text:
# Optical Seeing at Sierra Negra

## 1 Introduction

Sierra Negra is an extinct volcano in the State of Puebla, Mexico, located at 18 59$`{}_{}{}^{^{}}06_{}^{\mathrm{"}}`$ N latitude, 97 18$`{}_{}{}^{^{}}53_{}^{\mathrm{"}}`$ W longitude and an altitude of 4580 m above sea level. The mountain is next to Citlaltepetl, the highest peak in Mexico, with just 8 km separating both summits. Sierra Negra is about 100 kms West from the coast of Veracruz in the Gulf of Mexico and 300 kms from the Pacific Coast. The site, administrated by the Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica, Óptica y Electrónica (INAOE), is inside the Pico de Orizaba National Park. Easy access is available via 100 km motorway from the city of Puebla followed by a 20 km access road to the summit. The journey from Puebla city takes about two hours.

In February 1996 Sierra Negra was selected, among more than twenty potential sites, as the site of the Large Millimeter Telescope (LMT/GTM), now under construction. The decision was based on its low atmospheric water vapour content, with registered opacities at 240 GHz down to $`0.02`$. The LMT/GTM is a 50 m antenna optimised for 1-3 mm observations. First light and science operations are planned for 2005. The LMT/GTM is a bi-national project between Mexico and the United States, leaded by INAOE in Mexico and the University of Massachusetts, at Amherst, in the USA.

With the development of the Sierra Negra site, INAOE planned to measure its quality for optical observations. Because of its altitude and location the site is intrinsically very dry, therefore the conditions are likely to be favorable for near infrared and optical observations. An unknown property of the site is its optical seeing, a key parameter to determine how good an astronomical site is. In the last few decades great efforts have been dedicated to the development of 8-10 m class diameter telescopes and for instrumentation which requires very precise site characterization. Furthermore, the new generation of Extremely Large Telescopes will require selecting sites with very good seeing conditions.

INAOE decided to undertake a first optical seeing and weather measurements campaign starting in February 2000 without basic facilities available. A temporary set-up was prepared for the February campaign, which was in fact the first astronomical night-time work performed at the site. The second campaign started in October 2000, with better facilities such as 5 m tower, a container, a suitable power supply and a place to rest -at about 3000 m above sea level- after observing. From May 2001 we started a routine measurements regime. Here we present the results obtained from February 2000 to May 2002. Weather data have been taken almost continuously from November 2000 up to date. The weather analysis will be reported elsewhere.

## 2 The Instrument

The data for this work were taken with a Differential Image Motion Monitor (DA/IAC DIMM) developed by Vernin & Muñoz-Tuñon (1995), based on the same physical principle as the ESO DIMM (Sarazin & Roddier 1990) but commercialized by the French company LHESA. The DIMM principle is to produce twin images of a star with the same telescope via two entrance pupils and a wedge. The instrument consists of a 20 cm Celestron telescope, on a very robust equatorial mount, with an intensified CCD camera coupled via an optical fiber bundle to the CCD, a Matrox frame grabber board and a PC. The two $`D=60\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}`$ apertures, separated by a distance $`d=140\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}`$, are located on a mask attached to the telescope entrance pupil. A precisely cut wedge placed over one of the pupils deviates the incoming light separating the two star images by approximately 30 arcsec. The intensified CCD camera and the frame grabber register the relative position of both stellar images after computing the centroid position of each. A statistical seeing value is assessed based on the variance of the differential image motion after 200 images are taken. The measurement corresponds roughly to a wavelength $`\lambda =0.5\mu `$m, as dictated by the response of the system.

Because it is a differential method the technique is, in principle, insensitive to erratic motions of the telescope introduced by wind or ground vibrations. Sarazin & Roddier (1990) showed that, assuming a Kolmogorov power-law spectrum for the turbulent cells, the longitudinal and transverse variances of the differential motion between the images, $`\sigma _l`$ and $`\sigma _t`$, are related to the Fried parameter $`r_0`$ as:

$`\sigma _{}^{2}{}_{l}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda ^2r_{o}^{}{}_{}{}^{5/3}[0.179D^{1/3}0.097d^{1/3}]`$ (1)
$`\sigma _{}^{2}{}_{t}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda ^2r_{o}^{}{}_{}{}^{5/3}[0.179D^{1/3}0.145d^{1/3}].`$ (2)
Two independent $`r_0`$ values are obtained which, in principle, should have the same value. The parameter $`r_0`$ can be imagined as the telescope diameter that would produce a diffraction spot of the same size as that produced by the atmospheric turbulence. The seeing is given by $`s_{FWHM}=0.98(\lambda /r_0)`$. These computations are carried out internally by the instrument, providing measures of $`ss_{FWHM}`$ derived from the longitudinal and transverse estimates. The DA/IAC DIMM achieves an accuracy better than 0.1” for stars brighter than fourth magnitude with a 10 ms time exposure. A reliable seeing measurement is attained within twenty seconds.

## 3 Observations and Data

The seeing monitor location at the summit is shown in figure 1. The LMT is located to the left. The circle corresponding to the LMT track is marked and it has 40 meters of diameter. The approximate location of the seeing monitor and weather station is marked by the black square, to the North-East of the LMT. The DIMM and the weather station are on a five meter height tower to avoid the surface layer (Vernin & Muñoz-Tuñon 1994). The DIMM is on a tower independent of the platform where the observers move freely without affecting the seeing measurement. The tower is near a sharp edge to face directly the incoming winds. Thermal equilibrium is ensured by the absence of an enclosure.

The data available cover 85 nights, grouped in three sets: 4 nights between February 22nd and April 7th, 2000, corresponding to the first campaign; a second one with 10 observing nights between October 23rd and December 13th 2001; and the third campaign which consisted of 71 nights from May 24th, 2001 to May 3rd, 2002. We observed bright stars, almost always $`m_V2.5`$.

The high-altitude and precarious initial development of the site made the initial runs a real challenge. Nevertheless we successfully carried out measurements, for the first time, during the night at the summit. To compare all measurements, we present statistics giving equal weight to every data point. For the analysis we only consider data files with at least 20 points acquired close to the zenith (airmass$`1.15`$) with non-saturated images (DIMM parameter pixmax $`255`$) to ensure a reliable stellar centroid determination.

### 3.1 Results on seeing statistics

Figure 2 is the daily plot of all the measurements. The dots are the median and the error bars go from the first to the third quartile. The central dotted line denotes the seeing median for the all data set, corresponding to 0.78”. The top dotted line is the distribution third quartile, 1.05” and the bottom dotted line is the first quartile, corresponding to 0.62”. The histogram and the cumulative distribution of the same data are shown in figure 3. It can be appreciated a sub-arcsec seeing 75% of the time.

To investigate the seeing seasonal behaviour we define the dry season from November to April and the wet season from May to October. The histogram and cumulative distribution for the dry and the wet seasons are shown in figures 4 and 5 respectively. While the seeing median during the dry season is 0.75”, for the wet season it raises 0.92”. However it should be noticed that during August 2001 the seeing was specially bad (with a median of 1.49”; see table 1). To study the August contribution to the seeing we made the exercise of calculating statistics for the wet season without August 2001, the seeing median becoming 0.78”, significantly closer to the dry season seeing median.

To compare the monthly seeing behaviour we present, in table 1, statistics giving equal weight to each individual seeing measurement for the complete data set: the first column is the month, the next three columns give the details of the data acquired i.e. number of nights, number of observing hours during those nights and number of points. The next columns give the data statistics: mean, standard deviation, minumuum value, first quartile, median and third quartile. The global statistics shows that for 85 observing nights spanning from February 2000 to May 2002, the seeing median is 0.78” with a standard deviation of 0.44”.

In figure 6 the distribution of seeing values as a function of UT is shown for the 85 observing nights. The dots represents the median for each hour and the error bars go from the first to the third quartile. The histogram is shown in the upper panel. It must the noted that the first bin, corresponding to 7-8 PM local time, has only a few points so the high seeing value might be due to low number statistics rather than a intrinsically higher seeing at the beginning of the night. We conclude that our data do not show any systematic trend along the night. Muñoz-Tuñon, Vernin, & Varela (1997) observed that there is no general trend in the seeing evolution for the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory. In contrast Giovanelli et al. (2001), point out that for high altitude cordillera sites, in northern Chile, the seeing tends to be of lower quality at the beginning of the evening.

### 3.2 The seeing integration time

It has been discussed by several authors that the temporal averaging of the variance of the differential motion with a finite exposure time depends on the average velocity and the direction of displacement of the wavefront corrugation with respect to the DIMM aperture (Martin, 1987; Sarazin & Tokovinin, 2001). Giovanelli et al. (2001), on high altitude cordillera sites in Chile, measure the seeing alternating 10 msec and 20 msec exposures. They obtain seeing estimates derived from 10 msec exposures, from 20 msec exposures and extrapolations to “zero exposure”, obtained by multiplying the 10 msec seeing by the ratio of the 10 and 20 msec measurements. They find that the median values of the 0 ms seeing vary between 0.66” and 0.76”, those of the 10 msec seeing between 0.56” and 0.65” while those of the 20 msec between 0.48” and 0.56”. According to these authors, the seeing for the 10 msec series is statistically worse than that for the 20 msec series, as the latter smears the image motion somewhat.

Our DIMM has a default integration time of 20 msec. The first data set that spans from February 2000 to August 2001 were taken using that integration time. During the next 12 observing nights we alternated measurements with 10 and 20 msec integration times. The camera control allows the user to alternate between the default time and a mechanically selected integration time. As the selection is manual we decided to take 15 integrations at each integration time. The results are shown in Figure 7 where the seeing as a function of time is shown for each night. The filled circles corresponds to the medians of the 10 msec integration samples while the open circles to the medians of the 20 msec samples. Qualitatively, there is no significant difference between the trends of both data sets. We compare quantitatively the samples by plotting the 10 msec seeing medians vs. 20 msec seeing medians where each data set has been interpolated through a spline fit to overlap in time the other data set, such that at each time we have one data point (either from the 10 msec or 20 msec sample) and one spline interpolation (from the 20 msec or 10 msec sample) which can be compared. The comparison is shown in figure 8, where the best fit to the data is the dotted line and the full line represents $`s_{10}=s_{20}`$. The best fit slope $`(0.89\pm 0.20)`$ and intercept $`(0.10\pm 0.15)`$ are compatible with $`s_{10}=s_{20}`$.

We also compared the complete distributions of 10 ms and 20 ms integration times seeing values, shown in figure 9. A $`\chi ^2`$ comparison test between both distribution gives $`\chi ^2=64.8`$ for 46 degrees of freedom, that is a 3.5% probability that both distributions are the same. However, if we compare both distributions with the common distribution, derived from putting together the samples, then the respective $`\chi ^2`$ values are 10.1 and 12.1 for the same number of degrees of freedom, giving respective probabilities of $`1(4\times 10^9)`$ and $`1(10^7)`$ that each distribution can be derived from the same parent distribution. As it can be appreciated in the two lower panels of figure 9, the two distributions of seeing values are compatible with a single parent distribution. The total seeing median including both integration times is 0.77”.

Following a suggestion by Marc Sarazin (private communication), we studied the presence of temporal averaging effects on our seeing measurements by comparing the seeing median vs. the wind velocity at 200 mb using the NOAA Global Gridded Upper Air data base, for each night of our 20 msec sample. The results are shown in the upper panel of Figure 10. The seeing error bars go from the first to the third quartile. The wind data are daily average of four measurements available on the NOAA database. The dotted line represents the best least square linear fit, consistent with slope equal to zero within 1.1$`\sigma `$. The correlation coefficient is equal to $`0.227`$ and the rms dispersion is 0.359”. The errors were obtained using a bootstrap technique. The data show that the seeing does not drop at high speed as it would be expected in the presence of temporal averaging effects. In the lower panel of the same figure, the 10 ms seeing data are shown. In this case the best fit is also consistent with zero slope, within 1.5$`\sigma `$, and the correlation coefficient is $`0.274`$.

To study the presence of any correlation between seeing and wind velocity at ground level, we compare the seeing and wind velocity daily medians at the site. The wind velocity was measured with a meteorological station located on the seeing monitor tower. Figure 11 shows the seeing median as a function of the wind velocity median for those nights that have simultaneous seeing and wind velocity data. The seeing error bars go from the first to the third quartile. The wind velocity distribution median was calculated from the data obtained between 8:pm and 6:am local time, the error bars corresponding to the first and third quartile are not included in the plot for clarity. In the upper panel the results for 17 nights of the 20 msec sample are shown. The dotted line represents the best fit that is consistent with zero slope within 1.4$`\sigma `$, a correlation factor equal to $`0.435`$ and a rms dispersion of 0.384”. In the lower panel the data obtained for 50 nights of the 10 ms sample are shown. The best fit is consistent with slope equal to zero within 1.1$`\sigma `$, a correlation factor of 0.281 and a rms dispersion equal to 0.256”.

