text:
# Microextensive Chaos of a Spatially Extended System

## Abstract

By analyzing chaotic states of the one-dimensional Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation for system sizes $`L`$ in the range $`79L93`$, we show that the Lyapunov fractal dimension $`D`$ scales microextensively, increasing linearly with $`L`$ even for increments $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ that are small compared to the average cell size of $`9`$ and to various correlation lengths. This suggests that a spatially homogeneous chaotic system does not have to increase its size by some characteristic amount to increase its dynamical complexity, nor is the increase in dimension related to the increase in the number of linearly unstable modes.

An important phenomenon associated with sustained nonequilibrium systems is spatiotemporal chaos, a chaotic dynamical state that is spatially disordered . An open question is how best to characterize spatiotemporal chaos so that theory can be quantitatively compared with experiment and experiment with simulation. Presently, there is no fundamental theory of nonequilibrium systems to indicate the appropriate quantities to measure and so researchers have borrowed ideas from condensed matter physics, fluid dynamics, nonlinear dynamics, and statistics. Commonly used ways to characterize spatiotemporal chaos include critical exponents , the two-point correlation time $`\tau _2`$ , the largest Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda _1`$ , the Lyapunov fractal dimension $`D`$, the two-point correlation length $`\xi _2`$ , the dimension length $`\xi _\delta `$  and other lengths . However, calculations have shown that these quantities do not always lead to the same conclusions, e.g., there are systems for which the length $`\xi _2`$ diverges while the length $`\xi _\delta `$ remains finite as some parameter is varied . Further research is therefore needed to understand the particular features of spatiotemporal chaos that are measured by any one of these quantities and how these quantities are related to one another.

In the following, we report results that provide new insights about how the dynamical complexity of a nonequilibrium system depends on the volume of the system, and about the interpretation of the dimension length $`\xi _\delta `$. In 1982, Ruelle conjectured , and numerical calculations later confirmed , that the dimension $`D`$ of a sufficiently large spatially homogeneous chaotic system should increase extensively, i.e., linearly with its volume $`V`$. Using an argument similar to that used by Landau and Lifshitz to explain the extensivity of additive quantities in thermodynamics , this extensivity of $`D`$ can be understood heuristically as a consequence of spatiotemporal disorder. If two subsystems of a spatiotemporal chaotic system are sufficiently far apart, their coupling is weak because of the disorder and so their dynamics contribute independently and additively to the overall fractal dimension.

This picture of weakly interacting subsystems raises the question of how precisely does the fractal dimension $`D`$ increase with increasing system volume in the extensive regime. One possibility is that the curve $`D(V)`$ may be linear only on average and has a staircase-like structure, with the steps corresponding to new degrees of freedom that appear once the system volume has increased sufficiently to include a new subsystem. The widths $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ of the steps would then define a length scale $`(\mathrm{\Delta }V)^{1/d}`$ (where $`d`$ is the spatial dimensionality of the system) that would be interesting to compare with the lengths mentioned above ($`\xi _2`$, $`\xi _\delta `$, etc.). Possible step-like features in the $`D(V)`$ curve might also be associated with the appearance of new linearly unstable modes of the uniform state, since the number of such modes typically increases linearly on average with increasing volume . Another possibility is that the curve $`D(V)`$ is extensive only on average but its deviation from linearity is too irregular to characterize by a single length scale. A fourth possibility is that there are no length scales associated with how $`D`$ increases with $`V`$ and the curve $`D(V)`$ is exactly linear for arbitrarily small increases in $`V`$, a situation that one could call microextensive chaos. In this case, it would be interesting to understand how the geometric structure of the chaotic attractor in phase space changes with $`V`$ so as to produce such an exact linear behavior.

In this paper, we numerically integrate the one-dimensional Kuramoto-Sivashinsky (KS) equation—a widely studied continuum model of spatiotemporal chaos —to investigate how the Lyapunov fractal dimension $`D(L)`$ of a homogeneous chaotic system varies with the system size $`L`$ for increments $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ that are small compared to the lengths mentioned above ($`\xi _2`$, $`\xi _\delta `$, etc). With one exception , all prior numerical studies used increments $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ that were large compared to these lengths and the detailed form of $`D(L)`$ was not determined. We show below that, in fact, the Lyapunov fractal dimension $`D`$ increases linearly with $`L`$ even for system increments $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ that are tiny compared to the average cell size and to various correlation lengths. The spatiotemporal dynamics of the one-dimensional KS equation therefore provides an example of microextensive chaos. We conjecture that this will be a general property of chaotic homogeneous nonequilibria media.

Our calculations of $`D`$ versus $`L`$ yield an additional insight, namely that the onset of extensivity in $`D`$ is not sharp but occurs only asymptotically with increasing $`L`$, after a sequence of alternating windows of stationary, periodic, intermittent, and chaotic dynamics. (Such alternating windows have been noted before  but have not been studied with such fine resolution in $`L`$ as we do here.) These results suggest the possibility that windows of non-chaotic behavior may persist to arbitrarily large values of $`L`$ but become too narrow to be detected. If true, then the dimension $`D(L)`$ may not be a continuous curve and extensive behavior occurs only between the narrow windows of non-chaotic dynamics.

Our results were obtained by numerical integrations of the one-dimensional Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation in the form

$$_tu(t,x)=_x^2u_x^4uu_xu,x[0,L],$$
(1)
on an interval of length $`L`$, with rigid boundary conditions $`u=_xu=0`$ at $`x=0`$ and at $`x=L`$. (Fig. 1 shows a chaotic and periodic state for $`L=50`$ and $`54`$ respectively.) The spatial derivatives were approximated by second-order-accurate finite differences on a uniform spatial mesh, and a standard operator-splitting method was used for the time integration . For given initial conditions and interval length $`L`$, we used the Kaplan-Yorke formula  to calculate the Lyapunov fractal dimension $`D(L)`$ in terms of all of the positive and some of the negative Lyapunov exponents $`\lambda _i`$. These exponents were obtained using a standard algorithm  in which many copies of the linearized KS equation were integrated, each with their own initial condition.

The demonstration of microextensive scaling by the above numerical methods was delicate since the Lyapunov exponents $`\lambda _i`$ and so $`D`$ converge noisily and slowly  toward their infinite time limits. As the increment $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ in system size became smaller, the corresponding increment in dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }D`$ was more difficult to determine since $`\mathrm{\Delta }D`$ became comparable to the fluctuations in the dimension curve $`D(T)`$ as a function of integration time. The exponents $`\lambda _i`$ and dimension $`D(L)`$ were also sensitive to the values of the spatial resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and temporal resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, to the renormalization time $`T_{\mathrm{norm}}`$ for the Lyapunov vectors, and to the total integration time. For nearly all runs reported below, we used values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=0.167`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.025`$, and $`T_{\mathrm{norm}}=10`$ and confirmed the correctness of the corresponding results by comparing the values with spatial and temporal resolutions up to four times larger and for integration times as long as $`10^6`$ time units.

We now turn to our results. Our starting point was the pioneering calculation of Manneville , who used numerical integrations of Eq. (1) with rigid boundary conditions to demonstrate for the first time that the fractal dimension $`D`$ scaled extensively with the system size $`L`$. For $`L50`$, he found that $`D=0.230L2.70`$, which implies a dimension length  of $`\xi _\delta =(dD/dL)^1=1/0.2304.4`$ . This length is somewhat smaller than the average cellular size $`\lambda =2\pi /q_{\mathrm{max}}=2\sqrt{2}\pi 8.8`$ corresponding to the fastest growing linear mode $`q_{\mathrm{max}}=1/\sqrt{2}`$. Based on these results, we chose to calculate the fractal dimension $`D(L)`$ over the range $`50<L<100`$ in constant increments $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0.5`$ that were much smaller than these lengths. In contrast, the smallest increment used by Manneville was $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=50`$ for which the fractal dimension changes by about 12.

Manneville’s linear dependence of $`D`$ on $`L`$ suggested that for $`L50`$, only spatiotemporal chaos exists. In contrast, we find that there is a complicated sequence of different dynamical states over the range $`50L75`$ and then only chaotic states for $`75<L<93`$ . Fig. 2 summarizes our results for the range $`50L75`$ by plotting the period of each state as a function of $`L`$. We observe four kinds of states: fixed points, time-periodic states, chaos, and intermittent states in which one kind of time dependence alternates irregularly with a different kind of time dependence. In most cases, these different categories were easily identifiable to the eye by looking at time series. To combine all the results on a single plot, chaotic states were arbitrarily assigned a period of -200, intermittent states a period of -100, fixed points a period of 0, and periodic states a direct estimate of their period based on repeating features of the time series.

There are two interesting features of the dynamical states of Fig. 2 in addition to the unexpected occurrence of many windows of alternating dynamics for this range of $`L`$. First, we found that for a given system size $`L`$, numerical integrations using up to seven different random initial conditions (each consisting of uniformly distributed numbers in the interval $`[0.1,0.1]`$) led to only one state. Thus empirically there seems to be only one basin of attraction for each system size and we do not expect hysteresis in the range $`50<L<75`$. Second, we found rather remarkably that the fractal dimension $`D`$ of each chaotic state in Fig. 2 lay on Manneville’s extensive curve $`D(L)=0.230L2.70`$ with $`DD(50)=8.8`$ (A least-squares fit of our chaotic states gave the almost identical curve $`0.227L2.85`$). Thus the states jump abruptly from low-dimensional $`D=1`$ periodic states to high-dimensional chaotic states that are scaling extensively with the system size. We did not try to characterize the intermittent states, e.g., by their fractal dimension or by the scaling properties of the fractional duration of a particular phase .

