text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Before its reincarnation as a candidate for a fundamental Theory of Everything, String Theory first entered Physics , as an attempt to understand the spectrum and interactions of hadrons. This attempt enjoyed considerable success in at least qualitatively accounting for many experimentally observed features of Strong Interactions. For example, the Veneziano amplitude  exhibited Dolen-Horn-Schmid duality , appropriate high $`s`$ and high $`t`$ behaviors, and linear Regge trajectories. The predictive power of the model was further increased by combining strings with the Quark Model. In this picture, a meson was represented as a quark-antiquark pair connected by a flux tube which behaved like a string. It thus became possible to place observed hadrons in leading or daughter Regge trajectories and predict the masses, spins and internal quantum numbers of mesons that were yet to be observed. In a similar way, Harari-Rosner , diagrams provided a useful way of explaining many qualitative properties of particular hadronic processes. This line of research was abandoned upon the almost simultaneous realization that the microscopic theory of Strong Interactions had to be based on an unbroken Yang-Mills theory and that String dynamics were really tailored for 10 or 26 dimensions.

In this note we would like take a modest backward step in history and present a qualitative model for the excited states of mesons consisting of one very heavy quark/antiquark (of the Charmed, Bottom or the Top kind) and one very light antiquark/quark (Up or Down) in terms of a string with one end fixed and one end free. In String Theory language, this system may be approximately described by using Dirichlet boundary conditions (placing the infinitely heavy quark at the origin of the space coordinate system, for example) at one end and Neumann boundary conditions at the other. The resulting system, which we will refer to as a Neumann-Dirichlet, or ND string, is worth examining not only as a guide to some expected properties of mesons with one very heavy quark or antiquark, but also for its novel String theoretic aspects. In fact, our emphasis will be more on the latter question, given that the data on Regge recurrences of such mesons is not available at this stage.

The plan of the paper and some of our main results are as follows. In section 2, we apply the ND conditions on the string in a natural adaptation of the light cone gauge of the NN string to our problem. This leads to what might be called a ”rest frame gauge”. The ND conditions only allow odd oscillator modes, which are then canonically quantized. The spacetime Hamiltonian and the world-sheet energy momentum tensor are given. In section 3, the Virasoro generators and their algebra for the ND string are worked out. The use of only odd oscillators implies that only even Virasoro mode operators survive and the central term is half that of the usual bosonic string. In section 4, the normal ordering constant for $`L_0`$ is calculated and found to have an opposite sign relative to the usual one; consequently, the ND string has no tachyon and no critical spacetime dimension. The absence of even oscillator modes and the tachyon have also been noted earlier in . As excited states are now obtained using odd creation operators only, the spectrum is a subset of that of the NN string. We then present a simple classical model to check the mass-angular momentum relationship for the leading Regge trajectory. The asymptotic density of states can be calculated using a modified version of the Hardy-Ramanujan analysis for the open string. Section 5 ends the paper with concluding remarks.

## 2 Quantization

We start with the Bosonic string action in a $`D`$-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, hence

$$S=\frac{T}{2}d\sigma d\tau g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(1)
We fix the reparametrization and Weyl invariances of the action in the conformal gauge $`g^{\alpha \beta }=\eta ^{\alpha \beta }`$. The general solutions of the equations of motion

$$(_\sigma ^2_\tau ^2)X^\mu =0$$

can be Fourier expanded as

$$X^\mu =x^\mu +l^2p^\mu \tau +\frac{l}{2}i\underset{n0}{}\frac{\alpha _n^\mu }{n}\mathrm{exp}in(\tau \sigma )+\frac{l}{2}i\underset{n0}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu }{n}\mathrm{exp}in(\tau +\sigma ),$$
(2)
where $`l`$ is a fundamental length introduced to ensure the correct dimensions for $`X^\mu `$. It is related to the string tension $`T`$ by $`l=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi T}}`$ . The range of the parameter $`\sigma `$ is taken to be $`[0,\pi /2]`$ for reasons which will soon be clear. We locate the infinitely massive quark at the $`\sigma =0`$ end and also identify this point with the origin of space coordinates through the Dirichlet boundary condition

$$X^i(0,\tau )=0,$$
(3)
which gives $`x^i=p^i=0`$ and $`\alpha _n^i=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^i`$ for $`i=1,2,..,D1`$. In modern parlance, we confine one end of the string to a $`D0`$-brane . We will also take $`x^0=0`$. We adopt the Neumann boundary conditions

$$_\sigma X^\mu (\pi /2,\tau )=0$$
(4)
for the massless end, which require that $`\alpha _n^\mu =0`$ for even $`n`$. This resembles the vanishing of the even parity modes in the familiar ordinary quantum mechanics problem of a particle placed in a ”half-oscillator potential”, i.e., a well with an infinite barrier at $`x=0`$ and a harmonic oscillator potential for $`x>0`$.

Imposing the ND boundary conditions on the space components thus results in

$$X^i=l\underset{k}{}\frac{\alpha _{2k+1}^i}{2k+1}\mathrm{exp}(i(2k+1)\tau )\mathrm{sin}((2k+1)\sigma ),$$
(5)
with the reality condition yielding $`\alpha _n^i=\alpha _n^i`$ as usual.

We now turn to $`X_0`$. Here, an analogy with the light-cone treatment of the NN string suggests itself. In the light-cone gauge, the $`\tau `$-parameter is identified with one of the light-cone target coordinates via

$$X^+(\sigma ,\tau )=x^++p^+\tau ,$$
(6)
and this sets the $`\alpha _n^+`$ operators to zero. Using the constraint equations, one then solves for the $`\alpha _n^{}`$ in terms of the $`D2`$ independent transverse operators; hence there is no further need for imposing Virasoro gauge conditions on the states. By contrast, in old covariant quantization, all $`X_\mu `$ are treated on an equal footing, but Virasoro conditions are imposed on the states.

In our case, only one end of the string describes a lightlike worldline, while the other is timelike; hence, the full light–cone gauge treatment is inappropriate. Instead, the natural analog of (6) is to identify the target space and world sheet ”times” via

$$X^0=l^2p^0\tau .$$
(7)
This eliminates the $`\alpha _n^0`$ modes and consequently, states with negative norm. We thus adopt an intermediate approach between light–cone and old covariant quantization. There will still be a need to impose constraint equations on the states, although these have been partially pruned by (7). This will lead to a Virasoro algebra with special features which we can already anticipate: By fixing one end of the string in target space, we have broken Poincaré invariance down to $`SO(D1)`$ rotational symmetry about the origin of space. Just as in a mechanical problem with an infinite mass, we no longer expect momentum conservation to hold, while energy should still be conserved. This leads us to expect the $`L_1`$ and $`L_1`$ modes, which involve the momentum operator, will be absent; indeed, since any odd mode can generate these unallowed modes through commutation, only even Virasoro modes should be present. We will see that this actually happens.

We follow the conventional canonical quantization procedure by requiring that the canonical momenta $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and and the coordinates obey the equal time Poisson brackets

$$\{\mathrm{\Pi }^i(\sigma ),X^j(\sigma ^{})\}=\delta ^{ij}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}).$$

Insertion of (5) into this and the use of the formula

$$\pi \delta _{2\pi }(\sigma \sigma ^{})=\underset{k}{}\mathrm{exp}(i(2k+1)(\sigma \sigma ^{}))$$

which may be obtained from the Poisson summation formula (a factor of $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{(\sigma \sigma ^{})}{2}`$ in the denominator of the LHS is omitted since it becomes unity when the argument of the delta function vanishes) yield the expected Poisson brackets ,

$$\{\alpha _n^i,\alpha _m^j\}=in\delta _{n,m}\delta ^{ij}$$

for the Fourier components.

Quantization is effected by replacing Poisson brackets with commutators with the result

$$[\alpha _n^i,\alpha _m^j]=n\delta _{n,m}\delta ^{ij}.$$
(8)
This is a subalgebra of the bosonic string Heisenberg algebra, $`n,m`$ being restricted to odd integers.

The Hamiltonian of the theory reads

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}(:_\tau X^\mu _\tau X_\mu :+:_\sigma X^\mu _\sigma X_\mu :)\mathrm{d}\sigma `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}(:_\tau X^i_\tau X^i:+:_\sigma X^i_\sigma X^i:l^4p_0^2)\mathrm{d}\sigma `$ (9)
with the gauge choice (7). The infinite ground state energy caused by the normal ordering procedure will be calculated and regularized later. The energy–momentum tensor

$$T_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{T}{2}(:_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X_\mu \frac{1}{2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }_\gamma X^\mu ^\gamma X_\mu :)$$

has the components

$`T_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{4}}(:_\tau X^i_\tau X^i:+:_\sigma X^i_\sigma X^i:l^4p_0^2),`$ (10)
$`T_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{10}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}:_\tau X^i_\sigma X^i:.`$ (11)
## 3 An even Virasoro algebra

We now verify our earlier claim that the ND string leads to a Virasoro algebra of even modes only. Imposing open string boundary conditions of the usual NN type identifies the oscillators for the left-moving modes and the right-moving modes, leading to a single set of Virasoro operators. In the ND string, we not only identify left and right-moving oscillators, but in addition exclude the even modes. It is therefore not surprising that half of the Virasoro modes will be eliminated. These have to be the odd ones which cannot close upon commutation, while the even Virasoro modes obviously can. In order to compute them, we first observe that

$$T_{\pm \pm }=\frac{1}{2}(T_{00}\pm T_{01})=\frac{T}{8}(:(_\tau X^i\pm _\sigma X^i)^2:(l^2p^0)^2),$$
(12)
where

$$_\tau X^i\pm _\sigma X^i=l\underset{m=odd}{}\alpha _m^i\mathrm{exp}(in(\tau \pm \sigma )).$$
(13)
Thus $`T_{++}(\sigma )=T_{}(\sigma )`$ as in the ordinary open string. Using this property and also the fact that for $`\tau =0`$

$$:(_\tau X^i\pm _\sigma X^i)^2:=l^2:\underset{n=odd}{}\underset{n=odd}{}\mathrm{exp}(im\sigma )\alpha _n^i\alpha _{mn}^i:,$$
(14)
where $`m`$, being the sum of two odd integers, is now necessarily even, we arrive at the even Virasoro mode operators

$$L_n=2_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{exp}in\sigma T_{++}d\sigma .$$
(15)
The constraints $`T_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ can now be imposed by demanding $`L_n`$ annihilate physical states for $`n>0`$ and $`L_o=ϵ_C`$ on the same states. The number $`ϵ_C`$ will be determined later.

