text:
# References

Implications of a light radion on the RG evolution of

higgs self coupling in the Randall-Sundrum model

Prasanta Das 111E-mail: pdas@iitk.ac.in  Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology,

Kanpur 208 016, India.

Uma Mahanta 222E-mail:mahanta@mri.ernet.in  Mehata Research Institute,

Chhatnag Road, Jhusi Allahabad-211019, India .

Abstarct

In this paper we determine how the beta funtion of the higgs self coupling $`\lambda `$ at one loop order is modified by a light stabilized radion in the Randall-Sundrum model. We then use the modified beta function to derive a lower bound on the radion vev $`\varphi `$, both for perturbative and non-perturbative values of $`\lambda `$ at the ultra violet cut off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The lower bound on $`\varphi `$ is obtained by demanding that the renormalized coupling $`\lambda (\mu )`$ at $`\mu `$ =100 GeV be consistent with the present experimental bound of 110 GeV on the higgs mass from LEP$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ searches. We also show that if $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is sufficiently small then an upper bound on $`\varphi `$ can be determined by requiring that $`\beta (\lambda )`$ be positive over the relevant momentum range.

Introduction

Recently several attractive proposals based on theories in extra dimensions have been put forward to explain the hierarchy problem. Among them the Randall-Sundrum model is particularly interesting because it considers a five dimensional world based on the following non-factorizable metric

$$ds^2=e^{2kr_c\theta }\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu r_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}d\theta ^2.$$
$`(1)`$
Here $`r_c`$ measures the size of the extra dimensions which is an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold. $`x^\mu `$ are the coordinates of the four dimensional space-time. $`\pi \theta \pi `$ is the coordinate of the extra dimension with $`\theta `$ and $`\theta `$ identified. k is a mass parameter of the order of the fundamental five dimensional Planck mass M. Two 3 branes are placed at the orbifold fixed points $`\theta =0`$ (hidden brane) and $`\theta =\pi `$ (visible brane). Randall and Sundrum showed that any field on the visible brane with a fundamental mass parameter $`m_0`$ gets an effective mass

$$m=m_0e^{kr_c\pi }$$

due to the exponential warp factor. Therefore for $`kr_c14`$ the electroweak scale is generated from the Planck scale by the warp factor.

In the Randall-Sundrum model $`r_c`$ is the vacuum expectation value (vev) of a massless scalar field T(x). The modulus was therefore not stabilized by some dynamics. In order to stabilize the modulus Goldberger and Wise introduced a scalar field $`\chi (x,\theta )`$ in the bulk with interaction potentials localised on the branes. This they showed could generate a potential for $`T(x)`$ and stabilize the modulus at the right value ($`kr_c14`$) needed for the hierarchy without any excessive fine tuning of the parameters.

In the Randall-Sundrum model the SM fields are assumed to be localized on the visible brane at $`\theta =\pi `$. However the SM action is modified due to the exponential warp factor. Small fluctuations of the modulus field from its vev gives rise to non-trivial couplings of the modulus field with the SM fields. In this report we shall derive the couplings of the radion to the higgs field up to quadratic order in $`\frac{\widehat{\varphi }}{\varphi }`$. Here $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ is a small fluctuation of the radion field from its vev and is given by $`\varphi =fe^{k\pi T(x)}=\varphi +\widehat{\varphi }`$. $`\varphi =fe^{k\pi r_c}`$ is the vev of $`\varphi `$ and f is a mass parameter of the order of M. We shall then detrmine the modification in the beta function for $`\lambda `$ to one loop due to a light stabilized radion. The phenomenological implications of the Randall-Sundrum model depends on two unknown parameters, the radion mass $`m_\varphi `$ and its vev $`\varphi `$. The requirement that the interbrane seperation in the Randall-Sundrum model be such so as to solve the hierarchy problem implies that $`\varphi `$ must be of the order of a TeV. Since the radion coupling to the SM fields is inversely proportional to $`\varphi `$ the phenomenology of the RS model is expected to depend quite sensitively on $`\varphi `$. In fact studies of radion phenomenology in the context of the RS model show that in order to be consistent with the collider data $`\varphi `$ must be of the order of v (higgs vev) or greater. In this paper we shall use the RG equation for $`\lambda `$ in the RS model to derive a lower bound on $`\varphi `$ for both perturbative and non-perturbative values of $`\lambda `$ at the cut off scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The lower bound on $`\varphi `$ will be derived by demanding that the renormalized coupling $`\lambda (\mu )`$ at $`\mu `$ 100 GeV should be consistent with the present experimental bound of 110 GeV on the higgs mass. We also show that if $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is sufficiently small then it is possible to derive an upper bound on $`\varphi `$ by requiring that $`\beta (\lambda (\mu ))`$ must be positive for all $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ .

Radion contribution to the RG equation for $`\lambda `$

The radion couplings to the higgs scalar is completely determined by general covariance. The action for the higgs scalar in the Randall-Sundrum model can be written as

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g_v}[g_v^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}_\mu h_\nu hV(h)].$$
$`(2)`$
where $`V(h)=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2h^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}h^4`$. h is a small fluctuation of the higgs field from its classical vacuum v. In abscence of graviton fluctuations we have

$$g_v^{\mu \nu }=e^{2k\pi T(x)}\eta ^{\mu \nu }=(\frac{\varphi }{f})^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }$$

$$\sqrt{g_v}=(\frac{\varphi }{f})^4$$

where

$$\varphi =fe^{k\pi T(x)}$$

Rescaling h and v as $`h\frac{f}{\varphi }h`$ and $`v\frac{f}{\varphi }v`$ we get

$$S=d^4x[(\frac{\varphi }{\varphi })^2\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu h_\nu h(\frac{\varphi }{\varphi })^4V(h)].$$
$`(3)`$
where

$$V(h)=\frac{\lambda }{4}(h^4+4h^3v+4h^2v^2).$$
$`(4)`$
The Feynman diagrams that give rise to the radion contribution to the renormalization of the four higgs vertex in the RS model are shown in Fig 1.

Figure. 1.  Feynman diagrams that give rise to the radion contribution to the vertex renormalization .

It is clear from these diagrams that to evaluate them we need the couplings of one and two radions to the higgs sector. Note first that the radion coupling to the kinetic energy term of the higgs boson will not contribute to the renormalization of the vertex associated with the operator $`h^4`$. The reason being such couplings will give rise to operators involving derivatives of higgs field. Second the radion couplings to the SM fields can be expressed as a power series expansion in $`\frac{1}{\varphi }`$. Hence naive dimensional analysis(NDA) can be used to estimate the ultraviolet (UV) cut off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Following the usual prescription of NDA we shall equate the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`4\pi \varphi `$. In general the the ratio $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\varphi }`$ is expected to lie between 1 and 4$`\pi `$. However the estimates presented in this paper will not change much as long as $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\varphi }`$ lies in this range. Further since perturbation theory is defined only about a stable minimum we shall expand both h and $`\varphi `$ about their respective vevs. Evaluating the vertex renormalization diagrams explicitly with a cut off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we find that the leading log terms of these diagrams are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=6\lambda \frac{288\lambda v^2}{16\pi ^2\varphi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}.$$
$`(5a)`$
.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=6\lambda \frac{144\lambda v^4}{16\pi ^2\varphi ^4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}.$$
$`(5b)`$
.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_3=6\lambda \frac{128\lambda v^2}{16\pi ^2\varphi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}.$$
$`(5c)`$
.

and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_4=6\lambda \frac{6}{16\pi ^2\varphi ^2}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\varphi ^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}].$$
$`(5d)`$
Here $`\mu `$ is the renormalization mass scale. In the SM model the wavefunction renormalization constant of the higgs boson $`Z_h`$ is equal to one at one loop order even after the higgs field is shifted by its vev. However the radion coupling to the KE term of the higgs boson gives rise to a non-trivial wavefunction renormalization of the higgs boson. Evaluating the radion mediated self energy diagram (Fig.2) of the higgs boson,

Figure. 2.  Radion mediated self-energy diagram of the higgs boson.

we find that $`Z_h=1+\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{7m_h^2m_\varphi ^2}{\varphi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}`$.