Over the range $`78<L<93`$, only chaotic states were observed. Fig. 3 shows that the corresponding values of the Lyapunov fractal dimension $`D`$ lie on a straight line that has the same slope (to two digits) and intercept as that found by Manneville over the much larger range $`50<L<400`$. Thus the fractal dimension shows microextensive scaling: a linear dependence on $`L`$ for system increments $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0.5`$ that are much smaller than any characteristic length scale such as the average cell size or various correlation lengths. Given the similar result obtained by Xi et al  for a different mathematical model of spatiotemporal chaos, we conjecture that microextensive scaling will be a general feature of spatiotemporal chaos in sufficiently large, approximately homogeneous nonequilibrium systems.

The linear behavior of Fig. 3 rules out a simple relation between the Lyapunov fractal dimension and the number of linearly unstable modes. For both periodic and rigid boundary conditions, the wave numbers are quantized in units of $`2\pi /L`$ and so the number of unstable modes increases linearly as $`L/\pi 0.32L`$, but in discrete jumps when $`L`$ changes by about $`\pi `$. Over the range $`78<L<93`$, we would expect $`(9378)/\pi 4`$ new linearly unstable modes to appear but there are not correspondingly four step-like features in the figure.

Fig. 4 shows how the first sixteen exponents $`\lambda _i`$ vary with system size $`L`$ over the same range of system sizes as Fig. 3. The largest exponent $`\lambda _1`$ is approximately independent of $`L`$ and so is an intensive quantity; an increase of system size therefore does not change the forecasting time $`1/\lambda _1`$ over which the future behavior of the field $`u`$ becomes unpredictable, despite the fact that the fractal dimension is becoming correspondingly larger. The other exponents increase roughly linearly with increasing $`L`$, with the negative exponents having the largest slope and showing substantial deviations from a strictly linear dependence on $`L`$. Comparing Fig. 4 with the Kaplan-Yorke formula for the dimension

$$D=K+\frac{1}{|\lambda _{K+1}|}\underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}\lambda _i,$$
(2)
where $`K`$ is the largest integer such that $`_{i=1}^K\lambda _i0`$, we see that the linear behavior of $`D`$ with $`L`$ in Fig. 3 is a subtle consequence of how the $`\lambda _i`$ vary with $`L`$.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated the occurrence of microextensive scaling of the Lyapunov fractal dimension with system size for the one-dimensional Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation with rigid boundary conditions. This suggests that a spatially extended nonequilibrium dynamical system does not have to increase its volume by some minimal amount for the fractal dimension to increase. Correspondingly, the dimension length $`\xi _\delta `$ does not have some direct physical meaning as the characteristic size of a dynamical subsystem, it is simply determined by the linear growth of $`D`$ with $`L`$. Our calculations suggest two questions for further exploration. One is whether there is a cutoff system size $`L_c`$ above which only chaotic solutions are found for the KS eq. Second is to understand mathematically how the geometry of a strange attractor changes with system size $`L`$ such that that $`D`$ varies exactly linearly with $`L`$.

We thank Scott Zoldi for useful discussions and James Gunton for informing us of his related calculations on the Nicolaevski model. This work was supported by NSF grant DMS-9722814 and DOE grant DE-FG02-98ER14892.


format: text

text:
# Micro-SQUID technique for studying the temperature dependence of switching fields of single nanoparticles

\[

## Abstract

An improved micro-SQUID technique is presented allowing us to measure the temperature dependence of the magnetisation switching fields of single nanoparticles well above the critical superconducting temperature of the SQUID. Our first measurements on 3 nm cobalt nanoparticle embedded in a niobium matrix are compared to the Néel Brown model describing the magnetisation reversal by thermal activation over a single anisotropy barrier.

\]

In order to avoid the complications due to distributions of particles sizes, orientations, etc., which are always present in assemblies of particles , single-particle measuring techniques have been developed such as magnetic force microscopy  or magnetometry based on micro-Hall probes . Another powerful measurement technique is based on micro-SQUID devices. In this paper we review the an improved micro-SQUID set-up which allow us to detect the magnetisation reversal of single nanoparticles. In respect to previous studies , we improved the sensitivity of the micro-SQUID technique by more than two orders of magnitude. Furthermore, we developed a technique to measure the switching fields for all direction of the applied field. Finally, we extended the temperature range to the interval from 30 mK to 30 K. We present these improvements in the following.

In order to measure the magnetisation reversal of a single 3 nm Co nanoparticle (containing about 1000 atoms), we have to couple the magnetic stray field of the nanoparticle with the SQUID loop. In previous studies on larger particles (around 10 nm or larger), it was possible to place the nanoparticle close to the micro-bridge Josephson junctions of the SQUID . This is not sufficient for 3 nm Co nanoparticles due to the small size of the nanoparticle compared with the micro-bridge. Moreover, it is very difficult to protect them efficiently against oxidation. We solved these problems by directly embedding the Co nanoparticles into the micro-bridges (Fig. 1). This was achieved by using a laser vaporisation and inert gas condensation source producing an intense supersonic beam of nanosized Co nanoparticles under ultra-high-vacuum (UHV) conditions. A niobium matrix was simultaneously deposited from a UHV electron gun evaporator leading to continuous films (typical 20 nm thick) with a very low concentration of embedded Co nanoparticles . These films are used to pattern planar microbridge-DC-SQUIDs by electron beam lithography. The desired sensitivity is only achieved for Co-nanoparticles embedded into the micro-bridges where the magnetic flux coupling is high enough. Due to the low concentration of embedded Co-nanoparticles, we have a maximum of 5 non-interacting particles in a micro-bridge (300 nm long and 50 nm wide). We can separately detect the magnetic signal for each nanoparticle. Indeed they are clearly different in intensity and orientation because of the random distribution of the easy magnetisation directions.

The switching field of the magnetisation of a single Co nanoparticle can be measured by using the cold mode method described in detail in Ref. . However, this mode works only in the low temperature regime and for magnetic fields applied in the SQUID plane. We therefore developed the blind mode method  allowing us to measure the switching fields for all directions of the applied field by separately driving three orthogonal coils. In addition, the blind mode allowed us to extend the temperature interval from 30 mK to 30 K , i.e. to temperatures well above the critical superconducting temperature of the micro-SQUID.

Let us consider Fig. 2 showing schematically the three steps of the blind mode method. The applied magnetic field, the magnetisation state of the nanoparticle, and its temperature are represented as a function of time.

1. Saturation. The magnetisation of the particle is saturated in a given direction (at T = 35 mK).
2. Testing. A test field is applied at a temperature between 35 mK and 30 K and during the time $`\delta t`$ which may or may not cause a magnetisation switching.
3. Probing. After cooling to $`T`$ = 35 mK, the SQUID is switched on and a field is swept in the plane of the SQUID to probe the resulting magnetisation state using the cold mode.

If the SQUID detects a magnetisation jump in step (3), this means that the previously applied test-field was weaker than the switching field for the direction being probed in step (2). The next iteration will then be done with a stronger test field. On the other hand, if the SQUID does not detect any magnetisation jump in step (3), this means that the reversal occurred during step (2). The next interation will then be done with a weaker field. When choosing the new test field with the help of a bisection algorithm, we needed about eight repetitions of the three steps in order to get the switching field with good precision. This method allows us to scan the entire field space.

In order to probe the magnetisation reversal at high temperatures, we have developed a two-stage heater shown in the Fig. 3. The upper part of this device is a Si chip containing micro-SQUIDs and a resistor which is used as heating element. The thermal response of this first stage is very fast because it has a small thermal mass. This stage is coupled to a second stage with a much larger thermal mass. It contains another heating element and a thermometer. Finally, the second stage is coupled to the cryostat which has the largest thermal mass. The heat links between the two stages are metallic wires which are adapted so that each stage is a thermal mass for its upper part. The cryostat is the thermal mass of the whole system and stays cold during operation. The purpose of the second stage is to calibrate efficiently the heater of the first stage. With this set-up, our highest temperatures of 30 K was only limited by the cooling time. Below 30 K, we achieved cooling rates of few kelvins per second.

