text:
# Theoretical study of the decay-out spin of superdeformed bands in the Dy and Hg regions

## 1 MODEL OF THE DECAY OF SUPERDEFORMED BANDS

Decay of superdeformed (SD) rotational bands out to normal deformed (ND) states is one of the most interesting nuclear structure problems. It can be viewed as a shape-coexistence phenomena, and the mixing mechanism of two states having very different internal structures can be studied as functions of angular momenta and excitation energies. Using the compound mixing model , we have investigated the decay-out phenomena in , where a consistent description was presented and the rapid decay-out was well understood. After the calculation of , more systematic and improved calculations have been performed , in which all the relevant quantities to the decay-out have been calculated without any adjustable parameters. We have found, however, it is rather difficult to reproduce the decay-out spin for individual SD bands (cf. Figs. 12).

The basic idea of our framework  is based on a simple two-well-mixing: The two groups of unperturbed states belonging to wells, I (e.g. ND) and II (e.g. SD), are separated by a potential barrier in some collective coordinate space (e.g. deformations). The most important is the (mean) coupling strength between the two, and is estimated as

$$v_{\mathrm{II}\text{-}\mathrm{I}}^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{I}/2\pi )(\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{II}}/2\pi )T_{\mathrm{II}\text{-}\mathrm{I}},\hfill & (\text{regular-regular}),(\text{1a})\hfill \\ (D_\mathrm{I}/2\pi )(\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{II}}/2\pi )T_{\mathrm{II}\text{-}\mathrm{I}},\hfill & (\text{chaos-regular}),(\text{1b})\hfill \\ (D_\mathrm{I}/2\pi )(D_{\mathrm{II}}/2\pi )T_{\mathrm{II}\text{-}\mathrm{I}},\hfill & (\text{chaos-chaos}),(\text{1c})\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\omega _{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II}}`$ is the frequency of each well, $`D_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II}}=1/\rho _{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II}}`$ is the mean level distance, and $`T_{\mathrm{II}\text{-}\mathrm{I}}=(1+\mathrm{exp}2S_{\mathrm{II}\text{-}\mathrm{I}})^1`$ is the transmission coefficient of the tunneling process between the wells with the least action $`S_{\mathrm{II}\text{-}\mathrm{I}}`$. Depending on the situation of states in each well, one of three cases should be chosen in Eq. (1): An example of (1a) is the decay of high-$`K`$ isomers , in which severe breakdown of $`K`$-hindrance has been observed recently. The present problem of decay-out of near-yrast SD bands corresponds to (1b), where the ND states are compound states and described by the GOE model . In higher energies thermally excited SD bands are rotationally damped , and (1c) may be most appropriate for the decay-out of such SD continuum states .

In the present case, the relative intensity of $`\gamma `$-rays inside the SD band, which is calculated by the total decay-out probability $`N_{\mathrm{out}}(I)`$ at spin $`I`$, is almost the only observable and will be discussed in the followings. According to , $`N_{\mathrm{out}}`$ is determined by combinations, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{t}/D_\mathrm{n}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}`$, of four quantities; the spreading width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{t}`$=$`2\pi v_{\mathrm{s}\text{-}\mathrm{n}}^2/D_\mathrm{n}`$ due to the coupling (1), the level density $`1/D_\mathrm{n}`$ of the ND compound states, and the $`\gamma `$-decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}`$ of the SD and ND bands, respectively, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}`$ is of rotational E2, while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}`$ is mainly of statistical E1 (see  for details). It is worth mentioning that the model of  for $`N_{\mathrm{out}}`$ was re-examined by means of a statistical model of compound nucleus , and both models were found to give identical results for actual range of four parameters being relevant to decay of both the $`A150`$ and 190 SD nuclei.

In this talk, we present the result of systematic calculations for the relative $`\gamma `$-ray intensity as a function of angular momentum in comparison with experimental data. We also discuss how the decay-out spin is understood from the calculations. Possible directions for improvements of the theoretical framework are suggested further.

## 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Quantities to be calculated are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{t}`$, $`D_\mathrm{n}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}`$ as functions of spin. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}`$ is the usual rotational E2 width, while the level density and the statistical E1 width are given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{FG}}(U)=(\sqrt{\pi }/48)a^{\frac{1}{4}}U^{\frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{exp}2\sqrt{aU},\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}^{\mathrm{E1}}=0.15\times 2.3\times 10^{11}NZA^{1/3}(U/a)^{5/2},$$
(2)
in unit of MeV, where $`U`$ is excitation energy of the SD band from the ND yrast state, and $`a`$ parameter is taken from an empirical analysis of  including the shell and temperature effects. The decay-out spin $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ in the $`A190`$ region is generally low so that the back-shift is used for $`A190`$ nuclei, i.e. $`U`$ is replaced by $`U1`$ MeV in $`\rho _{\mathrm{FG}}`$, throughout the present investigation. As for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{t}`$, the least action path in the $`(ϵ_2,\gamma )`$-plane is solved and the frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{s}`$ and the action $`S_{\mathrm{s}\text{-}\mathrm{n}}`$ along it are calculated. Therefore all what we need are excitation energies of both SD and ND rotational bands, their quadrupole moments, and the potential energy surface and the mass tensor. We have used the Nilsson-Strutinsky calculation for potential with the pairing correlations included in the RPA order, and the pairing hopping model for mass tensor ; see  for the detailed formulation.

In Figs. 1 and 2 the results of calculation for relative intensities are shown, where those for the lowest band in each parity and signature (four bands) are included in one nucleus. The basic characteristics of intensity pattern are reproduced in both the $`A150`$ and 190 regions; especially the rapid decrease of transitions at lower spins. Apparently, however, the decay-out spin does not agree precisely, and the detailed features, like the relative ordering of decay-out for excited bands in one nucleus, or relative difference of neighbouring nuclei, are not well described. Comparing Figs. 1 and 2, decay-out spins are rather well reproduced on average for the $`A150`$ nuclei, while the calculated $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$’s are still higher than the observed ones for the $`A190`$ nuclei, even though the back-shift is used for them. Although there are some cases where the yrast SD band decays at higher spin than the excited ones in Figs. 1 and 2, it is because the energy ordering is determined in the feeding-spin region; the ‘real’ yrast band survives longest in most cases.

As is shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the decay-out spin is not precisely reproduced in individual cases: What are the reasons? Possible sources of ambiguity in our model may be the level density and the mass tensor; we believe that the potential energy surface by the Nilsson-Strutinsky method is reliable. As for the change of the level density  it was found that, for example, a factor about $`10^1`$ is enough to fit $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ in 152Dy, while factor $`10^310^4`$ is required for 192Hg; the latter may be out of the range of allowed ambiguity. The mass tensor is calculated by using the Fermi-gas estimate of the number of level-crossings , and detailed properties of individual nucleus is not included. Therefore, we try to use a mass tensor multiplied by a scaling factor $`C_{\mathrm{mass}}`$ and adjust it so as to fit $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$. Resultant intensities for four selected nuclei are shown in Fig. 3, and the values of $`C_{\mathrm{mass}}`$ and of various quantities at $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ are summarized in Table 1. Again, the correction factor $`C_{\mathrm{mass}}`$ for $`A150`$ nucleus is rather small but is considerably larger for $`A190`$ nucleus.

In order to see how the decay-out spin is determined by the four relevant quantities, we note that $`N_{\mathrm{out}}\sqrt{(\pi /2)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{t}/D_\mathrm{n})/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n})}`$ holds in realistic situations . Two quantities, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{t}/D_\mathrm{n}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}`$, are plotted as functions of spin in Fig. 5. $`N_{\mathrm{out}}`$ takes appreciable value when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{t}/D_\mathrm{n}>\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}`$, i.e. two curves crosses in Fig. 5, and $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ is roughly determined by their crossing point. Moreover, the decay-out occurs more rapidly as the crossing angle between the two curves gets larger. $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n})`$ decreases more rapidly in the low-spin region because of the $`E_\gamma ^5`$ behaviour of the rotational E2 transitions of SD bands, and therefore the decay-out tends to be more rapid when $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ is lower; this behaviour is well observed in Figs. 1 and 2. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}`$ takes similar values for SD bands within the $`A150`$ or 190 region, while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{t}/D_\mathrm{n}`$ takes variety of values mainly due to the tunneling probability, which reflects the different potential landscapes depending on configurations and nuclei. This is the main reason why the range of calculated $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ spreads rather broadly in contradiction to experimentally observed trend. In contrast, observed hindrance factors for the decay of $`K`$-isomers take broad range of values in accordance with the results of similar calculations of tunneling . The observed trend that $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ falls in a rather narrow range in both the $`A150`$ and 190 regions is not easy to understand.

Finally, we have recently developed a microscopic model of thermally excited SD states that describes both the barrier penetration leading to the decay-out to the ND states, and the rotational damping causing fragmentation of rotational E2 transitions . As an example, $`N_{\mathrm{band}}`$, the number of rotational SD bands in the quasi-continuum $`\gamma `$-ray region for 143Eu is shown in Fig. 5, where solid (dashed) curve is a result using Eq. (1c) (Eq. (1b)). Inclusion of the barrier penetration reduces $`N_{\mathrm{band}}`$ dramatically in the low-spin region and the calculation nicely agrees with experimental data , which clearly shows that our model is capable for the unified understanding of feeding and decay of the SD bands.

