text:
# Ambipolar Nernst effect in NbSe2

,

(February 13, 2003)

## Abstract

The first study of Nernst effect in NbSe2 reveals a large quasi-particle contribution with a magnitude comparable and a sign opposite to the vortex signal. Comparing the effect of the Charge Density Wave(CDW) transition on Hall and Nernst coefficients, we argue that this large Nernst signal originates from the thermally-induced counterflow of electrons and holes and indicates a drastic change in the electron scattering rate in the CDW state. The results provide new input for the debate on the origin of the anomalous Nernst signal in high-Tc cuprates.

Since the report by Xu *et al.*xu  on the detection of a finite Nernst signal in the normal state of underdoped cuprates, this less common thermoelectric coefficient has become a focus of renewed attentionwang1 ; wang2 ; capan . A well-established source of Nernst signal is the movement of vortices induced by a thermal gradient in the vortex-liquid state of a type II superconductorri . In metals, on the other hand, the Nernst coefficient, while much less explored, is believed to be small. The fundamental reason behind this belief, recently recalled by Wang *et al.*wang1  and dubbed Sondheimer cancellation, was first put forward in 1948sondheimer .

In this Letter, we present the case of NbSe2. A large negative Nernst coefficient, persisting at temperatures well above Tc=7.2K was found in this metal. The quasiparticle contribution to the Nernst signal attains a magnitude comparable to the vortex signal in the superconducting state. Comparing the evolution of Nernst and Hall coefficients, we observed that the maximum in Nernst signal occurs when the contribution of hole-like and electron-like carriers to the Hall conductivity cancel out. Moreover, we found that in the Charge Density Wave(CDW) state, Nernst coefficient becomes sublinear as a function of magnetic field. Our study recalls that the ambipolar flow of quasiparticles in presence of a thermal gradient can lead to an enhancement of the Nernst signal in a multi-band metal. The results open a new window on the driving mechanism of the CDW instability in NbSe2 and establish that a large sublinear Nernst signal can arise in a metal in total absence of superconducting fluctuations.

Single crystals of 2H-NbSe2 were grown by standard iodine vapor transport method. Stoichiometric amounts of 99.9 percent pure Nb wire and 99.999 percent pure Se shots were sealed in a quartz ampoule, and then heated in a temperature gradient for a few weeks. On each sample, four longitudinal and two lateral electrodes were painted with silver epoxy in order to measure the resistivity($`\rho _{xx}`$) and the Hall coefficient (RH). Nernst coefficient, thermopower and thermal conductivity were measured using a one-heater-two-thermometer set-up which allowed us to measure all thermoelectric coefficients of the sample in the same conditions.

The temperature-dependence of the Nernst coefficient in NbSe2 at H=1T is displayed in Fig.1. A sharp peak associated with the superconducting transition is superposed on a large negative signal which peaks at 20K. As seen in the inset, the positive peak occurs in a temperature window closely related to the superconducting transition. The sharp resistive transition ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T$`{}_{c}{}^{}`$0.1K) at H=1T indicates that the vortex liquid state occurs only in a very narrow temperature-field window stretching along the Hc2(T) line in the (H,T) plane. Since the vortex Nernst signal changes drastically in a very narrow temperature interval, the presence of a relatively large temperature gradient along the sample is expected to broaden the peak. No systematic study of the variation of the signal with the magnitude of the temperature gradient was performed. The size of the peak (0.03 $`\mu `$V/K), observed in presence of a temperature difference of about 0.2K between the middle electrodes, underestimates the magnitude of the maximum vortex signal.

One striking feature of Fig.1 and the main new result of this investigation is the presence of a large negative Nernst signal in the normal state which presents a broad maximum around 20K. Like many other two-dimensional dichalcogenides, NbSe2 undergoes a CDW transition at T$`{}_{CDW}{}^{}`$ 32Kmoncton . In order to explore a possible connection between the anomalously large Nernst signal and the CDW transition, we measured the temperature dependence of thermal conductivity ($`\kappa `$), thermopower (S) and Hall coefficient of the same sample.

Fig.2 displays the temperature dependence of longitudinal (thermal, electric and thermoelectric) conductivities. Thermopower, slightly increasing with decreasing temperature for temperatures above TCDW, presents a broad maximum and then, at temperatures well below TCDW, displays a purely linear temperature dependence. This linear decrease is only interrupted with the superconducting transition. The application of a magnetic field of 5T, strong enough to destroy superconductivity, restores the linear S(T) without any detectable field-induced change in the magnitude of S. As seen in the lower panel, the effect of CDW transition on charge and heat transport is far from spectacular. As reported in previous studies lee ; harper ; corcoran the resistivity presents a barely noticeable anomaly at TCDW. We observed a slight gradual enhancement of charge conductivity,$`\sigma `$ below TCDW. A concomitant enhancement is also observable in the temperature dependence of $`\kappa `$/T. A rough estimate of the size of the electronic contribution to heat transport can be obtained by multiplying $`\sigma `$ by the Sommerfeld number (L0=24.5 10$`{}_{}{}^{9}W\mathrm{\Omega }/K^2`$), and comparing it with $`\kappa `$/T. As seen in the figure, the fraction of heat conductivity due to electrons increases from thirty percent at 35 K to eighty percent at the onset of superconductivity.

The diagonal thermoelectric coefficients, RH and N, plotted in Fig.3, present more remarkable signatures of the CDW transition which contrasts with the behavior observed for $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$/T. Upon cooling from room temperature, the Hall coefficient remains virtually constantlee . At T=32K, with the entry of the system into the CDW state, it begins to deviate downward from this positive constant value (+4.9 10-10 m3/C). The decrease of the Hall coefficient continues down to 8K and then saturates to a constant negative value (-6.1 10-10 m3/C). One can see in the upper panel of Fig.3, that the Nernst coefficient, which remains negative above Tc in the whole temperature window investigated, presents a peak at T=21K. Remarkably, at this temperature RH is almost zero. We will argue below that this gives an important clue to the origin of the Nernst signal. A second feature of data is revealed by comparing the field-normalized Nernst signal (N/H) at two different fields (H=1T and H=5T). The two curves superpose for T $`>`$ 27K but become clearly distinct for lower temperatures. This suggests that the Nernst signal ceases to be field-linear in the CDW state. As seen in the insert which compares the field dependence of N at three different temperatures, N(H) which is linear at 34K, becomes clearly sublinear at 16K. Also shown in the figure is the T=4K curve. Here N is virtually zero up to H$``$ 2.3T, then it becomes positive in a narrow field associated with vortex movement before attaining the normal-state negative regime.

Band calculationscorcoran ; rossnagel  have predicted a complex Fermi Surface(FS) for NbSe2 which consists of a small hole-like closed pocket, two hole-like cylinders and two electron-like cylinders (see the insert in the lower panel of Fig. 3). While only the small hole-like pocket was detected by de Hass-van Alphen measurementscorcoran , more recent Angular-Resolved Photoemission Spectroscopy (ARPES) studies have led to the detection of all portions of the predicted FS yokoya ; rossnagel .

Now, in presence of such a complicated FS, a finite Nernst signal is not unexpected. Following Wang *et al.*wang1 , we define the Peltier conductivity tensor $`\overline{\alpha }`$ with equations $`\stackrel{}{J}=\overline{\sigma }\stackrel{}{E}\overline{\alpha }\stackrel{}{}T`$ and $`\stackrel{}{J_q}=\overline{\alpha }T\stackrel{}{E}\overline{\kappa }\stackrel{}{}T`$. Here, $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{J_q}`$ are charge and heat current densities. $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`T`$ are is the electric field and the thermal gradient. $`\overline{\sigma }`$ and $`\overline{\kappa }`$ are electric and thermal conductivity tensors. Assuming $`\sigma _{xy}\sigma _{xx}`$ and neglecting the transverse thermal gradient produced by a finite $`\kappa _{xy}`$, the Nernst coefficient is easily obtained aswang1 :

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_y}{\frac{T}{x}}}=S({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{xy}}{\alpha _{xx}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{xy}}{\sigma _{xx}}})`$ (1)
Where $`S=\frac{\alpha _{xx}}{\sigma _{xx}}`$ is the thermopower. For a single band, and if $`\overline{\sigma }`$ is not energy-dependent, one has:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{xy}}{\sigma _{xx}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{xy}}{\alpha _{xx}}}`$ (2)
and the two terms in Eq.1 cancel out (“Sondheimer cancellation”)wang1 . Now, let us assume that the metal is not single band and there are two FS sheets with dominant carriers of opposite signs. Then Eq.1 becomes:

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`S({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{xy}^++\alpha _{xy}^{}}{\alpha _{xx}^++\alpha _{xx}^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{xy}^++\sigma _{xy}^{}}{\sigma _{xx}^++\sigma _{xx}^{}}})`$ (3)
Where the superscript designates the sign of the dominant carriers. Now, obviously, the validity of Eq.2 for each band does *not* lead to the cancellation of the two terms in the right side of Eq.3. We can readily see that in a compensated two-band system, i.e. in the case of $`\sigma _{xy}^{}`$=-$`\sigma _{xy}^+`$, the second term on the right side of Eq.3 vanishes. But, since $`\alpha _{xx}^{}`$ and $`\alpha _{xx}^+`$ are expected to have different signs, Eq.2 implies the same sign for $`\alpha _{xy}^\pm `$. Therefore, the first term does not vanish and would yield a finite Nernst signal.

As recalled above, NbSe2 is a multi-band metal and becomes compensated at T=21K. Therefore, the finite size and the temperature dependence of the Nernst signal found in our study can safely be attributed to the counterflow of carriers with opposite sign. In semiconductors, this phenomenon, known as the ambipolar Nernst effect, has been known since a long time agodelves . However, to our knowledge, this is the first case of a metal displaying the effect.

