text:
# Unified Description of the Resonance Peak and Incommensuration in High-𝑇_𝑐 Superconductors

0pt0.4pt 0pt0.4pt 0pt0.4pt

## Abstract

We present a unified description of the resonance peak and low-energy incommensurate response observed in high-$`T_c`$ cuprate superconductors. We argue that both features have a purely magnetic origin and they represent universal features of an incommensurate spin state both below and above the superconducting transition temperature. In this description the resonance peak is the reflection of commensurate antiferromagnetism. Our theoretical scenario gives an account of the main features observed in various families of superconductors and predicts those not yet observed, like a resonance peak in La2NiO4+x.

Neutron scattering experiments in the cuprates reveal two interesting and seemingly unrelated effects: (a) the low-energy incommensurate peaks at momenta $`𝐤=(\frac{\pi }{a},\frac{\pi }{a}(1\pm \delta ))`$ and $`(\frac{\pi }{a}(1\pm \delta ),\frac{\pi }{a})`$  with incommensuration $`\delta `$ (in units of $`\frac{\pi }{a}`$) and, (b) the so-called resonance peak at energies close to 40 meV in the spin susceptibility  at the antiferromagnetic (AF) vector $`𝐐=(\frac{\pi }{a},\frac{\pi }{a})`$. These experimental observations are widely believed to be important for our understanding of the nature of the magnetic correlations and ultimately for the understanding of the superconductivity in high-$`T_c`$ materials.

On the one hand the intensity and the energy $`E_r`$ of the resonance peak seems to scale with the superconducting coherence energy scale

$`E_r5k_BT_c.`$ (1)
This experimental observation was in fact used in Refs.  to relate the formation of the superconducting coherence to the opening of a new spin-scattering channel in the superconducting state that is impossible in the normal state above the superconducting critical temperature $`T_c`$. Several theoretical scenarios attributed the origin of the resonance peak to superconducting coherence effects  or considered it as the fingerprint of a collective mode in an $`SO(5)`$ symmetric field theory .

On the other hand the direct proportionality between $`\delta `$ and $`T_c`$ has been observed in recent neutron scattering data for LSCO and YBCO compounds

$`k_BT_c=2\mathrm{}v^{}\delta `$ (2)
with some characteristic and material dependent velocity $`\mathrm{}v^{}`$ 17-35 meV Å, where $`\delta `$ is measured in units of $`\frac{\pi }{a}`$.

One could argue that there is no immediate connection between the two phenomena . In this case any relationship to superconductivity is accidental and hence there is no unifying physics to be learned from comparing these two sets of observations. Alternatively one can attempt to prove that these two phenomena are intimately related. This is the point of view we will advocate in this article: We argue for the common origin of both the low energy incommensurate response and resonance peak as a magnetic scattering in the disordered incommensurate spin state. In our interpretation the resonance peak is the spectral weight at energy $`E_r`$ associated to the lowest energy spinon excitation with $`𝐤=𝐐`$ in a system with spin incommensuration. A key aspect of our analysis is the realization that the experimental observations are different manifestations of a unique physical phenomenon.

It is apparent that charge doping induces a certain spin ordering in these low-dimensional, doped, antiferromagnets  as a result of competing interactions. Indeed, in one spatial dimension this can be exactly shown to be the case . Here, we will only consider the spin degrees of freedom and show that, regardless of the nature of the spin correlations, universal features emerge as a result of an arbitrary magnetic incommensuration. A relevant question is, however, up to what degree the charge channel affects the spin response and therefore our conclusions. Since one spatial dimension is the case that can be unambiguously addressed we have performed calculations on the 1$`d`$ $`t`$-$`J`$ model to show that our main thesis remains unchanged in the presence of charges.

From Eqs. (1) and (2) one can conclude that

$`E_r=\alpha \delta `$ (3)
with $`\alpha (810)\mathrm{}v^{}`$. This equation could indeed imply that the resonance peak energy and incommensuration are directly related.

We find that there are direct experimental predictions based upon our analysis that can help to resolve whether the incommensuration and resonance are direct consequences of an incommensurate spin state. These are:

$``$ Goldstone modes, characteristic of an ordered AF state, are shifted away from $`𝐐`$ by $`\pm \frac{\pi }{a}\delta `$ with a local maximum in the dispersion relation $`\omega _𝐤`$ at $`𝐤=𝐐`$.

$``$ $`E_r\delta `$, for small $`\delta `$.

$``$ Resonance peak is associated with the lowest energy quasiparticle excitation at $`𝐤=𝐐`$.

$``$ Absolute intensity of the resonance peak decreases when: the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ (fixed $`\delta `$), or $`\delta `$ (fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$), or the temperature $`T`$ increases.

We show that these features (illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2) are universal, independently of the way the incommensuration is established.

To support such a claim we now present three different examples of spin incommensuration ($`𝐒_i^2=S(S+1)`$) with a common AF background:

(i) The first example corresponds to “striped” topological ordering, where on top of an AF backbone state $`|AF`$ there is a “ferromagnetic” (FM) incommensurate exchange coupling $`J^{}>0`$ that we model as

$$H^{}=J^{}\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}𝐒_\alpha 𝐒_\beta ,$$
(4)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ labels the FM link. The striped arrangement of FM links induces $`\pi `$-shifted AF domains. A straightforward perturbative argument leads to $`E_r=\frac{N_L_{}}{N}J^{}AF|𝐒_\alpha 𝐒_\beta |AF\delta J^{}`$, where the ratio between the number of FM links $`N_L`$ and lattice sites $`N`$ is $`\delta `$.

(ii) The second is a spin-wave argument. Assume that on top of an AF background there is a sinusoidally modulated spin structure such that $`S_i^z=S\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{𝐐}𝐫_i)`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{𝐐}=𝐐\pm (\frac{\pi }{a}\delta ,0)`$. This incommensurate spin structure can be stabilized by adding an adequate term to a Heisenberg Hamiltonian . When one considers the simplest AF Hamiltonian the spin propagator $`G_{ij}(t)=i\widehat{T}S_i^+(t)S_j^{}(0)`$ has an equation of motion

$`[\omega ^2+\omega _0^2]`$ $`G`$ $`(𝐤,𝐤^{};\omega )=\omega S\left[\delta _{𝐤,𝐤^{}+\stackrel{~}{𝐐}}+\delta _{𝐤,𝐤^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐐}}\right]`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`f(𝐤\stackrel{~}{𝐐})f(𝐤2\stackrel{~}{𝐐})G(𝐤2\stackrel{~}{𝐐},𝐤^{};\omega )`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`f(𝐤+\stackrel{~}{𝐐})f(𝐤+2\stackrel{~}{𝐐})G(𝐤+2\stackrel{~}{𝐐},𝐤^{};\omega )`$ (7)
with momentum-dependent frequency $`\omega _0^2=f(𝐤)[f(𝐤+\stackrel{~}{𝐐})+f(𝐤\stackrel{~}{𝐐})]`$ and $`f(𝐤)=S[J(\stackrel{~}{𝐐})+J(𝐤)]`$, where $`J(𝐤)`$ is the Fourier transform of the exchange interaction. This can be easily solved by using either a continued fraction representation  of $`G`$ or mapping its equation of motion to a Harper-like Hamiltonian  that can be diagonalized using standard methods. A simple analysis shows that for small $`\delta `$, $`E_r\delta `$ while Goldstone modes appear at $`\stackrel{~}{𝐐}`$. The spin-wave dispersion relation $`\omega _𝐤`$ has a local maximum at $`𝐤=𝐐`$ (see Fig. 1).

(iii) Finally, one can use a Schwinger boson mean-field description of an AF Hamiltonian, as in the spin-wave case, including a term which gives rise to an incommensurate spin phase . Even though the Schwinger-boson approach does not explicitely break the spin $`SU(2)`$ symmetry, as in the spin-wave approximation, both give the same qualitative features for $`\omega _𝐤`$ and the dynamic magnetic structure factor $`S(𝐤,\omega )`$.

From these examples one recognizes that certain features are universal, regardless of the way the incommensuration is established. In Fig. 1 we show the low-energy spin-wave dispersion relation obtained following examples (ii) and (iii) which basically lead to the same qualitative results. We observe the appearance of Goldstone modes at the incommensurate wave vector $`\stackrel{~}{𝐐}`$. The resonance energy $`E_r`$ (inset) is linear in $`\delta `$ for the values of incommensuration observed experimentally. We have also considered the case where there is a spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ in the excitation spectrum . Note that the value of $`E_r`$ is not greatly affected by the introduction of a spin gap.

At low energies $`S(𝐤,\omega )`$ provides information on the spectral weight of the lowest energy spin-quasiparticle excitations (Fig 2). In the presence of long range order, Goldstone bosons appear at $`𝐤=\stackrel{~}{𝐐}`$ in $`\omega =0`$ due to the spontaneously broken $`SU(2)`$ symmetry. The spectral weight, that is proportional to the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi (𝐤,\omega )`$, then diverges at $`𝐤=\stackrel{~}{𝐐}`$ and $`\omega 0`$. In the presence of a spin gap (as it seems to be the case for the cuprates) these peaks become finite and indicate the presence of short-range spin correlation at $`𝐤=\stackrel{~}{𝐐}`$.