In contrast with Giovanelli et al. (2001) results on high altitude cordillera sites in Chile, the data for Sierra Negra suggest that, within our statistics, there is no difference between the 10 msec and the 20 msec series. It must be noted that Vernin & Muñoz-Tuñon (1995) find the seeing bias produced by the difference in exposure time to be highly dependent on the magnitude of the star. As we generally use stars brighter than $`m_V=2`$, it is possible that this bias is in our data but below measurable error, therefore not influencing our results. Nevertheless from December 2001 onwards all our measurements are made using 10 msec exposures.

## 4 Conclusions

We present the first seeing measurements carried out at Sierra Negra. For 85 observing nights, seeing values of 0.62” were achieved 25% of the time, below 0.78” during 50% of the time, and sub-arcsec seeing for 70% of the time. The comparison between the dry and the wet season shows that the seeing median is better during the dry season with a value of 0.73” and sub-arcsec seeing 77% of the time. In contrast for the wet season the seeing median is 0.92” value is strongly affected by August 2001 contribution. We analysed the dependence of the seeing statistics with time of night without finding any systematic trend of seeing as a function of time. We did not find any correlation between the seeing values and the 200 mb wind velocity. A preliminary analysis of the correlation between the seeing and the wind velocity at ground level was carried out. The results show that there is not an obvious correlation between them. Nevertheless we will continue analysing the seeing as a function of other meteorological parameters in more detail to try to find out where most of the turbulence is concentrated.

The results obtained so far show that Sierra Negra is a competitive site for optical astronomy. We will continue with our seeing and meteorological measurements to characterise the site on a longer time scale basis. We have carried out an independent analysis of the seeing temporal structure and the results will be reported in a separated paper.

We thank R.J. Terlevich his interest and his useful comments and suggestions. This study was possible through funds from the Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica, Optica y Electrónica. The 20mb wind velocity data was provided by the NOAA-CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center, Boulder, Colorado, USA, from their Web site at http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

$`ZZ\times ZZ`$-graded Lie algebras generated by the Virasoro algebra and $`sl_2`$111AMS Subject Classification: 17B36, 17B65, 17B70
Supported by a NSF grant 10171064 of China and a Fund from National Education Ministry of China.

(Appeared in Math. Nach. 246/247 (2002), 188-201.)

Yucai Su, Jiangfeng Zhang and Kaiming Zhao

Department of Mathematics, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200030, P. R. China

Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Mathematics and System Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, P. R. China   ABSTRACT The present paper is another step toward the classification of $`ZZ\times ZZ`$-graded Lie algebras: we classify $`ZZ\times ZZ`$-graded Lie algebras $`𝒜=_{i,jZZ}𝒜_{i,j}`$ over a field $`IF`$ of characteristic 0 with $`\mathrm{dim}𝒜_{i,j}1`$ for $`i,jZZ`$, satisfying:
(1) $`𝒜_0=_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,0}\text{Vir}`$, the centerless Virasoro algebra,
(2) $`𝒜_{0,1},𝒜_{0,0},𝒜_{0,1}`$ span the 3-dimensional simple Lie algebra $`sl_2`$,
(3) $`𝒜`$ is generated by the centerless Virasoro algebra and $`sl_2`$.

These algebras include some rank 2 centerless Virasoro algebras, and some rank 2 Block algebras and their extensions.

§1. Introduction

The classification of simple $`ZZ`$-graded Lie algebras of finite growth was given by O. Mathieu \[M\] in 1992. It is natural to ask what would happen for $`ZZ\times ZZ`$-graded Lie algebras. This problem was initiated and studied by Osborn and Zhao. They investigated several cases in \[OZ1-OZ5\] under some mild restrictions. There are still some cases left untouched. The present paper is another step by the authors toward the classification of $`ZZ\times ZZ`$-graded Lie algebras.

Throughout this paper we assume that the $`ZZ\times ZZ`$-graded Lie algebra $`𝒜=_{i,jZZ}𝒜_{i,j}`$ over a field $`IF`$ of characteristic 0 with $`\mathrm{dim}𝒜_{i,j}1`$ for $`i,jZZ`$, satisfies the following three conditions:
(1) $`𝒜_0=_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,0}\text{Vir}`$, the centerless Virasoro algebra;
(2) $`𝒜_{0,1},𝒜_{0,0},𝒜_{0,1}`$ span the 3-dimensional simple Lie algebra $`sl_2`$;
(3) $`𝒜`$ is generated by $`𝒜_{0,\pm 1}`$ and $`𝒜_0`$.

To state our main theorem, we recall some known Lie algebras and construct some other Lie algebras from them. For any $`\alpha IF`$ with $`\alpha 0`$, we have the generalized centerless Virasoro algebra $`\text{Vir}(\alpha )=_{i,jZZ}L_{i,j}`$ with bracket

$$[L_{i,j},L_{k,\mathrm{}}]=(ki+(\mathrm{}j)\alpha )L_{i+k,j+\mathrm{}}\text{ for }(i,j),(k,\mathrm{})ZZ\times ZZ.$$
$`(1.1)`$
For any $`\alpha ,\beta IF`$ with $`\alpha \beta 0`$, denote $`Z=ZZ\times ZZ\backslash \{(\alpha ,\beta ),(2\alpha ,2\beta )\}.`$ We have (see \[B\]) the Block algebra $`(\alpha ,\beta )=_{(i,j)Z}IFL_{i,j}`$ with the bracket

$$[L_{i,j},L_{k,\mathrm{}}]=\left|\begin{array}{cc}i+\alpha & j\beta \\ k+\alpha & \mathrm{}\beta \end{array}\right|L_{i+k,j+\mathrm{}}\text{ for }(i,j),(k,\mathrm{})Z.$$
$`(1.2)`$
From \[DZ\], we see that the Lie algebra $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ has the following possible central extensions $`(\alpha ,\beta ;a_1,a_2,a_2^{})=(\alpha ,\beta )IF𝐜_1IF𝐜_2`$ for any $`a_1,a_2,a_2^{}IF`$:

$$[L_{i,j},L_{k,\mathrm{}}]=\left|\begin{array}{cc}i+\alpha & j\beta \\ k+\alpha & \mathrm{}\beta \end{array}\right|L_{i+k,j+\mathrm{}}+\delta _{i+k,\alpha }\delta _{j+\mathrm{},\beta }(\alpha j+\beta i)a_1𝐜_1$$

$$+\delta _{i+k,2\alpha }\delta _{j+\mathrm{},2\beta }[a_2(\alpha j+\beta i)+a_2^{}(\alpha +i)]𝐜_2,$$
$`(1.3)`$
for $`(i,j),(k,\mathrm{})Z`$. Note that $`𝐜_1=0`$ if $`(\alpha ,\beta )ZZ\times ZZ`$, and $`𝐜_1=𝐜_2=0`$ if $`(2\alpha ,2\beta )ZZ\times ZZ`$.

Set $`Z_+=\{(i,j)Z|j1\}`$, $`Z_{}=\{(i,j)Z|j1\}`$. If $`\beta =1`$, the subspace $`^+(\alpha ,1;a_1,a_2,a_2^{})=_{(i,j)Z_+}IFL_{i,j}IF𝐜_1IF𝐜_2`$ is a subalgebra of $`(\alpha ,1;a_1,a_2,a_2^{})`$. If $`\beta =1`$, the subspace $`^+(\alpha ,1;a_1,a_2,a_2^{})=_{(i,j)Z_{}}IFL_{i,j}IF𝐜_1IF𝐜_2`$ is a subalgebra of $`(\alpha ,1;a_1,a_2,a_2^{})`$.

For $`\alpha IF\backslash \{0\}`$, we have a Lie algebra $`𝒞(\alpha )=_{(i,j)ZZ\times ZZ}IFL_{i,j}`$ with the bracket

$$[L_{i,j},L_{k,\mathrm{}}]=a_{i,j,k,\mathrm{}}L_{i+\mathrm{},k+j}\text{ for }i,j,k,\mathrm{}ZZ,$$
$`(1.4)`$
such that

$$a_{i,j,k,\mathrm{}}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}k(j+1)(\mathrm{}+1)i+(\mathrm{}j)\alpha & \text{if}& j,\mathrm{},j+\mathrm{}1,\\ [_{\mathrm{}j2}^\mathrm{}2](k(j+1)(\mathrm{}+1)i+(\mathrm{}j)\alpha )& \text{if}& j0,\mathrm{}2,\\ ki& \text{if}& j=\mathrm{}=1,\\ \alpha +i& \text{if}& j=1,\mathrm{}2,\\ 0& \text{if}& j,\mathrm{}2,\end{array}$$
$`(1.5)`$
where $`[_j^i]=\frac{i!}{j!}`$ for $`0ji`$ and $`[_j^i]=0`$ otherwise. Note that $`𝒞(\alpha )`$ is a Lie algebra such that $`𝒞^{}(\alpha )=_{iZZ,j2}IFL_{i,j}`$ is an abelian ideal and $`𝒞(\alpha )/𝒞^{}(\alpha )^+(\alpha ,1,1,0,0).`$ Certainly we have the dual Lie algebra $`\overline{𝒞}(\alpha )`$ whose $`(i,j)`$-homogeneous space is the $`(i,j)`$-homogeneous space of $`𝒞(\alpha )`$.

The main result of this paper is the following

Theorem 1.1 Let $`𝒜=_{i,jZZ}𝒜_{i,j}`$ be a $`ZZ\times ZZ`$-graded Lie algebra over a field $`IF`$ of characteristic $`0`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}𝒜_{i,j}1`$ for each $`i`$ and $`j`$. Suppose $`𝒜`$ satisfies Conditions (1)-(3). Then $`𝒜`$ is isomorphic to Vir$`(\alpha )`$ for a suitable $`\alpha IF\backslash \{0\}`$, or to $`(\alpha ,\beta ;a_1,a_2,a_2^{})`$ for suitable $`\alpha ,\beta ,a_1,a_2,a_2^{}IF`$ with $`\alpha \beta 0`$ and $`\beta \pm 1`$, or to $`^+(\alpha ,\pm 1;a_1,a_2,a_2^{})`$ for suitable $`\alpha ,a_1,a_2,a_2^{}IF`$ with $`\alpha 0`$, or to $`𝒞(\alpha )`$ or to $`\overline{𝒞}(\alpha )`$ for a suitable $`\alpha IF\backslash \{0\}`$.

For convenience, we combine the two types of algebras Vir$`(\alpha )`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ into a uniform form: $`𝒟(\alpha ,\beta )=_{i,jZ}IFL_{i,j}`$ subject to

$$[L_{i,j},L_{k,\mathrm{}}]=(\beta (i\mathrm{}jk)+(ki)+(\mathrm{}j)\alpha )L_{i+k,j+\mathrm{}},$$
$`(1.6)`$
where $`\alpha ,\beta F`$ with $`\alpha 0`$. Note that $`𝒟(\alpha ,0)=`$Vir$`(\alpha )`$.

2. Some basic results on the Virasoro algebra

Recall that the centerless Virasoro algebra is the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{Vir}=_{iZZ}IFL_i`$ with bracket $`[L_i,L_j]=(ji)L_{i+j}`$ for $`i,jZZ`$. A weight module $`V`$ over Vir is called a module of the intermediate series if all the weight multiplicities are $`1`$. There are three families of the modules of the intermediate series over Vir: $`A_{\alpha ,\beta },A(\alpha ),B(\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta IF`$. They all have basis $`\{v_i|iZZ\}`$ with the following actions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}A_{\alpha ,\beta }:& L_iv_k=(\alpha +k+\beta i)v_{i+k},\\ A(\alpha ):& L_iv_k=(i+k)v_{i+k},k0,L_iv_0=i(i+\alpha )v_i,\\ B(\alpha ):& L_iv_k=kx_{i+k},ki,L_iv_i=i(i+\alpha )v_0,\end{array}$$
$`(2.1)`$
for $`i,kZZ`$. Denote by $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$ the nontrivial irreducible subquotient module of $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }`$.

Theorem 2.1(see \[KS, Z\]) (1) A nontrivial irreducible module of the intermediate series over Vir is isomorphic to $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$ for some suitable $`\alpha ,\beta IF`$.

(2) An indecomposable module of the intermediate series over Vir is isomorphic to a subquotient module of $`A_{\alpha ,\beta },A(\alpha ),B(\alpha )`$ for some suitable $`\alpha ,\beta IF`$.

