format: text

text:
# Nucleation of the crystalline phase of proteins in the presence of semidilute non-adsorbing polymer

## 1 Introduction

Crystallising proteins from dilute solution is in general rather difficult, yet the crystalline form is required in order to perform X-ray crystallography . X-ray crystallography is currently the best method of determining the all-important structure of a protein in its native state. This has lead to considerable interest in how proteins crystallise; see Ref. 3 for a recent review from a colloidal physics perspective and Refs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 for recent work. In a dilute solution there may be a large free energy barrier to nucleation of the crystalline phase , which prevents nucleation on accessible time scales. Here, we consider a generic model protein which in the absence of polymer already has coexistence between a dilute solution and a crystalline phase. We determine how the barrier to homogeneous nucleation of the crystalline phase changes when non-adsorbing polymer coils which are larger than the protein molecules are added to the protein solution. We find that the polymer lowers the nucleation barrier. This is to be expected as it is well-known that non-adsorbing polymer induces an effective attraction between the protein molecules, and an attraction will favour the dense crystalline phase. However, what is much less common, is that for large polymer coils it is essential to account for the fact that the polymer-induced attraction is strongly non-pairwise additive. A naive calculation using in the crystalline phase, the effective pair potential in dilute phase of protein molecules, greatly overestimates the effect of the polymer.

Protein molecules are typically a few nms across and the root-mean-square end-to-end distance of a flexible polymer can easily be several times this. The protein–protein interaction consists of a repulsive core of diameter $`D`$ and an attraction which is sufficiently strong to cause the equilibrium behaviour to be coexistence between a dense crystal and a dilute fluid phase. We do not need to specify the potential explicitly as we will require only the fluid-crystal interfacial tension $`\gamma _0`$ and the difference in chemical potential between that of the crystal and that of the fluid, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0`$. We use the subscript 0 to indicate quantities before polymer is added. Our results should therefore apply to a very wide range of proteins despite potentially very large variations in the structure and interactions of different proteins . The polymer is non-adsorbing: the interaction between the protein molecule and a monomer is purely repulsive.

There has been extensive work done on systems of small colloidal particles immersed in polymer solutions of larger polymer coils which do not adsorb on the particles . Scaling theory for these systems was pioneered by de Gennes , see also Refs. 12, 13, 14, 15. Field-theoretic methods have yielded results which are exact for small hard particles and ideal polymers , as well as approximate results for polymers in good solvents . Work has also been done using integral equations, see Ref. 19 and references therein. It is well understood that non-adsorbing polymer increases the chemical potential of particles and induces an attraction between these particles which is not pairwise additive: the interaction of three close-by protein molecules is not the sum of three pair potentials . However, most of this work (exceptions are Refs. 21, 20) only considered a few particles, two or three, whereas a nucleus of a crystalline phase contains 10s of tightly-packed particles. Because of this, the deviations from pairwise additivity observed here are much stronger than found in previous work.

The next section briefly outlines classical nucleation theory for the solution before polymer is added. Section 3 then describes the effect of polymer and section 4 is a conclusion.

## 2 Classical nucleation theory

The interaction between protein molecules is taken to include a steeply repulsive core and an attraction. This attraction may be isotropic or highly anisotropic or a mixture of the two, if isotropic it may or may not be short-ranged; all we require is that it render a dilute solution of the protein metastable with respect to a crystalline phase of the protein. By metastable we mean that the fluid phase is not the equilibrium phase, it does not correspond to the absolute minimum in the appropriate free energy, but the fluid phase is dynamically stable with respect to crystallisation for times much larger than the characteristic time of the solution. See Ref. 23 for a general introduction to the properties and behaviour of metastable fluids.

Classical nucleation theory  assumes that the nucleus of the crystalline phase has a free energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ which is the sum of a bulk term and surface term. See the book of Debenedetti  for an excellent introduction to classical nucleation theory. The protein molecules are modeled by spherical particles of diameter $`D`$. The bulk term is equal to the number of molecules in the nucleus, $`n`$, times the chemical potential difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\mu _x\mu `$, where $`\mu _x`$ is the chemical potential of the crystalline phase and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential of the fluid phase which contains the nucleus. The fluid phase we are considering is not the true equilibrium phase, nucleation occurs from a fluid which is at a higher chemical potential than the crystal. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ is negative. The surface term is the surface area of the nucleus times the surface tension $`\gamma `$ of the bulk interface between the coexisting crystalline and fluid phases. The surface area of the nucleus is obtained by assuming that the nucleus is a sphere of radius $`R`$ which is related to $`n`$ by assuming that the density of spheres within the nucleus is equal to the bulk density of the crystalline phase, taken to be $`D^3`$: the density of a close-packed simple cubic lattice. Then $`n=(4/3)\pi R^3D^3`$. Putting this all together,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F=\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3D^3\mathrm{\Delta }\mu +4\pi R^2\gamma $$
(1)
The first term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is the bulk term, which is negative and decreases linearly with $`n`$, and the second term is the surface term which is positive and increases as $`n^{2/3}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ passes through a maximum, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^{}`$, at some value of $`R`$, denoted by $`R^{}`$. This maximum is the top of the free energy barrier to nucleation. The nucleus with radius $`R^{}`$ and $`n^{}`$ spheres is called the critical nucleus. Taking the derivative of Eq. (1) with respect to $`R`$ and equating to zero,

$$R^{}=\frac{2\gamma D^3}{|\mathrm{\Delta }\mu |},$$
(2)
and inserting this value of $`n`$ in Eq. (1)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F^{}=\frac{16\pi \gamma ^3D^6}{3\mathrm{\Delta }\mu ^2}.$$
(3)
Nucleation is an activated process with $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^{}`$ as the barrier height and so the nucleation rate varies as $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }F^{}/kT)`$, where $`k`$ and $`T`$ are Boltzmann’s constant and the temperature $`T`$, respectively. To increase the rate of nucleation of the crystalline phase of the protein we need to reduce the barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^{}`$. In the absence of polymer $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^{}`$ and $`R^{}`$ are obtained from Eqs. (2) and (3) by setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0`$ and $`\gamma =\gamma _0`$.

## 3 Nucleation in the presence of semidilute polymer

Now we consider a solution of both protein molecules and flexible polymer molecules. The interaction between a protein molecule and a monomer is taken to be strictly repulsive. Figure 1 is a schematic of the nucleus in a solution of polymer. We remark that this simple model is not adequate for all polymers, for example it is not adequate for PEG (poly(ethylene glycol)). We consider the case where the polymer molecules are larger than the protein molecules and the polymer solution is semidilute. As the protein molecules are only a few nms in diameter this regime is easily accessible in experiment. In the other limit, where the polymer’s radius is smaller than that of the colloidal particles, the polymer induces a short-ranged depletion attraction between the particles. Such attractions are to a good approximation pairwise additive  and therefore straightforward to treat. See Refs. 22, 26, 27, 28, 29 for work where the polymer is at most as large as the colloid.

See the book of de Gennes  for an introduction to semidilute polymer solutions. They are characterised by a correlation length $`\xi `$ which scales as $`c_M^{3/4}`$, where $`c_M`$ is the monomer concentration. The osmotic pressure exerted by the polymer $`\mathrm{\Pi }kT\xi ^3`$.

The crystalline phase of the protein is dense, the gaps between protein molecules available to polymer are around $`0.4D`$ or less across. Forcing a polymer molecule into a tube of diameter $`0.4D`$ costs roughly $`kT`$ in free energy per $`0.4D`$ of the tube’s length as the polymer collides with the walls of the tube at intervals of roughly its diameter. Thus, the free energy density inside such a crystal, either a bulk crystal or a crystalline nucleus, will be of order $`kT`$ per $`0.06D^3`$ volume whereas in solution it is $`kT`$ per $`\xi ^3`$ volume. For $`\xi `$ larger than $`D`$, which we assume throughout, the free energy density inside a crystal is so much higher than outside that to a good approximation there is no polymer inside the crystal. This agrees with calculations using the theory of Ref. 20. So, as the crystalline nucleus is impermeable to polymer it interacts with the polymer, as a hard particle of radius $`R`$.

