text:
# Quasi-one and two-dimensional transitions of gases adsorbed on nanotube bundles

## I Introduction

Much attention has focused recently on the problem of gas adsorption within bundles (“ropes”) of carbon nanotubes . For small atoms and molecules, both the cylindrical spaces within individual tubes and the interstitial channels between tubes are regions of very attractive potential energy for adsorption. Larger molecules experience a similar attraction within the tubes (but not within the interstitial region, unless swelling occurs). In either case, there occurs significant uptake, within these respective regions, at pressures P below saturated vapor pressure P0 (svp). It was noted recently by Williams and Eklund  that finite bundles of carbon nanotubes ought to exhibit additional, significant adsorption on the external surface of the bundles. In the thermodynamic limit of an infinite array, such external adsorption represents a negligible fraction of the total. Typical finite bundles, however, have radius R$`100`$ Å and are expected to manifest significant external adsorption. Indeed, experiments of Talapatra et al.  have been interpreted as providing evidence of such external adsorption in the case of CH4 molecules, Ne and Xe atoms.

In this paper we formulate a simple model of this system with which we explore the phenomenon of external adsorption. We suppose that the nanotube bundle of Fig. 1 is our subject of investigation. This assumption provides us with a normalization factor (essentially a surface/volume ratio) required for a specific prediction of the adsorbate mass per mass of substrate (and nothing more). Any alternative geometry requires a “renormalization” factor, discussed below. Our actual calculations of external adsorption are performed with a simplified abstraction of figure 1. Specifically, the model employs a periodic, planar array of parallel cylinders representing the nanotubes. This planar model should be an adequate approximation to the real situation (tubes at the perimeter of a rope) in an experimental situation for which R greatly exceeds the radius ($``$7 Å) of an individual tube. Our method of evaluating the adsorption is computer simulation, using the grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) method. With this well developed technique we are able to demonstrate the existence of several phase transitions in the film. These include both two-dimensional (2D) transitions (analogous to layering transitions on flat surfaces) and quasi-1D transitions (analogous to ones on similar quasi-1D geometries, such as a surface facet cut close to that of a low index surface).

The outline of this paper is the following. The following section describes our model potential and computational method. Section III describes our results. In section IV, we describe implications for experiments studying such systems.

## II  Method

As in most adsorption studies on graphite or carbon nanotubes, the adsorption potential assumed here is a pairwise sum of two-body interactions $`U(𝐱)`$ between a molecule and the nanotube’s carbon atoms :

$$V(𝐫)=\underset{i}{}U(𝐫𝐑_𝐢)$$
(1)
where r is the position of the molecule and Ri is the position of a C atom. The pair potential is assumed to be isotropic and of Lennard-Jones form: $`U(r)=4ϵ[(\sigma /r)^{12}(\sigma /r)^6]`$. Although we neglect here the effect of anisotropy for adsorption on graphite , the potential considered is suitable for our qualitative study. The LJ parameters for the Ar-C and Kr-C interaction are obtained with semiempirical combining rules from the corresponding LJ parameters : :

$`\sigma _{gC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{gg}+\sigma _{CC}}{2}}`$ (2)
$`ϵ_{gC}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{ϵ_{gg}ϵ_{CC}}`$ (3)
The parameter values used in this study are listed in the Table I.

Another simplifying assumption employed here is the replacement of discrete carbon atoms by a continuous cylindrical sheet of matter; this should not drastically affect the adsorbate’s behavior except when the adjacent tubes are in perfect registry, an unlikely situation. The resulting potential at distance $`r`$ from the nanotube axis, outside of the tube, is :

$$V(r;R)=3\pi \theta ϵ\sigma R\left[\frac{21}{32}\left(\frac{\sigma }{r}\right)^{11}M_{11}(x)\left(\frac{\sigma }{r}\right)^5M_5(x)\right]$$
(4)
where $`\theta =0.38`$ Å2 is the surface density of C atoms and $`R`$ is the radius of the nanotube. We use the integrals

$$M_n(x)=_0^\pi 𝑑\phi \frac{1}{(1+x^22xcos\phi )^{n/2}}.$$
(5)
Finally, the adsorption potential on the external surface of the nanotube bundle is obtained by summing up the interactions of the molecule with all the nanotubes in the bundle.

We perform GCMC simulations of Ar and Kr interacting with the outer wall of a bundle of (10,10) tubes lined up to create a “flat” surface with grooves. In the GCMC simulations, the chemical potential, temperature and volume are held constant while the number of particles varies. This technique is standard and has been described in textbooks , so only the details will be given here. Three kinds of moves are performed: displacement of a molecule, creation of a particle and deletion of a particle. In the original method of Norman and Filinov, these moves were done in equal proportion (33% each). In our simulations however, the percentage of attempted creation and deletions was set at 40% each while 20% of the attempted moves were displacements. This was done because the acceptance rate for displacement moves was typically much higher than the acceptance rates for the creation/deletion moves. By increasing the percentage of attempts, the total number of creations and deletions that are accepted is increased, thus reducing the computation time somewhat. It is still necessary to perform an increased number of moves in the transition regions and in the high density regions to insure good thermodynamic averages. For a single isotherm point typically, $`3\times 10^6`$ moves were performed to equilibrate the system and 106 moves were used for data gathering.

The Ar-Ar and Kr-Kr pair interactions were taken as a 12-6 Lennard-Jones potential. In representing the interaction of the gas with the bundle of nanotubes, only one tube was modeled, with the groove in the center of the simulation cell and the apex of the tube at the periodically replicated boundary. Since the distance between the axis of two neighboring nanotubes is 17 Å, one of the cell boundaries (the x direction) was fixed at this length. The tube length (y-dimension) was set at 10$`\sigma _{gg}`$ and periodic boundary conditions were used in these two dimensions. The height of the simulation box (z-direction) was set at 40 Å where a reflecting surface was used. Figure 2 depicts the adsorption potential for the case of an Ar atom in the unit cell.

In Table II we compare values of the well depth found here with those found for Ne, Ar and Kr atoms in related geometries: the interstitial channel, inside the nanotubes and on the surface of graphite. It is seen that Ne experiences its most attractive potential in the interstitial channels, while the other (larger) atoms find the external groove to be most attractive. In the latter cases, the well is nearly twice as attractive as the well on the graphite surface. This can be understood from the fact that the most favorable position in the groove case corresponds to the optimal distance from each of the contributing tubes and each tube contributes a well depth equal to 85% of that on planar graphite, so that the groove is 70% more attractive than graphite. This situation is similar to recent measurements by Talapatra et al. . Their reported binding energies for Ne, Xe and CH4 adsorbed in closed-ended nanotubes are about 75% larger than on planar graphite.

Simulations of Ar interacting with the bundle surface at temperatures ranging from 30K to 68K were performed. The effect of molecular size was tested by varying the size ($`\sigma `$) of Argon (ranging from 3.6 to 4.0 Å) without varying the interaction strength. These results will be referred to as “artificial Argon”. Also, simulations of the adsorption of Kr on this surface for temperatures ranging from T = 57K to 97K were performed to look at the effect of increased interaction strength.

