibits an unusual temperature dependence when more than one level contributes to the current. Some peaks are suppressed by the “spin blockade,” in which the transition between the ground states of $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ electrons is forbidden by the spin selection rule.

In the Coulomb blockade regions, quantum-mechanical higher-order processes play an important role in the transport. They are called “cotunneling” and cause serious current leakage when the quantum dots are applied to single electron devices. There are two kinds of cotunneling processes, elastic and inelastic processes. At low bias voltages, only the elastic process is possible. When the bias voltage exceeds the excitation energy in a quantum dot, both the elastic and inelastic processes contribute to the current. When a localized spin exists in a dot, the Kondo effect markedly enhances the cotunneling current. The Kondo effect in quantum dots is being studied experimentally.

In coupled quantum dots, molecular orbitals are formed when the dot-dot tunnel coupling is sufficiently strong. These systems have attracted recent interest with respect to their application to quantum computing. We examine the transport properties of the dots connected in series, which reflect both the molecular orbitals and electron-electron interaction.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In the next section (§2), the electronic states confined in a quantum dot are examined. Not only the ground state but also low-lying excited states are calculated. Sections 3 and 4 are devoted to an explanation of the transport properties: the conductance peaks of the Coulomb oscillation and cotunneling phenomena in the Coulomb blockade region. In §5, we discuss the electronic states and transport properties in coupled quantum dots. The conclusions are given in the last section (§6).

## II Electronic States in Quantum Dots

We consider $`N`$ electrons confined in a quantum dot of disk shape, which is well described by a two-dimensional harmonic potential. The electrons interact with each other by the Coulomb interaction. A magnetic field $`H`$ is applied perpendicularly to the potential plane. The Hamiltonian reads

$``$ $`=`$ $`_1+_2,`$ (1)
$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^{}}}\left(𝐩_i+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝐀(𝐫_i)\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^{}\omega _0^2𝐫_i^2\right],`$ (2)
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\epsilon |𝐫_i𝐫_j|}},`$ (3)
where $`m^{}`$ is the effective mass of electrons and $`\epsilon `$ is the dielectric constant ($`m^{}=0.067m`$, $`\epsilon 13`$ in GaAs). $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ is the vector potential. The Zeeman effect is neglected.

The one-electron part of the Hamiltonian, $`_1`$, is first diagonalized to obtain one-electron energy levels. In the absence of a magnetic field, the energy levels form shells. The $`j`$th shell consists of $`j`$ degenerate levels, or $`2j`$ states if the electron spins are counted. The level spacing is $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, which is $`5`$ meV in the experiments. Under magnetic fields, the one-electron levels are expressed as

$$\epsilon _{n,m}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(H)(2n+|m|+1)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c}m,$$
(4)
with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(H)=\sqrt{\omega _0^2+\omega _\mathrm{c}^2/4},$$
(5)
where $`n`$ $`(=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ and $`m`$ $`(=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{})`$ are radial and angular momentum quantum numbers, respectively. $`\omega _\mathrm{c}=eH/m^{}c`$ is the cyclotron frequency. The magnetic field dependence of the levels is shown in Fig. 1.

The strength of the Coulomb interaction, $`e^2/\epsilon l_0`$, where $`l_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m^{}\omega _0}`$ is the dot size, is comparable to the level spacing. The electron-electron interaction is taken into account by the exact diagonalization method. The Hamiltonian, $``$, is diagonalized in a restricted space of configurations for the occupation of one-electron levels. As a result, the electronic states are represented by linear combinations of many configurations (Slater determinants). By this method, the correlation effect is considered beyond the mean field approximation in which electronic states are described by a single Slater determinant in the presence of the Hartree and exchange terms. We obtain the ground state, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{N,1}`$, with energy $`E_{N,1}`$, and low-lying excited states, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{N,i}`$, with $`E_{N,i}`$ ($`i=2,3,\mathrm{}`$). The addition energies which are needed to place the $`N`$th electron on the dot are given by

$$\mu _{N,i}=E_{N,i}E_{N1,1},$$
(6)
where $`\mu _{N,1}`$ corresponds to $`E_{\mathrm{gate}}=\eta eV_{\mathrm{gate}}`$ at the $`N`$th peak of the linear conductance, $`V_{\mathrm{gate}}`$ is the gate voltage attached to the dot, and $`\eta `$ is a ratio of the gate capacitance $`C_{\mathrm{gate}}`$ to the total capacitance $`C_{\mathrm{total}}`$. $`\mu _{N,i}`$ ($`i2`$) can also be investigated experimentally by looking at the differential conductance under finite bias voltages.

Figure 2(a) shows peak positions of the Coulomb oscillation (addition energies, $`\mu _{N,1}`$), as functions of magnetic field. When the magnetic field is not too high, the ground state can be approximated by a single configuration: the one-electron levels shown in Fig. 1 are filled consecutively. The magnetic field dependence of $`\mu _{N,1}`$ is qualitatively understood by that of the one-electron level occupied by the $`N`$th electron. The behavior of $`\mu _{1,1}`$ and $`\mu _{2,1}`$ $`[\mu _{3,1}`$ and $`\mu _{4,1}]`$ is very similar to that of level $`(n,m)=(0,0)`$ $`[(0,1)]`$ in Fig. 1. The magnetic field dependence of $`\mu _{5,1}`$ and $`\mu _{6,1}`$ indicates that the fifth and sixth electrons occupy the level $`(0,1)`$ at $`\omega _\mathrm{c}/\omega _0<0.6`$ and $`(0,2)`$ at $`\omega _\mathrm{c}/\omega _0>0.6`$.

Small cusps of $`\mu _{4,1}`$, $`\mu _{5,1}`$ ($`\mu _{6,1}`$, $`\mu _{7,1}`$) around $`\omega _\mathrm{c}/\omega _0=0.1`$ ($`0.6`$) are due to the spin-triplet state for $`N=4`$ $`(6)`$ shown in Fig. 2(b). The exchange interaction causes high spin states in the vicinity of the level crossings, between $`(0,1)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ at $`\omega _\mathrm{c}=0`$, and between $`(0,1)`$ and $`(0,2)`$ at $`\omega _\mathrm{c}/\omega _0=1/\sqrt{2}`$. This is the well-known Hund’s rule of atoms, which has been confirmed experimentally.