The low-energy peaks merge into a broad commensurate response at $`𝐤=𝐐`$ (Fig. 2), where the resonance peak emerges as a fingerprint of the incommensurate nature of the spin state. The intensity of the resonance peak decreases with increasing $`\delta `$. This can be understood as follows: The incommensurate phase is an AF state modulated with a small $`\delta `$; therefore, in the presence of incommensurability, there are still AF regions of size $`\frac{2a}{\delta }`$ in the $`x`$ direction. Under these conditions we expect a high intensity for the spectral weight of the lowest energy spin excitation at $`𝐤=𝐐`$ which is reminiscent of the divergent weight which is obtained when the $`𝐤=𝐐`$ channel is gapless and the size of the AF region is infinite. In the lower panel of Fig. 2 we clearly show that both the low-energy incommensurate response ($`S(𝐤,\omega )`$ for fixed energy $`\omega _0`$) and the resonance peak ($`S(𝐤,\omega )`$ at $`𝐤=𝐐`$) have the same magnetic origin.

We consider now the effect the charge degrees of freedom have on the spin dynamics. To this end, we have calculated $`S(𝐤,\omega )`$ for a 1$`d`$ $`t`$-$`J`$ model (16 sites); the results are shown in Fig. 3. Clearly, the main universal features are still there: Goldstone modes at the incommensurate points, $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ peak at $`𝐤=𝐐`$, etc. The particle channel contributes to establish the incommensuration (each charge carries an anti-phase boundary for the AF order parameter ) but once it is established the main qualitative features in the spin dynamics remain unchanged. This seems to be the case for any doped AF Mott insulator whenever its state is spin incommensurate.

These generic features have been observed in YBCO and Bi2212. In LSCO the incommensuration has been certainly measured although there is no indication of the presence of a resonance peak. However, this question still has to be clarified experimentally, although it is possible that a great degree of disorder in this compound is responsible for washing out the peak and decrease its intensity. Our calculation indicates that the relative weight of the resonance peak decreases and the weight at the incommensurate points increases with decreasing spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. This might explain why the resonance has not been observed in LSCO where the spin gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s7`$ meV, is substantially smaller than in YBCO. From our picture we predict a resonance peak at $`E_r=`$14-16 meV for LSCO. Table I summarizes the magnetic properties of the different families of cuprate superconductors. Using the linearity between $`T_c`$ and $`\delta `$, and the fact that $`E_r`$ is linear in $`\delta `$ for an incommensurate system (with small incommensuration $`\delta `$), we can also explain the linear relation between $`E_r`$ and $`T_c`$ measured in YBCO and Bi2212. Note that our interpretation provides a definite meaning to the velocity $`\mathrm{}v^{}`$, which is directly proportional to the rate of change of the resonance energy $`E_r`$ as the result of changes in the spin incommensuration $`\delta `$.

Within our magnetic scenario one can qualitatively understand why in the superconducting phase the intensity of the $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ peak will be enhanced, independently of the mechanism that drives the superconducting state: Since holes moving in an uncorrelated fashion in an incommensurate AF background carry an anti-phase domain wall, whenever superconducting or pairing fluctuations coexist they will tend to “annihilate” those domains (holes form pairs) and make the system more AF. These fluctuations produce some degree of disorder with wavelengths longer than the incommensurate wavelength. The net effect is a transfer of intensity in $`S(𝐤,\omega )`$ from the $`𝐤`$-points near the incommensurate wavevectors $`\stackrel{~}{𝐐}_\pm `$ towards the $`𝐤`$-points near the commensurate point $`𝐐`$ (this is seen in calculations of the 1$`d`$ $`t`$-$`J`$ model). This scenario is consistent with the temperature dependence of the incommensurate magnetic response observed in La1.86Sr0.14CuO4 .

To sharpen our argument about the purely magnetic origin of the resonance peak in the incommensurate state we turn now to the non-superconducting La2NiO4+x. This is a material where the existence of charged stripes is well established . From our model we expect that in the striped phase of LaNiO the magnetic incommensuration coexists with the resonance peak. We estimate $`E_r4070`$ meV for La2NiO4.13. It would be interesting to see whether high-energy neutron scattering experiments can be done on this material to search for a resonance peak in an insulating material.

In conclusion, we argued that both the low energy incommensurate response and resonance peak have a common magnetic origin. They are natural consequences of an incommensurate spin state. Superconductivity is not the cause of the resonance peak although it could be the consequence of incommensuration. There is an anomaly in the temperature dependence of the resonance peak at $`T=T_c`$ with an abrupt change in intensity above the level of a weaker, normal response. From our description this fact can be related to the decreasing number of anti-phase boundaries due to pairing fluctuations. These fluctuations transfer spectral weight from the region around the incommensurate $`𝐤`$-points into the region near the commensurate $`𝐤=𝐐`$ point . In addition, the presence of a gap, regardless of the superconducting mechanism, reduces the spin-particle scattering increasing the antiferromagnetic fluctuations. $`E_r`$ emerges as the result of the competition between antiferromagnetism (which can lead to charge confinement) and delocalization (driven by kinetic energy) therefore defining an additional characteristic energy scale. From our findings, $`E_r`$ is intimately related to the emergent length scale $`\delta `$. The purely magnetic origin of the resonance peak explains why it has been observed above $`T_c`$. Most of the previous descriptions of the origin of the $`(\pi ,\pi )`$-resonance  invoked coherent effects or collective modes present in the superconducting state. These theories cannot explain the many cases where the resonance has been observed above the superconducting transition . An indirect confirmation of our phenomenology is related to recent experimental observations on the effect of nonmagnetic Zn impurities in YBCO . It is known that Zn-doping suppresses superconductivity and at the same time leads to a resonance peak above $`T_c`$, seemingly due to increased AF correlations.

Work at Los Alamos is sponsored by the US DOE under contract W-7405-ENG-36. We also acknowledge useful discussions with P. Bourges, P.C. Dai, I. Martin, H.A. Mook, D.K. Morr, J.M. Tranquada, and S. Trugman.


format: text

text:
# Josephson currents through spin-active interfaces

## I Introduction

If a superconductor is exposed to magnetically active impurities or materials the superconducting state is modified. Josephson coupling two superconductors through a magnetically active barrier may lead to what is known as a $`\mathrm{"}\pi \mathrm{"}`$-junction, a junction for which the ground state has an internal phase shift of $`\pi `$ between the superconductors across the barrier. If the barrier is extended to an S/F/S-structure, a ferromagnetic (F) layer sandwiched between two superconductors (S), the critical current will oscillate as the thickness of F is varied. Additionally, the critical current will also depend on the strength of the exchange field in F. The principal reason for this strong dependence of junction properties is a drastic modification of the local superconducting density of states in the contact region to the F-layer . Scattering of a magnetically active surface or transmission through a ferromagnetic barrier leads to a depairing of the Cooper-pairs and the creation of surface or layer Andreev states at energies within the superconducting gap. There have been an extensive experimental effort to explore the physics above by tunneling through magnetic insulator barriers, by probing the proximity effect in S/F-structures and constructing S/F-multilayers (see also references therein). The problem at hand is quite formidable since the strength of the exchange energy is for most ferromagnetic materials, like Ni, Co and Fe, a sizable part of the Fermi energy $`(eV)`$ while superconductivity lives on a much smaller energy scale $`(meV)`$. To overcome the difference in energy scales the ferromagnetic layer must be extremely small $`(\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}nm)`$ and only recently have supercurrents been reported in S/F/S junctions by Veretennikov et al  using weak ferromagnetic alloys for the F-layer.

To efficiently model the S/F/S-junction there are two main routes of approach. The first is to assume an extension of a ferromagnetic metal, now characterized by a length and an exchange field, separating the two superconductors. Within this approach both critical current oscillations and the effect of the exchange field on the Andreev bound states have been studied. The limitation of the approach is that it is restricted to small exchange fields, i.e. fields that are comparable to the superconducting gap. An alternative approach is to treat the ferromagnetic part as a partially transparent barrier which transmits the two spin projections differently . Using Bogoliubov-deGennes equations and a WKB-approach for the ferromagnetic barrier, Josephson current-phase relations and quasiparticle tunneling have been studied for both conventional s-wave and unconventional d-wave superconductors.

In this Paper, I follow the second path making use of the quasiclassical theory appropriate for describing low-energy phenomena like superconductivity for which considered energies are small compared to the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ \[\]. Ferromagnetism will enter as a boundary problem for the quasiclassical Green’s functions $`\widehat{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹_s;\epsilon )`$ at a semi-transparent interface separating two conventional s-wave superconductors. There is no general restriction of validity of the present work to conventional superconductivity. The physics revealed in the simplest system proves to be quite rich without adding properties related to an unconventional pairing state and therefore s-wave superconductivity in proximity to ferromagnetism should be studied in its own right. In section II, a general solution of the quasiclassical boundary condition, as posed by Millis, Rainer and Sauls , is given for equilibrium Green’s functions. In section III the local density of states in proximity to a ferromagnetic insulator is discussed. This is an important step in understanding the Josephson coupling between two s-wave superconductors studied as function of a simple phenomenological two spin-band scattering $`\widehat{S}`$-matrix. Section IV is devoted to the study of the Josephson coupling and maps out regions where the junction is in a normal ”0”-state and where it switches to the ”$`\pi `$”-state.

## II Boundary conditions for quasiclassical projectors at spin-active interfaces

Surfaces and interfaces involve energies of order $`E_F`$ which in quasiclassical theory are integrated out at the onset. This means that boundary conditions for the quasiclassical Green’s function at surfaces and interfaces must be posed for the full Green’s function satisfying the Gor’kov equation. Resulting boundary conditions have then to be energy integrated into their quasiclassical form . Physical properties of an interface can then be accounted for by a suitably chosen scattering S-matrix. A boundary condition for partially transmitting interfaces was first derived by Zaitsev  and, independently, by Kieselmann . The boundary condition was later generalized by Millis, Rainer and Sauls (MRS) to include spin-active interfaces, i.e. interfaces which transmit and reflect quasiparticles differently depending on the spin projection.