The interaction $`w`$ of a hard spherical particle of diameter $`D`$ with a semidilute solution of polymer in a good solvent with a correlation length $`\xi `$ is

$$wkT\left(\frac{D}{\xi }\right)^{4/3}D\xi ,$$
(4)
where we took the exponent $`\nu `$ to have its Flory value of $`3/5`$ . $`w`$ is the work done (= the difference in excess chemical potential) in taking a particle from a pure solvent and inserting it into the polymer solution. This assumes that the interaction between a protein and the monomers of a polymer is purely repulsive and that there is not much more than one protein molecule per $`\xi ^3`$ volume. The notation $``$ indicates that we have neglected a coefficient of order unity; here we derive only the scaling behaviour of the interactions with respect to the relevant length scales. Equation (4) can be derived in a couple of ways, see Refs. 11, 12, 13, 14. One way is to note that when $`D\xi `$ the interaction between a particle and polymer must scale as the density of monomers, which scales as $`\xi ^{4/3}`$ when $`\nu =3/5`$. As $`w/kT`$ is dimensionless, we require that $`\xi ^{4/3}`$ appears as the ratio $`(D/\xi )^{4/3}`$ which gives Eq. (4).

Straightaway we can derive an approximation for the contribution of polymer to the difference in excess chemical potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ between the dense crystalline phase of the protein, and the semidilute polymer solution. It is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0kT\left(\frac{D}{\xi }\right)^{4/3}+\mathrm{\Pi }D^3,$$
(5)
where the second term on the right hand side is the change in free energy of the polymer when a single protein molecule is removed from the semidilute polymer solution and the last term is the change in free energy of this solution when it is compressed by the crystalline phase of the protein expanding by the volume of one protein. The osmotic pressure of a polymer solution $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is related to $`\xi `$ by $`\mathrm{\Pi }kT\xi ^3`$. Thus, the last term is equal to $`kT(D/\xi )^3`$ and so is smaller than the second term, indeed it is of order terms we have dropped and so we drop it and obtain our final expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ in the presence of polymer,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0kT\left(\frac{D}{\xi }\right)^{4/3}.$$
(6)
For a large nucleus, radius $`R\xi `$, the width of the nucleus–polymer-solution interface, $`\xi `$, is small and so the capillarity approximation which underlies classical nucleation theory still holds: $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is still a sum of bulk and interfacial terms. The bulk term is given by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ of Eq. (6) times the number of protein molecules in the nucleus. In the presence of semidilute polymer the the interfacial tension of a flat interface, $`\gamma `$ is ,

$$\gamma \gamma _0+\frac{kT}{\xi ^2},$$
(7)
where $`\gamma _0`$ is the interfacial tension in the absence of polymer. Bearing in mind that $`\gamma _0`$ will be at least of order $`kT/D^2`$ we see that the fractional modification to $`\gamma _0`$ due to polymer is of order $`(D/\xi )^2`$. For a $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0`$ of order $`kT`$, the fractional change to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ due to polymer is, see Eq. (6), of order $`(D/\xi )^{4/3}`$. Within our crude scaling theory we only consider leading order contributions and so neglect the contribution of the polymer to $`\gamma `$, leaving the only contribution of polymer as the change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ given by Eq. (6).

In the opposite limit for $`R`$, $`R\xi `$, then the contribution of polymer to the free energy of the nucleus is no longer the sum of bulk and interfacial terms, i.e., it is not the sum of terms scaling as $`R^3`$ and as $`R^2`$. For $`R\xi `$ the contribution of the polymer to the free energy of formation of the nucleus $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^{}`$ is the sum of two terms: the first is the number of protein molecules in the nucleus times minus the increase in chemical potential in solution due to polymer, Eq. (4), and the second is the free energy cost of inserting the nucleus into the polymer solution. This second term is the free energy cost due to the nucleus excluding polymer from a sphere of radius $`R`$. Because the polymer cannot penetrate into the nucleus it interacts with the polymer as a single particle, and so this free energy cost is just Eq. (4) with $`D`$ replaced by $`2R`$. Adding the two terms together we have the contribution of polymer to $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }F_0nkT\left(\frac{D}{\xi }\right)^{4/3}+kT\left(\frac{2R}{\xi }\right)^{4/3}R<\xi ,$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_0`$ is the free energy of formation of the nucleus before polymer is added. For $`R`$ a few times $`D`$ and $`R,D\xi `$ the second term in Eq. (8) dominates the last term. So, we neglect the last term in Eq. (8). Then as the remaining term is linear in $`n`$ it is in effect a shift in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ and indeed is the same shift in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ we found in the opposite limit, $`R\xi `$. Thus we conclude that as for $`R\xi `$ the leading order contribution of semidilute polymer to the nucleation barrier is simply to shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ by the amount given in Eq. (6).

So, we have shown that in both limits, $`R\xi `$ and $`R\xi `$, the effect of adding polymer in the semidilute regime is to shift the chemical potential difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ by an amount of order $`(D/\xi )^{4/3}kT`$, which will be a few tenths of $`kT`$. Having shown that it holds in both limits we assume that it also holds for $`R/\xi =O(1)`$ as well. The shift varies as $`\xi ^{4/3}`$ and so increases linearly with the density of polymer. The size of the critical nucleus also decreases, Eq. (2). Thus, if decreasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ by a few tenths of $`kT`$ is enough to reduce the nucleation barrier sufficiently to make the nucleation rate significant then adding semidilute polymer is a viable way of inducing nucleation of the crystalline phase of small colloidal particles such as proteins and micelles.

### 3.1 Comparison with assumption of pairwise additivity

A pair of particles in a semidilute polymer solution separated by a distance $`x`$ of order $`\xi `$ or less feel a polymer-induced attraction towards each other, which we denote by $`w_2`$ . For small particles, $`D\xi `$, and for separations $`r`$ much smaller than the correlation length

$$w_2kT\left(\frac{D}{\xi }\right)^{4/3}\left(\frac{D}{r}\right)^{4/3}r\xi .$$
(9)
Naively it might be thought that the contribution of polymer to the free energy change $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ could be estimated using this pair attraction plus a mean-field approximation, which would correspond to the approximation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0+D^3_{r>D}d𝐫w_2(r)\text{wrong},$$
(10)
which is just the integral over the number density, $`D^3`$ in the crystalline phase, times the potential. As usual with a mean-field approximation, correlations in the positions of particles are neglected and one protein is considered to interact with surrounding particles which are at the mean density. The above integral is $`D^3`$ times the contribution of polymer to the second virial coefficient. See Eisenriegler  for a more accurate treatment of the contribution of polymer to the second virial coefficient. So, inserting Eq. (9), into Eq. (10), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0kT\left(\frac{\xi }{D}\right)^{1/3}\text{wrong}.$$
(11)
If we compare Eqs. (6) and (11) we see that the assumption of a pairwise additive potential plus the mean-field approximation predicts the wrong scaling with $`(D/\xi )`$ of the polymer contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$. It greatly overestimates, by a factor of order $`(\xi /D)^{5/3}`$, the effect of adding polymer whose correlation length is large with respect to the protein diameter. Naively using the pair potential between an isolated pair of particles, (a pair of particles with no others within a distance $`\xi `$ of them), as the pair interaction within a dense, number density $`\xi ^3`$ (here the crystal), is qualitatively wrong.

## 4 Conclusion

We have estimated the change in the barrier to nucleation when polymer is added to a metastable dilute protein solution. The polymer is semidilute, and has a correlation length $`\xi `$ larger than the diameter of the protein $`D`$; the polymer does not adsorb onto the surface of the protein. When polymer is added, the barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^{}`$ is reduced due to the increase in the chemical potential of the protein in solution, possibly by enough to allow nucleation. However, the effect is not large, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ decreases by only a few tenths of $`kT`$. Also, a naive use of the polymer induced attraction between a pair of proteins yields results which are qualitatively wrong: they grossly overestimate the effect of adding polymer. This does not mean that an effective potential approach to the effect of polymer cannot reliably estimate the effect of large polymer molecules, just that this effective potential is many-body in nature and cannot simply be approximated by just a pair potential. This conclusion also applies to the phase behaviour of a system of hard-sphere-like colloidal particles and larger polymer molecules .

