text:
# The Pearson-Readhead Survey of Compact Extragalactic Radio Sources From Space. I. The Images

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Ground-based very long baseline interferometric (VLBI) surveys of the parsec-scale regions of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) have led to important insights into the nature of relativistic bulk outflows in compact radio sources. Here we present observational data from the first imaging survey of a complete sample of compact extragalactic radio sources made with space-VLBI. Our objects are selected from the well-studied Pearson-Readhead sample of AGNs, and are representative of some of the brightest, most compact AGNs in the sky.

Space-VLBI represents a logical step in the evolution of radio interferometry, and has the potential to provide the highest angular resolution images of any observing technique. Since our understanding of AGNs has historically been closely tied to resolution (e.g., the discovery of jets with connected interferometers, and relativistic bulk motions with VLBI), space-VLBI has an important role in AGN research.

The first successful space-VLBI experiments were accomplished in 1986 and 1987 using a TDRSS communications satellite (Levy et al., 1986; Linfield et al., 1989, 1990), and provided direct evidence for exceedingly compact emitting regions in extragalactic radio sources. In 1997, the first satellite dedicated to radio astronomical observations (HALCA) was launched by Japan’s Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, as part of the VLBI Space Observatory Programme (VSOP). HALCA’s highly elliptical orbit has an apogee height of 21,400 km, making it possible to directly image compact radio sources at 1.4 and 5 GHz with sub-milliarcsecond angular resolution, and to measure brightness temperatures in excess of $`10^{12}`$ K (Hirabayashi et al., 1998).

The images presented here are of the highest angular resolution ever achieved at 5 GHz, and reveal substantially more structural detail than previous ground VLBI studies of the Pearson-Readhead sample (e.g., Pearson & Readhead, 1981, 1988; Cawthorne et al., 1993). In §2 we describe our VSOP observations and data analysis methods, and present the images and basic data on our sample. We describe our model fitting technique in §2.2, and discuss the impact of incomplete $`(u,v)`$ plane coverage on space-VLBI images in §3. A full analysis of our space-VLBI data is presented in two companion papers (Tingay et al. 2001; Lister et al. 2001).

## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND DATA ANALYSIS

The Pearson-Readhead (PR) survey is a complete sample of 65 northern ($`\delta >+35^o`$) AGNs with 5 GHz flux densities $`>1.3`$ Jy, and galactic latitude $`|b|>10^o`$ (Pearson & Readhead, 1988). In order to maximize the likelihood of detecting fringes to HALCA (at the $`7\sigma `$ level), we have selected as space-VLBI targets 31 PR objects that have flux densities $`>0.4`$ Jy on the longest Earth baselines ($`10,000`$ km).

Observations of 27 of these objects were conducted with the HALCA orbiting antenna over the period 1997 August to 1999 April at a frequency of 5 GHz, in conjunction with telescopes from either the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), the European VLBI Network (EVN), or in some cases, both arrays. Four sources (0454+844, 0804+499, 0945+408, and 0954+658) were not observed due to scheduling constraints. HALCA was tracked typically between four and five hours per observation, synthesizing $`(u,v)`$ coverages with a maximum baseline of nearly 500 M$`\lambda `$, or $`30,000`$ km. A journal of our observations is given in Table 1.

Left circular polarization data from the ground antennas, or in the case of the orbiter, the spacecraft tracking station, were recorded on VLBA format tapes in two 16 MHz IFs and shipped to the VLBA correlator in Socorro for processing. The correlated data were amplitude-calibrated, fringe-fitted, and frequency-averaged in AIPS111AIPS and the VLBA are maintained by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by Associated Universities, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. before being exported to DIFMAP (Shepherd et al., 1994) for self-calibration, imaging and model-fitting.

Once imported into DIFMAP, the visibilities were edited and then coherently averaged over 30 second intervals. Due to its relatively small diameter (8 m) and poor antenna efficiency, the system equivalent flux density of HALCA is approximately 50 times worse than that of a typical VLBA antenna at 5 GHz. In order to give effectively equal weight to the ground-only and ground-space visibilities, we increased the weight of the HALCA antenna in self-calibration and subsequent model-fitting by a factor based on the relative number of ground-ground and space-ground visibilities and their respective baseline sensitivities. These factors are listed in Table 1.

Following amplitude and phase self-calibration, we produced several images for each source using different visibility weighting schemes. The choice of weighting scheme has a large influence on space-VLBI images, due to the unequal numbers of ground-ground and ground-space visibilities, and the large differences in baseline noise level described above. Uniform weighting reduces the influence of the ground-ground visibilities on the image, which would normally dominate since they outnumber the space-ground visibilities. In the right-hand panels of Figures 1-9, we show uniformly-weighted images made using all available baselines. These images have no additional weighting by amplitude errors. In the left-hand panels, we show naturally-weighted images made using ground-ground visibilities only. We also include a representation of the restoring beam in the lower left corner of each image, and a bar showing the spatial scale. The latter is based on a standard Freidmann cosmology with zero cosmological constant, deceleration parameter $`q_o=0.1`$, and Hubble constant $`H_o=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. We will assume this model throughout this paper. The parameters of the restoring beam, the peak brightness, and the contour levels of each image are listed in Table 2.

In Table 3 we list the basic data on each source, including redshift, total amount of cleaned flux in the VLBI map, and an estimate of the total (single-dish) 4.8 GHz flux density at the epoch of the VSOP observation. The latter data were obtained by interpolating data from the University of Michigan monitoring program222http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/obs/radiotel/umrao.html, and have an approximate error of $`\pm 0.1`$ Jy.

### 2.1 Visibility Functions

The visibility function of a source represents the observed power measured on different spatial scales, with the long baselines representing small-scale structure, and vice-versa. In Figure 10 we plot the upper envelopes of the visibility amplitude distribution versus projected baseline length for the strongest and weakest sources, respectively. Instead of dropping smoothly to zero, the curves show a pronounced flattening at baselines greater than an earth diameter. This is indicative of strong, compact components that remain unresolved at the longest baselines. The brightness temperatures of these components and their implications for relativistic beaming models are discussed more fully by Tingay et al. (2001).