Using the above vertex and wavefunction renormalizations induced by a light radion it can be shown that the complete one loop beta function for $`\lambda `$ in the RS model is given by

$`\beta (\lambda )=\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{d\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}[9\lambda ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{402\lambda ^2v^2}{\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{144\lambda ^2v^4}{\varphi ^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7\lambda m_\varphi ^2}{\varphi ^2}}+\lambda (6g_y^2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g^2)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}[6g_y^4+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}(g^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g^2+g^2)^2)](6)`$
The purely SM contribution to $`\beta (\lambda )`$ can be obtained by letting the expansion parameter $`\varphi `$ approach infinity.

Lower bound on radion vev

For simplicity we shall first consider the higgs-radion system in isolation from the remaining fields. The beta function corresponding to this idealized situation can be obatined by setting $`g_y=g=g^{}=0`$. Such an approximation would be meaningful provided $`\lambda (\mu )`$ is much greater than the remaining couplings over the entire momentum interval of interest. Further for a light radion ( $`m_\varphi \varphi `$ ) we can drop the term proportioanl to $`m_\varphi ^2`$ from the expression of $`\beta (\lambda )`$. The beta function for $`\lambda `$ then contains only quadratic terms in $`\lambda `$. Solving the RG equation for $`\lambda `$ under the above approximation we get

$$\lambda (\mu )=\frac{\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })}{1+\frac{\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })}{8\pi ^2}(9+402\frac{v^2}{\varphi ^2}+144\frac{v^4}{\varphi ^4})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }}$$
$`(7)`$
In fig.3 we have plotted the renormalized coupling $`\lambda (\mu )`$ at $`\mu `$ =100 Gev against the radion vev $`\varphi `$ for $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })=`$ e under the quadratic approximation to $`\beta (\lambda )`$ .

Figure.3. Showing the variation of $`\lambda (\mu )`$ at $`\mu `$ = 100 GeV with $`\varphi `$ when only the $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ terms of $`\beta (\lambda )`$ are kept.

We find that for $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{}`$, in order that $`\lambda (\mu )`$ at $`\mu =100`$ GeV be greater than $`0.099`$ ( the value corresponding to the present experimental bound on $`m_h`$) the radion vev $`\varphi `$ must be greater than 378.2 GeV(solid curve). The lower bound on $`\varphi `$ does not change much from this value as long as the value of $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ remains non-perturbative i.e. $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })\sqrt{4\pi }`$. On the other hand if $`\lambda `$ lies in the perturbative regime e.g. if $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })=e`$ then in order that $`\lambda (\mu )`$ at $`\mu =100`$ GeV be consistent with the LEP II bound on the higgs mass, the radion vev $`\varphi `$ must be greater than 468.4 GeV (dotted curve). The above results were obtained by keeping only the $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ terms in the beta function for $`\lambda `$. If $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is much greater than the remaining couplings then clearly the evolution of $`\lambda (\mu )`$ towards low energies will be determined mainly by the $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ terms of $`\beta (\lambda )`$. However if $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is small then the $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ terms of $`\beta (\lambda )`$ become smaller than the $`O(\lambda )`$ and $`O(\lambda ^0)`$ terms and the above approximation breaks down. We have therefore considered the full expression for $`\beta (\lambda )`$ and determined the lower bound on $`\varphi `$ by demanding that $`\lambda `$ (100 GeV ) be consistent with the present experimental bound on $`m_h`$. By considering the full beta function for $`\lambda `$ and assuming for simplicity that $`g_y`$, $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ do not scale with $`\mu `$ it can be shown that the solution for $`\lambda (\mu )`$ is given by

$$\lambda (\mu )=\lambda _1+\frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2}{\frac{\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })\lambda _2}{\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })\lambda _1}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu })^{a(\lambda _1\lambda _2)}1}.$$
$`(8a)`$
where $`\lambda _1=\frac{b+\sqrt{(b^24ac)}}{2a}`$ and $`\lambda _2=\frac{b\sqrt{(b^24ac)}}{2a}`$

$$a=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}[9+402\frac{v^2}{\varphi ^2}+144\frac{v^4}{\varphi ^4}].$$
$`(8b)`$
$$b=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}[\frac{7m_\varphi ^2}{\varphi ^2}+(6g_y^2\frac{9}{2}g^2\frac{3}{2}g^2)].$$
$`(8c)`$
and

$$c=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}[6g_y^4+\frac{3}{16}(g^4+\frac{1}{2}(g^2+g^2)^2)].$$
$`(8d)`$
Figure.4. Showing the variation of $`\lambda (\mu )`$ at $`\mu `$ = 100 GeV with $`\varphi `$ using the full expression for $`\beta (\lambda )`$.

In Figure.4 we have plotted $`\lambda (\mu )`$ at $`\mu `$=100 GeV against different values of $`\varphi `$. The solid curve corresponds to the UV boundary condition $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{}`$ and the dotted curve to $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })=e`$. Both plots were obtained with the following values of $`g_y`$, $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$: $`g_y=\frac{\sqrt{2}m_t}{v}=1.001`$, $`g=\frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _w}=0.644`$ and $`g^{}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _w}=0.356`$. Further the radion mass $`m_\varphi `$ was assumed to be 50 Gev. From these two plots we find that $`\varphi `$ must be greater than about $`243GeV`$ so that $`\lambda (\mu )`$ at $`\mu =`$ 100 GeV is greater than 0.099($`0.1`$). This estimate of lower bound on $`\varphi `$ will not change much with $`m_\varphi `$ as long as the radion is light and $`m_\varphi `$ lies in the few tens of Gev range. We find that the lower bound on $`\varphi `$ obtained by using the complete expression for $`\beta (\lambda )`$ does not depend at all on the UV boundary condition. In fact fig. 4 shows that for $`\varphi `$ less than 250 Gev the renormalized value of $`\lambda (\mu )`$ at low energies is governed by the infrared properties of the theory and not the ultraviolet.

Upper bound on radion vev

From the full expression of $`\beta (\lambda )`$ it is clear that that if $`\lambda `$ is sufficiently small and $`\varphi `$ is large then $`\beta (\lambda )`$ can become negative due to the dominance of the $`g_y^4`$ term which is negative. Hence for sufficiently small values of $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ a reasonable upper bound on $`\varphi `$ can be obtained by demanding that $`\beta (\lambda (\mu ))`$ be positive for all $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This criterion will ensure that the RG evolution of $`\lambda (\mu )`$ from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ towards low energies exhibits infrared free behaviour. In particular $`\beta (\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ must be positive. At the crossover from infrared free behaviour to asymptotically free behaviour the beta function vanishes and we get

$$A(\lambda )x^2+B(\lambda )x+C(\lambda )=0.$$
$`(9a)`$
where

$$A(\lambda )=[9\lambda ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })(6g_y^2\frac{9}{2}g^2\frac{3}{2}g^2)6g_y^4+\frac{3}{16}(g^4+\frac{1}{2}(g^2+g^2)^2)].$$
$`(9b)`$
$$B(\lambda )=402\lambda ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })v^2+7\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })m_\varphi ^2.$$
$`(9c)`$
$$C(\lambda )=144\lambda ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })v^4.$$
$`(9d)`$
and $`x^2=\varphi ^2`$.