Finally, we note that the second virial coefficient $`B_2`$ is often used to measure the strength of the attractions in a protein solution. $`B_2`$ is given by

$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`B_{2,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{r>D}}d𝐫{\displaystyle \frac{w_2(r)}{kT}}w_2kT`$ (12)
$``$ $`B_{2,0}D^{8/3}\xi ^{1/3},`$ (13)
where $`B_{2,0}`$ is the second virial coefficient in the absence of polymer and we have assumed not only that $`w_2/kT`$ is small but that $`B_{2,0}`$ is dominated by interactions with a range $`\xi `$: then the second virial coefficient is the sum of the two terms in Eq. (12). So as the polymer density increases, $`\xi `$ decreases and the contribution of polymer to $`B_2`$ decreases. But from Eq. (6) we see that as the polymer density increases it has a larger and larger effect on the nucleation barrier. So, the effect of polymer on $`B_2`$ is anti-correlated with its effect on $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^{}`$, i.e., when one goes up the other goes down, not correlated as we might naively have expected.


text:
# Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of Superconducting 𝑀𝑔¹⁰𝐵₂

## I Introduction

With the discovery of superconductivity in $`MgB_2`$ at about $`39K`$ by Akimitsu and co-workers, there is an opportunity to study superfluid transport and phase locking of conduction electrons in a whole new class of materials. In early studies of the $`B`$ isotope effect, Bud’ko and co-workers found the superconducting transition temperature, $`T_c`$, increased from $`39.2K`$ for $`Mg^{11}B_2`$ to $`40.2K`$ for $`Mg^{10}B_2`$ giving a partial isotope exponent $`\alpha _B=0.26`$ for the isotope relation $`T_cM^{\alpha _B}`$ where $`M`$ is the isotope mass. This is a clear indication that the phonons are playing an important role in the superconducting interaction. In addition, band structure calculations indicate a rather isotropic electrical transport in spite of the very layered appearance of honeycombed boron and hexagonal magnesium networks in the material.

The purpose of this letter is to report measurements of the critical fields of this material to get an estimate of the characteristic length and energy scales for comparison with the classical superconductors like Nb and the high temperature superconductors, like $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{7\delta }`$. A second goal is to obtain some measure of the supercurrent transport through grain boundaries for comparison with the high temperature superconductors where there are serious weak link problems with the grain boundaries.

## II Experiment

A sintered pellet of $`Mg^{10}B_2`$ was made by sealing a stoichiometric mixture of $`Mg`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{10}B`$ in a Ta tube and heating to $`950^{}C`$ for two hours. Magnetization was measured with a Quantum Designs SQUID magnetometer with a $`60mm`$ scan length on a $`14.22mg`$ piece from the same batch of $`Mg^{10}B_2`$ material reported previously. Electrical resistance between $`1.9K`$ and $`300K`$ in applied magnetic field up to $`9T`$ was measured in a Quantum Designs PPMS-9 apparatus on another piece from the same $`Mg^{10}B_2`$ batch using standard four probe ac resistance technique at $`f=16Hz`$ and a current density of $`0.10.3A/cm^2`$. Electrical contacts were made with Epo-tek $`H20E`$ silver epoxy.

## III Results and discussion

The temperature dependent electrical resistance of the material from $`300K`$ to $`1.9K`$, shown in Fig. 1, roughly obeys $`R=R_0+R_1T^3`$ power law in the normal state. The residual resistance ratio (RRR) is approximately $`20`$, which is relatively high for a sintered polycrystalline sample. Near $`T_c`$, the data show considerable flux-flow broadening as shown by the inset in Fig. 1 where the scans range from $`0`$ to $`9T`$. Transition widths gradually broaden from $`0.5K`$ at $`0`$ field to $`9.5K`$ at $`\mu _oH=9T`$ indicating a broad region of flux-flow resistivity. The extent of this flux-flow regime is delineated by the onset and completion temperatures shown in Fig. 2 by the vertical dash lines.

Possibly the most interesting aspect of these data is the strong magnetoresistance which shows the resistance at $`45K`$ rising approximately $`80`$ percent in $`9T`$. If these data are plotted on a Kohler Plot shown in Fig. 3, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _ovs.H/\rho _o`$ curve is a straight line for the change of temperature at constant field (open circles) and for changing field at constant temperature (solid triangles). This observation is consistent with the observed magnetoresistance being a band effect and intrinsic to the sample.

Magnetization data are exemplified by the $`36K`$ and $`30K`$ runs in Fig.4. For the $`30K`$ run, the magnetization abruptly departs from the background at $`H_{c2}=4.4T`$ and is reversible to an accuracy of one percent of the magnetization down to $`H_{irr}=1.6T`$. Because the background magnetization is very small, linear in magnetic field, and independent of temperature between $`42K`$ and $`50K`$, this correction is easily made and $`H_{c2}`$ and $`H_{irr}`$ are fairly easy to measure. At $`7T`$, the magnitude of the background is about $`0.13emu/cm^3`$ and the correction can be made to an accuracy of $`0.01emu/cm^3`$. The inset shows that the irreversible magnetization over a fuller temperature range. In the inset, the x-symbols show the $`30K`$ data and show that about $`200emu/cm^3`$ or about $`0.2T`$ flux is trapped at zero field. At $`6K`$, shown by the solid squares of the inset, the trapped flux at zero applied field for this rather porous granular pellet is $`500emu/cm^3`$ or over $`0.5T`$.

Using the Bean model with $`J_c=17\mathrm{\Delta }M/r`$, the critical current densities of Fig. 5 can be derived. Here, $`J_c`$ is in $`A/cm^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ in $`emu/cm^3`$, and the sample radius, $`r`$, in $`cm`$. These $`J_c`$ values are not as high as a sintered pellet of $`Nb_3Sn`$, but the grain-to-grain supercurrent coupling is rather promising. A scanning electron microscope picture of a fracture surface of the pellet shows grain size running from about $`0.5\mu m`$ to $`5\mu m`$. The grains are somewhat faceted plates and many small grains are equiaxed. From the magnitude of the measured screening currents, it is clear that the proper $`r`$ to put in the Bean model is the full sample diameter and not the grain size. The sample radius is about $`1mm`$.

Close to $`T_c`$, there is a reasonable range of thermodynamic reversibility, so an estimate has been made of $`H_c`$ vs. $`T`$. To do this, it is assumed that the flux pinning in decreasing magnetic field is the same as in increasing magnetic field and an equilibrium magnetization is defined as the average of the average of the increasing field magnetization and the decreasing field magnetization by $`M_{eq}=(M_{inc}+M_{dec})/2`$. Willemin and co-workers have shown the validity of this procedure. A plot of $`M_{eq}vs.T`$ in Fig.6 shows behavior close to that predicted by Abrikosov. Integrating the area under these magnetization curves gives the $`H_cvs.T`$ curve shown in the inset of Fig. 6. From the slope of $`dH_c/dT=119Oe/K`$, one can calculate the jump in specific heat at $`T_c`$ to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }C=[VT_c/4\pi ][dH_c/dT]^2=79mJ/moleK`$. This is consistent with the direct specific heat measurements published earlier from which $`\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ can be estimated to be about $`84mJ/moleK`$.

## IV Conclusions

The transport and magnetization studies of $`Mg^{10}B_2`$ give very consistent measures of $`H_{c2}(T)`$ for this material with magnetization data giving a slope at $`T_c`$ of $`dH_{c2}/dT=0.44T/K`$. The magnetization $`H_{c2}`$ agrees with the onset of the resistive transition, and the broadened resistive transitions seem to reflect a flux-flow resistivity phenomenon. Close to $`T_c`$, the values of the $`H_c`$ can be estimated and the slope is found to be $`dH_c/dT=0.012T/K`$. This then means that the Ginsburg-Landau parameter, $`\kappa =H_{c2}/[.707H_c]26`$. By estimating $`H_{c2}(T=0)=0.71T_c[dH_{c2}/dT]_{T_c}`$ to be $`12.5T`$, the low temperature coherence distance, $`\xi _o=[\varphi _o/[2\pi H_{c2}]^{1/2}`$ is found to be $`5.2nm`$. Using the relation $`\kappa =\xi _o/\lambda `$, the penetration depth, $`\lambda =140nm`$.