Fig. 4 presents the angular dependence of the switching field of a 3 nm Co nanoparticle measured at different temperatures using the blind mode method. At 0.03 K, the measurement is very close to the standard Stoner–Wohlfarth astroid. For higher temperatures the switching field becomes smaller and smaller. It reaches the origin at about 14 K, yielding the blocking temperature $`T_\mathrm{B}=14`$ K of the nanoparticle magnetisation. $`T_\mathrm{B}`$ is defined as the temperature for which the waiting time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ becomes equal to the relaxation time $`\tau `$ of the particle’s magnetisation at $`\stackrel{}{H}=\stackrel{}{0}`$. $`T_\mathrm{B}`$ can be used to estimate the total number $`N_{tot}`$ of magnetic Co atoms in the nanoparticle. The Néel Brown model leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\tau =\tau _0\mathrm{exp}(K_{at}N_{tot}/k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{B})`$, where $`\tau _0^1`$ is the attempt frequency typically between $`10^{10}`$ to $`10^{11}`$ Hz, Kat is an effective anisotropy energy per atom and $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant. Using the expression of the switching field at $`T`$ = 0 K and for $`\theta =0`$: $`\mu _0H_{sw}=2K_{at}/\mu _{at}=0.3T`$ (Fig. 4), the atomic moment $`\mu _{at}=1.7\mu _B`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ = 0.01 s, $`\tau _0=10^{10}`$ s, and $`T_\mathrm{B}=14`$ K, we deduce $`N_{tot}1500`$, which corresponds very well to a 3 nm Co nanoparticle.

In conclusion, we have shown that the micro-SQUID technique combined with the Low Energy nanoparticle Beam Deposition is a powerful method to investigate the magnetic properties of nanosized magnetic particles. In particular, it allows to measure in three dimensions the switching field of individual grains giving access to its magnetic anisotropy. Furthermore, the temperature dependence of the switching field is measurable and allows to probe the magnetisation dynamics.

We thank B. Barbara for his constant support of this research. Part of this work has been supported by DRET, Rhône-Alpes, and the MASSDOTS ESPRIT LTR-Project $`\mathrm{\#}`$32464.


text:
# References

$`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering in rotational bands of diatomic molecules as a manifestation of interband interactions

Dennis Bonatsos#, C. Daskaloyannis+, S. B. Drenska, N. Karoussos#, J. Maruani, N. Minkov, P. P. Raychev, R. P. Roussev

# Institute of Nuclear Physics, N.C.S.R. “Demokritos”

GR-15310 Aghia Paraskevi, Attiki, Greece

+ Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

GR-54006 Thessaloniki, Greece

Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

72 Tzarigrad Road, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria

Laboratoire de Chimie Physique, CNRS and UPMC

11, rue Pierre et Marie Curie, F-75005 Paris, France

Abstract

It is shown that the recently observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering seen in superdeformed nuclear bands is also occurring in certain electronically excited rotational bands of diatomic molecules. In the case of diatomic molecules the effect is attributed to interband interactions (bandcrossings).

PACS numbers: 33.20.Sn, 21.10.Re, 21.60.Ev

I. Introduction

Several staggering effects are known in nuclear spectroscopy :

1) In rotational $`\gamma `$ bands of even nuclei the energy levels with odd angular momentum $`I`$ ($`I`$=3, 5, 7, 9, …) are slightly displaced relatively to the levels with even $`I`$ ($`I`$=2, 4, 6, 8, …), i.e. the odd levels do not lie at the energies predicted by an $`E(I)=AI(I+1)`$ fit to the even levels, but all of them lie systematically above or all of them lie systematically below the predicted energies .

2) In octupole bands of even nuclei the levels with odd $`I`$ and negative parity ($`I^\pi `$=1-, 3-, 5-, 7-, …) are displaced relatively to the levels with even $`I`$ and positive parity ($`I^\pi `$=0+, 2+, 4+, 6+, …) .

3) In odd nuclei, rotational bands (with $`K=1/2`$) separate into signature partners, i.e. the levels with $`I`$=3/2, 7/2, 11/2, 15/2, …are displaced relatively to the levels with $`I`$=1/2, 5/2, 9/2, 13/2, ….

In all of the above mentioned cases each level with angular momentum $`I`$ is displaced relatively to its neighbours with angular momentum $`I\pm 1`$. The effect is then called $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ staggering.

A new kind of staggering ($`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering) has been recently observed  in superdeformed nuclear bands . If $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering is present, then, for example, the levels with $`I`$=2, 6, 10, 14, …are displaced relatively to the levels with $`I`$=0, 4, 8, 12, …, i.e. the level with angular momentum $`I`$ is displaced relatively to its neighbours with angular momentum $`I\pm 2`$.

Although $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ staggering of the types mentioned above has been observed in several nuclei and certainly is an effect larger than the relevant experimental uncertainties, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering has been seen in only a few cases  and, in addition, the effect is not clearly larger than the relevant experimental errors.

There have been by now several theoretical works related to the possible physical origin of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering effect , some of them  using symmetry arguments which could be of applicability to other physical systems as well.

On the other hand, rotational spectra of diatomic molecules  are known to show great similarities to nuclear rotational spectra, having in addition the advantage that observed rotational bands in several diatomic molecules  are much longer than the usual rotational nuclear bands. We have been therefore motivated to make a search for $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering in rotational bands of diatomic molecules. The questions to which we have hoped to provide answers are:

1) Is there $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering in rotational bands of diatomic molecules?

2) If there is, what are its possible physical origins?

In Section II of the present work the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering in superdeformed nuclear bands will be briefly reviewed. Evidence from existing experimental data for $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering in rotational bands of diatomic molecules will be presented in Section III and discussed in Section IV, while Section V will contain the conclusions drawn.

II. $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering in superdeformed nuclear bands

In nuclear physics the experimentally determined quantities are the $`\gamma `$-ray transition energies between levels differing by two units of angular momentum ($`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$). For these the symbol

$$E_{2,\gamma }(I)=E(I+2)E(I)$$
(1)
is used, where $`E(I)`$ denotes the energy of the level with angular momentum $`I`$. The deviation of the $`\gamma `$-ray transition energies from the rigid rotator behavior can be measured by the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{2,\gamma }(I)=\frac{1}{16}(6E_{2,\gamma }(I)4E_{2,\gamma }(I2)4E_{2,\gamma }(I+2)+E_{2,\gamma }(I4)+E_{2,\gamma }(I+4)).$$
(2)
Using the rigid rotator expression

$$E(I)=AI(I+1),$$
(3)
one can easily see that in this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{2,\gamma }(I)`$ vanishes. In addition the perturbed rigid rotator expression

$$E(I)=AI(I+1)+B(I(I+1))^2,$$
(4)
gives vanishing $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{2,\gamma }(I)`$. These properties are due to the fact that Eq. (2) is a (normalized) discrete approximation of the fourth derivative of the function $`E_{2,\gamma }(I)`$, i.e. essentially the fifth derivative of the function $`E(I)`$.

In superdeformed nuclear bands the angular momentum of the observed states is in most cases unknown. To avoid this difficulty, the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{2,\gamma }`$ is usually plotted not versus the angular momentum $`I`$, but versus the angular frequency

$$\omega =\frac{dE(I)}{dI},$$
(5)
which for discrete states takes the approximate form

$$\omega =\frac{E(I+2)E(I)}{\sqrt{(I+2)(I+3)}\sqrt{I(I+1)}}.$$
(6)
For large $`I`$ one can take the Taylor expansions of the square roots in the denominator, thus obtaining

$$\omega =\frac{E(I+2)E(I)}{2}=\frac{E_{2,\gamma }(I)}{2}.$$
(7)
Examples of superdeformed nuclear bands exhibiting staggering are shown in Figs 1–2 . We say that $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggerimg is observed if the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ exhibits alternating signs with increasing $`\omega `$ (i.e. with increasing $`I`$, according to Eq. (7)). The following observations can be made:

1) The magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ is of the order of 10-4–10-5 times the size of the gamma transition energies.

2) The best example of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering is given by the first superdeformed band of 149Gd, shown in Fig. 1a. In this case the effect is almost larger than the experimental error.

3) In most cases the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering is smaller than the experimental error (see Figs 1b, 2a, 2b), with the exception of a few points in Fig. 1b.

III. $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering in rotational bands of diatomic molecules

In the case of molecules  the experimentally determined quantities regard the R branch ($`(v_{lower},I)(v_{upper},I+1)`$) and the P branch ($`(v_{lower},I)(v_{upper},I1)`$), where $`v_{lower}`$ is the vibrational quantum number of the initial state, while $`v_{upper}`$ is the vibrational quantum number of the final state. They are related to transition energies through the equations

$$E^R(I)E^P(I)=E_{v_{upper}}(I+1)E_{v_{upper}}(I1)=DE_{2,v_{upper}}(I),$$
(8)
$$E^R(I1)E^P(I+1)=E_{v_{lower}}(I+1)E_{v_{lower}}(I1)=DE_{2,v_{lower}}(I),$$
(9)
where in general

$$DE_{2,v}(I)=E_v(I+1)E_v(I1).$$
(10)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering can then be estimated by using Eq. (2), with $`E_{2,\gamma }(I)`$ replaced by $`DE_{2,v}(I)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{2,v}(I)=\frac{1}{16}(6DE_{2,v}(I)4DE_{2,v}(I2)4DE_{2,v}(I+2)+DE_{2,v}(I4)+DE_{2,v}(I+4)).$$
(11)
Results for several rotational bands in different electronic and vibrational states of various diatomic molecules are shown in Figs 3–9. We say that $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering is observed if the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ exhibits alternating signs with increasing $`I`$ ($`I`$ is increased by 2 units each time). The magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ is usually of the order of 10-3–10-5 times the size of the interlevel separation energy. Several observations can be made:

1) In all cases shown, the “upper” bands (which happen to be electronically excited) exhibit (Figs 3, 4, 7-9) $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering which is 2 to 3 orders of magnitude larger than the experimental error, while the corresponding “lower” bands (which, in the cases studied, correspond to the electronic ground state of each molecule), show (Figs 5, 6) some effect smaller than the experimental error.

