text:
# Multiple Jet Production at Low Transverse Energies in 𝑝𝑝̄ Collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV

## Abstract

We present data on multiple jet production for transverse energies greater than 20 GeV in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}`$ = 1.8 TeV. QCD calculations in the parton shower approximation (pythia) and in the next-to-leading order approximation (jetrad) show discrepancies with data for three and four-jet production. This disagreement is especially apparent in multiple jet angular and transverse momentum distributions.

V.M. Abazov,23 B. Abbott,58 A. Abdesselam,11 M. Abolins,51 V. Abramov,26 B.S. Acharya,17 D.L. Adams,60 M. Adams,38 S.N. Ahmed,21 G.D. Alexeev,23 G.A. Alves,2 N. Amos,50 E.W. Anderson,43 M.M. Baarmand,55 V.V. Babintsev,26 L. Babukhadia,55 T.C. Bacon,28 A. Baden,47 B. Baldin,37 P.W. Balm,20 S. Banerjee,17 E. Barberis,30 P. Baringer,44 J. Barreto,2 J.F. Bartlett,37 U. Bassler,12 D. Bauer,28 A. Bean,44 M. Begel,54 A. Belyaev,35 S.B. Beri,15 G. Bernardi,12 I. Bertram,27 A. Besson,9 R. Beuselinck,28 V.A. Bezzubov,26 P.C. Bhat,37 V. Bhatnagar,11 M. Bhattacharjee,55 G. Blazey,39 S. Blessing,35 A. Boehnlein,37 N.I. Bojko,26 F. Borcherding,37 K. Bos,20 A. Brandt,60 R. Breedon,31 G. Briskin,59 R. Brock,51 G. Brooijmans,37 A. Bross,37 D. Buchholz,40 M. Buehler,38 V. Buescher,14 V.S. Burtovoi,26 J.M. Butler,48 F. Canelli,54 W. Carvalho,3 D. Casey,51 Z. Casilum,55 H. Castilla-Valdez,19 D. Chakraborty,39 K.M. Chan,54 S.V. Chekulaev,26 D.K. Cho,54 S. Choi,34 S. Chopra,56 J.H. Christenson,37 M. Chung,38 D. Claes,52 A.R. Clark,30 J. Cochran,34 L. Coney,42 B. Connolly,35 W.E. Cooper,37 D. Coppage,44 M.A.C. Cummings,39 D. Cutts,59 G.A. Davis,54 K. Davis,29 K. De,60 S.J. de Jong,21 K. Del Signore,50 M. Demarteau,37 R. Demina,45 P. Demine,9 D. Denisov,37 S.P. Denisov,26 S. Desai,55 H.T. Diehl,37 M. Diesburg,37 G. Di Loreto,51 S. Doulas,49 P. Draper,60 Y. Ducros,13 L.V. Dudko,25 S. Duensing,21 L. Duflot,11 S.R. Dugad,17 A. Duperrin,10 A. Dyshkant,26 D. Edmunds,51 J. Ellison,34 V.D. Elvira,37 R. Engelmann,55 S. Eno,47 G. Eppley,62 P. Ermolov,25 O.V. Eroshin,26 J. Estrada,54 H. Evans,53 V.N. Evdokimov,26 T. Fahland,33 S. Feher,37 D. Fein,29 T. Ferbel,54 F. Filthaut,21 H.E. Fisk,37 Y. Fisyak,56 E. Flattum,37 F. Fleuret,30 M. Fortner,39 K.C. Frame,51 S. Fu,53 S. Fuess,37 E. Gallas,37 A.N. Galyaev,26 M. Gao,53 V. Gavrilov,24 R.J. Genik II,27 K. Genser,37 C.E. Gerber,38 Y. Gershtein,59 R. Gilmartin,35 G. Ginther,54 B. Gómez,5 G. Gómez,47 P.I. Goncharov,26 J.L. González Solís,19 H. Gordon,56 L.T. Goss,61 K. Gounder,37 A. Goussiou,28 N. Graf,56 G. Graham,47 P.D. Grannis,55 J.A. Green,43 H. Greenlee,37 S. Grinstein,1 L. Groer,53 S. Grünendahl,37 A. Gupta,17 S.N. Gurzhiev,26 G. Gutierrez,37 P. Gutierrez,58 N.J. Hadley,47 H. Haggerty,37 S. Hagopian,35 V. Hagopian,35 R.E. Hall,32 P. Hanlet,49 S. Hansen,37 J.M. Hauptman,43 C. Hays,53 C. Hebert,44 D. Hedin,39 J.M. Heinmiller,38 A.P. Heinson,34 U. Heintz,48 T. Heuring,35 M.D. Hildreth,42 R. Hirosky,63 J.D. Hobbs,55 B. Hoeneisen,8 Y. Huang,50 R. Illingworth,28 A.S. Ito,37 M. Jaffré,11 S. Jain,17 R. Jesik,41 K. Johns,29 M. Johnson,37 A. Jonckheere,37 M. Jones,36 H. Jöstlein,37 A. Juste,37 S. Kahn,56 E. Kajfasz,10 A.M. Kalinin,23 D. Karmanov,25 D. Karmgard,42 Z. Ke,4 R. Kehoe,51 A. Kharchilava,42 S.K. Kim,18 B. Klima,37 B. Knuteson,30 W. Ko,31 J.M. Kohli,15 A.V. Kostritskiy,26 J. Kotcher,56 B. Kothari,53 A.V. Kotwal,53 A.V. Kozelov,26 E.A. Kozlovsky,26 J. Krane,43 M.R. Krishnaswamy,17 P. Krivkova,6 S. Krzywdzinski,37 M. Kubantsev,45 S. Kuleshov,24 Y. Kulik,55 S. Kunori,47 A. Kupco,7 V.E. Kuznetsov,34 G. Landsberg,59 W.M. Lee,35 A. Leflat,25 C. Leggett,30 F. Lehner,37 J. Li,60 Q.Z. Li,37 X. Li,4 J.G.R. Lima,3 D. Lincoln,37 S.L. Linn,35 J. Linnemann,51 R. Lipton,37 A. Lucotte,9 L. Lueking,37 C. Lundstedt,52 C. Luo,41 A.K.A. Maciel,39 R.J. Madaras,30 V.L. Malyshev,23 V. Manankov,25 H.S. Mao,4 T. Marshall,41 M.I. Martin,37 R.D. Martin,38 K.M. Mauritz,43 B. May,40 A.A. Mayorov,41 R. McCarthy,55 J. McDonald,35 T. McMahon,57 H.L. Melanson,37 M. Merkin,25 K.W. Merritt,37 C. Miao,59 H. Miettinen,62 D. Mihalcea,58 C.S. Mishra,37 N. Mokhov,37 N.K. Mondal,17 H.E. Montgomery,37 R.W. Moore,51 M. Mostafa,1 H. da Motta,2 E. Nagy,10 F. Nang,29 M. Narain,48 V.S. Narasimham,17 H.A. Neal,50 J.P. Negret,5 S. Negroni,10 T. Nunnemann,37 G.Z. Obrant,65 D. O’Neil,51 V. Oguri,3 B. Olivier,12 N. Oshima,37 P. Padley,62 L.J. Pan,40 K. Papageorgiou,28 A. Para,37 N. Parashar,49 R. Partridge,59 N. Parua,55 M. Paterno,54 A. Patwa,55 B. Pawlik,22 J. Perkins,60 M. Peters,36 O. Peters,20 P. Pétroff,11 R. Piegaia,1 H. Piekarz,35 B.G. Pope,51 E. Popkov,48 H.B. Prosper,35 S. Protopopescu,56 J. Qian,50 R. Raja,37 S. Rajagopalan,56 E. Ramberg,37 P.A. Rapidis,37 N.W. Reay,45 S. Reucroft,49 M. Ridel,11 M. Rijssenbeek,55 T. Rockwell,51 M. Roco,37 P. Rubinov,37 R. Ruchti,42 J. Rutherfoord,29 B.M. Sabirov,23 A. Santoro,2 L. Sawyer,46 R.D. Schamberger,55 H. Schellman,40 A. Schwartzman,1 N. Sen,62 E. Shabalina,25 R.K. Shivpuri,16 D. Shpakov,49 M. Shupe,29 R.A. Sidwell,45 V. Simak,7 H. Singh,34 J.B. Singh,15 V. Sirotenko,37 P. Slattery,54 E. Smith,58 R.P. Smith,37 R. Snihur,40 G.R. Snow,52 J. Snow,57 S. Snyder,56 J. Solomon,38 V. Sorín,1 M. Sosebee,60 N. Sotnikova,25 K. Soustruznik,6 M. Souza,2 N.R. Stanton,45 G. Steinbrück,53 R.W. Stephens,60 F. Stichelbaut,56 D. Stoker,33 V. Stolin,24 A. Stone,46 D.A. Stoyanova,26 M. Strauss,58 M. Strovink,30 L. Stutte,37 A. Sznajder,3 M. Talby,10 W. Taylor,55 S. Tentindo-Repond,35 S.M. Tripathi,31 T.G. Trippe,30 A.S. Turcot,56 P.M. Tuts,53 P. van Gemmeren,37 V. Vaniev,26 R. Van Kooten,41 N. Varelas,38 L.S. Vertogradov,23 F. Villeneuve-Seguier,10 A.A. Volkov,26 A.P. Vorobiev,26 H.D. Wahl,35 H. Wang,40 Z.-M. Wang,55 J. Warchol,42 G. Watts,64 M. Wayne,42 H. Weerts,51 A. White,60 J.T. White,61 D. Whiteson,30 J.A. Wightman,43 D.A. Wijngaarden,21 S. Willis,39 S.J. Wimpenny,34 J. Womersley,37 D.R. Wood,49 R. Yamada,37 P. Yamin,56 T. Yasuda,37 Y.A. Yatsunenko,23 K. Yip,56 S. Youssef,35 J. Yu,37 Z. Yu,40 M. Zanabria,5 H. Zheng,42 Z. Zhou,43 M. Zielinski,54 D. Zieminska,41 A. Zieminski,41 V. Zutshi,56 E.G. Zverev,25 and A. Zylberstejn13

(DØ Collaboration)

1Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

2LAFEX, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

3Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

4Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

5Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

6Charles University, Center for Particle Physics, Prague, Czech Republic

7Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences, Center for Particle Physics, Prague, Czech Republic

8Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador

9Institut des Sciences Nucléaires, IN2P3-CNRS, Universite de Grenoble 1, Grenoble, France

10CPPM, IN2P3-CNRS, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France

11Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur Linéaire, IN2P3-CNRS, Orsay, France

