text:
# References

ON THE STATUS OF THREE-NEUTRINO MIXING

S. M. Bilenky 111Report at the Meeting NO-VE, Neutrino oscillations at Venice, 24-26 July 2001

Physik-Department, Technische Universität München, James-Franck-Strasse, D-85748 Garching, Germany
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

## Abstract

All existing solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillation data are described by the standard two-neutrino formulas with neutrino mass squared differences that satisfy the hierarchy relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$. We discuss this phenomenon from the point of view of three-neutrino mixing. Possibilities to see effects of three-neutrino mixing and, in particular, effects of CP-violation in the lepton sector depend on the values of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$. We present an upper bound of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$, which was obtained from a three-neutrino analysis of CHOOZ data in the case if the solar neutrino oscillation parameters lie in the LMA allowed region.

There exist at present strong evidences in favor of neutrino masses and neutrino oscillations that were obtained in the atmospheric  and solar  neutrino experiments.

From the analysis of the existing data it follows that

1. The data of all solar neutrino experiments can be described by two-neutrino oscillations, which are characterized by two parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{sol}`$. It is assumed also that the fluxes of initial $`\nu _e`$ are given by the Standard Solar Model .

After the Super-Kamiokande measurement of the day-night asymmetry and the spectrum of recoil electrons in the process $`\nu e\nu e`$  and the measurement of flux of $`\nu _e`$ on the earth in the SNO experiment  it was established that the large mixing angle MSW allowed regions (LMA, LOW) are the most preferable ones . For the best-fit values of the oscillation parameters in the LMA region it was found that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=4.510^5\mathrm{eV}^2;\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=4.110^1.$$
(1)
2. The data of the atmospheric neutrino experiments are well described if we assume that $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations take place . From the analysis of the Super-Kamiokande data for the oscillation parameters the following best-fit values were found

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}^2;\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=1.$$
(2)
3. Thus, from the analysis of the data of the solar and the atmospheric neutrino experiments, it follows that there is hierarchy of neutrino mass squared differences relevant for the oscillations of solar and atmospheric neutrinos

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2.$$
(3)

There exist at present indications in favor of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations that were obtained in the accelerator LSND experiment . The explanation of these data requires to introduce the third neutrino mass squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{LSND}^21\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$. The LSND data will be checked by the future MiniBooNE experiment . We will not consider them here.

The minimal number of massive and mixed neutrinos that corresponds to three flavor neutrinos $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$ is equal to three. We will discuss here the results of solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments in the framework of this minimal scheme. We have

$$\nu _{\alpha L}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{\alpha i}\nu _{iL},$$
(4)
where $`\nu _i`$ is the field of a neutrino with mass $`m_i`$, the index $`\alpha `$ runs over $`e,\mu ,\tau `$, and U is the unitary $`3\times 3`$ PMNS  mixing matrix.

The probability of the transition $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$ in vacuum is given by the expression (see, for example, )

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{\alpha ^{}i}\left(e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2\frac{L}{2E}}\right)U_{\alpha i}^{}\right|^2.$$
(5)
Here $`L`$ is the distance between a neutrino source and a neutrino detector, $`E`$ is the neutrino energy, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_1^2`$ (neutrino masses are numerated in such a way that $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$). We will assume that there is hierarchy of neutrino mass squared differences

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2.$$
(6)
Thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is relevant for oscillations of solar neutrinos and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ is relevant for oscillations of atmospheric neutrinos.

Let us consider first neutrino oscillations in atmospheric and long baseline (LBL) reactor or accelerator experiments. In these experiments, $`\frac{L}{E}10^3\frac{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{MeV}}`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\frac{L}{2E}1.$$
(7)
Taking into account inequality (7) and using the unitarity relation

$$\underset{i=1,2}{}U_{\alpha ^{}i}U_{\alpha i}^{}=\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}U_{\alpha ^{}3}U_{\alpha 3}^{}$$
(8)
for the transition probability we find

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\left|\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}+U_{\alpha ^{}3}U_{\alpha 3}^{}\left(e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\frac{L}{2E}}1\right)\right|^2.$$
(9)
Thus, if inequality (7) is satisfied, transition probabilities in the atmospheric (LBL) neutrino oscillation experiments are determined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and the elements of the mixing matrix $`U_{\alpha 3}`$, which connect flavor neutrinos with the heaviest neutrino $`\nu _3`$. For $`\alpha ^{}\alpha `$ from (9) we have

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\frac{L}{2E}),$$
(10)
where

$$\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }=4|U_{\alpha ^{}3}|^2|U_{\alpha 3}|^2.$$
(11)
For the survival probability from (9) we obtain

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha )=1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\frac{L}{2E}),$$
(12)
where

$$\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }=4|U_{\alpha 3}|^2(1|U_{\alpha 3}|^2).$$
(13)
Thus, due to the hierarchy (6) oscillations of atmospheric (LBL) neutrinos are described by the two-neutrino type formulas with the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$for all channels. The quantities $`\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }`$ are oscillation amplitudes. From the unitarity of the mixing matrix it follows that they are connected by the relation

$$\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }=\underset{\alpha ^{}\alpha }{}\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }$$
(14)
and satisfy the inequalities

$$0\mathrm{B}_{\alpha \alpha }1;0\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{}\alpha }1$$
(15)
The oscillation amplitudes depend on two parameters, say $`|U_{\mu 3}|^2`$ and $`|U_{\tau 3}|^2`$ (due to unitarity of the mixing matrix $`|U_{e3}|^2=1|U_{\mu 3}|^2|U_{\mu 3}|^2`$ ).

It is important to stress that the phase of the matrix elements $`U_{\alpha 3}`$ does not enter into expression (10) for the transition probability. Thus, if there is hierarchy (6), the relation

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\alpha ^{})$$
(16)
is satisfied automatically and CP violation in the lepton sector can not be revealed by the investigation of neutrino oscillations in LBL (atmospheric) neutrino experiments.

The hierarchy of neutrino mass squared differences (6) is the reason why in the leading approximation the results of the atmospheric neutrino oscillation experiments can be described by the standard two- neutrino formulas.

Let us consider now solar neutrinos. The probability of solar $`\nu _e`$ to survive in vacuum is given by the expression

$$P^{sol}(\nu _e\nu _e)=\left|\underset{i=1,2}{}|U_{ei}|^2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2\frac{L}{2E}}+|U_{e3}|^2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\frac{L}{2E}}\right|^2.$$
(17)
In order to compare the theory with experimental data we must average the survival probability over neutrino energies and over the region where neutrinos are produced. Because of the hierarchy (6) the interference between the first and the second term in (17) disappears due to averaging and for the averaged survival probability we have

$$P^{sol}(\nu _e\nu _e)=|U_{e3}|^4+(1|U_{e3}|^2)^2P^{1,2}(\nu _e\nu _e),$$
(18)
where $`P^{1,2}(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ is two-neutrino survival probability that depend on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and the angle $`\theta _{12}`$ that is determined by the relations

$$\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{21}=\frac{|U_{e1}|^2}{_{i=1,2}|U_{ei}|^2},\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{21}=\frac{|U_{e2}|^2}{_{i=1,2}|U_{ei}|^2}.$$
(19)
The relation (18) is also valid in the case of matter . In this case the electron density $`\rho _e`$ in the effective matter potential must be replaced by $`(1|U_{e3}|^2)\rho _e`$.

