text:
# H ii regions in symbiotic binaries and their radio emission

## 1 Introduction

Symbiotic stars are binary systems consisting of a red giant (RG) as the primary, and a post-AGB star or MS-dwarf as the secondary. The RG primary is the source of a high density wind accreted by the secondary. In closer binaries ($`a<10\mathrm{AU}`$) the wind is significantly deflected toward the orbital plane by the gravitational pull of the secondary (see Gawryszczak et al. 2002, and references therein). This process results in an enhanced density region at the orbital plane, with a disk-like density maximum surrounding the secondary.

Radio emission from symbiotic stars is dominated by ff radiation from the ionized gas. The ff spectrum of an H ii region consists of three parts: optically thick at low frequencies (with spectral index $`\alpha 0.6`$), optically thin at high frequencies (with $`\alpha 0.1`$), and optically semi-thick at intermediate frequencies around at a turnover frequency $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$, with $`\alpha `$ smoothly decreasing from its optically thick value to $`0.1`$. Taylor & Seaquist (1984) show that orbital separation $`a`$, ionizing luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$, and the ratio of mass-loss rate to wind velocity $`\frac{\dot{M}}{v}`$ may be derived from such observables as turnover frequency, monochromatic flux at that frequency $`S_\mathrm{t}`$, and the value of the optically thick spectral index.

However, their calculations are based on the spherical wind model originally developed by Seaquist et al. (1984) (hereafter STB), which, as we mentioned above, is incorrect in closer systems. Good examples of such systems are symbiotic S-type systems, containing a normal M giant and having orbital periods of order a few years (e.g. Belczyński et al. 2000, and references therein).

Recently, Mikołajewska & Ivison (2001) have obtained for the first time the spectral energy distribution (SED) at wavelengths between $`6\mathrm{cm}`$ and $`0.85\mathrm{mm}`$ for one of the prototypical S-type systems, CI Cyg, during quiescence. Their data allowed to determine $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$, the optically thin ff emission measure, from which a lower limit to $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ and an estimate of $`a`$ were calculated within the STB framework. Unfortunately, the comparison of these estimates with the known orbital and stellar parameters of CI Cyg poses a serious problem for the STB model. In particular, $`a`$ is overestimated by a factor of $`35`$, whereas $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ (whose value is known from optical/UV H i emission lines and He ii bf+ff continuum) is underestimated by a factor of $`20`$.

The above inconsistency strongly indicates that the STB model needs revision. The most obvious improvements are related to the asphericity of the wind, as suggested both by numerical work (see Gawryszczak et al. 2002, and references therein) and observations. From the observational point of view there is little doubt about the origin of the ionized medium. The mm radio emission shows some correlation with the mid-IR flux, and the radio luminosity increases with the $`\mathrm{K}[12]`$ colour. This indicates that warm dust is involved in the mass flow along with the ionized gas, and suggest that the red giant is the source of this material (Mikołajewska et al. 2002a). Such a picture is also supported by the spectral analysis of symbiotic nebulae which showed CNO abundances similar to those observed in normal red giants (Nussbaumer et al. 1988) Optical and radio imaging of symbiotic stars reveal aspherical nebulae, often with bipolar lobes and jet-like components (Corradi et al. 1999). It is hard to explain how such structures might develop if the RG wind were spherical. Additional, indirect evidence for the asphericity of the RG wind comes from emission line profiles. It is based on the stationary, blueshifted $`\mathrm{H}_\alpha `$ absorption originating close to the orbital plane and indicating that the ionized region is probably bounded on all sides by a significant amount of dense neutral material (see the discussion in Gawryszczak et al. 2002).

In the present paper we account for the asphericity of the RG as resulting from the interaction with the secondary. With the help of 3-D hydrodynamical models we demonstrate that H ii regions ionized by the secondary in S-type systems must indeed have shapes, sizes and spectra significantly different from those obtained by STB. A representative sample of radio spectra and radio maps of our models is also generated.

In Sect. 2 we discuss the numerical techniques used in this work and details of the physical setup of our models. The models are presented in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4 the results of our simulations are compared to observed symbiotic systems and a brief summary of our work is provided.

## 2 Methods and assumptions

The aim of the present paper is to study the properties of H ii regions in symbiotic S-type stars. In such systems the H ii region develops in a dense RG wind whose density distribution is modified by the gravitational pull of the secondary. As a highly aspherical distribution may result even in cases when the wind is originally spherically symmetric, a multidimensional approach to the problem is necessary.

We begin with 3-D hydrodynamical simulations of RG winds interacting with the companion to the mass-losing star. The simulations are performed with the help of the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) technique. An inertial coordinate system is used, with the origin at the mass center of the binary.

Our implementation of the SPH is based on variable smoothing length with spline kernel introduced by Monaghan & Lattanzio (1985). The number of neighbouring particles is set to 40. For practical reasons (CPU time), the total number of particles in the computational domain is limited to $`10^5`$. Whenever this limit is exceeded, those most distant from the system are removed from the domain. The distance beyond which removals occur ($`r_{\mathrm{rem}}`$) stabilizes within several orbital periods of the binary, and an almost stationary rotating density distribution is obtained. The validity of such an approach was demonstrated by Gawryszczak et al. (2002). With the above limit imposed on the number of particles, $`r_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ does not exceed $`60\mathrm{AU}`$ (see Table 1).

Within $`0.1\mathrm{AU}`$ from the secondary we remove all particles with velocities directed toward the secondary. This procedure is applied to avoid prohibitively short time-steps.

There are good reasons to believe that RG winds are intrinsically aspherical (see e.g. Frankowski & Tylenda 2001; Dorfi & Höfner 1996; Reimers et al. 2000, and references therein). The asphericity may result from internal processes taking place in the star and/or presence of the secondary. However, since the theory is not yet advanced enough for precise quantitative predictions, these effects are not included in our models. In particular, we assume that although the RG rotates synchronously it does not fill its Roche lobe, so that the mass flow through the inner Lagrangian point can be neglected. In effect, the wind is represented by a stream of particles launched at a constant rate from points distributed randomly and uniformly on the RG surface. The initial temperature of the wind is $`3000\mathrm{K}`$, and the initial velocity of wind particles is set to $`1\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ ( note that, as the wind propagates across the grid its velocity increases; a measure of the terminal wind velocity is introduced and explained in the following paragraphs). Both temperature and velocity of the wind are constant on the surface of the star.

Further, we assume that the wind is composed of dust and ideal monoatomic gas which are dynamically coupled (i.e. they move at the same velocity). The details of wind acceleration process are not followed. Instead, we assume that the gravity of the red giant is balanced by radiation pressure on the dust, so that it does not appear explicitly in our equations. Thus, if the RG were single, the only force acting on the wind would be due to gas-pressure gradients, whereas in a binary the wind is additionally subject to the gravity of the companion. Such an approximation may seem rather crude; however Gawryszczak et al. (2002) demonstrated that it leads to terminal velocities comparable to those obtained by Winters et al. (2000) for winds in which radiation pressure nearly balances the gravity of the wind source.

Finally, we neglect radiation pressure from the secondary ( note that in the case of a white dwarf,for any reasonable grain size the force due to radiation pressure on dust grains is much smaller than gravity). Self-gravity of the wind and any explicit radiative heating or cooling are also neglected. The effects of cooling are accounted for by a nearly isothermal equation of state employed for the wind ($`p=\kappa \rho ^\gamma `$, with $`\gamma =1.01`$). A likely source of strong nonaxisymmetric effects is magnetic field, as the MHD collimation may be much more efficient than the gravitational focusing discussed here (see García-Segura et al. 1999; García-Segura & López 2000; García-Segura et al. 2001, and references therein). However, there is no information available about magnetic fields in symbiotic systems and we feel that it is too early to incorporate them into models: the number of free parameters would simply grow too large.

## 3 Results

All binaries considered here consist of a $`1.0M_{\mathrm{}}`$ red giant and a $`0.6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ white dwarf. The orbital separation $`a`$ varies between 1 and $`4\mathrm{AU}`$, which is representative of S-type symbiotic systems. Following Mikołajewska et al. (2002a) a mass loss rate of $`\dot{M}=10^7M_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ is adopted for the RG wind, while the ionizing luminosity of the secondary $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ varies between $`410^{44}`$ and $`810^{45}\mathrm{phot}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The latter range is compatible with estimates based on mm/submm observations (Ivison & Seaquist 1995; Mikołajewska & Ivison 2001), but is a factor of $``$10 smaller than estimates based on studies of optical/UV H i and He ii emission lines and bf+ff continuum (Mikołajewska & Ivison 2001; Mikołajewska et al. 2002a).

The choice of the lower estimate is dictated by the size of our hydrodynamical wind models ($`60÷100\mathrm{AU}`$ in diameter), which at $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}10^{46}`$ would be practically entirely ionized. The parameters of symbiotic binary models obtained in this work are listed in Table 1 ($`v_{\mathrm{av}}`$ in column 3 is a measure of the wind velocity; see Section 3.2 for an explanation). The radius of the red giant is in all cases equal to $`0.5\mathrm{AU}`$. A simple method of scaling our results to combinations of $`\dot{M}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ not covered by actual calculations is given in Section 3.3.

