1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
2: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1cm}
3: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0cm}
4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0cm}
5: \setlength{\textheight}{22.5cm}
6: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.0cm}
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{The Nonlinear Maxwell Theory---an Outline}
9: \author{Artur Sowa\\
10: 841 Orange Street \\
11: New Haven, CT 06511\footnote{The author is currently
12: with the Pegasus Imaging Corporation. This work is beyond
13: the scope of his obligations there and has been performed in his
14: free time. No other institution has been helpful to the author
15: in conducting this research.}}
16: \date{March 2nd, 2001}
17: \maketitle
18: \newtheorem{th}{Theorem}
19: \newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}
20: \renewcommand{\l}{\bigtriangleup_{A}}
21: %\boldmath
22: \begin{abstract}
23: The goal of this paper is to sketch a broader outline of the
24: mathematical structures present in the Nonlinear
25: Maxwell Theory in continuation of work previously presented in \cite{sowa1}, \cite{sowa2}
26: and \cite{sowa3}.
27: In particular, I display new types of both dynamic and static solutions
28: of the Nonlinear Maxwell Equations (NM). I point out how
29: the resulting theory ties to the Quantum Mechanics of Correlated
30: Electrons inasmuch as it provides a mesoscopic description of phenomena like
31: nonresistive charge transport, static magnetic flux tubes, and charge
32: stripes in a way consistent with both the phenomenology and the
33: microscopic principles. In addition, I point at a bunch of geometric
34: structures intrinsic for the theory. On one hand, the
35: presence of these structures indicates that the equations at hand
36: can be used as `probing tools' for purely geometric exploration of
37: low-dimensional manifolds.
38: On the other hand, global aspects of these structures are in my view
39: prerequisite to incorporating (quantum)
40: informational features of Correlated Electron Systems within
41: the framework of the Nonlinear Maxwell Theory.
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45: The general goal of this paper is to examine broader ramifications
46: of the Nonlinear Maxwell Equations (NM) as introduced by me in 1992/93
47: and further developed in \cite{sowa1}, \cite{sowa2}, \cite{sowa3}.
48: To this end, I first point out that the theory is
49: considerably richer than that of the classical linear Electromagnetism.
50: In particular, I describe here several distinct types of both static
51: and dynamic solutions on a spacetime of the form $M^3\times R$.
52: On the technical side,
53: I have essentially avoided heavier analysis as the solutions are either
54: obtained by means of elementary calculation, or are otherwise based
55: on deeper analytic work described in \cite{sowa3}. One should be aware that
56: the possibilities opening in consequence of the introduction of these new
57: structures have not been fully exploited in this paper, thus postponing
58: many potential developments into the future.
59:
60: More precisely, in the `dynamic' part of the paper I display a
61: solution in the form of a charge-carrying
62: electromagnetic wave. It is a soliton type wave that transports
63: charge with constant speed and without resistance. In addition, one
64: notes existence of a specific to dimension four nonlinear Fourier type
65: transform---an interesting structure whose role within the theory
66: is twofold. On one hand, it can be used to find and analyze new
67: solutions of the Nonlinear Maxwell Equations. On the other hand, the
68: transform defines an exotic duality---a (quadratic) generalization
69: of the (linear) Hodge duality. Consequences of this new duality for
70: the four-geometry will be exploited in the future.
71:
72: The second set of results in this paper is focused around the question of
73: existence and properties of static solutions. To this end, I first
74: examine the situation on the Euclidean three-space. In particular, one takes
75: note of the occurrence of global structures in the form of
76: magnetic flux tubes as well as the so-called
77: charge stripes. It is interesting from the point of view of geometry that
78: these objects exist in general only on three-manifolds whose
79: fundamental group is not finite. This is tied to the geometric fact that
80: the nonlinear gauge theory at hand induces an additional structure on
81: $M^3$---namely a taut codimension one foliation. These global aspects
82: of static solutions prompt an assumption of topological point of view.
83: Accordingly, I sketch
84: the possibility of constructing `nonlinear cohomology' that would
85: account for a sort of `flux tube' invariant of a three manifold.
86: The discussion here is based on two particular examples that I feel provide
87: an optimal illustration of the underlying concept.
88:
89: The Nonlinear Maxwell Equations, cf. (\ref{syst0}-\ref{syst2}) below,
90: involve a vector potential that encodes the electric and magnetic
91: fields in the usual way as well as an additional scalar $f$. The
92: function $f$ contains information, extractable in a certain simple
93: canonical way, about the local value of the {\em filling factor} (also
94: known as the filling fraction). (The filling factor is defined as
95: the number of quanta of the magnetic field per electron charge in the first
96: Landau level. It is then natural and effective to think of the electrons
97: as forming in conjunction with the corresponding magnetic flux quanta
98: composite particles---either bosons or fermions, or Laughlin particles
99: depending on the actual value of the filling factor.)
100: It is thus postulated that the filling fraction---typically an input
101: of a microscopic theory that is always assumed constant microlocally---is
102: allowed to slowly vary in the coarser scale. In fact, it was shown
103: in \cite{sowa3} that NM predict occurrence of phase changes that lead
104: to formation of vortices in $f$, and {\em a fortiori} in the magnetic
105: field. This picture conforms with the well known analogy between the Quantum
106: Hall Effects and the High-$T_c$ Superconductivity. An inquisitive reader
107: might now point at the following seeming conundrum.
108: The physical interpretation of $f$ as a filling factor requires
109: the presence of two-dimensional geometric structures that endow
110: us with a possibility of including the lowest Landau level in the
111: basic dictionary. Thus, it may appear a priori puzzling, how we are
112: going to retain this interpretation of $f$ in three or four spatial
113: dimensions? The answer is provided by the intrinsic structure of the
114: NM themselves. On one hand, it is shown below that the filling factor
115: variable may be completely factored out of the equations when viewed
116: in the complete four dimensions of spacetime. Needless to say, if one
117: attempted to analyze such $f$-free form in two dimensions the $f$
118: variable would reemerge without change as it is there encoded in the
119: magnetic field $B =b/f$, $b=\mbox{const}$.
120: On the other hand, one notes that a remnant or a generalization of
121: the filling factor interpretation carries over to three dimensions.
122: Namely, the NM in three dimensions imply existence of a codimension
123: one foliation of the three-space associated with the static solutions.
124: Moreover, one notes here that the NM do not {a priori} introduce any
125: restrictions as to the type of the resulting foliation---in fact any regular
126: foliation and even foliations with
127: singularities introduced by degenerating leaves are admitted by the
128: equations. However, as already mentioned above the existence of solutions of
129: a special type, namely the flux-tube type, implies
130: geometrical restrictions on the foliation and topological restrictions
131: on the three-manifold. Indeed, in this case foliation must be taut.
132: It also seems reasonable to expect that the composite
133: particle interpretation remains valid in this setting and the number
134: of participating electrons in each leaf is again determined by $f$,
135: virtually leading to the notion of an {\em effective} Landau level.
136:
137: In the last words of this section I would like to admit that, the subject
138: matter at hand being both new and inherently interdisciplinary as well
139: as by way of my own background and limitations, it is
140: not always easy to pick the optimal terminology. Realizing I will
141: unavoidably fail to satisfy in this respect one group of readers
142: or another, I can only ask the readership to be as tolerant as they
143: can afford and hope that in the end substance will triumph over form.
144:
145:
146: \section{Nonlinear Maxwell Equations in Spacetime}
147:
148:
149: In what follows, in order to get around rather tedious algebra while
150: not compromising
151: our understanding of what is essentially involved, I present a shortcut style
152: exposition of the necessary calculations. I believe that readers who are
153: well familiar with differential geometry will find it easy to
154: reinterpret this calculation in its natural invariant setting, while
155: those who are less familiar with the abstract setting may in fact appreciate
156: its absence here.
157:
158: Consider the following system of equations---the Nonlinear Maxwell
159: Equations (NM) in the form in which they have appeared in my previous papers.
160: \begin{equation}
161: dF_{A}=0
162: \label{syst0}
163: \end{equation}
164: \begin{equation}
165: \delta (fF_{A})=0
166: \label{syst1}
167: \end{equation}
168: \begin{equation}
169: \Box f +a|F_{A}|^{2}f=\nu f.
170: \label{syst2}
171: \end{equation}
172: where $f$ is a real valued function and $A$ is the electromagnetic
173: vector potential, so that the corresponding electromagnetic field
174: is $ F_A = dA$. Here, $a>0$ is a physical constant with
175: unit $\left[\mbox{Tesla}^{-2}\mbox{m}^{-2}\right]$;
176: %whose appearance in the equations
177: %is completely consistent with the geometric picture as it will be
178: %explained later.
179: I will not discuss the precise physical
180: interpretation of $a^2$ in this paper.
