text:
# Double sign reversal of the vortex Hall effect in 𝐘𝐁𝐚_𝟐𝐂𝐮_𝟑𝐎_{𝟕-𝛿} thin films in the strong pinning limit of low magnetic fields

\[

## Abstract

Measurements of the Hall effect and the resistivity in twinned YBa2Cu3O7-δ thin films in magnetic fields $`B`$ oriented parallel to the crystallographic $`c`$-axis and to the twin boundaries reveal a double sign reversal of the Hall coefficient for $`B1`$ T. In high transport current densities, or with $`B`$ tilted off the twin boundaries by $`5^{}`$, the second sign reversal vanishes. The power-law scaling of the Hall conductivity to the longitudinal conductivity in the mixed state is strongly modified in the regime of the second sign reversal. Our observations are interpreted as strong, disorder-type dependent vortex pinning and confirm that the Hall conductivity in high temperature superconductors is not independent of pinning.

\]

The unusual behavior of the Hall effect in many high-temperature and in some conventional superconductors in the mixed state attracts considerable interest. In particular, the sign reversal of the Hall angle below the critical temperature $`T_c`$, as compared to the normal state, is in contrast to traditional models for the vortex Hall effect and is regarded as a fundamental problem of vortex dynamics. Several theoretical approaches have attempted to explain this phenomenon, but no agreement has been achieved. The questions, whether the Hall anomaly is an intrinsic electronic property, determined by the trajectory of an individual vortex  if collective vortex phenomena are essential , or if vortex pinning is indispensable for the sign reversal , are currently not resolved. Other models are based on the general grounds of the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau theory , but one needs a microscopic theory to predict the sign of the vortex Hall effect.

The experiments revealed that the Hall anomaly in high temperature superconductors (HTS), that is only observed in moderate magnetic fields, becomes more prominent in smaller magnetic fields, and attains its maximum within the vortex liquid and thermodynamic fluctuation range . Above $`T_c`$, a rapid drop of the Hall resisitivity $`\rho _{yx}`$ preceeds its sign reversal . The occurence of the Hall anomaly appears to be connected with the carrier concentration , being absent in heavily overdoped cuprates. In highly anisotropic HTS, like Bi2Sr2CaCu2Ox, a double sign reversal is observed  that is attributed to weak pinning in these cuprates. This latter observation raised the question, whether such double sign reversal could also exist in YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO). In fact, a positive Hall effect has been observed in YBCO far below $`T_c`$ when pinning is overpowered by intense measurement tranport currents .

Another issue is the scaling of the transverse (Hall) resistivity to the longitudinal resistivity $`|\rho _{yx}|\rho _{xx}^\beta `$ that can be experimentally observed with $`\beta 1.7`$ , irrespective of the sign of $`\rho _{yx}`$ . Theoretically, an universal scaling law was derived near a vortex-glass transition , or, as a general feature of the disorder-dominated vortex dynamics, with the specific prediction of $`\beta =2`$ . The latter model also concluded that the Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}=\rho _{yx}/(\rho _{xx}^2+\rho _{yx}^2)`$ should be independent of pinning, in sharp contrast with theories that originate the Hall anomaly on pinning . Several groups have reported experiments on samples with artificially introduced defects, and their data have been interpreted both in favor and against the pinning independence of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ . Measurements on pure YBCO single crystals revealed a sharp change of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ when crossing through the melting transition . Finally, recent theoretical results have suggested that $`\sigma _{xy}`$ can be influenced by strong pinning, eventually leading to the Hall effect with opposite sign, as compared to its value in the flux-flow regime , and that the presence or absence of such effect depends on the dimensionality of the pinning centers near Bose or vortex glass transition, respectively .

In this paper, we report measurements of the vortex Hall effect in YBCO thin films in a large range of magnetic fields, with particular emphasis put on small magnetic fields. Our studies allow us to investigate the Hall effect in the limit of strong pinning on twin boundaries with a dilute vortex density, as opposed to previous experiments, where pinning was enhanced by radiation damage. The latter may cause spurious effects, such as amorphous regions and local changes of the oxygen content along the heavy-ion tracks. The low-field results are augmented by pulsed high transport current density and oblique magnetic field measurements of the vortex Hall effect.

We present data collected from 100-nm-thick, epitaxial YBCO films, deposited either by single-target rf sputtering on $`\mathrm{LaAlO}_3`$ substrates or by pulsed-laser deposition on MgO substrates. In both cases, the films were highly epitaxial with the onset of superconducting transition at 90 K and with critical current densities $`j_c>3`$ MA/cm2 at 77 K. The experiments were performed with 17-Hz ac currents at $`j=250`$ A/cm2. The measurements from 1 to 13 T were made in a superconducting solenoid using a standard cryogenic technique, while the low-field measurements from 32 mT to 1 T were performed in a closed-cycle cryocooler and with an electromagnet. The high sensitivity was achieved by fabricating thin film structures with the excellent alignment of Hall probes. Particular care was exercised to exclude spurious signals from the earth’s magnetic field and the remanence of the magnet’s pole pieces. To overcome the pinning, measurements with 3-$`\mu `$s-long, high-current density pulses were performed using a four-probe method, fast differential amplifier, and voltage detection by a boxcar averager. The temperature rise of the sample relative to the bath was smaller than 1 K and was always corrected using the YBCO film as an intrinsic thermometer .

Resistivity of the YBCO thin film deep in the mixed state with $`B`$ parallel to $`c`$-axis is smaller than that in single crystals due to enhanced pinning at defects and does not show a first-order transition at low temperatures. At the same time, the shape of the upper part of the transition curve is common to both thin films and single crystals  and can be well characterized by renormalized superconducting-order-parameter fluctuations . Figure 1 displays the Hall coefficient $`R_H`$ of a YBCO film for a wide range of magnetic fields from 32 mT to 13 T. It demonstrates that $`R_H`$ is positive at all temperatures for $`B4`$ T (inset) and reverses its sign at lower fields. The negative sign Hall anomaly increases significantly when the magnetic field is reduced below 1 T. Simultaneously, the very surprising new result, observed as a second sign reversal of $`R_H`$, can be clearly identified below 0.25 T. This finding contradicts the notion  that the double sign reversal can only be observed in weak pinning. On the contrary, we will show that the double sign reversal of $`R_H`$ presented in Fig. 1 is a result of strong pinning of vortices.

It is instructive to look at the Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}`$, normalized to $`B`$, as shown in Fig. 2, since $`\rho _{yx}=R_HB`$, $`\sigma _{xy}/B`$ is independent of $`B`$ in the normal state above 90 K and roughly follows a $`\sigma _{xy}T^3`$ temperature dependence. This trend extends into the vortex-liquid region at $`B=13`$ T, followed by a gradual increase of the exponent as $`T`$ is reduced. At lower magnetic fields, however, a negative contribution appears to gain importance over the extrapolated (broken line in Fig. 2) normal state behavior, and at $`B<3`$ T leads to a sign change of $`\sigma _{xy}`$. With the further $`B`$ decrease, a third, positive contribution sets in sharply at low fields and leads to the second sign reversal of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ (and $`\rho _{yx}`$) at $`B1`$ T. Thus, the delicate interplay of these three contributions evokes the complex features and sign reversals of the Hall effect in YBCO.

The Hall conductivity may be decomposed into

$$\sigma _{xy}=\sigma _{xy}^N+\sigma _{xy}^S+\sigma _{xy}^P,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _{xy}^N`$ represents a quasiparticle or vortex-core contribution, associated with the normal-state excitations, $`\sigma _{xy}^S`$ a superconducting contribution, resulting from hydrodynamic vortex effects and superconducting fluctuations , and $`\sigma _{xy}^P`$ allows for a possible pinning-dependence of $`\sigma _{xy}`$. The sign of $`\sigma _{xy}^N`$ is the same as that of the normal-state Hall effect, but the sign of $`\sigma _{xy}^S`$ depends on details of the Fermi surface . The initially proposed pinning independence of the Hall conductivity  implies that $`\sigma _{xy}^P=0`$.

The results presented in Fig. 2 can be understood according to Eq.(1) as follows: $`\sigma _{xy}^NB`$ dominates at the high $`B`$ range and follows the extrapolation from the normal state (broken line in Fig. 2). Its increase above the extrapolation below $`T_c(B)`$ indicates reduced quasiparticle scattering in the superconducting state . The contribution $`\sigma _{xy}^S<0`$ is roughly $`1/B`$ in fields of a few tesla, and is commonly associated with the hydrodynamic flux-flow effects . In fields $`B<1`$ T , however, the $`1/B`$ dependence is strongly violated and rather approaches a $`B`$-linear behavior. Only the fluctuation models  allow for natural explanation of the observed $`B`$ dependence of $`\sigma _{xy}^S`$, shown in Fig. 2 (excluding the second sign reversal) .

The third (positive) contribution that is responsible for the second sign reversal of $`R_H`$ (see Fig. 1), and that is evident from Fig. 2, is attributed to $`\sigma _{xy}^P`$. Kopnin et al.  have proposed that $`|\sigma _{xy}^P|`$ can exceed $`|\sigma _{xy}^S|`$, leading eventually to an additional sign reversal of the vortex Hall effect due to strong pinning. Ikeda  has stressed that in the scenario of vortex-glass fluctuations, the sign of $`\sigma _{xy}^P`$ does depend on the dimensionality of the pinning, namely $`\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma _{xy}^P)=\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma _{xy}^S)`$ for nearly three-dimensional systems with disordered point-like pinning sites, and $`\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma _{xy}^P)\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma _{xy}^S)`$ when line-like pinning disorder dominates (Bose glass). The latter situation corresponds to our YBCO films with $`B`$ oriented parallel to the twin-boundary planes.