2) There is no uniform dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering on the angular momentum $`I`$. In some cases of long bands, though, it appears that the pattern is a sequence of points exhibiting small staggering, interrupted by groups of 6 points each time showing large staggering. The best examples can be seen in Figs 3a, 3b, 7a, 7b. In Fig. 3a (odd levels of the $`v=1`$ C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band of YD)) the first group of points showing appreciable $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering appears at $`I=13`$–23, while the second group appears at $`I=27`$–37. In Fig. 3b (even levels of the $`v=1`$ C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band of YD) the first group appears at $`I=12`$–22, while the second group at $`I=26`$–36. In Fig. 7a (odd levels of the $`v=0`$ A$`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band of CrD) the first group appears at $`I=15`$–25, while the second at $`I=27`$–37. Similarly in Fig. 7b (even levels of the $`v=0`$ A$`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band of CrD) the first group appears at $`I=14`$–24, while the second group at $`I=26`$–36.

3) In all cases shown, the results obtained for the odd levels of a band are in good agreement with the results obtained for the even levels of the same band. For example, the regions showing appreciable staggering are approximately the same in both cases (compare Fig. 3a with Fig. 3b and Fig. 7a with Fig. 7b, already discussed in 2) ). In addition, the positions of the local staggering maxima in each pair of figures are closely related. In Fig. 3a, for example, maximum staggering appears at $`I=19`$ and $`I=31`$, while in Fig. 3b the maxima appear at $`I=18`$ and $`I=32`$.

4) In several cases the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering of a band can be calculated from two different sets of data. For example, Figs 3a, 3b show the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering of the $`v=1`$ C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band of YD calculated from the data on the 1–1 C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transitions, while Figs 3c, 3d show the staggering of the same band calculated from the data on the 1–2 C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transition. We remark that the results concerning points showing staggering larger than the experimental error come out completely consistently from the two calculations (region with $`I=13`$–23 in Figs 3a, 3c; region with $`I=12`$–22 in Figs 3b, 3d), while the results concerning points exhibiting staggering of the order of the experimental error come out randomly (in Fig. 3a, for example, $`I=11`$ corresponds to a local minimum, while in Fig. 3c it corresponds to a local maximum). Similar results are seen in the pairs of figures (3b, 3d), (4a, 4c), (4b, 4d), (6a, 6c), (6b, 6d), (9a, 9c), (9b, 9d). The best example of disagreement between staggering pictures of the same band calculated from two different sets of data is offered by Figs 6b, 6d, which concern the $`v=2`$ X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band of YD, which shows staggering of the order of the experimental error.

5) When considering levels of the same band, in some cases the odd levels exhibit larger staggering than the even levels, while in other cases the opposite is true. In the $`v=1`$ C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band of YD, for example, the odd levels (shown in Fig. 3a, corroborated by Fig. 3c) show staggering larger than that of the even levels (shown in Fig. 3b, corroborated by Fig. 3d), while in the $`v=2`$ C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band of YD the odd levels (shown in Fig. 4a, corroborated by Fig. 4c) exhibit staggering smaller than that of the even levels (shown in Fig. 4b, corroborated by Fig. 4d).

IV. Discussion

The observations made above can be explained by the assumption that the staggering observed is due to the presence of one or more bandcrossings . The following points support this assumption:

1) It is known  that bandcrossing occurs in cases in which the interband interaction is weak. In such cases only the one or two levels closest to the crossing point are affected . However, if one level is influenced by the crossing, in the corresponding staggering figure six points get influenced. For example, if E(16) is influenced by the crossing, the quantities $`DE_2(15)`$ and $`DE_2(17)`$ are influenced (see Eq. (10) ), so that in the corresponding figure the points $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ with $`I=11`$, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 are influenced, as seen from Eq. (11). This fact explains why points showing appreciable staggering appear in groups of 6 at a time.

2) It is clear that if bandcrossing occurs, large staggering should appear in approximately the same angular momentum regions of both even levels and odd levels. As we have already seen, this is indeed the case.

3) It is clear that when two bands cross each other, maximum staggering will appear at the angular momentum for which the energies of the relevant levels of each band are approximately equal . If this angular momentum value happens to be odd, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ for even values of $`I`$ in this region (the group of 6 points centered at this $`I`$) will show larger staggering than the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ for odd values of $`I`$ in the corresponding region, and vice versa. For example, if the closest approach of two bands occurs for $`I=31`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ for even values of $`I`$ in the $`I=26`$–36 region will show larger staggering than $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ for odd values of $`I`$ in the same region. This is in agreement with the empirical observation that in some cases the odd levels show larger staggering than the even levels, while in other cases the opposite holds.

4) The presence of staggering in the “upper” (electronically excited) bands and the lack of staggering in the “lower” (electronic ground state) bands can be attributed to the fact that the electronically excited bands have several neighbours with which they can interact, while the bands built on the electronic ground state are relatively isolated, and therefore no bandcrossings occur in this case. In the case of the CrD molecule, in particular, it is known  that there are many strong Cr atomic lines present, which frequently overlap the relatively weaker (electronically excited) molecular lines. In addition, Ne atomic lines are present . Similarly, in the case of the YD molecule the observed spectra are influenced by Y and Ne atomic lines , while in the case of the CrH molecule there are Ne and Cr atomic lines influencing the molecular spectra .

5) The fact that consistency between results for the same band calculated from two different sets of data is observed only in the cases in which the staggering is much larger than the experimental error, corroborates the bandcrossing explanation. The fact that the results obtained in areas in which the staggering is of the order of the experimantal error, or even smaller, appear to be random, points towards the absence of any real effect in these regions.

It should be noticed that bandcrossing has been proposed  as a possible explanation for the appearance of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering effects in normally deformed nuclear bands  and superdeformed nuclear bands .

The presence of two subsequent bandcrossings can also provide an explanation for the effect of mid-band disappearance of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering observed in superdeformed bands of some Ce isotopes . The effect seen in the Ce isotopes is very similar to the mid-band disappearance of staggering seen, for example, in Fig. 3a.

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, we have found several examples of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering in electronically excited bands of diatomic molecules. The details of the observed effect are in agreement with the assumption that it is due to one or more bandcrossings. In these cases the magnitude of the effect is clearly larger than the experimental error. In cases in which an effect of the order of the experimental error appears, we have shown that this is an artifact of the method used, since different sets of data from the same experiment and for the same molecule lead to different staggering results for the same rotational band. The present work emphasizes the need to ensure in all cases (including staggering candidates in nuclear physics) that the effect is larger than the experimental error and, in order to make assumptions about any new symmetry, that it is not due to a series of bandcrossings.

Acknowledgements

Two of the authors (DB,CD) acknowledge many helpful discussions with Professor John F. Ogilvie of the Oregon State University. One of the authors (PPR) acknowledges support from the Bulgarian Ministry of Science and Education under contracts $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-415 and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-547, while another author (NM) acknowledges support from the Bulgarian National Fund for Scientific Research under contract MU-F-02/98. Three authors (DB,CD,NK) have been supported by the Greek Secretariat of Research and Technology under contract PENED 95/1981.

Figure captions

* $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ (in keV), calculated from Eq. (2), versus the angular frequency $`\omega `$ (in MeV), calculated from Eq. (7), for various superdeformed bands in the nucleus 149Gd . a) Band (a) of Ref. . b) Band (d) of Ref. .
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ (in keV), calculated from Eq. (2), versus the angular frequency $`\omega `$ (in MeV), calculated from Eq. (7), for various superdeformed bands in the nucleus 194Hg . a) Band 1 of Ref. . b) Band 2 of Ref. .
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ (in cm-1), calculated from Eq. (11), for various bands of the YD molecule . a) Odd levels of the $`v=1`$ C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band calculated from the data of the 1–1 C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transitions. b) Even levels of the previous band. c) Odd levels of the $`v=1`$ C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band calculated from the 1–2 C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transitions. d) Even levels of the previous band.
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ (in cm-1), calculated from Eq. (11), for various bands of the YD molecule . a) Odd levels of the $`v=2`$ C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band calculated from the data of the 2–2 C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transitions. b) Even levels of the previous band. c) Odd levels of the $`v=2`$ C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band calculated from the 2–3 C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transitions. d) Even levels of the previous band. The experimental error in all cases is $`\pm 0.006`$ cm-1 and therefore is hardly or not seen.
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ (in cm-1), calculated from Eq. (11), for various bands of the YD molecule . a) Odd levels of the $`v=1`$ X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band calculated from the data of the 1–1 C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transitions. b) Even levels of the previous band.
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ (in cm-1), calculated from Eq. (11), for various bands of the YD molecule . a) Odd levels of the $`v=2`$ X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band calculated from the data of the 1–2 C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transitions. b) Even levels of the previous band. c) Odd levels of the $`v=2`$ X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band calculated from the 2–2 C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transitions. d) Even levels of the previous band.
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ (in cm-1), calculated from Eq. (11), for various bands of the CrD molecule . a) Odd levels of the $`v=0`$ A$`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band calculated from the data (R2, P2 branches) of the 0–0 A$`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transitions. b) Even levels of the previous band. The experimental error in all cases is $`\pm 0.006`$ cm-1 and therefore is not seen.
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ (in cm-1), calculated from Eq. (11), for various bands of the CrH molecule . a) Odd levels of the $`v=0`$ A$`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ band calculated from the data (R2, P2 branches) of the 0–0 A$`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{+}`$ transitions. b) Even levels of the previous band. The experimental error in all cases is $`\pm 0.004`$ cm-1 and therefore is not seen.
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2(I)`$ (in cm-1), calculated from Eq. (11), for various bands of the CoH molecule . a) Odd levels of the $`v=0`$ A$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Phi }_{4}^{}`$ band calculated from the data (Ree, Pee branches) of the 0–1 A$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Phi }_{4}^{}`$–X$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Phi }_{4}^{}`$ transitions. b) Even levels of the previous band. The experimental error in all cases is $`\pm 0.01`$ cm-1 and therefore is not seen.