Using the experimental data and Eq.1, one can compute the temperature dependence of the two components of the Peltier conductivity tensor $`\overline{\alpha }`$approx . Fig. 4 compares the two ratios $`\frac{\sigma _{xy}}{\sigma _{xx}}`$ and $`\frac{\alpha _{xy}}{\alpha _{xx}}`$. As seen in the figure, at the onset of the CDW transition, the two angles display opposite signs and the absolute magnitude of $`\frac{\alpha _{xy}}{\alpha _{xx}}`$ is five times larger than $`\frac{\sigma _{xy}}{\sigma _{xx}}`$. Below 27K, the two angles begin to gradually converge to a comparable negative magnitude. Now, $`\overline{\alpha }\frac{\overline{\sigma }}{ϵ}|_{ϵ=E_f}`$, for each band. Therefore, the contrasting behavior observed here indicates that the energy dependence of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ and $`\sigma _{xx}`$ is substantially different on various bands.

These results provide fresh input for the ongoing effort to identify the driving mechanism of the CDW instability in NbSe2. Surprisingly, even the recent high-resolution ARPES study which successfully probed the anisotropy of the superconducting gapyokoya  failed to detect a CDW gap. Moreover, the slightly incommensurate CDW vector, revealed by neutron scattering moncton , can not be associated in any obvious way with a nesting vector of the known FS straub ; rossnagel . The observation of a FS in good agreement with the theoretically-predicted one as well as the absence of any detectable gap indicates that the CDW transition is not accompanied by any substantial modification of the Fermi surfacerossnagel . The temperature dependence of specific heat close to the CDW instabilityharper  confirms that the change in the density of states is small. The above-mentioned behavior of $`\sigma (T)`$ and $`\kappa (T)`$ point to the same conclusion.

But, if the CDW transition leaves the FS almost intact, how to account for the spectacular sign change of the Hall coefficient? One plausible scenario would be a drastic change in electronic mean-free-path induced by the transition. To illustrate the point, let us use Ong’s geometrical picture of two-dimensional Hall conductivityong . In a metal with a hole-like and an-electron FS with circular cross-sections, one can write:

$`R_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi d(\mathrm{}_+^2\mathrm{}_{}^2)}{e[(k_F^+\mathrm{}_+)^2+(k_F^{}\mathrm{}_{})^2]}}`$ (4)
where k$`{}_{F}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{}_\pm `$ are Fermi vector and mean-free-path for electrons and holes. Here, the latter is assumed to be isotropic for each band (the “isotropic-l” approximation). A drastic increase in $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ below TCDW leads to a change of sign of RH without any modification in the FS. The case for an unusually high mean-free-path for the electron-like orbit is supported by another piece of experimental evidence which is the contrasting effect of the impurities on $`\rho _{xy}`$ and $`\rho _{xx}`$. Improvement in sample quality leads to a small decrease of residual resistivity, but a much larger enhancement of the negative Hall signal at low temperatureshuntley ; jing .

The emergence of sublinearity in the field dependence of the Nernst coefficient can also be explained in this scenario. \[A similar sublinearity is reported for the Hall coefficient in clean sampleshuntley . We did not check the field-dependence of the Hall coefficient in our study.\] It indicates a negative coefficient for the H3 term in the Zener-Jones expansion and can be related to a small electron-like portion of the FS with a long mean free pathmackenzie .

Thus, it is tempting to conclude that the CDW transition is accompanied with a sharp change in the scattering rate on an electron-like orbit. We note that a drastic change in scattering rate is naturally expected in the model proposed by Rice and Scott in which the existence of saddle points close to the Fermi surface drives the formation of the CDWrice . While these saddle points have been detected by ARPES measurements, their separation in the k-space does not correspond to the CDW vectorstraub ; rossnagel . It would be interesting to explore the consequences of this scenario for the thermoelectric coefficients.

This study presents an example of various possible origins for a large sublinear Nernst signal in a metal. It provides an interesting information for the debate on the origin of the Nernst signal observed in cuprates. We recall that in electron-doped cuprates, the quasi-particle contribution to the Nernst signal is large and field-linear and can be easily distinguished from the vortex contribution. The large magnitude of the latter (the signal attains a maximum of 0.1-0.2 $`\mu V/KT`$, close to the value found here for NbSe2), has been attributed to the existence of a two-band FSfournier ; gollnik . In the hole-doped cuprates, a smaller sublinear Nernst signal is present in temperatures well above Tc and can not be distinguished from the vortex signalxu ; wang1 ; wang2 ; capan . While strong superconducting fluctuations would provide a natural explanation for this signal, one should not disregard alternative scenarios connected with subtle changes in the electronic properties of the normal state.

In conclusion, we found that the ambipolar flow of quasi-particles large quasi-particle leads to a large contribution to Nernst coefficient in NbSe2. The behavior of the off-diagonal components of two conductivity tensors indicate a drastic change in electron scattering induced by the CDW transition.

We thank T. H. Geballe for fruitful discussions and H. Richter for technical assistance.


format: text

text:
# Using bright ellipticals as dark energy cosmic clocks

## 1 Introduction

The discovery that the evolution of the Universe may be dominated by an effective cosmological constant is one of the most remarkable findings of recent years. An exceptional opportunity is now opening up to decipher the nature of dark energy, to test the veracity of theories and to reconstruct the dark energy’s profile using a wide variety of observations over a broad redshift range.

One energy candidate that could possibly explain the observations is a dynamical scalar “quintessence” field. In many cases these models alleviate the fine-tuning and coincidence problems carried by a cosmological constant (Zlatev et al. 1999). The most relevant observational evidence for quintessence is that its equation of state parameter, $`w_Q=p_Q/\rho _Q`$ can assume values different from $`1`$, which is the expected value in the case of a cosmological constant. Moreover, since very little is known currently about the nature of dark energy, an interaction (aside from gravity) of quintessence with the remaining forms of matter could be expected as well (e.g. Wetterich 1995).

Other deviations from a cosmological constant can be considered as, for example, a sound speed different from light or perturbations in the dark energy fluid. However these aspects of quintessence affect mainly the growth of perturbations and their detectability is therefore subjected to the assumption of a model of structure formation. In this work we will be most interested in the effect that dark energy causes on the background evolution. In particular, we show that an accurate determination of the age of the Universe can be used to obtain important and independent information on the dark energy component.

Discrepancies between age determinations have long plagued cosmology. The situation has changed drastically in recent years: Type Ia supernova measurements (Perlmutter et al. 1999; Riess et al. 1998), the acoustic peaks in the CMB anisotropies (Netterfield et al. 2001), cosmochronology of long-lived radioactive nuclei in old Population II stars (Cayrel et al. 2001), just to name a few, are all consistent with an age $`t_0=14\pm 1`$ Gyr. Furthermore, the recent age determination of the oldest white dwarf in the globular cluster M4 by the Hubble Space Telescope, with $`t_{wd}=12.0\pm 0.7`$ at $`95\%`$ c.l. (Hansen et al. 2002), can be used to put the strongest lower limit to date on the age of the Universe.

It is therefore timely to investigate if the new age determinations can be used to produce new constraints on dark energy. These results could also prove very useful in breaking some of the degeneracies that arise in cosmological parameter estimations from other observational sources (e.g. Bean & Melchiorri 2002; Maor et al. 2002).

Recently, Krauss & Chaboyer (2001), have provided constraints on $`w_Q`$ by using new globular cluster age estimates. Our analysis will differ in two new fundamental aspects: first we will use age estimates based on old stellar populations at moderate redshift. As in (Ferreras, Melchiorri & Silk 2001) we will provide estimates on the age of the Universe via a comparison of population synthesis models with the photometry of the oldest stellar populations in bright cluster ellipticals. Second, following the parametrization of Dalal et al. (2001) we will also investigate the possibility of an interaction besides gravity between dark energy and dark matter.

## 2 Models of Dark Energy and the age of the Universe.

In the literature one can find many proposals of scalar field dark energy models, differing by the choices of the self-interacting potentials (e.g. Sahni 2002), resulting in equations of state that in general depend on time. On the other hand, the age of the Universe is most influenced by the relatively late evolution history. This enables us to simplify the problem by assuming a constant equation of state for the dark energy. A parameter determination through a likelihood analysis would very probably have a few chances of detecting a relatively smooth variation of the equation of state. This line of reasoning is very similar to the one usually expressed in many studies of constraint from SN-Ia (Maor et al. 2002).

In fact, as our results will show, the SNe parameter degeneracy is significantly similar to our case. Thus our work in a way offers an independent check of those findings. This has its own relevance due to the intense debate on whether all the important systematic errors have been taken into account in SNe data reports. In what follows the sub-indices $`Q`$, $`C`$ and $`B`$ indicate respectively the contributions from dark energy-quintessence, cold dark matter (CDM) and baryons. The collective CDM and baryonic contribute will be represented by the label $`M`$. We will adopt a quite general phenomenological model in which the ratio of the dark energy and dark matter densities scale as a power law:

$$\rho _Q\rho _Ca^\xi ,$$
(1)
with $`\xi `$ kept constant (as in Dalal et al. 2001). It should be noted that this assumption generally involves an interaction besides gravity. The dark energy equation of state, $`w_Q=p_Q/\rho _Q`$, is held fixed as stated above. Three interesting cases deserve particular attention. Putting $`\xi =3`$ and $`w_Q=1`$ gives the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. The condition $`\xi =3w_Q`$ corresponds to decoupled quintessence. Furthermore the choice $`\xi =0`$ implies models that may explain the coincidence problem through an identical scaling of the two energy densities (e.g. Tocchini-Valentini & Amendola 2002, Amendola & Tocchini-Valentini 2001). The baryons are assumed coupled only through gravity to the rest of the world.

To perform a comparison with the data we will need an expression of the age of the Universe for this class of models. This is given by:

$$t_0=9.8\mathrm{Gyr}h^1_0^1\frac{da}{a}\frac{1}{\sqrt{f(a)}}.$$
(2)
If $`\xi 0`$ then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f(a)& =& (\mathrm{\Omega }_C+\mathrm{\Omega }_Q)a^3\left[1\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_Q}{\mathrm{\Omega }_C+\mathrm{\Omega }_Q}(1a^\xi )\right]^{3w_Q/\xi }+\hfill \\ & & +\mathrm{\Omega }_Ba^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_C\mathrm{\Omega }_Q\mathrm{\Omega }_B)a^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
While when $`\xi =0`$ we have that

$$f(a)=(\mathrm{\Omega }_C+\mathrm{\Omega }_Q)a^\beta +\mathrm{\Omega }_Ba^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_C\mathrm{\Omega }_Q\mathrm{\Omega }_B)a^2$$
(4)
where

$$\beta =3\left(1+w_Q\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_Q}{\mathrm{\Omega }_C+\mathrm{\Omega }_Q}\right).$$
(5)
The inclusion of baryons is important since their contribution may become significant not too far in the past history of the Universe and their exclusion may overestimate the age of the Universe by more than $`10\%`$ relative to the complete case, especially for highly negative values of $`w_Q`$.

