text:
# Study of the influence of surface anisotropy and lattice structure on the behaviour of a small magnetic cluster

## 1 Introduction

The magnetic properties of clusters have been studied intensely for about two decades. Surface and finite-size effects appear to play a key rôle for clusters containing up to several hundred atoms. An enhanced magnetic anisotropy at the surface has been observed for fine metallic particles  and predicted by theoretical calculations . One source for this anisotropy is the difference between the coordination number at the surface and in the bulk, inducing a change in the crystal fields . It has been experimentally found that this enhancement increases as the size of the particle decreases .

Magnetic measurements are usually carried out by passing size selected clusters through a non uniform magnetic field as in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. In these experiments the cluster size is known but the crystal structure as well as the initial orientation of the crystal axes of the cluster with respect to the field gradient direction are not.

A great deal of effort has been devoted to the theoretical and experimental study of transition metal (TM) clusters  which are known to have a relatively low anisotropy energy in the bulk compared to their exchange energy . For TM clusters, it has been shown that it is the localised character of the 3d electrons at the surface which enhances the surface anisotropy with respect to the volume anisotropy . On the contrary very little is known for rare earth (RE) clusters, where the anisotropy energy is expected to be higher. Experimental results on RE clusters show an anomalous behaviour (the broadening of the deflection profile in a Stern-Gerlach experiment at a finite temperature) which is absent in the case of TM clusters .

Several studies which consider anisotropy terms have been performed, mostly concerning large clusters ($`N1000`$ atoms) cut to regular shapes (spherical or ellipsoidal) out of simple-cubic or spinel lattices. For these systems the competition between the surface anisotropy and the exchange term has been analysed as a function of temperature . The influence of surface effects on the hysteresis cycle at zero temperature has also been shown . Dimitrov and Wysin  have studied the zero-temperature behaviour of large particles with ferromagnetically coupled Heisenberg classical spins with either uniaxial random anisotropy or radial surface anisotropy. They have studied the two-(three-)dimensional simple-cubic lattice with the cluster having either circular or rectangular (spherical or cubic) geometries. They find a step-like hysteresis cycle which is identified as a surface effect. This is also observed in their zero temperature study of spherical particles cut out of an fcc lattice structure . To have a complete picture of these systems, it is of interest to investigate the thermal magnetic behaviour of small clusters, including an anisotropy energy term.

In this work we study a simple classical Heisenberg model for an $`N=13`$ cluster with radial surface anisotropy, at finite temperature and in an applied external field, in order to understand how the thermal magnetic behaviour of the cluster is affected by the existence of a surface anisotropy term. We will show how the interplay between the surface anisotropy and the crystal structure, as well as the relative orientation of the applied field with respect to the crystal axes, influence the magnetic behaviour of the cluster.

This article is organized as follows: in Section 2 we describe the studied systems; in Section 3 we give the technical details of our calculation, and in Section 4 we present the results. Finally, in Section 5, we summarise and discuss our results.

## 2 Description of the systems studied

Among the small amount of information concerning RE clusters, reference  shows, by ab-initio electronic structure calculations that $`Gd_{13}`$ clusters adopt a hexagonal closed packed (hcp) crystal structure. Numerical simulation results of cluster agregation starting from $`N=13`$ separated atoms placed in either Lennard-Jones or Gupta potentials yield very similar cohesion energies for hcp, fcc and icosahedral lattices . These leads us to base our study on $`N=13`$ atom clusters having one of these three crystal structures, since the absolute values of their cohesion energies are larger than those obtained for other known simple structures (such as simple-cubic or body-centered-cubic).

Since the magnetism in RE metals comes from the localised 4f orbitals, a Heisenberg hamiltonian is a reasonable model. Different approaches exist to the treatement of the spin (classical or quantum approach) and to the interaction constants. In , based on the fact that the calculated Fermi energy of the band structure is in a continuum of the density of states, a classical RKKY-Heisenberg hamiltonian is considered to describe the $`Gd_{13}`$ cluster. On the other hand in  both quantum and classical approaches of a RKKY-Heisenberg hamiltonian are studied for different closed-packed N=13 clusters and for different geometries of the N=14 clusters. Concerning the thermal magnetic behaviour of the N=13 clusters, the results are qualitatively the same as in the classical approach developped in .

In this article we model the exchange interaction by a classical Heisenberg hamiltonian. In addition, a surface anisotropy term that acts only on the atoms at the surface to account for the reduction of the symmetry of the crystal at the surface is considered.

The main sources of anisotropy are the crystal-field anisotropy and the magnetic dipolar interaction. The latter, being a long range interaction, can in principle be neglected for small clusters. Choosing the correct term to model the surface anisotropy of a RE cluster is not an easy task as no experimental results are available. Nevertheless some hints can be taken from what is known for metallic clusters. In  it has been found that the surface anisotropy term increases with decreasing cluster size.

When trying to apply these results to RE clusters one can notice that first principle calculations, which concern $`Gd_{13}`$ show a contraction of the surface layers that may induce a much larger crystal field anisotropy at the surface than in the bulk. As it has been discussed in previous articles , the lowering of the symmetry at the surface due to the missing neighbours produces a crystal field with a predominant axial term in the radial direction which can be modelled by adding to the hamiltonian a term of the form $`K_sS_\xi ^2`$ where $`\xi `$ is the component along the radial vector.

The classical RKKY-Heisenberg hamiltonian which is known to be a good model for bulk Gd  has been already studied numerically in a simplified version (ferromagnetic first-neighbour interactions and antiferromagnetic interactions among all other pairs) without anisotropy .

In this article we consider a complementary approach. Our aim is to study the influence of the surface anisotropy energy. For simplicity, as a first approach, we limit our model to the case of ferromagnetic first-neighbour couplings, the same at the surface and in the bulk, in order to avoid mixing the effects of surface anisotropy with those of competing interactions. It can be argued that for a very small particle, the spins on opposite faces of the surface are close enough to interact with each other, thus modifiying the form of the anisotropy. As in the case of the second neighbours interactions, this effect has been neglected. Since we consider clusters having an approximately spherical shape, we have also neglected the shape anisotropy.

These considerations lead to the following hamiltonian which we study for the three crystal lattices (hcp, fcc, ico):

$$=J\underset{<i,j>}{}\stackrel{}{s}_i.\stackrel{}{s}_jK_s\underset{N_s}{}(\stackrel{}{s}_i.\stackrel{}{n}_i)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{h}.\stackrel{}{s}_i,$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{s}_i`$ is a classical Heisenberg spin with unit length, $`i,j`$ denotes the sum over all nearest-neighbour pairs, $`N_s`$ is the number of spins at the surface of the cluster (here $`N_s=12`$), $`\stackrel{}{n}_i`$ is the unit vector giving the radial direction from the central spin, $`s_1`$. $`J>0`$, $`K_s>0`$ and $`h`$ are the ferromagnetic interaction constant, the radial surface anisotropy constant, and the intensity of the applied magnetic field, measured in units of $`k_B`$ respectively. In this article we fix $`J=1`$.

## 3 Calculation details

The cluster is first simulated using standard Monte Carlo simulations for the temperature magnetic dependence of the system for the fcc, hcp and icosahedral lattices in zero field (heating and cooling simulations).

Heating and cooling cycles of the system in constant field are simulated. The different considered orientations of the applied field are depicted in figure 1. For hcp lattice these orientations are either parallel or perpendicular to the $`\stackrel{}{c}`$ axis of the crystal. The former is noted $`\stackrel{}{H}_c=h\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ and the latter $`\stackrel{}{H}_n=h\stackrel{}{u}_n`$, where $`\stackrel{}{u}_n`$ is a basis vector of the hexagonal central layer. As the fcc lattice can be seen in a layered way, the same definition of the direction of the applied field as in the hcp structure is used (see figure 1.b). For the icosahedral structure, the $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ orientation is chosen along the direction of one of the 5-fold symmetry axes. The complementary $`\stackrel{}{u}_n`$ direction is perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ and joins the intersection point, noted S, of the 5-fold axis with the perpendicular plane containing the 5 icosahedral sites, with one of these sites (see figure 1.c). Hysteresis cycles are simulated at different temperatures, with the magnetic field applied in the predefined directions of each structure.

All these simulations are done using $`10^6`$MCS/s steps for calculation after having discarded $`10^6`$MCS/s steps for the thermalisation process. Quantities are averaged using one configuration every 100MCS/s in order to diminish statistical correlations.

We define the average cluster magnetisation as

$$m=1/N<|\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{s}_i|>,$$
(2)
and the average surface magnetisation of the cluster,

$$m_s=1/N_s<\underset{N_s}{}|\stackrel{}{s}_i.\stackrel{}{n}_i|>,$$
(3)
The energy is also calculated as a function of the temperature and the magnetic field.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Charaterisation of the ground states

In order to have a better understanding of the effect of surface anisotropy at finite temperature and in an applied field, it is necessary to have an idea of the ground state of the model for the different lattice structures in zero field. Unfortunatelly, the analytical determination of the ground state of this hamiltonian is not straightforward. The coupling between the spins and the crystal structure makes it impossible to perform a reduction of the number of variables in the problem by a global rotation of the magnetic structure. Moreover, as this coupling is non-linear, one can not use the local field orientation search methods for the ground state. We search for the ground state numerically using simulated-annealing, with a decreasing power law for the temperature: $`T_{i+1}=(T_i)^\alpha `$, where ”i” labels the cooling step and $`1.05<\alpha <1.15`$.

We obtain ground-state magnetisations $`m(0)<1`$ for the three considered lattices due to the surface anisotropy term, which favors a canted low temperature configuration. This non-collinear order is confirmed by the surface average magnetisation which saturates near $`m_s(0)1`$ for big enough values of $`K_s`$.