## III Results

Fig. 3 presents results for the adsorption of Ar at low temperature (less than or of order one-half of the $`ϵ_{ArAr}`$ parameter). None of these results exhibits any evidence of hysteresis. The coverage in this and subsequent figures is expressed in two alternative forms on the ordinate scales. On the left appears a number equal to the number of atoms per unit length of the simulation cell, which is 10$`\sigma _{ArAr}`$=34 Å. For a single line of atoms at close packing, this corresponds to about nine atoms per 1d chain. Our checks show that the simulation results do not differ significantly if we increase this periodicity length. The right scale expresses the coverage in adsorbate moles per gram of carbon. That calculation is carried out by assuming the geometry to be the hexagonal structure of Fig. 1 (which contains Nt=37 nanotubes and Ng =18 grooves on its perimeter). If the bundle size or shape is different, one merely corrects the axis label by multiplying the right scale’s values by a factor (37 Ng)/(18 Nt).

One observes in Fig. 3 that the isotherm at T=30 K consists of a series of plateaus, separated by steps. Each plateau represents a region of stability (over a range of P) of a particular structure, which one observes in the density plots shown in Fig. 4. This behavior is analogous to the stepped isotherms seen in adsorption on flat surfaces, a manifestation of layering transitions on microscopically flat surfaces.

At very low P, significant adsorption occurs only in a “groove” formed along the contact line of two nanotubes. Below the first plateau, this isotherm coincides with that $`\mu _{1d}`$(P,T) predicted for a purely one-dimensional system, with an additive constant V1 due to the potential provided by neighboring nanotubes and a small, slowly varying term $`\delta \mu _T`$ arising from adatom motion transverse to the groove:

$$\mu =V_1+\mu _{1d}(P,T)+\delta \mu _T$$
(6)
$$\beta \delta \mu _T=ln[\lambda ^2/(\pi r^2)].$$
(7)
Here 1/$`\beta `$ = kBT and $`r^2`$ = 2/($`\beta `$ k) is the mean square displacement perpendicular to the channel, expressed in terms of the transverse force constant k, and $`\lambda =\sqrt{(2\pi \beta \mathrm{}^2)/m}`$ is the de Broglie thermal wavelength. The values of V1 and other potential energies at locations of specific 1d lines of atoms are presented in Table III.

Above the plateau associated with saturation (complete filling) of the groove, there occurs a coverage jump near P = 10-14 atm. (at T=30K). This corresponds to the appearance of a well-defined “three-channel” regime, the density of which appears in Fig. 4a. Upon further increasing the pressure by a factor of $``$ 10, the coverage jumps by a factor of two, to a regime in which the surface is covered by a striped monolayer film, seen in Fig. 4b. A further increase in P by a factor of 3,000 results in a transition to a bilayer film, depicted in Fig. 4c. This film grows continuously thereafter, since this is a strongly wetting situation.

The pressures at which these jumps occur can be predicted rather accurately with simple model estimates. For example, the threshold at T=30 K for forming the three-channel state is estimated to be:

$$\mu _3=V_34ϵ_{Ar}+\delta \mu _T=1352K$$
(8)
The factor of four is based on an assumed 4-fold coordination in the “new” pair of channels (beyond the original one), plus an external field V3 contributed by atoms in the original channel of adatoms. The preceding estimate is close to the value found in the simulation ($`\mu _3`$= - 1270 K) for the onset of the three-channel state. Encouraged by this degree of consistency, we estimate the chemical potential threshold for the monolayer, for which there are six channels present:

$$\mu _6=3ϵ_{Ar}+V_6=1155K$$
(9)
Here the factor of three is derived from one-half of the 6-fold coordination. This numerical result is close to that found in the simulation (near P = 10-13 atm, $`\mu _6`$ = - 1040 K).

In Fig. 5 we present the adsorption isotherms for Kr at temperatures ranging from 43K to 97K. In the isotherm at T=43K we find the same transitions than for Ar at 30K. (Notice that the reduced temperatures are the same, i.e. 43K/$`ϵ_{KrKr}`$=30K/$`ϵ_{ArAr}=0.25`$)

One of the interesting features of these isotherms is the role played by size commensuration in determining the monolayer transition on this surface comprised of nanotubes. This effect is analogous to the role played by the molecular diameter in determining the presence, or absence, of epitaxial phases in monolayer phases on planar surfaces. Figure 6 presents isotherms obtained for a set of “artificial Argon” systems; these gases differ from one another in the values of the $`\sigma `$ parameter, as indicated. As a result of this variation, the monolayer transition is seen to change in a discontinuous way. For small values of $`\sigma `$, the monolayer consists of 6 lines of atoms. Above a threshold value, $`\sigma `$=3.8Å, the monolayer consists of only 5 lines of atoms. This behavior is an expected steric effect. It is interesting to see that there exists a transitional value, $`\sigma `$3.6Å , for which ambiguity is present in the isotherm at this monolayer transition (near P=10-9 atm).

The isotherms for Ar and Kr presented earlier both correspond to the small atom case and therefore we find that the monolayer film consists of six parallel lines of atoms. On the basis of the artificial systems reported in Fig. 6, we expect the monolayer of Xe (not studied here) to correspond to five parallel lines.

## IV Discussion

These calculations predict the existence of transitions between unusual phases of matter. The first transition (as a function of P) is that between a one-dimensional fluid within a groove and a set of three parallel lines of fluid. Subsequent transitions occur to a monolayer and bilayer phase. Such transitions are possible due to the interaction between one group (e.g., three lines) of particles and other groups which are present in the system, which is taken to be periodic. The observation that a doubling of the transverse cell dimension does not affect the results significantly suggests that these results are present in the infinite system (as is the case in our recent study of the interstitial phase’s condensation transition ). Of course, one recognizes that the actual system under investigation is not infinite; it is a quasi-cylindrical bundle of (approximately parallel) nanotubes which is quite finite in transverse dimension. Hence one expects a rounding of the vertical jumps shown here. The degree of rounding depends on the deviation from our assumptions. Once that is known, more realistic simulations can be carried out.

This research has been supported by the National Science Foundation’s Focussed Research Group program. We are grateful to Moses Chan, Peter Eklund, John Lewis, Paul Sokol, Bill Steele and Keith Williams for stimulating discussion.

FIG. 1

FIG. 2

FIG. 3

FIG. 4

FIG. 5

FIG. 6


format: text

text:
# Mesoscopic scattering in the half-plane: squeezing conductance through a small hole

## I Introduction

The quantum point contact (QPC) has played a central role in the understanding of mesoscopic conductance. It is the simplest example of a 2DEG system where the quantum coherent nature of the electron controls the bulk transport properties. The Landauer-Büttiker (LB) formalism  reduces the calculation of quantum conductance in the linear response regime to the evaluation of single-particle wavefunction transmission amplitudes. Traditionally, these amplitudes are measured between travelling wave basis states in the ‘leads’. Far from the scattering system the leads have constant profiles of finite-width, and support a finite number of transverse modes (channels). Eventually it is assumed that the leads are impedance-matched (that is, without reflection) into ‘reservoirs’ which act as thermalized sources of electrons at their respective potentials; these potentials are taken to reflect the measured bias voltage. Such theoretical constructs have been remarkably successful at describing transport phenomena, for instance conductance quantization , because the scattering systems involved have generally had good lead-to-reservoir matching.