### 3.1 RG wind models

For each binary in Table 1 we integrate the equations of hydrodynamics until the density distribution of the RG wind relaxes to a stationary state. Density distributions of the relaxed models are shown in (Fig. 1). The general effect of the secondary is to deflect the RG wind toward the orbital plane, and as a result the relaxed density distributions are flattened. This flattening weakens with increasing orbital separation because of the increasing ratio of the wind velocity at the secondary’s orbit to the orbital velocity of the secondary. However, all models develop a high density region in the form of a disk around the secondary.

All models also display a three-dimensional spiral structure resulting from the shock wave excited by the motion of the secondary across the RG wind. The spirals are a very general feature of slow winds in binary systems, and they were also observed in simulations reported by Mastrodemos & Morris (1998, 1999) or Gawryszczak et al. (2002). As one might expect, in closer binaries the spiral is more tightly wound than in the wider ones.

In the closest binary funnel-like density minima oriented perpendicularly to the orbit are also observed. Two effects contribute to the formation of these funnels. First, in a close binary the wind is emitted from a source moving with a high orbital velocity, and as such it carries appreciable angular momentum. Away from the orbital plane the centrifugal force associated with that momentum causes the wind gas to clear the vicinity of the polar axis. Secondly, and unlike that of the primary, the gravity of the secondary is not balanced by radiation pressure, and the wind flowing perpendicularly to the orbit is retarded.

Below we argue that all these features (flattening, spirals and funnels) are important factors influencing the observational properties of the H ii regions created in the RG wind by the ionizing radiation from the secondary.

### 3.2 Shapes and sizes of H ii regions

Once the RG wind has been relaxed, its density distribution is smoothed by averaging over several tens of consecutive time steps. The aim of this procedure is to reduce the numerical noise resulting from the ”grainy” nature of the SPH models. The smoothed density is mapped onto a spherical grid centered on the secondary, with grid points spaced uniformly in angular coordinates and concentrated at the secondary in the radial coordinate. Then, the source of ionizing photons is turned on at the location of the secondary, and the boundary of the H ii region is found in a local Strömgren sphere approximation (i.e. Strömgren radii are calculated for all directions defined by grid points in angular coordinates). An example result of this procedure is shown in Fig. 2. Separate treatment of ionization and dynamics is justified by the fact that the recombination time is one order of magnitude shorter than the orbital period at the edge of our computational domain, and more than 3 orders of magnitude near the secondary.

In the approach developed by STB, the shape and size of the H ii region are uniquely determined by the value of the parameter $`X`$, which is a combination of the mass loss rate, wind velocity, orbital separation, and ionizing luminosity:

$$X=\frac{4\pi \mu ^2m_\mathrm{H}^2}{\alpha _{\mathrm{rec}}}aL_{\mathrm{ph}}\left(\frac{v_\mathrm{w}}{\dot{M}}\right)^2,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha _{\mathrm{rec}}`$ and $`v_\mathrm{w}`$ are recombination coefficient and wind velocity (which is constant in space and time), while $`\mu `$ and $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ have their standard meaning.

While STB assume a wind of constant velocity, in our models the flow accelerates with the distance from the RG, and the acceleration proceeds at a variable (location-dependent) rate. This is due partly to thermal pressure gradients, and partly to the centrifugal force associated with the angular momentum transferred to the wind from the secondary; see Gawryszczak et al. (2002). In order to calculate $`X`$ from our models, we use a density-weighted velocity $`v_{\mathrm{av}}`$, averaged over the whole solid angle (the averaging is performed near the edge of the computational domain). For each binary a range of H ii regions with different $`X`$–values may then be easily generated by allowing for variations in $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ (alternatively, $`\dot{M}`$ may be scaled by multiplying the density of the RG wind in each grid cell by the same factor).

To obtain the STB counterpart of our model, for the same $`\dot{M}`$ a density distribution of the spherical wind from the primary is calculated, assuming $`v_\mathrm{w}=v_{\mathrm{av}}`$. An appropriate part of that distribution is fed into the spherical grid centered on the secondary, and the same Strömgren-routine is employed to find the boundary of H ii region. We checked that the boundary found this way agrees to within a few percent with the boundary derived from equation (1) of STB.

The two sets of H ii regions are compared in Fig. 3. The upper part of each frame shows our model, and the lower one - the corresponding model obtained within the framework of STB (note that all displayed models are symmetric with respect to the orbital plane).

A clear general trend may be observed: for wide binaries and intense ionizing fluxes (see lower right corner of Fig. 3) the shapes and sizes of our H ii regions converge to those of STB. On the other hand, for close binaries and/or low ionizing luminosities, our H ii regions become entirely different from those of STB: they are not axially symmetric, and their shapes may be fairly complicated (see Fig. 2 and the left column of Fig. 3). Another discrepancy concerns a large part of the space to the right of the secondary in Fig. 3, which in our models is screened from UV photons by the dense disk around the secondary. This neutral region, best visible in the upper right frames of Fig. 3, does not have its counterpart in STB models, and it only disappears when $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is large enough to ionize the disk.

Note also that our H ii regions are generally smaller than those of STB. This is due to the fact that the density of our RG wind is enhanced in the orbital plane compared to the spherically symmetric wind with the same mass loss rate and velocity. However, in the closest binary with the lowest $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ our H ii region becomes much larger than its STB counterpart. This is because the low-density funnels, which are very well developed in this case, are easily ionized, causing the H ii region to evolve into a pair of semi-infinite jet-like lobes (upper left frame of Fig. 3).

### 3.3 Spectra

The spherical grid centered on the secondary and containing the smoothed density distribution is also used to derive the ff spectra of our models. Monochromatic volume emissivity of the ionized gas is calculated with the help of formulae taken from Lang (1980). Subsequently, a viewing direction is chosen and the emissivity is integrated along the line of sight until the optical depth of 5 is reached (or across the whole H ii region in optically thin cases). Observed monochromatic intensities are calculated for an assumed distance of $`1\mathrm{kpc}`$ between the observer and the radiation source.

The resulting spectra of all models presented in Fig. 3 are displayed in Fig. 4 (note that in both figures the models are arranged in the same way, but the whole Fig. 4 is rotated counterclockwise by 90$`\mathrm{°}`$). For comparison, the corresponding STB spectra are also shown. All spectra may easily be scaled to other values of $`\dot{M}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$; the corresponding procedure is illustrated in Fig 5.

As one might expect, in wider systems with high $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ our spectra almost entirely converge to those of STB, while they are significantly different in close systems with low $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$. In such systems our spectral index may be smaller or larger than that of STB; the same is true for turnover frequency and intensity. To make things even more complicated, some spectra exhibit more than one turnover. This is because in some models the distribution of density along the line of sight cannot be approximated by a single power law.

In general, the differences between the spectra of the same system viewed ”pole-on” and along the line joining the stars (with the primary in front of the secondary) are larger in our models than in those of STB (slopes and turnover frequencies are however almost insensitive to such a change of viewing direction). On the other hand, our models predict weaker spectral variations with the orbital phase. This behaviour is explained by the fact that in our models the distinguished direction is perpendicular to the orbital plane, whereas the H ii regions of STB are axially symmetric with respect to the line joining the stars.

### 3.4 Radio maps

Based on density distributions inside the ionized regions and the above described integration technique we derive maps of monochromatic ff emission from our models at $`5\mathrm{GHz}`$. Depending on viewing angle and parameters of the binary, the maps display a rich variety of morphologies, of which a sample is shown in Fig. 6. In some frames the outer boundary of the RG wind model is visible as a regular circular contour. In such cases part of the emission is obviously not accounted for; however it never amounts to more that a few per cent of the total emission at $`5\mathrm{GHz}`$. Like in the case of spectra, the intensities indicated in the maps correspond to a distance of $`1\mathrm{kpc}`$ between the observer and the symbiotic binary. The following observations can be made:

* Bipolar structure with clearly separated lobes is a standard for systems with $`X1`$.
* When the line of sight is inclined to the orbital plane, the lobes may differ both in shape and intensity. The differences are primarily due to the complicated shape of the effectively emitting ($`\tau 1`$) layer in optically thick parts of the H ii region (an example of such region is shown in Fig. 2).
* A significant degree of asymmetry may also be seen in pole-on systems (where only one lobe is visible). The primary cause of this asymmetry is the 3-D spiral described in Sect. 3.2.

The bipolar structure shown by our maps could be easily resolved by MERLIN after its upgrade is complete (e-MERLIN). Even now, MERLIN has sufficient resolution ($`40\mathrm{mas}`$ at $`5\mathrm{GHz}`$ where it is most sensitive) but its sensitivity is too low. However, e-MERLIN, with its new 15 and $`22\mathrm{GHz}`$ receivers will be able to perform imaging at a resolution of $`8\mathrm{AU}`$ at $`1\mathrm{kpc}`$ for sources as weak as a few of $`\mu \mathrm{Jy}`$.