### 2.2 Component Model-fitting

We began our model-fitting analysis of each source with the core component, which is commonly believed to be associated with a flat-spectrum component located near the base of the jet. Wherever possible, we relied on previously published identifications to determine the position of the core. For sixteen sources the core (labeled “D” in Figures 1-9) was located at the end of the jet, and was also the brightest component in the 5 GHz image. In the case of nine sources, the component at the end of the jet was the brightest component in images at higher frequencies, but not at 5 GHz. The core component identifications for the two radio galaxies in our sample are somewhat uncertain, as their jet structure may not be one-sided. For 3C 84 (0316+413), we arbitrarily assigned the core position to the northernmost component of the jet, while for 2021+614, we used the core identification of Tschager et al. (2000).

We first removed the set of point source clean components used to fit the core from the clean component model and replaced them with an elliptical Gaussian described by 6 free parameters. We then fit the Gaussian in the $`(u,v)`$ plane using the MODELFIT task in DIFMAP, which uses a linear least squares fit to the amplitude and phase to find the best fit model. For all our fits, we adjusted the visibility weights used in the least squares calculation, such that the ground antennas and the space antenna contributed equally to the reduced chi-squared statistic. We interspersed runs of MODELFIT with phase self-calibration, to ensure that the reduced chi-squared was minimized to find the best fit models. The parameters of our core-component fits are given in Table 4.

After fitting the core, we removed the clean components associated with various other isolated features and model-fit them with elliptical Gaussians. In order to avoid introducing new nomenclature for individual components, we have used existing names from the literature wherever possible. These are given in Table 5, along with the parameters of our fits. We caution that these fits may not be robust, especially in regions where there is continuous jet emission. Indeed, some features (e.g., the southernmost component of 2021+614) were too complex to be represented by simple Gaussians, and were not model-fitted.

We determined errors on the parameters of the core-component models using the DIFWRAP package (Lovell, 1998), a graphical interface to DIFMAP which fixes given parameters of the models at different values which are perturbations on the best-fit values, and allows all other parameters to vary freely to re-minimize the reduced chi-squared. In this way it is possible to determine how far from the best-fit value a given parameter can be forced before the model no longer fits the $`(u,v)`$ plane data, defining the error on that parameter.

For each source, we first determined whether the core component could be fit with an unresolved point source (i.e., a delta-function component). If a point source did not fit the visibilities within the amplitude errors, we then tried one-dimensional (zero-axial ratio) components of various lengths and position angles (PAs). If none of these provided a good fit, we varied the parameters of the best-fit model as described above to determine the range of possible brightness temperature that still fit the visibility data. In two cases (0923+392 and 2021+614), the cores were too weak with respect to the extended emission to determine a best fit range of brightness temperature.

The components in our sample could have also been fit using the surface brightness distributions of optically thin or optically thick spheroids, instead of Gaussian profiles. This is due to the fact that their Fourier transforms are virtually identical in the $`(u,v)`$ plane out to the point at which the flux density is $`50\%`$ of the zero baseline flux density (Pearson, 1995). Since we do not generally observe past this point for the core components in our sources, we have adopted Gaussian surface brightness distributions. To convert the observed brightness temperature assuming a Gaussian component to an optically thin or optically thick sphere, corrective factors of 0.67 and 0.56 respectively, should be applied.

We find that the sizes of our fitted components generally increase exponentially with distance down the jet. In Figure 11 we present a log-log plot of fitted component area ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) in square parsecs against projected distance from the core component ($`r`$) in parsecs. A strong trend is present, with a linear correlation coefficient of 0.42, and a significance level of $`99.985\%`$. The dashed line represents a linear regression through the points (in log space) of the form $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }=(1.4\pm 0.1)\mathrm{log}r+(0.07\pm 0.1)`$. The fit considering quasars alone is $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }=(1.1\pm 0.2)\mathrm{log}r+(0.5\pm 0.2)`$, and for BL Lacertae objects alone it is $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }=(1.5\pm 0.2)\mathrm{log}r(0.2\pm 0.2)`$. These fitted slopes are all significantly less than two, which is the value for a conical jet of constant opening angle. Considering the fact that the projected distances in Fig. 11 are likely to be severely foreshortened due to small viewing angles (see Paper II), the trend indicates that the jets are still in a state of expansion and are undergoing collimation at distances of several hundred parsecs from the core.

### 2.3 Influence of $`(u,v)`$ Coverage on Model-fits

The $`(u,v)`$ coverages of most of our space-VLBI observations are highly elongated, due to the elliptical orbit of the HALCA satellite (Figure 12). As a result, the angular extent of the jets and components in our sample are much better constrained along one direction. We have examined the possible effects of this unequal $`(u,v)`$ plane sampling on our core component model-fits by inter-comparing the position angles of the fitted Gaussian component major axis, the position angle of the restoring beam, and the position angle of the parsec-scale jet.

We find that the major axis position angle of the fitted core component is strongly correlated with that of the beam and $`(u,v)`$ coverage, and therefore does not likely reflect an intrinsic property of the source. For those sources whose cores could be fit with a zero-axial ratio (ZAR) component, the $`(u,v)`$ coverage is generally perpendicular to the jet direction, and the fitted major axis of the ZAR component is aligned with the jet. This suggests that there are two or more closely spaced components in the core region that are separated by much less than a beam width. Since they cannot be resolved, the visibility data can be fit with a long, narrow (ZAR) component. In this case, the upper limit on the brightness temperature is unconstrained.

## 3  EFFECTS OF INCOMPLETE $`(U,V)`$ PLANE COVERAGE ON SPACE-VLBI IMAGES

Most of the space-VLBI observations of our sample were scheduled when the source lay close to the orbit normal. Under these conditions the maximum possible spatial resolution can be achieved, at the cost of creating relatively large holes in the $`(u,v)`$ plane aperture coverage. This is due to the the fact that the HALCA spacecraft has a highly elliptical orbit with an apogee height of 21,400 km, which greatly exceeds an Earth diameter. The effects of $`(u,v)`$ plane under-sampling are well-documented for ground-based inteferometric arrays (e.g., Perley, 1989), but relatively little work has been published for the case of space-VLBI. Here we discuss the effects of $`(u,v)`$-holes on the quality of our space-VLBI images, and how the resulting imaging errors depend on the source’s jet position angle relative the position angle of the major axis of the $`(u,v)`$ coverage.