## 3 SUMMARY

Systematic comparison of the calculated and observed relative intensities have been performed, and it is found that basic features of the decay-out of SD bands are well understood within our theoretical framework. However, the decay-out spin is not precisely reproduced in the calculation in individual cases. Especially an average value of $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ for the $`A190`$ nuclei is somewhat overestimated, and the range of calculated $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$’s seems too wide in both the $`A150`$ and 190 regions. It should, however, be noticed that the average value of calculated $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ in the $`A190`$ region is much smaller than that in the $`A150`$ region by about 10$`\mathrm{}`$; the difference in the experiment is even more, about 15$`\mathrm{}`$, though. As a possible source of improvement a simple scaling of the mass tensor is considered. We believe that microscopic calculations of mass tensor based on counting the number of level crossings has to be done in order to include detailed nuclear structure effects in each SD band. For the detailed comparison, the reproduction of excitation energies of the SD bands is very important, which is not enough in the present calculations; for example, that of 194Pb in Table 1 is about 1 MeV higher than the experimentally deduced value. For this purpose, the improvement of the potential energy surface may also be necessary, e.g. by making use of an another mean-field potential like Woods-Saxon or the one obtained by Skyrme Hartree-Fock method. These are remaining future problems.

As an another possible source of improvement, modification of the compound mixing model  may be considered. At higher spins where the excitation energy of SD bands is not so high, the ND states to which the SD band couples are not chaotic, and then strong reduction of mixing amplitudes may be expected . This reduction leads to a delay of decay-out, which hopefully helps to decrease $`I_{\mathrm{out}}`$ especially in the $`A190`$. There are, however, some ambiguities of the amount of reduction, and a precise modeling of this effect is necessary to draw a definite conclusion. It is also an interesting future problem.

This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (No. 12640281).


format: text

text:
# Evidences for two Gamma-Ray Burst afterglow emission regimes

## 1 Introduction

The detection of X-ray and optical afterglows of cosmic gamma-ray bursts (hereafter GRB) has firmly established the fireball model (Rees and Mészáros Rees92 (1992), Mészáros and Rees Mesz97 (1997), Panaitescu et al. Pana98 (1998)) as a standard tool to interpret GRB afterglows. A vast majority of sources have X-ray afterglows, while about half of them have been observed at optical wavelengths. The fireball model provides firm predictions on the temporal behaviour of the afterglow emission at all wavelengths, allowing an inter-comparison of different events (Piran Piran99 (1999), Sari et al. Sari98 (1998)). In this framework the afterglow emission is described as synchrotron emission of accelerated electrons during the shock of an ultra-relativistic shell with the external medium.

In this letter, we use a set of GRB sources detected during their afterglow both at X-ray and optical wavelengths, and for which a firm measure of the source distance has been established. We apply several distance corrections and we take into account the galactic absorption for the optical data. The light-curve of each source of our sample is computed for a standard distance corresponding to a redshift of 1.

## 2 The burst sample

We used a sample of eight GRBs detected both at X-ray, by the NFI instrument on board the BeppoSAX satellite, and optical wavelengths. A redshift measure is available for each of the sources of our sample. We did not use the data from GRB 980425 since its association with SN 1998bw remains questionable. The redshifts and the main references on the sources of our sample have been summarized on table 1.

We insist on the fact that we selected GRBs on the basis of the consistency of X-ray and optical data. This imply to use only the BeppoSAX data for the 2-10 keV band and optical magnitudes in the R band.

## 3 Normalization of the X-ray data

In order to be able to compare the flux in the 2-10keV band, we normalized the data to a common distance corresponding to a redshift of 1. We applied the following corrections: distance-luminosity (relative to the target distance), normalization to the 2-10keV band in flux, and time dilation of the temporal scale. These corrections have been computed using the spectral index provided for the GRB source spectra when available. When the burst X-ray spectrum was not known with enough accuracy, we used the value of 1, which seems to be consistent with the majority of the burst afterglow spectra (Costa Costa99 (1999)). We took as a base a flat universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$. Table 2 details the resulting correction factors applied to the data.

Figure 1a displays the X-ray afterglow raw data. The same sample is displayed figure 1b, but we applied the corrections shown in table 1 in order to plot the light curves for a standard distance corresponding to a redshift of 1.

## 4 Optical data

The same corrections have been computed for the optical data in the R band from the same sources, of course taking into account the wavelength. At optical wavelengths the galactic absorption may be somewhat high. We used the work of Schlegel et al. (Schl98 (1998)) to derive an additional correction to apply to the data. The resulting factors are shown on table 3.

The raw optical light curves are displayed on figure 2a. On figure 2b we plotted the corrected light curves, again for a standard distance corresponding to a redshift of 1. As it can be seen, the correlation observed at X-ray wavelengths vanishes almost completely, though the dispersion in magnitude is somewhat reduced.

## 5 Discussion and conclusions

The X-ray data present, when corrected, an obvious correlation into two homogeneous groups. We find a mean slope of $`1.6\pm 0.2`$ for the most luminous subset, and $`1.11\pm 0.17`$ for the less luminous afterglows.

If we try to interpret the observed correlation in the framework of the fireball model, we have to suppose that the differential density of the medium shocked by the fireball plays a secondary role. Let us refer to the equations (7) to (12) of Sari at al. (Sari98 (1998)). If we take $`\mathrm{p}=2.3\pm 0.15`$ for the index of the electron distribution power law, our results at X-ray wavelengths are compatible with the radiative case for the most luminous afterglow group, and with the adiabatic case for the less luminous group. This is also close to the standard value assumed by Sari et al. (Sari96 (1996)) of $`\mathrm{p}=2.5`$.

However, the afterglow temporal evolution should be dependent on the surrounding medium density. It is clearly not the case here, though the burst sample is somewhat restricted. An explanation may be that the burst source surrounding medium has been ”washed” before the shock. Of course, in the absence of any measure of the critical transition time of the afterglow light curve, it is impossible to conclude on the density parameter. However the correlation we present at X-ray wavelengths seems to be more compatible with a weak dependence on it, i.e. a somewhat low density medium. For the GRBs belonging to the most luminous group, this conclusion is consistent with the results obtained by Kumar (Kum2000 (2000)) for a sample of 7 bursts in the same 2-10 keV energy range. It is interesting to note that Kumar and Piran (Kum2000b (2000)) have shown that the width of the distribution function for the X-ray afterglow flux should be significantly smaller that the spread in GRB fluences. The small number of sources we used in this work prevent from any firm conclusion, though GRB afterglows in the slow cooling regime may show a larger dispersion, which may be confirmed with the larger data set expected from HETE-2 and SWIFT.

It is difficult to find a firm explanation on the absence of correlation at optical wavelengths. Since the fireball model predicts that the ratio between the optical and X-ray luminosity should remain approximately constant during the early phases of the afterglow, we can try to explain the absence of correlation by an external reason, such as the absorption in the host galaxy of the GRB source. In this case the discussion of the above paragraph does not apply. Assuming that the X-ray and optical light curves have the same indexes, we computed the absorption coefficients tabulated in the second column of table 4.

All values are relative to the magnitude of GRB 980703. For GRB 970508, we computed the correction on the decreasing part of the light curve after 1.5 day. This correction is negative for GRB 970508, the most luminous of our sample. Since the absorption occurs at UV wavelengths if we take into account the source redshift, these values are quite reasonable. They correspond to a rough column density of $`5\times 10^{21}`$ at most (Prehdel and Schmitt Pred95 (1995)). For these values of the host galaxy medium column density, the transmission coefficient of 2keV photons is above 0.95 (Seward, Sew2000 (2000)). In order to assess the role of the UV absorption, we computed the decay slopes at X-ray wavelengths, and we compare them with the rate of decay of the afterglow light in the R band. The results are given in the last two columns of table 4.

The mean power law decay index at X-ray wavelengths is $`1.6\pm 0.2`$ for the most luminous afterglow group, and $`1.11\pm 0.17`$ for the less luminous one. At optical wavelengths the values are respectively $`1.17\pm 0.13`$, and $`1.09\pm 0.07`$. Though there is on average some difference at optical wavelengths also between the two groups, this feature cannot be considered as established.

We have presented in this letter a correlation between the afterglow light curves at X-ray wavelengths. While this behaviour is not observed in the optical domain, the decreasing rate may appear to be correlated in both energy ranges. The fireball model provides a framework to explain the X-ray light curves, while the host galactic absorption may shade the correlation in the visible range. The HETE-2 experiment, due to launch this year, will provide new data which may confirm this picture.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank J.L. Attéia, R. Mochkovitch, P. Mészáros and the anonymous referee for helpful comments. Thanks are also due to J. Greiner who maintains a web page (http://www.aip.de/$``$jcg/grb.html) with exhaustive data on burst afterglows.


text:
# H i line measurements of pulsars towards the Galactic Centre and the electron density in the inner Galaxy

## 1 Introduction

We obtained neutral hydrogen (H i) emission and absorption spectra in the direction of 7 southern pulsars to determine their kinematic distances. This paper is the third in a series on H i observations of pulsars at the Parkes radio telescope. We refer the reader to the earlier papers by Koribalski et al. (1995; hereafter Paper I) and Johnston et al. (1996; hereafter Paper II) for a comprehensive introduction as well as a full description of the observations and data analysis.

The observations of H i emission and absorption towards pulsars together with a rotation curve or velocity field for the Galaxy allow the derivation of lower and/or upper distance limits, depending on the distribution of H i in the line of sight. These distance limits can be coupled with the pulsar’s dispersion measure to obtain limits on the electron density along the lines of sight. From knowledge of the electron density along many lines of sight, a model can be constructed to convert dispersion measure into distance with appropriate uncertainties. The current model of Taylor & Cordes (1993) represents the synthesis of the observations to date and is widely accepted as the model of choice. However, the data poorly constrain the model towards the Galactic Centre, and the model has problems towards the Carina spiral arm as discussed in Paper II.

