text:
# TIME-DEPENDENT LAGRANGIANS INVARIANT BY A VECTOR FIELD

## 1 Introduction

When dealing with mechanical systems coming from a regular Lagrangian, different formulations exist: If the Lagrangian is autonomous, then the symplectic formalism is the appropriate one, but if the Lagrangian depends on time, then the contact formulation is more suitable. Contact structures are built on odd dimensional manifolds, and symplectic ones on even dimensional manifolds, which are the phase space of coordinate-velocities.

But these are not the only differences between both formulations. In the symplectic case, the geometric structure is given by a non-degenerate differential 2-form, whereas in the case of the contact, the structural 2-form is degenerate and its kernel has dimension one. This kernel gives at every point the direction of the dynamical vector field.

Obviously, one may use the contact formulation for an autonomous Lagrangian. Then the symmetry given by this time independence allows us to reduce the system, making quotient by the action of time, reducing the dimension of the manifold where the dynamical equations are written, and obtaining the symplectic formulation .

In this work we study the reduction of the contact formulation for a time dependent Lagrangian if there exists an infinitesimal symmetry of the Lagrangian.

The ideas come from . There is a description of the changes in the classical formulation of Lagrangian systems when the natural connection on the bundle $`\pi :Q\times `$, given by the vector field $`/t`$, is replaced by any other connection, given by a vector field $`/t+Y`$, where $`Y`$ is a vector field on $`Q`$ along the projection $`\pi _2:Q\times Q`$. The natural notion of energy associated to any connection of that kind and its variation along the integral curves of the dynamical vector field of the system is also studied, in particular its invariance, if the Lagrangian is invariant by the action of the vector field associated with the connection.

In this last situation, where the vector field associated with the connection is a symmetry of the Lagrangian, we can mimic the full process of the autonomous case in the contact formulation and obtain a symplectic formulation in an appropriate manifold, given by the quotient of $`\mathrm{T}Q\times `$ by the action of the vector field of the connection. So, every time we have a time dependent regular Lagrangian with a suitable symmetry, the system can be reduced and the symplectic formulation used.

The organization of the paper is as follows: In paragraph 2, we summarize the geometric foundations used in the sequel for non autonomus Lagrangian regular systems. We introduce a non standard connection in the configuration bundle and consider the consequences of this choice. Paragraph 3 is devoted to a study of the relation between symmetries and connections. In paragraph 4 we study the reduction of the system, in particular the projectability of the geometrical structures in order to construct a dynamical system on the quotient manifold. Paragraph 5 is devoted to studying the properties of the reduced system, which is a Hamiltonian but not a Lagrangian system, although the phase space is canonically diffeomorphic to a tangent bundle. The paper ends with some examples and conclusions.

Throughout the paper, every manifold, function and mapping is assumed to be smooth. Manifolds are assumed to be connected and second countable. Summation over crossed repeated indices is understood.

## 2 Time-dependent Lagrangian systems

### 2.1 The 1-jet bundle of $`\pi :Q\times `$. Geometric structures and connections

The ideas in this section are known. We merely emphasize the differences between the general situation and this particular one in order to make the paper more readable and selfcontained. See  and  as general references.

Consider the bundle $`\pi :Q\times `$, where $`Q`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional differentiable manifold (the configuration space of a physical system). The $`1`$-jet bundle of sections of $`\pi `$ is $`\pi _1:\mathrm{T}Q\times Q\times `$.

###### Proposition 1

The following elements on $`\pi :Q\times `$ can be canonically constructed one from the other:

1. A section of $`\pi _1:\mathrm{T}Q\times Q\times `$, that is a mapping $`:Q\times \mathrm{T}Q\times `$ such that $`\pi _1=\mathrm{Id}_{Q\times }`$.
2. A subbundle $`\mathrm{H}()`$ of $`\mathrm{T}(Q\times )`$ such that

$$\mathrm{T}(Q\times )=\mathrm{V}(\pi )\mathrm{H}()$$
(1)
3. A semibasic $`1`$-form $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on $`Q\times `$ with values in $`\mathrm{T}(Q\times )`$ (that is, an element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q\times ,\pi ^{}\mathrm{T}^{}Q)\text{X}(Q\times )`$), such that $`\alpha \stackrel{~}{}=\alpha `$, for every semibasic form $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(Q\times )`$.

(We denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A,B)`$ for the set of sections of the bundle $`BA`$).

###### Definition 1

A connection in the bundle $`\pi :Q\times `$ is one of the above mentioned equivalent elements. $``$ is usually called a jet field. $`\mathrm{H}()`$ is called the horizontal subbundle of $`\mathrm{T}(Q\times )`$ associated with $``$ and its sections horizontal vector fields. Finally $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is called the Ehresmann connection form.

Given the subbundle $`\mathrm{H}()`$ and the splitting (1), we have the maps

$$h_{}:\mathrm{T}(Q\times )\mathrm{H}(),v_{}:\mathrm{T}(Q\times )\mathrm{V}(\pi )$$

called the horizontal and vertical projections (we will use the same symbols $`h_{}`$ and $`v_{}`$ for the natural extensions of these maps to vector fields).

In a local chart $`(q^\mu ,t,v^\mu )`$ the expressions of all these elements are

$$(q,s)=(q,s,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (q,s)),\stackrel{~}{}=\mathrm{d}t(\frac{}{t}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \frac{}{q^\mu }),\mathrm{H}()=\mathrm{span}\{\frac{}{t}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \frac{}{q^\mu }\}$$

(for every $`(q,s)Q\times `$).

###### Proposition 2

A connection in the bundle $`\pi :Q\times `$ is equivalent to a time-dependent vector field in $`Q`$, that is a vector field along $`\tau _Q:Q\times Q`$.

Given a connection $``$,let $`Y`$ be its associated vector field. The suspension of $`Y`$ is the vector field $`\stackrel{~}{Y}:=\frac{}{t}+Y`$.

In the Lagrangian formalism, the dynamics takes place in the manifold $`\mathrm{T}Q\times `$. Then, in order to set the dynamics, we need to introduce some geometrical elements in the bundle $`\pi _1:\mathrm{T}Q\times Q\times `$ (see , ,  and  for details). Every time it is required, we will use a local system given by $`(q^\mu ,t,v^\mu )`$.

We can define a 1-form $`\vartheta `$ in $`\mathrm{T}Q\times `$, with values in $`\pi _1^{}\mathrm{V}(\pi )`$, in the following way:

$$\vartheta (((q,s),u);X):=(\mathrm{T}_{((q,s),u)}\pi _1\mathrm{T}_{((q,s),u)}(\varphi \pi \pi _1))(X_{(q,s)})$$

where $`\varphi `$ is a representative of $`((q,s),u)\mathrm{T}Q\times `$. $`\vartheta `$ is called the structure canonical form of $`\mathrm{T}Q\times `$. Its local expression is $`\vartheta =(\mathrm{d}q^\mu v^\mu \mathrm{d}t){\displaystyle \frac{}{q^\mu }}`$.

Taking into account that $`\pi _1:\mathrm{T}Q\times Q\times `$ is a vector bundle, and the fiber on $`(q,s)Q\times `$ is $`\mathrm{T}_qQ\times \{s\}`$, there exists a canonical diffeomorphism between the $`\pi _1`$-vertical subbundle and $`\pi _1^{}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$, that is,

$$\mathrm{V}(\pi _1)\pi _1^{}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )\pi _1^{}\pi _Q^{}\mathrm{T}Q\pi _1^{}\mathrm{V}(\pi )$$

We denote by $`𝒮:\pi _1^{}\mathrm{V}(\pi )\mathrm{V}(\pi _1)`$ the realization of this isomorphism, and we will use the same notation $`𝒮`$ for its action on the modules of sections of these bundles. $`𝒮`$ is an element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{T}Q\times ,\pi _1^{}\mathrm{V}^{}(\pi ))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{T}Q\times ,\mathrm{V}(\pi _1))`$. Taking into account that the structure form $`\vartheta `$ is an element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{T}Q\times ,\pi _1^{}\mathrm{V}(\pi _1))=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{T}Q\times )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{T}Q\times ,\pi _1^{}\mathrm{V}(\pi ))`$, using the natural duality, by contracting $`𝒮`$ with $`\vartheta `$, we obtain an element

$$𝒱:=𝑖(𝒮)\vartheta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{T}Q\times )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{T}Q\times ,\mathrm{V}(\pi _1))$$

whose local expression is $`𝒱=\left(\mathrm{d}q^\mu v^\mu \mathrm{d}t\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{v^\mu }}`$. Notice that $`𝒱`$ can be thought of as a $`\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$-module morphism $`𝒱:\text{X}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )\text{X}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ with image on the $`\pi _1`$-vertical vector fields.

$`𝒮`$ and $`𝒱`$ are called the vertical endomorphisms of $`\mathrm{T}Q\times `$.

### 2.2 Lagrangian formalism. Connections and Lagrangian energy functions

A time-dependent Lagrangian function is a function $`LC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$.

###### Definition 2

The Poincaré-Cartan $`1`$ and $`2`$-forms associated with the Lagrangian function $`L`$ are the forms in $`\mathrm{T}Q\times `$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_L:=\mathrm{d}L𝒱+L\mathrm{d}t,\mathrm{\Omega }_L:=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }_L$$

The coordinate expressions of the Poincaré-Cartan forms are

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{v^\mu }}(\mathrm{d}q^\mu v^\mu \mathrm{d}t)+L\mathrm{d}t=\left(Lv^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{L}{v^\mu }}\right)\mathrm{d}t+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{v^\mu }}\mathrm{d}q^\mu `$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{v^\mu }}\right)\mathrm{d}q^\mu +\mathrm{d}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{v^\mu }}v^\mu L\right)\mathrm{d}t`$
Observe that these elements do not depend on the connection.

A Lagrangian function $`L`$ is regular  if its associated form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ has maximal rank, which is equivalent to demanding that $`\mathrm{det}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2L}{v^\mu v^\nu }}\right)`$ is different from zero at every point.