Since $`\varphi `$ is real, x must be positive. Using this condition it can be shown that the physical root of the above equation is $`x=\frac{B(\lambda )\sqrt{B^2(\lambda )4A(\lambda )C(\lambda )}}{2A(\lambda )}`$.

The upper bound on $`\varphi `$ for any given small value of $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be determined from the above root. For example for $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })e`$ we find that the radion vev must be greater than 806 Gev so that $`\beta (\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ is positive. In Figure 5 we have plotted the upper bound on $`\varphi `$ against $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. As expected the upper bound on $`\varphi `$ increases with increasing $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. For $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ slightly greater than 0.6 both roots become unphysical and no bound on $`\varphi `$ is obtained. The reason being once $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ becomes sufficiently large $`\beta (\lambda )`$ remains positive irrespective of the value of $`\varphi `$. Note that the upper bound on $`\varphi `$ rises very sharply in the vicinity of this region. In fact our estimate for the upper bound becomes somewhat unreliable here.


format: text

text:
# Charged Null Fluid Collapse in Anti-de Sitter Spacetimes and Naked Singularities

## Acknowledgment:

I would like to thank IUCAA, Pune (India) for kind hospitality while this work was being done.


text:
# Superconductivity Near Ferromagnetism in MgCNi3

## Abstract

An unusual quasi-two-dimensional heavy band mass van Hove singularity (vHs) lies very near the Fermi energy in MgCNi3, recently reported to superconduct at 8.5 K. This compound is strongly exchange enhanced and unstable to ferromagnetism upon hole doping with $``$12% Mg$``$Na or Li. The 1/4-depleted fcc (frustrated) Ni sublattice and lack of Fermi surface nesting argues against competing antiferromagnetic and charge density wave instabilities. We identify an essentially infinite mass along the M-$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ line, leading to quasi-two-dimensionality of this vHs may promote unconventional $`p`$-wave pairing that could coexist with superconductivity.

The discovery of $``$40 K superconductivity in MgB2  has spurred interest in searching for superconductivity in unlikely materials, and other discoveries are uncovering previously unanticipated relationships between FM and superconducting states. Of this latter category, there are now several examples, such as the magnetic organometallic (BETS)2FeCl4, where superconductivity is actually induced by a strong applied magnetic field rather than being destroyed by it, and the intermetallic UGe2, where superconductivity occurs in spite of strong ferromagnetism (FM) and coexists with it to the lowest temperatures, and is almost certainly triplet paired. The question of FM on the surface of the exotic superconducting oxide Sr2RuO4 is yet another aspect of the strong relationship between FM and superconductivity that is yet to be understood.

A new compound that would not be considered a likely candidate for superconductivity is MgCNi3, whose conduction electrons are primarily derived from Ni which is itself a FM, yet it superconducts at 8.5 K. This perovskite compound ($`a`$ = 3.812 Å) can be regarded as fcc Ni that is expanded by 8%, one quarter of the Ni replaced by Mg, then C atoms put into the octahedral sites. Partial replacement of Ni by Co or Cu reduces (or destroys) Tc, while other substitutions have not been reported. The Hall coefficient is hole-like but strongly dependent on temperature, unlike a conventional metal (Fermi liquid), while the measured critical field Hc2 has a conventional shape. Tunneling spectra show a strong zero bias anomaly that has been interpreted as evidence of strong coupling superconductivity of an unconventional type.

In this paper it is shown that this compound, in addition to being superconducting, is also an incipient FM, which can be driven to ferromagnetism by partial ($``$12%) replacement of Mg with a monovalent metal such as Li or Na. This close proximity of superconductivity to magnetism itself implies unconventional pairing, and our identification of a van Hove singularity (vHs) with quasi-two-dimensional (2D) character provides further support for unconventional pairing and possible coexistence of FM and superconductivity, two types of collective order that are usually antagonistic.

The perovskite structure itself is rather unusual for such an intermetallic compound, since perovskites much more commonly have a strongly negative ion (O2- or a negatively charged halide) on the site occupied by Ni in this compound. It is essential first to understand the character of the charge carriers, for which purpose we have carried out full potential, all-electron density functional based calculations. The resulting spectral distribution of the electronic states (for the experimental lattice constant $`a`$=3.812 Å) is shown in Fig. 1, and is indistinguishable from that presented by Singh and Mazin. The conducting states at the Fermi level are dominated by Ni $`d_{xz},d_{yz}`$ and also $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ character, in the local coordinate system in which the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis is directed toward the two neighboring C atoms. The remarkable feature of this compound is the sharp peak in the density of states (DOS) just 45 meV below the Fermi level. This peak results from a van Hove singularity (vHs) arising from a remarkably flat, primarily Ni $`3d`$ derived, band at and around the $`M=(1,1,0)\pi /a`$ point in the simple cubic Brillouin zone. Thus it is high mass Ni $`3d`$ holes that form the superconducting pairs, and Ni-Ni hopping is important for their transport.

To understand more clearly the origin of this peak, a fictitious material $`\mathrm{}^{2+}`$CNi3 was studied, i.e. Mg was removed but its two valence electrons were retained. While the C atom does have an appreciable effect on the bonding and the resulting density of states (not pictured), for practical purposes the Mg simply gives up its to valence electrons to the bands (formed mainly by Ni) and has almost no other effect, as can be seen in Fig. 1. We utilize this important point below. If there were 0.5 electron less per cell, EF would lie just at the peak in the DOS where N(E) is a factor of eight larger.

In addition to promoting superconductivity, a large value of N(EF) (equal to 2.4 states/eV-spin here) leads an exchange-enhanced magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$ that strongly opposes singlet superconductivity, or possibly even to a FM instability (where $`\chi \mathrm{}`$) which is incompatible with singlet superconductivity. This latter scenario applies to Sr2RuO4, which is a nearly FM superconductor (but only below 1.5 K) and is now understood to be a parallel-spin-paired (triplet) superconductor. Density functional calculations are very reliable in calculating this tendency toward magnetism, and indeed the instability to FM, particularly in intermetallic compounds such as MgCNi3. The enhanced (observed) susceptibility is given by

$$\chi =\frac{\chi _o}{1N(E_F)I}S\chi _o,$$
(1)
where $`\chi _o`$ = 2$`\mu _B^2`$N(EF) is the bare susceptibility obtained directly from the band structure and $`I`$ is the exchange interaction.

We have calculated $`I0.29\pm 0.01`$ eV in two ways. One, which demonstrates directly our main thesis that MgCNi3 is close to ferromagnetism, was a calculation for ordered Mg1/2Li1/2CNi3, which effectly simply removes 0.5 valence electron from the cell. This material is predicted to be FM, and the exchange splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ex}`$ between majority and minority bands (Fig. 2) gives $`I`$= 0.30 eV from the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ex}=Im`$ where $`m`$ is the FM moment in units of $`\mu _B`$. The other calculation of $`I`$ resulted from fixed spin moment calculations, in which the energy $`E(m)`$ is calculated subject to the moment being constrained to be $`m`$. The behavior at small $`m`$ is $`E(m)=(1/2)\chi ^1m^2`$ from which $`I`$ = 0.28 eV can be extracted from Eq. (1). Singh and Mazin  have obtained a similar value for the Stoner parameter. Thus $`S`$=3.3, and it is certainly unexpected for a conventional (singlet) superconducting state to survive so near a FM instability, especially when the superconducting carriers are heavy and are the same ones that will become magnetic.