12LPNHE, Universités Paris VI and VII, IN2P3-CNRS, Paris, France

13DAPNIA/Service de Physique des Particules, CEA, Saclay, France

14Universität Mainz, Institut für Physik, Mainz, Germany

15Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

16Delhi University, Delhi, India

17Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India

18Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

19CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico

20FOM-Institute NIKHEF and University of Amsterdam/NIKHEF, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

21University of Nijmegen/NIKHEF, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

22Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kraków, Poland

23Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

24Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

25Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

26Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia

27Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

28Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

29University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721

30Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley, California 94720

31University of California, Davis, California 95616

32California State University, Fresno, California 93740

33University of California, Irvine, California 92697

34University of California, Riverside, California 92521

35Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306

36University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

37Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510

38University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607

39Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115

40Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208

41Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405

42University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556

43Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011

44University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045

45Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506

46Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272

47University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

48Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215

49Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115

50University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

51Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824

52University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588

53Columbia University, New York, New York 10027

54University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

55State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794

56Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973

57Langston University, Langston, Oklahoma 73050

58University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019

59Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912

60University of Texas, Arlington, Texas 76019

61Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843

62Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005

63University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

64University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195

65Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

The study of jet production at high transverse energy was one of the main goals of the 1993–1995 run of the Fermilab Tevatron collider, and the results have been compared with leading-order QCD predictions by both the CDF and DØ collaborations. These high-$`E_\mathrm{T}`$ data, where $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ is the transverse energy of the jet were described satisfactorily by complete tree-level leading order $`2N`$ QCD calculations and by the herwig parton shower Monte Carlo. In this paper, we describe studies of the complementary kinematic region of $`Q^2/\widehat{s}1`$, where $`Q^2`$ is the square of the momentum transfer between partons, which we set equal to $`E_T^2`$, and $`\widehat{s}`$ is the square of center of mass energy in the rest frame of the collision. Here the BFKL description of jet production differs significantly from that of the high-$`E_\mathrm{T}`$ DGLAP kinematic domain of $`Q^2\widehat{s}`$. Measurement of jet production in this kinematic region can provide information on the evolution of higher-order jet processes.

We present results that extend our previous measurements of multiple jet production to lower $`E_\mathrm{T}`$. The data were collected with the DØ detector during 1993–1995 at a proton-antiproton center-of-mass energy of 1800 GeV. Jets were measured in the liquid-argon calorimeter, which has a segmentation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \times \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0.1\times 0.1`$, where $`\eta `$ is pseudorapidity and $`\varphi `$ is azimuthal angle. At least one calorimeter trigger tower ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \times \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0.2\times 0.2`$) with $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ 2 GeV was required by the Level-1 trigger, and at least one jet with $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ 12 GeV was required by the Level-2 trigger. Jets were reconstructed using a fixed cone algorithm with radius $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^2}=0.7`$ in $`\eta \varphi `$ space. The jet reconstruction threshold was 8 GeV. If two jets overlapped and the shared transverse energy was more than 50% of the transverse energy of the lower-energy jet, the jets were merged; otherwise they were split into two jets. The integrated luminosity of this data sample was 1.96$`\pm `$0.29 nb-1. Instantaneous luminosity was restricted to be below 3 $`\times 10^{30}cm^2s^1`$ to minimize multiple $`p\overline{p}`$ interactions.

To provide events of high quality, online and offline selection criteria were used to suppress multiple interactions, cosmic ray backgrounds, and spurious jets. Jets were restricted to the pseudorapidity interval $`|\eta |3`$.

Jet energies have been corrected for calorimeter response, shower development, different sources of noise, and contributions from the underlying event. These corrections comprise the largest source of systematic uncertainty on the jet cross section. The typical value of the correction to jet energy is 15 - 30%, with an uncertainty of 2-4%. In our study, we consider jets with $`E_\mathrm{T}>`$ 20 GeV. For an $`n`$-inclusive jet event, the $`n`$ leading jets must have transverse energy above the threshold value. The trigger efficiency is 0.85 for the inclusive ($`n`$ = 1) jet sample for energies near threshold, rising rapidly to unity at larger $`E_\mathrm{T}`$. The efficiency is essentially unity for $`n>1`$.

To compare with data, Monte Carlo (MC) events were generated using the pythia 6.127  and jetrad programs. These generators simulate particle-level jets in the parton-shower approximation, and parton-level jets in the next-to-leading order approximation, for pythia and jetrad, respectively. The smearing of jet transverse energies was implemented using the experimentally determined jet energy resolution, which is $``$ 20% at $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ = 20 GeV. In pythia, jets were reconstructed at the particle level using the DØ algorithm, and in jetrad, at the parton level, using the Snowmass algorithm .

Distributions in transverse energy for the leading jet for n=1 to n=4 inclusive jet events are shown in Fig. 1, together with the results from pythia simulations. In these and all other plots, the data has been corrected for inefficiencies and energy calibration, but not for contributions from an underlying event. Also, we normalize the theory (increased by a factor of 1.3) to the observed two-jet cross section Fig. 1(b) for $`E_\mathrm{T}>40\mathrm{GeV}`$. Figure 2 shows the fractional difference (Data - Theory) / Theory for the $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ spectra in Fig. 1 with the systematic uncertainties, arrising from uncertainties in jet-energy calibration and resolution. The theory is in agreement with the data for the single-inclusive jet sample in the entire $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ interval, and with the two-jet sample for most of the energy interval (some excess of data is observed at low $`E_\mathrm{T}`$). However, for the three and four-jet samples, there is large excess relative to theory at low $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ and a deficit near 75 GeV. The shapes of the experimental and theoretical spectra are clearly different, and not reconcilable through re-normalization.

The systematic uncertainty on the cross section is due primarily to the uncertainty in the energy calibration. The uncertainty from energy resolution represents the main uncertainty in the MC. The uncertainty from the energy calibration can be estimated by considering spectra with $`\pm 1`$ standard-deviation corrections to jet $`E_\mathrm{T}`$. The same procedure can be used to derive the uncertainty due to jet resolution in the MC. At 25 GeV uncertainty in the three-jet cross section due to calibration is 36%, and the uncertainty in the MC due to resolution is 17%. In Fig. 2, the relative systematic uncertainties corresponding to the energy calibration added to a 15% uncertainty in luminosity are shown (in quadrature) by the solid lines centered about zero. The uncertainties from energy smearing are shown by the dashed lines near the data points. The total systematic uncertainties on the ratio are shown by the dotted lines. Because the systematic uncertainties are highly correlated in $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ (a change of the cross section in one bin is accompanied by a corresponding change in neighboring bins), the departure of the ratio from zero cannot be explained solely by systematic uncertainties.

To explore the discrepancies in three and four-jet production, we turn to observations of azimuthal distributions, distributions in summed transverse momenta, and three-jet studies. In Fig. 3(a) we plot the azimuthal difference between the leading two jets in events with two or more jets. Figures 3(b)-3(d) show the azimuthal difference between the first and second, first and third, and second and third highest-$`E_\mathrm{T}`$ jets in a three-jet event. In Fig. 3(a) we see the strong anticorrelation (in the transverse plane) expected of two-jet events. The distribution widens substantially in the three-jet sample (Fig. 3(b)-3(d)). The peaks correspond to the kinematic constraint of transverse momentum conservation for jets produced in hard QCD subprocesses. Altough, in general, pythia reproduces the observed shapes, there is a large excess of events in the three-jet sample not consistent with expectation. In particular, there is a significant contribution to three-jet events with two jets back-to-back in the transverse plane near ($`\mathrm{\Phi }=\pi `$).

Distributions in the square of the summed vector transverse momenta of jets $`Q_T^2=(𝐄_{T1}+𝐄_{T2}+\mathrm{}+𝐄_{Tn})^2`$ shown in Fig. 4(a-c) indicate that the excess corresponds to events with a large imbalance. In fact, when these events are removed (with a requirement of a good balance in transverse momentum), the three-jet data and theory come into better agreement at small $`E_\mathrm{T}`$. The shoulder at $`Q_T^21600\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ in Fig. 4(a) is eliminated when the event sample is restricted to just two jets with $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ above 20 GeV, and no other jets between 8 and 20 GeV. This shoulder can consequently be associated with higher-order radiation.

To find the pair of jets $`\{i,j\}`$ most likely to originate from the hard interaction (rather then from gluon Brehmsshtrahlung), we define the scaled summed dijet vector transverse momenta: $`𝐪_{ij}=(𝐄_{Ti}+𝐄_{Tj})/(E_{Ti}+E_{Tj})`$. We choose the pair with the smallest magnitude of this vector and plot the distribution of the relative azimuthal angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }_c`$ between the jets in that pair Fig. 5(a). The data lie above theory in the region where two jets, reflecting a hard scatter, appears back-to-back ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_c=\pi `$). pythia shows a broader distribution, and the prediction from jetrad is peaked away from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_c=\pi `$ due to the presence of the third (radiated) jet.

Figures 5(b) and Fig. 5(c) show the azimuthal separation of the third jet from each of the two jets that correspond to the minimum $`q_{ij}^2`$. These distributions contain events only for $`\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_c0.4`$; that is, events in which the balanced jets are essentially back-to-back. When the third jet is correlated with the balanced jets, it will be expected to be emitted along or opposite to the balanced jets. The uncertainties from the energy calibration and luminosity are shown by the solid lines, and from the energy resolution by dashed lines. We see that the data has a wider distribution than pythia, and much wider distribution than jetrad. The third jet appeares to be uncorrelated with the balanced jets, and is emitted at all angles. Our studies indicate that the observed differences in shape are not sensitive to modeling of the underlying event or contributions from multiple-parton scattering.

In summary, our data on multiple-jet production at low $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ show significant discrepancies with pythia and jetrad. This is observed in the distributions of the transverse energy of the leading jets (Fig. 1), in the square of the summed vector transverse momenta $`Q_T^2`$ (Fig. 4), and in the three-jet angular distributions that suggest the presence of an uncorrelated jet (Fig. 5). Additional corrections to QCD calculations are therefore required to accommodate these results; higher-order or BFKL processes are possible candidates.

We thank the staffs at Fermilab and collaborating institutions for their contributions to this work, and acknowledge support from the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation (U.S.A.), Commissariat à L’Energie Atomique (France), State Committee for Science and Technology and Ministry for Atomic Energy (Russia), CAPES and CNPq (Brazil), Departments of Atomic Energy and Science and Education (India), Colciencias (Colombia), CONACyT (Mexico), Ministry of Education and KOSEF (Korea), and CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina).


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Polarization of the half-filled Landau level in quantum Hall effect.
Keshav N. Shrivastava
School of Physics, University of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad 500 046, India.