### 3.1 Example Simulations

We have addressed these issues by performing extensive image simulations using several different source models. These simulations have thermal amplitude and phases errors added to them at the same level as is present in the real data. Thus, the RMS noise-level on simulated HALCA baselines is about 7 times higher than on the simulated ground-only baselines. The simulated data were imaged using the same DIFMAP package that was used to reduce our actual space-VLBI data. For the purposes of this discussion we will consider the image artifacts which are present in 5 GHz images for the following source models, all of which are composed of Gaussian components:

1) A complex core-jet source which has a total flux density of 2.7 Jy. We will refer to this model as cj-complex;

2) A simple core-jet source, which has a 1 Jy, 1012 K core with axial ratio unity and a 1 Jy, 1011 K ‘jet’ with axial ratio 1/3 whose centroid is located at a distance of 1.21 milliarcseconds away from the core. The major axis of this component measures 1.21 milliarcseconds, and is aligned with the core-jet direction. We will refer to this model as cj-simple;

3) A 1 Jy, 1012 K circular Gaussian;

4) A 1 Jy, 1014 K circular Gaussian. This source is completely unresolved for VSOP 5 GHz observations and can be used to determined the image artifacts in unresolved point sources. It is therefore a useful point of reference when examining the artifacts in more complex sources.

In Figures 13 and 14 we show two simulations we have performed using the cj-complex and cj-simple models respectively. We use the same $`(u,v)`$ coverage in both cases (panel b), which has a major axis PA of 0. Both jets have a PA of 60.

Panels (a), (c), and (d) show the model, simulated image, and difference image, respectively, all convolved with an identical beam that corresponds to uniform weighting of the visibility data. The difference image is simply defined as the difference between the the simulated image and the model. The difference images reveal a common error feature seen in the imaging of core-jet sources, in the form of a sinusoidal ripple that runs along the length of the jet. This feature is the result of a well-known instability of the CLEAN algorithm, and has modulations that tend to correspond with the spacing of holes in the $`(u,v)`$ plane (Cornwell, 1983). In our simulations, this error feature is so prominent that it can cause visible artifacts to occur in the jet that may easily be over-interpreted as discrete components. It is important, therefore, to exercise caution in the interpretation of relatively weak features in VSOP images.

A good example of this can be found in the model in Figure 13, in which panel (a) shows a rather smooth jet. The simulated VSOP image, on the other hand, shows a series of discrete components which run down the jet (panel c). In panels (d) and (f) the difference map signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at each pixel and the percentage error in the simulated are shown as a function of the simulated image SNR. The SNRs quoted here use a reference noise level determined far away from the source structure. From these two panels we can see how the imaging errors decrease as the map SNR increases. For high SNR points ($`>`$100) the image error is typically less than $`10\%`$. However, for intermediate SNR points ($`10<\mathrm{SNR}<100`$) the percentage error can almost be 100%, so caution must be exercised in over-interpreting data with this SNR.

### 3.2 Dynamic Range

A common method of quantifying image errors is to take the maximum in the image divided by the off-source RMS noise level ($`DR_{\mathrm{RMS}}`$), which is sometimes referred to as the dynamic range of an image. For example, the simulated images shown in Figures 13 and 14 have $`DR_{\mathrm{RMS}}`$ values of 1600:1 and 2800:1 respectively. However, as our simulations show, this is not the true dynamic range in the image as the on-source errors are much larger than the off-source errors. We define here a new dynamic range, called $`DR_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ which is the maximum in the image divided by the maximum value (whether positive or negative) in the difference image. Using this definition, $`DR_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ has values of 34:1 and 28:1 for the images in Figures 13 and 14. Consequently the true dynamic ranges ($`DR_{\mathrm{diff}}`$) of these images are a factor of $`50`$ worse compared to the dynamic range using the off-source noise level ($`DR_{\mathrm{RMS}}`$). For comparison, the images made using the single $`10^{12}`$ K and $`10^{14}`$ K Gaussian component models, have values of $`DR_{\mathrm{RMS}}`$ of 3000:1 and 4000:1, and $`DR_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ of 48:1 and 130:0, respectively. Thus, we see a general trend of increasing image fidelity as the source structure becomes simpler (i.e., $`DR_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ decreases). However, even in the limit of a unresolved point source, the value of the true dynamic range is limited to approximately $`100:1`$.

### 3.3 Effects of Jet Position Angle on Image Dynamic Range

One might expect that the dynamic range that we can obtain on a given observation of a source should depend on the difference between a source’s jet PA and the PA of the $`(u,v)`$ coverage major axis ($`\mathrm{\Delta }PA`$). For $`\mathrm{\Delta }PA`$ =0 we get the highest resolution along the jet and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }PA`$ = 90 we get the highest resolution perpendicular to the jet. Thus, the ability of the sinusoidal image error to develop could depend on the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }PA`$. Consequently, certain alignments of jet position angle with respect to the $`(u,v)`$ coverage might be more reliable than those of a different $`\mathrm{\Delta }PA`$. We have investigated this phenomenon by conducting a series of simulations using the same $`(u,v)`$ coverage as shown in Figures 13 and 14 but for different values of the jet PA in the model sources cj-complex and cj-simple. In Figures 15 and 16 we plot how both $`DR_{\mathrm{RMS}}`$ and $`DR_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ vary as a function of the jet PA while keeping the PA of the major axis of the $`(u,v)`$ coverage fixed. As can be seen, $`DR_{\mathrm{RMS}}`$ is almost independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }PA`$ and $`DR_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ is only a relatively weak function of this position angle difference.

## 4 SUMMARY

We have presented data from the first imaging survey of a complete sample of compact extragalactic radio sources made with space-VLBI. These data represent the highest angular resolution images ever obtained for these objects at 5 GHz, and provide important information regarding the structure of AGN jets on parsec scales. In particular, we have found an exponential trend of increasing component size with distance down the jet, which indicates that these jets are still undergoing expansion on scales of several hundred parsecs. We have also detected a pronounced flattening in the visibility functions of our sources, which is indicative of strong, compact components that remain unresolved at the longest space-Earth baselines. We discuss the implications of this trend and the other general properties of our sample in two companion papers (Tingay et al. 2001; Lister et al. 2001).

