text:
# Fermions, strings, and gauge fields in lattice spin models

## I Introduction

For many years, it was thought that Fermi statistics were fundamental, in the sense that one could only obtain a theory with fermionic excitations by introducing them by hand (via anti-commuting fields). Then, over the past two decades, this view began to change. A number of real world and theoretical examples showed that fermions and anyons could *emerge* as low energy collective modes of purely bosonic systems. The first examples along these lines were the fractional quantum Hall states. Tsui et al. (1982); Laughlin (1983) Usually we think of the FQH states as examples of anyonic excitations emerging from interacting fermions. However, from a purely theoretical point of view, the same effects should occur in systems of interacting bosons in a magnetic field.Arovas et al. (1984) There were also indications of emerging fermions in the slave-boson approach to spin-1/2 systemsBaskaran et al. (1987); Baskaran and Anderson (1988); Kalmeyer and Laughlin (1987); Wen et al. (1989); Kheshchenko and Wiegmann (1989); Read and Sachdev (1991); Wen (1991) and in the study of resonating valence bond (RVB) states.Kivelson et al. (1987); Rokhsar and Kivelson (1988); Read and Chakraborty (1989); Moessner and Sondhi (2001) Unfortunately, the RVB picture and the slave boson approach both rely on approximate or mean-field techniques to construct and analyze these exotic states. More recently, a number of researchers have introduced exactly soluble or quasi-exactly soluble models with emerging fermions. Kitaev (1997); Moessner and Sondhi (2001); Sachdev and Park (2002); Balents et al. (2002); Motrunich and Senthil (2002); Ioffe et al. (2002); Wen (2003); Motrunich (2002) These models allow for a more well-controlled analysis, albeit in very specific cases.

The mean-field approach and the exactly-soluble examples both provide clues to the structure and basic properties of bosonic models with fermionic excitations. They indicate, among other things, that fermions never appear alone in lattice spin systems. Instead they always come together with a nontrivial gauge field and the emerging fermions are associated with the deconfined phase of the gauge field.Wen et al. (1989); Read and Sachdev (1991); Wen (1991) The deconfined phases always seem to contain a new kind of order - topological order,Wen (1991, 1995) and the emerging fermions and anyons are intimately related to the new order.

This was particularly apparent in the context of the slave-boson approach. In this technique, one expresses a spin-1/2 Hamiltonian in terms of fermion fields and gauge fields.Baskaran et al. (1987); Baskaran and Anderson (1988) Clearly, the presence of fermion fields does not, by itself, imply the existence of fermionic quasi-particles - the fermions appear only when the gauge field is in the *deconfined* phase. LABEL:KL8795,WWZcsp,KW8983,RS9173,Wsrvb constructed several deconfined phases where the fermion fields do describe well defined quasi-particles. Depending on the properties of the deconfined phases, these quasi-particles can carry fractional statistics (for the chiral spin states) Kalmeyer and Laughlin (1987); Wen et al. (1989); Kheshchenko and Wiegmann (1989) or Fermi statistics (for the $`Z_2`$ deconfined states).Read and Sachdev (1991); Wen (1991)

Although it was less evident initially, a similar picture has emerged from the study of RVB states and the associated quantum dimer models. LABEL:KRS8765,RK8876 originally proposed that fermions (spinons) could emerge from a nearest neighbor dimer model on a square lattice. Later, it was realized that the fermions couple to a $`Z_2`$ gauge field, and the fermionic excitations only appear when the field is in the deconfined phase.Read and Chakraborty (1989) It turns out that the dimer liquid on square lattice with only nearest neighbor dimers is not in the deconfined phase (except at a critical point).Rokhsar and Kivelson (1988); Read and Chakraborty (1989) However, on a triangular lattice, the dimer liquid does have a $`Z_2`$ deconfined phase.Moessner and Sondhi (2001) The results in LABEL:KRS8765,RK8876 are valid in this case and fermionic quasi-particles do emerge in a dimer liquid on a triangular lattice.

In this paper, we attempt to clarify these observations and to put them on firmer foundations. We give a general argument which shows that emerging fermions always occur together with a nontrivial deconfined gauge field. In addition, we derive an algebraic formula that allows one to calculate the statistics of a lattice particle from the properties of its hopping operators. We feel that this formula both elucidates the fundamental meaning of statistics in a lattice system and simplifies their computation. This approach has the added advantage that it works in any number of dimensions - unlike the flux binding pictureArovas et al. (1984) developed in FQH theory. We would like to point out that all the previously mentioned examples of emerging fermions are two dimensional models. The emerging fermions in those models are related to the flux binding picture in LABEL:ASW8422. Our algebraic approach allows us to establish the emergence of fermions in an exactly soluble 3D bosonic model.

Our paper is organized as follows: in the first section, we give a definition of the statistics of a lattice particle. In the second section, we derive the algebraic statistics formula discussed above. In the third section, we apply the formula to the case of fermionic (or anyonic) excitations in a lattice spin system. The formula demands that the fermions always come in pairs, and that their pair creation operator has a string-like structure with the newly created particles appearing at the ends. We show that the strings represent gauge fluctuations, and the fermions carry the corresponding gauge charge. After presenting the general argument, we devote the last two sections to exactly soluble examples of this phenomenon in $`2`$ and $`3`$ dimensions.

The above result suggests a very interesting picture of emerging fermions. Fermions and gauge fields appear to be two sides of the same coin: in some sense, fermions are the ends of strings and gauge fields are the fluctuations of strings. Extended string-like structures seem to be the key to understanding both Fermi statistics and gauge fields.

## II Definition of Statistics

What do we mean when we say that a particle is a “boson” or a “fermion”? The most common way to define statistics is to use the algebra of creation and annihilation operators. If these operators satisfy the bosonic algebra, the corresponding particles are said to be bosons; if they satisfy the fermionic algebra, the particles are said to be fermions.

In this paper, we will use another, equivalent, definition based on the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. Given any $`m`$ particle system with short-range interactions, we can write down the corresponding multi-particle action $`S`$. The most general action $`S`$ has two components:

$$S=S_{loc}+S_{top}$$

The first term, $`S_{loc}`$, can be any local expression. Typically, it’s just the usual classical action. The second term, $`S_{top}`$, is less familiar. In general, it can be any expression which only depends on the topology (e.g. homotopy class) of paths. In $`3`$ or more dimensions, the form of $`S_{top}`$ is highly constrained. The amplitude for a closed path $`P`$ must be of the form

$$e^{iS_{top}}=(\pm 1)^n$$

where $`n`$ is the number of particle exchanges that occur in $`P`$. The statistics of the particles are defined by the sign in this expression. If this sign is positive, we say the particles are“bosons”, if the sign is negative, the particles are “fermions”. In $`2`$ dimensions, there are other, more complicated possibilities for $`S_{top}`$. These particles are called “anyons.”

According to this definition, the statistics are completely determined by the topological term $`S_{top}`$ in the action. One way to isolate this term is to compare the amplitude for two paths which are the same locally (this will be made more precise in the next section) but differ in their global properties. In particular, we can compare the amplitude for a path which exchanges two particles with another path which is the same locally, but doesn’t exchange the two particles. The difference between the phases of the two amplitudes is then precisely $`e^{iS_{top}}=(\pm 1)`$, the statistical phase.

We now reformulate this (theoretical) test of statistics so that it can be applied to particles on a lattice. The prescription is as follows: we take a two particle state $`|r_1,s_1`$, and consider a product of hopping amplitudes along a lattice path which exchanges the particles

$`r_n,s_n|H|r_{n1},s_{n1}r_{n1},s_{n1}|H|r_{n2},s_{n2}`$
$`\mathrm{}r_3,s_3|H|r_2,s_2r_2,s_2|H|r_1,s_1`$ (1)
Each hopping amplitude in this expression involves one of the two particles moving to a neighboring site while the other particle remains fixed. At the end, the two particles have exchanged places: $`r_n=s_1,s_n=r_1`$.

Now we construct another path which is the same locally, but doesn’t exchange the two particles, and take a product of hopping amplitudes along this path. The claim is that the difference between the phases of these two expressions is precisely the statistical phase of the particles. That is, the particles are bosons, fermions, or anyons depending on whether the phase difference is $`+1`$, $`1`$, or something else.

One way to see this is to remember the derivation of the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. According to the standard derivation, the amplitude $`e^{iS}`$ for a two particle path $`|r(t),s(t)`$ is given by a product

$`e^{iS}r(t_n),s(t_n)|e^{iH\mathrm{\Delta }t}|r(t_{n1}),s(t_{n1})`$
$`\mathrm{}r(t_3),s(t_3)|e^{iH\mathrm{\Delta }t}|r(t_2),s(t_2)`$
$`r(t_2),s(t_2)|e^{iH\mathrm{\Delta }t}|r(t_1),s(t_1)`$
in the limit that $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_nt_{n1}0`$.