The critical current densities for this rather porous sintered sample are on the order of $`10^5A/cm^2`$ at $`6K`$. This would seem to indicate that $`MgB_2`$ grain boundaries can transmit rather large supercurrents.

## V Acknowledgments

We would like to thank M. J. Kramer and F. Laabs for the electron microscope pictures, and V. G. Kogan for useful discussions. C. Petrovic and C. E. Cunningham also made valuable contributions. Ames Laboratory is operated for the U. S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under contract No. W-7405-ENG-82 and supported by the DOE, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences.

\*On leave from Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique, DRFMC-SPSMS, 38054 Grenoble, France.


text:
# The kernel of the modular representation and the Galois action in RCFT

## 1. Introduction

It is known since the work of Cardy  that a most important feature of Conformal Field Theory is modular invariance: the genus one characters of the chiral algebra afford a unitary representation of the modular group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)=SL(2,)`$, and the torus partition function is an invariant sesquilinear combination of them. In fact, this is not simply a unitary representation, because it comes with a distinguished basis formed by the genus one characters of the primary fields. The corresponding representation matrices enjoy many intriguing algebraic and arithmetic properties, the most important ones being summarized in Verlinde’s theorem , but one may also cite the trace identities of  and other related results. These special features are related to the fact that the modular representation provides the defining data of a 3D Topological Field Theory .

A most important characteristic of the modular representation is its kernel, the normal subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$ whose elements are represented by the identity matrix. It has been conjectured by several authors  that the kernel is a congruence subgroup, i.e. it contains some principal congruence subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)`$. This would have important consequences for a better understanding of the analytic and arithmetic properties of the genus one characters. No general proof of the above congruence subgroup property may be found in the literature, the best known result being that the congruence property holds if the Dehn-twist $`T`$ is represented by a matrix of odd order , but for generic RCFTs the order of $`T`$ tends to be even, as can be seen on the example of (Virasoro) minimal models.

The aim of the present paper is to present a proof of the congruence subgroup property for an arbitrary RCFT. We shall do this by studying the Galois action  in the RCFT and in suitable permutation orbifolds of it. By exploiting the knowledge of the modular representation of these permutation orbifolds, we’ll be able to give a simple description of the Galois action on arbitrary modular matrices. This in turn will allow us to write down a simple expression for the matrix elements of an arbitrary modular transformation, leading to a straightforward characterization of the kernel and an immediate proof of the congruence subgroup property. It should be emphasized that the results we present are much more powerful than the congruence property itself, for they allow a more refined study of the interplay between the arithmetic properties of modular matrix elements and the group theoretic properties of the modular representation.

## 2. The Galois action

In this section we’ll review the basic aspects of the Galois action in RCFT, beginning with some standard facts about the modular representation, mostly to set the notation.

Let’s consider a Rational Conformal Field Theory $`𝒞`$ with a finite set $``$ of primary fields. The genus one characters $`\chi _p\left(\tau \right)`$ of the primaries $`p`$ transform according to a unitary representation of the modular group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$, i.e. for $`m=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$ we have

(1)
$$\chi _p\left(\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d}\right)=\underset{q}{}M_p^q\chi _q\left(\tau \right)$$

In the sequel, we shall always denote by $`M`$ the matrix representing $`m\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$ in the basis of genus one characters.

Of special interest are the matrices $`T`$ and $`S`$ representing $`t=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ and $`s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$. As $`s`$ and $`t`$ generate the modular group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$, any representation matrix $`M`$ may be written in terms of $`S`$ and $`T`$, although the resulting expression may be quite cumbersome. It follows from the defining relations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$ that

(2) $`STS`$ $`=`$ $`T^1ST^1`$
(3) $`S^4`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
Moreover, it is known that $`S^2`$ is the charge conjugation operator, i.e.

(4)
$$\left(S^2\right)_p^q=\delta _{p,\overline{q}}$$

where $`\overline{q}`$ denotes the charge conjugate of the primary $`q`$.

The most important properties of $`S`$ and $`T`$ are summarized in the celebrated theorem of Verlinde :

1. $`T`$ is diagonal of finite order.
2. $`S`$ is symmetric.
3. The quantities

$$N_{pqr}=\underset{s}{}\frac{S_{ps}S_{qs}S_{rs}}{S_{0s}}$$

are non-negative integers, being the dimension of suitable spaces of holomorphic blocks. Here and in the sequel, the label $`0`$ refers to the vacuum of the theory.

The basic idea in the theory of the Galois action  is to look at the field $`F`$ obtained by adjoining to the rationals $``$ the matrix elements of all modular transformations. One may show that, as a consequence of Verlinde’s theorem, $`F`$ is a finite Abelian extension of $``$. By the celebrated theorem of Kronecker and Weber this means that $`F`$ is a subfield of some cyclotomic field $`\left[\zeta _n\right]`$ for some integer $`n`$, where $`\zeta _n=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi i}{n}\right)`$ is a primitive $`n`$-th root of unity. We’ll call the conductor of $`𝒞`$ the smallest $`n`$ for which $`F\left[\zeta _n\right]`$ and which is divisible by the order of the Dehn-twist.

Among other things, the above results imply that the Galois group $`\mathrm{Gal}\left(F/\right)`$ is a homomorphic image of the Galois group $`𝒢_n=\mathrm{Gal}\left(\left[\zeta _n\right]/\right)`$. But it is well known that $`𝒢_n`$ is isomorphic to the group $`\left(/n\right)^{}`$ of prime residues modulo $`n`$, its elements being the Frobenius maps $`\sigma _l:\left[\zeta _n\right]\left[\zeta _n\right]`$ that leave $``$ fixed, and send $`\zeta _n`$ to $`\zeta _n^l`$ for $`l`$ coprime to $`n`$. Consequently, the maps $`\sigma _l`$ are automorphisms of $`F`$ over $``$.

According to , we have (for $`l`$ coprime to the conductor)

(5)
$$\sigma _l\left(S_p^q\right)=\epsilon _l(q)S_p^{\pi _lq}$$

for some permutation $`\pi _lSym\left(\right)`$ of the primaries and some function $`\epsilon _l:\{1,+1\}`$. In other words, upon introducing the orthogonal monomial matrices

(6)
$$\left(G_l\right)_p^q=\epsilon _l(q)\delta _{p,\pi _lq}$$

and denoting by $`\sigma _l\left(M\right)`$ the matrix that one obtains by applying $`\sigma _l`$ to $`M`$ elementwise, we have

(7)
$$\sigma _l\left(S\right)=SG_l=G_l^1S$$

Note that for $`l`$ and $`m`$ both coprime to the conductor

$`\pi _{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _l\pi _m`$
$`G_{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`G_lG_m`$
The Galois action on $`T`$ is even simpler, for $`T`$ is diagonal, and its eigenvalues are roots of unity, consequently

(8)
$$\sigma _l\left(T\right)=T^l$$

## 3. Galois action on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ matrices

In this section we’ll study the Galois action in some appropriate permutation orbifold . According to the Orbifold Covariance Principle , all the properties of the Galois action reviewed in the previous section should hold in the permutation orbifold, in particular the Galois action on the $`S`$-matrix elements may be described via suitable permutations $`\pi _l`$ of the primaries of the orbifold and signs $`\epsilon _l`$ . This will in turn allow us to determine the Galois action on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-matrices.

