format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

RUNHETC 2001-05

Form factors of soliton-creating operators in the sine-Gordon model

Sergei Lukyanov and Alexander Zamolodchikov

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University

Piscataway, NJ 08855-0849, USA

and

L.D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics,

Chernogolovka, 142432, RUSSIA

Abstract

We propose explicit expressions for the form factors, including their normalization constants, of topologically charged (or soliton-creating) operators in the sine-Gordon model. The normalization constants, which constitute the main content of our proposal, allow one to find exact relations between the short- and long-distance asymptotics of the correlation functions. We make predictions concerning asymptotics of fermion correlation functions in the massive Thirring model, $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model with anisotropy, and in the half-filled Hubbard chain.

February, 01

1. Introduction

Exact form factors are of significant interest in integrable quantum field theories in two space-time dimensions, and much progress has been made during the last 25 years in computing these quantities in various models, and in their applications to the analysis of correlation functions. By $`n`$-particle form factors we understand as usual the matrix elements of any local (or “semi-local”, see below) field operator $`𝒪(x)`$ between the vacuum and the states containing $`n`$ particles. One of the reasons for the interest lies in the fact that exact form factors allow one to generate large-distance expansions for the correlation functions by inserting a complete set of states of asymptotic particles. If the factorizable $`S`$-matrix of these particles is known, the form factors are determined by solving the “form factor bootstrap equations” (see  for coherent exposition of the bootstrap program. Refs. includes some early works on the subject).

It is important to note that these form factor bootstrap equations constitute a linear system, i.e. if a certain collection of form factors solves the equations, the renormalized collection (with all form factors associated with the same operator $`𝒪`$ multiplied by the same constant) also does; this of course represents the freedom in normalization of the field operator $`𝒪`$. On the other hand it is usually convenient to fix the normalizations of the field operators in terms of the short-distance behavior of their correlation functions. If the short-distance behaviour is controlled by associated CFT, the two-point correlation function of a spinless field $`𝒪(x)`$ has the asymptotic form

$$𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)\frac{1}{|x|^{4\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪}}.$$

Conventional choice of the coefficient $`1`$ in the power law (1.1) fixes (up to a phase, which usually can be fixed through other correlation functions) the normalization of $`𝒪`$. The problem arises of finding the specific normalization of the form factors which corresponds to the “CFT normalization” (1.1).

In principle, this problem can be solved by analyzing the short-distance behavior of the form factor expansion. However, in practice it is usually possible to compute only the first few terms of this expansion. While yielding in many cases excellent numerical data even for rather small distances (see e.g. ), this truncated series does not provide exact analytic information about the coefficient in the short-distance asymptotic (1.1). Therefore the problem of determining the “CFT normalizations” of the form factors for a generic operator $`𝒪`$ remains largely open (notable exceptions being the cases when $`𝒪`$ is a component of some conserved current, e.g. energy-momentum tensor, and the normalizations of its form factors can be fixed through the Ward identities, see e.g. ). Some progress was made in  where the expectation values of topologically neutral primary operators in the sine-Gordon model (and in some other integrable QFT \[5,,6,,7\] ) were determined. This result makes it straightforward to fix the normalizations of all higher form factors of these operators using Smirnov’s “annihilation pole” relation  of the form factor bootstrap .

In this paper we extend the above result to a class of topologically charged fields in the sine-Gordon model. Obviously, the vacuum expectation values of fields with nonzero topological charge vanish. The simplest form factor of an operator carrying topological charge $`n`$ is its matrix element between the vacuum and an $`n`$-soliton (or $`(n)`$-antisoliton, if $`n`$ is negative) state. In Section 3 we propose an explicit expression for these simplest form factors of “CFT-normalized” primary operators. Our proposal, Eq.(3.1) below, actually concerns the corresponding normalization factor $`𝐙_n`$ in (2.12) (without regard of normalization, some form factors with $`n0`$ were considered before in Refs.). In Section 4 we carry out various checks of this conjectured expression.

Let us mention here that there is a one-parameter family of primary fields of given topological charge $`n`$ (see Sect.2 for details), and for generic values of the parameter $`a`$ these fields (denoted $`𝒪_a^n`$ henceforth) are not local (they are “semi-local” in the terminology of ). Nonetheless, there are several important reasons to be interested in form factors and correlation functions of such nonlocal operators. Let us mention a few. First, specific discrete values of the parameter $`a`$ provide a set of local topologically charged fields which in fact coincide with the fundamental Fermi fields and their composites in the massive Thirring model. For other discrete values of this parameter these fields become components of conserved nonlocal currents generating the affine quantum group symmetry of the sine-Gordon model. These relations will be used in Sect.4. Second, analytic properties in the parameter $`a`$ are likely to be illuminating, as was demonstrated in  for expectation values of neutral fields. We will say some words on this subject in Sect.6. Finally, in many cases it has proved to be useful to factorize local fields into nonlocal ones. For example, the $`SU(2)`$ Thirring model (and its anisotropic deformation) can be bosonized in terms of a sine-Gordon field plus a free massless boson, the correlation functions of basic Fermi fields in this model being expressed through the correlators of the nonlocal fields of the sine-Gordon theory. In Sect.5 we use this relation to make predictions about exact asymptotics of fermion correlation functions in the $`SU(2)`$ Thirring and Hubbard models.

2. Topologically charged fields in the sine-Gordon model

The sine-Gordon model, which is described by the euclidean action1 Here and below we use the notations and conventions adopted in ; in particular, the language of euclidean field theory is used by default.

$$𝒜_{sG}=d^2x\left\{\frac{1}{16\pi }(_\nu \phi )^22\mu \mathrm{cos}(\beta \phi )\right\},$$

is invariant w.r.t. the field translations $`\phi (x)\phi (x)\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi /\beta `$. As a well known consequence, the model admits a class of fields creating nonzero topological (or soliton) charge. The simplest of these fields can be described as the “dual exponentials”

$$𝒪_0^n(x)=e^{\frac{n}{4\beta }_{𝒞_x}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^\mu \phi dx^\nu },$$

with integer $`n`$. Here the integration goes along some contour $`𝒞_x`$ (“Dirac string”) starting at infinity and ending at $`x`$, the precise shape of this contour being very much arbitrary as the correlation functions involving these fields depend only on its homotopy properties. The field (2.1) creates a discontinuity of the field $`\phi `$ along $`𝒞_x`$, so that the values of $`\phi `$ right across this contour differ by a constant equal $`2\pi n/\beta `$. In operator formalism, the field operator associated with (2.1) creates the topological charge $`n`$. The fields (2.1) are mutually local and they have zero spin. Since the exponential in the r.h.s. of (2.1) requires regularization this expression defines the field $`𝒪_0^n`$ only up to normalization. We fix this ambiguity by assuming the “CFT normalization” (1.1), specifically

$$\underset{|x|0}{lim}|x|^{\frac{n^2}{8\beta ^2}}𝒪_0^n(x)𝒪_0^n(0)=1.$$

Although the fields (2.1) are themselves local, they obviously are not local with respect to the field $`\phi (x)`$. Nevertheless one can define a class of useful nonlocal fields $`𝒪_a^n(x)`$ by “fusing” the fields (2.1) with the exponentials of $`\phi `$, i.e. by taking the limits $`lim_{x^{}x}𝒪_0^n(x)\mathrm{exp}(ia\phi (x^{}))`$. In view of the above nonlocality this limit has a phase ambiguity, which can be fixed, for instance, by specifying the direction, relative to the contour $`𝒞_x`$, from which $`x^{}`$ approaches $`x`$. To eliminate all ambiguities one can choose some cartesian coordinates $`x=(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{y})`$, and define

$$𝒪_a^n(x)=\underset{ϵ+0}{lim}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{n}{4\beta }_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{x}_\mathrm{y}\phi (\mathrm{x},\mathrm{y})d\mathrm{x}\right\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{ia\phi (\mathrm{x}+ϵ,\mathrm{y})\right\}.$$

In fact, rigid specification of the contour $`𝒞_x`$ in (2.1) results in inconveniently discontinuous correlation functions involving these objects. To avoid this inessential complication, in what follows by a correlation function

$$𝒪_{a_N}^{n_N}(\mathrm{x}_N,\mathrm{y}_N)\mathrm{}𝒪_{a_1}^{n_1}(\mathrm{x}_1,\mathrm{y}_1)$$

we always understand the analytic continuation of this correlator from the domain $`\mathrm{y}_1<\mathrm{y}_2<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{y}_N`$. With this definition the correlation function (2.1) becomes a multivalued function of the coordinates $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_N`$ which acquires a certain phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi (a_jn_k+a_kn_j)/\beta \right)`$ when the point $`x_j`$ is brought around $`x_k`$ counterclockwise. In particular, the two-point correlation function can be written as

$$𝒪_a^n(x)𝒪_a^{}^n(0)=\left(e^{i\pi }\frac{\overline{\mathrm{z}}}{\mathrm{z}}\right)^{\frac{s(a^{},n)s(a,n)}{2}}e^{i\pi \frac{s(a,n)+s(a^{},n)}{2}}𝒢_{a,a^{}}^{(n)}(r),$$

where

$$s(a,n)=\frac{an}{\beta },$$

$`\mathrm{z}=\mathrm{x}+i\mathrm{y}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{z}}=\mathrm{x}i\mathrm{y}`$, and the function $`𝒢_{a,a^{}}`$ is real and depends only on the distance $`r=\sqrt{\mathrm{z}\overline{\mathrm{z}}}`$. In the terminology of  the fields $`𝒪_a^n`$ are “semi-local”. If $`a0`$ the field $`𝒪_a^n`$ carries nonzero spin (2.1). It becomes a local, bosonic or fermionic, field when $`s(a,n)`$ takes integer or half-integer values. Note that the definition (2.1) fixes also the normalization of the field $`𝒪_a^n`$, since the normalizations of $`𝒪_0^n(x)`$ and $`𝒪_a^0(x)e^{ia\phi }`$ are already fixed through (2.1) and (1.1), respectively. The same normalization can be specified by the condition

$$𝒢_{a,a}^{(n)}(r)|_{r0}\frac{1}{r^{2d(a,n)}}\mathrm{with}d(a,n)=2a^2+\frac{n^2}{8\beta ^2}.$$

The aim of this work is to describe the form factors of the operators $`𝒪_a^n`$ with $`n`$-soliton states. We will assume the hamiltonian picture with coordinate $`\mathrm{y}`$ taken as euclidean time. Note that in this picture the operators defined by (2.1) obey the simple hermiticity relation

$$\left(𝒪_a^n\right)^{}=𝒪_a^n$$

which allows us to restrict our attention to the form factors of $`𝒪_a^n`$ with generic $`a`$ but $`n0`$. We will use the notation $`A_{}`$ and $`A_+`$ for the soliton and antisoliton; these particles carry negative and positive units of the topological charge,

$$H=\frac{\beta }{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_\mathrm{x}\phi (\mathrm{x},\mathrm{y})d\mathrm{x},$$

respectively. Conservation of the topological charge implies that nonvanishing form factors of the operator $`𝒪_a^n`$ are of the form

$$vac𝒪_a^n(0)A_{}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_{}(\theta _{n+N})A_+(\theta _1^{})\mathrm{}A_+(\theta _N^{}),$$

where $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _j^{}`$ denote rapidities of solitons and antisolitons (for simplicity, here and below we ignore the possible presence of breathers). Up to overall normalization, all these form factors can be written down in closed form, as certain $`N`$-fold integrals . In the simplest case, $`N=0`$, an explicit formula exists,

$$vac𝒪_a^n(0)A_{}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_{}(\theta _n)_{in}=\sqrt{𝐙_n(a)}e^{\frac{i\pi na}{2\beta }}\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{\frac{a}{\beta }\theta _m}\underset{m<j}{\overset{n}{}}G(\theta _m\theta _j).$$