On the other hand, if we have a connection $``$ on $`\pi :Q\times `$, we can split $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ into a sum of vertical and horizontal forms. The vertical form (resp. horizontal) is characterized by the fact that it vanishes under the action of the horizontal (resp. vertical) vector fields associated with the connection.

Thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L=\mathrm{\Omega }_L^H+\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L^H=\mathrm{d}ti(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{\Omega }_L^H`$. The spliting for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$ follows in the same way as above, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L^H=\mathrm{d}ti(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V=\mathrm{\Theta }_L\mathrm{\Theta }_L^H`$.

It is easy to see that this construction can be generalized to every $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^r(F)`$ where $`F`$ is fibred manifold on the basis $`B`$; see  for more details.

Assuming the regularity of $`L`$, the dynamics of the system is described by a vector field $`X_L𝒳(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$, which is a Second Order Differential Equation (SODE), such that:

$$𝑖(X_L)\mathrm{\Omega }_L=0,𝑖(X_L)\mathrm{d}t=1$$
(2)
As a consequence, the integral curves of $`X_L`$ verify the Euler-Lagrange equations.

A very different picture arises when we try to define intrinsically the Lagrangian energy function.

###### Definition 3

Let $``$ be a connection in $`\pi :Q\times `$, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}\text{X}(Q\times )`$ the suspension of the vector field associated with it, and $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}\text{X}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ its canonical lifting. The Lagrangian energy function associated with the Lagrangian function $`L`$ and the connection $``$ is $`\mathrm{E}_L^{}=𝑖(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$

In a local chart, if $`\stackrel{~}{Y}={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{q^\mu }}`$ , we have $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{q^\mu }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu }{t}}+v^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu }{q^\nu }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{v^\mu }}`$ and $`\mathrm{E}_L^{}=\frac{L}{v^\mu }(v^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )L`$

It is obvious from this expression that the Lagrangian energy is connection-depending. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =0`$, the corresponding connection is the standard one. The use of this connection “hides” the explicit dependence on the connection of the energy in classical mechanics. The proof of the following propositions can be found in .

###### Proposition 3

Let $`X_L\text{X}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ be the dynamical vector field (solution of the equations (2)). Then

$$X_L(\mathrm{E}_L^{})=(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})L$$

###### Proposition 4

If $`L`$ is a Lagrangian function such that its associated Legendre transformation is different from zero at every point, then every first integral of the dynamical vector field $`X_L`$ is the energy associated with some connection.

## 3 Symmetries of Lagrangian time-dependent systems. Infinitesimal symmetries and connections

Let $`LC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ be a time-dependent regular Lagrangian, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a bundle diffeomorphism of $`Q\times `$ such that its restriction $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}:`$ verifies $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(t)=t+c`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a symmetry if $`(j^1\mathrm{\Phi })^{}L=L`$, that is $`L`$ is invariant by $`j^1\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Let us recall that in this situation the canonical forms $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ are also invariant by $`j^1\mathrm{\Phi }`$, see .

###### Proposition 5

If $`L`$ is invariant by $`j^1\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and $`X_L`$ is a solution of the equations (2), then $`(j^1\mathrm{\Phi })^{}X_L`$ is also a solution.

Proof: Since $`(j^1\mathrm{\Phi })^{}L=L`$ and $`(j^1\mathrm{\Phi })^{}\mathrm{d}t=\mathrm{d}((j^1\mathrm{\Phi })^{}t)=\mathrm{d}(t+c)=\mathrm{d}t`$, we have that

$$0=j^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(i(X_L)\mathrm{\Omega }_L)=i(j^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(X_L))j^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_L)=i(j^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(X_L))\mathrm{\Omega }_L$$

and in a similar way

$$1=j^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(i(X_L)\mathrm{d}t)=i(j^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(X_L))\mathrm{d}t.$$

Remark: As $`L`$ is regular, we have that $`(j^1\mathrm{\Phi })^{}X_L=X_L`$, hence if $`\sigma `$ is an integral curve of $`X_L`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\sigma `$ is too.

Given $`Y𝔛(Q,\tau _Q)`$ a vector field along the projection $`\tau _Q`$, consider the vector field $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}𝔛(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=\frac{}{t}+Y`$. We say that $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is an infinitesimal symmetry of the system if $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})L=0`$, where $`(X)`$ is the Lie derivative operator with respect to $`X`$.

As a consequence of the above proposition, we have:

###### Corollary 1

If $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})L=0`$, then $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L=0`$, $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{d}t=0`$, $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})X_L=0`$, and $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})E_L^{}=0`$ .

As a particular case, we can consider the invariance under a connection. Let $``$ be a connection with $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}𝔛(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ the 1-jet prolongation of the field $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ associated with $``$, which we will suppose to be complete. The Lagrangian system is called invariant under the connection $``$ if $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})L=0`$.

With these conditions, and taking into account that $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is complete, we can define the next family of diffeomorphisms:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_s:\mathrm{T}Q\times `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{T}Q\times `$
$`(v_q,t)`$ $``$ $`j^1\phi _s(v_q,t)`$
where $`j^1\phi _s`$ is the uniparametric flow of $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. Observe that if $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})L=0`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_s`$ is a symmetry of $`L`$ for every $`s`$. Therefore:

###### Proposition 6

If $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})L=0`$ then $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V=\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$.

Proof:

$`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{\Theta }_Li(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Theta }_L\mathrm{d}t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{d}(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Theta }_L)\mathrm{d}t`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Li(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{d}t+(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L=\mathrm{\Omega }_L+\mathrm{d}ti(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L=\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$
Assumption: From now on, we will suppose that $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is a infinitesimal symmetry of the system $`(\mathrm{T}Q\times ,L)`$.

## 4 Reduction of the time-dependent Lagrangian systems invariant under $``$

Consider the action of $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ on $`\mathrm{T}Q\times `$, and let $`[\mathrm{T}Q\times ](\mathrm{T}Q\times )/j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ be the set of equivalence classes by this action. Let $`\overline{\pi }^1:\mathrm{T}Q\times [\mathrm{T}Q\times ]`$ the natural projection. We will assume that $`[\mathrm{T}Q\times ]`$ is a manifold and $`\overline{\pi }^1`$ a submersion.

Remember that given a projection of manifolds $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:MM/`$, and $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^h(M)`$, we say that $`\omega `$ is $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$projectable if there exists $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}(\stackrel{~}{\omega })=\omega `$. A necessary and sufficient condition to assure the projectability is that $`i(X)\omega =0`$ and $`(X)\omega =0`$, for every $`X𝔛^V(\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ or equivalently $`i(X)\omega =0,i(X)\mathrm{d}\omega =0`$, for $`X𝔛^V(\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ (see  for more details). Observe that in our situation $`𝔛^V(\overline{\pi }^1)`$ is spanned by $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L^H=\mathrm{d}ti(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{\Omega }_L^H`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L^H=(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Theta }_L)\mathrm{d}t`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V=\mathrm{\Theta }_L\mathrm{\Theta }_L^H`$ be the decompositions induced by $``$, then we have:

###### Proposition 7

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$ and $`E_L^{}`$ are $`\overline{\pi }^1`$projectable.

Proof: Taking into account that $`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{d}t=1`$, and $`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L=0`$, because $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ is skew-symmetric, we have:

$`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$ $`=`$ $`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{d}t)i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L+(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L)\mathrm{d}t=0`$
$`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$ $`=`$ $`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_Li(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})(\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{d}t)i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L)+i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})(\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L))`$
$`=`$ $`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})(\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L))`$
where the last expression is equal to zero since $`d(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L)=(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_Li(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})d\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$. In the same way we can prove the assertion for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V`$.

For the Lagrangian energy function holds:

$`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})E_L^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})E_L^{}=(dE_L^{})(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})=d(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Theta }_L)(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})`$
$`=`$ $`(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L)(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})=i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L=0.`$
Remark: As a consequence, there exist diferential forms $`\omega `$ and $`\theta `$ in $`[\mathrm{T}Q\times ]`$, such that $`\overline{\pi }^1(\omega )=\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$ and $`\overline{\pi }^1(\theta )=\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V`$, and a function $`C^{\mathrm{}}([\mathrm{T}Q\times ])`$ verifing that $`\overline{\pi }^1()=E_L^{}`$.

###### Proposition 8

$`([\mathrm{T}Q\times ],\omega )`$ is a symplectic manifold and $`([\mathrm{T}Q\times ],\omega ,)`$ is a Hamiltonian system.

Proof: We must show that $`\omega `$ is closed and non-degenerated.

* $`\overline{\pi }^1(\mathrm{d}\omega )=\mathrm{d}(\overline{\pi }^1\omega )=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_L^H=\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{d}ti(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L)=\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L))=0.`$

Since $`\overline{\pi }^1`$ is a submersion, the fact that $`\overline{\pi }^1(\mathrm{d}\omega )=0`$, implies that $`\mathrm{d}\omega =0`$.
* Suppose that $`i(Z)\omega =0`$, then if $`X\overline{\pi }^1(Z)`$, then $`0=i(X)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=i(X^V+X^H)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=i(X^V)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=i(X^V)\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$.

Since, $`L`$ is regular, then $`X^V=0`$, which implies that $`Z=0`$.

Observe that $`\overline{\pi }^1(Z)`$ is well-defined because $`\overline{\pi }^1`$ is an exhaustive submersion.

Considering the dynamical equations in $`\mathrm{T}Q\times `$, we write them in a suitable way to obtain the dynamics in the quotient.

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`i(X_L)\mathrm{\Omega }_L=i(X_L)(\mathrm{\Omega }_L^H+\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V)=i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{d}t(i(X_L)i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L)+i(X_L)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$
$`=`$ $`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L+i(X_L)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=dE_L^{}+i(X_L)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V.`$
where we have taken into account that $`i(X_L)i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L=0`$, since $`X_L`$ is a solution of (2), and $`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L=(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Theta }_L+d(i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Theta }_L)=\mathrm{d}E_L^{}`$.