Now, in the discrete (lattice) case, the above expression can be further simplified. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$, we can rewrite it as

$`e^{iS}r(t_n),s(t_n)|(1iH\mathrm{\Delta }t)|r(t_{n1}),s(t_{n1})`$
$`\mathrm{}r(t_3),s(t_3)|(1iH\mathrm{\Delta }t)|r(t_2),s(t_2)`$
$`r(t_2),s(t_2)|(1iH\mathrm{\Delta }t)|r(t_1),s(t_1)`$
Successive states $`|r(t_i),s(t_i),|r(t_{i+1}),s(t_{i+1})`$ must either be identical, or must differ by a single particle hop. The matrix elements between identical states don’t contribute to the phase. Thus, we can drop them without affecting our result. We are left with:

$`e^{iS}r(t_k^{}),s(t_k^{})|(iH\mathrm{\Delta }t)|r(t_{k1}^{}),s(t_{k1}^{})`$
$`\mathrm{}r(t_3^{}),s(t_3^{})|(iH\mathrm{\Delta }t)|r(t_2^{}),s(t_2^{})`$
$`r(t_2^{}),s(t_2^{})|(iH\mathrm{\Delta }t)|r(t_1^{}),s(t_1^{})`$
where the $`t_k^{}`$s are all distinct.

Now, as we discussed earlier, the statistical phase can be obtained by comparing the phase of this amplitude with another amplitude which is the same locally but doesn’t exchange the two particles. When we make this comparison, the factors of $`i`$ drop out (since they contribute equally to the two products). Thus, it suffices to compare products of the form:

$`r(t_k^{}),s(t_k^{})|H|r(t_{k1}^{}),s(t_{k1}^{})`$
$`\mathrm{}r(t_3^{}),s(t_3^{})|H|r(t_2^{}),s(t_2^{})`$
$`r(t_2^{}),s(t_2^{})|H|r(t_1^{}),s(t_1^{})`$
This is precisely the expression in Eq. (1).

## III Statistics and the hopping operator algebra

In this section we derive a simple algebraic formula for the statistics of a particle hopping on a lattice. This formula is completely general and holds irrespective of whether the particles are fundamental or are low energy excitations of an underlying condensed matter system (e.g. quasi-particles).

We begin with a Hilbert space which describes $`n`$ hard-core particles hopping on a $`d`$ dimensional lattice. The states can be labeled by listing the positions of the $`n`$ particles: $`|i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}i_n`$. The particles are identical so the states $`|i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}i_n`$ do not depend on the order of $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n`$. For example,

$$|i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}i_n=|i_2,i_1,\mathrm{}i_n$$

A typical Hamiltonian for this system is of the form

$$H=\underset{<ij>}{}(t_{ij}+t_{ji})$$

where $`t_{ij}`$ are “hopping operators” with the property that

$$t_{ij}|j,i_1,\mathrm{},i_{n1}|i,i_1,\mathrm{},i_{n1}$$
(2)
We assume that the hopping is local, *i.e*

$$[t_{ij},t_{kl}]=0$$
(3)
if $`i,j,k,l`$ are all different.

Our goal is to compute the statistics of the particles described by this hopping Hamiltonian $`H`$. In the following, we show that the statistical angle can be derived from the simple algebraic properties of the hopping operators. More precisely, we show that the particles obey statistics $`e^{i\theta }`$ if

$$t_{il}t_{ki}t_{ij}=e^{i\theta }t_{ij}t_{ki}t_{il}$$
(4)
for any three hopping operators $`t_{ij},t_{ki},t_{il}`$, where $`j,k,l`$ are (distinct) neighbors of $`i`$ (ordered in the clockwise direction in the case of $`2`$ dimensions). The orientation convention in $`2`$ dimensions is necessary for the anyonic case.

The simplest examples where we can apply this formula are the cases of noninteracting hard-core bosons or fermions. In these cases the $`n`$ particle Hamiltonian can be written as

$$H=t\underset{<ij>}{}(c_i^{}c_j+c_j^{}c_i)$$

where the $`c_i`$’s are the boson or fermion annihilation operators. The hopping operators are just $`t_{ij}=tc_i^{}c_j`$. A little algebra confirms that the boson and fermion hopping operators do indeed satisfy Eq. (4) with $`e^{i\theta }=+1`$ and $`1`$, respectively.

We now give a general derivation of the formula. We begin with the state $`|i,j,\mathrm{}`$ which contains particles at sites $`i,j`$ and other particles far away.

Imagine that we exchange the two particles at $`i,j`$ using an appropriate product of hopping operators. One expression for the final swapped state is

$`|i,j,\text{swapped}=(t_{jj^{}})(t_{j^{}p}\mathrm{}t_{qr})(t_{il}t_{lm}\mathrm{}t_{nj^{}})`$
$`(t_{j^{}j})(t_{rs}\mathrm{}t_{ti})|i,j,\mathrm{}`$
Here, we’ve grouped the hopping operators into 5 terms. Each of these terms moves a particle along some path on the lattice. The cumulative effect of all 5 terms is to exchange the particles (see Fig. 1a).

Similarly, we can construct a path which doesn’t swap the two particles. One expression for the final unswapped state is

$`|i,j,\text{unswapped}=(t_{jj^{}})(t_{j^{}j})(t_{il}t_{lm}\mathrm{}t_{nj^{}})`$
$`(t_{j^{}p}\mathrm{}t_{qr})(t_{rs}\mathrm{}t_{ti})|i,j,\mathrm{}`$
Once again, we’ve grouped the hopping operators into 5 terms. In this case, the cumulative effect of these terms is simply to move the two particles along independent loops without any swapping taking place (see Fig. 1b).

Intuitively, we expect that the phase difference between the swapped and unswapped states is related to the statistical phase of the particles. In fact, the special way we’ve constructed our states allows us to make a much stronger statement. Notice that the two states involve the same product of hopping operators. The only difference is the order of these operators. This means that, in the swapped and unswapped states, the two particles trace out the same total path in configuration space. This is important because it implies that any phase which comes from gauge fields or other Berry phases contributes equally to the swapped and unswapped states. The phase difference between the swapped and unswapped states is therefore exactly equal to the statistical phase of the particles.

This intuitive argument can be made rigorous using the discussion in the previous section. Indeed, it’s not hard to see that the two space-time paths traced out by the swapped and unswapped states are exactly the same locally - they only differ by a reordering. Furthermore, the phase difference between the swapped and unswapped states can be written as a phase difference between two expressions of the form (1). Thus, taking the phase difference between the swapped and unswapped states is completely equivalent to the procedure derived in the previous section.

We now compute this phase difference. We use the assumed algebraic relation

$$t_{j^{}p}t_{nj^{}}t_{j^{}j}=e^{i\theta }t_{j^{}j}t_{nj^{}}t_{j^{}p}$$

Applying this relation to the swapped state and reordering the hopping operators using locality, we find

$$|i,j,\text{swapped}=e^{i\theta }|i,j,\text{unswapped}$$

The phase difference is $`e^{i\theta }`$, so the particles obey statistics $`e^{i\theta }`$, as claimed. A similar formula can be derived for the relative statistics of distinguishable particles. This formula, together with its derivation, is given in the appendix. (See Eq. (17)).

## IV Fermions and Strings

In this section we consider the properties of a lattice spin system with fermionic or anyonic excitations. We argue that the excitations are always created in pairs, and the creation operator for a pair of particles has a string-like structure, with the new particles located at the ends. One interpretation of this is that fermions never appear alone - they always come with some kind of gauge field.

We now make these statements more precise. Suppose we have a lattice spin system with fermionic excitations (the anyonic case is completely analogous). The total Hilbert space of the lattice spin model is a direct product of local Hilbert spaces $`_I`$, each associated with an individual lattice site $`I`$. We expect that the total Hilbert space contains a low energy subspace which is spanned by $`n`$ fermion states. The corresponding low energy effective Hamiltonian is given by

$$H_{\text{eff}}=PHP$$

where $`P`$ is a projection operator onto the $`n`$ fermion subspace. Typically, $`H_{\text{eff}}`$ can be written as a sum

$$H_{\text{eff}}=\underset{<ij>}{}(t_{ij}+t_{ji})$$

where the $`t_{ij}`$ are hopping operators. We expect that the $`t_{ij}`$ are local in the underlying spin degrees of freedom. That is, they act only within the local Hilbert spaces near sites $`i`$, $`j`$. 111More precisely, the $`t_{ij}`$ are *local at low energies*: the $`t_{ij}`$ can be written as $`t_{ij}=P\stackrel{~}{t}_{ij}P`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{ij}`$ is local and commutes with the projection operator $`P`$. We would like to point out that the lattice on which the fermion hops (labeled $`i`$) may not be the same as the lattice formed by the local Hilbert spaces (labeled $`I`$).