We note a qualitative difference between the ground-state behaviour of the hcp and fcc clusters and that of the icosahedral cluster. The ground-state energies and magnetisations of the hcp and fcc clusters are very close for low anisotropy and start to differ for a value around $`K_s=3`$, while the corresponding energy and magnetisation values are very different for the icosahedral cluster. Figure 2 shows the ground-state energies for the two structures having the closest behaviour in the interesting region of the anisotropy, $`2<K_s<4`$.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate schematically the ground-state configurations found for the hcp and fcc structures for $`K_s=3`$, where the two lattices start to differ. For the hcp lattice we find two degenerate ground states corresponding to two different values of the magnetic moment. For the fcc cluster, only one magnetisation state is found.

Two typical low temperature configurations of the hcp lattice are represented in figures 3(a) and 3(b). In figures 3(c) and 3(d) their projections on the central plane may be seen (for clarity, we draw the spin orientations along the radial directions; the real spin configurations show slight deviations from these directions). The magnetic moment of the cluster (shown in figure 3(a)), corresponding to the ground state with the higher magnetisation, is mainly aligned along $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$, while for the case of the lower magnetisation ground state (given in figure 3(b)), the magnetic alignement is mainly along $`\stackrel{}{u}_n`$.

In figure 4(a) we show a typical ground-state configuration of the fcc lattice. This configuration has the same magnetic moment as the hcp ground state with the higher magnetisation (figure 3(a)). And as for this hcp ground state, the main direction of the magnetic moment is along $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$.

In order to understand why the ground state is not degenerate for the fcc cluster while it is degenerate for the hcp cluster, we impose the low temperature spin configuration found for the hcp lattice, shown in figure 3(b), to the fcc lattice (respecting all the possible symmetries). This “non-physical” configuration is shown figure 4(b). Comparing figures 3(d) and 4(d), it becomes clear why the ground-state configuration with the lower magnetisation in the hcp is not found in the fcc cluster: the coupling between the spins in the central plane and those in the lower plane increases the energy in the case of the fcc structure.

As $`K_s`$ increases, the degeneracy of the hcp ground state is lifted in favour of the most canted ground state, i.e. with a lower magnetisation than the ground state of the fcc cluster, and the ground states of the fcc and hcp lattices separate in energy and in magnetisation. The hcp cluster is better able to minimize both exchange and surface energy.

The low temperature behaviour of the icosahedral cluster always differs from the other two structures. The magnetic moment values $`m(0)`$ of the icosahedral lattice at a given value of the anisotropy constant $`K_s`$ are higher than those of the other two structures in all the anisotropy range considered. This can be understood by the different number of nearest neighbours at the surface. The sites at the surface of both hcp and fcc lattices have 5 nearest neighbours while the sites of the icosahedral lattice have 6. At fixed $`K_s`$, the ferromagnetic coupling favours ground-state configurations with higher magnetisations in the icosahedral cluster than in the other two, in agreement with our results (see figure 5). And the ground-state energies of the icosahedral lattice are much lower than the corresponding energies for hcp and fcc lattices. This is due to the globular geometry of the icosahedral cluster that allow a better compromise to minimize both exchange and surface energy.

We will see that the similarities of both hcp and fcc clusters, as well as the specificities of the icosahedral cluster that we pointed out in this section, will be emphasized by the action of temperature or the application of an external magnetic field.

### 4.2 Zero field thermal behaviour

We have performed heating and cooling cycles for the three considered lattices structures in a range of values of the anisotropy constant $`1K_s7`$. Figure 6 shows the average magnetisation of the particle in a cooling process in zero field for different $`K_s`$ values and the three considered lattice structures.

The influence of surface ansitropy on the temperature behaviour of the magnetisation clearly depends on the crystal structure. For $`K_s=2`$ the $`m(T)`$ curves increase monotonically for the three structures. The $`m(T)`$ curve of the icosahedral lattice is higher than those of the two other structures in all the measured temperature range.

For $`K_s=3`$ the degenerate ground state of the hcp structure leads to a $`m(T)`$ curve showing an anomalous behaviour. Which of the ground states is reached depends on the trajectory performed in the phase space while cooling the system. As the temperature is lowered, the magnetisation of the cluster grows, but at a value $`T_a`$ it rapidly falls down creating a peak (open circles in figure 6). If the cooling process is performed very slowly, the cluster magnetisation first decreases and then increases again reaching the same low temperature value of the magnetic moment than for the fcc structure (full circles in figure 6). Energy curves $`E(T)`$ of the two runs (not shown here) superpose exactly, and superpose also to the $`E(T)`$ curves of the fcc cluster. Obviously, for the fcc where no degeneracy has been found, the behaviour of the $`m(T)`$ curves doesn’t show any dependence on the trajectory in the phase space during the zero-field cooling proccess. As expected, the two $`m(0)`$ values of figure 6 for hcp and fcc lattices correspond to the magnetisation ground states found in figures 3 and 4.

When performing a standard MC zero-field cooling simulation of the hcp lattice starting from the low magnetisation ground states found by simulated annealing for $`K_s=3`$, the zero-field cooling curves are reproduced exactly and the peak shown in figure 6(a) appears again.

As we have discussed in the previous section, as $`K_s`$ increases, the degeneracy of the hcp ground state is lost and the ground states of the fcc and hcp lattices separate in energy (see figure 2). For instance, for the hcp cluster and $`K_s`$=4, the peak is always found when cooling the system and as expected, the saturation value of the cluster magnetisation is smaller than for the fcc structure (figure 6(b)). Increasing $`K_s`$ diminishes the height of the peak till it disappears. This behaviour is a particularity of the hcp structure.

For the other lattice structures the cluster magnetisation increases monotonically when cooling and only for big values of $`K_s`$ a plateau is observed.

In all the cases the $`m(T)`$ curves are ordered (from highest to lowest case) as follows: icosahedral, fcc and hcp. This fact shows that, at fixed $`K_s`$, a different degree of competition appears between the exchange and the surface term according to the considered lattice structure. We will see this fact emphasized by the application of an external magnetic field.

### 4.3 Non-zero field thermal behaviour

We simulated the field cooling of the system with the field applied in directions described in figure 1. We studied various intensities of the field ranging from $`0h1`$.

Figure 7(a) shows $`m(T)`$ for $`K_s`$=3 and the two considered orientations of $`\stackrel{}{H}`$. When the field is $`\stackrel{}{H}_c=h\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ ($`h0.05`$) the magnetisation grows monotonically as the temperature is decreased, and the anomaly observed in zero field disappears. On the contrary, when the field is pointing in the $`\stackrel{}{u}_n`$ direction, a peak is observed for the same $`TT_a`$ where the anomaly is found in zero field. This peak is confirmed by a very slow cooling process as reported in figure 7(a). Obviously, when the applied field is too high the peak is destroyed, and the magnetisation grows monotonically as $`T`$ is lowered.

The ground-state analysis of section 4.1 helps to understand why this is so. As decribed above, two degenerate states are found for the hcp lattice for $`K_s=3`$ and $`h=0`$: one corresponding to the monotonous $`m(T)`$ behaviour (figure 3(a)) and another one corresponding to the peak in $`m(T)`$ curves (figure 3(b)). The former has its magnetic moment mainly oriented along $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ and the latter mainly along $`\stackrel{}{u}_n`$. Then when the magnetic field is applied, one of these degenerate zero-field ground states is selected according to the orientation of the field. For the fcc lattice, on the other hand, only one possibility exists (figure 4(a)) and the $`m(T)`$ curves do not depend on the field direction.

In figure 7(b) we plot $`|\stackrel{}{m}.\stackrel{}{H}|/|\stackrel{}{H}|`$ as a function of $`T`$ for different intensities and the two studied orientations of the applied field. It can be seen that the behaviour of the corresponding projection of the average magnetisation along the field direction depends on this direction. When the field is applied along $`\stackrel{}{u}_n`$ the corresponding projection of the average magnetisation, called $`m_n`$, easily follows the field as $`T`$ is lowered. However when the field direction is $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ the corresponding projection, $`m_c`$, grows very slowly as $`T`$ is lowered saturating for $`T<T_a`$.

Comparing figure 7(a) and (b) one can understand the difference in the magnetic behaviour between the two chosen field directions. When the field is in the $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ direction, the magnetic moment grows monotonically (the peak observed in zero field disappears) while the $`m_c`$ projection saturates at value lower than one at finite $`T`$. This means that there is a non zero contribution to the magnetic moment which is not in the $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ direction. The situation is different when the field is in the $`\stackrel{}{u}_n`$ direction, we can see that it is mainly $`m_n`$ which is responsible for the peak on the $`m(T)`$ curve.

For the fcc structure the behaviour is different. To compare with the hcp lattice we considered the field directions as shown on the figure 1(b). The $`m(T)`$ curves are coincident for both directions of the applied field and no anomaly is observed (see figure 8(a)). This result remains true for all field intensities and for all values of $`K_s`$. This can be understood in terms of the structure of the ground state: for the fcc lattice there’s no degeneracy of the ground state so the $`m(T)`$ curves do not depend on the field direction. On the other hand, as for the hcp lattice, when the field is applied in the $`\stackrel{}{u}_n`$ direction, $`m_n`$ follows the field more easily than does $`m_c`$ when the field is applied in the $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ direction (see figure 8(b)). The zero-temperature value of $`m_c`$ is lower than the corresponding one for $`m_n`$ for all $`K_s`$, also in agreement with the hcp case. This can also be related to the characteristics of the ground-state configurations in zero-field (figures 3 and 4): in both hcp and fcc ground states we have found that the spins in the central plane have a small component along the $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ direction, so, when a magnetic field is applied along $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$, the spins in the central plane find it more difficult to align with the field direction.

The situation for the icosahedral lattice is less straightforward. First, this lattice has a globular structure rather than the layered structure of hcp or fcc, and so, one cannot directly identify the 5-fold symmetry with the $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ axis of the other two layered structures. Nevertheless, the results of field cooled simulations show, as for the fcc case, that the orientation of the field has no influence in the $`m(T)`$ curves. On other hand, the orientation of the field affects the projection of the magnetisation in the field direction (see figure 9). For this structure, it is $`m_c`$ which follows more easily the applied field. For $`K_s3`$ $`m_c`$ reaches its saturation value at a finite value of $`T=T_s`$. This value increases with $`K_s`$. This is also a sign of a non-collinear state, confirmed by the high values of the surface magnetisation at zero temperature ($`m_s(0)0.9`$ for $`K_s6`$).