As the connection $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ associated with $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ allows us to split $`\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )=H()V(\pi \pi ^1)`$, then $`X_L=X_L^H+X_L^V`$, and

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}E_L^{}+i(X_L^H+X_L^V)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=\mathrm{d}E_L^{}+i(X_L^H)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V+i(X_L^V)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=\mathrm{d}E_L^{}+i(X_L^V)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V.`$
since $`i(fj^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=fi(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=0`$. Observe that the second equation does not give us any information about $`X_L^V`$, because $`i(X_L^V)\mathrm{d}t=0`$ holds. Then we have $`i(X_L^V)\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=\mathrm{d}E_L^{}`$.

As a consequence of the previous propositions

$`0=\mathrm{d}(\overline{\pi }^1())+i(X_L^V)\overline{\pi }^1\omega =\overline{\pi }^1(\mathrm{d})+\overline{\pi }^1(i(𝒳)\omega )=\overline{\pi }^1(\mathrm{d}+i(𝒳)\omega ).`$
This implies that $`0=\mathrm{d}+i(𝒳)\omega `$, because $`\overline{\pi }^1`$ is a submersion. So the dynamical equation in $`[\mathrm{T}Q\times ]`$ is $`i(𝒳)\omega =\mathrm{d}`$.

###### Proposition 9

$``$ is a first integral of the system $`([\mathrm{T}Q\times ],\omega ,)`$.

Proof: Since $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})L=0`$ the energy function $`E_L^{}`$ is constant along the trajectories of (2). Otherwise $`X_L^H(E_L^{})=0`$ because $`(\mathrm{d}E_L^{})X_L^H=i(fj^1\stackrel{~}{Y})i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L=0`$. As a consequence of this $`0=X_L(E_L^{})=X_L^H(E_L^{})+X_L^V(E_L^{})=X_L^V(E_L^{})`$. Then we have that $`0=X_L^V(E_L^{})=\pi ^{}(𝒳())`$ and $`𝒳()=0`$.

Remark: The restriction of the Hamiltonian system $`([\mathrm{T}Q\times ],\omega ,)`$ to a hypersurface defined by $`=ctn`$, gives the same result as if we apply the presymplectic reduction procedure, studied in , to the initial Lagrangian system $`(\mathrm{T}Q\times ,L)`$ under the action of $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$.

Now suppose that $`𝒳𝔛([\mathrm{T}Q\times ])`$ is the solution of the dynamical equation $`i(𝒳)\omega =\mathrm{d}`$. We want to recover the solution $`X_L𝔛(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ of (2) from $`𝒳`$. Let $`Z:=j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}+v_{}(\overline{\pi }^1(𝒳))𝔛(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$. It is well defined because every $`X𝔛(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ such that $`\overline{\pi }^1(𝒳)=X`$ has the same vertical part. Then:

###### Proposition 10

$`Z𝔛(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ is a solution of (2).

Proof: As $`\mathrm{d}t`$ is a semibasic form we have:

$`i(Z)\mathrm{d}t`$ $`=`$ $`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{d}t+i(v_{}(\overline{\pi }^1(𝒳)))\mathrm{d}t=1+i(v_{}(\overline{\pi }^1(𝒳)))\mathrm{d}t=1`$
$`i(Z)\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ $`=`$ $`i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L+i(v_{}(\overline{\pi }^1(𝒳)))\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V=i(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{\Omega }_L+i(\overline{\pi }^1(𝒳))\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{\pi }^1(\mathrm{d})+i(\overline{\pi }^1(𝒳))\overline{\pi }^1\omega =\overline{\pi }^1(\mathrm{d})+\overline{\pi }^1(i(𝒳)\omega )=\overline{\pi }^1(\mathrm{d}+i(𝒳)\omega )=0`$
## 5 Properties of the system $`([\mathrm{T}Q\times ],\omega ,)`$

Consider now the manifold $`[Q\times ]:=(Q\times )/\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ and the submersion $`\overline{\pi }:Q\times [Q\times ]`$. From every element $`[(q,t)][Q\times ]`$ we can choose a representative of the form $`(\stackrel{~}{q},0)`$: if $`(q,t)[(q,t)]`$ then, $`(\stackrel{~}{q},0)=\phi _t(q,t)`$ where $`\phi _s(q,t)=(\phi _s^Q(q,t),t+s)`$ is the flow of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. This element is unique, since if there exists $`(q^1,0)`$ and $`(q^2,0)`$ in the same class $`[(q,t)]`$, then for some $`s`$, we have $`(q^2,0)=(\phi _s^Q(q^1,0),s)`$. Hence we can conclude that $`s=0`$ and thus $`q^1=q^2`$.

From the above considerations, there exists a natural bijection $`\psi `$ from $`[Q\times ]`$ to $`Q`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\psi :& [Q\times ]& & Q& & \psi ^1:& Q& & [Q\times ]\\ & [(q,t)]& & \phi _t^Q(t,q)& & & q& & [(q,0)]\end{array}$$

It is clear that $`\psi \psi ^1=Id|_Q`$ and $`\psi ^1\psi =Id|_{[Q\times ]}`$.

###### Proposition 11

$`\psi `$ is a diffeomorphism.

Proof: Consider the diagram

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q\times \text{}& [Q\times ]\\ \text{}& \text{}\\ & Q\end{array}$$

where $`\varphi (t,q)=\phi _t^Q(t,q)`$. $`\psi `$ is smooth iff $`\varphi `$ is smooth, see , and $`\varphi `$ is smooth trivially.

On the other hand, we can see $`Q`$ as a quotient manifold of $`Q\times `$, then using the same pattern as above, $`\psi ^1`$ is smooth because $`\overline{\pi }`$ is too. Therefore $`\psi `$ is a diffeomorphism.

Observe that by means of $`\psi `$ we can build natural local charts on $`[Q\times ]`$. Let $`\{U_\alpha ,\zeta _\alpha \}`$ one atlas on $`Q`$, then it is easy to see that $`\{\psi ^1(U_\alpha ),\zeta _\alpha \psi \}`$ is an atlas on $`[Q\times ]`$.

Remark: As a consequence of the above considerations, we can also construct a diffeomorphism

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }:[\mathrm{T}Q\times ]\mathrm{T}Q$$

Now we can define the projecction map $`\overline{\pi }_1:[\mathrm{T}Q\times ][Q\times ]`$, because given an integral curve, $`\gamma `$, of $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, $`\pi _1\gamma `$ is an integral curve of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. Then we have:

$`\overline{\pi }_1:[\mathrm{T}Q\times ]`$ $``$ $`[Q\times ]`$
$`[(v_q,t)]`$ $``$ $`[(q,t)]`$
###### Proposition 12

$`\overline{\pi }_1`$ is a submersion.

Proof: In natural local charts, $`\overline{\pi }_1(t,q,v)=(t,q)`$, hence $`\overline{\pi }_1`$ is smooth and surjective.

From the previous considerations, the following diagram is commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{T}Q\times & \text{}& [\mathrm{T}Q\times ]& \text{}& \mathrm{T}Q\\ \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}\\ Q\times & \text{}& [Q\times ]& \text{}& Q\end{array}$$

Since $`LC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ is constant along the integral curves of $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, we can define a function $`𝔏`$ on $`[\mathrm{T}Q\times ]`$. Consider the Lagrangian forms $`\theta _{\overline{𝔏}}`$ and $`\omega _{\overline{𝔏}}`$ on $`\mathrm{T}Q`$ associated with the Lagrangian function $`\overline{𝔏}=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}(𝔏)`$. We wish to compare them with $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\omega `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\theta `$.

###### Proposition 13

$`(\stackrel{~}{\psi }\overline{\pi }^1)^{}(\theta _{\overline{𝔏}})=\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V=\overline{\pi }^1(\theta )`$.

Proof: It is enough to show this proposition in local coordinates. Let $`\varphi :=\stackrel{~}{\psi }\overline{\pi }^1`$ be, as

$$\varphi (t,q^i,v^i)=(\phi _t^i(q^i,t),\frac{\phi _s^i}{t}(t;(q^i,t))+\frac{\phi _s^i}{q^j}(t;(q^i,t))v^j)=:(\overline{q}^i,\overline{v}^i)$$

and $`L(t,q^i,v^i)=\overline{𝔏}(\varphi (t,q^i,v^i))`$, we have that

$`(\stackrel{~}{\psi }\overline{\pi }^1)^{}(\theta _{\overline{𝔏}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝔏}}{\overline{v}^i}}|_{\varphi (t,q^i,v^i)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi _t^i}{q^j}}|_{(t,q^i)}\mathrm{d}q^j+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _t^i}{t}}|_{(t,q^i)}\mathrm{d}t\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝔏}}{\overline{v}^i}}|_{\varphi (t,q^i,v^i)}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _t^i}{q^j}}|_{(t,q^i)}\right)\mathrm{d}q^j+`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝔏}}{\overline{v}^i}}|_{(\varphi (t,q^i,v^i))}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _t^i}{t}}|_{(t,q^i)}\mathrm{d}t={\displaystyle \frac{L}{v^j}}|_{(t,q^i,v^i)}\mathrm{d}q^j+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝔏}}{\overline{v}^i}}|_{\varphi (t,q^i,v^i)}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _t^i}{t}}|_{(t,q^i)}\mathrm{d}t+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝔏}}{\overline{v}^i}}|_{\varphi (t,q^i,v^i)}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^j(q,t){\displaystyle \frac{\phi _t^i}{q^j}}|_{(t,q^i)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^j(q^i,t){\displaystyle \frac{\phi _t^i}{q^j}}|_{(t,q^i)}\right)\mathrm{d}t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{v^j}}|_{(t,q^i,v^i)}\mathrm{d}q^j+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝔏}}{\overline{v}^i}}|_{\varphi (t,q^i,v^i)}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^j(q,t){\displaystyle \frac{\phi _t^i}{q^j}}|_{(t,q^i)}\right)\mathrm{d}t+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝔏}}{\overline{v}^i}}|_{\varphi (t,q^i,v^i)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi _t^i}{t}}|_{(t,q^i)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^j(q^i,t){\displaystyle \frac{\phi _t^i}{q^j}}|_{(t,q^i)}\right)\mathrm{d}t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{v^j}}|_{(t,q^i,v^i)}\mathrm{d}q^j\mathrm{\Gamma }^j(q^i,t){\displaystyle \frac{L}{v^j}}|_{(t,q^i,v^i)}\mathrm{d}t=\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V`$
where we have taken into account that

$$\frac{L}{v^i}|_{(t,q^i,v^i)}=\frac{\overline{𝔏}}{\overline{v}^j}|_{\varphi (t,q^i,v^i)}\frac{\phi _s^j}{q^i}|_{(t;(t,q^i))}=\frac{\overline{𝔏}}{\overline{v}^j}|_{\varphi (t,q^i,v^i)}\frac{\phi _t}{q^j}|_{(t,q^i)}.$$

Observe that $`\frac{\phi _t^i}{t}|_{(t,q^i)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^j|_{(t,q^i)}\frac{\phi _t^i}{q^j}|_{(t,q^i)}=0`$, since the tangent mapping of $`(t,q^i)(t,\phi _t^i(q^i,t))`$ transforms the vector field $`\frac{}{t}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^i(q^i,t)\frac{}{q^i}`$ into $`\frac{}{t}`$.