No zenith angle dependence of $`\nu _e`$ events was observed in the Super-Kamiokande atmospheric neutrino experiment . The data of this experiment can be described by $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations with the best-fit value of the oscillation amplitude $`\mathrm{A}_{\tau ;\mu }`$ equal to one. Thus, the data of the Super-Kamiokande experiment are compatible with the small value of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$. From the analysis of these data, based on equations (10) and (12), it was found that $`|U_{e3}|^20.35`$ .

The best upper bound of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ can be obtained from the results of the LBL reactor experiments CHOOZ  and Palo Verde  . In these experiments no indications in favor of the disappearance of the reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ were found. We will consider the results of the CHOOZ experiment. In this experiment $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ from two reactors at the distance about 1 km from the detector were detected. The data of the experiment were analyzed in ref.  under the assumption of two-neutrino oscillations and the exclusion plot in the plane of the parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{B}_{e;e}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ was obtained. From this plot it follows that for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ we have

$$\mathrm{B}_{e;e}\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2),$$
(20)
From (11) and (20) it follows that

$$|U_{e3}|^2\frac{1}{2}\left(1\sqrt{1B_{e;e}^0}\right)$$
(21)
or

$$|U_{e3}|^2\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1B_{e;e}^0}\right).$$
(22)
From the CHOOZ exclusion plot it can be seen that in the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2210^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ we have $`B_{e;e}^0210^2`$. If the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ lies in this region from (21) and (22) we conclude that the element $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ can be small (inequality (21)) or large (inequality (22)).

This last possibility is excluded by the solar neutrino data. In fact, if $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is close to one, than from the unitarity of the mixing matrix it follows that $`_{i=1,2}|U_{ei}|^2`$ is small and the suppression of the flux of solar $`\nu _e`$, observed in all solar neutrino experiments,

cannot be explained by neutrino oscillations. This is also obvious from Eq. (18). Thus, from the results of the CHOOZ and solar neutrino experiments for the upper bound of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ we have inequality (21). At $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ (the Super-Kamiokande best-fit atmospheric value) we have

$$|U_{e3}|^2410^2.$$
(23)
The smallness of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is the reason why in the leading approximation oscillations of solar neutrinos are described by the standard two-neutrino formula.

In the limiting case $`|U_{e3}|^2=0`$ oscillations of solar and atmospheric (LBL) neutrinos are decoupled . In this approximation solar neutrino experiments allow to obtain information on the values of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$, that characterize oscillations $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$. The atmospheric (LBL) experiments allow to obtain information on the values of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and $`\theta _{23}`$ that characterize oscillations $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$.

There is, however, no general theoretical reasons for $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ to be equal to zero. The exact value of the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is of a great interest for further investigation of neutrino mixing. If $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ has a nonzero value and the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is not very small there is a possibility to investigate effects of three-neutrino mixing and, in particular, fundamental effects of CP-violation in the lepton sector in the future LBL experiments with neutrinos from Neutrino factories and Superbeam facilities (see  and references therein).

The upper bound (23) was obtained under the assumption that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is small and does not contribute to the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability in LBL experiments. If, however, the LMA is the solution of the solar neutrino problem the value of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\frac{L}{2E}`$ for $`\frac{L}{E}`$ values of the CHOOZ experiment can be not so small. For example, in ref.  the following ranges of neutrino oscillation parameters in the LMA region were obtained (99.73 % CL)

$$210^5\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2610^4\mathrm{eV}^2;310^1\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}1.$$
(24)
For the average value of the parameter $`\frac{L}{E}`$ in the CHOOZ experiment ($`\frac{L}{E}=300`$ m/MeV) and for the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=510^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$, which belong to the LMA allowed region (24), we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\frac{L}{2E}410^1.$$
(25)
In ref.  the CHOOZ data were reanalyzed in the framework of three-neutrino mixing. New exclusion plots in the plane of parameters $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ were obtained for different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$, belonging to the LMA region.

From Eq. (5) it is not difficult to obtain the following expression for three-neutrino $`\nu _e`$ survival probability in vacuum

$`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)`$
$`=12|U_{e3}|^2\left(1|U_{e3}|^2\right)\left(1\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1|U_{e3}|^2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}\left(1\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2L}{2E}}\right)`$
$`+2|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{sol}\left(\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2L}{2E}}\right)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}}\right).`$
The first term in the right hand side of this expression coincides with Eq. (12) and Eq. (13) (for $`\alpha =e`$). The second and third terms are corrections due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$.

Let us notice that the values of the second and third terms in (S0.Ex3) are determined by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\frac{L}{2E})^2`$ and $`|U_{e3}|^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\frac{L}{2E})`$, respectively. These terms can give sizable contribution to the survival probability at large values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$.

Expression (25) was used in  to analyze the CHOOZ data. It was shown that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2210^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$ the upper bounds on $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ are more stringent than those obtained by the original two-neutrino analysis of the CHOOZ data in ref. . For the best-fit point of the Super-Kamiokande atmospheric neutrino data $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}=0.5`$ the following bounds were obtained

$$|U_{e3}|^2410^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=110^4\mathrm{eV}^4.$$
(27)
$$|U_{e3}|^2310^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=410^4\mathrm{eV}^4.$$
(28)
$$|U_{e3}|^2210^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=610^4\mathrm{eV}^4.$$
(29)
These bounds must be compared with the bound (23) obtained from the original two-neutrino analysis of the CHOOZ data .

With the continuation of the Super-Kamiokande, SNO, GNO and SAGE solar neutrino experiments and with the future BOREXINO experiment  a progress in the establishment of the unique solution of the solar neutrino problem is expected. The LMA allowed region will be probed in the KamLAND experiment  scheduled to start in 2001. After the solution of the solar neutrino problem will be settled and oscillation parameters will be determined with better precision than to-day it will be possible from the data of the CHOOZ and the Palo Verde experiments to obtain an exact three-neutrino upper bound of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$.

In conclusion, we have discussed here the present status of three neutrino mixing from the point of view of compelling evidences in favor of neutrino oscillations that were obtained in atmospheric and solar neutrino experiments. We have demonstrated that due to the hierarchy of neutrino mass squared differences in the leading approximation neutrino oscillations in atmospheric and long baseline neutrino experiments are described by two-neutrino type formulas.

From the results of the atmospheric neutrino experiments and LBL reactor experiments CHOOZ and Palo Verde it follows that the element $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ that connects $`\nu _{eL}`$ with the field of the heaviest neutrino $`\nu _{3L}`$ is small. The smallness of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is the reason why existing solar neutrino data are described by the standard two-neutrino formula.

In the limiting case $`|U_{e3}|^2=0`$ oscillations of atmospheric (LBL) neutrinos are $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ and oscillations of solar neutrinos are $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$. In this limiting case $`\theta _{13}=0`$ and the investigation of oscillations of solar neutrinos allow us to measure the parameters $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and investigation of oscillations of atmospheric (LBL) neutrinos allow us to measure parameters $`\theta _{23}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$.

There is, however, no general arguments for $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ to be equal to zero. The possibilities to observe effects of three-neutrino mixing in atmospheric (LBL) neutrino experiments depend on the value of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ and on the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. For the detailed discussion of the sensitivity of the future neutrino oscillation experiments to the quantity $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ and to the CP-phase $`\delta `$ see report  at this meeting.