Here

$$G(\theta )=i𝒞_1\mathrm{sinh}(\theta /2)\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2t(1i\theta /\pi )\mathrm{sinh}(t(\xi 1))}{\mathrm{sinh}(2t)\mathrm{sinh}(t\xi )\mathrm{cosh}(t)}\right)$$

with

$$𝒞_1=\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2(t/2)\mathrm{sinh}(t(\xi 1))}{\mathrm{sinh}(2t)\mathrm{sinh}(t\xi )\mathrm{cosh}(t)}\right),$$

and we have assumed that the rapidities are arranged so that $`\theta _1<\theta _2<\mathrm{}<\theta _n`$. Here and below we use the notation

$$\xi =\frac{\beta ^2}{1\beta ^2}.$$

The only unknown component in (2.1) is the real normalization constant $`𝐙_n(a)`$. This constant controls the long-distance asymptotics of the two-point function (2.1) (with the normalization already fixed by (2.1)) because it is dominated by $`n`$-soliton intermediate states, namely

$$𝒢_{a,a^{}}^{(n)}(r)=\frac{\sqrt{𝐙_n(a)𝐙_n(a^{})}}{n!}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\underset{m<j}{}|G(\theta _m\theta _j)|^2\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{\frac{(aa^{})}{\beta }\theta _mMr\mathrm{cosh}\theta _m}\frac{d\theta _m}{2\pi }+\mathrm{},$$

where $`M`$ is the soliton mass, and the dots stand for the subleading terms, which are of the order of $`e^{(n+2)Mr}`$. Let us also stress here that once the constant $`𝐙_n(a)`$ in (2.1) is fixed, the normalizations of all higher form factors (2.1) are also fixed by the “annihilation pole” condition of the form factor bootstrap (see  for details). For example, using the approach of , one can derive the following expression for the $`n+2`$-particle form factor (2.1),

$$\begin{array}{cc}& vac|𝒪_a^n(0)|A_{}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_+(\theta _k)\mathrm{}A_{}(\theta _{n+2})_{in}=\frac{i𝒞_2\sqrt{𝐙_n(a)}}{4𝒞_1}e^{\frac{i\pi an}{2\beta }}\underset{m=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}e^{\frac{a}{\beta }\theta _m}\times \hfill \\ & e^{\frac{\theta _k}{\xi }}\underset{m<j}{}G(\theta _m\theta _j)\{e^{\frac{i\pi }{2\beta ^2}}_{C_+}\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi }e^{(\frac{2a}{\beta }+\frac{1}{\xi })\gamma }\underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}W(\theta _p\gamma )\underset{p=k+1}{\overset{n+2}{}}W(\gamma \theta _p)\hfill \\ & e^{\frac{i\pi }{2\beta ^2}}_C_{}\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi }e^{(\frac{2a}{\beta }+\frac{1}{\xi })\gamma }\underset{p=1}{\overset{k1}{}}W(\theta _p\gamma )\underset{p=k}{\overset{n+2}{}}W(\gamma \theta _p)\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here the function $`W`$ and the constant $`𝒞_2`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cc}& W(\theta )=\frac{2}{\mathrm{cosh}(\theta )}\mathrm{exp}\left(2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2t(1i\theta /\pi )\mathrm{sinh}(t(\xi 1))}{\mathrm{sinh}(2t)\mathrm{sinh}(t\xi )}\right),\hfill \\ & 𝒞_2=\mathrm{exp}\left(4_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2(t/2)\mathrm{sinh}(t(\xi 1))}{\mathrm{sinh}(2t)\mathrm{sinh}(t\xi )}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

The integration contours $`C_+`$ and $`C_{}`$ in (2.1) are described as follows. The contour $`C_+`$ starts from $`\mathrm{}`$ along the real axis of the complex $`\gamma `$ plane, and winds around the poles of its integrand located in the strip $`\frac{\pi }{2}0<\mathrm{}m\gamma <\frac{\pi }{2}+0`$, going first above the poles at $`\theta _p+\frac{i\pi }{2},p=1,\mathrm{}k`$, and then below the poles at $`\theta _p\frac{i\pi }{2},p=k+1,\mathrm{}n+2`$, and finally extends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ along the real axis, as illustrated in Fig.1a. Similarly, the contour $`C_{}`$ goes above $`\theta _p+\frac{i\pi }{2},p=1,\mathrm{}k1`$ and below $`\theta _p\frac{i\pi }{2},p=k,\mathrm{}n+2`$ of its integrand, see Fig.1b.

Under the assumed normalization of the fields $`𝒪_a^n`$, the leading short-distance asymptotic of the two-point correlation function (2.1) is

$$𝒢_{a,a^{}}^{(n)}(r)|_{r0}\frac{e^{i(a+a^{})\phi }}{r^{d(a,n)+d(a^{},n)d(a+a^{},0)}},$$

with the coefficient $`𝒢_{a+a^{}}e^{i(a+a^{})\phi }`$ which can be read off from . To determine the coefficient in its leading large-distance asymptotic (2.1) one needs to know the normalization constant $`𝐙_n(a)`$ in (2.1).

3. Conjecture

We propose the following explicit formula for the constant $`𝐙_n(a)`$ in (2.1):

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \sqrt{𝐙_n(a)}=\left(\frac{𝒞_2}{2𝒞_1^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{4}}\left(\frac{\xi 𝒞_2}{16}\right)^{\frac{n^2}{8}}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\pi }M\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\xi }{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\xi }{2})}\right]^{d(a,n)}\times \hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(4\xi at/\beta )e^{(1+\xi )nt}1}{4\mathrm{sinh}(\xi t)\mathrm{sinh}\left((1+\xi )t\right)\mathrm{cosh}(t)}+\frac{n}{4\mathrm{sinh}(t\xi )}d(a,n)e^{2t}\right\}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

Here the constants $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$ are given by (2.1) and (2.1), and $`d(a,n)`$ is as in (2.1). We would like to stress here that this formula should be used only with $`n0`$. For example, the form factor $`vac|𝒪_a^n(0)|A_+(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_+(\theta _n)_{in}`$ should be written with $`\sqrt{𝐙_n(a)}`$ (not $`\sqrt{𝐙_n(a)}`$) for its normalization constant.

In the next section some calculations supporting the conjecture (3.1) are presented (and some are just mentioned).

4. Supporting calculations

4.1. The case $`n=0`$

In this case the field (2.1) reduces to the exponential field $`\mathrm{exp}(ia\phi (x))`$, and the form factor (2.1) becomes its vacuum-vacuum matrix element. Correspondingly, for $`n=0`$ (3.1) reduces to the expectation value of this exponential field (see ).

4.2. Free fermion point

At $`\beta ^2=1/2`$ the sine-Gordon model reduces to free Dirac fermions. In this case the form factors (2.1), and in particular the normalization factors $`𝐙_n(a)`$, can be calculated directly . For this value of $`\beta ^2`$ Eq.(3.1) coincides with the result of .

4.3. Massive Thirring Model perturbation theory

As is well known \[12,,13\] the sine-Gordon theory is equivalent to the massive Thirring model,

$$𝒜_{MTM}=d^2x\left\{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{g}{2}J_\mu J_\mu \right\},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a Dirac Fermi field, $`J_\mu =\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$ is its (non-anomalous) vector current, and the coupling constant $`g`$ is related to $`\beta `$ in (2.1) by

$$\frac{g}{\pi }=\frac{1}{2\beta ^2}1.$$

The action (4.1) requires field and mass-term renormalizations, and the precise relation between $``$ and $`\mu `$ in (2.1) depends on the renormalization scheme. The fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ are related to $`𝒪_{\pm \beta /2}^{\pm 1}`$ from Sect.2 as follows

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi 𝐙_\mathrm{\Psi }}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝒪_{\beta /2}^{1}}{𝒪_{\beta /2}^{1}}\right),\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi 𝐙_\mathrm{\Psi }}}(𝒪_{\beta /2}^1,𝒪_{\beta /2}^1),$$

where we have chosen a chiral representation of the (euclidean) Dirac matrices, i.e. $`\gamma _\mathrm{x}=\sigma _2`$, $`\gamma _\mathrm{y}=\sigma _1`$. The constant $`𝐙_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ depends on the normalization condition for the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. In what follows we assume the most common renormalization scheme, in which the renormalized $``$ coincides with the soliton mass $`M`$, and the normalization of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is fixed as follows,

$$(i\mathit{}+M)S(p)1\mathrm{as}p^2+M^20.$$

Here $`S(p)`$ is the momentum-space propagator,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(0)=S(p)e^{ipx}\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2},$$

and $`\mathit{}`$ stands for $`\gamma _\mu p_\mu `$. Comparing this equation with the $`n=1`$ and $`a=a^{}=\beta /2`$ case of (2.1), one finds that this scheme corresponds to the choice $`𝐙_\mathrm{\Psi }=𝐙_1(\beta /2)`$ in (4.1). On the other hand, the short-distance behavior of the correlation functions $`𝒪_{\beta /2}^1𝒪_{\beta /2}^1`$ is given by (2.1),(2.1). This leads to the following prediction for the constant factor in the large-momentum asymptotic of the fermion propagator in this scheme,

$$S(p)i\mathit{}\frac{M\pi }{𝐙_\mathrm{\Psi }}\frac{2^{12d_\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2d_\mathrm{\Psi })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+d_\mathrm{\Psi })}(p^2)^{d_\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{as}p^2\mathrm{}.$$

Here

$$d_\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{8\beta ^2}+\frac{\beta ^2}{2}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝐙_\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\frac{𝒞_2}{2𝒞_1^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{\xi 𝒞_2}{16}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\pi }M\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\xi }{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\xi }{2})}\right]^{2d_\mathrm{\Psi }}\times \hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(2\xi t)e^{(1+\xi )t}1}{2\mathrm{sinh}(\xi t)\mathrm{sinh}\left((1+\xi )t\right)\mathrm{cosh}(t)}+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{sinh}(t\xi )}2d_\mathrm{\Psi }e^{2t}\right\}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

This prediction can be verified in standard renormalized perturbation theory in (4.1). Straightforward evaluation of the diagram in Fig.2 yields

$$S^1(p)=i\mathit{}+M+\left(\frac{g}{2\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(p)+O(g^3),$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(p)i\mathit{}\left\{\frac{\pi ^2}{3}6+\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{p^2}{M^2}\right)\right\}\mathrm{as}p^2\mathrm{}.$$

Using a power expansion of (4.1) in the parameter (4.1),

$$𝐙_\mathrm{\Psi }=\pi M\left\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\left(\frac{g}{2\pi }\right)^2\left(\mathrm{log}(M^2)+2\gamma _E+62\mathrm{log}2\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\right)+O(g^3)\right\},$$

where $`\gamma _E=0.577216\mathrm{}`$ is Euler’s constant, one can check that (4.1) agrees with (4.1) to order $`g^2`$.

4.4. Nonlocal Integrals of Motion

As was mentioned in the Introduction, the fields $`𝒪_a^{\pm 2}`$ with appropriately chosen values of $`a`$ coincide with the components of the nonlocal currents found in . Namely, the fields

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝒥_\pm (x)=𝒪_{\pm (2\beta )^1}^{\pm 2}(x),_\pm (x)=\pi \xi \mu 𝒪_{\pm \nu }^{\pm 2}(x),\hfill \\ & \overline{𝒥}_\pm (x)=𝒪_{(2\beta )^1}^{\pm 2}(x),\overline{}_\pm (x)=\pi \xi \mu 𝒪_\nu ^{\pm 2}(x),\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`\nu =(2\beta )^1\beta `$, satisfy the continuity equations

$$\overline{}𝒥_\pm (x)=_\pm ,𝒥_\pm (x)=\overline{}_\pm ,$$

where $`=\frac{1}{2}(_\mathrm{x}i_\mathrm{y}),\overline{}=\frac{1}{2}(_\mathrm{x}+i_\mathrm{y})`$. They give rise to four nonlocal integrals of motion

$$\begin{array}{cc}& Q_\pm =\frac{1}{𝐙_Q}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(𝒥_\pm (\mathrm{x},\mathrm{y})+_\pm (\mathrm{x},\mathrm{y})\right)𝑑\mathrm{x},\hfill \\ & \overline{Q}_\pm =\frac{1}{𝐙_Q}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\overline{𝒥}_\pm (\mathrm{x},\mathrm{y})+\overline{}_\pm (\mathrm{x},\mathrm{y})\right)𝑑\mathrm{x},\hfill \end{array}$$

which generate (as was found in ) the affine quantum group $`U_q(\widehat{sl(2)})`$ of level zero, with

$$q=e^{i\pi /\beta ^2}.$$

More precisely, under a special choice of the ($`\beta `$\- and $`\mu `$-dependent) constant $`𝐙_Q`$, the operators (4.1) obey the commutation relations

$$Q_{}\overline{Q}_+q^2\overline{Q}_+Q_{}=\frac{1q^{2H}}{1q^2},Q_+\overline{Q}_{}q^2\overline{Q}_{}Q_+=\frac{1q^{2H}}{1q^2},$$

where $`H`$ is the topological charge (2.1). The constant $`𝐙_Q`$ can be expressed through the expectation value of the fields $`e^{i(\beta 1/\beta )\phi }`$,

$$𝐙_Q^2=\mu \xi (1+\xi )\mathrm{sin}(\pi /\xi )e^{i(\beta 1/\beta )\phi }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1+1/\xi )}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\pi }M\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\xi }{2})}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{\xi }{2})}\right]^{\frac{2}{\xi }},$$

where again $`M`$ denotes the soliton mass.