For a given lattice and a fixed value of the field intensity $`h`$, two different regimes are observed for the thermal behaviour of magnetic moment, $`m(T)`$, and of the projection of the magnetisation of the surface spins along the radial directions $`m_s(T)`$, according to the value of $`K_s`$. For low $`K_s`$, $`m(T)`$ is higher than $`m_s(T)`$ for all $`T`$. For high $`K_s`$ values, the opposite behaviour is observed. There is then a range of $`K_s^c`$ values where the two curves cross at a finite temperature, $`T_{cross}(h)`$, leading to a non-collinear ground state ($`m_s(0)>m(0)`$). In spite of the fact that one cannot actually talk of a phase transition, this crossing indicates that the non-collinear state, where each magnetic moment has a strong component perpendicular to the surface, takes over from a state of large global magnetisation (collinear state). The range of $`K_s^c`$ values is characteristic of each lattice structure. For the studied values of $`K_s`$, we have found $`K_s^c4`$ for hcp and fcc and $`K_s^c5`$ for the icosahedral structure. This dependence of the $`K_s^c`$ is related to the different number of nearest neighbours at the surface for the different structures. As already mentioned, the sites at the surface of both hcp and fcc lattices have 5 nearest neighbours while the sites of the icosahedral lattice have 6, which leads to a larger $`K_s^c`$ in this latter case so as to counterbalance the ferromagnetic coupling.

We have studied the $`T_{cross}(h)`$ dependence for a given lattice at the corresponding $`K_s^c`$ values, when the field is applied along the $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ direction (highest symmetry axis for the three lattices). We observe that $`T_{cross}(h)`$ shifts to low temperatures as the applied field increases. This simply reveals the fact that when a field is applied, the thermal energy needed to flip from the non-collinear to the collinear state is lower. In the case of very high fields, $`T_c(h)0`$, indicating that the ground state is already collinear.

### 4.4 Hysteresis loops.

Starting from a zero-field cooling state, we performed hysteresis loops with the field oriented along each of the directions described above. We observe that above the temperature $`T_a`$ corresponding to the anomaly of the hcp lattice, no hysteresis is found. Then, to allow for comparison, we performed for all the lattices the hysteresis cycles at $`T0.1`$, where the hysteresis is found in hcp structure.

For the hcp lattice no hysteresis loop is observed for $`K_s`$=1 but it is already present for $`K_s`$=2. We observe that the field orientation along $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ gives a smoother loop than the orientation along $`\stackrel{}{u}_n`$ for all $`K_s`$ values. In Figure 10(a) it can be seen that small plateaux, and a larger coercive field, appear when the field is applied along the $`\stackrel{}{u}_n`$ direction.

For $`K_s`$=3 these characteristics persist (see Figure 10(b)). Hysteresis disappears only in the $`\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ direction for $`K_s`$=4 and for both directions for $`K_s`$=5.

For the fcc lattice the dependence of the coercive field on the orientation of the applied field is the same as for hcp, but the cycle width starts diminishing already at $`K_s`$=3.

For these two lattices, the magnetisation shows small plateaux as a function of the applied field. Step-like hysteresis cycles have been observed for large clusters with surface anisotropy in  and for small antiferromagnetic clusters in . They have been explained in terms of the simultaneous reversal of a group of spins. Here we show, additionally, that the location of these plateaux depends not only on the intensity of the field but also on its direction with respect to the crystal axes of the clusters.

For the icosahedral lattice the situation is once again different from that of the layered structures. First, at the temperature where we performed the previous field loops, the MC simulation fails to flip individual spins over the high energy barriers. This different temperature scale is again due to the higher coordination of the surface sites, which increases the effect of the ferromagnetic coupling. We have then performed the field loops at $`T=0.1`$ (the hysteresis disappears for $`K_s`$=3 at $`T=0.15`$). Second, at a given $`T`$, the width of the hysteresis loops increases with $`K_s`$, which indicates that it is more difficult to reverse the magnetisation of the system as $`K_s`$ increases, in contrast with the hcp and fcc cases. Again, this can be understood considering the peculiarities of this globular structure, and comparing its ground state with those found for hcp and fcc (see figures 34 and 5). For a layered lattice one can see that there is a competition between the field and the anisotropy terms: when the cluster is (almost) completely polarized, for exemple, in the $`+\stackrel{}{u}_c`$ direction, the anisotropy term in the hexagonal layer is far from being optimized (it is globally zero); when the field is then diminished in the reversal process, the anisotropy term “helps” the individual spin transitions. The situation is different for the icosahedral structure in which the radial character of the anisotropy term allows for a configuration which can follow the field without rising too much the anisotropy energy. When the field is reversed at low $`T`$, again in order to satisfy both terms, each individual spin must completely reverse its orientation along its radial direction, so the intermediate states involve a jump over the anisotropy barrier, which increases with $`K_s`$. This is exactly what we observe, the coercive field increases with $`K_s`$. We thus believe that the single spin flip algorithm used is not adapted for the study of low temperature hysteresis loops for the icosahedral cluster.

## 5 Conclusions

We have studied the magnetic thermal behaviour of a $`N=13`$ cluster in a magnetic field. We have considered a classical Heisenberg model with ferromagnetic interactions in a magnetic field, and a radial surface anisotropy term. This model has been applied to three different lattice structures, hcp, fcc and icosahedral, which have similar cohesion energies in the context of Lennard-Jones and Gupta potentials.

Our results show that, even in zero field, the crystal structure of the cluster plays an essential role on its thermal behaviour. In particular, the anomalies seen in the average cluster magnetisation curves as a function of the temperature for some surface anistropy constants seems characteristic of the hcp structure.

This anomalous magnetic behaviour has been observed on $`Gd_{13}`$ clusters  which are found to present a hcp structure . Experimental measurements of the magnetic moment per atom of $`Gd_{13}`$ clusters give values well below the one predicted by electronic structure calculations for the ground state of the $`Gd_{13}`$  and show a peak in the $`m(T)`$ curves .

It has been proposed that a non-collinear arrangement of the atomic moments could be responsible for such a behaviour . In  a simplified version of a RKKY model, with no anisotropy term, is proposed as a way to obtain these non-collinear configurations. In fact, the oscillating character of the RKKY interactions has been replaced by a ferromagnetic nearest-neighbour interaction and an antiferromagnetic coupling of all other pairs in the cluster, thus renforcing the competition. In , using the same model on a hcp lattice, the authors find a range of values for the competing ratio between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions, $`\gamma `$, where the $`m(T)`$ curves in zero field have a peak. These two studies use a classical approach.

On the other hand, in  a classical and a quantum study of the model has been carried out. In this case they consider competing interactions: ferromagnetic between first neighbours and antiferromagnetic only between second neighbours. They study N=13 atom closed packed clusters with: body centered cubic, face centered cubic, hexagonal compact packing and icosahedral structures. They also study the N=14 hcp (open shell) cluster with different geometries. For the closed packed (N=13) clusters, the results of the quantum approach are qualitatively the same as those of the classical one found in . In all these studies the behaviour of the $`m(T)`$ curves is the same: they show a peak where the difference $`\delta m=m(T_{max})m(0)`$ is less than $`10\%`$ of the maximum value ($`m(T_{max}`$).

In this paper, we show that the same qualitative behaviour may be induced by a simple hamiltonian including, in addition to the first neighbours ferromagnetic interaction, a radial surface anisotropy term which accounts for a reduction of the symmetry of the crystal at the surface. Our results show that, for the hcp structure, the one which $`Gd_{13}`$ is assumed to have , the competition between the two energy terms leads to a peak in the $`m(T)`$ curves for a certain range of $`K_s`$. For the same range of $`K_s`$ the low temperature magnetisation is decreased and a non-collinear configuration appears, in qualitative agreement with the experimental results . The $`\delta m`$ value we found is of the same order than in the previous works.

In these two complementary approaches the constants of the model are over-estimated. In our case the values of $`K_s`$ leading to the peak are too big compared to the first neighbour interaction. In the RKKY approach (classical or quantum) the antiferromagnetic interaction intensity necessary to observe the peak is about $`36\%`$ of the ferromagnetic one. This is around one order of magnitude higher than the ratio between the first and the second peaks of the RKKY interaction. In  this is additionnaly over-estimated by the fact that all the neighbours but the nearest are coupled antiferromagnetically with the same intensity.

In real RE clusters one can expect both effects (competing RKKY interactions and surface anisotropy) to be present. They both contribute to the non-collinear order and this may allow for the peak in the $`m(T)`$ curves to be observed for more realistic values of $`K_s`$ and $`\gamma `$ than those used in all these works. It is also useful to notice that for small clusters the experimental estimations of Curie temperature are much bigger than for the bulk. For instance, for $`Gd_{13}`$ it has been found $`T_c>500K`$ when bulk Gd Curie temperature is $`T_c^{\mathrm{𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘}}=293K`$ . This means that the cluster is able to maintain its magnetic order well beyond the temperature corresponding to the bulk. This pleads for a model which could be compatible with a canted structure and a stabilisation of magnetic order even for quite high temperatures. The antiferromagnetic second order interaction in competition with the first neighbours one goes in the sense of a lowering of the $`T_c`$. On the contrary, the anisotropy term contributes to stabilize a canted magnetic structure. This suggests that a more realistic model should include both therms in the hamiltonian.