Two additional experiments allow us to test the above notion on the origin of $`\sigma _{xy}^P`$. The results are shown in Fig. 3. Figure 3(a) presents $`\sigma _{xy}`$ dependence on temperature for $`B=1`$ T and various transport current densities. In high current densities, the pinning force is overcome by large Lorentz forces on the vortices and the sharp upturn of $`\sigma _{xy}`$, seen for low $`j`$ (see also Fig. 2), is canceled. Thus $`\sigma _{xy}`$ remains negative below $`T_c`$ and rapidly decreases at lower temperatures. In this case, $`\sigma _{xy}`$ strongly resembles the behavior seen in single crystals . Tilting $`B`$ field off the $`c`$-axis at a small angle $`\alpha 10^{}`$, as shown in Fig. 3(b), also leads to the disappearance of the Hall effect’s second sign reversal. In this case, pinning is changed from line-like pinning along the twin boundary planes ($`\alpha =0^{}`$) to a reduced dimensionality pinning at an oblique field. At $`\alpha <10^{}`$ we do not expect to reach point-like pinning, but rather pinning along short segments, where the vortices run parallel to the twin boundaries. Simultaneously, the longitudinal conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ is not changed in oblique fields within the resolution of our measurement. In this respect the impact of the $`B`$ tilt on $`\sigma _{xy}`$ is remarkable. The results presented in Fig. 3 were obtained on films deposited on different substrates, what confirms that the second sign reversal is not associated with the film fabrication and/or sample inhomogeneities, or due to a particular percolation path for the Hall current. It should be finally noted that our results are compatible with a study on clean YBCO single crystals that reveal a significant difference in $`\sigma _{xy}`$ measured at $`B`$ tilted at $`\alpha =0^{}`$ and $`\alpha =4^{}`$, respectively, although the second sign reversal was there not observed .

The refutation of the pinning independence of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ concept by our experiments immediately suggests a test of the scaling law – the another prediction that has been derived in the same theoretical context. Previous work was limited to moderate magnetic fields and Fig. 4 shows (broken line) the commonly observed scaling $`|\rho _{yx}|\rho _{xx}^{1.7}`$ at, e.g., $`B=6`$ T over more than four orders of magnitude of $`\rho _{yx}`$. In fields $`B1`$ T, and at temperatures, where $`\rho _{yx}<0`$, scaling can be found only on a limited range. Finally, in the strong pinning regime, where the second sign reversal is observed and $`\rho _{yx}>0`$, the resistivities are related roughly as $`\rho _{yx}\rho _{xx}`$, in sharp contrast to $`\beta =2`$ , but not incompatible with the scaling law near a vortex-glass transition .

Our experimental results impose several new, additional constraints on models that attempt to explain the anomalous Hall effect in HTS. Wang et al.  associate the negative Hall anomaly with the backflow current due to pinning. The increase of the negative anomaly in low magnetic fields seems to support their model, but the second sign change and the breakdown of the scaling in the limit of strong pinning are hardly compatible. Several models based on the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau theory do not incorporate pinning effects and, thus, cannot be applied to the low dissipation limit. Van Otterloo et al.  and Kopnin  have argued that the double sign reversal is an intrinsic electronic phenomenon. While this seems to be applicable for the highly anisotropic HTS, it is not the case for our YBCO films. Ao  has considered vortex lattice defects as the origin of the sign reversal and predicted that the negative anomaly can disappear in strong pinning and near a glass state. This latter notion is in agreement with our experimental results, but contrary to theoretical predictions, we did observe deviations from $`\sigma _{xy}1/B`$ dependence even in the range where $`\sigma _{xy}<0`$. It has been recently pointed out by Kopnin and Vinokur  that the initially proposed pinning independence of $`\sigma _{xy}`$, and $`|\rho _{yx}|\rho _{xx}^2`$ is not valid in strong pinning case at twin boundaries, in accordance with our observations. The dependence of $`\sigma _{xy}^P`$ on the dimensionality of the vortex-pinning disorder, proposed by Ikeda , is supported by our results. Finally, D’Anna et al.  have interpreted their scaling results on YBCO single crystals with a percolation model that does predict $`|\rho _{yx}|\rho _{xx}^\beta `$ with $`\beta =2`$ for $`B`$ oriented parallel to the twin boundaries and $`\beta =1.4`$ for slightly oblique fields. The latter exponent is similar to our result when $`\rho _{yx}<0`$ in Fig. 4 but is incompatible with our findings in the strong pinning limit.

In summary, we have measured the Hall effect of YBCO thin films in very low magnetic fields and found a double sign reversal that is associated with strong pinning along twin boundaries. The second sign reversal does vanish at high current densities when the pinning is reduced, and also in slightly oblique $`B`$ fields when the vortices transform from Bose glass to a vortex glass. The scaling law proposed for the Hall and longitudinal resitivities breaks down in the regime of the second sign reversal. Our data endorse that the Hall conductivity is significantly influenced by vortex pinning.

We are grateful to R. Ikeda for very helpful correspondence and to Y. Matsuda and N. Kopnin for stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Austria, and by the National Science Foundation grant DMR-0073366, Rochester.


format: text

text:
# Coupling of Dipole Mode to 𝛾-unstable Quadrupole Oscillations

## I Introduction

Low-lying quadrupole oscillations in nuclei have been studied extensively with all kinds of nuclear structure models. Among the more popular are the geometrical model and the interacting boson model (IBM). Although rather different in their microscopic interpretation and formulation, both of them have been extremely successful in describing low-lying energy levels associated to quadrupole oscillations. In three different situations both models provide analytical results that can be identified in the geometrical model as those corresponding to spherical, well quadrupole deformed  and deformed $`\gamma `$-unstable shapes. The corresponding situations occur in IBM for the U(5), SU(3) and O(6) limits respectively. Connection between both models has been established by exploring the geometrical content of the IBM by using coherent states .

High-lying dipole states are studied in the context of the geometrical model by using the dynamic collective model within the hydrodynamical approach. In the IBM context these states can be studied with the so called dipole boson model , which includes a dipole $`p`$ boson into the usual IBM space (quadrupole $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons). The connection between both approaches, especially for the case of well deformed nuclei, has already been discussed.

In this paper we are interested in studying the coupling of the dipole mode to a $`\gamma `$-unstable quadrupole form. The results of the geometrical model will be presented and the study within the dipole boson model will be performed both in the laboratory frame and in the intrinsic frame projecting afterwards onto the laboratory frame.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 the coupling of the dipole mode to a $`\gamma `$-unstable rotor is analysed within the geometrical model. In Section 3 the coupling of the dipole mode to an O(6) quadrupole deformed nuclei is investigated in the interacting boson model. This is done in two steps, first we study the problem in the intrinsic frame and then the projection to the laboratory frame is performed. Comparisons of exact results and those obtained in the intrinsic frame plus projection for different sets of parameters are presented and discussed. In Section 4 examples of calculations for photonuclear cross-section are presented, and the different approximations compared. Finally, in Section 5 the paper is summarised and the main conclusions assessed.

## II Coupling the dipole mode to a $`\gamma `$-unstable rotor in the geometrical model

The interaction between dipole and quadrupole oscillations has been studied in the geometrical model. The coupling to the quadrupole degree of freedom splits the energy of the dipole mode, and within the linear coupling in the quadrupole amplitude the energies of the three resulting dipole resonances as seen from the intrinsic frame are

$$E_{1\mu }(\beta ,\gamma )=ϵ_1\left[1+\left(\frac{2}{15}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\kappa _1}{C_1}\beta \mathrm{cos}\left(\gamma \frac{2(\mu +2)\pi }{3}\right)\right];\mu =1,0,1,$$
(1)
where $`ϵ_1`$ is the unperturbed dipole energy, $`C_1`$ is the restoring force parameter, and $`\kappa _1`$ is the dipole–quadrupole coupling coefficient. A plot of these energies with respect to the unperturbed value $`ϵ_1`$ is given in Fig. 1 as a function of the asymmetry parameter $`\gamma `$, for a fixed value of the quadrupole deformation parameter $`\beta `$

A detailed structure of the dipole absorption line can be obtained from a numerical diagonalization of the coupled dipole–quadrupole hamiltonian. A simple model in the strong coupling approximation for extracting the dipole strength distribution from the intrinsic values is provided by the procedure of averaging the three contributions over the different quadrupole $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ deformations, according to the ground state distribution. The relative strength of the dipole transition probability $`B(E1;01_n^{})`$ per unit of energy is in this way proportional to

$$P(E)=\frac{1}{3}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{1}{}}\varphi _0^2(\beta ,\gamma )\delta \left(EE_{1\mu }(\beta ,\gamma )\right)\beta ^4𝑑\beta |\mathrm{sin}3\gamma |𝑑\gamma ,$$
(2)
where $`\varphi _0(\beta ,\gamma )`$ is the wave function of the ground state resulting from the quadrupole energy surface. The specific case of $`\gamma `$-unstable rotor occurs when the intrinsic energy surface is isotropic in the $`\gamma `$ variable, while displaying a sharp minimum for deformation $`\beta _0`$. Assuming the extreme situation of a very sharp minimum, we can in first approximation keep fixed the value of $`\beta _0`$ and only average over the $`\gamma `$ variable. In this adiabatic picture one obtains the probability distribution shown in Fig. 2. The distribution is symmetric around $`ϵ_1`$, with three maxima, two at the edges (at energies $`ϵ_1\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$) and one in the center (at energy $`ϵ_1`$), with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=ϵ_1\sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}\frac{\kappa _1}{C_1}\beta _0,$$
(3)
and with zeros occurring at energies $`ϵ_1\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}`$. The resulting total splitting $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is therefore directly proportional to the quadrupole deformation $`\beta _0`$, as in the case of a static quadrupole deformation. Note that although the probability at the edges is 3 times the one at the center, the total probability is anyway exactly equally divided into the three bumps. It may be worth noticing that, aside from the broadening of the three peaks, the predicted situation in the $`\gamma `$-unstable case is actually rather similar to the prediction associated with a static quadrupole deformed system with $`\gamma `$ equal to 30 degrees. This similarity of the two situations is a feature that also appears for other observables and has been discussed elsewhere.

## III Coupling the dipole mode to an O(6) quadrupole deformed nucleus in IBM

To include the dipole degrees of freedom in the usual IBM, one negative parity dipole $`p`$–boson ($`l=1`$) has to be included in addition to the positive parity quadrupole $`s`$– ($`l=0`$) and $`d`$– ($`l=2`$) bosons. For a boson system with $`N`$ quadrupole bosons plus $`1`$ dipole boson, the hamiltonian can be written as

$$H=H_{sd}+H_p+V_{sdp},$$
(4)
where $`H_{sd}`$ is the usual IBM hamiltonian for quadrupole degrees of freedom, $`H_p`$ is the dipole hamiltonian given by

$$H_p=ϵ_1\widehat{n}_p,$$
(5)
and $`V_{sdp}`$ is the interaction between quadrupole and dipole degrees of freedom. The operator $`\widehat{n}_p`$ is the $`p`$-boson number operator, which in this case is $`0`$ or $`1`$, and $`ϵ_1`$ is the unperturbed dipole energy. For the interaction a simple quadrupole-quadrupole form is assumed

$$V_{sdp}=\kappa Q^{(sd)}q^{(p)},$$
(6)
where $`Q^{(sd)}`$ is the usual IBM quadrupole operator

$$Q_\mu ^{(sd)}=\left(s^{}\stackrel{~}{d}+d^{}s\right)_\mu ^{(2)}+\chi \left(d^{}\stackrel{~}{d}\right)_\mu ^{(2)},$$
(7)
and

$$q_\mu ^{(p)}=\left(p^{}\stackrel{~}{p}\right)_\mu ^{(2)}.$$
(8)
The operators $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_m=(1)^m\gamma _m`$ (where $`\gamma `$ stands for $`s`$, $`d`$ or $`p`$ bosons) are introduced so as to have operators with the appropriate properties under spatial rotations.