In the decoupled case it has been shown that values of the equation of state such that $`w_Q<1`$ are not completely excluded by observations (Melchiorri et al 2002, Schuecker et al. 2002). Therefore in our analysis we will consider the interval $`3<w_Q<0`$. The limitations $`0<\xi <9`$ will be imposed on the parameter $`\xi `$. To reduce the number of free parameters we consider a flat Universe. For models of coupled quintessence we fix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ for the density of CDM and baryons altogether, and we also fix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.04`$ for baryons.

## 3 Using bright ellipticals as dark energy cosmic clocks

The use of bright cluster ellipticals over a wide range of redshifts allow us to set contraints on the age of the Universe. In the volume spanned by the various cosmological parameters involved, these constraints go roughly “in the same direction” as the constraints from high redshift SNe data — which depend on the luminosity distance, and thus provide an independent method to explore the allowed values of the parameters. Ferreras et al. (2001) used this approach to determine the age of the Universe and showed that the results were consistent with estimates using other observations such as high redshift SNIa (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999), age dating of globular clusters (Salaris & Weiss 1998; Pont et al. 1998; Carretta et al. 2000) or nucleocosmochronology of old halo stars (Cayrel et al. 2001).

Figure 1 shows the methodology of this approach. The colours of the first few brightest ellipticals from clusters at moderate redshift is compared with the predictions of the population synthesis models of Bruzual & Charlot (1993) for a range of ages and metallicities. The latest available version of these models have been used. The shaded area represents the colours for the metallicity range $`0<Z_{}<+0.4`$ dex, as expected in the central regions of bright ellipticals (Henry & Worthey 1999). The dashed lines in each panel correspond to the observed colours of the brightest ellipticals in clusters: CL 1358+62 ($`z=0.33`$; Van Dokkum et al. 1998); MS 1054+03 ($`z=0.83`$; Van Dokkum et al. 2000), and J0848+4453 ($`z=1.27`$; Van Dokkum & Stanford 2002). The arrows give the allowed age of the Universe at the redshift of the cluster for the metallicity range expected in bright early-type galaxies. The upper limit can be used to constrain the allowed values of the parameters $`w_Q`$ and $`\xi `$. Figure 2 shows the constraint imposed by the upper limit expected for the three clusters shown in the previous figure. Some of the cosmological parameters have been fixed, namely: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=1\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, $`H_0=72`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.04`$. The allowed region stays to the right of the shaded line for each of the three clusters. As reference, a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology corresponds to $`(w_Q,\xi )=(1,3)`$. A formation redshift of $`z_F\stackrel{>}{}2`$ is assumed, an arguably late epoch for the formation of massive elliptical galaxies given the redshift evolution of the colour-magnitude relation (e.g. Stanford, Eisenhardt & Dickinson 1998). Earlier formation epochs are possible and will further constrain the region of parameter space to the right of the figure.

A more comprehensive analysis was performed using the complete sample of 17 clusters from Stanford et al. (1998) over the redshift range $`0.3<z<0.9`$. This sample was extracted from a larger sample of $`46`$ clusters drawn from a variety of optical, X-ray and radio-selected clusters. The morphological classification was done from high resolution images taken by the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 on board the Hubble Space Telescope. We selected the three brightest early-type galaxies for each cluster, and used the published photometry in NIR passbands $`J`$, $`H`$ and $`K`$, as well as on two optical filters which straddle the 4000Å break. Along similar lines as the method shown above, we compare the photometry with the predictions of the latest population synthesis models of Bruzual & Charlot (1993). Furthermore, the stellar populations in these bright galaxies are assumed to evolve into those observed in bright ellipticals in local clusters such as Coma or Virgo. Hence, a further constraint is imposed comparing the $`UV`$ colour when the galaxy is evolved to zero redshift.

The models are run assuming a flat cosmology. The dark energy parameters are explored over a large range: $`3<w_Q<0`$; and either $`0<\xi <9`$ or $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_M<1`$ for coupled and uncoupled models, respectively. The former assume fixed values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.04`$. Uncoupled models are obviously independent of the baryon density. We assume a wide range of formation redshifts: $`2<z_F<10`$ and stellar metallicities: $`0.1<Z_{}+0.3`$. A Salpeter (1955) initial mass function (IMF) was used, although the results – which are purely constrained by galaxy colour, not absolute luminosity – are rather insensitive to the choice of IMF.

## 4 Discussion

The results of our analysis are reported in figures 3 and 4. For each theoretical model we compare the ages obtained through equation 2 with the observational data. Likelihood contours at the $`68\%`$ (solid), and $`95\%`$ (dashed) confidence levels are shown in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mw_Q`$ (uncoupled, Fig. 3) and $`\xi w_Q`$ (coupled, Fig. 4) planes. Since the results depend also on $`2`$ extra parameters involving the stellar populations, namely the metallicity ($`Z_{}`$) and the formation redshift ($`z_F`$) we have investigated different possible values for these two parameters. In all the plots we have assumed a gaussian distributed prior on the Hubble parameter $`h_0=0.72\pm 0.08`$ as indicated by the Hubble Space Telescope Key project (Freedman et al. 2001). In Fig. 3 we report the results of our analysis assuming uncoupled dark energy models and for different choices of $`Z_{}`$ and $`z_F`$. As we can see from the plots a degeneracy is present in the tradeoff between $`w_Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ (higher values of $`|w_Q|`$ are consistent with a higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$) and no strong independent constraint can be obtained on these parameters. Furthermore, there is a strong and similar dependence on formation redshift and metallicity. Namely, an increase in $`z_F`$ or $`Z_{}`$ shifts the likelihood contours towards higher values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$. A model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$ and $`w_Q=0`$, for example, is excluded at high significance when “reasonable” values of $`z_F=2`$ and $`Z_{}=Z_{}`$ are assumed, while an increase in formation redshift or metallicity pushes this model back to the $`68\%`$ confidence level. On the other hand, a low value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ can be used as a way to revert the argument: if we assume a “concordance” model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and $`w_Q=1`$, then high values of the formation redshift and the metallicity of the stellar populations in bright cluster ellipticals are disfavoured. Marginalizing over $`z_F`$ and $`Z_{}`$ gives the upper limits $`w_Q<0.35`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M<0.66`$ at $`68\%`$ C.L.. These limits even if less stringent are in good agreement with those obtained from observations of luminosity distances of type Ia supernovae.

In figure 4 we plot the contours in the $`\xi w_Q`$ planes fixing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$. The thick diagonal line represents uncoupled models. The figure shows that even if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ is kept fixed, no strong limit on $`w_Q`$ can be placed. We cannot disentangle the degeneracy between $`w_Q`$ and $`\xi `$ if low metallicities ($`Z_{}Z_{}`$) or late formation epochs ($`z_F2`$) are assumed. However, coupled models ($`\xi 3w_Q`$) are not favoured in our analysis, unless one is willing to have high $`z_F`$ and $`Z_{}`$. We should emphasize that $`z_F`$ is treated as a free parameter that determines the ages of the stellar populations. Structure formation studies for the models explored in this paper would provide further constraints on the allowed region of parameter space. Nevertheless, the models with $`Z_{}=1.4Z_{}`$ are disfavoured in the light of the results from high redshift SNIa (Dalal et al. 2001) which rule out models with $`w_Q>0.5`$ regardless of $`\xi `$ at the $`99\%`$ C.L. Even models with $`Z_{}=1.2Z_{}`$ would be hard to reconcile with the SNIa data if the formation redshift is too high.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the fact that an accurate estimate of the metallicity along with a combined analysis with high redshift SNIa would pose strong constraints on dark energy parameters. High metallicities in massive ellipticals are expected if we assume a scenario with a highly efficient star formation in which most of the ejecta from stars is recycled back into subsequent generations of stars. Wind models for elliptical galaxy formation support a mass-metallicity relation which is caused by the potential well of the galaxy which prevents significant gas outflows in massive galaxies thereby achieving high metallicities (Larson 1974; but see Silk 2003). Massive elliptical galaxies such as those targeted in this study should have solar or even supersolar average metallicities. However, the current data does not allow us to set a stringent constraint on $`Z_{}`$. Hence, in addition to advancing our knowledge of galaxy formation and evolution, accurate measurements of stellar metallicities in galaxies at moderate and high redshift will have a very significant impact on estimates of the cosmological parameters.

The likelihood regions shown in the figure are in good agreement and/or consistent with those obtained by the analysis of high redshift SNIa (Dalal et al. 2001) for most of the models explored in this paper. Furthermore, our decoupled models (figure 3) agree well with the estimates from globular cluster ages (Krauss & Chaboyer 2001). Hence, the study of the colours of the stellar populations in moderate redshift elliptical galaxies deserves a place of its own as an estimator of cosmological parameters.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Rachel Bean, Licia Verde and Joe Silk for useful comments. AM is supported by PPARC, DT-V is funded by a Scatcherd Scholarship.


text:
# 1 Formes linéaires stables

## 1 Formes linéaires stables

1.1. Dans la suite, $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ est un corps commutatif algébriquement clos de caractéristique nulle. Les algèbres de Lie considérées sont définies et de dimension finie sur $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$. Si $`V`$ est un $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$-espace vectoriel de dimension finie, on le munit de la topologie de Zariski. Si $`G`$ est un groupe algébrique, on note $`(G)`$ son algèbre de Lie. On renvoie à  et  pour les concepts généraux utilisés.

