text:
# Implications of the possibility that sin{2𝛽} is small

\[

## Abstract

Recently, the Babar and Belle collaborations have reported their first measurements of the CP-violating asymmetry in $`B_d\psi K_S`$, and more precise results will follow soon. We discuss what a future evidence for small $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ could mean, contrasting the usual possibility of new physics in the $`B_d`$ system, with the interesting alternative that the new physics effects are confined to the kaon system.

\]

The first result to come from $`B`$-factories is the CP-violating asymmetry in the decay $`B_d\psi K_S`$. This measures $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ which, in the phase convention in which the decay amplitude is real, coincides with the phase of the $`B_d\overline{B_d}`$ mixing matrix element $`M_{12}(B_d)`$. In the Standard Model (SM) $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\beta =\mathrm{arg}\left(V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}/V_{td}V_{tb}^{}\right)`$. We will use throughout the Wolfenstein parametrization  of the CKM matrix , and the corresponding phase convention. Thus, $`\beta `$ is the phase of $`V_{td}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =2\eta (1\rho )/((1\rho )^2+\eta ^2)`$. The constraints on $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ from the parameter $`ϵ_K`$ in kaon decays, combined with those from $`x_s`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, yield $`16^{}\beta 34^{}`$ and $`38^{}\gamma 81^{}`$ at the 95% CL , corresponding to a correlated region bounded roughly by $`0.24\eta 0.50`$ and $`0.07\rho 0.38`$ . Here $`\gamma =\mathrm{arg}\left(V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}/V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}\right)`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma =\eta /\rho `$.

Initial measurements by the CDF collaboration  found $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }=0.79_{0.44}^{+0.41}`$. Recently the Babar  and Belle  collaborations announced their results to be $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }=0.12\pm 0.37(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.09(\mathrm{sys})`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }=0.45_{0.44}^{+0.43}(\mathrm{stat})_{0.09}^{+0.07}(\mathrm{sys})`$ (combining with $`J/\psi K_L`$), respectively. Although the errors are large, and a detailed numerical analysis is still unwarranted, it is interesting to study the possibility that $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ is significantly lower than the value allowed by the SM. This is what we consider here. As an example, we look at the consequence of a value $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }=0.2`$, which requires new physics beyond the Standard Model.

We contrast two possibilities. The first possibility is that all the new physics is in the kaon system; since CP violation is very small for kaons in the Standard Model, there is great sensitivity to new physics. The second possibility is that there is new physics in $`B_d\overline{B_d}`$ mixing; in the Standard Model this mixing is proportional to $`A^2\lambda ^6\eta =10^510^4`$ and, so, new physics effects could be significant.

Consider the possibility that the new physics is confined to $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing. This is the original evidence for CP violation and is used in determining a lower limit on $`\eta `$, corresponding to a lower limit on $`\beta `$. It is interesting to note that there are no current experiments on kaons that can directly detect such a new physics contribution. This may be possible with $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ , but the remarkable feature we stress here is that such effects might be detected first in $`B`$ decays. As was noted long ago, the CP-violating part of the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing matrix can be explained by a superweak interaction with an effective coupling as small as $`10^{10}G_F`$ to $`10^{11}G_F`$ . Assuming no other new physics, then $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\beta =0.5\mathrm{arcsin}0.2`$, and the measurement of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.093\pm 0.014`$ implies $`0.27\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}0.58`$ at $`95\%`$ CL . Intercepting these constraints leads to $`\gamma =\mathrm{arctan}\eta /\rho `$ between $`4^{}`$ and $`16^{}`$. (We have used $`x_s`$ to eliminate the solutions with negative $`\rho `$, corresponding to very large values for $`\gamma `$.)

An argument against this interpretation is the relatively large value of $`ϵ_K^{}/ϵ_K`$ observed in the kaon system . While there are large uncertainties in the Standard Model calculation , even the largest theoretical estimates of the error bars in the hadronic matrix elements require values of $`\eta `$ greater than $`0.1`$ to fit the recent experimental results. Thus, this would seem to require new physics in the CP-violating kaon decay amplitude as well as in the mixing. This possibility has been sugested in some models .

An alternative is to consider new physics in the $`B_d\overline{B_d}`$ mixing . If this is the only source of new physics, a value of $`\eta `$ larger than about $`0.25`$ is required by the observables in the kaon system. Conversely, given the constraint on $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, once we allow $`\eta `$ greater than $`0.25`$, the question of whether there is new physics in $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing is unimportant and we do not consider it further. Henceforth, we will take $`\eta 0.25`$.

A natural possibility is to assume that there is no significant new physics in $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$ mixing, on the grounds that the magnitude of $`M_{12}(B_s)`$ is much larger than for $`B_d`$ and, so, less susceptible to new physics. Then, once $`x_s`$ is known, we can extract $`f_{Bs}^2B_{Bs}`$, to be combined with the reliable lattice-QCD estimate of $`K=f_{Bs}^2B_{Bs}/f_{Bd}^2B_{Bd}=1.30\pm 0.14`$  in order to extract $`f_{Bd}^2B_{Bd}`$. We may now determine $`M_{12}^{SM}(B_d)`$ for any value of $`(\rho ,\eta )`$. Indeed, it is easy to show that, in this scenario,

$$M_{12}^{SM}(B_d)=\frac{x_s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Bs}}{2}K^1\lambda ^2R_t^2e^{2i\beta },$$
(1)
with $`R_t=\mathrm{sin}\gamma /\mathrm{sin}(\gamma +\beta )=\sqrt{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2}`$. Using,

$$M_{12}(B_d)=\frac{x_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Bd}}{2}e^{2i\stackrel{~}{\beta }},$$
(2)
we may now determine

$$M_{12}^{\mathrm{new}}(B_d)=M_{12}(B_d)M_{12}^{SM}(B_d),$$
(3)
for chosen values of $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ (i.e., of $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$). This is illustrated in figure 1, where we have used $`x_d=0.723`$, $`x_s=20`$, $`K=1.3`$, $`\lambda =0.22`$, $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }=0.2`$, $`\eta 0.25`$, and taken $`R_b=\mathrm{sin}\beta /\mathrm{sin}(\gamma +\beta )=\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}`$ to equal $`0.27`$, $`0.4`$, and $`0.58`$. In figure 1, we have also used $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Bs}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Bd}`$ and divided all vectors by $`|M_{12}(B_d)|`$.

Figure 2 shows the magnitude of $`M_{12}^{\mathrm{new}}(B_d)`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$, with the same parameters and conventions used in figure 1. Using the requirement that $`\eta 0.25`$, we find that $`25^{}\gamma 155^{}`$ for $`R_b=0.58`$, $`39^{}\gamma 141^{}`$ for $`R_b=0.40`$, and $`68^{}\gamma 112^{}`$ for $`R_b=0.27`$.

Another possibility is that there is new physics also in $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$ mixing. Given the current constraints on the $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ plane from $`ϵ_K`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, and accepting the lattice estimate for $`f_{Bs}^2B_{Bs}`$, there is an upper bound on $`x_s`$. If the measurement of $`x_s`$ were to exceed this upper bound, one would have an indication of new physics in the $`B_s`$ system. Unfortunately, the lattice prediction for $`f_{Bs}^2B_{Bs}`$ is not as reliable as that for $`K`$. Therefore, only values for $`x_s`$ considerably above the current upper limit could be considered as compelling evidence for new physics. On the other hand, in the Standard Model and with the usual phase convention, the phase of $`M_{12}(B_s)`$ is given by $`ϵ=\mathrm{arg}\left(V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}/V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right)`$, which is of order $`\lambda ^2\eta `$. Since this phase is small, it is conceivable that the new physics might change this phase into $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$, without significantly affecting the magnitude of $`M_{12}(B_s)`$. Large values for $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ would be detected through the CP-violating asymmetry in $`B_sD_s^+D_s^{}`$  or in $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$ (with a suitable analysis of the angular distributions).

We now discuss how to contrast the two possibilities: the possibility that all the new physics is in the kaon system; with the possibility that all the new physics is in the $`B`$ system. The most striking difference between the two is in the value of $`\gamma `$. The phase $`\gamma `$ is less than $`16^{}`$ in the first case and larger than $`25^{}`$ in the the second case, with the exact range depending on the value of $`R_b`$. A number of experiments have been discussed in the literature to constrain $`\gamma `$: i) experiments sensitive to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma `$ ; ii) the CP-violating asymmetry in $`B_d\pi \pi `$, which, once the penguin effect is taken into account, measures $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+2\gamma )`$ , iii) the Dalitz plot analysis of $`B_d\rho \pi `$, which determines $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+2\gamma )`$ and also $`\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+2\gamma )`$ ; iv) and experiments sensitive $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\gamma )`$ . Although some of the relevant channels require some knowledge about the strong phases, while others require large statistics, the quest for $`\gamma `$ may ultimately allow us to distinguish between the two alternatives.

A further very interesting feature is that, in the second case, $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ are different. Therefore, the phase of the penguin amplitude $`\beta `$ is not equal to the mixing phase $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. This has implications for the analysis of the penguin effects. For example, if the penguin effects in $`B_d\pi \pi `$ were small, the asymmetry would be given by $`\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+2\gamma )`$, with a leading correction of $`2r\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+2\gamma )\mathrm{sin}(\beta +\gamma )\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, where $`r`$ is the ratio of tree to penguin amplitudes and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the relative strong phase. Notice that both $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and $`\beta `$ are involved.

Another interesting signal could come from a pure penguin decay into a CP eigenstate, such as $`B_dK_SK_S`$. If this were dominated by the penguin with the intermediate top quark, the asymmetry would be proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta 2\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$. Unfortunately, as pointed out by Fleisher , this method is obscured by the presence of the penguin diagram with intermediate charm, which carries a different weak phase.

Of course, there is the logical possibility that there is new physics in both the kaon and $`B`$ sectors. The new physics could even account for all the observable CP-violating effects. Since $`ϵ_K^{}/ϵ_K`$ is so small, such a theory would be superweak-like and, thus, ruled out by measuring a nonzero value for $`\gamma `$.

Finally, we comment on the discrete ambiguities . If the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ in $`B_d\psi K_s`$ turns out to lie within the range allowed by the Standard Model, then the discrete ambiguities might be crucial in unearthing the new physics contributions. However, if, as proposed here, the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ yields $`0.2`$, one finds a natural explanation in a contribution from new physics driven by $`2\beta 2\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ of order $`20^{}`$. In contrast, the discretely-ambiguous possibilities $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\{84.2^{},185.8^{},264.2^{}\}`$ would correspond to much larger new physics contributions.