I acknowledge the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for support.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Physics is very different depending on the presence and sign of the cosmological constant. With a vanishing cosmological constant, space time is asymptotically flat and physics can be conveniently described by an S-matrix. This is a consequence of the presence of a light like infinity; if we wait long enough particles may be separated by an arbitrary spatial distance and interactions will be suppressed. In the case of a negative cosmological constant the universe is anti de Sitter (AdS) on large scales and there is no light like infinity. There is, however, at an infinite spatial distance a time like infinity which can be used as a holographic screen of Lorentzian signature, , , . This discovery was the first rigorous implementation of the idea of holography, , , and has lead to many subsequent studies.

But it is very likely that our universe is neither flat nor AdS but instead is a de Sitter space (dS) on large scales with a positive cosmological constant, , . While being the most realistic possibility, de Sitter space is at the same time theoretically the most challenging. To this date there is, in fact, no successful implementation of de Sitter space in string theory.

One of the intriguing features of de Sitter space is the presence of a horizon and an associated temperature and entropy, . While string theory successfully has addressed the problem of entropy for black holes, dS entropy remains a mystery. One reason is that the finite entropy seems to suggest that the Hilbert space of quantum gravity for asymptotically de Sitter space is finite dimensional, . A recent discussion of this and other connected issues can be found in . Another, related, reason is that the horizon and entropy in de Sitter space have an obvious observer dependence. For a black hole in flat space (or even in AdS) we can take the point of view of an outside observer who can assign a unique entropy to the black hole. The problem of what an observer venturing inside the black hole experiences, is much more tricky and has not been given a satisfactory answer within string theory. While the idea of black hole complementarity provides useful clues, , rigorous calculations are still limited to the perspective of the outside observer. In de Sitter space there is no way to escape the problem of the observer dependent entropy. This contributes to the difficulty of de Sitter space.

Recently there has been some progress towards a holographic understanding of de Sitter space, , . See also . A review with references may be found in . The main observation is that there is a possibility of introducing a holographic screen at either time like past infinity, $`^{}`$, or time like future infinity, $`^+`$. The theory on the screen will, just as in the case of AdS, be a conformal field theory with a scale that encodes the dimension transverse to the screen. But in contrast to the AdS case the holographic theory of de Sitter space will be Euclidean and it is time that is given a description through the scale. Large scales on $`^+`$ will correspond to early times, while late times will correspond to small scales. The central charge of the theory is given by the area of the horizon. Very recently it was suggested, , (see also ) that our universe is described by a RG flow in the Euclidean theory on $`^+`$. In the IR the theory has a fixed point of relatively low central charge corresponding to an early phase of inflation with a horizon a few orders of magnitude larger than the Planck scale. In the UV, on the other hand, there is a fixed point of large central charge corresponding to the universe we now are approaching where a cosmological constant again will be dominating.

In this paper we will continue the study of a holographic description of de Sitter space. In particular we will investigate the properties of black hole holograms in de Sitter space. We will show that the entropy of the cosmological horizon in the presence of a black hole can be understood using a Cardy-Verlinde formula, , in a way very similar to the entropy of black holes in AdS. We will also make some speculations on how to address the problem of observer dependence.

## 2 Constructing the hologram

### 2.1 The metric

To construct the hologram we must find appropriate coordinates to use when we approach the space like boundary. We will concentrate on $`^+`$ which seems to be the most reasonable choice in a realistic cosmology. While our universe is expected to become exactly de Sitter in the future, there may very well have been a messy beginning before the inflationary de Sitter space in the early universe which precludes the existence of a well defined $`^{}`$. Clearly there are many possible coordinate systems to choose among, but we will concentrate on two important and interesting possibilities: static and cosmological coordinates respectively. Both can be used to approach $`^+`$ and will lead to different coordinates for the boundary theory. The static choice will lead to what we will denote as cylindrical coordinates, while the cosmological choice will lead to planar coordinates. We will now consider these two possibilities in turn.

#### 2.1.1 Cylindrical coordinates

The d-dimensional de Sitter black hole in static coordinates is given by

$$ds^2=Vdt^2+V^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}^2,$$
(1)
where $`V=1\frac{r^2}{R^2}\frac{2M}{r^{d3}}`$. Throughout the paper we will put $`G=1`$ where $`G`$ is Newtons constant. The advantage of these coordinates is their obvious simplicity and time independence. The disadvantage is that the expansion of the universe is not manifest. As is clearly seen there are in general two kinds of horizons, one associated with the black hole and one cosmological. $`^+,`$which is in the focus of our interest, is located outside the future cosmological horizon where $`r`$ is time like and $`t`$ space like. For $`rR`$ the metric becomes

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{r^2}dr^2+\frac{r^2}{R^2}\left(dt^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}^2\right).$$

It is clear that $`^+`$ is approached for large $`r`$ and we note that the boundary is mapped on to an Euclidean cylinder $`𝐑\times S^{d2}`$ where $`t`$ is the coordinate along the cylinder. This kind of coordinates were used in .

#### 2.1.2 Planar coordinates

Another convenient coordinate system is obtained by introducing

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\rho =\rho (t,r)=re^{\frac{\tau }{R}}\\ \tau =\tau (t,r)=t+\frac{R}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r^2}{R^2}1\right).\end{array}$$
(2)
With no black hole this becomes an inflating cosmology according to

$$d\tau ^2+e^{2\tau /R}\left(d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}^2\right),$$

i.e. the cosmological form of the de Sitter space. These coordinates have the obvious advantage of making the expansion of the universe explicit with a Hubble constant given by $`1/R`$. Without a black hole the geodesics are simply given by constant comoving spatial coordinates. One should note, however, that this metric only covers half of the space time. (Another half, bounded by $`^{}`$, is covered by changing $`e^{\frac{2\tau }{R}}`$ to $`e^{\frac{2\tau }{R}}`$.) $`^+`$ is now approached for large $`\tau `$ and it is clear that it will be described by spherical coordinates on the plane. Applying the same coordinate change to the metric with a black hole leads to the slightly more complicated metric

$$ds^2=N_\tau ^2d\tau ^2+h\left(d\rho +N_\mathrm{\Sigma }d\tau \right)^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}^2$$
(3)
where, with $`V_0=1\frac{r^2}{R^2}`$, we have

$$h=\frac{r^2}{V}\left(1\frac{r^2V^2}{R^2V_0^2}\right)\rho ^2,N_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{1\frac{V^2}{V_0^2}}{1\frac{r^2V^2}{R^2V_0^2}}\frac{\rho }{R}\mathrm{and}N_\tau =\frac{\sqrt{V}}{\sqrt{1\frac{r^2V^2}{R^2V_0^2}}}.$$

If we fix $`r`$ and make a translation in $`t`$ we see from (2) that this corresponds to a scaling of $`\rho `$ that leaves the metric invariant even in the presence of the black hole. The crucial property that makes this possible is that the metric can be written in the static, time independent form above. Note however, that the corresponding Killing vector is not globally time like.