With increasing magnetic field, the level spacings become smaller (see Fig. 1) whereas the Coulomb interaction ($`e^2/\epsilon l(H)`$) is more effective since the wavefunctions are shrunk as the magnetic length $`l(H)=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m^{}\mathrm{\Omega }(H)}`$. At a critical value of the magnetic field, some electrons start to occupy higher energy levels to reduce the interaction energy, which results in a transition of the ground state. Such correlation-induced transitions are observed when $`\omega _\mathrm{c}/\omega _0>1.5`$.

Figure 3 shows the addition energies, $`\mu _{N,1}`$, by solid lines and $`\mu _{N,i}`$ ($`i2`$) by broken lines, to a higher magnetic field than in Fig. 2. The transition of the ground state occurs when a broken line crosses a solid line. For each ground state, the electronic configuration of the largest amplitude is shown in the figure. In the ground state of $`N=2`$, two electrons occupy level $`(n,m)=(0,0)`$ at low magnetic fields. An electron starts to occupy level $`(0,1)`$ at $`\omega _\mathrm{c}/\omega _0=1.54`$, with parallel spin to the other electron remaining at level $`(0,0)`$. As a result, the ground state changes from a spin singlet ($`S=0`$) to triplet ($`S=1`$). For larger $`N`$, similar transitions of the ground state occur, one after another, with increasing magnetic field. These transitions were observed experimentally. The magnetic field dependence of low-lying excited states as well as the ground state, shown in Fig. 3, is in quantitatively good agreement with the experimental results.

In a region of the highest magnetic field in Fig. 3, $`N`$ electrons are completely spin-polarized (total spin $`S=N/2`$) and occupy the lowest $`N`$ levels. This state is called the maximum density droplet (MDD). The properties of the MDD and electronic states under higher magnetic field have been studied experimentally and theoretically.

## III Transport Properties (1) Coulomb Oscillation

We investigate the transport properties using the obtained many-body states in the previous section. The coupling between a dot and two external leads is expressed by the tunneling Hamiltonian

$$_\mathrm{T}=\underset{\alpha =\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}{}\underset{k,l,\sigma }{}(V_{\alpha ,l}d_{l,\sigma }^{}c_{\alpha ,k,\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),$$
(7)
where $`d_{l,\sigma }^{}`$ and $`d_{l,\sigma }`$ ($`c_{\alpha ,k,\sigma }^{}`$ and $`c_{\alpha ,k,\sigma }`$) are the creation and annihilation operators of state $`l`$ in the dot (state $`k`$ in lead $`\alpha `$) with spin $`\sigma `$, respectively.

In this section, the conductance through a quantum dot is calculated to the lowest order of the tunneling Hamiltonian. The transition probability between states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{N,i}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{N+1,j}`$, with an electron tunneling through the left/right barrier, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N+1,j;N,i}^{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}D^{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}\left|\underset{l,\sigma }{}V_{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R},l}\mathrm{\Psi }_{N+1,j}|d_{l,\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{N,i}\right|^2,$$
(8)
where $`D^\alpha `$ is the density of states in lead $`\alpha `$. The linear conductance is written as

$`G={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{k_\mathrm{B}T}}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N+1,j;N,i}^\mathrm{L}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N+1,j;N,i}^\mathrm{R}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N+1,j;N,i}^\mathrm{L}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N+1,j;N,i}^\mathrm{R}}}P_{N,i}`$ (9)
$`\times f(E_{N+1,j}E_{N,i}E_{\mathrm{gate}}E_\mathrm{F}),`$ (10)
where $`P_{N,i}`$ is the grand-canonical distribution function, $`\mathrm{exp}[(E_{N,i}N(E_{\mathrm{gate}}+E_\mathrm{F}))/k_\mathrm{B}T]/\mathrm{\Xi }`$, with the partition function $`\mathrm{\Xi }={\displaystyle \underset{N,i}{}}\mathrm{exp}[(E_{N,i}N(E_{\mathrm{gate}}+E_\mathrm{F}))/k_\mathrm{B}T]`$, and $`f`$ is the Fermi distribution function.

The peaks of the Coulomb oscillation usually become lower and broader with an increase in temperature $`T`$. This is due to the thermal broadening of the electronic distribution around the Fermi level in the leads. In experimental results, however, the heights of the third, fifth, 10th and 17th peaks increase with temperature, in the absence of magnetic field. We propose possible mechanisms for this anomalous $`T`$ dependence of the peak heights, considering small anisotropy and anharmonicity of the quantum dot,

$$_\mathrm{D}^{}/\mathrm{}\omega _0=\lambda _1(x^2y^2)/l_0^2+\lambda _2(r/l_0)^4.$$
(11)
They cause “fine structures” in the shells of energy levels. The peak positions, discussed above, are little affected by these fine structures when $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are sufficiently small.

To explain the $`T`$ dependence of the third and fifth peaks, we make two assumptions. (i) A small anisotropy of the dot ($`\lambda _1=0.0125`$) splits two degenerate levels in the second shell by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$ ($`1.2`$ K). (ii) The transmission amplitude, $`V_{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R},l}`$ in eq. (3.1), for the lower level in the second shell is one-quarter of that for the upper level. In Fig. 4(a), we present the first to sixth peaks of the linear conductance through a quantum dot as a function of gate voltage. The third and fifth peaks are smaller in height at $`T=0.005\mathrm{}\omega _0/k_\mathrm{B}`$ ($``$ 0.3 K, dotted lines) than at $`T=0.02\mathrm{}\omega _0/k_\mathrm{B}`$ ($``$ 1 K, solid lines).

The reason for this is as follows. When $`k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$, the third electron is almost always transported through the lower level in the second shell, which has a smaller transmission probability to the leads than the upper level. With increasing temperature, the upper level contributes more to the third peak, and consequently the third peak becomes larger. The situation is the same for the fifth peak.

When wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{N,i}`$ are written by a single Slater determinant, we can derive the analytical expression for the conductance. When a current flows through a single level in the dot ($`l`$), the conductance is given by

$$G=\frac{e^2}{4k_\mathrm{B}T}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_l}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(\delta /2k_\mathrm{B}T)},$$
(12)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_l=\frac{\gamma _l^\mathrm{L}\gamma _l^\mathrm{R}}{\gamma _l^\mathrm{L}+\gamma _l^\mathrm{R}},$$
(13)
where $`\gamma _l^{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}=(2\pi /\mathrm{})D^{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}|V_{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R},l}|^2`$ and $`\delta =E_{\mathrm{gate}}\mu _{N,1}`$. In the case of the third peak, two levels $`(n,m)=(0,\pm 1)`$ take part in the current. The conductance is expressed by

$`G={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{k_\mathrm{B}T}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+2e^{\delta /k_\mathrm{B}T}+2e^{(\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon )/k_\mathrm{B}T}}}`$ (14)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{(0,1)}}{1+e^{\delta /k_\mathrm{B}T}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{(0,1)}}{1+e^{(\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon )/k_\mathrm{B}T}}}\right).`$ (15)
Here, the spin degeneracy of each level has been counted. The $`T`$ dependence of the conductance is characterized by two parameters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon /k_\mathrm{B}T`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{(0,1)}/\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{(0,1)}`$.

A possible mechanism for the $`T`$ dependence of the 10th peak (also the 17th peak) is the “spin blockade.” Figure 4(b) shows the 7th to 12th peaks of the linear conductance. A small anharmonicity is assumed ($`\lambda _2=0.025`$). The 10th peak shows the anomalous $`T`$ dependence for the following reason. The ground state for $`N=9`$ has the total spin of $`S=3/2`$ whereas the ground state for $`N=10`$ has $`S=0`$. The 10th peak is very small at low temperatures (dotted line) since the addition of the 10th electron on the dot is forbidden by the spin selection rule. With an increase in temperature, electrons are transported more smoothly through transition-allowed excited states, and as a result, the height of the peak grows (solid line).

## IV Transport Properties (2) Cotunneling Processes

In the Coulomb blockade region, the current is suppressed exponentially with decreasing temperature, as shown in eqs. (12) and (15). In this region, however, the higher-order tunneling processes make a significant contribution to the transport of electrons. These processes involve the simultaneous tunneling of more than one electron and is thus called cotunneling. There are two kinds of cotunneling processes, elastic and inelastic processes. The latter process is accompanied by a change of the dot state whereas the former process is not.

To illustrate the cotunneling processes, let us consider a simplified situation: one electron occupies one of two energy levels, $`E_1`$ or $`E_2`$, in a quantum dot (Fig. 5(a)). The energy difference between the levels is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E_2E_1`$. The bias voltage $`V`$ is applied between two leads, $`eV=\mu _\mathrm{L}\mu _\mathrm{R}`$, where $`\mu _\alpha `$ is the Fermi level in lead $`\alpha `$. The electron spin is neglected. In the Coulomb blockade region for one electron in the dot, $`k_\mathrm{B}T,\mathrm{}\gamma _i,eVE_i,E_i+U`$, where $`U`$ is the charging energy. The transition probability from the dot state $`i`$ to $`j`$ with an electron tunneling from lead $`\alpha `$ to $`\beta `$ is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{}}{}}\left|T_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }\right|^2\delta (\epsilon _{\alpha ,k}+E_i\epsilon _{\beta ,k^{}}E_j)`$ (17)
$`\times f(\epsilon _{\alpha ,k}\mu _\alpha )\left[1f(\epsilon _{\beta ,k^{}}\mu _\beta )\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}\left|T_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }\right|^2D^\alpha D^\beta F(E_iE_j+\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta ),`$ (18)
where

$`F(\epsilon )={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{1e^{\epsilon /k_\mathrm{B}T}}}.`$

$`T_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the component of the T-matrix

$`T_{11}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\beta ,2}^{}V_{\alpha ,2}}{E_2+U}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\beta ,1}^{}V_{\alpha ,1}}{E_1}}`$ (19)
$`T_{12}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`V_{\beta ,1}^{}V_{\alpha ,2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_2+U}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_1}}\right),`$ (20)
etc., to the second order of $`_\mathrm{T}`$. The processes of $`i=j`$ are elastic whereas the processes of $`ij`$ are inelastic. In the latter, the conduction electron loses or gains an energy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Two terms on the right side of eqs. (19) and (20) stem from two virtual states in which the dot is doubly occupied or unoccupied. It should be noted that the interference between the two virtual processes always enhances the inelastic cotunneling whereas the interference suppresses (enhances) the elastic cotunneling when $`V_{\mathrm{R},1}^{}V_{\mathrm{L},1}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{R},2}^{}V_{\mathrm{L},2}`$ are in phase (out of phase).

The cotunneling current is expressed as

$$I=e\underset{i,j=1,2}{}\rho _i\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\mathrm{L}\mathrm{R}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{L}}\right),$$
(21)
where $`\rho _i`$ is the probability of dot state $`i`$ ($`\rho _1+\rho _2=1`$). They are determined by the stationary condition

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _1=\rho _1\underset{\alpha ,\beta =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{\alpha \beta }+\rho _2\underset{\alpha ,\beta =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(22)
Figure 5(b) shows the calculated results of $`dI/dV`$ as a function of $`V`$. At $`k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the $`dI/dV`$ curve appears to be a step function. When $`|eV|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, only the elastic process is possible because the conduction electron cannot lose the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (the dot state is almost always $`1`$ at $`k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{\Delta }`$). When $`|eV|>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, both the elastic and inelastic processes contribute to the current, which increases the conductance. The onset of the inelastic process is smeared with increasing $`T`$. These properties of the cotunneling conductance have been observed experimentally.