In conclusion, a small value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ would be a sign of physics beyond the Standard Model. This new physics could be confined to the kaon system or be primarily in the $`B`$ system. Only a variety of further experiments could distinguish these two possibilities.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Yossi Nir for useful discussions. This work is supported in part by the Department of Energy under contracts DE-AC03-76SF00515 and DE-FG02-91-ER-40682. The work of J. P. S. is supported in part by Fulbright, Instituto Camões, and by the Portuguese FCT, under grant PRAXIS XXI/BPD/20129/99 and contract CERN/S/FIS/1214/98.


format: text

text:
# BOOMERanG Data Suggest a Purely Baryonic Universe

## 1 Introduction

At present, the standard cosmological paradigm is a universe in which ordinary matter is a minor constituent, with $`90\%`$ of the mass being in some non-baryonic form. This is usually presumed to be some new fundamental particle (e.g., WIMPs or axions), which in the astronomical context is generically referred to as cold dark matter (CDM). “Standard” CDM began as a compelling and straightforward theory with few moving parts (e.g., Blumenthal et al. 1984). It has evolved into a model ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) with many fine tuned parameters (e.g., Ostriker & Steinhardt 1995). This might reflect our growing knowledge of real complexities, or it might be a sign of some fundamental problem.

As yet, we have no direct indication that CDM actually exists. Consequently, the assumption that it makes up the vast majority of mass in the universe remains just that: an assumption. The presumed existence of CDM is a well motivated inference based principally on two astrophysical observations. One is that the total mass density inferred dynamically greatly exceeds that allowed for normal baryonic matter by big bang nucleosynthesis ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m>\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$). The other is that the cosmic microwave background is very smooth. Structure can not grow gravitationally to the rich extent seen today unless there is a non-baryonic component which can already be significantly clumped at the time of recombination without leaving incriminatingly large fingerprints on the microwave background.

Nevertheless, CDM faces some severe problems, especially at smaller scales (e.g., Moore 1994; Flores & Primack 1994; McGaugh & de Blok 1998a; Moore et al. 1999; Navarro & Steinmetz 2000; Sellwood 2000). Since the existence of CDM remains an assumption, it seems prudent to consider the case of a purely baryonic universe. In this context, it is not surprising that the second peak is constrained to have a small amplitude in the data reported by recent microwave background experiments (de Bernardis et al. 2000; Hanany et al. 2000). It is expected (McGaugh 1999).

## 2 Prior Predictions

Models for the angular power spectrum of fluctuations in the microwave background have many free parameters (Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1996). Many of these parameters are degenerate (Efstathiou & Bond 1999), making it possible to fit a wide variety of models to any given data set (e.g., Lange et al. 2000). This makes the role of prior constraints, and a priori predictions, particularly important.

Fortunately, the baryon content is the principal component which affects the relative amplitude of the even and odd peaks. For the baryon content specified by the abundances of the light elements and big bang nucleosynthesis (e.g., Tytler et al. 2000), both should be present. However, the even numbered rarefaction peaks should be more prominent when CDM dominates the mass budget. When it does not, baryonic drag suppresses their amplitude (Hu, Sugiyama, & Silk 1997). As $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}`$ declines, the amplitude of the second peak declines with it. In the case where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}0`$, the second peak is expected to have a much smaller amplitude than in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM (McGaugh 1999), consistent with the hints of a small secondary peak in the BOOMERanG (de Bernardis et al. 2000) and MAXIMA-1 data (Hanany et al. 2000).

The a priori predictions for the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM paradigm and the pure baryon case (McGaugh 1999) are shown together with the BOOMERanG data111There is a significant zero-point offset between BOOMERanG and MAXIMA-1. To rectify this, one must choose an arbitrary scaling factor (Hanany et al. 2000). I have therefore refrained from combining the two data sets. It is the shape of the power spectrum, and not its normalization, which is important here. The two data sets are consistent in this respect. in Fig. 1. In addition to the illustrative cases I published previously, I have now carefully chosen parameters (Table 1) which satisfy all the constraints which went into building $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM in the first place (Ostriker & Steinhardt; 1995; Turner 1999), updated to include the recent estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019`$ (Tytler et al. 2000). All reasonable variation of the parameters which were considered in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM prior to the BOOMERanG results significantly overpredict the amplitude of the second peak. This is difficult to avoid as long as one remains consistent with big bang nucleosynthesis and cluster baryon fractions (Evrard 1997; Bludman 1998).

In contrast, the a priori prediction for a purely baryonic universe is consistent with the data (Fig. 1). The amplitude of the second peak222In McGaugh (1999) I described the baryonic models as having the second peak completely suppressed, with the third peak appearing to be the second. This is not correct. Such a situation can occur, but only for baryon-to-photon ratios greater than allowed by big bang nucleosynthesis. The second peak discussed there and here is indeed the second (rarefaction) peak. The difference between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and purely baryonic models is in the amplitude of this peak. is predicted to be much lower than in universes dominated by CDM, as observed. The power spectra models in Fig. 1(b) are identical to the models I published previously (McGaugh 1999). The only difference is that I have scaled the geometry to match the precise position of the first peak. This mapping is effectively an adjustment of the angular scale by a factor $`\alpha `$ so that $`\mathrm{}\alpha \mathrm{}`$ (Table 1). The BOOMERanG data prefer a geometry which is marginally closed, which leads to $`\alpha <1`$. This is equivalent to a small adjustment in the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (Table 1). Once the geometry is fixed, the rest follows. It is in the shape of the power spectrum, and not in the geometry, in which there is a test of the presence or absence of CDM. I have not adjusted the shape at all from what I predicted in McGaugh (1999): this is as close to a “no-hands” model as one can come. The pure baryon models provide a good description of the data.

In addition to the models of McGaugh (1999), I illustrate in Fig. 1(b) a model which adheres to the most recent estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ (Tytler et al. 2000). In this case I have adjusted $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to match the position of the first peak so that $`\alpha =1`$ (Table 1). The shape of the power spectrum measured by the BOOMERanG experiment is well predicted by taking strong priors for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, $`H_0`$, and so on, with the most important being the pure baryon prior $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}=0`$. Simply scaling the pre-existing models with two fit parameters, the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ and the geometry, provides a good fit: $`\chi _\nu ^2<1`$ (Table 1). The data are consistent with a cosmology in which333A small neutrino mass $`m_\nu 1`$ eV is also admissible. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$.

## 3 Quantitative Measures

In order to make a fit-independent, quantitative prediction of the differences expected between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and pure baryon cases, I proposed (McGaugh 1999) several geometry independent measures. These are the ratio of positions of observed peaks $`\mathrm{}_{n+1}/\mathrm{}_n`$, the absolute amplitude ratio of the peaks $`(C_{\mathrm{},n}/C_{\mathrm{},n+1})_{abs}`$, and the peak-to-trough amplitude ratio $`(C_{\mathrm{},n}/C_{\mathrm{},n+1})_{rel}`$.

Of these measures, the first is the least sensitive and the last is the most sensitive. The ratio of the positions of the first two peaks is expected to differ by only a small amount. Until this quantity is accurately measured, it does not provide a strong test. Should a second peak appear in future data, it does not necessarily favor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM — a second peak is expected in either case, in roughly the same position. What does provide a clear distinction is the last measure, the peak-to-trough amplitude ratio of the first two peaks. This distinguishes between a second peak which stands well above the first trough, as expected with CDM, and one which does not, as expected without it.

These measures are readily extracted from the BOOMERanG data. They are reported in Table 2, together with the a priori predictions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and pure baryon cases. The data clearly fall in the regime favored by the pure baryon case.

The result remains in the regime favored by the pure baryon case even if we adjust strategically chosen pairs of data points in the direction favorable to CDM. For example, increasing the amplitude of the point at $`\mathrm{}=500`$ where the second peak should occur in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM by $`1\sigma `$ and decreasing by $`1\sigma `$ the amplitude of the point at $`\mathrm{}=400`$ where the trough should occur does not suffice to move the result away from the range favored by the pure baryon case. This is more than a $`2\sigma `$ operation, as it is a coordinated move which would also impact surrounding data points. The BOOMERanG data clearly favor the case of zero CDM.

## 4 Other Solutions

Shortly after the BOOMERanG results were announced, various papers appeared which attempted to explain the observed lack of a second peak. These take advantage of the many free parameters which are available in models of the microwave background. One solution is to increase the baryon content rather than reduce the CDM content. In order to retain CDM one significantly violates either big bang nucleosynthesis constraints (Tegmark & Zaldarriaga 2000) or cluster baryon fractions, or both. These were critical pieces of evidence which led to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM; it is not a trivial matter to dispose of them in order to force the new data into compliance with the model du jour.

Another solution is to somehow erase the peaks subsequent to the first. This can happen if the microwave background photons encounter a significant optical depth, which requires substantial reionization at quite early times (Miller 2000; Peebles, Seager, & Hu 2000). How this could come about is unclear. There may also be decoherence of the ideal signal (White, Scott, & Pierpaol 2000), in which case the microwave background will retain little information of interest beyond the position of the first peak.

These effects were not expected, and it is not necessary to invoke any of them if CDM does not exist. The small observed amplitude of the second peak is natural and expected. Nevertheless, any of these effects could occur. The physics is the same in either case — the only difference is the presence or absence of CDM. It is much easier to explain the low observed amplitude of the second peak without CDM. That does not mean optical depth or decoherence or some other mundane effect need not matter in the purely baryonic case.

At present, a simple universe devoid of CDM suffices to explain the BOOMERanG data. If the universe remains simple, the pure baryon case continues to make clear predictions. As data accumulate, the second peak should become clear. It is only marginally suggested by the data so far, but it should resolve into the shape predicted by the models in Fig. 1(b). The amplitude of this second peak will be smaller than the a priori expectations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models. Beyond this, the power spectrum should continue to roll off to smaller angular scales so that the third peak has a lower absolute amplitude than the second.

## 5 Just Baryons

The angular power spectrum of the recent microwave background data favor a purely baryonic universe over one dominated by CDM. Yet a conventional baryonic universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ faces the same problems mentioned in the introduction which led to the invention of CDM. For one, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m>\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$: dynamical measures give a total mass density an order of magnitude in excess of the nucleosynthesis constraint on the baryon density. The other is that the gravitational growth of structure is slow: $`\delta t^{2/3}`$. This makes it impossible to grow large scale structure from the smooth initial state indicated by the microwave background within the age of the universe.

These arguments are compelling, but are themselves based on the assumption that gravity behaves in a purely Newtonian fashion on all scales. A modification to the conventional force law might also suffice. One possibility which is empirically motivated is the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) hypothesized by Milgrom (1983). MOND supposes that for accelerations $`aa_01.2\times 10^{10}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^2`$, the effective acceleration becomes $`a\sqrt{g_Na_0}`$, where $`g_N`$ is the usual Newtonian acceleration which applies when $`aa_0`$. There is no dark matter in this hypothesis, so the observed motions must relate directly to the distribution of baryonic mass through the modified force law.