In a Stern-Gerlach experiment, the projection of the magnetisation of a single particle along the field gradient direction is measured. We have shown that this projection depends on the relative orientation between the applied field and the crystal axes. Then, different relative orientations, experimentally unknown, will broaden Stern-Gerlach deflection profiles. Such broadened deflection profiles have been observed for some RE clusters . In this case, it is said that the clusters have a locked moment behaviour . This means that the individual spins of the cluster are tightly coupled to the lattice by the crystal anisotropies, finding it more difficult to follow the applied field. This gives rise to broad deflection profiles. We show additionally, that the relative orientation of the applied field with respect to the crystal axes of the cluster also contribute to the broadening of the deflection profiles.

We want to stress that, in this work, we deal with equilibrium properties of the clusters, so we are not describing the relaxation process taking place in Stern-Gerlach apparatus. This relaxation should be considered in the interpretation of the results of such experiments. This has been done by an intermediate approach, besides the superparamagnetic model and locked-moment model, in both semiclassical  and quantum version . These models consist in treating the cluster as a single magnetic moment coupled to the crystal by an uniaxial volume anisotropy term and to the applied field. The rotation degrees of freedom allow for the cluster’s magnetic moment relaxation. This approach is complementary to ours. The anisotropy term is different and will not give the canted spin structure proposed for $`Gd_{13}`$ . In addition, it does not describe the competition between exchange and anisotropy energies since it does not allow for individual relaxation of the spins. So no dependence on the lattice structure can be obtained within this approach.

Hysteresis cycles at low temperature also show a dependence on the lattice structure and surface anistropy as well as on the direction of the applied field.

Our results show that the effect of the lattice structure on the magnetic behaviour cannot be neglected. Moreover, as the crystalline structure is not known for general N (first principles results are available only for very small particules), it is not excluded that, at the temperatures of the experiment, different structures could be present for a given N. Again, the different values of the low-temperature magnetisation could broaden the deflection profile.

Most of our results are related to the fact that, for small clusters, the structural details become important. Authors studying very large clusters focus mainly on the shape of the cluster which is cut out of a lattice having simple cubic (or spinel) lattice structure. In these studies, it is shown how the surface anisotropy contributes to the existence of steps in the hysteresis loops. No anomaly in the $`m(T)`$ curves has been reported (see ). Nevertheless, when N increases, the ratio of the number of spins at the surface to the total number of spins decreases and the second neigbours energy increases. It is then interesting to consider a model taking into account at the same time competing interactions and surface anisotropy to study how these properties evolve with N. This study is in progress.


format: text

text:
# Understanding High 𝑇_𝑐 Superconductivity11footnote 1Invited talk at the International Symposium on Frontiers of Science in celebration of the 80th birthday of Prof. Chen Ning Yang.

## 1 Introduction

High-temperature superconductivity has been discovered in the cuprate materials for more than a decade by now. These materials are widely considered to be doped Mott insulators . They become Mott insulators in the so-called half-filling case where each lattice site in copper-oxide layers is occupied by and only by one conduction electron. The superconducting phase emerges in the doped case as the half-filled electrons in the copper-oxide layers are pumped out (or equivalently, ‘holes’ are injected into the system). The normal state above the superconducting transition temperature also exhibits anomalous phenomena distinctively different from a conventional metal under a Landau-Fermi liquid description.

How to understand the mechanism of superconductivity and other novel properties, which have been experimentally found in almost all probing channels, including the single-particle, magnetic, transport, and pairing channels, etc., has posed a great challenge for the condensed matter physicists. In spite of tremendous experimental and theoretical efforts, with a lot of theoretical proposals, there still lacks a consensus by far on what is the correct theory or sensible theoretical framework. Nevertheless, a great number of researchers in this field now believe that such materials belong to strongly correlated electron systems and the fundamental physics of a doped Mott insulator may hold the key to the heart of main issues in high-temperature superconductivity.

*Doped Mott insulators.* A Mott insulator is purely an interaction effect as the strong on-site Coulomb repulsion prevents two electrons from staying at the same site, such that the charge degrees of freedom are essentially frozen. In the doped case, as the electron number is reduced to less than one on average at each site, the charge degrees of freedom are no longer completely frozen and electrons can hop to empty sites without a penalty from the Coulomb potential. However, the majority of the charge degrees of freedom of the electrons still remains frozen at small doping and in general electrons cannot be simply viewed as quasiparticles with a long life time near the Fermi surface. In particular, a quasiparticle in conventional Fermi liquids carries both charge and spin. But in the half-filling limit of the Mott insulator, the remaining low-lying degrees of freedom of the electrons only involve spins. Such a separation of two degrees of freedom is also obvious at small doping, where the charge carrier number $`x`$ is much less than the number of spins, $`1x,`$ per site (which is equal to the electron number). The spin-charge separation concept  is therefore the most essential basis in understanding the Mott physics.

*Spin-charge separation description.* But an oversimplified spin-charge separation picture, namely, the charge carriers (‘holons’) and neutral spin carriers (‘spinons’) are completely decoupled, are not consistent with experiments as well as theoretical considerations, although the overall counting of charge and spin numbers of the doped Mott insulator are correctly incorporated. It turns out that there still exists a strong coupling between holons and spinons, reflecting the fact that the Hilbert space is restricted due to the on-site Coulomb interaction. Generally such a type of interactions is present in a form of gauge fields (This shows how interestingly a gauge theory can emerge in condensed matter systems with strong correlations of electrons) .

The spin-charge separation and the gauge interactions constitute a very basic framework for describing a doped Mott insulator. This has been generally accepted. But it is not yet the whole story. One still needs to identify the (short-range) spin correlations, which will provide a driving force behind the low-lying charge and spin dynamics. This is where various theories of doped Mott insulators differ from each other, in essence.

*RVB states.* At half-filling, the low-lying spin degrees of freedom of the cuprates are well described by the Heisenberg model, given by

$$H_J=J\underset{ij}{}𝐒_i𝐒_j+\text{const.}$$
(1)
Here $`ij`$ denotes the nearest-neighbor (NN) sites. This model predicts a long-range Néel order in the ground state and spin-wave excitations in long-wavelength, low-energy regime, consistent with the experiment. However, for the purpose of studying the doped case, strong quantum correlations at *short-range* are actually more important. This is because the hole hopping is usually quite sensitive to the short-range spin correlations in the background. For example, in the most widely used model of doped Mott insulator, *i.e*., the $`tJ`$ model, besides the superexchange term $`H_J,`$ the hopping term is given by

$$H_t=t\underset{ij}{}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+h.c.$$
(2)
under the no double occupancy constraint

$$\underset{i}{}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }1.$$
(3)
Here the hole hopping involves the NN sites, which is strongly influenced by the short-range spin correlations. To correctly describe the doping effect, therefore, a correct description of short-range spin correlations is essential.

Different kinds of short-range spin correlations can lead to drastically different low-energy physics. These short-range spin correlations will then set a natural ‘ultraviolet’ (high-energy) cutoff for a low-energy effective model of doped Mott insulators, at least in lightly doped regime, and provide the driving force for the system’s low-energy behavior. In contrast, the *long-range* AF correlations of spins will quickly and easily get suppressed as a small amount of holes are added to the system, and will usually play only a less important and respondent role in the doped regime.

Anderson proposed a resonating-valence-bond (RVB) picture to describe such short-range quantum correlations of spins, in which spins form singlet pairs and superpose coherently to form an RVB background. Once the RVB state is given, the low-energy effective model for doped Mott insulators is usually fixed through a spin-charge separation and gauge-theory formulation. Therefore, how to correctly describe the short-range spin correlations is the most essential issue in constructing a sensible theory for the cuprates based on the doped Mott insulator scenario.

So far there are roughly two kinds of RVB states being proposed. In the first kind, spins (spinons) are fermions and they form RVB pairs . The theoretical structure is quite similar to the BCS theory, except that the charged Cooper pairs are replaced by neutral spinon pairs. The mathematical advantage of this description is the familiarity to the BCS theory. But such a state notably fails to describe the correct long-range AF correlations at half-filling. Nevertheless, people have hoped that it may capture the right physics of short-ranged correlations and thus could become more relevant in the doped case when the AF long-range order is gone and superconductivity sets in. However, as we shall argue below, this may well not be the case even at finite doping.

The second kind is known as the bosonic RVB state. Here spins (spinons) are bosons. A variational wavefunction based on the bosonic RVB picture can produce an unrivaled accurate ground-state energy ($`0.3344J`$ per bond as compared to the exact numerical value of $`0.3346J`$ per bond for the Heisenberg model), and a generalized calculation can precisely provide not only the ground-state energy, staggered magnetization, but also spin excitation spectrum in the whole Brillouin zone. Since the energy of the Heisenberg model is directly related to the NN spin-spin correlations, a good variational energy also means a good description of short-range spin correlations. By contrast, a variational energy in the fermionic RVB state gives rise to a number, $`0.319J`$ per bond, which suggests that the description of the short-range spin correlations is less accurate. In fact, in the short-range spin-spin correlations of the fermionic RVB state, the AF component is even worse (one finds that the majority contribution to the energy is not from the AF correlations as opposed to the exact numerics and the bosonic RVB theory).

*Doping: the phase string effect.* Due to the absence of the short-range AF correlations, the hopping of holes is not very frustrated in the fermionic RVB description. In contrast, in the bosonic RVB description, the coherent motion of doped holes is much more difficult. For example, it can easily show that the hopping integral vanishes on average in the half-filling bosonic RVB state, and thus the kinetic energy is highly frustrated for a hole to move on such an AF background. This kinetic energy frustration reflects the sharp difference between the fermionic and bosonic RVB states in the doped case.

The underlying physics can be traced back to a fundamental property of the $`tJ`$ model, known as the phase string effect . It has been well known that the ground state wavefunction of the Heisenberg model satisfies the Marshall sign . Such a Marshall sign rule would hold even at arbitrary doping, if holes remain static on lattice sites. But once the holes start to move, the Marshall sign rule will be scrambled by the hopping of a hole on its path. Such a disordered Marshall sign can be described by a product of sequential $`+`$ and $``$ signs, $`(+1)\times (1)\times (1)\times \mathrm{}`$, where signs are determined by simply counting the index $`\sigma `$ of each spin exchanged with the hole during its hopping. Physically a phase string can be regarded as the transverse mismatches of spins created by the motion of the hole. The significance of such a phase string is that it represents the sole source of phase frustrations in the $`tJ`$ model, which cannot be ‘repaired’ at low energy, and therefore is the most essential doping effect in such a doped Mott insulator.