Calling $`\alpha _0^\mu =lp^\mu `$, we can read off

$`L_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha _0^0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=odd}{}}:\alpha _m^i\alpha _m^i:,`$ (16)
$`L_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=odd}{}}:\alpha _m^i\alpha _{nm}^i:\text{(n even and non-zero)},`$ (17)
$`L_n`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{ (n odd)}.`$ (18)
We note that the Virasoro operators have their usual form in terms of the odd oscillator modes, hence it is clear that they will satisfy the familiar Virasoro algebra except perhaps for a change in the central extension term. This term is most easily calculated via the vacuum expectation value

$`A_m`$ $`=`$ $`0|[L_m,L_m]|0=0|L_mL_m|0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}0|{\displaystyle \underset{n,k=odd}{}}\alpha _{mn}^i\alpha _{n,i}\alpha _{mk}^j\alpha _{k,j}|0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}0|{\displaystyle \underset{n,k=odd}{}}\alpha _n^i\alpha _{mn,i}\alpha _k^j\alpha _{mk,j}|0,`$
where $`m`$ is of course even and positive. The expectation value in the second line vanishes for $`k>0`$ and for $`n>m`$, whereas the expectation value in the third line vanishes for $`n<0`$ and for $`k<m`$, yielding

$`A_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}0|{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{m1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=m+1}{\overset{1}{}}}\alpha _{mn}^i\alpha _{n,i}\alpha _{mk}^j\alpha _{k,j}|0`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{m1}{}}}n(mn)`$
where all the summations above are over odd integers. The second line is obtained by successive use of (8) and $`D1=\eta _{ij}\eta ^{ij}`$ is the dimension of space. The summation in the second line, when taken over all integers, produces the well–known Virasoro central extension term. Our odd–integer summation, in contrast, yields a modified central extension for the even Virasoro algebra of the form

$$[L_n,L_m]=(nm)L_{m+n}+\frac{D1}{24}\delta _{n+m,0}(n^2+2)n.$$
(23)
It should be noted that the anomaly-free $`SL(2,R)`$ subalgebra of the open string Virasoro algebra is now reduced to $`U(1)`$. It is possible to recover a more familiar form for the central term by shifting $`L_0`$ to $`L_0\frac{D1}{16}`$. This gives

$$[L_n,L_m]=(nm)L_{m+n}+\frac{D1}{24}\delta _{n+m,0}(n^3n).$$
(24)
Note that the coefficient $`D`$ in the usual Virasoro algebra has been changed to $`\frac{D1}{2}`$. The elimination of the odd Virasoro modes is seen to manifest itself as an apparent halving of the number of bosonic coordinates.

## 4 The spectrum

The on–mass shell condition comes from the zero mode of the Virasoro constraints $`T_{\alpha \beta }=0`$. Specifically, we derive the masses of the states at the quantum level from

$$(L_0+ϵ_C)|N,p=0,$$

where $`ϵ_C`$ is the Casimir energy which emerges upon normal ordering of the oscillators. We note that given one end is fixed, all the excitations will have to be analysed in their common rest frame. We thus combine

$$m^2=p^\mu p_\mu =l^2\alpha _0^\mu \alpha _{0,\mu }=(\alpha _0^0)^2,$$

with the zero mode Virasoro constraint

$$\frac{l^2m^2}{2}=ϵ_C+N=ϵ_C+\underset{i=1}{\overset{D1}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _{(2m1)}^i\alpha _{2m1}^i.$$
(25)
In the above, we have performed the normal ordering. The Casimir energy is given by

$$2ϵ_C=(D1)R\left\{\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2m1)\right\}.$$
(26)
Here $`R\{.\}`$ denotes the regularized part of the expression inside the brackets. We regularize $`ϵ_C`$ via

$$2ϵ_C=(D1)\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2m1)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda (2m1)).$$
(27)
where it is understood that the term that diverges as $`\lambda `$ goes to zero will be discarded at the end.

Doing the summation, one finds that to second order in $`\lambda `$

$$\frac{2}{D1}ϵ_C=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}+\frac{1}{12}+O(\lambda ^2),$$
(28)
from which we read off the regularized Casimir energy as

$$ϵ_C=\frac{D1}{24}.$$
(29)
A quicker way to arrive at the same result is to note that $`\zeta (1)2\zeta (1)=\frac{1}{12}`$. The mass formula thus becomes

$$m^2=\frac{1}{l^2}(\frac{D1}{12}+2N),$$
(30)
where $`N`$ is given by

$$N=\underset{i=1}{\overset{D1}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _{(2m+1)}^i\alpha _{2m+1}^i.$$

Since $`N`$ also denotes the highest spin at a given mass, we see that the ND string exhibits linear Regge trajectories, albeit with a Regge slope

$$\alpha _{ND}^{}=\frac{1}{\pi T}$$

which is twice as large as the usual $`\alpha _{NN}^{}`$. The reason behind this can be seen most clearly by comparing an NN string and an ND string both rotating in their rigid, maximum spin modes, the former about its geometrical center, the latter about the fixed end. When data on the excited states of mesons with one light and one extremely heavy quark/antiquark become available, it would be interesting to see whether this slope doubling is experimentally confirmed.

The above conclusions about the Regge trajectories are supported by examining an ND string undergoing rigid rotation in the $`X^1X^2`$plane with

$$X^1=l^2p^0\mathrm{sin}\sigma \mathrm{cos}\tau ,X^2=l^2p^0\mathrm{sin}\sigma \mathrm{sin}\tau ,X^0=l^2p^0\tau .$$
(31)
It can readily be verified that these satisfy both the equations of motion and the constraints of vanishing world sheet energy momentum tensor.

The energy of the configuration is

$$E=M=T_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}_0X^0d\sigma =\frac{l^2p^0\pi T}{2}$$
(32)
while its angular momentum turns out to be

$$J=T_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(X^1_0X^2X^2_0X^1)=\frac{\pi T(p^0l^2)^2}{4}.$$
(33)
The rotation being rigid, angular momentum per $`M^2`$ is maximised. The ratio of the former to the latter is the Regge slope, which again comes out to be $`\frac{1}{T\pi }`$.

We can draw some important conclusions from (30). First of all, the vacuum state with no excitations $`(N=0)`$, is a positive mass state with $`M^2=\frac{D1}{12l^2}`$, unlike the tachyon in the NN bosonic string. Hence the model has a stable vacuum. The second conclusion concerns the critical dimension for the ND string. From what we have seen so far, it might at first appear that the ND string can exist in any dimension $`D>1`$. To see why this looks plausible, first recall that we eliminated the negative probability modes at the beginning by identifying $`X^0`$ with $`\tau `$ and setting all the $`\alpha _n^0`$ equal to zero. As the fixed end condition breaks $`D`$ dimensional Poincaré invariance down to $`SO(D1)`$, all we have to check now is whether this reduced rotational symmetry holds in the theory independently of the value of $`D`$. To show this, we can take over Polchinski’s argument  used for deriving the critical dimension for the bosonic NN string: By seeking consistency between the Lorentz transformation properties of the states created by the oscillator modes and the mass formula, $`D=26`$ emerges without having to check the closure of the Lorentz algebra. This amounts to verifying Lorentz covariance in representation space instead of on the operator algebra. In our case, all of the states come in irreducible representations of $`SO(D1)`$ since they are created by the $`D1`$ space components of the oscillators, and they are all massive, as can be seen from the mass formula. Thus $`SO(D1)`$ symmetry is realized on the states regardless of the value of $`D`$; in fact, as we will see below, the Virasoro conditions select specific $`SO(D1)`$ irreps as states. However, the presence of an anomaly term proportional to $`D1`$ in our even Virasoro algebra renders this conclusion suspect; we will return to this paradox in the last section.

Turning to the spectrum, the first few examples are as follows:

* $`N=1`$:

$$|1=\alpha _1^i|0$$

is a massive vector representation;
* $`N=2`$:

$$|2=\alpha _1^i\alpha _1^j|0$$

can be decomposed into a symmetric traceless massive rank-2 $`SO(D1)`$ tensor and a massive scalar;
* $`N=3`$:

$$|3=\alpha _3^i|0\alpha _1^l\alpha _1^j\alpha _1^k|0$$

can be decomposed a symmetric traceless rank-3 tensor plus 2 vectors.

At this point one may wonder what role is left for the other Virasoro conditions $`L_{n>0}|phys=0`$ to play. After all, negative-metric Hilbert space states have already been eliminated at the outset, and linear combinations of the states above can be used to build perfectly physical looking $`SO(D1)`$ irreps. The answer, alluded to above, is that not all the possible $`SO(D1)`$ irreps at a given $`N`$ are allowed. The reader can quickly verify that while the $`N=1`$ state is automatically annihilated by $`L_2,L_4,\mathrm{}`$, at $`N=2`$, it is only the rank-2 tensor that satisfies the same Virasoro conditions. Similarly, at $`N=3`$, the Virasoro conditions select the rank three tensor and the vector created by $`\alpha _3^i`$, while ruling out the vector $`\alpha _1^i\alpha _1^k\alpha _1^k`$, just as the massive scalar $`\alpha _1^k\alpha _1^k`$ at $`N=2`$ is ruled out. Note that the highest rank tensor state at a given $`N`$, built out of $`N`$ $`\alpha _1^i`$ oscillators (with appropriate subtractions of other lower irreps that are created along the way) always exists, and so does the vector state obtained from $`\alpha _N^i`$. Also, one can still obtain states with even $`N`$ although only combinations of odd-mode creation operators are being used. Thus we can for example write $`4=1+1+1+1`$ or $`4=1+3`$, but are not allowed to use $`4=4,4=2+1+1,4=2+2`$. This means the asymptotic level density as $`N1`$ and the Hagedorn temperature of the ND string will not be identical with those of the NN string. We can compute these quantities by slightly modifying the standard techniques given in, say, . One can derive the number of states $`d_n`$ for $`N=n`$ (or the multiplicity at level $`n`$ of the partition function $`trw^N`$) via

$$d_n=\frac{1}{2i\pi }dww^{n1}trw^N.$$
(34)
We thus need to compute

$$trw^N=g(w)^{(D1)}$$

where $`g(w)=_{n=1,3,5,\mathrm{}}(1w^n)`$. There is actually a subtle point here. The original version of this calculation is based on an entirely physical spectrum built out of $`D2=24`$ transverse oscillators in the light-cone gauge and therefore the $`d_n`$ represent the true number of physical states at a given $`n`$. Our calculation, in contrast, will yield the number of all of the states generated by combinations of the $`\alpha _m^i`$ before the Virasoro conditions eliminate the unphysical ones. The relative error in this overestimation however decreases as $`1/(D1)^2`$ with increasing $`D`$ since the unwanted states come from the contraction of the space indices of two oscillators to give a scalar.