To quantify how near this system is to being FM, we have carried out (i) a series of virtual crystal calculations for Mg1-δNaδCNi3 (justified by the results shown in Fig. 1) to find the concentration $`\delta _{cr}`$ of the FM critical point, and (ii) an extended Stoner analysis. The two results are consistent in predicting the onset of FM at $`\delta _{cr}0.12`$. The ordered magnetic moment $`m(\delta )`$ versus hole doping level is shown in the inset in Fig. 3, where it is evident that, in the absence of superconductivity, a moment grows as $`m(\delta )=𝒢(\delta \delta _{cr})^{1/2}`$ for small $`\delta \delta _{cr}`$ beyond the critical concentration. The behavior of $`m(\delta )`$ in the small $`m`$ limit can be obtained analytically from an expansion of the DOS $`\overline{N}(m)`$ averaged over the states within $`\pm m`$ of $`E_F`$:

$`\overline{N}(m,\delta )`$ $``$ $`\overline{N}(0,\delta _{cr})+{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{N}(0,\delta _{cr})}{d\delta }}(\delta \delta _{cr})`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\overline{N}(0,\delta _{cr})}{d^2m}}m^2=I^1`$
and using $`\overline{N}(0,\delta _{cr})=1/I`$ to obtain the square root law, with

$$𝒢=\left|2\frac{d\overline{N}(0,\delta _{cr})}{d\delta }/\frac{d^2\overline{N}(0,\delta _{cr})}{d^2m}\right|^{1/2}1.7\mu _B.$$
(4)
There are experimental indications from tunneling that the superconductivity in MgCNi3 may arise from triplet pairing. Our results show that hole doping with Na or Li will be an excellent way to probe this possibility. While it is unexpected that singlet superconductivity would occur at all in a Ni compound that is as strongly exchange enhanced as MgCNi3 is (the increasing enhancement that diverges as $`\delta \delta _{cr}`$ should kill singlet superconductivity very quickly), for triplet pairing the increasing magnetic correlations may provide the coupling (as recently argued for heavy fermion superconductors) and enhance Tc as $`\delta \delta _{cr}`$.

We now consider in more detail the electronic structure and its implications, especially in the critical region $`\delta 0.12`$. In this region EF is still 35 meV from the vHs, so (near) divergence of N($`\epsilon `$) per se is not a crucial consideration. However, FM, AFM, and pairing susceptibilities should be considered, and they will involve energy denominators $`\delta \epsilon =\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k},n}\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},m}`$, where $`n,m`$ label the three M points where the vHs occur. For $`n=m`$, $`\delta \epsilon `$ will be small for small $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, which relates to the FM instability we have considered above. Since there are vHs at three inequivalent M points, there will also be a potential AFM instability near a vector $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ that spans two inequivalent vHs. These values of $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ are in fact equal to M, so AFM tendencies are peaked at $`\stackrel{}{Q}=(1,1,0)\pi /a`$ and symmetrically related points.

The dominant instability is determined largely by phase space availability. The band giving the vHs is quite flat (to within 50 meV) in a roughly cubic region of side $`\pi /a`$ centered on each M point, which totals to 3/8 of the Brillouin zone volume. Band masses at the vHs are quite large: $`m^{}`$ 15 along $`MX`$, $`m^{}`$ -15 along $`MR`$. Along $`M\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, however, this band is constant to within 0.2 meV for a distance of $`\frac{1}{3}\frac{\pi }{a}`$, i.e. it has effectively an infinite effective mass along this line. The dispersion relation in the $`XM\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ plane is pictured in Fig. 4. Since the plane containing this dispersionless line is oriented differently for each M point, there is no pronounced nesting of the vHs. However, because of the lack of dispersion along one direction, the shape of the N(E) peak in Fig. 1 has the logarithmic divergence characteristic of 2D models. This vHs is remarkably insensitive to volume, being essentially unchanged relative to EF when the lattice constant is decreased by 5%, which makes pressure a relatively ineffective tool (except perhaps to tune the Curie temperature beyond the critical point).

The structure of the vHs suggests that the resulting physics could be a three dimensional generalization of the 2D vHs models. The strong exchange enhancement and the proximity to a FM instability is most consistent with triplet pairing, appropriate forms of which can coexist with FM as in UGe2, or with incipient FM as in Sr2RuO4. There are numerous possibilities of $`p`$ (or higher odd) symmetry for a cubic system, some of which have gaps but many of which have nodes and therefore are gapless. It typically requires high quality thermodynamic and spectroscopic data, which are not yet available, to determine the character of the order parameter.

The theoretical case for superconductivity arising from longitudinal magnetic fluctuations was laid out by Fay and Appel, who found that Tc should peak near $`\delta =\delta _{cr}`$ (on either side) but would vanish at the critical point. Machida and Ohmi emphasize that a non-unitary triplet state is most likely in a case that may apply to MgCNi3, since it intrinsically breaks time-reversal symmetry as does ferromagnetism. In such non-unitary phases, a magnetic field may enhance Tc.

The most intriguing possibility is that (triplet) superconductivity might coexist with ferromagnetism, as reported recently for UGe2. Mg1-δ(Na,Li)δCNi3 provides the new possibility, if indeed coexistence occurs due to triplet pairing, of studying the emergence of itinerant ferromagnetism (as $`\delta `$ crosses $`\delta _{cr}`$) within an existing superconducting phase. The phenomenological theory of coexistence in just such a case has been put forward recently, concluding that the heat capacity has a linear-in-T term that is strongly dependent on the magnetization. Solutions of the Eliashberg equations for a spin fluctuation system near the quantum critical point suggest that triplet superconductivity might not be as strongly favored near the critical point as might have been anticipated. Hole-doped MgCNi3 appears to be an excellent system to use as a probe of these fundamental questions.

The FM instability at $`\delta =\delta _{cr}`$ was demonstrated above. Can AFM ordering of the Ni atoms, such as is encouraged by inequivalent vHs in other systems, occur here? The Ni sublattice is a 1/4 depleted fcc lattice, but the periodic depletion does not alter the well known frustration of Néel order on the fcc lattice. Thus while short range AFM correlations may be strong, AFM ordering will be opposed by frustration.

To summarize, we have shown that the superconductor MgCNi3 is near a ferromagnetic instability that can be reached by hole doping on the Mg site. The effective carriers are Ni-derived holes of very high band mass (likely enhanced by dynamic spin fluctuations and phonons). The FM instability is related to an unusual quasi-2D heavy mass van Hove singularity less that 50 meV below EF. This quasi-2D character supports earlier suggestions that its superconductivity is unconventional in nature, and we suggest that hole-doping is an ideal way to probe the onset of ferromagnetism in the superconducting state.