The simplest form for the dipole operator is

$$D_\mu =\xi \left(p^{}+\stackrel{~}{p}\right)_\mu ,$$
(9)
where $`\xi `$ is an overall normalization parameter, which will be assumed equal to unity in the applications.

### A The coupling in the laboratory frame

First the laboratory IBM calculation is presented. The quadrupole $`sd`$ hamiltonian for the O(6) limit can be written in the form

$$H_{sd}[O(6)]=bC_2[O(5)]+cC_2[O(3)]+dC_2[O(6)]$$
(10)
where $`C_2`$ stands for the quadratic Casimir operator of the indicated algebra as defined in Ref. . Energies associated with this $`sd`$ hamiltonian can be obtained analytically to be

$$E=2b\tau (\tau +3)+2cJ(J+1)+2d\sigma (\sigma +4),$$
(11)
where $`\sigma `$, $`\tau `$ and $`J`$ are the labels of the irreducible representations of the algebras O(6), O(5) and O(3) respectively. The coupling to the dipole oscillations and the calculation of transition probabilities is done numerically by using the computer codes GDR and GDRT, respectively .

The states belonging to the $`\sigma =N`$ representation are favoured in energy and the relative position of the states belonging to other representations is governed by the parameter $`d`$. In the O(6) limit these representations are not connected by the quadrupole $`sd`$ operator if $`\chi =0`$ is taken***With this choice the quadrupole operator is a generator of the O(6) algebra. in Eq. (7), and they therefore remain unmixed (and characterized by a good value of $`\sigma `$) also with the inclusion of the dipole-quadrupole coupling. Consequently the dipole operator will only connect the ground state with states of the $`\sigma =N`$ representation, which will therefore be the only ones contributing to the $`B(E1;0_1^+1_n^{})`$ distribution. This implies that, as far as the dipole distribution is concerned, the calculation is completely insensitive to the value of the parameter $`d`$. For the other parameters, in order to favour the comparison with preceding results obtained within the simple scheme based on the geometrical model, the parameter $`c`$ has been put equal to zero in order to minimize the splitting due to the angular momentum, a feature not accounted for by the unprojected intrinsic state. The results obtained for the energies of dipole states and the corresponding $`B(E1;0_1^+1_n^{})`$ are shown in Fig. 3 (left panels) for different values of the parameter $`b`$ in front of the O(5) Casimir operator. At variance with the previous distribution displayed in Fig. 2 we have now a discrete distribution due to the finite number of bosons and consequently finite number of states. Note that the pure SU(3) limit with $`\chi =\sqrt{7}/2`$ gives a dipole strength distribution with only two lines, since only two $`1^{}`$ states can be obtained by coupling the dipole boson with the ground state rotational band. In the O(6) limit there are instead $`(N+1)`$ $`1^{}`$ states connected to the ground state by the dipole operator, namely all those originated by the $`0^+`$ and $`2^+`$ states appearing in the $`\sigma =N`$ band. We can however compare the envelope of this discrete distribution with the continuous distribution given by the geometrical model in its simplest adiabatic version. In order to facilitate comparisons an appropriate discretization of Fig. 2 for the case of N=15 bosons, an unperturbed dipole energy $`ϵ_1`$ = 15 MeV, and a dipole-quadrupole coupling $`\kappa `$=0.2 MeV (same parameters as in Fig. 3) is presented in Fig. 4. In the limit of very small values of $`b`$, namely in strong-coupling situations, the splitting due to the different values of $`\tau `$ within each O(6) representation is small compared to the coupling. As a consequence the patterns obtained in Figs. 3 and 4 are similar, since the mixing between the different states induced by the quadrupole-dipole interaction is large. At the other extreme, for values of $`b`$ large with respect to the dipole-quadrupole coupling the pattern observed in Fig. 3 becomes very asymmetric, tending to concentrate the transition strength onto the lowest state, washing out any resemblance with the one obtained in the geometrical model, Fig. 4, and giving rise to a situation close to the pure spherical case. In fact in this weak-coupling limit, because of the large $`\tau `$ splitting, only the lowest $`1^{}`$ states have large overlaps with the initial s–d ground state.

For a better understanding of the situation we will study next the problem within the intrinsic frame in the IBM.

### B The coupling in the intrinsic frame

Let us now study the problem of the coupling of quadrupole and dipole degrees of freedom in the intrinsic frame, within the IBM description. The basic idea of the intrinsic-frame formalism in this case is to consider that the pure quadrupole states of the ground “band” are globally described by a boson condensate of the form

$$|g=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^{})^N|0,$$
(12)
where the basic boson is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\beta ^2}}\left[s^{}+\beta \mathrm{cos}\gamma d_0^{}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\beta \mathrm{sin}\gamma (d_2^{}+d_2^{})\right],$$
(13)
$`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ being obtained by minimizing the energy surface. In the case of SU(3) one has $`\beta =\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\gamma =0`$, and the intrinsic state is fully representative of the ground-state rotational band. In the case of O(6), instead, one has $`\beta =1`$, and the intrinsic state, which gives rise to a $`\gamma `$-independent energy surface, is associated with all states of the “band” corresponding to the $`\sigma =N`$ representation. For the dipole part, the corresponding building blocks are $`p_0^{}`$, $`p_1^{}`$ and $`p_1^{}`$. Thus, the three states $`|gp_\mu `$ provide with an intrinsic basis where the dipole-quadrupole states can be studied. In this basis, the pure $`sd`$ and $`p`$ parts of the hamiltonian are diagonal and the only non-diagonal contributions come from the interaction term. The matrix elements needed in order $`1/N`$ are

$$gp_\mu |Q^{(sd)}q^{(p)}|gp_\mu =\underset{i=0,\pm 2}{}g|Q_i^{(sd)}|gp_\mu |q_i^{(p)}|p_\mu ,$$
(14)
where $`g|Q_i^{(sd)}|gQ_i^{(sd)}(\beta ,\gamma )`$ have already been calculated ,

$$Q_0^{(sd)}(\beta ,\gamma )=\frac{N}{1+\beta ^2}\left[2\beta \mathrm{cos}\gamma \sqrt{\frac{2}{7}}\chi \beta ^2\mathrm{cos}2\gamma \right],$$
(15)
$$Q_2^{(sd)}(\beta ,\gamma )=Q_2^{(sd)}(\beta ,\gamma )=\frac{N}{1+\beta ^2}\left[\sqrt{2}\beta \mathrm{sin}\gamma +\sqrt{\frac{1}{7}}\chi \beta ^2\mathrm{sin}2\gamma \right].$$
(16)
The $`Q^{(sd)}`$ matrix elements not specified are zero. The matrix elements of $`q^{(p)}`$ can be easily computed to be

$`p_1|q_0^{(p)}|p_1=p_1|q_0^{(p)}|p_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}},`$ (17)
$`p_0|q_0^{(p)}|p_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}},`$ (18)
$`p_1|q_2^{(p)}|p_1=p_1|q_2^{(p)}|p_1`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (19)
All the remaining relevant matrix elements for our study are zero.

The parameter $`\chi `$ is the structure constant in the quadrupole operator $`Q^{(sd)}`$. The SU(3) case (studied in Ref. ) is obtained for $`\chi =\frac{\sqrt{7}}{2}`$ and the O(6) limit corresponds to $`\chi =0`$. The dipole energies are obtained by diagonalising the interaction $`V_{sdp}`$ in the basis $`|gp_\mu `$. They are analytically given by

$`\lambda _0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1+\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}}Q_0^{(sd)}(\beta ,\gamma ),`$ (20)
$`\lambda _+`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1\kappa \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}Q_0^{(sd)}(\beta ,\gamma )+Q_2^{(sd)}(\beta ,\gamma )\right],`$ (21)
$`\lambda _{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1\kappa \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}Q_0^{(sd)}(\beta ,\gamma )Q_2^{(sd)}(\beta ,\gamma )\right],`$ (22)
which provide the dependence of the dipole energies on the IBM deformation parameters $`(\beta ,\gamma )`$. With the choice $`\chi =\frac{\sqrt{7}}{2}`$, corresponding to the SU(3) limit, Eqs. (21) become equivalent to Eqs. (9b) in Ref.  with terms linear and quadratic in $`\beta `$. The corresponding energies are shown in Fig. 5a. The O(6) limit corresponds instead to $`\chi =0`$. In this case Eqs. (21) have only a linear term in $`\beta `$, and the corresponding energies are shown in Fig. 5b. These latter energies are equal to those obtained in the preceding section for the geometrical model, once the correspondence is made between deformation parameters and coupling strengths in the two models, such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{IBM}=2\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\beta _{IBM}}{1+\beta _{IBM}^2}\kappa N=\mathrm{\Delta }=ϵ_1\sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}\frac{\kappa _1}{C_1}\beta _0.$$
(23)
As in the case of the geometrical model, a simple way of obtaining the dipole strength distribution from the IBM intrinsic state is to average the intrinsic energies over $`\gamma `$. In analogy to the intrinsic energies, the resulting distribution will show, mutatis mutandis, a pattern identical to the one shown in Fig. 2 for the geometrical model.

### C Projection from the intrinsic frame to the laboratory

We have seen so far that the straightforward use of the intrinsic state in the IBM without any projection technique gives results similar to the ones obtained in the geometrical model. These results are consistent with those obtained in the laboratory frame only for boson hamiltonians that give rise to splittings in the elements of each O(6) multiplet which are much smaller than the splitting due to the dipole-quadrupole coupling. In all other more general cases, the effect of the breaking of degeneracy of each multiplet is essential, and proper treatment of the projection to the laboratory system from the intrinsic state is needed.