Now obviously

$$g(w)=\frac{f(w)}{f(w^2)},$$

where $`f(w)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1w^n)`$ is related to the Dedekind eta function by

$$\eta (\tau )=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \tau /12)f(\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi \tau )).$$

Here $`w=\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi \tau )`$ as usual.

Using the S-transformation property of the eta function

$$\eta (1/\tau )=(i\tau )^{1/2}\eta (\tau ),$$

one gets

$$g(w)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}w^{1/24}q^{1/24}\frac{f(q^2)}{f(q)},$$

where $`q=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2\pi ^2}{\mathrm{ln}(w)})`$.

To investigate the asymptotic density of states we look at the limit $`w1`$ for which

$$g(w)A\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\pi ^2}{12\mathrm{ln}w}),$$

or

$$trw^NA\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\pi ^2(D1)}{12\mathrm{ln}w}),$$

where $`A`$ is a constant. Using (34) we have

$$d_n\frac{1}{2i\pi }dw\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\pi ^2(D1)}{12\mathrm{ln}w}(n+1)\mathrm{ln}w).$$
(35)
Performing the saddle point approximation in (35) around the saddle point

$$\mathrm{ln}w^{}=\pi \sqrt{(D1)/12(n+1)}$$

one arrives at the asymptotic expression for the level density,

$$d_n\mathrm{exp}(\pi \sqrt{\frac{(D1)n}{3}})(D1)^{1/4}n^{3/4},$$
(36)
where we have only displayed the dependence on the dimension of the space–time and the level $`n`$, omitting some multiplicative constants. One can compare this with the formula for the NN bosonic string in $`D`$ dimensions :

$$d_n\mathrm{exp}(4\pi \sqrt{\frac{n(D2)}{24}})n^{3/4}n^{(D2)/4}.$$
(37)
We observe that going from (36) to (37), the argument of the exponential changes from $`\sqrt{n}`$ to $`\sqrt{2n}`$, This stems from the fact that the ND spectrum is built using only odd spin oscillators, whereas in the NN string both odd and even oscillators contribute to create a state at level $`n`$. Nevertheless, one can see that $`d_n(ND)>d_n(NN)`$ for $`D=2`$ and $`D=3`$, which is due to the relatively larger contribution of the longitudinal oscillator modes to the ND string for these low dimensions. For higher $`D`$, the exponential dominates as $`n`$ goes to infinity and the NN string has the greater multiplicity at a given large $`n`$.

The level formula (36) shows that the Hagedorn temperature of the ND string is

$$T_{ND}=\frac{1}{\pi }\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\alpha _{NN}^{}(D1)}}.$$
(38)
Here we used the fact that $`\alpha _{ND}^{}=2\alpha _{NN}^{}`$. The Hagedorn temperature for the NN string in $`D`$ dimensions follows from the same formula when $`D1`$ is replaced by $`D2`$.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

The ND string described above may have some qualitative relevance for describing mesons with one very heavy quark and a very light antiquark. For example, finding such mesons on Regge trajectories with twice the slope of the light meson trajectories would be a confirmation of the picture proposed here. However, we believe the ND string is interesting enough to be considered on its own, just as the original bosonic string proved to have a significance beyond hadron phenomenology. We have shown that it is a bona fide solution of the string equations of motion obeying the constraints and exhibiting a characteristic spectrum: it is essentially the system obtained by viewing the open string from a frame centered at its mid-point and then throwing half of the string away. The constraints lead to a physical Hilbert space via a combination of modified Virasoro conditions and a choice of the $`\tau `$ parameter which eliminates negative probabilities. However, there are three questions that need to be answered; the first two turn out to be related. The first is the unaddressed expectation that the problem should involve an infinite mass associated with the fixed end. The second and the third involve the apparent conflict between two facts: On the one hand, the theory appears to be unitary and $`SO(D1)`$ invariant for any $`D`$, while on the other hand, the presence of a non-zero anomaly term in the Virasoro algebra casts doubt on the possibility of imposing the constraints $`T_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ in a consistent way independently of the value of $`D`$. The answer to the first two questions is that although the ND string, unlike the bosonic or supersymmetric strings, does not sharply require a specific dimension such as 26 or 10, it nevertheless prefers $`D`$ to be as high as possible.

In relation to the first question, we note that the mass of the scalar ground state is proportional to $`D1`$; hence an infinite $`D`$ is consistent with one end of the string being immovable. Another consequence of this infinite $`D`$ limit is that the group $`SO(D1)`$ with $`(D1)(D2)/2`$ generators and the full inhomogenous Lorentz group with only $`2D1`$ additional generators ”merge up to order $`1/D`$” ; thus in a sense, the ND string recovers its Poincaré invariance as $`D`$ goes to infinity. This is evidenced also by a fact we observed earlier: the overestimation in the density of states vanishes like $`1/D`$. Interestingly, In the rather different approach to the problem taken in , $`D`$ has to be taken to infinity to make a saddle point calculation possible.

The third question, namely the presence of the anomaly term in the Virasoro algebra, gets affected by the above choice of $`D`$; the coefficient of the anomaly is now infinite. Since conformal invariance is violated by the immobile end, a conformal anomaly has to appear somewhere in the model; its becoming infinite is perhaps an indication is that like most other infinite quantities in physics, it is to be disregarded! Indeed, the problems normally associated with the conformal anomaly have already been solved: there are no negative norm or zero norm states, and the Virasoro conditions have organized and selected states into $`SO(D1)`$ irreps.

Finally, there is the intriguing question, which we intend to investigate, of whether this system of half a bosonic string has in some sense a fermionic character. This is suggested not only by the general fact that a pair fermions behaves like a boson, but also by some specific hints. Instead of restricting the range of $`\sigma `$ to $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and working with odd oscillator modes, one could keep the range as $`\pi `$ and work with half-odd integer Neveu-Schwarz-like modes; recall also the halving of the number of dimensions appearing in front of the Virasoro anomaly noted earlier.

Note added: After submitting the above note to the Web, we were notified of two earlier papers ,  involving ideas related to ours. Ref. is concerned with off-shell states in Dual Resonance models; in particular, it employs an $`R^\mu `$ field with Neveu-Schwarz-like half integer but commuting modes for the factorization of amplitudes with one off-shell particle. Had we chosen the interval $`[o,\pi ]`$ instead of $`[o,\frac{\pi }{2}]`$ for our $`X^\mu `$’s, we would have also obtained half-integer commuting modes instead of our odd-integer ones. In , the $`D`$ dimensions of spacetime are separated into $`D_o`$ ordinary and $`D_E`$ extraordinary components for the purpose of changing the intercept and the dimension to physical values. The analysis is based on maintaining Poincaré covariance in the ordinary dimensions while breaking it in the others by fixing one end of the extraordinary $`X^\mu `$ coordinates. In contrast, Poincaré covariance is entirely reduced to $`SO(D1)`$ covariance in our work.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to D. Fairlie and W. Siegel for bringing their papers to our attention. We are grateful to S. Arapoğlu, M. Arık, C. Deliduman, R. Güven and T. Turgut for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Low-Temperature Properties of Quasi-One-Dimensional Molecule-Based Ferromagnets

## I Introduction

Much effort has been devoted to designing molecular systems ordering ferromagnetically and recent progress  in the molecular chemistry in this context deserves special mention. One unique approach  to molecular ferromagnets consists of assembling molecular bricks so as to construct a low-dimensional system whose ground state possesses a nonzero resultant spin and then coupling the chains or the layers in a ferromagnetic fashion. We are fully convinced that ferromagnetic couplings between nearest-neighbor magnetic centers lead to the highest spin multiplicity, but such an interaction generally requires rather high site symmetries realizing the orthogonality of the magnetic orbitals. Except for a few polynuclear metal complexes  with the symmetry-imposed orthogonality, most of ferromagnetically coupled molecular systems  critically depend on some structural parameters which are hard to handle chemically. An alternative solution  to a highly magnetic ground state was obtained from a rather different concept$``$antiferromagnetically coupled polymetallic systems with irregular spin-state structures. It is the noncompensation of local spins, rather than the ferromagnetic interaction between nearest neighbors, that a magnetic ground state really demands. Ordered bimetallic chain compounds  are thus synthesized and since then the magnetic properties of ferrimagnetic chains have extensively been investigated .

This new strategy for molecular ferromagnets is well described by two contrastive but family compounds : MnCu(pba)(H2O)3$``$$`2`$H2O with pba = 1,3-propylenebis(oxamato) = C7H6N2O6 and MnCu(pbaOH)(H2O)3 with pbaOH = 2-hydroxy-1,3-propylenebis(oxamato) = C7H6N2O7, which are hereafter abbreviated as “pba” and “pbaOH” complexes, respectively. Both materials contain one-dimensional alignments of alternating magnetic centers Mn of spin $`S=\frac{5}{2}`$ and Cu of spin $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ and behave as chain compounds of local spins $`Ss`$ coupled ferromagnetically. However, due to the interchain interactions, their three-dimensional behaviors are qualitatively different: With decreasing temperature, the divergence of the magnetic susceptibility, which is reminiscent of one-dimensional ferromagnets, is stopped at the onset of three-dimensional ordering for the pba complex, whereas the pbaOH complex still behaves as a ferromagnet below the critical temperature. The former ends up with a singlet ground state in three dimension, while the latter really achieves a molecule-based ferromagnet. Besides the bimetallic chain compounds, certain metal-radical mixed materials  have also achieved the latter situation.