181: Further, $d$ is the exterior derivative and $\delta =
182: \star d\star$ its adjoint. Here, it is assumed that the Hodge star $\star$
183: and the D'Alembertian $\Box$ are induced by the Lorentzian metric tensor
184: on a spacetime of $3+1$ dimensions.
185: Let me point out that assuming $f=\mbox{const}$ and dragging it to zero one
186: recovers the classical Maxwell equations. In this sense, all phenomena of
187: the classical electromagnetism are included in the present model.
188:
189: Now the goal is to better understand the essential ingredients of the NM in terms
190: of the classical field variables.
191: To this end, let us say the spacetime is in fact the flat Minkowski
192: space (with the speed of light $1$) so that in particular one can
193: identify coefficients of the electric field $\vec{E}$ and the magnetic
194: field $\vec{B}$ with the coefficients of the curvature tensor
195: $F_A$ by the formula
196: \begin{equation}
197: F_A = B_1dy\wedge dz +B_2 dz\wedge dx +B_3 dx\wedge dy +
198: E_1dx\wedge dt +E_2 dy\wedge dt +E_3 dz\wedge dt.
199: \label{FA}
200: \end{equation}
201: For the sake of our discussion below it is good to keep in mind the well
202: known fact that the components of $F_A$ are not Lorentz invariant.
203: This property leads one to the derivation of the Lorentz force, so that the
204: latter one is logically
205: independent of the particular form of a gauge theory formulated in terms
206: of $F_A$. In other words, the Lorentz force remains unchanged and valid
207: as one attempts to modify the field equations. With this understood,
208: let us continue the discussion of equations (\ref{syst0}-\ref{syst2}).
209:
210: It would be rather straightforward to rewrite equations
211: (\ref{syst0}-\ref{syst2}) in the anticipated Maxwellian form
212: by following the usual procedures for translating (\ref{syst1})
213: into the \'Ampere and Gauss laws after having replaced
214: $\vec{E}$ by $f\vec{E}$ and $\vec{B}$ by $f\vec{B}$.
215: In fact, this would lead to an {\em ad hoc} interpretation of $f$ as a
216: material constant---a route taken in our older, one might say {\em naive},
217: paper \cite{sowa1}. However, this form of the system offers little insight
218: as to the more essential implications of the NM, and one needs
219: to find a less obvious reformulation.
220:
221: One notes that equation (\ref{syst1}) may be equivalently written in the form
222: \begin{equation}
223: f\delta F_{A}=F_A(\nabla_{3+1} f,. )
224: \label{twoprime}
225: \end{equation}
226: where $\nabla_{3+1}$ stands for the gradient in spacetime.
227: For a reason that will become clear later,
228: one identifies $F_A$ with a skew-symmetric matrix in a standard way
229: \[
230: F = \left(\begin{array}{rrrr}
231: 0 & -B_3 & B_2 & -E_1 \\
232: B_3 & 0 & -B_1 & -E_2 \\
233: -B_2 & B_1 & 0 & -E_3 \\
234: E_1 & E_2 & E_3 & 0
235: \end{array}\right).
236: \]
237: It is important to note that by the miraculous property
238: of skew-symmetric matrices in four dimensions,
239: $\det F = \vec{E}\cdot\vec{B}$ and
240: \[
241: F^{-1} = \frac{1}{\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B}}
242: \left(\begin{array}{rrrr}
243: 0 & E_3 & -E_2 & B_1 \\
244: -E_3 & 0 & E_1 & B_2 \\
245: E_2 &-E_1 & 0 & B_3 \\
246: -B_1 &-B_2 & -B_3 & 0
247: \end{array}\right)
248: = \frac{1}{\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B}} \hat{F}.
249: \]
250: (I emphasize that $\hat F$ is not the matrix
251: corresponding to the Hodge-dual of $F_A$ in the given metric with
252: signature $(+++-)$.)
253: On the other hand, representing both the $1$-forms and vectors
254: as columns so that in particular
255: \[
256: \nabla_{3+1} f = \left[\begin{array}{r}
257: f_x \\
258: f_y \\
259: f_z \\
260: -f_t
261: \end{array}\right] \mbox{ and }
262: \delta F_{A}= \left[\begin{array}{r}
263: E_{1,t}+B_{2,z}-B_{3,y}\\
264: E_{2,t}+B_{3,x}-B_{1,z}\\
265: E_{3,t}+B_{1,y}-B_{2,x}\\
266: E_{1,x}+E_{2,y}+E_{3,z}
267: \end{array}\right],
268: \]
269: one checks directly that
270: \[
271: F_A(\nabla_{3+1} f,. ) = F \nabla_{3+1} f.
272: \]
273: This enables us to rewrite equation (\ref{twoprime}) in the form
274: \begin{equation}
275: F^{-1}\delta F_{A}=\nabla_{3+1} \ln (f).
276: \label{twoprimevec}
277: \end{equation}
278: It is perhaps worthwhile to realize that in this context $F$ is a
279: fiberwise-linear mapping from the tangent bundle to the cotangent bundle.
280: Here one assumes $f>0$ a.e. This conforms with the principle that one will be
281: consistently looking for {\em strong} solutions so that in particular $f$ may always
282: be replaced with $|f|$ in (\ref{syst0}-\ref{syst2}).
283: Next one recalls that on one hand the first part of the NM (\ref{syst0})
284: is identical
285: with the analogous part of the classical Maxwell equations and it
286: encodes the Faraday's law of magnetic induction and the fact that
287: there are no spatially extensive magnetic charges. This gives the
288: first four
289: (scalar) equations below, namely (\ref{first}) and (\ref{second}).
290: On the other hand, by direct multiplication
291: and regrouping in (\ref{twoprimevec}), one obtains four further scalar
292: equations that happen to radically modify the \'{A}mpere law.
293: Written in the familiar three-space vector notation, the NM assume the form
294: \begin{equation}
295: \frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial t}+\nabla\times\vec{E}=0
296: \label{first}
297: \end{equation}
298: \begin{equation}
299: \nabla\cdot\vec{B} =0
300: \label{second}
301: \end{equation}
302: \begin{equation}
303: (\frac{\partial\vec{E}}{\partial t}-\nabla\times\vec{B})\times\vec{E}
304: +(\nabla\cdot\vec{E})\vec{B} = -(\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B})\nabla\ln f
305: \label{third}
306: \end{equation}
307: \begin{equation}
308: \label{fourth}
309: (\frac{\partial\vec{E}}{\partial t}-\nabla\times\vec{B})\cdot\vec{B}
310: = -(\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B})\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\ln f
311: \end{equation}
312: \begin{equation}
313: (\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial t^2} - \bigtriangleup )
314: f + a(|\vec{B}|^2 - |\vec{E}|^2)f = \nu f,\vspace{1.5cm}
315: \label{last}
316: \end{equation}
317: provided $\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B} \neq 0$. In fact, also the case when
318: $\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B} = 0$ is worth our attention and will be discussed
319: below. As much as one should avoid indulging in formal manipulations
320: of formulas, here the advantage of having the equations rewritten
321: in several equivalent forms is that they all
322: lead to the discovery of new types of solutions, the existence of which
323: would be otherwise obscured by notation. This will become more evident in the
324: following sections.
325:
326: As already mentioned in the introduction,
327: I postulate the following physical interpretation: $f$ is
328: the spatially varying filling factor---a notion central to the
329: modern composite-particle theories. In fact, the canonical
330: microscopic-theory interpretation
331: of the filling factor
332: is valid in two spatial dimensions only, in which case it signifies the
333: ratio of the number of quanta of the ambient magnetic field to
334: the number of electrons in the first Landau level, cf. \cite{Laugh1},
335: \cite{pr}.
336: Moreover,
337: the microscopic theory offers no hints as to the existence and relevance
338: of an analogous notion in the three-space.
339: A description of the interaction of the electromagnetic field with
340: fermions in the first Landau level provided by the equations above
341: is valid in the mesoscopic scale. Here, as one `zooms out' from the
342: microscopic scale, the filling factor is neither a rational number
343: nor is it a constant anymore. In fact, as it has been communicated
344: in previous papers the spatially varying filling factor
345: may assume the form of a vortex lattice, cf. \cite{sowa3}.
346: For the time being, this point
347: of view is validated by the well known analogy between the Quantum Hall
348: Effect and the High Temperature Superconductivity and it awaits
349: experimental confirmation.
350: Moreover, the NM extend
351: the notion of the filling factor to three spatial dimensions. However,
352: as we will see below, the presence of the filling factor introduces an
353: especially interesting
354: modification of the laws of Electromagnetism only if the three-space comes
355: equipped with a codimension one foliation. This latter fact makes it possible to
356: talk about Landau levels in a certain sense, anyhow.
