text:
# Eikonal propagators for the high–energy parton–parton scattering in gauge theories

## 1 Introduction

In 1991 Nachtmann developed a nonperturbative analysis,  based on QCD, of the elastic scattering processes at very high squared energies $`s`$ in the center of mass and small squared transferred momentum $`t`$ ($`s\mathrm{}`$, $`ts`$). He derived formal expressions for the quark–quark scattering amplitudes in the above–mentioned limit, by using a functional integral approach and an eikonal approximation to the solution of the Dirac equation in the presence of an external non–Abelian gauge field.

In a previous paper  we proposed an alternative approach to high–energy quark–quark scattering based on a first–quantized path–integral description of quantum–field theory developed by Fradkin in the early 1960s.  In this approach one obtains convenient expressions for the truncated–connected scalar propagators in an external (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.) field , and the eikonal approximation can be easily recovered in the relevant limit. Knowing the truncated–connected propagators, one can then extract, in the manner of Lehmann, Symanzik and Zimmermann (LSZ),  the scattering matrix elements in the framework of a functional integral approach.

The same problem can be addressed in an even more immediate way:  by a direct resummation of perturbation theory in the high–energy limit that we are considering, we can derive expressions for the truncated–connected quark, antiquark and gluon propagators in an external gluon field, both for scalar and fermion gauge theories. In the following, we shall briefly outline this procedure and the main results that one obtains: we refer the reader to Ref.  for more details.

## 2 The scattering of partons in an external gluon field

We begin, for simplicity, with the case of scalar QCD, i.e., the case of a spin–0 quark, described by the scalar field $`\varphi _i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N_c`$) coupled to a non–Abelian gauge field $`A^\mu A_a^\mu T_a`$, $`T_a`$ being the generators of the Lie algebra of the colour group $`SU(N_c)`$ in the fundamental representation. We limit ourselves to the case of one single flavour. The unrenormalized Lagrangian is:

$$L(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},A)=[D^\mu \varphi ]^{}D_\mu \varphi m_0^2\varphi ^{}\varphi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`D^\mu =^\mu +igA^\mu `$ is the covariant derivative.

Let us define the “physical” quark mass $`m`$, taken to be the pole mass, and the residue $`Z_W`$ at the pole of the unrenormalized quark propagator by the following two equations:

$$\left[\stackrel{~}{S}(p)\right]^1|_{p^2=m^2}=0,\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}(p)\underset{p^2m^2}{}\frac{iZ_W\delta _{ij}}{p^2m^2+i\epsilon },$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}(p)`$ is the unrenormalized propagator in the momentum space. In order to derive the scattering matrix elements following the LSZ approach, we need to know the on–shell truncated–connected Green functions, which are obtained from the connected Green functions by removing the external legs calculated on–shell. We first consider the scattering of a quark in a given external gluon field $`A^\mu `$:

$$\varphi (p,j)\varphi (p^{},i),$$
(3)
where $`i,j`$ are colour indices ($`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N_c`$). We define the truncated–connected propagator in the external gluon field $`A^\mu `$, in the momentum space as:

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)\underset{p^2,p^2m^2}{lim}\frac{p^2m^2}{i}\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}(p,p^{}|A)\frac{p^2m^2}{i},$$
(4)
where $`m`$ is the physical mass defined above and $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}(p,p^{}|A)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`S_{ij}(x,y|A)`$, the scalar propagator in an external gluon field, in the coordinate representation.

In the following we shall compute the truncated–connected propagator $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)`$ in the so–called eikonal approximation, which is valid in the case of scattering particles with very high energy ($`Ep^0|\stackrel{}{p}|m`$) and small transferred momentum $`qp^{}p`$ (i.e., $`\sqrt{|t|}E`$, where $`t=q^2`$). For example, if $`p^\mu p^\mu (E,E,0,0)`$, one has that

$$p_+p_+^{}2E,p_{}p_{}^{}0,$$
(5)
where $`V_+V^0+V^1`$, $`V_{}V^0V^1`$. We shall call $`V_+`$ and $`V_{}`$ the “longitudinal” components of the four–vector $`V^\mu `$, while $`\stackrel{}{V}_{}(V^2,V^3)`$ is the component of $`V^\mu `$ in the “transverse” plane $`(y,z)`$.

Our strategy consists in evaluating the truncated–connected propagator $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)`$ in each order in perturbation theory considering $`L_\varphi [D^\mu \varphi ]^{}D_\mu \varphi m_0^2\varphi ^{}\varphi =L_0+L_{int}`$, where

$$L_0=^\mu \varphi ^{}_\mu \varphi m^2\varphi ^{}\varphi $$
(6)
is the “free” (i.e., unperturbed) quark Lagrangian, which defines the “free” quark propagator $`i/(p^2m^2+i\epsilon )`$, with the physical mass $`m`$, and $`L_{int}`$ is the “interaction” Lagrangian, i.e., the “perturbation”.

Let us start, therefore, by evaluating the $`n`$–th order term ($`n1`$) in the perturbative expansion of the truncated–connected scalar propagator in an external gluon field $`A^\mu `$, in the eikonal approximation. This contribution, that we shall indicate as $`[\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)]_{(n)}`$, is schematically represented in Fig. 1a: only the quark–quark–gluon vertex contributes to the propagator in the eikonal limit that we are considering. The key–point is that, in the high–energy limit we are considering, $`pp^{}`$ and quarks retain their large longitudinal momenta during their scattering process. In the eikonal limit, one finds that:

$`[\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)]_{(n)}`$ (7)
$`2E{\displaystyle [d^3b]e^{iqb}𝑑\tau _1\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _n\theta (\tau _n\tau _{n1})\mathrm{}\theta (\tau _2\tau _1)}`$
$`\times \{\left[igp^{\mu _n}A_{\mu _n}(b+p\tau _n)\right]\mathrm{}\left[igp^{\mu _1}A_{\mu _1}(b+p\tau _1)\right]\}_{ij},`$
where we have used the notation:

$$[d^3b]d^2\stackrel{}{b}_{}db_{}.$$
(8)
As a general rule, in “$`[d^3b]`$” one must not include the longitudinal component of $`b^\mu `$ which is parallel to $`p^\mu `$. In other words, if $`p^\mu p^\mu (E,E,0,0)`$ (i.e., $`p_+2E`$, $`p_{}0`$), one has that $`[d^3b]d^2\stackrel{}{b}_{}db_{}`$, while, if $`p^\mu p^\mu (E,E,0,0)`$ (i.e., $`p_+0`$, $`p_{}2E`$), then $`[d^3b]d^2\stackrel{}{b}_{}db_+`$.

Summing all orders ($`n1`$), we finally obtain  (see also Ref. ):

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)`$ (9)
$`2E{\displaystyle [d^3b]e^{iqb}\left[T\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}A_\mu (b+p\tau )p^\mu 𝑑\tau \right)\mathrm{𝟏}\right]_{ij}}`$
$`=2E{\displaystyle [d^3b]e^{iqb}[W_p(b)\mathrm{𝟏}]_{ij}},`$
where $`W_p(b)=T\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{})`$ is the time–ordered exponential, defined as:

$`W_p(b)T\mathrm{exp}\left(ig{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}A_\mu (b+p\tau )p^\mu 𝑑\tau \right)`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _1\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _n\theta (\tau _n\tau _{n1})\mathrm{}\theta (\tau _2\tau _1)}`$
$`\times \left[igp^{\mu _n}A_{\mu _n}(b+p\tau _n)\right]\mathrm{}\left[igp^{\mu _1}A_{\mu _1}(b+p\tau _1)\right].`$
Eq. (9) gives the expression for the truncated–connected scalar propagator in an external gluon field, in the eikonal approximation.

We want now to extend these results to the case of “real” fermion QCD: that is, a spin–1/2 quark coupled to a non–Abelian gauge field. As before, we limit ourselves to the case of one single flavour. The unrenormalized QCD Lagrangian (for a “real” spin–1/2 quark) is:

$$L(\psi ,\psi ^{},A)=\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m_0)\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu },$$
(11)
where $`D^\mu =^\mu +igA^\mu `$ is the covariant derivative and $`\psi `$ stands for a vector $`\psi _i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N_c`$) in the colour vector space of the fundamental representation.

Let us define the “physical” quark mass $`m`$, taken to be the pole mass, and the residue $`Z_W`$ at the pole of the unrenormalized quark propagator by the following two equations:

$$\left[\stackrel{~}{G}(p)\right]^1|_{p^2=m^2}=0,\stackrel{~}{G}_{ij}(p)\underset{p^2m^2}{}\frac{iZ_W\delta _{ij}}{\widehat{p}m+i\epsilon },$$
(12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{ij}(p)`$ is the unrenormalized propagator in the momentum space. We have used the notation: $`\widehat{a}\gamma ^\mu a_\mu `$.

As in the scalar case, we consider the scattering of a quark in a given external gluon field $`A^\mu `$. The truncated–connected fermion propagator in the momentum space is defined as:

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)\underset{p^2,p^2m^2}{lim}\frac{\widehat{p}^{}m}{i}\stackrel{~}{G}_{ij}(p,p^{}|A)\frac{\widehat{p}m}{i},$$
(13)
where $`m`$ is the physical quark mass defined above and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{ij}(p,p^{}|A)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`G_{ij}(x,y|A)`$, the truncated–connected fermion propagator in the coordinate representation. The matrix element for the scattering of a quark in a given external gluon field $`A^\mu `$,

$$\psi (p,j,\beta )\psi (p^{},i,\alpha ),$$
(14)
where $`i,j`$ are colour indices and $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are spin indices, is given by $`\overline{u}_\alpha (p^{})\stackrel{~}{G}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)u_\beta (p)`$, where $`u_\alpha (p)`$ are the “positive–energy” spinors with the usual relativistic normalization: $`\overline{u}_\alpha (p)u_\beta (p)=2m\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$. In the high–energy limit we are considering, one finds the following result, for each order $`n`$ in the perturbative expansion:

$$[\overline{u}_\alpha (p^{})\stackrel{~}{G}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)u_\beta (p)]_{(n)}\delta _{\alpha \beta }[\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)]_{(n)},$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)`$ is the truncated–connected propagator for a scalar (i.e., spin–0) quark in the external gluon field $`A^\mu `$, which was discussed in the first part of this section.

The delta function in front simply reflects the fact that fermions retain their helicities during the scattering process in the high–energy limit. Therefore, using the result (9) derived in the first part of this section, we find the following expression in the eikonal approximation  (see also Ref. ):

$`\overline{u}_\alpha (p^{})\stackrel{~}{G}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)u_\beta (p)\delta _{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{(tc)}(p,p^{}|A)`$ (16)
$`\delta _{\alpha \beta }2E{\displaystyle [d^3b]e^{iqb}\left[T\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}A_\mu (b+p\tau )p^\mu 𝑑\tau \right)\mathrm{𝟏}\right]_{ij}}`$
$`=\delta _{\alpha \beta }2E{\displaystyle [d^3b]e^{iqb}[W_p(b)\mathrm{𝟏}]_{ij}},`$
where $`W_p(b)`$ is the time–ordered Wilson string along the path $`x(\tau )=b+p\tau `$, $`\tau [\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}]`$.