The vacuum $`|vac`$ is annihilated by all the generators (4.1), while the soliton-antisoliton pair $`A_\pm `$ forms two-dimensional representation of the algebra (4.1),

$$\begin{array}{cc}& Q_\pm |A_\pm (\theta )=\overline{Q}_\pm |A_\pm (\theta )=0,\hfill \\ & Q_{}|A_\pm (\theta )=e^{\frac{\theta }{\xi }}|A_{}(\theta ),\overline{Q}_{}|A_\pm (\theta )=e^{\frac{\theta }{\xi }}|A_{}(\theta ),\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`H|A_\pm (\theta )=\pm |A_\pm (\theta )`$. The action of these operators on any multisoliton state is described by a standard $`U_q(\widehat{sl(2)})`$ coproduct, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(Q_\pm )=Q_\pm 1+q^HQ_\pm ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{Q}_\pm )=\overline{Q}_\pm 1+q^{\pm H}\overline{Q}_\pm .$$

It is not difficult to see that consistency of the form factor formula (2.1) with the above continuity equation (4.1) and with (4.1) requires that the coefficient $`𝐙_n(a)`$ in (2.1) satisfy the following identities

$$𝐙_2\left(\frac{1}{2\beta }\right)=(\pi \xi \mu )^2𝐙_2\left(\frac{1}{2\beta }\beta \right)=\left(\frac{M𝐙_Q}{2𝒞_1}\right)^2,$$

which both are easily verified for (3.1).

More interesting consistency conditions come from the following observation. For all integer $`n`$ and $`m`$ the fields $`𝒪_{a_{n,m}}^n`$ with

$$a_{n,m}=\frac{n}{4\beta }+\frac{m\beta }{2}$$

are local with respect the currents $`\overline{𝒥}_\pm `$ and $`\overline{}_\pm `$ defined in (4.1) (a similar set $`𝒪_{a_{n,m}}^n`$ exists for the currents $`𝒥_\pm `$ and $`_\pm `$). As a result, commutators (more precisely, “$`q`$-commutators”) of $`𝒪_{a_{n,m}}^n`$ with the generators $`\overline{Q}_+`$ and $`\overline{Q}_{}`$ are expressed through the fields $`𝒪_a^{n\pm 2}`$ (with the parameter $`a`$ somewhat shifted) or their descendants. In particular, one can derive the following commutation relation

$$\overline{Q}_+𝒪_{a_{n,1}}^n(x)q^n𝒪_{a_{n,1}}^n(x)\overline{Q}_+=\frac{2\pi i}{𝐙_Q}q^{\frac{n}{2}}𝒪_{a_{n2,1}}^{n+2}(x).$$

This operator equation of course leads to certain relations between the form factors. For instance, sandwiching (4.1) between the vacuum and the state containing $`n+2`$ antisolitons and using (4.1) and (4.1) to transform the matrix element appearing on the left-hand side, one obtains

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{k=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}q^{kn2}& e^{\frac{\theta _k}{\xi }}vac|𝒪_{a_{n,1}}^n(0)|A_{}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_+(\theta _k)\mathrm{}A_{}(\theta _{n+2})_{in}=\hfill \\ & \frac{2\pi i}{𝐙_Q}q^{\frac{n}{2}}vac|𝒪_{a_{n2,1}}^{n+2}(0)|A_{}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_{}(\theta _{n+2})_{in}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, substituting (2.1) for the form factors in the left-hand side of (4.1), one observes that all but two integrals in the sum cancel each other, which results in the relation

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{2\pi }{𝐙_q}\sqrt{\frac{𝐙_{n+2}(a_{n2,1})}{𝐙_n(a_{n,1})}}=\frac{i𝒞_2}{4𝒞_1}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}e^{\frac{\theta _k}{2\beta ^2}}\times \hfill \\ & \left\{q^{\frac{n}{2}+1}_{C_+}\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi }e^{\frac{\gamma (n+2)}{2\beta ^2}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}W(\theta _k\gamma )q^{\frac{n}{2}1}_C_{}\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi }e^{\frac{\gamma (n+2)}{2\beta ^2}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}W(\gamma \theta _k)\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`W`$ is the function (2.1). Thanks to the identity $`W(\theta i\pi )=W(\theta i\pi )`$, the sum of the integrals in the bracket $`\left\{\mathrm{}\right\}`$ on the r.h.s. of (4.1) in fact reduces to the following limit

$$\left\{\mathrm{}\right\}=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }i\pi }^{\mathrm{\Lambda }+i\pi }\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi }e^{\frac{\gamma (n+2)}{2\beta ^2}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}W(\theta _k\gamma i\pi )=i\left(\frac{𝒞_2\xi }{16}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}1}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}e^{\frac{\theta _k}{2\beta ^2}}.$$

In turn, the limit can be evaluated using the asymptotic behavior

$$W(\theta i\pi )\left(\frac{𝒞_2\xi }{16}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{\theta }{2\beta ^2}}\mathrm{as}\mathrm{}e\theta +\mathrm{},$$

and therefore (4.1) leads to the following relation between the normalization factors in (2.1):

$$\frac{𝐙_{n+2}(a_{n2,1})}{𝐙_n(a_{n,1})}=\left(\frac{2𝐙_Q}{\pi \xi 𝒞_1}\right)^2\left(\frac{𝒞_2\xi }{16}\right)^n.$$

It is possible to check that (3.1) indeed obeys (4.1).

4.5. Scattering in the lattice XYZ model

The sine-Gordon field theory describes the scaling limit of the integrable $`XYZ`$ spin chain ,

$$𝐇_{XYZ}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(J_x\sigma _k^x\sigma _{k+1}^x+J_y\sigma _k^y\sigma _{k+1}^y+J_z\sigma _k^z\sigma _{k+1}^z\right).$$

As is known, at $`J_y=J_x|J_z|`$ the spin chain (4.1) is critical, i.e. the gap in the spectrum of (4.1) vanishes, and its correlation length $`R_c`$ becomes infinite in units of the lattice spacing . In the scaling limit $`J_xJ_y0`$ the spin correlations in (4.1) are described by the field theory (2.1) with \[17,,16\]

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{cos}(\pi \beta ^2)=J_z/J_x,\hfill \\ & \left(\frac{M\epsilon }{4}\right)^{22\beta ^2}\frac{|J_xJ_y|}{8\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi \beta ^2)J_x}0,\hfill \end{array}$$

provided all relevant distances are $`R_c`$, i.e. infinitely greater than the lattice spacing $`\epsilon `$. If, however, $`J_xJ_y`$ is small but finite, there are corrections due to finite lattice size. These corrections can be taken into account by adding certain irrelevant perturbations to (2.1), i.e. by using the “effective action”

$$𝒜_{eff}=𝒜_{sg}+\frac{d^2x}{2\pi }\left\{\frac{\lambda }{2}\left(𝒪_0^4(x)+𝒪_0^4(x)\right)\epsilon ^{\frac{2}{\xi }}\left(\lambda _+𝐓\overline{𝐓}+\lambda _{}(𝐓^2+\overline{𝐓}^2)\right)\epsilon ^2+\mathrm{}\right\},$$

where we have written down explicitly only the most significant of those irrelevant terms. Here $`𝐓`$ and $`\overline{𝐓}`$ are components of the sine-Gordon stress-energy tensor, in standard notations, and $`𝒪_0^{\pm 4}(x)`$ are the fields (2.1). In (4.1) the explicit dependence on the lattice spacing $`\epsilon `$ is exhibited to show the relative smallness of various terms; the omitted terms are of higher order in $`\epsilon `$. Fortunately, the dimensionless coupling constants $`\lambda _\pm `$ and $`\lambda `$ in (4.1) are known exactly , in particular

$$\lambda =\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+1/\xi )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/\xi )}(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{\xi }{2}\right)}{2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\xi }{2}\right)})^{\frac{2}{\xi }}.$$

This makes (4.1) a working tool for determining the leading lattice corrections to the scaling limit in the $`XYZ`$ model.

Since the fields $`𝒪_0^{\pm 4}`$ carry nonzero topological charge, the $`\lambda `$-terms in (4.1) generate processes violating conservation of the topological charge, which is now conserved only modulo 4. In particular, two solitons can be produced in antisoliton-antisoliton scattering, with nonzero amplitude. In the Born approximation this amplitude is

$$S_{}^{++}(\theta _2\theta _1)=\frac{(i)\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{2}{\xi }}}{4\pi M^2\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _2\theta _1)}_{out}A_+(\theta _1)A_+(\theta _2)|𝒪_0^4(0)|A_{}(\theta _1)A_{}(\theta _2)_{in},$$

where $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ ($`\theta _1<\theta _2`$) are rapidities describing the kinematics of the scattering. The matrix element here can be obtained by crossing transformation from the form factor (3.1) with $`n=4`$ and $`a=0`$. Simple calculation yields

$$S_{}^{++}(\theta )=iK\mathrm{sinh}(\theta /\xi )S(\theta ),$$

where

$$S(\theta )=G(\theta )/G(\theta )$$

is the sine-Gordon $`S`$-matrix element associated with elastic process $`A_{}A_{}A_{}A_{}`$, and

$$K=\frac{\xi 𝒞_1^2𝒞_2\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{2}{\xi }}}{16\pi M^2}\sqrt{𝐙_4(0)}.$$

The appearance of this amplitude is of course expected. The scattering of excitations in the lattice model (4.1) is described by Baxter’s elliptic S-matrix. It depends on the elliptic nome $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, whose precise relation to the parameters in (4.1) is rather transcendental (one can consult \[19,,20\] for details), but here we only need to know that when $`|J_xJ_y|0`$ this nome also goes to zero as

$$\stackrel{~}{p}\left(\frac{M\epsilon }{4}\right)^{\frac{2}{\xi }}.$$

If $`J_xJ_y0`$ this elliptic S-matrix has a nonzero element $`S_{}^{++}(\theta )`$, presented explicitly in \[19,,20\]. One can check that when $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ gets small this amplitude assumes precisely the form (4.1) with

$$K=4\stackrel{~}{p}\mathrm{sin}(\pi /\xi ).$$

This agrees with (4.1) provided

$$\sqrt{𝐙_4(0)}=\frac{M^2}{𝒞_1^2𝒞_2}\frac{16\pi ^2\xi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1/\xi )}\left(\frac{M\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\xi }{2})}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{\xi }{2})}\right)^{\frac{2}{\xi }}.$$

It is not difficult to verify that for given values of the parameters (3.1) indeed reduces to (4.1).

5. Deformed $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model

The normalization factor (3.1) leads to certain predictions about the asymptotic behavior of fermion correlation functions in the so-called deformed (or anisotropic) $`SU(2)`$ Thirring model. The latter is described by the action (we use again euclidean notations)

$$𝒜_{DTM}=d^2x\left\{\underset{\sigma =,}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\sigma \gamma _\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma +\frac{g_0}{2}J_\mu J_\mu +\frac{g_{}}{2}J_\mu ^3J_\mu ^3+2g_{}J_\mu ^+J_\mu ^{}\right\},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ is a doublet of Dirac Fermi fields, and

$$J_\mu =\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi },J_\mu ^A=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \tau ^A\mathrm{\Psi }$$

are their vector currents. The Pauli matrices $`\tau ^A=(\tau ^3,\tau ^+,\tau ^{})`$ in (5.1) act on the “flavor” indices $`\sigma =,`$. The model (5.1) is renormalizable, and its coupling constants $`g_{},g_{}`$ should be understood as “running” ones (the singlet coupling $`g_0`$ does not renormalize). The corresponding RG flow pattern is known as Kosterlitz-Thouless flow (see e.g.). In particular, in the domain $`g_{}|g_{}|`$ all RG trajectories originate from the line $`g_{}=0`$ of UV stable fixed points, and (5.1) indeed defines a quantum field theory. In this domain (which is the only one that we discuss here) each RG trajectory is uniquely characterized by the limiting value

$$\overline{g}_{}=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}g_{}(L)$$

of the running coupling $`g_{}(L)`$ at extremely short distances ($`L`$ stands for the logarithm of the length scale), i.e. the theory (5.1) depends on two dimensionless parameters $`\overline{g}_{}`$ and $`g_0`$, besides the mass scale appearing through dimensional transmutation. The model (5.1) attracts much attention in condensed matter physics, e.g. because of its relation to the scaling limit of the Hubbard model (see e.g.).