## 4 Discussion

We have demonstrated that the STB model is not applicable to systems with $`a4`$ and $`X2`$. In such systems the H ii region is not axially symmetric, and in most cases it is much smaller than its STB counterpart. This is because the basic STB assumption of a spherically symmetric RG wind is violated. Even if the wind is emitted uniformly from the whole surface of the red giant, it immediately loses its original symmetry due to gravitational attraction of the secondary. As a result, a large-scale density enhancement develops in the orbital plane, with many smaller scale substructures (funnels, spirals and a compact circumsecondary disk). Factors not accounted for in our simulations (RG wind originally enhanced in the orbital plane and/or outflow through the inner Lagrangian point) can only amplify this effect. Based on Fig. 3 the following qualitative predictions can be made:

* In most S-type systems large amounts of neutral material should be observed at the orbital plane. This is because the circumsecondary disk and the orbital density enhancement are much harder to ionize than the spherically symmetric RG wind. This prediction holds for the range of parameters investigated here ($`\dot{M}10^7\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{yr}^1`$; $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}10^{46}\mathrm{phot}\mathrm{s}^1`$) as well as for $`\dot{M}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ scaled as explained in Fig. 5.
* Both the brightness and spectra of the radio continuum emission from edge-on systems should show little variability with the orbital phase. This is because the preferred direction (in which the ionizing quanta propagate most easily) is perpendicular to the orbital plane. Note that in the STB model the preferred direction is the line joining the stars (or rather its extension beyond the secondary).
* High resolution imaging of edge-on systems with lower $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ should reveal two maxima of radio emission. In some systems traces of spiral structure may be detected.

In fact, the first prediction has already been observationally verified. For many S-type systems there are strong indications for low values of $`X`$ ($`1/3`$; Mürset et al. 1991) and/or H ii which are ionization-bounded at least in the orbital plane (Ivison et al. (1994). In accordance with Fig. 3, such nebulae have also been observed for larger $`X`$’s. Recently, Quiroga et al. (2002) have shown that in the case of AR Pav, the central absorption in $`\mathrm{H}_\alpha `$ is formed in a neutral portion of the RG wind which is strongly concentrated towards the orbital plane, (with the total hydrogen column density $`N(\mathrm{H})\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$).

In systems with $`a2`$ and $`X1`$ our radio spectra significantly diverge from those of STB. First, the location and extent of the transition region between optically thin and optically thick parts of the spectrum are different. Second, the shape of the transition region is more complicated in our models. Third, our models radiate much less energy in the optically thick part of the spectrum than their STB counterparts (the difference can amount to two orders of magnitude).

The latter result can be understood as a simple consequence of the smaller spatial extent of our H ii regions (the optically thick flux is roughly proportional to the projected surface area of the ionized part of the wind). In principle, the remaining predictions could be verified by spectroscopic observations. Unfortunately, observational data, especially at higher frequencies, are still too poor to discriminate between various theoretical models. The broadest survey available, reported by Mikołajewska et al. (2002a, b) is based on mm/submm observations of a sample of 20 S-type systems in quiescence. Radio emission from these systems is found to be optically thick at least up to $`1.3\mathrm{mm}(243\mathrm{GHz}=\nu _t`$ = turnover frequency). This is compatible both with the STB model, which for typical quiescent S-type systems predicts $`\nu _\mathrm{t}300\mathrm{GHz}`$ (Seaquist et al. 1993), and with our simulations (see Fig. 4).

At present the only system which allows for a quantitative analysis of the spectrum is CI Cyg, where $`\nu _\mathrm{t}30\mathrm{GHz}`$. For the STB model the outcome of such an analysis is rather unfavourable. In their framework the orbital separation may be estimated from

$$a=300\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{e}}{10^4\mathrm{K}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{\nu _\mathrm{t}}{\mathrm{GHz}}\right)^1\left(\frac{S_\mathrm{t}}{\mathrm{mJy}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{d}{\mathrm{kpc}}\right)\mathrm{AU},$$
(2)
where $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ is the electron temperature of the ionized wind, and $`S_\mathrm{t}`$ is the flux received at the turnover frequency. This estimate should be accurate within a factor of 2 for a range of $`X`$ covering two orders of magnitude. However, in the case of CI Cyg it overestimates $`a`$ by a factor of 35 ($`70\mathrm{AU}`$ compared to $`2\mathrm{AU}`$ obtained from the spectroscopic orbit solution. On the other hand, if one inserts $`a=2`$ in (2) and calculates the turnover flux, then the derived $`S_\mathrm{t}`$ is $`10^3`$ times lower than the actually observed one.

The STB framework also provides an estimate for $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$

$`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ $`=`$ $`10^{56}\alpha _{\mathrm{rec}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{e}}{10^4\mathrm{K}}}\right)^{0.35}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{\mathrm{GHz}}}\right)^{0.1}`$ (3)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_\nu }{\mathrm{mJy}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{\mathrm{kpc}}}\right)^2\mathrm{phot}\mathrm{s}^1,`$
where $`S_\nu `$ is the flux received in the optically thin part of the spectrum at frequency $`\nu `$ Ivison & Seaquist (1995). However, for CI Cyg formula (3) yields a value 20 times lower than that obtained from optical/UV H i and He ii emission lines and bf+ff continuum.

Other inconsistencies between the observed spectrum of CI Cyg and the STB model are discussed by Mikołajewska & Ivison (2001), who suggest that the STB approach might not apply to this system because it is likely that the red giant fills or nearly fills its Roche lobe, and the mass loss is concentrated in a stream flowing through the inner Lagrangian point. If this is really the case, then our models, which predict concentration of the outflow in the equatorial plane and formation of the circumsecondary disk, should provide a better approximation of the observed spectrum than that obtained within the STB framework.

Unfortunately, in this particular case they do not perform much better. A glance at Fig. 4 indicates that in order to obtain $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$ as low as $`30\mathrm{GHz}`$ we would have to assume an unacceptably low $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ and/or $`\dot{M}`$ much lower than $`10^7M_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. A likely solution to this problem is suggested by the spectrum for $`a=1\mathrm{AU},X=0.2`$ in Fig. 4, which is the only one showing an excess in the optically thick part. With increasing $`\dot{M}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ the excess would shift to higher frequencies, mimicking the turnover observed in CI Cyg. The fact that the spectrum obtained for $`a=1\mathrm{AU}`$ offers a better fitting possibility for the system with $`a=2\mathrm{AU}`$ seems to indicate that our model of the latter underestimates the density of the circumsecondary disk and/or overestimates the density of the funnels. Such a conclusion is compatible with arguments concerning the outflow through the inner Lagrangian point.

The deciding tests of our results will become possible when high-resolution radio maps of S-type systems are obtained. Our results suggest that S-type systems will be interesting targets for e-MERLIN and ALMA.

While the models presented here are closer to reality than those obtained within the STB approach, there is still a considerable room for improvements. We have only marginally resolved the disk around the secondary, whose shape and extent may strongly influence shape and extent of the H ii region. To improve on that, future work should include effects of radiation transfer and viscosity, increase the mass–resolution of the SPH code and, accordingly, decrease its time–step. Note, however, that with radiation transfer and viscosity included, the simple scaling relation presented in Fig. 5 would not work. This means that RG wind models extending to hundreds of $`\mathrm{AU}`$ would have to be obtained in order to generate H ii regions emitting as much energy in the optically thin regime as the observed ones. Such simulations would push the CPU requirements beyond currently acceptable limits. When they are hopefully done in the future and a reliable thermal structure of the flow is obtained, the thermal ionization should be taken into account, which at least in some cases may significantly contribute to the radio spectra.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by the Committee for Scientific Research through grants 2P03D 014 19 and 5P03D 019 20.


format: text

text:
# To see a world in a grain of sand

## I INTRODUCTION

Modern physics is built upon three principal pillars, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity. Historically, these principles were developed as logically independent extensions of classical Newtonian mechanics. While each theory constitutes a logically self-consistent framework, unification of these fundamental principles encountered unprecedented difficulties. Quantum mechanics and special relativity were unified in the middle of the last century, giving birth to relativistic quantum field theory. While tremendously successful in explaining experimental data, ultraviolet infinities in the calculations hint that the theory can not be in its final form. Unification of quantum mechanics with general relativity proves to be a much more difficult task and is still the greatest unsolved problem in theoretical physics.

In view of the difficulties involved with unifying these principles, we can ask a simple but rather bold question: Is it possible that the three principles are not logically independent, but rather there is a hierarchical order in their logical dependence? In particular, we notice that both relativity principles can be formulated as statements of symmetry. When applying non-relativistic quantum mechanics to systems with a large number of degrees of freedom, we sometimes find that symmetries can emerge in the low energy sector, which are not present in the starting Hamiltonian. Therefore, there is a logical possibility that one could start from a single non-relativistic Schrödinger equation for a quantum many-body problem, and discover relativity principles emerging in the low energy sector. If this program can indeed be realized, a grand synthesis of fundamental physics can be achieved. Since non-relativistic quantum mechanics is a finite and logically self-consistent framework, everything derived from it should be finite and logically consistent as well.