In this subsection it is therefore shown how to project the intrinsic state for the ground-state representation $`\sigma =N`$ into the $`\tau `$ component. With this we would like to show that the calculations in the intrinsic frame, after projecting after on $`\tau `$, reproduce the laboratory results. In the O(6) case the projector is known , and the important feature is that it produces exactly the laboratory states $`|\sigma =N,\tau ,L`$, belonging to the representation $`\sigma =N`$.

We have considered states of the form $`|\sigma =N,\tau ,L`$ coupled to $`|p`$ to total $`J=1`$. The states $`|\sigma =N,\tau ,L`$ are obtained by applying the projector $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\tau ,L,M}(\gamma ,\theta _i)`$ (Bès functions ) to the intrinsic ground state $`|g`$ as given in Eqs. (12,13). For each value of $`\tau `$ there is only one state (either $`L=0`$ or $`L=2`$) to be considered. Thus, for a given $`N`$ there will be $`N+1`$ dipole states.

In order to diagonalize the Hamiltonian in the $`J=1`$ subspace, we have included diagonal (trivial) and non–diagonal terms. For the latter ones we have used the results of the matrix elements of the interaction $`Q^{(sd)}.q^{(p)}`$ in the intrinsic frame (14-19) and made the appropriate integrations on $`\gamma `$ and the Euler angles $`\theta _i`$ to go from the intrinsic to the laboratory frame. The resulting matrix to be diagonalized in the lab connects states of the same $`\tau `$ (diagonal terms) and states of $`\tau `$ with $`\tau \pm 1`$ as known.

We have done full calculations up to $`N=20`$ for the case $`\chi =0`$ and found simple expressions for the non-diagonal matrix elements that allow calculations for any value of $`N`$. These expressions are (we will use the notation $`|\tau _{(L_{sd})},l_p;JM`$ for the states, with the selection rule $`\tau _{final}^{}`$ = $`\tau _{initial}\pm 1`$)

$$\tau _{(2)}^{},1;1M|Q^{(sd)}.q^{(p)}|\tau _{(2)},1;1M=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\beta }{1+\beta ^2}N,$$
(24)
$$\tau _{(0)}^{},1;1M|Q^{(sd)}.q^{(p)}|\tau _{(2)},1;1M=2\frac{\beta }{1+\beta ^2}N\frac{(1)^R\sqrt{R}}{\sqrt{2\tau _{(0)}^{}+3}},$$
(25)
where $`R=(3\tau _{(2)}+3\tau _{(0)}^{})/6`$. We have checked that these expressions coincide, in leading order in 1/N, with those associated with the corresponding “exact” states for $`\tau =0,1`$ and $`2`$. With these matrix elements we have done a series of calculations and the resulting dipole $`B(E1;0_1^+1_n^{})`$ distributions are compared in Fig. 3 (right panels) with the exact results in the laboratory frame for different values of $`b`$. In Fig. 4 the corresponding distribution obtained from the unprojected intrinsic state (equal for all values of $`b`$) is plotted for comparison. In all the cases we have fixed the number of bosons to 15 and the intensity of the quadrupole ($`sd`$)-quadrupole ($`p`$) interaction to the value $`k=0.2`$ MeV. We have changed the intensity of the $`\tau (\tau +3)`$ term by acting on the $`b`$ term in Eq. (10). In the following points we comment on the results given in Fig. 3.

* i) $`b=0.00015`$ MeV. This gives an excitation energy of the $`2_1^+`$ of 0.0012 MeV, almost degenerate case. The pattern of the $`B(E1)`$ in the exact calculation  (left lowest panel) is as mentioned before (three maxima, two at the edges with $`B(E1)`$ about 3 times the value of the maximum at the center). In our projected calculation (right lowest panel) we obtain similar pattern with three bumps but now the maxima at the edges are lower than in the full lab calculation and the maximum at the center is higher than the one in the exact calculation. In this way we obtain three maxima of roughly the same height. The two minima are more or less in the same places in both calculations. It is remarkable that the number of states in the projected calculation close to the edges is larger than in the full lab calculation and the number of states close to the center is smaller. In that way the summed $`B(E1)`$ values in each of the three bumps is the same in both calculations. The energy separation between edges is also about the same in both calculations.
* ii) $`b=0.0015`$ MeV. This gives an excitation energy of the $`2_1^+`$ of 0.012 MeV. Now the patterns are more similar in both calculations, the population of the lowest part being favoured in both cases. The results start to deviate appreciably from the unprojected ones.
* iii) $`b=0.015`$ MeV. This gives an excitation energy of the $`2_1^+`$ of 0.120 MeV. Now the patterns of the laboratory and the projected intrinsic state are very close, with strong deviation from the pure results of the intrinsic state.
* iv) $`b=0.15`$ MeV. This gives an excitation energy of the $`2_1^+`$ of 1.2 MeV. Now only the 3-4 lowest states are populated and energies and $`B(E1)`$’s are practically identical in both calculations.

From this comparison we conclude that our intrinsic calculation followed by projection on $`\tau `$ gives a good approximation to the laboratory results. It is worth noticing that in all cases the agreement is excellent except for the almost degenerate case, which is surprising since in that case the intrinsic state is expected to be a good approximation (see Fig. 3 lowest left panel and Fig. 4). This can be due either to the projection method or to the intrinsic trial wave function. In this case the projection method is known to be exact for the large $`N`$ limit, thus the problem must come from the trial wave function. As mentioned above, in the limit of very small values of $`b`$ (strong-coupling situations) the splitting of the different values of $`\tau `$ within each O(6) representation is small compared to the coupling. Consequently, the trial wave function proposed as $`|gp_\mu `$ with $`|g`$ given by Eqs. (12,13) could be not completely appropriate in this case. The coupling to the additional dipole boson has in fact destroyed the full $`\gamma `$-unstability of the system (cf. Fig. 5), leading to an additional variation of the order of 1/$`N`$ in the basic boson of the condensate. The situation is similar to that obtained, for example, in the coupling of an odd particle to a SU(3) boson core, where the additional particle slightly shiftes the position of the minimum of the energy surface in the $`\beta `$-$`\gamma `$ plane.

It should be noted that realistic cases of O(6) nuclei correspond to values of $`b`$ around $`0.05`$ MeV, far from degeneration in $`\tau `$. We have checked this by making a set of calculations for a fixed and reasonable value of $`b`$ and changing the interaction $`\kappa `$. In those cases agreement between laboratory calculations and intrinsic plus projection is fine for any reasonable value of $`\kappa `$. Only for extremely large and unphysical values of $`\kappa `$ some discrepancies between both calculations start to appear.

Once the energy spectra and the dipole transition strengths have been discussed we present in the next Section the cross sections for absorption of unpolarized $`\gamma `$ radiation in the GDR region.

## IV Photonuclear cross-section

Dipole strength distributions are traditionally measured in photoabsorption processes. Although photoabsorption cross-sections directly reflect the dipole strength, some of the features associated with this strength may disappear, be masked or modified by the effect of the finite widths. For this reason, once the distribution of the individual dipole states has been analyzed in the preceding section, we prefer in this section to compare results obtained within the IBM dipole model in the laboratory frame, unprojected and projected intrinsic frame directly for photoabsorption cross-sections.

The cross section for photoabsorption is in fact given by

$$\sigma (E)=\frac{8\pi e^2}{3\mathrm{}c}\underset{n}{}E_n|1_n^{}||D||0_1^+|^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_nE^2}{(E^2E_n^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2E^2},$$
(26)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ are the widths of the dipole states at energy $`E_n`$. The dipole widths are either taken as a constant or assumed to have a power law dependence on the energy,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\left(\frac{E_n}{E_0}\right)^\delta ,$$
(27)
where $`E_0`$ is the energy of the unperturbed dipole state and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ its width. Both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\delta `$ are used as adjustable parameters when one is fitting experimental data.

In Fig. 6 we present the cross-sections obtained for the two extreme ($`b`$=0.00015 MeV and $`b`$=0.15 MeV) dipole strength distributions corresponding to Fig. 3. Full lines give the results for the case $`b`$=0.00015 MeV (almost $`\tau `$-degenerate case) while dashed lines are for $`b`$=0.15 MeV. In both cases $`E_0=15`$ MeV and the intensity of the quadrupole (sd)-quadrupole (p) interaction ($`\kappa `$) is 0.2 MeV. Left panels give the laboratory results and right panels the intrinsic plus projection on $`\tau `$ results.

We have done two sets of calculations which select different widths for the dipole states. Upper panels correspond to the case in which the dipole widths are assumed to have a power law dependence on the energy. Since we are not working with an specific nucleus, we have taken $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$= 0.026 $`\times E_0^\delta `$ (MeV) and $`\delta `$=1.91. These values come from one global parametrization of experimental photoabsorption cross sections for $`A>50`$ . That implies widths ranging from about 3.5 to 6.0 MeV for $`E_n`$ ranging from 13 to 17 MeV, respectively. Lower panels represent equivalent cases but taking the dipole widths as a constant equal to 2.5 MeV.

First of all we should realize that the actual shape of the photoabsorption cross-section is very much dependent on the widths assumed. The dashed lines (case with $`b`$=0.15 MeV) in all panels still reflect contributions from the two lower states since they are separated by about 3 MeV. By contrast, all the states contribute to the almost $`\tau `$ degenerate case (full lines, $`b`$=0.00015 MeV) since now the states differ by less than 0.5 MeV. Thus the image on the photoabsorption cross-section of the shape of the dipole strength distribution in Fig. 3 is diluted, even showing a plateau when we use the biggest widths (upper panels).

In all the cases, independently of the election of $`b`$ and the dipole widths assumed (either constant or energy dependent), a good agreement between the laboratory and $`\tau `$-projected intrinsic frame calculations is observed when comparing left and right panels, although as in Fig. 3 as the absolute value of the ratio b/$`\kappa `$ decreases its quality becomes a bit worse. It is worth noticing that the calculations for the case of unprojected geometrical adiabatic situation given in Fig. 4 are indistinguishable from those plotted with full line on the right-hand-side panels ($`b`$=0.00015 MeV) as expected.

## V Summary and conclusions

We have studied the problem of the coupling of the quadrupole and dipole oscillations in $`\gamma `$-unstable nuclei in the framework of the IBM. We have obtained and explained the results in the laboratory by studying the problem in the intrinsic frame taking at higher order the non-degeneracy in $`\tau `$.