MOND has had considerable success in predicting the dynamics of a remarkably wide variety of objects. These include spiral galaxies (Begeman, Broeils, & Sanders 1991; Sanders 1996; Sanders & Verheijen 1998), low surface brightness galaxies (McGaugh & de Blok 1998b; de Blok & McGaugh 1998; McGaugh et al. 2000), dwarf Spheroidals (Milgrom 1997; Mateo 1998), giant Ellipticals (Sanders 2000), groups (Milgrom 1998) and clusters of galaxies (Sanders 1994,1999), and large scale filaments (Milgrom 1997). The empirical evidence which supports MOND is rather stronger than is widely appreciated.

Moreover, MOND does a good job of explaining the two observations that motivated CDM. The dynamical mass is overestimated when purely Newtonian dynamics is employed in the MOND regime, so rather than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m>\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ one infers $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ (Sanders 1998; McGaugh & de Blok 1998b). The early universe is dense, so accelerations are high and MOND effects444Assuming $`a_0`$ is constant. do not appear until after recombination. When they do, structure grows more rapidly than with conventional gravity (Sanders 1998), so the problem in going from a smooth microwave background to a rich amount of large scale structure is also alleviated. Since everything is normal in the high acceleration regime, all the usual early universe results are retained.

In order to get the position of the first peak right, we must invoke the cosmological constant in either the conventional or MOND case. In the former case, it was once hoped that there would be enough CDM that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$. In the latter case, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may have its usual meaning, or it may simply be a place holder for whatever the geometry really is. One possible physical basis for MOND may be the origin of inertial mass in the interaction of particles with vacuum fields. A non zero cosmological constant modifies the vacuum and hence may modify inertia (Milgrom 1999). In this context, it is interesting to note that for the parameters indicated by the data, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$, the transition from matter domination to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-domination is roughly coincident with the transition to MOND domination.

The value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ indicated by this scenario is in marginal conflict with estimates from high redshift supernovae (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999). Modest systematic effects might be present in Type Ia supernovae data which could reconcile these results. It is difficult to tell at this early stage how significant the difference between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ really is. Even if this difference is real, it may simply indicate the extent to which MOND affects the geometry. This is analogous to the variable-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ scenarios called Quintessence which have recently been considered (e.g., Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt, 1998).

## 6 Conclusions

Prior to the publication of the data from recent microwave background experiments, I had investigated the power spectrum of anisotropies which would be expected for a purely baryonic universe devoid of CDM (McGaugh 1999). Such a cosmology predicts a small amplitude for the second peak. This prediction is consistent with the subsequently published data (de Bernardis et al. 2000; Hanany et al. 2000).

The BOOMERanG data are well described by a model in which all cosmological parameters except the geometry are fixed to values measured by independent means. Once the position of the first peak is fixed, no tuning of any of the many other parameters is required to explain the low observed amplitude of the second peak. This is not surprising; it is simply what is expected in a purely baryonic universe.

Consideration of a purely baryonic universe is motivated by the recent successes (e.g., McGaugh & de Blok 1998b) of the hypothesized alternative to dark matter known as MOND (Milgrom 1983). Such a modification to conventional dynamics does appear to be viable. Taken in sum, the data suggest a universe in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$.

I thank Cole Miller for conversations about reionization and scattering, Rabi Mohapatra for discussions about neutrino masses, and Glen Starkman for insights into geometry. I thank Cole Miller and Bob Sanders for a careful reading of the manuscript, and Jim Peebles, Greg Aldering, Jerry Sellwood, Eric Gawiser, and Arthur Kosowsky for their comments.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the seminal work by Strominger and Vafa , the then newly discovered D–brane technology  was used to give a description of the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy in terms of microscopic degrees of freedom associated with open strings living on D–branes. This work considered a class of extremal charged black holes in five dimensions. Subsequent work by many authors extended this to include near extremal black holes , and rotating black holes in five dimensions as well as several black holes in four dimensions —see refs.  for details and extensive references.

In the case of the five dimensional black holes of ref. , there are three charges parameterizing the black hole, two from the R–R sector and one from the NS–NS sector. These charges were arranged in a very particular way in order to produce a black hole with non–vanishing horizon area. It was noticed in ref.  that all solutions related to the solution of ref. by the action of $`E_{(6)6}`$, the U–duality group in five dimensions, also have a finite horizon area. This follows from the fact that the horizon area and hence the entropy are related to the cubic invariant of $`E_{(6)6}`$.

When the type II theories are toroidally compactified to four dimensions, the U–duality group is extended to $`E_{(7)7}`$ . One then finds  that the horizon area of four dimensional black holes is naturally described by the quartic invariant of $`E_{(7)7}`$, and hence a finite area requires the presence of at least four charges. One interesting aspect of the enlarged U–duality group is that such black holes can be constructed entirely from D–branes . However, the first successful microscopic entropy calculations were made in the context of systems carrying two NS charges and two R–R charges . For example, in ref. , the entropy of a four dimensional extremal Reissner–Nordstrom black hole111This solution to four dimensional Einstein–Maxwell gravity has been embedded into string theory in many different ways — see, for example, refs. . was computed with a construction that was similar to that of the original five dimensional work with the crucial addition of a fourth charge corresponding to a Kaluza–Klein monopole. The calculations of ref.  considered the case when the charge of the monopole $`Q_m`$ was unity, and so the symmetry between the four charges in $`E_{(7)7}`$ invariant was not manifest. In other approaches  related to that presented in ref.  by U-duality, which do not rely on explicitly introducing a KK monopole, the extra charge is easy to consider for values greater than 1. However, since those early days, the technology for studying D–branes in non–trivial backgrounds, such as that created by a Kaluza–Klein monopole, has improved considerably. It is now quite easy to incorporate the case of a Kaluza–Klein monopole of charge $`Q_m>1`$, and we shall do that in this short note thus obtaining the full expression for the entropy using the original set-up of ref. .

To extend the results of ref.  to the case $`Q_m>1`$ the main property we need is that the core of the KK monopole is a Euclidean Taub–NUT space . Furthermore, the generalizations of Taub–NUT spaces to include more than a single unit of “NUT–charge”, are the multi–Taub–NUT metrics of ref. . We shall need only consider the case where the NUT centres are all coincident, in which case, close to the core of the solution the space is simply the Gibbons–Hawking multi–centre metric  with coincident centres. The point in moduli space we need will be the simple case where the space is nothing but the $`R^4/_{Q_m}`$ orbifold locally, which is a simple example of an “ALE space”.

The Bekenstein–Hawking entropy of the resulting four dimensional black holes made by including the $`Q_m>1`$ monopoles will arise by considering a modification of the D1–D5 bound state counting argument to include the effects of being on the orbifold space time. The result will turn out to be given in a simple manner by the product of four charges, as one would expect if this is to be related to the quartic invariant of $`E_{(7)7}`$.

The point is simply to consider the D1–D5 bound state on an ALE space. The general theory of D–branes living on the full “A–series” spaces was first worked out in ref.  and this was extended to the full ADE family in ref. . (See also refs..) In particular, it was found that at an ALE singularity an individual D–brane can “fractionate” into multiple D–branes (each carrying a fraction of the D–brane charge) and can move independently of each other when located at the singularity. It is by taking careful account of these fractional D–branes which allows us to obtain the entropy as a product of four charges, since the counting argument will inherit a multiplicity coming from the $`Q_m`$–ness of the ALE space.

This paper is organized as follows. Since it has been a while that these constructions have been discussed in the literature, in section two we thoroughly review the construction of four dimensional charged extremal black holes in supergravity and generalize these to cases where $`Q_m>1`$. We observe that the Bekenstein Hawking entropy to be given by the product of four charges. In section three we present the D–brane construction of this black hole highlighting the necessary details from the theory of D–branes on ALE spaces to show how this leads to the result that the entropy is indeed the product of four charges expected of an $`E_{(7)7}`$ invariant. We conclude with some brief comments and discussion.

## 2 Four Dimensional Charged Black holes

It is well known that extremal black holes in four dimensions can be constructed from supersymmetric bound states of ten (or eleven) dimensional supergravity solutions, which are then dimensionally reduced to $`d=4`$ —for many examples and references see . In type IIB supergravity, whose bosonic fields are the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the antisymmetric Kalb-Ramond field $`B_{(2)}`$ the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the RR potentials $`C_{(0)},C_{(2)},C_{(4)}`$ with the action222Here $`2\kappa ^2=16\pi G_{10}=(2\pi )^7g_s^2l_s^8`$. This action should also be supplemented with a self–dual five form field strength for the RR potential $`C_{(4)}`$, but the latter will not play a role in the following.,

$$S=\frac{1}{2\kappa _{10}^2}d^{10}x\sqrt{g}\left(e^{2\varphi }\left[R+4\left(\varphi \right)^2\frac{1}{12}\left(B_{(2)}\right)^2\right]\frac{1}{2}\left(C_{(0)}\right)^2\frac{1}{12}\left(C_{(2)}B_{(2)}C_{(0)}\right)^2\right)$$
(1)
this was first considered in . There, the authors considered a bound state of $`Q_1`$ D1–branes in the (09) plane , $`Q_5`$ D5–branes filling the (056789) plane, momentum along the $`x^9`$ intersection of the D1–D5 world volume, and a Kaluza–Klein monopole with structure in the (01234) directions. The reduction to five dimensions is accomplished by wrapping the (5678) directions on a $`T^4`$ with volume $`V`$ and the $`x^9`$ direction on a circle of radius $`R_9`$. The final reduction to four dimensions is performed on the $`x^4`$ circle which has length $`L_m`$. The latter circle is non–trivially fibred over the $`S^2`$’s at constant radius in the $`(x^1,x^2,x^3)`$ directions in such a way as to construct a Kaluza–Klein (KK) monopole.

Let us now review some of the features of the KK-monopole. This monopole is a purely gravitational object and so appears as a low energy solution in any string theory (including type IIB, which is of interest here). The metric can be written as :

$$ds^2=dt^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}dx_i^2+H_m\left(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)+H_m^1\left(dx_4+L_m𝐀\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}\right)^2$$
(2)
where $`H_m`$ is a harmonic function given by,

$$H_m=1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{Q_m}{}}\frac{L_m}{|𝐱𝐱_𝐣|}$$
(3)
here $`𝐀`$ is the electromagnetic vector potential in the $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ subspace defined by,

$$_iH_m\times 𝐀$$
(4)
In these expressions $`Q_m`$ is the number of monopoles whose locations are given by the $`𝐱_𝐣`$.

