Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model

Jarmo Hietarinta University of Turku, Turku, Finland
¨ ¨ in collaboration with Petri Salo and Juha Jaykka
Jarmo.Hietarinta@utu.fi

LMS Durham Symposium: Topological Solitons and their Applications August 2004

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.1/30

The setting
Carrier field: 3D unit vector field n in R3

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.2/30

The setting
Carrier field: 3D unit vector field n in R3 Locally smooth

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.2/30

The setting
Carrier field: 3D unit vector field n in R3 Locally smooth Asymptotically trivial: n(r) → n∞ , when |r| → ∞

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.2/30

The setting
Carrier field: 3D unit vector field n in R3 Locally smooth Asymptotically trivial: n(r) → n∞ , when |r| → ∞
⇒ can compactify R3 → S 3 .

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.2/30

The setting
Carrier field: 3D unit vector field n in R3 Locally smooth Asymptotically trivial: n(r) → n∞ , when |r| → ∞
⇒ can compactify R3 → S 3 . ⇒ n : S3 → S2.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.2/30

The setting
Carrier field: 3D unit vector field n in R3 Locally smooth Asymptotically trivial: n(r) → n∞ , when |r| → ∞
⇒ can compactify R3 → S 3 . ⇒ n : S3 → S2.

Such mappings are characterized by the Hopf charge, i.e., by the homotopy class π3 (S 2 ) = Z.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.2/30

Example of vortex ring with Hopf charge 1:
n= 8(r2 − z 2 ) 4(2xz − y(r2 − 1)) 4(2yz + x(r2 − 1)) , ,1 − 2 )2 2 )2 (1 + r (1 + r (1 + r2 )2 .

where r2 = x2 + y 2 + z 2 .

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.3/30

Example of vortex ring with Hopf charge 1:
n= 8(r2 − z 2 ) 4(2xz − y(r2 − 1)) 4(2yz + x(r2 − 1)) , ,1 − 2 )2 2 )2 (1 + r (1 + r (1 + r2 )2 .

where r2 = x2 + y 2 + z 2 . Note that • n = (0, 0, 1) at infinity (any direction). • n = (0, 0, −1) on the ring x2 + y 2 = 1, z = 0 (vortex core).

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.3/30

Example of vortex ring with Hopf charge 1:
n= 8(r2 − z 2 ) 4(2xz − y(r2 − 1)) 4(2yz + x(r2 − 1)) , ,1 − 2 )2 2 )2 (1 + r (1 + r (1 + r2 )2 .

where r2 = x2 + y 2 + z 2 . Note that • n = (0, 0, 1) at infinity (any direction). • n = (0, 0, −1) on the ring x2 + y 2 = 1, z = 0 (vortex core). Computing the Hopf charge: Given n : R3 → S 2 define Fij =
abc n a∂ in b∂ jn c.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.3/30

Example of vortex ring with Hopf charge 1:
n= 8(r2 − z 2 ) 4(2xz − y(r2 − 1)) 4(2yz + x(r2 − 1)) , ,1 − 2 )2 2 )2 (1 + r (1 + r (1 + r2 )2 .

where r2 = x2 + y 2 + z 2 . Note that • n = (0, 0, 1) at infinity (any direction). • n = (0, 0, −1) on the ring x2 + y 2 = 1, z = 0 (vortex core). Computing the Hopf charge: Given n : R3 → S 2 define Fij = abc na ∂i nb ∂j nc . Given Fij construct Aj so that Fij = ∂i Aj − ∂j Ai ,

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.3/30

Example of vortex ring with Hopf charge 1:
n= 8(r2 − z 2 ) 4(2xz − y(r2 − 1)) 4(2yz + x(r2 − 1)) , ,1 − 2 )2 2 )2 (1 + r (1 + r (1 + r2 )2 .

where r2 = x2 + y 2 + z 2 . Note that • n = (0, 0, 1) at infinity (any direction). • n = (0, 0, −1) on the ring x2 + y 2 = 1, z = 0 (vortex core). Computing the Hopf charge: Given n : R3 → S 2 define Fij = abc na ∂i nb ∂j nc . Given Fij construct Aj so that Fij = ∂i Aj − ∂j Ai , then 1 ijk Q= Ai Fjk d3 x. 16π 2

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.3/30

Possible physical realization

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.4/30

Faddeev’s model
In 1975 Faddeev proposed the Lagrangian (energy)
E=
2 (∂i n)2 + g Fij d3 x,

Fij := n · ∂i n × ∂j n.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.5/30

Faddeev’s model
In 1975 Faddeev proposed the Lagrangian (energy)
E=
2 (∂i n)2 + g Fij d3 x,

Fij := n · ∂i n × ∂j n.