Recently, Eschrig  used a projector method to solve Zaitsev’s boundary condition in general. The projectors, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_\alpha ^{(I)}`$, introduced relate to the quasiclassical Green’s function as $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}^{(I)}=i\pi (\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(I)}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(I)}).`$ The superscripts $`(I)`$ label the side of the interface, the subscripts $`\pm `$ are directional indices and finally the ”háček” denote the Keldysh-matrix structure of the Green’s function. For a full account on the quasiclassical projectors $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_\alpha ^{(I)}`$ and their parameterization, I refer the reader to Eschrig’s original paper and in Appendix A I give a brief review of elements of quasiclassical theory used in this paper. Written in projectors $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_\alpha ^{(I)}`$ equations (63-66) of MRS reads

$$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(2)}\widehat{S}_{22}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(2)}\widehat{S}_{22}^{}(\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(2)}\stackrel{ˇ}{1})\hfill & \hfill =\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(2)}\widehat{S}_{21}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(1)}\widehat{S}_{21}^{}(\stackrel{ˇ}{1}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(2)})\\ \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(2)}\widehat{S}_{22}^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(2)}\widehat{S}_{22}(\stackrel{ˇ}{1}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(2)})\hfill & \hfill =\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(2)}\widehat{S}_{12}^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(1)}\widehat{S}_{12}(\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(2)}\stackrel{ˇ}{1})\\ (\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(1)}\stackrel{ˇ}{1})\widehat{S}_{11}^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(1)}\widehat{S}_{11}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(1)}\hfill & \hfill =(\stackrel{ˇ}{1}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(1)})\widehat{S}_{21}^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(2)}\widehat{S}_{21}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(1)}\\ (\stackrel{ˇ}{1}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(1)})\widehat{S}_{11}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_{}^{(1)}\widehat{S}_{11}^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(1)}\hfill & \hfill =(\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(1)}\stackrel{ˇ}{1})\widehat{S}_{12}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(2)}\widehat{S}_{12}^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_+^{(1)}\end{array}$$
(1)
Here, the non-commutative $``$-product is a usual matrix product and a folding of internal energies. The solution of the system of equations (1) is facilitated by a convenient parameterization of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒫}_\alpha `$ in terms of four coherence functions $`\gamma ^R,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R,\gamma ^A,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^A`$ and two distribution functions $`x^K,\stackrel{~}{x}^K`$. These six functions are 2$`\times `$2 spin matrices and superscripts (R,A,K) stand for Retarded, Advanced and Keldysh. The set of functions above obey Riccati-like equations that are easier to handle than the original quasiclassical matrix equation. Especially, they fulfill certain stability criteria when integrated for along trajectories $`𝒙`$. The functions $`\gamma ^R,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^A`$ and $`x^K`$ are bounded when integrating the along a trajectory $`(𝒗_f(\widehat{𝒑})𝒙>0)`$ and functions $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R,\gamma ^A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}^K`$ are bounded integrating in the opposite direction $`(𝒗_f(\widehat{𝒑})𝒙<0)`$ \[\]. Restating this in context of the interface problem we can always integrate up to the barrier obtaining $`\gamma ^R,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^A`$, $`x^K`$ along trajectories with $`𝒗_f(\widehat{𝒑})𝒙>0`$, i.e. along the trajectories $`\widehat{𝒑}_1`$ and $`\widehat{𝒑}_2`$ in Figure 1. Similarly, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R,\gamma ^A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}^K`$ are integrated stably along $`𝒗_f(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{𝒑}})𝒙<0`$, i.e. $`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{𝒑}}_1`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{𝒑}}_2`$ in Figure 1. For constructing the Greens’s function at the surface that fulfills eqs. (1) we still need the ”scattered” functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^R,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^A`$ and $`X^K`$ with $`𝒗_f(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{𝒑}})𝒙<0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^R,\mathrm{\Gamma }^A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}^K`$ with $`𝒗_f(\widehat{𝒑})𝒙>0`$. These functions have to be solved for from eqs. (1). Using the functions $`(\gamma _i^R,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i^R,\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^R,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i^R)`$, the Retarded projectors are constructed as

FIG. 1.:  A schematic picture of the in-scattering trajectories $`(\widehat{𝒑}_1,\widehat{𝒑}_2)`$ connected over an interface barrier parameterized by an S-matrix to the out-scattering ones $`(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{𝒑}}_1,\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{𝒑}}_2)`$

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\widehat{𝒫}_+^R(\widehat{𝒑}_1)=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1^R\end{array}\right)(1\gamma _1^R\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1^R)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}1\gamma _1^R\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \widehat{𝒫}_{}^R(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{𝒑}}_1)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^R\\ 1\end{array}\right)(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1^R\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^R)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1^R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\{\begin{array}{c}\widehat{𝒫}_+^R(\widehat{𝒑}_2)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma _2^R\\ 1\end{array}\right)(1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2^R\gamma _2^R)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2^R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \widehat{𝒫}_{}^R(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{𝒑}}_2)=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2^R\end{array}\right)(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^R\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2^R)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^R\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}`$
and after substitution into eqs. (1) one finds after some straightforward algebra that the scattered-out functions can be expressed solely by scattering-in functions as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^R\hfill & =(S_{11}\gamma _1^R\stackrel{~}{S}_{11}^1)_{1r}^R+(S_{12}\gamma _2^R\stackrel{~}{S}_{12}^1)𝒯_{1r}^R\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1^R\hfill & =(\stackrel{~}{S}_{11}^{}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1^RS_{11}^1)\stackrel{~}{}_{1r}^R+(\stackrel{~}{S}_{21}^{}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2^RS_{21}^1)\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_{1r}^R\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
The generalized reflection coefficients $`_{Sp}^R`$ are defined as

$$\begin{array}{c}_{1r}^R=\stackrel{~}{S}_{11}\rho _{21}^{R1}[\stackrel{~}{S}_{11}\rho _{21}^{R1}\stackrel{~}{S}_{12}\rho _{22}^{R1}]^1\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}_{1r}^R=S_{11}^{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}^{R1}[S_{11}^{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}^{R1}S_{21}^{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{22}^{R1}]^1\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
and corresponding transmission coefficients $`𝒯_{Sp}^R=1_{Sp}^R`$. The functions $`\rho _{ij}^R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ij}^R`$ are given as $`\rho _{ij}^R=\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i^RS_{ij}\gamma _j^R\text{and}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ij}^R=S_{ij}^{}\gamma _j^R\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i^R`$. The scattered coherence functions on side 2 are given by interchanging the side index $`12`$. Advanced functions are related to the retarded ones by general symmetry $`\widehat{g}^A=\widehat{\tau }_3(\widehat{g}^R)^{}\widehat{\tau }_3`$. The similarity in form of the final result given in equation (8) to the solution of a scattering problem is not a coincidence as the boundary condition for the quasiclassical Green’s function can also be solved by a direct scattering approach .

So far no reference to the form of the scattering $`S`$-matrix has been made. $`S`$ is a scalar in Keldysh space and a matrix $`𝒮`$ in particle-hole space, spanned by Pauli-matrices $`\widehat{\tau }_j`$, with the form $`𝒮=S(1+\widehat{\tau }_3)/2+\stackrel{~}{S}(1\widehat{\tau }_3)/2`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{S}(p_{_{}})=S^{tr}(p_{_{}})`$ \[\]. For spin-active interfaces the different components of the $`S`$-matrix, $`S_{ij}`$ in (8) above, are $`2\times 2`$ spin matrices. To proceed further a specific $`S`$-matrix is chosen to model the magnetic barrier

$$\widehat{S}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}& \hfill S_{12}\\ S_{21}& \hfill S_{22}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r& \hfill t\\ t& \hfill r\end{array}\right)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _3)$$
(10)
where $`\sigma _j`$ notes the Pauli-matrices spanning spin space and parameters $`(t,r)`$ are the usual transmission and reflection coefficients. The S-matrix (10) is one of the simplest choices that allows a variable degree of spin mixing at the interface and the spin mixing is parameterized by the spin-mixing angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. By this construction $`\widehat{S}`$ only violates spin conservation, i.e. it does not commute with the quasiparticle spin operator $`𝝈`$. The angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ will be considered as a phenomenological parameter independent of the trajectory direction in this paper, but as shown by Tokuyasu et al in the appendix of Ref. \[\] one can relate $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to the microscopic properties of the magnetic barrier. In particular, in Ref. \[\] an S-matrix is constructed for a magnetically ordered insulating barrier and it is found, as expected, that $`\widehat{S}`$ depends on the quasiparticle momentum projection parallel to the interface and on material parameters describing the barrier such as the average band gap, $`E_g`$, the internal exchange field, $`h_i`$, and its orientation $`\widehat{𝝁}`$.

Only the simplest case of an isotropic s-wave superconductor will be considered in this paper using weak coupling BCS theory. For this, assuming a constant order parameter in space $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the retarded coherence functions are $`\gamma ^R=\gamma _0i\sigma _2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R=i\sigma _2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_0`$ with $`\gamma _0=\mathrm{\Delta }/(\epsilon ^R+i\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}/(\epsilon ^R+i\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2(\epsilon ^R)^2}`$ and $`\epsilon ^R=\epsilon +i\delta `$. If, on the other hand, the effect of proximity to a magnetic material on the superconductor is of interest the Riccati equations

$$\begin{array}{c}i𝒗_f\mathbf{}_𝑹\gamma ^R+2\epsilon ^R\gamma ^R=\gamma ^R\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^R\gamma ^R+\mathrm{\Sigma }_d^R\gamma ^R\gamma ^R\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d^R\mathrm{\Delta }^R\hfill \\ i𝒗_f\mathbf{}_𝑹\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R2\epsilon ^R\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R\mathrm{\Delta }^R\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d^R\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R\mathrm{\Sigma }_d^R\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^R\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
have to be solved together with a self consistent determination of the order parameter $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)`$ and of the impurity self energy $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x;\epsilon )`$ as described in the appendix. In eq. (11), $`\mathrm{\Delta }^R=\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{od}^R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^R=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{od}^R`$ are the impurity renormalized gaps, while $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d^R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d^R`$ are diagonal in Nambu space, and include both the impurity self energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{i}`$ and the mean fields $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{m}`$. All functions entering are spin matrices, and for the problems that will be considered in this paper it is sufficient to parameterize the matrices by two components as e.g. $`(\gamma _o+\gamma _3\sigma _3)i\sigma _2`$ and $`i\sigma _2(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_0\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_3\sigma _3)`$. The bulk values for $`\gamma ^R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^R`$, given above, serve in this case as initial values when integrating eqs. (11).