357: Finally, $f$ can be completely eliminated from the NM in $3+1$ dimensions.
358: (In general, this
359: requires that the first cohomology group of the spacetime vanishes.) In that case
360: the NM can be written in the $f$-free form
361: \[
362: dF_A=0
363: \]
364: \begin{equation}
365: d\left(F^{-1}\delta F_{A}\right)^\# = 0
366: \label{integr}
367: \end{equation}
368: \begin{equation}
369: \delta\left(F^{-1}\delta F_{A}\right)^\#
370: -\left|F^{-1}\delta F_{A}\right|^2 +
371: a|F_A|^2 - \nu =0,
372: \label{madeq}
373: \end{equation}
374: where $\#$ is the isomorphism of the tangent and the cotangent bundles
375: given by the metric.
376: Indeed, under the assumption of vanishing first de-Rham cohomology,
377: equation (\ref{twoprimevec})
378: is equivalent to its integrability condition (\ref{integr}).
379: Moreover, since the last scalar equation of the system can be written
380: in terms of $d\ln f$ in the form
381: \[
382: \delta d\ln f -|d\ln f|^2 + a|F_A|^2 - \nu =0,
383: \]
384: equation (\ref{twoprimevec}) also implies (\ref{madeq}).
385: Computation of the symbol shows that the system obtained in
386: this way is non-hyperbolic---in fact its degeneracy is of higher order.
387: Thus, this form of the NM appears impractical for any mathematical work,
388: and an introduction of the dimensionless scalar $f$ is necessary also
389: from the point of view of analysis. Nevertheless, as indicated in the Introduction
390: and the discussion above, physical implications
391: of the existence of an $f$-free form of the NM are important.
392:
393:
394: \section{Geometry Behind the Equations}
395:
396: The geometrical arena of the Maxwell equations consists of
397: a spacetime, say $N$, and a principal $U(1)$-bundle, say $P$,
398: stack up above $N$.
399: In addition, it seems any description of the interaction of
400: the electromagnetic field with fermions requires, at least
401: within this framework, a principal connection, i.e. a smooth (at least
402: a.e.) distribution of horizontal planes that is invariant with respect
403: to the circle action. This distribution can be written as $\ker{A} =
404: \ker{fA}$ for $f\neq 0$. In addition, if $U(1)$ is to remain the elemental
405: symmetry group of Electromagnetism, then $ f$ must be constant along the
406: fibers so that it effectively descends to a function on $N$. In particular,
407: within this dictionary one can construct a Kaluza-Klein metric on $P$,
408: which is given by
409: \[ \mu_A(X,Y) = g(\pi_*X,\pi_*Y)+aA(X)A(Y),
410: \]
411: where the unit of $a>0$ must be
412: $\left[\mbox{Tesla}^{-2}\mbox{meter}^{-2}\right]$ if the unit of length on $P$
413: is to be $\left[\mbox{meter}\right]$ and the unit of $F_A =dA$ is to remain, say,
414: $\left[\mbox{Tesla}\right]$.
415: Let us say the corresponding Laplace-Beltrami operator on forms is then
416: $\bigtriangleup_{\mu_A}=\bigtriangleup_A$. Calculation shows that the
417: condition
418: \[\bigtriangleup_A (fA) =\nu fA
419: \]
420: is equivalent to the system of equations (\ref{syst0}--\ref{syst2}), cf. \cite{sowa1}.
421:
422:
423:
424:
425: \section{Exotic Duality}
426: For the sake of discussion in this section, consider the NM on
427: either a Lorentzian or a Riemannian four-manifold
428: as the metric signature plays a secondary role. In particular,
429: it is preferable to replace the $\Box$-notation with the
430: $\bigtriangleup$-notation. Assume for the sake of simplicity
431: that the second cohomology group of the manifold is trivial.
432: Omitting the constant $a$, write
433: the system one more time in the form
434: \begin{equation}
435: \label{A1}
436: \delta (f dA) = 0
437: \end{equation}
438: \begin{equation}
439: -\bigtriangleup f +|dA|^{2}f=\nu f.
440: \label{A2}
441: \end{equation}
442: Since (\ref{A1}) implies $d(f\star dA) =0$, one has
443: $f\star dA = d\tilde{A}$ so that
444: \begin{equation}
445: \label{transform}
446: dA = \pm 1/f\star d\tilde{A}
447: \end{equation}
448: and the new form $\tilde{A}$ satisfies a {\em dual} system of equations
449: \begin{equation}
450: \label{tildA1}
451: \delta (\frac{1}{f} d\tilde{A}) = 0
452: \end{equation}
453: \begin{equation}
454: -\bigtriangleup f +|d\tilde{A}|^{2}\frac{1}{f}=\nu f.
455: \label{tildA2}
456: \end{equation}
457: This is a functional transform reminiscent of the Fourier or
458: the Backlund transforms, notwithstanding the fact that all
459: transforms are somewhat reminiscent of one another.
460: In particular, the resulting dualistic perspective
461: has the expected property that trivial solutions of one of the systems
462: lead to more complex solutions of the dual system. To illustrate the
463: idea, let me now present a few examples of dual solutions on $R^4$ with
464: either the Euclidean or the Minkowski metric as specified in the discussion.
465:
466:
467: {\em Example 1.} Let the metric be Euclidean and
468: take $dA = Edz\wedge dt$, $E=\mbox{const}$,
469: and $f=f(x,y)$. Equation
470: (\ref{A1}) is automatically satisfied and (\ref{A2}) assumes the form
471: $-f_{xx} - f_{yy} = (\nu - E^2)f$ so that
472: $f=\cos{(k_1x+k_2y+\alpha )}$ for
473: $k_1^2+k_2^2 = \nu - E^2$ solves the problem. Now
474: $d\tilde{A} = \pm f(x,y) dx\wedge dy$ and it staisfies equations
475: (\ref{tildA1}-\ref{tildA2}).
476:
477:
478: {\em Example 2.} Departing for a while from the assumption
479: of vanishing second cohomology, let us reinterpret the previous example on a
480: four-torus assuming periodicity of coordinates $(x,y,z,t)$
481: with period $2\pi$. Note
482: that the first bundle is necessarily nontrivial as the cohomology
483: class $[dA]\neq 0$. Let us allow the function $f$ drop its dependence
484: on $y$ so that, say, $f = \cos x$, provided the `right choice' of $\nu$
485: has been made.
486: Now, $d\tilde{A} = d(\sin x dy)$ is an exact form so the second
487: bundle is topologically trivial.
488:
489:
490: {\em Example 3.} Consider $dA = Bdx\wedge dy$ and $f=f(z,t)$ so that
491: (\ref{A1}) is satisfied. Let us now look at the metric with
492: signature $(+++-)$ so that (\ref{A2}) means $f_{tt} - f_{zz} =
493: (\nu - B^2)f$. The general solution of this equation is a standing
494: wave with variable amplitude. This pattern is inherited by
495: $d\tilde{A} = f(z,t)dz\wedge dt$ (up to the sign again) which satisfies
496: (\ref{tildA1}-\ref{tildA2}).
497:
498: {\em Example 4.} Let us for a change begin on the other side and take, say,
499: $d\tilde{A} = edz\wedge dt$ and $f=f(x,y)$. Again, the first equation
500: (\ref{A1}) is automatically satisfied while (\ref{A2}) becomes
501: $-f_{xx} - f_{yy} + e^2/f = \nu f$. As explained in
502: \cite{sowa3} (see also remarks at the end of section \ref{static} below)
503: apart from the trivial constant solution, this problem also has a solution
504: in the form of a vortex lattice. In the latter case
505: $dA = f(x,y) dx\wedge dy$ satisfies (\ref{A1}-\ref{A2}) and represents
506: static magnetic flux tubes.
507:
508:
509: I emphasize that only the vector potential $A$ and the filling fraction
510: variable $f$ that appear in the first set of equations have
511: physical interpretation. Reassuringly, the presence of
512: a nontrivial $f$ in examples {\em 1} and {\em 3} did not contribute anything
513: unexpectedly strange to the constant electric and magnetic fields in these
514: examples, while it `introduced' flux tubes in example {\em 4}.
515: Although one could consider similar interpretation of the transformed vector
516: potential $\tilde {A}$, just as one can for any $U(1)$-connection,
517: I feel this is uncalled for and would probably be unjustifiable
518: at this point. Nevertheless, the existence of the transform is a
519: remarkable fact whose possible applications to four-manifolds will
520: be explored more thoroughly in the future. In a way, this new duality
521: is a generalization of the regular Hodge-star duality that may be
522: compared to the projective generalization of the Euclidean reflection.
523: This analogy may be justified in the following way.
524: Projective duality is induced by a fixed quadratic form.
525: What is the NM analog of that object?