Next, let us consider the spin of electrons but disregard the upper level $`E_2`$. Some cotunneling processes give rise to spin-flips in the dot, e.g., immediately after an up-spin electron in the dot goes to lead $`\beta `$, a down-spin electron enters the dot from lead $`\alpha `$. The spin-flip processes can be expressed, to the second order of $`_\mathrm{T}`$, by the effective Hamiltonian

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{}}{}}J_{\beta \alpha }[\widehat{S}_{}c_{\beta k^{}}^{}c_{\alpha k}+\widehat{S}_+c_{\beta k^{}}^{}c_{\alpha k}`$ (23)
$`+\widehat{S}_z(c_{\beta k^{}}^{}c_{\alpha k}c_{\beta k^{}}^{}c_{\alpha k}),]`$ (24)
with

$$J_{\beta \alpha }=V_{\beta ,1}^{}V_{\alpha ,1}\left(\frac{1}{E_1+U}\frac{1}{E_1}\right),$$
(25)
where $`\widehat{S}`$ is the spin operator for the dot state; $`\widehat{S}_{}=d_{1,}^{}d_{1,}`$, $`\widehat{S}_+=d_{1,}^{}d_{1,}`$, $`\widehat{S}_z=(d_{1,}^{}d_{1,}d_{1,}^{}d_{1,})/2`$. This is the Kondo Hamiltonian which was originally used to describe the exchange coupling between a spin of magnetic impurities and conduction electrons in the host metal. The Kondo effect in quantum dots has been observed experimentally. When the number of electrons in a dot is odd, the localized spin $`S=1/2`$ in the dot is coupled to the Fermi sea in the leads, which results in the formation of the Kondo resonance at the Fermi level. The cotunneling conductance is markedly enhanced through this resonant level to a value of $`2e^2/h`$, at low temperatures of $`TT_\mathrm{K}`$. $`T_\mathrm{K}`$ is the Kondo temperature which is given by

$$k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{K}\sqrt{|E_1(E_1+U)|}\mathrm{exp}\left[1/2D\sqrt{J_{\mathrm{LL}}^2+J_{\mathrm{RR}}^2}\right],$$
(26)
where $`D`$ is the density of states in the leads. This effect is usually irrelevant for even numbers of electrons in the dot.

Recently a large Kondo effect has been observed for an even number of electrons when spin-triplet and singlet states are degenerate. The energy difference between these states can be tuned by the magnetic field, as discussed in §2. This is a situation unique to quantum dots and cannot be realized in traditional Kondo systems of magnetic impurities in metals. We have theoretically examined this situation. We have assumed that two electrons occupy levels $`E_1`$ or $`E_2`$ in Fig. 5(a), making spin-triplet or singlet states. By extending the spin-flip Hamiltonian (24) and analyzing it, we have revealed an enhancement of $`T_\mathrm{K}`$ due to the competition between spin-triplet and singlet states.

## V Transport through Dot Molecules

Artificial molecules in which two quantum dots are connected in series have been fabricated on a semiconductor. The strength of the tunneling between the quantum dots can be controlled electrostatically. We examine the Coulomb oscillation through an artificial molecule in which two equivalent quantum dots (dot 1 and dot 2) are connected in series. A common gate is attached to the dots.

We consider the simplest case in which one level in each quantum dot is relevant for the transport. The tunneling Hamiltonian describes the coupling between dot 1 and the left lead ($`V_1^\mathrm{L}`$) and between dot 2 and the right lead ($`V_2^\mathrm{R}`$). The couplings are assumed to be sufficiently small, compared with the tunneling between the dots, $`t(<0)`$, which allows the formation of molecular orbitals between the dots. The many-body states in the molecule are obtained exactly, taking the intradot Coulomb interaction ($`U_0`$) and interdot Coulomb interaction ($`U_1`$) into consideration.

In the ground state for $`N=1`$ in the molecule, an electron occupies the bonding orbital, $`\psi _\mathrm{B}=(|1+|2)/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`|n`$ is the orbital in dot $`n`$. The ground state for $`N=2`$ is a spin singlet and given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,1}`$ $`=`$ $`|11+|22`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{U}+\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{U}^2+16})(|12+|21),`$ (28)
apart from a normalization constant. The parameter $`\stackrel{~}{U}=(U_0U_1)/|t|`$ characterizes the strength of the correlation effect. When $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{}^<1`$, the correlation effect is weak. In the ground state, two electrons occupy the bonding orbital (eq. (28) $`|\psi _\mathrm{B}\psi _\mathrm{B}`$). When $`\stackrel{~}{U}1`$, the strong correlation brings about the Heitler-London wavefunction of the ground state, in which each electron is localized in a dot (eq. (28) $`|12+|21`$).

In Fig. 6, we present the gate voltage dependence of the linear conductance $`G`$ when $`U_0=2U_1`$ and (a) $`|t|=0.5U_1`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{U}=2`$), (b) $`|t|=0.1U_1`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{U}=10`$). In case (b), the second and third peaks are suppressed at low temperatures ($`k_\mathrm{B}T/U_1=0.01`$, broken lines). This is due to the strong correlation effect, as explained in the following. In case (a) of weak correlation, the second electron enters dot 1 from the left lead and occupies the bonding orbital $`\psi _\mathrm{B}`$. Thus the tunneling probability is proportional to $`|1|\psi _\mathrm{B}|^2=1/2`$. In case (b) of strong correlation, the first electron (say, with spin $``$) has to be in dot 2 for the second electron ($``$) to enter the dot 1. This probability is $`1/2`$. Then the state is $`|12`$, which has the probability of $`1/2`$ in the ground state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,1}`$. Hence the total probability is $`(1/2)\times (1/2)=1/4`$. The strong correlation, therefore, reduces the height of the second peak (also the third peak) by one-half.

In the case of strong correlation, electron spins localized in the dots are coupled antiferromagnetically to each other. If the localized spins are regarded as “qubits” for the quantum computer, the spin-singlet state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{2,1}`$ is an “entangled” state between them. The strength of the antiferromagnetic coupling can be tuned by gate voltages, magnetic or electric fields, which is applicable to the switching of the qubit-qubit interaction.

## VI Conclusions

The electronic states in quantum dots have been calculated, taking into account the electron-electron interaction exactly. The magnetic field dependences of the ground state and low-lying excited states agree well with the experimental results. The conductance peaks of the Coulomb oscillation have been examined, using the obtained many-body states. We have proposed two mechanisms for the anomalous $`T`$ dependence of some peaks. In the Coulomb blockade region, elastic and inelastic cotunneling processes make a significant contribution to the current. The Kondo effect may extremely enhance the cotunneling conductance. In the transport through coupled two dots, the correlation effect influences the peak heights of the Coulomb oscillation.