Remark: The above result is due to the fact that the symmetry is natural, that is, a jet prolongation of a vector field on $`Q\times `$.

###### Proposition 14

$`\overline{\pi }^1(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(\omega _{\overline{𝔏}}))=\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$

Proof: Since $`\omega _{\overline{𝔏}}=\mathrm{d}\theta _{\overline{𝔏}}`$, we have that $`(\psi \overline{\pi }^1)^{}(\mathrm{d}\theta _{\overline{𝔏}})=d((\psi \overline{\pi }^1)^{}\theta _{\overline{𝔏}})=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V`$. On the other hand, it verifies that $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V=\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$.Therefore $`\overline{\pi }^1(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(\omega _{\overline{𝔏}}))=\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$.

###### Corollary 2

$`\theta =\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(\theta _{\overline{𝔏}})`$ and $`\omega =\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(\omega _{\overline{𝔏}})`$.

Proof: ¿From the above proposition we have that $`\overline{\pi }^1(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(\theta _{\overline{𝔏}}))=\overline{\pi }^1(\theta )`$, then, since $`\overline{\pi }^1`$ is a submersion, $`\theta =\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(\theta _{\overline{𝔏}})`$. The second assertion follows in the same way.

A different situation arises when we try to do the same with the energy. Let $`_{\overline{𝔏}}:=\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{𝔏}\overline{𝔏}`$ be the energy associated with the Lagrangian $`\overline{𝔏}`$, then in general $`\overline{\pi }^1(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(_{\overline{𝔏}}))=/E_L^{}`$. An example of this is given in the next section.

Remark: So the Hamiltonian system $`([\mathrm{T}Q\times ],\omega ,)`$ is not, in general, a Lagrangian one.

## 6 Examples

### 6.1 Autonomous dynamical systems

First we analyze the time-independent dynamical systems as a particular case of non-autonomous regular systems which are invariant under time translations.

Let $`(\mathrm{T}Q\times ,\mathrm{\Omega }_L)`$ the non-autonomous regular Lagrangian dynamical system. $`_0`$ is the standard connection, and as a consequence $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=\frac{}{t}`$. Let $`LC^{\mathrm{}}(\times TQ)`$ be the Lagrangian function, such that $`(j^1\stackrel{~}{Y})L=(\frac{}{t})L=0`$, that is $`\frac{L}{t}=0`$. Then $`\phi (t,q,v_q)=(q,v_q)=:(\overline{q},\overline{v}_{\overline{q}})`$, and $`\overline{𝔏}(\overline{q},\overline{v}_{\overline{q}})=L(0,q,v_q)`$. Therefore $`\theta =\theta _{\overline{𝔏}}`$, $`\omega =\omega _{\overline{𝔏}}`$ and $`=_{\overline{𝔏}}`$.

Observe that in this particular case the system $`([\mathrm{T}Q\times ],\omega ,)`$ is a Lagrangian one.

### 6.2 Another example

Let $`(\mathrm{T}^2\times ,\mathrm{\Omega }_L)`$ be the regular lagrangian dynamical system associated with the Lagrangian function

$$L(t,x,y,v_x,v_y)=\frac{1}{2}(v_x^2+v_y^2)V(y)+(tx)v_x+(tx)v_y.$$

Consider the infinitesimal symmetry $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}=\frac{}{t}+\frac{}{x}`$. Taking into account the coordinate expression of the flow, we have that $`\overline{𝔏}(\overline{x},\overline{y},\overline{v}_{\overline{x}},\overline{v}_{\overline{y}})=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{v}_{\overline{x}}^2+\overline{v}_{\overline{y}}^2)V(\overline{y})\overline{x}\overline{v}_{\overline{x}}\overline{x}\overline{v}_{\overline{y}}`$. From the above considerations $`\theta _{\overline{𝔏}}=(\overline{v}_{\overline{x}}\overline{x})\mathrm{d}\overline{x}+(\overline{v}_{\overline{y}}\overline{x})\mathrm{d}\overline{y}`$, and as we know

$`\phi ^{}(\theta _{\overline{𝔏}})`$ $`=`$ $`(v_xx+t)(\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}t)+(v_yx+t)\mathrm{d}y=`$
$`=`$ $`(xv_x+t)\mathrm{d}t+(v_xx+t)\mathrm{d}x+(v_yx+t)\mathrm{d}y=\mathrm{\Theta }_L^V`$
On the other hand, since $`E_L^{}=\frac{1}{2}(v_x^2+v_y^2)+V(y)+xtv_x`$, then $`=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{v}_{\overline{x}}^2+\overline{v}_{\overline{y}}^2)+V(\overline{y})+(\overline{x}\overline{v}_{\overline{x}})`$, which is different from $`_{\overline{𝔏}}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{v}_{\overline{x}}^2+\overline{v}_{\overline{y}}^2)+V(\overline{y})`$.

Now we can solve the dynamical equation $`i(𝒳_{\overline{𝔏}})\omega _{\overline{𝔏}}=\mathrm{d}`$, obtaining that

$$𝒳_{\overline{𝔏}}=(\overline{v}_{\overline{x}}1)\frac{}{\overline{x}}+\overline{v}_{\overline{y}}\frac{}{\overline{y}}(1+\overline{v}_{\overline{y}})\frac{}{\overline{v}_{\overline{x}}}+(\overline{v}_{\overline{x}}1\frac{\overline{V}}{\overline{y}})\frac{}{\overline{v}_{\overline{y}}}$$

and therefore $`X_L=\frac{}{t}+v_x\frac{}{x}+v_y\frac{}{y}(1+v_y)\frac{}{v_x}+(v_x1\frac{V}{y})\frac{}{v_y}`$.

## 7 Conclusions and outlook

Let $`(\mathrm{T}Q\times ,L)`$ be a time-dependent regular Lagrangian system. Every connection $``$ in $`Q\times `$ is associated with a vector field $`\stackrel{~}{Y}\text{X}(Q\times )`$. Then, we study the reduction of the system when $`j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}\text{X}(\mathrm{T}Q\times )`$ is an infinitessimal symmetry of $`L`$. First, the connection $``$ allows us to split the Lagrangian 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ into the corresponding vertical and horizontal parts, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L^H`$, and then, introducing the Lagrangian energy function $`E_L^{}`$ associated with $``$, and using $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$, we can write the dynamical equations in a similar way to the time-independent case. Therefore, considering the reduced manifold $`[\mathrm{T}Q\times ]\mathrm{T}Q\times /j^1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, and the corresponding natural projection $`\mathrm{T}Q\times [\mathrm{T}Q\times ]`$, we prove that both, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L^V`$ and $`E_L^{}`$, project to $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^2([\mathrm{T}Q\times ])`$ and $`\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}([\mathrm{T}Q\times ])`$, in such a way that $`([\mathrm{T}Q\times ],\omega ,)`$ is a regular (symplectic) Hamiltonian system, although it is not a Lagrangian system, in general, in spite of $`[\mathrm{T}Q\times ]`$ being canonically difeomorphic to a tangent bundle.

The generalization of these results to other more general situations is a matter of future research. In particular to the following cases: time-dependent non regular Lagrangian systems, regular and non-regular time-dependent Lagrangian systems whose configuration space is a non-trivial fiber bundle $`E`$ (and hence the phase space is a non-trivial jet bundle $`J^1EE`$), and regular and non-regular classical field theories.

### Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the financial support of the CICYT TAP97-0969-C03-01 and CICTY PB98-0821. We wish to thank Mr. Jeff Palmer for his assistance in preparing the English version of the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# A Hopf bifurcation with a strong incommensurate frequency response in quantum wells

## Abstract

The behavior of delta-doped wide quantum well heterostructures in the presence of intense far-infrared radiation is studied using semiconductor Bloch equations. A quantum well is designed where one can either obtain a strong subharmonic (period-doubling) or a strong incommensurate (Hopf) frequency response by varying the sheet density and field strength. These strong responses are easily attainable with current quantum well technology and the field amplitudes and frequencies of the drive are well within the range of the free electron laser.

The effective description of some quantum mechanical systems, far from a classical correspondence, can be nonlinear. Strongly driven THz intersubband transitions in AlGaAs/GaAs quantum wells are a good example of such a system and have been shown to exhibit novel nonlinear phenomena. Many-body effects which cause the nonlinearities become much more prominent in wide quantum wells ($`300`$Å) where intersubband spacing is of the order of 10meV which is approximately of the order of the electron-electron Coulomb interactions. The main signature of the nonlinearities is the dynamic shielding by the electron gas of the incoming radiation. The screening blue shifts the absorption peak frequency, by an amount proportional to the intersubband population difference and sheet density, to the dressed frequency at which collective oscillations of the entire electron gas occur. This depolarization shift also causes the generation of second-harmonics of the drive frequency when it is at half of this dressed frequency . The depolarization shift and superharmonic generation have been accurately simulated and measured, see. In addition to this dressing of the intersubband frequency there is a dynamic Stark effect which shifts the absorption peak by an amount proportional to the intensity of the incoming radiation. Experiments by Heyman et al. and Craig et al. showed the intersubband absorption peak distorting and shifting to the red towards the bare intersubband frequency as it saturates with increasing THz intensity. These results were in good agreement with a two-subband density matrix model proposed by Zalużny.