We consider ‘open’ 2-terminal mesoscopic systems, namely those where a QPC is non-adiabatic (possessing rapid longitudinal variation in transverse profile ) and has short or nonexistent leads (for instance if it suddenly abutts onto the ‘reservoir’ regions), or those where there can be scattering off nearby objects in the ‘reservoir’ region. We call such systems ‘open’ because the fully two-dimensional (2D) nature of the ‘reservoirs’ (i.e. the surrounding semi-infinite regions of free space) is important, and therefore they cannot be modelled using the quasi-1D approach described above. This includes a variety of recent mesoscopic experiments, for example the combination of QPCs with nearby resonator structures  or with a nearby depletion region underneath an AFM tip . It also includes any QPC system where elastic backscattering from disorder in the reservoirs is significant, or generally where the lead-reservoir matching is bad. In such systems, the conventional quasi-1D picture does not apply: the scattering system is not coupled to leads in the usual sense, indeed the distinction between leads and reservoirs is no longer clear . The main aim of the present work is to introduce a 2D scattering theory approach which can handle such systems, and to apply it to the calculation of the maximum conductance of an open resonator structure of experimental relevance.

We imagine a geometry where a 2DEG exists in two semi-infinite half-plane regions, separated by an impenetrable potential barrier which we align with the $`y`$-axis (see Fig. 1a). Our general ‘QPC scattering system’ is any gap in this barrier which allows coupling of the wavefunction on the left and right sides. This gap can be defined by an arbitrary form of the elastic potential, and may include other nearby scattering objects or disorder (which would all be placed within the boxshown in Fig. 1a). The only important limitation is that this coupling region (the ‘system’) be of finite $`y`$ extent, so that electrons which leave the system do so via a well-defined terminal: either the left ($`x<0`$) or the right ($`x>0`$). We also assume that the system size $`L`$ is much smaller than both the dephasing length $`l_\varphi `$ and the momentum relaxation (elastic scattering) length $`l_e`$. The former requirement allows treatment using a coherent wavefunction across the system; the latter allows free-space elastic scattering concepts to be applied. We will stay within the non-interacting quasiparticle picture, consider zero applied magnetic field, and assume spin degeneracy of 2 throughout.

The conventional distinction between ‘reservoir’ and ‘lead’ is no longer applicable, however at short distances outside the system ($`r>L`$ but $`rl_\varphi `$ and $`rl_e`$) the two semi-infinite free space regions behave like leads, since they support scattering-free ‘channels’ (see Section III). At large distances the same regions behave as reservoirs: for $`rl_e`$ ergodicity ensures that the momentum distribution is uniform in angle, and for $`rl_\varphi `$ the energy is redistributed to ensure equilibrium at the relevant (experimentally-measured) chemical potential of each terminal. In the intermediate region, there is a broad cross-over from lead to reservoir.

In this work we first derive a general relation between transmission cross section (a concept we define using scattering in the half-plane) and conductance for this open geometry, in Section II. In Section III we show that partial-wave type states, defined in the half-plane regions, can take the place of transverse lead modes in the Landauer formula. In Section IV we discuss the maximum conductance through an idealized, highly non-adiabatic QPC (a hole in a thin hard wall) which is reached when a resonator is placed on one side of the QPC. We find a universal result, namely a single conductance quantum, regardless how small the hole is. This illuminates the findings of a recent experiment in such an open geometry. In Section V we discuss attempts to exceed this universal quantum of conductance through a single channel. A reciprocity relation for cross section is derived in Section VI, and the possibility of breaking this reciprocity, due to a non-thermal reservoir occupation, is described. We discuss an application to matter-wave ‘conductance’ through a 3D QPC. We conclude in Section VII.

## II Conductance in terms of cross section

We consider scattering of a single-quasiparticle wavefunction from the general 2-terminal system described in the Introduction (see Fig. 1a). The Hamiltonian is $`=(\mathrm{}^2/2m)^2+V(𝐫)`$, for a quasiparticle mass $`m`$. The elastic scattering potential $`V(𝐫)`$ completely defines the system. We imagine a monochromatic unit plane wave $`\psi _\text{I}=e^{i𝐤𝐫}`$ incident from the free-space left-hand region . The wavevector is $`𝐤(k,\varphi )`$ in polar coordinates, $`\varphi `$ being the angle of incidence. The free-space wavevector magnitude is taken as $`k=k_\text{F}`$ (corresponding to a total energy $`E=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$ equal to the Fermi energy), unless stated otherwise.

We are at liberty to choose our definition of the ‘unscattered’ wave $`\psi _\text{0}`$. We take it to be the wavefunction which would result from reflection of the incident wave off a wall uniform in the $`y`$ direction. We can imagine creating such a wall by replacing the ‘system box’ shown in Fig. 1a by the surrounding $`y`$-invariant wall profile. Note that $`\psi _\text{0}`$ exists only on the left side. In the left free-space region it is

$$\psi _\text{0}=e^{i(k_xx+k_yy)}e^{i(k_xx+k_yy+\gamma _𝐤)}$$
(1)
where the first term is $`\psi _\text{I}`$, and the angle-dependent reflection phase $`\gamma _𝐤`$ of the second term depends on both $`(k,\varphi )`$ and the wall profile . Upon introduction of our true system potential, the full wavefunction becomes

$$\psi \psi _\text{0}+\psi _\text{R}+\psi _\text{T},$$
(2)
where the change in reflected wave $`\psi _\text{R}`$ exists only on the left side, and the new transmitted wave $`\psi _\text{T}`$ exists only on the right. These scattered waves have the asymptotic ($`r>L`$ and $`kr1`$) forms of 2D scattering theory ,

$$\psi _\text{R}=f_\text{R}(\theta )\frac{e^{ikr}}{\sqrt{r}},\psi _\text{T}=f_\text{T}(\theta ^{})\frac{e^{ikr}}{\sqrt{r}}.$$
(3)
See Fig. 1a for definitions of $`\theta `$ and $`\theta ^{}`$.

The transmission cross section $`\sigma _\text{T}(k,\varphi )`$ is the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{T}`$, the transmitted particle flux (number per unit time), to $`j_\text{I}`$, the incident particle flux per unit length normal to the incident beam:

$$\sigma _\text{T}(k,\varphi )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{T}}{j_\text{I}}.$$
(4)
Physically, $`\sigma _\text{T}(k,\varphi )`$ is the length required of an aperture oriented normal to the incident beam in order to transmit an equivalent flux of classical particles. (Note that $`\sigma _\text{T}(k,\varphi )`$ is proportional to the injection distribution  which can be measured in mesoscopic systems ). It depends on the incident angle because $`V(𝐫)`$ has no radial symmetry. $`j_\text{I}`$ is the magnitude of the incoming probability flux density vector $`𝐣(\mathrm{}/m)\text{Im}[\psi _\text{I}^{}\mathbf{}\psi _\text{I}]`$, which for a unit wave gives $`j_\text{I}=v`$, the particle speed. The transmitted flux is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{T}𝑑l\widehat{𝐧}𝐣=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}𝑑l\widehat{𝐧}\text{Im}[\psi _\text{T}^{}\mathbf{}\psi _\text{T}],$$
(5)
where the line integral encloses the entire transmitted wave, and the (rightwards-pointing) surface normal is $`\widehat{𝐧}`$. Applying this and (4) to the asymptotic form gives

$$\sigma _\text{T}(k,\varphi )=_{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}𝑑\theta ^{}|f_\text{T}(\theta ^{})|^2,$$
(6)
familiar from scattering theory apart from the restriction to the right half-plane. There is a corresponding form

$$\sigma _\text{R}(k,\varphi )=_{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}𝑑\theta |f_\text{R}(\theta )|^2,$$
(7)
for the reflective cross section (removal from the unscattered wave without being transmitted).