(3) We have the following isomorphisms:

$$A_{\alpha ,0}A_{\alpha ,1}\text{ if }\alpha \mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}\text{ and }A_{0,0}^{}A_{0,1}^{}.$$
$`(2.2)`$
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1

Now let $`𝒜=_{i,jZZ}𝒜_{i,j}`$ be a $`ZZ\times ZZ`$-graded Lie algebra over $`IF`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}𝒜_{i,j}1`$ satisfying Conditions (1)-(3). For $`i,jZZ`$, take $`L_{i,j}𝒜_{i,j}\backslash \{0\}`$ if $`𝒜_{i,j}\{0\}`$ or else let $`L_{i,j}=0`$. By Conditions (1)-(2), we can normalize the elements $`L_{i,0}`$, $`L_{0,\pm 1}`$ such that

$$[L_{i,0},L_{j,0}]=(ji)L_{i+j,0}\text{ for }i,jZZ.$$
$`(3.1)`$
and

$$[L_{0,i},L_{0,j}]=(ji)\alpha L_{0,i+j}\text{ for }1i,j,i+j1,$$
$`(3.2)`$
where $`\alpha IF\backslash \{0\}`$ is a constant. Since $`_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,\pm 1}`$ is an $`𝒜_0`$-module, and $`[L_{0,0},L_{0,\pm 1}]=\pm \alpha L_{0,\pm 1}0`$, by Theorem 2.3 in \[OZ1\], there exist $`\beta _{\pm 1}IF`$ such that we can normalize $`L_{i,\pm 1}`$ to satisfy

$$[L_{i,0},L_{j,\pm 1}]=(\pm \alpha +j+\beta _{\pm 1}i)L_{i+j,\pm 1}$$
$`(3.3)`$
$`\text{for }i,jZZ\text{ with }j\pm \alpha ,i+j\pm \alpha 0,\text{ or with }\beta _{\pm 1}0,1.`$ In particular $`L_{i,\pm 1}0`$ for $`iZZ`$ with $`i\pm \alpha 0`$.

Now we divide the proof of Theorem 1.1 into several lemmas.

Lemma 0. After a change of basis, the coefficients $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _1`$ defined in (3.3) satisfy the relation

$$\beta _1\{\beta _1,\beta _1,1\beta _1,2\beta _1\}.$$

Proof. Suppose

$$[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]=c_{i,j}L_{i+j,0}\text{ for }i,jZZ\text{ and some }c_{i,j}IF,$$
$`(3.4)`$
where $`c_{0,0}=2\alpha .`$ Applying $`\mathrm{ad}L_{k,0}`$ to (3.4), using (3.3), we have that

$$(\alpha +i+\beta _1k)c_{i+k,j}+(\alpha +j+\beta _1k)c_{i,j+k}=(i+jk)c_{i,j},$$
$`(3.5)`$
holds for all $`i,j,kZZ`$ with

$$(i\alpha )(i+k\alpha )0\text{ or }\beta _10,1,\text{ and }(j+\alpha )(j+k+\alpha )0\text{ or }\beta _10,1.$$
$`(3.6)`$
It is clear that $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _1`$ are symmetric in (3.5). We shall solve $`c_{i,j}`$ in (3.5). Setting $`i=0,j=k`$ and $`j=0,i=k`$ in (3.5), we obtain respectively

$$\begin{array}{c}(\alpha +\beta _1k)c_{k,k}+(\alpha +(1+\beta _1)k)c_{0,2k}=0\text{ if }(k\alpha )(k+\alpha )(2k+\alpha )0,\\ (\alpha +(1+\beta _1)k)c_{2k,0}+(\alpha +\beta _1k)c_{k,k}=0\text{ if }(k\alpha )(2k\alpha )(k+\alpha )0.\end{array}$$
$`(3.7)`$
From (3.7), we obtain

$$(\alpha +\beta _1k)(\alpha +(1+\beta _1)k)c_{2k,0}(\alpha +\beta _1k)(\alpha +(1+\beta _1)k)c_{0,2k}=0,$$
$`(3.8)`$
for $`kZZ`$ with $`k\pm \alpha ,2k\pm \alpha 0`$. In (3.5), setting $`i=0`$ and substituting $`j,k`$ by $`2j,2i`$, and setting $`j=0`$ and substituting $`i,k`$ by $`2i,2j`$ respectively, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}(\alpha +2\beta _1i)c_{2i,2j}+(\alpha +2j+2\beta _1i)c_{0,2(i+j)}=2(ji)c_{0,2j},\\ (\alpha +2i+2\beta _1j)c_{2(i+j),0}+(\alpha +2\beta _1j)c_{2i,2j}=2(ij)c_{2i,0},\end{array}$$
$`(3.9)`$
for $`2i\alpha ,2j+\alpha ,2(i+j)\pm \alpha 0`$. From (3.9), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}(\alpha +2\beta _1j)((\alpha +2j+2\beta _1i)c_{0,2(i+j)}2(ji)c_{0,2j})\\ =(\alpha +2\beta _1i)((\alpha +2i+2\beta _1j)c_{2(i+j),0}2(ij)c_{2i,0}).\end{array}$$
$`(3.10)`$
In (3.5), setting $`i=j=0`$ and substituting $`k`$ by $`2k`$, we obtain

$$(\alpha +2\beta _1k)c_{2k,0}+(\alpha +2\beta _1k)c_{0,2k}=4k\alpha \text{ for }2k\pm \alpha 0.$$
$`(3.11)`$
Multiplying (3.10) by $`\alpha +2\beta _1(i+j)`$ and using (3.11) to substitute $`c_{2(i+j),0},c_{2i,0}`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}(\alpha +2\beta _1(i+j))(\alpha +2\beta _1j)((\alpha +2j+2\beta _1i)c_{0,2(i+j)}2(ji)c_{0,2j})\\ =(\alpha +2\beta _1i)(\alpha +2i+2\beta _1j)((\alpha +2\beta _1(i+j))c_{0,2(i+j)}4(i+j)\alpha )\\ 2(ji)(\alpha +2\beta _1(i+j))((\alpha +2\beta _1i)c_{0,2i}+4i\alpha ),\end{array}$$
$`(3.12)`$
for $`2i\pm \alpha ,2j\pm \alpha ,2(i+j)\pm \alpha 0`$. Setting $`i=j`$ gives

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha (\alpha 2\beta _1i)((\alpha +2(\beta _11)i)2\alpha +4ic_{0,2i})\\ =\alpha (\alpha +2\beta _1i)(\alpha +2(1\beta _1)i)2\alpha 4i\alpha ((\alpha +2\beta _1i)c_{0,2i}+4i\alpha ),\end{array}$$
$`(3.13)`$
for $`\pm 2i\pm \alpha 0`$, that is

$$(\alpha +2\beta _1i)c_{0,2i}(\alpha 2\beta _1i)c_{0,2i}=2i\alpha ((\beta _1\beta _1)(\beta _1+\beta _11)2),$$
$`(3.14)`$
for $`i,\pm 2i\pm \alpha 0`$. From (3.8), (3.11), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\left|\begin{array}{cc}(\alpha +\beta _1k)(\alpha +(1+\beta _1)k)& (\alpha +\beta _1k)(\alpha +(1+\beta _1)k)\\ \alpha +2\beta _1k& \alpha +2\beta _1k\end{array}\right|c_{0,2k}\\ =4k(\alpha +\beta _1k)(\alpha +(1+\beta _1)k)\alpha ,\end{array}$$
$`(3.15)`$
for $`k,k\pm \alpha ,2k\pm \alpha 0.`$ Denote by $`d_k`$ the determinant in (3.15). Using (3.15) in (3.14), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}2(\alpha +\beta _1i)(\alpha +(1+\beta _1)i)(\alpha +2\beta _1i)d_i\\ +2(\alpha +\beta _1i)(\alpha +(1+\beta _1)i)(\alpha 2\beta _1i)d_i+((\beta _1\beta _1)(\beta _1+\beta _11)2)d_id_i=0,\end{array}$$
$`(3.16)`$
for $`\pm i,\pm i\pm \alpha ,\pm 2i\pm \alpha 0.`$ First assume that one of $`\beta _1,\beta _1`$ is zero, say, $`\beta _1=0`$ (since $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _1`$ are symmetric). Then from (3.15), we see that $`d_i`$ is a polynomial on $`i`$ of degree 2 with the coefficient of $`i^2`$ being $`\alpha \beta _1(\beta _1+3)`$, and (3.16) is a polynomial in $`i`$ of degree 4. Calculating the coefficient of $`i^4`$ gives

$$\beta _1^2(\beta _1+1)(\beta _1+2)(\beta _11)(\beta _1+3)\alpha ^2=0\text{ if }\beta _1=0.$$
$`(3.17)`$
Now assume that $`\beta _1\beta _10`$. Then (3.16) is a polynomial on $`i`$ of degree 6. Calculating the coefficient of $`i^6`$ gives

$$4(\beta _1\beta _1)(\beta _1+\beta _1)(\beta _1+\beta _1+1)(\beta _1+\beta _1+2)\beta _1^2\beta _1^2=0\text{ if }\beta _1,\beta _10.$$
$`(3.18)`$
From (3.17), (3.18), we obtain that

$$\beta _1=\beta _1,\beta _1,1\beta _1,2\beta _1,\text{ or }\beta _1=1,3,\beta _1=0,\text{ or }\beta _1=0,\beta _1=1,3.$$
$`(3.19)`$
If $`\beta _1=1,3`$ and $`\beta _1=0`$, we can re-choose $`\{L_{i,1}|iZZ\backslash \{\alpha \}\}`$ (if $`\alpha ZZ`$, we shall not consider $`L_{\alpha ,1}`$) such that $`\beta _1`$ becomes 1 (cf. (2.2)). By interchanging $`𝒜_{0,1}`$ with $`𝒜_{0,1}`$ if necessary, it suffices to consider the following 4 cases: $`\beta _1=\beta _1,\beta _1,1\beta _1,2\beta _1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. Before we consider cases one by one, observe the following. From (3.15), we can solve $`c_{0,2k}`$, then from the first equation of (3.9), we can solve $`c_{2i,2j}`$. Note that by setting $`k=\pm 1`$ in (3.5), we can express $`c_{i,j}`$ in terms of $`c_{i1,j+1},c_{i+1,j1}`$. So if $`i+j`$ is even, we can solve $`c_{i,j}`$. On the other hand, if $`i+j`$ is odd, by taking $`k`$ to be odd in (3.5), we can solve $`c_{i,j}`$. This shows that the solution of $`c_{i,j}`$ in (3.5) is unique (except possibly a finite number of $`i,j`$).

Lemma 1. If $`\beta _1=\beta _1`$, then $`\beta _1=0,\pm 1,\frac{1}{2}`$. The cases $`\beta _1=0,1,\frac{1}{2}`$ are covered by the cases $`\beta _1\{\beta _1,1\beta _1,2\beta _1\}`$ considered below, while the case $`\beta _1=\beta _1=1`$ leads to a contradiction.

Proof. In this case, (3.15) and (3.11) give

$$c_{0,2k}=\frac{2\alpha (\alpha +\beta _1k)(\alpha +(1+\beta _1)k)}{\alpha ^22\beta _1^2(1+\beta _1)k^2},c_{2k,0}=\frac{2\alpha (\alpha +\beta _1k)(\alpha +(1+\beta _1)k)}{\alpha ^22\beta _1^2(1+\beta _1)k^2},$$
$`(3.20)`$
for $`k,k\pm \alpha ,2k\pm \alpha 0`$ and $`\alpha ^22\beta _1^2(1+\beta _1)k^20`$. Using this in (3.10), we obtain

$$\frac{16\alpha ^2\beta _1^3(\beta _11)(1+\beta _1)(1+2\beta _1)ij(i+j)(ji)^2(\alpha ^2+\beta _1^2(1+\beta _1)ij)}{(\alpha ^22\beta _1^2(1+\beta _1)i^2)(\alpha ^22\beta _1^2(1+\beta _1)j^2)(\alpha ^22\beta _1^2(1+\beta _1)(i+j)^2)}=0,$$
$`(3.21)`$
for all but a finite number of $`i,jZZ`$. Thus $`\beta _1=0,\pm 1,\frac{1}{2}`$. Cases $`\beta _1=0,\frac{1}{2},1`$ will be covered by cases $`\beta _1=\beta _1,1\beta _1,2\beta _1`$ considered below. Thus suppose $`\beta _1=1`$. By (3.20) and the first equation of (3.9), we obtain

$$c_{2i,2j}=\frac{2\alpha (\alpha ^2+\alpha (ij)4ij)}{(\alpha +2j)(\alpha 2i)},$$
$`(3.22)`$
for all but a finite number of $`i,jZZ`$. Setting $`i,j,k`$ in (3.5) to be $`2i,2j,2k`$ respectively, using (3.22), we see that (3.5) does not hold. Thus we obtain the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 2. If $`\beta _1=\beta _1`$, then $`\alpha ZZ`$, and after a change of notation, we have $`\beta _1=0`$ which is covered by the cases $`\beta _1=1\beta _1`$ considered below.

