text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the cosmology is strongly related with the particle physics.  The cosmology gives various constraints to the particle physics. For examples, the present ratio of the radiation density and the critical density gives constraints to the mass and the interaction of the stable particles and the success of the Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis requires shorter lifetime than about one second for the unstable particles with large number density. On the other hand, elementary particle physics also gives various effects to the cosmology. In order to examine the early universe, we need the knowledge of the elementary particle physics, because the evolution of the universe is strongly dependent on the physics at the small scale. More concretely the elementary particle theory gives some candidates for the dark matter and the concept of the field theory is applied to solve some cosmological problems as in inflation.

Are there any possibility that the present elementary particle theory is more dynamically determined by the history of the universe? This is the point which we examine in this paper.

Before discussing cosmological situation, let us roughly recall the theory of evolution for creatures. Every creatures have genes. The genes essentially determine the behavior of the creatures. The circumstance around the creatures select the creatures by their behaviors. If some creatures behave more suitably for their circumstance, then the creatures have longer life and create more children and their genes. Namely genes with longer life survive in the history.

What we would like to do is to apply the above logic to the elementary particle physics. The elementary particle theories determine the evolution of the universes. Some of the universes are expanding and some of them are recollapsing. As the result, the universes with longer life survive. In other words, theories which make the universe have longer life survive. What are the features of theories with long or short life? This is main motivation in this paper.

But what does ’many’ universes mean? The answer in this paper is that it means many bubbles with different vacua which appear at the phase transition. In the early universe, there must be several phase transitions. If there are several minima of the potential at the phase transition, there may be several kinds of bubbles with different vacua in the universe simultaneously. Since generally the bubbles with different field theories evolve differently, the bubbles with different vacua may evolve differently. Some of them may expand more rapidly than the other bubbles and dominate the other universes, and some of them may shrink and become black holes when the radius of the bubbles becomes smaller than the Schwarzschild radius. As the result, we have many universes with different lifetimes and the selection of the vacua happens.

The vacuum selection by using inflation has been argued in the literature.  A. Linde argued that the initial condition of the vacuum expectation value of the scalar is naturally selected so that the inflation happens, because inflated universe dominates the universe. After his argument, various features have been discussed in the context of the inflation. However, in a sense this selection is not true selection, because the universes without inflation also survive unless the universes are recollapsing, though they occupy only smaller region in the whole universe. Therefore it is possible that we are living in one of these universes, though the simple argument of probability teaches us that we need the strong luckiness or the anthropic principle.

On the other hand, as long as we know, there are only a few papers on the vacuum selection by using recollapsing via gravity force.  Banks et al. have argued this possibility in the context of the string moduli problem. They argued that the universes with negative cosmological constant shrink following Friedmann equation. By this argument, they insisted that the universes with negative cosmological constant are unstable.

We think that it is important to examine more generally the features of universes which shrink by gravity effect. By studying on the universes with short lifetime, we can understand the features of universes with long life and the features of our particle field theories which we have in our universe. In this paper, under simple assumptions we examine several cases in which the vacuum selection by recollapsing happens. It is interesting that in many cases false vacua are selected by this argument. Namely, cosmology prefers local minima. And we insist that the recollapsing bubbles become black holes. If the black holes evaporates until now, this selection by recollapsing becomes true selection. In other words, the bubble with the special vacuum is too weak to survive. It is also interesting that we may be able to observe the other universes as the black holes in our horizon unless the black holes evaporate until now. Moreover, we discuss the application of the cosmological vacuum selection to the elementary particle theories, especially to the cosmological supersymmetry(SUSY) breaking.

The plan of this paper is as follows. After the review on the evolution of the universe in section 2, we examine several cases in which the selection by recollapsing happens in section 3. In section 4, we discuss various features on the primordial black holes which are formed by the recollapsing via gravity force. In section 5, we apply the result that cosmology prefers the local minima to the particle theory. Especially we examine the possibility that the SUSY is cosmologically broken. Finally we discuss our assumptions and summarize our arguments.

## 2 Evolution of the Universe

If the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, the metric can be written in the form

$$ds^2=dt^2a(t)^2\left(\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right),$$
(2.1)
which is Robertson-Walker metric. Under this metric, the Einstein equation

$$G_{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu },$$
(2.2)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$, $`R_{\mu \nu }`$, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the Einstein tensor, the Ricci tensor, the stress-energy tensor for all the fields and a cosmological constant, respectively, leads to the Friedmann equation

$$H^2\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}=\frac{k}{a^2}+\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho $$
(2.3)
and the energy equation

$$d(\rho a^3)=pd(a^3),$$
(2.4)
where $`H`$ is the Hubble constant. Here we take

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\rho }+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\rho _R+\rho _M+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (2.5)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{p}+p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=p_R+p_M+p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (2.6)
$`T_\nu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\overline{\rho },\overline{p},\overline{p},\overline{p})`$ (2.7)
$`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}},`$ (2.8)
where $`\rho _{(R,M)}`$ and $`p_{(R,M)}`$ are the energy density and pressure for (relativistic fields(radiation), non-relativistic fields(matter)), respectively. Though the energy density $`\rho `$ and the pressure $`p`$ are the sum of the contribution from the relativistic fields, non-relativistic fields and the cosmological constant, the energy equation is realized independently if the energy transfer among relativistic fields, non-relativistic fields and the cosmological constant is negligible. Namely

$$d(\rho _Aa^3)=p_Ad(a^3),$$
(2.9)
where $`A=R,M,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. When

$$p_A=\gamma _A\rho _A,$$
(2.10)
the differential equation (2.9) can be solved as

$$\rho a^{3(1+\gamma _A)}.$$
(2.11)
Here $`\gamma _R=1/3`$, $`\gamma _M=0`$ and $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. Then the Friedmann equation is rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{a}^2+V(a)`$ (2.12)
$`V(a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{3}}a^2\rho (a),`$ (2.13)
which has the same kinematics as of one dimensional particle moving with the energy $`E=k/2`$ under the potential $`V(a)`$. In the following analysis, we take the initial condition $`\dot{a}>0`$, namely the universe is expanding in the beginning.

When $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, the global behavior is determined by the signature of the parameter $`k`$. If $`k`$ is positive, the universe becomes recollapsing. If $`k`$ is zero or negative, the universe keeps expanding.

On the other hand, if the vacuum energy dominates the energy density, the signature of the cosmological constant plays essential roles. If the cosmological constant is positive, the universe is expanding exponentially. This situation is called inflation. If the cosmological constant is negative, the universe becomes recollapsing.

Let us estimate the time scale for recollapsing by solving the Friedmann equation (2.12). With vanishing cosmological constant, the time scale $`\tau _{(R,M)}`$ for the (Radiation, Matter) dominated case is calculated as

$`\tau _R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_I}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_I1}}+O(1)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{O(t_I)}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_I1)}}`$ (2.14)
$`\tau _M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_I}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{(\mathrm{\Omega }_I1)^{3/2}}}+O((\mathrm{\Omega }_I1)^1)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{O(t_I)}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_I1)^{3/2}}}`$ (2.15)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho /\rho _c`$ is defined by using critical density $`\rho _c3H^2/(8\pi G)`$ and the suffix $`I`$ represents the initial value at the time $`t_I`$. We can easily find that when $`\mathrm{\Omega }1=O(1)`$, the time scale for recollapsing is of order $`t_I1/H_I`$. This estimation show that the universe recollapses soon after $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$ becomes of order 1.

With the negative cosmological constant, the time scale $`\tau _{ADS}`$ for recollapsing is

$$\tau _{ADS}2_{a_I}^{a_{max}}𝑑a\frac{1}{\sqrt{k2V(a)}}=\frac{1}{H_I\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_I}}\left(\pi 2\mathrm{A}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_I}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_I}}\right)\right)=O(t_I),$$
(2.16)
where $`a_{max}`$ is determined by the relation $`k=2V(a_{max})`$. This means that the universe recollapses soon after the vacuum energy dominates the energy density of the universe. The results in this section are summarized in table 1.

|  | $`k>0(\mathrm{\Omega }>1)`$ | $`k=0(\mathrm{\Omega }=1)`$ | $`k<0(\mathrm{\Omega }<1)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ | - | inflation | inflation |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ ($`\rho =\rho _R`$) | $`O(t_I)(\mathrm{\Omega }1)^{3/2}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ ($`\rho =\rho _M`$) | $`O(t_I)(\mathrm{\Omega }1)^1`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ | $`O(t_I)`$ | $`(O(t_I))`$ | $`(O(t_I))`$ |

table 1. The lifetime for recollapsing

## 3 Examples

In this section we discuss several examples in which collapsing bubbles and expanding bubbles exist simultaneously, namely vacuum selection by recollapsing occurs.

It is not so easy to understand the evolution of the universe at the phase transition, because generally the universe is not homogeneous nor isotropic. It is also difficult to solve the Einstein equation in such general cases, therefore we take several assumptions.

The first assumption is that the Friedmann equation can be used for estimating the evolution of the bubble universes. If the size of the bubbles is larger than the horizon length $`d_H1/H`$ and the space inside the bubble is almost homogeneous and isotropic, then it is natural to use the Friedmann equation for the evolution of the space inside the bubble. Such calculation is adopted by several people who discussed the evolution of the universe,  for example, in the context of the chaotic inflation by A. Linde. Here we use the Friedmann equation for the evolution of the bubble universes.

The second assumption is that the phase transition does not change the energy density. The phase transition can change only the carrier of the energy among relativistic particles, non-relativistic particles and vacuum. This is only for the simplicity.

We consider the following situation. At the higher temperature, there is only one minimum, which disappears and two new minima appear around the critical temperature $`T_{PT}`$. Suppose that the two phases coexist for a while after the phase transition and the time scale of the coexistence is larger than the typical time scale for recollapsing, e.g., $`O(t_I)`$. Under these assumptions, we examine several cases in which collapsing bubbles and expanding bubbles exist at the same time.

The first case is that the universe has the larger energy density than the critical density($`k>0`$), therefore $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{PT}>1`$ at the time $`t_{PT}`$ when the phase transition occurs. After the phase transition, the potential has one global minimum with vanishing cosmological constant and the other minimum which is local. The bubble universe with the true vacuum recollapses because the energy density is larger than the critical density. The time scale for the recollapsing is $`O(t_I)`$ unless the energy density is tuned to the critical density. It is natural that the recollapsing bubbles become black holes, which we will discuss later. On the other hand, the bubble universe with the false vacuum inflates if the cosmological constant dominates the energy density before reaching the time when the bubble begins to shrink.