In such circumstances, Heisenberg alternating-spin chains were fully studied and their ferromagnetic-antiferromagnetic mixed features  were illuminated. However, very little has been calculated beyond one dimension. Namely, theoreticians have indeed assembled molecular bricks so as to construct ferrimagnetic chains but have not yet coupled them in a ferromagnetic fashion. Thus, in this article, we proceed to the latter part of the crystal engineering of molecular ferromagnets$``$interchain coupling. First, taking the case of the $`ab`$ planes of the pba and pbaOH complexes, we generally discuss the low-energy structures of mixed-spin systems beyond one dimension. Second, focusing on the ferromagnetic ordering of the ferrimagnetic chains, we fully investigate two-leg mixed-spin ladders, which are well indicative of general ferrimagnetic coupled-chain systems. Calculating their thermal, as well as quantum, behavior, we finally understand how effective the interchain coupling is in designing molecular ferromagnets. We make full use of the spin-wave theory employing numerical tools as well.

## II Mixed-Spin Coupled-Chain Systems

The above-mentioned bimetallic chain compounds, MnCu(pba)(H2O)3$``$$`2`$H2O and MnCu(pbaOH)(H2O)3, are schematized in Fig. 1. Due to their characteristic crystal packings , the dominant interchain interaction occurs between spins of the same kind in pba, whereas between those of different kinds in pbaOH. Thus these materials may essentially be described by the $`l`$-leg-$`L`$-rung mixed-spin coupled-chain Hamiltonians

$`^{(\alpha )}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\left(J𝝈_{i,j}^{(\alpha )}𝝈_{i,j+1}^{(\alpha )}+J^{}𝝈_{i,j}^{(\alpha )}𝝈_{i+1,j}^{(\alpha )}\right),`$ (1)
where a and b are set for the index $`\alpha `$, corresponding to pba and pbaOH, respectively, and the $`j`$th magnetic center on the $`i`$th chain, $`𝝈_{i,j}^{(\alpha )}`$ is explicitly given as

$`𝝈_{2m,2n1}^{(\mathrm{a})}=𝝈_{2m1,2n1}^{(\mathrm{a})}=𝑺,𝝈_{2m,2n}^{(\mathrm{a})}=𝝈_{2m1,2n}^{(\mathrm{a})}=𝒔,`$ (2)
$`𝝈_{2m1,2n1}^{(\mathrm{b})}=𝝈_{2m,2n}^{(\mathrm{b})}=𝑺,𝝈_{2m1,2n}^{(\mathrm{b})}=𝝈_{2m,2n1}^{(\mathrm{b})}=𝒔,`$ (3)
with $`𝑺`$ and $`𝒔`$ representing Mn(II) of spin $`S=\frac{5}{2}`$ and Cu(II) of spin $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$, respectively. We adopt the periodic boundary condition in both leg and rung directions.

In order to qualitatively investigate the low-energy structures, we here make a spin-wave approach to the models. Assuming the Néel configuration and then introducing bosonic spin-deviation operators of four kinds, where the numbering notation is specified in Fig. 1, we obtain the spin-wave Hamiltonians up to quadratic order in the momentum space as

$`_{\mathrm{SW}}^{(\mathrm{a})}=J{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}\left[𝐀_𝒌^{}_𝒌^{(\mathrm{a})}𝐀_𝒌4Ss2r(S^2+s^2)\right],`$ (4)
$`_{\mathrm{SW}}^{(\mathrm{b})}=J{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}\left[𝐀_𝒌^{}_𝒌^{(\mathrm{b})}𝐀_𝒌4(1+r)Ss\right],`$ (5)
where

$`𝐀_𝒌=\mathrm{T}\left[a_𝒌^{(1)}\mathrm{}a_𝒌^{(4)}a_𝒌^{(1)}\mathrm{}a_𝒌^{(4)}\right],`$ (6)
$`_𝒌^{(\alpha )}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )}& \mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌^{(\alpha )}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌^{(\alpha )}& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )}\end{array}\right],`$ (9)
with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\mathrm{a})}=\mathrm{diag}[s+rS,s+rS,S+rs,S+rs],\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌^{(\mathrm{a})}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& rS\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_y}{2}& \sqrt{Ss}\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_x}{2}& 0\\ rS\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_y}{2}& 0& 0& \sqrt{Ss}\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_x}{2}\\ \sqrt{Ss}\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_x}{2}& 0& 0& rs\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_y}{2}\\ 0& \sqrt{Ss}\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_x}{2}& rs\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_y}{2}& 0\end{array}\right],`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\mathrm{b})}=(1+r)\mathrm{diag}[s,S,S,s],\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌^{(\mathrm{b})}=\sqrt{Ss}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& r\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_y}{2}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{k_x}{2}& 0\\ r\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_y}{2}& 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\frac{k_x}{2}\\ \mathrm{cos}\frac{k_x}{2}& 0& 0& r\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_y}{2}\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\frac{k_x}{2}& r\mathrm{cos}\frac{k_y}{2}& 0\end{array}\right].`$ (19)
Here, we have set twice the lattice constants in the $`x`$ (leg) and $`y`$ (rung) directions both equal to unity, whereas $`J^{}/J`$ equal to $`r`$. The spin-wave excitations are revealed through the Bogoliubov transformation , which can be described in terms of a $`8\times 8`$ matrix $`𝒰`$ as

$$𝐀_𝒌=𝒰𝐁_𝒌;𝒰𝒩𝒰^{}=𝒰^{}𝒩𝒰=𝒩,$$
(20)
where the metric

$$𝒩=\mathrm{diag}[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],$$
(21)
has been introduced in order to demand that

$$𝐁_𝒌=\mathrm{T}\left[b_𝒌^{(1)}\mathrm{}b_𝒌^{(4)}b_𝒌^{(1)}\mathrm{}b_𝒌^{(4)}\right],$$
(22)
should satisfy the boson commutation relations.

In the case (a) we obtain two spin-wave modes, which are both doubly degenerate, as

$$\omega _\sigma ^{(\mathrm{a})}(𝒌)=\sqrt{2(A+\sigma \sqrt{B})},$$
(23)
where the index $`\sigma `$ takes $`\pm `$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{J^2}}=(S^2+s^2)\left(1+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{2}}\right)+4Ss\left(r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{2}}\right),`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{J^4}}=(S^2s^2)^2\left(1r^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{2}}\right)^2`$ (25)
$`4Ss\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{2}}\left[(1r)^2(Ss)^2r^2(S+s)^2\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{2}}\right],`$ (26)
while in the case (b) the spin waves are generally composed of four modes as

$$\omega _{\sigma \tau }^{(\mathrm{b})}(𝒌)=\sqrt{CD_\tau }+\sigma \sqrt{C},$$
(28)
where the indices $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ take $`\pm `$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{J^2}}=(1+r)^2(S+s)^2,`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D_\tau }{J^2}}=4Ss\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{2}}\tau r\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{2}}\right)^2.`$ (30)
In Figs. 2 and 3 we schematically show the dispersion relations as functions of $`k_x`$ running $`k_y`$ from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. Since quasi-one-dimensional situations are of our interest, here and in the following we explicitly observe the dispersion in the leg direction. Although the excitation spectra (23) and (28) look alike in the small-$`r`$ region, there occurs an essential difference between them with the inclusion of the interchain couplings. In the case (a) the lowest excitation mode exhibits a linear dispersion for small momenta as

$$\omega _{}^{(\mathrm{a})}(k_x,k_y=0)v_x^{(\mathrm{a})}k_x,$$
(31)
with

$$v_x^{(\mathrm{a})}=J\sqrt{2rSs\frac{(Ss)^2+2(1+r)Ss}{(Ss)^2+4rSs}},$$
(32)
whereas in the case (b) it remains quadratic as

$$\omega _{}^{(\mathrm{b})}(k_x,k_y=0)v_x^{(\mathrm{b})}k_x^2,$$
(33)
with

$$v_x^{(\mathrm{b})}=\frac{SsJ}{2(Ss)}.$$
(34)
The velocity $`v_x^{(\mathrm{a})}`$ monotonically increases with $`r`$, while the curvature $`v_x^{(\mathrm{b})}`$ does not depend on $`r`$ up to $`O(S^1)`$. The low-energy physics is much more sensitive to the interchain interaction of the type (a).

Thus, we find that the three-dimensional ground state of the pba complex is singlet regardless of the magnitude of $`r`$, while the pbaOH complex can be a three-dimensional magnet. Systems of the type (a) miss our goal$``$molecular ferromagnets, but they are interesting in relation to the Haldane-gap problem . Coexistence of Haldane-gap excitations and gapless ones induced by the long-range order in $`R_2`$BaNiO5 ($`R=\text{magnetic rare earth}`$)  has been motivating theoretical approaches to the model $`^{(\mathrm{a})}`$ from the $`r\mathrm{}`$ limit . Now we restrict ourselves to the model $`^{(\mathrm{b})}`$ and explore further into the low-energy physics essential to ferrimagnetic coupled-chain systems.

## III Ferrimagnetic Spin Ladders

Considering the present aim of revealing essential effects of the interchain interaction on quasi-one-dimensional ferrimagnetic phenomena, further calculations of the two-dimensional lattice are not necessarily efficient. Though numerical tools are indispensable for quantitative understanding, the large degrees of freedom strongly reduce their feasibility. In this context, Fig. 4 gives us a useful piece of information. It is true that the number of states decreases with decreasing $`l`$, but the essential band structure remains unchanged. Even in the two-leg ladder system, the band width, $`\omega _{\sigma +}^{(\mathrm{b})}(k_x=2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}^1r,k_y=0)\omega _\sigma ^{(\mathrm{b})}(k_x=k_y=0)`$, the curvature of the ferromagnetic dispersion, $`v_x^{(\mathrm{b})}`$, and the gap of the lowest antiferromagnetic excitation mode, $`\omega _+^{(\mathrm{b})}(0)`$, they are all exactly the same as those of the corresponding two- and three-dimensional systems within the up-to-$`O(S^1)`$ spin-wave theory. The two-leg ferrimagnetic ladder is thus found to be very well indicative of any ferrimagnet in higher dimensions. From the physical point of view, ladder ferrimagnets are highly interesting in themselves, where quantum effects are much more remarkable and therefore novel phenomena are much more expected. There are in fact recent reports  on quantum ferrimagnetic spin ladders where quantized plateaux in their ground-state magnetization curves have been revealed.