The KK monopole considered in ref.  had $`Q_m=1`$ for which the $`(r,\theta ,\varphi ,x_4)`$ subspace is exactly the Euclidean Taub–NUT instanton solution, while for arbitrary $`Q_m`$ it is the multi–Taub–NUT . For $`Q_m=1`$, in order to avoid singularities at $`r=0,\theta =0,\pi `$ the coordinate $`x_4`$ must be identified with periodicity $`x_4x_4+4\pi L_m`$. Consequently the $`(\theta ,\varphi ,x_4)`$ subspace is topologically an $`S^3`$. With the above periodicity and generic choices of the parameters $`𝐱_𝐣`$, the solution (2) is everywhere nonsingular and corresponds to $`Q_m`$ separated, charge one monopoles. As we are interested here in constructing single centre black holes carrying multiple monopole charges we will consider the special point in the monopole moduli space with $`𝐱_𝐣=0,j`$ in which case the harmonic function reduces to,

$$H_m=1+\frac{Q_mL_m}{r}.$$
(5)
In the case of coincident monopoles with $`Q_m>1`$, the $`(r,\theta ,\varphi ,x_4)`$ subspace has a singularity at the core, which will be of considerable use to us.333For coincident centres, it is possible to adjust the periodicity of $`x_4`$ to remove the “NUT” singularity, but it does not makes sense to adjust this for each value of $`Q_m`$. Instead, we shall see that there is a natural role for this singularity, as it endows the D–branes with a multiplicity. The neighbourhood of the point $`r=0`$ in fact looks locally like $`R^4/_{Q_m}`$, a collapsed $`A_{Q_m1}`$–series ALE space. For arbitrary $`r`$, the $`S^3`$ we saw previously is now in fact a $`S^3/_{Q_m}`$. This is, like $`S^3`$, a fibration of the $`x^4`$ circle over the $`S^2`$, but now there is an action of $`_{Q_m}`$ on the circle. When we construct the black hole by including other harmonic functions, the singularity at $`r=0`$ is resolved into an event horizon with finite area. The part of it in four dimensions is of course the smooth $`S^2`$ over which the $`x^4`$ is fibred.

In order to construct the black hole we apply the harmonic function rule  to obtain the ten–dimensional string frame metric representing the required bound state:

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`H_1^{1/2}H_5^{1/2}\left(dt^2+dx_9^2+H_p(dtdx_9)^2\right)+H_1^{1/2}H_5^{1/2}\left(dx_5^2+dx_6^2+dx_7^2+dx_8^2\right)`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`H_1^{1/2}H_5^{1/2}H_m\left(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)+H_1^{1/2}H_5^{1/2}H_m^1\left(dx_4+L_m\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi \right)^2`$
while the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the R-R three form field strength are,

$$e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{H_1}{H_5};F^{(3)}=d\left(\frac{1}{H_1}\right)dtdx_9+L_5\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi dx_4$$
(7)
In these expressions there are four harmonic functions which represent the contributions of each of the constituents of the bound state. Those of the D1–brane and D5–brane are given, (in the conventions of ref. ) respectively by,

$$H_1=1+\frac{8\pi ^4g_s\alpha ^3Q_1}{VL_m}\frac{1}{r};H_5=1+\frac{g_s\alpha ^{}Q_5}{2L_m}\frac{1}{r}$$
(8)
while those of the momentum wave and KK monopole are, respectively:

$$H_p=\frac{8\pi ^4g_s^2\alpha ^4N}{VR_9^2L_m}\frac{1}{r};H_m=1+\frac{L_mQ_m}{r}.$$
(9)
Here $`V`$ is the volume of the four torus making up the $`(5,6,7,8)`$ directions. Above, $`L_5`$ is the coefficient appearing in front of $`1/r`$ in the D5–brane harmonic function.

It is clear from the form of these harmonic functions that $`r=0`$ is now a surface of finite area, containing the $`S^2`$ horizon of our four dimensional black hole. Shifting to the ten dimensional Einstein frame using $`g_{\mu \nu }^E=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/2}g_{\mu \nu }^s`$, one can calculate the area444Here we mean the area measured in ten dimensional units.  of the surface $`r=0`$ to be,

$$A=8\pi G_{10}\sqrt{Q_mQ_1Q_5N},$$
(10)
and thus the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy is ,

$$S=\frac{A}{4G_N^{10}}=2\pi \sqrt{Q_mQ_1Q_5N}.$$
(11)
which, as expected, is the product of the four charges characterising the black hole obtained upon reduction to four dimensions. Clearly this reduces to the results of ref.  for $`Q_m=1`$.

As a final comment on this solution, one might consider taking the near horizon limit in order to examine the AdS/CFT duality . The natural limit takes $`\alpha ^{}0`$ holding fixed $`R_9`$, $`L_m`$, $`u^2=4Q_mL_mr/\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_i=x_i/2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ for $`i=5,6,7,8`$. The resulting metric can be written in the following form,

$`ds^2/\alpha ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{R^2}}\left(dt^2+dx_9^2+{\displaystyle \frac{u_p^2}{u^2}}\left(dtdx_9\right)^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{u^2}}du^2+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{vQ_5}}}\left(d\stackrel{~}{x}_5^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_6^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_7^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_8^2\right)`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4}}\left[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2+\left(d\psi +1/Q_m\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi \right)^2\right]`$
where $`R^2=g_s^2Q_mQ_1Q_5/vL_m`$, $`v=V/(2\pi )^4\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, $`u_p^2=g_s^2N/vL_mR_9^2`$ and $`\psi x_4/Q_mL_m`$ with periodicity $`\psi \psi +4\pi /Q_m`$. The $`(t,x_9,u)`$ subspace is simply $`AdS_3`$ in non-standard coordinates  while the $`(\theta ,\varphi ,\psi )`$ subspace is the coset $`S^3/_{Q_m}`$. Since this geometry is $`AdS_3\times S^3/_{Q_m}\times T^4`$, it is dual to a two dimensional orbifolded conformal field theory, which has been discussed in refs. . In related work, the quantization of strings in the Neveu–Schwarz background with this geometry was discussed in ref. . In passing we note that by slightly modifying the scaling limit (ie, scaling $`L_m`$ with $`r`$) the KK-monopole function is retained in the near horizon limit. The new metric becomes

$`ds^2/\alpha ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{R^2}}\left(dt^2+dx_9^2+{\displaystyle \frac{u_p^2}{u^2}}\left(dtdx_9\right)^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{u^2}}f_m(u)du^2+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{vQ_5}}}\left(d\stackrel{~}{x}_5^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_6^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_7^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_8^2\right)`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4}}\left[f_m(u)\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)+f_m^1(u)\left(d\psi +1/Q_m\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi \right)^2\right]`$
where $`f_m(u)=1+u^2/Q_mL_m`$. This new solution corresponds to perturbing the dual CFT by an irrelevant operator of weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$. For small $`u`$, we recover the $`AdS_3`$ geometry in eqn. (12), that is we recover the same CFT physics in the IR. However, the UV is strongly modified as can be seen in eqn. (13) by the disruption of the $`AdS_3`$ as $`u\mathrm{}`$. In this limit, the $`\psi `$-fibre in the $`S^3/_{Q_m}`$ part of the geometry shrinks to zero size, while $`S^2`$ base expands to combine with the $`du^2`$ part of the line element to yield the metric on $`R^3`$. It would be interesting to investigate the physics of this perturbation further.

What we do next is to determine just how we can reproduce the above black hole entropy (11) from a microscopic description of the same system at weak coupling in terms of a bound state of D–branes.

## 3 Fractional Branes and Microscopic Entropy

### 3.1 The Roles of Higgs and Coulomb

Specifically, we take a D–brane configuration consisting of $`Q_1`$ D1–branes extended in the (09) plane, bound inside the world–volume of $`Q_5`$ D5–branes filling the (056789) directions where the (5678) directions wrap a $`T^4`$. In ref.  this configuration was taken to be bound to a Kaluza–Klein monopole whose core lies in the (01234) directions. Further, the $`x^9`$ direction is an $`S^1`$ with radius $`R_9`$ and the D–brane configuration is taken to have momentum $`P^9=N/R_9`$ in this direction.

As we observed in the previous section, the neighbourhood of $`r=0`$ is simply an A$`_{Q_m1}`$–series ALE space, i.e., an $`R^4/_{Q_m}`$ singularity appears at the centre of the (1234) directions. The problem of calculating the entropy of this configuration is thus the problem of counting the BPS excitations of the D1/D5 system in the background of this ALE space.

As pioneered in ref., the important features of the bound state degeneracy problem are captured in the study of the effective 1+1 dimensional gauge theory on the world volume of the brane system. From the point of view of the D5–brane gauge theory, the D1–branes are bound states in the “Higgs branch”, in which the D1–branes are ordinary instantons in side the D5–branes. This branch is parameterised by the vacuum expectation values (vev’s) of 1–5 open strings, which give 4$`Q_1Q_5`$ bosonic and fermionic states, simply the dimension of instanton moduli space. The “Coulomb branch” of that gauge theory is the situation where the D1–branes become point like instantons and then leave the D5–branes, ceasing to be bound states. This branch is parameterised by the vev’s of 1–1 and 5–5 strings, which ultimately separate the individual D–branes from each other. This takes us away from the black hole, the state of most degeneracy.

The presence of the singular ALE space at the core of the monopole, transverse to all of the branes introduces a new feature to the problem. There will be, as we shall see , additional sectors in the gauge theory when the branes are on the ALE space. These sectors also have a Higgs and a Coulomb branch, this time both parameterised by 1–1 or 5–5 strings. This time the branches represent the opposite situation: When the D–branes (D1 or D5) are on the ALE singularity ($`r=0`$), and moving around “inside it”, we are on the Coulomb branch. There, all of the $`Q_m`$ monopole centres are at the origin: $`𝐱_i=0`$. The Higgs branch  is when the branes move off the ALE space. There are also $`Q_m`$ parameters of the branch corresponding to pulling apart the centres, making $`𝐱_i0`$. So it is the Higgs branch which takes us away from the black hole, this time.

Rather interestingly, then we see that we have a gauge theory with distinct sectors (which we shall derive shortly) coming from with fact that we have two sorts of brane, and also that they are both transverse to the ALE space. The part of moduli space corresponding to the black hole at strong coupling is a mixed Higgs–Coulomb branch of the gauge theory.555See ref.  for an extensive review of these Higgs and Coulomb branches of D–brane gauge theories, and their relevance to geometry, space time or otherwise.