### 2.2 The Brown-York tensor

We have now obtained coordinates which can be used to describe the holographic theory. We have also seen the relation between conformal transformations in the hologram and time translations in the de Sitter space. To proceed we must find out more about the generators of the transformations and their corresponding conserved quantities. To this end, let us follow the recipe of  and calculate the Brown-York tensor, , of the boundary which is the generator of coordinate changes in the bulk. The subtracted Brown-York tensor is given by

$$T_{ij}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(K_{ij}Kh_{ij}\frac{d2}{R}h_{ij}\frac{R}{d3}G_{ij}+\mathrm{}\right),$$

where the last term is lacking in $`d=3`$, and the … refers to terms needed when $`d>5`$. The terms added to the $`K_{ij}Kh_{ij}`$ are counter terms in the boundary theory needed to render $`T_{ij}`$ finite. We have that

$$K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left(h_{il}g^{l\mu }_\mu u_j+h_{jl}g^{l\mu }_\mu u_i\right)$$

where $`u^\mu `$ is a forward pointing, time like, unit normal to surfaces of constant $`\tau `$. $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric of the full space time while $`h_{ij}`$ is the piece induced on the boundary. The conserved quantity associated with the bulk Killing vector is given by

$$Q=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{d2}\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{h}n^i\xi ^jT_{ij},$$

where $`n^i`$ is an outward pointing unit normal to surfaces of constant $`\rho `$ and $`\xi ^j`$ is the Killing vector. Note that $`\xi ^j`$ is space like near the boundary. As argued in  one can choose coordinates in such a way that $`\xi ^j`$ is proportional to $`n^i`$ with the constant of proportionality given by the appropriate lapse function.111Note that this choice is, in general, not possible for other conserved quantities like angular momentum.

Let us now calculate the Brown-York tensor in the two coordinate systems that we have chosen.

#### 2.2.1 Planar coordinates

The calculation in planar coordinates involves the non diagonal metric (3). A straight forward calculation gives, in particular,

$$T_{\rho \rho }=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(d2\right)\frac{M}{r^{d3}}\frac{1}{\rho ^2}$$

at large $`\tau `$. In this case the $`G_{ij}+\mathrm{}`$ counter terms vanish as $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ and we expect the above result to be true for arbitrary dimension. To obtain the conserved charge we use $`\xi ^j=\frac{r}{\sqrt{h}}n^i`$, where the coefficient is the proper lapse function to make sure that our conserved quantity is conjugate to translations in $`t`$. After some calculations we find that

$$Q=\frac{d2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}M,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}=\frac{2\pi ^{\frac{d1}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d1}{2}\right)}`$ is the surface area of the unit $`d1`$ sphere.

But how do we make contact with the CFT? From (2) it follows (for fixed $`r`$) that

$$\rho \frac{d}{d\rho }=R\frac{d}{dt},$$

and we therefore conclude that the energy $`E`$ of the CFT, conjugate to $`\rho `$, is given by

$$E=\frac{d2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}\frac{MR}{\rho },$$
(4)
in planar coordinates. The sign follows provided that the conformal generator acts in the direction of decreasing $`\rho `$, (i.e. increasing $`t`$). Let us now proceed to perform the corresponding calculation in cylindrical coordinates.

#### 2.2.2 Cylindrical coordinates

In this case the metric is a lot simpler than in the planar case, and is just given by (1). The result of the calculation is of the form

$$E=E_{C,A}\frac{d2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}M,$$

where $`E_{C,A}`$ corresponds to an anomalous Casimir contribution. Note that the energy $`E`$ is a dimensionful quantity which transforms in a non-trivial way when we go between the cylinder and the plane, even if we forget about the anomaly. In cylindrical coordinates it is independent of the direction $`t`$ along the cylinder, while on the plane it has the radial dependence given by equation (4). $`E_{C,A}`$ vanishes for even $`d`$, while we have

$`E_{C,A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{for}d=3`$
$`E_{C,A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi R^2}{32}}\mathrm{for}d=5.`$
The appropriate expressions for higher dimensions need the precise form of the higher order counter terms. Similar formulae can also be obtained in the case of AdS space. The only differences are that the $`M`$ dependent term comes with a positive sign in all dimensions, while the anomaly is negative in $`d=3`$.222The signs are quite subtle in the case of de Sitter. Our signs agree with those of  but are different from those of  which focused on $`^{}`$. For more comments on this, see the last footnote of the paper.

## 3 Interpreting the hologram

We have now completed the first steps towards constructing the black hole hologram. In order to investigate it further we need an additional tool in the form of the Cardy-Verlinde entropy formula, . We will begin by recalling how the formula is applied to the case of AdS before we proceed with the generalization to de Sitter.

### 3.1 Black holes in AdS

In  it was shown that a strongly coupled CFT (with an AdS-dual) at temperature $`T`$ on a cylinder $`𝐑\times S^{d2}`$ (where $`S^{d2}`$ has constant radius $`R`$) with a central charge $`c`$,333Following  we define the central charge in terms of the subextensive Casimir energy (including possible temperature dependent terms). Since the Casimir energy is proportional to the number of massless fields in the CFT, the same will be true for the central charge. has an energy given by

$$E=\frac{\left(d2\right)c}{48\pi }\frac{V}{L^{d1}}\left(1+\frac{L^2}{R^2}\right)E_E+E_C.$$
(5)
where $`V=\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}R^{d2}`$ is the volume of the $`S^{d2}`$.444Another possibility is to choose the radius of the cylinder to be the horizon radius $`r_s`$ rather than $`R`$. This modifies the subsequent calculations but leads to the same result. The energy is the sum of an extensive contribution $`E_E`$ and an intensive Casimir contribution $`E_C>0`$.555Our convention for $`E_C`$ differs by a factor of 2 from . $`L`$ is a parameter related to the temperature given by

$$T=\frac{1}{4\pi L}\left(d1+\left(d3\right)\frac{L^2}{R^2}\right),$$

and the entropy, finally, is given by

$$S=\frac{c}{12}\frac{V}{L^{d2}}=\frac{4\pi R}{d2}\sqrt{E_CE_E}.$$

The form was argued on general grounds, while the detailed coefficients were deduced from the AdS/CFT correspondence applied to black holes in AdS. We will verify this in detail below after generalizing the expressions to de Sitter.

Let us now investigate what is going on a little bit more carefully. Depending on the coordinates we use, the energy of the state we are considering will be different. If we use planar coordinates on the boundary666This corresponds, basically, to Poincare coordinates in the bulk. For more details on the choice of vacua in the case of AdS3 see ., we find that the AdS space has vanishing energy, while a black hole in AdS will have positive energy. It is useful to write this energy as

$$E=\frac{E_{plan}R}{\rho }$$

where $`E_{plan}`$ is a rescaled energy given by

$$E_{plan}=\frac{d2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}M.$$

If we instead use cylindrical coordinates, we find another vacuum where the AdS space has a shifted energy due to the anomaly (if d is odd), and we have that

$$E_{cyl}=\frac{d2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}M+E_{C,A},$$

where $`E_{C,A}`$ is the anomalous contribution to the Casimir energy. (Note that $`E_{C,A}`$ is negative for $`d=3`$ and positive for $`d=5.`$) The analysis of  was performed in cylindrical coordinates based on the work of . There the expressions for e.g. the action in the presence of a black hole had been found to be divergent and was rendered finite by subtracting the equally divergent contribution from empty AdS. It is therefore the energy in excess of the vacuum associated with empty AdS space (with an extensive contribution as well as a Casimir contribution) that is given by equation (5). Hence we conclude that

$$E_E+E_C=\frac{d2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}M,$$

and the entropy is given by

$$S=\frac{4\pi R}{d2}\sqrt{E_C\left(E_{plan}E_C\right)}.$$

This is the generalization of the Cardy formula proposed in . Note that the total energy in cylindrical coordinates is given by $`E_{cyl}=E_E+E_C+E_{C,A}`$. For $`d=3`$ one has $`E_C=E_{C,A}>0`$ and it follows that $`E_{cyl}=E_E`$.