Proceeding exactly in the same way, we can also derive the expression for the scattering matrix element of an antiquark in an external gluon field $`A^\mu `$, $`\overline{\psi }(p,j,\beta )\overline{\psi }(p^{},i,\alpha )`$, in the eikonal approximation: as expected, the scattering amplitude of an antiquark in the external gluon field $`A_\mu `$ is equal to the scattering amplitude of a quark in the charge–conjugated (C–transformed) gluon field $`A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu ^t=A_\mu ^{}`$. (In other words, going from quarks to antiquarks corresponds just to the change from the fundamental representation $`T_a`$ of $`SU(N_c)`$ to the complex conjugate representation $`T_a^{}=T_a^{}`$.)

By using the same techniques developed for the previous cases, we can evaluate the “truncated–connected gluon propagator” in a given external gluon field $`A_b^\nu `$, in the eikonal approximation. We call this quantity “$`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\mu ^{}\mu ,a^{}a}^{(tc)}(k,k^{}|A)`$”: its $`n`$–th order perturbative term is defined schematically in Fig. 1b, where the external legs are supposed to be truncated on–shell ($`k^2,k^20`$). More precisely, we shall evaluate the following quantity:

$$\epsilon _{(\lambda ^{})}^\mu ^{}(k^{})\stackrel{~}{D}_{\mu ^{}\mu ,a^{}a}^{(tc)}(k,k^{}|A)\epsilon _{(\lambda )}^\mu (k),$$
(17)
where $`\epsilon _{(\lambda )}^\mu (k)`$ are the polarization four–vectors: $`\epsilon _{(\lambda )}(k)\epsilon _{(\lambda ^{})}^{}(k)=\delta _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$, $`k\epsilon _{(\lambda )}(k)|_{k^2=0}=0`$, with $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}\{1,2\}`$. This quantity should describe (under certain approximations ) the scattering matrix element of a gluon in a given external gluon field $`A_b^\nu `$:

$$g(k,a,\lambda )g(k^{},a^{},\lambda ^{});$$
(18)
$`a,a^{}\{1,\mathrm{},N_c^21\}`$ are colour indices and $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}\{1,2\}`$ are spin indices. In the eikonal approximation the dominant interaction between the incident gluon and the external gluon field is represented by the three–gluon vertex, which is linear in the four–momentum of the gluon (while the four–gluon vertex is not dependent on the momentum). In the eikonal approximation, summing all orders ($`n1`$), one finally obtains:

$`\epsilon _{(\lambda ^{})}^\mu ^{}(k^{})\stackrel{~}{D}_{\mu ^{}\mu ,a^{}a}^{(tc)}(k,k^{}|A)\epsilon _{(\lambda )}^\mu (k)`$ (19)
$`\delta _{\lambda ^{}\lambda }2E{\displaystyle [d^3b]e^{iqb}[𝒱_k(b)\mathrm{𝟏}]_{a^{}a}},`$
where $`qk^{}k`$ is the transferred momentum and $`𝒱_k(b)`$ is the Wilson string along the path $`x(\tau )=b+k\tau `$ ($`\tau [\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}]`$), in the adjoint representation, defined as:

$`𝒱_k(b)T\mathrm{exp}\left(ig{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝒜_\mu (b+k\tau )k^\mu 𝑑\tau \right)`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _1\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _n\theta (\tau _n\tau _{n1})\mathrm{}\theta (\tau _2\tau _1)}`$
$`\times \left[igk^{\mu _n}𝒜_{\mu _n}(b+p\tau _n)\right]\mathrm{}\left[igk^{\mu _1}𝒜_{\mu _1}(b+k\tau _1)\right].`$
We have used the notation: $`𝒜_\mu A_\mu ^bT_{(adj)}^b`$, $`(T_{(adj)}^a)_{bc}=if^{abc}`$.
Eq. (19) gives the expression for the scattering matrix element of a gluon in a given external gluon field, in the eikonal approximation.

## 3 Conclusions and outlook

In the previous section, we have derived expressions for the truncated–connected quark, antiquark and gluon propagators in a given external gluon field $`A^\mu `$, by a direct resummation of perturbation theory in the limit of very high energy and small transferred momentum.

The truncated–connected propagators in an external gluon field are the basic ingredients to derive high–energy parton–parton scattering amplitudes, using the LSZ reduction formulae and a functional integral approach. This was done in Ref.  and it has been also quickly reviewed in Ref.  for the convenience of the reader. As a result, the high–energy parton–parton scattering amplitude, in the center–of–mass reference system, turns out to be related to the functional average $`\mathrm{}_A`$, with respect to the gluon field $`A^\mu `$, of two Wilson lines $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ taken along the unperturbed classical trajectories of the two colliding partons. Therefore, using this procedure, one derives the same results already found in Refs.  in a different and even more immediate way, i.e., by a direct resummation of perturbation theory, in a background gluon field, in the limit of very high energy and small transferred momentum.

Once we have found these nonperturbative expressions for the high–energy scattering amplitudes, the natural question which arises is: How can we evaluate them directly? The answer to this question is highly nontrivial and it is also strictly connected with the renormalization properties of Wilson–line operators. For a possible approach to the problem, we refer the reader to Refs. , where it was found that the v.e.v. of two Wilson lines in the Euclidean theory, forming a certain Euclidean angle $`\theta `$ in the longitudinal plane, and the v.e.v. of two Wilson lines in the Minkowskian theory, forming a certain hyperbolic angle $`\chi `$ in the longitudinal plane, are connected by the analytic continuation $`\theta i\chi `$ in the angular variables. (See also Ref. , where a similar analytic continuation from Minkowskian to Euclidean theory was proposed to study the small-$`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$ behaviour of the structure functions of deep inelastic lepton–nucleon scattering.) The analytic continuation proposed in Refs.  has opened the possibility of studying the high–energy scattering amplitude using the Euclidean formulation of the theory: it has been recently adopted in Ref. , in order to study the high–energy scattering in strongly coupled gauge theories using the AdS/CFT correspondence, and also in Ref. , in order to investigate instanton–induced effects in QCD high–energy scattering. In our opinion, a considerable progress could be achieved by a direct investigation of the high–energy scattering problem on the lattice along this line in the near future.


format: text

text:
# The HI Content and Extent of Low Surface Brightness Galaxies – Could LSB Galaxies be Responsible for Damped Ly-𝛼 Absorption?

## 1. Introduction - What is a LSB Galaxy?

Typically, low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies are defined as those galaxies with an observed central surface brightness that is at least one magnitude fainter than the night sky. In the B band, this translates to $`\mu _B(0)`$ 22.6 – 23.0 mag arcsec-2. However, alternatives to this definition do exist. One common definition is that a LSB galaxy is a galaxy whose inclination corrected central surface brightness is $`\mu _B(0)`$ 23.0 mag arcsec-2 (Matthews, Gallagher, & van Driel 1999). Although it is a more consistent definition, this second definition relies on understanding the dust properties and opacity of the studied galaxies. As detailed studies of the dust content of the majority of the LSB galaxies discussed herein have not been done, we will restrict the definition of LSB systems in this paper to only those galaxies with an observed $`\mu _B(0)`$ 23.0 mag arcsec-2.

Photometrically, LSB galaxies are typically thought of as being fairly blue ($`BV<\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.3}`$) and unevolved. Although it is true LSB galaxies include perhaps the bluest galaxies known (e.g. O’Neil, et al. 1998; de Blok, van der Hulst, & Bothun 1996; McGaugh, Schombert, & Bothun 1995), a number of LSB systems with $`BV>`$ 1 have also been identified (O’Neil, et al. 1997b). Whether the red LSB systems are indicators of a bias towards detecting blue LSB systems (O’Neil, et al.. 1997b), examples of an uncommon quiescent phase of star formation in LSB galaxies (Gerristson & de Blok 2000), or LSB galaxies with a different star formation history than their blue counterparts (Bell, et al. 2000), or some combination of the three, remains to be seen. The important point is simply that LSB systems are not exclusively blue galaxies, and allowances for LSB galaxies with redder colors must be made.

The last common descriptor of LSB galaxies is their morphology. Typically, LSB galaxies are described as having the morphology of late-type/irregular spiral galaxies. This description certainly holds true for a significant percentage of LSB systems, many of which have morphologies which simply cannot be described by the Hubble diagram (Figure 1). LSB galaxies are not, though, exclusively of irregular morphology – a significant number of LSB systems exist which have diffuse yet well defined outer disks and occasionally central bulges. Additionally, there are a number of LSB dE systems which have been identified. (See, e.g. Impey, Bothun, & Malin 1988; Evans, Davies, & Phillipps 1990; Pickering, et al. 1997; Bijersbergen, de Blok, & van der Hulst 1999).

## 2. What is the HI Content of LSB Galaxies?

Like many of their properties, the total neutral hydrogen content of LSB galaxies varies considerably, from less than 108M through 1011M. Contrary to often held belief, though, no correlation is seen between the galaxies’ total gas mass and the galaxies’ central surface brightness or size (Figure 2a). Thus LSB galaxies are neither exclusively dwarf nor massive systems, but instead cover the same mass range as their HSB counterparts.

Similarly, the gas mass-to-luminosity ratio of LSB galaxies varies considerably, from less 0.1 $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ 10 M/L. Again, no correlation is seen between LSB galaxies’ $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ and surface brightness or size (Figure 2b), indicating LSB galaxies are not exclusively of high (or low) gas content.

Recently, the number of massive (MHI $`>`$ 1010 M) LSB galaxies known has increased significantly. Two survey are underway using the 305-m telescope at Arecibo to determine the redshift and HI mass of optically selected LSB galaxies. The first survey is searching for LSB galaxies in the UGC catalog which (a) have not yet had a redshift determination, and (b) are morphologically similar to the known massive LSB galaxies (e.g. Malin 1 and its ‘cousins’) (O’Neil & Bothun 2001). The galaxies from the second survey have been identified (for the first time) on the POSS II plates, and are morphologically similar to the known LSB AGN galaxies (Schombert, O’Neil, & Eder 2002; Schombert 1998).

Although both massive LSB galaxy surveys are still underway, preliminary results are available. First, early results show that the surveys have increased the number of known massive LSB galaxies by a factor of seven or more. Additionally, the surveys have significantly increased the number of LSBG AGN galaxies. With this data in hand, it becomes evident that LSB galaxies may contribute significantly to the HI luminosity function, in contradiction to the commonly held belief of LSB systems as insignificant contributors to this function (i.e. Zwaan, these proceedings). This argument is furthered by the discovery of numerous massive LSB systems with the HIPASS equatorial survey (Disney, et al. in these proceedings). Additionally, the findings of the two massive LSB galaxy surveys have considerably increased the number of LSB galaxies with high ($`>`$200 kpc) impact parameters, a finding which plays a significant role in determining the contribution of LSB systems to damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ systems (below). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the surveys’ results demonstrate the need for a better understanding of HI survey selection effects. (A fact which is again further emphasized when the results are combined with the HIPASS equatorial survey results presented by Disney (these proceedings).)