We have performed an extensive series of simulations to investigate the image errors in VSOP images caused by the relatively large holes in the $`(u,v)`$ plane when sources are observed near the orbit normal direction. We find that while the nominal dynamic range ($`DR_{\mathrm{RMS}}`$) often exceeds 1000:1, the true dynamic range ($`DR_{\mathrm{diff}}`$) is about 30:1 for relatively complex core-jet sources. For sources dominated by a strong point source, this value rises to approximately 100:1. The true dynamic range is also found to be a relatively weak function of the difference in position angle between the jet PA and $`(u,v)`$ coverage major axis PA. For high SNR regions in the image (SNR$`>`$100) the error on individual pixels is typically less than $`10\%`$. However, for low SNR regions typically located down the jet away from the core, large errors can occur and spurious features can be seen. Caution should therefore be exercised when interpreting regions of low SNR in VSOP images.

We gratefully acknowledge the VSOP Project, which is led by the Japanese Institute of Space and Astronautical Science in cooperation with many organizations and radio telescopes around the world. This research has made use of data from the University of Michigan Radio Astronomy Observatory, which is supported by the National Science Foundation and by funds from the University of Michigan. This work was undertaken in part at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. SJT acknowledges support through an NRC/NASA-JPL Research Associateship.


format: text

text:
# On the grounding of spin effects in theory of synchrotron radiation

## 1 Introduction

Synchrotron radiation (SR) is an unique instrument in the research of individual properties of the relativistic electrons . In 1983 the first quantum spin-orientation-dependent correction to the synchrotron radiation power was experimentally identified at the Institute of Nuclear Physics, Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences (Novosibirsk) . In this experiment, synchrotron radiation was for the first time observed to be dependent on the spin orientation of a free electron moving in a macroscopic magnetic field. The procedure for experimental observation of spin dependence of SR power was based on the Sokolov-Ternov radiative self-polarization effect of the electrons.

To describe the spin effects in relativistic quantum theory one uses spin operators. The spin effects observed in the experiment are determined by eigenvalues of the spin operators. There are different methods of introduction of the spin operators (see Ref. ). In this case the situation can arise when the same projections of various spin operators lead to different physical outcomes, such as time of the radiative self-polarization of the relativistic electrons . Hence, the procedure of the unambiguity in the introduction of the spin operators has come into importance. This brings up the question: What spin operator is true? This question is discussed in the paper on the basic of the invariant correlations of the spin projection operators. The paper is devoted to the memory of I.M. Ternov, who was initiator of studies in this field.

## 2 Spin operators of the Dirac particles

In Refs  it was shown that all spin effects of SR can be obtained using wave function $`\phi `$ of a free electron with certain momentum and arbitrary spin orientation. That is why we shall confine ourselves to the considering of spin operators of Dirac particles with certain momentum $`p^\mu `$ or, in terms of dimensionless momentum, $`b^\mu =(\gamma ,𝒃)=p^\mu /m_0c`$.

The simplest method of obtaining the spin operators is to separate from the spin matrices $`\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5`$ and $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ 111We use a metric $`g^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ and 4-by-4 $`\gamma `$-matrices $`\gamma ^0=i\rho _3,\gamma ^1=i\rho _3\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\gamma ^5=i\rho _1,\sigma ^{12}=\sigma _3,\sigma ^{10}=i\alpha _1,\mathrm{},`$ where $`\rho _i`$ and $`𝜶=\rho _1𝝈`$ are the well known Dirac matrices. the space-like parts (see in Ref. ). Then we obtain

$`\widehat{\pi }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma ^\mu +ib^\mu )\gamma ^5=((𝒃𝝈),\rho _3𝝈+\rho _1𝒃),`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(\gamma ^\mu b^\nu \gamma ^\nu b^\mu )=(\rho _3[𝝈𝒃],𝝈+\rho _2[𝝈𝒃]).`$ (1)
Spin operators satisfy commutative correlations for the generators of little Lorentz group.

It can be shown that the mean values of the operators $`\widehat{\pi }^\mu `$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }`$ coincide with the classical four-vector of spin $`\pi ^\mu =(\pi ^0,𝝅)`$ and tensor of spin $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=(𝚽,𝚷)`$.

The eigenvalues of the spin operators in the laboratory frame differ from the eigenvalues $`\zeta =\pm 1`$ in the rest frame. For example,

$$\widehat{\pi }_z\phi =\zeta \sqrt{1+b_z^2}\phi ,\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_z\phi =\zeta \sqrt{1+b_{}^2}\phi ,$$
(2)
where $`b_{}^2=b_x^2+b_y^2`$. In addition, in the laboratory frame the operators $`\widehat{\pi }^0`$ and $`\widehat{𝚽}`$ will induce new eigenvalues $`\widehat{\pi }^0\phi =\zeta b\phi `$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_z\phi =\zeta b_{}\phi `$ (see Ref.), which vanish in the laboratory frame. However, one can introduce such operator

$$\widehat{𝚺}_\sigma =𝝈+(1\rho _3)\frac{i\left[𝜶𝒃\right]}{\gamma +1},$$

which in the laboratory frame will save the spin eigenvalues in the rest frame, i.e.

$$(𝝈𝝂)\phi =\left(\widehat{𝚺}_\sigma 𝝂\right)\phi =\zeta \phi ,$$
(3)
where $`𝝂=(\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,cos\vartheta )`$ is the unit vector.