text:
# Restrictions on the coherence of the ultrafast optical emission from an electron-hole pairs condensate

## Abstract

We report on the transfer of coherence from a quantum-well electron-hole condensate to the light it emits. As a function of density, the coherence of the electron-hole pair system evolves from being full for the low density Bose-Einstein condensate to a chaotic behavior for a high density BCS-like state. This degree of coherence is transfered to the light emitted in a damped oscillatory way in the ultrafast regime. Additionally, the photon field exhibits squeezing properties during the transfer time. Our results suggest new type of ultrafast experiments for detecting electron-hole pair condensation.

The generation of quantum coherence and entanglement is of much interest for testing certain aspects of the nonlocal predictions of quantum mechanics as well as for applications in the emerging field of quantum information processing. The recent achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in dilute atomic systems has triggered a great interest in looking for such quantum correlations with massive particles. Furthermore, the manipulation of the interaction of light with massive particles is crucial for controlling processes which transfer coherence and/or entanglement between radiation and matter. A condensed matter system being a candidate for this goal is an electron-hole pair condensate. Several groups have directed their experimental efforts to produce this collective state in semiconductors. Recently, long lifetime indirect excitons, in both real and $`𝐤`$ spaces, have been proposed as the most robust entities towards condensation. Hence, it is natural to inquire which signatures may be expected to be transfered from the electron-hole pair condensate to emitted photons. The transfer of coherence is an ultrafast process that can be analyzed by means of coherent control techniques as those recently applied to semiconductor nanostructures. This work is a first step in this direction.

Coherence of a quantum system is associated with the observation of interference effects which can be described by first- and higher-order correlation functions as stated by Glauber. Most of the studies of the light emitted from an electron-hole condensate that have been proposed to date rely on the lowest-order fluctuations in photon counting experiments, i.e. intensity measurements instead of the correlation functions. It has been previously shown that at low density the emitted light should be in a coherent state. However, we shall demonstrate here that this perfect coherence transfer is only possible asymptotically. The proper way to quantify both the amount and dynamics of transfered coherence to the radiation field is by considering the correlations between photons as a function of time. Recent proposals may bring this kind of photon counting experiments within reach. The main aim of this work is to explore time-dependent higher-order coherence properties of photons emitted from a collective electron-hole pair state in an ultrafast time scale. Our results show that full coherence transfer takes a time ranging from hundred of femtoseconds to a few picoseconds. During this transfer time squeezing of photons may be achieved.

Since we are interested in the quantum effects we restrict ourselves to study ground-state properties (zero temperature) and let the pair density change. We consider indirect semiconductor quantum wells where electrons and holes are spatially separated by an interlayer distance $`d`$. The confinement in the $`z`$ direction is sufficiently strong so that we ignore excitations in that direction. The Hamiltonian of the system includes the kinetic energy and all the interactions among electrons and holes, the free (quantized) electromagnetic field and the interaction between the radiation and the electron-hole system. The system’s initial state is assumed to be a product of an empty radiation field state and a condensate electron-hole state, $`|0_{photons}\times _\stackrel{}{k}(u_\stackrel{}{k}+v_\stackrel{}{k}e_\stackrel{}{k}^{}h_\stackrel{}{k}^{})|0`$ with $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ being a two-dimensional wavenumber vector, $`u_\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`v_\stackrel{}{k}`$ satisfy the normalization condition $`u_\stackrel{}{k}^2+v_\stackrel{}{k}^2=1`$. $`e_\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ ($`h_\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$) is the electron (hole) creation operator and $`|0`$ denotes the semiconductor ground state. The variational BCS-like function has enjoyed considerable success in the description of stationary properties of electron-hole systems. It captures the essential electron-hole pairing correlations in the low as well as high pair density, $`n`$, limits, although it does not describe possible collective modes in the condensate. We also assume that in the ultrafast coherence transfer period just a few bunch of photons is emitted, so that $`n`$ doesn’t change significantly and thus we take it as a constant. The time-dependent optical coherence is obtained via photon operators determined by pairs evolving under the action of the electron-hole Hamiltonian in the free Bogoliubov quasiparticles approximation (quantum fluctuation terms are neglected). These basic assumptions are indeed satisfied for transfer times below a few picoseconds and more interestingly they also yield to the correct stationary limit. Coefficients $`u_\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`v_\stackrel{}{k}`$ are found from the self-consistent solution of the BCS gap equation for given chemical potential $`\mu `$ and $`n`$. In what follows, energy is measured in 2D Rydbergs $`_0`$, length in 2D Bohr radius $`a_0`$, and time in units of $`\tau _0=_0^1`$.

Since an electron-hole condensate corresponds to a coherent macroscopic polarization of the electronic states, we start by considering the polarization correlation functions (PCFs). The first- and second-order PCFs are defined as $`G_P^{(1)}(t_1;t_2)=P_\stackrel{}{0}^{}(t_1)P_\stackrel{}{0}(t_2)`$ and $`G_P^{(2)}(t_1;t_2)=P_\stackrel{}{0}^{}(t_1)P_\stackrel{}{0}^{}(t_2)P_\stackrel{}{0}(t_2)P_\stackrel{}{0}(t_1)`$ respectively, where $`P_\stackrel{}{q}=_\stackrel{}{k}h_{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}}e_\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the polarization field. Due to the long wavelength of emitted photons, only $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ modes are important. PCFs in the BCS state are better expressed in terms of the so-called normal and anomalous (or pair) Green’s functions , defined by $`𝒢(t_1t_2)=_\stackrel{}{k}e_\stackrel{}{k}^{}(t_1)e_\stackrel{}{k}(t_2)h_\stackrel{}{k}^{}(t_1)h_\stackrel{}{k}(t_2)`$ and $`(t_1t_2)=_\stackrel{}{k}h_\stackrel{}{k}(t_1)e_\stackrel{}{k}(t_2)`$, respectively. The first-order PCF can be written as $`G_P^{(1)}(t_1t_2)=𝒢(t_1t_2)+|(0)|^2`$. It should be noted that the polarization field remains always in a stationary state in such a way that its correlation and coherence functions are only dependent on $`\tau =t_2t_1`$ but not on $`T=(t_1+t_2)/2`$. The first-order polarization coherence function is expressed as

$`g_P^{(1)}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{G_P^{(1)}(\tau )}{G_P^{(1)}(0)}}={\displaystyle \frac{_\stackrel{}{k}|v_\stackrel{}{k}|^4e^{iE_\stackrel{}{k}\tau }+[_\stackrel{}{k}u_\stackrel{}{k}v_\stackrel{}{k}]^2}{_\stackrel{}{k}|v_\stackrel{}{k}|^4+[_\stackrel{}{k}u_\stackrel{}{k}v_\stackrel{}{k}]^2}}`$ (1)
where $`E_\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the excitation energy of Bogoliubov quasiparticles. Similarly, the second-order polarization coherence function is

$`g_P^{(2)}(\tau )=1+|g_P^{(1)}(\tau )|^2{\displaystyle \frac{|(0)|^4}{|G_P^{(1)}(0)|^2}}`$ (2)
where $`|(0)|^2=\left[_\stackrel{}{k}u_\stackrel{}{k}v_\stackrel{}{k}\right]^2`$. It must be stressed that the second-order coherence function for the polarization, $`g_P^{(2)}(0)`$, equals 1 for a coherent state whereas it is 2 for a chaotic field.