1.2. Soient $`𝔤`$ une algèbre de Lie, $`𝔤^{}`$ son dual. Si $`𝔞`$ est un sous-espace vectoriel de $`𝔤`$, on note $`𝔞^{}`$ son orthogonal dans $`𝔤^{}`$.

On fait opérer $`𝔤`$ dans $`𝔤^{}`$ au moyen de la représentation coadjointe. Ainsi, si $`x,y𝔤`$ et $`f𝔤^{}`$, on a :

$$(x.f)(y)=f([y,x]).$$

Avec les notations précédentes, on définit une forme bilinéaire alternée $`\mathrm{\Phi }_f`$ sur $`𝔤`$ en posant :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_f(x,y)=f([x,y]).$$

Le noyau de $`\mathrm{\Phi }_f`$ est noté $`𝔤^f`$. On a :

$$\left(𝔤^f\right)^{}=𝔤.f,[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}=\{g𝔤^{};𝔤^f𝔤^g\}.$$

L’entier $`\chi (𝔤)=inf\{dim𝔤^f;f𝔤^{}\}`$ est appelé l’indice de $`𝔤`$. On dit que $`f`$ est régulier si $`dim𝔤^f=\chi (𝔤)`$. L’ensemble $`𝔤_r^{}`$ des éléments réguliers de $`𝔤^{}`$ est un ouvert non vide de $`𝔤^{}`$.

1.3. Soient $`Aut𝔤`$ le groupe des automorphismes de $`𝔤`$ et $`K`$ un sous-groupe algébrique de $`Aut𝔤`$, d’algèbre de Lie $`𝔨`$. Le groupe $`K`$ opère rationellement sur $`𝔤`$ et $`𝔤^{}`$. Pour $`\alpha K`$, $`f𝔤^{}`$ et $`x𝔤`$, on a $`(\alpha .f)(x)=f\left(\alpha ^1(x)\right)`$. La différentielle de cette opération définit une action de $`𝔨`$ sur $`𝔤^{}`$ ; si $`X𝔨`$, on a $`(X.f)(x)=f\left(X(x)\right)`$. On pose :

$$𝔨_f=\{X𝔨;X.f=0\},𝔨^{(f)}=\{x𝔤;(𝔨.f)(x)=\{0\}\}.$$

On a ainsi $`(𝔨^{(f)})^{}=𝔨.f`$. Si $`K`$ contient le groupe adjoint algébrique de $`𝔤`$, alors $`ad_𝔤𝔤𝔨`$, donc $`𝔨^{(f)}𝔤^f`$.

La forme bilinéaire $`(X,x)f\left(X(x)\right)`$ sur $`𝔨\times 𝔤`$ induit une forme bilinéaire non dégénérée sur $`(𝔨/𝔨_f)\times (𝔤/𝔨^{(f)})`$. Par suite :

$$dim𝔨dim𝔨_f=dim𝔤dim𝔨^{(f)}.$$

Définition. On dit que $`f𝔤^{}`$ est $`K`$-stable s’il existe un voisinage $`V`$ de $`f`$ dans $`𝔤^{}`$ tel que, pour tout $`gV`$, $`𝔤^g`$ et $`𝔤^f`$ soient $`K`$-conjugués. Si $`K`$ est le groupe adjoint algébrique de $`𝔤`$ (resp. si $`K=Aut𝔤`$), une forme linéaire $`K`$-stable est dite stable (resp. faiblement stable).

1.4. Lemme. Soit $`f𝔤^{}`$. On suppose que $`K`$ est connexe et que le morphisme

$$\psi :K\times [𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}𝔤^{},(\alpha ,h)\alpha (h)$$

est dominant. Alors :

(i) $`f𝔤_r^{}`$.

(ii) Soit $`W=[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}𝔤_r^{}`$. La restriction de $`\psi `$ à $`K\times W`$ est une application ouverte.

Preuve. D’après (, corollaire, p. 109), l’image de $`\psi `$ contient un ouvert non vide de $`𝔤^{}`$ donc un élément $`g𝔤_r^{}`$. Si $`\alpha K`$ et $`h[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}`$ vérifient $`g=\alpha (h)`$, il vient $`\alpha \left(𝔤^f\right)\alpha \left(𝔤^h\right)=𝔤^g`$. D’où $`f𝔤_r^{}`$.

(ii) Soit $`\phi :K\times W𝔤^{}`$ le morphisme induit par $`\psi `$. D’après (i), $`W`$ est un ouvert non vide de $`[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}`$, donc $`\phi `$ est dominant.

Soient $`N`$ le normalisateur de $`𝔤^f`$ dans $`K`$, $`\alpha K`$, et $`gW`$. On va déterminer la fibre $`S=\phi ^1\left(\phi (\alpha ,g)\right)`$.

Soient $`\beta K`$ et $`hW`$ vérifiant $`\beta (h)=\alpha (g)`$, donc $`h=\beta ^1\alpha (g)`$. Comme $`𝔤^h=𝔤^g=𝔤^f`$, il vient $`\beta ^1\alpha N`$, soit $`\beta \alpha N`$. Il est alors immédiat que $`S=\{(\alpha \gamma ,\gamma ^1(g));\gamma N\}`$.

Or, $`S`$ est le graphe du morphisme $`\alpha N𝔤^{}`$, $`\gamma \gamma ^1\alpha (g)`$, donc est isomorphe à $`N`$. Comme $`N`$ est une variété pure, il résulte de (, corollaire 1, p. 113, et proposition 7, p. 141) que $`\phi `$ est une application ouverte.

1.5. Lemme. Soient $`K^{}`$ la composante neutre de $`K`$ et $`f𝔤^{}`$. Les conditions suivantes sont équivalentes :

(i) $`f`$ est $`K^{}`$-stable.

(ii) $`f`$ est $`K`$-stable.

Si ces conditions sont vérifiées, on a $`f𝔤_r^{}`$.

Preuve. (i) $``$ (ii) C’est clair.

(ii) $``$ (i) Soit $`U`$ un voisinage ouvert de $`f`$ dans $`𝔤^{}`$ tels que $`𝔤^h`$ et $`𝔤^f`$ soient $`K`$-conjugués pour tout $`hU`$. On a $`U𝔤_r^{}\mathrm{}`$, donc $`f𝔤_r^{}`$. Il en résulte que $`W=[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}𝔤_r^{}`$ est un ouvert non vide $`[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}`$ ; c’est l’ensemble des $`h𝔤^{}`$ qui vérifient $`𝔤^h=𝔤^f`$.

Si $`gU`$, il existe $`\alpha K`$ tel que $`𝔤^g=\alpha \left(𝔤^f\right)`$, donc $`𝔤^{\alpha ^1(g)}=𝔤^f`$, puis $`g\alpha (W)`$. Définissons le morphisme $`\psi :K\times W𝔤^{}`$, $`(\alpha ,h)\alpha (h)`$. Ce qui précède montre que l’image $`T`$ de $`\psi `$ contient $`U`$.

Notons $`K_0=K^{},K_1=\alpha _1K^{},\mathrm{},K_r=\alpha _rK^{}`$ les composantes irréductibles deux à deux distinctes de $`K`$, avec $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _rK`$. Posons $`S_i=K_i\times W`$ et $`T_i=\psi (S_i)`$. De $`UT_0\mathrm{}T_r`$, on déduit $`𝔤^{}=\overline{T_0}\mathrm{}\overline{T_r}`$. L’espace $`𝔤^{}`$ étant irréductible, il existe un indice $`i`$ tel que $`𝔤^{}=\overline{T_i}=\overline{\alpha _i(T_0)}=\alpha _i(\overline{T_0})`$. Par suite $`\overline{T_0}=𝔤^{}`$, et le morphisme $`\phi :K^{}\times W𝔤^{}`$ est dominant. D’après 1.4, $`\phi `$ est une application ouverte. Alors $`T_0`$ est un voisinage ouvert de $`f`$ dans $`𝔤^{}`$ et, pour $`gT_0`$, $`𝔤^g`$ et $`𝔤^f`$ sont $`K^{}`$-conjugués.

1.6. Si $`\phi :XY`$ est un morphisme de variétés, et si $`xX`$, on note $`d\phi _x`$ la différentielle de $`\phi `$ au point $`x`$ et $`T_x(X)`$ l’espace tangent de $`X`$ en $`x`$.

Lemme. Soient $`H`$ un groupe algébrique, $`𝔥`$ son algèbre de Lie, et $`\pi `$ une représentation rationnelle de $`H`$ dans un espace vectoriel $`V`$ de dimension finie. On définit un morphisme de variétés :

$$\theta :H\times VV,(\beta ,w)\pi (\beta )(w).$$

(i) Si $`(\alpha ,v)H\times V`$ et $`(x,w)T_\alpha (H)\times V`$, on a :

$$d\theta _{(\alpha ,v)}(x,w)=d\pi _\alpha (x)(v)+\pi (\alpha )(w).$$

(ii) Soit $`e`$ l’élément neutre de $`H`$. Pour tout $`(\alpha ,v)H\times V`$, les applications linéaires $`d\theta _{(\alpha ,v)}`$ et $`d\theta _{(e,v)}`$ ont même rang.

Preuve. (i) Définissons des morphismes

$$p:HH\times V,\beta (\beta ,v)\mathrm{et}q:VH\times V,w(\alpha ,w).$$

De $`\theta p(\beta )=\pi (\beta )(v)`$ et $`\theta q(w)=\pi (\alpha )(w)`$, on déduit :

$$d(\theta p)_\alpha (x)=d\pi _\alpha (x)(v),d(\theta q)_v(w)=\pi (\alpha )(w).$$

D’autre part, on a $`dp_\alpha (x)=(x,0)`$ et $`dq_v(w)=(0,w)`$. Alors :

$$\begin{array}{c}d\pi _\alpha (x)(v)=d(\theta p)_\alpha (x)=d\theta _{(\alpha ,v)}dp_\alpha (x)=d\theta _{(\alpha ,v)}(x,0),\\ \pi (\alpha )(w)=d(\theta q)_v(w)=d\theta _{(\alpha ,v)}dq_\alpha (w)=d\theta _{(\alpha ,v)}(0,w).\end{array}$$

Comme $`d\theta _{(\alpha ,v)}(x,w)=d\theta _{(\alpha ,v)}(x,0)+d\theta _{(\alpha ,v)}(0,w)`$, on a obtenu le résultat.