### 3.2 The 1+1 Dimensional Gauge Theory

Let us review some aspects of the now standard construction of the gauge theories on branes at orbifold points. (See ref.  for a more comprehensive review.) When a single D–brane is brought to the orbifold $`_{Q_m}`$ fixed point, one works first on the covering space, introducing $`Q_m`$ images. The starting gauge group is therefore $`U(Q_m)`$, but after imposing the orbifold projection, it is reduced to $`U(1)^{Q_m}`$. So the 1–1 open strings living on the world–volume form a $`U(1)^{Q_m}`$ gauge field and a hyper-multiplet in the adjoint of this gauge group, and also a second family of massless hyper-multiplets transforming in the “bi–fundamentals” of pairs of $`U(1)`$ groups as in figure 1. Each node in the diagram corresponds to a $`U(1)`$ factor, and each link represents a hyper-multiplet with the appropriate fundamental representation charges (1,–1). At the ALE singularity, each of the $`Q_m`$ nodes can be associated with a “fractional” D1–brane, and the second set of hyper-multiplets are simply the fundamental strings stretching between these fractional D–strings as shown in the figure. The Coulomb branch corresponds to giving the adjoint scalars an expectation value, which corresponds to the fractional D-branes moving around independently on the ALE singularity. The bi–fundamental hyper’s parameterise the Higgs branch, describing the motions of the D1–brane away from the ALE singularity. Naively there ought to be $`Q_m^2`$ strings corresponding to the number of ways of connecting together the D–branes, but in fact we only have $`Q_m`$ massless sectors. The latter arises as the solution to the constraints on the Chan–Paton factors placed by the $`_{Q_m}`$ symmetry. A similar result occurs for the more complicated case of D–branes made of D1–D5 bound states which we will show gives the simple result for the entropy.

In order to generalize these results to the present problem we begin by considering the effective 1+1 dimensional theory living on a single D1–D5 bound state666This is a misnomer for just a single D1–brane and D5–brane, but the rest of the discussion carries through. When there are more D5–branes, the term “bound state” will be accurate, since then we can form instantons, as we have a non–Abelian gauge group on their world–volume. sitting at the origin of the $`_{Q_m}`$ orbifold with $`Q_1=Q_5=1`$. The spectra of $`(1,1)`$ and $`(5,5)`$ strings are given by two copies of the spectra found in the single D1–brane case. In particular the gauge group is $`[U_1(1)\times U_5(1)]^{Q_m}`$ where the subscripts $`1,5`$ refer to which brane the gauge group originated on. Here the $`(1,1)`$ strings give a gauge field and adjoint hyper of $`U_1(1)^{Q_m}`$ and a set of hyper-multiplets in the bi–fundamentals of the adjacent factors of $`U_1(1)`$. These are all singlets of the $`U_5(1)`$ factors. In exactly the same way there is a vector, adjoint hyper-multiplets and a set of bi–fundamental hyper-multiplets coming from the $`(5,5)`$ strings. So far therefore, we have simply made two copies of the non–standard (or quiver) gauge theory arising from D–branes in the presence of an ALE singularity. The Higgs branch is given by the vev’s of the bi–fundamentals, making the branes move off the ALE space, and the Coulomb by the adjoint scalars, allowing the fractional D1-branes to move around inside it. In the $`U_5(1)^{Q_m}`$ theory, the adjoint scalar vev’s can be thought of as introducing Wilson lines on the $`T^4`$ in a six dimensional gauge theory on the wrapped D5-branes.

The novelty here is that there is another sector, because there are $`(1,5)`$ and $`(5,1)`$ strings. Naively there are quite a few of these, since there are many ways of connecting each of the $`Q_m`$ D1–branes to the $`Q_m`$ D5–branes. There are far fewer in fact, and to see this we will consider them in some detail.

In order to facilitate the analysis we recall that the bound state we are considering here breaks the space-time Lorentz symmetry as, $`SO(1,9)SO(1,1)\times SO(4)_E\times SO(4)_I`$ where the $`SO(1,1)`$ factor represents Lorentz rotations in the $`(09)`$ directions, the $`SO(4)_E`$ factor is the rotations in the non–compact external directions $`(1234)`$ and the factor $`SO(4)_I`$ are the rotations of the internal compact directions $`(5678)`$. The worldsheet fields on these strings have mixed boundary conditions. Specifically, oscillators in the (09) directions have Neumann–Neumann (NN) boundary conditions, oscillators in the (1234) directions have Dirichlet–Dirichlet (DD) boundary conditions while the (5678) oscillators have ND/DN boundary conditions. This system has four ND boundary conditions and thus the zero point energy of oscillators in both the R and NS sectors vanish (this is reviewed in refs. ). In the ND directions the the NS sector states are periodic and thus have zero modes $`\psi _0^i,i=5,6,7,8`$ while the NN/DD directions have a periodic R sector with zero modes $`\psi _0^m,m=0,1,2,3,4,9`$. After the GSO projection we are left, from the 1+1 dimensional point of view, with a single Weyl spinor and two real scalars, or half of a hyper-multiplet. Noting that there is a doubling of states due to the reversed orientation of $`(1,5)`$ and $`(5,1)`$ strings we see that there is an entire hyper-multiplet. For our purposes below we remind the reader that the Weyl spinors of this hyper-multiplet can be written in the Chevalier basis as $`\chi =|s_1s_2>`$ where $`s_1,s_2`$ are the eigenvalues of the Cartan generators of $`SO(4)_E`$, which we will denote as $`S_1,S_2`$ below. Further imposing the GSO projection selects $`s_1=s_2`$.

In order to determine the spectrum of these strings when this system is placed on the $`_{Q_m}`$ orbifold we need to consider how the orbifold acts on these oscillators. Clearly the ND (i.e., $`\psi _0^i`$) ground states are invariant. For the $`\psi _0^m`$ ground states, we adopt the conventions of ref. . Specifically, we assemble the relevant worldsheet fields into complex pairs. We define $`z_1=X^1+iX^2`$ and $`z_2=X^3+iX^4`$ for the bosonic fields and likewise for the fermions. Denoting the elements of $`_{Q_m}`$ as $`\alpha _{Q_m}^k`$ where $`k=1,2\mathrm{}Q_m`$ the action on the bosonic and NS sector fields is then given as,

$$z_1\alpha _{Q_m}^kz_1=e^{\frac{2\pi ik}{Q_m}}z_1z_2\alpha _{Q_m}^kz_2=e^{\frac{2\pi ik}{Q_m}}z_2$$
(14)
while for the R sector fermions we have777To motivate this choice of action on R sector states see refs. .

$$\alpha _{Q_m}^k=e^{\frac{2\pi ik}{Q_m}(S_1S_2)}$$
(15)
Thus, due to the GSO projection, the action of $`_{Q_m}`$ on the R sector ground state is trivial.

We can now determine the massless spectrum of $`(1,5)`$ strings. Following ref.  we note that when the D1–D5 system is brought to the fixed point of the orbifold so too are all of its images and hence the naive gauge group is $`U_1(Q_m)\times U_5(Q_m)`$. As a result the open strings now carry Chan–Paton factors which we represent by $`Q_m\times Q_m`$ matrices $`\lambda _{ij}^m`$. As in ref.  the Chan Paton indices must be invariant under the orbifold up to its action on the space time indices, which as we have just shown above is trivial for both the ND and DD strings. The constraint that we require is written as,

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{ij}=\gamma _{im}\lambda _{mn}(\gamma )_{nj}^1=\lambda _{ij}$$
(16)
where $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is the $`Q_m`$ dimensional regular representation888Recall that we can always choose a basis in which the regular representation is block diagonal where each irreducible representation of dimension $`n`$ appears $`n`$ times along the diagonal . Here the regular representation is simply given by a diagonal matrices whose entries are the $`Q_m`$ roots of unity. of $`_{Q_m}`$. This can only be satisfied by diagonal matrices. In particular there are no massless $`(1,5)`$ strings connecting different factors of the gauge group, i.e., there are no $`(1,5)`$ strings linking different images of the D1–D5 system. There are then a total of $`Q_m`$ hyper-multiplets, one for each non-trivial factor of $`U(1)_1\times U_5(1)`$. Since the GSO projection left us with two Weyl spinors of $`SO(4)_E`$ (one for $`(1,5)`$ and one for $`(5,1)`$) we see that there are $`4Q_m`$ boson/fermion ground states corresponding to these hyper-multiplets.

We now generalize this discussion to arbitrary $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_5`$. To do so we first discuss the fate of the $`(1,1)`$ (or equivalently the $`(5,5)`$) strings in order to determine what the gauge group is. For the case where $`Q_1`$ D-strings are brought to the fixed point of an $`A_{Q_m1}`$ orbifold the gauge group is $`U(Q_mQ_1)`$ before projecting onto invariant states. To determine the surviving gauge group we note that the Chan-Paton factors of the gauge fields, $`A_\mu `$ with $`\mu =0,9`$ are now $`Q_mQ_1\times Q_mQ_1`$ hermitian matrices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The constraint imposed by the orbifold on the Chan–Paton matrices is,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{ab}=(\gamma _{Q_1})_{ac}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cd}(\gamma _{Q_1})_{db}^1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ab}$$
(17)
where $`\gamma _{Q_1}`$ is the $`Q_mQ_1`$ dimensional regular representation of $`_{Q_m}`$ formed by tensoring the $`Q_m`$ dimensional representation used in eqn. (16) with the $`Q_1\times Q_1`$ identity matrix. This condition can only be solved by block diagonal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ whose blocks are $`Q_1\times Q_1`$ dimensional hermitian matrices. The unbroken gauge group is thus $`U(Q_1)^{Q_m}`$. The same reasoning applies to the $`(5,5)`$ strings in the D1–D5 system except in this case one constructs the regular representation of $`_{Q_m}`$ using the $`Q_5\times Q_5`$ identity matrix. The unbroken gauge group when a D1–D5 system comprised of $`Q_1`$ D1–branes and $`Q_5`$ D5–branes is put on top of an $`A_{Q_m1}`$ singularity is thus $`[U(Q_1)\times U(Q_5)]^{Q_m}`$. The matter content from the $`(1,1)`$ and $`(5,5)`$ strings can be determined exactly as outlined for the gauge bosons above: There are a pair of adjoint hyper-multiplets one of which is in the adjoint of $`U(Q_1)^{Q_m}`$ and the other is in the adjoint of $`U(Q_5)^{Q_m}`$; there will also be $`Q_m`$ hyper-multiplets each transforming in the fundamental representation of the $`U(Q_1)`$ factors which correspond to fundamental strings stretched between D1–branes in different sectors, likewise there will be $`Q_m`$ hyper-multiplets transforming in the fundamentals of the $`U(Q_5)`$ factors which represent strings stretched between D5–branes in different sectors.