In order to regard the inflating universe as our universe, the inflation must stop some time because our universe does not inflate at present, namely cosmological constant must vanish till now. Here we expect that there is an unknown mechanism which realizes the vanishing cosmological constant. And such a mechanism automatically stop the inflation and the vacuum energy is released in the universe(reheating). Of course we have no reliable mechanism for the vanishing cosmological constant, so we do not discuss more on how to stop the inflation here.

The second case is that the energy density is smaller than the critical density. After the phase transition, the local minimum has vanishing cosmological constant, and the global minimum has negative cosmological constant. After the negative cosmological constant in the bubble universe of the true vacuum dominates the energy density of the universe, the bubble universes begin to shrink. Therefore the bubble universes with true vacuum become black holes and the bubble universe with the false vacuum keeps expanding and dominates our universe.

In the above two cases, our universe is on the false vacuum. The false vacuum decays to the true vacuum by quantum tunneling effect.  The lifetime of the universe must be longer than the age of the present universe if you would like to regard the universe as our universe. We will shortly discuss the lifetime of the universe.

Of course, we can think about the intermediate situations between the above two cases. Namely, the potential has a global minimum with the negative cosmological constant and a local minimum with the positive cosmological constant. In this case, the bubble universes with the true vacuum become black holes and the bubble universes with the false vacuum inflate. Notice that the above vacuum selection happens even if the initial number density of the bubble universes with the false vacuum is much smaller than that of the true vacuum. Since the bubble universes with true vacuum are recollapsing, the tiny part of the universe with the false vacuum can dominate the whole universe if it exists.

The final case is that the energy density is almost the same as the critical density, but a little bit larger than the critical density. And the both vacua are degenerate with the vanishing cosmological constant. Therefore, bubbles with both vacua turn to recollapse some time. Moreover, we take the situation that one of the vacua gives the matter dominated universe, and the other gives the radiation dominated universe. Here for simplicity, soon after the phase transition, such a difference is realized. Then the time scales for recollapsing are different and dependent on whether the bubble are the radiation dominant or matter dominant. As we discussed the lifetime in the previous section, the matter dominated universe has longer lifetime than the radiation dominated universe under the same initial conditions. If the energy density is near the critical density, the difference becomes large, because the lifetime is proportional to $`1/(\mathrm{\Omega }1)`$ for the radiation dominated universe and $`1/(\mathrm{\Omega }1)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ for the matter dominated universe. If the radiation dominated universe become black hole with shorter period than the age of our universe and the matter dominated universe has longer lifetime than the age of our universe, then the vacuum selection is realized. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$ is realized after inflation, it may be possible that even in our real world, the situation happens.

By examining the above cases and the other cases of vacuum selection  by inflation, we can easily conclude that the cosmology prefers local minima. However, in the ordinary field theory, the local minimum is unstable, namely the local minimum decays to the global minimum. How long is the lifetime of the unstable vacuum? In the end of this section, we discuss the lifetime of the local minimum by the instanton calculation,  which gives

$$\tau \frac{1}{V\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}e^{S(\overline{\varphi })},$$
(3.1)
where $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the volume of the universe and the typical scale of the potential of the scalar $`\varphi `$. Here $`\overline{\varphi }`$ is an instanton solution and $`S(\varphi )`$ is the action of the scalar field $`\varphi `$. Since the lifetime of the local minimum should be longer than the age of our universe $`\tau _010^{20}`$ seconds, we get the condition

$$10^{200}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{(GeV)^4}e^{S(\overline{\varphi })}.$$
(3.2)
When the difference of the potential energy between the two minimum is much smaller than the typical scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$, then we get

$$S(\overline{\varphi })2\pi ^2O(1)/ϵ^3,$$
(3.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }Vϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$. Therefore $`ϵ1/10`$ is small enough to satisfy the above condition. This situation seems not to require strong fine tuning and is not so difficult to be satisfied. It is not natural that a scalar potential has no local minimum with the above feature. Therefore we think that it is not unnatural that we are living in a false vacuum.

## 4 Primordial black hole

The black hole which is induced in the early universe is called primordial black hole. In our situation, some bubble universes may become the primordial black holes. But how heavy primordial black holes are induced and how many black holes are there in our universe? Generally it is not so easy to give a concrete conclusion on the formation of the black holes at the phase transition. In the literature, the formation of the black holes has been discussed in the various cases with various assumptions.  However, for the situation that the size of coexisting bubbles is around the horizon length $`d_HO(1/H)`$, which can be reached by the light from the beginning of the universe, we can make a simple argument. It is consistent with the previous assumption that Friedmann equation can be applied to the evolution of the bubble universes.

The mass of the black holes can be estimated from the size of the bubbles and the energy density. The energy density is given by

$$\rho T_{RC}^4,$$
(4.1)
where $`T_{RC}`$ is the temperature at which the bubble begin to recollapse. Since in the most cases we discussed $`T_{RC}`$ is the same order of the temperature of the phase transition $`T_{PT}`$, we use $`T_{PT}`$ in the following argument. We can estimate the order of the mass of the primordial black hole by using the temperature and Planck scale $`M_P`$ as

$$M_{BH}d_H^3\rho M_P^3/T_{PT}^2.$$
(4.2)
Here we use the relation $`H^2G\rho `$. The Schwarzschild radius $`R_S=2GM_{BH}`$ for the black hole becomes

$$R_S\frac{1}{H}.$$
(4.3)
It is well-known but surprising that the Schwarzschild radius is the same order of the horizon length which is the size of the bubbles. Therefore it is expected that the shrinking bubbles become black holes soon after the density outside the bubble becomes smaller than the inside one. It is natural that the recollapsing bubbles become black holes.

On the other hand, black holes are evaporating by Hawking radiation.  The lifetime is given by

$$\tau _{BH}\frac{2560\pi }{g_{}}G^2M_{BH}^3\frac{2560\pi }{g_{}}\frac{M_P^5}{T_{PT}^6}.$$
(4.4)
Here $`g_{}`$ is the degrees of freedom of the particles at the Hawking temperature $`T_H=1/(8\pi GM_{BH})`$. From the table 2

| $`T_{PT}`$ (GeV) | 1 | 100 | $`10^9`$ | $`10^{12}`$ | $`10^{19}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`M_{BH}`$ (g) | $`O(10^{33})O(M_{Solar})`$ | $`O(10^{29})`$ | $`O(10^{15})`$ | $`O(10^9)`$ | $`O(10^5)`$ |
| $`T_H(\mathrm{GeV})`$ | $`O(10^{21})`$ | $`O(10^{17})`$ | $`O(10^3)`$ | $`O(10^3)`$ | $`O(10^{17})`$ |
| $`\tau _{BH}`$ (s) | $`O(10^{74})`$ | $`O(10^{62})`$ | $`O(10^{20})\tau _0`$ | $`O(1)`$ | $`O(10^{42})`$ |

table 2. Here $`M_{Solar}`$ is the solar mass and $`\tau _0`$ is the age of our universe.

we can easily find that the primordial black holes may be seen in our universe if the temperature of the phase transition is less than $`10^9`$ GeV. This is because the age of our universe is around $`10^{20}s`$. The black holes caused by the phase transition above $`10^9`$ GeV evaporate until now, though there may exist some remnant of the black holes. Notice that the mass of the black hole from the QCD phase transition is around the solar mass $`M_{Solar}`$ which is the same order as the mass of the massive compact halos objects (MACHO) found by using gravity lensing effect.

The number density is difficult to be estimated, because it is strongly dependent on the expanding rate of our universe, the shape of the potential, the features of the phase transition and the initial conditions. But here we roughly estimate the number density, though this estimation is not so reliable in general cases. The number density at the phase transition can be naively estimated as

$$n_{BH}(t_{PT})\frac{1}{d_H^3}H^3\frac{T_{PT}^6}{M_P^3}.$$
(4.5)
Since the black holes are regarded as the non-relativistic objects, the number density after the phase transition is

$$n_{BH}(t)=n_{BH}(t_{PT})\left(\frac{R(t_{PT})}{R(t)}\right)^3.$$
(4.6)
In the case 2, the density of the black holes dominates the energy density soon, which means that the universe becomes matter dominant. Since usually we think that the temperature of the phase transition is much larger than $`T5.5`$ eV at which matter density becomes almost equal to the radiation density, in order to regard the universe as our universe, we need the evaporation of the black holes(i.e., the scale of the phase transition is larger than $`10^9`$ GeV) or another inflation realizing smaller density of the black holes.

In the case 1, after the inflation ends, the number density is estimated as

$$n_{BH}(t)=n_{BH}(t_{PT})e^{3Ht_E}\left(\frac{R(t_E)}{R(t)}\right)^3,$$
(4.7)
where $`t_E`$ is the time when the inflation ends. Unfortunately in this case it is almost impossible to see the black holes in our universe. This is because there is only a few black hole at the most in our universe within the present horizon since the present universe is almost flat.

The interesting case is the intermediate case between cases 1 and 2. Namely the local minimum has a positive cosmological constant and the global minimum has a negative cosmological constant. Suppose that before the phase transition, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ has already been realized by another inflation etc. In this case, the bubbles with the global minimum shrink and become black holes soon, and the bubbles with the local minimum is inflating. The number density can be estimated as in the eq. (4.7), and we can realize any number density by tuning the time the inflation stops. Therefore we may see the primordial black holes caused by the phase transition and recollapsing process in our universe. In this scenario, the primordial black holes can be dark matter candidates for any level. Though it is interesting to examine the possibility that the small primordial black hole becomes the dark matter, it is beyond the subject in this paper.

## 5 Cosmological SUSY breaking

In this section, we examine applications of the above results to the particle physics. If it is usual that the local minimum is selected dynamically by disappearance of the global minimum, it must be interesting to examine the possibility that we are living in the local minimum more seriously. Of course, such a possibility has been already examined, because the local minimum can have longer lifetime than the age of our universe. But for the most of people, such a passive reason seems not to be enough to take the possibility seriously. Actually, many people have discussed the conditions for realizing the expected vacuum as the global minimum  and only the structure of the space of the global minimum (moduli space) in the supersymmetric field theories. However, as we argued, the universe with the global minimum may collapse and disappear in the history of the universe. Though the results is dependent on the initial conditions, it must be important to examine the possibility that we are living in the local minimum because we may have to stay on the local minimum. The examination of the possibility may be crucial for finding the real vacuum. For example, in the string theory, to realize the dilaton stability is one of the interesting problem to be solved. By changing the Kähler potential of the dilaton, we can stabilize the dilaton vacuum though this vacuum is often at the local minimum. If the local minimum is cosmologically selected, we do not have to mind why we are not living in the global minimum, which is too weak to survive. Moreover we think it important to examine the possibility in various phase transition, for examples, in the QCD phase transition, the electroweak phase transition and GUT phase transition. But here we discuss only the SUSY breaking.