### 3.2 Black holes in de Sitter

We will now proceed to the case of de Sitter space to see whether similar formulae are applicable to the relevant conjectured Euclidean CFT’s.777For other recent attempts in this direction, see . According to our previous calculations the de Sitter black hole is a state with negative energy. For convenience we define

$$E_{plan}=\frac{d2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}M.$$

Using cylindrical coordinates, the new de Sitter vacuum has a shifted energy due to the anomaly (if d is odd) given by

$$E_{cyl}=E_{C,A}\frac{d2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}M.$$

As was explained above, the anomaly $`E_{C,A}`$ is positive and hence has the opposite sign to AdS in the case of $`d=3`$, while the sign is the same in $`d=5`$. If we now subtract the contribution from empty dS, just as in the AdS case, we find

$$E_E+E_C=\frac{d2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}M.$$

To be able to account for the entropy in de Sitter space we conclude, following , that the Casimir contribution is given by

$$E_C=\frac{\left(d2\right)c}{48\pi }\frac{V}{L^{d3}R^2},$$

which is negative and therefore has the opposite sign compared to the CFT relevant for AdS. This is also what to be expected from the naive continuation $`R^2R^2`$. The entropy is again given by

$$S=\frac{4\pi R}{d2}\sqrt{\left|E_C\right|\left(E_{plan}E_C\right)},$$

while the temperature becomes

$$T=\frac{1}{4\pi L}\left(d1\left(d3\right)\frac{L^2}{R^2}\right),$$
(6)
where again $`R^2`$ has been replace by $`R^2`$. This has important consequences that we will come back to shortly. As in the case of AdS one may note that $`E_C=E_{C,A}<0`$ for $`d=3`$ implying $`E_{cyl}=E_E`$.

Let us now verify that the above indeed reproduces the correct result for black holes. We will do the AdS and the de Sitter cases at the same time. The prescription tells us to impose

$$\frac{\left(d2\right)c}{48\pi }\frac{V}{L^{d1}}\pm \frac{\left(d2\right)c}{48\pi }\frac{V}{R^2L^{d3}}=\pm \frac{d2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}M$$

where the + sign refers to AdS and the - sign refers to de Sitter. With $`L=R^2/r_s`$ (where $`r_s`$ is the horizon radius) and

$$c=3R^{d2},$$

the equation becomes

$$1\pm \frac{r_s^2}{R^2}\frac{2M}{r_s^{d3}}=0,$$
(7)
which is precisely the equation for the position of a horizon. From the formula for the entropy we find

$$S=\frac{c}{12}\frac{V}{L^{d2}}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}r_s^{d2}=\frac{1}{4}A,$$

and hence the generalized Cardy-Verlinde formula can account for the black hole entropy in AdS as well as de Sitter space. The case $`d=3`$ gives, using $`E_{C,A}=\frac{c}{24R}`$,

$$S=4\pi R\sqrt{E_{C,A}E_E}=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\left(RE_{plan}+\frac{c}{24}\right)},$$

where $`E_{plan}<0`$. In the case of AdS one has $`E_{plan}>0`$ and the shift is by -$`\frac{c}{24}`$.888Note that we are considering left and right movers together with $`c=c_L+c_R`$.

There is a slight puzzle with the above construction. In the case of de Sitter space there are two solutions of equation (7), since there are two horizons. One corresponds to the cosmological de Sitter horizon, while the other corresponds to the horizon of the black hole. It is easily checked, however, that it is only the cosmological horizon that leads to a positive temperature. The conclusion, then, is that the CFT that we are studying on $`^+`$ is accounting for the entropy of the cosmological horizon only. This is consistent with the fact that the energy and the entropy of the system is decreased when the mass of the black hole is increased.999One may note that if the expression for the energy of the system (and therefore also the temperature) is considered to have the opposite sign, the reasoning is reversed. Positive temperature now suggests that it is the entropy of the black hole horizon that is accounted for by the theory. This is presumably the case for $`^{}`$. For more on the entropy of black holes in de Sitter space see . The total entropy of both horizons as well as the entropy of the cosmological horizon have this property, but our conclusion is that it is only the entropy of the cosmological horizon that is accounted for by the Euclidean CFT on $`^+`$. Empty de Sitter space is also covered by the analysis and entails the presence of a gas at nonzero temperature that can carry the entropy.

#### 3.2.1 The Nariai black hole

The largest possible black hole in de Sitter space, the Nariai black hole , corresponds to a situation where the two horizons coincide. It is easy to check that this occurs when

$$M=\frac{1}{d1}\left(\frac{d3}{d1}\right)^{\frac{d3}{2}}R^{d3},$$

which corresponds to zero temperature. Furthermore, on $`^+`$, where the energy of a black hole is lower than that of empty de Sitter space, the Nariai black hole corresponds to a lowest energy state. It would be interesting to understand this better from the point of view of the holographic theory. As observed in   the energy in cylindrical coordinates vanishes for the Nariai black hole in $`d=5`$, and a corresponding statement can also be made in $`d=3`$. Is this just a coincidence or is there a deeper explanation? This should be investigated further by comparing with higher dimensional cases following, e.g., the analysis of  and . For other work in this context see e.g.  .

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have found that a modified Cardy-Verlinde entropy formula reproduces the entropy of the cosmological de Sitter horizon in the presence of a black hole. But there are several unclear points. Why does the CFT on $`^+`$ only provide the entropy for the cosmological horizon? Is it correct to discard the negative temperature solution? Is the role of $`^{}`$ to take care of the black hole horizon?

Furthermore, the de Sitter horizon is an observer dependent construction. How does the CFT take this into account? Our analysis gives a hint. Let us consider a black hole at the origin of static coordinates. In planar coordinates the energy density in the boundary theory corresponding to such a black hole goes like $`1/\rho ^2`$.101010Note that the subtracted Brown-York tensor is related to the energy-momentum tensor of the CFT by an infinite conformal transformation. See, e.g., . This is left invariant under a time translation in the bulk in the same way as the metric. If we now take the point of view of an observer who sees the black hole displaced from the center of de Sitter space, the situation is different. In the case of a black hole with a horizon much smaller than the cosmological horizon, and an observer far away from the black hole, one can (for our purposes) approximate the system with a black hole and an observer in free fall in de Sitter space. This means that we can assume the distance between the two to be constant in comoving coordinates. As time goes by the expansion will increase the proper distance between the observer and the black hole. For the bulk observer time translational invariance will be broken and she will see how the black hole is approaching the cosmological horizon. As the black hole disappears from view, the area of the cosmological horizon (according to our observer) will increase with a net increase in entropy as a consequence. In the boundary there is a similar story. The energy density is no longer left invariant since the position of the maximum is offset from $`\rho =0`$ and will effectively move off towards infinity as time goes by and we are zooming in on smaller scales. In fact, for late times the relevant physics will be taking place on small scales asymptotically independent of the black hole, and energy as well as entropy will approach the values for empty de Sitter space. It would be interesting to further study the time evolution of entropy in this setting.