Under the scaling r → λr the integrated kinetic term scales as λ and the integrated F 2 term as λ−1 .

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.5/30

Faddeev’s model
In 1975 Faddeev proposed the Lagrangian (energy)
E=
2 (∂i n)2 + g Fij d3 x,

Fij := n · ∂i n × ∂j n.

Under the scaling r → λr the integrated kinetic term scales as λ and the integrated F 2 term as λ−1 . Therefore nontrivial configurations will attain some fixed size determined by the dimensional coupling constant g . (Virial theorem)

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.5/30

Faddeev’s model
In 1975 Faddeev proposed the Lagrangian (energy)
E=
2 (∂i n)2 + g Fij d3 x,

Fij := n · ∂i n × ∂j n.

Under the scaling r → λr the integrated kinetic term scales as λ and the integrated F 2 term as λ−1 . Therefore nontrivial configurations will attain some fixed size determined by the dimensional coupling constant g . (Virial theorem) Vakulenko and Kapitanskii (1979): a lower limit for the energy,
E ≥ c |Q| ,
3 4

where c is some constant, and Q the Hopf charge.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.5/30

Other models
Other field theoretical models having configurations with nonzero Hopf charge include: de Vega (1978), Higgs-models (Abelian and SU(2)). Nicole (1978), L = − − 1 (∂µ na )2 4
3/2

Kundu and Rubakov (1982), S 2 nonlinear σ -model.
2 Aratyn, Ferreira, Zimerman (1999) L = − Fµν 3/4

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.6/30

Numerical studies of Faddeev’s model
Question: What are the minimun energy states for various Hopf charges?

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.7/30

Numerical studies of Faddeev’s model
Question: What are the minimun energy states for various Hopf charges? Gladikowski and Hellmund (1997): Charges 1 and 2, also various other models, cylindrical ansatz.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.7/30

Numerical studies of Faddeev’s model
Question: What are the minimun energy states for various Hopf charges? Gladikowski and Hellmund (1997): Charges 1 and 2, also various other models, cylindrical ansatz. Faddeev and Niemi (1997): Charges 1 and 2, cylindrical ansatz, speculations on trefoil knots.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.7/30

Numerical studies of Faddeev’s model
Question: What are the minimun energy states for various Hopf charges? Gladikowski and Hellmund (1997): Charges 1 and 2, also various other models, cylindrical ansatz. Faddeev and Niemi (1997): Charges 1 and 2, cylindrical ansatz, speculations on trefoil knots. Battye and Sutcliffe (1998): Charges 1-8, ring initial states, deformation to trefoil seen.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.7/30

Numerical studies of Faddeev’s model
Question: What are the minimun energy states for various Hopf charges? Gladikowski and Hellmund (1997): Charges 1 and 2, also various other models, cylindrical ansatz. Faddeev and Niemi (1997): Charges 1 and 2, cylindrical ansatz, speculations on trefoil knots. Battye and Sutcliffe (1998): Charges 1-8, ring initial states, deformation to trefoil seen. Hietarinta and Salo (1999): Linked initial configurations, deformation to trefoil seen. (2000): More on the lowest energy states, agreement with VK bound. (2004): Knotting of twisted vortices (w/Jäykkä).

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.7/30

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.8/30

Our work
Full three dimensional minimization.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.9/30

Our work
Full three dimensional minimization.
1 +in Use n rather than w := n1+n3 2 , because singularities in w are hard to handle numerically. (w = ∞ at the vortex core or at spatial infinity) However, with n have to renormalize to n2 = 1 after each iteration step.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.9/30

Our work
Full three dimensional minimization.
1 +in Use n rather than w := n1+n3 2 , because singularities in w are hard to handle numerically. (w = ∞ at the vortex core or at spatial infinity) However, with n have to renormalize to n2 = 1 after each iteration step.

Discretize so that code parallelization simple.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.9/30

Our work
Full three dimensional minimization.
1 +in Use n rather than w := n1+n3 2 , because singularities in w are hard to handle numerically. (w = ∞ at the vortex core or at spatial infinity) However, with n have to renormalize to n2 = 1 after each iteration step.

Discretize so that code parallelization simple. More complicated initial states generated, in particular linked unknots.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.9/30

Our work
Full three dimensional minimization.
1 +in Use n rather than w := n1+n3 2 , because singularities in w are hard to handle numerically. (w = ∞ at the vortex core or at spatial infinity) However, with n have to renormalize to n2 = 1 after each iteration step.

Discretize so that code parallelization simple. More complicated initial states generated, in particular linked unknots. Special emphasis on visualization.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.9/30

Computational
Discretized on a cubic lattice, size typically 2403 .