Although it now seems clear that there are a number of massive LSB galaxies in the z $`<`$ 0.1 Universe, some caution is necessary. First, unlike the HIPASS survey, the two massive LSB galaxy surveys described herein are extremely biased. As the surveys are designed to find massive LSB systems, the surveys’ findings cannot be used to directly re-determine LSB galaxies’ contribution to the local HI luminosity function. Instead the survey results should be used simply as an indication that a significant population of massive LSB galaxies do exist which have not yet been cataloged.

Secondly, it should be recognized that the majority of LSB galaxy redshifts have been determined through observing the galaxies’ 21-cm line. This means that a galaxy is typically included in HI catalogs only if it has a significant HI flux, as without a redshift known a priori to the 21-cm observations, now meaningful upper limit to the galaxies’ HI mass can be made. As LSB galaxies are inherently low signal-to-noise systems, this limitation results in significant selection effects being placed on all catalogs of LSB galaxy HI measurements (Figure 3). These selection effects, then, may be the primary reason LSB galaxies are typically considered gas rich objects.

## 3. The HI Distribution of LSB Galaxies

The only study done to date specifically looking at the local environment of LSB galaxies was done by Bothun, et al. (1993). Using a sample of 340 LSB galaxies with measured redshifts and the CfA redshift survey data, Bothun, et al. determined that LSB galaxies have a strong statistical deficit of galaxies located within a projected radius of 0.5 Mpc and a velocity of 500 km/s compared to HSB galaxies. Comparing LSB and HSB disk galaxies in the same portion of the sky, they found the average distance to the nearest neighbor is 1.7 times farther for LSB disk galaxies. On larger scales, though, LSB galaxies lie in the same overall distribution as HSB galaxies, and no evidence has yet been found for LSB galaxies existing inside the large-scale galaxy voids (Figure 4).

## 4. The HI Extent of LSB Galaxies

The optical radii (r27) of LSB galaxies range from 1 kpc through greater than 100 kpc, while the HI distribution of LSB systems is typically much larger. This difference was quantified be de Blok, et al. (1996). Using the VLA and Westerbock Synthesis Radio telescope, de Blok, et al. imaged the 21-cm line of 19 LSB galaxies. Defining the HI radius as the radius when the HI distribution falls to the 1 M pc-2 HI level, they determined the HI to optical radius ratio of the studied LSB systems. The results of this study found the RHI/R25 ratio to vary from 1.0 – 4.3, with $`R_{HI}/R_{25}`$ = 2.5, showing LSB galaxies to have extended HI, potentially out to radii of 200–300 kpc or more at the 1018 cm-2 level.

## 5. Could LSB Galaxies be Significant Contributors to Damped
Lyman-$`\alpha `$ Absorption?

One of the more significant questions which can be asked when considering the gas content and number density of LSB galaxies is – Could LSB galaxies be significant contributors to damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorption? The traditional answer to this question has been no, for a variety of reasons. Namely,

* It is often argued that LSB galaxies’ HI column density is too low for LSB galaxies to be damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorbers, at least at large (100+ kpc) impact parameters (e.g. Zwaan, Verheijen, & Briggs 1999)
* LSB galaxies are not found when catalogs are examined to determine what galaxies may lie within the line-of-sight (e.g. Rao & Turnshek 1998; Chen, et al. 1998)
* There have been a number of searches undertaken to identify known damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorbers with LSB galaxies which have failed (e.g. Rauch, Weyman, & Morris 1996)

Recently, though, a variety of observations have been obtain which contradict the above arguments, and which can be used to argue that LSB systems are likely very important Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorbers. First, as was discussed in the last section, there appears to be a large number of massive LSB galaxies with ample gas at high (greater than 100 kpc) impact parameters. Additionally, there are clearly many LSB systems which have yet to be cataloged. And although many of these galaxies may not have extended high density gas, the gas density at the center of these systems is more than sufficient to account for the gas density observed in damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ systems. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it should be pointed out that a number of recent observational studies have successfully identified LSB galaxies as the most likely producers of damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorption (e.g. Bowen, Tripp, & Jenkins 2001; Steidel, et al. 1994; Turnshek, et al. 2001). As more observations are made, then, the possibility that LSB galaxies are significant contributors to damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorption continues to increase.

## 6. Conclusion

As has been discussed herein, the neutral hydrogen content of LSB galaxies covers a wide range. The total (HI) gas content of LSB galaxies range from less than 108 M through 1011 $`M_{}`$, while the MHI/LB ratio ranged from less than 1 M/L through greater than 10 M/L (and possibly even greater than 100 M/L – see Disney, et al. in these proceedings). Additionally, the impact parameter of LSB galaxies range from less than 1 kpc through well over 100 kpc at the 1018 cm-2 limit.

The results of the above properties, combined with the survey results of the HIPASS equatorial survey and the massive LSB galaxy surveys of Schombert, et.al (2002) and O’Neil & Bothun (2001) indicate the number of massive (MHI $`>`$ 1010 M) LSB galaxies is far higher than was previously thought. This implies that LSB galaxies could be contributing far more to the z $`<`$ 0.1 gas mass density and HI luminosity function than is often believed.

Finally, in regards to Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorption systems, the recent observations regarding the mass, extent, and number density of LSB galaxies make it highly likely that LSB galaxies are important contributors to Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorption systems, both the damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ systems and the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorbers at lower column density.

## References

Bell, E.F., et al. 2000 MNRAS 312, 470

Bijersbergen, M., de Blok, W. J. G., & van der Hulst, J. M. 1999 å 351, 903

Bothun, G. D., Schombert, J., Impey, C., Sprayberry, D., McGaugh, S. 1993 AJ 106, 530

Bowen, D., Tripp T., & Jenkins, E. 2001 AJ 121, 1456

Chen, H-W,. Lanzetta, K. M., Webb, J. K., & Barcons, X. 1998 ApJ 498, 77

de Blok, W. J. G., McGaugh, S. S., & van der Hulst, J. M. 1996 MNRAS 283, 18

de Blok, W. J. G., van der Hulst, J. M., & Bothun, G.D. 1995 MNRAS 274, 235

Evans, Rh., Davies, J. I., & Phillipps, S. 1990 MNRAS 245, 164

Gerritsen, P. & de Blok, W.J.G 1999 A&A 342, 655

Impey, C., Bothun, G., & Malin, D. 1988 ApJ 330, 634

Matthews, L., Gallagher, J., van Driel, W. 1999 AJ 118, 2751

McGaugh, S., Schombert, J., & Bothun G. 1995 AJ 109, 2019

O’Neil, K., & Bothun, G.D. 2001, in preparation

O’Neil, K., Bothun, G.D., & Schombert, J. 2000 AJ 119, 136

O’Neil, K., McGaugh, S. S., & Verheijen, M.A.W. 1999 AJ 119, 2194

O’Neil, K., Bothun, G.D., Schombert, J., Impey, C.D. & McGaugh, S. 1998 AJ 116, 657

O’Neil, K., Bothun, G.D., Cornell, M. 1997a AJ 113, 1212

O’Neil, K., Bothun, G.D., Schombert, J., Cornell, M., & Impey, C. 1997b AJ 114, 2448

Pickering, T. E., Impey, C. D., van Gorkom, J. H., & Bothun, G. D. 1997 AJ 114, 1858

Rao, S.M., & Turnshek, D.A. 1998 ApJ 500, L115

Rauch, M., Weyman, R.J., & Morris, S.L. 1996 ApJ 458, 518

Schombert, J., O’Neil, K., & Eder, J. 2002, in preparation

Schombert, J.M. 1998 AJ 116, 1650

Steidel, C., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., & Persson, S. 1994 AJ 108, 2046

Turnshek, D., et al. 2001 ApJ 553, 288

Zwaan, M.A., Verheijen, M.A.W., Briggs, F. 1999 PASA 16, 100


text:
# Magnetic Field Effects in the Pseudogap Phase: A Precursor Superconductivity Scenario

## Abstract

We demonstrate that the observed dependences of $`T_c`$ and $`T^{}`$ on small magnetic fields can be readily understood in a precursor superconductivity approach to the pseudogap phase. In this approach, the presence of a pseudogap at $`T_c`$ (but not at $`T^{}`$) and the associated suppression of the density of states lead to very different sensitivities to pair-breaking perturbations for the two temperatures. Our semi-quantitative results address the puzzling experimental observation that the coherence length $`\xi `$ is weakly dependent on hole concentration $`x`$ throughout most of the phase diagram. We present our results in a form which can be compared with the recent experiments of Shibauchi et al, and argue that orbital effects contribute in an important way to the $`H`$ dependence of $`T^{}`$.

journal: SNS’2001: Version 1

In the pseudogap phase, there are pronounced differences between the behavior of the pseudogap onset temperature $`T^{}`$ and the superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$ with respect to magnetic fields. In the underdoped regime, $`T_c`$ is far more field sensitive than is $`T^{}`$, and it has been argued that this lends support for the notion that the pseudogap is unrelated to the superconductivity. Contrary to this inference, we demonstrate here that these field dependences can be readily explained as a direct consequence of the pseudogap in a precursor superconductivity approach. In this approach, the presence of a pseudogap at $`T_c`$ (but not at $`T^{}`$) and the associated suppression of the density of states lead to very different sensitivities to pair-breaking perturbations for the two temperatures. Another effect of the pseudogap is that the coherence length $`\xi `$ does not necessarily coincide with other length scales in the system, as occurs in BCS theory. In this paper, we illustrate these pseudogap effects at $`T_c`$ from the standpoint of Landau-Ginsberg theory and give a comparison of semi-quantitative results with recent experiments.

The various approaches to understanding the pseudogap phase of the high temperature superconductors seem to be divided roughly into two schools: those in which the pseudogap is associated with a competing energy gap (or hidden order parameter) and those in which the pseudogap derives from the superconductivity itself. This latter “precursor superconductivity” school has multiple interpretations as well. The phase fluctuation and the spin-charge separation schools are to be distinguished from the present scheme in which the pseudogap arises in a mean-field generalization of BCS theory that allows the consideration of a strong pairing attraction. In contrast, the phase fluctuation school builds on *strict* BCS theory, but adds fluctuation effects which we neglect here. Our approach is often referred to as a BCS-Bose Einstein crossover scenario, since a sufficiently strong attractive interaction allows pairs to form at a temperature $`T^{}`$ which is higher than the $`T_c`$ at which they Bose condense. In the present paper, we use a formalism for treating the BCS-BEC crossover which we have extensively discussed and developed previously.

A fundamental feature of the crossover scenario is that increasing the attractive coupling strength $`g`$ introduces bosonic as well as fermionic excitations. The presence of nonzero-momentum bosonic pair excitations is responsible for both the pseudogap that develops for temperatures $`T_c<T<T^{}`$ as well as for the fact that below $`T_c`$, the excitation gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is distinct from the superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{sc}`$. The dispersion relation for fermions below $`T_c`$ has the BCS form with the full excitation gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_{sc}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{pg}^2$$
(1)
We will not give the self-consistency condition on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pg}(T)`$ here. Notably, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pg}`$ vanishes at zero temperature (yielding $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{sc}`$) due to the total Bose condensation of all pairs. From this point of view, BCS theory is a weak coupling limit in which there are no non-zero-momentum pair excitations and consequently $`T^{}`$ coincides with $`T_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{sc}`$ at all temperatures below $`T_c`$.