## III Andreev bound states at an impenetrable magnetic barrier.

As a first point we return to the half-space model of Tokuyasu et al, a semi-infinite BCS-superconductor bounded by a magnetic insulator. The scattering off the insulator is assumed to be specular with a phase shift acquired differently at reflection for spin-up and spin-down quasiparticles. Using the $`\widehat{S}`$-matrix above, the coherence functions scattered off the magnetic insulator are given directly by the incoming ones as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _3)\gamma _0i\sigma _2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=i\sigma _2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_0\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _3)`$. Using the information of the scattered coherence functions the Green’s function is given for a trajectory with $`\widehat{𝒏}\widehat{𝒑}_f>0`$ as

$$\widehat{g}^R=i\pi \widehat{N}^R\left(\begin{array}{cc}(1+\gamma ^R\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^R)& 2\gamma ^R\\ 2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^R& (1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^R\gamma ^R)\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
where

$$\widehat{N}^R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(1\gamma ^R\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^R)^1& 0\\ 0& (1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^R\gamma ^R)^1\end{array}\right).$$
(13)
If the trajectory is $`\widehat{𝒏}\widehat{𝒑}_f<0`$, the Green’s function is simply given by interchanging $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$. The effect of the spin mixing is perhaps best seen in the spin and angle-resolved density of states (DOS) right at the barrier. On a trajectory with $`\widehat{𝒏}\widehat{𝒑}_f>0`$ this quantity is given by the imaginary part of $`g^R(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\epsilon )`$, the upper left component of (12) as described in eq. (A12). Assuming a constant order parameter up to the interface, the local DOS at the interface for spin-up quasiparticles, $`N_{}`$, can be written as

$$N_{}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\epsilon ;\mathrm{\Theta })=Im\left[\frac{\epsilon ^R\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)\epsilon ^R\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)}\right].$$
(14)
For spin-down quasiparticles $`N_{}`$ reads the same after substitution $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }`$. This density of states has Andreev bound states inside the gap, i.e. for $`|\epsilon |<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. These states are located at $`\epsilon _{b,()}=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)`$, with $`+()`$ for the spin-up (-down) branch. It is notable that the DOS (14) has exactly the same form as the DOS calculated for a S/F/S weak link, for which the angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is shown to depend on the thickness of and exchange field in the F-layer.

The existence of bound states will lead to a reduction of the order parameter amplitude in the vicinity of the magnetic interface. This is seen in Figure 2 in Ref. \[\]. The pairbreaking occurs gradually as the bound state on either spin branch is tuned towards $`\epsilon _b=0`$ with $`\mathrm{\Theta }\pi `$. At $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi `$ the order parameter is totally reduced at the interface and recovers to its bulk value over a distance of order $`\xi _o`$, the zero temperature coherence length in the superconductor. It turns out that the position in energy of the surface states, $`\epsilon _b`$, is not to sensitive to a spatial variation in the order parameter. The Andreev bound states would be delta peaks if the superconductor had an infinite mean free path. The presence of impurities in the bulk give rise to a finite life time $`\tau `$ which broadens the Andreev peak. The broadening of the Andreev states is sensitive to the scattering strength of the impurities. In the main panels of the figures 2 the DOS is shown for different values of spin-mixing $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The surface order parameter is self consistently determined for each spin-mixing angle. The scattering rate is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1/2\tau =0.01`$ in units of $`2\pi T_c`$ and corresponds to a mean free path $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{mfp}}=50\xi _o`$. From the literature on d-wave superconductors it is known that surface bound states are broadened by impurity scattering as $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ in the Born limit . In the two insets in figure 2 the dependence of the width of the zero energy peak with scattering rate for $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi `$ is shown. For small scattering rates indeed the $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$-dependence is recovered. If, on the other hand, the scattering strength of the impurities is in the strong scattering limit the broadening of the Andreev bound states will be exponentially small, $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ \[\]. The effect of unitary scatterers is shown in the figure to the right in Fig. 2.

## IV Josephson current-phase relation and the energy state of the junction.

Next, let us consider the Josephson current-phase relation through a magnetically active point contact. Assuming a point contact allows several simplifications. Effects of the contact itself on superconductivity i.e. the order parameter profile may be disregarded. This holds true if the contact radius is taken much smaller than the superconducting coherence length. Furthermore, spin-neutral surface scattering alone does not affect an isotropic s-wave superconductor and thus bulk values of the coherence functions $`\gamma ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ can be used for the in-scattering ones in the boundary condition (8). An additional advantage of the point contact condition is that the results will not depend on the presence of non-magnetic bulk impurities as the current through the point contact depends only on bulk coherence functions. On the other hand, the point contact itself is fully described by its transmission $`t`$ and degree of spin mixing, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The Josephson current through the contact is calculated as a function of the phase difference, $`\varphi `$, between two superconductors by the current formula

$$𝒋(\varphi )=eN_f_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\epsilon }{8\pi i}\mathrm{Tr}𝒗_f\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{g}_\varphi ^K(\widehat{𝒑}_f,0;\epsilon )_{\widehat{𝒑}_f}.$$
(15)
Here $`\widehat{g}_\varphi ^K(\widehat{𝒑}_f,0;\epsilon )=(\widehat{g}_\varphi ^R(\widehat{𝒑}_f,0;\epsilon )\widehat{g}_\varphi ^A(\widehat{𝒑}_f,0;\epsilon ))\mathrm{tanh}(\epsilon /2T)`$ is the equilibrium Keldysh Green function constructed from the retarded and advanced ones, $`\widehat{g}_\varphi ^{R,A}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,0;\epsilon )`$, at the interface. Functions $`\widehat{g}_\varphi ^{R,A}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,0;\epsilon )`$ are calculated at the interface so the boundary condition (8) is fulfilled. The resulting critical current of the junctions is characterized by different transparency and spin-mixing angle and show a rich variety as seen in Figures 3. This quantity is defined as the maximum amplitude of the current reached between a phase difference of $`0`$ and $`\pi `$. The sign of the critical current is either positive giving a $`\mathrm{"}0\mathrm{"}`$-junction or negative signaling a $`\mathrm{"}\pi \mathrm{"}`$-junction. For arbitrary transmission and spin mixing the analytic expression for the current is not very tractable and numerical analysis of the current-phase relation is more practical. In the two extreme limits of tunneling, $`t<<1`$, and high transparency, $`t1`$, the analytical expression is simpler and reveals the physics going on.

Starting with the tunneling limit, the transmitted coherence functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ as given by equations (8) are expanded to leading order in transparency $`𝒯=|t|^2`$. The expanded $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ are then put into the expression for $`\widehat{g}^R`$, eq. (12), and to first order in $`𝒯`$ the resulting current is given as follows

$$j(\varphi ;\mathrm{\Theta })=𝒯j_o\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\epsilon }{4\pi }\left[𝒦_+(\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Theta })+𝒦_{}(\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Theta })\right]$$
(16)
where $`𝒦_\pm (\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Theta })=[\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)\pm \epsilon \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)]^2\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\epsilon }{2T})`$ and $`j_o=2ev_fN_f\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. In general the current is totally governed by the bound states at $`\epsilon _b=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Theta }/2)`$ and their population at the given temperature $`T`$. Notable is that for all values of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the current-phase relation is sinusoidal. Setting $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ reproduces the usual Ambegaokar-Baratoff expression . At $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi `$, $`\epsilon _b`$ is a zero-energy bound state and give rise to a $`\mathrm{"}\pi \mathrm{"}`$-junction with a critical current which increases as $`T^1`$ with decreasing temperature as shown in the inset in the left figure 3. A similar anomaly in the critical current occurs for d-wave superconductors . The difference between the anomaly in the two types of superconductors is that for d-wave superconductors any concentration of bulk impurities will give a finite width of the zero energy bound states and reduce the $`T^1`$-anomaly. For an s-wave superconductor at a point contact only inelastic scattering processes, phase-breaking impurities or, as shown below, a finite $`𝒯`$ can give a similar broadening and the anomaly is quite robust due to long inelastic (phase-breaking) scattering times, i.e. $`1/2\tau _{inel,(phase)}<<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Going away from $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi `$, $`\epsilon _b`$ moves to finite energy and the functions $`𝒦_\pm (\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Theta })`$ acquire double pole structure at $`\epsilon _b`$. The two poles are slightly shifted and have slightly asymmetric magnitude in residues. Given that the residues also are of different sign, they contribute oppositely to the critical current. The separation in energy of the poles is dependent on the imaginary part, $`\delta `$, of the energy $`\epsilon +i\delta `$. $`\delta `$ can loosely be interpreted as an inelastic scattering rate. At $`T=0`$ and $`\delta 0`$ it turns out that the ground state of the junction is always a ”0”-junction except at $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi `$. As temperature and/or the $`\delta `$ is increased the region in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ showing a $`\mathrm{"}\pi \mathrm{"}`$-state junction increases. This is clearly demonstrated in figure 3 where the critical current is plotted as function of temperature. For all but the two largest values of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ the low-T critical current is positive.