The agreement between the calculated results and experimental ones will enable further research using quantum dots for unsolved problems in solid-state physics. Among them are the many-body problems: the correlation effect on the electronic states and on the transport properties and the Kondo effect. Under finite bias voltages, we have only discussed the cotunneling processes to the second order of the tunneling Hamiltonian. This is an essentially nonequilibrium problem which requires more study both theoretically and experimentally. The inelastic process results in the dephasing of the conduction electrons. It must be necessary to control the dephasing processes, including other mechanisms, e.g., electron-phonon interaction, for the application of quantum dots to quantum computers.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks S. Tarucha, L. P. Kouwenhoven, Yu. V. Nazarov, G. E. W. Bauer, T. Aono and K. Kawamura for valuable discussions. This work was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.


text:
# Quantum Nucleardynamics as an 𝑆𝑈(2)_𝑁×𝑈(1)_𝑍 Gauge Theory

\[

## Abstract

It is shown that quantum nucleardynamics (QND) as an $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory, which is generated from quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as an $`SU(3)_C`$ gauge theory through dynamical spontaneous symmetry breaking, successfully describes nuclear phenomena at low energies. The proton and neutron assigned as a strong isospin doublet are identified as a colorspin plus weak isospin doublet. Massive gluon mediates strong interactions with the effective coupling constant $`G_R/\sqrt{2}=g_n^2/8M_G^210\text{GeV}^2`$ just like Fermi weak constant $`G_F/\sqrt{2}=g_w^2/8M_W^210^5\text{GeV}^2`$ in the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam model where $`g_n`$ and $`g_w`$ are the coupling constants and $`M_G`$ and $`M_W`$ are the gauge boson masses. Explicit evidences such as lifetimes and cross sections of nuclear scattering and reaction, nuclear matter and charge densities, nucleon-nucleon scattering, magnetic dipole moment, gamma decay, etc. are shown in support of QND. The baryon number conservation is the consequence of the $`U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory and the proton number conservation is the consequence of the $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory.

\]

There are, in the one hand, two distinct problems in quantum chromodynamics (QCD)  with quarks and gluons as fundamental constituents. One is the confinement, which is not rigorously explained in the low energy region, and the other is the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum , which is a superposition of the various false vacua, violating CP symmetry. At lower energies, on the other hand, many nuclear effective models as the alternatives of QCD were proposed but their applications are not complete and limited to a few aspects. It is thus the motivation of quantum nucleardynamics (QND), which is derived from QCD as the consequence of the confinement and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum, to explain diverse nuclear phenomena at lower energies consistently. For examples, nuclear issues to be clarified are as follows: Lande’s spin g-factor for nucleon, constant nucleon density, intrinsic quantum number, nucleon-nucleon scattering data, baryon number conservation, proton number conservation, etc. These phenomena at relatively lower energies may be partly explained by nuclear effective models but each effective model is only applicable to limited issues. In this context, it is proposed that QND as an $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory  is the theory for strong interactions of nucleons just as the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam (GWS) model  as an $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge theory is the theory for electroweak interactions of quarks and leptons.

QND is generated from QCD through dynamical spontaneous symmetry breaking (DSSB) mechanism, whose details are explained in reference : $`SU(3)_CSU(2)_N\times U(1)_ZU(1)_f`$. The Lagrangian density  of QND as an $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory has the similar form with QCD as an $`SU(3)_C`$ gauge theory without the explicit mass term:

$$_{QND}=\frac{1}{2}TrG_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }+\underset{i=1}{}\overline{\psi }_ii\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi _i+\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{g_n^2}{16\pi ^2}TrG^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where the bare $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term  is a nonperturbative term added to the perturbative Lagrangian density with an $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ gauge invariance. The subscript $`i`$ stands for the classes of pointlike spinor $`\psi `$ and $`A_\mu =_{a=0}A_\mu ^a\lambda ^a/2`$ stand for gauge fields. The field strength tensor is given by $`G_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ig_n[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the dual field strength tensor. The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term apparently odd under both P, T, C, and CP operation. The proton and neutron as spinors possess up and down colorspins as a doublet just like up and down strong isospins:

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}\right)_c,=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_c,=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_c.$$
(2)
This implies that conventional, global $`SU(2)`$ strong isospin symmetry introduced by Heisenberg  is postulated as the combination of local $`SU(2)`$ colorspin and local $`SU(2)`$ weak isospin symmetries. The overall wave function for a nucleon may thus be expressed by $`\psi _N=\psi (\text{colorspin})\psi (\text{isospin})\psi (\text{spin})\psi (\text{space})`$. There exist two types of nucleons, one of which is the color doublet, which is governed by QND, and the other of which is color singlet just as there are two type of quarks and leptons, weak isospin doublet and singlet, in the GWS model: this concept is not contradicted with the conventional concept for hadrons as color singlet. In this scheme, gluon is a massive gauge boson rather than a massless gauge boson. The new concepts of nucleons as color doublets and massive gauge bosons are required to explain the confinement of quarks, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum, and the violation of discrete symmetries. The Yukawa potential due to massive gluon confines quarks and gluons. Discrete symmetries are nonpertubatively broken by the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum as illustrated in the spectra of baryons: the CP and T violation of the neutron electric dipole moment with $`\mathrm{\Theta }10^9`$ , the C and CP violation of the baryon asymmetry $`\delta _B10^{10}`$ , the P violation of no parity partners in baryons and mesons, etc. It is also confirmed that nucleons conserve the vector current but do not conserve the axial vector current just as quarks and leptons conserve the (V - A) current but do not conserve the (V + A) current. The nuclear coupling constant $`g_n^2=c_fg_s^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _Rg_s^2=g_s^2/4`$ is given in terms of the strong coupling constant $`g_s`$ and the color factor $`c_f`$. The effective strong coupling constant $`G_R/\sqrt{2}=g_n^2/8M_G^210\text{GeV}^2`$ like Fermi weak constant $`G_F/\sqrt{2}=g_w^2/8M_W^210^5\text{GeV}^2`$ and the color mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _R=1/4`$ like the Weinberg mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=1/4`$ thus play important roles in nuclear interactions . In the following, it is briefly shown how QND is applied to strong nuclear interactions at both low and high energies: the details of QND and its applications including nucleon mass generation are discussed in two references .