The pulsars described here include three within 3° of the Galactic Centre and the rest within 30° thereof. Combined with data from four other pulsars \[Weisberg et al. 1995\], the current work allows a handle to be gained on the electron density in the inner Galaxy. As this is the last paper in the series, we also discuss the 23 new H i absorption measurements since the advent of the Taylor & Cordes (1993) model and point out areas in which the model can be improved.

## 2 Observations and data analysis

H i observations towards several southern pulsars were carried out on 1994 October 5–10 using the 64-m Parkes radio telescope. The 20-cm receiver system, the correlator backend and the observing procedure were all described in Paper I. In brief, the digital correlator was configured into 2 $`\times `$ 512 channels (each with a bandwidth of 4 MHz) giving a velocity resolution of 7.8 kHz or 1.74 km s-1 per channel. The data were reduced off-line using standard procedures involving subtracting the ‘on-pulse’ spectra from the ‘off-pulse’ spectra with suitable normalisation (as detailed in Paper I).

Table 1 lists the pulsar parameters and details of the observing. Columns 1 and 9 list the pulsar J2000 and B1950 names. Columns 2 and 3 give the Galactic coordinates, columns 4 to 6 the pulsar period, dispersion measure and flux density, respectively. Columns 7 and 8 give the integration time in minutes and the number of time bins for each pulsar. In all cases the pulse occupied only 1 of these phase bins (which was used to form the on-pulse spectrum) and the remaining were used for the formation of the off-pulse spectrum.

To calibrate the brightness temperature of the emission spectra we used the Kerr et al. (1986) emission survey for PSRs J1600–5044 and J1602–5100, the Burton & Liszt (1983) survey for PSRs J1740–3015, J1745–3040 and J1752–2806 and the Weaver & Williams (1974a, 1974b) survey for PSRs J1824–1945 and J1825–0935. To convert from the antenna temperatures quoted in those papers to true brightness temperatures we used a correction factor of 1.025 for Kerr et al., 1.52 for Burton & Liszt and 1.14 for Weaver & Williams. Subject to the caveats contained in those papers, we estimate the uncertainty in our brightness temperatures to be of the order of 5%.

## 3 Results on individual sources

Figure 1 shows the emission and absorption spectra for each of the 7 pulsars. Below the spectra we show the rotation curve appropriate for the longitude and latitude of the pulsar. In this paper we use an analytic expression given by the best fit model of the Galactic rotation curve from Fich, Blitz, & Stark (1989). We adopt the standard IAU parameters \[Kerr & Lynden-Bell 1986\] for the distance to the Galactic centre ($`R_0`$ = 8.5 kpc) and the solar orbital velocity ($`V_0`$ = 220 km s-1). The rotation curve of the Galaxy is the azimuthally smoothed average of its velocity field and thus implicitly assumes circular orbits around the Galactic centre.

The lower and upper distance limits of pulsars can be inferred from their absorption and emission spectra, respectively. Following Frail & Weisberg (1990; Section V.a) we set the lower distance limit, $`D_\mathrm{L}`$, from the centre of the farthest absorption feature in the spectrum and the upper distance limit, $`D_\mathrm{U}`$, by the first emission peak above $`T_\mathrm{B}`$ = 35 K and beyond the most distant absorption feature. The lower limit of 35 K on the brightness temperature is a conservative approach if one wishes to be certain of detecting absorption \[Radhakrishnan et al. 1972, Weisberg, Boriakoff & Rankin 1979\]. The simple Galactic rotation model cannot take into account the presence of random or streaming motions in the H i gas which causes departures from purely circular rotation. One must allow for errors of the order 7 km s-1 when converting the observed velocities into distances (see, e.g., Weisberg et al. 1979; Shaver et al. 1982; Clifton et al. 1988).

For pulsars near the Galactic Centre, velocity crowding means that no useful distances can be obtained directly from the Doppler shift of the H i line. However, comparison with other objects with known distance and velocity can provide useful constraints as can the ‘peculiar’ velocity of the expanding 3 kpc arm. For all the objects discussed below we use as much information from the literature as possible when computing distance limits.

Table 2 shows the measured lower and upper velocity limits for each pulsar with the corresponding distance limits, where the distance errors are computed assuming random motions of the H i gas contribute 7 km s-1 as described above. The electron density limits are then given by the dispersion measure (Table 1) divided by the distance limits. A discussion of the results for each pulsar is given below.

### 3.1 PSR J1600–5044 (B1557–50); l,b=330$`\stackrel{}{.}`$7,1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$6

Low-resolution H i absorption spectra have been obtained by Ables & Manchester (1976) and Manchester et al. (1981), but differ substantially. The differences in optical depth near –40 km s-1 in the two spectra are discussed in Deshpande et al. (1992) who claim this as evidence for small-scale ISM structure. The pulsar is close on the sky to PSR J1602–5100 discussed below.

Our measurements show, with much improved spectral resolution, strong ($`>35`$ K) H i emission between –91 km s-1 and +30 km s-1. Several narrow absorption features are visible throughout this range in addition to an astonishing absorption feature at –105 km s-1. It has an optical depth of 0.94 against an emission feature which has a temperature of only 10 K! It is unusual to see such deep absorption in a relatively weak emission feature at this longitude although similar absorption is sometimes seen against the 3-kpc arm in the inner Galaxy. The data yield a spin temperature of about 20 K, indicating that the absorption cloud is unusually cold. The H i emission survey of Kerr et al. (1986) reveals nothing unusual in the vicinity. The brightness temperature of the emission rises steeply towards the Galactic Plane at this velocity, peaking near 100 K. One possiblity is that the absorption could be associated with the small, cold, high density clouds which were recently detected in large numbers in an infra-red galactic plane survey \[Egan et al. 1998\]. However, these clouds are predominantly molecular \[Carey et al. 1998\] and it is unclear how much neutral atomic hydrogen would exist there.

The distance corresponding to this feature is at 6.4$`\pm `$0.5 kpc which we assign as our lower distance limit. This is somewhat more conservative than Frail & Weisberg (1990) who assign the tangent point distance of 7.4$`\pm `$1.1 kpc as the lower distance limit based on critical analyses of the spectra of Ables & Manchester (1976) and Manchester et al. (1981). At positive velocities, we might expect to see some absorption towards the emission peak at +29.7 km s-1, though its brightness is only 33 K. From the lack of any significant absorption here we infer an upper distance limit of 18.2$`\pm `$1.2 kpc. Although the emission temperature does not (quite) reach our 35 K cutoff criterion, the relatively small noise in the absorption spectrum strengthens our argument that the lack of observed absorption supports the quoted upper limit.

Caswell et al. (1975) observed H i towards a number of (Galactic) sources between longitudes 328° and 332°. All these are closer to the Galactic plane than PSR J1600–5044 and in all cases emission temperatures of $``$100 K are seen at –105 km s-1. The closest supernova remnant to the pulsar is SNR 330.2+1.0 \[Caswell et al. 1983\] but unfortunately it has not been observed in H i nor has there been any detection of maser lines associated with it \[Green et al. 1997\].

### 3.2 PSR J1602–5100 (B1558–50); l,b=330$`\stackrel{}{.}`$7,1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3

Frail & Weisberg (1990) discuss an unpublished low-resolution spectrum for this pulsar by Manchester. They note the apparent absorption seen near the tangent point velocity of –110 km s-1. At this velocity the emission temperature is only 12 K. However, assuming the absorption is real they assign the tangent point distance of 7.4$`\pm `$1.1 kpc as a lower limit.

The emission spectrum is very similar to that of PSR J1600–5044 (described above) with strong H i emission between –90 and +30 km s-1. Our spectrum shows absorption at least up to –72 km s-1 corresponding to a distance of 4.5$`\pm `$0.4 kpc. There is no absorption seen against the reasonably bright feature at –90 km s-1. Gas at this velocity can either be on the near or far side of the tangent point, hence we set the upper limit to be beyond the tangent point at a distance of 9.4$`\pm `$0.4 kpc. However, we also have a hint of absorption near –110 km s-1 as in the Manchester spectrum. This feature has an optical depth of 0.36 (4.6-$`\sigma `$). Given that we see strong absorption at –105 km s-1 in PSR J1600-5044 (only 20 arcmin distant) against a similarly low temperature cloud we assign a lower distance limit at the tangent point (7.4$`\pm `$0.5 kpc).

There are 2 known H ii regions located near the pulsar and significantly off the Galactic plane. G331.354+1.072 has a recombination line velocity of –79 km s-1 and G331.360+0.507 has a velocity of –46 km s-1 in both recombination lines and H2CO \[Caswell & Haynes 1987\], but no independent distances are known.

### 3.3 PSR J1740–3015 (B1737–30); l,b=358$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3,0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$2
PSR J1745–3040 (B1742–30); l,b=358$`\stackrel{}{.}`$6,–1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$0

These pulsars are only 1° apart on the sky and lie within 2° of the Galactic centre. Along this line of sight, velocity crowding is too severe to convert velocity to distance. However, the presence of the 3 kpc arm at a velocity of $`60`$ km s-1 (see Burton & Liszt 1983) helps to constrain the distance.

Both pulsars show similar emission profiles. Strong H i emission extends from –20 km s-1 to +20 km s-1and there is a dip in the brightness temperature due to self-absorption from a local cloud \[Crutcher & Lien 1984\] at a velocity of +8 km s-1. Towards both pulsars, emission is seen from the 3 kpc arm at –60 km s-1 although the brightness temperature is significantly less than 30 K in the case of PSR J1745–3040 and only $``$30 K for PSR J1740–3015.