Sticking to the tunneling limit, the results derived here can also be obtained using equations (93-94) of MRS. What is crucial to note is that in order to find the bound state contribution to the current the Green’s functions must be the ones arrived at in eq. (12). This is taking into account the spatial dependence of the Green’s function at the magnetic pinhole, i.e. solving the impenetrable wall problem with the $`\widehat{S}`$-matrix describing the pinhole. If this spatial dependence is neglected, and the bulk Green’s functions are used in equations (93-94) of MRS, the resulting Josephson current will simply have two contributions $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi \pm \mathrm{\Theta })`$, one contribution for each spin band.

Moving away from the tunneling limit the $`T^1`$-anomaly is cut off by the finite value of $`𝒯`$. Instead, the switching between ”0” and $`\mathrm{"}\pi \mathrm{"}`$-states happens in abrupt jumps in the critical current. This abruptness is spurious since the current-phase relation has three zeros between 0 and $`\pi `$ and the change of state from $`\mathrm{"}\pi \mathrm{"}`$ to ”0” occurs without the current being zero for every phase difference. Instead the junction has two local minima in energy, at phase difference $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\pi `$. Right at the switching point the two states are degenerate and the junction state can be tuned with temperature. This is shown in the inset of the middle figure 3 which depicts the junction energy vs. phase difference for a junction with $`𝒯=0.1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=3\pi /4`$. As seen, between the two energy minima there is a potential barrier. This barrier is at highest at an intermediate phase $`0<\varphi <\pi `$ where the current through the junction is zero. As temperature is swept over the switching temperature, which for this junction is at $`T_{sw}0.12T_c`$, the energy minimum jumps from $`\varphi =\pi `$ to $`\varphi =0`$ as temperature is increased through $`T_{sw}`$ and vice versa as the temperature is decreased through $`T_{sw}`$. The position in temperature depends on the two junction parameters $`𝒯`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. For larger transparencies the values of tunable junctions is restricted to a decreasing range in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ just below $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /2`$.

If the transparency is taken to unity the tunability of the junction state with temperature vanishes. This is seen from the current-phase relation

$$j(\varphi ;\mathrm{\Theta })=j_o_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\epsilon }{4\pi }\left[𝒥_+(\varphi ;\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Theta })+𝒥_{}(\varphi ;\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Theta })\right]$$
(17)
with

$`𝒥_\pm (\varphi ;\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Theta })={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\varphi \pm \mathrm{\Theta })}{[\mathrm{\Omega }^2\epsilon ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \pm \mathrm{\Theta })]}}\mathrm{tanh}({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2T}}).`$

The current is now controlled by interface states located at $`\epsilon _i=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}[(\varphi \pm \mathrm{\Theta })/2]`$, i.e. at a position given by the phase $`\varphi `$ but shifted by $`\pm \mathrm{\Theta }`$ for the two spin bands as compared to the spin-neutral case. This shows up in the fact that at $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ the usual Kulik-Omel’yanchuk (KO) formula is recovered  and at finite $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, eq. (17) is a sum of two KO supercurrents evaluated at phases shifted by $`\pm \mathrm{\Theta }`$. For spin-mixing angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }<\pi /2`$ the junction is in the ”0”-state and at $`\mathrm{\Theta }>\pi /2`$ in the $`\mathrm{"}\pi \mathrm{"}`$-state. At $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /2`$ the junction state is degenerate for every temperature as the current-phase relation has doubled periodicity.

## V Discussion

In this paper a general solution is derived for the equilibrium part of the Zaitsev-Millis-Rainer-Sauls boundary condition describing spin-active interfaces. This solution is the main result of the paper and will be an important part in further studies of hybrid superconductor-(ferro)magnetic systems. As an application, the effects of a magnetically active barrier, as described by a simple two-parameter $`\widehat{S}`$-matrix, are studied. In particular, it is shown that spin-mixing brings about Andreev bound states within the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The energy of these states is sensitive to the amount of spin-mixing imposed by the scattering off the interface. Comparing with the DOS calculated here and those obtained in the tunneling experiments of Stageberg et al it is plausible to conclude that the spin-mixing angle is not that large but rather in the range $`|\mathrm{\Theta }|\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\pi /4`$ for the materials studied in the experiment. None the less, it is important to note that the shift seen in the tunneling conductance may be dependent on, and described by, the tunneling barrier properties and thus not directly dependent of the exchange field in the ferromagnet probed. On account of the Josephson coupling through a magnetically active interface, a small value of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ would imply that ”$`\pi `$”-junctions are hard to realize at least in large junctions. To obtain a ”$`\pi `$”-junction it is shown that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ must exceed $`\pi /2`$ for any range of transparency. On the other hand, new experiments are in the making like the magnetic Cobalt grains studied by S. Guéron et al. These small magnetic systems may well prove to offer magnetic scattering where a large $`\mathrm{\Theta }\pi `$ is realized. As an example, using STM-techniques, as those performed on the Au point contacts in Ref. \[\], on small magnetic grains and with superconducting electrodes, the Josephson physics described in this paper could be probed.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank Yu. S. Barash, J. C. Cuevas, M. Eschrig, T. T. Heikkilä, G. Schön and A. Shelankov for stimulating discussions and comments regarding topics of this work. Computer resources at Center for Scientific Computing in Esbo, Finland are greatfully acknowledged. This work was supported by DFG project SFB 195.

## A Quasiclassical Theory

Calculations presented in this paper are done within the quasiclassical approximation which is a generalization of the Landau Fermi-liquid theory to include superconduncting and superfluid phenomena. Quasiclassical theory is an expansion in quantities like $`T/T_f`$ or $`1/\xi k_f`$, which are usually of order $`10^210^3`$ in conventional superconductors. I use the quasiclassical theory for a p-wave superfluid <sup>3</sup>He as worked out by Serene and Rainer together with the real-metal-oriented weak-coupling theory of Alexander et al to describe the superconductor in proximity to a magnetically active material. In this appendix a brief review, or collection, of the building blocks of quasiclassical theory is given.

Our starting point is the Eilenberger equation

$$i𝒗_f\mathbf{}_𝑹\widehat{g}+[\epsilon \widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{v}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }},\widehat{g}]=0$$
(A1)
for the $`4\times 4`$ matrix propagator $`\widehat{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )`$. Here $`𝒗_f`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`\widehat{𝒑}_f`$ is a point on the Fermi surface, The explicit $`2\times 2`$-matrix structure of $`\widehat{g}`$ reflects particle-hole (Nambu) space. The spin degree of freedom is in the parameterization into spin scalars, $`g(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )`$, $`f(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )`$, and spin vectors, $`𝒈(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒈}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )`$, $`𝒇(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒇}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )`$ as

$$\widehat{g}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g+𝒈𝝈& (f+𝒇𝝈)i\sigma _2\\ i\sigma _2(\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{𝒇}𝝈)& \sigma _2(\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{𝒈}𝝈)\sigma _2\end{array}\right).$$
(A2)
In addition to (A1) the propagator obeys the normalization condition $`\widehat{g}^2(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )=\pi ^2`$. There is some redundancy in the parameterization of (A2) which gives the following symmetries

$$\stackrel{~}{x}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )=x(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon ^{})^{}$$
(A3)
where $`x`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{x}`$) is one of the spin components $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ or $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{\alpha \beta }`$) of the Green’s function. Matsubara propagators are obtained by $`(\epsilon i\epsilon _n=i\pi T(2n+1))`$, retarded propagators by $`(\epsilon \epsilon +i\delta )`$, and advanced propagators by $`(\epsilon \epsilon i\delta )`$. Analogous symmetry relations hold for the self energies.

The self energy $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ in equation (A1) contains impurity contributions, the Fermi-liquid mean fields and the order parameter

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{i}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{m}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹)+\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹)$$
(A4)
The self-consistency equations for the impurity self energy $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{i}`$ given one impurity potential $`\widehat{u}_\mathrm{i}`$ and one impurity concentration $`n_\mathrm{i}`$ is

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{i}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )=n_\mathrm{i}\widehat{t}_\mathrm{i}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )$$
(A5)
with the quasiclassical T-matrix equation

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{t}_\mathrm{i}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝑹;\epsilon )=\widehat{u}_\mathrm{i}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\hfill \\ +N_f\widehat{u}_\mathrm{i}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime })\widehat{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime },𝑹;\epsilon )\widehat{t}_\mathrm{i}(\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime },\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝑹;\epsilon )_{\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }}\hfill \end{array}$$
(A6)
$`N_f`$ is the averaged normal state density of states at the Fermi surface and $`\mathrm{}_{\widehat{𝒑}_f}`$ denotes a Fermi-surface average. If there are more than one type of impurity potentials equation (A5) will be a sum over the different impurity contributions, each with its own density and its own T-matrix. It is important to bare in mind that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{i}`$ is in general not diagonal in particle-hole space. The self energy $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{m}`$ contains the Fermi-liquid mean-field self energies. It is diagonal in particle-hole space and divided into a symmetric ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m`$) and an antisymmetric ($`𝚺_m`$) part as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹)=T{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _n}{}}A^s(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{})g(\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝑹;\epsilon _n)_{\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}`$ (A7)
$`𝚺_m(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹)=T{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _n}{}}A^a(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝒈(\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝑹;\epsilon _n)_{\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}`$ (A8)
The Fermi-liquid interactions $`A^{(s,a)}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ are parameterized by the Fermi-liquid parameters $`A^s`$ and $`A^a`$ which are phenomenological parameters determined from experiments. The order parameter $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is split into a singlet $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a triplet $`𝚫`$ parts by the singlet and triplet pairing interactions $`V^s(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ and $`V^t(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$, and is calculated as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹)=T{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _n}{}}V^s(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{})f(\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝑹;\epsilon _n)_{\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}`$ (A9)
$`𝚫(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹)=T{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _n}{}}V^t(\widehat{𝒑}_f,\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝒇(\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝑹;\epsilon _n)_{\widehat{𝒑}_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}.`$ (A10)
The set of equations written above, the Eilenberger equation for $`\widehat{g}`$ and the equations for the self energies $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, must be solved self-consistently by iteration together with the appropriate boundary conditions imposed on the propagator. With $`\widehat{g}(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon )`$ determined, physical quantities like the current densitymay be computed

$$𝒋(𝑹)=2eN_fT\underset{\epsilon _n}{}𝒗_f(\widehat{𝒑}_f)g(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon _n)_{\widehat{𝒑}_f}.$$
(A11)
The local density of states resolved for a given $`\widehat{𝒑}_f`$ and a given spin direction $`𝒆`$ is calculated at real energies as

$$N_𝒆(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon ^R)=\frac{N_f}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\left[g(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon ^R)+𝒆𝒈(\widehat{𝒑}_f,𝑹;\epsilon ^R)\right]$$
(A12)


text:
# Neutral heavy lepton production at next high energy 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ linear colliders