We will calculate the conductance by assuming the chemical potential is slightly higher on the left side than the right, and as is usual consider only the left-to-right transport of the states in this narrow energy range. We take the left region to be a large ($`l_\varphi `$) closed region of area $`A`$ containing single-particle states, and find their decay rate through the QPC into the right side. Semiclassically each single-particle state occupies a phase-space volume $`h^d`$, where we have $`d=2`$. Therefore the phase-space density in the 2DEG Fermi sea is $`2/h^2`$ where the factor of 2 comes from the spin degeneracy. We can project this density onto momentum space in order to find the effective number of plane-wave states impinging on the wall : this corresponds to a uniform density of states in $`𝐤`$-space given by

$$\rho (k,\varphi )kdkd\varphi =\frac{A}{2\pi ^2}kdkd\varphi .$$
(8)
Each state has an amplitude $`A^{1/2}`$ due to the requirement of unity area normalisation in the left region, so has incoming flux density $`j_\text{I}=v/A`$. Substituting this into (4) gives the decay rate of a state $`i`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{T}^{(i)}=\frac{v}{A}\sigma _\text{T}(k_i,\varphi _i).$$
(9)
We can now sum the decay rates of all the left-hand states in a given wavevector range $`k_\text{F}`$ to $`k_\text{F}+\delta k`$, to get the current

$`\delta I=e{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{T}^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ev}{A}}{\displaystyle _{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle _{k_\text{F}}^{k_\text{F}+\delta k}}k𝑑k\rho (k,\varphi )\sigma _\text{T}(k,\varphi )`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{evk_\text{F}\delta k}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}}𝑑\varphi \sigma _\text{T}(k_\text{F},\varphi ),`$ (11)
where the last step incorporated the linear-response assumption that $`\sigma _\text{T}`$ is constant over the range $`\delta k`$.

When a potential difference $`\delta V`$ is applied across the QPC, the energy range carrying current is $`\delta E=e\delta V`$, which we can equate with $`\mathrm{}v\delta k`$ using the dispersion relation. This can be used with (10) to write the conductance

$`G{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta V}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _\text{F}}}{\displaystyle _{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}}𝑑\varphi \sigma _\text{T}(k_\text{F},\varphi )`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\text{F}}{2}}\sigma _\text{T}_\varphi ,`$ (14)
where the particle wavelength is $`\lambda _\text{F}2\pi /k_\text{F}`$. The latter form is written in terms of the angle-averaged cross section at the Fermi energy. The weighting of this average is uniform because of the ergodic assumption that incoming states are uniformly distributed in angle.

Eq.(II) is a key result of this paper (an independent derivation is given by Barnett ). Like the Landauer formula, it directly connects conductance and scattering. In a scattering measurement from the left side, $`\sigma _\text{T}`$ appears to be the QPC’s inelastic cross section (since the transmitted waves never return to this side). In a current measurement the corresponding conductance is given by (II). Our derivation was for temperature $`T=0`$, but it applies at a finite $`T`$ as long as $`\sigma _\text{T}`$ does not change significantly over the energy range $`k_\text{B}T`$. This can be seen by generalizing the above to include integration over the Fermi distribution.

In the limit where a QPC is adiabatic, its conductance is known to be quantized : $`G=(2e^2/h)N`$ where $`N`$ is the integer number of open channels at the Fermi energy. Looking at (13), this corresponds to quantization of the angular integral of the cross section in units of $`\lambda _\text{F}`$.

## III Partial-wave channel modes for a 2-terminal system

In free-space scattering theory, partial waves form a basis in which to decompose the asymptotic ($`r\mathrm{}`$) form of the full wavefunction $`\psi `$ into incoming and outgoing states of definite angular momentum $`l`$. In 2D the basis functions are the cylindrical solutions to the free-space wave equation; the $`S`$-matrix which takes incoming to outgoing waves can then be written in this basis . Because there is only a single set of incoming channels and a single set of outgoing channels, this is equivalent to a scattering system (a ‘stub’) connected to a single ‘lead’, with an infinite number of open channel modes. This contrasts the open two-terminal geometry we study, where we need to account for two new related facts: 1) in the $`r\mathrm{}`$ limit the potential $`V`$ no longer preserves angular-momentum, and 2) there are now distinct ways the particle can enter and exit the system, via different leads.

We define a ‘half-plane partial-wave basis’ as the subset of the cylindrical free-space solutions which go to zero on the entire $`y`$-axis. This gives independent basis functions existing on either the left or right side of the $`y`$-axis. The basis is expressed in terms of Hankel functions on either side

$`\varphi _l^L(kr)`$ $``$ $`H_l^{(2)}(kr)\mathrm{sin}[l(\frac{\pi }{2}\theta )]`$ (15)
$`\varphi _l^{+L}(kr)`$ $``$ $`H_l^{(1)}(kr)\mathrm{sin}[l(\frac{\pi }{2}\theta )]`$ (16)
$`\varphi _l^R(kr)`$ $``$ $`H_l^{(2)}(kr)\mathrm{sin}[l(\frac{\pi }{2}\theta ^{})]`$ (17)
$`\varphi _l^{+R}(kr)`$ $``$ $`H_l^{(1)}(kr)\mathrm{sin}[l(\frac{\pi }{2}\theta ^{})]`$ (18)
where on the left ($`L`$) side $`\theta `$ is the angle from the negative $`x`$-axis and on the right ($`R`$) side $`\theta ^{}`$ is the angle from the positive $`x`$-axis (see Fig. 1a). The channel index is $`l=1,2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, and $`+`$($``$) refers to outgoing (incoming) travelling waves. We note that the s-wave $`l=0`$ is excluded because of the $`y`$-axis barrier, leaving the first channel as the p-wave $`H_1(kr)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$. Assuming the width of the barrier is finite and constant as $`|y|\mathrm{}`$ (see Fig. 1a), then any wavefunction in the $`r\mathrm{}`$ limit can be written as a sum of the above basis functions. The separability of this basis in $`(r,\theta )`$ is directly analogous to the separability of conventional (constant-width) lead basis states  into a product of transverse modes and longitudinal travelling waves.