The absorption profiles of the pulsars differ in that absorption with an optical depth of $``$0.5 is seen at –15 km s-1 towards PSR J1740–3015 but not towards PSR J1745–3040. No absorption is seen against the 3 kpc arm in either pulsar. Dickey et al. (1983) and Garwood & Dickey (1989) show H i spectra towards 3 background sources (1739-298, 1741-312 and 356.905+0.082) all less than 2° from the pulsars. Absorption at –15 km s-1 and against the 3 kpc arm is clearly seen. SNR G357.7–0.1 (MSH 17–39; the Tornado) shows similar absorption characteristics - deep absorption features from +20 to –15 km s-1 and absorption at the location of the 3 kpc arm at –60 km s-1 \[Radhakrishnan et al. 1972\]. This remnant is located beyond the 3 kpc arm, and possibly beyond the Galactic Centre \[Frail et al. 1996\]. The other complex of interest in this region of sky contains the SNR G359.1–0.5, the ‘Mouse’ (G359.2–0.8) and the ‘Snake’ (G359.1–0.2). H i observations of this whole area by Uchida et al. (1992), show that the Snake and the SNR lie beyond the 3 kpc arm but the Mouse shows no absorption against the gas in the arm and is presumed to be a foreground object.

Given the evidence above, we should certainly see absorption against PSR J1740–3015 if it were located behind the 3 kpc arm, and we do not. Following Weisberg et al. (1995), therefore, we assign the 3 kpc arm at 5.5$`\pm `$0.6 kpc as the upper distance limit. Given that absorption is seen against the emission at –15 km s-1 we conclude that this feature lies in front of the 3 kpc arm but at an unknown distance. As PSR J1745–3040 does not show absorption at –15 km s-1 in spite of a high emission temperature we conclude that it must be in front of the arm, in front of PSR J1740–3015 and also in front of the –15 km s-1 feature. Unfortunately, the lack of any further kinematic information in this region forces us to assign an upper distance limit of 5.5$`\pm `$0.6 kpc for this pulsar also.

The upper limits derived are consistent with the dispersion measure distances to the pulsars and we note also that PSR J1745–3040 has a lower dispersion measure than PSR J1740–3015 as expected if it is closer.

Saravanan et al. (1996) also observed both of these pulsars. Their absorption spectrum on PSR J1740–3015 is similar to ours, although ours has less noise in spite of a slightly shorter integration time. We also do not see any absorption against the weak emission feature at –180 km s-1 that is visible in their figure nor would any absorption be expected at this velocity given that the pulsar is closer than the 3-kpc arm. (Saravanan et al. do not set any distance limits on the basis of this feature.) For PSR J1745–3040, our integration time was longer than theirs and our spectrum less noisy. Although the absorption spectra appear different, given the relatively high noise levels in the spectra they appear to be consistent at the 3-$`\sigma `$ level.

### 3.4 PSR J1752–2806 (B1749–28); l,b=1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5,–1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$0

This pulsar was one of the first discovered \[Turtle & Vaughan 1968\]. A low resolution H i absorption spectrum by Guelin et al. (1969) did not clearly show absorption, but a Gordon et al. (1969) spectrum with a resolution of 3.8 km s-1 shows a single absorption feature at +9 km s-1, coincident with the self-absorption feature in the emission spectrum.

This pulsar scintillates rather strongly through the 4 MHz band and, in contrast to the other pulsars in this sample, we fitted the absorption profile baseline (excluding the channels of interest) with a 7th order polynomial to remove the effects of the scintillation. Our data show three clear absorption features at velocities of +4.9, +8.2 and +14.8 km s-1. The feature at +8.2 km s-1 is exactly coincident with the self-absorption feature in the emission profile and is the same as that seen by Gordon et al. (1969). We note that if our spectrum is smoothed to the same velocity resolution as that of Gordon et al., the three lines blend together into a single feature. The features at both +5 and +9 km s-1 are due to a cold cloud at a distance of 125 pc \[Crutcher & Lien 1984\] and Frail & Weisberg (1990) adopted this as the lower limit to the pulsar’s distance.

We note, however, several other objects in this region with similar velocities. The H ii region RCW 142 (G0.55–0.85) has a recombination line velocity of +13.3 km s-1, an OH maser at +16.8 km s-1 and H2CO velocities of +15.6 and +20.8 km s-1 \[Gardner & Whiteoak 1975\]. Two nearby reflection nebulae (RCW 137 and 141) have H$`\alpha `$ velocities of +12.2 and +9.6 km s-1, respectively \[Georgelin & Georgelin 1970\]. Finally, the OH/IR star IRAS 17482–2824 (Galactic coordinates 1.0, –0.83) has a maser velocity of +10 km s-1 and a photometrically derived distance of 1.2 kpc \[Lepine, Ortiz & Epchtein 1995\]. It is appealing to claim that because we see absorption beyond +10 km s-1 in our spectrum we could raise the lower distance limit to the pulsar to 1.2 kpc. However, the peculiar motion of the OH/IR star is uncertain and the large spread in velocities of the features in RCW 142 forces us to adopt a cautious approach and hence we leave the lower distance limit as 0.125 kpc. If distances were measured to any of the RCW regions listed above the distance limit could be significantly improved.

### 3.5 PSR J1824–1945 (B1821–19); l,b=12$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3,–3$`\stackrel{}{.}`$1

Saravanan et al. (1996) observed this pulsar in H i and derived a lower distance limit of 2 kpc. In our spectrum H i in emission extends from +5 to +35 km s-1. H i absorption is seen over the same velocity range and the last absorption peak at +26.4 km s-1 defines the lower distance limit with 3.2$`\pm `$0.5 kpc. The lack of H i above 30 K beyond this point implies no upper distance limit can be set. We note that the 4-$`\sigma `$ absorption against the emission feature at $`+35`$ km s-1 is marginally significant. However, the low brightness temperature of this feature (25 K) and the lack of absorption at this velocity in the Saravanan et al. (1996) spectrum makes it unlikely that the absorption is real. The conversion from velocity to distance is significantly in error in Saravanan et al. (1996) and our result defines the new distance limit.

An OH/IR star IRAS 18176–1848 lies about 1° away from the pulsar, has a maser velocity of 13 km s-1 and a photometrically derived distance of 2.6 kpc \[Lepine, Ortiz & Epchtein 1995\] consistent with the above result, if we also allow for a 7 km s-1 component of random velocity in the maser. Gathier et al. (1986) display 21–cm absorption profiles of the planetary nebula NGC 6578 at galactic coordinates 10$`\stackrel{}{.}`$8,–1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$8 and another source at 11$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3,–1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$6. However, since their absorption cuts off at lower velocities than does the pulsar’s, they provide no additional useful kinematic information.

### 3.6 PSR J1825–0935 (B1822–09); l,b=21$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5,1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3

Gómez-Gonzàles & Guélin (1974) obtained a low-resolution ($`\mathrm{\Delta }v13`$ km s-1) H i spectrum towards this pulsar, from which they derive only an upper distance limit of 1.5 kpc. In our high resolution spectrum we see strong H i emission between zero and +38 km s-1. The absorption is seen only against the gas at zero velocity and hence no lower velocity limit can be set. There is no significant absorption against either the feature at +20 km s-1 or +35 km s-1. Dickey et al. (1983) observed two nearby (extragalactic) sources within $``$1° of the pulsar but at slightly higher galactic latitudes. Both 1817–098 (G20.7+2.3) and 1819–096 (G21.0+2.0) show deep absorption ($`\tau >1`$) out to +35 km s-1.

Garwood & Dickey (1989), Radhakrishnan et al. (1972) and Caswell et al. (1975) show H i observations to 4 other sources (G19.6–0.2, G21.5–0.9, G24.0+0.2 and G24.8+0.1) within $``$2° of the pulsar. Again, deep absorption is seen out to at least +60 km s-1 in all the sources, although their lower galactic latitude indicates that they are not the ideal comparison sources that the first two are.

We thus assign an upper distance limit of 1.9$`\pm `$0.4 kpc based on the lack of absorption against the emission feature at +20 km s-1.

## 4 Discussion

The review of Frail & Weisberg (1990) contained 50 pulsars for which H i lower and/or upper distance limits had been measured. Shortly thereafter, Taylor & Cordes (1993) developed a model of the electron density distribution in the Galaxy to allow for the conversion from a pulsar’s dispersion measure to its distance. Since then, 28 pulsars have been observed in H i of which 18 were observed for the first time and 5 had significantly different H i kinematic distances to those derived in older literature (Frail et al. 1993, Paper I, Weisberg et al. 1995, Paper II, Saravanan et al. 1996, this work). The pulsars mainly lie in the 4th quadrant of the Galaxy. The tangent points of three major spiral arms lie in this quadrant (in order of increasing distance from the Sun and decreasing distance from the Galactic Centre; the Carina, Crux, and Norma arms), but previous H i observations of pulsars were few and far between. The most recent discussion and summary of new results can be found in Weisberg (1996).

We can extend the work of Weisberg et al. (1995) in order to see how the Taylor & Cordes (1993) model matches up to the new results. Somewhat surprisingly, the distance derived by the model to 11 of the 24 pulsars lie outside the measured H i distances, 7 on the low side and 4 on the high side. Figure 2 displays this in graphical form. In the Figure, the pulsars are projected onto an X-Y plane with the Galactic Centre at 0,0 and the Sun at 0,8.5. The location of the spiral arms included by Taylor & Cordes in their model are shown on the plot as is their inner annulus of enhanced electron density. Solid diamonds represent the Taylor & Cordes (1993) dispersion measure derived positions. The solid lines indicate the range of H i measured kinematic positions; those with an arrow have no upper distance limit. The two pathological cases with very large DM-derived distances compared to the H i distance, PSRs J1056–6258 and J1801–2305, are almost certainly located behind H ii regions which contribute substantially to the dispersion measure (Paper II; Frail et al. 1993).