The Standard Model in particle physics is described by a relativistic quantum field theory and is experimentally verified below the energy scale of $`10^3GeV`$. On the other hand, the Planck energy scale, where quantum gravitational force becomes important, is at $`10^{19}GeV`$. Therefore, we need to extrapolate $`16`$ orders of magnitude to guess the new physics beyond the standard framework of relativistic quantum field theory. It is quite conceivable that Einstein’s principle of relativity is not valid at Planck’s energy scale, it could emerge at energies much lower compared to the Planck’s energy scale through the magic of renormalization group flow. This situation is analogous to one in condensed matter physics, which deals with phenomena at much lower absolute energy scales. The “basic” laws of condensed matter physics are well-known at the Coulomb energy scale of $`110eV`$; almost all condensed matter systems can be well described by a non-relativistic Hamiltonian of the electrons and the nucleiLaughlin and Pines (2000). However, this model Hamiltonian is rather inadequate to describe the various emergent phenomena, like superconductivity, superfluidity, the quantum Hall effect (QHE) and magnetism, which all occur at much lower energy scales, typically of the order of $`1meV`$. These systems are best described by “effective quantum field theories”, not of the original electrons, but of the quasi-particles and collective excitations. In this lecture, I shall give many examples where these “effective quantum field theories” are relativistic quantum field theories or topological quantum field theories, bearing great resemblance to the Standard Model of elementary particles. The collective behavior of many strongly interacting degrees of freedom is responsible for these striking emergent phenomena. The laws governing the quasi-particles and the collective excitations are very different from the laws governing the original electrons and nucleiAnderson (1972). This observation inspires us to construct models of elementary particles by conceptually visualizing them as quasi-particles or collective excitations of a quantum many-body system, whose basic constituents are governed by a simple non-relativistic Hamiltonian. This point of view is best summarized by the following diagram:

| Planck energy at $`10^{19}GeV`$ | $``$ | Coulomb energy at $`10eV`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $``$ ? |  | $``$ |
| Standard Model at $`10^3GeV`$ | $``$ | Superconductivity, QHE, Magnetism etc at 1 meV |
| Relativistic quantum field theory of elementary particles |  | Effective quantum field theory of quasi-particles |

The conceptual similarity between particle physics and condensed matter physics has played a very important role in the history of physics. A crucial ingredient of the Standard Model, the idea of spontaneously broken symmetry and the Higgs mechanism, first originated from the BCS theory of superconductivity. This example vividly shows that the physical vacuum is not empty, but a condensed state of many interacting degrees of freedom. Another fundamental concept is the idea of renormalization group transformation, which was simultaneously developed in the context of particle physics and in the study of critical phenomena. From the theory of renormalization group, we learned that symmetries can emerge at the low energy sector, without being postulated at the microscopic level. Today, as physicists face unprecedented challenges of unifying quantum mechanics with relativity, and tackling the problem of quantum gravity, it is useful to look at these historic successes for inspiration. A new era of close interaction between condensed matter physics and particle physics could shed light on these grand challenges of theoretical physics.

## II EXAMPLES OF EMERGENCE IN CONDENSED MATTER SYSTEMS

In this section, we review some well-known examples in condensed matter physics, where one starts from a quantum many-body system at high energies and arrives at a relativistic or topological field theory of the low energy quasi-particles and elementary excitations. The high energy models often look simple and innocuous, yet the emergent low energy phenomena and their effective field theory description are profound and beautiful.

### II.1 2+1 dimensional QED from superfluid helium films

Let us first start from the physics of a superfluid film. The mean velocity of the helium atoms are significantly lower compared to the speed of light, therefore, relativistic effects of the atoms can be completely neglected. The basic non-relativistic Hamiltonian for this system of identical bosons can be expressed in the following close form:

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\stackrel{}{p}_n^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n<n^{}}{}}V(x_nx_n^{})`$ (1)
where $`V`$ is the inter-atomic potential, whose form depends on the details of the system. However, for a large class of generic interaction potentials, the system flows towards a universal low energy attractive fix point, namely the superfluid ground state. At typical inter-atomic energy scales of a few $`eV`$’s, helium atoms are the correct dynamic variables, and the Hamiltonian (1) is the correct model Hamiltonian. However, at the energy scale characteristic of the superfluid transition, which is of the order of $`1K10^4eV`$, the correct dynamical variables are sound wave modes and the vortices of the superfluid film. (See fig. (1). for an illustration).

The remarkable thing is that the effective field theory model for these low energy degrees of freedom is exactly the relativistic quantum electrodynamics (QED) in $`2+1`$ dimensions! This connection was established by the work of Ambegaokar, Halperin, Nelson and SiggiaAmbegaokar *et al.* (1980) and derived from the point of view of vortex dualityFisher and Lee (1989). To see how this works, let us recall that the basic hydrodynamical variables of the superfluid film are the density $`\rho (x)`$ and the velocity $`v_i(x)`$ fields, ($`i=1,2`$), satisfying the equation of continuity

$`_t\rho +_i(\overline{\rho }v_i)=0`$ (2)
where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the average density of the fluid. Now let us recall that in $`2+1`$ dimensions, the electric field $`E_i`$ has two components while the magnetic field $`B`$ has only one component, which can therefore be identified as a scalar. Faraday’s law of induction is given by the Maxwell equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}_tB+ϵ_{ij}_iE_j=0`$ (3)
where $`ϵ_{ij}`$ is the antisymmetric tensor in two dimensions. Therefore, if we make the following identification,

$`Bc{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\overline{\rho }}}E_iϵ_{ij}v_j`$ (4)
we see that the equation of continuity of the superfluid film agrees exactly with Faraday’s law as expressed in the Maxwell’s equation (3). Next we examine the fluid velocity in the presence of a vortex, with unit vorticity, located at the position $`x_n`$. The superfluid state has a well defined $`U(1)`$ order parameter, and the velocity field can be expressed in terms of the phase, $`\varphi `$, of the $`U(1)`$ order parameter:

$`v_i={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}_i\varphi `$ (5)
Because of the single valuedness of the quantum mechanical wave function, $`e^{i\varphi }`$ must be single valued. Therefore, the superflow around a vortex is quantized:

$`{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{v}𝑑\stackrel{}{l}}=2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}q`$ (6)
where $`q`$ is an integer. For elementary vortices, $`q=\pm 1`$. The differential form of this integral equation is

$`ϵ_{ij}_iv_j=2\pi \rho _v(x)`$ (7)
where $`\rho _v(x)=_nq_n\delta (xx_n)`$ is the density of the vortices and $`q_n=\pm 1`$ is the vorticity. If we identify the vortex density with the electric charge density in Maxwell’s equations, we see that equation (7) is nothing but Gauss’s law in $`2+1`$ dimensions:

$`_iE_i=2\pi \rho _v(x)`$ (8)
Next let us investigate the dynamics of the superfluid velocity $`v_i`$, through the Josephson equations of superfluidity. The first Josephson equation relates the superfluid velocity to the gradient of the superfluid phase, $`\varphi `$, as expressed in (5). The second Josephson equation relates the time derivative of the phase to the chemical potential $`\mathrm{}_t\varphi =\mu `$. Combining the two Josephson equations, we obtain,

$`_tv_i={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}_t_i\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}_i\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{m\overline{\rho }}}_i\rho `$ (9)
where we use the compressibility $`\kappa =\overline{\rho }\frac{\mu }{\rho }`$ to express the chemical potential $`\mu `$ in terms of the density $`\rho `$. This equation agrees exactly with the source-free Maxwell equation

$`cϵ_{ij}_jB=_tE_i`$ (10)
provided one identifies the speed of light as $`c^2=\kappa /m`$. This equation needs to be modified in the presence of the vortex flow $`J_i^v`$, which unwinds the $`U(1)`$ phase by $`2\pi `$ each time a vortex passes. The vortex current satisfies the equation of continuity

$`_t\rho _v+_iJ_i^v=0`$ (11)
Therefore, the source free Maxwell equation (10) acquires a additional term, in order to be compatible with both (11) and (8):

$`cϵ_{ij}_jB=_tE_i+2\pi J_i^v`$ (12)
This is nothing but Ampere’s law, supplemented by Maxwell’s displacement current.

This proves the complete equivalence between the superfluid equations and Maxwell’s equations in $`2+1`$ dimensions. Interestingly enough, we seem to have completed a rather curious loop. Starting from the relativistic Standard Model of the quarks and leptons, one arrives at an effective non-relativistic model of the helium atoms (1). However, as one reduces the energy scale further, the effective low energy degrees of freedom become the sound modes and the vortices, which are described by the field theory of $`2+1`$ dimensional quantum electrodynamics, very similar to the model we started from in the first place! A “civilization” living inside the helium film would first discover the Maxwell’s equations, and then, after much harder work, they would establish equation (1) as their “theory of everything”.

Superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ films are relatively simple because the $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ atom is a boson. The superfluidity of $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ is much more complex, with many competing superfluid phases. In fact, VolovikVolovik (2001) has pointed out that many phenomena of the superfluid phase of $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ share striking similarities with the Standard Model of elementary particles. These similarities inspired him to pioneer a program to address cosmological questions by condensed matter analogs.

### II.2 Dirac fermions of $`d`$ wave superconductors

Having considered the low energy properties of a superfluid, let us now consider the low energy excitations of a superconductor, with $`d`$ wave pairing symmetry. In this case, there are low energy fermionic excitations besides the bosonic excitations. This system is realized in the high $`T_c`$ superconductors. The microscopic Hamiltonian is the two dimensional (2D) Hubbard model, or the $`tJ`$ model, expressible as

$`H=t{\displaystyle \underset{ij,\sigma }{}}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+J{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j`$ (13)
where $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ is the electron creation operator on site $`i`$ with spin $`\sigma `$, $`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$ is the electron spin operator and $`ij`$ denotes the nearest neighbor bond on a square lattice. Double occupancy of a single lattice site is forbidden.