As is well known (see e.g.), the model (5.1) can be bosonized in terms of the sine-Gordon field $`\phi (x)`$, with $`\beta `$ in (2.1) related to $`\overline{g}_{}`$ by

$$\frac{1}{\beta ^2}=1+\frac{2\overline{g}_{}}{\pi },$$

and a free massless boson $`\omega (x)`$. For the latter we assume conventional CFT normalization

$$\omega (x)\omega (0)=2\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{z}\overline{\mathrm{z}}).$$

The chiral components of the Fermi fields

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\psi _{\sigma R}(x)}{\psi _{\sigma L}(x)}\right)$$

are expressed in terms of these bosons as

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \psi _L=\eta _{}𝒪_{\beta /4}^1\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{\gamma /4}^{1},\psi _R=\eta _{}𝒪_{\beta /4}^1\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{\gamma /4}^{1},\hfill \\ & \psi _L=\eta _{}𝒪_{\beta /4}^{1}\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{\gamma /4}^{1},\psi _R=\eta _{}𝒪_{\beta /4}^{1}\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{\gamma /4}^{1},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\eta _\sigma =\eta _\sigma ^{}`$ are Klein factors ($`\eta _{}^2=\eta _{}^2=1,\eta _{}\eta _{}=\eta _{}\eta _{}`$). In (5.1) $`𝒪_a^{\pm 1}`$ are nonlocal fields (2.1) of the sine-Gordon part of the bosonic theory, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_a^{\pm 1}`$ are similar expressions in terms of the free field $`\omega `$, with $`\beta `$ replaced by $`\gamma `$, where

$$\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}=1+\frac{2g_0}{\pi }.$$

These fields can also be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_a^n(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left(a\frac{n}{4\gamma }\right)\omega _R(\mathrm{z})i\left(a+\frac{n}{4\gamma }\right)\omega _L(\overline{\mathrm{z}})\right\},$$

through the right and left moving chiral parts of $`\omega (x)`$. Note that each of the factors $`𝒪`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ in (5.1) is nonlocal (they each have spin $`\frac{1}{4}`$), while the products appearing there are local Fermi fields.

As a result of the factorization (5.1) (known as spin-charge separation in condensed matter applications) the correlation functions of the fermions also factorize, for instance

$$\psi _{\sigma ^{}R}(x)\psi _{\sigma R}^{}(0)=\frac{i\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }}{z}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma \gamma ^1)^2/4}𝒢_{\beta /4,\beta /4}^{(1)}(r),$$

where again $`\mathrm{z}=\mathrm{x}+i\mathrm{y},r=\sqrt{\mathrm{z}\overline{\mathrm{z}}}.`$ In writing (5.1) we have used (2.1), along with the well known form of the two-point correlation function of the free-field exponentials (5.1),

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_a^{}^n(x)\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_a^n(0)=\left(e^{i\pi }\frac{\overline{\mathrm{z}}}{\mathrm{z}}\right)^{\frac{an}{\gamma }}r^{4a^2\frac{n^2}{4\gamma ^2}}\delta _{a^{}a}.$$

The short distance asymptotic form of this correlation function follows from (2.1),

$$\underset{r0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{z}}{r}r^{2d_\psi }\psi _{\sigma ^{}R}(x)\psi _{\sigma R}^{}(0)=i\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma },$$

with

$$d_\psi =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{(\gamma \gamma ^1)^2}{8}+\frac{(\beta \beta ^1)^2}{8}.$$

This of course is nothing but our convention concerning the normalization of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma `$ which we implicitly assumed in writing (5.1). On the other hand, using (2.1) with $`n=1`$ one can obtain its large-distance asymptotic,

$$\psi _{\sigma ^{}R}(x)\psi _{\sigma R}^{}(0)=\frac{i\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }}{\mathrm{z}}\frac{𝐙_1(\beta /4)}{\sqrt{2\pi M}}r^{(\gamma \gamma ^1)^2/4}e^{Mr}+O(e^{3Mr}),$$

where $`M`$ is the sine-Gordon soliton mass. While the functional form of (5.1) is well known , the coefficient $`𝐙_1(\beta /4)`$ constitutes a nontrivial prediction which follows from (3.1). Let us mention here that according to (5.1), in the case $`\beta =\gamma =1`$ (which corresponds to the symmetric model (5.1) with $`g_0=0`$ and $`g_{}=g_{}>0`$) one has

$$\psi _{\sigma ^{}R}(x)\psi _{\sigma R}^{}(0)\frac{i\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }}{\mathrm{z}}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}1\mathrm{as}r0\hfill & \\ Ce^{Mr}\mathrm{as}r\mathrm{}\hfill & \end{array},$$

with

$$C=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/4)}{2^{\frac{5}{4}}\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2(t/2)e^t}{\mathrm{sinh}(2t)\mathrm{cosh}(t)}\right\}=0.921862\mathrm{}.$$

The numerical coefficients in the short- and long-distance asymptotics in (5.1) are remarkably close; this suggests that in this symmetric case the leading term in the long-distance asymptotic (5.1) may be rather good approximation for the correlation function at all scales.

Eq. (5.1) can be translated to asymptotic formulae for the fermion correlation functions in the half-filled Hubbard chain

$$𝐇_{Hub}=t\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\sigma =,}{}(c_{j,\sigma }^{}c_{j+1,\sigma }+c_{j+1,\sigma }^{}c_{j,\sigma })+U\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left(n_{j,}\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(n_{j,}\frac{1}{2}\right).$$

In (5.1) $`c_{\sigma ,j},c_{\sigma ,j}^{}`$ are the Fermi operators,

$$\{c_{j,\sigma }^{},c_{j^{},\sigma ^{}}\}=\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\delta _{jj^{}},$$

and $`n_{j,\sigma }=c_{j,\sigma }^{}c_{j,\sigma }`$. As is known \[25,,26,,27,,28,,29\], in the symmetric case ($`g_0=0`$ and $`g_{}=g_{}>0`$), the field theory (5.1) describes the scaling limit of this chain. If one sends $`U+0`$, the correlation length

$$R_c=\frac{\pi }{2}\sqrt{\frac{t}{U}}e^{\frac{2\pi t}{U}}$$

diverges, and the correlation functions of (5.1) at large lattice separations assume certain scaling forms. In particular, if $`|jj^{}|1`$ the equal-time fermion correlator can be written as

$$c_{j^{},\sigma ^{}}c_{j,\sigma }^{}\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}(j^{}j)\right)}{\pi (j^{}j)}F(|j^{}j|/R_c),$$

where $`F(0)=1`$. The scaling function $`F(\tau )`$ here is related directly to the field-theoretic correlation function (5.1) with $`\beta =\gamma =1`$. Therefore Eq.(5.1) leads to the following prediction for the large-distance asymptotic of the scaling function $`F`$ in (5.1),

$$F(\tau )=Ce^\tau +O(e^{3\tau })\mathrm{as}\tau \mathrm{},$$

where $`C`$ is the constant (5.1).

6. Discussion

Conjecture (3.1) for the factor $`𝐙_n(a)`$ in (2.1) is the main statement of this paper. In certain sense it extends the proposal of  about vacuum expectation values of $`𝒪_a^0(x)\mathrm{exp}(ia\phi (x))`$ to the case of fields $`𝒪_a^n(x)`$ carrying nonzero topological charge $`n`$. In this connection we would like to add the following remark.

As was shown in , the vacuum expectation values

$$vac|e^{ia\phi }|vac=\sqrt{𝐙_0(a)}$$

obey the interesting analytic relation

$$\sqrt{𝐙_0(a)}=R_0(a)\sqrt{𝐙_0(𝒬a)},$$

where $`𝒬=\frac{1}{\beta }\beta `$, and the amplitude

$$R_0(a)=(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{2𝒬(2a+𝒬)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{2a}{\beta }+\frac{𝒬}{\beta })\mathrm{\Gamma }(12a\beta 𝒬\beta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{2a}{\beta }\frac{𝒬}{\beta })\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2a\beta +𝒬\beta )},$$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }M\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\xi }{2})}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{\xi }{2})}\left(\frac{1+\xi }{\xi }\right)^\xi $$

can be related to the “Liouville reflection amplitude”  by analytic continuation $`\beta ib`$. Although our understanding of the “reflection relation” (6.1) is still far from being satisfactory, it has proved to be very useful in determining vacuum expectation values of other fields in the sine-Gordon  and in other integrable models \[5,,6,,7\]. It is possible to check that $`𝐙_n(a)`$ in Eq.(3.1) satisfies a similar relation

$$\sqrt{𝐙_n(a)}=R_n(a)\sqrt{𝐙_n(𝒬a)}$$

with

$$R_n(a)=(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{2𝒬(2a+𝒬)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{2a}{\beta }+\frac{𝒬}{\beta }+\frac{n}{2\beta ^2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(12a\beta 𝒬\beta +n/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{2a}{\beta }\frac{𝒬}{\beta }+\frac{n}{2\beta ^2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2a\beta +𝒬\beta +n/2)}.$$

At the moment we are not in possession of any clear interpretation of the “reflection amplitude” (6.1), neither in terms of Liouville nor any other CFT, nor even as a natural analytic interpolation of the “normalization factors” of  (note that (6.1) does not have $`nn`$ symmetry, which the Coulomb-gas integrals defining the corresponding normalization factors clearly do, thus indicating a significant ambiguity in such analytic interpolation for $`n0`$). Nonetheless, Eq.(6.1) could be helpful in the search for generalizations of (3.1).

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with Alexei Tsvelik. They are also indebted to Chris Hooley for careful reading of the manuscript. S.L. heartily thanks the organizers of the research program “New Theoretical Approaches to Strongly Correlated Systems”, at the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge, where parts of this work were done, for their kind hospitality. He has especially benefited from discussions with Fabian Essler.

This research is supported in part by DOE grant #DE-FG02-96ER10919.