Our results for the second-order polarization field coherence, for $`d=0`$ and different densities are shown in Fig. 1. Clearly, a full coherent behavior, in the Glauber sense, appears in the low density limit. In this case $`v_k^2<<1`$, yielding to $`|g_P^{(1)}(\tau )|=|g_P^{(2)}(\tau )|1`$, as expected for an ideal electron-hole BEC. By contrast, as the density increases $`g_P^{(2)}(0)`$ becomes greater than 1, going up to a maximum value of 2. As a function of $`\tau `$, $`g_P^{(2)}`$ decreases from its initial value in an oscillatory way, with a period determined by $`E_{\stackrel{}{k}=0}`$. At high densities $`g_P^{(1)}(\tau )`$ decays to zero and $`g_P^{(2)}(\tau )`$ decays to one in a faster oscillating way with a frequency approaching that of the system’s Fermi energy. In the very high density limit, where $`v_\stackrel{}{k}=1`$ for $`k`$ smaller than the Fermi wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}_F`$ and 0 otherwise, the anomalous term vanishes yielding to $`g_P^{(1)}(\tau )=[e^{iϵ_F\tau }sin(ϵ_F\tau )]/ϵ_F\tau `$ and $`g_P^{(2)}(\tau )=1+|g_P^{(1)}(\tau )|^2`$ with $`ϵ_F=k_F^2/2`$. Clearly, $`g_P^{(2)}(0)=2`$, corresponding to a non-interacting fermion field, and it decays, as a function of $`\tau `$, in an overdamped way.

Next we discuss the coherence properties of the emitted light in order to study the transfer of coherence from the condensate. First- and second-order correlation functions are $`G_\stackrel{}{q}^{(1)}(t_1;t_2)=C_\stackrel{}{q}^{}(t_1)C_\stackrel{}{q}(t_2)`$ and $`G_\stackrel{}{q}^{(2)}(t_1;t_2)=C_\stackrel{}{q}^{}(t_1)C_\stackrel{}{q}^{}(t_2)C_\stackrel{}{q}(t_2)C_\stackrel{}{q}(t_1)`$ where $`C_\stackrel{}{q}^{}`$ ($`C_\stackrel{}{q}`$) is the photon creation (annihilation) operator. For $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ photons, $`G^{(1)}(t_1;t_2)=|M_o|^2e^{i\omega _0(t_2t_1)}_0^{t_1}𝑑t_a_0^{t_2}𝑑t_bf(t_bt_a)`$ with $`f(t_bt_a)=e^{i(\omega _0E_g\mu )(t_bt_a)}G_P^{(1)}(t_bt_a)`$, $`\omega _0`$ the frequency at which the emitted light is filtered, $`E_g`$ the energy gap and $`M_0`$ the coupling between the photons and the electron-hole pairs. Similarly, $`G_\stackrel{}{q}^{(2)}(t_1;t_2)`$ is closely related to $`G_P^{(2)}(t_1;t_2)`$. From these relations between polarization and radiation correlation functions the coherence transfer from the former to the latter can be obtained. The first-order correlation function can be written as $`G^{(1)}(T,\tau )=N(T,\tau )+A(T,\tau )`$ where the normal and the anomalous dimensionless contributions are given by

$`N(T,\tau )=2M_0^2e^{i\omega _0\tau }{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}|v_\stackrel{}{k}|^4e^{i(\omega +E_k)\tau }`$ (3)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}[(\omega +E_k)\tau /2]\mathrm{cos}[(\omega +E_k)T]}{(\omega +E_k)^2}}\right]`$ (4)
and

$`A(T,\tau )=2M_0^2|(0)|^2e^{i(\omega +2\omega _o)\tau /2}`$ (5)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{cos(\omega \tau /2)cos(\omega T)}{\omega ^2}}\right]`$ (6)
respectively, with $`\omega =\omega _0E_g\mu `$. The first- and second-order coherence functions are then

$`g^{(1)}(T,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{G^{(1)}(T,\tau )}{\sqrt{G^{(1)}(t_1;t_1)G^{(1)}(t_2;t_2)}}}`$ (7)
and

$`g^{(2)}(T,\tau )=1+|g^{(1)}(T,\tau )|^2{\displaystyle \frac{|A(T,\tau )|^2}{G^{(1)}(t_1;t_1)G^{(1)}(t_2;t_2)}}`$ (9)
respectively. As for the polarization, the anomalous contribution determines whether or not the light is second-order coherent. The steady-state expressions can be quickly obtained by letting $`T>>\tau `$ which leads to $`G^{(1)}(t_1;t_1)G^{(1)}(t_2;t_2)G^{(1)}(T,\tau =0)`$.

First- and second-order coherence do not depend on the efficiency of the detector used in photon counting experiments nor on the coupling $`M_0`$. Moreover, the amount of coherence depends only on the system’s density. Turning this around, we can use the coherence information to determine the electron-hole density.

One expects the emitted light to be fully coherent in the low-density limit whereas it should be chaotic in the high-density limit as emitted by an uncorrelated source. We indeed show that in both cases the asymptotic exact solutions are recovered. Obviously, from Eq.(5) it can be drawn that $`g^{(1)}(T,0)=1`$ for any frequency and/or electron-hole pair density, in agreement with the standard result according to which any single mode radiation field is first-order coherent. Therefore, we restrict ourselves to second-order coherence properties. In the low density limit, $`v_k`$ is essentially the hydrogenic ground state wavefunction, $`v_k\sqrt{n}\varphi _{1s}(k)=[2\sqrt{2\pi n}a_0]/[1+k^2a_0^2]^{3/2}`$, $`\mu _0`$ and the normal contribution vanishes. The second-order coherence function becomes $`|g^{(2)}(T,\tau )|1`$, indicating the fact that in a steady-state situation the light emitted from an electron-hole pair condensate (BEC state) is second-order coherent, in full agreement with previous results for excitons. In the very high density limit, where $`\mu k_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, the anomalous part goes to zero. The second-order coherence is now given by $`g^{(2)}(T,\tau )=1+|g^{(1)}(T,\tau )|^2`$,so that $`g^{(2)}(T,0)2`$ as it corresponds to chaotic radiation.

Now we turn to the more general case of arbitrary densities. Figure 2 depicts $`g^{(2)}(T,0)`$ at $`\omega _0=E_g+\mu `$, for different densities. Clearly, two very different behaviors are observed depending on the time-scale considered. In the short time regime, the emitted radiation is partially coherent since $`g^{(2)}>1`$; this behavior is reinforced as the density increases. For $`T0`$, $`g^{(2)}(T,0)`$ approaches $`g_P^{(2)}(0)`$, which depends only on the system’s density and characterizes the fluctuations of the macroscopic collective polarization state. In this way emitted photons could bring well differentiated information on the system’s ground state.

Second-order coherence describes also the tendency of photons to arrive in pairs ($`g^{(2)}(T,0)>1`$) or rather to be spaced out in time ($`g^{(2)}(T,0)<1`$). Our results show that at a short time scale the first condition is satisfied, producing photon bunching. In a long time scale, the photon bunching effect disappears and the radiation field becomes asymptotically coherent, i.e. $`g^{(2)}(T,0)1`$, for any finite density. This is due to the fact that the normal contribution, $`N(T,0)`$, saturates to a constant value while the anomalous contribution, $`A(T,0)`$, grows as $`T^2`$. It must be stressed that the light emitted is coherent even though the polarization field is incoherent in the Glauber sense. The time to reach the steady-state value is longer as the density increases. For systems of interest: (i) GaAs, $`_016meV`$, $`a_062.5`$Å, and for a density $`3\times 10^{10}cm^2`$, the stationary regime is reached roughly after 1 picosecond; (ii) CdS, $`_0120meV`$, $`a_012.75`$Å, and for a density $`7\times 10^{11}cm^2`$ a steady-state situation is reached for a time on the order of $`100`$ femtoseconds. In both cases, $`na_0^2=1.3\times 10^2`$.

These results show how the coherence of the photon field at $`\omega _0E_g=\mu `$, evolves from a partially coherent behavior, dominated by the fermionic character of the system, towards a full coherent behavior, reflecting the system’s macroscopic quantum properties. By contrast, light observed at frequencies such that $`\omega _0E_g<\mu `$ evolves as a function of time from a partially coherent character towards a full chaotic behavior, i.e. $`g^{(2)}2`$ (Fig. $`2`$ inset $`(a)`$; note that for plotted densities $`\mu <0`$). Clearly, a successful coherence transfer is only possible for the former case but not for the latter one.

Interlayer separation effects are shown in the insets $`(b)`$ and $`(c)`$ of Fig. 2. For increasing $`d`$ the incoherence of light in the ultrafast regime becomes more evident and the evolution of $`g^{(2)}(T,0)`$ towards its coherent value is slower. For a fixed density, $`g^{(2)}(T,0)`$ when $`T0`$, as a function of $`d`$, saturates to a final value of 2, indicating an enhancement of the chaotic behavior of light.

In order to further characterize the statistical properties of the emitted radiation, we calculate the variance of the photon field amplitudes $`\widehat{X_1}=\frac{1}{2}\{C(T)+C^{}(T)\}`$ and $`\widehat{X_2}=\frac{1}{2i}\{C(T)C^{}(T)\}`$. For radiation emitted by the condensate, these variances are $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{X}_{1,2})^2=\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}N(T,0)\pm \frac{1}{2}Re[\mathrm{\Delta }C(T)^2]`$ where, for $`\omega _0=E_g+\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }C(T)^2=2M_o^2e^{i2\mu T}_\stackrel{}{k}u_k^2v_k^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(E_kT/2)}{E_k^2}`$. In contrast to $`g^{(1)}`$ and $`g^{(2)}`$, these variances depend on the coupling $`M_0`$. Clearly, squeezed light is possible only at moderate low densities, where the normal contribution is negligible but $`u_kv_k`$ is still important. This nonlinear effect is due to interactions between electron-hole pairs, in agreement with results obtained by a simple interacting boson model. Figure $`3`$ displays the deviation of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{X}_1)^2`$ from $`1/4`$ (the coherent state value), for different densities. The amount of squeezing, as measured by the most negative value for each curve in Fig. 3, is a non-monotonically function of the pairs density. There is a maximum squeezing in one of the quadratures every time $`\mu T=\pi `$.