(ii) Fixons $`\alpha H`$, et considérons les isomorphismes de variétés :

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma :H\times VH\times V,(\beta ,w)(\alpha \beta ,w),\\ \rho :VV,w\pi (\alpha )(w).\end{array}$$

On a $`\theta \sigma =\rho \theta `$. Si $`vV`$, il vient donc $`d(\theta \sigma )_{(e,v)}=d(\rho \theta )_{(e,v)}`$, c’est-à-dire $`d\theta _{(\alpha ,v)}d\sigma _{(e,v)}=\pi (\alpha )d\theta _{(e,v)}`$. D’où l’assertion.

1.7. Théorème. Soient $`𝔤`$ une algèbre de Lie, $`f𝔤^{}`$, $`K`$ un sous-groupe algébrique de $`Aut𝔤`$, et $`𝔨`$ l’algèbre de Lie de $`K`$. Les conditions suivantes sont équivalentes :

(i) $`[𝔤,𝔤^f]𝔨^{(f)}=\{0\}`$.

(ii) La forme linéaire $`f`$ est $`K`$-stable.

Preuve. On peut supposer que $`K`$ est connexe (c’est clair pour (i) $``$ (ii) et, pour (ii) $``$ (i), cela résulte de 1.5). On note $`e`$ l’élément neutre de $`K`$.

(i) $``$ (ii) On note $`\psi :K\times [𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}𝔤^{}`$ le morphisme $`(\alpha ,h)\alpha .h`$. Soient $`X𝔨`$ et $`h[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}`$. D’après 1.6, il vient :

$$d\psi _{(e,f)}(X,h)=h+X.f.$$

L’image de $`d\psi _{(e,f)}`$ est donc $`[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}+𝔨.f`$, c’est-à-dire $`𝔤^{}`$ d’après l’hypothèse. On sait alors que $`\psi `$ est dominant. Soit $`W=[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}𝔤_r^{}`$. D’après 1.4, $`\psi (K\times W)`$ est un ouvert de $`𝔤^{}`$ contenant $`f`$ et, si $`g\psi (K\times W)`$, $`𝔤^f`$ et $`𝔤^g`$ sont $`K`$-conjugués.

(ii) $``$ (i) On a $`f𝔤_r^{}`$ (1.5), donc $`W=[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}𝔤_r^{}`$ est un ouvert non vide de $`[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}`$ ; c’est l’ensemble des $`h𝔤^{}`$ tels que $`𝔤^h=𝔤^f`$.

Soit $`\phi :K\times W𝔤^{}`$ le morphisme $`(\alpha ,h)\alpha .h`$. Comme on l’a déjà dit, $`\phi (K\times W)`$ est l’ensemble des $`h𝔤^{}`$ tels que $`𝔤^h`$ et $`𝔤^f`$ soient $`K`$-conjugués.

Pour $`gW`$ et $`(X,h)𝔨\times [𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}`$, il vient :

$$d\phi _{(e,g)}(X,h)=h+X.g.$$

L’image $`T_g`$ de $`d\phi _{(e,g)}`$ est donc $`[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}+𝔨.g`$.

Notons $`𝔫`$ le normalisateur de $`𝔤^f`$ dans $`𝔨`$. On a :

$$(X.g)([𝔤,𝔤^f])=g\left([X(𝔤),𝔤^f]\right)+g\left([𝔤,X(𝔤^f)]\right)=g\left([𝔤,X(𝔤^f)]\right).$$

Comme $`𝔤^g=𝔤^f`$, on en déduit que $`X.g[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}`$ si et seulement si $`X𝔫`$. D’où :

$$dim(𝔨.g[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{})=dim𝔫.g.$$

D’autre part, si $`X𝔨_g`$, on a $`X𝔫`$, car $`X.g=0`$. D’où :

$$dim𝔫.g=dim𝔫dim𝔨_g=dim𝔫dim𝔨+dim𝔨.g.$$

On déduit de tout ceci que :

$$dimT_g=dim𝔨dim𝔫+dim([𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}).$$

En particulier, $`dimT_g`$ ne dépend pas de $`g`$. Il résulte alors de 1.6 que, si $`T_{(\alpha ,g)}`$ est l’image de $`d\phi _{(\alpha ,g)}`$, $`dimT_{(\alpha ,g)}`$ ne dépend ni de $`\alpha `$, ni de $`g`$. Or, d’après les hypothèses, $`\phi `$ est dominant, donc il existe $`(\alpha ,g)K\times W`$ tel que $`T_{(\alpha ,g)}=𝔤^{}`$. On a alors $`T_{(e,f)}=𝔤^{}`$, soit $`[𝔤,𝔤^f]^{}+𝔨.f=𝔤^{}`$. Par suite, $`[𝔤,𝔤^f]𝔨^{(f)}=\{0\}`$.

1.8. Corollaire. Soit $`f𝔤^{}`$.

(i) Si $`𝔤`$ est $`ad`$-algébrique, $`f`$ est stable si et seulement si $`[𝔤,𝔤^f]𝔤^f=\{0\}`$.

(ii) Si $`[𝔤,𝔤^f]𝔤^f=\{0\}`$, $`f`$ est $`K`$-stable pour tout sous-groupe algébrique de $`Aut𝔤`$ vérifiant $`ad_𝔤𝔤(K)`$, donc en particulier si $`K`$ contient le groupe adjoint algébrique de $`𝔤`$.

Remarque. Le résultat de 1.7 est établi dans . On n’a cependant utilisé ici que des méthodes purement algébriques.

## 2 Sous-algèbres de Borel

2.1. Dans toute cette section, $`𝔤`$ est une algèbre de Lie semi-simple, $`G`$ son groupe adjoint, $`L`$ sa forme de Killing, $`𝔥`$ une sous-algèbre de Cartan de $`𝔤`$, et $`R`$ le système de racines du couple $`(𝔤,𝔥)`$. Si $`\alpha R`$, $`𝔤^\alpha `$ est le sous-espace radiciel de $`𝔤`$ associé à $`\alpha `$. On fixe une base $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ de $`R`$, et on note $`R_+`$ (resp. $`R_{}`$) l’ensemble des racines positives (resp. négatives) correspondant. On pose :

$$𝔫=\underset{\alpha R_+}{}𝔤^\alpha ,𝔟=𝔥𝔫.$$

Soient $`\alpha ,\beta R`$. On fixe $`X_\alpha 𝔤^\alpha \backslash \{0\}`$, et on note $`H_\alpha `$ l’unique élément de $`[𝔤^\alpha ,𝔤^\alpha ]`$ tel que $`\alpha (H_\alpha )=2`$. On a $`\beta (H_\alpha )`$. Si $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$, on écrit $`\lambda ,\alpha ^{}`$ pour $`\lambda (H_\alpha )`$.

Pour toute partie $`S`$ de $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, on note $`S`$ (resp. $`S`$) l’ensemble des combinaisons linéaires a coefficients entiers (resp. à coefficients entiers positifs ou nuls) des éléments de $`S`$. On pose :

$$R^S=RS,R_+^S=RS=R_+R^S.$$

L’ensemble $`R^S`$ est un système de racines dans le sous-espace de $`𝔥^{}`$ qu’il engendre, $`S`$ est une base de $`R^S`$, et $`R_+^S`$ est l’ensemble des racines positives correspondant. Si $`S`$ est une partie connexe de $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, le système de racines $`R^S`$ est irréductible, et on note $`\epsilon _S`$ la plus grande racine de $`R^S`$.

Supposons $`S`$ connexe. Pour toute racine $`\alpha R_+^S\backslash \{\epsilon _S\}`$, on a $`\alpha ,\epsilon _S^{}\{0,1\}`$. Si $`T`$ est l’ensemble des éléments $`\alpha `$ de $`R^S`$ qui vérifient $`\alpha ,\epsilon _S^{}=0`$, on voit que $`T`$ est un système de racines dans le sous-espace de $`𝔥^{}`$ qu’il engendre, et que $`\{\alpha S;\alpha ,\epsilon _S^{}=0\}`$ est une base de $`T`$.

Si $`\alpha TR_+^S`$, on a $`\alpha +\epsilon _SR`$ et $`\alpha \epsilon _SR`$ (, proposition 9, p. 149). Ainsi, si $`\alpha \epsilon _S`$, les racines $`\alpha `$ et $`\epsilon _S`$ sont fortement orthogonales.

2.2. On va rappeler la construction et quelques propriétés d’un ensemble de racines deux à deux fortement orthogonales dans $`R`$ (voir  et ).

Soit $`S`$ une partie de $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Par récurrence sur le cardinal de $`S`$, on définit un sous-ensemble $`𝒦(S)`$ de l’ensemble des parties de $`S`$ de la manière suivante :

a) $`𝒦(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$.

b) Si $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_r`$ sont les composantes connexes de $`S`$, on a :

$$𝒦(S)=𝒦(S_1)\mathrm{}𝒦(S_r).$$

c) Si $`S`$ est connexe, alors :

$$𝒦(S)=\{S\}𝒦(\{\alpha S;\alpha ,\epsilon _S^{}=0\}).$$

On a le résultat suivant :

Lemme. (i) Tout $`K𝒦(S)`$ est une partie connexe de $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

(ii) Si $`K,K^{}𝒦(S)`$, alors ou $`KK^{}`$, ou $`K^{}K`$, ou $`K`$ et $`K^{}`$ sont des parties disjointes de $`S`$ telles que $`\alpha +\beta R`$ pour $`\alpha R^K`$ et $`\beta R^K^{}`$.

(iii) Si $`K`$ et $`K^{}`$ sont des éléments distincts de $`𝒦(S)`$, $`\epsilon _K`$ et $`\epsilon _K^{}`$ sont fortement orthogonales.

2.3. Conservons les notations précédentes. Dans la suite, on note $`𝒦`$ pour $`𝒦(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ et, si $`K𝒦`$, on pose :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^K=\{\alpha R^K;\alpha ,\epsilon _K^{}>0\},\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^K=\mathrm{\Gamma }^K\backslash \{\epsilon _K\},𝔞_K=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^K}{}𝔤^\alpha .$$

Lemme. Soient $`K,K^{}𝒦`$, $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }^K`$, et $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^K^{}`$.