Now, consider the string-like product of hopping operators

$$W_{ir}=t_{ij}t_{jk}t_{kl}\mathrm{}t_{pq}t_{qr}$$

This operator destroys a fermion at site $`r`$ and creates one at site $`i`$:

$$W_{ir}|r,\mathrm{}|i,\mathrm{}$$

where $`|r,\mathrm{}`$, $`|i,\mathrm{}`$ are low-energy states with fermions at $`r`$, $`i`$, (and possibly other fermions far away). Furthermore, this operator clearly has a string-like structure: it is made up of a string-like product of operators, each of each is local in the underlying spin degrees of freedom. The only issue is that this string operator might be trivial. That is, $`W_{ir}`$ might act trivially on all the intermediate spins at $`j,k,\mathrm{},q`$, and only have a nontrivial effect near $`i`$ and $`r`$. In that case, $`W_{ir}`$ isn’t really a string at all.

This is a legitimate concern, since the string operator typically is trivial in the case of *bosonic* quasi-particles. Consider, for example, a lattice of noninteracting spins in a magnetic field: $`H=B_i\sigma _i^3`$. The ground state has $`\sigma _i^3=1`$ for all $`i`$. The excitations are obtained by flipping one spin: $`\sigma _j^3=1`$ for some $`j`$. If we perturb the Hamiltonian by a term $`t_{<ij>}\sigma _i^1\sigma _j^1`$, these excitations acquire dynamics. The corresponding hopping operators are then $`t_{ij}=\frac{t}{2}\sigma _i^1\sigma _j^1`$ and the string operator is

$`W_{ir}`$ $`=`$ $`t_{ij}t_{jk}\mathrm{}t_{qr}`$
$``$ $`(\sigma _i^1\sigma _j^1)(\sigma _j^1\sigma _k^1)\mathrm{}(\sigma _q^1\sigma _r^1)`$
$`=`$ $`\sigma _i^1\sigma _r^1`$
The operator $`W_{ir}`$ clearly creates a particle at position $`i`$ and destroys one at position $`r`$. However, as we see above, it is trivial and has no string-like structure. The particle creation and annihilation operators are completely local.

Our claim is that this can never happen in the case of emerging fermions. That is, the string operator $`W_{ir}`$ can never be written as a product

$$W_{ir}=A_iB_r$$

where $`A_i`$, $`B_r`$ are operators which act only within the local Hilbert spaces near sites $`i`$, $`r`$. Physically, this means that the fermion creation and annihilation operators are never local in the underlying bosonic degrees of freedom. Instead, they naturally appear in pairs, with a string-like structure connecting them. 222A more precise statement of our claim is that $`W_{ir}`$ cannot be written as a product $`P_sA_iB_rP_s`$ where $`P_s`$ is the projection operator onto the $`n`$ fermion subspace with no particles at any of the intermediate sites $`j,k,\mathrm{},q`$, and $`A_i,B_r`$ are local operators commuting with $`P`$. This statement is slightly stronger then the one made in the text, but the same proof applies.

*Proof:* We wish to use the algebraic formula (4) from the previous section. That formula relied on the locality of the hopping operators (3). Here we would like to use a weaker locality condition:

$$[t_{ij},t_{kl}]=0$$
(5)
if $`i`$, $`j`$, *are far* from $`k`$, $`l`$. One can make a similar argument using this weaker assumption. One arrives at a slightly weaker algebraic relation:

$$W_{il}W_{ki}W_{ij}=W_{ij}W_{ki}W_{il}$$

if $`i`$, $`l`$, $`k`$ are sufficiently far from each other. Since $`W_{ki}W_{ij}=W_{kj}`$, we can rewrite this as

$$W_{il}W_{kj}=W_{ij}W_{kl}$$
(6)
Condition (6) is a direct consequence of the fermionic nature of the quasi-particles. We will now show that it implies that the strings are nontrivial. Indeed, if the $`W_{ir}`$ could be written as $`W_{ir}=A_iB_r`$, then

$`W_{il}W_{kj}`$ $`=`$ $`A_iB_lA_kB_j`$
$`W_{ij}W_{kl}`$ $`=`$ $`A_iB_jA_kB_l`$
But the $`A`$’s and $`B`$’s are local operators, so they commute with each other when they are well separated. We can therefore rearrange the operators in these two equations to obtain

$$W_{il}W_{kj}=W_{ij}W_{kl}$$

This directly contradicts the fermion condition (6). We conclude that the string operator is always nontrivial. $`\mathrm{}`$

The presence of this nontrivial string indicates that fermions always appear together with some kind of gauge field. One way to see this is to consider a closed loop of hopping operators $`t_{ij}t_{jk}\mathrm{}t_{pq}t_{qi}`$. This string can be interpreted as a Wilson loop operator, since its phase is precisely the accumulated phase of the particle when it traverses a loop. The fact that it is nontrivial (that is, not equal to the identity operator) means that the particle is coupled to a nontrivial gauge field.

## V A 2D example

In this section, we present an exactly soluble lattice spin model with fermionic excitations. The exactly soluble model provides a concrete realization of the string picture discussed above. The emerging fermions turn out to be coupled to a $`Z_2`$ gauge field.

In this spin-1/2 system, proposed by KitaevKitaev (1997), the spins live on the *links* of a square lattice (Fig. 2). The Hamiltonian is

$$H=U\underset{𝑰}{}(\underset{C_𝑰^{}}{}\sigma _𝒋^1)g\underset{𝒑}{}(\underset{C_𝒑}{}\sigma _𝒋^3)$$
(7)
Here $`𝒊`$ labels the links, $`𝑰`$ labels the sites, and $`𝒑`$ labels the plaquettes of the square lattice. Also, $`C_𝑰^{}`$ denotes the loop connecting the four spins adjacent to site $`𝑰`$, while $`C_𝒑`$ denotes the loop connecting the four spins adjacent to plaquette $`𝒑`$ (see Fig. 2).

This model is exactly soluble since all the terms in the Hamiltonian commute with each other. The ground state satisfies

$$\underset{C_𝑰^{}}{}\sigma _𝒋^1=1$$

for all sites $`I`$, and

$$\underset{C_𝒑}{}\sigma _𝒋^3=1$$

for all plaquettes $`𝒑`$. There are two types of (localized) excited states. We can have a site where

$$\underset{C_𝑰^{}}{}\sigma _𝒋^1=1$$

or we can have a plaquette where

$$\underset{C_𝒑}{}\sigma _𝒋^3=1$$

We call the first type of excitation a “charge” and the second type of excitation a “flux.” Static charge and flux configurations are exact eigenstates of the above Hamiltonian. Thus, the charge and flux quasi-particles have no dynamics.

This lack of dynamics is a special feature of the above model. However, we are interested in the properties of a *generic* Hamiltonian in the same quantum phase. Thus, we need to perturb the system, and analyze the resulting dynamics. The simplest nontrivial perturbation is

$$H^{}=H+J_1\underset{𝒊}{}\sigma _𝒊^1+J_3\underset{𝒊}{}\sigma _𝒊^3$$
(8)
It’s not hard to see that the first term allows the fluxes to hop from plaquettes to adjacent plaquettes, while the second term allows the charges to hop from sites to neighboring sites.

We now calculate the statistics of the fluxes. To do this, we restrict our Hamiltonian to the low energy subspace with $`n`$ fluxes and zero charges. Within this subspace, our Hamiltonian reduces to

$$H_{\text{eff}}^{}=J_1\underset{𝒊}{}\sigma _𝒊^1$$

To make contact with our previous formalism, we write this as

$$H_{\text{eff}}^{}=\underset{<𝒑𝒒>}{}(t_{𝒑𝒒}+t_{𝒒𝒑})$$

where the sum is taken over adjacent plaquettes, $`𝒑,𝒒`$, $`t_{𝒑𝒒}`$ is defined by $`t_{𝒑𝒒}=\frac{J_1}{2}\sigma _𝒊^1`$, and $`𝒊`$ the link joining $`𝒑`$ and $`𝒒`$.

To calculate the statistics, we need to compare $`t_{𝒑𝒒}t_{𝒓𝒑}t_{𝒑𝒔}`$ with $`t_{𝒑𝒔}t_{𝒓𝒑}t_{𝒑𝒒}`$. Well, it’s obvious from the definition that all the hopping operators $`t_{𝒑𝒒}`$ commute with one another. Therefore,

$$t_{𝒑𝒒}t_{𝒓𝒑}t_{𝒑𝒔}=t_{𝒑𝒔}t_{𝒓𝒑}t_{𝒑𝒒}$$

We conclude that the fluxes are bosons. In the same way, one can show that the charges are also bosons.