We associate over- and under- doping with small and large normalized coupling constants, respectively. In all our calculations the coupling $`g`$ enters in a dimensionless ratio with the bandwidth. It is presumed that as the Mott insulator is approached, the characteristic electronic energy scales decrease– so that even if $`g`$ is relatively $`x`$-independent, its effectiveness increases with underdoping. The existence of a pseudogap above $`T_c`$ which develops as the coupling is increased differentiates the physics of the underdoped cuprates from that of the overdoped (BCS) state.

We characterize the field sensitivity of $`T_c`$ through the coherence length $`\xi `$ defined by

$$\frac{1}{T_c}\frac{dT_c}{dH}|_{H=0}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\xi ^2$$
(2)
Similarly, we define a length scale $`\xi ^{}`$ for $`T^{}`$. In the case of $`T_c`$, where there is a true phase transition, we consider the free energy density of a linearized Landau-Ginsberg theory near $`T_c`$ :

$$F=\left[\tau \left(1\frac{T}{T_c}\right)+\eta ^2(i2\frac{e}{c}A)^2\right]|\mathrm{\Delta }_{sc}|^2$$
(3)
The stiffness of the superconducting order parameter with respect to spatial variations is characterized by $`\eta ^2`$, whereas $`\tau `$ essentially measures the density of states at the Fermi surface. As in BCS theory, $`\xi ^2=\eta ^2/\tau `$, although we must now consider the effect of the pseudogap on $`\eta ^2`$ and $`\tau `$. In our formalism, the calculation of the (coupling dependent) parameters $`\eta ^2`$ and $`\tau `$ is based on the application of the semi-classical phase approximation to evaluate the pairing susceptibility in a small magnetic field H ; the details are given in . Although there is no phase transition at $`T^{}`$, the pairing susceptibility provides natural analogs $`\eta ^2`$, $`\tau ^{}`$ with $`\xi ^2=\eta ^2/\tau ^{}`$. In BCS theory, $`\tau `$ merely cancels the density of states appearing in $`\eta ^2`$, resulting in a coherence length $`\xi =Cv_F/T_c`$, where $`C`$ is a universal constant . In the pseudogap phase, this cancellation no longer occurs, and $`\tau `$ plays a more interesting role in determining $`\xi `$. In general, we find that $`\xi `$ is different from $`Cv_F/T_c`$.

The doping dependence of $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ can be understood first from the fact that the spatial stiffness $`\eta ^2`$ (as well as $`\eta ^2`$) decreases with underdoping because the stonger pairing interaction reduces the pair size . Second, $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ measure the density of states at the Fermi energy at the respective temperatures. The pseudogap present at $`T_c`$ (but not $`T^{}`$) suppresses the density of states, causing $`\tau `$ to decrease rapidly with underdoping relative to $`\tau ^{}`$. There is no analogous suppression of $`\eta `$ relative to $`\eta ^{}`$, allowing $`\xi `$ to differ from $`\xi ^{}`$ in the pseudogap phase. We find that $`\xi ^{}`$ decreases with underdoping, while the competition between the spatial stiffness and the density of states at $`T_c`$ results in a broad doping range over which $`\xi `$ is relatively constant, with a dramatic increase in $`\xi `$ as the superconductor-insulator boundary is approached. Quantitative results for the behavior of $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}`$ as functions of hole concentration $`x`$ are given elsewhere.

In this paper we concentrate on an alternative representation of these calculations, defining characteristic magnetic fields $`H_{sc}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi \xi ^2`$ and $`H_{pg}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi \xi ^2`$. By assuming straight-line extrapolations on the $`HT`$ phase diagram, we may interpret these as the fields required at zero temperature to destroy superconductivity and close the pseudogap, respectively. This allows us to compare with the recent study of BSSCO 2212 by Shibauchi et al . Figure 1 demonstrates that our calculation (left) captures the convergence of $`H_{pg}`$ and $`H_{sc}`$ in the overdoped region as well as the divergence of these fields on the underdoped side as a consequence of the opening of the pseudogap at $`T_c`$. The figure indicates that on the overdoped side, $`T_c`$ and $`T^{}`$ are both sensitive to magnetic fields, whereas $`T^{}`$ is far less field sensitive than $`T_c`$ on the underdoped side. We plot $`H_{pg}`$ versus $`T^{}`$ (left, inset,) and in this way we can compare the apparent “Zeeman scaling” reported by Shibauchi et al ($`g\mu _0H_{pg}=k_BT^{}`$) with our calculations, which include only orbital magnetic effects. (One might expect that as the temperature is lowered, and because the appropriate critical fields become stronger, Zeeman coupling effects will also need to be ultimately incorporated into a more complete theoretical treatment). However, in the doping region corresponding to the three data points shown, there is reasonable agreement between the two insets. More experimental data points at lower $`T^{}`$ will ultimately be needed to determine the relative importance of orbital and Zeeman coupling in the magnetic field related pseudogap energy scales.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that a precursor pairing scenario is associated with very different magnetic field sensitivities for $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$. This observation is contrary to the widely held belief that if the pseudogap is associated with superconducting pairing, then $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ should be similarly dependent on the magnetic field strength. Here we associate the different $`H`$ dependences with the fact that a pseudogap is present at $`T_c`$ and absent at $`T^{}`$. The former observation leads to a modification of the Landau Ginsberg coefficients from their BCS counterparts. Moreover, the calculated field dependences of the two different energy scales ($`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$) appear to be in reasonable accord with experimental data.


text:
# Observation of Nonclassical Photon Statistics due to Quantum Interference

## Abstract

The nonclassical effect of photon anti-bunching is observed in the mixed field of a narrow band two-photon source and a coherent field under certain condition. A variety of different features in photon statistics are found to be the consequence of a two-photon interference effect with dependence on the relative phase of the fields. Besides the anti-bunching effect, we find another one of the features to be also nonclassical. These features emphasize the importance of quantum entanglement.

Nonclassical photon statistics such as photon anti-bunching is usually observed in two-level atomic system with resonant excitation, where quantum nature of the process prevents the emission of two photons at the same time. Therefore, an anti-bunched photon field will have less two-photon events than fields with random photon statistics such as a coherent field from a laser. Historically, this was the first observed nonclassical effect requiring a full quantum description of light . Since then, such a nonclasical effect has been observed in the fluorescence in a variety of systems consisting of a small number of atoms, ions and molecules. Recently, potential application in quantum cryptography has renewed the interest in producing anti-bunched photon source . When pumped by a short pulse, the systems mentioned above can form a photon gun  and become a good single-photon source .

So far most proposals and realized systems are based on some atomic transitions. A completely different mechanism was proposed by Stoler  for the production of anti-bunched photon field as early as in 1974. Stoler’s proposal is based on parametric amplifier and was realized experimentally by Koashi et al. The pulsed system was used in that experiment following Stoler’s suggestion that anti-bunching may occur only in the ”transient” regime of the parametric amplifier. Recently, however, it was suggested  that anti-bunched cw field can be generated in the homodyning of an optical parametric oscillator (OPO) and a strong coherent local oscillator. Coherent homodyne of down-converted field was first studied by Grangier et al.  to investigate nonlocal effect of two-photon system and demonstrated by Kuzmich et al . Similar scheme was also realized by Koashi et al in the pulsed system. Naively, it is hard to understand how anti-bunched light can be generated from a highly bunched two-photon source such as parametric down-conversion, where photons are emitted in pairs. It turns out that the underlining principle is quantum interference. Although high two-photon events occur from parametric down-conversion, there are also low accidental two-photon events from a coherent field. With a strong coherent field, the accidental two-photon events may have the same rate as that from parametric down-conversion. If the two processes are coherent, two-photon interference will lead to sinusoidal modulation of two-photon coincidence as a function of the relative phase. At certain phase when destructive two-photon interference occurs, two-photon events in the mixed field will be less than a coherent field, resulting in photon anti-bunching while at complementary phase, constructive interference will lead to photon bunching.

In this paper, we report an experimental implementation of the above idea. We have observed a number of quite different features in photon statistical distribution as the relative phase between the down-converted field and the coherent field is changed. The observed features include photon antibunching and bunching and a new feature that also has nonclassical implication.

To understand more rigorously how this could happen, let us consider the mixing of a coherent state given by

$`|\alpha |0+\alpha |1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\sqrt{2}}}|2(|\alpha |<<1)`$ (1)
with a single-mode two-photon state from parametric down-conversion. For simplicity, we only treat them with a simple single mode model. To be consistent with the experimental arrangement to be discussed later, the mixing is done by injecting the coherent field into the parametric down-converter as shown in Fig.1. Such a scheme is exactly same as the one proposed by Stoler . But we present it here again to emphasize the role of quantum two-photon interference. We treat the coherent state as the initial state for the down-converted mode (denoted by the creation operator $`\widehat{a}`$), which interacts with the pump field via Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}=j\mathrm{}\eta V_p\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}^{}+h.c.,`$ (2)
where $`V_p`$ is the amplitude of the pump field and $`\eta `$ is some constant proportional to nonlinear coefficient of the nonlinear medium.

The output state can be derived from the evolution operator $`\widehat{U}(t)=exp\{j\widehat{H}t/\mathrm{}\}`$ as

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}(t)|\alpha `$ (3)
$``$ $`|0+\alpha |1+(\sqrt{2}\eta V_pt+\alpha ^2/\sqrt{2})|2,`$ (4)
where $`t`$ is the interaction time that is proportional to the length of the nonlinear medium. In Eq.(3), we made an expansion of the exponential function and dropped the higher-order terms by assuming $`|\eta V_pt||\alpha |^2<<1`$. Therefore, the single photon rate $`P_1|\alpha |^2`$ is same as that in Eq.(1) indicating that the mixed field is dominated by the coherent field. The two-photon rate, however, is given by

$`P_2=\left|\sqrt{2}\eta V_pt+\alpha ^2/\sqrt{2}\right|^2,`$ (5)
which, with the selection of the relative phase between the pump and the coherent fields, can be bigger than that of coherent field derived from Eq.(1) giving rise to photon bunching effect or smaller for photon anti-bunching effect. Especially when $`2\eta V_pt=\alpha ^2`$, we have complete destructive two-photon interference with zero rate for two-photon detection. Eq.(4) can be explained as follows: $`\sqrt{2}\eta V_pt`$ is the two-photon amplitude for parametric down-conversion alone while $`\alpha ^2/\sqrt{2}`$ is for the coherent field; the addition of the two amplitudes gives the overall two-photon amplitude for the combined field (the output field in Fig.1) resulting in Eq.(4) for two-photon rate.

Although the above simple single-mode picture makes it easier to understand the underlining principle of the effect, in practice, the down-converted field has a wide spectrum while coherent field from a laser has a narrow bandwidth. As demonstrated in our previous work in Ref. and shown in the insets of Fig.2, the wide-band down-converted field produces a bell-shaped temporal correlation for two-photon coincidence measurement (solid line in the inset). For the coherent field, because of the randomness in the arrival of photons, the temporal correlation function is simply a flat line (dash line in the inset). The two functions provide the two-photon rate of each field at some specific time delay, respectively.