If the nature has SUSY, scalars must exist. It seems to be natural that the scalar potential has several local minima which have features for longer life than the age of our universe. Since cosmology prefers local minimum, it is natural that such local minima is selected in the history of the universe. Since only the global minimum keeps the SUSY in the context of the global SUSY theories, in the theory with local minimum SUSY is spontaneously broken. Notice that SUSY is spontaneously broken even if SUSY vacua exist. Therefore SUSY is broken by cosmology.

Where is the natural scale for the SUSY breaking? If a theory has SUSY at a scale, then the theory has generally a scalar potential. It is natural that the potential has the local minima which break SUSY. The natural SUSY breaking scale is the scale. If the theory has a SUSY at the Planck scale, then it is natural that SUSY is broken at the Planck scale. Of course, such an argument does not reject the low energy SUSY. The theory may have no local minima with long life. Even if it has local minima, the initial conditions may allow the universe with vanishing cosmological constant to expand.

By using cosmological SUSY breaking, we can make simpler models in which SUSY is spontaneously broken. The point is that these models are allowed to have SUSY vacua. Even if the models have SUSY vacua, cosmology prefers SUSY breaking local minima. We examine a simple model with gauge mediated SUSY breaking.

Several years ago, Izawa-Yanagida  and Intriligator-Thomas  proposed one of the simplest dynamical SUSY breaking model which has a SUSY SU(2) gauge group with four doublet chiral superfields $`Q_i(i=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ and several singlets $`S`$ and $`S^a(a=1,\mathrm{},5)`$. Here the suffix $`i`$ is a flavor index and $`a`$ is the index of five dimensional representation of SP(4) global symmetry which they adopted as the global symmetry of the superpotential

$$W=ySQQ+\overline{y}S^a(QQ)_a,$$
(5.1)
where $`(QQ)`$ and $`(QQ)_a`$ are one and five dimensional representations of SP(4) which are formed from a suitable combination of $`Q_iQ_j`$. The effective superpotential is given by

$$W_{eff}=y\mathrm{\Lambda }SV+\overline{y}\mathrm{\Lambda }S^aV_a$$
(5.2)
with constraint $`V^2+V_a^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=0`$. Here the composite meson fields $`V(QQ)/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`V_a(QQ)_a/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the low energy degrees of freedom and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a dynamical scale of the SU(2) gauge theory. When $`y<\overline{y}`$, the condensation

$$V=\mathrm{\Lambda },V_a=0$$
(5.3)
is realized at the global minimum, and the effective potential is approximately rewritten as

$$W=y\mathrm{\Lambda }^2S.$$
(5.4)
The F-term of the $`S`$ field $`F_S`$ is $`y\mathrm{\Lambda }^20`$, which means that the SUSY is spontaneously broken. Notice that if the Kähler potential of the $`S`$ field is minimal one, then the vacuum expectation value(VEV) of the $`S`$ field is undetermined, namely, the potential has a flat direction.

In order to mediate the SUSY breaking effect to the ordinary gauginos, squarks and sleptons via the standard model gauge interaction(gauge mediation),  we introduce vector-like messenger fields $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ which has quantum numbers of the standard gauge group and the superpotential

$$W=\lambda S\overline{q}q.$$
(5.5)
If the vacuum expectation values of these fields remain unchanged by this deformation, namely,

$$V=\mathrm{\Lambda },V_a=0,q=\overline{q}=0,$$
(5.6)
the supersymmetry is broken again. If we take $`S^2>F_S`$, then ordinary gauge mediation calculation gives the gaugino masses

$$M_a\frac{\alpha _a}{4\pi }\frac{F_S}{S}$$
(5.7)
via one loop diagram and scalar fermion masses

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_f^2\underset{a}{}\left(\frac{\alpha _a}{4\pi }\right)^2\left(\frac{F_S}{S}\right)^2$$
(5.8)
via two loop diagram. Here $`\alpha _ag_a^2/(4\pi )`$ and $`g_a`$ are the gauge couplings of the standard model. Notice that the order of the SUSY breaking mass scales of sfermions is the same as of gauginos. This mediation mechanism can give the realistic mass pattern to the superpartners.

This naive model is very simple but unfortunately by adding the above superpotential, SUSY vacua appear, namely the F-term equation

$$y\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\lambda \overline{q}q=0$$
(5.9)
can be satisfied by taking non vanishing vacuum expectation value of $`\overline{q}q`$. Therefore usually this model has not been examined as a dynamical SUSY breaking model. Several attempts to make the SUSY vacua disappear have been made in the literature.  However, since cosmology prefers local minima, we do not mind that the SUSY vacua exist. What is important here is that the expected vacuum should be at least local minimum and the lifetime of the vacuum is longer than the age of our universe.

The potential under the superpotential and the minimum Kähler potential is

$$V=|y\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\lambda \overline{q}q|^2+|\lambda S|^2(|q|^2+|\overline{q}|^2)+\mathrm{Dterm}$$
(5.10)
which has a flat direction along the direction $`q=\overline{q}=0`$. Along the flat direction, when $`|\lambda S|^2>y\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, the mass square matrix of the fields $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ has only positive eigenvalues, on the other hand, when $`|\lambda S|^2<y\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, it has negative eigenvalues. Therefore the expected vacuum (5.6) is not even a local minimum. However, generally, the Kähler potential can be deformed by quantum corrections from the minimal one. Then the expected vacuum may be a local minimum. Actually if the Kähler potential of the $`S`$ field is corrected as

$$K=|S|^2+\eta \frac{|yS|^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}(\eta >0)$$
(5.11)
by the strong gauge interaction, then the effective potential along the flat direction $`q=\overline{q}=0`$ is given by

$$V_{eff}|y|^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^4(14\frac{\eta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}|y|^4|S|^2).$$
(5.12)
Since the effective potential is lifted in the large $`|S|`$ region because the Yukawa coupling $`y`$ grows with the scale $`S`$,  the potential along the flat direction has a minimum. If the condition $`|\lambda S|^2>y\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is satisfied at the minimum, the minimum is a local minimum in the whole potential. Since cosmology prefers local minima, the local vacuum can be selected cosmologically if the lifetime is longer than the age of our universe, which is strongly dependent on the parameters and the vacuum expectation value.

This is a simple model in which cosmological SUSY breaking happens, though we may need to introduce another singlet or non-renormalizable terms in order to get the realistic scale of the supersymmetric Higgs mass term.

In this cosmological SUSY breaking scenario, bubbles with SUSY vacua shrink and become black holes. It is interesting that the mass of the black holes is determined by the SUSY breaking scale (see table 2). Therefore by observing the small black holes in our universe, we may measure the SUSY breaking scale. Since the SUSY breaking scale for the gauge mediation scenario is usually between $`10^5`$ GeV and $`10^{10}`$ GeV, the mass scale of the black holes is $`10^{13}\mathrm{g}<M_{BH}<10^{23}\mathrm{g}`$. Though the black holes with lighter mass than $`10^{15}`$ g evaporate till now, it is interesting that the most of the gauge mediated SUSY breaking models ($`10^5\mathrm{GeV}<\sqrt{F_S}<10^9`$GeV) produce the small black holes with longer lifetime than the age of our universe and we can know the SUSY breaking scale from the mass of the black holes.

## 6 Discussion

Coleman and DeLuccia have argued on the probability of the first order phase transition including the gravity by finding the O(4) symmetric instanton solution of the scalar field theory with gravity. Since the solution has O(4) symmetry, the bubble wall velocity becomes light velocity soon and the bubbles keep expanding. Even when the global minimum has negative cosmological constant, they found the O(4) symmetric solution, therefore the bubble keeps expanding. They concluded that the observer outside the bubble sees the bubble expanding, on the other hand, the space inside the bubble is collapsing. Though this conclusion is strongly dependent on their assumption that the O(4) solution gives the smallest action, this seems to give a counter example of our assumption that the evolution of the bubble is determined by the Friedmann equation. Similar phenomenon is examined in a different situation at the first order phase transition.  Of course including finite temperature effects, the wall velocity may become much less than the light velocity(i.e., the solution has not O(4) symmetry).  However, it suggests that our calculation may be too naive. More reliable calculation including numerical estimation is needed, which is a future subject.

The determination of the vacuum is equivalent to the determination of the theory in a sense, in some cases the determination of the couplings. If we can construct a scenario in which only very limited vacua survive in the evolution of the universe, then we may be able to solve the fine tuning problems of couplings, scales et al., for examples, strong CP phase or Higgs mass, by using cosmology. This direction may be interesting, but this is also one of the future subjects.

The discussion in this paper is similar to the anthropic principle, which insists that physical parameters must be as they are, otherwise there does not exist creatures like human beings who think why physical parameters are like these. There are some difference between the usual human principle and our arguments. The biggest difference is that in our scenario other universes may be observed in our universe as black holes. In this sense, we think that our argument is similar to the theory of evolution for creatures, because we can observe a lot of fossils (black holes) as the remnants of the extinct creatures ( recollapsing universes).

## 7 Summary

Under several assumptions we examined the several examples in which the vacuum is selected by recollapsing. It is interesting that the recollapsing universes become black holes which may be observed in our universe. The mass of the black holes can be roughly estimated in the situation that the bubble radius is around the horizon length, it is interesting that QCD phase transition may produce the black holes with solar mass, because MACHOs with solar mass have already been observed by gravity lensing effect.

It is also interesting that the local minimum is preferable to global minimum. If this result is applied to the SUSY theory, SUSY may be cosmologically broken even if the theory has SUSY global vacua. We made a simple model in which SUSY is cosmologically broken.

The assumptions we imposed in this paper may be too naive. But we believe that even if the assumptions are not satisfied in many cases, the vacuum selection by recollapsing can generally happen and tells us important clues to know why our world is as it is.

In the sense of the theory of the evolution for creatures, it may be considerable that bubbles with different physical theories fight each other and bubbles with theories which will make other bubbles disappear may survive. Such a consideration like the struggle for existence may give clearer features of the theories which survive the history of the universe.

## 8 Acknowledgement

The author expresses thanks to D. Wright for encouraging and collaboration at the early stage of this work. He also thanks N. Sugiyama for valuable conversation on MACHO experiments. Part of this work has been done while he was visiting Technische Universität München. He would like to thank the staffs, especially Prof. M. Lindner, the colleagues and faculty of this institute for their hospitality.


format: text

text:
# Interaction-Induced Magnetization of the Two-Dimensional Electron Gas

## I Introduction

Within the independent-electron picture, the magnetic response of a bulk two-dimensional electron gas has two sources: Pauli paramagnetism originating from the electron spin and Landau diamagnetism originating from the orbital electronic motion. After studies of the contribution of superconducting fluctuations to the magnetic response of superconductors above $`T_c`$ , Aslamazov and Larkin  pointed out that electron-electron interactions make an analogous contribution to the magnetic response of normal-metal systems. While the fluctuation contribution is diamagnetic in superconductors, the Coulomb interaction gives a paramagnetic contribution to the susceptibility of normal metals; this difference is a direct consequence of the different signs of the effective interaction in the two cases.

In their seminal work, Aslamazov and Larkin  computed the interaction contribution to the susceptibility of three-dimensional metals and of layered systems at zero magnetic field. They found that the effect was particularly strong for layered systems. In view of the importance of the physics of the two-dimensional electron gas, the purpose of the present paper is to compute the interaction-induced magnetization of a strictly two-dimensional bulk system. We shall moreover go beyond the zero-field limit considered by Aslamazov and Larkin and compute the magnetization for arbitrary classically weak magnetic fields. We find that the interaction-induced magnetization generally dominates over the Landau and Pauli contributions at sufficiently low temperatures.

The relevant length scales of the problem are the thermal length $`L_T=\mathrm{}v_F/(2\pi T)`$, the magnetic length $`L_H=(\mathrm{}/eB)^{1/2}`$, the cyclotron radius $`R_c=m_ev_F/eB`$, and the elastic mean free path $`\mathrm{}_{el}`$. Throughout this paper, we focus on the regime $`L_T\mathrm{}_{el}`$, which allows us to neglect the effects of impurity scattering. Moreover, we restrict ourselves to classically weak magnetic fields, defined by the condition $`L_TR_c`$ (or equivalently $`\mathrm{}\omega _cT`$, where $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency). Within a semiclassical approach, this implies that we can neglect the classical effects of the magnetic field on the trajectories and only need to consider the Aharonov-Bohm phases induced by the $`B`$ field. For classically weak magnetic fields, we can distinguish between two magnetic field regimes: The low-field regime, considered by Aslamazov and Larkin, where $`L_TL_H`$ and the high-field regime $`L_TL_H`$. We present analytical results in both regimes and also show numerical results bridging these two regions. Most importantly, we present a simple renormalization argument based on classical paths which exactly reproduces the result of the complicated full treatment.

The magnetization of the two-dimensional electron gas has been studied experimentally in mesoscopic samples  and in the quantum-Hall regime . To the best of our knowledge, no experiments have been performed on bulk 2d samples at classically weak magnetic fields. Such experiments would be a valuable test of our theoretical understanding of the interaction contribution to the magnetization.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we develop the semiclassical approach to the interaction-induced magnetization for 2d bulk systems. In Sec. III we employ the general results derived in Sec. II to derive explicit expressions for the magnetization in the high- and low-field regimes. A curious feature of these results is that the interaction-induced susceptibility is third order in the (renormalized) interaction strength. In Sec. IV, we show how the renormalization group approach introduced in  allows one to give a simple semiclassical interpretation of this result. We conclude in Sec. V by comparing the interaction-induced susceptibility to the Landau and Pauli susceptibilities and discussing finite-size effects.

## II The semiclassical approach

### A Basics

#### Cooper-channel

Calculating the interaction contribution to the magnetic response requires one to extend the high-density expansion (RPA) of the thermodynamic potential  by including interaction corrections from diagrams in the Cooper-channel. This was first done in the context of superconducting fluctuations and then applied to disordered normal metals. Such expansions usually give reliable results even beyond the high density limit, if the relevant sets of terms are properly resummed. The relevant Cooper-like diagrams are shown in Fig. 1. The screened Coulomb interaction (wavy lines) can be treated as local: $`U(𝐫𝐫^{})=\lambda _0N(0)^1\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$. Here, $`N(0)=m_e/(\pi \mathrm{}^2)`$ denotes the full density of states and the bookkeeping index $`\lambda _0=1`$ identifies the order of perturbation. For a local interaction, the direct and exchange term are the same up to a factor of $`(2)`$ coming from the spin sums and the different number of fermion loops. The straight lines in Fig. 1 represent finite-temperature Green functions of the non-interacting system. These take the form

$$𝒢_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}(ϵ)=\theta (ϵ)G_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}^R(E_F+iϵ)+\theta (ϵ)G_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}^A(E_F+iϵ)$$
(1)
in terms of the retarded and advanced Green functions $`G_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}^R(E)=[G_{𝐫^{},𝐫}^A(E^{})]^{}`$.

The perturbation expansion for this interaction contribution $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the thermodynamic potential, which yields the magnetic response, can be formally expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _0)^n}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1\mathrm{}𝑑𝐫_n\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫_n,𝐫_1)}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{ln}[1+\lambda _0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\omega ]\right\}.`$ (3)
Here, $`\omega `$ denotes the bosonic Matsubara frequencies $`\omega =2\pi m/\beta `$ ($`m`$ is any positive or negative integer) with $`\beta =1/k_BT`$. (We employ units such that $`k_B=1`$ in this paper.) The particle-particle propagator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega `$ is expressed (in position representation) in terms of products of finite–temperature Green functions as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫,𝐫^{})=\frac{1}{\beta N(0)}\underset{ϵ}{\overset{E_F}{}}𝒢_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}(ϵ)𝒢_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}(\omega ϵ)$$
(4)
where the sum runs over the fermionic Matsubara frequencies $`ϵ=(2n+1)\pi /\beta `$. The short-length (high-frequency) behavior is included in the screened interaction, thus requiring a cutoff of the frequency sums at the Fermi energy $`E_F`$.

#### Semiclassical Green function

In view of the fact that the Fermi wavelength is the smallest length scale in the problem, our strategy will be to replace the free Green functions in the particle-particle propagator by their semiclassical approximations. Generally, the semiclassical approximation to the Green function $`G_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}(E_F+iϵ,B)`$ is expressed as a sum over all classical paths from $`𝐫`$ to $`𝐫^{}`$ at energy $`E_F`$ . For the bulk 2d electron gas, there is only a single such trajectory, namely the straight line connecting the two points. For $`ϵ=0`$ and $`B=0`$ one therefore has

$$G_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}^R(E_F,B=0)\frac{1}{i\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{m_e}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{\mathrm{exp}[iS_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}(E_F)/\mathrm{}i\pi /4]}{(k_F|𝐫𝐫^{}|)^{1/2}}$$
(5)
where $`S_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}(E_F)=\mathrm{}k_F|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$ is the classical action along the path. Moreover, since we assume the magnetic field is classically weak, the field affects the action along the path through

$$S(B)=S(B=0)+\frac{e}{c}_𝐫^𝐫^{}𝑑𝐱𝐀(𝐱)$$
(6)
where the integral is along the unperturbed straight line path. Finally, it turns out that only small values of the imaginary part of the energy $`ϵ`$ should be considered, so we can use the relation

$$(S/E)=t,$$
(7)
where $`t=|𝐫𝐫^{}|/v_F`$ is the time of flight from $`𝐫`$ to $`𝐫^{}`$. In this way, one obtains the semiclassical Green function for finite field and finite (imaginary) energy $`ϵ`$:

$$G_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}^R(E_F+iϵ,B)=G_{𝐫,𝐫^{}}^R(E_F,B=0)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}c}_𝐫^𝐫^{}𝑑𝐱𝐀(𝐱)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{|ϵ||𝐫𝐫^{}|}{\mathrm{}v_F}\right].$$
(8)
#### Semiclassical particle-particle propagator

In the calculation of the thermodynamic potential Eq. (2) one should neglect all rapidly oscillating contributions in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ as these will give a small contribution upon integration. Thus, in the particle-particle propagator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, it is necessary to pair advanced and retarded Green functions, and furthermore to pair each path in the semiclassical expression for $`G^R`$ with those in $`G^A`$ for which the dynamical phase factor cancels. The obvious case of pairing each path with itself is excluded because it yields no field dependence in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and hence zero magnetization. Thus one is led to consider pairs of time-reversed paths– for these the dynamical phase cancels but the magnetic field part is multiplied by two. The pairing of $`G^R`$ with $`G^A`$ means concretely that one should keep only those terms in which $`ϵ`$ and $`\omega ϵ`$ have opposite sign in the sum over Matsubara frequencies. Using the relation

$$\underset{ϵ(\omega ϵ)<0}{}\mathrm{exp}[|2ϵ\omega |t/\mathrm{}]=\frac{\mathrm{exp}[|\omega |t/\mathrm{}]}{\mathrm{sinh}(2t\pi /\beta \mathrm{})},$$
(9)
one obtains the final result for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫,𝐫^{})=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega ^{(0)}(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2ie}{c\mathrm{}}_𝐫^𝐫^{}𝑑𝐱𝐀(𝐱)\right\}$$
(10)
where we have introduced the zero field limit of the particle-particle propagator

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega ^{(0)}(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)=\frac{1}{4\pi L_T|𝐫𝐫^{}|}\frac{\mathrm{exp}[|m||𝐫𝐫^{}|/L_T]}{\mathrm{sinh}(|𝐫𝐫^{}|/L_T)}.$$
(11)
### B Derivation of the eigenvalues

The ladder-diagram contribution to the thermodynamic potential is expressed in Eq. (3) solely in terms of the eigenvalues of the operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$. We therefore need to solve the eigenvalue equation

$$𝑑𝐫^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫,𝐫^{})\psi _{n,l}(𝐫^{})=\sigma _\omega ^{n,l}\psi _{n,l}(𝐫)$$
(12)
where $`n`$ and $`l`$ are quantum numbers.

Assuming from now on the symmetric gauge $`𝐀=𝐁\times 𝐫/2`$, Eq. (10) reads

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫,𝐫^{})=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega ^{(0)}(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2ie}{c\mathrm{}}\frac{B}{2}(𝐫\times 𝐫^{})\right\}.$$
(13)
It can be easily checked that any operator of the form Eq. (13) commutes with any element of the magnetic translation group

$$\widehat{T}(𝐑)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝐑(\widehat{𝐩}\frac{2e}{c}𝐀)\right)$$
(14)
and therefore with its generators

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_x`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{p}_x(2e/c)A_x)`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_y`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{p}_y(2e/c)A_y).`$
Noting that, first, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is invariant under rotation and, second, the Landau Hamiltonian for a particle of charge $`(2e)`$ can be written as

$$\widehat{H}_L=\left(\widehat{𝐩}+\frac{2e}{c}𝐀\right)^2=\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_x^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_y^2+\frac{4e}{c\mathrm{}^2}\widehat{J}_z,$$
(15)
we see that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is diagonal in the basis $`\left\{\psi _{n,l}\right\}`$ of the eigenvectors of $`\widehat{H}_L`$ and $`\widehat{J}_z`$, where $`n`$ and $`l`$ are the Landau level and angular momentum quantum numbers, respectively. For $`l=0`$ the Landau level wavefunction (for a particle of charge $`2e`$) has the well-known form

$$\psi _{n,0}(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{|𝐫|^2}{2L_H^2}\right\}L_n\left(\frac{|𝐫|^2}{L_H^2}\right)$$
(16)
with $`L_n`$ the Laguerre polynomial and $`L_H=(\mathrm{}/eB)^{1/2}`$.

Finally, an important property of the $`\widehat{T}(𝐑)`$ is that they commute with both $`\widehat{H}_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega (𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ but not with $`J_z`$. Since, moreover, within a Landau level there is no stable subspace for all the $`\widehat{T}(𝐑)`$, the eigenvalues $`\sigma _\omega ^{n,l}`$ cannot depend on the angular momentum quantum number $`l`$. At $`𝐫=0`$, Eq. (12), then, reads

$$\sigma _\omega ^{n,l}=\sigma _\omega ^{n,0}=\frac{1}{\psi _{n,0}(0)}𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega ^{(0)}(|𝐫|)\psi _{n,0}(𝐫).$$
(17)
Using the explicit expressions for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega ^{(0)}(𝐫)`$ \[Eq. (11)\] and $`\psi _{n,0}`$, we finally obtain for the eigenvalues

$`\sigma _\omega ^{n,l}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _\omega ^{n,0}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{x_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\{|m|x\}}{\mathrm{sinh}x}}\mathrm{exp}\{x^2/2\alpha ^2\}L_n(x^2/\alpha ^2)`$ (19)
where $`\alpha =L_H/L_T`$ is the essential dimensionless parameter. It is important to keep in mind that the screened interaction already implicitly takes into account the effect of the interaction on scales shorter than the Fermi wavelength, so the integral over $`x`$ should be cut off for small $`x`$ at approximately $`x_{\mathrm{min}}=1/(k_FL_T)`$.

### C Reordering of the sum

The interaction contribution to the thermodynamic potential is given in terms of the eigenvalues $`\sigma _\omega ^n`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{2BA}{\varphi _0}\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{\omega }{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda _0\sigma _\omega ^n).$$
(20)
Here we have already taken proper account of the degeneracy of the eigenvalues by the prefactor $`2BA/\varphi _0`$. The magnetization per unit area now follows by differentiation with respect to $`B`$,

$$M=\frac{2}{\varphi _0\beta }\underset{\omega }{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda _0\sigma _\omega ^n)+\frac{B\lambda _0}{1+\lambda _0\sigma _\omega ^n}\frac{\sigma _\omega ^n}{B}\right\}.$$
(21)
When done naively, the sum over the quantum number in this expression diverges. We assume that this is associated with the inadequate treatment of the interaction at short distances. We expect that when working with the full screened interaction, the contribution of large quantum numbers is appropriately suppressed. Hence, we reorder the sum in such a way that the sum becomes convergent and the eigenvalues with sufficiently large $`n`$ do not contribute appreciably to the sum. This philosophy is completely analogous to the approach taken in the work on the fluctuation contribution to the diamagnetic susceptibility in superconductors above $`T_c`$ . In fact, our reordering closely follows the reordering proposed by Payne and Lee .

In a first step, we compute

$$B\frac{\sigma _\omega ^n}{B}=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho \rho \mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega ^{(0)}(\rho )\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{eB}{2\mathrm{}}\rho ^2\right\}\frac{eB}{\mathrm{}}\rho ^2\left[L_n^{}(eB\rho ^2/\mathrm{})\frac{1}{2}L_n(eB\rho ^2/\mathrm{})\right].$$
(22)
To simplify this expression, we use the recursion relations for Laguerre polynomials

$`xL_n^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`nL_n(x)nL_{n1}(x)`$ (23)
$`xL_n^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(n+1)L_{n+1}(x)(n+1x)L_n(x)`$ (24)
and obtain

$$2B\frac{\sigma _\omega ^n}{B}=(n+1)[\sigma _\omega ^{n+1}\sigma _\omega ^n]+n[\sigma _\omega ^n\sigma _\omega ^{n1}].$$
(25)
We can also rearrange

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+1)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{n+1}}{f_n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n\mathrm{ln}f_n{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+1)\mathrm{ln}f_n`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{ln}f_n.`$ (27)
Using these expressions, we have for the magnetization

$`M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+1)\left\{2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda _0\sigma _\omega ^{n+1}}{1+\lambda _0\sigma _\omega ^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0[\sigma _\omega ^{n+1}\sigma _\omega ^n]}{1+\lambda _0\sigma _\omega ^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0[\sigma _\omega ^{n+1}\sigma _\omega ^n]}{1+\lambda _0\sigma _\omega ^{n+1}}}\right\}.`$ (28)
In terms of the notation

$$X_\omega ^n=\frac{\lambda _0[\sigma _\omega ^{n+1}\sigma _\omega ^n]}{1+\lambda _0\sigma _\omega ^n},$$
(29)
we have

$$M=\frac{1}{\varphi _0}\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{\omega }{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(n+1)\left\{2\mathrm{ln}(1+X_\omega ^n)X_\omega ^n\frac{X_\omega ^n}{1+X_\omega ^n}\right\}.$$
(30)
For all cases considered below, $`X_\omega ^n1`$ so that

$$M\frac{1}{\varphi _0}\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{\omega }{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(n+1)}{3}[X_\omega ^n]^3.$$
(31)
This expression will be our starting point for computing the magnetization and the susceptibility. Referring back to the definition of $`X_\omega ^n`$ in Eq. (29) above, we see that all contributions to the susceptibility are at least third-order in the interaction $`\lambda _0`$.

## III Magnetic susceptibility

Using the general results of the last section, we now find expressions for the susceptibility in two limits– small and large magnetic field– and then evaluate the susceptibility in the intermediate regime numerically. Before considering the various regimes, it is useful to note that $`X_\omega ^n`$, as defined in Eq. (29), consists of two factors with noticeably different behavior. On the one hand, because the integrand in Eq. (18) behaves as $`1/x`$ at small $`x`$, both $`\sigma _\omega ^n`$ and $`\lambda _0/(1+\lambda _0\sigma _\omega ^n)`$ are dominated by a logarithmic singularity at zero and so have little magnetic field dependence. On the other hand, using the relation $`L_n(x)L_{n1}(x)=xL_{n1}^1(x)/n`$ ($`L_n^1`$ is a generalized Laguerre polynomial), we can rewrite $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\omega ^n\sigma _\omega ^{n+1}\sigma _\omega ^n`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\omega ^n=\frac{1}{(n+1)}\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^2\frac{e^{|m|x}}{\mathrm{sinh}x}\mathrm{exp}\{x^2/2\alpha ^2\}L_n^1(x^2/\alpha ^2).$$
(32)
Here the $`x`$ integration is well behaved at small $`x`$, and so the lower limit $`x_{\mathrm{min}}`$ can be replaced by zero.

### A Small-magnetic-field (high-temperature) limit

The small-magnetic field, or equivalently high-temperature, limit is defined by $`\alpha 1`$. The factor $`e^{|m|x}/\mathrm{sinh}x`$ provides an upper cutoff at $`\mathrm{min}(1,|m|^1)`$ in the integrals Eqs. (18) and (32). In addition, $`x^2/\alpha ^2`$ is much smaller than one in the entire range of integration. We can therefore use the asymptotic expression

$$e^{x/2}L_n^\alpha (x)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +n+1)}{n!}(\nu x/4)^{\alpha /2}J_\alpha ([\nu x]^{1/2}),$$
(33)
valid in the range $`0xn^{1/3}`$ \[$`J_\alpha (x)`$ denotes the Bessel functions, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ the Gamma function, and $`\nu =4n+2\alpha +2`$\] and obtain

$$\sigma _\omega ^n\frac{1}{2}_{x_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{\mathrm{exp}(|m|x)}{\mathrm{sinh}x}J_0\left(2\sqrt{n+1/2}x/\alpha \right)$$
(34)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\omega ^n\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+1}}\frac{1}{2\alpha }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx\frac{\mathrm{exp}(|m|x)}{\mathrm{sinh}x}J_1\left(\frac{2\sqrt{n+1}x}{\alpha }\right).$$
(35)
For $`nn_0=\alpha ^2\mathrm{max}(1,|m|)`$, Eqs. (34) and (35) yield

$$\sigma _\omega ^n\frac{1}{2}_{x_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{min}(1,|m|^1)}\frac{dx}{x}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(k_FL_T/\mathrm{max}\{1,|m|\})$$
(36)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\omega ^n\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^2\frac{e^{|m|x}}{\mathrm{sinh}x},$$
(37)
up to constants of order one, and so the $`n`$ dependence can be neglected. For $`n>n_0`$, both $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\omega ^n`$ and $`\sigma _\omega ^n`$ depend on $`n`$. However, for $`\sigma _\omega ^n`$ the dependence is only logarithmic, since it merely amounts to replacing the upper bound of the integral by $`\alpha /\sqrt{n}`$. Hence the dominant $`n`$ dependence of $`X_\omega ^n`$ comes from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\omega ^n`$.

From these results for the eigenvalues, the magnetization \[Eq. (31)\] to lowest order in the small parameter $`\mathrm{ln}^1(k_FL_T)`$ is

$$M=\frac{1}{3\varphi _0}\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{\omega }{}\frac{1}{\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}^3(k_FL_T)}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\left\{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{x\mathrm{exp}(|m|x)}{\mathrm{sinh}x}J_1\left(2\sqrt{n}x/\alpha \right)\right\}^3.$$
(38)
The sum over $`n`$ converges only slowly and of order $`n_0`$ terms contribute. In view of the fact that $`n`$ is multiplied by $`x^2/\alpha ^2`$ in the argument of the Bessel function, we can replace the sum over $`n`$ by an integral. This yields the final expression

$$M=\frac{C_T}{\pi \mathrm{ln}^3(k_FL_T)}(k_FL_T)|\chi _{\mathrm{Landau}}|B$$
(39)
where $`|\chi _{\mathrm{Landau}}|=e^2/12\pi mc^2`$ and $`C_T`$ is given by

$$C_T=\underset{r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dn}{n^2}f_\omega ^3(n)0.97$$
(40)
where we define

$$f_\omega (n)\sqrt{n}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{x\mathrm{exp}(|m|x)}{\mathrm{sinh}x}J_1\left(2\sqrt{n}x\right).$$
(41)
We see that the interaction-induced contribution to the magnetization will generally be larger than the Landau magnetization due to the large factor $`k_FL_T`$ . The factor $`1/\mathrm{ln}(k_FL_T)`$ must be interpreted as a renormalized interaction strength in the Cooper channel . It is interesting that the interaction contribution to the susceptibility is third order in this renormalized interaction strength. This unusual state of affairs can easily be understood by considering the classical paths involved, as we shall discuss in Section IV.

The magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$ obtained above is at zero field and to lowest order in the renormalized interaction strength which is proportional to $`1/\mathrm{ln}(k_FL_T)`$. It is possible to derive, with a similar approach, an expression for $`\chi (0)`$ without expanding in the renomalized interaction strength. This is done in Appendix A; one obtains

$$\frac{\chi (0)}{|\chi _{\mathrm{Landau}}|}=\frac{3}{\pi }(k_FL_T)\underset{\omega }{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\xi }{\xi ^2}\lambda _\omega ^3(\xi )f_\omega ^3(\xi )$$
(42)
where we have introduced

$`\lambda _\omega (\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0}{2+\lambda _0(2\sigma ^0(T)g_\omega (\xi ))}}`$ (43)
$`g_\omega (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\xi }{\displaystyle \frac{f_\omega (\xi ^{})}{\xi ^{}}}𝑑\xi ^{}`$ (44)
$`2\sigma ^0`$ $``$ $`2\sigma _\omega ^n(B=0)={\displaystyle _{x_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{e^{|m|x}}{\mathrm{sinh}x}}`$ (45)
$``$ $`\mathrm{ln}(k_FL_T/\mathrm{max}(1,|m|)).`$ (46)
### B Large-magnetic-field (low-temperature) limit

In the high-magnetic-field, or equivalently the low-temperature, limit defined by $`\alpha 1`$, the factor $`\mathrm{exp}\{x^2/2\alpha ^2\}L_n(x^2/\alpha ^2)`$ always cuts off the integral in Eq. (18) at $`x1`$ so that we can approximate $`\mathrm{sinh}xx`$. Hence, we find

$`\sigma _\omega ^n`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{x_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{min}[|m|^1,\alpha /\sqrt{n}]}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{min}[\mathrm{ln}(k_FL_H/\sqrt{n}),\mathrm{ln}(k_FL_T/|m|)]`$ (48)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\omega ^n\frac{1}{2(n+1)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yye^{\alpha |m|yy^2/2}L_n^1(y^2).$$
(49)
In this case, the sum over $`n`$ converges rapidly (faster than $`1/n^2`$), but typically about $`1/\alpha `$ terms contribute to the Matsubara sum. Neglecting again the logarithmic dependence of $`\sigma _\omega ^n`$ on $`n`$ and $`|m|`$, we can make progress by noting that the sum over $`m`$ can be turned into an integral. This yields the high-field result

$$M=\frac{C_H}{\pi \mathrm{ln}^3(k_FL_H)}(k_FL_H)|\chi _{\mathrm{Landau}}|B,$$
(50)
where the constant $`C_H`$ is

$$C_H=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(F_n(m))^3}{(n+1)^2}0.74$$
(51)
with

$$F_n(m)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yye^{|m|yy^2/2}L_n^1(y^2).$$
(52)
The principal difference between the results for high and low fields is thus the replacement of the thermal length $`L_T`$ by the magnetic length $`L_H`$.

### C Intermediate range

When $`\alpha `$ is neither much smaller nor much larger than one, it is not possible to obtain a simple expression for the magnetic response. In this regime, we have performed a numerical integration of Eq. (18) to compute the eigenvalues $`\sigma _\omega ^n`$ as well as their derivatives with respect to $`B`$. The magnetic susceptibility is then obtained through the field derivative of Eq. (30),

$$\chi =\frac{1}{\beta \varphi _0}\underset{\omega }{}\underset{n}{}n\frac{(X_\omega ^{n1})^2dX_\omega ^{n1}/dB}{(1+X_\omega ^{n1})^2},$$
(53)
by direct summation over the eigenvalue index and the bosonic Matsubara frequencies.

Fig. 2 shows the resulting $`\chi /|\chi _{\mathrm{Landau}}|`$ as a function of magnetic field $`b=\alpha ^2=(2\pi L_T^2/\varphi _0)B`$ for fixed values of the temperature. The cross-over between the low and high field regimes is clearly seen. As $`B`$ increases, $`\chi `$ has a slight maximum around $`L_H=L_B`$ which arises from the competition between the increased field sensitivity of large triangles and the thermal suppression of long sides. In the large-field regime, the numerical result is in reasonable agreement with the value obtained from the asymptotic expression (50): for $`L_T=10L_H`$ and $`k_FL_H=64`$, $`\chi /|\chi _{\mathrm{Landau}}|0.28`$ numerically and 0.18 analytically.

Fig. 3 shows the temperature dependence of $`\chi `$ at fixed $`L_H/L_T`$ in the low-field regime. The $`(k_FL_T)/\mathrm{ln}^3(k_FL_T)`$ behavior is apparent, particularly in the inset. Again, the numerical result agrees nicely with the asymptotic result: at the low temperature $`T/E_F=10^3`$, Eq. (39) yields $`\chi /|\chi _{\mathrm{Landau}}|0.51`$ while our numerical result is 0.52.

## IV Semiclassical interpretation

We have seen above that the magnetic response has a rather peculiar property: it is third-order in the renormalized coupling constant $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=2\mathrm{ln}^1(k_FL_{T,H})`$, both in the low and high field regimes. Within the approach used up to now, it is difficult to understand the physical origin of this behavior. In this section, we show that an approach in terms of classical paths provides a natural understanding of this fact. Considering for instance the low field regime (the argument can be transposed to high fields with no essential difficulty), we shall moreover recover precisely the expression Eq. (39) in a much simpler way.

From the expression Eq. (10) for the particle-particle propagator, it is clear that the interaction contribution to the thermodynamic potential in Eq. (2) can be written as a sum over closed polygonal paths, where each vertex is associated with an interaction event and the magnetic field enters only via the Aharonov-Bohm factor associated with the magnetic flux enclosed by the polygon. Performing the sum over bosonic Matsubara frequencies in Eq. (2) and grouping the field dependent terms together, one finds

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^{(n)}$$
(54)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{(n)}=\frac{1}{\beta }\frac{(\lambda _0)^n}{n}𝑑𝐫_1\mathrm{}𝑑𝐫_n\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐫_n,𝐫_1)\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{L_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐫_1,\mathrm{},𝐫_n)}{2L_T}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{4\pi A_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐫_1,\mathrm{},𝐫_n)B}{\varphi _0}\right)$$
(55)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is the particle-particle propagator for $`B=0`$ and $`\omega =0`$, $`L_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the total length, and $`A_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ the area enclosed by the polygon.

As it stands, Eq. (54) is of little practical use because the series in $`n`$ is strongly divergent (the term of order $`n`$ is typically larger than the one of order $`n1`$). It is, however, possible to apply a simple renormalization-group argument, introduced in  and discussed in more detail in . Indeed, as we already stressed when deriving the eigenvalues of the particle-particle propagator, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ must be cutoff at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=1/k_F`$ because the use of the screened interaction assumes that all high-momentum degrees of freedom have already been integrated out . We therefore have

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐫,𝐫^{};\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi L_T|𝐫𝐫^{}|\mathrm{sinh}(|𝐫𝐫^{}|/L_T)}}\text{for }|𝐫𝐫^{}|>\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`0\text{for }|𝐫𝐫^{}|<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0.`$ (57)
Refs.  show that if a new length scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ much smaller that any other characteristic length scale of the problem ($`L_T`$ or $`L_H`$) is introduced, one can replace $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in Eq. (56) provided the “bare” coupling constant $`\lambda _0`$ in Eq. (54) is replaced by the renormalized one

$$\lambda _{RG}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{\lambda _0}{1+(\lambda _0/2)\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)}.$$
(58)
For the leading behavior in $`\mathrm{ln}^1(k_FL_T)`$, we can assume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=ϵL_T`$ with $`ϵ1`$ but assumed fixed as $`\mathrm{ln}(k_FL_T)`$ goes to infinity. In that case $`\lambda _{RG}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=2\mathrm{ln}^1(k_FL_T)+O(\mathrm{ln}^2(k_FL_T))`$ is small, and Eq. (54) becomes a genuine perturbative expansion whose leading behavior is given by the first non-vanishing term. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1)}=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(2)}`$ is independent of the magnetic field and so does not contribute to the magnetic response. Therefore, the leading behavior is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(3)}`$– that is, third-order in $`\mathrm{ln}^1(k_FL_T)`$– as illustrated in Fig. 4, and we have

$$\chi (B=0)=\frac{1}{3\beta }\left(\frac{2}{\mathrm{ln}(k_FL_T)}\right)^3_{L_2,L_3,L_{23}>\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑𝐫_2𝑑𝐫_3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\mathrm{𝟎},𝐫_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐫_2,𝐫_3)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐫_2,\mathrm{𝟎})\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{L_{\mathrm{tot}}}{2L_T}\right)\left(\frac{4\pi A_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\varphi _0}\right)^2$$
(59)
($`L_2=|𝐫_2|`$, $`L_3=|𝐫_3|`$, $`L_{23}=|𝐫_3𝐫_2|`$). Expressing all distances in the integral in units of $`L_T`$ gives

$$\chi (B=0)=\frac{C_{RG}}{\pi \mathrm{ln}^3(k_FL_T)}(k_FL_T)|\chi _{\mathrm{Landau}}|$$
(60)
with the constant $`C_{RG}`$ given by

$$C_{RG}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}𝑑𝐫_2𝑑𝐫_3\frac{1}{L_2L_{23}L_3}\frac{A_{\mathrm{tot}}^2\mathrm{coth}(L_{\mathrm{tot}}/2)}{\mathrm{sinh}L_2\mathrm{sinh}L_{23}\mathrm{sinh}L_3}.$$
(61)
Because of the factor $`A_{\mathrm{tot}}^2`$ in the numerator, the integrand here is regular and the cutoff can be taken to zero. By considering the limit $`\lambda _0\mathrm{ln}(k_FL_T)1`$ (instead of $`\lambda _0=1`$) where both the standard and renormalization group approaches are accurate, it can be shown that $`C_{RG}=C_T`$, so that Eq. (60) is strictly equivalent to Eq. (39). This approach shows clearly that the third power of the coupling constant arises because only trajectories with three or more vertices enclose flux.