Next, we consider the bound state of a flux and a charge. That is, we consider excitations with a flux through some plaquette $`𝒑`$ and also a charge at one of the sites $`𝑰`$ adjacent to $`𝒑`$.

These bound states are not actually stable for the above Hamiltonian (8) \- the charge and flux will separate from one another over time. However, one can imagine modifying the Hamiltonian so that charges and fluxes prefer to be adjacent to each other. In this case, the bound state is a true quasi-particle.

Suppose we’ve made such a modification. We can then consider the statistics of the bound state. If we restrict our Hamiltonian (8) to the low energy subspace with $`n`$ bound states, then our Hamiltonian reduces to

$$H_{\text{eff}}^{}=J_1\underset{𝒊}{}\sigma _𝒊^1+J_3\underset{𝒊}{}\sigma _𝒊^3$$

To understand the effect of these terms, imagine we have a bound state with a flux at $`𝒑`$ and a charge at $`𝑰`$. It’s not hard to see that the first term allows the flux to hop to the two neighboring plaquettes which are also adjacent to $`𝑰`$. Similarly, the second term allows the charge to hop to the two neighboring sites, adjacent to $`𝒑`$. All other hopping destroys the bound state and is therefore forbidden for energetic reasons. Thus, the perturbation gives rise to $`4`$ types of hopping operators - $`2`$ corresponding to fluxes and $`2`$ corresponding to charges. (See Fig. 3).

Formally, we can write our low-energy Hamiltonian as

$$H_{\text{eff}}^{}=\underset{<(𝒑,𝑰)(𝒒,𝑱)>}{}(t_{(𝒑,𝑰)(𝒒,𝑱)}+t_{(𝒒,𝑱)(𝒑,𝑰)})$$

where the hopping operators are defined by

$$t_{(𝒑,𝑰)(𝒒,𝑱)}=\frac{J_1}{2}\sigma _𝒊^1\text{ or }\frac{J_3}{2}\sigma _𝒊^3$$

depending on whether $`(𝒑,𝑰),(𝒒,𝑱)`$ differ by a flux hop or a charge hop. In the first case, $`𝒊`$ is defined to be the link joining $`𝒑`$ and $`𝒒`$, while in the second case, $`𝒊`$ is the link joining $`𝑰`$ and $`𝑱`$.

To calculate the statistics we need to compare a product of the form $`t_1t_2t_3`$ with the product $`t_3t_2t_1`$, where the $`t_k`$ are hopping operators involving a single bound state at position $`(𝒑,𝑰)`$. (We could write out these expressions precisely, but it’s messy and not very enlightening).

Now, as we discussed above, there are four different ways that a bound state at $`(𝒑,𝑰)`$ can hop - two charge hops, and two flux hops. Each of the flux hopping operators can be paired with a corresponding charge operator which involves the same link $`𝒊`$. It’s easy to see that each of the flux operators anti-commutes with the corresponding charge operator (since one involves a $`\sigma ^1`$, while the other involves a $`\sigma ^3`$). However, everything else commutes. (See Fig. 3).

With these facts in mind, we can compare $`t_1t_2t_3`$ with $`t_3t_2t_1`$. By our discussion above, any set of $`3`$ hopping operators involving $`(𝒑,𝑰)`$ must contain exactly $`2`$ which anti-commute. Thus, exactly $`2`$ of $`t_1,t_2,t_3`$ anti-commute. This implies that

$$t_1t_2t_3=t_3t_2t_1$$

We conclude that the bound states are fermions. Of course, this result is not that surprising once we notice that the charges and fluxes have relative statistics $`e^{i\varphi _{\text{rel.}}}=1`$.

We can easily check that the charges and fluxes have relative statistics $`1`$. Normally, we would just use the formula (17) derived in the appendix. However, this relation assumes that the two types of particles both hop on the same lattice. In our case, the charges hop on the square lattice, while the fluxes hop on the dual lattice.

It’s not hard to see that in our case the formula (17) needs to be modified to

$$t_{𝑰𝑱}t_{𝒑𝒒}=e^{i\varphi _{\text{rel.}}}t_{𝒑𝒒}t_{𝑰𝑱}$$

where $`𝑰,𝑱`$ are neighboring sites, $`𝒑,𝒒`$ are neighboring plaquettes, and the links connecting $`𝑰,𝑱`$, and $`𝒑,𝒒`$ are the same. From our previous calculations we know that $`t_{𝒑𝒒}=\frac{J_1}{2}\sigma _𝒊^1`$, and $`t_{𝑰𝑱}=\frac{J_3}{2}\sigma _𝒊^3`$. Therefore, $`t_{𝒑𝒒}`$, $`t_{𝑰𝑱}`$ anti-commute, and the relative statistics are $`e^{i\varphi _{\text{rel.}}}=1`$.

We now see why the two particles were called “charges” and “fluxes” - they have the same statistics and relative statistics as $`Z_2`$ charges and fluxes. It turns out that this connection with $`Z_2`$ gauge theory extends beyond the low energy regime - in fact, all the way to the lattice scale. One can show that the Kitaev model is exactly equivalent to standard $`Z_2`$ gauge theory coupled to a $`Z_2`$ Higgs field.

We argued earlier that whenever fermions or anyons occur in a bosonic system, they are always created in pairs, and the pair creation operator has a string-like structure. The above exactly soluble model (7) provides a good example of this phenomenon.

We begin with the charges. We can construct the string operators associated with these particles by taking products of their hopping operators along some path $`P=𝑰_\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{}𝑰_𝒏`$ on the lattice. We find

$`W(P)`$ $`=`$ $`t_{𝑰_1𝑰_2}t_{𝑰_2𝑰_3}\mathrm{}t_{𝑰_{n2}𝑰_{n1}}t_{𝑰_{n1}𝑰_n}`$ (9)
$``$ $`\sigma _{𝒊_1}^3\sigma _{𝒊_2}^3\mathrm{}\sigma _{𝒊_{n2}}^3\sigma _{𝒊_{n1}}^3`$
where $`𝒊_1\mathrm{}𝒊_{n1}`$ are the links along the path (see Fig. 4). Notice that $`W(P)`$ is nontrivial - it acts non-trivially on the spin degrees of freedom along the string $`P`$.

It is also a pair creation operator: If we apply $`W(P)`$ to the ground state, the resulting state is an exact eigenstate with two charges - one located at each endpoint of $`P`$. One way to see this is to notice that $`W(P)`$ commutes with everything in the Hamiltonian except $`_{C_{𝑰_1}^{}}\sigma _𝒋^1`$ and $`_{C_{𝑰_n}^{}}\sigma _𝒋^1`$. The string anti-commutes with these two operators, so when we apply it to the ground state, we get a state with two charges located at $`𝑰_1,𝑰_n`$.

The case of the flux quasi-particles is very similar. We take the product of the flux hopping operators along some path $`P^{}=𝒑_1,\mathrm{}𝒑_n`$ on the dual lattice. We find

$`W^{}(P^{})`$ $`=`$ $`t_{𝒑_1𝒑_2}t_{𝒑_2𝒑_3}\mathrm{}t_{𝒑_{n2}𝒑_{n1}}t_{𝒑_{n1}𝒑_n}`$ (10)
$``$ $`\sigma _{𝒊_1}^1\sigma _{𝒊_2}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _{𝒊_{n2}}^1\sigma _{𝒊_{n1}}^1`$
where $`𝒊_1\mathrm{}𝒊_{n1}`$ are the links along the path (see Fig. 4). Just as before, one can show that the string $`W^{}(P^{})`$ is a creation operator which creates two fluxes at the endpoints of $`P^{}`$.

Finally, consider the case of the bound state of the charge and the flux. The hopping operator for the bound state is a combination of the charge and flux hopping operators, so the string turns out to be a combination of the charge and flux strings. Let $`P=(𝒑_1,𝑰_1)\mathrm{}(𝒑_n,𝑰_n)`$ be a path in bound state configuration space. Then the associated bound state string operator is

$$W(P)\underset{k}{}\sigma _{𝒊_k}^{a_k}$$
(11)
where $`𝒊_1\mathrm{}𝒊_{n1}`$ are the links along the path and $`a_k=1`$ or $`3`$ depending on whether $`(𝒑_k,𝑰_k)`$ differ by a flux hop or a charge hop, respectively (see Fig. 4). Once again, one can show that the string $`W(P)`$ is a creation operator for a pair of bound states located at the ends of $`P`$.

In each of these examples, the creation operator for fermions or anyons has an extended string-like structure. It is important to note that the position of this string is completely unobservable. That is, in each case, the excited state $`W(P)|0`$ is independent of the position of $`P`$: it only depends on the position of the *endpoints* of $`P`$.