Proof. By (3.15), (3.11) and the first equation of (3.9), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}c_{0,2k}=\frac{2\alpha (\alpha +(\beta _11)k)}{\alpha +2\beta _1k},c_{2k,0}=\frac{2\alpha (\alpha +(\beta _1+1)k)}{\alpha +2\beta _1k},\\ c_{2k,2k}=\frac{2\alpha (\alpha +2(\beta _11)k)(\alpha +2(\beta _1+1)k)}{(\alpha +2\beta _1k)(\alpha +4\beta _1k)},\end{array}$$
$`(3.23)`$
for all but a finite number of $`kZZ`$. Setting $`i,j,k`$ in (3.5) to be $`2k,2k,2k`$ respectively, using (3.23), we obtain

$$\frac{48\alpha (\beta _11)(\beta _1+1)k^3}{(\alpha +2\beta _1k)(\alpha +4\beta _1k)}=0,$$
$`(3.24)`$
for all but a finite number of $`kZZ`$. This proves $`\beta _1=\pm 1`$. By symmetry, we can suppose $`\beta _1=1,\beta _1=1`$. Assume that $`\alpha ZZ`$. Choose $`0kZZ`$ such that $`k\alpha `$ is even. Setting $`j=\alpha ,i=\alpha +k`$ in (3.5), we obtain that $`c_{\alpha +k,k\alpha }=0`$ for all $`k0`$. In particular, $`c_{2\alpha ,0}=0`$. But from (3.23) we see that $`c_{2\alpha ,0}=2\alpha 0`$, which is a contradiction. Thus $`\alpha ZZ`$. Thus by (2.2), we can re-take $`\beta _1`$ to be zero. $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 3. If $`\beta _1=1\beta _1`$, then after a change of notation, we have $`\beta _1=2,\frac{1}{2}`$. The case $`\beta _1=2`$ is covered by the case $`\beta _1=2\beta _1`$ considered below, while the case $`\beta _1=\frac{1}{2}`$ leads to a contradiction.

Proof. By interchanging $`𝒜_{0,1}`$ with $`𝒜_{0,1}`$ if necessary, we can suppose $`\beta _10,1`$ since $`\beta _1+\beta _1=1`$. So $`L_{i,1}0`$ for all $`iZZ`$. From (3.15) we get $`c_{0,2i}=2\alpha `$ for almost all $`iZZ`$. Then from (3.9) and (3.5), we get

$$c_{i,j}=2\alpha \text{ for }i,jZZ\text{ (except possibly one }i\text{ if }\alpha ZZ,\beta _1=0,1\text{)}.$$
$`(3.25)`$
For $`i,j,kZZ`$, we have

$$[L_{k,1},[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]]=c_{k,i}[L_{k+i,0},L_{j,1}]c_{k,j}[L_{k+j,0},L_{i,1}]=2\alpha (ji)(1\beta _1)L_{i+j+k,1}.$$
$`(3.26)`$
This shows that $`[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]0`$ for $`ij`$. Thus $`𝒜_{j,2}\{0\}`$ for all $`jZZ`$. Choose a basis $`L_{j,2}`$ of $`𝒜_{j,2}`$ as follows:

$$L_{j,2}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{j}[L_{0,1},L_{j,1}]& \text{if }j0,\\ \frac{1}{2}[L_{1,1},L_{1,1}]& \text{if }j=0,\end{array}$$
$`(3.27)`$
Then by (3.26),

$$[L_{k,1},L_{i,2}]=2\alpha (1\beta _1)L_{i+k,1}\text{ for }i,kZZ.$$
$`(3.28)`$
Since $`[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]𝒜_{i+j,2}`$, assume that $`[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]=c_{i,j}^{}L_{i+j,2}`$ for some $`c_{i,j}^{}IF`$, then using (3.26), (3.28), we obtain

$$[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]=(ji)L_{i+j,2}\text{ for }i,jZZ.$$
$`(3.29)`$
Applying $`\mathrm{ad}L_{k,0}`$ to (3.29), we obtain

$$[L_{k,0},L_{i,2}]=(2\alpha +i+(2\beta _1+1)k)L_{i+k,2}\text{ for }i,kZZ.$$
$`(3.30)`$
Now by (3.25), (3.28)-(3.30), we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}[L_{k,1},[L_{i,1},L_{j,2}]]& =2\alpha ([L_{i+k,0},L_{j,2}]+(1\beta _1)[L_{i,1},L_{j+k,1}])\\ & =2\alpha (2\alpha +3\beta _1i+(2\beta _1)j+(2+\beta _1)k)L_{i+j+k,2}\text{ for }i,j,kZZ.\end{array}$$
$`(3.31)`$
Thus $`𝒜_{i,3}\{0\}`$ for all $`iZZ`$. Since $`_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,3}`$ is a Vir-module, we can choose $`0L_{i,3}𝒜_{i,3}`$ for $`iZZ`$ such that

$$[L_{k,0},L_{i,3}]=(3\alpha +i+\beta _3k)L_{i+k,3}\text{ for }i,kZZ\text{ (and }i+\alpha ,i+k+\alpha 0\text{ if }\beta _3=0,1\text{)},$$
$`(3.32)`$
where $`3\alpha `$ appears because it is the eigenvalue of $`L_{0,0}`$ on $`L_{i,3}`$ (cf. (2.1)). Suppose

$$[L_{i,1},L_{j,2}]=d_{i,j}L_{i+j,3}\text{ for }i,jZZ\text{ and some }d_{i,j}IF,$$
$`(3.33)`$
such that at least some $`d_{i,j}0`$ by (3.31). Applying $`\mathrm{ad}L_{k,1}`$ to (3.33), by (3.31), we obtain

$$d_{i,j}[L_{k,1},L_{i+j,3}]=2\alpha (2\alpha +3\beta _1i+(2\beta _1)j+(2+\beta _1)k)L_{i+j+k,2}\text{ for }i,j,kZZ.$$
$`(3.34)`$
Setting $`i=0`$ and replacing $`j`$ by $`i+j`$ in (3.34), we obtain

$$d_{0,i+j}[L_{k,1},L_{i+j,3}]=2\alpha (2\alpha +(2\beta _1)(i+j)+(2+\beta _1)k)L_{i+j+k,2}\text{ for }i,j,kZZ.$$
$`(3.35)`$
Formulas (3.34), (3.35) show that

$$d_{i,j}(2\alpha +(2\beta _1)(i+j)+(2+\beta _1)k)=d_{0,i+j}(2\alpha +3\beta _1i+(2\beta _1)j+(2+\beta _1)k)\text{ for }i,j,kZZ.$$
$`(3.36)`$
By (3.3), (3.30), (3.32), (3.33), we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}d_{0,i}(3\alpha +i+\beta _3k)L_{3,i+k}& =[L_{k,0},[L_{0,1},L_{i,2}]]\\ & =((\alpha +\beta _1k)d_{k,i}+(2\alpha +i+(2\beta _1+1)k)d_{0,i+k})L_{3,i+k}.\end{array}$$
$`(3.37)`$
Comparing the coefficient of $`k`$ in (3.36) gives $`d_{i,j}=d_{0,i+j}`$ or $`2+\beta _1=0`$. Assume that $`\beta _1=2`$. Then $`\beta _1=1`$, and by (2.2), we can re-choose $`\beta _1=0`$. Thus this becomes a special case of Case 4 considered below. Thus we can suppose $`d_{i,j}=d_{0,i+j}`$. Then (3.36) gives $`\beta _1=\frac{1}{2}`$. Then (3.37) gives

$$d_{0,i+k}=\frac{d_{0,i}(3\alpha +i+\beta _3k)}{3\alpha +i+\frac{5k}{2}}.$$
$`(3.38)`$
In particular

$$d_{0,k}=\frac{d_{0,0}(3\alpha +\beta _3k)}{3\alpha +\frac{5k}{2}}.$$
$`(3.39)`$
Substituting (3.39) into (3.38) we obtain that

$$(3\alpha +\beta _3i)(3\alpha +i+\beta _3k)(3\alpha +\frac{5(k+i)}{2})=(3\alpha +\beta _3(k+i))(3\alpha +i+\frac{5k}{2})(3\alpha +\frac{5i}{2}),$$
$`(3.40)`$
i.e.,

$$\frac{1}{4}(5+2\beta _3)ik(5\beta _3k+5\beta _3i+6\beta _3\alpha +9\alpha )=0.$$

Then $`\beta _3=\frac{5}{2}`$ and $`d_{0,i}=d_{0,0}`$ is a constant. By re-choosing $`L_{i,3}`$ for all $`iZZ`$, we can assume $`d_{i,j}=1`$, and (3.33) means that the left-hand side of (3.31) is $`[L_{k,1},L_{i+j,3}]`$. Note that we have got

$$\beta _1=\frac{1}{2},\beta _1=\frac{3}{2},\beta _3=\frac{5}{2}.$$
$`(3.41)`$
Similar to (3.26), we have

$$[L_{k,1},[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]]=5\alpha (ji)L_{i+j+k,1}\text{ for }i,j,kZZ,$$

which shows that $`[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]0`$ for $`ij`$. Thus $`𝒜_{j,2}\{0\}`$ for all $`jZZ`$. Choose a basis $`L_{j,2}`$ of $`𝒜_{j,2}`$ to be

$$L_{j,2}=\frac{1}{j}[L_{j,1},L_{0,1}]\text{ if }j0\text{ and }L_{0,2}=\frac{1}{2}[L_{1,1},L_{1,1}],$$
$`(3.42)`$
then

$$[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]=(ij)L_{i+j,2},[L_{i,1},L_{j,2}]=5\alpha L_{i+j,1},[L_{i,0},L_{j,2}]=(2\alpha +j2i)L_{i+j,2},$$

and

$$[L_{k,1},[L_{i,1},L_{j,2}]]=\alpha (4\alpha +9i7jk)L_{i+j+k,2}.$$
$`(3.43)`$
This shows that $`𝒜_{i,3}\{0\}`$ for $`iZZ`$. Choose $`L_{i,3}𝒜_{i,3}\backslash \{0\}`$ and suppose $`[L_{i,1},L_{j,2}]=d_{i,j}^{}L_{i+j,3}`$ for some $`d_{i,j}^{}IF`$. Then at least some $`d_{i,j}^{}0`$. Setting $`i=0`$ and replacing $`j`$ by $`i+j`$ in (3.43), comparing the result with (3.43), we obtain

$$d_{i,j}^{}(4\alpha 7i7jk)=d_{0,i+j}^{}(4\alpha +9i7jk)\text{ for }i,j,kZZ.$$
$`(3.44)`$
Comparing the coefficient of $`k`$ we get $`d_{i,j}^{}=d_{0,i+j}^{}`$, and then we obtain that (3.44) cannot hold for all $`i,j,kZZ`$. Thus $`\beta _1=\frac{1}{2}`$ cannot occur. $`\mathrm{}`$

Therefore, it remains to consider the only case $`\beta _1=2\beta _1`$. By interchanging $`𝒜_{0,1}`$ with $`𝒜_{0,1}`$ if necessary, we can suppose $`\beta _10`$. We denote $`\beta =\beta _1+1`$. Then $`\beta 1`$.

Lemma 4.1. If $`\beta _1=2\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _10`$, then $`𝒜=𝒟(\alpha ,\beta )`$ or $`(\alpha ,\beta ;a_1,a_2,a_2^{})`$.

Proof. First we claim: one can choose $`\{L_{i,j}|(i,j)Z^+\}`$ such that (1.6) holds for $`(i,j),(k,\mathrm{}),(i+k,j+\mathrm{})Z^+`$.

Using (3.15) and the statements after (3.19), we get

$$c_{i,j}=2\alpha +(\beta 1)i+(\beta +1)j\text{ for }(i,1),(j,1)Z.$$
$`(3.45)`$
For $`(j,2)Z`$, choose $`i,kZZ`$ such that $`(k,1),(i,1),(ji,1),(j+k,2)Z`$, then

$$[L_{k,1},[L_{i,1},L_{ji,1}]]=(1\beta )((2\beta 1)k+3\alpha +(\beta +1)j)(j2i)L_{j+k,1}.$$
$`(3.46)`$
This shows that if $`j2i`$, then $`0[L_{i,1},L_{ji,1}]𝒜_{j,2}`$. So $`𝒜_{j,2}0`$ for all $`(j,2)Z`$. For $`(j,2)Z`$, choose minimal $`iZZ_+`$ such that $`2ij`$ and $`(i,1),(ji,1)Z`$ and define

$$L_{j,2}=\frac{1}{(1\beta )(j2i)}[L_{i,1},L_{ji,1}].$$
$`(3.47)`$
Then by (3.46),

$$[L_{k,1},L_{i,2}]=((2\beta 1)k+3\alpha +(\beta +1)i)L_{i+k,1}\text{ for }(k,1),(i,2),(i+k,1)Z.$$
$`(3.48)`$
Assume that $`[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]=c_{i,j}^{}L_{i+j,2}`$ for $`(i,1),(j,1),(i+j,2)Z`$, then by (3.46)-(3.48), $`c_{i,j}^{}=(1\beta )(ji)`$, i.e.,

$$[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]=(1\beta )(ji)L_{i+j,2}\text{ for }(i,1),(j,1),(i+j,2)Z.$$
$`(3.49)`$
Applying $`\mathrm{ad}L_{k,0}`$ to it, using (3.3), (3.47), we can deduce

$$[L_{k,0},L_{j,2}]=(2\alpha +j+(2\beta 1)k)L_{j+k,2}\text{ for }kZZ,(j,2),(j+k,2)Z.$$
$`(3.50)`$
For $`m2`$, assume that we have chosen $`L_{i,m}`$ for $`(i,m)Z`$ such that (1.6) holds with $`1j,\mathrm{},j+\mathrm{}m`$. For $`(j,m+1)Z`$, choose $`i,kZZ`$ such that

$$(k,1),(i,1),(ji,m),(ji+k,m1),(j+k,m)Z,$$
$`(3.51)`$
then

$$\begin{array}{c}[L_{k,1},[L_{i,1},L_{ji,m}]]\\ =(\alpha (m+2)+k(\beta (m+1)1)+(\beta +1)j)(\alpha (m1)+(1\beta )j+(\beta (m+1)2)i)L_{j+k,m}.\end{array}$$
$`(3.52)`$
This shows that $`0[L_{i,1},L_{ji,m}]𝒜_{j,m+1}`$. So $`𝒜_{j,m+1}0`$ for all $`(j,m+1)Z`$. For $`(j,m+1)Z`$, choose minimal $`iZZ_+`$ such that (3.51) holds with $`k=0`$, then we define

$$L_{j,m+1}=(\alpha (m1)+(1\beta )j+(\beta (m+1)2)i)^1[L_{i,1},L_{ji,m}].$$
$`(3.53)`$
Then as in the arguments after (3.47), we obtain that (1.6) holds with $`1j,\mathrm{},j+\mathrm{}m+1`$. This proves the claim.