Our basis (15) is chosen such that unit amplitude coefficients carry equal fluxes in all incoming and outgoing channels, so flux conservation implies the unitarity of the $`S`$-matrix when written in this basis. As with a conventional transverse lead mode basis, the familiar Landauer formula

$$G=\frac{2e^2}{h}\text{Tr}(t^{}t),$$
(19)
holds. The transmission matrix $`t`$ is defined by $`q_l^+=_mt_{lm}p_m^{}`$, where the outgoing (incoming) amplitude coefficients are $`p_l^+`$ ($`p_l^{}`$) on the left and $`q_l^+`$ ($`q_l^{}`$) on the right. Note that is possible to ‘mix and match’ different basis set types (for instance define a transmission matrix between transverse lead modes on the left side and partial-wave modes on the right), as long as equal-flux normalisation, and transverse orthogonality, are preserved.

## IV Point contact coupled to a resonator

Fig. 2 illustrates a QPC-plus-reflector system whose conductance has been experimentally measured . The circular arc reflector and the vertical wall together form a cavity which can support long-lived resonances; the energy of these resonances can be swept by sweeping the reflector gate voltage. The classical condition for stability of the cavity modes is that the arc center must lie at, or to the left of, the wall ($`x=0`$). The cavity modes are coupled to the left terminal via the QPC, and to the right terminal via leakage of the modes out through the cavity top and bottom. The system is interesting because it is ‘open’ in the sense that it has no Coulomb blockade , but ‘closed’ in the sense that the dwell time is much greater than the ballistic time (the resonances are long-lived). It has also been studied recently in our laboratory using microwave measurements .

The actual potential in a mesoscopic experiment differs from the illustration: it has soft walls (on the scale $`1/k_\text{F}`$), it may have deviations from the circle due to lithographic error, and it has modulations of the background potential due to elastic disorder . However, we will not be interested in details of the resonator on the right-hand side. Rather, we will adopt the view of a 2D scattering-theorist ‘looking’ from the left-hand side. In this section we discuss the maximum conductance of this system, when the ‘bare’ QPC (i.e. without the reflector) is in the tunneling regime (conductance $`2e^2/h`$).

We use an idealized slit QPC model (see Fig 1b) in which the potential $`V`$ is zero everywhere except along a hard, thin wall where it is taken as infinite. The QPC is a gap in the wall of size $`2a`$. This model is highly non-adiabatic (see Ref. 17 for a review of its transmission properties). The hard wall simplifies the treatment of the left-hand side scattering problem, and we do not believe it alters our basic conclusion. We consider the ‘unscattered’ wave to be the incident plus reflected wave Eq.(1) when the QPC is closed ($`a=0`$). This we expand in Bessel functions,

$`\psi _\text{0}(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(k_xx+k_yy)}e^{i(k_xx+k_yy)}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`4iJ_1(kr)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )+\text{higher order terms}.`$ (21)
The first term in the expansion is the incoming plus outgoing p-wave, which in the tunneling limit will dominate in our consideration of the absorption .

Now we open the slit, and replace $`2J_1(kr)`$ in the above by $`H_1^{(2)}(kr)+e^{2i\delta }H_1^{(1)}(kr)`$, where $`\delta `$ follows the usual definition of partial-wave phase shift . The closed slit corresponds to $`\delta =0`$. An open slit leading into a closed resonator (imagine extending the arc in Fig. 2 to seal off the entire right side), in the case of infinite dephasing length, corresponds to $`\delta =`$ real, and would appear from the left side as an elastic dipole scatterer. An open slit with an open resonator corresponds to complex $`\delta `$ with positive imaginary part, and would appear as a general inelastic dipole scatterer. Therefore transmission though the QPC appears, to an observer on the left side, to be absorption of incident waves. $`\sigma _\text{T}`$ is interpreted as an ‘inelastic’ cross section (since exiting the right-hand terminal is equivalent to leaving in a new channel), and $`\sigma _\text{R}`$ as an ‘elastic’ one. $`\sigma _\text{T}(k,\varphi )`$ can be found from integrating the net incoming flux \[as in Eq.(5)\] of the total wavefunction on the left side. Substitution into (4) then gives $`\sigma _\text{T}(k,\varphi )=\frac{4}{k}(1|e^{2i\delta }|^2)\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi )`$ . For $`\delta i\mathrm{}`$ the maximal cross section is reached,

$$\sigma _{\text{T,max}}(k,\varphi )=\frac{4}{k}\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi ).$$
(22)
This corresponds to an effective classical ‘area’ (size) $`a_{\text{eff}}=\lambda _\text{F}/2`$. This is analogous to the fact that in 3D the effective area of an arbitrarily-small electromagnetic dipole aerial can be of order $`\lambda ^2`$. To an observer on the left side who was able to ‘see’ the electron waves living in the energy range $`e\delta V`$ responsible for conductance, the QPC would stand out as a ‘black dot’ of size $`\lambda _\text{F}`$ against the surrounding uniform ‘grey’ thermal luminosity reflected in the vertical wall mirror.

The associated maximum conductance is found easily using (22) and (II) to be

$$G_{\text{max}}=\frac{2e^2}{\mathrm{}},$$
(23)
the universal quantum of conductance (for 2 spin channels), independent of the size of the QPC hole, even for an arbitrarily small hole ($`ka0`$). This universal resonant-tunelling maximum conductance was first found numerically ; however our system differs from those of Xue et al.  and Kalmeyer et al.  because the resonance does not involve transmission though an isolated (zero-dimensional) quantum dot. The dramatic increase over the conductance of the bare QPC (which vanishes as $`(ka)^4`$, see Ref. ) runs counter to the naive classical expectation, namely that the reflector would decrease the left-to-right flow of electrons because it sends back into the QPC particles which would otherwise exit to the right.

How do we know that it is possible to build a resonant geometry which corresponds to $`\delta i\mathrm{}`$? The reflector can be described by $`r`$, the amplitude with which it returns an outgoing p-wave back to the QPC as an incoming p-wave. If $`|r|^2=1|t_{11}|^2`$, where the p-wave transmission of the QPC is $`t_{11}`$ as defined in Section III, then the p-wave channel becomes a 1D Fabry-Perot resonator with mirrors of matched reflectivity. Sweeping the round-trip phase then produces peaks of complete transmission (corresponding to complete p-wave absorption on the left side). The ratio of peak separation to peak width is the quality factor $`Q1/|t_{11}|^2`$. Such peaks, with heights much greater than the bare tunneling QPC conductance, were observed in the experiments of Katine et al.. However, Eq.(23) has not yet been tested quantitatively because of the difficulty of matching the Fabry-Perot reflectivities in a real 2DEG experiment. Note that the maximum conductance (23) also follows immediately from the Landauer formula when we realize that there can be complete transmission of the incoming $`l=1`$ channel state (from Section III).

An interesting possibility arises when we realize  that higher $`l`$ channels are still slightly transmitted by the bare QPC, when $`ka1`$, even though they are increasingly evanescent. If the resonator has a high enough reflectivity for these modes, then additional Fabry-Perot conductance peaks will be produced . The peaks may be extremely narrow, but can carry a full quantum of conductance because they can transmit another incoming $`l`$ channel. By careful arrangement of the cavity, one or more of these peaks could be brought into conjunction with an already-existing $`l=1`$ peak at the Fermi energy. (For instance, the $`l=1`$ and $`l=2`$ resonances are in different symmetry classes in Fig. 2 so there can be an exact level crossing). Therefore, we have the surprising result that, in theory, a conductance of $`(2e^2/h)n`$ can pass through an arbitrarily small QPC hole if $`n`$ resonances (from $`n`$ different channels) coincide at the Fermi energy. However, due to their extremely small width, such large conductance peaks are unlikely to be observable in a real mesoscopic tunneling QPC due to finite dephasing length and finite-temperature smearing .