In the $`\tau `$-degenerate limit the dipole mode total splitting (2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) turns out to be proportional to the dipole-quadrupole coupling strength, the number of sd bosons considered, N, and the quadrupole deformation. Furthermore, the dipole mode splits in N+1 lines and its distribution is symmetric around the unperturbed dipole energy. This symmetry is destroyed as soon as we allow non-degeneracy in $`\tau `$, giving rise to a very asymmetric distribution. In the weak coupling limit the transition strength is concentrated onto the lowest states. Since this limit seems to correspond to the actual situation in typical O(6) nuclei, 196Pt or 134Ba for instance, the explicit treatment of the non-degeneracy in $`\tau `$ is crucial. In this case the results from the geometrical model in the adiabatic limit are quite different from the dipole boson model ones. In this sense, the O(6) limit is different to the SU(3) case in which the rotational excitation energy is low and can be ignored in first approximation and, consequently, the geometrical model in the adiabatic limit gives an appropriate description.

Calculations of photoabsorption cross-sections using the intrinsic state in the IBM followed by projection on $`\tau `$ give a good approximation to the laboratory results. No experimental data on O(6) nuclei are available and they could be valuable to elucidate whether the dipole strength distribution in actual O(6) nuclei is in agreement with the $`\tau `$-projected dipole boson model results presented here.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a Spanish–Italian CICYT-INFN agreement and by the Spanish DGICYT under project number PB98-1111. Part of this work was done while E.G.L. was at Sevilla University as a Marie Curie Fellow with contract ERBFMBICT-983090. We acknowledge useful discussions with F. Iachello and A. Leviatan. We thank P. Van Isacker for providing us with the IBM codes GDR and GDRT.


text:
# New constraints on inflation from the cosmic microwave background

## I Introduction

It is commonly believed that the Universe underwent an early era of cosmological inflation. The flatness and the horizon problems of the standard big bang cosmology are elegantly solved if, during the evolution of the early Universe, the energy density is dominated by some vacuum energy and comoving scales grow quasi-exponentially. The prediction of the simplest models of inflation is a flat Universe, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$ with great precision.

Inflation  has also become the dominant paradigm for understanding the initial conditions for structure formation and for Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy. In the inflationary picture, primordial density and gravity-wave fluctuations are created from quantum fluctuations “redshifted” out of the horizon during an early period of superluminal expansion of the universe, where they are “frozen” as perturbations in the background metric. Metric perturbations at the surface of last scattering are observable as temperature anisotropy in the CMB.

The first and most impressive confirmation of the inflationary paradigm came when the CMB anisotropies were firmly detected by the COBE satellite in 1992 . Subsequently, it became clear that the measurements of the spectrum of the CMB anisotropy can provide very detailed information about the fundamental cosmological parameters  and other crucial parameters for particle physics . This era of precision CMB anisotropy measurements has just begun with the results of two balloon-borne experiments, Boomerang  – which was flown over Antarctica in 1999 – and MAXIMA-1 . The observed first acoustic peak at $`\mathrm{}200`$ (already detected by previous experiments, see e.g. ) indicates that the curvature of the Universe is consistent with flatness, thus providing another convincing confirmation of the fact that the early Universe experienced a period of superluminal acceleration.

Despite the simplicity of the inflationary paradigm, the number of inflation models that have been proposed in the literature is enormous . Models have been invented which predict non-Gaussian density fluctuations, isocurvature fluctuation modes, and cosmic strings. At present, inflation plus topological defects is consistent with the Boomerang data and the evidence for non-Gaussianity in the COBE maps is tantalizing but not compelling. Furthermore, a small class of models predicting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0<1`$ (open inflation models) have not survived the current data.

The goal of this paper is to discuss the capability of the existing CMB anisotropy data to discriminate among the very simplest type of inflationary models: inflation involving a single scalar field (the inflaton) producing a flat Universe consistent with the observed first acoustic peak at $`\mathrm{}200`$. The single-field models are certainly the most popular among models for cosmological inflation because they are firmly rooted in modern particle theory and have usually supersymmetry as a crucial ingredient .

For single-field inflation models, the relevant parameter space for distinguishing among models is the plane defined by the scalar spectral index $`n_S`$ and the ratio of tensor to scalar fluctuations $`r`$. Recent work has shown that there is a kinematically favored region in the $`rn_S`$ plane, independent of the details of the model . Within that “attractor” region, different models make distinct predictions for $`r`$ and $`n_S`$. In this paper we show that the Boomerang and MAXIMA-1 data sets allow us to significantly constrain the allowed region in the $`rn_S`$ plane and begin to rule out particular models of inflation. Such constraints are sensitive to our assumptions about other cosmological parameters, in particular the baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ and the reionization optical depth $`\tau _c`$. If we allow both of these parameters to vary freely, a fairly large region in the $`rn_S`$ plane is consistent with observation. A scale-invariant spectral index $`n_S=1`$ is favored, and the models which predict both a tilted spectrum $`n_S<1`$ and large tensor modes $`r>0.5`$ are strongly disfavored. If, conversely, we choose to constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ using constraints from primordial nucleosynthesis, the allowed region in the parameter plane is tightened considerably. If we additionally assume negligible reionization optical depth, the data significantly favor a tilted spectrum $`n_S<1`$ and negligible tensor modes.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we describe the classes of inflation models we consider and their predictions for cosmological parameters which can be distinguished via CMB observations. In Section III we discuss the methods used for the CMB analysis. In Section IV we present the constraints from the combined Boomerang and MAXIMA-1 data sets. In Section V we discuss some general conclusions.

## II The inflationary model space

In single-field models of inflation, the inflaton “field” need not be a fundamental field at all, of course. Also, some “single-field” models require auxiliary fields. Hybrid inflation models, for example, require a second field to end inflation. What is significant is that the inflationary epoch be described by a single dynamical order parameter, the inflaton field. The metric perturbations created during inflation are of two types: scalar, or curvature perturbations, which couple to the stress-energy of matter in the universe and form the “seeds” for structure formation, and tensor, or gravitational wave perturbations. Both scalar and tensor perturbations contribute to CMB anisotropy. Scalar fluctuations can also be interpreted as fluctuations in the density of the matter in the universe. Most (but not all) inflationary models predict that these fluctuations are generated with approximately power law spectra

$`P_S\left(k\right)`$ $`k^{n_S1},`$ (1)
$`P_T\left(k\right)`$ $`k^{n_T}.`$ (2)
The spectral indices $`n_S`$ and $`n_T`$ are assumed to vary slowly or not at all with scale:

$$\frac{dn_{S,T}}{d\mathrm{log}k}0.$$
(3)
In actuality, for a spectral index sufficiently higher than unity, the power-law approximation becomes less and less accurate. Some particular inflation models predict running of the spectral index with scale  or even sharp features in the power spectrum. The observational consequences of scale dependence of the spectral index are considered in Ref. . We do not consider such models here. In principle, then, we have four independent observables with which to test inflation. One can be removed by considering the overall amplitude of CMB fluctuations: if the contribution of tensor modes to the CMB anisotropy can be neglected, normalization to the COBE four-year data gives $`P_S^{1/2}=4.8\times 10^5`$. We then have three relevant observables: the tensor scalar ratio defined as a ratio of quadrupole moments,

$$r\frac{C_2^{\mathrm{Tensor}}}{C_2^{\mathrm{Scalar}}}$$
(4)
and the two spectral indices $`n_S`$ and $`n_T`$.

Even restricting ourselves to a simple single-field inflation scenario, the number of models available to choose from is large . It is convenient to define a general classification scheme, or “zoology” for models of inflation. We divide models into three general types: large-field, small-field, and hybrid, with a fourth classification, linear models, serving as a boundary between large- and small-field. A generic single-field potential can be characterized by two independent mass scales: a “height” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$, corresponding to the vacuum energy density during inflation, and a “width” $`\mu `$, corresponding to the change in the field value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ during inflation:

$$V\left(\varphi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4f\left(\frac{\varphi }{\mu }\right).$$
(5)
Different models have different forms for the function $`f`$. The height $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is fixed by normalization, so the only free parameter is the width $`\mu `$. To create the observed flatness and homogeneity of the universe, we require many e-folds of inflation, typically $`N50`$. This figure varies somewhat with the details of the model. During inflation, scales smaller than the horizon are “redshifted” to scales larger than the horizon. A comoving scale $`k`$ crosses the horizon during inflation $`N\left(k\right)`$ e-folds from the end of inflation, where $`N\left(k\right)`$ is given by

$$N(k)=62\mathrm{ln}\frac{k}{a_0H_0}\mathrm{ln}\frac{10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}}{V_k^{1/4}}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{V_k^{1/4}}{V_e^{1/4}}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{V_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}}{\rho _{\mathrm{RH}}^{1/4}}.$$
(6)
Here $`V_k`$ is the potential when the mode leaves the horizon, $`V_e`$ is the potential at the end of inflation, and $`\rho _{\mathrm{RH}}`$ is the energy density after reheating. Scales of order the current horizon size exited the horizon at $`N\left(k\right)5070`$. In keeping with the goal of discussing the most generic possible case, we will allow $`N`$ to vary within the range $`50N70`$ for any given model. Useful parameters for our purpose are the so-called slow roll parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$, which are related to the potential as:

$$ϵ=\frac{M_{Pl}^2}{16\pi }\left(\frac{V^{}\left(\varphi \right)}{V\left(\varphi \right)}\right)^2,$$
(7)
and

$$\eta \left(\varphi \right)=\frac{M_{Pl}^2}{8\pi }\left[\frac{V^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)}{V\left(\varphi \right)}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{V^{}\left(\varphi \right)}{V\left(\varphi \right)}\right)^2\right].$$
(8)
We can write the observable parameters $`r`$, $`n_S`$ and $`n_T`$ in terms of the model parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$:

$`r=`$ $`13.6ϵ,`$ (9)
$`n_S=`$ $`14ϵ+2\eta ,`$ (10)
$`n_T=`$ $`2ϵ.`$ (11)
Note that $`r`$, $`n_S`$ and $`n_T`$ are not independent. The tensor spectral index and the tensor/scalar ratio are related as

$$n_T=\frac{1}{6.8}r,$$
(12)
known as the consistency relation for inflation. (This relation holds only for single-field inflation, and weakens to an inequality for inflation involving multiple degrees of freedom.) The relevant parameter space for distinguishing between inflation models is then the $`rn_S`$ plane. Different classes of models are distinguished by the value of the second derivative of the potential, or, equivalently, by the relationship between the values of the slow-roll parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$***The designations “small-field” and “large-field” can sometimes be misleading. For instance, both the $`R^2`$ model  and the “dual inflation” model  are characterized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi m_{Pl}`$, but are “small-field” in the sense that $`\eta <0<ϵ`$, with $`n_S<1`$ and negligible tensor modes.. Each class of models has a different relationship between $`r`$ and $`n_S`$. For a more detailed discussion of these relations, the reader is referred to Refs. . It should be noted that the accuracy of the slow roll approximation itself begins to break down for a spectral index significantly far from $`n_S=1`$. First order in $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ is sufficiently accurate for the purpose of this analysis.