We fix a positive integer $`N`$, and consider the group $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ generated by the cyclic permutation $`(1,\mathrm{},N)`$. One can then form the permutation orbifold $`𝒞\mathrm{\Omega }`$ according to , which is a new RCFT with explicitly known genus one characters and modular transformation matrices. Among the primary fields of the permutation orbifold $`𝒞\mathrm{\Omega }`$ there is a subset $`𝒥`$ of special relevance to us. The primaries in $`𝒥`$ are labeled by triples $`[p,n,k]`$, where $`p`$ is a primary of $`𝒞`$, while $`n`$ and $`k`$ are integers mod $`N`$. The subset of those $`[p,n,k]`$ where $`n`$ is coprime to $`N`$ will be denoted by $`𝒥_0`$. It follows from the general theory of permutation orbifolds  that the primary fields $`[p,n,k]𝒥_0`$ have vanishing $`S`$-matrix elements with the primaries not in $`𝒥`$, while for $`[q,m,l]𝒥`$ we have111For the definition and basic properties of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-matrices, see the Appendix.

(9)
$$S_{[p,n,k]}^{[q,m,l]}=\frac{1}{N}\zeta _N^{(km+ln)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^q\left(\frac{m\widehat{n}}{N}\right)$$

where $`\widehat{n}`$ denotes the mod $`N`$ inverse of $`n`$ and $`\zeta _N=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi i}{N}\right)`$.

Let’s now consider the action of a Galois transformation $`\sigma _l`$ with $`l`$ coprime to $`N`$. According to the results of the previous section, we have 222We’ll always assume that $`l`$ is coprime to the conductor, but this is no loss of generality, as it can always be achieved according to Dirichlet’s theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions.

(10)
$$\sigma _l\left(S_q^{[p,n,k]}\right)=\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_l(p,n,k)S_q^{\stackrel{~}{\pi }_l[p,n,k]}$$

for some permutation $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_l`$ of the primaries of $`𝒞\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and some signs $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_l`$.

###### Lemma 1.

The set $`𝒥`$ is invariant under the permutations $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_l`$, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_l\left(𝒥\right)=𝒥`$. For a primary $`[p,n,k]𝒥_0`$ one has

(11)
$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }_l[p,n,k]=[\pi _lp,ln,\stackrel{~}{k}]$$

for some function $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ of $`l,p,n`$ and $`k`$, and

(12)
$$\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_l(p,n,k)=\epsilon _l(p)$$

###### Proof.

First, let’s fix $`[p,n,k]𝒥`$. According to Eq.(9), we have

$$S_{[q,1,0]}^{[p,n,k]}=\frac{1}{N}\zeta _N^k\mathrm{\Lambda }_q^p\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)$$

and this expression differs from $`0`$ for at least one $`q`$, by the unitarity of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-matrices. Select such a $`q`$, and apply $`\sigma _l`$ to both sides of the equation. One gets that

$$\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_l(p,n,k)S_{[q,1,0]}^{\stackrel{~}{\pi }_l[p,n,k]}=\sigma _l\left(S_{[q,1,0]}^{[p,n,k]}\right)$$

differs from $`0`$, but this can only happen if $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_l[p,n,k]𝒥`$ because $`[q,1,0]𝒥_0`$.

Next, for $`[p,n,k]𝒥_0`$ consider

(13)
$$S_{[q,0,m]}^{[p,n,k]}=\frac{1}{N}\zeta _N^{nm}S_q^p$$

Applying $`\sigma _l`$ to both sides of the above equation we get from Eq.(5)

$$\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_l(p,n,k)S_{[q,0,m]}^{\stackrel{~}{\pi }_l[p,n,k]}=\frac{1}{N}\zeta _N^{lnm}\epsilon _l(p)S_q^{\pi _lp}$$

But the lhs. equals

$$\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_l(p,n,k)\frac{1}{N}\zeta _N^{\stackrel{~}{n}m}S_q^{\stackrel{~}{p}}$$

according to Eq.(13) if $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_l[p,n,k]=[\stackrel{~}{p},\stackrel{~}{n},\stackrel{~}{k}]`$. Equating both sides we arrive at

$$S_q^{\stackrel{~}{p}}=\epsilon _l(p)\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_l(p,n,k)\zeta _N^{m(\stackrel{~}{n}ln)}S_q^{\pi _lp}$$

As the lhs. is independent of $`m`$, we must have

$$\stackrel{~}{n}ln\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=\pi _lp$$

as well as

$$\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_l(p,n,k)=\epsilon _l(p)$$

###### Proposition 1.

For $`l`$ coprime to the denominator of $`r`$

(14)
$$\sigma _l\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(r\right)\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(lr\right)G_lZ_l(r^{})=Z_l\left(r\right)G_l^1\mathrm{\Lambda }(\widehat{l}r)$$

where $`Z_l(r)`$ is a diagonal matrix whose order divides the denominator $`N`$ of $`r`$, and $`\widehat{l}`$ is the mod $`N`$ inverse of $`l`$.

###### Proof.

Write $`r=\frac{n}{N}`$, with $`n`$ coprime to $`N`$, and recall that $`r^{}=\frac{\widehat{n}}{N}`$, where $`\widehat{n}`$ is the mod $`N`$ inverse of $`n`$. Consider

(15)
$$S_{[q,1,m]}^{[p,n,k]}=\frac{1}{N}\zeta _N^{(k+nm)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_q^p\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)$$

Applying $`\sigma _l`$ to both sides of the above equation and taking into account Eqs. (11,12), we get

$$\epsilon _l(p)S_{[q,1,m]}^{[\pi _lp,ln,\stackrel{~}{k}]}=\frac{1}{N}\zeta _N^{l(k+nm)}\sigma _l\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_q^p\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)\right)$$

But form Eq.(15), the lhs. equals

$$\epsilon _l(p)\frac{1}{N}\zeta _N^{(\stackrel{~}{k}+lnm)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_q^{\pi _lp}\left(\frac{ln}{N}\right)$$

so after rearranging, we get

(16)
$$\sigma _l\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_q^p\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)\right)=\epsilon _l(p)\zeta _N^{(lk\stackrel{~}{k})}\mathrm{\Lambda }_q^{\pi _lp}\left(\frac{ln}{N}\right)$$

As the lhs. is independent of $`k`$

(17)
$$\stackrel{~}{k}lkk_0(l,p,r)\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)$$

Of course, the point is that $`k_0`$ is independent of $`k`$. If we introduce the diagonal matrix

(18)
$$Z_l\left(r\right)_p^q=\delta _{p,q}\zeta _N^{k_0(l,p,r^{})}$$

then it is obvious that the order of $`Z_l(r)`$ divides the denominator of $`r`$ and the first equality in Eq.(14) holds. The second follows simply from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(r\right)^T=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(r^{}\right)`$. ∎

Note that it follows from the definition of $`Z_l(r)`$ that $`Z_l(0)=𝕀`$ and $`Z_l(r+1)=Z_l(r)`$.

###### Lemma 2.

(19)
$$G_l^1Z_m(\widehat{l}r)G_l=Z_{lm}(r)Z_l^m(r)$$

whenever both $`l`$ and $`m`$ are coprime to the denominator of $`r`$.

###### Proof.

This follows at once from $`\sigma _{lm}=\sigma _l\sigma _m`$ applied to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.

If $`n`$ is coprime to the denominator of $`r`$, then

(20)
$$Z_l^n\left(r\right)=Z_l\left(nr\right)$$

###### Proof.

Let $`r=\frac{m}{N}`$, with $`m`$ coprime to $`N`$. According to Eq.(9)

$$NS_{[p,n,0]}^{[q,nm,0]}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^q\left(r\right)$$

Applying $`\sigma _l`$ to both sides we get

$$\sigma _l\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^q\left(r\right)\right)=N\epsilon _l(q)S_{[p,n,0]}^{[\pi _lq,lnm,k_0]}=\epsilon _l(q)\zeta _N^{nk_0(l,q,\frac{nm}{N})}\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(lr\right)_p^{\pi _lq}$$

i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(lr\right)G_lZ_l\left(r^{}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(lr\right)G_lZ_l^n\left(\widehat{n}r^{}\right)$$

by Eq.(14), i.e.

$$Z_l\left(r\right)=Z_l^n\left(\widehat{n}r\right)$$

But this is equivalent to the assertion. ∎

###### Theorem 1.

For all $`l`$ coprime to the conductor

(21)
$$G_l^1TG_l=T^{l^2}$$

###### Proof.

Take $`N`$ equal to the order of $`T`$. Clearly, $`N`$ divides the conductor. By Eq.(31) of the Appendix,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)=T^{\frac{1}{N}}S^1T^NST^{\frac{1}{N}}=T^{\frac{2}{N}}$$

But

$$\sigma _l^2\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)\right)=\sigma _l\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{l}{N}\right)G_lZ_l\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)\right)=Z_l\left(\frac{l}{N}\right)G_l^1\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)G_lZ_l^l\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)$$

or in other words

$$T^{\frac{2l^2}{N}}=G_l^1T^{\frac{2}{N}}G_lZ_l^2\left(\frac{l}{N}\right)$$

because both $`Z_l`$ and $`T`$ are diagonal, hence they commute. If $`N`$ is even, then taking the $`\frac{N}{2}`$-th power of the last equation gives the result. If $`N`$ is odd, then there exists $`k`$ such that $`2k1\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)`$, and taking the $`kN`$-th power of the equation gives again Eq.(21). ∎

###### Remark 1.

This result has been conjectured in , where some of its consequences (to be reviewed in the next section) had been derived.