526: Introduce notation $\varphi = \ln f$. A
527: direct calculation shows that (\ref{A1}-\ref{A2}) may be written in the
528: form of a system of quadratic equations
529: \begin{equation}
530: \label{AA1}
531: \delta dA + \star (d\varphi\wedge \star dA) = 0
532: \end{equation}
533: \begin{equation}
534: \label{AA2}
535: -\bigtriangleup\varphi -|d\varphi |^2 + |dA|^2 -\nu = 0.
536: \end{equation}
537: This form of the equation has one other advantage. Suppose one has
538: found a solution $(A, \varphi )$ of (\ref{AA1}-\ref{AA2}). One can now
539: use gauge invariance of the equations in the following way. Let
540: $\chi$ be a solution of the equation
541: \[
542: \delta d \chi = -\delta A.
543: \]
544: The existence of a solution $\chi$ follows from the Fredholm alternative
545: when the metric is positive definite, and it amounts to solving a linear
546: wave equation in a Lorentzian metric. One can now replace $A$ with
547: $A+d\chi$ (and denote the resulting form by $A$ again).
548: In the new gauge $\delta A =0$, so that $A$ in fact satisfies
549: \begin{equation}
550: \label{AAA1}
551: \bigtriangleup A + \star (d\varphi\wedge \star dA) = 0.
552: \end{equation}
553: The system that consists of (\ref{AAA1}) and (\ref{AA2}) is either
554: quasilinear elliptic or hyperbolic, depending on the metric.
555: Solving the latter system may
556: not be helpful at all in finding solutions of the original
557: (\ref{AA1}-\ref{AA2}), since one cannot guarantee that a solution
558: satisfies the Lorentz gauge condition $\delta A =0$. However,
559: solutions of (\ref{AA1}-\ref{AA2}) {\em a fortiori} satisfy
560: (\ref{AAA1}) and (\ref{AA2}) so that in particular they will obey
561: all a priori estimates on the solutions of, say, quasilinear
562: hyperbolic systems.
563: In particular, this point of view may justify the claim
564: that the phenomena described in this paper shed some light on
565: the complex nature of quasilinear systems of PDE of certain types in general.
566:
567: \section{Charge Transport and Charge Stripes}
568: \label{charge_wave}
569:
570: I will now take full advantage of the (\ref{first}-\ref{last}) form of the
571: NM. In analogy to the electromagnetic
572: wave in vacuum, that one recalls is counted among the solutions of this
573: system, one wants to look for a solution with $\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B} = 0$.
574: In the end I will check that the new solution of (\ref{first}-\ref{last})
575: in fact satisfies
576: (\ref{syst0}-\ref{syst2}) which is not a priori guarantied.
577: Make an Ansatz
578: \begin{equation}
579: \label{EB}
580: \vec{B}=B_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x}
581: + B_2\frac{\partial}{\partial y},
582: \qquad
583: \vec{E}=e\left(-B_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}
584: + B_1\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\right),
585: \end{equation}
586: where $e$, $B_1$ and $B_2$ are a priori functions of $(x,y,z,t)$ that are
587: smooth a.e. and neither one of them vanishes identically.
588: As an immediate consequence, one obtains that (\ref{first}) and
589: (\ref{second}) are equivalent to
590: \begin{equation}
591: \label{helper1}
592: B_{1,t} = (eB_1)_{,z}
593: \end{equation}
594: \begin{equation}
595: \label{helper2}
596: B_{2,t} = (eB_2)_{,z}
597: \end{equation}
598: \begin{equation}
599: (eB_1)_{,x} +(eB_2)_{,y} = 0
600: \end{equation}
601: \begin{equation}
602: B_{1,x} + B_{2,y} = 0
603: \end{equation}
604: which implies
605: \begin{equation}
606: e_{,x}B_1 +e_{,y}B_2 = 0.
607: \end{equation}
608: On the other hand, (\ref{third}) and (\ref{fourth}) are equivalent to
609: \begin{equation}
610: (B_{2,x} -B_{1,y})eB_1 = (eB_2)_{,x}B_1 - (eB_1)_{,y}B_1
611: \end{equation}
612: \begin{equation}
613: (B_{2,x} -B_{1,y})eB_2 = (eB_2)_{,x}B_2 - (eB_1)_{,y}B_2
614: \end{equation}
615: \begin{equation}
616: \label{longy}
617: \left(-(eB_2)_{,t} +B_{2,z}\right)B_1 + \left((eB_1)_{,t} - B_{1,z}\right)B_2=0.
618: \end{equation}
619: Equations (\ref{helper1}), (\ref{helper2}) and
620: (\ref{longy}) imply that $e$ is in fact constant
621: \begin{equation}
622: \label{thee}
623: e = \pm 1.
624: \end{equation}
625: Using (\ref{helper1}) and (\ref{helper2}) again, one obtains
626: \[
627: B_1 = B_1(x, y, t+ez), \qquad B_2 = B_2(x, y ,t+ez).
628: \]
629: In particular, $ \vec{B}$ and $\vec{E}$ are not compactly supported.
630: At this point, the only condition left {a priori}
631: unfulfilled is the vanishing divergence condition.
632: Thus, all equations (\ref{helper1}-\ref{longy}) above are satisfied iff
633: there is a function $\psi = \psi (x, y, t+ez)$ such that
634: \begin{equation}
635: \label{thebs}
636: B_1 = -\psi_y(x, y, t+ez),\qquad B_2 = \psi_x(x, y, t+ez).
637: \end{equation}
638: Defining the electric and magnetic fields by (\ref{EB}) with $e=\pm 1$ ,
639: so that in particular $|\vec{E}| =|\vec{B}|$, and choosing $f$ that satisfies
640: the linear wave equation (\ref{last}), one obtains a solution of
641: (\ref{first}-\ref{last}) .
642:
643: However, physical solutions must in addition satisfy the {\em a priori}
644: more restrictive system
645: (\ref{syst0}-\ref{syst2}). Consider $F_A$ as given in (\ref{FA}).
646: Equation (\ref{syst0}) is satisfied automatically since it is equivalent to
647: (\ref{first}-\ref{second}). On the other hand, (\ref{syst1}) becomes
648: \begin{equation}
649: \label{syst1_1}
650: (fB_2)_{,x} - (fB_1)_{,y} = 0
651: \end{equation}
652: \begin{equation}
653: \label{syst1_2}
654: (feB_2)_{,t} - (fB_2)_{,z} = 0
655: \end{equation}
656: \begin{equation}
657: \label{syst1_3}
658: -(feB_1)_{,t} + (fB_1)_{,z} = 0
659: \end{equation}
660: \begin{equation}
661: \label{syst1_4}
662: -(fB_1)_{,y} + (fB_2)_{,x} = 0
663: \end{equation}
664: Now, (\ref{syst1_2}) and (\ref{syst1_3}) imply via (\ref{thebs}) that
665: \[
666: f = f(x, y, t+ez).
667: \]
668: In particular, $f_{,tt} - f_{,zz} =0$. Thus, (\ref{syst0}-\ref{syst2})
669: has been reduced to the following system of two equations:
670: \begin{equation}
671: \label{smallsyst1}
672: -f_{,xx} - f_{,yy} = \nu f
673: \end{equation}
674: \begin{equation}
675: \label{smallsyst2}
676: (f\psi_{,x})_{,x} + (f\psi_{,y})_{,y} = 0.
677: \end{equation}
678: The first equation above admits three types of classical solutions. Namely,
679: \begin{equation}
680: f = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
681: A(t+ez)\ln{(x^2+y^2)} &\quad \nu =0 \\
682: A(t+ez)\cos {(k_1x+k_2y+\alpha(t+ez))} &\quad \nu = k_1^2+k_2^2 \\
683: A(t+ez)\exp {(k_1x+k_2y)} &\quad \nu = -k_1^2-k_2^2 .
684: \end{array}\right.
685: \label{thef}
686: \end{equation}
687: Observe that each solution effectively depends on one harmonic variable in the
688: $(x,y)$-domain---either,
689: $u = k_1x+k_2y$ or $u=\ln{r^2} =\ln{(x^2+y^2)}$. Thus, equation (\ref{smallsyst2})
690: is satisfied if
691: \[
692: \psi_u = C(t+ez)/f(u,t+ez),
693: \]
694: for an arbitrary function $C$ of one variable. Therefore, in view of (\ref{thebs})
695: one obtains three types of solutions (redefining $C$)
696: \begin{equation}
697: \label{theBs}
698: [B_1,B_2] = \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
699: C(t+ez)/(r^2\ln{r^2})[-y,x] \\
700: C(t+ez)\sec{(k_1x+k_2y +\alpha)}[-k_2,k_1]\\
701: C(t+ez)\exp{(-k_1x-k_2y )}[-k_2,k_1]
702: \end{array}\right.