This operator is obtained as a result of unitary transformation of the spin matrices $`𝝈`$ (see Ref. ). Similarly, one can build the spin operator

$$\widehat{𝚺}_{\rho _3\sigma }=\rho _3𝝈+\rho _1\frac{𝒃}{\gamma }\frac{\rho _3𝒃(𝝈𝒃)}{\gamma (\gamma +1)}.$$

It can be shown that spin operators $`\widehat{𝚺}`$ possess commutative properties of Pauli matrices 222One can meet other operators possessing same properties (see in Ref. ). These are Stech spin operator
$$\widehat{𝚺}_S=\rho _3𝝈+(1\rho _3)\frac{𝒃(𝝈𝒃)}{\gamma ^21},$$
Foldy-Wouthuysen spin operator
$$\widehat{𝚺}_{FW}=𝝈i\frac{\rho _3\left[𝜶𝒃\right]}{\gamma }\frac{\left[𝒃\left[𝝈𝒃\right]\right]}{\gamma (\gamma +1)}$$
and so on. However, these operators coincide when applied to solutions of the Dirac equation
$$\widehat{𝚺}_\sigma \widehat{𝚺}_{\rho _3\sigma }\widehat{𝚺}_S\widehat{𝚺}_{FW}\widehat{𝚺}.$$
.

In order to transform the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{𝚺}`$ into the laboratory frame the operator itself must be subjected to the Lorentz transformations (see Ref. ).

## 3 Invariant properties of spin operators

The spin operators $`\widehat{𝚺}`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\widehat{\pi }^\mu `$ satisfy the invariant relations

$$\widehat{𝚺}^2=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }=\widehat{\pi }_\mu \widehat{\pi }^\mu =3.$$
(4)
All the spin operators commutate with Hamiltonian of the free Dirac particle with definite momentum $`\widehat{\gamma }=(𝜶𝒃)+\rho _3.`$ This allows to define completely a wave function of particle with given momentum and concrete spin orientation. But due to the noncommutativity of the spin operator projections it is possible to measure simultaneously only the eigenvalues for the absolute value and one of the spin projections. It is known, however, (see, for example, in Ref. ) that the same projection of the spin operators, for example $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_z`$, $`\widehat{\pi }_z`$ or $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_z`$, gives the various eigenvalues 333For this reason some authors have expressed some doubts concerning the correct application of $`\widehat{\pi }`$ and $`\widehat{𝚷}`$ operators .. The question arises: What projections of the spin operators give the correct result? The answer to this question can be found by constructing of relations between the projections of the spin operators.

As a spin projector one can take the antisymmetric tensor $`h^{\mu \nu }=(𝒆,𝒉)`$ with components $`h^{10}=e_x,\mathrm{}`$, $`h^{12}=h_z,\mathrm{}`$444In the presence of the external electromagnetic field this tensor can be identified with the tensor $`H^{\mu \nu }=(𝐄,𝐇)`$ (see, for example, in Ref. ).. In a general case $`h^{\mu \nu }`$ is not a space-like tensor, therefore the space-like part should be separated out for further application (here, $``$ denotes the space-like part of a four-vector or a tensor)

$$\stackrel{}{h}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }=(\gamma ^2\left[𝜷(𝒉[𝜷𝒆])\right],𝒉\gamma ^2\left[𝜷(𝒆+[𝜷𝒉])\right])=(\stackrel{}{𝒆},\stackrel{}{𝒉}).$$

Applying the first nonzero invariant we come to the dimensionless space-like tensor (for simplification we put $`𝒆=0`$)

$$S^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{}{h}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }/\sqrt{I_1}=([𝜷𝜼],𝜼𝜷(𝜷𝜼))=(𝑸,𝑺),$$
(5)
$$I_1=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{h}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\stackrel{}{h}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }=\gamma ^2[h^2(𝜷𝒉)^2],𝜼=\frac{\gamma ^2𝒉}{\sqrt{I_1}}=\frac{\gamma 𝒌}{\sqrt{1\beta ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha }},(𝜷𝒌)=\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha .$$

One can construct the space-like four-vector corresponding to $`S^{\mu \nu }`$

$$s^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }S_{\mu \nu }b_\beta ,S^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }s_\alpha b_\beta .$$
(6)
The components of $`s^\alpha `$ are equal to $`s^\alpha =((𝜷𝜼),𝜼)/\gamma =(s^0,𝒔)`$. According to Eq. (6) they are associated with $`S^{\mu \nu }`$ by the relations

$$𝒔=\frac{1}{\gamma }𝑺+\gamma 𝜷(𝜷𝑺),𝑺=\gamma [𝒔𝜷(𝜷𝒔)].$$
(7)
In the rest frame the spin projectors $`𝒔`$ and $`𝑺`$ transform into the unit vector

$$𝝂=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left[𝜼\frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}𝜷(𝜷𝜼)\right]$$

associated with $`𝒔`$ and $`𝑺`$ by Lorentz transformation.

One can show that the spin operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }^\mu `$ satisfy the relations similar to Eqs (6) and (7). On this basis one can obtain the following invariant relations

$$s_\alpha \widehat{\pi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}S_{\mu \nu }\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }=inv,$$
(8)
$$\left(𝝂\widehat{𝚺}\right)=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(𝑺\widehat{𝝅}\right)=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(𝒔\widehat{𝚷}\right).$$
(9)
Note that the spin operators $`\widehat{𝚺}`$, $`\widehat{\pi }^\mu `$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }`$ in these relations can be replaced by their classical analogue $`𝜻`$, $`\pi ^\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$.

We consider two extreme cases: 1) $`𝜷𝜼𝒌`$, when $`𝜷Z`$ and $`\beta _{}=0`$, 2) $`𝜷𝜼𝒌`$, when $`𝜷Z`$ and $`\beta _z=0`$. In both cases $`𝝂=𝒌`$ (spin is directed along the $`Z`$-axis in the rest frame), however, the spin components are different in the laboratory frame

$`\left(𝒌\widehat{𝚺}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}\left(𝒌\widehat{𝝅}\right)=\left(𝒌\widehat{𝚷}\right),\text{for}𝜷𝒌,`$
$`\left(𝒌\widehat{𝚺}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(𝒌\widehat{𝝅}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}\left(𝒌\widehat{𝚷}\right),\text{for}𝜷𝒌.`$
In terms of the eigenvalues of the spin operators these relations coincide with $`\zeta `$.

In a similar way one can consider the kinematic spin invariants which are induced by the particle motion

$$(𝝈𝜷)=\left(\widehat{𝚺}𝜷\right)=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(𝜷\widehat{𝝅}\right)=\left(𝜷\widehat{𝚷}\right),$$

$$\left(𝝂\widehat{𝚽}\right)=\left(𝒔\widehat{𝚽}\right)=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(𝑺\widehat{𝚷}\right)=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left[𝜼\widehat{𝚽}\right].$$

The first invariants characterize the spin projection onto the direction of motion and the second invariants do the spin projection onto the direction of $`[𝒌𝜷]`$.