W.E.P. and E.T. are grateful to R. Cava for conversations and for early communication of research results. This work was supported by the Italian MURST COFIN, by European Union TMR Contract ERBFMRXCT970155, by U. S. Office of Naval Research Grant N00017-97-1-0956, by National Science Foundation Grant DMR-9802076, and by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst. RW aknowkedges support from Fundación Antorchas Grant No 13661-27.


text:
# Thermal Limit Spectroscopy as a Goal for X-ray Astronomy

## 1. Introduction: the Near Future in X-ray Spectroscopy

The grating spectra from Chandra and XMM-Newton are a startling change from the non-dispersive spectra of the earlier era. At a resolution of $``$300– $``$1000 they clearly separate out many the emission lines in soft X-ray spectra for the first time, and allow the application of the physics based techniques of spectroscopy to X-ray astronomy, revolutionizing a vast range of research areas. Chandra and XMM-Newton spectra already show that ten years from now we will be in great need of higher resolution spectra.

The next generation of X-ray astronomy missions, ASTRO-E II, Con-X and XEUS, are all primarily spectroscopic, and share the goal of high signal-to-noise, trading better resolution for larger collecting area. All three missions primarily use calorimeters, which should reach $``$1-2 eV resolution by launch (Stahle, these proceedings), i.e. $`R`$500-1000 at 1 keV, similar to Chandra or XMM-Newton. The early Chandra HETG spectra in particular, show a great abundance of atomic features below about 1.5 keV, as expected from atomic physics and cosmic abundances, while only the Fe-K line is prominent above $``$3 keV. So 1 keV (12.54Å) makes a good reference point for resolution.

How much more resolution do we need? I propose “Thermal Limit Spectroscopy” as the next natural goal of X-ray spectroscopy (Elvis & Fabbiano 1997). The thermal width separates the temperature of the ions ($`T_{ion}`$, e.g. O5+) from the electron temperature ($`T_e`$); velocity widths, Doppler shifts, line profiles, and absorption lines in photoionized plasmas all then become accessible. A kT=1 keV plasma has thermal velocities of $``$100 km s-1, requiring a resolution of $`R`$=3000–10,000. The technology for reaching this regime is within reach.

## 2. A Major Step: Thermal Limit Spectroscopy

The goal of $`R`$1000 was driven by a happy combination of scientific goals (resolving the Helium-like triplets) and technological capability (good mirrors and gratings). The next natural goal for X-ray spectroscopy is thermal limit spectroscopy at $`R`$10,000, because the next level of physics, as optical and ultraviolet astronomy shows, comes from line profiles. This goal is not technologically absurd. The XMM-Newton RGS gratings would give $`R`$6500 if placed behind the $`\frac{1}{2}`$arcsec Chandra mirrors 111Albeit with a new mounting scheme. The present grating mounts were designed to work with the XMM-Newton mirrors, and so are not controlled to a level that would let their inherent resolution show. According to the RGS designers this is not a major engineering challenge. .

The typical temperature of an X-ray hot plasma emitting at 1 keV is $`T`$107K (i.e. $`kT`$=1 keV, naturally). For a thermal plasma in coronal equilibrium at $`T`$107K the typical mid-atomic number (Z) elements such as Oxygen have thermal velocities of $`v_{th}`$125 km s-1. (A proton has $`v_{th}`$500 km s-1, while an iron atom $`v_{th}`$75 km s-1.) A resolution of 3000 thus gives 1 pixel/line width, and a resolution of 10,000 gives a good oversampling of 3 pixels/line width 222The natural, uncertainty principle, line width $`\gamma =\mathrm{}A`$ (where $`A`$ is the Einstein A coefficient) , is almost always 0.001-0.1 eV, at most comparable with the thermal width in X-ray hot plasmas, since $`10^{12}<A<10^{14}`$ s-1. . Reaching this resolution brings qualitative improvements in the science we can extract from our data, improvements that are not at all restricted to thermal plasmas. I outline some of these below.

More, different lines. A factor of 2 more lines will be separated out of blends at $`R`$=10,000 vs. $`R`$=300 (Smith & Brickhouse 2000). More importantly a different type of line becomes resolved at $`R`$=10,000: dielectronic recombination lines. These are always close to the resonance lines and are always blended at $`R`$=1000, but can be resolved at $`R`$=10,000. The dielectronic recombination lines depend only on $`T_e`$ and ionization, so providing clear new diagnostics.

Thermal Plasma Physics. Normally we assume that cosmic thermal plasmas are equilibrated, i.e. that $`T_e`$ = $`T_{ion}`$. Often this is not a good assumption, e.g. any rapidly expanding plasma (solar wind, SNR, galaxy outflows). Testing ion temperatures with line widths 333 $`Z^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, c.f. constant width for turbulence  vs. $`T_e`$ is a basic measurement enabled by $`R`$10,000. For decades the heating mechanism of the solar corona has been a puzzle. SOHO UVCS has now shown that $`T_{ion}>T_e`$, ruling out Ohmic heating (for which $`T_{ion}<T_e`$), and suggesting initial Alfven heating of the ions (Cranmer 2000). Are all stellar coronae heated this way?

Photoionized Plasmas. Thermal plasmas cooler than $``$105K do not generally produce X-ray lines. Cool photoionized plasmas though can show X-ray transitions at all temperatures. Cool material commonly surrounds X-ray sources: X-ray binaries, HII regions and AGN are all rich in cool gas. Measuring these lines will tell us about the flows of this gas, and hence dynamics and mass loss rates, and can delimit the often unseen ionizing continuum. Radiatively driven winds, (e.g. P Cygni) are unstable and typically break up, producing many narrow absorption features. While narrow emission lines are easily detected, an absorption line from 104K gas (thermal width $``$10 km s-1) needs $`R`$15,000.

Doppler Motions. The Doppler effect is one of the most employed methods for understanding astronomical objects. In highly ionized matter around X-ray sources optical or ultraviolet lines are weak, while X-ray transitions dominate. Systems with velocities $``$1000 km s-1 are open to Chandra and XMM-Newton. Most Doppler velocities are over an order of magnitude smaller: e.g. G-star winds, where Doppler tomography via rotation can map coronal structures, have $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$10 km s-1; X-ray binaries have orbital velocities $`v`$300 km s-1; the hot ISM can map Galactic structure over a range $`v`$0–300 km s-1; AGN absorbers have $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$30 km s-1; and cluster mergers take place at the sound speed $`v`$300 km s-1. To measure line centroids to $``$20 km s-1 needs a FWHM$`<`$ 200 km s-1, i.e. $`R>`$3000.

Photoabsorption Edge Resonances & Dust. The dust-to-gas ratio is key to many astrophysical situations (e.g. planet formation), but is surprisingly hard to measure. X-ray edge structures (e.g. McLaughlin & Kirby 1998) depend on the molecular state of the atoms. e.g. Is oxygen is atomic, O2, CO2, or in a silicate dust particle such as MgSiO3. Ferric ISM dust grains have been found this way with Chandra (Paerels et al., 2001). Many edge structures require $`R>`$1000.

The Killer App: The Missing Baryons. While compelling science, none of the above is readily condensed into a sound bite that can capture public attention. One application could do: the study of the ‘missing baryons’. At low z most ‘normal’ matter should be hidden in a warm-hot (106K–107K) intergalactic medium studiable only in soft X-rays (Fiore, these proceedings). Chandra will probably give the first detection of this medium. Detailed study though - are they thermal or photoioized, engaged in large scale motions, polluted by galaxy superwinds - requires resolving line widths and looking for small Doppler shifts, for many ions. This requires thermal limit X-ray spectroscopy.