(i) On a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^K=R_+^K\backslash \{\delta R_+^K;\delta ,\epsilon _K^{}=0\}`$.

(ii) L’ensemble $`R_+`$ est la réunion disjointe des $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{K^{\prime \prime }}`$ pour $`K^{\prime \prime }𝒦`$, et $`𝔞_{K^{\prime \prime }}`$ est une algèbre de Heisenberg, de centre $`𝔤^{\epsilon _{K^{\prime \prime }}}`$.

(iii) Si $`\alpha +\beta R`$, on a $`\alpha +\beta =\epsilon _K`$.

(iv) Si $`\alpha +\gamma R`$, alors ou $`KK^{}`$ et $`\alpha +\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^K^{}`$, ou $`K^{}K`$ et $`\alpha +\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^K`$.

2.4. Il est clair que le cardinal de $`𝒦(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ ne dépend que de $`𝔤`$, mais pas de $`𝔥`$ ou de $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. On note cet entier $`k_𝔤`$. On donne dans le tableau suivant la valeur de $`k_𝔤`$ pour les différents types d’algèbres de Lie simples. Si $`r`$ est un nombre rationnel, $`[r]`$ désigne sa partie entière.

|  | $`A_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}1`$ | $`B_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}2`$ | $`C_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}3`$ | $`D_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}4`$ | $`E_6`$ | $`E_7`$ | $`E_8`$ | $`F_4`$ | $`G_2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`k_𝔤`$ | $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}+1}{2}}\right]`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\right]`$ | $`4`$ | $`7`$ | $`8`$ | $`4`$ | $`2`$ |

2.5. Lemme. Soient $`x𝔟`$ et

$$u=\underset{K𝒦}{}X_{\epsilon _K}.$$

Les conditions suivantes sont équivalentes :

(i) $`x𝔥`$ et $`\epsilon _K(x)=0`$ pour tout $`K𝒦`$.

(ii) $`[x,u]𝔫`$.

Preuve. (i) $``$ (ii) Si (i) est vérifié, on a $`[x,u]=0`$.

(ii) $``$ (i) Ecrivons

$$x=h+\underset{\alpha R_+}{}a_\alpha X_\alpha ,$$

avec $`h𝔥`$ et $`a_\alpha \mathrm{𝕜}`$ pour $`\alpha R_+`$. On obtient

$$[x,u]\underset{K𝒦}{}a_{\epsilon _K}\lambda _KH_{\epsilon _K}+𝔫+𝔫_{},$$

$`\lambda _K\mathrm{𝕜}\backslash \{0\}`$ pour tout $`K𝒦`$. Les $`\epsilon _K`$ étant deux à deux fortement orthogonales, les $`H_{\epsilon _K}`$ sont linéairement indépendants. Par suite, $`a_{\epsilon _K}=0`$ pour tout $`K𝒦`$.

Soient $`K𝒦`$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_0^K`$, et $`\beta =\epsilon _K\alpha `$. Il vient

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [x,u]& =\lambda a_\alpha X_\beta +a_\alpha \underset{K^{}𝒦\backslash \{K\}}{}[X_\alpha ,X_{\epsilon _K^{}}]\hfill \\ & +\underset{K^{}𝒦,\gamma R_+\backslash \{\alpha \}}{}a_\gamma [X_\gamma ,X_{\epsilon _K^{}}]\underset{K^{}𝒦}{}\epsilon _K^{}(h)X_{\epsilon _K^{}},\hfill \end{array}$$

avec $`\lambda \mathrm{𝕜}\backslash \{0\}`$.

On a $`\beta \epsilon _K`$ et $`\beta \epsilon _K^{}`$ si $`KK^{}`$, car $`\beta ,\epsilon _K^{}=1`$ et $`\epsilon _K^{},\epsilon _K^{}=0`$ si $`KK^{}`$.

Supposons $`a_\alpha 0`$. Il existe nécessairement $`K^{}𝒦`$ et $`\gamma R_+\backslash \{\alpha \}`$ tels que $`\beta =\epsilon _K^{}\gamma `$.

On a $`K^{}K`$, car $`𝔞_K`$ est une algèbre de Heisenberg. Soit $`K^{\prime \prime }𝒦`$ tel que $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^{K^{\prime \prime }}`$. A nouveau, $`K^{\prime \prime }K`$. D’autre part, comme $`\beta +\gamma =\epsilon _K^{}R`$, on déduit que $`KK^{\prime \prime }`$, ou $`K^{\prime \prime }K`$ (2.3).

Supposons $`K^{\prime \prime }K`$. Les racines $`\epsilon _K^{}`$ et $`\gamma `$ sont fortement orthogonales à $`\epsilon _K`$. D’où :

$$1=\beta ,\epsilon _K^{}=\epsilon _K^{}\gamma ,\epsilon _K^{}=0.$$

Contradiction.

Supposons $`KK^{\prime \prime }`$. On a $`\gamma \epsilon _{K^{\prime \prime }}`$, car $`\epsilon _{K^{\prime \prime }}`$ est la plus grande racine de $`R^{K^{\prime \prime }}`$. Ainsi :

$$\gamma ,\epsilon _{K^{\prime \prime }}^{}=1,\beta ,\epsilon _{K^{\prime \prime }}^{}=0.$$

Par suite :

$$1=\gamma ,\epsilon _{K^{\prime \prime }}^{}=\beta +\gamma ,\epsilon _{K^{\prime \prime }}^{}=\epsilon _K^{},\epsilon _{K^{\prime \prime }}^{}\{0,2\}.$$

C’est absurde.

On a donc prouvé que $`a_\alpha =0`$ pour tout $`\alpha R_+`$. Il en résulte que $`x𝔥`$, et que :

$$[x,u]=\underset{K𝒦}{}\epsilon _K(h)X_{\epsilon _K}.$$

D’où le résultat.

2.6. Lemme. Soient $`𝔞`$ une sous-algèbre de Lie d’une algèbre de Lie semi-simple $`𝔤`$, et $`f𝔞^{}`$. On suppose que $`𝔞^f`$ est une algèbre de Lie commutative composée d’éléments semi-simples. Alors $`[𝔞,𝔞^f]𝔞^f=\{0\}`$.

Preuve. D’après les hypothèses, il existe un sous-espace vectoriel $`𝔯`$ de $`𝔞`$ vérifiant $`𝔞=𝔞^f𝔯`$ et $`[𝔞^f,𝔯]𝔯`$. On en déduit $`[𝔞,𝔞^f]𝔯`$. D’où l’assertion.

2.7. Théorème. Soient $`𝔤`$ une algèbre de Lie semi-simple, $`rg(𝔤)`$ son rang, $`k_𝔤`$ l’entier de 2.4, et $`𝔟`$ une sous-algèbre de Borel de $`𝔤`$.

(i) L’espace $`𝔟^{}`$ contient un élément stable.

(ii) L’indice de $`𝔟`$ est égal à $`rg(𝔤)k_𝔤`$.

Preuve. Si $`𝔞`$ est une sous-algèbre de Lie de $`𝔤`$, et si $`y𝔤`$, on définit une forme linéaire $`\phi _𝔞(x)`$ sur $`𝔞`$ en posant, pour $`x𝔞`$ :

$$\phi _𝔞(y)(x)=L(y,x).$$

Soient $`u`$ comme en 2.5 et $`f=\phi _𝔟(u)𝔟^{}`$. On a $`𝔟^f=\{x𝔟;[x,u]𝔫\}`$. Compte tenu de 2.5 et 2.6, on voit que $`f`$ est un élément stable de $`𝔟^{}`$. L’assertion (ii) résulte alors de 2.5, car les $`\epsilon _K`$, pour $`K𝒦`$, sont deux à deux fortement orthogonales, donc linéairement indépendantes.

Remarque. L’assertion de 2.7, (ii) est obtenue sous une forme différente en (, theorem 4.1).

## 3 Un contre-exemple

3.1. Il est donné dans  des exemples d’algèbres de Lie ne possédant aucune forme linéaire faiblement stable.

Soient $`𝔤`$ une algèbre de Lie semi-simple et $`𝔭`$ une sous-algèbre parabolique de $`𝔤`$. Il est affirmé dans  que $`𝔭^{}`$ contient un élément stable. Nous allons donner un exemple prouvant que cette affirmation est inexacte.

3.2. On conserve les notations et conventions de 2.1, et on suppose que $`𝔤`$ est simple de type $`D_4`$. On note $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _4\}`$, la racine $`\alpha _2`$ étant liée aux $`\alpha _i`$ pour $`i2`$ (c’est la numérotation des racines de , p. 256). On note $`G`$ le groupe adjoint de $`𝔤`$, et on pose $`𝔭=\mathrm{𝕜}X_{\alpha _2}+𝔟`$. Ainsi, $`𝔭`$ est une sous-algèbre parabolique minimale de $`𝔤`$. On sait que $`ad_𝔤𝔟`$ et $`ad_𝔤𝔭`$ sont des sous-algèbres de Lie algébriques de $`ad_𝔤𝔤`$. Soit $`B`$ (resp. $`P`$) le plus petit sous-groupe algébrique de $`G`$ tel que $`(B)=ad_𝔤𝔟`$ (resp. $`(P)=ad_𝔤𝔭`$). On a $`BP`$, et $`B`$ (resp. $`P`$) s’identifie au groupe adjoint de $`𝔟`$ (resp. $`𝔭`$).

L’ensemble $`𝒦`$ est constitué de $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, $`\alpha _1,\alpha _3,\alpha _4`$. On en déduit que l’ensemble $``$ des $`\epsilon _K`$, $`K𝒦`$, est :

$$=\{X_{\alpha _1},X_{\alpha _3},X_{\alpha _4},X_{\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\alpha _3+\alpha _4}\}.$$

On conserve la notation $`\phi _𝔞`$ de la preuve de 2.7. Posons :

$$u=X_{\alpha _1}+X_{\alpha _3}+X_{\alpha _4}+X_{\alpha _12\alpha _2\alpha _3\alpha _4},g=\phi _𝔟(u).$$

D’après 2.7, $`g`$ est un élément stable de $`𝔟^{}`$. D’autre part, l’indice de $`𝔟`$ est nul (2.4 et 2.7). Il en résulte que $`𝔟^{}`$ contient une $`B`$-orbite ouverte. C’est celle de $`g`$, et c’est aussi $`𝔟_r^{}`$.