703: \end{equation}
704: in correspondence with (\ref{thef}).
705: Since one is looking for strong solutions,
706: one has the freedom to cut off pieces of the classical solutions (by restricting
707: the domain) and to put them back together. In this way, one obtains solutions that
708: are either continuous
709: or have jump discontinuities but may be guarantied to remain bounded. Last but not least,
710: it is physically correct
711: to interpret the divergence of the electric field as charge $\rho$ and
712: $-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{E}+\nabla\times\vec{B}$ as the electric current.
713: One checks that for solutions as above the $(x,y)$-component of current vanishes while
714: the $z$-component $j$ is equal to $-e\rho$. More precisely,
715: one obtains that piecewise
716: \begin{equation}
717: e\rho =-j= \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
718: 4C(t+ez)/(r^2\ln ^2r^2) \\
719: \nu C(t+ez)\sec{(k_1x+k_2y+\alpha)}\tan{(k_1x+k_2y+\alpha)}\\
720: -\nu C(t+ez) \exp{(-k_1x-k_2y)}
721: \end{array}\right.
722: \end{equation}
723: in correspondence with (\ref{thef}) and (\ref{theBs}).
724: In addition to the piecewise smooth distribution of charge,
725: one should include charge concentrated on
726: singular surfaces where the electric field has jump discontinuities
727: as indicated by the distributional derivative
728: $\nabla \cdot \vec{E}$. Therefore, charge is transported along the z-axis
729: with the speed $e=\pm 1$ and without resistance as the vector of current
730: is perpendicular to the electric field. Charge is mostly
731: concentrated along {\em charge stripes} where the electric and magnetic
732: fields have singularities.
733: The net current depends on the particular choice of a (strong)
734: solution. Of course, the theory does not tell us how to solve
735: the practical problem of electronics---namely, how to create conditions
736: for a particular function $C = C(t+ez)$, constant $\nu$ and a desired
737: mosaic of singularities to actually occur in a physical system.
738:
739:
740: \section{Static Solutions and Magnetic Flux Tubes}
741: \label{static}
742: The classical Maxwell equations admit static solutions
743: of two types only: the uniform field solutions, and the unit charge
744: or monolpole-type solutions, as well as superpositions of these
745: fundamental types of solutions. As we will see below, the nonlinear theory
746: encompasses a larger realm including the magnetic-flux-tube type and the
747: charge-stripe type solutions. These additional configurations require
748: nonlinearity
749: and cannot be superposed, which gives them more rigidity. In the next section
750: we will see what can be said about the variety of such solutions, while in
751: this section I will only display a single example of this type.
752: Apart from the applicable goal, the idea is to present an example
753: that possesses all the
754: essential features of the general class of solutions
755: yet the required calculation is free of more subtle geometric technicalities.
756:
757: Time-independent solutions of the NM posses physical interpretation
758: only if they satisfy the equations in the classical sense almost everywhere.
759: Assuming that all fields are independent of time (\ref{first}-\ref{last})
760: takes on the form
761: \begin{equation}
762: \nabla\times\vec{E}=0
763: \label{first_st}
764: \end{equation}
765: \begin{equation}
766: \nabla\cdot\vec{B} =0
767: \label{second_st}
768: \end{equation}
769: \begin{equation}
770: -(\nabla\times\vec{B})\times\vec{E}
771: +(\nabla\cdot\vec{E})\vec{B} = -(\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B})\nabla\ln f
772: \label{third_st}
773: \end{equation}
774: \begin{equation}
775: (\nabla\times\vec{B})\cdot\vec{B} = 0
776: \label{fourth_st}
777: \end{equation}
778: \begin{equation}
779: - \bigtriangleup f + a(|\vec{B}|^2 - |\vec{E}|^2)f = \nu f,
780: \label{last_st}
781: \end{equation}
782: under the assuption that $\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B}\neq 0$ a.e.
783: Adopt an Ansatz that the integral surfaces of the planes
784: perpendicular to the field $\vec{B}$ are flat, say,
785: \[
786: \vec{B} = b(x,y)\frac{\partial}{\partial z}.
787: \]
788: One easily checks that equations (\ref{second_st}) and (\ref{fourth_st}) are satisfied.
789: Assume in addition that the electric field is potential, i.e.
790: \[
791: \vec{E} = \nabla \psi(x,y,z), \mbox{ where } \psi_z \neq 0 \mbox{ a.e.}
792: \]
793: so that (\ref{first_st}) is satisfied. Remembering notation $\varphi = \ln f$,
794: one calculates directly that
795: \[
796: (\nabla\times\vec{B})\times\vec{E} =
797: -\psi_zb_x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}
798: -\psi_zb_y\frac{\partial}{\partial y}
799: +(\psi_xb_x+\psi_yb_y)\frac{\partial}{\partial z},
800: \]
801: while
802: \[
803: (\nabla\cdot\vec{E})\vec{B} =
804: \bigtriangleup\psi b\frac{\partial}{\partial z},
805: \]
806: and
807: \[
808: (\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B})\nabla\varphi.
809: \]
810: Thus, equation (\ref{third_st}) is equivalent to the following system
811: of three equations
812: \[
813: \psi_z(b\varphi_x +b_x)=0
814: \]
815: \[
816: \psi_z(b\varphi_y +b_y)=0
817: \]
818: \[
819: b\bigtriangleup\psi -\psi_xb_x-\psi_yb_y-b\psi_z\varphi_z =0
820: \]
821: and since $\psi_z\neq 0$ one obtains from the first two equations
822: \[
823: \varphi(x,y,z) = \varphi_1(x,y) + \varphi_2(z) \mbox{ and }
824: b = \beta \exp{(-\varphi_1)},
825: \]
826: while the third equation assumes the form
827: \begin{equation}
828: \bigtriangleup\psi +\nabla\psi\cdot\nabla\varphi =0
829: \label{voltage}
830: \end{equation}
831: At this point the NM have been reduced to the system of just two scalar
832: equations (\ref{last_st}) and (\ref{voltage}).
833: Denote $f_1 = \exp{\varphi_1}$ and $f_2 = \exp{\varphi_2}$ and
834: assume in addition
835: \[\psi =\psi(z)\]
836: so that
837: \[
838: \psi'(z) = \epsilon \exp{(-\varphi_2)} = \frac{\epsilon}{f_2}
839: \]
840: It now follows from (\ref{last_st}) and (\ref{voltage}) that the triplet
841: \begin{equation}
842: \vec{B} = \frac{\beta}{f_1(x,y)}\frac{\partial}{\partial z},
843: \qquad
844: \vec{E} = \frac{\varepsilon}{f_2(z)}\frac{\partial}{\partial z},
845: \label{mag_and_el}
846: \end{equation}
847: and
848: \begin{equation}
849: f(x,y,z) = f_1(x,y)f_2(z)
850: \end{equation}
851: is a solution of the NM if only $f_1$ and $f_2$ satisfy a decoupled
852: system of semi-linear elliptic equations
853: \begin{equation}
854: -f_2''(z) - \frac{\varepsilon ^2}{f_2(z)} = \nu_2f_2(z)
855: \label{charge_stripe}
856: \end{equation}
857: \begin{equation}
858: -\bigtriangleup f_1(x,y) +\frac{\beta^2}{f_1(x,y)} =\nu_1f_1(x,y).
859: \label{vortex}
860: \end{equation}
861:
862: At this point, I would like to emphasize one more time that
863: in a field theory one looks for {\em strong} solutions, i.e.
864: solutions that satisfy equations in the classical sense almost
865: everywhere. Typically, such solutions are smooth except for singularities
866: supported on a union of closed submanifolds. Furthermore, geometrically
867: invariant derivatives of the resulting fields in the distributional
868: sense signify charges. With this understood, let us briefly turn
869: attention to equation (\ref{charge_stripe}). One wants to avoid holding
870: the reader hostage to the formal analysis of this elementary equation
871: which might be somewhat distracting. Thus, I have chosen
872: to briefly describe the solutions qualitatively
873: leaving aside technical details that can be easily reconstructed aside
874: by the reader. First, one notes that if $\nu_2>0$ then a solution
875: is concave, while for $\nu_2<0$ it will be convex for large values
876: where $f_2^2>-\varepsilon ^2/\nu_2$. Assuming formally that
877: $f_2$ is a function of $f_2'$ (piecewise), one reduces
878: (\ref{charge_stripe}) to the first order equation
879: \[
880: \frac{df_2}{dz}=\pm\sqrt{c-\nu_2f_2^2-\varepsilon ^2\ln{f_2^2}}.
881: \]
882: Thus, there are essentially two types of positive solutions,
883: depending on the actual values of constants $c,\varepsilon ,\nu_2$.