One can show that in the BMT approximation (see Ref. ) the spin invariant of Eq.(8) remains valid in the presence of the external electromagnetic field also (see Ref. ). In particular, in the constant and uniform magnetic field when $`𝒉𝑯𝒌`$, the spin projection onto the orbital radius is characterized by the spin operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_z`$.

## 4 Spin invariants as integrals of motion

In the presence of the external electromagnetic field the spin operators, generally speaking, stop being integrals of motion. It is known, for instance, that in the constant and uniform electromagnetic fields they satisfy the operator equations similar to the BMT equations . Only some components of spin operators remain the integrals of motion (see also Ref. ). Nevertheless one can show  that the spin invariants of Eq. (8) remain the integrals of motion if we choose the external electromagnetic field tensor $`H^{\mu \nu }`$ as a projector $`h^{\mu \nu }`$. Moreover, the spin invariants allow also to find such direction, for which the spin projection of the moving particle will be always give the same eigenvalue (the precession axis). Such a problem for electron moving in the magnetic field of arbitrary configuration was for the first time solved in Ref. , where it was shown that the value of $`(𝝂𝚺)=const`$, if the unit vector $`𝝂`$ ($`𝜷`$, $`𝑯`$) satisfies the equation of BMT type. It is a rather obvious result, as the vector $`𝝂`$ rotates with respect to azimuth with the frequency of the spin precession. We show that this problem can be solved for projectors $`s^\mu `$ and $`S^{\mu \nu }`$ too. As an example we take the tensor $`S^{\mu \nu }`$. At the beginning we represent the BMT equation in the form

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }}{d\tau }=\frac{eg}{2m_0c}\stackrel{~}{H}{}_{}{}^{[\mu \rho }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho }^{\nu ]},$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{H}{}_{}{}^{\mu \rho }=H^{\mu \rho }+\frac{1}{c^2}v^{[\mu }v_\alpha H^{\alpha \rho ]}+\frac{2m_0}{egc}v^{[\mu }w^{\rho ]}$$

is an effective electromagnetic field, $`v^\mu `$ and $`w^\mu `$ are the four-velocity and acceleration, $`\tau `$ is the proper time, the square brackets mean the antisymmetrization with respect to the corresponding indexes. In the case of constant and uniform fields

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{H}^{\mu \nu }}{d\tau }=\frac{g2}{gc^2}H^{[\mu \alpha }w_\alpha v^{\nu ]}0,$$

but

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }\left(\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }\right)=0,$$

that is rather obvious as $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=H_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$. Taking into account $`S^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{H}}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }/\sqrt{I_1}`$ one can find the such moving axes onto which the spin projection will be constant in time.


text:
# Superconductivity from Hole Undressing

\[

## Abstract

Photoemission and optical experiments indicate that the transition to superconductivity in cuprates is an ’undressing’ transition . In photoemission this is seen as a coherent quasiparticle peak emerging from an incoherent background, in optics as violation of the Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham sum rule indicating effective mass reduction of superconducting carriers. We propose that this is a manifestation of the fundamental electron-hole asymmetry of condensed matter described by the theory of hole superconductivity. The theory asserts that electrons in nearly empty bands and holes in nearly full bands are fundamentally different : the former yield high conductivity and normal metals, the latter yield low normal state conductivity and high temperature superconductivity. This is because the normal state transport of electrons is coherent and that of holes is incoherent. We explain how this asymmetry arises from the Coulomb interaction between electrons in atoms and the nature of atomic orbitals, and propose a simple Hamiltonian to describe it. A $`universal`$ mechanism for superconductivity follows from this physics, whereby dressed hole carriers undress by pairing, turning (partially) into electrons and becoming more mobile in the superconducting state.

\]

Holes are not like electrons. This fundamental fact continues to be ignored in contemporary solid state science. By holes and electrons we mean the charge carriers in energy bands in a metal when the Fermi level is near the top and near the bottom of the band respectively.

The physical difference between electron and hole carriers is not captured by Hamiltonians commonly used to study many-body phenomena in solids such as the Hubbard model. Thus, new Hamiltonians need to be considered that contain the fundamental charge asymmetry of condensed matter. The generalized Hubbard model with correlated hopping contains part of the essential physics of electron-hole asymmetry. The other part is incorporated by Hamiltonians that describe also high energy degrees of freedom, which may be generically termed electron-hole asymmetric polaron models. These models can be formulated with only electronic degrees of freedom (more than one band is needed) or with coupled electronic and bosonic degrees of freedom. The generalized Hubbard model with correlated hopping is the low energy effective Hamiltonian that arises from these more fundamental models.

We argue that the transport of electricity is fundamentally different when the carriers in the metal are electrons and when they are holes. Holes cause a large disruption in their electronic environment when they propagate, while electrons cause little or no disruption. As a consequence, holes are heavy and electrons are light, $`and`$, hole transport is largely incoherent while electron transport is largely coherent. The qualitative difference in the frequency dependent conductivity of electrons and holes is depicted in Figure 1. As the number of physical electrons in a nearly empty band is increased, electrons turn gradually into holes, and become heavier and more incoherent. This is because they become increasingly ’dressed’, due to electron-electron interactions, as depicted schematically in figure 2. Conversely, as the number of physical electrons in a nearly full band is decreased, holes turn gradually into electrons, and become lighter and more coherent as they gradually undress. The other way that hole carriers can turn into electrons is by pairing, thereby mimicking locally a situation where the band is less full. As a consequence, superconductivity will be characterized by the carriers becoming lighter and more coherent in the superconducting than in the normal state, and kinetic energy will be lowered. Since pairing of electron carriers would instead lead to carriers becoming heavier and more incoherent in the superconducting state, and increased kinetic energy, pairing of electron carriers $`cannot`$ $`drive`$ $`superconductivity`$.