Similarly, as in the proof of the claim above, we have the following claim: one can choose $`\{L_{i,j}|(i,j)Z\}`$ such that (1.6) holds.

So if $`Z=ZZ\times ZZ`$ or $`𝒜_{i,j}=0`$ for $`(i,j)Z`$, then we obtained that $`𝒜=𝒟(\alpha ,\beta )`$. Thus assume that $`ZZZ\times ZZ`$, and $`𝒜_{i_0,j_0}0`$ for some $`(i_0,j_0)ZZ\times ZZ\backslash Z`$. Since $`𝒜`$ is generated by $`𝒜_0`$ and $`𝒜_{0,\pm 1}`$, we can find some $`i,jZZ`$ such that $`(i,j),(i_0i,j_0j)Z`$ and

$$L_{i_0,j_0}=[L_{i,j},L_{i_0i,j_0j}]0.$$
$`(3.54)`$
Then by applying $`\mathrm{ad}L_{i,0}`$ and $`\mathrm{ad}L_{0,\pm 1}`$ to (3.54), we see that $`L_{i_0,j_0}`$ is a central element of $`𝒜`$. Since central extensions are determined by 2-cocycles, by \[DZ\] we obtain that $`𝒜`$ has the form (1.3). $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 4.2a. If $`\beta _1=2\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _1=0`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}(_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,2})2`$, then $`𝒜=𝒞(\alpha )`$.

Proof. Then $`\beta _1=2`$ and $`\beta =1`$. By (3.3), (3.46), we have

$$[L_{k,1},[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]]=0\text{ for }i,j,kZZ.$$
$`(3.55)`$
First assume that $`\mathrm{dim}(_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,2})2`$. Then $`_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,2}`$ is a nontrivial Vir-module. Thus $`\mathrm{dim}(_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,2})=\mathrm{}`$ and there exists $`\beta _2IF`$ such that we can choose suitable $`L_{i,2}𝒜_{i,2}\backslash \{0\}`$ if $`𝒜_{i,2}\{0\}`$ and $`L_{i,2}=0`$ if $`𝒜_{i,2}=\{0\}`$ such that

$$[L_{k,0},L_{i,2}]=(2\alpha +i+\beta _2k)L_{i+k,2},$$
$`(3.56)`$
for all $`kZZ`$ and all but a finite number of $`iZZ`$ (note that (3.56) holds for all $`i,kZZ`$ if $`2\alpha ZZ`$ or $`\beta _20,1`$, and (3.56) holds for $`i,i+k2\alpha `$ if $`2\alpha ZZ`$ and $`\beta _2=0,1`$). Since $`_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,2}=_{i,jZZ}[𝒜_{i,1},𝒜_{j,1}]`$, by (3.55) we have

$$[L_{i,1},L_{j,2}]=0\text{ for }i,jZZ.$$
$`(3.57)`$
From this and (3.45), (3.56), we have

$$[L_{k,1},[L_{i,1},L_{j,2}]]=(2\alpha 2i)(2\alpha +j+(i+k)\beta _2)L_{i+j+k,2}.$$
$`(3.58)`$
Thus $`𝒜_{i,3}\{0\}`$ for all $`iZZ`$. Thus there exist $`\beta _3IF`$ and $`L_{i,3}𝒜_{i,3}\backslash \{0\}`$ such that

$$[L_{k,0},L_{i,3}]=(3\alpha +i+\beta _3k)L_{i+k,3},$$
$`(3.59)`$
for all $`i,kZZ`$ with $`(i3\alpha )(i+k3\alpha )0`$. Write

$$[L_{i,1},L_{j,2}]=d_{i,j}L_{i+j,3}\text{ for }i,jZZ\text{ and some }d_{i,j}IF,$$
$`(3.60)`$
then at least some $`d_{i,j}0`$. Applying $`\mathrm{ad}L_{k,0}`$ to (3.60), we obtain

$$(\alpha +i)d_{i+k,j}+(2\alpha +j+k)d_{i,j+k}=(3\alpha +i+j+\beta _3k)d_{i,j},$$
$`(3.61)`$
for $`i,j,kZZ`$ with $`(j+k3\alpha )(j3\alpha )(i+j3\alpha )(i+j+k3\alpha )0`$. Setting $`i=0`$ and replacing $`j`$ by $`i+j`$ in (3.58), comparing the result with (3.58), we obtain

$$2\alpha (2\alpha +i+j+\beta _2k)d_{i,j}=(2\alpha 2i)(2\alpha +j+(i+k)\beta _2)d_{0,i+j},$$
$`(3.62)`$
for all but a finite number of $`i,j,kZZ`$. This shows that $`\beta _2=0`$ or $`d_{i,j}=\alpha ^1(\alpha i)d_{0,i+j}`$. Using (2.2), we can suppose $`\beta _2=1`$. Then we have $`d_{i,j}=\alpha ^1(\alpha i)d_{0,i+j}`$. Using this in (3.61), we get that $`\beta _3=2`$ and $`d_{0,i}`$ is a constant. Thus we can take $`d_{0,i}=\alpha `$ to get $`d_{i,j}=\alpha +i`$. Write

$$[L_{i,1},L_{j,1}]=d_{i,j}^{}L_{i+j,2}\text{ for }i,jZZ\text{ and some }d_{i,j}^{}IF,$$
$`(3.63)`$
such that some $`d_{i,j}^{}0`$. Applying $`\mathrm{ad}L_{k,0}`$ to this equation, using (3.56), we obtain

$$(\alpha +i)d_{i+k,j}^{}+(\alpha +j)d_{i,j+k}^{}=(2\alpha +i+j+k)d_{i,j}^{},$$
$`(3.64)`$
for all but a finite number of $`i,j,kZZ`$. Note that $`d_{i,i}^{}=0`$ and it is easy to see that this system has a unique solution up to a nonzero scalar and $`d_{i,j}^{}=ji`$ is a solution. Thus we can take $`d_{i,j}^{}=ji`$ for $`i,jZZ`$. If $`\alpha ZZ`$, by applying $`\mathrm{ad}L_{\alpha i,0}`$ to (3.63), we see that $`L_{\alpha ,1}0`$ and $`[L_{\alpha i,0},L_{i,1}]=(\alpha +i)L_{\alpha ,1}`$ for $`iZZ`$. Thus, as a Vir-module, $`_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,1}`$ is isomorphic to $`A_{\alpha ,0}`$ (cf. (2.1)). Similarly if $`2\alpha ZZ`$, by considering $`[L_{k,1},[L_{i,1},L_{2\alpha i,1}]]`$ and using (3.60), we can obtain $`L_{2\alpha ,2}0`$ and $`_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,2}A_{2\alpha ,1}`$ as Vir-modules. Thus we have proved (1.6) for $`j\{0,\pm 1\}`$, $`\mathrm{}2`$ and for all $`i,kZZ`$.

Our first claim is: Formula (1.6) holds for $`j\{0,\pm 1\}`$ and for all $`i,k,\mathrm{}ZZ`$.

We shall show this claim by induction on $`\mathrm{}`$. We know that the claim holds for $`\mathrm{}2`$. Assume that the claim holds for $`\mathrm{}2`$. Then we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}[L_{k,1},& [L_{i,1},L_{j,\mathrm{}}]]\\ & =((2\alpha +2i)[L_{i+k,0},L_{j,\mathrm{}}](\mathrm{}+2)((\mathrm{}1)\alpha +2j(\mathrm{}+1)k)[L_{i,1},L_{j+k,\mathrm{}+1}]\\ & =(\alpha i)(\mathrm{}+1)((\mathrm{}2)\alpha +2(i+j)\mathrm{}k)L_{i+j+k,\mathrm{}}.\end{array}$$
$`(3.65)`$
Thus $`𝒜_{i,\mathrm{}1}\{0\}`$ for all $`iZZ`$ and so there exist $`\beta _\mathrm{}1IF`$ and $`L_{i,\mathrm{}1}𝒜_{i,\mathrm{}1}\backslash \{0\}`$ such that

$$[L_{k,0},L_{i,\mathrm{}1}]=((\mathrm{}1)\alpha +i+\beta _\mathrm{}1k)L_{i+k,\mathrm{}1},$$
$`(3.66)`$
for all $`kZZ`$ and all but a finite number of $`iZZ`$. Write

$$[L_{i,1},L_{j,\mathrm{}}]=d_{i,j}^{(\mathrm{})}L_{i+j,\mathrm{}1}\text{ for }i,jZZ\text{ and some }d_{i,j}^{(\mathrm{})}IF,$$
$`(3.67)`$
then at least some $`d_{i,j}^{(\mathrm{})}0`$. Applying $`\mathrm{ad}L_{k,0}`$ to (3.67), we obtain

$$(\alpha +i)d_{i+k,j}^{(\mathrm{})}+(\mathrm{}\alpha +j(\mathrm{}+1)k)d_{i,j+k}^{(\mathrm{})}=((\mathrm{}1)\alpha +i+j+\beta _\mathrm{}1k)d_{i,j}^{(\mathrm{})},$$
$`(3.68)`$
for all but a finite number of $`i,j,kZZ`$. Setting $`i=0`$ and replacing $`j`$ by $`i+j`$ in (3.65), comparing the result with (3.65), we obtain $`d_{i,j}^{(\mathrm{})}=\alpha ^1(\alpha i)d_{0,i+j}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ for $`i,jZZ`$. Using this in (3.68), we obtain $`\beta _\mathrm{}1=\mathrm{}`$ (thus (3.66), (3.68) hold for all $`i,j,kZZ`$) and $`d_{0,i}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is a constant. Thus we can set $`d_{0,i}^{(\mathrm{})}=\alpha `$ to give $`d_{i,j}^{(\mathrm{})}=\alpha +i`$. Then (3.65) and (3.67) show that

$$[L_{i,1},L_{k,\mathrm{}1}]=(\mathrm{}+1)((\mathrm{}2)\alpha +2k\mathrm{}i)L_{i+k,\mathrm{}}\text{ for }i,k,\mathrm{}ZZ.$$
$`(3.69)`$
This proves the claim.

Our second claim is: Formula (1.5) holds for all $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}ZZ`$.

Formula (1.5) holds if $`j,\mathrm{}1`$, or $`j=0,\pm 1`$ and $`\mathrm{}ZZ`$. By skew-symmetry, we only need to show (1.5) for $`j2`$. So we assume that $`j2`$.

If $`j=2`$, then from

$$\begin{array}{cc}(i2i^{})[L_{i,2},L_{k,\mathrm{}}]& =[[L_{i^{},1},L_{ii^{},1}],L_{k,\mathrm{}}]\\ & =(\alpha +i^{})[L_{i^{}+k,\mathrm{}1},L_{ii^{},1}]+(\alpha +ii^{})[L_{i^{},1},L_{ii^{}+k,\mathrm{}1}]\\ & =((\alpha +i^{})(\alpha +ii^{})+(\alpha +i^{})(\alpha +ii^{}))L_{i+k,2}\\ & =0\text{ for }i^{}ZZ,\end{array}$$
$`(3.70)`$
we see that $`[L_{i,2},L_{k,\mathrm{}}]=0`$. If $`j<2`$, using $`L_{i,j}=(\alpha +i^{})^1[L_{i^{},1},L_{ii^{},j+1}]`$ for $`i^{}\alpha `$, and by induction on $`j`$, we obtain $`[L_{i,j},L_{k,\mathrm{}}]=0`$ for $`j<1`$ and $`\mathrm{}<1`$.

Assume that $`j1`$. If $`j+\mathrm{}1`$, by writing $`L_{i,j}`$ as $`L_{i,j}=a[L_{i^{},1},L_{i^{\prime \prime },j1}]`$ for some $`aIF,i^{},i^{\prime \prime }ZZ`$, and by the first claim and induction on $`j`$, we have $`[L_{i,j},L_{k,\mathrm{}}]=0`$. Thus assume that $`j+\mathrm{}2`$. Again write $`L_{i,j}`$ as $`L_{i,j}=a[L_{i^{},1},L_{i^{\prime \prime },j1}]`$ for some $`aIF,i^{},i^{\prime \prime }ZZ`$. Then using induction on $`j`$ and the first claim, we can easily verify that

$$[L_{i,j},L_{k,\mathrm{}}]=[_{\mathrm{}j2}^\mathrm{}2](k(j+1)(\mathrm{}+1)i+(\mathrm{}j)\alpha )L_{i+k,j+\mathrm{}},$$
$`(3.71)`$
for $`k>1,l<1`$. This proves the second claim.