Finally, we should not overlook the fact that our expressions for partial cross sections are a factor of 4 greater than those conventionally arising in 2D scattering theory from a radial potential , because we are measuring cross section on the reflective boundary of a semi-infinite half plane. For instance, the maximum inelastic partial cross section for a single channel in free space  is $`\sigma _r=1/k`$, compared to our maximum ‘inelastic’ cross section per channel Eq.(22). Similarly, the maximum elastic result in free space is $`\sigma _e=4/k`$, compared to our maximum (normal-incidence) ‘elastic’ cross section per channel $`\sigma _{\text{R,max}}=16/k`$. This latter case occurs when $`\delta =(\text{integer}+\frac{1}{2})\pi `$.

## V What is the maximum conductance of a single quantum channel?

The surprising theoretical results of the previous section might lead one to question the conductance limit $`2e^2/h`$ for a single quantum channel (by which we mean a single transverse mode for which the longitudinal degree of freedom is a 1D Fermi gas; this includes both conventional and partial-wave basis sets). For this gedanken-experiment we will consider conventional electron waveguides which are single-mode and long enough that evanescent waves are negligible, but which are also $`l_\varphi `$. We try to encourage more current to pass down a single-mode channel (E) by connecting it to a reservoir via multiple routes (A,B,C,D), as shown in Fig 3a, where two routes are used on each side. It is possible to match the junctions so that a wave entering down A,B,C, or D has no reflection back along the same lead. In this case we might guess that the hypothetical left-side observer (from the previous section) would see the single-mode entrances to guides A and B as two ‘black dots’, giving twice the effective absorption cross section, and therefore infer a conductance of twice $`2e^2/h`$. We might also justify this by saying that waves travelling down A and B will meet and continue down E, and since they have no particular phase relation, their currents will add to give a doubled current through E, as would be necessary.

However there is a fundamental flaw in the above reasoning. The ABE junction can be designed so that if waves come down A and B in phase, they will be adiabatically transformed into the lowest transverse mode of E, so will propagate through to the right side without reflection, carrying a current of twice that of a usual single-mode guide. However, if A and B are $`\pi `$ out of phase, the same adiabatic transformation must result in the second transverse mode, which is evanescent. So this latter wave will reflect perfectly back out of the left side, and carry no current. Plane waves are impinging from the left reservoir uniformly over all angles, and because of the $`>\lambda `$ separation of the entrances, an average over angles gives an average over relative phase in A and B. Thus we are left with no increase above the single channel conductance. This property of the ABE junction is not merely practical; rather, it is easy to show that its $`3\times 3`$ $`S`$-matrix cannot be unitary if a junction is to couple both A$``$E and B$``$E with unity transmissions. Such an appealing junction is therefore ruled out on the grounds of flux conservation. A consequence is that the entrances to A and B can at most appear ‘half black’ to the observer, due to waves which enter A then exit B and vice versa.

This suggests another way to try and defeat the conductance limit: direct the incoming plane waves in a narrow enough angular distribution so that waves always come down A and B in phase, and this will double the conductance. (This is similar to experiments  where the series resistance of two QPCs was found to be less than the sum of the individual QPC resistances, because collimation at the exit of the first QPC illuminated the second with a narrow beam, increasing its conductance). However, this beam is no longer a thermal occupation of incoming states. This illustrates the inextricable link between thermal Fermi occupation of reservoir states and the universal quantum of conductance. At $`T=0`$, thermal occupation at a given chemical potential difference implies that all quantum states lying in the appropriate energy range are filled in the left reservoir and empty in the right. Semiclassically, this corresponds to a uniform distribution in phase space, or when projected into momentum states, uniform in angle, as exemplified by Eq.(II). The semiclassical viewpoint allows one to see that since transformations in phase space cannot change the phase space density (Liouville’s theorem), neither can the universal conductance per quantum channel be changed. This reminds us that unitarity in quantum mechanics is analogous to Liouville’s theorem in classical mechanics.

## VI Reciprocity and ‘conductance’ of atom waves

We can ask if the conductance (II) computed using transmission of left-side reservoir plane wave states through the QPC is equal to that using right-side reservoir states. Since the two directions correspond to opposite signs of $`\delta V`$, then in order to have linear response (well-defined constant $`G`$ around $`\delta V=0`$) we would hope that they are equal. That the angular average of transmission cross section is equal from the left and right sides is not immediately apparent in a general asymmetric system. For instance, consider Fig. 3b which has a small acceptance angle from the left but a large from the right, therefore very different forms of the transmission cross sections $`\sigma _\text{T}^{\text{L}\text{R}}(k,\varphi )`$ and $`\sigma _\text{T}^{\text{R}\text{L}}(k,\varphi )`$.

If we assume classical motion then we can imagine a map from a Poincaré Section (PS) $`(y,p_y)`$ at a vertical slice at $`x=x_0`$ to another PS $`(y^{},p_y^{})`$ at $`x=+x_0`$. At each PS we consider only rightwards-moving ($`p_x>0`$) particles, and take $`x_0>L`$. A certain area of phase space $`(y,p_y)`$ is transmitted and is mapped to an equal area  in phase space $`(y^{},p_y^{})`$. Time-reversal invariance holds since we consider magnetic field $`B=0`$, so we can negate the momenta (now considering $`p_x<0`$) and find that the same phase space area is transmitted right-to-left. When it is realised that the angle-averaged cross section is proportional to the transmitted phase space area on a PS, then the symmetry of the angle-averaged classical cross sections follows.

The same symmetry is not obvious for quantum cross sections, but it also holds true. Comparing (13) with (19) gives

$$_{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}𝑑\varphi \sigma _\text{T}^{\text{L}\text{}\text{R}}(k_\text{F},\varphi )=\lambda _\text{F}\text{Tr}(t^{}t),$$
(24)
where $`t`$ is measured from left to right states. It is instructive to derive this directly . This relation ties together the cross section and Landauer views of conductance. Time-reversal invariance and flux conservation together imply  that $`\text{Tr}(t^{}t)`$ is unchanged by swapping the labelling of the leads , thus we immediately have from (24) the reciprocity of angle-integrated quantum cross section

$$_{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}𝑑\varphi \sigma _\text{T}^{\text{L}\text{}\text{R}}(k,\varphi )=_{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}𝑑\varphi \sigma _\text{T}^{\text{R}\text{}\text{L}}(k,\varphi ).$$
(25)
So in Fig. 3b is it now clear that the ratio of acceptance angles must be balanced by the ratio of effective areas.