884: The first type includes solutions that assume value $0$ at a certain point
885: $z_0$ and increase monotonously to infinity as $z\rightarrow\infty$
886: as well as the symmetric solutions defined between $-\infty$ and some
887: point, say $z_0$ again, where they reach $0$. These solutions require
888: $\nu _2 <0$ and they asymptotically look like $\exp{(\pm(-\nu_2)^{1/2}z)}$
889: One can use both branches in order to put together a strong solution that
890: forms a cusp or a jump discontinuity at $z_0$.
891: The second type consists of solutions that are concave, rise to the highest
892: peak at $f_2=m$, when $c-\nu_2f_2^2-\varepsilon ^2\ln{f_2^2}=0$,
893: and fall off to $0$ on both sides in finite time while
894: being differentiable in-between.
895: Selecting the constants and combining both
896: types of solutions piecewise segment-by-segment one obtains
897: strong solutions $f_2$ that in turn provide electric fields according
898: to formula (\ref{mag_and_el}).
899:
900: Since, with the exception of the trivial
901: constant solution, there are no global smooth solutions, one concludes
902: that either $\vec{E}$ is constant or there exist charge stripes located
903: at planes $z=\mbox{const}$ where $f_2(z)$ has singularities.
904: The distributional derivative is in each case equal to the Dirac measure
905: concentrated at $z=\mbox{const}$ as above and scaled by the size of
906: the jump, and classical derivatives on both sides of the singularity. Even in
907: absence of a jump, the charge will switch from negative to positive
908: thus forming what can be amenably called a charge-stripe. An example
909: of this is shown in {\em Fig.1}.
910:
911: It is much more difficult to figure out solutions of the second equation.
912: I refer the reader to \cite{sowa3} for a more thorough analysis,
913: while here I will just briefly summarize my previous findings.
914: Solutions of equation (\ref{vortex}) correspond to critical points
915: of the functional
916: \[
917: L(f_1)= \frac{\frac{1}{2}\int |\nabla f_1|^2 + \beta^2\int
918: \ln(f_1)}{\int f_1^2}
919: \]
920: which is neither bounded below nor above, so that one is looking at
921: the problem of existence of {\em local} extrema.
922: The equation always admits a trivial constant solution.
923: But, as it is shown in \cite{sowa3}, it also possesses
924: nontrivial vortex lattice solutions. More precisely, if $\beta$ is
925: larger than a certain critical value then there is a nonconstant
926: doubly periodic function $f$ which satisfies the finite difference version
927: of (\ref{vortex}) everywhere except at a periodic lattice of isolated
928: points, one point per each cell.
929: In this way, a lattice of flux tubes, cf. {\em Fig.2},
930: emerges as a solution of the NM.
931: For the time being, the proof
932: of this fact relies on finite-dimensionality essentially,
933: and does not admit a direct generalization to the continuous-domain case.
934: However, physical parameters, like $\int f^2$ and $\beta$,
935: are asymptotically independent of the density of discretization.
936: Thus, I conjecture existence of the
937: continuous domain solutions that satisfy the equation a.e. in the
938: classical sense and retain the particular vortex morphology.
939: Presently, the essential obstacle to proving this conjecture
940: is lack of a regularity theory for the discrete vortex solutions.
941: The proof in \cite{sowa3} is carried out in the (discretized) torus
942: setting. One believes that vortex type solutions exist on any closed
943: (orientable) surface.
944:
945: \section{Topological Quantum Numbers}
946: Every gauge theory comes equipped with an associated set of topological
947: invariants---usually characteristic classes of the bundles used to introduce the
948: gauge field. Articles \cite{Laugh}, \cite{LaughA}, \cite{LaughB}
949: teach us how such topological invariants
950: may be manifested in an electronic system as observable quantum numbers.
951: The Nonlinear Maxwell Theory is naturally equipped with two kinds of topological
952: invariants. On one hand,
953: one has the first Chern class of the original $U(1)$-bundle.
954: Additionally, we will see below that in the case of static solutions the NM give us
955: an additional set of invariants defined directly by the foliated structure of
956: the underlying three-manifold.
957: (In the discussion below, I generally assume for the sake of simplicity
958: that $M$ is a closed orientable manifold unless stated otherwise.)
959: In this section I will make an effort only to identify rather than exploit to
960: the fullest the geometric and topological ramifications of this nonlinear theory of
961: Electromagnetism. To gain some initial impetus, let us be guided by
962: the following question
963: \begin{center}
964: %\fbox{
965: \parbox{13cm}{\em{
966: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions on a
967: Riemannian three-manifold $M$ for the NM to admit a separation
968: of variables of the type seen in the previous section, i.e.
969: for the equation (\ref{vortex}) to decouple so that
970: its solutions will generate magnetic-flux-tube type solutions
971: on $M$?}
972: }
973: %}
974: \end{center}
975: A question of this type is typical in algebraic topology where one is asking
976: about global obstructions to the presence of certain algebraic factorization
977: properties of analytic objects, like linear differential equations as it is the case
978: for, say, the de-Rham
979: cohomology groups. In our case, the equations are nonlinear, but the
980: principle remains the same. The importance of these questions for practical
981: issues of Electromagnetism is twofold. First, one wants to know how big is the set
982: of possible configurations---especially in the absence of the superposition principle.
983: Secondly, I believe
984: the topological invariants displayed below are directly on target in an
985: effort to
986: explain and describe the nature of certain rigid structures,
987: like the Quantum Hall Effects, that physically occur in electronic systems.
988:
989: First, it needs to be emphasized that the static field equations
990: I want to consider, i.e. the equations that descend from the
991: four-dimensional spacetime via time-freezing coefficients, are distinct
992: from the equations
993: (\ref{syst0}-\ref{syst2}) considered directly on a three manifold.
994: Secondly, the equations
995: (\ref{first_st}-\ref{last_st}) are only valid on a Euclidean space.
996: The geometry behind these equations is easier to identify when they
997: are rewritten in an invariant form that can be considered on
998: any three-manifold in a coordinate independent setting.
999:
1000: Fix a Riemannian metric on $M$ with scalar product $<.,.>$ extended to include
1001: measuring differential forms.
1002: Denote by $B$ and $E$ the forms dual
1003: to the magnetic and electric field vectors; recall notation $\varphi = \ln{f}$
1004: and put $a=1$. The static NM assume the form
1005: \begin{equation}
1006: d E = 0
1007: \label{d}
1008: \end{equation}
1009: \begin{equation}
1010: \delta B = 0
1011: \label{delta}
1012: \end{equation}
1013: \begin{equation}
1014: \star (\star dB\wedge E) + (\delta E)B = -<E, B>d\varphi
1015: \label{stard}
1016: \end{equation}
1017: \begin{equation}
1018: d B\wedge B = 0
1019: \label{dwedge}
1020: \end{equation}
1021: \begin{equation}
1022: \bigtriangleup \varphi + |d\varphi |^2 + |E|^2 -|B|^2 + \nu =0.
1023: \label{phi_long}
1024: \end{equation}
1025: Equation (\ref{dwedge}) is the familiar Frobenious condition on integrability
1026: of the distribution of planes given by $\ker B$. One always assumes
1027: $B$ is nonsingular a.e. so that the distribution is {\em a priori} also
1028: defined a.e. For convenience, it is assumed throughout this section that the
1029: foliation determined by $\ker B$ is smooth.
1030: (It is quite clear that for the flux-tube type solutions the
1031: distribution extends through the singular points and is defined everywhere.
1032: At this stage, however, it is hard to make a formal argument to this
1033: effect, hence the {\em a priori} assumption.)
1034: The condition of smoothness implies that the
1035: three-manifold $M$ must have vanishing Euler characteristic.
1036: In particular,
1037: singular foliations, some of which may be associated with other types
1038: of solutions of the NM, are excluded from the discussion below.
1039:
1040:
1041: It follows that there is a $1$-form $\alpha$,
1042: known as the Godbillon-Vey form, such that
1043: \[dB=\alpha\wedge B.
1044: \]
1045: This form is not defined uniquely. However, as is well known, $d(\alpha\wedge d\alpha )=0$
1046: and the Godbillon-Vey (GV) cohomology class
1047: \[
1048: [\alpha\wedge d\alpha ]_{H^3(M)}
1049: \]
1050: is uniquely defined. On a three manifold this class can be evaluated
1051: by integration resulting in a Godbillon-Vey number
1052: \[
1053: Q = \int_{M}\alpha \wedge d\alpha .
1054: \]
1055: This invariant poses many interesting questions that have not been fully resolved
1056: by geometers yet. Below, I will justify two observations.
1057: First, the condition of existence of the magnetic
1058: flux-tube solutions imposes both local and global restrictions on the foliation. Second,
1059: magnetic flux-tube solutions exist in topologically nontrivial situations with nonzero
1060: GV-number $Q$. This is formally summarized in the two propositions that follow.