## 3. Achieving Thermal Limit Spectroscopy

Even if thermal limit spectroscopy is an obvious goal for X-ray astronomy, it will not be accepted as the right next step if the technology is too far from realization. Luckily, both mirrors and spectrometers are surprisingly close to the needed performance.

Mirror Size. The power of any telescope depends on ‘$`f`$At$`ϵ`$’. The product of flux, area, exposure time and efficiency, when divided by the mean photon energy, determines the number of photons collected. At high resolution emission lines need only slightly greater mirror area, since they will simply show up more clearly against a zero continuum value until resolved. Narrow absorption lines need a minimum of 10 continuum counts per bin to be detected significantly. At $`R`$=5000 this requires 1 sq.meters effective area for a source at 2$`\times `$10-12erg cm-2 s-1 (i.e. $``$3000 targets in the sky) in 104s. This is comparable to Con-X and smaller than XEUS-I.

Spectrometers.

Calorimeters combine high efficiency with a broad band and ‘integral field’ spectroscopy (i.e. a spectrum at every image pixel). However the thermal noise requires that such a calorimeter operate at $``$5 mK, vs. $``$50 mK for today’s instruments, but other noise sources may prevent its realization.

Bragg Crystals naturally reach $`R`$1000 and have an intrinsically broad field of view. However they have narrow ($``$1%) band passes and so a low efficiency if many lines are needed. Reaching $`R`$10,000 is not easy.

Transmission Gratings are lightweight and cover a large bandwidth. They have $`ϵ`$=0.3, vs. $`ϵ`$1 for calorimeters, but this is small factor compared with the increase in mirror area needed in any case. Transmission grating periods of 80Å, 5 times smaller than on the Chandra MEG at 1 keV, are now feasible (Savas et al 1996), resulting in $`R`$5000 behind a Chandra-like mirror. Extended sources are non-trivial however. ‘Long-slit’ designs, as in optical astronomy, could overcome this problem, at the cost of doubling the length of the optics system. This may no longer be a significant constraint now that station keeping (e.g. XEUS) is needed. Transmission gratings require a high resolution mirror, improving $`R`$ as the mirror improves. Such mirrors are needed in any case for imaging applications (Fabbiano, these proceedings).

Reflection Gratings can already provide resolutions of the right order, given a $``$1 arcsecond mirror. Again extended sources would require ‘long slit’ optics. ‘Out of plane’ geometries (Cash 1991) offer higher spectral resolution, and higher efficiency. With 5′′ HEW mirrors Con-X could achieve $`R`$=5000 (Cash 2001).

## 4. Conclusion

Cosmic X-ray spectroscopy is a new field. At last the techniques of atomic physics are being applied to astronomical X-ray sources. With $`R`$1000 there are wonderful riches, but a decade from now will that be enough? The promise of $`R`$10,000 resolution is technologically not too distant. Thermal limit X-ray spectroscopy is the right choice of goal for a new generation of X-ray missions.

This work was supported in part by NASA grant NAG5-6078.

## References

Cash, W., Appl. Opt , 30, 1749-1759, 1991

Cranmer S.R., 2000, ApJ 532, 1197

Elvis M., & Fabbiano G., 1997, in ‘Next Generation X-ray Observatories’ eds. M.J.L. Turner and M.G. Watson \[Leicester University X-ray Astronomy Group Special Report, XRA97/02\], p. 33. astro-ph/9711178

McLaughlin B. & Kirby K., 1998, J.Phys B: At.Mol.Opt.Phys, 31, 4991

Paerels F., et al., 2001, ApJ 546, 338.

Savas T., Schattenburg M. L., Carter J. M., and Smith H. I., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 14, 4167-4170 (1996).

Smith, R. K. & Brickhouse, N. S. 2000, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 9, 134

Stahl et al., 1993, A&AS 99, 167.


text:
# Comment on “Self-interacting Warm Dark Matter”

\[

## Abstract

Hannestad and Scherrer analysed self-interacting Warm and Hot Dark Matter and found power spectra in disagreement with previous papers. We argue that they include self-interactions in a weak-coupling approximation, as for photons after recombination. The “tightly coupled” approximation used for pre-recombination photons, and previous discussions of self-interacting HMD, would have been more appropriate. Their approximation generates a Boltzmann hierarchy leading to a stiff system of equations. Furthermore contamination by gauge modes could invalidate their results.

\]

Neutrinos with strong self-interactions were originally suggested as a dark matter candidate***a light bosonic particle could behave very differently . by Raffelt and Silk , who estimated that density perturbations in such a fluid would damp by diffusion (“Silk damping”), rather than by free-streaming. In a subsequent analysis—partially numerical, partially analytic—Atrio-Barandela and Davidson (ABD)  computed a power spectrum in agreement with this expectation. More recently, power spectra were computed by Hannestad and Scherrer  for self-interacting hot and warm dark matter, using CMBFAST . They find that the shape of the power spectrum is essentially independent of the strength of the dark matter self-interactions, but depends on the mass of the dark matter particle, suggesting that the damping of density fluctuations is the due to free-streaming rather than diffusion. Their power spectra do not show the damping due to diffusion and the short distance oscillations that one would expect for an interacting dark matter fluid . We believe this is due to an inappropriate analytic approximation, and possibly to contamination by gauge modes.

HS study the evolution of perturbations $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,q_i,\tau )`$ in the dark matter phase space distribution $`f`$:

$$f(x^i,q_i,\tau )=f_0(1+\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,q_i,\tau ))$$
(1)
$`f_0`$ is the homogeneous and isotropic equilibrium phase space distribution, and $`x^i,\tau `$ are comoving coordinates (see  for notation). In the absence of interactions, $`f`$ satisfies the Boltzman equation for free particles

$$[f]=\frac{f}{\tau }+\frac{x^i}{\tau }\frac{f}{x^i}+\frac{q_j}{\tau }\frac{f}{q_j}=0$$
(2)
The CMBFAST Boltzman code solves this equation for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to evolve the HDM density perturbations.

The Boltzman equation for an interacting species is

$$[f]=𝒞[f]$$
(3)
where the collision term $`𝒞[f]`$ is difficult to solve. Schematically:

$$𝒞[f_a]=\frac{1}{2E_a}𝑑\mathrm{\Pi }_b𝑑\mathrm{\Pi }_c𝑑\mathrm{\Pi }_d||^2\widehat{\delta }(f_af_bf_cf_d)$$
(4)
where $`d\mathrm{\Pi }_b=d^3p_b/[(2\pi )^32E_b]`$, $``$ is the matrix element for the process $`a+bc+d`$, $`\widehat{\delta }`$ is the 4-momentum conservation delta-function, and we have assumed low occupation numbers. An equilibrium distribution is defined to satisfy $`𝒞[f]=0`$, so $`[f_0]=0=𝒞[f_0]`$, and

$$[f_0\mathrm{\Psi }]=𝒞[f_0\mathrm{\Psi }]$$
(5)
as noted by HS. We first discuss an approximate solution suitable for strongly interacting particles, and then compare to the method of HS.