### A Large-field models: $`ϵ<\eta ϵ`$

Large-field models are potentials typical of the “chaotic” inflation scenario, in which the scalar field is displaced from the minimum of the potential by an amount usually of order the Planck mass. Such models are characterized by $`V^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)>0`$, and $`ϵ<\eta ϵ`$. The generic large-field potentials we consider are polynomial potentials $`V\left(\varphi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left(\varphi /\mu \right)^p`$, and exponential potentials, $`V\left(\varphi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi /\mu \right)`$. For the case of an exponential potential, $`V\left(\varphi \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi /\mu \right)`$, the tensor/scalar ratio $`r`$ is simply related to the spectral index as

$$r=7\left(1n_S\right).$$
(13)
This result is often incorrectly generalized to all slow-roll models, but is in fact characteristic only of power-law inflation. For inflation with a polynomial potential $`V\left(\varphi \right)\varphi ^p`$, we again have $`r1n_S`$,

$$r7\left(\frac{p}{p+2}\right)\left(1n_S\right).$$
(14)
so that tensor modes are large for significantly tilted spectra.

### B Small-field models: $`\eta <ϵ`$

Small-field models are the type of potentials that arise naturally from spontaneous symmetry breaking (such as the original models of “new” inflation ) and from pseudo Nambu-Goldstone modes (natural inflation). The field starts from near an unstable equilibrium (taken to be at the origin) and rolls down the potential to a stable minimum. Small-field models are characterized by $`V^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)<0`$ and $`\eta <ϵ`$. Typically $`ϵ`$ (and hence the tensor amplitude) is close to zero in small-field models. The generic small-field potentials we consider are of the form $`V\left(\varphi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left[1\left(\varphi /\mu \right)^p\right]`$, which can be viewed as a lowest-order Taylor expansion of an arbitrary potential about the origin. The cases $`p=2`$ and $`p>2`$ have very different behavior. For $`p=2`$,

$$r=7(1n_S)\mathrm{exp}\left[1N\left(1n_S\right)\right],$$
(15)
where $`N`$ is the number of e-folds of inflation. For $`p>2`$, the scalar spectral index is

$$n_S1\frac{2}{N}\left(\frac{p1}{p2}\right),$$
(16)
independent of $`r`$. Assuming $`\mu <M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ results in an upper bound on $`r`$ of

$$r<7\frac{p}{N\left(p2\right)}\left(\frac{8\pi }{Np\left(p2\right)}\right)^{p/\left(p2\right)}.$$
(17)
### C Hybrid models: $`0<ϵ<\eta `$

The hybrid scenario frequently appears in models which incorporate inflation into supersymmetry. In a typical hybrid inflation model, the scalar field responsible for inflation evolves toward a minimum with nonzero vacuum energy. The end of inflation arises as a result of instability in a second field. Such models are characterized by $`V^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)>0`$ and $`0<ϵ<\eta `$. We consider generic potentials for hybrid inflation of the form $`V\left(\varphi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left[1+\left(\varphi /\mu \right)^p\right].`$ The field value at the end of inflation is determined by some other physics, so there is a second free parameter characterizing the models. Because of this extra freedom, hybrid models fill a broad region in the $`rn_S`$ plane (Fig. 1). There is, however, no overlap in the $`rn_S`$ plane between hybrid inflation and other models. The distinguishing feature of many hybrid models is a blue scalar spectral index, $`n_S>1`$. This corresponds to the case $`\eta >2ϵ`$. Hybrid models can also in principle have a red spectrum, $`n<1`$.

### D Linear models: $`\eta =ϵ`$

Linear models, $`V\left(\varphi \right)\varphi `$, live on the boundary between large-field and small-field models, with $`V^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)=0`$ and $`\eta =ϵ`$. The spectral index and tensor/scalar ratio are related as:

$$r=\frac{7}{3}\left(1n_S\right).$$
(18)
This enumeration of models is certainly not exhaustive. There are a number of single-field models that do not fit well into this scheme, for example logarithmic potentials $`V\left(\varphi \right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\varphi \right)`$ typical of supersymmetry . Another example is potentials with negative powers of the scalar field $`V\left(\varphi \right)\varphi ^p`$ used in intermediate inflation  and dynamical supersymmetric inflation . Both of these cases require and auxilliary field to end inflation and are more properly categorized as hybrid models, but fall into the small-field region of the $`rn_S`$ plane. However, the three classes categorized by the relationship between the slow-roll parameters as $`ϵ<\eta ϵ`$ (large-field), $`\eta ϵ`$ (small-field, linear), and $`0<ϵ<\eta `$ (hybrid), cover the entire $`rn_S`$ plane and are in that sense complete.Ref.  incorrectly specified $`0<\eta ϵ`$ for large-field and $`\eta <0`$ for small-field. Figure 1 shows the $`rn_S`$ plane divided up into regions representing the large field, small-field and hybrid cases.

## III CMB Analysis

In this section we discuss the ability of current CMB data to place constraints on the inflationary parameter space. In particular, we wish to determine which regions of the inflationary model space are ruled out by the Boomerang and MAXIMA-1 data, and which regions are consistent with the observed data. We perform a likelihood analysis over multiple cosmological parameters and project likelihood contours onto the $`rn_S`$ plane. The choice of parameters to be varied in the analysis is crucial, and different assumptions result in different constraints on the inflationary model space. In addition to $`n_S`$ and $`r`$, we also vary the Hubble constant $`h`$, the reionization optical depth $`\tau _c`$, the amplitude of fluctuations, $`C_{10}`$, (in units of $`C_{10}^{COBE}`$), the cold dark matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$, the vacuum energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$, subject to the constraint of a flat universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{total}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, consistent with the prediction of inflation. We also assume the consistency relation (12) between $`n_T`$ and $`r`$. We fix the number of neutrino species at three and we take a gaussian prior on the Hubble constant: $`h=0.65\pm 0.2`$. Note that this approach is different from many CMB parameter estimation programs, which attempt to constrain cosmological parameters in a model independent fashion. Since our object here is to falsify models, we include as many model dependent constraints as possible and examine the consistency of the data with the predictions of the models. For example, this allows us to avoid questions of parameter mis-estimation arising from features in the primordial power spectrum.

The Boomerang and Maxima power spectra are estimated in $`12`$ and $`10`$ bins respectively, spanning the range $`25\mathrm{}785`$. In each bin, the spectrum is assigned a flat shape, $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}/2\pi =C_B`$. Following  we use the offset lognormal approximation to the likelihood $`L`$. In particular we define The cross-correlation between bandpowers and the offset lognormal corrections for the Boomerang and Maxima experiments are not yet public available. We tested the stability of our result including a $`10\%`$ correlation and with different lognormal distributions. We obtained near identical results with the analysis of  where the comparison was possible ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, $`r=0`$).:

$$2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}L=(D_B^{th}D_B^{ex})M_{BB^{}}(D_B^{}^{th}D_B^{}^{ex}),$$
(19)
$$D_B^X=\mathrm{ln}(C_B^X+x_B),$$
(20)
$$M_{BB^{}}=(C_B^{th}+x_B)F_{BB^{}}(C_B^{}^{ex}+x_B^{}),$$
(21)
where $`C_B^{th}`$ ($`C_B^{ex}`$) is the theoretical (experimental) band power, $`x_B`$ is the offset correction and $`F_{BB^{}}`$ is the Gaussian curvature of the likelihood matrix at the peak. Proceeding as in Refs. , we assign a likelihood to each point in the parameter space and we find constraints on all the parameters by finding the remaining “nuisance” parameters which maximize it.

Usually there are two maximization procedures. One is based on a search algorithm through the second derivative of the likelihood matrix. In this approach the $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$’s are computed on the way, without sampling the whole parameter space. The second approach is based on building a database of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$’s on a discretized grid of the parameter space. The maxima values are then obtained from the likelihood computed on the grid. We adopted the database approach mainly for its robustness and the possibility to use a ’true’ marginalization method’. The bulk of our results were evaluated on a database of models sampled as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}+\mathrm{\Omega }_B=(0.10,0.15,\mathrm{},1.1)`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=(0.015,0.030,\mathrm{},0.20)`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0.0,\mathrm{},0.95)`$ (24)
$`n_s=(0.50,0.52,\mathrm{},1.48,1.50)`$ (25)
$`h=(0.25,0.30,\mathrm{},0.95)`$ (26)
$`\tau _c=(0.0,0.2,0.4)`$ (27)
$`n_t=r/6.8`$ (28)
$`r\mathrm{continuous}`$ (29)
$`C_{10}\mathrm{continuous}.`$ (30)
Two parameters in particular require careful consideration: the physical baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ and the reionization optical depth $`\tau _c`$. Our constraints on the inflationary parameter space are strongly dependent on our choice of priors for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$. In particular, the suppressed second peak seen in the data requires either a baryon density too high to be consistent with big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) constraints, or a significant “red” tilt, $`n_S<1`$, if standard BBN is assumed. For completeness, we will consider separately $`3`$ cases: no prior constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$, $`0.005\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^20.014`$ and $`0.016\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^20.021`$ as suggested by the dichotomy in high and low deuterium measurements from distant quasars absorption line systems (see, e.g. Ref. ). The second important parameter is the reionization optical depth $`\tau _c`$. It is known that there is a strong degeneracy between $`\tau _c`$ and the tensor/scalar ratio $`r`$, so that allowing for significant reionization strongly degrades the ability to distinguish tensor modes. Theoretical predictions, based on the Press-Schecter formalism, show that reionization most probably occurred after redshift $`z50`$, with $`z1020`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{CDM}`$ flat models. This roughly corresponds to an optical depth $`0\tau _c0.2`$ . Again, we consider separately 3 cases: no reionization, $`\tau _c=0.2`$ and $`\tau _c=0.4`$.