Finally we come to the $`(1,5)`$ strings. The answer is found by combining the analyses of the previous paragraphs. Before performing the orbifold projection these strings are in the bi–fundamental representation of $`U(Q_mQ_1)\times U(Q_mQ_5)`$. As shown before the oscillators for these states are acted on trivially by $`_{Q_m}`$ thus the constraint is simply a generalization of that presented in eqn. (17). The Chan–Paton factors of these states are now $`Q_mQ_1\times Q_mQ_5`$ matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which can be thought of as $`Q_m\times Q_m`$ matrices whose entries are $`Q_1\times Q_5`$ blocks. Following eqn. (17) we impose the constraint,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{aB}=(\gamma _{Q_1})_{ac}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cD}(\gamma _{Q_5})_{DB}^1=\mathrm{\Omega }_{aB}$$
(18)
where $`\gamma _{Q_1}`$ is as before, $`\gamma _{Q_5}`$ is formed by tensoring the $`Q_m`$ dimensional regular representation of $`_{Q_m}`$ with the $`Q_5\times Q_5`$ identity matrix. Here lower case indices run over $`1,\mathrm{},Q_1`$ while upper case indices run over $`1,\mathrm{},Q_5`$. This constraint can only be solved by “diagonal” matrices whose entries are $`Q_1\times Q_5`$ blocks. There are therefore no strings in bi–fundamental representations of different factors of the gauge group. More succinctly there are no $`(1,5)`$ strings in the links of the Dynkin diagram. Thus the only $`(1,5)`$ strings are those which connect D1–branes and D5–branes in the same sector of the gauge theory. So our conclusion is that there are precisely $`Q_m`$ hyper-multiplets, one for each factor appearing in the gauge group, corresponding to $`(1,5)`$ and $`(5,1)`$ strings. See figure 1b.

Note that the low energy effective field theory discussed here will flow to a 1+1 dimensional conformal field theory in the IR which is dual to the near horizon geometry (12) discussed in section (2) — see refs. . We also refer to the reader to ref.  for a discussion of the closely related gauge theory appearing in the bound state of two D3–branes on an ALE singularity.

Now to give a microscopic account of the black hole entropy, we calculate the ground state degeneracy when $`N`$ units of momentum are introduced in the 1+1 dimensional gauge theory. There are a total of $`Q_m`$ hyper-multiplets coming from $`(1,5)`$ strings, each of which has $`4Q_1Q_5`$ boson/fermion ground states making a total of $`4Q_mQ_1Q_5`$. The degeneracy of states then comes from the number of ways we can distribute $`N`$ units of momentum to these degrees of freedom. Since this system is BPS, we can easily write the partition function for the momentum $`N`$ among these bosonic and fermionic states in the 1+1 dimensional effective theory as a purely chiral system:

$$\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{1+q^N}{1q^N}\right)^{4Q_mQ_1Q_5}=\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }(N)q^N,$$
(19)
where, at large $`N`$, the level degeneracy behaves as $`\mathrm{\Omega }(N)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{Q_mQ_1Q_5N}).`$ We see that the entropy is therefore

$$S=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }(N)=2\pi \sqrt{Q_mQ_1Q_5N}$$
(20)
which is precisely that given in eqn. (11)!

## 4 Discussion

So we have our desired result: The entropy of the four dimensional extremal black hole constructed from D1–branes, D5–branes, momentum and a Kaluza–Klein monopole, is indeed the product of four charges (associated to each sector) appropriate for the quartic invariant of $`E_{(7)7}`$. This has of course been shown elsewhere  using a different construction in the type IIA theory, not involving Kaluza–Klein monopoles, but related to the one presented here by U–duality. It is however, quite satisfying to show it explicitly with the original arrangement of constituents, and pleasing that the interpretation in terms of fractional branes involving the machinery of D–branes on ALE spaces manifests itself so clearly. In particular, the absence of $`(1,5)`$ strings stretching between different factors of the gauge group is quite dramatic, since had it been the naive result, the entropy would have acquired a factor of $`Q_m`$, instead of the required $`Q_m^{1/2}`$, which is a significant difference at large $`Q_m`$.

Note that the expression (20) cannot be the full U–duality invariant expression for the counting of the BPS states in this system. In particular, one might note that our result is not valid for small $`N`$. In general, we might expect corrections to appear for small values of the charges both in the gauge theory calculations and in the black hole entropy. The latter can arise from higher curvature corrections to the supergravity action, which will modify the form of the black hole solution (and hence its horizon area), and also introduce corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula  — for a general review, see ref. . In certain cases, such subleading corrections to the entropy have been matched in microscopic string calculations for black holes with $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry . Generically, one also finds logarithmic corrections  to black hole entropy in going beyond the large charge approximation used, e.g., in deriving eqn. (20) from the previous expression (19). It would be interesting to extend our calculations to determine the full U–duality invariant result using techniques analogous to those used in refs. .999We thank J. Maldacena for correspondence on this point.

Given the success of those techniques above in examining the D1–D5 bound state, it seems that the methods used here are likely to be useful in extending these results to a U–dual counting formula of the BPS states underlying the present four dimensional black holes. However, one should note that the most general supersymmetric configuration in four dimensions actually depends on five charges. That is while four charges is the minimum required to produce a non-vanishing value for the quartic invariant of $`E_{(7)7}`$, the generating solution from which one can obtain all other configurations by the action of U–duality actually carries five independent charges. Recently progress has been made in producing a microscopic description of the black hole entropy of such five charge configurations  by applying the approach of ref.  to an M-theory embedding of the solution. The simplest approach to adding a fifth charge to the present type IIB black holes would require introducing an additional momentum in the $`x^4`$ direction, as well as a diagonal wrapping of either the D1– or D5–branes on this direction. Certainly extending the present analysis to this more elaborate configuration would be a necessary first step in producing a complete U–duality invariant expression for the black hole entropy.

## 5 Acknowledgments

Research by RCM and NRC was supported by NSERC of Canada and Fonds FCAR du Québec. RCM and CVJ would like to thank the Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality during part of this work. We would also like to thank Øyvind Tafjord for useful conversations.


text:
# Models of core reconstruction for the 90∘ partial dislocation in semiconductors

## I Introduction

Dislocations are fundamental defects associated with the mechanisms of plastic deformation in solids, playing also a critical role as traps and recombination centers for carriers in semiconductors. In group IV and III-V semicondutors, under usual regimes of plastic deformation, 60 and screw dislocations lying on  directions in {111} slip planes are formed. Experimental evidence suggests these to be dissociated into partials both at rest and in motion . The screw dissociates into two 30 partials and the 60 dislocation into a 30 partial and a 90 partial. A central issue regards bond reconstruction at the dislocation cores, with most, if not all, of experimental and theoretical works to date indicating that reconstruction does take place. Knowledge of the atomic structure of the core, and of the point-like core excitations (kinks and solitons) which determine the modes of dislocation motion, is crucial to understanding the mechanisms of plastic deformation at a microscopic level.

Here, we review recent theoretical results leading to the proposal of a new core structure for the 90 partial dislocation in homopolar semiconductors . This structure has been called the double-period (DP) reconstruction because it involves a doubling of the period along the dislocation direction. In the following, we discuss this and the other models of core reconstruction that had been previously considered for the 90 partial. The traditionally accepted single-period (SP) reconstructed core  is compared with the DP geometry . We also give a brief overview on the types of point excitations occurring in the two geometries.

## II “Quasi-fivefold” and single-period core models

Theoretical works on the atomic-structure of dislocations in semiconductors have heavily concentrated on the 90 partial dislocation . From the displacement field predicted for this dislocation by continuous elasticity theory, one obtains an unreconstructed configuration, with the dislocation core displaying a zigzag chain of threefold-coordinated atoms running along the dislocation direction, with broken bonds lying nearly parallel to the slip plane. Mirror symmetry planes along the dislocation direction are present is this configuration, as shown in figure 1(a). By allowing relaxation of this core structure, while keeping the mirror symmetry planes, one obtains a “quasi-fivefold” (QF) structure in which the distance between the two zigzag chains is reduced. The quasi-fivefold denomination is justified since this lead to atomic distances which do not characterize full bond reconstruction .

The way for this system to undergo full reconstruction appears straightforward: by breaking the mirror symmetry of the unreconstructed core, reconstructed bonds are formed in the manner shown in figure 1(b). Note that the lattice periodicity along the line is preserved in this geometry, hence we shall refer to this as the single-period structure. All dangling bonds have been eliminated, and all the atoms are fourfold coordinated. Ab initio and tight-binding calculations have predicted this structure to be substantially lower in energy (by about 0.2 eV/Å) than the quasi-fivefold core , being thus the one expected to occur in nature.

## III The double-period structure

Most theoretical works on the 90 partial have addressed the SP geometry. Kinks are fully reconstructed in this structure, with low formation energies, as shown by available theoretical calculations with values ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 eV . Kinks are thus seen to introduce little strain on the core of the SP geometry. Since a kink and an antikink exert an attractive elastic interaction on each other, and given the already low formation energies above, results indicating a negligible energy for a kink-antikink pair of minimum separation (with the kink and antikink occurring in adjacent sites along the core) should not have been very surprising. Öberg et al. reported an energy of only 0.004 eV for this defect, while Nunes  computed a value of 0.01 eV. Keating potential calculations on 96-atom supercells of the type employed in our previous works  give negative values ($``$0.3 eV) for the formation energy of the defect.

The full implications of these latter results went unnoticed, however, until it was realized that continuing the process of inserting kink-antikink pairs in the SP core would lead to a new core structure with lower energy than the SP core itself . In addition to the symmetry breaking already present in the SP core, this new structure involves a doubling of the periodicity along the dislocation line, and for that reason it was called the double-period (DP) reconstruction. The atomic geometry is shown in figure 1(c). In the original work, the DP core was introduced for silicon, being later extended to diamond and germanium . In this latter work, the DP core was found to be the ground-state in all three materials, as shown by the ab initio and tight-binding total energy (TBTE) results in table I . Recently, Blase et al.  have shown that the DP core is more stable in diamond over a broad range of stress states, by means of ab initio calculations.

Examination of bond lengths and bond angles of the SP and DP structures suggest that the DP core is able to “pack” the atoms more efficiently, as indicated by the smaller average bond-length deviations, at the expense of larger bond-angle deviations. The balance between bond-bending and bond-stretching forces leads to the preference of the three materials for the DP core. The difference is rather subtle, though, as seen by the small differences in maximum bond-length and bond-angle deviations in the two cores, as given in table II .

## IV Experimental evidence

So far, no clear experimental evidence can decide between the two structures. Both geometries are fully reconstructed, hence neither gives rise to deep-gap states which would show an EPR signal. It seems to be safely established by measurements that a rather small density of dangling bonds is to be expected in the core of 90-partial dislocation . Moreover, both cores consist entirely of fivefold, sixfold, and sevenfold rings, both being consistent with images produced by transmission electron microscopy, at the current level of resolution of this technique . Recent experimental work by Batson  indicates a DP-derived structure (called the “Extended DP structure” by this author) to be more consistent with STEM and EELS experiments.