The timescale associated with the LHS of equation (5), for horizon-sized modes, is the age of the Universe $`\tau _U`$. The timescale associated with the RHS is the interaction timescale $`\tau _\nu `$ and $`\tau _\nu \tau _U`$ for strong self-interactions. In this case, (5) can be solved in the “tightly-coupled” approximation used for pre-recombination photons: perturbations will be very close to locally in equilibrium, because the interactions are fast. So

$$f(x^i,q_i,\tau )=g^{(0)}(x^i,\tau )+g^{(1)}(x^i,q_i,\tau )$$
(6)
where

$$g^{(0)}(x^i,\tau )=\mathrm{exp}\{(E\mu (x^i,\tau ))/T(x^i,\tau )\},$$
(7)
is the locally in equilibrium distribution, so $`g^{(1)}`$ is the perturbation away from local equilibrium. By definition $`𝒞[g^{(0)}]=0`$, so the Boltzman equation is

$$[f_0\mathrm{\Psi }]=𝒞[g^{(1)}]\mathrm{\Gamma }g^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma }=\tau _\nu ^1)$$
(8)
This implies $`g^{(1)}(\tau _\nu /\tau _U)f_0\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The equality in eqn (8) is the analytic approximation required to generate a hierarchy of Boltzmann equations similar to the one solved by HS. From the approximation in eqn (8), we showed that density perturbations in interacting HDM models would be damped by diffusion , as anticipated in . (This is also the result obtained by HS in their Appendix 2.)

HS used a different approach from us; they take

$$𝒞[\mathrm{\Psi }]\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(9)
and generate a Boltzmann hierarchy. The resulting equations are, however, very stiff. Their approximation (equation 9) diverges in the limit of very large scattering cross sections and will not model the fact that fast interactions can bring $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ into a local equilibrium form almost satisfying $`𝒞[\mathrm{\Psi }]=0`$. Therefore, we believe that equation (9) does not correctly model the HDM self-interactions, and this could explain why HS’s power spectra look like non-interacting Hot Dark Matter. Equation (9) would be valid in the weak coupling approximation used for photons after recombination, as opposed to the pre-recombination tight coupling approximation leading to equation (8).

Note that both ABD and HS work in synchronous gauge, where density perturbations in the CDM regime are defined in the matter rest frame. However, the divergence of the fluid velocity $`\theta `$ is non-zero for relativistic neutrinos, so one must verify that $`\theta _\nu =0`$ after the $`\nu `$ become non-relativistic, to ensure that unphysical gauge modes do not contaminate the solution. This could be problematic in the full numerical approach of HS.

As mentioned, HS discuss the relation of their paper to ABD in an Appendix, where they reproduce the analytic estimates  showing that the perturbations should oscillate within the horizon and be damped on the diffusion scale. They do not comment on the discrepancy between the estimates and their plots. They suggest that the difference between the ABD $`P(k)`$ plot and theirs is due to an extra $`H\theta `$ term appearing in our equations, where $`\theta `$ is the divergence of the fluid velocity. This term is due to a difference in conventions: as stated in our paper, we use the conventions of  for our analytic derivations, so $`\theta =ikv/a`$, and our equations are correct (see eqn 85.8 in ). HS use the conventions of , according to which $`\theta =ikv`$, and the offending $`H\theta `$ term does not appear. In MB notation, where $`\delta `$ represents the density perturbation, equations ABD  and  are:

$`\dot{\delta }`$ $`=`$ $`(1+w)(\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{h})3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{P}}{\dot{\rho }}}w)\delta `$ (10)
$`\dot{\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}(13w)\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{w}}{1+w}}\theta +k^2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{P}/\dot{\rho }}{1+w}}\delta k^2\sigma (\theta 3\dot{\eta })`$ (11)
where $`w=P/\rho `$, P = pressure, $`\rho =`$ density, $`a`$ is the scale factor, $`\sigma `$ the viscosity, $`k`$ the wavelength in conformal units, $`h`$ and $`\eta `$ are the metric perturbations, and derivatives are with respect to conformal time. In the relativistic regime $`w=1/3,\dot{w}=0`$ and neutrinos behave like a damped harmonic oscillator, while in the non-relativistic regime density perturbations grow like Cold Dark Matter. However, HS are correct to doubt our plots; our treatment of the transition from relativistic neutrino fluid to non-relativistic fluid was simplistic, and we did not correctly take into account the effect of viscosity on small scales (a factor 3 was missing in our programme). During the transition period from radiation to matter dominated regimes we assumed that $`w=P/\rho `$, was linear with conformal time. Other relationships gave very similar power spectra. We have corrected the viscosity term, and plot the power spectrum in figure 1. This correction has a negligeable effect: the small scale oscillations are slightly reduced with respect to , and our results agree with expectations.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Steen Hannestad for discussions, and Joe Silk for useful comments.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Decoherence is an interesting phenomenon and a topic that attracts widespread attention . However, it is not easy to give a quantitative definition of decoherence . All attempts at defining it always depend on the experimental configuration and on the authors’ taste. An interesting related quantity is the square of the density matrix . This quantity enjoys interesting features , but also yields results which are at variance with naive expectations based on entropy . We consider here an alternative, operational definition of decoherence, based on a fluctuation approach , and discuss its physical meaning by considering some examples.

## 2 Fluctuating phase shifter

Consider a Mach-Zender interferometer (MZI), with a phase shifter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in one of its two arms. If $`|\psi _{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the incoming state, the output state in the ordinary channel is

$$|\psi _O=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}\right]|\psi _{\mathrm{in}}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })|\psi _{\mathrm{in}}$$
(1)
or, in terms of the density matrix,

$$\widehat{\rho }_O|\psi _O\psi _O|=\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })|\psi _{\mathrm{in}}\psi _{\mathrm{in}}|\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}=\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })\widehat{\rho _{\mathrm{in}}}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{},$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the density matrix of the incoming state. Suppose now that the shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ fluctuates according to a probability function $`w(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$. The trace of the average density matrix is

$$\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\widehat{\rho }_O}=\mathrm{Tr}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{in}}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{in}}\overline{\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })}\right)$$
(3)
and one obtains, after some algebra,

$$\overline{\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\overline{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}\right).$$
(4)
Consider now the Fourier transform of the probability density of the fluctuations

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p}){\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta })e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}}={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}+i{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{sin}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}.`$ (5)
If we assume that the distribution of fluctuations is symmetric, $`w(\mathrm{\Delta })=w(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, we get

$`\overline{\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}}={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}=\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})`$ (6)
and (4) becomes

$$\overline{\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right].$$
(7)
We notice that the same results are obtained with a different setup: consider a polarized neutron that interacts with a magnetic field perpendicular to its spin. Due to the longitudinal Stern-Gerlach effect, its wave packet is split into two components that travel with different speed and are therefore separated in space . After a projection onto the initial spin state, the final state reads

$$|\psi _{}=\frac{1}{2}\left[e^{\frac{i}{2\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}+e^{\frac{i}{2\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}\right]|\psi _{\mathrm{in}}\widehat{O}^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })|\psi _{\mathrm{in}},$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is in this case the spatial separation between the two wave packets corresponding to the two spin components. By averaging over $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ it is easy to show that one obtains again (7).

By plugging the average operator (7) into (3) one finally gets

$$\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\widehat{\rho }_O}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right],$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the expectation value over state $`\rho _{\mathrm{in}}`$. On the other hand, the momentum distribution is easily proved to read

$$P_O(p)=p|\overline{\widehat{\rho }_O}|p=\frac{1}{2}P_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }(p)\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right],$$
(10)
where

$$P_{\mathrm{in}}(p)=p|\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{in}}|p,\mathrm{\Omega }(p)=p|\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})|p.$$
(11)
We now introduce the visibility of the interference pattern

$$𝒱(p)\frac{P_O(p)_{\mathrm{MAX}}P_O(p)_{\mathrm{min}}}{P_O(p)_{\mathrm{MAX}}+P_O(p)_{\mathrm{min}}}=|\mathrm{\Omega }(p)|,$$
(12)
where $`P_O(p)_{\mathrm{MAX}}`$ ($`P_O(p)_{\mathrm{min}}`$) is the maximum (minimum) value assumed by $`P_O(p)`$ when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ varies. Notice that, according to this definition, the visibility is a function of momentum $`p`$. By using (5) and (11), one infers that the visibility is the modulus of the Fourier transform of the distribution of the shifts $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and is therefore a quantity which is closely related to the physical features of the phase shifter. We now turn to a definition of decoherence.