## IV Results

In the $`rn_S`$-plane, the parameter space is divided into regions for small-field, large-field and hybrid models as in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the $`1\sigma `$ ($`\delta \chi ^2=2.3`$), $`2\sigma `$ ($`\delta \chi ^2=6.0`$), and $`3\sigma `$ ($`\delta \chi ^2=9.2`$) contours on the $`rn_S`$ plane for the case of no reionization and no BBN prior. The various inflation models described in the last section and in Figure 1 are now plotted as labeled lines on the graph. (Note that the entire region to the right of the case of the exponential potential is consistent with hybrid inflation models). The lines are obtained by varying a given parameter within a class of models, e.g. for large-field models with a power-law potential $`\varphi ^p`$ what varies is the power $`p`$.

The best model is nearly scale invariant, and the tensor/scalar ratio $`r`$ is only weakly constrained. Marginalizing over $`r`$ ($`n_s`$) we obtain also the $`1\sigma `$ constraint : $`0.94<n_s<1.07`$ ($`r<0.65`$). Hybrid and small-field models are consistent with the data, but strongly tilted large-field models are in conflict with the CMB constraint to high significance. The $`3\sigma `$ contour on the $`V\left(\varphi \right)\varphi ^p`$ models result in a constraint that $`p<5`$ for $`N=50`$ and $`p<8`$ for $`N=70`$. In the power-law inflation case, $`V\left(\varphi \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi /\mu \right)`$, the $`3\sigma `$ constraint corresponds to a lower limit $`\mu >0.75M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. The $`1\sigma `$ contour is marginally consistent with $`p=2`$ for $`N=50`$ and requires $`p<3`$ for $`N=70`$ in the case of a polynomial potential, and constrains $`\mu M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ in the power-law inflation case.

Figure 3 shows a similar plot when BBN constraints are included, still assuming negligible reionization. The contours in $`r`$ are significantly tighter than in the case with no BBN prior, and the best fit model is shifted toward tilted models: $`0.88<n_S<0.98`$ and $`r0.17`$ for the low deuterium (LD) case ; $`0.87<n_S<0.97`$ and $`r0.16`$ for the high deuterium (HD) case, with the scale invariant case just consistent with the data at $`2\sigma `$. (Fig. 3 shows the high deuterium case.) To $`1\sigma `$, large-field models are excluded entirely. The only models within $`1\sigma `$ are linear and small-field inflation. To $`3\sigma `$, the case of a polynomial potential is constrained to $`p<6`$ for $`N=50`$ and $`p<8`$ for $`N=70`$.

Figure 4 shows the constraints when a strong constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ from BBN is assumed (left to right) and when the optical depth $`\tau _c`$ is increased. Fixing the optical depth to $`\tau _c0.2`$ shifts the likelihood towards “blue” tilted models ($`n_S1`$) making the scalar invariant models consistent with the data even when the BBN constraint are assumed ($`1.02<n_S<1.28`$ for no constraint, $`0.95<n_S<1.05`$ for both BBN constraints, all at $`68\%`$ c.l.). Increasing this parameter up to $`\tau _c=0.4`$ moves the $`68\%`$ likelihood contours in the hybrid models region ($`1.15<n_S<1.30`$, $`1.06<n_S<1.14`$ for LD and $`1.00<n_S<1.08`$ for HD). These models are disfavored by the dataset itself, being the best fit model at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^23`$ from the corresponding best fit model with $`\tau _c=0`$. Note in particular that large-field models with tilt $`n_s<0.9`$ are strongly disfavored in all cases. Removing the consistency relation and fixing $`n_t=0`$ does’nt affect this conclusion and has small effect on the overall result: for no BBN constraint and $`\tau _c=0`$ we found $`r<0.67`$ and $`0.96<n_s<1.14`$ (marginalized over $`r`$).

## V Conclusions

With the release of data from the Boomerang and MAXIMA-1 balloon flights, it is possible for the first time to place significant constraints from the cosmic microwave background on the space of possible inflation models. The data in the region $`\mathrm{}300`$, in particular, break the degeneracy between $`n_S`$ and $`r`$ on the first peak and produce a more stringent upper limit on $`r`$ for hybrid models respect to previous analysis. In this paper we consider the observational constraints on the “zoo” of simple inflation models characterized by a single scalar field $`\varphi `$ in the parameter space consisting of scalar spectral index $`n_S`$ and tensor/scalar ratio $`r`$. Different classes of models make distinct predictions for the relationship between $`n_S`$ and $`r`$ and can in principle be differentiated by use of CMB observations. While the current data is not good enough to rule out entire classes of models, it is sufficient to place significant constraints on model parameters. Combined with constraints on the baryon density from Big-Bang nucleosynthesis, we conclude that the favored inflationary models have negligible tensor amplitude and a “red” tilt, with a best fit of $`r0.17`$ and $`n_S=0.93\pm 0.05`$ (assuming low deuterium and negligible reionization), consistent with the simplest “small-field” inflation models such as those arising from spontaneous symmetry breaking or from pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons (natural inflation). Models with strong reionization favor higher values of the spectral index consistent with hybrid inflation models. Without including BBN constraints, a broad range of models are consistent with the data, including large-field and hybrid scenarios, and the favored model is nearly scale-invariant, $`n_S1`$. Future observations promise to significantly narrow the allowed regions of the parameter space, and will potentially make it possible to rule out entire classes of inflation models.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Edward W. Kolb, Andrei Linde, David Lyth and Jean Philippe Uzan for useful discussions. AM is grateful to Amedeo Balbi, Paolo de Bernardis, Ruth Durrer, Pedro Ferreira, Naoshi Sugiyama, Nicola Vittorio and the Boomerang Collaboration. WHK is supported in part by U.S. DOE grant DE-FG02-97ER-41029 at University of Florida.


text:
# Comment on “Thermal Effects on the Casimir Force in the 0.1-5 𝜇m Range” by M. Boström and Bo E. Sernelius (Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 4757-4760 (2000))

In a recent paper  it is shown that simultaneous consideration of the thermal and finite conductivity corrections to the Casimir force between metal plates results in a significant deviation from previous theoretical results  and a recent experiment . In , it is argued that the $`TE`$ electromagnetic mode does not contribute as $`\omega 0`$ for a realistic material with dissipation (see Eq. (6) of ).

When the zero-frequency limit is taken in , it is asserted that

$$\underset{\omega 0}{lim}(\gamma _1\gamma _0)=0$$
(1)
where $`\gamma _{0,1}=q^2+ϵ_{0,1}(i\omega )\omega ^2/c^2`$, 0 refers to the space between the plates (vacuum, so $`ϵ_0(i\omega )=1`$) and 1 refers to the region within the plates. In , the assertion given in Eq. (1) above is based on the idea that, as $`\omega 0`$, $`\omega ^2ϵ_1(i\omega )0`$ with the assumed form of the dielectric function, Eq. (6) of .

In taking the limit in this manner, some important physics is missed. The two evanescent wave numbers, $`\gamma _0`$ and $`\gamma _1`$ describe the damping of the electric field in the space between the plates and within the plates, respectively. It is well-know that for static electric fields that the electric field is perpendicular to a conducting surface (even a poor conductor) and that the field penetration depth into the conductor is infinitesimally small (e.g., the field is cancelled due to charge accumulation on the surface). This implies that $`\gamma _1\mathrm{}`$ when $`\omega 0`$, while $`\gamma _0`$ remains finite.

In taking the zero-frequency limit, the proper result can obtained in a transparent fashion if instead we consider $`\gamma _1/\gamma _0`$ which should diverge at zero frequency. The point that was missed in  is that any non-zero $`q`$ must be associated with a non-zero $`\omega `$ because the plates are uncharged, and any differential accumulation of charge on the plate surfaces (e.g., due to thermal fluctuations) will be dynamic; $`q`$ and $`\omega `$ cannot be taken as independent integration variables, but are related in such a way that when $`\omega 0`$ then $`q0`$.

Using the substitution $`q=\omega \sqrt{p^21}/c`$ where $`p1`$ (as did Lifshitz ; this particular substitution simplifies later integrals), we find that

$$\frac{\gamma _1}{\gamma _0}=\frac{\sqrt{p^21+ϵ_1(i\omega )}}{p}$$
(2)
which indeed diverges as $`\omega 0`$, as expected based on the simple physical arguments presented earlier, implying that in this limit

$$G^{TE}=1e^{2\gamma _0d}$$
(3)
(which is Eq. (2) of ). Carrying through this substitution (see , pp. 227-228 and pp. 269-271), the previously obtained result is reproduced  for which there is no significant deviation between theory and experiment.


text:
# New constraints from Haverah Park data on the photon and iron fluxes of UHE cosmic rays

## Abstract

Using data from inclined events ($`60^{}<\theta <80^{}`$) recorded by the Haverah Park shower detector, we show that above $`10^{19}`$ eV less than $`30\%`$ of the primary cosmic rays can be photons or iron nuclei at the $`95\%`$ confidence level. Above $`4\times 10^{19}`$ eV less than $`55\%`$ of the cosmic rays can be photonic at the same confidence level. These limits place important constraints on some models of the origin of ultra high energy cosmic rays. Details of two new events above $`10^{20}`$ eV are reported.

The highest energy cosmic rays above the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cut-off  are a mystery both in terms of their origin and their mass composition. Conventional acceleration mechanisms, so called ‘bottom up’ scenarios, predict an extragalactic origin with mainly proton composition as, although nuclei of higher charge are more easily accelerated, they are fragile to photonuclear processes in the strong photon fields to be expected in likely source regions . “Top down” models explain the highest energy cosmic rays as arising from the decay of some sufficiently massive “X-particles”. These models predict particles such as nucleons, photons and even possibly neutrinos as the high energy cosmic rays, but not heavy nuclei. In some models  these X-particles are postulated as long-living metastable super-heavy relic particles (MSRP) clustering in our galactic halo. For these MSRP models a photon dominated primary composition at $`10^{19}`$ eV is expected. Other top down models  associate X-particles with processes involving systems of cosmic topological defects which are uniformly distributed in the universe, and predict a photon dominated composition only above $`10^{20}`$ eV. These models are affected by the constraint that the low energy photons ($``$100 MeV) arising from interactions of UHE photons with the cosmic microwave background cannot be larger than the observed diffuse low energy flux . Observations above $`10^{19}`$ eV are currently consistent with both interpretations . There is however some partial evidence against the photon hypothesis. Shower development of the highest energy event , is inconsistent with a photon initiated shower  while AGASA measurements of the muon lateral distribution of the highest energy events are compatible with a proton origin . No measurement of, or limit to, the photon flux above $`10^{19}`$ eV has been reported.