## VI Exactly soluble 3D model

In two dimensional systems, one can create a fermion by binding a $`Z_2`$ vortex to a $`Z_2`$ charge. This is how we obtained the fermion in the above spin-1/2 model on the square lattice. Since both the $`Z_2`$ vortex and $`Z_2`$ charge appear as the ends of open strings, the fermions also appear as the ends of strings. However, in three dimensions, we cannot change a boson into a fermion by attaching a $`\pi `$-flux. Thus one may wonder if fermions still appear as the ends of strings in (3+1)D. In this section, we study an exactly soluble spin-3/2 model on a cubic lattice. We will show that the creation operator for fermions does indeed have a string-like structure. This example demonstrates that the string picture for fermions is more general then the flux-charge picture.

Our model has four states for each site of a cubic lattice. Thus we call it a spin-3/2 model. Let $`\gamma ^{ab}`$, $`a,b\{x,\overline{x},y,\overline{y},z,\overline{z}\}`$, $`ab`$, be $`4\times 4`$ hermitian matrices that satisfy

$`\gamma ^{ab}=`$ $`\gamma ^{ba}=(\gamma ^{ab})^{}`$
$`[\gamma ^{ab},\gamma ^{cd}]=`$ $`0,\text{if }a,b,c,d\text{ are all different}`$
$`\gamma ^{ab}\gamma ^{bc}=`$ $`i\gamma ^{ac},ac`$
$`(\gamma ^{ab})^2=`$ $`1`$ (12)
A solution of the above algebra can be constructed by taking pairwise products of Majorana fermion operators $`\lambda ^a`$, $`a\{x,\overline{x},y,\overline{y},z,\overline{z}\}`$:

$`\gamma ^{ab}=`$ $`i\lambda ^a\lambda ^b`$
$`\{\lambda ^a,\lambda ^b\}=`$ $`2\delta _{ab}`$ (13)
The six Majorana fermion operators naturally require a space of dimension $`2^{6/2}=8`$, but if we restrict them to the space $`_a\lambda ^a=1`$, we obtain the desired $`4\times 4`$ hermitian matrices. Alternatively, a more concrete description of the $`\gamma ^{ab}`$ is given the appendix, where we express the $`\gamma ^{ab}`$ in terms of Dirac matrices.

In terms of $`\gamma _𝒊^{ab}`$, the exactly soluble spin-3/2 Hamiltonian can be written as

$`H`$ $`=g{\displaystyle \underset{𝒑}{}}F_𝒑`$ (14)
where $`𝒑`$ labels all the square plaquettes in the cubic lattice, and the $`F_𝒑`$ are “flux” operators defined by

$`F_𝒑=`$ $`\gamma _𝒊^{yx}\gamma _{𝒊+\widehat{𝒙}}^{\overline{x}y}\gamma _{𝒊+\widehat{𝒙}+\widehat{𝒚}}^{\overline{y}\overline{x}}\gamma _{𝒊+\widehat{𝒚}}^{x\overline{y}},`$
or $`\gamma _𝒊^{zy}\gamma _{𝒊+\widehat{𝒚}}^{\overline{y}z}\gamma _{𝒊+\widehat{𝒚}+\widehat{𝒛}}^{\overline{z}\overline{y}}\gamma _{𝒊+\widehat{𝒛}}^{y\overline{z}},`$
or $`\gamma _𝒊^{xz}\gamma _{𝒊+\widehat{𝒛}}^{\overline{z}x}\gamma _{𝒊+\widehat{𝒛}+\widehat{𝒙}}^{\overline{x}\overline{z}}\gamma _{𝒊+\widehat{𝒙}}^{z\overline{y}}.`$ (15)
depending on the orientation of the plaquette $`𝒑`$. Just as in the Kitaev model,Kitaev (1997) all the $`F_𝒑`$ commute with each other and all the $`F_𝒑`$ have only two eigenvalues: $`\pm 1`$. Thus, we can solve the Hamiltonian by simultaneously diagonalizing all the $`F_𝒑`$. If $`|\{f_𝒑\}`$ is a common eigenstate of $`F_𝒑`$ with $`F_𝒑|\{f_𝒑\}=f_𝒑|\{f_𝒑\}`$, $`f_𝒑=\pm 1`$, then it is also an energy eigenstate with energy

$$E(\{f_𝒑\})=g\underset{𝒑}{}f_𝒑$$

The one subtlety is that the $`f_𝒑`$ are not all independent. If $`C`$ is the surface of a unit cube, then we have the operator identity

$$\underset{𝒑C}{}F_𝒑=1$$

It follows that

$$\underset{𝒑C}{}f_𝒑=1$$

for all cubes $`C`$. This constraint means that the spectrum of our model is identical to a $`Z_2`$ gauge theory on a cubic lattice. The ground state can be thought of as a state with no flux: $`f_𝒑=1`$ for all $`𝒑`$. Similarly, the elementary excitations are small flux loops where

$$f_𝒑=1$$

for the four plaquettes $`𝒑`$ adjacent to some link $`𝒊𝒋`$. We can think of these excitations as quasi-particles which live on the *links* of the cubic lattice.

We would like to compute the statistics of these excitations. It is tempting to assume that they are bosons since the model is almost the same as a $`Z_2`$ gauge theory. However, as we will show, this superficial similarity is misleading: the flux loops are actually fermions.

As in the Kitaev model, the quasi-particles are exact eigenstates of our Hamiltonian. Thus, they have no dynamics and it is difficult to compute their statistics. However, this is a special feature of our model. We need to perturb the theory to understand generic states in the same quantum phase. The simplest perturbation is

$$H^{}=H+t\underset{𝒊,a,b}{}\gamma _𝒊^{ab}$$

To compute the statistics, we need to restrict ourselves to the low energy subspace with $`n`$ quasi-particles. In this subspace, $`H^{}`$ reduces to

$$H_{\text{eff}}^{}=t\underset{𝒊,a,b}{}\gamma _𝒊^{ab}$$

The effect of each term $`\gamma _𝒊^{ab}`$ is to allow the quasi-particles to hop between the two links $`𝒊(𝒊+\widehat{𝒂})`$ and $`𝒊(𝒊+\widehat{𝒃})`$ adjacent to site $`𝒊`$. Here $`\widehat{𝒂}=\widehat{𝒙}`$ if $`a=x`$, $`\widehat{𝒂}=\widehat{𝒙}`$ if $`a=\overline{x}`$, etc . (See Fig. 5.) Thus, our Hamiltonian can be written in the standard hopping form:

$$H_{\text{eff}}^{}=\underset{𝒊,a,b}{}(t_{𝒊(𝒊+\widehat{𝒂})𝒊(𝒊+\widehat{𝒃})}+t_{𝒊(𝒊+\widehat{𝒃})𝒊(𝒊+\widehat{𝒂})})$$

where $`t_{𝒊(𝒊+\widehat{𝒂})𝒊(𝒊+\widehat{𝒃})}=\frac{t}{2}\gamma _𝒊^{ab}`$.

To calculate the statistics we need to compare a product of the form $`t_1t_2t_3`$ with the product $`t_3t_2t_1`$, where the $`t_k`$ are hopping operators involving a single link $`𝒊𝒋`$. (As in the Kitaev model, we could write out these expressions explicitly, but it’s not very enlightening).

Note that a quasi-particle on the link $`𝒊𝒋`$ can hop to any of the $`10`$ neighboring links, $`5`$ of which are adjacent to site $`𝒊`$, and $`5`$ of which are adjacent to site $`𝒋`$ (see Fig. 5). Using the algebra (VI) or the Majorana fermion representation, we find that the $`5`$ hopping operators associated with site $`𝒊`$ all anti-commute with each other and similarly for site $`𝒋`$. On the other hand, each of the operators associated with $`𝒊`$ commute with each of the operators associated with $`𝒋`$.

With these facts in mind, we can now compare $`t_1t_2t_3`$ with $`t_3t_2t_1`$. There are essentially two cases: either all three of the $`t_k`$’s are associated with a single site $`𝒊`$ or $`𝒋`$, or two involve one site and one involves the other. In the first case, all the $`t_k`$’s anti-commute; in the second case, a pair of the $`t_k`$’s anti-commute and everything else commutes. In either case, we have

$$t_1t_2t_3=t_3t_2t_1$$

We conclude that the quasi-particles are indeed fermions.

Next, we construct the associated string operator. Taking a product of hopping operators along a path (of links), $`P=𝒊_1𝒊_2,𝒊_2𝒊_3,\mathrm{}𝒊_{n1}𝒊_n`$, gives

$$W(P)\gamma _{𝒊_1}^{a_1b_1}\gamma _{𝒊_2}^{a_2b_2}\mathrm{}\gamma _{𝒊_n}^{a_nb_n}$$
(16)
where $`b_m,a_{m+1}`$ is the pair of indices associated with the link $`𝒊_m𝒊_{m+1}`$. (See Fig.6.) Notice that the string operator commutes with the Hamiltonian, except at the ends. Thus, when we apply $`W(P)`$ to the ground state, the only effect is to flip the signs of $`f_𝒑`$ for the plaquettes $`𝒑`$ adjacent to the links $`𝒊_1𝒊_2`$, $`𝒊_{n1}𝒊_n`$. This means that the open string operator creates a pair of fermions at its two ends.