We develop a theory of the half-filled Landau level which shows that it is a two-component fluid. One of the components has spin up and the other spin down so that an electron spin resonance can occur. The 1/3 filled level is fully spin polarized one-component fluid. We calculate the spin polarization at the $`\nu =1/2`$ as a function of temperature and compare the calculated result with the experimentally measured value. Our theory is in very good agreement with the experimental data.

keshav@mailaps.org Fax. +91-40-3010145

1. Introduction.

According to the classical Hall effect the transverse resistivity is linearly proportional to the applied magnetic field and the slope of the resistivity versus magnetic field can be used to measure the concentration of electrons,

$$\rho _{xy}=\frac{B_z}{nec},$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the electron concentration and $`B_z`$ is the magnetic field along $`z`$ direction. In 1980 von Klitzing, Dorda and Pepper  reported that instead of the linear dependence as shown above, a plateau occurs in $`\rho _{xy}`$ which can be measured so accurately that the value of the $`e^2/h`$ can be deduced. Therefore, at the plateau, we have

$$\frac{B}{nec}=\frac{h}{ie^2}$$
(2)
and hence,

$$i=\frac{n}{(eB/hc)}$$
(3)
is an integer. We write the electron density as $`n=n_o/A`$, i.e. the number of electrons per unit area so that the above equation becomes,

$$i=\frac{n_o}{A(eB/hc)}$$
(4)
which may be arranged as

$$B.A=\frac{n_o}{i}\left(\frac{hc}{e}\right)$$
(5)
which is another way of saying that there is a flux quantization, $`\varphi _o=hc/e`$ and $`n_o`$ and $`i`$ are integers. Therefore, von Klitzing et al have detected flux quantization while measuring the Hall effect. Very soon it was reported by Tsui, Störmer and Gossard  that not only $`i=1`$ but fractional quantization occurs. The value of $`i=1/3`$ was detected and many other fractions 2/3, 2/5, 3/5 etc were found . Laughlin  made the theoretical efforts to find the wave function of a fractional charge by introducing incompressibility. In the flux quantization condition 1/3 charge is equivalent to three times the flux

$$\frac{hc}{\frac{1}{3}e}=\frac{3hc}{e}$$
(6)
or the one third area,

$$B.\frac{A}{3}=n_o\frac{hc}{e}.$$
(7)
Similarly, if we consider the charge per unit area, then 1/3 charge per unit area is equivalent to having one charge in three times the area

$$\frac{\frac{1}{3}e}{A}=\frac{e}{3A}.$$
(8)
The cause of incompressibility is not given in Laughlin’s paper and the force which holds the distances between particles constant is not mentioned. The charge can be 1/3 if area is $`A`$ or alternatively, if we give up incompressibility, the charge can be 1 in thrice the area, $`3A`$. Laughlin’s wave functions are defined in the complex space in two dimensions and can not be used to determine those properties which are often measured in a variety of experiments. There are other theories in which it is suggested that either even number or odd number of fluxes are attached to the electron to form a “composite fermion”. The odd number of fluxes such as one flux plus one electron form a boson which obeys the Bose-Einstein statistics and hence can make a Bose condensate. The even number of fluxes attached to the electron, form fermions. A mixture of bosons and fermions need not always make quasiparticles of mixed statistics but it has been reported that flux tubes attached to electrons will have intermediate statistics. At this time these theories are not supported by experimental evidence and attachment of flux tubes to electrons is not confirmed.

We have found  that a simple theory explains the experimental data without contradicting the ideas of fractional charge. The fractions which we tabulated in 1985 are in full agreement with Fig. 18 of Störmer’s Nobel lecture . We have examined considerable amount of data in which fractions are experimentally observed and in each and every case, the observed values are found to be the same as those predicted . Some of the experimentally observed masses are equal and this equality of masses is well explained by the particle-hole symmetry which in our theory is related to the Kramers conjugate states . The high Landau levels also fit very well in our theory . The magnetic moment of the electron is slightly changed due to an effective spin-orbit interaction . It is found that the rate of sweep of magnetic field plays an important role in determining whether the transverse resistivity should be zero or finite. The field is detected by nuclear-magnetic resonance. There is obviously a phase factor problem which determines whether the system prefers a zero or a finite value of $`\rho _{xx}`$ . There is a phase transition and Goldstone modes occur due to flux motion, in bilayers . Dementyev et al  have obtained the electron-spin polarization by measuring the 71Ga nuclear magnetic resonance in 300 Å wide GaAs wells separated by 3600 Å wide Al0.1Ga0.9As barriers at a magnetic field which corresponds to resistivity plateaus at $`\nu =1`$ and 1/3 where $`\rho _{xy}=h/\nu e^2`$ in the quantum Hall effect. These are very unique NMR measurements which require a suitable theory . The electron-spin polarization is obtained from the ratio of Knight shifts of the NMR lines as

$$P(\nu =\frac{1}{2},T)=\frac{K_s(\nu =\frac{1}{2},T)f(\frac{1}{2})}{K_s(\frac{1}{3})f(\frac{1}{3})}$$
(9)
where $`K_s(\nu )`$ are the Knight shifts for the fields at which $`\nu =1/2`$ which is partially polarized and $`\nu =1/3`$ which is fully polarized and $`f(\nu )=2n/[\omega \rho (o)]`$ with $`n`$ as the electron density and $`\omega `$ the well width. Here $`\rho (o)`$ is the 3-dimensional electron density at the center of the quantum well. There is an orientation angle $`\theta `$ between the total magnetic field and the growth axis of the sample.

In this paper, we use our theory to understand the polarization at 1/3 and show that there is a two-component fluid at $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ with one component having spin up and the other down. Therefore, there is an electron spin resonance energy between the up and the down components. We calculate the electron spin polarization at the $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ and compare it with that experimentally measured by using the NMR at the quantum Hall effect fields at $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$. We find that the predicted temperature dependence is in accord with that measured by Dementyev et al .

2. Theory.

Polarization at 1/3. According to our theory first given in ref. 6 and later on in refs. \[8-15\], the quantum Hall plateaus occur at $`\nu `$ given by two series,

$$\nu _\pm =\frac{l+(\frac{1}{2})s}{2l+1}.$$
(10)
For $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$, we obtain

$$\nu _+=\frac{l}{2l+1}$$
(11)
and for $`s=1/2`$, we get

$$\nu _{}=\frac{l+1}{2l+1}.$$
(12)
These two series are sufficient to explain all of the relevant fractions observed in the experimental data. We take the limit of $`l\mathrm{}`$, which gives $`\nu _+=\frac{1}{2}`$. Similarly, the $`\nu _{}`$ series at $`l\mathrm{}`$ also gives $`\nu _{}=\frac{1}{2}`$. Therefore at $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$, the value approaches from both the right hand side of 1/2 as well as from the left hand side so that the liquid has two components. We call $`\nu _+=1/2`$ as $`A^{(+)}`$ and $`\nu _{}=\frac{1}{2}`$ as $`B^{()}`$. The values with + sign always have spin +1/2 and the values $`\nu _{}`$ always have spin -1/2. For various values of $`l`$ $`\nu _\pm `$ series give,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}l& =& 0& 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& \mathrm{}\\ & & & & & & & & \\ \nu _+& =& 0& \frac{1}{3}& \frac{2}{5}& \frac{3}{7}& \frac{4}{9}& \frac{5}{11}& \frac{1}{2}\\ & & & & & & & & \\ \nu _{}& =& 1& \frac{2}{3}& \frac{3}{5}& \frac{4}{7}& \frac{5}{9}& \frac{6}{11}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}$$
(13)
Therefore $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ is fully spin polarized with polarization $`P=1`$. Howerver, there will be entropy and therfore, there is always a possibility that some of the spins are not aligned to the value of +1/2 otherwise the state with $`\nu =+1/3`$ is fully polarized. Thus we fix the polarization of various states as given above. Any deviation may arise due to thermodynamics. Since $`\nu =1/2`$ arises from both +1/2 as well as -1/2, these states are separated in energy by that of the electron spin resonance,

$$k_BT_z=g^{}\mu _BB_{tot}$$
(14)
where $`g^{}`$ is the usual Lande’s splitting factor, $`g^{}=2.0023`$ for free electrons and $`g^{}=0.44`$ in the semiconductor GaAs. If the energy of the $`N`$ electrons is required, we can multiply the above by $`N`$. For one electron in the $`s=+1/2`$ state the energy is $`\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _BB_{tot}`$ and in the $`s=1/2`$ state it is $`\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _BB_{\mathrm{tot}}`$. In the experiment of Dementyev et al, $`T_z1.63K`$ is a temperature which defines the energy difference between the two spin states. Usually, three components of the triplet and one singlet should arise but in our formula (13) only two states are found at $`\nu _\pm =1/2`$. Thus we have the fixed value of polarization at $`\nu =1/3`$ and a two component liquid state at $`\nu _\pm =1/2`$. We will now calculate the polarization at $`\nu _\pm =1/2`$ as per usual simple Maxwell-Boltzman distribution. We consider only a two-level system. Since the particles in these levels are separated by energy given by eq. (14), the population in the two levels will be,

$$\frac{N_1}{N}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _BB/k_BT)}{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _BB/k_BT)+\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _BB/k_BT)}$$

and

$$\frac{N_2}{N}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _BB/k_BT)}{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _BB/k_BT)+\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _BB/k_BT)}.$$
(15)
Here $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ are the populations of the lower and upper levels for a positive value of $`g^{}`$ and $`N=N_1+N_2`$ is the total number of electrons. In case $`g^{}`$ is negative, the levels get interchanged. The projection of the magnetic moment of the upper state along the field direction is $`\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _B`$ and that of the lower state is $`+\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _B`$ which again get interchanged if the sign of $`g^{}`$ is negative. We make the change of variables as,

$$x=\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _BB/k_BT.$$
(16)
The magnetization of $`N`$ sites per unit volume is,

$$M=(N_1N_2)\mu _B(\frac{1}{2}g^{})=\frac{1}{2}Ng^{}\mu _B\frac{e^xe^x}{e^x+e^x}=\frac{1}{2}Ng^{}\mu _B\mathrm{tanh}x.$$
(17)
The high-temperature expansion of $`\mathrm{tanh}x=x`$ may be found for $`x1`$ so that,

$$M=N(\frac{1}{2}g^{}\mu _B)^2B/k_BT.$$
(18)
Thus the magnetization and hence the polarization in the state which has a population of $`N_1`$ varies as the inverse temperature. From this result the susceptibility also varies as $`1/T`$. At $`\nu =1/2`$, the quantum Hall system behaves like a two level system. Near the peak there is a small region which requires the wave vector dependent response given in ref. .