When we mix the two fields, since the field is mostly dominated by the coherent field, there is no significant single photon interference at one detector level. However, since two-photon rates for the two fields are comparable at least at zero time delay, two-photon interference occurs and is shown up in two-photon coincidence measurement with two detectors (intensity correlation). If the amplitude of the coherent field is denoted by $`A`$ and the two-photon amplitude from down-converted field by $`F(\tau )Bf(\tau )`$ with $`B`$ as a constant proportional to the amplitude of the pump field and the interaction strength, and

$`f(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{C2}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{opo}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{opo}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{C2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\tau \mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{C2}/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{C2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\tau \mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{opo}/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{opo}}}\right)`$ (6)
obtained from Eq.(32) of Ref., the two-photon correlation function for the mixed field is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\left|A^2+F(\tau )\right|^2,`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`|A|^4+|B|^2f^2(\tau )+2|A|^2|Bf(\tau )|\mathrm{cos}\varphi .`$ (8)
$`\varphi `$ is the relative phase between the two fields. If we notice that $`f(\mathrm{})=0`$, the normalized intensity correlation function is then (for stationary field only)

$`g^{(2)}(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(\tau )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(\mathrm{})}}=1+|b|^2f^2(\tau )+2|bf(\tau )|\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$ (9)
where $`b|B/A^2|`$ gives the relative strength of the two fields. Eq.(7) presents the typical phase dependent feature for interference effect and Fig.2 shows the correlation functions for various parameters in Eqs.(5) and (7).

The insets show the relative strength in two-photon rate for the two fields, respectively. Because two-photon rates are different at different time delays, complete cancellation occurs only at the locations where the two curves intercept as shown in Fig.2. Fig.2(a) shows the usual type of anti-bunching effect; Fig.2(b), however, shows a double dip feature with zero two-photon coincidence occurring at nonzero time delays. Similar double dip shaped distribution can also be obtained at the same two-photon rate as in Fig.2(a) but with a different relative phase. All these cases are nonclassical. In particular, Fig.2(a) violates the classical Schwartz inequalities

$`g^{(2)}(0)1,g^{(2)}(0)g^{(2)}(\tau ),`$ (10)
and Fig.2(b) violates

$`|g^{(2)}(0)1||g^{(2)}(\tau )1|.`$ (11)
Although violations of inequalities in (8) were the most often observed nonclassical effects, violation of inequality in (9) has only been observed recently. In the following, we will discuss the experimental procedures that lead to the observation of these nonclassical features in normalized photon correlation function.

In the type of interference discussed above, both the coherent field and the two-photon field are produced independent of each other. Therefore, the observation of the interference effect requires that the detectors’ response be faster than the fields’ phase fluctuations. In other words, since the phases of the two fields are uncorrelated, in order to observe the interference effect, detection time must be short enough for stable phases. This requirement means that our detector’s response time must be shorter than the correlation time of the fields. Recently, we successfully built a narrow band two-photon source that satisfies this requirement.

For the interference experiment, the layout is similar to that in Ref. except that we inject a coherent field split from the laser into the OPO cavity (C1 in Fig.1 of Ref.) from the left side (high reflector side) in consistency with the sketch in Fig.1 of current paper. The reason for this arrangement is two-fold. Firstly, interference requires the presence of both fields at the same time. But we use a mechanical chopper to eliminate the background from the auxiliary locking beam so that the detected signal is not continuous (Even so, there still exists a rather large background from scattering). The current arrangement of letting the coherent field passing through the OPO cavity can synchronize the two fields. Secondly, the OPO cavity can act as a spatial filter for the coherent field to mode-match the down-converted field.

The time interval measurement for the two-photon event is accomplished by two avalanche photo-detectors and a time-to-analog converter. The result is the intensity correlation function. Typical results of the measurement are presented in Fig.3, which show the normalized intensity correlation function at various relative phases and intensities. The adjustment of the relative phase is through the change of the path of the pump field while for the relative intensity, it is done by adjusting the light level of the injected coherent field. A clear evidence of photon anti-bunching is shown in Fig.3(a), which is obtained at proper relative phase and relative intensity. Fig.3(b) is obtained with the relative phase changed by $`180^{}`$ from that of Fig.3(a). The double dip feature shows up in Fig.3(c) at a different ratio of the two-photon rates of the two fields from Fig.3(a) but with same relative phase as that of Fig.3(a).

It should be emphasized before the analysis of the experimental results that the photon correlation function in Eq.(7) is extremely sensitive to the phases of the pump field and the coherent field. A swing of the relative phase from $`180^{}`$ to $`90^{}`$ (rather than to $`0^{}`$) will cause the combined field to go from anti-bunching to bunching. Unfortunately, the pump field and the injected coherent field travel through different paths via multiple mirror sets so that their phase fluctuations are not correlated and to make things worse, the mechanical chopper, which is used to reduce scattered light, stirs up an air flow around the paths and disturbs the phases of the fields. We do not have an active servo system to hold the phase at the desired value. So the phase may fluctuate and sometimes wander away from the desired value. During the experiment, we manually hold the phase of the pump field at various values and our measurement time is short. Typical period of measurement is about 5 sec, which is the reason behind the poor statistics in Fig.3. Even this cannot defeat the fast phase fluctuation but may prevent the slow drift of the phase. Because of the fast phase fluctuations, we cannot directly apply Eq.(7). An average over the phase difference $`\varphi `$ must be performed to account for the phase fluctuations. The results are shown as the solid curves in Fig.3.

Obviously, Fig.3(a) shows the normal type of anti-bunching effect, where we have $`g^{(2)}(0)<1`$ and $`g^{(2)}(0)<g^{(2)}(\tau )`$. The suppression of two-photon coincidence at zero time delay is due to a destructive interference. The distribution in Fig.3(c) violates the classical inequality in (9). Fig.3(b), showing the typical photon bunching effect, has an enhanced two-photon coincidence at zero delay time and is due to constructive interference. The observed nonclassical effects are not as large as predicted in Fig.2. We believe the problem mostly lies in the fluctuation of the phases of the fields involved. Another cause for the problem comes from stimulated emission, which gives rise to the higher order terms that are omitted in Eq.(3). The higher order terms do not participate in the interference process and thus provides a background that will raise the level of the baseline in Fig.3 making the visibility of the interference small. This problem can be solved by lowering the pump level. But doing so will decrease the signal level and make the time longer for data taking so that the phase fluctuation becomes worse. A trade-off thus has to be made in our experiment. The decrease in visibility can also come from the background due to scattering from the auxiliary locking beam.

An interesting feature in this experiment is that the intensity of the two-photon source is much smaller than that of the coherent source by a factor of about 10. This is another example of a weak nonclassical source making a strong effect on a strong classical source. Although the scheme is somewhat similar to the homodyne detection of squeezed state, there are distinctions at two aspects: (1) the phenomenon is not affected by the quantum efficiency of the detectors; (2) to have the maximum effect, the coherent source cannot be arbitrary – it must have the same two-photon rate as the two-photon source.

It should be pointed out that although some of the effects described in this paper have been observed in a pulsed system , some new features like the one shown in Fig.3(c) can only occur in a cw system. Furthermore, pulse-pumped parametric down-conversion process is notorious for its temporal mode mismatch which usually results in low visibility in interference. It relies on strong spectral filtering  to achieve complete removal of the bunched photon pair to meet the requirement for the application in quantum cryptography. For a cw system like ours, such a problem does not exist because we can make time-resolved detection for narrow band fields.

In conclusion, we observed a variety of photon statistics ranging from photon bunching to anti-bunching in two-photon interference between a coherent field and a narrow-band two-photon field. It is believed that we should be able to produce sub-Poissonian photon statistics from this scheme. Such a system has the advantage over other atomic transition based fluorescent system in that (1) it is not wavelength dependent so long as to meet phase matching condition in parametric down-conversion; (2) it is more directional because of the phase matching condition.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research.


text:
# On the Structure of Physical Measures in Gauge Theories

## Framework and Result

This letter is based on the Ashtekar approach  to gauge field theories because it is best-suited for solving measure-theoretical problems. Its basic idea goes as follows: The continuum gauge theory is known as soon as its restrictions to all finite floating lattices are known. This means, in particular, that the expectation values of all observables that are sensitive only to the degrees of freedom of a certain lattice can be calculated by the corresponding integration over these finitely many degrees of freedom. Examples for those observables are the Wilson loop variables $`\text{tr}h_\beta `$ where $`\beta `$ is some loop in the space or space-time and $`h_\beta `$ is the holonomy along that loop.

The above idea has been implemented rigorously for compact structure groups $`𝐆`$ as follows: First the original configuration space of all smooth gauge fields (modulo gauge transforms) has been enlarged by distributional ones . This way the configuration space became compact and could now be regarded as a so-called projective limit of the lattice configuration spaces . These, on the other hand, consist as in ordinary lattice gauge theories of all possible assignments of parallel transports to the edges of the considered floating lattice (again modulo gauge transforms). Since every parallel transport is an element of $`𝐆`$, the Haar measure on $`𝐆`$ yields a natural measure for the lattice theories. Now the so-called Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure $`\text{d}\mu _0`$  is just that continuum measure whose restrictions to the lattice theories coincide with these natural lattice Haar measures. It serves as a canonical kinematical measure.

In contrast to the beautiful results in the formulation of quantum geometry  within this framework, the progress in the treatment of general gauge theories here is quite small. Only for the two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory the complete quantization program has been performed explicitely . However, even there the full measure has not been defined directly via the action method, but using a regularization and a certain limit. This was necessary because no extension of the classical action $`S`$ to distributive gauge fields is known. Probably neither this does for more complicated models. Therefore we are going to investigate a more fundamental problem: What kind of models at all can be studied via the action method or might it be typical that the action method fails?

For this, we will consider theories satisfying the following, physically rather natural suppositions.

1. Universality of the coupling constant
This encodes the assumption that the interaction between arbitrarily charged, composite particles is determined immediately by the interaction between the elementary particles.

2. Independence principle
This means that certain loops are independent random variables.

3. Geometrical regularity
This signifies that the Wilson-loop expectation value converges to $`1`$ when the loop shrinks, i.e., its holonomy goes to the identity for every smooth gauge field.

Although these criteria are natural apparently, if all three criteria are met, the continuum measure will be purely singular w.r.t. the Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure. This means, those continuum theories cannot be described by a measure with $`\text{d}\mu =\text{e}^S\text{d}\mu _0`$.

Now, we are going to explain our three principles, state precisely their consequences and discuss finally examples.

## Principle 1: Universality of the Coupling Constant

We are aiming at the following statement: If the theory considered has a (in a certain sense) universal coupling constant that by itself describes the coupling strength between the elementary (matter) particles of that theory, then $`\text{tr}\varphi (h_\beta )`$ is determined completely by $`\text{tr}h_\beta `$ and the representation $`\varphi `$. Here $`f`$ always denotes the physical expectation value of a function $`f`$.