A superharmonic generation is a general feature of classical nonlinear systems with periodic driving, whereas a subharmonic generation or an incommensurate frequency response are not as ubiquitous and usually require the fine tuning of parameters. The same could be the case in (effectively nonlinear) quantum mechanical systems and this necessitates a theoretical search for the appropriate parameter ranges. The generic bifurcation from a stationary solution or a fixed point, corresponding to a periodic orbit, in a classical system is a Hopf bifurcation  and it typically leads to a response comparable in magnitude to the drive. This motivates the search for a strong response (a Hopf bifurcation from a fixed point) in our effectively nonlinear quantum mechanical system that is a second frequency response of the collective electron excitations incommensurate with the frequency of the laser drive. Theoretically this response can be explained by a parametric oscillation of the electron gas where the system is able to respond at a new frequency that is a dressing (as explained above) of the frequency $`E_1E_0=E_{10}`$ .

Another objective of this letter is to verify the predictions of the model of Galdrikian and Birnir for period doubling bifurcation for a more realistic situation in the quantum well. The present model is more complete and makes less approximations on the electron-electron Coulomb interaction and also includes the exchange terms in the Hamiltonian. On the other hand analytical calculations as the averaging technique used in  are considerably more difficult to perform now. Therefore we are limited to focus on numerical results for the nonlinear dynamics.

Sherwin et al. have studied the optical properties of wide quantum wells of $`Al_{0.3}Ga_{0.7}As`$ (barrier) and GaAs (well) driven by the far infrared radiation of the free electron laser (FEL) at UCSB. The epitaxially grown structures are filled with a sheet density of $`1.5\times 10^{11}e/cm^2`$ provided by silicon donor layers located outside of the well. The donors are usually at hundreds of Å’s away to avoid scattering of the electrons by the dopants, thus increasing the coherent radiation output of the electrons collective oscillations.

Many-body effects on intersubband transitions and optical properties of QWs have been studied mainly with Hartree-Fock and rotating wave approximations for the response of two-(sub)band QWs . Based on similar methods Nikonov, Imamoglu et al. demonstrated that the influence of exchange and depolarization terms on the absorption or gain spectrum disappears in the limit of very narrow quantum wells. Numerical integration of the multisubband semiconductor Bloch equations were performed by Tsang et al, although they neglected depolarization shift terms, which is a serious handicap for their predictions for wide quantum wells.

In this letter we study the semiconductor Bloch equations without RWA from a nonlinear dynamical systems perspective and find, in qualitative agreement with previous work by Birnir and Galdrikian, that for the two-subband driven near resonance period doubling bifurcations or optical bistability may occur. For a three-subband QW designed for this project and driven at resonance $`\omega =E_{20}`$ several types of bifurcations may occur depending on the shape of the well and the sheet density. We observe a Hopf bifurcation producing a strong signal at a lower frequency than the frequency of the drive. This signal corresponds to a dressing of $`E_{10}`$ and for a different (lower) value of the field strength a period-doubling bifurcation is observed that also produces a strong signal but now at half the frequency of the drive. Both signals are produced at moderate values of the field strength. The latter result is a big improvement over the result in  that was much weaker than the fundamental and occured at relatively large field strength. Our approach can in principle be applied to any multisubband systems, but in practice when $`\omega E_{20}`$ one may run in problems such as coupling the system to the continuum or the excitation of LO phonons (if $`\omega >36`$meV). However, these problems can be avoided by introducing more barriers in the well which create several closely spaced subbands as in Figure 1.

The optical properties of the confined electrons in the QW can be studied with the many-body Hamiltonian written in terms of field operators. The electron contribution is given by

$`\widehat{H}_{el}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\widehat{\psi }^{}(x,t)(\frac{1}{2m}\mathrm{}^2^2+W(z))\widehat{\psi }(x,t)}+`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3xd^3x^{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(x,t)\widehat{\psi }^{}(x^{},t)\frac{1}{|xx^{}|}\widehat{\psi }(x^{},t)\widehat{\psi }(x,t)}`$
$`e(t){\displaystyle d^3x\widehat{\psi }^{}(x,t)z\widehat{\psi }(x,t)},`$
where $`W(z)`$ is the bare QW potential. It is also assumed that the electric field generated from the radiation off the collective oscillations inside the QW are negligible compared with the laser light $``$. The field operators expressed as a linear combination of annihilation operators $`a_{k,n}`$ are

$`\widehat{\psi }(x,t){\displaystyle \underset{k,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ik\rho }}{\sqrt{A}}}\xi _n(z)a_{k,n}(t)`$

where $`\xi _n(z)`$ is the self-consistent n-th Hartree eigenstate, $`k`$ is the in-plane wave vector and $`A`$ is the QW area. The Hamiltonian can be rewritten in terms of (time-dependent) annihilation and creation operators as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}E_n(k)a_{k,n}^{}a_{k,n}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{},\{n\}}{}}V_{\{n\}}^0a_{k,n_1}^{}a_{k^{},n_2}^{}a_{k^{},n_3}a_{k,n_4}`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q0,k,k^{},\{n\}}{}}V_{\{n\}}(q)a_{k+q,n_1}^{}a_{k^{}q,n_2}^{}a_{k^{},n_3}a_{k,n_4}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{},n_1,n_2,n}{}}V_{n_1nnn_2}^0f_n(k^{})a_{k,n_1}^{}a_{k,n_2}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k,n,m}{}}\mu _{n,m}(k)(t)a_{k,n}^{}a_{k,m},`$
where $`E_n(k)`$ is the self-consistent Hartree energy, $`\mu _{n,m}`$ is the dipole moment between the n-th and m-th states, $`f_n(k)`$ is the Fermi occupation number for the nth-subband and the Coulomb interaction terms are

$`V_{\{n\}}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2}{ϵ_0A}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z_1𝑑z_2\frac{\xi _{n_1}(z_1)\xi _{n_2}(z_2)\xi _{n_3}(z_2)\xi _{n_4}(z_1)}{q}e^{q|z_1z_2|}}`$

$`V_{\{n\}}^0={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2}{ϵ_0A}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z_1𝑑z_2\xi _{n_1}(z_1)\xi _{n_2}(z_2)|z_1z_2|\xi _{n_3}(z_2)\xi _{n_4}(z_1)}`$where $`ϵ_0`$ is the static dielectric constant in GaAs, which is approximately 13. In addition to the usual exchange terms that appear in the electron gas Hamiltonian we obtain depolarization shift terms in the Hamiltonian which are due to the electron shielding and the quasi two-dimensional character of the problem (it is not negligible in wide quantum wells with sheet densities $`>10^{11}e/\text{cm}^2`$). The interaction with the laser light is introduced through the electric dipole approximation which implies that any momentum transfer due to the THz radiation is neglected.

Hamiltonian in hand, we proceed with the derivation of the equations of motion for the density matrix in the time-dependent Hartree-Fock approximation, which are also known as the semiconductor Bloch equations. They provide the collective optical response of the electrons to the laser light. In order to be more realistic we introduce dissipation in our equations of motion. Energy (inelastic) and momentum (elastic) scatterings are accounted for albeit phenomenologically (by the relaxation-time approximation).

The dynamics for the density matrix elements $`\sigma _{n,n^{}}(k)=<a_{k,n}^{}a_{k,n^{}}>`$ are obtained from the Heisenberg equations of motion for the operator $`a_{p,n}^{}a_{p,n^{}}`$ followed by a quantum statistical average and the Hartree-Fock approximation. We finally obtain, see  for details,

$``$ $`i\mathrm{}\dot{\sigma }_{n,n^{}}(k)=E_{n,n^{}}(k)\sigma _{n,n^{}}(k)+i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{T_{nn^{}}}}\left(\sigma _{n,n^{}}(k)f_n(k)\delta _{nn^{}}\right)`$ (8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q0,n_1n_2n_3}{}}V_{n_1n_2n_3n}(q)\sigma _{n_1n_3}(|kq|)\sigma _{n_2n^{}}(k)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q0,n_2n_3n_4}{}}V_{n^{}n_2n_3n_4}(q)\sigma _{nn_3}(k)\sigma _{n_2n_4}(|kq|)`$ (10)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^{},n_2n_3n_4}{}}V_{n^{}n_2n_3n_4}^0\sigma _{n,n_4}(k)\left(\sigma _{n_2n_3}(k^{})f_{n_2}(k^{})\delta _{n_2,n_3}\right)`$ (11)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^{},n_1n_2n_3}{}}V_{n_1n_2n_3n}^0\sigma _{n_1,n^{}}(k)\left(\sigma _{n_2n_3}(k^{})f_{n_2}(k^{})\delta _{n_2,n_3}\right)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(t)\left(\mu _{mn}\sigma _{mn^{}}(k)\mu _{n^{}m}\sigma _{nm}(k)\right)`$ (13)
where $`E_{n,n^{}}(k)=E_n(k)E_n^{}(k)`$ and $`T_{nn^{}}`$ is the experimentally measured relaxation time, see Heymann et al.. Another approximation is to consider the effective masses of all subbands equal, which is fairly accurate for AlGaAs QW’s. We also neglect the exchange terms since their inclusion does not modify qualitatively our results and the analysis becomes simpler. It can be shown analytically that this is a good approximation for high sheet densities, since then the kinetic energy terms dominate . With these approximations and a sum over $`k`$ performed, the dynamics for the averaged density matrix becomes

$``$ $`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\sigma _{n,n^{}}=(E_nE_n^{})\sigma _{n,n^{}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{T_{nn^{}}}}(\sigma _{n,n^{}}\sigma _{nn^{}}^0)`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`AN_s{\displaystyle \underset{n_2n_3n_4}{}}V_{n^{}n_2n_3n_4}^0\sigma _{n,n_4}(\sigma _{n_2n_3}\sigma _{n_2n_3}^0)`$ (17)
$`AN_s{\displaystyle \underset{n_1n_2n_3}{}}V_{n_1n_2n_3n}^0\sigma _{n_1,n^{}}(\sigma _{n_2n_3}\sigma _{n_2n_3}^0)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(t)\left(\mu _{mn}\sigma _{mn^{}}\mu _{n^{}m}\sigma _{nm}\right)`$
where $`\sigma _{n,n^{}}=\frac{1}{AN_s}_k\sigma _{n,n^{}}(k)`$, $`N_s`$ is the sheet density and $`\sigma _{nn^{}}^0`$ is the equilibrium density matrix. The equations were put in dimensionless form by dividing all terms by $`E_{20}`$.