3. Comparison with experimental data.

Dementyev et al  have performed the experimental measurements of the electron spin polarization which we compare with our theory. Two cases have been measured. Case I has forty wells of width 300 Åseparated by 3600 Åwide Al0.1Ga0.9As barriers. The angle between the sample growth axis and the direction of the total magnetic field is $`\theta 38.4^o`$, $`B_{tot}=7.03`$T. The case II has $`\theta =0.0^o`$ and $`B_{tot}=5.52`$T. The spin polarization at $`\nu =1/2`$ for both the cases is given as a function of temperature with $`T_z=2.08`$K in case I and $`T_z=1.63`$K in case II. In both the cases the polarization varies as $`1/T`$ as predicted by our theory for $`T>0.6`$K. There is no analog of the ferromagnetic phase and if any, its transition temperature will be $`T_c=0.0K`$. Therefore, there is no region where we can see the effect of the dependence on the wave vector of the modes. For temperatures less than 0.6 K there may be a contribution to the polarization which depends on the wave vector of the response function. However, we know that a Goldstone boson emerges at low temperatures in the two component fluid so that the polarization will obey a critical exponent characteristic of a phase transition. The polarization at $`\nu =1/2`$ measured by Dementyev et al is shown in Fig.1 as a function of temperature. Two calculated curves are also plotted alongwith the data. It is clear that the data agrees with the predicted behaviour at most of the temperatures, $`0.6<T<3.4`$K. It is possible that there is a region below 0.6 K where wave vector dependence should be considered. An effort is made to compare the polarization as a function of $`(1T/T_c)^\alpha `$ in search of an exponent below $`T=1`$K. It is found that for $`T<1`$K, $`\alpha =0.15`$ as shown in the ln-ln plot shown in Fig. 2 for $`0.26<T<0.76`$ K. Apparently, the Knight shifts used to measure the polarization provide this value for the electron spin polarization but such a small value for the exponent of polarization is not expected from the scaling theory. Similar study of one more sample has been reported by Melinte et al . We have extracted some representative points from their measurements and shown them in Fig. 3 alongwith the curve calculated by us. Apparently, our theory is in reasonable agreement with the data.

4. Conclusions.

We conclude that there is a two component fluid at $`\nu =1/2`$ with one component having spin +1/2 and the other component having spin -1/2. The polarization near or above a temperature of 1 K varies as the inverse temperature. In this respect our theory agrees with the experimental data. It should be noted that there is no evidence of attaching even or odd flux quanta to an electron and there is no evidence for the existence of any composite fermions or composite bosons. Assuming that flux was attached to the electrons, the field $`B`$ in (18) will be replaced by,

$$B^{}=B2p\rho \varphi _o$$
(19)
where $`p`$ is an integer so that $`2p`$ is an even number, $`\rho `$ is the charge density per unit area and $`\varphi _o`$ is the unit flux. When we put $`p`$ = 0, 1, 2, 3, …, etc., we get different values of $`B^{}`$ and hence from (18) different values of the magnetization. Therefore, magnetization should show plateaus for different values of $`p`$. In the present problem, the polarization as a function of temperature should show plateaus. No such plateaus are found and hence there is no evidence of attachment of fluxex. If spin is completely free, in the half filled Landau level a four-component fluid with a singlet and three components of the triplet should occur. Such a fluid is not observed in the experiments. In a previous eprint  we have shown that Jain’s theory is internally inconsistent. From the present discussions it is clear that the fluxes are not attached to the electrons and four components are not found. Hence Jain’s theory  of composite fermions is not applicable to the experimental measurements.

References.

1. K. von Klitzing, G. Dorda and M. Pepper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 494 (1980).
2. D.C. Tsui, H.L. Störmer and A.C. Gossard,Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1559 (1982).
3. J.R. Eisenstein and H.L. Störmer, Science, 248, 1510 (1990).
4. R.B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. B27, 3383 (1983).
5. R.B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983).
6. K.N. Shrivastava, Phys. Lett. A113, 435 (1986).
7. H.L. Störmer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 875 (1999).
8. K.N. Shrivastava, CERN SCAN-0103007.
9. K.N. Shrivastava, in Frontiers in Physics, edited by B.G. Sidharth, Kluwer Press, 2001.
10. K.N. Shrivastava, Mod. Phys. Lett. 13, 1087 (1999).
11. K.N. Shrivastava, Mod. Phys. Lett. 14, 1009 (2000); cond-mat/0103604.
12. K.N. Shrivastava, cond/mat 0104004.
13. K.N. Shrivastava, cond/mat 0104577.
14. K.N. Shrivastava (in preparation).
15. K.N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0105559.
16. A.E. Dementyev, N.N. Kuzma, P. Khandelwal, S.E. Barrett, L.N. Pfeiffer and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5074 (1999).
17. S. Melinte, N. Freytag, M. Horvatic, C. Berthier, L.P. Levy, V. Bayot and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 354 (2000).
18. J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 199 (1989).


text:
# L-dwarf variability: Magnetic star spots or non-uniform clouds?

## 1 Introduction

Like stars of earlier spectral types, some L dwarfs (the spectral type cooler than M; Kirkpatrick et al., 1999; Martín et al., 1999; Basri et al., 2000; Kirkpatrick et al., 2000) are variable (Tinney & Tolley, 1999; Bailer-Jones & Mundt, 1999, 2001). In this Letter we examine whether magnetic ‘star’ spots or clouds are more likely to be responsible for the observed variability. We conclude that patchy clouds are the most plausible mechanism for the observed variability and discuss how they can produce the three types of variations seen: 1) periodic, 2) periodic but periods change on long time scales (months), and 3) non-periodic.

Tinney & Tolley (1999) presented the first attempt to detect clouds in brown dwarf atmospheres. They observed the M9 brown dwarf LP944-20 and the L5 brown dwarf DENIS 1228-15 through two narrow-band filters designed to detect changes in TiO absorption. The changes in the TiO band strength were presumed to indicate changes in the opacity, which occurs when TiO is depleted through condensation. They found that LP944-20 was variable, but DENIS 1228-15 was not. The authors speculated that the passage of clouds over the disk of LP944-20 produced small changes in the effective temperature that caused the small variations ($``$0.04 magnitude) in their narrow-band filters. These results do not exclude the possibility of clouds in their L dwarf, however, since variations of this amplitude would have been difficult to detect given that the errors for that object were larger than 0.04 magnitude.

Bailer-Jones & Mundt (1999) conducted a variability search in the broad-band $`I`$ filter and found evidence of variability in the L1.5 dwarf 2MASS 1145+23. The object displayed $``$0.04 magnitude variations that repeated with a period of 7.1 hours. In an expanded study of 21 L and M dwarfs Bailer-Jones & Mundt (2001) found that over half of their sample exhibited statistically significant variations with amplitudes 0.01 to 0.055 magnitude and time scales of 0.4 to 100 hours. They were unable to find periodic light curves for many of the variables. 2MASS 1145+23, however, now exhibited variability with a period of 11.2 hrs. A similar varying period has also been observed in an M9.5 dwarf star by Martín, Zapatero Osorio, & Lehto (2001), who suggested that evolving surface features, possibly dust clouds or magnetic spots, were responsible for the change.

At first glance, either magnetic spots or clouds could plausibly be associated with the observed variability. Magnetic fields have been measured for several M dwarfs and estimates of their strength are a few kG (Saar, 1994; Johns-Krull & Valenti, 1996). The surface filling factors are generally $`>50\%`$. Unfortunately, periodic photometric variations have been observed in only a few M dwarfs, suggesting that either the surfaces of these objects are completely covered with spots or that the spots are few in number and uniformly distributed (Hawley, Reid, & Gizis, 2000). In addition, Bondar (1995) reports that no good data exist to support the scenario of cyclic, organized spots in objects cooler than M0.

For the L dwarfs, clouds are also a reasonable potential source of variability. Iron, enstatite, and forsterite are the most abundant species expected to condense at the atmospheric temperatures and pressures characteristic of the L dwarfs (Lodders, 1999; Burrows & Sharp, 1999). Once condensed, the species likely settle into discrete, optically thick, cloud decks, with optically thicker clouds arising in progressively later L dwarfs (Marley, 2000; Ackerman & Marley, 2001). Since the atmospheric circulation pattern of most L dwarfs is likely similar to that of Jupiter (Schubert & Zhang, 2000) it is not unreasonable to expect that many L dwarfs also have a banded appearance. Any large inhomogeneities (thicker clouds or holes in the cloud deck) could then produce a photometric signal. Gelino & Marley (2000) have shown that if Jupiter was an unresolved point source, the Great Red Spot would provide a photometrically detectable signal. If L dwarfs have similar cloud features to Jupiter, then it is plausible that they may also exhibit photometric variations. The observation that more of the later L dwarfs are variable than the earlier type (Bailer-Jones & Mundt, 2001) supports the scenario of cloud-caused variations.

In addition to the photometric variability, some L dwarfs exhibit H$`\alpha `$ emission (Kirkpatrick et al., 1999, 2000), which is known to be an indicator of high chromospheric temperatures and magnetic activity in earlier type stars (Hawley et al., 2000). If the variability in L dwarfs is caused by magnetic spots, then it is plausible to expect a correlation between H$`\alpha `$ emission and the variable objects. Gelino et al. (in preparation) have combined their L-dwarf photometric variability results with those of Bailer-Jones & Mundt (2001) and find no correlation between H$`\alpha `$ emission (i.e. magnetic activity) and variability, supporting the conclusions of Bailer-Jones & Mundt (2001) and Martín et al. (2001).

As with earlier-type stars, wave heating has been suggested as the mechanism responsible for producing hot brown dwarf upper atmospheres (Yelle, 2000). Convection-caused waves propagate and grow as they rise through the upper atmosphere, eventually releasing their energy and heating the gas as they dissipate. These high temperatures combined with magnetic field effects are likely responsible for the H$`\alpha `$ emission. L dwarfs with weak magnetic fields should exhibit little or no H$`\alpha `$ emission. In light of this it is quite notable that the fraction of objects with H$`\alpha `$ emission peaks at spectral type M7 and decreases at earlier and later spectral types (Gizis et al., 2000). No L dwarfs later than L5 show H$`\alpha `$ in emission (Kirkpatrick et al., 2001), although one T dwarf does (Burgasser et al., 2000). Since the early L population consists of both young brown dwarfs and old stars, this trend could indicate an inability of either substellar objects or cool stars to produce magnetic fields appropriate to maintain the H$`\alpha `$ emission (Gizis et al., 2000).

Using kinematics as a probe for age, Gizis et al. (2000) have argued that the old stellar L-dwarf population is more likely to show H$`\alpha `$ emission than the younger, lower mass population. This might imply that the process by which H$`\alpha `$ emission is produced is driven by the mass of the object and not the effective temperature. Indeed, the dissipation of acoustic waves in the upper atmosphere could be responsible for the heating of the chromosphere. Unfortunately, this process is poorly characterized at the masses and effective temperatures of interest here.