*Mutual gauge interactions.* The phase string effect indicates an intrinsic interaction between the spin and charge degrees of freedom. At small doping limit, without changing the spin background, which remains to be an antiferromagnet, the doped holes will pick up the phase string effect which strongly frustrates their kinetic energy. Here the total sign $`(+1)\times (1)\times (1)\times \mathrm{}`$ will become uncertain with the increase of the length of paths, leading to the localization of the holes (see below). At larger doping, the spin background has to be eventually re-adjusted to minimize the frustration of the phase string effect in favor of the kinetic energy of holes. Note that the phase string $`(+1)\times (1)\times (1)\times \mathrm{}`$ depends on those spins exchanged with the hole during its hopping. So if the background spins are tightly in RVB pairing, the randomness in a phase string will be qualitatively removed and holes will then become delocalized. The corresponding ground state will be shown to be superconducting. On the other hand, the long-range AF order generally has to disappear in such a state.

Therefore, in the following we shall take the point of view that the cuprate superconductors are essentially doped Mott insulators. In order to describe a doped Mott insulator, we introduce a spin-charge separation framework with an intrinsic gauge structure. We adopt the bosonic RVB description to characterize the short-range, high-energy spin correlations, which works extremely well at half-filling and provides an essential underpinning for the low-energy theory at both half-filling and small doping. We identify a nonlocal mutual interaction between the spin and charge degrees of freedom, i.e., the phase string effect, which will result in a topological gauge structure in the spin-charge separation formulation of the whole problem.

In the remaining part of the talk, I shall first present the low-energy effective model established based on the above-outlined considerations. We call it the phase string theory. I shall then present a series of important results predicted by this model. I shall show that this theory naturally unifies antiferromagnet and superconductivity within a single theoretical framework and its unique topological structure determines a rich, novel phase diagram in a self-consistent fashion, which is also in good agreement with the experimental measurements of the cuprate superconductors.

## 2 Phase string theory

*Phase string model.* The low-energy effective Hamiltonian with incorporating the bosonic RVB pairing and the phase string effect induced by doping can be derived  from the $`tJ`$ model as follows:

$$H_{string}=H_h+H_s$$

with

$`H_h`$ $`=`$ $`t_h{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(e^{iA_{ij}^s})h_i^{}h_j+H.c.`$ (4)
$`H_s`$ $`=`$ $`J_s{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}(e^{i\sigma A_{ij}^h})b_{i\sigma }^{}b_{j\sigma }^{}+H.c.`$ (5)
Here $`h_i`$ and $`b_{i\sigma }`$ are *bosonic* ‘holon’ and ‘spinon’ operators, respectively. An electron operator is composed of such spinless holon and neutral spinon operators by $`c_{i\sigma }=h_i^{}b_{i\sigma }e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}.`$ Note that the fermionic commutation relations of $`c_{i\sigma }`$’s are guaranteed by the phase factor $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}`$, which is defined by $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}=(\sigma )^ie^{i\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_i^h\right]},`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b=\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s\mathrm{\Phi }_i^0,`$where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s=_{li}\theta _i(l)_\alpha \alpha n_{l\alpha }^b,`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^0=_{li}\theta _i(l),`$and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h=_{li}\theta _i(l)n_l^h`$($`n_{l\alpha }^b`$ and $`n_l^h`$ are spinon and holon number operators, respectively, and $`\theta _i(l)\text{Im ln }(z_iz_l)`$, where $`z_l=x_l+iy_l`$ is the complex coordinate of a lattice site $`l`$).

At low doping, $`t_ht`$ and $`J_s=1/2\mathrm{\Delta }^sJJ`$ ($`t`$ and $`J`$ are the parameters in the $`tJ`$ model). Here the effective theory is underpinned by the bosonic RVB order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^s,`$ which characterizes the short range (NN) AF correlations as $`𝐒_i𝐒_j_{NN}=3/8|\mathrm{\Delta }^s|^2`$. In the following we shall denote the transition temperature for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^s0`$ by $`T_0`$. At small doping, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^s0`$ covers a temperature regime extended over $`T_01,000`$K. With the increase of doping, $`T_0`$ is expected to monotonically decrease as illustrated in Fig. 1, showing an applicable region for the present effective theory. Beyond this region, the short-range AF correlations disappear and the novel properties described by (4) and (5), including the superconductivity, are no longer present.

*Topological gauge structure.* $`H_{string}`$ is invariant under the gauge transformation: $`h_jh_j\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _j),`$ $`A_{ij}^sA_{ij}^s+i(\phi _i\phi _j)`$ and $`b_{j\sigma }b_{j\sigma }\mathrm{exp}(i\sigma \varphi _j),`$ $`A_{ij}^hA_{ij}^h+i(\varphi _i\varphi _j).`$ So this model has a U(1)$`\times `$U(1) gauge symmetry. The nontriviality of $`H_{string}`$ arises from the ‘dual’ gauge fields, $`A_{ij}^s`$ and $`A_{ij}^h,`$ which satisfy topological conditions: $`_cA_{ij}^s=\pm \pi _{lc}(n_l^sn_l^s)`$ and $`_cA_{ij}^h=\pm \pi _{lc}n_l^h`$ for a closed loop $`c`$.

The holons in (4) feel the presence of the spinons as quantized $`\pi `$ fluxoids through $`A_{ij}^s`$, which reflects the nonlocal frustrations of the spin RVB background on the kinetic energy of the charge degrees of freedom, due to the phase string effect. *Vice versa* the spinons also perceive the doped holes as $`\pi `$ flux quanta through $`A_{ij}^h,`$ which represents the dynamic frustrations of the doped holes on the spin degrees of freedom. Such a dual and mutual gauge structure is schematically illustrated in Fig. 2. In the following, the phase diagram determined by such a topological gauge structure will be present, which unifies the AF states, the superconducting phase, and the so-called pseudogap phase within a single framework, as shown in Fig. 3.

## 3 Phase diagram

### 3.1 Half-filling and dilute doping

*Half-filling.* At half-filling, the holon number is zero and $`H_{string}`$ reduces to $`H_s.`$ With $`A_{ij}^h=0,`$ $`H_s`$ here is equivalent to the Schwinger-boson mean-field Hamiltonian , which describes AF correlations of the cuprates fairly well over a wide temperature range $`1,000K.`$ As a matter of fact, using the mean-field wavefunction of $`H_s,`$ we can numerically calculate the ground-state energy and the AF magnetization by the variational Monte Carlo method, which agree with the exact diagonalization results of the Heisenberg model extremely well. All of these indicate that both long-range and short-range spin correlations are well captured by the bosonic RVB theory at half-filling.

*Dilute doping.* Now consider hole doping into such an AF spin background. As pointed out in the Introduction, the motion of holes will generally induce the phase string effect. Since here we focus on the dilute limit of the hole concentration, the phase string effect will mainly influence the hole dynamics, without drastically affecting the spin part. The holes will then be self-trapped or localized by the phase string effect in such a dilute doping regime , as to be discussed below. Such a localization is purely a consequence of the Mott insulators upon doping, unlike the conventional Anderson localization in the presence of disorders.

*Localization.* The localization of holes can be mathematically determined by the topological gauge structure of the phase string model. Note that the long range AF order is realized by the spinon Bose condensation, i.e., $`b_{i\sigma }0,`$ at half-filling. If the spinon condensation persists into a dilute doping regime, each holon will induce a vortex in the spinon condensate through $`A_{ij}^h`$ in (5), which costs a logarithmically divergent energy. As the result, each holon will have to induce an antivortex from the spinon condensate and be confined to the latter to form a hole-dipole object in the spin ordered (spinon condensed) phase . In this hole-dipole entity, the holon sits at one of two *poles* instead of the *center* of a dipole. It can be shown that the effective mass of the induced antivortex is infinity such that the whole hole-dipole object is self-trapped in space. This hole localized phase is called *holon confined phase* , in which no free holons will appear in the finite-energy spectrum.

*Competing orders.* In such a localization regime, the kinetic energy of holes is suppressed. Such a suppression of the kinetic energy is one of the most essential features of the holon-confined phase. Without the balance from the kinetic energy, the low-energy physics in this regime will be determined by the potential energies. The latter will then decide various competing orders at such a low-doping insulating phase.

First of all, at sufficiently low doping, the long-range AF order should persist if a weak interlayer coupling is considered. But the freedom in the directions of the hole-dipole moment will lead to the reduction of the Néel temperature $`T_N`$ as shown in Fig. 3. Based on the hole-dipole picture and the renormalization group (RG) calculation we have determined  the critical doping $`x_00.03,`$ at which the AF order disappears at $`T=0.`$

Beyond $`x_0`$ or $`T_N,`$ the system is in a cluster spin glass phase with the dipole moments being quenched randomly in space . This phase has been also observed in experiment. In obtaining such a phase, we have assumed that hole-dipoles are self-trapped in space *uniformly*. This latter condition may be realized in real systems by impurities or disorders.

However, if there is no impurities or disorders, the uniform distribution of the self-trapped hole-dipoles are usually not stable against the formation of the stripes . This is because the long-range dipole-dipole interaction will dominate the low-energy phase as there is no competition from the kinetic energy. Such a dipole-dipole interaction will lead to the attraction among hole-dipoles with a certain alignment of their dipole moments. Their subsequent collapse together with the ordered dipole moments will lead to various stripe formations. Therefore, in the phase string theory, inhomogeneous distribution of the charges is energetically very competitive at low doping.