We now discuss a case in which non-thermal occupation of incoming states is possible: the rapidly developing field of coherent matter-wave optics, in which potentials are defined by microfabricated structures . There is a recent proposal  for observation of quantization of atomic flux through a micron-sized 3D QPC defined by the Zeeman effect potential of a magnetic field. The device is illuminated by a beam of atoms passing through a vacuum, whose angular distribution is an experimental parameter (for instance, a collimated oven source or a dropped cloud of cold atoms ). The atomic flux transmitted (per unit $`k`$, at wavevector $`k`$) will be $`F(k)=G_{\text{atom}}(k)J_\text{0}(k)`$ where $`J_\text{0}(k)`$ is the flux incident per unit wall area, and we define the atomic ‘conductance’ by

$$G_{\text{atom}}(k)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }w(k,\mathrm{\Omega })\sigma _\text{T}(k,\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(26)
As before, the quantum transmission cross section is $`\sigma _\text{T}(k,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, but now there is a weighting function $`w(k,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ which defines the angular distribution of the incident beam . The weight has the normalization $`𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }w(k,\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=1`$. \[All integrals over solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta ,\varphi )`$ are over a range of $`2\pi `$ appropriate for the half-sphere\]. Following the analogy of Thywissen, $`F(k)`$ plays the role of current, $`J_\text{0}(k)`$ that of bias voltage. However, the name ‘conductance’ does not imply any definite chemical potential difference as in the 2DEG case. For classical particles, the ‘conductance’ of an aperture of area $`A_{\text{eff}}`$ in a thin wall is simply $`G_{\text{atom}}(k)=A_{\text{eff}}`$, regardless of the incident angular distribution. Thus $`G_{\text{atom}}(k)`$ gives the effective area $`A_{\text{eff}}`$ of a QPC, in an analogous fashion to $`a_{\text{eff}}`$ in 2D.

For an integer number of quantum channels, the 2D quantization of $`a_{\text{eff}}`$ in units of $`\lambda /2`$ becomes in 3D the quantization of $`A_{\text{eff}}`$ in units of $`\lambda ^2/\pi `$, a result well known from work on 3D metallic point contacts. As stated by Thywissen, this accurate flux quantization requires the incident beam width to be much larger than the QPC acceptance angle.

Eq.(26) is the matter-wave equivalent of Eq.(13), with the important difference that it has a general weight function. Possible non-uniformity of this weight function leads to a key result: that asymmetry of the conductance is possible given identical illumination on either side, even though the (center of mass) motion is time-reversal invariant. For example, if the incident flux used to illuminate the horn QPC of Fig. 3b is narrow in angular spread, then the left-to-right conductance will be much larger than the right-to-left conductance. This contrasts with the 2DEG case where the conductance is always symmetric.

Finally, it is interesting to note that for the non-thermal incident (reservoir) distributions discussed above, the Landauer formula takes the modified form

$$G\text{Tr}(t^{}t\rho )$$
(27)
where $`\rho `$ is the density matrix of the incident beam.

## VII Conclusions

Quantum scattering theory in the 2D half-plane can provide an alternative description of the mesoscopic conductance of non-interacting particles. It is especially useful in ‘open’ systems (e.g. those with nearby scatterers in the reservoir regions) where the usual transverse-channel approach is inappropriate. We have considered elastic potentials in zero magnetic field, in linear response in the low temperature limit. Conductance is proportional to the transmission cross section integrated over all incident angles, Eq.(II). We also define a half-plane partial-wave basis applicable with the usual Landauer formula, and relate this to our transmission cross section result. A difference between this and previous work is the ability to treat a direct ‘leadless’ connection to the reservoir.

Using the example of a slit QPC combined with an open cavity structure, we show that an arbitrarily small QPC can carry up to a single quantum of conductance via resonant tunnelling (equal to the limit in the closed-dot resonant tunnelling case). This requires a resonance at the Fermi energy. If $`n`$ coincident resonances occur for different incoming channels, then $`n`$ conductance quanta can in theory be achieved through this same tunneling QPC, a result which we believe has not been noted until now.

We emphasize that conductance is proportional to phase-space density of the reservoir states. Therefore the universal quantum of conductance $`e^2/h`$ per spin in Fermi gas systems is a direct result of the uniform phase-space density (angular distribution) in a thermal occupation of the Fermi sea. This insight is supported by discussion of attempts to exceed this universal value. When the reservoir occupation differs from thermal, the conductance formula requires generalization: an angle-dependent weight is included in the cross section integral (26); equivalently for 2DEG systems the Landauer formula requires inclusion of the incoming ensemble (27). This result, and our approach in general, is relevant to the emerging field of matter-wave conductance by microfabricated structures (for instance, a quantum point contact in 3D), under general illumination by atom waves. We hope this work provides new tools for the study of coherent electron and matter-wave systems.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Adam Lupu-Sax for his early contributions to this work, also J. Thywissen, C. Marcus and D. Fisher for stimulating discussions. We also thank our referees for alerting us to additional references. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (USA) on grant no. CHE-9610501, ITAMP (at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard Physics Department), and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).


text:
# NEW REGIME FOR DENSE STRING NETWORKS11footnote 1 Talk presented at COSMO99, Trieste,27 Sept. -2 October 1999, based on work done in collaboration with M. Nagasawa and V.Soni

## 1 Introduction

Topological strings are an inevitable consequence of symmetry breaking phase transitions when the first homotopy group of the vacuum manifold is non trivial. They can trap gauge flux and could have have important consequences for the structure of the present day universe.

Most research has focussed on strings formed at temperatures above GUT scales (which are relevant for galaxy formation. Recently mechanisms for baryogenisis, neutralino production etc based on dense string networks formed in second order phase transitions at scales far below the GUT scale have also been proposed. Such networks would be friction dominated till very low teperatures $`t_{}(M_P/T_c)^2t_c`$ . An estimate of how the network correlation length $`L`$ evolves between is a critical input for such models.

Due to Everett and Aharanov-Bohm scattering a string with velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ relative to the ambient plasma feels a velocity dependent frictional force characterized by a lengthscale $`l_f=\eta ^2/\beta T^3`$ ($`\beta `$ is a numerical parameter $`10^21`$). String curvature causes continual motion so energy conservation implies loss of string length due to frictional damping . For non-GUT strings this is the dominant cause of dissipation of string length over much of the network’s history. Thus any damped network evolution model must account for the average string velocity $`v`$ . Such a simple one scale model which tracks both $`L`$ and $`v`$ was given by Martins and Shellard(MS). Their equations read :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dL}{dt}}=`$ $`HL(1+v^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{Lv^2}{2l_f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{cv}{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{dt}}=`$ $`(1v^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k}{L}}v\left(2H+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_f}}\right)\right],`$ (1)
where $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter, $`k`$ characterizes the “wiggliness” and c the self intersection or “chopping” rate. $`k`$ is $`1`$ in the frictional era but smaller at the late times of the linear scaling regime when the strings are undamped and therefore kinky . For dense networks reconnection of loops back may be important leading to a lower effective value of $`c`$ but geometrical estimates give $`c1`$.

It is important that $`l_f(t_c)\eta ^1<<t_cM_P/\eta ^2`$ when ($`\eta <<M_P`$). Thus a short interval of cosmic time is very long in units of the frictional length scale. This simple observation is at the root of the new regime proposed in this paper.