A single electron in an empty band is a non-interacting particle, with spectral function given by

$$A(k,\omega )=\delta (\omega ϵ_k)$$
(1)
with $`ϵ_k`$ the band energy. The single particle spectral function in a many-body system, for momentum $`k`$ close to the Fermi surface, is of the form

$$A(k,\omega )=z\delta (\omega ϵ_k)+A^{}(k,\omega )$$
(2)
where $`z`$ is the quasiparticle weight, and $`A^{}`$ is the incoherent part of the spectral function (we have neglected possible dependence of $`z`$ on $`k`$). One has in general $`z<1`$, and only for non-interacting particles is $`z=1`$. The normalization condition $`A(k,\omega )𝑑\omega =1`$ ensures that $`A^{}`$ will be nonzero whenever $`z<1`$. A single hole in a full band has $`z<1`$ and $`A^{}0`$, thus is qualitatively different from a single electron in an empty band (Eq. (1)) for which $`z=1`$ and $`A^{}=0`$.

The difference between a single electron in an empty band and a single hole in a full band is simplest to understand in a tight binding formulation. Consider as the simplest case the band formed by overlap of $`1s`$ orbitals in a lattice of hydrogen-like ions, with nuclear charge $`Z`$. The process of creating an electron in the empty $`1s`$ orbital (figure 3a)

$$|>=\phi _{1s}(r)=Ce^{Zr/a_0}$$
(3)
($`a_0=`$Bohr radius) does not affect any other degree of freedom. Hence the single site spectral function is given by

$$A_0(\omega )=\delta (\omega ϵ_{1s})$$
(4)
(with $`ϵ_{1s}=13.6eV`$). Consider instead the process of creating an electron of spin $``$ when an electron of spin $``$ already exists in the $`1s`$ orbital (figure 3b). If the second electron is created in the $`1s`$ orbital also, a state of very high energy will result, due to the large Coulomb repulsion between two electrons in that orbital ($`17ZeV`$). Instead, consider the ground state of the two-electron ion in the Hartree approximation

$$|^0>=\overline{\phi }_{1s}(r_1)\overline{\phi }_{1s}(r_2)$$
(6)
$$\overline{\phi }_{1s}(r)=\overline{C}e^{\overline{Z}r/a_0}$$
(7)
$$\overline{Z}=Z5/16$$
(8)
To obtain the lowest energy state we want to create the second electron in the expanded orbital $`\overline{\phi }_{1s}`$, with creation operator $`\overline{c}_{}^{}`$. We have then

$$\overline{c}_{}^{}|>=|^0><^0|\overline{c}_{}^{}|>+\underset{l0}{}|^l><^l|\overline{c}_{}^{}|>$$
(9)
where $`|^l>`$ are a complete set of excited states of the doubly occupied ion, with energies $`\overline{ϵ}_{1s}^{(l)}`$. The single particle spectral function for this process is

$$A_1(\omega )=z_h\delta (\omega (\overline{ϵ}_{1s}^{(0)}ϵ_{1s}))+A_1^{}(\omega )$$
(11)
$$z_h=|<^0|\overline{c}_{}^{}|>|^2$$
(12)
$$A_1^{}(\omega )=\underset{l0}{}<^l|\overline{c}_{}^{}|>|^2\delta (\omega (\overline{ϵ}_{1s}^{(l)}ϵ_{1s}))$$
(13)
hence it has now an incoherent part, and a quasiparticle weight $`z_h<1`$. This is because when the $``$ electron is created the pre-existing $``$ electron will change its state, from $`\phi _{1s}`$ to the self-consistent state $`\overline{\phi }_{1s}`$; in addition, the end result of this process may be any of the excited states of the doubly occupied ion, as given by Eq. (6). Similarly the spectral function for creating a hole (destroying an electron) in the doubly occupied ion is

$$A_2(\omega )=z_h\delta (\omega +(ϵ_{1s}\overline{ϵ}_{1s}^{(0)}))+A_2^{}(\omega )$$
(15)
$$A_2^{}(\omega )=\underset{l0}{}<^l|\overline{c}_{}^{}|>|^2\delta (\omega +(ϵ_{1s}^{(l)}\overline{ϵ}_{1s^{(0)}}))$$
(16)
Eqs. (4) and (7), (8) show the fundamental difference between the spectral functions for creating electrons in empty bands and creating or destroying holes in full bands. The qualitative structure does not depend on the Hartree approximation, and illustrates the general fact that the hole spectral function will have a large incoherent contribution and a small quasiparticle weight, as shown schematically in Figure 4. This is due to the physical fact that the spacing between atomic energy levels is smaller than the Coulomb repulsion between electrons in a level, thus when an electron is created in an already occupied level the wavefunctions will expand into other atomic levels. This physics $`cannot`$ be captured with models with a single orbital per site. This effect then leads to the fundamental difference in the transport properties when the band is almost empty and when it is almost full. For electrons in nearly empty bands the hopping between atoms $`t`$ is unrenormalized, while for holes in a full band it is reduced by the quasiparticle weight

$$t_h=z_ht$$
(17)
due to the disruption caused in the other electron in the orbital during the hopping process, as depicted schematically in figure 5. This leads to an enhanced effective mass for holes, hence a larger dc resistivity, and to a large incoherent contribution to the frequency dependent conductivity from hopping processes where the electrons end up in excited states.

We can find the quasiparticle weight for the hole explicitely in this Hartree approximation

$$z_h=|<\phi _{1s}|\overline{\phi }_{1s}>|^2=\frac{(1\frac{5}{16Z})^3}{(1\frac{5}{32Z})^6}$$
(18)
which approaches unity as the nuclear charge $`Z`$ increases, and becomes small as $`Z0.3125`$. Even though obtained in the Hartree approximation, the qualitative effect will be generally true (and even larger when one goes beyond the Hartree approximation). When the effective nuclear charge $`Z`$ is large $`z_h1`$, hence hole quasiparticles become coherent and light, and resemble electron quasiparticles. Instead, when the effective nuclear charge is small, $`z_h0`$ and holes become very heavy and incoherent. This is the regime most favorable for high temperature superconductivity. Note how this is in qualitative agreement with the situation in cuprates, where the relevant ions, $`O^=`$, are highly negatively charged, corresponding to a small $`Z`$. Moreover the entire $`CuO`$ planes are highly negatively charged, giving rise to highly ’floppy’ orbitals thus creating the most favorable environment for hole pairing. This also provides a rationale for the advantage of the two-dimensional structure. Since the negative charge needs to be compensated for charge neutrality, one way to do it is to arrange the excess negative charge in the conducting two-dimensional planes where the pairing occurs and the compensating positive charge outside the main conducting structures. It is possible that highly negatively charged conducting substructures could also be created in three-dimensional structures, which would be even more advantageous for high temperature superconductivity since, everything else being equal, higher coordination strongly enhances superconductivity in this model.