Here we describe a new method which we use to set a limit to the photon and iron content of the highest energy cosmic rays. We show that observations of inclined showers provide a powerful tool to discriminate between photon and hadron dominated compositions. For primaries arriving at zenith angles, $`\theta `$ $`>60^{}`$ the shower particles reaching sea-level are almost entirely muons, with a small contamination of electrons and gammas arising mainly from muon decay . From our simulations we find that photons are expected to produce fewer muons than hadrons (a factor $``$9) at $`10^{19}`$ eV. This factor decreases with shower energy because of the rise of the photoproduction cross section and the decrease of the pair production and bremsstrahlung cross sections (due to LPM suppression ). Our conclusions on the photon flux are not sensitive to the choice of model: the implementation of photohadronic interactions in the AIRES code  and CORSIKA code  (using the parameterization of ) give predictions of the total muon number that are equal to within 10% at $`10^{20}`$ eV. In addition our simulations show that the shape of the lateral distribution of muons in inclined showers is constant with energy and is insensitive to shower to shower fluctuations in longitudinal development .

Here we use data from the Haverah Park array, a 12 km2 array of water-Čerenkov detectors . The data used were recorded between 1974 and 1987 and comprise around 8000 events with $`\theta >60^{}`$ from an on-time of $`3.6\times 10^8`$ s. These events were not analysed originally because the limited computing power then available required assumptions of circular symmetry which are not valid for inclined showers due to geomagnetic field effects. The analysis described below yielded 46 events with $`E>10^{19}`$ eV. Seven events have energies $`>4\times 10^{19}`$ eV and two events have energies $`>10^{20}`$ eV. We show that the rate observed for inclined showers is consistent with a proton dominated primary composition and significantly above that expected if the primary composition is dominated by photons.

Inclined showers recorded at Haverah Park have been analysed for direction and energy using a combination of Monte Carlo techniques and muon density parameterizations, see  for details. For zenith angles in the range $`60^{}`$ \- $`89^{}`$ (in $`1^{}`$ steps) muon density maps were generated using the model  with inputs from AIRES for the QGSJET hadronic model  with $`10^{19}`$ eV protons. Different azimuth angles are modeled as described in . Throughout we assume the representation of the energy spectrum recently given in . We find that the lateral and energy distributions of muons in inclined showers are largely independent of primary composition and energy so that simulation of different primary energies and compositions is achieved by scaling the muon density maps described above. We find $`N_\mu E^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha `$ equal to 0.924, 0.906 and 1.20 for proton, iron and gamma primaries respectively. The relative total muon numbers at $`10^{19}`$ eV are 1.0, 1.36, 0.11 for proton, iron and gamma primaries respectively. In general differences between the lateral distributions and energy spectra of muons in photon and hadronic showers are of particular importance. For inclined showers, however, the differences decrease as the zenith angle increases because the mean height of muon production also increases for both types of primary. At 60, the lowest zenith angle considered, the differences in the constant density contours are below 20 $`\%`$ for distances between 300 and 1000 m. We adopt parameters appropriate to proton primaries to give a conservative estimate of the shower energies by comparison with what would be derived from the assumption of gamma ray primaries. By fitting density maps for proton primaries on an event by event basis we thus obtain equivalent proton energies $`E_p`$. For other primaries the energy is related to $`E_p`$ by an energy dependent multiplicative factor which is $``$6 (0.7) for gamma (iron) primaries at $`E_p=10^{19}`$ eV. i.e. a photon would require an energy 6 times that of a proton to produce a given density map.

In addition to the electromagnetic contribution due to muon decay, which is present at all core distances at the $`20\%`$ level for these detectors, the tail of the electromagnetic part of the shower is important at zenith angles below $`70^{}`$ and core distances less than 500 m. This contribution is modeled using AIRES with QGSJET and is radially symmetric in the shower plane. The tail of the electromagnetic part of the shower contributes $`10\%`$ of the total water-Čerenkov signal at 500 m from the core for a $`60^{}`$ shower.

The Haverah Park arrival directions were determined originally using only the 4 central triggering detectors . We have reanalysed the arrival directions of showers having original values of $`\theta `$ $`>56^{}`$, taking into account all detectors which have timing information. This reanalysis produces smaller arrival direction uncertainties. The rate, as a function of zenith angle, obtained with the new zenith angles, is consistent with predictions  showing that the zenith angle reconstruction and the response of the array to inclined showers are well understood.

The curvature of the shower front has been investigated using the AIRES code for inclined showers and found to be consistent with the simple approximation of a spherical front centered on the mean production height of the muons (e.g. at 60 the radius of curvature is 16 km ). Beyond $`80^{}`$ curvature effects are rather small and it is usually sufficient to assume a plane front . When the detected muon number is small there is a systematic effect on the curvature correction and large fluctuations due to limited sampling of the shower front. Therefore, we disregard the timing information from detectors with $`<15`$ detected equivalent muons. Because of the dependence of the curvature fit on the position of the shower core a three step iteration was needed to give convergence of the core location and direction fits.

The detector signals were measured in units of vertical equivalent muons. Using the GEANT based package, WTANK , we find that this unit corresponds to an average number of 14 photoelectrons, consistent with an early experimental estimate of 15 photoelectrons . For inclined showers additional effects, such as direct light on the photomultiplier tubes, delta rays, and pair production and bremsstrahlung by muons inside the tank, increase this number. For a given zenith angle, the recorded signals are converted into the number of photoelectrons and hence the muon density. The simulations take full account of stopping muons and the resulting decay electrons.

The observed densities were fitted against predictions using the maximum likehood method. Poissonian errors, measurement errors and errors due to the uncertainty in detector geometry were included. Some events contain saturated detectors which were accounted for using a gaussian integral for the likelihood function. A three dimensional grid search was made to find the impact point and energy of the shower. The energy was varied in the range $`10^{17}<E_p<10^{21}`$ eV in steps of $`0.1`$ in $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(E_p/\text{eV})`$. The impact point was varied over a grid of 12 km $`\times `$ 6 km in 40 m steps in the perpendicular plane, the grid asymmetry being necessary to accommodate the ellipticity of inclined showers.

The photoelectron distributions from a water detector show long tails due to the processes mentioned above . We therefore expect an excess of upward over downward fluctuations from the average detector signal. For each event the number of deviations $`>`$2.5$`\sigma `$ expected is calculated from the expected photoelectron distributions. We reject signals having (upward or downward) deviations greater than 2.5 $`\sigma `$, recalculating the best fit core after any rejection. Of 211 densities in the events of table I we rejected 13 upward deviations (the expected number was 17) and rejected 4 densities with downward deviations $`>2.5\sigma `$.

Errors in the energy and core determination were determined from the likelihood function as in . In addition to this error, an error in energy arises due to the uncertainty in the zenith angle. The error from the zenith angle determination and the error from the fit for core and energy are added in quadrature to give the total error shown in table I. To guarantee the quality of events the following cuts were made: (i) the distance from the central triggering detector to the core position in the shower plane $`<2`$ km, (ii) $`\chi ^2`$ probability for the energy and direction fits $`>`$ 1 %, (iii) the downward error in the energy determination be less than a factor of 2. For $`>80^{}`$ no showers pass cut (iii).

In figure 1 are density maps for two events. These are plotted in the plane perpendicular to the shower direction together with the contours of densities that best fit the data. In each figure the array is rotated in the shower plane such that the y-axis is aligned with the component of the magnetic field perpendicular to the shower axis. In figure 1b the asymmetry in the density pattern due to the geomagnetic field is apparent. For both events the core is surrounded by recorded densities and is well determined. In table I details are given for 7 events with $`E_p>4\times 10^{19}`$ eV.

The data described above are compared to the result expected from different primaries using an input energy spectrum  and a Monte Carlo calculation. Figure 2 shows the resulting spectra, for three primary compositions, compared to the data. These simulated spectra are somewhat dependent on the high energy interaction model used. The result is shown for the AIRES air-shower code with the QGSJET interaction model. The SIBYLL hadronic interaction model  produces fewer muons than QGSJET (36% less at 1019 eV) resulting in reconstructed energies that are higher by $``$40%. Using spectra from the QGSJET model we find that less than $`30\%`$ of primary cosmic rays above $`10^{19}`$ eV can be iron, at a $`95\%`$ confidence level (assuming a two component mass composition).

The ratio of photons to protons for MSRP models was first given as typically 10 at 1019 eV. However a later model predicts a ratio closer to 2 . On general grounds dominance of photons over protons is expected for these models due to the QCD fragmentation functions of X-particles to mesons and baryons. From figure 2 we deduce that above $`10^{19}`$ eV less than $`30\%`$ of the primary cosmic rays can be photons, with a $`95\%`$ confidence level. Above $`4\times 10^{19}`$ eV less than $`55\%`$ can be photons at the same confidence level. Here we have assumed that downward or upward poissonian fluctuations from the observed integral numbers by 2 standard deviations could be accounted for by appropriate contributions of protons plus gamma rays or protons plus iron nuclei respectively.

These limits set important constraints to TD mechanisms as the origin of the highest energy cosmic rays. We note also that the gamma/proton ratio predicted to arise from proton interactions with the 2.7 K background radiation is $`30\%`$ at $`10^{19}`$ eV when it is assumed that the protons are produced universally with a differential slope of 2 and a maximum energy of $`10^{21}`$ eV . With the Southern Auger Observatory (3000 km2) a ratio as small as $`10\%`$ could be explored at 1019 eV with 3 years of data using this new technique.

Our photon bound is also conservative because we have not taken into account the interactions of the high energy photons in the magnetic field of the earth . This has the effect of converting a single energetic photon into a few lower energy photons. As the total number of muons in a shower initiated by a single photon scales with $`E^{1.2}`$, the number of muons in a shower initiated by a single photon exceeds the total number of muons in the multiple photon showers of lower energy.

Acknowledgements: This work was partly supported by a joint grant from the British Council and the Spanish Ministry of Education (HB1997-0175), by Xunta de Galicia (XUGA-20604A98), by CICYT (AEN99-0589-C02-02) and by PPARC(GR/L40892). We thank J. Lloyd-Evans and F. Halzen for critical readings of the manuscript. We also thank the authors of the AIRES and CORSIKA codes.