Supposons que l’ensemble $`𝒮`$ des éléments $`P`$-stables de $`𝔭^{}`$ soit non vide. Il est clair que c’est un ouvert de $`𝔭^{}`$. Il existe donc $`f𝒮`$ tel que $`f|𝔟𝔟_r^{}`$. D’autre part, pour $`\theta B`$, on a $`\theta (f)𝒮`$ et $`\theta (f)|𝔟=\theta (f|𝔟)`$. Il résulte alors de ce qui précède que l’on peut supposer $`f`$ de la forme $`f=\phi _𝔭(v)`$, avec $`v=\lambda X_{\alpha _2}+u`$, où $`\lambda \mathrm{𝕜}`$.

$``$ Si $`\lambda 0`$, on trouve facilement que $`𝔭^f=\mathrm{𝕜}x`$, avec

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x=& X_{\alpha _2}+\mu _1X_{\alpha _1}+\mu _2X_{\alpha _3}+\mu _3X_{\alpha _4}+\mu _5X_{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3}\hfill \\ & +\mu _6X_{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _4}+\mu _7X_{\alpha _2+\alpha _3+\alpha _4}+\mu _8X_{\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\alpha _3+\alpha _4},\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _8`$ sont des éléments non nuls de $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ (dépendant, par exemple, du choix d’une base de Chevalley de $`𝔤`$).

$``$ Si $`\lambda =0`$, il vient $`𝔭^f=\mathrm{𝕜}x`$, avec

$$x=X_{\alpha _2}+\mu _1X_{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3}+\mu _2X_{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _4}+\mu _3X_{\alpha _2+\alpha _3+\alpha _4,}$$

$`\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3`$ sont des scalaires non nuls.

Soit $`h𝔥`$ défini par $`\alpha _1(h)=\alpha _3(h)=\alpha _4(h)=\alpha _2(h)=1`$. Dans les deux cas précédents, il vient $`[h,x]=x`$. On a alors $`[𝔭,𝔭^f]𝔭^f\{0\}`$, ce qui contredit 1.7. Ainsi, $`𝔭^{}`$ ne contient aucun élément $`P`$-stable.


text:
# Field-induced spin-density-wave phases in TMTSF organic conductors: quantization versus non-quantization

## Abstract

We study the magnetic-field-induced spin-density-wave (FISDW) phases in TMTSF organic conductors in the framework of the quantized nesting model. In agreement with recent suggestions, we find that the SDW wave-vector $`𝐐`$ deviates from its quantized value near the transition temperature $`T_c`$ for all phases with quantum numbers $`N>0`$. Deviations from quantization are more pronounced at low pressure and higher $`N`$ and may lead to a suppression of the first-order transitions $`N+1N`$ for $`N5`$. Below a critical pressure, we find that the $`N=0`$ phase invades the entire phase diagram in accordance with earlier experiments. We also show that at $`T=0`$, the quantization of $`𝐐`$ and hence the Hall conductance is always exact. Our results suggest a novel phase transition/crossover at intermediate temperatures between phases with quantized and non-quantized $`𝐐`$.

Introduction. Quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) organic conductors of the $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{X}`$ family  (also known as the Bechgaard salts) are highly anisotropic crystals that consist of parallel conducting chains. The electron transfer integrals along the chains (in the $`a`$ direction) and transverse to the chains (in the $`b`$ and $`c`$ directions) are $`t_a=250`$ meV, $`t_b=25`$ meV, and $`t_c=0.75`$ meV . Because of the strong anisotropy, the Fermi surface of these materials is open and consists of two disconnected sheets located near $`\pm k_F`$, which are the Fermi momenta along the chains. In the presence of a moderate magnetic field $`H`$ along the $`c`$ axis, the interplay between the nesting property of the open Fermi surface and the quantization of electron orbits due to the magnetic field leads to a cascade of magnetic-field-induced spin-density-wave (FISDW) phases . These phases have long been theoretically explained in the framework of the quantized nesting model (QNM) . A central prediction of the QNM is that within each FISDW phase characterized by an integer $`N`$, the wave vector $`𝐐=(Q_x,Q_y)`$ of the spin modulation is quantized: $`Q_x=2k_F+NG`$, where $`G=ebH/\mathrm{}c`$ is the magnetic wave vector and $`b`$ the interchain distance. As the field increases, the integer $`N`$ varies, which leads to the FISDW cascade ($`N=\mathrm{},4,3,2,1,0`$). In each phase, the quantization of $`Q_x`$ implies the quantization of the Hall effect: $`\sigma _{xy}=2Ne^2/h`$ per layer of TMTSF molecules . The ability of the QNM to explain the quantum Hall effect (QHE) observed in the Bechgaard salts  is one of its main successes.

Recently Lebed’ called into question some fundamental aspects of the QNM . He showed that due to the particle-hole asymmetry in the FISDW phases with $`N0`$, $`Q_x`$ deviates from its quantized values. At the metal-FISDW transition, deviations from quantization are controlled by the ratio $`h=\omega _c/\pi T_c`$ where $`\omega _c=v_FG`$ ($`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity along the chains) and $`T_c`$ is the transition temperature. When $`h`$ reaches a critical value $`h_c`$, the first-order transitions between different FISDW phases are suppressed. $`Q_x`$ then becomes a continuous function of the field. At lower temperatures, first-order transitions (i.e. discontinuous jumps of $`Q_x`$) survive although $`Q_x`$ is not quantized. Lebed’s results call into question our theoretical understanding of the QHE in the Bechgaard salts, since the latter relies on the quantization of the FISDW wave vector .

Lebed’s conclusions raise two important questions. First, the very existence of the FISDW phases, which is due to a quantum effect of the field, requires $`h=\omega _c/\pi T_c`$ to be large enough. Indeed, when $`T\omega _c`$, the magnetic field can be treated semiclassically and we expect the FISDW cascade to disappear in favor of either the metallic phase or the SDW with $`Q_x=2k_F`$ (i.e. the phase $`N=0`$). Thus, we expect the suppression of first-order phase transitions to occur only in a small window of the parameter $`h`$. Second, the fate of the QHE can be understood only by considering explicitly the low-temperature limit. The extrapolation of results valid near $`T_c`$, as done by Lebed’, is not reliable since the SDW wave vector $`Q_x`$ may vary with temperature.

In this Letter, we investigate the FISDW phase diagram both at $`T=T_c`$ and $`T=0`$ as a function of the strength of the electron-electron interaction. The latter is a decreasing function of pressure and can therefore be varied experimentally. We find that $`Q_x`$ deviates from its quantized value near $`T_c`$ for all phases $`N>0`$. Deviations from quantization are stronger at low pressure and higher $`N`$. When pressure is decreased, suppression of first-order phase transitions occurs for $`N5`$. At lower pressure, below a critical value $`P_c`$, we find that the $`N=0`$ phase invades the entire phase diagram in accordance with earlier experiments . On the other hand, at $`T=0`$ the quantization of $`Q_x`$ and hence the Hall conductance is exact for all pressures and all $`N`$, down to the critical pressure $`P_c`$ below which the $`N=0`$ phase again invades the phase diagram. Our results suggest a novel phase transition/crossover at intermediate temperature between phases with quantized and non-quantized $`Q_x`$.

Metal-FISDW transition. The Hamiltonian describing the Bechgaard salts in the vicinity of the Fermi energy in the presence of a magnetic field $`𝐇=H\widehat{z}`$ can be written as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle }d^2r\psi _{\alpha \sigma }^{}(𝐫)[v_F(i\alpha _xk_F)`$ (3)
$`+t_{}(ib_yGx)]\psi _{\alpha \sigma }(𝐫)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle d^2r\psi _{\alpha \sigma }^{}(𝐫)\psi _{\overline{\alpha }\sigma ^{}}^{}(𝐫)\psi _{\overline{\alpha }\sigma ^{}}(𝐫)\psi _{\alpha \sigma }(𝐫)}.`$
Here the operator $`\psi _{\alpha \sigma }^{()}(𝐫)`$ creates (annihilates) a right ($`\alpha =+`$) or left ($`\alpha =`$) moving electron with spin $`\sigma `$. We use the notation $`𝐫=(x,mb)`$ ($`m`$ integer) and $`d^2r=b_m𝑑x`$. $`v_F=\sqrt{2}t_aa`$ is the Fermi velocity along the chains (with $`t_a`$ the hopping amplitude and $`a`$ the lattice spacing) and $`g`$ the amplitude of the electron-electron interaction. We have linearized the Hamiltonian around the Fermi energy and used the gauge $`𝐀=(0,Hx,0)`$. $`t_{}(u)=2t_b\mathrm{cos}(u)2t_{2b}\mathrm{cos}(2u)`$ describes the interchain hopping in a tight-binding approximation, $`t_b`$ being the nearest-neighbor hopping. The next-nearest neighbor hopping amplitude $`t_{2b}`$ destroys the perfect nesting of the Fermi surface and stabilizes the metallic phase in the absence of magnetic field. Here and in the rest of this work $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$.

To obtain the phase diagram near $`T_c`$, we compute the static spin susceptibility $`\chi (𝐪)`$ within the random-phase approximation: $`\chi (𝐪)=\chi _0(𝐪)/(1g\chi _0(𝐪))`$ where $`\chi _0(𝐪)`$ is the bare spin susceptibility. It can be written as

$`\chi _0(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}I_n^2(q_y)\chi _{1\mathrm{D}}(q_xnG),`$ (4)
$`\chi _{1\mathrm{D}}(q_x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N(0)}{2}}[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma E_0}{\pi T}}\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_F}{4i\pi T}}(q_x2k_F))],`$
$`I_n(q_y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{2\pi }}e^{inu+\frac{i}{\omega _c}[T_{}(u+q_yb/2)+T_{}(uq_yb/2)]},`$ (7)
where $`T_{}(u)=_0^u𝑑u^{}t_{}(u^{})`$, $`N(0)=1/\pi v_Fb`$ is the density of states per spin, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the digamma function, $`E_0`$ an ultraviolet cutoff of the order of the bandwidth, and $`\gamma 1.781`$ the exponential of the Euler constant. The instability to the FISDW phase occurs when the Stoner criterion $`1g\chi _0(𝐪)=0`$ is satisfied.