This model is valid at the energy scale of $`150meV`$, which is the typical energy scale of the antiferromagnetic exchange $`J`$. When the filling factor $`x`$ lies between $`10\%`$ and $`20\%`$, the ground state of this model is believed to be a $`d`$ wave superconductor. There is indeed overwhelming experimental evidence that the pairing symmetry of the high $`T_c`$ superconductor is $`d`$ wave like. Remarkably, the elementary excitations in this case can be described by the $`2+1`$ dimensional Dirac Hamiltonian. In contrast to the $`tJ`$ model, which is valid at the energy scale of $`100meV`$, the effective Dirac Hamiltonian for the $`d`$ wave quasi-particles is valid at much lower energy, typically of the order of $`30meV`$, which is the maximal gap. While the connection between the $`tJ`$ model and $`d`$ wave superconductivity still needs to be firmed established, the connection between the $`d`$ wave BCS quasi-particle Hamiltonian and the Dirac equation is well-known in the condensed matter communityVolovik (1993); Simon and Lee (1997); Balents *et al.* (1998); Franz *et al.* (2002). Here we follow a pedagogical presentation by Balents, Fisher and NayakBalents *et al.* (1998).

The BCS mean field Hamiltonian for a $`d`$ wave superconductor is given by

$$H=\underset{k\alpha }{}ϵ_kc_{k\alpha }^{}c_{k\alpha }+\underset{k}{}[\mathrm{\Delta }_kc_k^{}c_k^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}c_kc_k].$$
(14)
where $`ϵ_k`$ is the quasi-particle dispersion relation, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ is the $`d`$ wave pairing gap, given by

$$ϵ_k=2t(cosk_x+cosk_y),\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(cosk_xcosk_y)$$
(15)
One can introduce a four component spinor

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{a\alpha }(\stackrel{}{k})=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{11}\\ \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{21}\\ \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{12}\\ \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{22}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}c_k^{}\\ c_k^{}\\ c_k^{}\\ c_k^{}\end{array}\right].$$
(16)
which doubles the number of degrees of freedom. This can be compensated by summing over only half of the Brillouin zone, say $`k_y>0`$. In terms of these variables, the BCS Hamiltonian becomes

$$H=\underset{k,k_y>0}{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{a\alpha }^{}(\stackrel{}{k})[\tau ^zϵ_k+\tau ^+\mathrm{\Delta }_k+\tau ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}]_{ab}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{b\alpha }(\stackrel{}{k}),$$
(17)
where $`\stackrel{}{\tau }_{ab}`$ are the standard Pauli matrices acting in the particle/hole subspace.

The d-wave nodes are approximately located near the special wave vectors $`\stackrel{}{K}_1=(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$, $`\stackrel{}{K}_2=(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$, $`\stackrel{}{K}_3=\stackrel{}{K}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{K}_4=\stackrel{}{K}_2`$. In order to obtain a long wave length and low energy description, we can expand around the nodal points $`\stackrel{}{K}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{K}_2`$, which satisfy the $`k_y>0`$ constraint. The nodal points $`\stackrel{}{K}_3`$ and $`\stackrel{}{K}_4`$ are automatically taken into account in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ spinor.

Introducing the rotated coordinates $`q_x`$ and $`q_y`$, as indicated in fig. (2), and the effective spinors

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{1a\alpha }(\stackrel{}{q})=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{a\alpha }(\stackrel{}{K}_1+\stackrel{}{q}),\mathrm{\Psi }_{2a\alpha }(\stackrel{}{q})=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{a\alpha }(\stackrel{}{K}_2+\stackrel{}{q})$$
(18)
we obtain

$$H=\underset{qK_1}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{1a\alpha }^{}(\stackrel{}{q})[\tau ^zϵ_{K_1+q}+\tau ^+\mathrm{\Delta }_{K_1+q}+\tau ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{K_1+q}^{}]_{ab}\mathrm{\Psi }_{1b\alpha }(\stackrel{}{q})+(12)$$
(19)
Here $`qK_1`$ denotes a momentum sum near the vector $`K_1`$. Expansion near $`K_1`$ gives

$$ϵ_{K_1+q}v_Fq_x,\mathrm{\Delta }_{K_1+q}\mathrm{\Delta }q_y$$
(20)
A similar expansion applies for $`K_2`$. Going to the continuum limit, we obtain the Hamiltonian density

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1a\alpha }^{}[v_F\tau ^zi_x+(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\tau ^++\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}\tau ^{})i_y]_{ab}\mathrm{\Psi }_{1b\alpha }`$ (21)
$`+(12;xy),`$
which is exactly the Dirac Hamiltonian density in $`2+1`$ dimensions. Once again, we see the emergent relativistic behavior of a quantum many-body system. We start from a non-relativistic interacting fermion problem at higher energies, but recover a relativistic Dirac equation at low energies.

### II.3 Emergence of a topological quantum field theory

When Einstein first wrote down his field equation of general relativity, he said that the left-hand side of the equation that had to do specifically with geometry and gravity was beautiful - it was as if made of marble. But the right-hand side of the equation that had to do with matter and how matter produces gravity was ugly - it was as if made of wood. Taking Einstein’s aesthetic point of view one step further, one is tempted to construct a fundamental theory by starting with the description of the topology, or a topological field theory without matter and without even geometry from the start. Having demonstrated that the relativistic Maxwell equation and Dirac equation can emerge in the low energy sector of a quantum many-body problem, I now give an example demonstrating how a topological quantum field theory, namely the Chern-Simons (CS) theory, can emerge from the matter degrees of freedom in the low energy sector of the QHE. The CS topological quantum field theory was derived microscopically by Zhang, Hansson and KivelsonZhang *et al.* (1989), and reviewed extensively in ref. Zhang (1992).

The basic Hamiltonian of QHE is simply that of a two-dimensional electron gas in a perpendicular magnetic field.

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\stackrel{}{p}_n{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}\stackrel{}{A}(x_n)\right]^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}eA_0(x_n)+{\displaystyle \underset{n<n^{}}{}}V(x_nx_n^{})`$ (22)
where $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ is the vector potential of the external magnetic field, which in the symmetric gauge can be expressed as

$$A_i=\frac{1}{2}Bϵ_{ij}x_j$$
(23)
$`A_0`$ is the scalar potential of the external electric field, $`E_i=_iA_0`$, and $`V(x)`$ is the interaction between the electrons. For high magnetic fields, the electron spins are polarized along the same direction. Since the spin wave function is totally symmetric, the Hamiltonian (22) operates on orbital wave functions which are totally antisymmetric. This model is valid at the Coulombic energy scale of several $`eV`$’s and has no particular symmetry or topological properties. Since the external magnetic field breaks time reversal symmetry, an invariant tensor $`ϵ_{ij}`$ can be introduced into the response function, and in particular, one can have a current $`J_i`$, which flows transverse to the applied electric field $`E_j`$, given by

$`J_i=\rho _H^1ϵ_{ij}E_j`$ (24)
where $`\rho _H`$ is defined as the Hall resistance. Since the electric field is perpendicular to the induced current, it does no work on the electrons, and the current flow is dissipationless. The 2D electron density $`n`$ in a magnetic field $`B`$ is best measured in terms of a dimensionless quantity called the filling factor $`\nu =n/n_B`$, where $`n_B=B/\varphi _0=eB/hc`$ is the magnetic flux density. QHE is the remarkable fact that the coefficient of the Hall response is quantized, given by

$`\rho _H=\nu ^1{\displaystyle \frac{h}{e^2}}`$ (25)
when the filling fraction is near a rational number $`\nu =p/q`$ with odd denominator $`q`$. QHE at fractional values of $`\nu `$ is referred to as the fractional QHE (FQHE).

FQHE is described by Laughlin’s celebrated wave function. There is also an alternative way to understand this profound effect by the Chern-Simons-Landau-Ginzburg (CSLG) effective field theoryZhang (1992). The idea is to perform a singular gauge transformation on (22), and turn electrons into bosons. This is only possible in $`2+1`$ dimensions. Consider another Hamiltonian

$$H^{}=\frac{1}{2m}\underset{n}{}\left[\stackrel{}{p}_n\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}(x_n)\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{a}(x_n)\right]^2+\underset{n}{}eA_0(x_n)+\underset{n<n^{}}{}V(x_nx_n^{})$$
(26)
Every symbol in $`H^{}`$ has the same meaning as in $`H`$, except the new vector potential $`\stackrel{}{a}`$, which describes a gauge interaction among the particles and is given by

$$\stackrel{}{a}(x_n)=\frac{\varphi _0}{2\pi }\frac{\theta }{\pi }\underset{n^{}n}{}\stackrel{}{}\alpha _{nn^{}}$$
(27)
where $`\varphi _0=hc/e`$ is the unit of flux quantum and $`\alpha _{nn^{}}`$ is the angle sustained by the vector connecting particles $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ with an arbitrary vector specifying a reference direction, say the $`\widehat{x}`$ axis. The crucial difference here is while $`H`$ operates on a fully antisymmetric fermionic wave function, $`H^{}`$ operates on a fully symmetric bosonic wave function. One can prove an exact theorem which states that these two quantum eigenvalue problems are equivalent to each other when $`\theta /\pi =(2k+1)`$ is an odd integer. In this case, each electron is attached to an odd number of fictitious quanta of gauge flux (cause by $`a`$), so that their exchange statistics in $`2+1`$ dimensions becomes bosonic. These bosons, called composite bosonsGirvin and Macdonald (1987); Zhang *et al.* (1989); Read (1989), see two different types of gauge fields: the external magnetic field $`A`$, and an internal statistical gauge field $`a`$. The average of the internal statistical gauge field depends on the density of the electrons. When the external magnetic field is such that the filling fraction $`\nu =n_B/n=1/2k+1`$ is the inverse of an odd integer, we can always choose $`\theta =(2k+1)\pi `$ so that the net field seen by the composite bosons cancels each other on the average.