In  it was indicated how a RG flow with a changing central charge may take us from an inflationary era in the past with a small $`R`$ to a de Sitter space in the future with a large $`R.`$ But even with a constant number of degrees of freedom it is interesting to study how non trivial time evolution is encoded in various scales. What is the role of the second law in the dS/CFT correspondence? How is the Hawking evaporation of the black hole taken into account? There are clearly many interesting and important questions that need to be investigated.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Josef Kluson for discussions. The author is a Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Research Fellow supported by a grant from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The work was also supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR).


text:
# Charge Transport Processes in a Superconducting Single-Electron Transistor Coupled to a Microstrip Transmission Line

Current address: \]Cielo Communications, Inc., 325 Interlocken Parkway, Broomfield, CO 80021.

## Abstract

We have investigated charge transport processes in a superconducting single-electron transistor (S-SET) fabricated in close proximity to a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) in a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure. The macroscopic bonding pads of the S-SET along with the 2DEG form a microstrip transmission line. We observe a variety of current-carrying cycles in the S-SET which we attribute to simultaneous tunneling of Cooper pairs and emission of photons into the microstrip. We find good agreement between these experimental results and simulations including both photon emission and photon-assisted tunneling due to the electromagnetic environment.

Charge transport in all-superconducting single-electron transistors (S-SETs) has been studied in detail, and numerous current-carrying cycles have been identified, including the Josephson-quasiparticle (JQP) cycle,Fulton et al. (1989); Maassen van den Brink et al. (1991a); Nakamura et al. (1996, 1997) the 3$`e`$ cycleHadley et al. (1998) and Andreev reflection.Fitzgerald et al. (1998) What processes occur in a given S-SET is determined by a complex interplay between Cooper pair tunneling and charging effects, leading to rich behavior in S-SET current-voltage characteristics. Further complexity is added by the electromagnetic environment, which can cause photon-assisted tunneling (PAT) of quasiparticlesMartinis and Nahum (1993); Hergenrother et al. (1994) and incoherent tunneling of Cooper pairs.Maassen van den Brink et al. (1991b); Siewert and Schön (1996) Experiments have addressed the influence of the environment on a variety of tunnel junction systems, including electron pumps,Martinis and Nahum (1993); Covington et al. (2000) single tunnel junctions,Holst et al. (1994) Josephson junction arraysRimberg et al. (1997) and S-SETs fabricated above a ground plane, focusing on the supercurrent.Kycia et al. (2001) The effect of the environment on S-SETs remains interesting given the potential use of Coulomb blockade devices for quantum computation.Nakamura et al. (1999) Here we report measurements on samples similar to that in Ref. Kycia et al., 2001, but focus on transport at higher biases. We observe previously unreported charge transport cycles which we attribute to Cooper pair tunneling with simultaneous emission of a photon into the environment. We find good agreement between our measurements and simulations based on the orthodox theory of electron tunneling,Likharev (1988); Grabert and Devoret (1992) including the effects of both photon emission and PAT.

Our samples consist of Al/AlOx/Al S-SETs fabricated on a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure containing a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) located $`50\mathrm{nm}`$ below the substrate surface, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The heterostructure, grown on a GaAs substrate using molecular beam epitaxy, consists of the following layers: $`1000\mathrm{nm}`$ of GaAs, $`47\mathrm{nm}`$ of Al0.3Ga0.7As and $`5\mathrm{nm}`$ of GaAs. The Al0.3Ga0.7As is delta-doped with Si $`22\mathrm{nm}`$ from the lower GaAs/Al0.3Ga0.7As interface, at which the 2DEG forms. The SETs are fabricated using electron-beam lithography and shadow evaporation techniques. The central island of the SET is coupled by a capacitance $`C_{\text{2DEG}}`$ to the 2DEG beneath it, which is held at ground. The SET is surrounded by six Au gates, as described elsewhere.Lu et al. (2000)

We model the SET as shown, with tunnel junction resistances and capacitances $`R_{1(2)}`$ and $`C_{1(2)}`$ respectively. A voltage $`V_g`$ applied to one of the Au gates is used to adjust the electrostatic potential of the SET island through the capacitance $`C_g`$. The remaining gates are held at ground and contribute $`C_s`$ to the total island capacitance $`C_\mathrm{\Sigma }=C_1+C_2+C_g+C_s+C_{\text{2DEG}}`$. We focus first on the 2DEG far from the SET, which in conjunction with the macroscopic bonding pads forms a microstrip transmission line to which the SET is coupled. Such microstrip can resonate at microwave frequencies and thereby affect transport in tunnel junction systems.Holst et al. (1994); Kycia et al. (2001) We have examined two such samples with junction resistances ranging from $`24\mathrm{k}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`192\mathrm{k}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and a third control sample fabricated on a piece of GaAs without a 2DEG. Sample parameters are given in Table 1 below.

The large value of $`C_{\text{2DEG}}356\mathrm{aF}`$ ($`382\mathrm{aF}`$) for Sample 1 (2), along with the total gate capacitance $`C_s+C_g20\mathrm{aF}`$ helped ensure that the charging energy $`E_c=e^2/2C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ satisfied $`E_c<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the superconducting gap. For the control sample, $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ were sufficiently large to give a comparable $`E_c`$. For all the samples, the Josephson energy given by the Ambegaokar-Baratoff relationAmbegaokar and Baratoff (1963) satisfied $`E_{J_i}=h\mathrm{\Delta }/8e^2R_i<E_c`$ so that the charge state $`n`$ of the island is well defined, justifying use of the orthodox theory. We define the charging energy of the SET $`U(n)=E_c(nQ_0/e)^2`$, where $`Q_0=C_gV_g`$ is the offset charge induced by the gate voltage. At low temperatures, electrons will tunnel through a given junction only when the change in free energy $`\delta f=f_ff_i>0`$, including both changes in $`U(n)`$ and work performed by the bias voltage $`V`$. For $`V<4\mathrm{\Delta }`$ single-electron tunneling is in general forbidden by the combined effects of the Coulomb blockade and the superconducting gap, though more complex charge transport processes such as the JQP and 3$`e`$ cycles are allowed at specific locations in the $`Q_0`$-$`V`$ plane.

We measured the samples in a dilution refrigerator at $`T_{\text{mix}}=20\mathrm{mK}`$ using a four probe configuration symmetrically biased with respect to ground. High-frequency noise was excluded using standard techniques as described elsewhere.Lu et al. (2000) Sample parameters such as the capacitances and summed junction resistances $`R_1+R_2`$ were determined from the measurements. The resistance ratio $`R_1/R_2`$ was chosen to give the correct relative size of features associated with each junction in the simulations. Current $`I`$ was measured versus bias voltage $`V`$ for a series of different values of the offset charge $`Q_0`$ for all three samples; results for Sample 1 are presented in Fig. 2(a).