There are several, explicit examples about lifetimes and cross sections, supporting QND as an $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory in analogy with the GWS model as an $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge theory. The state $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ is formed as a resonance of central mass $`1385`$ MeV in a $`K^{}p`$ interaction: $`K^{}+p\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }+\pi ^0`$ where the Q-value in the decay $`130`$ MeV and the lifetime $`\tau =1/\mathrm{\Gamma }10^{23}`$ s are estimated from the measured decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=36`$ MeV. If the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }G_R^2m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^5`$ is used in analogy with the muon decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=G_F^2m_\mu ^5/192\pi ^3`$ of weak interactions, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$-hyperon lifetime becomes the order of $`\tau 10^{23}`$ s compared with the muon lifetime in the order of $`10^6`$ s. In the strong decay process, the exchange of massive gluon is taken into account like the exchange of massive intermediate vector boson in the weak decay process. The strong decay $`\mathrm{\Delta }n+p`$ and the weak decay $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm n+\pi ^\pm `$ have almost same $`0.12`$ GeV kinetic energy, approximately. Their lifetime ratio becomes

$$\frac{\tau (\mathrm{\Delta }n+p)}{\tau (\mathrm{\Sigma }n+\pi )}\frac{1/G_R^2m_\mathrm{\Delta }^5}{1/G_F^2m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^5}\frac{10^{23}\text{s}}{10^{10}\text{s}}.$$
(3)
Similarly, the lifetime ratio between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }+\pi ^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n+\pi ^{}`$ is found to be $`\frac{\tau (\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }+\pi ^0)}{\tau (\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n+\pi ^{})}\frac{1/G_R^2m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}^5}{1/G_F^2m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}^5}\frac{10^{23}\text{s}}{10^{10}\text{s}}.`$ Since the typical cross section in weak interactions can be estimated by $`\sigma G_F^2T^210^{44}\text{m}^2`$, the typical cross section in strong interactions is $`\sigma G_R^2T^210^{30}\text{m}^2`$, which gives good agreement with experiment result. In the decay of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$, which hints the color quantum number, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\pi ^++p`$, the lifetime of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ is $`10^{23}`$ s. This can be interpreted by the distance of about $`1`$ fm estimated by the gluon mass of about $`300`$ MeV in this scheme. In the strong interaction of $`\pi +p\pi +p`$ and weak interactions of $`\nu +p\nu +p`$, the cross section ratio around the kinetic energy $`T=1`$ GeV becomes $`\frac{\sigma (\pi +p\pi +p)}{\sigma (\nu +p\nu +p)}\frac{G_R^2T^2}{G_F^2T^2}\frac{10\text{mb}}{10^{11}\text{mb}}.`$ These examples described above explicitly exhibit the typical lifetimes and cross sections in strong interactions as expected.

The color $`SU(3)_C`$ symmetry generates the $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ symmetry, which governs nuclear strong dynamics, and the $`U(1)_f`$ symmetry, which governs nuclear electromagnetic dynamics, with the condensation of singlet gluons. The $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ symmetry and $`U(1)_f`$ symmetry using the symmetric color factors, $`c_f^s=(c_f^b,c_f^n,c_f^z,c_f^f)=(1/3,1/4,1/12,1/16)`$, are applied to the typical strong interactions . The color factors are related to the strong color mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _R`$ just like the isospin factors are related to the Weinberg mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$: for examples, $`c_f^n=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _R=1/4`$ and $`i_f^w=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=1/4`$. The factors described above are the pure color factors due to color charges but the effective color factors used in nuclear dynamics must be multiplied by the isospin factor $`i_f^w=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=1/4`$ with the weak Weinberg angle $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$ since the proton and neutron are an isospin doublet as well as a color doublet:

$$c_f^{eff}=i_f^wc_f=i_f^w(c_f^b,c_f^n,c_f^z,c_f^f)=(1/12,1/16,1/48,1/64)$$
(4)
for symmetric configurations. For example, the electromagnetic color factor for the $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory becomes $`\alpha _f^{eff}=\alpha _s/641/137`$ when $`\alpha _s=0.48`$ at the QCD scale . The coupling constant $`\alpha _f=\alpha _s/16`$ for a $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory at the strong scale is used to evaluate excitation levels. The pure color coupling constant $`\alpha _f=\alpha _s/16=\alpha _w/4`$ has about four times stronger than the coupling constant $`\alpha _e=\alpha _w/4`$ for a $`U(1)_e`$ gauge theory at the weak scale: the effective coupling constant $`\alpha _f^{eff}=i_f^w\alpha _f=\alpha _s/64=\alpha _e`$. The emission of energetic photons as gamma radiation is typical for a nucleus deexcitation from some high lying excited state to the ground state configuration. This represents a reordering of the nucleon in the nucleus with a lowering of mass from the excited mass to the lowest mass. Electromagnetic transition due to the proton charge and gamma decay are well established subjects. For another example, nuclei with closed shell plus one valence nucleon is considered in analogy with the hydrogen atom. The Coulomb potential originated from color charges is thus automatically realized in nucleon-nucleon electromagnetic interactions in terms of the $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory in addition to the Coulomb potential originated from isospin electric charges. The separation energy of a valence nucleon is $`m_n\alpha _f^2/20.42`$ MeV with the coupling constant $`\alpha _f0.03`$.