## Abstract

The discovery potential for detecting new heavy Majorana and Dirac neutrinos at some recently proposed high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders is discussed. These new particles are suggested by grand unified theories and superstring-inspired models. For these models the production of a single heavy neutrino is shown to be more relevant than pair production when comparing cross sections and neutrino mass ranges. The process $`e^+e^{}\nu e^\pm W^{}`$ is calculated including on-shell and off-shell heavy neutrino effects. We present a detailed study of cross sections and distributions that shows a clear separation between the signal and standard model contributions, even after including hadronization effects.

PACS: 12.60.-i, 13.85.-t, 14.60.-z

The recent Super-Kamiokande results  provided a strong evidence for neutrino oscillations and non zero neutrino masses. This has motivated many theoretical models that imply new heavy neutrino states. These new particles are present in several grand unified extentions of the standard model such as $`SO(10)`$ or $`E_6`$. Many other new states are present in these models but neutrinos are expected to play a fundamental role in any consistent extended model. This comes mainly from the possibility that light neutrino masses can be connected to the Fermi and grand unified scales through $`m_\nu =v_{Fermi}^2/v_{GUT}`$. This relation can be obtained from the ”see-saw” mechanism with new heavy neutrino states. A fundamental point to be experimentally clarified is the Dirac or Majorana nature of neutrinos.

The new heavy neutrino masses are experimentally bounded to be greater than 80-100 GeV  and the mixing with light neutrinos is expected to be small, even if there is some model dependence on these results. This means that these new neutral leptons could be detected only at the next generation of high energy colliders NLC at SLAC and TESLA at DESY. In this paper we turn our attention to these new possible lepton colliders . New linear $`e^+e^{}`$ high energy colliders have been proposed, with center of mass energy from 500 GeV up to a few TeV. More recently $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`e^{}e^{}`$ options were also proposed, as well as the electron-muon colliders.

Some time ago it was noticed  that for some models the single heavy lepton production in $`e^+e^{}\nu N`$ is higher than pair production $`e^+e^{}NN`$. Two main factors contribute for this difference. The first one is the mixing angle ($`s_i\mathrm{sin}\theta _{mix}`$) single power in the light-to-heavy neutrino vertex, contrary to the double mixing angle power in the heavy-to-heavy neutrino vertex. The second factor is phase space suppression. If we suppose that all mixing angles are of the same order, then we have in Table I the vertices for heavy neutrino interactions in three different models  for new heavy neutrino states: vector singlet (VSM), vector doublet (VDM) and fermion-mirror-fermion models (FMFM). We call attention to the suppression factor for the $`ZNN`$ vertex in the vector singlet model, which is not present for the other models. Throughout this paper we will suppose that mixing angles for heavy-to-light neutrinos and new heavy neutrino masses are independent parameters. In the naive see-saw model, the mixing between light and heavy neutrinos is given by $`\theta {\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu }{m_N}}`$. However, there are many theoretical models which decouple the mixing from the mass relation . The mechanism is very simple. In the general mass matrix including Dirac and Majorana fields one imposes some internal symmetry that makes the matrix singular. Then the mixing parameter has an arbitrary value, bounded only by its phenomenological consequences.

Recently we have investigated this possibility for a single heavy Majorana production in hadron-hadron colliders . It was shown that this mechanism is more important than pair production and that like-sign dileptons can give a clear signature for this process, even after hadronization. The mixing of the presently known fermions and possible new heavy states is known to be small, of the order of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{mix}=10^210^3`$. This comes from low energy phenomenology and the high precision measurements of the $`Z`$ properties at LEP/SLC. A recent estimate  gives $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{mix}<0.0052`$ with $`95\%`$ C.L. This limit value is used throughout this paper for all curves and distributions.

In this paper we present the complete first order treatment of single heavy neutral lepton production in electron-positron high energy colliders, including finite width effects. The full first order standard model background is also considered. We have studied the general process $`e^+e^{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}W`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ is a charged lepton and $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ is a light neutrino or antineutrino. For the signal we can have the diagram contributions as shown in Fig. 1. Some earlier studies  were done in the heavy neutrino on-shell approximation which includes diagrams (a) and (d) in Fig. 1. It is known that for energies well above the Z mass the s-channel is suppressed and t-channel is dominant for N exchange. As we are interested in the study of distributions and experimental cuts, we have taken into account all the diagrams shown in Fig. 1 for the process $`23`$. We can have lepton number conservation or violation, depending on the Dirac or Majorana nature of neutrinos, respectively. In this paper we consider three different heavy neutrinos, one for each family. For Dirac heavy neutrinos we have lepton number conservation. Majorana neutrinos carry no internal quantum numbers and we are then supposing that all the vertices $`NeW`$ ; $`N\mu W`$ and $`N\tau W`$ have the same strength. In this case we are considering only the lighter Majorana state. At the Fermi scale these new states are expected to behave as $`SU_L(2)U_Y(1)`$ basic representations.

We can resume these interactions in the neutral and charged current lagrangians:

$$_{nc}=\frac{g}{2c_W}Z_\mu \overline{\psi _i}\gamma ^\mu \left(g_V^{ij}g_A^{ij}\gamma _5\right)\psi _j.$$
(1)
and

$$_{cc}=\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}W_\mu \overline{\psi _i}\gamma ^\mu \left(a^{ij}b^{ij}\gamma _5\right)\psi _j.$$
(2)
where i, j are the appropriate combination of e, $`\nu `$, N with “N” the new neutral lepton. The light neutrinos couplings to the neutral Z are given by $`g_{V,A}=g_{V,A}^{SM}sin^2\theta _{mix}/2`$.

The decay modes for these leptons, in the Dirac case, are $`N_ee^{}W^+`$ and $`N_e\nu _eZ`$. For Majorana neutrinos  we must include both signatures $`N\mathrm{}^{}W^\pm `$ and $`N\nu _{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})Z`$, with $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$.

In Fig. 2 we show the total cross sections for single $`e^+e^{}\nu N`$ and pair heavy lepton production $`e^+e^{}NN`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 500 GeV. All curves are for on-shell heavy neutrinos. A single heavy Majorana has the higher cross section due to the sum over final neutrino and anti-neutrino production and to the sum over the three lepton families. The single heavy Dirac neutrino for the electron family dominates the associated muon (and tau) family production since in the first case we have s and t channel exchanges, whereas in the last cases we have only s channel contribution. Similar arguments apply to the pair production of heavy neutrinos. In the vector singlet model we have a strong suppression factor from the $`ZNN`$ vertex in the $`s`$ channel. For the other models we also have an energy suppression in the amplitude from the Z propagator in the $`s`$ channel and a $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{mix}`$ for the $`t`$ channel. In all cases, pair production is kinematically bounded to masses up to $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ whereas single heavy neutrino production can reach masses up to $`\sqrt{s}`$. For center of mass energy of 1 TeV a similar pattern of heavy neutrino production is present. For the more specific sub-process $`e^+e^{}\nu e^+W^{}`$ a careful distinction between Dirac and Majorana neutrinos must be done and the correct set of Feynman diagrams must be chosen from Fig. 1. An important point on the Dirac or Majorana nature of the new possible heavy neutrino comes from Fig. 2. For a heavy Dirac neutrino the electron final state is two orders of magnitude greater than the final state muon. For a Majorana heavy neutrino we expect an equal number of electrons and muons in the final state. Another point to be taken into account is the fact that the final state light neutrino is an experimentally undetected particle. So we must sum over all possible combinations whenever necessary. In all cases we have considered all contributions, with on-shell and off-shell single heavy neutrinos, as well as finite width effects, as recently investigated by Cvetic, Kim and Kim . The standard model background contributes with 12 diagrams, as shown in Fig. 3. Both the signal and background were calculated using the high energy program CompHep .

Let us now turn our attention to the general characteristics of the process $`e^+e^{}\nu e^+W^{}`$. In Figs. 4-12 we have done simple detector cuts $`E_{lepton}>5`$ GeV and $`0.995<cos\theta _i<0.995`$, where $`\theta _i`$ is the angle between any final state particle and the initial electron. We define $`\theta _{e^+}`$ as the angle between the initial electron and the final state positron; $`\theta _W^{}`$ as the angle between the initial electron and the final state $`W^{}`$ or hadrons and $`\theta _{e^+W^{}}`$ as the angle between the final positron and the final state $`W^{}`$ or hadrons, in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center of mass frame.