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.10/30

Computational
Discretized on a cubic lattice, size typically 2403 . Discretized the Lagrangian (energy): ∂i n on links, Fij on plaquettes.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.10/30

Computational
Discretized on a cubic lattice, size typically 2403 . Discretized the Lagrangian (energy): ∂i n on links, Fij on plaquettes. Computed the gradient
n(r) L

symbolically.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.10/30

Computational
Discretized on a cubic lattice, size typically 2403 . Discretized the Lagrangian (energy): ∂i n on links, Fij on plaquettes. Computed the gradient
n(r) L

symbolically.
n(r) L.

Used dissipative dynamics: nnew = nold − δ

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.10/30

Computational
Discretized on a cubic lattice, size typically 2403 . Discretized the Lagrangian (energy): ∂i n on links, Fij on plaquettes. Computed the gradient
n(r) L

symbolically.
n(r) L.

Used dissipative dynamics: nnew = nold − δ

Program parallelizes well, have used Cray T3E, SGI Origin 2000, IBM SP

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.10/30

How to visualize vector fields?
Cannot draw vectors at every point. Flow lines do not make sense, because of global gauge invariance. (In fact our vectors could live in another space, e.g., spin.)

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.11/30

How to visualize vector fields?
Cannot draw vectors at every point. Flow lines do not make sense, because of global gauge invariance. (In fact our vectors could live in another space, e.g., spin.)

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.11/30

How to visualize vector fields?
Cannot draw vectors at every point. Flow lines do not make sense, because of global gauge invariance. (In fact our vectors could live in another space, e.g., spin.) Vector are represented by points on the sphere. We have one fixed direction, n at infinity, define it as the north pole, i.e, n∞ = (0, 0, 1). All other directions are defined by latitude and longitude.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.11/30

How to visualize vector fields?
Cannot draw vectors at every point. Flow lines do not make sense, because of global gauge invariance. (In fact our vectors could live in another space, e.g., spin.) Vector are represented by points on the sphere. We have one fixed direction, n at infinity, define it as the north pole, i.e, n∞ = (0, 0, 1). All other directions are defined by latitude and longitude. Latitude is invariant under global gauge rotations that keep the north pole fixed, therefore plot equilatitude surfaces (i.e., points at which n3 has a fixed value).

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.11/30

How to visualize vector fields?
Cannot draw vectors at every point. Flow lines do not make sense, because of global gauge invariance. (In fact our vectors could live in another space, e.g., spin.) Vector are represented by points on the sphere. We have one fixed direction, n at infinity, define it as the north pole, i.e, n∞ = (0, 0, 1). All other directions are defined by latitude and longitude. Latitude is invariant under global gauge rotations that keep the north pole fixed, therefore plot equilatitude surfaces (i.e., points at which n3 has a fixed value). Longitudes are represented by colors on the equilatitude surface. (Under a global gauge rotation only colors change).

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.11/30

Isosurface n3 = 0 (equator) for |Q| = 1, 2

Color order and handedness of twist determine Hopf charge. Inside the torus is the core, where n3 = −1.
These figures were made using the program funcs developed by J. Ruokolainen at CSC, Espoo, Finland

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.12/30

Results for linked unknots of charge 1+1

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.13/30

Deformation 5 + 4 − 2 → trefoil

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.14/30

Energy evolution in minimization

700.0 600.0 500.0 Total energy 1+1+2 400.0 1−1+2 300.0 2+2−2 200.0 100.0 1+1−2 0.0 0 20000 40000 Number of iterations 60000 80000 2−2+2 2−2−2 1−1−2

2+2+2

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.15/30

Vakulenko bound
1.10 1.08 1.06

EQ / (E1Q )

3/4

1.04 1.02 1.00 0.98 0.96 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q

Filled circles give the best result (global minima) we have for given Hopf charge; open squares are the results of Battye and Sutcliffe.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.16/30

Different and improved final states

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.17/30

Knot theory
The proper knot theoretical setting is to use framed links. Framing attached to a curve adds local information near the curve, like twisting around it.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.18/30

Knot theory
The proper knot theoretical setting is to use framed links. Framing attached to a curve adds local information near the curve, like twisting around it. One way to describe framed liks is to use directed ribbons, which are preimages of line segments.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.18/30

Knot theory
The proper knot theoretical setting is to use framed links. Framing attached to a curve adds local information near the curve, like twisting around it. One way to describe framed liks is to use directed ribbons, which are preimages of line segments. We could use equilatitude line segments, then increasing latitude and longitude give two directions, their cross product the ribbon direction.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.18/30

Knot theory
The proper knot theoretical setting is to use framed links. Framing attached to a curve adds local information near the curve, like twisting around it. One way to describe framed liks is to use directed ribbons, which are preimages of line segments. We could use equilatitude line segments, then increasing latitude and longitude give two directions, their cross product the ribbon direction. In practice we often choose 4 points on equilongitude line near the south pole (=core)