It is interesting to note that for most of the Galactic Centre pulsars, the model does a reasonable job. However, very few pulsars lie beyond the expanding arm in this direction and even fewer lie on the far side of the Galactic Centre. Taylor & Cordes (1993) have made the point that this does not allow them to distinguish whether the electron density reaches a peak in an annulus at some radius from the Galactic Centre or continues increasing until the Centre.

Of the 8 pulsars between longitudes 300° and 342° (along the tangents to the Sagittarius-Carina and Scutum-Crux arms), no fewer than 6 are not well fitted by the Taylor & Cordes model and all 6 have H i distances larger than those calculated from the model. It is evident from the figure that the Taylor & Cordes model tends to assign pulsars to spiral arms because of the large electron density excess in those regions in the model, so that a relatively large range of dispersion measure corresponds to a small change in distance. In particular the model seems to overestimate the electron density in the Sagittarius-Carina arm.

A further aid to determining distances to pulsars located behind spiral arms is to compare their scintillation speeds with their proper motions \[Gupta 1995\]. The scintillation speed has a different distance dependence to the proper motion velocity and also depends on the location of the scattering screen (in this case presumably the spiral arm). Unfortunately not many pulsars have both scintillation and proper motion measurements. One example is PSR J1453–6413. Its dispersion measure distance of 1.8 kpc is at odds with the H i lower limit of 2.5 kpc. If we assume the spiral arm is 1.5 kpc from Earth in this direction, then to match the scintillation speed \[Johnston, Nicastro & Koribalski 1998\] with the proper motion \[Bailes et al. 1990\] requires a pulsar distance of 3.3 kpc, consistent with the H i lower limit. Although this is just one example (but see also McClure-Griffiths et al. 1995), it may be that towards the very clumpy regions of the spiral arms that scintillation parameters are more appropriate than dispersion measure for assigning distances to those pulsars for which H i absorption measurements are impractical. Ideally, one requires H i, scintillation and proper motion measurements of a large number of pulsars in order to significantly refine further the electron density model of the Galaxy.

## 5 Conclusions

This paper completes our analysis of H i observations towards 22 southern hemisphere pulsars started in Papers I and II. The main results from these three papers are:

1. The Taylor & Cordes (1993) model does a good job in assigning distances to pulsars behind the Gum Nebula.
2. As found in other studies, the H i gas is seen at velocities forbidden by the standard Galactic rotation model along directions tangent to the Carina spiral arm.
3. PSR J1709–4429, one of the few pulsars observable at TeV energies, has a well-defined H i distance which appears to rule out the association with a nearby supernova remnant.
4. At least on the near side of the expanding 3 kpc arm, the Taylor & Cordes distance model works well towards the Galactic Centre.
5. Dispersion measure is not necessarily a good indicator of distance when looking through the spiral arms, and modifications to the distance model appear to be necessary in the region $`300\mathrm{°}<l<345\mathrm{°}`$.

## Acknowledgments

JMW was supported by NSF Grant AST9530710. The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by the CSIRO.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In seminal papers , ’t Hooft has shown that in a gauge theory with a Higgs boson in the fundamental representation of the gauge group there is no fundamental difference between the theory in the Higgs phase, i.e, with a gauge symmetry broken by means of the Higgs mechanism and the theory in the confinement phase i.e, a theory with confined gauge charges. This property is known as the complementarity principle . The fundamental difference between the electroweak theory and QCD is that in the electroweak sector one has a large parameter which allows perturbative calculations.

Recently we have used this complementarity to build an alternative to the standard model using a $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ gauge group with $`SU(2)_L`$ confinement . We have clarified how to incorporate quantum electrodynamics in that kind of models and studied the physical consequences of the assumption that the electroweak interactions might be described by the confinement phase. In that case all phenomena in particle physics are described by exact gauge theories. If nature is such that its fundamental Lagrangian has the maximal number of allowed symmetries, it is natural to assume that supersymmetry could also be an exact symmetry of this Lagrangian. Supersymmetry is a crucial aspect in particle physics, it is a desirable feature of many high energy theories like some variants of grand unified theories. It is the missing link between some theories at very high energies and low energy particle physics.

It is thus meaningful to design mechanisms that explain why supersymmetry is unobserved. A possibility is that supersymmetry is broken. This leads to models such as the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). We propose an alternative point of view. If the electroweak interactions are described by a confining theory, the microscopic theory can be supersymmetric but this symmetry is then hidden at the macroscopic scale of fermions and electroweak bosons. In other words we will break supersymmetry at the macroscopic scale without breaking it at the scale of fundamental particles thus providing a link between some theories at very high and low energy particle physics.

In composite models, supersymmetry is not necessary to solve the hierarchy problem because the Higgs boson is not a fundamental particle but it remains important to have a supersymmetric theory to reach the unification of the coupling constants at the unification scale.

We then consider a supersymmetric extension of the model for the electroweak interactions proposed in  with broken supersymmetry at the fundamental level.

## 2 A supersymmetric toy model

We shall consider a illustrative model with the gauge group $`SU(2)_L`$ and unbroken $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. The situation in a gauge theory with unbroken supersymmetry is very similar to that of the confinement phase in a non-supersymmetric theory. We assume that there is a $`SU(2)_L`$ confinement: all physical particles are $`SU(2)_L`$ singlets. We have the following particle spectrum: the right-handed fermions $`e_R`$, $`u_R`$, $`d_R`$ and their superpartners $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$, $`\stackrel{~}{u}_R`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$. The right-handed particles are the usual right-handed leptons and quarks of the standard model and their superpartners, whereas the left-handed doublets are bound states of some more elementary particles. The fundamental $`SU(2)_L`$ fields (D-quarks) are:
leptonic D-quarks $`l_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}l_1\\ l_2\end{array}\right)`$ (fermions)  hadronic D-quarks $`q_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\end{array}\right)`$ (fermions, $`SU(3)_c`$ triplets)  scalar D-quarks $`h_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}h_1\\ h_2\end{array}\right)`$ (bosons).
Notice that in order to cancel the anomalies we would have to introduce a second scalar doublet. We discard this problem as our aim is only to present a toy model to emphasize our idea. We then have the superpartners
leptonic D-squarks $`\stackrel{~}{l}_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{l}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{l}_2\end{array}\right)`$ (bosons)  hadronic D-squarks $`\stackrel{~}{q}_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{q}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{q}_2\end{array}\right)`$ (bosons, $`SU(3)_c`$ triplets)  scalar D-squarks $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{h}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{h}_2\end{array}\right)`$ (fermions).
We shall refer to the theory involving the D-quarks and the D-squarks as the microscopic theory. At the macroscopic level i.e, the theory of bound states, a large number of $`SU(2)_L`$ invariant bound states can be identified. We see that bound states of different particles can have the same quantum numbers. For example, the neutrino can be identified with the bound state $`\overline{h}l`$ but also with the bound state $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{h}}\stackrel{~}{l}`$. It will thus be a superposition of both bound states. This can be applied to the rest of the known particles. The left-handed fermions, normalized in the appropriate way, are defined as follows. We have the leptons

$`\text{left-handed neutrino}\nu _L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left((\overline{h}l)+(\overline{\stackrel{~}{h}}\stackrel{~}{l})\right)`$ (1)
$`\text{left-handed electron}e_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left((ϵ^{ij}h_il_j)+(ϵ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{h}_i\stackrel{~}{l}_j)\right)`$
where $`F`$ is a numerical, to be specified, normalization factor. The quarks are also bound states

$`\text{left-handed up quark}u_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left((\overline{h}q)+(\overline{\stackrel{~}{h}}\stackrel{~}{q})\right)`$ (2)
$`\text{left-handed down quark}d_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left((ϵ^{ij}h_iq_j)+(ϵ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{h}_i\stackrel{~}{q}_j)\right).`$
The Higgs and electroweak bosons are bound states of scalar D-quarks and their superpartners:

$`\text{Higgs field}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F}}\left((\overline{h}h)+\beta (\overline{\stackrel{~}{h}}\stackrel{~}{h})\right)`$ (3)
$`\text{electroweak boson}W_\mu ^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{gF^2}}\left((\overline{h}D_\mu h)+\beta (\overline{\stackrel{~}{h}}D_\mu \stackrel{~}{h})\right)`$
$`\text{electroweak boson}W_\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}i}{gF^2}}\left((ϵ^{ij}h_iD_\mu h_j)+\beta (ϵ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{h}_iD_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_j)\right),`$
where $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative of the gauge group $`SU(2)_L`$ involving the gauge bosons $`B_\mu ^a`$ and $`g`$ is the gauge coupling of this group. The second charged $`W`$ boson $`W^+`$ is defined as $`(W^{})^{}`$. A simple dimensional analysis shows that a constant $`\beta `$ with dimension $`1`$ has to appear. This constant is a priori unknown but the only scale of the theory being $`F`$, we could impose $`\beta =1/F`$. This apparently arbitrary choice is not a drawback for the theory as we will see that only the terms containing a scalar D-quark doublet will be relevant.

The problem is to know whether a particle and its superparticle will belong to the same supermultiplet, i.e, if they have the same mass. It is a difficult question as dynamical effects can contribute to the masses. For example, the masses of the electroweak bosons are to a large extent dominated by dynamical effects. Once we have introduced a second Higgs doublet, we have the same gauge group and the same particle contain as in the MSSM, dynamical supersymmetry breaking is thus possible. There are two possibilities: either the masses of, for example, an electroweak boson and of the corresponding superparticle are identical and supersymmetry is unbroken at the macroscopic level or they are different because of dynamical effects and supersymmetry is dynamically broken. This possibility can’t be excluded, but in the sequel we assume that these particles indeed form a supermultiplet. Thus, an electron is the superpartner of a selectron. Lattice simulations could test the dynamical behavior of such a model.