In the MS model the network curvature radius $`RL`$. So the curvature force is never zero which forces the string to move and dissipate its rest energy . One may visualize the growth of $`L`$ and $`R`$ as being due to the decaying away of curved and looped regions with high curvature leaving behind a network with less string (larger $`L`$) and lower curvature (larger $`R`$).

Clearly the initial correlation length $`L_i`$ must obey $`\eta ^1<L_i<t_i\sigma /\eta `$ where $`\sigma M_P/\eta `$. These limits correspond to those expected in a second and first order transition respectively, while on energetic grounds one expects $`v_i1`$.

The Kibble mechanism predicts $`ϵ_K`$ string lengths of size $`1/T_c`$ are formed in each correlation volume $`T_c^3`$ (where $`ϵ_K10^110^3`$) so $`L_iϵ_K^{1/2}/T_c`$.

MS consider only the range $`\sqrt{\sigma }/\eta <L_i<\sigma /\eta `$ corresponding to initially non-dense networks. They found that the phase transition is followed by

i) Stretching Regime: it occurs only when $`L_i>\sqrt{\sigma }/\eta `$ . As $`L_i\sqrt{\sigma }/\eta `$ the duration of the stretching regime goes to zero. $`L,v`$ scale as :

$$L_S=L_i(\frac{t}{t_c})^{1/2}v_S=\frac{t}{\sigma L_i}$$
(2)
ii) The Kibble Regime follows the stretching regime . It is a terminal velocity regime arising from the balance of the frictional and curvature forces.

$$L_K=\left(\frac{2k(k+c)}{3\sigma }\right)^{1/2}\left(t\right)^{5/4}t_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4};v_K=\left(\frac{3k}{2(k+c)\sigma }\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{t}{t_c}\right)^{1/4}$$
(3)
The Kibble regime begins at $`t_KL_i^{4/3}M_P^{1/3}`$, i.e earlier lor lower $`L_i`$. Since $`t_Kt_c`$ for consistency it appears as if $`L_i\sqrt{\sigma }/\eta `$ necessarily ! Now $`L_K(t_c)\sqrt{\sigma }/\eta `$ while a second order phase transition predicts $`L_i1/\eta `$. There is a wide mismatch between the two values so it appears the MS model leads one to the contradictory conclusion that although the Kibble regime begins immediately after the phase transition yet its density must necessarily be much lower than that predicted by the Kibble mechanism . A similar mismatch holds for $`v`$ .

The resolution lies in the observation that $`l_f(t_c)<<t_c`$. The correct time scale to use when $`tt_c`$ is $`l_f1/\eta `$ not $`t_c`$. Consider then the evolution of $`L`$ and $`v`$ in the period immediately following the phase transition i.e when $`\widehat{t}=tt_c^{}<<t_c^{}`$ , where $`t_c^{}10t_c`$ (say). The precise value of $`t_c^{}t_c`$ (at which the evolution of the one scale model is taken to begin) is unimportant as can be checked by varying $`t_c^{}`$ by a factor of $`10`$. We define a dimensionless time $`x=\eta \widehat{t}`$ and network scale $`l=\eta L`$. Note that this amounts to measuring time in units of the damping time scale and and avoids the introduction of large numbers in the evolution equations which result if one uses $`t_c`$ as the unit of time. Then the condition $`\widehat{t}=tt_c^{}<<t_c`$ translates to $`x<<\sigma `$. Even for GUT scale strings $`\sigma `$ is $`10^4`$ so the variable $`x`$ can change by many orders of magnitude before the approximation becomes invalid. Expanding the terms in the evolution equation around $`t_c^{}`$ one finds that as long as $`l<\sigma ^{1/2}`$ and $`v>\sigma ^{1/2}`$ the Hubble term is completely dominated by the velocity dependent terms. To leading order we have

$$2\frac{dl}{dx}=lv^2\beta +cv;\frac{dv}{dx}=(1v^2)\left(\frac{k}{l}v\beta \right).$$
(4)
We must find the behaviour of $`l`$ and $`v`$ for large $`x`$ beginning from natural initial conditions (Kibble Mechanism) where $`l_i1`$ . $`l`$ always increases while $`v`$ will increase when $`kv\beta l`$ and vice versa. Regardless of of $`v_i`$ the evolution locks on to a trajectory where $`v`$ is very closely approximated by $`k/\beta l`$. Then for $`\sigma >>x>>1`$ one gets

$$l=\left(\frac{(k+c)k}{\beta }\right)^{1/2}x^{1/2};v=\left(\frac{k}{\beta (k+c)}\right)^{1/2}x^{1/2}.$$
(5)
This regime persists until the growth of the Hubble term and the decrease of the velocity dependent term makes them comparable i.e till $`x10^1\sigma `$ (for typical values of $`k,c`$) by when $`tt_c^{}+.1t_c`$. After this the effect of the Hubble terms causes a shift in the power-law exponents and the Kibble regime regime begins. Our new regime makes it possible to extend the applicability of the MS model into the regime of initially dense networks where it appeared to give a contradiction. When it ends one has $`L\sqrt{\sigma }\eta ^1,v\sigma ^{1/2}`$, which are just right to match the Kibble regime beginning at $`tt_c^{}`$.

The most remarkable feature of this regime is thus that the values of $`L`$ and $`v`$ very shortly after the phase transition are essentially independent of their initial values. This is in sharp contrast to the “stretching regime ” $`LL_i(t/t_c)^{1/2},vt(L_i\sigma )^1`$ found for initial conditions $`L_i>\sigma ^{1/2}/\eta `$.

The Lyapunov exponents obtained by linearizing the eqns. (4) around the solutions eqns. (5) are$`c/2(k+c)x,\beta `$ i.e negative so that our regime is an attractor as $`x`$ increases. We have also verified the above asymptotic analysis given by numerical integration. For large $`x`$ the asymptotic solutions given in eqn.(5) are in excellent agreement with the results of numerical integration of eqns.(4) irrespective of whether the initial velocities are relativistic or very small.

Similar conclusions hold for string length in loops at the time of formation or that in loops that form by self-intersection. However superconducting loops (vortons) may evade the effects of curvature driven damping since the supercurrent on vortons can stabilize their radius.

To summarize : The one scale model with friction and velocity evolution leads to a consistent picture of network evolution during the entire friction dominated era. It predicts that the dense, fast network formed in a second order phase transition crosses over into a sparse slow network in a time $`.1t_c`$.  Thus mechanisms that rely on the high density of string length predicted by the Kibble mechanism are unlikely to work unless string loops are stabilized against curvature driven contraction, e.g by superconducting currents. Our analysis shows that friction can be a very important mechanism for string decay. Further analysis of the microscopic mechanism of frictional conversion of the coherent string condensate into plasma energy is required.

## References


text:
# Particle Densities in Heavy Ion Collisions at High Energy and the Dual String Model

## Acknowledgements

We thank X.-N. Wang and U. Heinz for comments on recent work. R.U. gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Funda o Ci ncia e Tecnologia via the “Sub-Programa Ciência e Tecnologia do $`2^o`$ Quadro Comunitário de Apoio.”

## References