*Holon deconfinement.* With the further increase of doping, the sizes of hole-dipoles will get larger and larger, and eventually a deconfinement can occur at a critical doping $`x_c`$ , beyond which single holons will be unbound from their anti-vortex partners. This procedure is like a KT transition in the $`x`$ axis and by the RG method we have determined $`x_c0.043`$ at $`T=0.`$ In the following section, we will point out that the ground state in the holon deconfined phase is a superconducting state.

### 3.2  Superconducting state

We now consider the regime beyond the critical doping $`x_c`$. The deconfined bosonic holons will experience a Bose condensation at low temperature in $`H_h`$. The corresponding ground state is a d-wave superconducting state as to be discussed below.

*d-wave pairing order parameter.* In the phase-string theory, superconducting order parameter can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{\mathrm{SC}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^0e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_j^s\right)},$$
(6)
where $`ij`$ refer to nearest neighbor sites and the pairing amplitude

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^0\mathrm{\Delta }^sh_i^{}h_j^{}$$

in which the bosonic RVB pairing $`\mathrm{\Delta }^s0`$ and the holon condensation $`h_i^{}0`$ usually occurs at relatively higher temperatures, $`T_0`$ and $`T_v`$, respectively. The true superconducting transition will happen when $`e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_j^s\right)}0`$, namely, when the phase coherence is established. The phase factor $`e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_j^s\right)}`$also determines the d-wave symmetry of the pairing .

*Spinon as a vortex.* The phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s`$ represents vortices bound to spinons . In the ground state, where spinons are all paired up, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s`$ is canceled out and the phase coherence is realized in (6). Each unpaired spinon, in an excited state, will induce a vortex in the order parameter through $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s`$. Such an effect appears in $`H_h`$ through $`A_{ij}^s`$, which will cost a logarithmically divergent energy.

*Confinement and elementary excitations.* Thus a single spinon as a vortex cannot appear in the superconducting bulk alone. The excited spinons must appear in vortex-antivortex pairs and be confined to form $`S=1`$ triplet excitations . In contrast to the holon confinement in the spin ordered phase with spinon condensation, the present spinon confinement occurs in the holon condensed phase, due to the gauge field $`A_{ij}^s`$ in $`H_h`$.

Besides the spin triplet excitations composed of confined spinons, there is another kind of elementary excitations, namely, a nodal quasiparticle excitation. Such an excitation can be created by the electron operator $`c_{i\sigma }`$ as a composite of confined holon and spinon with a phase-string phase factor . Such an excitation is similar to that in a BCS theory.

But there is a clear non-BCS feature here. Namely, the $`S=1`$ spin excitation composed of two confined spinons, which will form a resonance-like peak at $`E_gxJ`$ in the phase-string theory, is *independent* of the quasiparticle excitations at the zeroth-order approximation.

*Superconducting transition.* The deconfinement of spinon-vortex pairs occurs at $`T=T_c`$, which is responsible for destroying the phase coherence of the order parameter (6) as free unbound spinon-vortices emerge. In this way, the superconducting transition is naturally related to both the spin dynamics and the phase coherence within a single unified framework. $`T_c`$ determined in this description is found  to be scaled with the spin characteristic energy scale $`E_g`$, in good agreement with the cuprate superconductors.

*Flux quantization at* $`hc/2e`$ *and vortex core.* In the fermionic RVB mean-field theory, the superconducting state corresponds to the holon Bose condensation, where the magnetic flux quantization is usually at $`hc/e`$, as holons carry a charge +e. How to get the correct flux quantization at $`hc/2e`$ has been a challenging issue in a spin-charge separation framework based on the fermionic RVB theory.

In the phase-string theory, although the framework is still based on a spin-charge separation description, the minimal magnetic flux is found to be quantized at $`hc/2e,`$ similar to the BCS theory. However, as a unique prediction of the theory, the flux quantization leads to the trapping of a spinon inside the magnetic vortex core. We expect that the free $`S=1/2`$ moment trapped inside a vortex core can be observed in the NMR and other experimental measurements.

Furthermore, the vortex core is different from the one in the BCS theory. Here the pairing amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^0`$ can remain finite throughout the vortex core, while the superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{\mathrm{SC}}`$ vanishes as the phase coherence is destroyed inside the core within the a characteristic length scale. Such a ‘normal core state’ resembles the ‘pseudogap’ phase above $`T_c,`$ to be discussed below.

### 3.3 Pseudogap phase

*Mechanism: kinetic energy driven*. The spin superexchange energy is favored when spins form bosonic RVB pairs at $`T_0`$ ($`J_s/k_B1,000K`$ at $`x0`$). With the decrease of temperature, bosonic holons will start to gain kinetic energy and eventually experience a Bose condensation at $`T_v`$ (in the Kosterlitz-Thouless sense). Such a $`T_v`$ will represent an onset temperature for the pseudogap phase in the bosonic RVB theory, rather than the superconducting transition temperature in the conventional fermionic RVB theory. The pseudogap temperature in the latter theory is defined as the onset temperature of the RVB pairing, and thus the pseudogap phase is superexchange-energy-driven there, instead of kinetic energy driven in the present description.

*Amplitude forming of the superconducting order parameter.* As discussed in the above section, the amplitude of the superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ forms at $`T=T_v`$, whereas the phase coherence of the order parameter can still remain absent until $`T=T_c<T_v.`$

In the pseudo-gap phase of $`T_c<T<T_v,`$ spin RVB pairs are “charged” and become Cooper pairs, as holons are condensed. In this sense, one may say that preformed Cooper pairs emerge in the pseudogap phase .

*Spinon vortices.* A unique prediction of the phase string theory in the pseudo-gap phase is the presence of topological vortices which are spinons. This may be easily seen based on (4). According to $`H_h,`$ when holons are condensed, each excited (unpaired) spinon will induce a current vortex through the gauge field $`A_{ij}^s,`$ which also shows up in the pairing order parameter as discussed before. These spinon vortices are free and the pseudo-gap phase has been thus called the spontaneous vortex phase .

Experimentally the presence of free vortices will contribute to the Nernst effect. Indeed, nontrivial Nernst effect has been observed  in different cuprate compounds in the pseudogap regime. It is very hard to interpret the experimental results as due to the conventional superconducting fluctuations as the observed Nernst signal can persist over a temperature range ten times higher than $`T_c`$ in the underdoped regime. The spinon-vortices in the present theory provides a natural explanation for the experiment.

*Spin pseudogap.* Since the spin degrees of freedom is influenced by the charge dynamics through the gauge field $`A_{ij}^h`$, the holon condensation below $`T_v`$ will directly cause the qualitative change of spin dynamics. Namely, it will lead to the suppression of the spin fluctuations at the low-energy end, resembling a spin pseudogap feature, with the spectral weight being pushed upwards to form a resonance-like peak structure around a characteristic energy scale $`E_g\delta J.`$ As discussed before, this feature persists into the superconducting phase.

A pseudogap means that it is more difficult to excite spinons from the RVB pair condensate. Since $`A_{ij}^s`$ is canceled out in the RVB state, in the pseudogap phase the fluctuations of $`A_{ij}^s`$ are also reduced at low energy. This in turn favors the holon condensation. Therefore, self-consistently, the holon condensation and spin pseudogap are mutually enforced by each other.

## 4 Summary

In this talk, I have discussed several fundamental issues of the doped Mott insulator, including spin-charge separation, the gauge theory description of couplings between two degrees of freedom, and short-range quantum correlations which provide the driving force for the low-energy physics.

I have pointed out that the bosonic RVB pairing characterizes the crucial short-range correlations at both half-filling and small doping. Once such a short-range, high-energy correlations are determined, the low-energy, long-range theory is fixed, which is known as the phase string theory, as the motion of holes in such a bosonic RVB background always generates irreparable phase string effect.

I have reviewed some very basic features obtained within the phase string framework. The AF long-range ordered phase persists into a finite doping below $`x_00.03,`$ and then becomes cluster spin glass phase at $`x>x_0`$. In both phases holes are localized or self-trapped by the phase string effect. We found that the stripe state is also very competitive in this regime. Beyond a critical doping at $`x_c0.043`$, the holes will become delocalized, and the system experiences a superconducting transition at low temperature. In such a d-wave superconducting state, spinons are confined to form $`S=1`$ triplet excitations. Spinon and holon are confined to form nodal quasiparticles. $`T_c`$ is related to the phase coherence transition and is scaled with the spin ‘resonance’ energy $`E_gxJ.`$ Above $`T_c`$, a pseudogap phase is found in which free spinons behave like unbound vortices. Several novel properties are revealed in both superconducting and pseudogap phases, including the prediction that a free moment trapped inside a $`hc/2e`$ magnetic vortex core and the anomalous Nernst effect. All of these interesting features and competing phases at different doping and temperature are determined self-consistently by the unique dual topological gauge structure in the phase string theory.

## Acknowledgments

The recent part of this work has been done in collaboration with V.N. Muthukumar, S.P. Kou, M. Shaw, and Y. Zhou. The support from NSFC grants is also acknowledged.


text:
# Modelling galaxy halos using dark matter with pressure

## I Introduction

The rotation curves of spiral galaxies rc  are one of the most direct probes of dark matter dark . In these galaxies neutral hydrogen (HI) clouds are observed at large distances from the center, much beyond the extent of the luminous matter. The frequency shifts in the 21 cm HI emission from these clouds allow their velocities to be measured. These clouds move in circular orbits with velocity $`v_c(r)`$. The orbits are maintained by a balance of the centrifugal acceleration $`v_c^2/r`$ and the gravitational pull $`GM(r)/r^2`$ of the total mass $`M(r)`$ contained within the orbit . This allows us to use the observed rotation curves ($`v_c`$ as a function of $`r`$) to determine the mass profile $`M(r)=rv_c^2(r)/G`$ of the galaxy.