In addition to H$`\alpha `$ emission, radio emission can also be a signature of a magnetic field. Berger et al. (2001) recently reported the detection of a radio flare as well as quiescent emission from the M-dwarf LP944-20. They infer that the radio emission is caused by synchrotron emission and estimate a field strength of $``$5 G, much less than the field strengths of active M dwarfs (Haisch, Strong, & Rodono, 1991). In addition the substellar nature, old age (Tinney, 1998), and rapid rotation (Tinney & Reid, 1998) all support the weak field strength; many L dwarfs with spectroscopically determined rotation velocities are rotating quite rapidly and lack significant H$`\alpha `$ emission (Hawley et al., 2000), suggesting that the magnetic fields of these presumably old objects are too weak to slow down the rotation.

The existence of a magnetic field in LP944-20 is also supported by the observation of an X-ray flare (Rutledge et al., 2000). An X-ray flare in an old, non-accreting object such as this can only be caused by magnetic activity. However, the lack of quiescent X-ray emission suggests that the magnetic field is quite weak. Rutledge et al. postulate that because of the rapid rotation in this object, either the turbulent dynamo is being suppressed or the magnetic field is being configured into a more organized form. They also suggest that the lack of ionization in the cool photosphere prevents the magnetic field from coupling with the gas in the atmosphere, causing the field to dissipate.

Fleming, Giampapa, & Schmitt (2000) arrive at the same conclusion with their study of the X-ray flare of the M8 dwarf VB 10. They go so far as to estimate the ionization fraction in its atmosphere, by extrapolating the ionization fractions in the atmospheres of early dwarfs down to the effective temperature of VB 10. They estimate that the ionization fraction in late M dwarfs is 2 orders of magnitude lower than in early M dwarfs and 3 orders of magnitude smaller than in the sun, and conclude that that magnetic footprints (i.e. spots) are unlikely to exist in the photosphere. By way of comparison, the cooler M9 dwarf LP944-20 is even less likely to have magnetic spots than VB 10, supporting the conclusion by Tinney & Tolley (1999) that they were detecting the signature of clouds. This, in turn, implies that magnetically produced spots are unlikely to be formed in L dwarfs and the variations seen by Bailer-Jones & Mundt (2001) and Gelino et al. (in preparation) are caused by clouds.

In this Letter we further explore the possibility that the magnetic field and atmospheric gas in L dwarfs are not coupled. We improve on the estimations of Fleming et al. (2000) by utilizing models of the abundances of ions and neutrals appropriate for L-dwarf atmospheres.

## 2 Magnetic Spots

Magnetic spots in the sun (i.e. sunspots) are thought to form as magnetic flux tubes rise to the photosphere (Parker, 1955). For magnetic buoyancy to be important, the plasma must be a sufficiently good conductor. This criterion is most likely not satisfied in cool L-dwarf atmospheres, especially in the low pressure regions where the temperatures are also low. In these regions the free electron abundance is extremely small ($`<0.1`$ cm-3 above 1 bar for a 2000 K model), therefore, the regions do not make good conductors. Consequently, it would seem that this condition alone prevents the formation of any magnetic spots.

To estimate the strength of coupling between the gas and the magnetic field we compute the magnetic Reynolds number $`R_m`$ for L-dwarf atmospheres. $`R_m`$ is a dimensionless parameter describing how efficiently a gas interacts with a magnetic field; $`R_m=lv/\eta `$ (Priest, 1982), where $`l`$ is a length scale, $`v`$ is a velocity scale, and $`\eta `$ is the magnetic diffusivity of the gas. When $`R_m`$ 1, the magnetic field slips through the gas with no interaction; for $`R_m`$ 1, the magnetic field is frozen in the gas.

To compute $`R_m`$ we rely on atmosphere models computed by Marley et al. (2001) for cloudy L dwarfs. The models employ the cloud model of Ackerman & Marley (2001) with the cloud parameter $`f_{\mathrm{rain}}=5`$. The L-dwarf $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ range is still uncertain, but likely lies between about 2200 and 1300 K. We consider models with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of 2000 to 1200 K and surface gravity of $`10^5`$ cm s-2, appropriate for a $`35`$ Jupiter mass brown dwarf.

The appropriate length scale $`l`$ to use in the calculation of $`R_m`$ is not obvious. In the area around sunspots, $`l`$ is usually taken as the size of the sunspot, a small fraction of the solar radius. We choose to set $`l=H`$, the pressure scale height. Typical values of $`H`$ are around 106 cm at the 1 bar level. For the velocity scale we use the convective velocity of the atmosphere, $`w_{}`$, as computed in Ackerman & Marley (2001) and references therein. Ackerman & Marley limit the size of $`w_{}`$ above the radiative-convective boundary. To compute an upper limit to $`R_m`$ we compute $`w_{}`$ assuming that the entire thermal flux of the brown dwarf is carried by convection throughout the atmosphere. Typical convective velocities are computed to be 103-104 cm s-1.

The value for $`\eta `$ is computed from Priest (1982); $`\eta =5.2\times 10^9\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }T^{3/2}A\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, where $`A1+5.2\times 10^{11}(n_n/n_e)(T^2/\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is a factor to account for the partial ionization of the plasma, $`T`$ is temperature, $`n_n`$ is the number density of neutral atoms and molecules, $`n_e`$ is the number density of electrons, and $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Coulomb logarithm. We use the abundance tables of Lodders (1999) to calculate $`n_e`$ and $`n_n`$. The appropriate value of the Coulomb logarithm, however, is not known for an L-dwarf atmosphere. Table 2.1 from Priest (1982) gives the value of $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for temperatures and densities relevant for the sun. Unfortunately, this table provides no entries at the densities and temperatures needed for the extrapolation to the parameters of an L-dwarf atmosphere since $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes small ($`5`$). However, Chen (1974) comments that it is sufficient to use $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=10 regardless of the specific plasma parameters. This is well supported from the data in the table in Priest since $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ only varies from $`525`$ over 15 orders of magnitude in density and 3 orders of magnitude in temperature. We use a value of 5 for our calculations, but test the sensitivity of $`R_m`$ on our somewhat arbitrarily chosen value by computing $`R_m`$ with $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at the unrealistic values of 1 and 100. We find that $`R_m`$ computed at these limits differs by $`<10^4\%`$ for our coolest model and $`<1\%`$ for our warmest model and stress that for the region of parameter space covered by our calculation the precise value of $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is essentially irrelevant.

The value of $`R_m`$ as a function of pressure in the model atmospheres is shown in Figure 1. $`R_m`$ is very small throughout the entire upper atmosphere; only at pressures of $`100\mathrm{bar}`$ and higher does $`R_m`$ start to approach 1. By comparison, $`R_m`$ near sunspots is estimated to be 104-106 (Priest, 1982). Open circles denote the approximate base of the photosphere (where $`T=T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) for the models shown. Note that in contrast to the sun, $`R_m`$ only approaches unity well below the photosphere. At $`R_m`$=1, the plasma and the magnetic field will interact with each other only to a small degree. Any weak magnetic disturbances deep in these atmosphere are unlikely to affect the surface thermal flux since the winds and weather patterns alluded to earlier will redistribute the upwelling thermal flux before it is radiated. Thus, throughout the atmospheres of L dwarfs, spanning the range from roughly L2 to L8 (Kirkpatrick et al., 1999, 2000) we expect little or no interaction between the atmosphere and the magnetic field.

## 3 Clouds

The thermal fluxes emerging from L-dwarf atmospheres are affected by clouds. Early L dwarfs have relatively thin clouds high in the atmosphere (Ackerman & Marley, 2001). Figure 1 illustrates the trend for the clouds to form progressively deeper in the atmosphere at later spectral types. Again the base of the photosphere is marked for the models shown. Unlike the case for $`R_m`$, the clouds form in the immediate vicinity of the photosphere and thus are well placed to affect the emitted thermal flux. For objects with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}2000K`$ (approximately L2 and cooler; Stephens et al., 2001) clouds play an important role in the emitted flux since the condensate opacity is significant.

For an arbitrary L dwarf the emitted flux in some spectral regions will be limited by the cloud deck, while in others gaseous opacity reaches optical depth unity above the cloud. Marley et al. (2001) illustrate the effects of gaseous and condensate opacity for a variety of L dwarfs. If there is a transitory clearing in the cloud deck additional flux will emerge from those spectral regions in which the cloud opacity is otherwise dominant. Examples are the peaks of flux emerging from the water band windows in z, J, H, and $`K`$ bands and the optical flux in $`I`$ band. The resulting bright spots on the objects will be similar to the ‘5-$`\mu `$m hot spots’ of Jupiter (Westphal, Matthews, & Terrile, 1974) where flux emerges from holes in the ammonia cloud. An atmosphere with such non-uniformly distributed high contrast regions is quite capable of producing photometric variations.

As cloud optical thickness increases with later spectral type, L-dwarf $`JK_s`$ color becomes redder, eventually saturating around 2 (Marley, 2000; Allard et al., 2001; Ackerman & Marley, 2001; Marley et al., 2001; Tsuji, 2001). Clouds in cooler objects lie well below the photosphere, and leave the radiating region in the atmosphere relatively clear. The clear atmosphere partially manifests itself in the blue $`JK_s`$ seen in the T dwarfs (Allard et al., 1996; Marley et al., 1996; Tsuji et al., 1996).

These trends suggest that infrared colors of variable objects may support the cloud model for variability. The $`JK_s`$ color of those objects which have been surveyed for variability is shown in Figure 2. Although subject to small number statistics, suspected variables with spectral types later than L2 tend to be bluer than the average L dwarf (Kirkpatrick et al., 2000) at the same spectral type. Models predict (Marley, 2000; Marley et al., 2001) that a hypothetical L dwarf with no clouds will be substantially bluer ($`1.5`$ mag; Marley & Ackerman, 2001) at $`JK_s`$ than a more realistic object with the same effective temperature and a cloudy atmosphere. Thus, if the average L dwarf at a given spectral type is entirely covered with clouds, it would not likely be seen as a variable and it would have more typical $`JK_s`$ color. In order for photometric variations to arise by the cloud mechanism there must be non-uniformity in the cloud coverage, such as clearings in the clouds. So, not only would clear sections of the atmosphere (holes) provide a source for brightness variations, flux emerging through the hypothetical holes would cause the $`JK_s`$ color to be somewhat bluer than the average object. The lack of a similar trend for the early L and late M dwarfs might indicate a different mechanism is at work in those atmospheres. Clearly more data, including time resolved multi-color photometry, are required to determine if variability is indeed connected to color.