Several resonances are visible for voltages between 500 and $`800\mu \mathrm{V}`$. The most pronounced are the usual JQP peaks, some of which are paralleled by two smaller resonances. We believe these additional resonances are analogs of the usual JQP peaks, but differ in that Cooper pairs emit one or more photons into the transmission line while tunneling. We refer to them as JQP-ph peaks. Several smaller features are also visible near $`Q_0=0.5`$ at biases between 300 and $`450\mu \mathrm{V}`$. To support our interpretation of the JQP-ph resonances, and to identify the smaller features, we begin with conservation of energy, including not only the usual terms accounting for creation of quasiparticles and changes in charging energy,Fitzgerald et al. (1998); Pohlen (1999) but also a term allowing for emission of photons:

$`_i\kappa _im_ieV`$ $`=`$ $`U(n+\delta m)U(n)+q\mathrm{\Delta }+k\mathrm{}\omega _s`$
$`=`$ $`2\delta mE_c\left[({\displaystyle \frac{Q_0}{e}}n)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m}{2}}\right]`$
$`+q\mathrm{\Delta }+k\mathrm{}\omega _s`$
Here $`\kappa _i=1(C_i+C_g)/2`$ is the fraction of the bias voltage available across junction $`i`$ and $`m_i`$ the number of electrons transferred across it, $`\delta m=m_2m_1`$ is the change in the island charge, $`q`$ is the number of quasiparticles created, and $`k`$ is the number of photons of energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _s`$ emitted. The proper choice of $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$, $`q`$ and $`k`$, gives transition rules for quasiparticle, Cooper pair, Cooper pair with photon emission, and 3$`e`$ tunneling processes. These are indicated schematically in Fig. 3, and transition lines corresponding to them are shown in Fig. 2.

The JQP features in Fig. 2(a) lie along Cooper pair transition lines, either with (J-ph) or without (J) photon emission, since Cooper pair tunneling is a resonant process. For the primary ($`k=0`$) JQP peak between $`Q_01.0`$ and $`0.6`$, the cycle begins with a Cooper pair transition through J1 ($`13`$), followed by successive quasiparticle transitions through J2 ($`32`$ and $`21`$) which return the island to its original charge state and allow the cycle to begin again. As it must, the JQP peak begins just above the quasiparticle line for the $`21`$ transition, which gives the requirement $`eV>(E_c+2\mathrm{\Delta })533\mu \mathrm{eV}`$.

To address the JQP-ph peaks, the fundamental frequency for photon emission was determined by adjusting $`\mathrm{}\omega _s`$ so that a one-photon J-ph line coincided with the first JQP-ph resonance between $`Q_0=1.2`$ and $`0.8`$. Best results were obtained for $`\mathrm{}\omega _s=136\mu \mathrm{eV}`$. For Cooper pair tunneling with $`k=1`$ we obtain the condition $`eV>(E_c+2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{}\omega _s/2)601\mu \mathrm{eV}`$, in good agreement with the observed location of the resonance. Since the typical lead width ($`>20\mu \mathrm{m}`$) for the pad structures is much greater than the 2DEG depth of $`50\mathrm{nm}`$, the effective wavelength for excitations on the microstripPozar (1998) is $`\lambda _e2\pi c/\sqrt{ϵ}\omega _s2.5\mathrm{mm}`$ where $`ϵ13`$ is the dielectric constant of GaAs. The fundamental resonance corresponds to a length $`\mathrm{}=\lambda _e/21.25\mathrm{mm}`$, in agreement with the known dimensions of our lead structures. Resonances with a best fit for $`\mathrm{}\omega _s=160\mu \mathrm{eV}`$ were observed in Sample 2, while none were observed in the control sample, supporting our interpretation of the data. The position of the $`k=2`$ J-ph line does not match well to that of the associated resonance, perhaps not surprising given its small size and the large background current.

To gain further insight into the features in Fig. 1(a), we turn to our simulations. Here, to account for the JQP-ph resonances, we make a phenomenological modification of the theory of Averin and AleshkinAverin and Aleshkin (1989); Aleshkin and Averin (1990) and write for the Cooper pair tunneling rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{cp}}`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{cp}}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{2}{}}A_k\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{qp}}E_J^2}{4(\delta fk\mathrm{}\omega _s)^2+(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{qp}})^2}$$
(2)
where $`\delta f`$ is the change in free energy due to the tunneling of the Cooper pair and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{qp}}`$ is the rate of the first subsequent quasiparticle tunneling. The $`A_k`$ were chosen as $`A_0=1`$ (giving the usual Averin-Aleshkin term) and $`A_k=\frac{1}{k}(E_c/\mathrm{}\omega _s)^k\mathrm{exp}(E_c/\mathrm{}\omega _s)`$, the weightsGrabert and Devoret (1992) for independent emission of photons into a single mode.111While this approach gives reasonable agreement with the measured peak heights, the JQP-ph features may in fact be due to harmonics of the stripline resonance. None of our main conclusions are affected, however, by whether the higher J-ph resonances are due to single or multiple photons.

Results of a simulation including the effects of photon emission are shown in Fig. 2(b). The agreement is reasonable, especially at higher biases, where the $`k=1`$ and 2 JQP-ph lines appear. Moreover, the simulation predicts the appearance of a feature at the intersection of the $`k=1`$ J-ph lines for J1 and J2 near $`Q_0=0.58`$ and $`V374\mu \mathrm{V}`$. A corresponding peak can also be seen in the data in Fig. 2(a). This feature is an analog of the $`3e`$ peakHadley et al. (1998) but with Cooper pair tunneling replaced by J-ph processes, and we refer to it as the 3$`e`$-ph peak. Our samples do not satisfy the condition $`E_c>\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for the appearance of the usual 3$`e`$ cycle. The corresponding condition for the 3$`e`$-ph cycle in Sample 1 is $`E_c>\frac{2}{3}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\omega _s/4)=115.6\mu \mathrm{eV}`$ which is just satisfied. A similar feature appears in the data (at $`Q_00.73`$ and $`V440\mu \mathrm{V}`$) near the intersection of a $`k=1`$ J-ph line for J1 and a $`k=2`$ J-ph line for J2. A corresponding peak appears at the same location in the simulation.

Despite this level of agreement, some discrepancies exist. The measured current remains substantial down to the 3$`e`$ threshold line between 275–$`350\mu \mathrm{V}`$, while the calculated current in Fig. 2(b) nearly vanishes for all $`Q_0`$ below the 3$`e`$-ph peak. Furthermore, in the simulation the primary ($`k=0`$) JQP peak is strongly suppressed at the intersections with J-ph transition lines; an example occurs in Fig. 2(b) at $`Q_00.83`$ and $`V=607\mu \mathrm{V}`$ where the primary JQP peak for J1 intersects a $`k=2`$ line for J2. The standard JQP process would begin with the Cooper pair transition $`13`$. Our simulations indicate that at this intersection the J-ph transition $`11`$ is allowed, and is followed rapidly by a $`10`$ quasiparticle transition. The transition $`01`$ is allowed but slow, so that the occupational probability of the $`n=1`$ state is quite small ($`0.01`$), and the JQP cycle is suppressed. There is, however, no clear sign of suppression of the primary JQP cycle in our data.

We can account for these discrepancies to some extent by considering PAT due to the environment, here assumed to be the 2DEG in the immediate vicinity of the SET. Since the effective environment temperature $`T_e`$ can be much larger than the SET electron temperature,Martinis and Nahum (1993) PAT can be quite significant. Following Siewert and Schön,Siewert and Schön (1996) we incorporate it into our calculation by adding the rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_e=\frac{\pi }{e^2R_i}\frac{R_e}{2R_K}k_BT_e\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta f}\mathrm{exp}[(2\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta f)/k_BT_e]$$
(3)
to all quasiparticle tunneling events for which $`\delta f+2\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$. Fig. 2(c) shows the results of a simulation including PAT with much improved agreement. Appreciable current appears at voltages around the 3$`e`$ threshold lines.