References

relax Smirnov, F.A.: Form-factors in Completely Integrable Models of Quantum Field Theory. Singapore: World Scientific (1992) relax Vergeles, S. and Gryanik., V.: Two-dimensional Quantum Field Theories having exact solutions. Yadern. Fiz. 23, pp. 1324-1334 (1976) (in Russian); Karowski, M., Weisz, P.: Exact form factors in (1+1)-dimensional field theoretic models with solution behavior. Nucl. Phys. B139, pp. 455-476 (1978); Zamolodchickov, A.B.: Quantum sine-Gordon model. The soliton form-factors. ITEP-45-1977, Preprint ITEP, 12pp. (1977) relax Zamolodchikov, Al.B.: Two-point correlation function in scaling Lee-Yang model. Nucl. Phys. B348, pp. 619-641 (1991); Acerbi C., Mussardo G., and Valleriani, A.: Form-factors and correlation functions of the stress - energy tensor in massive deformation of the minimal models $`E_{(N)}^{(1)}\times E_{(N)}^{(1)}/E_{(N)}^{(2)}`$. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A11, pp. 5327-5364 (1996); Balog, J. and Niedermaier, M.: Off-shell dynamics of the O(3) NLS model beyond monte carlo and perturbation theory. Nucl. Phys. B500, pp. 421-461 (1997) relax Lukyanov, S. and Zamolodchikov, A.: Exact expectation values of local fields in the quantum sine-Gordon model. Nucl. Phys. B493, pp. 571-587 (1997) relax Fateev, V., Lukyanov, S., Zamolodchikov, A. and Zamolodchikov, Al.: Expectation values of boundary fields in the boundary sine-Gordon model. Phys. Lett. B406, pp. 83-88 (1997); Expectation values of local fields in the Bullough-Dodd model and integrable perturbed Conformal Field Theories. Nucl. Phys. B516, pp. 652-674 (1998) relax Baseilhac, P. and Fateev, V.A.: Expectation values of local fields for a two-parameter family of integrable models and related perturbed Conformal Field Theories. Nucl. Phys. B532, pp. 567-587 (1998) relax Fateev, V.A.: Normalization factors in Conformal Field Theory and their applications. Mod. Phys. Lett. A15, pp. 259-270 (2000) relax Lukyanov, S.: Free field representation for massive integrable models. Commun. Math. Phys. 167, No.1, pp. 183-226 (1995) ; Form-factors of exponential fields in the sine-Gordon model. Mod. Phys. Lett. A12, pp. 2543-2550 (1997) relax Babujian, H., Fring, A., Karowski, M. and Zapletal, A.: Exact form-factors in integrable quantum field theories: the sine-Gordon model. Nucl. Phys. B538, pp. 535-586 (1999); Delfino, G.: Off critical correlations in the Ashkin-Teller model. Phys. Lett. B450, pp. 196-201 (1999) relax Fateev, V.A. and Zamolodchikov, A.B.: Parafermionic currents in the two-dimensional Conformal Quantum Field Theory and self-dual critical points in $`Z_N`$ invariant statistical systems. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 89, pp. 380-399 (1985) relax Lukyanov, S. and Zamolodchikov, A.: To appear relax Coleman, S.: The quantum sine-Gordon equation as the Massive Thirring model. Phys. Rev. D11, pp. 2088-2097 (1975) relax Mandelstam, S.: Soliton operators for the quantized sine-Gordon equation. Phys.Rev. D11, pp. 3026-3030 (1975) relax Bernard, D. and LeClair, A.: Residual quantum symmetries of the restricted Sine-Gordon theories. Nucl. Phys. B340, pp. 721-751 (1990) relax Baxter, R.J.: Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics. London: Academic Press (1982) relax Luther, A.: Eigenvalue spectrum of interacting massive fermions in one dimension. Phys. Rev. B14, 5, 2153-2159 (1976) relax Johnson, J.D., Krinsky, S. and McCoy, B.M.: Vertical-arrow correlation length in the eight-vertex model and the low-lying excitation of the X-Y-Z Hamiltonian. Phys. Rev. A8, 2526-2547 (1973) relax Lukyanov, S.: Low energy effective Hamiltonian for the XXZ spin chain. Nucl. Phys. B522, pp.533-549 (1998) relax Foda, O., Iohara, K., Jimbo, M., Kedem R., Miwa, T. and Yan, H.: An elliptic quantum algebra for SL(2). Lett. Math. Phys. 32, pp. 259-268 (1994) relax Lukyanov, S. and Pugai, Ya.: Bosonization of ZF algebras: Direction toward deformed Virasoro algebra. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 82, pp. 1021-1045 (1996) relax Itzykson, C. and Drouffe, J.-M.: Statistical Field Theory. Vol.1: Cambridge University Press (1989) relax Controzzi, D., Essler, F.H.L. and Tsvelik, A.M.: Dynamical properties of one-dimensional Mott insulators. To appear in the proceedings of Newton Institute EuroConference on Strongly Correlated Electron Systems: Novel Physics and New Materials, Cambridge, England, 26-30 June 2000 (cond-mat/0011439) relax Gogolin, A.O., Nersesyan, A.A. and Tsvelik, A.M.: Bosonization and Strongly Correlated Systems. Cambridge University Press (1999) relax Essler, F.H.L. and Tsvelik, A.M.: Private communication relax Filev, V.M.: Spectrum of two-dimensional relativistic model. Teor. i Mat. Fiz. 33, pp. 119-124 (1977) relax Emery, V.J., Luther, A. and Peschel, I.: Solution of the one-dimensional electron gas on a lattice. Phys. Rev. B13, pp.1272-1276 (1976) relax Melzer, E.: On the scaling limit of the 1-d Hubbard model at half filling. Nucl. Phys. B443 \[FS\], pp. 553-564 (1995) relax Woynarovich, F. and Forgacs, P.: Scaling limit of the one-dimensional attractive Hubbard model: The half-filled band case. Nucl. Phys. B498, pp.65-603 (1997) relax Korepin, V.E. and Essler, F.H.L.: $`SU(2)SU(2)`$ invariant scattering matrix of the Hubbard model. Nucl. Phys. B426, pp. 505-533 (1994) relax Zamolodchikov, A.B. and Zamolodchikov, Al.B.: Structure Constants and Conformal Bootstrap in Liouville Field Theory. Nucl. Phys. B477, 577-605 (1996) relax Fateev, V., Fradkin, D., Lukyanov, S., Zamolodchikov, A. and Zamolodchikov, Al.: Expectation values of descendent fields in the sine-Gordon model. Nucl. Phys. B540, pp. 587-609 (1999)


text:
# The VIMOS Mask Preparation Software

## 1. Introduction

The VIRMOS (Visible and Infrared Multi-Object Spectrograph) project consists of two spectrographs with enhanced survey capabilities to be installed on two unit telescopes of ESO Very Large Telescope (Chile): VIMOS (0.37-1 $`\mu m`$) and NIRMOS (0.9-1.85 $`\mu m`$), each one having a large field of view ( 14’x16’) split into 4 quadrants and a high multiplexing factor (up to approximately 800 spectra per exposure).

To easily exploit such a potential a dedicated tool, the VIRMOS Mask Preparation Software (MPS), has been implemented. It provides the astronomer with tools for the selection of the objects to be spectroscopically observed, and for automatic slit positioning. The output of MPS is used to build the slit masks to be mounted in the instrument for the spectroscopic observations.

## 2. Requirements

At a limiting magnitude $`{}_{I}{}^{}<24`$, the density of objects in the sky is such that more than 1000 galaxies are visible in a VIMOS quadrant. Of course, not all these objects can be spectroscopically observed, as some requirements imposed by data quality have to be taken into account when placing slits: the minimum slit length will depend on the object size, since the slit must contain some area of “pure sky” to allow for a reliable sky subtraction; spectra must not overlap either along the dispersion or the spatial direction; as each first order spectrum is coupled with a second order spectrum which will contaminate the first order spectrum of the slit above, a good sky subtraction can be performed only if slits are aligned in columns (same spatial coordinate) and, within the same column, have the same length. All these factor lead to a theoretical maximum number of spectra per quadrant of approximately 200.

Another requirement for MPS is set by the very good VLT seeing which allows the use of slits widths of 0.3-0.4 arcsec. Such narrow slits imply an extremely precise slit positioning, with maximum uncertainties of the order of 0.1 arcsec. Thus the need for some (1-2 per quadrant) manually selected reference objects (possibly bright and point-like) to be used for mask alignment. Moreover, the user must have the possibility to manually choose some particularly interesting sources to be included (Compulsory objects) and some others to be excluded (Forbidden objects) from the spectroscopic sample. Also a tool for manual definition of curved or tilted slits, to better follow the shape of particularly interesting objects, has to be provided.

The MPS works starting from a VIMOS image, to which a catalogue of objects is associated. The catalogue can be derived from the image itself or from some other astronomical data-set. In this second case, a way to correlate the celestial coordinates of the objects in the catalogue with image coordinates is to be provided. Some catalog handling capabilities, to allow for the selection of classes of sources among which to operate the choice of spectroscopic targets, some image display and catalogue overlay capabilities have to be provided by the package.

## 3. MPS Graphical User’s Interface

As MPS will be distributed to the astronomical community, it should be based on some already known package (Not Yet Another System). It was therefore decided to base the MPS GUI on the SKYCAT tool distributed by ESO (see `http://archive.eso.org:8080/skycat/`). This tool allows astronomers to couple VIMOS images and catalogues on which to operate selections of objects over which to place slits.

A new panel for catalogue display, for object selection (Reference, Compulsory, Forbidden object) has been implemented. For each type of catalogue objects a different overlay symbol has been defined.

### 3.1. Curved/tilted slits definition

A dedicated zoom panel allows the definition of curved/tilted slits. Curved slits are defined by fitting a Bezier curve to a set of points chosen by the user by clicking on the zoom display. The fitted curve is then automatically plotted. The slit width is chosen through a scale widget.

Tilted slits can be defined as curved slits and then straightened. If the astronomer wants to have slits of a width different from the one chosen for the automatic slit placements, he can define them as tilted slits and then align them to the other automatically placed slits.

## 4. Slit Positioning Optimization Code

The core of Mask Preparation Software is the Slit Positioning Optimization Code (SPOC). Given a catalog of objects, SPOC maximizes the number of observable objects in a single exposure and computes the corresponding slit positions.

SPOC places slits on the field of view taking into account: special objects (reference, compulsory, forbidden), special slits (curved, tilted or user’s dimension defined), spectral first order superposition, spectral higher order superposition and sky region parameter (the minimum amount of sky to be added to an object size when defining a slit).

### 4.1. The Optimization

The issue to be solved is a combinatory computational problem. Because of the constraint of slits aligned in the dispersion direction, the problem can be slightly simplified: the quadrant area can be considered as a sum of strips which are not necessarily of the same width in the spatial direction. Slits within the same strip have the same length and the alignment of orders is fully ensured. The problem is thus reduced to be mono-dimensional. It is easy to show that the number of combination is roughly given by: $`N_{combination}=(N_{possiblestripwidths})^{(averagenumberofstrips)}`$ The slit length (or strip width) can vary from a minimum of 4 arcsec (20 pixels, i.e. twice the minimum sky region required for the sky subtraction) to a maximum of 30 arcsec (150 pixels, limit imposed by the slit laser cutting machine). The average number of strips can be estimated as the spatial direction size of the FOV divided by the most probable slit length: assuming the latter to be 50 pixels (10 arcsec), we would have $`2048/50=41`$ strips. The number of combinations would then be: $`N_{combinations}=130^{41}4.7\times 10^{86}`$. Computing these many combinations would correspond to $`10^{60}`$ years of CPU work! The problem is similar to the well known traveling salesman problem: in the standard approach, this is solved by randomly extracting a ”reasonable” number of combinations and maximizing over this subsample. In our case, due to computational time, the ”reasonable” number of combinations cannot be higher than $`10^810^9`$, so small with respect to the total number of combination that the result is not guaranteed to be near the real maximum. Our approach has been to consider only the most ”probable” combinations, i.e. the ones that have the highest probability to maximize the solution.

Step 1: For each spatial coordinate, we can vary the strip width from the given minimum to the given maximum, count how many objects we can place in the strip, and build the diagram of the number of slits in a strip divided by the strip width as a function of the strip width. For each spatial coordinate, only the strip widths corresponding to peaks in this histogram are worth considering, as they correspond to local maxima of the number of slits per strip. The exact positioning of the peaks varies for each spatial coordinate, but the shape of the function remains the same. The position of the peaks can be easily found in no more than 6-7 trials (using a partition exchange method).

Step 2 For each spatial coordinate we have K (where K is the number of peaks) possible strips, each with its own length and number of slits. Although the number of combinations to be tested is decreased it is still too big in terms of computational time.

Step 3 A further reduction can be obtained if, instead of considering all the strips simultaneously, we consider sequentially M subsets of N consecutive strips, which together cover the whole FOV. At this point, we should vary N (and consequently M) to find the best solution. In practice, when N is higher than 8-10, nothing changes in terms of number of observable objects. For N=10, thus M=4 (i.e. $`2048/(4\times 50)`$), the number of combination is reduced to only $`4\times 4^{10}=4\times 10^6`$, which means a few seconds of CPU work. Unfortunately, as a consequence of the optimization process, small size objects are favored against the big ones.

### 4.2. An alternative optimization

A second, less optimized algorithm, has been implemented within SPOC. This alternative algorithm does not optimize all strips simultaneously but builds the $`N_{Slit}/Strip`$ function strip by strip without considering object sizes, and takes only the maximum of the distribution. Then it enlarges each strip width by taking into account object sizes. In this way the number of placed slits decreases by a few percent but the object dimension bias disappears.

## 5. SPOC Graphical User Interface

A dedicated panel for SPOC set up has been implemented within SKYCAT. Trough this panel, users can select the grism, the slit width, and the sky region parameter, the number of masks to be obtained for the given field, and the type of SPOC maximization.

The number of input slit and placed slit for all kinds of objects (Reference, Compulsory, etc…) is printed in a text box.