Schubert & Zhang (2000) show that the atmosphere of L dwarfs can exist in one of two states, chaotic or banded. Since clouds respond to atmospheric motions, they would presumably reflect one of these two morphologies. In general, higher mass objects will have more chaotic and three-dimensional internal dynamics than lower mass objects, meaning that the higher mass objects are less likely to have banded cloud features. It is not obvious which cloud morphology would better produce photometric variations. For example, objects with more chaotic atmospheres might be more likely to have uniformly distributed clouds. When rotating such objects might show little photometric variation. If the chaotic atmospheres result in fairly complete cloud coverage, then we might expect that more massive L dwarfs would be redder in $`JK_s`$ and tend not to be variable. Conversely, if chaotic atmospheres more often produce large holes in the clouds they may more easily produce photometric signatures than banded atmospheres. In this scenario, the more massive L dwarfs would be bluer in $`JK_s`$ and tend to be variable. Furthermore, rapidly evolving, chaotic atmospheres may be responsible for the changes in photometric period observed for some objects. It is easy to imagine similar scenarios for banded clouds.

The presence of clouds can also explain the different types of variability seen in L dwarfs. For example, periodic variations over time scales of days can be explained by a long-lived clearing or thickening in the clouds. Rotation modulation of the photometric signal will then produce a periodic signal. The inhomogeneities could migrate latitudinally or dissipate and reform at a different latitude as does the Great Dark Spot in the atmosphere of Neptune (Hammel & Lockwood, 1997). If wind speed is a function of latitude as on all the giant planets of our solar system, then spots at different latitudes will circle the object with different periods. Observations taken several months apart will show periodic variations with different periods as is reported for the L-dwarf 2MASS 1145+23. Finally, L dwarfs whose clouds change on time scales of a few days or less or whose cloudy spots are distributed at several latitudes with different wind speeds could still produce a photometric signal, but the signal might not be periodic. Clearly, more observations and modeling are required to better characterize atmospheric circulation and weather in L-dwarf atmospheres.

## 4 Conclusions

There is little doubt that some L dwarfs are photometrically variable. Although most authors suggest that the variations are caused by clouds, the possibility of magnetic spots is often mentioned (e.g. Bailer-Jones & Mundt, 1999, 2001; Martín et al., 2001). We have shown that the low ionization fraction predicted by L-dwarf models and the accompanyingly low magnetic Reynolds numbers strongly argue against spots as a possible cause for the photometric variations. On the other hand silicate and iron grains condense in L-dwarf atmospheres within the photosphere. These clouds are likely responsible for the photometric variations discovered in the various studies, particularly for the later L dwarfs (about L2 and later). Since the thermal emission of T dwarfs is also influenced by clouds (Marley et al. 2001) we predict that variability will also be found in the opacity window regions of these objects. Further work with models and more observations are clearly needed to better understand cloud composition and dynamics.

The authors wish to thank Jason Peterson for his help with Figure 1. C.G. and M.M. acknowledge support from NASA grants NAG2-6007 and NAG5-8919 and NSF grants AST-9624878 and AST-0086288. Work by K.L. supported by NSF grant AST-0086487.


text:
# Spatial mapping of the electron eigenfunctions in InAs self-assembled quantum dots by magnetotunneling

## I  Introduction

Quantum dots (QDs) are characterised by relatively small number of electrons confined within an island with a nanometer dimension. They can confine the motion of an electron in all three spatial dimensions . The strong confinement in the QD gives rise to a set of discrete and narrow electronic energy levels similar to those in atomic physics. The epitaxial growth of lattice mismatched $`InAs`$ on $`GaAs`$ or $`AlAs`$ opens new possibilities for the simple fabrication of semiconductor nanostructures. $`InAs`$ QDs are formed in situ during growth due to the relaxation of a strained $`InAs`$ wetting layer on $`GaAs`$ or $`AlAs`$ . The particular interest lies in their uniformity and small size: a lateral dimension $`1020nm`$ and height $`34`$ nm. Several theoretical approaches have been used to calculate the eigenstates of $`InAs`$ QDs . The results of the calculation depend strongly on the assumed shape and composition of the QDs. Experimentally, the quantized energy levels of a given potential can be probed using various spectroscopic techniques. The corresponding wave functions are much more difficult to measure. Information about the extent of the carrier wavefunction for the ground state of a QD was obtained from tunneling measurements in a magnetic field . Also, the anisotropy of electronic wave function in self-aligned $`InAs`$ QDs was deduced from magnetic-field-dependent photoluminescence spectroscopy . However, until recently there have been no reported measurements of the detailed spatial form of the wavefunctions of the ground and excited states of the QD. Recently, it has been demonstrated that magnetotunneling spectroscopy can be employed as nonivasive probe to produce images of the probability density of the electron confined in a QD . In this work, we use magnetotunneling spectroscopy (MTS) to investigate in detail of the spatial form of the wave function of the electron states of a double-barrier resonant tunnelling diode with $`InAs`$ QDs embedded in the centre of a $`GaAs`$ quantum well. We measure the dependence of the resonant tunnelling current through the QD states as a function of magnetic field, B, applied perpendicular to the tunnelling direction. This allows us to map out the full spatial form of the probability density of the ground and excited states of the QDs. The electron wavefunctions have a biaxial symmetry in the growth plane, with axes corresponding quite closely (within measurement error of 15o) to the main crystallographic directions $`X[01\overline{1}]`$ and $`Y[\overline{2}33]`$ for (311)B substrate orientation. For a similar $`InAs`$ QD structure grown on a (100)-substrate we also obtained characteristic probability density maps of ground and exited states.

## II Experimental details

The $`InAs`$ QDs are embedded in a $`nin`$, resonant tunnelling diode. The samples were grown by molecular beam epitaxy on a $`GaAs`$ substrate with the orientations (100) and (311)B. A layer of $`InAs`$ QDs, nominally $`2.3`$ monolayer thick, was placed in the centre of a $`9.6nm`$ wide $`GaAs`$ quantum well (QW) with $`8.3nm`$ $`Al_{0.4}Ga_{0.6}As`$ confining barriers, sandwiched between two nominally-undoped $`50nm`$ $`GaAs`$ spacer layers. The intrinsic region is surrounded by graded n-type contact layers, with the doping concentration increasing from $`2\times 10^{17}cm^3`$ to $`3\times 10^{18}cm^3`$. The layers were grown at 600o C, and there was a growth interrupt before the QDs were grown at 480 oC. For comparison, we also studied two control samples grown with the same sequence of layers, except one has only a thin $`InAs`$ two-dimensional wetting layer (i.e. containing no QDs) and the other has no $`InAs`$ layer at all. The samples were processed into circular mesa structures of diameters between $`50\mu m`$ and $`200\mu m`$, with ohmic contacts to the doped regions.

## III Results and discussion

Figure 1 shows a schematic energy band diagram for our device under bias voltage. X and Y define the two main crystallographic axis in the plane perpendicular to growth direction, Z (see inset). The layer of $`InAs`$ QDs introduces a set of discrete electronic states below the $`GaAs`$ conduction band edge. At zero bias voltage, equilibrium is established by electrons diffusing from the doped $`GaAs`$ layers and filling some dot states. The resulting negative charge in the QW produces depletion layers in the regions beyond the (AlGa)As barriers. By applying a bias voltage to the emitter layer, V, the QD energy level is shifted in energy with respect to both contacts. When a particular dot state is resonant with an adjacent filled state in the biased electron emitter layer, electrons tunnel through the dot into the collector and a current flows as shown schematically in Fig.1. Therefore, as we adjust the voltage we can study different energy states of the QDs. At sufficiently high voltages we are able to observe two separate resonances in the current related to confined subbands of the QW states.

Figure 2 shows a typical low-temperature ($`T=1.2K`$) $`I(V)`$ curve. The device contains $`InAs`$ QDs grown on a (311)B-oriented $`GaAs`$ substrate. Similar were obtained for QDs grown on a (100)-substrate. We observe a series of resonant peaks corresponding to carrier tunnelling into the dot states. Pronounced current features appear at biases as low bias as 55 mV. They are superimposed on a rising background current and cannot be resolved for $`V>200mV`$. These features are not observed in our control samples which do not contain QDs and are thereforewe can ascribe them to the $`InAs`$ QD layer. Despite the large number of quantum dots in our sample ($`10^610^7`$ for a $`100\mu m`$ diameter mesa), we observed only a small number of resonant peaks over the bias range ($`200mV`$) close to the threshold for current flow. This behaviour has been reported in earlier studies  and, although not fully understood, is probably related to the limited number of conducting channels in the emitter that can transmit electrons from the doping layer to the quantum dots at low bias. There is no reason to believe that the dots studied are atypical of the distribution as a whole. On increasing the temperature to $`4.2K`$, the main peaks are still prominent, but much weaker features, which may be related to density-of-state fluctuation in the emitter , are strongly suppressed. A key observation is that many peaks look similar so we cannot tell if the peaks are due to tunneling through the states of a single dot or several dots. In the following, we will concentrate on three voltage regions labelled (”A”), (”B”) and (”C”). We will focus on the magnetic field dependence of the QD resonances and on how this provides detailed information about the form of the wavefunction associated with an electron in the QD state.

Figure 3(a) shows the low-temperature ($`T=4.2K`$) $`I(V)`$ characteristics in the presence of a magnetic field, $`B`$. The direction of $`B`$ is perpendicular to the current flow and lies in the (X, Y) plane (see Fig 1). The axis $`[01\overline{1}]`$ and $`[\overline{2}33]`$ define the two main crystallographic axis in the plane perpendicular to growth direction . The amplitude of each resonance exhibits a strong dependence on the intensity of $`B`$. In particular, with increasing $`B`$, the low-voltage resonances ”A” decrease steadily in amplitude, whereas the others, ”B” and ”C”, have a non- monotonic magnetic field dependence. The Figure 3(b) and (c) show clearly two characteristic types of magnetic field dependence: type ”A” shows a maximum on G(B) at B = 0 T followed by a steady decay to zero at around $`8T`$; type ”B” shows a broad maximum at $``$ $`4.5T`$, followed by a gradual decay to zero.

Figure 4(a) shows the $`I(V)`$ characteristics in an in-plane magnetic field of $`4.5T`$. The first curve (circles) is for $`B[01\overline{1}]`$ ; the second curve (triangles) is for $`B[\overline{2}33]`$. We observe a clear anisotropy in the dependence of $`I(V)`$ on $`B`$ for the two field orientations. As can be clearly seen in Fig.4(a) peaks ”A” and ”B” in the $`I(V)`$ plot reveal a strong anisotropy of about $`\rho `$ 0.5. We have also determined angular dependence of the peaks. The results are plotted in Fig.4(b) for peaks ”A” and ”B”. Note that all peaks, observed over the bias range ($``$200 mV) have a maxima in current amplitude at orientation of a field $`B[01\overline{1}]`$ or $`B[\overline{2}33]`$. The main effect to be noted from Fig.4 is the dependence of the current as a function of the in-plane magnetic field orientation.