The statistical transmutation from electrons to composite bosons can be naturally implemented in quantum field theory through the Cherm-Simons term. The Chern-Simons Lagrangian is given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\pi }{\theta }\right)\frac{1}{\varphi _0}\epsilon ^{\mu v\rho }a_\mu _va_\rho a_\mu j^\mu $$
(28)
here $`j^\mu `$ is the current of the composite boson, and $`\mu =0,1,2`$ is the space-time index in $`2+1`$ dimensions. The equation of motion for the $`a_0`$ field is

$$ϵ^{ij}_ia_j(x)=\varphi _0\frac{\theta }{\pi }\rho (x)$$
(29)
whose solution for $`\rho (x)=_n\delta (xx_n)`$ exactly gives the statistical gauge field in (27).

Now we can present the key argument of the CSLG theoryZhang (1992) of QHE. Even though course the statistical transformation can be performed in any $`2+1`$ dimensional systems, this does not mean that the low energy limit of any $`2+1`$ dimensional system is given by a CS theory, since the partition function also involves the integration over the matter fields $`j^\mu `$ in the second term of (28). The key observation is that at the special filling factors of $`\nu =1/2k+1`$, the combined external and statistical magnetic field seen by the composite boson vanishes, therefore, composite bosons naturally condense into a superfluid state. This is the “magic” of the magic filling factors $`\nu =1/2k+1`$. We already showed in section (II.1) that the effective field theory of a $`2+1`$ dimensional bosonic condensate is the $`2+1`$ dimensional Maxwell theory. Therefore, the integration over the matter fields in (28) gives the Maxwell Lagrangian, $`f_{\mu \nu }^2`$. In $`2+1`$ dimensions, the CS term contains one fewer derivative compared with the Maxwell term, it therefore dominates in the long-wave length and low-energy limit. Therefore, the effective Hamiltonian of FQHE is just the topological CS theory, without the matter current term in (28).

Matter degrees of freedom in the starting Hamiltonian (22) are magically turned into topological degrees of freedom of the CS field theory. Alchemy works! Wood is turned into marble! Many people argued that a quantum theory of gravity should be formulated independent of the background metric. The emergent CSLG theory starts from matter degrees of freedom in a background setting, but the resulting effective field theory is independent of the background metric. This demonstrates that in principle, background independent theory can indeed be constructed from non-relativistic quantum many-body systems. In fact, the CSLG theory also leads to a beautiful duality symmetry based on the discrete $`SL(2,Z)`$ group, very similar to the duality symmetry in the 4D Seiberg-Witten theory. This duality symmetry is again emergent, and it predicts the global phase diagram of the QH Hall system. The phase diagram has a beautiful fractal structure, with one phase nested inside each other, iterated ad infinitumKivelson *et al.* (1992).

## III THE FOUR DIMENSIONAL QUANTUM HALL EFFECT

In the previous sections we saw that the collective behavior of quantum many-body systems often gives rise to novel emergent phenomena in the low energy sector, which are described in terms of relativistic or topological quantum field theories. Therefore, one can’t help but wonder if the Standard Model could also work this way. The problem is that the well-understood examples of emergent relativistic behaviors in quantum many-body systems work only for lower dimensions, and these models do not have sufficient richness yet. In order for the Stanford Model to appear as emergent behavior, we are led to study higher-dimensional quantum many-body systems, specially the higher-dimensional generalizations of QHE.

### III.1 The model

Of all the novel quantum many-body systems, QHE plays a very special role: it is the only well understood condensed matter system whose low energy limit is a topological quantum field theory. Unlike most other emergent phenomena, like superconductivity and magnetism, QHE works only in two spatial dimensions. There are various ways to see this. First of all, the Hall current is non-dissipative. For the electric field to do no work on the current, the current must flow in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the electric field. In two spatial dimensions, given the direction of the electric field, there is an unique transverse direction for the Hall current, given by equation (24). Since the current and the electric field both carry spatial vector indices, the response must therefore be a rank-two tensor. But there are no natural rank-two antisymmetric tensors in higher dimensions! Secondly, both the single-particle wave function and Laughlin’s many-body wave function make extensive use of complex coordinates of particles, which can only be done in two spatial dimensions. This suggests that the higher-dimensional generalization of QHE would necessarily involve a higher-dimensional generalization of complex numbers and analytic functions. In fact, both of these considerations lead to the same higher-dimensional structure, as we shall explain below.

In higher dimensions, given a direction of the electric field, there is no unique transverse direction for the Hall current to flow. However, this statement holds only if we consider the $`U(1)`$ charge current. If the underlying particles – and the associated currents – carry a non-abelian, e.g. $`SU(2)`$ quantum number, an unique prescription for the current can be given in four dimensions. In four dimensions, given a fixed direction of the electric field, say along the $`x_4`$ direction, there are three transverse directions. If the current carries a $`SU(2)`$ isospin label, it also has three internal isospin directions. In this case, the current can flow exactly along the direction in which the isospin is pointing. In this prescription, no preferential direction in space or isospin is picked. The system is invariant under a combined rotation of space and isospin. To be more precise, the mathematical generalization of (24) in four dimensions is

$$J_\mu ^i=\sigma \eta _{\mu \nu }^iE_\nu $$
(30)
Here $`\sigma `$ is the generalized Hall conductivity, $`\eta _{\mu \nu }^i`$ is the t’ Hooft tensor, explicitly given by $`\eta _{\mu \nu }^i=ϵ_{i\mu \nu 4}+\delta _{i\mu }\delta _{4\nu }\delta _{i\nu }\delta _{4\mu }`$ and $`J_\mu ^i`$ is the isospin current and $`E_\nu `$ is the electric field. Here $`\mu ,\nu =1,2,3,4`$ label the spatial directions and $`i=1,2,3`$ label the isospin directions. From (30), we see easily that if $`E_\nu `$ points along the $`x_4`$ direction, the current flows along the $`x_{1,2,3}`$ directions, explicitly determined by the direction of the isospin. Therefore, the t’ Hooft tensor is exactly the rank-two antisymmetric tensor we were looking for! The occurrence of the t’ Hooft tensor suggests that this problem must have something to do with the $`SU(2)`$ instantonBelavin *et al.* (1975), where the t’ Hooft tensor was first introduced. It is not only an invariant tensor under combined spatial and isospin rotations, it also satisfies a self-duality condition:

$$\eta _{\mu \nu }^i=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }\eta _{\rho \lambda }^i$$
(31)
Self-duality and anti-self-duality are the hallmarks of the $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills instanton.

Now let us motivate the problem from the point of view of generalizing complex numbers. The natural generalizations of complex numbers are quaternionic numbers, first discovered by Hamilton. A quaternionic number is expressed as $`q=q_0+q_1i+q_2j+q_3k`$, where $`i,j,k`$ are the three imaginary units. This again suggests that the most natural generalization of QHE is from 2D to 4D, where quaternionic numbers can be interpreted as the coordinates of particles in four dimensions. Unlike complex numbers, quaternionic numbers do not commute with each other. In fact, the three imaginary units of quaternionic numbers can be identified with the three generators of the $`SU(2)`$ group. This suggests that the underlying quantum mechanics problem should involve a non-abelian $`SU(2)`$ gauge field.

Our last motivation to generalize QHE comes from its geometric structure. As pointed out by HaldaneHaldane (1983), a nice way to study QHE is by mapping it to the surface of a 2D sphere $`S^2`$, with a Dirac mangnetic monopole at its center. (see Fig. 4). The Dirac quantization condition implies that the product of the electric charge, $`e`$, and the magnetic charge, $`g`$, is quantized, i.e. $`eg=S`$, where $`2S`$ is a integer. The number $`2S+1`$ is the degeneracy of the lowest Landau level. The reason for the existence of a magnetic monopole over $`S^2`$ is a coincidence between algebra and geometry. In order for the monopole potential to be topologically non-trivial, the gauge potentials extended from the north pole and the south pole have to match non-trivially at the equator. Since the equator, $`S^1`$, and the gauge group, $`U(1)`$, are isomorphic to each other, a non-trivial winding number exists. Therefore, one may ask whether there are other higher-dimensional spheres for which a similar monopole structure can be defined. This naturally leads to the requirement that the equator of a higher-dimensional sphere to be isomorphic to a mathematical group. This coincidence occurs only for the four sphere, $`S^4`$, whose equator, $`S^3`$, is isomorphic to the group $`SU(2)`$. This coincidence between algebra and geometry leads to the first two Hopf maps, $`S^3S^2`$ and $`S^7S^4`$.