1061: They are far from the most general statements that can be anticipated in this direction,
1062: but are also nontrivial enough to suggest a conjecture regarding {\em quantization} of the
1063: GV-number that I will formulate following Proposition \ref{P1}.
1064:
1065:
1066: Consider {\em a priori} a foliation given by $\ker B$ locally.
1067: First, one introduces a local coordinate patch $(x,y,z)$ such that
1068: the foliation is given
1069: by the $(x,y)$-planes and $|dz|=1$. In particular
1070: \[
1071: B=\beta (x,y,z)dz.
1072: \]
1073: Let $\gamma = g(x,y,z) dx\wedge dy$ denote the volume element on a leaf.
1074: One has
1075: $\star B = \beta (x,y,z)\gamma$. Equation (\ref{delta}) becomes
1076: $d(\beta (x,y,z)g(x,y,z)dx\wedge dy)=0$. Thus, there is a function $\chi =\chi (x,y)$
1077: such that
1078: \[
1079: \beta (x,y,z) = \frac{\chi (x,y)}{g(x,y,z)}.
1080: \]
1081: A calculation analogous to that in the previous section shows that the whole system
1082: (\ref{delta}-\ref{phi_long}) is reduced to
1083: \begin{equation}
1084: \label{logs}
1085: \left(\ln{\frac{\chi (x,y)}{g(x,y,z)}}\right)_x = -\varphi _x, \qquad
1086: \left(\ln{\frac{\chi (x,y)}{g(x,y,z)}}\right)_y = -\varphi _y
1087: \end{equation}
1088: \begin{equation}
1089: \label{delE}
1090: \delta E +<E,d\varphi > =0
1091: \end{equation}
1092: \begin{equation}
1093: \label{philap}
1094: \bigtriangleup \varphi + |d\varphi |^2 + |E|^2 -\left(\frac{\chi (x,y)}{g(x,y,z)} \right)^2 + \nu =0.
1095: \end{equation}
1096: Observe that in order to obtain factorization
1097: \begin{equation}
1098: \label{split}
1099: \varphi(x,y,z) = \varphi_1(x,y) +\varphi_2(z)
1100: \end{equation}
1101: it is necessary and sufficient that
1102: \begin{equation}
1103: \label{zindep}
1104: g=g(x,y),
1105: \end{equation}
1106: i.e. a priori dependence of $g$ on $z$ is dropped.
1107: If that holds, the equations (\ref{delE}) and (\ref{philap}) can be
1108: decoupled with an additional Ansatz $E=e(z)dz$. One also has
1109: that $\chi /g = b\exp{(-\varphi_1)}$ for a constant $b$
1110: and
1111: \begin{equation}
1112: \label{flux}
1113: \bigtriangleup_{x,y} \varphi_1 + |d\varphi_1 |^2 -b^2 \exp{(-2\varphi_1)}+ \nu =0.
1114: \end{equation}
1115: Conversely, if (\ref{flux}) and (\ref{split}) hold, then so must
1116: (\ref{zindep}) and the mean curvature $h$ of a leaf vanishes.
1117: Indeed, by definition
1118: \[
1119: h = \delta \left(\frac{1}{|B|}B\right) = -\star d (g(x,y)dx\wedge dy) =0.
1120: \]
1121: This implies
1122: \begin{prop}
1123: \label{P1}
1124: For the existence of flux-tube type solutions---in the sense of existence of
1125: factorization (\ref{split}) and decoupling of equation (\ref{flux})---it is necessary that
1126: the foliation given by $\ker{B}$ be taut, i.e. the mean curvature of leaves
1127: must vanish. In particular $\pi_1(M)$ must be infinite.
1128: \end{prop}
1129: {\em Proof.} The first part has been shown above.
1130: The second part follows from a result of D. Sullivan \cite{Sul}
1131: that he deduced from the result of Novikov on the existence of
1132: a closed leaf that is a torus
1133: (cf. \cite{Nov}, and \cite{Tond} for additional
1134: general material and references).$\Box$
1135:
1136: In particular, there are no flux-tube type solutions of the NM
1137: that would conform with the Reeb foliation \cite{Reeb}.
1138: This is a practical issue since the Reeb foliation exists on
1139: a solid torus, so that in principle it might be observed experimentally
1140: which would be inconsistent with the theory at hand.
1141: This fact is also interesting for another reason. Namely, according to the
1142: celebrated theorem by Thurston in \cite{Thurs} each real number
1143: may be realized as the Godbillon-Vey number for a certain codimension one
1144: foliation on the three-sphere $S^3$. The known proof of this result uses
1145: the Reeb foliation in an essential way. I do not know if this fact is
1146: canonical,
1147: i.e. if the presence of the Reeb foliation is necessary for the result to
1148: hold,
1149: but if it turns out to be so then excluding the Reeb foliation from the game
1150: should result in a reduction of the range of the G-V number, possibly to
1151: a discrete subset of the real line. In such a case, the resulting set of
1152: the G-V numbers accompanying flux-tube type solutions of the NM would also
1153: be discrete. This is consistent with my expectation
1154: that these invariants must be related with
1155: (both the integer and the fractional) Quantum Hall Effects.
1156: Future research should bring a resolution of this problem.
1157:
1158:
1159: Another observation is that the factorization given by (\ref{split}) and
1160: (\ref{flux}) does exist in topologically nontrivial situations. More
1161: precisely, I want to consider solutions of the NM on
1162: $PSL(2,R)$ and its compact factors. These three-manifolds are equipped
1163: with interesting codimension one foliations known as the Roussarie
1164: foliation \cite{Rouss}. Let the Lie algebra $\sc{sl}(2,R)$ be given by
1165: \[
1166: [X, Y^+] = Y^+,\quad [X,Y^-]=-Y^-,\quad [Y^+,Y^-]=2X.
1167: \]
1168: Pick a metric on $PSL(2,R)$ in which the corresponding
1169: left-invariant vector fields $X$, $Y^+$, and $Y^-$ are orthonormal
1170: and let $\mu $, $\nu^+$, and $\nu^-$ be the corresponding dual
1171: $1$-forms. One checks directly that
1172: \[
1173: d\nu^- = \mu \wedge \nu^-.
1174: \]
1175: so that the distribution $\ker{\nu^-}$ is integrable and $\mu$ is the
1176: GV-form of the resulting foliation. In particular, one can introduce local
1177: coordinates $(x,y,z)$ such that $\partial_x = X$, $\partial_y = Y^+$,
1178: $\partial _z = Y^-$. This foliation descends
1179: to compact factors of $PSL(2,R)$ that can each be identified with
1180: $T_1M_g$---the total space of the unit tangent bundle of the
1181: hyperbolic Riemann surface
1182: of genus $g$ that depends on our choice of the co-compact subgroup
1183: acting on $PSL(2,R)$ by isometries. Moreover, the GV-integrand
1184: $\mu\wedge d\mu$ is proportional to the natural volume form on the
1185: three-manifold. As a result of this, the corresponding GV-numbers
1186: \[
1187: Q = \int_{T_1M_g} \mu\wedge d\mu = -2Vol(M_g)
1188: \]
1189: assume values in a discrete set. I want to look for solutions of the
1190: NM that satisfy the Ansatz
1191: \begin{equation}
1192: B = \beta \nu^-.
1193: \end{equation}
1194: In particular, (the Frobenious) equation (\ref{dwedge}) is satisfied
1195: automatically. Moreover, since
1196: $\star dB = (Y^-\beta)\mu\wedge\nu^+\wedge\nu^-$, equation
1197: (\ref{delta}) implies
1198: \begin{equation}
1199: \label{betaind}
1200: \beta = \beta (x,y).
1201: \end{equation}
1202: As before, one checks that (\ref{stard}) implies (\ref{delE})
1203: as well as
1204: $X\varphi = - X\ln\beta$ and $Y^+\varphi = - Y^+\ln\beta$.
1205: In consequence, one again has (\ref{split}) and assuming $E=e(z)\nu^-$
1206: as before one obtains (\ref{flux}). In consequence, the following holds true.
1207: \begin{prop}
1208: The Roussarie folitions on $PSL(2,R)$ and its compact factors
1209: satisfy the factorization condition for the existence of magnetic
1210: flux-tube type solutions in the sense that the tangent distribution
1211: can be expressed as $\ker{B}$ a.e. and one can reduce the NM
1212: to the form (\ref{split}-\ref{flux}).
1213: \end{prop}
1214: In a similar way one can obtain factorization (\ref{split}) and
1215: (\ref{flux}) for other foliations, like the natural foliation
1216: on say $S^2\times S^1$.