The slit catalogue produced by SPOC can be loaded as a normal SKYCAT catalog with overlay symbols defined for all kinds of objects, and it is also possible to plot the slit and spectrum overlay for all SPOC catalog objects.


text:
# Electron-phonon interaction in the normal and superconducting states of MgB2

## Abstract

For the 40K-superconductor MgB2 we have calculated the electronic and phononic structures and the electron-phonon interaction throughout the Brillouin zone ab initio. In contrast to the isoelectronic graphite, MgB2 has holes in the bonding $`\sigma `$-bands, which contribute 42 per cent to the density of states: $`N\left(0\right)=0.355`$ states/(MgB$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$eV$``$spin). The total interaction strength, $`\lambda =0.87`$ and $`\lambda _{tr}=0.60,`$ is dominated by the coupling of the $`\sigma `$-holes to the bond-stretching optical phonons with wavenumbers in a narrow range around 590 cm$`^1.`$ Like the holes, these phonons are quasi two-dimensional and have wave-vectors close to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$A, where their symmetry is E. The $`\pi `$-electrons contribute merely 0.25 to $`\lambda `$ and to $`\lambda _{tr}.`$ With Eliashberg theory we evaluate the normal-state resistivity, the density of states in the superconductor, and the B-isotope effect on $`T_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0,`$ and find excellent agreement with experiments, when available. $`T_c`$=40 K is reproduced with $`\mu ^{}=0.10`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_BT_c=3.9.`$ MgB2 thus seems to be an intermediate-coupling e-ph pairing $`s`$-wave superconductor.

The recent discovery of superconductivity with $`T_c`$=39 K in the graphite-like compound MgB2 has caused hectic activity. Density-functional (LDA) calculations show that, in contrast to intercalated graphite $`\left(T_c5\mathrm{K}\right)`$ and alkali-doped fullerides, A3C60 $`\left(T_c<40\mathrm{K}\right),`$ in MgB2 there are holes at the top of the B-B bonding $`\sigma `$-bands, and that these couple rather strongly to optical B-B bond-stretching modes with wavenumbers around 600 cm-1. These are the same type of modes as those believed to couple most strongly to the $`\pi `$-electrons in graphite and C60, where their wavenumbers are 2.5 times larger, however. Rough estimates  of the electron-phonon coupling-strength for $`s`$-wave pairing in MgB2 yield: $`\lambda `$1. Measurements of the B-isotope effect on $`T_c`$, tunnelling, transport , thermodynamic properties, and the phonon density of states confirm that MgB2 is most likely an electron-phonon mediated $`s`$-wave superconductor with intermediate or strong coupling.

In order to advance, detailed comparisons between accurate results of Eliashberg theory and experiments are needed. Consider again the example of A3C$`_{60},`$ also believed to be conventional $`s`$-wave superconductors with $`T_c`$’s described by the McMillan expression:

$$T_c^{McM}=\frac{\omega _{\mathrm{ln}}}{1.2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1.04(1+\lambda )}{\lambda (1+0.62\lambda )\mu ^{}}\right].$$
(1)
The LDA values for $`\lambda `$ are 0.4–0.6 and the value of the Coulomb pseudopotential $`\mu ^{}`$ to be used in (1) is presumably considerably larger than the usual value, 0.1–0.2, for $`sp`$-materials due to the small width ($``$0.5 eV) of the $`\pi `$ $`t_{1u}`$-subband compared with the on-ball Coulomb repulsion. For MgB$`_2,`$ where the $`\pi `$-band is 15 eV broad, one expects $`\mu ^{}`$ to be 0.1–0.2 and the LDA plus generalized-gradient correction to give $`\lambda `$ with an accuracy better than 0.1. The result of such a $`\lambda `$-calculation will be presented here and should allow us to reach conclusions about the superconductivity in MgB2.

MgB2 consists of graphite-like B2-layers stacked on-top with Mg in-between. The primitive translations are: $`𝐚`$=$`(\sqrt{3}/2,1/2,0)a,𝐛`$=$`(0,a,0),𝐜`$=$`(0,0,c),`$ with $`a=3.083`$Å$`=5.826a_0`$ and $`c/a=1.142.`$ In reciprocal space, and in units of $`2\pi /a,`$ the primitive translations are: A=$`(2/\sqrt{3},0,0),`$B=$`(1/\sqrt{3},1,0),`$C=$`(0,0,a/c),`$ and the points of high symmetry are: $`𝚪`$=$`(0,0,0),`$ A=$`(0,0,a/2c),`$ M=$`(1/\sqrt{3},0,0),`$ L=$`(1/\sqrt{3},0,a/2c),`$ K=$`(1/\sqrt{3},1/3,0),`$ H=$`(1/\sqrt{3},1/3,a/2c).`$ To reach a numerical accuracy exceeding 0.1 for $`\lambda `$ requires careful sampling $`throughout`$ the Brillouin-zone for electrons as well as for phonons due to the small size of the cylindrical $`\sigma `$-hole sheets. We therefore used Savrasov’s linear-responce full-potential LMTO density-functional method, proven to describe the superconducting and transport properties of $`e.g.`$ Al and Pb with high accuracy. The Brillouin-zone integrations were performed with the full-cell tetrahedron method with the $`𝐤`$-points placed on the $`(𝐀,𝐁,𝐂)/24`$ sublattice. For the valence bands, a triple-kappa $`spd`$ LMTO basis set was employed and the Mg 2$`p`$-semicore states were treated as valence states in a separate energy window. The charge densities and potentials were represented by spherical harmonics with $`l8`$ inside the non-overlapping MT spheres, and by plane waves with energies $``$ 201 Ry in the interstitial region.

The resulting electronic structure is practically identical with that of previous calculations. Near and below the Fermi level there are two B $`p_z`$ $`\pi `$-bands and three quasi-2D B-B bonding $`\sigma `$-bands. The $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$ bands do not hybridize when $`k_z`$=0 and $`\pi /c`$. The $`\pi `$-bands lie lower with respect to the $`\sigma `$-bands than in graphite and have more $`k_z`$-dispersion due to the influence of Mg, the on-top stacking, and the smaller $`c/a`$-ratio. This causes the presence of $`p_{\sigma l}`$=0.056 light and $`p_{\sigma h}`$=0.117 heavy holes near the doubly-degenerate top along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$A of the $`\sigma `$-bands. For the density of states at $`\epsilon _F0,`$ we find: $`N\left(0\right)=N_{\sigma l}\left(0\right)+N_{\sigma h}\left(0\right)+N_\pi \left(0\right)=0.048+0.102+0.205`$ $`=0.355`$ states/(MgB$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$eV$``$spin).

The $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$-bands may be understood and described with reasonable accuracy near $`\epsilon _F`$ using the orthogonal tight-binding approximation with respectively the B $`p_z`$ orbitals and the B-B two-center bond-orbitals formed from the B $`sp^2`$ hybrids: With two $`p_z`$ orbitals per cell and hopping between nearest neighbors only ($`\epsilon _z`$=0.04 eV, $`t_z^{}`$=0.92 eV, and $`t_z`$=1.60 eV$`),`$ the $`\pi `$-bands are: $`\epsilon _\pi \left(𝐤\right)=\epsilon _z+2t_z^{}\mathrm{cos}ck_z\pm t_z\sqrt{1+4\mathrm{cos}\left(ak_y/2\right)\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(ak_y/2\right)+\mathrm{cos}\left(ak_x\sqrt{3}/2\right)\right]}.`$ The bonding $`\sigma `$-band Hamiltonian is:

$`H_\sigma \left(𝐤\right)=t_{sp^2}2t_b^{}\mathrm{cos}ck_z`$
$`2t_b\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{cos}\gamma +r\mathrm{cos}\left(\alpha +\beta \right)& \mathrm{cos}\alpha +r\mathrm{cos}\left(\beta +\gamma \right)\\ c.c.& 0& \mathrm{cos}\beta +r\mathrm{cos}\left(\alpha \gamma \right)\\ c.c.& c.c.& 0\end{array}\right\},`$
in the representation of the three bond-orbitals per cell, with $`t_{sp^2}`$ being the energy of the two-center bond, and the integrals for hopping between nearest and 2nd-nearest bond orbitals in the same layer being respectively $`t_b`$=5.69 eV and $`t_b^{}rt_b`$=0.91 eV, and with $`t_b^{}`$=0.094 eV being an order of magnitude smaller than $`t_z^{}`$. Moreover, $`\alpha \frac{1}{2}𝐤𝐚,\beta \frac{1}{2}𝐤𝐛,`$ and $`\gamma \frac{1}{2}𝐤\left(𝐛𝐚\right).`$ Along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$A, $`\alpha `$=$`\beta `$=$`\gamma `$=$`0`$ so that there is a singly-degenerate band of symmetry A with dispersion $`t_{sp^2}2t_b^{}\mathrm{cos}ck_z4\left(t_b+t_b^{}\right)`$ and a doubly-degenerate band of symmetry E with dispersion $`t_{sp^2}2t_b^{}\mathrm{cos}ck_z+2\left(t_b+t_b^{}\right).`$ The E-band is slightly above the Fermi level and its eigenvectors are given in the two inserts at the bottom of Fig. 1. The Fermi-surface sheets are warped cylinders which may be described by expanding the two upper bands of $`H_\sigma \left(𝐤\right)`$ to lowest order in $`k_x^2+k_y^2k_{}^2.`$ This yields:

$$\epsilon _{\sigma n}\left(𝐤\right)=\epsilon _02t_b^{}\mathrm{cos}ck_zk_{}^2/m_{\sigma n},$$
(3)
where $`\epsilon _0t_{sp^2}+2\left(t_b+t_b^{}\right)=0.58`$ eV is the average energy along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$A and the units of $`k_{}^2/m_{\sigma n}`$ and $`k_{}`$ are respectively Ry and $`a_0^1.`$ The light and heavy-hole masses are respectively $`m_{\sigma l}=4/\left(t_ba^2\right)=0.28`$ and $`m_{\sigma h}=4/\left(3t_b^{}a^2\right)=0.59`$ relatively to that of a free electron. For energies so closely below $`\epsilon \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)`$ that Eq. (3) holds, the number-of-states function is $`k_n^2(\epsilon ,k_z)𝑑k_z/k_{BZ}^2=k_n^2(\epsilon ,\pi /2c)/k_{BZ}^2=\left(\epsilon _0\epsilon \right)m_{\sigma n}/k_{BZ}^2,`$ and its energy derivative is therefore constant: $`N_{\sigma n}\left(\epsilon \right)=m_{\sigma n}/k_{BZ}^2.`$ Here, $`\pi k_{BZ}^2`$=$`\left(2\pi a_0/a\right)^22/\sqrt{3}`$ is the area, and $`k_{BZ}`$ the average radius of the Brillouin zone. Note that the $`\sigma `$-sheets are quite narrow: $`k_{Fl}\left(\pi /2c\right)/k_{BZ}`$=$`\sqrt{0.056/2}`$=$`0.17`$ and $`k_{Fh}\left(\pi /2c\right)/k_{BZ}`$=$`\sqrt{0.117/2}`$=$`0.24.`$

The dynamical matrix was calculated for q-points on the $`(𝐀,𝐁,𝐂)/6`$ sublattice using the B-mass 10.811 which corresponds to the natural mix of isotopes. The phonon dispersions $`\omega _m\left(𝐪\right)`$ and density of states $`F\left(\omega \right)`$ are shown in Fig.1. The agreement between our $`F\left(\omega \right)`$ and those obtained from inelastic neutron scattering is excellent; our peaks at 260 and 730 cm-1 (32 and 90 meV) are seen in the experiments at 32 and 88 meV. For the frequencies of the optical $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modes we get: 335 cm-1 (E1u), 401 cm-1 (A2u), 585 cm-1 (E2g), and 692 cm-1 (B1g). These values are in good agreement with those of previous calculations, except for the all-important E2g modes where the LAPW and pseudo-potential calculations give values which are respectively $``$100 cm-1 smaller and larger than ours. These doubly degenerate modes are the optical B-B bond-stretching modes (obs). Close to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$A, they have exactly the same symmetry and similar dispersions as the light and heavy $`\sigma `$-holes, although with the opposite signs. The E eigenfunctions shown at the bottom of Fig.1 now refer to displacement patterns, e.g., $`\{1,0,1\}`$ has one bond shortened, another bond stretched by the same amount, and the third bond unchanged. These E displacement patterns will obviously modulate the electronic bond energy, $`t_{sp^2},`$ in such a way that the light holes couple to one, and the heavy holes to the other mode, with the same diagonal $`\left(g_{\sigma ,obs}\right)`$ and no off-diagonal matrix element. An and Pickett judged that this electron-phonon (e-ph) matrix element will be the dominating one. This, we shall confirm, although we dispute their estimate of $`\lambda `$.