The conservation of the proton number is the result of the $`U(1)_f`$ local gauge theory just as the conservation of the electron number is the result of the $`U(1)_e`$ local gauge theory. The charge quantization is given by $`\widehat{Q}_f=\widehat{C}_3+\widehat{Z}_c/2`$ where $`\widehat{C}_3`$ is the third component of the colorspin operator $`\widehat{C}`$ and $`\widehat{Z}_c`$ is the hyper-color charge operator . This form has the analogy with the electric charge quantization $`\widehat{Q}_e=\widehat{T}_3^w+\widehat{Y}^w/2`$  in the GWS model and $`\widehat{Q}_e=\widehat{T}_3^s+\widehat{Y}^s/2`$  in the quark model. The hyper-color charge operator may be defined by $`\widehat{Z}_c=\widehat{B}+\widehat{S}`$ with the baryon number operator $`\widehat{B}`$ and the strangeness number operator $`\widehat{S}`$ just as the hypercharge operator is defined by $`\widehat{Y}=\widehat{B}\widehat{L}`$ with the baryon number operator $`\widehat{B}`$ and the lepton number operator $`\widehat{L}`$. Color charge quantum numbers for the proton and neutron are shown in Table I where the subscript $`d`$ denotes the colorspin doublet and the subscript $`s`$ denotes the colorspin singlet. Nucleons as the color spin doublet are governed by the $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory just as leptons or quarks as the isospin doublet are governed by the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge theory in weak interactions. The conservation of the baryon number is the consequence of the $`U(1)_Z`$ local gauge theory just as the conservation of the lepton number is the consequence of the $`U(1)_Y`$ local gauge theory . Baryons are conserved as the colorspin doublet but are not conserved as the color singlet; this is analogous to the conservation of leptons as the isospin doublet but the nonconservation of leptons as the isospin singlet in weak interactions. The immediate result of the proton number conservation or the baryon number conservation is shown in the mass density and charge density of nuclear matter. The effective charge unit of the charge operator $`\widehat{Q}_f`$ is $`q_f^{eff}=\sqrt{\pi \alpha _s/64}`$ while the electric charge unit of the charge operator $`\widehat{Q}_e`$ is $`e=\sqrt{\pi \alpha _i/4}`$: the absolute magnitude of $`q_f^{eff}`$ is the same with that of $`e`$ since $`\alpha _s0.48`$ at the strong scale and $`\alpha _i0.12`$ at the weak scale.

Nuclear matter is quantized by the maximum wavevector mode $`N_F10^{26}`$ in one dimension and the total baryon number $`B=N_B=4\pi N_F^3/310^{78}`$ as the consequence of the baryon number conservation or the baryon asymmetry $`\delta _B10^{10}`$ . Baryon matter quantization is consistent with the nuclear number density $`n_n=n_B=A/(4\pi r^3/3)1.95\times 10^{38}\text{cm}^3`$ with the nuclear mass number $`A`$ and the nuclear matter radius $`r`$ at the strong scale $`M_G10^1`$ GeV and is consistent with Avogadro’s number $`N_A=6.02\times 10^{23}\text{mol}^110^{19}\text{cm}^3`$ at the atomic scale $`M_G10^8`$ GeV: the nuclear matter density is comparable to massive gluon density $`M_G^310^{38}\text{cm}^3`$ at the strong scale and atomic matter density is also comparable to massive gauge boson density $`M_G^310^{19}\text{cm}^3`$ at the atomic scale. This argument is also compatible with the nuclear number density $`n_B=2k_F^2/3\pi ^2`$ with the Fermi momentum of a free nucleon $`k_F=1.33\text{fm}^1`$ and the Fermi energy $`ϵ_F=k_F^2/2m_n37`$ MeV and compatible with the nucleus radius

$$r=r_0A^{1/3}=r_0n^2$$
(5)
where the nucleon mass radius is $`r_0=1/2m_n\alpha _z1.2`$ fm with the color degeneracy factor $`2`$ and the principal quantum number $`n=A^{1/6}=B^{1/6}`$ in analogy with the Bohr radius $`a_B=1/m_e\alpha _e`$ of the hydrogen atom.

The Lande spin g-factors for the intrinsic magnetic dipole moment are $`g_s^p=2\mu _p/mu_N=5.59`$ for a proton and $`g_s^n=2\mu _n/\mu _N=3.83`$ for a neutron where $`\mu _N=e/m_p=3.15\times 10^{17}\text{GeV}/T`$ is the nuclear magneton. The g-factors are different with $`g_s=2`$ for a pointlike electron and $`g_s=0`$ for a pointlike neutral particle. The problem of the nuclear magnetic dipole moment suggests that contributions from colorspin and isospin degrees of freedom must be included to nucleons. The shifted values for the proton and neutron, $`3.59`$ and $`3.83`$ are almost identical and they mostly come from the combined contribution of colorspin and isospin. The mass ratio of the proton and the constituent quark, $`m_p/m_q2.79`$, also represents combined colorspin, isospin, spin degrees of freedom. The contribution $`|g_s|3.83`$ common for $`\mu _p`$ and $`\mu _n`$ comes from the magnetic dipole moment due to the $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ symmetry for color charges and the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ symmetry for isospin charges while the contribution $`g_s1.76`$ only for $`\mu _p`$ might come from the magnetic dipole moment due to the $`U(1)_f`$ gauge symmetry. This interpretation is justified if the coupling constant $`g_f=\sqrt{c_f^f\alpha _s}=\sqrt{\alpha _s/16}1.7e`$ for the $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory and the coupling constant $`g_b=\sqrt{c_f^b\alpha _s}=\sqrt{\alpha _s/3}3.8e`$ for the $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory. The description above reflects the mixed contribution of colorspin, isospin, and spin degrees of freedom and the total angular momentum

$$\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{C}+\stackrel{}{I}+\stackrel{}{S}$$
(6)
and the extension of $`\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{S}`$.

Quantum numbers of nucleon-nucleon systems are summarized in Table II when colorspin degrees of freedom are taken into account in addition to isospin and spin degrees of freedom. Cross sections for the nucleon-nucleon (NN) scattering as an $`SU(2)_N`$ gauge theory in terms of massive gluon exchange show excellent agreement with measurement data. According to conventional strong isospin invariance, three types of scattering such as the nn, pp, and pn scattering with strong isospin one (spin zero) exhibit almost the same cross sections. The cross section for the nn, pp, or pn scattering as a colorspin triplet is expressed by

$$\sigma =\frac{4G_R^2T^2}{\pi }\frac{1}{1+4T^2/M_G^2}$$
(7)
in the center of mass energy $`T`$ since $`G_RJ_c^\mu J_{c\mu }^{}`$ in terms of the effective strong coupling constant $`G_R=\sqrt{2}c_f^ng_s^2/8M_G^2`$. The theoretical cross section of the nn or pp scattering as an $`SU(2)_N`$ gauge theory at high energies about from $`2`$ GeV to $`10^3`$ GeV is saturated to the experimental one of about $`40`$ mb  and the cross section at low energies from $`0.6`$ GeV to $`2`$ GeV is roughly proportional to $`T^2`$: $`c_f^n=1/4`$, $`\alpha _s=0.48`$, $`M_G300`$ MeV, and $`G_R=10\text{GeV}^2`$ are used in this evaluation. The symmetric $`SU(2)_N`$ colorspin interaction for the isospin triplet and spin singlet contribution is commonly involved in the above three types of nucleon-nucleon interactions with the massive gluon exchange.