Let us consider the simplest case of a Yang-Mills theory with structure group $`U(1)`$. The elementary matter particles are the single-charged particles; the coupling constant be $`\text{g}=e`$. Classically, the interaction, i.e. the potential between a particle and its antiparticle, is obviously proportional to $`\text{g}^2`$. Now we call the coupling constant to be universal if it yields immediately the interaction between arbitrarily charged particles: In particular, for composed particle with charges $`n`$ and $`n`$, resp., it is proportional $`(n\text{g})^2`$. In general, one assumes that also the Wilson-loop expectation values $`h_\beta `$ describe the potential between two oppositely charged static particles . Namely, if $`\beta `$ is a rectangular loop running in space between $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ and in time between $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, then the potential between the elementary particles resting in $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}`$, resp., is given by

$`V_1(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}\mathrm{ln}h_\beta .`$

A Wilson loop so just carries the interaction between an elementary particle-antiparticle pair; consequently, $`n`$ loops should yield the interaction between an pair of an $`n`$-times charged particle and its antiparticle. On the other hand, (by the assumed universality of the coupling constant) the corresponding potential $`V_n`$ is to be $`n^2V_1`$. Hence, we have

$`n^2V_1(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})=V_n(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}\mathrm{ln}h_\beta ^n.`$

Translating these two equations to the level of Wilson-loop expectation values, we get (at least in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}`$)

$$h_\beta ^n=h_\beta ^{n^2}.$$
(1)
Indeed, the Wilson-loop expectation values of the $`U(1)`$ theory for $`d=2`$ dimensions in the Ashtekar framework fulfill equation (1) – and namely not only for loops being large w.r.t. the time, but for all loops . Hence, it is by no means unrealistic to identify the validity of (1) for all loops with the existence of a universal coupling constant.

Let us now turn to gauge theories having general compact structure group $`𝐆`$. Using the following translation table

|  | $`U(1)`$ | $``$ | $`𝐆`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| irreducible representation | $`n`$ | $``$ | $`\varphi `$ |
| dimension | $`1`$ | $``$ | $`d_\varphi `$ |
| normalized character | $`g^n`$ | $``$ | $`\frac{1}{d_\varphi }\text{tr}\varphi (g)`$ |
| Casimir eigenvalue | $`n^2`$ | $``$ | $`c_\varphi `$ |

,

equation (1) becomes

$$\frac{\text{tr}\varphi (h_\beta )}{d_\varphi }=\left(\frac{\text{tr}\varphi _1(h_\beta )}{d_{\varphi _1}}\right)^{\frac{c_\varphi }{c_1}},$$
(2)
where $`\varphi _1`$ denotes some nontrivial representation of $`𝐆`$, e.g., the standard one of $`𝐆U(N)`$ on $`^N`$. Therefore, we will call a theory having a universal coupling constant iff equation (2) is fulfilled for all irreducible representations $`\varphi `$ and all “non-selfoverlapping” loops $`\beta `$.

From the physical point of view such an assumption has a very interesting consequence: If a theory describes confinement (in the sense of an area law) between the elementary particles, all other charged particle-antiparticle pairs are confined as well. In the case of QCD this just explains why only particles containing exclusively of baryons and mesons are freely observable; they are simply those particles whose total color charge $`\sqrt{c_\varphi }`$ equals zero, i.e. whose quark product state transforms according the trivial $`SU(3)`$ representation. We remark that this discussion is not new because already about twenty years ago Yang-Mills theories with non-elementary charges has been considered (cf., e.g., ) and it has been shown that there occurs an area law as well. However, there one started with the action $`\frac{1}{2}(\varphi (F),\varphi (F))`$ specially taylored to those charges, such that a comparison between differently charged particles is not possible within one model – in contrast to our description.

Finally, we note that just the universality of the coupling constant might be a desirable property of unified theories.

## Principle 2: Independence Principle

It is well-known that non-overlapping loops yield independent random variables in the two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory. This means, for all finite sets $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n`$ of such loops and for all representations $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n`$ of the structure group $`𝐆`$ we have

$$\text{tr}\varphi _1(h_{\beta _1})\mathrm{}\text{tr}\varphi _n(h_{\beta _n})=\text{tr}\varphi _1(h_{\beta _1})\mathrm{}\text{tr}\varphi _n(h_{\beta _n}).$$
(3)
However, to demand equation (3) being satisfied for general theories is too restrictive physically because then every quantum state will be ultralocal and the Hamiltionian vanishes . For our purposes it is completely sufficient to demand that there is a sufficiently large number of “small” independent loops. Of course, non-overlapping loops remain natural candidates for this although their precise definition is worth discussing – in particular from dimension $`3`$ on. As a minimal version one could view a set of loops as non-overlapping if there is a surface in the space-time such that these loops form a set of non-overlapping loops. However, this condition seems to be too restrictive. Perhaps one could resort to the knot theory instead; maybe there are physically interesting measures where equation (3) is fulfilled for all sets of loops that have Gauss winding number $`0`$.

Stopping this discussion here, we declare a theory to obey the independence principle if there is an infinite number of loops of decreasing geometrical size that are independent both graph-theoretically and in the sense of equation (3). We remark finally that for some structure groups $`𝐆`$ the relations (3) are not completely sufficient, because there the Wilson loop variables do not span a dense subalgebra of the continuous functions on the configuration space . However, this rather technical problem can be solved introducing the so-called loop network states  and is therefore skipped here.

## Principle 3: Geometrical Regularity

After we have discussed two principles on the level of a fixed lattice, we are now going to discuss the continuum limit. If a theory is to have a continuum limit, then the holonomy along a loop should go to the identity when shrinking the loop to a point. In other words, since a measure in general encodes the distribution of certain objects, this suggests that the smaller the loop – the more the corresponding lattice measure should concentrate around the identity . One could even demand that the lattice measure goes to the $`\delta `$-distribution. Hence, it should be clear that the continuum limit naturally leads to singular measures.

In order to retrace this effect also quantitatively, we transfer it to the level of expectation values. First it is obvious that $`\text{tr}\varphi (h_\beta )`$ should go to the dimension $`d_\varphi `$ of the representation $`\varphi `$, if the (non-selfoverlapping) loop $`\beta `$ becomes small. In the case of the two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory, one can even prove that $`d_\varphi \text{tr}\varphi (h_\beta )<\text{const}|G_\beta |`$ holds, i.e. the expectation values are Hölder continuous w.r.t. the area $`|G_\beta |`$ enclosed by the loop $`\beta `$. Therefore we will call a theory geometrically regular if there is a nonnegative real function $`\sigma (\beta )`$ such that first

$$\frac{d_\varphi \text{tr}\varphi (h_\beta )}{\sigma (\beta )}$$
(4)
is bounded as a function of $`\beta `$ and second $`\sigma `$ goes to $`0`$ for shrinking $`\beta `$. Examples of conceivable functions $`\sigma (\beta )`$ are the area $`|G_\beta |`$ enclosed by $`\beta `$ or the length $`L(\beta )`$ of $`\beta `$.

We remark, that we will only need the validity of equation (4) for the case that $`\varphi `$ is the representation having the smallest nonzero Casimir eigenvalue.

## Implications of these Principles

1. If a theory obeys the principles 1 and 2, then all lattice measures are absolutely continuous w.r.t. to the lattice Haar measure.

2. If a theory obeys the principles 1, 2 and 3, then the continuum measure is purely singular w.r.t. to the Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure. This means it cannot be gained by the action method. Additionally, the measure is concentrated near non-generic strata, i.e.  certain singular gauge fields.

The proofs are quite technical and will therefore be contained in a subsequent, detailed paper . They use chiefly Fourier analysis on compact Lie groups.

We note that as already indicated several times the assumptions of the theorem above can be weakened drastically, but we skipped this here in favour of the physical interpretation and the readability.

## Examples

### Two-dimensional Yang-Mills Theory ($`^2`$)

The Wilson-loop expectation values of the Yang-Mills theory on the space-time $`^2`$ are completely known within the Ashtekar approach :

$$\text{tr}\varphi (h_\beta )=d_\varphi \text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\text{g}^2c_\varphi |G_\beta |}.$$
(5)
Thus, we are given a theory that has a universal coupling constant and that is geometrically regular w.r.t. the area as indicated above. Moreover, it has been shown that non-overlapping loops are indeed independent. Consequently, the continuum measure is purely singular w.r.t. the Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure $`\text{d}\mu _0`$.

The singularity can also be interpreted physically: If one calculated the expectation values of $`\text{tr}\varphi (h_\beta )`$ w.r.t. $`\text{d}\mu _0`$, one would get $`0`$ for all nontrivial $`\varphi `$ and $`1`$ in the trivial case. By means of equation (5) we see that the Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure is simply the naive strong-coupling limit $`\text{g}\mathrm{}`$ of the Yang-Mills measure. But, physically it should be clear that the cases of finite and of infinite coupling are significantly different. The singularity encodes just this difference.

### Two-dimensional Yang-Mills Theory (general)

There are also striking hints that the same results are valid for the other Yang-Mills theories on two-dimensional spaces as well. A more detailed analysis  analysis shows that our three criteria need only be met for appropriate “small” homotopically trivial loops. But just this has been shown by Sengupta . He could prove on the classical level that in certain graphs the lattice measures are given by heat-kernel measures as in the $`^2`$-case. It can be expected that these results can be transferred to the Ashtekar approach as for $`^2`$ because holonomies outside a graph have been unimportant for the continuum limit in $`^2`$. In contrast to this, calculations of Aroca and Kubyshin  indicate for compact space-time that the area of the complement of a graph influences the expectation values by its finiteness. Hence, the universality of the coupling constant is given only approximatively. However, the interpretation of our principles have to be handled with care at least for compact space-times: A limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}`$ is hard to define.

Nevertheless, in general one can expect singular continuum measures, hence a failure of the action method for $`d=2`$.

### Theories Showing Confinement

Strictly speaking, the only theory that is proven to fulfill all three criteria is the two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory. However, the geometrical regularity is given for every theory with an area law $`\text{tr}\varphi (h_\beta )=d_\varphi \text{e}^{\text{const}|G_\beta |}`$ or a length law $`\text{tr}\varphi (h_\beta )=d_\varphi \text{e}^{\text{const}L(\beta )}`$. The former one is regarded as an indicator for confinement, and the latter one for deconfinement. Since among our three criteria just the geometrical regularity is the most important one for the singularity of the continuum measure, one could expect for both classes of theories that the action method fails. However, we have to mention that both the deconfinement and the confinement criterion need the corresponding laws for loops that are large in the time direction, but we actually need loops of small size to prove the singularity of the measure. Both requirements can be matched together only in the area-law case: Here one can still generate loops with small area by choosing very narrow loops that are large w.r.t. the time which is impossible in the length-law case. Therefore, up to now, we can only claim that the appearance of an area law is a convincing indicator for a singular continuum measure.

## Conclusions

Despite to the mentioned difficulties, the singularity of the full interaction measure $`\text{d}\mu `$ can be viewed as a typical property of the continuum. Hence, in particular, regular continuum limit and action method exclude each other: Assuming regularity the definition of the interaction measure via $`\text{d}\mu :=\text{e}^S\text{d}\mu _0`$ is impossible. For all that it is mostly tried to get $`\text{d}\mu `$ this way. Maybe that just this sticking to the action method is a deeper reason for the problems with the continuum limit or quantizations occuring permanently up to now. The desired absolute continuity seems to be a deceptfully simple tool, since it hides important physical phenomena. But, the singularity of a measure per se is completely harmless. In fact, strictly speaking, the measure is no physically relevant quantity; only expectation values are detectable. So far it is to be evaluate absolutely positive that the interaction measure $`\text{d}\mu `$ has not been used in our principles, but rather some of its expectation values. It has been completely sufficient to know that $`\text{d}\mu `$ does exist at all for extracting properties of $`\text{d}\mu `$ from our physical principles in a mathematically rigorous way. Thus, a measure is only the mathematical arena where anything happens. To know it might be superfluous from the physical point of view; however, one must be able to rely on it.