Thus $`𝒜=𝒞(\alpha )`$ if $`\mathrm{dim}(_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,2})2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 4.2b. If $`\beta _1=2\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _1=0`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}(_{iZZ}𝒜_{i,2})1`$, then $`𝒜=^+(\alpha ,1,a_1,a_2,a_2^{})`$.

Proof. The result follows by a similar discussion in the last paragraph of the proof of Lemma 4.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

References

\[B\] R. Block, On torsion-free abelian groups and Lie algebras , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 9 (1958), 613-620.

\[DZ\] D. Z. Djokovic and K. Zhao, Derivations, isomorphisms, and second cohomology of generalized Block algebras, Algebra Colloquium, 3 (1996), 245-272.

\[KS\] I. Kaplansky and L. J. Santharoubane, Harish-Chandra modules over the Virasoro algebra, MSRI Publications, No.4 (1985), 217-231.

\[M\] O. Mathieu, Classification of simple graded Lie algebras of finite growth, Invent. Math., 108 (1992), 455-589.

\[OZ1\] J. M. Osborn and K. Zhao, Doubly $`ZZ`$-graded Lie algebras containing a Virasoro algebra, J. Alg., 219 (1999), 266-298.

\[OZ2\] J. M. Osborn and K. Zhao, $`ZZ\times ZZ`$-graded Lie algebras containing a Heisenberg algebra, Nonassociative algebra and its applications (Sao Paulo, 1998), 259-274, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 211, Dekker, New York, 2000.

\[OZ3\] J. M. Osborn and K. Zhao, A characterization of certain loop algebras, J. Alg., 221 (1999), 345-359.

\[OZ4\] J. M. Osborn and K. Zhao, $`ZZ\times ZZ`$-graded Lie algebras containing a Virasoro algebra and a Heisenberg algebra, Comm. Alg., 29 (2001), 1677-1706.

\[OZ5\] J. M. Osborn and K. Zhao, A characterization of the Block Lie algebra and its $`q`$-forms in characteristic $`0`$, J. Alg., 207 (1998), 367-408.

\[Z\] K. Zhao, Isomorphic irreducible representations of the Virasoro algebra (in Chinese), Systems Sciences and Mathematical Science, 14 (1994), 209-212.


text:
# A Levinson theorem for scattering from a Bose-Einstein condensate

## Abstract

A relation between the number of bound collective excitations of an atomic Bose-Einstein condensate and the phase shift of elastically scattered atoms is derived. Within the Bogoliubov model of a weakly interacting Bose gas this relation is exact and generalises Levinson’s theorem. Specific features of the Bogoliubov model such as complex-energy and continuum bound states are discussed and a numerical example is given.

Exact results in physics are rare. One such result is Levinson’s theorem levinson49 , relating the number of bound states of a given potential to the accumulated scattering phase shift at threshold. This theorem was first formulated for the single-particle Schrödinger equation and in general does not hold for many-body systems. Instead, a generalisation for multi-channel scattering exists newton82 , relating the cumulative sum of the phase shifts of all open channels to the number of bound states. Little can be said about phase shifts in individual channels.

In this Letter, we consider the scattering of identical atoms from a spherically symmetric, weakly-interacting atomic Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), held in a finite, localised trapping potential. In this situation, the phase shift $`\delta ^l(k)`$ of $`l`$-wave scattering at momentum $`k=0`$ can be related to the number $`n_c`$ of bound collective excitations of the condensate by

$$\delta ^l(0)=\pi (n_c+\delta _{l0}+\sigma /2),$$
(1)
where $`\sigma =1`$ for a bound state exactly at the threshold for $`s`$-wave scattering and $`\sigma =0`$ otherwise. Equation (1) is the generalisation of Levinson’s theorem to the Bogoliubov equations describing the excitations of a weakly interacting BEC and is the main result of this Letter.

Scattering of cold atoms is a fundamental physical process relevant to high-precision atomic spectroscopy and quantum information processing. As temperatures are lowered, condensation of bosonic atoms is inevitable and the scattering of single atoms from condensates needs to be understood. Scattering experiments involving condensates have already been demonstrated in the context of four-wave mixing experiments Deng1999b ; vogels02 . With the development of atomic lasers Bloch1999a  as coherent matter wave sources and with the flexibility introduced by trapping and guiding of cold atoms with micro-fabricated electrical circuits cassettari00 ; ott01 , precision measurement of scattering properties becomes feasible. Moreover, interferometric measurements should allow a direct access of the phase shifts and thereby confirm Levinson’s theorem experimentally in contrast to the case of conventional atomic scattering experiments where usually intensities are measured only. Theoretical attention has been given to identical particle scattering from BECs at low energy where transparency effects have been predicted Wynveen2000a  and at high energy where density distributions idziaszek99  and quantum correlations can be probed kuklov99 . Very recently, negative time delays in one-dimensional scattering from atomic BECs have been predicted poulsen03 .

In the following, we will apply a multi-channel scattering formalism to the Bogoliubov equations and prove the relation (1) by contour integration. We will discuss special situations that can occur like unstable complex-energy collective modes and continuum bound states. An instructive numerical example of a realistic scattering situation is given and the role of the condensate and channel coupling for the Levinson theorem are discussed.

In the standard Bogoliubov approach Dalfovo99 , the weakly interacting Bose gas is described by a condensate with a small amount of coherent quantum depletion and a gas of non-interacting quasi-particles describing small thermal or externally induced collective excitations. The quasi-particles are mixtures of particle and hole excitations as long as they are located in the condensate region. Outside they just become free particles and can be identified with elastically scattered identical atoms. The Bogoliubov picture relies on the number $`N`$ of condensate atoms being large; indeed, the rate of inelastic scattering on a BEC decays exponentially in the Born approximation as $`N`$ grows large idziaszek99 .

The quasi-particle energies $`ϵ_{\nu l}`$ and the particle ($`u`$) and hole ($`v`$) amplitudes are obtained by solving the Bogoliubov equations for each partial wave $`l`$ Wynveen2000a :

$`(T_l+V_{11})u_{\nu l}(r)V_{12}v_{\nu l}(r)`$ $`=(ϵ_{\nu l}+\mu )u_{\nu l}(r)`$ (2a)
$`(T_l+V_{22})v_{\nu l}(r)V_{21}u_{\nu l}(r)`$ $`=(ϵ_{\nu l}+\mu )v_{\nu l}(r),`$ (2b)
where $`T_l=\mathrm{}^2/(2m)_{rr}+l(l+1)/(2mr^2)`$ is the kinetic energy with the atomic mass $`m`$. The potential is the same in both channels $`V_{11}=V_{22}=V_{\mathrm{trap}}(r)+2gn(r)`$ and so is the off-diagonal coupling $`V_{12}=V_{21}=gn(r)`$. The condensate density $`n(r)`$ and the chemical potential $`\mu `$ are determined by solutions of the stationary radial Gross-Pitaevskii equation:

$$\left\{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_{rr}+V_{\mathrm{trap}}(r)+gN\frac{|\phi (r)|^2}{4\pi r^2}\right\}\phi (r)=\mu \phi (r),$$
(3)
where $`g4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_s/m`$, $`a_s`$ is the $`s`$-wave scattering length, and the condensate order parameter $`\phi (r)`$ is assumed real and normalised to one. Here we make use of the scattering length approximation for the interatomic interaction and assume zero temperature, where the density $`n(r)=N\phi (r)^2/(4\pi r^2)`$. Both these assumptions are taken for simplicity. Generalisation to finite temperature Hartree-Fock–Bogoliubov schemes and a more elaborate treatment of interactions are possible and straightforward as long as the structure of Eqs. (2) is preserved. The trapping potential $`V_{\mathrm{trap}}(r)`$ is a finite localised well that falls off to zero sufficiently quickly for large $`r`$ 111We require $`_0^{\mathrm{}}|V_{\mathrm{trap}}(r)|r^n𝑑r<\mathrm{}`$ with $`n=1,2`$ as usual in scattering theory.  and traps the condensate, leading to a negative chemical potential $`\mu <0`$. Formally, the Bogoliubov equations (2) can be understood as scattering equations for two coupled channels $`u`$ and $`v`$. At $`ϵ_{\nu l}+\mu >0`$ there is a scattering continuum where the $`u`$ channel is open and the $`v`$ channel is closed. At large distance $`r`$, therefore, the hole amplitude $`v_{\nu l}(r)`$ decays exponentially while the asymptotic form

$$u_{\nu l}\mathrm{sin}[kr+l\pi /2+\delta ^l(k)]\text{as}r\mathrm{}$$
(4)
of the particle amplitude defines the phase shift $`\delta ^l(k)`$ of the scattered atom with wavenumber $`k=\sqrt{2m/\mathrm{}^2(ϵ_{\nu l}+\mu )}`$. Note that there is a second scattering continuum for $`ϵ_{\nu l}+\mu >0`$ where the $`v`$ channel is open. It is related to the first continuum by the general symmetry of the Bogoliubov equations (2) that allows one to construct new solutions by interchanging $`u`$ and $`v`$ and simultaneously changing the sign of $`ϵ`$. This property can be traced to the invariance of the coupling matrix $`V`$ under exchange of diagonally opposite matrix elements

$$V_{12}V_{21}\text{and}V_{11}V_{22}.$$
(5)
We now proceed with the proof of Eq. (1) for the special case $`l=0`$. To this end, we slightly generalise the Bogoliubov equations (2) by introducing the channel momenta $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ as independent variables and write in matrix notation

$$(_{rr}𝟙+𝕍)\varphi =𝕂^\mathrm{𝟚}\varphi ,$$
(6)
where $`K=\text{diag}(k_1,k_2)`$ and $`\varphi =[u_\nu (r),v_\nu (r)]^T`$. We have now chosen units where $`\mathrm{}^2/(2m)=1`$ and dropped the channel index $`l`$. Analytical properties of multi-channel scattering solutions are most conveniently discussed by analysing the Fredholm determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)`$, which generalises the Jost function of single-channel scattering newton82 . We define the Fredholm determinant by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)=det`$ with the Jost matrix $``$

$`=𝟙+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{𝟘}^{\mathrm{}}}𝕖^{𝕚𝕂𝕣}𝕍(𝕣)\mathbb{\Phi }(𝕂,𝕣)𝕕𝕣.`$ (7)
Here, the columns of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }(K,r)`$ are regular solutions of Eq. (6). $`\mathrm{\Phi }(K,r)`$ obeys the system of coupled integral equations

$$\begin{array}{c}K\mathrm{\Phi }(K,r)=\mathrm{sin}(Kr)+_0^r\mathrm{sin}[K(rr^{})]V(r^{})\mathrm{\Phi }(K,r^{})𝑑r^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
The Fredholm determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)`$ is an entire function of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ for finite range couplings. Under weaker conditions endnote19 the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)`$ is still analytic for $`\mathrm{}k_1>0`$ and $`\mathrm{}k_2>0`$.

The function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)`$ contains the complete information about the physical scattering process and allows one to construct the S matrix. In particular, if $`k_1`$ or $`k_2`$ are real

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)=|\mathrm{\Delta }|e^{i\delta }$$
(9)
is directly related to the phase shift $`\delta `$ of the open channel. Furthermore, we have the symmetry

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(k_1^{},k_2^{}),$$
(10)
which follows for a real symmetric coupling matrix $`V_{ij}`$, and for $`\mathrm{}k_10`$ and $`\mathrm{}k_20`$, the relations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)1\text{as}|k_1|,|k_2|\mathrm{}$$
(11)
hold newton82 . The symmetry

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2)=\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2,k_1)$$
(12)
is a special property of the Bogoliubov equations and will be instrumental for the proof of Eq. (1). Equation (12) can be derived from the symmetry (5) using Eqs. (7) and (8).

We now return to the Bogoliubov equations (2) where the channel momenta $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are not independent variables but related through $`k_1^2+k_2^2=2\mu `$. Resolving for $`k_1`$, we specifically choose

$$k_2(k_1)=i\sqrt{k_1^22\mu },$$
(13)
where $`\sqrt{}`$ denotes the usual positive square root with a branch cut along the negative real axis. If $`k_2`$ is given by (13) we say that $`k_1`$ is in the physical sheet. The choice (13) assures that $`\mathrm{}k_2>0`$, whenever $`\mathrm{}k_1>0`$. We see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1,k_2(k_1))`$ is analytic in the upper complex half plane, except for a branch point at $`k_1=i\sqrt{2\mu }`$ and a cut along the imaginary axis where $`k_1/i\sqrt{2\mu }`$ originating from the square root (13) as shown in Fig. 1. This is exactly where $`k_2^2`$ becomes positive, i.e. the $`v`$ channel is open and supports scattering solutions.