The rotational velocities are observed to increase near the center of the galaxy and then remain nearly constant at a value $`v_c200\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$. This leads to a mass profile $`M(r)=rv_c^2/G`$ where the mass within a distance $`r`$ from the center of the galaxy increases linearly with $`r`$ even at large distances where there is very little luminuos matter seen. This is usually explained by postulating the existence of some dark (invisible) matter distributed in a spherical halo around the galaxy. A modified law of gravity has been proposed as an alternative explanation mond , we do not consider this here.

There is at present no clear picture as to what constitutes the dark matter in galaxy halos. The prevalent belief is that it is a pressureless medium (Cold Dark Matter) possibly made of weakly interacting massive particles cdm  (WIMPS). Here we consider the possibility that the dark matter in galactic halos has substantial pressure, comparable in magnitude to the energy density.

The Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model has been extremely successful in explaining the observed CMBR anisotropies and large scale structures in the universe cdmcmb . The evolution of cosmological perturbations is drastically modified in models where the dark matter is an ideal fluid with significant amounts of pressure, and such models are ruled out by these observations. Our study considers the possibility that the dark matter could be a medium which is not an ideal fluid and has significant pressure. Such a situation is generic if the dark matter is modelled as a scalar field (for references on the use of scalar fields in modelling dark matter/dark energy see the papers cited in scalar ), a scenario which has come up quite often in the various attempts to solve the problems being faced by the CDM model on small scales cdmcusps  . This, and the fact that there has, till date, been no direct detection of the CDM particles motivates us to explore the possibility that the dark matter in galaxy halos may have pressure. In this work we do not restrict ourselves to any particular model for the dark matter. We consider a general situation where the pressure inside the halo is anisotropic and is related to the energy density through a linear equation of state. Other attempts at interpreting the flat rotation curves in the recent past are available in lake .

We investigate whether it is possible to explain the flat rotation curves seen in the outer parts of spiral galaxies using dark matter which has pressure. The Newtonian analysis of the rotation curves outlined in the beginning of this section fails when the pressure is comparable to the energy density, and a relativisitic treatment is required. In the Newtonian analysis the gravitational field inside the halo is described by a single function, the gravitational potential, which is completely determined by the observations of the rotation curve. In the relativisitic treatment the gravitational field inside a static, spherically symmetric dark matter halo is described by the two unknown metric coefficients $`g_{00}(r)`$ and $`g_{rr}(r)`$. In section 2 of this paper we investigate to what extent the metric inside the halo can be determined by observations of the rotation curve. We show that while $`g_{00}(r)`$ is completely determined by just the rotation curve, inputs regarding the theory of gravity and the dark matter equation of state are required to determine $`g_{rr}(r)`$.

In section 3. we calculate the gravitational lensing properties of the dark matter halo. The usual analysis of gravitational lensing halolens  does not take into account pressure. Here we analyse photon geodesics inside the halo and use these to calculate the gravitational lensing deflection angles. Subsequently, we study to what extent the lensing properties of dark matter halos change when pressure is introduced. We investigate whether it is possible to use combined observations of rotation curves and gravitational lensing to constrain the equation of state of the dark matter in galaxy halos. In section 4. we discuss our results and present conclusions.

## II The geometry within the halo

It is assumed that spiral galaxies are embedded in static, spherically symmetric halos of radius $`R`$. The gravitational field outside the halo is described by the exterior Schwarzschild metric with $`M=Rv_c^2/G`$. The gravitational field inside the halo is represented by two unknown functions $`g_{00}(r)=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}`$ and $`g_{rr}(r)=e^{2\lambda (r)}`$ which parametrise the metric, and the proper time interval $`d\tau `$ is

$$c^2d\tau ^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}c^2dt^2e^{2\lambda (r)}dr^2r^2\left[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right].$$
(1)
We first investigate to what extent the gravitational field inside the halo can be determined from observations of the rotation curves.

The HI clouds from which the frequency shifted 21 cm emission is observed are treated as test particles moving in circular orbits, in the plane of the disk of the galaxy under the gravitational influence of the halo. It is assumed that the HI clouds do not contribute significantly to the halo matter. We choose coordinates so that the disk of the galaxy is aligned with the equatorial plane of the halo ($`\theta =\pi /2`$). The orbits of the HI clouds have two conserved quantities, $`E=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}cdt/d\tau `$ and $`L=r^2d\varphi /d\tau `$ which, for circular orbits, are related as $`E^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[c^2+L^2/r^2\right]`$. The HI clouds at different radii will have different values of $`E`$ and $`L`$, and we denote this by $`E(r)`$ and $`L(r)`$.

A distant observer in the plane of the disk receives HI emission from a cloud located along a line of sight which is tangential to the orbit of the cloud. The observed shift in the frequency of the radiation, when the cloud is moving away, is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \nu _eL(r)/(cr)`$, provided $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}1`$ and $`L(r)/(cr)1`$. Later in this paper we show that these two approximations are valid for our analysis. An extra angular dependence comes into the frequency shift if the line of sight is at an angle to the direction of motion of the HI cloud. Observations of the frequency shifts in the HI radiation show that, barring the central parts of galaxies, the ratio $`L(r)/(cr)`$ is nearly constant at a value $`L(r)/(cr)=v_c/c7\times 10^4`$. The ratio $`v_c/c`$ being extremely small, in our analysis, we retain only the leading order terms in $`v_c/c`$, and ignore all the higher terms.

We next shift our attention to the equation of motion of the HI clouds. For circular orbits the geodesic equation reduces to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}(r)=\frac{L^2(r)}{r^3E^2(r)}.$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}=d\mathrm{\Phi }/dr`$. This can be integrated to obtain

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r)=\left(\frac{L(r)}{rc}\right)^2\frac{dr}{r}+constant.$$
(3)
This equation allows us to determine the metric coefficient $`g_{00}(r)`$ inside the halo using just the observed rotation curves. For a flat rotation curve this gives us

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r)=\left(\frac{v_c}{c}\right)^2\left[\mathrm{ln}(r/R)1\right]$$
(4)
which gives the metric coefficient $`g_{00}(r)`$ to be

$$g_{00}(r)=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}=e^{\frac{2v^2}{c^2}}\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{\frac{2v_c^2}{c^2}}.$$
(5)
Here the constant of integration in equation (3) has been chosen so that the metric coefficient $`g_{00}(r)`$ matches the exterior Schwarzschild metric at $`r=R`$.

The rotation curve determines only one, namely $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ of the two unknown functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ and $`\lambda (r)`$, which are required to describe the gravitational field inside the halo. We also see that the metric coefficient $`g_{00}(r)`$ varies very slowly with $`r`$, and $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}1`$, the change being less than $`0.5\%`$ when $`r`$ changes from $`0.01R`$ to $`R`$. The fact that $`g_{00}`$ can indeed be obtained from the rotation curves, has been partially noted in the papers in lake  and in some of the references on halo dark matter scalar .

Next we address the question – how to determine $`\lambda (r)`$? We proceed by solving Einstein equations for gravity $`G_{\mu \nu }=(8\pi G/c^4)T_{\mu \nu }`$ to determine $`\lambda (r)`$ inside the halo. Solving this requires the equation of state (or equivalently the energy momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$) for the matter which makes up the halo. We assume that the dark matter which makes up the halo is a fluid with energy density $`c^2\rho (r)`$, radial pressure $`P_r(r)`$, and tangential pressure $`P_T(r)`$ in the $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ directions. Also, the gravitational field inside the halo is weak $`ie.\mathrm{\Phi }(r)\lambda (r)(v_c/c)^2`$ which allows us to linearise the Einstein equations retaining only terms linear in $`(v_c/c)^2`$. Inside the halo, using equation (3) for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$, the Einstein equations reduce to three equations for $`\lambda (r)`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(r\lambda )^{^{}}}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{c^2}}\rho `$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(v_c/c)^2\lambda }{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{c^4}}P_r`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{^{}}}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{c^2}}P_T`$ (8)
which have to be solved with the boundary condition $`\lambda (R)=(v_c/c)^2`$ and the requirement $`\rho (r)0`$.

In the absence of any pressure $`(P_r=P_T=0)`$ we recover the usual Newtonian solution

$$\lambda _N(r)=\left(\frac{v_c}{c}\right)^2\mathrm{and}\rho _N(r)=\frac{v^2}{4\pi Gr^2}$$
(9)
This solution corresponds to the singular isothermal sphere which produces a flat rotation curve, We have solved equations (6), (7) and (8) under various assumptions on the equation of state. It is convenient to express the results in terms of $`\lambda _N`$ and $`\rho _N(r)`$ which are the soultions in the absence of pressure.

The most obvious possibility is to consider a medium with isotropic pressure ($`ie.P_r=P_T`$). We find that the only solution where the metric matches the Schwarzschild metric at $`r=R`$ and the energy density is positive has $`P_r=P_T=0`$.

We next consider two possible anisotropic equations of state A. $`P_r=w_r\rho c^2`$ where we use eq. (8) to determine $`P_T`$, and B. $`P_T=w_T\rho c^2`$ where we use eq. (7) to determine $`P_r`$. As mentioned in the Introduction, such anisotropic pressures can indeed arise in the energy–momentum tensor of a real or complex scalar field. We recall that the energy momentum tensor for a real scalar field in a potential $`V(\varphi )`$ is given as :

$$T_{ij}^\varphi =_i\varphi _j\varphi \frac{1}{2}g_{ij}\left[^k\varphi _k\varphi +2V(\varphi )\right]$$
(10)
When the gradient terms are small, and the scalar field is frozen at a potential minimum $`\varphi _{min}0`$, it generates isotropic, negative pressures $`P=\rho c^2=V(\varphi _{min})`$. On the other hand, the pressure is anisotropic i.e. the radial pressure $`T_{rr}`$ is different from the tangential pressure $`T_{\theta \theta }`$, if the radial derivative of the scalar field makes a significant contribution to the energy momentum tensor. Various scalar field configurations, including some with anisotropic pressures (for example, Matos and Nunez, astro-ph/0303455 in scalar ), have been used extensively in cosmology to model the dark matter and the dark energy.