We proceed to detailed calculation of the low-energy structure of the ferrimagnetic spin ladder. Due to the periodic boundary condition imposed on Eq. (1), the two-leg ladder with an intrachain coupling $`J`$ and an interchain coupling $`J^{}`$ is described by the Hamiltonian $`^{(\mathrm{b})}`$ with $`l=2`$ and $`J^{}`$ being replaced by $`J^{}/2`$. For the later convenience, we take $`N`$ for the number of the elementary units, $`L/2`$, and again adopt the notation $`r=J^{}/J`$. The dispersion relations of the free spin waves are compared with the exact-diagonalization results in Fig. 5. The lower-bands of ferromagnetic features are very well described by the linear spin-wave theory, whereas the upper-bands of antiferromagnetic features significantly deviate from the free-spin-wave excitations. The relatively poor description of the antiferromagnetic branches by the free spin waves implies that the quantum effect is more relevant in the antiferromagnetic excitations. This is rather convincing when we consider the conventional spin-wave description of Hisenberg ferromagnets and antiferromagnets. The ferromagnetic spin waves correctly describe the low-lying excitations, whereas the antiferromagnetic ones merely give a qualitative view of the low-energy structure leading to the divergence of sublattice magnetizations. Here, the spin-wave theory is much more potential and the spin-wave series can in principle reach an accurate description of the antiferromagnetic, as well as ferromagnetic, excitations owing to nondivergent sublattice magnetizations.

In order to refine the up-to-$`O(S^1)`$ dispersion relations (28), let us consider interactions between the spin waves. We may rediagonalize the one-body Hamiltonian (5) together with the two-body terms of the order $`O(S^0)`$ in the naivest attempt to go beyond the linear spin-wave theory. However, such a treatment so misreads the low-energy structure as to bring a gap to the lowest-lying ferromagnetic excitation branch. Therefore, preserving the Bogoliubov transformation, we pick up relevant contributions to the dispersions, as well as to the ground-state energy, from the $`O(S^0)`$ terms. The Wick theorem allows us to rewrite the spin-wave Hamiltonian of the present two-leg ladder system as

$`_{\mathrm{SW}}=E_{\mathrm{class}}+E_0+E_1+_{\mathrm{irrel}}+_{\mathrm{quart}}+O(S^1)`$ (35)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\tau =\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left[\omega _{\sigma \tau }(k)+\delta \omega _{\sigma \tau }(k)\right]b_k^{(i(\sigma ,\tau ))}b_k^{(i(\sigma ,\tau ))},`$ (36)
where the index $`i`$ of the bosonic operators is a function of $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ as $`i(\sigma ,\tau )=2(\sigma +1)/2+(\tau +1)/2+1`$, taking $`1`$ to $`4`$. $`_{\mathrm{irrel}}`$ contains irrelevant terms such as $`b_k^{(i)}b_k^{(j)}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{quart}}`$ is the residual two-body interactions in the normal order, both of which are neglected so as to keep the lowest ferromagnetic excitation gapless. $`E_{\mathrm{class}}=4NJ(1+r/2)Ss`$ is the Néel-state energy, while $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ are the $`O(S^1)`$ and $`O(S^0)`$ quantum corrections to it, respectively. $`\omega _{\sigma \tau }(k)`$’s are the dispersions for the free spin waves, whereas $`\delta \omega _{\sigma \tau }(k)`$’s are the $`O(S^0)`$ corrections to them. They are all explicitly given in Appendix A. Thus-obtained up-to-$`O(S^0)`$ dispersion relations potentially gives a precise description of the low-temperature thermodynamics .

The interacting-spin-wave dispersions are also shown in Fig. 5. They excellently describe the antiferromagnetic, as well as ferromagnetic, excitations. We emphasize that the present highly accurate spin-wave description of the low-energy structure is stably obtained for ferrimagnetic chains, ladders, and layers with an arbitrary combination of $`S`$ and $`s`$. For $`S=s`$, where the present system is no more a ferrimagnet, the quantum corrections (A7) and (A14) diverge. This is due to the divergence of the quantum spin reduction

$$\tau =\frac{1}{N}\underset{k}{}a_k^{(i)}a_k^{(i)}_\mathrm{g},$$
(37)
where $`_\mathrm{g}`$ means the ground-state average. The conventional spin-wave theory  for low-dimensional Heisenberg antiferromagnets is plagued by the difficulty of the zero-field sublattice magnetizations diverging. Ferrimagnetic systems are generally free from this difficulty and therefore quantum correlations can systematically be calculated. Table I further demonstrates the excellence of the ferrimagnetic spin-wave theory. Unless $`r`$ is too large to maintain the quasi-one-dimensional aspect, the interchain coupling contributes to the enhancement of the effective dimension of the system. With increasing $`r`$, the Néel configuration indeed better approximates the ground state. Although the classical configuration considerably deviates from the exact ground state at the decoupled-chain limit $`r=0`$, the spin-wave series still well describe the ground-state correlations.

## IV Ferromagnetic Features of Ferrimagnets

How should we couple the ferrimagnetic chains in order to grow their ferromagnetic features? We further consider the interchain-coupling effect from this point of view. The ground-state magnetization must be a measure for magnets and it is therefore interesting to observe the quantum spin reduction $`\tau `$ as a function of $`r`$. Equation (37) is calculated as

$$\tau =\frac{1}{N}\underset{k}{}\left(\psi _1^{(2)}(k)^2+\psi _2^{(2)}(k)^2\right),$$
(38)
within the present spin-wave treatment and is plotted in Fig. 6 in comparison with the quantum Monte Carlo estimates. When we consider $`\tau `$ as a function of constituent spins, Eq. (38) monotonically decreases as $`S/s`$ increases, diverging at the antiferromagnetic limit $`S/s=1`$ and vanishing for the ferromagnetic limit $`S/s\mathrm{}`$. Though the divergence at $`S=s`$ is totally due to the Holstein-Primakoff transformation, this observation of $`\tau `$ fully justifies the view that $`\tau `$ should be a measure for the ferromagnetic aspect of ferrimagnets.

The spin waves overestimate quantum fluctuations but they successfully reproduce the minimum of $`\tau `$ as a function of $`r`$. When we assemble molecular bricks so as to construct ferrimagnetic chains and then couple them in a ferromagnetic fashion, the Néel configuration grows with increasing $`r`$ but there is a moderate point $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ to maximize that. For an arbitrary $`l`$-leg ladder ferrimagnet, $`\tau (r\mathrm{})`$ is generally larger than $`\tau (r=0)`$ and thus there should be a minimum of $`\tau `$ as a function of $`r`$. The minimum point $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ is smaller than unity as far as $`l`$ stays finite. If we consider the simple square-lattice plane as is illustrated in Fig. 1, $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ approaches unity for $`l\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, the recent progress  in the molecular chemistry may raise even a possibility of mixed-spin chains based on stable organic radicals forming into a honeycomb lattice, where $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ remains smaller than unity even for $`l\mathrm{}`$. Furthermore the synthesis of a ladder ferrimagnet itself is now indeed in progress . $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ is sensitive to the constituent spins as well as the crystal structure. This point should also be taken into consideration in designing molecular ferromagnets. $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ is an increasing function of the ratio $`gS/s`$, suggesting that ferrimagnets should be characterized by $`g`$ rather than $`S`$ and $`s`$ themselves. As for the bimetallic chain compounds MM(pbaOH)(H2O)3$``$$`n`$H2O, the larger-spin magnetic centers were systematically tuned from Mn ($`S=\frac{5}{2}`$) to Ni ($`S=1`$), while the smaller-spin ones were mainly fixed to Cu ($`s=\frac{1}{2}`$) . This is partly due to the problem of crystal engineering but might on the other hand aim at suppressing the quantum spin reduction $`\tau `$. However, as far as we work along this line, a rather strong interchain coupling is needed to attain the highest transition temperature. If we replace both magnetic centers M and M simultaneously, $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ can relatively be reduced at the cost of the amplitude of $`\tau `$ and therefore the highest transition temperature might be obtained at a smaller feasible interchain coupling.

In relation to $`\tau `$, let us observe the ferrimagnetic susceptibility in Fig. 7. The susceptibility-temperature product $`\chi T`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`T`$ in ferromagnets, while a monotonically increasing function in antiferromagnets. Therefore, the present observation may be regarded as a ferromagnetic-antiferromagnetic mixed nature of ferrimagnets. The low-temperature divergence is really reminiscent of the ferromagnetic susceptibility and therefore signifies how ferromagnetic the ferrimagnet is. Interestingly enough, as $`r`$ moves away from $`0`$ toward $`1`$, the diverging behavior is indeed sharpened in the beginning but reaches its limit at a certain value of $`r`$. The divergence at $`r=1`$ is clearly duller than that at $`r=0.5`$. Though the diverging susceptibility is very hard to calculate accurately at low temperatures, the most ferromagnetic ferrimagnet seems to be realized around $`r=r_\mathrm{c}`$.