We now turn to the superconducting properties. Since the Fermi surface has two $`\sigma `$ and two $`\pi `$-sheets, one might expect anisotropic pairing with different gaps on different sheets. The experimental data, however, demonstrate that a change of residual resistivity corresponding to a change of impurity scattering by two orders of magnitude hardly affects $`T_c,`$ although $`T_c`$ for anisotropic pairing is very sensitive to impurity scattering. The relative linewidth of the $`m𝐪`$-phonon due to e-ph coupling is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _m\left(𝐪\right)}{\omega _m\left(𝐪\right)}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{nn^{}𝐤}{}}\delta \left[\epsilon _n\left(𝐤\right)\right]\delta \left[\epsilon _n^{}\left(𝐤+𝐪\right)\right]\left|g_{n𝐤,n^{}𝐤+𝐪,m}\right|^2`$
$``$ $`\pi N\left(0\right)\omega _m\left(𝐪\right)\lambda _m\left(𝐪\right),`$
where the factor 2 is from spin degeneracy and $`_𝐤`$ is the average over the Brillouin zone, so that $`N\left(0\right)`$=$`_{n𝐤}\delta \left[\epsilon _n\left(𝐤\right)\right].`$ We have (safely) assumed that $`\omega _m\left(𝐪\right)𝐪𝐯_n\left(𝐤\right),`$ where $`𝐯_n\left(𝐤\right)_𝐤\epsilon _n\left(𝐤\right)`$ is the electron velocity. The e-ph matrix element is: $`g_{n𝐤,n^{}𝐤+𝐪,m}=n𝐤\left|\delta V\right|n^{}𝐤+𝐪/\delta Q_{m𝐪},`$where the displacement in the $`i`$-direction of the $`j`$th atom is related to the phonon eigenvector $`e_{ij,m𝐪}`$ and displacement $`\delta Q_{m𝐪}`$ by: $`\delta R_{ij}=`$ $`e_{ij,m𝐪}\delta Q_{m𝐪}/\sqrt{2M_j\omega _{m𝐪}}.`$ The Eliashberg spectral function is:

$`\alpha ^2\left(\omega \right)F\left(\omega \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi N\left(0\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{m𝐪}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _m\left(𝐪\right)}{\omega _m\left(𝐪\right)}}\delta \left[\omega \omega _m\left(𝐪\right)\right],`$

and the strength of the e-ph interaction is finally: $`\lambda 2_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega ^1\alpha ^2\left(\omega \right)F\left(\omega \right)𝑑\omega =_{m𝐪}\lambda _m\left(𝐪\right).`$

The dominance of the $`\sigma `$-$`\sigma `$ coupling via the optical bond-stretching mode is clearly seen in Fig. 1, where the area of a black circle is proportional to $`\lambda _m\left(𝐪\right).`$ Along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{A},`$ except when $`𝐪𝐯<\omega ,`$ only the small $`k_z`$-dispersion $`\left(t_b^{}\right)`$ makes $`\lambda _m\left(𝐪\right)`$ not diverge so that the numerical values are inaccurate due to the relative coarseness our $`𝐤`$-mesh. The nearly cylindrical $`\sigma `$-sheets, whose diameters are of about the same size as the smallest, non-zero $`q_{}`$ on the affordable $`(𝐀,𝐁,𝐂)/6`$-mesh, require even more care in the numerical $`𝐪`$-integration: In case of a single cylindrical sheet with $`p`$ holes, $`\lambda \left(q_{}\right)`$ has the well-known $`Im\chi \left(q_{},\omega 0\right)`$-form:$`\lambda \left(q_{}\right)/\lambda =\left(2\pi px\sqrt{1x^2}\right)^1\theta \left(1x\right)`$ with $`x`$=$`q_{}/2k_F.`$ This function vanishes when $`q_{}`$$`>`$$`2k_F,`$ has a flat minimum of value $`\left(\pi p\right)^1`$ near $`q_{}`$=$`\sqrt{2}k_F,`$ and has integrable divergencies at $`q_{}`$=$`2k_F`$ and 0. The proper average of $`\lambda \left(q_{}\right)`$ is $`\lambda .`$ This means, that $`\lambda \left(𝐪\right)`$ calculated on a coarse mesh scatter violently for small $`\left|𝐪\right|,`$ but that weighting with $`\lambda /\lambda \left(q_{}\right)`$ gives the same, correct result for all these points, provided that warping, as well as $`𝐤,𝐤^{}`$-dependence of $`g`$ and $`\omega ,`$ are neglected. In case of two cylindrical sheets, and no coupling between them, $`\lambda _n\left(q_{}\right)/\lambda _n`$ should be weighted by $`m_n^2/\left(m_l^2+m_h^2\right).`$ In our numerical evaluation of the e-ph interaction with the linear-response code we discarded the values of $`\lambda _m\left(𝐪\right)`$ with $`𝐪`$ along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$A, and added those on the $`(𝐀/12,𝐁/12,𝐂/6)`$-mesh for which $`\sqrt{2}k_{Fl}q_{}\sqrt{2}k_{Fh}.`$ The result was: $`\lambda `$=0.62+0.25, where 0.62 was the contribution from $`𝐪`$’s so small that $`\sigma `$-$`\sigma `$ coupling occurs, and 0.25 was the contribution from the remaining part of $`𝐪`$-space, which must involve a $`\pi `$-sheet. Had we included the inaccurate $`\lambda _m\left(𝐪\right)`$-values along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$A-line, the $`\sigma `$-$`\sigma `$ result would have been 0.72 instead of 0.62. The result was finally checked by using the approximate $`\lambda \left(q_{}\right)/\lambda `$ correction for the point $`𝐪`$=$`𝐀/12.`$ This yielded 0.58 instead of 0.62. In conclusion: $`\lambda =0.87\pm 0.05=\left(0.62\pm 0.05\right)+0.25\lambda _\sigma +\lambda _\pi .`$

The Eliashberg function shown on the right-hand side of Fig. 1 is dominated by the large $`\sigma `$-$`\sigma `$ peak around $`\omega _{obs}`$=$`590`$cm-1=73 meV. The facts that the $`\sigma `$-sheets are narrow, warped cylinders whose coupling is dominated by intra-sheet coupling via the optical bond-stretching mode, and that the coupling between $`\sigma `$\- and $`\pi `$-sheets is negligible, lead to the following approximation:

$`\alpha ^2\left(\omega \right)F\left(\omega \right)\alpha _\pi ^2\left(\omega \right)F\left(\omega \right)\left[N_\pi \left(0\right)/N\left(0\right)\right]+`$
$`\left|g_{\sigma ,obs}\right|^2\delta \left(\omega \omega _{obs}\right)\left[N_{\sigma l}^2\left(0\right)+N_{\sigma h}^2\left(0\right)\right]/N\left(0\right),`$
where $`\alpha _\pi ^2\left(\omega \right)F\left(\omega \right)`$ is the usual expression, but with $`\pi `$-electrons only. In An’s and Picket’s estimate, $`\lambda _\sigma `$=0.95, a factor $`\left[N_{\sigma l}^2\left(0\right)+N_{\sigma h}^2\left(0\right)\right]/N_\sigma \left(0\right)N\left(0\right)=0.24`$ appears to be missing. The rigid-atomic-sphere estimate $`\lambda `$=0.7 by Kortus et al. is closer to our value 0.87.

Knowing $`\alpha ^2\left(\omega \right)F\left(\omega \right)`$ and a value of the Coulomb pseudopotential $`\mu ^{}\left(\omega _c\right)`$, we solve the Eliashberg equation on the real frequency axis, and obtain $`T_c`$=40K if $`\mu ^{}\left(\omega _c\right)`$=0.14. Taking retardation effects into account, we find $`\mu ^{}`$ $`\mu ^{}\left(\omega _c\right)/\left[1+\mu ^{}\left(\omega _c\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\omega _c/\omega _{\mathrm{ln}}\right)\right]=0.10,`$ where $`\omega _{\mathrm{ln}}`$=504 cm-1=62 meV is obtained from: 0=$`_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\omega /\omega _{\mathrm{ln}}\right)\omega ^1\alpha ^2\left(\omega \right)F\left(\omega \right)𝑑\omega ,`$ and the cut-off frequency is taken as $`\omega _c`$=$`10\mathrm{max}\omega `$=8000 cm-1. This value of $`\mu ^{}`$ is at the lower end of what is found for simple $`sp`$-metals. The relation back to a screened Coulomb interaction $`U`$ is: $`\mu ^{}=\mu /\left[1+\mu \mathrm{ln}\left(\omega _p/\omega _{\mathrm{ln}}\right)\right],`$ where $`\mu `$=$`UN\left(0\right)`$ and $`\omega _p`$7 eV is the plasma frequency given below. We thus find: $`\mu `$=0.19 and $`U`$=1.1 eV, which are normal values. Had we used the approximate McMillan expression (1), the slightly higher value $`\mu ^{}`$=0.14 would be needed to reproduce the experimental $`T_c.`$

In Fig.2 we show our Eliashberg calculation with $`\mu ^{}`$=0.10 of the density of states, $`N_s(\epsilon )/N(0)=Re\left[\epsilon /\sqrt{\epsilon ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{3\mathrm{K}}^2(\epsilon )}\right],`$ in the superconductor. The BCS singularity is at $`\epsilon `$=$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3\mathrm{K}}\left(0\right)`$=6.8 meV, which is in accord with the 4.9-6.9 meV found in tunneling experiments. This yields: $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_BT_c`$=3.9 which is slightly higher than the BCS value of 3.52. The distinct feature near 80 meV corresponds to the peak in $`\alpha ^2(\omega )F(\omega )`$ at 73 meV, shifted by the 6.8 meV gap. The latter function is also shown in the figure together with the measurable quantity $`d^2I/dV^2dN_s(\epsilon )/d\epsilon .`$

We have calculated the change in $`T_c`$ upon isotope substitution of $`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{10}B`$ and get: $`\delta T_c`$=–1.7 K, which corresponds to the exponent $`\delta \mathrm{ln}T_c/\delta \mathrm{ln}M_B`$=0.46. This agrees well with the measured value: $`\delta T_c`$=–1 K. For the change of the gap, which may be measured in tunnelling and optical experiments, we calculate: $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$=–1.9 cm$`^1,`$ which corresponds to the exponent $`\delta \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\delta \mathrm{ln}M_B`$=0.38.

Finally, we have considered transport properties in the normal state. Here, solution of the kinetic equation leads to the transport e-ph spectral function $`\alpha _{tr,x}^2(\omega )F(\omega ),`$ and similarly for $`y`$ and $`z.`$ These components are given by the previous expressions, but with the additional factor $`\left[v_{nx}^2\left(𝐤\right)v_{nx}\left(𝐤\right)v_{n^{}x}\left(𝐤+𝐪\right)\right]/v_x^2`$ inserted. $`v_x^2N\left(0\right)^1_{n𝐤}v_{nx}^2\left(𝐤\right)\delta [(\epsilon _n\left(𝐤\right)]`$. In Fig. 1 the directional average, $`\alpha _{tr}^2(\omega )F(\omega ),`$ is seen to have the same shape as $`\alpha ^2(\omega )F(\omega ),`$ except for the $`\sigma `$-$`\sigma `$ interaction via the optical bond-stretching modes, whose $`\alpha _{tr}^2(\omega )F(\omega )`$ is smaller, presumably due to the near two-dimensionality of the $`\sigma `$-bands. As a result, $`\lambda _{tr}=0.60.`$ For the plasma frequencies, $`\omega _{p,x}^2=4\pi e^2N\left(0\right)v_x^2/\left[\mathrm{𝐚𝐛𝐜}\right],`$ we find: $`\omega _{p,x}`$=$`\omega _{p,y}`$=7.02 eV and $`\omega _{p,z}`$=6.68 eV. Also the temperature dependence of the specific dc-resistivity calculated with the standard Bloch-Grüneisen expression, $`\rho _{dcx}(T)=\left(\pi /\omega _{p,x}^2T\right)_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega \mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\omega /2T\right)\alpha _{tr,x}^2(\omega )F(\omega )𝑑\omega ,`$ is nearly isotropic and, as shown in Fig.3, is in accord with recent measurements on dense wires over the entire temperature range. The crossover from power-law to linear temperature dependence is seen to occur near $`\mathrm{max}\omega /5`$=160 cm-1=230 K, as expected.