## Acknowledgements

The author is supported by the Reimar-Lüst-Stipendium of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.


text:
# The Radially Vibrating Spherical Quantum Billiard

## Abstract

We consider the radially vibrating spherical quantum billiard as a representative example of vibrating quantum billiards. We derive necessary conditions for quantum chaos in $`d`$-term superposition states. These conditions are symmetry relations corresponding to the relative quantum numbers of eigenstates considered pairwise. In this discussion, we give special attention to eigenstates with null angular momentum (for which the aforementioned conditions are automatically satisfied). When these necessary conditions are met, we observe numerically that there always exist parameter values for which the billiard behaves chaotically. We focus our numerical studies on the ground and first excited states of the radially vibrating spherical quantum billiard with null angular momentum eigenstates. We observe chaotic behavior in this configuration and thereby dispel the common belief that one must pass to the semiclassical ($`\mathrm{}0`$) or high quantum number limits in order to meaningfully discuss quantum chaos. The results in the present paper are also of practical import, as the radially vibrating spherical quantum billiard may be used as a model for the quantum dot nanostructure, the Fermi accelerating sphere, and intra-nuclear particle behavior.

## 1 Introduction

There has been considerable research in the last twenty years that seeks to marry quantum mechanics and dynamical systems theory into a coherent whole. In particular, the concept of quantum chaos extends the notions of classical Hamiltonian chaos to the quantum regime. There are three types of quantum chaotic behavior: “quantized chaos” (“quantum chaology”), “semiquantum chaos,” and genuine “quantum chaos.” Quantum chaology concerns the quantum structure of classically chaotic systems, semiquantum chaos refers to the chaotic dynamics of coupled classical and quantum systems, and genuine quantum chaos refers to chaotic dynamics of fully quantum systems. No example of the third type of quantum chaos has been established, so the existence of such systems is an open question.

In the present paper, we discuss semiquantum chaos in the context of vibrating billiard systems. We review the recent results of Liboff and Porter and discuss them in further detail. We treat a two-term Galërkin projection (superposition state) of the radially vibrating sphere and prove that only 2-term superpositions whose normal modes have common rotational symmetry behave chaotically. We extend this theorem to arbitrary superposition states by applying it pairwise. In the proof of this theorem, we establish integrable (non-chaotic) behavior by showing that the evolution equations reduce to a two-dimensional autonomous dynamical system, whose non-chaotic properties are known. We then discuss two examples: one integrable superposition and one chaotic one. We compute Poincaré maps and thereby reveal chaotic characteristics such as regions of ergodicity and KAM islands.

We also discuss the present results with respect to the phenomenology of quantum chaos. The chaotic behavior in the radius $`a`$ and conjugate momentum $`P`$ corresponds to classical Hamiltonian chaos. The normal modes $`\psi _{nlm}`$ depend on the radius, so they exhibit quantum-mechanical wave chaos. We also observe chaos in the Bloch variables $`(x,y,z)`$, which correspond to quantum-mechanical probabilities. The dynamical equations describing the present system correspond to a two degree-of-freedom (dof) Hamiltonian system, where one degree-of-freedom is classical (corresponding to the so-called one “degree-of-vibration” (dov) radial motion) and one is quantum-mechanical (corresponding to the coupling coefficient $`\mu `$). By coupling a single classical dof (which is necessarily integrable) with a single quantum dof (which must also be integrable), we obtain a genuinely chaotic system that provides an example of semiquantum chaos since it consists of a classical system coupled to a quantum one. We remark that we do not need to pass to the semiclassical ($`\mathrm{}0`$) or high quantum number limits in order to observe chaos, as is commonly considered requisite for a meaningful analysis of quantum chaos.

The radially vibrating spherical quantum billiard has several practical applications that complement its theoretical import. The most important one is that it may be used as a model for the quantum dot nanostructure. At low temperatures, this microdevice component experiences vibrations due to zero-point motions, and at higher temperatures, it exhibits vibrations due to natural fluctuations. Another application is that the radially vibrating spherical quantum billiard generalizes Fermi’s “bouncing-ball model” of cosmic ray acceleration. Additionally, the radially vibrating spherical quantum billiard models the intradynamics of the nucleus, as the ‘liquid drop’ and ‘collective’ models of the nucleus include boundary vibrations. Consequently, the importance of the radially vibrating spherical quantum billiard lies not only in its expansion of the theory of quantum chaos but also in its applicability to problems in nuclear, atomic, and mesoscopic physics.

## 2 Statement of the Problem

The spherical quantum billiard addresses the quantum dynamics of a particle of mass $`m_0`$ confined to the interior of a spherical cavity of mass $`Mm_0`$ with smooth walls of radius $`a`$. The radius vibrates in an a priori unspecified manner, so that $`aa(t)`$. A two-component superposition state (Galërkin projection) of this quantum billiard is given using Dirac notation by

$$|\psi (r,\theta ,\varphi ,t;a(t))=A_1(t)|nlm,t+A_2(t)|n^{}l^{}m^{},t,$$
(1)
where $`A_1(t)`$ and $`A_2(t)`$ are complex amplitudes. The numbers $`\{n,l,m\}`$ are, respectively, the principal, orbital, and azimuthal quantum numbers. The eigenstates of the present system are products of spherical Bessel functions and spherical harmonics. In coordinate representation,

$$\stackrel{}{r}|nlm,t=\psi _{nlm}(r,\theta ,\varphi ,t;a(t))=\sqrt{\frac{2}{a(t)^3}}\left(\frac{1}{j_{l+1}(x_{ln})}\right)j_l\left(\frac{rx_{ln}}{a(t)}\right)Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi ),$$
(2)
where $`x_{ln}`$ is the $`n`$th zero of $`j_l`$, the spherical Bessel function of order $`l`$.

For the system at hand, the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is given by

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=K\psi ,ra(t),$$
(3)
where the quantum-mechanical Hamiltonian $`K`$, the kinetic energy of the particle, is

$$K=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_0}^2.$$
(4)
The total Hamiltonian of the system is

$$H=\frac{P^2}{2M}+V+K,$$
(5)
where $`P`$ is the momentum of the billiard boundary, and $`VV(a)`$ is the potential of the billiard surface. The potential energy $`V`$ and kinetic energy $`P^2/2M`$ of the billiard walls are classical quantities, and the confined particle is quantum-mechanical. For this semiquantum system, we utilize the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, so that only the particle kinetic energy $`K`$ is inserted into the Schrödinger equation (3). In this adiabatic approximation, which is commonly used in mesoscopic physics, we are ignoring the effects of Berry phase.

Taking the expectation of (3) using the superposition state (1) gives

$$\psi |\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_0}^2\psi =\frac{1}{a^2}\left[ϵ_1|A_1|^2+ϵ_2|A_2|^2\right]K(A_1,A_2,a),$$

$$i\mathrm{}\psi |\frac{\psi }{t}=i\mathrm{}\left[\dot{A}_1A_1^{}+\dot{A}_2A_2^{}+\nu _{11}|A_1|^2+\nu _{12}A_1A_2^{}+\nu _{21}A_2A_1^{}+\nu _{22}|A_2|^2\right],$$
(6)
where the energies of the two terms are given by

$$ϵ_1\frac{\mathrm{}^2x_{ln}^2}{2m_0},ϵ_2\frac{\mathrm{}^2x_{l^{}n^{}}^2}{2m_0}.$$
(7)
## 3 Integrable Configuration

Examining the superposition of $`|100`$ and $`|110`$ using (6) and orthogonality of spherical harmonics shows that $`\nu _{11}=\nu _{12}=\nu _{21}=\nu _{22}=0`$. (Note that $`\nu _{11}`$ and $`\nu _{22}`$ vanish no matter which eigenstates one considers.) Equating the inner products (6) of both sides of the Schrödinger equation gives equations of motion for the complex amplitudes:

$$i\dot{A}_1=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}a^2}ϵ_1A_1,i\dot{A}_2=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}a^2}ϵ_2A_2,$$
(8)
which are integrated to yield

$$A_1(t)=C_1\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iϵ_1}{\mathrm{}}a^2(t)𝑑t\right],A_2(t)=C_2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iϵ_1}{\mathrm{}}a^2(t)𝑑t\right].$$
(9)
From (9), one obtains a Hamiltonian in the radius $`a`$ and conjugate momentum $`P`$:

$$H=\frac{P^2}{2M}+K(A_1,A_2,a)+V(a)=\frac{P^2}{2M}+\frac{1}{a^2}\left[ϵ_1|C_1|^2+ϵ_2|C_2|^2\right]+V(a).$$
(10)
A Hamiltonian with no explicit time-dependence and one dof corresponds to a two-dimensional autonomous system, which is known to be non-chaotic. When there are no coupling terms, the degree-of-freedom of the resulting Hamiltonian corresponds to the degree-of-vibration of the quantum billiard, which is a measure of the number of distance dimensions that undergo oscillations. When a two-term superposition has a non-vanishing coupling coefficient, the number of degrees-of-freedom of the resulting Hamiltonian system is equal to the number of dov of the billiard plus one. In particular, this means that a superposition state of a quantum billiard with more than one dov (such as the two dov rectangular quantum billiard) is expected to behave chaotically even if every one of its coupling coefficients vanishes.

Hamilton’s equations for the present integrable configuration are

$$\dot{a}=\frac{P}{M}\frac{H}{P},\dot{P}=\frac{V}{a}+\frac{\lambda }{a^3}\frac{H}{a},$$
(11)
where the energy parameter $`\lambda `$ is given by

$$\lambda 2\left(ϵ_1|C_1|^2+ϵ_1|C_2|^2\right)>0.$$
(12)
The bifurcation structure of (11) has been studied for quartic potentials $`V(a)`$.

## 4 Necessary Conditions for Chaos in k Coupled States

Consider the superposition

$$\psi =A_1\psi _{q_1}+A_2\psi _{q_2}+\mathrm{}+A_k\psi _{q_k},$$
(13)
where $`q_i(n_i,l_i,m_i)`$ is a vector of quantum numbers. If there does not exist a pair of normal modes in the $`k`$-state superposition (13) with common angular momentum quantum numbers (i.e., there is no pair $`\{i,i^{}\}`$ such that $`l_i=l_i^{}`$ and $`m_i=m_i^{}`$), then inserting (13) into the Schrödinger equation (3) returns a diagonal quadratic form

$$\dot{A}_1A_1^{}+\mathrm{}+\dot{A}_kA_k^{}=\nu _{11}|A_1|^2+\mathrm{}+\nu _{kk}|A_k|^2,$$
(14)
as all the cross terms $`\nu _{ij}A_iA_j^{}`$ have vanishing coupling coefficients $`\nu _{ij}`$ by orthogonality of spherical harmonics with different angular momenta. The diagonal terms in (14) stem from the Laplacian. As above, we obtain the Hamiltonian

$$H(a,P)=\frac{P^2}{2M}+\frac{1}{a^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}ϵ_i|C_i|^2+V(a),$$
(15)
where the $`C_i`$ are constants. The superposition (13) is non-chaotic, because the Hamiltonian (15) is autonomous with one dof.