## 3 Operational definition of decoherence

Consider the MZI introduced in the previous section. The relative frequency of particles detected in the ordinary channel is, by (9),

$$𝒩_O(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\widehat{\rho }_O}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right].$$
(13)
On the other hand, in the extraordinary ($`E`$) channel we get

$$𝒩_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\widehat{\rho }_E}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right].$$
(14)
(Note that $`𝒩_O+𝒩_E=1`$.) Their difference is

$$𝒩_O(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)𝒩_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}=𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\mathrm{\Omega }(p)\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}$$
(15)
and one can define a generalized visibility

$$𝒱=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}|𝒩_O(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)𝒩_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)|=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right|.$$
(16)
Notice that when $`P_{\mathrm{in}}(p^{})=\delta (p^{}p)`$ (normalized monochromatic incoming state, to be improperly referred to as plane wave of momentum $`p`$), the generalized visibility reduces to the standard “local” visibility (12)

$`𝒱=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑p^{}\delta (p^{}p)\mathrm{\Omega }(p^{})\mathrm{cos}\frac{p^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right|=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(p)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right|=𝒱(p).`$ (17)
In general one gets

$$𝒱\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)|\mathrm{\Omega }(p)|\left|\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right|=𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)𝒱(p)1.$$
(18)
The generalized visibility yields the maximum “distance” between the intensities $`𝒩_O`$ and $`𝒩_E`$ and is bounded by the “local” visibility averaged over the momentum distribution of the incoming state.

For a fluctuation-free phase shifter, i.e. for $`w(\mathrm{\Delta })=\delta (\mathrm{\Delta })`$, one obtains $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)=1`$ and the generalized visibility (16) becomes

$$𝒱=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right|=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right|=𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)=1,$$
(19)
for any incoming state $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$. The example of an incoming Gaussian wave packet

$$P_{\mathrm{in}}(p)=\sqrt{\frac{2\delta ^2}{\mathrm{}^2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\delta ^2}{\mathrm{}^2}(pp_0)^2\right)$$
(20)
is shown in Figure 1, where it is apparent that $`𝒱=1`$.

If, on the other hand, the phase shifter fluctuates, the amplitude of the envelope function decreases and $`𝒱<1`$. We therefore give an operational definition of decoherence, by means of a decoherence parameter:

$$\epsilon 1𝒱=1\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right|.$$
(21)
Notice that, by Eq. (19), $`\epsilon =0`$ for a fluctuation-free phase shifter (quantum coherence perfectly preserved), while $`\epsilon 1`$ when the magnitude of the fluctuations increases, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)0`$ and the envelope function in Figure 1 squeezes out all oscillations, eventually yielding $`𝒩_O(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=𝒩_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$, independently of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Observe also that $`𝒱`$ and $`\epsilon `$ are independent of the coherence of the initial state (namely, they do not depend on the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix). In this sense they measure the loss of quantum coherence.

## 4 Examples

Let us now look at some particular cases of fluctuations. Let the phases be distributed according to a Gaussian law with standard deviation $`\sigma `$

$$w(\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right),$$
(22)
so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p^2\sigma ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right)`$ and the decoherence parameter reads

$$\epsilon =1\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p^2\sigma ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right)\right|.$$
(23)
For Gaussian wave packets (20) one gets

$$\epsilon =1\sqrt{\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta ^2+\sigma ^2/4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta ^2+\sigma ^2/4}\frac{\sigma ^2k_0^2}{2}\right),$$
(24)
with $`k_0=p_0/\mathrm{}`$. In this case, as it is clear from Figure 2, at fixed $`\delta `$

the decoherence parameter (21) increases with $`\sigma `$, although the details of its behavior are strongly dependent on the spatial width of the packet $`\delta `$. This behavior is in agreement with expectation: decoherence $`\epsilon `$ increases with the magnitude of fluctuations $`\sigma `$.

For plane waves \[$`P_{\mathrm{in}}(p^{})=\delta (pp^{})`$\]

$$\epsilon _k=1\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|𝑑p^{}\delta (pp^{})e^{\frac{p^2\sigma ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right)\right|=1e^{\frac{k^2\sigma ^2}{2}},$$
(25)
with $`k=p/\mathrm{}`$. This is shown in Figure 3(a) and can be obtained from (24) in the $`\delta \mathrm{}`$ limit. Notice that high momenta are more fragile against fluctuations .

Let now the phase shifts be distributed according to the law

$$w(\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}.$$
(26)
This is convenient from an experimental perspective and follows from a phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=2\sigma \mathrm{sin}t`$, where $`t`$ (“time”) is a parameter, uniformly distributed between 0 and $`2\pi `$. From (11) and (5)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)={\displaystyle _{2\sigma }^{2\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}}{\sqrt{4\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}={\displaystyle _{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{2p\sigma }{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{sin}t\right)=J_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p\sigma }{\mathrm{}}}\right),`$ (27)
where $`J_0`$ is the Bessel function of order zero. The decoherence parameter (21) reads

$$\epsilon =1\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)J_0\left(\frac{2p\sigma }{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right)\right|$$
(28)
and for plane waves one obtains ($`k=p/\mathrm{}`$)

$$\epsilon _k=1\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|J_0\left(\frac{2p\sigma }{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right)\right|=1|J_0(2k\sigma )|.$$
(29)
This function is shown in 3(b): observe that decoherence is not a monotonic function of the noise $`\sigma `$ in (26).

A comparison between Figures 3(a) and 3(b) is interesting. In both cases one observes fragility at high momenta $`p=\mathrm{}k`$. On the other hand, the behavior of decoherence in Figure 3(b) is somewhat anomalous and against naive expectation. For a given $`k`$, there are situations where decoherence $`\epsilon `$ decreases by increasing the size of fluctuations $`\sigma `$. Note also that we are considering incoming plane waves, whence, according to (17), $`ϵ_k=1𝒱(p)`$ and the decoherence parameter is strictly related to the standard visibility of the interference pattern. Therefore, in the anomalous regions, one observes an increase in visibility by increasing the fluctuations of the phase shifter, a phenomenon similar to stochastic resonance . However, this is true not only for plane waves, but also for narrow packets in momentum space.

These results are related to well known phenomena in the classical theory of partially coherent light , where the visibility is expressed as the Fourier transform of the spectral distribution of an incoherent source.

## 5 Conclusions

We have introduced and discussed a decoherence parameter defined in terms of a generalized visibility of the interference pattern in a double-slit experiment (MZI). Although the notion of visibility is not directly related to that of decoherence (see post-selection experiments ) our results corroborate the ideas expressed in  and make it obvious that the concept of “loss” of quantum mechanical coherence deserves clarification and additional investigation.

It would also be interesting to discuss analogies and differences with conceptual experiments in which decoherence is complemented by Welcher-Weg information .