###### Corollary 1.

(22)
$$G_l^1MG_l=\sigma _l^2\left(M\right)$$

for any modular matrix $`M`$.

###### Proof.

We have just seen that it holds for $`T`$, and it also holds for $`S`$ by Eq.(7). But $`s`$ and $`t`$ generate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$, consequently the claim should hold for any $`m\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.

If $`l`$ is coprime to both the conductor and the denominator of $`r`$, then

(23)
$$G_l^1T^rG_l=T^{l^2r}Z_l^l\left(r\right)$$

###### Proof.

Let’s write $`r=\frac{n}{N}`$. We know from  that

$$\omega _{[p,n,k]}=\zeta _N^{nk}\omega _p^{1/N}$$

where $`\omega _p=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_p\frac{c}{24}\right)\right)`$ is the exponentiated conformal weight of the primary $`p`$, i.e. the matrix element $`T_{pp}`$. By Eq.(21)

$$\omega _p^{l^2/N}=\omega _{\stackrel{~}{\pi }_l[p,1,0]}=\omega _{[\pi _lp,l,k_0]}=\zeta _N^{lk_0}\omega _{\pi _lp}^{1/N}$$

i.e.

$$Z_l^l\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)_{pp}=\zeta _N^{lk_0(l,p,1/N)}=\omega _{\pi _lp}^{1/N}\omega _p^{l^2/N}$$

or in other words

$$Z_l^l\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)=G_l^1T^{\frac{1}{N}}G_lT^{\frac{l^2}{N}}$$

Taking the $`n`$-th power of the last equation and using Eq.(20) gives the result, because $`Z_l`$ and $`T`$ commute. ∎

###### Lemma 4.

Suppose that $`l`$ is coprime to the denominator of both $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$. Then

(24)
$$Z_l(r_1)Z_l(r_2)=Z_l\left(r_1+r_2\right)$$

###### Proof.

$$T^{l^2(r_1+r_2)}Z_l^l(r_1)Z_l^l(r_2)=G_l^1T^{r_1+r_2}G_l=T^{l^2(r_1+r_2)}Z_l^l\left(r_1+r_2\right)$$

according to Proposition 2. ∎

## 4. The Galois action revisited

In this section we translate the results of the previous section about the Galois action on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-matrices to statements about the Galois action on modular matrix elements.

###### Proposition 3.

For $`l`$ coprime to the conductor,

(25)
$$G_l=S^1T^lST^{\widehat{l}}ST^l$$

where $`\widehat{l}`$ denotes the inverse of $`l`$ modulo the conductor.

###### Proof.

Let’s apply $`\sigma _l`$ to both sides of the modular relation Eq.(2). One gets

$$SG_lT^lG_l^1S=T^lSG_lT^l$$

After rearranging and using Eq.(21) we get the assertion. ∎

###### Proposition 4.

The conductor equals the order $`N`$ of $`T`$, and $`F=\left[\zeta _N\right]`$.

###### Proof.

Clearly, $`N`$ divides the conductor, for the eigenvalues of $`T`$ are roots of unity. But for $`l1\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)`$ we have

$$\sigma _l\left(T\right)=T^l=T$$

and

$$\sigma _l\left(S\right)=T^lST^{\widehat{l}}ST^l=S$$

according to Eqs.(8,7,25), consequently all such $`l`$ fixes $`F`$, i.e. $`F\left[\zeta _N\right]`$. On the other hand, if $`\sigma _l`$ fixes $`F`$ then $`l1\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)`$, i.e. $`Gal\left(F/\right)=Gal\left(\left[\zeta _N\right]/\right)`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.

The above two propositions had been derived in, upon postulating Eq.(21). Earlier, they have been conjectured in .

###### Lemma 5.

If $`G_l`$ is diagonal, then $`G_l=\pm 𝕀`$.

###### Proof.

$`G_l`$ diagonal means that $`\pi _l`$ is the identity permutation. If we apply $`\sigma _l`$ to $`S_{0p}`$, we get

$$\sigma _l\left(S_{0p}\right)=\epsilon _l\left(0\right)S_{0p}=\epsilon _l\left(p\right)S_{0p}$$

because $`\pi _lp=p`$. But $`S_{0p}>0`$, consequently $`\epsilon _l(p)=\epsilon _l(0)=\pm 1`$, proving the lemma. ∎

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`N_0`$ denote the order of the matrix $`\omega _0^1T`$, i.e. the least common multiple of the denominators of the conformal weights. Then $`N=eN_0`$, where the integer $`e`$ divides $`12`$. Moreover, the greatest common divisor of $`e`$ and $`N_0`$ is either 1 or 2.

###### Proof.

That $`N_0`$ divides $`N`$ is obvious. If we consider the matrix $`T^{N_0}`$, then it will equal $`\zeta =\omega _0^{N_0}`$ times the identity matrix. But $`N`$ is the exact order of $`T`$, consequently $`\zeta `$ is a primitive $`e`$-th root of unity. On the other hand, Eq.(21) implies

$$G_l^1T^{N_0}G_l=T^{l^2N_0}$$

for all $`l`$ coprime to $`N`$, i.e.

$$\zeta ^{l^2}=\zeta $$

In other words, the exponent of $`\left(/e\right)^{}`$ should divide $`2`$, and this can only happen if $`e`$ divides $`24`$.

Next, let’s consider $`l=1+6N_0`$. By the above result, $`l`$ is coprime to both $`N_0`$ and $`e`$, consequently it is also coprime to $`N`$. If $`\widehat{l}`$ denotes its inverse mod $`N`$, then we have

$$\widehat{l}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1+6N_0& \text{if }N_0\text{ is odd},\\ 16N_0& \text{if }N_0\text{ is even}.\end{array}$$

According to Eq.(25),

$$G_l=ST^lS^1T^{\widehat{l}}ST^l=\zeta ^{6\left(2\pm 1\right)}𝕀$$

But if $`G_l`$ is diagonal, then it equals $`\pm 𝕀`$, so that $`\zeta ^{12\left(2\pm 1\right)}=1`$. Together with $`\zeta ^{24}=1`$, this yields $`\zeta ^{12}=1`$.

Finally, let $`D`$ denote the gcd of $`e`$ and $`N_0`$, and consider $`l=1+\frac{N}{D}`$. It is straightforward that $`l`$ is coprime to $`N`$, and its inverse modulo $`N`$ is $`\widehat{l}=1\frac{N}{D}`$. But

$$G_l=\zeta ^{\frac{e}{D}}𝕀$$

and once again this should equal $`\pm 𝕀`$, consequently $`D`$ divides 2. ∎

###### Remark 3.

As it turns out, there are no further restrictions on the value of $`N/N_0`$, i.e. each divisor of $`12`$ occurs for some RCFT. But for a given value of $`N/N_0`$, techniques similar to the above yield more restrictions on $`N_0`$, e.g. $`N/N_0=12`$ cannot occur unless $`N_0\pm 1\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\right)`$.

###### Corollary 2.

$`N_0`$ times the central charge is an even integer.