## V Summary and Discussion

Motivated by the ferrimagnetic chain compounds, we have investigated the magnetic properties of mixed-spin coupled-chain systems featuring a spin-wave analysis. The present spin-wave description is available for general ferrimagnets. It is not only highly successful for quantum correlations but also open to thermal properties complementing numerical investigations. While the small-momentum ferromagnetic excitations should dominate the low-temperature thermodynamics, exact-diagonalization methods are totally unable to describe them. Even with a quantum Monte Carlo technique , it is rather hard to obtain the curvature $`v`$ of their quadratic dispersion relation. The present procedure readily gives $`v`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{J}}={\displaystyle \frac{Ss}{2(Ss)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(S+s)}{N(Ss)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(\psi _1^{(2)}(k)^2+\psi _2^{(2)}(k)^2\right)`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{Ss}}{N(Ss)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(\psi _1^{(2)}(k)\psi _1^{(4)}(k)+\psi _2^{(2)}(k)\psi _2^{(4)}(k)\right)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}.`$ (40)
It is free from $`r`$ within the linear spin-wave theory. Its leading $`r`$ dependence arises from the $`O(S^0)`$ correction. When $`v`$ is revealed, we can for instance obtain the leading behavior of the specific heat at low temperatures as

$$\frac{C}{Lk_\mathrm{B}}=\frac{3}{16}\zeta \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)\sqrt{\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{\pi v}}+O\left(\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{J}\right),$$
(42)
with Riemann’s zeta function $`\zeta (z)`$, provided $`r>k_\mathrm{B}T/J`$. The following terms of the order $`O(k_\mathrm{B}T/J)`$ can not successfully be obtained within the present spin-wave formulation, but a modified spin-wave theory  will bring us them as well as a precise description of the susceptibility.

The present calculation is not only a theoretical harvest but also encourages further chemical explorations into molecular ferromagnets. While most of thus-far-synthesized ferrimagnets are inorganic-organic hybrid materials, there may be genuine organic ferrimagnets, where the variety and flexibility of the crystal structure, as well as sufficiently small magnetic anisotropy, may enable us to investigate quantum mixed-spin phenomena extensively and essentially. An example approach  consists of synthesizing an alternating chain of a monoradical and a biradical with a triplet ground state. However, the low-temperature properties of the obtained compounds deviate from the ferrimagnetic behavior suggesting the formation of local singlet clusters. In order to overcome such an inherent difficulty in organic molecule-based materials, another strategy  is in progress, where the crystal consists of a triradical containing both spin-$`1`$ and spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ units within itself. This material is now believed to possess a ladder-like structure rather than a chain structure predicted in the beginning of the structural analysis. Thus, the first example of a mixed-spin ladder has appeared, though the ferrimagnetic ground state is still not realized there possibly due to next nearest-neighbor interactions.

Interchain interactions inevitably exist in low-dimensional mixed-spin magnets and they seriously affect the formation of the ferrimagnetic ground state. Ladder systems are the simplest but efficient stage to study such phenomena. We expect a close collaboration between theoretical and experimental investigations in designing molecule-based ferromagnets.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to Prof. T. Fukui for his useful comments and fruitful discussion. This work was supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture through Grant-in-Aid No. 11740206 and by the Sanyo-Broadcasting Foundation for Science and Culture. The numerical computation was done in part using the facility of the Supercomputer Center, Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo.

## A Spin-Wave Treatment of the Ferrimagnetic Ladder

We express the spin-wave Hamiltonian up to the order $`O(S^0)`$ as

$$_{\mathrm{SW}}=E_{\mathrm{class}}+E_0+E_1+\underset{\sigma ,\tau =\pm }{}\underset{k}{}\left[\omega _{\sigma \tau }(k)+\delta \omega _{\sigma \tau }(k)\right]b_k^{(i(\sigma ,\tau ))}b_k^{(i(\sigma ,\tau ))},$$
(A1)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{J}}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}`$ $`\{`$ $`\sqrt{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2(S+s)^24Ss\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)(S+s)`$ (A2)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2(S+s)^24Ss\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}})(S+s)\},`$ (A3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_1}{J}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(\psi _1^{(2)}(k)^2+\psi _2^{(2)}(k)^2\right)\right\}^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(\psi _1^{(2)}(k)\psi _1^{(4)}(k)+\psi _2^{(2)}(k)\psi _2^{(4)}(k)\right)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\right\}^2`$ (A4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r}{N}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(\psi _1^{(2)}(k)^2+\psi _2^{(2)}(k)^2\right)\right\}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2r}{N}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(\psi _1^{(1)}(k)\psi _1^{(2)}(k)+\psi _2^{(1)}(k)\psi _2^{(2)}(k)\right)\right\}^2`$ (A5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N}}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{S}{s}}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s}{S}}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(\psi _1^{(2)}(k)^2+\psi _2^{(2)}(k)^2\right){\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}\left(\psi _1^{(2)}(k^{})\psi _1^{(4)}(k^{})+\psi _2^{(2)}(k^{})\psi _2^{(4)}(k^{})\right)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{2}}`$ (A6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r}{N}}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{S}{s}}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s}{S}}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(\psi _1^{(2)}(k)^2+\psi _2^{(2)}(k)^2\right){\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}\left(\psi _1^{(1)}(k^{})\psi _1^{(2)}(k^{})+\psi _2^{(1)}(k^{})\psi _2^{(2)}(k^{})\right),`$ (A7)
$$\frac{\omega _{\sigma \tau }(k)}{J}=\sqrt{\left(1+\frac{r}{2}\right)^2(S+s)^24Ss\left(\mathrm{cos}\frac{k}{2}\tau \frac{r}{2}\right)^2}+\sigma \left(1+\frac{r}{2}\right)(Ss),$$
(A8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \omega _{\sigma \tau }(k)}{J}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N}}\{(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{S}{s}}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s}{S}}})(\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(2)}(k)\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(4)}(k)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(1)}(k)\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(2)}(k))`$ (A10)
$`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}})(\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(2)}(k)^2+\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(4)}(k)^2)\left\}{\displaystyle }_k^{}\right(\psi _1^{(2)}(k^{})^2+\psi _2^{(2)}(k^{})^2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N}}\left\{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{S}{s}}}\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(2)}(k)^2+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s}{S}}}\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(4)}(k)^22\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(2)}(k)\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(4)}(k)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\right\}`$ (A12)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}(\psi _1^{(2)}(k^{})\psi _1^{(4)}(k^{})+\psi _2^{(2)}(k^{})\psi _2^{(4)}(k^{}))\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r}{N}}\left\{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{S}{s}}}\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(2)}(k)^2+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s}{S}}}\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(4)}(k)^22\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(1)}(k)\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(2)}(k)\right\}`$ (A14)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}(\psi _1^{(1)}(k^{})\psi _1^{(2)}(k^{})+\psi _2^{(1)}(k^{})\psi _2^{(2)}(k^{})),`$
with

$`\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(1)}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma \tau }{R_i}}\left\{\sqrt{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2(S+s)^24Ss\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\tau {\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2}\sigma \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)(S+s)\right\},`$ (A15)
$`\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(2)}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{R_i}}\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\tau {\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)\sqrt{Ss},`$ (A16)
$`\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(3)}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{2\tau }{R_i}}\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\tau {\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)\sqrt{Ss},`$ (A17)
$`\psi _{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^{(4)}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{R_i}}\left\{\sqrt{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2(S+s)^24Ss\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\tau {\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2}\sigma \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)(S+s)\right\},`$ (A18)
$`R_{i(\sigma ,\tau )}^2=8\sigma \left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\tau {\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2Ss2\sigma \left\{\sqrt{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2(S+s)^24Ss\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\tau {\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)^2}\sigma \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\right)(S+s)\right\}^2.`$ (A19)
We can obtain the dispersions (A8) by setting $`k_y`$ equal to $`0`$ and replacing $`k_x`$ and $`r`$ by $`k`$ and $`r/2`$, respectively, in Eq. (28). The Bogoliubov transformation is given by Eq. (20) with

$$𝒰=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}\psi _1^{(1)}& \psi _2^{(1)}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \psi _3^{(1)}& \psi _4^{(1)}\\ 0& 0& \psi _3^{(2)}& \psi _4^{(2)}& \psi _1^{(2)}& \psi _2^{(2)}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \psi _3^{(3)}& \psi _4^{(3)}& \psi _1^{(3)}& \psi _2^{(3)}& 0& 0\\ \psi _1^{(4)}& \psi _2^{(4)}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \psi _3^{(4)}& \psi _4^{(4)}\\ 0& 0& \psi _3^{(1)}& \psi _4^{(1)}& \psi _1^{(1)}& \psi _2^{(1)}& 0& 0\\ \psi _1^{(2)}& \psi _2^{(2)}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \psi _3^{(2)}& \psi _4^{(2)}\\ \psi _1^{(3)}& \psi _2^{(3)}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \psi _3^{(3)}& \psi _4^{(3)}\\ 0& 0& \psi _3^{(4)}& \psi _4^{(4)}& \psi _1^{(4)}& \psi _2^{(4)}& 0& 0\end{array}\right].$$
(A20)


text:
# Axial–Vector Torsion and the Teleparallel Kerr Spacetime

## I Introduction

In a metric–affine theory of gravitation , the metric and the connection are considered as independent variables, and the underlying spacetime presents nonvanishing curvature, torsion and nonmetricity. On the other hand, in the special case of teleparallel gravity , which is characterized by the vanishing of curvature and nonmetricity, the relevant spacetime is the Weitzenböck spacetime . As is well known, at least in the absence of spinor fields, the teleparallel gravity is equivalent to general relativity. In order to better understand this relationship, a study of the teleparallel version of the exact solutions of general relativity is indispensable . For example, in the context of general relativity, the Kerr solution is an axisymmetric curved spacetime produced by a spherically symmetric rotating source. In the context of teleparallel gravity, this solution might correspond to an axisymmetric torsionned spacetime.