We can understand the magnetic field dependence of the features in terms of the effect of $`B`$ on a tunnelling electron. Let $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`Z`$ indicate, respectively, the direction of $`B`$, the direction normal to $`B`$ in the growth plane $`(X,Y)`$, and the normal to the tunnel barrier, respectively (see Figure 1 (b)). When an electron tunnels from the emitter into the dot, it acquires an additional in-plane momentum given by

$$k_\beta =\frac{eB\mathrm{\Delta }s}{\mathrm{}}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ is the effective distance tunnelled along $`Z`$. This effect can be understood semiclassically in terms of the increased momentum along $`\beta `$, which is acquired by the tunnelling electron due to the action of the Lorentz force. In terms of mapping out the spatial form of an electronic state, we can envisage the effect of this shift in as analogous to that of the displacement, in real space, of the atomic tip in a STM imaging measurement. The applied voltage allows us to tune resonantly to the energy of a particular QD state. Then, by measuring the variation of the tunnel current with $`B`$, we can determine the size of the matrix element that governs the quantum transition of an electron as it tunnels from a state in the emitter layer into a QD. In our experiment, the tunnelling matrix element is most conveniently expressed in terms of the Fourier transforms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,f}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ of the conventional real space wavefunctions . Here the subscripts $`i`$ and $`f`$ indicate the initial (emitter) and final (QD) states of the tunnel transition. Relative to the strong spatial confinement in the QD, the initial emitter state has only weak spatial confinement. Hence, in $`k`$-space corresponds to a sharply peaked function with a finite value only close to $`k`$ = 0. Since the tunnel current is given by the square of the matrix element involving $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\underset{¯}{k})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{QD}(\underset{¯}{k})`$, the narrow spread of $`k`$ for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\underset{¯}{k})`$ allows us to determine the form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{QD}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ by varying $`B`$ and hence $`k`$ according to (1). Thus by plotting $`G(B)`$ for a particular direction of $`B`$ we can measure the dependence of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{QD}(\underset{¯}{k})|^2`$ along the $`k`$-direction perpendicular to $`B`$. Then, by rotating $`B`$ in the plane (X, Y) and making a series of measurements of $`I(B)`$ with $`B`$ set at regular intervals ( $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ 5o) of the rotation angle $`\theta `$, we obtain a full spatial profile of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{QD}(k_X,k_Y)|^2`$. This represents the projection in $`k`$-space of the probability density of a given electronic state confined in the QD.

The model provides a simple explanation of the magnetic field dependence of the resonant current features ”A-C”. In particular, the forbidden nature of the tunnelling transition associated with ”B” at $`B=0T`$ is due to the odd parity of the final state wavefunction, which corresponds to the first excited state of a QD. The applied magnetic field (i.e. the Lorentz force) effectively breaks the mirror symmetry at $`B=0`$ and thus makes the transition allowed.

Figure 5 shows the spatial form of $`G(B)|\mathrm{\Phi }_{QD}(k_X,k_Y)|^2`$ , in the plane $`(k_X,k_Y)`$ for the two representative QD states corresponding to the labelled features in Fig.3(b) and (c). The $`k`$-values are estimated from relation (1), assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ has nominal value of $`30`$ nm which we estimate from capacitance measurements and from the doping profile and composition of the device. The contour plots reveal clearly the characteristic form of the probability density distribution of a ground state orbital and the characteristic lobes of the higher energy states of the QD. The electron wavefunctions have a biaxial symmetry in the growth plane, with axes corresponding quite closely (within measurement error of 15o) to the main crystallographic directions $`X[01\overline{1}]`$ and $`Y[\overline{2}33]`$ for (311) B-substrate orientation. For a similar $`InAs`$ QD structure grown on a (100)-substrate we also obtained characteristic probability density maps of ground and exited states.

To summarise, we have observed features in $`I(V)`$ corresponding to resonant tunnelling through a limited number of discrete states whose wavefunctions display the symmetry of the ground state and excited states of quantum dots. With the simple device configuration we have used, it is not possible to tell whether an excited state feature and a ground state feature correspond to the same quantum dot. This question could be resolved by new experiments on structures with electrostatic gates.

## IV Conclusion

In conclusion, we have shown how the magnetotunnelling spectroscopy provides a new means of probing the spatial form of the wavefunctions of electrons confined in quantum dots. The study revealed a biaxial symmetry of QD states in the growth plane. We observed the elliptical shape of the ground state and the characteristic lobes of the higher energy states.

## Acknowledgements

The work is partly supported by RFBR (00-02-17903), INTAS-RFBR(95-849) and EPSRC (UK). AL gratefully acknowledges the support of the FAPESP Foundation (Brazil). EEV gratefully acknowledge supports from the Royal Society. We are gratefully to V.A.Tulin and V.G. Lysenko for helpful discussions and V.V. Belov, A. Orlov and D.Yu. Ivanov for technical assistance.


text:
# Backward diode composed of a metallic and semiconducting nanotube

## Abstract

The conditions necessary for a nanotube junction connecting a metallic and semiconducting nanotube to rectify the current are theoretically investigated. A tight binding model is used for the analysis, which includes the Hartree-Fock approximation and the Green’s function method. It is found that the junction has a behavior similar to the backward diode if the gate electrode is located nearby and the Fermi level of the semiconducting tube is near the gap. Such a junction would be advantageous since the required length for the rectification could be reduced.

Carbon nanotubes (NTs) are promising components for nano-electronics because they can either be semiconducting (S) or metallic (M) . This has been explored in various experiments, for example, NT transistors , NT diodes , and NT junctions . The NT junctions made by a pentagon-heptagon defect pair can be classified into three types: MM, MS, and SS: M and S stand for a metallic NT and a semiconducting NT, respectively. It is remarkable that all the chemical bonds of NT junctions are essentially $`sp^2`$ orbitals of the carbon with no impurity , which favors a coherent electron flow through the junction. For MM-NT junctions, a scaling law of the electronic transport was found . On the other hand, MS-NT junctions are expected to cause the Schottky barrier which is important to rectify the current . In this work, we focus on MS-NT junctions connecting the (9,0) tube and the (8,0) tube shown in Fig.1. Though in real experiments, these junctions are sometimes bent , we investigate straight junctions because the difference does not alter the results qualitatively as was explained in Ref..

For NT devices, the gate electrode is quite important for controlling the transport properties, as was shown in an experiment where an AFM tip was used as the gate electrode . It was recently pointed out that the length of the NT junction needs to be larger than the nanoscale in order to rectify the current because of the large depletion width in the underdoped case . An important prospect is to understand whether or not the depletion width can be made narrower by approaching the gate closer to the NT junction. In this paper, we demonstrate that this could indeed be possible because the gate electrode screens the Coulomb interaction in the junction. The main purpose of this paper is to support the validity of this method.

The current flowing through MS-NT junctions can be quite sensitive to the details of the Schottky barrier caused by the Coulomb interaction. Though MS-NT junctions have been recently investigated theoretically , the Coulomb interaction was not considered in Ref. and the semi-classical model used in Ref. is not appropriate when the spatial range of the potential variation is short. For these reasons we have adopted a tight binding model with $`\pi `$ orbitals and the Hartree-Fock approximation . The corresponding Hamiltonian $`H`$ is represented with the density matrix $`\rho _{i,j}`$ by

$$H_{i,j}=t_{i,j}\frac{1}{2}U(|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j|)\rho _{i,j}+\delta _{i,j}\underset{k}{}U(|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_k|)(\rho _{k,k}1),$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}_j`$ is the position of the carbon atom $`j`$ which can be determined approximately by the condition that all bonds must essentially have the same length. This is justified since the detailed atomic structure do not modify significantly the electronic structure . The first term in Eq. (1) has a nonzero constant value $`t<0`$ when $`i`$ and $`j`$ are nearest neighbors and is zero otherwise. The second and third term are the exchange and Hartree term, respectively. The Coulomb interaction $`U(r)`$ is assumed to be $`U(r)=t/\sqrt{1+4(r/a)^2}`$ where $`a`$ is the bond length.

The Green’s function method is used for calculating the transmission rate . The system is divided into three regions: the region near the defects ($`C`$), the (8,0) tube far from the defects ($`S`$), and the (9,0) tube far from the defects ($`M`$). The corresponding Hamiltonian $`H`$ is written as $`H=H_C+H_S+H_M+\stackrel{~}{t}_S+\stackrel{~}{t}_M`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{t}_p`$ ( $`p=S`$ or $`M`$) represents the off-diagonal elements between the $`C`$ region and the $`p`$ region. For each region $`p`$, the matrix element $`(H_p+\stackrel{~}{t}_p)_{i,j}`$ is written as $`\tau _p`$ when $`i`$ and $`j`$ are nearest neighbors, $`ϵ_p`$ when $`i=j`$, and zero otherwise. For each iteration step, the parameter $`ϵ_p`$ and $`\tau _p`$ are determined by the condition that the near and far region are connected smoothly, i.e. $`ϵ_p`$ and $`\tau _p`$ are taken to be the same as the corresponding averaged value of $`(H_C)_{i,j}`$ with the atom $`j`$ directly connected to the region $`p`$. The retarded Green’s function $`G(E)=(E+i\delta H)^1`$ can then be represented by

$$G_{k,l}=(EH_C\mathrm{\Lambda }_S\mathrm{\Lambda }_M)_{k,l}^1,$$
(2)
where $`k`$ and $`l`$ belong to the region $`C`$. The effect of the region $`S`$ and $`M`$ are included in the ‘self energies’, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p\stackrel{~}{t}_p(E+i\delta H_p)^1\stackrel{~}{t}_p`$. From Eq.(2), the density matrix $`\rho `$ in the region $`C`$ can be calculated as

$$\rho =\frac{1}{\pi }_{E_{F1}}^{E_{F2}}G\mathrm{\Gamma }_2G^{}𝑑E+\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{E_{F1}}G(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)G^{}𝑑E.$$
(3)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_pi(\mathrm{\Lambda }_p\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^{})`$, $`E_{F1}\mathrm{min}(E_{FM},E_{FS})`$ and $`E_{F2}\mathrm{max}(E_{FM},E_{FS})`$. Thus, $`H`$ and $`\rho `$ can be calculated self-consistently with Eqs.(1), (2), and (3). It is worth noting that the integrand of the second term in Eq.(3) equals the DOS because $`G(\mathrm{\Gamma }_S+\mathrm{\Gamma }_M)G^{}=i(GG^{})`$ .