In Fig. 4 we show the total cross section for the signal and standard model background, which is typically 1-1.5 orders of magnitude greater than the signal. One of the main points of our work is to show that this relation will be inverted by appropriated cuts in the $`e^+W^{}`$ invariant mass distribution. In order to justify our cuts, let us first look at the following angular distributions. In Figs. 5 and 6 we display the final state positron angular distribution (relative to the initial electron) for $`M_N=`$ 100 and $`M_N=`$ 400 GeV in the Majorana and Dirac cases, as well as the standard model contribution. We have taken these two mass values, one bellow and the other above the pair production mass limit. We notice that for smaller masses, around 100 GeV, the Majorana and Dirac cases are different, but for higher masses this difference disappears. A similar situation is seen in Figs. 7 and 8 for the W angular distribution. The intermediate masses of heavy neutrinos can be easily inferred from Figs. 5-8.

In Fig. 9 we show the angular distribution between the final $`e^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center of mass frame, for a heavy Majorana neutrino. The signal presents a clear kinematical bound from the Lorentz boost along the heavy neutrino direction. In the Dirac neutrino case we have a similar shape, above the Majorana curves.

In order to have a more realistic estimate of the signal-to-background separation we have performed the $`W^{}`$ hadronization using the Pythia program , for the signal and the standard model background. Another possible background source is the process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}Z`$ where the final state electron escapes detection. With the hadron jets peaked around the Z mass, we have verified that this channel has a small contribution to the dominant background.

The invariant visible mass ($`e^++`$ hadrons) versus missing (neutrinos) energy correlations are shown in Figs. 10-12, in arbitrary units. In Figs. 10-11-12, labeled “a” we have applied the following general detector cuts: $`0.95<cos\theta _{e^+}<0.995`$ and $`0.995<cos\theta _W^{}<0.95`$. Here we have a very clear limited kinematical region coming from energy-momentum conservation. The signal is already present in these figures. The angular distributions in Figs. 5-9 suggests that the signal-to-background can be increased by applying more restrictive angular cuts. The results are shown in Figs. 10b.; 11b.; 12b. For a heavy neutrino mass of 100 GeV we have done $`0.5<cos\theta _{e^+W^{}}<0.995`$ and the result is shown in Fig. 11a. For a mass $`M_N=`$ 200 GeV the results are shown in Fig. 11b., with angular cuts $`0.9<cos\theta _{e^+}<0.995`$; $`0.5<cos\theta _{e^+W^{}}<0.5`$ ; $`0.95<cos\theta _W^{}<0.9`$. For a heavy neutrino mass of 400 GeV we have Fig. 12b., with angular cuts $`0.5<cos\theta _{e^+}<0.995`$; $`0.95<cos\theta _W^{}<0.5`$; $`0.95<cos\theta _{e^+W^{}}<0.7`$. These more restrictive angular cuts show quite clearly that the ratio signal/background can be improved. For center of mass energies of 1 TeV we found analogous conclusions.

In conclusion, the present work shows that $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders can test the existence of heavy Dirac and Majorana neutrino masses up to $`\sqrt{s}`$ in the $`\nu e^\pm `$ hadrons channel. For higher center of mass energies the conclusions are similar to the case of a $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 500 GeV presented in detail in this paper, since the process is dominated by $`t`$ channel exchange. For $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ colliders we have the same situation, if we replace the final $`e^+`$ by a $`\mu ^+`$. Single heavy neutrino production bellow and above pair mass threshold can be clearly separated from the standard model background, even after hadronization and detector cuts. Angular cuts on the final state particle distributions can be applied unambiguously, in order to increase the signal-to-background ratio. As our estimate for the signal cross section uses the upper bound for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{mix}`$, an eventually negative experimental search can be converted into new more restrictive light-to-heavy neutrino mixing bound.

Acknowledgments: This work was partially supported by the following Brazilian agencies: CNPq, FUJB, FAPERJ and FINEP.

Figure Captions

1. Signal Feynman graphs for heavy Majorana (N) and Dirac ($`N_e,N_\mu `$) neutrino contribution to $`e^+e^{}\nu e^+W^{}`$.
2. Single and pair production of on-shell heavy Dirac (VSM,VDM and FMFM) and Majorana neutrinos at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 500 GeV for $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{mix}=0.0052`$).
3. Standard model background contribution to $`e^+e^{}\nu e^+W^{}`$.
4. Signal and background (standard model) contributions to $`e^+e^{}\nu e^+W^{}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 500 GeV.
5. Final positron angular distribution relative to the initial electron for heavy Majorana neutrinos with $`M_N=`$ 100 GeV and $`M_N=`$ 400 GeV.
6. Final positron angular distribution relative to the initial electron for heavy Dirac neutrinos with $`M_N=`$ 100 and $`M_N=`$ 400 GeV.
7. $`W^{}`$ angular distribution relative to the initial electron for heavy Majorana neutrinos with $`M_N=`$ 100 GeV and $`M_N=`$ 400 GeV.
8. $`W^{}`$ angular distribution relative to the initial electron for heavy Dirac neutrinos with $`M_N=`$ 100 GeV and $`M_N=`$ 400 GeV.
9. Angular distribution between final positron and $`W^{}`$ for heavy Majorana neutrinos with $`M_N=`$ 100 GeV, $`M_N=`$ 200 GeV and $`M_N=`$ 400 GeV.
10. Invariant visible mass ($`e^++`$ hadrons) versus missing (neutrino) energy correlation for background and signal for $`M_N=`$ 100 GeV (in arbitrary units). Fig. 10a. was done with the general cuts and Fig. 10b. was done with the additional cuts as discussed in the text.
11. Same as figure 10 for $`M_N=`$ 200 GeV.
12. Same as figure 10 for $`M_N=`$ 400 GeV.


text:
# Atom Chip for Transporting and Merging Magnetically Trapped Atom Clouds

## Abstract

We demonstrate an integrated magnetic “atom chip” which transports cold trapped atoms near a surface with very high positioning accuracy. Time-dependent currents in a lithographic conductor pattern create a moving chain of magnetic potential wells; atoms are transported in these wells while remaining confined in all three dimensions. We achieve fluxes up to $`10^6\text{s}^1`$ with a negligible heating rate. An extension of this “atomic conveyor belt” allows the merging of magnetically trapped atom clouds by unification of two Ioffe-Pritchard potentials. Under suitable conditions, the clouds merge without loss of phase space density. We demonstrate this unification process experimentally.

Miniaturization makes it possible to design tightly confining magnetic atom traps with large field gradients and high field curvature without the need for large currents. With lithographic or other surface-patterning processes complex “atom chips” may be built which combine many traps, waveguides, and other elements in order to realize controllable composite quantum systems , as epitomized by the concept of the quantum computer .

We are experimenting with lithographically produced planar conducting patterns in an external magnetic bias field as a means to realize microscopic atom manipulation devices. Although lithographic neutral-atom traps have been proposed as early as 1995 , the difficulty of loading atoms into such traps has prevented their realization in the past. We have introduced an efficient loading mechanism  with the help of a novel mirror-MOT, using a reflecting layer on top of the circuit pattern to realize the laser fields for laser cooling and trapping in close proximity to the surface. In this way, we were able to demonstrate the first lithographic magnetic trap, a quadrupole trap capturing 87Rb atoms. More recently, the same technique has been applied to construct a Ioffe-Pritchard (IP) trap for 7Li atoms . Integrated parallel conductors have also been used to realize atom guides in which atoms are confined in two dimensions and move freely along the third . A different, but related approach was described in , where a combination of permanent surface fields and an external bias field produces a series of parallel magnetic tubes, which propagate as the bias field vector rotates. In this experiment, too, the mirror-MOT plays a crucial role in loading the magnetic tubes.

Here we demonstrate an “atomic conveyor belt”, an integrated magnetic device proposed in , which transports trapped atoms to very precisely controlled positions near a surface. While the atoms are transported, they remain trapped in all three dimensions, the rms extension of the trap ground state being on the order of 1 $`\mu `$m. The speed of displacement can be freely controlled by adjusting the frequency of modulating currents, the device is therefore capable of transporting atoms adiabatically within well-defined quantum states. As we use a thermal atomic cloud in the experiment (temperature in the $`30\mu `$K range), the adiabaticity of the transport is evidenced by the heating rate, which becomes unmeasurably low for sufficiently slow transport velocity.

An extension of the conveyor belt allows the merging of atom clouds trapped in two adjacent Ioffe-Pritchard (IP) traps. The transfer is complete and, under suitable conditions, occurs without loss of phase space density. We demonstrate this unification process experimentally.

Figure 1 shows the conductor pattern used in the experiment. It is a slightly modified version of the layout proposed in . The width of all relevant conductors is $`50\mu `$m. In the simplest case, one can create a quasi-2D-Ioffe-Pritchard trap by applying the current $`I_0`$ to the center wire and superimposing the bias field $`𝐁=B_{0,x}𝐞_x+B_{0,y}𝐞_y`$. The trap center forms at distance $`r_0\frac{\mu _0}{2\pi }\frac{I_0}{B_{0,y}}`$ from the surface, and if the distance $`r_0`$ is much smaller than the length of the center wire (5.5 mm in this setup), the longitudinal potential is box-like with a minimum field strength of $`B_{\text{min}}B_{0,x}`$.

For example, by applying a current $`I_0=2`$A (cf. fig. 1) and a bias field $`𝐁_\text{0}=0.42\text{G}𝐞_x+80\text{G}𝐞_y`$, a very elongated IP trap is formed at a distance of $`42\mu `$m from the conductor surface. Atom-surface interactions are not expected to be important at such a large distance . For magnetically trapped 87Rb atoms this configuration yields transverse oscillation frequencies of $`\nu _{\text{osc}}=29`$ kHz in the trap center, leading to a Lamb-Dicke parameter $`\sqrt{\nu _\text{R}/\nu _{\text{osc}}}=0.36`$ with respect to the 87Rb D2 line ($`\nu _\text{R}=h/(2m\lambda ^2)`$ is the recoil frequency). An experiment with a potential of this type is described in .