We will use the greek alphabet ($`\mu `$, $`\nu `$, $`\rho `$$`\mathrm{}=1,2,3,4`$) to denote tensor indices, that is, indices related to spacetime. The latin alphabet ($`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$$`\mathrm{}=1,2,3,4`$) will be used to denote local Lorentz (or tangent space) indices, whose associated metric tensor is $`\eta _{ab}=\text{diag}(+1,1,1,1)`$. Tensor and local Lorentz indices can be changed into each other with the use of a tetrad field $`h^a_\mu `$, which satisfies

$$h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }=\delta _\mu {}_{}{}^{\nu };h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=\delta ^a{}_{b}{}^{}.$$
(1)
A nontrivial tetrad field can be used to define the linear Weitzenböck connection

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=h_a{}_{}{}^{\sigma }_{\nu }^{}h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{},$$
(2)
with respect to which the tetrad is parallel:

$$_\nu h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}_\nu h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}h_{}^{a}{}_{\rho }{}^{}=0.$$
(3)
The Weitzenböck connection satisfies the relation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}+K^\sigma {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},$$
(4)
where

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\sigma \rho }[_\mu g_{\rho \nu }+_\nu g_{\rho \mu }_\rho g_{\mu \nu }]$$
(5)
is the Levi–Civita connection of the metric

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{ab}h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{}^{b}{}_{\nu }{}^{},$$
(6)
and

$$K^\sigma {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}[T_\mu {}_{}{}^{\sigma }{}_{\nu }{}^{}+T_\nu {}_{}{}^{\sigma }{}_{\mu }{}^{}T^\sigma {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}]$$
(7)
is the contorsion tensor, with

$$T^\sigma {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma {}_{\nu \mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma _{\mu \nu }$$
(8)
the torsion of the Weitzenböck connection .

The torsion tensor can be decomposed into three irreducible parts under the group of global Lorentz transformations . They are the tensor part

$$t_{\lambda \mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\left(T_{\lambda \mu \nu }+T_{\mu \lambda \nu }\right)+\frac{1}{6}\left(g_{\nu \lambda }V_\mu +g_{\nu \mu }V_\lambda \right)\frac{1}{3}g_{\lambda \mu }V_\nu ,$$
(9)
the vector part,

$$V_\mu =T^\nu {}_{\nu \mu }{}^{},$$
(10)
and the axial–vector part

$$A^\mu =\frac{1}{6}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }T_{\nu \rho \sigma }.$$
(11)
In terms of these irreducible components, the torsion tensor is written as

$$T_{\lambda \mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\left(t_{\lambda \mu \nu }t_{\lambda \nu \mu }\right)+\frac{1}{3}\left(g_{\lambda \mu }V_\nu g_{\lambda \nu }V_\mu \right)+ϵ_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }A^\rho .$$
(12)
Relying on the equivalence alluded to above, we are going in this paper to obtain the teleparallel equivalent of the general relativity Kerr solution. This solution will be obtained by solving the zero–curvature field equations with torsion. We will proceed according to the following scheme. In Section II, we obtain the tetrad field, the Weitzenböck connection and the irreducible components of the torsion tensor for the Schwarzschild solution in both isotropic and Schwarzschild coordinate systems. As expected, due to the spherical symmetry, the axial–vector torsion vanishes identically. The weak–field limit is then considered, and we show that the tensor and the vector parts of torsion combine themselves to yield the Newtonian force. In Section III, we obtain the tetrad field, the Weitzenböck connection and the irreducible components of the torsion tensor for the exact Kerr solution. The slow–rotation and weak–field limits are investigated in Section IV, where we show that the axial–vector tensor appears in these limits as the gravitomagnetic component of the gravitational field. Discussions and conclusions are presented in Section V. We use units in which the speed of light is set equal to unit: $`c=1`$.

## II The Teleparallel Schwarzschild Solution

In the spherical, static and isotropic coordinate system $`X^1=\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, $`X^2=\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, $`X^3=\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta `$, the tetrad components of the Schwarzschild spacetime can be obtained from the line element

$$ds^2g_{\mu \nu }dX^\mu dX^\nu =C(\rho )dt^2D(\rho )(d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2),$$
(13)
where

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}\theta d\varphi ^2.$$
(14)
With the subscript $`\mu `$ denoting the column index, they are given by

$$h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\sqrt{C}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{D}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{D}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{D}\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
with the inverse

$$h_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\sqrt{C^1}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{D^1}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{D^1}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{D^1}\end{array}\right).$$
(16)
In a isotropic coordinate system, $`C(\rho )`$ and $`D(\rho )`$ are given respectively by

$$C(\rho )=\left(1\frac{GM}{2\rho }\right)^2\left(1+\frac{GM}{2\rho }\right)^2$$
(17)
and

$$D(\rho )=\left(1+\frac{GM}{2\rho }\right)^4,$$
(18)
with $`M`$ the gravitational mass of the central source. The corresponding nonvanishing components of the torsion tensor are $`(i,j,k,\mathrm{}=1,2,3)`$

$$T^0{}_{0i}{}^{}=H\frac{\rho }{X^i};T^i{}_{ij}{}^{}=J\frac{\rho }{X^j},$$
(19)
where

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{d\rho }[\mathrm{ln}C(\rho )]=\frac{GM}{2\rho ^2}(E+F)$$
(20)
$$J=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{d\rho }[\mathrm{ln}D(\rho )]=\frac{GM}{\rho ^2}F,$$
(21)
with

$$E=\left(1\frac{GM}{2\rho }\right)^1;F=\left(1+\frac{GM}{2\rho }\right)^1.$$
(22)
The torsion vector and the axial torsion–vector are, consequently,

$$V_0=0;V_i=(H+2J)\frac{\rho }{X^i}$$
(23)
and

$$A^\mu =0.$$
(24)
Now, the Schwarzschild geometry can also be globally represented by the Schwarzschild coordinate system $`\{x^\mu \}=(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$, with the line element in this case given by

$$ds^2=g_{00}dt^2+g_{11}dr^2r^2d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2,$$
(25)
where

$$g_{00}=(g_{11})^1=1\frac{r_s}{r},$$
(26)
with $`r_s=2GM`$ the Schwarzschild radius. Comparing the line elements in the isotropic and in the Schwarzschild coordinates, given respectively by Eqs. (13) and (25), we see that

$$C(\rho )=g_{00},\sqrt{D(\rho )}\rho =r,\frac{\rho }{r}=\sqrt{\frac{g_{11}}{D(\rho )}}.$$
(27)
Using the general coordinate transformation

$$h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}=\frac{X^\nu ^{}}{X^\mu }h^a{}_{\nu ^{}}{}^{},$$
(28)
where $`\{X^\mu \}`$ and $`\{X^\nu ^{}\}`$ are respectively the isotropic and Schwarzschild coordinates, we obtain the tetrad in the Schwarzschild coordinate system:

$$h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma _{00}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \gamma _{11}\mathrm{s}\theta \mathrm{c}\varphi & r\mathrm{c}\theta \mathrm{c}\varphi & r\mathrm{s}\theta \mathrm{s}\varphi \\ 0& \gamma _{11}\mathrm{s}\theta \mathrm{s}\varphi & r\mathrm{c}\theta \mathrm{s}\varphi & r\mathrm{s}\theta \mathrm{c}\varphi \\ 0& \gamma _{11}\mathrm{c}\theta & r\mathrm{s}\theta & 0\end{array}\right),$$
(29)
where we have introduced the following notations: $`\gamma _{00}=\sqrt{g_{00}}`$, $`\gamma _{ii}=\sqrt{g_{ii}}`$, $`\mathrm{s}\theta =\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, and $`\mathrm{c}\theta =\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Its inverse is

$$h_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma _{00}^1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \gamma _{11}^1\mathrm{s}\theta \mathrm{c}\varphi & r^1\mathrm{c}\theta \mathrm{c}\varphi & (r\mathrm{s}\theta )^1\mathrm{s}\varphi \\ 0& \gamma _{11}^1\mathrm{s}\theta \mathrm{s}\varphi & r^1\mathrm{c}\theta \mathrm{s}\varphi & (r\mathrm{s}\theta )^1\mathrm{c}\varphi \\ 0& \gamma _{11}^1\mathrm{c}\theta & r^1\mathrm{s}\theta & 0\end{array}\right).$$
(30)
One can easily verify that the relations (1) and (6) between $`h^a_\mu `$ and $`h_a^\mu `$ are satisfied.

From Eqs.(29) and (30), we can now construct the Weitzenböck connection, whose nonvanishing components are:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^0{}_{01}{}^{}=[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{00}}]_{,r}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^3{}_{32}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^3{}_{23}{}^{}=\mathrm{cotg}\theta \hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^1{}_{11}{}^{}=[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{11}}]_{,r}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^1{}_{22}{}^{}=r/\sqrt{g_{11}}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^1{}_{33}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1{}_{22}{}^{}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )_{}^{2}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^2{}_{33}{}^{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^2{}_{21}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^3{}_{31}{}^{}=1/r\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^2{}_{12}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^3{}_{13}{}^{}=\sqrt{g_{11}}/r,\hfill \end{array}`$

where a comma followed by a coordinate denotes a derivative in relation to that coordinate. The corresponding nonvanishing torsion components are:

$`T^0_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{00}}]_{,r}`$ (31)
$`T^2_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\sqrt{g_{11}})/r,`$ (32)
$`T^3_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\sqrt{g_{11}})/r.`$ (33)
Now, as expected, because $`A^\mu `$ represents a deviation from the spherical symmetry , the axial–vector torsion vanishes identically for a Schwarzschild spacetime:

$`A^\mu 0.`$

On the other hand, the vector and the tensor parts of torsion are, respectively,

$$V_1=\left[(\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{00}})_{,r}+\frac{2(1\sqrt{g_{11}})}{r}\right],$$
(34)
and

$`t_{001}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(g_{00})_{,r}+{\displaystyle \frac{2g_{00}}{3r}}\left(1\sqrt{g_{11}}\right)`$ (35)
$`t_{122}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\left(1\sqrt{g_{11}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(g_{00})_{,r}}{2g_{00}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(1\sqrt{g_{11}}\right)}{r}}\right)`$ (36)
$`t_{331}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{r(1\sqrt{g_{11}})}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(g_{00})_{,r}}{2g_{00}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(1\sqrt{g_{11}}\right)}{r}}\right)\right].`$ (37)
In the teleparallel description of gravitation, torsion plays the role of the gravitational force. In fact, a spinless particle submitted to a gravitational field will obey the force equation

$$\frac{du_\rho }{ds}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho \nu }u^\mu u^\nu =T_{\mu \rho \nu }u^\mu u^\nu .$$
(38)
It is then an easy task to verify that, in the weak–field limit, the vector and the tensor parts of the Schwarzschild torsion combine themselves to yield the Newtonian force,

$$m\frac{d𝒖}{dt}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}\widehat{𝒓},$$
(39)
where $`𝒖=(u_r,u_\theta ,u_\varphi )`$, with $`\widehat{𝒓}`$ the unit vector in the radial direction.