1217:
1218:
1219: \section{More on the Physical Framework of the NM}
1220:
1221: It is natural to ask if the NM descend from a Lagrangian
1222: functional depending on the two variables $A$ and $f$,
1223: say $\Phi(A,f)$, via the Euler-Lagrange calculus of variations.
1224: The answer is negative as one can easily see considering
1225: that in general a gradient must pass the second derivative test:
1226: \[
1227: \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta A\delta f}\Phi =
1228: \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta f\delta A}\Phi
1229: \]
1230: ---a condition that cannot be satisfied by the expressions
1231: in (\ref{syst0}-\ref{syst2}) viewed as the gradient, say
1232: $(\frac{\delta}{\delta A}\Phi , \frac{\delta}{\delta f}\Phi)$,
1233: of an unknown functional $\Phi$.
1234: This suggests that the NM may constitute just a part of a broader
1235: theory that would encompass additional physical fields. In other words,
1236: the equations (\ref{syst0}-\ref{syst2}) would have to be coupled to
1237: some other equations via additional fields. In addition, such coupling would
1238: have to induce only a very small perturbation of the present picture that
1239: one believes is essentially accurate.
1240: Such possibilities may become more accessible in the future.
1241: Among other, perhaps related goals is that of deriving the NM equation
1242: directly from the microscopic principles.
1243:
1244:
1245: The well-known analogy between the Quantum Hall Effects and
1246: High-$T_c$ Superconductivity suggests that there should exist
1247: vortex lattices involving the so-called {\em filling factor}
1248: (microlocally a constant scalar) that plays a major role in the
1249: description of {\em Composite Particles}. The NM describe exactly
1250: this type of a vortex-lattice.
1251: Simulation and theory show that this system conforms with the
1252: experimentally observed physical facts. It stretches the domain
1253: of applicability of the Maxwell theory to encompass phenomena
1254: such as the {\em Magnetic Oscillations}, {\em Magnetic Vortices},
1255: {\em Charge Stripes} that occur in low-temperature electronic
1256: systems exposed to high magnetic fields.
1257:
1258: There are other systems of PDE that admit vortex-lattice solutions
1259: and are conceptually connected with Electromagnetism, like
1260: the well known Ginzburg-Landau equations valid within the framework of
1261: low $T_c$ type-II superconductivity, or
1262: the Chern-Simons extension of these equations which, some researchers have
1263: suggested, may be more relevant to
1264: the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect and/or High-$T_c$ Superconductivity,
1265: cf. \cite{Zhang}.
1266: The free variables of these equations are the so-called
1267: {\em order parameter} (a section of a complex line-bundle) and a
1268: $U(1)$-principal connection, both of them containing topological
1269: information. In the case of NM, all the topological information is
1270: contained in one of the variables, i.e. the principal connection, while
1271: the other is a scalar function.
1272: An additional advantage of the NM is in that it remains meaningful in
1273: three-plus-one dimensions just as well as in the two-dimensional setting.
1274: I would also like to mention that recently other researchers have introduced
1275: nonlinear Maxwell equations of another type in the context of the Quantum Hall
1276: Effects, cf. \cite{Frohlich}. The NM theory presented in this and the preceding
1277: articles of mine is of a different nature. Finally, although this is far from
1278: my areas of expertise and the remark should be received as completely {\em ad hoc},
1279: I would also like to mention
1280: that yet another context in which foliations come in touch with the
1281: Quantum Hall Effect is that of noncommutative geometry, cf. \cite{Connes}.
1282:
1283: Let me conclude with a question that may suggest yet another point of view.
1284: Namely, is there a coalescence between the nonlinear PDEs (in the form of
1285: the NM) and the (Quantum) Information Theory?
1286: As it was pointed out, construction of error correcting
1287: codes may unavoidably require manipulating quantum information
1288: at the topological level. Anyhow, this is how I have understood the essential
1289: thought in \cite{Freedman}. Adopting this paradigm would strongly suggest that
1290: the effective language of quantum computation should be costructed at many levels,
1291: including that of the mesoscopic field theory in parallel with the language derrived
1292: from the basic principles as it is done now. Future research will likely
1293: better clarify these issues.
1294:
1295: \begin{thebibliography}{29}
1296: \bibitem{Connes} A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press, 1994
1297: \bibitem{Freedman} M. H. Freedman,
1298: %The physics of computation
1299: plenary talk at the {\em Mathematical Challenges of the 21st Century} Conference,
1300: Los Angeles, August, 2000
1301: \bibitem{Frohlich} J. Fr\"ohlich and B. Pedrini,
1302: %New Application of the Chiral Anomaly,
1303: in: A. Fokas, A. Grigorian, T. Kibble, B. Zegarlinski, eds.,
1304: {\sc Mathematical Physics 2000}, Imperial College Press
1305: \bibitem{Laugh} R. B. Laughlin, {\sc Phys. Rev. B} 23 (1981), 5632-5633
1306: \bibitem{LaughA} R. B. Laughlin, {\sc Phys. Rev. B} 27 (1983), 3383-3389
1307: \bibitem{LaughB} R. B. Laughlin, {\sc Phys. Rev. Lett.} 50 (1983), 1395-1398
1308: \bibitem{Laugh1} R. B. Laughlin, {\sc Science} 242 (1988), 525-533
1309: \bibitem{Nov} S. Novikov,
1310: %Topology of Foliations,
1311: {\sc Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obsc.} 14 (1965), 248-278,
1312: AMS translation, {\sc Trans. Moscow Math. Soc.} 14 (1967), 268-304
1313: \bibitem{Reeb} G. Reeb,
1314: %Sur certaines propri\'et\'es topologiques des vari\'et\'es feuillet\'ees,
1315: {\sc Actualit\'e Sci. Indust.} 1183, Hermann, Paris (1952)
1316: \bibitem{Rouss} R. Roussarie,
1317: %Sur les feuilletages des vari\'et\'es de dimension trois,
1318: {\sc Ann. Inst. Fourier} 21 (1971), 13-82
1319: \bibitem{sowa1} A. Sowa,
1320: %On an Equation Arising From the Geometry of Riemannian Submersions,
1321: {\sc J. reine angew. Math.}, 514 (1999), 1-8
1322: \bibitem{sowa2} A. Sowa,
1323: %Magnetic Oscillations and Maxwell Theory,
1324: {\sc Physics Letters A} 228 (1997), 347-350
1325: \bibitem{sowa3} A. Sowa,
1326: %Nonlinear Maxwell Theory and Electrons in Two Dimensions,
1327: cond-mat/9904204
1328: \bibitem{Sul} D. Sullivan,
1329: %A homological characterisation of foliations consisting of minimal surfaces
1330: {\sc Comment. Math. Helv.} 54 (1979), 218-223
1331: \bibitem{Thurs} W. Thurston,
1332: % Non-cobordant foliations of $S^3$,
1333: {\sc Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.} 78 (1972), 511-514
1334: \bibitem{Tond} Ph. Tondeur, Geometry of Foliations, Birkh\"auser Verlag,
1335: 1997
1336: \bibitem{pr} R. E. Prange, S. M. Girvin, Eds., The Quantum Hall Effect,
1337: Springer-Verlag, 1990
1338: \bibitem{Zhang} S. C. Zhang,
1339: % The Chern-Simons-Landau-Ginzburg Theory of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
1340: {\sc Int. J. Mod. Phys. B} 6, No. 1 (1992), 25-58
1341: \end{thebibliography}
1342: \newpage
1343: \noindent
1344: {\em Fig.1} An example of a strong solution of (\ref{charge_stripe}).
1345: $f=f_2(z)$ is a positive function, the electric field is given by formula
1346: (\ref{mag_and_el}). The resulting charge distribution is obtained by
1347: evaluating $\nabla\cdot\vec{E}$. (In general,
1348: $\nabla\cdot\vec{E}$ is understood in the distributional sense).
1349: Charge is concentrated along certain plains $z=\mbox{const}$. This is
1350: the basic appearance of charge stripes---intertwining concentrations
1351: of positive and negative charges. (One should compare
1352: this static picture with the description of moving charge stripes
1353: in section \ref{charge_wave}.)
1354:
1355:
1356: \vspace{.1cm} \vbox spread 3in{}
1357: \special{psfile=stripes.ps hoffset=-105 voffset=-450 hscale=100 vscale=100}
1358: \newpage
1359: \noindent
1360: {\em Fig.2} The luminance graph of $f=f_1(x,y)$ that solves (\ref{vortex}).
1361: The corresponding magnetic field on the right is obtained via
1362: (\ref{mag_and_el}).
1363:
1364: \vspace{.1cm} \vbox spread 3in{}
1365: \special{psfile=flux_tubes.ps hoffset=-105 voffset=-450 hscale=100 vscale=100}
1366: \end{document}
1367:
1368:
1369:
1370: