text:
# Modified BCS mechanism of Cooper pair formation in narrow energy bands of special symmetry I. Band structure of niobium

## I Introduction

The original Heisenberg model of magnetism is defined by the assumption that there is exactly one electron at each atom of a metal. Within the nonadiabatic Heisenberg model (NHM) as proposed in previous papers the great success of the Heisenberg model is interpreted by introducing three new postulates given in Sec. II.

As a consequence of the postulates of the NHM, the ground state of the electron system consists of configurations in which as many as possible atoms are occupied by exactly one electron. However, this state with the highest possible atomiclike character cannot be described within the adiabatic (or Born-Oppenheimer) approximation. Therefore, the adiabatic localized states represented by Wannier functions (Wfs) are replaced by nonadiabatic localized states depending on an additional quantum number $`\nu `$. This new quantum number labels different states of that part of the motion of the center of mass of a localized state which nonadiabatically follows the motion of the electron.

Hence, within the NHM the electronic motion is coupled to the nonadiabatic motion of the centers of mass, and, via this coupling, the electrons couple to each other and to the phonons. The character of the resulting electron-electron, electron-phonon, or spin-phonon interaction depends crucially on the symmetry properties of the nonadiabatic localized functions. In this paper, a new type of spin-phonon interaction will be derived within the NHM.

According to the third postulate of the NHM, the nonadiabatic localized functions have the same symmetry as the best localized Wfs related to the narrowest partly filled energy bands of the metal under consideration. Thus, any application of the NHM starts with a group-theoretical examination of the symmetry of the best localized Wfs which is determined by the symmetry of the Bloch functions in the band structure of the considered metal.

Paramagnetic iron possesses a narrow, roughly half-filled “ferromagnetic” band with Bloch functions which can be unitarily transformed into optimally localized Wfs belonging to a one-dimensional corepresentation of the magnetic group $`M=I4/mm^{}m^{}`$ of the ferromagnetic state. In Ref.  it was shown that if the postulates of the NHM are satisfied within the ferromagnetic band, then the electron spins form a spin structure with the magnetic group $`M`$.

In an earlier paper I have shown that chromium possesses a narrow, roughly half-filled “antiferromagnetic band” with Bloch functions which can be unitarily transformed into Wfs that are symmetry-adapted to the magnetic group $`M=P_I4/mnc`$ of the spin-density wave state existing in this metal. Again it can be shown that if the postulates of the NHM are satisfied within the antiferromagnetic band, then the electron spins form a spin structure with the magnetic group $`M`$ of the antiferromagnetic state.

In this paper I consider the band structure of the superconductor niobium as depicted in Fig. 1, in particular the band denoted by the dotted line. This band is characterized by the four representations

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{25}^{},H_{25}^{},N_2,\text{and}P_4$$
(1.1)
of the space group $`O_h^9`$. The Bloch functions of this single band cannot be unitarily transformed into usual Wfs which both are best localized and belong to a representation of $`O_h`$ since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{25}^{}`$, $`H_{25}^{}`$, and $`P_4`$ are not one-dimensional.

However, such a unitary transformation becomes possible in a natural way when we allow that the Bloch states of the considered band have $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ dependent spin directions. With this generalization we may construct from the Bloch functions of a band with the representations (1.1) spin dependent Wfs which belong to a double-valued representation of $`O_h`$; see appendix A.

Consider a metal with the (bcc) space group $`O_h^9`$ and one atom per unit cell. An energy band of this metal is called “superconducting band” ($`\sigma `$ band) if the Bloch functions of this band can be unitarily transformed into spin dependent Wfs \[as given in Eq. (A18)\] which are best localized, symmetry-adapted \[according to Eqs. (A19) and (A20)\] to the paramagnetic space group $`M^P`$ and centered at the atoms. All the $`\sigma `$ bands in bcc metals are given in Table I. According to this definition, the considered band (1.1) of Nb is a $`\sigma `$ band of the symmetry type of band 2 in Table I; see appendix A.

In Sec. II the three postulates defining the NHM will be given and in the following section III I shall show that these postulates yield a special spin-phonon interaction in narrow, partly filled $`\sigma `$ bands. At zero temperature, this spin-phonon interaction constrains the electrons of the $`\sigma `$ band in a new way to form Cooper pairs because the conservation of spin angular momentum would be violated in any normal conducting state. That means, if the postulates of the NHM are satisfied within a $`\sigma `$ band, then the electrons of this band form Cooper pairs at zero temperature.

The mechanism of Cooper pair formation within the NHM is nearly identical to the familiar mechanism presented within the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory. The important difference between both mechanisms will be given in Sec. IV.

In appendix A the spin dependent Wfs related to a $`\sigma `$ band will be defined and the essential properties of the related nonadiabatic localized functions will be given.

## II Nonadiabatic Heisenberg model

In this section the equations defining the NHM will be given together with a short substantiation of the new model. For a more detailed describtion see Sec. II of Ref. .

Consider a single partly filled energy band in a metal with one atom in the unit cell. In this section, this band need not yet be a $`\sigma `$ band. Let

$$H=H_{HF}+H_{Cb}$$
(2.1)
be the electronic Hamiltonian of this band with $`H_{HF}`$ and

$`H_{Cb}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{T},m}{}}\stackrel{}{T}_1,m_1;\stackrel{}{T}_2,m_2|H_{Cb}|\stackrel{}{T}_1^{},m_1^{};\stackrel{}{T}_2^{},m_2^{}`$ (2.3)
$`\times c_{\stackrel{}{T}_1m_1}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_2m_2}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_2^{}m_2^{}}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_1^{}m_1^{}}`$
representing the Hartree-Fock and Coulomb energy, respectively. The fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^{}`$ and $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}`$ create and annihilate electrons in the localized states $`|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ represented by (spin dependent) Wfs $`w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)`$ (with the spin coordinate $`t`$) which are assumed to be situated at the atoms and to form a complete basis within the considered band. Other contributions to $`H`$ from the electrons not belonging to this band are neglected even as are spin-orbit effects.

$`H_{Cb}`$ may be written as

$$H_{Cb}=H_c+H_{ex}+H_z,$$
(2.4)
with the operator of Coulomb repulsion $`H_c`$ containing all the matrix elements of $`H_{Cb}`$ with

$$\stackrel{}{T}_1=\stackrel{}{T}_1^{}\text{and}\stackrel{}{T}_2=\stackrel{}{T}_2^{},$$
(2.5)
the exchange operator $`H_{ex}`$ containing the matrix elements with

$$\stackrel{}{T}_1=\stackrel{}{T}_2^{}\text{and}\stackrel{}{T}_2=\stackrel{}{T}_1^{},$$
(2.6)
and $`H_z`$ comprising the remaining matrix elements.

Unlike $`H_c`$ or $`H_{ex}`$, the operator $`H_z`$ generates virtual transitions between adjacent localized states which in narrow bands shift the balance between the bandlike and atomiclike behavior toward the bandlike character. The NHM assumes that these transitions are energetically unfavorable in sufficiently narrow, partly filled energy bands. Hence, the first postulate of the NHM states that the relation

$$G|H|G>G^{}|H^{}|G^{}$$
(2.7)
is satisfied in the narrowest half-filled energy bands of the metals. The new Hamiltonian

$$H^{}=H_{HF}+H_c+H_{ex}$$
(2.8)
is obtained from $`H`$ by putting $`H_z=0`$, and $`|G`$ and $`|G^{}`$ stand for the exact ground states of $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$, respectively.

The particular form of the matrix elements of $`H_z`$ shows that it represents a short-ranged interaction which crucially depends on the exact form of the localized functions. This fact suggests that only small changes of the localized electronic orbitals are required to prevent the transitions generated by $`H_z`$. However, such modifications of the electronic orbitals do not exist within the adiabatic approximation because these modifications yield charge distributions within the localized states being symmetric with respect to the lattice on the average of time, but not at any moment. Consequently, the positive ions become permanently accelerated in varying directions. Therefore, within the nonadiabatic model, we replace the (adiabatic) localized states represented by the Wannier functions by more realistic nonadiabatic localized states,

$$|\stackrel{}{T},m,\nu ,$$
(2.9)
which take into account the motion of the nuclei. The new quantum number $`\nu `$ labels different states of motion of the centre of mass of the nucleus and the electron occupying the state $`|\stackrel{}{T},m,\nu `$.

The nonadiabatic Hamiltonian $`H^n`$ may be written as

$$H^n=H_{HF}+H_{Cb}^n$$
(2.10)
where the Coulomb interaction now has the form

$`H_{Cb}^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{T},m}{}}\stackrel{}{T}_1,m_1,n;\stackrel{}{T}_2,m_2,n|H_{Cb}|\stackrel{}{T}_1^{},m_1^{},n;\stackrel{}{T}_2^{},m_2^{},n`$ (2.12)
$`\times c_{\stackrel{}{T}_1m_1}^nc_{\stackrel{}{T}_2m_2}^nc_{\stackrel{}{T}_2^{}m_2^{}}^nc_{\stackrel{}{T}_1^{}m_1^{}}^n.`$
The new fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^n`$ and $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^n`$ create and annihilate electrons with crystal spin $`m`$ in the nonadiabatic localized states $`|\stackrel{}{T},m,n`$ and $`\nu =n`$ labels the nonadiabatic states which satisfy the following Eq (2.14). The new coordinate $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ represents that part of the motion of the nuclei which nonadiabatically follows the motion of the electron occupying the state $`|\stackrel{}{T},m,n`$.

The second postulate of the NHM states that the transitions generated by $`H_z`$ are artifacts of the adiabatic approximation and do not happen in the (true) nonadiabatic system if relation (2.7) is satisfied. That means, the NHM assumes that there exist nonadiabatic localized functions

$$\stackrel{}{r},t,\stackrel{}{q}|\stackrel{}{T},m,n$$
(2.13)
satisfying

$$\stackrel{}{T}_1,m_1,n;\stackrel{}{T}_2,m_2,n|H_{Cb}|\stackrel{}{T}_1^{},m_1^{},n;\stackrel{}{T}_2^{},m_2^{},n=0$$
(2.14)
if

$$\{\stackrel{}{T}_1,\stackrel{}{T}_2\}\{\stackrel{}{T}_1^{},\stackrel{}{T}_2^{}\}.$$

According to the third (and last) postulate, these nonadiabatic localized functions have the same symmetry as the Wfs $`w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)`$.

## III Application of the nonadiabatic Heisenberg model to superconducting bands

### A The Coulomb interaction in a narrow $`\sigma `$ band

Now assume the narrow, roughly half-filled energy band considered in the preceding section to be a $`\sigma `$ band. That means that now the Wannier functions $`w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)`$ in Eq. (2.3) are given by Eq. (A18).

We first examine the commutation properties of the operator $`H^{}`$ \[given in Eq (2.8)\]. \[It should be noted that the symmetry of $`H^{}`$ depends on the symmetry of the Wannier functions $`w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)`$, whereas the symmetry of the complete Hamiltonian $`H`$ is independent of the symmetry of the used basis functions.\] As a consequence of Eqs. (A29) and (A30) it follows that $`H^{}`$ commutes with the symmetry operators $`P(a)`$ of the space group $`G`$,

$$[H^{},P(a)]=0\text{for}aG,$$
(3.1)
and with the operator $`K`$ of time inversion,

$$[H^{},K]=0.$$
(3.2)
In Eq. (A12) the symmetry operators $`S(\alpha )`$ of the electron spin are introduced. As shown in appendix A, the Coulomb interaction

$$H_{Cb}^{}=H_c+H_{ex}$$
(3.3)
belonging to $`H^{}`$ does not commute with the operator $`S(\alpha )`$,

$$[H_{Cb}^{},S(\alpha )]0$$
(3.4)
for at least one $`\alpha G_0`$.

Now assume the three postulates of the NHM to be satisfied in the $`\sigma `$ band of niobium. According to the third postulate, the nonadiabatic Hamiltonian $`H^n`$ has the same commutation properties as $`H^{}`$. Hence, $`H^n`$ commutes with the operators $`P(a)`$ and $`K`$,

$$[H^n,P(a)]=0\text{for}aG$$
(3.5)
and

$$[H^n,K]=0,$$
(3.6)
where the action of the operators $`P(a)`$ in the nonadiabatic system is given in Eq. (A50).

As a consequence of Eq. (3.4) also the nonadiabatic Coulomb interaction $`H_{Cb}^n`$ \[given in Eq. (2.12)\] does not commute with all the operators $`S(\alpha )`$,

$$[H_{Cb}^n,S(\alpha )]0$$
(3.7)
for at least one $`\alpha G_0`$.

The first two equations (3.5) and (3.6) show that $`H^n`$ has the correct symmetry of the paramagnetic group $`M^P`$ of niobium. Especially, Eq. (3.6) indicates that $`H^n`$ has a nonmagnetic ground state.

The last equation (3.7) demonstrates that $`H^n`$ represents a system in which the electron spin angular momentum is not a conserved quantity. Within the nonadiabatic system, we need not require that the electron spin is conserved because the nonadiabatic fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^n`$ and $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^n`$ are no longer labeled by the spin quantum number $`s`$. However, even in the nonadiabatic system there should exist a conserved quantity related to the conservation law of angular momentum. Thus, the equations

$$[H,S(\alpha )]=0\text{ for }\alpha O(3),$$
(3.8)
which hold in the adiabatic system, should be replaced by analogous equations

$$[H^n,M(\alpha )]=0\text{ for }\alpha G_0$$
(3.9)
in the nonadiabatic system.

The operators $`M(\alpha )`$ are defined in Ref. . They act on the quantum number $`m`$ of the nonadiabatic fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^n`$ in the same manner as the operators $`S(\alpha )`$ act on the spin quantum number $`s`$ of the adiabatic fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}s}^{}`$. Therefore, the operators $`M(\alpha )`$ may be called the “operators of crystal spin” and $`m`$ may be called the quantum number of the crystal spin. This is in anology to the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ of the Bloch functions which is sometimes referred to as “crystal momentum” in order to distinguish it from the momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$.

The operator $`H_{Cb}^{}`$ has matrix elements with

$$m_1+m_2m_1^{}+m_2^{}$$
(3.10)
because the matrix $`[f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})]`$ in Eq. (A9) is not independent of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ in a $`\sigma `$ band. Therefore, $`H_{Cb}^{}`$ does not conserve the crystal spin. According to the third postulate of the NHM, also the nonadiabatic Coulomb interaction $`H_{Cb}^n`$ in a narrow $`\sigma `$ band does not conserve the crystal spin,

$$[H_{Cb}^n,M(\alpha )]0$$
(3.11)
for at least one $`\alpha G_0`$.

In order to interprete this result remember that in the (true) nonadiabatic system the electrons no longer move on rigid orbitals in the average potential of the other electrons, but move in a potential depending on which of the adjacent localized states are occupied and on the present positions of these electrons. These modified electronic orbitals yield charge distributions within the localized states being symmetric with respect to the lattice on the average of time, but not at any moment. As already stated above, the positive ions become permanently accelerated in varying directions within this fluctuating potential of the electrons.

Equation (3.11) indicates that in a narrow $`\sigma `$ band the positive-ion lattice is accelerated in such a way that phonons are excited (or absorbed). This interpretation is corroborated by the fact that the acoustic phonons in a cubic crystal may be unitarily transformed into localized phonon states $`|\stackrel{}{T},l`$ which transform according to

$$M(\alpha )|\stackrel{}{T},l=\underset{l^{}}{}D_{l^{}l}(\alpha )|\stackrel{}{T},l^{}\text{ for }\alpha G_0$$
(3.12)
by application of the operators $`M(\alpha )`$ of the crystal spin. The matrices $`[D_{l^{}l}(\alpha )]`$ belong to the three-dimensional representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{15}`$ in every cubic crystal. Therefore, the localized phonons $`|\stackrel{}{T},l`$ carry the crystal-spin momentum $`1\mathrm{}`$ and the quantum number $`l`$ may be identified as crystal-spin quantum number $`l=1,0,+1`$.

There is further evidence for this interpretation of Eq (3.11) because by the mere addition of symmetrized boson operators we may construct from $`H_{Cb}^n`$ an interaction

$$H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }=\underset{\stackrel{}{T},m}{}\stackrel{}{T}_1,l_1;\stackrel{}{T}_2,l_2;\stackrel{}{T}_1,m_1,n;\stackrel{}{T}_2,m_2,n|H_{Cb}|\stackrel{}{T}_1^{},m_1^{},n;\stackrel{}{T}_2^{},m_2^{},nb_{\stackrel{}{T}_1l_1}^{}b_{\stackrel{}{T}_2l_2}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_1m_1}^nc_{\stackrel{}{T}_2m_2}^nc_{\stackrel{}{T}_2^{}m_2^{}}^nc_{\stackrel{}{T}_1^{}m_1^{}}^n+\text{H.c.}$$
(3.13)
which conserves the crystal spin,

$$[H_{Cb}^{n\sigma },M(\alpha )]=0\text{ for }\alpha G_0.$$
(3.14)
The boson operators $`b_{\stackrel{}{T}l}^{}`$ and $`b_{\stackrel{}{T}l}`$ create and annihilate localized phonons $`|\stackrel{}{T},l`$ with crystal spin $`l=1,0,+1`$ at the position $`\stackrel{}{T}`$. The complicated prove of Eq. (3.14) is given in Ref. .

Though $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ conserves the crystal-spin angular momentum, it still does not conserve the electron spin (since the nonadiabatic fermion operators are not labeled by the spin quantum number $`s`$). Hence, we still have

$$[H_{Cb}^{n\sigma },S(\alpha )]0$$
(3.15)
for at least one $`\alpha G_0`$. This equation indicates that it is the electron spin which couples to the phonons. Hence, the electron-phonon coupling produced by $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ may be called “spin-phonon interaction”.

The interaction $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ replaces the Coulomb interaction $`H_{Cb}^n`$ in a narow $`\sigma `$ band. The complete nonadiabatic Hamiltonian now may be written as

$$H^n=H_{HF}+H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }+H_{ph},$$
(3.16)
with $`H_{ph}`$ denoting the operator of phonon energy.

### B Formation of Cooper pairs

The result of the preceding section III A may be summarized by an if-then statement: if the postulates of the NHM are satisfied in a narrow, partly filled $`\sigma `$ band, then the electrons are coupled to the phonons by the nonadiabatic Coulomb interaction $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$. In this section I shall show that the new interaction $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ necessarily produces Cooper pairs at zero temperature because in a normal conducting state the conservation of angular momentum would be violated.

Since $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ depends on phonon operators, a certain number of crystal-spin-1 phonons is excited in the ground state of the nonadiabatic Hamiltonian $`H^n`$ at any temperature. At zero temperature we may assume that these phonons are virtually excited, i.e., each phonon pair is reabsorbed immediatedly after its generation. Thus, at zero temperature it should be possible to approximate the operator $`H^n`$ given in Eq. (3.16) by a purely electronic operator

$$H^0=H_{HF}+H_{Cb}^0$$
(3.17)
using a canonical transformation in analogy to the procedure first discussed by Fröhlich. Now the Hamiltonian no longer depends on the boson operators $`b_{\stackrel{}{T}l}^{}`$ and $`b_{\stackrel{}{T}l}`$.

Just as $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$, the operator $`H_{Cb}^0`$ conserves the crystal spin,

$$[H_{Cb}^0,M(\alpha )]=0\text{ for }\alpha G_0.$$
(3.18)
Thus, the ground state $`|G^0`$ of $`H^0`$ satisfies (in the simplest case) the equation

$$M(\alpha )|G^0=|G^0\text{ for }\alpha G_0.$$
(3.19)
$`H^0`$ does not depend on boson operators. Consequently, phonons are not excited within $`|G^0`$ though also at zero temperature the electron spins couple to the motion of the centers of mass and, hence, to the phonons. However, the phonon system does not store angular momentum but mediates (via virtual phonons) a new electron-electron interaction which now is represented by $`H_{Cb}^0`$. Thus, the electron system becomes adiabatic when $`H^n`$ is replaced by $`H^0`$. The localized electron states now are represented by the adiabatic spin dependent Wfs $`\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ given in Eq. (A18) and the electron spin is a conserved quantity,

$$[H_{Cb}^0,S(\alpha )]=0\text{ for }\alpha O(3),$$
(3.20)
yielding

$$S(\alpha )|G^0=|G^0\text{ for }\alpha O(3).$$
(3.21)
Equation (A24) may be written as

$$c_{\stackrel{}{k}m}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{\stackrel{}{T}}{\overset{BvK}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{T}}c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^{}$$
(3.22)
and Eq. (A9) yields

$$c_{\stackrel{}{k}m}^{}=\underset{s=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{+\frac{1}{2}}{}}f_{sm}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_{\stackrel{}{k}s}^{},$$
(3.23)
where the (adiabatic) fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{k}m}^{}`$ and $`c_{\stackrel{}{k}s}^{}`$ create Bloch electrons with crystal spin $`m`$ and spin $`s`$, respectively.

We now show that both equations (3.19) and (3.21) are satisfied if and only if the electrons form Cooper pairs. Consider states of the form

$$|Cp=\beta _{\stackrel{}{k}_1}^{}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k}_2}^{}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k}_3}^{}\mathrm{}\beta _{\stackrel{}{k}_{L/2}}^{}|0,$$
(3.24)
where the new operators

$$\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}=c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}$$
(3.25)
create symmetrized Cooper pairs. The crystal-spin quantum numbers $`m=+\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ are denoted by double arrows $``$ and $``$, respectively. $`L`$ denotes the number of electrons.

The operators $`\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ are basis functions of the identity representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ of $`G_0`$. Thus, we have

$$M(\alpha )\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}=\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}\text{ for }\alpha G_0,$$
(3.26)
and hence

$$M(\alpha )|Cp=|Cp\text{ for }\alpha G_0.$$
(3.27)
The operators $`\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ may be transformed into the $`s`$ representation. With Eq. (3.23) we obtain

$`\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(f_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}+f_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\right)`$ (3.31)
$`\times \left(f_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}+f_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\right)`$
$`\left(f_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}+f_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\right)`$
$`\times \left(f_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}+f_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\right),`$
where the spin quantum numbers $`s=+\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ are denoted by single arrows $``$ and $``$, respectively.

This equation (3.31) leads with Eq. (A39) to

$$\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}=c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}.$$
(3.32)
Thus, within the $`s`$ representation the operators $`\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ form basis functions of the identity representation of $`O(3)`$. From this important result it follows that, in addition to Eqs. (3.26) and (3.27), we have

$$S(\alpha )\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}=\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}\text{ for }\alpha O(3)$$
(3.33)
and

$$S(\alpha )|Cp=|Cp\text{ for }\alpha O(3).$$
(3.34)
Consequently, if the ground state $`|G^0`$ of $`H^0`$ is a linear combination of the states $`|Cp`$, i.e., if all the electrons in $`|G^0`$ form Cooper pairs, then both equations (3.19) and (3.21) are satisfied.

The second important result is that the equations (3.19) and (3.21) cannot be satisfied at the same time when the electrons in $`|G^0`$ do not form Cooper pairs because the matrix $`[f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})]`$ in Eq. (A9) cannot be chosen independent of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ in a $`\sigma `$ band; see appendix A. Equation (A39) is a consequence of the time-inversion symmetry of the electron-phonon system. Hence, the step from Eq. (3.31) to Eq. (3.32) is possible only for the symmetrized Cooper pairs $`\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ which consist always of both, an operator $`c_{\stackrel{}{k},m}^{}`$ and its time-inverted operator $`\pm c_{\stackrel{}{k},m}^{}`$.

An essential property of $`H_{Cb}^0`$ can be derived from the equations (3.18) and (3.20). Assume that $`H_{Cb}^0`$ may be represented by a two-electron interaction,

$`H_{Cb}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},s}{}}\stackrel{}{k}_1,s_1;\stackrel{}{k}_2,s_2|H_{Cb}^0|\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},s_1^{};\stackrel{}{k}_2^{},s_2^{}`$ (3.36)
$`\times c_{\stackrel{}{k}_1s_1}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_2s_2}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}s_2^{}}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_1^{}s_1^{}}.`$
The only fermion operator combinations of the form

$$\underset{s}{}d(s_1,s_2;s_1^{},s_2^{})c_{\stackrel{}{k}_1s_1}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_2s_2}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}s_2^{}}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_1^{}s_1^{}}$$

which represent scattering processes changing the wave vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ of the Bloch states and which commutes with both $`S(\alpha )`$ \[for $`\alpha O(3)`$\] and $`M(\alpha )`$ \[for $`\alpha G_0`$\] are given by

$$\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{},$$

since the equations (3.26) and (3.33) may be written as

$$[\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{},M(\alpha )]=0\text{ for }\alpha G_0$$
(3.37)
and

$$[\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{},S(\alpha )]=0\text{ for }\alpha O(3).$$
(3.38)
Thus, as a consequence of the equations (3.18) and (3.20), $`H_{Cb}^0`$ has the form

$$H_{Cb}^0=\underset{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{}\stackrel{}{k}|H_{Cb}^0|\stackrel{}{k}^{}\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}.$$
(3.39)
Hence, in the system represented by $`H_0`$ the Coulomb interaction $`H_{Cb}^0`$ is strongly $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`s`$ dependent since

$$\stackrel{}{k}_1,s_1;\stackrel{}{k}_2,s_2|H_{Cb}^0|\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},s_1^{};\stackrel{}{k}_2^{},s_2^{}=0$$
(3.40)
for $`\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_1^{}\stackrel{}{k}_2^{},s_1s_2,`$ or $`s_1^{}s_2^{}`$. (In addition, $`H_{Cb}^0`$ has nonvanishing matrix elements belonging to scattering processes not changing the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. Here, these diagonal and exchange matrix elements are not considered.)

### C Calculation of the transition temperature $`T_c`$

Within the NHM, the superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$ may be calculated in the framework the BCS theory when, first, the nonadiabatic operator $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ of Coulomb interaction is approximated by the adiabatic operator of Coulomb interaction, $`H_{Cb}`$, and the usual spin-independent operator of electron-phonon interaction, $`H_{eph}`$,

$$H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }H_{Cb}+H_{eph},$$
(3.41)
with

$$H_{eph}=\underset{\stackrel{}{k},s}{}\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}_1|H_{eph}|\stackrel{}{k}_1^{}b_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_1,s}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},s}^{}+H.c.,$$
(3.42)
and when, second, the approximations of the BCS theory are applied $`H_{Cb}+H_{eph}+H_{ph}`$ in order that the familiar equation

$$T_c=1.14\theta e^{1/N(E_F)V}$$
(3.43)
may be derived. $`N(E_F)`$, $`V`$ and $`\theta `$ are the density of states of the electrons at the Fermi level, the effective electron-phonon interaction, and the Debye temperature, respectively.

There is no definite indication of the approximation (3.41) leading to a markedly false calculation of the free energy of the ground state and, hence, of $`T_c`$. It is true that $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ represents a two-electron two-phonon process. This, however, does not mean that the two phonons become excited (or absorbed) at the same time. The special form of $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ should be interpreted by stating that, after a one-electron one-phonon process, the probability for another correlated one-electron one-phonon process rises. The accurate (two-electron, two-phonon) form of $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ serves only to show the validity of Eq. (3.14) and hence to derive the important Eq. (3.40).

Equation (3.40) has no influence on the BCS equation (3.43) because the matrix elements of $`H_{Cb}^0`$ which vanish in the NHM are argued away in the BCS theory, too. Hence the only contribution of the NHM to the BCS equation is that $`N(E_F)`$ now stands for the density of states $`N_j^\sigma (E_F)`$ of the electrons belonging to the $`j`$th $`\sigma `$ band. Within the NHM equation (3.43) reads as

$$T_c^j=1.14\theta e^{1/N_j^\sigma (E_F)V}.$$
(3.44)
The NHM thus modifies the interpretation of the BCS formula in that now the parameter $`N(E_F)`$ is only the partial density of states $`N_j^\sigma (E_F)`$ of the $`j`$th $`\sigma `$ band.

The index $`j`$ is introduced since the considered metal may possess more than one $`\sigma `$ band in its band structure. In this case, $`T_c^j`$ is calculated for each $`\sigma `$ band seperately, since equations (3.19) and (3.21) are satisfied within a $`\sigma `$ band only. Hence, each of the $`\sigma `$ bands forms its own superconducting system with its own transition temperature.

## IV Discussion

The result of this paper may be summarized by an if-then statement: if the three postulates of the NHM are satisfied within a narrow $`\sigma `$ band, then the electrons form Cooper pairs at zero temperatur. Just as in the BCS theory, the coupling of the electrons is mediated by phonons. However, the formation of Cooper pairs is constrained in a new way by the conservation law of crystal-spin angular momentum: within a narrow, partly filled $`\sigma `$ band the crystal-spin angular momentum is conserved at zero temperature if and only if the electrons form Cooper pairs.

From a mathematical point of view, the difference between the BCS mechanism of Cooper pair formation and the mechanism within the NHM is seen from Eq (3.40). In both the BCS theory and the NHM the matrix elements given in Eq (3.40) may be disregarded. However, the methods to argue away these matrix elements are quite different.

In the NHM, the matrix elements in Eq. (3.40) may be clearly disregarded because they vanish. Within the BCS theory, on the other hand, the corresponding matrix elements of the the effective electron-electron interaction

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},s}{}}\stackrel{}{k}_1,s_1;\stackrel{}{k}_2,s_2|V|\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},s_1;\stackrel{}{k}_2^{},s_2`$ (4.2)
$`\times c_{\stackrel{}{k}_1s_1}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_2s_2}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}s_2}c_{\stackrel{}{k}_1^{}s_1}`$
(derived from the spin-independent electron-phonon interaction) do not vanish from the beginning. But after the introduction of the familiar BCS wave function $`|\varphi `$ they may be disregarded because they vanish in the space spanned by the BCS function,

$$\stackrel{}{k}_1,s_1;\stackrel{}{k}_2,s_2|\varphi \varphi |V|\varphi \varphi |\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},s_1^{};\stackrel{}{k}_2^{},s_2^{}=0$$
(4.3)
for $`\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_1^{}\stackrel{}{k}_2^{},s_1s_2`$, or $`s_1^{}s_2^{}`$. Consequently, these matrix elements may be disregarded if and only if the BCS Hamiltonian

$$H_{BCS}=H_{HF}+V$$
(4.4)
possesses eigenstates in that part of the Hilbert space which is spanned by the BCS wave function. Hence, the BCS theory uses the tacit assumption that $`H_{BCS}`$ possesses eigenstates in which the electrons form Cooper pairs.

The operator $`H^0`$ \[given in Eq (3.17)\] clearly has eigenstates in which the electrons form Cooper pairs because its complete interaction term $`H_{Cb}^0`$ satisfies Eq. (3.40). However, it is conceivable that $`H_{BCS}`$ does not possess such eigenstates since $`H^0`$ and $`H_{BCS}`$ act in different subspaces $`𝒫^0`$ and $`𝒫_{BCS}`$ of the Hilbert space.

The BCS operator $`V`$ acts in a space $`𝒫_{BCS}`$ in which each Bloch electron is described by the four quantum numbers $`k_x,k_y,k_z\text{ and }s`$. In the space $`𝒫^0`$, on the other hand, each electron pair is described by four quantum numbers because Eq. (3.40) is valid. Thus, $`𝒫^0`$ and $`𝒫_{BCS}`$ essentially differ because the number of degrees of freedom of the electronic motion in $`𝒫^0`$ is one-half that in $`𝒫_{BCS}`$.

In a classical system, the number of degrees of freedom of any state of motion of $`N`$ particles is given by the number of independent coordinates on which the Hamiltonian function depends, i.e., it is prescribed. If this is also true in a quantum system, then $`H_{BCS}`$ has only unpaired eigenstates and it is the operator $`H^0`$ as given in Eq. (3.17) that has eigenstates in which the electrons form Cooper pairs. Equation (3.40) is an equation of constraint which may be interpreted in terms of “constraining forces” which constrain the electrons to form Cooper pairs.

Hence, it cannot be excluded that any electron-boson interaction which produces stable Cooper pairs within the BCS limit has two characteristic features:

(1) It is attractive in the sence that is yields an energy minimum in the weak coupling (BCS) limit and

(2) the complete interaction term $`H_{Cb}^0`$ (involving both the Coulomb interaction and the electron-boson interaction) satisfies Eq. (3.40) in order that the Hamiltonian possesses superconducting eigenstates.

In other words, there is evidence that the BCS theory yields the absolute energy minimum in the Hilbert space only if the formation of Cooper pairs is additionally constrained by the constraining forces existing in a narrow, partly filled $`\sigma `$ band.

As a consequence, only those metals that possess such an energy band may become superconducting at low temperatures. In fact, there is great evidence that this supposition is true because I checked with 18 pure metals that superconductors and only superconductors possess a narrow, roughly half-filled $`\sigma `$ band in their (calculated) band structure. In particular, those metals (such as Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Ca Cu, Ag, and Au) which do not possess a narrow, partly filled $`\sigma `$ band do not become superconducting. So far I have not found any exception to this rule.

The modified BCS mechanism of Cooper pair formation may also lead to a better understanding of high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity. In the one or two dimensional sublattices of the high-$`T_c`$ materials, phonons are not able to carry crystal-spin angular momentum. Hence, the nonadiabatic operator of Coulomb interaction in a $`\sigma `$ band, $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$, as given in Eq. (3.13) cannot depend on phonon operators. When a narrow, partly filled $`\sigma `$ band exists in such an anisotropic material, the electron spins are forced to couple to other crystal-spin-1 excitations which must be sufficiently stable to transport the crystal-spin angular momenta. Likely, these excitations are coupled phonon-plasmon modes possessing a considerably higher energy than phonons. Therefore, the Debye temperature $`\theta `$ is considerably higher than in the isotropic materials of the standard superconductors and, hence, $`T_c`$ is higher.

###### Acknowledgements.

I wish to thank Ernst Helmut Brandt for stimulating discussions.

## A Spin dependent Wannier functions

The paramagnetic group of bcc niobium is given by

$$M^P=G+KG,$$
(A1)
where

$$G=O_h^9$$
(A2)
is the bcc space group and $`K`$ stands for the operator of time inversion. $`M^P`$ has the point group

$$M_0^P=G_0+KG_0,$$
(A3)
with

$$G_0=O_h$$
(A4)
being the cubic point group $`O_h`$.

The elements

$$a=\{\alpha |\stackrel{}{R}\}$$
(A5)
of $`G`$ consist of a point group operation $`\alpha `$ and a primitive translation $`\stackrel{}{R}`$. The symmetry operators $`P(a)`$ and the operator $`K`$ of time inversion act on a function of position, $`f(\stackrel{}{r})`$, according to

$$P(a)f(\stackrel{}{r})=f(\alpha ^1\stackrel{}{r}\alpha ^1\stackrel{}{R})$$
(A6)
and

$$Kf(\stackrel{}{r})=f^{}(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(A7)
respectively.

Consider the band structure of Nb depicted in Fig. 1, in particular the $`\sigma `$ band denoted by the dotted line. It is characterized by the four representations

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{25}^{},H_{25}^{},N_2,\text{and}P_4$$
(A8)
of $`O_h^9`$. The Bloch functions of this single band cannot be unitarily transformed into usual Wfs which both are best localized and belong to a representation of $`O_h`$ since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{25}^{}`$, $`H_{25}^{}`$, and $`P_4`$ are not one-dimensional.

However, such a unitary transformation becomes possible in a natural way when we account for the existence of the electron spin. Let us define “spin dependent Bloch functions” by

$$\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\underset{s=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{+\frac{1}{2}}{}}f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})u_s(t)\phi _\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(A9)
where $`\phi _\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ denotes the Bloch function with wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ of the $`\sigma `$ band. The two-dimensional matrix $`[f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})]`$ is, for each $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, unitary and

$$u_s(t)=\delta _{st}$$
(A10)
stands for Pauli’s spin function with the spin quantum number $`s=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and the spin coordinate $`t=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$. A symmetry operator $`S(\alpha )`$ of the three-dimensional rotation group $`O(3)`$ acts on $`u_s(t)`$ according to

$`S(\alpha )u_s(t)`$ $``$ $`u_s(\alpha ^1t)`$ (A11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}}{}}d_{s^{}s}(\alpha )u_s^{}(t)\text{ for }aO(3),`$ (A12)
where the matrix $`[d_{s^{}s}(\alpha )]`$ is the representative of $`\alpha `$ in the two-dimensional double-valued representation $`D_{1/2}`$ of $`O(3)`$. The quantum number $`m=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ of the crystal spin distinguishes between the two functions belonging to the same wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. If we have

$$f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})=\delta _{sm},$$
(A13)
the two functions $`\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ with $`m=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ are usual Bloch functions with the spins lying in $`+z`$ and $`z`$ direction, respectively. Otherwise, the functions $`\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ still are usual Bloch functions with antiparallel spins which, however, no longer ly in $`\pm z`$ direction.

The doubled-valued representations of the $`\sigma `$ band are given by

$`D_{1/2}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{25}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7^++\mathrm{\Gamma }_8^+,`$ (A14)
$`D_{1/2}\times H_{25}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`H_7^++H_8^+,`$ (A15)
$`D_{1/2}\times P_4`$ $`=`$ $`P_7+P_8,`$ (A16)
$`D_{1/2}\times N_2`$ $`=`$ $`N_5^+.`$ (A17)
Hence, at the points $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`H`$, $`P`$, and $`N`$ the spin dependent Bloch functions of the $`\sigma `$ band can be transformed in such a way that at each symmetry point two functions form basis functions of the double-valued representations

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_7^+,H_7^+,P_7,\text{and}N_5^+,$$

respectively, of band 2 in Table I. The spin directions of these basis functions, however, are different in different points of symmetry.

In $`\sigma `$ bands, i.e., in the bands given in Table I, the matrix $`[f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})]`$ in Eq. (A9) may be chosen in such a way that
(1) the Bloch functions $`\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ vary smoothly through the whole $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ space and
(2) the spin dependent Wfs

$$w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{\overset{BZ}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{T}}\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)$$
(A18)
are symmetry-adapted to $`M^P`$ according to

$$P(a)\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m=d(\alpha )\underset{m^{}=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{+\frac{1}{2}}{}}d_{m^{}m}(\alpha )\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T}^{},m^{}$$
(A19)
for $`aG`$ and

$$K\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m=\pm \stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m,$$
(A20)
where I have used the abbreviations

$$\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},mw_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)$$
(A21)
and

$$\stackrel{}{T}^{}=\alpha \stackrel{}{T}+\stackrel{}{R}.$$
(A22)
The symmetry operators $`P(a)`$ now act on $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`t`$ according to

$$P(a)\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m=\alpha ^1\stackrel{}{r}\alpha ^1\stackrel{}{R},\alpha ^1t|\stackrel{}{T},m,$$
(A23)
with the meaning of $`\alpha ^1t`$ being given in Eq. (A12). We define the plus in Eq. (A20) to belong to $`m=+\frac{1}{2}`$ and the minus to $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$. The two-dimensional matrices $`[d_{m^{}m}(\alpha )]`$ are equal to the matrices $`[d_{s^{}s}(\alpha )]`$ in Eq. (A12) and the matrices $`[d(\alpha )d_{m^{}m}(\alpha )]=\pm 1[d_{m^{}m}(\alpha )]`$ form the representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ given in the first column of Table I (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7^+`$ for the band considered in this paper). The smoothness of the Bloch functions $`\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ guarantees that the spin dependent Wfs are optimally localizable.

The spin dependent Bloch functions may be calculated from the Wfs by means of

$$\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{\stackrel{}{T}}{\overset{BvK}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{T}}w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t),$$
(A24)
where the sum runs over the Born-von Kármán volume (BvK).

It is essential that the matrix $`[f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})]`$ cannot be chosen independent of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. This follows from the very fact that, on the one hand, the Wfs $`\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ would be usual spin independent Wfs if $`[f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})]`$ would be independent of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, and, on the other hand, we cannot assign to the considered $`\sigma `$ band best localized, symmetry adapted, and spin independent Wfs since the representations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{25}^{}`$, $`H_{25}^{}`$, and $`P_4`$ are not one-dimensional.

An important consequence of the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ dependence of the matrix $`[f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})]`$ is that Eq. (A19) does not hold when a symmetry operator acts on the spin coordinate $`t`$ alone. That means, this equation does not hold when the operators $`P(a)`$ are replaced by the operators $`S(\alpha )`$ given in Eq. (A12),

$$S(\alpha )\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m\underset{m^{}=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{+\frac{1}{2}}{}}c_{m^{}m}(\alpha )\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m^{}$$
(A25)
for at least one $`\alpha G_0`$, with

$$\underset{m^{}=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{+\frac{1}{2}}{}}|c_{m^{}m}(\alpha )|^2=1.$$
(A26)
Equation (A25) holds since, otherwise, the functions $`\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ would be usual spin independent Wfs.

The spin dependent Wfs form a complete basis in the $`\sigma `$ band. Thus, the functions $`S(\alpha )\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ may be written as linear combinations

$$S(\alpha )\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m=\underset{\stackrel{}{T}^{},m^{}}{}\stackrel{}{T}^{},m^{}|S(\alpha )|\stackrel{}{T},m\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T}^{},m^{},$$
(A27)
with

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{T}^{},m^{}}{}|\stackrel{}{T}^{},m^{}|S(\alpha )|\stackrel{}{T},m|^2=1,$$
(A28)
and at least two nonvanishing coefficients $`\stackrel{}{T}_1,m_1|S(\alpha )|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ and $`\stackrel{}{T}_2,m_2|S(\alpha )|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ belonging to different lattice points $`\stackrel{}{T}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{T}_2`$. Again, this statement holds for at least one $`\alpha G_0`$.

Equations (A19), (A20), and (A27) also may be written for the fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^{}`$ in Eq. (3.3),

$$P(a)c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^{}P^1(a)=d(\alpha )\underset{m^{}=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{+\frac{1}{2}}{}}d_{m^{}m}^{}(\alpha )c_{\stackrel{}{T}^{}m}^{}\text{ for }aG,$$
(A29)
with $`|d(\alpha )|=_{m^{}=\frac{1}{2}}^{+\frac{1}{2}}|d_{m^{}m}(\alpha )|^2=1`$,

$$Kc_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^{}K^1=\pm c_{\stackrel{}{T},m}^{},$$
(A30)
and

$$S(\alpha )c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^{}S(\alpha )^1=\underset{\stackrel{}{T}^{},m^{}}{}\stackrel{}{T}^{},m^{}|S(\alpha )|\stackrel{}{T},m^{}c_{\stackrel{}{T}^{}m^{}}^{},$$
(A31)
with at least two nonvanishing summands $`\stackrel{}{T}_1,m_1|S(\alpha )|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ and $`\stackrel{}{T}_2,m_2|S(\alpha )|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ belonging to different lattice points $`\stackrel{}{T}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{T}_2`$.

Now we show that, as a consequence of this equation (A31), the operator $`H_{Cb}^{}`$ given in Eq. (3.3) does not commute with all the spin operators $`S(\alpha )`$. Remember that all the matrix elements of $`H_{Cb}^{}`$ satisfy equation (2.5) or (2.6) and consider a fermion operator combination belonging to $`H_{Cb}^{}`$, say

$$O=c_{\stackrel{}{T}_1}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_2}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_2}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_1},$$
(A32)
where we have dropped the index $`m`$ since it does not matter here. Further assume Eq. (A31) to be true for the point group operation $`\overline{\alpha }`$ and the sum to consist of exactly two summands. With the abbreviation $`SS(\overline{\alpha })`$ we may write

$$Sc_\stackrel{}{T}^{}S^1=ac_\stackrel{}{Q}^{}+bc_\stackrel{}{R}^{},$$
(A33)
where $`a0`$, $`b0`$, and $`\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{R}`$. With Eq. (A33) we obtain

$`SOS^1`$ $`=`$ $`Sc_{\stackrel{}{T}_1}^{}S^1Sc_{\stackrel{}{T}_2}^{}S^1Sc_{\stackrel{}{T}_2}S^1Sc_{\stackrel{}{T}_1}S^1`$ (A34)
$`=`$ $`(ac_{\stackrel{}{Q}_1}^{}+bc_{\stackrel{}{R}_1}^{})(ac_{\stackrel{}{Q}_2}^{}+bc_{\stackrel{}{R}_2}^{})`$ (A36)
$`\times (a^{}c_{\stackrel{}{Q}_2}+b^{}c_{\stackrel{}{R}_2})(a^{}c_{\stackrel{}{Q}_1}+b^{}c_{\stackrel{}{R}_1}).`$
Consider, e.g., the operator product

$$O_1=baa^{}a^{}c_{\stackrel{}{R}_1}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{Q}_2}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{Q}_2}c_{\stackrel{}{Q}_1}$$
(A37)
belonging in Eq. (A36) to $`SOS^1`$. $`O_1`$ does not belong to $`H_{Cb}^{}`$ since $`R_1Q_1`$. Hence we have

$$[H_{Cb}^{},S]0.$$
(A38)
Finally, we derive the important equation

$$f_{sm}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})=\pm f_{s,m}(\stackrel{}{k})$$
(A39)
which is needed in Sec. III B. The plus sign in Eq. (A39) holds for $`m=s`$ and the minus for $`m=s`$.

Equation (A30) leads with

$$c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{\stackrel{}{T}}{\overset{BZ}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{T}}c_{\stackrel{}{k}m}^{}$$
(A40)
to the equation

$$Kc_{\stackrel{}{k}m}^{}K^1=v(m)c_{\stackrel{}{k},m}^{},$$
(A41)
where

$$v(\pm \frac{1}{2})=\pm 1.$$

Equation (3.23) yields the two equations

$$c_{\stackrel{}{k},m}^{}=\underset{s=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{+\frac{1}{2}}{}}f_{s,m}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c_{\stackrel{}{k},s}^{}$$
(A42)
and

$$Kc_{\stackrel{}{k}m}^{}K^1=\underset{s=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{+\frac{1}{2}}{}}f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})v(s)c_{\stackrel{}{k},s}^{}$$
(A43)
because

$$Kc_{\stackrel{}{k}s}^{}K^1=v(s)c_{\stackrel{}{k},s}^{}.$$
(A44)
Substituting Eqs. (A42) and (A43) in Eq. (A41) we obtain equation (A39).

Within the NHM, the localized functions $`\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ are replaced by nonadiabatic localized functions,

$$\stackrel{}{r},t|\stackrel{}{T},m\stackrel{}{r},t,\stackrel{}{q}|\stackrel{}{T},m,\nu ,$$
(A45)
which are orthonormal according to

$`\stackrel{}{T}^{},m^{},n|\stackrel{}{T},m,n`$ (A46)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t}{}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{T}^{},m^{},n|\stackrel{}{r},t,\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r},t,\stackrel{}{q}|\stackrel{}{T},m,n𝑑\stackrel{}{r}𝑑\stackrel{}{q}}`$ (A47)
$`=`$ $`\delta _{\stackrel{}{T}^{}\stackrel{}{T}}\delta _{m^{}m}.`$ (A48)
The quantum number $`\nu =n`$ labels the functions satisfying Eq. (2.14).

As a consequence of the third postulate of the NHM, also the nonadiabatic localized functions satisfy the equations (A19) and (A20). However, the symmetry operators $`P(a)`$ now act on $`\stackrel{}{r},t`$, and on the new coordinate $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ according to

$`P(a)\stackrel{}{r},t,\stackrel{}{q}|\stackrel{}{T},m,n`$ (A49)
$`=`$ $`\alpha ^1\stackrel{}{r}\alpha ^1\stackrel{}{R},\alpha ^1t,\alpha ^1\stackrel{}{q}|\stackrel{}{T},m,n.`$ (A50)
Consequently, the equations (A29) and (A30) are satisfied for the nonadiabatic fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^n`$ in Eq. (2.10) as well as for the adiabatic fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^{}`$.


format: text

text:
# Reply to comment on Casimir energy for spherical boundaries

## Abstract

It is shown that the recent criticism of Brevik et al. is in error.

In a recent work Brevik, Jensen, and Milton  have sought to rebut criticisms raised by me of certain techniques used in the calculation of the Casimir effect for a conducting sphere. It is shown here that the points which they raise are not in fact correct.

First, comment needs to be made upon the fact that ref  expresses great concern that I have seen fit to question whether the Casimir effect has been experimentally verified. While recognizing my essential point that the geometry of recent experiments  is different than that of the cases for which the Casimir effect has been carefully calculated, they seek to assert that the result is nonetheless verified at the level of a few per cent. I categorically reject the claim that any such verification has been achieved. In order to establish the validity of recent experiments as constituting a proof of the reality of the Casimir effect it is necessary to adopt the same procedure as used in the parallel plate case–namely, the normal modes must be calculated and a sum performed to get the vacuum energy in the presence of appropriate boundaries. This calculation has never been done for those cases and thus it is far from clear what the significance is of data obtained in recent experiments.

Going on to the issue of the mathematical points raised in ref.  I repeat here the remark made by me in ref.  to the effect that outgoing wave boundary conditions are not derivable in quantum field theory. To demonstrate the error in  where it is claimed that outgoing wave boundary conditions can be derived from causal boundary conditions it needs only to be observed that what is referred to in  as the third form of Eq.(1) is not equal to the fourth form. This is easily seen from the simple fact that the discontinuity in the time derivative at $`t=0`$ of the third form is proportional to a delta function in the spatial coordinates (in agreement with the canonical commutation relations) whereas the fourth form is continuous at $`t=0`$. Thus the “simple identity” which I am accused of failing to appreciate is manifestly incorrect. In fact the very claim that causal and outgoing wave boundary conditions are equivalent is one which must seem incomprehensible to a practicing field theorist. A final remark concerning this point has to do with the fact that at the end of the Introduction of ref.  it is agreed that the use of a large sphere “in order to keep the eigenvalues real” is “not incorrect”. This is in fact an admission that in ref.  and its antecedents the eigenvalues are not real, a fact which seems quite odd in light of the fact that the Casimir effect is frequently described as originating in a shift of the real energy eigenvalues of the normal modes of a system.

It is also alleged that my denial of a necessary connection between the discontinuity of the stress tensor and the Casimir pressure is simply the denial of the undeniable. In Eq.(9) ref.  introduces an inhomogeneous term in the expression for the four divergence of the stress tensor. However, the argument based on this introduction consists merely of rebuttal by a definitional device. Specifically, it is clear that so long as there is a difference between the inside and outside stress there will be a term in the divergence of the stress which is localized to the surface of the sphere. This is defined in  to be the force but certainly is not obviously equal to the Casimir pressure, a question which can only be decided by explicit calculation. This has been done with considerable care in ref  with the result that the Casimir pressure is not given by the discontinuity of the stress tensor. The response to this in  is that because I sometimes write unregularized expressions in  it can be rejected out of hand. I plead guilty to the sin which is common to this subfield of occasionally delaying explicit regularization until absolutely necessary. However, if desired one can regularize from the outset with little difficulty. What one then finds is that $`\alpha _{ln}^{(i)}`$ goes to zero as $`1/R`$ times something independent of $`R`$. Upon doing the (regularized) integrations and sums required one obtains the result (as before) that the exterior modes make zero contribution in the limit of large $`R`$. It would seem that any remaining disagreements concerning this claim should be resolved by citing specific alleged errors in my calculations and a demonstration that the correction of such errors leads to results consistent with the claims of ref.  concerning the stress tensor. Indeed, it has been found recently  that the failure of the relation between the vacuum stress and the Casimir effect characterizes the parallel plate case as well. Since in this instance the required calculations are considerably simpler than for the case of the sphere, it should be quite straightforward to confirm or reject the claims of refs.  and .

Finally, there is the matter of improper contour manipulation which has been questioned in . While this matter is somewhat peripheral to the main issue, some discussion of this aspect may be of interest. The argument given in  is essentially the same as that of ref.  of . Since a detailed explanation as to why that Wronskian based approach fails has already been given in the appendix of , it would seem that the authors of ref.  want to suggest the necessity of a direct refutation in the context of ref. . While there are a number of problems associated with the derivation of  it is simplest merely to point out that the error which has been shown to characterize Eq.(1) is now merely repeated in the reversal of order of integration in section II.

In conclusion I merely note that all the criticisms offered in ref.  remain valid. The suggestion in  to the effect that the stress tensor result must be valid simply because it agrees with that obtained by other methods is certainly a curious one, but nonetheless one which is manifestly contradicted by direct calculation.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy Grant No.DE-FG02-91ER40685.


text:
# Untitled Document

hep-ph/0004233 MRI-PHY/P20000412

On Stability of the Three 3-brane Model

Debajyoti Choudhury, Dileep P. Jatkar, Uma Mahanta and Subrata Sur e-mail: debchou,dileep,mahanta,subrata@mri.ernet.in

Mehta Research Institute of Mathematics and Mathematical Physics

Chhatnag Road, Jhusi, Allahabad 211 019, INDIA

We show that the Goldberger-Wise mechanism for the three 3-brane scenario proposed by Kogan et al. stabilizes the radion. We find that the system of 3-branes stabilizes in such a way that the loss in the scale factor is insignificant. That is, the negative tension brane chooses to stay close to the visible brane.

4/2000

1. Introduction

In the quest to explore physics beyond the Standard Model (SM), certain new proposals\[13\] have held considerable interest of the community. Amongst these is the proposal by Randall and Sundrum\[2\] wherein the SM fields live on one of the two 3-branes which are end of the world branes of a five dimensional spacetime. This scenario can be embedded in higher dimensional spacetime as well. One of the attractive features of this proposal is the resolution of the hierarchy problem between the Planck scale and the electroweak scale. This is achieved by choosing the geometry of the embedding spacetime with an exponential warp factor for the four dimensional spacetime which is the worldvolume of the 3-brane. This exponential warp factor produces a difference in the mass scales between the two end of the world 3-branes.

There are several variants of the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model involving multiple branes\[4,,5\], intersecting brane configurations\[6\] and supersymmetry\[79\]. Many of these models including the RS model have atleast one negative tension brane. This is demanded by the requirement of charge neutrality in the compact space. For example, in the original RS model, the visible world lives on the negative tension brane (i.e., the one with the induced cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{vis}<0`$).

Any proposal for physics beyond the SM has to pass very stringent tests laid down by the SM itself as well as by the cosmological observations that have been made till date. Brane world cosmology has been studied in refs.\[1017\]. These papers conclude that the rate of expansion of the universe in the RS model is different from that of the familiar Friedman-Robertson-Walker cosmology in four dimensions. In particular, in RS models, the Hubble parameter is proportional to the energy density $`\rho `$, i.e., $`H\rho `$. In contrast, in our universe, the Hubble parameter seems to behave as $`H\sqrt{\rho }`$. It is, however, possible to circumvent this problem if one realizes that the total energy density $`\rho `$ is the sum of the vacuum energy density, i.e., the brane tension and the matter energy density $`\rho _m`$ which lives on the brane. In this case, dependence of the Hubble parameter on the energy density is $`H\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{vis}\rho _m}`$. This resolution brings up a new problem though. If the RS model is to solve the hierarchy problem, the visible brane needs to have a negative tension. It turns out that the Hubble parameter on such a brane could be real only if the matter energy density is negative. However, this would lead to antigravity in the brane world, a consequence clearly at variance with experimental observations.

Another issue which was not dealt with in the original RS proposal\[2\] was that of the stability of end of the world brane model. This was resolved by Goldberger and Wise (GW)\[18\]1 For other as well as related proposals of stabilization of the radion modulus see \[9,,1922\].. They introduced a bulk scalar field into the model and showed that its (minimal) coupling to the bulk gravity stabilizes the two end of the world 3-branes at a critical distance $`r_c`$. For all parameters of $`o(1)`$ this can generate a warp factor of the order $`10^{15}`$ GeV thereby relating the Planck Scale to the SM scale.

Recently, Kogan et al.\[23\] proposed a modified version of the RS model which contains three 3-branes with both the end of the world branes (one at $`y=0`$ and the other at $`y=L_2`$) being of positive tension and the third (moving) brane with negative tension (at $`y=L_1`$). We will call this the three 3-brane model. The visible world lives on one of the end of the world branes (at $`y=L_2`$). This construction automatically ensures that the cosmological constant on our brane is positive and thereby avoids the problem of the Hubble parameter. This model has an exponential warp factor between either of the positive tension branes and the negative tension brane. The phenomenological consequences are rather striking and have been studied in refs.\[5,,24\].

Stability of the Kogan et al.\[23\] proposal is quite crucial. This is because the moving brane has negative tension and we have exponential warp factors growing from the negative tension brane to end of the world positive tension branes. Gain in the scale due to the warp factor between the positive tension brane at $`y=0`$ and the negative tension brane at $`y=L_1`$ is lost partially by the time it reaches our universe at $`y=L_2`$. It is easy to see that if this construction of three 3-brane system stabilizes for $`L_1L_2/2`$ then the loss in the scale hierarchy is near total. It is, therefore, crucial that $`L_1/L_2<1`$.

In the light of this, we take up the issue of stability of the Kogan et al. model\[23\] in this paper. We use the method of Goldberger and Wise\[18\] of coupling a bulk scalar field to the brane system. We find that the system does stabilize, and remarkably enough, for $`L_1/L_21`$. We also find that this result is not very sensitive to small changes in the mass $`m`$ of the bulk scalar field as well as small fluctuations of the parameter $`k`$ appearing in the warp factor as long as $`mk`$.

2. Stabilization of the three 3-brane Model

In this section, we will first briefly review the Kogan et al. model\[23\] and will then proceed with the question of modulus stabilization. As mentioned in the introduction, the model of Kogan et al. contains three parallel 3-branes located at $`L_0=0`$, $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$. The fifth dimension $`y`$ has orbifold geometry $`S^1/Z_2`$ and $`L_0`$ and $`L_2`$ are orbifold fixed points. The action for this configuration is

$$S=d^4x_{L_2}^{L_2}𝑑y\sqrt{G}\{2M^3R\mathrm{\Lambda }_{bulk}\}\underset{i}{}_{y=L_i}d^4xV_i\sqrt{\widehat{G}^{(i)}},$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(i)}`$ is the induced metric on the branes and $`V_i`$ are their tensions. The five dimensional metric ansatz is given by

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma (y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu r_c^2dy^2.$$
$`(2.2)`$
This metric preserves four dimensional Poincare invariance. The warp factor $`\sigma (y)`$ is just a constant conformal scale factor for the induced four dimensional metric. Although it is constant on a given 3-brane, its numerical value is different on different 3-branes.

For the three 3-brane model, the warp factor grows on either side of the negative tension brane up to the positive tension branes. The warp factor $`\sigma (y)`$ which solves the equations of motion obtained from eq.(2.1) is

$$\sigma (y)=kr_c(L_1||y|L_1|)$$
$`(2.3)`$
when the brane tensions are $`V_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }/k`$, $`V_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }/k`$ and $`V_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }/k`$. Due to the warp factor, the physical mass $`M`$ on the visible brane situated at $`y=L_2`$ is related to the naive mass parameter $`M_0`$ of the four-dimensional Minkowski theory by $`M=WM_0`$, where,

$$W=\mathrm{exp}\left(kr_c(2L_1L_2)\right)$$
$`(2.4)`$
is the warp factor between the visible brane and the other end of the world brane. As mentioned earlier, to solve the hierarchy problem between the Planck scale and the SM scale, $`W`$ should be of $`o(10^{15})`$. Notice that in the three 3-brane model, if the moving brane located at $`y=L_1`$ stabilizes close to $`L_1=L_2/2`$ then $`W1`$. In such a situation, we will not generate exponential scale factor in this model despite having the visible brane stabilized reasonably far from the other end of the world brane. Thus the ratio $`L_1/L_2`$ is as important, if not more, as the absolute stability of the three 3-brane system.

In order to study the stability of the three 3-brane model, consider coupling a bulk scalar field to the system of three 3-branes. Our technique is a straightforward generalization of the GW mechanism\[18\]. Consider the action for a bulk scalar field of mass $`m`$.

$$S_{\mathrm{Bulk}}=\frac{1}{2}d^4x_{L_2}^{L_2}𝑑y\sqrt{G}(G^{AB}_A\chi _B\chi m^2\chi ^2),$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`G_{AB}`$ is the five dimensional metric given in eq.(2.2) with $`\sigma (y)`$ given in eq.(2.3).

Following ref.\[18\], we impose the condition that the bulk scalar field satisfies certain boundary conditions at the location of each of the branes. The boundary potentials are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_0& =d^4x\lambda _0(\chi ^2v_0^2)^2\mathrm{at}y=0,\hfill \\ \hfill S_{L_1}& =d^4x\lambda _1(\chi ^2v_1^2)^2\mathrm{at}y=L_1,\hfill \\ \hfill S_{L_2}& =d^4x\lambda _2(\chi ^2v_2^2)^2\mathrm{at}y=L_2.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.6)`$
We consider only those configuration of the bulk scalar which solve the equations of motion subject to the condition that the boundary potentials (at $`y=0`$, $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$) are minimised. This essentially amounts to neglecting dynamics of $`\chi `$ along the directions tangential to any of the 3-branes. This assumption is reasonable because we are looking only at the stability of the three 3-brane system at the moment and are not studying the phenomenologcal consequence of possible coupling of the bulk scalar field $`\chi `$ to matter fields living on the branes. It, therefore, suffices to concentrate on the equation of motion of $`\chi `$ only in $`y`$ direction. Equation of motion for $`\chi `$ along $`y`$ is

$$_y^2\chi 4\sigma ^{}(y)_y\chi m^2r_c^2\chi =0$$
$`(2.7)`$
where $`\sigma ^{}(y)=d\sigma (y)/dy`$. It is straightforward to find the solution to this equation and it is given by

$$\chi (y)=\mathrm{exp}(2\sigma ^{}(y)y)[\stackrel{~}{A}\mathrm{exp}(\sigma ^{}(y)\nu y)+\stackrel{~}{B}\mathrm{exp}(\sigma ^{}(y)\nu y)]$$
$`(2.8)`$
where, $`\nu =\sqrt{4+(mr_c)^2/\sigma ^2(y)}`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B})=(A,B)`$ for $`0yL_1`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B})=(C,D)`$ for $`L_1yL_2`$. It is worth mentioning here that the formal solution (2.8) is a function of $`\sigma ^{}(y)`$ but within any given range of values of $`y`$, e.g. $`0yL_1`$, $`\sigma ^{}(y)`$ is independent of $`y`$. The coefficients $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ and $`D`$ are determined by demanding that $`\chi `$ minimizes the boundary potential. This gives,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A& =\frac{v_0v_1X^{2\nu }}{1X^{2\nu }},B=\frac{v_1X^{2\nu }v_0X^{2\nu }}{1X^{2\nu }}\hfill \\ \hfill C& =\frac{v_1X^{\nu 2}v_2Y^{\nu 2}}{X^{2\nu }Y^{2\nu }},D=\frac{v_1X^{\nu 2}Y^{2\nu }+v_2X^{2\nu }Y^{\nu 2}}{X^{2\nu }Y^{2\nu }}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.9)`$
where, for notational convenience, we have made a change of variables from $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ to $`X=\mathrm{exp}(kr_cL_1)`$ and $`Y=\mathrm{exp}(kr_cL_2)`$. Substituting this solution into the action and integrating out $`y`$ gives a four dimensional effective potential for $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Writing this effective potential in terms of $`X`$ and a new variable $`RY/X`$, we have,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill k^1V(X,R)& =\frac{1}{1X^{2\nu }}\left[(\nu +2)(X^\nu v_0X^2v_1)^2+(\nu 2)(v_0X^{\nu +2}v_1)^2\right]\hfill \\ & +\frac{X^4}{R^4(1R^{2\nu })}\left[(\nu +2)(R^2v_1R^\nu v_2)^2+(\nu 2)(v_2R^{\nu +2}v_1)^2\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.10)`$
An important thing to notice at this point is that, for arbitrary positive values of $`\nu `$, the potential (2.10) grows as $`X1`$ or as $`R1`$ as long as $`v_1v_0`$ and $`v_1v_2`$. These two limits correspond to the negative tension brane approaching the positive tension brane at $`y=0`$ and at $`y=L_2`$ respectively. In fact, the potential has the following singularity in these limits: $`V(X,R)(1X^{2\nu })^1>0`$ as $`X1`$ and $`V(X,R)(1R^{2\nu })^1>0`$ as $`R1`$. This implies that the negative tension brane experiences repulsive forces exerted on it by both the positive tension end of the world branes and thus the three 3-brane model cannot reduce to the two 3-brane model. In other words, for a fixed value of $`L_2`$, $`L_1`$ lies strictly inside the interval $`(0,L_2)`$. However, there is an interesting caveat in this and that has to do with the choice of vev’s of the bulk scalar field on the 3-branes. If $`v_1=v_0`$ and/or $`v_1=v_2`$, then the leading singularity in the potential is removed and the subleading terms in the potential are attractive. In other words, for $`v_1=v_2`$, the potential (2.10) is such that for $`R`$ close to $`1`$, $`V`$ is attractive and assumes a finite value for $`R=1`$. In this case, therefore, the two 3-brane limit is a stable one. The situation is similar, though not identical, for $`v_1=v_0`$ and $`X1`$. From here onwards we will work with the case when $`v_0`$, $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ take different numerical values. We still need to find out whether it is possible to stabilize $`L_2`$. An equally important question relates to the magnitude of $`L_2L_1`$. This number is important to get the correct metric scale factor on the visible brane.

We will first show how the three 3-brane system is stabilized by the bulk scalar field. In the process we will also be able to determine $`L_2L_1`$. Change of variables from $`X`$, $`Y`$ to $`X`$ and $`R`$ has simplified the form of the potential (2.10) to a considerable degree, yet, minimization remains a complicated task. The first point to notice here is that the potential is bilinear in $`v_i`$ and hence the results depend only on the ratios

$$r_0\frac{v_0}{v_1},r_2\frac{v_2}{v_1}.$$
$`(2.11)`$
Furthermore, this choice of variables is such that the Hessian matrix is automatically diagonal on the extremal locus. Extremizing $`V`$ with respect to $`R`$, we get

$$r_2^{}(R)=\frac{\nu R^{2+\nu }\left[\left(2\sqrt{\nu ^24}\right)\left(R^{2\nu }1\right)+\nu \left(1+R^{2\nu }\right)\right]}{2\left(\nu ^2R^{2\nu }+2\left(R^{2\nu }1\right)^2+\nu \left(R^{4\nu }1\right)\right)}.$$
$`(2.12)`$
Fig. 1:  As the ratio $`r_2`$ of the vev of $`\chi `$ on the visible brane to that on the negative tension brane approaches 1, location of these two branes coincides. However, for $`R<1`$ we have two possible values for $`r_2`$ as can be seen in this graph.

An analytic inversion of this equation is not possible on account of its transcedental nature. Numerical solutions are straightforward though and we present the results in Fig.1. For this purpose, instead of working with $`\nu `$, it is instructive to consider

$$ϵ\nu 2\frac{m^2}{4k^2},$$
$`(2.13)`$
with the approximate equality holding for a light bulk scalar field.

Although the solutions of eq.(2.12) exist for a wide range of $`ϵ`$, we are interested in small $`ϵ`$’s and shall limit ourselves to this regime. In Fig.1, the left and right branches correspond to $`r_2^{}`$ and $`r_2^+`$ respectively. At the cusp ($`r_2=1`$), the solutions move into unphysical domains. Looking at the figure, we surmise easily that $`R1`$ demands $`r_21`$. This is particularly pronounced for small $`ϵ`$.

While the solutions eq.(2.12) represent minima in the $`R`$-direction, it remains to be seen whether simultaneous minima in the $`X`$-direction exist. We answer this question next. Extremizing with respect to $`X`$, we obtain

$$r_0^\pm (X;R,r_2)=\frac{X^{2\nu }}{2\nu }\left[2\left(1X^{2\nu }\right)+\nu \left(1+X^{2\nu }\right)\pm \frac{X^{2+\nu }(1X^{2\nu })\sqrt{}}{\sqrt{1R^{2\nu }}}\right],$$
$`(2.14)`$
where

$$=\left(1R^{2\nu }\right)\left(\nu ^2+4\nu 12\right)8\nu +16\nu R^{\nu 2}r_2+16r_2^24r_2^2\left(\nu +2\right)\left(R^{2\nu 4}+1\right).$$
$`(2.15)`$
In each of eq.(2.14), $`r_2`$ assumes both of the values $`r_2^\pm `$. We thus have four possible branches in the solution space. Numerically though, for given $`R`$ and $`X`$, the four solutions for $`r_0`$ roughly split into two pairs (the two $`r_0^{}`$s on the one hand and the two $`r_0^+`$s on the other), with the intra-pair splitting considerably smaller than the inter-pair one. More interestingly, for a given $`ϵ`$,

$``$not the entire curve of Fig.1 is admissible when confronted with eq.(2.14). Rather, only $`r_21`$ (and hence $`R1`$) can lead to a stable solution. For $`r_2`$ significantly different from unity, the quantity $``$ in eq.(2.15)becomes negative resulting in unphysical values for $`X`$;

$``$for $`r_0=r_0^+`$, $`^2V/X^2<0`$ irrespective of the choice for $`r_2`$. Thus, each of these branches correspond to a sequence of saddle points.

Fig. 2: ($`a`$) For small values of $`ϵ`$, the warp factor is not very sensitive to the vev ratio $`r_2`$. The dependence on $`r_0`$ is rather pronounced though. Warp factor of $`10^{15}`$ can be obtained with both the ratios $`r_0`$ and $`r_2`$ of o(1). ($`b`$) For small $`ϵ`$, a warp factor of $`10^{15}`$ can be obtained with both the ratios $`r_0`$ and $`r_2`$ of o(1). However, for larger values of $`ϵ`$, the ratio $`r_0`$ is required to be quite large. The numbers in the parentheses refer to ($`ϵ,N`$) where $`N`$ is the factor by which the $`y`$-axis has been rescaled for each curve.

In Fig.2($`a`$), we exhibit the relation between $`r_0`$ and $`r_2`$ that must be satisfied to obtain a particular warp-factor for a given $`ϵ`$. As is evident, $`W`$ is a very sensitive function of $`r_0`$. This is not very unexpected as, for small $`ϵ`$, eq.(2.14) essentially gives $`r_0`$ to be polynomial function of $`\mathrm{ln}X`$ (and hence $`\mathrm{ln}W`$). This exponential dependence, a feature we share with the GW solution to the original RS model, could of course be termed a weakness of such stabilization schemes.

The dependence on $`ϵ`$—see Fig.2($`b`$)—is even more pronounced. This, again, is not unexpected as $`ϵ`$ o(1) implies $`mk`$. For such large masses of a field propagating in the anti-de Sitter bulk, its wavefunction decays very fast. Consequently, its classical values at the two end of the world branes would be widely different.

3. Discussion

Brane world universe is one of the promising proposals for exploring the physics beyond the Standard model. There are several variants of the original proposal of Randall and Sundrum\[2\]. Many of them are invoked to aviod possible contradications with our existing knowledge of the Standard model physics and the standard big bang cosmology. The proposal of Kogan et al.\[23\] is along the same lines. We have shown in this paper that the three 3-brane model can be stabilized by coupling the system to a bulk scalar field and using the Goldberger-Wise formalism\[18\].

We find that stability of the three 3-brane model is a more delicate problem than that for the Randall-Sundrum model. This is because gain in the scale due to the warp factor in the Randall-Sundrum model is partly offset by the moving brane. It is therefore not only necessary to have overall stabilization of the three 3-brane system but it is also necessary to have the ratio $`L_1/L_2`$ close to 1. We show that the generalization of the Goldberger-Wise mechanism to this model stabilizes the radion modulus in such a way that, for relatively small mass of the bulk scalar field or, equivalently, small $`ϵ`$, $`L_1/L_21`$. Consequently, it is possible to generate a scale hierarchy between the Planck scale and the TeV scale even without finetuning the parameters.

As we have discussed earlier, the modulus ceases to be stabilized in the event that the vevs on two (adjacent) branes are exactly equal. Such a degeneracy might seem natural, at least in the classical limit. However, it should be realized that quantum corrections are likely to disturb such an equality. This is particularly so since the vev on a brane is affected, at one loop level and higher, by the particle spectrum on the brane and their coupling to the bulk scalar field. Unless the spectrum is exactly alike on two adjacent branes, and unless their coupling to $`\chi `$ are exactly the same, it seems unlikely that the two vevs could be equal. And since it is only in this exactly equal vevs limit, that the potential becomes attractive, the point is, perhaps, a moot one.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank A. Sen for discussions.

References

relax N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter, hep-ph/9803315, Phys. Lett B429(1998) 263; Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with sub-millimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity, hep-ph/9807344, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 086004; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, New dimensions at a millimeter to a fermi and superstrings at a TeV, hep-ph/9804398, Phys. Lett B436 (1998) 257. relax L. Randall and R. Sundrum, A Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension, hep-th/9905221. relax L. Randall and R. Sundrum, An Alternative to compactification, hep-th/9906064. relax H. Hatanaka, M. Sakamoto, M. Tachibana and K. Takenaga, Many brane extension of the Randall-Sundrum solution, hep-th/9909076; I. Oda, Mass hierarchy and trapping of gravity, hep-th/9909048; Mass hierarchy from many domain walls, hep-th/9908104; relax I. I. Kogan, G. G. Ross, Brane universe and multigravity: modification of gravity at large and small distances, hep-th/0003074. relax N. Kaloper, Crystal manyfold universes in AdS space, hep-th/9912125; T.-J. Li, Noncompact AdS5 universe with parallel positive tension 3-branes, hep-th/9911234. relax H. Verlinde, Supersymmetry at large distance scales, hep-th/0004003. relax N. Alonso-Alberca, P. Meessen and T. Ortin, Supersymmetric brane worlds, hep-th/0003248 . relax R. Altendorfer, J. Bagger and D. Nemeschansky, Supersymmetric Randall-Sundrum scenario, hep-th/0003117. relax T. Nihei, Inflation in the five-dimensional universe with an orbifold extra dimension, hep-ph/9905487, Phys. Lett. B465 (1999) 81; N. Kaloper, Bent domain walls as brane-worlds, hep-th/9905210, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 123506. relax C. Csáki, M. Graesser, C. Kolda and J. Terning, Cosmology of one extra dimension with localized gravity, hep-ph/9906513, Phys. Lett. B462 (1999) 34, hep-ph/9906513. relax J.M. Cline, C. Grojean and G. Servant, Inflating intersecting branes and remarks on the hierarchy problem, hep-ph/9909496, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4245. relax H.B. Kim and H.D. Kim, Inflation and gauge hierarchy in Randall-Sundrum compactification, hep-th/9909053. relax R.N. Mohapatra, A. Perez-Lorenzana, and C.A. de Sousa Pires, Cosmology of brane - bulk models in five-dimensions, hep-ph/0003328. relax H. B. Kim, Cosmology of Randall-Sundrum models with an extra dimension stabilized by balancing bulk matter, hep-th/0001209. relax M. Dine, Some reflections on moduli, their stabilization and cosmology, hep-th/0001157. relax C. Grojean, J. Cline and G. Servant, Supergravity inspired warped compactifications and effective cosmological constants, hep-th/9910081; P. Kraus, Dynamics of anti-de Sitter domain walls, hep-th/9910149; A. Kehagias and E. Kiritsis, Mirage cosmology, hep-th/9910174, JHEP 9911 (1999) 022; T. Shiromizu, K. Maeda and M. Sasaki, The Einstein equations on the 3-brane world, gr-qc/9910076; E. Flanagan, S.H.H. Tye and I. Wasserman, Cosmological expansion in the Randall-Sundrum brane world scenario, hep-ph/9910498; D. Ida, Brane World Cosmology, gr-qc/9912002. relax W. D. Goldberger and Mark B. Wise, Bulk Fields in the Randall-Sundrum Compactification Scenario, hep-ph/9907218; Modulus stabilization with bulk fields, hep-ph/9907447. relax P. Kanti, K. A. Olive and M. Pospelov, Static solutions for brane models with a bulk scalar field, hep-ph/0002229. relax L. Pilo, R. Rattazzi and A. Zaffaroni, The fate of the radion in models with metastable graviton, hep-th/0004028. relax S. Ichinose, An exact solution of the Randall-Sundrum model and the mass hierarchy problem, hep-th/0003275. relax G. Amelino-Camelia, On a possible quantum limit for the stabilization of moduli in brane world scenarios, hep-th/0001207. relax I.I. Kogan, S. Mouslopoulos, A. Papazoglou, G.G. Ross and J. Santiago, A Three three-brane Universe:New Phenomenology for the New Millennium?, hep-ph/9912552. relax S. Mouslopoulos and A. Papazoglou, ‘$`++`$brane model phenomenology, hep-ph/0003207.


text:
# Thermodynamics of Bose-Condensed Atomic Hydrogen

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been supported by the INFM Research Advanced Project on Bose-Einstein Condensation.

## References

1. M.H. Anderson et al., Science 269, 189 (1995); K.B. Davis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995); C.C. Bradley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1687 (1995).

2. T.C. Killian et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3807 (1998); D.G. Fried et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3811 (1998); T.J. Greytak et al., submitted to Physica B.

3. S. Giorgini, L.P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A 54, 4633 (1996); Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3987 (1997); J. Low Temp. Phys. 109, 309 (1997).

4. A. Griffin, Phys. Rev. B 53, 9341 (1996).

5. E.P. Gross, Nuovo Cimento 20, 454 (1961); J. Math. Phys. 4, 195 (1963); L.P. Pitaevskii, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 40, 646 (1961) \[Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 451 (1961)\].

6. F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L.P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999).

7. W. Krauth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3695 (1996); M. Holzmann, W. Krauth, and M. Naraschewski, Phys. Rev. A 59, 2956 (1999).

8. V. Bagnato, D.E. Pritchard and D. Kleppner, Phys. Rev. A 35, 4354 (1987); P.W.H. Pinkse et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 990 (1997).

9. T.W. Hijmans, Yu. Kagan, G.V. Shlyapnikov and J.T.M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. B 48, 12886 (1993).

10. R. Cotè and V. Kharchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2100 (1999).

11. A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S.R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4950 (1997); S. Raghavan, A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, and S.R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. A 59, 620 (1999).

12. L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 60, 4171 (1999).

13. M.R. Andrews et al., Science 275, 637 (1997).

14. I. Zapata, F. Sols and A.J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. A 57, R28 (1998).

| $`T`$ ($`\mu `$K) | $`N_0/N`$ | $`E/N_0`$ | $`\mu `$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ | $`\tau _{1/2}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`44.0`$ | $`0.21`$ | $`4.64`$ | $`6.59`$ | $`2.53`$ | $`0.37`$ |
| $`44.5`$ | $`0.18`$ | $`4.39`$ | $`6.25`$ | $`2.08`$ | $`0.38`$ |
| $`45.0`$ | $`0.16`$ | $`4.13`$ | $`5.89`$ | $`1.65`$ | $`0.41`$ |
| $`45.5`$ | $`0.13`$ | $`3.82`$ | $`5.46`$ | $`1.27`$ | $`0.44`$ |
| $`46.0`$ | $`0.10`$ | $`3.45`$ | $`4.95`$ | $`0.88`$ | $`0.49`$ |
| $`46.5`$ | $`0.07`$ | $`3.04`$ | $`4.37`$ | $`0.56`$ | $`0.56`$ |
| $`47.0`$ | $`0.04`$ | $`2.52`$ | $`3.64`$ | $`0.29`$ | $`0.69`$ |
| $`47.5`$ | $`0.02`$ | $`1.89`$ | $`2.75`$ | $`0.10`$ | $`0.93`$ |

TAB. 1. Condensate properties, for $`N=2.210^{10}`$ interacting hydrogen atoms in the Ioffe-Pritchard trap, at various temperatures: condensed fraction $`N_0/N`$, energy per particle of the condensate $`E/N_0`$ and chemical potential $`\mu `$ in units of $`10^3\mathrm{}\omega _z`$ (where $`10^3\mathrm{}\omega _z/k_B=0.49`$ $`\mu `$K), two-body decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in units of $`10^{10}`$ s<sup>-1</sup> and decay time $`\tau _{1/2}`$ in seconds.

| $`N`$ | $`U_0`$ | $`E_{int}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`z_c`$ | $`z_cN`$ | $`\tau `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`10000`$ | 8 | 1.371 | 0.222 | 24.69 | 0.39 | $`3900`$ | $`0.09`$ |
| $`10000`$ | 10 | 1.383 | 0.164 | 33.64 | 0.34 | $`3400`$ | $`0.10`$ |
| $`10000`$ | 12 | 1.397 | 0.126 | 44.38 | 0.30 | $`3000`$ | $`0.12`$ |
| $`50000`$ | 16 | 4.345 | 0.095 | 183.03 | 0.15 | $`7500`$ | $`0.08`$ |
| $`50000`$ | 18 | 4.361 | 0.072 | 242.95 | 0.13 | $`6500`$ | $`0.09`$ |
| $`50000`$ | 20 | 4.378 | 0.055 | 317.80 | 0.11 | $`5500`$ | $`0.10`$ |

TAB. 2. Parameters of the MQT for $`N=10^4`$ and $`N=510^4`$ condensed hydrogen atoms. Ioffe-Pritchard external potential and different values of the double-well potential barrier $`U_0`$. The laser-beam radius is $`\sigma =5`$ $`\mu `$m. The energies are in units of $`\mathrm{}\omega _z`$ and the oscillation period $`\tau `$ in seconds.

## Figure Captions

Fig. 1. BEC transition temperature $`T_c`$ versus number $`N`$ of hydrogen atoms. Comparison between harmonic and Ioffe-Pritchard trapping potential.

Fig. 2. Condensate density profile $`n_0`$ and thermal density profile $`n_T`$, for a cloud of $`N=2.210^{10}`$ interacting hydrogen atoms in the Ioffe-Pritchard potential. Densities are in units of $`a_z^3`$. Notice the very different abscissae scales.

Fig. 3. Observables of the Bose condensate as a function of temperature $`T`$. $`N=2.210^{10}`$ interacting hydrogen atoms in the Ioffe-Pritchard trap.

Fig. 4. Condensate fraction $`N_0/N`$ as a function of temperature $`T`$. $`N`$ interacting hydrogen atoms in the Ioffe-Pritchard trap.


text:
# Systematic evolution of the magnetotransport properties of Bi2Sr2-xLaxCuO6 in a wide doping range

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Since the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates are in essence doped Mott insulators, systematic studies of the evolution of the normal-state properties upon changing the carrier concentration are very useful for elucidating the origin of the peculiar normal state. Bi2Sr2CuO6 (Bi-2201) system is an attractive candidate for such studies, because the carrier concentration can be widely changed by partially replacing Sr with La . Moreover, this system allows us to study the normal-state in a wider temperature range, because the optimum $`T_c`$ (achieved in Bi2Sr2-xLaxCuO6 with $`x`$$``$0.4 ) has been reported to be about 30 K, which is lower than the optimum $`T_c`$ of La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO). However, a number of problems have been known so far for Bi-2201 crystals: (i) the transport properties of Bi-2201 are quite non-reproducible even among crystals of nominally the same composition ; (ii) the residual resistivity of $`\rho _{ab}`$ is larger (the smallest value reported to date is 70 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm ) than other cuprates; and (iii) the temperature dependence of the Hall coefficient $`R_H`$ is weak and thus the cotangent of the Hall angle $`\theta _H`$ does not obey the $`T^2`$ law .

In our group at CRIEPI, we have recently succeeded in growing a series of high-quality crystals, in which the above problems have mostly been overcome . Here we report most recent data of $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ and $`R_H(T)`$ of our Bi-2201 crystals in a wide range of carrier concentrations to demonstrate that the normal-state transport properties in those clean crystals display behaviors that are in good accord with other cuprates.

## 2 SAMPLES

The single crystals of Bi2Sr2-xLaxCuO6 (BSLCO) are grown using a floating-zone technique. The crystals are annealed in oxygen to sharpen the superconducting transition width. Pure Bi-2201 is an overdoped system  and increasing La doping brings the system from overdoped region to underdoped region. In our series of crystals, the optimum doping is achieved with $`x`$$``$0.4, which is consistent with previous reports on BSLCO . The actual La concentrations in the crystals are determined with the inductively-coupled plasma (ICP) analysis. We note that the optimum zero-resistance $`T_c`$ reported here is as high as 38 K, which is not only the highest value ever reported for Bi-2201 system but also almost equals that of the LSCO system.

## 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 1(a) shows the $`T`$ dependence of $`\rho _{ab}`$ for eight $`x`$ values ($`x`$=0.23, 0.39, 0.49, 0.51, 0.66, 0.73, 0.76 and 0.84) in zero field. Clearly, both the magnitude of $`\rho _{ab}`$ and its slope show systematic decrease with increasing carrier concentration (decreasing $`x`$). Note that it is only at the optimum doping ($`x`$=0.39) that $`\rho _{ab}`$ shows a good $`T`$-linear behavior: In the underdoped region, $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ shows a downward deviation from the $`T`$-linear behavior, which has been discussed to mark the pseudogap . In the overdoped region, $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ shows an upward curvature in the whole temperature range; the $`T`$ dependence of $`\rho _{ab}`$ in the overdoped region can be well described by $`\rho _{ab}`$=$`\rho _0+AT^n`$ (with $`n`$$``$1.2 for $`x`$=0.23), which is a behavior known to be peculiar for the overdoped cuprates .

Shown in Fig. 1(b) is the $`T`$ dependence of $`R_H`$ for the eight samples. Here again, a clear evolution of $`R_H`$ with $`x`$ is observed; the change in the magnitude of $`R_H`$ at 300 K suggests that the carrier concentration is actually reduced roughly by a factor of 5 upon increasing $`x`$ from 0.23 to 0.84. Note that the $`T`$ dependence of $`R_H`$ is stronger than those previously reported  and that pronounced peaks in $`R_H(T)`$ are clearly observed in optimally-doped and underdoped samples.

When $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _H`$ is examined, we found that $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _H`$ obeys a power-law dependence $`T^\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is nearly 2 in underdoped samples but shows a systematic decrease with increasing carrier concentration . Figure 2 shows examples of the $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _H`$ vs $`T^\alpha `$ plot, for $`x`$=0.66 and 0.39. We note that the $`T^2`$ law of $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _H`$ is confirmed for the first time for Bi-2201 in our crystals.

## 4 CONCLUSION

We present the $`\rho _{ab}(T)`$ and $`R_H(T)`$ data of a series of high-quality La-doped Bi-2201 crystals in a wide range of carrier concentrations. It is shown that the optimum zero-resistance $`T_c`$ of Bi-2201 can be as high as 38 K. The normal-state transport properties of our Bi-2201 crystals show systematics that are in good accord with other cuprates.