Superconductivity occurs in this theory from the enhanced hopping amplitude when two hole carriers pair. In that case the hopping is $`t_h^{}=\sqrt{z_h}t`$ and the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_h^{}t_h`$ drives the transition to superconductivity, as discussed in detail elsewhere. The superconducting condensation energy is kinetic, and the quasiparticle weight is larger in the superconducting than in the normal state.

To study quantitatively the physics described above requires information on excitation energies and matrix elements of electronic states in multi-electron atoms, and is a difficult many-body problem. It is useful to first understand throughly the novel physical phenomena that emerge, for which we can use a variety of model Hamiltonians that contain the essential physics. As perhaps the simplest realization, consider the site Hamiltonian

$$H_i=\omega _0a_i^{}a_i+g\omega _0(a_i^{}+a_i)n_in_i$$
(19)
where $`a_i`$ is a local boson operator and $`n_{i\sigma }`$ is an $`electron`$ number operator. This is a special case of the generalized Holstein model discussed in Ref. 9, with fully non-linear coupling. Using a generalized Lang-Firsov transformation the following relation between electron particle ($`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$) and quasiparticle ($`\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}`$) operators results:

$$c_{i\sigma }^{}=e^{g(a_i^{}a_i)\stackrel{~}{n}_{i,\sigma }}\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}$$
(20)
so that for an empty site, creating an electron particle is the same as creating a quasiparticle

$$c_{i\sigma }^{}=\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}$$
(22)
and the quasiparticle weight is $`1`$, while instead if the site is already occupied by an electron of opposite spin,

$$c_{i\sigma }^{}=e^{g(a_i^{}a_i)}\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}.$$
(23)
Taking the ground state expectation value of the exponential in Eq. (12) yields

$$<e^{g(a_i^{}a_i)\stackrel{~}{n}_{i,\sigma }}>=e^{(g^2/2)\stackrel{~}{n}_{i,\sigma }}$$
(24)
so that the hole quasiparticle spectral weight is

$$z_h=e^{g^2}$$
(25)
and holes become heavily dressed if $`g`$ is large, while electrons remain undressed. The quasiparticle weight for general electronic band filling $`n`$ is given by

$$z(n)=[1+\frac{n}{2}(e^{g^2/2}1)]^2$$
(26)
which interpolates between $`1`$ and $`z_h`$ and quantifies the magnitude of coherent response of the system for given band filling. The relation Eq. (12) can be written as

$$c_{i\sigma }^{}=[1+(e^{g^2/2}1)\stackrel{~}{n_{i,\sigma }}]\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}+\stackrel{~}{n}_{i,\sigma }\times incoherentpart$$
(27)
where the ’incoherent part’ describes the processes where bosons are created when the electron is created at the site. This represents the second term in Eq. (6), where the ion ends up in an excited state when the second electron is created. The full Hamiltonian to be studied is then

$$H=\underset{i}{}H_i\underset{<ij>}{}t_{ij}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+h.c.)+\underset{<ij>}{}V_{ij}n_in_j$$
(28)
with $`H_i`$ given by Eq. (11). The low energy effective Hamiltonian for quasiparticles that results, using Eq. (14), is

$$H_{eff}=\underset{<ij>}{}t_{ij}^\sigma (\stackrel{~}{c}_{i\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{j\sigma }+h.c.)+\underset{<ij>}{}V_{ij}\stackrel{~}{n}_i\stackrel{~}{n}_j$$
(30)
$$t_{ij}^\sigma =t_{ij}[1(1\sqrt{z_h})(\stackrel{~}{n}_{i,\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{n}_{j,\sigma })+(1\sqrt{z_h})^2\stackrel{~}{n}_{i,\sigma }\stackrel{~}{n}_{j,\sigma }]$$
(31)
which in particular describes the superconducting state. However to understand the fundamental processes of spectral weight transfer that occur it is necessary to use the full Hamiltonian Eq. (17) . This Hamiltonian predicts that spectral weight will be transfered from the high energy scale determined by $`\omega _0`$, which represents an electronic excitation energy scale of the multielectron atom, down to low (intraband) energies, both when the system goes superconducting and when it is doped with holes, both in the one-particle spectral function (photoemission) and in the two-particle spectral function (optical conductivity).

We believe that the physics described by these models represents a new paradigm in many-body physics. When the system goes superconducting, hole quasiparticles ’undress’ and become more like bare particles. In the conventional Fermi liquid approach quasiparticles are fixed objects, that interact weakly with one another and develop special correlations when a transition to a collective state occurs, but do not change their intrinsic nature. Here instead quasiparticles change their most fundamental properties, their weight and their effective mass, as the ordered state develops. The energy that drives the transition to superconductivity originates in the very large energy renormalization that is involved in going from a description based on bare, strongly interacting particles, to one based on dressed, weakly interacting quasiparticles. The theory of hole superconductivity proposes that holes, by undressing and turning into electrons, manage to take advantage of this rich source of untapped energy.

What are measurable consequences of the fundamental charge asymmetry on which this theory is based? We have shown that it leads to universal asymmetry in NIS tunneling, with larger conductance predicted for a negatively biased sample, and to the prediction of positive thermoelectric power for NIS and SIS tunnel junctions. There exists some experimental evidence for the former, while the latter has not been experimentally tested. Furthermore, we have recently proposed that it should lead to negatively charged vortices in the mixed state of type II superconductors, and more generally to a tendency for superconductors to expel negative charge from the bulk, leading to higher negative charge density and superfluid density near the surface, as shown schematically in figure 6. Because the principles on which the theory is based are very general, we expect that if the theory is valid it should apply to $`all`$ superconducting materials.