All the particles we have identified up to this point are those appearing in the standard model. We can also identify the bounds states corresponding to the macroscopic superparticles. For example, we have

$`\text{selectron}\stackrel{~}{e}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left((ϵ^{ij}h_i\stackrel{~}{l}_j)+\beta (ϵ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{h}_il_j)\right)`$
for the left-handed selectron.

The complementarity principle was established in the framework of a non-supersymmetric theory with a single Higgs boson doublet. This principle requires that the coupling constants between the bounds states and the electroweak bosons are the same in the Higgs phase and in the confinement phase. In the case of a non-supersymmetric model , ’t Hooft proposed that the confinement is due to vortices . This means that we have a confinement with a weak coupling constant which avoids the problems due to chiral symmetry breaking .

In a supersymmetric model the situation is more complex since the theory is richer. Nevertheless the situation in such a theory is very similar to that of the confinement phase in a non-supersymmetric gauge theory. The question is whether our microscopic model which is supersymmetric will have a supersymmetric macroscopic spectrum. A lattice study of the vacuum structure and of the dynamical behavior of our model would be useful to answer this question. As long as this as not been done some place is left for speculation.

A discrete symmetry could explain why nature selects, at least at low energy, only the particles. We introduce a mechanism similar to the so-called R-parity. We assign a new quantum number to the particles. We call this new quantum number S-parity. The D-quarks are assigned S-parity +1, whereas the D-squarks are assigned S-parity -1. We then assume that the bound states appearing in nature have S-parity +1.

This selection rule shifts the masses of the superparticles to very high energies. In other words we break supersymmetry at the macroscopic level by imposing a discrete symmetry but it remains intact at the microscopic level. It is thus clear that superparticles corresponding to the left-handed particles, to the Higgs sector and to the electroweak bosons will not be observable at least at low energy. In that case, we expect that a confining theory describes the weak interactions correctly. Imposing this selection rule which is motivated by the apparent absence of superparticles in nature at low energy is not trivial as it would be in the case of the MSSM because the fundamental D-squarks are confined in usual matter. It would not be very surprising if this S-parity was broken in nature, as there are already many examples of broken discrete symmetries. But, at this stage it remains a speculation, which could be tested on the lattice.

That scenario is useful in the case of a grand unified theory. If there is a deconfinement phase at the scale of a few TeV, supersymmetry is realized above that scale and the coupling constants unification takes place at the unification scale, but supersymmetry remains hidden at low energy under this deconfinement phase. Two scenarios are conceivable, the mass scale of the superparticles is below the deconfinement scale, in which case one will observe superparticles but the theory is not explicitly supersymmetric until one reaches the deconfinement scale. Another possibility is that the mass scale for the superparticles is above the deconfinement scale in which case the particle spectrum would suddenly become supersymmetric above the deconfinement scale. This feature allows to test our idea.

Even if supersymmetry was broken by dynamical effects, it might still be necessary, if the mass splitting was not sufficiently large, to introduce this S-parity for phenomenological reasons.

## 3 Back to known particles

It remains to show that the definitions for the fields indeed describe the observed particles. We use the unitary gauge for the scalar doublet

$`h_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}F+h_{(1)}\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (6)
The parameter $`F`$ is a real number. If $`F`$ is sufficiently large we can perform a $`1/F`$ expansion for the fields defined previously, we then have

$`\nu _L`$ $`=`$ $`l_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left(h_{(1)}l_1+\overline{\stackrel{~}{h}}\stackrel{~}{l}\right)l_1`$ (7)
$`e_L`$ $`=`$ $`l_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left(h_{(1)}l_2+ϵ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{h}_i\stackrel{~}{l}_j\right)l_2`$
$`u_L`$ $`=`$ $`q_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left(h_{(1)}q_1+\overline{\stackrel{~}{h}}\stackrel{~}{q}\right)q_1`$
$`d_L`$ $`=`$ $`q_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left(h_{(1)}q_2+ϵ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{h}_i\stackrel{~}{q}_j\right)q_2`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`h_{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{F}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F}}\left(h_{(1)}h_{(1)}+\beta \overline{\stackrel{~}{h}}\stackrel{~}{h}\right)h_{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{F}{2}}`$
$`W_\mu ^3`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(1)}}{F}}\right)^2B_\mu ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{gF}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(1)}}{F}}\right)_\mu h_{(1)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2i\beta }{gF^2}}\left(\overline{\stackrel{~}{h}}D_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}\right)B_\mu ^3`$
$`W_\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(1)}}{F}}\right)^2B_\mu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}i\beta }{gF^2}}\left(ϵ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{h}_iD_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_j\right)B_\mu ^{}.`$
As also done by ’t Hooft , we assume that the only particles which are stable enough to be observable at presently accessible energies are those containing the scalar doublet $`h`$, those are the only fields who survive to the expansion, and we consider the terms suppressed by a factor $`1/F`$ as being irrelevant. Therefore the spectrum of this theory is, for the left-handed sector, identical to the spectrum of the standard model. Nevertheless we are not able to hide the superpartners of the right-handed particles at this stage. Supersymmetry is apparently broken in the left-handed sector but in fact it remains unbroken at the microscopic level of the theory.

## 4 The MSSM

In this section, we assume that the complementarity principle remains valid for supersymmetric theories once soft breaking terms have been introduced. The model in the confinement phase corresponding to the minimal supersymmetric standard model can easily be obtained by requiring that supersymmetry is broken by usual means at the level of the fundamental D-quarks and D-squarks. A second Higgs doublet $`k`$ and the corresponding superparticle $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ can be introduced without any difficulty, and we basically have to replace $`h`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ by $`s=h+i\sigma _2k^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}=\stackrel{~}{h}+i\sigma _2\stackrel{~}{k}^{}`$ in the definitions of the fermions, superfermions, electroweak bosons and of their superpartners. The gauge is fixed in such a way that $`s`$ takes the form $`s=(F+h_{(1)}+k_{(1)},0)`$, where $`F=F_1+F_2`$, $`F_1`$ corresponding to the scalar doublet $`h`$ and $`F_2`$ to the scalar doublet $`k`$. We then have

$`h=\left(\begin{array}{c}F_1+h_{(1)}+i\chi ^0\\ \varphi ^{}\end{array}\right),k=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^+\\ F_2+k_{(1)}+i\chi ^0\end{array}\right).`$ (12)
We can define the five Higgs bosons

$`CP\text{ even Higgs boson}\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F_1}}\left(\overline{h}h\right)=h_{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_1}{2}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F_1}}\right)`$ (13)
$`CP\text{ even Higgs boson}\varphi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F_2}}\left(\overline{k}k\right)=k_{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_2}{2}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F_2}}\right)`$
$`CP\text{ odd Higgs boson}i\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F}}(\overline{s}h+ϵ^{ij}s_ik_j){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F_1}}(\overline{h}h){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F_2}}(\overline{k}k)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`i\chi +𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F_1}}\right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F_2}}\right)`$
$`\text{charged Higgs boson}\varphi ^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left(\overline{s}k\right)=\varphi ^++𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\right)`$
$`\text{charged Higgs boson}\varphi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left(ϵ^{ij}s_ih_j\right)=\varphi ^{}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\right).`$
The superpartners of these Higgs bosons can be obtained in a similar way. The model presented in  is thus compatible with a supersymmetric extension provided that both $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ can be chosen to be large. This model has the same vertices as the MSSM and the same particle contain. As in the case of the non-supersymmetric model, we expect that radial and orbital excited versions of the known particles will appear.

## 5 Conclusions

We have considered a toy model with $`SU(2)_L`$ confinement and hidden supersymmetry in the left-handed sector. Supersymmetry is broken at the macroscopic level by a discrete symmetry. The first step towards a realistic model is to include a second Higgs doublet. It can be done without major difficulties as has been shown in the last section.

This model can be extended to a model with a $`SU(3)_cSU(2)_RSU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ gauge group with two Higgs doublets for each $`SU(2)`$ sector. Once this extension has been done, we can hide supersymmetry completely at the microscopic level for the $`SU(2)_RSU(2)_L`$ sector, assuming a $`SU(2)_RSU(2)_L`$ confinement. Supersymmetry would have to be broken by usual means for the two remaining gauge groups. The spectrum of the macroscopic theory at low energy is then that of the standard model with ten Higgs fields, i.e. five for each $`SU(2)`$ sector, 8 gluinos and a photino.

This model provides the missing link between low energy particle physics and very high energy theories like grand unified theories. Usual models with supersymmetry breaking are not able to explain a small cosmological constant . In our approach, supersymmetry is not broken in the $`SU(2)_L`$ sector at the microscopic level. Thus the contribution of the energy of the fundamental vacuum of that sector to the cosmological constant is vanishing. Our mechanism could therefore help to explain a small or vanishing cosmological constant.

Note that this model would nicely fit into a supersymmetric $`SO(10)`$ grand unified theory, which thus could be the fundamental theory of D-quarks and D-squarks. It turns out that such a theory would be very similar to the standard model if there is a confinement in the weak interactions sector.

Finally, we described a supersymmetric extension of the model proposed in Ref.  for the electroweak interactions with $`SU(2)`$ confinement. We have shown that this model is compatible with a supersymmetric extension provided that the complementarity principle remains valid for supersymmetric theories once soft breaking terms have been introduced.

A detailed study of the vacuum structure of supersymmetric $`SU(2)`$ gauge theories and of their dynamical behavior by lattice simulations would allow to determine whether these scenarios can be realized in nature.

## Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank H. Fritzsch for discussions and for reading this manuscript. He would also like to thank R. Dick, F. Klinkhamer, A. Leike, J. Pati, I. Sachs, E. Seiler and Z. Xing for stimulating discussions.


text:
# Time-reversal symmetry breaking at Josephson tunnel junctions of purely 𝑑-wave superconductors

## Abstract

We study spontaneous time-reversal symmetry breaking at Josephson tunnel junctions of $`d`$-wave superconductors in the absence of subdominant components of the order parameter. For tunnel junctions, when the orientation is close to $`0/45`$ (for which a gap lobe points towards the junction on one side and a gap node on the other), the mechanism of the symmetry breaking is the splitting of midgap states (MGS) by spontaneous establishment of a phase difference $`\varphi =\pm \pi /2`$ across the junction. This occurs for transparencies $`D\xi _0/\lambda `$ and temperatures $`k_BTD\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where $`\xi _0`$ is the coherence length, $`\lambda `$ is the penetration depth, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the maximum energy gap. On the other hand, tunnel junctions with $`D\xi _0/\lambda `$ effectively behave as surfaces, for which the mechanism of symmetry breaking is self-induced Doppler shifts of MGS. For this instability, we calculate the phase transition temperature $`k_BT_{TRSB}=(1/6)(\xi _0/\lambda )\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and show that the spatial shape of the gap is unimportant.

The possibility of spontaneous time-reversal symmetry breaking (TRSB) states at various surfaces and interfaces of $`d`$-wave superconductors has been intensively studied during the last few years. Some experimental findings, such as fractional flux quanta at certain grain boundaries and splitting of the zero-bias conductance peak in zero magnetic field, have been interpreted as realizations of this state. Theoretically, several different systems have been under consideration: surfaces, twin boundaries, and Josephson junctions with special orientations.

In this paper we will study TRSB at Josephson tunnel junctions with orientation close to $`\alpha _L=0`$, $`\alpha _R=\pi /4`$ (Fig. 1) for arbitrary transparency $`D`$ of the tunnel barrier. We emphasize that we are considering purely $`d`$-wave superconductors, meaning that a sub-dominant component of the order parameter is assumed to be absent. As will be shown, the TRSB effect is due to the specific properties of the midgap states formed in these structures.

In 1994 Hu showed that surface states with zero energy, so-called midgap states (MGS), are formed at surfaces and interfaces of $`d`$-wave superconductors if the orientation angle $`\alpha `$ is non-zero. The largest spectral weight of the MGS appears when a $`d`$-wave gap node points directly towards the surface/interface ($`\alpha =\pi /4`$).

It has been pointed out (see e.g. Refs. ) that the large density of states exactly at the Fermi level associated with the MGS is energetically unfavorable: if there exist mechanisms able to shift the MGS and produce a gap in the spectrum, the energy will be lowered and a phase transition into a state with broken time-reversal symmetry will take place. Splitting of MGS due to a complex $`d+is`$ order parameter, with a subdominant surface/interface $`s`$-wave component, has been considered both at free surfaces and at Josephson junctions. The possibility of instabilities at Josephson junctions of purely $`d`$-wave superconductors was first pointed out by Yip for the weak link case (transparency $`D=1`$, no backscattering in the junction, see also Refs. ). The TRSB state was later shown to be favorable also for finite but rather high transmissivity of the junction, $`0.3D1`$. According to the symmetry arguments presented in Refs. , the effect of TRSB in pure $`d`$-wave junctions heavily relies upon the non-sinusoidal current-phase relation in transparent weak links. Since the higher harmonics in the current-phase relation disappear in the tunnel limit, TRSB in tunnel junctions of pure $`d`$-wave superconductors is also expected to disappear and it was supposed that TRSB can only occur under such circumstances when a complex order parameter is formed. However, it turns out that the symmetry argument holds only for continuum states and for finite energy bound states, but not for the MGS which contribute to the Josephson current with a term proportional to the first power in $`D`$ at low temperature. In the low-transparency limit it is not the non-sinusoidal current-phase relation itself that is important, but rather the uneven occupation of split MGS. Here we will show that this leads to TRSB also in tunnel junctions of purely $`d`$-wave superconductors. The driving mechanism of the instability is the displacement of MGS induced by spontaneous establishment of a finite phase difference $`\varphi =\pm \pi /2`$ across the junction, similar to what happens in transparent junctions. In the extreme tunnel limit, the mechanism crosses over to self-sustained Doppler shifts of MGS, which also produces instabilities at free surfaces.

Although the MGS contribution does not appear in conventional tunnel model calculations (despite the fact that it is proportional to the first power in transparency $`D`$), the quasiclassical Green’s function technique, in principle, includes it. However, since the necessary condition for TRSB for low transparency is $`k_BTD\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (corresponding to uneven occupation of split MGS, see below), the specific window of transparencies favoring TRSB found in Refs. , $`0.3D1`$, was actually a result of the choice of temperature, $`k_BT=0.2k_BT_c0.1\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

Consider now the Josephson tunnel junction in Fig. 1. We model the junction between the two clean two-dimensional $`d`$-wave superconductors by a square specular barrier. In this case, the quasiparticle wavefunctions can be labeled by the conserved wave vector component parallel to the surface, $`k_y=k_F\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wave vector. The gap functions in the superconductors are $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L/R}(x,\theta )=\mathrm{\Delta }_0g_{L/R}(x)\mathrm{cos}[2(\theta \alpha _{L/R})]`$, where all angles are measured relative to the surface normal (Fig. 1). The fact that the gap may be suppressed near surfaces and interfaces of $`d`$-wave superconductors is reflected in the $`x`$-dependent functions $`g_{L/R}(x)`$.

For the calculation of the dc Josephson current, one needs to consider contributions both from continuum states and Andreev bound states. If the two superconductors were decoupled (zero transparency), there would be midgap surface states on the right side ($`\alpha _R=\pi /4`$) and also finite energy surface states since the gap is suppressed near the surface forming a quantum well. In addition there are gap edge states on the left side ($`\alpha _L=0`$). For finite transparency the surface states form states of the entire junction. The energy of these Andreev states are shifted relative to the surface levels, the shift depending on the transparency of the barrier and the phase difference $`\varphi `$ across the junction. To clearly see the mechanism of the TRSB instability we first consider a step-function dependence of the gap, $`g_{L/R}(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$. By solving the quasiclassical Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation for the junction, we find the energy of the midgap state (the $`\theta `$-dependence of the order parameter is not explicitly written out here)

$`E(\varphi ,k_y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{sgn}(k_y)\mathrm{\Delta }_L|\mathrm{\Delta }_R|D(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2|\mathrm{\Delta }_L|+D(\theta )\left[|\mathrm{\Delta }_R||\mathrm{\Delta }_L|\right]}}+O(D^3)`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`\text{sgn}(k_y)E_0(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\varphi +O(D^3),`$ (2)
as plotted in Fig. 2(a). When a phase difference is applied across the junction, the degeneracy of the $`\pm k_y`$ MGS is lifted, as emphasized by the solid and dashed lines in Fig. 2(a). The contribution to the dc Josephson current from Andreev states is found via the relation $`I_x=(2e/\mathrm{})(dE/d\varphi )n_F(E)`$, where $`n_F`$ is the Fermi distribution function. The current carried by the bound states in Eq. (2) is therefore

$`eR_NI_x^{MGS}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{D}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\eta E_0(\eta )\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ (4)
$`\times \mathrm{tanh}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_0(\eta )\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2k_BT}}\right]+O(D^2),`$
where $`T`$ is the temperature, $`R_N=\pi h/e^2k_FL_yD`$ is the normal state resistance of the junction, $`L_y`$ is the junction width, $`\eta =\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, and $`D=𝑑\eta D(\eta )/2`$. From Eq. (4) we find that the MGS contribution to the Josephson current at low temperature, $`k_BT|E_0|D\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, is of first order in the transparency $`D`$. In what concerns the continuum, $`\pm k_y`$ states are degenerate and carry current in opposite directions, which results in a cancellation of the main (of order $`D`$) current. The residual continuum contribution is small, of order $`D^2`$. This cancellation is due to the sign change of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ when we let $`k_yk_y`$, see Fig. 1. Both $`k_y`$ and $`k_y`$ contributions have $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ dependences, but they are $`\pi `$-shifted relative to each other (the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ is equivalent to a phase $`\pi `$) and carry current in opposite directions. This is the symmetry argument referred to above. Also the $`\pm k_y`$ bound states near the gap edges carry current in opposite directions. Although they are not degenerate (like the MGS they split under phase bias) they are equally populated for $`k_BT\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and the sum of $`\pm k_y`$ currents is of order $`D^2`$. We would like to emphasize that the MGS do not obey the $`\pm k_y`$ symmetry at low temperature because MGS with opposite signs of $`k_y`$ disperse on opposite sides of the Fermi level and are unequally populated. In Fig.2(b) we plot the total current including the dominant MGS contribution and the small contributions from the gap edge states and the continuum states. In agreement with previous work,  the current-phase relation is $`\pi `$-periodic. For increasing temperature, the MGS contribution is reduced, and when $`k_BTD\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ \[the $`T=0.1T_c`$ curve in Fig. 2(b)\] the current is small, of order $`D^2`$. In the intermediate region, the current in Eq. (4) scales as $`D^2/T`$. The above arguments leading to the dominating, of order $`D`$, MGS currents and small, of order $`D^2`$, non-MGS currents hold also for general spatial dependences of the gap functions. However, as shown in Ref. , the numerical prefactor of the current calculated for step-function gaps is overestimated by a factor about two, due to an overestimation of the shift of the MGS with phase difference. However, this will not influence the instability we discuss in the following.