## V The issue of boundary conditions

Lehto and Öberg (LO) have recently investigated the influence of the choice of supercell periodic boundary conditions in the relative stability of the SP and the DP structures . Performing supercell calculations that employed the Keating potential for Si, they concluded that the relative stability of the SP and DP geometries depends on the choice of boundary conditions, with the SP and DP cores being favored for “dipole” and “quadrupole” configurations (these are related to different possible choices of supercell boundary conditions), respectively. Their work raises interesting possibilities, such as the influence of neighboring extended defects, and of the dislocation stress state (as studied in Blase et al. ) on dislocation core structure, when two competing core structures are very nearly degenerate in energy.

In order to answer the question of which of the two structures is more stable, in the bulk of Si at vanishing stress, we have performed cell-size converged TBTE calculations which clearly show the DP structure to be more stable regardless of the choice of boundary conditions . The results are given in table III. Note that the numbers in this table show a bias of about $``$50 meV/Å in the Keating potential, in favor of the SP structure.

## VI Kinks and solitons

Symmetry breaking in the SP core gives rise to a soliton-type (S) defect at the boundary between two stretches of the dislocation, in which the direction of the bonds is switched, as shown in figure 1(d). Note the presence of a dangling bond in the core of the defect, which explains its formation energy of 1.45 eV. Heggie and Jones , suggested a mechanism by which solitons in the SP core may act as nucleating centers for kink-antikink pairs.

As discussed by Bulatov al. , related to the twofold degeneracy of its reconstruction, the SP core supports two

kinks and two types of kink-soliton complexes. Referring to figure 2(a), the reconstruction will be said to tilt to the ‘left’ and to the ‘right’ on the left and right sides of the kink, respectively. Hence, we call this a left-right (LR) kink, the notation following accordingly for the other kinks. In our terminology, we call kinks the stable, fully reconstructed excitations shown in figures 2(a) and (b), while kink-soliton complexes are those containing a three-fold coordinated atom in their center, as shown in figures 2(c) and 2(d). Being fully reconstructed, the former have low formation energies (we obtained a value of $``$0.12 eV in ), while the latter are unstable against the emission of a soliton, in reactions of the type $`RRS+LR`$, as we have previoulsy discussed . A detailed study of the structure and energetics of these excitations is given in our previous works .

The period doubling of the DP geometry, combined with the mirror symmetry breaking common to the two structures, gives rise to an even richer structure of core excitations for the DP core. Four equivalent ground states are present(“dnqu”, “qudn”, “pnbu”, “bupn” in the notation of Bennetto et al. ) related to each other by (110) mirrors and by single-cell translations. An antiphase defect occurs at a translational domain boundary between core segments; being referred to as a “phase-switching defect” (PSD) \[figure 3(a)\]. As can be seen in figure 3(a), a PSD can be regarded as a short segment of the SP structure inserted into the DP one. Being free of dangling bonds, the PSD is expected to be a low-energy structural excitation. A second class of defects results from a reversal of the mirror symmetry-breaking. These are termed “direction-switching defects” (DSDs); they can be classified by the direction of switching, among other factors. Two examples are shown in figures 3(b) and 3(c), respectively. A DSD will necessarily contain a dangling bond or an over-coordinated atom, so the DSDs are expected to have higher energies than the PSDs. (The malcoordinated atoms do not appear in figure 3 as they are located just above or below the plane of the figure.)

Finally, turning to the kink structures, because there are four degenerate core structures to choose between on each side of the kink, there should be at least 16 distinct kinks. However, each of these is paired with another into which it can be converted by displacing the center of the kink by one lattice constant along the dislocation . Altogether, 8 topologically distinct families of kinks are found in this structure. Furthermore, most of these families may be classified as “kink-defect complexes” incorporating either a DSD, or PSD, or both, which may or may not be energetically bound to the kink. Those including a DSD will retain a malcoordinated atom, and will have no reversal of the mirror symmetry-breaking across the kink; those not including a DSD will be fully reconstructed and will show a reversal of the mirror symmetry-breaking. An example of the latter kind is shown in figure 3(d).

Much work remains to be done to characterize the point excitations of the DP core. Some initial results on kink formation energies were given in Bennetto et al. , but soliton and kink migration barriers, as well as stability of soliton-kink complexes in this geometry, are crucial aspects determining the mechanisms of dislocation motion, which remain to be addressed. The role of solitonic defects in the nucleation of kink-antikink is also an interesting possibility, to be explored in future studies.

###### Acknowledgements.

R. W. Nunes acknowledges support from CNPq-Brazil. D.V. acknowledges support from NSF Grant DMR-99-81193.


text:
# Electronic and Magnetic Properties of Electron-doped Superconductor, Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ

## I introduction

After the discovery of high-temperature superconductivity in copper-oxide compounds , a new class of superconducting compounds was found with the formula Ln2-xMxCuO4 where Ln stands for Pr, Nd, Sm, and Eu, and M for Ce and Th . These compounds have become the subjects of an intense study due to their peculiar physical properties, which are different from the high-temperature superconductors of cuprates. The Ln2CuO4 parent compounds crystallize in a tetragonal “ $`T^{}`$-phase ” structure containing CuO2 planes in which the copper ions are surrounded by a square planar arrangement of oxygen ions, in contrast to the La2CuO4 parent compound which forms an orthorhombic “ $`T`$-phase ” structure at low temperature (below $``$ 500 K) containing CuO2 planes in which copper ions are surrounded by an octahedral arrangement of oxygen ions. Ln2-xMxCuO4 (M = Ce or Th) compounds have electrons as a charge carrier in forming superconducting electron pairs, contrast to the related La2-xMxCuO4 (M = Sr or Ba) compounds containing holes as a charge carrier. The electron-doped compounds have the pressure dependence of $`T`$c variation with negative $`d`$ln$`T`$c/$`dP`$, where $`P`$ is pressure, while the hole-doped ones have positive $`d`$ln$`T`$c/$`dP`$ . Antiferromagnetic (AFM) ordering of the rare-earth ions in Ln2CuO4 has been found for Ln = Nd ($`T`$N $``$ 1.7 K), Sm ($`T`$N $``$ 5.9 K), and Gd ($`T`$N $``$ 6.6 K) while no magnetic ordering for Ln = Pr and Eu. The AFM ordering temperatures for Ln = Nd and Sm are lowered by substituting electron donor element (Ce+4 or Th+4 ions) for Ln+3 ions. The superconductivity appears at the narrow range of electron doping near $`x=0.15`$ with $`T`$c $`>`$ $`T`$N and co-exists with the AFM state below $`T`$N. The AFM transition nature is studied in terms of magnetization and specific heat measurements . The entropy estimation associated magnetic ordering in Sm2CuO4 confirms the doublet ground state, expected by crystalline electric field splitting . However, the electronic contribution to specific heat, $`\gamma `$ $``$ 82 mJ/mole$``$Sm$``$K2, in Sm2CuO4 is found to be much larger than the ones of other compounds. The large value of $`\gamma `$ is suspected to be due to the existence of magnetic correlation much above the $`T`$N, making the evaluation of $`\gamma `$ uncertain, but not understood clearly yet.

For superconductivity, experimental determination of the order-parameter symmetry of $`n`$-type cuprate superconductors is critical in establishing an unified understanding of the mechanism of superconducting pairing in cuprates. Recent experiments suggest that the dominant symmetry of the order parameter is of $`d`$-wave type . In addition, the role of rare-earth magnetic moment interacting with $`d`$-wave superconducting system of electrons opens up a new area of theoretical and experimental studies. So far only Nd2-xCexCuO4-δ was extensively studied in which relatively weak moments strongly influence the temperature dependence of the penetration depth , which helps to identify the order-parameter symmetry. It is interesting to investigate the electronic and magnetic properties in normal state of electron doped Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ by specific heat measurements. Temperature dependent magnetization in the normal state is also necessary to study the specific heat data because the crystalline electric field effects significantly affect the magnetic properties of Sm+3 ion, causing magnetic anisotropy both in magnitude and temperature dependence of magnetization. In this paper, the specific heat and magnetization data are represented to study the normal state properties of superconducting Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ compounds.

## II experimetal details

Superconducting single crystals of Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ have been grown by a flux-based technique. A batch of about 40 g is prepared by mixing and grinding powders of Sm2O3 (99.9%), CeO2 (99.99%), and CuO (99.99%) in the molar ratio of (2-$`x`$):(2$`x`$):(7.2$``$13.4), respectively. The powders were pre-baked at 800$``$950 C (for Sm2O3 and CeO2) or at 400$``$600 C (for CuO) to remove some volatile impurities. The mixed batch needs to be sintered at 900 C and ground several times. It was soaked at 1000 C for 10$``$20 hours and heated to 1210 C in air (300 C/h). After a short soak for 1$``$3 h, the temperature was lowered to 1000 C at a rate of 5$``$12 C/h, and then to room temperature. As-grown crystals with typical size of $`1.5\times 1\times 0.03\text{ mm}^3`$ were synthesized by this procedure. Superconductivity was induced by annealing and quenching in inert gas; the initial raising rate of temperature was 5$``$10 C/min (300$``$600 C/h), and the soak time at 880 C was 16 hours. The quenching needs to be done within 30 minutes to preserve the high-temperature structure.

The as grown single crystals of Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ are confirmed to be of the single phase of the Sm2CuO4 structure by measurements of powder x-ray diffraction of pulverized single crystals. The impurity phases of Cu2O and Sm2O3, which are often found in polycrystalline samples, are not detected in the diffraction pattern. Temperature dependent static magnetization was measured by using a 7-Tesla Quantum Design superconducting quantum interference device magnetometer(SQUID). The field cooled (FCW) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) data in the superconducting state were obtained on warming after the magnet was quenched. The specific heat measurements down to 1.2 K were made on the grown single crystal, using a time constant method (relaxation method) technically described in detail elsewhere .