In addition, the suppression of the JQP peak at intersections with J-ph lines is largely lifted. This can be seen in greater detail in Fig. 4 which shows the calculated $`I`$ vs. $`Q_0`$ for $`V=607\mu \mathrm{V}`$, both with and without PAT. The inclusion of PAT increases the primary JQP peaks for both J1 and J2. In the inset, we make a comparison with data from Sample 1 at $`V577\mu \mathrm{V}`$, a voltage below the cutoff for the JQP-ph cycle, so that only the JPQ peak is visible. The JQP peaks for both J1 and J2 are near J-ph transition lines here, and in the absence of PAT the simulation underestimates the actual JQP current. Addition of PAT brings the simulation in much closer agreement with the data, although it does not correctly predict the width of the JQP peak, a topic which will be addressed in a separate publication.

In conclusion, we have investigated charge transport processes in an S-SET which is coupled to a 2DEG, so that the contact pad structures form microstrip resonators. We have observed current-carrying cycles which involve tunneling of a Cooper pair and simultaneous photon emission, including JQP-ph and 3$`e`$-ph processes. Simulations performed using the orthodox theory agree well with the data, particularly when the effects of PAT due to the environment are included. In the simulations, suppression of the primary JQP in the vicinity of J-ph lines is partially lifted by the effects of PAT. While we do not observe the suppression, it may be detectable in samples for which the cental island of the SET is not so strongly coupled to an external environment.

This research was supported at Rice by the NSF under Grant No. DMR-9974365 and by the Robert A. Welch foundation, and at UCSB by the QUEST NSF Science and Technology Center. One of us (A. J. R.) acknowledges support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.


text:
# QCD spectroscopy with three light quarks

## 1 INTRODUCTION

One of the main purposes of lattice QCD simulations is to predict the spectrum of QCD, i.e. masses and decay constants of the light hadrons. Due to computational and algorithmic limitations certain simplifications have to be made. The quenched approximation allows to reproduce the physical spectrum already up to systematic errors of 10%, as it was shown in detail in .

Lots of effort has been spent to increase the available computing power, see e.g.  for such a project, and to overcome algorithmic limitations . There have been several large scale simulations of QCD with two dynamical, degenerate quarks , all based on the Hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm . Still these simulations worked with relatively large quark masses. For phenomenological reasons it is crucial to go beyond this scenario and simulate with three dynamical quarks with masses eventually approaching the physical ones .

Some restrictions can be overcome by using variants of the multibosonic algorithm  like the two-step multibosonic (TSMB) algorithm . The latter has already been used successfully in simulations of supersymmetric field theories  and finite density QCD .

In this contribution we present preliminary results from a first simulation using three dynamical Wilson quarks. The aim of these simulations is to achieve small quark masses and to estimate their influence on the spectrum.

## 2 SMALL MASSES

There are several problems when tuning the algorithms to small quark masses. One problem is the critical slowing down, which reflects the decreasing efficency at smaller masses. In  it has been shown that this problem is less severe with multibosonic algorithms than with the HMC algorithm. But still this can become a problem at too small masses. A first orientation can be obtained by making a comparison with previous simulations. In  TSMB has been used for the $`N=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory where the number of flavour is $`N_f=\frac{1}{2}`$. In that simulation condition numbers of $`𝒪(10^5)`$ occurred. Because the performance of the algorithm depends mainly on the condition number $`\lambda /ϵ`$ of the squared fermion matrix, and not on $`N_f`$, one can similarly expect to reach condition numbers of at least $`𝒪(10^5)`$ for the case $`N_f=3`$. This would correspond to quark masses of roughly $`\frac{1}{4}m_s`$. The polynomial orders $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ that are needed for the TSMB algorithm mainly depend on $`\lambda /ϵ`$. Changing from $`N_f=\frac{1}{2}`$ to $`N_f=3`$, $`n_1`$ is increasing by less than $`50\%`$ and $`n_2`$ by about $`25\%`$. This dependence is reflected by the asymptotic estimate of $`n_2`$ for large $`\lambda /ϵ`$

$$n_2C_{N_f}\sqrt{\lambda /ϵ}(am_0)^1,$$
(1)
where $`C_{N_f}`$ changes only slightly with $`N_f`$ and $`m_0`$ is the bare quark mass.

Another potential problem when approaching the chiral limit may be posed by a sign change of the fermionic determinant. This so-called sign problem may spoil the statistical signal of observables. Experience shows that both situations (with and without sign problem) are possible . The sign of the determinant can be controlled by the spectral flow of small eigenvalues. From this experience it is already clear that a sign change can only occur if there are extremly small eigenvalues ($`𝒪(10^8)`$). Such eigenvalues did not appear in our runs so far, which gives a first evidence for the absence of the sign problem.

## 3 PARAMETER SPACE

The spectrum of the light hadrons can be studied in the confined phase, the phase below the finite temperature phase transition

$$T=(N_ta)^1<T_c.$$
(2)
On small lattices the transition between the two phases can be seen clearly, as e.g. in figure 1. The parameters of our simulations lead to

$$(T_cr_0)^12,$$
(3)
where $`r_0`$ is the Sommer scale parameter. Therefore we are safe from finite size effects due to deconfinement by choosing lattice sizes $`L`$ such that

$$L/r_04.$$
(4)
The parameters we finally want to achieve are shown in table 1. These parameters give a constant volume $`L/r_0=4`$ and are such that $`(r_0m_{PS})^2=0.8`$, corresponding to a quark mass of $`m_q6.35m_{ud}0.25m_s`$. Since the volume and the quark mass are constant one can perform a continuum extrapolation from these points. In addition pion induced finite volume effects are under control as well, as they can be estimated by $`\mathrm{exp}(Lm_{PS})0.03`$.

Results for our reference scale, the Sommer parameter $`r_0`$, are presented in figure 2.

For tuning the parameters to the values in table 1 we further have to look at the pseudoscalar mass $`m_{PS}`$ and the quark mass. This latter can be characterized by the dimensionless quantities

$$\mu _r=r_0m_q=\frac{r_0}{2}\frac{F_{PS}}{G_{PS}}m_{PS}^2$$
(5)
and

$$M_r=(r_0m_{PS})^2.$$
(6)
The two definitions become proportional to each other for small masses. First results are shown in figures 3 and 4. In figure 4 there are two horizontal lines indicating $`m_s`$ and the mass region we want to reach, $`\frac{1}{4}m_s`$. Depending on the size of the mass $`8^3\times 16`$, $`12^3\times 24`$ and $`16^3\times 32`$ lattices have been used.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

We presented preliminary results from simulations with three dynamical quarks. The results show that it should be possible to reach small quark masses within the proposed settings. For the moment we are exploring the region below the strange quark mass.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

W.S. is supported by the DFG Graduiertenkolleg “Feldtheoretische Methoden in der Elementarteilchentheorie und Statistischen Physik”. The numerical productions were run on the APEmille systems installed at NIC Zeuthen, the Cray T3E systems at NIC Jülich, the ALiCE-cluster at Wuppertal University and the PC clusters at DESY Hamburg.