Therefore, all three considerations – the physical motivation of the transverse current, the mathematical motivation of generalizing complex numbers to quaternionic numbers and the geometric consideration of non-trivial monopole structures – lead to the same conclusion: A non-trivial QHE liquid can be defined in four spatial dimensions (4D) with a $`SU(2)`$ non-abelian gauge group. Recently, Hu and I (ZH) indeed succeeded in constructing such a model for the 4D QHEZhang and Hu (2001). The microscopic Hamiltonian describes a collection of $`N`$ fermionic particles moving on $`S^4`$, interacting with a $`SU(2)`$ background isospin gauge potential $`A_a`$. It is explicitly defined by

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2MR^2}\underset{a<b}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ab}^2$$
(32)
where $`M`$ is the mass of the fermionic particle, $`R`$ is the radius of $`S^4`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ab}=i(x_aD_bx_bD_a)`$ is the gauge covariant angular momentum operator. Here $`x_a`$ is the coordinate of the fermionic particle and $`D_a=_a+A_a`$ is the gauge invariant momentum operator. The gauge potential $`A_a`$ ($`a=1,2,3,4,5`$) is given by

$$A_\mu =\frac{i}{1+x_5}\eta _{\mu \nu }^ix_\nu I_i,A_5=0$$
(33)
where $`I_i`$ are the generators of the $`SU(2)`$ gauge group. An important parameter in this problem is $`I`$, the isospin quantum number carried by the fermionic particle. The eigenstates and the eigenvalues of this Hamiltonian can be solved completely, and the spectrum shares many properties with the Landau levels in the 2D QHE problem. In particular, when $`I`$ becomes large, the ground state of this problem is massively degenerate, with the degenracy scaling like $`DI^3`$. In order to keep the energy levels finite in the thermodynamical limit, one is required to take the limit $`I\mathrm{}`$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$, such that

$$R^2/2I=l^2$$
(34)
is finite. $`l`$, called the magnetic length, defines the fundamental length scale in this problem. It gives a natural ultraviolet cut-off in this theory, without breaking any rotational symmetries of the underlying Hamiltonian.

While the 4D QH liquid can be elegantly defined on $`S^4`$, with the full isometry group as the symmetry of the Hamiltonian, it can also be defined on $`R^4`$, with more restricted symmetries. This construction has recently been given by Elvang and PolchinskiElvang and Polchinski (2002).

### III.2 Properties of the model

The 2D QH liquid has many interesting properties including incompressibility of the quantum liquid, fractional charge and statistics of elementary excitations, a topological field theory description of the low energy physics, a realization of non-commutative geometry and relativistic chiral excitations at the edge of the QH droplet. Most of these properties also carry over to the QH liquid constructed by ZH. When one completely fills the massively degenerate lowest energy ground states with fermionic particles, with filling factor $`\nu N/D=1`$, one obtains an incompressible quantum liquid, with a finite excitation gap towards all excited states. FQH states can also be constructed for filling fractions $`\nu =1/k^3`$, where $`k`$ is a odd integer. Explicit microscopic wave functions, similar to Laughlin’s wave function for the 2D QHE, can be constructed for these incompressible states. The elementary excitations of the FQH states also carry fractional charge $`1/k^3`$, providing the first direct generalization of fractional charge in a higher-dimensional quantum many-body system.

As discussed in section (II.3), the low energy physics of the 2D QHE can be described by a topological quantum field theory, the CSLG theory. A natural question is whether the QH liquid constructed by ZH can be described by a topological quantum field theory as well. This construction has indeed been accomplished recently, by Bernevig, Chern, Hu, Toumbas and myselfBernevig *et al.* (2002). As explained earlier, while the underlying orbital space for our QH liquid is four dimensional, the fermionic particles also carry a large internal isospin degree of freedom $`I`$. Since $`I`$ scales like $`R^2`$, the internal space is 2D, which makes the total configuration space a six-dimensional (6D) manifold. Therefore, our QH liquid can either be viewed as a 4D QH liquid with a large internal $`SU(2)`$ isospin degrees of freedom, or equivalently, as a 6D QH liquid without any internal degree of freedom. The 6D manifold is $`CP_3`$, the complex projective space with three complex (and therefore six real) dimensions. This manifold is locally isomorphic to $`S^4\times S^2`$. The deep connection between the four sphere $`S^4`$ and the complex manifold $`CP_3`$ was first introduced to physics through the twistor program of PenrosePenrose and MacCallum (1972) and has been exploited extensively in the mathematical literature. SparlingSparling (2002) has recently pointed out the close connection between the twistor theory and the 4D QHE. Our recent work shows that the low energy effective field theory of our QH liquid is given by an abelian CS theory in $`6+1`$ dimensions

$`S=\nu {\displaystyle 𝑑td^6xA}dAdAdA`$ (35)
where $`A`$ is an abelian $`U(1)`$ gauge field over the total configuration space $`CP_3`$, and $`\nu `$ is the filling factor. This theory can also be dimensionally reduced to a $`SU(2)`$ non-abelian CS theory in $`4+1`$ dimensions, given by

$$S=\frac{4\pi \nu }{3}𝑑td^4xTr\left(𝐀d𝐀d𝐀\frac{3i}{2}𝐀𝐀𝐀d𝐀\frac{3}{5}𝐀𝐀𝐀𝐀𝐀\right)$$
(36)
where $`𝐀`$ is a $`SU(2)`$ matrix-valued gauge field over the orbital space $`S^4`$. The precise equivalence of these two models parallels the two equivalent views of our QH liquid mentioned earlier.

An interesting property which arises from this field theory is the concept of duality. As discussed in section (II.3), there is a natural particle-flux duality in the 2D QHE problem: An electron can be represented as a boson with an odd number of flux quanta attached to it. In the new QH liquid, there are other extended objects, namely 2-branes and 4-branes besides the basic fermionic particle, which can be viewed as a 0-brane. Each one of these extended objects is dual to a generalized flux, according to the following table:

| Particle | $``$ | 6-flux |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Membrane | $``$ | 4-flux |
| 4-brane | $``$ | 2-flux |

In the 2D QH problem, the Laughlin quasi-particles obey fractional statistics in 2+1 dimensions. It is natural to ask how fractional statistics generalize in our QH liquid. It turns out that the concept of fractional statistics of point particles can not be generalized to higher dimensions, but fractional statistics for extended objects exist in higher dimensionsWu and Zee (1988); Tze and Nam (1989). In our case, 2-branes have non-trivial statistical interactions which generalizes statistical interactions of Laughlin quasi-particles.

Extended objects like D-branes have been studied extensively in string theory, however, a full quantum theory describing their interactions still needs to be developed. The advantage of our approach is that the underlying microscopic quantum physics is completely specified. Since the extended topological objects emerge naturally from the underlying microscopic physics, there is hope that a full quantum theory can be developed in this case.

The study of 4DQHE is partially motivated by the possibility of emergent relativistic behavior in $`3+1`$ dimensions. There are several ways to see the connection. First of all, the eigenstates and the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian (32) have a natural interpretation in terms of the 4D Euclidean quantum field theory. If we consider a Euclidean quantum field theory as obtained from a Wick rotation of a $`3+1`$ dimensional compactified Minkowskian quantum field theory, one is naturally lead to consider the eigenvalues and the eigenfunctions of the Euclidean Dirac, Maxwell and Einstein operators on $`S^4`$. It turns out that the these eigenvalues and eigenfunctions coincide exactly with the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the 4DQHE Hamiltonian (32), where the spins of the relativistic particles are identified with the isospin quantum number, $`I`$. The eigenvalue problems of the Dirac, Maxwell and Einstein operators can be directly identified with the Hamiltonian eigenvalue problems for $`I=1/2,1`$ and $`2`$. We mentioned earlier that the underlying fermionic particles constituting our QH liquid have high isospin quantum numbers. However, collective excitations of this QH liquid, which are formed as composite particles, can have low isospin quantum numbers. It is therefore tempting to identify the collective excitations of the QH liquid with the relativistic particles we are familiar with. However, this equivalence is only established in Euclidean space. In order to consider the relationship to Minkowski space, we are naturally lead to the excitations at the boundary, or the edge of our QH liquid.

Let us first review the collective excitations at the edge of a 2D QH liquid. The 2D QH liquid can be confined by a one-body confining potential $`V`$. A density excitation is created by removing a particle from the QH liquid and placing it outside of the QH liquid. This way, we have created a particle-hole excitation. If the particle-hole pair moves along a direction parallel to the edge, with a center of mass momentum $`q_x`$, the Lorentz force due to the magnetic field acts oppositely on the particle-hole pair, and tries to stretch the pair in the direction perpendicular to the edge. This Lorentz force is balanced by the electrostatic attraction due to the force of the confining potential. Therefore, a unique dipole moment, or a finite separation $`y`$ of the particle hole pair, is obtained in terms of $`q_x`$:

$$y=l^2q_x$$
(37)
On the other hand, the energy of the dipole pair is simply given by $`E=V^{}y`$. Here $`V^{}`$ is the derivative of the potential evaluated at the edge. Therefore, we obtain a relativistic dispersion relation for the dipole pair

$$E=V^{}y=l^2V^{}q_x$$
(38)
with the speed of light given by $`c=l^2V^{}`$. Since the cross product of the gradient of the potential and the magnetic field selects a unique direction along the edge, the excitation is also chiral. In this problem, it can also be shown that not only the dispersion, but also the full interaction is relativistic in the low energy limit. Therefore, the physics at the edge of a 2D QH liquid provides another example of emergent relativistic behaviorWen (1990); Stone (1990).

The physics of the edge excitations of a 2D QH liquid partially carries over to our 4D QH liquidZhang and Hu (2001); Hu and Zhang (2002); Elvang and Polchinski (2002). Here we can also introduce a confining potential, say around the north pole of $`S^4`$, and construct a droplet of the QH fluid. Since our QH liquid is incompressible, the only low energy excitations are the volume preserving shape distortions at the surface. These surface waves can be formed from the particle-hole excitations similar to the ones we described for the 2D QH liquid. A natural speed of light can be introduced, and is given by $`c=l^2V^{}`$. Since our underlying particles carry a large isospin, $`I`$, the bosonic composite particle-hole excitations carry all isospins, ranging from $`0`$ to $`2I`$. The underlying fermionic particles have a strong coupling between their orbital and isospin degrees of freedom. This coupling translates into a relativistic spin-orbital coupling of the bosonic collective excitations. Therefore, excitations with $`I=0,1,2`$ obey the free relativistic Klein-Gordon, Maxwell and Einstein equations. This is an encouraging sign that one might be able to construct an emergent relativistic quantum field theory from the boundary excitations of our 4D QH liquid.