By a phenomenological argument Yip showed (see also the paper by Östlund) that when the $`\pm k_y`$ symmetry cancels the first harmonic of the current in purely $`d`$-wave junctions with orientation $`\alpha _L=0`$, $`\alpha _R=\pi /4`$, time-reversal symmetry is broken if the parameters of the theory are chosen in such a way that the coefficient in front of the second harmonic is negative. The current due to MGS has indeed this negative sign. As a consequence, the equilibrium phase difference across the junction is $`\varphi _{eq}=\pm \pi /2`$, since the Josephson energy minimum appears where the current through the junction is zero and the slope of the current-phase relation is positive. That these phase differences really correspond to Josephson energy minima can be understood by noting that the energy of the midgap state is the lowest for $`\varphi _{eq}=\pm \pi /2`$, see Fig. 2(a) and also Eq. (8). Considering low temperature, when only the negative energy states are occupied, we see that the degenerate $`\varphi _{eq}=\pm \pi /2`$ junction states correspond to occupation of $`\pm k_y`$ time-reversed MGS, see the illustration in Fig. 1. Assuming that the system chooses one minimum ($`\varphi _{eq}=\pi /2`$) or the other ($`\pi /2`$), surface currents in the positive or negative $`y`$-direction will appear and time-reversal symmetry is broken. The spontaneous surface current, calculated via

$$j_y(x)=\frac{e\mathrm{}}{m}\underset{𝐤}{}k_y\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_𝐤^{}(x)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_𝐤(x)n_F(E_𝐤),$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_𝐤`$ are the wavefunctions satisfying the quasiclassical Bogoliubov-deGennes equation, and $`n_F`$ is the Fermi distribution function, is dominated by the MGS for the same reasons as the MGS dominate the Josephson current. In Fig. 2(c) we plot $`j_y(\varphi )`$ calculated to the right of the barrier at $`x=0`$. The surface current approaches its maximum value at the equilibrium phase differences $`\varphi _{eq}=\pm \pi /2`$, but it has opposite signs since MGS with opposite signs of $`k_y`$ are occupied at these two phase differences.

Since the MGS surface current produces a magnetic field which costs energy, we must include this effect into the discussion of the instability. The spatial dependence of the magnetic field $`𝐡`$ is determined by the counterflowing screening currents, and can be calculated via the superfluid momentum $`𝐩_s`$, $`𝐡=(c/e)\times 𝐩_s`$. For type II superconductors, like the high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, $`𝐩_s`$ is found via the London equation $`^2𝐩_s𝐩_s/\lambda ^2=(4\pi e/c^2)j_y^{MGS}(x)\widehat{y}f(x)\widehat{y}`$. Because the MGS surface current remains finite in the limit $`D=0`$, we are allowed to let $`D0`$ and perform the calculation of the source current with the free surface MGS wavefunction. This allows us to explicitly take into account the spatial dependence of the gap. The surface current then takes the form

$$j_y(x)=\frac{e\mathrm{}}{m}\frac{k_F^2}{2\pi }_0^1𝑑\eta \eta \frac{e^{2\zeta }}{N}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_0(\eta )}{2k_BT}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\zeta =𝑑l|\mathrm{\Delta }(l)|/\mathrm{}v_F`$, $`x=l\sqrt{1\eta ^2}`$, and $`N=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{2\zeta }`$ is the normalization constant of the MGS wavefunction. The integration over trajectory angles $`\eta `$ is effectively cut off at $`\eta <1`$ because of the tunneling cone described by $`D(\eta )`$. Since the MGS source only has a $`y`$-component, the non-trivial component of $`𝐩_s`$ is the $`y`$-component which only depends on $`x`$, $`𝐩_s=p_s(x)\widehat{y}`$. The solution of the differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition $`lim_x\mathrm{}h_z(x)=0`$ is $`p_s(x)=b_0e^{x/\lambda }+\lambda ^x𝑑x^{}f(x^{})\mathrm{sinh}\left[(xx^{})/\lambda \right]`$. The constant $`b_0`$ is fixed by the boundary condition $`h_z(x=0)=0`$ at the junction, $`b_0=\lambda _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xf(x)\mathrm{cosh}(x/\lambda )`$.

An important aspect of the screening problem is the separation of length scales: the surface current due to the MGS flows within a thin layer of width $`\xi _0`$ near the surface, while the screening currents flow in a much thicker layer of width $`\lambda `$. For high-$`T_c`$ superconductors the ratio $`\xi _0/\lambda 1`$, and all quantities may be expanded in this small parameter. For this reason the convergence of the integrals in the expression for $`p_s`$ is governed by the function $`f(x^{})`$ which decays on the $`\xi _0`$ length scale. Expanding the hyperbolic functions, the spatial shape of the gap function is cancelled in the leading term of the expression for $`p_s`$: it appears both in the normalization $`N`$ of the MGS wavefunction and in the integrals over $`f(x^{})`$ which are integrals over the MGS wavefunction. Thus, the detailed spatial shape of the gap drops out of the calculation and the final form of $`p_s`$ is

$$p_s(x)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\lambda }e^{x/\lambda }_0^{\eta _1}𝑑\eta \eta \mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_0(\eta )}{2k_BT}\right)\left[1+O\left(\frac{\xi _0}{\lambda }\right)\right].$$
(7)
We are now able to quantitatively study the difference in the thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of junctions with and without broken symmetry: it consists of two parts, the energy cost of having a magnetic field and the energy gain due to the shifts of MGS

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{h_z^2(x)}{8\pi }}k_BT{\displaystyle \frac{k_F}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\eta _1}}𝑑\eta \mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{E_0(\eta )}{2k_BT}}\right]`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_F\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _0}{4\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\eta \eta \sqrt{1\eta ^2}D(\eta )\right],`$ (9)
where the second line is valid in the low-temperature limit $`k_BT|E_0|D\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Clearly, for $`D\xi _0/\lambda `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }<0`$ and there is an instability.

Rotating the superconductors away from the $`\alpha _L=0`$, $`\alpha _R=\pi /4`$ orientation, the equilibrium phase difference across the junction is shifted continuously away from $`\pm \pi /2`$ towards either $`0`$ or $`\pm \pi `$ depending on the direction of rotation. This happens because the $`\pm k_y`$ symmetry is lost and non-MGS contributions are able to dominate. However, a numerical calculation shows that in the low-temperature region, $`k_BTD\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where the MGS dominate, the TRSB, that is $`\varphi _{eq}0`$ or $`\pm \pi `$, is quite robust: it survives rotations up to $`10^o`$.

From Eq. (8) it is found that when $`D\xi _0/\lambda `$ the energy of the magnetic field may become larger than the Josephson energy and the instability is lost. However, for such small transparencies it is necessary to take into account the Doppler shift of the MGS due to the finite superfluid momentum, which will assist and uphold the TRSB instability. In the low transparency limit $`D\xi _0/\lambda `$, for which the Doppler shift is much larger than the shift due to finite phase difference, the junction behaves like a free surface with the MGS localized on the right side of the junction. Using the above calculation but taking the energy of the MGS to be $`E_0(\eta )=𝐩_s𝐯_F=p_sv_F\eta `$, one finds from Eq. (8) in the zero-temperature limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=(E_F/16\lambda )(14)[1+O(\xi _0/\lambda )]<0`$ showing that the TRSB state is favorable. Eq. (7) with $`E_0(\eta )=p_sv_F\eta `$ takes the form of a self-consistency equation for $`p_s(T)`$. Near the phase transition temperature, $`p_s`$ is small and the inequality $`p_sv_F<<2k_BT`$ is fulfilled; this allows an expansion of the hyperbolic function, which leads to $`|p_s|=2\sqrt{5/3}(\mathrm{}/\lambda )\sqrt{1T/T_{TRSB}}`$, where $`k_BT_{TRSB}=(1/6)(\xi _0/\lambda )\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the temperature where the second order phase transition into the TRSB state occurs. This surface instability was discovered by Higashitani in connection with a study of the paramagnetic response of the MGS to external magnetic fields. Our present calculation shows that the surface instability is not sensitive to the spatial profile of the gap; since we considered a finite value of the parameter $`\xi _0/\lambda `$ we were able to calculate the phase transition temperature. Within the framework of the quasiclassical Green’s function technique analogous results were recently obtained by Barash et al.

For orientations of the surface different from $`\alpha =\pi /4`$, MGS exists only for trajectories satisfying $`\text{sgn}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }})=1`$. The surface current is then reduced, leading to a continuous reduction of the phase transition temperature, $`k_BT_{TRSB}=(1/6)(\xi _0/\lambda )\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(\mathrm{cos}^3\delta \alpha \mathrm{sin}^3\delta \alpha \right)`$, with misorientation $`\delta \alpha =|\pi /4\alpha |[0,\pi /4]`$. For small misorientations, $`\delta \alpha 1`$, the reduction is quadratic in $`\delta \alpha `$ and the instability is not dramatically sensitive to the exact orientation of the surface. Note, however, that the instability is quite sensitive to surface roughness.

In conclusion, we have studied time-reversal symmetry breaking at Josephson tunnel junctions of $`d`$-wave superconductors assuming that a subdominant component of the order parameter is absent. For the $`D\xi _0/\lambda `$ junction case, at temperatures $`k_BTD\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ for which MGS contribute to the Josephson current with a term proportional to the first power in $`D`$, the TRSB is due to spontaneous establishment of a phase difference $`\varphi =\pm \pi /2`$ across the junction which splits the MGS and produces a surface current. In the extreme low transparency limit, $`D\xi _0/\lambda `$, the mechanism responsible for the instability is instead the same as for the free surface. In this case, below a phase transition temperature $`k_BT_{TRSB}=(1/6)(\xi _0/\lambda )\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, it is energetically favorable to have Doppler shifted MGS carrying a surface current and associated screening currents upholding the Doppler shifts. The detailed spatial shape of the gap does not influence this instability.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank S. Östlund for valuable discussions. We also thank Yu. S. Barash for pointing out Ref.  to us. Support from NFR and NUTEK, Sweden, is gratefully acknowledged.