The QW studied was designed to have length 310 Å, depth of 300 meV, two barrier steps of 26Å in width and 150meV in height. Figure 1 shows the effective well-shape with a sheet density $`N_s=3.0\times 10^{11}e/\text{cm}^2`$. The equations (17) for three subbands only were integrated using the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method with 2048 steps per cycle of drive and the results are plotted in Figures 2-4.

Figure 2 shows the bifurcation diagram of the dipole moment of the collective oscillations. The scaled dipole moment $`<\mu (t)>/\mu _{10}`$ is plotted as a function of the unitless field amplitude $`\lambda =ez_{10}/E_{20}`$. A PDB in the Poincaré map at $`\lambda =0.17`$ followed by a Hopf bifurcation (as the field decreases) at $`\lambda =0.378`$ are observed. We found an optimum sheet density in which the bifurcations occur with greatest strength and at the same time require small field amplitude, such information can be used as a guide for the experimentalist. For $`N_s<0.5\times 10^{11}e/\text{cm}^2`$ and for $`N_s>6.0\times 10^{11}e/\text{cm}^2`$ the bifurcations become too small for practical observations. The phase portrait of the Poincaré map in Figure 3 shows the scaled dipole moment plotted against its time derivative (on the vertical axis) for various values of field strength before and after the Hopf bifurcation. This plot is the strongest evidence that Hopf bifurcations occur for our system. Near $`\lambda =0.378`$ a supercritical Hopf bifurcation is observed as we decrease the field intensity, the fixed point, a periodic orbit with the frequency of the drive, becomes unstable generating a small closed orbit. Several of those orbits are plotted each one corresponding to a fixed value of the field strength, decreasing the field amplitude gives a new and larger closed orbit.

The period-doubling can be understood as a two-photon process, see , its increased strength in this letter is due to the fact that it is being assisted by the presence of almost equally spaced (in frequency) frequencies $`E_{10}`$ and $`E_{20}`$. The dynamics of the electron gas correspond to a periodic orbit of twice the period of the response before the bifurcation.

The large and broad peak at roughly $`\omega /2`$ is the main feature of the bifurcation as can be seen in Figure 4 which shows the power spectrum before and after the Hopf bifurcation. The peak in Figure 4 is broad due to the difference frequencies, dressed $`\pm (E_{21}E_{10})`$, that are clearly visible on each side of the incommensurate peak. The half-frequency peaks (not shown) for the PDB are sharp in distinction. By varying the sheet density and field strength the incommensurate peak can be tuned but this will be explored in Batista, Tamborenea and Birnir. In Figure 4 we also observe a DC response that concides with the frequency axis. The dynamics of the electron gas after (decreasing $`\lambda `$) the Hopf bifurcation corresponds to a quasi periodic orbit on a torus defined by the incommensurate frequency and the fundamental. At both the PDB and Hopf bifurcations the populations of the upper subbands are suddenly increased at the expense of the zeroth subband. The frequency of the drive is of the order of 20 meV, which is in the range of the FEL (however, $`E_{20}`$ can be lowered by decreasing the tunneling if necessary).

The realization that QWs can undergo a Hopf bifurcation (from a periodic orbit) only observed before in classical nonlinear systems can lead to many applications including frequency down-converters. In our QW the lower subbands are almost equally spaced, but that could be easily changed by increasing its asymmetry and eventually eliminating the possibility of PDBs. The asymmetry though cannot be too big otherwise the tunnelling is reduced and we cannot guarantee that our three-subband system driven at resonance with $`E_{20}`$ is really isolated from upper subbands and the continuum.

The authors would like to thank Mark Sherwin, S. James Allen and Atac Imamoglu for helpful comments and discussions. The idea of nonlinear bifurcations in quantum wells were inspired by J. D. Crawford’s elegant exposition on bifurcation theory. The work was supported by NSF grants DMS-9704874, DMS-0072191 and a DARPA-Navy grant N00014-99-10935.


text:
# Electron-Phonon or Hole Superconductivity in 𝑀𝑔𝐵₂?

## I Introduction

Superconductivity at $`40K`$ in $`MgB_2`$ was not predicted by theory. After its discovery, it has been proposed that this finding is expected within two fundamentally different theoretical frameworks: the BCS electron-phonon theory and the theory of hole superconductivity. Both theories have claimed to be consistent with various experimental observations. The purpose of this paper is to expand on the predictions of the theory of hole superconductivity, and to make sharper the distinction between it and the electron-phonon theory $`before`$ critical experiments are performed that can differentiate between both theories. It is generally easier to differentiate between theories by comparing their $`predictions`$, rather than their $`postdictions`$, of experimental observations; elaborate theoretical frameworks can often find consistent explanations even for the most unexpected observations.

The electronic structure of $`MgB_2`$ is well established, as a variety of old as well as new calculations are in essential agreement. Approximately $`30\%`$ of the density of states at the Fermi energy is due to planar boron $`p_{x,y}`$ states ($`\sigma `$ bonds) that have little dispersion in the $`z`$ direction, giving rise to nearly cylindrical hole Fermi surfaces of 2D character. The remaining $`70\%`$ of the density of states originates in boron $`p_z`$ states ($`\pi `$ bonds) that are strongly hybridized with the $`Mg`$ $`sp`$ orbitals, have 3D character and give rise to mostly electron-like Fermi surfaces. No $`d`$-electrons exist in either $`Mg`$ or $`B`$, so that magnetic and strong correlation mechanisms (generically called ’big tent’ mechanisms) proposed for the high $`T_c`$ cuprates, do not appear to be applicable.

Within the electron-phonon framework, two different explanations have been proposed, hereafter referred to as EP1 and EP2. Both explanations emphasize the importance of strong bonding of the boron atoms in giving rise to strong electron-phonon coupling, as well as the light ionic mass giving rise to a large prefactor in the BCS-Eliashberg expression for the transition temperature. They appear to differ in the relative contribution of the boron states. Whereas EP1 appears to suggest that contributions from all states are important, EP2 attributes superconductivity exclusively to the nearly full boron $`p_{x,y}`$ states. It is argued that the observation of a boron isotope effect (isotope coefficient $`\alpha =0.29`$) strongly favors electron-phonon mechanisms.

In contrast, within the theory of hole superconductivity the electron-phonon interaction is irrelevant, and instead superconductivity originates in undressing of hole carriers, driven by Coulomb interactions, in bands that are almost full. The superconducting condensation energy is kinetic, since paired carriers have lower effective mass than unpaired ones, and electron-hole symmetry breaking is central to the physics. In $`MgB_2`$, the fact that large parts of the Fermi surface are strongly hole-like, together with the fact that the boron planes where the holes propagate are highly negatively charged, are proposed to be the essential factors giving rise to high $`T_c`$. The existence of an isotope effect is generically expected within this theory also, although its magnitude is difficult to calculate; a simple estimate yields a much larger isotope effect than observed experimentally in $`MgB_2`$ if the electron-phonon coupling suggested in  is used.

Both the electron-phonon theory and the hole theory predict that the superconducting state is s-wave, which appears to be supported by tunneling as well as NMR measurements, and both theories are consistent with the observation of an isotope effect. The theory of hole superconductivity $`requires`$ that the conductivity in the normal state is hole-like, which is consistent with recently reported Hall effect measurements; it also $`requires`$ superconductivity to disappear when the hole bands in $`MgB_2`$ become full, which is consistent with reported experimental results on $`Mg_{1x}Al_xB_2`$. Both of these facts apparently are consistent with electron-phonon theory, as discussed in EP2. On the other hand, the hole theory predicts that $`T_c`$ should increase under pressure if the dominant effect is reduction of the $`BB`$ distances, while electron-phonon theory (EP1) predicts that pressure generically should reduce $`T_c`$; experiments show that hydrostatic pressure reduces $`T_c`$, in apparent agreement with electron-phonon theory. We return to this point later in the paper.

A key prediction of both theories is the behavior of $`T_c`$ upon hole doping, for example in the compound (not yet fabricated to our knowledge) $`Li_xMg_{1x}B_2`$. Here there is a clear opportunity for distinction between both theoretical frameworks. EP1 explicitly states that decreasing the Fermi level ’may provide an additional contribution to $`\lambda `$’, which suggests that $`T_c`$ should increase upon hole doping. EP2 does not explicitly address this crucial point, but emphasizes the ’substantial value of the Fermi level density of states’, even though ’the hole density $`n_h`$ is small’. Since the density of states increases with hole doping, both for the $`\sigma `$ as well as for the $`\pi `$ bands, for a very substantial range of hole doping, a reasonable inference within electron-phonon theory is that $`T_c`$ should also increase with hole doping for a substantial range. Under the assumption that electron-phonon matrix elements, phonon frequencies and Coulomb pseudopotential don’t change substantially, electron-phonon theory would predict that $`T_c`$ should increase with hole doping in a range of about $`2eV`$ below the Fermi level of $`MgB_2`$ (following the density of states increase), corresponding to $`0.36`$ holes added per $`B`$ atom, and stay high (above the $`T_c`$ of $`MgB_2`$) till about $`4eV`$ below $`ϵ_F`$, corresponding to $`0.61`$ holes added per $`B`$ atom. Instead, the theory of hole superconductivity predicts that $`T_c`$ will rapidly drop when holes are added, becoming small or zero before the number of added holes per $`B`$ atom reaches only $`0.12`$. Comparison between these predictions of both theories will be discussed in detail in the next sections. No measurements on the behavior of $`T_c`$ with hole doping have yet been reported to our knowledge.