## V Discussion and summary

In this paper, we study the interaction contribution to the magnetization of a two-dimensional electron gas in the limit $`L_TR_c,\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{el}}`$. We find that this interaction-induced contribution is paramagnetic for the repulsive Coulomb interaction and dominates over the Landau diamagnetism at small enough temperatures and fields . The Pauli paramagnetism is even smaller than Landau diamagnetism in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures because of the small effective mass and the reduction in the $`g`$ factor. It appears from the quantitative answer that one needs to go to rather low temperatures before the interaction becomes truly larger than the Landau susceptibility (cf. Fig. 3). Still, such temperatures are possible in two-dimensional electron gas systems. It should be possible to distinguish the interaction contribution by way of either its temperature dependence (since the Landau susceptibility is $`T`$ independent) or its dependence on $`k_F`$ in a gated structure.

We find that the leading contribution to the magnetization is third-order in the renormalized Coulomb interaction. This can be given a natural semiclassical interpretation in terms of the classical-path picture for the thermodynamic potential: a polygon must have at least three sides in order to enclose area. Moreover, the much simpler classical-path approach gives exactly the same answer as the eigenvalue calculation. Higher-than-third order contributions (in the bare coupling constant) predominantly lead to an substantial downward renormalization of the coupling constant. This picture has been made precise in the present paper by means of a renormalization-group approach.

In the low-field (high-temperature) limit $`L_TL_H`$, the temperature dependence of the susceptibility is $`1/T\mathrm{ln}^3T`$: this comes from the thermal length $`L_T`$ which dominates here because only trajectories shorter than $`L_T`$ make significant contributions to the Green functions. At the lowest temperatures, this behavior is cut off by a finite magnetic field once $`L_H<L_T`$. In the high-field (low-temperature) limit $`L_TL_H`$, the susceptibility is no longer temperature dependent. The Green function is still dominated by trajectories shorter than $`L_T`$, but now trajectories enclosing more area than $`L_H^2`$ contribute with random signs due to the Aharonov-Bohm phases. Hence, in this case, the relevant cutoff length is $`L_H`$.

So far, we ignored dephasing due to inelastic scattering. At low temperatures, this should be mostly due to electron-electron scattering. We expect however that dephasing will not significantly affect our results. Within the semiclassical approach employed in this paper, dephasing suppresses the contribution of trajectories longer than the dephasing length $`L_\varphi `$. For a clean Fermi liquid such as discussed here, one expects $`L_\varphi 1/T^2`$. Thus, at sufficiently low temperatures the dephasing length should always be longer than the thermal length $`L_T1/T`$. Correspondingly, the suppression of trajectories due to thermal smearing should always set in before the suppression due to dephasing.

It is interesting to compare the present results with the contributions to the susceptibility of (chaotic) mesoscopic samples of linear size $`L`$ within the independent-electron approximation

$$\chi |\chi _{\mathrm{Landau}}|,$$
(62)
and due to interactions

$$\chi \frac{(k_FL)}{\mathrm{ln}(k_FL)}|\chi _{\mathrm{Landau}}|,$$
(63)
where we have taken $`L_TL`$, $`T>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the level spacing), and $`L_HL`$. In contrast to the bulk results derived in this paper, these expressions are zeroth or first order in the renormalized interaction constant. These contributions exist for mesoscopic samples because, in finite-size systems, flux-enclosing trajectories are produced by scattering from the geometric boundaries of the system. Nevertheless, apart from the different order in the renormalized interaction, the finite-size result due to interactions is qualitatively the same as the bulk result derived here.

Orbital magnetism in mesoscopic samples has been a controversial issue over the last decade, both for ballistic and diffusive structures, ring and dot geometries . In particular, the fact that the measured values are apparently substantially larger than the theoretical results has attracted a lot of attention. In order to benchmark the theory in a simpler system, we think the magnetization of a clean two-dimensional electron gas should be measured and that this would provide valuable information in addressing the “persistent current problem” in rings and dots.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Rodolfo Jalabert and Klaus Richter for valuable discussions. The LPTMS is “Unité de recherche de l’Université Paris 11 associée au C.N.R.S.”. FvO was partly supported by SFB 341 (Köln-Aachen-Jülich).

## A

In this appendix, we derive an expression for the susceptibility at zero field, Eq. (42), which does not involve expanding in the renormalized coupling constant. Starting from the magnetization Eq. (31), the essential ingredient needed is expressions for the eigenvalues. One can check that both the Bessel approximations Eqs. (34)-(35) and the replacement of the discrete sum over Landau level index $`n`$ by an integral only yield corrections of order $`B^2`$ to the magnetic susceptibility. Therefore, as long as we are only interested in the susceptibility at $`B=0`$, we can make the change of variables $`n\xi =bn`$ where $`b=\alpha ^2=(2\pi L_T^2/\varphi _0)B`$ is proportional to the magnetic field. We can thus write

$$2\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\omega ^{n1}=bf_\omega (\xi )/\xi $$
(A1)
where $`f_\omega (\xi )`$ is defined by Eq. (41). In the same way, taking the derivative of Eq. (34) with respect to $`b`$ yields

$$2\frac{d\sigma _\omega ^{n1}}{db}=\frac{1}{b}f((n1/2)b)\frac{1}{b}[f(\xi )+O(b)].$$
(A2)
Thus, using the notation of Eqs. (44) and (46),

$$2\sigma _\omega ^{n1}=2\sigma ^0g((n1/2)b)2\sigma ^0g(\xi )+O(b).$$
(A3)
From these expressions for the eigenvalues, we obtain

$`X_\omega ^{n1}=X_\omega (\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`b{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0f_\omega (\xi )/\xi }{2+\lambda _0(2\sigma ^0g(\xi ))}}+O(b^2)`$ (A4)
$`=`$ $`b\lambda _\omega (\xi )f_\omega (\xi )/\xi +O(b^2).`$ (A5)
Note that it is necessary to compensate the factor $`b^2`$ originating from the term $`ndn`$ when changing variables from $`n`$ to $`\xi `$. Using the above expression, one can therefore write the magnetization up to corrections of order $`b^2`$,

$$M=\frac{1}{3\varphi _0\beta }\underset{\omega }{}\frac{\xi d\xi }{b^2}X_\omega (\xi ,b)^3+O(b^2),$$
(A6)
which immediately gives Eq. (42).


text:
# Probing the effectiveness: chiral perturbation theory calculations of low-energy reactions on the deuteron

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Effective field theory (EFT) is a technique commonly used in particle physics to deal with problems involving widely-separated energy scales. It facilitates the systematic separation of the effects of high-energy physics from those of low-energy physics. In strong-interaction physics the low-energy effective theory is chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi `$PT) . Here the low-energy physics is that of nucleons and pions interacting with each other in a way that respects the spontaneously-broken approximate chiral symmetry of QCD. Higher-energy effects of QCD appear in $`\chi `$PT as non-renormalizable contact operators. In this way the EFT provides a long-wavelength approximation to the amplitudes for various hadronic processes. It yields amplitudes which can be thought of as expansions in the ratio of nucleon or probe momenta (denoted here by $`p`$ and $`q`$) and the pion mass to the scale of chiral-symmetry breaking, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}`$ is of order $`m_\rho `$, and so such an expansion in $`Q`$, with

$$Q\frac{p}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}},\frac{q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}},\frac{m_\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}}$$
(1)
provides a controlled way to calculate hadronic processes, as long as $`p`$ and $`q`$ are not too large. In light nuclei the typical momentum of a bound nucleon is of order $`m_\pi `$ or less, and so we should be able to calculate the response of such nuclei to low-energy probes using $`\chi `$PT, thereby providing systematically-improvable, model-independent descriptions of these reactions. In this paper I will describe some recent work in this direction. Section 2 outlines the expansion which $`\chi `$PT gives for these processes, while Sections 3 and 4 sketch this expansion’s use for electron-deuteron scattering and Compton scattering on the deuteron.

## 2 POWER-COUNTING AND WAVE FUNCTIONS

Consider an elastic scattering process on the deuteron whose amplitude we wish to compute 111The ideas presented in this section can easily be extended to inelastic processes, or to other light nuclei.. If $`\widehat{O}`$ is the transition operator for this process then the amplitude in question is simply $`\psi |\widehat{O}|\psi `$, with $`|\psi `$ the deuteron wave function. In this section, we follow Weinberg , and divide the formulation of a systematic expansion for this amplitude into two parts: the expansion for $`\widehat{O}`$, and the construction of $`|\psi `$.

Chiral perturbation theory gives a systematic expansion for $`\widehat{O}`$ of the form

$$\widehat{O}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{O}^{(n)},$$
(2)
where we have labeled the contributions to $`\widehat{O}`$ by their order $`n`$ in the small parameter $`Q`$ of Eq. (1). This expansion is partially motivated by the idea of a long-wavelength limit, where distances smaller than $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}`$ are not resolved.

Equation (2) is an operator statement, and the nucleon momentum operator $`\widehat{p}`$ appears on the right-hand side. Thus, one might worry about the unboundedness of this quantum-mechanical operator. However, once we take matrix elements of $`\widehat{O}`$ to construct the physical amplitude for the process in question the only quantities which appear are objects like $`\psi |\widehat{p}|\psi `$. For weakly-bound systems like the deuteron these expectation values are generically small compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}`$.