## III results and discussion

The magnetization versus temperature ($`M`$($`T`$)) data in Fig. 1(a) and 1(b) show the flux expulsion (FCW) and magnetic shielding (ZFC) effects for H $``$ c and H $``$ c in a Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ crystal for an external magnetic field $`H`$ = 10 G, respectively. The plots show typical superconducting diamagnetic signal for both field orientations, indicating bulk superconductivity. The much higher values of $`M`$($`T`$) for H $``$ c than H $``$ c is due to the demagnetization field inside the sample, which is not corrected for actual real field for the measurements. The superconducting transition temperature, $`T`$c, is found to be 16.5 K, the temperature at which more than 1% of superconducting volume fraction appears. It is noted that the superconductivity in Nd2-xCexCuO4-δ appears only both in the very limited Ce concentration range of $`x`$ $``$ 0.15 and in the reduced oxygen content of $`\delta `$ $``$ 0.07 . The superconducting properties of Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ single crystal are quite similar to the ones of bulk Nd2-xCexCuO4-δ samples, indicating the apparent oxygen deficiency in our sample. In addition, the observed $`T`$c $``$ 16.5 K and the broad superconducting transition in the magnetization in low magnetic fields is often found in the bulk Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ samples, due to the partial occupancy of apical oxygen in $`T`$-phase structure . It should be noted that, recently, the microwave surface resistance measurement, which depends neither on electric percolation nature nor on magnetic shielding current, shows that the real $`T`$c, clearly higher than the $`T`$c determined above, exists without measurable bulk Meissner effect in Sm2-xCexCuO4-δ compounds . So the $`T`$c, which is determined in this study, is believed to be lower bound of real $`T`$c.

Typical $`M`$($`H`$) isotherm data for Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ are shown in Fig. 2(a) for H $``$ c and 2(b) for H $``$ c at several different temperatures for 0 G $`H`$ 70 kG. For both field orientations, the magnetization is linear in the whole applied field range for temperature above 50 K and at 5 K in the $`H>`$ 10 kG below which superconducting signals appear. It is noted that the nonlinear behavior of magnetization, leading to a saturation of the Sm+3 magnetic moments, is not observed even at $`T`$ = 5 K and $`H`$ = 70 kG. The magnetic moment at this temperature and field is found to be 0.031 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$/Sm+3 and 0.027 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$/Sm+3 for H $``$ c and H $``$ c, respectively. Those values are much smaller than the theoretically expected value of 0.845 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$/Sm+3 for Hund’s isolated Sm+3 ion, 6H5/2.

Fig. 3 shows the temperature-dependent magnetic susceptibility, $`\chi `$($`T`$), for Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ with $`H`$ = 5 kG perpendicular and parallel to $`c`$-axis and their powder average for 5 K $`T`$ 350 K. The large anisotropy in $`\chi `$($`T`$) between H $``$ c and H $``$ cis quite clear and the temperature dependence for both field orientations clearly deviate from the typical Curie-Weiss behavior. In addition, the temperature dependences of $`\chi `$($`T`$) for both field orientations is also significantly different: with increasing temperature, $`\chi _{}`$($`T`$) for H $``$ c shows a broad local minimum around 100 K and a slow increase whereas $`\chi _{}`$($`T`$) for H $``$ c shows a monotonic decrease. The similar $`\chi `$($`T`$) of non-Curie-Weiss behavior is found in the magnetization of Sm+3 ions and ascribed to the comparable size of $`J`$ multiplet to the $`k{}_{\mathrm{B}}{}^{}T`$ in Sm+3 ions Hund’s ground state of $`J`$ = 5/2 . Thus, van Vleck contribution due to the higher level of $`J`$ = 7/2 should be considered to account for the observed susceptibility. The observed magnetic susceptibility is described according to the standard formula of

$$\chi (T)=N_A\left[\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{3k_\mathrm{B}(T\mathrm{\Theta })}+\frac{20\mu _\mathrm{B}^2}{7k_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Delta }E}\right]$$
(1)
where the first term is a Curie-Weiss contribution from the $`J`$ = 5/2 ground state multiplet, and the second one is a temperature independent van Vleck susceptibility due to coupling of the $`J`$ = 5/2 ground state multiplet with the $`J`$ = 7/2 multiplet at an average energy $`k{}_{\mathrm{B}}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ above ground state. The best fits for the data of H $``$ c, H $``$ c, and powder average are plotted by solid lines as shown in the Fig. 3. The fitting results are unsatisfactory for both field orientations but apparently quite good for the powder-average case. From the fitting results of the powder average data, the splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, the effective moment $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and the Curie-Weiss temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are extracted to be 466 K, 0.36 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$, and $``$6.4 K, respectively. The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is smaller than the of Sm2CuO4, ($``$ 1150 K) , which is probably due to the doping of electrons by Ce+4 ion and the interaction between the localized and the doped electrons.

A particularly interesting feature in Fig. 3 is that the susceptibility for H $``$ c reaches a minimum and then increases slowly as the temperature increases still further, which is similar to the one in Sm due to the small interval between $`J`$ = 5/2 and $`J`$ = 7/2 multiplets. This minimum susceptibility behavior is not observed for H $``$ c and powder averaged one, which show monotonic decrease with increasing temperature. One of the possible scenarios for this remarkable anisotropy is that the splitting of $`J`$ multiplets has angular dependence. It is conjectured that this can be caused by the non-negligible anisotropic hybridization of conduction electrons with the localized Sm+3 ions and its angular dependence. The heavy electronic behavior of Sm2CuO4 compound is manifested itself by the relatively large $`\gamma `$ ($``$ 82 mJ/mole$``$Sm$``$K2) value, which is the electronic specific contribution. The large value of $`\gamma `$ is also found in the electron doped Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ in this study in specific heat measurements (see below).

The temperature dependent specific heat, $`C`$p($`T`$), for Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ is plotted in Fig. 4(a). Clear evidence of a phase transition in Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ is given by the sharp peak at $`T`$ = 4.7 K and the superconducting transition is seen near $`T`$c $``$ 16.5 K as a slight jump of $`C`$p which is consistent with the $`T`$c from low field magnetization. The data at $`T`$ = 5.7 K, which is level off the measured data, is not understood yet and probably sample dependent (or measurement error). It was shown that a phase transition in Sm2CuO4 at $`T`$ 6 K is attributed to AFM transition from the $`M`$($`T`$) and $`C`$p($`T`$) measurements . Thus, the observed transition in Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ is also of AF nature and the $`T`$N is shifted to lower temperature with charge carrier (electrons) being doped.

In order to separate the magnetic and nonmagnetic contribution to $`C`$p, the data for 10 K $`T`$ 18 K is fitted to the equation

$$C_\mathrm{p}^{\mathrm{NM}}(T)=\gamma T+\beta T^3,$$
(2)
where the linear and the cubic terms correspond to the electronic and lattice contributions to the specific heat, respectively. The $`C`$pNM($`T`$) for 10 K $`T`$ 18 K from Fig. 4(a) is plotted again with $`C`$pNM($`T`$)$`/T`$ versus $`T^2`$ in Fig. 4(b) together with the fitting values (solid line), which shows nice agreement between the data and Equation (2). It is found that $`\gamma `$ = 191.0 (7) mJ/mole$``$K2 and $`\beta `$ = 1.3 (1) mJ/mole$``$K4, yielding the Debye temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{D}`$ $``$ 219 K from the relation of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{D}`$ $``$ (n/$`\beta `$)1/3, where $`n`$ is the number of atoms in a formula unit. Although the above equation for the specific heat is valid for temperatures below $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{D}`$/50 in usual metal, the equation quite often works well for temperatures below $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{D}`$/10 within an error of few percent, which is satisfied in our temperature range .

The observed value of $`\gamma `$ = 103.2 (7) mJ/mole$``$Sm$``$K2 is significantly larger than those found in other Ln2CuO4 compounds, 0 $`\pm `$ 10 mJ/mole$``$Nd$``$K2 for Ln = Nd, 1.3 $`\pm `$ 0.1 mJ/mole$``$Pr$``$K2 for Ln = Pr . For Nd1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ compound, which has highest superconducting transition temperature among electron doped superconductors, the value of $`\gamma `$ is enhanced to be $``$ 29 mJ/mole$``$Nd$``$K2 . It is natural to judge that the enhanced $`\gamma `$ is due to the doped electrons. Even for Sm2CuO4, the $`\gamma `$ value was previously found to be exceptionally large ($``$ 82 mJ/mole$``$Sm$``$K2) . It was speculated that the effects of magnetic correlation exist well above $`T`$N $``$ 5.9 K, thereby making accurate determination of $`\gamma `$ difficult. However, our estimated $`\gamma `$ for Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ is still quite large even though $`T`$N is now lowered to be 4.7 K. However, it is not clear now what is the origin of the large value of $`\gamma `$ in the superconducting state.

The contribution of magnetic correlation to the measured $`C`$p($`T`$) is calculated as $`C`$pmag($`T`$) = $`C`$p($`T`$) - $`C`$pNM($`T`$), where the extrapolation of $`C`$pNM($`T`$) for low temperature with the constants determined above is used, and is plotted in Fig. 5. The entropy associated with the magnetic transition is calculated from the $`C`$pmag($`T`$) and its temperature dependence is plotted in the inset of Fig. 5. The magnetic entropy saturates rapidly above $`T`$N to be $``$ 4.1 J/kmole, indicating that the transition is driven by localized electrons. However, the accumulated entropy is clearly smaller than 1.85$`R`$ln2, where $`R`$ is gas constant, which is the usual value of a doublet ground state of Sm+3 . It was reported by  that the magnetic entropy associated with a magnetic transition is significantly reduced if the magnetic transition is due to itinerant heavy fermionic electrons in analogy to a BCS-type transition. Thus, the reduced entropy can be explained by the fact that itinerant electrons with heavy effective mass are involved in the transition. This explanation is also consistent with the anisotropic temperature-dependent behavior of magnetization and the enhanced electronic specific heat contribution.

## IV SUMMARY

The single crystal of superconducting Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ compounds is studied in terms of magnetization and specific heat measurements. The largest difference in susceptibility, so far reported, between H $``$ c and H $``$ c is found and the temperature dependencies for both field orientations do not follow the Curie-Weiss behavior due to the small energy gap of $`J`$ = 7/2 multiplet above $`J`$ = 5/2 ground state. With increasing temperature, the $`\chi _{}`$($`T`$) for H $``$ c exhibits a broad local minimum around $`T`$ = 100 K and a slow increase while the $`\chi _{}`$($`T`$) for H $``$ c shows a monotonic decrease. The specific heat data show a sharp peak at $`T`$ = 4.7 K, which is of AF transition. The estimated $`\gamma `$ value of electronic contribution is enhanced with electron doping and clearly larger than the ones reported so far. The entropy associated magnetic transition is obviously smaller than the expected one of a doublet ground state. Although the peculiar features found in this paper in Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4-δ seem to be related with the conduction electrons which is strongly interacting with the localized electrons, more study not only in experiments but also in theory should be done to understand the magnetic and electronic properties and, further, the mechanism of superconductivity in electron doped superconductors.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank C. K. Kim for useful discussions and communications. This work was supported by the Brain Korea 21 Project and by the Korea Science & Engineering Foundation through the grant No. 1999-2-114-005-5.