## VII Conclusion

In this paper we have derived a general relation (4) between the statistics of a lattice particle and the algebra of its hopping operators. This relation allows us to analyze emerging fermions in three dimensions. We have also shown that there is a close connection between strings and fermions. The statistical algebra (4) is fundamental to this connection since it allows us to determine the statistics of the ends of strings from the structure of the string operator.

It is interesting to put this string picture of emerging fermions in context. Indeed, it is well-known that gauge theories and strings are closely related - the strings correspond to electric flux lines in the associated gauge theory. Wegner (1971); Wilson (1974); Kogut and Susskind (1975); Banks et al. (1977); Polyakov (1979, 1998); Wen (2002) Thus, it appears that the fundamental concepts of Fermi statistics, gauge theory, and strings are all connected. They are all just different aspects of a kind of order - topological order - in bosonic lattice systems.

This research is supported by NSF Grant No. DMR–01–23156 and by NSF-MRSEC Grant No. DMR–02–13282.

## Appendix A Relative statistics

In this section, we derive an algebraic formula, analogous to (4), for the relative statistics of distinguishable particles. We begin with a Hilbert space which describes two types of hard-core particles hopping on a 2D lattice. For concreteness, say that there are $`m`$ particles of type $`1`$ and $`n`$ particles of type $`2`$. The states can be labeled by listing the positions of the two types of particles: $`|i_1,\mathrm{},i_m;j_1,\mathrm{},j_n`$.

A typical Hamiltonian for this system is of the form

$$H=\underset{<ij>}{}(t_{ij}^1+t_{ji}^1+t_{ij}^2+t_{ji}^2)$$

where $`t_{ij}^1,t_{ij}^2`$ are hopping operators for the two types of particles.

We wish to calculate the relative statistics of the two types of particles. As before, the statistics are related to the simple algebraic properties of the hopping operators. Specifically, we will show that the particles have relative statistics $`e^{i\varphi }`$ if

$$(t_{ip}^2t_{pj}^2)(t_{kp}^1t_{pl}^1)=e^{i\varphi }(t_{kp}^1t_{pl}^1)(t_{ip}^2t_{pj}^2)$$
(17)
Here, $`i,k,j,l`$ are (distinct) neighbors of $`p`$ oriented in the clockwise direction.

We begin with the state $`|i;j\mathrm{}`$ which contains a type $`1`$ particle at $`i`$, a type $`2`$ particle at $`j`$, and other particles which are far away.

Imagine that we wind particle $`1`$ around particle $`2`$ using an appropriate product of hopping operators. One expression for the final wound state is:

$`|i;j,\text{wound}=(t_{j\alpha }^2)(t_{\alpha j^{}}^2)(t_{il}^1\mathrm{}t_{m\alpha }^1)`$
$`(t_{\alpha n}^1\mathrm{}t_{pq}^1t_{qi}^1)(t_{j^{}\alpha }^2)(t_{\alpha j}^2)|i;j\mathrm{}`$
Here, we’ve grouped the hopping operators into 6 terms. The cumulative effect of these terms is to wind one particle around the other (see Fig. 7a).

Similarly, we can construct a state where the two particles don’t wind around each other (see Fig. 7b):

$`|i;j,\text{unwound}=(t_{il}^1\mathrm{}t_{m\alpha }^1)(t_{\alpha n}^1\mathrm{}t_{pq}^1t_{qi}^1)(t_{j\alpha }^2)`$
$`(t_{\alpha j^{}}^2)(t_{j^{}\alpha }^2)(t_{\alpha j}^2)|i;j\mathrm{}`$
As before, the two states involve the same total path in configuration space. Thus, the phase difference between the two states is precisely the relative statistics of the particles. This can be made rigorous using an argument similar to the exchange statistics case.

We now calculate this phase difference. We use the assumed algebraic relation

$$(t_{j\alpha }^2t_{\alpha j^{}}^2)(t_{m\alpha }^1t_{\alpha n}^1)=e^{i\varphi }(t_{m\alpha }^1t_{\alpha n}^1)(t_{j\alpha }^2t_{\alpha j^{}}^2)$$

Applying this relation to the wound state, and reordering the hopping operators using locality, we find

$$|i;j,\text{wound}=e^{i\varphi }|i;j,\text{unwound}$$

This establishes the desired result: the particles have relative statistics $`e^{i\varphi }`$.

A good consistency check for this formula can be obtained by considering the relative statistics of *two particles of the same type*. In this case, we expect the angle for the relative statistics to be exactly twice the angle for the exchange statistics:

$$e^{i\varphi _{\text{rel.}}}=e^{2i\theta _{\text{stat.}}}$$

One way to see this is that exchanging the particles twice in the same direction is topologically equivalent to winding one particle around the other.

This result, which has a topological character to it, can be derived algebraically from our two formulas. We start with the expression $`(t_{ip}t_{pj})(t_{kp}t_{pl})`$. Applying the exchange statistics formula Eq. (4), we find:

$`(t_{ip}t_{pj})(t_{kp}t_{pl})`$ $`=`$ $`t_{ip}(t_{pj}t_{kp}t_{pl})`$
$`=`$ $`t_{ip}(e^{i\theta _{\text{stat.}}}t_{pl}t_{kp}t_{pj})`$
Applying the formula again gives

$`t_{ip}(t_{pl}t_{kp}t_{pj})`$ $`=`$ $`(t_{ip}t_{pl}t_{kp})t_{pj}`$
$`=`$ $`(e^{i\theta _{\text{stat.}}}t_{kp}t_{pl}t_{ip})t_{pj}`$
Combining these two equations gives

$$(t_{ip}t_{pj})(t_{kp}t_{pl})=e^{2i\theta _{\text{stat.}}}(t_{kp}t_{pl})(t_{ip}t_{pj})$$

Comparing this with the relative statistics formula Eq. (17), we see that $`e^{i\varphi _{\text{rel.}}}=e^{2i\theta _{\text{stat.}}}`$, as claimed.

## Appendix B Dirac matrix representation of $`\gamma ^{ab}`$

In the following, we represent $`\gamma ^{ab}`$’s in terms of the Dirac matrices. Note that Eq. (VI) implies that

$$\{\gamma ^{ac},\gamma ^{bc}\}=2\delta _{ab}$$

Thus $`\gamma ^{xz}`$, $`\gamma ^{\overline{x}z}`$, $`\gamma ^{yz}`$, and $`\gamma ^{\overline{y}z}`$ satisfy the algebra of Dirac matrices. Introducing four Dirac matrices

$`\gamma ^x=`$ $`\sigma ^1\sigma ^1,`$ $`\gamma ^{\overline{x}}=`$ $`\sigma ^2\sigma ^1`$
$`\gamma ^y=`$ $`\sigma ^3\sigma ^1,`$ $`\gamma ^{\overline{y}}=`$ $`\sigma ^0\sigma ^2,`$
we can write

$$\gamma ^{az}=\gamma ^a,a=x,\overline{x},y,\overline{y}.$$
(18)
Similarly, $`\gamma ^{x\overline{z}}`$, $`\gamma ^{\overline{x}\overline{z}}`$, $`\gamma ^{y\overline{z}}`$, and $`\gamma ^{\overline{y}\overline{z}}`$ satisfy the algebra of Dirac matrices. We can express those operators as

$$\gamma ^{a\overline{z}}=i\gamma ^a\gamma ^5,a=x,\overline{x},y,\overline{y}.$$
(19)
where $`\gamma ^5=\gamma ^x\gamma ^{\overline{x}}\gamma ^y\gamma ^{\overline{y}}`$. Finally, for $`a,b=x,\overline{x},y,\overline{y}`$, we have

$$\gamma ^{ab}=i\gamma ^a\gamma ^b$$
(20)
In this way, we can express all the $`\gamma ^{ab}`$, $`a,b\{x,\overline{x},y,\overline{y},z,\overline{z}\}`$, $`ab`$ in terms of Dirac matrices.


format: text

text:
# The 1.2 mm image of the 𝛽Pictoris disk Based on observations collected with the Swedish ESO Submillimeter Telescope, SEST, in La Silla, Chile.