The procedure to construct $`\widehat{O}^{(n)}`$ begins with writing down the vertices appearing in the chiral Lagrangian up to order $`n`$. One then draws all of the two-body, two-nucleon-irreducible, Feynman graphs for the process of interest which are of chiral order $`Q^n`$. The rules for calculating the chiral order of a particular graph are:

* Each nucleon propagator scales like $`1/Q`$;
* Each loop contributes $`Q^4`$;
* Graphs in which both particles participate in the reaction acquire a factor of $`Q^3`$;
* Each pion propagator scales like $`1/Q^2`$;
* Each vertex from the $`n`$th-order piece of the chiral Lagrangian contributes $`Q^n`$.

In this way we see that more complicated graphs, involving two-body mechanisms, and/or higher-order vertices, and/or more loops, are suppressed by powers of the small parameter $`Q`$.

There remains the problem of constructing a deuteron wave function which is consistent with the operator $`\widehat{O}`$. The proposal of Weinberg was to construct a $`\chi `$PT expansion as per Eq. (2) for the $`NN`$ potential $`V`$, and then solve the Schrödinger equation to find the deuteron (or other nuclear) wave function . Recent calculations have shown that the $`NN`$ phase shifts can be understood, and deuteron bound-state static properties reliably computed, with wave functions derived from $`\chi `$PT in this way . The difficulty is that there is no a priori reason within $`\chi `$PT to iterate $`V`$ to all orders, since the loop corrections which are responsible for generating the deuteron bound state are, in principle, higher-order effects in the EFT. In marked contrast to $`\chi `$PT in the one-nucleon sector, Weinberg’s application of $`\chi `$PT to nuclei has power-counting only for the potential, and not for the $`NN`$ scattering amplitude. The most notable attempt to remedy this deficiency was made by Kaplan, Savage, and Wise, in Ref. . I will not discuss these issues further here, but instead refer to Ref.  for a survey of the state of play. In this work I focus on the $`\chi `$PT expansion for the operators $`\widehat{O}`$ and use wave functions found in one of three ways:

1. The full chiral wave function of Ref.  (or equivalently Ref. ). This implements Weinberg’s proposal to use the chiral expansion for $`V`$, and includes terms in the potential up to chiral order $`Q^3`$.
2. In the long-wavelength approximation it is valid to employ a wave function that is the solution to the Schrödinger equation with a potential which is the sum of one-pion exchange and a short-distance interaction of range $`R<1/m_\pi `$ . The short-distance potential should be tuned so as to reproduce the deuteron binding energy $`B`$ and the asymptotic wave-function normalizations $`A_S`$ and $`A_D`$. Wave functions generated using potentials with different values of $`R`$ will then differ from each other only for $`r<R`$.
3. Similarly, potential-model wave functions, e. g. the Nijm93 wave function , can be used for $`|\psi `$. Historically these have been the “wave functions of choice” for $`\chi `$PT calculations of reactions on the deuteron. While not entirely consistent, this “hybrid” approach has led to successful calculations of processes including, but not limited to, $`\gamma d\pi ^0d`$  and $`ppde^+\nu _e`$ . Ref.  contains a thorough review of results obtained via this method.

## 3 ONE PHOTON: DEUTERON ELECTROMAGNETIC FORM FACTORS

In this section I will discuss some aspects of electron-deuteron scattering in $`\chi `$PT (see  for a more thorough treatment). As is well-known, the interaction of a deuteron with an electromagnetic current is naturally described in terms of three nuclear response functions: the charge ($`F_C`$), magnetic ($`F_M`$), and quadrupole ($`F_Q`$) form factors. These form factors can be extracted from electron scattering measurements using differential cross-section and tensor-polarization data. They can also be computed systematically in $`\chi `$PT. The $`Q`$-expansion of the deuteron charge operator is:

$$\widehat{𝒬}=e[1+\left(\mathrm{relativistic}\mathrm{corrections}\frac{1}{6}q^2r_N^2\right)+O(Q^3)],$$
(3)
where the first term is the leading contribution, which comes only from the charge of a point proton. Corrections to this $`O(e)`$ result arise at order $`eQ^2`$ from the finite-size of the nucleon and from relativistic effects. The latter can be systematically computed in $`\chi `$PT and scale as $`1/M^2`$ ($`M`$ is the nucleon mass), but I have not written them explicitly here. At $`O(eQ^3)`$ $`\chi `$PT gives a two-body contribution due to the exchange of pions in $`𝒬`$.

This picture of the deuteron charge is similar to that obtained from systematic $`1/M`$ expansions in non-relativistic potential models (see e.g. ), apart from the somewhat unusual expedient of expanding out the nucleon’s charge form factor in powers of $`q^2r_N^2`$. Thus, it is reasonable to ask what is gained when $`\chi `$PT is employed here.

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, one gains the ability to include two-body contributions to $`\widehat{𝒬}`$ systematically. In $`\chi `$PT such meson-exchange currents can be included as they arise order-by-order in the $`Q`$-expansion. This is a critical advantage in reactions where two-body mechanisms are important, as we shall see in Section 4.

Secondly, on an aesthetic level $`\chi `$PT leads to what might be considered a more elegant formulation—one where the amount of effort required to obtain accurate answers is commensurate with the physics of the long-wavelength limit. In particular, it is straightforward to compute wave functions and electromagnetic operators consistently, and many of the issues which arise due to the complicated form of modern $`NN`$ potentials do not occur in a $`\chi `$PT computation of electron-deuteron scattering. In fact, it is somewhat surprising how well a very simple picture of the deuteron describes the charge and magnetic form factors. In the upper panel of Fig. 1 I have displayed the charge form factor computed with the leading-order charge of Eq. (3) and a variety of wave functions obtained with the simple OPEP plus short-distance potential described in the previous section . One sees that the sensitivity to the physics at distances smaller than $`R`$ is slight, appearing only at momentum transfers of order 600 MeV. Furthermore, for a range of values of $`R`$ the result for $`F_C`$ from these simple wave functions is close to that of the much more sophisticated Nijm93 wave function.

A third role of $`\chi `$PT is to point to physics not currently included in potential-model descriptions of electron-deuteron scattering. For instance, a survey of the results for deuteron static properties found using the same wave functions employed in the calculations for $`F_C`$ reveals that the deuteron quadrupole moment, $`Q_d`$, is particularly susceptible to short-distance physics. It varies from $`0.258\mathrm{fm}^2`$ when the radius of the short-distance potential, $`R`$, is $`2.5\mathrm{fm}`$ to $`0.269\mathrm{fm}^2`$ when $`R=1.5\mathrm{fm}`$. Such sensitivity of $`Q_d`$ to short-range dynamics will be no surprise to those familiar with $`NN`$ potential models. However, in an EFT it suggests the presence of a two-nucleon one-quadrupole-photon counterterm which modifies $`Q_d`$ . This is physics “beyond the nuclear standard model”, since such mechanisms are not included in the usual calculations of $`Q_d`$. An analysis of the counterterm required to shift $`Q_d`$ to its experimental value of $`0.286\mathrm{fm}^2`$ suggests that it is “natural”, i.e. of a size consistent with the scales in the problem. This counterterm, with its value adjusted to give the experimental value of $`Q_d`$ for each different wave function, is easily included in the calculation of the tensor polarization observable $`T_{20}`$. The lower panel of Fig. 1 then shows that (a) the residual sensitivity to the short-distance behaviour of the wave function is very small, and (b) using only the $`O(e)`$ charge operator and the $`Q_d`$ counterterm we can describe almost all of the existing $`T_{20}`$ data out to $`q=700`$ MeV.

## 4 TWO PHOTONS: COMPTON SCATTERING ON THE DEUTERON

In this section I will discuss Compton scattering on the deuteron in $`\chi `$PT. (Ref.  contains a full treatment.) This reaction has been the subject of recent experiments , one goal of which was to extract the electromagnetic polarizabilities of the neutron.

In the case of the proton these electric and magnetic polarizabilities, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, have been extracted from Compton scattering data :

$$\alpha _p+\beta _p=13.23\pm 0.86_{0.49}^{+0.20}\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^3;\alpha _p\beta _p=10.11\pm 1.74_{0.86}^{+1.22}\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^3,$$
(4)
These numbers agree well with the predictions of $`\chi `$PT at leading loop order ($`O(e^2Q)`$: $`\alpha _p=12.2\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^3`$ and $`\beta _p=1.2\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^3`$. At this order $`\chi `$PT also predicts $`\alpha _n=\alpha _p`$ and $`\beta _n=\beta _p`$. $`\alpha _n`$ and $`\beta _n`$ are difficult to extract from experiments. In particular, their difference is largely unconstrained by data. $`\alpha _n\beta _n`$ will play a role in Compton scattering on deuterium, and one might hope to measure it there. However, if a reliable extraction of this difference is to be made from $`\gamma d`$ data a formalism must be employed in which the contribution of two-body currents to the Compton cross section is under control.

The two-body contributions to $`\gamma d`$ scattering can be calculated in $`\chi `$PT at $`O(e^2Q)`$ in the manner described in Section 2. The resultant graphs are just the two-body analogues of the one-nucleon graphs which yield the successful $`\chi `$PT $`O(e^2Q)`$ prediction of $`\alpha _p`$ and $`\beta _p`$. By sandwiching these two-body graphs between the wave-functions of Ref. , and including the one-body $`O(e^2Q)`$ $`\chi `$PT $`\gamma N`$ contribution, we generate the parameter-free prediction of $`\chi `$PT at $`O(e^2Q)`$ for $`\gamma d`$ differential cross sections for the Compton scattering process. Our result should agree with data over a range of energies from about 50 MeV up to $`m_\pi `$ . The comparison is made in Fig. 2 for photon energies of 69 and 95 MeV. There is good agreement with the (limited) data at 69 MeV, but our results disagree with the backward-angle data at 95 MeV. This disagreement also appears in potential-model calculations of $`\gamma d`$ scattering, unless values of $`\alpha _n\beta _n`$ very different from $`\alpha _p\beta _p`$ are employed . In fact, comparing such computations to our $`\chi `$PT approach to $`\gamma d`$ scattering illustrates the utility of $`\chi `$PT. The calculation of Ref.  is significantly more complicated, but gives similar results to our Ref. . These complications arise because the potential-model approach does not exploit the simplifications offered by the long wavelength of the photons.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank Silas Beane, Tom Cohen, Manuel Malheiro, and Bira van Kolck for enjoyable collaborations on the topics discussed in this talk. Thanks also to Matt Dorsten for his help in generating Figure 1(b), and to Evgeni Epelbaum and Vincent Stoks for supplying deuteron wave functions. I am grateful to Silas for his comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy (grants DE-FG02-93ER-40762 and DE-FG03-97ER-41014).