However, there are also many complications which are not yet fully understood in our approach. The most fundamental problem is that particles of our 4D QH liquid carry a large internal isospin, which makes the problem effectively a 6D one. This is the basic reason for the proliferation of higher-spin particles in our theory, an “embarrassment of riches”. In addition, there is an incoherent fermionic continuum besides the bosonic collective modes. All these problems can only be addressed when one studies the effects of the interaction carefully. In fact, single particle states in the lowest-Landau-level (LLL) have the full symmetry of $`SU(4)`$, which is the isometry group of the six dimensional $`CP_3`$ manifold. In order to make the problem truly 4D, one needs to introduce interactions which breaks the $`SU(4)`$ symmetry to a $`SO(5)`$ symmetry, the isometry group of $`S^4`$. This is indeed possible. $`SO(5)`$ is isomorphic to the group $`Sp(4)`$. $`Sp(4)`$ differs from $`SU(4)`$ by an additional reality condition, implemented through a charge conjugation matrix $`R`$. Therefore, any interactions which involve this $`R`$ matrix would break the symmetry from $`SU(4)`$ to $`SO(5)`$, and the geometry of $`S^4`$ would emerge naturally. In the strong coupling limit, low energy excitations are not particles but membranes. This reduces the entropy at the edge from $`R^3\times R^2`$ to $`R^3`$, and is the first step towards solving the problem of “embarrassment of riches”.

### III.3 Space, time and the quantum

The 2D QH problem gives a precise mathematical realization of the concept of non-commutative geometryDouglas and Nekrasov (2001). In the limit of high magnetic field, we can take the limit of $`m0`$, so that all higher Landau levels are projected out of the spectrum. In this limit, the equation of motion for a charged particle in an uniform magnetic field $`B`$ and a scalar potential $`V(x,y)`$ is given by

$$\dot{x}=l^2\frac{V}{y},\dot{y}=l^2\frac{V}{x}$$
(39)
We notice that the equations for $`x`$ and $`y`$ look exactly like the Hamilton equations of motion for $`p`$ and $`q`$. Therefore, this equation of motion can be derived as quantum Heisenberg equations of motion if we postulate a similar commutation relation:

$$[x,y]=il^2$$
(40)
Therefore, the 2D QHE provides a physical realization of the mathematical concept of non-commutative geometry, in which different spatial components do not commute. Early in the development of quantum field theory, this feature has been suggested as a way to cut off the ultraviolet divergences of quantum field theory. In quantum mechanics, the non-commutativity of $`q`$ and $`p`$ leads to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and resolves the classical catastrophe of an electron falling towards the atomic nucleus. Similarly, non-commutativity of space and time could cut off the ultraviolet space-time fluctuations in quantum gravityDouglas and Nekrasov (2001). However, the problem is that equation (40) can not be easily generalized to higher dimensions, since one needs to pick some fixed pairs of non-commuting coordinates. Our QH liquid provides a physical realization of non-commutative geometry in four dimensions. The generalization of equation (40) becomes

$`[X_\mu ,X_\nu ]=4il^2\eta _{\mu \nu }^in_i`$ (41)
where $`X_\mu `$’s are the four spatial coordinates and $`n_i`$ is the isospin coordinate of a particle. This structure of non-commutative geometry is invariant under a combined rotation of space and isospin and treats all these coordinates on equal footing. It is tempting to identify $`l`$ in equation (41) as the Planck length, which provides the fundamental cutoff of the length scale according to the quantization rule (41). In our theory, however, we know what lies beyond the Planck length: the degrees of freedom are those associated with the higher Landau levels of the Hamiltonian (32).

At this point, it would be useful to discuss the possible implications of (41) on the quantum structure of space-time. In the 4D QH liquid, there is no concept of time. Since all eigenstates in the LLL are degenerate, there is no energy difference which can be used to measure time according to the quantum relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. However, at the boundary of the 4D QH liquid, an energy difference is introduced through the confining potential. The left hand side of equation (41) involves four coordinates. Three of them are the spatial coordinates parallel to the boundary. The fourth coordinate, perpendicular to the boundary, measures the energy difference, and therefore measures time. The commutator among these coordinates implies a quantization procedure. The right hand side of this equation involves the Planck length and the spin. Therefore, this simple equation seems to unify all the fundamental physical concepts: space, time, the quantum, the Planck length and spin in a simple and elegant fashion. It would be nice to use it as a basis to construct a fundamental physical theory.

### III.4 Magic liquids, magic dimensions, magic convergence?

So far our philosophical point of view and our model seem to be drastically different from the approach typical of string theory. However, after the discovery of the new QH liquid, a surprising pattern starts to emerge. Soon after the construction of the new 4D QH liquid, FabingerFabinger (2002) found that it could be implemented as certain solutions in string theory. Moreover, close examination of this pattern reveals remarkable mathematical similarities not only between these two approaches, but also with other fundamental ideas in algebra, geometry, supersymmetry and the twistor program on quantum space time. The following table summarizes the connections.

| Division Algebras: | Real Namubers | Complex Numbers | Quaternions | Octonions |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Hopf maps: | $`S^1S^1`$ | $`S^3S^2`$ | $`S^7S^4`$ | $`S^{15}S^8`$ |
| QH liquids: | Luttinger liquid? | Laughlin liquid | ZH liquid | ? |
| Random matrix ensembles: | Orthogonal | Unitary | Symplectic | ? |
| Fractional statistics: | ? | particles | membranes | ? |
| Geometric phase: | $`Z_2`$ | $`U(1)`$ | $`SU(2)`$ | ? |
| Non-commutative geometry: | ? | $`[X_i,X_j]=il^2ϵ_{ij}`$ | $`[X_\mu ,X_\nu ]=4il^2\eta _{\mu \nu }^in_i`$ | ? |
| Twistor transformation: | $`SO(2,1)=SL(2,𝐑)`$ | $`SO(3,1)=SL(2,𝐂)`$ | $`SO(5,1)=SL(2,𝐇)`$ | $`SO(9,1)=SL(2,𝐎)`$ |
| $`N=1`$ SUSY Yang-Mills: | $`d=2+1`$ | $`d=3+1`$ | $`d=5+1`$ | $`d=9+1`$ |
| Green-Schwarz Superstring | $`d=2+1`$ | $`d=3+1`$ | $`d=5+1`$ | $`d=9+1`$ |

The construction of the twistor transformation, the $`N=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory and the Green-Schwarz superstring rely on certain identities of the Dirac Gamma matrices, which work only in certain magic dimensions. In these dimensions, there is an exact equivalence between the Lorentz group and the special linear tranformations of the real, complex, quaternionic and octonic numbers. Our work shows that QH liquids work only in certain magic dimensions exactly related to the division algebras as well! In fact the transverse dimensions $`((D+1)2)`$ of these relativistic field theories match exactly with the spatial dimensions of the quantum liquids. The missing entries in this table strongly suggests that an octonionic version of the QH liquid should exist and may be deeply related to the superstring theory in $`d=9+1`$. QH liquids exist only in magic dimensions, have membranes and look like a matrix theory. They may be mysteriously related to the M theory after all!

## IV Conclusion

Fundamental physics is faced with historically unprecedented challenges. Ever since the time of Galileo, experiments have been the stepping stones in our intellectual quest for the fundamental laws of Nature. With our feet firmly on the ground, there is no summit too high to reach. However, the situation is drastically different in the present day. We are faced with a gap of 16 orders of magnitude between the energy of our experimental capabilities and the summit of Mount Planck. Without experiments, we face the impossible mission of climbing up a waterfall!

But maybe there is an alternate passage to Mount Planck. The logical structure of physics may not be a simple one-dimensional line, but rather has a multiply connected or braided topology, very much like Esher’s famous Waterfall. Instead of going up in energy, we can move down in energy! Atoms, molecules and quantum liquids are made of elementary particles at very high energies. But at low energies, they interact strongly with each other to form quasi-particles, which look very much like the elementary particles themselves! Over the past forty years, we have learned that the strong correlation of these matter degrees of freedom does not lead to ugliness and chaos, but rather to extraordinary beauty and simplicity. The precision of flux quantization, Josephson frequency and quantized Hall conductance are not properties of the basic constituents of matter, but rather are emergent properties of their collective behavior. Therefore, by exploring the connection between elementary particle and condensed matter physics, we can use experiments performed at low energies to understand the physics at high energies. By carrying out the profound implications of these experiments to their necessary logical conclusions, we may learn about the ultimate mysteries of our universe.

Throughout John Wheeler’s life, he tackled the big questions of the universe with an unorthodox vision and a poetic flair. Lacking John’s eloquence, I simply conclude this tribute to him by reciting William Blake’s timeless lines:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand

And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,

Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand

And Eternity in an hour.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank A. Bernevig, C.H. Chern, J.P. Hu, R. B. Laughlin, J. Polchinski, P. SanGiorgio, L. Smolin, L. Susskind, N. Toumbas and G. Volovik for stimulating discussions. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number DMR-9814289.