## 1 Introduction

Since its discovery by IRAS (e.g., Aumann (1984)), the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$toris system has presented the prime example of a dusty disk around a main sequence star, partly because of its high degree of ‘dustiness’ ($`L_{\mathrm{IR}}/L_{}=2.5\times 10^3`$, e.g. Lagrange et al. (2000)) and partly because of its relatively close distance to the Earth (19.3 pc, Crifo et al. (1997)), which makes it possible to obtain high quality data over the entire spectral range. Recent papers reviewing the physics of the disk around $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ include those of Artymowicz (2000), Lagrange et al. (2000) and Zuckerman (2001). Considerable uncertainty existed regarding the age of the system, but most recent estimates place the stellar age close to only ten million years ($`12_4^{+8}`$ Myr, Zuckerman et al. (2001)). This could open up the possibility that planet formation (nearing its final phases?) might actually become observable.

Since these reviews were written, new relevant information has been added to our knowledge of the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ system: Olofsson et al. (2001) reported the discovery of widespread atomic gas in the disk, a result recently confirmed and extended by Brandeker et al. (2002). These observations revealed the sense of disk rotation and that the northeast (NE) part of the gaseous disk is extending to the limit of the observations by Brandeker et al., viz. to at least 17′′ (330 AU) from the star. Several difficulties were encountered with these discoveries, such as the observed fact that the gas stays on (quasi-)Keplerian orbits, although radiation pressure forces in the resonance lines should accelerate the gas to high velocities and remove it on time scales comparable to the orbital period.

This needs to be addressed in the context of the origin and evolution of the gas and dust, i.e. whether one or both components are presently produced in situ in the disk or whether they (at least to some degree) constitute ‘left-overs’ from the star formation process, being of primordial origin. Takeuchi & Artymowicz (2001) have considered the interaction of gas and dust in a circumstellar disk, the dynamical evolution of which is critically dependent on the relative abundance of these species (see also Lecavelier des Etangs et al. (1998)). Possible observational consequences, even relatively far from the central star, may become assessible with modern mm/submm cameras. With the aim to compare and to extend the results obtained at 850 $`\mu `$m with SCUBA by Holland et al. 1998, we performed imaging observations at longer wavelengths and, in this paper, we present the image of the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ disk at 1200 $`\mu `$m (1.2 mm).

The SIMBA observations and the reduction of the data are presented in Sect. 2. Our basic result, i.e. the 1.2 mm image of $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ and its circumstellar disk, is found in Sect. 3, and in Sect. 4 the possible implications of these observations are discussed, where also other data are consulted. Finally, in Sect. 5, we briefly summarise our main conclusions from this work.

## 2 SIMBA observations and data reductions

The observations were performed with the SEST Imaging Bolometer Array (SIMBA) at the 15 m Swedish-ESO Submillimeter Telescope (SEST), La Silla, Chile, during the periods November 17 - 23 and 27 - 29, 2001. SIMBA has been developed by the Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Bonn, in collaboration with the Astronomisches Institut der Ruhr-Universität Bochum. The 37 liquid helium cooled semiconductor elements are n-doped silicon chips, mounted on a saphire substrate. Projected on the sky, the 37 horn antennae have each an HPBW of 23′′ and are spaced by 44′′ in a hexagonal arrangement, covering about 4. The spectral band pass is centered at 250 GHz (1200 $`\mu `$m) and has a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 90 GHz.

As map centre, the equatorial coordinates of $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ were used, viz. 05h47m17$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{_{}}`$1, $``$510359′′ (J 2000). Generally, the mapping was done in fast mode by scanning 600′′ in azimuth and 400′′ in elevation at the rate of 80′′ per second and with a step size in elevation of 8′′, oversampling the beam by about a factor of three. The zenith opacities were obtained by means of frequent sky dips and were on the average 0.22 at the beginning of our observing run, but improved to about 0.15 after a couple of days. The pointing of the telescope was regularly checked using the extragalactic radio source $`0537441`$ and/or the planet Saturn and was found to be within a third of the beamwidth.

Flux calibrations were based on observations of the planet Uranus. The brightness temperature of 94.8 K at 250 GHz implies a Uranus flux density of 38 Jy/beam, with an uncertainty of 5% (Griffin & Orton (1993)). As is evident from Fig. 1, the spatial flux distribution of this point source (diameter 3$`\stackrel{}{_{}}`$5) is consistent with a circular Gaussian telescope beam, with the measured FWHM($`,)=(`$24$`\stackrel{}{_{}}`$9$`\pm `$0$`\stackrel{}{_{}}`$3, 24$`\stackrel{}{_{}}`$6$`\pm `$0$`\stackrel{}{_{}}`$3). The deviation from a circularly symmetric Gaussian beam pattern occurs at the 1% level of the peak value ($`20`$ db).

In total, we recorded 171 maps with 21 hours of integration. These data were reduced by making use of the MOPSI reduction software package111http://www.ls.eso.org/lasilla/Telescopes/SEST/SEST.html developed by Robert Zylka. This involved correcting for atmospheric extinction, cosmic rays and the variable sky background, as well as producing maps from the fast scanning mode. The sky noise was greatly reduced by correlating and removing the simultaneous flux level variations of the different bolometer channels.

## 3 Results

The 1200 $`\mu `$m image of the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ region is displayed in Fig. 2, where the displayed contours are chosen in compliance with Holland et al. (1998). The flux maximum, designated as feature A in the figure, is centered on the position of the star $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ (0′′, 0′′). At position angle 237 relative to A, an elongation of the emission in the NE-SW direction is discernable. For an assumed Gaussian source flux distribution, the deconvolved minor and major axes are $`10`$′′ and 26′′, respectively, the latter corresponding to 500 AU. The disk emission extends to at least 55′′ (1050 AU) in the SW direction. In addition, faint emission protrudes south toward a ‘blob’ at ($`27`$′′, $`44`$′′). This feature C, at position angle 211$`\stackrel{}{_{}}`$5, is 52′′ (1000 AU) distant from the star and is thus not (whether real or not) positionally coincident with the 850 $`\mu `$m-SW blob of Holland et al. (1998) at ($`21`$′′, $`26`$′′) and identified as B in Fig. 2, but we note the following important facts: (1) this faint emission, extending straight south, is also apparent in the 850 $`\mu `$m image, (2) as is evident in Fig. 2, the position angle to blob C coincides with that of the midplane of the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ disk inferred from optical data (= 31$`\stackrel{}{_{}}`$5 \+ 180; Kalas & Jewitt (1995), Heap et al. (2000)), and (3) faint dust scattered light in this direction has been observed far from the star (1450 AU, Larwood & Kalas (2001)). Toward the NE, the scattering disk has been claimed to extend even further from the star, to 1835 AU.

An about $`2\sigma `$ feature at ($`+48`$′′, $`+32`$′′) and pa = 57 (1100 AU) is discernable in our image, but which would again be significantly offset from a similar blob at ($`+28`$′′, $`+25`$′′) in the 850 $`\mu `$m data. In order to assess the reality of these faint features we have divided the raw data into different portions and then applied the same reduction procedures to these subsamples. The result of this exercise indicates that the ($`+48`$′′, $`+32`$′′) feature is an artefact introduced by the noise, as it is not seen in all frames, whereas blob C is persistently present in the final sub-maps.

The flux densities of both the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ disk (A) and the SW features (B and C) are presented in Table 1. The result for the peak flux obtained by Chini et al. (1991)222We assume that these data refer to $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ and not to $`\alpha `$ Pic as written in their Table 1. with a single element bolometer at the SEST at 1300 $`\mu `$m, viz. $`24.9\pm 2.6`$ mJy/beam, is in agreement with our array value of $`24.3\pm 3.0`$ mJy/beam at 1200$`\mu `$m (cf. Fig. 3). The ratio of the peak flux A to that of blob C is $`2.5\pm 0.8`$.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 The $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ disk

For widely adopted parameters, the stellar disk subtends an angle in the sky of less than 1 mas and the photosphere generates a flux density at the Earth of less than 1 mJy at 1200 $`\mu `$m. The stellar contribution to our SEST measurements can therefore be safely ignored. Also, any line emission in this band pass is likely to be totally negligible (Liseau & Artymowicz (1998), Liseau (1999) and references therein).