The cross section in strong interactions as a $`U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory at relatively low energies can be nonrelativistically obtained using the Yukawa potential $`V(r)=\sqrt{c_f^z\alpha _s}e^{M_G(rl_{QCD})}/r`$:

$$\sigma =4\pi \frac{(c_f^z\alpha _sm_n)^2}{M_G^4}\frac{1}{1+4m_nT/M_G^2}$$
(8)
where $`c_f^z=1/6`$ (or $`1/12`$) is the asymmetric (symmetric) color factor, $`m_n=0.94`$ MeV is the nucleon mass, $`T`$ is the incident particle energy, and the gauge boson mass $`M_G140`$ MeV. The cross section data in the region below the energy $`0.3`$ GeV or above the range $`1.5`$ fm are obtained by using the above formula, which is definitely dependent on angular momenta. The calculated cross section data in the limit $`T0`$ give agreement with observed data for cross sections ($`\sigma =4\pi a^2`$) $`\sigma _{pp}\sigma _{nn}35`$ b and $`\sigma _{pn}66`$ b for spin singlet and $`\sigma _{pn}4`$ b for spin triplet . The effective (running) coupling constant $`\alpha _z=c_f^z\alpha _s=\alpha _s/16`$ becomes stronger at lower energies: $`\alpha _z=c_f^z\alpha _s0.03`$ at about $`T=100`$ MeV. The cross section difference in strong isospin triplet is mainly due to the contribution of colorspins: $`\sigma _{pn}`$ has contributions from both colorspin triplet ($`c=1`$) and colorspin singlet ($`c=0`$) as shown in Table II. In the strong isospin triplet scattering ($`i^s=1`$), almost the same cross section data are consequences of the similar invariant amplitude magnitude for color charged current and color neutral current mediated by color charged massive gluons ($`A^\pm `$) and neutral massive gluon ($`B^0`$), respectively, just as shown that the relative strength of the charged current and neutral current is the same in the GWS model . It is thus emphasized that QND as the $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory produces the cross section data, which do not have divergence problems so that QND is renormalizable, from the zero energy limit to the order of $`10^2`$ GeV.

In conclusion, QCD produces QND as the $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory for nuclear interactions and then produces the $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory for massless gauge boson (photon) dynamics. Comparison between QND and effective models is given in Table III. QND is applicable to various aspects in the wide energy range but effective models are only effective to few aspects of nuclear phenomena in the rather small energy range. The effective strong coupling constant $`G_R/\sqrt{2}=c_fg_s^2/8M_G^210\text{GeV}^2`$ like Fermi weak constant $`G_F/\sqrt{2}=g_w^2/8M_W^210^5\text{GeV}^2`$ are used to study nuclear interactions. The proton number conservation is the result of the $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory and the baryon number conservation ($`B=N_B10^{78}`$) is the consequence of the $`U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory for strong interactions: the charge quantization $`\widehat{Q}_f=\widehat{C}_3+\widehat{Z}_c/2`$ with the hyper-color operator $`\widehat{Z}_c=\widehat{B}+\widehat{S}`$ for the $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory. The mass density and charge density of nuclear matter are the consequence of the proton number conservation or the baryon number conservation. The proton and neutron are assigned as a colorspin plus weak isospin doublet instead of as a strong isospin doublet. The extension of the total angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{S}+\stackrel{}{C}+\stackrel{}{I}`$ from $`\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{S}`$ may explain the Lande spin g-factors of magnetic dipole moments for the proton and neutron, $`g_s^p=5.59`$ and $`g_s^n=3.83`$, respectively. The cross sections of nucleon-nucleon scattering (pp, nn, or np) are compatible with QND as an $`SU(2)_N\times U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory. More testable predictions or already confirmed predictions from QND are given as follows: parity violation in meson and baryon spectra, charge conjugation violation in baryon spectra, time reversal and CP violation in the electric dipole moment for the neutron ($`\mathrm{\Theta }10^9`$), the nonconservation of color singet proton and neutron, the nonconservation of the axial vector current, strong coupling constant hierarchy, the color mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _R1/4`$, the assignment of strong isospin as colorspin plus weak isospin. Furthermore, QND possessing colorspin degrees of freedom may be successful in explaining the various nuclear phenomena such as lifetimes and cross sections of nuclear scattering and reaction, shell model, meson-nucleon scattering, nuclear potential, nuclear binding energy, gamma ray, etc. over the wide energy range .

Baryons $`C`$ $`C_3`$ $`Z_c`$ $`Q_f`$    $`p_d`$ $`1/2`$ $`1/2`$ $`1`$ $`1`$  $`n_d`$ $`1/2`$ $`1/2`$ $`1`$ $`0`$  $`p_s`$ $`0`$ $`0`$ $`2`$ $`1`$  $`n_s`$ $`0`$ $`0`$ $`0`$ $`0`$

State $`i^s=1`$ $`i^s=0`$    pp $`i=1,s=0,c=1`$   nn $`i=1,s=0,c=1`$   pn $`i=1,s=0,c=1`$ $`i=0,s=1,c=0`$   $`i=1,s=1,c=0`$ $`i=0,s=0,c=1`$

Classification QND Effective Models    Exchange Particles massive gluons model dependent  DSSB yes no  Discrete symmetries (P, C, T, CP) breaking no  Confinement yes no  $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum yes no  Baryon number conservation $`U(1)_Z`$ gauge theory ($`N_B10^{78}`$) unknown  Proton number conservation $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory unknown  Nuclear electromagnetic interaction $`U(1)_f`$ gauge theory no  Intrinsic angular momenta colorspin, weak isospin, spin spin  Hadron mass generation yes unknown  NN scattering cross section $`G_R^2T^2`$ (from high to low energy) only at low energy  Hadron decay time $`1/G_R^2m_h^5`$ no  Neutron electric dipole moment $`\mathrm{\Theta }10^{12}`$ no  Free parameters coupling constant many  Renormalization yes model dependent