Bound solutions of the Bogoliubov equations correspond to zeros of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)`$ in the upper half of the physical sheet where $`\mathrm{}k_10`$. Solutions with positive quasiparticle energies $`ϵ_\nu `$, the usual case for stable ground state condensates, are found on the imaginary axis at $`k_1/i[0,\sqrt{\mu }]`$. Due to the symmetry (5) of the Bogoliubov equations, every bound state at $`k_1/i=\sqrt{ϵ_\nu \mu }<\sqrt{\mu }`$ has an image at $`k_1/i=\sqrt{+ϵ_\nu \mu }>\sqrt{\mu }`$. Physically, only the solution with positive quasiparticle energy is meaningful. At $`k_1=i\sqrt{\mu }`$ corresponding to zero quasiparticle energy $`ϵ_0=0`$, a trivial bound solution of the Bogoliubov equations causes a double zero of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)`$. This solution with $`u_0=v_0\phi (r)`$ is proportional to the condensate order parameter and does not describe a condensate excitation. In fact, quasiparticle excitations are confined to the orthogonal complement of $`\phi (r)`$.

following integral in the complex $`k_1`$-plane over the closed contour $`𝒞=_{i=1}^8𝒞_i`$ shown in Fig. 1:

$$_𝒞d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)=2\pi in_z2\pi i(2n_c+2),$$
(14)
which counts the number $`n_z`$ of zeros of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)`$ with their multiplicity within the region enclosed by $`𝒞`$. From the preceeding discussion it is clear, that $`n_z`$ is given by twice the number of bound collective excitations $`n_c`$ enclosed by $`𝒞`$ plus the contribution from the trivial solution. Note that the contour $`𝒞`$ is more complicated than in the proof of the ordinary Levinson theorem, due to the cut and the branch point which has to be avoided.

We will now discuss contributions to the integral on the left hand side of Eq. (14). As in the usual proof of the Levinson theorem, the contributions on the negative and positive imaginary axis can be related to the scattering phase shift $`\delta `$ and with Eqs. (9) and (10) we obtain

$$_{𝒞_7+𝒞_1}d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)=2i[\delta (\epsilon )\delta (R)].$$
(15)
The small semicircle $`𝒞_8`$ of radius $`\epsilon `$ around the origin gives a vanishing contribution for small $`\epsilon `$ as do the quarter circles $`𝒞_2`$ and $`𝒞_6`$ for large $`R`$ due to Eq. (11).

The remaining contributions of the integrals over $`𝒞_3`$, $`𝒞_4`$, and $`𝒞_5`$ along the imaginary axis can be related to the contributions along the real axis due to the special structure of the Bogoliubov equations. In fact, Eq. (13) defines a conformal mapping, which maps the segments $`𝒞_3`$, $`𝒞_4`$, and $`𝒞_5`$ of the $`k_1`$ plane onto the segments $`𝒞_7`$, $`𝒞_8`$, and $`𝒞_1`$ of the $`k_2`$ plane, respectively. With the symmetry (12) we obtain $`_{𝒞_3}d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)=_{𝒞_7}d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)`$ and likewise $`_{𝒞_4}=_{𝒞_8}`$ and $`_{𝒞_5}=_{𝒞_1}`$.

We have now evaluated the left hand side of Eq. (14), which becomes $`4i[\delta (0)\delta (\mathrm{})]`$ in the limits $`\epsilon 0^+`$ and $`R\mathrm{}`$. Note that we can set $`\delta (\mathrm{})=0`$ due to Eq. (11). Thus we obtain Eq. (1) for $`l=0`$ and under the assumption that there are no zeros of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)`$ on the real axis. The generalisation of this proof for $`l>0`$ is straightforward within the partial-wave formalism. However, for $`l>0`$ all zeros enclosed by the contour $`𝒞`$ correspond to collective excitations since the modes $`u`$ and $`v`$ are always orthogonal to the condensate wavefunction $`\phi `$.

Finally, we consider the possibility of zeros of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)`$ on the real axis. Additionally to zeros at the threshold $`k_1=0`$, also encountered in single-channel scattering, we cannot exclude the possibility of zeros of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)`$ at real $`k_10`$. If zeros of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)`$ on the real axes exist, they fully contribute to a continuously measured phase shift in the same way as continuum bound states do in conventional multi-channel scattering theory with the exception of a zero at $`k_1=0`$ in the $`l=0`$ channel newton82 . This specific case is known as a half bound state as it only contributes $`\pi /2`$ to the phase shift, hence the term $`\sigma /2`$ in Eq. (1).

So far we have assumed that the condensate is in a stable ground state of the trap, in which case all bound excitations described by the Bogoliubov equations have finite pseudo norm $`\eta \left(|u|^2|v|^2\right)𝑑r0`$ and those with $`\eta >0`$ have positive quasi-particle energy $`\epsilon _\nu `$. However, this restriction is not necessary. For excited states $`\phi (r)`$ of the stationary Gross-Pitaevskii equation (3), anomalous solutions of the Bogoliubov equation are possible with $`ϵ_\nu 0`$ and $`\eta >0`$. Such anomalous modes are known to occur for solitons in highly elongated traps Muryshev1999a ; dziarmaga02  and for vortices fetter01 . Furthermore, bound solutions with complex $`ϵ_\nu `$ and $`\eta =0`$ may occur, which correspond to zeros of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)`$ on the physical sheet but off the imaginary axis. These solutions arise when the condensate is in a stationary but unstable excited state of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation and describe modes of exponential decay, predicted and seen, e.g., for dark solitons Anderson2001a ; brand02a  and attractive condensates strecker02 . These unstable complex modes are not to be confused with scattering resonances, which have zeros below the real axis and in the unphysical sheet. Both anomalous and complex Bogoliubov modes contribute to the contour integral (14) and thus are predicted to be visible in the build up of the elastic scattering phase shift $`\delta (0)`$, which can, in principle, be probed experimentally.

This is exemplified in Fig. 2 for a ground-state BEC of 2000 Rubidium atoms. Note that the relevant range of scattering energies corresponding to temperatures of the order of 10 nK is within the accessible range of current cold-atom experiments. For $`l=0`$ one bound collective excitation and the trivial solution account for a phase shift at threshold $`\delta _0(0)`$ of $`2\pi `$ both in the full Bogoliubov equations (solid) and in the potential scattering approximation (dashed) where we have set $`V_{12}=0`$. Both solutions coincide in the absence of a bound mode for $`\delta _7(k_1)`$ which exhibits, instead, a resonance caused by a zero of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)`$ with $`k_1`$ having a small negative imaginary part. The interesting case is $`\delta _2(k_1)`$ which indicates one more bound state in the full solution compared to simple potential scattering.

The offdiagonal coupling $`V_{12}`$ is of attractive nature and binds extra states although the interparticle interaction is repulsive in both examples. For large scattering momenta and large angular momenta this coupling to the $`v`$ mode becomes less important, as the details of the interaction region are hardly probed. Figure 3 shows the number of bound states of a square well model system. As the well is filled up with repulsive atoms, fewer collective excitations are bound. Note that for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>V_0/6`$ the trapped BEC has bound quasiparticle states only due to the coupling between hole and particle modes.

We have presented a Levinson theorem relating the number of bound collectively excited states of an interacting many-body system, a BEC, to the phase shifts of single-particle scattering. With the possibilities of cold atom scattering and interference, we can expect to see a direct experimental verification of a fundamental theorem of mathematical physics. However, our derivation is based on a weakly interacting Bose gas without inelastic scattering processes. It should be seen as a challenge both to experiments and theory to find the corrections to Eq. (1) in a real interacting system. Dilute-gas atomic BECs are an ideal system for this because the experimental set up is stupendously manageable.


text:
# Tunneling Density of States of the Interacting Two–Dimensional Electron Gas

(April 17, 2003)

## Abstract

We investigate the influence of electron–electron interactions on the density of states of a ballistic two–dimensional electron gas. The density of states is determined nonperturbatively by means of path integral techniques allowing for reliable results near the Fermi surface, where perturbation theory breaks down. We find that the density of states is suppressed at the Fermi level to a finite value. This suppression factor grows with decreasing electron density and is weakened by the presence of gates.

The suppression of electron tunneling into a conductor at low bias voltages, a phenomenon known as zero-bias anomaly (ZBA), has been under consideration theoretically and experimentally for more than 20 years \[1–8\]. This effect can be related to a reduction of the (tunneling) density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level, which is a clear signature of interaction effects that are otherwise often disguised in good conductors.

In the past the focus has been mainly on disordered systems with slow diffusive electron motion enhancing Coulomb effects so that strong ZBAs arise AltshulerAronov85 . More recently, attention has shifted to one-dimensional ballistic wires Bockrath99etc , where the Tomonaga-Luttinger model leads to a power law suppression of the DOS Fisher97 . Similar to disorder, the reduction of dimension hinders fast spreading and forces the particles to interact more strongly. Two-dimensional ballistic systems are a borderline case between strongly interacting one-dimensional fermions and weakly interacting three-dimensional systems. The DOS is also of special interest, since two-dimensional electron gases (2DEGs) arise in a variety of semiconductor microstructures, such as GaAs heterostructures and Si inversion layers that have attracted a lot of attention lately. Further, 2DEGs provide electrodes in experimental tunneling setups measuring properties of 1D quantum wires. Since such experiments do not test the DOS of the wire alone, it is important to know the form of the DOS of the electrode.

In earlier work Khveshchenko98 ; MA01 , based on perturbation theory in the Coulomb interaction, the change of the DOS of 2DEGs in the absence of a screening gate was found to show a cusp $`\delta \nu (ϵ)/\nu _0=|ϵ|/4ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ at the Fermi edge. This prediction is rather irritating since it is independent of the strength of the Coulomb interaction. Here we reexamine the problem employing nonperturbative path integral techniques and show that the suppression of the DOS at the Fermi level sensitively depends on the electron density and screening by gates. In contrast to the 1D case, in the absence of disorder, the DOS at the Fermi level remains finite also at zero temperature yet reduced from the bare density that is approached at larger energies. The suppression increases with the effective interaction strength, i.e., with decreasing electron density.

The interacting electron gas can be described by the action for a fermion field $`\psi `$ coupled to an electric potential $`\varphi `$

$`S[\psi ^{},\psi ,\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝒞}dt\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}}\varphi (𝐪)V_0^1(𝐪)\varphi (𝐪)`$
$`+`$ $`e{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}\overline{\psi }(𝐩)\varphi (𝐩𝐩^{})\psi (𝐩^{})\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{\psi }(𝐩)G_0^1(𝐩)\psi (𝐩)},`$
where $`V_0`$ is the Coulomb interaction potential and the operator $`G_0^1(𝐩,t)=i_tϵ(𝐩)`$ (we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$) contains the electronic dispersion relation $`ϵ(𝐩)=p^2/2m^{}`$ with the effective mass $`m^{}`$. The time integration path is along the Keldysh contour. For simplicity we restrict ourselves to spinless Fermions but account for spin degeneracy by appropriate factors of 2. Further, we add a source term $`\overline{J}\psi +\overline{\psi }J`$ to the action allowing us to calculate the Green function later.

The Fermion fields can be integrated out in the standard way Kopietz97  yielding an effective electromagnetic action

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝒞}dt\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}}\varphi (𝐪)V_0^1(𝐪)\varphi (𝐪)`$ (1)
$`+\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left[G_0^1(𝐩)\delta (𝐩𝐩^{})+e\varphi (𝐩𝐩^{})\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}\overline{J}(𝐩)G[\varphi ](𝐩)J(𝐩)\},`$
where the trace means $`\mathrm{Tr}=\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2p^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\delta (𝐩𝐩^{})`$ and $`G[\varphi ]=[G_0^1+e\varphi ]^1`$.

Expanding the logarithm in the action with respect to the Coulomb field to quadratic order, the first two terms in Eq. (1) can be combined to the Gaussian action of the electric potential field

$`S_\mathrm{F}[\varphi ]={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\varphi (𝐪)V^1(𝐪)\varphi (𝐪)},`$ (2)
where

$`V^1(𝐪)=V_0^1(𝐪)+P_0(𝐪)`$ (3)
is the dynamically screened interaction. Separating fields on the upper and lower parts of the Keldysh contour by introducing doublets, we can pass over to a convenient representation in terms of retarded and advanced functions (and mixtures thereof). Then $`P_0`$ becomes a matrix in Keldysh space, with a retarded part given by

$`P_0^\mathrm{R}(𝐪,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{n_\mathrm{F}(ϵ(𝐩+𝐪))n_\mathrm{F}(ϵ(𝐩))}{\omega +i\eta ϵ(𝐩+𝐪)+ϵ(𝐩)}},`$ (4)
where $`n_\mathrm{F}(ϵ)=[1+e^{\beta ϵ}]^1`$ is the Fermi distribution function at inverse temperature $`\beta `$. The Gaussian approximation made in deriving Eq. (2) is equivalent to the random phase approximation (RPA), which is well established for high electron densities $`n_s`$ corresponding to small values of the Brueckner parameter $`r_s<1`$, but usually gives still very reasonable results for larger $`r_s`$. As standard, $`n_s=1/\pi (r_sa_0)^2`$ with the effective Bohr radius $`a_0=\epsilon _d/m^{}e^2`$, where $`\epsilon _d`$ is the dielectric constant.