Assuming an opacity law of the form $`\kappa _\nu =\kappa _0(\nu /\nu _0)^\beta `$, the flux density at long wavelenghts from an optically thin source of a certain dust population can be expressed as

$$F_\nu =\frac{2k\kappa _0\mathrm{\Omega }}{c^2\nu _0^\beta }\nu ^{2+\beta }T_{\mathrm{dust}}(z)dz.$$
(1)
If the particles dominating the emission at 850 $`\mu `$m and 1200 $`\mu `$m, respectively, can be assumed to yield the same integral, e.g. because they share the common temperature $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}`$ and/or occupy similar locations in space along the line of sight $`z`$, the average spectral index $`\beta `$ can be obtained from our 1200 $`\mu `$m and the 850 $`\mu `$m fluxes by Holland et al. (1998), using

$$\beta =2+\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}F_\nu }{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\nu }=2+\frac{\mathrm{log}(F_{850}/F_{1200})}{\mathrm{log}(1200/850)},$$
(2)
yielding $`\beta =0.5`$ for a point source at the stellar location. The index becomes $`\beta =1`$, if we use the fluxes for the extended source, viz. integrated over a radius of 40′′ centered on the star. This includes blob B, contributing some 20% to the 850 $`\mu `$m flux. A ‘correction’ for this would again indicate a lower $`\beta `$ value and we conclude that the dust in the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ disk has a shallow opacity index, perhaps even below unity (Dent et al. (2000) suggest $`\beta =0.8`$). This is illustrated in Fig. 3, which displays the long wavelength spectral energy distribution of $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$, together with weighted Rayleigh-Jeans spectra for $`\beta =0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, and could mean that the grains dominating the millimeter-wave emission are different from those scattering most efficiently in the visual and the near infrared. This value of $`\beta `$ is significantly lower than those found in the interstellar medium (ISM), where typically $`\beta 2`$ (Hildebrand (1983)), but it is similar to that found in protostellar disks (e.g., Beckwith et al. (1990), Mannings & Emerson (1994), Dutrey et al. (1996)), indicating significant differences between the dust particles in the ISM and those in the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ disk. As was also already concluded by Chini et al. (1991), the presence of relatively large grains is suggested, with maximum radii in excess of 1 mm ($`\mathrm{max}a/\lambda `$$`\stackrel{>}{_{}}`$ 1). Intriguing, however, is the existence of such large grains possibly as far away as 1000 AU from the star (see, e.g., Takeuchi & Artymowicz (2001), Lecavelier des Etangs et al. (1998)).

### 4.2 Weak dust features in the 1.2 mm image

The asymmetric flux distribution displayed in Fig. 2 may be surprising. In agreement with our observations, Chini et al. (1991) and Dent et al. (2000) too were unable to detect any emission in the northeast part of the disk, where we place a $`3\sigma `$-upper limit on the mass of 0.2 M (see below; the dust temperature at 500 AU $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}=45`$ K, when $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}(r)=110(r/26\mathrm{AU})^{0.3}`$ K, see Liseau & Artymowicz (1998)).

Given the low signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), the reality of this lopsidedness is difficult to assess, but asymmetries in the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ disk have been noticed also at other wavelengths. For instance, in scattered light, the receding NE side of the disk extends much further and is much brighter than the SE disk. In contrast, the shorter, approaching SE disk seems much thicker (Kalas & Jewitt (1995), Larwood & Kalas (2001)). The situation is reversed in the thermal infrared (albeit on smaller spatial scales), where the SW disk appears significantly brighter and more extended than the NE side (Lagage & Pantin (1994), Wahhaj et al. (2002), Weinberger et al. (2002)). This could be due to a ‘Janus-effect’, i.e. the NE being dominated by ‘bright’ dust particles (high albedo, silicates), whereas in the SE, the majority of dust grains is ‘dark’ (high absorptivity, carbonaceous?). What would accomplish such uneven distribution in the disk is not clear, but large differences in albedo, by more than one order of magnitude, are not uncommon, for instance, in solar system material. Also, in order to understand the nature of feature C (and B) velocity information would be valuable.

Blob C would be situated in the disk midplane and on the second contour in the scattered light image of Larwood & Kalas (2001) ($`22<R<25`$ mag/arcsec2, see also Kalas & Jewitt (1995)). No obvious distinct feature is seen at its position. However, to be detectable with SIMBA at the SEST, any point source at mm-wavelengths would not be point-like at visual wavelengths, and its optical surface brightness could be very low.

To gain some quantitative insight we ran numerical models, exploiting Mie-theory, for a variety of plausible dust mixtures regarding the chemical composition and grain size distributions (for details, see Pantin et al. (1997)). The equilibrium temperatures were found to be in the interval 16 K to 58 K and depending on the dust albedo and scattering phase function, the predicted integrated scattered light, to be consistent with our SEST observations, spans 8 magnitudes. The two most extreme cases considered were (1) bright cold dust (albedo = 1 at visual wavelengths, $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}=16`$ K) which is scattering isotropically and has albedo = 0.2 at thermal wavelengths, which results in a spatially integrated $`R`$-magnitude of 17.3 and (2) dark warm dust (albedo = 0.02 in the visual, $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}=58`$ K) which gives rise to ‘comet scattering’, i.e. 14% of isotropic at 90, and has zero albedo at thermal wavelengths, resulting in an integrated $`R`$-magnitude of 25.6. These extreme cases are felt to be either too optimistic or too conservative and an intermediate case might be more appropriate. Our adopted model includes isotropically scattering dust at $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}=25`$ K with albedo = 0.2 at visual and zero albedo at thermal wavelengths, yielding an integrated $`R`$-magnitude of 20. An about 10′′ source ($`R=25`$ mag/arcsec2) would thus be consistent with both the optical data and our SIMBA measurement and a deep $`R`$-band search might become successful. Similarly, the integrated 850 $`\mu `$m flux density is predicted to be slightly less than 18 mJy and should become readily detectable. However, blob C is situated outside the figure of Holland et al. (1998).

Feature C is perfectly aligned with the optical disk plane, and its (hypothetical) mass can be estimated from

$$M_{\mathrm{dust}}=\frac{D^2F_\nu }{\kappa _\nu B_\nu (T_{\mathrm{dust}})},$$
(3)
where the distance $`D`$ is assumed to be that of $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ and the adopted dust absorption coefficient $`\kappa _{250\mathrm{GHz}}1`$ cm2 g-1. This estimate of $`\kappa _\nu `$ is probably correct within a factor of three (Beckwith et al. (2000) and references therein). For the dust temperature $`T_{\mathrm{dust}}=25`$ K, the dust mass is of the order of ten lunar masses (0.16 M), which would be comparable to the dust mass of the disk proper, being overall much warmer. Another factor of about three uncertainty stems thus from the dust temperature, provided $`10\mathrm{K}<T_{\mathrm{dust}}<60`$ K.

The famous ‘SW-blob’ in the 850 $`\mu `$m image has received considerable interest by the debris disk community. According to Dent et al. (2000), this feature, labelled B in Fig. 2, is real. It is not readily apparent in our 1200 $`\mu `$m image, however, presumably due to the combination of low contrast and reduced angular resolution. To test this idea, we performed numerical experiments, i.e. convolving two point sources, at the appropriate positions of A and B and with varying flux ratios, with the SIMBA beam. Flux ratios, normalised to the peak value, which are consistent with our observations are in the range $`0.250.45`$, with the most compelling being about 0.3 (comparable to that for blob C). In combination with feature C, blob B accounts for the southward bridge seen in Fig. 2.

For radiation mechanisms generating power law spectra and/or thermal dust emission from blob B, the spectral slope is given by $`\alpha =\beta _A+2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}R_\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}\lambda `$, where $`\beta _A`$, as before, refers to A = (0′′, 0′′), i.e. the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ disk, and where $`R_\lambda =\left[F_\nu (A)/F_\nu (B)\right]_\lambda `$ and $`\lambda =850`$$`\mu `$m or 1300 $`\mu `$m. Because of the relatively low S/N of the SCUBA and SIMBA data, the actual flux ratios are highly uncertain and, furthermore, calibration uncertainties and telescope beam effects could potentially introduce large errors. The combined observations of blob B suggest $`\mathrm{log}(R_{850}/R_{1200})0`$, yielding $`\beta _B\beta _A`$, i.e. consistent with the spectrum of A.

## 5 Conclusions

Based on 1200 $`\mu `$m imaging observations of the circumstellar dust of $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ we conclude the following:

* At 25′′ resolution, the 1200 $`\mu `$m image of the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ disk is slightly resolved in the NE-SW direction, but remains unresolved perpendicularly (NW-SE). In addition, the emission appears asymmetric and extends further SW-S to more than 1000 AU away from the star. Maximum emission ($`=24`$ mJy) is observed toward the position of the star.
* Combining our 1200 $`\mu `$m map with that by Holland et al. (1998) at 850 $`\mu `$m we infer that the dust size distribution in the $`\beta \mathrm{Pic}`$ disk is significantly different from that in the general interstellar medium and appears more reminiscent of that found in protostellar disks. We argue that the thermal emission is dominated by dark big particles and that these grains constitute a population different from that dominating the scattering in the visible/NIR part of the spectrum.
* From the examination and numerical simulations of the available data (optical and submm/mm) for the southwestern blobs/extensions seen in the SIMBA maps we conclude that their reality can at present neither be excluded nor can, on the basis of the available evidence, their existence be fully confirmed.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Dr. José Afonso, who made available to us the Uranus calibration data, and to the SEST staff for providing additional observations. The critical comments by the anonymous referee are highly appreciated.