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.18/30

Example: ribbon view of Q = −1 unknot

Four nearby points on the equator.
These figures were made using OpenDX

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.19/30

Computing the charge
For a ribbon define:
twist

= linking number of the ribbon core with a ribbon boundary. = signed crossover number of the ribbon core with itself.

writhe

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.20/30

Computing the charge
For a ribbon define:
twist

= linking number of the ribbon core with a ribbon boundary. = signed crossover number of the ribbon core with itself. = 1 (sum of signed crossings) 2

writhe

linking number

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.20/30

Computing the charge
For a ribbon define:
twist

= linking number of the ribbon core with a ribbon boundary. = signed crossover number of the ribbon core with itself. = 1 (sum of signed crossings) 2

writhe

linking number

The Hopf charge can be determined either by twist + writhe or linking number of the two ribbon boundaries.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.20/30

Charge from the ribbon view, Q = −1

Sign convention for crossings allows computing the charge. In this case linking number of ribbon boundaries = −1.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.21/30

Charge from the ribbon view, Q = −1

Sign convention for crossings allows computing the charge. In this case linking number of ribbon boundaries = −1. On the right the ribbon has been turned vertical and is viewed from above: a twist in the ribbon becomes a crossing.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.21/30

Charge from the ribbon view, Q = −1

Sign convention for crossings allows computing the charge. In this case linking number of ribbon boundaries = −1. On the right the ribbon has been turned vertical and is viewed from above: a twist in the ribbon becomes a crossing. Note that when considering equivalence of ribbon diagrams type I Reidemeister move is not valid:

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.21/30

Ribbon view, Q = −2

Two ways to get charge −2: twice around small vs. large circle. The first one has twist = −1, writhe = −1, the second twist = −2, writhe = 0. Both have boundary linking number = −2.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.22/30

Example of ribbon deformation

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.23/30

Close-up of the deformation process

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.24/30

Diagrammatic rule
Knot deformations correspond to ribbon deformations, e.g., crossing and breaking, but the Hopf charge will be conserved.

Ribbon deformation can be seen if we look the same configuration at different latitudes (the first example before), or at same latitude at different times (animations).

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.25/30

Deformation rule for physical ribbons

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.26/30

Deformation rule for physical ribbons

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.26/30

Deformation rule for physical ribbons

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.26/30

Deformation rule for physical ribbons

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.26/30

Deformation rule for physical ribbons

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.26/30

Deformation rule for physical ribbons

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.26/30

Ribbon connection rules
Total Hopf charge = charges of individual unknots + linking number.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.27/30

Ribbon connection rules
Total Hopf charge = charges of individual unknots + linking number. Unknots: Twisting the end on the right hand clockwise a full twist yields charge +1.

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.27/30

Ribbon connection rules
Total Hopf charge = charges of individual unknots + linking number. Unknots: Twisting the end on the right hand clockwise a full twist yields charge +1. Linking number depends on the relative direction associated with the unknots:

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.27/30

Physically relevant extensions
Faddeev’s model is hidden in more physical models: Faddeev and Niemi (2000), electrically conducting plasmas Cho et al (2001), QCD Cho (2001), Weinberg-Salam model. Babaev, Faddeev, Niemi (2002) =⇒ Cho (2002), Bose-Einstein condensates Babaev (2002), triplet superconductors

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.28/30

Example: Charged two-boson condensate

Change of variables: Ψα = 2mα ρ χα , χ = (χ1 , χ∗ ), |χ|2 = 1, 2 ¯ na = (χ, σa χ). Eliminate all χ dependence in favor of n. [Translate A → cC + q(χ, ∂χ)]

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.29/30

References
J. Hietarinta and P. Salo: Faddeev-Hopf knots: dynamics of linked unknots, Phys. Lett. B 451, 60-67 (1999). J. Hietarinta and P. Salo: Ground state in the Faddeev-Skyrme model, Phys. Rev. D 62, 081701(R) (2000). J. Hietarinta, J. Jäykkä and P. Salo: Dynamics of vortices and knots in Faddeev’s model, JHEP Proceedings: PrHEP unesp2002/17
http://jhep.sissa.it/archive/prhep/preproceeding/ 008/017/sp-proc.pdf

J. Hietarinta, J. Jäykkä and P.Salo: Relaxation of twisted vortices in the Faddeev-Skyrme model, Phys. Lett. A 321, 324-329 (2004) Relevant video animations can be seen at
http://users.utu.fi/hietarin/knots/index.html

Ribbon knots in the Faddeev-Skyrme model – p.30/30