The quantity of interest here is the DOS

$`\nu (ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{Im}G^\mathrm{R}(𝐩,ϵ)},`$ (5)
where $`G^\mathrm{R}`$ is the retarded Green function. The Keldysh matrix Green function is obtained as the mixed second order functional derivative of the partition function with respect to the sources yielding

$`G(rr^{},tt^{})={\displaystyle 𝒟\varphi G[\varphi ](rr^{},tt^{})e^{iS_\mathrm{F}[\varphi ]}}`$
Following Schwinger Schwinger ; Kopietz97  we try to find a functional $`k[\varphi ](x,t)`$ describing a local gauge transformation $`\psi (x,t)e^{ik[\varphi ](x,t)}\psi (x,t)`$ such that

$`G[\varphi ](xx^{},tt^{})`$
$`=e^{ik[\varphi ](x,t)}G_0(xx^{},tt^{})e^{ik[\varphi ](x^{},t^{})}.`$ (6)
Linearizing the dispersion relation near the Fermi surface, we can write for $`\omega ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$

$`[i_tϵ_\mathrm{F}+i𝐯+e\varphi (x,t)]G[\varphi ](xx^{},tt^{})`$
$`=\delta (xx^{},tt^{})`$ (7)
where $`𝐯=𝐩/m^{}`$ is the Fermi velocity. Eqs. (Tunneling Density of States of the Interacting Two–Dimensional Electron Gas) and (Tunneling Density of States of the Interacting Two–Dimensional Electron Gas) determine $`k`$ as a linear functional of $`\varphi `$. For the Green function $`G^>=i\psi (x,t)\overline{\psi }(x^{},t^{})`$ we then obtain

$`G^>(xx^{},tt^{})=G_0^>(xx^{},tt^{})e^{J(xx^{},tt^{})}`$
where $`G_0^>`$ is the free Green function and $`J(xx^{},tt^{})`$ is determined by the remaining Gaussian path integral over the $`\varphi `$ fields. This function, which we need for equal space arguments only, may be written as

$`J(t)J(x=x^{},t)={\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\pi }\frac{e^{i\omega t}1}{1e^{\beta \omega }}\mathrm{Im}Y(\omega )},`$ (8)
where

$`Y(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(\omega +i\eta 𝐯𝐪)^2}V^\mathrm{R}(𝐪,\omega )}.`$ (9)
Now, from Eq. (5) we finally obtain the formal result

$`\nu (ϵ)=\nu _0{\displaystyle 𝑑ϵ^{}\frac{1+e^{\beta ϵ}}{1+e^{\beta ϵ^{}}}P(ϵϵ^{})},`$ (10)
where $`\nu _0=m/\pi `$ is the bare DOS and we introduced the spectral density

$`P(ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{dt}{2\pi }e^{iϵt}e^{J(t)}}.`$ (11)
To evaluate the DOS explicitly, we first note that the polarization function (4) reads for small $`𝐪`$

$`P_0^\mathrm{R}(𝐪,\omega )=\nu _0{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{vq\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{\Omega }vq\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega +i\eta `$. If we introduce the function

$`g(q)=[1+\nu _0V_0(q)]^{1/2},`$
which is unity in the noninteracting case and less than one in presence of interactions, Eq. (9) may be combined with Eqs. (3) and (12) to read

$`Y(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑q`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }qg^2(q)V_0(q)}{\left[\mathrm{\Omega }^2(vq)^2\right]\left[(\mathrm{\Omega }+vq)\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }vq}{\mathrm{\Omega }+vq}}[1g^2(q)]\mathrm{\Omega }\right]}}.`$
The first factor in the denominator represents the particle pole and the second the plasmon pole, which is the solution $`q_{\mathrm{pl}}(\omega )`$ of the equation

$`(vq)^2[1(1g^2(q))^2]\omega ^2=0.`$
As in 1D, the plasmon spectrum is gapless and makes an important contribution to low energy properties.

In Eq. (8) we need the imaginary part of $`Y(\omega )`$, which has a $`\delta `$–function contribution at each of the poles of $`Y(\omega )`$, but also a regular part, and we find correspondingly $`\mathrm{Im}Y=Y^{(\mathrm{par})}+Y^{(\mathrm{plas})}+Y^{(\mathrm{reg})}`$ with the particle and plasmon contributions (for $`\omega >0`$)

$`Y^{(\mathrm{par})}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\nu _0v^2}},`$
$`Y^{(\mathrm{plas})}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\nu _0v^2}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{q[1g^2]g^2\nu _0\frac{dV_0}{dq}}{2g^2}}\right]_{q=q_{\mathrm{pl}}(\omega )}^1,`$
and the regular part

$`Y^{(\mathrm{reg})}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\nu _0v^2}}{\displaystyle _{\omega /v}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑q`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{2v^2q\omega (1g^2)}{\pi \sqrt{(vq)^2\omega ^2}\left[(vq)^2[1(1g^2)^2]\omega ^2\right]}}.`$
To proceed, we consider a bare interaction $`V_0(q)`$ of the form

$`V_0(q)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2}{\epsilon _dq}}(1e^{2q\mathrm{\Delta }}),`$
which is the 2D Coulomb interaction in presence of a screening gate at distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then $`\mathrm{Im}Y(\omega )`$ contains three energy scales: $`\omega _0=2\pi \nu _0v^2=4ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =\kappa v`$, where $`\kappa =2\pi \nu _0e^2/\epsilon _d`$ is the two–dimensional inverse screening length, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }=v/2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For the bare 2D Coulomb interaction, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$, only the two scales $`\omega _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa `$ remain, that are related by $`r_s=2\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa /\omega _0`$. For finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ it is convenient to introduce the ratio $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa /\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Delta }=2\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

In 2D disordered systems $`\mathrm{Im}Y`$ diverges at low frequencies which leads to a divergence of $`J(t)`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$ implying a total suppression of $`\nu (ϵ)`$ for $`ϵ0`$. The same is true for 1D ballistic wires. In the 2D ballistic case considered here, $`\mathrm{Im}Y`$ remains finite or even vanishes in presence of a gate as shown in Fig. 1.

Accordingly, at $`T=0`$, $`J(t)`$ approaches a constant $`J_{\mathrm{as}}`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$, which is given by

$`J_{\mathrm{as}}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\pi }}\mathrm{Im}Y(\omega ).`$ (13)
It is important to note that the explicit result for $`\mathrm{Im}Y(\omega )`$ given above does not suffice to determine $`J_{\mathrm{as}}`$ explicitly, since the integral (13) also has contributions from frequencies that are not small compared to $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ where the true parabolic dispersion must be used, which leads to a faster decay of $`\mathrm{Im}Y(\omega )`$ at high frequencies. However, this high energy behavior chiefly affects the quantity $`J_{\mathrm{as}}`$, while for large times the remaining part $`J^{}(t)`$ in the decomposition

$`J(t)=J_{\mathrm{as}}+J^{}(t)`$
is determined by the low energy behavior of $`Y(\omega )`$.

Accordingly, the spectral density (11) splits into

$`P(E)=S\delta (E)+P^{}(E),`$
with the regular part

$`P^{}(E):=S\theta (E){\displaystyle \frac{dt}{2\pi }e^{iEt}(e^{J^{}(t)}1)},`$
where $`S=e^{J_{\mathrm{as}}}<1`$ is a suppression factor. Hence, the $`\delta (E)`$–function form of the spectral density of a noninteracting system partially survives in 2D ballistic electron systems.

From Eq. (10) the DOS now reads

$`\nu (ϵ)=S\nu _0+\nu ^{}(ϵ),`$
where the energy dependent part is given by

$`\nu ^{}(ϵ)=\nu _0{\displaystyle _0^{|ϵ|}}𝑑EP^{}(E).`$
Clearly, $`\nu (ϵ)`$ has a nonzero value $`\nu (0)=S\nu _0`$ at $`ϵ=0`$, which depends on the integral property $`J_{\mathrm{as}}`$ and thus on the interaction strength as opposed to earlier predictions Khveshchenko98 ; MA01 . Also $`\nu ^{}(ϵ)`$ contains the suppression factor $`S`$ as a prefactor. Further, the slope and curvature of $`\nu (ϵ)`$ at $`ϵ=0`$ are not universal but depend on the interaction strength $`r_s`$.

To determine the value of $`J_{\mathrm{as}}`$ and $`S`$ explicitly without artificial cutoffs, we either have to use the full quadratic dispersion or to approximate the less important regular part of $`Y(\omega )`$. Since $`Y^{(\mathrm{reg})}(\omega )`$ approaches $`1/4\nu _0v^2`$ for small and large frequencies and does not deviate much from this limiting value in between, we replace it by that constant. In this approximation, which does not necessarily capture the true high frequency behavior and thus gives only an estimate of $`J_{\mathrm{as}}`$ when inserted into Eq. (13), the function $`\mathrm{Im}Y(\omega )`$ is of the form $`\mathrm{Im}Y(\omega )=\frac{\pi }{\omega _0}y(\omega /\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa ,\lambda )`$. From this scaling form we find $`J_{\mathrm{as}}=r_s\zeta (\lambda )`$ with $`\zeta (\lambda )=1/2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑uy(u,\lambda )`$, which indicates that the factor $`S=e^{r_s\zeta (\lambda )}`$ rapidly suppresses $`\nu (0)`$ with increasing $`r_s`$. With decreasing gate distances the suppression factor approaches $`1`$, which means that interaction effects become weaker. These features of the DOS are also apparent from Fig. 2 which displays results for various values of $`r_s`$ with and without gate. Without a gate the DOS is cusplike near $`ϵ=0`$, whereas in presence of a gate the slope at $`ϵ=0`$ vanishes. This latter result is in accordance with the perturbative analysis MA01 .

For finite temperatures and in the absence of a gate the denominator in Eq. (8) behaves singular at $`\omega =0`$. While $`|J(t)|`$ then exceeds $`|J_{\mathrm{as}}|`$, it turns out that $`\nu (0)`$ always increases if the temperature is raised. This means that finite temperatures smear out the cusplike DOS and reduces the size of interaction effects near $`ϵ=0`$.

Now, two remarks are in order. Strongly interacting semiconductor systems, where values for $`r_s`$ up to 40 have been observed Sarachik01 , are usually disordered, but a ballistic regime is feasible Proskuryakov02 . For large $`r_s`$ our analysis does not necessarily apply and, in particular, as was discussed above, we cannot obtain reliable values for $`J_{\mathrm{as}}`$. However, if no scales other than $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa `$ enter, $`J_{\mathrm{as}}`$ should be of the form $`J_{\mathrm{as}}=r_s\zeta (r_s,\lambda )`$. Then $`S`$ will vanish for $`r_s1`$, provided $`lim_{r_s\mathrm{}}r_s\zeta (r_s,\lambda )=\mathrm{}`$.

Second, in the absence of a gate we have $`\nu (ϵ)\nu _0S[1+|ϵ|/4ϵ_\mathrm{F}+𝒪(ϵ^2)]`$. This differs from previous perturbative approaches giving $`\nu (ϵ)\nu _0(1+|ϵ|/4ϵ_\mathrm{F})`$ Khveshchenko98 ; MA01  independent of $`r_s`$. The lack of a dependence on the interaction strength can be traced back to the fact that in these works $`\mathrm{Im}Y(\omega )`$ is effectively replaced by a constant and cut off at the Fermi level. Then, no interaction scale remains and therefore the authors obtain a universal (interaction independent) result. From Fig. 1 we see that this is not the case, but the dominant plasmon contribution to $`\mathrm{Im}Y(\omega )`$ falls off on the scale $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa `$, which depends on the interaction strength. Indeed, if we turn off the interaction, the corrections to the noninteracting DOS $`\nu _0`$ vanish.

Throughout this Letter, we have considered a pure 2DEG without disorder. In weakly disordered 2DEGs with elastic mean time $`\tau `$ electrons move diffusively on long time scales corresponding to excitation energies small compared to $`1/\tau `$. Then, at $`T=0`$ the DOS drops down to zero for energies below $`1/\tau `$ where the behavior passes over to an Altshuler–Aronov ZBA \[3–6\]. Some authors have investigated the crossover from the diffusive to the quasiballistic limit perturbatively RAG97 ; Khveshchenko98 ; MA01 . The clean limit of these treatments does not yield our results for the reasons discussed above.

Experimentally it is possible to realize very clean and strongly interacting 2DEGs (or 2D hole gases) Sarachik01 ; Proskuryakov02 , but so far mainly transport measurements have been performed in the context of the metal–insulator transition. Tunneling experiments in samples with high $`r_s`$ have been suggested Sarachik01 , but have not yet been performed, since they are more involved, because a counter electrode has to be added at a small distance without influencing the quality of the device. Nevertheless, tunneling experiments with a ballistic 2DEG seem to be feasible in the future. Interaction effects on the DOS in 2DEGs are also relevant for experiments with 2D–1D tunnel junctions dePicciotto00 , because there not only the DOS of the 1D wire is measured, but a convolution with the suppressed DOS of the 2DEG.

We would like to thank R. Egger and M. Sarachik for helpful correspondence. Financial support was provided by the DFG.