## III The Teleparallel Kerr Solution

The gravitational field of a rotating mass is described by the axially symmetric stationary Kerr metric ,

$$ds^2=g_{00}dt^2+g_{11}dr^2+g_{22}d\theta ^2+g_{33}d\varphi ^2+2g_{03}d\varphi dt,$$
(40)
where

$$g_{00}=1\frac{r_sr}{\rho ^2};g_{11}=\frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }};g_{22}=\rho ^2$$
(41)
$$g_{33}=\left(r^2+a^2+\frac{r_sra^2}{\rho ^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta $$
(42)
$$g_{03}=g_{30}=\frac{r_sra}{\rho ^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta $$
(43)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=r^2r_sr+a^2\mathrm{and}\rho ^2=r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta .$$
(44)
In these expressions, $`a`$ is the angular momentum of a gravitational unit mass source. If $`a=0`$, the Kerr metric becomes the Schwarzschild metric in the standard form.

The corresponding Kerr tetrad is

$$h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma _{00}& 0& 0& \eta \\ 0& \gamma _{11}\mathrm{s}\theta \mathrm{c}\varphi & \gamma _{22}\mathrm{c}\theta \mathrm{c}\varphi & k\mathrm{s}\varphi \\ 0& \gamma _{11}\mathrm{s}\theta \mathrm{s}\varphi & \gamma _{22}\mathrm{c}\theta \mathrm{s}\varphi & k\mathrm{c}\varphi \\ 0& \gamma _{11}\mathrm{c}\theta & \gamma _{22}\mathrm{s}\theta & 0\end{array}\right),$$
(45)
with its inverse given by

$$h_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma _{00}^1& 0& 0& 0\\ kg^{03}\mathrm{s}\varphi & \gamma _{11}^1\mathrm{s}\theta \mathrm{c}\varphi & \gamma _{22}^1\mathrm{c}\theta \mathrm{c}\varphi & k^1\mathrm{s}\varphi \\ kg^{03}\mathrm{c}\varphi & \gamma _{11}^1\mathrm{s}\theta \mathrm{s}\varphi & \gamma _{22}^1\mathrm{c}\theta \mathrm{s}\varphi & k^1\mathrm{c}\varphi \\ 0& \gamma _{11}^1\mathrm{c}\theta & \gamma _{22}^1\mathrm{s}\theta & 0\end{array}\right),$$
(46)
where

$$k^2=\eta ^2g_{33}\mathrm{and}\eta =\frac{g_{03}}{\gamma _{00}}.$$
(47)
One can verify that the relations (1) and (6) between $`h^a_\mu `$ and $`h_a^\mu `$ are in fact satisfied by the Kerr tetrad. Moreover, analogously to the Kerr metric, the Kerr tetrad reduces to the Schwarzschild tetrad for $`a=0`$.

The nonvanishing components of the Weitzenböck connection are:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^0{}_{01}{}^{}=[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{00}}]_{,r}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^0{}_{13}{}^{}=kg^{03}\gamma _{11}\mathrm{s}\theta \hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^0{}_{23}{}^{}=kg^{03}\gamma _{22}\mathrm{c}\theta \hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^0{}_{31}{}^{}=\eta _{,r}/\gamma _{00}(k^2)_{,r}g^{03}/2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^0{}_{32}{}^{}=\eta _{,\theta }/\gamma _{00}(k^2)_{,\theta }g^{03}/2\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^1{}_{11}{}^{}=[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{11}}]_{,r}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^1{}_{12}{}^{}=[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{11}}]_{,\theta }\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^1{}_{22}{}^{}=\gamma _{22}/\gamma _{11}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^1{}_{33}{}^{}=k\mathrm{s}\theta /\gamma _{11}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^2{}_{12}{}^{}=\gamma _{11}/\gamma _{22}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^2{}_{21}{}^{}=[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{22}}]_{,r}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^2{}_{22}{}^{}=[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{22}}]_{,\theta }\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^2{}_{33}{}^{}=k\mathrm{c}\theta /\gamma _{22}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^3{}_{13}{}^{}=\gamma _{11}\mathrm{s}\theta /k\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^3{}_{23}{}^{}=\gamma _{22}\mathrm{c}\theta /k\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^3{}_{31}{}^{}=[\mathrm{ln}k]_{,r}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }^3{}_{32}{}^{}=[\mathrm{ln}k]_{,\theta }.\hfill \end{array}`$

The corresponding non–zero torsion components are:

$`T^0_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{00}}]_{,r}`$ (48)
$`T^0_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{,r}/\gamma _{00}kg^{03}(k_{,r}\gamma _{11}\mathrm{s}\theta )`$ (49)
$`T^0_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{,\theta }/\gamma _{00}kg^{03}(k_{,\theta }\gamma _{22}\mathrm{c}\theta )`$ (50)
$`T^1_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{11}}]_{,\theta }`$ (51)
$`T^2_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{22}}]_{,r}\gamma _{11}/\gamma _{22}`$ (52)
$`T^3_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`(k_{,r}\gamma _{11}\mathrm{s}\theta )/k`$ (53)
$`T^3_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`(k_{,\theta }\gamma _{22}\mathrm{c}\theta )/k.`$ (54)
The non–zero components of the vector torsion are, consequently,

$$V_1=[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{00}}]_{,r}[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{22}}]_{,r}+\gamma _{11}/\gamma _{22}[\mathrm{ln}k]_{,r}+\gamma _{11}\mathrm{s}\theta /k$$
(55)
$$V_2=[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g_{11}}]_{,\theta }[\mathrm{ln}k]_{,\theta }+\gamma _{22}c\theta /k,$$
(56)
whereas the torsion axial–vector components are

$$A^{(1)}\times (6h)=2(g_{00}T^0{}_{23}{}^{}+g_{03}T^3{}_{23}{}^{})$$
(57)
$$A^{(2)}\times (6h)=2[g_{00}T^0{}_{13}{}^{}+g_{03}(T^3{}_{13}{}^{}+T^0{}_{01}{}^{})],$$
(58)
where we have made the identification

$$h=\sqrt{g},$$
(59)
with $`h=det(h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{})`$ and $`g=det(g_{\mu \nu })`$.

## IV Slow–Rotation and Weak–Field Approximations

In the case of slow rotation, we keep the terms up to first order in the angular momentum $`a`$. The related quantities are simplified as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=r^2r_sr;\rho ^2=r^2$$
(60)
$$g_{00}=(g_{11})^1=1\frac{r_s}{r};g_{22}=r^2$$
(61)
$$g_{33}=r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ;g_{03}=\frac{r_sa}{r}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$
(62)
In this approximation, both the vector and the tensor parts of torsion reduce to the values of the Schwarzschild solution. On the other hand, in the weak–field limit, characterized by keeping terms up to first order in $`\alpha `$, the nonzero components of the axial–vector torsion become

$$A^{(1)}\times (6h)=2(\gamma _{00}\eta )_{,\theta }=2(g_{03})_{,\theta }$$
(63)
$$A^{(2)}\times (6h)=2[\gamma _{00}(\eta )_{,r}\eta (\gamma _{00})_{,r}],$$
(64)
where now

$$h=r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(65)
Substituting Eqs.(61) and (62), we obtain

$$A^{(1)}=\frac{2\alpha a}{3r^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta $$
(66)
and

$$A^{(2)}=\frac{\alpha a}{3r^3}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(67)
where $`\alpha =(r_s/r)`$. In spacelike vector form, the axial–vector becomes,

$$𝑨=A^{(1)}\gamma _{11}𝐞_r+A^{(2)}\gamma _{22}𝐞_\theta ,$$
(68)
that is,

$$𝑨=\frac{\alpha a}{3r^2}[2\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝐞_r+\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝐞_\theta ].$$
(69)
It has been shown by many authors  that the spin precession of a Dirac particle in torsion gravity is intimately related to the axial–vector,

$$\frac{d𝐬}{dt}=𝐛\times 𝐬$$
(70)
where $`𝐬`$ is the spin vector, and $`𝐛=3𝑨/2`$. Therefore,

$$𝐛=\frac{GJ}{r^3}[2\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝐞_r+\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝐞_\theta ]$$
(71)
with $`J=Ma`$ the angular momentum. Denoting $`𝑱=J𝐞_z`$, this equation can be rewritten in the form

$$𝐛=\frac{G}{r^3}\left[𝑱+3(𝑱𝐞_r)𝐞_r\right].$$
(72)
This means that

$$𝐛=𝛀_{LT},$$
(73)
where $`𝛀_{LT}`$ is the Lense–Thirring precession angular velocity, which in general relativity is produced by the gravitomagnetic component of the gravitational field . We see in this way that the axial–vector torsion $`𝑨`$, in teleparallel gravity, represents the gravitomagnetic component of the gravitational field. In fact, considering the slow–rotation and weak–field approximations, the trajectory of a particle, from Eq.(38) with the Kerr torsion, is found to be

$$m\frac{d𝒖}{dt}=m\left(\frac{GM}{r^2}\widehat{𝒓}+𝒖\times 𝑨\right),$$
(74)
from where we see clearly that the axial–vector torsion $`𝑨`$ is the gravitomagnetic component of the gravitational field.

## V Final Remarks

We have obtained in this paper the teleparallel versions of the Schwarzschild and the stationary axi–symmetric Kerr solutions of general relativity. In the first case, as expected, due to the spherical symmetry of the Schwarzschild solution, the axial–vector torsion vanishes identically. We have then considered the weak–field limit, and we have shown that in this limit the tensor and the vector parts of torsion combine themselves to yield the Newtonian force.

In the second case, we have obtained the torsion tensor, as well as the vector and axial–vector parts of the torsion for the teleparallel Kerr solution. By considering then the slow–rotation and weak–field approximations, we have shown that the axial–vector torsion is nothing but the gravitomagnetic component of the gravitational field, and is therefore the responsible for the Lense–Thirring effect.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank F. W. Hehl for useful comments. They would like to thank also CNPq–Brazil, CAPES–Brazil and FAPESP–Brazil for financial support.