We thus conclude that a necessary condition for chaotic behavior in an arbitrary finite superposition state of the radially vibrating spherical quantum billiard is that at least one pair of normal modes in the eigenfunction expansion have common angular momentum quantum numbers. In particular, by considering small $`n_i`$ and $`n_i^{}`$, we obtain a chaotic superposition for eigenstates with small energies. This even holds for some superpositions that include the ground state! In most studies of quantum chaos, one must take the semiclassical ($`\mathrm{}0`$) or high quantum-number limits in order to meaningfully study quantum chaos. In such studies, termed “quantum chaology,” one considers the quantum signatures of classically chaotic systems in these regimes. In the present system, on the other hand, we obtain genuinely chaotic behavior in a semiquantum system. This phenomenon is often called “semiquantum chaos.”

## 5 Chaotic Configuration

As an example of a chaotic configuration of the radially vibrating spherical quantum billiard, consider the superposition state consisting of the ground and first excited states with null angular momentum

$$|\psi (n,l,m)=A_1|100+A_2|200,$$
(16)
which gives the wavefunction

$$\psi (r,t)=A_1(t)\alpha _1\psi _1(r,t)e^{i\frac{E_1t}{\mathrm{}}}+A_2(t)\alpha _2\psi _2(r,t)e^{i\frac{E_2t}{\mathrm{}}},$$
(17)
where

$$\psi _n(r,t)=j_0\left(\frac{n\pi r}{a(t)}\right),j_0(x)=\frac{sin(x)}{x},\alpha _n=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{a^{\frac{3}{2}}j_1(n\pi )}.$$
(18)
The superposition (16) has a coupling coefficient $`\mu \mu _{12}=4/3`$.

Equating coefficients in the quadratic form (6) gives the matrix equation

$$i\dot{A}_n=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}D_{nk}A_k,$$
(19)
where $`D(D_{ij})`$ is the Hermitian matrix

$$D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{ϵ_1}{\mathrm{}a^2}& i\mu \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\\ i\mu \frac{\dot{a}}{a}& \frac{ϵ_2}{\mathrm{}a^2}\end{array}\right)\text{ ,}$$
(20)
and the energy coefficient $`ϵ_j`$ is given by

$$ϵ_j\frac{(j\pi \mathrm{})^2}{2m_0},j\{1,2\}.$$
(21)
Defining the density matrix by $`\rho _{qn}=A_qA_n^{}`$, introducing (dimensionless) Bloch variables $`x\rho _{12}+\rho _{21}`$, $`yi(\rho _{21}\rho _{12})`$, and $`z\rho _{22}\rho _{11}`$, and using (19), we obtain the following three differential equations:

$$\dot{x}=\frac{\omega _0y}{a^2}\frac{2\mu Pz}{Ma},\dot{y}=\frac{\omega _0x}{a^2},\dot{z}=\frac{2\mu Px}{Ma}.$$
(22)
In these equations, $`\omega _0(ϵ_2ϵ_1)/\mathrm{}`$. Rewriting the kinetic energy $`K(A_1,A_2,a)`$ in terms of the Bloch variable $`z`$ gives

$$K(z,a)=\frac{1}{a^2}(ϵ_++zϵ_{}),ϵ_\pm \frac{1}{2}(ϵ_2\pm ϵ_1).$$
(23)
Inserting $`K(z,a)`$ into the Hamiltonian (5) gives Hamilton’s equations:

$$\dot{a}=\frac{P}{M},\dot{P}=\frac{V}{a}+\frac{2}{a^3}\left[ϵ_++ϵ_{}(z\mu x)\right].$$
(24)
Equations (22) and (24) constitute a set of five coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations, which can be shown to be equivalent to a two degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian system. The constants of motion of the present system are the radius of the Bloch sphere

$$x^2+y^2+z^2|A_1|^2+|A_2|^2=1$$
(25)
and the energy (total Hamiltonian)

$$H=\frac{P^2}{2M}+V(a)+K(z,a).$$
(26)
The equilibria of equations (22, 24) satisfy $`x=y=0`$, $`z=\pm 1`$, $`P=0`$, and $`a=a_\pm `$, where $`a_\pm `$ satisfies the equation

$$\frac{V}{a}=\frac{2}{a^3}(ϵ_+\pm ϵ_{}),$$
(27)
where the subscript of $`a_\pm `$ corresponds to the sign of $`z=\pm 1`$. Assuming that $`V(a)+K(z,a)`$ has a single minimum in $`a`$, these equilibria are elliptic. (That is, every eigenvalue of the Jacobian of the linearized system is purely imaginary.) For the harmonic potential

$$V(a)=\frac{V_0}{a_0^2}(aa_0)^2,$$
(28)
the total energy of the billiard’s boundary is given by

$$V(a)+K(a)=\frac{V_0}{a_0^2}(aa_0)^2+\frac{ϵ_++zϵ_{}}{a^2}.$$
(29)
With this choice of potential, equation (27) becomes

$$aa_0=\frac{a_0^2ϵ_\pm }{V_0a^3}.$$
(30)
The solutions of (30) for the equilibrium radii $`a_\pm `$ correspond to the $`ϵ_\pm `$ values. One computes that $`a_+a_{}a_0`$, from which it follows that $`a_{}a(0)a_+`$, so $`a(t)`$ remains bounded in the interval $`[a_{},a_+]`$.

Now consider the superposition of the first $`k`$ null angular momentum eigenstates,

$$\psi ^{(k)}(r)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{k}{}}A_n(t)\alpha _n\psi _n(r,t).$$
(31)
In order to analyze this configuration, one first examines the 2-term superposition

$$\psi _{nq}=A_n(t)\alpha _n\psi _n(r,t)+A_q(t)\alpha _q\psi _q(r,t),n<q,$$
(32)
and then superposes the couplings one obtains from each $`\psi _{nq}`$ as $`n`$ and $`q`$ run from $`1`$ to $`k`$ in order to obtain dynamical equations for the amplitudes $`A_i`$. One computes the coupling coefficients $`\mu _{nq}`$ to be

$$\mu _{nq}=2\frac{qn}{a(t)(n+q)(qn)},nq.$$
(33)
The dynamical equations for $`A_i`$ are described by a $`k\times k`$ matrix and are a straightforward generalization of (19, 20).

### 5.1 Numerical simulations

The analysis for 2-term superpositions of null angular momentum eigenstates follows that for the general case. In the present case, the necessary conditions for chaotic behavior are satisfied automatically, because the quantum numbers $`m`$ and $`l`$ vanish for every normal mode under consideration. Consequently, any $`k`$-term superposition ($`k2`$) of null angular momentum eigenstates exhibits chaotic behavior. We consider numerical simulations for the coupling of the ground state and first excited state of a billiard residing in a harmonic potential.

Figure 1 shows a Poincaré map in the $`(a,P)`$-plane corresponding to $`x=0`$, and Figure 2 shows a Poincaré section projected onto the $`(x,y)`$-plane for $`P=0`$. For each of these two plots, we used the parameter values $`\mathrm{}=1`$, $`M=10`$, $`m=1`$, $`V_0/a_0^2=5`$, and $`a_0=1.25`$. The initial conditions for the two figures are $`x(0)=\mathrm{sin}(0.95\pi )0.156434`$, $`y(0)=0`$, $`z(0)=\mathrm{cos}(0.95\pi )0.987688`$, $`a(0)1.6`$, and $`P(0)9.45`$.

The chaotic behavior of this configuration is evident in both plots, although there is clearly still some non-chaotic structure present. In the language of KAM theory, some of the nonresonant tori persist for the present choice of initial conditions. One may also choose initial conditions corresponding to a different level of persistence of the resonant tori. For example, Figure 3 shows an $`x=0`$ Poincaré map in the $`(a,P)`$-plane with the same initial conditions and parameter values as above, except $`a(0)=3`$ and $`P(0)=10`$. Figure 4 shows a $`P=0`$ Poincaré map in the $`(x,y)`$-plane for these conditions. There are fewer invariant tori in these two figures than there are in Figures 12.

## 6 Phenomenology

In contrast to the present quantum-mechanical context, we note that for the classical radially vibrating spherical billiard, every orbit with null angular momentum is well-defined and invariant under radial oscillations of the boundary. Due to conservation of angular momentum, one finds that for the stationary spherical classical billiard, the enclosed particle sweeps out an annular domain of constant inner radius. Vibration of the wall of the sphere destroys this constant, and chaotic motion is expected to develop. In the present quantum-mechanical context, we note that null angular momentum wavefunctions are composed only of spherical waves. The nodal surfaces of these wavefunctions are likewise spherical. Accordingly, the chaotic signature of this configuration in real space is the sequence of intersections with a fixed radius that nodal surfaces make at any instant subsequent to a number of transversal times. This latter condition is consistent with the standard long-time behavior of chaotic dynamical systems.

In the language of Blümel and Reinhardt, vibrating quantum billiards are an example of semiquantum chaos. One has a classical system (the walls of the billiard) coupled to a quantum-mechanical one (the enclosed particle). Considered individually, each of these subsystems is integrable, as each contributes a single dof. When they are coupled, however, one observes chaotic behavior in both of them. The classical variables $`(a,P)`$ exhibit Hamiltonian chaos, whereas the quantum subsystem $`(x,y,z)`$ is truly quantum chaotic. Chaos on the Bloch sphere is an example of quantum chaos because the Bloch variables $`(x,y,z)`$ correspond to the quantum probabilities of the wavefunction. Additionally, each individual normal mode $`\psi _n`$ depends on the radius $`a(t)`$, so each eigenfunction is an example of quantum-mechanical wave chaos for chaotic configurations of the billiard. Moreover, because the evolution of the probabilities $`|A_i|^2`$ is chaotic, the wavefunction $`\psi `$ in the present configuration is a chaotic combination of chaotic normal modes. Finally, we note that if we quantize the motion of the billiard walls, we would obtain a higher-dimensional, fully-quantized system that exhibits so-called quantized chaos. In particular, the fully quantized version of the present system would require passage to the semiclassical limit in order to observe quantum signatures of classical chaos.

## 7 Conclusions

We considered the radially vibrating spherical quantum billiard as a representative example of vibrating quantum billiards. We derived necessary conditions for quantum chaos in $`k`$-term superposition states. We gave special attention to eigenstates with null angular momentum, for which these conditions are automatically satisfied. We examined a numerical simulation of the superposition of the ground and first null angular momentum excited states. We observed chaotic behavior in this configuration, thereby dispelling the common belief that one is required to pass to the semiclassical ($`\mathrm{}0`$) or high quantum number limits in order to meaningfully study quantum chaos.

## 8 Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to the conference organizers (especially Joshua Du) for their excellent work. We also thank the speakers for the wonderful talks they gave and the academic committee for their role in the organization process.