###### Proof.

If $`c`$ denotes the central charge, then $`\omega _0=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi i\frac{c}{12}\right)`$. But $`\omega _0^N=1`$, so by the above $`\omega _0^{12N_0}=1`$, proving the claim. ∎

###### Proposition 6.

There exists a function $`N(r)`$ such that the conductor $`N`$ divides $`N(r)`$ if the number of primary fields - i.e. the dimension of the modular representation - is $`r`$.

###### Proof.

Let’s denote by $`s(r)`$ the exponent of the symmetric group $`S_r`$ of degree $`r`$. As the permutations $`\pi _l`$ belong to $`S_r`$, it follows that $`\pi _l^{s(r)}`$ is the identity permutation, i.e. $`G_l^{s(r)}`$ is diagonal. By Lemma 5 this means that $`G_l^{s(r)}=\pm 𝕀`$, which in turn implies that $`l^{2s(r)}1\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)`$ for all $`l`$, i.e. the exponent of the group $`\left(/N\right)^{}`$ divides $`2s(r)`$. Taking $`N(r)`$ to be the greatest integer satisfying this last condition proves the proposition. ∎

According to this proposition, for a given number of primary fields one has only a finite number of consistent choices for the conductor $`N`$ and the matrix $`T`$. The upper bound for $`N(r)`$ given in the proof may be greatly improved by exploiting the known properties of the matrices $`G_l`$ (e.g. that they commute), which leads to the following table for small values of $`r`$ :

| $`r`$ | $`N(r)`$ |
| --- | --- |
| 2 | 240 |
| 3 | 5040 |
| 4 | 10080 |
| 5 | 1441440 |

## 5. The kernel of the modular representation

Recall that the kernel $`𝒦`$ consists of those modular transformations which are represented by the identity matrix, i.e.

$$𝒦=\left\{m\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)\right|M_p^q=\delta _{p,q}\}$$

###### Proposition 7.

Let $`m=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)SL(2,)`$, $`l`$ coprime to the conductor, $`lk=1+\alpha c`$ and

$$\widehat{m}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}la& b+\alpha ad\\ c& kd\end{array}\right)$$

Then

(26)
$$\sigma _l\left(M\right)=\widehat{M}G_lT^{\alpha ld}$$

###### Proof.

According to Eq.(14)

$$\sigma _l\left(M\right)=\sigma _l\left(T^{a/c}\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{a}{c}\right)T^{d/c}\right)=T^{al/c}\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{al}{c}\right)G_lZ_l\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)T^{dl/c}$$

because $`\left(\frac{a}{c}\right)^{}=\frac{d}{c}`$. But

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{al}{c}\right)=T^{al/c}\widehat{M}T^{kd/c}$$

so

$$\sigma _l\left(M\right)=\widehat{M}T^{kd/c}G_lZ_l\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)T^{ld/c}$$

From Eq.(23)

$$T^{kd/c}G_l=G_lT^{l^2kd/c}Z_l\left(\frac{lkd}{c}\right)$$

Putting all this together, we get

$$\sigma _l\left(M\right)=\widehat{M}G_lT^{ld\left(1+\alpha c\right)/c}Z_l\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)Z_l\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)T^{ld/c}$$

which proves the claim according to Eq.(24). ∎

###### Corollary 3.

If $`m=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$ with $`d`$ coprime to the conductor, then

(27)
$$\sigma _d\left(M\right)=T^bS^1T^c\sigma _d\left(S\right)$$

###### Proof.

If we take $`l=d`$ and $`k=a`$ in Eq.(26), then $`\alpha =b`$ and $`\widehat{m}=t^bs^1t^cst^b`$. ∎

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`d`$ be coprime to the conductor $`N`$. Then $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$ belongs to the kernel $`𝒦`$ if and only if

(28)
$$\sigma _d\left(S\right)T^b=T^cS$$

###### Proof.

If $`m𝒦`$, then $`\sigma _d\left(M\right)`$ is the identity matrix, and Eq.(27) implies the result. ∎

###### Remark 4.

Apparently, the above criterion does only apply in case $`d`$ is coprime to the conductor. But if $`m𝒦`$, then

$$t^kmt^k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}akc& bk^2c+k(ad)\\ c& d+kc\end{array}\right)$$

also belongs to $`𝒦`$. Dirichlet’s theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions ensures that $`d+kc`$ is coprime to the conductor for infinitely many $`k`$, reducing the general case to the coprime one.

For the next result, recall that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\left(N\right)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\right)\right|a,d1\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right),c0\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)\}$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N\right)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\left(N\right)\right|b0\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)\}$$

###### Theorem 3.

$$𝒦\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\left(N\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N\right)$$

In particular, $`𝒦`$ is a congruence subgroup of level $`N`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\left(N\right)`$, then Eq.(28) reduces to $`ST^b=S`$, whose only solution is $`b0\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)`$. ∎

The above result means that the modular representation factors through $`SL_2\left(N\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)`$, i.e. there exists a representation $`D`$ of $`SL_2\left(N\right)`$ such that the modular representation is the composite map $`D\mu _N`$, where we denote by $`\mu _N`$ the natural homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)SL_2\left(N\right)`$. The representation $`D`$ gives us an elegant description of the Galois action.

###### Definition 1.

For $`l`$ coprime to $`N`$, define the automorphism $`\tau _l:SL_2\left(N\right)SL_2\left(N\right)`$ by

(29)
$$\tau _l\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& lb\\ \widehat{l}c& d\end{array}\right)$$

where $`\widehat{l}`$ is the mod $`N`$ inverse of $`l`$.

###### Theorem 4.

(30)
$$\sigma _lD=D\tau _l$$

###### Proof.

As a homomorphic image of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$, $`SL_2\left(N\right)`$ is generated by $`\mu _N(s)`$ and $`\mu _N\left(t\right)`$, so it is enough to verify Eq.(30) for these matrices. For $`t`$, the lhs. reads

$$\sigma _lD\mu _N(t)=T^l$$

while the rhs. is

$$D\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& l\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)=T^l$$

and these are clearly equal. For the case of $`s`$, the lhs. reads

$$\sigma _l\left(S\right)=SG_l=T^lST^{\widehat{l}}ST^l$$

according to Eq.(25), while the rhs. is

$$D\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& l\\ \widehat{l}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

It is easy to check that

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& l\\ \widehat{l}& 0\end{array}\right)t^lst^{\widehat{l}}st^l\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)$$

proving the claim. ∎

Note that in terms of the representation $`D`$ we have

$$G_l=D\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{l}& 0\\ 0& l\end{array}\right)$$

i.e. the matrices $`G_l`$ represent the diagonal subgroup of $`SL_2\left(N\right)`$.

Without going into the details, we note without proof that Eq.(28) implies the following results :

1. $`G_d^2=1`$, consequently $`d^41\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)`$.
2. $`b,c1d^2\left(\mathrm{mod}N_0\right)`$ .
3. $`\epsilon _d\left(0\right)=\omega _0^{cb}`$, in particular $`2c2b\left(\mathrm{mod}N\right)`$.
4. $`2c0\left(\mathrm{mod}N_0\right)`$.