Since the 1D susceptibility has a logarithmic divergence for $`q_x=2k_F`$, Eq. (4) suggests that the SDW instability will occur with a quantized wave vector $`𝐐=(2k_F+NG,Q_y)`$ ($`N`$ integer). However, the parameter $`N=(Q_x2k_F)/G`$ obtained from the Stoner criterion is not in general an integer. This can easily be shown analytically. Writing $`Q_x=2k_F+(N+ϵ)G`$ with $`N`$ integer and $`ϵ1`$, the maximum of the susceptibility $`\chi _0`$ (which will give the highest transition temperature) is found to be determined by

$`ϵ(T,Q_y)={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^2T^2}{7\zeta (3)\omega _c^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_{N+n}^2}{nI_N^2}},`$ (8)
where $`\zeta `$ is the Riemann Zeta function and $`I_nI_n(Q_y)`$. $`ϵ`$ vanishes only in the phase $`N=0`$ (for which $`Q_y=\pi /b`$) due to the particle-hole symmetry which implies $`I_n(\pi /b)=I_n(\pi /b)`$.

The phase diagram obtained by numerical solution of the Stoner criterion is shown in Figs. 1 and 2 for different values of the dimensionless interaction constant $`\stackrel{~}{g}=gN(0)`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{g}1/t_a`$, increasing $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ can be experimentally achieved by decreasing pressure . For small $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$, the quantization of $`Q_x`$ is essentially exact (see Fig. 1 obtained for $`\stackrel{~}{g}=0.38`$). Fig. 2, which is obtained for $`\stackrel{~}{g}=0.43`$, shows that strong deviations from quantization appear for a sufficiently strong interaction. These deviations are more pronounced for high values of $`N`$. For $`\stackrel{~}{g}=0.43`$, the first-order transitions $`N6N5,N7N6,\mathrm{}`$ are suppressed. The parameter $`N=(Q_x2k_F)/G`$ varies continuously in the corresponding field range. Since $`Q_x`$ is exactly quantized at $`T=0`$ (see below), the low-temperature first-order transition line between the phases $`N=6`$ and $`N=5`$ terminates by a second-order critical point above which the first-order transition is suppressed (Fig. 2). We find that first-order transitions $`N+1N`$ with $`N<5`$ are never suppressed. Indeed, if one increases $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ beyond the critical value $`\stackrel{~}{g}_c=0.433`$, the phase $`N=0`$ invades the entire phase diagram. This latter result agrees with the experimental results showing that the same SDW phase is stable for any value of the field below a critical pressure $`P_c6`$ kbar .

Zero-temperature phase diagram. To obtain the phase diagram at $`T=0`$, one should calculate the condensation energy of the system and look for its minimum as a function of $`𝐐`$ (at fixed electron density). According to the QNM, each FISDW phase is characterized by a series of gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=gI_n^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\psi _{}^{}(𝐫)\psi _+(𝐫)e^{i𝐐𝐫}`$ is the SDW order parameter. The gap with the largest amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$, opens up at the Fermi energy. Here we allow for a non-quantized wave vector $`Q_x=2k_F+NG+z/v_F`$ ($`N`$ integer) and assume that $`|z|\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$. If $`Q_x`$ is not quantized ($`z0`$), the particle number conservation implies a shift $`\delta \mu =z+\mathrm{sgn}(z)(z^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_N^2)^{1/2}`$ of the chemical potential. As a result, the chemical potential does not lie in a gap (since $`|\delta \mu |>\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$), and the Hall conductance is not quantized. In order to determine the value of $`z`$, we use the method of Ref. . We take into account the main gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ exactly, and consider the gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{nN}`$ which open away from the Fermi level within perturbation theory. Skipping technical details, we obtain the condensation energy

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N(0)}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_N^2+N(0)\left[|z|(z^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_N^2)^{1/2}z^2\right],`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{g}I_N^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2E_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }_N}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_{N+n}^2}{I_N^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2E_0}{|n\omega _c|}}`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{argsh}{\displaystyle \frac{|z|}{\mathrm{\Delta }_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\omega _c}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_{N+n}^2}{nI_N^2}}.`$
Eq. (9) shows that for a given value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ the energy is minimum for $`z=0`$. Therefore, in order to stabilize a phase with $`z0`$, a necessary condition is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N(|z|>0)>\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z=0)`$, i.e. \[see Eq. (11)\]

$`\mathrm{argsh}{\displaystyle \frac{|z|}{\mathrm{\Delta }_N}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\omega _c}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_{N+n}^2}{nI_N^2}}<0.`$ (12)
From Eq. (12), we conclude that a sufficient condition for $`Q_x`$ to be quantized is

$`\alpha _N(H)`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_N}{\omega _c}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_{N+n}^2}{nI_N^2}}\right|<1,`$ (13)
where we have used $`|z|\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$. Given that the $`I_n`$ coefficients satisfy the sum rule $`_nI_n^2=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N\omega _c`$ , we expect the inequality (13) to be satisfied. Our numerical results for $`\stackrel{~}{g}=0.43`$ confirm this expectation (Fig. 3). We find that $`\alpha _N(H)`$ increases with $`N`$, but is always much less than unity. For $`\stackrel{~}{g}<0.43`$, $`\alpha _N`$ further decreases. We therefore conclude that, while it is never quantized near $`T_c`$ for $`N0`$ \[see Eq. (8)\], $`Q_x`$ is strictly quantized at $`T=0`$ for all values of $`N`$.

The zero-temperature phase diagram, obtained by solving Eqs. (9-11) is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of field and electron-electron interaction strength. For $`T=0`$, we find that the $`N=0`$ phase again invades the phase diagram at $`\stackrel{~}{g}_c=0.433\pm 0.001`$. At low temperature, corrections to the $`T=0`$ condensation energy will be exponentially small ($`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_N/T}`$). Thus, the quantization of $`Q_x`$ will persist in a finite temperature range. This implies that for $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}_c`$, at some intermediate temperature $`T^{}(g,H)`$ between $`T=0`$ and $`T=T_c`$, there must be a phase transition or a crossover between phases with quantized and non-quantized $`Q_x`$. This phase transition/crossover is schematically indicated by a dotted line in Fig. 2. The details of this transition/crossover is beyond the scope of our present study.

Comparison with previous theoretical results. The overall phase diagram that we obtain is therefore qualitatively different from those obtained in the previous studies . Near the metal-FISDW transition, we find that $`Q_x`$ deviates from its quantized values, in accordance with Ref. . However, in contrast to Ref. , our study indicates that this deviation is large enough to suppress the first-order transitions only in a very limited region of the phase diagram corresponding to high values of $`N`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ close to $`\stackrel{~}{g}_c`$ (Fig. 2). In Ref. , it is assumed that $`Q_y=\pi /b`$. When $`N0`$, this assumption is not correct and one has to look for the value of $`Q_y`$ which maximizes the transition temperature. Even with the assumption $`Q_y=\pi /b`$, we are unable to reproduce Lebed’s results. Instead of the FISDW cascade, we find that only the phase $`N=0`$ is stable at low temperature albeit with a very low $`T_c`$. Furthermore, at low temperature ($`TT_c`$), we find that the quantization of $`Q_x`$ is exact (implying the quantization of the $`T=0`$ Hall conductance), which contradicts the prediction of Ref.  based on an extrapolation of results obtained near $`T_c`$. This suggests a novel phase transition/crossover at intermediate temperatures between phases with quantized and non-quantized $`Q_x`$. Also, below a critical pressure, we find that the $`N=0`$ phase invades the entire phase diagram.

Comparison with experiments. The overall phase diagram that we obtain agrees with the experimental observations in the compound (TMTSF)2PF6 . Above a critical pressure $`P_c`$ (which corresponds to $`\stackrel{~}{g}<\stackrel{~}{g}_c`$ in our theoretical analysis), we describe the cascade of FISDW phases. When $`P<P_c`$ we find that the phase $`N=0`$ invades the entire phase diagram. Thus our study shows that the SDW phase below $`P_c`$ is nothing else but the phase $`N=0`$ of the FISDW cascade (Fig. 4). This is also the conclusion obtained in Ref. . To our knowledge, the sudden disappearance of the FISDW cascade below the critical pressure $`P_c`$ has not been explained before.

Recent magnetoresistance measurements by Kornilov et al.  found that hysteretic behavior occurs at low temperature at the transitions between successive FISDW phases. The hysteresis weakens at higher temperature and disappears above a characteristic temperature $`T_0`$ ($`T_0<T_c`$) for all $`N>0`$. This behavior was ascribed to the suppression of the first-order transitions in the temperature range $`T_0TT_c`$ in agreement with Lebed’s predictions . However, this interpretation is inconsistent with our result that the first-order phase transitions can be suppressed only for $`N5`$. We cannot exclude, even if it seems quite unlikely, that in a more realistic model (for instance taking account of the triclinic structure of the Bechgaard salts) the suppression of the first-order phase transitions would also occur for $`N<5`$. In our opinion, the conclusion that the absence of hysteresis observed in experiments originates from the suppression of the first-order transitions should be taken cautiously. Such an absence of hysteresis could also be due to the weak first-order character of the transitions near $`T_c`$ as was originally thought . Our results suggest to perform experimental studies close to $`P_c`$, since the suppression of the first-order transitions should primarily be observed in the close vicinity of the critical pressure $`P_c`$ (i.e. $`PP_c`$) below which the FISDW cascade disappears.

KS thanks S. Girvin for support under grant DMR-0196503. ND thanks G. Montambaux and D. Jérome for useful discussions.