## II Model of hole superconductivity

Within the model of hole superconductivity, as well as within EP2, the bands that drive superconductivity are the nearly two-dimensional boron $`p\sigma `$ bands. Calculations for three-dimensional anisotropic band structures have shown that a two-dimensional model reproduces the essential features, hence we will ignore the third dimension here for the calculations with the model of hole superconductivity. We will also approximate the nearly constant density of states of the hole $`p\sigma `$ bands by a constant, which has a negligible effect. The model is then defined by 4 parameters: $`U,K,W`$ and $`D`$. $`D`$ is the bandwidth, $`U`$ the on-site Coulomb repulsion, $`W`$ is proportional to the nearest neighbor Coulomb repulsion, and $`K`$ is proportional to the correlated hopping interaction $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ that drives superconductivity. The BCS pairing interaction is given by $`V_{kk^{}}V(ϵ_k,ϵ_k^{})`$, with

$$V(ϵ,ϵ^{})=U+2\frac{K}{D}(ϵ+ϵ^{})+4\frac{W}{D^2}ϵϵ^{}.$$
(1)
The critical temperature is determined by the equation

$$1=2KI_1WI_2UI_0+(K^2WU)(I_0I_2I_1^2)$$
(2)
and the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ and $`c`$ that define the energy-dependent gap

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(ϵ)=\mathrm{\Delta }_m(\frac{ϵ}{D/2}+c)$$
(3)
by the equations

$$1=K(I_1+cI_0)W(I_2+cI_1)$$
(5)
$$c=K(I_2+cI_1)U(I_1+cI_0)$$
(6)
with

$$I_l=\frac{1}{D}_{D/2}^{D/2}𝑑ϵ(\frac{ϵ}{D/2})^l\frac{12f(E(ϵ))}{2E(ϵ)}$$
(8)
$$E(ϵ)=\sqrt{(ϵ\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(ϵ)^2}$$
(9)
with $`f`$ the Fermi function and $`\mu `$ the chemical potential. Finally, the hole density $`n_h`$ is determined by the equation,

$$n_h=1\frac{2}{D}_{D/2}^{D/2}𝑑ϵ(ϵ\mu )\frac{12f(E(ϵ))}{2E(ϵ)}.$$
(10)
## III Choice of parameters

The density of states at the Fermi level of $`MgB_2`$ is estimated to be 0.75 states/eV, of which approximately 0.25 states/eV is ascribed to the B $`p\sigma `$ states. In a model with constant density of states and a single band, that would correspond to $`D=4eV`$. There are two $`p\sigma `$ bands that contribute to this density of states, approximately with $`2/3`$ and $`1/3`$ weight (heavy and light hole bands respectively in the nomenclature of An and Pickett). According to An and Pickett, the equivalent two-dimensional flat bands have densities of states 0.18 states/eV and 0.07 states/eV, which would correspond to bandwidths $`D_1=5.6eV`$, $`D_2=14eV`$ respectively. The total number of holes in the B $`p\sigma `$ bands for $`MgB_2`$ is estimated to be $`n_h=0.13`$/unit cell, of which approximately $`0.09`$ and $`0.044`$ holes are in the heavy and light hole bands respectively. The total $`n_h`$ per B atom in $`MgB_2`$ is approximately $`0.067`$.

We will discuss elsewhere the results of our theory in the presence of two hole bands, which we do not expect will be qualitatively different. Here, we will use a single ’effective band’ of bandwidth $`D=5eV`$, Coulomb repulsion $`U=5eV`$ and nearest neighbor repulsion $`W=0`$. As we will discuss in a later section, the model gives similar results for a wide range of parameters. For these parameters, we choose the value of $`K`$ required to yield $`T_c=40K`$ for $`n_h=0.067`$, which is $`K=2.97eV`$. As discussed elsewhere, we believe this value of $`K`$ is reasonable for $`MgB_2`$, but emphasize that here $`K`$ is a fitting parameter as we have not obtained it from a first-principles calculation.

## IV $`T_c`$ versus doping

As discussed in the introduction, no calculations of $`T_c`$ versus hole doping with the electron-phonon model (EP1 or EP2) have yet been reported. It is possible that such calculations may indicate large changes in the phonon frequencies, electron-phonon matrix elements or Coulomb pseudopotential with doping. In the absence of other information however, we will assume that all these quantities are constant with doping, and calculate $`T_c`$ within the electron-phonon model by the modified McMillan formula

$$T_c=\frac{<\omega _{log}>}{1.2}e^{1.02\frac{(1+\lambda )}{\lambda \mu ^{}\mu ^{}\lambda }}$$
(11)
with $`\mu ^{}=0.1`$ and $`<\omega _{log}>=700K`$, and $`\lambda `$ proportional to the density of states in the B $`p\sigma `$ band. Because the fractional contribution of the B $`p\sigma `$ bands to the total density of states is quite constant with doping (1/3), this calculation should predict the results of both electron-phonon models EP1 and EP2 under the assumption that electron-phonon matrix elements, phonon frequencies and $`\mu ^{}`$do not change with doping.

Figure 1 shows the results of this calculation for the two models, as function of hole content in the $`p\sigma `$ bands per B atom, $`n_h`$. Note that $`n_h`$ is approximately 1/3 of the total hole doping per unit cell, $`n_h^{tot}`$. The electron-phonon model predicts that $`T_c`$ will continue to increase well beyond the point where the hole model predicts $`T_c`$ will have vanished; the maximum $`T_c`$ of $`94K`$ occurs for $`n_h=0.43`$ per B atom, or total hole doping of $`MgB_2`$ of approximately $`n_h^{tot}1.1`$ holes per unit cell, corresponding to bringing the Fermi level down approximately $`2.1eV`$ from its position in $`MgB_2`$. In contrast, the maximum $`T_c`$ in the hole model of $`49K`$ occurs for $`n_h0.035`$ per B atom, corresponding to $`electron`$ doping of $`MgB_2`$ of approximately $`0.03`$ electrons per B atom, or $`0.09`$ electrons per unit cell.

As mentioned above, these results could be modified in the electron-phonon model if there are substantial changes in some or all phonon frequencies, electron-phonon matrix elements, or Coulomb pseudopotential. In the hole model, some modification may be expected if the contribution of the two B $`p\sigma `$ bands is taken into account separately. In particular, assuming it is the heavy hole band that dominates $`T_c`$, $`T_c`$ would go to zero in an even narrower range of hole doping than indicated by Figure 1. Despite these caveats, we believe the qualitative difference in the behavior predicted by the hole model and by the electron-phonon models depicted in Figure 1 is robust.

## V Pressure dependence of $`T_c`$

In the hole model, a decrease in the $`BB`$ intraplane distances should strongly increase $`T_c`$. So far, only observations of changes in $`T_c`$ under hydrostatic pressure on polycrystalline samples have been reported, that indicate that such pressure decreases $`T_c`$. We believe that hydrostatic pressure is likely to affect much more strongly the lattice spacing in the $`c`$ direction than the planar lattice spacings, due to the stiffness of the $`p\sigma `$ bonds. Furthermore, it is possible that substantial charge transfer occurs between different bands when pressure is applied. For example, in many high $`T_c`$ cuprates the hole concentration in the planes is increased by approximately $`10\%`$ when $`1GPa`$ hydrostatic pressure is applied. According to Figure 1, a $`10\%`$ increase in hole content from $`MgB_2`$ leads to a decrease in $`T_c`$ of $`3K`$; the reported observation of a decrease in $`T_c`$ by $`1.6K`$ could hence be accounted for by such an increase in the B $`p\sigma `$ orbitals hole content together with a small decrease in the $`BB`$ distances. Hence the observation is not necessarily inconsistent with our model, as also emphasized in ref. .

Here we consider the effect on $`T_c`$ of a decrease in the $`BB`$ intra-plane distances. The intrinsic effect of changing lattice spacing in the c direction should be much smaller within our model. In the electron-phonon model, we assume the dominant effect will be to decrease the density of states. In the hole model, we assume the effect is to increase the bandwidth (i.e. decrease the density of states) and increase the interaction parameter $`K`$, that depends on overlap matrix elements as the bandwidth does, by the same fraction.

Figure 2 shows the changes expected under a $`5\%`$ change in these parameters, achieved by either physical or chemical pressure. In the electron-phonon model (again assuming no change in phonon frequencies, electron-phonon matrix elements and $`\mu ^{}`$), a small decrease in $`T_c`$ results . In the hole model, a strong increase in the critical temperature for all hole dopings results. By performing such experiments and monitoring the changes in lattice constants and in carrier concentration (e.g. through Hall measurements) we hope it will be possible to decide which of the two qualitatively different behaviors shown in Figure 2 takes place in this class of materials.

## VI Other results for the model of hole superconductivity

We next discuss other results for our model for a single band with constant density of states, in the range of parameters that may be appropriate for this class of materials. Figure 3 illustrates the effect of changing Coulomb interaction parameters in the model, always choosing the parameter $`K`$ so as to yield the observed value $`T_c40`$ K for $`n_h=0.065`$. It can be seen that the behavior of $`T_c`$ versus doping is quite insensitive to large variations in the Coulomb interactions. On increasing the nearest neighbor repulsion the range of hole dopings where $`T_c`$ is nonzero increases somewhat, and on increasing the on-site Coulomb interaction that range decreases. If the Coulomb repulsion appropriate for $`MgB_2`$ is larger than $`5`$ eV, the maximum $`T_c`$ obtained by electron doping could be larger than $`50`$ K, as seen in Figure 3.

Figure 4 illustrates the effect on $`T_c`$ of changing the bandwidth, i.e. the density of states. It can be seen that the effect is again remarkably small, with a reduction in the bandwidth leading to a small decrease in the range of hole concentration where $`T_c`$ is non-zero.