## 6. Examples

Let’s look at a couple of simple examples to illustrate the above results. First, let’s consider the Lee-Yang model, i.e. the minimal model $`(5,2)`$. It has central charge $`c=\frac{22}{5}`$ and two primary fields, whose conformal weights are $`0`$ and $`\frac{1}{5}`$. The $`S`$ matrix reads

$$S=\frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi }{5}\right)& \mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{4\pi }{5}\right)\\ \mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{4\pi }{5}\right)& \mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi }{5}\right)\end{array}\right)$$

The conductor $`N`$ equals $`60`$, while $`N_0=5`$, providing an example where the ratio $`N/N_0`$ attains the upper bound of Lemma. As it turns out, the image $`\overline{𝒦}=\mu _N(𝒦)`$ of the kernel is a non-Abelian group of order $`192`$, whose center is $`_2^2`$ , and whose derived subgroup is $`_2^3`$. A small generating set for $`\overline{𝒦}`$ is provided by the matrices

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}19& 5\\ 5& 14\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}31& 35\\ 5& 56\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}56& 5\\ 35& 31\end{array}\right)$$

As a second example, let’s consider the Ising model, i.e. the minimal model $`(4,3)`$. The central charge is $`c=\frac{1}{2}`$, there are $`3`$ primary fields of conformal weights $`0,\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{1}{16}`$, and

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& \sqrt{2}\\ 1& 1& \sqrt{2}\\ \sqrt{2}& \sqrt{2}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

The conductor equals $`48`$, while $`N_0=16`$. In this case $`\overline{𝒦}`$ has order $`64`$, it’s derived subgroup is $`_2`$, while its center is $`_2^2\times _4`$. A small generating set for $`\overline{𝒦}`$ is given by the $`SL_2\left(48\right)`$ matrices

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}43& 40\\ 40& 35\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}29& 40\\ 40& 37\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}21& 8\\ 40& 45\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}35& 40\\ 40& 43\end{array}\right)$$

Finally, the following table contains the relevant data for some minimal models, the $`pq`$th entry giving respectively the conductor $`N`$, the ratio $`N/N_0`$, and the index $`[𝒦:\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N\right)]=\left|\mu _N\left(𝒦\right)\right|`$ for the minimal model $`(q,p)`$ (the first entry in the first column being the Lee-Yang model discussed above).

| p\q | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2 | 60;12;192 |  | 42;6;48 |  | 36;4;24 |  | 33;3;16 |
| 3 | 40;2;16 |  | 168;6;128 | 32;1;4 |  | 120;3;32 | 88;2;16 |
| 4 | 240;3;64 |  | 336;3;128 |  | 144;1;8 |  | 528;3;128 |
| 5 |  | 120;1;4 | 840;6;256 | 480;3;32 | 360;2;32 |  | 1320;6;256 |
| 6 |  |  | 168;1;8 |  |  |  | 264;1;8 |
| 7 |  |  |  | 672;3;64 | 504;2;32 | 840;3;64 | 1848;6;256 |
| 8 |  |  |  |  | 288;1;4 |  | 1056;3;64 |
| 9 |  |  |  |  |  | 360;1;4 | 792;2;32 |
| 10 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1320;3;64 |

As an aside, we note that for all minimal models $`(q,p)`$

$$N_0=\{\begin{array}{cc}q& p=2\\ 4q& p=3\\ 4pq& p>3\end{array}$$

and

$$N/N_0=\frac{6}{Gcd(6,pq)}$$

for $`p>3`$, while

$$N/N_0=\{\begin{array}{cc}6& q1\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\right)\\ 3& q4\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\right)\\ 2& q5\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\right)\\ 1& q2\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\right)\end{array}$$

for $`p=3`$ and

$$N/N_0=\{\begin{array}{cc}12& q1,5,13,17\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}24}\right)\\ 6& q7,23\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}24}\right)\\ 4& q9,21\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}24}\right)\\ 3& q11,19\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}24}\right)\\ 2& q15\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}24}\right)\\ 1& q3\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}24}\right)\end{array}$$

for $`p=2`$.

## 7. Summary

As we have seen in the previous sections, the theory of the Galois action supplemented by the Orbifold Covariance Principle leads to a host of interesting results about the arithmetic and group theoretic properties of the modular representation. In particular, we have been able to show that the kernel of the modular representation is always a congruence subgroup, whose level equals the conductor, i.e. the order of the Dehn-twist $`T`$. Eq.(28) gives a simple characterization of the kernel, which allows for efficient algorithms to determine the kernel explicitly. We have also determined the Galois action on arbitrary modular matrices, and gave an effective formula to compute the representation matrix of any modular transformation, Eq.(27). Moreover, the results of section 4 put severe restrictions on the spectrum of the Dehn-twist $`T`$, and imply that, for a given number of primary fields, there is only a finite number of allowed modular representations. It seems unlikely that the above results could be derived without using the theory of the Galois action, and provide a nice example of the use of arithmetic in mathematical physics.

Of course, a host of questions remain open. An obvious one is to find a direct characterization of the kernel. While Eq.(28) gives a simple criterion to decide whether a modular transformation belongs to the kernel in case its diagonal elements are coprime to the conductor, and in principle the general case can be reduced to this one, a simple criterion valid for any modular transformation would be welcome. One might also wonder to find a small set of numerical data that would characterize the kernel completely. As we have seen, these would include the parameters $`N`$ and $`N_0`$, which already determine the kernel to a great extent, but are not enough to characterize it completely.

Another line of study is to investigate the algebro-geometric properties of the modular curve $`X\left(𝒦\right)`$ associated to the kernel. This is a compact Riemann-surface, whose complex structure can be described by standard techniques, e.g. one can determine the period matrix, etc. It is also known that the field of meromorphic functions on $`X\left(𝒦\right)`$ is a Galois extension of $`\left(j\right)`$ with Galois group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)/𝒦`$, where $`j`$ is the classical modular invariant. As the genus one characters of the primaries are meromorphic functions on this modular curve, it is tempting to expect that some deeper properties of the RCFT should be encoded in structure of the curve $`X\left(𝒦\right)`$.

Still another interesting question concerns the representation $`D`$ of $`SL_2\left(N\right)`$ introduced in Section 5. We know already some of its properties, e.g. its kernel and its behavior under Galois transformations, Eq.(30), but there is clearly much more to learn about it. As the representation theory of $`SL_2(N)`$ is known, one would be interested to know which irreducible representations appear in $`D`$ and with which multiplicities, etc. Of course, one should bear in mind that $`D`$ is not simply a representation, but a representation with a choice of a distinguished basis.

Finally, let’s make some comments about the relevance of the above on the classification program. According to Proposition 6, for a given number of primary fields it is in principle possible to enumerate all matrices $`S`$ and $`T`$ that are compatible with the results of this work, i.e. those which can occur as the generators of the modular representation of a consistent Rational Conformal Field Theory. Of course, it may happen that such a list would contain spurious entries which do not correspond to any RCFT, but one may hope that using all known properties of the modular representation, these spurious solutions can be discarded, leading to a complete list.

## 8. Appendix

In this appendix we review the definition and the basic properties of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-matrices used in Section 3. See  for more details.

Let $`r=\frac{k}{n}`$ be a rational number in reduced form, i.e. with $`n>0`$ and $`k`$ and $`n`$ coprime. Choose integers $`x`$ and $`y`$ such that $`kxny=1`$, and define $`r^{}=\frac{x}{n}`$. Then $`m=\left(\begin{array}{cc}k& y\\ n& x\end{array}\right)`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$, and we define the matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(r\right)`$ via

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(r\right)_p^q=\omega _p^rM_p^q\omega _q^r^{}$$

or symbolically

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)=T^rMT^r^{}$$

Of course, one should fix some definite branch of the logarithm to make the above definition meaningful, but different choices lead to equivalent results.

It is a simple matter to show that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ is well defined, i.e. does not depend on the actual choice of $`x`$ and $`y`$. In the same vein, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ is periodic in $`r`$ with period 1, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(r+1)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)$$

For $`r=0`$ we just get back the $`S`$ matrix

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)=S$$

and for a positive integer $`n`$ we have

(31)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)=T^{\frac{1}{n}}S^1T^nST^{\frac{1}{n}}$$

Finally, one can show that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(r^{}\right)_p^q=\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)_q^p$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(r\right)_p^q=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(r\right)_{\overline{p}}^q}$$

###### Acknowledgement.

Many thanks to Terry Gannon for explaining me his work on the Galois action and the congruence subgroup problem.


text:
# Infrared Divergence and Twist-3 Distribution Amplitudes in QCD Factorization For 𝐵→𝑃𝑃 *footnote **footnote *Supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China and State Commission of Science and Technology of China

## Acknowledgements

We thank Prof. Hai-Yang Cheng for pointing out errors in the coefficients of $`C_{7\gamma }`$ and $`C_{8G}`$ and Prof. Mao-Zhi Yang for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China and State Commission of Science and Technology of China.


text:
# Optical transparency of mesoporous metals

## Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. I. E. Psarobas for useful discussions. V. Yannopapas is supported by the State Foundation (I.K.Y.) of Greece.