The conveyor potential as displayed in fig. 2(a) is formed starting from such a box-like potential. The field component $`B_{0,x}`$, which determines the minimum field strength in the transverse ($`𝐞_y`$-$`𝐞_z`$) plane, is modulated by means of the currents $`I_{\text{M1}}`$ and $`I_{\text{M2}}`$. Like a bucket chain, the resulting potential consists of a chain of trapping wells that can be continuously displaced along $`𝐞_x`$ by adjusting the currents $`I_{\text{M1}}`$ and $`I_{\text{M2}}`$. For the potential in fig. 2(a), a constant current $`I_\text{0}=2`$A and the bias field $`𝐁_\text{0}=7\text{G}𝐞_x+16\text{G}𝐞_y`$ are applied while the modulation currents

$$(I_{\text{M1}},I_{\text{M2}})=1\text{A}(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi })$$
(1)
create the local minima. As can be seen from figure 2(a), the phase angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ determines the $`x`$ position of the minima, so that they can be displaced continuously over the whole length of the conductor pattern. The depth of the individual wells, i. e. the magnetic field difference between the bottom of a well and the saddle point between two adjacent wells, is 2.5 G on average and varies depending on the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (cf. fig. 2(a)). Transverse ($`𝐞_y𝐞_z`$-plane) curvatures are between $`2.510^4\text{G}/\text{cm}^2`$ and $`410^5\text{G}/\text{cm}^2`$ near the bottom of the well, leading to oscillation frequencies between 200 Hz and 800 Hz. Longitudinal frequencies are smaller by a factor of $``$ 4.

The experimental setup is an improved version of the one described in . Planar gold conductor patterns are formed on an aluminum nitride substrate using a standard microelectronics process known as thin-film hybrid technology (a combination of photolithography and electroplating). The wire thickness (height) is $`7\mu `$m and lateral dimensions are down to $`10\mu `$m. Electrical contacts to the substrate are made by gold wire bonding. We load the microtrap from the mirror-MOT (, see also ), using a reflecting silver layer on top of the circuit pattern to realize the laser fields for laser cooling and trapping in close proximity to the surface. A thin ($`20\mu `$m) epoxy intermediate layer insulates the circuit pattern from the mirror layer and also fills the gaps between the conductors, leading to a smooth mirror surface. The MOT is loaded from background vapor (total pressure in the $`10^{10}`$mbar range). It typically produces $`410^6`$ cold atoms within a loading time of 5 s. The atom number is limited by the small diameter and intensity of our trapping beams ($`1/e^2`$ diameter of $`8.5`$ mm, total power 14 mW). The temperature is $`30\mu `$K and the peak density in the $`210^{10}\text{cm}^3`$ range after a short optical molasses phase. The initial MOT employs a “macroscopic” quadrupole field created by external coils and is loaded $``$1 mm away from the surface. By imbalancing the currents in the coils, the cloud is shifted towards the surface (“shifted MOT”); the coils are then switched off and a “microscopic MOT” field with the same orientation is created by switching on $`I_0`$ and $`I_{\text{M2}}`$ and a bias field along $`𝐞_y`$. This combination yields a chain of quadrupole-like potentials. Depending on the position of the shifted MOT, one or several of these small MOTs can be filled with cold atoms. We use both options, depending on the nature of the experiment.

The substrate is mounted upside down in the vacuum cell, so that the atoms are “hanging” below its surface (fig. 3). Thus, time-of-flight (TOF) images can be taken of the atomic cloud released from the magnetic trap to infer its temperature. We observe the atoms by absorptive imaging, using a probe beam along the $`𝐞_y`$ axis. The images show the horizontal $`𝐞_x`$ axis (which is the direction of transport) and the vertical $`𝐞_z`$ axis. The resolution of the imaging system is $`20\mu `$m. Sensitivity is sufficient to detect 30 atoms per pixel without averaging.

The loading procedure ends with an optical pumping pulse which pumps the atoms to the $`F=2,m=2`$ ground state. After this pulse, the magnetic potential is switched on. Here, the initial potential is the conveyor belt potential (cf. fig. 2) with the parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, i. e., $`I_0=2`$A, $`I_{\text{M1}}=1`$A and $`I_{\text{M2}}=0`$. With this phase value, the positions of the well centers coincide with those of the quadrupole fields in the previous “microscopic MOT”, so that atoms are efficiently transferred. We typically obtain trapped clouds with $`1/\sqrt{e}`$ radii $`\sigma _x113\mu `$m and $`\sigma _y71\mu `$m, which contain $`1.510^5`$ atoms with a peak density of $`1.510^{10}\text{cm}^3`$. The $`1/e`$ lifetime is about $`4`$s, limited by the background pressure of rubidium and other residual gases.

At this point, the conveyor belt is started by varying the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Fig. 2(b) shows absorption images of the transport process. (As the imaging is destructive, each image is taken starting from a “fresh” trapped sample.) In this first example, the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is made to increase linearly with time, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\omega t`$ with $`\omega =2\pi /150\text{ms}`$. It should be emphasized, however, that any function of time can be used to control the phase: the atom cloud can be accelerated, or moved at constant speed, or be stopped at any desired position. The positioning accuracy is ultimately limited only by the ground state size, which is $`0.9\mu `$m FWHM for the 800 Hz oscillation frequency attained in this potential. The position uncertainty introduced by current fluctuations is orders of magnitude below this value.

In most applications, it is essential to minimize heating of the trapped cloud during the transport. Leaving aside external mechanisms such as heating by the surface (which is negligible at our atom-surface distance of more than 50 $`\mu `$m), transitions may only be induced by the deformation and displacement of the potential wells during the shifting process. The rate of such transitions should decrease to insignificant levels when the speed of displacement is low enough. In our present experiment, where many vibrational states are populated, these transitions translate into heating. We therefore measured the final temperature of the cloud as a function of the maximum shift velocity $`v_{\text{max}}`$ (fig. 5). For decreasing transport speed, the heating rate decreases, as expected, and becomes unmeasurable within our $`\pm 2\mu `$K accuracy for speeds $`v_{\text{max}}0.5\text{cm}/\text{s}`$. In this sense, the transport is adiabatic. When consecutive potential wells are filled with $`1.510^5`$ atoms each, the shifting process results in a mean flux of $`9.410^5`$ s-1. In a future experiment where single vibrational levels are populated, it will be possible to verify adiabaticity on the quantum mechanical level.

The above data demonstrate the ability to move and position the atom cloud. The conveyor belt can be employed in complex experiments needing precise atom positioning. In cavity QED experiments, for example, it may be used to transport atoms into and out of a zone where they interact with a high-finesse optical resonator, such as a miniature Fabry-Pérot resonator  or a silica microsphere . In this way, long and reproducible interaction times and precise positioning of the atomic sample within the quantized resonator field can be achieved. Such a coupling would also enable non-destructive atom detection, as required for quantum computing. Another, more macroscopic application of the conveyor belt would be to transport cold atoms from a production region into a spatially separated interaction region, providing an integrated version of the coil-based magnetic transport device which was recently realized in our laboratory .

One advantage of the lithographic technique is the ability to combine different potentials very easily. With only one additional wire ($`I_{\text{H2}}`$ in fig. 1), a stationary IP trap can be formed at the end of the conveyor belt, which adds new options of atom cloud manipulation. The depth of the stationary trap is controlled by current $`I_{\text{H2}}`$, independently of the conveyor belt movement. Fig. 7(a) shows the resulting potential when $`I_{\text{H2}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (directed along $`𝐞_y`$) is varied according to $`I_{\text{H2}}=0.462+0.255\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }+0.493)0.088\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Phi }1.482),`$ while all other parameters are controlled as before. (The figure shows only the right part of the potential, cf. fig. 2.) Once per period the stationary trap above $`H_2`$ continuously unites with the conveyor belt trap arriving from the left. The unification takes place by lowering the barrier between the two traps. At $`\mathrm{\Phi }100^{}`$, the two traps are still fully separated. At $`\mathrm{\Phi }210^{}`$, their separation has vanished, and at $`\mathrm{\Phi }350^{}`$, the united trap has been compressed to the volume originally occupied by the stationary trap. Thus, the process is similar to the classical thermostatistical problem of pulling a septum out of a container, followed by slowly reducing the container’s volume (fig. 6). In particular, if each trap initially contains $`N`$ atoms at equal temperatures and densities, then after one complete cycle, the cloud in the stationary trap should have the same phase space density as before. As it now contains $`2N`$ atoms, temperature must have increased during the unification.

We have implemented this process experimentally by loading two conveyor traps from the MOT and then applying the current modulation described above. Fig. 7 shows the computed potentials (a) as well as absorption images (b) of different stages of the unification process. The potentials have been designed in a way that equally populated traps should merge without loss of phase space density. Due to the difficulty of performing time-of-flight measurements on the two neighbouring clouds, we have not yet been able to measure the phase-space density during this process. Instead one can infer the properties of the unification process by the decrease of phase space density when only one of the two potential wells is initially populated. For this situation, we measure a decrease of $`0.6`$ per unification, which is close to the decrease of 0.5 expected for the unification of two identical traps one of which is empty.

The unification sequence can also be reversed. In this case, an atom cloud initially localized in the stationary trap is separated into $`n`$ parts during $`n`$ periods. If the separation is done slowly, the process is adiabatic, opening intriguing possibilities for the manipulation of atomic wave packets, including interferometers with trapped atoms. A quantitative study of the unification and separation processes is currently under way.

This work is supported in part by a grant from the European Union (ACQUIRE project, contract no. IST–1999–11055).