We next calculate other observables for the parameters of Figure 4. Figure 5 shows the behavior of the coherence length $`\xi _o`$, defined as the average size of the pair wave function, with hole doping. The formulas to evaluate this quantity for the model under consideration here are given in ref. . The coherence length is found to be almost independent of the values of the Coulomb interactions, but it depends strongly on the bandwidth, as seen in the different curves in Figure 5: as the bandwidth decreases, the coherence length decreases. The coherence length in Figure 5 is given in units of lattice spacings in an effective square lattice; to transform to physical units for $`MgB_2`$ ($`a=3.14\AA `$), a lattice spacing $`a_{eff}=2.22`$ Å should be used. For hole concentration $`n_h=0.065`$, the result obtained with $`D=2.5`$ eV is close to the observed experimental value, $`\xi _o=45`$ Å. Instead, for $`D=5`$ eV we obtain a coherence length of $`\xi _o=83`$ Å, larger than seen experimentally. However our calculated value corresponds to the in-plane coherence length which is not necessarily the same as that measured in a polycrystalline sample. As seen in Figure 5, the coherence length is predicted to increase monotonically with hole doping.

Similarly, Figure 6 shows the behavior of the in-plane London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$, assuming the clean limit:

$$\lambda _l=4638(d(A))^{1/2}\frac{1}{T_a(meV)]^{1/2}}$$
(12)
with $`d`$ the distance between boron planes, $`d=3.52`$ Å, and $`T_a`$ the average in-plane kinetic energy per boron atom. The estimated value for $`MgB_2`$ is $`\lambda _L=1400`$ Å, which is close to the value given in Figure 6 for $`D=2.5`$ eV and $`n_h=0.065`$, $`\lambda _L=1344`$ Å. For $`D=5`$ eV we obtain a smaller value than seen experimentally. The penetration depth is predicted to decrease monotonically with hole doping. In conjunction with the increasing coherence length, this implies that the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa =\lambda _L/\xi _o`$ will rapidly decrease with hole doping, which could eventually lead to a cross-over from type II to type I behavior for high hole doping. However this is likely to be prevented by disorder, that would cause an increase in the penetration depth from its clean limit value.

The gap versus hole concentration follows closely the behavior of the critical temperature. This is shown in Figure 7. In contrast to high $`T_c`$ oxides, we do not find a substantial increase in the gap ratio in the underdoped regime, because the parameters here correspond to a weak coupling regime. In Figure 8 we show the hole concentration dependence of the specific heat jump at $`T_c`$, which agrees with the BCS weak coupling value $`1.43`$ for high hole concentrations and becomes larger for low hole concentrations, particularly as the bandwidth becomes smaller.

The temperature dependence of various quantities obtained from our model also follows closely the BCS weak coupling behavior. As an example we show results for the gap ratio and the specific heat for one parameter set in Figure 9. Experimental results for specific heat of $`MgB_2`$ show a clear specific heat jump at the transition with value close to the expected BCS value.

Finally Figure 10 shows tunneling characteristics for one set of parameters and hole doping appropriate to $`MgB_2`$. Again the behavior resembles the weak coupling BCS results for an s-wave gap, except for the existence of asymmetry. As emphasized elsewhere, an asymmmetry of universal sign occurs for this model, with a larger peak for a negatively biased sample. The case of Figure 10 corresponds to the smallest bandwidth considered; for larger bandwidth the magnitude of tunneling asymmetry decreases.

## VII Conclusions

The growing number of experimental results on $`MgB_2`$ suggests that superconductivity in these materials is more akin to conventional superconductivity than it is to high temperature superconductivity in the cuprates. Thus it is natural that a consensus is growing that $`MgB_2`$ is describable within the conventional BCS-electron-phonon framework. However, we have proposed in ref.  that instead $`MgB_2`$ should be described by the model of hole superconductivity, just as the high $`T_c`$ cuprates. The common elements in the two classes of materials are that conduction is dominated by carriers in nearly filled bands, i.e. of hole-like character, and that the carriers that drive superconductivity propagate in conducting substructures that are highly negatively charged (planes). Differences in the behavior of the two classes of materials arise within the model of hole superconductivity from the fact that they are in different parameter regimes: the high $`T_c`$ cuprates are in a substantially stronger coupling regime (as indicated by the shorter coherence lengths), particularly for low hole doping. Compelling aspects of the theory of hole superconductivity are that it can describe superconductivity in a wide range of coupling regimes, and that it could be a universal theory of superconductivity for all materials.

In the weak coupling regime, the predictions of the model of hole superconductivity are similar to those of conventional BCS theory, and hence to the predictions of weak coupling electron-phonon BCS theory. Hence experimental evidence for BCS behavior in e.g. temperature dependence of the gap, or in tunneling characteristics should not be taken to favor the electron-phonon model over the model of hole superconductivity. The isotope effect, conventionally assumed to favor the electron-phonon model, is also expected within the model of hole superconductivity, and hence should also not be used to differentiate between both models. An Eliashberg analysis of fine structure in tunneling characteristics above the gap energy, that traditionally has been assumed to be the strongest proof for the electron-phonon mechanism, has not yet been performed for this material.

Here we have focused on two properties that show a clear difference in the electron-phonon and the hole model. One is the hole doping dependence of the critical temperature, which the hole model predicts to be much stronger than the electron-phonon model. These experiments have not yet been performed, and once experimental results become available it will be possible to ascertain which of both models is favored. Of course it is possible that even if experiments show that superconductivity is rapidly suppressed with hole doping, as the hole model predicts, electron-phonon theory may also account for it if a rapid decrease of electron-phonon matrix elements or of the relevant phonon frequencies with hole doping is postulated to occur, or if a rapid increase in the Coulomb pseudopotential $`\mu ^{}`$ with hole doping is postulated to occur. If so, electron-phonon theory (e.g. in it’s EP2 version) and the hole theory will become increasingly indistinguishable.

The other property that shows a clear difference in the electron-phonon models and the hole model is the pressure dependence of $`T_c`$ for uniaxial pressure that modifies the intra-plane $`BB`$ distances: the hole model predicts a strong increase in $`T_c`$, and the electron-phonon model a (weaker) decrease in $`T_c`$. Again, once experimental results become available it will be possible to decide which model is favored. However, here again it is possible that even if experiments show that $`T_c`$ is strongly enhanced by reduction of the intra-plane $`BB`$ distance, electron-phonon theory could account for it if a concomittant increase of electron-phonon matrix elements or of the relevant phonon frequencies is postulated to occur or a concomittant decrease of Coulomb pseudopotential is postulated to occur.

Assuming experimental results will show a rapid decrease of $`T_c`$ with hole doping as predicted by our theory, it is interesting to examine how the parameters in electron-phonon models would have to change to account for such a drop, given the band structure results for the density of states shown in Figure 1. Figure 11 shows three possible scenarios: (1) the behavior required for the average of the square of the electron-phonon matrix element $`<g^2>`$ versus hole doping of the B atoms, assuming the phonon frequencies of the relevant phonons and the Coulomb pseudopotential $`\mu ^{}`$ stay constant; (2) the behavior required for the phonon frequencies of the relevant phonons $`<\omega _{log}>`$, assuming the electron-phonon matrix elements and $`\mu ^{}`$ stay constant, and (3) the behavior required for the Coulomb pseudopotential $`\mu ^{}`$, assuming the electron-phonon matrix elements and phonon frequencies of the relevant phonons stay constant. It can be seen that in all cases a rather rapid variation of parameters with hole doping is required. Of course a suitable combination of decrease in electron-phonon matrix elements and phonon frequencies and increase in $`\mu ^{}`$ could also account for such behavior. It should be stressed that such rapid variations of electron-phonon matrix elements, phonon frequencies and/or $`\mu ^{}`$ with hole doping have so far not been predicted by the electron-phonon models.

The range of hole doping where superconductivity occurs in our model is not strongly dependent on the parameters in the model for a wide range of parameters, as was shown in Figures 3 and 4. Hence the prediction that superconductivity should only occur in a narrow range of doping around $`MgB_2`$ is a strong prediction of the model. If the band structure results for the position of the Fermi level are correct, it implies that $`MgB_2`$ is somewhat overdoped in our model, and hence doping with electrons should increase $`T_c`$. This is in apparent contradiction with experimental results for $`Mg_{1x}Al_xB_2`$. Possible explanations for the discrepancy may be problems with sample quality, or that the lattice constants change with increasing $`Al`$ content.

We have also examined here the predictions of the model of hole superconductivity for various observables in a range of parameters that appears to be appropriate for $`MgB_2`$. Because this is a weak coupling regime, most properties are found to be very close to conventional BCS behavior. If the appropriate bandwidth is rather small the universal asymmetry in tunneling predicted by the theory becomes of appreciable magnitude. We found the penetration depth decreasing monotonically with hole doping (assuming the clean limit), which is the same qualitative behavior seen in high $`T_c`$ cuprates. The coherence length was found to increase monotonically with hole doping, which is also seen in high $`T_c`$ materials. If experiments confirm these predictions they will support the proposed commonality in the physics of superconductivity in the cuprates and in $`MgB_2`$-derived compounds. Given this behavior, in the absence of disorder a crossover from type II to type I behavior with hole doping should eventually occur. While disorder is likely to prevent this in alloys, we expect that if similar stochiometric compounds with larger hole content than $`MgB_2`$ are found they will have a smaller Ginzburg Landau parameter $`\kappa `$ than $`MgB_2`$ ($`\kappa 26`$) and possibly even be type I.

Superconducting properties as function of hole doping have not yet been discussed within electron-phonon models. We note however that the strong increase of density of states expected with hole doping suggests that electron-phonon theory may describe a crossover to a stronger coupling regime with hole doping, i.e. decreasing coherence length and increasing penetration depth. We stress that this would be in qualitative disagreement with our predictions.

In future work we will examine the predictions of our model taking into account the presence of two different hole bands, and the effect of the anisotropic band structure, in order to calculate observables in different directions which will be of interest once experimental results in single crystals become available.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

FM was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.