Although the electron density $`\rho _{i,i}`$ in Eq.(3) is only defined for the region $`C`$, the Hartree terms caused by the charges outside this region should be included in $`H_C`$. This can be done by repeating periodically that NT unit cell in the region $`C`$ which is nearest to the far region. Furthermore the electrostatic potential caused by the gate electrode can be obtained by the image charge method. Here we can choose the electrostatic potential to be zero at the gate surface without loss of generality because the difference, not the absolute value, of the electrostatic potential is relevant quantity. Note that the nanotubes are not neutral by themselves, but the total system including the image charge is neutral. In our model, the gate is planar and parallel to the tube axis. Its distance from the tube axis is chosen to be three times the radius of the (9,0) tube. This is much smaller than the gate separation in Ref.. At this distance, we have verified that the orientation of the defects does not change our main results. In the following, the defects are assumed to face the gate (see Fig.1).

When self-consistency has been achieved, the current $`I`$ is calculated by

$$I=(2e/h)_{E_{FM}}^{E_{FS}}\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_SG\mathrm{\Gamma }_MG^{}]𝑑E.$$
(4)
The integrand of Eq.(4) equals the total transmission rate $`T(E)_{i,j}T_{i,j}(E)`$ where $`T_{i,j}`$ is the transmission rate from the $`i`$th channel to the $`j`$th channel. In the energy range considered here, both tubes have two channels except for the gap region of the (8,0) tube. Note that $`T(E)`$ may be larger than one, though $`T_{i,j}1`$.

The electron potential at each atom site is shown by circles in Fig.2. The Fermi levels $`(E_{FM},E_{FS})`$ shown by straight broken lines are $`(0.230t,0.344t)`$, $`(0.480t,0.344t)`$, $`(0.370t,0.480t)`$ and $`(0.600t,0.480t)`$ in (a), (b), (c) and (d), respectively. These four situations are referred to(a),(b),(c) and (d), hereafter. The horizontal axis is the position along the tube axis and its range is as same as the length of the region $`C`$. In Fig.2, the local gap energy region (hatched area) and the valence band edge (thin curved broken line) in the (8,0) tube are determined by the averaged electron potential and the gap width of $`H_S`$. The Fermi levels correspond to hole doping which is not due to dopant atoms, but caused by the source, drain and gate electrodes. The regions occupied by the electrons are shown by gray area. Though the energy range between $`E_{FS}`$ and $`E_{FM}`$ is $`partially`$ occupied (this corresponds to the first term of Eq.(3)), it is not shown in Fig.2 explicitly. One may notice that several circles show a sharp increase or rapid drop near the interface in Fig.2. These abrupt changes are caused by an excess of the electron on the pentagon and a deficiency on the heptagon .

The origin of the band bending seen in Fig.2 (b) and (d) is explained qualitatively with the ‘shifted Fermi level’, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{Fp}E_{Fp}ϵ_p`$, as follows. Using the energy integral of the DOS, the hole density in the far regions can be approximated by $`\rho _M^hC_M|\stackrel{~}{E}_{FM}|`$ and $`\rho _S^hC_S\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{E}_{FS}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$ with the half gap width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Here $`C_MC_S`$ because the two tubes have similar radii. Then approximate values of the ratio $`\rho _S^h/\rho _M^h`$ are 0.32 and 0.44 for Fig.2(b) and (d), respectively, so $`\rho _S^h<\rho _M^h`$ in the both situations. The charge distribution connecting $`\rho _M^h`$ to $`\rho _S^h`$ causes the electron potential to decrease toward the metallic tube, and is responsible for the band bending. Comparing Fig.2(b) and (d), one can see that both the height and the width of the barrier decrease as the hole density $`\rho _S^h`$ increases. Qualitatively, this relation is similar to that found in Ref..

The inset of Fig.3 shows the dependence of the current $`I`$ on the bias voltage $`V_{sd}(E_{FM}E_{FS})/|e|`$. The six open triangles and the five closed circles represent the data when $`E_{FS}=0.344t`$ and $`E_{FS}=0.480t`$, respectively. The data corresponding to Fig.2 are indicated by the arrows. The horizontal separation of the triangles or the circles is not regular because each Fermi level $`E_{Fp}`$ was calculated with a fixed shifted Fermi level $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{Fp}`$. This was done since the constant $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{Fp}`$ keeps the $`\rho _p^h`$ unchanged in the iteration so that it is advantageous to achieve self-consistency.

The open triangles in the inset of Fig.3 indicate that the current with constant $`E_{FS}=0.344t`$ is rectified, i.e. the resistance is much higher when $`V_{sd}<0`$ than when $`V_{sd}>0`$. For example, $`V_{sd}/I`$ 32 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for the case (b) and $`V_{sd}/I`$ 1300 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for the case (a). A positive $`V_{sd}`$, however, corresponds to a reverse bias for the thermo-electron current in conventional MS junctions, i.e. the barrier becomes higher as $`V_{sd}`$ increases as can be seen in Fig.2. The mechanism of this reversed rectification is similar to that of the backward diode , which can be understood by examining the total transmission rate $`T(E)`$ as a function of the energy (Fig.3). Since the necessary energy range to calculate $`I`$ with Eq.(4) is between $`E_{FM}`$ and $`E_{FS}`$, lines in Fig.3 are limited to this range. $`T(E)`$ in the case (b) is considerably larger for the whole bias window because the spatial thickness of the barrier is reduced due to the proximity of the gate (see Fig.2 (b)). This leads to a large current for positive $`V_{sd}`$. If the barrier had been much thicker as in Ref., the current would have been close to zero. On the other hand, $`T(E)`$ in the case (a) becomes zero for most of the bias window since the energy gap of the (8,0) tube blocks the current as can be seen in Fig.2 (a). This example makes it clear that the necessary condition for keeping the current small when $`V_{sd}`$ is negative is to fix $`E_{FS}`$ near the energy gap. Since $`E_{FS}=0.344t`$ is closer to the energy gap than $`E_{FS}=0.480t`$, the triangles show much smaller current than the circles in the inset when $`V_{sd}<0`$. This means that a better rectification has been achieved in the former case. Here we should mention that $`(E_{FS}+E_{FM})/2`$ was fixed , i.e. $`E_{FS}`$ depends on $`V_{sd}`$, in each I-V curve in Ref.. This is not suitable for the rectification presented here.

In the present paper, we have to use a relatively smaller Coulomb interaction $`U(r)=t/\sqrt{1+4(r/a)^2}`$ than that estimated in other papers , since the long spatial range of $`U(r)`$ makes the convergence difficult. $`U(r)`$ is probably larger in the actual experiments than that used here, but it is expected that values of larger $`U(r)`$ favor our conclusion. In fact, it is well known that the screening length $`W`$ is determined by the relation $`W1/\sqrt{U(0)N_F}`$ where $`N_F`$ is the DOS at the Fermi level. Though this relation itself might not hold for MS-NT junctions, a decrease of $`W`$ with a simultaneous increase of $`U(0)`$ will hold and favor our conclusion.

In summary, we have calculated the I-V characteristics of a typical MS-NT junction. It is found that approaching the gate electrode to the junction and fixing $`E_{FS}`$ near the energy gap could be an effective method to overcome the problem of the large depletion length. The rectifying MS-NT junction discussed here is analogous to the backward diode. Though density functional calculations will ultimately be necessary, the results obtained here are worth testing in experiments.

The author wishes to thank Professor Masaru Tsukada for stimulating discussions. He also acknowledges Michel Gauthier for reading the manuscript and Shousuke Nakanishi for his technical support on the computer. This work was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Area “Fullerenes and Nanotubes” by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan.


text:
# The determination of the age of Globular Clusters: a statistical approach

## 1. Introduction

The age of Globular Clusters (GCs) has been recognized as being of key importance for deriving the age of the Universe. However, up to now, determining the reliable age of GCs has been proven rather difficult. This is not only because of errors introduced by the observations, but also because of rather subjective way in which the stellar evolutionary models have been selected in some conventional procedures like the isochrone fitting and the way in which observational data has been fit. In this work, we present a statistical approach for determining of the age of GCs that overcomes some of theses difficulties. Our method avoids the difficulty in selecting the stellar evolutionary model which best matches the observational data with the stellar model of the CMD. This is done by determining the likelihood using the Saha statistics or W (Saha 1998). The goodness of the fit of our method is estimated from the $`\chi ^2`$ statistics by Press et al. 1986. As an example, we apply the method to NGC 6397, M92 and M3, and give an estimate for the age of them with a confidence level of 99%.

## 2. Observational data and stellar evolutionary models

The observational data consist of V and I photometry of three GCs of the Galaxy: NGC 6397 (D’Antona 1999 & King 1999), M92 and M3 (JKT data by Rosenberg 1999). We removed all stars with excessive photometric errors (3 $`\sigma `$ in the colour) and we selected only stars out to a radius of r$`<`$140 for M92 and r$`<`$170 for M3. The number of stars in each sample is given in Tab. 1. We selected the models computed by Bertelli et al. 1994 and Girardi et al 1996 (Padova isochrones), tracks developed by Demarque et al (Yale isochrones) and a set of models by Cassini et al. (1998, 1999; Pisa isochrones). We chose them as they were published in the theoretical plane and we use the transformations computed by Bruzual & Charlot 2000 for convert them to the observational plane.

## 3. Results

The full details of the approach are presented in Rengel 2000. As an example, Fig. 1 shows the distribution of values of log W for a sample of 1187 stars in NGC 6397. The non-shaded regions represent the distribution of frequencies of log W obtained from 500 model-model comparisons, the shaded regions for 500 data-model comparisons. The estimation of the age is given for the age of the isochrone that corresponds to the minimal distance obtained between the Gaussian median fits to the model-model and data-model distributions (14.75 Gyrs). A summary of the results obtained for the best estimation of the age of the GCs for each of the models is given in Tab. 1.

### Acknowledgments.

We thank to A. Rosenberg, I. King and F. D’Antona for providing us the data & to G. Magris and X. Hernandez for the discussions.

## References

Bertelli, G. et al. 1994, $`\mathrm{A}\&\mathrm{AS}`$ 106, 275

Bruzual, G. 2000, private communication

Cassisi S. et al. 1998, $`\mathrm{A}\&\mathrm{AS}`$ 129, 267

Cassisi S. et al. 1999, $`\mathrm{A}\&\mathrm{AS}`$ 134, 103

D’Antona, F. 1999, private communication

Demarque, P. et al. 1996. http://www.astro.yale.edu/demarque/astronomy.html

Girardi, L. et al. 1996, $`\mathrm{A}\&\mathrm{AS}`$ 117, 113

King, I. 1999, private communication

Press, W. et al. 1986, ”Numerical Recipes in Fortran”. CU press

Rengel, M. 2000, Magister Scientiae Thesis. Univ. de Los Andes. Venezuela

Rosenberg, A. 1999, private communication

Saha, P. 1998, AJ 115, 1206