In conclusion, we have presented an accurate ab initio calculation of the e-ph interaction in MgB2 and find $`\lambda =0.87\pm 0.05.`$ Eliashberg theory with $`\mu ^{}`$=0.10 gives good agreement with available experiments and several predictions. The unexpected high $`T_c`$ is due to the large $`\lambda `$-value caused by the presence of holes in the B-B bonding $`\sigma `$-band and the relative softness of the optical bond-stretching modes. MgB2 thus seems to be a simple and clear case of an intermediate-coupling e-ph pairing $`s`$-wave superconductor.

Useful discussions with R. K. Kremer, I. I. Mazin, S. Savrasov, D. Savrasov, and S. V. Shulga are acknowledged.


text:
# Uemura plot as a certificate of two-dimensional character of superconducting transition for quisi-two-dimensional HTS

## Abstract

For quisi-two-dimensional HTS in superconducting state the dimensional crossover, $`3D2D`$ is studied. With using general properties of superconducting state for 2D systems the universal temperature dependence of the relation of the penetration lengths of magnetic field along axis $`\widehat{c}`$, $`\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T/T_c)`$, is found out. This dependence evidences about two-dimensional character of superconducting transition for quisi-two-dimensional HTS and leads to the Uemura plot for quisi-two-dimensional HTS.

National Science Center ”Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology”, Academicheskaya st.1, 61108, Kharkov, Ukraine

E-mail: gsergeeva@kipt.kharkov.ua

1. Introduction. Quisi-two-dimensional (quisi 2D) or highly anisotropic underdoped HTS are exhibiting such out of the ordinary properties as ”semiconducting-like” c-axis resistivity, $`\rho _c(T)`$, near $`T_c`$, big interval of two-dimensional superconducting fluctuations, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2D}^NT_c`$, and pseudo-gap states at $`T\text{}T^{}`$, where $`T^{}`$ is the temperature of charge ordering. These properties lead to the discussion of the association of superconducting transition with Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition in $`CuO_2`$ planes at $`T_{BKT}<T_{c0}`$, where $`T_{c0}`$ is the temperature of two-dimensional superconducting transition in the mean-field theory (see, for example, review  and the references there). Despite the observations of two-dimensional character of superconducting fluctuations and the evidences for a BKT transition have been reported in most of quisi 2D HTS , up to now the question whether a BKT transition is observable in bulk cuprates with taken into account interlayer coupling in these materials  is under the discussion.

Interlayer coupling can lead to the dimensional crossovers both as at $`T\text{}T_c`$ ($`2D3D`$), so in superconducting state near $`T_c`$ ($`3D2D`$) \[4-6\]. Theoretical model of such superconducting transition is well known \[7-9\]: at enough small probability $`t_c`$ of charge tunnelling between $`CuO_2`$ planes transition has two-dimensional character with finite region $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3D}`$ of three-dimensional superconducting fluctuations. Anisotropy of exchange interactions in $`CuO_2`$ planes and along axis $`\widehat{c}`$ in spin-fluctuational pairing model assumes big values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2D}^N`$ and $`T_{c0}`$ and the distinction of temperatures $`T_c<<T_{c0}`$. For quisi 2D HTS in ref.  it was shown that at $`T>T_c`$ two-dimensional character of superconducting fluctuations leads to the temperature dependence of the probability of charge tunnelling $`t_c(T)`$, and to the exasperation of semiconducting-like of $`\rho _c(T)`$ near $`T_c`$, so that $`2D3D`$ crossover occurs at $`T_c^0>T_c>T_{BKT}`$ before BKT transition. This point out to the two-dimensional character of superconducting transition, which develops under Kats scenario  at enough small value of probability $`t_c(T_c^0)`$:

$$T_c^0/\epsilon _F<t_c(T_c^0),$$
(1)
where $`\epsilon _F`$ is Fermi energy, values $`T_c^0`$ and the temperature of three-dimensional transition in the mean field theory are the same order values. The interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3D}^N`$ of three-dimensional fluctuations in normal state can be found out from the measurements of resistivity $`\rho _c(T)`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{3D}^NT_c^0T_c<<\mathrm{\Delta }_{2D}^N$$
(2)
It is known that at $`T<T_c`$ back crossover $`3D2D`$ occurs at $`T_{cr}`$ which value depends on correlation length $`\xi _c(T)`$ along axis $`\widehat{c}`$ . This paper is devoted to the studying of the dimensionality of the superconducting state of quisi 2D HTS and to the determination of the values $`T_{cr}`$. With using general properties of superconducting state for 2D systems the universal temperature dependence of the relation of the penetration lengths of magnetic field along axis $`\widehat{c}`$, $`\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T/T_c)`$, is found out.

2. Universal dependence of $`T_c(\lambda ^2(0))`$. The penetration lengths of magnetic field along axis $`\widehat{c}`$, $`\lambda (T)`$ determines by London formula $`\lambda (T)n_{s,3}^{1/2}`$, where $`n_{s,3}`$ is the three-dimensional superfluid density. The density $`n_{s,3}`$ evidently interconnects with two-dimensional superfluid density $`n_{s,3}=n_s(T)\nu /l`$, where $`\nu `$ is number of layers, $`l`$ is the lattice constant. V.Pokrovskii shown that for quisi 2D HTS the penetration length $`\lambda (T)`$ and two-dimensional superfluid density $`n_s(T)`$ is connected by the expression

$$\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T)=n_{s,3}(T)/n_{s,3}(0)=n_s(T)/n_s(0),$$
(3)
Here it will shown that for quisi 2D HTS (3) leads to universal dependence of $`T_c(\lambda ^2(0))`$, which was called ”Uemura plot” and was discovered at the measurements of muon relaxation rate .

For plane system (3) can be written as ratio $`\rho _s(T/T_c)/\rho _s(0)=n_s(T/T_c)/n_s(0)`$, where $`\rho _s(T/T_c)`$ is dimensionless hardness and satisfy to universal dependence

$$\rho _s(T/T_c)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{Te^1}{T_c\rho _s(T/T_c)})$$
(4)
The decision of (4) was received in ref.: $`\rho _s(0)=1`$, and at $`T=T_c`$

$$\rho _s(T/T_c)|_{T=T_c}=e^1,$$
(5)
Expressions (3)-(4) results to universal character of temperature dependence of ratio

$$\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T/T_c)=\rho _s(T/T_c)/\rho _s(0)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{Te^1\lambda ^2(T/T_c)}{T_c\lambda ^2(0)}),$$
(6)
and simple relation between values $`\lambda ^2(T)`$ and $`n_s(T)`$ at $`T=T_c`$ and at $`T=0`$:

$$\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T_c)=n_s(T)/n_s(0)=e^1$$
(7)
Using this relation and Kosterlitz-Thouless-Nelson formula

$$k_BT_c=\frac{h^2}{32\pi m}n_s(T_c),$$
(8)
we can receive the universal relation between the density $`n_s(0)`$ at $`T=0`$ and transition temperature $`T_c`$:

$$T_c=\frac{h^2e^1}{32k_B\pi m}n_s(0),$$
(9)
where $`k_B`$ is Boltzman constant. For two-dimension superconductor the role of effective penetration length acts magnetic screening length

$$L_s(T)=\frac{mc^2}{2\pi n_s(T)\mathrm{e}^2},$$
(10)
which is connected with the bulk London penetration length

$$L_s=2d^1\lambda ^2,$$
(11)
where $`d`$ \- thickness of $`CuO_2`$ plane.

It is seen from (7-11) that the transition temperature is proportional to $`\lambda ^2(0)`$

$$T_c=k\lambda ^2(0),$$
(12)
where

$$k=\frac{c^2h^2e^1d}{64k_B\pi ^2\mathrm{e}^2},$$
(13)
depends only from universal constants and from thickness of $`CuO_2`$ plane. The temperature of dimensional crossover, $`T_{cr}<T_c`$, depends on correlation length $`\xi _c(T)`$, and can be determined at the measurement of penetration length as the boundary of two-dimensional region, where at $`T>T_{cr}`$ the measurement values of $`\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T/T_c)`$ are diverging from universal relation (6). Knowing $`T_{cr}`$ let us to determine the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3D}^S(T_cT_{cr})`$ of three-dimensional fluctuations at $`T<T_c`$. Full interval is equal

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{3D}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{3D}^N+\mathrm{\Delta }_{3D}^S=T_c^0T_{cr}$$
(14)
does not depend on the exactness of the measurement of $`T_c`$, and determines as the difference between the temperatures of two dimensional crossovers: in normal state, $`T_c^0`$, and in superconducting state, $`T_{cr}`$. So, for $`La_{1.85}Sr_{0.15}CuO_4`$ the measurements of resistivity $`\rho _c(T)`$  and of the penetration length  let us to determine the temperature $`T_c^041.5K`$, and $`T_{cr}26K`$. This lead to the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3D}15.5K`$. We see that the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3D}`$ of three-dimensional superconducting fluctuations is finite in the concrete, that evidences about the two-dimensional character of superconducting transition.

Thus, here it is shown that expression (12), which was found out at the measurements of muon relaxation rate  for quisi 2D HTS, really is universal and is the sequence of general consistent pattern (4), (8) of superconducting state for two-dimensional systems and must to fulfil for HTS with two-dimensional superconducting state at $`T<T_{cr}`$. This means that for quisi 2D HTS superconducting transition has two-dimensional character and develops on Kats scenario , and at $`T<T_{cr}`$ the temperature dependence of $`\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T/T_c)`$ also must to be universal (6).

The author would like to thank Dr.Kabanov V. for the reference on the V.L.Pokrovskii paper .

References

1. S.L.Cooper, K.E.Gray, in ”Physical properties of high temperature superconductors” ed.:

Donald M.Ginsberg,IY p.61-188 (1994).

2. S.Martin, A.T.Fiory, R.M.Fleming, G.P.Espinoza, and A.S.Cooper, Phys.Rev.Lett.

62, 677 (1989).

3.D.H.Kim, A.M.Goldman, J.H.Kang, R.T.Kampwirth, Phys.Rev. B40, 8834 (1989).

4. Y.Matsuda, S.Komiyama, T.Onogi, T.Terashima, K.Shimura, and Y.Bando ,

Phys.Rev.B48, 10498 (1993).

5. Y.Matsuda, S.Komiyama, T.Terashima, K.Shimura, and Y.Bando, Phys.Rev.Lett.

69, 3228 (1992).

6. Z.Tesanovic, L.Xing, L.Bulaevskii, O.Li, and Suenaga, Phys.Rev.Lett.69, 3563 (1992).

7. E.I.Kats, JE F (Russian),56, 1675 (1969).

8. Vik.Dotsenko and M.V.Feigelman, JETP,83, 345 (1982).

9. L.Bulaevskii, Usp.Fiz.Nauk (Russian), 116, 449 (1975).

10. G.Sergeeva, Physica C,341-348, 181 (2000).

11. G.G.Sergeeva, Low Temp. Phys.,26, 453 (2000); cond-mat/0009212.

12. T.Schneider and H.Keler, Phys.Rev.B47, 5915 (1993).

13. V.L.Pokrovskii, Pis’ma JETF, (Russian) 47, 539 (1988).

14. Y.J.Uemura, V.J.Emery, A.R.Moodenbaugh et al. Phys.Rev.B38, 909 (1988);

Phys.Rev.Lett.64, 2082 (1990).

15. Patashinskii A.Z., Pokrovskii V.L. Fluctuational theory of phase transition

(Russian, Moscow, Nauka) 1982.

16. B.I.Halperin and David R.Nelson, J. Low Temp.Phys. 36, 599 (1979).

17. T.Ito, H.Takagi, S.Ishibashi et al. Nature, 350, 596 (1991).

18. G.Aeppli and R.J.Cava, E.J.Ansaldo et al. Phys.Rev.B35, 7129 (1987).