In summary, we have shown how coherence transfer, from an electron-hole condensate to the photons it emits, proceeds as a function of time. The condensate itself presents different degrees of Glauber coherence depending on its density and the electron-hole layer separation. A full coherence transfer is restricted to light with a frequency given by $`\omega _0=E_g+\mu `$ and for times greater than a few hundred femtoseconds. We also predict light squeezing from a moderate low density electron-hole pairs system. These coherence transfer properties should help experimentalists searching for evidences of electron-hole pairs condensation in quantum wells.

The authors acknowledge support from COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) project No.1204-05-10326, AECI (Spain) and MEC (Spain) contract PB96-0085. AOC also acknowledges support from ICFES (Colombia).

Figure Captions

Figure 1: Second-order polarization field coherence as a function of $`\tau `$ for $`d=0`$ and different densities.

Figure 2: Second-order coherence as a function of $`T`$ for light emitted at $`\omega _0E_g=\mu `$ and $`d=0`$ for different densities. Insets: (a) $`g^{(2)}(T,0)`$ at $`\omega _0E_g=2.5\mu `$; (b) $`g^{(2)}(T,0)`$ for two different $`d`$ values and (c) $`g^{(2)}(0,0)`$ for $`na_0^2=1.3\times 10^2`$ as a function of the electron-hole layer separation distance.

Figure 3: Time evolution of the photon field amplitude variance for radiation emitted at $`\omega _0=E_g+\mu `$ and $`M_0=0.1_0`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The origin of fermion masses and mixings is one of most important issues in particle physics. Unfortunately, these parameters are inputs in the well-tested Standard Model. All one can do is to measure them as accurately as possible and hope that in the future a more fundamental theory will actually be able to predict their values. Many attempts have been made in this direction, with grand unified theories (whether supersymmetric or not) being favorite candidates . However, such a fundamental theory could well be quite complicated, with many new fields and couplings. Consequently, at low energies, the observed fermion masses and mixings could be the result of a large number of contributions. If that were the case, one might expect that at low energy scales the mass matrices of fermions would have a random nature. This idea was first suggested by Froggatt and Nielsen , who performed a statistical study of fermion masses without success.

More recently, the idea of flavor anarchy was introduced in order to explain new data on neutrino masses and mixings , and several analyses based on this idea have been performed . It was suggested that a similar model could also explain masses and mixings in the quark and charged lepton sectors. The purpose of this note is to study the robustness of such a model for random quark matrices in the quark sector. We take a baseline model which approximately reproduces the observed masses and mixings and study its sensitivity to random perturbations of the parameters. In this way we determine to what extent the observed regularities can survive effects which may be purely coincidental or generic. We find that quark masses and mixings appear to be far from a generic feature of randomness in the mass matrices, and more likely point to an underlying order.

## 2 A simple ansatz

The quark and charged lepton sectors are fundamentally different from the neutrino sector because of the existence of a large mass hierarchy between the families and the resulting small mixing. We shall construct a “baseline” description of quark masses and mixings which incorporates several approximate regularities. For this purpose we begin with quark masses evolved via the renormalization group to a common high mass scale $`\mu =M_Z`$. At this scale, the masses have been found to lie in the range

$`m_\mathrm{u}(M_\mathrm{Z})`$ $`=`$ $`0.92.9\mathrm{MeV}`$
$`m_\mathrm{c}(M_\mathrm{Z})`$ $`=`$ $`0.530.68\mathrm{GeV}`$
$`m_\mathrm{t}(M_\mathrm{Z})`$ $`=`$ $`168180\mathrm{GeV}`$ (1)
$`m_\mathrm{d}(M_\mathrm{Z})`$ $`=`$ $`1.85.3\mathrm{MeV}`$
$`m_\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{Z})`$ $`=`$ $`35100\mathrm{MeV}`$
$`m_\mathrm{b}(M_\mathrm{Z})`$ $`=`$ $`2.83.0\mathrm{GeV}`$
with corresponding ratios

$$\sqrt{\frac{m_\mathrm{u}}{m_\mathrm{c}}}=\frac{1}{28}\frac{1}{14};\sqrt{\frac{m_\mathrm{c}}{m_\mathrm{t}}}=\frac{1}{18}\frac{1}{16};$$

$$\sqrt{\frac{m_\mathrm{d}}{m_\mathrm{s}}}=\frac{1}{7.4}\frac{1}{2.6};\sqrt{\frac{m_\mathrm{s}}{m_\mathrm{b}}}=\frac{1}{9.1}\frac{1}{5.3}.$$
(2)
These masses thus are compatible with the hierarchy

$$\frac{m_2}{m_3}=\frac{m_1}{m_2}=ϵ^2,$$
(3)
which we shall incorporate into our ansatz for quark mass matrices. (This is certainly not a property of the charged leptons, for which

$$\frac{m_2/3}{m_3}=\frac{m_1}{m_2/3}=ϵ^2$$
(4)
is a better approximation.) For illustrative purposes we will adopt $`ϵ_{\mathrm{up}}ϵ_\mathrm{u}=0.07`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{down}}ϵ_\mathrm{d}=0.21`$, which approximately reproduces the observed hierarchies.

We also seek a set of mass matrices reproducing the regularities

$$|V_{us}||V_{cd}|𝒪\left(\sqrt{\frac{m_d}{m_s}}\right)=ϵ_\mathrm{d},|V_{cb}||V_{ts}|𝒪\left(\frac{m_s}{m_b}\right)=ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2.$$
(5)
The first of these was noted some time ago . We further wish to reproduce the hierarchy of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements noted by Wolfenstein , in which

$$|V_{us}||V_{cd}|𝒪(\lambda ),|V_{cb}||V_{ts}|𝒪(\lambda ^2),|V_{ub}||V_{td}|𝒪(\lambda ^3),$$
(6)
($`\lambda 0.22`$), and with $`|V_{ub}|<|V_{td}|`$ as favored by fits to data .

These regularities can be incorporated into a simple quark mass ansatz in a basis which we call hierarchical:

$$_H=m_3\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& ϵ^3e^{i\varphi }& 0\\ ϵ^3e^{i\varphi }& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ 0& ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where $`m_3`$ denotes the mass eigenvalue of the third-family quark ($`t`$ or $`b`$). Hierarchical descriptions of this type were first introduced by Froggatt and Nielsen . The present ansatz is closely related to one described by Fritzsch and Xing . We shall not be concerned with relative coefficients of order 1 in different terms; for example, models in which the off-diagonal $`ϵ^2`$ terms are multiplied by $`\sqrt{2}`$ may fit $`|V_{cb}|`$ somewhat better . The $`ϵ^3`$ terms in our model are separate parameters in Ref. . We have assumed the phase to be present only in the $`ϵ^3`$ terms; there is little sensitivity to phases in the off-diagonal $`ϵ^2`$ terms . Our purpose is primarily to construct an easily-manipulated “cartoon” version of the mass matrices, so as to study the robustness of their predictions for masses and mixings under random perturbations.

The eigenvalues of the matrix (7) to order $`ϵ^4`$ are given by

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=m_3ϵ^4`$ (8)
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=m_3ϵ^2`$ (9)
$`\lambda _3`$ $`=m_3(1+ϵ^4)`$ (10)
and are independent of the phase $`\varphi `$. Therefore, in this ansatz the quark masses naturally obey the hierarchy (3).

The matrix (7) can be made real by a unitary transformation $`_\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{R}=P_\mathrm{H}P^{}`$, where $`P`$ is given by

$$P=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi }& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
The real symmetric matrix $`_\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{R}`$ then can be diagonalized by an orthogonal transformation $`O^T_\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{R}O`$ where the matrix $`O`$ is given to order $`ϵ^4`$ (its columns are $`u,c,t`$) by:

$$O=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{ϵ^2}{2}+\frac{3ϵ^4}{8}& ϵ\frac{ϵ^3}{2}& 0\\ ϵ+\frac{ϵ^3}{2}& 1\frac{ϵ^2}{2}\frac{ϵ^4}{8}& ϵ^2+\frac{ϵ^4}{2}\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2ϵ^4& 1\frac{ϵ^4}{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
We will assume this same mass matrix ansatz for both the up and the down quark sectors. In this case, the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix is readily obtained by:

$$V_{\mathrm{CKM}}=O_{\mathrm{up}}^TP_{\mathrm{up}}P_{\mathrm{down}}^{}O_{\mathrm{down}}.$$
(13)
We first give approximate expressions for the CKM matrix elements:

$`V_{\mathrm{ud}}`$ $`=`$ $`1(ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2+ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2)/2+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}ϵ_\mathrm{u}ϵ_\mathrm{d}+𝒪(ϵ^4)`$ (14)
$`V_{\mathrm{us}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mathrm{d}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}ϵ_\mathrm{u}+𝒪(ϵ^3)`$ (15)
$`V_{\mathrm{ub}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mathrm{u}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}(ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2)+𝒪(ϵ^5)`$ (16)
$`V_{\mathrm{cd}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mathrm{u}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}ϵ_\mathrm{d}+𝒪(ϵ^3)`$ (17)
$`V_{\mathrm{cs}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}[1(ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2+ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2)/2]+ϵ_\mathrm{u}ϵ_\mathrm{d}+𝒪(ϵ^4)`$ (18)
$`V_{\mathrm{cb}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}(ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2)+𝒪(ϵ^4)`$ (19)
$`V_{\mathrm{td}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mathrm{d}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}(ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2)+𝒪(ϵ^5)`$ (20)
$`V_{\mathrm{ts}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}(ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2)+𝒪(ϵ^4)`$ (21)
$`V_{\mathrm{tb}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}+𝒪(ϵ^4),`$ (22)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\mathrm{u}\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$. These can be brought into a form closer to the standard phase convention (see, e.g., ) by multiplying the $`c`$ and $`t`$ rows by $`e^{i(\chi \mathrm{\Delta })}`$ and the $`s`$ and $`b`$ columns by $`e^{i\chi }`$, where $`\chi =\mathrm{Arg}(ϵ_\mathrm{d}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}ϵ_\mathrm{u})`$ is chosen so as to make $`V_{us}`$ and $`V_{cd}`$ real. Then we find, to leading order in small terms,

$`V_{\mathrm{ud}}`$ $`=`$ $`1(ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2+ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2)/2+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}ϵ_\mathrm{u}ϵ_\mathrm{d}`$ (23)
$`V_{\mathrm{us}}`$ $`=`$ $`|ϵ_\mathrm{d}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}ϵ_\mathrm{u}|`$ (24)
$`V_{\mathrm{ub}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mathrm{u}e^{i(\mathrm{\Delta }\chi )}(ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2)`$ (25)
$`V_{\mathrm{cd}}`$ $`=`$ $`|ϵ_\mathrm{d}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}ϵ_\mathrm{u}|`$ (26)
$`V_{\mathrm{cs}}`$ $`=`$ $`1(ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2+ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2)/2+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}ϵ_\mathrm{u}ϵ_\mathrm{d}`$ (27)
$`V_{\mathrm{cb}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2`$ (28)
$`V_{\mathrm{td}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mathrm{d}e^{i\chi }(ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2)`$ (29)
$`V_{\mathrm{ts}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2`$ (30)
$`V_{\mathrm{tb}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (31)
The angles in the unitarity triangle can be expressed very simply in terms of these quantities. We find

$$\alpha (=\varphi _2)=\mathrm{\Delta },\beta (=\varphi _1)=\chi =\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }}{ϵ_\mathrm{d}/ϵ_\mathrm{u}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),$$

$$\gamma (=\varphi _3)=\pi \alpha \beta .$$
(32)
These expressions also hold in more general versions of the present model . Note that $`|V_{ub}|`$ and $`|V_{td}|`$ are specified entirely in terms of the $`ϵ_{\mathrm{u},\mathrm{d}}`$, with

$$|V_{cb}|=|V_{ts}|=ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2=0.0392,|V_{ub}/V_{td}|=ϵ_\mathrm{u}/ϵ_\mathrm{d}=1/3$$
(33)
for our choice of parameters. The shape of the unitarity triangle is determined entirely by the magnitude of $`V_{us}`$, which changes as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ varies. It has been noticed previously that a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ close to $`90^{}`$ gives a good fit to $`|V_{us}|`$ . For $`\mathrm{\Delta }=90^{}`$ we find $`|V_{us}|=|V_{cd}|=(ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2+ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2)^{1/2}=0.221`$. The Wolfenstein parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ defined by

$`\lambda \sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{|V_{\mathrm{ub}}|}{|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|}}`$ $`=ϵ_\mathrm{u}`$ (34)
$`\lambda \sqrt{(1/c^2\rho )^2+\eta ^2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{|V_{\mathrm{td}}|}{|V_{\mathrm{ts}}|}}`$ $`=ϵ_\mathrm{d},`$ (35)
where $`\lambda =|V_{\mathrm{us}}|`$ and $`c=1\lambda ^2/2`$, are given by:

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\lambda ^2}}(ϵ_\mathrm{d}^2ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2)\right)`$ (36)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\mathrm{u}^2}{\lambda ^2}}\rho ^2}.`$ (37)
With our choice of parameters, $`\rho =0.12`$ and $`\eta =0.29`$.

We now diagonalize the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark mass matrices exactly (without the above approximations), and calculate the resulting CKM matrix. As an illustration, for the same parameters as above, we find

$`|V_{\mathrm{ud}}|`$ $`=`$ $`|V_{\mathrm{cs}}|=0.975`$ (38)
$`|V_{\mathrm{us}}|`$ $`=`$ $`|V_{\mathrm{cd}}|=0.222`$ (39)
$`|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ $`=`$ $`|V_{\mathrm{ts}}|=0.0410`$ (40)
$`|V_{\mathrm{td}}|=0.0080;|V_{\mathrm{ub}}|`$ $`=`$ $`0.0029;|V_{\mathrm{ub}}/V_{\mathrm{cb}}|=0.071`$ (41)
$`\alpha =98^{};\beta `$ $`=`$ $`18^{}[\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )=0.58];\gamma =64^{}`$ (42)
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`0.15;\eta =0.29.`$ (43)
These predictions are reasonable and we will consider this simple model as our baseline model. We now perform random perturbations around it (anarchy) to study the robustness of these predictions.

## 3 Anarchy

The underlying theory of fermion masses is unlikely to guarantee that a particular mass matrix element is absolutely zero or has a fixed value given by high energy symmetries of the theory. One could expect radiative effects or small symmetry breaking parameters to contribute to a given mass matrix texture. Since we don’t have a complete theory to compute them, we will explore the consequences of adding randomly small perturbations to our baseline model. These perturbations are what we call anarchy. We will study just how much anarchy can our baseline model tolerate.

We will add to each element of the up and down mass matrices a random variable $`\zeta `$ with real part given by a random gaussian of zero average and a phase given by a random variable uniformly distributed in the range $`[0,2\pi ]`$. We ensure that the mass matrices remain hermitian by requiring that $`\zeta _{ij}=\zeta _{ji}^{}`$.

The standard deviation of the real part of these random variables will be our measure of anarchy. In fact, it would be natural to have the standard deviations proportional to the smallest non-zero elements of the mass matrix, namely $`\sigma =\alpha ϵ^3`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation of the gaussian distribution.

In Figs. 1, 2, and 3 we illustrate the effect of anarchy in the $`\rho \eta `$ plane and the $`\frac{m_2}{m_1}\frac{m_3}{m_2}`$ planes for both up and down sectors for different values of $`\alpha `$. As expected, the dispersion in the figures increases with $`\alpha `$. The quantities $`\rho `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\frac{m_3}{m_2}`$ are more stable under perturbations than the ratio of the two lightest quark masses, $`\frac{m_2}{m_1}`$.

In order to measure the degree of variation of these parameters arising from anarchy, we introduce the quantity $`\kappa `$, the ratio of the standard deviation $`\sigma _X`$ to the mean $`\mu _X`$ for a given parameter $`X`$ in a simulation: $`\kappa \sigma _X/\mu _X`$. In Table 1 we show $`\kappa `$ for the different parameters generated by $`1000`$ simulations.

We can see that $`\kappa `$ is roughly proportional to the parameter $`\alpha `$ determining the width of the gaussian distribution used to generate the different perturbations. The sensitivity in the parameters increases in the following order: $`\left(\frac{m_2}{m_3}\right)_{\mathrm{up}}`$, $`\left(\frac{m_2}{m_3}\right)_{\mathrm{down}}`$, $`\eta `$, $`\left(\frac{m_1}{m_2}\right)_{\mathrm{down}}`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\left(\frac{m_1}{m_2}\right)_{\mathrm{up}}`$. Not surprisingly, the most sensitive parameter is $`\left(\frac{m_1}{m_2}\right)_{\mathrm{up}}`$, since it involves the ratio of two small quantities. Values of $`\alpha <0.1`$ are required in order not to disturb the hierarchy significantly. These correspond roughly to $`𝒪(ϵ_d^5)𝒪(\lambda ^5)`$ entries in the mass matrices (7).

## 4 Conclusions

We have performed a simple exercise of exploring the consequences of adding random perturbations (anarchy) to a baseline hierarchical model of quark masses and mixings. We find that even small perturbations, with gaussian distribution of zero mean and standard deviations of the order of $`5\%`$ of the smallest non-zero element can already give deviations of $`26\%`$ in the $`\rho `$ parameter, for instance. Therefore, we conclude that any physics process generating the anarchy, be it radiative corrections or small symmetry breaking parameters, should be in general limited to this order of magnitude, unless some spurious cancellations occur. The regularities of quark masses and mixings thus appear to be far from a generic feature of randomness in the mass matrices, and probably indicative of an underlying order.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Hitoshi Murayama for constructive comments and Francesco Vissani for a useful communication. This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy under Grant No. DE FG02 90ER49560. RR would like to thank FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) for a grant to visit the University of Chicago and thank also the Theory Group at the Physics Department of the University of Chicago for the warm hospitality during his visit.