We now discuss the results for the two cases (A) and (B) mentioned above.

### II.1 $`P_r=w_r\rho c^2`$

We find that solutions exist for $`w_r1`$. If we match match $`\lambda (r)`$ to the Schwarzschild metric at the outer edge of the halo, the density turns out to be negative for $`w_r<1`$ and this range is ruled out. The allowed solutions are tabulated below.

| $`w_r`$ | $`\lambda \left(r\right)=\lambda _N\times `$ | $`\rho \left(r\right)=\rho _N\left(r\right)\times `$ | $`P_T\left(r\right)=(c^2/2)\rho _N\left(r\right)\times `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`>1`$ | $`\frac{1}{1+w_r}\left[1+w_r\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{\frac{w_r}{1+w_r}}\right]`$ | $`\left(\frac{1}{1+w_r}\right)\left[1+\frac{w_r}{1+w_r}\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{\frac{w_r}{1+w_r}}\right]`$ | $`\left(\frac{w_r}{1+w_r}\right)^2\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{\frac{w_r}{1+w_r}}`$ |
| $`1`$ | $`\left[1\mathrm{ln}\left(r/R\right)\right]`$ | $`\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R}{r}\right)`$ | $`1`$ |

### II.2 $`P_T=w_T\rho c^2`$

We find that solutions exist for $`w_T>1/2`$. For $`w_T=1/2`$ we have an absurd situation where $`\lambda (r)=0`$, and the density is negative if $`w_T<1/2`$. The solution for the allowed range of $`w_T`$is shown below

| $`w_T`$ | $`\lambda \left(r\right)=\lambda _N\times `$ | $`\rho \left(r\right)=\rho _N\left(r\right)\times `$ | $`P_r\left(r\right)=c^2\rho _N\left(r\right)\times `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`>1/2`$ | $`\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{\frac{2w_T}{1+2w_T}}`$ | $`\frac{1}{1+2w_T}\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{\frac{2w_T}{1+2w_T}}`$ | $`\left[1\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{\frac{2w_T}{1+2w_T}}\right]`$ |

## III Gravitational lensing

We now move on to calculate the bending of light by the halos. A light ray which goes past the halo without entering it propagates entirely in a Schwarzschild metric. The light ray is deflected by an angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4GM/c^2b=4(v_c/c)^2(R/b)`$ where $`b`$ is the impact parameter. and in this case $`bR`$. The bending of a light ray which passes through the halo is determined by the metric inside the halo and this depends on the equation of state of the dark matter.

The light ray is assumed to lie in the $`\theta =\pi /2`$ plane. Null-geodesics in the halo metric are completely determined by the two conserved quantities $`E`$ and $`L`$ defined in section 2. The trajectory of the light ray is determined by the following equation Shutz  for $`u(\varphi )=\frac{1}{r(\varphi )}`$

$$\left(\frac{du}{d\varphi }\right)^2=e^{2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda \right)}\left(\frac{E}{L}\right)^2e^{2\lambda }u^2$$
(11)
Retaining only terms to order $`(v/c)^2`$, and using $`1/b^2=E^2/L^2`$ we have

$$\left(\frac{du}{d\varphi }\right)^2=\left(\frac{1}{b^2}u^2\right)2\left[\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda \right)\frac{1}{b^2}\lambda u^2\right]$$
(12)
It is convenient to replace $`u`$ by a new variable $`y`$ where $`y=u+\alpha (y)`$ and

$$\alpha (y)=\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda \right)/b^2\lambda y^2}{y}$$
(13)
We can now integrate (12) to obtain

$$\varphi =_0^{1/b}\left(1\frac{d\alpha }{dy}\right)\left[\frac{1}{b^2}y^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑y$$
(14)
In equation (14) the limit $`y=0`$ is when the in-coming photon is very far away from the center of the halo, $`y=1/b`$ is when the photon is closest to the center of the halo and $`\varphi `$ is the change in the angle subtended by the photon between these two positions. Setting $`\alpha (y)=0`$ allows us to calculate the photon trajectory in the absence of any gravitation field, whereas the term involving $`\alpha `$ is the change produced due to the gravitational field of the halo. This gives the deflection angle to be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2_0^{1/b}\frac{d\alpha }{dy}\left(\frac{1}{b^2}y^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑y$$
(15)
where the factor of $`2`$ arises from the contributions of the in-coming and the outgoing photon trajectory.

The integral in eq. (15) is evaluated in two parts where we use the Schwarzschild metric to calculate $`\alpha `$ outside the halo ( $`1/y>R`$) and we use the solutions obtained in Section 2. inside the halo $`(1/y<R)`$. The results for the deflection angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are presented in units of $`(v_c/c)^2`$ using a variable $`\delta =\mathrm{\Delta }/(v_c/c)^2`$. We recover the familiar result $`\delta =4(R/b)`$ corresponding to the exterior Schwarzschild geometry when the impact parameter is larger than halo radius ( $`bR`$). In the situation when the light ray does enter the halo $`(b<R)`$, eq. (15) can be evaluated analytically using Mathematica for both the equations of state considered in Section 2. The resulting expressions are rather lengthy and we do not present them here. In the absence of pressure we recover the familiar result $`\delta =2\pi `$ for an infinite, isothermal halo. We recover this result from eq. (15) in the limit $`(b/R)0`$. This can be interpreted as either the halo raduis becoming very large for a fixed impact parameter, or the impact parameter approaching very close to the center of the halo with the halo radius remaining constant. The results for the deflection angle in the presence of pressure, under the two different equations of state assumed in section 2. are shown in figures 1 and 2.

## IV Results and Conclusions

We have addressed the question if the dark matter in the halos of spiral galaxies could have significant amounts of pressure, which in general could be anisotropic. This requires a relativistic treatment where the gravitational field inside the halo is described by the two metric coefficients $`g_{00}(r)`$ and $`g_{rr}(r)`$. We find that observations of the rotation curve fully determine $`g_{00}(r)`$ irrespective of the equation of state of the dark matter. As a matter of fact $`g_{00}(r)`$ is determined without any reference to the theory for gravity, the only assumption being that the gravitational effects can be represented through the space-time metric.

Determining $`g_{rr}(r)`$ requires us to assume a theory for gravity, Einsteins’s theory of General Relativity in this case, and an equation of state for the radial pressure $`P_r`$ and the tangential pressure $`P_T`$ of the dark matter. We consider two possibilities (A¿) $`P_r=w_r\rho c^2`$ with $`P_T`$ being determined from Einstein’s equations and (B.) $`P_T=w_T\rho c^2`$ with $`P_r`$ being determined from Einstein’s equations. It may be noted that there is no solution matched to the Schwarzschild exterior metric at the boundary of the halo $`(r=R)`$ if the pressure is assumed to be isotropic $`(P_r=P_T)`$.

Solutions matched to a Schwarzschild exterior solution exist for (A.) $`w_r>1`$ and (B.) $`w_T>1/2`$. Making use of the calculated $`g_{rr}(r)`$ we determine the density and pressure profiles for the halos. The density profile is shallower than the $`r^2`$ Newtonian density profile only for $`1/2<w_T<0`$.

For $`P_r=\rho c^2`$ we have an interesting situation where $`g_{rr}(r)=g_{00}^1(r)`$ both inside and outside the halo. The density also goes to zero at the boundary, unlike in all the other cases. It should be noted that we do not attempt to match the density and pressures at the boundary of the halo, and in fact it is not possible to do this for a flat rotation curve and a Schwarzschild exterior.

We next investigate if it is possible to constrain $`g_{rr}`$ or equivalently the equation of state using gravitational lensing. The bending of light rays was calculated for the cases (A.) and (B.) and the results are summarised below.

(A.) For $`w_r>0`$ the bending angle is always larger than the case where there is no pressure. When $`w_r>0`$, the deflection angle progressively increases as the halo radius $`R`$ is increased keeping the impact parameter $`b`$ fixed, and it diverges in the limit $`(b/R)0`$. On the other hand, for $`w_r<0`$ the behaviour of the deflection angle is similar to the situation when there is no pressure, except that in the limit $`(b/R)0`$ it saturates at a value larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N=2\pi (v_c/c)^2`$ which is the deflection for an infinite halo with no pressure.

(B.) The generic features of the deflection angle are different for the two cases $`w_T>0`$ and $`w_T<0`$. For $`w_T>0`$, the deflection angle is larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$, and it increases progressively as the halo radius is increased, diverging in the limit $`(b/R)0`$. For $`w_T<0`$, the deflection angle is less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ and it converges to around $`0.5\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ in the limit $`(b/R)0`$.

We find that in case (B. ) with $`w_T<0`$, the only situation where the deflection angle is less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$, the density profile is shallower than $`r^2`$. The density has a $`r^2`$ behaviour or is steeper in all the other the cases. It may be worthwhile to remind the reader here that in all the cases considered here both the energy density and the pressure contribute to the bending of light. We next ask if there is any pattern seen in the form of $`g_{rr}(r)`$ (or effectively $`\lambda (r)`$) and the behaviour of the deflection angle. We find that $`w_T<0`$ is the only case where $`\lambda (r)`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`r`$. This leads to a picture where the gravitational deflection angle is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ in the absence of pressure where $`\lambda (r)`$ is a constant, the deflection is more than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ if $`\lambda (r)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`r`$ and the deflection is less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ if $`\lambda (r)`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`r`$.

In conclusion, the flat rotation curves observed in the outer parts of spiral galaxies can be equally well explained by a halo which is made up of dark matter with anisotropic pressures. The bending of light rays passing through the halo is found to be highly sensitive to the pressure content of the dark matter. This holds the possibility that combined observations of rotation curves and gravitational lensing can be used to determine the equation of state of the dark matter in galactic halos. Alternatively, if the equation of state of the dark matter is determined from other observations, then combined observations of rotation curves and gravitational lensing can be used to test Einstein’s theory of General Relativity on galaxy scales.